Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → American Theocracy
American Theocracy
2014-09-13, 1:17 PM #1
.
2014-09-13, 10:05 PM #2
Originally posted by Reid:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison

Oh, America! At least we're better than Iran :downs:

Apparently the Bedford Ca DA posted to Facebook: "I guess I should take solace in the fact that the liberals are mad at me—again. As for this case, this troubled young man offended the sensibilities and morals of OUR community.… His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly. If that tends to upset the 'anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments' crowd, I make no apologies."


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.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2014-09-13, 10:56 PM #3
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
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
2014-09-13, 11:49 PM #4
.
2014-09-13, 11:54 PM #5
.
2014-09-14, 12:02 AM #6
Nice job bringing back "Massassi Religious Discussion thread". Reel noice.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2014-09-14, 12:05 AM #7
Yeah, so unless he actually damaged the statue somehow, this prosecution is almost certainly unconstitutional.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2014-09-14, 12:05 AM #8
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?
2014-09-14, 12:07 AM #9
Not really the worst post by Gold, but still no surprise there, Revvie-kun.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2014-09-14, 1:19 AM #10
Quote:
this troubled young man offended the sensibilities and morals of OUR community.…


I love the way this is phrased because it cleanly illustrates a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with law.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2014-09-14, 1:35 AM #11
.
2014-09-14, 4:33 AM #12
Originally posted by Reid:
Apparently the Bedford Ca DA posted to Facebook: "I guess I should take solace in the fact that the liberals are mad at me—again. As for this case, this troubled young man offended the sensibilities and morals of OUR community.… His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly. If that tends to upset the 'anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments' crowd, I make no apologies."

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
2014-09-14, 8:41 AM #13
he's lucky they didn't charge him with statuetory rape
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2014-09-14, 12:50 PM #14
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
he's lucky they didn't charge him with statuetory rape


:golfclap:
2014-09-14, 6:34 PM #15
Originally posted by Jon`C:
"This child deserves 2 years of prison because he hurt my feelings" - SF_GoldG_01, who is apparently a bleeding vagina


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?
Nothing to see here, move along.
2014-09-14, 8:13 PM #16
Would you mind sharing with us just what you think his punishment should be, if not incarceration?
2014-09-14, 8:38 PM #17
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.
2014-09-14, 9:16 PM #18
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
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.


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.)

Quote:
Seriously, what does anyone expect the normal behavior of any Christian to be when they see such a photograph?
I have an idea, but then again I've read the bible so

Quote:
Do you think they will find it funny?
Some would.

Quote:
Should people who are offended by this, whatever the reason, be antagonized?

No.

Quote:
Isolated?

No.

Quote:
Ridiculed?

No.

Quote:
I just don't see how we can consider this as acceptable behavior.

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

Quote:
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?

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*
2014-09-14, 9:22 PM #19
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?
2014-09-14, 9:57 PM #20
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
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.


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.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2014-09-14, 11:31 PM #21
.
2014-09-14, 11:32 PM #22
.
2014-09-14, 11:34 PM #23
.
2014-09-15, 8:42 AM #24
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
I find it interesting that you imply


infer

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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,


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

Quote:
and if you can't see why anyone could possibly arrive at such a conclusion, then you are hopelessly handicapped at understanding others.


"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.

Quote:
To Rev. Jones, I would very much like to live in a post-enlightenment society, but such actions are counterproductive and solely provocative.


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

Quote:
Seriously, what does anyone expect the normal behavior of any Christian to be when they see such a photograph?


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

Quote:
Do you think they will find it funny?


I found it funny.

Quote:
Should people who are offended by this, whatever the reason, be antagonized? Isolated? Ridiculed?


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

Quote:
I just don't see how we can consider this as acceptable behavior.


I don't care.

-- the First Amendment

Quote:
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,


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

Quote:
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?


No. It's too much to expect that we can enforce that norm through the local DA's office, though.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2014-09-15, 9:22 PM #25
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
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 is laughable. There exists no right to go through life unoffended.
2014-09-16, 12:50 PM #26
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.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2014-09-16, 1:06 PM #27
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
I understand where everyone is coming from, I'm not advocating that people who speak against groups of beliefs be reprimanded,


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)
2014-09-16, 4:26 PM #28
.
2014-09-16, 4:35 PM #29
.
2014-09-16, 5:26 PM #30
Originally posted by Jon`C:
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):
2014-09-16, 5:43 PM #31
Originally posted by Jon`C:
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)


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.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2014-09-16, 7:16 PM #32
Originally posted by Reid:
there's also this weird verse i saw once about rich dudes having a hard time getting into heaven

i dunno that doesn't seem right though given what the republican party advocates
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.

Originally posted by Reid:
praise jesus! the church has blessed me with a convenient place for tax fraud!
If God didn't love me, how could he let me be rich? (God never allows good things to happen to bad people.)

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
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):
Ridiculous, working numbers is heresy.

Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
I'm afraid I don't see it as an attempt to reprimand opposing views,
"This object is sacrosanct" and "it isn't" aren't opposing views?

Quote:
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,
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.

Quote:
leaving the door wide open for slander, under the pretense of freedom of expression and holding a view/belief.
Slippery slope fallacy.

Quote:
The issue is not whether Christians by their own religious documents are allowed to have or not have idols of worship,
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.

Quote:
I am not defending or promote the legitimacy of views of any group;
Of course you are.

Quote:
the issue is whether someone should be allowed to photograph themselves simulating oral sex with a statue that belongs to a non profit organization,
So, would photoshopping himself into the photo be okay?

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

Quote:
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.
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".
2014-09-16, 7:21 PM #33
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.
2014-09-17, 2:11 PM #34
this book needs a sequel
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2014-09-18, 4:41 AM #35
Wow, it's been a while since threads delivered this much.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

↑ Up to the top!