webmdave’s house

Pastor Had Sex With Teen Church Member Multiple Times

FRANKLIN, Ind.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case involving Fred
Phelps and his Topeka congregation, whose protests at military funerals
have angered families across the country.

A member of Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church,
protests at the funeral service of a US Marine
killed in IraqThe court said it would consider an appeal from the
father of a slain Marine who hopes to reinstate a $5 million verdict
against the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., successfully sued the church in a Maryland
federal court in 2007 arguing its funeral protest was an invasion of
privacy that caused his family emotional distress.

But last fall an appeals court reversed the $5 million verdict, ruling
the church’s protests were protected by the First Amendment. The
Supreme Court will hear Snyder’s appeal this fall.

“It’s freedom of speech to some,” said Snyder, whose son Matthew was
killed in Iraq. “To me it’s not what my son fought for. They’re kicking
people in the face when they’re already down on the ground. All I was
trying to do was bury my son.”

Westboro, an unaffiliated church with fewer than 100 members, went from
local curiosity to national notoriety after it began protesting
military funerals. Church members believe the deaths of military
personnel — as well as tsunamis, Hurricane Katrina and the 2006 Amish
school shooting — are God’s punishment for the tolerance of
homosexuality.

It’s a theology summed up on their hand-painted protest signs: Thank
God for 9/11; America is Doomed; and Thank God for Dead Troops.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a church leader and daughter of Westboro founder
Fred Phelps, said her sister Margie Phelps is likely to argue the
church’s case before the Supreme Court. Shirley Phelps-Roper and Margie
Phelps are licensed attorneys.

Phelps-Roper said it’s God’s will that the church gets to appear before
the nation’s highest court. Regardless of the ruling, she said it’s a
“win-win” for the publicity-hungry church.

“You know how hard we’ve worked to get in front of them?” she said. “We
came to the kingdom for this hour.”

For constitutional law scholars, the case promises fireworks. Funeral
protests pose unique legal questions, and the ruling could have
implications for the many state laws passed to curb Westboro’s actions,
said Richard Levy, a professor of constitutional law at the University
of Kansas.

“This is a hot area of First Amendment law,” Levy said. “There are a
lot of issues swirling around this type of case, and the court may feel
it should step in and clarify the law.”

The case also may not fall along the court’s traditional fault lines,
Levy predicted. “I don’t know what the conservative or liberal position
is on a case like this,” he said.

Snyder said he had never heard of Westboro Baptist Church before it
announced plans to protest his son’s funeral in Westminster, Md.

The day of the funeral, Snyder was forced to enter the church’s service
entrance to avoid protesters. Not knowing what to expect from the
Kansas congregation, local police set up a mobile command post and
deployed a SWAT team, Snyder recalled.

Even though his mind was on his son, Snyder said he couldn’t ignore the
protesters and their signs. One proclaimed that his son was “raised for
the devil.”

“You don’t stand 30 feet from the entrance to a church with a sign
depicting two men having anal intercourse,” Snyder said. “That wasn’t
freedom of speech; it was harassment.”

Phelps-Roper, however, isn’t remorseful. Her church has protested
similar funerals across the country for years.

Just last week, she was in Washington picketing a memorial service for
the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha and protesting in front of the Supreme
Court.

Westboro’s adherents argue that the First Amendment is designed to
protect speech the majority may not want to hear. But Phelps-Roper is
ambivalent, noting that man’s law won’t matter much when America meets
divine wrath.

“Her destruction is imminent,” she said. Laughing, she added: “And it’s
going to be marvelous.”

Read more:
http://ping.fm/BYLlH

By Carl S.

OREGON CITY — Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge Steven Maurer
sentenced Jeffrey and Marci Beagley to 16 months in prison this
afternoon, calling the couple’s decision to not seek medical care for
their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, a “crime that was a product of an
unwillingness to respect the boundaries of freedom of religious
expression.”

Jeffrey and Marci Beagley are handcuffed
and taken into custody Monday after being
sentenced to 16 months in prison in the
faith-healing death of their son.Marci Beagley sobbed as the sentencing
was read, and shortly after, defense attorney Wayne Mackeson objected
to the prison time. The sentence also includes three years of
post-prison supervision.

Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent
homicide after a two-week trial that focused on the death of
16-year-old Neil Beagley, who died in June 2008 of complications
involved with a urinary tract obstruction.

“The idea of sending Jeffrey and Marci Beagley to prison is
heart-wrenching,” Maurer said in a lengthy explanation of his sentence.
“I think, certainly, that I’m in complete agreement with the jurors who
observed that the Beagleys are good people.”

But the decision was necessary, he said. “The magnitude of their crimes
simply warrants it.”

Maurer touched upon religious freedoms, saying he thought the community
was very respectful to beliefs from congregations like the Followers of
Christ Church, which believes in faith-healing at the exclusion of most
medical care.

But there are boundaries for religious freedom, he said.

“It is up to us as a community and a criminal justice system, and
government, to take very seriously that societal obligation … and
recognize that investment and interest we have in each and every
child,” he said.

Too many children had died unnecessarily because of the church’s
beliefs, Maurer said: “It needs to stop.”

The sentence could be a “pause for reflection” or re-examination for
the Followers of Christ church, said Maurer, who added that he believed
the church was capable of “softening the rigidity” of their beliefs on
excluding medical care.

[...]

The Beagleys and Worthingtons are members of the Followers of Christ
Church. Members of the Oregon City church have a lengthy history of
child deaths from lack of medical care that influenced a 1999 law
eliminating the religious freedom defense in cases involving the
welfare of a child.

Maurer repeated something he stated during the Worthington sentencing,
which was also echoed by defense attorneys during the Beagley trial:
the case was not a referendum on the church.

But ignoring the church’s impact on the couple would be self-deluding,
he said. “The church is imprinted upon them,” he said. [...more...]

- Source / Full Story: Jeffrey and Marci Beagley sentenced to 16 months
of prison for their son’s faith-healing death, Nicole Dungca, The
Oregonian, Mar. 8, 2010 — Summarized by Religion News BlogJudge says
sentence was necessary as deterrent to other church members Maurer made
it clear that the sentence was a direct attempt to deter other members
of the Oregon City-based Followers of Christ Church from relying on
faith healing to the exclusion of medical care.
“The fact of the matter is that Jeffrey and Marci Beagley are in large
measure a product of the church,” he said. “The church has imprinted on
them their beliefs, their attitudes, their concepts of their
responsibilities in a matter that permeates this case. Decisions that
were made and were not made by Jeff and Marci Beagley really are the
core result of their adherence and their devotion to their church. So
there really is no meaningful way to escape it, and we’re deluding
ourselves if we pretend otherwise.”He said other formal and informal
attempts to work with the church to get them to recognize serious
conditions and seek medical treatment had failed, as evidenced by the
deaths of Neil and his niece, Ava Worthington.

“If one member of the Followers of Christ Church, on young couple find
their child in distress and, being called upon by other members of the
church to lay on hands, to just pray harder, if just one young couple
says, ‘you know, I think this is the kind of situation we need to call
for help’ … if just one child survives, this (sentence) is worth it,”
he said.
[...more...]- Source / Full Story: Faith-healing parents sentenced to
16 months in prison, Matthew Graham, The Clackamas Review, Mar. 8, 2010

By Ryan

By Heather

Just something I've noticed- perhaps I should mention though: I've
actually posted up here AGES ago but kind of disappeared for a long
time. Some things have changed, some things haven't but telling you
everything that has has happened isn't why I'm here. But I've been
wondering about one particular aspect of my life and wondered if anyone
else here felt the same way.

Image by loswl via Flickr
When I first broke away, I was relieved as well as a little scared- the
relief came from no longer living in fear of hell, nor in fear that
people I both knew and didn't know would burn forever was however the
best part. The idea terrified me as a Christian and I felt like a
failure because I was an introvert who failed to be a prophet outside
the Internet- otherwise known as the sanctuary of trolls at times.
Thankfully those days are gone. If you happen to stumble across some 7
year old ramblings of a deluded teenager, I apologise in advance. Heh.

I still am to a certain extent an introvert, though I'm better than I
was in some respects (though a part of me suspects I shall always be
better at expressing myself in writing than speaking, and as you can
probably tell from this short piece- even that is not very good!) ;)

But something has happened to me, something for the better perhaps,
something I've realised since I left Christianity almost three years
ago this month.

I now find it easier to forgive then I ever did as a Christian.

Sometimes my temper does flare, and I suppose in my weaker moments I
will let it get the better of me in terms of the topic of religion at
some point, and it almost has at certain points in the past...

However. I feel... better now than how I was as a Christian in this
area. I find it easier to forgive past misjudgments. I used to FORCE
myself to forgive because of the threat of hell, and then perhaps would
secretly still stew over the issue, it never getting resolved in
reality.

But now... I can. I just take a breath and take my time. Without the
threat of hell I can do this more. I actually DO forgive more often and
in an honest manner which is true to myself and others, and find I can
do so more easily without the metaphorical gun to my head- because I
can think straight without panicking at the thought of the bullet
embedding itself inside my skull. I don't have to fear that if I die
without forgiving someone immediately I'll go to hell. Also, the idea
of THEM going to hell is no longer an issue, so I can look at the
entire thing more rationally.

And 'miraculously' (for lack of a better term), it's become easier to
forgive the silly things, and sometimes even some of the slightly
bigger things too. I am no 'saint' (snerk) and I recognise my own
failings- and I know other people have them too.

When I take the time, I realise that this is probably the only life we
have, and it is not the place for petty squabbles- sometimes tact is
needed too, but sometimes it's okay to be forceful, to air out things,
to say to someone you don't feel the same way, and when something is
wrong. Sometimes that's just more healthy. Then if possible, we can get
back to the issue if necessary and be calm. It all depends really at
the end of the day upon the issue at hand.

This is a great site, and it helps people to air out grievances they
shouldn't keep bottled up- but in real life they may feel forced to,
and sometimes it IS just easier to do so in writing then speaking out-
and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

I now look at Christians, even the most putrid forms, often with pity
now when they attack me verbally. Or me personally at least (when it
comes to other people or groups of people, my blood will boil, and I
somehow doubt that will change, though it has to be said, even then I
feel pity for them in a slightly different way). I understand that
they're probably just afraid though- like an animal in the corner
lashing out. Who hasn't at some point been like that? It's okay for me
to be at least a little defensive in response to such people (which I
sometimes am), but I shouldn't ALWAYS return to my basest animal
instincts and remember it IS a wonderful thing to be human- to be aware
of our place in the universe, as finite as it is, and that we have
precious little time to waste. It's what gives our life meaning. An
eternal life removes all meaning and means we have no reason to do
anything of real value.

As for people who simply hurt others for the sake of hurting, they are
not worth my time unless it is to defend those who need it. Though I
will do my best not to lower myself to their basest argumentative
level. After all, just because the Internet is filled with trolls
doesn't mean we should always feed them. Over time, they may grow up or
perhaps not. Time will tell. They just need to take a deep breath of
their own and really look at themselves as scary as the idea sometimes
is. Perhaps they'll be surprised at what they find. Perhaps they'll
find that really it's OKAY to be afraid sometimes, but the point of
bravery is not to attack and lash out, but to face those fears,
evaluate them and do the right thing regardless. That is bravery.

Sometimes forgiveness is still hard of course. Sometimes it's not
ALWAYS the answer, or not the immediate course of action at the very
least. Sometimes forgiveness is not my choice to make- if the misdeed
is against someone else for instance. There's still work to do before
you can get to that point if at all a lot of the time.

For some people here it's still hard to forgive- and that's OKAY. Of
course people have every right to feel angry, and we shouldn't
apologise for our feelings. This site for many is like therapy, and
when I first broke away, it was there for me in some respects, simply
by reading the posts. Many here are not ready to forgive yet, some
perhaps feel they never can, because hey we all have had different
experiences here after all and we've all had out own heartaches. This
is fine to say too. That is honesty. And we must at the very least at
first be honest with ourselves if we can hope to get anywhere in life.
Some people need more time. Some people need more than just time. We're
all different after all.

But for some reason, since I've left and the feeling of betrayal has
decreased, and as I've grown a little more contemplative, I now find
forgiveness in general a lot easier now than I ever did as a Christian.

Perhaps because now I feel like I actually have a choice in the matter.

You could call him lots of things - an evolutionary biologist, the
world's most militant atheist, a pot-stirring, ignorant bigot, or
favourite, "Darwin's Rottweiler". Professor Richard Dawkins has written
any number of books fanning heated debate between believers of any
faith and non-believers like himself. His best-seller 'The God
Delusion' caused a real stir and he's at again in his latest
effort, 'The Greatest Show on Earth', his boots-and-all scientific
argument for evolution and against creationism. In Australia for an
atheist conference, George Negus caught up with Richard Dawkins in, of
all places, his quite God-fearing home town of Brisbane.

GEORGE NEGUS: One of the most interesting descriptions I've heard of
you, from an Australian actually, that might even bring a smile to the
faces of your critics - of which there are only several million I
suspect, right - this guy said that, "Richard Dawkins is the most
popular God-basher since they stopped feeding Christians to the lions."
It got a smirk from me, but is that true? I mean, is that what you're
doing? Is it God-bashing?
RICHARD DAWKINS, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST: I have nothing to do with
lions. I am gentle and
GEORGE NEGUS: But God you give a few swipes to.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, verbal swipes. I mean, when you when you think
about what the other side does, um, you know, nobody like me ever goes
around flying planes into buildings or making suicide bombs or
something.
GEORGE NEGUS: In the name of God.
RICHARD DAWKINS: In the name of God. We just use our language, use our
voices, use our pens.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is there a danger that you could become an extremist
yourself?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do I sound extreme?
GEORGE NEGUS: Not on the face of it, but you are questioning, in the
case of many Christians, many Jews, many Muslims, many Hindus, members
of the Brotherhood of Left-Handed Electricians - whatever faith it is -
you're questioning the very basis of their existence by questioning the
existence of God as their creator.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, then, that may be, but to use a current phrase,
they should get a life. I mean, we have this one life, let's enjoy it,
let's live it to the full and don't get so worked up about don't
identify yourself so passionately with this business called religion.
GEORGE NEGUS: Have you ever, ever had any doubts that your position, as
an evolutionary biologist, or whatever way we decide to describe you,
or a God-basher, have you ever had any doubt that they might be right
and you might be wrong?
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have no doubt at all that I will be proved wrong in
certain respects, and the scientific world view that I hold will be
enhanced and embellished and elaborated in all sorts of very exciting
ways in the next few hundred years. So, I'm going to be wrong about
that, certainly in detail. As for being wrong about some particular
religion, like Christianity or Islam, no, I have no doubts about that
at all. There may be something, and I think there will be something,
much grander than anybody's existing world view, but I'm damn sure it's
not going to be Christianity or Judaism or Islam or anything else that
has its roots in
GEORGE NEGUS: They won't be pleased to hear that. Very interested to
hear what you think - and I know you touch on it publicly - in the fact
that, over last few years, when there has been a natural disaster or a
geological disaster or a human disaster, there are certain types of
believers, faith believers, particularly Christians, who will
immediately suggest that these disasters are God's way of punishing
people for various sins. If we can take the latest couple of disasters,
for instance, Haiti and Chile, your friend Pat Robertson, the American
evangelist, straight away said that the Haitians almost deserved that
earthquake because they were devil-worshippers some centuries ago.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I mean, I think it's a disgusting thing to say
and I think most decent Christians would agree with me about that. It
is true that Christianity is obsessed with sin and is obsessed with
reparation for sin. Jesus himself was supposed to have come to Earth in
order to atone for people's sins, so there is an unhealthy
preoccupation with sin in Christianity, and you could say that Pat
Robertson has just taken it to an extreme.
GEORGE NEGUS: What might he come up with where Chile is concerned? They
have not been good enough Catholics or...?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, somebody of Pat Robertson's type wouldn't like
Catholics anyway, so, maybe
GEORGE NEGUS: True. The latest thing I thought I would throw at you,
because we are a program that deals with contemporary issues, is this
whole Mossad situation where you have, people who are, I imagine, of
the Jewish religious faith, who are secretly killing people in the name
of God.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why would you think I would think I mean, you should
be asking a religious person whether they find that strange. I find it
not at all strange because I find that religion really does motivate
people to do horrible things because they have this passionate faith in
whatever their religion happens to be, and it teaches them that the
other religion is the wrong one.
GEORGE NEGUS: You have your own secular humanitarian foundation, right?
Non-believers giving aid.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, that's a small enterprise that we set up in the
wake of the Haiti disaster in order to try and raise money. We actually
raised $500,000 for
GEORGE NEGUS: So, atheists can do good work?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, yes. That shouldn't surprise anybody.
GEORGE NEGUS: But it does. I mean, an atheist NGO is what we're talking
about, isn't it?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, and, once again, people who are surprised by that
have believed their own propaganda.
GEORGE NEGUS: We've always said that politics and religion shouldn't
mix. At the moment, if you ask me, as a political journalist,
throughout the Western world at least, they are inseparable. I mean,
politicians run around wearing their religion on their sleeve.
RICHARD DAWKINS: They do in America. Do they really in Australia as
well?
GEORGE NEGUS: Interestingly enough, we have a practising Protestant
Prime Minister. We have a practising Catholic Leader of the Opposition.
I sometimes wonder when they both sit down to pray to God for election
victory, where does that leave God?
RICHARD DAWKINS: They may be religious, but that doesn't mean they wear
it on their sleeve. I mean, Tony Blair is religious, but he didn't wear
it on his sleeve while he was Prime Minister. He does now.
GEORGE NEGUS: What do you think would happen, though, if a candidate in
the next upcoming British election, or in America, was to say, "I'm an
atheist and I am running for prime minister or president." What do you
think the reaction would be?
RICHARD DAWKINS: In America, he wouldn't get elected. In Britain, I
don't think it would make that much difference, one way or the other.
GEORGE NEGUS: Did you get any hope, as an atheist, or as a
non-believer, by what Barack Obama said, when he said that country was
a mix of people, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and
non-believers.
RICHARD DAWKINS: And non-believers. That was a very, very satisfying
moment. It was a big moment in the history of modern American politics.
GEORGE NEGUS: Going back to something I said earlier - it wasn't meant
to be a totally facetious question - I wonder whether religious
politicians ask themselves whose side God is on. After September 11,
when George Bush gave the State of the Union address, at the end of
that he concluded it, like all American presidents do, with the
words "May God continue to protect America". At the same time he was
doing that, there were millions of Muslims all over the world asking
God to protect them from him.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes. Horrible. I mean, you know, you keep putting to
me things that are playing into my hands that I don't need to say
anything because these are all points you should be putting to
religious people, and they should hang their heads in shame.
GEORGE NEGUS: Do you feel outnumbered though? Do you think that you're
a voice in the wilderness still, or are people saying, "This guy is
onto something?"

RICHARD DAWKINS: If you take Even in the United States, which is the
most religious country in the Western world, if you list the various
religious denominations - if you take Christians altogether then, of
course, they outnumber everybody else, but if you take them separately
- Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, and so on, then secular,
non-religious people I think come second in that list. They are not a
insignificant minority.
GEORGE NEGUS: There a couple of quotes I found about you I'd like to
get your reaction to. "He's giving atheists a bad name. Atheists are
becoming as annoying as the believers used to be." Does that mean they
you are actually creating your own demon here?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, no, that's a very common thing that's said by
atheists who think that we should shut up, that we should be quiet. It
often goes with the statement that people like me ought to have a
degree in theology before being allowed to criticise religion, that
kind of thing, which, of course
GEORGE NEGUS: You have studied the faiths that you criticise.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have not studied theology in great detail, nor
should I, because the premise of theology is that there is a God who
exists, and if I am rejecting that for very good reasons then there is
no point in becoming learned in theology. You might as well say you
have got to be learned in 'leprechaun-ology' before you dismiss
leprechauns!
GEORGE NEGUS: Can you go on doing this? You have such a strong
antagonism towards other people who have faith and religion, that
you're going to keep battering away until your head gets sore.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I am passionate about truth and passionate about
clarity, and I don't regard myself as particularly militant or
aggressive. I simply wish to discuss what is true and to listen to
evidence and put evidence forward to other people and have a sensible,
sane, moderated argument.
GEORGE NEGUS: Good talking to you. We could go on for a long time.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Thank you very much.
GEORGE NEGUS: Richard Dawkins. And if that doesn't spark some pretty
fiery dinner party carry-on, I don't know what will!

RELATED STORY AND VIDEO: Dawkins celebrates the miracle of life – with
or without God

To All Of God's Critics: Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create bein.. http://tinyurl.com/y9rbr9f

What Natural Physical Principle Was Responsible: I believe the title of the thread speaks for the question. Tho.. http://tinyurl.com/yagaxak

Religious Abuse: Basically as a kid, I was scared to go to Hell. I remember one of my Sunday School teachers sa.. http://tinyurl.com/ya394jl