Wow. I didn't know there was a city named Pennsylvania in the Middle East. I have been told time and time again that this will never happen here, so I can take solace in the fact that, since there's no such thing as a slippery slope, this story must have originated in "The Onion" and is all a big fabrication.If only...
I don't see the judge making a sharia defense of the muslim's response. I see him stressing how offensive the atheist's actions were, and illustrating that by pointing out cultural attitudes towards such acts.And I have to say, 'atheist attempts to be an offensive jackass - offended party punches him in the head' doesn't faze me, my disagreements with Islam aside. The judge did have a point in suggesting that the First Amendment probably shouldn't be interpreted as a license to try your damndest to offend people, just as I have a hard time buying the 'First Amendment, therefore hardcore pornography' line of reasoning.I admit, that leads to tremendously messy, touchy questions, complete with idiots who will scream 'I'm offended!' to silence people. But I don't think said questions are avoidable anyway.
Best line of the article: "...because he was in the company of his children, he had to act to end this provocation and set an example about defending Islam"Yes, teach your kids violence is the answer, and let's continue to perpetuate the standard of violent reactions by Muslims. Great job, dad.
This bozo should have recused himself... I hope this will be appealed, otherwise it would send the wrong message to the soft jihadis, as well as to other radicals here. They can't go around believing that their feeling of offense gives them the right to perpetrate violence against anyone, such as the Muslim TV exec who beheaded his wife, the Iraqi guy who ran over his daughter, etc.Crude, isn't the reason certain hardcore porn is against the law because it involves harm to children, etc.? That's not a first amendment issue. I'm also curious if you apply your line of reasoning to all religions, or just Islam?
Crude, isn't the reason certain hardcore porn is against the law because it involves harm to children, etc.? Hardcore porn isn't against the law, and its legalization is absolutely argued on first amendment grounds.I'm also curious if you apply your line of reasoning to all religions, or just Islam?Not sure what you're asking here. Do I think the first amendment shouldn't really be interpreted as 'the right to obnoxiously offend people because that's fun' but only where muslims are concerned? Not at all. If this were a case of 'Zombie Jesus' and some angry Christian knocked the guy around, my line would be the same.
Do I think the first amendment shouldn't really be interpreted as 'the right to obnoxiously offend people because that's fun' but only where muslims are concerned? Not at all. If this were a case of 'Zombie Jesus' and some angry Christian knocked the guy around, my line would be the same.Yes, that's what I was wondering. Thanks. I'm not even a Christian, I just have a neurotic fear that people will be brainwashed to the point where they are inconsistent. I think as long as people keep in mind that consistency is the main thing, then there will always be enough common sense to prevent, "soft jihadis" from ruining the principles of this country, which I think are pretty decent, as best as can be expected.