We give Shirl the right to remain responsive
So two days ago, we told you about Westboro Baptist's Shirley Phelps-Roper getting arrested in Nebraska on what are, in all honesty, some pretty ridiculous charges (Primary charge: suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor after her child was found to be violating a anti-desecration statute by stomping on the American flag). And we wanted to hear Shirley's reaction to this verdict, so we decided to go straight to the "fag-hater"s mouth. Here's what she had to say on the matter:
Hi Jeremy –
What shall I say – you can dress them up (the little boys that is) but you can NOT take them out! :-)
This is nothing new – this is just another assault on the First Amendment and it is an attempt to make us shut up. It won’t work! The Lord Jesus Christ said that the gates (the places where business is transacted in the town – the seats of government) of hell will NEVER prevail against his people! They have put their hand – AGAIN – to something they cannot bring forth!
On a more practical note – when the Supreme Court, in 1989, in Lawrence vs Texas said that you can burn a flag – that using the flag to make your point is symbolic speech, and it is unlawful to try and stop it, they were not kidding. The perverts in Nebraska think they have seceded from the union! When I told the cops that they should call their legal counsel before they did something so foolish as this – that this area of the law is long ago settled – that Johnson vs Texas made their statute outdated and they cannot enforce it, one of the brutes said – “We aren’t in Texas”. :-)
It was a thing of beauty – there on that sweeping, huge lawn of that church were hundreds of those bikers and they had hundreds of flags waving, ALL in the no-go zone and in the midst of it all was two fire trucks – huge booms – and the booms supported the largest America flag that I have ever seen! Everyone in 100% agreement with each other – that God WILL bless them, because they say he will – and in the back 40, was our lone voice of opposition – a small voice crying in the wilderness and they arrest the lone voice! The question that begs to be answered is – WHAT DID THE CHILD DIE FOR?? WHAT ARE THESE FREEDOM’S THAT THEY SAY HE DIED FOR?? If you can snuff out the lone voice of opposition, what are the freedoms that Doomed americans tout?
So – on we go! I will be back in that area next Tuesday – I think I shall have the little boys sit this one out. I had five of my children with me when they did this thing and they didn’t think twice before they did it. Remember – God is the avenger of all such matters, and they are in a lot of trouble!! Check this out – it’s not long, but it is very good! Verse 18 is what is going to kick their ass! He pays them back with exactly what they do to us!
[Shirley quotes Isaiah 59:1]
::sigh:: She makes it so hard to actually agree with her about something (e.g. 1st Amendment protections), since she always has to pepper her prose with so many aspects with which we strongly disagree (e.g. the vast majority of society's future residency in Hell).
But oh well -- thanks for writing Shirl!
I may disagree with Shirl on 99% of everything, but I do agree with her right to free speech and I feel that this is just an attempt at getting rid of First Amendment protections for all of us.
I also Feel the need to correct Shirl on the 1989 Court case. It was Texas v. Johnson that sealed our right to voice dissent with a symbolic act such as burning the flag. Lawrence v. Texas is a much much more recent case that gave us the right to have private consentual relations as adults without the fear of arrest. One would think that Shirl, being a lawyer, would not have made that mistake. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, since both have Texas in their names.
Posted by: Daimeon | Jun 8, 2007 9:35:50 AM
I had the same problem with having to agree with her on the first amendment issue. She just misses the point, though...those children have no business participating in adult protests. Honestly, what she and the other church members have involved their children in borders on abuse.
Posted by: Kristen | Jun 8, 2007 10:40:46 AM
When the WBC were coming to New Paltz to demonstrate the police warned everyone not to do or say anything to them. To try not to even look at them. The police told us that their chief objective in these demonstrations is to get some kind of justification to sue the local authority. All too often a small town will find it cheaper to pay them off than to fight a lawsuit, prosecuted by members of the clan, through all the appeals. The police here were convinced that this was the motive for the demonstrations which raised considerable amounts of money for the Phelpses. They have nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
Posted by: steve | Jul 9, 2007 11:49:02 AM
Steve: While agreed that one of the most effective ways to deal with physical WBC protests is to just ignore the, (if possible) and while they do like to get litigious with those who they feel can fatten their coffers (they are, after all, a family of lawyers), those are separate issues from this Nebraska situation. The issue at hand here is whether or not you feel flag desecration laws are just. That has everything to do with the first amendment, regardless of the involved parties disgusting views and actions.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 9, 2007 1:11:33 PMcomments powered by Disqus