Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Exian]

If the teen found Jesus' grave, dug up his bones, and humped them, then you'd have a comparison. If the teen humped a statue of Christopher Hitchens, then you'd have a comparison. Something is wrong with comparing some paint and plaster with a dead body.

[vorlon13]

Both situations involve idolatry, although I suspect in the Hitchens case it would rankle Christers more there was a statue of Hitchens around corrupting children.

Selective enforcement of the appropriate scriptures on that, of course.

[Bibliofagus]

The only action Disney would have, would be on the basis of copyright infringement, not "desecration" of a venerated cartoon.

By your logic, if one day I come out of the gym, and a guy is dry humping the back of my Mazda, he has committed a crime. I will never look at the trunk of my Mazda the same way again.

The unspoken implication here seems to be, "But it's Jeeesus! And he's a special little snowflake of a statue!"

No he ain't.

And ain't nobody got no copyright on Jesus. Not even the Catholics, much as they might like to.

Yes there are laws against trademark infringement....but there are also laws against desecrating other peoples property. The point of the Micky example was to show that Free Speech doesn't always give you a free pass. If private property can be protected against trademark infringement why can't private property be protected against desecration?

The kid should get his own Jesus statue if he wants to simulate sex acts with a Jesus statue instead of desecrating someone else's.

Trademarks don't matter. I can piss all over Coca Cola's logo, tape it and put it on youtube and have no trouble. Mickey Mouse, like any drawing, has copyright. And copyright comes with the right to insist to be copied... right. In Holland we call this personality right.
If I would own the right to publish lets say edvard munch's the scream, I'm not allowed to change it into a picture of Obama and say thats what munch made.

[Heywood]

If the teen found Jesus' grave, dug up his bones, and humped them, then you'd have a comparison. If the teen humped a statue of Christopher Hitchens, then you'd have a comparison. Something is wrong with comparing some paint and plaster with a dead body.

Both a corpse and a statue are inanimate objects that people venerate. The fact that one is made of dead biological tissue and the other is made of paint and plaster is inconsequential.

If it helps you out, pretend the Jesus statue was carved from a tree....then the comparison would be inanimate object made from dead biological tissue with another inanimate object made from dead biological tissue.

[vorlon13]

Thank god the punk didn't simulate gamaroosh on the statue . . .

[Exian]

Ok, I'll pretend the facts are different...

Hey! You're right now!

[Heywood]

Ok, I'll pretend the facts are different...

Hey! You're right now!

I am right because if our constitution allows the law to protect corpses from desecration there is no substantial reason why it can't protect privately owned religious statues from desecration. The fact that the two inanimate objects are made of different things is immaterial.

[vorlon13]

Is it a religious statue if Jesus is imaginary ??

[JesusHChrist]

I am right because if our constitution allows the law to protect corpses from desecration there is no substantial reason why it can't protect privately owned religious statues from desecration. The fact that the two inanimate objects are made of different things is immaterial.

Corpses are in no way treated the same as statues.

You can have sex with a statue, but not with a corpse.

Why are you avoiding a statue-to-statue comparison?

[vorlon13]

If the Jesus statue has a mouth, then it would be anatomically accurate.