There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.] [UPDATE2: Perce has responded to our blog and denied many of the factual representations made by Judge Martin].
Perce is the American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director and marched with other atheists, including one dressed as a creepy Pope. Here is the tape of the incident:
Perce says that Elbayomy grabbed him and tried to take his sign. Elbayomy was at the parade with his wife and children and said that he felt he had to act in the face of the insult. The officer at the scene, Sgt. Brian Curtis, correctly concluded that Perce was engaged in a lawful, first amendment activity. He therefore charged Elbayomy. While it looks like an assault, he was only charged with harassment.
The case, however, then went to District Judge Mark Martin who not only threw out the charge of harassment but ridiculed Perce as a “doofus.” He also proceeds to not only give an account of his own feelings (and say that he was offended personally by Perce’s action) but suggests that Elbayomy was just protecting his “culture.” The judge not only points to the Koran in the courtroom but his time in Muslim countries as relevant to his deliberations. Putting aside the problem of ruling in a case where you admit you have strong personal feelings, the lecture given on the first amendment is perfectly grotesque from a civil liberties perspective.
Here is part of the hearing transcript:
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 piss 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. 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’s distorted view of the first amendment was magnified by Elbayomy’s counsel, R. Mark Thomas who called this lecture “a good dressing down by the judge. The so-called victim was the antagonist and we introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. The judge didn’t do anything I wouldn’t have done if I was in that position.”
I fail to see the relevance of the victim’s attitude toward Muslims or religion generally. He had a protected right to walk in the parade and not be assaulted for his views. While the judge laments that “[i]t’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others,” that is precisely what the Framers had in mind if Thomas Paine is any measure.
Notably, reports indicate that Elbayomy called police because he thought it was a crime to be disrespectful to Muhammed. The judge appears to reference this by noting that in some countries you can be put to death for such an offense. Those countries are called oppressive countries. This is a free country where it is not a crime to insult someone’s religion — despite a counter-trend in some Western countries.
I also do not see how the judge believes that he has the authority to tell a religious critic that “before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it.” Let alone call a person a “doofus” because he opposes religion.
To make matters worse, the judge is reportedly threatening Perce with contempt for posting the audio of the hearing.
The reference to the cultural motivations for assaulting Perce seems to raise a type of cultural defense. I have spent years discussing this issue with state and federal judges on the proper role of culture in criminal and civil cases. This is not a case where I would view that defense as properly raised. There are certainly constitutional (and yes cultural) norms that must be accepted when joining this Republic. One is a commitment to free speech. If culture could trump free speech, the country would become the amalgamation of all extrinsic cultures — protecting no one by protecting everyone’s impulses. Those countries referenced by the court took a different path — a path away from civil liberties and toward religious orthodoxy. It is a poor example to raise except as an example of what we are not. The fact that this man may have formed his views in such an oppressive environment does not excuse his forcing others to adhere to his religious sentiments.
Martin’s comments also heighten concerns over the growing trend toward criminalizing anti-religious speech in the use of such standards as the Brandenburg test, a position supported by the Obama Administration.
There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture.
I can understand the judge’s claims of conflicting testimony on the crime –though it seems to be that the officer’s testimony and the tape would resolve those doubts. However, I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct.
Source: ABC
Woosty,
Some folks love waving flags, it gets the camera on them.
And “their”version of the “truth” gets space.
So glad you do such a good job.
The last onw who ended citing morals—–soon as I read the word, realized he fucked all he may have said correctly before in his rant.
Good work.
“But from a moralistic perspective, I think the result of this case was just.”
————————————————–
no.
If I say or even do something that is within my legal right to say and/or do, you do NOT have the moral highground or the right to put your fucking hands on me.
Unless I am a 2 year old and about to run into traffic.
Ahh, Michael…
I can only assume you don’t listen to your own words. How else can they be so contradictory and riddled with hypocrisy. This issue is not about the Muslim or the Atheist. It never was. It’s about one person attacking another in direct violation of the law. You claim to believe in the 1st amendment yet you give weight to the fact that the victim was an atheist and was doing something you don’t like. That would be called hypocrisy. I know you don’t see it. If the man had not been an atheist, and he was walking down the street proclaiming that all French people are stupid, would you feel the same way? Would you feel that a french man running over and kicking the sh*t out of him would be, at least to some degree, justified? I doubt it. But there can be no shades of grey here. This is the problem with religion and state. Religion is arbitrary by nature, the law can not be. The attacker in this instance had every right to dismiss the man as a moron and move on, scream epithets at him, or even try to reason with him. All acceptable courses of action. He does not have the right, at least in this country, to assault him no matter what form the perceived insult takes. I have an idea, before you write your next post, do something you may not have tried before. Think first.
ps. Albert deesen, way to exercise your 1st amendment rights. Short and to the point. Nice.
I almost forgot. Godzilla, if free speach was not hard to defend it probably wouldn’t be worth defending.
eff that guy, eff that religion (and every other one) and eff that judge.
i will defend the judge on two counts. the first is that it doesnt sound like harassment, it sounds like battery. so harassment probably was properly dismissed. second, he appears to be overly influenced by his military days. he does not need to be fired. he simply needs to have an appellate judge tell him he is wrong, He has served his country and he deserves some consideration on that account. During that time of service you can bet he was heavily indoctrinated with these views by OUR military. Even with the current Koran burning it is hard to defend free speech, or koran burning, if the result is that dozens of people die. While I say that it is hard, I also believe that we need to accept that radical crazy people are going to die if we persist in allowing free speech.
yankeefarmern, (sorry for the late reply)
Wow, I guess I was wrong about your intellectual prowess. You’ve deduced much from extremely limited information. Of course, therein lies much of the problem but I won’t go there at this time.
A fear of a thing is not a defacto endorsement of it’s purposeful and active eradication or suppression. ‘Freedom of religion’ is not mutually exclusive of ‘freedom from religion’. Both are imperative. I can not purport to be in favor of free speech only insofar as I agree with what is being said. No, the government must NEVER be permitted to suppress religious beliefs, any more than endorsing them. Some people much smarter than I long ago recognized the absolute need for the separation of church and state. We already know that the law is anything but “blind’. But throw religion into the mix and it will become much, much worse. To me, freedom from religion means that I am free to reject religious beliefs and not be subjected to them through the law. It’s the age old cliche’, I don’t like what you’re saying but I will fight for your right to say it.
I fear rattle snakes, but, when I encounter one, I do not whip out my .357 and go to town on it. Nor do I attempt the eradicate the local snake population. Instead I avoid it and move on. I do not begrudge the snakes venom, I can only hope never to be bitten. In the same spirit I pray that sense will prevail and religion will vanish before it brings war to my doorstep.
On a final note, I really have no idea if you’re stupid or not. Judging by your writing I suspect you’re not (I do not have nearly enough information to hazard any informed opinion either way). Nor do I know if you’re religious. My tone was provocative for a little experiment. I wanted to see if my offensive language would cause you grievous injury, thus warranting my immediate incarceration in the nearest federal jail. Is this the case? Or do you remain unharmed and free to go about your normal business? I’m still a free man so I suspect the latter. The nature of the offense, be it religious or personal, makes no difference. I have the right to piss you off or I don’t. So which is it?
Muhammed. He’s that pedophile that the devil appeared to in a dream. He thought it was some god named Allah.
I’m a devout Catholic and a big advocate of religion, but WTF, man?
I’m perfectly okay with Atheists insulting my religion. It’s happened for centuries and it’ll continue to happen.
On what authority does this judge have the balls to essentially flip the bird to the First Amendment?
That judge has provoked me with this miscarriage of justice. May I now go to his house and beat the crap out of him?
One other point (apologies if it has been made) The entire decision/lecture is directed at the victim. Not once does the judge suggest to the defendant his actions are unacceptable or that he should learn the laws in this country. The closest he comes is saying “and no he shouldn’t be laying hands on you” I also wonder how often an officers testimony is given no weight…..
For the record, the judge is NOT a muslim. He’s a Lutheran. Don’t believe everything you read. As to Mark Phillips comment, laced with useless legalese, to wit:
“Sharia “law” simply does NOT “trump” basic human RIGHTS secured by the American Constitution! And for a Judge to conclude otherwise is *ipso facto* sufficient warrant for his impeachment and disbarment.adfadf”
I say “whatever dude”. The judge didn’t apply any form of “sharia law”. You’re first amendment rights are still intact, MAN, even though a traffic court judge opted not to make a Muslim guy pay a fine. If you actually read the judge’s press release, btw, he apparently has a lot of respect for other religions and cultures—and I think that’s something worth promoting in this country.
In the end I just don’t think this case was worth a full-blown prosecution. In fact I’m glad this Muslim guy pounced on this jackass.Just as I would be if another person pounced on the bigots who protest at military funerals with signs that read “God hates fags” and other hatred and venim.
I absolutely agree that criticism of religion and culture is a right to be valued. That’s why I would be up in arms if this athetist protester that dressed like Muhammed was prosecuted for what HE did. But being upset because a Muslim guy pushed and shoved this loser and wasn’t prosecuted to the “fullest extent of the law”? C’mon man. Look, if you want to stand up for idiots and bigots and religion haters in the name of first amendment be my guest. That’s what your doing when you come out and stand up for this atheist clown. But in my mind it’s that guy who needs to learn a thing or two about tolerance in this country, not the Muslim man. Technically (legally) speaking, maybe there was enough evidence to prosecute this Muslim guy. But from a moralistic perspective, I think the result of this case was just.
Actually you’re mistaken. In the audio recording of the case (available on YouTube) the Judge states very clearly “I am a Muslim.” The belief that he is Lutheran is based upon a rebuttal of questionable provenance. If it is actually from the Judge then there is a serious discrepancy. Either he was lying about being a Muslim or lying about being Lutheran.
Unless the audio was doctored, they judge states himself he is a Muslim. People, we are not forgetting this was a Halloween parade. This was not some guy going down a residential street last night. The Judge berated the victim and not once says anything to the attacker condemning his actions. This is not something that a court should have to settle, but it was asked too.
This is indeed troubling, if not utterly outrageous. Ernie Perce clearly has the FIRST AMENDMENT-secured RIGHT to publicly MOCK and/or RIDICULE any religion (or, more generally, set-of-beliefs or belief-system) he so chooses! And no adherent of a mocked or ridiculed belief-system has the right to assault such a person who is merely exercising such First Amendment freedom. It is LONG OVERDUE for Muslims to learn to (HAVE to) take public criticism (and/or outright mocking or ridicule) **in stride**. (Cf., e.g., btw, Sam Harris, *The End of Faith*). Sharia “law” simply does NOT “trump” basic human RIGHTS secured by the American Constitution! And for a Judge to conclude otherwise is *ipso facto* sufficient warrant for his impeachment and disbarment.
Seems like this is similar to the gay judge who ruled against Prop. 8 in California.
the headline says it all
Apparently District Courts in Pennsylvania are not like regular criminal courts, they like what are called “Justice Courts” in other, usually rural parts of some states. A “Justice of the Peace” a local, elected official presides. Many states don’t require them to be lawyers. They handle traffic cases, or “citations” where the arresting officer acts as prosecutor to present the evidence. Sometimes these “judges” aren’t even paid, and sometimes, like in some rural counties they’re paid out of traffic fines,
This District Court “Judge” Martin probably got elected by boasting about being a veteran of the Iraq War–without disclosing that he was a Muslim. I’m sure the next election he faces that issue will be front and center. Alternatively, if he is a lawyer and a member of the Penn bar–the victim can make a complaint to the bar to have the nitwit disbarred. The victim can always sue his attacker–I think he has a slam-dunk case. I’ll wager that he has already been contacted by many lawyers.
I don’t think people even RELAIZE what this means…
let me put this in SIMPLE TERMS
am AMERICAN JUDGE, has declared in OPEN COURT that if islam is insulted TERROSIM is LEGAL and justified!
to MICHAEAL who says SO WHAT ITS NO BIG DEAL because its a PETTY CASE, I guess for him to he concerned some one would have had to be KILLED.
so micheal and others who say it is NO BIG DEAL, I say to you, just because you don’t care if your CONSTITUTIONAL rights are trampled don’t assume the rest of us DO NOT CARE
its YOUR lacksidasical attitude towards our consitutional rights that are DESTROYING this country…
rememeber these things don’t START as full blown federal cases, they START just like this, as LITTLE CASES that over time become the FOUNDATION to justify bigger cases!
You all need to get a life. This judge is an MJD. Most of his time is occupied by moving along petty summary offenses and traffic-court tickets. Most of you are writing as if the 1st Amendment to the Constitution has somehow being seriously threatened by what this judge did. Please. And let’s remember what we’re talking about here. You’re complaining because the judge didnt find the Muslim-defendant “guilty” of harrassment. You’re somehow so offended that he found him “not guilty”. Really? It has you THAT up in arms? I didn’t realize that most of the posters on here were of such the “law and order” type that they’d take to the internet to protest a Muslim man that was found not guilty of harrassment after he pushed and shoved some jackass in a parade.
Let’s be honest here. YES this atheist bonehead has the right to walk down the street and insult another person’s religion. And YES, he is legally protected against being harrassed for doing so. Anyone with half a brain and who grew up in the United States knows that. But, do you really have sympathy for this pompous ass? I don’t feel as if some great injustice has been committed because the man who pushed him went “unpunished”. In terms of what is philosophically “just”, maybe it makes more sense to just call it even.
Moreover, half of the posters keep yelling “the judge should have recused himself!!!”. Really? Recused himself for what? He’s not a Muslim, and even if he were, that would not have been grounds for recusal. He wasn’t related to the defendant or the victim. I guess you mean because, AFTER the fact, in HINDSIGHT, it was apparent that the judge doesnt take kindly to pompous idiots that like to insult others and then run to the mommy and poppy cops when they get pushed around for doing so.
Get a friggin’ life. While you sit around and contemplate and dwell on the legal implications of an MJD dropping a summary offense “harrassment” charge—of which there is NONE I might add—this judge is busy moving along his docket. Get over yourselves.
In this case the judge went to great length to defend the attacker. Had the Judge listen to the case and came to the same conclusion, with out comment, one would be inclined to believe the judge did not feel there was substantial evidence. An apology by the attacker would have likely dismissed the action before trial. The attacker, at a minimum should have received a warning.
The reason why people all over the country are up in arms about this is that it is part of a slowly creeping effort to overturn free speech rights. The Muslim man (defendant) by his own admission approached the gentleman (plaintiff) because he was insulted and felt that he had to do something to set an example for his son, defend his faith, and defend “his prophet.” The video evidence shows that he put his hands on him. A policeman who arrived at the scene was told by the defendant himself that he did so. The Judge was wrong because he (1) let a religiously-motivated crime go without punishment; (2) censured the victim by telling him he overstepped his rights because it offended Muslims; (3) the Judge admits in the audio recording “I am a Muslim” (despite a recent claim that he is a Christian – he says on the audio that he is Muslim) and encourages the defendant to continue doing what he is doing to defend his faith, and censures the plaintiff for exercising his first amendment rights. And yes, people do sympathize with the plaintiff. The speech that we as a nation protect most fervently is the speech that we disagree with the most. This Judge’s actions are very disturbing because his statement manifests a woeful lack of understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and indicates that he cares more about defending faith than defending our constitution. If you’re interested in listening to the audio it is posted on YouTube under the title: “A muslim Judge, Zombie Muhammed goes to court against the muslim attacker”