Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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...