Shame on WBC: Hate Is the Worst 4-Letter Word

When a trusted Riptide reader emailed me this detestable flyer (below) to post, I did not hesitate even though I deplore everything the flyer stands for: hate and prejudice. I believe that sunlight is the best antiseptic for hate speech. I believe in letting evil speak for itself, and in letting our readers see the real face of intolerance that unfortunately is still very much alive in this country. If you don't believe me, just look at recent election returns outside the Bay Area. So when several other Riptide readers asked me why I posted this flyer, I told them that we are a news medium like any other, and that we have a duty to report the news, good and bad, and let our readers be the judge. And I think my headline on this post says pretty clearly how I feel about Westboro Baptist Church and its ministry of fear.

JOHN MAYBURY

EDITOR & PUBLISHER

Comments

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

Bringing this back to WBC and tying the two themes together, wouldn't it be nice if WBC did the Christian thing and reached out to those on the streets?

[Melinda Zarrett]

John, Thanks for the invitation to set up a separate discussion thread. I, for one, am ready to move on. As to WBC, I sincerely hope and believe that we're all in agreement on how truly deplorable their efforts are!

[Melinda Zarrett]

John, my apologies for steering the commentary off topic! I didn't realize my comment in response to one aspect of your post would generate so much discussion.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: HI, Melinda, no problem. It is a great discussion topic, so I thank you, Bruce, Dan, et al. for the dialog. If you like, I can start a new discussion thread on homelessness. Otherwise, let's agree to wrap this up pretty soon and get back to WBC--or not. We may be beating a dead horse here.)

[Melinda Zarrett]

Bruce, I reiterate that there were already laws on the books to deal with those who would "interfere with a legal business, or people peacefully strolling down a sidewalk." "Druggies and alkies" are people in trouble. Perhaps a more charitable approach to fellow human beings in need of help would lead to the kind of care that would help some of them get off the streets. I think it's important for each of us to recognize that we all make poor choices sometimes, but most of us are fortunate enough to rise above the consequences of such choices. Not everyone has the mental and emotional fortitude, or support system, to do so. And Dan, so many of the homeless I've seen and talked to (those who are capable of carrying on a coherent conversation) are clearly victims of the Reagan policies you refer to.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

Dan, you can blame Ronald Reagan for what happened here in California, but the truth is it happened all over Canada and the USA. It may have been in part because of financial reasons, but there was also a theory that believed the majority of the people in these institutions would be better served if they were in society. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't resolve the current problem.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Can we get back on topic, please! This is supposed to be about WBC.)

[Dan B. Underhill]

Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, balanced the state budget by emptying those institutions that housed people with mental problems anywhere at all shy of what would be classified as criminally insane. These people don't vote, so no politician has taken the trouble to restore those institutions. What you are describing, Bruce and Melinda, are the natural fruits of such policies. The Tea Party persons, intent on helping us lose our very expensive humanity, may well help to bring the experiences you describe to the entire nation. I wonder how that will play in Peoria.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

If you work in these areas and you still think these degenerates should have the right to disrupt others, I am shocked.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have the right to interfere with a legal business, or people peacefully strolling down a sidewalk.

I believe there is a big difference between the legitimate homeless, and druggies and alkies who have little regard for others.

Are you saying that these "folks" have nowhere to sit/lie anywhere but in business doorways, or blocking a sidewalk? Wow, I didn't realize SF was so densely populated that it is down to sidewalks being the only place to be less than upright.

[Melinda Zarrett]

Here's an extremely cogent argument against sit/lie from a Haight Street resident and merchant:
http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/citizen/whats-wrong-sit-lie-campaigns-story/
He speaks so much more eloquently than I can about the issue, since I am just an infrequent visitor to the Haight and because he has done quite a bit of research on the subject.

I will respond directly to a few of the comments made in response to my original comment. Bruce, until recently I worked at Mission and 4th, where I had daily interactions with many homeless people. Prior to that I worked at 12th and Folsom, where an apparently homeless man smeared copious amounts of his own excrement on the door of the business I managed. While that was literally a vomit-inducing experience, it did not change my opinion that within the homeless population, as in any other segment of the population, there are good and bad individuals who deserve to be treated as such. To both Bruce and Steve, there were already laws on the books to deal with thugs and aggressive panhandlers. What sit/lie adds is a means for the police to harass folks whose only crime is not having anywhere to rest.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

Dan, I think you confuse the homeless by choice and those who are forced into it. Walk down Haight Street, or many places in SF (and other cities). These are not people who through misfortune do not have a place to live.

When you come across people who lie in their own filth, use doorways of closed businesses as their toilet or as a shooting gallery, I don't think you are seeing a better class of homeless.

[Manon Williams]

I am proud to say I attended the counter-protest. There were about 75 of us compared to 3 of them. I think that speaks volumes.

[Steve Sinai]

I don't believe the sit/lie law was directed at the genuinely homeless. Rather, it was directed at people like the street punks in the Haight whom Bruce mentioned, and the annoying (non-homeless) panhandlers you find downtown.

"Homeless" is a term that's over-applied to anyone who asks for money on the street or passes out drunk in the Tenderloin.

[Dan B. Underhill]

I think that many of us fail to realize exactly how little it would take to make any one of us homeless. Many states have laws that every public business have public restrooms open to all. I'm sure that there are waivers to such laws, but giving homeless people at least a chance to do their business in appropriate facilities would solve much of the problem. With the economic downturn, we are getting a better class of homeless people. They are often better-educated, harder-working, and desirous of a much more civilized lifestyle than they are presently experiencing. Many are holding down whatever job they were able to find. We live in a culture that generally tries to hide poverty from the more affluent but without putting too much money into it. My view is that such a goal is wrong, and that spending just a little more to integrate our society in a way that offers everyone a modicum of dignity will pay dividends in the end. Then it is appropriate to set the police to deal with whomever still chooses to pee in doorways.

[todd bray]

About 25 years ago there was a scheduled event by one of those helmet-headed TV preachers at the SF Civic Center. I was cycling by, observing the huge crowd of indignant, finger-pointing, so-called Christians, when a BSA 500 drove by and flung a chemical stink bomb into the crowd. Watching these self-appointed, misguided folks flee from the smell was entertaining, but the performance artist on the BSA was equally intolerant, but I sympathized with him.

This group of freaks, the WBC, are much worse. Seeing the network coverage of them reminds me of newsreel footage from Europe before WWII depicting riots against a certain religious group. If this is the future, raving self-deluded groups of hatemongers who are somehow allowed to hide behind the First Amendment, then we have to change something. It's one thing to speak your mind, as we do here. It's something altogether different to use the First Amendment against other people.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

I have, or had, passion for the homeless. But when I worked in SF, the early-morning stench in some doorways was stomach-turning. The fact that this ordinance sprung from the Haight is ironic, but these are not a bunch of peace and love kids, they are alkies and druggies, many with aggressive dogs.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind them sitting or lying down in your doorway, Melinda. Or is it just other people who should be bothered?

[Melinda Zarrett]

While this is, indeed, hateful and ugly, I'm afraid you don't have to look outside the Bay Area for election returns that reflect intolerance - e.g., the Sit/Lie ordinance that passed in SF.

[Bruce Hotchkiss]

I'd love for them to come and picket my house.

People like this should be in a hospital for the criminally insane, at the very least.

[Steve Sinai]

They seem to thrive off this kind of publicity. I'd not post or mention anything about the WBC.

[Kathy Jana]

Hmm. I wondered who was doing all the picketing at the school about gay marriage! Seems like a long way to go from Kansas. Maybe someone should tell them they're not in Kansas anymore.