Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[JesusHChrist]

And to your point, he's up for re-election in 2015, so this could very well be lining up the looney-tunes vote.

As we've seen in this very thread, the looney-tunes will do backflips of logic to protect a statue of poor, long-suffering Jesus from being used a prop for offensive speech.

These fiends must be stopped!

[Brian37]

It pisses me off that humans put more value in merely being offended, than the oppression and violence and government laws that do harm humans. I think humans go about peace the wrong way. We insist on others being mere guests when we are the majority, and we insist no one speak ill of us.

If you get to go to bed at night without fear of your neighbor or government harming you, you need to seriously SHUT THE FUCK UP( in the context that your logic sucks and you need to rethink it). If the worst any of our 7 billion had to worry about is a "bullshit" or "fuck you" the world would be a much more peaceful place.

It is INSANE to expect all 7 billion humans to walk on eggshells and only say nice things about each other. But what we do have in common is that all of us want to live without harm from others.

[Heywood]

It is INSANE to expect all 7 billion humans to walk on eggshells and only say nice things about each other. But what we do have in common is that all of us want to live without harm from others.

This is why desecration laws, breach of peace laws, fighting words, etc should be determine and enforced locally. Then, if I have to walk on eggshells, I can move to a community where I do not have to walk on eggshells.

[Chas]

Na, I think if you're going to do something stupid like that, you probably deserve what's coming to you. Next he'll run through a Jewish town screaming Heil Hitler! There is nothing constructive about what he did, so why do people care what happens to him?

You mean, why do people care about Constitutional rights?

---

The idea that an inaccurate statue of a middle-eastern guy, who may have never existed (so I guess, make him look however you want?), should be treated with the same respect as a recently deceased body, who has living family members, is just another example of twisted religious thinking.

Hump a dead body- 2 years dungeeeooon!

Hump a statue- 2 years dungeeeeooon!

???

How much respect you give something is a matter of personal choice. My thinking may or may not be religious but yours is clearly errant. The question is not about how much respect you give inanimate objects. The question at hand is this: Does the constitution give one person the freedom to desecrate something belonging to another person. I think you realize it does not but just don't want to admit you are wrong. So you take this silly position that its not okay to desecrate a human body....but it is okay to desecrate a religious symbol that belongs to someone else.....cause thats not important to you.

The statue was not damaged. Your argument is stupid.

[Heywood]

Na, I think if you're going to do something stupid like that, you probably deserve what's coming to you. Next he'll run through a Jewish town screaming Heil Hitler! There is nothing constructive about what he did, so why do people care what happens to him?

You mean, why do people care about Constitutional rights?

---

How much respect you give something is a matter of personal choice. My thinking may or may not be religious but yours is clearly errant. The question is not about how much respect you give inanimate objects. The question at hand is this: Does the constitution give one person the freedom to desecrate something belonging to another person. I think you realize it does not but just don't want to admit you are wrong. So you take this silly position that its not okay to desecrate a human body....but it is okay to desecrate a religious symbol that belongs to someone else.....cause thats not important to you.

The statue was not damaged. Your argument is stupid.

The purpose of the statue is to provide inspiration. By desecrating it like that you destroy its ability to inspire. When the people who put it up look at it, the won't be thinking of Christ's agony, but rather they will be thinking of Christ giving a blow job to a 14 year old.

Like I said very early in this thread....this is really should be a civil matter and not a criminal one. Only the owners of the statue really know if they have suffered damages or not. It would be up to them to build a case if they had.....not a prosecutor.

[FatAndFaithless]

You're defending imaginary ideas Heywoody . "The statue's ability to inspire"? You're joking.

[Jenny A]

The owners do know. They don't want to press charges.

But supposing they did. Does the mockery of an image really do away with it's ability to inspire? I assume Heywood that you are or were offended by Piss Christ the controversial piece of "art" by photographer Andres Serrano, which depicted a crucifix in the artist's own urine. Are you no longer inspired by the crucifix? Are Muslim who saw the Danish cartoon of Mohamed in a bomb turban no longer inspired by Mohamed? I think the answer to both questions is no.

The only real offense here is offending people's feelings. Well boo hoo. Free speech can be offensive. Next.

[Minimalist]

Next he'll run through a Jewish town screaming Heil Hitler! There is nothing constructive about what he did

Free speech does not have to be constructive, Chad.

As for the Jewish town? Been there, done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_So..._of_Skokie

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (also known as Smith v. Collin; sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly.

On remand, the Illinois Appellate Court eliminated the injunction against everything but the swastika. The Illinois Supreme Court heard the case again, focusing on the First Amendment implications of display of the swastika. Skokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was like being physically attacked..

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.[5]

[Brakeman]

I've heard arguments like his before, only then it was the ruining of a public water fountain with the touch of a black man. It repulsed and destroyed the enjoyment of a public utility by "sensible white southern belles."

A public object my be used by the public, and if a private object is mis-used then the owner must be the one to file suit.
If a black man sees a white racist about to use a park bench and he rubs it all over with his crotch just to piss off the sensibilities of the racist, he hasn't committed a crime.

In the same way that the black man touched the park bench to highlight the free speech issue of racial equality, the teenage "touched" the jesus statue.

[Esquilax]

The purpose of the statue is to provide inspiration. By desecrating it like that you destroy its ability to inspire. When the people who put it up look at it, the won't be thinking of Christ's agony, but rather they will be thinking of Christ giving a blow job to a 14 year old.

What if thinking of the blowjob enhances the inspirational properties of the statue? How do you know that the net effect of this was reductive, rather than an enhancement? Aren't you just assuming that to be the case because it fits your argument?

And if you want to say that you don't think it's possible that a blowjob could increase the statue's potential to inspire, I merely have to ask you when it was that you became the arbiter of what is and isn't inspirational? See, to me? What I saw before, when I looked at that statue, was something laughable and saccharine. Now when I look at it I see the theocratic auspices of officious fools seeking to damage a real human life over an imagined slight, and that makes me angry. Don't knock the inspirational power of anger, Heywood; whole movements can be built on anger, and that is why your claim is demonstrably false from the get go.