Given what an eventful year 2014 was news-wise, it is perhaps understandable - and sadly so - that such a troubling story slipped under the national radar:
Back in July of this past year, a 14 year old boy hailing from Everett, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, took several pictures simulating oral sex with a Jesus statute, located on the grounds of a Christian organization called "Love in the Name of Jesus Christ" and posted them to his Facebook page. What was more than likely a stupid and immature attention getting stunt then escalated into full blown legal action, with the local authorities pressing charges against the backwards ball cap wearing bro.
"Looks like a clear cut case of trespassing," I can imagine many of you saying. "What's so bad about that!? That young ruffian had no business doing such crass things to those fine church going folk! The hooligan is getting what he deserves!"
Yes, perhaps, if he had actually been charged with trespassing on the organization's property. What he was in fact accused of was - wait for it - “Desecration of a Venerated Object.” Yes, people, t'was not an egregious typo - "Desecration of a Venerated Object," which is defined, as passed under a state statute passed in 1972, as "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." The maximum sentencing term under the statute, by the way, is two years in jail.
"Oh come on, MacCormack!" I hear you crowing again. "He clearly defaced the statute!"
Did he physically vandalize it? Spray paint it? Urinate or defecate on it? Exactly. While, as I said previously, that the young meat-head is certainly worthy of being crowned with a dunce cap for his stunt, it certainly is a far cry from property damage.
"Oh yea, well it must have deeply offended the members of the faith community!"
It appears the members of "Love in the Name of Jesus Christ" actually take to heart that good old Christian tenant of forgiveness: The organization did not seek to press charges against the boy.
The same could not be said of local District Attorney Bill Higgins, who pontificated in verbose fashion, “This troubled young man offended the sensibilities and morals of our community.” Furthermore, he thundered after renting his garment, if his steadfast upholding of the law “tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd,’ I make no apologies.”
But of course, as seems to be the case more often than not with such outwardly pious moral crusaders, Mr. Higgins has some considerable skeletons in his own closet. Apparently, in Mr. Higgins' mind, the petty posturing done by the teen to the statue is far more offensive to the "sensibilities and morals" of the community than his admittingly having an affair in his office back in 2008 (the woman who Higgins conducted the affair with later accused him of sexual assault, but the charges were dropped).
Despite public outcry over the severity of the charges, which included a protest the week before the young man's court date, he was sentenced with the following:
"The boy must not use social media during a six-month probation period as well as perform 350 hours of community service.
Among the other punishments, he must obey a curfew of 10 p.m., no alcohol or other controlled substances monitored by random drug testing and stay in school."
While thankfully not charged with the maximum penalty of two years in prison, the boy's punishment is excessively ridiculous, when placed in the context of what he did. As straight up dumb as the act in question was, it was no where near, contrary to presiding Judge Thomas Ling's opinion, an infringement of the organization's "rights to practice their faith." He made a jackass of himself by simulating getting dome from JC and trespassed on private property, but he wasn't charged because of that: He was charged because he offended the tender, sectarian sensibilities of Pharisees like Bill Higgins who blatantly abuse their power to uphold the law - which, by the way, mandates separation of church and state (i.e. the First Amendment to the U,S. Constitution and Article II of the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights) in order to enforce their world views on the public at large.
The fact that we are even still discussing this in the second decade of the 21st century, in a nation that prides itself as being the bastion of freedom, is incredible. What is even more incredible is the fact that, at present, several states still have laws outlawing blasphemy on the books, including Massachusetts, the vaunted "Cradle of Liberty." Furthermore, the last conviction for blasphemy in this country occurred in 1928, in the case of Charles Lee Smith, a little less than a century ago. Not 1628, 1728, or 1828 (when the Roman Inquisition still had a strong pulse in the Papal States), but 1928.
Is this post intended to be a warning cry against the looming implementation of an American Inquistion, with fanatical friars and frenzied evangelists waiting in the wings and chomping at the bit to put all manner of heretics to the rack in the name of Christ? Far from it: I will leave all conspiratorial speculation in the capable hands of experts such as Mssrs. Alex Jones and Glenn Beck and stick to the basic facts.
What this whole affair does demonstrate, however, is that as long as such laws remain codified on the books for hypocritical blowhards like Bill Higgins to prosecute in attempt to tyrannize hearts and minds behind the facade of "public morality", the notion of religious liberty in this country is an utter farce.
The words of Robert Ingersoll, legendary 19th century American lawyer, Civil War veteran, and orator, who served as the defending attorney in the famed Reynolds blasphemy trial in 1877, remain as right as rain in our own day:
"For thousands of years people have been trying to force other people to think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they succeed? No. Why? Because brute force is not an argument.
No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make people think its way by force and flame.
I want you to understand what has been done in the world to force men to think alike. It seems to me that if there is some infinite being who wants us to think alike he would have made us alike. Why did he not do so? Why did he make your brain so that you could not by any possibility be a Methodist? Why did he make yours so that you could not be a Catholic? And why did he make the brain of another so that he is an unbeliever — why the brain of another so that he became a Mohammedan — if he wanted us all to believe alike?
After all, maybe Nature is good enough and grand enough and broad enough to give us the diversity born of liberty. Maybe, after all, it would not be best for us all to be just the same. What a stupid world, if everybody said yes to everything that everybody else might say.
The most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than food or clothes — more important than gold or houses or lands — more important than art or science — more important than all religions, is the liberty of man."
If you enjoyed the content of this post, check out my best-selling e-book, Dragon Heart, available in the Kindle Store on Amazon.com. As always, comments and feedback are encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment