Explain this to me

Constitutional rights are supposed to be Sovereign. This means they should be supreme and indisputable. They were the basis on which our country was founded - to protect the citizens of our country. It was in place because our forefathers had lived through a time when they had little to no rights or say. They fought to ensure that we had those rights, and through generations of time many others have stood up and fought to maintain those rights.

It is true that some people violate the spirit of the rights we have. One such is the Westboro Baptist Church. The Supreme Court stated that this group of people who targeted murdered children, fallen soldiers, and have been given gross media attention for their chants of hatred in the name of God were entitled. Roberts wrote: Roberts wrote: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

So, they used the first amendment to be able to have freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Perhaps part of this also was because Westboro claimed religious freedom of thought and action as well. As this same amendment guarantees the respect to and establishment of religion. Let's face it, not everyone is going to agree with every religion. Some people may not agree with any. 

Westboro does spout seriously hateful and disturbing things. Things that mourners should not have to deal with in a time of sorrow. Yet the law does not guarantee a peaceful funeral. Roberts went on to state: "Given that Westboro's speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment" and "cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt."

I am certain that this type of behavior was not what our forefathers had in mind when writing this in the Bill of Rights. However, it was interpreted by our own Supreme Court to be allowable under the law.

Of course Justice Alito bravely disagreed with his colleague. He stated:  "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. . . In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents' well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention." It is true that their behavior does inflict mental and emotional harm on the loved ones left behind. Yet our government thinks so highly of this first amendment right that it holds the contemptible speech as more important than the harm it can inflict.

So explain this to me. 

This first amendment also ensures people of this country to respect the establishment of religion and not to impede the exercise of that religion. In other words, we should not be inhibited to belief however we want to believe and our government should not force us to do anything contrary to our personal religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is a basic human right, which is also recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

By law no person, job, or government can force someone to go against their personal belief. A religious belief, for example, that does not allow a man to cut his beard would mean that a business that refused to allow that same person to work because he has a beard would be breaking the law. A woman that has a religious belief that she should not take any medication cannot be force by her employer to have the flu shot. 

Yet today Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for insurance that provides the Day After Pill to employees because it goes against their religious principles. Hobby Lobby has made no attempts to hide, since they opened their doors in Oklahoma, that they were a Christian based company. They do not open on Sunday in respect to their belief that Sunday is a day of rest.

This same government that has given Westboro the right to spew hatred refuses to listen to the claim that the healthcare issue violates their religion. Instead they are currently fining them 1.3 million dollars per day since January 1 until they give up on their religious commitment and follow what many believe is an unconstitutional law. How does this happen?

First, I understand the use and importance of the morning after pill. I understand that accidents can happen, women can be raped, and unwanted pregnancies happen each day in our country. I also understand that our government pays via our tax dollars for women on welfare to have free access to this medication. I'm not an opponent of this pill. I will say, though, that if you are having unprotected sex you should pay for your own mistakes, don't expect your employer to bail you out. If a woman is raped we should have alternative and private means for her to seek assistance and reassurance that she has not been impregnated.

I am an opponent of double standards. On one side we have a government that is so zealous about upholding the Bill of Rights that they reward religious haters at the expense of mourners. On the other side we have a government that refuses to recognize a private family owned business that refuses to give into government and turn their back on their own religious standard. 

In my opinion: It just ain't right.

Court Ruling Against Marine Family is a Travesty of Justice

I totally agree with John Ellsworth regarding the judgement against the Snyder family in favor of the self-proclaimed Westboro Baptist Church. 


In my opinion the federal appeals court is out of their mind. How in the world can you say that what this church is doing is freedom of speech when it is so clearly defamation of character? They are not expressing opinion as much as they are insulting and characterizing to deliberately hurt and incite. They are deliberately twisting their first amendment rights to insult people and the judgement of the court is allowing them to profit from it. 

These people (led by their self-proclaimed prophet Fred Phelps) created a "church." This congregation of  less than 100, and over 80% being family members, decided to create their own form of religion. That is their right. They decided to proclaim themselves as Baptists. Again, they have that right. They want to proclaim their message. Okay, that's fine as well. Yet for some reason instead of just taking their message to the airways, using the newspapers to post ads and editorials, or going door to door to hand out pamphlets they have decided that attending funerals with degrading signs regarding the dead is most appropriate. Of course, what can you expect from people who's religious website is called www.godhatesfags.com?  It becomes obvious that they are a group of people that find life value in hate. They are raising children to believe in hate as a form of redemption. They use their children in their demonstrations and drag them around the country to places that have had tragedies, such as the shooting at Virginia Tech, to revel in the loss of lives and the misery of the families. 


I spent yesterday watching videos of the self-proclaimed prophet, his daughter, and his grand children as they happily spoke about how God hates America, God hates the world, and how we are all destined to "eat our babies." I find them to be intolerant fanatics who manage to twist the Bible. 


First, a funeral is not a place where people should be allowed to picket. It is not an appropriate place to hold demonstrations. Families have lost loved ones and are mourning. It takes people of the lowest of the low moral rating to use this as a vantage point to spout their opinions. It's like walking into a mass or church service and deciding to start yelling out obscenities because you don't agree with the religion. Funerals are quiet sacred times for families to say goodbye. They are not public or political events. 


Secondly, erroneously accusing a young soldier of being a "fag" because he serves in the military to protect his country and calling him names is not an example of free speech. Degrading his family for his upbringing is not an example of free speech. These are examples of defaming. The family is a victim of defamation of character as defined: "Defamation or "defamation of character" is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation." The young hero in question was publicly slandered as were his parents. 




Third, this group continued to slander and defame our country, our heroes, our families, our people. They do this with the idea that it's okay because they are protected by the first amendment right of free speech. Did the federal court forget that this right is not absolute in any country in the world? It usually does not encompass the concept of "hate speech."  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights even recognizes that it is more a freedom of expression and the right to harbor any thoughts. No where does it say that you should indiscriminately be allowed to harass, defame, or incite hate. 


And then there is the fact that this group of people hates America and people in general. Do they really have the right to use a constitution they don't believe in to help them gain momentum to preach hatred and intolerance? It would have been one thing to reverse the original judgement that the family won and reduce their payment or say they do not receive damages from the church. It's an entirely different thing to make them pay over $16,000 to the church for taking them to court. The church put themselves in the spotlight and opened themselves up to a lawsuit. Let them assume their own responsibilities for their actions.


This link will take you to the page that tells the story of a brave young man whose family has gone through hell because of what I believe is a false, irreverent, and intolerant religious sect. Take some time and help show that Americans stand by our soldiers. We do not tolerate hate and injustice. We love all people regardless of their sexual orientations, religious beliefs, or color. Plus, most all of us have a God or Goddess or Prophet filled with love, understanding, and tolerance. We know we were not made perfect, but we also know that our imperfections make us able to grow and learn.


My condolences go out to this young marine's family. My thanks go to him for the ultimate sacrifice he made for me and my country. Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder is a hero and it is my ultimate hope that his family will no longer be victimized by misguided zealots.