• 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

Paleocon said:
I'm concerned with open and public blasphemy.



I'm not sure why you're babbling about sharia, but yes, there is a little bit of sanity left in America.
Click to expand...

I am concerned with people who are pissing and moaning that the spanish inquisition is a thing of the past and want to reestablish it here.
 
jamesrage said:
We don't punish people because they offend our religious views.
Click to expand...

what Palecon doesn't get is if GOD really does EXIST, then I am sure HE can handle this "insult" sufficiently

he doesn't need a grand inquisitor on earth to do HIS work
 
Paleocon said:
No, we ought to pass laws against the commission of public acts which are grievously immoral.
Click to expand...

Like Justin Bieber concerts?

I kid, but seriously you do realize "grievously immoral" is a rather subjective term. Some Muslims would consider a woman showing her face to be "grievously immoral". For some uttering racial slurs is "grievously immoral". Should those both be illegal as well or are we only supposed to enforce your idea of what is "grievously immoral"?

The way I look at it, a government that has the power to enforce my moral code others has the power to enforce another moral code on me, and I know my moral code (which probably is fairly similar to yours) isn't what the majority hold to.
 
jamesrage said:
We don't punish people because they offend our religious views.
Click to expand...

Of course not. That would be logical, which we are not.

Scrabaholic said:
Of course not....

Personally, I wouldn't want my tax dollars used to prosecute and imprison someone for something so petty....
Click to expand...

Your tax dollars aren't.

TurtleDude said:
I am surprised you aren't calling for the auto de fe and public burning at the stake


I think its mindless what he did but under the first amendment, it shouldn't be punished
Click to expand...

The auto de fe is no longer part of canon law.

TurtleDude said:
I am concerned with people who are pissing and moaning that the spanish inquisition is a thing of the past and want to reestablish it here.
Click to expand...

No one wants to establish the Spanish inquisition in America. That would be absurd.
 
maquiscat said:
The law is about a venerated object thus covering both religious and non religious. Therefore 1st amendment is not violated.



The issue of ownership also comes into play here. Had that been the boy's statue or at least his family's, then the law could not apply. I can go out and purchase my own Koran and burn it and no law in the US can touch me in and of itself. Incidentals, such as burning it on someone else's property or the act resulting in burn damage to property other than mine could be applied but those would apply regardless of what the initial object burned was.

Now I will admit that "venerated" can be a subjective term, which is why I do not like the law in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Desecration laws protecting the USA's flag have been ruled unconstitutional. The Supremes correctly recognized in that decision that one's freedom of expression can't be abridged just because it offends many people. (except public nudity and lewdness and indecency on broadcast TV and radio) The desecration law that he kid is charged with is not based on ownership of the symbol, only on whether someone is offended. They charged the kid with desecration because they couldn't get away with another charge such as trespassing or vandalism.
 
Paleocon said:
Of course not. That would be logical, which we are not.



Your tax dollars aren't.



The auto de fe is no longer part of canon law.



No one wants to establish the Spanish inquisition in America. That would be absurd.
Click to expand...

do you want an American inquisition?

and how is it logical to punish blasphemy?
 
Paleocon said:
Of course not. That would be logical, which we are not.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say in the OP "I find it disgusting that this is a misdemeanor. It ought to be punished by imprisonment" over someone taking a lewd photo with a religious statue? Unless you were being sarcastic in the OP you wanted someone in prison for offending your religious views.
 
jamesrage said:
Didn't you just say in the OP "I find it disgusting that this is a misdemeanor. It ought to be punished by imprisonment" over someone taking a lewd photo with a religious statue? Unless you were being sarcastic in the OP you wanted someone in prison for offending your religious views.
Click to expand...

I think he is saying that we are not logical because we don't punish blasphemy
 
blarg said:
do you want an American inquisition?

and how is it logical to punish blasphemy?
Click to expand...

No, the Roman Inquisition (since renamed) is sufficient.

If one really believes that Christianity is the true religion established for the salvation of the world, then one logically should desire the prohibition of public denigrations of it.

jamesrage said:
Didn't you just say in the OP "I find it disgusting that this is a misdemeanor. It ought to be punished by imprisonment" over someone taking a lewd photo with a religious statue? Unless you were being sarcastic in the OP you wanted someone in prison for offending your religious views.
Click to expand...

Even blarg understood what I meant.
 
Paleocon said:
No, the Roman Inquisition (since renamed) is sufficient.

If one really believes that Christianity is the true religion established for the salvation of the world, then one logically should desire the prohibition of public denigrations of it.



Even blarg understood what I meant.
Click to expand...

That's the paleocon we know and love or some word that sounds a bit like love classic

you might need a logical reason to believe in Christianity 1st though

not that your god existing would make it moral
 
blarg said:
That's the paleocon we know and love or some word that sounds a bit like love classic

you might need a logical reason to believe in Christianity 1st though

not that your god existing would make it moral
Click to expand...

The corroborating testimony of eleven witnesses to the same event, with no motivation for falsehood.
 
Paleocon said:
The corroborating testimony of eleven witnesses to the same event, with no motivation for falsehood.
Click to expand...

except we cant prove any one was a witness and people wanted other people to believe in Christianity

which event do you mean?
 
Paleocon said:
If one really believes that Christianity is the true religion established for the salvation of the world, then one logically should desire the prohibition of public denigrations of it.
Click to expand...

No. I do desire for everyone--Christian, members of other faiths, and secularists--to be respectful of the beliefs of others. But there will always be tension between God and "Caesar." And Jesus wasn't about changing the law; He was about changing the individual heart and conscience.
 
blarg said:
except we cant prove any one was a witness and people wanted other people to believe in Christianity

which event do you mean?
Click to expand...

The resurrection.

nota bene said:
No. I do desire for everyone--Christian, members of other faiths, and secularists--to be respectful of the beliefs of others. But there will always be tension between God and "Caesar." And Jesus wasn't about changing the law; He was about changing the individual heart and conscience.
Click to expand...

There will always be tension between God and humanity in general (until the end of time). So should humanity in general be unaffected by the desires of God?

Also, do you really think you know better than virtually every scholar of Christianity for the first fifteen hundred years of its existence?
 
Paleocon said:
The resurrection.

There will always be tension between God and humanity in general (until the end of time). So should humanity in general be unaffected by the desires of God?

Also, do you really think you know better than virtually every scholar of Christianity for the first fifteen hundred years of its existence?
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed to know better; in fact, if you've ever read my posts, I nearly always add the disclaimer that I am not a Biblical scholar. But I do know that Jesus said to rend unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and how one conducts himself in public--following the laws of public behavior, which include in this country First Amendment rights--is within Caesar's realm.

If you don't like a law, work to change it. Consider how people responded to Mapplethorpe's art and "Piss Christ" vis-a-vis NEA funding.

As for changing human hearts, which does succeed in modifying behavior, this is a one-on-one that begins with you being a light unto the gentiles, not by badgering those who disagree with your beliefs. What you don't want to do is cause those who already agree with your sense of outrage to turn away from you.

And this is what you have just done. ;)
 
nota bene said:
I haven't claimed to know better; in fact, if you've ever read my posts, I nearly always add the disclaimer that I am not a Biblical scholar. But I do know that Jesus said to rend unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and how one conducts himself in public--following the laws of public behavior, which include in this country First Amendment rights--is within Caesar's realm.

If you don't like a law, work to change it. Consider how people responded to Mapplethorpe's art and "Piss Christ" vis-a-vis NEA funding.

As for changing human hearts, which does succeed in modifying behavior, this is a one-on-one that begins with you being a light unto the gentiles, not by badgering those who disagree with your beliefs. What you don't want to do is cause those who already agree with your sense of outrage to turn away from you.

And this is what you have just done. ;)
Click to expand...

The discussion regards what the law should say, not what it does say, so citing the First Amendment is irrelevant.

Unless of course you are claiming that the state of Pennsylvania is guilty of violating the First Amendment and therefore divine law, in which case I would point out that, according to the Angelic Doctor, unjust laws are not in fact laws but corruptions of law, and therefore do not bind.
 
The photo is funny lol.

But the minor was on someone elses property performing a simulated sexual act. if he were a adult I think the cops should tell him not to do it again and if the land owner objects to the person being on the property then tell him he isnt wanted there. As a minor though he should have received a lecture and possibly some small amount of community service. Nothing should go on his record. A attempt should at least be made to teach the kid respect of other peoples property.

Again the photo is funny and I wouldnt have been above doing the same thing. ANd actually I have done similar things but never made the acts public. Had the kid not shared his joke on facebook he wouldnt have gotten in trouble. Regardless though I am sure that he still thinks that it was funny. ANd I doubt that he learned anything from the experience.

But what did they expect with a name like: Love INC.?
 
As a Christian I find his actions sacrilegious and irresponsible

But he shouldn't be charged for any thing more than trespassing.

When Isis blew up Jonah's tomb I wasn't incensed either.

Those who seek to attack Christianity by attacking objects or religious icons truly do not understand the heart of a Christian.

Faith isn't about worshipping man made objects or even locations that are tied to Christianity's History.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom