This is something unbelievable, now we don't have 1st amendment rights when a muslim (oh gosh I didn't capitalize muslim maybe they come for me now, I've got a sharia for them ) is involved. What a figging joke. At least some folks are calling for the Judge to be removed from the bench, where's the petition I'll sign.



Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

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. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Words almost fail.

The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.

That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.

It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

It really shows that people will take a single piece of information and blow it right out of proportion. I'm with you Les!

It really shows that people will take a single piece of information and blow it right out of proportion. I'm with you Les!

soooo if this is now a legal precident.... the next time someone bangs their thumb with a hammer and screams oh jesus h christ that hurts are his work mates allowed to hit him with the nail gun!!!!!
thats insulting to religion is it not????
must be more to this story????

Religion has no place in any law court. If the assaulted person is guilty of prolonged, directed and knowing provocation in an attempt to create hostility this may be a factor in mitigating the penalty of the convicted perpetrator. The guy is still guilty of assault. We have had attempts, most recently in Ontario, to accept Sharia law in minor cases. The public rejected even the suggestion. Freedom of speech, and I might add thought, is essential to all other freedoms. The only exception, in my moral code, is promoting hatred against others.

Mac then you have to define hatred, and that much like most other things is subjective.

As long as you don't yell fire in a crowded theater, well unless there is one. I say all else is far game.

An example of subjectiveness in what one person feels over another is Pelosi's comments about Teabaggers being haters. While not a teabagger myself I don't think they hate they just tell the truth and if you are the point of that truth then you might hate it.

I believe I am an agnostic in religion and believes, and from where I am sitting,
I can see that religions indeed is the center of the law and governances for millennia,
up until about 1960 where the free love and live and let live mentality changes the way of thought of the "Western" society.
Regardless of the denomination of the religion, whether it is Buddhist, Hindu, Christians, Muslim, Aodai etc etc etc.. (with all their separate sects and believe),
Every single one of them has and will always influence the decision of the court of law in any country.

Wonder where the ACLU is in all this? If someone had said a Christian prayer in court they'd be jumping all over it.

Being as we are in a western country(s), most of which were settled by Christians, our law courts do indeed have religion in them. All witnesses are obligated to swear on the Bible or declare a solemn affirmation in court.
Christianity is different from ALL other religions in that Christians do not have to do anything but believe because it has all been done by God.

Personally, I will not lie; especially after swearing an oath on the Bible.
Thus endth my sermon.
Can I get an amen, hallelulah!

ITD wrote:

...Personally, I will not lie; especially after swearing an oath on the Bible. Thus endth my sermon. Can I get an amen, hallelulah!

AMEN, HALLELUJAH

I am the same...I take swearing an oath on the Bible very seriously. My integrity is something I am extremely proud of and will not compromise it...EVER, regardless.

I think the only stumbling block in that assault case that Lester mentions is the fact that the presiding Judge based his decision on personal feelings, and Sharia, , rather than the law. That is wrong, and for that reason alone he should be reprimanded and removed from the bench because he has demonstrated that he cannot be impartial.

Cheers, Vince

oh no!!!!
we have got back to a discussion that contains both religion and law
this could get messy
good points Galan, my personal theory is the bible was the original book of law in western society. going back to before it was written what law was there??? therefore MOST laws/moral codes in the western world have SOME basis in that book.

Regardless what religious believes you have in this country it's a crime to lay hands upon another with the intent of doing physical harm.

For those that come to this land for whatever reason need to understand that this is the United States of America and we govern by our laws not yours.

It is very simple......... you don't like the way we do things here..... go back to where you came from.

As for the judge.... he should be disbarred !!!

It would be really nice if a country's laws were like that C221 but the fact of the matter is that the law is a living thing that changes over time. It depends on where do you live and what is the communitys' belief system in the area you live in.
I don't disagree with you. I don't like Sharia anymore than anyone else but the bottom line is that I want my country to reflect my moral values.
Sharia is something that all western countries MUST be on the watch for. It will destroy our way of life and I have no problem telling anyone that doesn't like it to pack up your stuff and go back to whence you came. If your country was so S^l) hot I'd be immigrating there.

inthedark wrote:

It would be really nice if a country's laws were like that C221 but the fact of the matter is that the law is a living thing that changes over time. It depends on where do you live and what is the communitys' belief system in the area you live in. I don't disagree with you. I don't like Sharia anymore than anyone else but the bottom line is that I want my country to reflect my moral values. Sharia is something that all western countries MUST be on the watch for. It will destroy our way of life and I have no problem telling anyone that doesn't like it to pack up your stuff and go back to whence you came. If your country was so S^l) hot I'd be immigrating there.

I don't necessarily agree with the first part of your post Ron...if the law reflected the local communities belief system, then miscreants would be dealt with more firmly than they are now (well certainly here in Australia). Society is very much opposed to the sentences handed out to criminals here...sentences that are way below what the law allows...and do not reflect to severity of the crime in the vast majority of cases. The legal system seems to overrule, and have more power/say, than the judicial system. (Not to forget that Magistrates and Judges are the spawn of the Legal System) Too much "touchy feely", "warm and fuzzy" "kumbuyar" being applied because the grub wasn't given a teddy bear as a child!!!

You are 1000% correct about Sharia though...it must never be allowed to take a hold in the Western World...especially our countries. I am all for deporting to an Islamic Regime anybody who applies, or tries to apply Sharia in Australia...regardless. Let them live in that society and leave our alone...OR ELSE !!!!!

Cheers, Vince

talking about plurry "touchy feely" kumbuyar crap getting in the way of justice... over her in NZ we had a 5 year old girl raped and beaten during her xmas holiday in the family caravan in a caravan park by a 16 yr old. now he has been sentenced to 10 yrs in the slammer but already they are saying what a terrible upbringing he had and that he can be reformed with loads of councilling. WHAT A CROCK OF BS..
once a mongrel of that kind always a mongrel.
how the hell can society want him back out in the general population EVER??? what a pity we got rid of the death penalty.
now he will be a drain on the taxpayer costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep inside and try to reform him. a .22 round is much cheaper and would be the end of the problem period.