Penn Judge Allows Muslims Attack People For Insulting Mohammad

[John317]

COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Words almost fail.

The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.

That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.

It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

[Neil D]

I find this very disturbing on several levels....

1] that any judge would rule in favor of the attacker

2] that any judge with such a bias would rule in the case

3] that an Islamic person living for any great time in the US would not understand that freedom of speech is more important than religion

4] this article is a "commentary" at best, and probably infused with bias

5] I also find that posting this type of article as a truthful incident as incindiary at the very least and promotes an destablization of an already fragil calm in our culture...

6] Where is the site to check the accuracy of this report? There is none...It is assumed to be true when it could be a product of one's imagination....designed to incite rage and not calm...To post this is not to be a "peacemaker" as Christ would like all His followers to be, but rather to promote chaos and bias, and encourage bigotry....

John, as a moderator, you know better than to post these type of things without full documentation of it's validity. And since we have articles of reporters from FauxNews rewriting articles to make news more favorable to just a few people, FoxNews IS NOT a valid newsource...

[olger]