Christian privilege and the “desecration” of a Jesus statue

[cleanhippie]

Christian privilege is an insidious cancer prevalent in this country. This time the victim is a 14-year-old prankster with an irreverent sense of humor. The unidentified teen posted pictures of himself and a Jesus statue in which it appears the Lord is fellating the teen.

Sure, the photo is tasteless. But poor taste is not a crime (and Christians should be thankful for that). Neither is desecration of a venerated object. Yet the boy has been charged in juvenile court with that crime.

First, there was no damage done, the kid took some photos. Second, desecration is not a crime. FFRF's litigation attorney, Bob Tiernan, won a nearly identical criminal case in Colorado in 2000. Rodney Scott was charged with "desecrat[ing] an object venerated by the public" for removing illegal and unlicensed roadside memorial crosses. The court found that the roadside crosses were "litter" so they could not be venerated.

But so what if they were? "Desecration" and "venerated" are clearly terms meant to protect religious sensibilities—and religious objects—from harm. But we already have laws in place that do just that—laws that prohibit vandalism, property destruction, and theft. Why do we need a separate law for religious property?

(more at link)

http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/21351-christian-privilege-and-the-desecration-of-a-jesus-statue?

Yes, there is another OP on the subject. This is a different take on the subject.

Does anyone here really believe that what this kid did should be a crime?

[stopbush]

1. Of course the kid shouldn't be charged with anything.

People sure get their undies in a bunch over make believe (ie: religion).

[TreasonousBastard]

2. No, but the question is...

would it be a crime if he did this with a statue of some war hero? Or anyone or thing else?

I don't think prank simulating a BJ should be a crime at all. But if it is a crime, it should be for simulating the BJ, not who it's simulated with.

[cleanhippie]

3. You make a good point.

But if it is a crime, it should be for simulating the BJ, not who it's simulated with.

I don't think simulating sex should be a crime, but your point stands.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I don't think so either, but...

we've got all these "public lewdness" sort of things still on the books.

[cleanhippie]

6. I feel there is still a place for "public lewdness" laws.

But what that boy did with that statue is not "public lewdness."

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Actually, it seems that Pennsylvania has some weird...

"screwing around with a venerated object" law. A while back some other kid was prosecuted for peeing on a nativity scene.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison

Officials in Bedford County charged the teen (whose name hasn't been released) with desecration of a venerated object, invoking a 1972 Pennsylvania statute that criminalizes "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." You'd think an appropriate punishment for a kid violating this seldom-invoked law might be picking up trash or, at worst, paying a fine. If convicted, he faces much worse: two years in juvenile detention.
<...>
Pennsylvania is not the only state with a "venerated objects" law—many states have some version of it, but most define "desecration" as vandalizing or otherwise physically harming an object of civic or religious significance. Alabama, Tennessee, and Oregon have laws like Pennsylvania's, which can be interpreted to punish individuals—like this bold, dumb teenager—who simply decide to do something offensive.

[cleanhippie]

9. Peeing on property is vandalism or causing damage. This "venerated object" is BS.

I'd like to think that he will win an appeal if convicted.

[MADem]

52. How about trespassing?

Sometimes, the simplest solution works best.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. How about there was no criminal act?

The two of you seem to be searching for some other law the kid could be charged with violating, perhaps to get around the obvious unconstitutionality of the law being applied.

[MADem]

65. What is this "the two of you SEEM TO BE..." stuff? Why are you so rudely characterizing me

as a participant in some kind of dire conspiracy? How about the ONE of YOU seems to be leaping to conclusions not in evidence?

So "how about" THIS? Let's start again, and why don't you just stop "seem to be-ing" and let's break this down to what was actually happening, not what your OPINION is--either of me, anyone else in this conversation, or how you "think" this kid ought to be treated because you don't happen to think this is a big deal.

Was the kid on public or private property?? Yes or no??? Is it customary to have kneeling statues of Jesus on public property in your neck of the woods? Maybe that's why you're being so obstreperous in your conversation with me?

Was this kid doing someone on that private property that the owners of the property didn't like? In other words, was he on the property for purposes other than those for which people are customarily granted access?

He had no "right" to be there engaging in that activity any more than you have a "right" to have simulated sexual congress with old Mrs. McGillicuddy's garden gnome on her front lawn.

I think a case can be made for trespassing--and the picture is proof of the event taking place.

Your move. Argue IDEAS, now--don't resort to the lame tactic of telling me what I -- or anyone else "seems to be" doing/thinking/feeling....OK?

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Because you and treasonousbastard seem to be desperately searching for some other crime.

As far as I know the statue was in a public space. Do you know otherwise? There was no crime. The law he was charged under is unconstitutional.

[MADem]

68. Now I "seem to be" desperate? Come off it. Stop talking about ME. Talk about the issues.

You can't, apparently. You keep resorting to personal insult because you can't argue the actual facts of this issue. Put aside the religious aspect--that "seems to be" blinding you to the larger issue. Pretend that statue was a statue of an historical figure at a private museum, for example.

There was no crime? Really?

So I can come on your private property, your front lawn, and simulate a sex act with your garden gnome, with no consequences, then? Because it's my constitutional right? How about I have a bath in your bird bath as well?

Last I checked, trespassing wasn't "unconstitutional." It was a crime--a petty one, but a crime nonetheless.

Back to the drawing board--and if you make one more smart-assed and immature remark about how "I" "seem to be" this or that, you've lost the argument but good.

This isn't about ME, so stop trying to play it that way, and it's not even about "religion"--it's about the law.

[rug]

74. No, it was on the lawn of a religious organization.

FFRF in its partisan haste omitted inconvenient facts from the news report.

And the law has been deemed, by people more knowledgeable and less biased than you, sitting on appeals courts, to be constitutional for decades.

And yes, you are being characteristically rude.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Oh dear Warren. Where are you going with this?

You were evolving so beautifully, accepting your spiritual side and now this. WTF is happening with you?
Nobody is desperately searching for some other crime.
You are desperately searching for some way to excuse this behavior. "As far as I know the statue was in a public space." How much research did you conduct? It was on private property belonging to Love In the Name of Christ in Everett. They did not press charges and did not want the boy charged. The police did this. It has nothing to do with religion or religious people.
The police charged the kid with breaking an obscure law about desecrating venerated objects. That is the crime, whether we like it or not. And I think everyone here agrees that this law is ridiculous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/oral-sex-jesus-statue-photo_n_5805174.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/blog/2014/09/10/pennsylvania-teen-charged-under-obscure-1972-law-for-simulated-acts-with-jesus-statue/

But the Hippie, who is no longer dirty, likes to post shit like this, because it causes an uproar. If the kid had gotten a BJ from a gnome in his garden, he'd have probably shot them both.

[Lordquinton]

118. Maybe you should proof read more often

" It has nothing to do with religion or religious people.
The police charged the kid with breaking an obscure law about desecrating venerated objects. "

Nothing to do with religion, just a law about desecrating religious objects. Do you honestly thing that non-religious people wrote that law? Or non-religious people are abusing this law to ruin this kid's life?

You'd probably keel-haul the kid for eyeing your boat's figurehead.

[Starboard Tack]

119. Yes milord! Proofreading is good.

You might want to look up the word "venerated".
However, this little escapade is not about religion. It is about respect. Let's say you made a shrine to a loved one, on your property and some kid came along and thought it would be a fun idea to piss on it or jerk off on it. How would you react?

In this case the owners of the property, the horrible "religious people" did not press charges and, in fact, did not want the kid to be charged. Nobody is ruining this kid's life, btw. They may actually be saving it. I seriously doubt he will do any time, but hopefully he will learn some humility and respect.

[Lordquinton]

121. Wow, just wow

[TreasonousBastard]

111. I'm not searching for any such thing, but...

while searching around I found that Pennsylvania HAS a law concerning this sort of thing.

I disagree with the law, but it does exist and this kid is being prosecuted (probably improperly) under it.

[MADem]

66. I think it breaks down to a public/private property issue, myself.

Someone mocking a statue on public property is on firmer ground to act up--it's "public" property, after all--the only question would be if the "acting up" constituted a crime in and of itself. On private property, your access is granted for the limited purposes of engaging in activities that are acceptable to the owners of the property.

If there's a "public lewdness" type law in that neck of the woods, maybe that would fly, but I'm tending more towards simple trespassing. He wasn't on that property to engage in the act of prayer or reflection, which is why the property owners make the property available to the public. He was there for personal amusement.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. I don't think that holds up if this lawn isn't fenced off or clearly delineated to not be...

accessed by the public.

I do find it interesting that so many supposed progressives seem to like the idea of persecuting this teen for a harmless prank that caused no damage. Even more so they want to do it under auspices of the "sacredness" of the Jesus statue. That attitude seems more fitting for ISIS, not DU.

[rug]

75. I find it more interesting how so many supposed progressives are willing to excuse hate crimes

if the object of the hate is religion.

That attitude seems more fitting for the Know Nothing Party, not DU.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. Here's a HINT, this is NOT a hate crime, hell you wouldn't even know what the fuck...

a hate crime is. Its rich that you are crying "hate crime" over this harmless prank while ignoring the damage your own church does that is based on hate.

[rug]

79. Here's a FACT. He is being charged under an actual hate crime.

I suspect I know much more about hate crimes, let alone crime, than you do in whatever internet recess you get your opinions from.

This prosecution will fail because the acts alleged do not meet all the elements of the statute but the statute is indeed a hate crime.

Your reaction and flailing simply underscore the point I made.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. I'm sure you know a LOT more about hate crime than you would care to admit. n/t

[rug]

82. That's right. I encounter hateful people daily in the most surprising places.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. I know you do every Sunday, behind the pulpit!

ON EDIT: Goddammit I hate being lazy, should have said around the Altar, most of the time at the parish I went to, the Priest did not stay behind a pulpit, but a podium on the side or infront of the altar.

[TreasonousBastard]

114. Who thinks this is a good idea?

[MADem]

117. More "seems" from people who are blinded by the religious element. That "seems" to be the

paradigm here.

Here's what I find interesting....what if that was a fountain in front of a private school. Would I have the right to go swimming in it? Do I have the right to hang off the sculpture in the center of the fountain for shits and giggles, because I think it amusing?

I don't think so.

It's not about sacredness, the cops may be using some obscure law to thread their needle, but that ain't it at all--it's about accessing the property in a fashion acceptable to the owners of the property. Otherwise, you're trespassing.

And the ISIS crack? MAJOR cheap shot. Nothing left in your arsenal that you had to resort to that one....is that it?

[TreasonousBastard]

112. Trespassing might be the closest "real" violation...

but that gets tricky enough that i would like to hear a Pennsylvania lawyer chime in.

[rug]

5. As usual, they're missing the point.

Two questions:

1) Do you think hate crimes are valid?

2) Do you think they enshrine privilege?

[cleanhippie]

7. You think this is a "hate crime"?

really? how so?

[rug]

12. By definition it is a hate crime.

Read the other thread. The statute's in there.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. How is this a 'hate crime'?

Are blowjobs somehow threatening/hate toward Christians, and are Christians a protected class in this regard?

[rug]

13. We had this discussion yesterday. Did you forget?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Did you forget that question was not answered?

[rug]

16. It was answered, reanswered, wrapped and delivered with a bow.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Like hell it was.

You have yet to demonstrate that a simulated blowjob by cheist is in any way 'hateful'. You threw out vandalism, and symbols belonging to a political group that committed genocide against an ethnic group, painted on the graves of some members of that ethnic group, which could be interpreted as a threat.


Is the concept of Jesus giving someone head in any way threatening to you, or 'hateful'?

[rug]

18. Read it again.

I don't find blowjobs threatening but I find repetition tedious.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Cant repeat what you never said.

4 criteria in the statute. I asked you a question, you begged off never to return.

Explain which of the four 'hate' criteria that simulated bj image meets, so I can reference your post when the charge is dismissed.

[rug]

20. No soap. I've spent enough time with you already.

BTW, whether the charge is dismissed or not (which it will be because the element of damage ias not been met) doesn't alter whether or not the statute is a hate crime.

That's it.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. The statute is. My objection is that the actions of the accused do not match the criteria

Of the statute. That is all.

A symbolic blowjob with a religious statue does not constitute ANYTHING under that statute. And the 'offended' bit smells unconstitutional when isolated away from damage, personal injury, threat, or harassment.

[rug]

25. I said that yesterday.

[Leontius]

11. No to both questions.

[rug]

14. I agree.

He has yet to answer them.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. How the ever loving fuck is this a "hate crime", or, perhaps more importantly...

how fucked up is a law that would label this kid's actions a hate crime?

[rug]

22. Go ask AC.

I'll give you the short version.

Go to the original thread and read the statute. You'll see why it's a hate crime.

As to this particular prosecution, it should fail because there was no damage which is a required element. The hate element under the statute was met though.

Stupidity was also there but that's not an element of the crime.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. I don't even see the hate, THIS is hate....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353871/Vandals-daub-racist-graffiti-spray-swastikas-graves-dead-Muslims-Welsh-cemetery.html

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-columbia-teen-commits-suicide-after-persecution-school110914

I could go on, but treating a religious icon with irreverence and mocking it? That is NOT hate.

[rug]

26. Actually it is. Read the statute and the intent requirement.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. I did, that law sounds like a bad law that should be overturned on constitutional grounds...

being that ambiguous.

Honestly, hate crime laws should be limited to, first of all, crimes, such as vandalism and more serious offenses, and two, the intent should be to intimidate groups of people, not offend the sensibilities of the oversensitive. Ideas, including religious ones, should NOT fall under such statutes, nor should "desecration" be the language used. Nothing is sacred.

[rug]

28. It's not quite that simple. Words can cause significant harm.

Ideas are never regulated. The intent to use them to harm is.

[Humanist_Activist]

29. Of course words can cause sigificant harm, for example, I would say the Catechism...

of YOUR Church has words in it that cause significant harm to my LGBT friends and family. But I will never see you claim that hate exists within them, no, you defend your Church at all costs. There was and is even an intent to harm within the Catechism, given the negative consequences and falsity of those beliefs.

Yet, what harm did this teenager do? What hatred is practiced? What did he do that is in any way comparable to what not just religions but even secular beliefs targeting PEOPLE have done over the ages?

This is the key difference, when I see this teenager, uhm, violating the statue of Jesus, I see something juvenile and ultimately harmless, he didn't damage it, and indeed he "attacked" a religious icon. Its no more offensive, nor criminal than "Draw Mohammed Day". At worst, he desecrated something that some people believe is sacred, but damn near everyone does that on some level in some way during their life. Hell, just me existing is desecration or offensive to many religious people, to the point where I would be put to death or imprisoned in about a dozen or so countries for being outspoken about my beliefs.

[rug]

30. Lol, do you want to swap hate speech?

Stick to the point.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. You have yet to demonstrate any harm that would come about from this "hate speech"...

You keep calling it hate speech, and while the poorly written statute may call it that, on a practical level, I don't see how it qualifies. Would you like to clarify?

[rug]

33. It's not my burden to.

If you in fact did read the thread from yesterday, you'll see photos of examples, including the swastikas on graves, which you yourself referenced.

There is indeed hate speech and hate crimes directed at religious groups along with other classes of protected groups.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Those are attacking groups of people, not an idea and not necessarily a sacred icon...

Not to mention that this was on top of other crimes, such as vandalism. Stick to the subject, this teenager and his fake sexual act with a Jesus statue. How the hell does that act rise to the level of a hate crime? Should blasphemy and desecration be criminalized?

[rug]

39. And who do you think the target of the humper was?

How about this one?



Maybe he just didn't like angels.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. That's vandalism, not knowing the backstory, yes it could be because they didn't like angels.

Vandalism is already against the law, and if they can prove in court intent to intimidate, harass and/or threaten a group of people, a hate crime charge might be warranted.

Again, how is this in any way comparable to what this teenager did? Are you a psychic who knows his motivations?

ON EDIT: As far as the humper's target, I'm assuming Jesus unless your crystal ball says otherwise, he probably thought he was being funny.

[rug]

48. It was on the lawn of a religious organization.

His target was Jesus?

[Humanist_Activist]

63. Considering we are idly speculating as to his motives, sure why not?

Again do you have a crystal ball to try to read more into his motives?

In addition, I'll ask again, should blasphemy and irreverence be illegal as hate crimes?

[rug]

72. A reasonable inference may be made on observations.

As opposed to unrooted speculation.

[Humanist_Activist]

76. The most we can say is that he is irreverent, that's it. n/t

[yeoman6987]

32. Can you imagine had he done this to a statue of Mohammad? Good lord it would be louder then this.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. There was an atheist that dressed as Mohammed for a parade in Pennsylvania or a place like that...

he was assaulted by a religious extremist, in front of people, and there were posters here justifying it or excusing the attacker.

It was disgusting, but par for the course for DU's religious apologists.

[yeoman6987]

36. Well that was wrong

There are Democratic voters who believe in many different religions. I don't see why it is such a problem. Actually it shouldn't be for any progressive who believes in equal treatment for all.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. I just don't understand the mentality, apparently the sensibilities of the religious is more...

important than not being assaulted.

That's just fucked up.

I don't mind people who are religious, just don't take it too seriously.

[yeoman6987]

38. I actually agree with your post

The only problem with religion is when it interpheres with those not interested in it. However, I think we went a bit overboard in not allowing individuals to pray at school if they want or carry around a Bible. I actually think both sides could give some wiggle room and be happier for it. Doubt that will ever happen though.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Who isn't allowed to pray at school or carry a bible?

If you believe that you need to check your information sources.

[yeoman6987]

42. I heard that or read it somewhere

But you could be right. The information could be false as it was awhile back.

[beam me up scottie]

45. It's a popular meme spread by conservative christians and FOX news.

Where I live praying in school and carrying a bible are practically mandatory.

Atheists have good reason to distrust christians' influence in public schools, our hostility is more than justified:

The Butler Act in Tennessee

"It shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the universities, normals, and all other public schools of the state which are supported in whole or in part by public funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower state of animals."
-- Statute of the State of Tennessee, 1925

was only just repealed in 1967 and in 2012 the idiots introduced the Tennessee 'Monkey Bill' which was promptly signed by the governor.

[yeoman6987]

62. I should not have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

[Humanist_Activist]

41. That's actually a myth, students are allowed to pray at public school, carry around Bibles...

etc. all they want, as long as they aren't disruptive or interfere with class time, its their constitutional right to free exercise and is protected by case law.

What is forbidden is for teacher and faculty of public schools to participate or facilitate such activities, as they are, on school time and on school property, agents of the government.

So there is no "going too far here", nor any need for compromise.

[yeoman6987]

43. Thanks!

I hate when I fall for lies. So glad I am here to get a real education.

[rug]

49. You got a link to that?

Not that I suspect bullshit.

[LiberalAndProud]

53. 'fraid so.

http://www.examiner.com/article/zombie-muhammad-atheist-attacked-by-muslim-during-halloween-parade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x308664

[rug]

81. 'fraid not.

Kindly point out the posts that demonstrate this:

there were posters here justifying it or excusing the attacker.

It was disgusting, but par for the course for DU's religious apologists.

There's a lot of putting words in posters' mouths, aka the straw man fallacy, but nothing demonstrating that assertion.

[LiberalAndProud]

85. Many posters are blaming the victim in that thread.

I'm paraphrasing, to be sure, but "He wouldn't have been beat up if he hadn't offended sensibilities, so too bad for him," was my takeaway from many of those posts. So yes, I believe that some thought he had it coming because he failed the reverence test.

ETA: I will choose one example that I found particularly egregious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=308664&mesg_id=308671

[rug]

86. I read the thread. I don't need paraphrase.

Is there any post or posts in particular that demonstrate that?

[LiberalAndProud]

87. Apologies, rug. I edited to do just that.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Apparently you didn't look at the link:

Rabblevox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a complete ass-hat! Defending your right not to believe (or trying to keep religion out of...
schools is one thing (which I support 100%)

Publicly mocking the symbols of someone else's faith is entirely different.

He's damn lucky he got away as easily as he did. If this had happened in Detroit or Dearborn, he'd probably be dead (and I would not be able to get too worked up about it).

How about this:

Humanist_Activist Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Yes, why the fuck is this such a hard concept to understand?
Everyone has a right to free speech without being assaulted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Here on planet earth actions have consequences, might not
seem fair to you or me but that's the way it is. Thought is free speech sometimes has a price.

These are just a few examples, could go on, including your less than helpful contribution, as is typical of your posts. And humblebum, that guy who I still think was a poe.

[Rob H.]

110. I doubt very seriously humblebum was a Poe

Over-the-top? Almost always. A homophobe? Yep, and it finally got him tombstoned. Based on his behavior during his time here, I think you're being overly charitable in thinking someone so obviously, deeply bigoted was a Poe.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Defending those posts after denying they exist.

Typical.

[okasha]

73. There aren't any statues of Muhammad,

at least not in relation to any Muslim organization. Figural art, and especially depiction of holy persons, is forbidden by Islam. (Persian painting is an exception, and even it does not show the faces of Muhammad or his family.)

[Humanist_Activist]

78. Does that mean that anyone who attempts to depict Muhammad for the purpose of sacrilege...

should be prosecuted?

[okasha]

104. Is there a law that defines sacrilrge as a crime?

[LiberalAndProud]

46. Nuance. I'd like some.

What if I were to assert that hate crimes are valid only when they do not serve to enshrine privilege?

To be honest, I believe that you have convinced me that hate crime legislation is not a good thing. Still, in the other thread, Matthew Shepard was mentioned ...

[rug]

47. Which is the greater problem?

[LiberalAndProud]

50. Which what?

Conceding the point, what to do regarding already codified hate crime?

[rug]

51. Apply them carefully.

And, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, use them sparingly, when the crime is heinous and another criminal statute won't do.

[okasha]

54. The original federal hate crimes legislation

was enacted to allow the feds to bring charges against white racists who could not be convicted under their state laws for attacks on predominantly African-American civil rights workers. Their purpose was to nullify privilege that allowed--mandated--not guilty verdicts when the Klan murdered a black person or an "outside agitator."

The privilege of Christianity as an institution in the US doesn't negate the possibility of hate crimes against Christians as persons. Last night I was looking at sites that carry the icons wtitten by Fr. Bill McNichols and his mentor, Br. Robert Lentz. One link led to an article by a writer who made a retreat with Fr. McNichols. During the "living stations" walk in the New Mexico desert on Good Friday, a car pulled up alongside the worshippers. A man leaned out the car window and brandished a gun at them, shouting "Jesus is a lie!"

The good news is that he never fired. If he had, killing one or more of the Christians making their Good Friday devotions, wouldn't that have clearly been a hate crime? For that matter, I'd be inclined that making terroristic threats on the grounds of religion is a hate crime in and of itself.

[LiberalAndProud]

55. I do understand your point.

But the line is fine between hate crimes such as you have in mind, and prosecution for apostasy, which I think the case under discussion certainly illustrates. Is this young man being prosecuted for being insufficiently reverent? I think so.

[okasha]

56. I've worked with prosecutors in local government,

and sometimes they forget that assholery isn't an indictable offense. That would be my description of the kid's "crime."

I agree with Mineral Man on the nature of his "sentence," to be carried out by his parents. Public apology to the organization, plus some sweat-producing act of service to them.

[LiberalAndProud]

57. Apology and community service. I would disagree.

I thought Skittles and rug had it pretty well worked out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=151958

[okasha]

59. I think "kicking his ass"

is vague enough to tie the case up in the courts, including SCOTUS, for a couple of decades. Washing windows or something comparabe gets it over with and teaches the necessary lesson in a practical way.

[LiberalAndProud]

60. What is the necessary lesson?

[Humanist_Activist]

71. The necessary lesson that religion has a special place in society and people take second place?

Great lesson there ace.

[rug]

83. How about humping lawn ornaments will get your ass kicked?

[LiberalAndProud]

91. ... or two years in the hoosegow.

[rug]

93. Hoosegow. Why did that word vanish?

It conveys so much more than juvenile detention center.

[rug]

94. "Bereft of Humanity"?

You're losing it, HA.

I have never seen anyone on the losing side of an internet argument accuse the other of not losing hi humanity. Exactly what kind of humanism are you an activist for?

[Humanist_Activist]

95. I'm the type of humanist who advocates for equal rights without reservation...

the kind who does NOT advocate for physical violence to be visited upon anyone for any reason. The type of humanist that believes that humanity, not religion, is what matters. That the rights of individuals are paramount.

I know what type of person I am rug, you have made yourself perfectly clear as well. Me, losing it? Please, I don't defend the indefensible, I do NOT defend those who would violate the rights of others, you, however, do.

[rug]

97. And do you alse deign to judge which humans are bereft of humanity and which are not.

I think you have a pretty good idea of who you think you are. The problem is it's all in your head.

[okasha]

100. A rather simple lesson.

1. Do not make an ass of yourself.

2. If #1 is beyond you, don't document your asinine behavior, then share your documentation with the small circle of the immediate planet.

[LiberalAndProud]

101. Okay.

If that's the lesson, Sarah needs to grab a squeegee.

[okasha]

108. Sarah (Palin's, I assume) antics are self-punishing.

No need to get between her and the Karma Express.

[TreasonousBastard]

115. THIS IS NOT A HATE CRIME! Unless you have...

new information that he's being prosecuted under something else than PA's venerated objects crock, there is no hate crime involved.

None. At all.

He could just as easily been arrested for pulling the blowjob stunt with a statue of Molly Pitcher or Ulysses Grant.

[rug]

116. The statute he's charged under IS a hate crime.

Molly Pitcher is not a member of a protected class.

[DonCoquixote]

58. what this kid did is not a crime

Now, I remember in my school, a group of rivals took power tools and applied it to the face of the Mary statue. Now you can mock that, but still, that would be clear physical damage of something people paid for.

[Warpy]

61. When an ugly plaster or metal or fiberglas statue can complain

either verbally (including ASL) or in writing that it did not consent to the behavior and was offended by it, there is no legal basis to charge that 14 year old kid with a crime.

Those laws were written for ransacking churches and temples and burning or spray painting sacred items like bibles/ Torahs.

Having a kid do a "yes, Jesus loves me" on a hunk of plaster in public? Not the same, guys.

[Humanist_Activist]

70. It seems to me that a lot of people here want to criminalize irreverence and atheism itself...

I shouldn't be surprised by this revelation.

[rug]

84. Oh, brother. If that's what you get out of this, recalibrate your persecution meter.

[Humanist_Activist]

89. Right back at ya when you complain about your church being criticized!

Don't you have some homophobes and gay bashers to defend or something? I'm sure that's a more productive use of your time!

[rug]

96. How interesting. Where in this thread is defending homophobes discussed?

You're getting desperate.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. I'm pointing out hypocrisy, its rather simple, you claim this teen committed a hate crime...

you keep repeating that argument over and over again. I'm pointing out that, frankly, you have no leg to stand on when it comes to pointing out hate crimes considering that apparently those against certain minorities don't count, especially when perpetuated by your church.

[rug]

99. No, you're not. You're diverting. Pathetically so.

[okasha]

103. Now, that is a Grand Canyon-wide leap of illogic.

No one here has expressed the desire to send this kid to jail. Rug has repeatedly pointed out that his actions don't meet the definition of "desecration" under the law. And no one but you has said a word about "outlawing atheism." Your accusation is grotesque.

[mr blur]

106. And your failure to get the point is, as ever, predictable.

[okasha]

107. There is no point.

[2banon]

102. The so called "Hate Crime" charge in this instance is Orwellian. n/t

[phil89]

105. Taking joy in a crucifixion

That supposedly relieves them of "sin" is the basis of their religion but they think this is a hate crime. Just no way to cute such irrational views.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Careful, bunch of people got all bent out of shape last time I copied/pasted references to joyful

appreciation for the sacrifice/crucifixion deal detailed in the NT.

Guess they don't want to have the word 'joy' associated with their zombie death cult.

[Iggo]

122. Ugh.