home
RSS
February 28th, 2012
09:46 AM ET

Judge’s dismissal of atheist's harassment claim against Muslim makes waves

By Dugald McConnell and Brian Todd, CNN

(CNN) - A protester who ridiculed the Muslim prophet Mohammed claims he was assaulted by a Muslim who was offended by the stunt, but a judge has sympathized with the alleged perpetrator, in a case that has drawn national attention.

Self-proclaimed atheist Ernie Perce marched in a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania last October, dressed in a costume mocking Mohammed.

In a YouTube video he posted, Perce can be seen wearing a long fake beard, a white turban and green face paint, calling out provocative phrases like: "I am the prophet Mohammed! Zombie from the dead!" Perce and someone else in a zombie-themed pope costume are carrying a banner that reads "The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania / Ghoulish – Godless – God-Awful."

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Then a man who is not seen on the video can be heard saying, "Take it down." Amid sounds of a scuffle, Perce can be heard saying "Hey, he's attacking me!"

Perce told CNN affiliate WHTM that the man “grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around, to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck."

Based on Perce's complaint, a Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment. But on December 6, District Judge Mark Martin dismissed the case, saying it was one person's word against another's, and that there was no other evidence or eyewitness testimony to prove that Elbayomy had harassed or touched the alleged victim.

The judge also scolded Perce, saying he’d been needlessly provocative on an issue sensitive with Muslims.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

"You have that right, but you're way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights," Martin said, according to a recording Perce made of the court hearing. "I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did."

The judge went on to point out that in many Muslim countries, ridiculing Mohammed could warrant the death penalty under Islamic law.

Critics say Martin's lecture shows he used Muslim cultural grounds to excuse a deplorable assault, and failed to defend an atheist's First Amendment rights.

"That's greatly disturbing to people that believe in free speech," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "You can say things that are hurtful to others. We hope that you don't, but you most certainly can be protected. People like Thomas Paine spent his entire life ticking off people across the colonies."

Former terrorism prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, writing on the blog of National Review, accused the judge of allowing the Muslim suspect to invoke a "Sharia defense – what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed."

And Perce said of Judge Martin, "He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free, from an attack."

The judge, in a phone interview with CNN, defended his ruling.

"The commonwealth didn't present enough evidence to show me that this person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," Martin said. "That's why I dismissed the case. Nothing as nefarious as what everyone's thinking, that I'm a Muslim or I'm biased. I'm actually a Lutheran."

Martin added that he has served three tours of duty, totaling more than two years, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he learned more about Muslim culture.

"It just amazes me that people think that I'm biased towards Islam," he added. "I got sniped at once, I got ambushed once, I got attacked by a mob once... I've served close to 27 years in the military - and have gone overseas - exactly to preserve that right [freedom of speech.]”

But Martin also repeated his criticism of the atheist protester. "With rights come responsibilities. The more people abuse our rights, the more likely that we're going to lose them," he said. " We need to start policing up our own actions, using common sense, in how we deal with others."

Attorney R. Mark Thomas, who represented the Muslim suspect, blamed Perce for the Halloween altercation. "The so-called victim was the antagonist," he told WHTM. "I think this was a good dressing down by the judge."

A blog post by the group American Atheists disagrees. "That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen,” it says, “in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted... is a horrible abrogation."

Watch The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer weekdays at 4pm to 6pm ET and Saturdays at 6pm ET. For the latest from The Situation Room click here.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Atheism • Halloween • Islam • TV-The Situation Room

soundoff (2,453 Responses)
  1. realitypolice

    Atheists. Thank god we still have a group it's politically acceptable to be biased against. And don't get it wrong- that's all this was. Notice how the Judge made sure to identify his church affiliation. The victim in no way got a single step out of the bounds of his first amendment rights. Secondly, his argument that he dismissed because he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt- umm...Judge? That's the jury's job.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • reason

      There were witnesses as seen in the video and the attacker even admitted assaulting him, to a police officer no less. Martin is biased towards religion and he should be ashamed of this abortion of justice. The judge, actually called the VICTIM a dufus. Martin is a disgrace.

      Atheists are the most persecuted group in America.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Johnny

      If there isn't enough evidence to go forward, the judge can and should dismiss the case.

      How much more time and money would be wasted if every unsupportable claim were brought to a jury trial?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
      • realitypolice

        Um......Yeah, that's not what he said. There was certainly more than enough evidence to proceed- they had a verbal confession from the defendant on the scene! He said he was dismissing because HE wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt- a standard that DOES NOT APPLY in a preliminary hearing

        February 28, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • Nodack

      As far as I'm concerned justice was done. The Athiest was an Azz begging to get his Azz kicked by intentionally insulting both Catholics and Muslims. I'm an Agnostic/Athiest myself and would never consider doing such a mean spirited thing. Nobody was physically hurt in the end. Free speech is one thing, but deliberately insulting other people's beliefs just to make them mad is crossing the line.

      The judge gave a fair ruling IMO.

      February 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  2. Jonathan

    Does ruling give me the right to punch anyone that says something that offends me? If so...game on!

    February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • What should one do?

      u simply offend by being on this blog. What should one do?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Salero 21

      Jonathan, just make sure that whoever you decide to punch, does Not have better hands than yours.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  3. MyTake

    My the Gods have mercy on his soul

    February 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  4. Dante Pastrano

    I agree with and praise the judge for his wisdom. It is idiots like the the one proclaiming to be an atheist, who provoke the anger
    of others by insulting their culture, faith or religion, that give a bad name to genuine atheists. I believe that we should live and protect our freedom, believes and way of life but not at the expense of others. The lack of good judgement and common sense
    is what is weakening us. Maybe, he should go back to school to learn "Common Sense 101"

    February 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • reason

      What you wrote is highly offensive, so in other words you think someone should be able to legally assault you also.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • momoya

      Can anybody PHYSICALLY attack anyone who is only ORALLY offending another person? Can I punch you if your speech is offensive to me? Or do you just see this going one direction and only people who think like you have the right to ASSAULT a person who is merely SPEAKING?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      You sir, are a dou.che bag. And you can quote me on that.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • LibertyBell

      Agree with you. There was no evidence of attack like anyone is saying here. He provoke other religion, he should be beheaded if this happened in any muslim country..

      February 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Funny that you mention "Common Sense," which was the ti.tle of a book by Thomas Paine, whom the plaintiff's attorney used as an example of exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Sorry, it wasn't the plaintiff's attorney, it was "George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley" that mentioned Thomas Paine.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
  5. Salero 21

    Atheists are biased, bigoted and predjudice too. Don't forget that! Atheists are using this case, as if it could be the Paramount one for their Agenda. Which is Not! Mr. Perce can appeal, that is a good part of a Court System that Atheists could not come up with on their own.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • momoya

      What, exactly, can "atheists not come up with on their own?" I asked if there was an appeal going on a few pages back.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • NightCelt

      I have to say: I'm an atheist and am unduly impressed by your indiscriminate and unwarranted use of capital lettering throughout that declaration. I'm guessing that the further emotionally charged you get, the crazier your grammar gets. Indeed, a lunacy that you come up with all on your own!

      February 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Salero 21

      Yes momoya but yours is an afterthought. Those who came up with the concept in this Nation, way before our times were christians and theists.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LOL. My my my, you are a brilliant one aren't you? I wasn't aware your particular trailer park had internet access.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Root post by Salero 21 contains an instance of the circu-mstantial ad hominem fallacy alongside other genetic fallacies.

      http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6

      February 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Salero 21

      nightcelt, your thought Process is being affected by the Moon and the planet Venus Alignment.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Salero 21

      Ha ha, Lucifer's evil twin, neither I could ever imagine, that the Serpentarium section of the Zoo have Internet.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Salero 21

      Fallacy Spotted 101, you're a Fallacy on you own merits.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
  6. NightCelt

    Westboro goes around at funerals holding up signs that say "God hates f – – s." And plenty of people would like to assault them. But the public is forced to resort to ordinances restricting their space and by volunteers who block them from funeral processions, etc. And yet the very moment that someone assaults them, they're charged.

    Yet this judge doesn't have a problem with this atheist man being assaulted for freedom of speech in a less-sensitive space of demonstration – the parade. I'm sure that there had to be witnesses to this, aside from the fact that a "scuffle can be heard on audio." And really hope that his stint as judge is curtailed quite soon.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Dhulfiqar

      Maybe if he was tried in front of *this* judge he would rule against him.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Johnny

      You are sure, are you?

      Have you looked over the transcripts of the proceedings? Examined the evidence listed by the prosecution? Do you have any actual facts, or are you jumping on a bandwagon with nothing but a loud opinion?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • NightCelt

      Want to put your $$ where your mouth is J? Or just spouting needlessly?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
  7. Nodack

    I agree with the judges ruling and I am an Agnostic. I think all religions are cults, but believe everybody has the right to choose their own path. Deliberately insulting other people's faith is uncool just like I don't want religious people insulting my lack of faith. You want to be a Christian? Fine. You want to be a Muslim? Fine. You want to be an Athiest? Fine. I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone.

    They were provoking a response and got one.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • reason

      YOU are provoking a response, so in other words you think someone should be able to legally assault you too.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Horus

      There are countless provocations in life depending on each person's perspectives. Where do you draw the line? The law draws it at physical. One person in this case crossed the line of legality; the other is guilty only of poor taste.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Stephanie

      Well, the Muslim didn't leave him alone and attacked him physically and got away with it. This is not a good message to send to Muslims who are murdering people because they are offended.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Nodack

      How am I provoking a response? By saying live and let live? PFFT!

      The law does draw the line at physical harm and maybe the Muslim shouldn't have attacked the Athiest for being an inconsiderate Azzz, but I don't believe anybody got hurt and maybe both sides learned a lesson. I think I would have handed out the same ruling as the judge and I'm Agnostic.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
  8. Glenn

    For anyone defending this Muslim you should take your arguments to the logical conclusion. What if this Muslims is later offended by someone wearing a cross around their neck? Can you wear a cross in their presence as long as you don't wear it offensively(whatever that means). How badly can they beat you if you do? We can't go down the path of trying to figure out what is or isn't or should or shouldn't be offensive to people. Free speech is free speech, regardless of who it offends.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Nodack

      Wearing a cross shows your affiliation to being a Christian. It isn't meant to be offensive. Wearing a burka shows that you are a Muslim. It isn't meant to be offensive.

      Dressing up as a zombie Pope and Mohamed chanting anti religious taunts shows that you aren't a Christian or Muslim and is meant to be offensive towards people of those faiths. I'm Agnostic/Athiest and think what they did was totally uncool and they deserved to get their azzzes kicked.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  9. Henry Plantagenet

    The judge is unfit to belong to the bar, let alone sit on the bench. Any country in which religious people have freedom to attack others who are exercising their right of free speech....well, that would be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan...What a schmuck.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • reason

      Well said!

      February 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • LibertyBell

      You must be one of the atheist, who truly does not understand what the Judge said. This is a fair assessment (common sense). If this guy was on that country, he will be beheaded in just doing the same. He is lucky to get this far.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • CanIHelpYou

      May I inquire as to why you use the name of one of my ancestors for your "name" here at CNN to write comments with? If you are not descended from this family, please refrain from using that name. Thank you.

      If you are using it to make a point, please explain.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Nodack

      I'm Agnostic/Athiest and totally agree with the judge. Freedom of speech only goes so far. There is a line you can cross.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
  10. T

    If people want to be atheists thats fine. Why do they have to make fun of or put down religion? They don't believe, I do. If they want to offend me by ridiculing my religion thats fine too, but if they get their a$$ kicked, then they are whinning and crying that their rights have been infringed upon. Good, because I have never known an athiest that didn't need a good a$$ kicking. If you don't want to take that chance, just live your life the way you want and don't worry what people with religious beliefs believe or how they live.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • momoya

      Under your screwed-up reasoning, what should happen to an atheist who hits back?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • reason

      What you wrote is highly offensive, so in other words you think someone should be able to legally assault you too.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Horus

      Generalize much?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Seth Hill of Topanga, California

      If you ever try to preach the Gospel to me, you better expect to get your a... kicked. I recognize your right to your own religion, but if you insult my atheism, I'm coming after you with both fists! I'm using the same justification you just did. There, I feel much better now.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • gpatheist

      Even as an atheist I agree that this guy needed a good a$$ kicking as you put it. However, your comments about 'live and let live'... that's what most atheists are protesting for. If the religious people would follow your advice we'd have nothing to say. Just look at the republican politicians right now... that is just plain scary, are they letting people 'live an let live'.. no.. santorum would roll back the clock 500 years. We'd propably have a pope for a leader instead of a president if he had his way. Did you hear his comments about church and state yesterday? That is why we CAN'T 'live and let live'.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • T

      momoya, that would be called a fight.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Glenn

      Dear T, it is beliefs like yours that caused people to flee Europe for America. Being a witch is not illegal. Trying to convert people to witchism is not illegal. Making fun of non-witches is not illegal. Burning a witch is illegal! Get it? You see how it becomes illegal when physical harm is threatened? Just ignore all the rest and concentrate on that and then you'll understand the law of our land.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Sybaris

      ^^^^^^ Keyboard Bad A$$.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Sandy

      Brad Pitt is an athiest, does he need a good ass kicking?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Sam

      Well said T. It must be in the atheist handbook that you have to be a whining crybaby in order not to believe in God.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • fintastic

      F-in moron.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
  11. He who has the last laugh

    The guy was obviously an idiot, however the Judge is dead wrong. physical assault, is physical assault. This Judge should step down.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Willyd

      Why should the judge step down? The only evidence was the victim's claim that the man attacked him. He offered no proof of who actually attacked him, therefore the judge dismissed the case.

      I say, the guy got what he deserved, both on the street and in court. I'm sick of people thinking they can say whatever they want, regardless of how it affects others, and claiming First Amendment rights. Because we have so many freedoms, it is our duty to be responsible with them. If we cannot, our freedoms will be taken away one by one.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
  12. Rod in Texas

    Religion is stupid and needs to be extinct. God doesn't exist. Just ask Zeus, Athena, Hercules.....oh wait, they were worshipped for thousands of years and turns out they never existed at all.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • T

      Good job, calling religion stupid really helps. Rod, I assume your name is Rodney, it should have been Richard.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  13. Gary

    I am on both sides of this issue. I think the atheist should be able to express whatever view he has freely.

    I also think if someone carried a sign that said "I d your mother" and then named my mother I'd punch him in the mouth.

    When you name Mohammed in this manner, I think it's pretty close for them to my example.

    I guess I think the atheist can have his sign, but the Muslim can punch him. I draw the line at any violence beyond that, but I think a punch or a push is OK.

    It seems like assault, but don't any of you think that it is appropriate to punch out or at least oppose out loud someone you disagree with?

    February 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • BRC

      Punching and verbally opposing are two completely different things. I box. I'm not in competative shape like I used to be, but if someone says something I don;t like, and without warning I haul off and hit them in the face, there is a good chance that there will be serious damage. The same can be said for anyone who lands a lucky punch. Words are not equal to actions, and they must not be treated that way.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • He who has the last laugh

      Don't know when a punch became free speech, I must have missed that being passed. The muzzle could have shouted him down along with 100 other non violent measures.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Nonimus

      " oppose out loud " absolutely.
      Physical violence is not covered under freedom of anything, except protecting yourself, or others, from physical violence.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Robert

      You can oppose anything you want but you can't lay your hands on anyone. I think this is pretty cut and dry. This article is horrible. The judge dismissed the case because of lack of evidence not because of religion or freedom of speech.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Stefan

      This is a great example. I agree completely. Free speech is important, but if you are using it to intentionally start trouble, the law shouldn't protect you when you get a little bit of it.

      PS I'm an athiest. I'm just not like this guy... an offensive evangelical athiest.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Russell

      That is absurd. You don't have a right to physically assault somebody simply because they insult your mother, and a judge has no right to dismiss a case where an actual crime was committed simply because he disagrees with what the other side did. If the other side wants to bring a counter suit, they're welcome to, but just because the judge believes one side is wrong, doesn't mean the other side is right. If I insult your mother and you shoot me in the face, the judge doesn't get to DISMISS attempted murder charges simply because I instigated the fight.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • BRC

      @Stefan,
      No, the law should protect people who choose to use words first, not people who are so controlled by emotions that they are incapable of expressign themselves or making points without resorting to physical action.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Russell

      Also, you don't have the right to not have your sensibilities offended in this country. If we started there, where would it end? If I am offended by you calling me "buddy", do I get to punch you in the face, simply because I am unusual person who is offended by being called "buddy"? Being offended does not give you a right to assault somebody. This isn't slander or libel, so there are no laws that the guy broke. He didn't insult any living person or make any claims that can be proven to be untrue, therefore he did nothing wrong. That guy needs to learn to control his rage, or he belongs in prison, like every other criminal who can't control their anger.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Dr. Peabody

      I'd have dumped a bucket of something nasty on him, if it was a parade with lots of witnesses. Spray-paint him black or gold, right in the face. then laugh like crazy. He's lucky they didn't have ten minutes to prepare.

      February 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Nodack

      Free speech is one thing, but you can cross the line. The Athiest crossed the line. He deserved what he got. Nobody was hurt and no penalties were handed out. Deliberately insulting ones faith isn't very nice. I'm Agnostic/Athiest and think the Athiest was an Azz that deserved to get his butt kicked.

      February 28, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
  14. jim atmadison

    It's funny that in a 'he said'/ 'he said' between a Muslim and an atheist, the righties seem to be coming down on the side of the atheist.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • reason

      There were witnesses as seen in the video and the attacker even admitted assaulting him, to a police officer no less.

      This Judge Martin is a disgrace .

      February 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Nodack

      Good ruling by the judge IMO. You shouldn't get rewarded for being a total Azz.

      February 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  15. DIANA

    Great for the judge. I agree with what Nobody N. Particular said, couldn't have said it better..

    February 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • reason

      What you just wrote is highly offensive, so you do not if someone assaults you over it?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
  16. Charlie

    His word against his word???? Are you kidding? It was a parade in public with more than likely dozens of witnesses. Somebody screwed the pooch and should be fired.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  17. David

    Leave the verdict out of the equation for a second and assume that the judge was right–that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Then consider what the judge said. As an atheist, I can say that I agree with everything he said but that it should never have been spoken by a judge rendering a verdict in a court of law.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  18. Joe citizen abroad

    Being an atheist is one thing. Attacking others for their beliefs is something else entirely. It's called religious persecution...one of the other reasons our country was founded. The "founding fathers" didn't guarantee freedom of speech at the expense of freedom of religion. The judge is right. The guy yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, and he got trampled.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • BRC

      No he didn't. and that law isn;t to protect you from getting trampled if you yell fire, it;s to protect innocent bystanders. He, as part of a group, expressed his Consttutionally protected free speech. Another person took offense, overreacted, and physically acted against him.. The costume is legal, the reaction is not.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • momoya

      You're blaming the person who SPOKE something over the person who BEAT someone? So the Romans were right to use violence against Jesus who was merely speaking his ideas. Make sense?

      February 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • GodisNot

      I am greatly offended by your post. You knew this post would make a lot of people upset yet you submitted it anyway. According to your logic, I am well within my rights to physically harm you in any way I please.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
  19. JackBeHumble

    On the one hand, I respect a person's right to mock another persons religion in the United States of America. It looks to me from the evidence provided that he was assaulted. On the other hand, of the 1.3 billion people in the world today who worship Islam, I believe there are probably at least 1000 throughout the world (including in the US) who would be willing to risk death to kill someone who creates a visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad. I am glad the guy who assaulted mister green face was not won of those thousand Muslim Extremists.

    February 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Dr. Peabody

      There are a lot of people who'd kill you for dressing up as, say, a Gay Jesus or a Pregnant Mary. I'm not a believer, but I'd stand by and laugh while they kicked your butt. I don't care what you believe, but there's no call to go insult people right to their faces.

      February 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
  20. HeIsGod

    THIS SURE MADE MY DAY!!!

    February 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • NightCelt

      It looks like it's the only thing you have in your day because you sure don't have a job, do you? Despite your claims of being employed. Or is it that you f around on the company's time and dollar with your nonsense?

      You're always accusing others of not having a job but here you are. What a joke.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • HeIsGod

      I'm at work, NUTCULT!!

      When you see me post under HeIsGod, I am during my lunch or break.....NOW GO GET A JOB, YOU LAZY ATHEIST!!!!

      February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • HeIsGod

      Lunch is over....see ya, NUTCULT666!!!

      February 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • NightCelt

      Sure you're at "work," nut case! You take a really LATE lunch, don't you? What a liar....as always! Try not to be such a hypocrite next time. I'll let you get back to your toilet cleaning now.

      February 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.