Judge Mark W. Martin: An Anti-American, Anti-Constitution Muslim (or not) Who Tries to Enforce Blasphemy Laws in the U.S.

We’ve heard a good deal about Sharia law lately.  There are a lot of American Christians who fear it and who believe it is creeping into the United States legal system.  Some believe there is an active conspiracy to accomplish this.  At the same time, there are a lot of Christians who want to institute a kind of Christian Sharia law that will require everyone in the country — Christian and non-Christian alike — to live according to the teachings of the Christian faith.  To most reasonable Americans, it seems unthinkable that either could happen here in the United States, a country founded in part on the idea that government and religion should not mix.

It’s not unthinkable.  If you don’t believe me, watch the video above, a report from WHTM 27, a Pennsylvania ABC affiliate.

In 2011, a man named Ernie Perce, Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, participated with members of the group in a “zombie walk” as part of the annual Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg.  Perce, who captured the event on video, dressed as the prophet Mohammed — zombie Mohammed, to be precise — and was accompanied by a zombie pope.  A Muslim man named Talaag Elbayomy rushed from the sidewalk and physically attacked Perce for mocking the prophet.

“He grabbed me, choked me from the back,” Perce said, “and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”

Perce found a police officer and told him what had happened.  Elbayomy admitted to Sergeant Brian Curtis that he had physically attacked Perce.  Elbayomy, who also had tried to call the police because he believed that Perce was committing a crime by mocking Mohammed, was charged with harassment.

“Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening,” Sgt. Curtis said, “and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him.”

This seems pretty clear cut.  Physically attacking someone is illegal.  I am neither an attorney nor a legal scholar, but as far as I know, there are no laws that qualify such an act.  It’s not okay, for example, to attacked someone because he really, really, REALLY offended you.  No matter what the attacker’s stated reason, it’s simply illegal, not tolerated and typically punished.  But Magisterial District Judge Mark W. Martin does not agree.

Judge Martin dismissed this case and gave Perce a stern, condescending and utterly clueless lecture:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over two 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. Elbayomy 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 is an Army veteran who served several tours of duty in Muslim countries.  It seems he liked what he saw there.  Apparently the idea of executing someone for offending a person’s religious sensibilities is something he finds appealing.  Of course, he can’t do that here in the United States.  YET.  But he did the next best thing when he dismissed the case.

Elbayomy had admitted to Sgt. Curtis that he attacked Perce, but in the courtroom, he denied ever making physical contact with him.  Judge Martin did not believe Sgt. Curtis.  Perce had been shooting a video when Elbayomy attacked him from behind, but Judge Martin did not allow the video to be admitted as evidence.  Martin also gave Perce a stern, condescending and utterly clueless lecture about the Constitution and the First Amendment:

“Here in our society, we have the Constitution, which 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 intended.  I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what’s on our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures, which is what you did.”

In Judge Martin’s America, the First Amendment gives us the right to speak our minds, as long as what we’re saying doesn’t “piss off other people and cultures.”  Do I have that right?  What if what happens to be on your mind pisses off other people and cultures even if that’s not your intention?  Would our forefathers, who deliberately pissed off the entire nation of Great fucking Britain, want us to keep it to ourselves?  Were our forefathers, who flipped the bird to the goddamned King of England, really losing sleep over the fact that the First Amendment might result in someone being offended?  Am I clear on this?  Or does it mean that we can speak our minds just as long as it doesn’t piss off religious people?  Or is it specifically Muslim people we’re not supposed to piss off?

Am I alone in thinking that, so far, this judge hasn’t made a fucking bit of sense?  You can listen to the audio of the entire trial here.  Judge Martin’s lecture series begins at about the 28:30 mark.  And speaking of lectures, he gives Perce another one — stern, condescending and utterly clueless again — on the Muslim faith:

“I don’t think you’re aware, sir, that there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity — 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 told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt.  Their greetings, salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam, uh, ‘may god be with you.’ … When they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen, it’s, they’re so immersed in it.  And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being.  They find it very, very, very offensive.”

All of this raises the question, SO FUCKING WHAT?

This is a United States judge sitting in a United States courtroom, telling a United States citizen who was a victim of assault that the Muslim religion is more important than his safety and Constitutional rights, that Muslims are somehow holier and more deserving of respect than Perce, his freedom of speech, and even people of other religions, that the Muslim religion is more than just a religion, and exalting the laws in Muslim countries that would result in Perce’s execution were he to express himself there.  And I think it’s fair to say there’s a definite anti-American flavor to his words.  How can this be?  Why on earth would any judge say and do such things from the bench?  Judge Martin explains:

“I’m a Muslim.  I find it offensive. … But you have that right.  But you’re way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.”

Ah!  He’s a self-proclaimed Muslim!  Well!  How about that?  Of course, maybe that’s got nothing to do with this — maybe Judge Martin suffered a small stroke on the bench.  He seems unsure of what he wants to say here.  First he says Perce has that right.  Then he says Perce does not have that right.  In the same breath.  I see that as a sign of conflict.  Conflict of interest, perhaps?  Conflict of cognition?  Does he understand that Perce was not marching in a Muslim country?  Does he understand that he does not live in a Muslim country?  Does Judge Martin understand that while he is a Muslim by faith, he is a judge by profession and as such is expected to be fair and impartial?  When he was serving in the military, did he understand why?  Like I said, maybe he had a stroke!

But I don’t want to interrupt the judge.  I feel another stern, condescending, utterly clueless lecture coming on.

“This is what — and I said I spent about seven and a half years living in other countries.  Uh, when we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’  This is why we hear it 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.”

Now I’m starting to wonder if I’m having a stroke.  Don’t take my word for this — listen to the audio at the link above.  Listen to the man himself say these things.  Out loud.  In a courtroom.  If it doesn’t chill you to the bone, you need to ask yourself these two questions:

Am I a Muslim?
Am I having a stroke?

Judge Martin made no attempt to begin making sense as he rendered his verdict.

“All that aside, I’ve got here, basically … I don’t want to say he-said-she-said, but I’ve got two sides story [garbled, slurred ... drunk?] that are in conflict with each other.”

Oh, Judge Martin, I think you’ve got a hell of a lot more in conflict here than the two sides of this story.  You’ve got your religion very obviously in conflict with your job, and listening to you talk, I’m guessing you’ve got one side of your brain in conflict with the other.

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

Read that again.  Listen to it.  And then listen to it again.  First, he said he understood how noisy a Halloween parade can be and “how difficult it is to get a pulpit” — which, if it means anything at all, means that he knows how difficult it is to get anyone’s attention in all the noisy activity.  That’s what he said.  He said it!  And then … he said he “can’t believe” that if Perce were attacked as he described, no one else noticed and tried to intervene.  In the noise and activity.  At the noisy and pulpitless Halloween parade that Judge Martin claims to “understand.”  And then his Freudian slip starts showing.

“The preponderance — excuse me.  The burden of proof is that the defendant — ”

Aaah-hah!  You were going to say “the preponderance of evidence!”  Just a slip of the tongue?  Or is Freud giggling in his grave?  You know you had “preponderance of evidence” on your mind because that’s what you had right in front of your babbling, semicoherent face — a preponderance of evidence that Talaag Elbayomy was guilty as charged, a preponderance of evidence that Ernie Perce was attacked for exercising his Constitutional right of free speech within the law and in a perfectly appropriate setting.  And we have a preponderance of evidence, Judge Martin, that you have no business being a judge.  I’ll let him continue:

“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 it was a conflict or not, and yes, he shouldn’t be putting his hands on you.  I don’t know.  I have your story that he did and his story that he did not.”

And a police sergeant’s testimony that Elbayomy admitted he’d put his hands on Perce, you don’t want to forget that, do you, judge?  Or would that interfere with you jerking off all over yourself for being such a good Muslim by taking a hot, steaming crap on the United States Constitution?  Wouldn’t want to harsh your boner.

“But another part of the element, as Mr. Thomas (defense attorney) said — was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm?  Or was it his intent to have the offensive situation negated?  If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little more of an altercation, something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict.  Because there was 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.”

I don’t spend a lot of time in courtrooms, so I don’t know — is this the best we can do for judges these days?  Are we down to the gibbering religious fanatics now?  Or is there “another part of the element?”  (What the fuck does that mean?)

There are so many things wrong with this that trying to get them all in the proper order of severity would be like trying to teach a musical synchronized swimming number to a bunch of cats.  But before I could even try, I stumbled onto an update on this dark farce by Chelsea Hoffman at Gather News:

“Judge Mark Martin was not available for comment on Wednesday of this week, or today (Friday).  However, his receptionist who goes by the name Rita, was able to answer this simple yet important question.
Is Mark Martin a Muslim?
No.”

Well!  How about that?  Maybe he didn’t have a stroke after all — maybe he’s just having some kind of breakdown.  Listen to the audio.  He says it at 31:28.  “I’m a Muslim.”  But Rita, his receptionist, says he’s not a Muslim.  What the hell’s going on here?  Hoffman writes:

“Rita answered the question exclusively for Gather News after just a small amount of coaxing.  Magistrate Judge Martin doesn’t want Rita to be too communicative regarding this increasingly high-profile issue and that is to be expected.  She stuck her neck out to give this answer, but it was more than necessary when so many news outlets and blogs are reporting him as a Muslim judge.”

The reason so many news outlets and blogs are “reporting him as a Muslim judge” is that he is a judge who said, on the record, “I’m a Muslim.”  If he’s not a Muslim, why did he say he was?  If he is a Muslim, why is his receptionist telling people he isn’t?  Was she told to lie and say he’s not a Muslim?

Is Judge Mark Martin under investigation yet?  If not, why not?  Somebody needs to check his record to see if his Muslim fanaticism — or whatever the hell is wrong with him — has moved him to yammer nonsensical explanations for his contempt of the law in the past.  Someone needs to check his blood to see if he has a substance abuse problem.  Somebody needs to check his military record to find out which side he was fighting for.  And somebody should probably check his pants to see if he’s shit himself because I still think there’s a good chance this guy isn’t well.

Hey, I try to think the best of people, to give them the benefit of the doubt.  And right now, the best I can possibly think of Judge Mark W. Martin is that he suffered a small stroke on the bench, soiled himself and blathered nonsense for a while.  All the other explanations are disturbing.

Do not make the mistake of thinking this is an atheist issue, or a Muslim issue, or a religious issue of any kind.  This is a freedom issue.  Here we have a United States judge essentially trying to enforce blasphemy laws in a country that does not have them.  And so far, he’s gotten away with it.  How would you like it if the next time you slammed your toe into a table leg and shouted, “Jesus Christ!” you were arrested, dragged before a gibbering idiot judge like Judge Martin, then thrown into prison to await execution?  That seems to be a trait that Judge Martin finds admirable in Muslim nations.  Judge Martin, a self-proclaimed Muslim who we’re told isn’t really a Muslim at all, finds it so admirable that he chewed out a victim of a physical attack as if he’d committed a crime, and then he let the Muslim man who had committed the crime go — and he’s even threatened the victim with contempt for posting the audio of the trial on YouTube.

There are plenty of Christians trying to do the same thing for their religion in the United States.  It wouldn’t really matter if it were Muslim law or Christian law that was legislated — either way, this would not be the United States of America anymore.

Remaining silent about this would be dangerous.  If this concerns you — and holy crap, if you’re an American, it should concern the hell out of you, no matter what you do or do not believe — then you need to let Judge Martin know.  If his office isn’t being flooded with complaints about this, it should be.  There’s no need to be rude, just tell the man what you think of his anti-American comments and anti-Constitution decision and his wildly inappropriate and pig-headedly wrong lectures to a victim he victimized again in the courtroom.  And if you’d like to be rude, just refer him to this terribly rude article and I’ll take the heat for you.  Here’s his contact information:

Magisterial District Judge Mark W. Martin:

507 N. York St.
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Ph: 717.766.4575
Fx: 717.766.2238

You can face Mecca all you want, Judge Martin — or not, if it turns out that, for whatever bizarre reason, you lied about being a Muslim — but right now, you need to face up to the fact that you dropped a great big smelly turd on the bench in this case.  Now somebody has to clean up your mess, you pinhead.

About Ray Garton

I am the author of more than 60 books, including the horror novels LIVE GIRLS, CRUCIFAX, LOT LIZARDS and THE LOVELIEST DEAD, and the thrillers SEX AND VIOLENCE IN HOLLYWOOD, MURDER WAS MY ALIBI, TRADE SECRETS, TRAILER PARK NOIR, and my newest thriller, MEDS Please visit my website for more information: http://www.raygartononline.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Judge Mark W. Martin: An Anti-American, Anti-Constitution Muslim (or not) Who Tries to Enforce Blasphemy Laws in the U.S.

  1. karenl53 says:

    Great Post! It reminds me of the time i was working for Robert Treufaft….he had been given the title of “The most Dangerous Lawyer in America” by the Hover Institute( mitford.org). Bob had spent his life defending the Black Panthers, the Freedom Riders and other disenfaranchised minorities. BUT – because he was from a jewish background, he opposed the defending of the American Nazi Party when they wanted to have a rally- somewhere in the midwest. He dropped his membership pf the UCLA. I never argued with him about it…he was my employer, and I had great respect for him….but it showed me how very deep fear lives in the best of minds.

  2. jeanette says:

    This is too much. when is this terror, called sharia law going to stop. fire that stupid judge, he has No right being on the bench, anywhere!
    oh, it is ok to slam Christians, but leave the poor muzlims alone, i think Not!

  3. naomi666 says:

    Hey, I try to think the best of people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. And right now, the best I can possibly think of Judge Mark W. Martin is that he suffered a small stroke on the bench, soiled himself and blathered nonsense for a while. All the other explanations are disturbing.

    A well-reasoned approach, Ray. However, I have a hair-trigger when I see/hear RedFlags go down. And, boy, did they ever! The victim was an atheist. Therefor, the judge (likely just your garden-variety ignorant hick of a xian — ignore the Jurisprudence; I suspect he got his law degree from Oral Roberts U) likely believes atheists are not entitled to truth and/or justice. To say nothing of civility and fairness. Never forget that lying is enshrined in the cult of jehovah’s witless

  4. Sally says:

    A great article, Ray – the fellow’s a prime arse who should be hounded out of public life.

    And, jeannette, you must have missed Ray’s paragraph about *christian* god-botherers.

    No religion is worth a second thought!

  5. dave says:

    hey asshole: I am not a christian, but I must have failed to notice the correlation you so clearly see between this asshole judge and christians “trying to do the same thing” in this country. why don’t you point out to me an instance in which a christian has attacked a “nonbeliever” for mocking the faith and had the charges dismissed (an apples to apples one if you please).

    While I do not want anyone’s religion crammed down my throat there is ZERO comparison between Sharia law and evangelical christians.

    Islam is not like western religions, in which the infinitesimal minority wish death on non-believers, the MAJORITY of Muslims do. You have to work hard, DAMN HARD to find a “moderate muslim”.

    I know you have your axe to grind, but get real.

  6. Ray Garton says:

    You’re not a Christian, Dave? Really? You’re sure about that? Well, you’re wrong — there are a LOT of similarities between Sharia law and what many Christians here in the U.S. are trying to do. I didn’t claim Christians were physically attacking people of other beliefs — you’re confused. I’m comparing what people like Rick Santorum, for example, want for this country with what Sharia law would do. In fact, it’s the EXACT same thing — legislating religious belief, making the government responsible for enforcing religious law. There are a LOT of Christians in this country who want to do that. Look up Bradlee Dean, for example — a self-proclaimed evangelist and Christian rocker who has praised Muslim nations for executing homosexuals and chastised American Christians for not being as devoted to their faith. He wants homosexuality to be illegal, punishable by prison time and even death. And he’s not alone. A lot of Christian organizations have already tried to do this in Uganda with what’s come to be known as the “kill the gays” bill.

    Santorum wants to make birth control illegal, and he wants to do it SPECIFICALLY because it allows people to engage in all manner of sexual activity without the consequence of pregnancy, and Rick — along with the Christian faith itself — says that’s bad. He’s not alone. All you have to do is a little Googling, some looking around. Hell, these days, during the “reality” TV show we’re calling the Republican presidential primary, all you have to do is turn on the fucking television! Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich — they’re all a bunch of goddamned theocrats. They prove it every time they open their mouths.

    If you think there are no similarities between Sharia law and what so many Christians want to do in the United States, either you haven’t been paying attention or you think it’s just peachy keen, which most likely would mean you’re a Christian yourself. As Robert A. Heinlein wrote, “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” That’s because all religion, any religion, is about control. If you want to be controlled by religion, that’s fine — it’s your CHOICE. I do not. And I don’t want religion — ANY religion — being legislated.

    By the way, do you know why I suspect you ARE a Christian? Because angry, defensive religious people have a tendency of accusing other people of doing the very things THEY do, of being the very kind of people THEY are — and the first two words in your comment were a dead giveaway.

  7. Lisa says:

    Absolutely horrifying…
    This sorry excuse for a judge needs to be removed immediately.

  8. Ray, thank you for bringing this to our attention. And kudos to ABC News, as well. It should have been covered on more than the local affiliate. These things get their toehold when they’re allowed to happen in the dark. That one response to your blog can challenge the similarity between gung-ho Christians and fanatic Muslims is evidence not just of a willful closing of the eyes and ears but also of a dangerous tendency of the media to under-report the incursions of religion into government. So far, these attempted incursions have been almost entirely Christian. As you say, one need only listen with both ears to candidates like Santorum and Bachmann, or read their campaign literature, to know that some evangelicals or fundamentalists have every intention of forcing their will on the American people. The time to stop that is every time it makes an inroad. The judge should be impeached, without any question, and if I were the local bar, I’d be keeping an eye on the lawyer who thinks it was just dandy that the judge refused to enforce the assault laws and chose to take the attacker’s side. It’s one thing to give a vigorous defense and quite another to say what he said after it was all over and he’d helped a very evil precedent be established.

    On a related subject, I think it’s time we pulled every man and every dollar out of Afghanistan. When two of our soldiers can be murdered by an Afghan soldier because someone burned a Qur’an, or was rumored to do so, it’s time to stop spending our blood and treasure in that country. First, a Christian needs to get up in front of the mobs who think burning a Qur’an is such an outrage that it excuses the murder of people who didn’t even do the deed. He needs to hold up a Bible, douse it with gasoline and burn it, while he tells the mob the following: “See this? It’s my holy book. I’m burning it to show that the thoughts in it cannot be burned, that they will always exist no matter what is done to one or another physical manifestation of them. Is your religion so fragile that if one copy of a Qur’an is burned the whole idea goes up in smoke? Have you so little confidence in the words in your holy book? And so little regard for those words which forbid the murder of innocents?”

    I’ve been slow to come to this conclusion because I hate the thought of letting a “culture” throw acid in the faces of their little girls for the sin of going to school if there is any chance that we might stop such inhuman outrages. But this latest incident convinces me that such fanaticism cannot be stopped. The brainwashing of religion guarantees that, for such offenders, there is no mind present to be reasoned with. Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in Physics, once said: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

    I think it’s time we all realized that when “good” people do bad things, they are not good people any more. And that extends to people who defend “good” people who are doing bad things. If we’re to escape this menace, we need to start by being clear on what a menace it is. Thank you for doing that with this blog, Ray.

  9. Robert says:

    Funny thing is, Judge Martin is an active Lieutenant Colonel with the Army reserve civil affairs, has been a cop with the reserves before, and has a masters in criminal justice. From the Army recruiting page: “The civil affairs officer combines regional expertise, language competency, political-military awareness, cross-cultural communication and professional military skills to conduct civil affairs operations and support civil-military operations in support of conventional and special operations forces.”

    What galls me is that this guy knew exactly what he was doing when he let his “feelings” and religion corrupt his decision. If not, he’s incompetent and deserves to be removed or voted out of office. As an officer and a judge Martin swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” FAIL.

  10. Bombastic says:

    Has the Judge forgotten that some folks have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution; and really, really, really meant it? If not, he might now and is probably in hiding.

  11. John Kennedy says:

    Somewhere on youtube is the video of the actual attack. I saw it a few months back. As for Judge Martin, if I remember correctly, he was a lawyer in Carlisle before he was a Judge in Mechanicsburg, and he was a real prick.

  12. John Kennedy says:

    Dave, you seem very angry. I think if you were to just jerk off, you might just solve a lot of your problems.

    I’m Jewish, but because, as Ray pointed out, all Religion is willing to legislate, I am perfectly happy living in America, and not in Israel. I enjoy eating shell fish, something I cannot do in Israel. If I wanted to have a ham sandwich, I couldn’t do that there. Most importantly, if I lived in Israel, I would be unable to claim I’m Jewish on my Identification Card because I’m not Ultra Orthodox.

    Religion can really fuck things up when it is allowed to run Government. THAT is the point Ray was trying to make. If you don’t see that, get your head out of your ass, and wipe the shit from your eyes.

  13. Henry says:

    One point I’ve not seen raised yet by anyone here or elsewhere is that Judge Mark Martin has committed perjury in his oath of office. Here is the Pennsylvania Oath of Office administered to all officials of the state including judges:

    § 3. Oath of office. Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”

    The man has committed perjury and should be tried for that offense, and removed from the bench. He is not worthy to enact judgements in the courts of Pennsylvania or anywhere in the United States if he will not adhere to his oath of office. Whatever the penalties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are, he should have them legally pronounced upon him and be stripped of his office as Magesterial District Judge.

  14. Anna Hall says:

    I’m a Christian and I can tell you from personal, weekly experience that the majority of Christians want nothing to do with the government. We don’t want our beliefs codified into the law. I would be beside myself if the government told me not to eat meat on Friday or punished me for working on the Sabbath. That sure as hell can’t be said for these sick Muslim people. Like Martin himself said, “Islam is not just a religion, it’s a culture. It’s their entire persona.” Well, there you have it. These aren’t “Sunday Morning” religious folk, like most Christians. They don’t got to mass on Sunday, kneel for an hour and repeat the refrains, and then go out to their normal lives. This crap IS their normal life, day in and day out. It’s frightening. And yes, before anyone decides to pull out the Christian-Monster card, I do know and acknowledge that there are nut-ball fanatical Christians out there to, but I can’t remember the last time a Christian man killed his daughter for getting an abortion or–heaven forbid!–wearing jeans.

  15. marshill88 says:

    So let me understand this: most atheists in the US support European style socialism (democrat voters, Obama voters), which PROTECTS Islam from hate speech. You dumb atheists cannot have it both ways. The more you vote for democrats, the more you will install a country that will make criminal any public mockery of Islam. In many European countries, mocking Islam is a hate crime. Atheists make themselves look stupid by voting Obama then whining about things like this. Vote Ron Paul, and then you will find yourselves on good rational standing.

  16. John Griffin says:

    I think you guys are missing the main point.It doesn’t matter what the Judge might personally feel,he is supposed to be unbiased in interpreting and upholding the laws of our country.This is clearly a freedom of speech issue and that man had no rite to assault another person just because he didn’t agree with what he was saying or portraying.For the judge to side with someone based purely on his religious beliefs is a slap in the face to the very freedoms we cherish,never mind his oath to uphold those freedoms.The judge should absolutely be fired for his obvious abuse of the power vested in him.

  17. Henry says:

    An that constitutes perjury in his oath of office. Arrest, try and convict this muslim judge! And above all, get him off the bench!

  18. Ray Garton says:

    Anna — Do you meet with “the majority of Christians” every week? Which “majority of Christians” are you referring to — “the majority of Christians” in your church? In your town? Why aren’t “the majority of Christians” who “want nothing to do with the government” speaking out against the Republican presidential candidates, who DO want to legislate Christianity? Are you familiar with Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Donald Wildmon? James Agee? To name just a few? These are prominent Christian leaders who have stated and continue to state, clearly and unambiguously, their objective: Making the United States a “Christian nation” governed by Christians according to the bible and Christian teachings. They don’t hide it. They TRUMPET it! These men and many others like them have a lot of very wealthy organizations that spend all their time and money working toward that goal. The millions of dollars they use to do this are not donated to them by “these sick Muslim people,” but by Christians who agree with them.

    You wrote: “I would be beside myself if the government told me not to eat meat on Friday or punished me for working on the Sabbath.”

    But you don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that many of your fellow Christians want to decide for many millions of women — whether they’re Christian or not — what they can and cannot do with their bodies according to Christian teachings. You don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that they want to make sure that people whose sexuality does not meet with their biblical standards can be legally discriminated against and bullied in schools and cannot marry, and some Christians even want them thrown into prison and executed for their sexuality. You don’t seem bothered by the fact that SPECIFICALLY Christian sexual laws have been taught in public schools to non-Christian students for a long time in a stealthy way that conceals what those teachings really are (it’s called “abstinence only ‘sex’ education”). You don’t seem bothered by the fact that in spite of the United States’ freedom of religion for ALL, a lot of your fellow Christians want the places of worship of other religions — the competition! — closed down and they want to make sure no more are built. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Your “personal, weekly experience” doesn’t seem to mesh with my daily experience of seeing and hearing Christian leaders, Christian organizations and Christian politicians calling for their religion to be the law of the land.

  19. Pingback: Another Winner: Talaag Elbayomy | Hitpods

  20. ChuckA says:

    ^ @marshill88…
    You’re comment shows, to me at least, that you’re pretty much…
    full of Shi-ite!
    First…”News Flash!”…
    the only actual thing atheists have in common with each other…speaking universally…is the NON-belief in ANY gods.
    Second…atheists might generally be more apt to be “Socially Liberal” because the original aspect of the meaning of Liberal…
    (i.e., ala Merriam-Webster’s Collegiat dictionary: “broad-minded; esp : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms)
    is to look at any subject matter, not just religion…rationally; unlike the so-called “Conservatives”; who, especially these days, are much more in the camp of the rabidly dogmatic Christian Theocrats and Dominionists.

    [Remember Huckabee's 2008 call for rewriting the Constitution to align it more strictly with the Bible? Talk about an anti-Constitutional asshole! And now we have the fucktard Santorum, similarly, saying, in essence, that the complete Separation of Church and State makes him want to throw up! WTF!]

    As to your charge, marshill88, RE “European Socialism”…
    most atheists…of which I’m one…are ACTUALLY compassionate people, who DO…LITERALLY…CARE about our fellow citizens; and the overall health of our Society in general. IOW, we think that a certaiin amount of “Safety Net” Social programs are actually very beneficial to our nation’s well being, in general.
    “Thank you, FDR, LBJ, etc.”
    Ron Paul, is…first and even foremost…an anti-choice, Libertarian brand, extremely Right Wing Christian; who, as was obvious in one of the Rethuglican ‘Calked-ass’ debates, doesn’t give a crap about anyone who doesn’t play according to the Libertarian “Everyone for himself…you’re totally on your own…fuck you if you don’t happen to have a lot of money” philosophy. To which, by their applause, the rabid, equally non-compassionate, Christian audience agreed!
    Personally, the ONLY things I agree with Ron Paul on, is getting out of all the ridiculously excessive governmental “Military-Industrial-Complex” spending; particularly getting out of the insanity in Afghanistan.
    AND…the legalizing of many drugs; IOW…stopping the stupid (even NRA related), waste of energy, lives and recources RE the “War on Drugs”.
    Otherwise…Ron Paul is, to say the least, politically selfish, and quite religiously and socially delusional. IOW…certainly NOT “good rational standing” for any of us, IMNSHO, significantly more rational, critical thinking…
    atheists.

  21. Karen says:

    John Kennedy:

    This is in regard to “John Kennedy”‘s post. I have never heard such ignorance from a “jew” before. I live in Israel for 10 years, and are you KIDDING me? You can’t eat shellfish in Israel, or a ham sandwich? No, there’s only huge amounts of restaurants and super markets with all non kosher food. I eat non kosher shell fish, shrimp and whatever I want, no one tells me what to do, and I’ve never heard of anyone persecuted for it. Also, are you nuts? All jews no matter their denomination or religiosity have jewish status on their ID cards. Just like all christians and muslims and druze and whatever. In fact, it’s harder to get status as an “atheist” than a jew. Even if only one of your grandparents is a jew, you’re still a jew on the ID card if you represent yourself as such. I am sick of hearing such ignorance and defaming of Israel. Why don’t you actually visit there, or search google instead of inflaming the internet with your idiocy?

  22. John Kennedy says:

    Karen, I have been to Israel. The last time was about seven years ago. It’s a beautiful country. However, it has many places that have become over-run by the Orthodox and Ultraorthodox, and that sucks. The neighborhoods I visited, even back then, though, declared them to be all Kosher. It might have changed, or it might just have been in Jerusalem. I don’t know. As for the I’d cards, that has been an on going thing that I’ve read about for the past several years in The Forward AND Ha-Aretz. The law may not have passed yet, but members of your Knesset are trying to pass it through that any Jew who moves there under the Law of Return must be a Jew of Orthodox or Ultraorthodox in order for it to be listed on ther ID.

  23. Johnny says:

    made the call, left a message, “your a goddamn idiot….” which he is of course. Ill ride the heat myself, Im a goddamn american and this judge can kiss my ass.

  24. Leah Lax says:

    Religion, has no place in Government and in schools in the USA. If Judge Martin loves Islam (which means submit) and Sharia ( Islamic Law) then his oath to protect the Constitution and the rights of USA citizens was a lie like the oath the underwear bomber had with taking to be a USA Citizen According to the KORAN and the other books of Islam it is ok to lie
    and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers”

    Sura 3:54

    Sura 3:54 Arabic: Wa Makaru wa makara Allah wa Allah Amkaru al Makireen.

    Likewise the phrase of Allah “being the best deceiver”. kheir ol makarein, is also used of Allah in Suras 8:30 and 10:21. Sura 10:21 says Allah is the fastest in planning/deceit

    Other references to the plotting/deceit/scheming of Allah are Sura 7:99; 27:50; 13:42; 14:46; 43:79; 86:15f.; 7:100; 4:142

    Yet English translations of the Qur’an typically have a softer phrase, as Appendix I shows. So in these verses, specifically how should this word be more accurately translated, and generally, what is the role of deception in Islam?

    Etymology of the Word Makara

    Sura 3:54 says that Allah makara. The Arabic word makara means to deceive, scheme, or plan. The Arabic Bible in Genesis 3:1 uses the same word for Satan. However, the Vand Dyck and Jerusalem Bibles use the root word hayala.

    This word “schemer” (maakir) is a very strong word which Wehr and Abdel-Nour define as “sly, cunning, wily”. The Arabic-Arabic unjid defines it with khuda`a which means exactly the same thing (by Bill Campbell in his book The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science p.217-218).

    Interpretation of Sura 3:54

    The person who is a makir (same form as the word kafir) speaking of the attribute of a person is one who would outwit someone else to cause them harm. It speaks of one who would reveal the opposite of what he plans to do. The reality is that he is scheming evil for that person. So yes there is the sense of planning and scheming but mostly it means to trick, outwit and deceive for the purpose of overpowering and conquering the other. A makir is one who devises a secret scheme against someone else. Synonyms would be cheating, defrauding, double-crossing, deceiving, tricking, in all cases makara has the sense of defeating the one you have tricked.

    The Context of Sura 3:54

    The context of this story is very important. Sura 3 is regarded to be the great dialogue of Muhammad with the Christians. Al-Tabari says here that the deceit of Allah applies to the time where the Jews wanted to kill Isa the son of Mary. In order not to be killed Allah put the appearance of Jesus’ face on someone else, who was crucified instead of Jesus. This is how Allah had everybody, even Jesus get deceived.

    Strikingly when it comes to the cross, the very central part of biblical teaching, Allah is called khayr ulmakirin the most deceitful. Some one
    wants to conceal that he lost the battle on the cross! Here the true nature of Allah is revealed!

    Muslim Applications of Sura 3:54

    During the Second Gulf War, the Iraqi Information minister justified his false reports of Iraqi victories by quoting Sura 3:54, saying that “Allah was the best of deceivers”. So this is how this Muslim applied this word and this verse.

    Around 686 A.D. Za’idah bin Qudamah saw the deceiving plot of another and quoted “God is the best of plotters” (Sura 3:54) al-Tabari vol.20 p.188

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm says that on the transmission on 9-11 flight 93, the hijackers told the passengers there was a bomb on board, but that everyone will be safe if their demands are met. That was certainly a lie, but were the 9-11 hijackers being hypocrites here? No, they were not, because the hadiths said they could practice deception in war. But again, until the hijackers took over the plane, the men, and even women and children on board had no idea their fellow passengers were at war with them.

    Now Muslim scholars do not say Muslims can lie any time the want to, but rather they can lie to non-Muslims for purposes of war, safety, and advancing Islam. This last reason may explain why some (though not the majority) of Muslims I have corresponded with will say false things in order to try to advance Islam.

    On one hand, I have received the following from a Muslim: “Telling a layman lies in order to convert to Islam is Ha’ram (unlawful) and condemned by Allah but a layman is responsible for seeking knowledge independently as prophet Muhammad also said: ‘It is mandatory for all Muslims both (Male and Female) to seek knowledge before worshipping Allah’ Hadith Qurisiy. But we can tell lies to settle a dispute or conflict, that’s lawful and rewarding. I studied from various roots.”

    On the other hand, I have seen blatant lies told by some Muslims about Christianity. But when the factual error is pointed out, they keep those same things on their web site; they neither correct or address their error, nor explain why they think it is not an error after all.

    Mohammed Endorsing Lies in the Hadiths

    Telling flattering lies to make peace is OK! “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Bukhari vol.3 book 49 ch.2 no.857 p.533.

    See also Ibn-i-Majah vol.4 book 20 ch.5 no.2544 p.6

    “Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said, ‘If one hides (the sins of) a Muslim, Allah will hide (his sins) in this world and the Hereafter. (1)”

    Footnote (1) by the translator says, “Another translation of this is: if anyone provides some clothe to a Muslims to cover his private parts. Hadith No. 2546 supports this translation.”

    “Narrated Jabir: The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew).’ Muhammad bin Maslama replied, ‘Do you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like.’ [i.e. to lie]. The Prophet replied ‘I do (i.e. allow you).’” Bukhari vol.4 book 52 ch.159 no.271 p.168. al-Tabari vol.7 p.95 likewise reports Jabir saying “We shall have to tell lies.” and Mohammed telling him “Say what you like.”

    Bukhari vol.3 book 45 ch.3 no.687 p.415 “Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who would kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf as has harmed Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, ‘I will kill him.’ So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of foodgrains.’” After dickering over what to hold as mortgage, they agreed that Muhammad bin Maslama would mortgage his weapons. So he promised him that he would come with his weapons next time.” Then Jabir returned, when Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was expecting him to come peacefully, and Jabir deceptively killed him.

    The following also discuss the assassination of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, and their narratives all match. Bukhari vol.5 book 59 ch.14 no.369 p.248; Sahih Muslim vol.3 book 17 ch.744 no.4436 p.990-991; Abu Dawud vol.2 book 9 ch.1015 no.2762 p.775; Abu Dawud vol.2 book 13 ch.1110 no.2994 p.850. al-Tabari vol.9 p.121 says this occurred between the battles of Badr and Uhud.

    War is guile. Ibn-i-Majah vol.4 book 24 (Jihad) ch.27 no.2833 p.181. War is deceit according to Bukhari vol.4 book 52 ch.157 no.268,269 p.167. The trouble with applying this in Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf is that Ka’b had no idea Jabir was at war with him. Thus if a Muslim decides he is “at war” with you (an infidel), he can with a clear conscience lie to you while you think he is your friend and he comes to borrow something from you.

    Muslims Can “Dissolve Obligations”

    Bukhari vol.7 book 67 ch.26 p.309 Mohammed said, “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”

    Sura 9:3 Allah and His Messenger Dissolve obligations with Pagans.

    Sura 66:2a says “Allah has already ordained For you, the expiation of your oaths”

    Allah Deceived the Jews, and His Deception of Christians Has Been Complete Ever Since

    When Allah allegedly had only the appearance of Jesus die on the cross, that deceived the Jews who thought they had crucified him. Now if Allah really did plot this “great switcheroo”, you would have to agree the effect to extremely successful at not only completely deceiving all the Romans, and Jews, but the followers of Jesus also.

    http://www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatEarlyChristiansTaught.htm gives more than 80 writers, prior to the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., who taught, and in many cases died for, the belief that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead.

    Allah “Causes to Err”

    Sura 40:32: “O my People! I fear a Day when there will be mutual wailing. No one shall defend you against Allah. Any whom Allah causes to err, there is no guide. That is how Allah leads the skeptic astray.”

    Sura 40:32 says that Allah leads the skeptic astray. The context of this is going to Paradise or Hell. So if a person bound for Hell is believing idols, is Allah

    a) Angry with them because they are not believing what they are supposed to

    b) Happy that they are believing what they are supposed to believe, because Allah led them to believe that.

    If a Muslim answers “a” (like they usually will), then why is Allah angry with people who followed where He led them?

    Just o the mere fact the Judge lied he would uphold the laws of the Constitution is a Lie and he must be removed. What I am seeing here is the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the USA courts and turning this country into a Sharia Country. We need to examine each Judge each person we elect and if if he is Pro Islam not vote him/ her in. or this country will be just like Sweden taken over by Sharia and having public hanging in the street, beheadings, chopping off hand and feet , hanging of gays, stoning of women for being raped, honor killings, etc that Sharia permitts. This is America how could a man who is not a citizen but a Green Card holder be allowed to choke a Citizen and not be punished, The Law of Sharia is if an Infidel accuses a Muslims the Muslim is innocent. If a Muslim accuses a Infidel the Infidel is guilty. Muslims will take Muslims sides in court against a Infidel. http://leahlaxforpresident2012.blogspot.com/2012/02/sharia-law-in-pa-courts.html , http://leahlaxforpresident2012.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-mark-w-martin-of-mechanicsburg-pa.html, and http://www.leahlax.com

  25. Trey says:

    I read about this. I don’t care how much something someone says or does offends you, the first amendment protects them. The judge’s ruling angers me to not end. I would love nothing more than to see him fired or arrested for treason.

  26. Trey says:

    Ug, made a typo on my last comment. Sorry.

    I meant no, not “not”.

  27. Leah Lax says:

    Let me add this is from the book of Bukhari vol.7 book 67 ch.26 p.309 Mohammed said, “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”
    Therefore the Muslim Judge Martin went on this,. He took an oath to defend the Constitution and he decided defending Islam was better so his oath no longer applied to the Constitution but to Allah.
    Unfortunately Athiest , Christians and most American Jews do not study Islam and the books of Islam and the Koran. But beleive what the “moderate” Muslim tells them. Their friendship to the maakir ( worse the using the N word) is not a valid one since you are not Muslim. And in the courtroom allowed the Muslim to lie with a clear mind that he was lying to protect Islam and so was the Judge.This court case was a war against Islam not against the infidel being asaulted. The Judge made it quite clear that the infidel had no rights. And literally threaten the plantiffs )telling him if he dare post the results or any vocal portion of the trail ( which is public record and falls under the Pa Right to Know Act 3 of 2008, as signed by Gov. Edward G. Rendell on February 14, 2008 Effective January 1, 2009) again violating the right to tell the public of the Muslims Judges illegal action with using Sharia Law in the USA Court room.
    Checking this Mark W Martins background I find no record of him at all. Just like Obama his background is wiped clean. Normally when one runs for office even as a Judge there is some background check on the candidate by the main stream media and they did not do their due diligence

  28. Leah Lax says:

    Then hold a prtotest outside his court room and demand he be removed !

  29. Leah Lax says:

    protest I make error also
    I am willing to teach anyone about Islam and the Creeping Sharia in the USA and what Laws they have it in. You need to understand the Muslim mind I am willing to start an Act for America in Central Pa if you want one. But Please remember this President is allowing Muslim Students Association on College campus and in high schools, CAIR and Muslim Society of America to thrive here and they are linked to terrorist groups the Muslim Brotherhood and the Holyland foundation.Viva Palestine was another terrorist group linked to Hamas and supported by George Galloway who is no longer allowed in Canada but the President and Hillary Clinton allows him to sneak into the USA and collect money from Mosques to buy weapons for Hamas. He allowed the Muslim Black Panther New or Old they are Muslims to terroris voters, the Nation of Islam to call for war on Americans this is a must see http://youtu.be/f-HIQQMUrLc and http://youtu.be/64V09tTIjR4

  30. PossumHead says:

    All sounds good, but what can be done to get this jerk out of office?

  31. Christianity has never tried to force citizens in the USA to accept Christ as Lord and savior! Period! EVER! That is God’s job! We are surely not going to kneel to Mooohamhead at this point! There is not a Christian alive in the USA that would not come to the defense of the Atheist in this matter. There are many atheists who have come to the defense of Christianity over the years, who recognize the difference! It will be great when more atheist come to the determination that no one in the Christian church has ever attacked them, or tried to put them in prison for blasphempy! Moohamhed followers will not hesitate to kill you over it though!

  32. Stardust says:

    Tamara, what you say about Christianity not being forced on people in the USA is not true. It is not enough for Christians to believe, they constantly attempt to include it in our secular schools and government, knock on the doors of our homes to tell us we are doomed if we don’t accept their beliefs, try to tell a woman what she is allowed or not allowed to do inside her own body, what kind of relationships are allowed, and much more. Christians are constantly waging “war” with atheists and those who are non-Christians. Its everywhere. Ever hear of the Salem witch trials? How about today in Arizona and other places in the US praying for the death of our president for not being Christian enough. Atheists have been attacked over and over again. Shot down in the media, never respected, rarely given equal time. George Bush I even went so far as to say atheists shouldn’t be citizens. So, you may want to re-evaluate your statements.

    nonbeingChristian

  33. John says:

    Well, Martin doesn’t seem like a particularly learned judge.
    I suppose that’s to be expected in a country where most state judiciaries are elected.

    That said, there’s nothing particularly egregious about his finding. The whole burden in a criminal matter is on the prosecution, and it’s a burden to prove all essential elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Apparently, in this case, notwithstanding the allegation that the accused tried to choke the complainant with the styrofoam sign he was wearing, the sign was completely undamaged. That’s a fact that could leave a reasonable person with doubts as to whether the accused actually touched the complainant.

    The rest of his commentary, though ill-advised, is completely irrelevant to the disposition of the case.
    I don’t think, that said, that it’s necessarily inappropriate of a judge to reproach a person for socially-inappropriate behaviour, notwithstanding that the said behaviour was technically legal.

    I can wear a Hitler costume to a Bar Mitzvah if I want (subject, of course, to the general law of trespass). That doesn’t mean it’s a GOOD IDEA.

  34. tfs says:

    Sorry Tamara, I know you mean well but there has never been a “religion” that was not expansionist. That’s how they survive. Religion was created as an instrument of control. So of course the christian church wants to control me. The fact that it will try to do so using so-called “non-violent” methods really doesn’t make it any less insidious in the attempt. Besides, it’s not like christianity hasn’t tried the violent approach many times throughout history. Love em or hate em, all religions share the same common goal, dominance.

  35. Ray Garton says:

    Tamara wrote: “Christianity has never tried to force citizens in the USA to accept Christ as Lord and savior! Period! EVER!”

    I didn’t say Christians were trying to force U.S. citizens to accept Christ as anything. I said they were trying to get EVERYONE to live by their religion’s teachings. Two different things. You’re responding to a claim I didn’t make. This is annoying. Stop it.

    “There is not a Christian alive in the USA that would not come to the defense of the Atheist in this matter.”

    You are nothing short of wildly delusional, Tamara. Exactly how well do you know all the Christians who are alive? Exactly how long have you been ignoring reality?

    “It will be great when more atheist come to the determination that no one in the Christian church has ever attacked them,”

    Really? I was shot at by Christians, Tamara. They didn’t approve of the books I wrote and felt I needed to be punished. Have you heard of Jessica Ahlquist? She’s a high school student who sued to have an unlawful prayer banner removed from the wall of her PUBLIC school. Her family received death threats and she was — and is STILL being — harassed. By CHRISTIANS. Research this topic for just an hour, Tamara, and you will quickly discover that you do not know every living Christian quite as well as you think you do. It’s never a good idea to make irrational claims that you not only cannot back up, but that fly in the face of what is going on all around us. Educate yourself, Tamara.

  36. Tommykey says:

    I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what’s on our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures, which is what you did.”

    That reminds me of a scene from 1776, when the members of Congress call to strike out different parts of Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence. One person declares a certain passage will be offensive to some people in England, to which John Adams cries out, “This is a revolution damnit! We’re going to have to offend somebody!”

  37. Mike L says:

    This so called judge is a DISGRACE.. and the reason why this country is going to shit. IMPEACH this ASSHOLE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  38. Alastair says:

    I’m an atheist from California; just saw the story; generally agree with the post; certainly hope Judge Martin is quickly removed. But…I’m writing because his use of the term “elements” confused you. To prove someone is guilty of a crime, say, assault, you have to prove the elements: an assault must have occurred, the defendant must have done it, it must have been deliberate, not accidental…and so on. The judge is not babbling here, but he seems to think the defendant’s choking of Perce was not intended to annoy or alarm him. Also, I think Judge Martin may have been speaking hypothetically–”[Imagine that] I’m a Muslim, I see this guy…” But, the judge is completely wrong, of course–Nazis can march in Skokie without being attacked by Jews, and both Mohammed and Zombie Mohammed enjoy the same protection against assault.

  39. Ray Garton says:

    I appreciate the explanation, Alastair, that makes sense. Thanks. I understand what you’re saying about Martin’s “I’m a Muslim” comment, but I didn’t hear that in his voice. I mean, I didn’t hear anything that suggested to me he was being hypothetical. I’ll be interested in the explanation, if one ever comes. But I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t. I think the judge’s camp is just keeping their mouths shut and waiting for this to blow over. And that might very well work.

  40. Jonathan says:

    Judge Martin is NOT a muslim. This entire diatribe is based on a mishearing of him. He actually says he is NOT a muslim. He is in fact a Lutheran. He has also served his country on military duty in a muslim country, putting his life on the line, rather more than most of you “outraged” atheists ever have. I don’t know if the atheist guy alledgedly “accosted” was a dufus, but plenty of you sure are! Oh and no I’m not a muslim either…

  41. Ray Garton says:

    If he didn’t say “I’m a Muslim,” then what did he say? It sure wasn’t “I’m a Lutheran.” Since you know this was a “mishearing,” then what was it he actually said?

    Jonathan wrote: “This entire diatribe is based on a mishearing of him.”

    No, it’s not. It’s based on what he did, how he handled this case. Which was wrong. His military service may be admirable, but it does not excuse what he did. If you’re so certain that he didn’t do this to favor the Muslim man in the case, then … did he do it because the other man in the case was an atheist? Surely you don’t think that would make it all better, do you, Jonathan?

  42. John Kennedy says:

    Jonathan, I’m not an Atheist, nor have I ever claimed to be one. However, I would sooner put my trust in an Atheist than a Xtian. That, however, is beside the point.

    You claim that Judge Martin is a Lutheran. Where did you obtain this information? He might have been once, but in this audio he clearly states he is a Muslim. There is no space for a “Not”. It’s three words.

  43. Ray Garton says:

    I’ve done some searching and have found that in an interview, Judge Martin claims to be a Lutheran. He also says he can’t remember what he said at the point in the audio recording where he seems to say, “I’m a Muslim.” Writer Cathy Young at RealClearPolitics.com claims that he’s really saying, “I’m NOT a Muslim,” with the “not” said so quickly that it doesn’t seem to be there. I’ve listened to that segment of the audio over and over and over and I can’t hear it. What I hear is “I’m a Muslim.” I’m not saying that Martin is, in fact, a Muslim and not a Lutheran, I’m just trying to hear some sign of the word “not” in there, and I can’t. But it doesn’t change Martin’s egregious handling of this whole thing. His pompous, nonsensical lecture about Islam, his apparent belief that the laws of Muslim nations are even worth mentioning in a United States courtroom when they had absolutely no bearing on this case, his obvious confusion about constitutional rights — “But you have that right. But you’re way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.” — are all very disturbing. He lectured an atheist about Muslims, how they worship and how they sometimes kill people who say things they don’t like, while not saying a word to a Muslim man who believed it was against the law in the United States to mock Mohammed. I still think Judge Martin bears some serious scrutiny.

  44. Ray Garton says:

    In this PennLive.com article, Judge Martin does not claim to have said, “I’m not a Muslim,” he simply claims he didn’t say “I am a Muslim.” So we have the audio and Judge Martin. I guess it all depends on whether or not you hear the phantom “not” when you listen.

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/judge_in_zombie_muhammad_case_1.html

  45. Henry says:

    Andrew McCarthy in an update to his blog “TThe Sharia Court of Pennsylvania — The Transcript”
    had this to say about the “I’m a Muslim” comment: “This post has been corrected because, after further review, it appears Judge Martin’s reported statement on the audio of the court proceeding, ‘I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive’, is actually, ‘F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive.’”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy#comment-499334

    That puts an entirely different light on it. After going back and listening again – and again and again – I believe that he is right. The judge simply wasn’t careful about his diction there, leading most — myself included — to the belief that he said “I’m a Muslim.”

    Whether he did or whether he did not however is entirely irrelevant to his actual ruling. He didn’t rule on the basis of Perce’s action being offensive to Muslim, for all that so many have concluded that he did. His official ruling was that based on the evidence presented in court he had to throw the case out as unproven, and that I am sorry to say was the right decision and one that I believe that any honest judge would have made in his place. There is a lot about this case to offend just about every one on every side of the issue, not the least of which were Judge Mark Martins personal opinions on Islam believers vs. Christian believers as well as his comments on the free speech rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. But that was his own personal prejudice, and while I’m sure that they made him very happy to be able to rule as he did, his ruling still was that Perce and Curtis failed to prove their case in court. And that was right.

    Perce and Curtis simply blew their case big time. They screwed it up; not the judges opinion. Sgt. Curtis was the responding officer the night that Perce called for police assistance. He took the statements of the two men involved, and he said that Elbayomy admitted that he did indeed lay hands on Perce. I have listened to the tape Perce made and provides for the public to hear, and contraty to the statements of some that Curtis testified that in court he did not! Sgt. Curtis was not there as a sworn witness! He was there acting in the capacity of attorney for Perce! Why in hell was the responding officer acting as the complainents attorney and not as a sworn witness?

    He tried his best as the cross examiner to get Elbayomy to admit to having told him that night that yes, he had layed hands on Perce. but was completely unsuccessful. Elbayomy denied it, said that he did not and never said that, and as the sworn witness the judge or any judge had to accept what he had to say rather than what the cross examiner tried to get him to say.

    Perce and Curtis blew their one chance at winning this case, there being no other witnesses called to testify and the video being completely unsupportive. (I’ve seen it, it’s dark, almost black with no identifiable people ever shown and neither does the audio verify Perce’s story other than that something impossible to know exactly is going on) The judge ruled that he had nothing to go on but one man’s word against anothers. Had Sgt. Curtis appeared as the responding officer to give his sworn testimony, then they would have had to corroborating sworn testimonies, Perce’s that Elbayomy did indeed lay hands on him, and Sgt. Curtis’ sworn testimony that he was the responding officer and that Elbayomy did say to him personally that he had indeed physically layed hands on Perce. The Judge would then have had to rule in their favor or forever be known — not just believed — to have ruled on the basis of his personal bias rather than on the basis of testimony given.

    The judge was, however just as offensive in his way to America and Americans in his expression of outrage and prejudice as Perce was to Muslims on the night in question for all that to us it is not a religious thing. I take my citizenship and status as an American just as seriously as any Muslim takes his or her religion and status as a Muslim. And the two are simply not compatible. The sooner Americans as a whole wake up to that and act on that the better our chances for surviving and prevailing against the creeping sharia and quiet war of Islam against us and all non-believers and nations. And in my opinion no man who has expressed the opinions that Judge Mark Martin expressed in that court room is fit to sit on the bench in an American court of law.

Comments are closed.