"Fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and Phelps family get their theology so wrong as to further the cause of evil in the world"

They do not only further the cause of evil, their actions are evil. Therefore, because their actions are deliberate, they themselves are evil.

It is a bit of a double edged sword even to talk about them as they obviously draw sick energy from the consternation that they cause and the attention they receive for their evil actions. However, the need to denounce them outweighs the need to deprive them of negative attention.

Congratulations, Fred and the brood. You've managed to antagonize even military folks who may even SHARE your views on homosexuality.
We choose to find you amusing...like WWE heel managers. We don't take you seriously.

Typical liberal ADHD conspiracy spin. Instead of either a) defending their position, or b) focusing on the group in question. They use the occasion to attack an entire ideology, based on cut and pasted, out of context, comments of one individual, without even putting up a logical and defensible rebuttal to the politely and thoughtfully presented opinions.

This is the typical Crowley, throw-a-grenade-in-the-outhouse strategy, for firing up his mindless constituents.

Actually Westboro Baptist Church's tactics of off the wall invectives are not all that different than Pat Crowley's techniques - smear whole groups with greatly exaggerated accusations and divisive language instead of reasoned intellectual argument.

Yet there are differences of degree - Crowley's a whacky Marxist, but even he doesn't slink anywhere near as low as those whack jobs.

Geez, I'm saying something somewhat positive about Pat Crowley. I'd better sign off now, I'm feeling ill. ; -)

Excellent post Justin. It goes to show specifically how Crowley, OTL and their ilk attempt to associate your view on an issue like same-sex marriage to fringe lunatics like Phelps and his Church because in politics – association can be persuasive. Of course the same ‘link-by-association’ could be use to associate people against the war in Iraq to the views and behavior of Islamic-terrorists. But that would be an unfair association …

This is an unfortunate reality and I think is directly related to the lack of knowledge and serious thought process by many voters. As far as Crowley, between the choices of reading comprehension skills and vicious disregard for the truth, I’d bet on the latter. Don’t you agree?

I will say that I disagree with your assessment that the subculture of the same-sex marriage movement makes the possibility of their inclusion all but impossible. There is what I would refer to as ‘fringe’ factions of SSM supporters that want it all now and/or want to destroy the marriage institution. Just as there are fringe factions of most social policy groups. But I don’t think they represent the culture or primary intent of the movement.

Why does Crowley want people to "denounce" or repudiate those who they have nothing to do with.
Phelps and his probably-inbred scumbag family have very few allies in this world.
I generally don't get involved in discussions about homosexuality because I could sh*t care less about the whole issue.
This discussion is about something else-
first about a group of misfits that no one would pay attention to if the media didn't have a sick fascination with their perverted activities,and second,about leftists telling anyone about justifying themselves.
Do we ask Crowley to repudiate Pol Pot or any other Marxist butchers?No.Why?Because he isn't responsible for the acts of others and he ought to learn that works in both directions.

Joe,

What he's doing is nothing but a variation on the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

He knows full well that one group has nothing to do with the other, but by taunting one to repudiate the other by default he's associating them with each other and (in effect) attempting to put the legitimate group on the defensive.

Of course, if we were like Obama (when asked about William Ayers / Reverend Wright) we'd just respond that that was a long time ago and that "that's not the Westboro Baptist Church" that we knew.

Tom is exactly right. It's a typical Aliskyite tactic. If you ignore what should be something that should be undeserving of any publicity, nevermind a response, he can try to make a "so you must agree with them" point ad infinitum -- or you take the bait and refute the "when did you stop molesting kids?" type accusation. Either way, it allows him to set the agenda. It's literally out of the pages of Rules for Radicals.

Pat's brand of "logic" goes something like this: The German dictator Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Sauerkraut is a German delicacy made out of cabbage. Cabbage is a vegetable. Vegetarians only eat vegetables. Hitler hated Jews. Therefore, all vegetarians hate Jews. Perfectly reasonable, right? ;)

Let's get this out right up front, the Westboro Baptist Church is neither Baptist in any theological sense, nor a real Church. It's theology could barely be described as pseudo-Christian. It's basically some kooky, very inbred family in Kansas who run what is effectively a mini-cult, and do outlandish things like protesting at military funerals (on just that alone, they should be put up on treason charges), and then rely on pawns in the media -- in this case Pat's their pawn -- to get their message out.

Very well put,Will.
The Westboro incest crew got a few comeuppances when they were confronted at military funerals by bikers who were veterans.
The Alinsky book is probably Crowley's bedtime reading, because he sure employs the same tactics.They sometimes work.If they never did,no one would remember Alinsky.Hillary Clinton had a strong interest in Alinsky and I believe she wrote an unpublished master's thesis on him and his work.
I wonder what attorneys like Roberto Gonzalez,Alison Foley, Jack McConnell,and Matt Jerzyk would say if people started practicing law without going to law school or taking the bar exam.It's what illegal aliens do when they enter surreptiously or overstay a visa and set up shop here.

Hmmm ... "undocumented lawyers."

Sounds like it could be trouble.

Juan Wetback, Esq. is willing to work for a lot less, and licensed attorneys are losing their jobs.

Amnesty for those practicing law without a license, that's the answer!

And put them on a path to bar admission!

Excellent post Justin. It goes to show specifically how Crowley, OTL and their ilk attempt to associate your view on an issue like same-sex marriage to fringe lunatics like Phelps and his Church because in politics – association can be persuasive.

Msteven wrote that. As you point out the attempt by Pat Crowley to associate AR with Westboro church you do the same to OldTimeLefty. By including him with the words of another you have done the same type of smear that you are denouncing.

"Do we ask Crowley to repudiate Pol Pot or any other Marxist butchers?No.Why?Because he isn't responsible for the acts of others and he ought to learn that works in both directions."

He isn't? It does? Oh darn.

Justin - Patrick's income is based on making people believe they are victims. How better to do that than by quoting a carpenter from Tiverton?

Phil,

Thanks for noticing. I did consciously include in OldTimeLefty using the same smear-by-association logic that he often does. I will acknowledge my association is unfair. Will you acknowledge the same when he or anyone else uses it? Or does that depend on who is being smeared?

once again, Justin dodges a question with the equivalent of "I'm rubber you're glue."

Pat,

The "I'm rubber and you're glue" statement would be more credible if it were coming from anyone other than you, considering you run the intellectual equivalent of a rubber and glue factory over there.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that any of us even know what "question" you are referring to, since you apparently only make sense to yourself. When you start arguing whatever point you have on its factual merits, instead of making one-liner ad hominen attacks, perhaps you'll be worthy of a suitable response.

>>When you start arguing whatever point you have on its factual merits, instead of making one-liner ad hominen attacks, perhaps you'll be worthy of a suitable response.

Don't hold your breath.

We're talking about a guy who works for and zealously supports an organization that - in a "collective bargaining" regime of forced membership covering so-called "education"professionals" - as bargaining leverage denies advanced science education to innocent children (largely children from "underprivileged" backgrounds to boot).

Willing participants in, and advocates for, such a morally depraved organization (NEA) need not be taken seriously, to say the least.

But, Tom, it's for the chii-hhhilll-dren!

We choose to find you amusing...like WWE heel managers.

ROFL! Win.

msteven,
I have never spoken or written on the subject of marriage, same sex or otherwise.

For the record, I think that marriage should be legalized by the state and if the couple want to bless it, sanctify it or sacramentalize it then they should also opt for a religious ceremony.

"Ilk" is a two bit word that people of low reason or persuasive power like to throw around. It is a word, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." It's the verbal equivalent of a leaky bladder and a telltale stain on the pants of ill-reason.
OldTimeLefty