Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Spread the love

Loading

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.

The rest is here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This judge ran unopposed and was thus elected.
So, I’m guessing he can be voted out soon.

He has no law degree nor has he even been a judge before.

Where are the vigilante committees when they are needed. This judge should face some old fashoned American justice.

I’ve read further accounts of this, including an interview of Perce himself. The judge in this case basically ignored every precedent of case law and instead ruled as a true sharia law judge. That the people of PA, Cumberland county, even voted for him is a disgrace. This guy doesn’t deserve to ever be around a courtroom again as a judge.

@Zelsdorf Ragshaft III: Just voting him out will have to be sufficient. What an awful ruling.
I didn’t realize you could be elected judge without being at least a member of the bar. That’s kind of messed up, in my opinion.

THAT’S HOW LOW AMERICA HAS descended, in the abyss by allowing MUSLIM in those high places keep good track of those events, that show their propaganda work in schools and university
succeed to turn AMERICANS in their rank so to become in high positions of power to serve their agenda of
enslaving AMERICA,
I don’t think that judge would favor an AMERICAN BEING ASSAULTED BY A MUSLIM, and yet we are witnessing weird things happening , disappearance sudden, and civil fights among civilians,
occupiers trashing anything around any propriety around, and not being arrested, for it,
the sure pattern of what is going on in MUSLIM COUNTRIES, just like the gates of hell are open wide and welcomed by the leadership.

What is America becoming? How have our Laws become so Warped??? How have our Judges become so WARPED – as to warp [our American] Laws and our Constitution?? The guy very well ‘may’ be a doofus, but, it is judges like this that set a very bad precedence…

…. The Liberals keep trying to ram “Multiculturalism” down the throats of every “True American.”

True American(s) ?? Yes! Americans who embrace OUR Constitution and OUR Laws, our way of life…not pseudo Laws brought here on the coat tails of those from other countries… then demanded, by religion or culture, to be used so they may be “Treated differently” more unequally then American Law allows or should allow…or like other “T Americans” … thereby tossing our laws aside? And Liberals talk about “fairness”? Equality? [What a hoot! Talk about being a doofus]

Anyone think Americans are somehow treated differently in other countries and under their laws?

Multiculturalism is not working in the U.K. nor in any other European Country…. America became America to “get out from under Europe” so why do we [Liberals] want to keep fashioning ourselves in that light?

Multiculturalism = is a doomed philosophy, a doomed Liberal ideology…. it separates us, it does not bring us together as Americans.

Gee, makes me wonder what would have happened if a ‘Christian’ had done the same over an Atheist dressed like Jesus? Wait, let me guess, they would most likely be in jail with a hefty fine, law suits to boot, and the civil liberties union up their butt….

I’m highly disturbed by this, is there going to be any means of the Attorney General of Penn to see about charging this Judge with violation of the First Amendment rights of this Athiest that was assaulted?

FAITH7
THAT IS SO WELL DONE as usual you hit the target in the most vulnerable dot,
thank you the best and I’m learning from your comment
bye
polls are now closed bye

Mister. Irons
yes he should be the first one to activate the pursue of that judge activity, against the laws of the land,
favoring the ISLAMIC LAWS. IS HE A TRAITOR TO AMERICA OR WHAT IS HE.

First, as an atheist, I just want to say how rejuvenating it is to see a right-leaning blog such as this speaking out on behalf of our rights to express criticism of religious ideas.

Having said that, I do wonder if there’s some cognitive dissonance going on too… For those decrying this flaunting of our Constitution in Pennsylvania, I’m curious to know what your take on this political cartoon is.

EDIT: link didn’t work with anchor tags, here’s the URL:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8pS4UcdnUgk/T0w8gF29soI/AAAAAAABReM/zC2Mck8KrVs/s1600/FrothyTaliban.jpg

Cartoon inspired by following quote from Republican front-runner Rick Santorum:

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

Do you see a conflict between the Conservative sentiment “We need more religion in the US government” and the sentiment of this article, “Holy !@#$, that judge brought his religion into the US government!”? Is the distinction that we simply need more of the One True Religion(tm) in US government?

Kevin
that judge is the answer to your concern,
there is already well seated solidly a religion calling the shots in GOVERNMENT, and the judge felt secure enough to go for the MUSLIM SIDE,
BUT THE BIG PROBLEM is that religion is a dangerous one for AMERICA because they are also political intent to conquer AMERICA alone and oppress the people with their laws, which are against WHAT AMERICA STAND FOR; AS OPPOSE TO CHRISTIAN RELIGION co existing with other peaceful faiths which is within the laws of AMERICA and has blended into it which help AMERICA from her beginning, not destroy it, like the story of the BIRTH OF AMERICA tell from
generations to generations CENTURIES OF WISDOM past along to the PEOPLE sustaining their srength
to become the giants of this NATION, PROTECTORS OF THE FREEDOM AND THE FLAG OF AMERICA
quite a big difference of what AMERICA HAS BECOME THESES LAST ALMOST FOUR YEARS,
which is an angry, doubtful, confuse, humiliated, divided , poorer, in mind and finances in strength, vulnerable, trapped by government long arms
in hope, in capitals, in roots numbers weakening the tree of AMERICAN LIFE’S future, THE SADDEST REALITY OF TODAY AMERICA,
but the SPIRIT IS RISING each day to and the time is slowly coming with the lost light to be found and shine again on AMERICA

@Kevin:

Here’s the difference, Kevin. What Santorum is suggesting is that there never was an absolute “wall of separation” between Church and state. And he is correct. The 1st Amendment simply states that Congress cannot make a law showing preference for one religion over another, nor can Congress make a law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. Religion is an all-encompassing word that includes the Christian denominations, the Jewish faith, Islam, Buddhism, and any number of other religions people subscribe to, including atheism.

So, when Congress makes laws like allowing religious organizations to be tax-free, for instance, that isn’t a violation of the 1st Amendment as no preference is shown. Or things like appropriating money to religious charities, assuming it is available to all religions, is, again, not a violation of the 1st Amendment. What would be a violation is, if say, Congress appropriated unused government land for Catholic church use, and only Catholic church use, and didn’t make such appropriated land available to any other religious group. That shows a preference and is clearly a violation of the 1st.

What the judge in this case did, however, had really nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. His ruling hinged on a set of laws that are not applicable within the US legal system, and indeed, cannot be reconciled with US law. That is why there is an objection by conservatives here. He was elected to preside over cases between parties, using the US, and state, law as the map for his ruling. He did not do so, and it seems, to him, that US and PA state law take a backseat to sharia law when muslims are involved. Which, of course, makes one wonder how the ruling would have went if the roles had been reversed. That is, that the protester was the muslim displaying some sign offensive to the atheist, and that the atheist pursued the physical violence. My guess is that the judge would have thrown the book at the atheist.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because conservatives are religious that it means that we want religion pervasive in government. No, conservatives only wish an adherence to the Constitution itself, and will rail against any religious related infringement upon our rights just as vehemently as an atheist would. Those who abide by, who understand the Constitution, who know the original argument for it, are more your friends than lefty socialists who take liberal license with words, phrases, and clauses within the Constitution to implement their will upon the populace, even if some of us are believers in faith and you are not.