By Skip Chatterson - February 29, 2012
Many moons ago, I wrote a story about Oklahoma trying to outlaw the use of Sharia law in the courtrooms of Oklahoma. A liberal reader took exception to the story, down playing the role Sharia has had in some American courtrooms. It is amazing how some liberals can overlook lower courts basically endorsing rape and the subjugation of women as long as Muslims are involved.
The most recent story comes out of Pennsylvania. This will be a rare story where I agree and support an atheist. Last October Ernest Perce (an atheist) attended the local Halloween parade dressed as Zombie Muhammed. During the parade Ernest was attacked and choked by Talaag Elbayomy, who was carrying out Sharia law. This case did end up in a Pennsylvania court, as Cumberland County brought charges of assault against Elbayomy.
Judge Mark Martin ruled over the case, but did not use the Constitution for the basis on his ruling (see the video here):
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.
“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights.
Judge Martin notes that Perce has his First amendment rights, but does he really allow it? Ernest Perce had a video of the entire encounter, but the Judge does not allow it into evidence, allowing only the word of the two sides. Martin’s final ruling?
“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.”
“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “
“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
Amazing how a judge can influence the burden of proof when he does not allow the proof to be shown. In Sharia law, when it is one man’s word against another the Muslim is always judged as telling the truth.
Adding insult to injury, after the court decision the judge released Ernest’s personal information, now Ernest has recieved more than 470 threats, of which some are death threats.
Perce stated in an interview given to The American Thinker, that he chose Zombie Muhammed because he opposes the treatment of women by most Islamic nations. That I can agree with. What did Perce do when he was offended? He dressed up as an individual that, yes Muslims decree as blasphemous, but he did not attack any Muslim. In Mark Martin’s courtroom though, Muslim have the right to attack anybody who might offend him or any other Muslim.
Just a note: Did anybody notice on the video, the guy dressed up as the Pope, next to Perce? Did any Catholics attack that man….No!
The Constitution is about individuals rights, this includes people of all faiths, or even those without a religious faith. People will get offended by any manner of actions, no law should allow physical attacks as a response to being offended (thats as simple as teaching a 2 year old not to hit someone). Sharia Law is about subjugation of all individuals, and therefore is antithetical to the Constitution and states should outlaw the use of Sharia Law in all 50 states, if possible.