Sex in a church

[Klast Brell]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europ ... index.html
The agency said the pair -- a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher -- defended their conduct saying: "We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."

2 consenting adults engaging n heterosexual behavior.
Now if they had been a priest and a child they would just have transfered them to a different church.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Would you have condoned the behavior if the couple had done that in a schoolyard in front of a bunch of kids? How about an iHop when you were eating your breakfast? Those are just another place too.

There are appropriate places for bumping uglies, and inappropriate places. The "atheists" obvioulsy did it to make a statement, or because they have a fetish. You really do have a Private Pyle hard-on for orgnaized religion, ya' know? You should see a therapist about that.

[Ddrak]

"We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."

Correct, and they should be prosecuted just as if they were found having sex in any other place without the permission of the owner of said place.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

No no no no Ddrak. It was in a CHURCH, a symbol of ORGRNIZDED RELIJUN! Therefore atheists have the right to do it there, see? Don't you see? It was a CHURCH.. they are ATHEISTS... that gives them NON-GOD GIVEN RIGHT to do whatever they want to other people who beleive other than they do! Don't you see? They are trying to teach us a lesson, man. They've learned more about the working of the univers in their less than 100 years on this planet than the rest of us, that gives them the RIGHT, the RIGHT I say, to piss on other peoples' beliefs.

I hope the judge makes them write the bible in longhand as a punishment, followed by the Koran, the Talmud, and any other religious texts that come to mind.

Anyone wonder why Klast only rails against the Christian religion, and not all other organized religions? And anyone wonder why atheists seem to attack only the Christian religion? I never read anything about atheists protesting against Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Shintoists, or the Druze, or the Hindus, or the Zoroasters, or the Wiccans.... all religions, yet all blindly ignored by the railings of Klast and his ilk.

[Harlowe]

Correct, and they should be prosecuted just as if they were found having sex in any other place without the permission of the owner of said place.

Absolutely.

[Kulaf]

Because we are the "turn the other cheek" religion. Rail against Islam and you end up on a hit list.

[Garrdor]

This was in a confession box? I was brainwashed catholic as a child, and the confession boxes down in sacramento are pretty small and out of the public eye, really. I mean, it doesn't make it right to be a human in public. As an athiest, I'd like to say that these people are in the wrong - only as much as our society permits it to be wrong. I don't believe in hardcore sex in front of the kids. Or in public places where it's culturally/legally 'wrong' to do so. It really comes down to the people. These aren't the brand of athiest/agnostics that should represent the ideology. Every human should have at least the mental capacity to understand what they should and should not do - given their environment and surroundings.

And on top of that, Athiesm shouldn't have to be defended by petty acts anyways. The truth will come out to everybody either a nanosecond before they slip into the darkness - or when they wake up to an even more materialistic surrounding where they can live out their dreams of walking on streets of solid gold. I don't know.

OKBYE

[Partha]

Good troll, Klast.

PS These two? Mo-rons. If you're gonna have sex in a church, you should get a stiffer sentence.

[Harlowe]

/does a beavis "hehe"

stiffer....

[Klast Brell]

Absolutely I believe they should be prosecuted for having sex in a public place. But you don't see fucking in the fitting room at Macy's covered in the international news.

Embar. I have Railed against other religions. I believe you go pretty bent out of shape when I called a certain group of people religious nuts for fighting over Jerusalem. Both groups BTW. Given the number of people that have died in service to the idea that they were promised this land by an invisible friend who can read their minds. I consider them, (both sides) to be extremely dangerous. Not just to each other, but to world peace. I have to take off my shoes and belt every time I get on an airplane because we got sucked in to their fight.

[Alluveal]

Correct, and they should be prosecuted just as if they were found having sex in any other place without the permission of the owner of said place.

I agree with this. But I also think it's extremely poor taste to enter a church and decide to fuck for the hell of it. I'm not a Tibetan monk, but that doesn't mean I'm going to walk in, giggling with my boyfriend and decide to fornicate in front of the statue of Buddha just because it's not a sacred place to ME. Entitlement whore award goes to these two. I hope they consider sterilization. I would hate to think of their tard-spawns out in the world shitting and pissing in public because "they don't believe in bathrooms."

[Embar Angylwrath]

It's ignorant to say or imply all places are equal. I'd like to know if Klast were a judge, and if these two were caught having sex in front of bunch of first graders, would he impose a penaly on them, and if so, would it be any different than a penalty imposed for havnig sex in, oh, I don't know, let's say a McDonalds.

[Kulaf]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

[Arathena]

If these two are going at it at the Dennys where I'm eating breakfast, I expect them to get nailed for public indecency, or whatever other laws are applicable. If they go at in front of a bunch of first graders at a school, I expect them to get nailed for public indecency, corruption of a minor(or whatever your state uses for generic sex-and-children laws), and trespassing. Chuch? Public indecency, trespassing.

Frankly, the government should not be concerned with the sanctity of a church. If the church congregation wants to make a civil case, then so be it. The avenues for any 'special cases' exist. Use them as appropriate.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If these two are going at it at the Dennys where I'm eating breakfast, I expect them to get nailed for public indecency, or whatever other laws are applicable. If they go at in front of a bunch of first graders at a school, I expect them to get nailed for public indecency, corruption of a minor(or whatever your state uses for generic sex-and-children laws), and trespassing. Chuch? Public indecency, trespassing.

Frankly, the government should not be concerned with the sanctity of a church. If the church congregation wants to make a civil case, then so be it. The avenues for any 'special cases' exist. Use them as appropriate.

I agree. And you illustrated my point that not all spaces are merely spaces. There is a differentiation.

[Arathena]

If these two are going at it at the Dennys where I'm eating breakfast, I expect them to get nailed for public indecency, or whatever other laws are applicable. If they go at in front of a bunch of first graders at a school, I expect them to get nailed for public indecency, corruption of a minor(or whatever your state uses for generic sex-and-children laws), and trespassing. Chuch? Public indecency, trespassing.

Frankly, the government should not be concerned with the sanctity of a church. If the church congregation wants to make a civil case, then so be it. The avenues for any 'special cases' exist. Use them as appropriate.

I agree. And you illustrated my point that not all spaces are merely spaces. There is a differentiation.

Not of the sort that you're implying, however. The key differential, in my mind, is not the 'place' - it is the intended audience, compared to the greater population's choice of what can be shown to that audience. Put them in that same school at midnight, and I should expect that they get nothing more than trespassing, and arguably public indecency. It is an exension of 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose'.

[Select]

It's ignorant to say or imply all places are equal. I'd like to know if Klast were a judge, and if these two were caught having sex in front of bunch of first graders, would he impose a penaly on them, and if so, would it be any different than a penalty imposed for havnig sex in, oh, I don't know, let's say a McDonalds.

It's ignorant to say or imply that a person is a place. First graders are people. McDonald's is a place. They are different things entirely (not different places) so of course the penalties are different. It's also very likely to find a group of first graders at a McDonald's.

Arathena nailed my opinion. A church is a building and should have the same respect as any other building people use and care about. If there are children there or wherever, add extra penalties. Religious places should not get special treatment.

[Klast Brell]

It's ignorant to say or imply all places are equal. I'd like to know if Klast were a judge, and if these two were caught having sex in front of bunch of first graders, would he impose a penaly on them, and if so, would it be any different than a penalty imposed for havnig sex in, oh, I don't know, let's say a McDonalds.

If I was the DA trying to decide what to charge them with I would use the following criteria.
If no one saw them: Trespassing, possibly disorderly conduct. This is closest to the case at hand because they did take care to close the curtain. they did not intend to be seen.
If they intending to be seen: I would add indecent exposure to the mix just like any other flasher.
Only if there were reasonable evidence that they intended to be seen fucking by a bunch of first graders or intended to use the presence of first graders as part of their sex act would I press charges relating to a sex crime / pedophile act.

You can make hypothetical situations and they will have their hypothetical appropriate responses. But in this case they took steps to avoid being seen. It was in a place where they did not reasonably expect to be in front of a bunch of first graders. If they had not been stupid and allowed themselves to make too much noise they probably would have gotten away with it too (if it hadn't been for you meddling kids). Bringing in your "won't somebody think of the children" straw man does not change the actual circumstances of the case.

If you are a normal human being you probably broke some law or other in your life. Maybe it was years ago when you were young and dumb and didn't know better. Maybe you drove your car way over the speed limit. I'm sure a cop, judge or whatever would take a different view of you going 60 in a 30 if it was in front of a school 5 minutes before classes started. But if it was in some suburban residential area you would not want to be prosecuted as if you had almost killed a dozen six year olds. Of course not all places are equal. But a confessional is a lot closer to my hypothetical changing room at Macy's than in front of your hypothetical first grade class and you know it.

Next dumb question?

[Ddrak]

Next dumb question?

Was the priest watching them the whole time from the other half?

Dd

[Select]

Was the priest watching them the whole time from the other half?

Nah, he was too busy ushering a little boy into the bathroom.