Pure symbolism, which by nature has no benefit

He’ll probably get over his mad-on and go on to preach or something, and look back and site this incident when he tells people that he used to be an atheist.

I wonder what his objectives are, what he’s trying to achieve. He’s clearly trying to make a statement, but I’m not sure what that is, who it’s for (public/himself/god/all), or why he holds that view, let alone what validity his view of hating ‘god’ has.

Well, the action has no validity, since it’s an illegal action (destruction of public property).  Whether or not this asshat is mad at his big, bad imaginary friend or not, he should have kept that at home.  I’m not defending the church he trashed or what they spoon out.  It could be argued that the church was as much to blame as he is, but I won’t go that far.  The fact that this occurred at 3 am would actually lead me to believe the idiot was drunk, in which case, I hope he gets punished for drunk driving too.

Oh wait, it was destruction of Private property...Still a crime though.

Could be worse, though. Could have been ‘Angry Church Drives God Into Man’.

Tafka: Well, the action has no validity, since it’s an illegal action

Whilst I would say this is an inconsiderate action, and inefficient at any objectivce I can forsee, the law does not necessarily define what’s right or wrong, and hence not (moral) validity, to me something isn’t morally valid/acceptable merely because it’s within the rules set by authority, and vice versa. Also something that has valid logic is not necessarily legal (not to say this had valid logic, I don’t percieve that it does)

BTW, by validity in my last comment, I originally meant the validity of the logic behind his view to hate god, not the actions.

It could be argued that the church was as much to blame as he is,

I agree to an extent that varies with the situation. Those that taunt, provoke or bully certainly deserve some of the blame for things like crime or suicide as well as those that decide to carry out the action, but provocation isn’t really a crime because it’s difficult to confine it with words, and it can be subjective as to whether or not it was provokation, and it’s difficult to assess how much blame each deserves, and provocation cannot easily be proven in a lot of cases

Whilst I would say this is an inconsiderate action, and inefficient at any objectivce I can forsee, the law does not necessarily define what’s right or wrong, and hence not (moral) validity, to me something isn’t morally valid/acceptable merely because it’s within the rules set by authority, and vice versa. Also something that has valid logic is not necessarily legal (not to say this had valid logic, I don’t percieve that it does)

The reason we all agree to have and follow laws is because morality IS subjective.  What you perceive as right and what I perceive as right might not coincide.  Laws prevent us from tearing each other apart.  It is a societal consensus that we will agree to follow the laws or suffer the consequences. It might suck in some situations, but it is as close to right and wrong we can get, and we are all part of it. 

So yes, I am perfectly correct in saying that this guy driving a truck into a private building is breaking the law.  The driver should be punished for the destruction of private property IF the church decides to press charges.  They may very well decide not to, it is their right in this case.  I personally don’t give a darn as to his motivation.

Validity as to whether or not it is a logically valid feeling to be mad at god?  Well, if you are asking me, then no, it’s not, because god does not exist. 

If you are looking at it from a legal standpoint, technically god does not play a role, and if you wanted to get really technical, mental illness should be taken into consideration when taking “I’m mad at god” to be the motivation for an illegal action, but that won’t happen.  Since God is not stepping forth to defend the guy or say shit about him one way or the other, I think this is a strictly legal matter. 

I still would think (until proven otherwise) that the guy was drunk and not in a rational state of mind. 

As to blaming the church, I said it could be argued, not that I would argue it.

I was thinking, the law aims to control people’s detrimental-on-other choices through consequence, yet have the free will to break the law pre-emptively in exchange for the punishment that comes as part of the deal, it gives those w/o many morals more reason to live loosely by the average person’s moral views that stuff like murder or theft are non-ideal

That said, you need not categorise good+bad, just know the consequences and consider the deals