Shirley Phelps

Comments

# Marshall Harrison - the got speech guy said on June 12, 2006 6:56 PM:

Shirley and her bunch are some really weird whackos.

# William said on June 12, 2006 7:24 PM:

The funny thing is the entire church is made up of Phelps family members.  What bugs me is how they get used to smear the rest of Christians. I remember when Matthew Sheppard was murdered.  They had a picture of the Phelp's protesting his funeral with "Matthew is burning in hell sings".  Underneat it it said "Mainstream Christian groups oppose homosexuality" - as though those nuts are the norm.  TGhey oppose homosexuality and everything else so they arne't really represented. But the media uses them to smear all CHristians - which is a real shame.

# Marshall Harrison "the gotspeech guy" said on June 13, 2006 6:18 AM:

I agree.

As a Christian, it irks me when the media uses the wacko fringe to represent the entire Christian faith. I gave up on the media and the wackos a long time ago. You aren't going to change either of them.

# Francoise said on June 18, 2006 10:33 PM:

I am an atheist who supports everyone's right to believe and say what they like, providing that their speech does not incite criminal actions. Freedom of speech means exactly that- the freedom to be wrong, correct, pleasant or obnoxious. What amazes me is the number of Christians who bristle with righteous indignation at the mention of Shirley's family and their antics. Have any of you actually ever read a Bible??? Well, I have, ( which is why I became an atheist) and can assure you that there is nothing in the Bible which is inconsistent with the preaching of WBC. Have any of you ever  READ Leviticus, Judges, et al wherein "God" is constantly on the warpath against humanity? It's there, folks, right in your own "holy" book. Shirley's not saying anything that the Bible hasn't already said. True, her focus is narrow, but so what? She's preaching a God of hatred and vengeance, and that is precisely the way most of the Old Testament portrays "Him". A vindictive, psychopathic, totally insane monster. I chose not to believe in such a vile entity. Shirley didn't have that freedom of choice. She was bullied and brainwashed from birth into believing that her old man is the last of "God's" prophets. She dare not disobey lest her father's wrath, and that of "God", falls upon her.

I recommend that all of you refrain from condemning Shirley until you've Googled "Addicted to Hate". Read about her terrible childhood, and then ask if YOU would be sane, tolerant  and reasonable under the circumstances. Shirley and her siblings grew up in mortal  terror of their father. They were physically bashed, emotionally tortured, starved, compelled into forced marches, etc ad nauseam. Read the story. Weep and reflect. Forgive yourselves for condemning this most unfortunate human being. Give thanks that your lives have most probably been a lot better than hers. Shirley is a prisoner in a classic "folie a famille" situation. Her mental outlook is that of a brutalised, terrorised child, desperately trying to deflect her old man's wrath ( and that of the "Almighty's" as well!)so you can hardly expect her reactions to be different.

It's soooooo easy to condemn, isn't it? It's soooooooo much easier to focus on the misdeeds of others, rather than looking inwardly and examining our own consciences, isn't it??

# William said on June 19, 2006 1:57 PM:

"It's soooooo easy to condemn, isn't it? It's soooooooo much easier to focus on the misdeeds of others, rather than looking inwardly and examining our own consciences, isn't it?? "

Yes, it is.  But I make a daily practice of looking at my shortcomings. I do my best to hold myself to even higher standards than the ones I yack about on my blog. Fall short alot, criticize myself when i do, still think staying critical is the way to go.

"I recommend that all of you refrain from condemning Shirley until you've Googled "Addicted to Hate". Read about her terrible childhood, and then ask if YOU would be sane, tolerant  and reasonable under the circumstances. Shirley and her siblings grew up in mortal  terror of their father. They were physically bashed, emotionally tortured, starved, compelled into forced marches, etc ad nauseam. Read the story. Weep and reflect. Forgive yourselves for condemning this most unfortunate human being. Give thanks that your lives have most probably been a lot better than hers. Shirley is a prisoner in a classic "folie a famille" situation. Her mental outlook is that of a brutalised, terrorised child, desperately trying to deflect her old man's wrath ( and that of the "Almighty's" as well!)so you can hardly expect her reactions to be different. "

I totally disagree.  Sure, bad childhoods are a handicap.  And if she was 22, I'd buy that line of argument. Shirley has lived just as much of her life above 18 as she has under 18.  She has free will. She can change if she wants to.  Lot's of kids went through bad stuff and while it's hard to heal wounds, it can be done.  I ran away from home when I was 12 and didn't live with my parents again until after I graduated from college.  I'd be willing to bet i could show you some things that would rival if not beat anything she's been through. I used to blame my alcoholism and drugs on my childhood.It wasn't until I started holding myself to account that my life got better. That's why i'm not an alcoholic any more. I've read all about the Phelps and have written about them since back during the Matthew Shepphard incident.  There's no way she could get out of that without wounds - but she could leave.  This is her responsibility and she has turned into a monster.  You can excuse it all you want, she NOW, the way she currently behaves, is a monster. Until she changes my opinion will remain the same.   Her dad can't make her do ANYTHING anymore. Just like no one ever put a shot of Jack Daniels down my throat, no one is forcing her to do what she does. And she's HURTING A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE.  Telling people you are going to hell no matter what?  Disregarding the word of Jesus? Doing it under the guise of Christianity - speaking apostasy and vitriol.  Sorry hon, I don't buy it.

And yes, I've read  a Bible.  Actually I have a strong preference to the New Testament but I've read it many times.  You think Christians like myself should be quiet about this crap?  About vicious apostasy that drives people away from Christianity?  That gives ammmunition to those that would like to destroy us?  You imply that we know little in many regards, be it about the Bible or Shirley - the truth is, you need to get  a grip of your platitudes, invalid assumptions and rationalizations.

I'll gladly and politely challenge you on any point I've made or that you'd like to talk about and do so as a Christian - if you're interested.

# Martin said on June 19, 2006 3:19 PM:

Francoise, I'm a Christian who does take the Bible literally, including the Old Testament. I do hold the belief that homosexual acts are sinful. (If you are honest to yourself, you will realize that it is unnatural and increases the likelihood of sexual diseases. I also realize that many people are suffering under their homosexuality and would rather be free from it.) However, so is lying sinful, as well as stealing, envy, adultery, greed, hatred and so on. That means that _all_ of us are sinners and deserve God's righteous justice.

Now, as William stated when he quoted the Phelps as saying "You're going to hell and there's *nothing* you can do about it?", one of the many things that they are leaving out of what the Bible actually teaches is that God also is a merciful and loving God, which is why He came to Earth in Jesus Christ and paid the fine for our sins with His own blood. This enables everyone who will realize that he is a sinner, repent of (turn from) their sins and trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation to escape from the righteous wrath of God on Judgment Day and earn eternal life in Heaven as opposed to eternal punishment in Hell.

I apologize for the hateful misbehavior of these cultists and how they  misrepresent the God of the Bible. Please do not judge Jesus Christ by the acts of some of His presumed followers. Forgiveness _is_ available; however, it is not cheap mercy, but requires repentance.

Perhaps the following will help putting things into perspective. Here is an interesting podcast of evangelizing Christians who talk with Shirley Phelps and confront her with her hatefulness:

http://www.wotmradio.com/2006/06/14/june-14-2006-hour-2/

# Samantha said on June 23, 2006 2:20 AM:

You can't argue with the freedom of speech. We can't make a double standard just because of this woman. She'll get whats coming to her, and I'm not talking about hell, because I'm an atheist, but she'll probably get punched at a rally one day. And I'll hear about it. And laugh.

# Jim said on June 23, 2006 5:26 AM:

I agree with her right to free speech.

# Francoise said on June 23, 2006 9:07 PM:

William, if you want to chat, that's fine by me. Email me at fplata@bigpond.net.au For some reason, this crazy computer won't let me send more than a few lines.

# Francoise said on June 24, 2006 2:06 PM:

Hi Martin. No need for you to apologise for the deeds of others. Thanks for that broadcast- it  confirms my view about the unfortunate Shirley and her family.

Re: homosexuality- it isn't confined to humans- it also exists in the animal kingdom. And homosexuals aren't the only ones who spread venereal diseases. I've seen heaps of heteros infected with every sort of disease you can think of.

# Francoise said on June 24, 2006 5:15 PM:

Well, this computer seems to be working again, so here goes, William. So Shirley's disregarding the word of Jesus? Hurting people? OK. You've hurt people. You know you have. Hurting and being hurt is an inesacapable part of being human, and we're all guilty on that score. I've hurt others, too. Sometimes unwittingly, sometimes deliberately.

As for the words of Jesus, is the Jesus to whom you refer the same one who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? And "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? And "The measure by which you judge others  shall be used to judge you."?  And best of all, when he was being nailed to the cross; "Father forgive them. They know not what they do." Excellent ethics. Are you somehow exempted from following those principles in your views towards other human beings? Are your sins fewer and of less magnitude than Shirley's?

# Jim said on June 24, 2006 5:48 PM:

Hi, Bill. I'm Jim, neighbour and friend of Francoise. Like her, an atheist. We live in a country which doesn't have  constitutional freedom of speech, so what we see happening in the USA is amazing.

Who do you think "is trying to destroy us"? Are you into conspiracies?

Nobody's saying that you have to keep quiet about Shirley. We just think she's more to be pitied than condemned. It's very possible that she has no ability to empathise with other humans. Your own sufferings that led to to alcohol abuse could have led to that, as well. In some people, it never develops, and others have it systematically bashed out of them by a combination of very bad circumstances.  Calling someone a "monster" and a "nut" is derogatory, degrading, demonising and dehumanising - to yourself, as well as Shirley. Your Jesus didn't call the mentally ill and the traumatised  by those horrible names, did he? Did his sacrificial death include Shirley, as well as yourself? If it is true as your Bible says, that if we only break one commandment, we are still guilty of breaking them all, then surely that puts you on an equal footing with this woman whom you seem to despise so much. That's why we infidels wonder if Christians ever actually read their Bibles. On one hand, Shirley preaches the God of wrath who figures so prominently in the Old Testamentt. She's correct. He IS a God of wrath! Jesus, when he wasn't threatening people with Hellfire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, or cursing fig trees, or causing pigs to stampede by their hundreds to their death, taught some very humanist ethics. That's why we are astonished to find Christians getting so angry with others. That's why we wonder if you ever study your Bibles. Surely, if you're a "saved" Christian, and bound for everlasting heavenly happiness, that should cause you to be joyful and gentle in your dealings with your fellow-man?

# JIm said on June 24, 2006 6:05 PM:

Hi Martin. If you take the Bible literally, how do you cope with the story of Joshua ordering the sun to stand still, so that he could have sufficient daylight to slaughter a few more thousand human beings?

If the Bible is inspired by the "God" who created the universe, then is it not reasonable to expect that "He" would naturally know that the sun is already stationary, and therefore, the commandment was pointless - not to mention motivated by blood-lust. As we know, it's the earth's rotation which causes the sun to appear to move. But it doesn't. Had Joshua's command stopped the earth's movements, then everything on it would have hurtled into space. So, how can you possibly treat this story as literal, historical fact?

Then there's the problem of the mustard seed. Jesus specifically stated that it is the smallest of all seeds. It isn't. As seeds go, it's quite large, as any competent botanist can attest. If Jesus is God incarnated, and, presumably, the Creator of the universe, then why was he so ignorant of his own creation? He further added that the mustard seed grows into trees in which birds make their nests. It doesn't, and they don't. So how is this story meant to be read?

Jesus likewise told his followers that there were some there who would not die before his second coming. They've all been dead for 2,000 years, and he still hasn't returned.  Can we be pardoned for thinking that he lacks credibility, for all that he taught many good principles, and, reputedly, performed many beneficial deeds?

By the way, Jesus isn't unique. There were stacks of virgin-born godmen with identical biographies in the ancient world. As far as we can determine, he was number 52 in the chain. All these stories are myths dealing with the anthropomorphised Sun God and his travels through the 12 signs of the zodiac. We don't believe in the lietral, historical deeds of all those other crucified saviours, ( at least 16 of them were crucified) so we see no reason to believe that Jesus ever really existed, either. Anyway, I'll be interested in your reply, because to me, a literal interpetation of any sacred text is always fraught with problems.

# Francoise said on June 27, 2006 4:23 PM:

Hi William. Are you OK? I was hoping for a reply by now. Anyway, re Shirley allegedly being able to leave her situation and your assertion that she has free will- both are  very debatable. I highly recommend that you read up on the psychology of brainwashing, and how a victim can be inescapably bound to their tormentor. Shirley craves her father's love and approval, she also fears him greatly. She has the same attitude towards "God". She believes thaat her father is God's last prophet, that we are at the end of the world, and to leave her cult would lead her to Hellfire for all eternity. She  has the added torture of believing that 4 siblings and a son who left the WBC will roast forever and ever. That's hardly guraanteed to make a person sweet and happy in their disposition, is it?

Unlike you and me, she may have no insight whatsoever into her situation, whether internal or external. There is every possibility that she sustained brain damage  from her father's repeated assaults. She could be psychotic. Or be suffering paranoid delusions. She may have a personality disorder, or be suffering post traumatic stress disorder. There are many things I can think of to explain her actions, and all of them induce compassion.

I also suggest that you dip into some essays in psychiatirc medicine and learn about brain tumours, and what they can do to a person's behaviour. You see, although we know a lot about her vile upbringing, we don't know the full picture. There is a distinct possibility that she was subjected to incestuous assaults as well, and I have never known that to lead to any happy and stable behaviour in anyone.

Remember, no two human beings are alike, and no two will react identically in any given circumstances. You coped with your pain and rage  with booze. I chose to immerse myself in medical studies. Shirley copes by screaming. We all have our breaking points and coping mechanisms. You're off the booze- well done. But you still harbour a lot of anger. Discharging it onto the unfortunate Shirley is not going to make it any better. Be merciful. Just as you expect "God" to love and forgive you, try to extend that same benevolence towards someone who may, for all you now, have had it tougher than you did.

If you want to tell me your experiences, fine. You won't be able to tell me anything I haven't heard or seen before, so don't think that you can shock or surprise me. I grew up in a similar environment to Shirley's and my 4 week old son was murdered. I forgave the perpetrator. If I can forgive him, then you can see why I don't get angry with Shirley.

# Francoise said on June 27, 2006 4:28 PM:

Hi William. Are you OK? I was hoping for a reply by now. Anyway, re Shirley allegedly being able to leave her situation and your assertion that she has free will- both are  very debatable. I highly recommend that you read up on the psychology of brainwashing, and how a victim can be inescapably bound to their tormentor. Shirley craves her father's love and approval, she also fears him greatly. She has the same attitude towards "God". She believes thaat her father is God's last prophet, that we are at the end of the world, and to leave her cult would lead her to Hellfire for all eternity. She  has the added torture of believing that 4 siblings and a son who left the WBC will roast forever and ever. That's hardly guraanteed to make a person sweet and happy in their disposition, is it?

Unlike you and me, she may have no insight whatsoever into her situation, whether internal or external. There is every possibility that she sustained brain damage  from her father's repeated assaults. She could be psychotic. Or be suffering paranoid delusions. She may have a personality disorder, or be suffering post traumatic stress disorder. There are many things I can think of to explain her actions, and all of them induce compassion.

I also suggest that you dip into some essays in psychiatirc medicine and learn about brain tumours, and what they can do to a person's behaviour. You see, although we know a lot about her vile upbringing, we don't know the full picture. There is a distinct possibility that she was subjected to incestuous assaults as well, and I have never known that to lead to long-term happy and stable behaviour in anyone.

Remember, no two human beings are alike, and no two will react identically in any given circumstances. You coped with your pain and rage  with booze. I chose to immerse myself in medical studies. Shirley copes by screaming. We all have our breaking points and coping mechanisms. You're off the booze- well done. But you still harbour a lot of anger. Discharging it onto the unfortunate Shirley is not going to make it any better. Be merciful. Just as you expect "God" to love and forgive you, try to extend that same benevolence towards someone who may, for all you know, have had it tougher than you did.

If you want to tell me your experiences, fine. You won't be able to tell me anything I haven't heard or seen before, so don't think that you can shock or surprise me. I grew up in a similar environment to Shirley's and my 4 week old son was murdered. I forgave the perpetrator. If I can forgive him, then you can see why I don't get angry with Shirley.

# William said on June 27, 2006 11:57 PM:

Francoise - forgive me for not responding. I haven't viewed the blog for a few days (I know, lame excuse but it's true) so I just popped over and saw all of the comments. I'd like to chat privately so I'll take you up on the offer. However can I have your permission to obscure your email addresss here - spammers often use blog sites to harvest email addresses. I'll respond to some of your comments here and I'll shootyou a private email.  I appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thanks again and please forgive my delay.

# William said on June 28, 2006 12:29 AM:

<<Hi William. Are you OK? I was hoping for a reply by now.>>

Sorry for the delay - been busy and didn't realize
<< Anyway, re Shirley allegedly being able to leave her situation and your assertion that she has free will- both are  very debatable.>>
She is *able*.  People in Jail aren't able to leave.  People in a wheelchair trapped somewhere by someone that won't let them leave are unable.  People that can make it to Fox news studios have plenty of opportunities to leave.
<< I highly recommend that you read up on the psychology of brainwashing, and how a victim can be inescapably bound to their tormentor. >>
Not sure how you came to the conclusion it's something I haven't read a lot about.  I had a double major with Psych as one of them and read about Brainwashing in depth, and Stockholm syndrome as well.  However I'd cite this.  Looks at Frankl's work.  Look at the scores of Soviet defectors who were definitely brainwashed. Look at the Cuban dissidents that were brainwashed yet risked their own lives and family's lives to cross shark infested water all to escape.  This can't be discounted and while I don't dispute people are different, they *prove* that it's possible.  

<<Shirley craves her father's love and approval, she also fears him greatly. She has the same attitude towards "God". She believes thaat her father is God's last prophet, that we are at the end of the world, and to leave her cult would lead her to Hellfire for all eternity. She  has the added torture of believing that 4 siblings and a son who left the WBC will roast forever and ever. That's hardly guraanteed to make a person sweet and happy in their disposition, is it?
>>  It depends on the person. She reads the same Bible I do and she's telling people that they *are* going to burn in hell and there's nothing they can do about it. She could read the Bible and see that's clearly not Jesus' message.  Do I think someone with that childhood is coming out without a scare?  Very doubtful.  Do I think it excuses their behavior?  No.  Do I think it's something that can't be overcome.  No.  And while neither of us can prove our points b/c it's impossible to prove one way or the other, I can cite many examples where people have overcome circumstances and in many cases, come out stronger.  Reading the Bible, it's easy to assume that she would be scared crapless of going to hell and for good reason.  The Bible I read has a strong indication that's where she's probably heading.  She's free to interpret it however she wants.  A side hobby of mine is following Scientology. Not following as in being an adherent, but reading about it.  Look at the horrors that have went on there. Yet many overcome. Look at Reverend Moon and his cult.  Many overcame.  All I'm saying is that it certainly is possible.

<<Unlike you and me, she may have no insight whatsoever into her situation, whether internal or external. There is every possibility that she sustained brain damage  from her father's repeated assaults. She could be psychotic. Or be suffering paranoid delusions. She may have a personality disorder, or be suffering post traumatic stress disorder. There are many things I can think of to explain her actions, and all of them induce compassion. >>

Other than your first sentence I don't disagree with anything you're saying. And they are reasons for compassion.  Yet I have a lot more compassion for the people she's victimizing.  And she's spreading false teachings about the Lord. Not one word in the Bible says you can't repent and are destined to hell if you just some random person living in America. That's what she preaches and that's wrong. She pickets people's Funerals.  Didn't see anything in the Bible about that.  Would I take all your points into account were I a judge in a criminal case.  Sure.  And would quite possibly go a lot easier on her if I saw proof of anything. But I would not let her go totally unpunished either b/c whatever the reason, her vile behavior hurts others. If she's truly psychotic, Baker Act her (and I'm sure many have tried) and let that be the result. not perfect but certainly adequate.

<<Remember, no two human beings are alike, and no two will react identically in any given circumstances. You coped with your pain and rage  with booze. I chose to immerse myself in medical studies. Shirley copes by screaming. We all have our breaking points and coping mechanisms. You're off the booze- well done. But you still harbour a lot of anger. >> I have anger issues b/c I dislike that she's hurting innocent people?  It comes from my sense of decency.  You can't possibly tell or even infer that I have anger issues b/c of anything I've said about this.  When I get cut off in traffic, I"m cool.  When I deal with some drunk jerk trying to pick a fight with me, I'm quick to turn the other cheek.  Show me someone torturing a puppy or a child molester and yes, it pisses me off bad.  Because an innocent is being hurt.  Anger isn't inherently bad, it depends on what drives it.  And I'd have serious questions about anyone who can have neutral attitudes about those that hurt others, particularly those that hurt people by kicking them when they are down.  Having fond memories of those loved ones recently past is a big componet of greiving and dealing with loss.  Having those memories and people desecrated is particularly vile.  Homosexuals have enough trouble as it is. People like her, going on TV spewing hatred only hurts them more.

<<Discharging it onto the unfortunate Shirley is not going to make it any better.>>  Where is it established that's what I'm doing?  Her behavior sickens me.  And from the bottom of my heart, I truly hope that such behavior always will sicken me. I don't hate her, I hate what she does. At this point, she's become what she does but that can change.  But a grown women that's still doing this crap doesn't seem to me like someone that's looking to change - at least not now.

<< Be merciful. Just as you expect "God" to love and forgive you, try to extend that same benevolence towards someone who may, for all you know, have had it tougher than you did. >>
One component of forgiveness is that you are sorry for what you did. Another is that you actively seek to stop (not necessarily accomplish it, we all have weaknesses, but that you make a concerted effort to stop). From what I've seen, she's doing/done neither.


<<If you want to tell me your experiences, fine. You won't be able to tell me anything I haven't heard or seen before, so don't think that you can shock or surprise me. I grew up in a similar environment to Shirley's and my 4 week old son was murdered. I forgave the perpetrator. If I can forgive him, then you can see why I don't get angry with Shirley.  >>
I have no intention of trying to shock you with anything. My point is that she doesn't have a monopoly on pain.  With your son's murder. Would you forgive the guy if he was still out killing or attempting to kill other kids? I doubt it.  That's my point. I'm not choosing an arbitrary deed of hers and focusing on it. It's ongoing behavior.  And it's behavior that is hurting others.  A lot of others and a lot of good people. I commend you for forgiving the person that wronged you like that, but I wouldn't commend it if the person was still doing it and you kept on.  In order to recieve forgiveness, one should at a minimum acknowledge what they did was wrong.  I believe in forgiving people for one's own mental health.  But I don't even think of Shirley and it's not something I carry around by any means. When I see her doing it again, it sickens me.  Not because of her per se, but because she's hurting innocent greiving families.  Without her stopping, or at least acknowledging that these are not people she should be picking fights with, I have no reason to forgive her.  Being 'ok' with what she does is almost the same thing as accepting it - and I think a healthy bit of indignation is exactly that, healthy.  If I did it, I'd hold myself to the same standard. That's what helped me get off booze - brutal honesty with myself about what I was becomming and what I was doing.  And had I not sought forgiveness from those I hurt, I doubt I would have gotten it.  Those that condemned me for my behavior were correct to do so . Some had less than noble reasons but they had every right to do it. And those that had good reason were right to do it.  Until I stopped, I was worthy of being condemned. Until I was sorry I wasn't worthy of their forgiveness.  Those that chose to do so anyway are wondeful people, but I had no right to expect that from them.

# William said on June 28, 2006 12:38 AM:

<<Well, this computer seems to be working again, so here goes, William. So Shirley's disregarding the word of Jesus? Hurting people? OK. You've hurt people. You know you have. Hurting and being hurt is an inesacapable part of being human, and we're all guilty on that score. I've hurt others, too. Sometimes unwittingly, sometimes deliberately. >> And I was wrong when I did it.  I wouldn't be disingenuous enough to claim otherwise.  I was wrong when Iv'e done it. I'm sorry about it and i'm sorry when I do it.  Also, she's doing it in the name of Jesus which makes it all the more hypocritical.

<<As for the words of Jesus, is the Jesus to whom you refer the same one who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? And "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? And "The measure by which you judge others  shall be used to judge you."?  And best of all, when he was being nailed to the cross; "Father forgive them. They know not what they do." Excellent ethics. Are you somehow exempted from following those principles in your views towards other human beings? Are your sins fewer and of less magnitude than Shirley's? >>

I could go on and on citing more examples than I care to showing the context of those. I'm certainly not exempted. You left out quite a bit from each qoute and other verses which speak to the issue of forgiveness - I'm not sure if that was intentional or sophistry but either way, it's something that we could (and people have) write/written volumes on.  I don't know if the sum of all of my sins is worse than shirleys.  When people criticize my inappropriate behavior (which fortunately is much more rare these days), I usually agree with them and try to fix it.  I don't keep doing it.  The quotes you reference in particular was not Jesus giving people free license to run around hurting others.  And you may no of a verse that I'm unaware of, but I believe being forgiven had a prerequesite of being sorry about it - didn't it?

# Francoise said on June 28, 2006 12:40 AM:

Yeah, mate. No worries. My friend Jim is also interested in this case.He was molested by an adult when he was young, and he believes that Pastor Fred Phelps is also a victim. That's a heavy load to carry.

You can do what you like with my email address. I gather you wish to email me privately? Cool I love personal mail

I was wondering if perhaps you had fallen ill, or perhaps your messages weren't getting posted. We've had a few technical problems here, and, as neither of us is very clever with computers, one tends to think the worst. I'll stay tuned. Cheers. Or, as we say in Australia- Hooroo.

# William said on June 28, 2006 1:05 AM:

<<Hi, Bill. I'm Jim, neighbour and friend of Francoise. Like her, an atheist. We live in a country which doesn't have  constitutional freedom of speech, so what we see happening in the USA is amazing. >>  Ok

<<Who do you think "is trying to destroy us"? Are you into conspiracies? >> Are you into ridiculous logical non-sequitors?  Many groups are trying to destroy Christianity and in most battles, enemies will often use your own shortcomings against you.  I know and converse with quiet a few people who very much dislike religion and Christianity in particular.  One of my old neighbors was an attorney working at a public intest law firm.  He often bragged how ridding the country of Christianity would be the pinnacle of his career.  It seems like you want to infer that I have some paranoia about this which is just plain silly. There is a tremendous amount of animosity toward Christians in this world, just like there is against most major religions or organized groups.

<<Calling someone a "monster" and a "nut" is derogatory, degrading, demonising and dehumanising - to yourself, as well as Shirley. >>  Really, it's necessarily dehumanizing to myself and her? Well, let me get this out of the way up front.  Osama Bin Laden.  Monster.  Robert Mugabe. Monster.  Fidel Castro. Monster. Adolf Hitler. Monster.  Joseph Stalin.  MOnster.    I find it more troubling that someone would fail to acknolwedge that these particular people are monsters but to each his own.  Shirley's behavior is monsterous.  Going after Grieving families, targeting the weak and greiving is predatory and particularly vile.  You act as though her behavior is just some quirk. And if she ranted in her church, it would be.  But there are people on the other side of the equation that she's hurting.  It's funny that in all of both your and Francoise's responses, not one word about the people she hurts.

Where has it been firmly established that she's suffering mental illness?  I seemed to have missed that part. Is that just another assumption on your part?   I noticed you seem to make quite a few assumptions about me, silly ones at that.  Wow, I called her a nut.  Wow. Did you actually even bother to read any of my points other than just throwing out generalizations about how Christians supposedly can't judge any behavior.  So what exactly is your problem with my post?  Is it that Shirly is legitimately crazy and that I made light of it by calling her a nut?  Or is it that calling anyone a nut is too much?

So I guess I'll restate my central point since you seem to want to ignore it.  We all make mistakes. We all do things that are bad.  However doing it over and over again is bad.  When our actions start to define who we are, we become bad people.  Take religion out of the equation.  I can still hold every point I made outside of the context of religion. She's bad b/c she's hurting people. If she's crazy and honestly can't control herself, then she should be stopped from doing it and she should be given help. Considering that she hasn't been baker acted that I can tell (and I'm sure lotsssss of people would be glad to do that for her), I don't know where the evidence of her being anything other than a hateful mean person is.  My problem is with her continued attacks on innocent people. Most everything you've implied about me is an assumption based on something you clearly have no clue about.  You act like I'm persecuting the lady. I'm calling her a nut. I'm calling her behavior monsterous.  I've said the same about my own behavior and I sincerely hope that if I ever engage in monsterous behavior where I cause others serious pain or harm, that I'm condemnded for it b/c it's wrong.  What is she's not 'crazy'?  IF you have proof that she is, I'd love to see it. OTherwise, it sounds like just one more erroneous assumption you're making  Some things should cause disgust and outrage and her behavior definitely fits the bill.  I'm honestly just plain perplexed by your reply and every time I start to respond, I just get confused b/c I have no idea how you arrive at so many of the assumptions about me that I do.  If you can't dislike the fact that someone does X without hating them, we are on different plains.  If Shirley denounced what she's done and stopped doing it, I'd be the first one jumping to defend her.  That's becuase I dislike what she's doing.  She does it enough that it's defining her but that's ephemeral and can change in a minute.  But until then, until she shows remorse, I'll still be disgusted by her behavior.

may I ask, is there any behavior that you think warrants comdemnation?  

# Jim said on June 28, 2006 5:38 PM:

Hi Bill. Sorry if I  seem to have unwittingly angered you. I was trying to make the point that we're all human, all frail, all have our good and bad points. Yes, even Stalin et al.

For the record, Stalin was not considered in the least abnormal by Russian standards. We in the West have got used to expecting governments and leaders to  behave in certain ways, and it's a mistake to assume that because a population is largely Caucasian and nominally Christian, that it thinks the same way as we do. Stalin was not unique by any stretch of the imagination. He was merely one of the uncountable links in a very long chain of despots. I lived there for a while and was dumbstruck to see that fresh flowers are still placed on his grave every day. Not only that, but when Communism was being dismantled, there were dozens of demonstrations against the process - and you wouldn't BELIEVE the number of people who marched in protest, carrying huge photos of "papa Joe". It may seem baffling to an American ( you are American, aren't you?) with your history of the 1776 revolution, civil war, civil liberties, etc, but Russians have no respect for what they perceive as "weak" rulers, ie, people like Vladimir Putin. Basically, they're a people who respect brutality, because that, to them, represents security. Strange, but true. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it. No sooner was "democracy" ushered in, than the crime rate shot up about 800% overnight. That's why the mafia now runs most of Moscow, and why the Chechen rebels dared to take those poor kids hostage in 2004.

If, by monsters, you judge by the numbers killed, well, would you also include Truman? The USA is the only country to have nuked 2 cities. The survivors are still suffering.

The point is that I'm so aware of my own humanity and what I could be capable of if circumstances were different, that I strive to understand my fellow beings and to be kind to them. "There but for the grace of God, go I." That sort of philosophy.

Here's something which I find intensely moving and appropriate. The reference to "God" will tell you that I was not the author!

"The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as a gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blest. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest, it becomes the throned monarch better than his crown. His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, the attribute of awe and majesty, wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings. But mercy is above this sceptered sway. It is enthroned in the heart of kings. It is an attribute of God himself, and earthly power doth then show likest God's, when mercy seasons justice."

I'm a little confused about what you say re Shirley. On one hand, you call her a certified nut, which, I take to mean that  that she does have a documented history of mental illness. In that case, she needs support and sympathy. But Bill, people can be gravely disturbed and still somehow manage to live within the confines of a society- in her case, a compound. They can be technically psychotic, but never quite tip over the edge.

Francoise and I don't condemn ANYONE on this earth. Gandhi, Al Koran, Martin Luther King and others all found that the practice of nonviolence  forges the most powerful weapon in the world.

We have no god, no hope of an afterlife. We could choose, under those circumstances, to live lives of pure indulgence, but we see that our brothers and sisters are in pain, and we choose not to judge, but to help. OK, as for those poeple whom Shirley has outraged with her strange antics, may I suggest that you supply me with their names and address and you and I will both write letters of kindness to them?

Now, as far as peolple wanting to  destroy Christianity goes- firstly, the attorney who wished to rid hinself of it- has he any power to effect his desires? Think about it for a minute- one man against well over one bilion human beings who call themseves Christians. I don't think his chances are too good, therefore, pay him no heed. A person only has power over you if you allow your thoughts to dwell on them and their words.

In any case, is it not St Paul who assures you that NOTHING can separate the believer from the love of Christ?

Also, St Paul in 1 Corintians tells us whatlove is- among its attributes is a failure to keep record of wrongs.

Better go- I have bronchitis and am coughing fit to bust my ribs. But before I do, know this, dear brother, if I do not judge or condemn Shirley, nor do I judge and condemn you. No matter what you have ever done in your life, I will understand, and will not despise or shun you. 100% promise. Bye from Jim

# Francoise said on June 28, 2006 5:57 PM:

Hi Bill/William - which do you prefer??. This computer is certainly getting a good old flogging this morning- let's hope it's up to the strain of posting another message.

Forgiveness is not unconditional if a requirement is to be met. For a person to be compelled to show remorse before forgiveness can be granted means that there's a price. Why not forgive and be done with it? The man who murdered my son has never shown an atom of remorse. I waited many years for some sign of contrition, some spark of humanity. I was disappointed in my hopes. So then I made the decision to make the first move. I wrote and told him what agony I had gone through, and let him know that he was forgiven. I extrapolated that forgiveness did not mean that he had done no wrong. It didn't mean that I wished to be his bosom friend. It didn't mean that my sorrow was  not acute. It simply meant that I would refrain from ever retaliating or thinking of revenge. I still haven't heard from him. Maybe, just maybe, he's thinking about my words and can't bring himself to respond. That's 2 years ago, so I don't think I'll be hearing from him now, but you never know.Maybe his consciense is at work, if he has one, which is always possible. It's no longer my problem.

Yes, I'm aware that Jesus didn't give licence to be horrible. Perhaps that also means that we are not permitted to be horrible to Shirley?  I also remember that he didn't come into the world to condemn it. I think Shirley could be included in that. As I will never tire of saying, if there is a reasonable cause to believe that someone's behaviour is due to circumstances over which they had little or no control, then refrain from blasting them. There's enough pain in the world as it is.

If, at the end of the day we can, with 100% certainty say that Shirley's problem is not biochemical/neurological/psychological, etc, then we  have to look at the other most likely cause of her behaviour, and that is good old envy and/or its concomitant, jealousy. Why? Well go to their website and check out the picture they've posted of the sublimely beautiful Swedish Princess Madeliene. Then look at the spiteful comments. Then look at a pic of Shirley. Try it and let me know what strikes you.

I'm glad to see that you agree that she should be given help if she's in need of it- well done! I dare say, though, with America's history of litigation, and  its terror of violating another's civil rights, that we shouldn't hold our collective breaths.

I suggest you email me. There are things which, if I posted them, might cause you distress. Better if it's discussed via private messages. Sayonara- Francoise

# JIM said on June 29, 2006 5:20 PM:

Me again, Bill. Am feeling a lot better now after a whole day of coughing and imbibing whiskey!

I wished to add in my last message the reason why it's best not to label other people as "monsters". Firstly, they're not. The scary thing is that they're every bit as human as you and I. Their circumstances were different, but, to paraphrase Shakespeare, if you shoot them, do they not bleed? If their loved ones die, do they not mourn?

Why do I counsel against falling into this trap? Because, in order to commit wholesale murder as the people whom you mention did, they had to convince themselves that their victims were "monsters", ie, non-human, ergo, with no right to live. In order to commit  premeditated slaughter, it's necessary to perform certain mental gymnastics that will justify yourself in your own mind, and calling others "monsters" in the first step. I implore you not to allow that dangerous thought to take hold of your mind towards any one.Please, dear brother, don't harm yourself in this way.

Besides, once you do take that step, then that enables another to label you in the same manner, and to treat you accordingly. Frightening indeed.

I also wish to reassure you on another point. You seem anxious that Christianity is in danger. Your founder stated that he was with you until the end of the world, so why do you fear others? He promised never to leave or forsake you, so be of good cheer. But there's another point of which most Christians seem to be unaware. Christianity, under a variety of different names, has been around for many thousands of years. It doesn't matter by what name the central character of the myth was known, be it Tammuz, Hrestus, Witoba, et al, the story remains the same- the virgin-born godman who descends to earth, teaches morality, performs miracles, is put to death for the sins of humanity, and rises from the dead 3 days later. This tenacious creed has enjoyed such a remarkable  run in the beliefs of so many, that it's not likely to be destroyed by the malice and ill will of a few. So, have no fear. "Perfect love casteth out fear." The odds are that your country's freedom of religion means that you're protected til the day you die. Rejoice in that and  be glad that you live in the 21st century in a liberal, secular society.

# Francoise said on June 29, 2006 5:27 PM:

Hello, William. I forgot to add something last time. Have you ever heard of Al Koran? He was a British stage magician, and he was also a Christian metaphysician. I first read his book back in 1964 and found that it simply dances with love and vitality in every page. Its title is "Bring Out The Magic of Your Mind". No, it's not about mental magic! It deals with Jesus and humans in a remarkably optimistic and joyous manner. Highly recommended, if you can lay your hands on it. It might be available from Amazon.com. I'm sure that you would find it most beneficial, as it deals with perceptions, and how they shape our reactions. It deals with a loving, vital faith, in God, in others, and in ourselves. It makes you want to leap for happiness that you're alive. I don't say that I agree with 100% of what he says, but I do endorse the very positive psychology it contains.

# Francoise said on July 7, 2006 5:05 PM:

Hi William. Both of us have gone down like bags of cement with a nasty bug that's raging around the district, hence my absence.

You ask if I would forgive my son's killer if he killed again?

The answer is, forgiveness is a refusal to retaliate or harbour thoughts of revenge. Forgiveness would have to come from the family of the murdered victim. It's not easy. But it can be done. I sincerely hope that he never kills again- for his own sake as well as that of others.