New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Monday, March 15, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Anti-gay Phelps clan loses challenge to Nebraska flag-desecration law
 
Anti-gay Phelps clan loses challenge to Nebraska flag-desecration law Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Tuesday, December 08, 2009

OMAHA, Neb. (ABP) -- An independent Baptist church famous for pushing the boundaries of free speech in controversial protests denouncing homosexuality lost a legal battle when Nebraska's Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a church member accused of desecrating the American flag.

This photo posted on the Westboro Baptist Church website is from a recent protest in Chicago.

The high court dismissed, without comment the week of Dec. 4, an appeal by Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. She was charged in 2007 with violating a Nebraska law that bans flag desecration. Police arrested Phelps-Roper for wrapping a flag around her waist as a skirt and allowing her son to stand on another flag as she and other members of the church picketed the Bellevue, Neb., funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Phelps-Roper argued that she was exercising her constitutional right to "symbolic expression" in disobeying a law passed in the 1970s against "mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling" on a flag. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that flag burning is a form of protected speech.

Founded by Phelps-Roper's father, Pastor Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church claims to have held more than 40,000 peaceful protests since 1991. The church, composed mostly of members of the Phelps family, contends that homosexuality is an abomination that is bringing God's judgment on the United States.

The group operated in relative obscurity when it targeted mainly funerals of homosexuals, including the 1998 funeral of Matthew Shepard, a student at the University of Wyoming widely viewed as the victim of an anti-gay hate crime.

Public awareness increased after the church in 2005 decided to broaden its protests to military funerals, touting the deaths of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as divine retribution for American's toleration of homosexuality.

Outrage over the military protests prompted several states to pass laws limiting demonstrations within viewing distance of funerals.

In 2007 a Maryland jury awarded the father of a dead Marine $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages after the church picketed his son's funeral. A federal court recently threw out the verdict, finding that inflammatory signs carried by protesters including "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" while "distasteful and repugnant," were protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Because the ACLU is often known for work preventing the government from promoting religion, some people assume the group is anti-religion. But ACLU lawyers also frequently defend the rights of religious minorities to freely exercise their faith.

"Free speech and the right to protest extends to all Americans, even when the message is very unpopular and upsetting," Laurel Marsh, executive director of ACLU Nebraska, said in a press release announcing the group's entry into the case. "This is the essence of the First Amendment." 
 
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri represented Phelps-Roper in another case in 2006 challenging a law banning pickets and protests one hour before or after a funeral. The Supreme Court recently refused to overturn a court of appeals decision in Phelps-Roper's favor.

Bassel El-Kasaby, the lawyer hired by the ACLU to represent Phelps-Roper, told the Associated Press he plans to appeal the Nebraska decision.

I don't agree with my client," El-Kasaby told Reuters in 2007. "However, I do respect and cherish the right that we all have to dissent, and that's why I'm defending her in this case."

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (1)Add Comment
a difficult case
written by Xenophon, December 09, 2009
These folks do have the right to dissent and dissent forcefully. Where they are crossing over into very doubtful behavior legally is their direct, unprovoked, personal verbal assaults on other individuals. Not only are such attacks hurtful to those individuals who the members of Westboro Baptist Church single out for their demonstrations as their targets grieve over losing a loved one, the Westboro folks contribute to the destruction of a common culture. When the state protects the expression of these kinds of personal slurs directed toward a particular person or family when they are highly vulnerable emotionally, the state weakens the social bonds that we feel for one another. The result is that people tune each other out as a way of self-protection. That leads to the kind of "false individualism" that F.A. Hayek warned of as inimical to liberty. There must be a common culture and a sense of community in which rights are established and protected. The actions of Westboro Baptist Church and the legal precedents their demonstrations set only serve to weaken the already rapidly diminishing sense of fraternity and civic friendship that remains among Americans.

On the other hand, if the folks at Westboro Baptist Church did not target individuals as they have done for personal smears, then they should be free to voice dissent on governmental policy as much as they like. They certainly do have a right to argue against whatever policy position or social trend they disagree with.

Finally, there is no question that the attitude of those from Westboro Baptist Church who participate in such demonstrations do not reflect a Christian spirit. They are an embarrassment to all Christians, Baptists, and conservatives. I am amazed that if these people are really born-again Christians that they have not felt the conviction of the Holy Spirit for their very un-Christlike attitudes and actions.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.