• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Man Admits to Attacking Atheist; Judge Dismisses Case

BigLutz

Banned
I have to say this is one of those things that shocks me to the point that I cannot even believe it happened here in America. The Judge should be disbarred in the blink of a eye, anyway here is the juicy details of the case.

Opposing Views said:
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case

Here is the coverage of the incident on a ABC affiliate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE

I cannot even form words at how shocking this is. I am not a atheist, I think what the man did was disgusting, but he had every RIGHT to do it, and no right to be attacked.
 

UnovaMaster

Well-Known Member
That is complete and utter bull crap. What a biased and unreasonable judge.

Guess justice is only allowed to religious people.
 

Liberty Defender

Well-Known Member
This is why homosexual judges shouldn't hear same-sex marriage cases. If you have something fundamentally in common with someone in the case, you can't help but be biased.
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
This is why homosexual judges shouldn't hear same-sex marriage cases. If you have something fundamentally in common with someone in the case, you can't help but be biased.

Then how can a hetrosexual judge fair any beter? He too is biased.
 

ThePKRSdealer

Professional noob
Ughh. I read about this on reddit, and for anyone that knows reddit..its like 75% atheist community. They were pretty pissed i'm sure. As a godless person myself, i find this awful. However, if i were a judge, and an atheist went and attacked a christian, i wouldn't just "dismiss" the case. justice is justice, and needs to be served more often.
 

raticate7

Well-Known Member
A Athiest that mocks a religion is INCREDIBLY offensive. You dress up like a Zombie Muhhamad and parade through the streets the Muslim had every right to assualt the athiest in my point of view because in Muslim religion you will not make an imgage of what Muhhamad looks like, Such as with a image of the Christian God. I am Catholic and I am NOT afraid to admit the athiest had it coming. I hate it when a muslim takes down a public Religious object such as a statue or banner ect. They have no right to take down what we believe in.
 

Lineaire

Well-Known Member
I think if you go to another country you should definitely learn about the laws first... I find that excuse pretty poor. :/
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
^^^ If I recall correctly, Judge Walker had previously ruled against a gay rights case in previous years and Nancy Pelosi even tried to stop his confirmation to the district court seat he sat on. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're actually a part of any type of political movement.

This is why homosexual judges shouldn't hear same-sex marriage cases. If you have something fundamentally in common with someone in the case, you can't help but be biased.

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they inherently side with the "homosexual agenda". Also, despite popular belief, there is no uniformly agreed upon "Christian agenda, "Homosexual agenda" or "Muslim agenda". There's no rule that being gay makes it "fundamentally in common" with other people who happen to be gay, just like there are a lot of Catholics who don't consider their Catholicism a defining feature of them as a person.

The trick isn't to find an inhuman neutral robot without biases, but to not let judges become biased in favor of specific groups.

Now that all being said:

Unfortunately, these types of rulings, where judges rule in favor of someone because they basically defend their indefensible actions with "God said so!", is all too common. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley has written often about child neglect and abuse cases where those citing religious beliefs get off with far lesser punishments in cases of injury and death compared to those who don't cite religious defenses. IF I had to guess, we don't see these types of cases (Muslim judge ruling in favor of a Muslim criminal defendent) often because Islam is a minority religion, but I'd guess these types of biased, miscarriage of justice are roughly proportional with Christian judges who let Christians off easy.

This is a miscarriage of justice, but I can't help but wonder how odd this story is. If this was a charge that was prosecuted, why not interview the county prosecutor? Why wasn't there a jury trial? Why not appeal or pursue ethics charges against the judge against the regional professional body or the state's Supreme Court?

Or was this a separate, civil case where the atheist was suing for damages?

Finally, the judge saying "conflicting testimony" is complete BS. A good judge and a good prosecutor know how to cut through the evidence and identify the truth despite conflicting accounts.

Would really like to find out more info.

EDIT before I hit the post button: Jonathan Turley weighs in. Turley is reporting that the judge is contemplating holding the atheist in contempt for posting the audio. Turley also calls the judges view on the first amendment "distorted".

A commentor on Turley's article says these lower courts in PA have judges that aren't even required to be lawyers.

Very odd and very interesting.
 
Last edited:

Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy

Well-Known Member
A Athiest that mocks a religion is INCREDIBLY offensive. You dress up like a Zombie Muhhamad and parade through the streets the Muslim had every right to assualt the athiest in my point of view because in Muslim religion you will not make an imgage of what Muhhamad looks like, Such as with a image of the Christian God. I am Catholic and I am NOT afraid to admit the athiest had it coming. I hate it when a muslim takes down a public Religious object such as a statue or banner ect. They have no right to take down what we believe in.

Yes, yes they do have that right, because in America, we have a freedom of speech and do not enshrine any particular denomination or religion as that of the state. I don't like it when people make jokes about 'zombie Jesus', sure, but attacking someone for it? Do you think that's about to convert anyone, or something?

As far as I'm concerned, someone mocking God is a business between them and God alone, not for the state. Punching someone in the face, however, is the government's business.
 

sanae

stop trying to be god ☆
It's funny cause they spelled doofus wrong. And normally it's the other way around I think (Atheist attacking a religous person)
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
A Athiest that mocks a religion is INCREDIBLY offensive. You dress up like a Zombie Muhhamad and parade through the streets the Muslim had every right to assualt the athiest in my point of view because in Muslim religion you will not make an imgage of what Muhhamad looks like, Such as with a image of the Christian God. I am Catholic and I am NOT afraid to admit the athiest had it coming. I hate it when a muslim takes down a public Religious object such as a statue or banner ect. They have no right to take down what we believe in.

You do not have the right to attack someone just because they offend you. The "Fighting Words doctrine" basically is that someone has to specifically target and provoke you as an individual. Someone you see in public who just so happens to be dressed offensively isn't targeting you, and thus "fighting words" doesn't apply.
 
Western society seems to have an almost pathological fear of offending Muslims/Islam.
 

Phantom champion Z

Well-Known Member
As an athiest I agree with what the muslim did. the atheist went out of his way to disrespect muslims and was put in his place. While what the judge did was unproffesional he had a point. people get so wraped up in their rights that they often disregard others. The athiest knew what he was doing when he put on that costume and he got what was coming to him.
 

coolminun

Banned
I have to say, that is terrible. I myself am considering becoming a muslim, and even I can't agree with what the judge did. Regardless if it is in disgusting taste or not, you don't attack someone just because they did something you find offensive.
 
As an athiest I agree with what the muslim did. the atheist went out of his way to disrespect muslims and was put in his place. While what the judge did was unproffesional he had a point. people get so wraped up in their rights that they often disregard others. The athiest knew what he was doing when he put on that costume and he got what was coming to him.

You are a disgrace to freedom of expression.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
I have to say first off, what the atheist did was stupid. In Islamic culture and highly conservative Islamic society, sacrilege is taking seriously. Though Muhammad is not considered a part of god like Jesus is to Christianity, it is still very offensive to them how Muhammad was portrayed. The South Park episode that just joked about showing Muhammad had the creators receiving threats. It is better to not be stupid, and be sacrilegious at home.

Despite all of that, I will follow with BigLutz and Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy since the atheist had the right to not only be stupid, but also freely assemble and freely express his conveyed message. The Klan even got away with that. This case was not settled correctly at all.
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
As an athiest I agree with what the muslim did. the atheist went out of his way to disrespect muslims and was put in his place. While what the judge did was unproffesional he had a point. people get so wraped up in their rights that they often disregard others. The athiest knew what he was doing when he put on that costume and he got what was coming to him.

While the atheist may have been a jerk Physical harm is not a answer to it. I have to tell my son never to resort to violence when people call him names and now judges are saying it's ok as long a religion. You have a lot of rights, but no one has the right not to be offended.
 
I have to say first off, what the atheist did was stupid. In Islamic culture and highly conservative Islamic society, sacrilege is taking seriously. Though Muhammad is not considered a part of god like Jesus is to Christianity, it is still very offensive to them how Muhammad was portrayed. The South Park episode that just joked about showing Muhammad had the creators receiving threats. It is better to not be stupid, and be sacrilegious at home.

Fuck this. Mohammed is as valid a satirical figure as ANY OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURE throughout history. The offence caused tells us far more about those who are offended than it does those who cause the offence.
 
Top