Posted on 05/17/2007 12:09:07 PM PDT by Sopater
Edited on 05/17/2007 12:11:40 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It looks like a temporary page for recent news, so this page may be gone at a future time. But, it's there now. I've included it here for the sake of future reference. It's at this page location right now.
WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like "God loves everyone".
There is little doubt that Falwell split Hell wide open the instant he died. The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and irrefragable. To wit:
1. Falwell was a true Calvinistic Baptist when he was a young preacher in Springfield, Missouri, and sold his soul to Free-Willism (Arminianism) for lucre.
2. Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of WBC's faithful Bible preaching -- thereby committing the unpardonable sin -- otherwise known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.
3. Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc. All for lucre -- making him guilty of their sins.
It is plain to the servants of God, that America is taking a blood bath in Iraq because America is busily persecuting WBC for preaching the Word of God to this evil nation of perverts. God hates America. Her end is near, and approaching fast.
For 16 years we have warned you -- on a daily basis, on the streets of some 460 cities in all 50 states: America needs the message of Westboro Baptist Church -- "God Hates Fags (and ramifications thereof)" -- more than she needs air to breathe, food to eat, and water to drink.
Meanwhile, America finalized the deal whereby she sold her soul to the sodomites -- following the example of Sodom, the seven nations of the Canaanites, ancient Israel, and all the doomed empires of the past. Nor is there any possibility of relief, because sodomites -- by definition -- are incapable of repenting, because they're proud of their sin -- will not even admit it's a sin -- and are therefore wholly given up by God.
Ancient Israel ignored God's warning about following the perversions of the doomed sodomite Canaanites -- and Israel also perished. That warning is found at Lev. 18:24-28; to wit: "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things (sodomy, incest, adultery, bestiality); for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you...That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you." Even as God today -- through Westboro Baptist Church -- warns America.
And, as Christ warned doomed Jerusalem, even so WBC -- warns doomed America: "O America, America, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee (translate: thou that persecutest WBC), how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matt. 23:37-38.
Regards,
Star Traveler
And their world-view really is hard-right, and fundamentalist. Its just also completely twisted and abhorent. They believe in a sort of predestination where the vast majority of the world is already damned from birth. They also believe that God will revel in their punishment, and to try to save anyone from their punishment is to defy God.
Therefore, Phelps believes that the purpose of preaching should be to push people further into damnation and encourage them to sin, so that God may punish them even more severely.
Also: Phelps has stated that he supported Al Gore in these elections because Gore was at the time anti-gay and pro-life.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200010\POL20001016c.html
Weird, isn’t it?
Regards,
Star Traveler
They’ll go to jail. It’s against the law to picket a funeral in Virginia
Oh..., I'm sure they'll be close enough to be seen and heard, and close enough to the news cameras, too.
Regards,
Star Traveler
One more point: We aren’t anti-war protestors; we aren’t anti-don’t-ask-don’t-tell protestors; we’re the prophets of God. We don’t care who’s in office; we don’t care about your politics; we don’t care about your policies on the war. The fact is the American public will never know the truth from its politicians about how this war started or what’s really going on in Iraq. The other fact is that there are a variety of viewpoints among Americans and Iraqis about whether we should be at war; the purpose of the war; and how it’s going. All of that is irrelevant to us.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Incorrect again.
There are a number of people the ACLU will not defend. But they will always defend the left.
You try to use many words to win a debate. The problem is that your words are full of false assumptions like the one above.
Phred is a flaming leftist. Not right wing and no matter how much of a snow job you engage in the facts will not change.
You'll see that in these matters that to the left is more inclusive, less condemning and less concerned with some of the hard facts and details of the Bible.
Bull. The left is far more exclusionary, less tolerant then the right. They are also experts at TWISTING what the Bible says just like Phred.
Moving to the right is becoming less inclusive, more exclusive, and as a result also more condemning
Once again. Bull.
Words mean what they mean Humpty Dumpty. You are not allowed to apply your own meaning which is what you are trying to do.
Their world view is hard left, not hard right.
The fact that the two of you are not able to use words correctly changes nothing.
I am paying attention. You are just wrong.
I have some extended family (i.e., relatives) in that Christian Identity movement, and believe me, they are not leftists or liberals, at all. And neither are the Neo-Nazis. So, I don't know where you're getting your information that these Neo-Nazis in the U.S. are liberals, but you better chuck that information source out the window, because it's not valid.
Actually they are. It is you who needs to chuck your assumptions. Nazi's are leftist.
It is a simple fact. National Socialist German Workers' Party. Learn it.
The ACLU will defend anyone.
Let me provide the quote as it was, so we can see how it was really stated... The ACLU will defend anyone. They don't care, as long as it fits into those particular parameters that they're looking for. They'll defend someone whose politics are on the far right, if it fits into their parameters. And if you're a leftist, the same thing. For the ACLU they're looking for certain parameters for their cases, that's all. They're not looking for a political affiliation for that person. Of course, most of the parameters that they're looking for are going to be find on the left, but that doesn't preclude them from finding some of them on the right, either, and they have in the past.
And we can see that this is a typical "leftist" technique of only picking just the part that they want and not the entire thing. Once the entire thing is included, you see the opposite of what you're trying to say.
Your answer to that paragraph was --
Incorrect again.
There are a number of people the ACLU will not defend. But they will always defend the left.
And so, we see that you're either not reading, not able to read it, or intentionally misreading it for purposes of commenting on it. I have no idea what your problem is, in the matter. All I can do is correct your mistakes here.
As we can see, from what I said, it was clear that the ACLU will defend on the basis of "anyone" fitting their parameters. And you (out of either intentional misreading or out of some inability to comprehend it), can't grasp the idea. The ACLU will defend, even if it goes against the left's own sensibilities. It doesn't have to be only for the leftists positions.
So, this means for anyone that falls within their parameters that they have set up for purposes of their organization. And note, that I also said that you will find most of the parameters that they are looking for on the left, but they will find a few people from the right, who will serve the purpose of some principle that they want to defend. And that would be entirely natural, since they do, definitely have a leftist mindset, that they will find most of them on the left.
If it's a "free speech" issue that they want to defend, and they see it will impinge on what they want to have continue in this country (according to their own leftist worldview), they will defend an issue, even if it comes from the "right side" of the spectrum, as long as it meets their parameters, which would also include it being a good and winnable case, too (but not always).
For example, there was a case that caused an uproar at the ACLU for whom they wanted to defend as it was against the views of many of their members. In fact, many members left the ACLU because of it. This was in defense of a "Neo-Nazi" parade in Skokie, Illinois. It was against the sensibilities and the desires of many of the very membership (the leftists) of the ACLU, itself.
From http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html In the Chicago suburb of Skokie, one out of every six Jewish citizens in the late 1970s was a survivor--or was directly related to a survivor--of the Holocaust. These victims of terror had resettled in America expecting to lead peaceful lives free from persecution. But their safe haven was shattered when a neo-Nazi group announced its intention to parade there in 1977. Skokie had all the elements of a difficult case: a clash of absolutes, prior restraint of speech, and heated public sentiment. In recreating it, Strum presents a detailed account and analysis of the legal proceedings as well as finely delineated portraits of the protagonists: Frank Collin, National Socialist Party of America leader and the son of a Jewish Holocaust survivor; Skokie community leader Sol Goldstein, a Holocaust survivor who planned a counterdemonstration against the Nazis; Skokie mayor Albert Smith, who wanted only to protect his townspeople; and ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews. While the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory--30,000 of its members left the organization.
The ACLU basically went against the Jewish community (basically pretty much leftists) and 30,000 of the ACLU's membership (pretty much leftists) left the organization because of the ACLU going "against" them and offending their sensibilities, and defending a group -- just on the basis of "free speech".
So, thus, the ACLU will go against the leftists, their positions and their sensibilities, even if it causes many of their own leftist members to leave, on the basis of the parameters that they have set up to work on and defend (as part of their core principles).
You try to use many words to win a debate. The problem is that your words are full of false assumptions like the one above.
I've included references to other sources, which takes up room. In addition they provide the evidence of no "assumptions" as you seem to like to "cast out". They show that the matter is as I say. I have provided those other references. On your behalf, however, you merely make a statement and hope that no one bothers checking it to see that it's false -- and false specifically as it's related to what has been said -- right here -- on this particular topic and these particular statements that have been made. Phred is a flaming leftist. Not right wing and no matter how much of a snow job you engage in the facts will not change.
Well, I've provided some other sources, outside of my own explanations. Just the mere "statement" from you that it's a "snow job" is simply you trying to mislead people on the true nature of the matter. You provide nothing other than your statement of "snow job". At least I've referenced other material that show it to be the case. I've even referenced Phelps' own words in which he says that this is exactly as I'm relating it to you.
First, as I said up above, another poster shows how they have seen it, too from what they've read.
Note that in Post #66, the poster says... And their world-view really is hard-right, and fundamentalist. Its just also completely twisted and abhorent. Also: Phelps has stated that he supported Al Gore in these elections because Gore was at the time anti-gay and pro-life. From http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200010\POL20001016c.html
You see from the above, that the poster mentions a world-view that is "hard-right" and "fundamentalist". That's been a description of the Christian right for a long time -- fundamentalist. Fundamentalist is not a "leftist description".
In addition, the poster mentions two positions, to illustrate this. One is "anti-gay". Well, pretty much everyone knows that anti-gay is a "rightist position." It's not a leftist position.
The next issue mentioned is "pro-life". Once again, we have an issue which describes a "rightist" position (predominantly) and not a "leftist position". If anyone can't see that, then they've got more problems that we can deal with here.
So, we see from this poster that we're dealing with three things that have always been described in terms of "rightist positions" -- fundamentalist, anti-gay, pro-life.
Now, I'll add a few more to that, again to illustrate the "far-rightest" position of the Phelps group. Another term you won't find in the leftist camp is "sin". Phelps uses that all the time. That, however, is terminology you will find on the Christian right.
Another one is "judgement". That's one that the leftists stay far away from. They want nothing to do with the judgement of God, much less God, Himself. For the leftist, to put God and judgement in the same sentence would be to dispense with liberalism. The concept of judgement and it coming from God is, once again, a rightist worldview. That's attributed to the Christian right.
Another one is closely related, but instead of to individuals, it's related to the country as a whole. It's not as common but it is still there on the Christian right. It's "judgement from God upon the United States." There is a quote from one of the Graham family (which has been repeated extensively by the Christian right) -- which says, "If God doesn't judge the United States for its sins, then God will owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology." Again, this is a Christian rightist worldview. And, mind you, it's never taken to the extent that Phelps has taken it, so it's not used in that same manner, as Phelps extends it to an extreme religious position which twists it far beyond what most people would ever take it. However, having said that, this is a position of the Christian right, at least a significant part of it.
So, just there, I've identified six parameters related to the far right, as opposed to none for the left or far left.
But, if we take Phelps' own words, we can get even more clarification. The question that is answered here, is what was the "rationale" for going with a candidate like Gore? Listen to what Phelps has to say and you'll find out the rationale was a "far right" rationale and not a "leftist" rationale. Talking about Gore, Phelps says... "The people of this church were powerfully persuaded that, because of him talking to us - I'm talking about eyeball to eyeball - that he was opposed to the homosexual, so-called gay rights agenda," said Fred W. Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, where he runs the anti-homosexuality web site as part of the church’s ministry.
Bingo -- a candidate who is supported because of an issue that they have, of being "anti-gay", which is a far right position, and they find the candidate supports that very same "far right" position that they have "keyed in on".
Note further, another issue emerges from the "far right position" --
"He looked us in the eye and gave us assurance, that, based on his Bible beliefs, he was against the homosexual agenda and the killing of babies," Phelps said in a telephone interview.
The other issue is abortion, or rather, "pro-life". And furthermore, it's "based on his Bible beliefs". Guess what, basing those things on Bible beliefs, is -- once again -- one additional Christian right position.
Look at this from Phelps...
Phelps could not precisely recall Gore’s remarks on homosexuality during the 1988 presidential campaign, but was able to characterize the candidate’s rhetoric from that time, saying it matched his own feelings on homosexuality and abortion, as well as those of his parishioners. "I mean, he sounded like an old Southern Baptist preacher when he talked about those subjects," said Phelps.
It was because of Gore’s position on homosexuality and abortion that Phelps said he and his congregation backed the senator’s candidacy in the Democratic presidential primary 12 years ago.
Did you get that? "I mean, he sounded like an old Southern Baptist preacher when he talked about those subjects..."
Well, let me tell you, "sounding like an old Souther Baptist preacher" is exactly what the left would stay as far away from as they could. Have you seen the old Southern Baptist statement of faith, much less just the position of being anti-gay and pro-life? That's without a doubt, a far right, or Christian right position.
But, here's the telling thing -- that shows exactly that it was the position of the candidate on the "far right positions" that cause the support of Gore and not being a liberal. What's that proof? Well, the proof is that once Gore abandoned those "Christian right positions", Phelps immediately protested against Gore. Thus, it had nothing to do with liberalism or being a leftist (as far as Phelps was concerned) -- but only had to do with the Christian right positions that Gore said he was behind. So, when Gore abandoned those positions, Phelps went immediately on the offensive against Gore.
But Gore’s political largess apparently ended when Phelps and his supporters began actively demonstrating against the vice president and his position on homosexuality. "He started seeing our (anti-homosexuality) signs," said Phelps, who took advantage of Gore appearances to protest his policies on those issues. "And then he quit inviting us to stuff because we’d go to those things and picket him."
Thus, we see from Phelps' own words, that they were assured -- eyeball-to-eyeball -- by the Senator that he was pro-life, anti-gay, and on the basis of the Bible. Those are Christian right positions. When Gore abandoned those positions, Phelps immediately protested every chance he got -- against Gore, on the basis of him not being pro-life and anti-gay and not taking these positions (as he should have) on the basis of the Bible. Thus, he was immediately against Gore.
This shows, beyond any doubt that these were the reasons for and against Gore, and nothing based upon a liberal position regarding Gore. There you have ample evidence of it, versus mere proclamations from you. You'll see that in these matters that to the left is more inclusive, less condemning and less concerned with some of the hard facts and details of the Bible.
Star Traveler said, in the previous post --
Moving to the right is becoming less inclusive, more exclusive, and as a result also more condemning
Then your replied --
Once again. Bull. Bull. The left is far more exclusionary, less tolerant then the right. They are also experts at TWISTING what the Bible says just like Phred.
Well, either you're not very educated on the matter or you're intentionally being obtuse, disingenuous and/or stubborn about it. Let's examine the matter of being exclusionary or inclusionary and see which one is what. We can look at the liberal left and the far right, the Christian right, as it pertains to these issues we've been discussing in this thread (Phelps et al).
On the matter of pro-life (anti-abortion)
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (all the abortion you want; any time and any place)
Christian right -- exclusionary (no abortion, sanctity of life; not at all; maybe life-of-mother exceptions)
On the matter of homosexuality
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (any lifestyle you want to choose; it's all okay)
Christian right -- exclusionary (only lifestyle as prescribed by God; others are sinful)
On the matter of religions
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (take your pick, any will do; all are valid and equal)
Christian right -- exclusionary (only Christianity is the real way and only it offers Salvation, none other is valid)
On the matter of family values, in terms of marriage
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (family is whatever you want it to be; homosexual, live-in, whatever...)
Christian right -- exclusionary (family is prescribed by God, marriage only for man and woman and none other)
On the matter of sexual relations
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (whatever values you want, sex outside of marriage is fine; adultery, swapping, all fine)
Christian right -- exclusioinary (only sex within marriage is valid and sanctioned by God)
On the matter of NOW and ERA (it is introduced in Congress every year...)
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (passage of Constituional Amendment favored, considered very important)
Christian right -- exclusionary(against passage, perceived as detrimental to home and family and marriage)
Those are a few of the main points that I can think of now, that are at the very top of the list for the Christian right, and that's what pertains to this discussion of Phelps and his positions on things, and as it pertains to the left and whether they are "inclusionary" or "exclusionary". On those issues, we can see that the left is very "inclusionary". And we also see that the Christian right is very "exclusionary".
But, that should come as no surprise at all, because Jesus said that the way to Heaven was the "narrow way" (you can see that as "exclusionary" -- nothing else but Him and Him alone, and God and the Bible alone). While He says that the "way of the world" is "very broad" -- which we see that as "inclusionary" (basically, "anything goes" -- whatever you want).
And thus, the liberal left is very inclusionary, while the Christian right is very exclusionary. It's all there for anyone who can read and examine and analyze things in a rational fashion...
Words mean what they mean Humpty Dumpty. You are not allowed to apply your own meaning which is what you are trying to do.
Well..., all I can say to that is that you must be using some "alien dictionary" and not the one we use in this country to see what things mean...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Post #89 answers this one...
Post #89 explains it more thoroughly in his own words and gives his rationale (see the article). Phelps’ (and his group’s) positions are all far right positions; his support of Gore was only because of Gore’s far right position at that particular time (Gores has shifted now). When Gore shifted, Phelps and the group went against him, showing that it was based upon those particular far right issues.
Also, in Post #84, Phelps himself clarifies his position — as to whether it’s a position based on “politics” or based upon those “issues” that he and his church have identified. Those particular positions, he says, are on the basis of their view of the Bible and being “prophets of God” and that he doesn’t care one bit for the politics part. And also, those positions are the ones which are always identified with the Christian right (not Phelps’ methods, but the positions and issues themselves).
Thus, by his own words, he clarifies where he’s coming from.
So (cough cough) why is he still a Democrat?
There are certain traits of the left that seem to hold true in all circumstances:
America is bad (Phelps agrees)
The American military is bad (Phelps agrees)
Jerry Falwell is bad (Philps agrees)
So when Fred says he's a true blue Dem there is no reason to doubt him.
Anyway, your forgetting one of the most important principles of the left:
Anything can be rationalized.
Segretation is good: (William Fulbright, Al Gore Sr., Woodrow Wilson)
Iraq has WMDs and regieme change is necessary (Bill and Hillary Clinton, New York Times)
Abortion is bad (Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson)
Abortion is good (Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson)
And of course the prime motivator of the left is control of others. Fred certainly fits that. It's why the left hates true Christianity. It's an impediment to this.
As far as I know these dumb bastards knew better than to mess with Pres Ronald Reagan’s funeral.
Guess those bastards aren’t so dumb!
These people are insane. Yes, God hates sin. Yes, God hates it so much that he sent his Son to shed his blood. They say ‘it’s too late’ but my Bible says “NOW is the day of salvation” and there is mercy for all who believe.
I guess it's because the protesters are the hateful ones, not the ones who are being protested.
It's like he's right and he's wrong, both at the same time. That's not to be taken as any support for what he's doing. To explain it any more than that, would take a lot more theological verbage here, and I'm not wanting to go into that. If you listen to a bit of what Non-Sequitur said, that is going on the right track.
It's at Post #79...
Unam Sanctam said --
These lunatic idiots have got to be Christian-hating Democratic plants designed to give Christians a bad name.
Non-Sequitur said --
Nope, Phelps is a Baptist. Specifically a primitive or 'old school' Baptist and is strong believer of John Calvin's theory of unconditional election. If anything he's convinced that it's the rest of us who aren't Christian.
The basic idea is to get an accurate understanding of Phelps' position. And contrary to what some are saying here (and, of course, that's you, too...), Phelps' is not coming at all this stuff from a leftist viewpoint or worldview, regardless of his voter registration. That much seem really, really obvious to me from all that I have read and seen about him and understanding these kinds of theological positions. This is an extreme and hard and far right position. You'll hardly ever see it to this extent, but that's exactly what it is.
And to categorize him into a leftist camp is just to miss out on where he's really coming from and is to simply miscategorize him. Now, I only say that because I figure that it's important to really understand a person's own position, regardless of how wrong it may be. To understand it better is to be able to combat it better and also in the terms that that person really knows and understands.
That's the general idea behind this (of what I'm saying). Phelps is a very, very interesting case, from a theological standpoint, I think. And so, I'm interested in it from that standpoint.
I think some people would like to "push him into the leftist position" and make that "stick" -- so they can blame "leftist and liberal idealogy" for what he's doing. But, he's not doing it out of that idealogy. And these same people may not like the idea of having Phelps to the "right" of them (at least theologically speaking) -- even if that position to the "right" is not valid (because basically, you could say it's actually to the "right" of God, Himself, in other words, something that God is not...). So, being that some would not like to see Phelps in the same camp (in theological terms) as them, it's better to push him over to the "leftist camp" -- then he can be dismissed a lot easier. I think that's the motivation for doing that -- but it's simply a wrong analysis of Phelps, that's all. Okay, on with your statements...
Tribune7 said -- So (cough cough) why is he still a Democrat?
Well, it would take him to comment on that, however I can give you a reasonable guess, based upon my past experience. That should show that it's possible to be so in this case without any big significance -- but the real answer would have to come from Phelps, specifically. So, here what I can give as a scenario.
Now, when I first voted, I registered as a Democrat, but voted Republican. Then I changed to Republican and voted Democrat... LOL... (but I've been better since... :-) ... ). Thus for me, it turned out that the party registration didn't really make any difference. And it still doesn't make any difference, because it's based upon the candidate anyway. I suppose in certain places it makes a difference for the primaries, depending on what you want to do there. I know of people who are registered Democrat, simply have never changed, but consistently vote Republican. So, that's not unusual.
Now, when it comes to Phelps, we've got another clue here. First of all, however he got started as a registered Democrat, I don't know. But, I got started that way, too. And I suspect more than 50% of the public, does, too -- when they first start out. That seems to be the norm in the very young. I think people know this, anyway.
So, somehow he gets started as a Democrat and he actually ends up supporting a candidate on the basis of these particular issues and values that he considers paramount (obviously he does...). And he sees that he's been betrayed by that candidate (i.e., Gore flip-flopped) and he protests Gore now. But, also, Phelps is so radical that he's opposed to Republican candidates -- since Phelps is to the right of God, Himself (LOL...).
At that point, he doesn't care about Democrats or Republicans, and he thinks they're all a bunch of crooks (hmmm..., I know some on Free Republic who think that...). And as a result, he doesn't care what he's registered as, and he protests everybody and the government, too -- as all being in cahoots with the Devil and all deserving of the judgement of God, Democrats, Republicans and the U.S. Government and all the people in it. In other words, he's just against everyone! So, that's my take on how come... There are certain traits of the left that seem to hold true in all circumstances: America is bad (Phelps agrees)
The American military is bad (Phelps agrees)
Jerry Falwell is bad (Philps agrees)
All right, with these, the first thing to understand, might be better illustrated with a little word picture. If you have a line with the spectrum of views from left to right, let's say that we all fit on there somewhere -- further right, further left or wherever. So, if we place some of these characters on this line -- let's see where they fit and if we can construct the above "points" that you've made, with this "line" that these characters fit on.
Let's put "America" in the middle of the line (I think that's an easy starting position). And lets' put the Military a bit to the right of America. And let's put Falwell to the right of the military. And lets put the Democrats to the left of everything mentioned so far. Now, the question is where to put Phelps.
Well, I'm saying put Phelps to the right of everything you can think of, out on the extreme right. Now, when Phelps "goes shooting" at ideas, people, issues and so on, everything he shoots at is to the left of him. That means he hits Falwell, and he hits the military and he hits America and he even hits the left, way over there.
But, the left is shooting the other way, back towards America. So, yes, the left is shooting at "America" in the middle (from the left) while Phelps is shooting at the same target (of America) but from his far right position. Phelps is also shooting at the military, but from his far right position. The left is shooting at the military, but from their far left position. So, both America, the military, and Falwell, all get caught in the "crossfire" -- from the left and from the far right position of Phelps. So, yes, they are all the same targets, but they're all being shot at from different sides and different positions.
So, running down the list -- America is bad. Yes, the left says that we're not "inclusive enough" (i.e., not accepting of everybody and everything -- except for just "one thing" and that's the Christian position, all other positions and ideas in the world and all other religions are fine -- just not the Christian one). Thus from the left, America is bad, not being inclusive enough and not allowing all things regardless of how bad or how convoluted it is.
From the Christian right, there is really only one kind of "truth" and one proper way, which we evidence from our positions on pro-life, marriage, no homosexuality, and our belief that only Christianity is the way to salvation and that no other religion is valid (although that's not a political issue).
Phelps goes to the "absolute right" of that position and gets more hardline and even calls a lot of Christians, "leftists" because they are not hateful enough towards what he sees as the sins of the people and the nation. He condemns virtually everyone. And without going into the theological position of this -- God actually -- also -- condemns everyone, too (but God has a different methodology than Phelps does).
Next it's the American military. Phelps sees the military as corrupt, basically because of condoning homosexuality. If it weren't for that one issue, Phelps might not even be singling out the military any more than the "nation" in general (for its sins). But, since the military has basically allowed and virtually condoned homosexuality in its ranks, it deserves the ultimate condemnation. And that's what Phelps does.
The left, however, isn't condemning the mliltary on the basis of homosexuality. For them, they would like to promote it more openly in the military and in society. No, for the left, the military is something to degrade and make weaker, so that the U.S. won't be able to assert itself and defend itself and will be forced to cooperate in the "multiculturalism" of the world. In other words, the military is a tool of the U.S. foreign policy that is too strong and represents the U.S.'s sovereignty and works against "globalism" and the "one-world-order" that is coming about (under the United Nations). Their idea is to make it so that the U.S. must cooperate and compromise on its sovereignty and its Constitution, in place of an outside authority (of the "world") in order to bring about a more peaceful and cooperative world. That means that the military must be degraded in order to accomplish that That's basically their philosophical hate for the military.
For Jerry Falwell. Well... as far as Phelps is concerned, Falwell wasn't enough like Phelps, that is, far enough right, although Phelps says Falwell started out better, Falwell then became corrupted later on. He accepted all sorts of "corruption" for "money" (i.e., their phrasing is "filthy lucre"). He accomodated to Catholics, to Billy Graham, to politics and money, and also -- to calling Phelps bad names (that probably got to him...).
For the far left, Falwell was condemning (to the left), but Falwell wasn't easily dismissed, because of his powerful following among the people (i.e., organizing significant voter blocks, i.e., the Moral Majority, which kick-started the Christian right into politics). That, for the left, was Jerry Falwell's greatest sin, in that he mobilized so many millions of Christians, politically, and put a stop to many of the far left's goals and programs for legislation.
That was absolutely unforgiveable to the left, as they saw Falwell as the one most significant person, politically speaking, that put the Christian Right into the political game. That stopped a lot of their stuff "dead in its tracks."
They could probably tolerate his preaching and morals, as long as he stayed inside of his church. But, coming out of the church doors and moving into politics was absolutely unforgivable to the Left. And that's why he's so villified, even after death.
So, once again, both sides (Phelps and the far left) shooting at someone (or something) in the crossfire -- from each side -- Phelps on the far right, with the liberals on the far left. They each come at it for a different reason and from a different position on that imaginary line (that I mentioned up above).
So when Fred says he's a true blue Dem there is no reason to doubt him.
Well, I don't know if Phelps is saying that he's a "true blue Dem". I doubt that. In fact, I see a quote from him in which he goes out of his way to say, very specifically, that this is not for politics, that he doesn't care about politics. What he says he does care about, are those particular issues that any politician may support, no matter where they are (politically speaking). He says that very specifically. So, if you're listening to Phelps talk about "Phelps" -- that's what he says. So, he does not say he's a "true blue Dem". The way I hear it, he's denying that.
Anyway, your forgetting one of the most important principles of the left:
Anything can be rationalized.
Okay, if I were to add that to the list that I constructed, it would be like this --
On the matter of rationalizing anything
Liberal leftists -- inclusionary (all things can be rationalized for political expediency)
Christian right -- exclusionary (truth cannot be rationalized, only one truth exists, values are permanent; no political expediency)
So, once again, in that example I gave before (in the last post) the far left is totally "inclusionary" while the Christian right is "exclusionary".
And Phelps fits the "exclusionary" category, and definitely not the "inclusionary" category of the far left. Segretation is good: (William Fulbright, Al Gore Sr., Woodrow Wilson) Iraq has WMDs and regieme change is necessary (Bill and Hillary Clinton, New York Times) Abortion is bad (Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson) Abortion is good (Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson)
Of course, here you're talking about that "political expediency" where the values are flexible and whatever works for political reasons is good for today, but may change tomorrow. And this is "inclusionary" in that it can include anything at any time at any election -- if need be.
The opposite of that, is the Christian right, in which truth stands on its own, does not change from election to election, and is "exclusionary" in that all other ways and philosophies and values are just as excluded today as they were yesterday and will remain so tomorrow -- regardless of politics.
And once again, we can see that Phelps is in the "exclusionary" category.
And of course the prime motivator of the left is control of others. Fred certainly fits that. It's why the left hates true Christianity. It's an impediment to this.
Now, here's where an understanding of the far right (and I mean really hard and far right) is important. First, let me say that yes, the far left is much more controlling than the middle or the less-government-interference right would be. But, when you start sliding over more and more right, you'll start seeing an extreme aberration of "control" once again (and I'm talking about the Christian hard right, a sort of a misnomer, actually), and that comes in the form of what you see with Phelps. This is where it pays to understand his Calvinist leanings. Calvin was very, very controlling, in his day. People today would not put up with it. However, Phelps appears to be comfortable with that. That's not what Christians have in mind today, nor what they think that the Bible teaches.
But, it is there, as a religious position and idealogy, and was acted upon by Calvin in his day. So, it does remain an example and I'm sure it's an example for Phelps.
So, once again, it's Phelps coming at this from the far, far right, while the liberals are coming at this control angle from the far left. Both are talking about control, but not on the same order. Phelps is control from the standpoint of the Bible and of what he perceives as "righteousness" -- while the far left is more control in the form of government regulations and forcing Christians (in the leftists' control) out of the public marketplace and out of government, and letting the poplulaton and the nation degrade morally into obscurity.
We definitely do not have a leftist in Phelps. This guy is so "hard right" that he's to the "right of God" (which is not really a viable position, as it cannot exist).
I sure hope this explains Phelps, as I'm 100% sure this is where he's coming from. It's not the left, it's the far and hard right, to the right of God (if there could be such a position). I think it's important to understand his true position in the matter. It's not that I'm saying that a Christian position is wrong or that Phelps is right, it's just that he's perverted what Christians know and teach from the Bible. But, he's definitely hard right.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Star Traveler
It’s simple.
Jerry Falwell = Conservative
Fred Phelps = leftist Dem
LOL!!.........you think maye it’s genetic?.........
“I guess it’s because the protesters are the hateful ones, not the ones who are being protested.”
No doubt, but given the extreme mood swings at funerals, I still wonder about it.
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.