By using religion as a weapon, Reverend Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church embody the antithesis of the Humanist value of human dignity. Ironically, a recent jury verdict in Maryland may now turn him into a symbol for another important Humanist value: freedom of expression.

Rev. Phelps, a virulently anti-gay Calvinist minister from Kansas, has been expressing his religious view, that “God Hates Fags”, at funerals of gay people since 1988. Because angering gay people and their supporters failed to provide as much publicity or animosity as he would have liked, more recently he has extended his hostility to the entire United States, on the basis that not only does God Hate Fags, he takes it out on countries that don’t share his enmity. To this end he has begun picketing funerals of U.S. soldiers, with slogans such as “God Bless IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices)”, thus ensuring his apparent goal of inciting universal hatred against his mission! While his tactics are unorthodox, Rev. Phelps’ theology is part of the American mainstream. Like many conservative evangelical Christians, he believes that homosexuality is an abomination, and that those who practice it are subject to the fury of the Lord. Other wellknown American ministers have preached that America’s tolerance for sodomy has opened us to the wrath of God, such as Pat Robertson, one of America’s most influential and wealthiest evangelists. Robertson predicted that Disney World’s decision to recognize Gay Days would “bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” Further, “If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all suffer for it.”

Phelps’ deliberately provocative tactics have infuriated millions of Americans who support his cause, a cause which is abhorrent to Humanists worldwide. In many European countries, Phelps’ hate speech would be outlawed. To protect the relatives of slain service-men, several states have passed laws prohibiting protests within a certain distance of a funeral. Because they limit on the manner, and not the content, of the protest, these laws are constitutional.

Recently a Maryland jury awarded almost $11 million to the family of a slain U.S. soldier after Phelps and associates picketed his funeral and denigrated him on their website. When Westboro appeals, as it will, the case will raise the issue of whether the first amendment guarantee of free speech and freedom of religion extends to religious hate speech in this sensitive context. This legal question will pit two conflicting Humanist values against each other: freedom of expression versus human dignity.

While Humanists stand for everything that Phelps decries, and decry everything that Phelps stands for, we also value freedom of speech, for intrinsic and strategic reasons.

Our intrinsic values respect human rights and freedom of expression, placing confidence in the ability of human beings to use their own rational capacity to determine our own beliefs, after having heard all sides.

Strategically, as an ideological minority, we must defend our own right to espouse views which many see as outrageous as Phelps’ are to us. And it is not possible to defend our own right to free speech, without defending that of our ideological opponents.

Both sides in this controversy have recognized their common interest in the free speech issue: “The same First Amendment that protects the rights of homosexual activists to picket in pursuit of special laws should also protect the rights of Westboro Baptist Church to stand peacefully on a sidewalk and preach their views.” (Shirley Phelps-Roper)

“We understand the importance of the First Amendment and free speech, because we’re the first ones to have freedom of speech taken away. Therefore, we acknowledge that Phelps has a right to picket and express his opinion. However, we think that the way he chooses to share his opinions is inflammatory and hateful.” Cathy Renna, communications director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

The jury verdict included substantial punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This means words that are outrageous, and deliberately intended to cause emotional distress to the person who hears them. For free speech advocates, the difficulty is in the word “outrageous,” because it is a subjective term that can be used against speech which is controversial, including advocating gay rights or atheism. In legal terms, the U.S. Constitution prohibits content-based limitations on speech, because they intrinsically carry the potential to be used to censor unpopular views, such as, in some times and places, Humanism.

This case forces the court, and all of us, to choose between two competing values: opposition to bigotry, and supporting free expression.

Gritting my teeth and holding my nose, I choose liberty, which means defending the rights of someone who advocates my annihilation, and whom I know would not do the same for me.

I invite readers to ponder this dilemma and tell me how you resolve it.

Rene Rosechild is a Humanist lawyer based in the US.