FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Smurfette Principle on January 30, 2012, 01:05:04 am
-
It's apparently a point of contention with people, so I'm wondering what your theories are. On the one hand, they seem like they truly believe in their cause. On the other hand, they are extremely over-the-top to the point of self-parody and seem to deliberately antagonize people into assaulting them. So, do they believe what they say or is it a massive trolling campaign for cash?
My personal theory is that they do truly believe their message, because they have the symptoms of a cult. I think they follow Fred blindly and believe anything he says. Now, whether Fred believes it or is just doing it for the money and attention, I don't know. I think he might be trolling for the money and attention, but also gets a sick sort of power from dominating his family and brainwashing them, so he might actually be that anti-Semitic and homophobic if he has narcissism and believes he's the best thing in the universe.
Anyone have a different theory?
-
They're too legally savvy to be completely brainwashed. I'm sure there are some members (like that horrid old woman, whatever her name is) who really believes everything they say, but some of them have to be aware enough of what they're doing to take advantage of the times they're assaulted. To my understanding, the resulting lawsuits are responsible for most of their funding, if not all of it, so someone needs to keep on top of that.
-
I figure it started out with Fred Phelps deciding to start his church after losing his mind on a drug bender. Thing is, I suspect somewhere along the way, greed from his eldest daughter took over, and they decided to go make their fortune in lawsuits. Of course, this means the kids had to buy the kool-aid or they'd lose the golden goose.
And that leads to the current incarnation we see before us.
-
I figure it started out with Fred Phelps deciding to start his church after losing his mind on a drug bender. Thing is, I suspect somewhere along the way, greed from his eldest daughter took over, and they decided to go make their fortune in lawsuits. Of course, this means the kids had to buy the kool-aid or they'd lose the golden goose.
And that leads to the current incarnation we see before us.
I read a bio of him written by one of the children that left that nonsense behind. Actually Fred Phelps did take a lot of drugs (the bad kind, not the good kind) for a time. But mainly, he had a ridiculous amount of rage issues that he took out on his family for a while, then directed it outward towards the rest of the world, which is how WBC started.
-
I think they've spouted so much bullshit that they can't tell what's real anymore.
-
I have long felt that the Phelps operation is nothing more than a lawsuit mill. They have figured out a way to use protected 1st Amendment rights to provoke innocent, traumatized individuals into physical confrontations, allowing them to lever the incident into a lucrative lawsuit. I have noticed that there is always a member of the WBC videotaping their "protests." Since these videos are never posted, I can only assume that the purpose is to be used as evidence in court for their inevitable suit.
-
What I don't think they understand is that you can only antagonize people for a certain amount of time before the mob turns on them completely and it goes from someone punching one of them to something more serious.
-
I think Fred would be perfectly willing to sacrifice one of his flock for a nice, juicy wrongful death suit.
-
I think I would be perfectly willing to sacrifice Fred for a nice, juicy world without Fred.
-
I voted the second option, that nobody in the group truly believes his message. This may just be horridly misplaced optimism... again... but while I am sure Phelps believes his message (he is, after all, fucking insane), it seems too juicy a target for people who just want to stir shit up. Most cults are, first of all, led by a leader with charisma of some kind, and Phelps has proven so abrasive that I have my doubts he's a real leader.
However, they somehow managed to land a high profile. As a result, it's perfect for people who just hate gay people so much, they can simply join this "church" and voila! they have a platform which media cameras will be pointed at.
-
You have to realize, it's a cult composed mostly of his family, whose cognitive development he has a strong influence over.
-
I'm pretty sure they all believe, with the possible exception of Fred himself. Sure, they're also living off the lawsuits, but that's not incompatible. Fred was a lawyer, he had all of his kids become lawyers, because he sees it as a way to get money from the unsaved. And why not? To the Phelpses, we're barely human. It's perfectly all right to get money from us. If he could find a convenient way to just take the money, he would. Since the only legal way he can get it is to provoke people until they can be sued, that's what they're going for.
It's a lot like white supremacists who complain about black welfare queens while living off government handouts themselves. They see themselves as worthy of that money. They're good people, by virtue of being of the right religion/race, and they're taking it from bad people (who keep them from attacking/killing the groups they hate), so it's morally justified.
-
I think some may have believed and lied, but then eventually believed their lies.
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
-
I took the the third choice. I think Fred is self aware and maybe a few others are too. I heard Shirley was a lawyer so maybe she was trying to hide behind freedom of religion and freedom of choice to piss people off. The thing is, a lot of these people are clearly enjoying what they are doing. They enjoy pissing people off, making hateful songs like "god hates the world", and otherwise getting attention from their antics.
However, there are probably those who don't know any better. The children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are clearly brainwashed. Then there's the fact that some people do hold Calvinist beliefs which state that god is angry and actually hates many of his creation, very similar to what Phelps believes. It's a very negative and hateful belief, based on fear and terror. So sadly, these beliefs aren't anything new, they are just the most upfront and obnoxious about it.
-
the younger ones, the ones that were raised in it, probably believe the rest are in it for money and because they are irl trolls that like to piss people off.
-
I think the younger ones, the kids who were raised in it, probably do believe it, as well as Shirley Phelps, because every time I've seen her on television or heard her on the radio, she has that "I'm batshit insane but think I'm normal!" thing go on, but most of the "old guard?" They probably are in it for the money.
-
I think the younger ones, the kids who were raised in it, probably do believe it, as well as Shirley Phelps, because every time I've seen her on television or heard her on the radio, she has that "I'm batshit insane but think I'm normal!" thing go on, but most of the "old guard?" They probably are in it for the money.
I'd say that's it, plus the older ones have drunk the Kool-Aid for so long that they can't hear anything else. There's also ones like the lunatic 'journalist' who Louis Theroux met when he filmed the WBC: The first time around Louis watched the guy buying into the WBC and its bullshit, the second time around the man was totally brainwashed by them.
-
I think the cult leader, Fred Phelps, is just trying to make money. He gathered a cult of personality around his family, and they genuinely believe what he says. I think there's an interview done with a teenage girl who used to be a member of WBC growing up, and she left. IIRC she said that they all seem to genuinely believe what they preach.
-
I dunno. Phelps strikes me as deranged enough to buy into the idea that he's the one righteous man, the only man God is willing to speak to. For someone like him, someone who craves power over others and is frustrated by the world around him, that's a very appealing idea. He's not a failure, he's a martyr. He's justified in everything he does. He's automatically in the right because he's doing God's work. Everyone who opposes him will burn in hell for eternity, while he goes to heaven where he'll rule over his clan for eternity, laughing at those who had the gall to dismiss him.
-
The thing about the whole WBC is, though, it's built around Phelps senior. So what happens when he gets old and, for instance, senility creeps in? Are they going to end up like one of these small cults you hear of where there's about 3 of them left, ekeing out a precarious existence? Or when he dies are they just going to up sticks and leave?
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
The thing about the whole WBC is, though, it's built around Phelps senior. So what happens when he gets old and, for instance, senility creeps in? Are they going to end up like one of these small cults you hear of where there's about 3 of them left, ekeing out a precarious existence? Or when he dies are they just going to up sticks and leave?
Shirley is looking to be his successor. She has essentially taken over at this point, leading most of the protests and appearing on TV.
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
So what is preventing these reports from leading to actual legal consequences?
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
So what is preventing these reports from leading to actual legal consequences?
Here's (http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-isnt-that-man-in-jail.html) Nate Phelps's take on it.
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
So what is preventing these reports from leading to actual legal consequences?
Statute of limitations and the fact that the remaining Phelps children refuse to admit anything happened. (http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpschapter02.htm)
-
Even if Shirley can keep up the charade, they can't hold the half-assed blob of insanity together forever.
-
I suspect that it differs depending on the family member. I also doubt that it's as straightforward as any of the options given in the poll.
Some of them probably do believe it on the surface, while harbouring different motivations deep down (fear of being ostracized by the family and/or fear of facing any cognitive dissonance they might be experiencing, attention-whoring, sadism, etc.) -- ones which they might not even be consciously aware of holding. Others might genuinely believe, and still others could just be mean assholes, like the family patriarch.
As for Fred himself: The guy fits the bill for a cult leader to a T. He's intelligent, charismatic, antisocial and narcissistic. It's impossible to say whether or not he's bought into his own bullshit on the surface, but I've long held that his real motivations are attention, sadism, the ego-trip he gets from his family basically worshiping him, and money. He obviously gets off on hurting other people, and he's intelligent enough to have worked out a way of doing that without ending up on the wrong side of the law. Plus, he very likely realizes that emotional pain is a far more profound than any physical anguish he could inflict on someone. Long story short, the dude is a sadistic sociopath.
Seriously, read the "Addicted to Hate (http://blank.org/addict/)" article. It's an excellent portrait of Fred Phelps and the dynamic within his family.
-
I believe that the kids in the
church cult do believe the stuff Fred Phelps says. As for the adults, some also probably believe it, but I think others are just really conservative but not to the extent of Fred. I also think they are a bunch of bastards who just want attention.
Do any of you think there are "churches" with similar beliefs to the WBC that don't attract attention?
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
So what is preventing these reports from leading to actual legal consequences?
Here's (http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-isnt-that-man-in-jail.html) Nate Phelps's take on it.
For those that can't understand part of Dawkin's reaction, I should point out that the law in both Scotland and England has no statute of limitations: It doesn't matter when you committed a crime, be it 1973 or 2003, when the Police catch up with the perp that's them going to trial. Cases in the last few years have shown this, such as the World's End murders or the (and I loathe the term in this case) 'Bakewell Tart' murder.
-
I believe that the kids in the church cult do believe the stuff Fred Phelps says. As for the adults, some also probably believe it, but I think others are just really conservative but not to the extent of Fred. I also think they are a bunch of bastards who just want attention.
Do any of you think there are "churches" with similar beliefs to the WBC that don't attract attention?
I thought that point of groups like that was to attract attention.
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
So what is preventing these reports from leading to actual legal consequences?
Here's (http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-isnt-that-man-in-jail.html) Nate Phelps's take on it.
For those that can't understand part of Dawkin's reaction, I should point out that the law in both Scotland and England has no statute of limitations: It doesn't matter when you committed a crime, be it 1973 or 2003, when the Police catch up with the perp that's them going to trial. Cases in the last few years have shown this, such as the World's End murders or the (and I loathe the term in this case) 'Bakewell Tart' murder.
There's no statute of limitations on murder in the US either. The UK does have the Limitation Act of 1980, which limits the period of time before which charges must be brought for certain offenses, though it defines the offenses on which it applies more strictly than US jurisdictions tend to.
-
How many cases of people leaving the "church" are there?
Not a lot. Nate Phelps is the highest profile, though one grandchild left recently, I think. Those who've left have reported child abuse and brainwashing.
So what is preventing these reports from leading to actual legal consequences?
Here's (http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-isnt-that-man-in-jail.html) Nate Phelps's take on it.
For those that can't understand part of Dawkin's reaction, I should point out that the law in both Scotland and England has no statute of limitations: It doesn't matter when you committed a crime, be it 1973 or 2003, when the Police catch up with the perp that's them going to trial. Cases in the last few years have shown this, such as the World's End murders or the (and I loathe the term in this case) 'Bakewell Tart' murder.
There's no statute of limitations on murder in the US either. The UK does have the Limitation Act of 1980, which limits the period of time before which charges must be brought for certain offenses, though it defines the offenses on which it applies more strictly than US jurisdictions tend to.
That sounds like English common law, in Scots Law they like to throw the book at someone who's evaded justice for too long, as happened with Peter Tobin.
-
Statute of Limitations on Child Abuse makes no sense. As if an 8-year-old has the wherewithal to press charges.
-
Statute of Limitations on Child Abuse makes no sense. As if an 8-year-old has the wherewithal to press charges.
This. It's as bad a crime as murder, and should be treated in the same manner.
-
I don't know if I'd say that child abuse is on par with murder, but I definitely agree that there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on it.
-
Ehhh, to quote the movie Speed, "Crazy, but not stupid".
-
Do any of you think there are "churches" with similar beliefs to the WBC that don't attract attention?
There was a topic not too long ago about an arguably even crazier group (of like 2 people) who don't get as much attention even though they outright attack counter-protestors.
And I agree, Statute of Limitations is beginning to look a lot like horseshit.
-
I keep reading the thread title and interpreting as a question on whether Fred Phelps is a p-zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie).
On topic, I'm relatively sure at least some of them (Fred being the most obvious) do it for the money & attention. But that doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. In fact, he probably does, which is why he chose this particular means of shit-stirring.
Also, there's evidence that simply publicly speaking in favour of an idea makes you more likely to believe it. Assuming Fred was even slightly homophobic at first, by now he must be as hateful as he acts.
-
This just popped in my head, because that's the way it works. :P Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if there was a group from the LGBT community who decided to form and protest funerals of high profile members of the conservative community?
-
This just popped in my head, because that's the way it works. :P Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if there was a group from the LGBT community who decided to form and protest funerals of high profile members of the conservative community?
That would make us just as bad as them, and we don't want that.
-
This just popped in my head, because that's the way it works. :P Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if there was a group from the LGBT community who decided to form and protest funerals of high profile members of the conservative community?
That would make us just as bad as them, and we don't want that.
I agree. It was more a hypothetical/rhetorical question.
On another note, I find it strange that most within conservative xtianity disagrees with the WBC. That's ultimately what they're all aiming for.
-
This just popped in my head, because that's the way it works. :P Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if there was a group from the LGBT community who decided to form and protest funerals of high profile members of the conservative community?
That would make us just as bad as them, and we don't want that.
I agree. It was more a hypothetical/rhetorical question.
On another note, I find it strange that most within conservative xtianity disagrees with the WBC. That's ultimately what they're all aiming for.
Not necessarily. I know conservative Christians who believe that evolution is a lie, that abortion is murder, that everyone who doesn't believe like they do is going to hell, that we all have to be Israel fanboys, yadda yadda yadda, but like 90% of them will concede that marriage is a civil right that should be extended to same-sex couples. I don't think most Christians are aiming to force gays/bisexuals/transgenders back into the closet, nor do they want to kill them all. We just hear about shitheads like the WBC the most because they're vocal. They feed off of our raeg.
-
This just popped in my head, because that's the way it works. :P Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if there was a group from the LGBT community who decided to form and protest funerals of high profile members of the conservative community?
That would make us just as bad as them, and we don't want that.
I agree. It was more a hypothetical/rhetorical question.
On another note, I find it strange that most within conservative xtianity disagrees with the WBC. That's ultimately what they're all aiming for.
Not necessarily. I know conservative Christians who believe that evolution is a lie, that abortion is murder, that everyone who doesn't believe like they do is going to hell, that we all have to be Israel fanboys, yadda yadda yadda, but like 90% of them will concede that marriage is a civil right that should be extended to same-sex couples. I don't think most Christians are aiming to force gays/bisexuals/transgenders back into the closet, nor do they want to kill them all. We just hear about shitheads like the WBC the most because they're vocal. They feed off of our raeg.
True. And they might just go away if we didn't pay any attention to them, but it's really hard to not feed the trolls. Sometimes, they're just asking for a beat down.
-
It's probably a combination of Even Evil Has Standards and the fact that the WBC are very anti-American, despite being American themselves.
-
This just popped in my head, because that's the way it works. :P Anyway, what do you guys think would happen if there was a group from the LGBT community who decided to form and protest funerals of high profile members of the conservative community?
That would make us just as bad as them, and we don't want that.
I agree. It was more a hypothetical/rhetorical question.
On another note, I find it strange that most within conservative xtianity disagrees with the WBC. That's ultimately what they're all aiming for.
I suppose they could protest the funerals of a WBC member, but even were they to do that, I'd just do a silent protest.
At the moment, WBC seems to be doing a good job of getting people to believe the opposite of what they want: If they'd stuck to the funerals of LGBT people, I think they would have maintained their support, but picketing the funerals of dead soldiers must be costing them a lot of support.