Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Westboro Baptist Church (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 3 >>
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hyper-Calvinism

I've removed reference to Hyper-Calvinism. It's true that Fred Phelps was accused of Hyper-Calvinism, but this, as the reference makes clear if you follow it, was by a small-fry pastor during a fairly high-blown debate. Just because there is an internet reference to a name-calling does not warrant an inclusion of that name-calling in a Wiki introduction of a living person. For all I know Fred Phelps and his church is hyper-hyper-anything-you-want, but a proper reference is required to prove it. I've also changed, in the next paragraph, "supporters of gay rights" to "supporters of gay people": gay rights seems a far too loaded term for this context. (Apologies if this note has appeared twice. Problems with dial-up.) MacMurrough 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Many people think that a Hyper-Calvinist is just an excitable, outspoken, Calvinist. However, the fact that he is out on the street preaching shows he is not a Hyper-Calvinist. In any case, HCs seem to be a pretty rare breed these days. GuyInCT 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That depends on how you use the term "hyper". Wahkeenah 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford Funeral

I'm writing from Grand Rapids... I had read on their website that they planned to picket at President Ford's funeral both in Grand Rapids and Washington, but haven't heard nor read nor seen anything about it... Has anybody seen anything other than on their website?216.120.133.154 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If they had, they likely would have been arrested, which I'm sure they would have loved, but there might have been folks with guns there, two, which would put a crimp in their plans. Wahkeenah 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No NPOV, no worldwide view, too much irelevant information

It's a mess, a chaotic dump of phelps' statements against USA and a review of all their activities with all details. I suggest a complete rewrite - in ideal the article would equally shed light on the Churches opinion on Homosexuality, other religions, war and politics. The info on the colour of Phelps van or the interview of Libby and Jael may all be interesting, but they lack relevance, it may better be up simply linked.InTeRnAzI 11:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • What's stopping you from improving it? Wahkeenah 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "It's a mess" Have you seen the WBC web site. The trivia and gossip are the best parts, don't change a thing. If I wanted their opinions I could go to their web site. Geo8rge 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Invasion" by *chan members?

I seem to remember hearing something on 7chan's (now defunct) Invasion board about WBC; something about spamming free UPS boxes in huge quantities to the Church's address... Does anyone remember hearing about this or know if it ever happened? --Kenjoki 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that there was a planned 4chan raid. However, decent sources for such a thing almost certainly do not exist, so it would be best to give it a miss. J Milburn 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to the Christian Identity movement

The Christian identity movement, CIM, is primarily a white supremisist religion. While Westboro might be accused of being crude and not PC, they are not white supremisists. I personally think this section should be cut out, or differences with CIM, which are many, should be posted.

I agree. It is a misleading and pointless paragraph. I patched it up a bit to make it less misleading. GuyInCT 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


The United States is the true Israel.[15] I read the citation and I do not see this. It does say "Israel (America) is doomed". What they seem to be saying is that a bible lesson about Israel should be applied to the USA.

"Jews are "filthy" They do not seem to say this. They do seem to claim that Jews were somehow allied with, or helpful to, or tolerant of Homosexuals during the 1930s leading to their persecution. I do not see the term filthy being used.

It should be noted that WBC arguments usually start with opposition to homosexuals and end up with other groups like Canada, the US military or Jews. They do not seem to be fixated with those secondary groups like Jews. The CIM is fixated on Jews, among other groups.

Geo8rge 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok it is a Hate Organization if we cant tell the truth we need to delete and protect this article, thank you

I suggest that this article be renamed to avoid further confusion the Canadian Church

Rename this article: Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka KS) Geo8rge 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's ever heard of the Canadian church, so no need to change titles. 64.122.31.130 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

citations on list of slogans

I added a bunch of citations to the list of slogans since there was a request, but unfortunately, the convienant, obvious citation, thesignsofthetimes.net, doesn't list all the slogans they've used (like the three in this image, for instance), which means that I ended up tagging entries individually, very cumbersome. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest listing the quotations by wbc web page so you only have to cite once. Wikiquote might be a better place to put quotation lists. Geo8rge 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP

The name of at least one child is mentioned, and the photograph of a child is shown. Both are unjustifiable BLP. (Whether the names of adult members are not leaders and who have not been charged with crimes is BLP is a harder question.) Please give a reason not to delete or crop the photograph. The caption actually calls attention to the fact that the photograph of a child is included. DGG 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How is showing a picture of a child a BLP problem? I can understand a possible BLP concern with mentionign a name (although if the name is sourced there isn't a BLP issue althoug there may be a WP:DICK issue). What am I missing? JoshuaZ 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please identify that the child is, in fact, living right at the moment? --Darkdan 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside from that, this so-called church put that kid in a public place, so they have no basis for complaint if someone takes a photo and publishes it. Wahkeenah 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The "church" has no ground for complaint, but the child will--or at least I certainly hope so. There is a particular problem with all photographs and names of children, who cannot give consent, but it also applies to other innocent bystanders used in a possibly derogatory context, sourced or unsourced. Appearing in one of this groups picket lines is a possible derogatory context if there ever was one. Just crop the photo and change the caption. I do not know how to do that myself, or I would have done so. Why argue when it can be fixed? And I notice that there were some earlier questions by others about the use of names of member of the church. There is of course no problem with those who seek publicity for themselves. DGG 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the specific wikipedia policy that's at risk of being violated? Wahkeenah 06:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is WP:DICK. If the kid isn't adding anything to the picture then it isn't unreasonable to take it out. If I have time tommorow I'll try and make a cropped version. But to be clear, there is no actual policy or legal reason to do this. JoshuaZ 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That "policy" you mentioned is strictly subjective and basically a joke, so it has neither meaning nor applicability, here or anywhere else. In fact, it would appear that removing the kid from the picture amounts to POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Pushing what POV? JoshuaZ 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A personal opinion that kids should not be shown here, even though there is no wikipedia policy against it. And there is a compromise: His face could be blurred to avoid recognition, while making it clear that it's a kid (or a midget). Wahkeenah 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be against policy to be wrong. It feels sketchy publishing the name of a kid being used by this group. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with not publishing the name. But if he's in a public place, put there by these characters, it's fair game. Here's why: Someone might suppress the picture and then someone will challenge the claim that they are using kids. The picture is a primary source verifying that assertion. No names, though. Wahkeenah 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the picture's out, but a name is in my opinion totally unnecessary. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, the name does not belong. And the face could be hidden. Cropping smacks of McCarthyism. Keep in mind that it is this church doing the exploiting of these kids, not the one who takes their picture or publicizes the fact that the church exploits kids. The kids should be protected, but not ignored. Wahkeenah 02:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the current technique is to blur that portion of the image. DGG 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A blur, a swirl, a black square, any of those would be OK, perhaps with a comment that the child's face is covered as a courtesy. Wahkeenah 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with redacting the image, but it comes from their Web site where they've placed it in a public area. It doesn't actually do Wikipedia any good to edit the image after-the-fact, since it's still visible in its original location, and frankly I think that putting her image on their site does more harm to her than putting it on Wikipedia. -Harmil 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably so, but if some kind of suit comes down against them for exploiting children, at least wikipedia shouldn't be a party to it if they hid the child's identity. Wahkeenah 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What Kind of Baptist?

The article originally claimed they were Independent Baptist, but now it says primative Baptist. On Phelps personal page it still calls them independent. I've look at several independent Baptist sites and find no mention of WBC. Exactly which, if any, Baptist tradition do they belong to? They seem to be more Calvinist than anything else.--Dudeman5685 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WBC describes themselves in this page, they use all those terms. WBC in their own words. I know of no independent theological examination of WBC. Geo8rge 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, they get their facts wrong: the Five points of Calvinism were not Calvin's own summary, but came after (and in reply to) the Remonstrants. A.J.A. 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My son thought there was a Remonstrant under his bed last night, and got scared. I told him to be calm, it was only a Calvinist. Then he really got scared. Wahkeenah 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert in this matter. I have just had a lot of experience in working with many churches in different capacities, and with churches of many denominations including the Catholic church that I was born and raised under. This is my first post, so i hope I do the topic some justice. The funny thing about the Baptist demonination is that there are many differnt "splinters", if you will. While there are baptist churches who belong to registered groups, such as the SBC (Southern Baptist Council), Some churches decided to become "independent bcptist" where the hierarchy is somewhat flip flopped from what one would expect. For example: In the catholic church, the Pope essentially has the final word on the practices of parishes around the world. Then cardinals, arch bishops, bishops.... etc. One of the differnces in the baptist church is that the local pastor/reverend has the say as to what the church believes. This can also be put to a board or committee of elders. There are many, many, many, differnt variations. However, most Baptist churches avoid the "top down" form of rule in an effort to maintain their autonomy. Another key component is that Baptists believe in Baptism by water. (The majority of Christian and Catholic denominations feel the same way). Baptists, along with the bulk of Cristianity, believe that the Bible is the word of God and that the Bible is the final authority as to how to worship, live, and so on. However, all of these differnt denominations were created by people who had a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. But, i digress. St. John, one of the disciples closeest to Jesus, next to Peter, was called John the Baptist because he would literally baptize people in a river. (The Jordan I believe.) As a matter of fact, he baptized Jesus. So, ther is your first Baptist =P

This question is practically irrelevant as I suspect they are lawyers with an axe to grind over free speech rights (disguised as hyper-Calvinists to avoid trouble and to get local governments to regulate real churches and religious rights). So they are likely to not have a true, organized religious affiliation. 207.43.79.22 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Is everyone sure this isn't a hoax? Abeg92contribs 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing is certain in this world. Wahkeenah 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that what these people are doing goes beyond "hoax." Lines have been crossed. Explody 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Explody

  • If someone exercises their Second Amendment rights against them someday, then we'll know. Wahkeenah 09:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Second Amendment is the right to bear arms, not shoot people. I think you are talking the WBC too seriously. Geo8rge 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • More to the point, the right to defend themselves. Groups like the WBC often justify their actions on the grounds of "free speech", but the First Amendment is not about verbal assaults on individuals, it's about speaking out against the government. If the verbal violence continues against these individuals, some of them might decide to defend themselves against it. Wahkeenah 14:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Verbal violence does not immediately endanger someone's life and no court in the country would consider killing someone over some harsh words to be self-defense. I'm a proponent of the 2nd amendment myself, but it's never an excuse to commit murder.67.160.103.72 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah. What he said. The fact is that "rights" only matter when used by people you are opposed to. Shoot them and you make martyrs. LAUGH at them and you make them mad. 64.122.31.130 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly certain the only "hoax" in this case is their status as a church. I wish the Associated Press and other media groups would get in the habbit of calling them "a group which identifies itself as Westboro Baptist Church." 207.43.79.22 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates

The article is a little hazy on the history of the church and how it came to be set up. As far as I can gather, Phelps was a highly respected lawyer in the 1960s and 1970s, and received an accolade from the NAACP for his civil rights work as recently as the 1980s. Fast forward to 1993, and it seems Phelps is now pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and his God Hates Fags campaign is in full swing. There's a pretty big gap there. 217.155.20.163 21:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There really is no source for that info, if you really want to know contact them. There might be some old articles in a microfilm archive somewhere. Legal case histories are probably obtainable tooGeo8rge 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

hyperlinks

just a little note - the hyperlink to godlovesfags.com is incorrect, with a Q instead of a G and there doesn't appear to be a website godlovesFAQs.com although maybe there should be LOL

please can someone edit this to correct the hyperlink? it is in the "Responses" section.

also, why not add a link to the BBC page about the Louis Theroux show, as it has video clips on it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=louis_theroux

cheers!

82.32.207.59 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) have I signed that right?

I'd second that nomination for a link. Anyone else care to comment? mattbuck 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Theroux already has an extensive wiki page with plenty of info and links to BBC Two. Geo8rge 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweden.

In the article it says that Phelps and his church hate swedes because at swedish judge sentenced one of its members. In fact its because Åke Green, a swedish minister was sentenced for "hets mot folkgrupp" (defamation of a minority) after a sermon where he called gays "a tumor on society". The sentence was later changed to not guilty by the swedish supreme court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.71.123.2 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Ah, my bad. I remembered it was something to do with sweden...

And on the subject, I reverted the following addition:

"Thank God for the Tsunami. Thank God that 2000 dead Swedes are fertilising the ground over there. How many of those 2000 do you suppose were fags and dykes? That's the way the Lord deals with His enemies. And the Lord has got some enemies. And Sweeden heads the list. You filthy Swedes. YOU FILTHY SWEDES!!!!"

It wasn't cited, and the ending certainly sounds fake. mattbuck 09:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No that is real, I've heard the audio before...I'll try and find a reference if possible Aristeaus 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Consolidating the article

I moved some paragraphs around under common headings. I did not delete anything. I hope it made the article easier to readGeo8rge 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

VT Shootings

WBC is planning on picketing at the funerals of VT victims. Can anyone cover this?--66.142.39.61 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If they do, that's liable to trigger further violence. Wahkeenah 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, they announced their picketing at their site. http://godhatesamerica.com --24.123.108.198 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, this might result in some action against those evildoers. I'd like to see their little group try to stand up to an enraged student body of 25,000. Wahkeenah 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, it didn't happen. I was on the verge of organizing the 300-mile trip to counterprotest with whoever was willing to rent a greyhound. I haven't heard much about it, unless the media's ignoring it to move onto other things, since that's all these people need - media attention. Zchris87v 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Kudos to you for at least thinking about it. Wahkeenah 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-protest?, June 19, 2006

A protest against the Westboro Baptist Church was held in the vicinity of the WBC compound on June 19, 2006. It was organized by Bob Cutler, a resident of Topeka. Biteboy, a Florida band was brought in to play a concert at a neighbor's house, who claims she at first hesitated, as she claims she has been harrassed by the Phelps family for 46 years. The band was able to play through one song, until the Topeka Law Enforcement ordered the band to stop playing. They said the band was in violation of a city ordinance and they had recieved a complaint from the Westboro Baptist Church. Shirly Phelps-Roper later denied such a complaint was made and authories again had confirmed that it did come from the WBC. The protest was then moved to a nearby tavern. During this protest, there was no reports of violence or injuries.

Source: http://cjonline.com/stories/061906/loc_antiphelps.shtml

Baptist infobox

Regardless of what people think, the church proclaims itself to be baptist. It practices baptist church polity and some theology. Its members have to be baptised as adults in order to be church members. It has a congregational church government style (in theory).

And since the church is famous, it deserves to have a baptist infobox inserted. 95.9% of Baptists will be offended by the church's declaration of being baptist, but them's the brakes.

The article has a link to Independent Baptist and King James Onlyism as well.

The infobox should also give readers of the article the chance to check out what real baptists believe.

--One Salient Oversight 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist and the Apostle John were not the same man. Wahkeenah 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I would agree that the infobox should stay, perhaps adding a note saying something to the effect that The westboro church is only considered baptist to its own members would be a good idea. Darknessgp 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Christian Baptist movement does not subscribe to their ideologies. I may be able to call myself the President of the United States but that does not make me President of the United States. I think that it should be clearly stated that the Westboro Church is only considered baptist by it's own members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.52.244 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Delete. I think it's offensive to real Baptists that the Baptist infobox is included on this page. The WBC calling themselves Baptists is not a good enough reason to include it. There's no socialism infobox on the Nazism page. There's no Catholic church infobox on the David Bawden page. There's no "Presidents of the United States" infobox on the The Presidents Of The United States Of America page. Self identification is not enough. Delete the infobox! 129.55.200.20 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

KEEP yes they are offensive to real Baptists ,christians in general, or anyone who has any decency but that alone is not enough reason to delete it. Besides i think it's handy so their belief can be compared to other Baptists Harlock jds 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

KEEP So it's "offensive" - okay, fine. Specify on the wiki that their practices likely deviate from most accepted Baptist thought (I'd imagine?), and leave it at that. It's ridiculous to not include something because it's offensive. (Now, if they truly don't follow _anything_ in Baptist ideals, I take that back - but I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Baptism off the top of my head.)Exigence 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WBC's Web Site Missing?

Is there a good reason why the WBC's web site is not listed in the links? It's a pretty offensive site, but it is relevant to the article.

Site -> http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

-- WiccaWeb 20:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

you're right. this page says for links see fred phelps, and that article says for links see this page. wtf. -Indolences 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
edit: I went back all the way to November on both articles and there have been no links since at least then. -Indolences 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement

The word "fag" is a contraction of the word "faggot" (or, "fagot"). When traced through its etymological history, the word "faggot" simply means "a bundle of sticks used as fuel." See dictionary.com and thesaurus.com (where such words as "fuel" and "brimstone" are used as synonyms). "Scholars" can't decide when such a word began to be used in reference to homosexuals, so we'll give the answer here: "I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord." Amos 4:11. The word translated "firebrand" is the Hebrew word "uwd," which comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to rake together" (or, "to gather together"). In short, the Hebrew word "uwd" is talking about burning sticks of wood that are gathered together. That is what the English word "faggot" means. Amos 4:11 could just as easily be translated "...ye were as a faggot plucked out of the burning..."

Someone want to straighten this out? It sounds like they want to burn gays at the stake. And yet, Thou Shalt Not Kill. --Jnelson09 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another statement

I forgot the exact wording, but I read that they said their purpose is to make people hate God. If someone can find that, they better put it in the purpose section right away. --Jnelson09 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to the wbc-homepage? can someone put it in?

God hates PS3???

In the list of signs used, "God hates PS3" and "Fags play PS3" are included. These signs aren't shown on the link, and everything I can find on Google is using Wikipedia as it's source. Vandalism?

Removed. -Indolences 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That had been added, deleted and re-added between April 23 and 25. Somebody claims they saw it on a protest sign once. That's not exactly verifiable. Wahkeenah 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
More than likely it's some nintendo fanboys vandalizing. -Indolences 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, maybe we need to get the WBC's opinion about wikipedia. The publicity should be good, either way. :) Wahkeenah 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is vandalism. Not that this is a reliable source, but someone[1] on Yahoo Answers claims there are signs that say 'God Hates PS3' from Westboro Baptist. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon thing

For the anti-Mormon thing, you can use the statement about the Qur'an as a source where he talks about the Book of Mormon (the statement come from here), or there's these two accounts [2] [3] of the What's Wrong with the Mormon Church? lecture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.87.114 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

History and Politics

Seems I once read that Phelps' daughter was on the Topeka city council and they were friends (or at least political acquaintances) with Al Gore? If anyone has this information, it would be good for the article, if no other reason that the irony...

Oh come on. Use your head. 71.35.128.144 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Website

Once again, I'll bring this up: This offensive group's web site is relevant. Circular references to the Fred Phelps article is just silly. The Web address is relevant. Show a good reason for its removal or I'll just put it back. WiccaWeb 05:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Are they really a "church"?

Let's be sure they're really a church before we call them as such. Like what was said above, are their services mainly hoaxes? Do they really have a congregation that meets regularly (because it would seem to me all of their active members are on the road on weekends and are NOT in Westboro, Kansas).

Let's make it very clear that these people are not truly Baptists but are most likely disguising themselves as such to get around U.S. tax codes and to lampoon theological Calvinism. 207.43.79.22 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And, does church have to be capitalized on second reference? The author is lending them too much credit! 207.43.79.22 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe they're dodging taxes and/or satirizing Calvinism, cite sources for it. I don't think you'll find many editors in their corner. That said, dictionary.com's fourth definition for 'church' is for a Christian denomination, which may have the word capitalized. I'll grant that they're not exactly expounding ideals or attitudes I'd find consistent with Christ or Christianity in general, but unless we can site specific sources, we're off on our own. San Diablo 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Though, as it happens, the capitalisation is in breach of the Manual of Style in any case:
* Generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) require no capitalization:
* Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
* Correct (generic): The university offers …
* Correct (title): The University of Ottawa offers …
so it should be replaced with "church" whenever used alone (but not in 'Westboro Baptist Church'). TSP 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
In Louis Theroux's documentary he attended a "sermon" and it was implied that is was a weekly event. I suppose it could have been put on for the documentary but I think Louis would have cottoned on if that was the case. Tomgreeny 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, TSP. Thanks. San Diablo 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I'll be looking around for some info. I had an interview with Phelps once and I'll see if there are any dead-giveways there. 209.55.80.148 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record they meet all the minimum standards for being a church in Kansas, they do not accept donations so there is no tax angle I can see. There is evidence of avoiding some property taxes but that is probably chump change. Geo8rge 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo8rge. I'm sure a lot of non-religious groups may also qualify under Kansas law, too. It's a common scheme. BTW, the following is an article showing that they are a family of lawyers with an axe to grind. The article is from Thursday and appeared in papers across the country via the Associated Press:
"they are a family of lawyers" - Please see the info on Phelps Chartered. Geo8rge 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are a church in the same way hitler was a rabbi.70.72.162.9 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They might no meet your definition of a church but to the extent that US law is governing they are a church. Geo8rge 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

>>OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A member of the Kansas group that has drawn criticism for protesting at soldiers’ funerals has been arrested for letting her 10-year-old son stomp on a U.S. flag during a demonstration. She promised Wednesday to challenge the state’s flag desecration law in court.

Note: Westboro typically does not stomp on flags or burn flags at rallies when in states that are more tolerant of flag-burning. 207.43.79.22 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Kyle Discussion

This morning (05/06) spokeswomen from the Westboro Baptist Church discussed their controversial view points on the Jeremy Kyle Show. They suggested that the Virginia Tech Massacre was a cleansing act of God and that the awful actions of 9/11 were "good". I have never heard something so appalling in all my life.

God is love, forgiveness and truth.

What these people were allowed to say on public TV made me extremely angry.


    • I saw this as well. It is discusting.
    • Don't let them kid you. They're not a real church, as I am attempting to prove above.207.43.79.22 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Michigan law passed because of WBC's protests

[4]. Please add this under the "legal" section... protests are required to be 500 feet from funeral in Michigan, passed last year as a result of WBC. --66.227.194.89 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Geo8rge 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic content?

The paragraph in here doesn't seem encyclopedic to me...

"Even from a neutral perspective, it is undeniable that the group is racist, homophobic and anti-semitic. If God hates anyone, it is likely to be the members of Westboro Baptist Church." Ebudiu 04:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be personal opinion; I've removed it. TSP 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexuals and lesbians"?

I have replaced both incidences of the above with 'homosexuals'. There is a widespread misconception that the 'homo' part of the word relates to men and therefore the word means men who have sex with men, whereas in fact it is 'homos' which is Greek for 'same' and therefore homosexuals have sex with their own sex (something of a no-brainer, since heterosexuals have sex with the opposite sex), i.e., lesbians are homosexuals and are therefore included semantically in the word 'homosexual'. It is arguable that as a reference work, Wikipedia should use language which is consistent with proper (and logical) usage, not the usage of the dictionary-shy. Iantnm 18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Law's Prohibiting Funeral Protests

Can someone with power please remove the apostrophe?

Also, mention is needed here of the 21st June 2007 UK Channel 4 tv show "Keith Allen will burn in hell", which profiled wbc.

I've removed apostrophe Jru Gordon 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added in information about the show Keith Allen will burn in hell. Have left the swearing uncensored. --Dayfox 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New parody website

God Smokes Fags its a flash animation of 'God' sitting on a cloud smoking. Not hugely important, but at least noteworthy? 82.28.38.149 19:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)i am not sure how to write my name!

Useful web links

http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/ An in-depth article/archive on the WBC, from people who know much about their activities, the Topeka Capital-Journal.

http://www.addictedtohate.com/index.php Another website critical of the WBC, it includes message boards and text of the book "Addicted to Hate" by Jon Michael Bell, an exposé of Fred Phelps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.132.80 (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2007

something to ponder

If WBC is supposed to be a Christian movement... why do they stick up for Islamic terrorism so much? Maybe the group is a bogus Al-Queda/Hamas front group? Worth mentioning. That's be funny to learn that Fred Phelps is a RACE TRAITOR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


IRL Troll?

Is it possible that they don't actually believe what their saying and there just doing it for the lulz? 76.88.134.11 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone, delusional or not, could've considered the V Tech victims, the miners, and the Amish children "fag enablers". I suspect a few of them are just in it for the darkest lulz. --68.60.198.101 23:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


I am a Christian, and I think this church are the ones to be burned in hell - us Christians are meant to love everyone with open arms, These people are sick - God created people all the same - I have the uttermost respect for all races religions etc - there is nothing wrong with gays or anyone!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmg12 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

^^...and hopefully you won't get tarred with the same brush as these bastards! I mean it's pretty obvious as to how unchristian these westboro baptist animals are. (192.43.227.18 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

I've lived in Kansas nearly all my life, and live near Topeka. Believe me, they are for real, and NO, Kansans do not believe in their B.S. They are an ultra small brainwashing organization made up mostly of immediate family members. I feel very sorry for the children that grew up in the church. IF the church is in any way disingenuous, only Fred knows about it. This is not the kind of organization you can infiltrate for your own amusement.12.105.154.103 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you guys give them the treatment they deserve? I've watched several Youtube videos on them last night and apparently their 'compound' is located in the middle of a very normal suburban neighborhood and judging from the videos, the rest of the neighborhood and the town don't really seem to care about them.
These people's lives should be made so miserable that they would commit suicide or move to Afghanistan. They should be fired by their employers, the children hrown out from their schools and universities, stores should refuse to sell them clothing and food, and the utilities companies should only send two gay men together when they have a problem with their gas/water/electricity.
Harass them like they harassed the families of those who fought and died for our freedom, harass them until they leave. Chase them throughout the world until they throw themselves off the highest bridge. --Motz5768 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's see... The Phelp's compound isn't suburban, it's near the center of the city geographically. Let's go down the rest of your list.
    • They should be fired from their jobs. -- Most of them work for the family law firm. The others are _very_ good at what they do. They're uniformly bright capable people who are very careful to distinguish between their work and their private activities. And since the family law firm SPECIALIZES in persecution prosecution, if they get fired they sue _everyone_ and typically win. So, no that's a bad idea.
    • The children thrown out of their schools and universities -- Again, on what basis? And you would remove the younger kids from the only NORMAL influence in their young lives? Why again?
    • Stores should refuse to sell to them -- uh, see 1. Ditto Utilities and etc etc etc... Rick Boatright 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting take on things but perhaps not a view shared by those who have to live near/around them. They are somewhat autonomous and extremely litigious (lawsuit happy). They also seem to thrive on attention so most "regular folks" simply don't want to engage them and most (all?) businesses can't afford to treat them in a discriminatory way. Also keep in mind there are children involved so harassing them is seen as further victimizing children who are already in an extreme situation. Benjiboi 10:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Given public attitude around them, I'm almost sure the WBC (I just miskeyed |WGB briefly, if anyone appreciates the good accidental lulz) has already provided a foundation for their own legal downfall. There are things that religious freedom protection does not cover in the U.S., and harming kids is one of them (if you need proof of that, imagine a pedophile who rapes children and then claims that it's part of his religion in court). The thing about it is, they will almost certainly fight like rabid, wounded badgers before giving up, and I'm not sure anyone has felt like taking on that battle really. And, certainly, far be it from me to imagine that a promising young Kansas district attorney might want to make a name for himself by bringing suit against Fred Phelps for willful mental molestation of children...that would be quite unChristian of me.  ;D 76.90.141.94 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has to say it.

Thank God for juries. Anthony Krupp 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- ^^Here here! (192.43.227.18 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

-- Yeah, I hate to be another anonymous dis artist on the internet, but dear God, I'm a U.S. citizen and Fred Phelps is one of the most appalling human people I've ever seen. I wouldn't mind seeing national-level legislation that prevents funeral picketing...it's hard for me to see how that kind of thing ever does much good. I'm sort of in the process of converting to Christianity, and I probably would have done it much more wholeheartedly by now if it weren't for the Fred Phelps' and Jack Chick's of the world. God is supposed to bring love, if one is a Christian, not horrible, painful sadness and misinformation. 76.90.141.94 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If Fred Phelp's followers insist on spreading their hate message, they need not do it under the guise of a church.People everywhere need to know that God loves them unconditionally and that the true followers of the living God would never say that "God hates Fags". If these hate mongers actually read the Bible, they would realize that God is a God of love. He loves all people, including those who are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle. It is true that He hates all sin, including homosexuality, prejudice, hate, strife, etc. but He loves the sinner. God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to die for all sinners. but we must choose to serve Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.162 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to the preceding comment, Wikipedia is not your private forum to spread an intolerant agenda. It makes me angry to see how many modern Christians are complete idiots on homosexuality. You make me not want to convert, here. <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/actionabe/PhelpsPulpit.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a> 76.90.141.94 12:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Romans 9:13

According to the caption in a picture of a man holding a "God Hates Fags! Rom. 9:13" sign: "The cited Bible verse, Romans 9:13, has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather is simply a biblical example of God hating a certain person (in this case, Esau)."

Well, according to the New American Bible about that verse: "As it is written: I loved Jacob, but hated Esau", St. Paul was referring to the Book of Malachi when God said through the prophet himself: "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? says the LORD: yet I loved [preferred] Jacob [to Israel], but hated [rejected] Esau [to Edom]; / I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals." (1:3) According to its footnote, St. Paul uses this verse as an example of God's freedom in calling the Gentiles to the faith, not in hating homosexuals.

Is that clear? --Angeldeb82 20:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, it's certainly clear, but unless you've spent a bit of time listening to Fred, you mis-read the sign. (PLEASE NOTE! The following analysis is Fred's not mine.) The sign bears two messages.
  • God is capable of hate. This is counter to the message of many of Fred's counter protesters that "God is Love" or "God loves everyone." Clearly, biblical evidence is that God does _not_ love everyone, at the very least, he hated Esau.
  • Esau sold his birthright for a meal. Similarly, Americans have sold their souls to support homosexuality and fornication for short-term benefit. This abandonment of their birthright, abandonment of their position as the premminent leaders of modern christianity and of being a Christian nation brings them the same Godly regard as Esau, to whit, hate.
It's a stretch, no doubt about it. But please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Phelps are stupid or that they make stupid mistakes. The message of Romans 9:13 has to do with hate, not with homosexuality. Rick Boatright 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Westboro Church

Westboro Baptist Church is no more than the KKK in an official church form. --71.224.18.28 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.