...and we were told it wouldn't happen here, right? From Andrea McCarthy over at NRO:
A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, 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.
There will be much more to say about this. For now, you can find details, here, including the YouTube recording of Judge Martin hectoring the assault victim, Ernie Perce, an activist atheist who paraded last October in a “Zombi Mohammed” costume. Before dismissing the case, Martin lectured Perce about the principles of Islam and the tender sensibilities of Muslims, calling him a “dufus” for failing to appreciate same.
So shariah law trumps the First Amendment?
You can see the false dichotomy here: conscience protections are OK for say, Catholic bishops on contraception, then why are they not OK for Muslims and the application of shariah? The answer is simple: my rights end where your rights begin, and liberty -- correctly defined -- is the balance between license and tyranny.
Shariah law is the worst form of license for its practitioners, and the vilest sort of tyranny for shariah's victims. The rights of conscience, as they pertain to the preservation of liberty as understood in the context of the U.S. Constitution, stands in stark contrast -- a Bastille liberals would love to pull down if ever offered the chance.