If this is a teachable moment, what’s the lesson?

A Michigan professor of journalism thinks the Westboro Baptist Church is important enough to warrant a lot of class time. He has previously had members of the crackpot group speak to his class, ostensibly to teach them about “the breadth of First Amendment protections.” (At that lecture, Shirley Phelps-Roper called Obama an “antichrist” and said “all Catholics are complicit in the sexual abuse perpetrated by some priests.”)
I think it’s a good thing for students to learn about the “breadth” of the First Amendment, but couldn’t such a lesson be just as easily (and much more cheaply) imparted by showing, say, a video of Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois? Bringing a high-profile group of crackpots like the Phelpses into a classroom is not only expensive because of the security needed, but it tends to give the group the media exposure they crave. Moreover, I worry that unless the professor is presenting the full picture and context, some students might tend to associate the Phelpses and the Westboro Baptist Church with religious conservatism, and even the Tea Party movement.
While I have no way of knowing what this professor says in his classes, I certainly hope that the students have at least been informed that Fred Phelps’ long background as a Democrat, and that his group is not representative of conservatism, or the Tea Party. Nor is it representative of conventional religious conservatism. (I guess there are a few exceptions like the Rushdoony cretins and a few crackpot web sites which call for the death penalty for homosexuals, but I don’t think that such outrageous views constitute religious conservatism in the normal sense. Nor do they constitute the sort of extreme religious conservatism with which I so vehemently disagree — notwithstanding the SPLC’s recent attempt to link the two.)
In his most recent analysis of the Westboro Baptist Church, the professor seems genuinely baffled over why they would protest at Elizabeth Edwards’ funeral:

“Their hang-ups are primarily gays and Catholics, Jews, people in the military, and I don’t know that Elizabeth Edwards has any connection to any of those groups,” said Timothy Boudreau, an associate professor of journalism at CMU.
The group could, he said, be seeking attention from the picketing.

Really? Do you think so?
I never would have suspected such a thing!
I mean, they are saying with such obvious sincerity and religious conviction that Elizabeth Edwards is in hell for the sin of coveting:

On the Westboro Baptist website, a press release states Edwards coveted things she did not have and is now in hell.
“When (the Edwardses) were visited from the Most High God with the death of their 16-year-old son, they did not humble themselves before His mighty hand,” according to the statement. “They reared up in rage, decided they would show God who is boss, and meddled in matters of the womb, resulting in 2 more children – now motherless.”

Boudreau says he has trouble “following the logic of their actions” but also says that they are shaping the contours of the Constitution:

“I have a tough time following the logic of their actions,” Boudreau said. “When (Phelps-Roper) was here, she kept saying to me and to her audience, ‘Connect the dots, follow the bouncing ball,’ as if they knew what they were doing should be perfectly obvious and logical.”
Boudreau said the students seemed outraged and bemused by and curious of Phelps-Roper. While the vast majority of students disagreed with nearly everything the church members had to say, he said, they were interested in hearing it.
While the group has caused national controversy — including a lawsuit that brought them to the U.S. Supreme Court — Boudreau said they are worth paying attention to, even if people do not agree with them.
“Love them or hate them, they are people who test the limits of the First Amendment, and they argued before the Supreme Court in October about their right to protest at these funerals,” he said. “They are shaping the contours of the Constitution.”

Look, these assholes have the right to say anything they want, short of directly inciting people to commit crimes. No contours need to be shaped, nor are they being shaped.
The only logic they follow is that they will do what it takes to get publicity — including accepting an invitation from a gay organization so that they could represent the opposing “side” of the marriage debate. Right. Reminds me of another historic teaching moment. Back in 1996, California left-wing activists presented David Duke as a spokesman in favor of Prop 209 (the California Civil Rights Initiative), and naturally Duke was delighted to oblige. The university president said it was educational:

Later, Dr. Wilson said to me, “This debate about the debate is what I call ‘a teaching moment.’ I think the students will learn a lot about free speech.”
Gov. Pete Wilson emphatically disagreed. He insisted – as did Ward Connerly – that bringing Duke was a setup to discredit Proposition 209. Meanwhile, opponents of 209 were just as furious, predicting Duke would arouse the kinds of racial prejudices that might militate against Proposition 209.
Dr. Wilson remained calm and firm. “You know,” she told me, “there is a 22-year-old black student who says he wants Duke to come because `I’ve never heard a white racist out loud.’ ”

Never heard a white racist out loud? No one would say that today, because racism now means disagreeing with the president’s economic policies while Republican. Well, times change, but false flag dynamics remain.
If the Phelps family “church” offers a teaching moment, I hope the journalism students are getting the full picture.
I’d say that God hates false flags, except what do I know about what God hates? Besides, where it comes to false flags, I sin with “pride.”