NationStates Jolt Archive

I got this from a fellow soldier on MySpace. Things like this, even if they only happen once in every 50 funerals, happen one time to often and very spiteful and hateful or our men and women in the military. I don't know what this guy's party is, but party doesn't matter here. What matters is that these families have earned and deserve the right to say their good byes with peace and dignity without people calling them names, throwing rocks, and shouting insults and derogatory comments at them. We can't let anti-america and anti Bush protestors attack our national heroe's families while they are saying their final goodbye to their loved ones. Any one who thinks it right for Bush haters and other protestors to this kind of thing is dispicable.

Rogers Proposes the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act

While attending the funeral of a Michigan soldier who died of combat wounds suffered in Iraq, protestors attempted to disrupt the funeral by shouting vile and harassing slogans at the family and other mourners. Military families mourning the loss of a loved one killed in the defense of our nation deserve the right to say their final goodbyes in peace. America honors and respects our soldiers, and none more than those who die defending freedom and our nation.
Next week, I will be introducing federal legislation to protect grieving military families by banning protestors from military funerals. This legislation, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, will prohibit demonstrating one hour before and one hour after the service for a fallen solider and keep the protesters 500 feet from the grieving family. No family burying a son or daughter, a husband or wife, a brother or sister, should be faced with the insults, verbal attacks, and intimidation that these protestors were screaming or displaying on signs. This common sense legislation will help to protect military families in their most difficult hour and is narrowly tailored to fit within the time and place restrictions consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Giving citizens an opportunity to participate in the process and support the legislation, I launched an on-line petition. The petition will allow citizens to express honor and respect for our American soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation, as well as support for the people they love and leave behind. The petition and comments from citizens will be presented to the House Veterans Affairs Committee at an April 6 hearing in Washington.

Petitions can be signed at www.mikerogers.house.gov/fallenheroes.aspx I encourage you to forward this site to your friends and family and ask them to help protect military families.

So you want us to venerate the military? Piss off.

I'm all for stopping assholes overstepping their bounds but this is just an increase in status for the military over the 'common people'. What next, 'Service Garuntees Citizenship'?

Yea... I agree with above poster. I'm not American either haha.

To illustrate the importance of this to military families this is one of the top two pictures from the year 2005. It got second place:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/vetobob/2ndplace.jpg

Second Place
Todd Heisler The Rocky Mountain News
The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of 'Cat,' and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. "I think it would be kind of nice if you! kept doing it," she said. "I think that's what he would have wanted."

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.

*applauds* [Whittier]
Pity I can't sign this, since I'm not in the US.

Special laws for the military, and the erosion of freedom of speech. Oh, the irony. Especially since none of you rightist types were bitching when Phelps was picketing the funerals of homosexuals.

Actually

I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.
Hear hear! I don't see why the military deserve special protection. I wouldn't want those "God Hates Fags" people showing up at anyone's funeral.

The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time.
Isn't doing that sort of thing illegal?

Fair enough. The military need special protection more than other groups though.

To illustrate the importance of this to military families this is one of the top two pictures from the year 2005. It got second place:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/vetobob/2ndplace.jpg

Second Place
Todd Heisler The Rocky Mountain News
The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of 'Cat,' and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. "I think it would be kind of nice if you! kept doing it," she said. "I think that's what he would have wanted."

So they are human like the rest of us. Why then a law just to protect them? It's a slippery slope, the military is already drilled into peoples heads as a Good Thing from birth, we don't need more of it.

Fair enough. The military need special protection more than other groups though.

Why?

Special laws for the military, and the erosion of freedom of speech. Oh, the irony. Especially since none of you rightist types were bitching when Phelps was picketing the funerals of homosexuals.
Whose Phelps? I don't think anyone's funerals should be picketed regardless of how you feel or think about them.

Why?

Because the funerals with crazy nuts protesting at them are usually the military funerals.

Fair enough. The military need special protection more than other groups though.
I not asking for special protection. If they can do this to military families, they can do it to everyone who has had a loved one who has died.

On that site they have a place where you can put comments that will be presented to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
If you want that the law should cover all funerals, you should put them in there and the other members of Congress who are on the committee will see them. This is chance for your voice to be heard by those in power.

Isn't doing that sort of thing illegal?
They allowed her to do it.

Signed.

I hope his staff have enough sense to make the bill able to pass constitutional muster. I would think putting a set distance away from the gravesite, and/or simply banning protestors from ALL funerals would suffice.

Whose Phelps? I don't think anyone's funerals should be picketed regardless of how you feel or think about them.

www.godhatesfags.com , www.godhatesamerica.com and so on and so on. Do not pretend you do not know who he is, and his rightist, Christian nutjob group are the ones doing the picketing you're all bitching about now. He picketed the funerals of gay people for years and years and you were all silent, "freedom of speech!!!" and "freedom of religion!!!" and nothing was ever done about it.

And now he pickets the funerals of soldiers because he claims they died because the US "harbours" homosexuals. And all of a sudden, what he's doing is not so much "freedom of speech and religion." Because soldiers are apparently more important than other people. The hypocrisy sickens me.

Because the funerals with crazy nuts protesting at them are usually the military funerals.

Wrong. it's just that they get reported.

The geeral public has little sympathy with 'Gay funeral attacked by Religious Wacko'.

They have far more with 'Heroic Soldier's funeral attacked by Religious Wacko'.

So you want us to venerate the military? Piss off.

I'm all for stopping assholes overstepping their bounds but this is just an increase in status for the military over the 'common people'. What next, 'Service Garuntees Citizenship'?
One can only hope. :p

BTW ... that "Piss off" was totally unnecessary and uncalledfor. :(

To illustrate the importance of this to military families this is one of the top two pictures from the year 2005. It got second place:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/vetobob/2ndplace.jpg

Second Place
Todd Heisler The Rocky Mountain News
The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of 'Cat,' and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. "I think it would be kind of nice if you! kept doing it," she said. "I think that's what he would have wanted."
Oh God. Don't do that to me. :(

Actually

I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.
As do I, if for no other reason than to make this bill withstand any test of constitutionality.

One can only hope. :p

BTW ... that "Piss off" was totally unnecessary and uncalledfor. :(

I tend to be a little aggressive when any class seeks to put itself above another. A blanket limit on protesting a funeral is well and good but a special dispensation for the military only? I say again. Piss off.

I encourage you to forward this site to your friends and family and ask them to help protect military families.

No.

Special laws for the military, and the erosion of freedom of speech. Oh, the irony. Especially since none of you rightist types were bitching when Phelps was picketing the funerals of homosexuals.
Well, since you consider me to be a "rightist type," I feel compelled to remind you that I was. :p

I tend to be a little aggressive when any class seeks to put itself above another. A blanket limit on protesting a funeral is well and good but a special dispensation for the military only? I say again. Piss off.
Why so bitter? It seems to be totally unlike you. :(

Well, since you consider me to be a "rightist type," I feel compelled to remind you that I was. :p

No, you weren't. I never saw you post a damned thing about it until he started doing this to your little military "brothers." Spare me your false indignation.

The following is taken directly from Congressman Mike Rogers's website for the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" It's appalling to see how insensitive some people can be. Please read this, repost it, and visit the website and fill out the petition. I ask you not only as a respectable American, but also as a member of the United States Armed Forces. The website is at http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/fallenheroes.aspx. Even if you have never been in the military or disagree with the US being in Iraq I highly encourage you to explore the site. Thank you for your support.


I got this from my friend on MySpace, I don't know where he got it from though:

Rogers Introduces Bill Protecting Military Funeral Mourners


Wednesday, March 29 2006 – American military men and women, who give their lives in service to the nation, deserve to be buried peacefully and with dignity.

“America needs a chance to put its collective arms around these families and say, ‘you have the right to grieve peaceably and to bury your loved ones with dignity and respect,’” said U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, MI-08, who is introducing legislation today to shelter grieving families from demonstrators trying to disrupt funeral services.

The legislation, the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, is being introduced by Rogers and Rep. Silvestre Reyes, TX-16, along with House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer, IN-04, and Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller, FL-01, as well as nearly 40 other original co-sponsors.

Rogers, a veteran and brother of a career military officer, drafted the measure after attending a funeral in Michigan where a group of demonstrators yelled at the mourners, making vile, taunting, harassing comments about U.S. military men and women who are defending the nation and our freedom.

“Mourning the loss of a loved one in uniform should not be disrupted by the despicable acts of others,” Buyer said. “This legislation is a clear sign that there is no tolerance for those who choose to disrupt the sacred and sacrosanct burial of a loved one. I commend Congressman Rogers who acted quickly and with a strong purpose to protect America’s military families. There should be no question that this nation stands with the men and women in uniform, and their families.”

Reyes pointed out the irony of having to defend military families in mourning for their loved ones.

“It is sad that such legislation is needed, as these families are bearing the brunt of this war,” said Reyes. “This bill is necessary to protect their peace and dignity during their time of great loss and personal tragedy. Rep. Mike Rogers’ leadership on this issue reflects his tireless advocacy on behalf of our service members and their families.”

Rogers said the measure would prevent disruption of military funerals at national cemeteries beginning 60 minutes before and continuing for 60 minutes after the service, and keep protestors at least 500 feet away from mourners during any demonstration. It also includes a sense of Congress that all 50 states should adopt similar legislation affecting all military funeral and burial sites.

“There has to be a sense of decency,” said Rogers. “America has a responsibility to ensure that the families of our fallen heroes can grieve in peace and with dignity.”

people calling them names, throwing rocks, and shouting insults and derogatory comments at them. We can't let anti-america and anti Bush protestors attack our national heroe's families while they are saying their final goodbye to their loved ones. Any one who thinks it right for Bush haters and other protestors to this kind of thing is dispicable.

Oh my God, could you at least TRY and pretend you know what you are talking about? :rolleyes:

The ONLY people protesting at military funerals are the delusional gay-hating followers of Fred Phelps' "church in Topeka, Kan., that espouses the belief that God is killing American soldiers because they fought for a country that tolerates homosexuality."
See "Anti-gay fury mars funeral of a soldier in Aboka" (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/266514.html) plus dozens of other stories, lots of which have actually been posted and discussed on this very forum.

Seriously, you're not doing yourself and your cause a favour with this. :rolleyes:

<snip>[QUOTE]

I have never heard of Phelps, except mentioned in passing on NS and I never bothered to follow it up. That site was hilarious and sickening at the same time. I think the occasion calls for a gun smilie. :sniper: Are you SURE it isn't a joke? I've heard of the site before, but... It really, really looks like a joke.

[QUOTE]7. We fly the flag upside down because this country is in a state of great distress. Anyone familiar with military protocol knows that when the ship or the fort is in distress and under heavy enemy attack, the flag should be flown upside down to show the approaching relief garrison the state of affairs in a terse, unmistakable message.

WTF?????

Yes, ideally we should make all protesting at funerals illegal.

.. the military is already drilled into peoples heads as a Good Thing from birth ...
Bullshit.

You wouldn't have said this had you been with me the second time I came back from Vietnam. :(

I not asking for special protection. If they can do this to military families, they can do it to everyone who has had a loved one who has died.

On that site they have a place where you can put comments that will be presented to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
If you want that the law should cover all funerals, you should put them in there and the other members of Congress who are on the committee will see them. This is chance for your voice to be heard by those in power.
I did.

No, you weren't. I never saw you post a damned thing about it until he started doing this to your little military "brothers." Spare me your false indignation.
Either you missed it, or your memory is faulty. :p

No, you weren't. I never saw you post a damned thing about it until he started doing this to your little military "brothers." Spare me your false indignation.
Why don't you send them a comment saying that you want the bill to cover all funerals? Why the bitterness? And no, I never heard of Phelps until you mentioned him just now in this thread.

Either you missed it, or your memory is faulty. :p

Or you just simply never did. Of all those inane articles you keep on posting, I remember not a single one of them being about Phelps picketing funerals before he started picketing the funerals of soldiers. As I said, please do spare me your contrived claims to the contrary - we both know they are false.

Oh my God, could you at least TRY and pretend you knew what you are talking about? :rolleyes:

The ONLY people protesting at military funerals are the delusional gay-hating followers of Fred Phelps' "church in Topeka, Kan., that espouses the belief that God is killing American soldiers because they fought for a country that tolerates homosexuality."

See "Anti-gay fury mars funeral of a soldier in Aboka" (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/266514.html) plus dozens of other stories, lots of which have actually been posted and discussed on this very forum.

Seriously, you're not doing yourself and your cause a favour with this. :rolleyes:
Which is one reason I suggested to him that the bill should address ALL funerals. :p

Why don't you send them a comment saying that you want the bill to cover all funerals? Why the bitterness? And no, I never heard of Phelps until you mentioned him just now in this thread.


I find that frankly astonishing -- Phelps has been in the news and bashed on this forum for years.

And no, as much as one would wish so, Phelps' sites are not a horrible joke.

Why don't you send them a comment saying that you want the bill to cover all funerals? Why the bitterness?

I don't want the bill to come about at all. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I wasn't calling for his right to protest to be curtailed when he was picketing the funerals of gay people, and I sure as hell won't be doing it when he pickets the funerals of soldiers.

My "bitterness" comes from all you Johnny Comelatelies who seem to think this is anything new, and that all of a sudden it should be banned because it is those oh, so precious soldiers and their families he's doing it to.

And no, I never heard of Phelps until you mentioned him just now in this thread.

I don't believe you. I really don't. His presence in US media, and these forums, has been so pervasive, you had to have been living under a rock for the last five years not to know who he is.

Which is one reason I suggested to him that the bill should address ALL funerals. :p
Members of Congress who are sponsoring the bill:

43 Cosponsors of the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act

Representatives:

Steve Buyer (IN)
Silvestre Reyes (TX)
Jeff Miller (FL)
Lane Evans (IL)
Bob Ney (OH)
Chris Chocola (IN)
Mark Kennedy (MN)
Jerry Weller (IL)
Dale Kildee (MI)
John Shimkus (IL)
Mike Sodrel (IN)
J.D. Hayworth (AZ)
Greg Walden (OR)
Rob Simmons (CT)
Madeleine Bordallo (GU)
John Kline (MN)
Jim Gerlach (PA)
Thad McCotter (MI)
Joe Schwarz (MI)
Mike Rogers (AL)
Henry Brown (SC)
Jim Ryun (KS)
Geoff Davis (KY)
Sanford Bishop (GA)
Marilyn Musgrave (CO)
Joe Knollenberg (MI)
Steve Chabot (OH)
Candice Miller (MI)
Marion Berry (AR)
John Porter (NV)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Corrine Brown (FL)
Ted Strickland (OH)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Todd Platts (PA)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Mike Bilirakis (FL)
Bob Filner (CA)
Steve King (IA)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Joel Hefley (CO)
John Hostettler (IN)
John Tanner (TN)

Are any of those your Congressman?

If not, click for your congressional rep.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

I find that frankly astonishing -- Phelps has been in the news and bashed on this forum for years.

And no, as much as one would wish so, Phelps' sites are not a horrible joke.
I have a confession to make: I haven't been reading every thread on the forums.

I don't want the bill to come about at all. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I wasn't calling for his right to protest to be curtailed when he was picketing the funerals of gay people, and I sure as hell won't be doing it when he pickets the funerals of soldiers.

My "bitterness" comes from all you Johnny Comelatelies who seem to think this is anything new, and that all of a sudden it should be banned because it is those oh, so precious soldiers and their families he's doing it to.



I don't believe you. I really don't. His presence in US media, and these forums, has been so pervasive, you had to have been living under a rock for the last five years not to know who he is.
Then I guess I have been living under a rock. Where are these threads you are talking about?

Bullshit.

You wouldn't have said this had you been with me the second time I came back from Vietnam. :(

I never said it stuck now did I? And I deplore the people who attack individuals like that as well (though probably never as much as you).

But you're smart enough to know that Action Man/GI Joe and all the showy stuff the military put on makes kids go 'Wow. Cool!'. It has a very good PR machine and it's hard to entirely lose the influence.

Hell it makes me go 'Wow! Cool!' still, even though I know how they do it and what those machines are really for, there's still something incredible about watching the Red Arrows in full flight.

Why so bitter? It seems to be totally unlike you.

Not been my best week alas. Looking up now thank God (been having a time of it getting sponsorship for a hike for my Scouts charity trip to Uganda but it's starting to pay off now).

Then I guess I have been living under a rock. Where are these threads you are talking about?

In the forums. Use the search function if you wish to retrieve them. I remain incredulous to your claims.

The text of the bill is here (you need adobe acrobat to read it though):

http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/media/pdfs/fallenheroes.pdf

Members of Congress who are sponsoring the bill:

43 Cosponsors of the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act

Representatives:

< snip >

Are any of those your Congressman?

If not, click for your congressional rep.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
No, but I'll call her tomorrow. I'm sure she will want to support the bill.

There doesn't seem to be even ONE North Carolina congressperson on that list! WTF, over?? :(

I have a confession to make: I haven't been reading every thread on the forums.
:eek:

Oh noez! OMG WTF, over? U iz t3h sukzorz!!!!ONE!!1111!

I never said it stuck now did I? And I deplore the people who attack individuals like that as well (though probably never as much as you).

But you're smart enough to know that Action Man/GI Joe and all the showy stuff the military put on makes kids go 'Wow. Cool!'. It has a very good PR machine and it's hard to entirely lose the influence.

Hell it makes me go 'Wow! Cool!' still, even though I know how they do it and what those machines are really for, there's still something incredible about watching the Red Arrows in full flight.



Not been my best week alas. Looking up now thank God (been having a time of it getting sponsorship for a hike for my Scouts charity trip to Uganda but it's starting to pay off now).

1. What do you have against the military?

2. What do you need for your Uganda trip?

Or you just simply never did. Of all those inane articles you keep on posting, I remember not a single one of them being about Phelps picketing funerals before he started picketing the funerals of soldiers. As I said, please do spare me your contrived claims to the contrary - we both know they are false.
You know, much as I like you, sometimes ... ! :(

It's true that I didn't START a thread on the Right Revulsive Mr. Phelps, but I did indeed post my disapproval of him and his Klan on threads begun by others. I suppose you can remember every post out of the 25,000 + I've made since I joined NS General though, so you MUST be correct! :rolleyes:

No, but I'll call her tomorrow. I'm sure she will want to support the bill.

There doesn't seem to be even ONE North Carolina congressperson on that list! WTF, over?? :(
Only one Californian :(
but then again I am thinking about changing my home state to Texas or Arizona. My sister and my neice live in Texas, 2 of my other sisters live in Ok and Kans. But my girlfriend lives in Arizona.

Not been my best week alas. Looking up now thank God (been having a time of it getting sponsorship for a hike for my Scouts charity trip to Uganda but it's starting to pay off now).
Sorry about that. I sure hope things develop as you want them to. I kinda hate when you get like this. :(

Only one Californian :(
but then again I am thinking about changing my home state to Texas or Arizona. My sister and my neice live in Texas, 2 of my other sisters live in Ok and Kans. But my girlfriend lives in Arizona.
Then move to Arizona, you doof! Jeeze. What a no-brainer! Duh! :D

You know, much as I like you, sometimes ... ! :(

It's true that I didn't START a thread on the Right Revulsive Mr. Phelps, but I did indeed post my disapproval of him and his Klan on threads begun by others. I suppose you can remember every post out of the 25,000 + I've made since I joined NS General though, so you MUST be correct! :rolleyes:

Oh, this is getting pathetic of you Eutrusca. Stand by your ubiquitous bias like a man, at least. I don't for a second buy what you're selling here, especially not this side of that thread where you tried to pass Phelps' actions off as being those of a peace movement.

1. What do you have against the military?

2. What do you need for your Uganda trip?

1. The military is one of those thing I wish we didn't need. I appreciate the work it does but I hate the fact that we still need to keep men at arms ready to kill and be killed.

It's more that I hate the situation requiring us to have a military. I'd join up if I had to because there are some evils that need to be fought but I see those evils as products of the situation that requires us to have a militay.

It's a vicious circle I guess, doubt we'll ever really break it in the end.

2. Well before today I needed about 700 pounds to get there (out of about 1300-1400) but I've got about 50 in cash and a couple of hundred in promises from friends at various local churches. And I've just finished the email for friends and relations, just need my parents to get home so I can get all the email addys I need.

I don't see why this should be limited to military funerals. All or nothing is the only fair way to go here.

Bullshit.

You wouldn't have said this had you been with me the second time I came back from Vietnam. :(

Ah, yes the USA of the 70's has been preserved in aspic and absolutely nothing has changed across the cultural and political landscapes since that time...

Sorry about that. I sure hope things develop as you want them to. I kinda hate when you get like this. :(

Thanks Eut. :)

Ah, yes the USA of the 70's has been preserved in aspic and absolutely nothing has changed across the cultural and political landscapes since that time...

You know, Eutrusca's posts would lead you to think he believes that to be true.

Ah, yes the USA of the 70's has been preserved in aspic and absolutely nothing has changed across the cultural and political landscapes since that time...

* checks Eut's sig *

Apologies, "the USA of the 60's".

"Fallen Heroes Act"

Sorry, what makes them 'heroes' exactly?

1. The military is one of those thing I wish we didn't need. I appreciate the work it does but I hate the fact that we still need to keep men at arms ready to kill and be killed.

It's more that I hate the situation requiring us to have a military. I'd join up if I had to because there are some evils that need to be fought but I see those evils as products of the situation that requires us to have a militay.

It's a vicious circle I guess, doubt we'll ever really break it in the end.

2. Well before today I needed about 700 pounds to get there (out of about 1300-1400) but I've got about 50 in cash and a couple of hundred in promises from friends at various local churches. And I've just finished the email for friends and relations, just need my parents to get home so I can get all the email addys I need.

What's that in US currency?

I don't want the bill to come about at all. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I wasn't calling for his right to protest to be curtailed when he was picketing the funerals of gay people, and I sure as hell won't be doing it when he pickets the funerals of soldiers.

My "bitterness" comes from all you Johnny Comelatelies who seem to think this is anything new, and that all of a sudden it should be banned because it is those oh, so precious soldiers and their families he's doing it to.



I don't believe you. I really don't. His presence in US media, and these forums, has been so pervasive, you had to have been living under a rock for the last five years not to know who he is.
i dont know anything about them protesting at the funerals of gay people but when these assholes came to new mexico to protest that new mexico churches werent being mean enough to gay people, people on all side of the political spectrum showed up to protest them. it was very uniting to have conservatives and liberals work together to drown out these hateful people.

No one should be allowed to demonstrate at a funeral...they're dead for christ's sake. It's just harrassment.

Freedom of speech. Well, all freedoms have limits, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and neither should it allow you to demonstrate at someone's funeral.

Everyone seems to support our various freedoms until some starts doing something that others dont like. As long as the protestors do not trespass on to private property they have the right to assemble and freedom of speech. Further more there are ussually laws or ordinancdes at the local level that prohibit to many people from assembling at once without a permit. I feel its very uncouth to protest any funeral. Shows very little class and seems like a waste of effort by the protestors to convey any message they might have. But I still would not enact legislation. I dont know where people have derived this right to not be offended.
These are the kind of freedoms soldiers die for. To impede these freedoms in some fashion means these honered soldiers died in vain.
So in the future my advice is "Buck Up" and "Dont Be A Pussy".
On a side note protesting a funeral shows a real lack of spirtuallity the majority of religions evens pagans, have some type of philosiphy of peace for the dead and its bad luck to speak ill of the dead. It seems like alot of these protestors without some type of god(dess).

i dont see that regulating protests at funerals is a federal issue. shouldnt it be up to state and local governments to write the law and enforce it?

What's that in US currency?

Well I needed 1217.5 USD according to the calculator. What I've got in cash amounts to roughly $85 and I'm not sure how much is in promises because most of the forms are still out for people to sign but there's a good $200 that I know about on them.

I have a confession to make: I haven't been reading every thread on the forums.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475804&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474956&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475088&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473779&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474806&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474925&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474430&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474529&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474191&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474300&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474038&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473966&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473561&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473497&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473544&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473121&highlight=Phelps

That's a small selection of the threads about him. You must not have been reading threads on the forums, and cut off completely from newspapers, the internet, and television.

i dont see that regulating protests at funerals is a federal issue. shouldnt it be up to state and local governments to write the law and enforce it?
It looks like the law is going to affect national cemetaries mostly. There are two that are specifically mentioned in the bill.

Well I needed 1217.5 USD according to the calculator. What I've got in cash amounts to roughly $85 and I'm not sure how much is in promises because most of the forms are still out for people to sign but there's a good $200 that I know about on them.
Have you tried calling radio stations? What is the purpose of your trip?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475804&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474956&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475088&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473779&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474806&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474925&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474430&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474529&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474191&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474300&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474038&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473966&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473561&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473497&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473544&highlight=Phelps
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473121&highlight=Phelps

That's a small selection of the threads about him. You must not have been reading threads on the forums, and cut off completely from newspapers, the internet, and television.


thanks.

actually you are correct in your perception. We have absolutely no tv, no radio, no newspapers, and our internet service is very limited. It is miraculous that I am able to even post this cause our internet always goes out everytime there's a rain. It hasn't happened yet today. Course the power did go out. It's been out all day cause the Iraqis shut it down everytime it rains.
Then sometimes it goes out cause they didn't refill the generators at the power station.

It looks like the law is going to affect national cemetaries mostly. There are two that are specifically mentioned in the bill.
Not that I read it very carefully, but didn't the bill state that there could be no protest without the permission of the owner of the cemetary? Loophole, 1 bribe away.

Have you tried calling radio stations? What is the purpose of your trip?

The trip is to help build wells in a group of villages in the south. I don't think we've tried local radio but the team leaders have been off in Uganda again lately so I can't check on it.

I'm working on some stuff for the local paper which should get a bit.

1. The military is one of those thing I wish we didn't need. I appreciate the work it does but I hate the fact that we still need to keep men at arms ready to kill and be killed.

It's more that I hate the situation requiring us to have a military. I'd join up if I had to because there are some evils that need to be fought but I see those evils as products of the situation that requires us to have a militay.

It's a vicious circle I guess, doubt we'll ever really break it in the end.

2. Well before today I needed about 700 pounds to get there (out of about 1300-1400) but I've got about 50 in cash and a couple of hundred in promises from friends at various local churches. And I've just finished the email for friends and relations, just need my parents to get home so I can get all the email addys I need.

As an interesting corollary to this, military hating and also doing charity work in Uganda, a couple of years ago when i was in the UOTC (university Officer Training Corps) I went to Uganda for a month to do well digging and adventurous pursuits and such, the only difference is that the military paid for much of the cost so I only paid about £250 of my own money and £250 fundraising. I guess my point is that the military isn't all bad, or something like that.

As an interesting corollary to this, military hating and also doing charity work in Uganda, a couple of years ago when i was in the UOTC (university Officer Training Corps) I went to Uganda for a month to do well digging and adventurous pursuits and such, the only difference is that the military paid for much of the cost so I only paid about £250 of my own money and £250 fundraising. I guess my point is that the military isn't all bad, or something like that.

I know it isn't all bad. The Royal Engineers and the like plus the various charity stuff they do. it's the whole 'killing people' business I don't dig.

i dont see that regulating protests at funerals is a federal issue. shouldnt it be up to state and local governments to write the law and enforce it?actually it is addressed by section 4 of the law

The trip is to help build wells in a group of villages in the south. I don't think we've tried local radio but the team leaders have been off in Uganda again lately so I can't check on it.

I'm working on some stuff for the local paper which should get a bit.
Ah. I am well aware of the intrinsic needs for wells in that part of Africa. The water in neighboring nations in the horn of Africa is pretty much run out causing the tribes in those areas to actually have literal wars over water.Whole tribes and villages risk being attacked by maurading bands as they attempt to move to Uganda to be near water sources. I was reading an article where this one tribe, had to move cause their secret source of water had dried up. Along the way they were attacked by enemy tribes who took their cattle, all of their water, and raped their women and children.
It's a terrible situation there.

Are you guys making in precautions in terms of security? Cause the guys who are attacking these tribes have been going after humanitarian groups as well.

I'm not sure what to think at this point. I would be for the idea that any funeral should have the same protections. Funerals are good things, in the sense that you have a bunch of people getting together to think about someone other than themselves. Or is that really the case? One could say that funerals are a bunch of people getting together to feel sorry for themselves because someone that they cared about is no longer part of their life.

In any case, I don't see this bill as an erosion of freedom of expression.

Ah. I am well aware of the intrinsic needs for wells in that part of Africa. The water in neighboring nations in the horn of Africa is pretty much run out causing the tribes in those areas to actually have literal wars over water.Whole tribes and villages risk being attacked by maurading bands as they attempt to move to Uganda to be near water sources. I was reading an article where this one tribe, had to move cause their secret source of water had dried up. Along the way they were attacked by enemy tribes who took their cattle, all of their water, and raped their women and children.
It's a terrible situation there.

Are you guys making in precautions in terms of security? Cause the guys who are attacking these tribes have been going after humanitarian groups as well.

We're being accomodated in a compound a little way from the work sites with armed guards on site so we should be OK on that front.

The local area has been pretty peaceful of late from what I saw, hopefully it on't take a turn for the worse.

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.
I totally agree.

I totally agree.
Seconded (Although possibly thirded or fourthed...)

Babe, the only people protesting at the funerals are your best mates; the anti-gay Westbro church led by none other than el-supremo anti-gay Phelps.

We're being accomodated in a compound a little way from the work sites with armed guards on site so we should be OK on that front.

The local area has been pretty peaceful of late from what I saw, hopefully it on't take a turn for the worse.
Ah. Hmmm. Is there anything any one on this forum could do to help? Though, we should probably start a seperate thread for this.

Okay people.... its time to grow up.

These are FUNERALS for God's sake. No matter who's funeral it is, there shouldnt be people jeering and yelling hateful things at the family of the person who is being buried. ANYBODY (be it people protesting military or gays or whatever) who does that is not only childish, but disrespectful, rude, and the list of adjectives goes on and on. Imagine tomorrow your wife, or husband, or brother or sister, or child or parent died. Would YOU want people jeering your family member for anything at all while you're trying to grieve?

It's a shame we dont remember that little golden rule we were taught in school. "Treat others as you would like to be treated"

Grow the f*** up and be an adult about this for crying out loud.

Ah. Hmmm. Is there anything any one on this forum could do to help? Though, we should probably start a seperate thread for this.

Depends what you mean by help. Money's always good ;) Although anyone who can tell me what it's like 'on the ground' would be a great help.

It probably should have it's own thread but no-ones moaning about it in here.

Military or not, families of people who've been killed deserve a right to a quiet, private funeral.

However you feel about the military, if you would actually protest at a person's funeral, you are the rudest, most inconsiderate, obnoxious person I have ever met, and you have no respect from me.

People who protest at military funerals are just as bad as those people who were protesting at Matthew Shephard's funeral against homosexuality.

Military or not, families of people who've been killed deserve a right to a quiet, private funeral.

However you feel about the military, if you would actually protest at a person's funeral, you are the rudest, most inconsiderate, obnoxious person I have ever met, and you have no respect from me.

People who protest at military funerals are just as bad as those people who were protesting at Matthew Shephard's funeral against homosexuality.
same people arent they?

This should not be a partisan matter. Its not venerating the military, its protecting their families at a time when irrational ignorant fucks are out to make their lives diffacult.

If your yelling shit at a mourning family, you should have your ass thrown in jail. I dont care if the deceased is gay, jewish, black, or a soldier, being a disrespectful spiteful peice of shit is being a disrespectful spiteful peice of shit.

How would you totally militant anti-everything not rainbows and butterflies like it if some of the total hardcore redneck gun nuts went and yelled crap at your families when you died?

If you think thats different at all youve got yourself a double standard.

One state is moving to pass similar laws.

I think people should picket their so called law firm, Phelps-Chartered.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/14243289.htm

same people arent they?

I think the point is that there is no moral difference between a military funeral and some civilian persons funeral.

Depends what you mean by help. Money's always good ;) Although anyone who can tell me what it's like 'on the ground' would be a great help.

It probably should have it's own thread but no-ones moaning about it in here.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10685093#post10685093

It's your show.

This should not be a partisan matter. Its not venerating the military, its protecting their families at a time when irrational ignorant fucks are out to make their lives diffacult.

If your yelling shit at a mourning family, you should have your ass thrown in jail. I dont care if the deceased is gay, jewish, black, or a soldier, being a disrespectful spiteful peice of shit is being a disrespectful spiteful peice of shit.

How would you totally militant anti-everything not rainbows and butterflies like it if some of the total hardcore redneck gun nuts went and yelled crap at your families when you died?

If you think thats different at all youve got yourself a double standard.

I haven't seen any one on here saying it was right to do at any funeral.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10685093#post10685093

It's your show.

Thanks!

I am against Bush and the war in Iraq, but protesting at a funeral is just revolting. The dead, and their family, friends, etc., deserve a basic level of respect. What I do think though, is that protesting should be banned at all funerals, not just military ones.

Okay people.... its time to grow up.

These are FUNERALS for God's sake. No matter who's funeral it is, there shouldnt be people jeering and yelling hateful things at the family of the person who is being buried. ANYBODY (be it people protesting military or gays or whatever) who does that is not only childish, but disrespectful, rude, and the list of adjectives goes on and on. Imagine tomorrow your wife, or husband, or brother or sister, or child or parent died. Would YOU want people jeering your family member for anything at all while you're trying to grieve?

It's a shame we dont remember that little golden rule we were taught in school. "Treat others as you would like to be treated"

Grow the f*** up and be an adult about this for crying out loud.
Nobody says it's good form to protest at a funeral. But as far as I can tell the question is, why should there be a law against protesting at a military funeral, and not one against protesting at a civilian funeral?

So you want us to venerate the military? Piss off.

I'm all for stopping assholes overstepping their bounds but this is just an increase in status for the military over the 'common people'. What next, 'Service Garuntees Citizenship'?


Today, 3:17 PM #3
Peisandros
ZX81 H4x0r0r


Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Zealand.
Posts: 1,195 Yea... I agree with above poster. I'm not American either haha.
__________________
Vindication, Is all it takes to change your life


I wouldnt call it actively supporting it or calling it good form, but these two (which were the first two replies to this thread) seemed to be at least tacitly supporting it. I thought id made my sentiments known at either rate.

And I said i think it should be illegal to do that at any funeral, and in my signing of the petition, i stated as much to the congressman. But right now, there is an immediate need to stop these people from denegrating our servicemen's funerals for sure.

Nobody says it's good form to protest at a funeral. But as far as I can tell the question is, why should there be a law against protesting at a military funeral, and not one against protesting at a civilian funeral?
I can think of a few reasons why the military should enjoy special protection from the state.
The only reason these soldiers' funerals are being protested is because of their involvement in a war in which, like the war or not, they put their lives on the line on behalf of the state. And unlike other occupations, they can't just quit if they don't agree with the ethics of their company.
I'm not saying that gays for instance don't deserve the protection of a protest free funeral, but the state doesn't owe them as much.

I can think of a few reasons why the military should enjoy special protection from the state.
The only reason these soldiers' funerals are being protested is because of their involvement in a war in which, like the war or not, they put their lives on the line on behalf of the state. And unlike other occupations, they can't just quit if they don't agree with the ethics of their company.
I'm not saying that gays for instance don't deserve the protection of a protest free funeral, but the state doesn't owe them as much.

Yes it does, if it still stands for freedom and equality. The military aren't special people, and, the day they become such in America, it'll learn what Brazil 1968 was like. Make it all or make it nothing.

I see no reason why the military should get any special protection from protestors. Either all or nothing; there's nothing special about dead sldiers, and nothing that really makes them 'Heroes' unless they have done something spectacular. They knew what they were doing and they signed up to fight; they knew that they might die, or they would never have served. Yes, it is regrettable, but they shouldn't get any special treatment.

Oh and Whitter-- - why aren't you using Socialist Whitier to post now?

Bullshit.

You wouldn't have said this had you been with me the second time I came back from Vietnam. :(

Dude, its been a long time since Nam, about a third of a century; the times have changed.

Yes it does, if it still stands for freedom and equality. The military aren't special people, and, the day they become such in America, it'll learn what Brazil 1968 was like. Make it all or make it nothing.
Two things.
Firstly, as I said in my post, I don't actually think that this rule should be specifically extended only to military personel necessarily.
Secondly, I was using the word 'owe' in its direct, literal meaning in terms of a quid pro quo relationship. Certainly the government 'owes it' to its people to treat them equally, but regarding soldiers, if it weren't for their service to the government, not only would there not be a funeral in the first place, but there certainly wouldn't be the protests in question to disrupt it.

Two things.
Firstly, as I said in my post, I don't actually think that this rule should be specifically extended only to military personel necessarily.
Secondly, I was using the word 'owe' in its direct, literal meaning in terms of a quid pro quo relationship. Certainly the government 'owes it' to its people to treat them equally, but regarding soldiers, if it weren't for their service to the government, not only would there not be a funeral in the first place, but there certainly wouldn't be the protests in question to disrupt it.

Still, if the government isn't a company they can quit, it's not a company that serves only their interests either. And History can show us what happened in all countries in which the Military began to be seen as "more than other citizens", my own country included.

I see no reason why the military should get any special protection from protestors. Either all or nothing; there's nothing special about dead sldiers, and nothing that really makes them 'Heroes' unless they have done something spectacular. They knew what they were doing and they signed up to fight; they knew that they might die, or they would never have served. Yes, it is regrettable, but they shouldn't get any special treatment.

Oh and Whitter-- - why aren't you using Socialist Whitier to post now?
The only way to access the forums with socialist whittier is from the nation page because the password doesn't work when I try to log in directly. It keeps saying no such nation. With the site down, I couldn't get into that nation. So I had use one that could log directly into the forum.
BTW, if you haven't noticed, I am using Norse Country which I have set to autologin. And the site seems to be back up.

Yes it does, if it still stands for freedom and equality. The military aren't special people, and, the day they become such in America, it'll learn what Brazil 1968 was like. Make it all or make it nothing.
America is not Brazil. Our traditions are way more different and lean more in support of freedom than those in Brazil's own past.

Oh and Whitter-- - why aren't you using Socialist Whitier to post now?
Because he finally realized that YOU are a socialist and it scared the crap out of him. He was afraid he would become just another irrational little dweeb with antisocial tendencies. :)

Two things.
Firstly, as I said in my post, I don't actually think that this rule should be specifically extended only to military personel necessarily.
Secondly, I was using the word 'owe' in its direct, literal meaning in terms of a quid pro quo relationship. Certainly the government 'owes it' to its people to treat them equally, but regarding soldiers, if it weren't for their service to the government, not only would there not be a funeral in the first place, but there certainly wouldn't be the protests in question to disrupt it.
The reason this bill would affect only military funerals is because it only affects national cemetaries where pretty much only soldiers are buried.
The states are working on laws to cover other cemetaries and other types of funerals, not just military. However the reason this bill only covers soldiers and national cemetaries is because federal law has to be limited to federal property. Because of the state/federal system of government, any thing that is not federal has to be dealt with by the state or local governments. Which, I might add, are acting to do just that.

Still, if the government isn't a company they can quit, it's not a company that serves only their interests either. And History can show us what happened in all countries in which the Military began to be seen as "more than other citizens", my own country included.
Well it's true that civilians as well as the military contribute to the state you don't want to see the rewards to the military become unbalanced. However in the specific example the soldiers in question have literally already given their all to the state, so any benefit they then recieve, including funerals protected from protest, is unlikely to be able to create the unbalance that would lead to the military getting too powerful for itself.

Well it's true that civilians as well as the military contribute to the state you don't want to see the rewards to the military become unbalanced. However in the specific example the soldiers in question have literally already given their all to the state, so any benefit they then recieve, including funerals protected from protest, is unlikely to be able to create the unbalance that would lead to the military getting too powerful for itself.

How about policemen then? They aren't military and can be killed in duty. How about postal workers? They dedicate their lives to a public service. And executives, that keep the Economy going by working? Then there are scientists, that dedicate their lives to finding out cures for diseases, and so on, and so forth. Don't they deserve respect, too?

How about policemen then? They aren't military and can be killed in duty. How about postal workers? They dedicate their lives to a public service. And executives, that keep the Economy going by working? Then there are scientists, that dedicate their lives to finding out cures for diseases, and so on, and so forth. Don't they deserve respect, too?
Police, yes. The rest of them are just PFCs ( Poor F**king Civilians ). :p

America is not Brazil. Our traditions are way more different and lean more in support of freedom than those in Brazil's own past.

Germany had liberal/democratic traditions before a certain Godwin's-Law-Evoking person made it into a military-glorifying country. We all know how that turned out.

By the way, I hereby call Godwin so that, by Godwinning myself, I can keep the point going.

Police, yes. The rest of them are just PFCs ( Poor F**king Civilians ). :p

Then they could do without vaccines, medicines, cars, tanks (or you think tanks were created by a lieutenant in his day off?), weapons... Let's have that theory tested by allowing nude Americans to invade Iran and see how it works out, by all means.

Then they could do without vaccines, medicines, cars, tanks (or you think tanks were created by a lieutenant in his day off?), weapons... Let's have that theory tested by allowing nude Americans to invade Iran and see how it works out, by all means.
Ha. Ha. Verrry funny. Ho. Ho. He. He. It is to laugh. :rolleyes:

Ha. Ha. Verrry funny. Ho. Ho. He. He. It is to laugh. :rolleyes:

Your joke didn't work either, Forrest. But, sure, by all means, roll your eyes to escape me outwitting you because you simply failed to think before you typed.

Ha. Ha. Verrry funny. Ho. Ho. He. He. It is to laugh. :rolleyes:
Pot, kettle, black?

How about policemen then? They aren't military and can be killed in duty. How about postal workers? They dedicate their lives to a public service. And executives, that keep the Economy going by working? Then there are scientists, that dedicate their lives to finding out cures for diseases, and so on, and so forth. Don't they deserve respect, too?
The way I look at it you should get out what you put in. The postal workers and so on contribute time and effort and should be rewarded for that with wages and pensions and so on. The dead soldiers have given not only their lives, but also essentially, in the eyes of the protesters, their reputations leading to disruptive protests. If people started to protest Policemen's or Firemen's funerals on account of what they had been ordered to do, then certainly the same protection should be extended to their funerals.
Admittedly there is a bit of grey area between eg. a postman who gets killed whilst trying to deliver the mail and a policeman trying to arrest someone, but the policeman is paid by the state to put himself in harm's way and that should be rewarded.

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.


Agreed, a family’s last goodbyes to someone should not be interrupted by jerk-offs trying to push some idea, regardless what the dead guy did during his life.

Your joke didn't work either, Forrest. But, sure, by all means, roll your eyes to escape me outwitting you because you simply failed to think before you typed.
ROFLMFAO! You? Aaahahahahahaha! Oh, that's rich.

Hey! I'm not the one suggesting that we honor everyone at the same level as those who lay their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. The reason I resort to sarcasm is because that point is so obvious as to not need explanation.

ROFLMFAO! You? Aaahahahahahaha! Oh, that's rich.

Hey! I'm not the one suggesting that we honor everyone at the same level as those who lay their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. The reason I resort to sarcasm is because that point is so obvious as to not need explanation.
Maybe to military-worshippers, but to the rest of us they are just doing their job. They knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed up. They are normal people like the rest of us and don't deserve special treatment. Extend the law to all funerals or do not implement it at all.

ROFLMFAO! You? Aaahahahahahaha! Oh, that's rich.

Hey! I'm not the one suggesting that we honor everyone at the same level as those who lay their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. The reason I resort to sarcasm is because that point is so obvious as to not need explanation.

Cute. I suppose the "invading nations full of civilians and killing them in cold blood" part was conveniently forgotten. Do you think most of the Military personnel would be ALIVE if they hadn't take, say, a mere vaccine shot in their youth? The Military is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE, Forrest. You'll have to live with that. It's not something to be worshipped. It's not something to be protected, either, unless you're claiming soldiers are such pansies that they need to be protected after death from those eeeevil protesters. You're a joke.

Maybe to military-worshippers, but to the rest of us they are just doing their job. They knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed up. They are normal people like the rest of us and don't deserve special treatment. Extend the law to all funerals or do not implement it at all.

Yes they are doing their job, and they sacrafice much more than you will ever know. They knew what they were getting into when they were joining and they still did. That alone deserves much respect. Yes they are normal people, but they go above and beyond what the normal person does for their country and fellow citizens.

I think part of the problem is that we have an essential difference in these forums on how people view the military. Some believe that it is full of concerned citizens willing to lay their lives down for their country. Others of us believe that it is a job like everything else, and that a great many (if not a majority) of people are in the military to help pay for e.g. college.

I support the military, but every time I see this bullshit about the 'ultimate sacrifice' and 'our fallen heroes' it makes me sick. Soldiers do what they do because they're soldiers. That's why there were not 20 million Medals of Honor or the like given out after WWII, and why there are not 2500 Medals of Honor in the current war. Heroes are far and few between.

Dammit Thriceaddict beat me to the point while I was typing! :p

Cute. I suppose the "invading nations full of civilians and killing them in cold blood" part was conveniently forgotten. Do you think most of the Military personnel would be ALIVE if they hadn't take, say, a mere vaccine shot in their youth? The Military is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE, Forrest. You'll have to live with that. It's not something to be worshipped. It's not something to be protected, either, unless you're claiming soldiers are such pansies that they need to be protected after death from those eeeevil protesters. You're a joke.

Compare it to a game of soccer. One person on the team gives his all, doesn't quit and goes through much pain for the team but doesn't score any goals. Another person slacks off the entire game and lets many things go, but the ball happens to bounce off his foot and score the winning goal. Just because they make equal contributions, doesn't mean that a doctor and an infantryman go through the same pains to complete their roles.

I don't think that many people are capable of defending themselves when they are dead.:rolleyes:

Compare it to a game of soccer. One person on the team gives his all, doesn't quit and goes through much pain for the team but doesn't score any goals. Another person slacks off the entire game and lets many things go, but the ball happens to bounce off his foot and score the winning goal. Just because they make equal contributions, doesn't mean that a doctor and an infantryman go through the same pains to complete their roles.

Yet, in soccer, they all get paid the same wages and not one of them gets to punch the other in the face without repercussions. Also, are they so coward that they can't take criticism now? Furthermore, what "contribution" do you speak of, exactly? The last just war was WWII.

Yet, in soccer, they all get paid the same wages and not one of them gets to punch the other in the face without repercussions. Also, are they so coward that they can't take criticism now?

What are you talking about?

I think part of the problem is that we have an essential difference in these forums on how people view the military. Some believe that it is full of concerned citizens willing to lay their lives down for their country. Others of us believe that it is a job like everything else, and that a great many (if not a majority) of people are in the military to help pay for e.g. college.

I support the military, but every time I see this bullshit about the 'ultimate sacrifice' and 'our fallen heroes' it makes me sick. Soldiers do what they do because they're soldiers. That's why there were not 20 million Medals of Honor or the like given out after WWII, and why there are not 2500 Medals of Honor in the current war. Heroes are far and few between.

Dammit Thriceaddict beat me to the point while I was typing! :p
I don't think it really matters why various soldiers have joined the military, or whether they were in favour of the war or not. When you're talking about soldiers who have been killed in active service, the college and health benefits count for squat. They then have 'made the ultimate sacrifice' whether they intended to or not. And it's the least a grateful society can do to reward that in whatever, wholly incomparable, ways they have left. Including giving them a good funeral.

What are you talking about?

If they are so secure that what they did is right, why should they feel scared that people will criticize them? If they are so corageous and righteous, why should they not feel secure in said superiority?

If they are so secure that what they did is right, why should they feel scared that people will criticize them? If they are so corageous and righteous, why should they not feel secure in said superiority?

It'ss not that we are insecure. It's that it is wrong to dishonor those who fought for them.

I don't think it really matters why various soldiers have joined the military, or whether they were in favour of the war or not. When you're talking about soldiers who have been killed in active service, the college and health benefits count for squat. They then have 'made the ultimate sacrifice' whether they intended to or not. And it's the least a grateful society can do to reward that in whatever, wholly incomparable, ways they have left. Including giving them a good funeral.

Coretta Scott King (sp) also did LOTS for the US. They protested her funeral and went home.

It'ss not that we are insecure. It's that it is wrong to dishonor those who fought for them.
I agree, but making a law that only applies to people from the military is rediculous. Other people deserve it just as much.

I don't think it really matters why various soldiers have joined the military, or whether they were in favour of the war or not. When you're talking about soldiers who have been killed in active service, the college and health benefits count for squat. They then have 'made the ultimate sacrifice' whether they intended to or not. And it's the least a grateful society can do to reward that in whatever, wholly incomparable, ways they have left. Including giving them a good funeral.
I absolutely agree that every family should have the right to a funeral. My problem with ultimate sacrifices is that in the case of the military, soldiers know they are ultimately paid to die at the whim of a general. On the other hand, anyone else that dies doing their job, like getting in a car crash while delivering a parcel, is just as dead. In their case though, death was never a part of the deal. All I want to say is that every person's death should be treated the same, and the distinction of hero should be reserved for real occasions, not the usual political propaganda.

It'ss not that we are insecure. It's that it is wrong to dishonor those who fought for them.

It's wrong to dishonor ANYONE. Wether it's people that killed civilians in random places for oil or not.

I absolutely agree that every family should have the right to a funeral. My problem with ultimate sacrifices is that in the case of the military, soldiers know they are ultimately paid to die at the whim of a general. On the other hand, anyone else that dies doing their job, like getting in a car crash while delivering a parcel, is just as dead. In their case though, death was never a part of the deal. All I want to say is that every person's death should be treated the same, and the distinction of hero should be reserved for real occasions, not the usual political propaganda.

I would think that doing something that you know you might die doing because you know that it is the right thing to do is more honorable than dying while trying to take the easy way.

I would think that doing something that you know you might die doing because you know that it is the right thing to do is more honorable than dying while trying to take the easy way.

Policemen, emergency workers killed in an accident... You want to leave all those people out.

It's wrong to dishonor ANYONE. Wether it's people that killed civilians in random places for oil or not.

So you would suggest that a drug dealer who ruined the lives of hundreds deserves the same honor as a soldier who dies trying to save a wounded comrade?

Policemen, emergency workers killed in an accident... You want to leave all those people out.

I think policemen were included in my statement. I do not see why anyone would be protesting at an EMT's funeral.

So you would suggest that a drug dealer who ruined the lives of hundreds deserves the same honor as a soldier who dies trying to save a wounded comrade?
If it means having a peaceful funeral, then yes.

Because he finally realized that YOU are a socialist and it scared the crap out of him. He was afraid he would become just another irrational little dweeb with antisocial tendencies. :)

What the hell are you going on about? I'm not socialist at all - you appear to have the wrong poster. And that better not be referring to me when you remark about "irrational little dweeb with antisocial tendencies"

I would think that doing something that you know you might die doing because you know that it is the right thing to do is more honorable than dying while trying to take the easy way.
and what is the right thing to do? die because a general tells you to? i just have a hard time believing that the majority of soldiers are doing anything but their job. Just like i have a problem believing that the majority of doctors give a damn about their patients, they are doing a very well-paying job. the military is just one of many professions that keeps our countries going.

I absolutely agree that every family should have the right to a funeral. My problem with ultimate sacrifices is that in the case of the military, soldiers know they are ultimately paid to die at the whim of a general. On the other hand, anyone else that dies doing their job, like getting in a car crash while delivering a parcel, is just as dead. In their case though, death was never a part of the deal. All I want to say is that every person's death should be treated the same, and the distinction of hero should be reserved for real occasions, not the usual political propaganda.
You talk about death as being 'part of a deal' or not in the case of postal workers. I don't see why, if a soldier's death is so closely connected to his job, why he shouldn't enjoy specific privileges connected to his funeral.

and what is the right thing to do? die because a general tells you to? i just have a hard time believing that the majority of soldiers are doing anything but their job. Just like i have a problem believing that the majority of doctors give a damn about their patients, they are doing a very well-paying job. the military is just one of many professions that keeps our countries going.

So you are just a paranoid person. Hmm, a symptom of marijuana use.

You talk about death as being 'part of a deal' or not in the case of postal workers. I don't see why, if a soldier's death is so closely connected to his job, why he shouldn't enjoy specific privileges connected to his funeral.
Because the world needs more demystification, not less.

So you are just a paranoid person. Hmm, a symptom of marijuana use.
And you are just a judgemental person, a symptom of close-mindedness.

Fass, I'm curious...have you ever seen The Laramie Project? While I think the stage version is much much better, there is a particular moment in the movie where Phelps is protesting Matthew Shepards funeral, and a group of people perform "Operation Angel", where they have wings to completely block him out. Made me smile that someone would walk the line with him.

I don't support this bill. Disrespecting a funeral is disrespecting a funeral. It should all be illegal, not just for those in the military. And no, I don't look at this as a "baby steps" issue. I see it as all or nothing.

what is the right thing to do? die because a general tells you to? i just have a hard time believing that the majority of soldiers are doing anything but their job.

Most Soldiers these days have a moral code and the right to disobay an illegal order.

So you are just a paranoid person. Hmm, a symptom of marijuana use.
i doubt it. My comment stems from the fact that I once had a conversation with a student who decided he would go to med school. The details of said conversation are cloudy, but the punchline is that I asked (after the conversation had turned to argument) if he was just doing it because he wanted to be rich. The response was, "of course, why else would you be a doctor?" And by saying 'i once had a conversation' i mean that is the first time i had such an encounter, and of the dozen people i have met going to med school, i know only ONE who is going to participate in Doctors Without Borders and the like, and actually go out and help people.

p.s. it is sad that you have resorted now to personal attacks. evidently you have understood little/nothing of what i have said.

And you are just a judgemental person, a symptom of close-mindedness.

How can what Katurkalurkmurkastan said not be seen as being paranoid? And what makes you think that i am close-minded and you are not?

i doubt it. My comment stems from the fact that I once had a conversation with a student who decided he would go to med school. The details of said conversation are cloudy, but the punchline is that I asked (after the conversation had turned to argument) if he was just doing it because he wanted to be rich. The response was, "of course, why else would you be a doctor?" And by saying 'i once had a conversation' i mean that is the first time i had such an encounter, and of the dozen people i have met going to med school, i know only ONE who is going to participate in Doctors Without Borders and the like, and actually go out and help people.

p.s. it is sad that you have resorted now to personal attacks. evidently you have understood little/nothing of what i have said.

How do the various motives for becoming a doctor pertain to the topic?

So you are just a paranoid person. Hmm, a symptom of marijuana use.

Motion to ignore the flaming moron that makes assumptions about people being drugged.

*Raises hand*

Motion to ignore the flaming moron that makes assumptions about people being drugged.

*Raises hand*

I challenge you to find where i said he was drugged. I just said that that happens to occur when you do smoke marijuana. Wow, refuting flaming with more flaming is good how?

And what makes you think that i am close-minded and you are not?
I don't have to think it; I know it. I know it from reading your posts here and on other threads. And anyone else who's done the same knows it, too.

I don't have to think it; I know it. I know it from reading your posts here and on other threads. And anyone else who's done the same knows it, too.

So anyone who has views differing from yours is close minded? I believe that that is the definition of close mindedness my friend.

I challenge you to find where i said he was drugged. I just said that that happens to occur when you do smoke marijuana.

I bet you also make that kind of "I just pulled the trigger, he happened to be in front of it" excuses to yourself when you think about any civilians you may have murdered.

Note that I say "I bet" and "may" have murdered, so, by your own reasoning, I'm not flaming either.

Shah Mat.

I bet you also make that kind of "I just pulled the trigger, he happened to be in front of it" excuses to yourself when you think about any civilians you may have murdered.

Note that I say "I bet" and "may" have murdered, so, by your own reasoning, I'm not flaming either.

Schach Mat.

I have never killed another human. However i have fired my weapon at those that were trying to kill me, my men, and civilians. If you consider that murder than we have very different definitions of that word.

I challenge you to find where i said he was drugged. I just said that that happens to occur when you do smoke marijuana. Wow, refuting flaming with more flaming is good how?

unfortunately, i would not know. I have only smoked once, and i was laughing too hard to think about anything deeper than the incredibly weird statues on my university's campus.

and discussion of doctors does pertain to the question at hand, because i am using this as supporting evidence of a highly-respected profession with a great many (alright, i admit, not all) individuals without honour, i.e., respect for the Hippocratic Oath. Perhaps it is not true of the military. I have yet to be convinced.

So anyone who has views differing from yours is close minded? I believe that that is the definition of close mindedness my friend.
I don't see as how the fact that you're a judgemental dude translates into anyone having views differing from mine being close-minded. You're not anyone; you're you. And that's who I'm talking about - you, specifically. Not
"anyone". You. And you're very judgemental of those whose views differ from your own. Not "anyone". You.

unfortunately, i would not know. I have only smoked once, and i was laughing too hard to think about anything deeper than the incredibly weird statues on my university's campus.

and discussion of doctors does pertain to the question at hand, because i am using this as supporting evidence of a highly-respected profession with a great many (alright, i admit, not all) individuals without honour, i.e., respect for the Hippocratic Oath. Perhaps it is not true of the military. I have yet to be convinced.

It is true that not all members of the armed forces serve honorably. But the vast majority does. In my experience it is mostly those who were never put in a life threatening position that serve dishonorably.

I have never killed another human. However i have fired my weapon at those that were trying to kill me, my men, and civilians. If you consider that murder than we have very different definitions of that word.

Oh, but since you also "didn't say" he had used pot, I also "didn't say" you murdered anyone, get it?

I don't see as how the fact that you're a judgemental dude translates into anyone having views differing from mine being close-minded. You're not anyone; you're you. And that's who I'm talking about - you, specifically. Not
"anyone". You. And you're very judgemental of those whose views differ from your own. Not "anyone". You.

Just so that you are aware. Judging that other people are judgemental is judgemental. In addition, i never said that what i have typed is my opinion. Probabley around 75% of it is but for the remaining 25%, i am just arguing the counterpoint in order to fill the vacuum.

Just so that you are aware. Judging that other people are judgemental is judgemental. In addition, i never said that what i have typed is my opinion. Probabley around 75% of it is but for the remaining 25%, i am just arguing the counterpoint in order to fill the vacuum.
Am I supposed to be surprised and/or shocked?

Oh, but since you also "didn't say" he had used pot, I also "didn't say" you murdered anyone, get it?
But you did say that you think that i may have killed someone. I never said that i thought he smoked pot.

I have never killed another human. However i have fired my weapon at those that were trying to kill me, my men, and civilians. If you consider that murder than we have very different definitions of that word.

Well a Civilian that holds\carries a weapon is no longer considered a Civilian but an armed combatent and if they fire on you, you are not opening fire but returning fire.

Maybe to military-worshippers, but to the rest of us they are just doing their job. They knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed up. They are normal people like the rest of us and don't deserve special treatment. Extend the law to all funerals or do not implement it at all.
Thank God "the rest of us" is a small minority.

Am I supposed to be surprised and/or shocked?

No, i am just saying that you are judging me by things that aren't even my opinions.

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.
I happen to agree

come now, that is exactly the kind of logic that weaselly politicians use all the time: "I can't be held responsible for implying [insert usual idiotic political comment], because I did not expressly say it." You put me down as paranoid and paranoid as resulting from pot in the same sentence. It is no leap of faith to figure out what you are implying. Which is still wrong.

come now, that is exactly the kind of logic that weaselly politicians use all the time: "I can't be held responsible for implying [insert usual idiotic political comment], because I did not expressly say it." You put me down as paranoid and paranoid as resulting from pot in the same sentence. It is no leap of faith to figure out what you are implying. Which is still wrong.

And it is a tribute to the corruptness of civilian society that i was able to get away with it.

Thank God "the rest of us" is a small minority.

Forrest, do you have evidence to back that piece of absurdity up? Ah, no matter. I have work to do. Have fun humiliating Forrest and the others, people...

And it is a tribute to the corruptness of civilian society that i was able to get away with it.

Go live in Burma and you'll see how great the Military in power is, moron.

I'm leaving.

So you would suggest that a drug dealer who ruined the lives of hundreds deserves the same honor as a soldier who dies trying to save a wounded comrade?
So you would suggest that the soldier who does his duty and performs heroically but is killed trying to protect the country, and the soldier who does not perform his duty faithfully, but puts people in harms way needlessly, rapes, tortures and murders innocent civilians, and in general causes more harm than good to the country deserve the same honour, just because the last soldier also happened to die in the line of duty? (and he also automatically gets labeled as a hero as well...)

And you would suggest that they both deserve more honour than any civilian, regardless of accomplishments or contributions?

Not everyone in the military is a shiny tower of righteousness, as the military consists of many kinds of people. But in death, all men are equal, and I see no reason whatsoever to legislate extra privileges to the families of fallen soldiers in this area. All or nothing, as some have said.

Go live in Burma and you'll see how great the Military in power is, moron.

I'm leaving.

Wow, that was a flame. But i doubt that american culture would ever allow for a military dominated nation. I mean, look at kids. They worship celebrities much more than military personel. Burma is not the U.S.

So you would suggest that the soldier who does his duty and performs heroically but is killed trying to protect the country, and the soldier who does not perform his duty faithfully, but puts people in harms way needlessly, rapes, tortures and murders innocent civilians, and in general causes more harm than good to the country deserve the same honour, just because the last soldier also happened to die in the line of duty? (and he also automatically gets labeled as a hero as well...)

And you would suggest that they both deserve more honour than any civilian, regardless of accomplishments or contributions?

Not everyone in the military is a shiny tower of righteousness, as the military consists of many kinds of people. But in death, all men are equal, and I see no reason whatsoever to legislate extra privileges to the families of fallen soldiers in this area. All or nothing, as some have said.

I already states that not all military personel serve at the same level. And those that don't serve with as much honor don't deserve to be honored.

Wow, that was a flame. But i doubt that american culture would ever allow for a military dominated nation. I mean, look at kids. They worship celebrities much more than military personel. Burma is not the U.S.
Well, I don't exclude it either. With the rampant nationalism and military-worshipping and all.

I already states that not all military personel serve at the same level. And those that don't serve with as much honor don't deserve to be honored.

So your saying that people who serve in the military who dont have as much honor as others dont deserve to be honored themselves? What an ignorant thing to say...

So your saying that people who serve in the military who dont have as much honor as others dont deserve to be honored themselves? What an ignorant thing to say...
If you rape and kill an innocent civilian then you dont deserve to be honored. Is that really an ignorant thing to believe?

Special laws for the military, and the erosion of freedom of speech. Oh, the irony. Especially since none of you rightist types were bitching when Phelps was picketing the funerals of homosexuals.
How would you feel about banning protesting and picketing at any private funeral? I would be for that.

Well, I don't exclude it either. With the rampant nationalism and military-worshipping and all.

How is there military-worship and rampant nationalism in the U.S.? I mean there wouldn't even be a thread on this topic if people hadn't been protesting at a fallen soldiers funeral.

No, i am just saying that you are judging me by things that aren't even my opinions.
So you just like talking bollocks, then. Now I'm really unsurprised. File under "USMC leathernecks"....




"talks bollocks..."

So you just like talking bollocks, then. Now I'm really unsurprised. File under "USMC leathernecks"....




"talks bollocks..."
Sorry that i'm just a firm believer that in order to be a truly open person you should be able to argue both sides of any issue. I think it gives you the ability to better see where everyone is coming from, the lack of which has caused many wars.

the military are buried with military honours. there you go. the issue of whether protests at their funerals should be banned is moot unless it is accorded to all families.
well, it's not really moot, since it is going to be legistlated that way. It WOULD be moot in Katurkalurkmurkastan, a thriving nation of zero political and civil freedoms. (including protesting at funerals).

If you rape and kill an innocent civilian then you dont deserve to be honored. Is that really an ignorant thing to believe?

No, but anyone who has the guts and courage to put their life on the line every day so people like you can bash the military deserve to be respected. For themto protect the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States everyday, they deserve to be honored.

No, but anyone who has the guts and courage to put their life on the line every day so people like you can bash the military deserve to be respected. For themto protect the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States everyday, they deserve to be honored.
:D Appropriate location.

www.godhatesfags.com , www.godhatesamerica.com and so on and so on. Do not pretend you do not know who he is, and his rightist, Christian nutjob group are the ones doing the picketing you're all bitching about now. He picketed the funerals of gay people for years and years and you were all silent, "freedom of speech!!!" and "freedom of religion!!!" and nothing was ever done about it.

And now he pickets the funerals of soldiers because he claims they died because the US "harbours" homosexuals. And all of a sudden, what he's doing is not so much "freedom of speech and religion." Because soldiers are apparently more important than other people. The hypocrisy sickens me.
Fass, in fairness, Fred Phelps is far removed from the mainstream right-wing of the Republican Party in America. It's not only liberals and atheists who have always hated him. There is mutual hatred between him and even the über-conservative Christian faction of US politics, let alone everyone else.

No, but anyone who has the guts and courage to put their life on the line every day so people like you can bash the military deserve to be respected. For themto protect the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States everyday, they deserve to be honored.
If the entire millitary ( the ones you want "honored") has their life put on the line every day we should be re evaluating how much we use our miliatary cause there is no reason to be using our millitary that much

But of course you were just saying it to make them sound as noble as possible

No, but anyone who has the guts and courage to put their life on the line every day so people like you can bash the military deserve to be respected. For themto protect the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States everyday, they deserve to be honored.
i wouldn't have said that usmc leathernecks was the one that that statement should have been directed at.

If the entire millitary ( the ones you want "honored") has their life put on the line every day we should be re evaluating how much we use our miliatary cause there is no reason to be using our millitary that much

But of course you were just saying it to make them sound as noble as possible

This thread isn't talking about wether or not we should be using our military. The legislation would ban protesters from military funerals. Im all for protesting the War in Iraq, but to do it at a funeral is just sick. Give the greiving families their space and don't hurl insults at their family.

This thread isn't talking about wether or not we should be using our military. The legislation would ban protesters from military funerals. Im all for protesting the War in Iraq, but to do it at a funeral is just sick. Give the greiving families their space and don't hurl insults at their family.
i think there is common consensus on that. the question is whether all families deserve that. or at least i think that's still the question. this may have simply devolved into a lot of bickering.

i think there is common consensus on that. the question is whether all families deserve that. or at least i think that's still the question. this may have simply devolved into a lot of bickering.

That is true, people tend to take the origional subject and twist it way far out of line. I personally believe that ALL familes deserve to bury their father/mother, brother/sister, son/daughter in peace and quiet without getting insulted by protesters.

I know if I went to war and got killed, I would like my family to be able to bury me without having to go through a gauntlet of protestors hurling insults at them.

I already states that not all military personel serve at the same level. And those that don't serve with as much honor don't deserve to be honored.
So you're opposed to the proposed legislation then.

No, but anyone who has the guts and courage to put their life on the line every day so people like you can bash the military deserve to be respected. For themto protect the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States everyday, they deserve to be honored.
I have served and am serving in the U.S. Marine Corps, so don't tell me who to respect or not. If you have read anything, you would see that i have been arguing the side of military funerals being offliimits to protestors.

So you're opposed to the proposed legislation then.

My personal opinion is that there should be a limit against protests at funerals for anyone. However i can think of arguments for only military funerals having this protection and arguments for no one having this protection.

How would you feel about banning protesting and picketing at any private funeral? I would be for that.

I would be against. As I wrote earlier in the thread, if I didn't call for their rights to be curtailed when they were doing it to gay people and nobody cared, I sure as hell am not gonna do it when they're doing it to soldiers and all of a sudden those of poor conviction have decided freedom of speech means nothing.

You know.. the republicans are the ones who got the soldiers in this situation.

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Keep away the "Bushitler" leftists from military funerals and the "God hates fags" rightists from the gay funerals. Everybody wins.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Keep away the "Bushitler" leftists from military funerals and the "God hates fags" rightists from the gay funerals. Everybody wins.

Actually, the "god hates fags" ones are the ones that have picketed military funerals. Read the bloody thread.

And those who think freedom of speech is a nice thing are the ones who lose.

I don't like this...

Once you start making special beneficial rules for military personnel, you know that your society/government is taking wrong turns.

I have a better idea! Charge them with infractions of real laws, like disturbing the peace and such instead of making up bullshit fascist laws.

So, let's see here. Eut and the other moron are the only nuts that actually favor a Samurai-style "military=nobleman" system, which was, by the way, abolished in the 1880s. Quite frankly, you'd just as soon support a dictatorship. Of course, you'll assume that the US Military never did anything wrong, right? Well, if Eut can whine about some protesters spitting on his face after the Hanoi Bloodfest 30 years ago, I, too, can "remember". The US military helped dictatorships in power in all of Latin America. It helped the Taliban, Saddam, and, basically, whoever fit their interests, not ever giving a damn about human rights. But, you'll argue, they also saved the world from Nazism. True enough, but, then, you'll also agree with me that scientists saved the world from ignorance, from dawn of mankind, and on. And a much smaller number of innocents died at the hands of scientists. The military puts its ass on the line of fire, but kills innocents too. Scientists do neither. Scientists create things that tend to help, not harm, humanity. The same can't be said for the military. Yet here I see you proposing privileges to them, creating a priviledged class within a country. Read up on History and you'll see it's the first step towards a dictatorship. Read up on History and you'll see that, yes, it can happen to any country, including one with democratic tradition. You're supposed to be 62, Eut, thus you must have lived right after McCarthyism. Did that look democratic to you? Paranoia in a country that prized itself on its democratic traditions? Yet you claim it can't happen? Yet you claim, against all evidence, that they can be granted privileges? With all the historical, logical, moral, pragmatical, philosophical evidence against it? You two have no obligation to ignore all evidence just to take the side of your friends against everyone else. And yes, it IS against everyone else, because, by not being egalitarian, you're siding against all others that don't share the right "not to be disturbed". Coretta Scott King got badmouthed at her funeral, and, no, the Military is NOT better than she is. She ALSO put her ass on the line, by holding unpopular opinions at a time in which lynching was rampant in the south. Just because she wasn't firing a gun and spilling blood doesn't mean she's worse than the military. In fact, quite the opposite. Yet, against all logic, against all history, against all rational thought, you'd be happy to see SOME people get a right while OTHERS do not. I really don't want to call you two imbeciles, but I have no idea what else to call people that ignore all evidences in favor of a warped worldview.

I have a better idea! Charge them with infractions of real laws, like disturbing the peace and such instead of making up bullshit fascist laws.

I think that this a much better way to go. I'm against any infringment of any amendment of the constitution. Anyone who is so sick as to hold a protest at any funeral really needs professional help.

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.

I'm all for protesting, in fact, I've partaken in it, even for the Iraq War. As against the Iraq War that I am, a mourning family has the right to say goodbye to their loved one in a respectful way. But that shouldn't mean just for the military: for any private citizen, like Katganistan said. Hear, hear.

I don't like this...

Once you start making special beneficial rules for military personnel, you know that your society/government is taking wrong turns.
Every country on earth has, at one time or another, made "special beneficial rules" for military personnel. So you're saying that we should all stop now just because our "society/government is taking wrong turns?" Gonna be lots and lots of really upset people, and most of them not even military!

Every country on earth has, at one time or another, made "special beneficial rules" for military personnel. So you're saying that we should all stop now just because our "society/government is taking wrong turns?" Gonna be lots and lots of really upset people, and most of them not even military!
bad argument Eut...at one time or another, alot of countries have done things that today are flat out wrong...slavery, etc. Just because it is historical doesn't mean its right. And I'm not proposing that this is one of those cases. I just argue that if you are going to protect funerals, cool. but do it for all of them. Someone screaming "god hates fags" at mathew shepards funeral is just as wrong as screaming "baby killer" at a military funeral. Either you protect everyone or noone.

So, let's see here. Eut and the other moron are the only nuts that actually favor a Samurai-style "military=nobleman" system, which was, by the way, abolished in the 1880s. Quite frankly, you'd just as soon support a dictatorship. Of course, you'll assume that the US Military never did anything wrong, right? Well, if Eut can whine about some protesters spitting on his face after the Hanoi Bloodfest 30 years ago, I, too, can "remember". The US military helped dictatorships in power in all of Latin America. It helped the Taliban, Saddam, and, basically, whoever fit their interests, not ever giving a damn about human rights. But, you'll argue, they also saved the world from Nazism. True enough, but, then, you'll also agree with me that scientists saved the world from ignorance, from dawn of mankind, and on. And a much smaller number of innocents died at the hands of scientists. The military puts its ass on the line of fire, but kills innocents too. Scientists do neither. Scientists create things that tend to help, not harm, humanity. The same can't be said for the military. Yet here I see you proposing privileges to them, creating a priviledged class within a country. Read up on History and you'll see it's the first step towards a dictatorship. Read up on History and you'll see that, yes, it can happen to any country, including one with democratic tradition. You're supposed to be 62, Eut, thus you must have lived right after McCarthyism. Did that look democratic to you? Paranoia in a country that prized itself on its democratic traditions? Yet you claim it can't happen? Yet you claim, against all evidence, that they can be granted privileges? With all the historical, logical, moral, pragmatical, philosophical evidence against it? You two have no obligation to ignore all evidence just to take the side of your friends against everyone else. And yes, it IS against everyone else, because, by not being egalitarian, you're siding against all others that don't share the right "not to be disturbed". Coretta Scott King got badmouthed at her funeral, and, no, the Military is NOT better than she is. She ALSO put her ass on the line, by holding unpopular opinions at a time in which lynching was rampant in the south. Just because she wasn't firing a gun and spilling blood doesn't mean she's worse than the military. In fact, quite the opposite. Yet, against all logic, against all history, against all rational thought, you'd be happy to see SOME people get a right while OTHERS do not. I really don't want to call you two imbeciles, but I have no idea what else to call people that ignore all evidences in favor of a warped worldview.

I'm waiting for the answers, here. None?

These are the same losers that protested at funerals after a recent mine disaster in the US, referring to the dead miners as homosexuals punished by God! Yes they very much should be jailed and rehabilitated, the whole bunch of them. They’re a “religious” cult based on a cult leader’s messages of hate. If there were Anti-Hate laws in effect this sort of whack job wouldn’t be in business. In no way should these idiots be grouped together with any other protestor.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=185

Phelp should have already gone to jail for child abuse against his extended family ministry. The guy is a serious nutbar who should be locked up for good and maybe get some much-needed psychiatric treatment.

Gee weren't most of the protestors Fred Phelps the right winger fundementalist who hates gays? Of course any liberals protesting at funerals should get the same treatment. Escorted from the gene pool. All right not really but you get the idea.

I'm waiting for the answers, here. None?
We didn't help the taliban we just didn't stop them. If we had it would be "oh no the Americans are being imperalists!" Quit complaining. We're not perfect and neither are you.

Gee weren't most of the protestors Fred Phelps the right winger fundementalist who hates gays? Of course any liberals protesting at funerals should get the same treatment. Escorted from the gene pool. All right not really but you get the idea.
"Most" ... care to back up that statement with ... facts

We didn't help the taliban we just didn't stop them. If we had it would be "oh no the Americans are being imperalists!" Quit complaining. We're not perfect and neither are you.

I'm not perfect, neither is Brazil, but we didn't help sponsor coups. Regardless, the point is that the Military is NOT superior to other people.

Any disrespect or disruption during funerals should be discouraged, and those doing the disruption should be removed from the premises. This should hold up for war protesters, religious protesters, and anyone else who is so brutally thick in the head as to think that just because someone did something that they don't agree with, no one loves this person who has died.

Any disrespect or disruption during funerals should be discouraged, and those doing the disruption should be removed from the premises. This should hold up for war protesters, religious protesters, and anyone else who is so brutally thick in the head as to think that just because someone did something that they don't agree with, no one loves this person who has died.

Very well. For ALL, or for NONE.

I am not a fan of the war in Iraq, I think it is wrong and has nothing to do with 'freedom' or 'democracy' , instead it is for 'Oil' and 'Profit'.

That said, if ANYBODY has a relative die, in WHATEVER reason, HOWEVER they die, be they military, non military, terrorists, murderers, children, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters...whatever or whoever they are...they have every right to mourn and bury that person in peace and without harrasment from others, no matter what the reason you have to protest. (in England, Animal rights activists, dug up the body of an elderly lady and hid it, because the family were invovlved in a farm that bred animals for medical testing) NONE of this kind of disgusting behaviour can be justified.

I don't think that the military should need extra protection, I think ALL mourners should get the same, and I can see no reason for anyone to disagree.

PLEASE put yourself in the position that a loved one of yours, be it a family member, a friend, anybody that you care enough about to feel sad when they die, is being buried and some people start throwing stones and mud and abuse at you. It is beyond words how I feel about this, having buried my Mum, I know how totally shit you feel watching the coffin go into the ground, without some morons 'maintaining their right to free speach' its a crock of shit to say that is valid. For those of you who can't see that, shame on you. I hope that one day someone you care for doesn't die and you have to bury them with strangers shouting abuse at you. HOW COULD ANYONE DO SUCH A THING?!?

The right of free speach does not mean we have to behave like morons, it is a right, and rights mean responsibility. I have no issue with people protesting, but there is a time and a place for that, funerals are not the time OR the place.

Blood-for-oil chanting aside.

In theory, these soldiers died for the cause of freedom and liberty. Includingthe First Amendment rights of your Constitution to freely voice their opinions and to congregate freely.

To deny the protestors the right to free speech IS a bigger slur against the fallen then whatever the parties in question are chanting.

To be fair, their attention is better off directed against the Adminstration rather than the poor line trooper.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=185

I don't know how anyone could call this group simply exercising their free speech and not consider them to be a vicious Hate Group. I’m really not certain how much further a group of crazies like this has to go to be determined to be a Hate Group.

I realize that the US Hate Crime laws do not protect homosexuals, women, or the disabled. I also understand that States like Wyoming have struck down several Hate Crime Laws introduced to their legislature and still have none. I imagine that some States might have passed some progressive legislation on this topic and be able to prosecute this sort of over the top behavior.

I got this from a fellow soldier on MySpace. Things like this, even if they only happen once in every 50 funerals, happen one time to often and very spiteful and hateful or our men and women in the military. I don't know what this guy's party is, but party doesn't matter here. What matters is that these families have earned and deserve the right to say their good byes with peace and dignity without people calling them names, throwing rocks, and shouting insults and derogatory comments at them. We can't let anti-america and anti Bush protestors attack our national heroe's families while they are saying their final goodbye to their loved ones. Any one who thinks it right for Bush haters and other protestors to this kind of thing is dispicable.

Not a soldier, but I think law like this is needed. I've got friends and family both serving in the military right now, and people I knew have been killed while overseas. Most people don't know the kind of crap some soldier's families get put through by the supposed "peace protestors" in some places, war going on or not. I'm getting sick of hearing the idiots going on about how they supposedly have a right to commit violent acts such as what does happen at soldier's funerals on occasion.

If the libs wanna have the moral high ground, all this law would do is expect them to actually take it. You can disagree and not be a jackass, but the people who do this kind of crap aren't even trying to.

Being able to hate homosexuality and not receiving extra sentencing for victimizing people on the basis of homosexuality is perfectly acceptable under current US Law, from what I’ve read. There is a huge lobby to keep this the norm, because religious and conservative leaders fear that any change might limit their ability to demonize homosexuality.

Since Phelps groups hates people on the basis of homosexuality, because they believe the US is a bunch of homosexuals, then under current US Law this is not a Hate Group or Hate Crime in any way.

Personally, I think the US should ship the bunch of them to Iraq and see how they like it there living rough on the streets.

I'm not perfect, neither is Brazil, but we didn't help sponsor coups. Regardless, the point is that the Military is NOT superior to other people.

What about those conflicts with Paruaguay and Venezeula you guys are so careful to avoid mentioning?

If the libs wanna have the moral high ground, all this law would do is expect them to actually take it. You can disagree and not be a jackass, but the people who do this kind of crap aren't even trying to.

The protestors in question aren’t liberals. People should very quickly disavow themselves of this misinformed fact they have grabbed out of the ether. Phelps group is a psychotic religious and ultra-conservative bunch of nut cases. They are about as far from being liberal as you are from planting the flag on Neptune.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=185

I’m hoping that if I post these links 10-12 more times people will begin to get an idea of what this “protest” group is really about and not confuse them with people who are legitimately protesting the war or Bush.

The point with this specific group of protestors is that they are hiding behind the freedom of religion (see cult) and speech (see hate). Being able to hate homosexuality and not receiving extra sentencing for victimizing people on the basis of homosexuality is perfectly acceptable under current US Law, from what I’ve read. There is a huge lobby to keep this the norm, because religious leaders fear that any change might limit their ability to demonize homosexuality.

Since Phelps group hates people on the basis of homosexuality; and because they believe the US is a bunch of homosexuals; and by this reasoning believe that all US soldiers deserve to die because they are homosexuals; then under US Law this is not a Hate Group or Hate Crime in any way. Of course it should be noted that Phelps and his group are also a tragic waste of skin.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Phelp's Church site

The protestors in question aren’t liberals. People should very quickly disavow themselves of this misinformed fact they have grabbed out of the ether. Phelps group is a psychotic religious and ultra-conservative bunch of nut cases. They are about as far from being liberal as you are from planting the flag on Neptune.

Phelps himself has said he's a liberal, and Phelp's idiots aren't the only ones doing it either. If you'd watched the news, or even heard some of Phelps' own comments, you'd now that. Or do they have to start waving flags with hammers and scythes on them before you'll admit to this unpleasant truth for your position?

Phelps himself has said he's a liberal, and Phelp's idiots aren't the only ones doing it either. If you'd watched the news, or even heard some of Phelps' own comments, you'd now that. Or do they have to start waving flags with hammers and scythes on them before you'll admit to this unpleasant truth for your position?

How any sane person can look at these links (one of them to his own site) and say that he's a Liberal? Next you're going to tell me Pat Robertson is a liberal!

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Phelp's Group's Site (Westboro Baptist Church)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=185

I’m hoping that if I post these links 10-12 more times people will begin to get an idea of what this “protest” group is really about and not confuse them with people who are legitimately protesting the war or Bush.

Phelps himself has said he's a liberal, and Phelp's idiots aren't the only ones doing it either. If you'd watched the news, or even heard some of Phelps' own comments, you'd now that. Or do they have to start waving flags with hammers and scythes on them before you'll admit to this unpleasant truth for your position?
"scythes"? :confused:

The truly sad thing is that crazies like Phelps and his Church are a product of the times. Governments work their magic, through their agencies, to create an atmosphere of fear and hate. The attacks of 9-11; Homeland Security; the Patriot Act; Knee Jerk News Reporting; the War in Iraq; and the Bush regime in general have created an extraordinary amount of stress in the general population of America. Guess what, you’re doing awesome, mission accomplished. The more the US continues their current slide into the dark abyss of extremism the more you’ll see groups like Phelps and other nut cases emerge from the woodwork. Unless things start to turn around soon it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. It doesn't take a psychic hotline to figure that out.

The Bruce

The truly sad thing is that crazies like Phelps and his Church are a product of the times. Governments work their magic, through their agencies, to create an atmosphere of fear and hate. The attacks of 9-11; Homeland Security; the Patriot Act; Knee Jerk News Reporting; the War in Iraq; and the Bush regime in general have created an extraordinary amount of stress in the general population of America. Guess what, you’re doing awesome, mission accomplished. The more the US continues their current slide into the dark abyss of extremism the more you’ll see groups like Phelps and other nut cases emerge from the woodwork. Unless things start to turn around soon it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. It doesn't take a psychic hotline to figure that out.

The Bruce
Word Life. I'm not letting you diss my people like that. Yeah, we are doing a heck of a better job than your own nation did over there when they was in the mideast screwing things up.

First off, the topic. Expand the coverage to all funerals and we'll talk. Just because you joined the army doesn't make you more equal than anyone else. And if you want to argue that the army performs a vital service to the country and deserves it, I then put forward that without the public health services, law enforcement, education, fire fighting sectors of public service, the army would be worthless.

Certainly, one could argue that you could have a decent army without those branches, but you'd have a country not worth anything.

Word Life. I'm not letting you diss my people like that. Yeah, we are doing a heck of a better job than your own nation did over there when they was in the mideast screwing things up.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to shut people up if you don't like their criticism. Some things don't get covered in freedom of speech such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one, but valid criticisms are allowed.

Unless you live in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany or their modern equivalents of course.


Phelps himself has said he's a liberal, and Phelp's idiots aren't the only ones doing it either. If you'd watched the news, or even heard some of Phelps' own comments, you'd now that. Or do they have to start waving flags with hammers and scythes on them before you'll admit to this unpleasant truth for your position?

So do we call people like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson conservatives? Please. Those people are like rotten eggs in a basket full of them. They stink up the whole lot just by being near them. Calling themselves whatever doesn't make them so. I could call myself Einstein and nobody would believe me.

A little critical thinking goes a long way.

Every country on earth has, at one time or another, made "special beneficial rules" for military personnel.
And it has always been a mistake.

So you're saying that we should all stop now just because our "society/government is taking wrong turns?"
Yes. Since when is "they did it before us" a justification for doing something stupid?

Military personnel is state employed persons. As such they should be eligible for the same basic pension system - no more, no less.

Starting to make these horrible imaginary heroes outta those kids is a step in the wrong direction at any rate.

Gonna be lots and lots of really upset people, and most of them not even military!
You know what...I don't think I care. Either you make a law outlawing demonstrations at funerals full stop, or you allow demonstrations at all funerals. No special treatment for those for whom a spinal cord surely suffices.

And it has always been a mistake.


Yes. Since when is "they did it before us" a justification for doing something stupid?

Military personnel is state employed persons. As such they should be eligible for the same basic pension system - no more, no less.

Starting to make these horrible imaginary heroes outta those kids is a step in the wrong direction at any rate.


You know what...I don't think I care. Either you make a law outlawing demonstrations at funerals full stop, or you allow demonstrations at all funerals. No special treatment for those for whom a spinal cord surely suffices.

Did you see my post on the jurisdiction of the federal government regarding this matter. They can only pass laws banning protests at military and other federal cemetaries. Any thing at the local level has to be dealt with by the local and or state governments. That may make the law look unfair, but it is a consequence of our tradition of balancing power between the states and the federal government.

That is why, if you read the last section of the proposed law, you will read that Congress asks the states to pass similar laws to cover all funerals at all cemetaries. Why? Because only the states can pass such a widesweeping law to cover all funerals.



If you guys are serious that you want all funerals of all people covered, while you are writing your Congressman, you should write your state legislature and your governor too. And tell them you want a law passed at the state level to restrict protests at funerals.

I think it's very unrespectful to act like this protestors, but this is a moral condemn, and shouldn't be a legal one.

I respect the sadness of their families, but I think they're not "heroes" just for being soldiers, a person has to prove to be really special to become a hero.

Well, even thouth I'm not so religious, I don't think people should protest at graveyards, especially during funerals. People go to funerals to show their respect to a friend, family member or acquaintance who died, and they are usually in a very sombre state of mind, to say the least, from their loss. Both, imo, are respectable reasons why they should not be harassed. If they want to rail against any organization, policy, or even religion - well, at least they may feel justified. It is only decent that they not be disturbed further. Military or non-military does not matter that much, imo - a dead man is, more than everything else, a dead man, who leaves many people mourning for him. It may sound naive, but someone who has died should enjoy at least some protection from negative classifications.
I suppose simply prohibiting demonstrations on the grounds of the cemeteries and, say, 50 meters away from them (if it is not done already) and making their registration official if they are taking place near there should be enough.

I'm fairly sure this is already covered in a legal sense as harrassment. I'm all for freedom of speach, but regardless of who died it's generally... not nice to attack mourning friends and family. I wouldn't sign this bill as is, despite coming from a military family and planning to join the military when I'm of age, simply because I don't like the idea of banning protests under federal law. However, if this isn't already covered, I'd like to see the ability to make a civil suit out of it made a law (That goes for any funeral, not just military ones).

Phelps himself has said he's a liberal, and Phelp's idiots aren't the only ones doing it either. If you'd watched the news, or even heard some of Phelps' own comments, you'd now that. Or do they have to start waving flags with hammers and scythes on them before you'll admit to this unpleasant truth for your position?

LMAO!
Oh that's golden! So many mistakes and misunderstandings in such few words. :D :eek:

What about those conflicts with Paruaguay and Venezeula you guys are so careful to avoid mentioning?

Paraguay? What, about 200 years ago? Very well, my apologies to them. And what are you talking about in Venezuela? The US has MANY more RECENT examples of such behavior. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam to name a few. And you are bragging because you can find TWO examples (one of them likely fictional) of Brazil's wrongdoing?

By the way, militaristic people, you STILL failed to address my points. By refusing to address my points, you're admitting you're wrong.

How any sane person can look at these links (one of them to his own site) and say that he's a Liberal? Next you're going to tell me Pat Robertson is a liberal!

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Phelp's Group's Site (Westboro Baptist Church)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=185

I’m hoping that if I post these links 10-12 more times people will begin to get an idea of what this “protest” group is really about and not confuse them with people who are legitimately protesting the war or Bush.

Aaron couldn't care less about the facts. He wants to paint Fred Phelps as a liberal and claim (untruthfully) that liberals are also picketing funerals because it earns him points in the argument - or it WOULD, if even the most staunch conservatives couldn't tell that what he spews is utter bullshit. For that matter, nobody has addressed my points yet...

"scythes"? :confused:

I think he means "sickles". You know, like the USSR flag he wants to paint the liberals as having. :rolleyes:

By the way, militaristic people, you STILL failed to address my points. By refusing to address my points, you're admitting you're wrong.
What are you talking about? People have addressed your points, but you've resolutely ignored them and are still parroting the same argument, something about a 'Samurai class' and that funeral benefits for soldiers will turn the US into a military dictatorship and resulting bloodbath. You still haven't explained exactly how this change from funeral benefits to bloody dictatorship will come about. Earlier in the thread I tried to show how it couldn't; namely that these benefits apply solely to dead soldiers and I can guarantee that in all the examples of military coups that you alluded to 100% of those soldiers who abused their privileged position in society were in fact living.

Perhaps you could explain to me in a logical step by step fashion how this Doomsday scenario can come about because of the proposed legislation, then I'll see you have a point.

Yes scientists and Coretta Scot King have done things which have benefitted mankind, but that wasn't the reason I gave that a state should protect military funerals. I said that the state was uniquely responsible for the funerals themselves and the protests, so it behoves it to redress the balance, nothing to do with how good a person was. I don't think you can convincingly argue for legislation on the grounds of how good a person is.
Now it's entirely possible that a blanket ban on all protesting in the approximate vicinity of funerals is the ideal goal, but if that was unlikely to be passed due to free speech etc. I think there are good reasons for it to be extended to the military anyway.

But feel free to pretend you've 'won' the thread if you want.

What are you talking about? People have addressed your points, but you've resolutely ignored them and are still parroting the same argument, something about a 'Samurai class' and that funeral benefits for soldiers will turn the US into a military dictatorship and resulting bloodbath. You still haven't explained exactly how this change from funeral benefits to bloody dictatorship will come about. Earlier in the thread I tried to show how it couldn't; namely that these benefits apply solely to dead soldiers and I can guarantee that in all the examples of military coups that you alluded to 100% of those soldiers who abused their privileged position in society were in fact living.

Perhaps you could explain to me in a logical step by step fashion how this Doomsday scenario can come about because of the proposed legislation, then I'll see you have a point.

Yes scientists and Coretta Scot King have done things which have benefitted mankind, but that wasn't the reason I gave that a state should protect military funerals. I said that the state was uniquely responsible for the funerals themselves and the protests, so it behoves it to redress the balance, nothing to do with how good a person was. I don't think you can convincingly argue for legislation on the grounds of how good a person is.
Now it's entirely possible that a blanket ban on all protesting in the approximate vicinity of funerals is the ideal goal, but if that was unlikely to be passed due to free speech etc. I think there are good reasons for it to be extended to the military anyway.

But feel free to pretend you've 'won' the thread if you want.
No. You've won the thread. He's just ignorant. I haven't said anything about his posts until now cause I've been letting you guys handle him cause I usually come off aggressively. His posts show a total ignorance not just of US history but of the character and mental strength of the American people and society. You guys countered with valid points and he ignores them and tries to sidetrack.

He has not addressed any of your guy's points.

What are you talking about? People have addressed your points, but you've resolutely ignored them and are still parroting the same argument, something about a 'Samurai class' and that funeral benefits for soldiers will turn the US into a military dictatorship and resulting bloodbath. You still haven't explained exactly how this change from funeral benefits to bloody dictatorship will come about. Earlier in the thread I tried to show how it couldn't; namely that these benefits apply solely to dead soldiers and I can guarantee that in all the examples of military coups that you alluded to 100% of those soldiers who abused their privileged position in society were in fact living.

Perhaps you could explain to me in a logical step by step fashion how this Doomsday scenario can come about because of the proposed legislation, then I'll see you have a point.

Yes scientists and Coretta Scot King have done things which have benefitted mankind, but that wasn't the reason I gave that a state should protect military funerals. I said that the state was uniquely responsible for the funerals themselves and the protests, so it behoves it to redress the balance, nothing to do with how good a person was. I don't think you can convincingly argue for legislation on the grounds of how good a person is.
Now it's entirely possible that a blanket ban on all protesting in the approximate vicinity of funerals is the ideal goal, but if that was unlikely to be passed due to free speech etc. I think there are good reasons for it to be extended to the military anyway.

But feel free to pretend you've 'won' the thread if you want.

You don't think that free speech for all purpose BUT criticizing the military is a dangerous precedent? That free speech to all events BUT those sponsored by the State sets a dangerous precedent? Like "free speech zones", for instance? Why are there concerns with free speech when it's civilians being buried but not when it's military being buried then? Why the elevation? The state is made by citizens, and is not a superior to them; it's their tool, their representative. If it's responsible for the moral safety of its personnel, it's also responsible for everyone else's. Special laws applying to a given group will snowball into more special laws applying to that same group. As a group gets more and more power, it'll get, as per natural, corrupted by it. The Military holds the monopoly of violence in a country; Policemen can't fight tanks with their guns, and citizens can't fight tanks with stones. As the military gets more and more power, it'll feel entitled to even more. As the feeling of entitlement grows, the will to sponsor a coup in which nobody could stop them also grows. Applying a law to "dead soldiers" will make the group "living soldiers" see itself as priviledged. Living soldiers don't turn into dead civilians when they catch a grenade with their faces. Living civilians don't turn into dead soldiers when they jump off a building. The group difference will still apply. Also, I referred to the fact that Forrest, Aaron and the other guys refused to answer my thread, and they actually used the idea of "military = good", if you'll check that. Against them, yes, I won, because they lack any logic whatsoever. You, however, are a far more respectable opponent, if only because your points have an internal logic. Also, another point: The reason the Republicans want to do this only to the Military is quite simple: They want to paint themselves as "support the troops", but not "allow gays not to be demoralized by nutjobs when they die".

No. You've won the thread. He's just ignorant. I haven't said anything about his posts until now cause I've been letting you guys handle him cause I usually come off aggressively. His posts show a total ignorance not just of US history but of the character and mental strength of the American people and society. You guys countered with valid points and he ignores them and tries to sidetrack.

He has not addressed any of your guy's points.

Mental strenght? That's rich. Ever heard of McCarthyism? The Red Scare? TWICE? A supposedly democratic country in which supposed communism was a crime? The current wiretapping scandals in which the Republicans are actually trying to make it LEGAL to abolish the 4th Ammendment of your Constitution? Be a little more honest, Whittier, you haven't said anything because you have no point. So far, the only thing you mustered was this supposed mental strenght and character, which would impede a dictatorship. What character? You've set up dictatorships all over the world. What mental strenght? Red Scare was enough for ONE person to gain power to ignore what your forefathers wrote! Liberal groups being wiretapped, back in Nixon's time and probably now. A guy having to have a talk with the Secret Service because he was critical of Bush in a schoolwork piece! And you say it can't happen there? And you say you're mentally strong? Face it, Whittier, you lack a point and tried to apply the least poor point you might actually have, just now, for no avail. It's not because you come off as aggressive: You don't worry about that. It's because you lack facts.

I think he means "sickles". You know, like the USSR flag he wants to paint the liberals as having. :rolleyes:
That was my guess, but you can never be sure, eh? He should have mentioned red flags instead of the Hammer and Sickle - the red flag is a symbol more indivative to what he's trying to say.

Полюшко-поле, полюшко, широко поле,
Eдут по полю герои,
Эх, да красной армии герои.

Девушки плачут,
Девушкам сегодня грустно,
Милый надолго уехал,
Эх, да милый в армию уехал. :D

That was my guess, but you can never be sure, eh? He should have mentioned red flags instead of the Hammer and Sickle - the red flag is a symbol more indivative to what he's trying to say.

Полюшко-поле, полюшко, широко поле,
Eдут по полю герои,
Эх, да красной армии герои.

Девушки плачут,
Девушкам сегодня грустно,
Милый надолго уехал,
Эх, да милый в армию уехал.

:D

Chuckles. Pay him no heed, he lacks a point.

You don't think that free speech for all purpose BUT criticizing the military is a dangerous precedent? That free speech to all events BUT those sponsored by the State sets a dangerous precedent? Like "free speech zones", for instance? Why are there concerns with free speech when it's civilians being buried but not when it's military being buried then? Why the elevation?
It's not so much one rule for the military and one for civilians. Legislating about free speech is always going to be a series of compromises, matching people's right to freedom against the potential for abuse and harm this can cause to individuals and society. Extended to only military funerals, in only a couple of cemeteries and on relatively infrequent occurances, you aren't materially affecting people's free speech. But if you try to extend that protest-free exclusion zone to every funeral at every church and cemetary in the country then you are seriously impinging into where and when people can freely protest.

Applying a law to "dead soldiers" will make the group "living soldiers" see itself as priviledged. Living soldiers don't turn into dead civilians when they catch a grenade with their faces. Living civilians don't turn into dead soldiers when they jump off a building. The group difference will still apply.
Yes, I thought you'd spot that. I think to some degree a military has to feel privileged to some extent. It's sort of an extension of esprit de corps that soldiers should feel proud of their units and the technology they use and so on, but also that given the risk and responsibilty their jobs entail it is natural that they will feel superior to some extent.
Without some feeling of privilege or superiority to compensate for the risk your recruitment is going to bottom out and by and large your soldiers are going to lose confidence in their roles and their missions etc.
The trick is to keep this feeling balanced and directed. In the case of protest-free funerals for soldiers the loss incurred by the soldier in question so far outweighs the benefit given in return that soldiers aren't going to consider themselves too much advantaged by having it.
What it does do on the other hand is, while not giving any practical, abusable advantages to soldiers, it does show the military that the state is concerned by their sacrifices and reinforces the relationship of service and reward. And this limits the possibility of a disgruntled, unappreciated military deciding that it would get a better deal if it ruled the country for itself.

It's not so much one rule for the military and one for civilians. Legislating about free speech is always going to be a series of compromises, matching people's right to freedom against the potential for abuse and harm this can cause to individuals and society. Extended to only military funerals, in only a couple of cemeteries and on relatively infrequent occurances, you aren't materially affecting people's free speech. But if you try to extend that protest-free exclusion zone to every funeral at every church and cemetary in the country then you are seriously impinging into where and when people can freely protest.

That reminds me of the flag-burning issue. Quoting President Bartlett, from The West Wing, "is there a flag-burning epidemic in this country I didn't hear of?". Very few (read WBC) people actually do protest funerals. So, arguably, it's STILL a very minor change, considering that this law is basically being made because of ONE ultra-conservative group.

Yes, I thought you'd spot that. I think to some degree a military has to feel privileged to some extent. It's sort of an extension of esprit de corps that soldiers should feel proud of their units and the technology they use and so on, but also that given the risk and responsibilty their jobs entail it is natural that they will feel superior to some extent.
Without some feeling of privilege or superiority to compensate for the risk your recruitment is going to bottom out and by and large your soldiers are going to lose confidence in their roles and their missions etc.
The trick is to keep this feeling balanced and directed. In the case of protest-free funerals for soldiers the loss incurred by the soldier in question so far outweighs the benefit given in return that soldiers aren't going to consider themselves too much advantaged by having it.
What it does do on the other hand is, while not giving any practical, abusable advantages to soldiers, it does show the military that the state is concerned by their sacrifices and reinforces the relationship of service and reward. And this limits the possibility of a disgruntled, unappreciated military deciding that it would get a better deal if it ruled the country for itself.

Ah, an actual challenge. You're answering my points with decent points, without "let's kiss some general ass" and, for that, I respect you to no end. I'd say our difference is basically between a view of "how the military would actually do its job without staging coups". This one point boils down to which one makes for a better military, and wether or not a "small" law, albeit clearly made with elections in mind, can make them feel empowered or superior - I admit you may have a point in the last lines of your post, but I also think I do have a point about the possibility of a slippery slope in this scenario. So, congrats, for you actually managed to make me wonder which one would be better in purely practical terms.

That said, there's the ethics issue too. The logic of a law applying only to a certain group is arguable, can be right or wrong, and two fine thought processes can lead to different answers, based solely on a hard-to-judge premise, as per your and mine very good points, but can we agree that it's ethically wrong to apply a law to a group and another law to another group, considering that neither did anything harmful to society (although the military has a tendancy to do harmful things to OTHER societies), and that, in all other issues, they are just alike, except for the presence of an uniform? If it's unethical but logical, is it ok to sacrifice ethics for the sake of keeping a few people that hold lots of power happy? If it's ethical, how to reconcile ethics and unequality? Equal for equals, unequal for unequals, sure, but are the Military actually unequals? If so, is it only because of the power they hold? What are the implications of this?

I don't see why this should be limited to military funerals. All or nothing is the only fair way to go here.
Exactly. Respect for the dead and those who mourn them should be a general thing.

I'm fairly sure this is already covered in a legal sense as harrassment. I'm all for freedom of speach, but regardless of who died it's generally... not nice to attack mourning friends and family. I wouldn't sign this bill as is, despite coming from a military family and planning to join the military when I'm of age, simply because I don't like the idea of banning protests under federal law. However, if this isn't already covered, I'd like to see the ability to make a civil suit out of it made a law (That goes for any funeral, not just military ones).

Ten bucks says Forrest attacks you because you "don't share his pain of having been spat on by Nam protestors".

And another twenty bucks says he doesn't attack you, but only because you also plan to be in an uniform someday.

There, quick way to make ten bucks regardless of what happens. :D

Hell no. These protesters still have first ammendmant rights, whether or not they are exploiting a tragedy. It is wrong to take the right to organize to protest things, no matter how stupid or unfair the protest. It's simply a matter of protecting rights (Because we need all the ones we can keep the right from taking right now).

Besides, those who died in military service don't need to be turned into idols. We need to take the military off of it's damn pedestal.

Yes, these protesters are despicable; no, that doesn't make taking their rights away ok.

Hell no. These protesters still have first ammendmant rights, whether or not they are exploiting a tragedy.

Not if it's harrassment.

Not if it's harrassment.

:rolleyes: Then it still applies to both military and civilians. I'm not arguing which side of the "forbidding" thing is right, I'm arguing that it's wrong to apply or not apply a law only to a certain group here...

:rolleyes: Then it still applies to both military and civilians. I'm not arguing which side of the "forbidding" thing is right, I'm arguing that it's wrong to apply or not apply a law only to a certain group here...

If you had read my previous post you would have seen that i agree with you. But it will be harder for an all inclusive bill to be passed in congress than a military only one so that is more likely. Its better to have some than to have none.

If you had read my previous post you would have seen that i agree with you. But it will be harder for an all inclusive bill to be passed in congress than a military only one so that is more likely. Its better to have some than to have none.

You don't agree with me. It's better to have none than to have some and entitle, unequally, a certain group of people, at least ethics-wise.

You don't agree with me. It's better to have none than to have some and entitle, unequally, a certain group of people, at least ethics-wise.

By that logic it would be better during a famine to have everyone starve than have everyone starve but a few.

By that logic it would be better during a famine to have everyone starve than have everyone starve but a few.

No: It would be better to share the food with everyone.

No: It would be better to share the food with everyone.

But that is not a viable option.

But that is not a viable option.

That's not an actual comparison either: There is not a "desperate need for rights" on the part of the dead. This can be dealt with under some ethics.

That's not an actual comparison either: There is not a "desperate need for rights" on the part of the dead. This can be dealt with under some ethics.

It is unethical to take away rights because others don't have them. What is ethical is to give the same rights to those that don't have them as those that do have them. However, in order to does this, you have to take small steps in passing bills and this is a good first step. If you were to look at it on a global scale, it would be like taking away all of the rights the citizens of western democracies have because citizens of North Korea don't have those same rights. Afterall, its all or nothing:rolleyes: