Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 5

Edit request
There is a video mentioned at the bottom of the page with a broken link, "America's most hated family." I found the video split into parts starting at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4488321076404577951&q=the+most+hated+family+in+america&ei=jTY5SIreCo-WrgPJ7vX1Aw#

Please update the link, the video was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdesmond (talk • contribs) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Link has been updated. Thank you for your research. Carter | Talk to me 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

11 million dollar verdict against WBC
i did a quick scan and i don't really see anything about the recent $11 million awarded to a father of a fallen soldier whose funeral had been picketed by WBC. a jury levied pretty heavy punitive damages against the WBC, and it could have serious consequences for the HATE GROUP (yes i am using the term HATE GROUP, since the WBC is considered such by the US government). it's a pretty serious moment in the WBC timeline, and i'm not sure if it's in the article, but if it is there it needs to be made more prominent, as it's presently either not mentioned or buried . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.38.184 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

after doing a more thorough check, it's mentioned once, under the "activities" section. a single sentence, buried at the end of the paragraph in the middle of the "activities and statements" section. no mention in the "legal responses" area? yeah ok that makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.50.181 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * it now has its own heading in the ToC. Rick Boatright 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that it was a good idea to fine the WBC because they are a hate group really working under Satan's orders. Even the children of the cult members are taught to spread hatred. Angie Y. 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to lock
I've been seeing quite a bit of vandalism on this site because it got brought up in the news recently. I think that its probably a good idea to lock it from new users till the story blows over a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.4.217 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made that request last night and it went into effect a few hours ago. And some good editing has been going on since then. Nice job, folks.Anthony Krupp 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate Group
I dont believe it should be a big deal that we include "Hate Group" in the article, as they shown holding up signs that say they "Hate" and there premier website has "Hate" right in the name, so nobody from the group should be offended as they they are very open about being a hate group, Thank You (dan102001)

Don't use hate group in the first sentence of the article. It violates the Neutral policy that wikipedia has. Yes, I know it is really a "hate group" but stick to the policy and don't call it a hate group. Be politically correct and call it a religous group or a movement group.


 * why are you defending a hate group? why are you on their side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.254.43 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

screw being politically correct, I am sorry but making sure we don't hurt thier feelings is not imprortant, they have no feelings, they called the Amish girls whores, they ARE a hate group, wikipedia should tell the truth, I don't think wikipedia has a political correct policy, so don't add it!

Whether your feelings are that they are a hate group or not is for you to decide not for entranced into the article. It should not be mentioned as a hate group in the first sentenced though it should be mentioned that they are considered a hate group as it is later in the introduction. I don't like them either but the article should still remain as NPOV as possible -usmarinesjz 08/15/2007 12:48(UTC)


 * Uh, the WBC is a hate group. If they're not a hate group, the classification is, in my mind, worthless.  It's not violation of NPOV to call a group dedicated to the wanton disparagement and slander of fallen soldiers a hate group, or at least, I can't see any sane way to say it is.  Do you want them picketing your funeral?  76.90.135.239 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mrld 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except it's not. It's a hate group under the guise of religious undertaking, much like Al-Qaeda. Coolgamer 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen to that... these people should be shot. Codackussell 00:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, all extremists should be shot. Or at least be compelled to watch Martha Stewart 24 x 7. Wahkeenah 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WBC does not hide their opinions, the label hate group is only useful for groups that hide their opinions and actions. FWIW, WBC is completely non violent. Geo8rge 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Klan doesn't hide their opinions either, but they still qualify. And verbal abuse is also a form of violence. Wahkeenah 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If WBC isn't a hate group, who is? I question the assertion that "the label hate group is only useful for groups that hide their opinions and actions."  Maybe some hate groups hide some of their actions, but in fact I know of NO hate group that hides their opinions.  They have fliers and t-shirts and direct mail! 72.83.177.20 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This group is definetly a hate-movement group. They should be condemed for breach of the peace. They should actually just be called the Ku Klux Klan. Except instead of 'african-americans' they go after Gays and people who disagree with them.
 * Well, that's pretty much everyone then. Seriously though, it's a question of semantics. Is the phrase "hate group" objective, or a matter of opinion? LyraLight 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Church group sounds better. "Hate group" does violate WP:NPOV, so it says church group. Feel free to discuss it only my take page. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)   (Contributions)  02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Church group??? That's a smear against all other church groups. They have "Hate" in their slogan. How much more evidence do you need??? Wahkeenah 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are a church group. Look at a quote by Phelps himself: "Westboro refers to itself as a Primitive Baptist church, claiming adherence to the philosophy of John Calvin and to the principles of the Five points of Calvinism." That is why I would define it as a church group. Also, hate group as an opening sentence goes against WP:NPOV. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)   (Contributions)  02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The KKK is also a "church" group. However, the word HATE appears prominently in that picture, twice yet, so maybe we don't need to overkill the obvious. On a side note, I do appreciate your clearing up the fact that they are, in fact, Calvinists, in contrast to what someone else was griping about, a week or so ago. Wahkeenah 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok heres the deal we should either leave it at hate or delete the article they are very blunt with the fact that they are a HATE GROUP we are not offendig anybody
 * You're logically right, but (1) you'll never convince that one user; and (2) technically they would argue that God is the hater and they are just His "messengers". Wahkeenah 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It currently says "Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a U.S. church group headed ... " But as a matter of style, maybe ditch the word "group" and just call it a church. My 2 cents. 69.154.178.37 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The ___ church is a church [group]" sounds redundant, and "The ___ church is a church" sounds even more redundant. Maybe the "is" and whatever modifier follows it should be dropped altogether. Wahkeenah 13:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, I can hav a hate group but wiki would never call it a hate group... Hitler didn't kill anyone, amirite, lol
 * Nor would any reputable Encyclopedia, since they kind of try to remain objective and unbiased, and the term “hate group” is ultimately an opinion, since there are many people, including those within alleged “hate groups” that would disagree. To those who would like to see the WBC referred to as a “hate group” in the first line of the article, I would just like to point out that the ultimate goal here at Wikipedia, (or at least I'm fairly confident it is) is the creation of a public domain ENCYCLOPEDIA, that is as accurate, dependable, and reputable as any other established for-pay Encyclopedias. As such Wikipedia does its best to try and govern its content by the same set of standards that all reputable and established Encyclopedias adhere to. If one is ever unsure of how to approach a sensitive or controversial subject objectively or unsure what content is appropriate to include in an article, or the Encyclopedia as a whole, check to see how other reputable Encyclopedias have handled the same or similar subjects. If there’s some specific definition, or wording you’d like to use in an article, that you feel is relevant to the subject and also adheres to Wikipedia’s policies regarding objectivity and neutrality (which ALL Encyclopedias adhere to), but once posted, others comment on and disagree, just look up the same, or similar subject in say “The Encyclopedia Britannica”, and see what they considered to be an “objective” and “neutral” approach. If the “Encyclopedia Britannica’s” highly educated, expert, experienced authors and editors chose to omit the specific wording or definition you’d like to include, it’s fairly safe to say that it’s probably not very “objective” or “neutral”, when determined, applied, or used to refer to an organization by the articles author. Concerning the WBC and labeling then prominently as a “hate group”, it should be noted that although the “The Encyclopedia Britannica”, as well as any other established print Encyclopedia I referred to failed to include any information on the WBC at present, they all however included lengthy articles regarding the Ku Klux Klan, and even though many people here feel that if any group at all is to be labeled a “hate group” it should be the KKK; Every one of these established and reputable Encyclopedias failed to do so, which can only leave one to assume that there’s a good chance the label of “hate group” is probably subjective after all, when determined, or applied by the Encyclopedia itself. One can however remain objective and neutral by reporting which, if any, notable organizations have themselves determined the WBC to be a “hate group” or have made public statements to that effect, which actually has been noted within this article.  If Wikipedia sincerely wants to establish itself as a reputable reference, it probably wouldn’t hurt to refer to already reputable Encyclopedias, and emulate how they chose to handle a particular subject, in cases where one isn’t sure. Ppisarczyk (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They quite clearly meet the wikipedia definition of a hate group. To wit: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society" -from Wikipedia's own entry for "hate group." I've edited the page accordingly. ~JustADude


 * Just like one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter so too is one's hate another's righteousness. In other words, it's subjective to call the WCB, or any group, a "hate" group.
 * Moral equivalence is a fallacy, not the height of sophistication. Please try again. 70.146.75.89 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And that statement commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. Moral equivalence is a fallacy, but wikipedia is not here to make moral judgements on groups no matter how wrong they are; instead it is to represent the facts. If the group do not define themselves as a hate group they shouldn't be labelled as such.  Reality is not represented - let the picture speak for itself and stop trying to interpret the information for the reader.

--NZUlysses 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In short, you can't call any group a hate group. Wahkeenah 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can call a hate group a hate group. Not to do so is to misrepresent reality. - Nunh-huh 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is me talking, but I figure the term "hate group" is an understatement. --Jnelson09 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WBC is in fact a Hate Business which calls itself a Church. Simple reason: the label permits tax evasion. Fred finally hit the big-time when he discovered Da-Glo/Florescent signs in about mid-1997. The misguided children are proud to be named in print. Might want to reference the most recent KS court challenge to protests/pickets: how close/when etc.KSfarmgal 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i think osama would think this is a hate group.i hope they go to iran and protest(Esskater11 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

From Wiki's NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." There are no conflicting perspectives: they ARE a hate group. They advocate hate. Freely, openly, on their own. They do nothing else BUT advocate hate. There are no existing arguments to say they aren't a hate group. Therefor, it does not violate neutrality to call them a hate group. Azuaron 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.45.251 (talk)

I disagree the WBC should be labeled a "hate group", if anything because as far as I've seen the label of "hate group" generally only applies to secular organizations. Although the KKK may consider itself a Christian organization, it does not practice its own religion, nor is it a religious sect. The problem with labeling a religious sect, like the WBC, a "hate group" on account of their preaching hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, is that by the same standards it would follow that all religious sects that preach or promote hatred and intolerance of homosexuality would also qualify as "hate groups". Why not label all religious sects that preach or promote hatred and intolerance of anyone at all "Hate groups"? Considering that all fundamentalist, extremist, ultra-conservative, or fringe religious sects qualify as "hate groups" to some degree, on account of promoting the hatred and intolerance of some group of people, whether publicly with poster board, or behind closed doors among their congregation, that's a lot of editing to be done here at Wikipedia, now that someone has to place the words "hate group" in the first line describing a significant portion of the world’s religions and their various sects. The difference here, between the fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, Westborough Baptist Church, and say for instance, fundamentalist, ultra-conservative Baptists in general, is that the WBC is deliberately trying to attract attention to itself and advertising their beliefs in the public forum, whether people want to hear them or not. Most of the other fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, religious sects, sans the various Muslim extremists of course, generally keep to promoting their hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, behind church doors, among themselves.

I would also like to point out that neither the Encyclopedia Britannica, nor Google’s definition search, nor even Wikipedia itself, chooses to define the Ku Klux Klan as a "hate group". In fact, you’d be hard pressed to even find the word “hate” used at all. (Ppisarczyk (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

I would not only call this a hate group, but I would also term this as a cult or a dangerous religious group. Not only is it hateful, it's exclusive, insular and controlling - if you don't do exactly as they say, you're going to hell. Jeanie821 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As would many of us; however, Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts from published sources, not on the opinions of its editors. TSP (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WBC is a hate group by their own definition. They are also a small local cult of personality with worldwide scope through more than a dozen Internet websites with "Hate" in the name. Fred Phelps name should be included in the discription of this group since it's all about Phelps misuse of scriptural condemnation of sin to preach his doctrine of HATE and hatefulness. Although the Phelps organization calls themselves a "church", they are anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and anti-everybody but Fred Phelps and his family. Phelps and WBC should be charged as an organized criminal hate group and taken out of business under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The very labels of "hate group," "cult," or "extremist" are subjective, loaded and emotional; just like one's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter. It would be more fair to say that many view this group as such rather than making a declaration that they are as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.192.190 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think people are understanding objectivity and its role in WP. The WBC, at heart, is a religious "fundamentalist" or "extremist" sect, and is similar to any other church, with its own agenda, political views/motives, and yes, cushy business loopholes. It is objective to use those words to describe them, and later in the intro or article, inform the reader that they are considered by many to be a hate group, etc. To just outright call them that is subjective...its YOUR opinion. They think they're doing god's work, and doing the right thing. It doesn't matter that you or I or the majority of the country feels that they're awful people, and that some of you are of the opinion that they should be killed or raped by osama bin laden's pirate ghost, because opinions aren't relevent here unless presented as such. Taking the opinion of the majority or the government and declaring it as fact is not only incorrect, its a dangerous practice that's led to almost every persecution in history. There have been times before where people who were morally/scientifically correct in their protests and arguments were labeled as heretics or monsters or the ever popular "unpatriotic," and later on found to be right. Now, I'm not saying this applies in this case, or at least, I really really hope it doesn't, lol, but the argument stands in support of not condemning something in an objective forum on grounds of someone's opinion, no matter how awful the thing is. The WP page for Satan begins by describing him as an angel or jinn, depending on faith. It doesn't start with, "Satan is the prince of darkness, lord of pain, king of damnation and filth and suffering," because that's someone's or some organization's opinion...some people might really like the guy and think he's alright. So I'm not condoning the WBC and their actions, I'm just saying take your opinions and ranting to a message board, or maybe the facebook group dedicated to it, because they would be better served than here. Present both sides of the story from the middle ground, or the encyclopaedic system doesn't work. Thanks for hearing me out. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ohnoitsthefuzz The labeling of any group "hate group" is POV and not objective at all.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WBC is a relatively small extended family and cult of personality. It is a profitable hate mongering business disguised as a "church" for the purpose of avoiding taxes.  There should be no question of a biased POV being involved when defining the obvious malevolent nature of the group because all their Internet websites specifically include the word, "hate".  WBC is, indeed, a Hate Group. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You people are idiots. The point of Wikipedia is to give knowledge, not make friends. THEY ARE A HATE GROUP. THEY OPENLY ADMIT THAT THEY ARE A HATE GROUP. Trying to say "Ok, they are a hate group, but dont put that, its mean" is like saying the article on Osama Bin Laden shouldn't say he's a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.11.77 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If the church said that it was, in wikipedia's POV understanding, primarrly a hate group; the classification would be correctly aplied and justified to the originisation. The memmbers of WBC currently are part of a full-religeon/indipendant religeois sect, addmitably as viable as the Thugee cult, which means that classifing the group in the introduction as a hate group is persacution (ironicly). However, stating that the group [u]complies and ratifies[/u] the classification for being a hate group is perfectly viable and in-keeping with Wiki's POV; meaning that the introduction can read "The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a controversial religious organization headed by Fred Phelps and based in Topeka, Kansas, United States and has activities and views which make the group conform with the classification of a hate group". But my main concern is that this article may become to critical for a enciclopedic article, the constant undertone of judjement means that this article is bias and could be classed as unfair to WBC. It is not Wikipedia's intention or goal to stop these bigots; but supply BALANCED and FAIR information on the group- never mind that doing so go's against all common decency and upstanding. TheJackle (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is that saying the SPLC calls them a hate group is implied that it makes the statement true. The SPLC calls everyone who doesn't agree with them hate groups and their statements have no legal standing what so ever. Frankly if there were two SPLCs, they would probably call each other hate groups for both being racist against white people. And as is often the case with the SPLC, that statement would be unfounded. You can't use one bad and biased organizations statements to condemn another one. It' just bad tactics. There IS a legal definition of a hate group and this group does not match it since they do not actively engage in organized violence. (The key word there is organized. What a few loner redneck members do is outside the radar legally.)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.188.113 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Crticism: Keith R. Wood
editprotected Under Criticism, the stament "[i]n 2004, Libertarian columnist Keith R. Wood suggested that the Westboro Baptists are actually trying to create sympathy for homosexual activism and to engender anti-Christian sentiment due to the offensive nature of their activities and Phelps' own statements regarding tactics" should be removed. According to WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." No matter what you opinion on WBC's work may be, this specific claim is definitely "exceptional" and would require a very strong source. Not only does this statement not have a source, but assuming it is refering to the same source that I'm disputing here, the Keith R. Wood in question is an opinion columnist at an online-only newspaper, which I would makes the source indistinguishable from any other person's blog. This person, as far as I could tell after a reasonable Google search, does not appear to have any expertise in this area, and does not cite anything to back up this belief (or others in the same article such as claiming that WBC is funded by NAMBLA), so I can't imagine that this would be considered a reliable source by a neutral observer. Since I cannot edit this page, I am requesting deletion of this unsourced statement. Thanks! --Drake Maijstral 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is not fully protected, so admin assistance isn't needed. You should work out consensus on the content and the make the changes yourself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed a citation needed tag. I could not find the article or very much about the author. At some point I suspect the link will be removed, but cannot be sure there is no citation. Geo8rge 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not sure why it took so long. jim.boggia@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.247.214 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Stupid Question
How on earth does this come under "Project Judaism"?? Is it because he hates Jews, too? (If it would annoy him, please just ignore my question & leave it under PJ. (-: )FlaviaR 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suspect it's because it mentions antisemitism (and is in Category:Antisemitism, which is a subcategory of Category:Jews and Judaism). It's hard to be totally sure, as the Wikiproject doesn't seem to have an index of all the pages it covers; but their banner seems to be on most of the pages in the Antisemitism category.  Ultimately, wikiprojects can spread their wings as wide as they like - though in a few cases editors have been supported by consensus in removing wikiproject banners from pages where they felt they were irrelevant.  TSP 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * TSP is correct, the project was added by a bot here, and per the bot's user page it is adding everything that is categorized into any of the categories listed here, so either antisemitism or holocaust denial would have got it added. - Optigan13 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed it. They aren't anti-Semites at all. What they hate is 'Reform Judaism' - a type of so-called 'Judaism' that justifies homosexuality (while the Torah is clear about it). For 'Reform Jews' Judaism means whatever they want it to mean. If something in Judaism doesn't fit their view of the world - then they delete that something from Judaism.
 * From what I've seen, also, their references to hating (Reform) Judaism are completely in line with their hating moderate streams of Christianity who are not virulently opposed to homosexuality.
 * I think that I might want to remind others here that I myself (a Haredi Jew in Jerusalem) was brutally beaten up by the Zionist police while peacefully protesting against the 2006 'international gay parade' held in our holy city of Jerusalem. Four policemen threw me to the ground, and while I was lying on the ground, defenseless and crying for mercy, they kept throwing me with batons until I had bleeding wounds and bruizes all over my body.
 * My rabbis pronounced a HOLY WAR against the cursed and wicked invididuals who invaded Jerusalem then, and we did everything in our might to stop it. Our rabbis had called upon us to be willing to go for full self-sacrifice.
 * What a bittul z'man protesting peacefully - they meant you should have some mesirus nefesh and stay up all night saying tehillim. Did you really “go full sacrifice” – the parade went ahead, why were the frummers unable to prevent it? Weaklings! Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, I am quite sure that the Westboro people wouldn't call my type of Judaism so very wrong. In my type of Judaism, homosexuality is regarded as one of the very worst sins there are, equal to murder. The 'gay parade' that was held here was a punishment from G-d, so our rabbis declared. I refer to the following links:, ,.
 * Thus, it seems obvious, considering the points I mentioned, that the Westboro members are absolutely not anti-Semitic. They are opposed to religious hypocrites - Jews and Christians and Muslims alike. True Christians, Jews and Muslims virulently oppose homosexuality.
 * That is not to say that I, in any way, agree with their modus operandi. I am opposed to their activities, but I understand their philosophy. --Motz5768 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "a Haredi Jew in Jerusalem" - a follower of rabbis who pronounced a HOLY WAR? You must be a follower of the rabbis who also banned out of question internet use, velo taturu acharei levavchem - it seems the gays aren't the only GUILTY ones! - tut tut. Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I returned the category last night, since I hadn't seen an explanation for removing it. Reading the preceding, I have to note that Motz's explanation is that they are not antisemites. That may be, but the category is for Project Judaism, not Project Anti-semitism. Thus I think a more compelling reason has to be given to justify the category removal. Thoughts on this? 76.109.242.51 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also reverted that deletion as the project tag itself does not denote anti-semitism. Kudos though for sharing that hatred against gays is hardly limited to one side of the pond or one religious group. Frad Phelps by the way has been accused of being a closeted gay man but I haven't seen a reference for it except as a side mention in an article (I think about the 1996 LGBT March on Washington). Benjiboi 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is simply in no way related to Judaism. This group (/article) has no connection at all to Judaism, so having it in that category is utter nonsense. The fact that a bot added it doesn't mean that users can't remove it. --Motz5768 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With consensus, of course it can be removed. That's what talk pages are for. TSP has given one explanation for this article's inclusion, and I tend to think it should stay pending further discussion. If I'm not mistaken, this group has also used the slogan "God hates Reform Judaism," so perhaps that's why it's in this Project. Do others want to weigh in on this?Anthony Krupp 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will. Phelps was cited by the Anti-Defamation League for his numerous anti-semitic comments : On General Wesley Clark and John Kerry (of Jewish descent):

"His Christ-rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface. Yes, like his boss [John] Kerry, Clark is a Jew….That these two turds are Jews would not matter—except when they ask for supreme political power & spit in the Face of God, pushing for same-sex marriage, threatening to bring down God’s wrath on us as on Sodom—then some inquiries are in order. Beware! ‘Jews killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thess. 2:14.’ Apostate fags & Jews certain to bring God’s wrath.”"

"Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany...just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A....The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke...And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them...Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda...The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law."

Seems like Judaism project would be interested in this. Benjiboi 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw a documentary about them and a member was questioned about Jews. He said he hates them because they killed jesus - when the interviewer said the Jews nowadays had nothing to do with it - he replied that they believe in the same things. They hate Jews (as most Christians did in previous centuries) whether they condone homosexuality or not. Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just like they hate Christians. Well, actually, I suppose this just about the most classical example of a 'hate group' you'll find anywhere in the world. I don't think anyone else manages to hate the entire world population (minus 60 people) as virulently as they do. It either has to be a (sick) prank, or they really need a psychiatrist. An entire mental institution, more like. Creedmore, anyone? (Note: Only Chesdovi might understand the latter remark.) --Motz5768 12:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)