Add

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

Kind of shocking that a US judge dressing down an American atheist for not being a good Muslim at a Halloween costume party in the US, where it is understood you can dress as anyone or anything.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Talaag Elbayomy attacked Ernie Perce, an atheist activist who was dressed as a Zombie Muhammad. Elbayomy, a Muslim, was arrested by police. It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the undead Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

Islam is impressive in terms of the violence and hatred. Not to mention the repression of the basic rights of women.  Just look at Pakistan today and the so-called moderate clerics celebrating the murder of an innocent. The killer is showered with rose petals, and the victim is blamed. The victim did not even commit blasphemy, which should be a capital crime anyway. He just spoke against blasphemy laws. And the sad part is we have the  usual apologists for the Islam as the religion o’ peace?

Words almost fail. Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy felt obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion that forbids depictions of the profit Muhammad. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a “doofus.” So is it the Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered. And you would think the judge from past mistakes

Pennsylvania act of 1700 provided:

“That whosoever shall willfully, premeditadly and despitefully blaspheme or speak loosely and profanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of Truth, and is legally convicted thereof, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds, for the use of the poor of the county where such offense shall be committed, or suffer three months imprisonment at hard labor as aforesaid, for the use of the said poor.”

I am sure Rick Santorum would see nothing wrong with the 1700 law. but be outraged at Judge Martins ruling.

Recently The Washington Post  reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. But the appeals court said the ban discriminates against Islam, as Sharia law is the only law mentioned in the proposed amendment.  Fine, let include the Christian church laws in the amendment, and any other faith based rules. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts. Let more primitive countries like Pakistan have their blasphemy laws, but keep the bible, the koran and the book of Mormon OUT of US courts.