Zombie Muhammad

[Bonam]

I second kimmy's points. The judge's comments were totally inappropriate. And they do, in fact, call the judge's intentions into question. Maybe he really thought there wasn't enough evidence, or maybe he was just using that as an excuse to cover his personal beliefs that free speech must be repressed if it offends muslims.

[guyser]

Great comments Kimmy - unless DC outright lies the judges comments make no sense.

The judges comments should not have come out but what was said isnt as portrayed....for instance he didnt call him a doofus , but said he would look like a doofus for doing X. Minor, and probably better left unsaid.

Transcript......

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy

[Guest American Woman]

The judges comments should not have come out....

I agree. As I said from the beginning, I don't agree with the judge's editorializing, and if his views had been the basis for the dismissal, this case should be appealed.

But I've seen the video, and the face of the accused doesn't show up on film and mainly one can just hear the accuser's voice - and what proof is there that he isn't overreacting? He has an agenda himself. The altercation appears to last about 15-20 seconds - and if the accused did try to pull on his beard and grab his sign, it only lasted that long before he backed off. If everyone who started a confrontation this way - by putting their hands on someone but then backing off almost immediately with no harm/injury done - were arrested, I'm sure the courts would be overwhelmed - and if they were all found guilty, there would be a whole lot of people with records of harassment.

Was it wrong to put his hands on the "Zombie Mohammad?" Of course. But was it a legal issue? I hardly think so. The Zombie Mohammad really was out of line, imo, to partake in a Halloween parade in the manner he did - a parade where children are present. When one purposely provokes - and there could not have possibly been any other reason for the Zombie Mohammad to participate in the parade the way he did - there is too often a reaction, and I'm sure that was a consideration in this case - as it would have been in any similar case. While he was within his rights - he wasn't charged with anything - he showed very poor judgment, imo - and he likely got exactly the reaction he was going for - and lots of publicity.

Edited February 28, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

I agree. As I said from the beginning, I don't agree with the judge's editorializing, and if his views had been the basis for the dismissal, this case should be appealed.

There was much wrong, should we believe any versions of this case. But not criminally wrong since there is no eye witness to the assault , as you opined. The Video only shows commotion, not assault.

The problem is some people here have an agenda and how they were deliberate in lying about what happened.

Hell the original post that started this was an entirre BS post, and truly should have been ignored like one would a petulant child.

[kimmy]

The judges comments should not have come out but what was said isnt as portrayed....for instance he didnt call him a doofus , but said he would look like a doofus for doing X. Minor, and probably better left unsaid.

Transcript......

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy

The difference between saying "you're a doofus" and "doing what you did makes you look like a doofus" is semantic at best. And it's a trivial point in the issue, because by far the more concerning aspect of this is the judge's other comments about (a) the idea that upsetting people of different cultures isn't protected by the first amendment, and (b ) attempting to rationalize the accused's actions by explaining how seriously Muslims take religion. I don't think that those aspects of the judge's remarks have been misrepresented at all. And if you're trying to distract from the substantive issues of the judge's remarks by focusing on the "doofus" comment, well, sir, that would make you look like a doofus.

Now, regardless of whether Shady has "an agenda", or whether Shady would have posted the link if it had been about an angry Wiccan attacking somebody in a witch costume, it's a legitimate news story and a legitimate discussion. If judges are re-evaluating basic rights in light of political correctness, or if judges now consider religious fervor to be a reasonable explanation for attacking people in the street, those are really things that people ought to be talking about.

-k

Edited February 29, 2012 by kimmy

[msj]

Muslims > atheists - no?

[guyser]

The difference between saying "you're a doofus" and "doing what you did makes you look like a doofus" is semantic at best.

Not at all.

By your own use of the word below says as much. Well....I suppose you might think I am a doofus I dont think you do.

One can be an idiot, or one can act like an idiot.

Now, regardless of whether Shady has "an agenda", or whether Shady would have posted the link if it had been about an angry Wiccan attacking somebody in a witch costume, it's a legitimate news story and a legitimate discussion. If judges are re-evaluating basic rights in light of political correctness, or if judges now consider religious fervor to be a reasonable explanation for attacking people in the street, those are really things that people ought to be talking about.

-k

It is a legitimate news story, but when frames it (w links) in such a way to be completely dishonest then that says a lot.

There was never an assault charge, that was made up nby the poster.

The judge never re-evaluated any rights.

Had the judge believed someone was attacked,or the police laid such a charge, he could have convicted the person. But no proof could be offered that anyone was attacked.

Edited February 29, 2012 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

Evidently the judge had to be relocated to a more secure location due to anger and threats over his ruling. link

[kimmy]

Not at all.

By your own use of the word below says as much. Well....I suppose you might think I am a doofus I dont think you do.

One can be an idiot, or one can act like an idiot.

It is a legitimate news story, but when frames it (w links) in such a way to be completely dishonest then that says a lot.

There was never an assault charge, that was made up nby the poster.

The judge never re-evaluated any rights.

Had the judge believed someone was attacked,or the police laid such a charge, he could have convicted the person. But no proof could be offered that anyone was attacked.

It's not the acquittal I'm concerned with. If there wasn't enough evidence, there wasn't enough evidence. I do wonder at the claim that "there were no witnesses" when the thing occurred in the middle of a parade. At the very least "Zombie Pope" was an eyewitness.

The judge's comments on the altercation itself:

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is 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.

These comments make it clear that the question in the judges' mind isn't so much whether an altercation actually took place, but rather what Mr Elbayomy's intentions were and the severity of the altercation.

I have to run off to work; I will get back to this later.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Evidently the judge had to be relocated to a more secure location due to anger and threats over his ruling. link

Perce is receiving death threats, too. Once again, the extremists on both sides are basically one and the same.

[kimmy]

Perce is receiving death threats, too. Once again, the extremists on both sides are basically one and the same.

Which "both sides" are you referring to? Religious people and atheists? If yes, then I don't see what atheists have done to be considered "one and the same" as the religious fanatics who serve up death threats with worrying frequency.

If you're assuming that the "threats" being directed at Judge Martin are coming from atheists... well, that's a pretty big assumption.

-k

[kimmy]

These comments make it clear that the question in the judges' mind isn't so much whether an altercation actually took place, but rather what Mr Elbayomy's intentions were and the severity of the altercation.

So, to return to the judge's comments, I draw your attention to this portion:

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is 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.

So it appears that the deciding factor in the judge's decision was not that he did not believe the incident actually occurred, but rather that he believed Mr Elbayomy was not trying to harass or frighten Mr Perce, but rather to negate the "offensive situation".

If some average American happened to be walking down the street and saw Shirley Phelps holding some of her hateful placards, or "Shawn The Baptist" shouting his disgusting views... and they decided they needed to "negate the offensive situation", would a judge be as lenient? I doubt it. To do so would be a violation of Shirley and Shawn's first amendment rights. (see the video in the "This is why America is great" thread to watch a policeman making sure that Shawn The Baptist's first amendment rights are protected.)

The judge's comments give two reasons to wonder if he considers this incident different from a typical American trying to silence somebody like Shirley Phelps or Shawn The Baptist.

The first reason is his rant about how important religion is to Muslims, and the second is his comment that Mr Perce was outside the bounds of his first amendment rights and that mocking religion wasn't what the founding fathers thought the right to free expression should be used for.

And both of those ideas ought to be really offensive.

The idea of treating Muslims as some special class of defendant because they're not just religious, they're really-really religious ought to be offensive to everybody, particularly Muslims. There's an implicit idea that they're not capable of behaving like adults. Like they have to be treated like special needs children because they're not capable of obeying the law when their prophet's insulted.

And the idea that offending someone's religious beliefs is a whole separate category from offending some other aspect of their identity is, to me, repulsive. The idea that religious beliefs must be respected is what put Galileo in prison. Nobody's religious beliefs are exempt from commentary, analysis, criticism, mockery, or ridicule. The law doesn't say that religious beliefs must be respected, only that peoples' right to believe must be respected.

In summary, Judge Martin is an asshole. If he has indeed been threatened, that is unfortunate. However, he is fully deserving of all the attention and criticism he has received.

-k

[msj]

Kimmy, as usual you are brilliant.

I still think it can be summed up as Muslims > Atheists.

[Guest American Woman]

So, to return to the judge's comments, I draw your attention to this portion:

So it appears that the deciding factor in the judge's decision was not that he did not believe the incident actually occurred, but rather that he believed Mr Elbayomy was not trying to harass or frighten Mr Perce, but rather to negate the "offensive situation".

[....]

You're confusing the judge's editorializing with his ruling. No matter how it appears to you, his ruling was based on lack of evidence.

[kimmy]

You're confusing the judge's editorializing with his ruling. No matter how it appears to you, his ruling was based on lack of evidence.

I did quote the portion of the transcript where he explains his ruling, and he makes it clear that lack of evidence over Elbayomy's intentions was a primary factor.

Perhaps the prosecutor filed the wrong charges; if he acquitted Elbayomy because he didn't believe Elbayomy intended to "harass or alarm" Perce, then surely some other charge would have been more appropriate. If attempting to "negate the offensive situation" by ripping up signs and costumes were legal in the United States, the Westboro Baptist Church would find their protests a lot more exciting.

And again, I don't know why you guys are intent on deflecting attention from the judge's disturbing comments by focusing on the acquital.

As well, I note that you declined the opportunity to clarify your "extremists on both sides" comment.

-k

[kimmy]

Kimmy, as usual you are brilliant.

aww

I still think it can be summed up as Muslims > Atheists.

As a "concern group", you mean?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I did quote the portion of the transcript where he explains his ruling, and he makes it clear that lack of evidence over Elbayomy's intentions was a primary factor.

Lack of evidence that harassment occurred was a primary factor. You go on to say: So it appears that the deciding factor in the judge's decision was not that he did not believe the incident actually occurred, but rather that he believed Mr Elbayomy was not trying to harass or frighten Mr Perce, but rather to negate the "offensive situation". He clearly realizes that an "incident" occurred, but states in his ruling that there is lack of evidence of "harassment." In other words, lack of evidence that "the incident" (as presented/charged) occurred.

There were many people watching the parade, yet no witnesses have come forth to testify that there was an assault/harassment - even after all the publicity of this incident. The video confirms that there was "an incident," but does nothing to confirm the charges - and all "incidents" don't involve breaking the law by any means.

Here are the facts. The officer involved was not a witness - and he didn't take a statement. The accused has limited use and understanding of the English language and when he "admitted" to the officer that there was "physical contact" could have been speaking of anything - even being pushed himself. He did not "admit" to grabbing the beard, the sign, anything other than "physical contact" - yet that's not the way it's being portrayed by so many.

There was not sufficient evidence of "harassment," and the judge's dismissal on lack of evidence appears to be the right decision.

Again. It's the editorializing which has angered people - and many have taken it and run off with it, presenting it as something much more than it was. That is not any more right than what the judge did. As I said, both sides have reacted in the extreme. But the legal decision was not based on 'personal beliefs;' it was, as stated, based on lack of evidence that "the incident," as charged, occurred.

Perhaps the prosecutor filed the wrong charges; if he acquitted Elbayomy because he didn't believe Elbayomy intended to "harass or alarm" Perce, then surely some other charge would have been more appropriate.

If the prosecutor filed the wrong charges, why are you criticizing the judge? But seriously, what should he have been charged with? - He had a right to speak his mind, too - and what evidence is there that something occurred that was against the law?

If attempting to "negate the offensive situation" by ripping up signs and costumes were legal in the United States, the Westboro Baptist Church would find their protests a lot more exciting.

What?? Where has it been proven that the accused tried to rip up Perce's sign and costume?? Seriously. THERE WAS NO PROOF - the ruling said there was lack of evidence that that had happened, and dismissed the case. Now here you are, taking the accusers' word as fact, without any proof.

And again, I don't know why you guys are intent on deflecting attention from the judge's disturbing comments by focusing on the acquital.

I've clearly said that I don't agree with his editorializing, but I don't see presenting this issue as something it wasn't - which you are doing here with your talk of "attempting to rip up signs and costumes" as if it were fact - as any better, just as I don't see Shady's attempt to present it as an "assault charge" as any better - nor the attempts all over the place to present it as "sharia law" in the court room - and present the judge as Muslim.

As well, I note that you declined the opportunity to clarify your "extremists on both sides" comment.

Really? That seriously needs clarifying? You don't understand what "both sides of this issue" means? Seems to me you were the one making assumptions and blowing this incident out of proportion, which is why I chose not to get caught up in it. But for the record, when I speak of extremists, I mean extremists of any persuasion. I was speaking of everyone.

------------------

Now I'm going to "editorialize" a bit myself. I don't think "activism" of any sort belongs in a parade - other than a parade in which the purpose is activism. This Halloween parade was obviously intended as a family event. There is no more place for "atheist activists" - whose presence clearly is going to insult and provoke ill feelings - than there is for the KKK et al to march in such a parade. I agree with the judge in that we should not ignorantly use our freedom of speech in such a way - and CLEARLY the judge said that Perce did have the constitutional right to do what he did. I'll always defend the "rights" of the KKK and activists such as Perce or whatever/whoever to speak their minds, but I'll also criticize them as ignorant when their actions call for it - that's my right. Freedom of speech works both ways.

Edited March 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Yukon Jack]

No no, an incident involving the two as I described and you wouldnt care.

Its muslim,a nd mud slinging at them, even when you get the reasons for the case bein dismissed wrong, is what entertains you.

Transparent, that you are.

Please show all the incidents when a Greek Orthodox or a Wiccan slaughtered somebody who "insulted" their prophet.

Any 'religion' that is so weak, so tenuous, so paranoid, so wild and so unreasonable that it takes killings, beheadings, stonings and suicide bombings in order to gain some respect, deserves no place in a civilized Western society.

[Michael Hardner]

Any 'religion' that is so weak, so tenuous, so paranoid, so wild and so unreasonable that it takes killings, beheadings, stonings and suicide bombings in order to gain some respect, deserves no place in a civilized Western society.

It's not the religion, but the individuals who commit the deed. If you can find a way to separate someone's religion from all the other influences that make them prone to violence, then let us know.

[Michael Hardner]

Please show all the incidents when a Greek Orthodox or a Wiccan slaughtered somebody who "insulted" their prophet.

I don't think Wiccans have prophets per se, but here's a Wiccan murder for you:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001162-504083.html

[Argus]

Was it wrong to put his hands on the "Zombie Mohammad?" Of course. But was it a legal issue? I hardly think so.

You hardly think so? Isn't putting your hands on someone against their will the very definition of assault?

The guy told the cop he grabbed at the 'victim's beard, but it wasn't a statement? What was it, then, an illustrated drawing with sound effects?

The Zombie Mohammad really was out of line, imo, to partake in a Halloween parade in the manner he did - a parade where children are present.

-

Oh not that old canard! "Oh think of the CHILDREN!" <sob!>. As if the kids would have had the slightest care or concern about some guy dressed like a zombie in a Halloween parade.

When one purposely provokes and there could not have possibly been any other reason for the Zombie Mohammad to participate in the parade the way he did - there is too often a reaction, and I'm sure that was a consideration in this case - as it would have been in any similar case. While he was within his rights - he wasn't charged with anything - he showed very poor judgment, imo - and he likely got exactly the reaction he was going for - and lots of publicity.

I thought provocation was a part of normal American political discourse. When did it become acceptable to beat people up for provoking? As Kimmy has said, the cops make damned sure those crazy Westboro Baptists don't get the ever loving Jesus kicked out of them during their deliberately offensive spectacles. The Nazis get to goosestep through Jewish neighborhoods, and the Klan is out there in their funky outfits with the pointy hoods. But mock Muhammad and the law tells you you're a doofus and fair game for people 'negating' your offensiveness? Phhht.

BTW, Kimmy, at the risk of swelling her head, makes everyone else on this thread seem bush league in terms of debate and thoughtful discussion.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

You hardly think so? Isn't putting your hands on someone against their will the very definition of assault?

The guy told the cop he grabbed at the 'victim's beard, but it wasn't a statement? What was it, then, an illustrated drawing with sound effects?

First of all, do you know what "a statement" is? The cop himself said that he questioned him, but didn't take a statement. A statement is written documentation. Furthermore, simply putting your hands on someone is not "assault' - and that wasn't even the charge. Last but not least, the accused did not tell the cop he grabbed at the victim's beard as has been reported - and he never said it in court so it would be the cop's word without a statement, against the accused's that he did. But even the cop admits that he didn't say that - he simply answered in the affirmative when asked if there was physical contact. The accused has limited use of/understanding of English, and as I said, could easily have misinterpreted the question. There are no witnesses from the parade watchers verifying that he did what he's accused of.

Oh not that old canard! "Oh think of the CHILDREN!" <sob!>. As if the kids would have had the slightest care or concern about some guy dressed like a zombie in a Halloween parade.

Parades are for children, so I would think it's not unreasonable to think of them. Obviously this man's son, his child, DID care - very much - about some guy dressed like a Muhammad Zombie in a Halloween Parade. A man who is an "atheist activist." He wasn't there for the fun of it, dressing like a Muhammad Zombie just to be in costume. And again. A child DID care.

I thought provocation was a part of normal American political discourse.

And "political discourse" has what, exactly, to do with a Halloween parade; a non-political family event?

When did it become acceptable to beat people up for provoking?

Good question. When did it? The accused didn't beat anyone up, but don't let that stop you from presenting it as such.

As Kimmy has said, the cops make damned sure those crazy Westboro Baptists don't get the ever loving Jesus kicked out of them during their deliberately offensive spectacles. The Nazis get to goosestep through Jewish neighborhoods, and the Klan is out there in their funky outfits with the pointy hoods. But mock Muhammad and the law tells you you're a doofus and fair game for people 'negating' your offensiveness? Phhht.

You're off on a tangent that is not relevant to the ruling here. Again. The charges were dropped for lack of evidence. There was none. Sorry, but judges can't find parties guilty just because you'd like them to. There has to be evidence.

BTW, Kimmy, at the risk of swelling her head, makes everyone else on this thread seem bush league in terms of debate and thoughtful discussion.

Why of course she does. Anyone saying anything you don't agree with can't possibly be engaged in thoughtful discussion or debate - even though kimmy doesn't have all of her facts straight.

Edited March 5, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

Awwwww, AW is jealous of our own, home grown, Kimmy.

Ain't that cute.

[kimmy]

There was not sufficient evidence of "harassment," and the judge's dismissal on lack of evidence appears to be the right decision.

Again. It's the editorializing which has angered people - and many have taken it and run off with it, presenting it as something much more than it was. That is not any more right than what the judge did. As I said, both sides have reacted in the extreme. But the legal decision was not based on 'personal beliefs;' it was, as stated, based on lack of evidence that "the incident," as charged, occurred.

Yes, clearly it is the editorializing that has angered people. And that is because the judge's editorializing reflects a view that they find highly objectionable.

If the prosecutor filed the wrong charges, why are you criticizing the judge? But seriously, what should he have been charged with? - He had a right to speak his mind, too - and what evidence is there that something occurred that was against the law?

If you listened to the trial, you know that both the defendant's attorney and the judge focused almost entirely on the question of what's alleged to have occurred met the legal definition of harassment, so perhaps a different charge would have been more appropriate.

The idea that the defendant's confession to the officer should be disregarded because he speaks poor english is wrong. The defendant speaks english quite well. He has an accent, but no difficulty communicating.

Both the defendant's attorney and the judge skip right past the issue of whether the defendant contradicted himself and go right to the question of whether it meets the legal definition of harassment. This is where they talk about intent-- that in Mr Elbayomy's homeland it's a crime to insult the prophet; that Muslims take religion very seriously, and so on. In short, the defendant's religious beliefs and his alleged ignorance of American law both played a role in the judge's decision. That shouldn't sit well with people.

I've clearly said that I don't agree with his editorializing, but I don't see presenting this issue as something it wasn't - which you are doing here with your talk of "attempting to rip up signs and costumes" as if it were fact - as any better, just as I don't see Shady's attempt to present it as an "assault charge" as any better - nor the attempts all over the place to present it as "sharia law" in the court room - and present the judge as Muslim.

If you listened to the audio, you know where people got the impression that the judge is a Muslim. It sounds for all the world like he says "I'm a Muslim, that offends me." Apparently he was saying "If I'm a Muslim, that offends me" or "I'm not a Muslim, (and) that offends me" but that's not what it sounds like. I don't think anybody has continued to pursue the "Muslim judge" theory since he offered his clarification.

As for whether bloggers and message-board writers aren't any better than the judge: so? If we're holding a judge to the standards of bloggers and message-board writers, we've got a very serious problem.

Really? That seriously needs clarifying? You don't understand what "both sides of this issue" means? Seems to me you were the one making assumptions and blowing this incident out of proportion, which is why I chose not to get caught up in it. But for the record, when I speak of extremists, I mean extremists of any persuasion. I was speaking of everyone.

So by "both sides of this issue", you meant Muslims and ... who, exactly?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, clearly it is the editorializing that has angered people. And that is because the judge's editorializing reflects a view that they find highly objectionable.

Yes, the editorializing. Not the decision. And while people may find it highly objectionable, wouldn't that fall under the category of free speech? As long as his decision wasn't based on his personal feelings, he made a sound decision. That's his only obligation as a judge.

If you listened to the trial, you know that both the defendant's attorney and the judge focused almost entirely on the question of what's alleged to have occurred met the legal definition of harassment, so perhaps a different charge would have been more appropriate.

Since that was the charge, that's what the trial should have been focused on. I've already asked you what other charge you think would have applied. I'll ask again. What do you think he should have been charged with?

The idea that the defendant's confession to the officer should be disregarded because he speaks poor english is wrong. The defendant speaks english quite well. He has an accent, but no difficulty communicating.

Do you realize "speaking" and "comprehending" are two different things? The defendant didn't "confess" anything; he only said that there was "physical contact," which could mean just about anything to someone who doesn't understand the law or the language as well as you and I do.

Both the defendant's attorney and the judge skip right past the issue of whether the defendant contradicted himself and go right to the question of whether it meets the legal definition of harassment.

Most likely because ultimately that's all that matters.

This is where they talk about intent-- that in Mr Elbayomy's homeland it's a crime to insult the prophet; that Muslims take religion very seriously, and so on. In short, the defendant's religious beliefs and his alleged ignorance of American law both played a role in the judge's decision. That shouldn't sit well with people.

No. Intent played a role, as it should.

I have to wonder if you even listened to the video of the alleged incident. Seriously. It took about 15 seconds. There's nothing on it to indicate anything illegal, other than Perce's yelling accusatons - and of course he didn't have an agenda. After said 15 seconds, he goes on chanting same as ever. We hear no one watching the parade telling the accused to get his hands off of Perce, no one interferes, no one comes forward after all of this publicity and "anger" at the judge's editorializing to say, 'but I was there! He did do what was alleged!' Not one witness from those watching appeared at the trial.

If you listened to the audio, you know where people got the impression that the judge is a Muslim. It sounds for all the world like he says "I'm a Muslim, that offends me."

I did listen to the audio. I also read the explanations. I don't listen to one thing that's somewhat inaudible and run off on a tangent. If people thought that's what the judge said, they should have wondered how it fit in with the rest of his comments. He referred to Muslims as "they" throughout - not "us." That is if they all listened to the tape - and didn't just run off with someone else's claims.

Apparently he was saying "If I'm a Muslim, that offends me" or "I'm not a Muslim, (and) that offends me" but that's not what it sounds like. I don't think anybody has continued to pursue the "Muslim judge" theory since he offered his clarification.

We have no way of knowing, of course, but as I said, the running off with it in the first place is telling - and I doubt if everyone who ran off with it listened to the tape.

As for whether bloggers and message-board writers aren't any better than the judge: so? If we're holding a judge to the standards of bloggers and message-board writers, we've got a very serious problem.

Way to dismiss what the bloggers and message-board writers are saying/doing. But who exactly do you think is holding them to the same standard? And again, the judge appears to have made a sound decision, based on the law.

So by "both sides of this issue", you meant Muslims and ... who, exactly?

Really. Is that what I meant? So why not tell me who I meant the other side is, too? Or better yet, why don't you tell me who you think is threatening Perce and who you think is threatening the judge?