A teen-age man's life is made useless by the marking of his name with incarceration, which prevents access to grants for higher-learning, and higher-economic class.
Secular law does not enforce the dictates of a religion on non-believers. It will enforce laws against trespassing, stealing, and destruction against a public monument, as an act of protecting property...
When a religion governs a state, it is a political ideology which is defended against all non-violent "outrages".
The offender is charged with the following: “Desecration of a Venerated Object.”, which is defined 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.”
"It's a simple case of statutory rape"
"Teen Faces 2 Years in Prison for Taking a Lewd Photo…..With a Statue"2014-09-11 by Cassandra Rules [http://thefreethoughtproject.com/teenager-facing-years-offensive-facebook-photos]:
An Everett, Pennsylvania, teenager is facing two years locked away over some offensive photos posted to his facebook account.
The photos depict him in mock sexual positions with a Jesus Statue. The statue does not appear to have been harmed during the incident.
KRON4 reports that the photos were taken and uploaded in July in front of the “Love in the Name of Christ” Christian organization in his hometown of Everett.
The young man is charged with “Desecration of a Venerated Object.”, which is defined 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.”
This is a charge that was often used against people who burnt American flags in protest.
In Texas v. Johnson, Johnson was charged with Desecration of a Venerated Object for burning an American Flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas.
The case brought to light questions about whether or not expressive acts were protected under the amendment. The supreme court ultimately decided that the burning of the flag in protest was in fact, protected speech, since it was done in an expressive manner with obvious political intentions.
It is important to note that any act may be protected or not depending upon context and intention. For example, if a flag was burned in protest it is protected speech, if it was burned as an act of vandalism, it is not.
If the young man was expressing his distaste for the church, then legally, per our constitution, these charges must be dropped.