Sunday, February 26, 2012

I had to read this twice...

... it does not appear to be from The Onion:
Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Feb 24, 2012
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.
"Words almost fail", indeed!

Then today, Mr. Santorum, esteemed GOP candidate for President, re-affirmed that,
"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."
I'm sorry folks: if I wanted to live under a theocracy, I'd take the time to learn Arabic and move to Saudi Arabia... or to learn Farsi and move to Iran.
I'd just as soon stay in the U.S., where my chosen agnosticism has the same rights under the law as Santorum's Catholocism, Romney's Mormonism, ... and Mr. Elbayomy's Islam.
Under judge Martin's "reasoning", a devout Catholic - Mr. Santorum, say - would be justified in beating the crap out of a communicant who dared chew the host! - a clear sacrilege against the Body of Christ!

... there's even more down-side to this decision: Those states, like Oklahoma, which have introduced legislation to ban Sharia law from U.S. courts now have a precedent to cite to justify said legislation!


  1. The judge could have cited "Fighting Words" as a defense. You're right now the crazies will be only more rabid about needless anti-Shar-i-a laws. The real problems with being against Muslim law, is that it is based on the Ten Commandments, which they want to impose.