Religion

humblebum

(5,881 posts)

40. There now seems to be strong doubt that the judge is indeed a Muslim.

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 01:29 PM

Feb 2012

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291964/does-judge-martins-not-being-muslim-change-bias-argument-andrew-c-mccarthy

Regardless, when referring to the laws in other countries, he overstepped his boundaries, as he is charged only with application of U.S. law and the laws of Pennsylvania.

The atheist was well within his First Amendment rights, but just as Westboro protesters, or parading American Nazis - he was a bigot on display for all to see, purposely degrading another group, but still within his rights.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Muslim Attacks Atheist. Muslim Judge Dismisses Case, Blames Victim. [View all] cleanhippie Feb 2012 OP

Please let this be the last case this judge presides over n/t VWolf Feb 2012 #1

Fuck Moe and the horse he rode in on. Fuck that judge too. Lucky Luciano Feb 2012 #2

This judge should be barred from ever practicing law. Dawson Leery Feb 2012 #3

He's likely not a lawyer. rug Feb 2012 #9

Huh. Maybe there is something to the sharia-law scares I've been rolling my eyes at. ZombieHorde Feb 2012 #4

This sounds a lot like one of those 'sharia-law scares' you have been rolling you're eyes at. wandy Feb 2012 #7

I wonder if the Sharia law scaremongers will jump on this story arcane1 Feb 2012 #5

Had it been a christian, you betcha they would be all over it. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #6

The judge is so wrong on so many points... rexcat Feb 2012 #8

Your right to swing your fists ends at another person's nose. Sal316 Feb 2012 #10

What are you getting at? Your response is ambiguous. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #11

Seems pretty self explanatory to me. Sal316 Feb 2012 #12

Nice rationalization. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #13

Congrats on missing the point. Sal316 Feb 2012 #16

Congrats on not having one. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #22

Equivocation was unnecessary. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #14

Thanks for the suggestion. Sal316 Feb 2012 #17

Did you miss the fact that I recognized your bigger point, darkstar3 Feb 2012 #19

Yes I did. Sal316 Feb 2012 #29

You were doing fine until the second paragraph you wrote, then you fell off right field... Humanist_Activist Feb 2012 #15

I do see that. Sal316 Feb 2012 #18

Of course it was justified, its free speech, what about that is too difficult for you to understand? Humanist_Activist Feb 2012 #21

Goddamn right. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #23

Too many people value their myths more than they do people, its sick and evil, period. n/t Humanist_Activist Feb 2012 #24

It's like they believe a warped version of Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote Rob H. Feb 2012 #27

No. Sal316 Feb 2012 #30

And just what were the responsibilities of the victim in this case? cleanhippie Feb 2012 #33

Seriously....if you have to ask... Sal316 Feb 2012 #35

Not that I disagree with you, but "being a douche" is not cleanhippie Feb 2012 #37

So I guess that means... Sal316 Feb 2012 #28

No, but I understand nuance... Humanist_Activist Feb 2012 #34

#facepalm Sal316 Feb 2012 #36

Think about it... SnakeEyes Feb 2012 #38

I think what Sal is getting at, is that religion deserves special consideration. cleanhippie Feb 2012 #39

If that were the case, then Blasphemy laws should be implemented. DUIC Feb 2012 #41

Link to TV news coverage of the story Boojatta Feb 2012 #20

other links/weird story wingzeroday Feb 2012 #25

You know what this reminds me of? 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #26

This sheds an entirely new light on the case. And if true, needs to be investigated humblebum Feb 2012 #31

Has the Onion now moved into court rooms?? Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #32

There now seems to be strong doubt that the judge is indeed a Muslim. humblebum Feb 2012 #40