| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2010 03:30:21 PM · #1651 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not be too hasty painting with a broad brush here. Pretty soon everybody gets all whipped up into this anti-religious fervor.
I finally got the link to work. The judge was obviously wrong in her statement, although there could have been plenty of reason to suspend the sentence anyway (first offense, etc). I speculate she could easily have been trying to appeal to the man's own sense of right and wrong to encourage him along the straight and narrow. In other words, her own decision had everything to do with the first offense part, but she talked like religion was a deciding factor in order to encourage the man to do his best. |
OK... let us assume that religions was at the forefront of the decision making process.
If indeed such was the case, would the fact that the individual lied to save his bacon not also be an issue of consideration. I can't speak for others, but in my upbringing and in my own family affairs, transgressions can readily be forgotten and forgiven, but lying and trying to justify actions are viewed with much greater disdain.
As for the issue of first offence, let us not forget that this schmuck broke someone's jaw... Sorry I don't buy it...the man got off with little more than a slap on the wrist and hopefully the victim can get "justice" via tort law.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 03:31:58 PM · #1652 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
An acquaintance stated that all morality HAD to be based on religion, and refused to understand that the exact same standards can be held without the use of religious texts. Then he wanted to say "well how do we hold people to a standard; how do we keep pedophiles from doing wrong?" |
Unfortunately, he's not the exception.
Atheists identified as America's most distrusted minority (2006)
Atheists move up a spot now only second from the bottom (2008)
Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 03:34:30 PM · #1653 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not be too hasty painting with a broad brush here. Pretty soon everybody gets all whipped up into this anti-religious fervor.
I finally got the link to work. The judge was obviously wrong in her statement, although there could have been plenty of reason to suspend the sentence anyway (first offense, etc). I speculate she could easily have been trying to appeal to the man's own sense of right and wrong to encourage him along the straight and narrow. In other words, her own decision had everything to do with the first offense part, but she talked like religion was a deciding factor in order to encourage the man to do his best. |
OK... let us assume that religions was at the forefront of the decision making process.
If indeed such was the case, would the fact that the individual lied to save his bacon not also be an issue of consideration. I can't speak for others, but in my upbringing and in my own family affairs, transgressions can readily be forgotten and forgiven, but lying and trying to justify actions are viewed with much greater disdain.
As for the issue of first offence, let us not forget that this schmuck broke someone's jaw... Sorry I don't buy it...the man got off with little more than a slap on the wrist and hopefully the victim can get "justice" via tort law.
Ray |
I don't know the details except what's printed in the article, and I do know that rarely tells the whole story. I'll just remain non-committal and point out that at least in the US our jails and prisons overfloweth.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2010 03:47:13 PM · #1654 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not be too hasty painting with a broad brush here. Pretty soon everybody gets all whipped up into this anti-religious fervor.
I finally got the link to work. The judge was obviously wrong in her statement, although there could have been plenty of reason to suspend the sentence anyway (first offense, etc). I speculate she could easily have been trying to appeal to the man's own sense of right and wrong to encourage him along the straight and narrow. In other words, her own decision had everything to do with the first offense part, but she talked like religion was a deciding factor in order to encourage the man to do his best. |
OK... let us assume that religions was at the forefront of the decision making process.
If indeed such was the case, would the fact that the individual lied to save his bacon not also be an issue of consideration. I can't speak for others, but in my upbringing and in my own family affairs, transgressions can readily be forgotten and forgiven, but lying and trying to justify actions are viewed with much greater disdain.
As for the issue of first offence, let us not forget that this schmuck broke someone's jaw... Sorry I don't buy it...the man got off with little more than a slap on the wrist and hopefully the victim can get "justice" via tort law.
Ray |
I don't know the details except what's printed in the article, and I do know that rarely tells the whole story. I'll just remain non-committal and point out that at least in the US our jails and prisons overfloweth. |
Similar arguments carried out here (i.e. the audio link). |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 03:50:36 PM · #1655 |
Seems to be tea leaves and anybody can see whatever backs up their worldview. Do we have anything from the judge about her actions and why she considered them reasonable?
|
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:15:07 PM · #1656 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Seems to be tea leaves and anybody can see whatever backs up their worldview. Do we have anything from the judge about her actions and why she considered them reasonable? |
Maybe you're right and the article doesn't fully state her reasoning but if the article quoted her correctly and that's all she said in the matter then it only has one interpretation and that is she's suspending the sentence because he's a religious person and hasn't been in trouble before. Her quote:
"I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour"
Message edited by author 2010-03-05 16:15:22. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:24:46 PM · #1657 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Seems to be tea leaves and anybody can see whatever backs up their worldview. Do we have anything from the judge about her actions and why she considered them reasonable? |
Huh? She clearly said it was because the guy was "religious", whatever that's supposed to mean. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:55:18 PM · #1658 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Seems to be tea leaves and anybody can see whatever backs up their worldview. Do we have anything from the judge about her actions and why she considered them reasonable? |
Huh? She clearly said it was because the guy was "religious", whatever that's supposed to mean. |
Richard was more correct. She said it was because he was religious AND it was his first offense. Like I speculated, could she really consider herself legally justified on the second grounds and was merely using the first to appeal to his own sense of right and wrong?
All the articles that take issue simply ignore the fact she also said it was because it was his first offense. Listen, you could be totally right. She may have let him go because he was religious and then I wouldn't condone such favortism, but it also could be wrong. We're not working with enough information.
Message edited by author 2010-03-05 16:56:21.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:59:29 PM · #1659 |
Look, the judge gave the guy 200 hours of community service, a 200-pound fine, and suspended sentence. The guy had no history of wrongdoing, it was a first offense. In America, you're almost guaranteed to walk in that situation, and I doubt Britain's much different. So the only problem we have here is that the woman put her mouth in gear without thinking it through; that's my take on it. She was trying to appeal to his moral compass by tying it into his religion, which I think is, on the whole, a reasonable approach to take with someone like this, if you want to effect a change in his behavior.
It's inconceivable to me that the woman is actually going around thinking to herself "OK, this one's an atheist, off with his head! That one believes in God, he can go!" That's ridiculous. It's much more likely she made a verbal faux pas and she's going to regret it for the rest of her life. The response I'm seeing is absolutely vicious.
Sheesh...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-03-06 01:20:19. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 05:03:53 PM · #1660 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's inconceivable to me that the woman is actually going around thinking to herself "OK, this one's an atheist, off with his head! That one believes in God, he can go!" |
Who said that?
Double sheesh. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 05:20:50 PM · #1661 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's inconceivable to me that the woman is actually going around thinking to herself "OK, this one's an atheist, off with his head! That one believes in God, he can go!" |
Who said that?
Double sheesh. |
Huh? Isn't the assumption behind all the articles that if he were not Muslim that he would have gotten a heavier punishment? If that's not the assumption, what is?
|
|
|
|
03/05/2010 07:34:48 PM · #1662 |
BTW, Stanley Fish, the law professor who wrote the Opinion that I liked above has a blog which I found to be very entertaining. He writes about all sorts of things and only one or two have to do with religion (in case you worried it was going to be all that). Just thought I'd pass it on.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2010 12:55:59 AM · #1663 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, the judge gave the guy 200 hours of community service, a 200-pound fine, and suspended sentence. The guy had no history of wrongdoing, it was a first offense. In America, you're almost guaranteed to walk in that situation, and I doubt Britain's much different. So the only problem we have her is that the woman put her mouth in gear without thinking it through; that's my take on it. [b]She was trying to appeal to his moral compass by tying it into his religion,[/b] which I think is, on the whole, a reasonable approach to take with someone like this, if you want to effect a change in his behavior.
It's inconceivable to me that the woman is actually going around thinking to herself "OK, this one's an atheist, off with his head! That one believes in God, he can go!" That's ridiculous. It's much more likely she made a verbal faux pas and she's going to regret it for the rest of her life. The response I'm seeing is absolutely vicious.
Sheesh...
R. |
Indeed... and considering that the man lied in an attempt to justify his actions it could be argued that his "moral compass" as askew and not really worthy of the consideration given it by the judge.
Sometimes when one makes a faux pas, one has to scrape it off their shoes. :O)
At least that's my take on it.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-06 00:56:53. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 01:19:17 AM · #1664 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Indeed... and considering that the man lied in an attempt to justify his actions it could be argued that his "moral compass" as askew and not really worthy of the consideration given it by the judge.
Sometimes when one makes a faux pas, one has to scrape it off their shoes. :O)
At least that's my take on it.
Ray |
Oh, I quite agree. Her mouth is full of foot for sure. I just don't think it's this huge "civil rights" issue or whatever it is these people are trying to make it out to be. I am just flabbergasted at how contentious and litigious we have all become. I liked the world I grew up in a lot better, said the old man plaintively.
R. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:50:36 PM · #1665 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Indeed... and considering that the man lied in an attempt to justify his actions it could be argued that his "moral compass" as askew and not really worthy of the consideration given it by the judge.
Sometimes when one makes a faux pas, one has to scrape it off their shoes. :O)
At least that's my take on it.
Ray |
Oh, I quite agree. Her mouth is full of foot for sure. I just don't think it's this huge "civil rights" issue or whatever it is these people are trying to make it out to be. I am just flabbergasted at how contentious and litigious we have all become. I liked the world I grew up in a lot better, said the old man plaintively.
R. |
I quite agree with your comments on how contentious and litigious we have all become and I too long for days gone by.
However, I would add that the learned judge ought to have known that a comment of this nature would, in all likelihood" be closely scrutinized and analyzed to the nth degree.
In this instance, she was the author of her own misfortune. In the present case I am reminded of the following quote:
“â€Â¦ it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"
The sad fact is that to some, her comments might have skewed this perception and that is possibly what gave rise to this hue and cry.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:07:16 PM · #1666 |
Thought people might be interested in this interview/discussion with Francis Collins.
Originally posted by Program Summary:
We speak with National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, a physician and scientist who was previously head of the Human Genome Project. Also a born-again Christian, we'll speak with him about the interface between science and faith, and about his aspirations for the NIH.
Guests:
* Francis Collins, director, National Institutes of Health and author of "The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine;" winner of the 2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contributions to genetic research; co-discoverer of the cystic fibrosis gene. |
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 03:59:53 PM · #1667 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, the judge gave the guy 200 hours of community service, a 200-pound fine, and suspended sentence. The guy had no history of wrongdoing, it was a first offense. In America, you're almost guaranteed to walk in that situation, and I doubt Britain's much different. So the only problem we have here is that the woman put her mouth in gear without thinking it through; that's my take on it. She was trying to appeal to his moral compass by tying it into his religion, which I think is, on the whole, a reasonable approach to take with someone like this, if you want to effect a change in his behavior.
It's inconceivable to me that the woman is actually going around thinking to herself "OK, this one's an atheist, off with his head! That one believes in God, he can go!" That's ridiculous. It's much more likely she made a verbal faux pas and she's going to regret it for the rest of her life. The response I'm seeing is absolutely vicious.
Sheesh...
R. |
Out of interest, would you have the same response if a judge took into account another factor in sentencing that would ordinarily be regarded as irrelevant like social class, sex or race?
"I see you are a white, upper-middle class male and so I know that when you attacked another person and broke their jaw that you were acting out of character..."
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 07:10:31 PM · #1668 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Out of interest, would you have the same response if a judge took into account another factor in sentencing that would ordinarily be regarded as irrelevant like social class, sex or race?
"I see you are a white, upper-middle class male and so I know that when you attacked another person and broke their jaw that you were acting out of character..." |
I think this analogy misses the point. There is no appeal to being a white, upper-middle class male because that's a very heterogeneous group (as far as moral belief goes). The judge may have been saying, "look, I know you just got back from prayers before you had this incident so I will assume you value the precepts of your faith. Those very precepts tell you what you did was wrong. So knock it off! I'm letting you go because this was your first incident." |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 07:34:29 PM · #1669 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Out of interest, would you have the same response if a judge took into account another factor in sentencing that would ordinarily be regarded as irrelevant like social class, sex or race?
"I see you are a white, upper-middle class male and so I know that when you attacked another person and broke their jaw that you were acting out of character..." |
I think this analogy misses the point. There is no appeal to being a white, upper-middle class male because that's a very heterogeneous group (as far as moral belief goes). The judge may have been saying, "look, I know you just got back from prayers before you had this incident so I will assume you value the precepts of your faith. Those very precepts tell you what you did was wrong. So knock it off! I'm letting you go because this was your first incident." |
I beg to differ Doc... the analogy is right on the mark, at least from my perspective.
Had the judge made any reference to these factors, a whole bevy of people probably would have taken issue with her comments, and justifiably so.
As for valuing the precepts of his faith, considering that he lied in the first instance and said his was an act of self defence, it would seem not all factors in his faith warrant the same level of adherence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:01:16 PM · #1670 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think this analogy misses the point. There is no appeal to being a white, upper-middle class male because that's a very heterogeneous group (as far as moral belief goes). The judge may have been saying, "look, I know you just got back from prayers before you had this incident so I will assume you value the precepts of your faith. Those very precepts tell you what you did was wrong. So knock it off! I'm letting you go because this was your first incident." |
Hardly! The upper middle classes do not proportioanlly form a large part of the prison population - one could easily form the impression that they are not the "type" who commit imprisonable offences.
"look, I know from your accent that your parents would have taught you right from wrong. Those very precepts tell you what you did was wrong. So knock it off! I'm letting you go because this was your first incident."
[NB I think that it is more useful to consider the principle at stake than the specific case - about which we have far too little information to make any sensible comment]
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:14:29 PM · #1671 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think this analogy misses the point. There is no appeal to being a white, upper-middle class male because that's a very heterogeneous group (as far as moral belief goes). The judge may have been saying, "look, I know you just got back from prayers before you had this incident so I will assume you value the precepts of your faith. Those very precepts tell you what you did was wrong. So knock it off! I'm letting you go because this was your first incident." |
Hardly! The upper middle classes do not proportioanlly form a large part of the prison population - one could easily form the impression that they are not the "type" who commit imprisonable offences.
"look, I know from your accent that your parents would have taught you right from wrong. Those very precepts tell you what you did was wrong. So knock it off! I'm letting you go because this was your first incident."
[NB I think that it is more useful to consider the principle at stake than the specific case - about which we have far too little information to make any sensible comment] |
Had the bit been an actual appeal (we don't know that of course), and she had appealed to his humanity, would that have flown with you? If so, then it's no different.
Either it was favortism, in which case it was wrong, or it was an appeal to a better nature, in which case it doesn't matter what she invoked as long as it got the job done.
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 22:14:51. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:29:35 PM · #1672 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Either it was favortism, in which case it was wrong, or it was an appeal to a better nature, in which case it doesn't matter what she invoked as long as it got the job done. |
... but you see Doc, it does matter as it implies that because of religious beliefs this person is more worthy of judicial leniency...that is the problem.
As far as getting the job done, I guess I would have to get a full grasp at exactly what you mean by that.
The learned judge's intention might have been good, but her comments most certainly have cast a pall of suspicion on the decision rendering process in this instance.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:35:34 PM · #1673 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Either it was favortism, in which case it was wrong, or it was an appeal to a better nature, in which case it doesn't matter what she invoked as long as it got the job done. |
... but you see Doc, it does matter as it implies that because of religious beliefs this person is more worthy of judicial leniency...that is the problem.
As far as getting the job done, I guess I would have to get a full grasp at exactly what you mean by that.
The learned judge's intention might have been good, but her comments most certainly have cast a pall of suspicion on the decision rendering process in this instance.
Ray |
naw, I think it's just people searching to stamp out religion in the public sphere at all costs. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:43:01 PM · #1674 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Either it was favortism, in which case it was wrong, or it was an appeal to a better nature, in which case it doesn't matter what she invoked as long as it got the job done. |
... but you see Doc, it does matter as it implies that because of religious beliefs this person is more worthy of judicial leniency...that is the problem.
As far as getting the job done, I guess I would have to get a full grasp at exactly what you mean by that.
The learned judge's intention might have been good, but her comments most certainly have cast a pall of suspicion on the decision rendering process in this instance.
Ray |
naw, I think it's just people searching to stamp out religion in the public sphere at all costs. |
Not me...the results would have been the same even if she had used some other qualifiers... like white, educated, heterosexual...take your pick.
Does that mean that soon there will be no "In God we Trust" on your money or is that already gone. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:57:52 PM · #1675 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Either it was favortism, in which case it was wrong, or it was an appeal to a better nature, in which case it doesn't matter what she invoked as long as it got the job done. |
... but you see Doc, it does matter as it implies that because of religious beliefs this person is more worthy of judicial leniency...that is the problem.
As far as getting the job done, I guess I would have to get a full grasp at exactly what you mean by that.
The learned judge's intention might have been good, but her comments most certainly have cast a pall of suspicion on the decision rendering process in this instance.
Ray |
naw, I think it's just people searching to stamp out religion in the public sphere at all costs. |
Not me...the results would have been the same even if she had used some other qualifiers... like white, educated, heterosexual...take your pick.
Does that mean that soon there will be no "In God we Trust" on your money or is that already gone. :O)
Ray |
The link seems to not be working for me again, but I'll put my money where my mouth is. What was the name of the organization raising Cain? I'm guessing if they have a wiki we will see a history of controversy a la PETA. The goal is merely to raise their profile by making outlandish claims, etc etc etc. This preaches to the choir who give them more money to continue their crusade (and I use that in the fully religious sense without irony).
What do we know about this judge? Does she have a history or pattern of such abuse? or did she choose to show her colors for the first time, not with someone of her own sect, but with a Muslim? I know we may all look the same to you, but religion is not somehow joined in its conspiracy against atheism.
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 22:58:44. |
|
