Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Pennsylvania Judge Uses Court To Push Sharia, Defend Muslim Attacker Of Atheist

February 27, 2012 by  

Pennsylvania Judge Uses Court To Push Sharia, Defend Muslim Attacker Of Atheist

A Muslim judge, an atheist and another Muslim walk into a courtroom — and, nope, this isn’t the beginning of a bad joke.

A judge in Pennsylvania dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who allegedly choked an atheist during a Halloween parade because the man offended Islam. American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V was wearing a “zombie Muhammad” costume and claiming to be the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at a Halloween parade on Oct. 11 in Mechanicsburg, Pa. Also at the parade was a zombie version of the Catholic Pope.

As the atheists marched down the street, an enraged Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy stormed out of the crowd and latched on to a sign hanging from Perce’s neck that read “Only Muhammad can Rape America,” pulling until the strings choked the man.

Police officer Bryan Curtis, upon witnessing the assault, intervened and charged Elbayomy — who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad — with harassment.

Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.” Adding, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”

District Judge Mark Martin, however, didn’t agree and instead accused Perce of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims.

According to WND, while brandishing a Quran, Judge Martin delivered a scathing attack against Perce in support of Muslims. An excerpt follows:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus…

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and 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 intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘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’s, they’re 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. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven 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 hear it 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.

After delivering his lesson in Sharia Law, Martin dismissed the charges against Elbayomy despite video evidence of the attack and Curtis’ testimony on Perce’s behalf.

Here is a video of the events that transpired during the parade.

Perce, angered by Martin’s dismissal of the charge and the lengths he went to belittle the plaintiff, released the following the following recording of the judge’s ruling. Perce claims he had permission to release the audio, but Martin is now threatening to hold him in contempt of court, according to the Scranton Atheism Examiner.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Pennsylvania Judge Uses Court To Push Sharia, Defend Muslim Attacker Of Atheist”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    It sounds as though Oklahoma and Pennsylvania have reciprocal agreements that let judges render soap box verdicts in either state. If Judge Martin understands Sharia Law, it seems very hard to understand why he’d act as though Sharia Law and religious freedoms in America are somehow intertwined. Did he get his law degree at a Montgomery Ward fire sale?
    What gives, Pennsylvania?

    • Vicki

      District Judge Mark Martin is quoted by WND as saying in part:

      Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam.

      Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights.

      Thus you see why (some of) our courts are in such trouble. After 2 1/2 years The judge knows about the faith of Islam but doesn’t know what takes 5 min of study about the Constitution.

      Our Constitution gives us NO rights. It has not the power to do so.

      The Constitution is a contract between the people and government agents to PROTECT our God given (Creator given if you must) rights.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        The judge is another muslim convert and all his judgements will be from that worldview.

      • Christin

        You are right, Vicki… Our Rights come from God and the Constituion solidifies that belief.

        Nadzieja Batki,
        You are spot on… This Muslim convert will forever be unable to administer American Law and Justice needed in American court rooms with his false world view.

        Don’t forget about Minnesota Congressman ‘Hakim Muhammad’, who goes by the English name, ‘Keith Ellison’, in America. He is a die-hard jihadist working with the radicalized Somalian population in Minnesota to enact Sharia Law there.

        What gives Minnesota?
        (You had a choice of voting for Conservative Lynne Tuorgerson in 2008.)

      • 45caliber

        Apparent;y he was Muslim himself, so I think he should have stepped aside for this case. I also wonder if he was paid off. I think the atheist should have a case in another court.

      • Flashy

        The excerpt is only that, and I’ve been on this site long enough to know one should read the entire decision before taking anything as proffered. With that being said, this is not a civil matter, it is a criminal matter. Which is of huge import. The First Amendment is not absolute…there are the exceptions.

        Justice Holmes wrote “no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation … where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” This is in full application in his famous “you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theatre dictum.

        ‘Fighting words’ are also unprotected.

        So..the question is..what were the facts? We have the attempted pulling off of the sign, were there words involved and who was the verbal aggressor? Was the community predominantly Muslim or mixed/ (recall Skokie when the nazi’s marched through a predominantly jewish city). Did the organizers notify the police beforehand of the inflammatory nature of the signs and figures to ensure enough police presence? How much of an “invitation and ability to attack” did the marchers create?

        This was a criminal court case, not a civil case. From the short time period, i assume a state action in criminal court, not federal. Thus it would be state law as the applicable law, not federal. There may well be a difference in what is protected under state law versus federal.

        The atheist has a civil court case which i presume he has filed or will file. The judge did not see this as a criminal matter justifying criminal sanction. We do not have his full written decision before us.

        In other words….this article is lacking in the details to give the entire set of facts and situation and allow the ability to make an informed opinion.

      • JeffH


        Talaag Elbayomy, a 46-year-old Muslim man, allegedly attacked Ernest Perce V, who was dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” and walking with a man dressed as “Zombie Pope” during the October parade. Both men were members of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania.

        Judge Mark Martin threw out a grainy video of the attack and explained that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of the harassment charge.

        ** Judge Martin further dressed down Perce for his insensitive behavior, going so far as to call him a doofus and telling him that in Muslim societies he could have been put to death for mocking Muhammad.***

        Sgt. Brian Curtis handled the incident aftermath. Curtis explained that Elbayomy admitted to grabbing Perce that October night. “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the case was dismissed,” Curtis told ABC 27. “I was disappointed.”

        Judge Martin let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free from an attack which clearly violates our laws.

        Judge Martin should be reprimanded or removed from the bench for not upholding the laws he took an oath to protect.this is inexcusable.

      • Flashy

        jeffH…the judge tossed out a grainy video. OK…could it rise to the level of proof with the chain of evidenciary handling? Obviously not. As far as the police statement…i’m sure we all trust a cop to tell the truth. Especially with no other witnesses available. Heck…i once had a traffic ticket where the cop alleged i made a dangerous left turn in traffic. Funny, as i remember it, there were no cars on the road but his and mine..and he was following me.

        That’s the key as i see it. Where are all the witnesses? The Charged, the accuser, and one cop. hmmmmm…concerning an attack in public. Seems the prosecution either fell down on the job or there wasn’t enugh evidence.

        You have a problem with that?

        let me know if you would what Sharia Law was used to overturn the case. it’s nothing but chopped up red meat for the TP crowd..who don’t take the time to look at it in reality.

      • JeffH

        Flashy, don’t insult my intelligence with your Alinsky infused babble…”let me know if you would what Sharia Law was used to overturn the case. it’s nothing but chopped up red meat for the TP crowd..who don’t take the time to look at it in reality.”

        It’s obvious and very clear that the judge did not uphold the US “rule of law” in this case.

      • TML

        “Seems the prosecution either fell down on the job”

        I agree with that

      • Flashy

        Well JeffH..since it is so obvious, why not detail the ‘rule of law’ in this case that was not upheld? please include the burden of proof needed.

        Easy to make unsupported sweeping statement, but when called to state the particulars…can you walk the talk?

        mind…there appear to be no other witnesses, the crowd did not join in for any “rescue’ (seems strange no one else came forth to testify), the cop said he “he said’ i.e. no other proof or anyone else heard that statement… so walk the talk. What’s obvious?

      • JeffH

        Flashy, the “prosecution” didn’t drop the ball…”the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case.”

        The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

        The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death.

        Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it.

        “Then what you have done is you have 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’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights.”

        The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

        That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.

        This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.

        I do not see how the judge believes that he has the authority to tell a religious critic that “before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it.” Let alone call a person a “doofus” because he opposes religion.

        To make matters worse, the judge is reportedly threatening Perce with contempt for posting the audio of the hearing.

        Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable.

      • JeffH

        Flashy, your opinion “holds no merit” here. You’re clearly showing why you have no credibility on this board…if the man admits he “attcked” another…he is clearly admitting his guilt. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

        Spin it any way you want,,,that’s what you were taught to do, so do it. I’ll stick to the facts and the realities of the situation.

      • Flashy

        Well jeffH…the judge stated it came down to a “he said, he said’ complaint. reading his opinion, the cop’s “testimony’ was ousted as evidence. I assume because it was hearsay without corroboration or having any exception to the general rule.

        we didn’t have the privilege of hearing the accusers testimony, or reading any transcript. but it appears that IF any such attack occurred….looking at the inadmissable grainy video, i didn’t see people rushing to the “altercation”. Nor do we have any benefit of any words that may have been cat about.

        In tis country, one is not guilty until proven guilty.

      • JeffH

        DUH Flashy, what part of ” the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case ” don’t you understand?

        admission of guilt n. a statement by someone accused of a crime that he/she committed the offense. If the admission is made outside court to a police officer it may be introduced as evidence if the defendant was given the proper warnings as to his/her rights (“Miranda warning”) before talking.( there was no mention that the defendant’s Miranda rights were violated)

        The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

      • Vigilant


        You are thoroughly, completely, irrevocably and impeccably correct in your analysis and its very well phrased.

        Flush will never understand either law or common sense. Frankly, I’m amazed that ANYONE could use such serpentine “logic” to do everything to wiggle out of culpability on the part of the Muslim criminal. And that’s the real point: Flush is doing it on purpose, and he knows it!

        The judge should not only have recused himself from the case, he should be impeached. I would have expected this charade out of the 9th Circuit, but it shows that incompetent activist judges have infiltrated the legal system like vermin.

        Flush once again shows that he argues for the sake of arguing.

      • JeffH

        Vigilant , I’m sure that Alisky would be rolling over in disapproval of Flashy’s continuous failures.

        From Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:
        “Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.”

        “An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….”

        “The end is what you want, the means is how you get it.”

        “Every weakness of every proposed tactic is probed by questions…. Is this manipulation? Certainly….”

        “When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”

      • styles

        This so called judge swore under the oath of the constitution to uphold the laws of this nation and FAILED to uphold America’s promise. What a fat pig

    • Jeff Pringle

      This ass clown needs to be recalled, since his religion is more important to him than the rule of law. The fact of the matter is yes, the atheist was being a douche, but the muslim guy had no right to assault him, or disturb the peace. Accordingly he should of gone to jail. This self important judge has no right overturning laws in the name of HIS religion. If he hates it so much GTFO.

      • Rick Keller

        What is this? Jeff the ass hour? Is everyone named Jeff really that stupid? The judge made the correct decision. If you insult someone, they will punch your nose. If you don’t like it, don’t insult them. Maybe all you fag panty-waiste think you can insult people and then have society fight the fight you started. Get over it. If you pick a fight, get ready to get punched. Dumb-asses.

      • JeffH

        Rick Keller…your ad hominem attack aimed at the “Jeff’s” on this board as being asses and stupid don’t get a pass here. Your idea that it is OK, in your mind, to just punch(assault) somebody that says something you don’t agree with is the real act of stupidity and ignorance.

        The judge made the incorrect ruling according to pennsylvania law? In Pennsylvania, you can face up to two years in prison even for the lowest level of assault charge.

        Pennsylvania Assault Laws – Simple Assault Laws and Penalties

        A simple assault is typically one that doesn’t result in serious injury. In all actuality, it doesn’t have to result in any injury at all. You can be charged with simple assault without even touching someone—simply by putting them in fear that you would.

        Whether holding a weapon and threatening someone or almost hitting them with a car, you can face a simple assault charge.

        Aggravated Assault Laws and Penalties – Felony assault, or aggravated assault is considered a violent crime and carries some harsh potential penalties. In addition to prison time, a conviction of this nature would make you a “convicted felon”, not a label to be proud of.

        Aggravated assault is committed when serious bodily injury is caused by acting in extreme indifference to human life or if it’s carried out against a police officer or other similar public safety official.

      • Rick Keller

        Waaaaaaahhhhhh, waaaaaaaahhhhhhh. Just like a panty waiste.(offensive words removed)

      • Rick Keller

        Jury nullification, you moron. It doesn’t apply in this case because the judge correctly pre-empted. You lose. Moron.

      • Rick Keller

        Grabbing a little fagot atheist by the sign doesn’t constitute assault. Well, if your a little twit like yourself maybe it does, but to the men in the world that protect your society, it doesn’t mean crap. Get a life and cover your own ass or shut your mouth.

      • JeffH

        Rick…I can see you have no reasonable thought on the matter so you instead resort to childish and immature ridicule. This is about the “rule of law”, not about some pantywaist atheist getting “what he deserves”. I gather from your childish response to all of this that you are ignorant of the law and would prefer a “manly” muslim judge on the bench rather than a judge that upholds his “oath of office” as well as the rule of law. I’m quite sure you’ll be the first to whine if you ever get a raw deal in court.

        Stupid is as stupid does
        Forrest Gump

      • Stan Smith

        (offensive comment removed)

        • Rick Keller

          (offensive comment removed)

      • Mark Rybeck

        Judge Martin and the crazy muslim need to be killed.

      • JeffH

        Stan, no doubt. Rick probably spends most of his time in his mommy’s basement…when he’s not out with his OWS pals lookin’ for a freebie or makin’ an arse of himself.

      • Stan Smith

        Hey Bob show me where my comment was offensive??
        Stan Smith says:
        February 27, 2012 at 10:27 pm

        (offensive comment removed)
        (offensive words removed) show me my offensive comments?? Prove it

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Did you notice that if there is a person who loathes being an American usually puts on the superiority air that all Americans are called “ugly Americans” across the world. The jerks never explain why the whole world wants to crowd into America.

    • http://none A Frommi

      Everybody that read this site, please view this video. It scares me and I am a liberal. Maybe we HAVE to stop being so tolerant toward Islam.

      Sharia law is practice in the US within all Muslim neighborhoods. Muslims do not preach, they colonize.

  • Stan Smith

    Well Well! Libtards are Atheists and he got screwed by a muzzie Judge! Since Libtards Embrace Radical Ragheads! Ohh! This is to sweet Libtards making excuses for radical ragheads, While Atheists Libtards are getting pi$$ed off that their rights been violated, Go Atheists Libtards and Libtards fight among yourselves it be just like watching a cock fight! Since ACLU is a Libtard organization Will ACLU Defend The Liberal Atheist?? probably not They will look the other way! Que in The Libtards to defend the Muzzie Judge in 5 4 3 2 1..

    • Brad

      Hey Stan,

      Loved your commentary, boy did you ever hit the nail on the head.

      • mac

        Stan didn’t hit ANY nails on the head, he just wound up with some imaginary scenarios that suited his own rant. I’m looking for the day when Muslims can’t be judges in the US because of their intolerance for the First Amendment.

      • CJ

        The enemy of my enemy is my alli, but just for the battle. The judge was biased and should have recused himself. The prosecution had the option to challange the decision. I wonder why he didn’t.

      • justsomeguy151

        Stan goes way overboard w/ his insults and rants but he IS absolutely right. The same liberals that think Islam loves them or is harmless, are the ones that this muslim attacked. i don’t think all muslims are bad people, but their faith is an evil, delusional sham. anyone who actually studies teh Koran will see that it encourages martyrdom while killing many “infidels”, even if you kill other muslims. muhammed married a 6 yr old girl when he was 56 yrs old. he NEVER made a single prophecy, he was illiterate. he claims to have been possessed by demons. he had his enemies assassinated by having followers befriending them, and then beheading them in their sleep. he was a thief and raider. Honestly, I can’t think of why a single reason why anyone would follow such an evil faith. I guess it helps that if you defect from Islam, yr family is OBLIGATED to kill you, so that helps cut down on that. Muslims must not actually READ that evil book cuz if they did, they would abandon Islam.

      • Stan Smith

        Thanks Brad! Have you seen other news site comments posted on yahoo and others?? The Libs are shoving one their own The Atheists under the Bus!
        Sorry mac! I did hit the nail on the head and the truth is a bitch! And

        Stan goes way overboard w/ his insults and rants
        So does Libs! I’m not afraid to say I’ll call as I see it! I give Libs their own dose of their medicine! I do not like Radical Muzzies, Anti American commie/Marxist/socialist Libtards! Since Libtards thinks it’s okay minorities to be racists, it’s bad for whites! as a Mexican decent since Libs gave us minorities a race card, I despise these Gringo Libtards Using my people as sheeples for their votes, breaking Immigration laws, Letting Illegals to live off tax payers dime, Giving them Instant US citizen ship while other people from countries waited in line to do the correct way! ect.. Repukes are no better using my people for cheap labor, I do not feel sorry for Illegals of my own people They need to be deported! and the Gringo Libtards better stop catering my people who is Illegal and Legal, We are not your slaves!

      • Vigilant

        mac says, ” I’m looking for the day when Muslims can’t be judges in the US because of their intolerance for the First Amendment.”

        And that would be unconstitutional. Understand that a judge can be a Muslim, Jewish, Rosacrucian, Atheist, or any of a host of other persuasions, as long as he/she abides by the oath of office.

        This one should have recused himself.

    • Karolyn

      Liberals are certainly NOT all atheists!

      • LindaS

        …but all atheist are liberals.

        • Karolyn

          I wonder about that. Do you have any proof?

      • COAL MINER

        Wrong Linda S,

        What about DaveH?

      • Paul B.

        I am an athiest.. fully believe in determinism, no “free will” as defined by our ability to create an effect with no specific cause, etc, etc. When we die, that’s it.

        But I am not anti-religion for God is real to many as what we believe IS our reality, so God does exists heavily in social philosophy, even though his physical existence is highly questionable. It is what we are taught through christianity’s view of morality which is heavily based in humanistic, freedom of rights, etc that is most important. The source of such belief, however twisted from a source is not as important as the belief in its existence.

        I am a devout conservative, fiscally, mostly socially as liberals are too judgmental, believing their views are the only ones that count, that matter, and their attempt to force their beliefs on society, while accusing conservatives of doing the same thing when we are only defending our beliefs is so hypocritical.

        Athiests are humans, believe in certain inalienable rights as humans, believe in freedoms as human rights granted to us simply because we are alive, sans religion, sans ignorant liberals, etc.

        So all athiests are NOT liberal.

      • COAL MINER


        What about DaveH?

    • bsg

      Will it be appealled? If so the judge should be disbarred, sent to Iran.

  • Macawma

    Welcome to Amerislam, folks. Though I think it was a stupid costume, it is also obvious that the judge had a very biased point of view and should have been recused from the case. I do feel so sorry for the children of America and what is happening to this country. Islam is creeping in and I, for one, will be “loaded for bear”.

    • Ellen

      This is ridiculous. It was a Halloween costume; they are rarely accurate and that’s what makes them funny. Did anyone ever dress as Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith and get beat up? You can buy George Bush masks, so I think we can forget about politcal correctness. The Muslim broke the law by attacking the Atheist. It doesn’t matter if the judge was offended or not, as the law is not about his feelings. Also, the judge can’t follow the American law of separation of church and state, yet entwine Islam with our laws.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        The judge did just that.

      • Christin

        Great remarks Ellen… and so TRUE.

      • 45caliber

        He had a sign around his neck announcing that he was “Mohammed zombie”. Since it is against the Islamic religious law to have a picture or anything else of Mohammed, the Muslim attacked him. I’m not saying the guy was guiltless – but the judge should have gotten someone else to take the case.

      • TML

        “It was a Halloween costume; they are rarely accurate and that’s what makes them funny. Did anyone ever dress as Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith and get beat up? You can buy George Bush masks, so I think we can forget about politcal correctness.”

        Yes, but it was poor taste… and in retrospect… dress as a black slave for Halloween and put on a sign that says “I hate n******” and walk down the streets in Harlem and see what happens.

        “ The Muslim broke the law by attacking the Atheist. It doesn’t matter if the judge was offended or not, as the law is not about his feelings.”

        Yep, and I agree

        “Also, the judge can’t follow the American law of separation of church and state, yet entwine Islam with our laws.”

        I agree he didn’t follow the separation of church and state, but I disagree that he “entwined Islam with our laws”… as he dismissed the case under a religious bias. Frankly, Sharia Law would have convicted the atheist instead.

      • Flashy

        Ellen…did he break the law ? or was he found “not guilty” due to an exception allowed by state law or prior SCOTUS decisions. One cannot tell from the article.

      • TML

        Flashy, “did he break the law ?”

        Even if it was provoked, you don’t have the right to physically “attack” someone, or lay your hands on them trying to remove items from their person. Regardless of any ‘possible’ SCOTUS decisions (which are NOT law, fyi) the Muslim should have been found guilty.

        While the article may have been lacking in full disclosure of information, the video evidence was enough to see the violation. I suppose the only other information I’d like to know, is if the atheist was actually physically injured or if his property was damaged or stolen.

      • Flashy

        “Regardless of any ‘possible’ SCOTUS decisions (which are NOT law, fyi)” <—TML

        True. But they do apply as to whether the law is enforceable or not.

        As an aside, I went and watched the vids.

        OK…now that the whole story is clarified…totally understandable why the charges were tossed. The prosecution did not carry the burden of proof.

        A big toodoo about nothing. Yet, it will no doubt be blown way out of proportion as it is beginning to here.

      • TML

        Flashy say, “The prosecution did not carry the burden of proof.”

        True, the video evidence wasn’t admitted as such, for some reason. Had it been, then I still think there should have been a conviction and a sentence of probation at the most for obviously laying his hands on him and trying to forcibly remove items from his person. But ultimately…

        Flashy say, “A big toodoo about nothing.”

        I agree

      • JeffH

        TML not only was the assault caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case.

        I’ve searched high and low for anything that could or would refute the Muslim attackers admission of the attack and cannot find one word to the contrary.

        The fact remains that the judge let his own personal bias” affect his ruling in this case and the prosecution did not err in this case contrary to what some would like to believe. The Muslim man should have been found guilty…as to what the penalties should be is irrelevant at this point…whether probation, jail time or or stiff fine…justice was not served and the judge violated his “oath of office”. Despicable.

      • Flashy

        JeffH…let me ask you since you place so much weight on that grainy video. it shows the before costume, but does not show the ‘after’ . now…if someone trie to tear off a sign, tries to rip off a beard, etc….does it not seem logical if you had a video camera you would make absolutely certain those were in the video?

        Egads…quick to hang aren’t you…

      • TML

        Jeff H says, “The fact remains that the judge let his own personal bias” affect his ruling in this case … … The Muslim man should have been found guilty”

        That was my initial assessment as well, and that’s true… a confession to the alleged crime should default as conviction.

      • TML

        JeffH says, “The fact remains that the judge let his own personal bias” affect his ruling in this case … … The Muslim man should have been found guilty”

        That was my initial assessment as well, and I agree… a confession to the alleged crime should default as conviction.

      • JeffH

        Flashy says “let me ask you since you place so much weight on that grainy video”

        Poor attempt Flashy!

        Where have I placed “so much weight on the grainy video”…clearly an assumption on your part Flashy! I have placed my weight on the accused man’s own “admission of guilt”. Video or not…the “grainy” video only corroborates the mans own admissionof a crime .

  • Dee

    There should be NO muslims judges and NO muslims in our government. They will side with the muslims every time just like obummer does.

    • RevNowWhileWeCan

      That’s the kind of thought process that has this country in the state that it’s in. Do you think that Christian judge’s favor Christians all the time? I don’t think you can get much more prejudicial in that statement that you did.

      • cawun cents

        Thats funny because I have never heard a judge ask someone if they were Christian.
        But since Christians are considered the lowest of all living things,by the left,godless,and non-christian religions,I can see why.
        Its alot like asking someone if they are poor and destitute,to the rest of the world.
        Its just not something you do.
        The white Anglo-saxon Christian,is now the lowest of the low in this nation when it comes to consideration.Now that he has architected the way of life that is currently being lived and invented nearly every modern device that makes your life meaningful,you have little to no use for him any longer.Now you can relegate him to the dust-bin of history and glorify that which is from the seventh century.
        That way you can mimic the president you have put in office.
        The go-along-to-get-along strategy of the leftist elite.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        When someone speaks the truth why do you say that they are prejudiced? Reality around the world proves what she is saying is the truth.

      • 45caliber


        The reason Christian judges don’t rule on religious reasons is because our religion seperates itself from civil law. Muslim religious law IS civil law in their countries – and they want it that way here. So don’t confuse the two.

      • Flashy

        ‘mon 45…you don’t really believe that do you? Honestly?

    • Christin

      We do (did) have a Constition (sp on purpose) that gives us Freedom of Religion in the 1st Amendment, but Islam is a cult and does not follow our Rule of Law and there lies the problem.

      *We have a muslim (sympathizer) in the WH

      *We have two devout Muslims in so-called Homeland Security…
      Janet Napalitano hired devout muslim Kareem Sora born in Damascus, Syria.

      *We have a Muslim in Congress (and muslim sympathizers)… Muslim Minn. Congressman Hakim Muhammed who goes by Keith Ellison is a die-hard jihadist working with radicalized Somalia population in Minnesota to enact Sharia Law.

      *We have over a million Islamic muslims who our own gov immigrated to the US (to change the dynamics of the Vote to Dem/Commie power and control) from the Middle East and Somalia who DO NOT assimulate into America, but form muslim ghettos requesting sharia law be respected for them.

      *Muslims praying in the streets for 45 minutes in NYC facing East (mecca) and blocking traffic and it is allowed… doubt YOU could do that and not be punished.

      *Now we have a self-professed muslim Judge Mark W. Martin in the American courtrooms, koran/Qu’ran in tote, in Pennsylvania.

      *And we have a WH saying we will let International Law through the UN guide our nation, not the Constition (sp) with Freedom and God’s law in mind.

      How many other do we not yet know about???

      It is here and it has been welcomed by those who do not have the American citizens’ interest at heart.

      • Christin

        muslim Kareem Shora… (sp sorry)

    • Flashy

      There should be no christians, krishnas, Bhuddists, taoists, Wiccans etc allowed as judges either! Judges should be religious free and not be respresentative of the community !

      • JeffH

        Flashy, that’s about as dumb a statement as could be said. Is it your idea then that all judges should be atheists?

        The incompatibility of Islamic sharia law with secular courts stems from the underpinning of Islamism — the unyielding union of the laws and punishments of the Qu’ran and Hadiths with the country’s legal and political system. Sharia law is the legislation of these religious and criminal rules, which rejects America’s constitutional secularism and legal penalties.

        The USA has laws on the books, and Sharia or Islamic laws ain’t it…this is the USA and it’s We need to understand what the Rule of Law is and how to preserve it for the good of our children and the future of all humanity … for upon the Rule of Law hang all our hopes for equal access to justice and preservation of human liberty.

        U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said at a conference in Florida a few years ago that our Constitution and the Rule of Law it was designed to secure mean nothing without the Rules of Court by which alone the principles of justice and liberty for all can be enforced!

        Once any legal system opens its doors to Islamic law, that door will be hard to close…and eventually, the only thing missing will be a parallel Islamic government.

        The Court of Appeals is the system used to review lower court decisions and believed by some to be the stopgap against foreign law, including sharia, from entering our legal system. However, some Islamic cases that have reached the Appellate Court for review have retained the sharia rulings even in the face of sharia’s contradiction to American civil law.

        The U.S. is heading towards dangerous territory if its citizens buy into the twisting of constitutional amendments. Indeed, what everyone really needs is the interpretations of the laws as they are written in order to prevent the encroachment of Islamism into the court system.

      • Flashy

        I agree JeffH. the statement there should be no Muslim faith judges is ridiculous…which is why I parodied it.

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    & The Bible Has… You must except Christ as your Savior, to get into heaven, & have peace on earth… Religious B.S. That is why Religion MUST be Keept out of GOVERNMENT!

    • cawun cents

      Where does it say that in the Consitution?
      Or are you as guilty as the Sharia laden judge of not knowing what the Constitution says?

      • 45caliber

        I agree. Too many people – who don’t bother to look at the Constitution – believe that religion and state are supposed to be seperate. Actually, all the First Amendment does is state that the government can’t get involved in religious matters. Nothing is said about someone using his religion in government.

      • Flashy

        45…except when one uses his religion in government…it then becomes a government act. Thus, the State gives sanction to a religion over all others. not a good thing.

    • http://naver samurai

      Ever hear of the 1st Amendment? I don’t think you have. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Crystal

      Then the government should keep the religion of Atheism out also. Yes, atheism is now a religion.

      • TML

        Atheism is a lack of belief and does not constitute a religion, as there is no dogma of tenets, or ‘belief’ structure, or religious philosophy to which they follow. Saying Atheism is a religion is as incorrect as saying Agnosticism is a religion.

        There are your hard atheists who will outright say “there is no God”, but they are logically as foolish for saying that, as some theist is, who say there is a God, since the assertion is essentially unprovable.

      • 45caliber

        There are atheists who do not believe in religion and there are atheists who believe in the Atheist Regligion – which even our government recognizes. One aspect of a religion is to attempt to make new members. That is exactly what the Atheist Religion attempts to do. A true atheist doesn’t care one way or the other if you believe or not. It simply doesn’t matter to him.

      • Karolyn

        In my “Religion in a Global Society class, atheism was (and is) not considered a religion, as it does not meet the guidelines to be considered a religion.

      • Crystal

        Atheism is a religion. Presently, an extremely organized religion. You can argue all day, but it is.

        • Karolyn

          Maybe in YOUR mind atheism is a religion.

      • COAL MINER


        Oct 5, 2011 … By Al StefanelliI wrote an article a while back that debunks the myth that Atheism is a religion.

      • Paul B.

        Athiests aren’t typically religious. Those that treat it as a religion, trying to congregate, secure groups of like minded and mostly the attempts to “convert” others, are the Liberal athiests referred to in earlier post.

        True athiests could care less what you believe as it is your right to believe as you wish. There is no “proof” that God exists or doesn’t… it is strictly a matter of faith, of beliefs, of perception, of environment, of evolution… it is what it is.

        Real athiests are accepting of others rights to their own beliefs. Yes , they may profess their beliefs, but to persecute or ridicule anyone else for what they believe is the true sign of a liberal athiest. That is the major distinction.

      • crystal

        Karolyn, in my mind and many others — so you can stick it and your liberal class you took along with the stick.

        On the other comments the distinction between atheism and liberal atheism I can buy. Liberal atheism makes up the group which forces their beliefs on other people’s property and such. What we are seeing now is an organized group of liberals proclaiming atheism and a growing group (this won’t be just one incident) of Muslims in the U.S. that aren’t going to lie down and take it.

      • Vigilant

        TML is wrong and Crystal is right.

        Atheism takes ON FAITH that God doesn’t exist. His existence, BY DEFINITION cannot be disproven.

      • TML

        Crystal says, “the group which forces their beliefs on other people’s property”

        Sorry, but a religion this does not make.

        Vigilant says, “Atheism takes ON FAITH that God doesn’t exist.”

        No, atheism does not require faith that god doesn’t exist, it merely lacks faith. Without the unsupported assertion that there is a god, atheists would not make the unsupported assertion that there isn’t. This does not equate to any kind of faith as the burden of proof falls upon those making the claim. Logically foolish of the atheist to say, but its not “faith”, by any means.

        Vigilant says, “His existence, BY DEFINITION cannot be disproven.”

        How convenient. His existence, by definition, can not be proven, either. The assertion is essentially unprovable. As provable as the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

        You can assert that atheism is a religion all day long, it doesn’t make it true. But I’m intrigued by why you would want it to be considered as such.

      • Vigilant

        TML, I don’t give a damn whether atheism is called a religion or not. As for burden of proof, prove to me that He does not exist. You can’t.

        You may have some interest in the Logical Positivist philosophy of Alfred Jules Ayers. In “Language, Truth and Logic” he claims that no declarative statement about the existence or non-existence of God is legitimate.

        A statement such as “God does not exist” is neither true nor false, it is nonsense because no empirical test exists or could be devised to prove or disprove the claim. Thus, such a statement as “I don’t believe God exists” is a statement of opinion or faith, and it’s the only meaningful statement that can be made about His existence/nonexistence.

        So get off your high horse and admit that it is your OPINION (faith in something unprovable) and not a lack of faith that makes an atheist an atheist.

      • TML

        Vigilant says, “I don’t give a damn whether atheism is called a religion or not.”

        Then why are you arguing?

        Vigilant says, “As for burden of proof, prove to me that He does not exist. You can’t.”

        I never said that ‘he’ didn’t. You and other religious people say that he does exist out of blind faith… you are the one making the claim… you prove that he does, and then I will believe you.

        Vigilant says, “You may have some interest in the Logical Positivist philosophy of Alfred Jules Ayers. In “Language, Truth and Logic” he claims that no declarative statement about the existence or non-existence of God is legitimate.
        A statement such as “God does not exist” is neither true nor false, it is nonsense because no empirical test exists or could be devised to prove or disprove the claim.”

        Yes, this is the logic to which I refer.

        Vigilant says, “Thus, such a statement as “I don’t believe God exists” is a statement of opinion or faith, and it’s the only meaningful statement that can be made about His existence/nonexistence.”

        Yet, I do not agree that such a statement is a statement of “faith”. Opinion, yes, but not faith.

        Does it require faith to say I do not believe in the invisible flying spaghetti monster? No. It requires a lack of faith, because I’ve seen nothing that would lead me to believe one exists.

        If one sees no reason, no proof, no evidence, or reason, or anything to the like, which leads them to believe in something, then it does not require faith to say one doesn’t believe it exists.

        If someone says there is a god, and someone replies, I don’t believe there is a god, then such a statement does not require faith.
        If someone says there is an invisible pink unicorn, and someone replies, I do not believe there is an invisible pink unicorn… that-is-not-a-statement-of faith…..

        Vigilant says, “So get off your high horse and admit that it is your OPINION and not a lack of faith that makes an atheist an atheist.”

        It is the atheist ‘opinion’ based on a lack of faith, sir. Get over it

      • TML

        The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, and an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Those who dismiss your claim do so for lack of evidence… they do not do so by “faith”.

      • Vigilant

        Alas, TML, you may have missed the point. One can only say, “I believe in God,” or “I don’t believe in God.” There is no burden of proof as such proof is impossible to furnish on either side. There is no moral superiority on either side since the statements are statements of opinion, not statements of fact.

    • Ted Crawford

      ” We have no Government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made ONLY for a religious and moral people. It is inadaquate for the government of any others” John Adams
      “we’ve staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of gevernment, far from it! We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” James Madison
      It seems our founders disagree with you and the Progressives! Before you start to bad mouth me because I’m a Christian, you need to know that I’m NOT one! I’m a Diest. Facts are still facts!

      • TML

        Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

        -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

        Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

        -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

        Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

        -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

        Treaty of Tripoli – Art. 11. “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility…”

      • Ted Crawford

        Interesting that you should chose Thomas Jefferson, one of only 6 of the 56 signers that was not a Christian. Jefferson was in fact a Diest, that still does not change the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Founders were Christian, In fact in the Constitutions of 9 of the 13 original colonies one was required to be “A member-in-good-standing ” of a Congregation to even run for office!

      • TML

        Ted Crawford says, “…that still does not change the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Founders were Christian…”

        That still doesn’t change the fact that our country retains a separation of church and state in the first amendment, and is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion as it states in the Treaty of Tripoli 1790

      • Crystal

        TML, you bring up the letters (and there were only six), that Thomas Jefferson wrote questioning the validity of a Creator/God. This is a typical liberal trick, which is a failure because liberals fail to mention hundreds of letters and writings that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the fact that God does exist.

      • TML

        Crystal says, “TML, you bring up the letters (and there were only six), that Thomas Jefferson wrote questioning the validity of a Creator/God. This is a typical liberal trick, which is a failure because liberals fail to mention hundreds of letters and writings that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the fact that God does exist.”

        I’m not a “liberal” for one… and I’m not sure how citing information which supports my position should be considered such. I’m well aware of Thomas Jefferson’s writings on God, and have even read his own personal version of the bible that he authored.

      • Vigilant

        And Jefferson believed in God, tha’ts why he was called a Deist.

      • simian pete

        John Adams last words were “Jefferson lives “.. they died on the same day …

        So Thomas Jefferson finally “got saved” (became a Christian) before he died ?

    • kid cleveland

      Thats right it does say that an it gives a choice to believe it. An even though the nation was based on the Bible. We have a choice not to believe.Why when this case is not about a Christian do you need to change the case.Is you faith in Islam being peaceful at risk here? I hope so. What you fail to understand is like many others raised in any faith islam has many that only want to be left alone.Unlike many other faith islam has started to believe they can an will force others to follow what they believe including those born into islam that do not follow it to the letter.People world widw need to understand that. they also need to understand the more force islam uses on their own the more force islam causes to be used on others.

      • Ted Crawford

        ” I have studied the Quran a great deal. I came to that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few Religions in the world as deadly to man as that of Muhammad….I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress…” Alexis de Tocqueville
        It clearly hasn’t improved over the centuries!

      • Ted Crawford

        ” I have studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few Religions in the world as deadly to man as that of Muhammad….I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress…” Alexis de Tocqueville
        It clearly hasn’t improved over the centuries!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are talking nonsense , go study the Constititution of the United States of America.
      Christians are not forcing you to become a Christian contrary to what you believe. Majority of the posters don’t know or even care what religion you are even if you are an athiest. Get over yourself.

      • Flashy

        Christians are not forcing everyone to be christian? Is that a serious statement? Ummmm….methinks you are mistaken in your belief.

      • Paul B.

        She is right Flashy… the main reason we even talk about it is in defense of liberals you who attempt to force their views, beliefs, perceptions, etc on the rest of us. Our beliefs are what they are, we have that right as does anyone in this country.

        I am equally free to profess those beliefs at will, within limits of law.

        I do NOT have the right to try and impose my beliefs on others. I should not judge others for their beliefs, I should not discriminate against others for their beliefs, I can attempt to rally support for my beliefs… etc.

        I do not have the right to force or demand someone else to conform to my beliefs… that is what the liberals do all the time. And what is so hypocritical is that when others attempt to defend their beliefs and their rights to those beliefs, Liberals, LIKE YOU, claim we are trying to force our beliefs on others, which is so ridiculous.

        If the Liberals would simply follow rules of law that protect our freedoms of belief from undue persecution, we would all be fine. That is why we have a Constitution. Government can’t dictate religious beliefs, in fact it supports all views, but that is separate from the rule of law which should always be consistently applied regardless of religious affiliation. Government can’t force anyone to hold certain beliefs and should stay away from policy making, mandates, executive orders that attempt to FORCE beliefs on others.

        Laws are written and passed through Congress, as a Republic, by elected officials, by concensus, etc. You want to change things, do it legally, procedurally, and quit being a hypocrite accusing conservatives of doing what you doing all the time.

  • Cliffystones

    Contempt of court? I’m glad he didn’t spew his Sharia nonsense diatribe at me. He’d be making an emergency trip to the dentist.

    • cawun cents

      The Baliff might have had something to say about that.
      But what do I know?
      Apparently very little……..

      • Frank Chandler


    • 45caliber

      And you would have been in jail for the next ten to fifteen years – without a trial. After all, the worst thing any person can do – in the eyes of the court – is attack a judge. We used to have one in Houston that sent a server to jail for six months for contempt of court because the guy served him a paper that the judge needed to appear in court for causing an accident. (The judge didn’t bother to pay the fine or go to court the first time.)

      • Crystal

        What happenend after that. The problem with our court system is that judges are exempt from any of their actions.

      • 45caliber


        He got a friendly judge to hear his case. He was drunk and ran a stop sign into the side of another car. The judge gave him a small fine. His insurance had to pay off. The next election, his opponent made a thing about it and he wasn’t reelected despite his complaints. Luckily, Texas does elect its judges and can unelect them when needed.

      • kkflash

        My bet is that Judge Mark Martin is history come next election.

  • Gar M

    That piece of Muslim scum should not be a Judge! Enforcing Sharia law in the USA. What a bunch of crap! Kick the bum out and elect one who follows the law, not his religion in deciding cases. Too bad the Judge can’t be arrested and tried for what he did.

    • Flashy

      Ummmmm..just out fo curiousity, what “Sharia law’ did the judge enforce? i didn’t read where anyone was beheaded….

      • 45caliber

        My, I learn something every day. I never knew that the only penalty a Muslim judge can hand down was beheading. I’ll keep that in mind …

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    Man o man. I’m hopeful this isn’t the state of the majority of the American judge pool. How can a man who gets paid to judge have such bad judgement?! This guy, even tho in some weird kinda, third grade mentality, meant to do well by Muslims, kinda way, should be demoted to the clerk’s office just for plain ignorance.
    @s c
    I’m sure the judge has a legitimate degree from the University of Phoenix Online.
    @Stan Smith
    Muzzie?? I guess you won’t be pulling for the judge to keep his job, huh? Maybe I’m naive but why wouldn’t the ACLU defend Perce’s rights in this one?

    • Flashy

      look at the second vid and at the end is the judge’s ruling. Where do you find fault?

    • Stan Smith

      Nope that Judge is a scum! Anti American! Well we have to see if few months to a year goes by if no news story about ACLU will take the case of Perce. Just sit back and see what happens will ACLU take the case or not??

  • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

    What is Sharia Law and what are the basics of Muslim Faith?…I dont know and i bet most of your readers dont know either, so im suggesting we learn a bit more about it before we comment.

    The very little i found out seemed very similar to Christian beliefs, but there must be more to it, but how do we find out?

    In Australia our Constitution permites Freedom of Religion….what does youir Constitution permit?

    • Rick

      Google it clown. Maybe YOU should have looked it up before YOU posted.

      • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

        Rick, maybe you can learn from other nations laws instead of keeping your head in the sand and call people clowns in any debate. I have met very few muslims in Australia, but the ones ive met have been peaceful types, NOT rude like you RICK.

        Your type of racism is why we have so many people retaliate and make all Christian based nations live in perilous times. You RICK are part of the problem in my book. your type starts wars when there was none intended. Get an education and dont blame all non christians for our problems. The internet does not give us all the facts all the time.

        Me thinks that your friends who make lots of money out of selling military equipment have convinced you that everyone other than you must be bad and needs to be pummelled into the ground…and you being an AH have eaten, hook line and sinker.

        Give me facts then we can talk again.

        By the way your acting ..your no Christian in my book

    • cawun cents

      Nowhere in the Bible does it direct Christians to harm or kill people of other religious views.
      The same cannot be said for Islam,and the Qu’ran,Koran…..However you pronounce it.

      • JD

        I’m sorry to say Cawun Cents , but it does say in the old testament to kill others of a different faith even if they are your brother . But most christians today don’t read the entire book but refer to just a few select passages .

      • cawun cents

        Those rules and commands were given to Jewish folks,not Christians.
        Perhaps if you werent so busy looking to point the finger of guilt at someone,you would actually read what it says about what Christians should do and not do,and not transpose your own inaccurate eisegesis,on what is actually written in the Bible.
        But then you are just like everyone else who decides what is right and wrong before they actually read the book.

      • TML

        cawun cents say, “Those rules and commands were given to Jewish folks,not Christians.”

        But Christians have no problem referencing Old Testament laws and commands when it serves their purpose against gays, as you and others did all weekend, eh?

        Sorry couldn’t help myself, hah

      • cawun cents

        Whereas you havent read the new testament and what it says about homosexuality,I guess you havent noticed that Christians wont do the condemning,God will.
        The rules govening how homosexuality is dealt with has changed with the spreading of the Gospel to all nations.In the Old Testament,when it was effecting only one society,there was the command to seek out homosexuals and kill them in order that they not infect the society with their deviancy.
        That was the command God geve to the Jews,so that their personal society would not be corrupted.
        With the advent of Christianity,since it was God’s intent to spread it world wide,He commanded Christians to live in the societies which already had these effects on them in peace with other people of different beliefs.
        But He hasnt changed His mind on the subject.
        He considers homosexuality as an abomination.
        His instructions changed because He knew that as the Gospel was spread among gentiles of other societies,it would give the Christians opportunities of helping others to peacefullly convince them of their sin,while not effecting the societies as a whole by having such strict regultions like were given to the Jews.
        This is easliy understood by anyone with half a brain.
        However the tendency to make much ado about nothing is inherent in todays media laced arena of thought.So the Christian talks of Old Testament rule to the non-believer because it is in effect what the non-believer can and will understand.
        Lacking the Holy Spirit,a non believer cannot understand why these commands were changed to supplement rules in modern societies.So, I find it necessary to explain it away,as simply as I can.
        There is a marked difference in how we as Christians are to observe the local ordinances,and how ancient Jewish laws were used in the context of the times.
        This escapes most modern theologians and Christians as a whole,because they do not take the time to understand the intracasies of time as opposed to religious law.
        Some rules it is necessary to change for the people involved and the times they live in,but Gods feelings on the rules do not change.
        That is where there is so much misunderstanding in todays world.
        God commanded Christians to peacefully convince others of their sin and accept Jesus Christ as their savior,Rather than adhereing to stricter ancient laws which can only apply to a single society.Yet His own laws are not changed other than how these laws are to be communicated and dealt with in modern society.
        Hope that clears things up for you,altough I am sure it will only further confuse you.
        My apologies for that if it happens for it was not my intent.

        • mac

          You people who claim to know the mind of God just make me sick. What is the evidence you use to know he hasn’t changed his mind?

      • TML

        cawun cents says. “Whereas you havent read the new testament and what it says about homosexuality”

        Actually I’ve read it 5 times front to back… but looking back at the discussions yesterday, I noticed you personally only quote the new testament, so my apologies.

      • cawun cents

        Come on now mac……you were sick way before I made this post…..

        • mac

          cawun cents, you know absolutely nothing about me except what I write here. Anything you say about my health before your comment is just babble on your part.

      • Flashy

        Wow CC … the Old Testament doesn’t count as Christian and was written only for the Jews?


      • cawun cents

        I repeat and reiterate,that nowhere is it found in the Bible directing Christians to harm or kill others because of their differing belief.
        I further reiterate that the same cannot be said of Islam,and the Koran.
        You can assert that my post is in error if you like,but you have no foundation in fact to back your claim.
        Ancient laws written for a single Jewish society,cannot apply in all places,having already been affected by self inclusive behaviors whether of religious significance or not.
        So Christians cannot be said to have to use those Ancient laws to live according to modern standards.
        If things were not so,then it would be necessary for me to bring an atonement sacrifice to a Temple which no longer stands,so that I could be declared righteous by God.
        That is part of ancient Jewish law.
        How then could I be made righteous,or for that matter how then could any modern man be made righteous?It would be a matter of difficulty dont you agree?
        To obey a law that cannot possibly be obeyed?
        That is why you are incapable of understanding Christianity.
        You lack the capacity for intelligent thought on the matter.
        Either that or you just choose to ignore certain concepts.
        My vote is for the latter since you seem quite lucid at most times.
        But what do I kinow?
        Apparently very little.-CC.

      • Crystal

        J.D. you should learn the difference between the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.”

      • 45caliber


        What evidence do you have that God has changed his mind? One of the verses in the Bible says that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I doubt that God changed …

      • mac

        cawun cents says: “But He [God] hasnt changed His mind on the subject.
        He considers homosexuality as an abomination.
        His instructions changed because …”

        How, pray tell, do you know WHY God changed his instruction – if He in fact DID change instructions? Could the change of instructions not amount to a change of mind? You are claiming to know what God thinks beyond what is said in the bible. Has there been no change since 325 AD – the first Council of Nicea, when the words of the bible were set in stone? By men?

    • Brad

      GILLYSROOMS from Australia,

      In the US it’s called the Bill of Rights, Article 1, you should google it and read what it has to say. By the way US law is based on society and not on religion, either christian or sharia. I have to say some laws have been written with religious undertones. When talking about Islam, the Quraun and sharia law, one is their guiding light and the other is their twisted belief in their prophets words on how they shall live each individual day. In islam there is no decent, there’s no free thought, there’s no freedom of any kind, women have just about zero rights, so what would you believe. So, what would you believe in sharia or a society of laws protecting all.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      We do know what islam as the religion of the muslims is.

    • 45caliber


      The real problem is that there are so many conflicts in Islamic law from one part to another of the Qoran that no one can actually decide what is right or wrong. Each cleric (imam) makes up his own mind. So what one will tell you will differ from what another will. That is what makes the Iranian head so powerful – he’s one of the few that many of their imams will listen to and obey. But it still doesn’t make him right. It is a Catch 22 – if you obey one, you automatically break the other. So you can’t be right. Read it.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So islam is basically the tribal chieftains making up rules as they go along. They have made themselves top thugs and everyone else is lower on the pecking order.

      • 45caliber


        That is about right, yes. Actually all the Mid-East is based on tribalism. One tribe takes over and uses its position to decide what to do about everyone else. When the Arabs were taking hostages, they assumed that any American over seas HAD to be a tribal member (member of the President’s family) of the President here – and therefore the President would be required to do whatever they demanded to get the person back. That is why elections are so hard to do there – no one votes for someone unless they are a member of their tribe – and they will vote for bad people simply for the same reason. Just like a lot of minority people do here.

  • TIME

    Wake up people, we don’t have laws, we have only – “Public Policy.”
    Please wake up. Nothing is what it seems to be. Please watch;
    Season of Treason 1, 2, 3,
    If you still don’t get it.

    Then just take the BLUE PILL and just go back to sleep.

    Peace and Love

  • Brad

    This is just a passing thought, should the athiest sue the court judge for religious bias in this case because to me, justice wasn’t served. Case in point during the trial, the athiests video tape was not presented during the case, the judge determined it was in-admissable as evidence in the case. In my opinion the judge pre determined the case for the muslim no matter the evidence presented.

    • RevNowWhileWeCan

      That’s what I thought but I don’t understand why Stan Smith thinks the ACLU wouldn’t back Perce. He was obviously wronged. What am I missing?

      • Brad


        As Stan mentioned in his post, you have two egually but seperate entities both supporting the left in their fight against conservatives and the right. By nature the ACLU is an organization of very left leaning lawyers, taking up injustices they believe that hinder the lefts right to esnure all have rights even if it is devient. Would they fight for injustice in the cse of the athiest against the muslim judge, in my opinion it won’t happen, they’d be playing two ends against the middle. Basically putting egg on one or the others face and I don’t think the ACLU is ready for that, what do you think.

        • Karolyn

          The ACLU fights on both sides of the fence. If someone’s rights are violated, no matter what “side” they’re on, they will represent them.

      • RevNowWhileWeCan

        I refuse to see things in a left/right manner and I thought the ACLU was there to stand up for ANYones liberties when they have been wronged by the “system” no matter their status. That’s why I was afraid of being naive because I didn’t realize the ACLU only had leftist’s views. I thought they had only the best interest for personal liberties, not a political agenda. I’m wrong in thinking this?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Simple fact is the aclu picks and chooses what cases it will support and follow through on. The aclu’s version of justice is contrary to what Christians and Jews believe.

      • Crystal

        The ACLU use to be an evenly balanced organization for the liberty of everyone. In the past two decades, it has become over-the-top left leaning pro-liberal agenda. Strong hatred for God, Conservatives, Small Businesses (look how they went after e-Harmony for not bowing down to homosexuals), etc. The ACLU is definitely a leftist perverted liberal organization that lacks all forms of common sense.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “The ACLU fights on both sides of the fence. If someone’s rights are violated, no matter what “side” they’re on, they will represent them.”

        Wrong Karoly. One example for you and there are others. The ACLU does NOT believe in the individual right to own firearms therefore they will not take a case supporting that position.

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    I wonder if this is getting any attention in the Islamic community and I wonder how many times any random case has been unfairly thrown out of court while the judge was reciting the Bible? I wonder if the MSM will get ahold of this and list it as “unprecedented” to the masses to try and cause more divide between Christians and Muslims?

    • Brad


      It will never happen, the MSM is behind most radicals, they have been Ohmamas watch/attack dogs for over 4 year’s, they love muslims. There’s only been scant coverage and yes by local and certain media outlets, nothimg national to my knowledge.

      • 45caliber


        I think it is better to say that the MSM is against Christianity and assume that if someone else is also against Christianity, they must be a friend. They are so focused that they can’t be bothered to look at what else the others believe in such as the Qoran. (Incidently, the Qoran and the Koran are two seperate books.) They assume since they are MSM that NO ONE for any reason can challenge them. Back during the Kowait war, I almost fell over laughing when a couple of American MSM reporters drove over to the Iraq side and wanted to report. They were arrested as spies. Their argument was that as MSM reporters, no one could do a thing to them. Boy, were they wrong!

      • Brad


        Agreed, today too many so called journalists are rolling their eye’s at christians in general because they see what this administration has been doing to religion. I read some where and for the life of me can’t find it again, that muslims are exempt from the individual mandate requiring them to buy health coverage. The reason, islam deams insurance as gambling and since gambling is against sharia law the individual mandate is exempted for them via their religious faith. Today we have our gov mandating what religious organizations must provide to their employee’s and exempt others totaly from the law. So, is it right, in my opinion no it isn’t, that’s why Ohmamacare has to be scrapped and comprehensive health care reform using commen sense and logic.

      • 45caliber


        I read the same thing about muslims being exempt. I’m beginning to think about half the country is exempt one way or another! Several states are (particularly Nebraska), unions are, and about anyone else who might be tempted to vote for Oblama. BUT … so far I’ve not read anywhere that they are exempt from paying the taxes for it.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Don’t try playing the Devil’s Advocate, you don’t know how.

      • Brad

        Nadzieja Batki,

        Where is the MSM in this matter, was it front page news in the NY Times or Washington Post. I found about this travisty online via an e-mail message. No ABC, CBS, NBC, what about CNN or MSNBC no national attention so try again dude.

  • http://Yahoo Jan

    The judge was wrong! The attacker was wrong. When did this stop being America.

    • cawun cents

      Welcome to the democratic state of Leftistan.

    • 45caliber

      The judge was wrong. The attacker was wrong. The atheist was an idiot. But being an idiot is legal in this country. If it wasn’t most would be in jail.

      • Crystal


  • Karolyn

    Atheist extremists are just like any other extremists, be they gay, Muslim, conservative, whatever. They are out of control a—holes and give others in their group a bad name.

  • TML

    Ok, first of all… I do not see where this Judge enforced any kind of ‘Sharia Law’. He dismissed a case under personal religious bias; this does not constitute an enforcement of Sharia Law.

    Being fortunate enough to have video of the incident… watching the video… I do not necessarily agree with the Atheist either. For one… what kind of an idiot goes on this kind of march with only two people? Halloween, fine, but what was the point? To show that they can walk down the street without getting “attacked”? Secondly, I think the Atheist is a whiner, and by watching the video, wasn’t really attacked, choked, or brutally beaten or anything.

    I will say that I think the judge is completely ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and has no place behind a bench. Yes, the First Amendment does mean you can say things that may anger public opinion without getting physically attacked for it. I think an appeal should be made with requests for a different judge on the basis of religious bias. If anything, the “attacker” should get a slap on the wrist for putting his hands on someone else, trying to remove items from their body.

    If I were the Judge, I‘d slap the attacker on the wrist, possibly with probation, and lecture the Atheist of his stupidity and arrogance.

    All in all… yes, this whole thing is a bad joke.

    • Glen

      What’s a Constitution? Many of these anti-Christian, anti-American, athiest Judges were put in that position as a political payoff by some pals in office. WAKE UP AMERICAN, AND YOU WILL SEE YOUR FREEDOMS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY BY FOREIGNERS AND THEIR CULTIC IDEALS. Seriously, time is running out of the America I grew up in.

    • cawun cents

      It is fortunate that a Protestant white man didnt attack the Muhammed effigy,otherwise there would have been calls by the left to have his head on a pike.
      Yes I truly believe that if a Christian had done this he would have been railroaded.
      The judge would have had absolutely no mercy on him.

      • TML

        If the atheist was walking down the street wearing a Jesus outfit (rather than a pope outfit) speaking his tripe, he may very well have been mobbed by angry Protestant white men, lol jk

      • Crystal

        TML, there were two atheist in costume. One of the costumes was mocking the POPE and the other was mocking MUHAMMAD. Not one single Christian attacked.

      • Flashy

        Crystal…how many “christians” ran out to help? Or was there anything that needed to help out with since the case was tossed for failing to prove the indictment!

    • 45caliber


      The American law says it is illegal to assault someone else. Islamic law states that you cannot make anything and call it Mohammed nor can you make fun of Mohammed without punishment.

      Now – which way did the judge rule?

      • TML

        45 says “TML:
        The American law says it is illegal to assault someone else. Islamic law states that you cannot make anything and call it Mohammed nor can you make fun of Mohammed without punishment.
        Now – which way did the judge rule?”

        Well, going off of your own statements, you cannot do these things without punishment under Islamic Law, and considering the atheist wasn’t legally ‘punished’, and video evidence that shows this as a minor infraction (i.e. he wasn’t being stoned to death), then I would say the judged ruled under a personal religious bias, but not necessarily a push for Islamic Law.

        He dismissed the case, when it was clear the Muslim put his hands on the atheist and attempted to at least remove items from his person which should have led to a conviction. Provided that the atheist was not physically injured, and his property not damaged or stolen, the Muslim should get probation at best. The judge just went a bit further through his religious bias and dismissed the case, imho.

      • Crystal

        TML, that’s just lame and a lie. Spinning the truth to fit your Muslim agenda. How sad.

  • Agape

    This judge needs to GO!!! If he wants to live under sharia law, let him and the other muslims go back where they came from! This is a Christian Nation and always has been, NOT muslim. It is NOT our SOCIETY – we don’t demand that other countries go by Our Laws, and they have no right to come here and bring their laws to be used against us. Get rid of the biased judge! He has no place in a position of authority. I’m not in favor of what the atheist did, either, but he at least is an American citizen and deserves to be protected by American Laws.The judge failed miserably and did not protect the American, even though that is supposed to be his job. What a loser.

    • Flashy

      What “Sharia law’ was aplied or even used in consideration?

  • mac

    The judge was touting Muslim culture and religion as if it should be the standard for the USA. He is trying to make Shariah law dominant over US law. Shariah law is inseparable from the Muslim religion, so this constitutes giving preference to one religion over another. UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    • 45caliber

      You are correct.

  • Wyatt

    While the plaintiff used very poor taste in his costume idea , the defendant is wrong in attacking him over it and then choking him . The judge used even worse judgement in dismissing the charge as it is sending the message that if done in the name of Islam it is ok . I understand that the judge spent time in the middle east and claims to know a little about the religion . Well I spent time there as well and can tell you that it is more a cult of fanatics than the religion it is painted to be . The medievil mindset of these people is beyond belief as is their conquest and expand ambitions . In their minds the world is wrong . But then on the other hand I am told that the judge himself is a Muslim , so that would explain quite a lot. Seems that anything goes in the name of Muhammad or Allah . At least in the radical Muslim mind anyway . This is America , our legal system is in place and has been since the days before our founding . Sharia Law is not the basis for our legal system . I would not go to another country and expect to be judged by American laws so why should this judge defend someone who broke our laws and violated our Constitution as to freedom of speech based on “it offended the defendant ? Well his ruling offends me and many others , does that mean it ok for me to punch him ? I think not !

    • tominco

      Although, to some, the costume was in bad taste, you’re correct that the wearer shouldn’t be choked out. Officer Curtis should have charged Elbayomy with assult and attempted murder, rather than simple harassment. This would correctly place Elbayomy on trial for his
      actions… a jury trial would then negate Judge Martin’s Sharia law views.

    • 45caliber


      “The medievil mindset of these people …”

      That is correct. Their own religious schools won’t even allow their students to learn anything beyond the 8th century except to tell them that the Christians invaded their lands. They aren’t even allowed to learn any modern printed language because they might learn something different that what is taught at the school. And this is where most of their fundamentalist terrorists come from. So they CERTAINLY are medievil!

  • teaparty13

    now it starts, between the 9th circus court in CA and these “policy” judges, real americans are screwed.

    • Ted Crawford

      Hopfully this type of judicial malfeasance will cause the average voter to pay more attention to those Judges on their ballots and remember that many politicians we elect have the power to appoint those we can’t vote for! Elections do have consiquences!

      • 45caliber


        Judges are not elected in many states. Unfortunately. In fact there is a push nationwide right now to eliminate all elections for judges. The argument used is: “How can they be impartial if they have to satisfy voters to be reelected?”

      • Crystal

        This is why people need to study the ballot before voting. You should know who’s on the ballot. The internet is a great source. If the judge has any big infractions, you can Google it. If there is nothing about the judge on the internet, you can visit your Law Library and find out everything you need to know about a judge. Once you find this information out, share it with everyone you know who is registered to vote. You can have a Town Hall meeting, make copies of your information and pass it out like flyers, etc.

        Unfortunately and fortunately, I found a lot of people don’t really look at their ballots. They vote for the “big show” and don’t understand that its all those little shows that may or may not work against you.

        Voting has to be taken very seriously or you’ll end up here in California with the rest of us parents always on the defense and having to fight legislation like AB 266. We won that battle, but there are more to fight.

  • truthrdare

    This should be appealed…the judge is bound by the Constitution and not Sharia law!
    Sharia is incompatable with freedom loving people and it is not a religion in any traditional sense. It is by it’s on definition but a rigid code of conduct and government in the guise of religion that is intolerant of others and militant toward non believers as others. It is these last two attributes that we should fear always. This case is a prime example where violence was considered provoked and the violence was considered justified in court. There is no justification for violence in a free society except defense from violence perpetrated on oneself, family, or property. This believer strangled a man in public! Not in America! Impeach this judge. Now before this happens again with more serious consequences.

  • truthrdare

    Now …before it is to late …wake up Americans…please

  • 2WarAbnVet

    Ho hum, there’s nothing new to see here. It’s just another example of mindless Muslim outrage, followed by groveling and kowtowing by our legal system.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Yet you posted, so what does that say about your mind.

  • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

    It is not only confusing how some of these comments come thru as the given word . I just read Caw Cent says The old testament was wriiten to the Jews so it doesnt apply to Christians of today. That reveals your ignorance of that religious speel constantly that always seems to come thru. The Jew religion didnot even come into the picture till after the return from captivity to the temple. The Jew was only one tribe or family of the Isrealite nation..The fact that very few Christains know and read the Bible is more evident every day……..

    • cawun cents

      The fact that you dont interpret it well is evident right now.-CC.

      • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

        That is the problem there c w . you interpret to say what you want it to say ,isnt that so?

    • cawun cents

      If I am to follow one law but not others then how am I capable of following the letter of the law?
      I must bring an atonement sacrifice to a Temple that no longer stands.That is a matter of ancient Jewish law,which cannot be denied.
      How is that possible Mr.Biblical genius?
      If you can answer that question,then I will proceed to debate with you just what I know that the Bible does say.
      If you cannot answer that question….credibly,then I assert that you do jot have the capacity to debate the conditions with me.

      • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

        Still stands there c c. The Jew was Only one tribe of the Isrealite nation. 12 tribes were isrealites . only one tribe was Jew. With the reasoning that shows in that statement you dont even have a debate. Interpret what Genious? The bible interpets itself , There is the reason why there are so many crack pot religions They dont believe what it says, they make it say what they want it to say..

      • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

        The law still stands , the ten commandments, the temple laws went out when the temple was destroyed.

      • cawun cents

        I guess there is no retort to your reasoning.

  • securityman

    truthrdare is right. this man is a judge who has pledged to render decisions based on the law, not on his feelings. if an atheist or christian had attacked the muslim that person would be in jail for a while in that judges courtroom.that judge needs to be kicked off of the bench,disbarred , and sent back to the country that he,apperantly,loves more that the U.S.

  • melissa

    Everyone is failing to look at this issue critically: The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to rail against our Government, and to protect that individual from being silenced/punished by our Government for that speech.

    The First Amendment has nothing to do with a private citizen being offended by the speech of another private citizen, and taking action to protect himself against the assault (speech) of another private citizen. This is called “assault.” In this case, the judge decided the person (the athiest) who agged on the muslim, insulting/daring the muslim to react and assault him (the athiest), caused his own attack. No different than the athiest culprit going up and punching the muslim in the mouth, then whinning when the muslim defended himself by punching the athiest back. The athiest started the fight. He cannot cry he was wronged when he gets punched back by the victim. That is all that occurred here: A bully (athiest, who does not understand the law) agged on a bystander (muslim), and the bystander reacted, stood up for himself, and protected himself. The assault would not have happened had it not been for the athiest starting the fight. The person who starts any fight does not get off scott-free in any assault, period — and the judge ruled correctly in this case, as any judge would have. THE RACE OF THE PARTIES IS ONLY OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE…THE ACTIONS ARE WHAT ARE IMPORTANT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. The culprit bully should NEVER WIN or get off scott-free when he starts the fight. People have a right to protect themselves. Same thing here. Get it?

    You have to be a critical thinker to understand how the law works and what was really going on here, starting with the fact there was no “government” involvement here to protect any First Amendment rights. The First Amendment is IRRELEVANT in this case. Your Group-think is also irrelevant. The judge was NOT biased in this case. If it were another muslim athiest who caused the assault, the judge would have ruled the same.

    There is no racial bias here. The judge, having knowledge of how the culprit athiest attacked the muslim (with speech instead of a fist = same thing). The judge rightly concluded the muslim had a right to defend himself. End of story.

    Along the lines: If a burglar broke into your home, you have a right to defend yourself and your family (and use deadly force, if necessary.

    People (athiests or anyone else) do not have a right to do anything they want. This is a civilized society, and people are expected to be civilized in public and treat fellow citizens with respect (even if you may not agree with them). The athiest was totally out of line. About time, someone shut them up.

    • kid cleveland

      You missed that the Islamist raised the the charges against himself by adding battery. If someone breaks into your home an falls to the floor finding you have a gun on them you can be charged with murder if you shot them for using more force then necessary. If this judge had ruled on the law the not the Islam law both would have had some learning about what was wrong with what both did.

    • Alleyway Al

      The 1st ammendment gives us the freedom of speech, no matter if it is against the government, a religon, or whoever, we have the right to say what we want. the atheist didn’t go over and punch the guy he merely used his right to state his belief, the muslim also had the right to state his belief, but it is “assult” when he put his hands on the atheist. PERIOD.

      • Flashy

        al..that is not the definition of “assault”. nice try though ….

    • pokemon

      @ melissa quote “This is a civilized society, and people are expected to be civilized in public and treat fellow citizens with respect ”

      Yes… its the law isn’t it. Islam solicits murder, not only for apostacy but for others who are not members. To solicit murder is not showing much respect for those who don’t feel murder is a suitable penalty and in this case having a bit of fun does not warrant such harsh treatment.

    • truthrdare


      So if I were to attack you over these your thoughts posted here because those thoughts are are against what I believe and I am offended……..then please correct me if I misunderstand you here….

      I am justified to resond with violence because you have offended my beliefs. Further you are stating…. it is the same as if you broke into my house and deadly force became necessary. Is this your position on this man strangling another because he was offended by his costume was justified?

      I am not an athiest nor Muslim, but I will respect rights of anyone to be such. I will leave you to your beliefs and let you have your say…. but I will never accept or tolerate the intolerant which appears to be what this is all about. Would appear the Judge, the Muslim and yourself are intolerant of freedom and ignorant of its ways.

      Again wake up Americans…..violence is not to be tolerated in or for retaliation to what ones thoughts or expression of such are………intolerace is among us… wake up !

    • kkflash

      melissa, for someone who claims to be a critical thinker, your thinking certainly bears a lot of criticism. The atheist was parading before a crowd. How does that constitute a personal attack on the defendant in this case? Even if the verbal attack in this case were directed at the defendant personally (it wasn’t), what gives him the right to escalate such a confrontation to physical violence? What possible justification could the judge have had for suppressing the best evidence of actual events that was presented i.e. a video that recorded the event as it happened? The judge’s statement doesn’t even say he finds no evidence of assault (there was plenty), but lists the defendant’s religious beliefs as justification for a physical attack on another US citizen. If that doesn’t violate the First Amendment, what does? The judge berates the victim rather than the perpetrator of the crime. He shows clear religious bias. He ignores the evidence of the arresting officer’s testimony as to the defendant’s statements. He overlooks the perjured testimony of the defendant regarding whether he physically tried to remove the sign from the victim. This judge showed incredibly bad judgement and should be removed from the bench, and your judgement in defending him is little better.

  • pokemon

    I don’t understand why Islamic religion is lawful in the USA? Should be a movement to ban it entirely.

    • melissa

      Again, you need to look at this critically. It doesn’t matter that someone was an athiest or a muslim — that only confuses the issue. The issue is: If a man (bully) starts a fight by insulting another man or woman or child (victim), and that other man/woman/child victim reacts back (protects himself), the bully is not protected by law for his part in the fight. He started the fight, and he got hit back. A judge looks at who was at fault, who started a fight, who defended himself and why, and rules fairly.

      You cannot have a society where people run around inciting violence, then whinning and wanting protection when people react to defend themselves in the face of that violence (speech in this instance). We would have constant chaos in the streets if that were the case. Rules of decency — law — are enacted. If you violate the rules, you lose. The bully violated the rules and was assaulted. The bully is not entitled to protection of the law when he starts the fight.

      If someone said horrible things about your mother, you would likely react. That other person would not be entitled to legal protection when his insults caused you to react and punch him in the mouth, because you were protecting your mother.

      Do you see the issue here? It is not about religion, per se’. It is about people acting responsibly in public.

      • mac

        It should be obvious that the Mohammed Zombie was not directed at the Muslim who attacked him – it was not a personal offense. The attack on the zombie WAS a personal attack, directed at an individual.

      • pokemon

        Yes I do. I also enjoy poking fun at others and they at me. At work we laugh and kid about our own peculiarities. I think it makes us closer as we understand its only in fun. People do rib each other and its not to be mean. Close friends often do it. Perhaps you don’t understand the what a celebrity roast is? The man was expressing him self in a world he thought he knew. Times change, people change, perhaps his mistake was thinking everyone in his country was American.

      • Ted Crawford

        You continue to refference “Critical hinking” while failing to use it!
        Had the Judge’s ruling stated his decision based on the criteria you used and came to the same conclusion he would have been correct. He, however chose to refference his knowledge of Islam and Sharia law while rendering his decision, that made it a religious decision and therefore incorrect!

    • 45caliber


      It was tried in Oklahoma a year or so ago. They passed a state law that banned any “foreign law, civil or religious” from being considered in any court in their state. Some Federal judge ruled that this was unConstitutional and could not be used to prevent Shara law from being used in courts. It was unfair to a minority …

      • pokemon

        Thats interesting 45caliber. Does the constitution allow the solicitation of murder? There are a number of people on their hit list. This part of their religion must be taken out if they are to be lawful.

      • Flashy

        45..that’s not what the Federal Court ruling stated.

    • Karolyn

      We have religious freedom in this country. You cannot outlaw a religion.

      • Ted Crawford

        Sharia Law is NOT a religion! It is a group of laws BASED on a religion and it has no place in American Courts!

        • Karolyn

          The poster I was responding to referenced the Muslim religion, not Sharia law, hence my response.

      • s c

        Run that past your White House God, K. He’s made himself judge, jury and God in the process. When someone thinks that praying to himself makes himself special, this is what happens. So, did you vote this God? To paraphrase Forrest Gump, ‘life is like a box of Prozac. You gotta open the box and start taking pills to see whatcha get.”
        You sure can pick ‘em, K.

    • Flashy

      Pokemon…I agree ! And while we are at it, let’s ban all christian sect related laws. And those of the hindus, and bhuddists, and krishnas etc.

      • pokemon

        @Flashy, it would be the right thing to do if any of these religion propose or demand as part of their practice, to harm the property of others or propose to take the life of others if not opposed. If a religion attempts to break the law then that religion needs should be recognized as illegal. If Christianity is breaking the law, then it either needs to change its practice or not be practiced. From what little I know, there are many examples of Islam practice being illegal and is why it should be banned or the Imans should change its practice.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Islam cannot convert anyone in the United States by force because of the nature of the society. They will use our own laws to shackle us legally because we are a law abiding society.

  • Alleyway Al

    At age 56 mohaumod married a 6 year old girl. That tells me I’m not worshipping anything in that religon,something there is not right. That doesn’t sound like something jesus would have done, and that’s who mohaumod is compared to in their religon. Women have almost no rights in sharia laws. Females in America have be murdered by male members of their family, because they wanted to be something other than muslim.
    People in muslim countries do not think of freedom as we do in the US.
    US citizens need to wake up, our coutry is being overtaken by laws of others, and the progressive and leftist are letting them, if they get their way.

    • 45caliber

      Under Islamic law, a man can have no more than 4 wives. But they can get a divorce by simply walking into a government office and declare loudly, “I divorce XXX!” three times. Then they get to keep every bit of wealth the woman brought to the marriage and she is kicked out on the street with only the clothing she wears.

      Mohammed, like many men, liked young women (and girls). So every time one of his wives got too old for him, out she went. He’d get a younger one. So, as an example, the men still think this is right today. Incidently, Mohammed also wrote that the woman, when divorced, was to get half what she brought to the marriage (but no one cares about that, including him.)

      His last wife was at age 6 as you stated. He took her to bed when she was 9 – and declared that he loved her more than any of his other wives. Under our system, he’d be a pediphile.

  • TulsaJudoka

    And yet when we in Oklahoma passed a law to prevent the application of Sharia law in our courts, the liberals, atheists and politicians screamed that “no one is using Sharia in American courts”. OH REALLY? This judge did, and I don’t hear any of you admitting that this is not the first time Sharia law has been applied to an American court case.
    Way to go guys, you are helping the Jihadists take over our political system, our court systems, our economy and our destroy our religious freedom (even our right to not believe in any religion).

    • melissa

      This has nothing to do with Sharia law. You must look beyond the religious aspetcs here.

      This is an “assault” case. The law is specific in assault cases. The guy who starts the fight does not get off scott-free when he starts the fight.

      If the bully (athiest) was making fun of the bystander’s (muslim) clothes or hair-do or shoes, and the bystander punched the bully in the nose, you are dealing with “assault” law. This is the same thing.

      The athiest guy is trying to misbehave in public and thinking he can hide behind his religious intolerance and claim First Amendment Rights. He is a dolt and stupid on top of it. This was a simple assault case. The judge ruled properly. The bully does not get to win when he starts the fight. He is guilty. Had he not acted (verbal assaults) as he did, the victim bystander would not have reacted (physical assault).

      Next time you beat someone up when they start a fight with you, use this in front of the judge, that you were only defending/protecting yourself.

      • 45caliber


        The next time you see a protest for anything, walk up at attack one of those carrying a sign. Or wearing some makeup. (I’ve seen several protestors wearing skeleton costumes, for instance.) Pop him one and then try to choke him. Take his sign away from him.

        And then see what the courts and police do to you. (I hope you like jail time.)

        It is a first amendment right to protest. According to all law interputation of the Constitution, the atheist was only exercising that right of free speech. The fact that it made the Muslim mad is immaterial. Therefore your argument is completely wrong.

        At most the atheist was an idiot – that that isn’t against the law here in this country.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Why are you so eager to defend the judge in the case?

      • mac

        melissa, according to the article above the atheist did not bully or taunt any individual, his costume was directed at a group, not one person. The Muslim on the the other hand directed his assault on an individual – a personal attack. People on this list are doing the same thing, directing our anger a group, not an individual. EXCEPT at this judge who is bullying the American Public by not complying with state and federal law.

  • melissa

    P.S. Forgot to add, I am a white Christian (and proud of it).

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are something but definitely not a Christian if you are so stupid.

  • brianS

    This is one judge that should be taken out

  • Charlie

    Hello, only want to state this is a classic situation of where seperation of church and state come into play.
    No matter what the choker should be charged with assalt and the person choked should be compensated for the assalt. There is no excuse for the assalt , if the person did not like the costume then person looking at costume should of walked away. One person’s believes do not over ride someone else’s believes. Botton line this is the U.S.A. not the middle east.

    • melissa

      I agree, sort of. This is not a situation of separattion of church and state. There is no church involved nor any state (government). According to our law, this is a simple fight between two individuals.

      I agree, the muslim should have been a bigger person and just shrugged the insult off and walked away. That is what we would expect a white, anglo Christian to do. HOWEVER, why do we feel we have to walk away from insult? We should stand up to bullies. I am tired of the “turn the other cheek,” nonsense while bulies think it is okay to torment others. E-n-o-u-g-h. We see bullying in our schools all the time. It is harmful and hateful, and needs to stop. You do not have a right to be a pig to others. The only thing that will stop this harmful bullying is when people stand up for themselves and fight back. Most bullies run and hide when faced with someone who stands up to them.

      The judge did make a point that muslims take their religion more personal than some Americans do, and hence, when the bully athiest verbally assaulted the muslim’s religion, it was no different than insulting his mother or father or him personally. He felt he had to defend himself.

      This brings up a good point. In life, you should never bully someone. You never know what will set them off or what their breaking point is. If you get beat up, you cannot claim you were innocent and expect proteciton from the law (of assault), after you started it by bullying another. Maybe the muslim had diminished capacity and was not able to control himself. You never know what you are dealing with, hence, you should be a good citizen and always treat others with respect and kindness.

      • cawun cents

        Ah yes…..that is why there is a real difference in what I say and do.
        But speech is protected,whether it offends another or not.
        Physical assault is a crime.
        That is where you are definitely confused.
        The judges commentary is not the focal part of the trial,nor is the atheists attempt at free speech.
        The trial was over an alleged physical assault,which should have remained the focal point.
        Judegement for the plaintiff…..

      • truthrdare

        the atheist was bulling no one Melissa…he was within his rights as a free man in our society

        Niemöller quotation:

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
        Because I was not a Socialist.

        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

      • melissa

        Reply to Cawan:

        No it is not judgment for the plaintiff, as the judge has already ruled.

        Since the government was not involved, there is no protection of Free Speech under the First Amendment..

        I suppose you are correct: In life you can say just about anything you want to, if you don’t mind repercussions (there are plenty of laws on the books limiting speech). But anyone with half-a-brain knows you should be careful of the feelings of others. You never know when someone will take offense to your statements and punch you in the nose.

        In criminal law. When both of culprits appear before the judge (the athiest bully plaintiff, and the victim muslim responder, and each gets to tell his side. As in this instance, when there are extenuating circumstances — the plaintiff incited the violent behavior — the plaintiff doesn’t get to benefit from his wrongful actions. It is called “cause and effect.” I cannot help it if you do not understand the finer points of the law. Any lawyer will tell you this same thing.

        But you are NOT correct when you say you have the RIGHT to say anything you want to in life. There are many examples in the law books of illegal speech.

        It is clear, you are making blind statements based on what you would like the law to say. The law is not so tolerant. The law is pretty much black and white. It is what it is. In this instance, the plantiff, violated the law by instigating and inciting violence. He is responsible for his own actions, and he doesn’t get to win when he is a pig who incided the bad behavior from others. The law doesn’t put up with bullies. .

        Rather than argue — I cannot talk logic with someone who is uninformed, and doesn’t even know what he doesn’t even know — why don’t you go get yourself educated. Go ask a neighborhood lawyer for their opinion. He/she will confirm what I have said.

      • kkflash

        So melissa, by your twisted logic, I am free to physically assault you, because your vehemently expressed opinion that this judge acted rightly, is an insult to my deep-seated belief in the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment right of free speech, a belief that I and my countrymen hold so passionately, that we have often defended it with our lives. My belief in free speech is so engrained in me that it is part of my very being, and a verbal assault on that belief is an assault on me, so that gives me the right to “defend myself” against your verbal assault by coming to where you are and choking you to shut you up. Does that about sum up your argument?

  • Bob Marshall

    My suggestion to Americans who believe in the Constitution visit and purchase the book WHY WE LEFT ISLAM. Our government is aware of the 64 communes and the number of radical Islamic training camps in America. this is an eye opening book every family should read. These individuals left Islam, even under the threat of death. A few, after comparing the Qur’an with the bible became Christians.

    • melissa

      In this instance, again, you must look beyond the religious aspects…they are clouding the real issue. The real issue is people behaving badly, not being tolerant of others’ opinions, and inciting physical violence, then whinning and expecting the law to protect them. WRONG. If you behave badly, you should expect retaliation by others or the law.

      The First Amendent only protect individuals making bad comments about their government — I hate my Congress, I hate my president — from retaliation by that government. In other words, if I said these things in public, it would be illegal for my government to put me in jail for saying this. There is no goverment retaliating here — only an individual person (who happened to be a muslim) punched the bully big mouth (who happened to be an athiest) — hence, this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

      In public you can say whatever you want, but if it incites or offends another individual, the only law that may protect you is the “assault” law. But if you start the fight, and someone else retaliates and punches you, the law will not protect you. The First Amendment law only protects you from your government, not other individuals.

      You best take a Constitution class to understand “Rights.” They are rights individuals have from protection against an oppressive government (NOT INDIVIDUALS). A socialist government is a good example: They trample individual rights all the time, because “the individual” is irrelevant under socialist law, only the majority/government are important. That is why America wants to keep our Constitution, because it protects individual rights against a government who imprisons its citizens for their beliefs.

      But that is a separate issue from the issue here. We are dealing with individuals here (no government). If you as an individual go out and verbally start a fight with someone on the street, because you insult them, and if you get punched in the nose, the assault law is not going to protect you (neither is the government). Our rights are under CIVIL LAW. But assault is under CRIMINAL LAW. Totally separate from civil law. Apples and oranges.

      • truthrdare

        “if you get punched in the nose, the assault law is not going to protect you” Oh to the contrary …the law will act and the one punching you will be charged for assault in the punching anyones nose…might consult your lawyer …you are most very mistaken on civil and criminal law …one may curse me but I may not retaliate with violence….
        The police offier acted according to the law… judge acted against the laws of his state and nation.

      • Flashy

        truth..if you get punched in the nose, it’s true, no assualt law will protect you. Because it wouldn’t be assault.

        now…other than the cop’s own story, was there any corroboration to his statement or just hearsay? you do know about the evidenciary burden on hearsay don’t you?

      • Scott in SC

        melissa, I agree 100%, but it seems no one else here does, and it’s due to their own paranoia concerning Islam. Just because somebody gets punched (Which didn’t happen here) doesn’t mean somebody else is getting arrested for assault. If a cop doesn’t see it happen they most often do nothing and if one party persists the cop will arrest both of them and put them in front of the judge.
        In this case the atheist was clearly trying to provoke an incident which is why he was videotaping. In the real world loudmouth punks who walk around insulting people often get their a$$ kicked………….and rightfully so.

      • melissa

        To Truthdare:

        I cannot talk to a fool.

        1. The right to say anything in life is not a guaranteed right. There are plenty of laws on the books limiting various kinds of speech.

        2. The First Amendment only protects you from being imprisoned or worse by your government for your beliefs, if they happen to differ from that of the government’s. Be mindful that “the government” is the elected people in charge at any particular time. If they take action to silence you by inprisoning you or killing you for your beliefs, that would violate your First Amendment Rights. The only time Free Speech/First Amendment Rights come into play is when a Government is trying to oppress its people. Get it. Take a course on the Constitution from a reliable university to assist you in this understanding.

        3. In criminal law, i.e., assault cases: Once charges are filed, the judge takes the actions of all the parties under advisement when meting out justice. Since the athiest protestor’s actions incited the bystander muslim to action, the athiest will not get off scott-free. His actions provoked the action of the muslim bystander.

        4. In this case we do not know all the facts. One newspaper article is hardly enough to know all the facts. What I can guarantee is that the judge uses the law and his life’s experiences in meting out justice.

        If he failed to follow the law, the judge would risk being disbarred and losing his job.]

        It is obvious you have no understanding of the law, so it is not worth my time to argue with you about this.

        5. The judge was absolutely correct in his ruling.

        6. I would recommend: When you do not know something, it is best to keep your trap shut, so you do not embarass yourself by your lack of knowledge.

        Further: Most people learn from listening to others with more knowledge and/or furthering their education. IT is obvious, you have done neither. They do not learn hearing themselves talk, especialy when they don’t know what they are talking about.

        It is obvious you are an INTOLERANT person — you cannot stand — even hate — anyone who disagrees with you (who cares if you have no clue what you are talking about). Where did this INTOLERANCE COME FROM?

        Dumb and stubborn is a bad combination.

      • truthrdare

        “To Truthdare:

        I cannot talk to a fool. ” from Melissa

        Do believe you said you were Christain and proud of it. Along with the law I now believe you are ignorant of your bible also. Since you made this a personal attack and flaming to boot ….will let your words here speak for themselves on all accounts.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        All the verbiage to say nothing bordering on sense.

  • Stuart C. Ashley

    Although I myself question why one would parade denigrating any religion, he was within his 1st Ammendment rights to do so. He did not deserve to be choked, and US law should have found for, not against, the victim of assault. I take the very strong opinion that anyone not accepting the laws of the country to which he is emigrating, should not emigrate there. If they find themselves at such a place by accident, or because they didn’t understand what they were getting into, they should leave. If they cannot bring themselves into conformity, they should be encouraged to leave. Australia, I think, has a much more realistic approach to their Muslim immigrants than do we in the USA. If we are not careful we will be subsumed, like London.

    • melissa

      Our schools are failing to teach students to think critically

      This bully (athiest) was within his rights to be protected FROM THE GOVERNMENT THROWING HIM IN JAIL FOR HIS PROTEST. The Governnent did NOT arrest him for protesting and shouting his beliefs for the world to hear. You are correct about that basic premise of First Amendment Rights.

      But don’t you get it: The Government is not involved, our government (police, Congress, the President) did NOT punch the athiest in the nose or strangle him, an individual person who was offended by the athiest’s remarks did. THEREFORE, First Amendment rights do not enter into this discussion. That individual (muslim) is NOT the government.

      And you are wrong: The First Amendment does not protect all speech. Yo do not have the right to say anything you want in life. It is illegal to run into a movie theatre and yell fire and cause a stampede, just because you might think it would be funny to watch everyone run for their lives. This is called criminal activity. First Amendment protection from a heavy-handed government is civil activity.

      If you have a smart-mouth in life, you can expect to get your nose popped a few times by people you anger. When you mouth-off, the First Amendment is irrelevant unless it is the Government who throws you in jail for what you believe. Period. The First Amendment will NOT protect anyone from retaliation when someone punches you in the nose because you have insulted/threatened them. That is criminal law, and more specifically, the category is called assault.

      So if you want to stand on the steps of the white house and scream that you hate your president, if the government (the president) has you thrown in prison for your OPINION only (without trial by your peers), that would be a violation of your First Amendment rights. First Amendment rights are CIVIL RIGHTS (Civil Law). Totally different from criminal law.

      If you think you can say just anything to anybody in life, you take your own life in your hands. Other individuals may not take so kindly to being insulted/threated by you and may retaliate. Then the criminal courts get involved. If you started it, you will not be found not guilty, because you incited the other individual in the first place.

      • cawun cents

        The fallacy in your view of the conditions is that there was a clear definition of insulting behavior.
        The Atheist was not insulting the protagonist personally therefore he is able to be protected under the 1st Amendment.
        This condition is true and has been the subject of debate by SCOTUS for a couple of centuries now.
        Physical assault is not listed under the bill of rights because it is common knowledge that assault is a crime.The capacity to understand the complexities of law and how it pertains to individual rights is lost in the substanstiation of legislation involving”hatespeech”,is debatable,the act of physical assault is not determined to be subject to whether one feels insulted by another or not.
        The fact that the alleged Muslim attacker was offended by the Atheists expression of effigy,is not at debate here.The fact is that he ignored the true law and assaulted another person,and was then given special treatment by the presiding judge who cited a clear reason for reccusing him/herself from the case,and instead ruled in the offenders favor.
        That is wrong no matter how you slice and dice it.

      • kkflash

        For someone who claims to be trained in the law, you show a remarkable lack of attention to the facts of the case. The victim did not verbally assault the defendant, which is the whole basis for your faulty argument.

  • http://google john p.

    Muslim’s and Atheist ‘s let them take each other out . there
    both idiots .

  • Jay

    “The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.

    Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.

    Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view.

    This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” –Albert Pike

  • Sirian

    I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts but under the circumstances associated with the ruling by this judge in particular I only feel it is best to mention it once again.
    Please, all of you, whichever side you may be partial to, get a copy of this book and read it with a very objective state of mind. Again, read it!
    SHARIAH, The Threat To America –
    An Exercise In Competitive Analysis Report of Team BII.
    It will provide a much clearer understanding of what has been and continues to be in progress. All in all a much greater threat to the sovereignty of our nation but the world at large.

    • Sirian

      My mind got ahead of me again. . . All in all, not only a much greater threat to the sovereignty of our nation but the world at large.

  • DH

    The most important part of this situation is the fact that the judge is a muslim. Muslimnism usurps all other law, including the U S constitution. This judge has to be impeached. People should make note of this decision as it is a prelude of what is to come if muslims gain further prominence in our country. If you are not a muslim then you are not alive. You have no rights.

    • melissa

      I can understand why people might naturally come to the conclusion the judge was prejudiced in favor of muslims because of his own experience. But I think it is just a coincidence. Please consider the following:

      I don’t think the judge is prejudiced in favor of muslims. Judges who are of german heritage, sentence german criminals to jail when deserved. The same with Irish judges, or Swedish judges, or Jewish judges, or Christian judges, or Athiest judges, etc. People with illegal agendas do not get elected to judicial positions. The local voters in their cities would not stand for that. .

      But like all judges, I think he used his life’s experiences to understand the circumstances, in conjunction with applying the law that must be applied — in this instance — criminal assault law.

      I worked in the court system for years as a court reporter. I think any judge would have ruled the same (for the reasons I have stated in my previous posts today).

  • melissa

    Wouldn’t it be nice if people were simply tolerant of others. Why do some people think they have to shove their beliefs down the throats of others by holding protest marches, etc. They are only trying to incite violence and have their 15-seconds of fame. How sad. And what loosers.

    Tolerance is not shouting what you believe from the rooftops. Tolerance is not holding protest marches — this is nothing more than a mob. Tolerance is listening to others and allowing them to voice their opinion, even if it is not the majority opinion. Tolerance certainly does not mean you HATE someone for having a different viewpoint.

    Do you hate your brother because he likes red and you like blue? Of course not. No different with other opinions anyone may have.

    One way to stop intolerance is turning away from people who think there is only one view in life — their view. Do not support these socialistic tactics. Being different used to be cool. I don’t know what happened, but somewhere along the line we started buying into that it was okay to HATE someone for being different. This is wrong.

    Religious intolerance is the worst. We didn’t have religious intolerance in America ten years ago. Where did it come from? I am Christian, but my own government is attacking my religious beliefs. Why? Because certain people who are temporarily in office think it is okay to shove their religious beliefs — or lack of them — down my throat. NOW that is called intolerance, and it is totally wrong. Being tolerant means allowing others to believe what they want without interference. You must have noticed the War on Christmas this last Christmas season. You had to say “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” because it might offend someone. Are you kidding me? What a bunch of crap. This is the first steps toward socialism. This intolerance needs to be stopped.

    Usually tolerance starts at the top. However, today, we are lacking tolerance guidance by those in elected office — what a shame — and in many instances, our own officials are encouraging anti-tolerant behavior and hatred for anyone who thinks different. What is their agenda? I guess they think they can dupe the citizens into hating and fighting each other by keeping us sidetracked and distracted from seeing what is really going on — like the real loss of our Amendment rights! This is happening as we speak.

    I decry intolerance. Intolerance will destroy a nation quicker than anything else. And it will destroy this country unless we all take steps to stop it. Americans have always been tolerant and fair. When did that stop? It begins by trying to see the other person’s side of an issue, even if it differs from yours. Try to put yourselves in their shoes and see it from their point of view. Even if you still do not agree, there is no reason to HATE or dislike someone because they hold a different opinion. Being different is what has made America great for 236 years. And don’t just automatically take your friends’ opinions for something — group-think can be especially destructive — when people fail to do their own research to find out the facts on themselves. Someone who thinks different is not necessarily your enemy. You should give others the benefit of the doubt until or unless you find differently.

    America has real enemies we have to worry about. We don’t need to make enemies of all our fellow Americans. Thanks for taking the steps to become more TOLERANT in your lives.

    • Alleyway Al

      The muslums intolerance is what started the attack of the atheist. The muslum had the same right to parade down the same street protesting atheist, not attack him. You need to sit back and listen to your own words for a minute, muslums have no tolerance for any other belief what so ever. In muslum countries the kill gay people because they don’t believe there are gays, Gay rights is something you liberals are trying to shove down others throats. In Muslum countries, they kill women because they don’t marry who their parents picked for them. I don’t believe being gay is right , but I’m not the judge of what’s right for others, I can only judge my own actions. I don’t think pushing laws of other cultures into US law is acceptable.

    • Alleyway Al

      In a muslum country you would not be allowed to state your opion. because you would not have that right,much less freedom of any speech.
      you would do what you were told,by you husban or father. Thats what is believed in their countries. Watch TV and see how many muslum women are protesting, very rarely do you ever see women at all, because they are at home covered with guilt and shame put on them by the men of their house.

    • cawun cents

      “Tolerance is the last virtue of an immoral society”
      -James Kennedy

      You must not be very old melissa.
      Either that or you are just extremely naive about humanity and its vices.
      The flaws in tolerating deviant behavior can be seen throughout our society even by the least dilligent of observers.
      The fact that we tolerate obscenity,abuse,criminal activity,deviant behavior,religious fervor,avarice,decadence,moral decay,covetousness,socialism,and hate,show us that we should not let those who tolerate such things run our society.
      Our current conditions are in fact a result of having TOLERATION for these practices and conditions,causing further malaise in the populace.
      Nowhere is this more evident to anyone with the capacity for critical thinking than here and now.I do not seek to shove my morality down anyones throat,but I do not expect to have to have theirs shoved down my throat either.Does this make any sense to you?
      If not then I say have a nice day.
      If so then I say,what has tolerance of these conditions wrought for us so far?

      • 45caliber


    • Nadzieja Batki

      Are you trying to be facetious in your postings? When reading your posts I notice how much of a Bully you really are and all the verbiage about you being tolerant is a crock of manure. Reread your own posts to see how intolerant you really are.

      • truthrdare

        She is not being facetious… appears she is exhibiting a symptom known as projection. The projection is unconscious on her part. People are rarely aware that they are projecting onto others their own ego-dystonic and unpleasant characteristics and feelings. She cannot admit that the emotions, traits, misplaced reactions, and behaviors that she so condemns to others are really hers. Projective Identification Disorder is an illness. My observation and explanation may not be exact but hope that helps in your understanding.

  • JeffH

    By Professor William Wagner

    • Sirian

      Very good article – directly points out the problems that we are being more regularly confronted with as well as the direction it is being used to have a major subversive influence.

  • JeffH

    Shariah: The Threat to America

    Shariah: The Threat to America demonstrates a troubling reality: The Obama administration and its immediate predecessors under both political parties – along with many state and local governments – have been blind, in some cases willfully so and in every case perilously so, to fundamental facts: the true nature of the enemy we confront; what actually animates him; the progress he is making towards achieving our destruction; and what we need to do to prevent his success.

    This situation is dangerous in the extreme to our Constitution, freedoms, form of government and security. It must not be allowed to persist.

    • Sirian

      I’ve mentioned the same one – SHARIAH: The Threat to America. Question is though, how many will actually take the time to read this one, let alone the others that you have listed? There is so much more to this that so many are totally oblivious to. When it comes right down to it I think we have become a nation well over populated with ostriches. So many continue to keep their heads in the sand.

      • JeffH

        Sirian, unfortunately the progressive/liberals and the ignorant would rather write it off to “paranoia” rather than pay attention to what is happening within our borders and within our government. The three monkey’s come to mind.

        You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink!

  • JeffH

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for North America was a closely-held secret until the FBI discovered it during a 2004 raid of a house in Annandale, Virginia. Agents discovered a secret basement containing internal Ikhwan documents, including the strategic plan titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group.”

    The strategic plan was written by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram, and was approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference in 1987.

    The plan establishes the mission of the Muslim Brother in North America in this following passage: “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    • truthrdare

      Thanks for links posted here….Not a religion of peace and brotherhood am afraid, let alone tolerance of others.

  • JeffH

    Penetration of the US Government:
    A Case Study

    Ikhwan Operative Gains Access Through Clinton Administration

    One of the most successful Muslim Brotherhood influence operations in support of the phased plan that has been uncovered to date involved arguably the Ikhwan’s preeminent figure in America during the 1990s: Abdurahman Alamoudi. His is a tale of a sustained effort to penetrate and compromise both Democratic and Republican administrations and their partisan organizations.

  • roger w. rohe

    It seems to me, no one has taken the statement of “separation of state & church” properly from the constitution. The constitution reads that the state basically will not start or favor a state church. I’ve never seen the words “separation…” except in ACLU statements.

  • Scott in SC

    I think you folks are letting your Islamic paranoia get the best of you. If this situation were anything else but a Muslim and someone trying to provoke an attack by being extemely offensive you would be siding with the so called attacker. When the OWS protesters were sitting peacefully on the ground and were attacked by the pepper spraying rent a cop, you folks cheered and some even suggested sending in the Marines and killing them all.
    Why was the atheist videotaping? because he was trying to provoke somebody and wanted to have evidence of his “rights” being infringed. The alleged assault seemed to be no more than some pushing and shoving and lame-o starts screaming like a little girl. Actually i should apologize to all the little girls as I have seen some land and take more punches in a schoolyard fight (than crybaby) and they were just separated and sent to opposite sides of the playground.

    • Alleyway Al

      So the atheist should have defended himself?,is that what your saying? If that had went up in front of this muslum judge he would probably been guilty of assualt. The muslums have no tolerance for any negativity of their religon,not cartoons, not anything, even if it is meant to funny and good hearted. You need to read the arcticles that JEFFH posted a couple posts before you. Then go put your head back in the hole in the sand.

      • Scott in SC

        Al, insulting me is not a very persuasive argument. My post was very clear. Try reading it again with an open mind. All this hoopla is because the guy was Muslim and the atheist was only insulting Islam.
        If the zombie Pope had a sign saying only priests can rape little boys, or if there was a zombie soldier saying only American soldiers can go to foriegn countries and rape women and children you would have no problem with them getting their a$$ kicked, and neither would I.

    • JeffH

      Scott, if you actually believe that…”I think you folks are letting your Islamic paranoia get the best of you.”…I suggest you read some of the links I’ve posted above and reconsider that comment.

      • Scott in SC

        Jeff, I read the articl about penetration in the U S govt and will look at some of the others. I’m certain there are radical extremists who would like to see Sharia law in America, but I’m sure that it ain’t gonna happen. I’m much more concerned about my govt trying to hype up the threat as a premise to steal more of my liberties. I know too many people who are so scared and certain the Muslims are going to take over any day now that they are willing to give up all their liberties (and mine too) so the govt can protect them.

      • JeffH

        Scott…”I know too many people who are so scared and certain the Muslims are going to take over any day now that they are willing to give up all their liberties (and mine too) so the govt can protect them.”

        Well Scott, I don’t consider that to be paranoid in this day and age. Look at the progress of the Muslim Brotherhood around the world. Look at what is happening in Europe. Although rarely discussed in Europe, the political impact and influence of the continent’s growing Muslim population is playing an increasingly significant role in European politics. In some cases, politicians are catering to Muslim interests and concerns with an eye toward winning votes. In others, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant political parties are capitalizing on a backlash against Muslims to expand their power base.

        With Muslims now roughly 5 percent of Europe’s population and demographers predicting their proportion to double over the next 20 years due to birthrate disparities, their rising political awareness and ever-growing constituent base is likely to make them a factor in Europe’s political constellation for decades to come.

        The Middle Eastern policy of the largest EU member states is for now only slightly influenced by the presence of considerable Muslim minorities. But it is a factor which should not be forgotten or underestimated.

  • s c

    S, Al (duh) Gore just called to say that Brain Transplant Central just called. Your brain transplant surgery has been re-scheduled for tomorrow. Be there. Maybe it will work – this time.

    • Scott in SC

      Wow, that’s so insightful. Is your life so empty that all you can do is make rambling posts that say absolutely nothing. Are you so insecure that you are afraid of anyone who actually chooses to think for themself? That’s what happens to Koolaid drinkers who can only parrot talking points from media dimwits.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Who is it that you are replying to? What you posted makes no sense.

  • hithadeck

    This Judge needs to relocate to Iran and set up shop. Some one should ask this judge what his decision would have been if a Catholic had attacked the costumed atheist Pope. I can bet this bias Judge would have made a guilty decision for a Christian. I dislike atheists and do not have much respect for the religion of Islam because of its instruction of hatred toward Jews and Christians. This judge sounded like a defense attorney for the defendant. This Muslim broke the law when he penetrated within the boundaries of the atheist’s parade. The Quran teaches that lies are accepted when used in the defense of Islam. This Judge is dead wrong and has disregarded the freedom of speech and the criminal code. I hope this case does not have any lasting effects on future similar cases. This political correctness trend for Muslims has been on the rise while christianly is taking abuse is without justification. With Muslims there is no country, no government, no law unless it is sharia law, and no alliance with non believers is their true belief. If a Muslim turns away from Islam his own people have the legal right under sharia law to kill a converter.

  • cerebus23

    Dunno i think more people should challenge “accepted” or pc standings. Especially when there is such a double standard for one group vs any other group. No judge or cop will tell you ever that ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law, i think many of us that have gotten involved in legal matters learn all sorts of little things and regulations we had no clue at all about but will still end up costing us in time and fines, because ignorance is not ever a defense in any real court.

    No christian would attack anyone over a jesus is gay shirt, obama is the devil, slavery was awesome, take any stupid “offensive” idea you want stick it on a shirt and go somewhere u know that will cause a stir, and you will have few problems, start poking at islam you will have death threats, be attacked.

    This is america we have freedom of religion, we can worship or not worship anything we like, yea our nation is primarilly steeped in puratin catholic law, but our founding fathers were wise enough not to lock in any “official” religion, else our puratin catholic upbringings might order us under pain of going to hell to defend our faith to kill the non believers.

    And to add insult to injury islam was living with and working with science and philosophers, was accepting of new ideas, back when the roman catholic church was putting people to death for challenging the ideas of the catholic faith. It was not until more modern times when the roles switched to a certain degree, tho catholics and science will never be best buddies at lest the inquisitions are long gone.

    No this judge was wrong, he was wrong to allow ignorance of the laws into his court, he was wrong to allow what sharia would do into his court, and he was wrong to ignore his own constitution and laws in order to protect someone that attacked another human being not because they are being attacked, but because their faith has been attacked, and if people can start walking around doing that then there are should be a hell of alot more assaults since i know my personal faiths on a daily basis are insulted and maybe i should start choking people to death, or put them in a hospital.

  • James

    This judge must be Obama’s cousin…..

  • DJ

    Look, it seems everyone wants to turn this into their own little religious rant. Bottom line, assault is assault, and should be dealt with as such. I don’t care who does the assaulting, black, white, hispanic, chinese, jewish mulsim..etc. It’s assault!!!! The judge should be ashamed to be a judge and step down immediately. And just one reminder, WHERE IN AMERICA!!!!

  • Neil Swan

    I can understand why the judge dismissed it. The atheist shouldn’t have been pressing hate for a religion. He should have just been showing religions just don’t know what they are talking about. All religions in this country are equal.


    • 45caliber

      But the judge wasn’t following the law, was he? That is the main point here. The atheist was within the law as specified by the SCOTUS on free speech. (He is an idiot but idiots are safe here – or are supposed to be.) The Muslim laid hands on the atheist by his own admmision – which is against the law. The idiot – ah – atheist didn’t break a law; the Muslim did. The judge dismissed charges based on the actions of the atheist. While I wouldn’t mind seeing the idiot pasted, it is the law as written and judges aren’t supposed to get involved in changing the law or protecting any religion from ridicule.

      • JeffH

        45..can’t argue that! :) The law is the law!

  • ranger hall

    Right on the nail head; Because we are so concerned about our own rights,we do not care about other peoples rights or faiths, as long as we get our say, but we dont care about what other peoples say.

    This is very true about us, Just look back to what our big mouths have cost.
    1945- Generals big mouth help start the cold war.
    Korea- Generals big mouth and politicians Were the cause of the Chinese getting into the war.
    Afganistan- Americans killed because they Insulted, and cheered, and burned the Peoples Koran,and faith.Wonder if they are still cheering.
    Our big mouths always get us into trouble.

  • Rick Keller

    This atheist is a wussy. Back when the first amendment was written, you could be challenged to a duel and killed for ridiculing another man’s religion or family. You have freedom of speech, but we also have the right to kick the crap out of you for ridiculing us. I am not Muslim, and I don’t like Muslims, but if you ridicule me or mine, I will shove your nose out of your butt-hole, and laugh the whole time I am doing it. If you are too much of a wuss to protect your self without calling on a government payed thug, you need to keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself. Yes, we will kick your ass for being a dumb-ass big mouthed punk.

  • Rick Keller

    I didn’t hear the atheist cough or choke. He was screaming like a little girl the whole time, as if everyone should protect him while he offends all others. What a wuss. The law owes nothing to this instigator. He deserves whatever he gets. His mommy didn’t whoop his ass enough when he was a snot nosed little punk. He is the type of panty-waiste that will verbally assault your grandmother, and then call the payed thugs when the grandson chivalrously kicks the dumb-ass atheist’s dick in the dirt.

  • ranger hall

    The law is the law,Right or Wrong,
    What does the word Provoked mean,To many of us it depends on how we look at it, How we feel.
    I thing the Judge made a decent decision, based on what i know.
    The Law is not only for punisment but for Teaching. Most will not understand this.
    A 10 year old steals a candy bar, do we put him in jail or do we try and teach him wrong doing.
    Could be a good lesson for all of us.

    I know we all have our own rule about Right or Wrong.

    • JeffH

      “I thing the Judge made a decent decision, based on what i know.”

      Based on your illogical analogy…a 10 y/o candy thief and an adult assault another adult over a free speech issue you obviously don’t know much.

  • ranger hall

    Some time ago people use to protest the Afganistan and Iraq War at Familys Homes,Funeral Parlors, and the Grave sites when Families are Burying their dead military, I was againest the war, And People have the right to Protest, but sometimes these people were just to pushey and out of line and caused problems, I rode with Vets to see that these People have the right to bury their Sons and Daughters in Peace.

  • Rick Keller

    Actually, the law is not the law. The people have the power to override legislative law. Next time you have to do jury duty, look up jury nullification before you go in. You will find that as a jurist, you can disregard all law, and render a just judgment. The people are the law. This judge just overrode moron law for the benefit of common sense law that the people would have probably rendered anyway. He saved us taxpayer money by finding the moron atheist doesn’t have the right to instigate.

  • Marilyn

    Muslim law cannot be practiced in United States Court Rooms. The same as US law is not permitted in foreign court rooms. If the Judge wants to practice Muslim law, he certainly has the right to go to Iran and do just that. Not In America!

  • Rick Keller

    The judge is not practicing Sharia Law. The judge is practicing American Law. The judge is in America. He is merely stating that big mouth punks need to take care of their own problems. If the stupid atheist wants to insult someone, they (the someone) have the right to remove his (the atheists’) faggy little sign and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

    • JeffH

      Rick, besides being an idiot, what else do you do in life?

      To every rule there is an exception—and an idiot ready to demonstrate it.
      Vera Nazarian

      • Rick Keller

        “Waaaaahhhhh, waaaaahhhhhhh. Mommy mommy, that mean man beat me up cause I’m stupid. Can you tell daddy to beat his ass?”

        JeffH the moron, heres laughing at your dumb ass.

      • JeffH

        As I said…To every rule there is an exception—and an idiot(Rick) ready to demonstrate it.
        Vera Nazarian

    • Stan Smith

      Exhibit A- See Rick Keller Liberalism is a Mental DisOrder! What’s a matter Libtard Rick You don’t like your fellow Liberal Atheist expressing his belief?? Go change your diapers! BTW keep up dividing up among your liberal group, keep Pi$$ing off your fellow Liberal Atheist, It will cause the democraps to lose more voter base when Atheists will leave the Liberal circle!

    • kkflash

      Rick Keller, you are a moron, a fool and an a$$hole. There, now I’ve insulted you personally. If you think that gives you the right to come to my house and try to beat me because of my comments, then just reply to this message, and I’ll arrange for you to have my address so we can test your theory, smarta$$.

  • Gene

    What would he of done if a Catholic ran up to the one dressed like the Pope and chocked him?

  • Alondra

    Oops, what surprise: islam and islamists are ruling from the court bench.
    Did not “great leader” and his “black angry lady” promised you fundamentally transform America from one they disliked and despised to the one of their islamo-MARXistic dream?
    So, here you have the “CHANGE” & “HOPE” for which you so enthusiastically voted! Alleluia!!! The CHANGE already came and the HOPE still marching. (“we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”) (Michelle Malkin slaps down Ignorant Leftist Joy Behar) (Michelle and Barack Obama vs. U.S. History) (Michelle Obama wants to change our history)

    Now, Obama’s “holy” book is offered by judge for the oath in the United States’ court. What comes next? The honoring killings? Polygamy? The stonings? The Burqas? Girl-toddlers’ engagements? Demand to respect of the delusional, pervert egocentric maniac and disgust pedophile and charlatan who claimed to be a “prophet”? The history is repeating, people. Now in America we have the charlatan in the Oval Office, who claims to be a “Christian”.

    What is extremely disturbing and very worrying in this case, that judge unapologetically praises this draconian and false religion that was initiated by satan himself – “a LIAR and the father of all lies”. I arise the question: Does not judge condemning all the named monstrosity to which we can add also the awful treatment of women, who are prohibited to go to schools or drive cars and other ancient barbaric actions, which were not practiced even in Mesopotamian era?

    Does judge not know that his “peaceful” religion promotes violence and cruelty against anyone who does not agree and does not accept the islamic ideology? Islamists openly declaring their “holy” jihad against all infidels and their intention to take over the U.S. and Europe. And now, in American Court of the “justice” judges rule according to sharia.
    When you are going to muslim countries, you not allowed to bring your Holy BOOK Bible or any Christian symbol, even a little jewelry cross on the neck chain.

    The judge should to recuse himself from the case. The CONSTITUTION was mocked. The Christians were mocked. It’s outrage. It’s OK to insult BIBLE, Christianity and Christ, but not murderer and pedophile “prophet” mohammaaaaad?!

    And finally, I have an advice for the muslim judge, the same advice he gave to the atheist: “So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofas…”

    America, wake up and stand up! The United States already hijacked and unrecognizable.
    God, please protect America from evil and save America from the external and especially inner enemies.

    Here are additional links about imposter in the Oval Office. (Obama On Redistribution of Wealth) (Obama: The US Constitution Is “Imperfect”) (Look who was voting for the imposter – Howard)

    His Lies:

  • Pingback: Muslim Judge Sets Case Law Precedent: OK to Assault Mockers of Muhammad | USA NEWS FIRST

    • kkflash

      Readers, don’t open the link above, as it is nothing more than a disguised attempt to plug Rick Santorum’s candidacy. The artlcle it links to has no relevant information to offer about the case or its results.

  • truthrdare
  • 45caliber

    I saw a note on this today. The Muslim attacker stated that he didn’t know that it was legal to mock Mohammed here. He thought it was against the law as it was in Muslim countries. So he was simply trying to enforce the law as he saw it. He was sorry he was wrong …

    • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

      I dont know of all the millions of laws in Australia and I,m sure most of your posters would not know of every old or new law being created every day in both our countries.

      Most of us are probably breaking laws every day and we dont know about it until, some law enforcement officer thinks your thinking of breaking a law by daring to smile at them. Thats how stupid its getting in both our countries and most of you posters think you know it all. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Muslims. ??? Lets learn before we critisize.

  • simian pete

    Interesting how the atheist lost this case. Usually atheist win cases like this. If a roman catholic had attacked the pope “Zombie” atheist – he would have lost the case !

    The Judge is scared . He doesn’t want to get attacked himself – so he submits to Sharia and let’s the attacker off….

    No roman catholics attacked the pope Zombie atheist. Interesting. I guess a lot of them don’t believe in their religion as much as the Moslem dude…

    Then again, the Roman Catholic Church, it has been having some problems getting the majority of its members to vote more conservatively – especially when it comes to Pro-Life issues.

    Very interesting how the Judge gives more deference to a “religionist” Muslim. But he probably wouldn’t have done the same to a “religionist” Catholic, or Protestant or Baptist ….

    The practice of Abortion vexes many Christians … Would this judge let the Christian off just like he did the muslim dude when it comes to Pro-Life protests ? I don’t think so …..

    • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

      Simian Pete, IMO your judicial system of voting for judges makes them fear losing their job and corrupts their way of thinking AND TYHE WAY THEY PASS JUDGEMENTS.

      In Australia however, a judge once appointed keeps his job and cant lose it until he retires or become mentally incompetent. Your system lends itself to more corruption than we have ever experienced in Australia.

  • Eric Bischoff

    Boy you could se this one coming a mile away.

    Personal Liberty do you really want to be like a Ruppert Murdock Tabloid?

    Wow a Judge that used common sense.

    No my god is better than your god needed here.

    • Libertytrain

      DId he follow the law of his area? I don’t know the answer but based on what I’ve seen of this story elsewhere – it doesn’t appear so….

  • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

    Thanks 45caliber, your one of the few that makes any sense in these debates.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I think it is wrong to let ones personal feelings get out of control. Personally I can see the idea of a zombie Muhammad being offensive though I am not a Muslim. I would be greatly offended by anyone poking fun or mocking my religious beliefs. That said its no excuse for resorting to physical violence. I feel the man who committed the assault should receive punishment for it. To the best of my understanding it is illegal and sac religious in the Muslim faith to make an image of the prophet. It correlates to I believe a commandment in the Judeo Christian faith-no graven images. Under such circumstances and I mean this with no disrespect to those of religious faith I feel state and federal law trump religious laws. There is simply no excuse for violence towards another person based on personal feelings or even personal values being insulted. Religious views and religious freedom should be respected, and that goes for Muslims and Non Muslims alike.

  • KB

    Here is the funny part…look at all the CHRISTIANS here, now defending the ATHIESTS!! That’s freakin hysterical!! And would you be whining here if the “zombie” was dressed as Jesus Christ, and one of your fellow psychopaths choked him out? HYPOCRITES.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.