Dad Won't Face Death In Daughter's Killing - Considered "HONOR KILLING"

Your comment is an epic fail... even if the death penalty is not sought, he is facing a murder conviction and life in prison just like the countless other murderers in this country... so apparantly he does have to follow "the rules".

Not really because if the judge and prosecutor buy this BS argument the case could get thrown because he did it for religious reason can't be guilty- stupid argument but no worse then others used to get murderers off by lawyers- at the least he should be prosecuted with the worry he could face the death penalty

Chef, did you actually read the article or are your comments reactions to the headline? Again, I refer you to #6.10

Unfortunately, it is WE who pay to keep him alive in prison. The Prosecution should simply pursue whatever sentence and/or charges that would be typical for ANYONE charged in a similar crime...period. Special circumstances will not cover a parental jihad against a daughter who chose to express HER Freedom Of Choice as an American. This is not only Murder, it has Political and Religious Overtones. As someone who kills a Doctor, because the Doctor practices abortion would still be a Murderer, so is this man. Religion, regardless of what it is, cannot be an excuse. It's high time things like this should be ended in a Free Society and those who chose to come here need to get used to it or chose not to come.

Doesn't this violate the separation of church and state doctrine?

Dr Rex Dexter 'DeX'-3.1- Yes we will pay for his time in prision. It's my understanding that the "cost" of keeping someone on "death row" is 2 or 3 times the cost of life (hopefully) without parole!

Yes, rockwater, it does. The state just gave consideration to a member one religion that it doesn't give to others.

Rockwater-1211171--

Didn't you know, Islam is protected.

Unfortunately, it is WE who pay to keep him alive in prison.

Maybe there will be someone in prison who thinks this is just sick and will "take care" of the problem. And maybe the guards will look away... THAT would be an "honor killing" in my book!

I hate to say it but I agree.

It's high time things like this should be ended in a Free Society and those who chose to come here need to get used to it or chose not to come.

Agreed. But maybe this society is a little bit too free. So free to where others feel free enough to kill and hide behind religion. I'm just saying.

SO the state will pay to keep him alive---in prison--for the rest of his life for killing his daughter and almost killing the woman with her.

It's cheaper than the death penalty in this country.

And worse punishment...after all, once you are dead, there is nothing. Life in prision, we KNOW will be hell on earth.

Carolyn Johansen, it sounds like you believe in Sharia Law. Thank goodness we live in the United States where justice is supposed to be applied fairly and not retributively. You're illustrating why the judge had to issue a rule to not consider this man's faith when determining his guilt or innocence. It's the judges job to make sure a jury can't decide someone's fate based on prejudice regarding the defendant's religion, skin color, sexual preference, etc. It was a high profile trial that had the community in general calling for this guy's head. Want to make sure there's no BS that overturns the guilty verdict later? The judge's statement works towards that end. Period.

Everybody knows the separation of church and state no longer applies to judges according to the judges themselves! They prove it over and over again!

I was with you the first time around and found it hard to comment without showing extreme amounts of anger towards this man and all those who supported him. I'm still angry that this man is breathing his daughters air.

34.5 years will probably equate to 7 years or even less "because he is Muslim". I think I'm going to go throw up in his name.

Hi Desert Rattler,

I missed this the first time around. Glad to see that he is getting at least some jail time, but if any have read any of my comments on the topic of murderers/rapist and especially those who commit premeditated murder, and anyone who runs down anybody and particularly their own child with a vehicle intended to kill them, and I do not care why he made that choice, he should be put to death.

he should be put to death

Which would make him a martyr to his religion and thus make him happy.

It would be FAR more punitive to turn him physically into a woman and then release him into a muslim country. Thus he could experience what he believes from the other side of the coin (plus he can forget his "72 virgins" in the afterlife.

Which would make him a martyr to his religion and thus make him happy.

What is important is what he is to God in spirit/soul, not to what he thinks which is all vanity of his flesh, once he is where God is that is more then enough to cause him to "forget his 72 vigins".

Which would make him a martyr to his religion and thus make him happy.

Then let him die a happy martyr. At least he won't be able to murder anyone else.

philipe, I agree. But would he agree to the charge? I don't know how he would answer. Would he agree with the term, murder? Did I explain that well?

it is ridiculous not to seek the death penalty cause of this reason but take at it this way, he will spend his time in a prison, it will not be a great life and knowing what he done he won't make many friends. I think being in prison for life is a better punishment than death, its not Toys R us store you know.

As far as forcing him to plea they cannot make any defendant do that.

It is not Toys-R-Us, but it it IS Teach-Jihad-and-Murder-to-Others. I "got away with it because of my religion" so can you.

no because if you kill them it all looks like a martyr. you put them in jail you treat them as a criminal. again ask someone who is a fundamentalist of a religion if they wish to die or sit in jail for the rest of their lives.

Good point.

[Tongue in cheek - with a firm eye on human rights] I say castrate the s.o.b. so he does not benefit from the afterlife adulty of 70 virgins.

Sigh. Why look up facts, huh? The reason he was not looking at the death penalty was because of an extradition deal with another country. He escaped the US and was captured overseas in a country that will not expedite a defendant who will be facing the death penalty. What choice did the state have? I think they did the right thing because the SOB sits in a prison cell now. I am satisfied he can't kill another innocent person and that was the state's job in the trial.

Lets see if this helps understand the so called Honor Killing (aka. Muslim family executions): There are several ways a Muslim can face no legal penalty under Islamic Law for killing. Under book O - Justice - section Those not subject to Retaliation o1.0 (4) "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring."

There is also no legal penalty under Islamic Law for killing apostates and non-Muslims (kufr).

So that means they have free licence to kill anybody they want with impunity that is non Muslim.

Yup, that the case. The same section o.1.0 (2)"a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim." (Kufr)

That's one of my issues with this, too. Screw women in favor of muslims, right? Hell no. How about if a woman decides to kill a muslim b/c to her muslims are dishonorable anti-feminists? Will she get this consideration? Probably not.

This is what Americas thinks of women.

Uh, what?

Uh, if this were a male on male crime do you think the perpetrator would be offered life over the death penalty?? I do not. Regardless of your position on the death penalty we have it and we can't use it in a case where a man ran over two young women?? please.

First of all Doc, there many American men on death row for killing women. It was his religion that promted the judge to forego the death penalty, not the fact the victim was a woman. I'm not sure what country you're from but this is NOT what Americans think of women.

Sorry, but if one woman is done an injustice, all are done an injustice. This is not some accidental death. And how is it that his religion comes in to play. Is the lawyer/ prosecutor implying that it is ok to kill your female relative if you are muslim? even though this is the US and it is illegal-period?

I know that there are many on death row for this, this person needs to join them.

Sorry, but if one woman is done an injustice, all are done an injustice.

By that standard if I respect one, I respect them all. Doesn't work that way. An isolated incident in no way reflects on what 'Americas' think of women. Again, this had nothing to do with the fact that she was a woman, only that he was muslim.

Also, I'm not sure what the this man's lawyer is implying. According to the article it was HIS lawyer, not the prosecutor, that requested this. It is his job to work in the interst of the defendant. That is the ugliness of criminal defense.

So while you and I may agree that this man deserves the death penalty, let's not make it something it isn't.

Actually his lawyer asked that the prosecutor not ask for the death penalty just because he is muslim. The Prosecutor should have laughed in his face- we do not kill muslims because they are muslims, but we do kill them when they kill their child.

Injustice as a cultural feeling is NOT the same as respecting all people in a culture/gender/race etc. BTW you should respect all women just as you should respect all men, transgenders and gay. Respect is the base line for all people.

Obama proved it is better to be a black man than a white woman in America. Apparently, it is also better to be a muslim murderer than a woman in America.

Actually his lawyer asked that the prosecutor not ask for the death penalty just because he is muslim.

The article doesn't say that. Here's what it stated...

Maricopa County prosecutors announced the decision Thursday in the case against 48-year-old Faleh Almaleki. His attorney asked a judge to take special precautions to ensure that prosecutors wouldn't seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim.

It doesn't say anything about his lawyer asking the prosecutor for anything,, he asked a judge.

Injustice as a cultural feeling is NOT the same as respecting all people in a culture/gender/race etc.

You made it the same when you implied that one isolated case reflected on the cultural tendencies of all Americans. You can't use you method to rationalize one thing and ignore it for another.

Obama proved it is better to be a black man than a white woman in America.

So if Hillary would have one it would have been proof it's better to be a white woman than a black man? I have news for you, there's only one winner in a Presidential election and just because a black man won it does not prove it's better to be a black man than a white woman. That is a completely irrational line of thought. It doesn't prove anything except that he won a presidential race.

I don't know where you are from but your views of American culture are skewed and your rationalization that any particular event defines the views of Americans in general is also severely flawed.

Whatever his lawyer asked THAT the prosecutor not seek the death penalty- that is exactly what I said. Restating it in some other way doesn't change that this atty apparently believes if you are muslim you should not be subjected to the same penalties that all other persons would be subject to.

It is obvious to most women that whatever your color it is better to be a man in this country. Your rationalizations not withstanding.

My views of American culture are fairly accurate, and don't change the issues in this case one iota. This isn't about me.

Awright, what I get on this so far is that it is not because he is a Muslim that the death-penalty is not being sought, rather that there is no reasonable expectation of a conviction with the death-penalty if, as stated in the article, there is even one Muslim on the jury. Surely we would not try a Baptist with a jury full of Catholics, would we? Therefore we must make sure the forms are followed: due process and a jury of his peers. I take this last to mean just what the judge did, that there be at leat one Muslim on said jury. To do otherwise gives the appearance of a "kangaroo kourt" with a lynching right after. Not the American way.

That being said, I find Almaliki's actions to be utterly reprehensible and falling far short of any true notion of honor. As much as I would like to see the bastard dance the "Danny Deever" at rope's end, justice would be better served if he spends the rest of his miserable life surrounded by truly violent and evil men. Especially as most of his fellow inmates will be members of avowedly "Christian" gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood and MS13. Ought to be quite an eye opener for him.

I understood the defense atty to be concerned that the client would get the penalty just because of his faith, and so asked the judge to intervene with the prosecutor.

It is true that it costs less to house an inmate for life because there are no automatic mandatory appeals.

doctorsteph

My views of American culture are fairly accurate, and don't change the issues in this case one iota. This isn't about me.

Actually your views are based on your own opinion. And they are not very accurate. Me being an American and being a man, I have to disagree with your views. I myself and many of my friends who are also men hold women in the highest regard. I think that father should get the electric chair and set it to slow cook! Any man who rapes a woman or molests a child should be castrated or hanged! Or both!

Sadly unfortunately I have the feeling he won't be thinking about what he did in the sense it was a crime to him. I think he will be too focused on his fact good old Western US America was corrupting his daughter away from Islam.

I think he thinks he is justified in what he did to his daughter.

As I said above, the bargain was unconstitutional on it's basis.

Unconstitutional? How? Please enumerate and show us which Articles, Sections, and/or Amendments are violated here, rockwater.

Equal protection has been extrapolated to be equal application, so that would be one.

The establishment clause has some application, since the government cannot consider religion in prosecution of a criminal defendant.

But this isn't federal yet, AZ will take care of his problems.

The establishment clause has some application, since the government cannot consider religion in prosecution of a criminal defendant.

Technically this is about sentencing, not prosecution. He is still being prosecuted for the crime.

The judiciary was asked by the defense to preclude prosecution under certain penalties- ie not asking for the death penalty- there is a different standard when trying for DP cases as opposed to life etc, so there may be some establishment issues.

This will breed hate towards Muslims in this country mark my words. I think the local Imam needs get involved..

Agreed - the vast majority of Muslims are moderate thinking who will recoil in horror at this mans actions and they need to state that the Judges opinion is not acceptable - otherwise it will open up a can of worms when those at the fringe of the right will use this as an excuse to bash Muslims yet again.

Soph 11.1 - Why is it so difficult for you to believe that this is their religion? Their laws are tied directly to their religion and they have some weird views on what is wrong and unlawful. Why do you think they have Sharia courts? Google it and you will find that Gr Br has set up separate Sharia courts for their Muslim citizens. And, Google and read up on Sharia banking. There are rules and practices under Sharia law for banking, and now banks (including U.S.) are accommodating Sharia practices or banking or whatever you want to call it.

I think that it is difficult for us to believe that this could happen because we don't live that way. We have separation of church and state, and do not allow religious beliefs to affect our laws. For example, wasn't the abortion doctor killer sentenced to death and not given any "special" treatment because he killed out of his religious beliefs?

I really don't understand this idea of wanting to believe everyone is good and not accepting that maybe the Muslim religion is a little screwed up. Where do you get the idea that the "vast majority of Muslims are moderate thinking"? What poll was taken? You will not hear anyone speak up - maybe a couple of your usual journalists who appear on TV or in print - but you won't see anything in those countries' papers. When 9/11 happened, we didn't see large groups rise up and condemn it. When this happened and was in the news (I believe there was another one somewhere else around the same time), we didn't see any large repudiation by Muslims.

No, what we see is repudiation by politically-correct citizens of our country who project THEIR belief system onto another religion. I suspect that if you talked to a majority of the citizens of these countries from where these people emigrate, they will say they follow Sharia law; they will not say they don't agree and he was wrong.

Just a .... #11 - I would venture to say that this guy probably sought out advice from his local Imam before he did this ....

Imam AKA religious nut job.

Not sure about the hate but if he gets off or gets anything less then life without parole (since the death penalty not being sought) will send message to others that they can get away with murder (or terrorism) as long as have a religious belief to hide behind. This is America just because something is legal in their home country doesn't make it legal here- if they love the rules at home so much why are they here in the first place

What trash? By what evidence do you presume that this person is not a 4th generation US citizen who just decided to have a point of view alien to the tenets of justice to which the rest of the country subscribes? I found noe in the article. Is he different that Timothy Mcvey? Charles Manson? Why? Because of his religion? OR is it because he is a "nut case" in our cultural view point? Many members of the IRA came here and did no harm. Many Muslims came here and did no harm. Many Russians, Germans, Japanese, Italians came here and did no harm. Many Russians, Germans, Japanese, and Italians came here and did harm. How does one determine who is "trash"? This has been going on since 1492. Don't try to blame Obama for what has occurred since 380 years before this country was born. This guy was probably here before Obama why not blame Bush, or Reagan, or maybe even King George III for letting this guy's ancestors onto the land?

I don't care how long this bastard was here. He should fry, just like McVeigh did. Why do you stick up for him?

I find it disturbing anyone would stick up for this guy.

Rockwater, 12.1 - Google the name and find earlier stories. I remember hearing about this in the news around when it happened because I think there was another one of these around the same time. They are not 4th generation. I remember wondering why they come over here if they don't want their kids to live like our kids and be like us? If you want them raised with your Muslim values and lifestyles, stay in the Middle East.

I mean, if I wanted my kids to be raised like Americans with American values, I am not going to move to Iran or a Muslim country then complain if they become like the people they are living amongst. It makes you wonder why he came over here .....

Rockwater - Also, I agree that there have been plenty of people who have come over here and not wanted to do us harm. But the people you are talking about are westernized countries, not countries with a religion that is tied into their laws like Sharia law is. And, the difference is that the people you recite did not want to do us harm, but unfortunately, Muslims do. Heck, just recently they uncovered some Muslims in the Army who were translators either planning or talking about poisoning the food at the base.

I know that everyone says how much the world hates us - we heard that enough from the anointed one. And we have had a religious group try to kill as many of us a possible on numerous occasions here and abroad for decades. Why is it so difficult to believe that there are Muslims who want to kill us?

actually, the attorney general for the state of Arizona should step in and make it right. This man is a murderer and he more than deserves to die. I think he should be left in the middle of the road and an 18 wheeler should run him down over and over again. Perhaps then he'll begin to understand the pain and agony he imposed on his own flesh and blood.

Poor kid...what a nightmare it must have been for her...and how scared she must have been...and what exactly was her crime????...she wanted to assimilate in American culture...I guess that's a crime in the Muslim world.

Sorry Peach, the attorney general has no authority to overrule a judge. While we may not agree with his decision, you'd have to find some legal grounds to remove him and doubt there is any. Death is not a manadory sentence so the judge is not obligated to to it.

Bonos_Rama et aux: I do not mean to "stick up for him". My comment was based as a response only to Jack Kinch's comment

It's yet another reason for never allowing that trash into the country.

It seem to paint a bigoted broad brush against a people. I agree, the individual is an ass who deserves what he gets. The worse the better. I have no sympathy for the guy, nor anyone of similar ilk who kills for the supposed honour of it or in response to a percieved slight to their "honour".

BLD:

Yes, there is NO excuse for coming over here (or us going over there[ wherever 'there' is] and expecting the foster country to change or ignore it's laws to accommodate the wants of an individual. To join the US a whole religion had to denounce polygamy and all cases of polygamy in this country are tried in court regardless of religious belief.

Not every muslim wants to harm us. There are many cases of christians and jews and such who have killed their children or others on some religious cause or another. They were tried, convicted and sentenced based on the rule of law - not given credence based on religion.

I gave an earlier comment saying

We don't execute the criminally insane.

This guy may well be insane (along with all who condone or practice 'honour killings'. Yes there are many muslins who want to kill us, just as there were many japanese and germans who did, but that does not mean they all do or did.

I can imagine the soul wrenching grief and fear the poor child went through when she saw the car and realized her own father was trying to kill her. The one she (I presume) loved, adored, and had trusted all her life (up to that moment). How sad. I shall grieve for her and similar victims the rest of my life.

One thought: Life in prison vs the death penalty - prison populations do not like people who molest or kill children. This guy will be prom queen for someone for the rest of his life. He will be "lucky" if he survives a month in the general prison population. I guarantee his "honour" will not be intact for long (36 hours?) before someone "takes him and makes him his 'wife'." This guy's life in prison will make him wish he got the death penalty. Plus we (the state) won't have made a martyr of him.

Yes, and your post brings me to a related idea. I'm tired of violent offenders going to jail and them demanding that the jail bend over backwards to accommodate their religion. If you are Catholic and you committed a violent crime like murder, you shouldn't get to dictate what you eat on Friday. If you are Muslim or Jewish, you don't get to dictate that your food will be kosher or that you won't be served pork. Buddhist? Eat meat, eat crap, or don't eat at all, for all I frigging care. You are in prison, not at the country club. Don't do the crime if you can't handle the consequences...

Agreed. This is BS. What stops a killer from claiming religion or any type of belief that they are justified in killing someone? Now the court system let's this go away, someone can get a lawyer and say, "Wait a minute. You guys let him off. What about my client?"

With a cellmate named Ben Dover?

Lol. That would work and certainty be cheaper then sitting on death row. Now that would save the tax payers money. Let the other inmates do the dirty work for us.

The whole religion is @!$%#ed up IMHO.

Oh, so the previous two comments are ok, but my, more generalized, version of the same comment is not? What gives?? If we say Islam is messed up, that is fine. But if we say all religion is the same, that is somehow different?

bld

totally agree! it's absolutely appalling

Maybe this will make people sit up and wake up and realize that maybe this religion is not so peaceful after all. That it is not the same as being a Catholic or Jew or Christian or Buddhist. Their laws are tied in very closely to their religion and it will never change.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, Prohibition (was based on theology), the once ubiquitous US laws against conducting non-emergency business on Sunday (the Christian sabbath), are just a few laws and acts of violence promulgated and condoned as a matter of (at the time perceived unending) religious right of the majority. The Pope was the Iman of the (what was considered at the time) civilized world. The wars and terrorism inflicted in Northern Ireland, the terrorism and murder practiced in Africa by Christians to this day (but NOT widely reported in this "Christian" country.

Throughout the Bible's old testament (which happens to also be the beginning of the Torah) there are commands to kill, rape, pillage. http://www.evilbible.com/

In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! Sounds rather muslim doesn't it? It is Judeao-Christian LAW.

The Quran is not the only violent religious text.

I do NOT condone the violence of ANY religion. It is true of the people of the various faiths have learned to forgo violence. Some religions have more, shall we say, "orthodox" adherents who continue to adamantly (insanely?) subscribe to the written commands to violence, intolerance, bigotry, and hate. This exists along side the (sane?) masses who prefer to follow the tenets of peace and harmony and reject those of blind hate. These masses are considered 'infidels' by the extremists of their religion.

I have known many pacifist, giving, caring muslims, jews, christians, atheists. I have known many dangerous and violent muslims, jews, christians, atheists. Tell me again, it is the religion, or is it the mind control visited upon the (weak?) mentally receptive by the EVIL spouting Hitlers, Maos, Stalins, Kim Jong-ils, KKK grand dragons, priests, clerics, Imans, religious fundamentalist zealots to further their own private agenda of world domination for a particular cause?

All that said - someone one required(?) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Too bad so many people forget, or have never been given this bit of advise.

Rockwater - Tell me, with all those examples you have cited, how many Christians or Catholics or Jews are killing their children because they don't want to practice the religion or believe the same way, thereby bringing dishonor to the family? How many religions stone people for adultery or kill them or punish them severely for premarital sex?

Premarital sex - Christian punishment:

Deuteronomy 22:21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 'A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be execute.

However ... to add to the confusion, for a man to take an unmarried woman to his lodging and have sex with er was to make her his wife.!?

In the words of the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia “ . . . marriage was a purely civil contract, not formalized by any religious ceremony.”

Adultery: Christian Punishment

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

JEWISH LAW RE PREMARITAL SEX:

from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/sex.html#Promiscuity#mce_temp_url#

Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbits a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry. It's just not there!

Nor is there any passage that requires a man to marry a woman after having consensual sexual relations with her. The passage forcing a man to marry the woman deals with rape (the man seizes her). It says nothing about consensual relations. Some say that consensual sexual relations create a common law marriage, which can only be dissolved through divorce, though the law on this point is not clear.

This is not to suggest that Judaism approves of pre-marital sex or promiscuity. Quite the contrary: traditional Judaism strongly condemns the irresponsibility of sex outside of marriage. It is considered to be improper and immoral, even though it is not technically a sin. In fact, to prevent such relations, Jewish law prohibits an unmarried, unrelated man and woman from being alone long enough to have sexual relations. But these laws come from the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, not from the Torah.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13 speaks with regard to killing of those who try to turn one away from the christian god, and those who succumb to the call to turn away.

As to actual modern day cases of murder under color of these "laws"? None that I could find, but that does not erase the Inquisition, the Crusades, and similar acts done in the name of religion. It would appear some cultures have advanced beyond the primitive, however, I would not be greatly surprised to learn that the powers that be have suppressed dissemination of news regarding such act. The laws still exist and as such the possibility of irrational fanaticism engendered by some power hungry, animal exists (see Hitler, Chavez, South American repression of rights due to catholic church intervention/power).

The rules are there, it is just a question of whether mind-control or genetic malfunction is the cause for modern day murder done in the name of some mythical religion.

17.5 - Yes, there are those examples but the point is - NO ONE DOES THAT TODAY.

A glowing example of what I was saying in 17.2 - thank you for stepping up and decrying the senselessness inflicted by a few. The christians and others should do the same when similar acts of mindless stupidity are done in the name of the various individual religions. It is sad that there was no global outcry, on the same scale, against the savagery of the catholics, the protestants, et aux, inflicted upon the varied innocents throughout time (past and present) in the name of religion. To focus only upon the travesties of a particular group and claim it the goal of all believers in a religion is a gross injustice - an act of ignorance. I, by the way, am a paper catholic. I, recognizing the fallacies and incongruities and inhumanities in many of "my" religion's teachings and law choose to ignore and repudiate those practices espousing violence for violence sake in the supposed name of god. As I once heard (paraphrasing), "God enjoys the variety on names and styles by which he is believed in. No one name suits Him , no one portrayal depicts Him. To believe is to believe, to think God creates but one style of worship is to claim the ability to limit God's power and deny Him the ability to grant diversity in name, style, and grace."

PAX

Well said Rockwater - unfortunately almost all religions seem to base their claims on factoring in that they are the ones chosen by God and all others are wrong- hence the "hatred" of each for others with almost all their effort based on converting everyone else to their thinking or killing them off if they do not- their are very few religions that are not run on the basis of convert or destroy all non- believers (one I know for sure but figure there may be some I do not know)There is nothing wrong in believing in one supreme being but insisting that that belief is the only way to see things is the cause of most of our wars through history- even religions supposedly based on love are not totally loving

Seal, then why don't all Muslims speak out? Where are the groups in the Middle East protesting the terrorists and Al Qaeda or these practices, etc.? May I ask you a question, and let me explain my question. Are you an American who has become Muslim or are you from a Middle-Eastern country? The reason is that I feel that thoe who have become a member of the Islam faith are different than those who were born into it in the Middle East. If you are a convert - or even born into it in this country - you may interpret the religion differently and in a more reasonable view than the others. In fact, I remember hearing recently on the news about an American turned Muslim who had wanted to join Al Qaeda to fight with them and they turned him away. I wish I could remember who it was. Anyway, it appears they even view converts differently that those born in the region.

BLD:

Seal, then why don't all Muslims speak out? Where are the groups in the Middle East protesting the terrorists and Al Qaeda or these practices, etc.?

Where were/are all the Catholics and Protestants who failed to decry the terrorism and murder carried out in Belfast and the surrounding burbs? There was no great world outcry. There was no offer to send troops to help end the bloodshed. The Aryan juggernaut went on free and strong without powerful world outcry for many a year. We "thoughtfully, caring Americans" would not react until one of OUR ships was sunk. In any race/religion/cause there is what is called the silent majority (pro or con). I agree though that it would be a world of good for the moderates to stand up and be counted - to help lead the fight against the violence and hatred. To do/say nothing gives tacit approval - even if the silence is based on indifference.

Rockwater, 22.4 - The problem with the Muslim religion in the Middle East is that they are all silent and their govts. continue to fund their madrasis (SP?) (the religious schools where they indoctrinate these kids).

Giving someone special consideration because of their religion is supposed to be unconsitutional, just as prosecuting them based on religion is unconstitutional.

Special consideration based upon religious beliefs is not unconstitutional, wrong maybe, but certainly not unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress had nothing to do with it and a judge has full authority to consider mitigating factors in the sentences he hands down to those convicted. Of course prosecuting someone based upon religious beliefs would be unconstitutional because that would mean there is a law 'respecting an establishment of religion'.

I'm as appauled as any that a judge would forego possible sentences based on religious beliefs in this instance but at the same time, I can't see any legal argument against it. The fact is the judge is under no legal obligation to hand down the death sentence.

It's not like our legal system doesn't give special considerations to religion. For instance, peyote is a controled substance, illegal for most of us but for certain religious purposes, is legal. One could write a book on how religion has been used as mitigating factors in our courts. I don't think it should be illegal and I do believe that a judge should have discretionary control in considering mitigating circumstances even though I disagree with his action here.

Well said, however, murder is murder, lest anyone can claim religious right based upon the tenets of the Bible, Torah, Quran, et aux for the killing of anyone of a different faith, regardless of the primal cause (I didn't like his t-shirt).

WAIT A MINUTE. How is it ok for him to kill for his religion, but it isn't ok to kill him because of his religion??

The lawyer is trying to use our collective guilt against us.

This lawyer is representing the interests of his client, and is bound by law to do so.

Judge should use mitigating factors when get to sentencing but not prejudge it before the facts are presented to the jury- in affect he has taken a step toward telling the jury it would be OK to let the slug go because he did it out of religious zeal (gee isn't that what the terrorists are saying) and why should there have to be a Muslim on the jury to be fare- do courts insure there is someone of the same religion as the defendant in every trial- NO so another point of favoring this murderer because he claims his religion made him do it

For those of you who say his religion is a mitigating factor, may I remind you of the recent case involving the abortion doctor killer? There were no calls for mitigation because he did it out of HIS religious beliefs? In fact, based on that case the press and social liberals were crucifying all Christians or anyone with religous beliefs. Sorry, religious beliefs are not a mitigating factor I remember learning about in criminal law.