God hates Christians

I'm guessing you didn't hear that (see blog title) at today's Supreme Court arguments, but I'd argue it's likely more true than "God hates fags," a remark you probably did hear. The case argued was Snyder v Phelps, in which Albert Snyder, father of Marine Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq in 2006, is trying to put a stop to the hateful practices of Reverend Fred Phelps. Phelps is the hate-filled bigot who goes around the country to protest against gays, and against people who accept gays, at military funerals and other events. Yes, in case you aren't aware of this asshole, that's what he does: he travels the country to protests outside funerals, carrying signs saying "God hates fags." It doesn't seem that the sexuality of the deceased matters to Phelps; he's just looking for a platform from which to spew his venom. Other signs at his events read "Thank God for 9/11" for he also says that God hates America as a result of its tolerance of homosexuality, and that the September 11 attacks were an act of divine retribution. He even claims that the astronauts who died in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster are in hell.

When I believed in god I thought she was likely a warm, loving being or that he loved flowers and animals and people of all types. I can't imagine why anyone would choose to believe in a god who "hates." What kind of god would that be? And why would you believe in such a being? If I believed in god I would guess he's much more upset with haters than he is with men who love each other or women who love women. Where exactly does Fred Phelps get his warped notions of what god thinks?

Were I a violent person -- and I am not -- I would wish that someone put this lunatic out of his misery -- slowly, over hot coals. But I do not advocate violence against him or anyone else. He has the right to his hatred and his small-mindedness. Because this is America he also has the right to express his idiocy. As hateful as he is, he has the right to be that way. Courts have repeatedly held that free speech must be protected and that, as long as protesters obey the rules set down by local authorities -- as Phelps does -- pretty much anything goes. Quoting today's Times: "The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 21 news organizations, including The New York Times Company, filed a brief supporting the Kansas church. “To silence a fringe messenger because of the distastefulness of the message,” the brief said, “is antithetical to the First Amendment’s most basic precepts.”

I agree. None of us are free unless we are all free, and that means that even the Fred Phelps of the world are free to their lunacy.

I wonder though: what would happen if I protested in public, carrying a sign showing two naked men making love? Maybe an updated, more graphic version of the image below. Would I too be protected and allowed my free speech? Doubtful. In this country hatred and violence are fine; love? -- only if it adheres to our Puritanical notion of it.