I am still hoping that this is a joke. However, according to Gawker and other sites, the Trinity Broadcasting Network is airing a series called Bibleman for children. In the video below, Bibleman appears to fight New Yorkers in a talk show setting.
Unlike Hamas, Bibleman does not espouse violence and hatred like Hamas’ many ventures into children programming, click here.
Indeed, Bibleman wears “shoes of peace” as well as a “shield of faith” and “belt of truth” as shown here in his dress sequence.
I checked, this seems real, click here.
However, the armored Bibleman appears to be fighting the force of evil in New York in what the bloggers have called the “Bibleman v. the New York Jew” episode.
I am waiting for the League of Religious Justice with Bibleman, Torahdude, and Koranguy fighting atheists around the world. For a funny trailer for a video game on Bibleman v. a protester, click here. It is still better than the homicidal children shows on Hamas television.
Whatever happened to Gilligan’s Island? It wasn’t particularly educational (beyond learning how a brilliant scientist could make a radio out of a coconut but a simple boat). Yet, the most one developed was a crush on Mary Ann (before her recent arrest of course).
For the Bibleman episode, click here
The problem is you have apparently made this some sort of war that Prof. Turley, as his counsel, cannot fire back in.
What?
You must be kidding.
By writing a comment on his blog?
The rest of your argument is even more ridiculous.
I didn’t accuse Prof. Turley of being unethical. I have no idea where you got that, except as another obvious misreading of plain language on your part.
Simply stating that his argument in this blog post undercuts the public position of his client and his supporters does not:
a) equate to charges that Prof. Turley is acting in any way unethically; nor
b) have any bearing on Prof. Turley’s free speech rights.
You are living in some kind of hysterical fantasy world where criticism equals censorship and disagreement equates to charges of ethical failures.
I have made no such claim, and Prof. Turley can very much comment on the nature of “fiery rhetoric” or “free speech” of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (and Hamas, as he had) without impacting directly on the case of his client in terms of his professional ethics, or otherwise, because, as I stated earlier, “free speech” as a concept, and in the legal sense, is only tangential to this case.
You’re not doing well as a surrogate for the Prof. Turley, if that is indeed your intention (after all he is duty bound not to respond! please), by claiming that criticism of his position on this blog post = censorship and accusations of unethical behavior.
Bob esq,
I hadn’t thought of that!! Darn, you’re right…it would seem proof of Divine approbation!
I’m used to expecting bolts from Above, have to get used to the idea it can sometimes be rose petals…..
DW
JT wrote:
I am waiting for the League of Religious Justice with Bibleman, Torahdude, and Koranguy fighting atheists around the world.
*****************
lol Now THAT would be an interesting show to see. Although I don’t know who would make the best atheist “antagonist” if the only battlefield is a talk show. I can’t make up my mind whether to choose Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. And they are just the top three contenders. 🙂
deeply worried,
Are you sure The Big Guy didn’t use the double post as a punctuation mark; sort of an exclamation point?
anon:
The problem is you have apparently made this some sort of war that Prof. Turley, as his counsel, cannot fire back in. This wild accusation that he is acting unethically by criticizing the conduct of a group al-Arian supports is bizarre and unfair since you know Turley is duty- bound to ignore you as you take the potshots. Turley certainly doesn’t need me to defend him on an intellectual or legal basis, but since you seem to take advantage of every opportunity to criticize (foolishly I might add) his representation of Dr. al-Arian knowing full well that you strike with impunity’s, I was simply disgusted by your persistent firing into a figurative barrel of fish.
Now who is being dense here?
You, because this “The only way this makes sense is if Turley has lost his free speech rights” is just absolutely ridiculous.
No one is saying Prof. Turley doesn’t have “free speech rights.” It is frankly bizarre (and sad) that you are claiming I’ve said otherwise.
He can say whatever he wants. The question is whether it hurts or helps his client’s case, whether in actual court or in the court of public opinion. Claiming that this position hurts his client’s public stance has absolutely no bearing on Prof. Turley’s “free speech rights.” None.
It’s not really not that hard, mespo.
Perhaps Jehovah took umbrage with your redaction of the text! Sort of a mini-miracle shot-across-the-bow disguised as a keystroke error!
God damn double post…
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs:
4 and the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants. (And they shall be wearing hats and smoking cigars).
5. (And they shall be New York Frogs; sounding much like Edward G. Robinson, and they shall speak sarcastically and mock and taunt thy people with no remorse whatsoever….)
(And so it was that God’s first attempt at making humans, the frogs, according to C. G. Jung, did help Moses free the Jews from Egypt ….)
Exodus 8:1-5
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs:
4 and the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants. (And they shall be wearing hats and smoking cigars).
5. (And they shall be New York Frogs; sounding much like Edward G. Robinson, and they shall speak sarcastically and mock and taunt thy people with no remorse whatsoever….)
(And so it was that God’s first attempt at making humans, the frogs, according to C. G. Jung, did help Moses free the Jews from Egypt ….)
anon:
It was my understanding that Prof. Turley simply represented Dr. al-Arian in his appeal on the the denial of an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Perhaps you have more insight into the representation, but I have not that Prof. Turley has been retained to advocate what “his client and his supporters” are pushing. Let me see your logic:
1. Turley represents al-Arian on a due process appeal of unjust detention after al-Arian has admitted bad things and served his time.
2. al-Arian advocates bad things and defends them by means of free speech claims
3. Turley points out that bad things are bad as already admitted to by his client in court
4. Therefore, Turley has undercut his client’s appeal on due process grounds (even though bad things are not part of the appeal) merely because he has pointed out that his client has advocated things that Turley agrees are bad.
The only way this makes sense is if Turley has lost his free speech rights due to representation which I believe I have already proven is not the case in this Country. Now who is being dense here?
“Well, how would you read the statement above?”
I read it as I wrote it. That issues of “free speech” are only tangential to Dr. Al-Arian’s actual criminal case, but his lawyers have tried (and, honestly, have been fairly successful in certain instances, although not overall) to elevate the issue of free speech in the case.
Is english not your first language?
Enjoy your popcorn.
As for this “bent on attacking the man’s lawyer” – I doubt Prof. Turley is such a wilting flower he needs your assistance. And I hardly feel like I’m “attacking” him by pointing that incongruities of going after Hamas’ “speech” while defending someone who has, in such a untoward manner, embraced the group, and who’se supporters have tried so vigorously to paint as some kind of “free speech” martyr.
“Taking stances that publicly undercut your client’s positions (especially on tangential issues which Mr. Turley and other of Al-Arian’s former attorneys and supporters have worked so hard to elevate as legally important – such as “free speech”)”
#################
anon:
Well, how would you read the statement above? Maybe you meant Prof. Turley’s free speech rights but you might want to actually say that next time. If so, I don’t see how he has undercut his client’s position that he took a longer prison sentence to avoid cooperation and just wants a hearing to prove that’s what he was promised by the feds. Fiery rhetoric and unfounded charges of unethical conduct don’t advance your argument one bit, but you apparently are a one issue guy bent on attacking the man’s lawyer. Go ahead, it will be about as important and successful as trying to blow down the Empire State Building with your breath. Carry on, I have my popcorn ready now.
“but I fail to see how Prof. Turley has undercut anything his client is advocating.”
I think, blinkered by your prejudices, you will fail to see a lot of things, mespo.
Mr. Turley’s “narrative” on Hamas’ TV show happens to be the correct one, but runs counter to the one his client and his supporters have been pushing, which is that such shows and statements are the natural and understandable result of other people’s actions.
Public statements to the contrary undercut the argument that actions (and “speech” – the public debate/court of public opinion, as opposed to its “tangential” nature in the courtroom istelf – this is obvious, amazing that you’re arguing otherwise) on behalf of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are the natural and understandable result of other people’s actions.
I’m sure you still fail to see how one undercuts the other. C’est la vie.
mespo,
Embarrassing yourself is not a problem for you, I see, as you’ve now ventured from just plain idiocy and poor reading comprehension into blatant sexism.
But back to your idiocy and poor reading comprehension. Dr. Al-Arian has suffered a string of appellate defeats since Prof. Turley took over, which has nothing to do with Prof. Turley’s “free speech rights” in and of themself, nor was such a claim made.
As for this, this is truly embarrassing:
“I am glad to learn from such a broad thinker as yourself that free speech is now a “tangential issue,” and that lawyers must elevate it into the realm of “important.” ”
It is =- and always has been – tangential to this case, as he was not arrested, charged or imprisoned because of “speech,” but overt acts, despite the vacuous claims of many of his supporters.
As for your second to last truly dumb question, I voted for Senator Kerry last election, Vice President Gore in 2000, and President Clinton before that. I am supporting Senator Obama in this election. Vigorously.
But as you have demonstrated that you are not only dense, but completely sexist (read: prejudiced), I do wonder which bubble of groupthink you hail from.
Actually, I don’t. Dense, sexist and prejudiced.
That’s enough information.
anon:
Thank you for the compliment. To champion our system against undeserved attacks by know-nothings is something I will wear as a badge of honor. Just so you know, I reserve condescension only for those who are well deserving of it. Another little rule, a lawyer does not give up his free speech rights when he represents his clients either, but I fail to see how Prof. Turley has undercut anything his client is advocating. I am glad to learn from such a broad thinker as yourself that free speech is now a “tangential issue,” and that lawyers must elevate it into the realm of “important.” Answer a question for me please, from which tyrant-lead country do you hail? If not, are you a Limbaugh or Beck man*?
*I assume a man because women are usually brighter than this, and a lot more courteous, but then again, there are Ann Coulters out there too.
WOW!!! Bibleman (on sale at amazon.com) dresses just like Jesus did. How cool is that?
It’s so charming to see three heavily armed faith-troopers taking out one unarmed protester. I’m glad these type of christians are here to properly deal with freedom of speech. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to destroy the constitution. Good work Bibleman!
mespo727272
Here’s a little insight into the world, and the “American justice system”:
Taking stances that publicly undercut your client’s positions (especially on tangential issues which Mr. Turley and other of Al-Arian’s former attorneys and supporters have worked so hard to elevate as legally important – such as “free speech”) not only open up people to charges of hypocrisy, but have the potential of hurting his client’s public case.
If you’re going to be so boringly condescending, it would help not to be so dense.
anon:
Here’s a little insight into the American justice system: just because an attorney agrees to represent a client does not mean that the attorney personally adopts and accepts every action or word rendered by that client on every topic under the sun. Confusing for some to understand, but demonstrably true.
Mr. Turley,
Why do you seem so appalled by Hamas?
You are currently defending someone who espoused the same views and took it upon himself to strengthen the ties between his organization and Hamas.
He wrote about it here:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/133.pdf
You’ll note that the translation is stipulated, and that he wrote (aside from soliciting funds for future suicide attacks):
“The relationship with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress, and there are serious attempts at unification and permanent coordination.”
So Hamas’ “Killer Mickey” is bad, but your client is, er, not?
Ok.