I don't think anyone has said this explicitly noted in this thread that it's really the DA and cops acting, not the organization that owns the statue, though it's hinted at in uke's statement.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/p...-jesus-statue/

You could have found the quote in the OP's link too...

You click OP's links?

I don't see this as the same thing as the cries of 'offensive' generated by criticisms of, and challenges to religious thinking and doctrines. That's an attempt to hide behind a shield of assumed respect, respect that isn't necessarily deserved at all.

But, if you know something is important to people and you do something like what this kid did, that is disrespectful. My feelings toward religion verge on anti-theism but I still wouldn't go and spray paint something offensive on a church, or be rude to practitioners, that's just needlessly rude and offensive. This is more about my own code of conduct than whether or not religion deserves respect. It doesn't hurt to have good manners.

I like to link to primary sources when I can.

I think you missed this post Mb.

I'm just going to assume you didn't really mean to compare criminal damage (spray painting a church) an equate it with something that is merely offensive.

But I do agree with you. I don't really get how this is any different than Richard Dawkins' opening paragraph in The God Delusion where he called god every name in the book. I also thought that was needlessly rude and offensive.

I'm not saying a 14 year old kid was thinking on this level or this had anything to do with why he did what he did, but it appears to be a tactic of many anti-theists to go for the shock effect. To say and do outrageous things in an effort to get attention and raise awareness that not everyone agrees with the religious. I'm not sure how I feel about this tactic, but it does appear to work.

I am on ignore

ah, ok. I am going to have to dig out the links after all

No, YOU said it doesnt matter, in your first quoted post

Sorry man but it should be a bit easier, click the link back from my post and multiquote.

I suspect he's read it anyway tbh but it was a pretty blatant consistency fail.

Seems you were dead quick

The subject is irrelevant, what's relevant is that it mattered to a group of people and that the actions were crude and insensitive.

I think that in recent years there's been an outbreak of religiosity hiding behind some arbitrary 'respect' that attempts to stifle criticism and challenge and because of that, this is being seen in a light of 'oh, here they go again' and I don't think that's fair.

Maybe not the best example then.

Well, this is what I speak to in the post above. There's a statue of dog in a local town that is dear to the inhabitants, if someone simulated oral sex with it and posted the pics online, I'd understand why people would be offended. It's irrelevant to me that this statue was of Jesus, it's how people feel about that matters.

Just to be clear: While we both agree these acts are offensive and disrespectful, I can't tell if you agree or disagree that criminal prosecution is warranted. I'm too lazy to go back and re-read the entire thread, but I don't recall you taking a firm stance one way or the other. For the record, I think it's ridiculous.

Regardless of how one feels about this kid facing 2 years in jail. Its interesting to note how in fact, one can be persecuted for Anti Religious views here in the USA. Obv this kid is taking things to the extreme with the simulation of sexual acts in public, but one cant help but wonder if the Kid would have been let off had he been humping a statue of a football player as opposed to a religious statue.

A good # of posters itt are suggesting that the kid should face no punishment. This sort of sentiment is not felt around the world, in Russia for example, polls suggested that most Russians felt that members of Pussy Riot deserved some sort of punishment for there actions in a Moscow Church.

Oh heck no, that's a total overreaction, kid just needs to have his iphone taken off him for a bit. So, I'm categorically against him going to prison.

I'm only concerned about whether or not the 'offense' is justified and not the 'other' kind of religious being offended.

The subject is irrelevant. What matters it that the subject is relevant to someone.

It doesn't matter that it's Mickey Mouse, unless people like Mickey Mouse in which case it matters that it's Mickey Mouse.

You have said you find it offensive. Is your offense justified?

Matters to who?

That's for MB to declare. He didn't specify. He merely stated "a group of people."

I could care less about some 14 year old doing something like this. It's a complete non-story, too. But living in Pennsylvania, he should know better.

It's not a non-story if he's facing jail time over it.

It is to me

Swallow, obv