A group of seven congregations from Topeka, Kansas came to town and set up outside of Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda to protest the supposed life style of poet Walt Whitman, for whom the school was named.
Amidst police officers on foot and on horseback, these activists scream hate speech through bullhorns at anyone who will listen, using terms like fag, queer, and worse. They profess to know what God thinks and who He likes and dislikes.
Students, parents, and alumni like up along the campus in counter-protest, chanting for the intruders to go home and to chant their school name.
***Warning! Video contains offensive language and hate speech***
This is the same group from Westboro Baptist Church [warning: website contains hate speech and explicit language] in Topeka that make a practice of attending military funerals to scream out about gays in the military.
The students are a captive audience. They don’t choose where they attend school yet they are subjected to this diatribe from out-of-towners who should have nothing to say about the school name.
All of a sudden I am not so sure I am in favor of free speech if this is what it represents. I need to be careful what I wish for. This Westboro group sure brings out the down side of free speech and supposed ‘Christianity.’
Full story in the Washington Post Metro section.
Good for those young teeagers to be gutsy enough to withstand this blast of craziness. I noticed lots of brave young women, where were the guys?
I wonder if the black velvet protest is anywhere near this one?
What is WRONG with these people? Using God as a reason to hate people? Using a poet as an excuse to harass people who have different lifestyles?
This doesn’t have anything to do with free speech. This really is harassment of minors, in my opinion.
Posting as Pinko, the world is a sick place, and it’s not the people in the school who are sick.
I read that before they headed over to Whitman, they attended the funeral of the family of 5 that was killed by the father in Middletown last week. Apparently they tried to disrupt that funeral saying that the deaths were due to “God’s wrath” because they were “godless people” or something to that effect. How nice that they felt the family of that tragedy should be subject to their rantings. If there is a God, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be proud of them as His followers. Jeezo.
I remember these guys, they’ve been on the Stern show. This is a fringe group to say the least. THE most obnoxious group possible.
Yeah this is the down side of free speech, which I still support. It’s terrible that they do this stuff at finerals.
As bad as these people are, Rick, you’ve got to admit…they’ve got nothing over Rebecca (“I wonder if the black velvet protest is anywhere near this one?”). I would imagine she’s right there with the tactics displayed by these people who obviously know nothing but hate.
Twinad, I heard the same thing you heard about the Middletown family.
To compare anyone I have ever read or heard to these people is simply beyond the pale. To me, these people exude evil.
If you truly believe in free speech, then you have to take the execrable with the decent, unfortunately. I hate the funeral stuff.
Pay attention folks…THIS is a hate group. Concentrate really hard!! Westboro Baptist Church = Hate Group. People who think our immigration laws should be enforced = not hate group. I don’t know why I’m bothering to point it out….folks like Shelly will never understand, no matter how easy it is to see the difference.
To me, they are the nadir of humanity as far as hate groups go, If there is something worse, I haven’t seen it. That is not to say that they are the only game in town though. Sorry, when other human beings are called vermin and dog food, then I see that as hate speech also.
Emma, I hate all of it. Those kids have no control over any of it: name or where they go to school. Fortunately, kids are fairly resilient and probably are having some fun with it. I doubt that anyone attending the funeral of a loved one is quite as resilient. I think what that group does at funerals is down-right evil.
Didn’t President Bush sign some sort of executive order so they couldn’t get too close or did I imagine that? I suppose we have to take it but I sure would like to knock out a few teeth while I am taking it.
Moon-howler, President Bush signed a law in 2006 to prohibit disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces.
Has that stopped the behavior or was it over-ruled as an invasion of free speech? I thought he had done that. I just couldn’t remember the details. Good for him.
If you really believe that, you’ve led a sheltered life Moon-howler. I would call Neo-Nazis, KKK, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, MEChA, and many others far lower on the evolutionary scale for humanity, as well as FAR better examples for the young haters of tomorrow, than your choices. People who merely run their mouths make more enemies for their causes than allies, as a rule. These other groups are far more proactive in their hate.
Oh yeah, by the way, I DO agree that these people who are the subject of this post are definitely haters and, in my opinion, on the fast-track to Purgatory, at the least (I really don’t believe that Christ had them in mind as examples of true Christians). That said, they do their cause(s) only harm with their behavior…as do people who berate and belittle others for their beliefs and paint all with a broad brush because of one person’s words, calling the collective “them” a hate group.
Going to someone’s funeral because they happened to be in the military to scream anti gay crap is just low life. How do we measure what is worse? I guess we have to go by our own individual standards.
Let’s weigh words and deeds. Obviously the Neo-Nazis, KKK, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, MEChA, and many others are people who not only run their mouths but also do things to people. I believe that the Westboro simply run their mouths. However, they cause great emotional harm when people are at their most vulnerable. Therefore, they win my lower than whale crap award.
Actually I have gotten in such a foul mood writing this that I am ready to just agree with any crap anyone spews tonight. I shouldnt have to justify saying that these clowns are POS’s.
Moon-howler, I believe that our last two comments crossed…and answered one another.
I despise these people. No one deserves to have them congregate when a family is burying their loved one. It offends me as an American and on a personal level. There is nothing nasty enough that could happen to any of them. No service person deserves to have his or her funeral disrupted by these idiots.
Hate comes in all different degrees. Right now I am my own personal hate group towards these people. I hate everything they for.
As I said Moon-howler…I don’t disagree. As you know, my husband is retired military, and my son is on his way in. THIS is the problem I have:
…because it happens here all the time, and you know who the worst offenders are. It is also to this that my comments are subtly addressed.
How do you feel about the vile remarks made about the anti women over on the dark screen? Not one person has commented about the inappropriate remarks.(solar marital aids for example) People come here and criticize us all the time but seem unwilling to challenge the blog master there about putrid comments directed at us on a regular basis.
This isn’t about policy. This isn’t even about political differences. We were chastised and mimicked about earth day. How harmless is that?
Rebecca’s remark is one and fairly harmless. Gay bashing happens on bvbl on regular basis. Nothing is said about the vile, personal remarks directed over here. I am not going to go to war over a rather innocuous remark made on a blog. I am just disappointed that the same level of concern isn’t shown when remarks are directed here.
Re. Rebecca, perhaps we should agree on a courtesy by which we agree not to launch outrageous accusations at people who have only just joined the conversation. I’ve seen too many smart people leave this forum rather than deal with unwarranted confrontations.
Re. Anti-gay extremism, the demonstrators in this video are precisely the reason why I hope to see the new Republican party abandon platforms that, at their core, require people to organize around shared phobias, dislikes, or prejudices. The mob mentality is compounded by the challenge of equally vociferous adversaries, and the result is language and behavior that bewilders the moderates and independents the GOP will need to survive as a national party.
Needless to say, I feel the same way about the immigration issue, for the same reasons, and I am not alone. In 21st century America, wedge issues based upon phobias, dislikes, and prejudices will only serve to create factions within the Republican party, regionalizing us to the point that we may not again compete for national office in my lifetime.
Hey word on the street is that some HSM folks tried to get several anti-resolution folks fired and the HSM folks made threats. I’m sure not all HSM people do that kind of thing, but even so, sounds like a hate group from where I’m thumping.
“Not one person has commented about the inappropriate remarks”
That’s not accurate.
No, it’s not accurate at all, Rick. I seem to remember both you and I addressing some anti-gay remarks, and I have called people out on personal remarks about appearance. AWCheney has done the same. How convenient to forget.
Emma, I haven’t forgotten jack, since I made the original comment about inappropriate remarks not being challenged. Yes, You have made remarks in the past as has AWC and a couple of others. Those did not go unnoticed by people here. However, It isn’t a regular practice and no one addressed the most recent attack that was just vulgar. No one usually addresses the vulgar remarks and there are always some there.
Of course people are going to disagree politically. That isn’t what I am talking about. I am talking about public inappropriateness.
Emma, I challenge you go to put up something now about a couple of those fresh vulgar remarks. We can wager how long your opinion will last before the remark is removed. Now that is standard practice.
Haven’t seen those comments yet, MH, but I also don’t want to be used as some sort of “I told you so” pawn in the battle of the blogs here, either. If I feel the urge to comment on either side, I will do so, but I have to actually see the comments first.
And RE the comments following Rebecca’s remark: This discussion reminds me of the larger debate following the DHS report. How insidious to characterize anyone who objects to the current economic policy, gun control, abortion–or even a returning soldier–as a potential physical threat to the country. And how insidious to portray people who are using words in blogs, newspapers and public hearings, as well as peaceful demonstrations to voice their opposition as a “hate group.” I see moderate voices all over the place on both sides. As I said before, you have to take the “fringe” voices along with the moderates if you truly believe in free speech. The “fringe” can be their own worst enemy, anyway.
They have been up for a few days. And actually I don’t necessarily want anyone to comment. It just seems that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here and the mere mention of dogfood and vermin seems to bring out everyone’s wrath. Why? Because I think everyone knows it was wrong and it is impossible to defend.
It was really the just principle of the thing.
Emma, I think that extremists from both ends of the artificial political spectrum exist and I have known for years that they are attracted to special interest groups. How exactly should we say it?
Different kinds of people are attracted to different types of groups. I wasn’t particularly offended by either report.
Did I think that one of the animal rights protestors at Patriot Center protesting the circus might turn extremist and harm people, property or turn animals lose if given the chance. Who knows. Could be. There is a certain unknown to all of this.
I personally don’t see all the outrage. Returning military personnel have had adjustment problems since…well…always. Why is putting it in writing offensive? There is a great deal of documentation of adjustment and emotional problems. Maybe rather than expressing outrage over it being stated, we ought to be expressing outrage that more is not done to help our military personnel transition from war to peace time living.
The outrage is justified because it indicates a clear agenda. How does the DHS characterize left-wing extremism? No physical threat there, just cyber crime, because presumably they are much more cerebral than the gun-toting whackos on the right. It’s hard not to take home the message that if you disagree with this government and its policies, you will be watched, and you are a danger. The whole thing creeps me out. “1984,” anyone?
And the military, who sacrifice everything, including time with their families and their own personal safety, how do you suppose this message played to them? A memo written by some desk jockey whose biggest sacrifice in life is whether to spend money on iPhone or a Blackberry to use while driving on the Beltway. Please.
Perhaps since I don’t classify myself as a liberal or a conservative, I don’t view it as offensive. I don’t think being cerebral has a thing to do with it. I think it was looking at possible dangers at the time of the study. Physical threat or not, the cyber idiots (and I certainly do not think they are all left wing) can shut down a nation if they work hard at it.
As for the military, Do you deny that there are some people who simply do not adjust real well to civilian life? Was it at Fort Bragg where there has a disproportionate amount of spousal abuse during the past few years? That really isn’t unusual considering those involved had been involved in combat.
Political extremism DOES lead to acts of violence and acts of terrorism, Emma. I don’t understand why you are so defensive about your government trying to protect us from such things. I mean there were a lot of conservatives in the Oklahoma building that got blown up. If you had asked them would they have been angry that federal cops were on the trail of Timothy McVeigh? It just doesn’t make sense to say that we want law enforcement to protect us from violence, but NOT if they have to look into violence committed by people who agree with me politically. I just don’t get it. A life is a life. A murder is a murder.
There are so many things to get mad about instead. How about the torture memos, speaking of something that insults our military, degrades our military, imprisons and scapegoats our military, and was written by a guy whose biggest sacrifice was whether to buy a Mercedes or an Audi. They scapegoated our soldiers as “a few bad apples” when in fact they had gone to great lengths to make inhuman torture America’s official policy. Now that should make you mad. But I imagine you haven’t heard much about that on the channels you are watching.
“Political extremism DOES lead to acts of violence and acts of terrorism, Emma.”
You are quite right, ShellyB.
What led to the murders of Lincoln, King and Kennedy? Extremism.
Moderates do not typically kill prominent political figures, nor do they belong to extremist groups. They may kill others for other reasons, but generally, they would not go out of their way to target individuals who hold different political opinions.
Normally, healthy moderates would not have the psychological need to threaten those with political differences, either.
People who threaten, intimidate and bully have underlying issues which they have transferred to groups that happen to agree with their political opinions. While these groups are not always made up of potentially violent people, when members DO become violent, they represent their group because of their outrageous behavior. Hence, these groups become labeled as hate groups, and appropriately so.
We can discuss how extremism preys on the human psyche and the kind of group behavior that results, but I don’t think anyone would want to engage in a more academic discussion on such things. Suffice to say that ShellyB is correct.
Emma, when the report on extremism came out, I never thought it implicated all returning soldiers. Why would I? I have the ability as a moderate to know that it targets the “fringe”. And the “fringe” certainly exists – on both the left and right. To me, the right wing of the Republican party, which has picked up this issue of returning soldiers and implied that they’re all being painted as violent loons, is to blame for the broad-brush defamation of our soldiers. A small number of soldiers are, in fact, members of gangs or white supremacist groups. That in no way says that all our military hold those beliefs or are even thought to hold those beliefs. To say otherwise is not much different than saying that the Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians and smears all Christians reputations by its actions.
“What led to the murders of Lincoln, King and Kennedy? Extremism.”
Assassinations of:
Lincoln=Politics
King=Politics
Kennedy=Politics
Extremism doesn’t lead to assassinations, particularly not of prominent figures (too much planning involved and it doesn’t lead to the natural effect sought by terrorists…terror)…extremism is far more likely to lead to random, and sometimes mass, murders.
I don’t know. I doubt if we will ever know the real story behind Lee Harvey Oswald. I have confused myth with reality myself. John Wilkes Booth was certainly an extremist. James Earl Ray –seemed extreme to me.
One of my uncle’s boyhood friends was killed by an extremist. I don’t believe it was ultimately politics. I believe it was the killer’s zealotry that allowed him to think it was God’s will to act outside the law.
AWCheney, those assassinations certainly weren’t indicative of mere “politics”. Those were extreme acts – certainly not the usual political solution to a problem/disagreement.
Censored, I never thought it implicated all soldiers either. That notion seems to stem from extremists stirring the pot. I have never served in the military but I did go to college very close to several bases. We all knew people who most of the world would consider …. fringe. 99.9% weren’t. It’s that 1 tenth of 1 percent that we need to be mindful of.
Excellent discussion, everyone. I agree that the laughable claim that this report somehow denigrates our troops is insulting to, not only the troops, but also to our intelligence as adults.
I am not sure why we are on the subject. But this is another loser for Republican entertainment/political strategists.
For my two cents, I am more concerned about random acts of violence than by assassination attempts.
This is another reason why I wish Republicans would be done with platforms that lead to or capitalize upon extremism.
John Bayard Britton-killed by extremist Paul Hill in 1994.
From the Encyclopedia of Terror:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOfkAoDb_2IC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=baird+britton+pensacola+fla&source=bl&ots=-r_s2xrOUu&sig=d85w3VGjbCodWwaIgCMfQaDyheI&hl=en&ei=o670Sdb7G6OjtgeNpKw_&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA165,M1
Extremists are USED for assassinations…they’re not behind them.
“One of my uncle’s boyhood friends was killed by an extremist. I don’t believe it was ultimately politics.”
My point exactly, Moon-howler. Extremists are much more likely to participate in random, spontaneous acts…or those “acts” planned and initiated by others to further their own agenda. Why do you think that Hamas is “educating” good little Muslim children to become proficient, and dedicated, suicide bombers? It’s a labor force that requires constant replenishing.
AWCheney, when you say “Extremists are USED for assassinations…they’re not behind them”, do you mean they are purposely used by a specific group/person for the act(murder) or that, being mentally ill, they are perhaps likely to commit that act on their own having heard rhetoric which stimulates them to commit the act? Hamas may be behind some assassination attempts; Twinkies behind another.
Twinkies? Is that supposed to mean something serious?
It’s the defense for which Dan White’s attorney became known.
What I am saying is that assassinations are a political message (they generally produce outrage rather than terror), and those behind the message are seldom, if ever, the messengers. Extremists, or other highly motivated, suggestible persons, made excellent messengers. Left to their own devices, their violence is generally random. Is that simple enough for you? If you disagree with me, fine, I’ve explained my opinion as well and as often I’m going to…I’m not repeating myself again.
Please re-read what I previously posted:
“People who threaten, intimidate and bully have underlying issues which they have transferred to groups that happen to agree with their political opinions. While these groups are not always made up of potentially violent people, when members DO become violent, they represent their group because of their outrageous behavior. Hence, these groups become labeled as hate groups, and appropriately so.”
Let me try to put this in another way.
An extremist holds views that fall on a continuum. Presumably, and extremist will move to the far right or left on that continuum.
The extremist will look for a group that matches his/her political ideals. The extremist will then physically join the group and increase his/her allegiance to its ideas.
Sometimes, physically joining the group isn’t even necessary. Sometimes, the extremist will merely align him/herself to the group’s ideal.
Extremists rarely operate in a vacuum. While they might act alone, they have received some kind of positive reinforcement that tells them what they are doing is right. This can even apply in the case of mild mental illness because somewhere, the mentally ill person is getting the message from the group that what he/she is doing is okay.
However, in the case of serious mental illness, the extremist may just pick up on some random message that a group or individual is sending out purposefully or not.
But also in this case, if the group truly is extremist and encourages deviant behavior, more than one person will engage in such behavior, which means it’s not just a case of a single mentally ill group member who is acting out.
Finally, there is the case of mass hysteria in which large groups of people engage in actions they otherwise might not. Mass hysteria is a kind of temporary insanity that does not, however, relieve the perpetrators of responsibility.
Do you see why I say assassins are part of extremist groups?
Political ideology is one thing. Extremist groups take it further, however. They act out their extremism through deviant behavior. They take out their anger, hatred and whatever else on whomever they feel is responsible for what they consider a problem worth acting on.
Oh, is that like the defense, “the TV/video games made me do it,” or “my childhood made me do it,” or “society was mean and made me do it,” or any of the 100’s of politically correct defenses used today to justify lack of accountability?
By the way, my last comment was directed at Censored.