The Marquis de Sade Never Had It So Good: Phelps Is Making A Hell On Earth

Get Ready for Four Times The Hate... And Four Times The Pain!

The inmates of that asylum called Westboro Baptist Church have announced that since they have won the battle of  free speech, they will "quadruple" their assault on America and its evil ways. 


The irony about their methods of "love" in trying to save us from damnation is that they've created a hell on earth.

They are not alone, however. Far from it: there exist people and groups who are doing their best to make life hell for the rest of us. Whether we feel the lash of theocracy, are stretched on the rack by their corporate sponsors, or are placed in the embrace of the iron maiden of endless proselytizing, they will enjoy our pain and tell us that they are doing it because they "love" us. 

But perhaps the worst of all tortures is enduring their horrendously righteous arrogance, shutting off the rest of the world's philosophies from our existence, for no one is as virtuously good, as sublimely compassionate, yet as stupendously humble as they. 

In other words, in a hell on earth, the righteously arrogant will enjoy themselves immensely. 

The Marquis De Sade never had it so good.

At This Point, God May Indeed Hate America: When Forming a "Dead Zone" May Be The Only Solution

The Life of Religious Hate  

and The Death of Decency

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 

"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," Roberts said. "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."

"Public Debate" - has Fred Phelps and his clan ever had a "public debate" with America? Mindless hate can only debate with its opposite - meaningful love. And while Fred Phelps has always garnered the public's attention, America's "Church" has never really stepped up to the podium for that debate. We will hear an almost deafening chorus of "Although we abhor what Phelps does, we applaud the Court's decision."

A cowardly statement. A statement filled with relief. A statement filled with satisfaction. Free speech trumps hate speech.

Another chorus we will hear: "Phelps isn't really Christian. He certainly doesn't speak for us who are." We've heard that one before. Too little, too late: Phelps' rants have gotten notoriety for over 15 years, but few have ever actually chastised him in public. How many "faith-based" pickets have ever graced the outside of Westboro Baptist Church? How many have taken out ads in local or national papers denouncing Phelps' deeds? Not enough. When have the Baptist conclaves attempted to legally remove the name "Baptist" from Westboro Church? None that I know of. 

America's denominations and non-denominational churches have always done more harm to America by NOT saying anything, by NOT doing anything. I saw the results of their indolence in the faces of AIDS victims streaming into San Francisco. It was definitely passive/aggressive behavior on the part of the Christian Right.

Interestingly, as of this writing, neither the FRC nor the AFA have commented on the decision. As of 8:30PM (EST), when I googled Phelps ruling response, the only ones to come up were:

Democratic Underground
Free Republic
and The Moderate Voice


The response from the ACLU:

“The Court’s decision properly and respectfully acknowledges the Snyder family’s grief. But it correctly holds that the response to that grief cannot include the abandonment of core First Amendment principles designed to protect even the most unpopular speech on matters of public concern.”

The response from the Phelps clan was predictably giddy and dire at the same time:

"A leader of the Westboro Baptist Church told reporters Wednesday that the congregation would "quadruple" the number of funeral protests in the wake of a ruling by the Supreme Court.

"Let me tell you what this church does: Shut up all that talk about infliction of emotional distress..,When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin, you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God"

As is sometimes the case with her, Sarah Palin got defiantly confused and combined two parts of the First Amendment in her tweet about the decision:

This coming from a woman who was "anointed" by a "witch hunter" from Uganda. 

Emotional Vandalism

Speaking of freedoms, and what America will allow and not allow, the decision has paved the way for what I've called EMOTIONAL VANDALISM: that is the right to mar or disfigure in any way people's emotional state when faced with personal grief. While the Phelps clan believed that the funeral of Matthew Snyder was public, it was not: most invitations to funerals begin with the statement "For those wishing to pay their respects." The event of a funeral, whether lavish or plain, is the physical and emotional property of the deceased's loved ones presiding at the funeral. Again, the primary purpose of the Phelps' protest was not "public discourse," but to inflict true pain, true emotional distress on the loved ones. It was vicious and performed with malice-of-forethought. There are many churches in this country that have wished they could go as far as Fred Phelps, but have not dared to because of the possibility of misusing freedom of speech. 

They no long need to fear: they will be free to disrupt solemn gatherings and inflict as much emotional pain on others as they want. This case will bring out an impertinent plethora of screamers with placards coming dangerously to violence - violence which they may want to incite for purposes of publicity.

The "Dead Zone" Proposal

I've long thought about how to handle Phelps and his kind, but the answer always came back: the most effective disciplinarian would be the Christian Right itself. OK. Fat chance. But please hear this one out. The Christian Right is very fond of boycotting businesses that commerce with or support "evil" groups or even specific people. The one glaring fault of their tactics is that they have never, ever used them to censure - or "shun" - one of their own. Of course they don't view Phelps as Christian, let alone one of their own. But perhaps it's time for self- monitoring to give them the credibility they lack. A strong stance against the Westboro Baptist Church would tell the rest of the country churches will do more than just pay lip service to "righteousness." Let them take a small area around the Phelps's physical sphere (say 5 miles) and warn all the businesses that they will be picketed if they continue to provide services to the Westboro Baptist Church. After all, like many things the Church disapproves of, if someone's actions are "legal", they can still be immoral. I'm sure this has been proffered before, but if someone like Rick Warren (who still needs some good PR and has said that "God tells us to do away with evil-doers") were to spearhead a protest and boycott of nearby grocery stores, banks, ATMs, drug stores, gas stations, clothing stores on religious grounds ("it's against our religion to give succor to the devil"), Westboro would find out what life is like without even minimum support. Afterwards, the boycott could be expanded to all services the Phelps could receive via the internet. They would be busy with lawsuits, of course, but that's part of the strategy: they couldn't "quadruple" their efforts if they're too busy with legal briefs. 

It's time that America's religious community "quadruples" its actions in calling Fred Phelps immoral. And the churches of Topeka, KS must be tired of defending themselves, explaining to people that they are not hate groups. 

It's all rather draconian, of course, this concept of creating a "Dead Zone" around Phelps, this update of traditional "shunning"* but is there a better idea? His family can't hold picket signs if he can't get them printed up (or get his printer serviced). He can't travel much anywhere without gas. Shirley Phelps-Roper would have to go miles outside the compound to shop for groceries. 

One church's activism against another church on moral grounds is not new. The bickerings witnessed by the rest of the world are always seen as titanic clashes by their own congregations. They have been able, however to set those differences aside in favor of unison against what they think is an extreme evil. So isn't it about time churches set aside their consternation for gay marriage and abortion against a force doing evil under their very noses and insulting God by calling it "Christian?"

It is a challenge. And, dare I say it, a moral one at that.

* a concept as old as religion itself. 

Oooooh! We're Scared! Westboro Baptist Church Is Mad At Anonymous!

We sincerely hope that this spurs Anonymous to act right away! 

Sorry the print is so lousy to read. Suffice it to say, this is one ungrammatical, poorly written public response. How did the Phelps clan ever get through college with this stuff?


Some highlights: 


"Anonymous is a puddle of pimply-faced nerds ... because they hate Westboro Bible preachments." Alliteration is not one of the Westboro gang's strong points ("puddle of pimply-faced nerds" really makes no sense). "Preachments" is an odd word - I looked it up: "preachment" is a sermon of sorts that is odious or "tedious." Sort of unintentionally self-deprecating, wouldn't you say?


Then there's: "
"Let us tell you how it will go: rebels will build a full head of steam based on false hope; the media will do much breathless anticipating while giving another tsunami of coverage to Westboro's message ..."


"A tsunami of coverage"?? Maybe the media will cover it gleefully, but to purport a "tsunami" of coverage is hubris. Also, Westboro's message is one of hate and not one from God. They're two different things.


Then last:


"All your draconian blather changes nothing." Boy, aren't we the learned ones!  Irony here: "draconian" is one of the first words we think of when we think of Westboro "Baptist" church.


Go! Anonymous! Go!

 

God Never Apologizes. ... But Don't You Think It's About Time He Did?

Keith Olbermann gave an insightful special commentary concerning the Rotten Rhetoric that has engulfed politics. I think everyone should view it: he raises some good points and he even apologizes to viewers for using the same kind of militaristic, gun-related rhetoric. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Olbermann included both Left and Right in his speech and transcended the image of crosshaired gun sights by condemning all violent political rhetoric. It seemed quite inclusive. However, it did not include a vital component of today's American society.

It did not include God.

No, I'm not going all batsh*t-crazy, at least not in a theological sense: with a God who has been the instigator of all things good and bad, apologies are not on the table. Explanations aren't even considered. "He works in mysterious ways" has been the ubiquitous reason why bad things happen to good people. It's lame, but God gets away with doing things simply because He's ...God.

And He's done some pretty horrendous things: drowned innocent animals in the Great Flood, commanded genocide (slaying of the Moabites), condoned slavery, toyed sadistically with Jonah on a bet with Satan, and created the Texas Board of Education. But perhaps the worst thing God has ever done to humanity is to create hypocritical and corrupt apostles, prophets and preachers who will never apologize either: as "representative" "anointed"  even "beloved" shepherds of God, they and their chosen feel they are exempt from guilt, hence, without consciences and are to able to do most anything as long as they rationalize it as "God's will." 

The sins that have been committed against humanity and in the name of God are, like Satan's followers, Legion. History looks a lot like the infinite expanse of dead and dying soldiers in Gone With The Wind: religious strife litters humanity's past and "Peace On Earth, Good Will Towards Men" seems like a bad joke. And it will stay that way as long as there are "men of God" campaigning for the sake of righteousness.

BEYOND WESTBORO

The instance of Jared Lee Laughner's horrendous assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has prompted the MSM to analyze just how much politicians and pundits exacerbate violence with their speech and actions. Notice, however, that not one commentator mentioned anyone within the Religious Right communities: Giffords has weighed in as a pro-choice, pro-ENDA and pro-Health Care Reform. There are over 500 churches in the Tucson metropolitan area, with Baptist (approx. 80), Mormon (90+) and Catholic (100+) churches. What are the chances that none of them campaigned vitriolically against Giffords? Have any of those churches apologized?

Hardly. Not a peep out of any of them. Religious demonizers, like God, never apologize.

And how many of those churches supported Giffords opponent Jesse Kelly who, BTW, sponsored a campaign fundraiser* wherein people could shoot an M-16 for sport? Those churches and the rest of the Religious Right, if called on the carpet, will probably refocus the debate by pointing to entities like Westboro Baptist Church (who have announced that they will picket the funerals of those killed in the shooting). They will use stark contrast to deflect criticism or they will simply take an how-DARE-you stance, like when Tony Perkins ludicrously told the nation that the Religious Right had absolutely no culpability in the suicides of gay teens:

There is an abundance of evidence that homosexuals experience higher rates of mental health problems in general, including depression. However, there is no empirical evidence to link this with society's general disapproval of homosexual conduct.

Perhaps the most insipid lack of remorse for extremely violent message content lies in everything done by a group named Repent Amarillo. I've written about it before, but its last publicity-grabbing escapade deserves to be reiterated: the execution of Santa Claus. "Santa" was really a pinata (to placate critics, of course), but the guns and ammo used were real...in front of a group of children ...who will  probably develop psychoses larger than that of Jared Lee Laughner. No one rushed forward to accuse them of emotional child abuse because they were, of course, acting in the "name of the Lord." 

Rampages like Laughner's help develop a serious time of reflection as to their causes. Violent rhetoric, militaristic terms, virulent attack modes can come from pulpits as well as politicians. We live amidst a slew of God's self-appointed emissaries who have never apologized for their organized religion's crimes and never expect to apologize for their Rotten Rhetoric now or in the future. They may indulge themselves in vicious platitudes of the worst kind while thinking themselves totally unaccountable.

After all, righteous arrogance has its privileges. Just ask God.

 

 * Flier blurb: "Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

Emotional Vandalism vs. Freedom Of Speech: Will The Malice That Embodies Fred Phelps Prevail?

Note: On Wednesday, Oct. 6th, the Supreme Court of The United States will hear oral arguments in the case of Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church.

Fred Phelps has now gotten exactly what he's always wanted: notoriety. From the time he threw the first punch at an attendee of  a revival (at age 17, his first preaching gig was to a Mormon group and someone didn't exactly agree with him), he's always courted fame. Fame through controversy. Fame through hate.

I've followed Fred's trail for over 14 years. The first time I encountered Phelps was as a book publicist for Fr. Daniel Helmeniak, author of the book, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. Helmeniak is an eminent Jesuit scholar who knew about Phelps and his homophobic rantings, so I was able to get Daniel on a radio show in Kansas City, MO. with Phelps debating him on the subject. Phelps was in the studio while Daniel was on a phone hook-up.

The interview was a typical Phelpsian circus with the Phelps clan picketing the radio station (allegedly for broaching the subject of homosexuality). During the interview, Daniel played the sweet, but thoroughly academic professional, politely asking Phelps which "pages" his Biblical sitings were on (knowing full well that Phelps had made them up). Frustrated Phelps grew impatient when the time came for questions from listeners who seemed to share Daniel's knowledge and sophistication. He stormed out of the station in less than twenty minutes. The host, however, kept Daniel on - for a full 90 minutes  - because the call lines were heating up (the program had only been scheduled for thirty minutes).

Phelps deemed the radio spot a "success." He's a hit-and-run publicity man.

A year after Daniel's interview, I came across an unpublished manuscript attached to a deposition as Exhibit A in a court case. It was an unauthorized biography of Fred Phelps. I read all 140 pages overnight.

To label Fred Phelps as evil is ridiculous, simply because, much like any real monster, Phelps' persona is beyond labeling. If Phelps' soul can be labeled anything, the closest definition would be grotesque: it is misshapen, hideous in its deformity; repulsive. Visually, it is like The Elephant Man, but without the slightest trace of humanity. And while Hitler had a disfigured conscience, Fred Phelps seems to have no conscience at all. He delights in both hating and being hated. He is a true egotist.

And as such, he hungers not for blood, but for publicity.

It is true that he used his exemplary speaking skills to defend civil rights cases. However, upon close examination, his oratory was meant to focus only on himself: one of the breaches of ethics he was cited for  in his disbarment was that if a client couldn't pay Fred's fees after losing a case, he would automatically turn around and sue the client. So very many of these cases came up, it was rumored that Phelps's primary income was derived from these turnabouts. 

For the last half century, Fred Phelps and his clan have alternated between bizarre soap opera and embarrassing nuisance for Topeka, KS: addiction to amphetamines, charges of a Fagin operation (involving the Phelps children), beatings, starvation, threats of knee-capping (with a .48), severe whippings, extortion, insidious and violent revenge on colleagues and neighbors, thwarted flights to freedom - all emanating from the martinet  who refused to give his children Christmas presents, demanded that all of them have law degrees, chose their spouses ... and made them believe he was their only portal to heaven. 

There are times when hatred makes a person either crazy or stupid. Hatred is, after all, a very negating emotion, canceling out anything positive. Hatred is man's most insipid emotion simply because it is so counter to survival. In the eyes of America, Fred Phelps has not only done things out of pure hatred,  but a total disregard for any form of reason: call Phelps insane and he will laugh. Call him stupid, however, and he will rage. Perhaps the reason why Phelps and has brood have pressed on so doggedly on the Snyder case is because Phelps will prove to everyone that he is not stupid: everyone will know him and listen, whereas nobody listens to an idiot.

The Snyder Case

While many people deem the upcoming Supreme Court case to be one of horrifically poor taste vs. freedom of speech, instead it can be argued that it is really a case that stretches the limits as to how much harm a person can inflict on another and still hide behind the premise of free speech. To the rest of the country, Phelps actions were even worse than what he had intended to do at Mathew Shepard's funeral - dance on his grave. Fred and his family posse fully intended to cause as much emotional harm and stress as possible to the Snyder family. 

This is where the claim of emotional vandalism comes in.

Every invitation to a funeral begins with the phrase "For those wishing to pay their respects..." The invitation is not open to those who want to desecrate the grave or to dance upon it. The funeral, therefore, is not simply open to the public as the Phelps family contends. In this case, the Snyder family paid for a respectful funeral, during which the bereaved would be comforted by the presence of friends, not enemies. The funeral and the proceedings were the property of the Snyder family. The Phelps family's intent was to mar the funeral proceedings by making entrance and exit from the funeral a fearsome, distasteful affair. They desecrated the funeral with malice aforethought. Emotional vandalism. Willful intent to damage or destroy another persons property.

So far, I haven't seen that particular angle to the prosecution, and since it has not been proffered, it cannot be introduced into this case. In my humble opinion, I fail to see why it should not have been. There must have been a reason why it was not.

The Responsibility of The Christian Right: Don't bet on it.

Although the case of Snyder vs. Phelps will not be heard before the Supreme Court until Wednesday, October 6, the prospects for Al Snyder look grim. Chief Justice Roberts on freedom of speech: "It's certainly the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold freedom of speech, even when it's unpopular." 

We must all brace ourselves for the imbecilic grins of the Phelps clan. 

We must also brace ourselves for the slightly muted cheers of our Rightwing Christian friends such as the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention, and in particular, people like Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer and Lou Engle. In addition, all those who say "we're not like Phelps" but who do absolutely nothing to chastise Phelps for his obviously un-Christian demeanor. These people, with all their righteousness at-the-ready, who bray and bloviate about morals and family values will not use one ounce of courage to tell the nation that Fred Phelps' free speech is not worthy to be heard by the dullest of the dull. This sector of our country has a moment to prove themselves to be worthy of their purported religion. They will, however, either cheer, whimper ... or remain silent.

Remember.

Author's note: 

This article is based upon personal experience, Fact-Archive.com, wikipedia.com, and Exhibit A of  PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60-1701 et. seq.) as requested by Jon Bell, June 2, 1994.)