Punks Charged With Urinating in Holy Water

[Milla]

WOW! i just read through this thread and am amazed at some of the disrespect in these posts quite frankly. Just because your Catholic or don't have holy water doesnt mean you need to be so disrespectful does it? What if someone came into your church and urinated on all the bibles? What if someone came into your house and urinated on your family photos? Then would you feel any different?

Speaking objectively, I'd say the main difference between urinating in the holy water and urinating on other pieces of property is that the font is not physically damaged by the act.

Is it disrespect? Yes. Is the legal system's job to make sure people respect my religion? No. The perpetrators need to face whatever the normal consequences for property damage are there, for the actual property damage they did. The law shouldn't treat this case any differently due to it being in a church.

 

[Tamweop]

I mentionned public library and school in my post, but I didn't mean that what thise kids did was right, I just meant that it's not necessarily a hate crime as some people seem to think.

Those kids should be punished, I don't question that at all.

 

[Westvleteren]

I dislike the entire philosophy of the hate crime. We already have laws on the books that cover assault, battery, homicide and property crimes. I'm for less and smaller government--cluttering up the system with more laws does not help.

"Hate" crimes inflict punishment for one's private thoughts. Beating someone is illegal, by any standards, hating someone is not. Criminals should be punished for the actual crime committed, not for what someone else assumes the criminal was thinking when he did it.

Every group that complains about being marginalized is only marginalized further by the concept of a "hate" crime. If the vandalization of a Christian church is treated as a hate crime, it only reinforces a perceived status as a fringe element.

If a group wants to be considered mainstream, they need to accept the "mainstream" punishment for the actual crime committed, not ask for special treatment based on the perceived emotional intent behind it.

 

[BarbB]

I dislike the entire philosophy of the hate crime. We already have laws on the books that cover assault, battery, homicide and property crimes. I'm for less and smaller government--cluttering up the system with more laws does not help.

"Hate" crimes inflict punishment for one's private thoughts. Beating someone is illegal, by any standards, hating someone is not. Criminals should be punished for the actual crime committed, not for what someone else assumes the criminal was thinking when he did it.

Every group that complains about being marginalized is only marginalized further by the concept of a "hate" crime. If the vandalization of a Christian church is treated as a hate crime, it only reinforces a perceived status as a fringe element.

If a group wants to be considered mainstream, they need to accept the "mainstream" punishment for the actual crime committed, not ask for special treatment based on the perceived emotional intent behind it.

I totally agree with what you wrote. I mentioned the "hate crime" aspect because if it had happened to anybody else but a Catholic church, the phrase hate crime would be floating around. Now, I think that most hate crimes are just so much hoaky, but it's obvious that these punks knew the ramifications of urinating in the font and did so out of hate and spite.

What if this had happened at a mosque or a hindu temple or a new age channelling center or whatever they call it?

 

[BarbB]

....If a group wants to be considered mainstream, they need to accept the "mainstream" punishment for the actual crime committed, not ask for special treatment based on the perceived emotional intent behind it.

What about so called hate crimes against homosexuals? Does your idea still hold?

 

[Milla]

I'm actually not fond of hate crime laws myself, but this incident wouldn't really qualify under most hate crime legistation. IIRC one of the key factors that make something a hate crime is that it is done to intimidate other members of the group...if they'd done something like painted "Death to Papists!" or some such on the church, that would be such, but peeing in the font doesn't show intent to create a culture of fear, it just shows idiocy.

 

[Westvleteren]

What if this had happened at a mosque or a hindu temple or a new age channelling center or whatever they call it?

What about so called hate crimes against homosexuals? Does your idea still hold?

In both situations, my position remains the same. There are already laws on the books to cover violence against another person and the destruction of another person's property. I don't see any reason to gunk up the works with more laws, more crimes and more punishments for personal thoughts and feelings, however reprehensible they may be.

"Equal protection under the law" applies to everyone: both genders, all religions, every minority group; and the sooner everyone gets that, the sooner we can stop victimizing each other (and ourselves) for perceived differences and just be humans with humans' basic rights.

 

[BarbB]

In both situations, my position remains the same. There are already laws on the books to cover violence against another person and the destruction of another person's property. I don't see any reason to gunk up the works with more laws, more crimes and more punishments for personal thoughts and feelings, however reprehensible they may be.

"Equal protection under the law" applies to everyone: both genders, all religions, every minority group; and the sooner everyone gets that, the sooner we can stop victimizing each other (and ourselves) for perceived differences and just be humans with humans' basic rights.

Thanks for coming back - I agree - just checking for consistency - which I found!

 

[Ave Maria]

Erm, not really, in the eyes of the law.

Maybe not in the eyes of the law but it makes it worse in my eyes.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I dislike the entire philosophy of the hate crime. We already have laws on the books that cover assault, battery, homicide and property crimes. I'm for less and smaller government--cluttering up the system with more laws does not help.

"Hate" crimes inflict punishment for one's private thoughts. Beating someone is illegal, by any standards, hating someone is not. Criminals should be punished for the actual crime committed, not for what someone else assumes the criminal was thinking when he did it.

Every group that complains about being marginalized is only marginalized further by the concept of a "hate" crime. If the vandalization of a Christian church is treated as a hate crime, it only reinforces a perceived status as a fringe element.

If a group wants to be considered mainstream, they need to accept the "mainstream" punishment for the actual crime committed, not ask for special treatment based on the perceived emotional intent behind it.