ACLU Backs Phelps
For the life of me, I cannot figure out the criteria the ACLU uses to decide which cases to take. The ACLU has chosen to back that wacky Fred Phelps and company. It is fighting to have newly made laws against picketing at funerals struck down.
While Phelps and his twisted little group of followers certainly have the right to believe and say what they wish, funerals are not the place to do it. Funerals are for communal good-byes to the deceased and shared grief over the loss of a loved one, not for protesting national policies. Common decency demands that proper decorum prevail at such longstanding human rituals.
None of the laws that I have seen have said Phelps and company couldn't express their warped views, just that they couldn't picket at or immediately about funerals. Why does the ACLU think that stance is unreasonable?
Furthermore, apparently the ACLU is doing this to defend religious freedom. This while they regularly fight to have displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols abolished from the public square.
Why? Any theories?
My take: Funerals are usually deeply religious observances. The belief in an afterlife and the significance of sending a loved one off properly have roots in human history going all the way back to our beginnings as any archeological dig of a burial will show. So when the ACLU has the choice to back traditional religious belief or warped "religious" views that make a mockery of traditional religion which honors the dead, they choose mockery.
H/t: Right Wing News