Questions for SCOTUS: Why Snyder v. Phelps?

Last updated on: March 7, 2011 at 9:13 am by Pia de Solenni

Questions for SCOTUS: Why Snyder v. Phelps? 2011-03-07T09:13:02-07:00 Pia de Solenni

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last week in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. These are the crazies at who protest the funerals of soldiers KIA because they believe that God is punishing the U.S. for its leniency towards gays* and, thus, God is allowing soldiers to be killed until the U.S. changes its policies. In fact, they believe that the more soldiers are killed, the better. Utter lunacy.

But this lunacy is protected as free speech. The very soldier whose funeral they are disrupting served and gave his life so that they would have this right.

I get it.

What I don’t get is why SCOTUS even chose to hear this case. Many cases are presented to SCOTUS and decisions are made whether to hear a particular case. Granted, I’m not a legal expert; but why select this case? This seems to fall into the category of hard cases that make bad law.

My second question is why do we keep looking at free speech in cases where people are doing really offensive things, e.g. pornography and disrupting a military funeral? We have no shortage of protesters and most of them are screaming about something. Yet, we live in a democratic society which, despite its faults, has a lot of processes for expressing discontent and disagreement. More importantly, we have the means to address these concerns not just to express them.

When I see protesters like the Westboro group (and many others), all I see and hear is their anger. I don’t hear speech or see a reasonable conversation taking place. In this age of the Internet, it’s not as if people don’t have the means to write and say what they believe.

It’s difficult to think that the speeches of someone like Martin Luther King fall into the same category as protesters like those from the Westboro Church.

Let’s face it, the Westboro types want one thing: attention. They don’t care who they hurt or offend. And these types of protests are utterly useless except for hurting innocent people, getting headlines, and generating a lot of legal revenue. If Westboro wants to change the policies towards gays, then become part of the democratic process. Explain the position. Convince others. Get involved in drafting legislation and electing politicians who would be favorable to the positions. Heck, they can even run for office themselves.

Instead, we’ve just given them a constitutional right to stand just about wherever they want and have a tantrum. Oh, and they get a police escort, too.

On a personal note, my brother was KIA in Afghanistan. Our family was very blessed to have our entire community supporting us. At the funeral, we also had the Patriot Guard Riders whose purpose is to protect families from protesters. They get that funerals are not the time and place for protests. When we met with our excellent military liaison, he warned us about the possibility of protests and hate mail. That was painful enough, just salt poured on the gaping wound of having lost Bruno. But I can’t even begin to imagine how hurtful it must have been for the Snyder family to know about the protest that actually happened at the funeral.

We have many freedoms, more than most people in the world. But it seems that we, as a society, do not value those freedoms when we use them as cover for malicious activities.

Again, I get that we have to protect everyone’s freedom of speech. What I don’t get is why we set up some of the worst examples as the cases which deserve protection.

And I don’t get why we don’t promote examples of rational discourse. As children some of us are taught that throwing a fit will get you nothing. Clearly, many people missed out on that lesson and they even get constitutional coverage for it.

Here’s Justice Alito’s dissent.

[*I’m really hesitant to use the term “gay” as I find it problematic in a lot of ways, not least of which is that I generally don’t think someone’s sexual orientation should define them as a person.]

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 3, 2011

Newsflash! The Church Is Not Anti-Semitic.

Next Post

March 8, 2011 Takes a Non-Catholic to Make a Fair Catholic Movie?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Articles Thinking Out Loud Uncategorized

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 March 2016 February 2016 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 September 2013 August 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 August 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 October 1008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said: "You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul James Moses Peter