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: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by joewalker
Not really relevant Ollin as the Judge is framing his thoughts in terms of the US Constitution not the koran.


According to this link, based on a tape recording of the court case, the judge stated that he is a Muslim and that he found Ernest Perce's actions very, very offensive.


The judge also described -- at length -- Muslim practices such as prayer, greetings and pilgrimages following up with, referring to Perce's dressing as 'Zombie Mohammad,'

“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. […] But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.”

Examiner.com


Ernest Perce has been threatened with contempt of court for releasing audio of the trial.





edit on 26-2-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Free speech can truly exist in a country of saints and idiots.
In this case, one is using it for fun by affecting the sentiments of other.
Advocates of 'free speech' are the ones who don't know anything about 'art of speech'.
99% of these free speechers only talk nonsense.
Those who are aware of art of speech automatically inherit freedom of speech.
Free speech does not mean nonsense speech.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by joewalker
 





So in your view, freedom of speech is a Right without a responsibillity...all incitement is free speech...Interesting.


More or less.I think directly inciting unlawful violence ("lets go and attack some group/individual") is the only thing that should be restricted.

And as for it being interesting, you seem to be unaware that hate crime laws and such are unconstitutional in the US, so it is not really interesting, more like a common view and practice. Even in this case, the atheist was not prosecuted in any way.
edit on 26/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad

The solution is simple... If you want to live under Islam, go live in an islamic counrty or abide by the laws and freedoms of the western country you live in. And stop trying to impose your laws on the rest of us, which is mainly what muslims do.


What do Muslims want?


Survey on what British Muslim students believe.

• 40% want Sharia law introduced into British Law for Muslims.

• 33% want the introduction of a worldwide Caliph, while 25% are opposed. 41% are not sure.

• 59% felt it was important that women wear the hijab but only 31% felt a women should be forced to wear one.

• 40% felt than men and women should not be allowed to associate freely together, while 12% were not sure.

• 32% felt it could be justifiable to kill in the name of religion.

• 57% fell that Muslims serving on the UK armed forces should have the right to opt out if the British army is fighting in a Muslim country.

• 16% felt the punishment that Gillian Gibbons received (the British teacher in Sudan who was sent to prison for 15 days after naming a teddy-bear ‘Mohammed’) was just right or not harsh enough. 19% were not sure.

YouGov Poll


40% felt than men and women should not be allowed to associate freely together, while 12% were not sure?

57% fell that Muslims serving on the UK armed forces should have the right to opt out if the British army is fighting in a Muslim country?

These Muslim students. In other words, the future 'secular' leaders of Islamic communities.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


More worrying statistics about British muslims:

That Muslim conversion should be forbidden and punishable by death: 31 % agree

That homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal: 61 % agree

Also, young muslims are more extremist.

Source


edit on 26/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia
I have a question.

If for centuries no one was allowed to draw the Prophet for fear of being killed how the hell did the person who committed the assault know that the other guy was making fun of Mohammad, maybe he was just a generic zombie Muslim.


Islam has proven itself consistantly violent for the last 13 centuries.


In respect of the Danish cartoon controversy,

73% of British Muslims feel that the cause for the controversy is Western disrespect (9% feel it is Muslim intolerance).

pewglobal.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Sorry fella, just realised that I hadnt put a link in, mines here:
jonathanturley.org...
It seems to have a fuller version of the Judges remarks.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 


Cumberland County - Judge Martin

For those interested in sending their thoughts.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Islam has proven itself consistantly violent for the last 13 centuries.


I found the last comment of the article particularly telling..

The Zombie Pope was left alone and no Catholics attacked him. I found the judges ruling / comments in this area as nothing but a reinforcement and approval of uncivilized and brutal behavior towards those they don't like / agree with.

Forcing Sharia law on a non Muslim was another issue for me as well.. SO much for that whole Islam cannot be forced on a person they quote all the time.

If the Judge likes the religion so much, head back over the the Middle East and go from there.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 



Media Hype: Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Are Increasing. Statistics: No They Aren't

Media outlets like the Associated Press, the New York Times and ABC have all given Muslim activists a platform to promote this claim.

Since 2001, hate crimes against Muslims have decreased significantly, according to FBI statistics. After 2002, hate crimes against Muslims have not risen above 13 percent of all anti-religious crimes, and the most recent data from 2008 calculates them at 7.8 percent.

grendelreport.posterous.com...


On the other hand, since 2001, Muslims have attempted to


• Destroy the Brooklyn bridge
• Blow up an Ohio shopping mall
• Blow up the New York stock exchange
• Blow up the NY subway
• Blow up an Indian diplomat with a shoulder fired grenade launcher
• Blow up National Guard facilities and synagogues in the LA area
• Blow up the Wyoming natural gas refinery & the Transcontinental Pipeline
• Set off a dirty bomb in the USA
• Blow up the US Capitol and Word Bank Headquarters
• Blow up the Sears tower in Chicago • Blow up NY city train tunnels
• Set off hand grenades in a shopping mall outside Chicago
• Conspiring to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey
• Set off a TAPT bomb in the NY subway
• Blow up a Dallas skyscraper
• Set off a car bomb outside the courthouse in downtown Springfield, Illinois
• Murder civilians in US shopping malls
• Blow up “aviation fuel tanks and pipelines at the John F. Kennedy International Airport”
• Shoot down planes with stinger missiles.

creepingsharia.wordpress.com...


To be fair, few of the above attacks were planned by Muslim who were US citizens, although a number were.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by joewalker
 


Muslim Judge Mark Martin stated


"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 intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did."

jonathanturley.org...


So I am not allowed to criticise Islam because it pisses off Muslims?

Wow.

That Muslim judge needs fired.

He most certainly is not upholding the constitution. He is using it to outlaw criticism of Islam.



edit on 26-2-2012 by ollncasino because: add link



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Hmmm.


So bearing this judgment in mind does it mean that 9/11 wasn't wrong after all?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I generally don't really care about what goes on in America. But I have always admired americas stance on freedom of speech. I mean you guys let the kkk have their rally's. Which to me, although I loathe any kind of bigotry, is awesome; without stupid opinions there can't be informed opinions right? This is a gross violation of that Ideal and is disgraceful. No one group is above the law of the land - what a disgrace.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Yeah.... Attacking a person for dressing like this, and justifying it through religion is just sad. Are Muslims really that close minded and overly sensitive that they can't accept the fact there is more than just Islam in the world?

They burn flags of other countries, burn religious material of other religions, oppress people of different religions living in countries with Muslim majorities, force their system on non Muslims...

All the while demanding their religion and viewpoints be respected....


Riiight...

Behold - The picture from the incident that caused this radical to attack him.
Source

edit on 26-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Heya Xcathdra, someone else Iv not spoken to in a while hope ya fine.

While Olln is reverting to cut&pastes of topics we discussed a yr ago let me ask you this; In your opinion is free speech a license to insult?

X think...Where has the Judge invoked anything to do with sharia? Are his remarks RE: the Constitution wrong? No comeback no matter what you say or do?






edit on 26-2-2012 by joewalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   


In your opinion is free speech a license to insult?


I am sure even in countries where this would be against the law, it changes nothing about the assault on such a person being illegal. So if the muslim attacked, he would be punished either way. So this is not really a question of freedom of speech.
edit on 26/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by joewalker
 


The best answer I can give actually is a quote from a good movie - The American President.

I think this quote sums the matter up nicely -


America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".


A movie the Judge in this matter should watch..
edit on 26-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 


In Australia there are muslim men are are raping our women and get away with it because they tell the courts its part of their culture. Absolutely disgusting.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



So I am not allowed to criticise Islam because it pisses off Muslims?
Criticise whomever ya want lad, no rules, no attempt at civilised debate...just insult.

You are turning into the people you hate.


It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others.
don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind
Come on Ollin, whats offensive about that statement?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



it changes nothing about the assault on such a person being illegal
What assault?




top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join