The assault victim was the head of the Pennsylvania chapter of American Atheists, Ernest Perce V, who was marching in a Halloween parade as “Zombie Mohammed” next to a fellow atheist dressed as “Zombie Pope.” The former depiction didn’t sit well with Muslim onlooker Talag Elbayomy, who then attacked Mr. Perce. And with an admission of guilt by the assailant and video of the incident, it should have been an open-and-shut case.

But that’s not how it turned out.

As Andrew McCarthy at National Review reports:

Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq, ruled that Talag Elbayomy's sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Al Stefanelli of American Atheists provides some more information, writing:

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet....

The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he'd be put to death.

I wonder, if Elbayomy had put Perce “to death” not knowing that such an action in response to an insult to Mohammed was illegal in America, would Judge Martin have thrown out the murder charge?

Stefanelli also reports, “Judge Martin's comments included, ‘Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam.’ ”

I’m sure. But it appears Judge Martin knows only a little bit — at most — about American law. Perhaps he should consider the benefit of spending time in a Muslim country permanently.

1) Pauline doctrine – I also have spent a lot of time with Paul's writings. I do not find it contradi'ctory. I find it Christ-centered. But I think we've established that, since I'm a believer.

per the question of historicity: what do you make of Paul's claim in 1 Cor.15:1-3, that 500 people saw the risen Christ at once? 1 Corinthians is widely regarded (by liberal & conservative scholars alike) as genuinely Pauline – so that's being written within 30 years of Jesus' death (if not 20, but most dating). Do you think no one checked that claim out? Do you think people in those days were simply less skeptical than today?

2) that quote is a typo. i wrote/meant to write: "Christianity's view of its story/narrative (instead of 'history') is uniquely connected to history (as actual historical events)." of the other major religious founders, their teachings do not require belief in the events surrounding the reception of their ethical system in order for the religion to 'work.' Christianity uniquely is claiming that Jesus' death & resurrection subst'itute for an ethical system. He does what I can't. Every other major religion says: "here are the rules/ethics for existence. Follow these to curry favor with God/Allah/Geist/Spirit/karma/etc."

In that regard – my last sentence meant this: if you drop the life, death & resurrection of Jesus, the ethical system is not Christianity. to do so is to lose the meaning of the Christian faith.

2) the life, death & resurrection of Jesus actually sheds an incredible amount of light on how to interpret all of Scripture. If, as Jesus says, all of Scripture is about him, it leads us to read a lot of difficult passages in light of who he presented himself to be – which was most clearly displayed at the cross.

for example, the cross tells me two things clearly:
1) i'm much worse off than i want to admit (i deserve death)
2) i'm much more loved than i ever imagined (he was willing to die in my place)

now, taking that as the hermeneutical key for all of Scripture leads to a better understanding of many difficult passages in the OT. Gen.22: the sacrifice of Abraham (which Kierkegaard called the teleological suspension of the ethical) is revealed to be a foreshadowing of God's love rather than simply a random, precarious dangling of ants over the fire.

as Heb.11 makes clear, all these events of the OT were actually looking forward to Christ. and as Rom.8:32 says: "if God did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also along with him graciously give us all things?"

The cross is the pinnacle of God's self-revelation – and as such, is the key to understanding the rest of the book. to make a weak analogy, it's like watching the movie Sixth Sense. if you turned it off before the last 10 minutes, you missed the whole movie. but once you see the ending, you want to watch the whole movie over again in light of this clarifying information. you realize that your as'sumptions were incorrect & you need to reinterpret most of what you gleaned in light of a paradigm shifting revelation.