• 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

Is that a crime?

To the theocrats, yes. Sit here yelling about the Muslims, but it seems like we need to worry about the Christians as well. Trying to make their religious laws law of State. Insane.
 
But he was fully clothed.
Accoring to Pensylvania state law: "A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or
in any place where there are present other persons under
circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this
conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm." Indecent exposure - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3127 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

I guess not.

Frankly, that might have been why they charged him with "desecration" in the first place. They wanted to charge him with something, but indecency didn't stick.

Do they have laws against disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace?
 
That's disgusting.

What's disgusting are people trying to use government force to enforce their religious laws against the rest of us. Right up there with ISIS.
 
What's disgusting are people trying to use government force to enforce their religious laws against the rest of us. Right up there with ISIS.
Please spare us the pitiful attempt at moral equivalency.
 
Please spare us the pitiful attempt at moral equivalency.

true paleocon just wants to imprison people for violating his religion I don't think he wants to kill any one

I could ask him I guess
 
Since he didn't do any harm to the statue (as far as I can tell), he shouldn't have been charged with anything. "Desecration of a venerated object" shouldn't even be a crime in the US. I hope he fights it on first amendment grounds.
It clearly violates the first amendment to be charged when no damage has happened
 
Please spare us the pitiful attempt at moral equivalency.

Please spare the rest of us your deflection. Government force comes at the end of a gun, which some have advocated as proper for enforcement of religious law. Force is force, whether you hold a gun to someone's head yourself or pay someone to do it for you.
 
But he was fully clothed.
Accoring to Pensylvania state law: "A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or
in any place where there are present other persons under
circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this
conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm." Indecent exposure - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3127 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

Then I guess they charged him appropriately for PA. In AZ he'd be subject to Format Document
 
Then I guess they charged him appropriately for PA. In AZ he'd be subject to Format Document

not sure he acutely did a sexual act or that any one who would be offend was around at the time to witness it
 
not sure he acutely did a sexual act or that any one who would be offend was around at the time to witness it

I'm pretty sure that what he did was a sexual act. In fact I find it hard to believe that any adult who saw the image would consider it to be anything other than a sexual act.
 
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.

You want to throw this guy in jail?

At taxpayer's expense?

For that?

picard-facepalm.jpg
 
Unlike the other young man caught 4 years ago urinating on a religious nativity scene, this young man engaged in an act of juvenile stupidity without causing harm to the statue. This level of stupidity is perhaps deserving of public humiliation, but not the criminal justice system.
 
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.

Well, the pose is disgusting. If he violated a law--if he damaged property, for example--then prosecution is legitimate. But people do offensive stuff all the time, and you do have to let some of it go.

The thing is that there are always going to be jerks (especially teens who are exploring boundaries). I'm willing to bet that he's not the first kid to think about posing like that, and he won't be the last. Let them set fire to the flag and simulate a BJ with a statue...and pray that they will be given the gift of discernment and good taste. And celebrate the fact that we live in a country so free that people are free to be jerks.
 
I'm pretty sure that what he did was a sexual act. In fact I find it hard to believe that any adult who saw the image would consider it to be anything other than a sexual act.

Would standing there as if he was peeing be public urination?

No.

The only reason why anyone claims to care is because of what the statue is. If it was a freaking duck statue no one would give a damn - or noticed - or whatever.
 
I'm pretty sure that what he did was a sexual act. In fact I find it hard to believe that any adult who saw the image would consider it to be anything other than a sexual act.

A simulated sexual act...but there was no nudity nor sex. Implied sexual act is what ya got.
 
Please spare the rest of us your deflection. Government force comes at the end of a gun, which some have advocated as proper for enforcement of religious law. Force is force, whether you hold a gun to someone's head yourself or pay someone to do it for you.
:lol: Typical cornball libertarian logic. The mere fact that some would like to see their religious preferences enshrined in law in this manner does not make it directly comparable to those who are chopping the ****ing heads off non-converts.
 
A simulated sexual act...but there was no nudity nor sex. Implied sexual act is what ya got.

dose kind of look like he trying to get Jesus to give him a lift....1 way or another
 
:lol: Typical cornball libertarian logic. The mere fact that some would like to see their religious preferences enshrined in law in this manner does not make it directly comparable to those who are chopping the ****ing heads off non-converts.

Don't need to, one was claimouring to throw the kid in jail. Have government hold the gun instead of himself and steal the freedom and liberty of another for nothing more than religious persecution.

He may not be looking to chop heads off, but he's on the same side of the distribution as those who do. Religious terrorism in any flavor is not good.
 
Would standing there as if he was peeing be public urination?

No.

The only reason why anyone claims to care is because of what the statue is. If it was a freaking duck statue no one would give a damn - or noticed - or whatever.

A simulated sexual act...but there was no nudity nor sex. Implied sexual act is what ya got.

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.
 
I'm pretty sure that what he did was a sexual act. In fact I find it hard to believe that any adult who saw the image would consider it to be anything other than a sexual act.

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.
 
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.

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

Vibrators should be against the law, then? That's clearly a sexual act.
 
If it was a statue of Mohammed, I bet most of the posters here would be singing a different story.
 
Back
Top Bottom