Good thing I don’t live in Pennsylvania anymore — apparently, they have a law on the books against “desecration of a venerated object” that is so broad that it includes taking a picture in a suggestive pose with a statue. Apparently, we actually have blasphemy laws, at least in some states, and they are being enforced.
I think this is a perfectly harmless and rather amusing photo, but the young man in the photo could be sentenced to up to two years in prison for 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.
There is no word on the penalties Jesus will receive. As an adult having sex with a minor, I think the sentence ought to be much more severe.
Now you know what you all need to do: if there is a religious statue in your town, I expect you to photograph yourself in a compromising position with it so I can post it here. I don’t think there are any such statues around Morris, but if there are, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is putting an armed guard near them right after I post this.
Also, shame on Pennsylvania.
Someone has that Jesus-thing on their lawn?
jeezus
oh gawd, i hope the wrong people don’t find access to my facebook page.
“Graven Images” FTW
There are plenty of stories about nuns being brides of Jesus and reaching orgasm (religious ecstasy + orgasm) based on the thought. Sex with Jesus looks like a Christian religious tradition to me.
That is both repellent and hilarious. Not up to any statue climbing, and I’ll pass on the opportunity to put my fat body on the net for public mockery – I invite you to contemplate the reaction if that was a fat older woman instead of a young thin asshat – but I’m with you in principle.
Just to be fair, most states have or had similar statutes. A statute of exactly the same name was at issue in Texas v. Johnson, about the constitutionality of burning the American flag.
I think the First Amendment namely the defendant’s right to express himself trumps any local laws against desecration. But go ahead and try to violate this man’s constitutional rights, Pennsylvania. Wouldn’t be the first time you tried and failed.
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between…
Sounds to me like the people of Pennsylvania have taken on the burden of proving what this young man knew about the sensibilities of others.
Defense attorney: “Please tell the court: Did you know this would outrage the sensibilities people likely to see the image?”
Young Man: “Nope.”
Defense attorney: “The defense rests.”
Talking of statues…
I thought this was decided in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) when Johnson was charged with desecration of a venerated object (a U.S. flag) and the Supremes said the Texas statute was not enforceable as Johnson’s actions were protected as symbolic speech. This lad is just trying to get closer to (or become one with) his god.
I guess female celebrities need to register themselves as religions, so their on-line images can count as religions icons and be protected under this law.
@sherlock, 11–You’re basically right that the Texas statute was unconstitutional as applied, but I believe it actually left the statute intact, since it is possible to come up with (tortured) fact patterns wherein free speech would not be implicated. I still think you’re basically correct.
Jesus was asking for it! Look how he’s dressed, and that pose…
seriously, after this kid wins his court case, we should buy him an “I support the US Constitution” Tshirt.
Yeah, there’s lots of laws like these. They’re never upheld on appeal. However, appealing is an expensive, long, and difficult process.
Cheebus! They’d burn me house down and kill me animals here in Iowae!
So Pennsylvania wants to criminalise acts that give offence to others? Leaving aside the unconstitutional and utterly unenforceabe character of this most idiotic of laws, I would just like to say that I find the ideology and actions of homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist and/or transphobic bigots to be deeply offensive to my sensibilities, doubly so when they attempt to justify their bigotry with appeals to dusty old religious mythology. I am also offended by people who try to use regional laws to undermine fundamental human and constitutional rights in a bid to force their delusional belief systems on others. I trust that suitable legal penalties will be brought to bear to bring this criminally offensive behaviour to a stop forthwith?
I mean, it is not as though these laws only exist to protect the oh so delicate fee fees of specific faith groups in direct contravention of the First Amendment, right?
What’s the age of consent in PA?
Is that statue on public property? If not, they’ll probably go after him on trespass charges too.
Re Daz’s link @ 10:
The city is holding the statue until the owner claims it. Then they will slap them with sme bullshit charge, like littering or something. Mark my words. Mark them!
This is probably different from the Texas case in that he’s not making a political statement – or even a religious one, for that matter. Instead, I would expect it to be more about the government not being allowed to define “sacred” without establishing religion. Then again, I’m a geologist, not a lawyer.
“Christanity can suck my cock” isn’t a political or religious statement?
@tfkreference–free speech can be utterly inane and pointless and still be speech. It’s hard to see how this act in context could not be speech, even if it’s simply “I think this is funny.” There are acts which might not count as speech. And I actually think the objective referent in the statute “venerated by a lot of people,” to paraphrase, passes constitutional muster. It encompasses religion, but it broader than that. In my opinion, it does not call for religious determinations or cause establishment issues.
well, you might be putting words in the boy’s.. mouth.
I live in Florida. This being the south, I don’t think I’ll be able to find a religious statue anywhere.
Josef Mulroney @2:
Why? I just clicked your nym and checked out your page. Seems perfectly fine by me. But then I’m a godless, progressive, feminist, atheist, so I may not qualify as the wrong type of person you speak of :)
You know, that jesus statue looks short enough to be a water fountain.
Matthew 6:5 (KJV):
My family owns a vacation place in NE PA. Don’t think it is anything grand because I have to haul water from the lake for doing dishes. In any case, I know have a whole range of activities with which I can amuse myself up there.
Oh come all ye unfaithful!
If I lived a little closer to that statue, I would like to commemorate this event on a regular basis by splattering some milk on its face whenever I passed near it.
Do local dogs use it as a fire-hydrant substitute?
lifelong PA resident here, often in the most idiotic parts. This type of statue is usually only in the lawns of Catholics. Anti-Catholic sentiment is still alive and well in PA. So, it is difficult to posit what exactly this individual is trying to do, and which “public” he is perhaps trying to offend.
Pennsyltucky, what a place to live…..
one assumes that this statue is something related to Gesthemane. But since the Gospel of John doesn’t even mention this, one can make the argument that this statue isn’t biblical at all, and is only one of those parts that can be safely ignored as just crap that humans added to the story.
Tony… @ # 25: This being the south, I don’t think I’ll be able to find a religious statue anywhere.
If near Orlando, you may find that The Holy Land Experience might satisfy such cravings.
Except for creche scenes, I couldn’t find any instances of Jesus being portrayed there other than by live actors – so any potential reenactments of the Pennsylvania Blasphemy might require a bit more negotiation, but could end up even more gratifyingly.
not catholic. I’ve never heard of the sect before, but it’s in front of one of their churches.
it was something like “church of the holy line”
are you kidding?
He’s 16, saw a statue of jesus kneeling at just the right height….
I’m betting hundreds of teens (and a few adults) have done this exact same thing, but just never bothered with taking pictures to share.
My guess would be it’s hardly a profound statement he’s trying to make, but hey, I could be wrong.
ah, the church is:
“Love In the Name of Christ”
evidently a growing chain.
This is an obvious case of statue-tory rape.
mck9
Rape is no laughing matter. I don’t find this comment funny.
Lynna No. 5:
In pursuant to the above I remember reading an account of a Nun who while meditating would sometimes fall to the ground and writhe in ecstasy screaming at the top of her lungs “I desire the body of my Lord Jesus Christ!!!”. Others would ecstatically declaim about Jesus bringing them to the Wedding bed to “fill” them with his “spirit”.
Pierce @33:
My sarcasm must not have come through effectively. I live in the southeastern United States. The bible belt is just north of me. I live on the zipper just below the bible belt.
Marcus Ranum @ 3
I was raised Catholic and was always confused by the Good Friday mass, in which the congregation queued up to kiss the feet of a Jesus statue. Apart from the obvious risk of diseases, it seemed to clearly violate that very commandment. I asked about this and was told that the statue became Jesus during the ceremony; them Catholics sure do love their sympathetic magic.
It was that plus a mass where the reading was on rendering unto Caesar followed by a sermon admonishing us for not giving the church enough money that I first began to realise that organised religion is full of shit.
@9 Ethan Myerson
Sounds to me like the people of Pennsylvania have taken on the burden of proving what this young man knew about the sensibilities of others.
Defense attorney: “Please tell the court: Did you know this would outrage the sensibilities people likely to see the image?”
Young Man: “Nope.”
Defense attorney: “The defense rests.”
Well… kinda, though I thoroughly agree with the point, in that proving “intent” or “state of mind” (or whatever is just plain stupid in free speech cases.
From the perspective of the Idaho inside my head, this was an creepy little twerp who doesn’t have a clue how to distinguish himself if it doesn’t offend someone. Judgemental, yes, but I imagine an evening of 4Chan following this pastoral afternoon.
But… so what? If being an ass / twerp / creep were against the law… (fade to obvious)
But issues with proof of intent to offend? If the statute were to hold, no matter how silly, puritanical, and idiotic the law may be, the prosecution would have to be incompetent to be unable to back this kid into accidentally exhibiting his understanding of offense, then there’s some termination of employment in order.
@12 Amphiox
BRILLIANT.
Seriously. At so many levels.
@21 tfkreference
He’s not? What if it’s backed up with a private performance art exhibit the prior week? What if he had some form of incurable penis rot, and was pursuing healing? Or was molested by a priest as a boy?
@23 ask Rico
Moar, please. Please explain how it passes muster, and how it avoids establishment given any applicable history of suit.
@26 Menyambal
That’s one funky house of worship he’s got himself, somewhere. I’m guessing vids of services seriously supplement the collection plate.
Unless that’s not what you meant.
@31 Pierce R. Butler
Wow. Huge props to your iconoclastic self. You diss so bad. High fives and stuff.
@32 hexidecima
What? John is the first gospel in the pantheon of doubt…
Not quite sure how he did any of those things by taking a picture.
@44 U Frood
Funny. Like 9th grade funny.
If you want some real fun, try to figure a definition for the meaning of “physical mistreatment.”
U Frood @44:
…uh, hmmm…OH I got it.
He spiritually defamed our LoRd and SaViOr Jesus Christ by placing his penis near the mouth of his MoSt HoLy one. After all, we all know what Jesus had to say about sucking dick…”I can’t do it through the jeans!”
@46 Tony!
OK… the code is either:
OHHLRSVOJCMSHLAJ
or
HRSVOMSHL
The second feels like it, but I’m not sure whether to focus on all caps, or just the glaring ones..
?
And wasn’t it about not being able to transmit uprightness though the genes?
Maybe it depends on the translators familiarity with the source…
Yay, the American Taliban strikes again, in solidarity with their brothers in Egypt:
The American Taliban must really hate Freedom of Expression.
@Usernames are smart #48: They are scared that their power is not respected.
knowknot:
Oh, I wasn’t getting that fancy.
I was just mimicking the penchant for random capitalization of some believers. No code. I might try that one day though.
You do know I got that, right?
Maybe?
Right???
‘Cause of the clever sexual transmission through jeans (generative) – transmission of uprightness through genes (hereditary spiritual status) riff?
Tony?
… ok …
Clear case of entrapment?
What…the…fuck…
Why do we think things like fundamental Islam are a threat to our lifestyle? We’re doing it to ourselves already.
Haha, Jesus just got victim-blamed.
(j/k of course)
Ichthyic #14
Agreed.
Maybe next time he’ll bring a friend with him…
My point at 21 was based on my perception of his motive. I haven’t seen a statement from him – if anyone has, please post the link. Based on my experience of having been a teenage boy and hanging out with other teenage boys, I bet that he’d have done the same thing to any kneeling statue – religious or secular. I agree completely that it’s free expression and should be protected as speech. Without further evidence, however, I can’t say that it was political or religious speech (the gist if the Texas case), just that it was speech without potential harm to anyone (except to himself from Christians who might show him some Christian love).
yes.
mck9
I did giggle a bit at “statue-tory”. It was good word-play, in an unfortunate attempt at humour. But I have to agree with Tony! — rape isn’t funny.
=====
As for what this kid did? I’m not seeing what the Big Fucking Deal is. It was horribly juvenile and in poor taste, but that’s not a crime. (Thankfully!)
Kid’s being charged with “desecration”, which seems to be code for “religious feelings were bruised”, and blatantly unconstitutional.
@21:
No, this kid’s demonstration is clearly expressive conduct (about mocking Jesus, the that statue’s design, or, at minimum, an obvious sexual implication), that enjoys just as much First Amendment protection as any anti-war rally. The First Amendment prohibits the government from placing value on speech, and from any ad-hoc determinations of whether speech is directed towards any “legitimate” issue or not. It’s all presumptively protected, absent the speech/conduct fitting into a rather narrow subset of exceptions — none of which apply to pretending a Jesus statue is giving a blowjob.
The issue with the government prohibiting desecrating “sacred” or “venerated” objects comes into play as to whether the statute is too vague to be enforced, as people are not on proper notice as to what it applies to, as well as to the fact that prohibiting speech directed only towards certain targets makes the law content-based rather than content-neutral. Either way, the law is clearly unconstitutional as applied to this kid.
(there also seems to be a statutory argument that the kid did not physically damage/mistreat the statue in any way, assuming PZ’s quote of the law’s language is accurate, but that is more boring)
Last I checked, “content-neutral” speech bans are generally unconstitutional too. Doesn’t matter if people were given proper notice of what does and does not constitute a “sacred” or “venerated” object. The first amendment guarantees me the right to desecrate them all (where “desecrate” does not include trespassing, actual property damage, assault, “true threats”, etc.). “Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech”.
Perhaps you’re confusing this with the court-invented allowance that government functions can include religious sectarian prayer as long as it’s open to all religious and non-religion too? Dittos for “public venues” open for private use.