Posted on 3/18/2006, 10:31:34 AM by saveliberty
There Shouldn't Be A Law
Apparently there is a small group of nuts that go around attending funerals of servicemen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, protesting and waving signs to the effect that the soldiers died in a bad cause, i.e., on behalf of a country that promotes homosexuality. Now the Minnesota legislature is enacting legislation to limit demonstrations within a certain number of feet of a funeral.
This strikes me as one of many examples of our culture's obsession with legal remedies. As a lawyer, I suppose I shouldn't complain; but as a citizen, I think it's ridiculous. If a bunch of crazies show up waving signs at a funeral, the appropriate course is for an able-bodied man--there should be at least one at any funeral--to take a sign and break it over the ringleader's head. One of the basic problems in our society is that nearly all informal sanctions have been forfeited, so that there is hardly any middle ground between passive acceptance of antisocial behavior and a felony prosecution. Legislation and criminal prosecution are blunt instruments that cannot be brought to bear against every deviancy that may arise.
Posted by John at 09:30 PM
I have come across more friends and coworkers lately who hadn't even considered that they can resolve difficult situations by talking to the other person. Women more so then men, but that's my own experience -- it's just what I see.
BTW in the case cited, sometimes you just ignore the protesters, because they get less attention and validation that way.
It's not necessary to control everyone's behavior. I hate what they say and where they say it, but they are free to be stupid and behave very badly.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I agree about the law having no effect on developing ethics, but I disagree about roughing up the protesters.
They are narcissists, because they think that he funerals are all about them. Why give them any leverage? You know that this would gain them sympathy.
Really, we are going to agree to disagree on this point. If we ignore them, they go away because they can't get what they want. They understand arguments. They understand physical fights. They don't learn from them, but they are energized by them. They don't understand being ignored.
LOL
he= the
more coffee please :-)
Some people love the state to pass laws like this. What needs to happen is for the state to stay away and stay out our business while we "discuss" the matter with these folks and any nearby news media. About five minutes later this whole issue would be resolved for good.
Sounds like nut case fanatics...just like the muzzies.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Again, I think confrontation only feeds these people and that's exactly what they want. Why give it to them?
This is unfortunately true. When people are truly indecent and deserve a butt kicking, the law protects them. Thus, if there must be a law to remedy political protests at funerals, let it be a law that allows funeral attendees to beat the protesters within an inch short of putting them six feet under.
If the anti-war/pacifist protesters are true to their name, they'll take the beating like good little pacifists and not fight back. If they do fight back, ask them why it is okay for them to defend themselves and not for everybody else.
Bah... Just send them all on a foreign exchange program where we send them to terrorists, and we put the exchangees that we get back in return in Gitmo... Then we refuse to take back the liberals or return the detainees.
They are Fred Phelps and his merry group of scumbags, and their M.O. is to incite people to attack them and then sue the attackers for big bucks. Wikipedia has a great article on this whoreson.
This thread is about these protesters and the demand to use the law to deal with them.
We will agree to disagree.
Conflicts can be resolved in many different ways, and I disagree that force is the solution here.
You are right a confrontation would be exactly what they want. They don't want what I was talking about.
I liked that quote fromt the article too.
But I do think that violence to protesters justifies them, and that is something that they don't deserve. Making fun of them however, would infuriate them and what could they do about it?
A better approach would be to have a large contingent of counter-demonstrators, hopefully 10 or 20 times their number, who
1. Surround the Phelps' crew.
2. Sing psalms of praise to the Lord. Psalms 1, 2, 37, 73 would be good choices.
http://www.psalms4u.com/
Loud enough to drown out the Phelps' bilge, not
so loud as to interfere with the funeral service
going on in the background.
3. Carry signs that
a. Express appreciation to the grieving family
for their warrior's sacrifices,
b. Admonish the Phelps' about their dangerous
spiritual condition, e.g., Matt 7:15-23
Counterprotests can be good sometimes. It all depends where and what the circumstances are. I just think that at a funeral, it's dysfunctional.
Except where the media makes sure the protesters are not ignored. Which is a huge "win" for the protesters (from what I've seen, the media usually tries to use angles and commentary to exaggerate the number/impact of the protesters).
I tend to agree with one of the comments in your original post:
. . . nearly all informal sanctions have been forfeited, so that there is hardly any middle ground between passive acceptance of antisocial behavior and a felony prosecution.
Where once social sanctions for egregious behavior would limit something as scorn-worthy as protesting at a funeral, that is no longer the case. Because they are unlikely to face any public or social penalty for misbehavior, people find themselves free to participate in something which would once brand them publicly because they know there will be no stigma attached to them for unacceptable social antics. This in turn devalues self-restraint -- why not give in to an impulse, even one which is cruel or disgustingly insensitive, when the result is more likely to be positive media attention than social rejection?
The American Thinker coined the phrase The Antique Media
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.