• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

Possibly, but then again I am a human being with rights and liberties, not a statue which is property.

The only difference if he did it to you would be that it would be a sexual assault instead of simply an indecent act.
 
Out of curiosity, if that kid walked up to you and started humping your leg that way would you consider it to be a sexual act then?

The act is what it is without regard to whether it was committed upon a person or an object.

Now the statue is a human female or male?

Was it offended? Mortified? The damned thing gets rained on and crapped on by the birds.
 
Now the statue is a human female or male?

Was it offended? Mortified? The damned thing gets rained on and crapped on by the birds.

Once again, the act is what it is without regard to whether it was committed upon a person or an object.

The only difference, as I just said in the reply to Ikari, is that if it's committed upon a person then it becomes assault.
 
The only difference if he did it to you would be that it would be a sexual assault instead of simply an indecent act.

Most likely harassment, though the real difference is that I'm a human and the statue is not. But if you want to advocate the guns of government for pretend sex...so be it. Just not all that rational.
 
Then I guess they charged him appropriately for PA. In AZ he'd be subject to Format Document

Only if he did it in front of someone who is offended by the act, or likely to be offended by the act.

"...if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act:.."
 
Only if he did it in front of someone who is offended by the act, or likely to be offended by the act.

"...if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act:.."

Well, somebody took the picture so I'm pretty sure someone else was there. I don't know if there were more "somebody's" but it looks like it was in broad daylight and in a public place.
 
No, it wasn't a sexual act. It was a pretend sexual act.

And I'm not really sure whether a "sexual act" with a statue actually counts as a crime. If not actually having sex with an inanimate object is a crime, surely we're going to have to end the sex toy industry.

Sex toys are banned in several states. The Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of those laws.
 
Well, somebody took the picture so I'm pretty sure someone else was there. I don't know if there were more "somebody's" but it looks like it was in broad daylight and in a public place.

Whoever was there didn't call the cops, so apparently they were not offended.
 
And once again the internet brings me wisdom well beyond that for which I could ever have hoped.....

....or wanted.:lol:

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

Count me in the .....or wanted group! I could have probably lived quite happily without that knowledge - but think about it....it could be an interesting tidbit to throw out at a cocktail party! Those that don't choke on their drink might find it amusing and worthy of further discussion! :mrgreen:
 
Warning: Extremely offensive image in link

Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue | The Smoking Gun



I find it disgusting that this is a misdemeanor. It ought to be punished by imprisonment.

Palecon, when it is your God that you love, it's rather hard to take when others mock him. But by law, this boys actions were at the very least lewd behavior. Instead of thinking he should be imprisoned for his actions, maybe praying for him would be a better route to go. If you are a follower of Christ, then you know that no man has the power to change the heart or another only God holds that power. Peace.
 
That's pretty nasty. He's 14? I have a 14 year old and he looks a lot younger than that kid.

Sorry Paleocon, I don't think he deserves prison for that. It's lewd and disgusting, and he needs a smack upside his head, and I can certainly see & understand how it offends you, but not imprisonment.
 
The only thing that would matter is if he actually physically harmed the statue. He did not. He shouldn't be charged for anything else, it's all freedom of speech. If they really want to do something, get him for trespassing if they can.
 
Would you say the same if it was a statue of Mohammed?

I would say the artist that made the statue better remain anonymous lest some Islamists declare a Fatwa against them for creating an image of the prophet.
 
Warning: Extremely offensive image in link

Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue | The Smoking Gun

I find it disgusting that this is a misdemeanor. It ought to be punished by imprisonment.

First off, what offensive picture?

Secondly, why was he arrested? He did nothing illegal as far as I can see. He does not have his pants down, and unless being without a shirt is illegal there.. then what?

Thirdly, if this had been a real religious statue of any value or historical significance.. then it would be protected no? Then it is nothing but a very badly made and looking statue of a guy suppose to be Jesus sitting on his knees in his very expensive robe.. that looks a lot like Royal Purple, only worn by Emperors and magisters in the Roman empire..
 
Secondly, why was he arrested? He did nothing illegal as far as I can see. He does not have his pants down, and unless being without a shirt is illegal there.. then what?

Desecration or sale of venerated objects - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5509 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

Pennsylvanian Law:
§ 5509. Desecration or sale of venerated objects.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree if he:
(1) intentionally desecrates any public monument or
structure, or place of worship or burial;
(2) if he intentionally desecrates any other object of
veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in
any public place; or...


...(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Desecrate." 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.
 
This ordinance is crap...

"Desecrate." 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.


The 1st amendment trumps anyone's "sensibilities".

Only when applied. Christians are not a protected class here. If that had been a statue of MLK for instance, public riots may have been accptable. Wasn't here a case where a rope was placed around the neck of a statue on a college campus that led to outrage? The problem with selective outrage is who gets to decide application.
 
Back
Top Bottom