Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
If this is true, obviously this judge is making his decisions based on sharia law, and he should be immediately disbarred and removed from the bench. If our government starts recognizing sharia law and muslims are allowed to attack non-muslims simply because someone gets offended, how do you think that will affect our society? This sharia law nonsense has to be stopped before it gets any kind of foothold.

Specifically which part of Sharia law would this fall under?
I am certainly no expert but I notice ATS is full of non-Muslim Islam experts.

Originally posted by DARREN1976
BS!! I am a Muslim, as my father was before me, as my son is after me, and even I dont agree with this brother assaulting someone for something trivial like wearing a zombie Mohammed (sallah lah u'ah sallem) costume, its wrong, its assault on someone fro excercising their right to free speech in a supposed democracy!!

Had there been an assault then you would be correct. Unfortunately...no.

And for the judge to let this guy of, the judge should be struck off!! He obviousy shows favouritism for certain individuals and not others, thats wrong!!!

There was insufficient evidence. Are you suggesting the courts be more harsh to Muslims? I thought justice was supposed to be blind? If you cannot prove you were assaulted then boo hoo.

thats what causes miscarraiges of justice, there was a report in my local paper of 2 21 year olds today getting away with rape of an 11 year girl as apparently she consented to it, do you think the judge was right their as well, coz the girl consented? and they recorded it!! assault is still assault, and underage sex with consent is still rape!! this is political correctness gone mad...

edit on 26-2-2012 by DARREN1976 because: spelling...

Cool story bro.

Originally posted by Pigraphia

Originally posted by LErickson
I could not really care any less if Christians are insulted. They are the loudest bunch of crybabies on the planet and all I ever hear is how offended they are. I thought Janet Jackson's tit was going to bring the house down.

Christians are pretty loud and it even annoys me I'm a live and let live Christian.

I doubt they are the loudest though.

Be serious for a moment. How many Muslims do you hear complaining in the media and in real life? Meanwhile Christians are protesting everything from Harry Potter to soldiers funerals. Muslims never come to my door to tell me I am going to burn in hell as a sinner. Guess who does?

Tell me I am wrong.

Entitled cry baby PC liberals are far louder by a land slide.

I got my ear chewed out the other day because a fried used the word "gay" in the negative on my FB post.
My friend used the word not me and the PC police rained down furious anger upon me.

You will find high school is more petty than real life and your one facebook encounter rather fails to impress me as statistically significant.

I hardly hear squat when I'm politically incorrect towards Christians, from my Christian friends.

Really because I get a load of crap any time I swear around mine or discuss certain movies and music I like. My Muslim friends just laugh and tell me they hope I will get better.

Different people experience life differently.

Originally posted by Qemyst
reply to post by LErickson

 

Originally posted by mugger
The judge should be basing his decisions on U.S./Pa. laws. Nothing else.

Originally posted by LErickson
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.

Explain?

Guilt was not proven.
Let me know if you need me to expand on that.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by LErickson

 

I could go on and on all day but I do not have to. Sodomy. Your god should not get to legislate oral sex.

Are there still any sodomy laws in the US? I doubt it.

No, it has been almost an entire decade since it was against the law for married couples to have oral sex in many states. Tell me which part of the constitution that was based on or I guess my point still stands pretty good. Do you really need me to go on with the list? We are just one step from blue laws. Seriously the right has been screaming about what Christian Nation this is based on Judeo Christian values for quite some time now. It is a little hard to turn around and pretend you have no idea what I am talking about. Why can I not get an alcoholic drink until noon on Sunday again?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LErickson

 

I honestly have no idea what the point of this post was.
To tell me laws are passed by lawmakers? Uh thanks.

Uh, yes. You apparently don't understand the difference between our laws and "Muslim" law. We are subject to laws that we pass or allow to pass, not the laws of anything or anyone else.

Educate me.
What does "'Muslim' Law" have to do with failure to prove guilt due to lack of evidence?
I am very open minded.

Originally posted by Maslo


I dont care whether they approve. I dont approve of many things, but that does not mean I want them illegal. I also dont care about what was in the past, we live in the present.

That was my point in bringing up sodomy laws. Who wants them? Atheists? I care what was just a few years ago because just because they were overturned does not mean it changed what they want. You said WANTING something illegal. Now you need it to be illegal? Then you lose more since there are no Muslim laws at all on the books.

How big % of christians, in the present, want homosexuality to be outlawed? Answer this question, and then compare.

edit on 29/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I could not tell you. How about I get a poll like yours and ask .00000001% of them.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by LErickson
So a few British Muslims who answered a poll answer for all Muslims?

Apparently, the technique called 'polling' is quite widespread and has been used successfully for a number of years.

Oh so every single poll is perfect and accurate then no matter the questions and sample size? Such a statistically insignificant percentage to begin with answering a poll you have not published must be good cuz ya know, polls are good. Huh?

I came across another poll of Western Muslims' attitudes and the level of support for suicide bombings.

1 in 4 US Muslims aged 18-29 stated that suicide bombings of civilian targets in defence of Islam could be justifed. The number were higher in the UK & France.

Support for Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets Among Younger Muslims (aged 18-29)

USA 26%
UK 35%
France 42%
Germany 22%
Spain 29%

Pew Research Poll (2007)

It is somewhat worrying that 42% of military age French Muslims feel that suicide bombings can be often, sometimes or rarely justified in the defence of Islam.

What is unfortunate is that outlawing homosexuality actually fits in with the religion where suicide bombing does not but hey, all polls are always all right? You must know several people who aspire to suicide bomb then, right?

While the majority of young Muslims do not support suicide bombings of civilian targets, the surprisingly high level of support for them suggests that many young Muslims do not share the same revulsion for people blowing themselves and civilians up in defence of a religion as Western people as a whole do.

Is it so surprising that a 'zombie' Muhammad was apparently attacked if 1 in 4 young US Muslims feel that suicide bombings of civilian targets in defence of Islam can be justified?

This begs the question, what can we do to integrate young Muslims into Western society more effectively?

edit on 29-2-2012 by ollncasino because: formatting

Wow this has so little to do with insufficient evidence it deserves its own special religious themed thread.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by LErickson
I have to wonder why you would include the bit about homosexuality.

When 500 British Muslims were interviewed, none believed that homosexual acts were acceptable.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It would be nice to be able to say that not all British Muslims believe homosexual acts are not acceptable, but in fact all 500 interviewed said they were not.

The penalty for homosexual acts is death, according to Muhammad in the hadith and, 100 lashes for sex outside of marriage according to Allah in the Koran.

This is really quite desperate. The story failed to actually include the easy Muslim bashing that the title promised so we are off to British homosexuals.

reply to post by LErickson

Educate me.
What does "'Muslim' Law" have to do with failure to prove guilt due to lack of evidence?

My question to you is not about that. Remember your statement?

My point is, you cannot keep complaining that you live in the US and will not be subject to Muslim religious laws ALL WHILE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO MAKE ME ADHERE TO CHRISTIAN ONES and expect to get sympathy when this # happens.

Illogical thinking leads to illogical statements. We are subject to our own laws. You don't have to like it but you should try to understand it.

reply to post by LErickson


Wow you clearly don't have an agenda breaking up my post like that.
I wasn't referring to Muslims being loud and complaining I was responding to your comment that Christians are loud with my opinion that PC jerks are louder.
I don't care if my one encounter doesn't impress you I've had countless others like that.

As far as you receiving loads of crap and not being able to talk about certain movies etc... you need to get yourself better Christian acquaintances.
I don't associate with Christians that are stuck up like that, it's the reason I left my childhood church.

Unfortunately I can't get better PC acquaintances and friends because they are all over the top and far worse than the Christians I choose to associate with.
I can't even hold a door open for a woman in California with a 50/50 shot of being yelled at, let alone call a woman I don't know Ma'am out of respect.

Next time you want to chop up someones quotes to disguise you agenda do it to someone else.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

In the article I attempted to link, it is stated that the Judge is a Lutheran..theres also a reminder that the audio tape had been edited.

Further, the Judge restates the lack of evidence and makes the point that the P.A did not appeal/ refile although they could have done so within thirty days of the original decision in December 2011.

Edited is one thing, but was it altered? Even if so, the judge refused to allow the video to be seen in court, and that alone is telling. Then he berated the VICTIM, and claimed that people do not have freedom of speech.

reply to post by LErickson


Insufficient evidence? I know I shouldn't feed any trolls, but just incase your a muslim I will tell you what. This isn't Europe. Americans won't put up with it. That day, that devil worshiper picked a weak, sniveling atheist.

Me? If a muslim tries that with me I, as a true Pennsylvanian(My Ancestors moved to this region before it was given to William Penn, and where then later of Pennsylvania and then the USA, so yeah I have a little bit of an attachment to my homeland) will not hesitate to use my rights to self defense.


I recognize that your probably a troll trying to get me banned, so I deleted what I originally wrote. Granted this isn't exactly kosher, but it is what it is. And that Judge will be held before a Court of law for his act of Treason against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

reply to post by LErickson

I could not tell you. How about I get a poll like yours and ask .00000001% of them.

Sure, get a similar poll, and then compare. Also, it is a statistical fact that a good sample of 1000 is enough to judge millions accurately to a few %.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Edited is one thing, but was it altered? Even if so, the judge refused to allow the video to be seen in court, and that alone is telling.

More telling than the PA declining to re-file the charges?

Then he berated the VICTIM,

TKDRL posted about his dressing down and I watched as someone I know underwent a similar experience a couple of years ago...

Were you able to decipher my lame attempt to link to the Sentinel Newspaper Website and have a look at the article and comments there?

and claimed that people do not have freedom of speech.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. I read it as an affirmation of the right to free speech in a case concerning harassment. Sorry to say I missed it at the time, but Jaguarsky and John Paul Zodeaux had an interesting exchange earlier in the thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Free speech is alive and well in America thank goodness (unless you are investigating animal abuse in the State of Iowa)

There is a lot of disturbing and unsubstantiated hatred in this thread! I stopped reading after some poster said Judge Martin should be TORTURED for dismissing this rather trivial harrassment case -- around page four of this thread. (Even by ATS standards, that seems pretty harsh and vile, and I am sure most of you will agree with me on that.)

I note that the Judge dismissed the case DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE – period. And it is clear to me -- with just a small amount of investigation -- that he made the correct decision.

I further note that all this stuff about the Judge being a Muslim is wrong. He is a self-professed Christian. Every hate filled comment that was predicated upon the Judge being a Muslim was founded on an INTENTIONALLY INSERTED LIE. You have let hate mongers have their way with you.

Finally, I note that Judge Martin IS AN IRAQI WAR VETERAN, who served in Iraq for several years.

So we basically have a lot of ignorant people dog-piling on a USA Veteran for being too rational and restrained, justifying their arguments with a series of lies. That is a twist, isn't it?

IMO, This thread should be closed, and moved to the HOAX forum. It is an example of ATS hate mongering at its very worst.

reply to post by Axial Leader


The Judge ignored the video - his perogative to do so.
The judge ignored the testimony of the officer - his perogative to do so.
The judge ignored the testimony of the victim - his perogative to do so.
the judge ignored the flip flop testimnoy of the suspect - his pergoaative to do so.

The Judge errored in his decision... The judge set a dangerous precedent due to the nature of the incident and what it entailed. The judge stated clearly the 1st amendment should not be allowed to protect the actions of the victim.

The judge could have dismissed the case based on that, however he would know full well it would be overturned on appeal for violating the 1st amendment. The judge's only options in this case, to get his personal point of view across, was to dismiss the case based on lack of evidence.

thats the only decision he could render where he could defend his position since it was a bench trial.

The Judge stepped outside his authority by ignoring the law and relying instead on his personal opinion which was affected by his service in the military while dlpoyed to nations where religion is the rule of law.

The judge has no business being on the bench, at all.

America will continue to have problems until it realises that archaic beliefs like allowing its citizens (I use the term "citizen" loosely as most of the problem starters are immigrants from Middle Eastern countries) freedom of religion is dangerous. If it is one nation under "God" then why is "Allah" allowed to be worshipped? The American motto isn't "In Allah we Trust"..get rid of it. Ban Muslim and Islamic beliefs just as you would ban Nazism. Both induce hate and violence. This has been proven over the last decade.

As for Judge Martins, he should be imprisoned and/or deported for putting the lives of real citizens into jeopardy with his ass backward decisions.

reply to post by NikolaiMacIntosh


Because what you suggest is also illegal as it violates the 1st amendment, freedom of religion. Granted a persons rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others. I think where we have failed in terms of immigration is the fact we no longer require the person who is immigrating to also adapt to an American culture.

We can see throughout history that when people came to the US, it was to become US citizens, while at the same time adapting their old culture into their new culture. We no longer require that, and Britain I beleive is the first country to come to the conclusion that multiculteralism does NOT work.

If you wish to move to the Us and beciome a US citizen, then its because you want to be a US citizen and not an Muslim who happens to hold US citizenship / Or Jew who holds Us citizenship / or Baptist who holds US citizenship / or Bhuddist who holds Us citizenship.

It should be an American citizen who happens to hold the religious beleifs of etc etc etc... Singaling out a religion for punishment makes us no better than the Nazis, and those who refuse to ackowledge that part of history are doomed to repeat it. A lesson Iran and some other countries whould be mindful of.