Unless you have led an exceedingly fortunate life, you are aware of the existence of Fred Phelps, one of the more vile people in America. He has soiled western Washington with his presence in the past. Phelps and his crew of hypocritical souls recently cancelled plans to protest at the funerals for the victims of the recent Amish school shooting. Thank God.
The issue first came to this writer's attention while reading a compelling column by Rod Dreher, former writer at the National Review and current editorial page editor at the Dallas Morning News. Dreher speaks movingly on the deeper, personal spiritual implications of the Amish response to the tragedy. In the midst of such reflection, is their anything more despicable to imagine than the sight of Fred Phelps & Co. puncturing the mournful, tragic images of the Amish burying their dead?
The answer to the question above raises this query: had the protest occurred as originally planned, would it be morally wrong for an angry mob to pummel the Westboro Baptist clan after the Amish funeral procession had passed? Legally, there is no question of the wrong. Clearly, the Amish themselves would reject such a response. But at a gut societal level, sometimes certain norms must be enforced. The specter of hateful protests disturbing a peaceful people from laying their dead children to rest is beyond the pale.
Thoughts?
****
On a somewhat related note, Rod Dreher is an interesting fellow, and the leading advocate for the Crunchy Con movement. I disagree vehemently with Dreher's ultimate analysis on the Crunchy Con idea, as do many conservatives (including a thorough defenestration by Jonah Goldberg). The Crunchy Cons do have a following in the Seattle area as one might imagine. Yet Dreher himself has also made news with a recent conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Though a summary of his related thoughts can be found here, interested readers are encouraged to explore the lengthier but more thought provoking original post on the matter found cached here. The later is a fascinating read, likely to evoke strong responses from persons of faith, and Catholics in particular. Interesting weekend reading for those so inclined.
UPDATE: Some readers seemed to have presumed I was taking a position in posing the question about pummeling the Westboro clan. I wasn't. I was simply posing the question because as a matter of philosophy, social contract, etc. it is rather interesting, and abuts right against some of the boundaries we draw for ourselves in society. As a matter of religion and faith it is more clearly defined. My own belief on the matter is similar to that of commenter Mike H: the flesh would be willing, but the spirit knows better.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 14, 2006 03:28 PM | Email This[sigh] That being said, I have a hard time condoning violence against her and her ilk. Yes, it's disgusting and vile what they spew... but I don't see what pouncing them accomplishes (other than feeling really good). As long as they stay on public property, I prefer to see what the Freedom Riders (or what ever that counter protest group is) does. Beating won't stop them (except for the break while they stay in the hospital). People that self-rightious aren't going to be beat into submission.
My question is, has anyone ever thought of turning the tables and doing the same to them? I mean, surely there must be a ton of people who would like to stage an angry protest during one of their church services or at one of their funerals.
Posted by: Mike H on October 14, 2006 03:55 PMPhelps and Family will meet their judgment exactly where they should. Responding to them, in any way, just gives them what they want.
Posted by: JDB on October 14, 2006 05:22 PMTo restate my question, then: Does Sound Politics stand behind this falsehood, or do you and/or Stefan wish to disavow it?
Posted by: Sound Politics Lies on October 14, 2006 05:48 PMYou need to check your own link. The only cheers and jeers were just prior to the MC telling Riechart he had more than 3 minutes to answer, because of Darcy's immature supporters.
Listen to YOUR LINK again, @ 103.20 I hear NO response from the audience, and only Reicharts mention of victims families and something about darcy being in the "Bushes". Then of course Darcy (as mommy) shaming her supporters with the reply of ENOUGH to quiet her supportors, trying to teach them about showing respect to the panel and sponsors of the Debate.
Does that tell you anything???
Posted by: chris on October 14, 2006 06:18 PMSome people need killing....
Posted by: H Moul on October 14, 2006 06:36 PMFred Phelps is a False Prophet and a worker of lawlessness. He will hear these words from Christ on judgement day.
"Depart from me, you ... I do not know you..."
I would love to see his face on that day.
I will leave his judgement to his maker.
Just to make usre they understand the difference between a right to free speech and some supposed right to be heard, I would be a glad participant in any organized gang pummeling...
Posted by: Louis Wu on October 14, 2006 07:11 PMEric, I'm sorry you brought this up. We can debate the issues, but violence is never acceptable, no matter how reprehensible the target.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 14, 2006 08:27 PMThey misinterpret tolerance for acceptance.
I advocate, today, let us completely ignore them and wait a generation, for them to quietly in-breed into oblivion.
Posted by: Shaun on October 14, 2006 08:49 PMI find his "crunchy con" philosophy puzzling though. I quite understand the cultural sensibilities thing and distaste for consumerism, but don't understand his sympathy for environmental extremism. I admit I haven't read the book yet, but have recently been visiting his blog regularly (as in almost daily, though I seem to have a problem getting the comment box to open--obviously, a rare problem for me, so I don't often get to see what the discussion turns into.)
And so I'm quite surprised, Eric that you caught this conversion from Catholocism to Orthodoxy before I did. Reading the posts you linked to, this puzzles me as much as the "crunchy con" thing does. And you're right, this will probably mostly interest Catholics. Especially Catholic converts like me. I'd love to ask him some questions, if I could only get that darn comment box to open.
Posted by: Michelle on October 14, 2006 10:36 PM
BTW: What's his name?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 10:39 PMFree speech is a right. But so is freedom of association. The grieving families do not choose to associate with Phelps' group, yet they are forced to.
The freedoms granted by our Bill of Rights do not mean that someone can use those freedoms to do harm to others. Phelps uses his freedom of speech to specifically inflict emotional pain, suffering and harassment on the grieving families and courts have allowed him to get away with it.
Violence is not a solution to this problem, but something must be done that will isolate him from these funerals. What, I don't know. Having a counter-protest group intercept Phelps would only lead to a larger, louder crowd and the families don't need that either. Of course, if a counter-protest group was able to delay Phelps (legally or with some civil disobedience) from making it to the cemeteries on time, then the families would be allowed their privacy.... But then, it could just escalate.
The media won't ignore him because they need the conflict for their headlines.
In the meantime, pray for the families, that they are able to weather the storm, and that they be granted peace in their time of grief.
How would Hollywood writers solve a problem like this? Maybe it's time for Dirty Harry, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, John Wayne, Harrison Ford, etc. movies. Oops, I guess I said violence wasn't a solution in this case.
Darn.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 14, 2006 11:14 PM
The concept of vengeance has been demonized of late, but it has not always been so. The only legitimate reason to forgo the legitimate vengeance of an individual who has been violated is because of the greater need of the whole community to enact the justice on behalf of the larger society, not because the retribution is wrong. That is the role of government.
Phelps should not have been allowed to desecrate the Amish solemnity and then be beaten; he should have been prevented, BY GOVERNMENT from doing it to begin with. Ruining a funeral has no more to do with free speech than pornography does.
The feeling that compels just men to become vigilantes is fed by the abdication by Government of its proper role to enact justice on their behalf.
Homosexuality and funeral desecration both need to be proscribed by law. The failure to do the first fuels idiots like Phelps, the failure to do the second fuels violent suggestions from Earling. In both cases, the adherents of the leaders (Phelps the idiots, Earling the vigilantes) draw their true enthusiasm from the failure of Government.
Potpourri:
Dougie at 2: "...words do not hurt." Actually, Dougie, words hurt the most.
"Sound Politics Lies" at 4 regarding Don Ward: Irrespective of the issues of the Reichert debate upon which I profess no expertise, I can confirm, unequivocally, that Mr. Ward has, in fact, published total fabrications, not just misinterpretations. Creative fiction he seriously and publicly asserts to be true for his own political objectives.
But here is the classic: #10, by Louis Wu.
He begins by hyperbolically comparing Phelps' group to Islamic fascists and then suggests beating them up for their ideas.
How quintessentially liberal!
Next question?
Posted by: David Wright on October 15, 2006 02:42 AMi think an armed volunteer 'security entourage' or posse would work if the greiving family desired. (in this case i doubt the Amish would want one) much like the goons that accompany Farrakan. nothing is lower than interfereing with a family's grief. they will snap at you surely as a crocodile--and justifiably so. but secretly, many probably would like to see the protesters get their due in spades. i vomit at the thought of those b-strds doing this at any military funeral. what gall. what hate & disrespect--politics aside. i would probably be arrested for reacting to such a protest at a funeral.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 15, 2006 06:16 AMThat exact question? No. But they did ask whether or not they were the only ones following God's word, and she more or less said yes.
Personally, I kinda like this way of dealing with them... sue em.
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/
Posted by: Mike H on October 15, 2006 10:24 AMNope. Some people need their heads knocked. Phelps' group qualifies. You'd see an end to this - and other similar group-thug nonsense - post-haste.