…and this is a 
The hateful Reverend Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church was a heck of a father. Some of his kids have escaped the hellish prison of WBC, and one, Nathan Phelps, has written about his upbringing. Religion was a tool of oppression, something to instill fear and allow an angry father to control his family, and to justify violence against them.
Nathan Phelps is now an atheist, and says that he "agrees with prominent atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins, who has said that religion can be 'real child abuse.'"
(via erv)
Comments
Posted by: Robin | November 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Hardly a shock.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Don't miss the comments. Nathan Pelps' dear sister chimes in, and she looks like a perfect chip off the old block. A true expert in the Gospel of Hate.
Posted by: Rrr | November 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Wonderful to hear that at least one of the poor kids escaped from that hell. :-/
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 3, 2008 9:43 AM
Heh. Bonus points: note who the first comment on the story over there comes from... Ms. Shirley Phelps-Roper herself. Hey there, Ms. Phelps-Roper. Charmed, I'm sure.
Seriously. Wotta buncha nutters. Good to hear, at least, that he got out eventually.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 3, 2008 9:43 AM
Makes a lot of sense and really isn't that far from how I expected that family worked.
Notice who the first comment is from.
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 3, 2008 9:46 AM
Hey, has anyone pointed out who the first comment is from yet?
(/Apologies... Wonders of simultaneous posting 'n all.)
Posted by: spyderkl | November 3, 2008 9:47 AM
Well. As my MiL would say, bless his heart for leaving that "church" and writing about his experiences. Shame it didn't happen sooner.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 3, 2008 9:48 AM
Here's a thought: without Christianity's influence on this country, Barack Obama would be unable to stand for office.
I'm supporting him because I believe he is sincere in his faith - unlike McCain, who one minute decides he is an Episcopalian and the next minute decides that he is a actually a Baptist (who strangely doesn't attend church regularly..). The selection of Palin is mere tokenism on the religion front.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 3, 2008 9:50 AM
Which has exactly what to do with this post?
Posted by: sabazinus | November 3, 2008 9:53 AM
Amazing. I didn't think that any of the family members escaped. What a horrible story.
Interesting that Shirley comes in and just confirms everything Nathan had said about the nature of this family. So much anger and hatred.
Posted by: co | November 3, 2008 9:54 AM
Seems to be an easy trolling-point.
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 3, 2008 9:54 AM
Here's a thought: conveniently highlighting cases in which a religious tradition has been used to argue against an injustice, and ignoring those in which it has been used to argue for their preservation, is typically transparently self-serving behaviour on the part of its typicaly craven apologists...
See, of course, the use of the 'Curse of Ham' to argue for the preservation of slavery...
Not that all the actually intellectually honest members of this forum don't already know that perfectly well.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 3, 2008 9:55 AM
Rev. BDC -
Re-Pete feels an innate need to defend his Christianity, even within topics where it is clearly indefensible. So, instead of talking about the actual topic of the thread, he'll throw out some other totally unrelated nugget in defense of the almighty sky fairy. Old hat from Re-Pete.
Posted by: co | November 3, 2008 9:57 AM
We do know what "old hat" meant about 50 years ago, right? (I didn't, until I used it in a conversation and my father started getting a lopsided grin on his face.)
Posted by: JimC | November 3, 2008 9:59 AM
SO neither do 70% of Christians according to the polls. Only 25-30% attend church regulary regardless of denomination.
Posted by: Michelle | November 3, 2008 9:59 AM
It's a shame that his children lived in such a hell.
How can this be legal I wonder? It should be forbidden to endoctrinate minors.
Posted by: MissPrism | November 3, 2008 10:00 AM
I heard that "old hat" once had the meaning co's hinting at because old hats were frequently felt.
The OED doesn't back this explanation up, sadly.
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 10:01 AM
You mean in terms of being "frequently felt"?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 3, 2008 10:01 AM
hehe... well, co... I assure you I meant it in the modern vernacular...
Didn't mean to insinuate its really old meaning... (female reproductive organ, I believe). That's just gross... eve when referring to Re-Pete.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 3, 2008 10:01 AM
Pete the Rookey, there was an american author, Robert Heinlein, who in one of his books gave a series of advice between chapters. One was when you didn't know how to vote, find a "well meaning fool", ask him, then do the opposite. You Pete, are the "well meaning fool" for this site.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 3, 2008 10:02 AM
Shirley Phelps-Roper: "...rebel Nate who is a man of the flesh according to the Bible, cannot get it into his head the the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
These conservatives sure do have the fear thing down pat.
Shirley has the path to wisdom exactly backwards.
Losing her fear of "the Lord" would be the beginning of wisdom.
She has spent her life cowering before a figment of her imagination, with lots of help from similarly delusional people.
She thinks she has found wisdom? She has found a perfect recipe for lifelong ignorance.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 3, 2008 10:03 AM
Google "fred phelps expose" and you'll probably find what was supposed to be a series of newspaper articles (until the paper chickened out) detailing the whole sorry history of Father Fred and his poor[1] abused family and "ministry". This latest story from Nathan P. is basically more of the same.
[1] Qualification: My sympathy is somewhat limited for the generation who are now adults, particularly daughter Shirley. At some point, childhood conditioning ceases being an extenuating circumstance; you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself.
Posted by: hinschelwood | November 3, 2008 10:06 AM
"was a heck of a father"
That nearly cheered me up until I checked Wikipedia and found out that the good reverend is still alive.
Posted by: another | November 3, 2008 10:08 AM
Pete Rooke opined:
"Here's a thought: without Christianity's influence on this country, Barack Obama would be unable to stand for office."
Wrong!
Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
That's why he can stand for the office of president.
Pete, you might also be unaware of Article VI, Section 3 which concludes: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Posted by: zer0 | November 3, 2008 10:21 AM
Actually I think ol' Pete thinks Christianity is the reason slavery was abolished. Which may be true if you ignore large section of the Bible that endorse, instruct, and condone slavery.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | November 3, 2008 10:23 AM
America's Most Hated Family, part 1
A documentary of Westboro Baptist Church
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | November 3, 2008 10:25 AM
America's Most Hated Family, part 2
Posted by: ixolite | November 3, 2008 10:29 AM
OT
A octopus has caused havoc in his aquarium by performing juggling tricks using his fellow occupants, smashing rocks against the glass and turning off the power by shortcircuiting a lamp.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3328480/Otto-the-octopus-wrecks-havoc.html
/OT
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 3, 2008 10:31 AM
ixolite
Search is your friend
But yes that is a cool story
Posted by: amphiox | November 3, 2008 10:32 AM
Ah, Pete Rooke.
No one denies that innately good people have, in the course of history, found inspiration to do and persevere in doing good things, from their religion of choice. No one denies that innately bad people have, in the course of history, found an excuse in their religion to do bad things.
But here's the kicker: in the absence of religion, there is every reason to suppose that the good things done by good people would still be done, and the bad things done by bad people would still be done.
Which makes the presence of religious faith in this equation largerly irrelevant.
I will leave it to others to argue whether or not innately good people can be inspired to do bad things by their religious faith, or innately bad people persuaded to good likewise.
Posted by: SEF | November 3, 2008 10:41 AM
As a matter of fact (and public record) it wasn't at all true according to the people of the time, who blamed abolitionism on those godless atheists and despicable founding-father secularists:Eg.1
Eg.2
Posted by: Jello | November 3, 2008 10:46 AM
Wow that Shirley Phelps is a real chip of the old block ain't she? I find her entire persona physically nauseating yet at the same time I feel a deep pity for her. Its the kind of pity one feels for someone with a chronic psychiatric disorder. You wish you could reach them and pull them into reality but at the same time you know there's noting you can do. I pity those cursed to live a life consumed by fear and rage.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2008 10:50 AM
It's pretty bad for McCain when even the religious whackjobs like Rooke can spot McCain's hypocrisy.
Posted by: Rog | November 3, 2008 10:50 AM
Haven't come across the Phelps clan too much yet (well I am in the UK), but I'm delighted to have a new target - what a bunch of sick goons. You almost lull yourself into a sense that perhaps Nathan is exaggerating, then Shirley chimes into the comments with a load of hate filled polemic and you start to wonder if the poor guy isn't actually understating the case.
Good on Nate for escaping - I hope he finds happiness soon !
Rog
Posted by: MH | November 3, 2008 10:59 AM
@Sef #31,
Yes, but they weren't True Christians™.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | November 3, 2008 11:09 AM
@CalGeorge
>>These conservatives sure do have the fear thing down pat.
The Phelpses aren't conservative. They are insane.
Conservatives resist change. Phelpsoids are suffering from dissocial personality disorder, and want the apocalypse to wreak what they see is righteous vengeance upon what they perceive as evil-doers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder
Posted by: Randy | November 3, 2008 11:17 AM
Oh, he's probably just rebelling. You know what they say;
FAGS
HATE
GOD
...or something like that.
Posted by: Brad D | November 3, 2008 11:27 AM
Wow, that really puts things into perspective. I will have to think of them the next time I have family issues, and count myself very lucky.
Posted by: qedpro | November 3, 2008 11:31 AM
if you have ever seen shirley on TV you'll see that she has the eyes of charles manson. she's a souless psychopath. Its frightening really.
But for Nathan and anyone else who escapes that family, the demons instilled in us from our parents are the hardest to exorcise. I wish them all the best. There is no greater hell than that which children endure in the hands of their parents.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 3, 2008 11:36 AM
Did you see the bit in Ms. Phelps-Roper's screed about "God spanks"? Seriously. She's like a living monument to bad parenting; Daddy smites me, Daddy loves me, God loves me, God smites everyone. Fundamentalism seems to be one ball-gag away from S&M.
Posted by: John Bebbington | November 3, 2008 11:37 AM
Sad Shirley is living proof of that age-old conundrum "Can you get pregnant through anal intercourse?"
Posted by: Kara | November 3, 2008 11:46 AM
I grew up in Topeka, Kansas where the Phelps cult is located. Nathan is not exaggerating in the slightest. There have been stories circulating around town for years (even before all the insane protesting) about the Fred Phelps abusing his children and wife. Also, other Phelps children besides Nathan who have escaped have told similar stories. Fred is one of the most hateful men I have ever seen.
One positive thing has actually happened because of the Westboro Baptist Church's spewing of hate. My perception is that the town is somewhat more tolerant of gays and lesbians than your average mid-sized midwestern town. Of course, it still has a long way to go . . .
I just hope Nathan is able to find the peace he so desperately deserves.
Posted by: Pat Silver | November 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Isn't it interesting that the likes of Shirley Phelps threatens non-believers with eternal damnation. Haven't they caught on to the idea that it is an empty threat because we don't beleive in it?
Posted by: Jello | November 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Compare pictures of Sherley and her father. The resemblance is scary. If she were a man she'd be the spitting image. No wonder she's the favorite.
Posted by: JStein | November 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Best wishes to Nathan. I hope he retells his story as often as possible, so people understand what he was put through, something secularists often forget about.
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 11:59 AM
In some cases, they just can't wrap their heads around the idea that we don't really believe in it. In others, it's smug self-satisfaction that we'll get what's coming to us in the end. You know, Christian LoveTM.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 3, 2008 12:11 PM
Holy crap.
What's the statute of limitations on child abuse? If this clown was beating his kids, he should be behind bars.
-jcr
Posted by: Alex | November 3, 2008 12:16 PM
OT
Just found this little gem over at digg. Unbelievable.
Stomp Out Atheists
Posted by: Jeanette | November 3, 2008 12:17 PM
Really tragic, and clearly child abuse. Thank you, Reginald Selkirk (@ #26 & 27) for cluing me into those videos. I ended up watching a bunch of those videos, all morning long.
I could see the pain in that young woman's eyes, in the second part of that series, as she talked about how we're supposedly in the "end days," so she could never marry. The whole bunch of them are brainwashed in that sick cult, so I don't know if even the adults can be called fully responsible for their behavior, since they've never entered adulthood mentally.
Nathan Phelps is a great man, to have escaped from that extreme of child abuse with his sanity intact. The adults of that family should be prosecuted for the beatings they've inflicted on their children. Unfortunately, brain-washing is harder to prosecute.
At least there's one good thing that the Phelps family is doing for society: they're showing the irrationality of Christianity in all of its "glory."
Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 3, 2008 12:20 PM
So is Fred's "Church of Hate" tax-exempt? Is there any way the IRS could get involved, say with the help of Childrens' Protective Services?
Posted by: CodeSculptor | November 3, 2008 12:21 PM
That's sad. Well, it's tragic, actually. What's worse is that any rational person would have expected it. What's even more dreadful is that everyone of a non-rational sort would be surprised that such a church-going and pious individual would be so inexcusably repugnant and not just a few of those people will see the son as the guilty party here.
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 12:23 PM
That's been around for a while. Last I knew, people were saying it was Poe.
Posted by: SteveM | November 3, 2008 12:25 PM
Yes, unbelievable as in "not true":
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/atheists.asp
Posted by: Alex | November 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Apologies for the rerun. Thanks.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Alex,
It was a hoax:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/atheists.asp
-jcr
Posted by: Mozglubov | November 3, 2008 12:35 PM
Holy crap, that guy lives in Cranbrook now? That's an hour and a half from my hometown... yay interior BC!
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 3, 2008 12:39 PM
So is Fred's "Church of Hate" tax-exempt?
Fred's cult is mostly family. His insanity isn't as contagious as L. Ron Hubbard's was. There's only a handful of WBC cretins, and they sure don't look like they have much of an income.
-jcr
Posted by: woody | November 3, 2008 12:40 PM
Childhood is a period--perhaps the only period--when brainwashing is acceptable. Children are always "brainwashed" by their elders. There's a word for it: "socialization"--the same techniques by which people train their dogs not to attack other dogs. All childhood is a journey through parental prejudices during which kids are indoctrinated, by some to the arrogant, arrant idiocies of 'faith,' by others to the comforts of reason and critical thought (though far, far too few instances of the latter are evident in the demeanor of most children in the USofA today.)
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 12:44 PM
You're playing semantic games. Obviously it's the content of the "brainwashing" that's being objected to.
Posted by: woody | November 3, 2008 12:45 PM
I will leave it to others to argue whether or not innately good people can be inspired to do bad things by their religious faith, or innately bad people persuaded to good likewise.
Iirc, Voltaire had something to say on the matter: "who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Posted by: strangest brew | November 3, 2008 12:52 PM
"They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you."
Philip Larkin
http://www.artofeurope.com/larkin/lar2.htm
An ode to mizzy Phelps maybe...
Posted by: Evinfuilt | November 3, 2008 12:53 PM
So I guess that proves that they aren't the worlds longest lasting Parody. They're real.... eeek
Posted by: Philip T | November 3, 2008 1:11 PM
[quote] Fundamentalism seems to be one ball-gag away from S&M.[/quote]
I know you meant that as a funny throw-away. And it is. But for the record: Fundamentalism is much further away from consentual kink than that toy store prop. For starters, there's the consentual part. Negociation. Hard limits. And safe words. I haven't heard that a fundies have a special word they can utter that makes the madeness stop pronto. Good kinksters work hard to avoid doing any permanent damage to body or mind.
Most importantly though, I'd say, is that most kinksters can distingush between fanasty and reality. They have fun role playing, but when it's over, they get that they're not really Vikings, French Maids, Catholic School Girls, all powerful cops, twisted doctors, or whatever. They don't try to play topy control games on vanilla bystanders who haven't consented.
(BTY, I do know many Christians who practise safe, sane, consentual kink. Though it can be funny as hell to listen to them debate amongst themselves whether femdom (woman on top and in charge) violates those biblical passages calling for the man to be the head of the household...)
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 3, 2008 1:12 PM
What's somewhat more horrific is that Phelps surely isn't the only God-bothering SOB who runs his family this way; it's just that most have the sense to not do it in public.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 3, 2008 1:18 PM
without Christianity's influence on this country, Barack Obama would be unable to stand for office
Without Christianity's influence on this country, we wouldn't be subjected to your stupidity.
Posted by: WRMartin | November 3, 2008 1:34 PM
truth machine, OM:
For The Win!
I wonder if I can get that line on a bumpersticker?
Heh. ;)
Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2008 2:27 PM
Actually have met and interview Shirley on a number of occasions. Contrary to what some might think, she is quite friendly and pleasant to talk to--until the subject or religion comes up.
The story about her brother is very old news.
What I will point out is that this group poses less of a threat than most others on the SPLC hate group site. All of their acts are rhetorical, and never physical. one can simply look away. I spent a day with them on a few of their protests and I was surprised at how common it was for them to be simply standing in silence, holding their offensive signs, and have invective and vitriol hurled upon them. The onlookers were much scarier.
Not that I want to be seen as an apologist for the WBC, but sometimes it is helpful to look at the other point of view (even if you don't agree.)
Posted by: Lowell | November 3, 2008 2:37 PM
Just thought I'd point out that Westboro Baptist and Fred Phelps were found liable last year in a defamation lawsuit in Maryland. A federal jury awarded $10 million in damages to the family of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral the Phelps clan protested.
The trial court reduced the award to $5 million, and that award is now on appeal to the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. http://cjonline.com/stories/040408/loc_264906171.shtml
Oral argument is scheduled for December 2, 2008, in Richmond, Virginia. If you're in that area, you might want to check it out. Margie Phelps, who I suspect is Fred's daughter, is scheduled to argue for the defendants.
(The ACLU, by the way, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Phelps and Westboro Baptist. I'm conflicted, because I'm generally in favor of free speech, but Phelps is so vile that I'd love to see him lose everything.)
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 2:45 PM
Do they still hate gays? Then, no, my opinion of them hasn't changed one bit.
Posted by: DeeMonkey999 | November 3, 2008 2:55 PM
I don't think his bad childhood should be blamed on Christianity. I come from an Atheistic family, but faced a lot of nightmarish physical abuse. It is not the religion, just a mean perpetrator, that comes in all varieties. A mean person can find a rationale within any belief system.
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 3:06 PM
I think most are blaming his father for being batshit insane.
Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2008 3:14 PM
I think it does a disservice to them to explain their behavior by saying they are insane. They are quite lucid and clear in their beliefs. I don't agree with them, but they are basically pursuing a political agenda-- pure ideologues. Sort of rare in the wild.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 3, 2008 3:21 PM
Faith is a Victory!
Faith is a Victory!
Oh, Glorious Victory that overcomes the World!"
Hmmm...how insensiblly stupid can anybody get, dissing the friggin' world with an idiot game-plan?
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 3:22 PM
I think it's being pretty generous. The alternative is that they are malicious, evil people.
That doesn't make them not insane.
One based entirely on hatred.
Not rare enough.
Posted by: Dale Husband | November 3, 2008 3:29 PM
Like (insane) father, like daughter. Check out this entry in Wikipedia on Shirley Phelps-Roper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Phelps-Roper
Phelps-Roper is the wife of Brent D. Roper and a mother of 11 children. Her oldest child, Sam, is not Roper's son by birth, and her second child, Josh, is estranged from the church. Besides her father Fred, she has been the most public spokesperson of the Westboro Baptist Church and answers many of the e-mails sent to the church in a column called "Dear Shirley." [3] Keith Allen revealed in his documentary on the WBC, Keith Allen Will Burn In Hell, that Phelps-Roper has an illegitimate son, Sam, after it was uncovered by a local media student.[4]
What's with these fanatics condemning homosexuals while also committing fornication themselves? Sin is sin, isn't it?
Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2008 3:30 PM
tsg: I don't think they react any more or less reflexively than the people reading this blog. That said, I very often agree with people on here. However, I don't just assume you folks, or P.Z. always has the right answer, and I wouldn't say anyone I've dealt with here is crazy.
Hatred can still be rational.
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 3:33 PM
That also does not make them not insane.
How many of us are protesting soldiers' funerals insisting god is punishing us for homosexuality?
In this case, it is not.
Posted by: sabazinus | November 3, 2008 3:42 PM
In reference to #57...
It is my understanding that the Phelps family have a number of lawyers among them. The way the family earns money is through lawsuits against counter-protesters/communities that try to prevent WBC from protesting.
Not sure how successful they are at it, but it was something I heard about a few years ago when I first read about them.
Posted by: sabazinus | November 3, 2008 3:46 PM
In fact, some quick digging found this:
"One of Westboro's followers estimated that the church spends $250,000 a year traveling around the world to picket.[16] In the 1990s the church won a series of lawsuits against the City of Topeka and Shawnee County for efforts taken to prevent or hinder WBC picketing. As a result, the church was awarded approximately $200,000 in attorney's fees and costs associated with the litigation. Otherwise, all of the church's money comes from the combined income of its congregants and money won in lawsuits against their opponents."
Found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2008 4:04 PM
They also have a successful law firm in Topeka. Don't know much more about it, but it does well-enough to pay their bills. They make a point of saying that a majority of their money does not come from counter-suits, though I think some percentage does. Someone with more time could research this point, but I'd be surprised if it was even 3%.
To tsg,
I do not know how many people on here are protesting at soldiers funerals. I do not know that god is punishing anyone for anything. (Or that he/she isn't. Can't say as I care for that polemic.) In this case, they feel they are the appointed messengers of god to deliver his message. Or really, the meaning behind the message that all misfortune is god's wrath. Sort of interesting really then that god's messengers then picket each Friday at the site of the restaurant that threw them out more than a decade ago. The restaurant is no longer there (it is now a tanning salon). I always thought this was pretty small potatoes for god's own chosen few, but hey, they're the ones who think they got the call.
But, I disagree that their hatred is irrational. They legitimately feel that gays are a threat to their way of life. Their view is based on their religious predisposition, but to say that is irrational means that their ideological position, based as it is, on their religious teachings, would be unfounded, not simply a corruption of the biblical message.
I am arguing that their position is consistent with their religious predisposition, and therefore rational, however misguided.
Posted by: tsg | November 3, 2008 4:12 PM
That does not make it not irrational. Gays are not a threat to their way of life. Period. Whether they truly, honestly, really, swear-to-jebus think they are makes no difference. No amount of belief makes something a fact.
It is irrational because it is wrong. Why it is wrong is beside the point.
Posted by: Dave | November 3, 2008 5:10 PM
Very interesting. I live in Nelson,BC, just west from Cranbrook. Mr. Phelps has found a very stable respite from the hell he experienced as a young man.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 3, 2008 5:12 PM
Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2008
What I will point out is that this group poses less of a threat than most others on the SPLC hate group site. All of their acts are rhetorical, and never physical. one can simply look away. I spent a day with them on a few of their protests and I was surprised at how common it was for them to be simply standing in silence, holding their offensive signs, and have invective and vitriol hurled upon them. The onlookers were much scarier.
They are cheerleaders for murderous thugs. So they are not using physical violence, they are cheering on those who do.
As for these people standing silently at funerals and having invectives and vitriol hurled on them, who started it. These people are celebrating the murders of the loved one gathered there.
Craig, here is a though experiment. A loved one is murdered. The Phelps clan shows up with signs stating that your loved one is now in hell. Is looking away merely going to make it any easier for you?
Empathy for people is necessary. Empathy for monsters will warp you.
Posted by: Bhoytony | November 3, 2008 5:16 PM
" Keith Allen revealed in his documentary on the WBC, Keith Allen Will Burn In Hell, that Phelps-Roper has an illegitimate son, Sam, after it was uncovered by a local media student.[4]"
I'd recommend the Keith Allen docu. He spent several days with the family, biting his tongue most of the time, but eventually lost his patience and went apeshit at them. That's when he confronted the lovely Shirley with his knowledge of her fornication.
Have a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWAawKFMYfs
I think this second clip has already been posted, but it's always worth watching again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE
Posted by: Steve | November 3, 2008 5:24 PM
I understand the sentiment, but the acid test of free speech is when you are faced with the most vile opinions. Very easy to be pro free speech when you encounter ideas you agree with. In general, one is not "generally" in favour of free speech.
Posted by: Zar | November 3, 2008 5:31 PM
There's an article about the whole Phelps family and all the horrible abuse that has been on the web for a while: Addicted to Hate. I was wondering why people didn't seem to pick up on it so much, but I'm glad there's a little more attention being paid to the horrific abuse Phelps carried out on his children. I feel a lot of pity for Shirley Phelps, actually. Hellfire and brimstone is probably the only way she can get her father to stop beating the snot out of her.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 3, 2008 6:09 PM
Their beliefs are irrational, i.e. crazy, but rational people often have irrational beliefs. For example, look at all of the religion going around. It's letting the adults of this family off the hook too easy to simply call them insane.
There should be as much freedom in society as possible, limited only at the point where one person's freedom interferes with the freedom of someone else. When those freaks are standing on just any street corner displaying their ignorance and stupidity, that's free speech. When they show up to disrupt funerals, that doesn't fall under the rubric of free speech for the same reason that blocking entrances to abortion clinics isn't "free speech." They're harassing people, interfering with other people's freedom, and engaging in slander and libel against innocent people.
Posted by: Lowell | November 3, 2008 6:22 PM
You're right about the "generally" weaseling in my original post. I support free speech.
Still, I think there is such a thing as a meritorious defamation action. The Snyder case (where the $5 million judgment was entered) is one such meritorious case, although it probably could be decided in favor of either party by a rational decision-maker. In that scenario, I'd prefer to see old Fred get put in the poorhouse.
Posted by: Steve | November 3, 2008 7:00 PM
I agree with that and certainly in Canada, and I'm sure the US, free speech is limited by incitement to violence, libel and slander.
From what I've read of WBC, Fred Phelps and company and indulged in all of the above.
I suspect that the special status accorded to religious dogma has prevented the proper exposure of WBC ideology in the marketplace of ideas and the subsequent public ridicule, boycott, censure and other valid responses to bad ideas.
I think that forums like pharyngula and richarddawkins.net provide exactly this response to bad ideas.
Posted by: Farb | November 3, 2008 7:11 PM
Party in the streets outside WBC the day they finally plant Phred. Come in full drag, whatever your orientation.
Posted by: seamaiden75 | November 3, 2008 8:54 PM
I've been reading through the comments and I find it absolutely astonding that I haven't seen one comment that the reason these people act the way they do is because they actually read, take the bible literally and follow it. I feel sorry for the whole lot of them. If it weren't for that stupid hate provoking book called the Bible they probably wouldn't not be like that. To anyone who thinks that God is love and thinks that the bible is the "good book" has obvoisly never read it and if they have they aren't taking it seriously these people actually take it seriously to them this is the true word of god and they are trying sincerely to follow it. They are full of hate because the bible is full of hate. And to anyone who says well I just love Jesus, Jesus caused people to leave their own families behind just to follow him around. I'm so glad that I broke free from this hate and fear filled religion, and good for Nate for seeing through the lie that is the Bible.
Posted by: Grimgrin | November 4, 2008 12:10 AM
If Fred Phelps ever did one good thing in his life, it was to demonstrate, unequivocally, that gay and lesbian Americans are still second class citizens.
When the Phelpses were making asses of themselves 'protesting' the funerals of gay men who died of AIDS or violent assault, noone tried to change the law to make it illegal for them to picket outside cemeteries. The very idea would have been laughed at.
This lunatic cult shows up at the funerals of soldiers? Well now, that's a whole different story.
I, personally, find it far to easy to slip into this 'well, everything's okay" mindset with regards to civil rights issues. Phelps actions, the actions of people like him, and more importantly the reactions society has to them often serve to bring be back to reality as might a hard slap across the face.
Posted by: Psi Wavefunction | November 4, 2008 3:09 AM
YAY WE GOT PHARYNGULA`D! ^.^
I was quite shocked when I found that in our newspaper:
1. HORRIFYING tale, perfect example of what makes me hate religion
2. The Ubyssey published something with substantial content!
Posted by: SEF | November 4, 2008 4:34 AM
People probably haven't said it because it isn't exactly true. It's impossible to take the Bible completely literally, not only because some parts of it actually say that they are allegorical(!) but also because much of it is self-contradictory as well as being contradicted by reality.They are probably quite capable of ignoring much of reality (although I bet they disobey the rules on clothing and food because they're inconvenient) but they can't get away from the fact that the Bible is self-contradictory. So they have to be being selective, like every other alleged Bible follower. Which means that their nastiness is very much a reflection of what they (specifically Fred Phelps) are like naturally and is what influences their particular selections.
They/he would probably have been nasty anyway. The Bible merely endorses (in parts) and exacerbates that nastiness. It also (for a while) allowed them to recruit others to be nasty with them, allows them to repel any criticism of their behaviour and even avoid much social sanction - ie from weak-minded fellow believers who have fallen for the bad idea that religions are untouchable.
Posted by: Mark Plus | November 4, 2008 10:35 AM
If Nathan Phelps no longer believes that hell exists and that he can go there when he dies, how can his life have any meaning?
Posted by: Lowell | November 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Mark, you're kidding, right?
Posted by: electricbarbarella | November 4, 2008 5:24 PM
"EB sheepishly says: The Phelps clan are not homeschoolers. I can't post on the other site, but I did read many posts about them being "whack job homeschoolers" with bad grammar and I just wanted to say that they are not homeschoolers".
In fact, I think it's in that documentary posted above where Shirley welcomes her children home after a day in school. I'm not sure if this has changed, but last time I checked, they didn't homeschool either.
And I hope Mark Plus is kidding. I really do.
EB
Posted by: Steve_C | November 4, 2008 5:54 PM
HAHAH. Good one Mark! You sound just like a Phelps whackaloon.