American Indian Tribe Bans Westboro Hate Cult From Protesting Soldier’s Funeral
Posted on December 2, 2006
A church group that protests at military funerals around the country will be barred from services for an American Indian soldier on a reservation, tribal officials say.
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, planned to demonstrate at National Guard Cpl. Nathan Goodiron’s funeral on Saturday at the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
Church members say the deaths of soldiers are punishment from God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuals.
Tribal leaders passed a resolution Friday that prohibits the group from protesting on the reservation, said Marcus Wells Jr., chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes.
“We will not tolerate any harassment that is intended to provoke ill feelings and violence,” he said.
Provoke violence? You mean like this video where they are running for their life? Yes, preaching hate does seem to provoke hate in return. Yes, this group’s speech does provoke violence, and for that reason should be treated differently than other free speech in my opinion. Of course groups like the ACLU don’t buy that argument. It would be a different story if they were pro-life demonstrators outside an abortion clinic though. But let them spew their hate and take comfort in knowing that in the end they will reap what they sow.
I’m glad that this tribe was able to restrict the group from disrupting their sacred service of remembering a fallen hero. I wish everyone was able to do so.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “American Indian Tribe Bans Westboro Hate Cult From Protesting Soldier’s Funeral”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Do you have anything to support that?
I find it interesting that a freelance journalist is so willing to dismiss the first amendment so easily.
“It would be a different story if they were pro-life demonstrators outside an abortion clinic though.”
No it wouldn’t, as history indicates. But keep telling yourself that - more fuel for the fire.
“[The ACLU’s position] would be a different story if they were pro-life demonstrators outside an abortion clinic though.”
Do you have anything to support that?
Divided ACLU fights pro-lifers’ free-speech rights
Stop the ACLU
Thank you Lobo. Hopefully Mr. Yanna will take a look at those links. I’m not hopeful though. He’d probably rather ignore the truth and continue to live with his pre-conceived notions.
Lobo, if I have this right, that amounts to one case where various parts of the ACLU divided and represented both sides, one case where they took a questionable position, and a few more where they stayed out of the fray.
It’s no secret that they’re arch-rivals of the pro-life crowd, but the above examples hardly demonstrate an effort to stamp out their free speech.
Jay, someone posted a link a week or two ago to a case (in colorado?) where the ACLU actually sided with pro-lifers against a bill designed to limit their protests. I tried using your search, but I couldn’t find it. Can ya help me?
Jeff, you need to
Questionable? They filed RICO suits on pro-life protesters. Dude, they’ve tried to revoke the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status because they are against abortion. And where did you come up with them representing both sides?
Lobo, if I have this right, that amounts to one case where various parts of the ACLU divided and represented both sides
but the above examples hardly demonstrate an effort to stamp out their free speech.
then here is another…
ACLU Backs Free Speech for All  Except Pro-lifers
Then, in 1995, the national ACLU joined its New York affiliate in defending an injunction against anti-abortion protesters, arguing that the imposition of a moving buffer zone that kept protesters 15 feet away from people entering and leaving abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment.
and in this one…
firstamendmentcenter.org
scroll down to; New Mexico State
“To us, this presented a clear-cut First Amendment issue because you had students exercising their legitimate right to distribute literature on campus,†said Peter Simonson, executor director of the ACLU of New Mexico. “This was a clear instance of students’ rights to free speech being shut down in an extremely aggressive manner.â€Â