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]
Christopher Hitchens and the Phelps family should get along very well together.
“God hates the world and all her people, you,
Is Hitchens happy is on the same page as the Rev Phelps?
Timing is everything.
Does any of this sound "right wing"? Oh yeah, Phreeky Phred is a leftist.
He has connections on all sides, which makes him of no side. That's what I was talking about in my prior post about "Cho". It was the same thing there. To be of one side or the other, you have to have a coherent idealogy and philosophy. He doesn't have it and he's of no use and of no consequence to either side.
Right wing is definitely there, in terms of a church and the congregation itself preaching a "hard right" message (not a "leftist" message of the Bible, but hard right, to the point where it becomes unrecognizable), against fags, marching in homosexual parades to protest the same, preaching "judgement of God" against sin, also judgement against the U.S. for its sins and against the nation as a whole. Those are things that hard right people would do, in terms of those particular things (but they wouldn't do it in the same manner and form that Phelps does it).
And, by the way, you might not recognize that thing with the Vatican as being a "hard right" issue (on Biblical matters) but it certainly would be. So that fits, exactly the "modus operandi" of a hard-rightist in these matters.
And by the way, I can go into that message that he does preach on that and do some comparisons to the "hard right" on those things, which he does get into, for sure (I'll do that a bit later, then...).
So, while there are leftist things, there are also rightist things, too. It's a mixed bag and neither side will have anything to do with him.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Well, it’s an issue (an instance) in my extended family where some (in the family) protest it, and I stick up for it, primarily from a Biblical viewpoint and tell the rest of the family (that’s against it) that they’re crazy.... LOL
If you’ve ever heard any of these people actually speak, it really destroys the idea that they’re covert anything. Their insanity and sincerity shine through equally. They really do believe what they say.
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?
If God doesn’t have a problem with it, and apparently He doesn’t, then I sure as heck don’t, either.......
In the meantime I did a little search too, and it turns out Phelps picketed Gore’s father’s funeral, and even went to Baghdad to protest anal sex and the Clintons (I know, so easy to lump together I guess!), so I guess the liberal love affair for Phelps was over in the 90s.
The ACLU still defends this scum, however. So I think we can still claim them libs.
You see..., that's the thing, he's all over the place, so the terminology of "left" versus "right" doesn't fit his particular worldview. You'll find elements of both. The reason why is that he's not pursuing "left vs. right" -- while people here want to pigeon-hole everything precisely in those terms. Everything is not just in those terms and Phelps is one of those that shows this.
And for the ACLU to defend something doesn't necessarily mean that whom they are defending is in line with a liberal viewpoint. To defend the Nazi groups parading around isn't necesarily a "leftist" viewpoint, but the ACLU will defend that. Those Neo-Nazis would be against much of the liberal and leftist viewpoints. So, once again, you can't always tell, either, by who is defending you. A group (such as the ACLU) does have an agenda, but they can step away from that agenda in terms of a "group" (who would be opposed to liberals) while still defending a principle (as the ACLU did in the case of the Neo-Nazis).
I see Phelps as more hard-right in terms of Biblical matters, so far hard right that he becomes unrecognizable to all groups.
Regards,
Star Traveler
They want you to take a “sucker punch” at them so they can sue for denial of 1st Amendment Rights...
They suck period but you’re playing their game when you let them get to you....
I do wish the MSM would quit covering them - it might cut down on the people they make miserable.
Nope.
You have no understanding of what "hard right" is. Hard right is a Anarchist.
Phred is not a Anarchist.
Sorry but his entire set up is a leftist one.
It's a mixed bag and neither side will have anything to do with him.
Incorrect again. Gore staffers stayed with him in 1988. The ACLU jumps through hoops to defend him. The right has nothing to do with Phred.
Nazi's are Leftists.
National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Thank you for posting that - I was getting ready to try to search out that information.
This is a family of ambulance chasers. I just so happens that
Al Gore courted them and Billy Clinton invited them to both inauguration’s. How long would it take the MSM to have outed this fact if it were Ronald Reagan or GW?
Those are things that hard right people would do, in terms of those particular things
Then Harmless Teddy Bear replied -- Nope. You have no understanding of what "hard right" is. Hard right is a Anarchist.
You'll notice that I defined what I was talking about in terms of hard right. Take a look again. It's in terms of "movement" leftward versus rightward -- and in terms of these subjects. That's how I defined what I was talking about in the previous post.
Previous post --
Right wing is definitely there (those are the elements or right wing), in terms of a church and the congregation itself preaching a "hard right" message (not a "leftist" message of the Bible, but hard right, to the point where it becomes unrecognizable), against fags, marching in homosexual parades to protest the same, preaching "judgement of God" against sin, also judgement against the U.S. for its sins and against the nation as a whole. Those are things that hard right people would do, in terms of those particular things (but they wouldn't do it in the same manner and form that Phelps does it).
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. Moving to the right is becoming less inclusive, more exclusive, and as a result also more condemning (which a lot of people take the "Gospel" to be, athough it isn't). And Phelps, in terms of this "movement" (of "leftward/rightward") -- takes it to the "hard right" -- far over and accentuates these attributes to the max on the "rightward" side of the matter. So, he's definitely hard right on these things that I mentioned and defined in the last post.
You then said --
Phred is not a Anarchist.
Well, you won't find a word mentioned from me on Anarchist. You're the one who brought this one up, not me.
Continuing --
Sorry but his entire set up is a leftist one.
Well, once again, when it's examined in terms of what he's doing (those items that he's doing are those that I've mentioned above), those are "hard right" items and not left items. You can't get "leftist" out of those particular items.
And then I said in the last post --
It's a mixed bag and neither side will have anything to do with him.
To which you responded --
Incorrect again. Gore staffers stayed with him in 1988. The ACLU jumps through hoops to defend him. The right has nothing to do with Phred.
As I said, he has elements of both sides and neither side will claim him. I'd like to see who on the left is going to feature him anywhere. I'd like to see the homosexual groups stand up along side of him.
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.
So, let me know who has featured Phelps, from the left, in promoting their leftist political organization -- and shown Phelp's church, Westboro Baptist Church, too -- in doing that. I'd like to see that kind of leftist organization. I haven't seen a single one do that.
And neither will the right do so.
Regards,
Star Traveler
This is a family of ambulance chasers. I just so happens that
Al Gore courted them and Billy Clinton invited them to both inauguration’s. How long would it take the MSM to have outed this fact if it were Ronald Reagan or GW?
Oh, I’m sure Chris Matthews will cover this tonight!
Seriously, I had no idea about this. What a disgrace.
And for the ACLU to defend something doesn't necessarily mean that whom they are defending is in line with a liberal viewpoint. To defend the Nazi groups parading around isn't necesarily a "leftist" viewpoint, but the ACLU will defend that. Those Neo-Nazis would be against much of the liberal and leftist viewpoints. So, once again, you can't always tell, either, by who is defending you. A group (such as the ACLU) does have an agenda, but they can step away from that agenda in terms of a "group" (who would be opposed to liberals) while still defending a principle (as the ACLU did in the case of the Neo-Nazis).
Harmless Teddy Bear replied -- Nazi's are Leftists. National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Well, once again, you just don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm saying.
Let's look at what this says about the Neo-Nazis here in the U.S. --
In a nation of nearly 300 million, the number of neo-Nazis or right wing extremists can be placed as low as 20,000 or as high as a hundred thousand.[citation needed] Due to the U.S. constitution's quite lenient freedom of speech and expression, it is difficult under the law to distinguish neo-Nazis and extremists from the general public.
It is important to distinguish between genuine neo-Nazis and the less extreme white nationalists. Groups affiliated with Christian Identity and the Creativity Movement are more extreme than groups such as the KKK or American Renaissance.
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.
I'm not sure, but I think these relatives might also be associated with Elohim City, too, since they're Christian Identity and really hard-core (if you remember Timothy McVeigh has something to do with Elohim City, before the Oklahoma City bombing). And the leader of Elohim City (or associated with it), Richard Snell predicted, on the day of his execution, that something big was going to happen that day (by taunting his jailers), and then Oklahoma City happened. Richard Snell is Christian Identity.
These are not leftists, by any means. Like I said, you need to get a new source for your information.
Regards,
Star Traveler
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.
He hasn't gone in years. Supposedly he's senile and pretty far gone. But his kids have taken up his cause and are, if anything, worse than he is.
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.