Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

A 1 minute search. Do you think there's a pattern here? Santorum and other christian fundamentalists in the US may talk a hard line, but they're not bombing mosques or temples or abducting islamics and jews.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

No armed person can be a victim unless they will it.

---

---

Hello,

That's rather patently false. Being armed only improves your chances of resistance. It does not guarantee that you won't be victimized.

Armed people are victimized every day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

No, they're saving their bombs for abortion clinics, aren't they?

And elsewhere hardline "christians" are murdering people for the crime of being "the ghey". And they're doing with with the tacit - if not the EXPLICIT - support and aid of hardliners here who'd like nothing more than to enact the same kinds of laws here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

No armed person can be a victim unless they will it.

---

---

Hello,

That's rather patently false. Being armed only improves your chances of resistance. It does not guarantee that you won't be victimized.

Armed people are victimized every day.

---

You fail to perceive the difference between being victimized and being a victim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
CaveTroll - your search turned up the same web site. Looking at their site it appears like they may not be the most objective source:

---

Are any of the linked sources demonstrably false? If you are objecting to their spin, everyone puts spin on stories. If they're all linked from the same source you can at least subtract the spin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
I take it you couldn't be troubled to look up jizyah?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
And yes, christians can be zealots too. Fortunately we have the 1st amendment to control zealotry here. And when that fails we have the 2nd amendment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Also a ridiculous statement. Neither amendment has stopped all the killing of gays, bombing of abortion clinics, murdering of doctors, terrorism and violence against gays AND those in any way involved in clinics which provide abortions (like receptionists...), and all the other heinous crimes committed against "the other" in this country. The advocacy of that, the publishing of the addresses of the victims and exhortations of "get 'em!", etc., tells its own story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

No, they're saving their bombs for abortion clinics, aren't they?

And elsewhere hardline "christians" are murdering people for the crime of being "the ghey". And they're doing with with the tacit - if not the EXPLICIT - support and aid of hardliners here who'd like nothing more than to enact the same kinds of laws here.

---

Links please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

No armed person can be a victim unless they will it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Also a ridiculous statement. Neither amendment has stopped all the killing of gays, bombing of abortion clinics, murdering of doctors, terrorism and violence against gays AND those in any way involved in clinics which provide abortions (like receptionists...), and all the other heinous crimes committed against "the other" in this country. The advocacy of that, the publishing of the addresses of the victims and exhortations of "get 'em!", etc., tells its own story.

---

2nd Amendment rights did allow for immigrant store owners to protect their property during the LA riots.

But I guess they aren't "other" enough for you,huh?

---

Quote:

---

A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.

District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”

The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”

Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night.

Now the Scranton Atheism Examiner reports that Perce could be arrested for posting audio of the judge scolding him for mocking Muhammad. According to report, the Muslim judge has threatened to hold him in contempt of court for releasing the recording. Perce has claimed he was given permission to post the audio.

The Examiner reports that Perce said he posted the audio because the judge treated him unfairly and showed preferential treatment for the Muslim defendant.

According to reports, the atheists were marching when Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, stormed out of the crowd and assaulted Perce, grabbing a sign around his neck and pulling until the strings choked him.

The men caught the attention of a nearby police officer.

Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”

He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”

Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment. He denied touching Perce at trial, but Officer Curtis said Elbayomy admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident.

However, Judge Martin dismissed the charges and purportedly belittled the atheist victim.

The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:

Well, 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 Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and 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 intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, 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, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘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’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. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven years 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 hear it 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.

The judge later added, “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.”

Carl Silverman of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania told WHTM-TV, “We understand that Muslims are extremely sensitive. But this is America, and you need to get over the sensitivity and take out your opposition in peaceful ways – not by attacking people physically.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

No armed person can be a victim unless they will it.

---

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine
-veteran/story?id=13640112#.T0lagESot4o


Guess he must've "willed it", huh?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

I confess I didn't get the connection from what I read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: ????? gizyah IPA: [d?izja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye; both derived from Pahlavi and possibly from Aramaic gaziyat[1]) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria.

A tax on Christians?

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't a victim. He attempted to defend himself and failed, but that of itself does not make him a victim.

---

Quote:

---

If the US were as anti-everything-but-christianity as claimed we could tax them.

---

Quote:

---

Santorum and other christian fundamentalists in the US may talk a hard line, but they're not bombing mosques or temples or abducting islamics and jews.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Santorum and other christian fundamentalists in the US may talk a hard line, but they're not bombing mosques or temples or abducting islamics and jews.

---

Not in THIS country. But we do a great job doing all of that stuff in other nations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that other people may be just as afraid of us as we are of them. Or more so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

He wasn't a victim. He attempted to defend himself and failed, but that of itself does not make him a victim.

---

...I understand that you have created some kind of personal definition of victim, laced with personal feelings about standing up for yourself, but please understand that your personal definition has no relation to standard language or logic.

I am a proponent of gun freedoms, and of self-defense. But when you say things like, (I paraphrase) "You can't be a victim if you try to defend yourself" it promotes a distorted view of reality. A righteous stance and a gun may give you a chance to survive, but it does not guarantee that you won't be a victim. You can try your hardest and still be a victim...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

He wasn't a victim. He attempted to defend himself and failed, but that of itself does not make him a victim.

---

...I understand that you have created some kind of personal definition of victim, laced with personal feelings about standing up for yourself, but please understand that your personal definition has no relation to standard language or logic.

I am a proponent of gun freedoms, and of self-defense. But when you say things like, (I paraphrase) "You can't be a victim if you try to defend yourself" it promotes a distorted view of reality. A righteous stance and a gun may give you a chance to survive, but it does not guarantee that you won't be a victim. You can try your hardest and still be a victim...

---

It is about accepting responsibility for your own safety and preparing before the moment of crisis. Bad things can happen even if you are prepared, but that does not make you a victim. Even if you don't survive. If you can't grasp that concept, then we might as well agree to disagree.

---

Quote:

---

Furthermore, a study of Transactional Analysis can guide one to the better choice. Self-honesty required.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Excuse me. CaveTroll's definition of victim may not agree with the Dictionary.
But it agrees with the Transactional Analysis definition which says that Victims (a role) choose to be victimized.
See Games People Play by Dr. Eric Byrne, 1964.
Furthermore, a study of Transactional Analysis can guide one to the better choice. Self-honesty required.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, a study of Transactional Analysis can guide one to the better choice. Self-honesty required.

---

Hello,

I personally choose not to remove victimhood by equating it to a lack of resistance. Such would remove victimization, or transform it to some other act.

I do not believe you can make adjustments on one side of the scale without making adjustments to the other. What you perceive as a victim is someone who has surrendered. But the victimization of people is not something I believe requires surrender on the part of the target.

The heinous act is heinous, the harm is harm, regardless of the actions of the victim. I do not believe the situation is transformed by the resistance of the victim. The victim themselves may take comfort in their resistance, and they may gain hope of a better outcome, but the act of victimization is not transformed in my eyes, nor is the target any less a victim of the crime.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


I personally choose not to remove victimhood by equating it to a lack of resistance. Such would remove victimization, or transform it to some other act...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Here you go Pizmo, spin this one.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/

Muslim judge, muslim defendant, US court, case thrown out.

Yessir, if you don't like what someone is saying, just go over and hit 'em. And not get charged with assault. Any comments on this? Or is this going to be one of those posts where there is an inexplicable silence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Pizmo,

I am shocked at your position and disagree with you.

Only offensive speech needs to be protected, obviously. No one objects to the other kind.

Just as we can not assault Westboro Baptists, we can not assault zombie Mohammads.

Freedom of speech must absolutely apply to the most offensive speech around, else it's pointless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Pizmo,

I am shocked at your position and disagree with you.

Only offensive speech needs to be protected, obviously. No one objects to the other kind.

Just as we can not assault Westboro Baptists, we can not assault zombie Mohammads.

Freedom of speech must absolutely apply to the most offensive speech around, else it's pointless.

---

I'm not sure you are serious...? If you are then:

I think you are blowing something 2 knuckleheads did way out of proportion. Will you celebrate you speech freedoms by visiting a baptist church and screaming, "you're all a bunch of low-life ni....ers!" Please video tape that so we can enjoy your courageous all-or-nothing position. I like to think you won't, because you exhibit a pretty good common sense in most things.

Besides, the judge he did not find conclusive proof that the zombie was assaulted - so: law followed, and armageddon averted.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Why would I make speech regarding something I do not believe? I am content to make offensive speech about things I do believe in. Indeed, some of my stated positions on this board have been quite offensive to some people, and would get me slain in places without speech protections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Moreover, there is little objective doubt that there was physical contact between the costumed man and the man who took offense. This is called assault. Why you would defend this aggression and side with its apologists is beyond my ken.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If I am ever so offended by someone's speech that I decide to accost them, I fully expect to go to jail or pay some form of restitution, because I will have committed a crime.

---

Quote:

---

The Free Speech I believe they were talking about was the speech to be contrary to Gov., not to insult and belittle.

---

Quote:

---

He pulled on the offensive cardboard sign around his neck held on by a string - that's a bit of a stretch to assault. Ask the muslim if he felt assaulted by the sign.

---

Quote:

---

It's very likely that this muslim thought the same thing would happen to him as well - guess this was his lucky day, maybe he'll learn from it.

---

Quote:

---

I don't want to see our courts clogged with morons who think they can say anything and get away with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

The Free Speech I believe they were talking about was the speech to be contrary to Gov., not to insult and belittle.

---

Hello,

These would be the same people who burned effigies of people they didn't like, and set images of them on nooses, and ridiculed them in publications, and mocked them in artwork and song?

Quote:

---

He pulled on the offensive cardboard sign around his neck held on by a string - that's a bit of a stretch to assault. Ask the muslim if he felt assaulted by the sign.

---

You seem to be suggesting I should be allowed to visit protests I find offensive and pull their signs away. I find this a fantastic view of freedom of speech. Incredible, even.

Quote:

---

It's very likely that this muslim thought the same thing would happen to him as well - guess this was his lucky day, maybe he'll learn from it.

---

This seems doubtful, since he was vindicated in a court of law and defended not merely by an attorney, but also by the judge. This ruling would be a win for anyone who wants to silence speech offensive to them. They now have a legal precedent defending their assault.

Quote:

---

I don't want to see our courts clogged with morons who think they can say anything and get away with it.

---

The courts exist primarily because of moronic behavior. Courts of law are purpose-built to deal with morons who think they can DO anything and get away with it. In this case, they did.

---

Quote:

---

turns out the judge is not a Muslim (shock, horror! someone made that up to incite viral marketing).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Running up to someone and touching them in any threatening manner is consider "battery" in CA. Allowing one person to do that to another is poor judgment, whether the judge is Xtian, Muslim or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist. It should not be permitted whether the parader/ demonstrator is dressed as Hitler and carrying a swastika, a little old lady carrying a picture of an aborted fetus, or an Occupy demonstrator in chains carrying a picture of Diamon.

The only time that images (or speech) should be restricted are when they incite violence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

turns out the judge is not a Muslim (shock, horror! someone made that up to incite viral marketing).

---

Hello,

You will note, doubtless with some interest, that I do not give a flying fig about the religion of the Judge. None of my arguments or outrage are directed at anything religious. They are directed at someone being allowed to violate another person's freedom of speech, and then being defended by the judge in their action, while the person giving the speech is given a dressing down.

Now, if some legal misstep or technicality is responsible for the ruling, that is unfortunate, but not the fault of the judge. Legal technicalities exist for a reason, to protect someone's rights.

I continue to find it very inappropriate for an official of the law, in his official capacity, to give a person a dressing down for exercising their rights. And I am still thunderstruck that you would find agreement with such a position.

This is not about the height of a horse, nor is it about taking something to an outrageous degree. This is about one man acting within his rights and one man acting outside his rights. This is about chastising the wrong man, and defending the wrong man. And apparently, this is also about justice lost because someone, somewhere, was incompetent to bring it through.

---

Quote:

---

Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

---

Hello,

Zealots, eh?

We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

---

Hello,

Zealots, eh?

We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.

---

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong, like in this case. When they can't entertain the idea of thinking beyond black and white - the world has a multitude of gray shades.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong

---

Quote:

---

"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 intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Free Speech Advocates/Zealots

---

Hello,

Zealots, eh?

We Zealots defend Free Speech always, even when it is unpopular or may aid an unpopular group. Even if it is a group we despise.

---

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong, like in this case. When they can't entertain the idea of thinking beyond black and white - the world has a multitude of gray shades.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

Quote:

---

Yes, to me a Zealot is someone who defends free speech when they have the facts wrong

---

---

Hello,

I do apologize for getting the facts of the case wrong, (apparently in regards to someone choosing the wrong charge for the crime that occurred) but the defense of Free Speech is itself correct and untarnished. Nothing I said in defense of Free Speech or this Speaker is incorrect. Nothing I said in condemnation of the man who would accost the Speaker is incorrect. And I still stand by dismay that an administrator of the law would lecture a victim whose rights were violated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
PIZMO, I realize that definitions of "harassment", "assault" and "battery" vary from state to state. I personally like the CA definition better, but I realize that one cannot apply CA law in PA! But TOUCHING anyone in a threatening or unwelcome manner in ANY state should be a punishable crime. After disallowing a video of the event from evidence (why?) the judge decided that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the charge. Weren't there witnesses? Didn't the arresting sheriff make a statement? Didn't the alleged attacker admit at the scene as to what he had done? Seems like evidence was dismissed out of hand. And then the judge lectured the victim? On what grounds? That lecture virtually admits to an altercation in order to excuse it. The weigh scales of justice seemed to have a very heavy thumb on one side. Also, what the judge said:

Quote:

---

"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 intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did."

---

The first amendment was used by our FF to protect the rights of the colonists to piss off the British.

---

Quote:

---

I think there's free speech and then there's Free Speech, it's not one size fits all. If this was a Gov trying to stifle anti-government opinion/text then I'd share the level of concern that you have. This is on the other end of the spectrum, I think it's wrong to lump them together.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

That time is passed then, right?

---

Quote:

---

If you watch the video I think you'll see there's nothing there, not anything to prosecute someone with

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Hello,

I understand your position, and you have the right to it, but I disagree. I do not limit free speech to anti-government speech. I believe the protections are far broader, and indeed that they must be. I believe such protections, broad and wide, are essential to the maintenance of a free society. While it is a bitter brew to swallow to hear someone say, or watch someone depict a hateful, hurtful thing- I believe that all speech is safe only when the worst speech is protected. The exceptions I make to this rule of thumb are strikingly narrow, limited to direct and plausible threats of harm.

If in my zealotry, I offend, please forgive me. I shall similarly strive to forgive those whose zeal is so tepid and tame that they would erode what I consider a vital tenet of freedom. I do not believe the position to be borne of evil, though it startled me to hear it.

---