http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/oral-sex-jesus-statue-photo_n_5805174.html?ir=UK

Teen May Get 2 Years For Pic Of Fake Oral Sex With Jesus

Will this boy get punished for coming to Jesus?

A Pennsylvania teen may face up to two years behind bars for allegedly taking a photo of himself simulating oral sex with a statue of Jesus, Kron 4 reports.

The photo was taken in front of Love in the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, Pennsylvania, and posted on Facebook back in July.

On Tuesday, the 14-year-old — whose name has not been released by police — was charged with desecration of a venerated object, the Smoking Gun reported. If convicted, he could wind up spending two years in a juvenile jail, according to Kron 4.

“Desecration” is defined in Pennsyvlania as ““Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

Patheos.com notes that in Pennsylvania, a vandalism charge usually carries a maximum penalty of only one year in jail. JT Eberhard writes:

So let’s say an adult (subject to harsher penalties than minors) elected to spray paint “Jesus loves dicks” on the side of this boy’s school. That guy, at most (and the “at most” comes in to play for people with previous criminal records, which this boy doesn’t have), would serve a year in jail – and that’s assuming the cost of having the wall re-painted exceeds $150, otherwise the penalty would be less.
But a 14 year-old does something stupid that causes literally zero property damage and he could face two years in juvenile jail because it’s a “venerated object”? That’s insane. That’s really ludicrous.

The teen's original Facebook post garnered 124 Facebook comments, ranging from “Amazing” and “this is heaven” to “this is repulsive, even if you don’t believe you could at least have respect for those who do and those who ARE going to Heaven…you discusting [sic], disturbed, disrespectful little punk ass bitch.”

A spokesperson for Love in the Name of Christ told Raw Story that the ministry did not ask police to press charges.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the statue is located in a park. The statue sits in front of Love In the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, Pennsylvania.

Seems a bit ridiculous and excessive if you ask me.

Surely "free speech".

If the Church didn't press charges, why is he being arrested?

Well that's kind of silly.

Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh on one side, Philly on the other, and a whole lot of Mississippi in between.

Meanwhile in Canada, here's a dude having his way with the Pope. He didn't get in any trouble.

 Wilytank wrote:
Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh on one side, Philly on the other, and a whole lot of Mississippi in between.

Meanwhile in Canada, here's a dude having his way with the Pope. He didn't get in any trouble.

Spoiler:

That's because catholics are more forgiving now we have Francis as pope

Pennsatucky ain't havin' it.

“Desecration” is defined in Pennsyvlania as ““Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

Unless there's actual criminal damage, this looks like a law merely against offending people 'sensibilities', as good as a blasphemy law.

What they did was disrespectful, but shouldn't be criminal.

Googled it and saw that Everett is near Bedford. Yeah, that's Pennsyltucky.

Shouldn't Jesus be the one getting arrested? I'm pretty sure blowing a 14-year old is illegal for adults.

While I do think people should respect religious people and their symbols, and deliberately offending them should be punished, I think he should be given a relatively small fine at best. Two years in juvenile prison? America is insane...
(though to be fair, in Russia they could have sent him to a re-education camp)

It was disrespectful, but he shouldn't be facing any jail time for something that did literally no damage, much less something as ridiculous as two years.

Well you can say tresspassing. It on privite property and he for sure did not have permission to do this. Kind of like someone jumping your fence kicking your dog.

Free speech says he shouldn't be punished at all.

What he did was stupid and disrespectful, however God is big enough to rise above a silly teenage prank.

Exactly.

Another obviously unconstitutional law that a state will waste lots of money defending.

Dumb kid, dumber ruling. He did something childish. He doesn't deserve jail time for it.

I think i would of preferred him getting sent to mandatory bible camp.

Bore him to submission

Wait... so he did no actual, measurable, physical damage to it? Why is this an issue then?

 Fafnir wrote:
Wait... so he did no actual, measurable, physical damage to it? Why is this an issue then?

Someone got their fee-fees hurt.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
While I do think people should respect religious people and their symbols, and deliberately offending them should be punished

Why?

I should have thought that the deities of the various religions would arrange suitable punishment after death. That should satisfy any true believer of a religion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I should have thought that the deities of the various religions would arrange suitable punishment after death. That should satisfy any true believer of a religion.

Shhhhh, don't get them thinking that. If you do then they'll switch to the death penalty so the perpetrator will face the deities punishment more quickly...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I should have thought that the deities of the various religions would arrange suitable punishment after death. That should satisfy any true believer of a religion.

Shhhhh, don't get them thinking that. If you do then they'll switch to the death penalty so the perpetrator will face the deities punishment more quickly...

That'd be an interesting turn of events...

Has anyone even stopped to ask Jesus how he feels about this?

 Chongara wrote:
Has anyone even stopped to ask Jesus how he feels about this?

He'd probably invite everyone over to have something to eat, have a laugh about it, and move on with life.


But to answer your question, no I haven't actually asked him.

Bloody fool.

I agree, whoever decided to try prosecute is indeed a bloody fool.

I think we're all in agreement. Well done, chaps!

This must be a first...

 purplefood wrote:
This must be a first...

Quick! Someone lock and sticky this thread. It will serve as a nice trophy on the mantelpiece of Dakka OT.

 Hordini wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
This must be a first...

Quick! Someone lock and sticky this thread. It will serve as a nice trophy on the mantelpiece of Dakka OT.

Well I disagree.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
This must be a first...

Quick! Someone lock and sticky this thread. It will serve as a nice trophy on the mantelpiece of Dakka OT.

Well I disagree.

No you don't!

Oh damn it! It's ruined now, isn't it? Nevermind, call it off! I guess we'll have to keep this thread going then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do religion threads always have to turn into arguments like this?

 Hordini wrote:
Oh damn it! It's ruined now, isn't it? Nevermind, call it off! I guess we'll have to keep this thread going then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do religion threads always have to turn into arguments like this?

Rules of Hats Rule #3; Never expect civility in a thread about religion

I need a webpage where I can just put those up for easy reference

That's why this one would have made such a nice trophy! Before someone had to go and ruin it...

Hit him with a smaller trespassing charge. That way he still gets punished for being stupid (at least stupid enough to post it online) and everybody can move on.

Agree with D. Trespassing okay...the rest of it is a joke.

Fireraven wrote:
Well you can say tresspassing. It on privite property and he for sure did not have permission to do this. Kind of like someone jumping your fence kicking your dog.

Except it doesn't share the maliciousness or harm that animal cruelty has.

Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

feeder wrote:
Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

Confirmed. I live in Bedford, fifteen minutes away (and really no better in this respect). Hell, I just now realized that this was in Everett and I did a google Maps street view reference to the Love ITNOC location and can confirm that this photo was taken in front of the building. I haven't passed that way recently because the main bridge that leads there is undergoing repairs.

But having grown up in southern PA for most of my life, you'll understand me wanting to escape to Maryland to avoid the local radio. One of the stations I believe is in Everett, run by a Mormon, and hosts nothing but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like with their conservative patriotism/nationalism/facism hate mongering.

 Wilytank wrote:

feeder wrote:
Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

Confirmed. I live in Bedford, fifteen minutes away (and really no better in this respect). Hell, I just now realized that this was in Everett and I did a google Maps street view reference to the Love ITNOC location and can confirm that this photo was taken in front of the building. I haven't passed that way recently because the main bridge that leads there is undergoing repairs.

But having grown up in southern PA for most of my life, you'll understand me wanting to escape to Maryland to avoid the local radio. One of the stations I believe is in Everett, run by a Mormon, and hosts nothing but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like with their conservative patriotism/nationalism/facism hate mongering.

Not a lot of genre-defining Swedish death metal on the local radio eh?

 Wilytank wrote:

feeder wrote:
Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

Confirmed. I live in Bedford, fifteen minutes away (and really no better in this respect). Hell, I just now realized that this was in Everett and I did a google Maps street view reference to the Love ITNOC location and can confirm that this photo was taken in front of the building. I haven't passed that way recently because the main bridge that leads there is undergoing repairs.

But having grown up in southern PA for most of my life, you'll understand me wanting to escape to Maryland to avoid the local radio. One of the stations I believe is in Everett, run by a Mormon, and hosts nothing but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like with their conservative patriotism/nationalism/facism hate mongering.

Not paragons of respect and understanding like the kid in the picture, eh?

Relapse wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

feeder wrote:
Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

Confirmed. I live in Bedford, fifteen minutes away (and really no better in this respect). Hell, I just now realized that this was in Everett and I did a google Maps street view reference to the Love ITNOC location and can confirm that this photo was taken in front of the building. I haven't passed that way recently because the main bridge that leads there is undergoing repairs.

But having grown up in southern PA for most of my life, you'll understand me wanting to escape to Maryland to avoid the local radio. One of the stations I believe is in Everett, run by a Mormon, and hosts nothing but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like with their conservative patriotism/nationalism/facism hate mongering.

Not paragons of respect and understanding like the kid in the picture, eh?

Heh. I think this kid would fall under the trailer trash category. We've got a fair share of that around here too.

Relapse wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

feeder wrote:
Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

Confirmed. I live in Bedford, fifteen minutes away (and really no better in this respect). Hell, I just now realized that this was in Everett and I did a google Maps street view reference to the Love ITNOC location and can confirm that this photo was taken in front of the building. I haven't passed that way recently because the main bridge that leads there is undergoing repairs.

But having grown up in southern PA for most of my life, you'll understand me wanting to escape to Maryland to avoid the local radio. One of the stations I believe is in Everett, run by a Mormon, and hosts nothing but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like with their conservative patriotism/nationalism/facism hate mongering.

Not paragons of respect and understanding like the kid in the picture, eh?

He's a fourteen year old kid. Come on, man. Turn the other cheek. That this is even a thing that is happening and important grown ups are going along with it is asinine.

feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

feeder wrote:
Well, Everett sounds like an unbearably stick-up-bum place to live. Poor kid.

Confirmed. I live in Bedford, fifteen minutes away (and really no better in this respect). Hell, I just now realized that this was in Everett and I did a google Maps street view reference to the Love ITNOC location and can confirm that this photo was taken in front of the building. I haven't passed that way recently because the main bridge that leads there is undergoing repairs.

But having grown up in southern PA for most of my life, you'll understand me wanting to escape to Maryland to avoid the local radio. One of the stations I believe is in Everett, run by a Mormon, and hosts nothing but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like with their conservative patriotism/nationalism/facism hate mongering.

Not paragons of respect and understanding like the kid in the picture, eh?

He's a fourteen year old kid. Come on, man. Turn the other cheek. That this is even a thing that is happening and important grown ups are going along with it is asinine.

Guess he's going to learn the hard way not to be a dick. I doubt he'll get any two year sentence, the act doesn't merit something that severe,, but what he did was way over the line.

Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

I think the point people are trying to get across here is that he should not be sentenced to anything. The church didn't press charges.

So, I think people will still have an issue with the two weeks community service.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

I think the point people are trying to get across here is that he should not be sentenced to anything. The church didn't press charges.

So, I think people will still have an issue with the two weeks community service.

The fact that he is charged with anything at all is ludicrous. If one thinks this kid deserves any kind of punishment at all then one really cannot affect outrage over Sharia Law.

feeder wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

I think the point people are trying to get across here is that he should not be sentenced to anything. The church didn't press charges.

So, I think people will still have an issue with the two weeks community service.

The fact that he is charged with anything at all is ludicrous. If one thinks this kid deserves any kind of punishment at all then one really cannot affect outrage over Sharia Law.

Trespassing I could see, if the church wanted to press for it. Although I'm not sure that you could be charged with it unless the area is posted as such or after you have been asked to leave.

I don't think that religious property should get any more special protection than any other property. Saying that some property is more special than other property (aka you can teabag this statue but not that statue) is just silly and seems to be counter to the 1st.

To be sent to prison for playing leapfrog with your best friend is just stupid, I don't care how special that lawn is.

I would agree that trespassing would be a stretch given most churches are essentially open to anyone who wants to get in touch with Jesus.

And the law in question does sound dangerously close to an anti blasphemy law, which I would suggest is unconstitutional.

feeder wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

I think the point people are trying to get across here is that he should not be sentenced to anything. The church didn't press charges.

So, I think people will still have an issue with the two weeks community service.

The fact that he is charged with anything at all is ludicrous. If one thinks this kid deserves any kind of punishment at all then one really cannot affect outrage over Sharia Law.

That's a huge stretch, docha think? This kid would most likely be getting executed or scourged if he did something comparably idiotic against Muslim beliefs in a country where Sharia law held sway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I would agree that trespassing would be a stretch given most churches are essentially open to anyone who wants to get in touch with Jesus.

And the law in question does sound dangerously close to an anti blasphemy law, which I would suggest is unconstitutional.

He clearly wasn't there for purposes of religion but desecration and disrespect to people's beliefs.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

Buddy Christ agrees…

Hope he doesn't go to jail just gets beat up ....alot and badly, I can volunteer for it do something disrespectful for no reason other then to annoy then you deserve what you get. Little .... parents should be charged for raising a jack arse tho.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hope he doesn't go to jail just gets beat up ....alot and badly, I can volunteer for it do something disrespectful for no reason other then to annoy then you deserve what you get. Little .... parents should be charged for raising a jack arse tho.

Ya know, it's post's like this that make me think I'm glad I'm not Christian… Surely if you live by the book you should just, ya know, forgive him? Sure, he was an ass and deserves to rapped on the knuckles. But a beating?

It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

Who did he harm exactly?

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

To be beaten because you are disrespectful would mean beating a lot of people dude. Not just kids, but Adults too…Other words that could be used to describe Disrespectful are: discourteous, rude, impolite, uncivil, unmannerly, ill-mannered, bad-mannered, ungracious, irreverent, inconsiderate; insolent, impudent, impertinent, cheeky, flippant, insubordinate, churlish; contemptuous, disdainful, derisive, scornful, disparaging, insulting, and abusive… Now I don't know about you, but I come across almost all of these on my drive to work in the morning!

However, where I am with you is that the parents could have done a better job in bringing the young man up...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

Who did he harm exactly?

To a lot of people, for various reasons, a church is their safe place. Actions like the disrespect this kid shows can cause some degree of anguish to them. For me the fact that a kid does this means he needs to be disciplined, because he obviously hasn't learned respect for people at home.
I'm halfway suspecting he did this on a dare.

Relapse wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

Who did he harm exactly?

To a lot of people, for various reasons, a church is their safe place. Actions like the disrespect this kid shows can cause some degree of anguish to them. For me the fact that a kid does this means he needs to be disciplined, because he obviously hasn't learned respect for people at home.
I'm halfway suspecting he did this on a dare.

You mean the fact that the church itself never pressed charges, and thus didn't consider this an act worth "Beating" someone over, seriously.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

To be beaten because you are disrespectful would mean beating a lot of people dude. Not just kids, but Adults too…Other words that could be used to describe Disrespectful are: discourteous, rude, impolite, uncivil, unmannerly, ill-mannered, bad-mannered, ungracious, irreverent, inconsiderate; insolent, impudent, impertinent, cheeky, flippant, insubordinate, churlish; contemptuous, disdainful, derisive, scornful, disparaging, insulting, and abusive… Now I don't know about you, but I come across almost all of these on my drive to work in the morning!

However, where I am with you is that the parents could have done a better job in bringing the young man up...

I agree with you on the point the kid shouldn't be beaten up, or even locked up, but when people do stupid things, sometimes the consequences of their idiocy are out of their hands.
Sometimes, however, the parents can be doing the best job they know how and the kid still turns out bad. We really don't know what this kid's home situation is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

Who did he harm exactly?

To a lot of people, for various reasons, a church is their safe place. Actions like the disrespect this kid shows can cause some degree of anguish to them. For me the fact that a kid does this means he needs to be disciplined, because he obviously hasn't learned respect for people at home.
I'm halfway suspecting he did this on a dare.

You mean the fact that the church itself never pressed charges, and thus didn't consider this an act worth "Beating" someone over, seriously.

I never said the kid should be beaten. Trying to make someone else's comment mine shows ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something to consider here also, is this kid a well known trouble maker? Perhaps this was the proverbial straw and they will try to get get the maximum sentence they can out of this situation for that reason.

Relapse wrote:
He clearly wasn't there for purposes of religion but desecration and disrespect to people's beliefs.

The reason that a person is on a property has little relationship as to whether the generally assumed permissions apply to access. The activities he engaged in caused no physical damage to the property, nor did he (from what we know) cause any harm to anyone while he was there, nor impact on anyone's beliefs or worship.

I could, for instance, go to a NASCAR track on a non-race day, pose next to a statue of some very well regarded driver killed while driving round a big oval track, and take pictures of myself in disrespectful poses with said statue. It would be, in some people's eyes a "desecration" of the driver, NASCAR and all that driving around an oval track stands for (I am given to understand that NASCAR is a religion for some ).

If the statue is placed out on an area of private land which is open to the public, I would not expect to be open to charges of trespass.

Regards disrespecting the statue... I shrug in your general direction. No damage was done to the statue, nor anyone who worships at the church or to jesus-es generally. As to desecration - again, no damage was done to the statue or anyone who worships there. In some people's eyes I, as a non believer, would desecrate a "holy" place just by visiting it -should I therefore be arrested because I visited an old church to ha e a look at the old carvings and architecture?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
He clearly wasn't there for purposes of religion but desecration and disrespect to people's beliefs.

The reason that a person is on a property has little relationship as to whether the generally assumed permissions apply to access. The activities he engaged in caused no physical damage to the property, nor did he (from what we know) cause any harm to anyone while he was there, nor impact on anyone's beliefs or worship.

I could, for instance, go to a NASCAR track on a non-race day, pose next to a statue of some very well regarded driver killed while driving round a big oval track, and take pictures of myself in disrespectful poses with said statue. It would be, in some people's eyes a "desecration" of the driver, NASCAR and all that driving around an oval track stands for (I am given to understand that NASCAR is a religion for some ).

If the statue is placed out on an area of private land which is open to the public, I would not expect to be open to charges of trespass.

Regards disrespecting the statue... I shrug in your general direction. No damage was done to the statue, nor anyone who worships at the church or to jesus-es generally. As to desecration - again, no damage was done to the statue or anyone who worships there. In some people's eyes I, as a non believer, would desecrate a "holy" place just by visiting it -should I therefore be arrested because I visited an old church to ha e a look at the old carvings and architecture?

I expected nothing else from you. Shrug returned.

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
He clearly wasn't there for purposes of religion but desecration and disrespect to people's beliefs.

The reason that a person is on a property has little relationship as to whether the generally assumed permissions apply to access. The activities he engaged in caused no physical damage to the property, nor did he (from what we know) cause any harm to anyone while he was there, nor impact on anyone's beliefs or worship.

I could, for instance, go to a NASCAR track on a non-race day, pose next to a statue of some very well regarded driver killed while driving round a big oval track, and take pictures of myself in disrespectful poses with said statue. It would be, in some people's eyes a "desecration" of the driver, NASCAR and all that driving around an oval track stands for (I am given to understand that NASCAR is a religion for some ).

If the statue is placed out on an area of private land which is open to the public, I would not expect to be open to charges of trespass.

Regards disrespecting the statue... I shrug in your general direction. No damage was done to the statue, nor anyone who worships at the church or to jesus-es generally. As to desecration - again, no damage was done to the statue or anyone who worships there. In some people's eyes I, as a non believer, would desecrate a "holy" place just by visiting it -should I therefore be arrested because I visited an old church to ha e a look at the old carvings and architecture?

I expected nothing else from you. Shrug returned.

Cool. I will look out with interest when the same attitudes are applied to a religious person or group and they are up on the same charges for disrespecting nonreligious views or a secular institution and desecrating it by bringing religious icons, reciting religious words, or generally expounding religious dogma etc upon their property.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
He clearly wasn't there for purposes of religion but desecration and disrespect to people's beliefs.

The reason that a person is on a property has little relationship as to whether the generally assumed permissions apply to access. The activities he engaged in caused no physical damage to the property, nor did he (from what we know) cause any harm to anyone while he was there, nor impact on anyone's beliefs or worship.

I could, for instance, go to a NASCAR track on a non-race day, pose next to a statue of some very well regarded driver killed while driving round a big oval track, and take pictures of myself in disrespectful poses with said statue. It would be, in some people's eyes a "desecration" of the driver, NASCAR and all that driving around an oval track stands for (I am given to understand that NASCAR is a religion for some ).

If the statue is placed out on an area of private land which is open to the public, I would not expect to be open to charges of trespass.

Regards disrespecting the statue... I shrug in your general direction. No damage was done to the statue, nor anyone who worships at the church or to jesus-es generally. As to desecration - again, no damage was done to the statue or anyone who worships there. In some people's eyes I, as a non believer, would desecrate a "holy" place just by visiting it -should I therefore be arrested because I visited an old church to ha e a look at the old carvings and architecture?

I expected nothing else from you. Shrug returned.

Cool. I will look out with interest when the same attitudes are applied to a religious person or group and they are up on the same charges for disrespecting nonreligious views or a secular institution and desecrating it by bringing religious icons, reciting religious words, or generally expounding religious dogma etc upon their property.

I would have the same feelings if a religious group barged onto someone's property and disrespected their beliefs.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hope he doesn't go to jail just gets beat up ....alot and badly, I can volunteer for it do something disrespectful for no reason other then to annoy then you deserve what you get. Little .... parents should be charged for raising a jack arse tho.

Ya know, it's post's like this that make me think I'm glad I'm not Christian… Surely if you live by the book you should just, ya know, forgive him? Sure, he was an ass and deserves to rapped on the knuckles. But a beating?

What does that post have to do with being Christian?

 Hordini wrote:

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hope he doesn't go to jail just gets beat up ....alot and badly, I can volunteer for it do something disrespectful for no reason other then to annoy then you deserve what you get. Little .... parents should be charged for raising a jack arse tho.

Ya know, it's post's like this that make me think I'm glad I'm not Christian… Surely if you live by the book you should just, ya know, forgive him? Sure, he was an ass and deserves to rapped on the knuckles. But a beating?

What does that post have to do with being Christian?

Maybe I misread or placed meaning where I shouldn't have, but from what I read and the possible tone that it was written in suggests it was written by someone who has taken personal offense at what the kid did. Me, I could care less if it was Jesus, The Pope or Buddha.
What he did was wrong, yes, but everyone getting their panties in a knot and writing over the top posts like " ill give up my time to beat snot out of the little ****" are not really called for....

When Jesus said "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them" I do not think this is what he meant.

Do I get bingo?

Anyway, 2 years is a bit harsh. What he did was crass and certainly improper, but at least he didn't destroy or defile it.
He could have, for example, not simulated the act.

 whembly wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Wait... so he did no actual, measurable, physical damage to it? Why is this an issue then?

Someone got their fee-fees hurt.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
He clearly wasn't there for purposes of religion but desecration and disrespect to people's beliefs.

The reason that a person is on a property has little relationship as to whether the generally assumed permissions apply to access. The activities he engaged in caused no physical damage to the property, nor did he (from what we know) cause any harm to anyone while he was there, nor impact on anyone's beliefs or worship.

so you would be ok with extreme anti abortion people screaming at people going into clinincs?


how about a simpler scenario,

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?


not saying the guy should get jail time at all, just that there is something wrong with using that train of logic to justify what is and isnt interference in activities.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
When Jesus said "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them" I do not think this is what he meant.

Do I get bingo?

Anyway, 2 years is a bit harsh. What he did was crass and certainly improper, but at least he didn't destroy or defile it.
He could have, for example, not simulated the act.

As I said earlier, i doubt he'll get anything like that for what he did, but if he is well known for being a delinquent and has some kind of record for being in trouble, then they might throw whatever penalties they can at him.

easysauce wrote:so you would be ok with extreme anti abortion people screaming at people going into clinincs?

I would imagine that would come under causing a public disturbance, harassment and possibly other laws.

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?

Again, probably covered under laws such as causing a public disturbance. Nor are either of the two examples you gave even remotely like the story in the OP.

A closer example would be extreme anti abortion people staging a scene outside of a closed abortion clinic with Jesus standing over a blood drenched baby shaking his head, then packing up, going home and uploading the picture to the internet.

not saying the guy should get jail time at all, just that there is something wrong with using that train of logic to justify what is and isnt interference in activities.

And there is something wrong with equating taking a picture (however disrespectful) and harassing an actual person or group of people by waving your junk in their faces or heckling them and their place of work (which again are already covered under the law).

 SilverMK2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:so you would be ok with extreme anti abortion people screaming at people going into clinincs?

I would imagine that would come under causing a public disturbance, harassment and possibly other laws.

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?

Again, probably covered under laws such as causing a public disturbance. Nor are either of the two examples you gave even remotely like the story in the OP.

A closer example would be extreme anti abortion people staging a scene outside of a closed abortion clinic with Jesus standing over a blood drenched baby shaking his head, then packing up, going home and uploading the picture to the internet.

not saying the guy should get jail time at all, just that there is something wrong with using that train of logic to justify what is and isnt interference in activities.

And there is something wrong with equating taking a picture (however disrespectful) and harassing an actual person or group of people by waving your junk in their faces or heckling them and their place of work (which again are already covered under the law).

So in your world, people murdering babies should be free from harassment, but it's alright to harass Christians by coming to their place of worship and behaving in an outrageously disrespectful manner.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:so you would be ok with extreme anti abortion people screaming at people going into clinincs?

I would imagine that would come under causing a public disturbance, harassment and possibly other laws.

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?

Again, probably covered under laws such as causing a public disturbance. Nor are either of the two examples you gave even remotely like the story in the OP.

A closer example would be extreme anti abortion people staging a scene outside of a closed abortion clinic with Jesus standing over a blood drenched baby shaking his head, then packing up, going home and uploading the picture to the internet.

not saying the guy should get jail time at all, just that there is something wrong with using that train of logic to justify what is and isnt interference in activities.

And there is something wrong with equating taking a picture (however disrespectful) and harassing an actual person or group of people by waving your junk in their faces or heckling them and their place of work (which again are already covered under the law).

right,

so waving your junk at your denny's omlette, despite one person not wanting it = bad and illegal

waving your junk at jesus, despite the congregation not wanting it = totally acceptable and legally ok


You are entitled to your opinion, but you lack true clarity if you dont see the problem with your line of thinking.

Relapse wrote:
So in your world, people murdering babies should be free from harassment, but it's alright to harass Christians by coming to their place of worship and behaving in an outrageously disrespectful manner.

In the world of law, abortion is not murder. Even if it were, harassment is still harassment, again, under the law.

In the specific case of the OP, I personally would not state the actions undertaken as harassment (nor apparently does the law since he is not being charged with harassment). The actions undertaken have exactly the same impact on the people who worship there as the picture of Jesus and a bloody baby in front of the closed abortion clinic; effectively zero. Indeed, as the church has not pressed charges, apparently they do not feel the actions undertaken constitute more than a foolish boyhood prank either... I guess some people really do turn the other cheek!

 easysauce wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:so you would be ok with extreme anti abortion people screaming at people going into clinincs?

I would imagine that would come under causing a public disturbance, harassment and possibly other laws.

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?

Again, probably covered under laws such as causing a public disturbance. Nor are either of the two examples you gave even remotely like the story in the OP.

A closer example would be extreme anti abortion people staging a scene outside of a closed abortion clinic with Jesus standing over a blood drenched baby shaking his head, then packing up, going home and uploading the picture to the internet.

not saying the guy should get jail time at all, just that there is something wrong with using that train of logic to justify what is and isnt interference in activities.

And there is something wrong with equating taking a picture (however disrespectful) and harassing an actual person or group of people by waving your junk in their faces or heckling them and their place of work (which again are already covered under the law).

right,

so waving your junk at your denny's omlette, despite one person not wanting it = bad and illegal

waving your junk at jesus, despite the congregation not wanting it = totally acceptable and legally ok


You are entitled to your opinion, but you lack true clarity if you dont see the problem with your line of thinking.

Good point, though you could better compare it with seeing a picture on the internet of a guy simulating sex with your breakfast while you were away using the restroom. I imagine people would not be very pleased to find out their breakfast had been humped by someone.
This is same, except it is offensive to billions of people all over the world.
While 2 years in prison would be ridiculous, the guy does deserve some form of punishment.

 easysauce wrote:
How about a simpler scenario,

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?

I think you would be justified to yell at the guy, and the staff from Denny's would be very justified from forcing you to leave the restaurant. And that is where it should stop. In the example from OP, though, the guy was already out of the Church's property, so… yeah, nothing to do here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
This is same, except it is offensive to billions of people all over the world.

So, freedom of expression actually means freedom of saying things that are not offensive? Also, billions of people all over the world? Hyperbole much?

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:so you would be ok with extreme anti abortion people screaming at people going into clinincs?

I would imagine that would come under causing a public disturbance, harassment and possibly other laws.

you are at dennys, I start thrusting at (NOT TOUCHING) your breakfast with my junk in a speedo,

despite not damaging you or your breakfast, am I interfering with it at all?

Again, probably covered under laws such as causing a public disturbance. Nor are either of the two examples you gave even remotely like the story in the OP.

A closer example would be extreme anti abortion people staging a scene outside of a closed abortion clinic with Jesus standing over a blood drenched baby shaking his head, then packing up, going home and uploading the picture to the internet.

not saying the guy should get jail time at all, just that there is something wrong with using that train of logic to justify what is and isnt interference in activities.

And there is something wrong with equating taking a picture (however disrespectful) and harassing an actual person or group of people by waving your junk in their faces or heckling them and their place of work (which again are already covered under the law).

So in your world, people murdering babies should be free from harassment, but it's alright to harass Christians by coming to their place of worship and behaving in an outrageously disrespectful manner.

Well your christian .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
This is same, except it is offensive to billions of people all over the world.

So, freedom of expression actually means freedom of saying things that are not offensive? Also, billions of people all over the world? Hyperbole much?

Hyperbole? Maybe. Christianity has 2.2 billion adherents. Assuming only half of them find this offensive, that leaves still over a billion offended people. That is of course assuming all 2.2 billion christians would see this picture, which they won't, so you are free to regard it as hyperbole if you want. Nonetheless, the point was that it is offensive to a huge lot of people.
And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

 easysauce wrote:
right,

so waving your junk at your denny's omlette, despite one person not wanting it = bad and illegal

waving your junk at jesus, despite the congregation not wanting it = totally acceptable and legally ok

You are entitled to your opinion, but you lack true clarity if you dont see the problem with your line of thinking.

Again, you fail to distinguish a simulated act carried out against an inanimate object and an act carried out on an actual person or group of people. You additionally fail to see how the law treats different types of behaviour. In the case of the OP, the desecration law is, IMO, a law which is a) unconstitutional (in the case of america), and b) unnescesarily vague, broad and open to abuse.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Assuming only half of them find this offensive

Which I think is ridiculously over-estimating.
Then again, our Christians have been tamed .

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Uh? I am pretty sure it does. How else would Marilyn Manson make his money .

People do this sort of stuff all the time, and by people I mean adults and teens...

Example A
Example B
Example C
Example D

(ok, yes, Smosh. But hey still evidence)

So basically just because it's a statue of Jesus it's against some Law? What's the bet that if a similar thing happened to a statue of an important figure of another religion the Law wouldn't give a single

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

And there is plenty of case-law to support it too.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

And there is plenty of case-law to support it too.

And if all else fails there's always South Park

Pretty much broadcasted evidence that freedom of expression does mean you can be disrespectful and deliberately offend people.

Relapse wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, he hasn't been sentenced yet so we all ought to take a deep breath and save that rage for when it actually comes down. All y'all freaking out about this are gonna look mighty silly when he gets sentenced to two weeks of community service.

I think the point people are trying to get across here is that he should not be sentenced to anything. The church didn't press charges.

So, I think people will still have an issue with the two weeks community service.

The fact that he is charged with anything at all is ludicrous. If one thinks this kid deserves any kind of punishment at all then one really cannot affect outrage over Sharia Law.

That's a huge stretch, docha think? This kid would most likely be getting executed or scourged if he did something comparably idiotic against Muslim beliefs in a country where Sharia law held sway.

Not a stretch at all. The fact that punishment would be more severe (probably much more, as you suggest), isn't the point. The point being, that religious-based law is enforced by the state. If this kid had been photographed pretending to get dome from a statue of Ben Franklin, would he be looking at jail time?

This kid should have all charges dropped and the prosecution who brought the investigation forwards issue a public apology for wasting taxpayer's money. Then they be ordered to watch Footloose with a periodic reminder that they are John Lithgow's character.

Him being charged for this at all is ridiculous. Christians are welcome to call him disrespectful ass all they like but putting someone in jail because they took a photo that hurt your feelings is insane.

Also people who are comparing this to verbal harassment to an actual person are being disingenuous.

Also whoever said he should be beaten up for this and you would be happy to do it. You may be a sociopath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hope he doesn't go to jail just gets beat up ....alot and badly, I can volunteer for it do something disrespectful for no reason other then to annoy then you deserve what you get. Little .... parents should be charged for raising a jack arse tho.

Think about that for a second. You think it's ok to beat up a 14 year old child for taking a photo he thought would be funny. Wanting to beat up a child is far more of a jack ass behaviour than taking a disrespectful photo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
It has nothing to do with being christian I just believe if you do something that disrespects someone for no reason other then to upset someone then you deserve what you get. It would be one thing to do something disrespectful if it meant no harm but to do harm to others for no reason other then being a arse..... Ya get what you get and a beaten early on will teach him a good lesson be a ass at your own risk.

Who did he harm exactly?

To a lot of people, for various reasons, a church is their safe place. Actions like the disrespect this kid shows can cause some degree of anguish to them. For me the fact that a kid does this means he needs to be disciplined, because he obviously hasn't learned respect for people at home.
I'm halfway suspecting he did this on a dare.

He's a kid. Kids do stupid gak sometimes often without even realising it. Wanting to jail someone for doing something stupid that might upset a few people but hurts no one is disgusting. Wanting to beat them up is equally as bad and quite frankly disgusting.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
right,

so waving your junk at your denny's omlette, despite one person not wanting it = bad and illegal

waving your junk at jesus, despite the congregation not wanting it = totally acceptable and legally ok

You are entitled to your opinion, but you lack true clarity if you dont see the problem with your line of thinking.

Again, you fail to distinguish a simulated act carried out against an inanimate object and an act carried out on an actual person or group of people. You additionally fail to see how the law treats different types of behaviour. In the case of the OP, the desecration law is, IMO, a law which is a) unconstitutional (in the case of america), and b) unnescesarily vague, broad and open to abuse.

To you, as an athiest, it's an inanimate object. To many Christians, it represents a redeemer who suffered more pain than can be imagined in order to save them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again, people, this might be the latest in a series of things this kid has gotten busted for.

Love thy neighbour.

Relapse wrote:

Once again, people, this might be the latest in a series of things this kid has gotten busted for.

Considering you have absolutely no evidence to back that up, I'd say that you should stop trying to use that to deflect attention away from a ridiculous and apparently unconstitutional law.

Relapse wrote:

Once again, people, this might be the latest in a series of things this kid has gotten busted for.

Or he might have been a paragon of the community helping old lady's across the street tend volunteering at the homeless shelter. I can make stuff up with no evidence too.

Relapse wrote:
To you, as an athiest, it's an inanimate object.

No matter who you are, it IS an inanimate object. An unfeeling, undamaged object.

=Relapse 614804 7200489 null]To many Christians, it represents a redeemer who suffered more pain than can be imagined in order to save them.

Good for them. To him (and many others) it represents nothing- it's just a statue. Tell me why, in law, one representation should be protected and the other not?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Once again, people, this might be the latest in a series of things this kid has gotten busted for.

Considering you have absolutely no evidence to back that up, I'd say that you should stop trying to use that to deflect attention away from a ridiculous and apparently unconstitutional law.

Consider also that you have no evidence otherwise and I used the word "MIGHT", to offer a "POSSIBLE" explanation as to why a two year sentence was even mentioned as punishsment for this kid's idiocy. Chances are he didn't just wake up that day, after a lifetime of good deeds and figure that would be a fine picture to take and put on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To you, as an athiest, it's an inanimate object.

No matter who you are, it IS an inanimate object. An unfeeling, undamaged object.

=Relapse 614804 7200489 null]To many Christians, it represents a redeemer who suffered more pain than can be imagined in order to save them.

Good for them. To him (and many others) it represents nothing- it's just a statue. Tell me why, in law, one representation should be protected and the other not?

I agree it's an inanimate object. I was talking about what the statue represents to both sides of the fence. But since you expect that only your opinion matters, there's not much point in discussing it further with you.

So this is the case that will decide whether or not statues are people.

Think I'll jot down some names from this thread and save them for the next time Pastor Muttonchops decides to burn a Koran.


EDIT: Terry Jones, that's the guy I'm thinking of.

Not accusing anyone of anything yet, but due to this thread, there's a lot of potential for... fun the next time that happens.

 RatBot wrote:
Think I'll jot down some names from this thread and save them for the next time Pastor Muttonchops decides to burn a Koran.


EDIT: Terry Jones, that's the guy I'm thinking of.

Not accusing anyone of anything yet, but due to this thread, there's a lot of potential for... fun the next time that happens.

I'll save you some trouble and say I think the man's ignorant for doing it.

Relapse wrote:

I agree it's an inanimate object. I was talking about what the statue represents to both sides of the fence. But since you expect that only your opinion matters, there's not much point in discussing it further with you.

I asked you to explain why one representation should be referenced- by law- over another. If you don't have an argument, I accept your concession.

I'd give him at least some community service for being dumb enough to post this on the internets.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
This is same, except it is offensive to billions of people all over the world.

So, freedom of expression actually means freedom of saying things that are not offensive? Also, billions of people all over the world? Hyperbole much?

Hyperbole? Maybe. Christianity has 2.2 billion adherents. Assuming only half of them find this offensive, that leaves still over a billion offended people. That is of course assuming all 2.2 billion christians would see this picture, which they won't, so you are free to regard it as hyperbole if you want. Nonetheless, the point was that it is offensive to a huge lot of people.
And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Unfortunately it does. In fact that is really the key point. Freedom of speech exists to allow citizens to make statements that other people want to suppress and that includes being deliberately offensive.

I completely agree that the behaviour in this case is stupid, juvenile, objectionable, and ultimately indefensible.

There's nothing unfortunate about it. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing.

I meant unfortunately for the argument of the previous poster to whom I was replying.

Yes, for his argument, it certainly is unfortunate.

To put my argument differently, I think the kid is an obnoxious little prick. He ought not to have done it.

It's quite obvious this was not a political or artistic statement, it was a moment of "Beavis & Butthead" idiocy. He should be punished by his parents.

The law ought not to be empowered to punish him because it isn't possible to distinguish between legitimate statements and moronic statements without allowing the law to start classifying whatever it dislikes as punishable.

I completely agree.

So this is like RAW vs RAI?

RAW: The object is undamaged thus no charges can really be pushed.
RAI: Morale damage, thus charges could be pushed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To put my argument differently, I think the kid is an obnoxious little prick. He ought not to have done it.

It's quite obvious this was not a political or artistic statement, it was a moment of "Beavis & Butthead" idiocy. He should be punished by his parents.

The law ought not to be empowered to punish him because it isn't possible to distinguish between legitimate statements and moronic statements without allowing the law to start classifying whatever it dislikes as punishable.

This.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Pretty much broadcasted evidence that freedom of expression does mean you can be disrespectful and deliberately offend people.

But that if your opponents are violent enough, then you will be censored by a spineless channel .

Relapse wrote:
To you, as an athiest, it's an inanimate object.

To any Christian with an at least half-working brain, it is an inanimate object too!

 RatBot wrote:
Think I'll jot down some names from this thread and save them for the next time Pastor Muttonchops decides to burn a Koran.


EDIT: Terry Jones, that's the guy I'm thinking of.

Not accusing anyone of anything yet, but due to this thread, there's a lot of potential for... fun the next time that happens.

Hope that will not bring the wrath of the moderation unto me for mentioning it, but I did burn a Quran myself and the video is on YouTube, I can send you link if you want to .

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I completely agree that the behaviour in this case is stupid, juvenile, objectionable, and ultimately indefensible.

I think it is unsophisticated, but apart from that? If he finds this funny, it is perfectly fine. See the long list of of people doing the same from Matt.Kingsley. And no, the fact this statue represent a religious figure does not give it super-powers to be immune to mockery.

 n0t_u wrote:
So this is like RAW vs RAI?

RAW: The object is undamaged thus no charges can really be pushed.
RAI: Morale damage, thus charges could be pushed.

The RAW in this case mean that he can be charged with desecration, as someone, somewhere, some when could get their feelings hurt because someone did something and they found out somehow. It would be interesting to see how often this law is enforced and the types of cases which use it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be interesting to see how often this law is enforced and the types of cases which use it.

I'm guessing almost never. Hopefully it will be found unconstitutional, because it is.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
So this is like RAW vs RAI?

RAW: The object is undamaged thus no charges can really be pushed.
RAI: Morale damage, thus charges could be pushed.

The RAW in this case mean that he can be charged with desecration, as someone, somewhere, some when could get their feelings hurt because someone did something and they found out somehow. It would be interesting to see how often this law is enforced and the types of cases which use it.

I would imagine that actual desecration cases would focus on stuff like actually dealing physical damage to stuff that actually symbolizes that religion: spray-painting Jesus, damaging a cross, slashing a Torah, spraying a swastika on a synagoge, burning a Koran, etc. I wouldn't think that "mocking people by doing something without actually damaging it" would (or should) be covered.

But then it comes back to "why is some physical stuff more special than other physical stuff" in the eyes of the law, and the question about trying to determine if having the government elevate religious items to a higher level constitutes an endorsement of religion. It seems like we should be able to cover actual desecration under existing hate-crime laws which focus on intent and not on what is actually damaged.

Spray-painting Jesus should be vandalism, just like spray painting my garden gnome. Burning someone else's Koran should be destruction of property, just like burning my book. Breaking into a church and trashing it should be breaking and entering, just like breaking into my house and trashing it. If someone did it specifically because they were targeting them for their religion then you charge a hate crime on top of the already existing non-religion based criminal charges.

It seems like doing that would take the focus of the law away from giving special status to certain items and shift it to the actual intent of the guy breaking the law. At least it seems that way to me, others might feel differently.

(I'm not saying that the kid commited a hate crime, just to clarify. Just talking about these kinds of laws in general.)

That would be how I would have the laws apply as well d-usa.

 d-usa wrote:
Burning someone else's Koran should be destruction of property, just like burning my book.

And if you are burning your own Quran, then it is perfectly fine .
(And, by the way, it is apparently the only acceptable way of getting rid of a Quran for some Muslims, because putting it in the trash would be sacrilegious…)

 SilverMK2 wrote:
That would be how I would have the laws apply as well d-usa.

So kids spray painting your Jesus statues in front of the church because they were roaming through the neighborhood tagging everything they can = vandalism.
Guy spray painting your Jesus because he hates Jesus and Christians and wants to cause you emotional pain by doing that = vandalism + hate crime bonus charge.

Not because the government says your Jesus statue is special and has super secret squirrel powers and is precious and needs to be protected, but because the government recognizes that you were singled out by someone because you are different than him.

It sounds good in my head, but I'm not sure everyone would agree

Similarly if someone was going down the street throwing rocks through windows and happened to throw a rock through the window of the director of a family planning clinic, that would be vandalism. If they got the address of the director and then firebombed his house because their buddy Jesus says that every sperm is sacred and therefore they have to go out and kill someone and possibly their family, that would be a hate crime.

 d-usa wrote:
Guy spray painting your Jesus because he hates Jesus and Christians and wants to cause you emotional pain by doing that = vandalism + hate crime bonus charge.

Let us be honest though, what are the chance of this happening? Very low.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Guy spray painting your Jesus because he hates Jesus and Christians and wants to cause you emotional pain by doing that = vandalism + hate crime bonus charge.

Let us be honest though, what are the chance of this happening? Very low.

While I haven't heard it particularly with Christian items, you do hear it occasionally with mosques and more frequently with synagogues.

I would also be interested to hear whether people feel desecration charges should be levelled at people who Photoshop church signs to say things disrespectful to religion?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Guy spray painting your Jesus because he hates Jesus and Christians and wants to cause you emotional pain by doing that = vandalism + hate crime bonus charge.

Let us be honest though, what are the chance of this happening? Very low.

It would be a pretty high bar to prove the additional hate crime charge (which I am perfectly fine with and which would prevent the "he just did it because he hates me" cases to be filed left and right), so I would think that most cases like that would just be plain old vandalism charges. And that would be just fine.

Despite all the comparisons made, no actual damage was done and offence taken is after the fact, via a photo. The boy didn't break into someone's house, he didn't vandalise anything, he didn't abuse an animal, he didn't harass and abuse anyone or intimidate anyone. So just forget your examples of people abusing those going to abortion clinics, kicking people's pets and damaging property.

Certain people should take a look at themselves, so much for a religion of kindness and turning the other cheek. Suggestions on how to punish a 14 year old for doing something rude to a statue when no one was around range from imprisonment to being badly beaten.

In the UK a few years ago a young man urinated on a war memorial when drunk, probably 18-19, an adult. An act that actually required some cleaning afterwards, unlike the 14 year old in this story. He ended up with hours of community service.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Despite all the comparisons made, no actual damage was done and offence taken is after the fact, via a photo. The boy didn't break into someone's house, he didn't vandalise anything, he didn't abuse an animal, he didn't harass and abuse anyone or intimidate anyone. So just forget your examples of people abusing those going to abortion clinics, kicking people's pets and damaging property.

Well, some people are talking about this particular case and some people are talking about the laws that are mentioned in this particular case.

I talked about this particular case when I mentioned that the worst charge I could actually see is trespassing, but that I also think that unless the property is fenced of marked it would be a hard case to make since areas like this are usually open to the public. In this particular case comparing a kid doing something disrespectful (to some) to abortion protestors and wondering if either might be trespassing is perfectly valid. It is also valid to point out that doing offensive stuff (protesting, shaming, posing) when you are not trespassing is legal.

I also talked about the laws that are mentioned in this particular case when I talked about damaging property and if laws that make some property more special than other property should exist. When talking about the laws talking about kicking pets and damaging property is perfectly valid.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
[While I haven't heard it particularly with Christian items, you do hear it occasionally with mosques and more frequently with synagogues.

And Mosque too, of course. But for Churches? I know some U.S. Christians love to victimize themselves (“The war of Christmas”, booh-hoo, cry me a river!) but really they are the dominant force in the U.S. and they do not get suffer from hate crime usually. More often Christianity is the religion of those performing hate crime there.

In the UK at least, trespass is mostly a civil matter. You have to refuse to leave when asked before it becomes an issue, and even then there has to be actual damage before damages can be pursued. Continual trespass can be dealt with via nuisance laws. You're not going to end up in court for trespass on one occasion unless you do something stupid like sneak into MoD property.

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much? Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
In the UK at least, trespass is mostly a civil matter. You have to refuse to leave when asked before it becomes an issue, and even then there has to be actual damage before damages can be pursued.

It's a criminal charge here regardles of damages I think.

But before you can be charged with it you have to either:

1) Be somewhere the public has access to and stay there after you were asked to leave.
2) Be somewhere that is posted with "no trespassing" signs.
3) Be in a place where it is obvious that it is not open to the public (if you had to jump a fence to be there, then you are probably trespassing).

I don't think any of these apply to the kid. If he goes back there now after it is clear that he is not welcome there it would probably stick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much?

Freedom.

We are free to speak out mind. Which means we don't get beat by cops for singing a song that our President doesn't like. People are free to be disrespect and offend religious people. Religious people are free to disrespect and offend non-religious people.

It's not because we like offending people. It's because we like a system that allows the government to repress free speech less than we like a system that lets people offend others.

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much? Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

It is not a question of protecting the right to offend, but about ensuring protections are applied evenly. One should not be able to shut down any negative comments by playing the "offensive" card. Traditionally religion has held a lot of protections above and beyond those enjoyed by other things (at least, if you were the right religion). Thankfully the law has, generally, moved to a more equal level of protection for all groups.

 Hordini wrote:
It was disrespectful, but he shouldn't be facing any jail time for something that did literally no damage, much less something as ridiculous as two years.

Completely agreed. This is just bananas

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.

Exactly.

Religious objects should have all the same protections that non-religious objects have.

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.

Exactly.

Religious objects should have all the same protections that non-religious objects have.

I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

So... How does one define whether something can join the exclusive level of protection enjoyed by religious items under your system? Does it need to have an action figure range and a TV show? And what about minor religious items that no one really cares about? Do they have to have a certain congregation before they get the big league protections, or does the mere association to religion automatically mean they are protected? And what about spiritual items which belong to groups which are not officially considered religions?

Far better just to treat everything the same under existing laws.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

There is such a law, that is why this 14-year-old is in threat of a two year prison sentence.

The problem with such a law is how to define desecration, religious, and objects.

For example to strict Protestants a statue like the one in the photo is a graven image and against the Bible. To Roman Catholics it is an object of religious veneration. To Jews, atheists, hindus, etc. it is has no meaning.

The statue itself suffered no harm. It is desecration only in the eyes of Roman Catholics, many of who would most likely count the act as a stupid prank rather than literal desecration.

Thus, the law that exists admits of numerous valid interpretations of the photo and the result in court will depend largely on who makes up the majority of the jury.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.

Exactly.

Religious objects should have all the same protections that non-religious objects have.

I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

If you physically damage something, you will be punished.
If you hurt the feelings of people, you won't be.

I am very religious. But my feelings about Jesus are not any more special under the law than the feelings of bronies.

I can burn my flag and I can burn my Bible and people can be offended, but that doesn't stop me from being able to do what I want with my property.
You can't burn my flag and you can't burn my Bible, because there are laws that stop you from being able to do what you want with my property.

Religious symbols and items are protected. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be. Current laws do a fine job. If the kids would have had his pants down and slapped the face of the statue he would have been arrested for indecent exposure. If he would have gathered a crowd of people that were pissed off and turned it into an angry mob he could have been arrested for creating a public disturbance or riot or something along that line. If he would have refused to stop doing that after he was asked to stop he could have been charged with trespassing. But dry-humping a statue in a public space while wearing clothes is not against the law.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.

Actually yeah, it totally does.

Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much? Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

You are calling free speech barbaric? Really?

No one has the right to not be offended.

Also do you really think this kid took the photo for the pure purpose of offending people. Or do you think he took a photo he thought was funny and didn't consider or care it would upset people.

Finally if people being offended is a punishable offence maybe Christians should be punished for saying pretty much everyone who isn't a Christian will be tourtured for eternity upon death. Pretty sure that's offensive to a lot of people. As is the belief of some Christians that you cannot be moral without god. You know what though that doesn't mean they should be punished for it even if though they often spend time in public preaching about how everyone who isn't them is going to hell. They have the right to that free speech no matter how offensive it is. Much like atheists have the right to say there is no god no matter who that upsets.

 d-usa wrote:
Freedom.

You mixed the order. It is supposed to be Blue, then White, then Red.

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

I think it should be allowed. Just like you should be able to desecrate political symbols too.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

So… items that carry extreme emotional value to large groups of people should warrant extra protection, irregardless of whether or not they are religious, from what you said. Hence no specific protection for religious symbols.
Now, I am one of the users that are pretty interested in what/how/when you define as great emotional value, or a large group.

I am a member of the Church of Dakka, in fact I'm a Dakka Clergy Member.

You fethers are desecrating my OT!!!

 d-usa wrote:
I am a member of the Church of Dakka, in fact I'm a Dakka Clergy Member.

You fethers are desecrating my OT!!!

*dry humps your monitor and uploads it to dakka discussions*

Bwahaha!

Silver is now undergoing a four year stretch in the county gaol.

It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.

What's funny is that I do believe that may have happened at some point. I remember reading an article about some statue getting lucky.
Not sure if it was dry humping though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What's funny is that I do believe that may have happened at some point. I remember reading an article about some statue getting lucky.
Not sure if it was dry humping though.

five minutes in MS paint later.


Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka.

If you wish to share any such image you need to host it elsewhere and link to it.
Reds8n

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Silver is now undergoing a four year stretch in the county gaol.

The extra two years were for simulating a simulated act :(

oh, right. sorry.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Silver is now undergoing a four year stretch in the county gaol.

The extra two years were for simulating a simulated act :(

Wouldn't that be 4 years? I mean, if simulating an act is 2 years, then simulating an simulated act would be simulation squared, making it 4 years.
Because math.

anyways, back on topic.
reading through this thread, I realize that the only people who care about this are the christians. no gak right? but think about it, if someone did this to, say, a statue of Buddha, the worst case scenario for that person would be a small fine, but because this statue is of "christian importance" the guy is in some serious trouble.

This article discusses the case and the law behind it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/12/desecration-of-venerated-objects/

The law seems pretty vague. Like, it has to be worshipped by a "substantial segment" of the public. What is the legal definition of "substantial"?

Seems like it would be difficult to apply fairly. Kid should have been let off with a caution.

 Da Boss wrote:
Seems like it would be difficult to apply fairly. Kid should have been let off with a caution.

Personally I don't think the kid should have gained any attention from the authorities other than an initial investigation into any complaint that wads made. Mostly because I don't think the desecration law should exist

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Freedom.

You mixed the order. It is supposed to be Blue, then White, then Red.

Clearly wou mean: White, blue, red? СВОБОДА!!!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

I think it should be allowed. Just like you should be able to desecrate political symbols too.

Why?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

So… items that carry extreme emotional value to large groups of people should warrant extra protection, irregardless of whether or not they are religious, from what you said. Hence no specific protection for religious symbols.
Now, I am one of the users that are pretty interested in what/how/when you define as great emotional value, or a large group.

Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.

This is extra humorous as, if Super Size Me is accurate, more children would recognise Ronald McDonald than Jesus.

Ronald McDonald is probably venerated more in the US than Jesus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.

This is extra humorous as, if Super Size Me is accurate, more children would recognise Ronald McDonald than Jesus.

Ronald McDonald is probably venerated more in the US than Jesus.

These forums really are not good for my views on America

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Buy why should religion get special protections under the law?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Clearly wou mean: White, blue, red? СВОБОДА!!!

No, Esclavage!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why?

“Why not” should be the question you ask yourself before making something illegal, not the other way around.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law.

No, they are not self-explanatory. You need to quantify the number of people, and the amount of emotional value, for the law to apply. And this is far from obvious.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols

This works only with a list of state-approved religions, which is an open door to abuse. Keep supernatural believes out of my legal system, please.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Here in the UK what this kid did would not qualify as a crime. It shouldn't qualify as a crime.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.

This is extra humorous as, if Super Size Me is accurate, more children would recognise Ronald McDonald than Jesus.

Ronald McDonald is probably venerated more in the US than Jesus.

These forums really are not good for my views on America

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Look at Miranda v. Arizona. He was obviously guilty, and did a horrible thing, but was defended, notfor himslef, but to protect innocents. This kid did something extremely distasteful, but we will defend him so our own rights cannot be curtailed. The right to free expression is the most important right you an have. If China (or Russia) had free expression they woud not be the totalitarian, horrid places they are today. As soon as you limit free-expression, you bring censorship destruction of literature and art, and a close-minded, stagnant society.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Here in the UK what this kid did would not qualify as a crime. It shouldn't qualify as a crime.

In Russia, if he had been an adult he could gave gotten up to three years of hard labour in Siberia.
Not sure what punishment a kid would get.
In the Netherlands he could have gotten community service, altough it is more likely nobody would have sued him.

In France we would give him the Légion d'Honneur .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
In France we would give him the Légion d'Honneur .

Bon Dieu, l'homme ! C'est juste aller au vent plus les gens ....

Google translate fails. Big time.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Google translate fails. Big time.

It wasn't translate. It was my failed attempt at French. I scraped my GCSE and...... never mind....

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
right,

so waving your junk at your denny's omlette, despite one person not wanting it = bad and illegal

waving your junk at jesus, despite the congregation not wanting it = totally acceptable and legally ok

You are entitled to your opinion, but you lack true clarity if you dont see the problem with your line of thinking.

Again, you fail to distinguish a simulated act carried out against an inanimate object and an act carried out on an actual person or group of people. You additionally fail to see how the law treats different types of behaviour. In the case of the OP, the desecration law is, IMO, a law which is a) unconstitutional (in the case of america), and b) unnescesarily vague, broad and open to abuse.

wait wait wait.....


so let me get this straight,


I use TWO examples of inanimate objects

one with the inanimate object being a jesus statue,

the other with the inanimate object being a dennys omelet.

both are inanimate objects, unless dennys omelets have become sentient since the last time i was there...



And you accuse me of not being able to distinguish basic facts?

makes sense~!

carry on with your "its ok to do it to christians, but not to people who like eating eggs, eggs are sacred and cannot be humped at, jesus is fair game cause, look at how he dresses. All robes and no hat.. he is asking for it!"

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
It wasn't translate. It was my failed attempt at French. I scraped my GCSE and...... never mind....

Wait, what was that thing about “wind plus people”?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
It wasn't translate. It was my failed attempt at French. I scraped my GCSE and...... never mind....

Wait, what was that thing about “wind plus people”?

I read it as: 'Good Lord, man. It is only going to wind more people'

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Here in the UK what this kid did would not qualify as a crime. It shouldn't qualify as a crime.

In Russia, if he had been an adult he could gave gotten up to three years of hard labour in Siberia.
Not sure what punishment a kid would get.
In the Netherlands he could have gotten community service, altough it is more likely nobody would have sued him.

Yeah, nothing'd have happened in the Netherlands.

We're not a theocracy, after all.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

No one should be facing jail time because of someone's emotions.

 easysauce wrote:

I use TWO examples of inanimate objects

one with the inanimate object being a jesus statue,

I am pretty sure your first example was people hurling abuse at people using a service.

the other with the inanimate object being a dennys omelet.

both are inanimate objects, unless dennys omelets have become sentient since the last time i was there...



And you accuse me of not being able to distinguish basic facts?

I was under the impression in this example that you were spedo thrusting my breakfast while it was o the table in front of me, hence you essentially performing the act in my face. Going back and reading your post again there is no specific mention of when the thrusting takes place; if this was performed out of sight, with the food then brought to me by the waiting staff (who had not witnessed the act; I would imagine if they have then they would have grounds to eject you from the premises and possibly call the police as there is no telling what some nutcase in speedos has been doing in the kitchen of a restaurant, added to which you would have been trespassing in an area not open to the public) then there is essentially no way that I could have any knowledge of the act you comitted. If you then posted a picture of you committing the act online then I imagine that the restaurant would probably try to get you on charges of trespassing and possibly on some count of food hygiene. I, as the consumer of the food would have no way to connect your act with the food that I ate other than perhaps noting that the act was performed at the branch I visited (if that was identifiable from the image and or resulting news story if any.

So, either way you look at it, the example does not match the story in the op.

carry on with your "its ok to do it to christians, but not to people who like eating eggs, eggs are sacred and cannot be humped at, jesus is fair game cause, look at how he dresses. All robes and no hat.. he is asking for it!"

Strawmen make for good reading if nothing else.

If the person in the op had caused any physical damage to the statue, or performed the act in front of the Sunday congregation (for example), there would be grounds to charge him with other offences (just as there would be in your egg example).

As it is, disrespect is not illegal, nor is being offensive.

That's exactly the culture in Russia, it's what happened to Pussy Riot. Make some noise in a church? Two years in some freezing Siberian gulag.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
It wasn't translate. It was my failed attempt at French. I scraped my GCSE and...... never mind....

Wait, what was that thing about “wind plus people”?

I read it as: 'Good Lord, man. It is only going to wind more people'

Even translated, I have no idea what this means .

thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Here in the UK what this kid did would not qualify as a crime. It shouldn't qualify as a crime.

In Russia, if he had been an adult he could gave gotten up to three years of hard labour in Siberia.
Not sure what punishment a kid would get.
In the Netherlands he could have gotten community service, altough it is more likely nobody would have sued him.

Yeah, nothing'd have happened in the Netherlands.

We're not a theocracy, after all.

But we still have laws protecting religious symbols.
But indeed, in the Netherlands, nobody would have cared if someone humped a Jesus statue. Dutch people are pretty relaxed about stuff like that.

Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

No one should be facing jail time because of someone's emotions.

Jail time? I think that should depend on the severity of the offense. So what punishment do you think it would warrant?

Howard A Treesong wrote:That's exactly the culture in Russia, it's what happened to Pussy Riot. Make some noise in a church? Two years in some freezing Siberian gulag.

It is pretty effective

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:That's exactly the culture in Russia, it's what happened to Pussy Riot. Make some noise in a church? Two years in some freezing Siberian gulag.

It is pretty effective

Effective at what?

Telling people not to say or do anything the government have decided they don't want.

You may laugh about it being 'pretty effective', but your age brings naivety about the sort of government, and rulers like Putin, you are so proud of. You have the fortune to have not grown up in the old Soviet Union, something people like Putin yearn for. When you cheer on people being sentenced to years hard labor for just upsetting the wrong people you forget where this behaviour will ultimately lead. I hope you remember this should you ever criticise the government and the secret police break in and take you down the local station for a beating.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

No one should be facing jail time because of someone's emotions.

Jail time? I think that should depend on the severity of the offense. So what punishment do you think it would warrant?

In this case? None, other than what his parents decide to do.

It doesn't have anything to do with the severity of the offense. Nobody has the right to not be offended, and most especially, nobody gets to send someone else to jail because that person offended them.

If this had been a statue of Allah, a lot of people here would have a wildly different opinion.

EDIT: That said, there aren't statues of Allah. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is one.

 LoneLictor wrote:
If this had been a statue of Allah, a lot of people here would have a wildly different opinion.

EDIT: That said, there aren't statues of Allah. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is one.

No, they wouldn't.


Oh look, I can make unsubstantiated comments too, funny how that works.

 LoneLictor wrote:
If this had been a statue of Allah, a lot of people here would have a wildly different opinion.

EDIT: That said, there aren't statues of Allah. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is one.

There aren't too many statues of Jesus either... Though there are quite a few of some white guy in robes... He doesn't even have a hat!

That one was just for you easysauce

The hypothetical situation that the kid wouldn't be prosecuted under a law that didn't exist, for not "abusing" a statue that doesn't exist.

It seems to me that this thread has outlived its natural life.

 LoneLictor wrote:
If this had been a statue of Allah, a lot of people here would have a wildly different opinion.

EDIT: That said, there aren't statues of Allah. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is one.

Since Allah is the Arabic word for God, you could make the argument that there are in fact statues of Allah.

If you meant to say Mohammed, I'm pretty sure there are statues of him. There are at least paintings, I'm sure of that.

Just out of curiousity I checked public lewdness laws to see if the kid's act would be prosecuted under those, but what he did does not seem to apply. They don't carry near the possible penalty, either.

 Hordini wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
If this had been a statue of Allah, a lot of people here would have a wildly different opinion.

EDIT: That said, there aren't statues of Allah. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is one.

Since Allah is the Arabic word for God, you could make the argument that there are in fact statues of Allah.

If you meant to say Mohammed, I'm pretty sure there are statues of him. There are at least paintings, I'm sure of that.

I actually don't think there are statues of Mohammad; if there are, they're probably in Indonesia or some other place very far from the "center" of Islam, as images of Muhammad are at least strongly discouraged. In fact, in very strictly traditional Islamic interpretations, any depiction of a human being is forbidden, but that's very obviously almost never been strictly followed; cf. all medieval Islamic artwork ever. The farther you get from the Middle East proper, though, very interesting interpretations of Islam crop up (though Iran, being Shi'a, also has some big differences; while there aren't pictures of Muhammad, people do create portraits of his successors according to the Shi'a tradition and I imagine someone humping a bumper sticker of, say, Husayn bin Ali would cause people in Iran to lose their fething minds). There are paintings of Mohammad, too, that is correct, and I can't imagine people reacting very well to a deliberate disrespectful act toward it. But, I'd argue, in the US, such an act would be protected speech, just like what this kid did (regardless of the fact that the kid's a bit of an asshat for doing it; being an asshat isn't a crime).

I'm aware that images of Mohammed are currently discouraged, which is why many people seem to be surprised that it hasn't always been that way. I wasn't completely sure about the statues, but I've seen a bunch of medieval Islamic artworks depicting Mohammed.

It's funny that Indonesia is considered far from "center" of Islam, when they have the biggest Muslim population. I know what you mean though.

There's a sculpture of Mohammed on the Supreme Court building in DC, but that probably doesn't really count.

Yeah, Indonesia is pretty interesting. I don't know a lot about it, but I do think that Muhammad's birthday is, like, an official holidaythere, which is in and of itself not something that occurs in traditional Islam.

Now that I think of it, I bet the mere creation of a statue of Muhammad, regardless of the beliefs and intentions of the sculptor, would probably drive quite a few very traditional and/or "hardliner" Muslims over the edge.

But we're getting a little off topic.

Point is, kid's obviously not the brightest crayon in the crayon box, but that's not a crime.


EDIT: Hmm, I may be wrong about Muhammad's Birthday, guess it is widely celebrated. Huh, learn something new every day, etc etc.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Telling people not to say or do anything the government have decided they don't want.

You may laugh about it being 'pretty effective', but your age brings naivety about the sort of government, and rulers like Putin, you are so proud of. You have the fortune to have not grown up in the old Soviet Union, something people like Putin yearn for. When you cheer on people being sentenced to years hard labor for just upsetting the wrong people you forget where this behaviour will ultimately lead. I hope you remember this should you ever criticise the government and the secret police break in and take you down the local station for a beating.

I was not the only one cheering. Many people in Russia were cheering for it, including a great many of those adults that grew up in the Soviet Union. You say I had the fortune to not grow up in the Soviet Union, but if the Soviet Union was worse than present-day Russia, why do so many people want it back?
As a side note: I normally do not approve of supression of anti-government protesters, but Pussy Riot is an exception to that. They are just a bunch of obnoxious rebels that do not offer any constructive criticism at all. The only thing they do is offending people by shouting filthy and obscene things that don't even qualify as a protest against the government, only as empty insults. Besides, surely they could have 'protested' outside of the church. Churches are not a place for anti-government protests, and jumping on the altar while shouting obscenities only gets people to hate you.

Rose-tinted glasses. Golden age fallacy. Nostalgia. A combination of those things, probably.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I was not the only one cheering.

Lots of people doing something silly doesn't make it not silly, it just means it is popular and silly. You also find people tend to migrate toward those with similar views which can create the illusion of more people believing/wanting a thing than is accurate.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
if the Soviet Union was worse than present-day Russia, why do so many people want it back?

There are a lot of possible reasons, very few if any are good. Just a few off the top of my head:

1) People are stupid
2) Golden Age Fallacy
3) Makes them feel important
4) Create illusion of order

 LoneLictor wrote:
If this had been a statue of Allah, a lot of people here would have a wildly different opinion.

EDIT: That said, there aren't statues of Allah. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is one.

Damn right. I would asked for police protection for him along the Légion d'honneur!
That is what you meant, right?

 RatBot wrote:
I actually don't think there are statues of Mohammad;

Well, I do not think this applies to Iran. I mean, not only they have representations of Ali all around (which frankly look like Jesus, on those representations, but also Marjane Satrapi seemed genuinely surprise that her depiction of Allah in Persopolis cause that much commotion in Tunisia. If they have no problem with representations of Ali and of Allah, I would not assume they have with Muhammad.

 Hordini wrote:
It's funny that Indonesia is considered far from "center" of Islam, when they have the biggest Muslim population.

What does that even mean?
Do they have the highest proportion of Muslim among their population? Or do they just happen to be the most populated Muslim country, which is totally unremarkable. I mean, I have seen that used as an argument that the average Muslim was tolerant unlike our general caricature of an intolerant Arab. That is missing the whole persecution of Ahmadiyya and intolerance of Atheists for the “tolerance” part, and missing the fact that if you put together all Arab muslims, they still outnumber Indonesian by a fair margin.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's funny that Indonesia is considered far from "center" of Islam, when they have the biggest Muslim population.

What does that even mean?
Do they have the highest proportion of Muslim among their population? Or do they just happen to be the most populated Muslim country, which is totally unremarkable. I mean, I have seen that used as an argument that the average Muslim was tolerant unlike our general caricature of an intolerant Arab. That is missing the whole persecution of Ahmadiyya and intolerance of Atheists for the “tolerance” part, and missing the fact that if you put together all Arab muslims, they still outnumber Indonesian by a fair margin.

It's the most populous Muslim-majority nation. I'm not sure why anyone would consider that totally unremarkable, unless you simply think examining the makeup of populations is totally unremarkable in general.

And you are reading way, way too much into a single sentence.

I am not reading all that in your sentence, I am just mentioning what other, completely different people have said. And I am mentioning it because I had several people with no link between them say the same thing, so I think it is a common misconception, not because I think it is a misconception that you personally hold .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not reading all that in your sentence, I am just mentioning what other, completely different people have said. And I am mentioning it because I had several people with no link between them say the same thing, so I think it is a common misconception, not because I think it is a misconception that you personally hold .

Okay, fair enough.

 Hordini wrote:
It was disrespectful, but he shouldn't be facing any jail time for something that did literally no damage, much less something as ridiculous as two years.

1. He should be charged and convicted of tresspassing, and damage to property (if damage occurred). I don't see "veneration" being a constitutional law. I'd note this law propbably also covers historic things. Are there historic things there? Whats with calling it Pennsyltucky? Why are you blaming Kentucky? They have enough problems without false accusations...

2. His Dad needs to beat his with a switch though*


*Unless his dad is in or contemplating being in the NFL, in which case that is less advised.

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats with calling it Pennsyltucky? Why are you blaming Kentucky?

Pennsyltucky is a perjorative term commonly used in states near Pennsylvania to refer to the part of Pennsylvania that is very rural and very conservative, and usually not terribly affluent. Basically, where Pennsylvania's rednecks live. It's a portmanteu of Pennsylvania (obviosuly) and Kentucky,presumably because Kentucky is supposed to be the most red-necked state in the union, or something. I would've picked Alabama, personally, but I guess Pennsylbama didn't go over as well with the focus groups during marketting research.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It was disrespectful, but he shouldn't be facing any jail time for something that did literally no damage, much less something as ridiculous as two years.

1. He should be charged and convicted of tresspassing, and damage to property (if damage occurred). I don't see "veneration" being a constitutional law. I'd note this law propbably also covers historic things. Are there historic things there? Whats with calling it Pennsyltucky? Why are you blaming Kentucky? They have enough problems without false accusations...

2. His Dad needs to beat his with a switch though*


*Unless his dad is in or contemplating being in the NFL, in which case that is less advised.

The problem with Trespassing is that the church where this occurred never pressed charges nor cared to meaning that any issue now is due to anyone overzealous enough to try and pin him with something to get him in trouble.

The important thing to remember about Pennsylvania is that it's a commonwealth, not a state. One of the big differences is that the government presses charges, not the person affected. The person affected doesn't really have much of a choice if the government decides to press charges and they don't want charges pressed.

 skyth wrote:
The important thing to remember about Pennsylvania is that it's a commonwealth, not a state. One of the big differences is that the government presses charges, not the person affected. The person affected doesn't really have much of a choice if the government decides to press charges and they don't want charges pressed.

Really? Huh, never knew that.

I was a pretty good kid growing up... and even I would have been slightly tempted to take some crazy pics with JC.

Let people be offended, they aren't going to die. The kid should get a smack on the back of the head and that's that.

This is why I believe in the separation of church and state as it was meant to be in the constitution. No laws should be enforced based on religion. period. I am really starting to become more and more militant in my athiesm. I was content to just be me, and let people be themselves. I am starting to think organized religion and weak minded people will be the end of America.

ehhh, on second thought...

Harsh laws that protect religious patrimony are common throughout the world, even in the most progressive countries. You could also, in Canada, get a desecration charge, and it would also be more harshly punished than a simple vandalism charge. Buddhism has some pretty insane imbalances in how heavy the blame falls for desecration in comparison to, say, every other violent crimes.

Religious institutions aren't, at least not in western culture, expected to have to police their property, so it's rather normal that society would impose on itself a harsher code of conduct, backed by a harsher set of punishment.

Anyway, no physical damages, not done during a ceremony, no or practically no ¨bad publicity¨ to speak of, so I see no reason to do anything else than give this donkey more than a few dozen hours of community service.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Harsh laws that protect religious patrimony are common throughout the world, even in the most progressive countries. You could also, in Canada, get a desecration charge, and it would also be more harshly punished than a simple vandalism charge. Buddhism has some pretty insane imbalances in how heavy the blame falls for desecration in comparison to, say, every other violent crimes.

Religious institutions aren't, at least not in western culture, expected to have to police their property, so it's rather normal that society would impose on itself a harsher code of conduct, backed by a harsher set of punishment.

Anyway, no physical damages, not done during a ceremony, no or practically no ¨bad publicity¨ to speak of, so I see no reason to do anything else than give this donkey more than a few dozen hours of community service.

NO NO NO if you don't nip this sort of thing in the bud its just going to get worse and worse and worse.
He needs to be forced to spend an entire hour on The View sitting between the "Rosies". If his sanity survives, he shall have learned the error of his ways and served as a warning to others that some things come with too high a price.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Religious institutions aren't, at least not in western culture, expected to have to police their property, so it's rather normal that society would impose on itself a harsher code of conduct, backed by a harsher set of punishment.

No.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Religious institutions aren't, at least not in western culture, expected to have to police their property, so it's rather normal that society would impose on itself a harsher code of conduct, backed by a harsher set of punishment.

No.

Great argument.

Let's try again. In Western law, we punish the intent as much as the act. Some intents are considered worse then others, regarless of the act being the same. That's why beating up an old lady will probably get you a longer stint in jail than beating up your best friend over an argument. Beside the fact that religious institutions have a special value in the eyes of a great many of the population, those institutions are, by principle, commited to a non-violent mode of life. Beating a guy who has vowed to turn you the other cheek is pretty despicable, so is stealing from a guy who has made vow of poverty, or desecrating something that is held by many to be holy.

Desecration laws make sense. This case doesn't.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Harsh laws that protect religious patrimony are common throughout the world, even in the most progressive countries. You could also, in Canada, get a desecration charge, and it would also be more harshly punished than a simple vandalism charge. Buddhism has some pretty insane imbalances in how heavy the blame falls for desecration in comparison to, say, every other violent crimes.

Religious institutions aren't, at least not in western culture, expected to have to police their property, so it's rather normal that society would impose on itself a harsher code of conduct, backed by a harsher set of punishment.

Anyway, no physical damages, not done during a ceremony, no or practically no ¨bad publicity¨ to speak of, so I see no reason to do anything else than give this donkey more than a few dozen hours of community service.

the thought of harsher laws for "desecration" of a religious item versus say a work of art goes against the intent and purpose of separation of church and state. The end of this train of thought is that the president starts calling the pope for national policy and we form the church of the Americas and begin killing off Lutherans. The living document that is the very being of this country is pretty specific in its intent, even if people choose to read it differently. I am not anti religion, I am simply anti religious policy being primary in our enforcement of laws and the way we do business in America.

Morality and religion are not the same thing.

redleger wrote:
The thought of harsher laws for "desecration" of a religious item versus say a work of art goes against the intent and purpose of separation of church and state.

It can just as well be spinned as a matter of protecting the freedom of religion. Your living document is everything except specific in its intent.

Just as morality and religion aren't the same thing, philosophy of law and politics aren't the same thing. Separation of judiciary and executive powers is a structural principle that many modern nations pretend to hold, but there is always some interaction between the two powers. In the same way, the separation of church and law doesn't have to be so absolute that laws cannot address questions where religion is involved.

Modern nations generally hold that the private sexuality of individuals is of no concern to the state, that doesn't mean the State cannot have good reason to legiferate on maternity leave, on the criminality of transmitting sexual diseases with harmful intent, etc... In the same way, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances¨ does not, at all, imply specifically that the State cannot enact a law offering a blanket protection to religious artefacts.

But it is not freedom of religion. They are stopped in the free practice of their religion.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But it is not freedom of religion. They are stopped in the free practice of their religion.

"I can't venerate an icon of my religion knowing that this moron has rubbed his sack on our Saviour's holy 'stache", whereby someone has been prevented in the exercise of his religion.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Some intents are considered worse then others, regarless of the act being the same. That's why beating up an old lady will probably get you a longer stint in jail than beating up your best friend over an argument.

Wait, there is no intent stated at all in your example. You just described different punishment based on the identity of the victim. And yes, there are but not like that. It is beating a cop or a representative of the state that will earn you a harsher sentence by law.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Beside the fact that religious institutions have a special value in the eyes of a great many of the population, those institutions are, by principle, commited to a non-violent mode of life.

This is completely false. Unless religions do include only jainism and quakers and a very few select others.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Beating a guy who has vowed to turn you the other cheek is pretty despicable, so is stealing from a guy who has made vow of poverty, or desecrating something that is held by many to be holy.

How many examples in history are there of a Church or a Christian state “turning the other cheek”, really? Or, for that matter, of an Islamic one. And how many examples of them doing the exact opposite?
Seems like a textbook example of hypocrisy, here.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But it is not freedom of religion. They are stopped in the free practice of their religion.

"I can't venerate an icon of my religion knowing that this moron has rubbed his sack on our Saviour's holy 'stache", whereby someone has been prevented in the exercise of his religion.

Not really. There is no limiting of religion. There is disrespect, but no restriction. Having your idols defiled does not stop you from practicing.

Damn ninjas.

Further separation of church and state is a misnomer. The government cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion, other factors being excluded.

Vandalizing an object is not exercising your religion. In fact you are effectively targetting religions with theis specific type of vandalism. in effecte the offender is a bigot.

Two hours on The View or 20 raps with a ruler from Sister Mary Callahan. No not the cute one Sister Mary. The big mean one. Yikes!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
"I can't venerate an icon of my religion knowing that this moron has rubbed his sack on our Saviour's holy 'stache", whereby someone has been prevented in the exercise of his religion.

Think about the thugs. Nobody respect their freedom to practice their religion and we can all agree that this is just great actually.

You mean the Thuggee Cult? In the US they would be able to practice their religion so long as they didn't harm others.

Also know as “not being able to practice their religion”. Becuase it does involve killing others, which is usually considered harm.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Also know as “not being able to practice their religion”. Becuase it does involve killing others, which is usually considered harm.

Some of their practices did. Tresspass on other's lives -aka murder - is an equitable injury. The government is effectively not stopping you. The government is enforcing the action of others against you.

You're trying to argue something here, but its not relevant. The BG in this instance attacked another group because of their religion. There is no constitutional protection for that.

Alternatively we could just jack up the punishment for all vandalism to the same two years. WOuld that work? Works for me, but only if reinstate the chain gang. I needs me some chain gangs. Thats the sound of the men working on the...chain gaaaaang...

 Frazzled wrote:
The BG in this instance attacked another group because of their religion.

The who?

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively we could just jack up the punishment for all vandalism to the same two years.

Why would we want to do that?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The BG in this instance attacked another group because of their religion.

The who?

No not the Who. Although lame despite my Wife's protestations, the Who are not the ones at fault here. But they are lame.

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively we could just jack up the punishment for all vandalism to the same two years.

Why would we want to do that?

 Frazzled wrote:
No not the Who. Although lame despite my Wife's protestations, the Who are not the ones at fault here. But they are lame.

Who are the BG?
Them?

 Frazzled wrote:
To reduce acts of vandalism of course. Maybe a good Singaporean caning instead?

Why would be want to do that?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Wait, there is no intent stated at all in your example.

Legal intents, or, in the jargon, mens rea, can be pretty minimalists. The intent of an assault, as an example, can be ¨recklessness¨.

You just described different punishment based on the identity of the victim. And yes, there are but not like that. It is beating a cop or a representative of the state that will earn you a harsher sentence by law.

Not caring about assaulting certain people with certain characteristics, such as race, religion, age, etc, is currently something that Laws does find worse than not caring about assaulting anyone. It may be weird, but it usually tend to reflect the fact that those peoples are especially vulnerable to violence. And most judicial systems allow for a variation of lenght and gravity of the sentence, to reflect particularities of the case.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This is completely false. Unless religions do include only jainism and quakers and a very few select others.

Please point me at the many established western religions where the clergy regularly engage in war and conflict. It's called a life of contemplation for a reason.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How many examples in history are there of a Church or a Christian state “turning the other cheek”, really? Or, for that matter, of an Islamic one. And how many examples of them doing the exact opposite?
Seems like a textbook example of hypocrisy, here.

That religious organizations, or States, do not, as organizations, follow the rules they impose on their constituents is so banal, it is harldy worth pointing out, and of no consequence on the question. The entire social fabric of humanity is laced with hipocrisy. And in this case, the hipocrisy of the organization is without importance in regards to the impact a desecration has on the followers of that religion.

Remembering that I do not believe this to actually be a desecrating act of any significance.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No not the Who. Although lame despite my Wife's protestations, the Who are not the ones at fault here. But they are lame.

Who are the BG?
Them?

Alas can't open youtube at work.

 Frazzled wrote:
To reduce acts of vandalism of course. Maybe a good Singaporean caning instead?

Why would be want to do that?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Wait, there is no intent stated at all in your example.

Legal intents, or, in the jargon, mens rea, can be pretty minimalists. The intent of an assault, as an example, can be ¨recklessness¨.

You just described different punishment based on the identity of the victim. And yes, there are but not like that. It is beating a cop or a representative of the state that will earn you a harsher sentence by law.

Not caring about assaulting certain people with certain characteristics, such as race, religion, age, etc, is currently something that Laws does find worse than not caring about assaulting anyone. It may be weird, but it usually tend to reflect the fact that those peoples are especially vulnerable to violence. And most judicial systems allow for a variation of lenght and gravity of the sentence, to reflect particularities of the case.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This is completely false. Unless religions do include only jainism and quakers and a very few select others.

Please point me at the many established western religions where the clergy regularly engage in war and conflict. It's called a life of contemplation for a reason.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How many examples in history are there of a Church or a Christian state “turning the other cheek”, really? Or, for that matter, of an Islamic one. And how many examples of them doing the exact opposite?
Seems like a textbook example of hypocrisy, here.

That religious organizations, or States, do not, as organizations, follow the rules they impose on their constituents is so banal, it is harldy worth pointing out, and of no consequence on the question. The entire social fabric of humanity is laced with hipocrisy. And in this case, the hipocrisy of the organization is without importance in regards to the impact a desecration has on the followers of that religion.

Remembering that I do not believe this to actually be a desecrating act of any significance.

You know how much impact there was? None. The kid di nothing wrong. He was rude, but that's not illigal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You know how much impact there was? None. The kid di nothing wrong. He was rude, but that's not illigal.

Which is why I took the time twice to say that I did not consider this an act of desecration. I'm arguing for desecration laws, not for the prescribed punishment of this dumbass.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You know how much impact there was? None. The kid di nothing wrong. He was rude, but that's not illigal.

Which is why I took the time twice to say that I did not consider this an act of desecration. I'm arguing for desecration laws, not for the prescribed punishment of this dumbass.

But what if someone made another pisschrist? It's the same thing. It is desecration, but it's not wrong and has no impact on members of Christianity.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Please point me at the many established western religions

You are only giving me the choose between Christianity and Christianity here .

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
where the clergy regularly engage in war and conflict.

Please point to me the many established vegetarian/racist/wargaming organizations that regularly engage in war and conflict. Really, the organizations that do regularly engage in war and conflict are the rare exception and not the norm. Not being one of them does not make you a great pacifist that is morally laudable…

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That religious organizations, or States, do not, as organizations, follow the rules they impose on their constituents is so banal, it is harldy worth pointing out, and of no consequence on the question. The entire social fabric of humanity is laced with hipocrisy. And in this case, the hipocrisy of the organization is without importance in regards to the impact a desecration has on the followers of that religion.

So basically, you are saying you just need to pretend to adhere to superior moral values to deserve a higher protection even if you do break those at every occasion? And that is not even mentioning how the Quran and the life of Muhammad goes completely against “turning the other cheek”, as well as the old testament, so… hardly a valid argument.

ON the positive this time we could publicly shame them on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter, and lead boycotts against anyone who supported him. Aint 2014 grand?

 Frazzled wrote:
Alas can't open youtube at work.

Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive (1977)

 Frazzled wrote:
You're not pro crime are you?

I am!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alas can't open youtube at work.

Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive (1977)

 Frazzled wrote:
You're not pro crime are you?

I am!

two Internet shots of Pyrat rum for you sir!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But what if someone made another pisschrist? It's the same thing. It is desecration, but it's not wrong and has no impact on members of Christianity.

As an artist, Serrano was in a good position to argue that the act of fabrication of Piss Christ was intended as an expression of freedom toward religion, which is how many Christians saw it. There was no public outcry outside of the one agitated by Senators D'Amato & Helms.

The kid could argue it was part of a performance, but judges usually aren't that gullible.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Another obviously unconstitutional law that a state will waste lots of money defending.

YUP. The ACLU should be all over this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Vandalizing an object is not exercising your religion.

And in the case of the OP, the object was not vandalised.

In fact you are effectively targetting religions with theis specific type of vandalism.

Again, not vandalism. Making something "spiritually unclean" is not vandalism; and as already noted, the church/group involved don't seem to have an issue with what occurred, so clearly they don't see the acts that took place to have desecrated their lawn ornament.

in effecte the offender is a bigot.

Religious types telling me that I am going to hell, or not going to heaven, or telling me that they will pray to me are annoying and contradict my "religious beliefs" (or rather lack of them). I am targeted specifically because I do not share the faith of whatever person or group is infringing on my right to go about unmolested. My letter box is regularly polluted with unwanted religious fliers telling me about the joys of jebus from "bigots" who can't accept others believing something different to them.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have a bunch of Christians fighting for months to prevent a "black mass" and protesting when it was held.

Background: Some fancy Satanists decided to rend a public area in a city owned performing arts center to hold a black mass. Various Christian groups and clergy spend the last few months fighting every which way to force the city to kick them out because "that stuff is offensive to us" only to be told by the city that anybody can rent the space for any reason and that being Satanists isn't a valid reason to stop them.

End results:

Satanists follow all the rules, have a small ceremony, go home.

Christians throw a big fit, give Satanists a ton of free press, get arrested, and call in a bomb thread.

Meanwhile this pro-separation of Church and State devout Christian just shakes his head at the antics of my fellow Christians...

As an extreme denotee of the separation of church and state, I have no problem with either the satanists 'sataning" or the Jebus freaks protesting.

I just wanna see someone lose it on the View and have their head explode. Its a dream I have.

 Frazzled wrote:
As an extreme denotee of the separation of church and state, I have no problem with either the satanists 'sataning" or the Jebus freaks protesting.

It just makes me facepalm that the "good" guys (in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) ended up including the folks that were breaking the rules and the "bad" guys (again, in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) are the ones that didn't break any rules.

I don't have a problem with the protests, and other than two arrests and the bomb thread almost every single person protested within the law and in a peaceful manner. Me personally, as a Christian, I wouldn't protest against them being allowed to have the black mass. I might not like that one was held, but I do like that the separation was there and they had the ability to have it and that I have the same ability to have a prayer group there to do a follow up exorcism if I wanted to rent the same space.

Edit:

To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in. I just find it ironic that they are protesting with the argument that "Christianity is what this country stands for" while actively trying to supress the free exercise of religion. Being able to hold the black mass was more in line with the ideals of the Constitution than the argument of the protesters IMO.

Maybe putting the "fear" in the kid to stop screwing around.

 d-usa wrote:
I might not like that one was held

Why? At least those people were not inducted into it from childhood, it is a conscious decision they formed by themselves!

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

Well, yeah. As long as it's a peaceful protest, it's just people exercising freedom of speech and assembly.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

Why bother asking a question when you already decided to ignore the answer?

t just makes me facepalm that the "good" guys (in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) ended up including the folks that were breaking the rules and the "bad" guys (again, in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) are the ones that didn't break any rules.

I don't have a problem with the protests, and other than two arrests and the bomb thread almost every single person protested within the law and in a peaceful manner. Me personally, as a Christian, I wouldn't protest against them being allowed to have the black mass. I might not like that one was held, but I do like that the separation was there and they had the ability to have it and that I have the same ability to have a prayer group there to do a follow up exorcism if I wanted to rent the same space.

Edit:

To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in. I just find it ironic that they are protesting with the argument that "Christianity is what this country stands for" while actively trying to supress the free exercise of religion. Being able to hold the black mass was more in line with the ideals of the Constitution than the argument of the protesters IMO.

People are allowed to protest for all kinds of things. It's a pretty well established rule here. I can be supportive of their right to protest without endorsing or even liking the message.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I might not like that one was held

Why? At least those people were not inducted into it from childhood, it is a conscious decision they formed by themselves!

Because I'm a grown adult who also was not inducted into my religion from childhood and who has a different opinion about a Black Mass than other people. Of course, as I have made clear over and over again, I am 100% behind their right to do something I might not like and will defend their right to do so.

 d-usa wrote:
and who has a different opinion about a Black Mass than other people.

What is your opinion on it? I think it was my original question. Apart from just “I think it is bad for undisclosed reasons, even though I support their right to have one”.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

Sure if done legally. Thats Da First Amendment Baby.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
and who has a different opinion about a Black Mass than other people.

What is your opinion on it? I think it was my original question. Apart from just “I think it is bad for undisclosed reasons, even though I support their right to have one”.

To keep it brief and without trying to turn this thread into a theological argument:

Like I said, I am a Christian, so I see this situation as a form of spiritual warfare. I know that the Church of Satan doesn't really see themselves as evangelizing for Satan and that that mindset of spiritual warfare between Christians and Satan is pretty one-sided in that regard. The organizer for the event did give interviews that his goal was to get people away from God, but from the Satanists that I know that is not something that they pursue. I think his "we have to free people from the oppression of God" statements were more about drumming up free publicity by stirring up the masses (who fell for it) than any actual satanist theology.

Both groups, the Satanists and the Christians, made use of their right to assemble, their right of free speech, and their right to practice their religion. But only one group used those rights to hassle the other group and to try to stop them. So "my team" ended up looking stupid here IMO. Like I said, I support their right to do what they did and if the Satanists wanted to hang out and protest outside the Catholic Church I would support that too. But I don't support the message of "you shouldn't be able to have a black mass in this building".

I think the best approach would have been to for the Christians to do the exact same thing as the Satanists: assemble (outside the building if they want to), speak about their faith, and practice their religion (have a prayer vigil, have a regular mass, pray for the people attending the black mass). They could have done all that without having to actually protest "against" the black mass and without trying to stop them. They could have come and left without bothering the Satanists just as the Satanists came and left without bothering the Christians.