Letters to the Editor

Cal is correct

March 16, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

I read with some surprise Cal Thomas’ column titled “Phelpses’ speech shouldn’t be protected” (Journal-World March 13).

Thomas showed sensitivity and compassionate understanding for grieving families of fallen American soldiers whose funerals have been picketed by Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. He argued that Phelps should not have constitutional protection of free speech in these activities. He expressed outrage toward Phelps for his preaching of a false religious doctrine of hate of homosexuals that claims any combat-related deaths are God’s punishment for our country’s increasing tolerance of homosexual persons.

Perhaps not as outrageous as Phelps, Thomas has put forth in his columns at times his own irrational and incomprehensible religious blather. In this instance he was 100 percent on target with his criticisms of Phelps.

Congratulations Cal Thomas!

Donald Moss,

Lawrence

Comments

Phil Minkin 5 years, 1 month ago

Where was Cal's(or Mr. Moss's) indignation when the Phelps cult was spreading their venom at the funerals of gays?

Plurilingual 5 years, 1 month ago

Cal and others definitely have the right to express their dislike of their speech, and to even express the desire to make such speech an illegal act. But, the the hateful blather that comes from the Westboro folks is just as protected as Cal's speech, and should remain so. And Cal, is NOT spot on with his argument if he has to resort to the accusation of "false religion". That is NOT a legal argument when attempting to restrict someone's rights to free speech, and sets a dangerous precedent.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

Worth repeating: “ 28 March 2009 at 6:40 p.m. beobachter (Anonymous) says… Ok, I'm done, you don't need to ban my account, I won't be back.” ;)

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

The Phelps' should have the right to exercise their freedom of speech, but should be held accountable if that exercise harms others.

It seems to me that the original lawsuit for emotional distress was correctly decided the first time.

Jimo 5 years, 1 month ago

Where is Moss' outrageous when Thomas spreads his own venom against homosexuals?

So, the "Moss Rule" is Phelps' hate-speech isn't protected but Thomas' hate-speech is?

Kirk Larson 5 years, 1 month ago

Religious people should be wary of any ruling against Phelps' and his ilk's message. After all, Phred's proclamation of the will of god is just as accurate as anyone else can claim to be. Once you start shutting him down, who's next? I hope they don't restrict free speech (not that I agree in any way with WBC; I'm hoping common sense and good taste will win out) at least not until after Phred Phelps' funeral. Won't that one be a hoot!

gogogirl 5 years, 1 month ago

Isn't it amazing that Mr. Bigot Cal Thomas is taking issue with the Phelps Gang? That is really the pot calling the kettle black. Ol' Cal should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.

RawkStar 5 years, 1 month ago

"He expressed outrage toward Phelps for his preaching of a false religious doctrine of hate of homosexuals that claims any combat-related deaths are God’s punishment for our country’s increasing tolerance of homosexual persons."

So basically what Cal is saying is that it is OK to preach false religous doctrine of hate of homosexuals in every other case.

jhawk83 5 years, 1 month ago

Excellent question, Foodboy. If we start picking and choosing what speech is protected and what is not, based on what we find offensive, then when will it stop. One has to wonder who will be next when the Phelps clan moves on to new victim's of their tirades.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.