Unless, y’know, it’s a Lawful Evil Altar to Sutech the Awful in some D&D module. In which case … well, no, this isn’t the way I usually desecrated such things.
A 14-year-old boy (rolls eyes, thinking of the 14yo boys he has been exposed to lately) thought it would be keen to have someone take a picture of him faking a sex act with a kneeling statue of Jesus at a local church. Then he thought it would be even more keen to post the pix on Facebook.
So, yeah, that tells you what sort of dolt Junior here is.
Now, he didn’t actually damage anything, except people’s feelings. But he’s now being charged with “Desecration of a Venerated Object” under Pennsylvania law (https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2012/title-18/chapter-55/section-5509).
(Those who might be upset by such things should not click through to the article.)
Now I think am a fairly devout and proper individual, but aside from thinking the kid is a jackass, I’m not sure that a second degree misdemeanor (that could net up to two years in juvie) is the right answer here. The statute itself indicates (quoting the parts relevant here) that the crime involves someone who:
‘intentionally desecrates any public monument or structure, or place of worship or burial; intentionally desecrates any other object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in any public place;’
Desecration is defined as:
‘Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.’
Now, one might argue that this particular nitwit wasn’t really thinking of other people, let alone their feelings (aside from how hi-larious his fellow pinheads would think he was), but even if he was … is outraging someone’s sensibilities really a crime? How is this different from blasphemy laws? Or blue laws restricting Ungodly Activities on the Sabbath?
I mean, if you want to prosecute for trespass, maybe, or finding some appropriate charge that means a few weeks of community service (maybe mowing the lawn at said church), that might be a good outcome … but making outrage a crime seems like not only a bad idea, but something that could very possibly be used in unexpected ways.
Hurting other peoples’s feelings for no other reason than the joy of doing so is a dick move. But I don’t think it should be a crime. If it is, then we’re going to have an even bigger problem with jail overcrowding.
Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue
SEPTEMBER 10–A Pennsylvania teenager has been charged with desecrating a statue of Jesus after he posted Facebook photos that showed him simulating a sex act with the statue.
According to State Poli
In Saskatoon, SK, over the weekend, a 9 year old took a city bus for a joyride down one of the busier roadways.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/06/9yearold_from_saskatoon_steals_city_bus_goes_on_joyride.html
This desecration law definitely sounds like a violation of the separation clause.
As for the picture, while I can certainly see why some folks are upset, I'm betting he was inspired more by the meme of people posing with statues that has been ongoing on the net for awhile than by an opportunity to offend Christians. (Here's a handy Google Image search of lots of examples http://goo.gl/u2DPkm) You'll note more than a few of those pics make it look like the poser is engaging in a sex act with the statue. Ronald McDonald statues seem to get a lot of blow jobs from the ladies too.
+Les Jenkins Yeah, this was hardly original. I'm sure that it was at a church lent a certain hyuk-hyuk factor to the proceedings, but this was hardly what I would classify as, say, a hate crime sort of desecration (not least of which was that it was a "take only pictures, leave only footprints") sort of act.
Apparently use of this particular "descration of a venerated object" law has been very rarely used, and only in religious cases (and those only Christian). I suspect most other possible applications of it are encompassed in true hate crime and vandalism laws, so that a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor charge is rarely the tool that's used. I think it's ripe for a constitutional challenge. I suspect there's a trespassing law that the kid can gets rapped on the knuckles for.
So basically christians as per ten commandments aren't allowed engraven images …but that's okay? And what this boy did was not okay? Hahahahahahaha
+Christopher Li-Reid The interpretation in most Christian denominations of that particular item in the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV)) usually doesn't forbid sculpture per se, but of sculptures that were worshipped. A lot of Islam, on the other hand, has historically taken this injunction very literally, which is why the classic mosques have some gorgeous geometric motifs.
There's arguably a fine line between veneration and worship, to be sure.
+Dave Hill no sorry it does… Jews and Muslims have the same rule too.
Interpretation is a word christians conveniently use in order to dismiss their own god damn scripture – its hilarious
+Christopher Li-Reid I don't deny that "interpretation" can be another word for "conveniently hand-waving away." But I don't think all scripture is open to only one explanation or understanding (even if one assumes both a perfect translation from the original and Biblical inerrancy, neither of which I do).