Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue?

a reply to: NavyDoc

You know is funny, we have laws in the books at state and local level that are very much archaic, I remember reading that here in the south was or is against the law to marry interracially, I need to find out if the law is still in the books.

Yes I agree that is was not desecration, so is not crime, I wonder who was the one that searched the books for the law to charge the teen.

Now, I have to agree that what he did as dumb as it was it was within his freedom of speech.

originally posted by: WanDash
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare
It would seem to me that - if you go onto private property TO perform such an act, you've exceeded the bounds of decency and civility...and thus, civil misconduct could apply.
If this kid came into your yard, and had the same kind of photo taken of himself with your young daughter's face where the statue's face is in the incriminating photo...then, posted the photo online - having never forced said daughter to do anything...would you &/or your daughter feel/be violated?

Maybe something to consider...

There's a big difference in Jesus and my daughter. My daughter is real.

Also if jesus was real, he told people he was not god and said don't worship me.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: eriktheawful

I disagree. He wouldn't have been charged if it was a politican, or anything that wasn't religious.

He wasn't caught doing it, that's different they can get you for lewd act in public, etc. They got him after the fact BECAUSE it was Jesus.

Veneration does not equal religious:

"Veneraton" - great respect; reverence

Here are some objects that fall under that: The American flag. A statue of say, George Washington or Lincoln. The statue of David, the painting Mona Lisa, and yes, certain symbols that are religious: the cross, the star of David, etc.

If he'd done the same thing to a statue of a city founder, and posted it, someone might have filed a complaint too. I've seen this before.

However in the past, it was an egging, toilet papering, etc. With normally most time the individual(s) not being caught.

In this case: the kid and/or his friends were STUPID enough to post the image of what he did online.

There has been many memes going around on the internet, especially social media, of some kids holding a sign that says "My parent/teacher, dared us to post this photograph to show how fast something spreads on the internet."

Looks like this kid is learning the HARD way how something posted on the internet can come back to bite you in the butt.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: NavyDoc

You know is funny, we have laws in the books at state and local level that are very much archaic, I remember reading that here in the south was or is against the law to marry interracially, I need to find out if the law is still in the books.

Yes I agree that is was not desecration, so is not crime, I wonder who was the one that searched the books for the law to charge the teen.

Now, I have to agree that what he did as dumb as it was it was within his freedom of speech.

Well, trespass isn't part of freedom of speech, so I think it hard to press that aspect for a case. What ideas was he attempting to promulgate? What speech was there?

It should boil down to stupid kid games, no harm, no foul, and the church doesn't want to see him prosecuted for anything, even the trespass which is the real "crime" here, so it should be dropped and the PA legislature should clean house

There are still stupid and archaic laws on the books, like every automobile has to be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag, which is still on the books in my state.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare

originally posted by: WanDash
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare
It would seem to me that - if you go onto private property TO perform such an act, you've exceeded the bounds of decency and civility...and thus, civil misconduct could apply.
If this kid came into your yard, and had the same kind of photo taken of himself with your young daughter's face where the statue's face is in the incriminating photo...then, posted the photo online - having never forced said daughter to do anything...would you &/or your daughter feel/be violated?

Maybe something to consider...

There's a big difference in Jesus and my daughter. My daughter is real.

Also if jesus was real, he told people he was not god and said don't worship me.

If he did that to your daughter, that'd be assault--already covered.

Yes, the kid was a dick and yes, I'd agree if the church wanted to file trespass charges, but they don't so this is a non-event. The statue was not harmed so vandalism does not apply either.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Trespassing yes is against the law, but it is a public place of gathering is not, where everybody is welcome to visit the trespassing goes out of the window, I could be wrong.

I wonder how the issue will be pursued, if I was the parent, after punishing my child for stupidity and making him apologized to the owner of the statue, I would pursue the issue further, to challenge the archaic rule or law.

a reply to: marg6043

I'm just glad he isn't one of mine!

a reply to: randyvs

Well my son "an adult" when he was about 22, did the same thing but no with a jesus statue, actually it was the statue of some mascot, then he put the pictures in facebook, my daughter show me the video, I laugh while been outraged because thought I raise him better, he was never charged for the silly deed.

a reply to: marg6043

Ya, I don't really have to much to say about that Marge.
Even 22 is still just a pup. I was married with two when
I was that age and that was just a lifetimes worth of
desecration. Kids are kids, what can you do? That's why
my comment leaned humorously.

I hope.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

I'm pretty sure that, if Jesus existed, he'd prefer the graven images of him be removed anyhow. God probably would, too (again, assuming god exists).

You know, that whole don't make any images of things in Heaven and whatnot.

Juuuuuuuuust sayin'.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I was just going to add that to my comment.
But if people wonder why we aren't supposed to make
graven images of anything that is in Heaven?

You just nailed it.
One might even say that Church set the whole thing up.
The church should lose it's license maybe.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Trespassing yes is against the law, but it is a public place of gathering is not, where everybody is welcome to visit the trespassing goes out of the window, I could be wrong.

I wonder how the issue will be pursued, if I was the parent, after punishing my child for stupidity and making him apologized to the owner of the statue, I would pursue the issue further, to challenge the archaic rule or law.

Even a place that hold public gatherings, if it is private property, it is still trespassing if one has not permission to be there. When everyone is gathering for a service, it is hard to claim trespassing unless one is asked to leave and then refuses, however if one is on the property "after hours" when it is not a given that people are permitted to be there, then it could stick. A moot point, of course, as the church does not want to pursue charges against him anyway.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Yes because a living person and a statue are so much alike. I say if she lets ya go for it and if she lets you it isn't going to cause a stir.

Maybe he can say the statue didn't have a problem with it or better yet he heard a message from god telling him to do it.

So, the 14 year old wouldn't have a problem with it then? Unless he venerates his mother ...

I mean, who cares how he feels? But to "play along" with your line of thinking ... a life sized picture of his mother would do.

You do realize you are talking about a 14 year old here. His friends have probably already done that because teenagers will do anything they can to belittle each other for a laugh.

Some of you maybe old enough and from the same areas as me to remember this:

The Bi-Lo grocery store cow:



It is certainly not a venerated symbol by any means.

However, at the end of every school year, students would sneak up on the roof of the store here, and would "kidnap" the cow during the night.
It would be found left somewhere the next day by the cops.

No one was ever caught at it (this was before the days of "open 24/7" when stores actually closed and locked up for the night), and it went on for years.

It was harmless as the cow was never damaged, and it was just kids being kids. However, yes, they could have gotten hurt badly (the cow is HEAVY) or caused some serious damage.

So yes, kids do stupid things. I would imagine that if it were to happen today, someone would take pics or video of them doing it and post it, and then the cops would have to do something about it.

The only reason it stopped was: Bi-Lo no longer has the cows on top of their stores!

This kid did not take the stature, or hurt it in any physical way. However, he did break a law (and OLD law, yes), but it is the law that will be used for him to hide behind: Freedom of Expression.

If he gets off because of that, basically the only thing this kid will have learned is:

1) You can use one of your rights to get away with something.

2) You an still do really stupid and disrespectful stuff, just don't post the pictures of it on the internet.

The sad thing is: what he does need to be taught is: be respectful of other people's beliefs. But he will not be learning that.

I think what I REALLY find ironnic about the picture is this:

While I'm not religious, I do know that Jesus Christ teachings were: Tolerance, passiveness, and respect.
Doesn't mean that all Christians do that, no. However, the things written down in the bible spoken by him do say that.

And here we have a kid basically showing what he thinks of a person that preached tolerance, love and kindness.

I would have found it just as ironic if he'd done it to a statue of Buddha.

a reply to: randyvs

I know, don't worry, my son is now 28 single, when he did that silly thing he had too many beers and it was at a sport bar with friends.

I found out about the silly thing because I was browsing my daughters pics and videos and happen to see it, (I wasn't supposed to see it).

Boys do all kind of stupid, silly and outrageous things, like you say we hope, that they grow out of it without harming themselves and others, and become productive members of the community, good fathers and husbands, my son is now in the first one, a productive member, I am waiting for the next step.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I agree, trust me I do.

I wonder how many other "venerated" things christians have desecrated over the years? Why can christians burn korans and not be charged?

I find this to be very distasteful, but not illegal. It would not even be a charge if he did it to any other religion. What if satanists put a statue of lucifer up. Christians would probably do more than just desecrate it. I doubt they would charge or even look for the people that did it.

I believe that people should respect the beliefs of others but not enforce the respect of their beliefs. I'm sure the people of the community expressing their disgust for his actions to him whenever he left his house would be a good enough recourse for his actions

They could not prosecute, and not worry about being reelected, as I am pretty sure that the insulted parties in the the area would raise a stink, maybe protest, and cause a general commotion, and he broke the law as it's written . Freedom must be tempered with respect of others, if peace is to be maintained . What if this were a Muslim community and he was disrespecting one of their religious icons? could just let the insulted parties handle it. a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare
Freedom of speech? Give me a break. I suppose you would like it if he holds a burning flag in one hand at the same time?

The really nifty thing about freedom of expression is, you don't have to like it! You can hate it, you can find it reprehensible, but, yes, even burning a flag is considered protected speech. Deal with it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'll take a stab at what the kid was trying to say.. perhaps that organized religion 'performs fellatio' in a manner of speaking. Just like that, protected speech.