It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

page: 13
54
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Horrible ruling, hopefully it is reversed on what should be an obvious appeal.

This is a horrible misinterpretation of the law. The religious protection only protects you if you are not doing harm to others. It doesn't give someone the right to attack others based upon their religion.

I'm going to have to look more into this, wouldn't be surprised if it was a ploy to gain anti-muslim support for a possible war with Iran ??

You cant use the 1st Amendment to try to get rid of another 1st Amendment Protection. In this case religion doesn't take away the right to free speech. Or actually I guess in this case he had the freedom to be attacked for his speech?

If there was a religion going around attacking judges I don't think he'd make the same ruling...
edit on 26-2-2012 by Xieon because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Fair enough. Now post exactly where in his decision Judge Martin invokes the koran or sharia, rather then the Constitution.







edit on 26-2-2012 by joewalker because: spwelling monkeys again.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by joewalker
Remember the charges were harassment. Does the defendent have the right, under the first amendent, to follow alongside the Plantiff in an attempt to counter his views in a verbal way?

Freedom of expression, right?


The guy dressed as the zombie prophet was exercising his freedom of expression. As was the guy next to him who was dressed as a zombie pope.

The actions of the Muslim who was offended and tried to remove the sign from him is not covered under the first amendment.

A person can pretty much say whatever they want, with some restrictions (yelling fire in a crowded theater for example). My conclusion comes from the suspect himself who contradicted himself in court about what actually occurred.

Also -
By dismissing the case
By chastising the victim
By lecturing him on Islamic law and culture
By calling him a doofus in open court
By the judge failing to address the suspect and explain the US legal system / culture / laws to him.
By ignoring the discrepancies the suspect gave in his testimony
By ignoring the Officers testimony
By pointing out the 1st amendment and commenting on the victim using it improperly
By suggesting the 1st amendment should not extend as far as it currently does
By the judge stating he was a Muslim
By the judge stating he served in the military
By the judge stating he was stationed in Arab countries
By the judge stating he had the Quran
By the judge wanting to victim to show him where in the Quran does it show the prophet as a zombie
By the judge wanting the victim to swear an oath on the bible, who is an atheist
By the judge not making the same request of the suspect


The judges actions clearly showed a bias and conflict of interest by involving his own personal experience into a situation where the evidence provided was clear as to what occurred. The judges action of dismissing the case on lack of evidence is a cover to obscure the fact the Judge used his religion in making the decision.

Every action the judge took establishes that bias. The Judge, through his actions, stated the victim should not be protected under the 1st amendment, and by dressing in the manner he did, brought the altercation on himself for being a :"Doofus" and not taking proper respect for religion.
edit on 26-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
So an Iraq war vet made this ruling...

Does he believe that the terrorists were right in attacking America on 9/11 then? If so, why did he go to war against Iraq as opposed to helping his fellow Islamists?

Does he believe that Columbine was justified, because the kids who teased, harassed, and ostracized the kids who went on a rampage were the aggressors?

This is why Theocracy is a horrible thing. Religious people around the country should take a few minutes and reflect on what it means to not agree with this ruling. If you do not share this particular judge's religion, you could be hunted down and killed in a Theocracy, yet many religious zealots want God in government. Which version of God and what particular definition of God? You can't have a liberal definition of God, because then nobody will know WTF the laws are.

Get "God" out of government, let government serve its purpose of being a set of rules and a system of enforcement so we can ALL BE FREE.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xieon
Horrible ruling, hopefully it is reversed on what should be an obvious appeal.

This is a horrible misinterpretation of the law. The religious protection only protects you if you are not doing harm to others. It doesn't give someone the right to attack others based upon their religion.

I'm going to have to look more into this, wouldn't be surprised if it was a ploy to gain anti-muslim support for a possible war with Iran ??


Thats the other major issue in this. Because it made it into the courtroom and witnesses were sworn in, there is no appeal for it since the charge was dismissed. They would need to find another crime to charge the suspect with, at which point its going to look like a witch hunt. You also have the issue of that case going back to the same judge since he presided over the first part and will be familiar with the case (even though docket assignments are suppose to be random).

At this point, if I were the victim, I would cut my losses against the Muslim and concentrate on filing a complaint against the judge.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by joewalker
 


Wow, in this whole thread, you are the only one that has picked up on that.... The charge is harassment, not assault. If zombiemuhammed gets to express, whatever opinion he is supposed to be expressing, then someone following him and countering his expression is fair as well.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The actions of the Muslim who was offended and tried to remove the sign from him is not covered under the first amendment
.Charge was thrown out X.



The judges actions clearly showed a bias and conflict of interest by involving his own personal experience into a situation where the evidence provided was clear as to what occurred. The judges action of dismissing the case on lack of evidence is a cover to obscure the fact the Judge used his religion in making the decision
In your opinion...but there is no evidence to suggest the Judge referred to the koran or his religion, he states HIS interpretation of the Constitution, namely Rights with responsibillities.

Again X, my only real interest in this case is the apparent willingness of people to blindly believe some of the stuff the media and blogs put out...even after however many pages were on, folk are still coming onto this thread to post something the Judge never said or intimated.
If he had invoked the koran or sharia as his reason to dismiss, one of you would've been able to quote it.

Thanks for the conversation Xcathdra, its been...emotional bud.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by joewalker
 


The youtube video is directly from the court procedure and im not really sure why you are continually trying to dismiss that information while arguing its some media bias / misreporting problem.

Are you really that naive that you dont see whats going on?

If you dont mind me asking are you a Muslim? Live in the US?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
He needs to be fired, and if not, people need to take to the streets and demand he be fired based on their culture and law, which he blatantly went against.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





A person can pretty much say whatever they want, with some restrictions (yelling fire in a crowded theater for example). My conclusion comes from the suspect himself who contradicted himself in court about what actually occurred.


The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" metaphor is almost always misquoted and rarely qualified in its meaning:


The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.


~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes; Schenck v. United States~

The word "falsely" is far too often omitted in this paraphrased quote and the omission alters the meaning. If there was actually a fire in a crowded theater, a person certainly has the right to yell fire to warn those around them. No one has the right to falsely make such a declaration under such a circumstance.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well after all the posts and length of this thread, if thats all you can get me on its a good day in my book



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger



He showed that horrible American that you can't mess with Islam! What that man did was culturally insensitive!
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
 

In the U.S., we do not need to be sensitive to anyone. There is no law about being insensitive. Grow thicker skin and look up the 1st amendment. If you watch the video, there was a guy as zombie Pope. You do not have to agree nor I ,with what these clowns did. It gives no one the right to go after them.
I guess it is ok for many of these Muslem nations to cheer in the streets and burn U.S flags after 9/11 in your view?


Yes! Because they have the right to commit treason act like they're better than the country they live in express their beliefs any way that they want! These Muslims are people, too. They deserve to have the right to act like animals a-holes terrorists Americans!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The youtube video is directly from the court procedure and im not really sure why you are continually trying to dismiss that information while arguing its some media bias / misreporting problem
C'mon X, even the OP has been back on to suggest that, just maybe, the source in the OP doesnt reflect what the Judge actually said.
Im not dismissing the vid, it shows exactly what was and wasnt said.



Are you really that naive that you dont see whats going on?
You mean the hounding of a judge over words he never said?



If you dont mind me asking are you a Muslim? Live in the US?
No, not at all
, though I am surprised you feel its important. No, not muslim nor have I islamificated by the muslamic rayguns!

Just a fella from the UK...I was baptised into the Church of England tho if it it helps...and I'll admit that Christianity as taught to me, differs greatly from some of the American versions.

Later bud.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well after all the posts and length of this thread, if thats all you can get me on its a good day in my book


There was no attempt to "get" you and I think you're doing a great job in this thread. It is just important to make sure it is understood that there are no arbitrary restrictions placed on rights and rights. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is a demonstrable harm and violation of other people's rights. We can understand our rights better by understanding that outside of defense none of us have the right to harm another. I just felt the clarification was necessary.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
 


The Muslim was the aggressor...
The Muslim judge was the Muslim attackers protection...
Muslim beliefs trumped state law
Muslim beliefs were enforced on a non Muslim

Couldn't one argue that they are acting like typical Muslims in the Middle East? Maybe they just picked up a bad influence during their stays in Arab countries and brought it back with them to the US?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Lol no no no.. I was joking with you.

Your fine man..



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
 





These Muslims are people, too. They deserve to have the right to act like Americans!


Simple answer...Follow the Countries Laws that you reside in. If you want to change the laws, do so Constitutionally.
The issue isn't because a Muslem attacked the Atheists. It is because the Judge dismissed the charges because they were Muslem and not based on the law. Why is it a Christian didn't attack them? I guess they obeyed the law.



edit on 2/26/2012 by mugger because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No, no, no. It's their right as Americans to act any way that they want. It's their right. And if anything, that athiest deserved it. We've done enough to those poor, poor Muslims in the past decade. I'm joking being sarcastic and nobody is noticing not being serious for the purpose of laughs totally serious.

reply to post by mugger
 


You're most likely seeing what you quoted by me above what you said. I didn't alter it. But you're completely missing my point. If you don't get it from what I wrote above...I give up.
edit on 2/26/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: blue monkey fire farts



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
 


So in your view, since the Nazi's exterminated millions of Jews and others, it is their right to attack any German now? How do you justify it? I guess all American and also Germans deserve to be attacked?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 


So if someone makes fun of god, Christians can beat them up and get away with it?




top topics



 
54
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join