Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on February 24, 2012, 10:36:53 PM
-
Guy dressed as Zombie Mohammed is assaulted by recent immigrant offended by his costume. Caught on video, guy admitted his crime. Judge rules the attack was legal, insults victim, and says he should be lucky he wasn't killed like he would have been in an Islamic country.
Such an obvious miscarriage of justice even De Selby/Shootin Student will be hard pressed to defend it (although I imagine he'll try) and one would imagine it'll be overturned. The real question is what will happen to the judge? Any chance of legal sanctions?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/326954.php
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740
-
Tar.
Feathers.
Judge.
Some assembly required.
-
That's beyond incredible.
...says he should be lucky he wasn't killed like he would have been in an Islamic country.
If I follow that logic, then a black person attacking a white person who insulted him should be found not guilty, as the white person would be lucky it didn't happen in a ghetto, where he'd probably be killed.
Think of all of the criminals who should be found not guilty because "the victim was lucky he wasn't in..."
-
The judge needs to be impeached.
[tinfoil] The ISLAMIZATION of America has begun. [tinfoil]
-
Anyone up for trolling?
-
Dress like zombie mohammed.
Carry concealed pistol.
-
Double ewe.... Tee... Eff.....
-
Double ewe.... Tee... Eff.....
My exact sentiments.
-
From what I've been reading in the comments here (http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/comment-page-1/#comment-1393270)there's a good chance the judge isn't Muslim. He has a fairly Anglican name (Mark Martin), is or was a military policeman and recently did a tour in Iraq, is white and is a Republican. It's possible he converted during or after his trip to Iraq, but I haven't seen anything showing that he did.
That doesn't change the fact that his knowledge of the constitution is absolutely shitty at best, that his actions were extremely unethical, and that he probably shouldn't be acting as a judge.
-
From what I've been reading in the comments here (http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/comment-page-1/#comment-1393270)there's a good chance the judge isn't Muslim. He has a fairly Anglican name (Mark Martin), is or was a military policeman and recently did a tour in Iraq, is white and is a Republican. It's possible he converted during or after his trip to Iraq, but I haven't seen anything showing that he did.
I believe this to be correct.
He stated that he lived in a muslim country for several years, and is definitely a sympathizer.
His beliefs are poisoning the PA legal system.
Hopefully, he is holding an elected position.
If appointed for life, we are truly screwed.
-
I agree with Andrew Mccarthy, we've lost our minds.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291925/why-apologize-afghanistan-andrew-c-mccarthy
-
I have spent time in other foreign countries also and have to follow the laws of that country when doing so. However, isn't Pennsylvania still in America and the last I checked, for the time being anyway, the First Amendment to our Constitution doesn't allow for the sanctioning of an official religion. But reading between the lines this is just what this "judge" is clamoring for.
-
If that report is accurate, you have to wonder how he got on the bench in the first place - after all, its not as if the case deals with a particularly complex, little-known or badly written piece of legislation.
-
From what I've been reading in the comments here (http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/comment-page-1/#comment-1393270)there's a good chance the judge isn't Muslim. He has a fairly Anglican name (Mark Martin), is or was a military policeman and recently did a tour in Iraq, is white and is a Republican. It's possible he converted during or after his trip to Iraq, but I haven't seen anything showing that he did.
That doesn't change the fact that his knowledge of the constitution is absolutely *expletive deleted*ty at best, that his actions were extremely unethical, and that he probably shouldn't be acting as a judge.
Direct quote from Judge Martin.
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”
-
Direct quote from Judge Martin.
Theres some doubt over the first bit - at least according to this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291963/be-or-not-be-muslim-andrew-c-mccarthy
but the rest of the quote does amply demonstrate why he should no longer be trusted with a gavel.
-
There's an audio recording. Listen to it, not third hand columnists opinions.
-
I wonder if he was a JAG officer in the service.
-
i guess i'm the only one who wanted to punch the atheist too? both in and out of costume. does pa have "fighting words "law
-
i guess i'm the only one who wanted to punch the atheist too? both in and out of costume. does pa have "fighting words "law
Not me, I am happy the liberals are at least being equal in their insults, usually they are to cowardly to insult Islam and only insult religions they know won't punch them in the face.
I was at a pro life rally one time, I wanted to punch some of the liberals that showed up to counter demonstrate ( they were very rude ) but before I could the other pro lifers told me I should just pray for them.
-
There's an audio recording. Listen to it, not third hand columnists opinions.
I have. The audio is very poor, and sounds to me to be possibly edited (too many random sound level jumps).
It could also be that he simply made a misstatement, and meant to say "not" and simply didn't, and then failed to correct himself.
There's also his word choices when he refers to Muslims; he always uses "they" or "them" rather than "us" or "we."
That, combined with his personal background, suggests that he isn't a Muslim; he may still identify strongly with them, but as of yet there isn't anything showing that he has actually converted.
EDIT: This (http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981141131) website (which to be fair I have never heard of before so I don't know how reliable it is) claims to have called the Judge's receptionist, and that the receptionist denied that the judge was a Muslim. There seems to have been other calls made to his office that have turned up the same result, but I don't have any sources for them.
i guess i'm the only one who wanted to punch the atheist too? both in and out of costume. does pa have "fighting words "law
So you'd respond to someone acting in bad taste by acting in VERY bad taste? And even if PA had a "fighting words" law, the atheist's actions would not be considered so and would be fully covered by the First Amendment.
-
All religions should be fair game for discussion and criticism.
Mocking or making fun of their prophet Mohammad should be allowable, just as others have exorcised their freedom to display the Roman Catholic crucifix in urine.
I myself enjoy the articles mocking the cult of Global Warming :laugh:
-
Judge is apparently not Muslim:
http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/
-
I myself enjoy the articles mocking the cult of Global Warming :laugh:
INFIDEL !!111 BLASPHEMERR TOOO!!11
-
Judge is apparently not Muslim:
http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/
Not a Muslim, just simply forgets to tell the alleged assaulter that mocking any religion is free speech, even if in your mocking you get the facts of your argument incorrect.
It would have been more appropriate if he simply said "the facts do not support assault" or something.
-
http://fayettecountynaacp.tripod.com/id42.htm
-
http://fayettecountynaacp.tripod.com/id42.htm
Are you implying that mocking a religious figure is a hate crime? Or the Muslim tourist committed a hate crime?
-
[tinfoil] The ISLAMIZATION of America has begun. [tinfoil]
Ayep, Lutherans are the vanguard of ISLAMIZAZOMBIFICATION OF Amurica!
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
Basically, a less sensational version of the case is that the judge thought the introduced evidence sucked, the witnesses said opposing stuff, and the physical evidence presented didn't seem to fit the story. I think the judge should have been more thorough, especially with the clear opinion (but not direct first hand observation) of the police being that an assault was made.
I'm a bit skeptical of the judge's conduct. After the "kids for cash" judge scandal, and a few other judge scandals, the PA Court System needs additional oversight whether formally or informally.
In short, the judge is probably still in the wrong but there's no need just yet for the torches and pitchforks.
Are you implying that mocking a religious figure is a hate crime? Or the Muslim tourist committed a hate crime?
Ehh. PA law has two sections that are applicable 42 Pa.C.S. § 8309 (Allows for cause of action for damages or injunctive relief for conduct) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 2710 (Enhances penalty for persons who commit specified offenses). The Islamic guy probably should have gotten hit with a somewhat stronger sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2710 for assault due to "malicious intention toward the race, color, religion, or national origin". I need to check the PA code to see if atheism counts under "religion", though.
=D
(No, seriously, that may be problematic if the folks who drafted the law failed to think of it.)
We don't have specific hate crime laws, per se, thankfully. There was a push for such laws, that got knocked down by the state supreme court as being unconstitutional (state constitution). The state code already covers assault, harassment, etc and the enhanced penalties for certain types is acceptable as the law goes. Problem is implementation, as there is a justified public perception issue with the PA legal system.
Judges will have to show that they were worthy of the public trust accorded to them. Whether they should or not is beside the point. From personal knowledge, there is a "good ol' boy" (not restricted by gender) network between judges, prosecutors, politicians and a fair number of prominent attorneys. Instead of being fairly adversarial, as they are supposed to be, there is too much collaboration. There is no grand conspiracy. Think thousands of nights out at the bar, bowling trips and mutual grousing about mutual concerns. Shared work environment along with shared culture. Same reason why folks here on APS get along.
Problem is, it's gone too far and has for at least a decade. The problem greatly varies from location to location, but it's still problematic across the state.
-
Hey Rev,
I notice that the LEO that originally wrote this up decided on a Harassment charge rather then Assault. Of the top of your head do you know PA's definition of harassment?
The video (that I could find) doesn't actually show anything, but with a little reading between the lines this seems more like "He touched my sign!!" rather then an actual assault with intent to harm.
CSD: I'm still interested in some context for that link. It seems out of step with the rest of your comments on this thread.
-
Meh. I'd rather not let any facts, nor the judges side, get in the way of my outrage. Maybe I can come up with some obtuse references to the "divorce" or the third mullah or some other crap.
>:D
-
CSD: I'm still interested in some context for that link. It seems out of step with the rest of your comments on this thread.
what i feel is often different from that which i know is right and most definitely from that which is legal
-
Hey Rev,
I notice that the LEO that originally wrote this up decided on a Harassment charge rather then Assault. Of the top of your head do you know PA's definition of harassment?
Because it's applicable. Assault has to have "bodily injury", which allegedly happened but I'm not familiar with the case enough to say actually happened. I suspect the cops agreed with my assessment.
Harassment - 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709
§ 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,
the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the
other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place
or places;
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose;
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;
(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;
(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient
hours; or
(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than
specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).
(b) Stalking.--(Deleted by amendment).
(b.1) Venue.--
(1) An offense committed under this section may be
deemed to have been committed at either the place at which
the communication or communications were made or at the place
where the communication or communications were received.
(2) Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in
more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other
jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a
continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
(c) Grading.--
(1) An offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall
constitute a summary offense.
(2) (i) An offense under subsection (a)(4), (5), (6) or
(7) shall constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree.
(ii) (Deleted by amendment).
(d) False reports.--A person who knowingly gives false
information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to
implicate another under this section commits an offense under
section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement
authorities).
(e) Application of section.--This section shall not apply to
conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of
June 2, 1937 (P.L.1198, No.308), known as the Labor Anti-
Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.
Meh. I'd rather not let any facts, nor the judges side, get in the way of my outrage. Maybe I can come up with some obtuse references to the "divorce" or the third mullah or some other crap.
>:D
Onward, brave solder against the ISLAMIZAZOMBIFICATION OF Amurrica, **** Yea!!
=D
-
Meh. I'd rather not let any facts, nor the judges side, get in the way of my outrage.
=D It is always interesting to see how these stories develop from the first initial hyperbole.
-
i guess i'm the only one who wanted to punch the atheist too? both in and out of costume. does pa have "fighting words "law
Such a law would be found unconstitutional. We have an issue with religious nuts that are even more annoying. Believe whatever you wish, but show some decorum for the love of the All-Father. If you're going to make a scene, either be polite, funny or original. Zombie (whatever) can at least provide entertainment. I'll admit, the costume needed some work, but surely is not worth punching the guy.
If *I* was a religious dude that wanted to counter protest Zombie (whatever), rather than punch an atheist in the face, I'd show up in costume as Umbrella Security. I'd cheerfully snag the attentions of the cameras, explain it was just a bad case of swine flu, subtly include my propaganda to make myself look nice, and the other side to be basically a joke.
PA State Constitution.
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
Section 3.
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
Section 7.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
-
>If *I* was a religious dude that wanted to counter protest Zombie (whatever), rather than punch an atheist in the face, I'd show up in costume as Umbrella Security.<
So basically, you'd just wear your work uniform? :P
-
>If *I* was a religious dude that wanted to counter protest Zombie (whatever), rather than punch an atheist in the face, I'd show up in costume as Umbrella Security.<
So basically, you'd just wear your work uniform? :P
Uh, I have no idea what you refer to...
Wonder when that surprise will be coming. :P
-
I would point out at this juncture, since we're all using the term "Punch in the face" What the Muslim tourist was accused of doing was actually pulling the Athiest's sign and [fake] beard. Not OK, but definitely not a punch in the face.
-
Insert Quote
The ISLAMIZATION of America has begun.
Ayep, Lutherans are the vanguard of ISLAMIZAZOMBIFICATION OF Amurica!
Quote
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
Basically, a less sensational version of the case is that the judge thought the introduced evidence sucked, the witnesses said opposing stuff, and the physical evidence presented didn't seem to fit the story. I think the judge should have been more thorough, especially with the clear opinion (but not direct first hand observation) of the police being that an assault was made.
I'm a bit skeptical of the judge's conduct. After the "kids for cash" judge scandal, and a few other judge scandals, the PA Court System needs additional oversight whether formally or informally.
In short, the judge is probably still in the wrong but there's no need just yet for the torches and pitchforks......
I guess you missed the tinfoil hat smilies there RevDisk. Another version of the story is out, version #2,467,543. The one redeeming factor THIS version has is it's from DA JUDGE.
It's amazing how many versions of a story can arise from one incident.
I still want to know if the Muslim man attacked the Zombie-Mohammod (SP?) guy or not. And how did the story of the judge being Muslim get started.
Oh wait, it's all on the internetz.
Never mind. Move along, nothing to see here ...... :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Tommy: the "story" of the judge being a Muslim started because of the audio tape where the judge said, ya know, "I'm a Muslim." No idea if he's closeted or just mis-spoke, not that relevant either way. Lecturing an American citizen about how lucky he is to not be executed for practicing the right to free speech is not excusable. And I had to lol at the part of the statement where he has a Bible and a Koran, and is trying to get a Book of Mormon etc. So difficult to acquire, those books given away for free by their religions and available at every major book seller.
-
I would point out at this juncture, since we're all using the term "Punch in the face" What the Muslim tourist was accused of doing was actually pulling the Athiest's sign and [fake] beard. Not OK, but definitely not a punch in the face.
i'd have held his coat while he punched if he asked me
i'm reminded of that guy charles barkley put through through a window. and what that judge said to him
-
i'd have held his coat while he punched if he asked me
i'm reminded of that guy charles barkley put through through a window. and what that judge said to him
You'd have been wrong.
-
So the "victim" put out a bs story based on his amateur recording of the proceedings, and we're wondering why the judge felt it necessary to lecture him? He was probably being as much a clown in the courtroom.
"not even close, prosecutor" is not islamification of the world. This is not a free speech case and never was.
If there actually were proof of a crime, he'd be right to convict the offender (and from the looks of it he would have). Not sure why anyone wouldve expected or baited a different position from me, as I've always supported free speech here.
-
i bet the atheist is a lil less mouthy
-
Tommy: the "story" of the judge being a Muslim started because of the audio tape where the judge said, ya know, "I'm a Muslim." No idea if he's closeted or just mis-spoke, not that relevant either way. Lecturing an American citizen about how lucky he is to not be executed for practicing the right to free speech is not excusable. And I had to lol at the part of the statement where he has a Bible and a Koran, and is trying to get a Book of Mormon etc. So difficult to acquire, those books given away for free by their religions and available at every major book seller.
Oh...I'd forgotten about that part.
But it does add to the confusion about the story. The judge "mis-spoke" or what. He's a JUDGE fercrissake ....get the facts right; ya gotz to deal with the factz in a court mistah!!!!!
There are all sorts of iterations of this story out on different sites. The predominate one is the judge is muslim and let the defendant go because its OK to whack nonMuslims......
-
There are all sorts of iterations of this story out on different sites. The predominate one is the judge is muslim and let the defendant go goes its OK to whack nonMuslims......
I wonders of the kinds of outrage there would be if it were a Catholic judge lecturing a Muslim victim that in another place and another time, he might have been drawn and quartered for offending Christians.
I'm betting those supporting this judge now would quickly jump to the other side of the fence.
-
It's always interesting how the people who hate Christians for not affirming homosexuality as moral and hewing to gender differences seemingly have no issue with the religion that beheads gays in soccer stadiums and violently oppresses women. Strange, that.
-
It's always interesting how the people who hate Christians for not affirming homosexuality as moral and hewing to gender differences seemingly have no issue with the religion that beheads gays in soccer stadiums and violently oppresses women. Strange, that.
The Muslims get a pass because they are oppressed by the white man. Everyone knows that, sheesh. ;/
-
It's always interesting how the people who hate Christians for not affirming homosexuality as moral and hewing to gender differences seemingly have no issue with the religion that beheads gays in soccer stadiums and violently oppresses women. Strange, that.
Islam is as much "the religion that beheads gays in soccer stadiums" as Christianity is "the religion responsible for liberation theology". I.E. my beefs with both do not require claiming them to be an Enemy Religion.
Of course, this trial has nothing to do with Islam. Or atheism. It has to do with one idiot being accused of attacking another idiot, and then the other idiot apparently editing recordings of a judge's comment to make everyone look like even greater idiots.
-
The Muslims get a pass because they are oppressed by the white man cut heads off or blow up people who make public comments critical of Islam. Everyone knows that, sheesh. ;/
There you go.
Something to think about.
-
Yeah, Victor Davis Hanson is going to get blown up any day now.
Radical Muslims are more likely to blow themselves up than to kill off a critic of Islam in Europe.
How many radical Muslims died because of the Mohammad cartoons, now? Over 100, I believe. They've yet to get one cartoonist.
They're like emo girls. We make one joke of their pop idol, and they start killing themselves.
-
Islam is as much "the religion that beheads gays in soccer stadiums" as Christianity is "the religion responsible for liberation theology". I.E. my beefs with both do not require claiming them to be an Enemy Religion.
Of course, this trial has nothing to do with Islam. Or atheism. It has to do with one idiot being accused of attacking another idiot, and then the other idiot apparently editing recordings of a judge's comment to make everyone look like even greater idiots.
You seem to have missed Balog's point, which was the readiness of many Westerners to attack Christians for having different beliefs than they do, while ignoring the more egregious crimes going on in the name of Islam.
-
I think this mostly happens though because most Westerners encounter the political and cultural influence of Christianity in their lives more often than that of Islam.
-
I think this mostly happens though because most Westerners encounter the political and cultural influence of Christianity in their lives more often than that of Islam.
True. Ignorance of Islam cuts both ways - some people see only the more violent form of it and over-generalize; some merely see it as "other" and therefore assume it is better than the religion we have here.
-
I think you'll find that most people just don't care to pay as much attention to Islam. the only way Islam can affect me, really, is by virtue of a terrorist attack succeeding - not really very likely, and I do not need to read the Koran to understand the ways a terrorist attack can affect me.
On the other hand, the radical elements of Fundamentalist Judaism can affect me through political influence. Judaism is also the religion of my ancestors, and has a great influence on my culture, so it really makes sense to know a lot about it. If I were a Ha'aretz columnist writing about the threat of fundamentalist Jews to me - through things like segregation, bans on secular marriage, etc - would make sense.
If I lived in America - where Muslims are not really very influential - the main religion that can affect political life in such a way that studying its doctrines is important to understand its influence, is Christianity (this cuts both ways - there are also many Christians supporting the current President). If I were an American intellectual I'd be far more interested in Christianity than Islam.
On the other hand, I am more interested in Christianity than Islam right now, since I'm studying under a prominent scholar in the field of its history, so who knows, maybe I'm biased. :D
-
Ye fluffy Dark Elder Ones.
Look, a judge may or may not have stepped over lines. We have selective recordings from a party with a known ideological axe to grind. Sadly, the potential crime has been overshadowed by blatant overreaction.
PA is not the breeding ground of sharia. Do you people have any idea how many friggin breweries we have? We have a problem with some of our judges, sure. But please friggin keep it in context. Judge problem, not religious problem. PA was settled for the very straight belief in "religious freedom for all, and enough guns to shut up any bloody one who takes active issue with that."
PA rifles, supplies and troops greatly helped break the Brits. Our mountains broke the Confederates. If anyone ELSE is dumb enough to invade us, we'll break them too. But we like things nice and quiet here. Not too much partisan BS, not religious/cultural battles, etc. Elsewhere, do as you like and have all the nice cultural wars you want. Only acceptable place for that rot is Philly, which is the sewer of the state.
-
Y'know, that reminds me, I am very fond of the Allegheny nat forest and have often thought about moving there. .... of course I would probably be more broke then I am now