(Westboro Baptist) Church seeks sign at Capitol

[Newsjock]

Source: The Olympian

A Kansas-based church that has blamed deaths in Iraq on U.S. tolerance of homosexuality has asked Gov. Chris Gregoire's office to approve a "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" message to display among other religious statements in the Capitol's third-floor hallway.

The Westboro Baptist Church's message would be near a Nativity set, three signs mocking atheism, and an atheist sign that celebrates the winter solstice, while also taking a shot at religion as "myth and superstition" that enslaves minds, all in the state Capitol's third-floor hallway.

The Westboro request is under consideration by the state Department of General Administration, which also has a request for a display depicting "The Spaghetti Monster" and "a Christian woman in Bellevue who wants to erect a sign offering blessings on all people." "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a parody of the Kansas education-board decision to teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinist evolutionary concepts in biology classes.

Also under consideration is a request for a "Festivus" pole, a reference to the mock holiday "Festivus for the Rest of Us" popularized by the "Seinfeld" sitcom in the late 1990s.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/695135.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Bet they're sorry they ever opened up the Capitol to religious displays.

[Ian David]

2. That would be "Mission Accomplished" then. n/t

[HopeHoops]

3. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is far more of a "church" than WBC ever has been.

WBC is a hate group, nothing more.

[Fearless]

4. Since when do we grant requests by terrorist groups?

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. When they are classed as a religious terrorist group; then we have little choice

That is the downside of the First Amendment, unfortunately.

[Fearless]

24. Then let the classification begin.

[TrogL]

5. I'm actually in favour of this

The whole concept of "Santa Claus" has absolutely nothing to do with celebration of the Jesus dude.

[Javaman]

7. why do you hate christmas?

[TrogL]

14. I prefer Advent

The Anglican church makes a big deal out of Advent and takes a fairly apocalpytic approach to it - many of the hymns are in minor keys (eg. Nun Komm) and talk about the Second Coming.

Christmas is almost an afterthought. We have the big Christmas Eve service for old times' sake and nobody shows up for the Christmas Day mass.

[Javaman]

6. Will they support a "feats of strength" event for Festivus?

if not I feel comically slighted.

[msanthrope]

13. The airing of grievances is the reason for the season, and it's

the crass commercialization that 'feats of strength' people like you have been pushing for that ruins the true meaning of Festivus.

Sure, have your feats of strength, but let's not forget the real reason we gather about the Festivus pole....to let our friends and loved one know how truly disappointed we are in them.....

[onehandle]

8. Hey, free speech DUers. Is this ok with you?

C'mon, get behind the good reverend.

Be my guest.

[scytherius]

9. Absolutely.

You let one talk, you let em all talk. And that is why the government shouldn't allow an religious speech like unto this on it's grounds. But, you get to put a Nativity scene up and you open the door to other related speech. That is the nature of free speech. Only reasonable time, place and manner restrictions should apply.

[Sgent]

10. Don't have a problem

the capital is an open forum. The government can't regulate speech in an open forum. They could refuse to put anything there, but they chose to allow one church group to put stuff there, they have to let them all pretty much.

Now, they could put some restrictions that are content neutral -- like requiring that the group displaying a message be from Washington, but no restrictions on the message itself.

[MonkeyKnifeFight12]

25. Of course

Of course. What the fuck do you think free speech only reaches as far as people you agree with? If we're gonna put one exclusionary, hate filled religious symbol why shouldn't we include them all?

[Bill McBlueState]

27. Put me down as #4

If the government includes a monument to one belief, it should include monuments to all beliefs. Nothing difficult about that.

[onehandle]

32. Then where is the Washington DC monument to Timothy McVeigh?

Some see him as an American Hero (you can find them camping out in freeperville and at stormfront).

Why not McVeigh? Charles Manson? Stalin?

[Bill McBlueState]

33. It's not my job

to defend the non-existence of all monuments that people might want to erect in the future. When a specific case comes up, I assure you that the courts will do their best to interpret the Constitution in light of the particulars.

[onehandle]

37. So you'll make a call on Westburo, but other cases are up to the courts.

That makes your answer a non-answer.

[Bill McBlueState]

39. the courts have already made a call on Westboro

If one religious display is erected, all of them have to be.

[onehandle]

41. I just started a religion.

My religion is against another religion.

I want to put up a display that describes in detail how we would, if it was legal, slaughter the members of the other religion.

It's the basis of our belief.

Is that ok?

[Bill McBlueState]

47. I don't know if there's legal precedent for this

But I do think that a weakness in the first amendment is that it doesn't define religion. The "religion" you describe sounds delusional, but many religions could be described as delusions that became popular.

[mondo joe]

34. I'm a free speech DUer. My preference is that the state not facilitate display of personal

religious statements.

If they are going to display one they ought to display all.

I'm opposed to this one only on the basis that it's a non Washington group seeking display in the Washington capitol.

[onehandle]

35. What if it was non-religious? And was a Washington group.

What if it was the Washington DC chapter of NAMBLA?

Maybe they have a seasonal display they feel should be in the Capitol.

That ok?

[mondo joe]

40. Again, my preference is that the state forums not be used for statements of personal

belief.

It may be well and good for more unpopular groups to call for displays in order to get the state to get rid of them all.

Incidentally, I was referring to Washington state, not Washington DC.

[onehandle]

42. So you have no answer to my NAMBLA display proposal?

Except for in the context of "unpopular groups" to persuade the state to "get rid of them all?"

So their display is ok? Yes? No?



...and Oops, sorry. In a different part of the thread DC came up and I got confused.

I do mean Washington state.

[mondo joe]

44. I'm sorry. I will try to answer again.

If by "okay" do you mean do I personally think it's okay, my answer is no - I don't think the NAMBLA display facilitated by the sate is okay, nor do I think any other similar display is okay.

If by "okay" do you mean legally acceptable, my answer is if other displays are allowed by the state, the NAMBLA one ought to be too.

I'm not seeking to evade your question, but am trying to clarify it.

[onehandle]

45. So personally, some free speech is not ok? nt

[mondo joe]

46. I don't think free speech includes the right to use state property for displays.

My understanding of free speech is that the state will not infringe on the individual's expression.

It is not that the taxpayer has to subsidize anyone else's expression by funding a forum for it.

[kayell]

36. Your question implies that you are a DUer that is not for free speech.

I find that alarming.

And yes, if the government building has opened itself to religious displays (something I strongly oppose on separation grounds), than that applies to ALL religious (and belief system) displays.

Free speech is far too precious a right to compromise just because I don't like someones views. I'm guessing that's why the Founders put it up front in the bill of rights.

[onehandle]

38. I am for free speech. And see response #35. nt

[norepubsin08]

11. Get rid of all of that shit

floating around the capitol. Do you realize how much god damn money has been spent on litigating this stuff..how much of your tax dollars go to procuring "holiday" trees and decorations...how much of your tax dollars go to worker pay for assembly and take down..how much of your tax dollars go to paying for electricity for lighted displays, not to mention the lost electricity that could be conserved for better usage? No more holiday displays at all on public grounds...that goes for Easter too and any other holiday that has a religious taint or association with it, such as Halloween. FUCK CHRISTMAS all it does is starts fights, waste the tax payers dime and, stresses people out and gets suckers to spend more than they can afford!

[onehandle]

16. What about the inauguration?

This giant party costs millions and "wastes tax dollars" by the truckload.

It will stress out people and get them to spend more than they can afford.

Should Obama just show up with his suitcase on January 20th and get to work?

[norepubsin08]

23. Different situation

that is a civil event in the life of the country not predicated upon a religious event

[onehandle]

31. But I thought you were concerned about wasted money?

So it's just about religion?

[norepubsin08]

48. that money is being supplied by

private donations and parties and organizations and businesses...the displays at the capitol is using PUBLIC money..also I don't feel that a civic celebration is a waste of money..it instills pride in the citizen and makes them feel a part of the process. Using PUBLIC money for a religious display or quasi religious display could alienate me.

[Akoto]

12. Festivus! It's time for the Airing of Grievances ...

"I got a lotta problems with you people ..."

I think this holiday would be very appropriate in the capitol.

[NorthernSpy]

15. FREE JOLLY JENKINS!!!

/Boondocks


I wanna put up a sign tooo!

[HopeHoops]

17. "Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs. Messin' up the scenery, messin up my mind."

[snooper2]

18. ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

All of this should show how stupid any religion is...


This is absolute GREATNESS


I vote for the Spaghetti Monster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[merwin]

20. So a few idiots who are battling over who can make the most obnoxious sign defines

how stupid all religions are?

[DS1]

19. comedy gold

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Far more than the FFRF's sign, this will eliminate all religious displays

As Governor Gregoire and Attorney General McKenna stated: If you allow one, you must allow all. If they allow a Christian creche and an atheist statement, there can be no grounds for disallowing Westboro's message.

The only possible solution is to do what the Freedom From Religion Foundation wanted all along: eliminate religious displays from goverment buildings.

Finally, a reason to say "Thank you!" to Phelch!

[moggie]

26. I'd like to see a sign or tableau celebrating Amaterasu and Ame-no-Uzume

Amaterasu, the Sun goddess, shut herself in a cave, resulting in darkness. To lure her out, Ame-no-Uzume, the goddess of dawn, did an erotic dance for the other gods, causing such merriment that Amaterasu came out to see what all the noise was about. This event (the return of light after darkness) is celebrated at the winter solstice, and what's not to like about a myth which revolves around laughing at nudity?

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. I've heard it described as "bawdy" rather than "erotic"

Ame-no-Uzume's dance was no striptease or belly dance; it was an X-rated, ancient Japanese version of the SNL skit with Patrick Swayze and Chris Farley as wanna-be Chipendale's dancers competing for one open slot. She didn't have the other kami "touching themselves" so much as wetting their kimonos from laughing so hard.

[Bill McBlueState]

28. there's no douchebag exception in the first amendment

And honestly, "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" is one of the least offensive things Phelps could say.

[mondo joe]

29. Westboro should be excluded because they're not in WA state. Otherwise, everyhing

should stay, or everything should go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. That sounds about right to me

I don't see why a state should be giving space to people's opinions from other states (if they can find some support inside the state, then they get the right too). And apart from that, it's a free speech zone.

[norepubsin08]

49. I am going to the Washington Attorney General on Monday

and asking that I be permitted to place a sign at the Capitol that says Jesus is a fucking fraud, it's concept is against my religion. If it is denied then I am going to petition the court to remove all signs and displays. Or maybe a sign that says: Christianity Kills-God is a psychopath!