.

2 years is quite excessive for such a petty act of vandalism, if it can be called that, but we can't just act like the teen's actions are just a harmless joke of an immature person. Consider the state of mind of the teen when he was committing the act, what his motives and objectives were, and you will undoubtedly arrive at the following conclusion: he wanted to hurt people of a certain belief system, he wanted them to feel inferior, or at least reassure his sense of superiority and his view of those people as inferior, and he wanted them to be angered, to feel fear, ridiculed, etc. I don't think such actions can be tolerated in any society. It is a severe breach of respect and tolerance that creates animosity where none need be. I won't say there are not groups of religious people that execute equivalent public acts of humiliation/intimidation directed towards those of opposing view, but neither can be tolerated, and neither are acceptable.

"This child deserves 2 years of prison because he hurt my feelings" - SF_GoldG_01, who is apparently a bleeding vagina

.

.

Nice job bringing back "Massassi Religious Discussion thread". Reel noice.

Yeah, so unless he actually damaged the statue somehow, this prosecution is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Seriously, Gold? The kid posed for a photo that offended a religious nut who also happens to be the DA. Do you not want to live in a post-Enlightenment society?

Not really the worst post by Gold, but still no surprise there, Revvie-kun.

I love the way this is phrased because it cleanly illustrates a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with law.

.

Presumably this incredible up-holder of Christian morals is the same Bill Higgins, Bedford DA, who, when under investigation for sexual assault, admitted to committing adultery (in the courthouse no less!) but that's okay as it's not a crime: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/east/2008/08/27/Bedford-DA-Sex-in-office-no-crime/stories/200808270239

he's lucky they didn't charge him with statuetory rape

:golfclap:

I find it interesting that you imply that I agree with the possible punishment the teen may get, when my first statement is that I consider it excessive. I am merely trying to point out that his actions are no laughing matter, it is a serious offense to a broad range of groups.

Second, if what is said about the DA is true, then yes, he is no model of morality and shouldn't even have his job, and yes, 2 years is excessive for an act like this. NO ONE HAS ARGUED THESE POINTS.

To Reid, I don't think you want to go down this road of covering explicit sexual posing with public statues as protected under freedom of speech, if anything, these kind of actions could easily be considered hate speech, and if you can't see why anyone could possibly arrive at such a conclusion, then you are hopelessly handicapped at understanding others.

To Rev. Jones, I would very much like to live in a post-enlightenment society, but such actions are counterproductive and solely provocative. Seriously, what does anyone expect the normal behavior of any Christian to be when they see such a photograph? Do you think they will find it funny? Should people who are offended by this, whatever the reason, be antagonized? Isolated? Ridiculed? I just don't see how we can consider this as acceptable behavior. You know, I really don't like the beliefs of several groups, but I don't go around making their lives unpleasant by any degree by going out of my way and posing in a manner they would find offensive towards their images, and we can coexist peacefully, free of problems. Is it so much to expect that the norm be that everyone live in such a way?

Would you mind sharing with us just what you think his punishment should be, if not incarceration?

I feel like they are going to have a hard time making this law stick. They might be able to get him on trespassing though, which would be more reasonable.

Those of us who weren't shut-in drop-outs at 14 tended to do stupid things, sometimes even deliberately provocative things. Fortunately we grew up in a society that valued freedom and forgave mistakes. One could say we grew up around adults with the wisdom and kindness to turn the other cheek.

(You just got burned, son.)

I have an idea, but then again I've read the bible so

Some would.


No.


No.


No.


Because living in a free society precludes living in a society where you're free from personal offense.


The cult you grew up in, JW, personally offends me. You allow your children to die because you are afraid of blood transfusions. It offends me as a Christian, it offends me that you dare to call yourselves Christians despite being a heartless group of soulless monsters who twist the words of the gospels to suit your insane, evil doctrines. Your very existence is offensive to my religious beliefs.

Coexist with this.

*grabs dick, shakes it in SF_GoldG_01's direction*

Fortunately for SF_GoldG_01's family, we live in a society that that requires us to tolerate offense. So we won't have to fire up the ovens quite yet.

In the meantime, maybe we should ask why these rural "Christians" have graven images of White Jesus????

Care to comment on this, SF_GoldG_01, as a fellow bible-reader?

It's easy to understand that emotionally-stunted people overreact to perceived slights. Just because they get offended doesn't mean the law should cater to them.

.

.

.

infer



Counterpoint: His actions are a laughing matter (like, seriously, I defy you not to laugh at the idea of a teenage boy face-****ing a statue of Jesus), and the only reason he's subject to criminal sanction at all is that one or more of the groups he's offended happen to control the relevant government agencies. Here in America we have a little thing called the First Amendment, which says, inter alia, that we don't pick favorites among religions and we don't offer a monument special protection just because it happens to be a Christian symbol.



If you're looking for someone to thank you for not arguing these points, then thanks, I guess.



Hate speech is still protected in this country. (See, for a terrific example, Snyder v. Phelps.)



"That guy was mean to my well-funded and extremely white religious group" is not a very strong argument for prosecuting "that guy," a teenager who simulated oral sex with a statue for laughs, and anyone who thinks it's a strong argument is probably not worth understanding.



I don't know. As a Christian, I think my coreligionists could use a bit more straightforward mockery.



I'd expect most of them would shrug, maybe shake their heads, and move on. Is this a problem?



I found it funny.



Why not? They could probably stand to learn what it's like to be black or gay.



I don't care.

-- the First Amendment



Nice of you. Doesn't matter. Being a dick is generally protected speech.



No. It's too much to expect that we can enforce that norm through the local DA's office, though.

This is laughable. There exists no right to go through life unoffended.

I understand where everyone is coming from, I'm not advocating that people who speak against groups of beliefs be reprimanded, but merely not to use the private property (I'm assuming the state can't actually own a statue of Jesus or any other religious symbol, and therefore this statue belongs to a private party) of others in such a manner. In other words, if you want to publish pictures of a statue giving you fellatio then buy your own statue, and do it in your backyard, not in a public square where children could be exposed to your actions, regardless of whether children are already self exposing themselves to far more explicit material or not.

As for proper punishment? I think a couple hours of community service would be more than sufficient.

Actually, yes, this is exactly what your first post advocated.

Still haven't answered my question about why a Christian is even allowed to have "venerated objects" to face-****.

Let me start you off with a hint: Exodus 20:4 (I understand if you're unfamiliar with this passage, it's less known and hard to find vs. the parts about queer-hating and jailing children for posing with our gilded idols)

.

.

If only those crazy Christians had followed the letter of the bible and forgone idol making, they might have invented Penrose-tilings like the medieval Islamic artists did!

HT (via HN):

I'm afraid I don't see it as an attempt to reprimand opposing views, I think you'd have to prove that simulating fellatio with a statue can legitimately be considered as the promotion of a view or belief; otherwise you're setting a precedent in which anything can be said without repercussions, leaving the door wide open for slander, under the pretense of freedom of expression and holding a view/belief.

The issue is not whether Christians by their own religious documents are allowed to have or not have idols of worship, I am not defending or promote the legitimacy of views of any group; the issue is whether someone should be allowed to photograph themselves simulating oral sex with a statue that belongs to a non profit organization, aren't church grounds and assets considered private property? In any case, they are using assets that do not belong to them, without the consent or permission of the owners.

Well you see: what the Bible really said was that there was once a gate in Jerusalem that was built too small for a fully-loaded camel, and they called it the Eye of the Needle. In order to get through the gate a camel would have to crawl on its belly, with around 10% of its load removed. So what Jesus meant was that rich people can get into heaven as long as they pay a 10% tithing.

Hail Satan. Er... I mean, Jesus.

If God didn't love me, how could he let me be rich? (God never allows good things to happen to bad people.)

Ridiculous, working numbers is heresy.

"This object is sacrosanct" and "it isn't" aren't opposing views?

There are already limitations which apply to free speech. Speech which is dangerous and false, in the sense that the speech may cause immediate physical harm, is limited. Speech which is false and is uttered for purposes other than the sake of the statement, such as causing physical or economic harm, is limited.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Considering this law exists in order to protect Christian idolatry, and this law is being used to protect Christian idolatry, I think it is extremely important to evaluate the worthiness of the law on the merits under which it was created, is applied, and is enforced.

Of course you are.

So, would photoshopping himself into the photo be okay?

Because according to the law, it wouldn't be.

Oh if only we had laws which prohibited unauthorized access to personal property. Maybe even a more general set of laws, which go beyond protecting the artifacts of apocalypse-worshipping phony "Christian" compulsive blasphemers, we might use to protect property owners from these types of... well, we don't have a word for it, but I believe the Old French called it "trespas".

I'm glad you're back SF_GoldG_01, these conversations were so boring without someone around who was willing to entertain a position so clearly wrong that no reasonable person would.

this book needs a sequel

Wow, it's been a while since threads delivered this much.