Father of slain soldier ordered to pay Westobro

[Ben Lahnger]

I would accept that most conservative Christians do not support the actions of the Westboro church. But people who declare themselves to be Fundamentalists almost certainly do. Because they (like the people of Westboro) interpret the bible's proscriptions against homosexuality literally. It's what Fundamentalists do.

[Ben Lahnger]

As the case proceeds to the Supreme Court, there's a new article (updated today) here:

Dad sues ‘Thank God for Dead Soldiers’ church
Group targeted son’s funeral, saying God punishes U.S. for tolerating gays

You can read the whole article at the link above, but the following two excepts were of concern to me:

Then something unexpected happened: The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay Westboro $16,510 in court costs. While it's not unusual for the losing party in a civil case to be required to pay some costs, it rarely happens when an individual sues a private entity, especially when the case is still active, experts say.

Margie Jean Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' daughters and an attorney, will argue the case before the Supreme Court. She has said the church plans to use the money from Snyder to stage more protests. That's what's so upsetting to Snyder, who says he would drop the matter if the church stopped picketing funerals.

and

Not everyone is on Snyder's side, even if they find Westboro's protests loathsome.

They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.

The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.

Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

"Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," Turley said.

Apparently the Westboro Church also staged a protest last week at the West Virginia mining disaster where 29 coal miners lost their lives. It may well be that this type of protest will have to be allowed to protect our constitutional freedom of speech, but I damn sure find the behavior reprehensible. The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on this in the fall.

[Drake Dun]

It seems to me that being a "fundamentalist" Christian entails condemnation of homosexuality, yes. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures are both very clear on that point. Butsecks = OMG EVIL! That doesn't necessarily equate to approval of the kind of bat-shit crazy antics the WBC people are up to, though. Even if you don't take the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach, nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of demands that you hate not only the sinner, but his brother, sister, second cousin twice removed, person who is a citizen of the same nation, and poor guy who happens to be within a 500 mile radius of the sinner.

It's kind of a sad state of affairs when a foaming at the mouth atheist like myself is coming to the aid not just of Christians, but even fundamentalists. Still, there you have it. The WBC people are out on their own whacky trip. Not even fundies deserve to be tarred with the same brush.