I Get Replies, You Get Replies, We All Get Replies…..

I’d like to consider myself a special little snowflake, but I just finished reading this reply, word for word, on the American Atheist’s post about the event.  On their site the reply was made by a and here at Foster Disbelief it came from a mysterious “Ed,” but it is, as I said, word for word.  So, same person, different names, or really shitty form letter?  You be the judge.  Moving it from the comment section of this post to here so more eyes get a glimpse of it.

The law is needed , not only to protect the desecration of the statue depicting Jesus , but also all statues and monuments that are venerated for the people and or ideas they represent . Without this law other memorials and monuments would be fair game for abuse . Think what that would mean . Would you want , for instance , radical Muslims desecrating the Lincoln memorial , Arlington Cemetery and or The Statue of Martin Luther King ? Many of them would be lining up to pose as this youth did but on other statues and monuments that possibly you respect and or hold in awe and reverence . If the kid would have used a statue he owned and or on his own property , then his 1st amendment rights would apply . This law is to protect from abuse those publicly displayed venerated statues and monuments be they secular or religious .

And my reply:

Oh, for fucks sake.

If radical Muslims want to take a picture of themselves face fucking Abe Lincoln, WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT HURT?

It’s a statue. No damage was done to the statue. PERIOD. People can take any kind of photo they want “desecrating” people I consider heroes, and it does zero, read none, read nada, harm to me, or anyone else.

Let me spell this out for you, since you don’t seem to be able to grasp this. If radical Muslims harmed a statue of Lincoln, or if KKK members pushed over a statue of MLK, or if Satanists vandalized a Nativity scene, or if this teen would have covered the statue of Jesus with spray paint, EXISTING LAWS WOULD ALREADY PUNISH THE OFFENDERS. If you want to make the case that the teen shouldn’t have used the statue as a backdrop for his picture because it wasn’t on his property, then charge him with trespassing. (Although you better get a time machine to post the NO TRESPASSING signs in that case.)

If your sensibilities are so delicate, if your beliefs are so fragile, if your heroes are so questionable that someone taking a picture damages them, then I have to suggest the problem may be with you, not the picture taker.


And not to belabor the point here, but who gets to decide in your world what constitutes “desecration?” What if instead of the picture he actually posed for, the teen instead snapped a pic with his arm around Jesus’ shoulders giving a “thumbs up” sign? I know certain Christians who would consider that blasphemy. Was that “desecration?”

What if I visited the Lincoln Memorial and was so overcome with reverence for the man that I posed for a picture on my knees in front of him? You may think that I was just kneeling in honor of a great man, with no way of knowing that I was really representing the bitching blow job I would so give Abe. (And that, if historical rumors can be believed, Abe would have been totally down with.) Is that “desecration?”

Say I heard about Islam and without studying up on their beliefs, was so impressed with the supposed Prophet of God that I build a statue of Muhammad in honor of the man? Do I really need to tell you that no matter what my intentions, radical (or hell, moderate as well) Muslims would consider that “desecration?”


And while I am thinking about it, do you really think this law is preventing any of the things you listed in your reply? This is an obscure Pennsylvanian law, not a national law. To the best of my knowledge it has only been used once before, and other laws could have covered that case quite nicely. (A case where something was actually done to the display. You know, more than being a prop in a picture you find offensive.) It is not needed. Anything it supposedly protects is already protected by other laws. Any extra protection it grants symbols is blatantly unconstitutional.

Sorry about repeating myself, but I can not stress this enough.

If your sensibilities are so delicate, if your beliefs are so fragile, if your heroes are so questionable that someone taking a picture damages them, then I have to suggest the problem may be with you, not the picture taker.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s