First Amendment Right

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

Stick with your instincts next time.

With that said, RR - your opinions of the "religiously inclined" are for you to hold

Ooooh, thank you for your permission!


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.

Intolerance? Okay........ don't know what 'wrong' you're talking about but I do think it's odd to base so much of life on something that's superstitious.

So, in your atheistic paradise, it is fine to lump all "religiously inclined" together?

<sigh>Yeah, why not......

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?

A little simplistic, but, yes.

All who follow a religious paths are but dupes who are simply not smart enough to see the world as you do.

How would you describe someone who believes in something unsubstantiated?


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

That's such an awesome temper-tantrum. Thanks for brightening my day.


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.

Intolerance? Again. Please tell me where I've been intolerant.

I'm also pleased, you sound like a really dull person. Thanks for sharing though!

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.

That's fine but who decides what's in poor taste? What do we do when someone gets acid thrown on them because <fill in cult or group of choice> don't like <fill in imagined slight>.

It was a Halloween Parade, FFS!

That's fine but who decides what's in poor taste? What do we do when someone gets acid thrown on them because <fill in cult or group of choice> don't like <fill in imagined slight>.

It was a Halloween Parade, FFS!

Where was the acid in this case? Please cite to me one case where someone throwing acid on another person was deemed constitutionally protected freedom of speech. I guess you missed my point that violence is an unacceptable ... and in the example you now cite, a criminal action.

In the case at hand, poor taste is, as I said, intentionally mocking the beliefs of others. Since you recognize no other belief as correct but your own, I am sure poor taste is a way of life for you.

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.


Jail time? For a simple battery or assault? Hell no...lol That's a misdemeanor at most. I just felt with the admission of guilt from the defendant to the cop, and with the video putting the defendant at the scene (as well as the defendant acknowledging this), I thought sufficient evidence warranted a guilty verdict. I've seen guilty verdicts with waaaaaay less evidence. Then again, I've seen not guilty verdicts with waaaay more evidence too. Oh well.


Not even going to step into the whole first amendment crap which I don't think is even at issue here.

As for the case itself, IMHO, it is one in which all should be embarrassed.


Agree 100%. Not sure why people would go out of their way to offend people that do believe in religion. Let people think what they want to unless their beliefs somehow interferes with your life.

Where was the acid in this case?

Did I say there was a case?

Please cite to me one case where someone throwing acid on another person was deemed constitutionally protected freedom of speech. I guess you missed my point that violence is an unacceptable ... and in the example you now cite, a criminal action.

And my point, which you chose to ignore, was, who decides what is poor taste? I don't trust your judgment, you wouldn't trust mine. I have a list of friends I could give you but they'd probably side with you to piss me off.

In the case at hand, poor taste is, as I said, intentionally mocking the beliefs of others.

It's fine you saying it but I don't agree. Nothing should be above satire or being made fun of, once things become taboo then we lose the opportunity for honest examination. There wasn't a raging catholic assaulting the Zombie Pope, was there?

Since you recognize no other belief as correct but your own, I am sure poor taste is a way of life for you.

Where did I say that I refuse to recognize other beliefs? I recognize them as what they are: Superstitious nonsense. Please prove me wrong.

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.


So the article has been found to be incorrect. Quote from the article.

"A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First "

This article says he is muslim.

Video: Muslim Judge in Pennsylvania interviewed by CNN Reporter | Walid Shoebat Foundation (http://www.shoebat.com/2012/02/29/video-muslim-judge-in-pennsylvania-interviewed-by-cnn-reporter/)

So the article has been found to be incorrect. Quote from the article.

"A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First "

Yes, that's my understanding from reading the court transcripts that the judge had released.

Yes, that's my understanding from reading the court transcripts that the judge had released.

Everything I have read says the judge was muslim.

Edit:
I stand corrected the judge himself said he was muslim and is now trying to say he is not muslim.

Articles: Exclusive Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge Reveals Inside Details of Case (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/exclusive_interview_infidel_victim_of_pennsylvania _sharia_judge_reveals_inside_details_of_case.html)

Everything I have read says the judge was muslim.

Non-moslem with a lisp or other speech impediment, but the facts shouldn't get in the way of self-righteous indignation.

He's listed as 'something beginning with 'M'' but I didn't make a note of it as the absurdity of the case remained regardless of his religious affiliation. Him being moslem would have made it more outrageous.