There is an interesting case that in Pennsylvania where an unnamed teen is charged with “desecration” of a statue of Jesus in front of the Love in the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, Pennsylvania. The charge against the 14-year-old raises significant first amendment questions in the alleged desecration of a venerated object. He could be (unlikely) jailed for two jails for insulting a religious statue, something that contravenes free speech and establishment principles as well as vagueness issues. Warning: some viewers may find the picture below disturbing.
“Desecration” is defined in Pennsylvania 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.” What on Earth does “physically mistreating” mean with a statue? The addition of “otherwise” to “defacing, damaging, polluting” adds another element of ambiguity and vagueness.
That fact that this was a religious statue seems to be motivating the charge. It seems unlikely that the teen would have been charged in the same way with a frog or dog statue. None of these excuses his actions, of course. His conduct was obnoxious and disgraceful. Unfortunately, those terms could be in the dictionary under “teenager.”
While there will be pressure to get the teen to plead out, the law appears ripe for an either as applied or facial challenge.
Kudos: Michael Blott
Olly, it would be better if we had evolved more over 100 years so that religion would have lost its pernicious grip on society. This would then be a none-issue, as it should.
100 posts about a teenage selfie should be all we need to know about the culture we live in. 100 years ago (forget the camera), this boy would be pummeled by any adult within view and then turned over to his parents for round 2. He would then be publicly shamed. He might regain a bit of his dignity back by doing community service.
Eileen, Olly and Paul, it’s been a privilege to talk this morning and to have our disagreements and agreements. I have to step away now. My best to you all.
Eileen – you still have not answered how you would react if this kid was doing that to a statue of a secular woman, say Rosa Parks.
Thank you, Tomchi. My initial reaction is also snarky and so much fun could be had with this if the boy’s life were not in peril of destruction by the over-inflated sense of privilege of zealots.
Eileen – I wish that were my kid. Yeah, I’d be critical of what he did, but then I’d turn around and say, “There’s a bigger issue here, son. I’ll stand behind you 100% if you want to fight this SOB Bill Higgins, and the ACLU will stand with us. This will not be easy on you, but sometimes it’s important to fight. If you take this on, it could be one of the most important things you do in your life. You will be fighting for the very principles that our nation was built upon, and which distinguishes our nation from most of the others in this world. I’d be proud to be with you all the way on this.”
Olly, perhaps that 14-year old kid was taught by those priests, eh? That might explain how he thought it was ok to approach the statue as he did.
Paul C. Schulte – I cannot fathom why you brought Ray Rice’s wife into this discussion. That is a truly awful thing that happened to her, and deserving of condemnation, but it does not seem relevant to this plaster statue controversy. I think we should agree to keep her out of this discussion, OK?
Excellent point, Olly.
The Catholic Church may not want to bring any additional attention to the fact live Priests have engaged in this sort of activity with boys.
Eileen – you asked for the opinion of everyone else. What is your opinion? There is no snaring going on.
On the surface I’d dismiss it as a typical obnoxious teenage prank. On a deeper level I’d see it as an expression of misogyny.
If you are trying to snare me into admitting that both incidents would be acts of bigotry, we have already established that acts against people are different than acts against a philosophy.
Eileen – we are talking about your reaction to this young man doing the same thing to a statue of a secular woman, say Rosa Parks?
Eileen Ninetynine – I like your depth of thinking and unrelenting common sense. It is a pleasure to see the quality of your engagement in this issue. My own impulses tend toward the snarky, as I don’t see how this is actually a serious event – other than to Bill Higgins, the Bedford County district attorney who is so anxious to crush this kid in order in furtherance of his political ambitions. In my opinion, Bill HIggins actions are immoral and despicable and abuse of his position. Regarding the prosecution of the kid, a church spokesman said, “It’s really sad. It’s just sad.”
I wonder what the reactions would have been if it had been a secular statue of a woman?
Eileen – what would have been your reaction if it had been a secular statue of a woman?
Nick Spinelli – Well I don’t know the kid’s motivation, but I suspect – having been 14 years old at one time – that his mind was on sex 24/7/365 and it appeared to him that the statue was just asking for it. He couldn’t resist the thrill. He would have done the same sort of thing to a statue of a doG, or George Washington. Being irreverent is nowhere near as serious as being disparaging.
“Is there a difference between disparaging a religion and disparaging people?”
“of course there is. Goes without saying”
Then tell me, what says the religion about the matter? Is it offended? Does it feel it has been hated upon?
traveling limey – OK, I’ll bite…Other than the totally smarmy pose that the sculptor put Jesus in, that Jesus is definitely a handsome Jewish man, and if he were up for it, I’d start with a kiss and hugs…and see where it went from there. All the religious folk like to pretend that the guy was a sexless prude, but that doesn’t seem very godlike to me. I prefer to think that he would be capable of a relationship with another human being, and would be capable of deep sexual intimacy.
Is there a difference between disparaging a religion and disparaging people?
Eileen – of course there is. Goes without saying.
Nobody wants to bring up the ‘homo’ issue huh? Well, if you’re not ‘gay and love Jesus’ it makes it more offensive. But yes, trespass only and ‘Whack his pp!’ (courtesy of Cheech & Chong)
Paul, You’re assuming a fact not in evidence which is why hate crimes are wrong. If I were betting, I would say this kid’s motivation was to disparage Jesus and Christianity. But, he may just have seen a statue of a man ripe for an obscene selfie. I would not even consider a white person yelling “nigger” as they beat a black person or a black person yelling “white honky trash” as being dispositive of a hate crime. In a fit of rage you are going to yell the words most hurtful. Hate crimes are a codification of PC and must be eliminated.
Nick and Eileen – actions speak louder than words. A picture is worth 1000 words. And I said a specific religion, not all religions. We do have at least one commenter on here who hates all religions.
Paul Schulte, I think you are going way overboard here – ascribing malice where only youthful exuberance was present. I see nothing darkly evil in this kid’s humorous stunt. The church where it happened doesn’t even want to press charges; they don’t seem to feel greviously wronged. They probably feel that god is capable of standing up for himself if he wishes. No need for you to try to hurt the kid by bearing false witness. Lighten up, man!
Tomchi – Ray Rice’s wife wants it to all go away, too.
What is the crime in having total disregard for religion?
I’m sure god is laughing at this whole farce, and guffaws over what the kid did. There are some mighty big horrors in this world that we should worry about instead. For this little event, humor is the appropriate response, just as the kid intended.
Please elaborate
Eileen – personally, I think “The Pi** Christ” constitutes a hate crime but it does seem to fall under protected artistic expression. For this kid to think his act was funny means that he has a total disregard for the religion he is ‘polluting.’ That total disregard constitutes a hate crime in utero. His acting on his total disregard raised it to actual hate crime.
The Good Lord is loving and forgiving. It’s people that are not.