(October 5, 2014 at 12:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I read the article, and I find it odd that what the boy wasn't charged with - trespassing - was the only real crime he committed.

I'll bet Jesus gives a lousy beej, anyway.

Boru

I don't know he must've done something to keep those 12 guys around.

(October 4, 2014 at 11:24 pm)Zidneya Wrote: Pennsylvania teenager charged with 'desecration' of a Jesus statue has
been sentenced to 350 hours of community service, banned from social
media for six months, and other conditions as part of a pre-trial diversion program.

"I guess I should take solace in the fact that the liberals are mad at me—again. As for this case, this troubled young man offended the
sensibilities and morals of OUR community.… His actions constitute a
violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly. If that tends to
upset the 'anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-
display-of-Ten-Commandments' crowd, I make no apologies."

Well Bill. My answer is: This will teach you to respect all the anti-
Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-
Commandments' people you jerk.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.

I'll take the devils-advocate position here....
(Just and FYI, I did find this story quite hilarious and, in my youth, I did far worse (and also did community service to pay for it)).

What if, instead of Jesus, it was a mini-replica of the Statue of Liberty or George Washington or some other national symbol? Or what if he wiped his butt (or..um.. massaged his front-side in a sexual way) with the American flag and posted those pics on facebook? Lets just take religion out of the equation altogether. For those who thought any form of punishment was too extreme -- is there no room in our society anymore for at least some minor crimial punishment for public behavior that likely still offends the majority in some obvious way?

I agree that perhaps in many parts of America a Jesus staute is not a symbol we wish to elevate to the level of a founding father or national symbol like our flag, but given the fact that his town is largely Jesus-oriented, I can see why a local court might "protect" Jesus statuettes in this fashion, while, say, in my home town of San Franciso the court likely would not. But, as a contrapositive, many in my area would likely applaud a court who sentenced, say, some local anti-gay bigot to some community service if they posted pics publicly on facebook that denegraded a statue of Harvey Milk. To me, this kind of thing is more than just rude or inappropriate, it actually (in a very small way) merely fans the flames of discontent for society while providing only a limited pay-off of mirth that appeals to a relatively small few....and thus is likely in the best interest of the government to deter it in some minor way.

Two years in juvenal detetion would have been way over the top...but a few hours of community service seems kind of appropriate to me. In my thinking, this is just this kind of minor "criminal" activity for which community service was specifically designed. Do a little societal dirty deed, as a prank or as a protest, then do a little societal clean up later to make up for the former. In the larger picture of balancing the differing needs of a diverse society, I found this punishment appropriate to the crime.

I don't even think burning flags should be illegal

(October 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: What if, instead of Jesus, it was a mini-replica of the Statue of Liberty or George Washington or some other national symbol? Or what if he wiped his butt (or..um.. massaged his front-side in a sexual way) with the American flag and posted those pics on facebook? Lets just take religion out of the equation altogether. For those who thought any form of punishment was too extreme -- is there no room in our society anymore for at least some minor crimial punishment for public behavior that likely still offends the majority in some obvious way?

Not in a free society - there isn't. Societal punishment - like public condemnation or ostracization is fine, but there should be no legal recourse against something that is merely offensive and without tangible damages.

(October 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: But, as a contrapositive, many in my area would likely applaud a court who sentenced, say, some local anti-gay bigot to some community service if they posted pics publicly on facebook that denegraded a statue of Harvey Milk.

Actually, my position would be the same here - public adulation is irrelevant. The point of constitutional freedom is that it is beyond the reach of majority opinion.

(October 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: To me, this kind of thing is more than just rude or inappropriate, it actually (in a very small way) merely fans the flames of discontent for society while providing only a limited pay-off of mirth that appeals to a relatively small few....and thus is likely in the best interest of the government to deter it in some minor way.

Are we deciding legality based on the best interest of the government now?

(October 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: Two years in juvenal detetion would have been way over the top...but a few hours of community service seems kind of appropriate to me. In my thinking, this is just this kind of minor "criminal" activity for which community service was specifically designed. Do a little societal dirty deed, as a prank or as a protest, then do a little societal clean up later to make up for the former. In the larger picture of balancing the differing needs of a diverse society, I found this punishment appropriate to the crime.

I disagree - offending someone's sensibilities is not and should be a criminal offense.

(October 5, 2014 at 7:06 pm)DramaQueen Wrote: I don't even think burning flags should be illegal

In an ideal society, where people all behave rationally, yes, I would agree. But, in the real world where people behave..well, like humans...and there are a lot of different subgroups, each holding intractible sets of ideals that often conflict with other subgroup's intractible ideals -- you either have to 1) regulate what people believe (which is impossible when the ideal in question is intractible) or 2) regulate what people do (through legal governance and law) or 3) simply leave it alone and let violence errupt as it most certainly will. Of the three possibilities (or another that I perhaps failed to think of?), what would you propose a governing body to do when there is a predictably large swath of the population that will riot when they see a national flag burned, or an image of Muhammad degraded as the butt-end of a joke?

Education, a really good education system

Larry Flynt wore a US flag as a diaper and, IIRC, he was deemed to have a right to do so.

(October 5, 2014 at 7:06 pm)DramaQueen Wrote: I don't even think burning flags should be illegal

Well, good, because it isn't illegal.

OK, was just informed Larry Flynt's court case was more to do with a cartoon showing Jerry Falwell losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

Sorry, but clearly an easy mistake to make.