For the past several years, there have been two competing narratives about Islam in America. One put forward by groups that purport to represent believers in Islam and the liberal media would have it that in the post-9/11 era, American Muslims are besieged by a wave of hatred and violence (even though there is no statistical evidence to back up such claims). The other is one articulated by critics of Islam who argue that Muslims are demanding and getting accommodations from government and other institutions that are an unconstitutional establishment of Islamic or Sharia law. Advocates of this point of view are the driving force behind efforts to enact laws that would prohibit recognition or use of Sharia law in U.S. courts. This cause has often seemed to be, at best, the result of overblown fears because, unlike in Asia and Africa where Muslim efforts to make Sharia the law of the land, there is little danger of that happening in Oklahoma or other states where anti-Sharia statutes have been proposed.
However, every now and then a story pops up which makes such fears seem more reasonable. One concerns the assault by a local Muslim on a man wearing a costume during a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, last year. The attacker said the costume depicted a zombie version of the Prophet Muhammad. The attack was recorded on film and witnessed by a police officer who promptly arrested the assailant, who was later charged with harassment. But, as legal scholar Jonathan Turley notes in his blog, the judge who heard the case not only dismissed the case on the grounds that the offense to Islam was not protected speech but also lectured the victim on the wrongheaded nature of his views. Judge Mark Martin’s decision was based on the idea that the assailant, one Talaag Elbayomy, was merely defending “his culture.” Turley, who posted a video of the assault and a partial transcript of the judge’s comments, concludes that Martin’s decision “raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct.” But I would go farther and point out that the judge’s behavior seems to reflect a bizarre notion of Muslim entitlement that is by no means unrelated to the attempt to sell the country on the myth of a post 9/11 backlash.
Martin called Ernie Perce, the Pennsylvania director of American Atheists, a “doofus” and, citing his own experiences serving in Iraq and other Muslim countries, told him his conduct could be punished by death in such countries. He went on to claim the Framers did not intend the First Amendment to be used to “piss off other peoples and cultures” and therefore did not protect his right to criticize Islam even in the context of a Halloween parade. Martin not only seemed to accept the idea that Elbayomy was conditioned to attack critics of Islam by his background and faith but that the law ought to recognize his need to not be so offended. This “cultural defense” seems to treat Muslims as so inherently aggrieved by living in a country where their religion is not the law of the land that they deserve some sort of special legal protection for their own blatantly illegal behavior.
As Turley states, the fact that the victim was a recognized antagonist of the Muslim faith had no bearing on whether he ought to be allowed to exercise his right to speak his mind without being physically attacked. Though insulting the prophet is a death-penalty offense in much of the world, such behavior is not illegal in a country that recognizes the right to free speech.
It should be specified that this is just one clearly incompetent judge who used his godlike control of his courtroom to vent his personal opinions and perpetrated a miscarriage of justice. But what is really troubling is the way his decision seems to reflect a growing sense that Muslim sensibilities are so delicate they may override the rights of others to comment on their faith. One need not endorse the insult of any faith to understand Perce’s conduct was legal and his attacker was in the wrong.
It is hardly a stretch to point out the connection between this case and something all too common in Muslim countries where insults or perceived attacks on Islam — such as the recent incident in Afghanistan — are treated as justifying riots and murder. For all of the unsubstantiated talk about a rising tide of Islamophobia, critics of Islam are still far more likely to be subjected to attacks than are Muslims. Like all Americans, Muslims are entitled to the full protection of the law for the expression of their beliefs. But attempts to enshrine their notion of what is a sacrilege into secular law are a path to the destruction of the Constitution.
The right to assault others does not exist. Assault is illegal no matter what the victim has said. I know nothing about the judge in this case, but I would guess he is a leftist.
Come to UMass Amhest. Assaulting conservatives is not only acceptable, but the conservatives get in trouble for it. n nI am not making this up. I was the victim of no fewer than five assaults, two of which were witnessed by police officers (who did nothing) and the UMPD has told me that they will arrest *me* if they have any contact whatsoever with me ever again. Even if I dial 911 for a medical emergency and an ambulance. n nSo when a tradesman allergic to bee stings was stung on the tongue (hornet in opened can of sugary soda from which he drank), I had to have his co-workers drive him the circuitous route to the health clinic on the other end of campus — knowing that they would immediately call for an ambulance. This is real life at UMass Amherst. n nAnd we are seeing it drift into the off-campus world. I am not surprised….
As more and more Muslims come into this country, will we have to be like Afghanistan instead of freedom of speech and religion? Time to make a decision now before anyone votes in Nov. to see which way the Pres will go and which way the republican candidate will go.
It sounds, from 'soccerdhg', that this case is blown out of proportion and the Judge is not the 'nut' some would have him be. But the statement, "Muslims are entitled to the full protection of the law for the expression of their beliefs", needs to be tempered with the exclusion of what some of those evil "beliefs' actually are and to what degree they are practiced. In Iran, at present, there is a Christian Pastor who may be executed for converting to Christianity. This Muslim action should be met with the full punishment of the law. It is clear that many many many actions by Muslim religious and political leaders in this country and the world are not acceptable to decent people. Those people and nations have corrupted the Muslim faith – assuming it was decent in the first place, which I am not at all certain it was. Both the Christian and the Jewish faiths have evolved to where they could, usually, be called decent today. But the Muslim faith has a long way to go.
These faiths are the three great desert religions. They are like three sisters. The oldest sister and the youngest sister have been fighting since Abraham slept with the maid and it does not look like this argument is ending anytime soon. Before you condemn the Muslims read the histories of the other two. Christians and Jews have gotten a little out of hand over the centuries.
Did you read "Both the Christian and the Jewish faiths have evolved to where they could, usually, be called decent today …" toward the end of vandag's comment? The key word there is "today". No one is trying to apply any kind of double standard. The question raised is how many thousands of years will it be until the Muslim faith is as civil as the Christian and Jewish faiths are today (please note that we see a difference between physical and verbal acts/confrontation or comment)? If you do not see that Christians and Jews are civil anymore, then there is no basis for discussion. Which was what the last sentence of vandag's comment means (in my interpretation).
yeah, darn those out of hand Christians and Jews! I wish they'd stop hijacking airplanes and doing all those suicide bombings. oh, wait–
vandag1, Islam was NOT good and decent from the beginning. All you have to do is read of the actions and words of Mohammed's life. This will tell you everything you need to know. Compare and contrast the actions and words of Buddha, Jesus, Confucious, the founders of Hinduism, and on the other end of the spectrum Mohammed. As it says in the Bible, "By its fruits shall you know it."
I'm not speaking for vandag here (or disagreeing with you — just expounding a point of interest to me). Christianity benefited by being an offshoot (meaning all of its history is New Testament). In the Old Testament (ancient history) a lot of Jewish religious "leaders" (prophets, but using a word to compare to Khomeni or Khameni or whomever) reported God's telling them to destroy this or that sinful people and even kill every man, woman, and child and all their livestock, and don't even loot the bodies or homes but burn everything to the ground. The difference being that that is ancient history and Christianity along with accommodation to the real world and living one's principles rather than carrying out the wrath of God are not ruled by ancient thought processes while sharia hasn't advanced at all (at best).
<DIV>Yes, you are right.</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”>
I suggest that the judge may be suffering from Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome – - inability to distinguish between what is an appropriate response for something occurring in a war zone overseas and what is a peaceful domestic event where the wearing of risque costumes is socially acceptable. n nWhat is not often mentioned in the _Tinker v. Des Moines_ case is that there was a nearby military base (USAF if I am not mistaken) and a significant number of the other children in the school had fathers who were overseas fighting in the then-ongoing Vietnam War — and that school officials had banned the armbands (symbolic speech) out of a fear of exactly what happened here. n nThere is the SCOTUS decision in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church (they are *not* Christians) and throughout the 20th Century First Amendment law was largely made by a splinter Christian sect (although it is theologically questionable if they *are* technically Christians) known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. These are the lovely people who bother you at home with literature and whatnot, who (unlike the Mormons) simply will not go away when you tell them you are not interested, and they believe that the more persecuted they are the more holy they are. n nThey are responsible for a good chunk of First Amendment law, which includes their right to be truly obnoxious. And between Johnson v. Texas and the RAV case, we have the right to burn both the US Flag and KKK crosses — I think that is at least as provocative as a Halloween costume somehow. n nI know this, and I am not a lawyer, let alone a judge. A competent Jurist would know this. nAnd that is why I am saying PTSD. He is still "over there" intellectually.
The First Amendment protects speech, specifically speech that “pisses off” others. Polite speech requires no protection. This evidently is no longer taught in judge school. The guy’s an idiot.
Re: the attacker. If he wants to live in a country in which his mythology is protected by death penalties, he should return to his tribal, pre-Enlightenment, barbaric land for he is not desired, indeed is an enemy of, post-Enlightenment nations like all Western Liberal democracies.
But the real solution here is for the West to understand that Islam, as it has twice tried to accomplish before, is intent on the utter destruction of any nation or people not submitting to islam. Islam needs to be utterly and completely destroyed. There is no room for such barbarism in the modern world.
I fought hard to get certain insulting behaviours towards Jewish people labled hateful and prosecuted accordingly. Don't prove me wrong and make me look foolish by denying these same protections to people of other faiths. If you do I won't stand with you again and will probably stand against you for making me look like a sucker.
Look here ", SUCKER", referring to my comment, please note that I did state that the Jewish and the Christian faiths have EVOLVED to a position where they are largely decent – certainly in the USA. Group idiots such as the KKK should not be considered part of the Christian faith. If there are so considered, they certainly have not evolved from bestiality. but they are small. The Muslims which have not evolved from bestiality are large and dominant. If you consider yourself a 'sucker', then you just are plain stupid and most certainly not at the forefront of the evolutionary process of the Muslim faith, if there is any evolution occurring at all.
Then you don't understand the First Amendment. n nEnsuring that ANY group of people are protected from the speech of ANY OTHER GROUP is a violation of free speech. Doesn't really matter if you neither understand nor like that. The problem is, when those in charge change, they then have the precedent established to censor the speech of anyone they dislike. That is called "Despotism," and is a violation of everything the West has stood for and fought for since the Magna Carta a millennium ago. n nSo, no, protecting the feelings of people from hearing those who dislike or disagree with them is the antithesis of freedom. What's next? Democrat rulers outlawing the speech of Conservatives? How do you justify your opinion and yet prevent that? And as speech is just verbalization of thoughts, how do you label speech offensive and yet fantasize – for it is only fantasy – that people's thoughts remain free? n nThe answer to the problem of getting irritated by speech you dislike is easy: GROW UP.
This is euphemism and soft, unwarranted apoloogetic for the "Muslim zombie" judge. Period.
This story appears to be wildly exaggerated. Reading the letter (if authentic) from the judge makes it clear. n nIf the Commonwealth failed to prove its case, the presumption of innocence MUST apply. Evidently, the material supposedly used to assault Zombie Mohammed was intact, with no sign of any violence whatever. There were contradictory accounts. n nWhen there is doubt as to guilt, innocence must be the finding. That is our system. There was evidently a good deal of doubt — but the DA may certainly appeal. And should, if s/he believe evidence was overlooked or given insufficient weight. n nAn assault is an assault, and must be prosecuted as such. Neither Sharia nor Exodus nor the Code of Hammurabi is any excuse. A physical assault is a criminal act. Period. Underlying religious conviction is immaterial. n nIf offensive speech were considered an 'assault', Rev Fred Phelps and his insane Westboro Baptist Church would have been locked up years ago. So too Orly Taitz Esq, America's worst attorney, for that matter. n nMuslims in America are the latest wave of 'outsiders' to suffer the wrath and paranoia of nativists. In their turn the Irish, Germans, Sikhs, Latinos and others have all been there. When there is no immediate target for the nativists, the Jews will always do. Ugghh. n nThank heavens the Canadians are so polite we don't even notice them — until it's too late. They have already taken over Hollywood.
There was a video tape of the assault that the judge wouldn't allow (because it proved the assault).
Hi Keith: I gather you are not an attorney. n nOtherwise, you would know that 'evidence' is ruled inadmissable all the time. The problem often concerns provenance and chain of custody. Hearsay is often inadmissable as well. n nThat said, it is now up to the DA to appeal the Judge's ruling as to evidence and/or outcome. This is also fundamental to our system of appeal. n nVideo evidence did not convict the cops who beat up Rodney King, in their criminal trial. The same evidence convicted them in the civil. It's not always as simple as you imagine. n nLet's see what the DA does. The case may (or may not) be weaker than we have been told. It's why we have courts of appeal. I hope you understand.
You do also know that the sound recording of the proceedings (which, according to the judge and his secretary was both made illegally and contempt of court charges are about to be levelled) contradict every single thing the judge said in his letter explaining his ruling? Does the truth count at all? Or does sharia law trump everything in America now?
Charles Fiddabol, the Irish, Germans, Sikhs and Latinos did not believe that they had a mandate from "Allah" to kill and dominate others.
you know, it's very simple: in this country, we have the right to offend. it's one of our most endearing qualities, and I don't want it to change. it's already in danger of changing because of political correctness, of course, but PC just makes us stupid. this is a lot more insidious. n nremember that Yale University published a book about the Danish cartoons and DIDN'T INCLUDE THE CARTOONS because they thought that would be too provocative. just think about that for a minute! that's the state of the country right now. that's the state of SCHOLARSHIP at one of the nation's best universities. tragic. n nthe article starts by positing that, well, of course we don't need laws against sharia! but if that's so obvious, why does CAIR fight every single one of them? it should be a no-brainer that America will have no law but the constitution and the courts. somehow, it isn't.
Watch the video. The atheist is very obviously sporting for a fight. This looks as much like a the case of an oversensitive atheist as it is an oversensitive Muslim. r nr nAnd if the judge dismissed on lack of evidence, he was applying American law, not Sharia.
The oversensitive atheist may be a real jerk and even an AH, but unless he was harming or threatening the Musllim, SO WHAT! I doubt that if the situation were reversed that the judge would have come to the same decision.
While the author of the article is correct that there is a false narative of Muslim victimhood being put forth in America, Muslims are hardly the only group claiming to be victims of oppression and/or racism. For instance, do we not see the likes of Al Sharpton constantly pushing the aggreived status of African Americans even in cases where clearly no such victimhood exists. Do we not see many in the Hispanic community claim racism every time someone talks about border enforcement and illegal immigration laws? This is hardly just a Muslim claim… “victimhood” it is a common claim by anyone who has a political agenda and sees that others do not share that agenda. Right or wrong (and I believe that it is wrong) it is a common tactic by ALL groups.
Maybe so, but nowhere in the world are African-Americans, or Africans (unless Muslim) or Hispanics attempting to apply 2nd class (Dhimmi) status to anyone. Nor are they kiling anyone because their important books are somehow besmirched.
The Article is right. Islam and the first or even the second amendment can't co-exist with true 100% Muslims. They can exist with everyday Mulsims that don't read the Koran much or go to church at all. The problem is that these everyday Muslims won't stand-up to the radicals and will go along with then. Going along with someone that kills and murders, in my view, makes you just a guilty as the killer. Until I see more Muslims standing up against to the radicals, I can't trust any of them.