• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

BooRadley said:
> I think the atheist deserved to get his butt whipped.

Probably, but it's still illegal to do the honors, and whoever decides that justice is best dealt on the street and decides to kick someones ass for offending them deserves jail time. If he really believes that violent confrontation is the right thing to do, then he should take his jail time in stride.

> Seriously, what good reason does someone have for going out and demonstrating dressed in a Zombie Muhammed costume?

Doesn't need one.

> Does the 1st amendment protect someone being a jackass?

Yes.

It's not the judges job to decide who's an asshole and who's not. That's not what the court is here for. The judge was in err. His personal opinion of the parties in the court are irrelevant and must not be considered, along with his opinions on religion.
Click to expand...

I have two main arguments to make here.

First, there's a natural process through which people are socialized. If someone is displaying asocial behavior (like running around naked covered in green jell-o), society will naturally self-correct this behavior. Someone who displays anti-social behavior will be shunned, mocked, and sometimes beaten by community members.

What this atheist was doing was clearly anti-social behavior. In other words, he was being a jackass. What happened to him was predictable, natural, and deserved.

My second point is that our legal system has limited resources.

We know that the atheist was asking for confrontation.

We know that the muslim never actually touched him, he tried to rip the sign from off the atheist's neck.

We know the atheist was not injured, didn't require a hospital stay, and had no damage done to his person.

Thus, common sense tells us he is wasting taxpayer dollars, and wasting the valuable time and resources of the judiciary.

Not only should this case have been thrown out, the atheist should be stuck with the court fees as well. This is a ridiculously petty case, a waste of resources, and frankly, he had it coming.
 
Last edited:
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

ALL OF THAT has to be decided in law, and it hasn't been. There is no He Had It Commin' law on the books. Lynch mobs are illegal and they are, in themselves, antisocial. Just because you don't like someone doesn't give you the right to physical assault. I don't like you, does that give me the right to throw a brick at you? No.

If the muslim was that thin skinned, he should avoid going out-of-doors. If we, as a society, decide to make laws about offending people, then they need to be on the book.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

I'm with Peter Grimm on this one :shock:

While I have my doubts about the judge strictly doing his duty, there is a limit as to the offense one must endure before taking matters into his own hands... especially, as in this case, when no actual blows ensued. Most people can be incited to violence given enough effort; those intentionally taking that effort should have a reasonable expectation of the outcome, and should therefore bear at least some of the responsibility for it.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

BooRadley said:
ALL OF THAT has to be decided in law, and it hasn't been. There is no He Had It Commin' law on the books. Lynch mobs are illegal and they are, in themselves, antisocial. Just because you don't like someone doesn't give you the right to physical assault. I don't like you, does that give me the right to throw a brick at you? No.

If the muslim was that thin skinned, he should avoid going out-of-doors. If we, as a society, decide to make laws about offending people, then they need to be on the book.
Click to expand...

Mob violence, throwing bricks at people (ouch), and vigilante justice in general are wrong. That's not the issue. There is a distinction between these things and the very mild confrontation that occurred in this case.

Where do we draw the line?

Should it be illegal to verbally assault someone who is outside society's norms? Should it be illegal to shun your neighbors? Should we pass a series of "sunshine laws" where we are required to smile at each other a certain number of times every day?

Where do we draw the line?

At the end of the day, the judge used his discretion and decided that the damage done in this case didn't amount to criminal activity on the part of the muslim. I agree with him. This case is petty.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

MaggieD said:
[...] Hey! Anyone know how to use strike out? I've seen it used, but don't know how to do it.
Click to expand...
[s ]strikeout [ /s] without the spaces in the brackets

strikeout
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

Karl said:
While I have my doubts about the judge strictly doing his duty, there is a limit as to the offense one must endure before taking matters into his own hands... especially, as in this case, when no actual blows ensued. Most people can be incited to violence given enough effort; those intentionally taking that effort should have a reasonable expectation of the outcome, and should therefore bear at least some of the responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

I do agree that the guy's an ass. I also agree that he shouldn't be surprised if someone confronts him. HOWEVER, if it becomes assault, that assault should still be prosecuted. Circumstantial consideration is fine, but not to the extent of saying therefore I'm throwing it out completely. Assault is still illegal, and the court shouldn't leave that fuzzy, saying, well, it's only illegal sometimes . . . you just have to guess at what times those are. If the assailant were found guilty of a misdemeanor assault and released with a $10 fine, that would be okay, but to say, oh, no problem, it's okay to assault this guy because he's a jerk leaves the entire concept in question. When, exactly, is it okay to assault someone? What are the criteria for determining jerkness?

Like, for example, I live in the DC area, and I'm an amateur photographer. When I've gone down and photographed rallys and protests, there are always counter protests. Should it be okay for a mob of antiwar protesters to attack "protest warriors" in a clearly antagonistic counter-protest? I mean, they went down there specifically because anti-war people would be there. That sounds like it falls under this new definition of when the law doesn't apply. I think those people were huge assholes for intentionally going down to antagonize people. Yet, they had police protection and the right to be assholes. Same with fundi Christians protesting during a massive protest against the Israeli attack on Lebanon. Would it have been okay to attack them?

Peter Grimm said:
Mob violence, throwing bricks at people (ouch), and vigilante justice in general are wrong. That's not the issue. There is a distinction between these things and the very mild confrontation that occurred in this case.

Where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...

Physical contact. There's no reason to lay your hands on someone else if they haven't agreed.

counterprotest.JPG

Should they have the police line protecting them, when they have signs about Mohammad being a false prophet at a rally for Lebanon? Or should the mob be allowed to give them a massive beat-down?

If not, then where does this leave that judges decision?
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

One can not go through life choking people nilly willy like that!

That judge was wrong! he should not have dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant!
 
I have sympathy for the Muslim. Religious people (of any faith) shouldn't have to be subjected to atheist hate speech. Whether he broke the law or not, I'm not sure, but my sympathy goes to the Muslim - at least they stand for something, atheism is pure social apathy and misanthropy.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

Mya said:
One can not go through life choking people nilly willy like that!

That judge was wrong! he should not have dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant!
Click to expand...

I think it will be overturned and the judge will receive a reprimand.
 
SLAMRAAM said:
I have sympathy for the Muslim. Religious people (of any faith) shouldn't have to be subjected to atheist hate speech. Whether he broke the law or not, I'm not sure, but my sympathy goes to the Muslim - at least they stand for something, atheism is pure social apathy and misanthropy.
Click to expand...


No one is forcing them to listen. He could have walked away instead of acting like an animal.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

BooRadley said:
Physical contact. There's no reason to lay your hands on someone else if they haven't agreed.
Click to expand...

So if you pat a kid on the back for doing well in school, is that assault? If a woman touches you on the arm when she's making a point, is she assaulting you?

If you're out with a girl, do you need her to explicitly give you permission to kiss her?

Again, where do you draw the line?



BooRadley said:
Should they have the police line protecting them, when they have signs about Mohammad being a false prophet at a rally for Lebanon? Or should the mob be allowed to give them a massive beat-down?

If not, then where does this leave that judges decision?
Click to expand...

Whether the police are present is up to the discretion of the police. I would think they would want to be there to stop any potential violence, as they were evidently there in the case of the muslim/atheist.

Again, a "massive beat-down" is not descriptive of what happened in this case. This was a minor confrontation.
 
SLAMRAAM said:
I have sympathy for the Muslim. Religious people (of any faith) shouldn't have to be subjected to atheist hate speech. Whether he broke the law or not, I'm not sure, but my sympathy goes to the Muslim - at least they stand for something, atheism is pure social apathy and misanthropy.
Click to expand...


So you think its OK to grab somebody by the throat and choke him just like that? because he doesn't agree with you? :roll:
 
SLAMRAAM said:
I have sympathy for the Muslim. Religious people (of any faith) shouldn't have to be subjected to atheist hate speech. Whether he broke the law or not, I'm not sure, but my sympathy goes to the Muslim - at least they stand for something, atheism is pure social apathy and misanthropy.
Click to expand...

Wearing a costume isn't "hate speech" :roll:
 
Mya said:
So you think its OK to grab somebody by the throat and choke him just like that? because he doesn't agree with you? :roll:
Click to expand...
Legally no, but morally I don't have too much of a problem with it. Just like morally I wouldn't be that offended if the Fred Phelps family got beat up protesting a funeral. That's all that the "new atheism" movement is - a hate movement, and that's all they stand for, hatred of those who actually have morality.

I'm glad the judge told the little punk the truth as well - that the Founders would be insulted by a sociopath like him claiming that the colonists fought and died for his "right" to wear a "Zombie Muhmammed" or Pope costume.
 
Last edited:
SLAMRAAM said:
Legally no, but morally I don't have too much of a problem with it. Just like morally I wouldn't be that offended if the Fred Phelps family got beat up protesting a funeral. That's all that the "new atheism" movement is - a hate movement, and that's all they stand for, hatred of religion.
Click to expand...

Not hatred of religion, but, disdain for extremists and their tactics, much like the fellow who thought it was ok to commit a battery on the victim.
 
SLAMRAAM said:
Legally no, but morally I don't have too much of a problem with it. Just like morally I wouldn't be that offended if the Fred Phelps family got beat up protesting a funeral. That's all that the "new atheism" movement is - a hate movement, and that's all they stand for, hatred of those who actually have morality.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling, but the blind hypocrisy in your statement is incredible.
 
Connery said:
Not hatred of religion, but, disdain for extremists and their tactics, much like the fellow who thought it was ok to commit a battery on the victim.
Click to expand...
Then by that standard, Neo-Nazis are only hating "Jewish extremists" when they go around wearing Swastikas and claiming the Holocaust was a hoax.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Again, a "massive beat-down" is not descriptive of what happened in this case. This was a minor confrontation.
Click to expand...

If the main issue you have is defining assault, then whether or not the victim in this was being a jackass is irrelevant. Put it this way: if an old lady was walking down the street with a sign that said "Have a nice day," and someone came and tried to yank it off her neck, choking her with the chord that it was hanging by, would that be assault? If so, then so is this.

If not, then, while I disagree with you, I at least see your point and acknowledge it's value.

If it's assault, then whether or not it was justified assault is the question, and we can stop arguing about the difference between a massive beatdown and what happened here, because the court cannot leave the determination of just punishment up to a mob.

SLAMRAAM said:
Legally no, but morally I don't have too much of a problem with it. Just like morally I wouldn't be that offended if the Fred Phelps family got beat up protesting a funeral. That's all that the "new atheism" movement is - a hate movement, and that's all they stand for, hatred of those who actually have morality.

I'm glad the judge told the little punk the truth as well - that the Founders would be insulted by a sociopath like him claiming that the colonists fought and died for his "right" to wear a "Zombie Muhmammed" or Pope costume.
Click to expand...

SLAMRAAM said:
I have sympathy for the Muslim. Religious people (of any faith) shouldn't have to be subjected to atheist hate speech. Whether he broke the law or not, I'm not sure, but my sympathy goes to the Muslim - at least they stand for something, atheism is pure social apathy and misanthropy.
Click to expand...

SLAMRAAM said:
Then by that standard, Neo-Nazis are only hating "Jewish extremists" when they go around wearing Swastikas and claiming the Holocaust was a hoax.
Click to expand...


There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start, so I'm just not going to . . .
 
BooRadley said:
If the main issue you have is defining assault, then whether or not the victim in this was being a jackass is irrelevant. Put it this way: if an old lady was walking down the street with a sign that said "Have a nice day," and someone came and tried to yank it off her neck, choking her with the chord that it was hanging by, would that be assault? If so, then so is this.

If not, then, while I disagree with you, I at least see your point and acknowledge it's value.

If it's assault, then whether or not it was justified assault is the question, and we can stop arguing about the difference between a massive beatdown and what happened here, because the court cannot leave the determination of just punishment up to a mob.








There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start, so I'm just not going to . . .
Click to expand...
All I can say is that if the height of atheist "progression" and "intellect" = dancing around in the street in a 'Zombie Muhammed' costume while thinking about all the sex I'm not getting, then I'd rather be a "stupid brainwashed religious person" - who occasionally gets a date too.

Reminds me of how the KKK prance around with their potbellies and pee-stained bedsheets talking about how much they hate black people and Mexicans, and seriously think they're the "master race"
 
Last edited:
SLAMRAAM said:
All I can say is that if the height of atheist "progression" and "intellect" = dancing around in the street in a 'Zombie Muhammed' costume while thinking about all the sex I'm not getting, then I'd rather be a "stupid brainwashed religious person" - who occasionally gets a date too.

Reminds me of how the KKK prance around with their potbellies and pee-stained bedsheets talking about how much they hate black people and Mexicans, and seriously think they're the "master race"
Click to expand...

You are doing exactly what the KKK etc.. do, claiming you are superior b/c or your beliefs.
 
taxigirl said:
You are doing exactly what the KKK etc.. do, claiming you are superior b/c or your beliefs.
Click to expand...
Well the KKK is known for murdering innocent people - one of the foundering members of American Atheists was a convicted murderer and rapist, so they have more in common with the KKK than me.
 
SLAMRAAM said:
Well the KKK is known for murdering innocent people - one of the foundering members of American Atheists was a convicted murderer and rapist, so they have more in common with the KKK than me.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a murderer? Are you not aware she was abducted and murdered?
 
taxigirl said:
So you're saying that Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a murderer? Are you not aware she was abducted and murdered?
Click to expand...
No the guy who killed her was one of the original members of American Atheists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom