Image Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134194491/high-court-rules-for-military-funeral-protesters
The three topics I'll touch on over my next two blog postings were chosen by me as a person who has always had trouble feeling connected to dogmatic religions or even to really commit to any particular spiritual beliefs. Most days I am somewhere around +1 to -57 on a Pure atheism / Pure theism continuum (although I don't really feel comfortable with such labels).
I think about my mortality (and that of my loved ones) every single day, and I understand how some people have a sincere need to feel confident about their post-earth destinies, while I don't share this compulsion. I don't necessarily think that "believers" are wrong, I just know that this lifestyle choice is not right for me. If I'm wrong, I don't think fear of an eternity in hell is a good enough reason for me to "fake it" since that is what I'd have do.
My point is that I'm pessimistic when it comes to things that people do and say in the name of religion.
An Observation
Something I've found particularly interesting when comparing my undergrad years at a Lutheran private university (Valparaiso University), which I attended from 1994-1997 compared to attending classes though a state institution (IU SLIS program) from 2006 to the present is that VU, I don't recall my fellow students volunteering their religious views during routine class introductions and discussions. During my online classes with IU SLIS, I don't recall a single class that did not have at least a couple fellow students include their religious views in their introductions. I don't know if this has more to do with the times we live in now versus a decade ago, or if it has to do with classes being presented in person versus in writing via forums where you have more time to consider what you'd like to convey about yourself.
Anyhow... in choosing the topic below (and my next two topics that I'll flesh out in my next blog posting), I thought I'd take a moment and declare my own personal non-relationship with formal religion.
#1
Religious radicals have the right to speech speech that causes emotional distress to families burying dead soldiers when it constitutes matters of public concern
(AKA States' potentially unconstitutional buffer zone laws taking the edge off of Westboro Baptist Church's First Amendment rights that were affirmed in Supreme Court's recent decision of Snyder v. Phelps)
I remember hearing about Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church's common practice of traveling around the country and protesting at military funerals with the message that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality--in particular within the military. Phelps and WBC have been doing this for years, displaying signs with messages like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fags Doom Nations," "God Hates Fags," and "America Is Doomed." These military protests, as well as numerous other dubious activities Phelps and the WBC have undertaken over the years, have less to do with the person being buried's sexuality, but more to do with the group's wanting to gain exposure and attention for their extremist beliefs. One of the more telling quotes I found about their motivations comes from Barbara Bradley Hagerty's NPR piece noted above:
...members have protested at the funerals of public figures such as Elizabeth Edwards, children killed in bus accidents and soldiers killed in war. Shirley Phelps-Roper, the church spokeswoman, says the members want God to punish Americans for tolerating homosexuality. They picket funerals to make people angry, she says: They want people to reject God and be condemned to hell.
In the March 2011 Supreme Court decision related to one family (the Snyder's) who sued for emotional distress over the WBC's protest at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in Westminster, MD (Snyder was killed while serving in Iraq), the Court affirmed the First Amendment rights of WBC to speak out about matters of pubic concern (even when done in an "inarticulate, offensive, and hateful" manner). Naturally, this decision has outraged a good majority of people who are aware of this case, which has prompted at least 26 states to "consider ways to shield military funerals from outside groups by creating or expanding buffer zones around military funerals."
While the Snyder v. Phelps decision did apparently hint that such buffer zones would be constitutional, I find it interesting that Steven Shiffrin (First Amendment expert and law professor at Cornell University) raises two points that might indicate that buffer zones would not hold up to constitutional scrutiny; that is, such laws would also prohibit speech/signs praising and supporting the deceased or the family's courage and, in general, the laws are directed only at military funerals rather than all funerals.
When you draft legislation targeting the particular speech of a particular party because you find that speech abhorrent, you run into real risks under the federal and state constitutions...
Dangerous Questions?
As a future library/information professional, where do you find yourself drawn to?
Do you feel more sympathetic to those who are attending a funeral for a loved one, who are already emotionally beaten down by dealing with the death of their loved one, and who then have to deal with a circus of protesters with hurtful, hateful things to say? What if your child was the one being buried?
Do you feel better about living in a country where your own First Amendment rights are re-affirmed by the Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps?
Do you find it as hard as I do to really commit to one side or the other?
6 comments:
What I am sad about is that people are hurt everyday by a few who take things to the extreme. I feel so badly for these families. The God of the Bible repeatedly stated that He was a God of love; that He wanted for all to be saved. I don’t pretend to know the mind of God so I don’t know what that will look like someday. I know He loves me though as much of a sinner as I am. He abhors my choices but always loves me. He doesn’t hate those soldiers who died. He doesn’t hate gay people, he doesn’t hate murderers. He regularly ate with thieves and prostitutes as well as held company with liars, cheats, and betrayers.
Theology aside and on to your questions.
I am deeply sympathetic to those who are hurting and have this heaped upon their shoulders. AND, I am glad the WBC has the right to say what they feel. I wish they had more respect for their fellow human beings. I wish people had more respect for my religious feelings as well and would allow me believe what I believe without being called names or censored in public. We are all under attack by someone.
It is never easy to take a stand because someone will always be there to attack your choices. That’s what the First Amendment is about, allowing people to take a stand without fear of retribution from the government. It doesn’t say anything about retribution from your fellow human beings.
"They want people to reject God and be condemned to hell." Why? So there's more room in heaven for them? :)
I find this very anti-Christian personally; I've always wondered about Phelps since he always seems to preach hate instead of love--which is what Jesus preached, after all. They do have the right to their views but I wonder what part of the Bible they are reading that says they should turn people _away_ from God. Extremists annoy me but they have their rights to free expression, too. Like Lola, I wish they would do it in a more appropriate time and place than at funerals, but Meyer's quote about targeting one group's rights and risking all the others is a very good one. It's a very thin tightrope to walk, and I'm not sure I'd risk leaning too far to one side or the other. It may be best to let them have their say, as disrespectful as they may be.
I think it's shameful that this group choses to disrupt and dishonor soldiers' funerals. Personally, I love the biker groups that have taken it on themselves to help shield the families.
Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech doesn't just apply to those expressions that make sense or are tasteful. They apply to people who have no respect for others, too.
@Holly Koster, some biker groups do choose to make deep, meaningful, and ORGANIZED contributions to the communities... I thought this aspect of the story was really great, too.
I too, think that Westboro Church has the right to peacefully assemble, even though they are pathetic and sick. I like it when they attract creative counter-protestors to help us laugh at them (like at Comic-Con .
However a counter-protest would be disruptive at a funeral. As I have mentioned before, my brother is in the military and I cannot imagine his reaction if that group were to protest at the the funeral of one of his soldiers. I am surprised that, considering the nature of a lot of military personnel, there hasn't been more violence directed at the church itself. Although I definitely have more sympathy for the mourners, I am glad to live in a country where we have the right to peacefully assemble, no matter what the cause or where the place.
Sometimes people make me sad. The one thing about free speech is that the people who are extremists with their freedom of speech have no respect for themselves or other people. I don’t care what you believe; there is no reason to go around protesting such dogmatic views at funerals. Jesus would have NEVER done this, so why do these people think that it is right?? This is such a tough issue from a librarian’s point of view because WBC has First Amendment rights to protest, but it just doesn’t seem right that they do it at funerals. I really don’t have any good answers for this issue. All “First Amendment Rights” aside, I would tell these religious extremists that they have no divine right to protest, and to leave these innocent people alone so they can mourn their dead loved ones in peace.
Post a Comment