• 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

VanceMack said:
Just out of curiosity do you think any of the nations monuments or national treasures should be afforded extra protections? Do you believe hate crime legislation should exist?
Click to expand...

Yes I think national treasures should be protected but that has nothing to do with the OP. No, I don't think hate crime should exist. Intent is often used by the justice system to determine the level of criminality and I've always been uncomfortable with that because intent is within the individual. Murder should be treated as murder, for instance, regardless of intent. There should not be degrees of murder. Murder is simply murder in my view regardless of what the perpetrator intended. Yes I know the legal system disagrees with that belief.

I should also mention that I don't believe the kid in the OP committed a hate crime, or any crime for that matter. He committed a stupid, childish prank. If he damaged the statue then he was guilty of malicious destruction of property, a crime. If he didn't then no harm done.
 
fmw said:
Yes I think national treasures should be protected but that has nothing to do with the OP. No, I don't think hate crime should exist. Intent is often used by the justice system to determine the level of criminality and I've always been uncomfortable with that because intent is within the individual. Murder should be treated as murder, for instance, regardless of intent. There should not be degrees of murder. Murder is simply murder in my view regardless of what the perpetrator intended. Yes I know the legal system disagrees with that belief.

I should also mention that I don't believe the kid in the OP committed a hate crime, or any crime for that matter. He committed a stupid, childish prank. If he damaged the statue then he was guilty of malicious destruction of property, a crime. If he didn't then no harm done.
Click to expand...
I didt mean to imply the national treasures shouldnt be protected, just if there should be 'special' protections. In other words...should an act of attempted vandalism against the Declaration of Independence be nothing more than a charge of vandalism without an additional penalty due to its protected nature.
 
Paleocon said:
Calling me a liberal.
Click to expand...

How is that an insult? Your wanting to have something this petty made an imprisonable offense is an unnecessary intrusion on our lives and free speech - a typically liberal way of thinking.

BTW - on the very same page you said this to another poster:

You have twice in this thread referred to me as an 'it' (posts 330 and 341), which is insulting someone. You have also, at least twice in this thread, used the 'psycho' smiley in reply to a post (not mine), thereby calling the poster a psycho. (posts 346 and 351)

Also in post 330, you said to a poster:

This act was against the law, but don't let reality get in the way of a leftist rant.
Click to expand...

so, if calling someone a liberal is an insult, then saying their post is a 'leftist rant' is an insult, too.

Methinks you have no room to talk.
 
Scrabaholic said:
How is that an insult? Your wanting to have something this petty made an imprisonable offense is an unnecessary intrusion on our lives and free speech - a typically liberal way of thinking.

BTW - on the very same page you said this to another poster:

You have twice in this thread referred to me as an 'it' (posts 330 and 341), which is insulting someone. You have also, at least twice in this thread, used the 'psycho' smiley in reply to a post (not mine), thereby calling the poster a psycho. (posts 346 and 351)

Also in post 330, you said to a poster:



so, if calling someone a liberal is an insult, then saying their post is a 'leftist rant' is an insult, too.

Methinks you have no room to talk.
Click to expand...

Advocating freedom as the primary aspect of one's politics is a liberal thing.
 
VanceMack said:
I didt mean to imply the national treasures shouldnt be protected, just if there should be 'special' protections. In other words...should an act of attempted vandalism against the Declaration of Independence be nothing more than a charge of vandalism without an additional penalty due to its protected nature.
Click to expand...

Yes all things of value should have more than normal protection. I view all property as sacred whether it is a statue in someone's lawn or the declaration of independence. Vandalism is vandalism just as murder is murder in my view.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Liberals typically want more laws governing our lives. Care to address the other points?
Click to expand...

More than who? I've found liberals and conservatives to just want different laws governing our lives.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Liberals typically want more laws governing our lives. Care to address the other points?
Click to expand...

Liberals advocate maximum possible freedom of action.
 
Zyphlin said:
Every post below is from someone with conservative or libertarian - right lean. Not a single person if those leans expressed support for codifying blasphemy under the law or specific to the post you quoted, that the kid should be imprisoned. You bigoted,y stereotyped conservatives due to your own prejudices by taking the words of one extremist and acting like that was the norm.

And this isn't even taking into account "undisclosed" well known right leaning posters like Goshin or Vance who also disagreed with paleo
Click to expand...

Point taken. I was wrong.
 
fmw said:
Yes all things of value should have more than normal protection. I view all property as sacred whether it is a statue in someone's lawn or the declaration of independence. Vandalism is vandalism just as murder is murder in my view.
Click to expand...

Wait...higher than normal value? Like...vandalism and some sort of extra charge based on the value to society?
 
Beaudreaux said:
WTF??? Desecration??? When did that become a law here in the US? A Christian version of Sharia??? Seriously?
Click to expand...

The city, state and county have plenary power to pass these sorts of laws. As long as they are applied to all "venerated objects" of all religions without bias then it's constitutional.

Desecration is a form of disrespect so it should be no surprise that people are angered by it.
 
LowDown said:
The city, state and county have plenary power to pass these sorts of laws. As long as they are applied to all "venerated objects" of all religions without bias then it's constitutional.

Desecration is a form of disrespect so it should be no surprise that people are angered by it.
Click to expand...

I'm angry about it - the guy that did this should be charged with trespassing or if he damaged the statue he should be charged with that... I'm also angry that one of my neighbors is an asshole. But, there shouldn't be a law that punishes someone unless there is harm. There was no harm here, or in the case of my asshole neighbor.
 
LowDown said:
The city, state and county have plenary power to pass these sorts of laws. As long as they are applied to all "venerated objects" of all religions without bias then it's constitutional.

Desecration is a form of disrespect so it should be no surprise that people are angered by it.
Click to expand...

I understand being angry about it - I don't understand wanting to imprison people over it.
 
VanceMack said:
Just out of curiosity do you think any of the nations monuments or national treasures should be afforded extra protections? Do you believe hate crime legislation should exist?
Click to expand...

From vandalism, yes. From disrectful pictures? No.
 
Hard Truth said:
From vandalism, yes. From disrectful pictures? No.
Click to expand...
Sorry...that simply doesnt work. You are tryign to have it both ways. Either property is venerable or it is not. It is either afforded special protections or it is not. You want it to be...just so long as it fits what you want it to fit. If an actual act of vandalism is committed then the crime is vandalism with no special laws or qualifiers or categories. The law this kid is charged with should be eliminated, along with all hate crime laws and any other laws that are in place because some people get their feelings hurt.
 
ChezC3 said:
No.

The point is if you expect respect to be given that you must give it.
Click to expand...

We should not be mandating respect of others or their religions through the laws however. That is violating our constitutional rights to be assholes.
 
Paleocon said:
Would you say the same if he had been naked (and thus committing indecent exposure)?
Click to expand...

Unless someone actually saw him at the time, then yes, I feel the same. This is based off of a picture posted on facebook, not someone actually seeing the incident. I'm so tired of people feeling offended by something that they wouldn't have even known happened if not for social media or media in general. It isn't that big of a deal. Get over it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom