- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case
By Al Stefanelli
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,
“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. 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 dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. 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.
Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.
Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”
But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,
“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”
And,
“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “
And,
“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.
Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge during the trial:
Here’s coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate
Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.
This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.
I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
I respect the rights of
I respect the rights of others to their religious beliefs but cannot comprehend why this judge dismissed a case because the victim who was attacked so happened to be an atheist. It is as if atheists don't have any rights and protections from assault from anyone, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, whatever. This judge needs to be removed from office. His ruling is totally unAmerican.
{double entry}
{double entry}
So in the end, we have here
So in the end, we have here an article which gets every significant fact wrong.
"PERCE ... WAS ASSAULTED BY A MUSLIM"
There is no evidence of an assault and in fact the charge was harassment, which means even the plaintiff was not claiming an assault took place.
"THE ASSAULT WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEO"
The video shows almost nothing, aside from a few seconds of legs in the crowd and what may or may not be the assailant approaching what may or may not be Perce. But the video shows nothing that would qualify as assault.
"THE MUSLIM MAN ADMITTED TO HIS CRIME"
No confession was proferred in court and the defendant specifically denied assaulting Perce in his testimony. The only basis for this assertion comes from a statement made by police sergeant Curtis in a subsequent news interview. No one has seen a copy of the police report, so we don't know what the officer filed or what the judge saw. In any case (see below), the officer was not an eye witness and thus can only report what the plaintiff and defendant told him after the fact. This hardly rises above the level of hearsay, which is inadmissable in a court of law, and doesn't come anywhere near a legally justiciable admission of guilt.
"A POLICE OFFICER ... WAS AT THE SCENE"
The police officer was, in fact, several blocks at the time of the alleged events. The news report the article links to says after the alleged altercation Perce and Elbayomy "kept walking, and a few blocks later found Sgt. Curtis."
"JUDGE MARK MARTIN IS ALSO A MUSLIM"
This is based on a statement Martin made which occurs at 4:56 of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE
This article transcribes the statement as "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." After listening to the audio several times, I'm convinced what Martin in fact said was, "I'm not Muslim, I find it offensive." The audio is, unfortunately, less than crystal clear at this point, and neither interpretation is certain. In context, however, "not" seems the more sensical reading. At the very least, without any other evidence corroborating the assertion that Martin claimed to be a Muslim, this seems very thin ice to be building such a claim on. And elsewhere Martin is quoted as saying he's Lutheran (http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/).
--------------------
After correcting for the errors of the article, what we're left with is no eye witnesses, no video evidence, no confession, a statement from a police officer, blocks away at the time, which amounts to little more than hearsay -- nothing admissable, in fact, beyond the conflicting testimony of the two principles involved, and a Lutheran judge who ultimately dismisses a harassment charge for lack of evidence.
What you also have is Judge
What you also have is Judge Martin's lecturing of the "doofus" victim on the finer points of Sharia law, and his reprehensible notions about the supposed limitations of the First Amendment.
Very interesting! I'll come
Very interesting! I'll come back to opposing views to read more articles like this :-)
best dry dog food
What you have is a judge who
What you have is a judge who attempts to make Perce aware, in a decidedly clumsy manner, of just exactly how offensive his actions were. Though I'm pretty certain Perce was already quite aware of that fact; he seems to specialize in being offensive and obnoxious. The backside of his sign is reported to have read, "Only Mohammed can rape America". And this article curiously omits mention of Perce's disingenuous defense that Islam teaches Mohammed rose from the dead and walked as a zombie (Perce was marching right next to a zombie Pope, and I'm pretty certain Catholicism doesn't teach that popes rise from the dead, zombified or otherwise).
What you DON'T have is anything resembling the situation this article attempts to portray -- a Muslim judge dismissing an open-and-shut case of assault against a fellow Muslim, violating Perce's first amendment rights, or attempting to impose Sharia law. The judge is not Muslim, it was not assault, and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. There was no video, there were no eye witnesses and there was no police officer on the scene.
In other words, the entire incident was manufactured by whomever (*cough* American Atheists *cough*) submitted the article. There is very little truth to the way it was reported.
I don't believe the judge
I don't believe the judge made any comments regarding limitations of the First Amendment. I believe what he was saying is that this is an inalienable right, but that wise people use it judiciously. For example, taunting may be legal, but is it wise?
I fully concur with this
I fully concur with this assessment. There is a well known movement afoot in some areas of our society to ban Sharia law from being used (considered) in US courts. There is also a general sense among many that Islam should be vilified at all opportunities. This story fits nicely into that narrative until one considers the limited facts that have been made available to us. The audio is just a snippet of a trial that lasted much longer. Why would the person involved not post the whole recording? Might it not have fit into his narrative? It seems entirely possible that the judge ruled, on very solid grounds, that the harrassment (not assault) that was charged could not be sustained, then made some comments in an effort to cool the emotions of all involved. But he said nice things about Islam, so he must be unpatriotic and biased, since some can't imagine there are any nice things to say about Islam. This is a lynch mob mentality.
In a subsequent email,
In a subsequent email, apparently written by the judge, he explains Rule 112 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure bans unauthorized recording of courtroom proceedings, and that this is a textbook example of why -- the use of such recordings to manipulate the truth after the fact.
I would concur with you except that I would substitute "religion" in your comments for "Islam". Perce's organization, and many of the people who left comments here, belong to that militantly fundamentalist branch of atheism which holds as one of its central dogmas the tenet that religion is responsible for almost all the evils of history and that it must be vilified at every opportunity. Even if that means lying about what happened in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogsp
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-martin-responds-on-zombie.html
The Judge responds. He is a combat reservist and a Lutheran (not a Muslim convert). He claims that he is being taken out of context. But is he being taken out of context? Do those taped comments we heard from the protester square with what the judge is saying now?
How would we know if he is
How would we know if he is being taken out of context without having the full context (i.e. tape of the entire proceeding) before us, along with the charging documents, etc? Edited pieces of recordings have been used many times to sell a point of view.
Consider that the original article on the American Atheist website stated, in part, "... a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight." As another poster has pointed out, the police officer was apparently not at the scene and did not witness the incident. We are being manipulated by people who lost a court case and want to blame it on a biased judge.
How would we know if he is
How would we know if he is being taken out of context without having the full context (i.e. tape of the entire proceeding) before us, along with the charging documents, etc? Edited pieces of recordings have been used many times to sell a point of view.
Consider that the original article on the American Atheist website stated, in part, "... a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight." As another poster has pointed out, the police officer was apparently not at the scene and did not witness the incident. We are being manipulated by people who lost a court case and want to blame it on a biased judge.
How would we know if he is
How would we know if he is being taken out of context without having the full context (i.e. tape of the entire proceeding) before us, along with the charging documents, etc? Edited pieces of recordings have been used many times to sell a point of view.
Consider that the original article on the American Atheist website stated, in part, "... a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight." As another poster has pointed out, the police officer was apparently not at the scene and did not witness the incident. We are being manipulated by people who lost a court case and want to blame it on a biased judge.
As a licensed member of the
As a licensed member of the VA bar, I cannot imagine this travesty going without redress. If the published account is correct, Martin should be removed from the bench, never to hear a case again.
As I have often said: Most
As I have often said:
Most of the problems of the world have been caused by religion. Think of the crusades, the inquisition, the dark ages, the witch burnings, the restrictions on learning, free speech, instilling guilt and shame into children, and the wars fought in the name of religion.
More recently, think of family planning clinic bombings, oppression of gays and non-believers, murders of doctors and homosexuals, imposition of religious beliefs by force of law, and illegal use of public funds to promote particular religions.
Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.
This applies to all religions, not just Islam and christianity. It hasn't stopped or even slowed down. It's worse todat than at any time in history.
If this witch-hunt of an
If this witch-hunt of an article is an example of the "clear light of truth and rational thinking" of atheism I gotta say thanks, but no thanks.
I've just spent the past
I've just spent the past twenty minutes or so googling this, and while the story seems to making the rounds of the blogs -- often verbatim; is OV the source or did it just copy-and-paste some other blog? -- aside from the channel 27 report, I haven't been able to find anything on it at all from a mainstream source.
Can anyone provide a link to a reputable, objective report on the case with more detail?
"Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene..."
The channel 27 report makes clear the police officer was NOT at the scene ("both" Perce and the defendant "kept walking, and a few blocks later found Sgt. Curtis"). The only thing Curtis was able to put in his report, then, is what he was told by the plaintiff and the defendant after the fact. In any court of law, that would be dismissed as hearsay.
As to the video, if it's what was shown in the news report, even if the judge had admitted it, it's utterly useless. All it shows is a few seconds of some feet, and the only distinguishable audio is the phrase, subtitled in the news report, "What's going on here?" The news report claims it shows the defendant "coming off the curb", but in three viewings I didn't see it. In any case, the alleged assault isn't in the video at all.
And at that point, we ARE left with, as the judge suggested, he-said, she-said.
As to the judge's alleged comments, if they are as reported, some sort of censure would indeed seem to be in order, but the more pertinent question is whether his actual ruling had the force of US law, and for that I would dearly love to see the actual text of the judge's decision. Does anyone have a link?
What the victim told the
What the victim told the officer is indeed "hearsay" unless it could be considered a "fresh complaint" or offered to rebut an allegation of the victim's prior inconsistent statement. But judging from Martin's response to the evidence before him, Martin believed what was alleged did, in fact, occur. Basically, he ruled that the victim "deserved" what he got and arguably was unethical by disrespecting the victim in his courtroom.
I have no idea what he ruled.
I have no idea what he ruled. What we do have is what this article reports to be his comments from the bench which I'm sure, as a licensed attorney, you're aware is not his ruling. The assertions of this article to the contrary notwithstanding, there was no video of the alleged attack, nor was the police officer on the scene. Further, no eye-witnesses were called on to testify during the hearing, leaving the judge little to work with except the conflicting testimony of the two parties. Finally, the charge was harassment, not assault.
I admit I haven't listened to the full audio of the judge's comments; I have only read the excerpt reported here. I see nothing in these excerpts to indicate the judge believed a crime had taken place, merely that he was incensed at Perce's portrayal of Mohammed. If the full audio is clearer on that point, I'll be happy to listen to it.
As reported in this article -- and the article is not simply quite biased but is in error in several key assertions, so it's not to be trusted on its own merits -- the judge's comments seem to be quite unprofessional. But that alone is not evidence that he contravened US law in his actual ruling.
If more details are forthcoming, I'd be more than happy to revise my opinion. And if Perce thinks injustice was done, he is completely free to appeal the ruling or file a complaint. If the judge's ruling really is the travesty this article wants to make it out to be, he should have no problem getting it overturned.
I've listened now to the
I've listened now to the judge's comments, and while they strike me as rather clumsy, I'm just not seeing the caricature this article sets out.
First, the judge does not say he's a Muslim. On listening to the audio several times, it seems clear to me he's saying, "I'm not Muslim, I find it offensive."
Second, the intent of his comments prior to "All that aside" also seems to be to point out just how seriously Muslims are about disrespect toward Mohammed; by way of example, he points out that in many Muslim societies disrespect for Mohammed is a capital offense.
All of his comments prior to "All that aside" are simply an explanation (albeit a very clumsy one) to Perce of how deeply offensive Perce's actions are to devout Muslims.
The judge's actual legal analysis begins with "All that aside", at which point he restricts his comments to US law, and explains that there just isn't enough evidence to support the charge of harassment as defined by PA law. I hear no evidence that the judge is attempting to impose Sharia law.
This dirtbag judge needs to
This dirtbag judge needs to be removed.
Here is a much better
Here is a much better recording of the audio from the "trial".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs&feature=related
Thank you... great link
Thank you... great link
I hold advanced degrees from
I hold advanced degrees from Harvard University and MIT. To say I am highly educated is a gross under statement. I am extremely talented and hard working and I have started several quite prosperous businesses in this country with several ore in in Europe and Asia. To say I am industrious is also an understatement. Recently I had been giving serious consideration to relocating my self, my family and moving my business headquarter from Massachusetts to Pennsylvania. This would have easily brought about one thousand new jobs to Pennsylvania. Thais, until I read this article....not any more. Thank you Judge Martin for showing me the nature of the culture here. With all due respect Your Honor, its not for me. I think I'll find somewhere else.
Really?
Really?
Every state has some idiot
Every state has some idiot judges on the bench. I am sure you have seen this in MA, and you would in almost any other state.
This so called "judge" is
This so called "judge" is just yet another example of the stinking putrid cesspool called the "justice system".
a judge is just a lawyer turd that floated to the top of the septic tank.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
The facts are misrepresented
The facts are misrepresented in this story, first of all that video does not show anything at all-just some garbled words, the screen is black otherwise. The charge that was dismissed was "harassment", not assault as claimed above. Also, the SCOTUS has long held that "fighting words" are not protected by the First Amd.. Clearly the "atheist" march was intended to provoke someone, anyone, to bring attention to themselves.
This has nothing to do with Sharia, the situation would be no different had the KKK or neo-nazi's, as they sometimes do, staged a march in a predominately black inner-city. Assault cannot be condoned, but certainly the Klan does not expect to not be yelled at, and the idea of charging blacks for responding would be laughable.
Certainly, based on the evidence presented, shouting back at these people is not "harassment", and since no evidence of assault, or at least no charge, exists, the Judge ruled properly-good for him. If an assault did happen, it should have been prosecuted, that is not though, cannot be, the Judge's responsibility.
I'm not Muslim, in fact I'm agnostic, but the Judge is right about the behavior of the atheist's- it is disgusting, both at the event and doubly so in the aftermath through their misrepresentation. Shame on you.
You have completely
You have completely misunderstood the fighting words exemptions. Read the case law. It does excuse violence against the person who utters the words. Rather, it allows people to be arrested for things like disorderly conduct for using words that could incite violence. Mocking religion is protected speech.
Here are the case summaries in bite sized form:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718
Under your reasoning, it would be legal for the local LGBT group to go kick the Kansas "god hates fags" nuts into the next state. This is not the case, so it obvious you have no clue what this doctrine truly means.
Always the unbiased comment -
Always the unbiased comment - thank you.
Atheist march? It was a
Atheist march? It was a Halloween costume parade. It wasn't an event orchestrated to offend anyone, and it wasn't a group of people organizing their actions to offend any particular group, it's just people having some fun.
The most unforgivable part of this whole sordid affair (aside from people's over-the-top reactions to it) is seeing a judge refusing to even look at evidence being presented to him, yet still deigning to make a ruling on the event.
I hope you're not seriously
I hope you're not seriously arguing Perce didn't know his actions were offensive. They were being obnoxious, they knew they were being obnoxious, and they were reveling in being obnoxious.
Now, it's perfectly legal to be obnoxious, but to suggest they didn't know anyone would be offended is patently silly.
As to the evidence, based on this article and the Channel 27 news report, there was none. Contrary to the assertions of this article, the video does not show an assault, merely a few seconds of some bystanders' feet and a brief bit of garbled audio. Nor did Elbayomy "confess". We have the claim of the police officer, but he was blocks away at the time and did not witness the event. All he can testify to is what Perce and Elbayomy alledgedly told him after the fact; in a court of law that amounts to inadmissable hearsay.
The only admissable evidence was the conflicting accounts of Perce and Elbayomy, themselves, which, as the judge ruled, was insufficient to prove a crime.
And you cannot tell me that
And you cannot tell me that when Mr. Taraaq (forgive me if I spelled that wrong) was not enraged when his son and his wife looked at him with that look that all people give an authoritarian figure when something looks wrong to them. He had to do something about it. His pride was questioned.
This judge out and out called the police officer a liar. He took the report of the incident and the officer stated that the defendant told him that he did put his hands on Mr. Perce, he just couldn't remember what happened.
This judge must be censured. If you listen to the proceedings audio (and yes I know that it is not the whole thing) the judge explicitly says that he is a Muslim and he was offended by the atheist costume.
I have no problem with how the judge ruled in the case, if this is the law in PA, I have a problem with the judge ruling in the case at all, as he should have recused himself as he admits he is a Muslim.
Please enlighten me as to
Please enlighten me as to where the judge called the police officer a liar.
"Putting his hands on Mr. Perce" in and of itself does not constitute harassment. Perhaps Perce stumbled and he was being helpful. Intent and motive go a long way toward establishing harassment, and there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's motive or intent.
I have listened to the audio and no, the judge does not say he's a Muslim. What he says in fact is, "I'm not Muslim, I find it offensive".
It is obviously that you are
It is obviously that you are delighted with the judge's opinion which leaves me to believe that you are also of the Muslim faith. The judge was wrong to inject so much of his personal opinion into the case - while it may be his right to do so, it is totally unprofessional. We do not need that sort of childish response.
just-a-thought -- you need to
just-a-thought -- you need to think again. I am neither "delighted with" the judge's decision, nor am I Muslim. I'm simply looking for evidence of the "slam-dunk" this article claims the case should have been and coming up with very little.
The only bits of evidence offered either by this article or the local news report are 1. the video, 2. the police officer's testimony, 3. Perce's claims (the alleged assailant wasn't interviewed) and 4. the judge's bench comments.
The video shows nothing at all.
The cop, according to the news report, was blocks away at the time. He cannot testify as to what happened, only as to what the parties claim happened. That's hearsay.
Perce's allegation is, as I'm sure you'll agree, by itself and without independent corroboration, insufficient to convict.
As to the judge's bench comments, I have no idea if they are as reported. This article lacks objectivity and appears to be in error on at least three key claims: that the assault was caught on video, that the police officer was on the scene, and that the alleged assailant confessed.
If we take the judge's bench comments as reported, I agree they appear prima facie to be unprofessional and an investigation is called for, possibly leading to censure. Traditionally, judges are given wide latitude to pontificate from the bench, as long as their legal ducks are in order. But even within those strictures, this judge's comments appear to go beyond the pale.
But that in itself is not evidence that the judge set aside the law in favor of his biases. Neither the video nor the police officer's testimony are credible evidence, and no other witnesses were called to testify, leaving us he-said, she-said, as the judge implied. To me, that appears to be a slam-dunk case for dismissal.
However, if Perce does have credible evidence that the judge contravened the law in his ruling, I encourage him to appeal the ruling; it should not be difficult to get an appellate court to overturn the judge's decision.
I'd be happy to entertain suggestions as to where my analysis is in error, if you have any. But simply accusing me of bias because I disagree with your take won't do. Tell me, specfically, where I am wrong.
Clearly, you have never been
Clearly, you have never been to, or even heard of SKOKIE, IL, a predominantly JEWISH community where the Nazis marched back in the 1970's, after their right to do so, including their inflammatory or "fighting" words, was upheld by the courts as being protected by the 1st Amendment.
If you were right, then why is the WBC and their hate speech being protected?
Sorry, but legal precedent says that you do not understand the Constitution or the rights of even, arguably, offensive people to parade their point of view. You don't have to like what someone says, but the law is very clear that you may not physically attack someone for saying them.
Personally, I don't give two shakes about any of the Abrahamic religions or their internal disputes between the minuses and supposed pluses of the two bastard offspring of Judaism. Let them say offensive things about us Pagans; some of us will stand very proudly up and shut their lies down with truth.
You see, in this country, while the hatemongers have a platform with which to prattle on, the rest of us have the same platform to respond, as proven by this forum.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Wow!!!!! how completely PC
Wow!!!!! how completely PC of you. How utterly UN American of you.
The mentally damaged cretin assaulted another person, if it had been the other way around and the muslim was mocking Christianity and attacked the book would have been thrown literally.
muslims are 10,000 yrs behind civilized mankind. It has NOTHING to do with being western or American, it has to do with respect for your fellow man. The muslim has none, they consider their fellow man to be inferior because he doesn't believe in imaginary crap and oppress his women.
Religion has always been the protector and promoter of parasites, psychopaths and perverts.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
I'm hoping that Mr. Perce
I'm hoping that Mr. Perce files an appeal on this ruling, as well as filing a complaint against this judge. Making a ruling based on what would happen had the events happened in another country is certainly a violation of the laws and the plaintiff's rights in THIS country.
The judge actually giving a lecture on his religion in the courtroom is a quite blatant violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, and it is quite worrying that someone who supposedly has been schooled in the law and the constitution feels like something that inappropriate would escape unnoticed or unchallenged, separate from the bad ruling itself.
Not being executed for holding perfectly rational and legal views on religion is one of the reasons this is a great country to live in - as opposed to one of those backwards holes where they do execute folks for "insulting" imaginary creatures or real-but-long-dead con-men/pedophiles.
Would said judge be copacetic with his being assaulted by a visiting North Korean for having the bad judgement to express doubts on an American sidewalk that their recently-passed dear leader (Kim Jong-il) really scored 18 hole-in-ones in his very first game of golf, or that he never actually defecated because of his extreme purity?
No one's rights to hold particular religious beliefs should ever override anyone elses right to express doubts or scorn for those same beliefs - if you're a true believer, what someone else thinks of it won't make a bit of difference to you. If their alleged god has problems with my doubts and disgust, said gods are welcome to knock on my door, explain to me the error of my ways, after proving their existence and divinity. So many all-powerful gods out there, yet not one has ever felt like healing even one amputee.
Well the Judge Said it right,
Well the Judge Said it right, In most Muslim Countries, Like Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. Plenty of that crime is death, The person who is referred as a "victim" here, has done a horrible mistake, Every thing have some limits, there are some Legal limits and some moral limits.
And now these days when every body in the world knows that disrespecting (Nauzbillah) a Prophet, i considered to be a very low moral act, lower then anything possibly be then it is request and plea to don't do these kind of acts.
And i just read that the judge refused to see the clip, Sure he will because he is a Muslim and if a muslim see an act like that against its duty to remove the cause. So if that Judge had seen the clip, Then Judge have to sentence Ernest Perce V death, not as a American Judge But a Muslim, Because Muslims are muslims, Not Amaricans and Saudies,
And what do you know about the rights, You captured the land of the native Americans, and done bad things to them, There is Still highest Racism rate in USA.. You should think about it, That you Rights don't heart other peoples, You are not gods, you are like other people, with blood and bones and some feelings.. So please understand the feelings of others.
Thank you
Have you considered that
Have you considered that perhaps America is not the place for you to live if, indeed, you are even in this country at the moment??????
When you live in or visit the
When you live in or visit the US, it is US law that matters and nothing else. In the US we protect the rights of citizens to mock religion as well as to protest in the name of religion. You may *NEVER* take action against a US citizen on US soil because of something they said about islam no matter how offensive you or any other muslim may find a person's actions. The end!
This is what the first amendment means. It protects the rights of protesters to burn the bible, to burn the flag, to burn the koran, to mock jesus, to mock abraham, to mock mohammed, and to shame the pope. This is what it means to be an american. You can find someone's actions repulsive, and you can speak out against them, but you cannot interfere or assault the protester if they are behaving lawfully.
I have to wonder if the name
I have to wonder if the name that you are using is made up. Your command if the English language is only a hair's width better than a Nigerian fraud scammer and you are, clearly in support of the Islamic fundamentalists. That also makes you no better than the Christo-fascists on the extreme right: same coin, different side.
Yes, we have had a very cruel history involving the 1st nations people, they don't particularly care to be called "Indians" (and rightly so), But unlike folks like you, We AMERICANS (check your spelling) can and sometimes do learn from it. Many AMERICANS have 1st nations blood running through their veins, mixed with the white, black, Asian heritage that many are descended from. Some of us know all about the truth behind the Trail of Tears and the resultant massacre at Wounded Knee, we know about the White Christians giving the members of the 500 nations blankets that were infected with cholera and other diseases. A practice that was stopped before the beginning of the 20th century. During the time of the Crusades, the Nations of Islam had the best technology, so what have they done with it? NOTHING. Even the Christians opposed scientific knowledge. Both of the bastard children of Judaism failed to learn anything, except to steal and lie for the sake of power. Get your facts straight and own up to the truth without getting defensive over a theocratically run and backwards culture. This is why we do not have religion running The United States and why we are, even with all of our flaws and flawed history, the best nation on the planet.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
> So if that Judge had seen
> So if that Judge had seen the clip, Then Judge have to sentence Ernest Perce V death, not as a American Judge But a Muslim, Because Muslims are muslims, Not Amaricans and Saudies, _________________
You make an excellent argument for not allowing muslims hold office or positions of any kind of power in this country.
Luckily for everyone, in America we don't allow anyone in government to make judgments based on any religious doctrine: so even if this judge does hold an identical view on this case as you do, we won't have him handing down a ridiculous sentence like a death penalty for allegedly insulting a figment of someone else's imagination.
> There is Still highest Racism rate in USA.
Random capitalization aside, do you have any sources you can cite regarding relative rates of racism in nations these days? While the USA is still far more racist than it ought, I don't think it can hold a candle to others such as Saudi Arabia or Israel.
> You should think about it, That you Rights don't heart other peoples, You are not gods, you are like other people, with blood and bones and some feelings.. So please understand the feelings of others.
You should think about what you said right there. It looks like you are saying that one man's right to not be attacked and beaten by a stranger on the street (actual physical damage) is less important that another man's right to not have his FEELINGS hurt (no real damage at all) by someone expressing their opinion. That same right to have and express opinions that allows the attacker to believe in such ridiculous and unproven things like gods in the first place.
Consider the fact that if this all-powerful god you believe in was real and he had any problem with my calling him any of the many vile things that I am wont to (due to the offensive-to-humanity nature of the acts of her followers) on any given day of the week, it wouldn't take more than a passing thought of hers to create a fantastical monster to come and kill me in a downright horrible and public way and send my soul straight to Hell.
Instead, the only observable power any 'god' has ever really displayed on Earth is the power to make their followers grouchy, intolerant, hateful, and violent towards others. This is not something I charge only Islam with, but every religion that implies the existence of supposed 'gods'. That includes the gods of the Hindus, Christians, Jews, as well as Zeus, Thor, Mithras, and John Frum's followers.
A follower of one god or another killing or attacking someone for insulting something the offender believes to be a figment of someone's imagination is not any evidence for the existence of that god - it is far better explained by mental illness and/or poor impulse control and bad manners on the part of the 'believer'. If you're willing to allow people to kill others for insulting Mohammed, you must also be willing to allow people to kill those of your faith for showing disrespect of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may you be touched by his noodly appendage, and his commandment that beer be consumed with every dinner.
This article is less about
This article is less about religion, and more about a judge who could not be unbiased in a court of law. He was not willing to hear both sides of the story, and had a heavy bias towards someone due to personal reasons. This is an affront of the US justice system, and should be appealed to someone who is more unbiased.
You ask what do we know about rights after taking the land of others, and how there's racism in the US. Times change, and we see some of the error of our ways. Hind sight is 20/20. We are not gods, this is true. But neither is the guy who assaulted someone else for expressing his rights. He should have looked into US law before coming here so he wouldn't be in a legal battle.
You should lighten up and
You should lighten up and grow a thicker skin. Because in America, we can say what we like, even if it hurts your widdle feelings. Suck it up, Princess. Or go back where mocking Muhammad warrants a death sentence. Don't try to remake America in your image, ain't gonna happen in the Land of the Free.
That judge is going DOWN! You know those rightwing tards that have been howling about Sharia law in the United States?
Maybe they're right after all. Gonna have to weed those guys off the bench because this is a baaaad precedent.
Spot on comment.
Spot on comment.
Simple case of judicial
Simple case of judicial misconduct. This judge needs to removed from the bench, and the victim should sue and be compensated.
The judge wouldn't watch the video evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8
The atheists were being provocative, but they were being lawful and the muslim was not.
Wow...if this isn't a fake
Wow...if this isn't a fake story, it gives some credence to those who are concerned about Islamic law taking over America...I wouldn't have believed it.
It's a fake story.
It's a fake story.