Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[Webmaster]

This is just unbelievable and cannot be allowed to stand. This is a disturbing violation of the First Amendment and this judge needs to be thrown off the bench as soon as possible.

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-mus...210000330.html

[torbjork]

An argument against publicly elected judges (which I understand this to be an example of) is that occasionally, a complete and unadulterated moron gets elected. On the other hand, said moron can be thrown from the bench the next time around.

Can the costume guy appeal the decision?

[Webmaster]

Can the costume guy appeal the decision?

I don't know, but I would file a civil suit against the attacker.

[Erik]

I hope he can appeal. And get that compromised judge off the bench.

The first amendment discusses congress, not states. It's been a long time since I took constitutional law - I forget how that amendment affects church/separation in states and counties. Perhaps someone here knows?

Also, I don't believe I have the right to physically attack anyone unless it is in the defense of a person (myself or a third party). Even if I slug someone for threatening me or damaging my reputation, I must prove that the threat was credible and that I was preventing damage to life or limb.

Otherwise, it's battery, plain and simple. Can one of our cops verify this (at least for their own area) because, clearly, I am not cop material.

[Webmaster]

The first amendment discusses congress, not states. It's been a long time since I took constitutional law - I forget how that amendment affects church/separation in states and counties. Perhaps someone here knows?

It must have been a really long time ago, but the Constitution does not establish a separation of church and state. That is a myth. The First Amendment prohibits Congress of making law that either establishes, favors or prohibits the free exercise of religion, but the separation of church and state exists no where in the US Constitution.

[Ramirez]

This is why I have always said that only a secular state guarantees religious freedom. Over riding secular law with sharia or any other religious law leads to outrages like this.

[Abbax8]

It must have been a really long time ago, but the Constitution does not establish a separation of church and state. That is a myth. The First Amendment prohibits Congress of making law that either establishes, favors or prohibits the free exercise of religion, but the separation of church and state exists no where in the US Constitution.

If people would pause and remember the history of our country. The Colonists as British citizens were under the control of the King who was also the head of the Anglican Church which was created by Henry 8th. That is why the 1st Amendment exists. They knew the tryanny of the State/Church connection. The amendment is simple, Congress can make NO LAW establishing a religion OR prohibiting the free practice of it. They were talking about a SPECIFIC religion, NOT a philosophy which is what Christianity is. There are 30,000 separate Christian religions in the world today. Congress would have to select one of them and establish it as our National religion to violate the amendment. But a broader interpretation has been applied to the amendment causing the practice of any Christian religion outside the walls of the church to come under fire. In effect the courts have established (or are close to doing so) a national religion, and that is Secular Humanism.

Dennis

[Abbax8]

This is just unbelievable and cannot be allowed to stand. This is a disturbing violation of the First Amendment and this judge needs to be thrown off the bench as soon as possible.

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-mus...210000330.html

I agree, toss this idiot out!

Dennis

[Webmaster]

Well, it seems that the story is not exactly as we have heard.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/02/pen...p-legal-jihad/

[torbjork]

I still don't understand exactly why the judge figured he could dismiss the case, despite having both a police witness and a confession from the accused. And I still think he's a moron, not least because he's making his decision based on legal and cultural rules in other countries. He also clearly doesn't understand the concept of "free speech," which is NOT limited by what anyone might feel offended by on religious, philosophical, or cultural grounds. If it were, most of the stand-up comedians of the world would be in jail.