Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Heywood]

All you are saying is the kid should be punished for desecrating things that you venerate....but if you don't venerate them then the kids should not be punished.

What gives you the right to decide what things should be protected by law from desecration and what shouldn't?

You've got a major reading comprehension problem!
I said nor implied any such thing.

I don't venerate imaginary beings or objects. If everybody on planet earth wishes to piss on my dead body after I'm dead, then more power to them.
If somebody wants to fuck my dead grandma, I'll give you the address to the cemetery. What's the difference in letting some pervert have a way with her verses some disgusting maggots?

Then just say your position is that any desecration that does not result in property damage should not be criminalized. When you go and specify that you don't want to criminalize this particular act of desecration that does not involve property damage, it implies you take the position that you would be willing to criminalize other acts of desecration that don't involve property damage.

Its not my reading comprehension that is the issue. Its your inability to convey your thoughts unambiguously that is the problem.