First Amendment Right

Yes, I do know what conflict of interest means and your point is valid in regards to your example. What is evident is is that he allowed his bias to dismiss this case.

The judge is a methodist or mormon (apparently) or some other superstitious group and so his bias as a theist allowed him to override common sense.

The religiously inclined tend to stick together when faced with Atheists, that's been my experience.

They hate me far more than they hate each other, which I appreciate.

Yes, I do know what conflict of interest means and your point is valid in regards to your example. What is evident is that he allowed his bias to dismiss this case.


What is his bias and is it the same as his judgment?

What is his bias and is it the same as his judgment?


Well, how is it he completely ignored the officer's testimony in his decision? No explanation to why his testimony was ignored?

Here's My First Amendment Right!!

F^ck Dallas!!!

Here's My First Amendment Right!!

F^ck Dallas!!!


Yes, Fck the Cowboys...just make sure this doesn't happen to you when you say that while at a bar in Texas/Oklahoma.

Texas Football Fan Nearly Castrated in Bar Fight in Oklahoma Bar | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296466,00.html)

Well, how is it he completely ignored the officer's testimony in his decision? No explanation to why his testimony was ignored?


How do you know the officer's testimony was disregarded? Are you assuming that if it wasn't the muslim guy do jail time?

Part of the job of being a judge is to pass a critical judgment...that includes disregarding testimony and interpreting the law how they see fit and if that doesn't jive with precedence then on to the next stage of the legal system.

I think this is more of a case of what the judge said and along with the fact he dismissed the charges. I think when he started calling the guy names like "doofus" he crossed the line and showed he was letting his muslim faith get in the way of his decission making.

District Judge Mark Martin (http://www.ccpa.net/directory.aspx?EID=101) brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”
Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night.

I think when he started calling the guy names like "doofus" he crossed the line and showed he was letting his muslim faith get in the way of his decission making.

The judge isn't a moslem, he said "If I'm a muslim I'd find it offensive".

Still, so many other reasons to find this decision disgusting, not least of which is the fact he said "And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society."

So what? This is America and we don't kill people who disagree with us, particularly when that decision is based on superstition.

The judge is a methodist or mormon (apparently) or some other superstitious group and so his bias as a theist allowed him to override common sense.

The religiously inclined tend to stick together when faced with Atheists, that's been my experience.

They hate me far more than they hate each other, which I appreciate.

For the most part, I was ignoring this thread. So much epic fail that it is just not worth "wrestling with the pig".

With that said, RR - your opinions of the "religiously inclined" are for you to hold, but the prejudice and intolerance you display towards the spiritual choices of others speaks damningly of your own beliefs and is no better than the wrong you claim they do you.

So, in your atheistic paradise, it is fine to lump all "religiously inclined" together? It is okay to paint all those who believe that something exists beyond our finite senses as superstitious fools who believe in unicorns and magic? All who follow a religious paths are but dupes who are simply not smart enough to see the world as you do.

We poor religiously inclined fools, if only we were as brilliant and wise as you.

The intolerance and lack of understanding displayed by this and your multitude of other similar comments convinces me that, whatever your guiding ethos is, I am damn glad it's not mine and I certainly hope it never becomes that which is held by the majority of humankind.

As for the case itself, IMHO, it is one in which all should be embarrassed. The atheist's choice was in poor taste regardless of who was insulted. I don't care if you're an atheist or "religiously inclined", blatantly insulting the beliefs of others, with the intent to mock them, is simply wrong. Not criminal, not illegal, but wrong nonetheless - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a cornerstone of secular Confucian thought as well as Christian.

The muslim should not have engaged the atheist in any way other than use his own rights of free speech. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The judge should have simply ruled and shut up. His commentary is not the law. When judges opine about their personal take on things - as in this case - it almost always muddies the issue.

As to the decision, and as I understand it, the Judge's ruling was that it was one guy's word against another. I didn't see any assault on the video and my understanding (b/c I have not listened to the entire case) is that the police officer did not actually observe the altercation and was merely relaying that which was told to him (admittedly, I may be wrong about this). Would I have ruled differently? maybe, but the decision - based on what I have seen and read - is not so beyond the pale as to be anything other than one of hundreds (thousands even) of judgments made every day that different people will reasonably disagree on.