HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Christian privilege and t...

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:32 AM

Christian privilege and the “desecration” of a Jesus statue

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?

122 replies, 7023 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 122 replies Author Time Post
Reply Christian privilege and the “desecration” of a Jesus statue (Original post)
cleanhippie Sep 2014 OP
stopbush Sep 2014 #1
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #2
cleanhippie Sep 2014 #3
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #4
cleanhippie Sep 2014 #6
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #8
cleanhippie Sep 2014 #9
MADem Sep 2014 #52
Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #64
MADem Sep 2014 #65
Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #67
MADem Sep 2014 #68
rug Sep 2014 #74
Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #109
Lordquinton Sep 2014 #118
Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #119
Lordquinton Sep 2014 #121
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #111
MADem Sep 2014 #66
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #69
rug Sep 2014 #75
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #77
rug Sep 2014 #79
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #80
rug Sep 2014 #82
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #90
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #114
MADem Sep 2014 #117
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #112
rug Sep 2014 #5
cleanhippie Sep 2014 #7
rug Sep 2014 #12
AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #10
rug Sep 2014 #13
AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #15
rug Sep 2014 #16
AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #17
rug Sep 2014 #18
AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #19
rug Sep 2014 #20
AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #24
rug Sep 2014 #25
Leontius Sep 2014 #11
rug Sep 2014 #14
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #21
rug Sep 2014 #22
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #23
rug Sep 2014 #26
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #27
rug Sep 2014 #28
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #29
rug Sep 2014 #30
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #31
rug Sep 2014 #33
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #35
rug Sep 2014 #39
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #44
rug Sep 2014 #48
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #63
rug Sep 2014 #72
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #76
yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #32
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #34
yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #36
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #37
yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #38
beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #40
yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #42
beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #45
yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #62
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #41
yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #43
rug Sep 2014 #49
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #53
rug Sep 2014 #81
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #85
rug Sep 2014 #86
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #87
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #88
Rob H. Sep 2014 #110
beam me up scottie Sep 2014 #113
okasha Sep 2014 #73
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #78
okasha Sep 2014 #104
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #46
rug Sep 2014 #47
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #50
rug Sep 2014 #51
okasha Sep 2014 #54
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #55
okasha Sep 2014 #56
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #57
okasha Sep 2014 #59
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #60
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #71
rug Sep 2014 #83
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #91
rug Sep 2014 #93
Post removed Sep 2014 #92
rug Sep 2014 #94
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #95
rug Sep 2014 #97
okasha Sep 2014 #100
LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #101
okasha Sep 2014 #108
TreasonousBastard Sep 2014 #115
rug Sep 2014 #116
DonCoquixote Sep 2014 #58
Warpy Sep 2014 #61
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #70
rug Sep 2014 #84
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #89
rug Sep 2014 #96
Humanist_Activist Sep 2014 #98
rug Sep 2014 #99
okasha Sep 2014 #103
mr blur Sep 2014 #106
okasha Sep 2014 #107
2banon Sep 2014 #102
phil89 Sep 2014 #105
AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #120
Iggo Sep 2014 #122

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:38 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:52 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:54 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:05 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:28 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:37 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:41 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:32 AM

52. How about trespassing?

Sometimes, the simplest solution works best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #52)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 10:37 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #65)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 10:58 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:11 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:39 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #109)

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #118)

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 02:30 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #119)

Tue Sep 16, 2014, 06:18 PM

121. Wow, just wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:04 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 10:45 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #66)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:21 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:49 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #75)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #77)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #79)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:02 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #80)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:05 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #82)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:18 PM

114. Who thinks this is a good idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:55 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #66)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:08 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:18 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 12:29 PM

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

really? how so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:49 PM

12. By definition it is a hate crime.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:05 PM

10. How is this a 'hate crime'?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:50 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:27 PM

15. Did you forget that question was not answered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:28 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:40 PM

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'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:44 PM

18. Read it again.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 09:32 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 09:52 PM

25. I said that yesterday.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:12 PM

11. No to both questions.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leontius (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 01:50 PM

14. I agree.

 

He has yet to answer them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 07:57 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 08:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 09:57 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:08 PM

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

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:24 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:26 PM

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

 

Stick to the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:35 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:41 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:45 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:56 PM

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

 

How about this one?



Maybe he just didn't like angels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:08 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #44)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:07 AM

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

 

His target was Jesus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #48)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 08:59 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #63)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:37 PM

72. A reasonable inference may be made on observations.

 

As opposed to unrooted speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:53 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:38 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:42 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:46 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:53 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:56 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:03 PM

42. I heard that or read it somewhere

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:19 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #45)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 08:15 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 10:59 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:05 PM

43. Thanks!

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:10 AM

49. You got a link to that?

 

Not that I suspect bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:04 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #81)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:13 PM

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



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #85)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:18 PM

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

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #86)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:23 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #81)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #88)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #88)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:09 PM

113. Defending those posts after denying they exist.

Typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:44 PM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #73)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:56 PM

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

should be prosecuted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #78)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 04:15 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:33 PM

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 ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #46)

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:43 PM

47. Which is the greater problem?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #47)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:29 AM

50. Which what?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:31 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #46)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:53 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #54)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:00 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #55)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:10 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #56)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:15 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #57)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:46 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:07 AM

60. What is the necessary lesson?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:27 AM

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

Great lesson there ace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:10 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #83)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:29 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #91)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:32 PM

93. Hoosegow. Why did that word vanish?

 

It conveys so much more than juvenile detention center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #83)


Response to Post removed (Reply #92)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:35 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #94)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #95)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:47 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:15 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #100)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:25 PM

101. Okay.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #101)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:29 PM

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

No need to get between her and the Karma Express.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:23 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #115)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 09:25 PM

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

 

Molly Pitcher is not a member of a protected class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:38 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:13 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 11:26 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #70)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:11 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #84)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:28 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #89)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:45 PM

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

 

You're getting desperate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #96)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:47 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #98)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 01:48 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #70)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 04:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #103)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:15 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #106)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 05:20 PM

107. There is no point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 03:12 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 04:57 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phil89 (Reply #105)

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 06:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Sep 17, 2014, 10:30 AM

122. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread