Hi dereko1969,
I was shocked when I read this in the paper this morning, it was like going back to the 50's and the utter domination of the Catholic Church. I think it is a gross violation of human rights, I rather go to jail than be forced into complying with a religion I don't believe in. Surely this is a case for the European Court
I note the Judge didn't require the defendant to be a Christian adopt the Christian religion, or indeed to profess or confess to any religion and he suggested he might say a few prayers, without stating to whom these should be addressed.
Most people believe in something they can pray to, even avowed atheists [their bank manager, perhaps] or Buddhists [their overself?] so all I see on this thread are a collection PC's getting their knickers in a twist because they are jumping at conclusions - read the judgement again, is my advice.
A walk up Croagh Patrick is good for one's outlook, regardless of creed or beliefs.
Its a mark of how far Ireland has come that we don't have RW religious fascists on this board wanting to prevent all atheists/protestants/jews/muslims/people from differnet faiths from going up Croagh Patrick because its "catholic".
We are an open, inclusive society, and we will allow convicted crimnials to go up Croagh Patrick if it'll do them some good.
After all, they'll need it more than the enlightened PC's who'll righteously complain about it.
ONQ.
You're kind of missing the point. Most agree the inventive punishment was good, but the judge instructed the guy to complete the stations. A specific instuction to complete a Catholic ritual and to not only do them, but come back in a month and prove he did them. So it's not just a point of reflection, the guy has to complete the ritual and prove he did so.
So climbing Croagh = good idea. Completing stations = going too far and beyond the court's remit. And that's it. This isn't Iran or any other theocrasy, he could have said climb it, reflect on what you've done and that'd be the end of it.
Don't let's be naive about this Latrade. The law is founded in moral compass and that is what religious professes to inform us about. They are intrinsicaly linked. Separating church and state was just another means for politicos to accret power to themselves without being answerable to any representative of the electorate between elections. This is about freedome of politicians to act without censurem rather than freedom of individual members of the electorate to act, or be punished.
ONQ.
Sorry, but this is rubbish. There are many, many good reasons to seperate church and state. The Church doesn't have a monopoly on morality.Separating church and state was just another means for politicos to accrete power to themselves without being answerable to any representative of the electorate between elections.
I'm not taking up any cudgel, so get off that high horse. Before you get too hot under the collar and create too many straw men read again what's been said. We like the idea of the punishment, it's the specific court instruction that he must complete a specific catholic ritual that makes me uncomfortable. Not outraged, not vexed, uncomfortable.
I'm not comfortable with a court giving a specific punishment based on any religion. Full stop.
You're right the law is founded on a moral compass, but religion doesn't have the copyright on morals. The Pope may say it does, but it doesn't. civilisation is older than the bible, in order to be civilised there has always been morals and ethics. So no, there isn't any intrinsic link just because some books wrote down what was already considered crimes for millennia.
But that wasn't the issue or the complaint and shouldn't be used to muddy the waters.
It isn't PC rubbish to be uncomfortable with a court punishing someone with a religious ritual. He may be a devout catholic (though christian morality to his Mayo brethren seemed to have failed him with the incident), so what? does that mean if he were muslim he'd have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Does that mean if he was an atheist he'd be imprisoned?
You're kind of missing the point. Most agree the inventive punishment was good, but the judge instructed the guy to complete the stations. A specific instuction to complete a Catholic ritual and to not only do them, but come back in a month and prove he did them. So it's not just a point of reflection, the guy has to complete the ritual and prove he did so.
So climbing Croagh = good idea. Completing stations = going too far and beyond the court's remit. And that's it. This isn't Iran or any other theocrasy, he could have said climb it, reflect on what you've done and that'd be the end of it.