Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
PA Judge frees Muslim thug, cites Sharia Law!
Since this is an Atheist forum, this may be of interest since it concerns an Atheist person.
http://cofcc.org/2012/02/pa-judge-frees-muslim-thug-cites-sharia-law/
http://cofcc.org/2012/02/pa-judge-frees-muslim-thug-cites-sharia-law/
0
Comments
Anyone can look at isolated incidents like this to further entrench and justify one's worldview but its a narrow view.
anyway.. forum content aint my beeswax.
You don't like me anymore?
Racism and bigotry of any type does not distinguish between different flavors of "them". We're all in this together. The fact that a judge mentions Muslim religious law has no more validity than a judge mentioning Biblical law, which they also do quite often. All it proves is people who look for evidence to support their bigotry will eventually find something.
Being an atheist isnt a license to be a jackass! I'm sure its possible not to believe in God and to not offend others also.
Court martial....
On the other hand the organization linked to in the OP is just as off its rocker...... Anti-Muslim paranoia might have a demographic seed anxiety in some parts of Europe, where the indigenous population can feel threatened by new people who bring devout religion and little desire to integrate. In North America, where the indigenous population was decimated and replaced by a purely immigrant culture, (that unlike Europe is drawn from a wide variety of cultures and religions) .. that kind of anxiety is baseless.
Maybe the best intentions sometimes have to be modified. A multicultural model, which works so well IMO in a place like Canada, can easily cause a right wing backlash in a country with a strong indigenous culture. We would not expect it to work in Japan, or in many other countries, but it is expect to work in Europe, mainly do to colonial guilt.
I have no idea what the answer is, but here in Canada at any rate, fear of Islam has no basis. The rise of the Christian right is more concerning .... for moderate Christians as well.
...just rambling.. Find the title of the op veeeery odious.
.
HOWEVER, from a legal standpoint, an individual DOES have the right to portray Mohammed any way they want, even if it is against Muslim Law. This is freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion. I find it to be very disrespectful too, considering how seriously Muslims take it, but it in no way constitutes an illegal act. To throw out the case in deference to Sharia Law is wrong. Of course, had someone been mocking Jesus in a similar way, and had the case thrown out in the same grounds in reference to the Bible, I'm sure this site wouldn't have had the same problem. Nonetheless, on purely legal grounds, this is wrong.
Its about the perpetrator - the justice system considers the effect on 'society' as a whole and tries to consider an objective position to balance the offence - where provocation is concerned, subjectivity arises - here from the victim's point of view, they initiated the issue - the natural state is not to have offensive things happening - when it does, the offender is covered by freedom of speech however that freedom is to the extent that another's rights are not affected - here, the right to peacable enjoyment of your life (implied that you will not be grossly offended) - offence is subjective but some things are very clear such as for muslims please dont take the pizzle out of their god as even they dont do that - thus under extreme provocation, an ordinary person might do something that they may ordinarily not do - the law can take account of that - its a balancing exercise and without reading the entire judgment and considering all the issues it is tough to sum up where the judgment should have gone.
The alternative, and this is a delicious irony, is the Sharia system which is much more victim-centric - here, the right of the victim is considered more - so a minor assualt is balanced against an offensive act (freedom of speech considered) - compensation flows both ways...
You take offence easily at something that is not inherently offensive and not meant to be provocative – it is a statement of fact – you consider that the natural state is for people to agree with you – this hints at delusions of grandeur – you have misinterpreted the 1st amendment – this is not a right that you can say whatever you want – this is a provision that prevents the government from stopping you from having that right!!
Your taking gross offence is also extreme and contradictory as you’re taking offence to my not paying homage to what you consider is freedom of speech however in doing so, you are also committing the same offence – given that you’re so grossly offended by it (and I am not) then you should be even more aware of the breach and should do more to prevent yourself from breaching it (given it is so heinous).
Your response also seems extreme, disproportionate and random – all in all, the symptoms of agitation you display are very close to those of mental illness – rather than punishing you for random acts, it would be more in the interests of justice to see whether you can be helped – perhaps an adjournment pending a psychological assessment to consider whether you require something more than prison or a fine – if you’re in a state of diminished responsibility then the law will take account of that.
In the Sharia system, each person that you affected would have a claim against you in compensation (depending on the nature of the offence) – so you would have the state sanction a scheme whereby the wrongs were redressed – I would not receive anything as nothing is lost by me (other than the costs of the action) – the people you have harmed will however have recourse (thereby redressing the balance prior to the offence) - the Western system is often criticised for not being victim-centric enough.
As far as I understand, Mohammed (pbuh) begged his companions not to portray him in art, like the Jesus so that he would not be worshipped as an idol or God.
I doubt anyone would be in danger of worshipping green face black beard.
In art, if the prophet is portrayed, he is a flaming ball of fire...I doubt anyone would willingly set themselves on fire for a parade.
:rarr: seems like everyone has the right to be offended...and use that liberty Willy nilly...here is a Muslim who was not. Just two assholes getting into a fight and wasting resources by taking it to court and then the media giving it air time...
Hey to other important news.
If I was actually offended, by your post, virtually everything you said would be correct, and the same argument I would make.
Sharia is indeed victim-centric. As in, a lot of people become victims of its totalitarian reach.
2. I'm not sure that the common Buddhist mindset is as attuned to sarcasm.
Its tough labelling it as simply ‘silly’ – you cant know how it feels unless you believe in it – everyone knows that the prophet is out of bounds so why even go there unless the aim is to provoke a reaction – to me its silly that pointing your feet at something is an insult but around my Thai friends, I am very mindful (even though it seems silly to me) – it was extreme and contradictory in your scenario as yours was based on you being insulted by my not observing your interpretation of the 1st amendment (thereby invoking a paradox in your own argument) – indeed, the response to the zombie-character was extreme and in my own personal beliefs unjustified but the law has to take the stance of society as a whole and it needs to be assessed on that basis – thus a balance needs to be struck between respective parties (a balance that should already exist in society without the need for policing and enforcement) – I don’t feel in this case that criticism of the judge was shown to be justified on a cursory consideration of the news footage – on top of that, I don’t consider the source of the post (the far right website supporting white power) as a reasonable sole source- just one opinion amongst many though!
I note your point on Sharia and have a dry smile on my face! That said, the point I made is a serious one – there is a conflict in the philosophy of the criminal justice system between punishing crimes on behalf of society (society-centric) and redressing the balance of loss (victim-centric) – the 2 systems could learn a lot from each other if people just stopped for a minute and considered.
E.g. if you’re involved in a fatal car accident (you drive and another person is killed), under western legal system, you would be interviewed and charged with an offence and the CPS decide if you should be prosecuted – there is one level of criminal offence (depending on the facts) and then you face a set criminal sentencing – there follows a civil claim brought and funded by the victim’s family and you pay whatever is awarded (if you have the cash but if you don’t then you cannot) – the criminal and civil system don’t speak to each other and noone speaks to the victim / or their family and on top the victim has to fund and pursue the civil action.
Under Sharia say, you will be interviewed as will the victim / family – a view is then taken by the CPS on what the possible charges are (these have a high end for the offence and then a sliding scale to include civil compensation) – the victim’s family then get the choice of which remedy they wish to pursue – the case is then litigated (if not settled) and the punishment again is proposed by the victims (depending on the scale) and the state considers this position – the solution is a holistic approach to deal with the effect of the action as well as the action itself.
Crazy!! What are a bunch of Buddhist going to do? Boycott peacefully, insight a meditation rally?
If each of us took the decision to do our best not to create situations where there would be a 'price' then we could slowly move away from paying.