I'm not entirely sure how free speech applies here. It's not really the gov't saying that they can't do their protests. It's a private person saying that their presence is unwanted and, in fact, harassing. I really fail to see how blatant harassment is protected in this instance. Would it be possible for folks to get a restraining order or something like that?

3/4/2011 5:56:18 PM

One day Fred Phelps will die and have a funeral.

3/4/2011 7:08:18 PM

ehehe. sounds like a plan

3/4/2011 7:26:05 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I mean, I'm agnostic, although I'm not at all hostile to religion or churches (and in fact, have a generally positive opinion of churches, Christians, etc). I don't really understand the tax exempt status, either, although I've never spent a lot of time thinking about it. The only thing I can think of is that pretty much all of their "income" is from charitable donation. How are charities treated under the tax laws?"

I think it depends on whether or not they are a "non-profit" and whether or not they are actively engaged in "political action" and/or attempt to influence legislation. Which is a pretty friggin' loose definition.

3/4/2011 8:12:01 PM

Quote :

"Would it be possible for folks to get a restraining order or something like that?"

Again, I think the problem is that Westboro Baptist Church planned their protests very carefully, pretty much protecting them from harassment accusations. They applied for a protest permit, stayed in the zone 1,000 ft away that the police assigned them, and obeyed all instructions from the cops. Their protest message was tailored in a way that they could claim that they're making a wide sweeping anti-government and anti-Catholic statements.

It's absolutely disgusting, but legally, they did it all within the letter of the law. I'm pretty sure if the Justices could have found any infraction or technicality to kick their asses, they would have done so.

3/5/2011 1:18:38 AM

Quote :

"I'm not entirely sure how free speech applies here. It's not really the gov't saying that they can't do their protests. It's a private person saying that their presence is unwanted and, in fact, harassing. I really fail to see how blatant harassment is protected in this instance. Would it be possible for folks to get a restraining order or something like that? "

They were a thousand feet away from the funeral and the guy didn't even see the signs until he saw a re-broadcast of the story on the television. I don't think you get to dictate an unwanted presence 1000 feet away from you. Even if they got a restraining order, aren't they typically only like 250 feet or something?

Quote :

"The only thing I can think of is that pretty much all of their "income" is from charitable donation. How are charities treated under the tax laws?""

Just because their income is donated from suckers doesn't mean they deserve tax exempt status. If the religious claims that the churches use to convince their parishioners to tithe are false (and I submit that they are) then it's a confidence scam.

If any other non-profit misled their donors about the nature of their donations they would be fined. Once again religion gets a pass in the name of tradition.

You may reply, "but the priests actually believe the falsehoods they dupe donations from". I don't think that's relevant (and possibly not even accurate in many cases) It's possible that the high-ups in the Church of Scientology believe the bullshit that Hubbard wrote. Is it any more of a grift than the money plate at a Christian church?

[Edited on March 5, 2011 at 3:03 AM. Reason : .]

3/5/2011 2:51:12 AM

The truthiness of the theology isn't important. What matters is that they do what they say they're going to do with the donations.

I don't know that this is the reason they get tax-exempt status...just the first thing that popped in my mind, and it seemed plausible and reasonable.

3/5/2011 11:43:16 PM

Has anyone thought about protesting Westboro Baptist Church? Every Sunday before service? Play some loud ass music. Really live it up.

3/5/2011 11:56:16 PM

they oughta get a bunch of gay dudes to have a giant human pile of buttsex right by WBC.

3/6/2011 12:01:07 AM

Quote :

"The truthiness of the theology isn't important. What matters is that they do what they say they're going to do with the donations."

If a cent of the donated money goes to upkeep of the church and continuation of proselytizing, then the truthiness of the theology is important. They convince people to donate by telling them that they have the path to salvation and truth. You donate the keep this sham going. They may commit charitable works, but always with the scam to go along with the charity and even megachurches preaching the terrible "prosperity gospel" have tax exempt status.

Why the fuck do these slimes not get taxed on the income they steal from the weak? People are welcome to blow their money on snake oil, but at least tax the salesmen. Give them tax breaks on whatever amount of money they actually spend on charity (less the goddamn money spent to print bibles to hand out, staff missionaries that preach instead of actually help, build churches etc) just like every other business.

Quote :

"they oughta get a bunch of gay dudes to have a giant human pile of buttsex right by WBC."

Pure genius.

3/6/2011 12:51:46 AM

Quote :

" Give them tax breaks on whatever amount of money they actually spend on charity (less the goddamn money spent to print bibles to hand out, staff missionaries that preach instead of actually help, build churches etc) just like every other business."

There's an argument to be made that the bibles, missionaries and churches are all aspects of their charitable work, and aren't much different from the money that a charity might spend on pamphlets, public speaking (or those little orphans with flies commercials) and new buildings and facilities.

That said, I agree that there should be more accounting for this and a separation of the business of the church from its charitable works.

3/6/2011 11:11:18 AM

has anyone pointed out that its kind of funny that soldiers died defending the right of these dumb hicks to protest their own funerals?

3/6/2011 1:10:51 PM

You know...I don't think anyone anywhere has pointed that. You may be on to something.

3/6/2011 1:19:12 PM

^^

not to defend WBC at all, because I won't. but who exactly was attacking our right to free speech? It's ridiculous how often that line of reasoning is used when there hasn't been a threat to freedom of speech (or any of our other rights for that matter) by anyone we've sent soldiers to attack since WW2.

Hell the biggest threat to our rights has been our own fucking government.

3/7/2011 11:50:25 AM

the terrorists hate us for our freedoms so if we just get rid of them we'll be all good.

3/7/2011 12:02:49 PM