Penn. Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People

[East of Eden]

This judge is a convert to Islam, and said Muslims are allowed to attack people for insulting Muhammed.

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslim ... 00330.html

Is this not state-sponsored imposition of religion?

[Wyvern]

Comparing faith based initiatives with this Muslim judge basically implementing Sharia Law instead of US law.

Thankfully I made no such analogy. Just because two subjects are mentioned in the same post does not mean a connection is being made between the two.

And the US government is supposed to stay clear of any entanglements with religious organizations not give them money.

Says you, and ACLU flakes.

Actually that's what the establishment clause says. But I guess in your mind Jefferson is one of those ACLU flakes. It's amazing how an intended insult can become a compliment when you include such people in your insult, so thank you for calling me a flake.

As I know you are aware the US is predominantly christian which means even if the money was evenly divided that christian based charities would receive the lions share of funds. For that matter are you aware of any muslim, hindu, buddhist or wiccan organizations that received funding?

From Wikipedia:

"Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.
They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3])."

I assume this was intended to answer the question I asked you, but all it did was confirm in the very wording that this was a means to provide indirect funding to an FBO's religious activities.

Until it got to court this case did in fact enforce US law and as previously stated this decision will come under review and be overturned.

Yes, the court part is the objectionable one.

And you will not find me objecting. What I do object to is saying this is state sponsored sharia law.

You can only legally use deadly force when threatened with deadly force, your idea would only result in dead people on one side and jailed people on the other.

Depends what state you're in, I don't know about PA CCW law. When the atheist was being attacked he certainly would have been warranted to defend himself, as he does by receiving 471 death threats from members of the religion of peace.

Of course anyone is allowed to defend themselves, but just because someone attacks you doesn't mean you can automatically escalate the situation. So are you saying that simply receiving a threat is the same as being physically attacked and can be acted on in the same manner as you would a physical attack?

[McCulloch]

And the US government is supposed to stay clear of any entanglements with religious organizations not give them money.

Says you, and ACLU flakes.

And numerous supreme court justices, signers of the Declaration of Independence, constitutional lawyers and former presidents.

[otseng]

Says you, and ACLU flakes.

Moderator Comment

It's best not to describe a group as "flakes" and then to also insinuate a forum member is part of that group.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[East of Eden]

Wow. I didn't expect to come back for a visit and find an issue where I totally agreed with East of Eden, but such is the case. This judge is either an idiot or has become a fanatical Muslim -- or both, of course. I predict that he will be removed from the bench in short order.

It is alarming, isn't it cnorman? By this judge's reasoning a Muslim with Sudden Jihad Syndrome could beat up a gay person and get away with it.

Here is a good article about the worldwide Muslim attack on free speech, which is resulting in de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userIma ... _Feb12.pdf

[East of Eden]

Comparing faith based initiatives with this Muslim judge basically implementing Sharia Law instead of US law.

Thankfully I made no such analogy. Just because two subjects are mentioned in the same post does not mean a connection is being made between the two.

And the US government is supposed to stay clear of any entanglements with religious organizations not give them money.

Says you, and ACLU flakes.

Actually that's what the establishment clause says. But I guess in your mind Jefferson is one of those ACLU flakes. It's amazing how an intended insult can become a compliment when you include such people in your insult, so thank you for calling me a flake.

You mean the same Jefferson that authorized payment to Christian missionaries to Indians in the Northwest Territories?

Of course anyone is allowed to defend themselves, but just because someone attacks you doesn't mean you can automatically escalate the situation. So are you saying that simply receiving a threat is the same as being physically attacked and can be acted on in the same manner as you would a physical attack?

The atheist in question was physically attacked, see the video. In my state if you think you are in danger of great bodily harm or death you can lethally defend yourself.

[Wyvern]

Comparing faith based initiatives with this Muslim judge basically implementing Sharia Law instead of US law.

Thankfully I made no such analogy. Just because two subjects are mentioned in the same post does not mean a connection is being made between the two.

And the US government is supposed to stay clear of any entanglements with religious organizations not give them money.

Says you, and ACLU flakes.

Actually that's what the establishment clause says. But I guess in your mind Jefferson is one of those ACLU flakes. It's amazing how an intended insult can become a compliment when you include such people in your insult, so thank you for calling me a flake.

You mean the same Jefferson that authorized payment to Christian missionaries to Indians in the Northwest Territories?

Yep, that's the guy that you called a flake along with myself, again thank you for lumping me in with such extraordinary historical figures.

Of course anyone is allowed to defend themselves, but just because someone attacks you doesn't mean you can automatically escalate the situation. So are you saying that simply receiving a threat is the same as being physically attacked and can be acted on in the same manner as you would a physical attack?

The atheist in question was physically attacked, see the video. In my state if you think you are in danger of great bodily harm or death you can lethally defend yourself.

Well lets hope there aren't any paranoids in your state then.

[East of Eden]

Comparing faith based initiatives with this Muslim judge basically implementing Sharia Law instead of US law.

Thankfully I made no such analogy. Just because two subjects are mentioned in the same post does not mean a connection is being made between the two.

And the US government is supposed to stay clear of any entanglements with religious organizations not give them money.

Says you, and ACLU flakes.

Actually that's what the establishment clause says. But I guess in your mind Jefferson is one of those ACLU flakes. It's amazing how an intended insult can become a compliment when you include such people in your insult, so thank you for calling me a flake.

You mean the same Jefferson that authorized payment to Christian missionaries to Indians in the Northwest Territories?

Yep, that's the guy that you called a flake along with myself, again thank you for lumping me in with such extraordinary historical figures.

He was a flake in his personal religious ideas, like the chopped up Bible.

Well lets hope there aren't any paranoids in your state then.

You mean crazed Muslims?

[Wyvern]

He was a flake in his personal religious ideas, like the chopped up Bible.

Apparantly according to you he was also a flake for coming up with the idea of separation of church and state. So now instead of him being just a general flake you have now specified two areas in which he was flaky, both political and religiously according to you he was a flake. Since you seem to be incapable of dropping a subject that you are so obviously wrong in would you like me to get you a shovel?

Well lets hope there aren't any paranoids in your state then.

You mean crazed Muslims?

Sorry nope, since in your state anyone that simply thinks they are in grave physical peril is allowed to attack someone you would think paranoids from all over would be flocking to your state and firing on any and everyone they think might be out to get them. But hey how many people can a paranoid think are after them?

[East of Eden]

He was a flake in his personal religious ideas, like the chopped up Bible.

Apparantly according to you he was also a flake for coming up with the idea of separation of church and state.

Cite or retract. You like to make things up out of thin air, why not just argue with yourself?

Sorry nope, since in your state anyone that simply thinks they are in grave physical peril is allowed to attack someone you would think paranoids from all over would be flocking to your state and firing on any and everyone they think might be out to get them. But hey how many people can a paranoid think are after them?

It's called self-defense, most states allow it. You'd rather be killed, have at it.

[Wyvern]

He was a flake in his personal religious ideas, like the chopped up Bible.

Apparantly according to you he was also a flake for coming up with the idea of separation of church and state.

Cite or retract. You like to make things up out of thin air, why not just argue with yourself?

Wow, you are already lost after only 29 posts.

me: And the US government is supposed to stay clear of any entanglements with religious organizations not give them money.
(Basically restating the separation clause which Jefferson penned.)

you: Says you, and ACLU flakes.
(You denying the separation clause and including an insult which turned into a compliment due to the nature of the people you lumped me with)

Sorry nope, since in your state anyone that simply thinks they are in grave physical peril is allowed to attack someone you would think paranoids from all over would be flocking to your state and firing on any and everyone they think might be out to get them. But hey how many people can a paranoid think are after them?

It's called self-defense, most states allow it. You'd rather be killed, have at it.

Self defense is one thing, what you say your state allows is an entirely different fish. You stated:

The atheist in question was physically attacked, see the video. In my state if you think you are in danger of great bodily harm or death you can lethally defend yourself.

There is a big difference between being attacked and merely thinking you are in danger which is why I mentioned paranoids since they think they are always in danger of being attacked.