colintimberlake.comTell her it wasn’t you…

Can a mortal man personally damn enough people to hell that he ultimately earns his own express ticket there himself? Rev. Fred “Gramps” Phelps is on one hell of a mission to prove exactly that as he indiscriminately casts hellfire at pretty much every demographic in today’s society from fallen soldiers to homosexuals to people who do not hate homosexuals to Ikea stores.

On the left, we see Gramps Phelps smiling and happy, presumably because some school bus full of God-defying children was crushed in an avalanche.

On the right, we see Gramps Phelps in his default state, with fire and brimstone steaming from his eyes, ears and mouth. I’m guessing that a heterosexual couple who doesn’t personally want to send gays to hell got married and he is fuming about it.

Rev. Fred Phelps is the Grand Wizard of a Christianity-based religious sect that is composed almost exclusively of his own family members. Unfortunately for society as a whole, the Reverend has reproduced fairly prolifically and is making a very strong case that we as a society should consider requiring a license for human reproduction.

On the left, we see Fred Phelps in his natural state, leading a protest (quite often at the funeral of a soldier killed in action) where he lets the world know that it is going to hell in a handbasket, starting with the fallen soldier. The essence of his twisted rationale is something like the following: given that our society is tolerant of homosexuality, and that soldiers abroad are fighting for our society, the soldiers are gay. Thus, we see the sign he most commonly waves at these funerals: Fag Troops.

Does there come a point where free speech simply goes way too far? Other civilized nations do place limits on the right to free speech, stating that one’s right to say anything he or she wants must defer to the rights of other groups to not be subjected to hate speech. Doesn’t sound too unreasonable. It also doesn’t sound like something that would create an unmanageable slippery slope. Draw a reasonable line to define what qualifies as “hate speech” and there you go. Gramps is muzzled.

Fred Phelps has indoctrinated, it seems, the majority of his offspring into his bizarre and hateful cult, whose sole existence seems to be the perpetration of a misguided prank on American society. He is essentially a 100-year-old prank caller, and I actually hesitate to comment on his behavior because it is supremely evident that he revels in having the hatred he spits in all directions cast back his way.

He has committed himself and his family so fully to his overblown publicity stunt that every bit of criticism is taken as evidence that he is doing the right thing. In the meantime, thanks to his ability to reproduce and brainwash his relatives, society is left to bear the moral costs and undo the damage he is causing by virtue of his existence. An amazing amount of credit should be given to any of his relatives who have managed to independently see reason and extricate themselves from the clutches of his little cyanide-free Jonestown.

For everybody saying, “Come on, he is just a loon and nobody in their right mind takes him seriously” or “What harm can he possibly do if everyone thinks he is crazy?” – I will simply invite you to keep that statement in check unless you are able to say it once he has picketed and protested at the funeral of your mother, father, daughter or son.

Sure enough, the United States began to show how far it has come when the presidential race involved an African American candidate for the Democratic party. Barack Obama was ultimately victorious, to the credit of the American voters. During the campaign, President Obama lost his grandmother. Rev. Phelps’ solution? Yes, you guessed it…

Once again, are there simply not some things we shouldn’t be allowing parents and grandparents the freedom to teach? For all the impositions, constrictions and inconveniences the government imposes upon us for our own good, why do we fight so voraciously to maintain the right to say absolutely anything under the sun without considering the possibility that more harm will be done by hateful speech than by a minor and sensible reduction in freedoms?