Atheist Activist Participating In Local Parade Is Attacked By A Muslim

[cleanhippie]

The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania (PACP) recently won a challenge to participate in the Millersville, PA community parade. Parade administrators in a blatant violation of their First Amendment rights were initially denying them entry into the event. Letters were sent in protest, which resulted in a successful challenging to the denial.

--snip--

The purpose of their message is right to free speech, a cornerstone of the rights and privileges granted by the United States Constitution. These rights are not just for believers who choose to hold signs that denigrate the LGBT community, threaten eternal torture in hell for those who do not believe or shove pictures of dismembered fetuses in the faces of women who are just trying to get through a legal medical procedure. These rights extend to everyone, including the atheist community.

--snip--

The PACP set out with the rest of the participants for the event, and in less than a minute, things went very bad, very quickly. A Muslim decided that an appropriate reaction to the sight of an undead Muhammad would be to choke the individual who was wearing said costume while he was walking in formation with the rest of the parade participants. The assailant approached the PACP participant, grabbed him by the neck and proceeded to choke him, in spite of the entire thing being recorded on video.

-snip--

This incident is another shining example of how violence is often used in the attempt to silence unbelievers. It also reflects how some members of the religious community often interpret various doctrines to justify acts of violence.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/atheist-activist-participating-local-parade-is-attacked-by-a-muslim

[Scuba]

1. But didn't Newt say they were working together to undermine America?

[msongs]

2. people insecure in their own superstitions and myths hate freedoms others have lol nt

[Ship of Fools]

3. great way to define the GOP, for that matter ...

[MineralMan]

4. I question the wisdom of dressing up as a zombie Muhammad,

or any other religious figure held in reverence or high regard by followers of a religion. I wouldn't do that, nor would I participate in any event as an atheist where such a thing was thought of. Provocation is not the way to go, IMO. It's always a mistake, and does more harm than good.

This was a bad idea from the start. As an atheist I do not and cannot support it.

[cui bono]

I agree with most of your sentiment. But I also think that if you are going to believe something

that you know a lot of others do not, you have to have a thicker skin and stand by your belief rather than let someone who is "mocking" it get to you.

I personally probably would not have done what that atheist did, yet I can laugh at satire directed against religions. I don't know if I would want to march with that in public either as I think that's different than a sharp, satirical cartoon or film/TV show which would skewer the beliefs and not just make a mockery of a figurehead.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, I have no interest in converting religious believers to

atheism. What would be the point of that? I do have a strong interest, though, in lessening the amount and intensity of prejudice against atheism. That's why I object to tactics like the one used in that parade. It accomplishes nothing of value, and probably harms the case for atheism. Therefore, I don't see the point of it. If the subject is an appropriate one, I volunteer the information that I'm an atheist and let my overall demeanor and behavior demonstrate that I'm not some sort of evil demon.

I always cringe when I see behavior like what was described in that story. It helps nothing and has the potential to do harm. Yes, it is that person's right to do as he pleases. It is my right to object to it, and I do, for the reasons given above.

[cui bono]

14. I think you're right. Look at how everyone is reacting more negatively to the mockery

than the actual physical violence.

[MineralMan]

15. The violence is criminal, and deserves to be punished

for the crime that it is. Nobody should be physically attacked for such things. It remains a bad idea to mock others' beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

75. Why? If they are offended or act violently, that's their problem, not mine. n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

26. I would not have participated either.

While I maintain that it is my inalienable right to peaceably assemble, and to freely express my religious opinion, I make it a rule never to openly or publicly disparage Muhammad, the Koran, or the Muslim conception of god, although I have a rather negative opinion of all three, as doing so is hazardous to one's health. I remember the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

That said, it's pretty disconcerting to see that there are still those who would use violence to guard against personal offense. Not only does this show the lack of respect for free expression, it also show lack of respect for a man's right to safety and security. To regard both of these as less important than the protection of one's religious sensibilities is to have badly distorted priorities.

[Deep13]

30. Forced to agree.

I think people need to understand that the world will not end if gods are knocked off their pedestals. Still, this does not seem reasonably calculated to achieve that. Having said that, the only one really at fault is the man who resorted to violence. At most, zombie Mohammed was guilty of underestimating the negative reaction.

[cleanhippie]

33. Considering that there are STILL people in this country that would use violence to oppress

or harm others and stifle their right to free speech because they felt "offended" is EXACTLY why these types of things need to be done.

Just look at the words of one of our own DU'ers downthread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=308664&mesg_id=308671

He's damn lucky he got away as easily as he did. If this had happened in Detroit or Dearborn, he'd probably be dead (and I would not be able to get too worked up about it).





If that comment right there does not illustrate to you how important it was for this person to do this, nothing will.

[Deep13]

38. Point taken.

How is this different than the Danish cartoons or the Satanic Verses? It's still violent suppression of free expression by those who would deny to others the rights they themselves are free to exercise.

[MineralMan]

46. A guy has to pick his battles and choose his battlegrounds.

That's just common sense.

[cleanhippie]

47. And this was his battleground.

At what point is it ok to use violence to show you disagree with someone's opinion?



You make it sound as if this guy had it coming to him.

[MineralMan]

52. Nobody ever "has it coming to him."

You're missing my point, I think.

[cleanhippie]

54. I think I get your point.

We should consider our actions. I get that, and I agree.



But when one's rightful actions elicit violence from another, I think it highlights where MORE of the original rightful actions need to take place. If even for a second, we consider curbing our rightful free speech activities because someone might use violence to oppress it, I see that as even MORE of a reason to do it.

[darkstar3]

87. Exactly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. The you are supporting the Hecklers Veto

We insult fundie xtians all the time and call if freedom of speech, why should fundie muslims be treated any differently?

[MineralMan]

112. They shouldn't be treated any differently.

I'm not supporting anything here. What I'm saying is that sometimes mocking religious beliefs in public places is not helpful in convincing people that atheists are OK, too.

Those billboards that atheist groups are displaying are great. They are using reason to make a case. They piss off some people, of course, but they use reason. A zombie Muhammad is a different thing. It's using mockery, and mockery almost always generates very strong reactions against whatever message is being presented. It's ineffective in making a point.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. It is a matter of degree

While mockery is not always effective, it does point out the intolerance of the mocked group, something of considerable merit.

I was very disappointed in some of the European nations over their reaction to the Danish cartoons and Salmon Rushdie's book. If xtians are expected to tolerate "Piss Christ" in western society then the muslims damn well better get used to flaming Korans etc

[Rabblevox]

5. What a complete ass-hat! Defending your right not to believe (or trying to keep religion out of...

schools is one thing (which I support 100%)

Publicly mocking the symbols of someone else's faith is entirely different.

He's damn lucky he got away as easily as he did. If this had happened in Detroit or Dearborn, he'd probably be dead (and I would not be able to get too worked up about it).

[Goblinmonger]

6. It's either all open or it's not.

So "Piss Christ" was horrible, too? Why? Just because someone holds something dear doesn't mean I have to. Flag burning has been upheld as constitutionally protected expression and the flag means a whole hell of a lot more to me than some random prophet (admittedly, the flag really doesn't mean shit to me but it is infinitely more than zero).

How progressive of you to not get worked up about someone being choked (or killed in your own scenario) just because that person offended someone. You don't have a right to not be offended.

[Rabblevox]

8. Sorry for your simplistic world-view, but you are plain wrong...

"Piss Christ" (which was piss-poor art), was in a museum exhibit, where people knew what they were going to view, and had the choice to pay and enter, or not.

This was a public spectacle which was not only intentionally offensive, but stupid in execution, and made all Atheists and Agnostics look bad.

Hopefully you are just young, and have little experience with "boots on the ground" protests. That will be cured over time, hopefully.

Otherwise? Sux to be you.

[Goblinmonger]

16. You sure are sitting pretty high on your horse aren't you.

So where does it say that you have the right to not be offended in public and if you are you have the right to choke somebody. I hope that you don't have a lot of experience with "boots on the ground" protests because I would imagine they would be rather milquetoast and ineffective if you don't want to offend anyone.

"Hey, Gov Walker, I'm sure you're not really that bad of a guy, but perhaps you could reconsider some of your policies toward public sector employees." I remember reading that sign in Madison and thinking "Damn, what a great way to protest."

[darkstar3]

90. Are you trying, poorly, to prove Poe's Law?

[Deep13]

39. Hmmm, if only there was someway to know for sure....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Huh, well, I guess it's all open then. :patriot:

[cleanhippie]

7. He is "damn lucky he got away as easily as he did"? What. The. Fuck.

Publicly mocking the symbols of someone else's faith is entirely different.

No, its not. Its the right to free speech.



He's damn lucky he got away as easily as he did. If this had happened in Detroit or Dearborn, he'd probably be dead (and I would not be able to get too worked up about it).

And that just goes to show that you ARE the problem.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cui bono]

13. HER/HIS "knee-jerk response"? YOU are the one who is condoning murder over a frivolous act.

You need to open your eyes, you are projecting an awful lot.

[cleanhippie]

24. Hey, bub, YOU are the one that fucking just said it would be ok to FUCKING KILL SOMEONE!!

Those are YOUR fucking words. YOU said that you are ok with people KILLING someone because they disagree with them. YOU FUCKING JUST SAID THAT!


You just fucking said that, for everyone to read. YOU said it. Your words.


And you think that this is what "grown-ups" do?



Wow, man. Just wow.

[cui bono]

10. Yes, nothing justifies the man's violent reaction, however with the right to free speech

comes responsibility. And it does come down to respecting other people and their beliefs, even if they don't respect you and yours.

But the post you are responding to is pretty extreme as well. To think that person's death would be justified over this? That's crazy. And it's also a perfect example of the harm religion does to society.
Condoning murder over something so stupid is seriously twisted.

[cleanhippie]

25. You, I, nor anyone else is under any obligation to respect someone's "beliefs". Not ever.

Ever. For any reason does anyone ever have to respect someones beliefs.

[cui bono]

36. I actually do agree with that and yet I still feel you should choose to act responsibly.

I guess you have to decide for yourself where that line is.

[cleanhippie]

41. What do you mean "responsibly?" That implies that the person KNEW he was going to be attacked

and did it anyway.

That is like saying that woman who dresses in skimpy clothes was being irresponsible when she was raped.


And that is the EXACT reason these things need to be done, because it shows that there are so many that still want to use violence to get their point across, and that is unacceptable.

[cui bono]

62. I don't think it implies that. And I don't think your analogy works.

It's pretty obvious the person was mocking/taunting. That does not, however, justify the response. It never does. But really, yes, we all know that if you do something like that with/to Mohammad that someone is most likely going to get violent or threaten to get violent. There are plenty of past incidents that prove that. Doesn't make it right, but it is a known "fact" with this particular religion. Which is one reason why I think organized religion is crap.

But we are also all part of a society and personally I think there are better ways to make a point. Doesn't mean s/he didn't have a right to do the mocking, we have the right to do a lot of things that are probably better left undone though.

[cui bono]

11. So you consider it justifiable homicide to kill someone who mocks your religion???

Wow. Shows you why organized religion should not exist. What other type of organization should be able to kill anyone they feel like it just because that person mocked them?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

27. That's absolutely disgusting.

All this man did was express his religious opinion in public. That does not warrant his murder, no matter how many local people it offends. While criticizing Islam is dangerous, we cannot place the blame on those who are peacefully expressing an opinion. Just because some people wants to kill him for his opinion does not mean he deserves death if he expresses it. "Publicly mocking the symbols of someone else's faith" is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and if somebody attempts to murder one who so mocks, the one at fault is not the victim.

[Deep13]

37. The violence should offend you more than the mockery.

He was attacked--actually attacked--just because an audience member thought he had a right to force his religious norms onto nonbelievers with violence.

[Leontius]

50. Would your response be the same if someone put on

black face makeup and top hat and danced down the street strumming a banjo singing "Mammy" and got his ass kicked? It's just mockery, right can't see why anyone would really get that upset over it.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Yes, why the fuck is this such a hard concept to understand?

Everyone has a right to free speech without being assaulted.

[Leontius]

58. Here on planet earth actions have consequences, might not

seem fair to you or me but that's the way it is. Thought is free speech sometimes has a price.

[cleanhippie]

60. Holy shit, dude. Did you really just say that?

So its ok for me to beat you for promoting your ideology? I mean,free speech sometimes has a price, right?


You thoughts are despicable. I hope you are not representative of those that share your beliefs.

[Leontius]

77. Yes speech has a price and I've paid it before, if you've been

teargassed or felt the baton you'd know that. Come see me when you grow up.

[darkstar3]

84. And if you actually went through that, you'd feel a lot more strongly

about ensuring that it wasn't empty, instead of recommending that people just stay silent for fear of some dumbass getting violent.

Come see me when you know fuck-all about "freedom of speech".

[Leontius]

120. Please show the post where I recommend that people stay

silent for fear of violence. Oh yeah that's right I didn't post that so you are posting something that is untrue. I did say that in the real world you better understand that some people will react to what they feel is provocation violently and to deny that is stupidity plain and simple. By all means though keep up with your false narrative that I want speech to be suppressed. I already know who those who will support you here are, they always do, agenda always trumps truth with them, another truth you don't want to hear.

[darkstar3]

125. So you weren't warning people away from exercising their free speech rights for fear of violence,

you were simply expressing that you expect some speech to beget violence, and that you don't care. Gotcha.

Six in one hand...

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

137. So please explain what you meant, then, and clear this all up.

[cleanhippie]

103. You have paid two things: jack and shit, and jack just left town.

[cleanhippie]

57. Yes, I would react to the violence in exactly the same way.

Why is it you are unable to grasp that this is about using violence to oppress free speech?

[Leontius]

61. Violence is not the response I would choose and not the one

I would hope anyone would choose but that's just not the way life really works some people will react violently to things they can't handle. Someday, somewhere someone is going to attack Phelps's little gang of funeral protesters and while I won't condone the violence I won't be shocked when it happens and I won't wring my hands and moan, Oh no how could this happen.

[cleanhippie]

63. Thats interesting, because I WILL wring my hands and moan of Phelps' crew gets attacked.

It is sad that you just don't get it.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

59. Yes, and it is a false comparison.

No one was mocking that Muslim man who attacked the parader. They were mocking ideas. Yes, they are ideas that many people assume to be beyond question. The value of this sort of thing is that it demonstrates in the clearest possible terms that no idea is beyond mockery. Frankly, mockery has proved to be far too valuable of a tool for social, political and other criticism not to use it. And the simple fact is that the beliefs of Islam, Christianity and pretty much every other supernatural religion are factually untenable. While the Constitution is religion-neutral, we need not ignore the facts. Simply put saying they're right and he was wrong is a compelling rebuttal.

The minstrel example--first, I'm not sure if it is a mockery of black people or racist minstrel singers. But if the former, it is a mockery of people themselves, not ideas they hold. There is no superiority of any race because race is wholly a social construct with almost no basis in biological fact. Skeptical science has (after an unfortunate detour) buried racism as a viable concept. The Bible, btw, still seems to endorse it. Even so, no one has a right to be free from offense or to resort to violence if offended.

There is another important distinction between the two examples. In the USA racist attitudes and practices are used by the white, hegemonic culture to oppress minority groups. Now, I don't know how significant minstrel shows were to that process. If the paraders were dresses as Klansmen (and it wasn't that long ago when the Klan would have openly participated in this kind of public activity) their message would have been pretty clear: be afraid of us and don't challenge white hegemony. Overt racist messages were intended to cause fear and compliance, not offense. In that case, my feeling is that they would have been as unacceptable as individually telling black people to leave town under threat of violence.

In this case, the subjected group is the one challenging hegemony and one man who is also in a subject class but who was siding with the hegemony sought to silence the challenge. The most the atheist group produced was offense. They could not reasonably expect to frighten, intimidate or force compliance on anyone. Indeed, they must have known they were risking violence for their convictions. So why are the believers on this board not celebrating them as potential martyrs?

[Leontius]

68. You raise some valid points and some not so valid points

The first thing to point out is when you say "No one was mocking that Muslim man...." you seem to fail to understand that to many religion is not just an "idea" it is a part of their makeup as humans and some people will not even care that you are trying to separate it from them as a person it is 'them'. It's late so I just end with this I agree the attack was wrong but as you say they knew the risks and as I have said in other responses acts have consequences. I support anyone who protests peacefully for their view whether I agree or am "offended". Oh yeah, Klan rallies still happening today and they still suck.

[Deep13]

129. We are touching opposite sides of the same point.

The whole purpose of this kind of display is to show that religion is not the same as race, gender, ethnicity or orientation. It is to demonstrate that religion is fair game for mockery and for criticism.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. How little you view human life, what a contemptable person you are...

this is a classic example of how religion poisons people's minds.

[darkstar3]

93. I guess I'll never see YOU at Pride.

You know, I have seen some awful shit before in this forum, but posting flatly that you wouldn't care if someone died because they were attacked for being themselves? fuck...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

20. Did you happen to notice the little 'etc.', Bubba? Where did I ever refer to

"all atheists" as you continually blather on?

[Goblinmonger]

21. etc means more of the same.

It doesn't mean "hey, everything is included here." I can't tell my doctor I ate healthy because I had "carrots, lentils, brown rice, etc" and really mean to include ice cream, fried donuts, and the like and expect him to know that's what I mean.\

You said "atheists" in your post. Compared them directly to hate groups. Don't know what the confusion is. Perhaps you think you are more clever in masking your bigotry than you think you are.

[humblebum]

23. So, just how is it that mentioning the word "atheists", which they

were by their own admission, implies "all atheists?" If I say dogs are black, does that imply all dogs are black? You are making things up here, Bubba. On purpose or due to ignorance, I'm not sure. And yes I am aware of what 'etc.' means

[cui bono]

35. Yes. If you say dogs are black you ARE implying that all dogs are black.

Otherwise you would say SOME dogs are black.

[laconicsax]

40. You have trouble with basic concepts sometimes.

If I said, "Christians are assholes," the implication would be that I was referring to all Christians. You would probably even chime in with one of your favorite quips about totalitarian regimes in response.

If I said, "some Christians are assholes," the broad-brush implication doesn't exist.

This is basic stuff.

[cleanhippie]

44. Not understanding the basic stuff is where the problem lies.

The problem is, his entire agenda is BASED on purposely NOT understanding the basic stuff.

[cleanhippie]

42. Yes, bum, if you say "dogs are black" then you imply that all dogs are black.

[Goblinmonger]

78. Let me be the fourth to point out your completely incorrect statement.

Saying "dogs are black" really DOES imply that all dogs are black. That is what the word "some" is for.

If you are aware of what "etc." means, then why do you think it covers you and your broadbrush comparison to RW hate groups?

[struggle4progress]

19. The Millersville parade is on the 29th; the Mechanicsburg parade was last night

DAY: Saturday
DATE: October 29, 2011
TIME: 9:00 AM
PLACE: Millersville, PA
http://parade.millersville.edu/

Mechanicsburg Halloween Parade
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:00 PM
http://www.mechanicsburgchamber.org/HalloweenParade.shtml

Mechanicsburg has a population of about 9000; Cumberland county is mostly affluent white Republicans; I might think it's unlikely the borough has a significant Muslim population. Unfortunately, I haven't found any standard news source for this story; source in OP is the entirely unreliable Examiner, with no real details about the alleged event

And author Al Stefanelli lives hundreds of miles away in Georgia, so is unlikely to have witnessed the alleged events himself

[ChadwickHenryWard]

28. I just did a quick check of local news sources.

There was no mention of the event on any of them. I live in Mechanicsburg and didn't hear anything about the incident today.

[cleanhippie]

45. Here is a video of the incident.

While it does seem that this was a bit "overblown", it does appear to have happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8&feature=player_embedded

[humblebum]

48. What a bunch of bigoted idiots. Hard to feel sorry for them. nt

[cleanhippie]

49. Take your childish bullshit and blow away, will ya?

No one wants to hear your bullshit anymore. You stopped making any fucking sense whatsoever, and quite frankly, you have become very boring.

[humblebum]

51. As long as you're there, I'm there. Hopefully, more and more people

are beginning to see what militant atheism is about, and begin to speak out against it.

[cleanhippie]

53. The only "militant" ones here are the guys that attacked people in a fucking parade.

ahh, nevermind. You will never get it and are simply not worth it.

[humblebum]

66. Oh, get it alright. And yes, they are militant. The New Atheist Movement

deserves no respect for this type of behavior. And no, that does not include all atheists.

[Humanist_Activist]

70. Its obvious you don't value human freedom or human life...

and how the fuck does a victim of violence become a militant?

[humblebum]

71. Where you arrive at that conclusion I have no idea, and yes I

do consider those atheists to be quite militant. I consider them no different than neo nazis, KKK, or any other inciteful group, and yet they all have the right to freedom of expression. But that doesn't mean they are free from criticism, or deserving of any respect.

[NMMNG]

72. ...

[humblebum]

73. No doubt I'd feel the same way if I witnessed someone being

beat over the head with a cross.

[NMMNG]

79. People are, figuratively, every day

LGBT people, women, atheists, members of minority religions, etc. They're told they're evil, depraved, worthless, sinful, hellbound scum. They're made to feel less than human, and told that they're the cause of all the world's problems from crime and terrorism to global warming. They're denied basic human rights and even threatened with death by people acting in accordance with the Bible/their "Deeply Held Religious Beliefs".



Then when any of the victims dare raise a voice in protest they're labeled "militant" and compared to the KKK and the Nazis.

[cleanhippie]

106. By golly, I think you nailed it!

:applause:


It's too bad and such a waste, considering that you are talking to a brick wall.

[cleanhippie]

105. Is this just an online thing or do you have actual conversations like this with real people?

And if you do, have you noticed if they stare blankly at you wondering "what the fuck is he talking about"?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

74. Dude, are you for real?

A Muslim physically accosts an atheist, and the atheists are the threat to society? You can't be serious.

[NMMNG]

81. Sadly he is

Scary, isn't it?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

89. I think it could easily be a Poe.

Satire is dead. Views have become so extreme that it is impossible in many circumstances to tell the difference between parody and reality.

That said, yeah, it's pretty backwards. The proposition that public criticism of religious belief is somehow threatening to decent society is very frightening.

[Goblinmonger]

94. Not a Poe.

Wouldn't go on for months and months and months just to make an elaborate Poe.

[cleanhippie]

107. That sure would take a lot of dedication.

To think that he has been faking it all along.....????


Nah, its gotta be for real, if not then its psychosis where he can no longer tell the difference between the person and the character, and that is some really scary stuff!

[Goblinmonger]

114. Actually, I might respect that level of dedication.

Kind of a Andy Kaufman-esque performance.

[humblebum]

85. As a matter of fact, I am. The Muslim person was certainly wrong

and did violate the rights of the marcher. However, that does not change my POV on radical atheism. It has a long and violent history just as religion does.

[darkstar3]

86. And there it is: YOUR POV.

That's all you have. Thankfully, it is clear to anyone who reads it that your POV doesn't mesh with reality.

[humblebum]

88. Yes, I am the only critic of radical atheism. nt

[darkstar3]

91. That makes sense since it's a bogeyman that only exists in your head.

[humblebum]

92. Keep telling yourself that. I for one know how you like to ignore

any evidence that does not fit into your nice neat little box. You know, the one that nothing can probably exist outside of.

[darkstar3]

95. Says the man who ignores the vastness of history

in favor of a few opinion writers who back his prejudged view. You wouldn't pass a high school history exam on the topic of Communism, and that's why you keep riding that one trick pony.

[humblebum]

97. Yes, all of those Phd's and eyewitness accounts do tend to get

in the way of sound historiography. That Solzhenitsyn was a real wack job.

[darkstar3]

98. Fallacious, like the majority of your posts.

[humblebum]

99. Prove it. nt

[darkstar3]

100. No need.

[humblebum]

101. That's what I thought. nt

[darkstar3]

102. I doubt that. ;)

[struggle4progress]

65. He might get awarded a dollar or two and his attorney fees on a personal trespass tort, I guess.

Frankly, the best I'd expect from the police is that they have a brief investigatory chat with the alleged assailant before filing the paperwork away

[darkstar3]

104. I guess that's just life as a minority, huh?

:puke:

[struggle4progress]

108. I'd guess that's just life when there's a technical battery but the victim is uninjured:

the video is unhelpful, and the victim resumes the parade unaffected

[darkstar3]

109. Oh, he can keep walking! Of course that means this was nothing to worry about.

:eyes:

[cleanhippie]

110. "technical" battery, huh? Is that like "technical" rape, or "technical" child molesting, or...

Wow, dude.


A person used violence to try and oppress free speech, regardless of how mild it was, and you have the audacity to call it "technical" and just dismiss it?

:puke:

Just wow.

[Goblinmonger]

115. If I did that to someone in a mall,

I'm pretty sure I'd get charged and be found guilty.

[struggle4progress]

117. Nah. Citation at best, and that's unlikely for this. Here's why:

Mechanicsburg police handle some hundreds of minor crime-against-person complaints annually: the town has a tiny police force and they don't want every officer in court daily to deal with one of these complaints

So for the alleged event, they'd do nothing much more than other nearby towns would: punching somebody in the face in Cumberland county may earn you nothing more than a harassment citation that can be paid by mail

Whatever officer took this complaint has been dealing with drunks brandishing guns, and loud domestic disputes that wake up the neighbors, and groups of four or five teenage boys in a sidewalk brawl. And the officer listened to this story and figured a couple of guys came into town with the sole aim of trying to whizz people off to get attention. And he heard that these guys had a two-second bump-up with somebody in the crowd, just as they'd hoped, and he learned that afterwards these two guys continued marching down the street, according to their prior plan, still trying to whizz people off. Now, at this point the officer is feeling all the same warmth and joy that he would feel if the Westboro morons had come to town to picket a funeral: he sees enough shizz without folk deliberating stirring more up, and he sure doesn't want to do a bunch more pointless paperwork. So he's gonna roll his eyes and be sorely tempted to write a quick report and accidentally misfile it in the old closed 2005 stolen twinkie incident file, because even just issuing a citation may take 10% of the department's manpower one week, between tracking down the alleged perp and maybe a witness or two and then talking to them and writing it up and so on

[darkstar3]

126. So what happens when the victim presses charges for assault?

Will the cops give a flying rat's fuck then?

[struggle4progress]

131. Feel free to look for the incident on one of the local police blotter sites:

http://upperallenpolice.com/wp/
http://www.topix.com/crime/mechanicsburg-pa
http://www.cumberlink.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&q=police+log

[darkstar3]

132. I guess I'll have to, because you obviously couldn't give two shits, and are surprised others do.

[struggle4progress]

139. I searched for police report, didn't find, suspect stolen twinkie file as discussed upthread

[darkstar3]

149. Stay classy.

[struggle4progress]

152. You could get a copy of the police log for the night & tell us what it says, if you think I'm wrong.

[deacon_sephiroth]

111. thanks for the link and the comments say it all. n/t

[rug]

22. What is a Parading Atheist?

Does one oppose a Whirling Dervish?

[Deep13]

31. Instead of throwing candy to the children...

...one throws copies of Darwin, Hitchins and the Roman philosopher Lucretious. Jesus, no wonder we are so unpopular!

[rug]

43. Lol, that's a pretty funny image.

[Deep13]

29. Yes, the violence was wrong...

...and so was the assumption that many people hold that no one has a right to be critical or mocking of his religion. Still, publicly ridiculing various deities by dressing them as zombies? What was that really supposed to accomplish. Yeah, they had a legal right to do it. Yeah, believers have to accept that others are not required to share their reverence. But does this further that goal or does it just piss people off and dig in their heels?

[cleanhippie]

32. It doesn't further any goal, other than to show that there are those who would use violence as a

tool to oppress other right to free speech because they felt "offended."

Thats what it accomplished, and it shows that there is a NEED to do things like this.

[Deep13]

34. Maybe. Hard to know for sure.

I guess it was the immediacy that I found surprising. Not a billboard or a cartoon in a newspaper, but people a few feet away. Maybe you're right.

[NMMNG]

64. Several people are defending the attacker

because it's apparently terrible of the atheists to "mock" religious figures. Tell me...

Would it be acceptable for the people mocked (gay people, abortion providers and recipients, Pagans/Wiccans, etc) in Christian "Hell Houses" to go on a rampage and attack the people running the events, and the actors, because they were being mocked? If not, why is it OK for religious people to do so just because their beliefs are being mocked?

[pokerfan]

67. I guess he was asking for it

:shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

76. Everyone supporting the attacker on this thread fucking sickens me.

Seriously. This fucking asshat physically assaulted someone exercising constitutionally protected free speech. FUCKING ASSAULTED HIM. And a good deal of you are focusing on the person doing what is constitutionally protected. FUCK YOU. Seriously. If this were an atheist doing this to a Christian, this forum would fucking explode, but...no...this atheist had it coming because he didn't provide the proper reverence for someone's beliefs so it's OK to FUCKIN ASSAULT HIM. Did you get that yet? PHYSICALLY ATTACK HIM.

Fuckin' A. It is bad enough that I have to read all this "militant atheism" bullshit day after day, but now you can't even side with someone doing what is constitutionally protected when they are choked by some jackass.

*Righteous Rant Over*

[NMMNG]

80. It just goes to show

who the real "militants" are. :shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. Most of them are supporting the Hecklers Veto which I think is even worse

Take off you shoe and wave it at the imam as he parades by and then get ready for a serious reaction even here in the US. Some people do not take disagreement or mocking well at all

[darkstar3]

96. Now go to GD

and look for a thread about sexual assault. It's not about atheists (or not entirely), it's about minorities. And I hope that people begin to realize that. We (Americans) are not as egalitarian as people would like to think we are.

[ZombieHorde]

113. "There is no God, but God."

So atheists are half Muslim.

[philly_bob]

116. A zombie Muhammad costume?

I'll defend your right to free speech, PACP, and I think violence should be off-limits. I believe the same for the "God Hates Fags" people.

But what you did is insensitive and plain dumb and I won't be inviting you to any family dinners or parties lest you exercise your right to free speech by offending some of the guests.

P.S. I'm an atheist.

[humblebum]

118. Seeing the video reminds me of the overt anti-religious marches

against the Jews in Germany in the early years before WWII, and is even more reminiscent of the atheist parades in the USSR, by the many atheist groups that existed at that time. They were also protected by law. Strong similarities.

[Goblinmonger]

119. ..........................

[Leontius]

121. The guy in the costume should be protected by law, don't you

think so?

[humblebum]

122. Yes I do. That aside, he needs to expect that any number of consequences

could result. The far greater concern is that this is becoming more common place. And if history is any indicator, it can blossom into a much more repressive movement. Calls for "hatred, ridicule, and contempt" have already come from prominent new atheists. I have no doubt that it is a hate movement. Still, speech and expression need to remain free, but those engaging in such actions need to be held responsible, at least in part, for any antireligious acts that follow. This type of behavior does nothing to improve the image of atheists in society.

[darkstar3]

128. So if you punch me in the face because I blasphemed against your god, it's partly my fault.

That disgusts me greatly. It doesn't surprise me, but it does disgust me.

[cleanhippie]

130. I wonder if he thinks its partly the childs fault for being molested by their priest.

Thats essentially what he seems to be getting at, right?

[onager]

140. A priest, a pedophile and a rapist walk into a bar...

And that's just the first guy...

[struggle4progress]

134. The guy in the costume is protected by law. He has every right to be free of trespass

against his person, but for minor trespasses against his person he will have to defend that right by civil suit. The public sector will only be involved in more substantive cases

[NMMNG]

123. ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Trey3NPd_o/Th3UCXq_5qI/AAAAAAAAAng/hQcT5K0W5FI/s1600/broken+record.jpg

[cleanhippie]

124. Blah, blah, blah....Do you EVER have anything relevant to say?

[NMMNG]

127. Commies!

Stalin! Pol Pot! Lenin! Dawkins! Militant Atheists!

[onager]

142. Actual photo! Militant Russian atheists marching!

Oh sorry, those are Russian Xians marching during WWII. The 2 groups are so easily confused. And who was running Russia during WWII? I forget, but I'm sure somebody here can remind me.

FTR, they're carrying the icon of Our Lady of Kazan around the besieged city of Leningrad. Which Gawd miraculously delivered, after 3 years and thousands of deaths:



Off-topic, but I'm linking to it anyway, since I also found the photo here:

This website also has a collection of WWII art created by Russian kids from Moscow's Children's Art School #3 in 2007. It was a class assignment.

Some of the art is pretty amazing. This was done by a 14-yr-old girl, more at the link below:



http://02varvara.wordpress.com/category/world-war-ii/page/4/

[laconicsax]

143. There's some fantastic art there. K&R

[midnight]

145. So much saddness... War should be outlawed.... Breadlines and

orphans continue to be created in every generation...

[rug]

147. I like this one.

"American soldiers pray in an old Nazi HQ. 'Shma Yisrael Adonai elohaynu Adonai echad.' (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד.) 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord is Our God, the Lord is One.'"

http://02varvara.wordpress.com/category/world-war-ii/

[humblebum]

148. Would be interesting to see what happened to them in the years after the war

when the atheistic anti-religious fervor started up again.

[cleanhippie]

161. Oh, yes, very interesting.

:boring:

Get a new act.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

154. Stalin temporarily let up on religious and other repression during World War II

because he wanted the people united in the war effort, especially after some of the ethnic minorities initially greeted the Nazis as liberators--until the Nazis blew their advantage by committing the usual atrocities against the conquered people.

After World War II, all the types of repression started back up again. That was the era of greatest anti-Semitism, for example, and the takeover of the Baltic states was brutal.

[Thats my opinion]

136. The PACP donned costumes depicting zombie renditions of the Pope and the prophet Muhammad and joined

And 50 terribly offended posters elsewhere, were horrified and scandalized that I had us the worlds, "none of us."

I could probably list 2000 posts that were real nasty put-downs.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

141. Do you not understand the difference

between protests and discussion boards?

ETA: And those 3 words were NOT the only problem people have had with you.

[laconicsax]

144. What "thoughtful" insight you've brought to this thread.

I like how when told (repeatedly) that something is offensive, rather than apologize and try to understand the other POV, you sneer ar those who took offense and repeat your insults.

What a shining example of ethical sensitivity you are.

[darkstar3]

150. Well said.

[humblebum]

151. That's rich, considering the subject of the thread.

"I like how when told (repeatedly) that something is offensive, rather than apologize and try to understand the other POV, you sneer ar those who took offense and repeat your insults."

As if this group of atheists was concerned about being offensive. LOL

[laconicsax]

153. I must have missed the part where it becomes appropriate to assault someone.

This thread is about an innappropriate response to a perceived insult. The difference, of course, is that the attacker in the OP took offense at mockery of ideas whereas we've taken offense at tmo's direct insults.

Also, while several of us have told tmo that his bigoted statements are offensive and suggested that he apologize, no one has attacked him physically nor has anyone suggested that it would be appropriate to do so.

[humblebum]

155. "his bigoted statements" and "perceived insult" - in light of the

topic being discussed, statements like those just become more ridiculous. Legal or not, words can be as offensive as any physical act. The parading atheists' stunt was designed to elicit a reaction. It worked.

[darkstar3]

156. As are your posts.

So if one of the people here whom you consistently try to piss off were ever to meet, and punch you squarely in the jaw for all of your attempts to elicit reaction here, would you simply say "it worked" and move on?

Of course you wouldn't.

But then we've already established that you're a hypocrite...

[humblebum]

157. So now you condone physical attacks, as well as bigoted speech. Just never ends.

Does it?

[NMMNG]

158. It's the theists here who are condoning physical attacks against atheists

Darkstar post described a "hypothetical situation". I'm not surprised it flew right over your head.

[humblebum]

159. Not at all. It's just that when a body walks around with a "Kick Me"

sign on their back, chances are that someone will indulge them. Without the sign, it probably wouldn't have happened. The degree of sympathy for the victim is diminished considerably, especially when he is knowingly verbally assaulting the sentiments of another. Bullies get smacked on occasion.

[laconicsax]

160. Of course you'd blame the victim.

Theocrats love to blame the victim by focusing on their appearance.

Women "ask" to be raped by wearing "provocative" clothing.
LGBTQers "ask" to be beaten by acting "provocatively" around homophobes.
Now according to you, atheists "ask" to be beaten by wearing "provocative" costumes.

Your attitude is quite telling, humblebum.

[darkstar3]

162. You can't possibly have posted this without a sense of irony.

[cleanhippie]

164. I'm tellling you, its no poe. Its real.

NO ONE can keep it going like this for so long.

[NMMNG]

165. Basically your position is it's OK to physically attack someone

if your little feelers are hurt. You've jumped through dozens of hoops and done as many backflips to pin the reactions of the attackers on those who were attacked, but the fact remains the same. You think it's perfectly acceptable for religious people to beat the shit out of anybody who dares to question or criticize religious dogma and/or beliefs. Meanwhile we're somehow the militants.




Maybe some anger management classes would be a good substitute for church services. If your response to criticism of opinions/beliefs is to commit assault and battery you belong in prison, not civilized society.

[humblebum]

169. And basically, I never even suggested such a thing. But I am equally repulsed by

the parading atheists. And yes they are militant.

[cleanhippie]

170. one-trick pony.

[NMMNG]

176. You've suggested it repeatedly on this thread alone

And if you're repulsed only by parading atheists and not by people like this, that just proves how much of a bigot you are.

[cleanhippie]

179. Don't forget hypocrite, too!

[NMMNG]

180. That's obvious to anybody with a modicum of intelligence

[cleanhippie]

185. I think we knew all along that was lacking.

[humblebum]

186. Attacker or no attacker, the parading atheists are clearly a bigoted group.

And trying to portray my and others opinions as condoning violence is nothing but one huge and obvious straw
man on your part.

[humblebum]

187. The Parading Atheists need to team up with these guys to

protect freedom of speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Trctc_fqU&feature=related

[cleanhippie]

189. Funny how allies can sometimes be found in the most unlikeliest of places.

Too bad your hatred of those that do not believe as you do blinds you to that fact.

[humblebum]

190. Just another straw man. nt

[cleanhippie]

192. Thank you for clearly demonstrating your ignorance on the subject...again.

[cleanhippie]

188. Thank you for clearly demonstarting the point.

Well done.

[cleanhippie]

163. You seem to only be convincing yourself with these twists, you know. No one buys it.

No one. Not a single person thinks that what you posted resembles anything even close to reality.





How sad.

[humblebum]

166. kinda like someone taking a swing at a Westboro Baptist funeral protester. nt

[cleanhippie]

167. Huh? Do you even know what you are talking about?

[humblebum]

168. In this case the two groups are quite similar:

They both are being intentionally offensive, and both are protected by the First Amendment. And yet both occasionally encounter resistance. It happens.

[cleanhippie]

171. And you would have one of those groups LOSE that constitutional protection.

And THAT is the problem.

[humblebum]

172. And again, you resort to dishonesty. Both use inciteful hate speech and

yet both are protected. i see no difference.

[cleanhippie]

173. Really? You WANT these non-believers to be able to continue to purposefully insult beliefs?

You want that right protected? Really?

[humblebum]

174. Yep. But, they have no right to demand nor expect to be respected

for their actions. Neo-nazis can march through Cicero, but welcoming them to do so is another thing entirely.

Let me put it another way. If the idea is to make atheism mainstream, then these guys are only digging the hole deeper.

[cleanhippie]

175. If that is what you think the "idea" is, then no wonder you post the things you do.

But I am glad that you agree that these actions should be protected. Nothing anyone says (or dresses like) deserves violence as a response. Ever.

[humblebum]

177. Such has been stated here on occasion and verbal abuse can also

be considered illegal in some cases. And if you support these atheists' actions, then you clearly need to labeled with them.

[cleanhippie]

178. You can label me as a proponent of free speech and expression.

Can we label you the same?

[humblebum]

181. I'll remember that the next time a student prays at a graduation ceremony. nt

[darkstar3]

182. False parallel.

That was an Endorsement issue, but you still refuse to recognize that.

[laconicsax]

183. He doesn't refuse.

Theocrats are flat-out unable to understand the difference. It's all the same to them.

[cleanhippie]

184. You do that.

[cleanhippie]

146. complain, complain, compli]ain, thats all you do.

When are you actually going to discuss anything?

[struggle4progress]

191. I think it's worth reviewing what we know so far and who is pushing this story.

The most informative source is the youtube cleanhippie posted upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=308664&mesg_id=308757

The poster writes there:

Uploaded by eperce on Oct 12, 2011
Oct 11 2011 in the Machanicsburg City Parade I was attacked by a violent muslim IN AMERICA! This is proof that muslims want Shria Law in America. He attacks me to pull my beard off so he could identify me and chokes me ...

So perhaps the complainant is Ernest Perce, assuming the following Examiner post is correct:
... A group known as “The Parading Atheists of Central PA” was recently denied entry into the Millersville Community Parade despite their participation in the previous year's parade and submitting an entry form before the stated deadline. Administrators of The Parading Atheists of Central PA, Carl Silverman and Ernest Perce, disagree with the decision ...
Atheist group denied entry into Millersville Community Parade
justin vacula
Scranton Atheism Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-scranton/atheist-group-denied-entry-into-millersville-community-parade

American Atheists currently lists Perce as its Pennsylvania director on this webpage:
http://web.me.com/viking7686/atheists.org_state/State_Directors.html

So we probably know one party involved here

But the video quality isn't really good enough to show anything. It's impossible to tell from the video what's happening or who's saying what or even how many people are involved, though apparently someone says "I gotta call the cops for you," someone shouts "He's attacking me," the videographer asks "What is going on?" and someone says "We're in America, dude. Freedom of speech." Between "I gotta call the cops for you" and the point at which the video claims the other party walks away, a total of perhaps 11 seconds elapses. The complainant afterwards apparently resumes parading down the street, continuing to shout that he is the prophet

The alleged attacker is not identified

I have been unable to locate a standard media account of the event; nor have I found the incident listed on the Upper Allen township police website, on the police blotter pages at the Cumberland Sentinel website, or on the topix page mapping recent Mechanicsburg crime. I'm not sure why that is: perhaps the officer remembered that Perce likes getting his name in the paper, found Perce didn't live in Mechanicsburg, and didn't think Perce was really assaulted; or maybe he thought he smelled alcohol. The name given for the Mechanicsburg officer who allegedly took the incident report does seem to match the name of a Mechanicsburg officer

The evidentiary material here is thus rather sparse, especially insofar as the most proximate witness audibly asks "What is going on?"

Since I could not verify the identity or religion of the alleged attacker, I have no real basis to reach any conclusion regarding the claim that the alleged event was religiously motivated

Assuming, arguendo, that someone actually did run from the parade crowd to grab the complainant, the question naturally arises, how the complainant knows that said person is Muslim or that said person wants "Shria Law in America"; such claim might suggest complainant knew other party prior; and the retort "I gotta call the cops for you," if it came from the other party, might suggest the two had some prior dispute unrelated to religion

Or perhaps the claim that the other party is Muslim and wants "Shria Law in America" is simple stereotyping: since the Pennsylvania nonbelievers website identifies http://www.panonbelievers.org/2010/05/31/photos-from-the-2010-memorial-day-parade-in-annville/">Former Charismatic Minister Rev. Ernest Perce, it is natural to suspect Perce has a rather conservative background, and my own experience suggests prejudice is not uncommon in central Pennsylvania. In any case, a number of rightwing sources are pushing the story: Jihad Watch is hoping to stir up the shizz: "Are we going to stand idly by while our traditions of tolerance are eroded away, for fear of incurring charges of "intolerance"? Atlas Shrugs says: "More Muslims taking the sharia in their own hands." And The Blaze also picks up the story

[cleanhippie]

193. While it would seem that this incident is a bit overblown in severety...

The subsequent responses have revealed just how massive the hypocrisy can be when dealing with "religion".

The bigger issue here is not the (alleged) attack, but the double standard we, as a country, seem to have when it comes to criticizing religious ideas. This thread speaks to THE problem we face. When we can move beyond this nonsense, when everyone can agree that ALL speech critical of an idea should NEVER be oppressed or met with violence, then and only then will we be able to start finding common ground. And not a minute sooner.

[humblebum]

194. What the parading atheists are doing is no different than

if their theme was meant to be a racial or ethnic slur against a specific group. It's not about the right to free speech. They already have that. People also have the right to shun that group, and to base their attitudes about that group upon what they have observed.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

197. I see an intentional religious slur equal to any racial slur and in

many venues, such as employment or rights to services such a distinction does exist. When you talk about blasphemy, that would be a much more inclusive and equivocal list of actions.

That is why I consider many organized atheist groups to be hate groups. And I think it would be safe to say that religious or anti-religious hatred and bigotry has been as responsible for as many or more human rights offenses than racial related incidents.

[cleanhippie]

198. Your ignorance and repetition are boring.

[humblebum]

199. As is yours. There is a whole lot of difference between

criticism of religion and trashing or ridiculing religion.

[cleanhippie]

200. Only to you.

Let me know when you have something new to say.

[struggle4progress]

196. Unsurprisingly, this long long thread revolves mainly around claims made without evidence, and

the original youtube video is posted with the remark: This is proof that muslims want Shria Law in America

Let us work backwards through the careless logic here

Stipulating, arguendo, that a Muslim man, religiously offended by a parading atheist's "zombie prophet" act, attacked the parading atheist in Mechanicsburg last week, the youtube poster's assertion (This is proof that muslims want sharia Law in America) does not follow by any standard mode of reasoning. The alleged event would not even prove the weaker claim The attacker wants sharia Law in America. Of course, it might be factually that The attacker wants sharia Law in America; but the claim is unsupported by logic; and, setting mere logic aside, the claim is also unsupported so far by any material evidence. The universal claim (muslims want sharia Law in America), that the youtube poster imagines he has proved by his video, is demonstrably false and actually shows only that the youtube poster has very limited exposure to or interest in the views of many Muslims; it qualifies as crude stereotyping and rather exposes the youtube poster as a bigot

Taking a step backwards, let us stipulate somewhat less: that a Muslim man attacked the parading atheist in Mechanicsburg last week, and let us ask instead what evidence has been provided that the act was religiously motivated. Nothing supports this conclusion, beyond the plausibility of the narrative: a Muslim man, religiously offended by a parading atheist's "zombie prophet" act, attacked parading atheists participating in the town Halloween parade with the intent to offend Muslims and Catholics, as an demonstration of their own free speech rights. But, in fact, if a Muslim man attacked an atheist participating in the town Halloween parade, the motive for that act could not be established rigorously, merely by establishing a plausible narrative: other explanations for the attack remain possible and might become convincing if further evidence were provided -- for example, the attacker and the attacked might be acquaintances with some prior history of personal dispute over some non-religious issue. Such possibilities are difficult to resolve here, because the attacker is never identified

Taking another step backwards, let us stipulate even less: that someone attacked the parading atheist in Mechanicsburg last week, and let us ask instead what evidence has been provided that the attacker was Muslim. One can speculate here: perhaps the attacked and atheist had some prior personal relationship? perhaps the atheist learned this by using his own astounding powers of extrasensory perception? However we speculate, no evidence is provided, again because the attacker is never identified. If it is plausible that an atheist parading as Mohammed in a town Halloween event was attacked because he religiously offended a Muslim, this plausibility does not support any rigorous logical deduction from the hypothesis an atheist parading as Mohammed in a town Halloween event was attacked to the conclusion the attacker was a Muslim. The only other supporting evidence I see for the assertion, that the attacker was a Muslim, is a claim made in the video that the attacker, after the attack, called a friend of his, whose name seems be Middle Eastern: this is thin gruel

Finally, let us stipulate nothing and ask simply: what evidence exists for the primary claim someone attacked a parading atheist at the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade? Here, we have a video, that is too sloppily produced to show anything, in which we can apparently hear the supposed videographer (presumably the most proximate witness) indicate that he has no idea what is happening. The video, of course, seems consistent with the claim a Muslim man, who wants to bring sharia law to America, was religiously offended by a atheist's "zombie prophet" act and attacked the parading atheist at the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade -- but mere consistency is not proof, and since one can really see nothing in the video, the bare video is equally consistent with other narratives