Military Reaction to Snyder Vs. Phelps

Hiding Behind the Efforts of the Victims

Kathy Foust
In early October, Snyder vs. Phelps will give oral presentation to the Supreme Court in an effort to interpret the details of the first amendment and the importance of each term of the amendment. This isn't the first time that the terms used in the first amendment have been called into question. It may however be the first time that the slander of God has been involved, something that seems to be entirely overlooked.

As a spiritual person who has had a number of relatives serve in the military during times of war, I personally am offended by the actions of those that defame God and the very people who uphold the laws they now wish to hide behind, whether it be a matter of gay rights or not.

Signs that read things like "Thank God for dead soldiers" are the evidence offered here. Thanking God insinuates that the death of soldiers falls on the shoulders of God. I wasn't aware that slander was legal now. They call God a murderer and worship him, yet applaud the death of a man who upheld their right to do so because he was gay. To me, that means they uphold murder over homosexuality.

Another issue is whether Snyder can be compensated due to his image as a public figure. Since he wasn't a public figure until the Phelps group made him one, I find this line of questioning ridiculous. The question of whether or not Snyder was a "captive audience" to be protected by the state is equally ridiculous. He was burying his son. Is there a more captive audience?

The biggest issue here is the value of "freedom of speech" as compared to the "religion" and "peaceably assemble" terms of the first amendment. The use of "freedom of religion" is in direct conflict with the opinions of said religion. You cannot worship God and accuse him of murder at the same time, so freedom of religion does not even come into play here, unless the definition of "religion" is to be redefined as well.

As for "peaceably assemble", the ruling on the Phelps group's intention to do emotional damage was a guilty one, making any "peaceably assemble" null, since said term indicates a group of people not wishing to do harm. For myself, I'll stand on the side of God and the military that protects my right to do so.

References: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-assembly-clause.html, http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/snyder-v-phelps, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html, http://onthedocket.org/cases/2009/snyder-v-phelps

Published by Kathy Foust - Featured Contributor in Lifestyle

Kathy is a professional freelance writer, student and mother. Her goal is to provide useful information that's easy to understand and that may even be entertaining!  View profile

  • God is slandered in the worst way.
  • Peaceful assembly becomes intent to harm.
  • A father is questioned as to his "captivated audience" status at his son's funeral.
These religious fanatics accuse God of mass murder, yet ask to hide behind freedom of religion, speech and peaceful assembly.

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.