Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[highnote]

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

......Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
..By Mark Whittington

COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

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 Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. 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." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Words almost fail.

see link above for full story

[PaceAdvantage]

wacky...

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
see link above for full story

Wow.

[PhantomOnTour]

Whoa...

[highnote]

Imagine what this will lead to if this judge's ruling stands:

Let's say a person has a religious belief that anyone who is NOT Christian must die. So they go about killing people in the name of Christianity.

The person is arrested, goes to trial, a judge with the same beliefs says that the person was justified in killing others who disagreed with him because he was obligated by his religion.

[bigmack]

Figures, JHS breakin' up the trifecta of one worded responses within two minutes, starting with W, by NOT sliding in three periods after said 'W' response.

There's always one that has to spoil the fun. :bang:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2_25_12_13_13_41.jpg

[highnote]

Well... I would have kept it going, but I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.

[PhantomOnTour]

"You blew it man! You reeeeeeeeally blew it!"
-Cosmo Kramer

[highnote]

Whoops....


"You blew it man! You reeeeeeeeally blew it!"
-Cosmo Kramer

[bigmack]

"You blew it man! You reeeeeeeeally blew it!"
-Cosmo Kramer
JHS is the in-house Newman.

Hello. Newman.

[PhantomOnTour]

Whoops....
Well done... :D

[Tom]

Someone is no obligatgaed to attack this POS judge.
Seriously, he needs to be stopped, whateve it takes, and since he has ruled violence is not only acceptable, but sometimes mandatory, I hope he get his karma pretty quick.

No loss.

[highnote]

Someone is no obligatgaed to attack this POS judge.
Seriously, he needs to be stopped, whateve it takes, and since he has ruled violence is not only acceptable, but sometimes mandatory, I hope he get his karma pretty quick.

No loss.


That is my take on it, too. If, based on your beliefs, it is legal to attack someone for exercising their right to free speech then what is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution?

The Preample to the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Tom]

Judge is obviously mentally ill.

[bigmack]

I can't figure out why "The Muz" got so upset.

I don't think Zombie Mo looks anything like Muhammad. Or, Muhammad. Or, Muhammed. Or, Mohamed. Or, Mohammed. Or, Mohamad. Or, Muhammad. Or, Muhammed, Or, Muhamed.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/ZombieMoattackjustifiedsaysjudge.png

kzGTaEQebfE

[highnote]

Article [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.

The judge ignored Article [I.] of the Constitution.


Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Obviously, he is not sound.

Blatantly disregaring and disrespecting the Constitution is not "good Behaviour". Therefore, he is not fit to hold office.

[boxcar]

Hcap, don't stay missing in action on this thread. Don't you think this country is inching closer and closer to Sharia? Soon, Sharia will trump the Constitution on many levels.

And do you have it wrong about Islam or did the judge get it wrong? You have always maintained that Islam is a religion of peace, but this judge seems to be agreeing with me -- it's more a religion of pieces. The judge said the Muzzy had a right to act on the basis of the teaching of his religion.

Boxcar

[highnote]

What if people who believe the literal translations of the Old Testament start to act on their beliefs? --

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)





Hcap, don't stay missing in action on this thread. Don't you think this country is inching closer and closer to Sharia? Soon, Sharia will trump the Constitution on many levels.

And do you have it wrong about Islam or did the judge get it wrong? You have always maintained that Islam is a religion of peace, but this judge seems to be agreeing with me -- it's more a religion of pieces. The judge said the Muzzy had a right to act on the basis of the teaching of his religion.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

I have a new religon...NRA. Does that mean I can use Muslims for clay pigons if the boss says it is OK?

[Native Texan III]

The judge ignored Article of the Constitution.




Obviously, he is not sound.

Blatantly disregaring and disrespecting the Constitution is not "good Behaviour". Therefore, he is not fit to hold office.

Judge Martin reportedly stated correctly that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. The amendment also prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause), impeding the free exercise of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause). if you intentionally mock or intimidate people's known religious views and they retaliate, you take the consequences and the law may not be on your side.

It is also nothing to do with free speech. If your preconceived antagonistic actions provoke a response in kind then you again must be prepared to take the consequences. There are many exceptions to the general protections, including the Miller test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) for obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity), child pornography laws, "speech" that incites imminent lawless action

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes freedom of speech in the USA. There are several major limitations on this freedom:

Only the government is prohibited from restricting speech. Private corporations are free to censor speech of their employees.
Freedom of speech is [i]not absolute, even when government regulation or law is concerned. For example, freedom of speech does not give one the right to commit perjury.
Since 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated from protecting freedom of speech even for government employees

[johnhannibalsmith]

Judge Martin reportedly stated correctly that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. The amendment also prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause), impeding the free exercise of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause). if you intentionally mock or intimidate people's known religious views and they retaliate, you take the consequences and the law may not be on your side.

It is also nothing to do with free speech. If your preconceived antagonistic actions provoke a response in kind then you again must be prepared to take the consequences. There are many exceptions to the general protections, including the Miller test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) for obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity), child pornography laws, "speech" that incites imminent lawless action

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes freedom of speech in the USA. There are several major limitations on this freedom:

Only the government is prohibited from restricting speech. Private corporations are free to censor speech of their employees.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, even when government regulation or law is concerned. For example, freedom of speech does not give one the right to commit perjury.
Since 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated from protecting freedom of speech even for government employees


So, even if we assume (which is pretty tough to do) that dressing as Mohammed is an act of provocation, does the law then allow for physical retaliation when an individual is in no danger, no threat of imminent harm, and is in no way defending himself or his property?

I can't wait to knock out one of those phony Baptists that mock religious funerals.

Somebody tell Andres Serrano to protect himself at all times.

[nijinski]

Seems bizarre .
Conflict of interest ? Abuse of power ? Can we get get this judge off the this type of case on something technical?

[bigmack]

Here the 'dressing down' of Ernie by da Judge:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus. :ThmbUp: (Nice touch)

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, 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 cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “May God be with you.” Whenever — it is very common — their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, “Allah willing, this will happen.” It is — they are so immersed in it.

Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights. :confused:

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether 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’re 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. :D

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. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

[highnote]

Judge Martin reportedly stated correctly that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people.

I think that is a matter of interpretation. Metaphorically, it is a matter of the thickness of one's skin.

You can try to provoke me, for example, but words and images directed towards me usually don't bother me. If someone threatens to kill me or hurt me or my friends and family then that might provoke me, but I would not hit someone because they said those things. I would turn the matter over to the police. I would not kill or injure someone because they threatened to kill or injure me.


It is also nothing to do with free speech. If your preconceived antagonistic actions provoke a response in kind then you again must be prepared to take the consequences.

Being attacked in Pennsylvania for dressing as Mohammad is not a response in kind.

The United States of America has a culture. Muslim countries have a culture. When a U.S. citizen travels to a Muslim culture they should abide by the customers of the culture. When a person of the Muslim culture is in the United States they should abide by the customs of the U.S. culture. If the Muslim can not abide by the customs of the U.S. culture then the Muslim should not live in this country.

That seems pretty simple to me.

That said, a person who dresses as Mohammad at a Halloween parade should realize they may become the target of an attack. However, the person who dresses as Mohammad should have an expectation that in this country they have the right to express themself freely without being harmed. There may be some exceptions. I don't think dressing as Mohammad is one of the exceptions.

The writers of the Constitution were well aware of situations just like this one. No one has the right under the U.S. Constitution to attack someone for they way they are dressed.

[highnote]

I was not impressed by the judge's eloquence.

Here the 'dressing down' of Ernie by da Judge:

[PaceAdvantage]

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it?"

Oh, that's right...that only applies to neo-Nazi marches, where they call in the police to make sure nobody is hurt.

But heaven-forbid you're offending a Muslim in this country...it's ok to offend Christians left and right...no problem there...happens all the time...on the street...on TV and in movies...

But offend a Muslim? Can't be having that...no sir... :lol:

And now it's been written into the legal record... :faint:

[PaceAdvantage]

I was not impressed by the judge's eloquence.I completely agree. Has the art of speaking English been lost forever?

You'd think a judge, who has plenty of experience speaking in front of an audience, wouldn't sound so clueless when it comes to talking in coherent sentences.

[bigmack]

So everyone is clear, D'Judge is NOT a converted Muzzy. Repeat, NOT...

[highnote]

This judge's opinion reminds me of someone who would say a woman who got raped deserved it because she was flirting and was dressed provocatively.

Therefore, the rapist is not in violation of the Constitution because he was provoked -- she asked for it, she had it coming to her and she got what she deserved. :rolleyes:

[Steve 'StatMan']

This judge's opinion reminds me of someone who would say a woman who got raped deserved it because she was flirting and was dressed provocatively.

Therefore, the rapist is not in violation of the Constitution because he was provoked -- she asked for it, she had it coming to her and she got what she deserved. :rolleyes:

I'll polietly disagree with the analogy and hope to God this doesn't get Boxie off on this as a tangent, he's done that before.

In this case, the guy was an ass to mock Mohammed, the group asses to mock The Pope and other religious figures. But the judge was wrong - it was a sad but legal act. While I'd love to feel I now have legal right to knock out anyone doing this about the Pope, Jesus, others, I still know we don't, and hope that this didn't set a precedent - if so, this ruling needs to be overturned and the case re-heard. I don't blame the Muslim man for being upset, and hope he choses to express future pleasures in legal U.S. ways - inclusing yeling anythin he wants at the assholes and marching similarly for pro-religious causes (vs the assholes in this case who were an atheist group. Assholes come in all faiths and non-faiths.)

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm wondering - did the judge order the defendant not to physically attack people, even over religious issues, ever again, or is this really saying it is okay to attack, even do waht you want if you're a muslim? And what about other faiths? Knowing just what I know, if I were the judge, I'd say guilty of attack, but if no priors, let off with verbal warning not to do so again. Note the crime, but sentence to fit the action. Grabbing, etc. is one thing. Don't want this to legalize worse attacks.

[highnote]

My understanding is that the judge said that the Plaintiff got what he had coming to him because he offended someone's culture and very being and therefore the person of Islamic faith was justified in attacking the man dressed as Mohammad.

If this is the correct interpretation of the law then believers of the Old Testament would be justified in killing anyone who did not believe in their god. Therefore, the judge ruled that it is OK to kill people of Islamic faith -- even if the person of Islamic faith happens to be a judge ruling against you!

This is why the founding fathers of the U.S. wanted a separation of religion and state. Religions too often do not recognize the rights of individuals. States will recognize the rights of religions to exist, but it usually doesn't work the other way around.

Believe me, if the Vatican could impose its views on the whole world it would do so -- just as Islam would do. A free society will not tolerate tyranny, religious or otherwise.



I'm wondering - did the judge order the defendant not to physically attack people, even over religious issues, ever again, or is this really saying it is okay to attack, even do waht you want if you're a muslim? And what about other faiths? Knowing just what I know, if I were the judge, I'd say guilty of attack, but if no priors, let off with verbal warning not to do so again. Note the crime, but sentence to fit the action. Grabbing, etc. is one thing. Don't want this to legalize worse attacks.

[HUSKER55]

THAT CULTURE WILL NOT DO WELL HERE. IT WAS HALLOWEEN-GET OVER IT!


wHAT ABOUT the people who want to celebrate halloween, what about their rights.

This is muslim bull shit. If they want to practice their culture go back where they came from. It is the same as if there is one atheist in a crowd so you can't pray.

This is wrong.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Maybe someone next year will dress up with flames all around themselves and go as an atheist in hell. (sorry to our athiest readers and posters, but I'm sure you're used to it, like us of faith are used to these types of mockings Unhappy, but used to it.)

[GameTheory]

People keep saying this should be overturned, but the case was thrown out. There is no guilty verdict to appeal. And presumably the case was dismissed "with prejudice", given what the judge had to say, and so therefore the assault charge cannot be brought again. Hell, it sounds like they'll be prosecuting the guy that got attacked for his "provocation". So nothing can be done, unless there is some sort of censure procedure for the judge.

[boxcar]

What if people who believe the literal translations of the Old Testament start to act on their beliefs? --

And what about people who believe in the "literal" translations of the Old and New Testaments? Then what? Do you think the NT is silent on the OT?

Boxcar

[Tom]

I am going to start my own religion, and our belief will be that is our duty to attack democrats wherever we find them.

Can't stop me from starting it and can't stop me from practicing it.


I certainly hope this message is not lost on the fringe element out there.
That would make for interesting newscasts......

[lsbets]

Why am I not surprised that native texan is the one defending this judge on here?

[highnote]

And what about people who believe in the "literal" translations of the Old and New Testaments? Then what? Do you think the NT is silent on the OT?

Boxcar


I do not think about it (I think?) because I don't know what you mean. I am not a scholar of the NT or OT. But I am interested in hearing you explain what you mean.

[TJDave]

While I disagree with the judge's decision I believe to understand a portion of his reasoning. Just like poking a dog with a stick. Being their nature, at some point the dog is gonna poke back.

[highnote]

While I disagree with the judge's decision I believe to understand a portion of his reasoning. Just like poking a dog with a stick. Being their nature, at some point the dog is gonna poke back.

The judge is right by saying that if you provoke someone while exercising your right to freedom of expression you should not be surprised if you get attacked.

However, it is not right that a person gets assaulted while exercising their freedom of expression.

What isn't clear to me is if the person who was attacked reported the assault to the police. If he did then wouldn't the police file assault charges against the attacker?

If the judge erred in throwing the case out can't the Plaintiff file an appeal with a higher court?

[boxcar]

While I disagree with the judge's decision I believe to understand a portion of his reasoning. Just like poking a dog with a stick. Being their nature, at some point the dog is gonna poke back.

Sorry, TJ, but that is a terrible analogy. Does one poke dogs and provoke them with words or with an object? Was the Muslim poked and provoked physically or with words?

The one guy had a right to exercise free speech, and just because someone else intensely dislikes what he's hearing doesn't give him a right to inflict harm upon another.

The judge obviously rendered a very biased and, therefore, unjust decision.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The judge is right by saying that if you provoke someone while exercising your right to freedom of expression you should not be surprised if you get attacked.

A stupid red herring. The guy wasn't complaining about being surprised. He filed the complaint because he was actually attacked. The judge's idiotic comments only served to distract from the real issue -- which was the actual attack.

Boxcar

[highnote]

And what about people who believe in the "literal" translations of the Old and New Testaments? Then what? Do you think the NT is silent on the OT?

Boxcar


In case you missed my reply-- I am interested in hearing what you have to say about what the NT does or doesn't say about the OT.

A stupid red herring. The guy wasn't complaining about being surprised. He filed the complaint because he was actually attacked. The judge's idiotic comments only served to distract from the real issue -- which was the actual attack.

Agreed.

[boxcar]

In case you missed my reply-- I am interested in hearing what you have to say about what the NT does or doesn't say about the OT.

Agreed.

Yes, I did miss your request. Sorry 'bout that.

But what specifically do you want to know? The OT is huge and covers many topics?

But what I think you meant to say originally is that a literal interpretation (as opposed to "translation") of the OT could put us all back under the Law of Moses and under some kind of theocratic rule. (Am I far wrong?) My point is that if this was your intended premise, it's really ironic because the bible consists of two Testaments and a literal interpretation of the New would make your scenario impossible.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Judge Martin reportedly stated correctly that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people.

The judge is all wet. This is pure rubbish! Neither does the First Amendment protect anyone from being offended by another's speech! Nowhere in the Constitution does it give anyone a right to be immune to speech they might deem offensive! This is precisely what Political Correctness is all about, and why it's so dangerous to freedom to speak out. PC is designed to shut down free speech out of fear that someone may not like what they're hearing.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Yes, I did miss your request. Sorry 'bout that.

But what specifically do you want to know? The OT is huge and covers many topics?

But what I think you meant to say originally is that a literal interpretation (as opposed to "translation") of the OT could put us all back under the Law of Moses and under some kind of theocratic rule. (Am I far wrong?) My point is that if this was your intended premise, it's really ironic because the bible consists of two Testaments and a literal interpretation of the New would make your scenario impossible.

Boxcar


Well, I wasn't really talking about the NT because I don't think that everyone follows it. Basically, I was just talking about people who only follow the OT.

You are right -- too much to discuss.

Point is... the judge is wrong -- in my opinion.

[Tom]

The judge is not fit to serve.
Are we now justified in attacking him because he has offended us.

I say yes, under the law, by his ruling, and under Obama's supporting of the Arab Spring and the OWS movement, we are now cleared to disobey all laws and attack those we choose.

[boxcar]

Well, I wasn't really talking about the NT because I don't think that everyone follows it. Basically, I was just talking about people who only follow the OT.

You are right -- too much to discuss.

Point is... the judge is wrong -- in my opinion.

Well, my point was that you seemed to be saying that a literal interpretation of the OT would seem to suggest that someone (Christian, Jew, Who?) might lead one to want to establish a theocracy. What I'm saying is that, as a Christian, a literal interpretation of the NT would preclude that possibility since the NT has quite a bit to say about the Old and believers' relationship to the Mosaic Covenant (which is in the Old).

Boxcar

[highnote]

Well, my point was that you seemed to be saying that a literal interpretation of the OT would seem to suggest that someone (Christian, Jew, Who?) might lead one to want to establish a theocracy.

It is written in the Old Testament:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) "

So what I was saying is that a literal interpretation of the OT would permit one group of people to kill others who did not share their beliefs.

[boxcar]

It is written in the Old Testament:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) "

So what I was saying is that a literal interpretation of the OT would permit one group of people to kill others who did not share their beliefs.

But what I'm saying is that no Evangelical Christian, by also interpreting the NT literally, could possibly apply that text to today's New Covenant economy, In other words, to put this all in modern day vernacular: The Old Covenant had an expiration date on it -- a shelf life, if you will -- which is spelled out in the NT. :)

Boxcar

[highnote]

But what I'm saying is that no Evangelical Christian, by also interpreting the NT literally, could possibly apply that text to today's New Covenant economy, In other words, to put this all in modern day vernacular: The Old Covenant had an expiration date on it -- a shelf life, if you will -- which is spelled out in the NT. :)

Boxcar


I wasn't talking about people who believe in the NT. I thought perhaps there are still some people whose only bible is the OT.

[boxcar]

I wasn't talking about people who believe in the NT. I thought perhaps there are still some people whose only bible is the OT.

There are. Mainly they're Jews. But what they practice today is very far removed from Old Covenant Judaism. OT Judaism was buried in the temple rubble in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And it will never be resurrected.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=Tom]The judge is not fit to serve.
.[/QUOTE
:ThmbUp: Obvious to anyone with common sense.
His future judgements on anyone will have no credibility.
Leave of absence and assessment suggested.

[highnote]

There are. Mainly they're Jews. But what they practice today is very far removed from Old Covenant Judaism. OT Judaism was buried in the temple rubble in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And it will never be resurrected.

Boxcar


Let's just say hypothetically that a person belongs to an organized religion that believes in the literal interpretation of the OT. That person would believe that it is his duty to kill people who do not seek the God of Israel.

Let's say that this person is brought to trial for causing harm to someone who did not believe in seeking the God of Israel. Let's say the judge shares the same beliefs as the person who caused harm -- that is, the judge also believes in the literal translation of the OT.

The case goes to trial. The judge tells the Plaintiff that if he would have been seeking the God of Israel then he would not have been harmed. If he continues to NOT seek the God of Israel the Defendent has every right to keep hurting him because the Plaintiff is provoking the Defendent by not seeking the God of Israel. The judge says it is the duty of the Defendent to try to kill non-believers because NOT seeking the God of Israel goes against the very being and culture of the Defendent. The judge throws the case out.

If this happened, I think we would all agree the judge made an incorrect ruling.

This is no different than what the Pennsylvania judge did.

[boxcar]

Let's just say hypothetically that a person belongs to an organized religion that believes in the literal interpretation of the OT. That person would believe that it is his duty to kill people who do not seek the God of Israel.

Let's say that this person is brought to trial for causing harm to someone who did not believe in seeking the God of Israel. Let's say the judge shares the same beliefs as the person who caused harm -- that is, the judge also believes in the literal translation of the OT.

The case goes to trial. The judge tells the Plaintiff that if he would have been seeking the God of Israel then he would not have been harmed. If he continues to NOT seek the God of Israel the Defendent has every right to keep hurting him because the Plaintiff is provoking the Defendent by not seeking the God of Israel. The judge says it is the duty of the Defendent to try to kill non-believers because NOT seeking the God of Israel goes against the very being and culture of the Defendent. The judge throws the case out.

If this happened, I think we would all agree the judge made an incorrect ruling.

This is no different than what the Pennsylvania judge did.

But what is your point exactly? The chances for this happening with the OT are Slim and None and Slim, to the best of my knowledge, was buried under that 70 A.D. rubble too. Apart from modern Jews today, I know of no sect or cult who utilize only the OT scriptures for their worship and practice. There might be some religious group out there, but if so they are are small and insignificant -- certainly nowhere on the grand scale of Islam. Not even close.

Having said this, there might be some fringe Christian sect out there that holds to some weird views on eschatology and believes in a literal 1000-year reign of Christ here on earth, the reinstitution of the Old Covenant sacrificial system, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, etc., in which case they have a potentially serious theological problem and are inconsistent literalists -- literally interpreting the OT but not the NT. Such people have a very screwy hermeneutical approach to the scriptures.

Boxcar

[highnote]

But what is your point exactly?

My point is that if people act on religious beliefs and not on common law and judges rule in favor of the actions based on religious beliefs and not on common law then no one is going to know which set of rules to follow.

It doesn't matter which religious belief you choose. I was only using the OT as an example because it says in the OT it is OK to kill someone for not seeking the God of Israel.

The judge erred by ruling that it was OK for a man with particular religious beleifs to attack a man dressed as Mohammad. The judge ruled that because the man dressed as Mohammad provoked and offended the religious man, the man dressed as Mohammad should have expected to be attacked.
In America, based on common law, it is never lawful to attack a person who is exercising their freedom of expression.

Many people are offended by what other people are wearing, but the law doesn't permit the offended to physically attack the offending person.

In an Islamic country it may be lawful to attack someone for dressing as Mohammad, but not all Sharia laws apply here. And anyone who thinks they do is wrong.

This case needs to be looked at closer by whatever body is responsible for evaluating judges.

[boxcar]

My point is that if people act on religious beliefs and not on common law and judges rule in favor of the actions based on religious beliefs and not on common law then no one is going to know which set of rules to follow.

It doesn't matter which religious belief you choose. I was only using the OT as an example because it says in the OT it is OK to kill someone for not seeking the God of Israel.

It certainly does matter! Don't you see...you're taking that out of its historical context and biblical context? The way you write that makes it sound as though that passage still applies to today. I've been maintaining all along that that passage is found in only a few of the 66 books that make up a book we call the bible. Yes, it was perfectly fine for the Israelites who had entered into the Mosaic Covenant to do what that text commanded; but after the New Covenant was instituted by Christ, the Old Covenant became obsolete. Context, context, context. It really does help to interpret these things within their biblical and historical contexts. Adhering religiously to this fundamentally important hemeneutical principle works wonders for our understanding. :)

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Imagine what this will lead to if this judge's ruling stands:

Let's say a person has a religious belief that anyone who is NOT Christian must die. So they go about killing people in the name of Christianity.

The person is arrested, goes to trial, a judge with the same beliefs says that the person was justified in killing others who disagreed with him because he was obligated by his religion.
Not the same thing at all. In your example it is an individual Christian who decides on his own that non Christians must die. That is not a part of Christian theology. In the case at hand there is an obligation in Muslim theology and culture to right perceived wrongs to ones religion.

Having pointed out that difference, I can see no justification for the judges decision. The laws of the United States and of the individual states say that you can not attack another person. The fact that he insulted your religious sensibilities is irrelevant. The case should have gone to trial and the verdict should have been based on the facts presented at that trial.

[highnote]

Not the same thing at all. In your example it is an individual Christian who decides on his own that non Christians must die. That is not a part of Christian theology.


If a person who is a Christian believes that a non-Christian must die then for the person doing the killing it is part of Christian theology.

Now, you as a Christian may have a different belief. The only thing that would matter is that the judge and the killer have the same belief.

[highnote]

It certainly does matter! Don't you see...you're taking that out of its historical context and biblical context? The way you write that makes it sound as though that passage still applies to today. I've been maintaining all along that that passage is found in only a few of the 66 books that make up a book we call the bible. Yes, it was perfectly fine for the Israelites who had entered into the Mosaic Covenant to do what that text commanded; but after the New Covenant was instituted by Christ, the Old Covenant became obsolete. Context, context, context. It really does help to interpret these things within their biblical and historical contexts. Adhering religiously to this fundamentally important hemeneutical principle works wonders for our understanding. :)

Boxcar


It does not matter in my example. The example was hypothetical in order to make a point. If a person believes the OT is correct and that it is OK to kill people who do not seek the God of Israel and a judge has the same belief then the judge will say that the killer was justified and obligated to kill the person who does not seek the God of Israel.

In my hypothetical case and in the actual Pennsylvania case a person who causes harm to others who choose to exercise freedom of expression should be found guilty of assault. The religion does not matter. It is the beliefs of the person that causes harm that matters.

The Muslim in PA who assaulted the man dressed as Mohammad may feel he is obligated to cause harm to a man who offends him. It might also be the case that the Muslim man is a thug who just likes to beat people up and uses religion as a cover for his thuggish behavior.

[boxcar]

It does not matter in my example. The example was hypothetical in order to make a point. If a person believes the OT is correct and that it is OK to kill people who do not seek the God of Israel and a judge has the same belief then the judge will say that the killer was justified and obligated to kill the person who does not seek the God of Israel.

In my hypothetical case and in the actual Pennsylvania case a person who causes harm to others who choose to exercise freedom of expression should be found guilty of assault. The religion does not matter. It is the beliefs of the person that causes harm that matters.

The Muslim in PA who assaulted the man dressed as Mohammad may feel he is obligated to cause harm to a man who offends him. It might also be the case that the Muslim man is a thug who just likes to beat people up and uses religion as a cover for his thuggish behavior.

I can see we're going to get nowhere. Your analogy is bad on two fronts. First, the OT is only part of the bible. And for the most part only Jews read parts of it here and there. (Even most practicing Jews are largely ignorant of the contents of the OT. And I know of no Jewish sect who wants to bring back the Law of Moses, i.e. theocratic rule -- maybe with the exception of ultra ultra Orthodox Jews who would be waiting for their Messiah and for him to set up such kingdom here on earth -- but not before then.

Secondly, the bible, unlike the Koran, reveals God's redemptive plan for mankind and that plan is unfolded over the course of many centuries through progressive stages of revelation. But the Koran is "static" theologically, for it contains no grand eschatological plan by Allah. So, what the Koran says it applies for all times. For example, if somewhere in the Koran it says, "Hey, kill all infidels if they don't convert to Islam" -- that text would still apply today. Whereas the text you quoted earlier out of Chronicles only applied to the Old Covenant dispensation (Law of Moses), which ended nearly 2,000 years ago.

You're comparing apples with oranges when you try to compare the two books; for numerous people of various beliefs "believe in" the OT, but would never reach the conclusion you have, including yours truly.

Boxcar

Boxcar

[highnote]

I can see we're going to get nowhere. Your analogy is bad on two fronts.


I probably wasn't clear. All I'm saying is that the Muslim man who assualted the atheist and the judge who heard the case had the same beliefs -- that it was OK for the Muslim to attack the atheist based on the Muslim's religious and cultural beliefs.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, there is no justification for assaulting someone for exercising their freedom of expression.

It doesn't matter if it is a person's beliefs in the OT or a person's beliefs in the Koran. Under U.S. common law trying to justify harm caused to someone based on religious beliefs should not be allowed by a judge.

But if you're going to assault someone then make sure your case is tried by a judge with the same beliefs.

[boxcar]

I probably wasn't clear. All I'm saying is that the Muslim man who assualted the atheist and the judge who heard the case had the same beliefs -- that it was OK for the Muslim to attack the atheist based on the Muslim's religious and cultural beliefs.

Had the same beliefs as who? I believe in the OT, but I don't believe as this Muslim did. I'm sure Dave believes in the OT, but he doesn't share this guy's beliefs either. And I would venture to say that Overlay also believes in the OT but doesn't share this Muslim guy's whacky ideas. This is why the parallel that you tried to draw between the Koran and the OT isn't valid. One can indeed believe in the OT and even interpret much of it "literally" (horror of horrors), while simultaneously not holding to OT teaching that it's fine to kill unbelievers. However, the same cannot be said for the Koran when it's interpreted literally. How is this? Because all the Koran applies for today; whereas all the bible does not due to its progressive revelation scheme.

But we do agree on one thing: The judge was completely out to lunch. And I would say that if the bible had been involved instead of the Koran.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Had the same beliefs as who?


The judge and the Muslim had the same beliefs and the judge ignored U.S. law and ruled on some other law.

[boxcar]

The judge and the Muslim had the same beliefs and the judge ignored U.S. law and ruled on some other law.

He probably ruled on Sharia law. What else is new? (On the other hand, Hcap says that this can't happen in this country.) :D

Boxcar