Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782 
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 15, 2014 7:56:44 GMT -5
Why do you have to be a Christian to think this is wrong? Would it be OK to do the same to other religious statues?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 8:15:32 GMT -5
I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us. I am actually having a physical reaction to the offense. And I don't feel really strongly about these things. He needs consequences. In Canada "up to 2 years" is served in jail, not prison. I think he should have a suspended sentance and the next stunt gets him jail time. i find Mitt Romney flipping pancakes in a $5,000 suit offensive. but i don't think he should be prevented from doing it. if we are no longer even responsible for our own feelings, we might as well run the bill of rights through a paper shredder. I think some of you are being deliberately obtuse. This isn't about what he expressed but how he expressed it. Leaving any group open to this kind of harassment is not the intent of freedom of speech. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 8:21:11 GMT -5
We absolutely must protect freedom of speech for even things we find completely disgusting. To be honest, had my friends and I come across a statue like that back in college while drunk it would have been impossible to resist doing exactly what that kid did. It wouldn't have been done to insult, but because someone was dumb enough to make a statue that looks like it's ready to get tea bagged and we would have found it extremely funny. I agree it is stupid and he shouldn't have done it but come on, facing two freakin years and a record? Let his parents handle it and move on. The fact that you think the insult is funny doesn't make it okay. And Jesus is praying, not looking to get tea bagged. I'd have to see the statue to be sure but usually he is depicted praying to see if he can get out of going on the cross, something he did that ensures salvation.
And for those of you saying no permanent damage was done to the statue, posting the pictures on Facebook gave the defacement a permanence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 8:26:20 GMT -5
Just because someone is insulted, doesn't make it a crime though. We have no right to be free from insult.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 8:31:21 GMT -5
Just because someone is insulted, doesn't make it a crime though. We have no right to be free from insult. But you do have a right not to have your property defaced. And a right not to be harassed. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 8:39:23 GMT -5
And I think the generally accepted form of defacement... Including vandalism and physical harm, is adequate and constitutional. I don't think we should have a venerable objects law... We aren't a theocracy. We cannot be in the business of punishing that which 'outrages the sensibilities'... What a slippery slope that would be...
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 15, 2014 8:39:26 GMT -5
Why do you have to be a Christian to think this is wrong? Would it be OK to do the same to other religious statues? I think several of us have said that, Shooby. I'm not Christian but I know wrong when I see it. While I don't think a jail sentence is in order, I do believe this kid needs to do some community service and I believe I mentioned a couple of notions regarding how that might be done. |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 15, 2014 9:00:22 GMT -5
 I'm pretty sure the people here who are saying the person has the right to defile a religious statue as freedom of speech would be jumping all over anyone who burned a cross in front of a mostly black church or picketed a gay funeral... Oh wait... That said - it's a stupid 14yo. I agree with a few of the other posters - say about 500 hours of community service. Obviously his parents didn't teach him to respect others, maybe that will.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:03:12 GMT -5
We absolutely must protect freedom of speech for even things we find completely disgusting. To be honest, had my friends and I come across a statue like that back in college while drunk it would have been impossible to resist doing exactly what that kid did. It wouldn't have been done to insult, but because someone was dumb enough to make a statue that looks like it's ready to get tea bagged and we would have found it extremely funny. I agree it is stupid and he shouldn't have done it but come on, facing two freakin years and a record? Let his parents handle it and move on. The fact that you think the insult is funny doesn't make it okay. And Jesus is praying, not looking to get tea bagged. I'd have to see the statue to be sure but usually he is depicted praying to see if he can get out of going on the cross, something he did that ensures salvation.
And for those of you saying no permanent damage was done to the statue, posting the pictures on Facebook gave the defacement a permanence.
I never said it was OK, I said it was stupid and he shouldn't have done it. We agree there. Where we don't agree is I don't think the punishment should go through the court and give this kid a record. It should be handled by his parents (if it was my son he would apologize to whose statue it is and be grounded and taught a lesson on tolerance, etc). It is a very slippery slope to legislate bad taste and things some people find offensive. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:04:23 GMT -5
But Westboro Baptist DOES have the right to picket gay funerals. And it's not the shape of the burning items placed on someone's property that is the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:05:16 GMT -5
You want the state to decide what is respectful now? You want the state to be in charge of teaching what is respectful?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2014 9:08:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the people here who are saying the person has the right to defile a religious statue as freedom of speech would be jumping all over anyone who burned a cross in front of a mostly black church or picketed a gay funeral... Oh wait... That said - it's a stupid 14yo. I agree with a few of the other posters - say about 500 hours of community service. Obviously his parents didn't teach him to respect others, maybe that will. The Captain-are you/were you intimidated or feared for your life by the boy simulating sex with the statue? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:15:26 GMT -5
But Westboro Baptist DOES have the right to picket gay funerals. And it's not the shape of the burning items placed on someone's property that is the issue. Yup, and that's the price of the freedom we have, I find what they do absolutely disgusting but I would argue for their right to do it. |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Sept 15, 2014 9:21:27 GMT -5
ROFL! I like this kid.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Sept 15, 2014 9:22:37 GMT -5
Speaking of westboro - did anything change with them after their founder died? I'm assuming not since they'd already defrocked him or whatever.
I think the westboro idiots are vile and contemptible. This kid was damn stupid. The difference (as far as I know of this case) is that westboro is repeatedly vile and contemptible. This kid doesn't have a known history. And hopefully he'll learn from this.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 15, 2014 9:26:20 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the people here who are saying the person has the right to defile a religious statue as freedom of speech would be jumping all over anyone who burned a cross in front of a mostly black church or picketed a gay funeral... Oh wait... That said - it's a stupid 14yo. I agree with a few of the other posters - say about 500 hours of community service. Obviously his parents didn't teach him to respect others, maybe that will. The Captain-are you/were you intimidated or feared for your life by the boy simulating sex with the statue? How does a burning cross put anyone in fear of their life? The point was drawing a parallel on trespassing on church property to do something that is against the resone that public access is granted. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2014 9:35:10 GMT -5
The Captain-are you/were you intimidated or feared for your life by the boy simulating sex with the statue? The point was drawing a parallel on trespassing on church property to do something that is against the resone that public access is granted. “For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible” |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:35:14 GMT -5
Where is the line drawn?
I did show this thread to son yesterday. I prefaced it with, whether I agree or not, the kid who did a stupid thing in these pictures is going to have to deal with the police and courts and potential record, so it's something to think about while out with friends...
when he saw the photos he said, Mom, I'm not stupid, I'd never deface property... I'd just put myself in the same position beside the statue and have someone snap a shot.
Now. 1) he used the word deface himself. He obviously saw the act as something that shouldn't be done, although I argued the semantics of the word defacement with him.
2) My son has long hair and his friends often joke about him 'rocking the Jesus look'. Son did not see anything wrong with an atheist kneeling beside the statue and taking a picture in the same position beside Jesus.
But they both could easily be considered to be mocking. Both would have insulted someone, I'm sure... Getting a bj from Jesus... Assuming the likeness of Jesus... Neither physically harms property or could be considered vandalism. Both would have been treating someone's 'venerable' object in a way someone felt was inappropriate.
I dont want the state drawing the lines as far as judging the appropriateness of humor and behavior... Vandalism and physical harm should be the line.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 15, 2014 9:44:46 GMT -5
How does a burning cross put anyone in fear of their life? The point was drawing a parallel on trespassing on church property to do something that is against the resone that public access is granted. “For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible” Bullhockey! I am less than 50 years old. Name me one instance in the past 50 years where a death was preceeded by a burning cross. I doubt you'll find one. That's old history AND you are derailing the original intent of my post. Would you support under free speech the righ of people to burn crosses in front of churches attended by mostly non white people? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 3:27:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:50:44 GMT -5
Burning anything, cross or scarecrow or whatnot... is going to physically harm the area, put people and property into threat of physical harm... Not the same thing at all.
Burning an effigy on someone else's property is also a lot more threatening than posing with their statue...
The fact that it's a cross is meaningless. The fire, the threat... Those are at issue.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2014 9:54:29 GMT -5
“For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible” Bullhockey! I am less than 50 years old. Name me one instance in the past 50 years where a death was preceeded by a burning cross. I doubt you'll find one. That's old history AND you are derailing the original intent of my post. Would you support under free speech the righ of people to burn crosses in front of churches attended by mostly non white people? I am 63 years old and before and during my life time, black churches had burning crosses put on their property along with churches being bombed where people were killed. There are people far older than me who are still alive and personally lived through these times and events. Just because something has not happened in very recent times does not mean all is forgotten, all is forgiven, by those who are still alive andclived through it. You seem to dismiss events in history experienced by the still living so easily. That they should simply forget what took place in not so distant times. Others do not. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2014 10:00:11 GMT -5
“For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible” Bullhockey! I am less than 50 years old. Name me one instance in the past 50 years where a death was preceeded by a burning cross. I doubt you'll find one. That's old history AND you are derailing the original intent of my post. Would you support under free speech the righ of people to burn crosses in front of churches attended by mostly non white people? By the way-stop writing "mostly non white people" and "mostly black church(s)". There actually are all black (congregant) churches just as there are all white (congregant) churches. |
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 15, 2014 10:07:20 GMT -5
And if a person is already old enough to be in college, they are old enough to have some sensibility and know the difference between right & wrong - and not act out like a moron - just to "impress" his friends as the college clown & get a few laughs from his peers 
It's ignorant, and completely disrespectful - that young man should be given a year of community service - even if it's doing grounds keeping for the church, picking up trash in a public park, or cleaning public restrooms.
People get outraged when other statues or symbols are desecrated or vandalized in any way. How is this any different? It's a complete lack of respect (not much different than someone burning the flag or spray painting over gravestones, etc.
I wonder how this young man would feel if someone tipped the headstone of a family member - or pee'd on it?
You can't compare outright vandalism that damages property to posing for a picture. This would be more like teabagging the headstone of a relative and posting a picture online. This was an act that some find offensive. Offensive doesn't equal illegal. And unfortunately Christians have enough in their ranks that have no problem offending others, that I don't think they can cry foul when someone offends them. I agree with others that free speech wins here. |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 15, 2014 10:20:39 GMT -5
Bullhockey! I am less than 50 years old. Name me one instance in the past 50 years where a death was preceeded by a burning cross. I doubt you'll find one. That's old history AND you are derailing the original intent of my post. Would you support under free speech the righ of people to burn crosses in front of churches attended by mostly non white people? By the way-stop writing "mostly non white people" and "mostly black church(s)". There actually are all black (congregant) churches just as there are all white (congregant) churches. Tenn - I will write whatever I please as long as it's in the CoC. Fortunately, you do not get to dictate what I am free to discuss. Quite against what you are attempting to argue for, BTW. Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy. I guess I've been fortunate never to have lived in an area that is totally segregated. It appears you have. Your loss. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2014 10:21:55 GMT -5
As a side note, it is perfectly legal in the USA to burn or destroy the Koran or Bible in protest or just for fun.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 15, 2014 10:22:03 GMT -5
Bullhockey! I am less than 50 years old. Name me one instance in the past 50 years where a death was preceeded by a burning cross. I doubt you'll find one. That's old history AND you are derailing the original intent of my post. Would you support under free speech the righ of people to burn crosses in front of churches attended by mostly non white people? I am 63 years old and before and during my life time, black churches had burning crosses put on their property along with churches being bombed where people were killed. There are people far older than me who are still alive and personally lived through these times and events. Just because something has not happened in very recent times does not mean all is forgotten, all is forgiven, by those who are still alive andclived through it. You seem to dismiss events in history experienced by the still living so easily. That they should simply forget what took place in not so distant times. Others do not. I think those who hang on to things that have happened decades ago and think they apply to the world we live in are doomed to live in a world that doesn't change. Sad for them. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 15, 2014 10:29:27 GMT -5
By the way-stop writing "mostly non white people" and "mostly black church(s)". There actually are all black (congregant) churches just as there are all white (congregant) churches. Tenn - I will write whatever I please as long as it's in the CoC. Fortunately, you do not get to dictate what I am free to discuss. Quite against what you are attempting to argue for, BTW. Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy. I guess I've been fortunate never to have lived in an area that is totally segregated. It appears you have. Your loss. I am white. I live in a city that is majority black. I live on a cove with 20 homes, sixteen of the homes are owned by blacks. I think that qualifes as living in a desegrated city and immediate neighborhood,wouldn't you? And you completly took my comment about you writing/not writing mostly black and mostly non-white churches out of context. There are all black member churches just as there are all white member churches. I have attended both as a guest so I know of what I write. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2014 10:38:31 GMT -5
i find Mitt Romney flipping pancakes in a $5,000 suit offensive. but i don't think he should be prevented from doing it. if we are no longer even responsible for our own feelings, we might as well run the bill of rights through a paper shredder. I think some of you are being deliberately obtuse. lots of people think that. but i am actually being as concise as i can possibly be.This isn't about what he expressed but how he expressed it. Leaving any group open to this kind of harassment is not the intent of freedom of speech. this is absolutely about what he expressed and how he expressed it. what else would it be about? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2014 10:39:54 GMT -5
We absolutely must protect freedom of speech for even things we find completely disgusting. To be honest, had my friends and I come across a statue like that back in college while drunk it would have been impossible to resist doing exactly what that kid did. It wouldn't have been done to insult, but because someone was dumb enough to make a statue that looks like it's ready to get tea bagged and we would have found it extremely funny. I agree it is stupid and he shouldn't have done it but come on, facing two freakin years and a record? Let his parents handle it and move on. The fact that you think the insult is funny doesn't make it okay. agreed. and the fact that you don't doesn't make it "not ok". |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2014 10:41:51 GMT -5
Just because someone is insulted, doesn't make it a crime though. We have no right to be free from insult. But you do have a right not to have your property defaced. And a right not to be harassed. defacement is something that needs fixing. there is no defacement here. harassment applies to people, not statues. there is no harassment here. |
|
