Think of the Children

Post Reply New Topic

April 11, 2011 - 12:41 AM Edit:Well, not a lot of people appear to be reading most of the early posts in this thread. So, if anyone's curious about evidence of police overswamping and the inherent dangers of Phelps funeral protests, see these videos.

And for those curious about Child Neglect Laws in Kansas:



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 7, 2011 2:05 AM Edit: Well, it seems some radically regressive rightwingers have decided to derail this thread with complaints of "the Democrat Party" and "liberals" wanting to censor people they don't like and abuse CPS to take kids away from families they disagree with. It's pretty funny how robotic and mindless rightwing talking points are, considering that as a Canuck who isn't involved whatsoever in US politics, I'm not a Democratic Party member. Such nuances often go past the certain reactionaries.

And, to make this clear again, this video - while expressing concern over the indoctrination of Phelps children - isn't a demand that they raise their children to respect gays and fellow human beings. No, no, I'm not demanding minimal huma decency from the Phelps. I'm not even demanding that they stop all the nonsensical indoctrination that's mentally scarred so many of their own kids. All I'm demanding is that THEY LOOK AFTER THEIR KIDS OR HAVE THEM REMOVED. Simple as that, so please pro-parental negligence reactionaires, stop misrepresenting my position.

As for the evidence of this negligence, they've had this happen and yet continue to bring the kids to funeral picketing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaGWtYjojO4&feature=related[/youtube]

The Court should order the Phelps to stop bringing children under the age of 14 (yes, I'm being REALLY, probably over, generous to parental autonomy here) to these risky protests or face the threat of removal by CPS workers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it's quite apparent that the Phelps family indoctrinates their children very, very robotically - even by the standards of religious upbringings.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlVZNxa8qpU&feature=fvsr[/youtube]

It's also quite apparent that protesting funerals, especially the funerals of fallen soldiers, is very dangerous. The Phelps family once had one of their car windows smashed by a protester trying to lynch them.

So my question is why don' the Child and Family Services of Kansas take the younger children away from the Phelps family? What are the family Service regulations and laws in Kansas in particular and the US in general? Because this seems like a prime case for it.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 11 Apr 2011, 12:50 am, edited 7 times in total.

They can't take children away for taking them to a protest.

Why not? The protests are very dangerous, as evidenced by the fact that the Phelps family nearly got lynched at one. What's the difference between taking 6 year olds to a protest where 100 want to kick your collective ass and taking a child into a mine or onto a deep sea oil rig? Surely, parents who did that would be considered unfit and worthy of a CFS investigation (unless Americans have really lax child safety laws).

Because then where does it stop? Will they take children away from LGBT protesting parents? What about abortion protests?

If there's one thing we've learned about our laws, it's that we cannot single out one situation. So, if we took children away from WBC for taking their children to protests, this law would have to be applied across the board.

The simple fact is, any protest can get dangerous. So, would you be okay with any other group losing their children? Even if they're careful to leave when it starts to get ugly?

Where's the line, and can we trust CPS not to cross it?

Slippery slope fallacies are unconvincing. While any protest can get out of line, it's a near certainty that PROTESTING MILITARY FUNERALS will get out of hand and, furthermore, if you've repeatedly notice violence towards you during such protests and CONTINUE TO BRING YOUR CHILDREN you are an unfit parent.

For anyone interested in the documentary evidence of Phelps negligence towards the safety of their own children, please start watching at 4:11 and 4:50.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50r0CnKq7_k[/youtube]

Children should not be allowed in protests, perhaps. They can be dangerous places, even just from the event of a mob stampede occurring. IMHO children should not be involved in anything political or religious

I agree, but I do not think CPS should take kids away for it.

Even from WBC.

It's not a slippery slope argument. If we are going to enact a law, it has to be across the board. We cannot target WBC specifically, and we cannot tell people children aren't allowed at funeral protests unless we say children shouldn't be allowed at any protest.

And really, how can we do that without restricting the freedom to protest for the adults?

I think there needs to be evidence that they are being abused in their home. There are many people who engage in dangerous behavior with their children in tow that are not having their children taken away from them. I can understand M_P's sentiment though, and I do agree with him that it is dangerous to bring children to these events, as it could get bloody. But taking one's children away should not be done lightly, as the end result could be the WBC looking like victims

While I find it personally problematic when children are used as props at protests, I don't think the child welfare system should get involved until it becomes OBVIOUSLY dangerous. A Phelps kid was hit by a driver or car, for Christ's shake. Since almost anyone admits they'd slug the Phelps if they experienced one of their funeral protests, it's obvious that kids who accompany them are in danger. CFS must act immediately.

And this is yet another reason why I'm against this idea.

Right, because we will all go up to one of the children and slug them. And WBC should have their children taken from them because of it.

Whatever happened to punishing the perp? You know... the one that punches the CHILD?

Former, estranged Phelps kids now in their adult years were abused by Fred Phelps and there's evidence that he also beat his wife. As for "looking like victims", since most people would slug a random WBC person if they saw one I don't think that's a concern for anytime soon.

The children are imperilled, one boy nicked by a motorist, and they've been to enough protests to learn that the activity is too dangerous for children. This is parental negligence, pure and simple.

CPS cannot take children away without evidence those specific children are being abused. Grown siblings are not sufficient evidence unless they witness the child in question be abused.

CPS also does not take children away just because the father is a wife beater. There has to be a clear risk to the child.

When the crowd attacked the Phelps van, they were not making a distinction between whether kids or adults were in it. When that one motorist nicked that Phelps boy, it didn't seem to press on him whether the protester was a child or adult. Lastly, when grieving people are at a put of rage and a mob forms to lynch the Phelps, I hardly think they'll distinguish between children and adults.

Besides, there have ALREADY been enough instances of potential and actual injury to Phelps children to serve as an approperiate notice that taking your children to funeral protests is dangerous. The fact the Phelps continue to do so proves negligence and the rights and safety of the children must be protected from these unfit parents.

Well, then an investigation should be done, if it isn't already underway. Also, I don't think most people would slug a WBC member; the Supreme Court couldn't even touch them. They unfortunately have the law on their side. I'm sure some of them would love it if people started getting violent with them. And them being painted as victims isn't that far fetched, if they had their kids taken from them; they certainly have some money, they can work the media. I give as precedent (though unrelated in nature, but bear with me) for cruel, evil people later being painted as victims due to sympathy: the FLQ terrorists involved in the Quebec October Crisis, once reviled, now walking the streets of Montreal & Quebec City as heros to some...




Absolutely. I'm with you on this, but I think that it has to be very, very carefully done. I believe in the philosophy of not trading blows with the enemy. If you are going to fight, you must strike once, in such a way that they can never strike back again