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.

 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.