@Canuovea & Brendan Rizzo
It's not my fault that it's non-fundie Christians/other beliefs who don't commit terrorist, financial & sexual crimes.
So much for 'superior right-wing Fundamentalist Christian morals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Alamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/republican-list-of-paedophiles-shocking/
(and - by definition - right-wing Repubicans are God-fearing people; name me one member of the GOP who is an avowed Atheist?)
Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
...now, what was that about 'exaggeration'? Oh, and as for this:
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=2917&Page=1
...you call this 'exaggeration'?
@farpadokly
"Why is it that Christians feel this need to be persecuted?"
Fundies can't consider themselves True Christians, unless they're receiving their daily dose of 'being badly done by'. So what the fuck is the likes of Jason here complaining about?! He should be rejoicing in his (imagined) future* scenario, a la "The Running Man" and/or "Battle Royale".
...oh, and has Jason ever wondered why professional wrestling in the UK (made popular via Saturday afternoons on "World of Sport" in the 1970s) died a death in 1985? Because people realised that what they were seeing wasn't a real competition. We don't like being lied to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_wrestling_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rise_of_All_Star_.2F_End_of_ITV_era
And yet, it was about that time in the mid-80s, in which Sumo was started to be shown on Channel 4; and a high-ratings winner it became. Grand theatre, and Shinto, nay, samurai-esque tradition & discipline. Yet, a real competition...!
As Boxing is. No 'storylines', 'bookers' or 'Kayfabe' required. A Competition.
WWE take note.
*- Or even something a la "Robot Wars":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Wars_%28TV_series%29
...but on a greater scale, a la the film "Robot Jox" - in which Atheists vs. Fundies battle each other with mecha, and the loser (via a pre-fight signed legal document) has to agree with the winner, such as 'God doesn't exist, and therefore all right-wing fundies have to become Atheists' (as per that film's scenario, in which all territorial/resources disputes previously fought in wars, are now settled in one-on-one battles).
...oh, and as fundies are by definition anti-science, they have to rely purely on faith to build, power & control their mecha; no scientists, engineers etc allowed. [/sarcasm]
--EDIT--
@Brendan Rizzo
"However, that is not the same as saying they're less than human. They have civil rights, like everyone else."
Ah yes...:
image
...and the right to twist, pervert and use the 1st Amendment for their own nefarious ends? Right. [/hyper-sarcasm]
The phrase 'With rights come responsibilities' It exists for a reason.
And Fred, Shirley & co are 'human'? Yeah. Because sooooo many others speak, act and think the way the WBC do. And everyone agrees with their actions and the motives behind such, amirite?
Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. Shining examples of Humanity at it's absolute best.
Sorry to annihilate the argument of a fellow FSTDT commenter, but it has to be said: some 'arguments' can never justify their existence in the first place.
As the argument for denying Fred & co. their rights is impossible to question in any way whatsoever. Would any normal, decent, sane, human being so much as contemplate the notion of even thinking about behaving the way they do - least of all take advantage of the very rights they'd dare deny to others, in the name of their own unjustifiable 'beliefs'? How can they possibly justify what they do, and dare call themselves human beings? You tell me.
After all, Fred & co. could always just 'turn the other cheek', and all that jazz. It wouldn't kill them to be hyper-tolerant, neither. Just ask the Quakers.
Moral: The term 'Political Correctness'. It exists for a reason. As do the words 'Tact' and 'Diplomacy'. They're what separates we civilised humans from the animals. PROTIP: Even animals in the wild don't behave like Fred & co.
There's a first time for everything. That phrase exists for a reason too. Now how about an amendment in the Constitution that makes it illegal for anyone to use the Constitution for unjustifiable purposes - in any way shape or form - and in doing so, their human rights are stripped from them, as human beings would never think of perverting the US Constitution in this way.. The WBC being the precedent, the 'first thing', to base such upon.