They need to understand that we've had this battle a few times before and the USA is governed by our Constitution, not by fanatic insurgent's religious beliefs.
Regardless of what the domestic terrorist in our WH promised them in Cairo -2009, we will remain a free nation.
If they don't want to assimilate and accept those facts, they can pack their sh!t and GTFO.
Islamic Law in America: Muslim attacks atheist for dressing as Muhammad. MUSLIM judge dismisses case. Agree or Disagree?
Foxhound BN0
2012/09/17 08:52:55
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
7% | ||
|
50 votes
|
|
93% | ||
See video and leave your opinion! Please rave this post so it will get around.
Top Opinion
-
Schläue~© 2012/09/17 10:51:18
Please do NOT rave this post. It has already been around. And around. And around again. In fact, it's been posted, reposted and debunked multiple times right here on Sodahead for at least a year.
1. The judge is not a Muslim, he's Lutheran. 2. There were no eye witnesses to the alleged events -- the police officer "on the scene" (according to the American Atheists' version of the story) was actually two blocks away. The video "clearly showing an assault" contains nothing but a few seconds of some bystanders' feet and a whole lot of very garbled audio (watch it for yourself below). 3. The defendant was charged with harassment, NOT assault, because there was absolutely no evidence that any assault had occurred. 4) There was probably a 4, but I'm going from memory and I can't recall what it was.
In short, the story as reported gets every detail of significance utterly wrong.
In the end, the ONLY evidence the (Lutheran!) judge had to work with was the conflicting accounts of the plaintiff and the defendant. Faced with nothing more than "he-said-she-said", the judge did the right thing in dismissing the case for lack of evidence.
And YES, the atheist (Ernie Perce, I believe was his name) was being a deliberately provocative asshat. He knew he wa...
Please do NOT rave this post. It has already been around. And around. And around again. In fact, it's been posted, reposted and debunked multiple times right here on Sodahead for at least a year.
1. The judge is not a Muslim, he's Lutheran. 2. There were no eye witnesses to the alleged events -- the police officer "on the scene" (according to the American Atheists' version of the story) was actually two blocks away. The video "clearly showing an assault" contains nothing but a few seconds of some bystanders' feet and a whole lot of very garbled audio (watch it for yourself below). 3. The defendant was charged with harassment, NOT assault, because there was absolutely no evidence that any assault had occurred. 4) There was probably a 4, but I'm going from memory and I can't recall what it was.
In short, the story as reported gets every detail of significance utterly wrong.
In the end, the ONLY evidence the (Lutheran!) judge had to work with was the conflicting accounts of the plaintiff and the defendant. Faced with nothing more than "he-said-she-said", the judge did the right thing in dismissing the case for lack of evidence.
And YES, the atheist (Ernie Perce, I believe was his name) was being a deliberately provocative asshat. He knew he was being an asshat, he was reveling in being an asshat. In fact, he specifically did what he did TO BE a provocative asshat. Does the US constitution give him the right to be an asshat? Of course it does (along with the right to play with matches, which is also probably not a good idea, constitutional rights notwithstanding). It ALSO gives the offended Muslim the right to tell the asshat atheist exactly what he thinks of asshat atheists. There is absolutely NO evidence that the offended Muslim did anything more than tell the atheist he was being a blithering idiot.
What about over a million dead abroad caused by ongoing invasions and bombings?
Anybody went to jail for that?
They can go somewhere else to practice their religion. I'm gonna stay right here in Oklahoma and praise JESUS Christ my Lord and Savior
However, we're in complete agreement: physical assault is out of bounds, no matter the provocation (questions of self-defense excepted).
1. The judge was not a Muslim (he's a Lutheran). Not to mention, throughout the trial he referred to Muslims as "them" and admitted here merely knows "a little bit about the faith of Islam" from having spent over two years in a predominantly Muslim country.. The misquote was "If I'm a Muslim, I'd find it offensive." Not "I'm a Muslim".
2. "Curtis, who had interviewed both men on the scene but taken no statement, testified that Elbayomy had admitted to "physical contact" with Perce during the argument -- though not to any specific acts such as grabbing or choking. In his own testimony, Elbayomy (whose English is limited) insisted that there had been only a verbal confrontation, and that if he had previously admitted to "physical contact" he might have meant Perce pushing him.
With such conflicting testimony, Martin's decision to dismiss the case is entirely reasonable."
http://www.realclearpolitics....
3. The judge was still a 100% asshat for what he said after his decision. On this, I believe most of us could agree. No doubt.
Now, the answers are wrong no matter which answer you choose.
If you choose Disagree, you're disagreeing to the Judge Dismissing the case. I do NOT disagree with that.
If you Agree, you're agreeing with Islamic law trumping American law (not with the Judges dismissal of the case).
The Q & A now does not make sense or match up with a proper answer.
I cannot choose either answer in this case. Both would be wrong.
So you're right. It's a loaded question: quite impossible to answer either way.
Thanks for the discussion.