Teen in Pennsylvania sentenced to two years for deep-throating Jesus

[Buffer Overflow]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

[r3wt]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

are you wearing flip flops? you're all over the place

[Buffer Overflow]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

are you wearing flip flops? you're all over the place

?

[r3wt]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

are you wearing flip flops? you're all over the place

?

Well, you started with a blanket statement about christianity, then got called on it, and attempted to cover your tracks by performing a complete 180

[Buffer Overflow]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

are you wearing flip flops? you're all over the place

?

Well, you started with a blanket statement about Christianity, then got called on it, and attempted to cover your tracks by performing a complete 180

Firstly I never singled out Christianity at all. I've never even mentioned the word Christianity in any post. Where did that come from? Spendulus slipped a straw man fallacy under the radar with that one. As he knew full well, it was blanket statement about all anti-homosexual teaching religions.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody has attempted any 180 maneuvers in any way. LOL
What possible other realistic replies can someone defending give that I wasn't already expecting? The only sensible answer is to say "yeah sure it happens, but it's only a small minority". Which is exactly what I expected and exactly what I got.
So please explain how I apparently tripped up and needed to backpedal out of a hole? I await eagerly for your verbose reply r3wt.

Spendulus correctly pointed out the minority, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and should be ignored. It shouldn't be happening at all!
What I'm trying to explain (perhaps poorly) is that it seems to me that there is one rule for the church (as in every church/religion) and one rule for everyone else that isn't in the system.

What about the annoying churchgoer that, uninvited, knocks on your front door and spews out a flood of religious bile in your face. "You should be doing this" and "You should believe in that" and then threaten you with fear "You need to embrace god or you won't go to heaven. You'll burn in the eternal fire." Funny how society accept this, yet if a door salesman did the same thing, told you to buy a product and threaten you with fear if you didn't, he would be in big trouble.
One rule for church, another rule for everyone else.

Funny how when this guy sticks his cock in church property they are all up in arms, "SEND HIM TO PRISION".
Yet the church has been sticking it's cock in society for years and years, and everyone just turns a blind eye.

So lets all just ignore the big elephant in the room (the church) and focus on the tiny fly (the guy in the photo).

[Spendulus]

...
Spendulus correctly pointed out the minority, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and should be ignored. It shouldn't be happening at all!
What I'm trying to explain (perhaps poorly) is that it seems to me that there is one rule for the church (as in every church/religion) and one rule for everyone else that isn't in the system.

What about the annoying churchgoer that, uninvited, knocks on your front door and spews out a flood of religious bile in your face. "You should be doing this" and "You should believe in that" and then threaten you with fear "You need to embrace god or you won't go to heaven. You'll burn in the eternal fire." Funny how society accept this, yet if a door salesman did the same thing, told you to buy a product and threaten you with fear if you didn't, he would be in big trouble.
One rule for church, another rule for everyone else.

Funny how when this guy sticks his cock in church property they are all up in arms, "SEND HIM TO PRISION".
Yet the church has been sticking it's cock in society for years and years, and everyone just turns a blind eye.

So lets all just ignore the big elephant in the room (the church) and focus on the tiny fly (the guy in the photo).

No, I just think you are not seeing this matter clearly. 

A.  Bolded above.  He didn't stick his cock in church property.  That's the very point why this is unfair.
B.  It's not the question of "a small minority", but simply that a certain fraction of people in any group...a church group... an anti-church group...whatever....ARE COMPLETE ASSHOLES AND JERKS.  So to assign this behavior to "a group" is just wrong if it is just a fundamental part of a small minority of human behavior.

So if you want to slam on "religion" be my guest, there are many accurate things to say in the negative.  I see it in a different way, like most people in "a religion" are just in it for the daycare facility, maybe elementary school, maybe the marriage/birth/death ceremonies, and they shrug off the crazy belief systems.  But yes some fair fraction believe them.  Just remember that religions have survived for thousands of years, it's not because they were irrelevant quite the reverse.

[robmob]

and this is why country's go into debt, Just imagine what they pay to house and feed him for two years when instead he could be cleaning up the community doing service work.

[wasserman99]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

I think that both have their right to their opinion and both have the right to protest when the other group is not advocating ideas that they agree with. Yes what this kid did was very immature and likely will not ever get anything changed what he disagrees with but he was within his rights to express himself this way

[r3wt]

Isn't it interesting that the church doesn't like free speech when people choose to oppose them, but embraces free speech with great enthusiasm when it likes to spew out it's hate and bile against homosexuality for example.

Isn't that interesting.

Actually, no.  Only a tiny minority of people who call themselves Christians spew out hate and bile against homosexuality, as the basic tenets of the religion aren't very oriented toward propagating hate and bile...

Exactly! A tiny minority. The same as the tiny minority that stick their cocks in religious statues.
So why all the hand wringing over it in this thread?

I think that both have their right to their opinion and both have the right to protest when the other group is not advocating ideas that they agree with. Yes what this kid did was very immature and likely will not ever get anything changed what he disagrees with but he was within his rights to express himself this way

I agree with everything but the last part. he was not within his rights. He was trespassing, and desecrating a venerated object.

[freedomno1]

Well actually in this case
I guess he was asking for this so he deserves some time off that said would have given him community service or something along the lines
Lazy political system saying oh and I'm giving you jail time because well were lazy like that and don't want to think up productive ways for reforming or teaching you the errors of your ways.

[Eisenhower34]

He should be sentenced to some community service and home confinement for fair amount of time at most a relatively short stay in jail if you ask me.  This is pretty disturbing to think a judge would even consider allowing such a long jail sentence and that DA should be worried about losing his job for having such horrible judgment on the matter.

I'm ashamed to admit how hard I laughed at the pics because that is a gross act in so many ways.  But there is no way a person should go to jail for that long over something like this, that is the real crime..

I don't understand why you think he should be punished at all for this. It has been reported that he did this in protest against the church as he does not agree with the people of the christian religion.

I'm not saying he should be punished I'm saying he should atleast face a reasonable punishment if any at all.  If that act is considered illegal that is what I'm talking about, regardless of what I feel is fair or right, it doesn't matter in the least.  I'm not the DA I'm just stating what I think is plausible for someone to do in that position.  If people are angry about this including then it's likely some kind of punishment is to come.  My point is that the punishment if any at all should fit the crime simple as that.

I would argue that no crime has been committed. I would not be surprised if this case made it to the supreme court. It is clear that the DA is going to move forward with this case, and who knows how the courts will rule, but IMO his actions were clearly protected by the constitution.

Though I don't like what he did I don't think he should have any significant punishment.  It's disrespectful and in bad taste to be done in broad daylight in public but the is the long and short of it IMO.  I'd be interested to see how the supreme court would rule and I'd be surprised it the case made it that far honestly.

Why would it not make it to the supreme court? To my knowledge there has not been a supreme court case that involves the defacing of a religious statue in the way that it was "defaced" therefore there is not precedent for the lower courts to find him not guilty because of constitutional protections (especially the trial court). If the boy wants to stick up for his rights then he should escalate the case this high if he is tried for this crime, even if found guilty  

Because the statute was not in any way damaged.    

Consider as an alternative if he'd stood there and put a stream of urine on it.  He could be considered to have damaged it.  But he didn't.

So the "Defacing" is completely in the mind and not in the physical world.  

There is no reason for this to go to the Supreme Court.  There is simply no legal argument against the kid except the ability and desire of the DA and/or the property owners to harass him.

Side note:  Of the people I know who consider themselves religious/deeply religious/fundamentalist I can't think of ANY who would condone prosecuting this kid.  Zero.

This is exactly why this case would be accepted by the supreme court. I think this kid did actually break the law and should be found guilty for doing so. However I also think the application of the law is unconstitutional. It is very rare for a trial court to not enforce a law on constitutional grounds unless there is president from a higher court (either an appellate court or the supreme court), therefore the trial court would find him guilty but a higher court should reverse the decision.

[Exoth]

Will go down as the same thing as the "bong hits for jesus" case.

[Spendulus]

He should be sentenced to some community service and home confinement for fair amount of time at most a relatively short stay in jail if you ask me.  This is pretty disturbing to think a judge would even consider allowing such a long jail sentence and that DA should be worried about losing his job for having such horrible judgment on the matter.

I'm ashamed to admit how hard I laughed at the pics because that is a gross act in so many ways.  But there is no way a person should go to jail for that long over something like this, that is the real crime..

I don't understand why you think he should be punished at all for this. It has been reported that he did this in protest against the church as he does not agree with the people of the christian religion.

I'm not saying he should be punished I'm saying he should atleast face a reasonable punishment if any at all.  If that act is considered illegal that is what I'm talking about, regardless of what I feel is fair or right, it doesn't matter in the least.  I'm not the DA I'm just stating what I think is plausible for someone to do in that position.  If people are angry about this including then it's likely some kind of punishment is to come.  My point is that the punishment if any at all should fit the crime simple as that.

I would argue that no crime has been committed. I would not be surprised if this case made it to the supreme court. It is clear that the DA is going to move forward with this case, and who knows how the courts will rule, but IMO his actions were clearly protected by the constitution.

Though I don't like what he did I don't think he should have any significant punishment.  It's disrespectful and in bad taste to be done in broad daylight in public but the is the long and short of it IMO.  I'd be interested to see how the supreme court would rule and I'd be surprised it the case made it that far honestly.

Why would it not make it to the supreme court? To my knowledge there has not been a supreme court case that involves the defacing of a religious statue in the way that it was "defaced" therefore there is not precedent for the lower courts to find him not guilty because of constitutional protections (especially the trial court). If the boy wants to stick up for his rights then he should escalate the case this high if he is tried for this crime, even if found guilty  

Because the statute was not in any way damaged.    

Consider as an alternative if he'd stood there and put a stream of urine on it.  He could be considered to have damaged it.  But he didn't.

So the "Defacing" is completely in the mind and not in the physical world.  

There is no reason for this to go to the Supreme Court.  There is simply no legal argument against the kid except the ability and desire of the DA and/or the property owners to harass him.

Side note:  Of the people I know who consider themselves religious/deeply religious/fundamentalist I can't think of ANY who would condone prosecuting this kid.  Zero.

This is exactly why this case would be accepted by the supreme court. I think this kid did actually break the law and should be found guilty for doing so. However I also think the application of the law is unconstitutional. It is very rare for a trial court to not enforce a law on constitutional grounds unless there is president from a higher court (either an appellate court or the supreme court), therefore the trial court would find him guilty but a higher court should reverse the decision.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.055.009.000.html

It's a real stretch, but I can see that charges could be brought under this statute.  It seems though that the issue is more the flagrant promoting of the activity on facebook than the activity itself.

[awesome31312]

Leviticus 26:1 " 'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God."

That Jesus statue was not even supposed to exist, for all those who claim he aggressed your religion

[awesome31312]

Seriously, Christians are just as crazy as the die hard Islamics they are "fighting".

"Islamics" is not a word buddy.

[awesome31312]

Seriously, Christians are just as crazy as the die hard Islamics they are "fighting".

"Islamics" is not a word buddy.

What is the symmetrical term to Christians then? 

Islamic
adjective
relating to Islam.

Islamics
Word not found

[awesome31312]

Seriously, Christians are just as crazy as the die hard Islamics they are "fighting".

"Islamics" is not a word buddy.

What is the symmetrical term to Christians then? 

Islamic
adjective
relating to Islam.

Islamics
Word not found

Okay I looked it up. It's Islamists.

Even that only exists in some dictionaries, but I see your point now.

[leannemckim46]

He should be sentenced to some community service and home confinement for fair amount of time at most a relatively short stay in jail if you ask me.  This is pretty disturbing to think a judge would even consider allowing such a long jail sentence and that DA should be worried about losing his job for having such horrible judgment on the matter.

I'm ashamed to admit how hard I laughed at the pics because that is a gross act in so many ways.  But there is no way a person should go to jail for that long over something like this, that is the real crime..

I don't understand why you think he should be punished at all for this. It has been reported that he did this in protest against the church as he does not agree with the people of the christian religion.

I'm not saying he should be punished I'm saying he should atleast face a reasonable punishment if any at all.  If that act is considered illegal that is what I'm talking about, regardless of what I feel is fair or right, it doesn't matter in the least.  I'm not the DA I'm just stating what I think is plausible for someone to do in that position.  If people are angry about this including then it's likely some kind of punishment is to come.  My point is that the punishment if any at all should fit the crime simple as that.

I would argue that no crime has been committed. I would not be surprised if this case made it to the supreme court. It is clear that the DA is going to move forward with this case, and who knows how the courts will rule, but IMO his actions were clearly protected by the constitution.

Though I don't like what he did I don't think he should have any significant punishment.  It's disrespectful and in bad taste to be done in broad daylight in public but the is the long and short of it IMO.  I'd be interested to see how the supreme court would rule and I'd be surprised it the case made it that far honestly.

Why would it not make it to the supreme court? To my knowledge there has not been a supreme court case that involves the defacing of a religious statue in the way that it was "defaced" therefore there is not precedent for the lower courts to find him not guilty because of constitutional protections (especially the trial court). If the boy wants to stick up for his rights then he should escalate the case this high if he is tried for this crime, even if found guilty  

Because the statute was not in any way damaged.    

Consider as an alternative if he'd stood there and put a stream of urine on it.  He could be considered to have damaged it.  But he didn't.

So the "Defacing" is completely in the mind and not in the physical world.  

There is no reason for this to go to the Supreme Court.  There is simply no legal argument against the kid except the ability and desire of the DA and/or the property owners to harass him.

Side note:  Of the people I know who consider themselves religious/deeply religious/fundamentalist I can't think of ANY who would condone prosecuting this kid.  Zero.

This is exactly why this case would be accepted by the supreme court. I think this kid did actually break the law and should be found guilty for doing so. However I also think the application of the law is unconstitutional. It is very rare for a trial court to not enforce a law on constitutional grounds unless there is president from a higher court (either an appellate court or the supreme court), therefore the trial court would find him guilty but a higher court should reverse the decision.

I would agree with this. I would also add the fact that if the boy were to lose at trial, but an appeals court were to rule in his favor that the law (as applied) is unconstitutional then the christian nutjobs would likely further attempt to appeal the case (to the supreme court)

[frankenmint]

its like if you own a tv show or network or bank, you're off the hook for saying whatever you want (south park) but if you're one guy having a little fun and you piss off the wrong judge, 'they throw the book at you'.

The DA involved with this case is named Bill Higgins.  If you are interested in getting involved with this case and standing up for your right for free speech then vocalize it on his facebook page.


OR Feel free to reach out to him directly here: http://www.bedfordcountypa.org/District_Attorney.html

[leannemckim46]

its like if you own a tv show or network or bank, you're off the hook for saying whatever you want (south park) but if you're one guy having a little fun and you piss off the wrong judge, 'they throw the book at you'.

The DA involved with this case is named Bill Higgins.  If you are interested in getting involved with this case and standing up for your right for free speech then vocalize it on his facebook page.


OR Feel free to reach out to him directly here: http://www.bedfordcountypa.org/District_Attorney.html

Petitions against a DA or a judge will almost never end in the way that the masses wish. The DA is to act when he is made aware of someone breaking the law (and has sufficient evidence to convict as such) and it is the judge's job to enforce the law as written. If you do not agree with a specific law then you would contact the legislature to try to get the law changed.