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.

 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.