In all seriousness, though, while I realize this act was intended to be disrespectful of people’s beliefs…is it really going to hurt God any?
Really?
I mean, God (by definition) can kick anybody’s ass. Getting all in a dither about Him being disrespected seems a bit silly, doesn’t it?
Maybe it’s just me, but sacrilege seems to be a really goofy (not to mention nonsensical) thing to bitch about.
Maybe I think too much.
I’m sitting here and thinking " If they hadn’t killed Jesus (the way they supposedly did), there would be no Christianity as we know it."
Exactly, that’s why I made the ‘irony’ comment in the OP. They don’t even realise the meaning(s) of that statement. Christ died for the salvation of the people, for the forgiveness of sins. These guys sinned against God and if Christ hadn’t died on the cross they wouldn’t be forgiven, YMMV. Killing Jesus was the best thing to happen to Christianity.
I can’t believe that these ignorant idiots don’t even have the sense to appear moderately contrite, having admitted their guilt. I see from the articles cited that they have no money, so they wouldn’t be able to pay the cost of removing their red paint. It does seem that the best punishment would be to require community service from them, preferably removing grafitti or repairing other damage caused by vandals.
The bill for cleanup is topping $15,000.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=435937
Subscription may or may not be needed to access the story.
Forgive the bump; I’ve been away.
The issue is that churches and synagogues are often hubs of the community. The vandalism was disrespectful towards the congregation, many of whom have probably contributed much money over the years to the upkeep of the building. There’s a church I know of where the new building was built almost entirely through contributions from members. They all voted on the designs for the stained-glass windows and other accoutrements, and some of the members worked on the landscaping. If anyone vandalized that church, the perps would just have to leave town; the backlash would be that bad.
Feh. Desecrating churches is soooo 1997. Stupid rowdy teen punks need to get with the century already.
I’d have loved to to have seen the young punk (who thinks he’s oh-so-bad) shouting, “I’m glad they killed Jesus!”, to a crowd of church-goers, thinking to freak them out, only to be greeted by a chorus of hallelujahs, “Well said, brother!”, “Praise the Lord”, warm hugs and beaming smiles.
The sight of his bewildered little face would have been a treasure.
er… are you sure they need thumbs to procreate?
Their attorneys asked for extra time to prepare a case.
Moe legal proceedings tomorrow, 6/28/06.
No problem on the bump, I am away frequently, too.
And you have a good point, here. I didn’t mean to condemn the objection to the destruction of property and whatnot. That (the objection to said destruction) should certainly be defended.
What I was addressing was the belief that God could be harmed by something like this. There seems to be a mentality that we cannot allow disrespect of God, because it will somehow do some harm to Him. That, to me, is ridiculous. Did the vandals do harm to the people by their acts? Sure, I’ll grant you that (and join you in condemning it), but the belief that it is going to jeopardise God (and thus we need to protect him) seems rather illucid.
That’s all I was trying to say. People very often seem to be of the perspective that God is their child that needs protected at all costs. It’s a gracious point of view, I’ll grant you, but completely unnecessary, IMO.
I have a vague memory of some science fiction story where someone goes back in time to block the Crucifixion in order to fuck up Christianity.