Forum:Why atheists need to speak up

Why atheists need to speak up
This sort of shit makes me embarassed to be a scouser. 09:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of the complaints voiced in "The God Delusion" - that somehow religious beliefs trump rationality. However, as Cherie Blair is a known fruit-loop this is the sort of thing we have come to expect from her. Bob Soles (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard about that and I agree, if she let him off because of his faith that is wrong. However, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, could it perhaps be that she knew the accused was sorry for his actions, was unlikely to commit another crime, and would have been lenient no matter what his religious views? She just happened to attribute his humility to his religion in this case. --Seantalk 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If she let him go on that basis, she probably would've made it clear to try and avoid the backlash from secularists. That's a load of shit anyway, he should be made to serve his sentence, and it is discrimination, as it's making a decision based on his religious belief. 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A moment of sheer joy was when I was able to tell a vicar that being a vicar was not enough to relieve him of his legal obligation to get copies of wills authorized by a solicitor. He got quite stroppy about the fact that the banking organisation I work for would not accept his word as 'a man of god'. Bob Soles (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, religion counts for less and less in England today. Soon our evil atheist conspiracy to make it into a secular society will come to fruition and all we will have rapes, robberies and abortions until the sun goes down. 11:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You realise I agree with you, I'm just trying to find some kind of justification for her actions. Probably not a good idea. --Seantalk 11:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with her excuse that he's a first time offender (indeed, that seems to be the common practice that first time offenders get probation or suspended sentences). At least this isn't as common as it is elsewhere, I mean, in the US, you're more likely to get out of Death Row by converting to Born Again Christianity than being, you know, innocent. 14:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, if she had stuck to saying that she was letting him off because it was a first offense then it wouldn't have been an issue. She bought up the fact he was religeous twice. 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of Cherie, but her remarks here were addressed directly to the offender. So she needed to pick her words so as to make him as unlikely as possible to reoffend. Obviously the fact that he is religious is important to him, so it seems to me it was relevant and well worth mentioning. The National Secular Society has far better things it could be doing, surely - or it would do if it wasn't run by a bunch of attention-seeking loudmouths who are always doing stuff like this to get in the papers.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering how unlikely it is for an atheist to end up in jail, we should be the ones given clemency. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. As soon as a demographic pattern emerges, the authorities should immediately adjust their prejudices in order to entrench it as much as possible.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "So she needed to pick her words so as to make him as unlikely as possible to reoffend."? No she didn't. Judges aren't social workers. They're there to enforce the law. Old postbox mouth is a disgrace and should be censured for her comments/actions. 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. She did enforce the law - everyone here seems to agree that it's not uncommon to be let off after a first offence. But our legal system does give the judge the opportunity to comment briefly on the case, eg to pronounce sternly on their lack of remorse or, as in this case, to tell them to try and do better next time.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking further. If the guy was so religious that he had extra reason to know it was wrong then he should surely have been given a greater punishment for being even wronger than a non-religious person.  15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would have been actual discrimination (that is, allowing the issue of religion to influence the outcome of the case as opposed to making a chance remark that gets jumped on by some professionally indignant rent-a-quote).--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Did you actually read the article - allowing the issue of religion to influence the outcome of the case is exactly what Cherie Blair did. Bob Soles (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)So what you're saying, leetspeekname, is that if she'd taken the stance "You're Christian which means you should have known better so I'm going to make you serve your sentence," it's discrimination; but "You're a Christian so I'm giving you another chance," is okay. Amiright? 15:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, replace Christian with any religion. I should have picked up on that while I was writing it, but it's three in the morning, goddammit. 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I said. Toast said that because he was religious, he should have a harsher punishment. That would obviously be discrimination.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See this twat! 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And a comment on the above idiot. 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If religion can positively influence the outcome, it's no stretch of the imagination that atheism can negatively influence it. That's why this is important. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it isn't important. It's just the NSS, which seems to exist solely to get in the papers, looking for some free publicity on the back of the nation's justified hatred of Cherie.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still haven't the faintest clue of your rationale for the preferential treatment of religious people. I'm calling troll on this one. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify then: I seriously doubt that she genuinely let him off because he was religious. No one has disputed that a suspended sentence for a first offence is perfectly commonplace, religious or not. Cherie simply happened to mention religion when stating her decision, which then got jumped on by some lobbyists looking for media coverage. It seems obvious to me.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ms Booth...said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief." Read that back to me. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that (Cherie simply happened to mention religion) is true then she is unfit for her position. 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neveruse, that's just how it's been spun. I'm sure everyone here regards the Daily Mail with the contempt it deserves, but it's amazing to see how Mail-style tactics work on you when they play up to your prejudices and fears. "Theists allowed to escape jail by unfit judge" is simply a scare story on a par with "Free houses for illegal asylum seekers".--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Barring argument from incredulity, would you admit that if it were true that "Ms Booth...said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief" that something was wrong? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but surely an intelligent internet forum person like yourself can tell a quote that has been taken out of context and distorted from an actual abuse of judicial power. I suppose we will have to disagree on which it is until the Office of Judicial Complaints makes its judgement. Or are they run by a theistic mafia as well?--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An intellectually honest person like yourself can tell a quote that has not been taken out of context, even if you wish it was. You're bordering on apologia. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * She's in a position where such pronouncements should be totally taboo. Talking off the top of the head at a cocktail party is OK; from a judges bench is not'.  16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

“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 caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.” How is that "out of context? Come on, CR, you know that's not acceptable. 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's carelessly worded, but it's clear to me she's just saying he's convinced her he's a generally moral person whose actions were out of character. So to take it to mean "lucky you're not an atheist, mate, or you'd be off down the nick" is a wilful misinterpretation on the part of the NSS, and a witless misinterpretation on the part of you.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Based on the fact ...". Crap. 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is brilliant. The NSS practically admit themselves that the story is rubbish on the front page of their own website, by giving it the headline "Has Mrs Blair been practising 'Cheria law'?". You don't have to get the Daily Mail every day to know that when a headline is in the form of a question, the answer is always no.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The implication is clear - she believes that those of a religious bent are de-facto 'better' people. However much you try to spin it - that's what she implies. Silver Sloth (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CR: so wrong, you're not even in the same book as wrong, never mind the same page. Just admit it. 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I get what CR is saying, I was also trying (and failing) to suggest the same thing, and again, only trying to understand the other side of the argument (please don't shout, flame, call troll, etc). But you are right, at best Cherie Blair chose poor wording, at worst she is letting her own faith influence her judgement. --Seantalk 17:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the only excusable thing is that unfortunately a lot of people equation "religiosity" with "good morals". Therefore she may have just slipped that one in without necessarily meaning that she did it because he was religious. So, "devils advocate" part gone, that still leaves the issue that wider society find it perfectly acceptable to substitute the term "moral" with "religious". And it also leaves the very clear fact that pleading religion lets you get away with a lot more stuff than pleading anything else. Having gone through some teaching training last year there's a lot of things that you need to be "tolerant" of regarding religious folk. If an undergrad comes into the lab and are tired and ill because of religious fasting, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt and help them and be all nicey nice (not say what I'd like to say which is "no one held a gun to your head and forced you not to eat. Now get out as you're becoming a danger to everyone around you"). If they come in tired and ill for any other reason (however legit) then I'd have to boot them out (where I am allowed to say what I'd like to). 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleading religion may get allowance like the example you mention Armkv, because things like fasting or not working certain days have a religious basis. Punching a guy in the face does not have a religious basis, & the perpetrator is no less guilty by being religious.  His personal faith is probably no more relevant to the incident than his race or sexual orientation.  (I say probably, because we're going on very little solid information about the case here).  Either way, it was extremely irresponsible of Cherie to say or imply that he was let off because of his religion, even if this wasn't the real reason for the decision, & this puts out the message that offenders can just plead religion & get a soft sentence.   18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That punching people in the face doesn't have its origins in a religious belief is fairly obvious. But who seems to define what a religious practice is today, when you get "native americans" (who are really just aging hippies that tried desparately to find some sort of link in their family tree) who are allowed to get smacked off their tits on otherwise illegal drugs for religious purposes. Whether the action in question is of genuine religious origin or a complete non sequitur to it is irrelevant when the double standard is quite clear. 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just athiests, but Christians and other faiths. The idea that a Christian should get a lesser sentance is an insult even to some Christian sects. If she had said, you have not been in trouble before, and several people have spoken on your good character, so the court will suspend your sentance, subject to continued good conduct there would be no debate. Hamster (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Srsly, ppl
There's nothing in this case to warrant a custodial sentence. He can actually count himself unlucky not to have received a Community Order. Don't make me bring out the sentencing guidelines for ABH. --Robledo (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one's saying there is: it's her words that are the cause of the discussion. If she'd said "moral" instead of "religious", it'd have been OK. 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I'd have probably approved of him - queue jumping is a crime deserving of time in gaol. 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the conflation of morality with religiosity. If she had said "moral", she still would have meant "religious". An atheist would be still be unable to receive the preferential treatment. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't agreee, Nu. It's the words, not their (assumed) intent that are the bone of contention. You can't say that a person equates moral and religious.  20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any preferential treatment. She was pretty much duty bound to hand down a non-custodial sentence because of the guilty plea + lack of previous convictions. --Robledo (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How was she able to determine that he was a moral person? Because he had not been convicted of any crimes? That's a bit of a non-sequitur, so I doubt it. She concluded that he was moral based on his religiosity. How would she have determined an atheist was a moral person? I bet she wouldn't.
 * Are you guys arguing that morality has been conflated with law-abiding? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Robledo: no-one's saying she gave any preferential treatment - it's her words.
 * @Nu - you're probably right. 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're probably right that if she'd had said "moral" we wouldn't be having this conversation. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Toast: So you agree that the fact that she believed he was religious had no bearing on her sentencing? --Robledo (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying she shouldn't have said it. Her beliefs obviously have bearing on her sentencing. 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Why shouldn't she have said it? I ask because at the moment it seems as though the only substantive reason offered is that you (and others) don't like it. --Robledo (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's not, or shouldn't be, a valid reason for influencing a verdict. Holding it as a personal belief shouldn't affect the verdict although judges are people and their beliefs are obviously going to affect their verdicts. Saying it does offend me and many others and has no part in any legal pronouncement. 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

<-- That's still "I don't like it". Let's try this: if you were a judge, and a defendant offered up their piety in mitigation, you would presumably wish to be at liberty to disregard that as germane. You would assess their character in relation to the case accordingly, and would expect to be able to give your honest reasoning in passing sentence without being pilloried by religious zealots. You see where this is going, right? --Robledo (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not what she did it's what she fucking said. No-one's arguing that the sentence is wrong (I don't think they are anyway) but she shouldn't bring religion in to the matter. 05:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You didn't see where that was going at all, did you? LTT (slight return):


 * If the sentences thus derived are fair and in accordance with the sentencing guidelines, then
 * An atheist judge has the right to disregard mitigating pleas of piety - and to say so in their reasoning when passing sentence - and
 * A theist judge has the right to consider mitigating pleas of piety - and to say so in their reasoning when passing sentence.


 * I assume you'd agree to 1 + 2. I'd like some reasoned arguments why 1 + 2 is fine, but 1, 2 + 3 isn't, plz. If you're happy to say that you haven't any, and are simply offended by 3, then I'm happy to leave it at that. --Robledo (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree 1; 2 is a nonsense (any judge has the right: not only an atheist one); 3: Again any judge has the right to consider anything, but piety should not be overtly referred to, eg: "You are a devout Muslim & therefore inclined to terrorism & therefore I increase the sentence". 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ack. You're right on 2: it should read "....sincere mitigating pleas of piety" or summat similar. I'm trying to get across the idea that, as an atheist, the judge should have the right to eliminate religious belief from the equation as a simple matter of principle (and be free to say so). All judges do indeed have the right to disregard any mitigating plea that they don't believe to be truthful or relevant.


 * Would you agree that the (revised) atheist judge has the right to state such reasoning publicly, and if so, why not the theist judge? --Robledo (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you detect sincerity? 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The voices in my head tell me when folks are lying. Does an atheist judge who has refused, on principle, to consider religious belief in their assessment of a defendant's character have the right to say so publicly? --Robledo (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's up to the judge: it should be the default position (unless it is germane to the case). 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The judge's religious beliefs or lack of them should have no more bearing on the sentencing than the defendant's, & s/he shouldn't assert them in a professional context. So yes, it would be unprofessional for an atheist judge to dismiss pleas of piety simply because s/he is an atheist - s/he should dismiss them because they are irrelevant, & a theist judge should come to the same conclusion.  If a judge can't pass sentence without alluding to either the defendant's or her own beliefs, then she shouldn't be in that position of authority.   21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

<--- You've lost me with your is -> should switch. Do you mean: --Robledo (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Refusal to consider religious belief should be the default position of all judges (unless it is germane to the case) or
 * 2) All judges are obliged to give their reasoning anyway?
 * Bored. Think you're being silly Rob. She shouldn't have said what she said. End of. 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Toast: Fair enough.
 * @Weaseloid: Last sentence of yours - why? If the judge hands down a fair sentence in accordance with the sentencing guidelines, why should they be barred from stating whether the defendant's religious beliefs did/did not play a part in their decision? --Robledo (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The defendant's religious beliefs should not play a part in their decision.  17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No no no NO NO!
Just no. Cherie fucking Blair is an absolute nutter, not only is she a bible-bashing cracker-to-dead-man's-flesh crazy case, she's also in to all manner of faith-healing shite as well. She is not a fit and proper person to sit in a court of law. Luckily Tony hand the very firm hand of Ally C keeping his bible-bashing nutteryness in check whilst he was in number ten. People like this should not be allowed to get away with this kind of thing; although it is correct to say that with our pathetic legal system here in the UK, you really have to go some to get sent down (and then you will only serve one third of your sentence), but this kind of bollocks from Tony's bird is just rubbing it in. No-one whom believes in magic sky pixes should be allowed to hold any position of power. Typical fucking scouser. 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My kingdom for an AKj-47. That is all. --Robledo (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it Robledo. If that's some hilarious t'internet meme then please explain it.  02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bible-bashing" means hating the Bible; appealing to it frequently, as with a thumping finger against its cover, is "Bible-thumping."
 * What the hell is a scouser? Wikipedia informs me it refers to people who live in pools of body organs.  That doesn't make sense.  YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE ENGLAND
 * Number ten could indicate all kinds of places. 10 Keating Ave, 10 Main St, 10 Downing St - oh you meant that one.  Okay, never mind.
 * A "bird" is a flying creature with wings and frequently a beak. You mean "woman."
 * There is no such idiom as "bollocks." I checked around with people from all over the world, including Alabama, Washington, and Ohio, and they agreed that it wasn't a thing.-- 06:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, DeltaStar, thanks for your shallow generalisations and bigotry against Liverpudlians. 11:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * AKj-47 = private joke. Lurk moar, plz. --Robledo (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AKjeldsen, perhaps? 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Lils, the 'typical fucking scouser' was not meant seriously. (I think it's quite offensive to scousers that Ms Blair claims to be such).  I also apologise for my very UK-centric phrasing, something for which I often berate 'murrrikans internet users (not UK-centricism obviously)  15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, as for me, I was just "taking the piss," don't worry. We have so many Brits on RW I sometimes like to pretend to be the most vulgarly stereotypical American I can manage; I wasn't seriously "having a go" at you.  Pip pip cheerio, lad-- 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Y'all gone done a funny! I too am a big fan of oversimplistic stereotyping.  18:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamster looks up scouser and breaks into an enthusiastic rendition of Hermans Hermits singing "Ferry cross the Mersey" in an 'orrible Liverpudlian accent . Hamster (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Monkees have a song called "Randy Scouse Git". Just FYI.  23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK it was released as Alternate Title. The phrase comes from the TV sitcom Till Death Us Do Part (which coincidentally featured Cherie Blair's father Tony Booth). TDUDP was rewritten for the US as All in the Family. 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gerry and the Pacemakers, surely, not Herman's Hermits.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've literally never said to any of my friends, and they've never said to me, "Pip pip, cheerio." Usually we end a conversation by saying "fuck off," or other hilarious English colloquialisms. Then again, I am a nasty, common street urchin. 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you just farted in their general direction. 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PZ
PZ's picked it up. (Refer RDnet) 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not dropping it 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)