Religion

littlemissmartypants

(32,806 posts)

38. NO! But Jesus should be punished for leading him astray.

Thu Sep 11, 2014, 05:17 AM

Sep 2014

Are there no grown up persons responsible?
Make the kid read the Koran or another so called holy book of choice, for an hour. If he can read. That'll teach him.

More wasted time and money for the love of pure ignorance.

His brain hasn't even finished growing. He's feeling macho and irreverent. If those are crimes, throw the book at him. Any big fat old "holy" book will do.
Just don't hit the silly boy with it. His ego is so puffed up now, from all the attention he has been getting over this, it might hurt his feelings.

Chinese Proverb
Without fools there would be no wisdom.

The law does not apply in this case.

That is my not at all humble opinion and I stand by it.

Love, Peace and Shelter.
~ littlemissmartypants

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should a 14-Year-Old Pennsylvania Boy Be Punished for Supposed Desecration of a Statue of Jesus? [View all] rug Sep 2014 OP

that's bullshit elehhhhna Sep 2014 #1

an Allah statue? MisterP Sep 2014 #34

LOL. nt littlemissmartypants Sep 2014 #37

Since the statute was not physically mistreated, charges should be dismissed like right now. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #2

That;s the best argument. rug Sep 2014 #4

I see. A prosecutor will have a chuckle and tell the charging cop to get a life. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #5

No. Not even for public nuisance. LiberalAndProud Sep 2014 #3

I agree. Big deal. Kids should be allowed to do things that are not cool without everybody... BlueJazz Sep 2014 #12

Does Not Seem To Meet The Definition In The Statute, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #6

Beat you to it, and without the 'tude. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #8

There are two elements to that misdemeanor. rug Sep 2014 #10

Since The Act Does Not Meet The Definition Of 'Desecrate', Sir, Any Charge Must Fail The Magistrate Sep 2014 #15

Yes, it must meet the complete definition, not simply a part of of it. rug Sep 2014 #17

Did the little idiot actually damage the statue? okasha Sep 2014 #7

Hmmm, the article doesn't mention any residue. rug Sep 2014 #13

falls under 14 year old boys do stupid shit Skittles Sep 2014 #9

Kick his ass, Skittles! rug Sep 2014 #11

I WILL KICK HIS FAUX-BLOWN ASS Skittles Sep 2014 #14

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT! rug Sep 2014 #16

I noticed you said these are hate crimes. They are not. Hate crimes relate to people, not statues. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #18

This statute directly relates to people. rug Sep 2014 #19

The FBI has a definition that concentrates on motive as the basis of a hate crime... Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #22

Research the legislative history of this Pennsylvania statute. It is a hate crime. rug Sep 2014 #25

Does Jesus hate oral sex? ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #23

If he stuck a dildo in the statue's mouth, thus damaging it, do you think it would be a hate crime? rug Sep 2014 #29

The second one looks like a hate crime, I don't know about the others. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #30

The organization in the story, though religious, is not a church. rug Sep 2014 #31

Oops, I thought it was a church, ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #49

Those are good points. rug Sep 2014 #50

It sounds like we're all speaking the same language here. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #53

I replied below. I think we've already met and now are walking past each other. rug Sep 2014 #57

I see no correlation, because those are all damaged private property. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #40

Is Ronald McDonald a protected class under the law? rug Sep 2014 #44

No, I explained quite clearly. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #47

Actually, religions, as are gender, race and nationality, are protected classes under the law. rug Sep 2014 #48

Again, that's not what I conveyed. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #51

This is exactly what I've been saying. rug Sep 2014 #56

I felt 'threat' was the 'least bad' condition of the group. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #60

OK, I've got to go to my daughter's field hockey game. rug Sep 2014 #62

No worries, have a great game. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #63

If the statue sustained no damage, there should be no charges. Arkansas Granny Sep 2014 #20

Agree wholeheartedly. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #27

This is a lot like putting a noose exboyfil Sep 2014 #21

I'm not exactly sure why this bothers people. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #24

Insane. He's a kid - TBF Sep 2014 #26

Good idea. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #28

Absolutely... brooklynite Sep 2014 #32

Let his parents handle this. If I were them, I'd have the photo No Vested Interest Sep 2014 #33

I'd say it's void for vagueness. Manifestor_of_Light Sep 2014 #35

Punished by his parents, yes, but this doesn't seem to break the law. cbayer Sep 2014 #36

I 100 percent agree yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #54

NO! But Jesus should be punished for leading him astray. littlemissmartypants Sep 2014 #38

The kid should just say edhopper Sep 2014 #39

"Conceptual" has four syllables. okasha Sep 2014 #41

And we know he's unintelligent how, exactly? Goblinmonger Sep 2014 #42

No evidence kid's an artist. okasha Sep 2014 #45

"Stop pretending Art is hard" AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #52

heh, evidence. EvilAL Sep 2014 #68

Lol n/t Gelliebeans Sep 2014 #65

Lol! nt No Vested Interest Sep 2014 #46

Punished? Yes, but by his parents. MineralMan Sep 2014 #43

Ding ding ding! yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #55

Prank by a 14 year old? No physical damage done to the statue? Doesn't seem one for a court. pinto Sep 2014 #58

No. It's a statue and a living Jesus wouldn't have asked for that kind of Cleita Sep 2014 #59

under the statute, he appears to be guilty. but the real question is... unblock Sep 2014 #61

Good questions. rug Sep 2014 #66

Nope abelenkpe Sep 2014 #64

Nasty idiotic behaviour but not a crime LeftishBrit Sep 2014 #67