Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad | Yahoo! News

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.

The Washington Post recently 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. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-” It does not say “unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered.” Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

via Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad – Yahoo! News.

3 thoughts on “Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad | Yahoo! News

  1. The Grey Enigma 03/03/2012 / 7:53 PM

    Nothing delusional about the concern I had. I.e. the citation reads:

    ” …. Clearly, listening to Perce’s recording, you hear that the Pennsylvania Judge does, in fact, identify himself as a Muslim. Clearly, heard in the audio transcript, Judge Martin disputes Perce’s interpretation of the Koran. Clearly, you will hear the judge tell Perce he felt a “Zombie Mohammed” costume is disrespectful of Islam and an abuse of his First Amendment rights. Just as clearly, you will not hear anywhere in Perce’s audio transcript, Judge Martin citing Sharia or the First Amendment as a reason for the dismissal. What you will hear Martin say is “he (the prosecutor) 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 idiot atheist Plaintiff abused the Muslim Defenadant’s 1st Amendment rights”?! Here’s the point: Muslim Defendant’s 1st amendment rights were not violated by a racist or islamaphobic idiot Plaintiff. That is, Muslim Defendant still had a right to free expression, free press, free assembly, freedom from a government established religion, etc., even while atheist idiot Plaintiff was garbed up in an offensive “Zombie Mohammed” costume. Judges decision, instead, appeals to restrict 1st amendment rights of idiots across the nation.

    The 1st amendment provides no protection from another’s offensive opinions and non-injurious actions.


  2. The Grey Enigma 03/05/2012 / 9:19 PM

    From Reason dated March 3, 2012:

    “..In fact, there was no “Sharia court,” and the judge is not a Muslim. But, however egregious the misreporting of the story and the vilification of the judge—Cumberland Country, Pennsylvania magistrate Mark W. Martin, who graciously answered my queries in an email exchange—the actual facts of the story are troubling. Judge Martin’s intent may have been entirely benign, but his handling of the case sends a bad message not only about freedom of speech, but about the place of Islam in American culture…” go here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s