Lessons in tact
Land of the Free. Home of the Brave.
This country is predicated on the beliefs of liberty, and under that liberty one is free to express his views and opinions. There are specific instances where the "unpopular" view has proven to be the morally just direction (consider the Civil Rights Movement), and just as certainly, there have been instances where the minority opinion has had something severely wrong (hatemongers, for example).
You are certainly entitled to express your beliefs in a civil, dignified manner, but I am a firm believer in the position that your liberties come to a stop at the end of my nose. Once you impinge on the liberties of another, you no longer have the right to continue your action. Yeah, you can swing your bat around as wildly as you want, but as soon as that bat comes into contact with my face (or any other part of my anatomy, for that matter), then your freedom to act in that fashion is immediately revoked.
We're all aware of the divides that this country has over homosexuality, Iraq, government spending, religion, etc. Each person is entitled to his views, but sometimes the appropriateness of the venue in which those views are expressed must be considered, and considered well.
Take this instance. Here you have a congregation that shows up at military funerals to thank God for the bombs that kill soldiers. Their position? They maintain that these deaths are God's punishment for a nation that harbors homosexuals. I seem to recall Hurricane Katrina being used in that fashion as well. Personally, I believe that God isn't a vengeful entity, and that such things as wars, diseases, and natural disasters are not the product of His wrath (yes, I'm going to stick with the capital "h" here). The God of Old Testment -- fire and brimstone, plagues and pestilence -- isn't the particular deity to which I subscribe. I won't offer up any particular evidence to support my claim, however, as that is an entirely different topic.
What I will say is that, although I disagree with what Reverend Phelps believes, I will tolerate his stance (for the purposes of civil discussion) and address it so long as it is presented in the appropriate public forum. To go around the country and make political/religious statements at funerals doesn't seem all that just, does it?
First, it disrespects all of the ideals and beliefs that the deceased stood for. Second, it punctuates the grief and sorrow of the family in a very crude fashion. Third, the venue of choice undermines an already precarious philosophical stance. What light do you think the public will receive your message if your seen delivering it graveside?
If you ask me, I would seriously question the motives that drive Rev. Phelps' congregation. Foremost in my mind when considering any religious group are the aspects of tolerance, compassion, and understanding that each of its members demonstrate towards all people, not merely those who subscribe to that particular sect's teachings. Given those parameters, is it difficult to see why I view God so differently from the vengeful being that Phelps makes Him out to be?
This country is predicated on the beliefs of liberty, and under that liberty one is free to express his views and opinions. There are specific instances where the "unpopular" view has proven to be the morally just direction (consider the Civil Rights Movement), and just as certainly, there have been instances where the minority opinion has had something severely wrong (hatemongers, for example).
You are certainly entitled to express your beliefs in a civil, dignified manner, but I am a firm believer in the position that your liberties come to a stop at the end of my nose. Once you impinge on the liberties of another, you no longer have the right to continue your action. Yeah, you can swing your bat around as wildly as you want, but as soon as that bat comes into contact with my face (or any other part of my anatomy, for that matter), then your freedom to act in that fashion is immediately revoked.
We're all aware of the divides that this country has over homosexuality, Iraq, government spending, religion, etc. Each person is entitled to his views, but sometimes the appropriateness of the venue in which those views are expressed must be considered, and considered well.
Take this instance. Here you have a congregation that shows up at military funerals to thank God for the bombs that kill soldiers. Their position? They maintain that these deaths are God's punishment for a nation that harbors homosexuals. I seem to recall Hurricane Katrina being used in that fashion as well. Personally, I believe that God isn't a vengeful entity, and that such things as wars, diseases, and natural disasters are not the product of His wrath (yes, I'm going to stick with the capital "h" here). The God of Old Testment -- fire and brimstone, plagues and pestilence -- isn't the particular deity to which I subscribe. I won't offer up any particular evidence to support my claim, however, as that is an entirely different topic.
What I will say is that, although I disagree with what Reverend Phelps believes, I will tolerate his stance (for the purposes of civil discussion) and address it so long as it is presented in the appropriate public forum. To go around the country and make political/religious statements at funerals doesn't seem all that just, does it?
First, it disrespects all of the ideals and beliefs that the deceased stood for. Second, it punctuates the grief and sorrow of the family in a very crude fashion. Third, the venue of choice undermines an already precarious philosophical stance. What light do you think the public will receive your message if your seen delivering it graveside?
If you ask me, I would seriously question the motives that drive Rev. Phelps' congregation. Foremost in my mind when considering any religious group are the aspects of tolerance, compassion, and understanding that each of its members demonstrate towards all people, not merely those who subscribe to that particular sect's teachings. Given those parameters, is it difficult to see why I view God so differently from the vengeful being that Phelps makes Him out to be?