We’ve got trouble in River City folks.
GOD is not happy!
It’s Sunday, and time for another batch of religious news…………!
This first one is rather ambiguous, if it’s about attacking a zombie, then we here at Perspective don’t see any problem. If, however, it’s about attacking the Prophet Muhammad, or his zombie likeness, then we see a HUGE problem!
American Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad!
Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.
Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a “doofus.” In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin’s view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.
Words almost fail.
The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.
The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-” It does not say “unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered.” Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.
That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.
(It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him. -Ed.)
Next is an article that shows the disrespect one religion can display for another.
ReligionNewsBlog.com — Mormons operating independently of the Mormon Church — and in direct contradiction to the church’s edicts on the subject — have posthumously baptized Holocaust victim Anne Frank in a ritual referred to as ‘Baptism for the Dead.’
Anne Frank was the third Holocaust victim discovered to have been baptized posthumously this month.
Christian website CARM explains that in this practice “individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.”
CARM shows that the Mormon rite is based on a Bible verse that has been taken out of context.
Earlier this month the Mormon Church apologized for posthumously baptising the parents of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal.
The Mormon Church, officially name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), has stipulated that its followers may not perform the proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims who are not related to a church member.
A 2010 pact between the LDS Church and Jewish leaders was supposed to halt the practice of baptizing Jews posthumously. [See: The Mormon/Jewish Controversy], but incidents keep occurring.
Anne Frank’s baptism, which took place in a Mormon Temple in the Dominican Republic, was discovered by former Mormon Helen Radkey.
Radkey said she discovered that Annelies Marie “Anne” Frank, who died at Bergen Belsen death camp in 1945 at age 15, was baptized by proxy on Saturday. Mormons have submitted versions of her name at least a dozen times for proxy rites and carried out the ritual at least nine times from 1989 to 1999, according to Radkey. But Radkey says this is the first time in more than a decade that Frank’s name has been discovered in a database that can be used both for genealogy and also to submit a deceased person’s name to be considered for proxy baptism — a separate process, according to a spokesman for the church. The database is only open to Mormons.
Peggy Fletcher Stack at the Salt Lake Tribune says “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also learned that Jan Karski, a Roman Catholic who witnessed the emerging Holocaust in Poland and risked his life to bring that news to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, had been similarly baptized.”
She quotes LDS spokesman Michael Purdy as saying that computer access to the database has been suspended for the members who submitted the names of Frank and Karski.
The LDS Church then issued its strongest response yet to the violation of its agreement not to do proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims who are not related to a church member.
“It takes a good deal of deception and manipulation to get an improper submission through the safeguards we have put in place,” Purdy said in an email, language that suggests these baptisms could be the work of mischief makers. “While no system is foolproof in preventing the handful of individuals who are determined to falsify submissions, we are committed to taking action against individual abusers. … We will also consider whether other church disciplinary action should be taken. It is distressing when an individual willfully violates the church’s policy and something that should be understood to be an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention.”
GOD, meanwhile, was reportedly “not amused!”