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]

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?

Nope, this is just an incredibly bad ruling made by a judge and is sure to be overturned plus I would not be surprised if this particular judge is censured in some manner. If you truly are concerned about state sponsored religion where were your concerns when Bush made the decision to favor faith based charities?

[Autodidact]

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?

Is this screwed up or what? That Judge needs to be removed from the bench, as he is not willing to enforce the law.

Question: What if the victim had been portraying zombie Jesus, and the attacker had been Christian?

[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?

Is this screwed up or what? That Judge needs to be removed from the bench, as he is not willing to enforce the law.

Question: What if the victim had been portraying zombie Jesus, and the attacker had been Christian?

If you read the article, there was another atheist there dressed up as zombie Jesus who was not attacked by any Christian.

[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?

Nope, this is just an incredibly bad ruling made by a judge and is sure to be overturned plus I would not be surprised if this particular judge is censured in some manner. If you truly are concerned about state sponsored religion where were your concerns when Bush made the decision to favor faith based charities?

What's your problem with faith based charities?

[micatala]

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?

If the ruling stood, and we allowed people of one religion to attack other people with impunity, yes it would be a violation of the establishment clause in my book.

This is truly astonishing.

We cannot allow people to attack other people, even if they feel provoked by what they consider inflammatory behavior.

[Wyvern]

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?

Nope, this is just an incredibly bad ruling made by a judge and is sure to be overturned plus I would not be surprised if this particular judge is censured in some manner. If you truly are concerned about state sponsored religion where were your concerns when Bush made the decision to favor faith based charities?

What's your problem with faith based charities?

Just that it appears that you have a problem with state sponsored religion only when the religion being sponsored is not yours. Being against the state sponsoring a religion is fine and in line with the constitution however you have to extend this idea to all religions not just the ones you don't like.

[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?

Nope, this is just an incredibly bad ruling made by a judge and is sure to be overturned plus I would not be surprised if this particular judge is censured in some manner. If you truly are concerned about state sponsored religion where were your concerns when Bush made the decision to favor faith based charities?

What's your problem with faith based charities?

Just that it appears that you have a problem with state sponsored religion only when the religion being sponsored is not yours. Being against the state sponsoring a religion is fine and in line with the constitution however you have to extend this idea to all religions not just the ones you don't like.

Red herring, a comparable analogy would be if a Christian judge released a Christian pro-life activist who attacked an abortionist.

Faith-based initiatives were open to all faiths, not one.

BTW, the atheist who was attacked has received 471 death threats for insulting the 'prophet'. Also interesting that the Muslim who attacked the atheist called the police as he assumed mocking the 'prophet' was a crime here. US law needs to be enforced, and Muslims who don't like it are free to leave to a more repressive country.

I do give this atheist credit for giving Muslims equal treatment instead of just picking on Christians. How about a rally of atheists (and the rest of us who believe in free speech) openly making fun of the 'prophet'? In case we're attacked, we can limit the rally to those of us who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[East of Eden]

Can someone tell me why this isn't the application of Sharia Law (minus the death penalty) in a US courtroom?

[Wyvern]

Red herring, a comparable analogy would be if a Christian judge released a Christian pro-life activist who attacked an abortionist.

Red herring? Analogy? I looked back on my two posts in this thread and you will have to point out the location of this supposedly fishy analogy of mine.

Faith-based initiatives were open to all faiths, not one.

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

BTW, the atheist who was attacked has received 471 death threats for insulting the 'prophet'. Also interesting that the Muslim who attacked the atheist called the police as he assumed mocking the 'prophet' was a crime here. US law needs to be enforced, and Muslims who don't like it are free to leave to a more repressive country.

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.

I do give this atheist credit for giving Muslims equal treatment instead of just picking on Christians. How about a rally of atheists (and the rest of us who believe in free speech) openly making fun of the 'prophet'? In case we're attacked, we can limit the rally to those of us who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

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.