Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

Suggestion to lock

I've been seeing quite a bit of vandalism on this site because it got brought up in the news recently. I think that its probably a good idea to lock it from new users till the story blows over a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.4.217 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I made that request last night and it went into effect a few hours ago. And some good editing has been going on since then. Nice job, folks.Anthony Krupp 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate Group

I dont believe it should be a big deal that we include "Hate Group" in the article, as they shown holding up signs that say they "Hate" and there premier website has "Hate" right in the name, so nobody from the group should be offended as they they are very open about being a hate group, Thank You (~~dan102001~~)

Don't use hate group in the first sentence of the article. It violates the Neutral policy that wikipedia has. Yes, I know it is really a "hate group" but stick to the policy and don't call it a hate group. Be politically correct and call it a religous group or a movement group.

screw being politically correct, I am sorry but making sure we don't hurt thier feelings is not imprortant, they have no feelings, they called the Amish girls whores, they ARE a hate group, wikipedia should tell the truth, I don't think wikipedia has a political correct policy, so don't add it!

Whether your feelings are that they are a hate group or not is for you to decide not for entranced into the article. It should not be mentioned as a hate group in the first sentenced though it should be mentioned that they are considered a hate group as it is later in the introduction. I don't like them either but the article should still remain as NPOV as possible -usmarinesjz 08/15/2007 12:48(UTC)

• Mrld 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Except it's not. It's a hate group under the guise of religious undertaking, much like Al-Qaeda. Coolgamer 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Amen to that... these people should be shot. Codackussell 00:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, all extremists should be shot. Or at least be compelled to watch Martha Stewart 24 x 7. Wahkeenah 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WBC does not hide their opinions, the label hate group is only useful for groups that hide their opinions and actions. FWIW, WBC is completely non violent. Geo8rge 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Klan doesn't hide their opinions either, but they still qualify. And verbal abuse is also a form of violence. Wahkeenah 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This group is definetly a hate-movement group. They should be condemed for breach of the peace. They should actually just be called the Ku Klux Klan. Except instead of 'african-americans' they go after Gays and people who disagree with them.

Well, that's pretty much everyone then. Seriously though, it's a question of semantics. Is the phrase "hate group" objective, or a matter of opinion? LyraLight 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Church group sounds better. "Hate group" does violate WP:NPOV, so it says church group. Feel free to discuss it only my take page. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Church group??? That's a smear against all other church groups. They have "Hate" in their slogan. How much more evidence do you need??? Wahkeenah 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They are a church group. Look at a quote by Phelps himself: "Westboro refers to itself as a Primitive Baptist church, claiming adherence to the philosophy of John Calvin and to the principles of the Five points of Calvinism." That is why I would define it as a church group. Also, hate group as an opening sentence goes against WP:NPOV. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The KKK is also a "church" group. However, the word HATE appears prominently in that picture, twice yet, so maybe we don't need to overkill the obvious. On a side note, I do appreciate your clearing up the fact that they are, in fact, Calvinists, in contrast to what someone else was griping about, a week or so ago. Wahkeenah 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok heres the deal we should either leave it at hate or delete the article they are very blunt with the fact that they are a HATE GROUP we are not offendig anybody

You're logically right, but (1) you'll never convince that one user; and (2) technically they would argue that God is the hater and they are just His "messengers". Wahkeenah 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It currently says "Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a U.S. church group headed ... " But as a matter of style, maybe ditch the word "group" and just call it a church. My 2 cents. 69.154.178.37 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"The ___ church is a church [group]" sounds redundant, and "The ___ church is a church" sounds even more redundant. Maybe the "is" and whatever modifier follows it should be dropped altogether. Wahkeenah 13:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, I can hav a hate group but wiki would never call it a hate group... Hitler didn't kill anyone, amirite, lol

They quite clearly meet the wikipedia definition of a hate group. To wit: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society" -from Wikipedia's own entry for "hate group." I've edited the page accordingly. ~JustADude

Just like one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter so too is one's hate another's righteousness. In other words, it's subjective to call the WCB, or any group, a "hate" group.

Moral equivalence is a fallacy, not the height of sophistication. Please try again. 70.146.75.89 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And that statement commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. Moral equivalence is a fallacy, but wikipedia is not here to make moral judgements on groups no matter how wrong they are; instead it is to represent the facts. If the group do not define themselves as a hate group they shouldn't be labelled as such. Reality is not represented - let the picture speak for itself and stop trying to interpret the information for the reader.

--NZUlysses 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, you can't call any group a hate group. Wahkeenah 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can call a hate group a hate group. Not to do so is to misrepresent reality. - Nunh-huh 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is me talking, but I figure the term "hate group" is an understatement. --Jnelson09 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WBC is in fact a Hate Business which calls itself a Church. Simple reason: the label permits tax evasion. Fred finally hit the big-time when he discovered Da-Glo/Florescent signs in about mid-1997. The misguided children are proud to be named in print. Might want to reference the most recent KS court challenge to protests/pickets: how close/when etc.KSfarmgal 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i think osama would think this is a hate group.i hope they go to iran and protest(Esskater11 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Crticism: Keith R. Wood

{{editprotected}} Under Criticism, the stament "[i]n 2004, Libertarian columnist Keith R. Wood suggested that the Westboro Baptists are actually trying to create sympathy for homosexual activism and to engender anti-Christian sentiment due to the offensive nature of their activities and Phelps' own statements regarding tactics" should be removed. According to WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." No matter what you opinion on WBC's work may be, this specific claim is definitely "exceptional" and would require a very strong source. Not only does this statement not have a source, but assuming it is refering to the same source that I'm disputing here, the Keith R. Wood in question is an opinion columnist at an online-only newspaper, which I would makes the source indistinguishable from any other person's blog. This person, as far as I could tell after a reasonable Google search, does not appear to have any expertise in this area, and does not cite anything to back up this belief (or others in the same article such as claiming that WBC is funded by NAMBLA), so I can't imagine that this would be considered a reliable source by a neutral observer. Since I cannot edit this page, I am requesting deletion of this unsourced statement. Thanks! --Drake Maijstral 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is not fully protected, so admin assistance isn't needed. You should work out consensus on the content and the make the changes yourself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed a citation needed tag. I could not find the article or very much about the author. At some point I suspect the link will be removed, but cannot be sure there is no citation. Geo8rge 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not sure why it took so long. jim.boggia@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.247.214 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Stupid Question

How on earth does this come under "Project Judaism"?? Is it because he hates Jews, too? (If it would annoy him, please just ignore my question & leave it under PJ. (-: )FlaviaR 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect it's because it mentions antisemitism (and is in Category:Antisemitism, which is a subcategory of Category:Jews and Judaism). It's hard to be totally sure, as the Wikiproject doesn't seem to have an index of all the pages it covers; but their banner seems to be on most of the pages in the Antisemitism category. Ultimately, wikiprojects can spread their wings as wide as they like - though in a few cases editors have been supported by consensus in removing wikiproject banners from pages where they felt they were irrelevant. TSP 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

TSP is correct, the project was added by a bot here, and per the bot's user page it is adding everything that is categorized into any of the categories listed here, so either antisemitism or holocaust denial would have got it added. - Optigan13 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. They aren't anti-Semites at all. What they hate is 'Reform Judaism' - a type of so-called 'Judaism' that justifies homosexuality (while the Torah is clear about it). For 'Reform Jews' Judaism means whatever they want it to mean. If something in Judaism doesn't fit their view of the world - then they delete that something from Judaism.

From what I've seen, also, their references to hating (Reform) Judaism are completely in line with their hating moderate streams of Christianity who are not virulently opposed to homosexuality.

I think that I might want to remind others here that I myself (a Haredi Jew in Jerusalem) was brutally beaten up by the Zionist police while peacefully protesting against the 2006 'international gay parade' held in our holy city of Jerusalem. Four policemen threw me to the ground, and while I was lying on the ground, defenseless and crying for mercy, they kept throwing me with batons until I had bleeding wounds and bruizes all over my body.

My rabbis pronounced a HOLY WAR against the cursed and wicked invididuals who invaded Jerusalem then, and we did everything in our might to stop it. Our rabbis had called upon us to be willing to go for full self-sacrifice.

What a bittul z'man protesting peacefully - they meant you should have some mesirus nefesh and stay up all night saying tehillim. Did you really “go full sacrifice” – the parade went ahead, why were the frummers unable to prevent it? Weaklings! Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I am quite sure that the Westboro people wouldn't call my type of Judaism so very wrong. In my type of Judaism, homosexuality is regarded as one of the very worst sins there are, equal to murder. The 'gay parade' that was held here was a punishment from G-d, so our rabbis declared. I refer to the following links: [1], [2], [3].

Thus, it seems obvious, considering the points I mentioned, that the Westboro members are absolutely not anti-Semitic. They are opposed to religious hypocrites - Jews and Christians and Muslims alike. True Christians, Jews and Muslims virulently oppose homosexuality.

That is not to say that I, in any way, agree with their modus operandi. I am opposed to their activities, but I understand their philosophy. --Motz5768 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"a Haredi Jew in Jerusalem" - a follower of rabbis who pronounced a HOLY WAR? You must be a follower of the rabbis who also banned out of question internet use, velo taturu acharei levavchem - it seems the gays aren't the only GUILTY ones! - tut tut. Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I returned the category last night, since I hadn't seen an explanation for removing it. Reading the preceding, I have to note that Motz's explanation is that they are not antisemites. That may be, but the category is for Project Judaism, not Project Anti-semitism. Thus I think a more compelling reason has to be given to justify the category removal. Thoughts on this? 76.109.242.51 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted that deletion as the project tag itself does not denote anti-semitism. Kudos though for sharing that hatred against gays is hardly limited to one side of the pond or one religious group. Frad Phelps by the way has been accused of being a closeted gay man but I haven't seen a reference for it except as a side mention in an article (I think about the 1996 LGBT March on Washington). Benjiboi 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is simply in no way related to Judaism. This group (/article) has no connection at all to Judaism, so having it in that category is utter nonsense. The fact that a bot added it doesn't mean that users can't remove it. --Motz5768 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With consensus, of course it can be removed. That's what talk pages are for. TSP has given one explanation for this article's inclusion, and I tend to think it should stay pending further discussion. If I'm not mistaken, this group has also used the slogan "God hates Reform Judaism," so perhaps that's why it's in this Project. Do others want to weigh in on this?Anthony Krupp 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will. Phelps was cited by the Anti-Defamation League for his numerous anti-semitic comments: On General Wesley Clark and John Kerry (of Jewish descent):

"His Christ-rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface. Yes, like his boss [John] Kerry, Clark is a Jew….That these two turds are Jews would not matter—except when they ask for supreme political power & spit in the Face of God, pushing for same-sex marriage, threatening to bring down God’s wrath on us as on Sodom—then some inquiries are in order. Beware! ‘Jews killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thess. 2:14.’ Apostate fags & Jews certain to bring God’s wrath.”"

"Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany...just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A....The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke...And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them...Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda...The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law."

Seems like Judaism project would be interested in this. Benjiboi 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw a documentary about them and a member was questioned about Jews. He said he hates them because they killed jesus - when the interviewer said the Jews nowadays had nothing to do with it - he replied that they believe in the same things. They hate Jews (as most Christians did in previous centuries) whether they condone homosexuality or not. Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just like they hate Christians. Well, actually, I suppose this just about the most classical example of a 'hate group' you'll find anywhere in the world. I don't think anyone else manages to hate the entire world population (minus 60 people) as virulently as they do. It either has to be a (sick) prank, or they really need a psychiatrist. An entire mental institution, more like. Creedmore, anyone? (Note: Only Chesdovi might understand the latter remark.) --Motz5768 12:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IRL Troll?

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

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

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

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

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

Then why don't you guys give them the treatment they deserve? I've watched several Youtube videos on them last night and apparently their 'compound' is located in the middle of a very normal suburban neighborhood and judging from the videos, the rest of the neighborhood and the town don't really seem to care about them.

These people's lives should be made so miserable that they would commit suicide or move to Afghanistan. They should be fired by their employers, the children hrown out from their schools and universities, stores should refuse to sell them clothing and food, and the utilities companies should only send two gay men together when they have a problem with their gas/water/electricity.

Harass them like they harassed the families of those who fought and died for our freedom, harass them until they leave. Chase them throughout the world until they throw themselves off the highest bridge. --Motz5768 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting take on things but perhaps not a view shared by those who have to live near/around them. They are somewhat autonomous and extremely litigious (lawsuit happy). They also seem to thrive on attention so most "regular folks" simply don't want to engage them and most (all?) businesses can't afford to treat them in a discriminatory way. Also keep in mind there are children involved so harassing them is seen as further victimizing children who are already in an extreme situation. Benjiboi 10:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has to say it.

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

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