U.K. bars entry to anti-gay American preacher

[iheartmaytag]

As an American and a Kansas--all I can say is "God Save The Queen." It's too bad that we can't bar him and his daughter from re-entering the U.S.

This man and his church are a boil on the butt of Christians everywhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29279635/

 

[animasinsulinpu]

That preacher

I saw a documentary on that Phelps guy. I can't even think of a word bad enough to describe what I think of him. That show was on either A&E or Discovery. I think he also has Parkinson's but won't admit it. Well, Karma will get you one way or another.....Bill in Az....

 

[danemodsandy]

All I Can Say Is:

When Phelps's number comes up, I hope his funeral is subjected to exactly the same picketing and disruption he and his family have brought to so many.

I know that's not right, I know I should turn the other cheek. But what with Prop. 8, the Rick Warren invocation at the Inauguration, Ken Starr's odious doings out in California, and the ongoing outrage that is Fred Phelps, I have run out of cheeks.

 

[frigilux]

Well done, Brits.

 

[pturo]

I wonder where in the Bible hate and exclusion became a common practice?
Assholes like him will always strap on Jesus to his back for credibility, or even incredibility.

 

[Unimatic1140]

That is really good news, thank you Great Britain.

 

[toggleswitch2]

FABULOUS!

Who is the offical subversive who is bad for society now?

 

[jaxsunst]

Phelps is evil incarnate and Britain is afraid we will not let him come back and they will be stuck with him. It takes a lot to shock me, but his web site had me floored.

I am a Christian, I believe in the peace and love of God and Christ. Phelps is not a Christian. He is evil hiding in a disguise of christianity and it makes us all look bad.

 

[twinniefan]

What a jerk

I think this was the same galoot who said last year Australia was going to be destroyed because it was the land of sodomy and depravity.
I remember saying it last year and for the record I will repeat it.
UP YOURS PHELPS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quite frankly the only place he should be allowed entry to would be Zimbabwe,he would be quite at home with that other despot and froot loop, President Robert Mugabe.
Mind you there was also another of these nitwits recently who said Victoria's deadly and lethal bushfires were the result of the Victorian Parliament passing new pro-abortion laws.
I forget who he was, but then again these type of dopey prawns are all pretty forgettable anyway.
Cheers.
Steve.

 

[laundryshark]

Funny Mentalists!

Even if this guy was not anti-gay, he's your typical garden variety "funny mentalist" who would repeatedly knock on your door every month uninvited so he can thump his old King James Bible teaching down your throat, and try dragging you to his extremely judgmental, ultra-legalistic, anti-rock and roll, anti-dancing, dating, etc nut hut he calls a church. Just as freaking crazy as pet coons and the Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons these idiots so vehemently condemn.--Laundry Shark

 

[rapunzel]

I don't like censorship. It goes against everything I believe in. Every time the government interferes with people's free will and expression, they start a slippery slope. It is unhealthy when public servants and politicians appoint themselves as moral and intellectual guradians of the people. It's been done to death in the past. The outcomes are well documented, can be researched and are highly predictable. They always end up in something/someone being banned and/or burnt.

Fred's a crank, quite harmless and, in all honesty, there is something of him in all of us. We all have our own little buttons that, when pushed, can turn us from reasonable, intelligent to narrowminded and hateful. His particular topic of hate is just close to the hearts of many here. If he'd be targeting some other so-called 'minority', that nobody was interested in, we wouldn't care.

I reckon he is actually good for us. Other ultra-conservatives recoil from his exreme views. Fred is so 'off the charts', he has turned himself into a carricature of right-wing religiosity. Phelps makes people talk and discourse is always good.

The Fred Phelpses of this world are nothing to worry about. The Pope is a far greater threat to us than Phelps could ever be.

 

[jamman_98]

In a perfect world

We should send him to Antartica and tell him its where the White Party is happening then lose his luggage on the trip down. Frozen Phelps.... on a stick.

Joe
jamman_98

 

[vintagehoover]

I'm proud to live in a country which won't tolerate Phelp's bullsh*t.

Anyway, we have the Rev. Stephen Green and 'Christian Voice' to contend with. We don't need to import delusional pyschopaths!

 

[panthera]

rapunzel,

You make a good point. Still, I was in an American city last year where a funeral for a fallen soldier was to be held.

Phelps and Co. announced they were going to be coming to 'protest'.

The young, pregnant widow became so distraught, she had to be hospitalized. The mother had a stroke and the father (who was not even 50) barely missed going to jail for threatening to shoot anyone who came to protest.

Finally, the local motorcycle club (of which the town's mayor is a member) 'organized' their 'annual' (the first) motorcycle kick stand rally, which just happened to be at the only egress road to the cemetery and just happened to fall on the date and morning of the funeral.

That kept the Phelps people out, since the cops were not eager to mix it up with the mayor, they let it go, the DA who had already gotten his office into deep do-do by trying to apply political correctness to the distraught dad decided to not 'see' it...

Christianists are the outgrowth of the War of Northern Aggression. We must fight them just as doggedly as we fought racists. Gay rights are human rights.

Hopefully, now that the republicans are out of office (and tearing themselves to pieces in the eyes of all but their Kool-aid drinking %20), maybe we can finally bring the US into the 21 century on science and medicine, gay rights and global warming...other topics which Phelps and Co. make a stink about.

 

[rapunzel]

I'm proud to live in a country which won't tolerate

Yeah, but you said yourself that you still have to contend with the Christian Voice and Rev. Green. As I said - slippery slope. Why ban one and not the others? Of course, if Phelps has contravened British immigration or other laws that is another matter. Nonetheless, by rights, he should not be banned for exercising one of the most fundamental rights of the free world.

The Phelps and Greens will never change or go away. They will always have their captive audiences. There are always going to be people who will disagree with and deeply dislike other people for whatever (rediculous and irrational) reasons. Pretending that this is not so by silencing them is wrong. Hate cannot be silenced nor should it be. It is such big and defining part of what being human is about. If we acknowledge, confront and reject hate, we have a much greater chance of keeping it at bay as a society.

In my opinion, it would have been far better to have allowed Phelps to come to the UK, let him speak, then fine him under legislation prohibiting inciteful hate speech and then boot him out of the country. That way he gets to exercise his right, but also accept responsibility for what he says.

Hate and prejudice are usually products on fear, which are based on ignorance. If so far we have failed to ban ignorance, how can we ban hatred?

If people organize into groups using their religious or other beliefs to make disparaging and hateful claims against others, they must be held accountable. Stopping somebody from speaking doesn't do that. Nor does it examine or expose the motives, reasons and irrationality that define such hatred to broader scrutiny.

 

[laundryshark]

Funerals

Funerals should not be protested, no matter what. Protesting is no better than shooting or bombing.--Laundry Shark

 

[vintagehoover]

You said -

'In my opinion, it would have been far better to have allowed Phelps to come to the UK, let him speak, then fine him under legislation prohibiting inciteful hate speech and then boot him out of the country. That way he gets to exercise his right, but also accept responsibility for what he says.'

You feel it's more practical and beneficial to allow dangerous extremists to enter our country, spread their damaging message, then go through the expensive and possibly lengthy legal process of having them detained, dealt with in court and deported, than to simply to say 'It's 2009, we're a liberal country with comprehensive laws protecting us from hate-speech, and based on your past behaviour and the potential risk you pose, we've come to the decision that we're not letting you in'?

Ultimately, it's up to our government to make the judgement, and I agree wholely with their decision. We've prevented many Islamic extemists from entering the country - why not Christian extremists? Which other hate-groups are we supposed to welcome under the idealistic banner of Freedom of Speech? The KKK? Neo-Nazis?

The final word has to go to the UK Border Agency, who said it opposed 'extremism in all its forms,' adding 'Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.

'We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

'The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs.'

 

[vintagehoover]

One more thought; if the government were really eroding the Phelps' freedom of speech, they would have blocked UK access to their infamous website, which they haven't. Their message can still be accessed, they're just not here to shriek it at us in person.

 

[rapunzel]

Firstly, you don't have to go and listen to anyone's shrieking. Secondly, Phelps is not dangerous. He is offensive, annoying and in everyone's face, but he is actually quite harmless. The behaviour of his group just shows how desperate for attention they are. Surely, there is public nuisance legislation that can be invoked if they step out of line at funerals? Otherwise it really is just a matter of 'sticks and stones'.

There are many, far more powerful religious institutions that pose a real threat to human rights and freedoms. The ones that operate insidiously, politically and socially, with enough leverage to really hurt the social minorities they don't approve of. Why don't they get banned from spreading their sugar-coated poison?

"Ultimately, it's up to our government to make the judgement, and I agree wholely with their decision."

You may agree with it, but it really shouldn't be their decision. It is their job to put legislation in place that gurantees equal rights, treatment and protections to ALL citizens. If someone crosses the line it is up to the law to sort it out.

If I don't like someone's message I either walk away or defend my position. Baseless accusations can be redressed. I can also punch someone in the nose if need be. What about those homosexuals who would have liked the opportunity to attend one of Phelps' meetings on British soil? What about their rights?

The bottom line is that we either have basic, inalienable human rights or we do not. Government interference of this type turns constitutional rights into moot points.