Hey, there! Log in / Register
A Jew from Kansas advises Brandeis what to do when the loathsome 'church' shows up on campus
By adamg on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:04am
Emily Diamond has a suggestion for the group's scheduled Dec. 3 appearance on campus: Do absolutely nothing, because otherwise, it just encourages them:
Some might say we are letting them win if we do nothing. In actuality, they lose. By not showing up, we show that we do not care about them enough to wake up early. We do not care enough about their signs or what they have to say. If we do not show up, the media will have less to cover, and it might not end up on the news. If everyone stopped caring about the church, its actions would have no significance.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Appearance "on campus"?
I presume that either: (1) this group has been duly authorized by Brandeis University to be on its private property; or (2) that "on campus" really means on the periphery of the campus, on streets and sidewalks owned and maintained by the City of Waltham, for which they have made application for and been granted a permit subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
I think that the odds favor the latter - or Brandeis is incredibly foolish. In either case, the girl is probably right. My guess is that it will be 12 degrees, windy as hell, all the kids will be in studying for their exams and no one will even notice these people getting frostbite on a beautiful late fall day in New England.
Application and permit?
They have a right to peaceably assemble on the sidewalk. They don't need a "permit" as long as they don't obstruct the public way and simply standing with signs isn't seen as obstruction (chairs would, carts would, etc.).
My guess is that they'll congregate near the South St entrance. If they're going "early", they're probably attempting to make the most attention out of the morning commute. A lot of that area use South St to get to/from the highway there.
Most of the counter-protests that I've seen that have been effective have either raised money for a cause that blows the mind of the Westboro Family Cult (like money for gay soldiers). Or the counter-protest is just outright nonsensical, like tons of 4Chan/internet meme/lolcat-inspired signage and costuming. There's a pretty good video/photos of people at ComicCon counter-protesting this past year. Because then, you're just laughing at them, while laughing at yourself...and it turns the whole thing into one big joke.
They are skilled at getting eyes on themselves, so "ignoring" them is useless because they'll still get people's attentions who aren't aware they're supposed to be "ignoring" them with the rest of you. Making them absurd or fundamentally using them as a fundraising effort against their interests seem like the only way to fight herpderp with fire.
Herpderp?
Kaz's comment makes perfect sense...
The Westboro Church thrives on free publicity. Merely ignoring them would only give them fuel for future protests, and having no one show up would give them legitimacy and even more propaganda ("Brandeis protestors didn't show up, so that means we're right") On the other hand, the counterprotest has to strike the right balance between the two opposing sides; it can't just be two groups shouting at each other or committing anarchy.
The fundraising efforts are a superb idea. If the WBC uses gays as a fundraising lightning, then raising money for gay soldiers is its insulating cage. A little humor helps too: can you imagine a mirror image of the WBC protesting them word for word?
The only issue with that Kaz....
Is that I don't think they care about how much money the other side raises. They don't care if 'the money for dead gay soldiers charity' is the biggest fundraiser in the US.
They are going to protest no matter what happens. They are mentally ill, brainwashed clowns who are simply doing what they do because they are insane and think their cause is just. You can't reason with them, and you can't make them stop.
It's not about them
Which is why the counter-protest should only be tangentially related to the original protest; nothing beyond "Hey, now that you've mentioned it..."
You're right that these nutty hate-mongers aren't going to be detered from their path. But they are elephantine in their existance, and can't simply be ignored. However, to use their protest to draw attention to a more worthy cause and/or fundrasing at least makes good use of everyone's time and attention.
Expanding on Lecil's response
They don't care, you're right. They don't care how much is raised for causes in polar opposite to them, they don't care if you laugh at them, and they don't care how much attention they get either, actually. If they're true to concept, then they're only it in for God's love because they are the only ones in the country who are out speaking truth to gospel for what God wants us to do (religion: it's a dangerous thing).
Since you can't make them stop, the least you can do is get positive attention from the counter-protest/fundraising/laugh-a-thon. It takes the attention off of them by drawing the cameras to your worthy cause...and besides, they're story is actually getting a bit old.
The worst you can do is let them persist unchecked. It's not about stopping them or convincing them that they're wrong or trying to show others the errors of the cult's ways. It's purely about taking some good away from the fact that they chose to show up and to make a mockery of their despicable cause.
That is true, but let me ask you this......
What about that guy who holds that sign down by the Boston Garden with that scene of hell and all the people that are going down there. Everyone ignores him don't they? We ignore him because he is crazy, just like these people are. They don't believe in god and they don't beleive in anything they talk about.
I guess the crazy hell guy isn't going away either, but I really think these people would go away sooner if they are ignored rather than publicizing all the good that comes out of protesting against them.
Then again, if more good comes out of it then maybe the counter actions are beneficial.
The "church" is really known
The "church" is really known for being a family of lawyers that formed a "church" as a tax dodge. They go around the country trying to instigate hostile reaction against them and then sue. As lawyers they don't pay and legal fees and if they win in court the money doesn't get taxed as a "church". Pretty much the ultimate insult to the legal system, tax code, and common decency.
Any links on this? I would
Any links on this? I would love to know more!
Didn't the daughter handle the SCOTUS case?
I think the patriarch was a lawyer but he was disbarred years ago. I think at least two of the next generation are lawyers though. I'm not sure how they generate their income, it could be just through legitimate practice of law (god help us there are people who would hire them). I know there's not much to the "church" outside of the family, maybe 18 people with around 12 of them being spawn or spawn-in-law of the old man. I would imagine they live in a church/family compound and they're not paying taxes and can keep their costs down quite a bit that way.
I wish Kansas University could/would revoke his degrees somehow. That's my favorite college basketball team and it pains me whenever I see that awful old man wearing jayhawk gear.
Cross-posting my response to the Op-Ed
I can understand the intent of Ms. Diamond's opinion. In a perfect world everyone would hear the call to ignore this group and isolate opinions like this until they die on the vine. Unfortunately, that idealized world doesn't exist.
You aren't going to keep people from commuting down South St on a Friday morning. This is one of the reasons they chose a weekday and not a weekend to protest outside of Brandeis. They will have a built-in audience one way or another.
I also disagree that the solution in any case is isolation of their message. Isolation of their message only serves to condone it. If anyone is unfortunately miserable enough to buy into their message, then when viewed on its face with a lack of opposition it will come out as clarion rather than insipid.
Increasingly on the political stage, we've seen the result of attempted "ignore-to-marginalize" campaigns against the provably false accusations and opinions of a limited group of liars and spin-pushers. The result is that they embolden their base to accept the lies in the absence of presentation of the overwhelming truths out there. The lies then reverberate and the end result by many is their acceptance as facts. When it then becomes expedient to expel those myths, they're hardened in the minds of the willing rather than exposed as they should have been in the beginning.
There will always be a certain element that will wholeheartedly accept whatever lie fits the ill-conceived notions that they already hold dear. No amount of the truth will shake that. But we live in an age where to ignore is to tacitly accept as valid, or worse as fact, the opinions of the ignored. The correct response to such despicable opinions is to address them.
I believe either or both of two possible responses are justified to address the lunacy of this group. One is to use their appearance as a means to raise money for a cause that opposes their views, turning their efforts against their interests (e.g. a fundraiser for the defense of gay soldiers in the military). The other is outright mockery and ridicule to frame their protest as a joke that we're all privy to, essentially making them no different or better than a "lolcat" (e.g. Westboro vs ComicCon 2010).
I think we both agree that letting these people control the narrative is what they want. However, since we can not truly isolate their message completely, the only answer is to fight their brand of depravity with goodness and good humor.