• 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

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.

What were the students believed to be involved with the placing of a hangman's noose around the statue of James Meredith charged with? What law did they break?

Being outraged is not a criminal offense and is constitutionally protected...trying to prosecute because one is outraged, is not constitutional.
 
Last edited:
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.

don't forget the confederate flag

that case seems to be clearly racist in nature

this seems to be a dumb suggestive pose

that's not clearly a threat to Christians or a threat that Jesus is going to be raped via his mouth
 
This is ridiculous. There is no way that should be illegal. He did no physical damage to the statue; all the boy did was pose for a picture. What an unconstitutional waste of time and money.
 
What were the students believed to be involved with the placing of a hangman's noose around the statue of James Meredith charged with? What law did they break?

Being outraged is not a criminal offense and is constitutionally protected...trying to prosecute because one is outraged, is not constitutional.

That's what I was asking. Don't remember the specifics of the case, but I seem to recall there was disciplinary action of some kind.
 
That's what I was asking. Don't remember the specifics of the case, but I seem to recall there was disciplinary action of some kind.

The fraternity they belonged to was placed on probation. That was an action between the private university and its students...who pledge to uphold the university's code of conduct when the student applied to attend the private institution.
 
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".


That statue is undoubtably on private property- so unless it is his property, his first amendment rights really dont apply.

I wonder had somebody had shot him off the statue, what level of charges would the killer face. My guess is that the "fighting words" doctrine might apply.

Even if they dont apply in the formal sense, it might be very difficult to sit a jury of 12 willing to convict for first or second degree murder. Manslaughter might be a possibility. Though, in east Texas, the conviction might be more towards disturbing the peace, or firing a weapon in city limits.
 
This is pretty messed up!
 
If they want to cite him for trespassing, maybe. He didn't seem to have to break into anyplace to get where he did.

He didn't deface or otherwise damage the statue of the prophet.

Saying that he is "The Almighty God" seems to violate the second commandment. Imbuing so much into an inanimate object seems to violate the third commandment.
 
The fraternity they belonged to was placed on probation. That was an action between the private university and its students...who pledge to uphold the university's code of conduct when the student applied to attend the private institution.

Makes sense. As for the kid in the pic, I don't see any laws broken, but perhaps his parents ought to kick his ass and teach him to respect others.
 
That statue is undoubtably on private property- so unless it is his property, his first amendment rights really dont apply.

I wonder had somebody had shot him off the statue, what level of charges would the killer face. My guess is that the "fighting words" doctrine might apply.

Even if they dont apply in the formal sense, it might be very difficult to sit a jury of 12 willing to convict for first or second degree murder. Manslaughter might be a possibility. Though, in east Texas, the conviction might be more towards disturbing the peace, or firing a weapon in city limits.

No. That is not correct. If he violated private property, that is an offense all its own. That has nothing to do with what he was charged with. He can be prosecuted for violating private property...but he was not.

I never said the kids 1st amendment rights were violated...I said the law trying to prosecute him are unconstitutional. Passing a law because someone's sensibilities are violated is not constitutional.

There is no right to shoot a person on private property without justification. If a kid walks on your lawn gives you no right to shot him. Private property is not a licence to shoot/kill.
 
The kid looks like a white trash scumbag to me. What an asshole.
 
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.
Please explain to use why you think posing for a picture performing a lewd act with an inanimate object that was not harmed, should be a felony? I am not even sure this charge, "desecration of a venerate object," is even constitutional -- as it elevates religious objects to something above a mere object.
 
...

There is no right to shoot a person on private property without justification. If a kid walks on your lawn gives you no right to shot him. Private property is not a licence to shoot/kill.
Well, except in Texas.
 
I am not sure why it is a crime even. AS best I can tell, he did not harm the statue in any way, he simply posed for a picture with it.
As disgusting as these posed pictures are I have to agree.

And you're comfortable with the government determining what is and isn't blasphemy?
I know this was not directed at me, but I for one do not want the government determining what is or is not blasphemy.
 
Leapfrog is a criminal offence? (to the pure, all things are pure)

This.

So I'm reading along trying to figure out which side of this issue to come down upon, and I get to Manc's post. Brilliant!
 
There is no right to shoot a person on private property without justification. If a kid walks on your lawn gives you no right to shot him. Private property is not a licence to shoot/kill.

I agree whole heartedly.

But what the trespasser is doing on that private property can be used as mitigating circumstances in assessing the appropriate charges and resulting punishment.

My guess is that in many parts of the USA, a property owner shooting this particular trespasser doing this particular act would face only manslaughter charges- and possibly not even that (fighting words doctrine).

The same concept works with trespassers burning a cross on a black person's property. Yes, killing them for the act of tresspassing is unlawful. Could the actions of these particular trespassers lead to lesser charges against the shooter?- probably so.

I never said the kids 1st amendment rights were violated...I said the law trying to prosecute him are unconstitutional. Passing a law because someone's sensibilities are violated is not constitutional.
Ok, I can accept that.
 
Last edited:
Would you say the same if he had been naked (and thus committing indecent exposure)?

He wasn't. Wasn't speeding either. Wasn't drinking.

What's your point.
 
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.

It's a stupid thing for this kid I do, some will be offended and some won't.
I don't see an actual crime being committed other than perhaps trespassing if he was on private property.

Stupid is as stupid does, first by doing it, second taking pictures, thirdly posting it on FB for the world to see.
 
All of my own Jesus statues are equipped with a secret mechanical device that is only tripped when the statue senses certain motions.

teeth-metal.jpg
 
I know this was not directed at me, but I for one do not want the government determining what is or is not blasphemy.

Nor do I. At least we agree on something.
 
We are not a theocracy which is why blasphemy is not a crime.

I'm not sure why you're talking about theocracy. Perhaps you posted in the wrong thread?

Is that what the courts officially charged him with?

Yes.

Over the years God has been reviled in many ways and in many ways far worse than this. I believe that the blasphemy is His job to deal with. When we deign to exact His justice we are acting from vanity, not love.

Yep, let's legalize everything.

he has the First Amendment Right to be a scumbag

The law disagrees with you.

The chances a teenage boy will do exactly what this one did is pretty good. They had to know the statue was inviting this kind of behavior when they put it up. I mean, just look at it.

What is wrong with you?

No, if he committed some actual crime then he should be charged accordingly.

He did commit a crime.

We do not live in the middle where desecration is a crime

What is the middle?

Um... who cares? Why is this a crime?

He didn't do any harm to the statue. What difference does it make, and why are we wasting the court's time with this?

Whether you like it or not, Paleocon, blasphemy is perfectly legal in this country because Christians don't get to tell everyone else how to speak. Look up "blasphemy challenge." You know how many people got arrested for that? None. Public blasphemy is something you'll just have to live with, if you like living in a free country.

But I don't suspect you actually want to live in a free country at all. You want to live in a theocracy. There are plenty of those... in the third world. You could always relocate.

I don't know why you're babbling about a theocracy. Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about?

Be as concerned with "public blasphemy" as you want, but your god has nothing to do with the rules of man. No property damage, no vandalism, no crime. Just say NO to theocracy.

I'm not sure why you're babbling about theocracy. Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about?

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.

Ok well if you disagree with the charges then you're like a Nazi (because I say you are), therefore you're wrong.

(liberal illogic)

It clearly violates the first amendment to be charged when no damage has happened

The law disagrees with you.

You want to throw this guy in jail?

At taxpayer's expense?

For that?

picard-facepalm.jpg

Yes of course.

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.

He did violate a law. Tolerating some things doesn't mean tolerating everything.

Would you say the same if it was a statue of Mohammed?

Not ideally. Although prison for both cases would be better than prison for neither.

Should saying "God Dammit" loudly be a felony as well then?

No. That's not nearly as bad.

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..

He committed a crime.

Are you serious...for the love of God, please tell me you are joking.

No.

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".

The law disagrees with you.

You worship idols????

You make nonsensical comments!!!!!

Please explain to use why you think posing for a picture performing a lewd act with an inanimate object that was not harmed, should be a felony? I am not even sure this charge, "desecration of a venerate object," is even constitutional -- as it elevates religious objects to something above a mere object.

Because it is blasphemous.

He wasn't. Wasn't speeding either. Wasn't drinking.

What's your point.

It's illegal.

Blasphemy? Oh my god! Behead him!!! :roll:

What are you talking about?

It's a stupid thing for this kid I do, some will be offended and some won't.
I don't see an actual crime being committed other than perhaps trespassing if he was on private property.

Stupid is as stupid does, first by doing it, second taking pictures, thirdly posting it on FB for the world to see.

It was a crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom