Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

news.yahoo.com

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com

should also mention that the two links are two different reporters takes on the story, and the latter link has more info on the assault itself as well

This is just disgusting. It also claims that this judge is a muslim convert. looks like creeping sharia law and clear conflict of interest.

I also find it intersting that at the end of the article, they mention that there was a "zombie pope" walking with him also. But, nobody attacked him.

Now, Im not saying that Christians are any better, we all know their history. Heck, im not even christian. But, what does concern me is how this judge, biased or not, says that its "because of his culture", "he was obligated". REALLY!?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Judge Martin, should be slapped.

Judge Martins remarks before throwing out the case.

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam,” Martin said. “In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus… In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

I would assume that since he's so well versed towards their ways and laws, that he should go be a judge there. This is USA and Sharia Law does not apply here. If he chooses to adhere by it, then he needs to relocate himself to a country that does so as well. Not here.

reply to post by Chickensalad


To that judge i would say , show me where the pope came back from the dead .

I know many muslims who would also want this judge fired. He did not make the right decision. It was assault hands down . The judge should be removed , and the muslim man charged. Like the law dictates.

as mentioned in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Got to love the atheist vs Muslim element to this.

What will the ACLU do?

Quandary time.

reply to post by seedofchucky


ah...sorry ,searched but I must not have used the right keywords. well if this is old new to ATS then I recommend deleting it.

Originally posted by Chickensalad


Judge Martins remarks before throwing out the case.

In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

Wonder what would have happened if it was a gay person that was attack by a Muslim. Would he have used the same example?

And this, ladies and gentlemen... is precisely why there were laws being passed that attempted to make the U.S. Constitution, laws, and their state counterparts the only valid legal precedents in courts.

You're in America. You don't beat the piss out of someone for insulting your religion. If we could do that, legally, then we would see a rapid decline in our population, as insulting religions is what we do around here.

Not having read the opinion rendered by the judge, I cannot know what his legal reasoning was, but there is precedent (sort of) in the matter of Chaplinski v New Hampshire that spawned the "fighting word doctrine" which presumed that certain words had the effect of "injury or harm" and as such are not "protected by the First Amendment right to speech". The judge has case law on his side.

I am of the mind, particularly in this modern age where words clearly have no meaning at all and what was once "hot" as in a rise in temperature now also means "cool" as in "hot". The word myth, since time immemorial meant nothing more than a specific tale of origin or a hero's tale, but today it means "falsehood". "Gay" once meant to be happy and joyful, but is generally now a word that belongs to a specific sexual orientation. Words, words, words, they are meaningless.

When I was a child we learned this: "Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words can never harm me." Sadly, there is no case law to support that contention.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"Gay" once meant to be happy and joyful, but is generally now a word that belongs to a specific sexual orientation.

Even that is changing, I was sat on the bus today and two girls, about 13 years of age, spotted an elderly couple wearing matching shoes, and squealed, "That's soooo Gay". To kids today it now means something or someone that is uncool, or perhaps more specifically, a bit wet.

I guess it's cool to punch every WBC member then.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


His reasoning was basically "cultual differences". He goes on to say that in Muslim countries, the victim, would have been executed, and tries to portray, that because, that's "their" law, then the victim(HERE IN THE USA) was wrong.

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

His reasoning was basically "cultual differences". He goes on to say that in Muslim countries, the victim, would have been executed, and tries to portray, that because, that's "their" law, then the victim(HERE IN THE USA) was wrong.

I looked at that link you provided in your O.P. and of course saw what you posted later, which was a quote provided by one of the other links that came with that original link, but that quote is a taken out of context quote and the both Yahoo and the attorney's blog linked seem to think that Chaplinski v. New Hampshire wasn't all ready an attack on the First Amendment. I am not defending the judge, only offering up actual case law that gives this lower court judge a legal reasoning and case law to support it.

Until we can read the entire transcript, out of context quotes should remain suspect.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I fully understand your position, and see what i can do about findig some transcripts.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


www.youtube.com...

this is a video,you tube of course, that has audio of parts of the trial. not full transcripts though. and can give you a little better idea of the proceedings.

ill look a little bit later for the transcripts some more

Originally posted by mackey1224uk
Judge Martin, should be slapped.

Yep... slapped and deported to the Middle Eastern country of his choice!

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by satron
I guess it's cool to punch every WBC member then.

If I knew that to be true, I think I'd be willing to support the judges decision.

See ya,
Milt

This is quite outrageous, if true. S&F!

Originally posted by mackey1224uk
Judge Martin, should be slapped.

Judge Martin should be hanged. He is obviously more concerned with pacifying Muslims than upholding the law.

So given the precedence set by his ruling do any of you think that I would have my case dismissed if I were to beat the he!l out of a Muslim if he had done something to insult my religious beliefs? This is nothing more than another example of malfeasance on behalf of those instituted with the responsibility of upholding the law.

I swear to God, Allah, Buddha and all others that I can't wait for a revolution in this effed up country.