Religion
Related: About this forumChristian privilege and the “desecration” of a Jesus statue
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 sensibilitiesand religious objectsfrom harm. But we already have laws in place that do just thatlaws 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
(24,397 posts)People sure get their undies in a bunch over make believe (ie: religion).
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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
(19,705 posts)I don't think simulating sex should be a crime, but your point stands.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we've got all these "public lewdness" sort of things still on the books.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But what that boy did with that statue is not "public lewdness."
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)"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
<...>
Pennsylvania is not the only state with a "venerated objects" lawmany 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 individualslike this bold, dumb teenagerwho simply decide to do something offensive.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I'd like to think that he will win an appeal if convicted.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sometimes, the simplest solution works best.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)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
(135,425 posts)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
(48,181 posts)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
(135,425 posts)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
(82,333 posts)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
(11,181 posts)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
(7,886 posts)" 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
(11,181 posts)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
(7,886 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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
(135,425 posts)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
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)if the object of the hate is religion.
That attitude seems more fitting for the Know Nothing Party, not DU.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)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
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(43,049 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)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
(43,049 posts)but that gets tricky enough that i would like to hear a Pennsylvania lawyer chime in.
rug
(82,333 posts)Two questions:
1) Do you think hate crimes are valid?
2) Do you think they enshrine privilege?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)really? how so?
rug
(82,333 posts)Read the other thread. The statute's in there.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Are blowjobs somehow threatening/hate toward Christians, and are Christians a protected class in this regard?
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(82,333 posts)I don't find blowjobs threatening but I find repetition tedious.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(82,333 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)He has yet to answer them.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)how fucked up is a law that would label this kid's actions a hate crime?
rug
(82,333 posts)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
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)Ideas are never regulated. The intent to use them to harm is.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)Stick to the point.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)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
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)How about this one?
Maybe he just didn't like angels.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)His target was Jesus?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)As opposed to unrooted speculation.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(14,449 posts)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
(7,670 posts)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
(14,449 posts)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
(57,349 posts)If you believe that you need to check your information sources.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But you could be right. The information could be false as it was awhile back.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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
-- 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
(14,449 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(14,449 posts)I hate when I fall for lies. So glad I am here to get a real education.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not that I suspect bullshit.
rug
(82,333 posts)Kindly point out the posts that demonstrate this:
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
(12,799 posts)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
(82,333 posts)Is there any post or posts in particular that demonstrate that?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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:
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.
(5,354 posts)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
(57,349 posts)Typical.
okasha
(11,573 posts)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
(7,670 posts)should be prosecuted?
okasha
(11,573 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)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
(82,333 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Conceding the point, what to do regarding already codified hate crime?
rug
(82,333 posts)And, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, use them sparingly, when the crime is heinous and another criminal statute won't do.
okasha
(11,573 posts)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
(12,799 posts)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
(11,573 posts)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
(12,799 posts)I thought Skittles and rug had it pretty well worked out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=151958
okasha
(11,573 posts)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
(12,799 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Great lesson there ace.
rug
(82,333 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It conveys so much more than juvenile detention center.
Response to rug (Reply #83)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)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
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)I think you have a pretty good idea of who you think you are. The problem is it's all in your head.
okasha
(11,573 posts)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
(12,799 posts)If that's the lesson, Sarah needs to grab a squeegee.
okasha
(11,573 posts)No need to get between her and the Karma Express.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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
(82,333 posts)Molly Pitcher is not a member of a protected class.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)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
(111,405 posts)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
(7,670 posts)I shouldn't be surprised by this revelation.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)You're getting desperate.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)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
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)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
(7,753 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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.