QuoteLast October, atheist Ernie Perce wore a zombie Muhammad costume to a Halloween event. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, confronted Perce about his costume, told him it was offensive and then started to beat him. The attack was caught on video.
QuoteElbayomy was arrested and charged with assault. At the trial, there was testimony presented by an officer who witnesses the attack along with the video. Judge Mark Martin, then dismissed the case against Elbayomy and lectured Perce about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture. In court, Martin told Perce,Quote"They are so immersed in it and what you've done is you've completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive."
QuoteA number of legal experts, along with others, are calling for Martin to be removed from the bench for his actions. Among them is Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel who said,Quote"This particular judge actually had the audacity to rule in favor of the attacker, saying that the attacker was compelled to attack this individual because it was an insult to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
"This situation is one involving a judge that needs to be removed from the bench. He is clearly instituting sharia from the bench, using sharia law as a basis to ultimately acquit a person who actually committed an assault and a battery against an individual."
http://godfatherpolitics.com/3937/judge-says-ok-to-beat-someone-attacking-islam/ (http://godfatherpolitics.com/3937/judge-says-ok-to-beat-someone-attacking-islam/)
Sharia Law is not American Law! The only reason this judge is allowed to voice his filth is Obama.
Quote from: starwarp2000 on January 01, 2014, 04:23:07 PM
The only reason this judge is allowed to voice his filth is Obama.
Really? I thought all judges were allowed to speak in court.
Quote from: ArMaP on January 01, 2014, 05:03:56 PM
Really? I thought all judges were allowed to speak in court.
Well I guess you missed the entire point of the article. The judge is in the wrong country. In the US, you can not beat someone up because you don't like their costume. No matter what it is. The judge needs to be removed. Period!
He could have said that he finds it offensive but ruled the other way. Law is law! I didn't know the US changed to Sharia Law. An act like this has the possibility to escalate into Civil War. As it stands now France will be the first country to convert, with England in a close second. I wonder what will happen then. Will the French people just move out? or convert. WWIII coming soon to a country near you.
What do you do with people that burn flags? Same thing? This is what happens when you mix Church and State. The US was founded on them being two seperate items, never to be mixed. Seems some politicans are using this as a stepping stone to further their own ideals.
Quote from: deuem on January 02, 2014, 02:07:10 AM
Well I guess you missed the entire point of the article.
I did not, I was commenting the comment, not the article.
QuoteThe judge is in the wrong country.
Not necessarily, but his opinion is not in accord with US laws, as far as I know them, but he can say what he wants in court, even if he may be punished for it after.
QuoteIn the US, you can not beat someone up because you don't like their costume. No matter what it is. The judge needs to be removed. Period!
I agree.
QuoteHe could have said that he finds it offensive but ruled the other way. Law is law! I didn't know the US changed to Sharia Law.
That's not really Sharia law.
QuoteAn act like this has the possibility to escalate into Civil War.
I doubt it.
QuoteAs it stands now France will be the first country to convert, with England in a close second.
Convert to what, Sharia law?
QuoteI wonder what will happen then. Will the French people just move out? or convert. WWIII coming soon to a country near you.
I don't think so.
QuoteWhat do you do with people that burn flags? Same thing? This is what happens when you mix Church and State. The US was founded on them being two seperate items, never to be mixed. Seems some politicans are using this as a stepping stone to further their own ideals.
I agree, but if it was a Christianity based decision it (probably) wouldn't even be in the news.
Now you made me look for another source (I don't have any reason to trust a site called godfatherpolitics.com), and I found this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html).
According to that article (from 2012/02/27), the judge dismissed the case because of "lack of admissible evidence", as it was "one man's word against the other and that the video is inadmissible".
What say ye Starwarp?
The judge should be removed from the bench. He ruled based on his religion not the facts. I think this is a disturbing precedent.
Muslims are wrecking Europe. Are we now going to allow them to wreck the US?
Islam - the religion of destruction.
" Islam - the religion of destruction "
Thats a rather large can of worms your opening there sir..
Dont cha think?
Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2014, 02:20:19 PM
Now you made me look for another source (I don't have any reason to trust a site called godfatherpolitics.com), and I found http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html) this.
According to that article (from 2012/02/27), the judge dismissed the case because of "lack of admissible evidence", as it was "one man's word against the other and that the video is inadmissible".
LOL! Did you actually read that article? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html)
It says exactly what the other article says: The case 'against' the Muslim man was dropped! The case was the 'victim' accusing the Muslim man of assaulting him!
So godfatherpolitics.com is exonerated!In America, which was instituted on Christian Laws, these laws and only these laws are to be upheld. All other laws, from other religions, are void.
Do you see Christian law being upheld in Iran?
No! You see Christians being slaughtered by them.
So why does Obama appoint these pro_Muslim judges?
That was what the article was hinting at!
Lets continue:
QuoteWriting for American Atheists, Al Stefanelli said he was particularly concerned with portions of Judge Martin's remarks where he "offers a lesson on Islam."
According to a transcribed audio recording of Martin's remarks posted to YouTube by Perce, which was later re-transcribed for clarity by the National Review Online, the judge told Perce that "what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive."
Judge Martin continued:
QuoteIf I were a Muslim, I'd 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.
QuoteJonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote that wherever Martin's religious leanings may fall, the greater issue is that "his legal views seem grotesquely out of place."
"There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture," Turley wrote. "... I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct."
Since the controversial ruling was handed down, Perce says he has received hundreds of death threats.
"People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and then laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad," Perce told The Daily Caller. "They say I will be found out and hung in front of my family."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html)
Yes, a Judge can say anything he likes, just like you can say anything you like....... but he is subject to the law and so are you!
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 02, 2014, 03:33:55 PM
" Islam - the religion of destruction "
Thats a rather large can of worms your opening there sir..
Dont cha think?
might want to read this Elvis: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/411301.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/411301.aspx)
QuoteIran's president believes Allah has chosen him to prepare the world for the coming of an Islamic 'savior' called the Mahdi.
But before the Mahdi's return, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes (Not just him, all Muslims) there must be global chaos - even if he has to create it himself.
Quote"The Mahdi will take Jesus to Mecca, they will circum-ambulate the Kabah together. The Mahdi will teach Jesus to pray; at which time Jesus will then replace the Gospel with the Koran, and then all of us Christians, wherever you are on the face of the earth, will convert to Islam because Islam will be deemed the one lasting pure religion."
So before the Islamic Messiah's return, there has to be Chaos. If it doesn't exist, his followers must create it. If that isn't the 'religion of destruction', what is?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/411301.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/411301.aspx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi)
This subject in my opinion is a hornets nest, and quoting christian propaganda machines like http://www.cbn.com/about/ for evidence,
gives no credence at all.
Its an unwinable mess and as history has shown, always has been.
So as i am to cowardley to continue this conversation, in case i am shot or beheaded by either party concerned, I will jump on my internet bus and get the hell outa here.
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/b3ta-bus-fluffy_zps0d947262.gif)
Elvis.
CBN link was just a cross-link to an article in the New York Times.
You should have followed the link to that other great repository of information: Wikipedia :P
You are correct Elvis: It is a can of worms! Although i don't condone either view, I also don't discriminate against either viewpoint. Just keep it in their country and we will be all happy.
I for one am waiting for them to come for me, I have a surprise for them ;)
P.S.: The source of the information doesn't detract from the accuracy of the information on the Mahdi.
Quote from: starwarp2000 on January 02, 2014, 04:09:59 PM
LOL! Did you actually read that article? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html)
Yes, I read all I could find, that's how I noticed that this (the rulling) happened on February 2012, hardly current events.
QuoteIt says exactly what the other article says: The case 'against' the Muslim man was dropped! The case was the 'victim' accusing the Muslim man of assaulting him!
So godfatherpolitics.com is exonerated!
No, it does not. The godfatherpolitics.com article says:
"Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, confronted Perce about his costume, told him it was offensive and then started to beat him."
The huffingtonpost.com (and the other linked articles) say that Perce said:
"He grabbed me, choked from the back, spun me around to try to get [my "Muhammad of Islam" sign] off that was wrapped around my neck"
The godfatherpolitics.com article says:
"Elbayomy was arrested and charged with assault"
I couldn't find any reference to arrests, but an article from pennlive.com linked in the huffingtonpost.com article says:
"Police have identified a suspect, but no charges have been filed as the incident remains under investigation, Sgt. Brian Curtis said."
The godfatherpolitics.com article says that the judge said:
"I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive."
The huffingtonpost.com article says that a re-transcription "for clarity by the National Review Online" says that the judge said:
"If I were a Muslim, I'd find it offensive"
The godfatherpolitics.com article says that the judge:
"dismissed the case against Elbayomy and lectured Perce about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture"
, the huffingtonpost.com article says why the judge dismissed the case (he said that it was "one man's word against the other and that the video is inadmissible").
The godfatherpolitics.com article says that the judge "lectured Perce", thge huffingtonpost.com article says what the judge said, basically that Perce was too worried about his rights that he was ignoring other people's rights.
So no, I will not trust any thing coming from that godfatherpolitics.com site, as they changed the meaning of some things and did not mentioned other things to point the readers in the direction they wanted.
QuoteIn America, which was instituted on Christian Laws, these laws and only these laws are to be upheld. All other laws, from other religions, are void.
What other law was upheld in this case?
QuoteDo you see Christian law being upheld in Iran?
No, and neither do I see Christian law being upheld in Portugal, as our law is not based on religious laws.
QuoteNo! You see Christians being slaughtered by them.
No, I do not see that.
QuoteSo why does Obama appoint these pro_Muslim judges?
That was what the article was hinting at!
After a quick search I found out that Judges in Pennsylvania are elected, not appointed by the president.
While the discussion is a difficult one, it does bear saying that
there seems to be a double standard being applied; in favor of Islam
all over the world. And yes, I would say that this judge is biased.
As we speak, in Malaysia it seems it is now not allowed
for those who are not Muslim to speak the name Allah.
I kid you not:
Quote
Islamic authorities in Malaysia on Thursday seized 321 Bibles from a Christian group because they used the word Allah to refer to God, signaling growing intolerance that may inflame ethnic and religious tension in the Southeast Asian country.
The raid comes after a Malaysian court in October ruled that the Arabic word was exclusive to Muslims, most of whom are ethnic Malays, the largest ethnic group in the country alongside sizeable Christian, Hindu and Buddhist minorities.
That ruling overturned a court decision that allowed a Roman Catholic newspaper printed in Malay, the country's national language, to use Allah.
The change has heightened concern that religious authorities, which issue rulings for Muslims and operate alongside civil courts, now have more legal muscle.
Analysts say new rulings that affect non-Muslims could be a way of deflecting anger against Prime Minister Najib Razak's government from poor Malay Muslims over subsidy cuts likely to force up electricity, petrol and sugar prices.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/us-malaysia-religion-idUSBREA010C120140102
Quote from: starwarp2000 on January 02, 2014, 06:03:44 PM
CBN link was just a cross-link to an article in the New York Times.
What article? I couldn't see any reference an New York Times article.
I had no problem finding supporting articles on this story.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy
Transcript of the Judge's remarks:
QuoteThe audio of Judge Martin's remarks can be heard on YouTube (The audio, beginning at around the 2-minute mark on the YouTube clip, lasts about 7 minutes. Martin has reportedly threatened to hold Perce in contempt for recording and publishing the judge's statements, which were made in open court. Perce says he had permission to make a recording as long as it was only audio, not video.) Here is the transcript:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.
[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.
And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it "Muslim" – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It's unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don't think that's what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.
I don't think you're aware, sir, there's a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you're an atheist. But, see, 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 cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.
Their greetings, "Salaam alaikum," "Alaikum wa-salaam," "May God be with you." Whenever — it is very common — their language, when they're speaking to each other, it's very common for them to say, uh, "Allah willing, this will happen." It is — they are so immersed in it.
Then what you have done is you've completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive. F'Im a Muslim, I'd find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.
But you have that right, but you're way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.
This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether 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're 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.
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. I understand — I've been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can't believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn't step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn't stop and say, "Hey, let's break this up."
[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.
[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]
The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don't know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.
But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — "Was the defendant's intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?"
If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=youtu.be
Here is the audio recording judge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE
My personal opinion is that people of the Muslim faith take
their "god" way to seriously, and it is actually frightening to
see to what level they feel justified in this 21st century
to defend this so called "allah" god.
Quote from: burntheships on January 02, 2014, 08:01:46 PM
I had no problem finding supporting articles on this story.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy
Your quote from that page doesn't show that the "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." was changed to the "F'Im a Muslim, I'd find it offensive".
QuoteMy personal opinion is that people of the Muslim faith take their "god" way to seriously, and it is actually frightening to see to what level they feel justified in this 21st century to defend this so called "allah" god.
I agree, some people take their religion too seriously, regardless of what that religion (or lack of it, many atheists take their atheism too seriously) may be.
Here is the state page of judge Mark Martin
http://www.ccpa.net/directory.aspx?EID=101
QuoteJudge Mark Martin is an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley. The incident, recorded on video, occurred on October 11, 2011 at the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Ernie Perce, an atheist, was attacked by Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, because of the former's costume. Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault, dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness officer, and then lectured the atheist victim about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture. He stated in court that Elbayomy was obligated to attack the victim because of his culture and religion. - See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2012/02/27/judge-muslim-obligated-to-attack-atheist#sthash.fXKcYnRa.dpuf
Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
Your quote from that page doesn't show that the "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." was changed to the "F'Im a Muslim, I'd find it offensive".
I dont recall saying it did.
I listened to the recording made, which I posted on you tube.
It seems irrelevant whether the judge said "I'm a Muslim"
or "F'Im a Muslim" .....as clearly he is ruling here with Sharia
Law intent, defending the attacker and then lecturing the
victim to the sensitivities of Muslims.
Quote from: burntheships on January 02, 2014, 08:20:39 PM
I dont recall saying it did.
I didn't say you did, I was just pointing that out for the people that do not follow links. :)
QuoteIt seems irrelevant whether the judge said "I'm a Muslim" or "F'Im a Muslim" .....as clearly he is ruling here with Sharia Law intent, defending the attacker and then lecturing the victim to the sensitivities of Muslims.
Irrelevant if he says he is a Muslim or not, in a case between a Muslim and an atheist? ???
Under Sharia law the atheist would be sentenced to death.
Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2014, 08:44:32 PM
Under Sharia law the atheist would be sentenced to death.
One step at a time ArMaP, one step at a time.
;)
That is always how it is done.
Quote from: burntheships on January 02, 2014, 08:46:45 PM
One step at a time ArMaP, one step at a time.
;)
That is always how it is done.
And it's always a good excuse for accusing someone of thinking about doing something, making it a kind of thought police, something Sharia law does not have. ;)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2014, 09:17:29 PM
making it a kind of thought police, something Sharia law does not have. ;)
I am not so sure about that....
Quote
O You who believe! Keep your duty to Allâh and be with the truthful (9:119)
This companionship with the truthful can be diverse in ways. Practically, by developing friendship with the pious, attending gatherings of such persons, studying the writings of the pious and reading their biographies.
Mental and physical illness can also be the cause of certain immoral deeds, to offset which Islam has drawn our attention to many aspects of physical and mental hygiene.
And purify your clothes (and the thoughts). And idol-worship, (spare no pains to) exterminate it and shun all uncleanliness. (74:4-5)
The pollution of the environment can be another source of evil. To rectify this kind of uncleanness, the Holy Qur'ân has taught us:
And guard against an affliction which surely will afflict not only those of you in particular who have acted unjustly (but it will involve others also who are inclined towards them); and know that Allâh is Severe in requiting. (8:25)
http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Morality_in_Islam.htm
[Yusufali 41:23] "But this thought of yours which ye did entertain concerning your Lord, hath brought you to destruction, and (now) have ye become of those utterly lost!"
[Pickthal 41:23] That, your thought which ye did think about your Lord, hath ruined you; and ye find yourselves (this day) among the lost.
[Shakir 41:23] And that was your (evil) thought which you entertained about your Lord that has tumbled you down into perdition, so are you become of the lost ones.
Quote from: burntheships on January 02, 2014, 09:38:17 PM
I am not so sure about that....
Then show me a case where that was applied by Sharia law.
Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2014, 10:07:21 PM
Then show me a case where that was applied by Sharia law.
ArMaP,
Not saying that I could, but really again no need
as in the Islam world they just kill ya if they think
you deserve it.
Quote from: burntheships on January 02, 2014, 10:22:16 PM
Not saying that I could, but really again no need as in the Islam world they just kill ya if they think you deserve it.
People do that all the time, in 2012 I saw one man being shot by his wife with a shotgun, for personal reasons, they do not even need religion for that, just an excuse.