Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue?

I don't think historical Jesus would give a frack, he would be like WTF is this little gromet doing to the european superimposed version of my semetic self? Get over it puritanical USA, Mahalo!

a reply to: Grimpachi

Where should the line be drawn in your opinion?

Personally, I've never been a very good judge of such things. However, I am an advocate for nullification ... and this may be one of those cases.

The kid broke a standing law. He was caught red-handed because he was stoopit. The incident was outside the scope of acceptable behavior. I'd guess he's already come to grips with most of this (his parents too).

I think if I were the judge, I'd offer him a choice between 6 months in juvie and a $10K fine. Let the parents work it out from there. How they behave once the sentence is passed would depend on how much of it I'd be willing to suspend.

a reply to: Snarl

That is pretty steep for a victimless crime. 10k and 6 months incarceration for a photo. If I was him I would fight it unless they could prove the exact time and day it happened maybe even make them prove it wasn't photoshopped if he hasn't already copped to the charges. A good lawyer could the the thing up in court costing taxpayers a bundle then at least legal precident could be established for such minor offenses. The statue was on private property and I guess one could argue if it even qualified for those charges. Maybe they could go after trespassing or walking on the grass if it was to close to the road for tresspas to be in effect.

The whole thing could spiral so far out of controll big brother could hit the jackpot by diving on Facebook.


In cases of assault, vandalism, murder, there are victims but in this case the only thing hurt was some people's sensibilities long after the fact. IMO these sort of things remind me of sharia law and how they go so far out of their way to be offended and make people pay for their beliefs.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well ... the other side gets its victories every time it has a nativity scene blocked from display, the removal of religious symbols and references from community buildings, or a chaplain's blessings before battle.

Maybe those guys with religion are showing exactly how pushback feels.

Being the middle-of-the-road kind'a guy I am, I'll willingly admit I'm enjoying the show (this time). A lot of folks aren't ready to admit that religion is often the bedrock of a community's foundation. More often than not, it's religion which sets the height of moral standards.

You, being a vet, know the importance of moral and ethical values. You know what happens to a community when good order and discipline go out the window. In that light, I'm glad this community is questioning whether or not such behavior is tolerable, or not.

-Cheers (and thanks for the exchange of ideas)

Is what he did illegal? Yes.

Should he be charged based on breaking those laws? If we want a fair and unbiased justice system, then yes.

Should he be found guilty of committing a crime? No. Laws like this are exactly why jury nullification is a thing. This is a perfect example of an outdated law that should be rewritten. In particular, this part needs to be removed:

otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

Laws should not now, nor should they ever be based on what will offend or outrage a person. They should be based on what will physically harm a person, or private property.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


I know there are a lot of very sensitive kids that would suffer emotional damage for seeing this kind of thing,

This right here is exactly what is wrong with our world today. No child is going to suffer emotional damage seeing someone pose with a statue like this. The kids who know what this boy was doing is either going to find it funny, stupid, or immature. Emotionally traumatizing? No. The kids who don't know what sexual act he's replicating can't be scarred by it, because they don't why they should be scarred.

What this boy did was no more lewd that what Elvis did on stage in the 50s, or what you see on prime time tv today. The only reason this made the news at all is because this was a statue of Jesus. If it had been a statue of Ronald McDonald, a dragon statue, or playground equipment shaped like animals, no one would have batted an eye.

I have to say that I can't understand why folks idolize an artist's expression of their faith. (ex: this statue form.) Isn't idolatry a sin? What this boy did may be extremely immature, but he did not damage the statue, he only stood next to it fully clothed. As adults, we can ascertain his body stance for what it is meant to be portraying, but most younger children will not understand.

I can see where the boy and his parents may need some counseling assistance on social behavior and courtesy, but certainly not Juvie time nor a heavy fine. Nothing was physically damaged. This is an immature prank to impress his friends. the church goers that feel offended, should be thankful that their property was not damaged physically. Pray for the boy and his family instead of letting your pride and egos blind you to the wisdom that Jesus taught within the bible.

As stupid as it is for the charges, that is the law of the state of Pensylvania, where this happened. However, it should be noted, that such laws are often quickly removed, cause someone figures out how to exploit them and use them to their advantage, and ultimately it goes on up to a higher court to determine if it is or is not valid.

While it is distasteful what the kid did, and wrong, ultimately, the law must be obeyed, and this is one of the ways to get bad laws off of the books, to break them and then fight it out in court, proving that the law is wrong and biased.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
a reply to: Elton

Yes but wouldn't that only apply to state and federal public property? Churches are privately owned so I am not seeing where this law would come into play.

Seems to me that the only thing they could get him on was tresspass.

a reply to: Snarl

I was wondering when this would pop up on ATS.
I live in PA.

The state police had to look up that obscure law from 1927 in order to find something to charge him with.

The church involved wanted to pray for the boy, not press charges.

He faces up to 2 years in juvy.

Pennsylvania is the "Cash for Kids" state. Google it. I think no one informed the state troopers they were done with that.

It should be up to the church what, if any ccharges he should face. PA is strange when it comes to criminal justice. I'm surprised it's not punishable by putting the kid in stocks and throwing rotten vegetables at him.

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: Snarl

I was wondering when this would pop up on ATS.
I live in PA.

The state police had to look up that obscure law from 1927 in order to find something to charge him with.

The church involved wanted to pray for the boy, not press charges.

He faces up to 2 years in juvy.

Pennsylvania is the "Cash for Kids" state. Google it. I think no one informed the state troopers they were done with that.

It should be up to the church what, if any ccharges he should face. PA is strange when it comes to criminal justice. I'm surprised it's not punishable by putting the kid in stocks and throwing rotten vegetables at him.

Well, at least the Church is holding to claimed Christian principles and did not want to press charges and wanted to pray for him instead. That shows that there are indeed some decent Christians out there.

As for the law, there are a lot of old and obscure ones out there that should have been removed a while ago. I'd like to see a rule where no legislative body could make a new law unless they removed an old law. This would prevent this eternal stacking of laws on top of each other.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Yeah.. No crime here. They should have put the statue on the pedastal like everyone else. This kid was probably one of thousands that took advantage of the low, precariously posed statue.

Here is something for you all to consider:

It's a digital picture that is now spread through out the internet.

It will now always exist, even if the original uploader deleted it from where they originally uploaded.

Just take a look at how many times it's been shown or quoted on this thread. Then consider the different media outlets that have picked up this story showing the photo.

Last, all those that thought it was funny, or were outraged by it, who also copied the image and sent it to friends and family.

This wasn't: he was caught doing something stupid to a statue that is considered venerated (a revered symbol, he would have caught the same charge if it had been a state of say, a city founder), people laughed, etc, and was caught by the cops, but it's over with, the statue was not physically harmed.

Instead, due to digital imaging, the internet, the news and social media, it's now defaced for real. The image of him doing that act will never go away and will always be there....

Just as if he'd taken a hammer to the state or spray paint to it.

I'm not defending the law (all though I was brought up to be respectful of other cultures symbols, having lived overseas for half of my growing life, and find his actions distasteful, immature and the word "idiot" crosses my mind), nor am I defending his actions.

However, while the act itself was brief.....the image of what he did is forever now.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I disagree. He wouldn't have been charged if it was a politican, or anything that wasn't religious.

He wasn't caught doing it, that's different they can get you for lewd act in public, etc. They got him after the fact BECAUSE it was Jesus.

a reply to: the owlbear

I hear you. I was thinking more along the lines of what eriktheawful said since this made the news. The kid is going to take the rap for everyone who doesn't worship JC. I also saw the word precedence used in this thread. We'll have to see how this one plays out.

I'm surprised it's not punishable by putting the kid in stocks and throwing rotten vegetables at him.

Rotten vegetables were the least of one's concerns once night fell. My guess would be that anyone punished in such manner left town soon after they were released. I wonder if the etymology of the word "embarrass" is accurate.

a reply to: Elton

Is that a Pennsylvania law or a federal law?

What a stupid law! What about "Piss Christ", "Buddy Jesus" or any number of other "desecration of a venerated object" that might hurt someone's "sensibilities"? This is a direct violation of the first amendment, IMO.

Is it stupid? Sure. But congress making a law that violates someone's freedom of speech is stupid AND illegal. I'd fight it.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Yeah.. No crime here. They should have put the statue on the pedastal like everyone else. This kid was probably one of thousands that took advantage of the low, precariously posed statue.

LOL. Just looking at the pose and positioning of the statue, it was like they were asking to get trolled. I imagine that the old ladies of the altar guild (or whatever they call it) do not have the same dirty mind of a teenage boy.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Here is something for you all to consider:

It's a digital picture that is now spread through out the internet.

It will now always exist, even if the original uploader deleted it from where they originally uploaded.

Just take a look at how many times it's been shown or quoted on this thread. Then consider the different media outlets that have picked up this story showing the photo.

Last, all those that thought it was funny, or were outraged by it, who also copied the image and sent it to friends and family.

This wasn't: he was caught doing something stupid to a statue that is considered venerated (a revered symbol, he would have caught the same charge if it had been a state of say, a city founder), people laughed, etc, and was caught by the cops, but it's over with, the statue was not physically harmed.

Instead, due to digital imaging, the internet, the news and social media, it's now defaced for real. The image of him doing that act will never go away and will always be there....

Just as if he'd taken a hammer to the state or spray paint to it.

I'm not defending the law (all though I was brought up to be respectful of other cultures symbols, having lived overseas for half of my growing life, and find his actions distasteful, immature and the word "idiot" crosses my mind), nor am I defending his actions.

However, while the act itself was brief.....the image of what he did is forever now.

And that's his own fault and goes to show you that one should not do stupid stuff and photograph it and post it on social media. Social media will now always follow you.

Well is official, statues, idols and 'venerated objects" are legally considered human beings and you will be charge for molestation of a statues or idol or "venerated object"

I say lets take the case to a higher court and start the pony show.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Elton


Is it stupid? Sure. But congress making a law that violates someone's freedom of speech is stupid AND illegal. I'd fight it.

I agree with you 100%, this America no some backward country where people doesn't know what rights they have.

originally posted by: marg6043
Well is official, status, idols and 'venerated objects" are legally considered human beings and you will be charge for molestation of a status or idol or "venerated object"

I say lets take the case to a higher court and start the pony show.

But this isn't a federal law, but a 90 year old local one that most PA residents don't even know about. The case should be dropped as nothing was damaged (no vandalism) and the "victims" (the Church) don't want to pursue it and the PA legislature should simply vote it off the books. There are already laws against trespass and vandalism, don't need another law to make yet another crime.

Whereas I disagree that its a "free speech" issue (in this case at least), I do think the law is archaic and needs to be removed.

If it is your symbol, it is your property and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. If it is not your symbol, you should leave it alone--the old adage of, "If it ain't yours, don't F#ck with it" applies--but we already have laws against vandalism and trespass, so that's already covered.