Religion
Related: About this forumMuslim Attacks Atheist. Muslim Judge Dismisses Case, Blames Victim.
Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)
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 case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. 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, hed be put to death. Judge Martins comments included,
--snip--
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. Perces portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perces behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didnt give an accurate account or doesnt give it any weight.
http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case-blames-victim
What. The. Fuck.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)Better yet let Santorum anally penetrate the judge.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Hopefully, this will be a one time incident, but if it's not, then the conservatives were right to be concerned about this.
wandy
(3,539 posts)The person who was attacked still has legal recourse. They were with out a doubt police people involved, not to mention witnesses. With the help of an attorney I suspect Justis would prevail. I suspect it would be the last time that judge sat on the bench.
The moose calls BS on this one.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)or will they ignore it because the victim was an atheist?
Either way, Judge Mark Martin is an asshole who has no business being a judge.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But they probably think that it was the right decision, considering the victim.
Notice how silent the "liberal" christians are on this? And I do not mean just DU'ers, I mean ALL liberal christians. Where is their voice? Where is their admonishment? I have seen a couple here on DU, but thats it.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)one can only hope that there will be a review of this judge and he is dismissed and never allowed to practice law in this country.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Sal316
(3,373 posts)A teacher having attended an institute where one of the workers gave a talk on Personal Rights, was quite pleased at one of the illustrations used. Standing before the teachers and swinging his fists around the speaker said: Now, I have a perfect right to stand here and swing my fists, but if I start down the aisle this way, suiting the action to the word, my rights leave off just where your nose begins.
Endeavoring to use the same illustration in his civics class later, he began, Now, I can stand here and swing my fists, but if I come down among you swinging my nose and that was as far as he got..
Link for both references.
Please note that in no way was the physical altercation justified.
Just understand that the right to say/do whatever one wants is, in fact, limited and not absolute because that's the society we live in. Marching as zombie whatever doesn't make one a "free speech crusader" or whatever... it just makes one a totally insensitive jerk.
Oh...and your headline is as reasonable as the conservative argument that the judge that overturned Prop 8 did so because he's gay.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Jesus is proud, Im sure.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Your post should have ended here: "Please note that in no way was the physical altercation justified. " Going further is just an atempt to mitigate the egregious nature of the assault because the atheist's free speech offended you.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)It was part of a bigger point, which all 3 of you missed.
It wasn't justified.
But he shouldn't be surprised if someone takes his intentionally offensive display personally.
Just because the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech, it doesn't mean that the zombie dude wasn't being a total douche.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)and consider it worthless equivocation? Just because I don't think your point was worthy doesn't mean I didn't get it.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)I just didn't think your valuation was worth the electrons used to write it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Seriously, you got the saying completely backwards as it happens, it applies to the guy who assaulted the atheist, the Muslim's right to swing his fist ends at the Atheist's nose. Yet you are so blind, you can't even see that.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)..and said the altercation wasn't justified.
But hey, if you want to contend the atheist's display of being a total douche by being intentionally offensive is justified, go right ahead.
Oh, and if you think it applies simply to physicality, then you completely miss the point.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Even more so considering the reaction he got, anyone who would physically assault people over symbols and being offended is a danger to society.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Rob H.
(5,352 posts)"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Only in this case, it's, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unless you're mocking someone's religion, in which case all bets are off."
You have the right to say whatever you want.
You don't have the right, however, to abdicate responsibility for what you communicate under the guise of "free speech".
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Sal316
(3,373 posts)...then there's no point in continuing.
But I will give you a hint.
It rhymes with "how about not being a douche".
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Against the law. And being attacked for being a douche does not in any way excuse the behavior of the attacker.
Seriously, what responsibility did the victims have other than to stay within the law?
Sal316
(3,373 posts)... the speech that got the reaction it did out of Scott Roeder was justified.
...or what Beck or Limbaugh or Savage.
I guess in your definition, rights are absolute and people bear no responsibility for what they say or do.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)this wasn't an incitement to violence for crying out loud, it was someone making fun of a mythology, get some perspective. What responsibility did he have to control the reactions of religious fanatics?
Sal316
(3,373 posts)SnakeEyes
(1,407 posts)So if you say something that offends a teabagger, they haul off and slug you, then you should bear some of the responsibility?
Think about what you're actually saying here and the chilling effects such a perspective in action can have.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And that if one chooses to mock religion, one should be prepared to face the consequences, even if it means physical violence.
DUIC
(167 posts)Let's put it on the books then Until then, this was a battery where the Judge erred in his decision.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)Without the video, the simplest explanation would be that the story was invented out of whole cloth.
wingzeroday
(189 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)That scene in Revenge of the Nerds where the nerds try to sue for harassment and the judge mocks them. "The Constitution says nothing about nerds!"
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and the judge suspended for the duration. Maybe disbarred.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Regardless, when referring to the laws in other countries, he overstepped his boundaries, as he is charged only with application of U.S. law and the laws of Pennsylvania.
The atheist was well within his First Amendment rights, but just as Westboro protesters, or parading American Nazis - he was a bigot on display for all to see, purposely degrading another group, but still within his rights.