Judge orders man to climb Croagh Patrick

Swear to Ron?

"I met him on a Monday at the top of the hill
I do Ron, Ron, Ron, I do Ron, Ron ...."

Marietta said:

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

Click to expand...

You should organise a mass protest (pun intended). I'm hoping that you are having a laugh otherwise i just give up.

It's effectively a recommendation and not capable of being enforced - bit like the donation to the 'Court Poor Box'. Judge wants some indication that the culprit is sorry for their actions and is prepared to show they are will to make amends.

Personally I think having offenders climb a mountain is an excellent idea.

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.

Seamus hughes is a former FF TD for mayo....
So all the guards and the judges in Donegal
appear to be mayo people.

onq said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I wonder will the same solicitor who represented him this time do so again when he falls and breaks his ankle climbing Craoker?

I think we should congratulate him. I'm not religious myself and if I was punished with such, it would be punishment indeed. It's not meant to be nice! The jails are full enough.

Croagh Patrick is a fabulous climb and I reckon every Irish person should do it. Not with bare feet and not on Reek Sunday - its mayhem that day.

Latrade said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you mean formally complete the stations of the cross as in saying the relevant prayers and the benedictions? I don't have a problem with that request. Its not as if he was asked to do it more than once. Its not more onerous than requiring him to see a psychiatrist for an evaluation of his mental state or signing on at his garda station every day for six months.

And if you're taking up the cudgels on behalf of this "infringement on this mans rights" as it might be styled, haw do you know he isn't a devout catholic or a practising catholic or a lapsed catholic who might benefit morally from a return to traditional values - he could be a defrocked priest for all you know?

Far too much secular preciousness in this country for my liking and I would not be surprised to find some of it comes from the same "mé-féiners" who looked the other way when Mannix Flynn used to tell us about the excesses of the priest in the reform schools - I used to be one.

Its almost like there is some pathological fear of saying "I did a bad thing", as if from childhood we should all be self-justifying liars to ourselves - I endorse the judges sentence - let us all reflect on the right and wrong of this and their relativity and context - let's open up the moral debate again after so many decades of secular and corporate ass-covering - let's make doing wrong things against people a SIN again, and lets point the finger a sinners. Let's see phalanxes of them marching up and down Croagh Patrick so we can relax and see them their punishment in this life - in public, not shut up in a jail cell with their plasm screen tv and mobile phone allowing them to run their criminal empire.

I'd love to see the Anglo executives being made run up Croagh Patrick in their smalls in the middle of a November gale - but some wallflower might think that an "unfair" punishment.

Don't let's be naive about this Latrade. The law is founded in moral compass and that is what religions professes to inform us about. They are intrinsicaly linked. 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.

Given what's going on in the rest of the world it might be good for this to become a standard punishment, with every former prime minister coming here for a book signing forced to do the stations on Croagh Patrick beforehand - they'd be in good company.

ONQ.

onq said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

onq said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Latrade said:

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?

Click to expand...

+1 (if only there was a "round of applause" emoticon)

Latrade said:

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.

Click to expand...

I presume he assumed the guy was a Catholic since 98% of offenders in front of him are and similar numbers in our prison are Catholic too. Though what kind of Catholics they are in anyone's guess

It doesn't matter whether he was Catholic or not, a State appointed Judge should never impose a religious sentence!