Westboro Baptist Church

[Stjudeprayforus]

I heard, but don’t know for sure, that they are funded by filing law suits and winning. Like when they just won 16,000 in a law suit against a fallen solders father. They hide not only behind the Bible but under free speach.

Only thing I could find is they have a net worth of a million dollars.

 

[Zatzat]

I heard, but don’t know for sure, that they are funded by filing law suits and winning. Like when they just won 16,000 in a law suit against a fallen solders father. They hide not only behind the Bible but under free speach.

They didn’t ’ win ’ anything…rather, the man who took them to court, was ordered to pay the WBBC’s legal fee’s that they’d spent in defending themselves from being sued…which amounted to $16,000.

blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/03/man-refuses-to-pay-westboro-baptist.html

 

[rev_kevin]

Only thing I could find is they have a net worth of a million dollars.

I heard it on the news one day that that is how they get their money, I also heard that they had a net worth of a million at the same time I heard how they got their money.

 

[rev_kevin]

They didn’t ’ win ’ anything…rather, the man who took them to court, was ordered to pay the WBBC’s legal fee’s that they’d spent in defending themselves from being sued…which amounted to $16,000.

blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/03/man-refuses-to-pay-westboro-baptist.html

This happened on appeal that he was ordered to pay them. If he is ordered to pay them the 16,000 for their legal fee’s it sounds like they won something even if it goes to legal fee’s.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

I heard it on the news one day that that is how they get their money, I also heard that they had a net worth of a million at the same time I heard how they got their money.

ugh… thats awful.

 

[Zatzat]

This happened on appeal that he was ordered to pay them. If he is ordered to pay them the 16,000 for their legal fee’s it sounds like they won something even if it goes to legal fee’s.

You don’t understand. The WBBC were the ones who were sued… unsuccessfully mind you.

The court ruled against the man who brought the lawsuit forward and ordered that he pay the WBBC’s legal expenses for having had to defend themselves against his lawsuit.

The court recently ordered Snyder to pay Phelps’ $16,000 court costs.

 

[rev_kevin]

You don’t understand. The WBBC were the ones who were sued… unsuccessfully mind you.The WBBC were the ones who were sued and it was not successful, so the man lost, is that what you are saying?

The court ruled against the man who brought the lawsuit forward and ordered that he pay the WBBC’s legal expenses for having had to defend themselves against his lawsuit.If one is ordered to pay does that make the one who has to pay the winner?

The court recently ordered Snyder to pay Phelps’ $16,000 court costs.

 

[markomalley]

They are scum, nothing more. They do not represent Baptists, Calvinists, Protestants, the Church, Conservatives, or anything else that they purport to champion.

But I thought one key function of Baptists was that each congregation was an entity unto itself; i.e., that they were totally independent one of another.

So what governing body does one go to in order to say whether a particular congregation is a Baptist one or not? With Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Lutherans, or Episcopals, you can go to the local bishop. But who has the authority to say if a Baptist congregation is Baptist or not?

Who is to say if their theology lines up sufficiently with Baptist principles where they could call themselves Baptist or not?

Or can a group be called non-Baptist if the consensus does not approve of their activities, even if their theology may be “orthodox”? Who has the right to say?

All we see of them are their protest activities.

They claim:

the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, Kansas still exists today as an Old School (or, Primitive) Baptist Church. We adhere to the teachings of the Bible, preach against all form of sin (e.g., fornication, adultery [including divorce and remarriage], sodomy), and insist that the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace be taught and expounded publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Although these doctrines are almost universally hated today, they were once loved and believed. Even though the Arminian lies that “God loves everyone” and “Jesus died for everyone” are being taught from nearly every pulpit in this generation, this hasn’t always been the case.
​

That sounds like what I hear from a whole lot of conservative, Calvinist groups (frankly it almost sounds like something I’d hear from an OPC member).

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t approve of either their message, the theology that they express on their website, or their tactics.

But is the theology they claim to believe not Baptist? (Even if their tactics are clearly nothing that any civilized Christian would support)

Or is this a downside to the principle of independent congregations with completely local control?

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

I don’t condone their actions but I respect their straightforward stance on other churches.

There are many religious groups that many Catholics and Protestants “cozy up” to, what these Christians refuse to understand is that these religious groups seek to discredit and ultimately destroy Christianity.

And I am not talking about anti-Catholic Protestants, I am mainly talking about non-Christian religions (plural).

At least Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t hide their true feelings.

I personally don’t think that Christianity can ever be destroyed, but it can be persecuted and driven underground as has happened in the past in ancient times as well as recently in some countries today.

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9501fea1.asp

A reading of history shows that, no matter how ruthless the conflict, mankind honors forthrightness and honesty even in adversaries. Manfred von Richthofen, the greatest ace of World War I, painted his Fokker tri-plane bright red, as if to say, “Here I am, your adversary; I come to differ with you.” He brought down eighty Allied pilots, yet his enemies honored him when he himself fell. One can guess how his personal history would read if he had carried French or English colors on his wings in combat.

Give us an enemy who flies his own colors clearly, and we will honor him, but never one who seems to come along beside us, while secretly seeking our destruction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_baron

Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen (2 May 1892 – 21 April 1918) was a German fighter pilot known as the “Red Baron”. He was the most successful flying ace during World War I, being officially credited with 80 confirmed air combat victories.

The “Red Baron” was honored by his enemies for making no pretense when he flew against them.

A sneaky enemy, especially one that acts like your friend, is the worst kind

 

[Darron_Steele]

Here is something I think needs to be understood.

Some groups are not open or honest about what they stand for.

For instance, one group I know rather well claims to be interested in Christian unity – but its adherents will divide against each other for trivial disagreements. They want to attract people who are interested in being just Christians' and unity of just Christians’ but in the end, they actually stand for the opposite. Do not expect to find this out quickly, as they do not want you to.

Westboro “Baptist Church” claims to stand for Baptist precepts. They want to attract Baptists. Then, after new adherents are brought in, they seek to make them just as hateful and wicked as they are.

Westboro “Baptist Church” uses what it pretends to stand for as a front. They profess to be standing for that stuff, but it is just for a mask of legitimacy to cover up what they really stand for. What it ultimately stands for is something heinous.

For a group to have legitimate claim to being Baptist it needs to urge following of Jesus Christ. As Baptist religious systems were devised as means of following Jesus Christ, any group that deserves the label must be loyal to the cause of following Jesus Christ.

The same is true of Wesleyan/Methodist groups, Pentecostal groups, etc… All these systems were devised as good ways to follow Jesus Christ. Any group that has legitimate claim to these names must have a desire to serve Jesus Christ.

Fact is, Westboro “Baptist Church” is so overridden with hate that even if Jesus Christ were to criticize them during His Second Coming, they would revile Him too like they do everyone else. I tend to assume the best among the motives of members of differing church groups, but there is a point we have to be realistic: there is no way a person can read the teachings of Jesus Christ, read the remainder of the New Testament, and think what they do is okay. I am pretty sure they are so addicted to hate that they do not even care if it is not okay.

As for congregational autonomy, this has nothing to do with it. Fact is, here in the United States, we were established with freedom of religion and parts of it are still around. A person who would not be accepted for communion with the Roman Catholic Church could establish a place and call it ____ Catholic Church' and there would not be a whole lot anyone could do about it. Catholics could complain over and over again that it is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but ____ Catholic Church’ would still be around.

The only difference: Catholics do not have something like Westboro “Baptist Church” pretending to be what it is not. Good fortune is the biggest reason there is no `Westboro Imitation Catholic Church.’

 

[markomalley]

Darron,

Here’s my point. Who has the **authority **to make the statement that Westboro Baptist is not **really **a Baptist congregation?

If a female got herself “ordained” as a womynpriest and opened up St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, the local Catholic Ordinary would be able to, with authority, state that this is not a Catholic church and decree that Catholics are not to associate with it.

I am utterly confident that the same applies if this womynpriest tried to open up a Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox church, as well. The bishop has the authority to make that type of proclamation.

I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that if somebody tried to open up St. Joan of Arc Episcopal Church, the local Episcopal Bishop would have that authority to speak for all things Episcopal, as well (as I said, I am not 100% certain on that, though)

I would imagine the same thing would apply to Methodists, Lutherans,or any other group who claim to have an episcopate. Even Presbyterians, Adventists, and so on have some sort of structure where they could make the same flavor of proclamation with some degree of authority.

But for Baptists, with congregational independence, how would they be able to make such a proclamation? In other words, ***who ***has the ***authority ***to say that this is not a Baptist Church?

Look, to make it less emotive, let’s not talk Westboro Baptist. Let’s say that you had an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church out there that was teaching something utterly foreign to the universe of Baptist theology: say they were practicing infant baptism or something totally foreign like that.
’
Now it is perfectly obvious that a church that would dare teach something like that is no longer Baptist, but who would have the authority to say: *this church is not a Baptist Church? *

That’s what I am wondering in the case we’re discussing.

 

[Darron_Steele]

Darron,

Here’s my point. Who has the **authority **to make the statement that Westboro Baptist is not **really **a Baptist congregation?
…
But for Baptists, with congregational independence, how would they be able to make such a proclamation? In other words, ***who ***has the ***authority ***to say that this is not a Baptist Church?
…
Now it is perfectly obvious that a church that would dare teach something like that is no longer Baptist, but who would have the authority to say: *this church is not a Baptist Church? *

That’s what I am wondering in the case we’re discussing.

I am pretty sure that you are not “wondering” about anything.

“Baptist” describes an assortment of religious systems whose primary purpose is to serve Jesus Christ well. As explained before, any group led and pervaded by people who have no desire to serve Jesus Christ cannot be “Baptist” regardless of what they claim.

It would be like saying that a “gasoline-fueled automobile” propelled by engines powered by solar panels is still a “gasoline fueled automobile.” The core criteria to be such a thing is that a gasoline engine moves the car. The car, regardless of what it is called, simply cannot be one. Similarly, a group of people led by and pervaded by people unwilling to follow Jesus Christ cannot be Christian, let alone Baptist.

No person without an `axe to grind’ would have any desire to claim that this group is legitimately “Baptist.”

If you want to argue that this group `might, just might’ deserve the label, then it is not because of the facts, but because you want to.

I have better things to do with my time.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Darron,

Here’s my point. Who has the **authority **to make the statement that Westboro Baptist is not **really **a Baptist congregation?

If a female got herself “ordained” as a womynpriest and opened up St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, the local Catholic Ordinary would be able to, with authority, state that this is not a Catholic church and decree that Catholics are not to associate with it.

I am utterly confident that the same applies if this womynpriest tried to open up a Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox church, as well. The bishop has the authority to make that type of proclamation.

I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that if somebody tried to open up St. Joan of Arc Episcopal Church, the local Episcopal Bishop would have that authority to speak for all things Episcopal, as well (as I said, I am not 100% certain on that, though)

I would imagine the same thing would apply to Methodists, Lutherans,or any other group who claim to have an episcopate. Even Presbyterians, Adventists, and so on have some sort of structure where they could make the same flavor of proclamation with some degree of authority.

But for Baptists, with congregational independence, how would they be able to make such a proclamation? In other words, ***who ***has the ***authority ***to say that this is not a Baptist Church?

Look, to make it less emotive, let’s not talk Westboro Baptist. Let’s say that you had an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church out there that was teaching something utterly foreign to the universe of Baptist theology: say they were practicing infant baptism or something totally foreign like that.
’
Now it is perfectly obvious that a church that would dare teach something like that is no longer Baptist, but who would have the authority to say: *this church is not a Baptist Church? *

That’s what I am wondering in the case we’re discussing.

May I observe that the Roman Catholic church has exactly the same problem with organizations such as sedevacantist Catholics, Polish National Catholics, and perhaps a few others.

 

[markomalley]

May I observe that the Roman Catholic church has exactly the same problem with organizations such as sedevacantist Catholics, Polish National Catholics, and perhaps a few others.

You may, in fact, do so.

And you would be correct (and, in fact, you will note that I, myself, said so using a hypothetical in post #30:

*If a female got herself “ordained” as a womynpriest and opened up St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, the local Catholic Ordinary would be able to, with authority, state that this is not a Catholic church and decree that Catholics are not to associate with it. *

The same response given for womynpriests would hold true for sedevacanists, Old Catholics, and so on.

But the question still holds true. And I’m still waiting on an answer. But, since the issue of WBC is so emotional, I decided to ask the question anew in a fresh thread, devoid of WBC condemnations.

 

[TheosisM]

Well this thread caused me to start watching the BBC documentary “The Most Hated Family in America” (available online). These people are CRAZY. They seem to think that they have some sort of hotline to God’s mind. It’s really disgusting (especially with the children in the family).

And I will never understand why people that HATE the USA, and think it’s doomed, are still in this country, enjoying the rights and privileges that allow them to do what they do and say what they say. I wonder what would happen if they were trying this in a conservative Middle Eastern country.

 

[CatholicZ09]

Well this thread caused me to start watching the BBC documentary “The Most Hated Family in America” (available online). These people are CRAZY. They seem to think that they have some sort of hotline to God’s mind. It’s really disgusting (especially with the children in the family).

And I will never understand why people that HATE the USA, and think it’s doomed, are still in this country, enjoying the rights and privileges that allow them to do what they do and say what they say. I wonder what would happen if they were trying this in a conservative Middle Eastern country.

On their website, they show lists of cities they’ve picketed in, and one of them was Baghdad, Iraq.

My question is: How did they survive there? Surely, signs saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” would not please any men in the army over there.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

On their website, they show lists of cities they’ve picketed in, and one of them was Baghdad, Iraq.

My question is: How did they survive there? Surely, signs saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” would not please any men in the army over there.

I doubt they were there, they lie frequently.

I was attending a UU service quite a few years ago and they sent down word that the next Sunday they would be there, protesting in full force. We were ready but they never showed.

But the again they did come a few years ago after the Lane Bryant murders holding their vile signs. My sister and I honked at them and flipped them off.

Mature? No.
Mildly satisfying? Oh Yes.

 

[HereticalTheist]

You may, in fact, do so.

And you would be correct (and, in fact, you will note that I, myself, said so using a hypothetical in post #30:

*If a female got herself “ordained” as a womynpriest and opened up St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, the local Catholic Ordinary would be able to, with authority, state that this is not a Catholic church and decree that Catholics are not to associate with it. *

The same response given for womynpriests would hold true for sedevacanists, Old Catholics, and so on.

But the question still holds true. And I’m still waiting on an answer. But, since the issue of WBC is so emotional, I decided to ask the question anew in a fresh thread, devoid of WBC condemnations.

Most Baptist churches autonomously partake in local/regional/state/national assemblies, the largest (I believe) being the Southern Baptist Convention. These assemblies have seminaries (like the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth Texas where my own grandfather his PhD in Ministry), Ordain ministers, and (to some extent) censure their members.

That said, any Church can choose to call itself 'Baptist" and ignore the existing Conventions/hierarchy. But then, same is true of any congregation that wants to call itself Catholic.

 

[Izdaari]

Evil, disgusting, vile, abomination, unholy…just a few adjectives to describe them…

This ‘church’ has a congregation of mostly family members.

I dont think its a representation of any Christian views in any denomination.

A nut who runs a nutty church made up of his own nutty family.

Those two posts cover everything I have to say about them. :sad_yes:

 

[latin_rite]

Their fame has spread all the way to Australia. If anything i feel sorry for normal decent Baptist people. Which i bet they must cringe and think. “why o why didn’t pick a different name?”