Those plaid shorts really tie the photo together…
5 Likes
The statute has been on the books since 1972. Has no one ever been charged under it before, or did no one have the wherewithal or desire to defend themselves in previous cases? I can’t imagine this ever holding up under any kind of legal challenge.
1 Like
“Thou shalt not make unto the graven images” should also apply to statues of Jesus. Venerating a statue of Jesus is making a graven image, and so against the 10 Commandments, which means it’s not venerated.
14 Likes
Things that Pennsylvania law has determined are not as bad as getting it on with a Jesus statue:
shipping explosives
giving alcohol to minors
deceptive debt collection
taking photos of someone’s genitals without consent
patronizing prostitutes (3rd conviction finally gets you a penalty equal to that of “patronizing” a Jesus statue.)
obstructing emergency services from carrying out their duty
possession of a weapon in a court facility
All of these crimes will get you less jail time than outraging the sensibilities of someone who can’t bear to see a Jesus statue treated the same way as a Ronald McDonald statue.
Blasphemy laws are wrong, no matter if it’s Pakistan or Pennsylvania.
18 Likes
You know, I was just about to say the kid is lucky it wasn’t Ronald, who is a sacred object to many corporations, which are people. He would probably go away for 20-life.
4 Likes
I think Abner Kneeland was the last man imprisoned for blasphemy by a US court, and that was in the 19th century in Massachusetts. Great man, Kneeland, even if Salubria did kind of flop.
4 Likes
Charles Lee Smith of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was convicted and imprisoned for blasphemy in Little Rock in 1928. Anthony Bimba was charged with blasphemy in Massachusetts in 1926, but not convicted.
I’m kind of writing a dissertation on this stuff at the moment.
13 Likes
It’s a bit of a grey area for me, actually. There is a pretty thin line between its kind of law and “hate crime” laws* that have been used to punish anti-semitic, anti-gay and racist intimidation. Without those laws, something like burning a cross in front of a black family’s house might only be punishable as “starting a campfire without a permit.”
Don’t get me wrong; I believe in free speech. But one person’s right to free speech ends at another person’s nose, as they say. If someone wants to burn a flag, put a crucifix in urine, or dry hump Jesus that’s all fine by me as long as it’s their own Jesus. But desecration of someone else’s religious property displays intolerance, and I have no tolerance for the intolerant.**
*I should note that I’m not a huge fan of hate crime laws, since I think they have a tendency to be overused and not necessary in some cases where the underlying crime is sufficiently penalized.
**Also, I don’t think that charging someone with a felony for dry humping Jesus makes sense, from a legal standpoint or from a taxpayer cost standpoint, I’m just pointing out that I think there is some legitimacy to the principle that “free speech” does not protect all kinds of bad behavior.
1 Like
You are usually great but this tops it all! Good Show!
This isn’t how I envisioned the second coming, but Jesus works it in mysterious ways.
9 Likes
Hey, thanks for the correction! I would love to read your dissertation when it’s ready!
I have been told that one Reverend Mocker, a Universalist minister, was convicted of blasphemy in the 1960s or 70s, and fled to Mexico to avoid imprisonment. I’ve never been able to confirm that story so I don’t usually repeat it - the name “Mocker” seems a little too pat, maybe. I had not heard of Smith’s conviction at all.
1 Like
There’s no grey area on this particular issue for me. Blasphemy laws attempt to protect the sensibilities of one or multiple religious groups at the expense of expression by others, and by their very nature stifle legitimate free speech. How is it any different for someone raised Catholic, like Andres Serrano, to make Piss Christ, compared to, say, an atheist or Buddhist? The Jesus represented by the crucufic in in Serrano’s urine isn’t “his” jesus any more than it is mine. In a properly operating secular democracy, we don’t punish people simply for being intolerant. What you’re saying is that if this kid is Christian, it’s fine for him to hump the Jesus statue, but it’s not fine for a Muslim to do so. That’s not equal protection under the law.
Blasphemy laws involve the state in deciding what is sacred and what is not. That’s not their business. This Jesus can get humped all the live long day, and as long as the humper doesn’t run afoul of other laws such as public indecency or vandalism, all the outraged sensibilities in the world shouldn’t be enough to convict him.
9 Likes
If anyone hears of a legitimate defense fund to help the kid please post it. This comes in on the same kind of mindset as being punished for showing disrespect to a Koran. Fundamentalist’s really need to get over themselves.
7 Likes
Yeah, but now you’re supporting this guy’s right to do this.
The problem with freedom of speech is people are arseholes.
This kid did nothing wrong, though.
2 Likes
On top of everything else, the kid is 14. That’s barely old enough to enter some carnival rides. This should have the same level of punishment as TP’ing the principal’s house. Some public service and probation for a year or two.
3 Likes
The particular group of fundamentalists who own the statue in question should try actually practicing what they believe Jesus commanded them to do…
FORGIVE.
8 Likes
No, this should not be punishable by law in any fashion. This should be “punished” by a tut-tut and eye roll, maybe a “grow up, kid.” The kid didn’t hurt anything but some feelings, and those aren’t within the state’s purview to protect.
16 Likes
I think the point Waetherman was making was that Serrano purchased the crucifix, thus it was his personal property to do with as he wished. I agree with both of you, though.
Showing disrespect to a Koran you own is not the same as doing performance art using somebody else’s property without prior permission.
Not that I think either one deserves criminal prosecution, mind you! Seems like the township could issue a simple warning ticket to this kid for trespassing, and maybe one to the statue owners for bad taste in statuary, and that would be sufficient.
@davide405: Word! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?
Can people who don’t believe in sin start the stone throwing?
6 Likes
Seems reasonable to me, but I’m a heretic.
I’m out, g’night everybody!
2 Likes
