Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Nanny State

Holy Crap: Photographing Fake Blow Job From Jesus Could Land Teen In Jail

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 9.11.2014 11:20 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

From the Department of Criminalize All The Things: An Everett, Pennsylvania, teenager faces charges for "desecrating a venerated object" after the boy posted Facebook photos of himself receiving simulated head from a Jesus statue. Police say the desecration took place at Love In the Name of Christ church. Apparently this isn't a proper way to express that Christ-love? 

Desecrating a venerated object—defined as "defacing, damaging, polluting, or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities"—is a second-degree misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, with a possible punishment of up to two years jail time. According to the Altoona Mirror, the last time this 1972 law made Pennsylvania news was in 2010, when a Wilkes-Barre college student was charged for urinating on a Nativity scene. 

The Jesus photos came to law enforcement's attention after the teen posted to them to Facebook. This is the America we live in today, folks, where a 14-year-old boy acting like a 14-year-old boy is a criminal offense. 

In other penises-and-biblical-figure news, officials in Vancouver, British Columbia, are investigating "an unsanctioned nude devil statue sporting a full erection." 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Obama's B.S. Justification for His Illegal War: the 2001 AUMF

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Nanny StateTeenagersPolicePennsylvania
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (129)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Brett L   11 years ago

    So the important takeaway kids: Photographs are EVIDENCE. Do NOT take pictures of things that will get you in trouble.

    1. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

      While true, who would have thought this would be illegal?

      Good thing we don't have avatars here, or else some clever bastard would certainly be using the Jesus Fucking Christ handle and the pic that goes with it. ILLEGAL.

      1. Brett L   11 years ago

        Doesn't change the point. I didn't specify legal trouble. You can get romantic trouble just as easily and more painfully.

        1. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

          Hell hath no fury like a savior scorned?

      2. JewPenis   11 years ago

        This kid OBVIOUSLY did not take this picture. Do you know how cameras work, stupid?

    2. Robert   11 years ago

      I'm sure the whole point of it was to get a picture and publicize it.

  2. Citizen Nothing   11 years ago

    an unsanctioned nude devil statue sporting a full erection.

    So is there an official in Vancouver whose job it is to sanction nude devil statues sporting full erections?

    1. Idle Hands   11 years ago

      Your in the wrong line sir, this is for fully clothed religious statues only. window 36 is for any nude hedonistic or otherwise suggestive models.

    2. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      Yes, he has to judge if the erection is jaunty, with a charming, Maurice Chevalier-style savoir-faire (and thus OK) or angrily tumescent and potentially cervix-banging (and thus not OK)

      1. Sandi   11 years ago

        I had a friend who has interacted with every size and shape of penis once.

    3. r3VOLutionarykind   11 years ago

      Technically, he represents a committee tasked with the same.

    4. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

      If there isn't, there should be. We cannot allow that sort of thing to go unregulated. Won't someone please think about licensing revenues public orde?

    5. GILMORE   11 years ago

      " officials in Vancouver, British Columbia, are investigating "an unsanctioned nude devil statue sporting a full erection." "

      The implication is that if you're going to make statues of the devil, regulations require that he be sporting a semi at best.

      1. JWatts   11 years ago

        "be sporting a semi at best."

        So which direction is the best?

        1. GILMORE   11 years ago

          Satan Leans Left

  3. John   11 years ago

    Cant they just charge him with trespassing? I assume that statue is on private property. That PA law is blatantly unconstitutional. It is either vandalism or trespassing or both. Any "desecrating" whatever that is, is going to be protected under the first Amendment. If I break into your house and call you a ignorant heretic, they can charge me breaking and entering not for insulting you.

    1. Aresen   11 years ago

      If the property owners allow access to the general public, I don't think they can even get trespassing, unless this person was previously specifically forbidden to be on the property.

      1. Overt   11 years ago

        You can allow access to the general public under certain conditions though. For example, a business could be open to the public but not allow you without shoes or shirt. I don't see why you couldn't call that trespassing if you refuse to follow those rules.

        That said, the government ought not get involved in this. The trespass, such that it was, is over. Yeah someone might have photo evidence of it, but so what?

        The funny thing is if this had been a statue of Muhammad or a woman placed on a campus, this kid would be up on charges of hate crimes and harassment and probably get expelled from school. As it is, he will likely get public service (which is too much as well).

        1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

          I don't see why you couldn't call that trespassing if you refuse to follow those rules.

          I see you haven't met robc.

        2. Robert   11 years ago

          It's like the Pussy Riot case, only he wasn't disrupting services. The trespasser committed a minor offense which the state wants to prosecute as a major one.

        3. Mark22   11 years ago

          Well, they can ask him to leave and if he refuses, then they can charge him with trespassing. But simply deciding that they don't like what he was doing doesn't make what he did trespassing.

        4. Chumby   11 years ago

          Or if it had been Bill Clinton it would have been dismissed as, "At least it wasn't an intern this time."

          And would have been spun somehow to garner support from anti-Christian gays to send $ to Hillary.

    2. Warren's Strapon   11 years ago

      Or like flag burning. Is burning the American flag a crime? Well, whose flag was it?

      1. Bramblyspam   11 years ago

        My thoughts immediately went to flag burning as well. The flag surely qualifies as a "venerated object" as well, but the supremes have ruled that "desecration" is free speech.

        I imagine the kid will be alright as long as he has lawyers raising the free speech issue. Of course, he still has a few hells to traverse before he gets to that point.

  4. Citizen Nothing   11 years ago

    And is the statue or the investigators sporting said erection?

    1. Swiss Servator, Bern baby Bern   11 years ago

      Both.

  5. Idle Hands   11 years ago

    rule 34 in action.

    1. John   11 years ago

      Son I am giving you thirty days suspended for trespassing and fifteen days not suspended for being a complete and utter moron.

  6. SugarFree   11 years ago

    Jesus uses too much teeth and always orphans the balls.

    1. Idle Hands   11 years ago

      pederaste, Dude.

    2. Pl?ya Manhattan.   11 years ago

      Mind the stepchildren.

    3. invisible furry hand   11 years ago

      That's why nobody fucks with the Jesus.

    4. Pl?ya Manhattan.   11 years ago

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....9PElw#t=93

  7. Eric Bana   11 years ago

    People's sensibilities must be protected at all costs.

    1. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

      It's right there in the First Amendment's "freedom not to be offended" clause.

      1. Sevo   11 years ago

        That one seems to be hand-entered in the margin on my copy.

        1. Chumby   11 years ago

          If the Founding Fathers knew what folks today would be doing...

  8. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    Desecrating a venerated object...

    Seems like idolatry to me. And this is coming from a former altar boy.

    1. John   11 years ago

      It is a bullshit law. And it is unneeded. You know what another word for desecrating is? Vandalizing. Last I looked that was a no shit crime.

      1. Idle Hands   11 years ago

        John if you wanna throw the book at those pesky kids you have to compound the laws silly.

      2. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

        Unless he actually gave the Messiah a pearl necklace, this doesn't even look like vandalism. Trespass, maybe?

        1. John   11 years ago

          It is trespass. He didn't vandalize anything. But he certainly trespassed and should be prosecuted for that. I understand where the church is a bit pissed off about this. That is their land and trespass is a crime.

          1. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

            Doesn't the state own so much property on either side of a road? Looks like they put Jesus in the right of way.

            1. RealCrankyYankee   11 years ago

              There is typically a 10 ft utility easement on public roads but that doesn't mean they own it - only have a right to enter the property for certain activities, meaning the church still owns the land.

          2. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

            If another photo exists of someone kissing Jesus or shaking Jesus' hand, that is also evidence of a trespass.

            In any event, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

            Seems to me the church is being utterly hypocritical here.

            1. John   11 years ago

              Sure it is. But the land owner is fee to pick and choose which trespassers he calls the cops on. And they are not being hypocritical. He fucked with their statue. Too bad for him.

            2. Overt   11 years ago

              If another photo exists of someone kissing Jesus or shaking Jesus' hand, that is also evidence of a trespass.

              Not really. Common law or even custom can fill in here just fine. Part of being allowed on someone else's property is showing that property respect. Just as a business reserves the right to ask someone loud or dressed inappropriately to leave, anyone can reasonably expect a person not to engage in felatio with their innanimate objects.

              In any event, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

              Cute.

              1. adifferentken   11 years ago

                "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth..."
                🙂

              2. JewPenis   11 years ago

                He didn't engage in fellatio and the cops were not called for trespassing, dumbass. They were called to investigate a Facebook picture. Are so fucking stupid that you don't get that?

          3. blackjack   11 years ago

            It';s not trespassing, you have to be aware of your undesired presence. There's no sign saying "don't pretend our statue is blowing you."

            Accepting trespass in this case is accepting the attitude that anyone you don't like is subject to arrest.

            They can now bar him from the premises, and NEXT time call it trespassing.

            1. mad.casual   11 years ago

              It';s not trespassing, you have to be aware of your undesired presence. There's no sign saying "don't pretend our statue is blowing you."

              Bullshit. This is how libertarianism goes wrong. As Overt points out it falls to common law. If the pastor jumped out without warning and blasted him off the statue with a shotgun, you might have a case.

              Otherwise, saying the law doesn't apply because there isn't a "don't pretend our statue is blowing you." sign only invites Jesus rimjobs, ass-rapings, and three-ways; not to mention flaming (or not) bags of shit (from any vertebrate source or combination of sources) on the porch.

              You're on the property doing something you're not supposed to be doing, just because I didn't post a sign doesn't mean I'm entirely without recourse.

              1. blackjack   11 years ago

                If you call the cops because someone is disturbing your peace, they come out and inform the perp that he is barred from the premises. Thereafter, he is trespassing, if he returns.

                You can't say he's trespassing, because you would have revoked permission to be there, had you known how offended you might have been had you known he would do what he eventually did. There's no retroactive banning from the premises. That would allow, basically anyone to be subject to arrest.

                That's where THIS libertarian "goes wrong," in requiring notice of 86'ing someone before siccing the state on them to forcibly and violently punish them for something.

                As opposed to tweaking the meaning of a sensible law, in order to punish speech you find offensive.

                Anyone advocating police action against this kid (based on this story) is an authoritarian slaver. Inform him that he is 86'd and leave it alone.

                1. mad.casual   11 years ago

                  Anyone advocating police action against this kid (based on this story) is an authoritarian slaver. Inform him that he is 86'd and leave it alone.

                  Depends on the action. Society today (internet/Facebook) police may've had to get involved to notify the kid of his 86'ing.

                  The church already has signs venerating Jesus posted and they do their best to get the message out already and rather than coming onto the kid's property and defacing it with crosses, they notified the police. The police/state are doing stupid shit, but IDK that I'd blame the church for that. Perpetuating a cycle maybe.

                2. mad.casual   11 years ago

                  If you call the cops because someone is disturbing your peace, they come out and inform the perp that he is barred from the premises. Thereafter, he is trespassing, if he returns.

                  BTW- Were you kicked out of the chess club or something? This is the worst description of 86'ing I've ever heard and I've never known the police to be involved without someone (not the property owner) taking a ride.

              2. Pinky   11 years ago

                Not supposed to be doing? Explain that to me?

                1. mad.casual   11 years ago

                  Not supposed to be doing? Explain that to me?

                  That's easy enough, as a libertarian it begins with the word "my" and ends with "property" and nothing else in the middle that *I* don't put there.

          4. Mark22   11 years ago

            It's not trespass unless they post signs that the public shouldn't enter.

            1. mad.casual   11 years ago

              Just like your mom's bedroom?

        2. Mock-star   11 years ago

          Hi, Im from this area. The Love Church isnt pressing charges and is actually on the teen's side. Bedford County DA is the one seeking the charges, That is why there are no trespass charges against the teenager. The same DA was in trouble a few years ago for banging a mistress in the courthouse, she later pressed charges.

          http://www.post-gazette.com/lo.....808270239.

          Interesting sidenote: Everett is one township away from Sandra Fluke's hometown of Saxton.

          1. Mock-star   11 years ago

            Further thoughts on this: Im getting alot of mileage using this to troll my proglodyte friends. I remind them that government is simply the things that we choose to do together. And I also point out that the kid was caught because the locals saw the pics on facebook, but we dont have to worry about the NSA going through all of our social communications, no siree!

  9. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

    1A...fuck off...law's unconstitutional...trespassing is the best you can do.

    1. GroundTruth   11 years ago

      Succinctly correct.

      1. blackjack   11 years ago

        It is not correct, because it's not trespassing.

        1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

          I suppose one could argue it's not trespassing until asked not to do that.

  10. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

    Where is Eddie?

    1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

      In Pennsylvania apparently.

    2. Sevo   11 years ago

      Over there with Waldo.

  11. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    That's funny. (the photo, not the response)

  12. Doctor Whom   11 years ago

    Landover Baptist Church is on it.

    http://www.landoverbaptist.net.....p?t=101486

  13. TheZeitgeist   11 years ago

    Mocking Jesus is easy. Where's the Muhammed muckrakers?

    1. seguin   11 years ago

      In a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire.

      /izzard

      Also, since he's getting arrested for taking a naughty photo, I guess it isn't that easy (in Pennsylvania at least).

  14. Cdr Lytton   11 years ago

    Desecration? He's just trying to raise awareness about a little scandal at Penn State.

  15. Brandon   11 years ago

    Desecrating a venerated object

    This is stupid. While it's a dick move to screw around with things that people hold sacred, the government has no business, or legal basis, for getting involved in it.

  16. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

    But I do have to say, kids are fucking stupid with their pics and social media. I would have never believed I'd get in trouble with the law over something like this, but my old man would have beat my ass for it.

    This idiot puts it on FB? I guess things have changed.

    1. John   11 years ago

      He trespassed and was a disrespectful, obnoxious little shit. In the old days, the church would have called his parents and his old man would have beat his ass and told him to knock it off and that would have been it.

      In our current more enlightened age, any father that did that would go to prison. So instead we will charge the kid with a crime, put him on probation or in a cage with other serious criminals and generally screw up his entire life.

      Isn't modern America civilized and advanced?

      1. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

        But John, if his dad beats some sense into his ass, it could harm his self esteem.

        1. LibertarianX   11 years ago

          Good. By the looks of this he has too much self esteem, and too little self restraint and respect for others.

      2. Mark22   11 years ago

        This is on the side of a public road with no signs or fences; it's not trespassing.

        Was it disrespectful? You bet. Nothing wrong with disrespecting churches, and people did that "in the old days" too.

  17. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    An afternoon of mowing and edging in the cemetery should more be more than adequate "restitution" for this crime.

  18. Rod Flash   11 years ago

    Since this is a 14 y.o. kid, this should be enough to land Jesus on the sex offender's list. For the children.

  19. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    I'm mostly shocked that this law is from 1972 rather than 1792.

  20. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    Everyone knows that if Jesus were alive today he'd fellate the state.

  21. Rich   11 years ago

    Boys will be boys.

    Especially in prison.

  22. toolkien   11 years ago

    Most blatant example of statue-tory rape I've ever seen...

    1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

      Groooooaaaaaannnn!

      Are you proud of that

      1. toolkien   11 years ago

        Yep.

        1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

          I'm mad that I didn't think of it.

    2. PACW   11 years ago

      Wow. So obvious once it was said - yet unexpectedly clever.

  23. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    Making an assumption from the pixelization of the photograph that the kid whipped it out in plain view of the public.

    THAT may be an actual crime.

    1. Roger the Shrubber   11 years ago

      The pixelation was done as a joke. The photo on the Reason Homepage article scroll is not pixelated.

  24. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    According to the newspaper, "an act that drew violent threats online."

    I wonder if the police are investigating these threats? If not why not? Don't they WANT their monopoly power?

    1. Homple   11 years ago

      Suppose he had simulated whacking off to a Koran. It would have been a hate crime and the kid would have been lucky to have his head and body still connected.

      The Obama administration would have blamed him for ISIS's atrocities.

  25. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    That photo needs some MRAPs and SWATters.

  26. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    Making an assumption from the pixelization of the photograph

    They're trying to protect Jesus' privacy.

  27. guru   11 years ago

    Personally, I kind of feel like we should just look the other way and let this kid get his ass kicked hard. Kind of like how I wouldn't mind if those assholes in the Westboro baptist church ran afoul of a bunch of gay dudes with axe handles. He is that kind of dickhead.

    Sometimes you have to learn the "don't be a dick" rules the hard way. But then christian men are generally feckless groveling pussies these days.

    1. FuriousFatMan   11 years ago

      i'd love to stand between you and the people you think need an ass kicking.

      bet you'd lose that gusto if you werent hiding behind your keyboard, pussy.

      be a real man, and stop crying like a fucking woman, demanding someone else do your dirty work.

      pussy.

      -FFM

      1. guru   11 years ago

        LOL.

  28. Paul.   11 years ago

    WHERE WAS THE TRIGGER WARNING, REASON?!

  29. cavalier973   11 years ago

    The act is breathtaking in its audacity, but is really no worse than any other sort of blasphemy.

    The church that owns the property should just ignore it; they could tell the young fellow that he's no longer welcome on the property, of course. Or, they could reach out to him, and show him the forgiveness of Christ.

  30. jmomls   11 years ago

    *This is the America we live in today, folks, where a 14-year-old boy acting like a 14-year-old boy is a criminal offense. *

    Actually, no, this is the America we live in today, an America where a 14 year-old boy thinks this is a good idea.

    I'm an agnostic, but I really think Christians should start reacting towards little POS's like this the way Islamic fundies would react. People might learn some f*cking manners.

    1. Agile Cyborg   11 years ago

      Christ, you're an idiot.

      1. burserker   11 years ago

        you got a problem with Jesus Christ? you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

  31. FuriousFatMan   11 years ago

    well, this just cannot be.

    according to my conservatarded friends, there hasnt been a blue law on the books since 1826.

    also, it sounds like a cunt wrote this. fucking women and their childish "sensibilities".

    -FFM

  32. LibertarianX   11 years ago

    Well, when you do things that are rude and insulting to people, do not be suprised if they respond harshly to you. Behave like an asshole, get treated like an asshole.

    1. craiginmass   11 years ago

      In Saudi Arabia, they'd have hung him or castrated him. Here they will only put him in a cage to get beat up, stabbed and gang raped.

      We are civilized here.

      1. Chumby   11 years ago

        In Mass they would have put him in DCF and he would have been lost to the system. Probably ended up as a sex slave to one of Duvall Patrick's top liberal pedophile donors.

  33. blackjack   11 years ago

    Well apparently many of you skipped the whole early teens experience. I remember a whole group of kids who would take that picture all day long. In fact, I remember them doing much worse.

    A 14 y/o kid pulls a tasteless prank. Obviously this requires intervention by the police, harsh condemnation and the lamenting of the breakdown of society as a whole. To those of you engaging in this, I say: GROW UP! Kids pull pranks, get over it. No one's hurt, no damage is done, the kid likely feels stupid about it.

    If he was my kid, I'd take him to the priest's office and make him apologize and delete the picture in front of him. Anyone who tried to arrest him would earn my wrath and should expect a massive legal battle (and a massive dose of moral condemnation) from me.

    1. JewPenis   11 years ago

      If it was my kid, I'd laugh my ass off.

  34. burserker   11 years ago

    the real crime here is his outfit, no shirt, plaid shorts, and basketball shoes. his face is blurred, but we know this guy has a shitty haircut too

    1. craiginmass   11 years ago

      In 5 years, this kid will certainly be boots on the ground in some foreign land "defending" our way of life.

      1. Chumby   11 years ago

        His older brother is probably gearing up to so that right now under the direction of Obama an former Mass senator now SOS Kerry.

  35. SQRLSY One   11 years ago

    If the kid and his parents want to keep him from getting seriously fucked up by 2 years in jail, courtesy of the Government Almighty (that Loves Us More Than we will Ever Know, Blessed Be It's Holy Name), then they need to claim religious freedoms! He was acting out of his "sincerely held" beliefs that Jesus was gay, and loved to give BJs to the youngsters that He loved so much. Last time I checked, the USA Constitution protects religious freedom, period! There is NOT even any such clause as to say, "And in order to exercise your religious freedom, you must have the bureaucrats guide you in filling out form BR-549, Certification of Sincerely Heldedness of Your Beliefs"; such freedoms being held in suspension till 50,000 over-paid fat-cat bureaucrats get off of their over-paid asses so as to "certify" your beliefs. And HOW in the HELL do the courts scan your soul, so as to judge whether your beliefs are "sincerely held", anyway? WHERE did "innocent till proven guilty" go, anyway? Where is that statue of Government Almighty, anyway? I wanna take a picture of "The Holy Government Almighty" statue sucking on MY privates, since I have a "Sincerely Held" belief that Guv-Mint Almighty Loves me, in a Gay way, and every WAY!

    1. SQRLSY One   11 years ago

      Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty's Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

  36. craiginmass   11 years ago

    There are a LOT of thumpers in PA. Trust me, they'd just as soon hang this kid as shoot him.....

    You know what they say - PA is Philly and PITT with Alabama in between.

    1. SQRLSY One   11 years ago

      Pssst!!! Hey Man? Please donna be a tellin' ANYONE? Butt, Ah haz been known to scratch mah BUTT, and / or pick mah NOSE, durin' that them thar SACRED National Anthem, at the beginnin' o' that them thar Sacred Sportin' Events? Ah ams a-hopin' that them thar sinful an' disrespectin' actions o' mine are NOT a gonna be construed as me bein' "Desacratin' a Venerated or Venereal Object", whatever them thar thang is called? Ken the Guv-Mint Almighty PWEASE FERGIVE ME, sinful, pathetic bahstahd that am obliviously ams?!?! Just a WEEE tad o'MERCY, pwease?!?!? That's all that ah's ams askin' fer, humbly?

      1. craiginmass   11 years ago

        dis ist des-see-crateing de flag:
        http://www.gettysburgflag.com/.....ty_674.jpg

        http://wcmcoop.files.wordpress.....-shirt.jpg

  37. craiginmass   11 years ago

    Reason probably lifted this from the Huffington Post:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....ps=gravity

    It's interesting to see that the comments on that "lefty liberal" web site full of progs are MORE libertarian and reasonable than those here!

    I think that says a LOT. C'mon down, Reasoneers......we're waiting for you on the good side!

    1. Chumby   11 years ago

      No. Liberals HATE Christians (see Chick Fil-A and Hobby Lobby stories for reference) and love blowjob stories (see Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky and Obama/Chris Matthews). Hence the appearance of "reason." Had it been that statue of Obama it would have been touted as a hate crime by the same folk.

  38. Eric T   11 years ago

    "Love In the Name of Christ"? Oh, that is just too good in its own right. No wonder he couldn't resist the temptation!

  39. D. M. Michell   11 years ago

    The "state" upholding a specific religion? Wouldn't that be a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment? Ah well, we have American Sharia laws in other areas of human behavior that do not violate the rights of others, why not this, too? Inalienable rights? That's a myth.

    1. JewPenis   11 years ago

      The First Amendment?

      Are you seriously suggesting that this situation would be better if the federal government got involved, stupid?

      Keep ALL government out of religion and vice versa.

  40. dpbisme   11 years ago

    I duh-know... I mean how to you deal with the sick crap going on in our country.... I mean maybe we should not toss him jail but we need to do something. Not everything is OK. Burn the American Flag in my presence and I will beat the shit out of you.... I take it as a personal insult to my Honor and my Countries Honor. I was an Infantry Officer for 20 years, I earned the right to go out in public and spend a peaceful day. YA... to wimps this is no big deal but I don't see why I or other people need to be subjected to jerks without so sort of recourse... I mean really,,, if you were an employer won't you want to know that the guy was trouble, maybe not the right fit for your copmpany?

    1. JewPenis   11 years ago

      Maybe you should just take more responsibility in your own personal life and not hang out with people who do thing that offend you. If people burn flags in front of you and know it offend you it is due to your weaknesses of character. It's sad that a pathetic pussy like you could serve our country for 20 years. How pathetic are you that you have to get your panties in a fucking uproar over a 14 year old standing on a statue. How is that sick, dumbs?

  41. gregoryboylenci   11 years ago

    my classmate's sister makes $83 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her income was $18795 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the full info here ....

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  42. laylacrimessun   11 years ago

    my friend's sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ?????? http://2.gp/EvZq

  43. JewPenis   11 years ago

    Why is it this kid's fault that some people are so fucking retarded they can't take a joke?

  44. Suellington   11 years ago

    Thank god that they pixelated. jesus' face in the pic.

  45. Chumby   11 years ago

    Keep in mind that the church still finds it acceptable for priests to do this to teenage boys.

  46. Freddyburridge   11 years ago

    Zachary . even though Don `s postlng is super, I just bought a new Mitsubishi Evo since I been bringin in $7410 this-past/month and-a little over, 10/k this past-munth . it's certainly my favourite work Ive ever done . I started this 9-months ago and pretty much straight away started making more than $83 per hour . read this article--------- http://www.jobsfish.com

  47. SomebodySmart   11 years ago

    Maybe they can get him for "statutory rape".

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

D.C. Pauses Plans To Hike Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

Billy Binion | 6.3.2025 6:00 PM

It's Rand Paul and Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump Over the 'Big Beautiful Bill'

Eric Boehm | 6.3.2025 4:35 PM

Female Nude Spa in Washington Can't Bar Transgender Clients With Male Genitalia, Federal Court Rules

Billy Binion | 6.3.2025 4:20 PM

Trump Cut Funds From Wasteful Projects To Spend on Wasteful Statue Garden

Joe Lancaster | 6.3.2025 3:50 PM

Is It 'Harassment' To Heckle Your Local Politician? A British Court Thinks So.

Matthew Petti | 6.3.2025 3:01 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!