Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you disagree with this punishment for the defacement of any statue? Or any monument? I can't think of any statue that an atheist might hold dear....so I'm kind of at a loss. I'm just curious if there is anything that we could do to deface a statue or monument that you think would be deserving of a punishment?
I'm not suggesting that a person deserves 2 years simply for insulting Christianity, but if the city or state has determined it a crime to deface a monument, that's within their authority.
Did you look at the link? What statue was defaced? I must have missed that part because it wasn't in the picture I saw.
I honestly don't know. I'm merely asking the question. I really don't know the specifics of the case.
My question is more in regards to people's idea that it's either more or less of an offense because of what the statue is.
It is more offensive to some who value what the statue represents. To the point of calling it "desecration". The problem is that the legal definition of "desecration" in that state is forced to show actual harm, meaning some form of damage or defacement. Since the condition of the statue is the same now as it was before the child's witless ministrations, no "desecration" occurred other than in between people's ears. The child's actions could be seen as a personal protected expression under freedom of speech, in fact, although the difficulty there is that the kid probably can't articulate an idea he was trying to convey other than "I like to scandalize others and draw any sort of attention to myself, even if negative". Ironically there was in past generations no way to put such actions on the world stage in living color. Such capabilities are regrettable, given the inability of the young to connect actions with consequences. in the Old Days, kids got to learn from their mistakes in a contained environment with limited consequences. Now this kid's grandchildren will be able to Google this youthful indiscretion decades in the future.
If the kid had performed oral sex on a statue of an anonymous frog, say, we wouldn't be having this conversation (unless the inevitable self-posted YouTube video went viral). If the kid was arrested at all it would be under the rubric of "public nuisance" or "disturbing the peace". All this hoo-raw is because it is an image of Jesus and violates widely held taboos.
My question is more in regards to people's idea that it's either more or less of an offense because of what the statue is.
Here's how it works: If a fundamentalist hears that someone did something like this to a statue of Jesus they are appalled and take it as a sign Satan is roaming the earth and we're in the end times.
If a fundamentalist sees a Catholic kneeling in prayer before that same statue of Jesus... the Catholic is worshiping an idol and must be told he's in error and needs to stop being a Catholic.
It is more offensive to some who value what the statue represents. To the point of calling it "desecration". The problem is that the legal definition of "desecration" in that state is forced to show actual harm, meaning some form of damage or defacement. Since the condition of the statue is the same now as it was before the child's witless ministrations, no "desecration" occurred other than in between people's ears. The child's actions could be seen as a personal protected expression under freedom of speech, in fact, although the difficulty there is that the kid probably can't articulate an idea he was trying to convey other than "I like to scandalize others and draw any sort of attention to myself, even if negative". Ironically there was in past generations no way to put such actions on the world stage in living color. Such capabilities are regrettable, given the inability of the young to connect actions with consequences. in the Old Days, kids got to learn from their mistakes in a contained environment with limited consequences. Now this kid's grandchildren will be able to Google this youthful indiscretion decades in the future.
If the kid had performed oral sex on a statue of an anonymous frog, say, we wouldn't be having this conversation (unless the inevitable self-posted YouTube video went viral). If the kid was arrested at all it would be under the rubric of "public nuisance" or "disturbing the peace". All this hoo-raw is because it is an image of Jesus and violates widely held taboos.
OK....I can see your point. I honestly am not going to argue that some idiot kid needs to be thrown in jail because of him doing a blasphemous act to a statue of my savior.
But if the city or state has a law that prohibits it, are they not allowed to enforce the law?
Here's how it works: If a fundamentalist hears that someone did something like this to a statue of Jesus they are appalled and take it as a sign Satan is roaming the earth and we're in the end times.
If a fundamentalist sees a Catholic kneeling in prayer before that same statue of Jesus... the Catholic is worshiping an idol and must be told he's in error and needs to stop being a Catholic.
I'm a "fundamentalist" and I would think neither of those things. When you use a broad brush like that sometimes you are wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
