Monday, February 27, 2012

You Don't Have a Right to Not be Offended


An obscurantist Muslim immigrant we graciously allowed through the gates of civilization attacked a Pennsylvania man who was dressed like a zombie Muhammad on Halloween. An idiot judge, citing Sharia law and extraordinary Muslim sensitivities, let the assailant off.

So does that mean I can punch Larry Flynt out of his wheelchair for his anti-Catholic comments and cite Canon Law as my defense?  No, it doesn't.  But what it does do is set the legal precedent that Islam is in a special protected class because it's practitioners are too violent to control themselves.  America takes another step closer to the turd world.
The assailant, Talag Elbayomy, a Muslim immigrant, physically attacked Perce, attempted to pull his sign off, and, according to police, admitted what he had done right after the incident. The defense argued that Elbayomy believed it was a crime to insult the prophet Mohammed (it is, under sharia law), and that because he was in the company of his children, he had to act to end this provocation and set an example about defending Islam.

Judge Martin did not lecture the defendant about free speech or how disputes are resolved in a civilized country. He instead dressed the victim down for failing to appreciate how sensitive Muslims  [...] are about Islam. (
Sharia Court of Pennsylvania)
I blame the State Department

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that our government should not be letting in people who think it is OK to attack others who offend their beliefs. I shudder to think what would have happened had this creep been walking down South Beach with his family and spied two men holding hands and kissing.  And how in the hell can we be letting people in and not explaining our laws to them?  All hopeful immigrants must be briefed that not only is blasphemy not against the law, it is one of the chief ways many of us exercise our first amendment rights.

Letting such people come here is like letting wild beasts into your home.  It is doubly dangerous when we have judges who more resemble ayatollahs, trampling the constitution while lecturing victims on how to avoid further attacks by not offending Islam.  The people of Pennsylvania should impeach that judge for trampling the constitution he has sworn to uphold.

There Ain't No Bridge Big Enough...

In an article about the flaming outrage in Afghanistan, I stumbled upon some words that say it much better than I ever could.  Upon concluding that we should quit Afghanistan sooner rather than later, Andrew McCarthy further observes...
That, however, cannot be the end of it. If, according to the president, we need to apologize to Muslims because we must accept that they have such an innate, extraordinary ardor for their religion that barbaric reactions to trivial slights are inevitable, then they should not be invited to enter a civilized country.
At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities.
If you really want to promote freedom in Islamic countries, an immigration policy based on civil-rights reciprocity would be a lot more effective, and a lot less expensive, than dispatching tens of thousands of troops to build sharia “democracies.” It would also protect Americans from people whose countries and cultures have not prepared them for the obligations of citizenship in a free society. (Why Apologize?)
Indeed.  Imagine (God forbid) if all of us were as violently hypersensitive about our beliefs as that immigrant.  The country would be in constant turmoil.  If we value our freedoms, our culture and our way of life, we can't be letting in those who do not.

43 comments:

twoguys2012 said...

Consider: It is only a lie that needs to be defended.

Islam = lie. It needs to have violent defense and whiny victimhood to keep it going.

Christianity, on the other hand, is not a lie. My Father backs up His Son, Jesus, and all the words of Jesus from His Father are true and eternal. The Most High has never needed to command His sons to kill for His Name, since at His Name all knees will bow and confess, anyways.

So each time we see Muslims behaving poorly and killing or assaulting those who speak against their 'god' or 'prophet', just remember that only lies need to be defended thusly.

Slap my face, bind my hands, tear out my tongue, remove my eyes, burn my Bible, and you have done not a one thing to my faith or the Truth that is Christ Jesus. Allah and Islam cannot say the same things.

I'm waiting for the leftists to scream about the separation of church and State here, since a Judge is defending a religion from the bench.

Anonymous said...

Workers, Jews, Negroes, Women, Cripples, Homosexuals, Mentally Deficient, Hispanics, "The Poor" -- and now MUSLIMS -- all qualify as "Protected Minorities" officially exempt from critical analysis, questioning of motives, or any attempt whatsoever to balk or frustrate the promotion of their particular interests -- no matter what ill effect it might have on all the rest of us.

DIVIDE and CONQUER is the name of the LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE GAME.

Don't you see? This is no more about Muslims than "Civil Rights" was about the advancement of colored people. By their ceaseless, all-too-successful attempts to roil the waters, stir up discontent, promote envy, anger, resentment and the spirit of rebellion, "activists" have maneuvered us into warring splinter factions. "They" have succeeded in weakening the moral fiber and sense of identity of the the populace while destroying pride and tearing down confidence in everything that made us what we were.

Whining, bitching, moaning, groaning, endless vituperation -- and the constant THREAT of VIOLENCE -- have replaced the virtues of modesty, thrift, hard work, humility, forbearance, respect for authority, devotion to duty and love thanks to the crafty, deceitful machinations of those dedicated to the destruction of Christianity and Capitalism.

What we SHOULD do is adopt this attitude:

The next time some representative of a favored "Victim" group levies a criticism or utters a complaint, just say, "SUCK IT UP, you GOD-DAMNED BASTARD. You're no different, no better and no more important than any of the REST of us. Take your fucking grievance and stick where the sun don't shine. Now, GET OUT OF MY WAY before I blow your FUCKIN' HEAD OFF."

Oh what fun it would be if we just took back our right to TELL IT LIKE IT IS!

It ain't just the MUSLIMS -- it's the OLIGARCHS, baby.
Disbelieve that at your peril.

~ FreeThinke

twoguys2012 said...

Silverfiddle,

I've seen the truth of Allah. Now you must have your head chopped off or something like that to appease Allah and her prophet Mohammad blessed be his name.

As a Muslim, I also now have the media on my side, the ACLU, the race-baiters, and basically the entirety of the Democrat Party and other America-haters. And don't get me started on all my new brothers in prison who convert to Islam while falsely incarcerated by the white majority.

Yes, Silverfiddle, I am offended at your words here. You will need to go. Allah cannot be mocked and not get revenge.

Aloha akbar, bitches.

Anonymous said...

If you thought my last statement was too mild and showed too much restraint, I'll be very glad to tell you how i REALLY feel one day very soon.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Couple things --

Reading a few accounts of the incident it appears less serious than the right wing bloggers are painting it. There was apparently no battery.

That said, it gave the judge some wiggle room but the ruling was a disgrace. I'm not sure why prosecutors are not appealing other than the possibility they felt the incident was not serious.

Myself, I would bring the judge up before a review board.

Ducky's here said...

One fact lost when you have bigots like twoguys2012 and Freethinker is that Muslims have assimilated in America and are quite successful.

Let's all play "my God is bigger than your God", a game that is popular among the officer class in the military.

Finntann said...

"Let's all play "my God is bigger than your God", a game that is popular among the officer class in the military."

What the hell does that mean?

Ducky's here said...

A member of the judge’s staff yesterday stated without equivocation that Martin is not a Muslim. So why did he say otherwise in the court proceeding? I now believe, though I’m not a hundred percent certain, that he probably did not say otherwise.

The audio sounds clear enough on YouTube streamed through your computer. But I’ve now listened to the sentence in question many times, wearing a good set of earphones with the volume amplified a bit. Based on that, it’s entirely possible that what Martin said was, “F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive” — as in If I were a Muslim, I would find it offensive. The “F” sound before the word “I’m” is almost inaudible, even with good equipment; the “d” sound that changes “I” to “I’d” is more perceptible, but you have to work a bit to hear it. "

---------------

That's an excerpt from a NATIONAL REVIEW article on the issue.

It was easy enough to find but the fringe right would rather go off half cocked like little Breitbart goons and get themselves bitch slapped.

Their bigotry is making it all too easy.

Ducky's here said...

It means that there are a lot of evangelicals in the officer court and they are no less bigoted fools than fundamentalist Muslims.

twoguys2012 said...

Ducky,

It's not bigotry to look upon a religion that has shown itself to be violent and dangerous to any who would oppose it.

It's common sense.

Your knee-jerk emotionalism, so obvious due to your feminine-spirited liberalism, is going to be your destruction one day. You seek to appease the alligator in the hopes it will eat you last, while rightists confront that same alligator with pliers to pull its teeth.

Is all of Islam evil? Well, let's be honest: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists have been Muslims. Do the math yourself.

If Christianity had this kind of shadow over it, you leftists would piss yourselves in glee. But since Islam isn't cool with Jesus, you embrace it, because nothing is more intimidating that the Truth.

twoguys2012 said...

Ducky,

When you use the words 'bitch slapped', you must be referring to self-abuse, since we all know liberal "men" are the bitches here.

Now go change your panties, get back on the corner, and make Daddy some money. Girl.

Anonymous said...

I have four comments.

The first is that it was most certainly a mistake in allowing religion to be an excuse in law, no matter what it is. The guy has to accept the standards of the nation he chose to go to, if he does not like it, then do not come. Recently in The Netherlands a conservative Jew was not fined for having no identification on him because it was Saturday or the Sabbath and thus forbidden.

The second is how society has fallen down to actually create the atmosphere to allow poking fun at what is obviously a seriously important subject to another group. Though we accept that freedom, provoking is clearly a line.

The third is about Afghanistan. Though burning the Koran is obviously a serious insult, there was no opportunity to explain or have an inquest to show to the people what happened, why? Because the Taliban and elements in the Afghan government simply milked it for all they can get, provoked instant furor and that is why there are deaths. It has to do with foreign soldiers (aka invaders), the existing war and local politics. Do not confuse this event over some simple "burning of their Koran", it has to do with a bigger picture.

The last is about Obama's apology. That was in fact the correct thing to do. It has nothing to do with stoping the violence or making the people go, "aaah, they understand" or to make Obama look good. It has to do with diplomatic protocol and the fact that the event (which is against the laws of Afghanistan as well) took place under the control of Americans and NATO and thus they are defacto responsible for it. Any leader would have done it, I am sure GWB would have, and if they did not, it would have been viewed by most countries as being arrogant and out of protocol.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

As usual, Ducky-pooh, humorless, doctrinaire little Marxist that you consistently show yourself to be, you fail to get the message which IS -- since I guess it must be spelled out:

YOU, whoever you are, and your precious victim "GROUP," are NO BETTER, NO MORE SIGNIFICANT, and NO MORE -- and NO LESS -- DESERVING of CONSIDERATION, UNDERSTANDING, PROTECTION, SUCCESS, HAPPINESS or PROSPERITY than anyone ELSE.

What you love to categorize as "bigotry," I prefer to see as REALISM.

In truth leftists are probably THE most bigoted faction on earth -- right up there with Islamists and Christian Fundamentalists.

Precisely what does "bigot" mean?

Someone who refuses to entertain -- or is incapable of considering -- any point of view other than his own. A bigot is someone who steadfastly clings to his preconceived notions no matter what clear and convincing evidence might be presented to the contrary.

Having convictions does not make one a bigot, unless one refuses ever to listen to or show respect for anything others are saying.

Bigots appear in every definable group. Some might want to define them as mindless "partisans," "chauvinists," "jingoists" or ideologues.

The damnable, infernally obnoxious strategy of the left to redefine terms to suit their inherently tyrannical, collectivist agenda must be DENOUNCED as nothing more than a bold, shameless tactic used to bully, cow, shame and vilify all opposition into submission.

In that regard it closely resembles the Inquisition, the Star Chamber, the KKK, the Third Reich, and all the other entities the left loves to use to bolster their specious logic and their failed attempts at quasi-benevolent argumentation.

Get this -- and get it straight: Neither YOU -- nor anyone else -- gets to define ME to serve twisted purposes of your own.

The fake piety, the bathos, the endless show of anger and contempt masquerading as "compassion" on the part of the left just DOES NOT WORK.

Political-Correctness be damned. The time for HONESTY has now arrived, so SCREW YOU and ALL your manipulative, self-righteous pretense at moral superiority.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker, I've never been accused of being PC.

Fact is that the right wing blogs jumped too quickly on this one and blathered on.

Anonymous said...

PEE YES:

Kurt's post was not about the legal niceties of whether or not the perpetrators of the "offenses" catalogued on all sides are in fact guilty of a crime or even judicial malfeasance.

Instead, it is about whether or not nettlesome people who routinely take "OFFENSE" as a way of trying to subvert, dominate, control, humiliate or criminalize those who do not "LIKE" them ought to be given any standing in a supposedly "free" society.

MY position simply stated is this: When you are in "Rome," you must "do as the ROMANS do." You lose your right to dominate and have your own way when you enter foreign territory.

If you don't like the way WE conduct our affairs here, then GET OUT and STAY OUT.

It works two ways. "Wild Horses" couldn't get me to go anywhere near an Islamic Republic, but if I had the misfortune to be kidnapped and dragged there by force, I would have sense enough NOT to demand a Bible, a Cross, a specially built Chapel, a personal Priest, special clothing or a special diet to suit MY religious and cultural preferences. I have no desire to be tortured, mutilated, have my eyes gouged out, be buried up to my neck in sand and kicked and stoned to death by crazed "villagers," or slowly beheaded with a rusty pen knife on or off videotape.

It's NOT about "THEIR" supposed "rights. It's about OUR rights to continue being who we are and doing what WE choose to do in our OWN country.

~ FreeThinke

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "Myself, I would bring the judge up before a review board."

Indeed. By even considering terrorist law (shariah), he violated his oath concerning the Constitution.

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker, after you calm down you may wish to consider a cogent point here.

The right presented this as a foregone conclusion, a Muslim was issuing sharia rulings from the bench. As it turns out that isn't the case but that's not going to alter your opinion because you MUST live in a world that sees anything other as threatening and evil.

What the judge did here was essentially to rule against free speech for atheists. The issue of Islam was incidental but the ruling was terrible. Still won't stop the likes of yorself, dmarks, Silverfiddle and twoguys2012 from strutting your ignorance and bigotry and becoming outraged when you get called on it.

twoguys2012 said...

Ducky,

My anger is that on American soil, in a court of American law, that Sharia Law was enforced above the US Constitution.

Dollars to donuts the Judge in question is a liberal who voted for Obama. No one who is that woefully ignorant about our Constitution could possibly be a Conservative.

You would cite that an atheist had his free speech rights violated. When one of yours gets his feelings hurt, you assemble like a knitting party and feign anger. The Bigger Picture screams against you and your, but apparently even dogs do get the crumbs that fall from the table.

Always On Watch said...

I haven't heard any outcry or outrage from the mainstream media. Did I miss that outcry or outrage?

Jim at Conservatives on Fire said...

The victims friend was said to be dressed as a zombie Pope. Can we assume if Catholics had attacked him that this judge would have dismissed the case against the catholics? I doubt it-

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Please note that my argument is not predicated upon the judge being a Muslim. In fact, I never say that because I found out yesterday as I was researching this that a misunderstanding of the transcript incorrectly identified the judge as a Muslim.

The judge's religion is immaterial, so stop throwing your diversionary stink bombs.

beamish said...

The people of Pennsylvania should impeach that judge for trampling the constitution he has sworn to uphold.

No they shouldn't. They should behead him for swearing to the Constitution instead of Allah.

Shane Atwell said...

Agree with the first part of your analysis. But regarding immigrants from Muslim countries, wouldn't it make more sense to require something of the immigrants rather than the government they are fleeing from?

Ducky's here said...

An idiot judge, citing Sharia law ...

------------

I'm calling bull, sharia has nothing to do with this case.

You have to be careful what you imply.

This gets the evangelicals knickers in a pretty tight know. You threw the first bomb.

Lisa said...

"Any leader would have done it, I am sure GWB would have, and if they did not, it would have been viewed by most countries as being arrogant and out of protocol."

Yeah but the NY Times would have this on the front page for a week if Bush were president you know like they always used to.

twoguys2012 said...

I'm calling bull, sharia has nothing to do with this case.
----------

Perhaps. Or maybe the Judge is scared if he ruled against the Muslim, his head would wind up in the trash can. Or his house burned down.

Either way, he shat upon the Constitution in full view of the false god of Islam. On American soil. In an America courtroom.

Like I said, he must be a leftist.

Jersey McJones said...

This PA decision was an anomaly, and even very left-leaning pundits are upset with it. Something tells me this judge is in big trouble and further cases like this will be handled very differently. I don't see any great Sharia - or lefty- conspiracy here.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

I don't see a Sharia conspiracy either, which can be confirmed by reading what I wrote.

I see a judge who put some foreign religious code ahead of the US Constitution.

Leticia said...

This is the first I have heard about this incident.

I agree completely with you. Some Muslims are volatile and we most certainly do not want them here, nor do we want their Sharia Laws shoved down our throats.

The turmoil and horrendous chaos in Afghanistan should be an eyeopener for everyone.

They have zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't share their belief.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Andrew McCarthy says it nicely and he makes a good point i think.

As for the original incident, can't say i feel terribly sorry for the atheist ass, seeing as how they so often intentionally insult and hurt Christians. None the less, they still have the right to be assholes and i hope an appeal is lodged, the decision overturned and that judge reprimanded.

Z said...

SF..."I see a judge who put some foreign religious code ahead of the US Constitution."

Yes, so why can't all commenters stick to that fact? No, instead, we get smokescreens about bigotry and Evangelicals and ... balhblahblah.

As for your last paragraph, there are plenty of Americans who do NOT 'value our freedoms, culture, way of life.." and we're letting in more who won't learn our language, won't fit in, don't feel our laws apply to them. SO, now what?
If you insist people come here and fit in, not take our money for nothing, stay firm on OUR constitution and OUR laws, then you're a bigot or too nationalistic; the left's had it sewn up well in advance. You know that.

Jersey McJones said...

"I don't see a Sharia conspiracy either, which can be confirmed by reading what I wrote.

I see a judge who put some foreign religious code ahead of the US Constitution."

As do I, with the exception I don't know what you mean by "foreign." Religious code is religious code, none have a nationality, not even Israel.

We have lots and lots of examples of crazy decisions coming from crazy judges based on religious, or political, or just plain crazy codes. It happens all the time.

This time it just happened to involve Islam. Most of the time, in America, it does not.

Usually it's some Catholic or Protestant, or worse yet, Evangelical... or an Objectivist, or a Libertarian, or a Feminist, or an Atheist, or some other uniquely American form of judicial activism. This kinda stuff happens. We do have recourse, and this judge and this case should and will be taken to account. Hopefully we handle it wisely. No sense going crazy over this.

JMJ

twoguys2012 said...

Tim, over at Left Coast Rebel, posted a similar article about this issue and one of the commenters, Lawyer Mom, caught my attention with her brilliant comment.

Here it is:
----------

Lawyer Mom
Feb 27, 2012 02:36 PM

The so-called "invocation of Sharia law" Turley mentions was more subtle and insidious. I listened to the entire recording of the hearing and the judge held that the attacker could not have formed a criminal intent to harass because he believed the victim -- Zombie Mohammed -- was breaking the law. It's a "justification" defense piggy-backing on a "mistake of law" defense (which is hardly ever applicable in a criminal case, and certainly not applicable here).

Look for more defenses like mistake of law, justification and necessity in Muslim cases in the future. They don't work for "regular" religions -- for example, in the pro- and anti-abortion violent tussles. But hey, if Mohammed is your defense, anything's possible.
Reply

LSP said...

Saw that and I, for one, look forward to our new Sharia overlords.

Cheers.

98ZJUSMC said...

"Let's all play "my God is bigger than your God", a game that is popular among the officer class in the military."

You're even more dense than I gave you credit for.

Congrats, Dufus.

Ducky's here said...

twoguys, thanks for establishing that this has nothing to do with sharia.

98ZJUSMC said...

Usually it's some Catholic or Protestant, or worse yet, Evangelical... or an Objectivist, or a Libertarian, or a Feminist, or an Atheist, or some other uniquely American form of judicial activism.

Does your head hurt?

I mean, more than average?

98ZJUSMC said...

SF..."I see a judge who put some foreign religious code ahead of the US Constitution."

Yes, so why can't all commenters stick to that fact? No, instead, we get smokescreens about bigotry and Evangelicals and ... balhblahblah.

..and just who expected anything else from the left inclined? It's what happens when you're bereft of sense.

twoguys2012 said...

Ducky,

You're shooting blanks as usual.

Lawyer Mom nailed it.

Oh, which reminds me, did you get a copy of the two homosexual men kissing at the USMC welcome home event?

I'm sure you did. How proud are you, big fella?! You go, girl. Your progressive Oprah mindset is doing our nation soooo much greatness.

Finntann said...

"It means that there are a lot of evangelicals in the officer court and they are no less bigoted fools than fundamentalist Muslims."

No, not really.

Well, I can't speak for the Navy or Marines, but there certainly not what I would classify as "a lot" in the Air Force or Army.

As I've said before, I've ran across a few (both officer and enlisted) in 25 years, but they are certainly a small minority. I can also positively state that I've run across far more many atheists than evangelicals. A more apt description is they're the sort of folk you'd be apt to run across in college frat house.

But I digress...

Finntann said...

Aside from this guy being an asshat...

From what I've gathered, these guys were known as a "Justice of the Peace" when I lived in PA many many moons ago.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Pennsylvania.aspx

All but Magisterial District Judges and Philadelphia Traffic Court Judges must be members of the Bar of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

An elected Magistrate who is not a member of the bar must take a four week long course and pass an exam.

If anyone is interested, the deadline for registering for the June 4-29 Course is 4 May 2012.

http://www.mjeb.org/Certification.htm

According to the Jan 21, 2011Cumberland Sentinel, Mark Martin was running again for magistrate. Unless recalled or whatever it is they do to bad magistrates, looks like he is in office until 2017.

In Pennsylvania, magisterial district judges are elected for six-year terms by the electors in the district that the magistrate judge serves.

They serve alone in districts apportioned by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and exercise statewide jurisdiction, with limitations.

They conduct criminal arraignments and preliminary hearings, issue arrest warrants and search warrants in some cases, hear civil disputes involving $8,000.00 or less, Landlord-Tenant disputes, except not matters involving title to real estate, issue temporary Protection from Abuse Act orders, decide traffic, game law, and fish and boat code cases, conduct marriages, administer oaths and affirmations, etc.

They are state employees and supervise staffs which are county employees.

Unlike judges in the county-level Courts of Common Pleas, or in the appellate courts, magistrates in Pennsylvania are not required to have law degrees.

So putting it in perspective, this asshat may have no more than four weeks training.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

"The judge's religion is immaterial, so stop throwing your diversionary stink bombs."

My point exactly. Leftists -- and others addicted to endless dispute -- employ a legalistic approach disingenuously in order to derail debate. They do this by focusing on irrelevant details that confuse the issue at hand.

Ducky's portrayal of himself as calm, cool, collected logician with superior knowledge looking down at those of us who become impassioned as if from a great height is yet another diversionary tactic. It takes us away from the issue, and gets us to focus on HIM instead.

By using incessant accusation delivered in a haughty manner the left often attempts to gain the upper hand by trying to engender unwarranted feelings of guilt and self doubt in their opponents.

The left uses myriad specifics like a bushel basket full of marbles tossed down the stairs at a posse charging upward in hot pursuit.

~ FreeThinke

twoguys2012 said...

"By using incessant accusation delivered in a haughty manner the left often attempts to gain the upper hand by trying to engender unwarranted feelings of guilt and self doubt in their opponents."
-----------------

FT, you just described the left's campaign motto for the last century! Guilt...self-doubt...oh yes. Ducky is an expert on these things, ain't ya, Duck?