Talk:Fred Phelps

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) at 02:13, February 27, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

No linking to Phelps's web sites

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. MountainDew 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --Mtur 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. MountainDew 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. CEinhorn 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. MountainDew 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

  • Posts not signed are ignored. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Discussion of subject

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. MountainDew 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Evidently his views changed, judging by his protest of the funeral of Al Gore's father. RandomishName11 00:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p ColinR 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. MountainDew 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. ColinR 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, this was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. ColinR 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny. One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) MountainDew 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... ColinR 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--Elamdri 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution. And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) MountainDew 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. ColinR 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. MountainDew 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--Jack 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. MountainDew 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --Jack 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --Jack 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Edits by Jack

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. RightWolf2 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --Jack 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. RightWolf2 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. MountainDew 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. RightWolf2 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Landover Baptist

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--Elamdri 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. MountainDew 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

?

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. Tmtoulouse 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -AmesGyo! 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--Ashens 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. MountainDew 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--Ashens 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.NSmyth 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident Opcn 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-AmesGyo! 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [1] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --Gulik3 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone. Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --Atkins 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. DanH 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

What the #$@%

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. Opcn 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. Banned User Teresita 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps and Religion

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin. --Gulik3 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

disgusting liberal bias

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1Manifestdestiny 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. Karajou 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
but jesus did condemn homosexuals. Cryingeagles39 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. Karajou 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. DanH 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

  • I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

God Hates Canada

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? Kazumaru 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? DanH 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[2] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. Kazumaru 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. Kazumaru 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Phelps And The Democratic Party

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --Ouzo 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we've addressed your concerns. The "God Hates Fags" Left. Rob Smith 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Activist!???

Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --AllahuAkbarJihad 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --AllahuAkbarJihad 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.

--şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --Fredphelpsisamoron 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --MichaelM 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! Tubesock 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? DanH 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --MichaelM 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. DanH 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --MichaelM 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. Rob Smith 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
  • There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --JimmyR 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --BillCasey 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. Maestro 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --BillCasey 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.
So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded leftist. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring music content and being pro-big tabacco, once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee made the award to the wrong guy. Rob Smith 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --BillCasey 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

hmmm, so Phelps is mainstream or centrist? Rob Smith 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --BillCasey 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Very interesting; on political spectrum theory I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. Rob Smith 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --DanielJamesRideout 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. Wiederlich. Rob Smith 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. SkipJohnson 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --NathanRodgers 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

If it was not for the fact of Phelps political activism, in support of political candidates, or the fact Phelps ran for political office on the ticket of a major political party, we would not be having this discusssion. But given the political realities, we can only use Phelps own stated political affilliations. Rob Smith 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --NathanRodgers 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than career opportunism, not any personal, inner, moral change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. Rob Smith 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a Democrat. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. ItMathers 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat."
I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? Underscoreb 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. Underscoreb 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? Rob Smith 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?

Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of liberal we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?

  1. denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
    No evidence that he feels this way
  2. taxpayer-funded abortion
    Certainly not
  3. same-sex marriage
    HA!
  4. support of affirmative action
    No evidence of this
  5. support of political correctness
    Not at all
  6. censorship of prayer in classrooms
    No
  7. compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
    Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
  8. government-controlled medical care
    No evidence of this
  9. labor unions
    no evidence of this
  10. elimination of abstinence-only program funding
    Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
  11. income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
    No evidence of this
  12. a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
    No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
  13. support for gun control
    No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
  14. government programs to rehabilitate criminals
    No idea
  15. environmentalism
    No evidence for this
  16. disarmament treaties
    No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
  17. globalism
    No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
  18. opposition to a strong American foreign policy
    No evidence
  19. support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
    Seems unlikely
  20. opposition to full private property rights
    No evidence of this
  21. limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
    Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media

So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. BillyFranco 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

The "leftist" portion is cited. Rob Smith 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? BillyFranco 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
[3] Perhaps we need CP:Common knowledge. Rob Smith 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even one of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? BillyFranco 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. Rob Smith 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it is basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist is calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? BillyFranco 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
Where in the text does it say this? Rob Smith 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The leftist article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the liberal hate speech article. BillyFranco 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.
  • Congratulations, and good for you. Unfortuneatly, like the theory of evolution, you can not impose your morality on me, and force me to accept the political spectrum theory. Rob Smith 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:

1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?

I'll wait for a reply. BillyFranco 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Here it is, Troll:
   * BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
   * Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
   * AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal deceit. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. Rob Smith 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --Konservativekanadian 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--Konservativekanadian 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --Konservativekanadian 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --Konservativekanadian 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. ItMathers 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) ItMathers 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. Rob Smith 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --Konservativekanadian 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

  • If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.
  • They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. Rob Smith 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --Konservativekanadian 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing gay rights and the homosexual agenda, for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. Voila! We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.
Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, liberal activism designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. Rob Smith 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --Konservativekanadian 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --Konservativekanadian 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --Konservativekanadian 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing

The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --ChavezFan 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Do all left-wingers goosestep to the gay agenda? Rob Smith 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --Konservativekanadian 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
I thought liberalism was the big tent? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for diversity? Rob Smith 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --Konservativekanadian 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Does it really matter?

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, maybe God Hates Fred Phelps. So please, have some common sense and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.

Rob, your removal of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a subject is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on Talk:Al Gore
Oops, forgot my sig yesterday PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Seconded - (the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.) As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? Underscoreb 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

"Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"

Original post by ModerateCatholic on the Main Page Talk. Feebasfactor 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. ModerateCatholic 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. Feebasfactor 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. Karajou 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Nobody likes Fred Phelps, we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a liberal just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the Democratic Party, but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? Feebasfactor 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. Karajou 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) Feebasfactor 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)

In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --SimonA 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST) Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.TRipp 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. ModerateCatholic 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--PhineasBogg 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. Walton One 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Phelps and the Bible

The article has a lot of condemnatory language about him from a secular standpoint, but it should also say what's wrong with him from a Biblical standpoint, citing chapter and verse. DavidE 10:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree. How about starting with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? DanH 00:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Am I the only one?

Anyone else thinks Fred Phelps looks like the Reverand Kane from the Poltergiest movies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jedisqrl (talk)

Or does Reverend Kane look like Fred Phelps (deliberately)? (I don't know what either looks like, so I'm offering no opinion). Philip J. Rayment 09:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
You're definitely not alone! StatsMsn 09:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
I doubt the Poltergeist movies were influenced by Phelps, considering they well pre-date his rise to prominence. I suppose its possible, that Phelps intentionally tries to look like him, if the idea that he's actually running some sort of performance art piece and/or massive parody of Christian fundamentalism is true, but I doubt that's the case. ArthurA 13:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"First class nut"

I have heard and seen this before, but I have been unable to find a source attributing this particular quote. Anyone care to help me out? EelisA 16:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Not liberal

He's not a liberal, if he opposes homosexuality. But I don't think of him as a conservative: more of a radical fundamentalist. He's the gay rights movement's poster boy for intolerance, a potent justification for using the label "homophobia" to describe all the opposition.

I think it would help our cause to distance ourselves from him. In particular the motto, "God hates fags" is not a conservative idea. Recall, "God hates sin but loves the sinner". Our heavenly Father has a parental heart. --Ed Poor Talk 09:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I would argue that Phelps is actually insane, in the clinical sense of the word. Its unfair to attempt to attach any mainstream political label to him -- people all across the political spectrum reject him. ArthurA 13:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)
^This. To be honest, this also goes for people like Hitler; people who are so left-wing they go off the edge and appear on the right, people who are neither left nor right but up or down. There's some people you can't classify other than 'insane'. ETrundel 13:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Careful, now. Whenever an online discussion starts to mention Hitler, that's like touching the third rail in the subway. The power of his shocking works overwhelm us, and we stop thinking clearly.

Phelps is only wrong in his idea that God "punishes" and "hates" homosexuals. This is not to say that he's wrong about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of support for Communism is based on a high ethical idea that no one should monopolize the nation's wealth at the expense of the poor. They only go wrong in the way they want to solve the unequal distribution problem: i.e., "kill the capitalists and steal their loot!" [4]

We need to solve economic problems that Capitalism and Communism have not been able to eliminate. Ethical means, however, must be used. Likewise, we need to solve the problem of immorality (and not only [[homosexuality]: there's a lot of heterosexual sin, such as adultery); yet an attitude of hatred and hostility towards people is not likely to solve the free love problem. It could make it worse. --Ed Poor Talk 15:40, 26 February 2009 (EST)


I'd say he's wrong about considerably more than just his idea that God hates homosexuals, Ed. Remember that Phelps and his flock are virulently anti-American and celebrate the deaths of American soldiers and Americans in general. A number of his faithful recently turned up in Buffalo to picket memorial services for those who died on Flight 3407; his daughter claimed in an interview that the plane crashed as punishment for not giving more credit to God for the Miracle on the Hudson. --Benp 16:47, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Well, one cannot diagnose "insanity" without a medical degree, you know. I never supported or endorsed Al Gore for President. I never donated any of my personal property for a Gore campaign headquarters. I wonder who is the liberal then, me, or Fred Phelps who actually is a Gore supporter? It's not exactly rocket science, but I do see lots of liberals squirming and parsing words, and making up all kinds of caveats to somehow spin it Phelps isn't one! --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)
He may be a liberal, an insane one who carves his own niche in the political spectrum but a liberal all the same, but I dont think he's a Gore supporter any more. He was back when he believed Gore had a more anti-homosexual agenda, but now he strongly opposes Gore, and other Democratic figureheads like the Clintons. Any chance he'd be considered a populist or totalitarian? TPerry 19:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)


I consider him an enemy of America, personally. That's about all the label he requires, in my book.--Benp 19:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem is with terminology and definitions. "Liberal" and "conservative" are terms that encompass a whole bag of issues and views, including political, economic, and religious. There are many people who are "liberal" in some areas and "conservative" in other areas (even though, in some cases, their views may appear to be or may actually be contradictory). Although I'd agree that someone who opposed homosexuality is likely to be a conservative, that is not the sole factor defining a conservative. If they are mostly but not completely one way or the other, they might be called a "moderate" liberal or conservative. But some, like Phelps from what I can gather, fit neatly in neither. But this is only a problem if one believes that "liberal" and "conservative" between them cover all possibilities. Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&oldid=632010"