[Alex Murphy]

More evidence of “Mary” worship.

More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.

[Cronos]

Yup, did you post one article about the defense of that guy who made a "Crucifix in urine" exhibit? Or was it the one about TV Evangelists Unite to Beam Gospel to the Stars that you had posted? All joke posts, right?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.”

Since when have Christians been bound to respect blasphemy?

[Mad Dawg]

I think it was the wrong thing to do.

I am hurt but grateful when the faith is mocked.

And I think this destruction was a violation of the commandment against stealing. The statement of the poster is an injustice,to be sure. So is the destruction of property not belonging to the destroyer.

If I were a judge I would have no problem finding the man guilty. If I were his pastor I would counsel him that his faith is weak if it cannot bear insults.

[Servant of the Cross]

More evidence that your kneejerk anti-Catholic underwear is showing.

[Campion]

Alex, do you seriously, for even a moment, think that that billboard would have been treated any differently if it had been put up in Calvin's Geneva, Knox's Scotland, Cromwell's Puritan England, or the Massachusetts Puritan colonies?

No, the PROTESTANT authorities would have taken it down, burned it, then gone after the individual(s) who put it up -- who would have been severely punished, run out of the community at the risk of their lives, or simply killed.

[marshmallow]

More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.

Knock it off. That's a complete canard. What the division of opinion on this thread shows is that this is not a simple issue, with some (including the author of the article) being of the opinion that the action taken was wrong, while others believe it was justified.

All rights, including property rights, come from God but the right to own property does not come without constraints and responsibilities and I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a reputable moral theologian on this issue. Can the destruction of abortuaries be justified for instance, on the basis that it may save human lives, even though the facilities are privately owned? Neither the killing of unborn babies nor blasphemy are civil offenses and so both actions (tearing down blasphemous posters or destroying abortion facilities) would earn the displeasure of the law.

My point here, is that infractions, (even serious ones) of the moral law are often likely to earn nothing but a smile from the civil authorities and this raises the question of how far it is morally permissible to go in resisting this sort of thing.

It does not mean that "property rights mean nothing to Catholics"