The Hazards of Belief

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why not? It's perfectly possible to believe that A is a good Christian, B is a good Hindu, C is a good Humanist and D is a good Stoic.

But that should not be a factor in considering whether he is guilty of the specified public order offence. Or whether to let him off, if he is guilty.
Especially if, as it says in the article;

..Nevin has already been barred from every pub in Co Westmeath, pending the hearing of a separate court case involving a brawl outside the same pub last month...

obplayer

Originally Posted by Peregrinus
Why not? It's perfectly possible to believe that A is a good Christian, B is a good Hindu, C is a good Humanist and D is a good Stoic.

recedite wrote: »

But that should not be a factor in considering whether he is guilty of the specified public order offence. Or whether to let him off, if he is guilty.
Especially if, as it says in the article;

Why should religion, any religion, have come up as part of the Judges sentencing considerations?

recedite

The judge appears to have cited the guy's religiosity, and/or some information gleaned from a TV programme as evidence of his good character. While apparently not taking any notice of his previous recorded infractions, or his being barred from all the pubs in the area.

It could be that the judge really meant to say "Look, you have a promising international boxing career ahead and I don't want to jeopardise your ability to travel abroad"..
Or "I believe you are basically of good character and can be a good role model to your community, despite these unfortunate bouts of violent drunkenness, so I'm giving you another chance".
But the judge didn't say those things, unfortunately. He said you're a good Christian, I saw you on TV.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Why should religion, any religion, have come up as part of the Judges sentencing considerations?

In this case, because of the light it cast (or which the judge considered it cast) on his character.

Was the judge right in the conclusions he drew? I don't know. I'm kind of sceptical, since he seemed to be basing his conclusions on the way the guy was presented in a television programme. But the notion that somebody's religious position and how they express it and give effect to it can cast light on their character is, I would have thought, pretty commonplace.

After all, when the law finally catches up with, say, Robindch, do you not think his long record of public service with Atheist Ireland is something his counsel will mention in mitigation of sentence? And if Robin's expression of his principles and his convictions on religious matters tells us anything relevant about Robin, why would the same not be true for Nevin?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm an athiest as you are no doubt aware atheists have no 'set' of principles, as individuals they have principles but there is no collective set of 'atheist principles' except non-belief in gods

Not all atheists identify as humanists, I don't particularly, so there is the possibility this judge would look less favourably on someone like me as there is no set of principles he can say I am or am not upholding

You're very hard on yourself, Hotblack. Just because there is no neat set of "atheist principles" that express themselves in ethical conduct, etc, it doesn't follow that you have no principles. You're not just an atheist. Do not reduce yourself to a label!

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

After all, when the law finally catches up with, say, Robindch, do you not think his long record of public service with Atheist Ireland is something his counsel will mention in mitigation of sentence?

Not if the counsel discovers that the case is listed to be heard before the same judge who "has been known to let people off because of their Christianity".
More likely Robinch will be advised to appear in his best suit, sporting a suitable lapel pin. I'm not sure that will be enough to save him though

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

After all, when the law finally catches up with, say, Robindch, do you not think his long record of public service with Atheist Ireland is something his counsel will mention in mitigation of sentence?

That would be a trifle unwise, as I'm not a member of Atheist Ireland :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

That would be a trifle unwise, as I'm not a member of Atheist Ireland :rolleyes:

That's all right, we'll just make a television programme saying that you are.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's all right, we'll just make a television programme saying that you are.

That'll be 80 grand, please!

recedite

All joking aside, imagine the furore that would result if we had a Muslim judge, and when a Muslim defendant happened to appear before him, the judge said "Oh I see from your facebook page that you are a good Muslim. Case dismissed!"

robindch

Al-Qa'ida has a job-application form. Here it is:

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl/english/Instructions%20to%20Applicants.pdf

Note the question about two-thirds down the last page.

Recruiter: I see you've answered yes here. Are you sure? Really? You're hired!

Vivisectus

After all, when the law finally catches up with, say, Robindch, do you not think his long record of public service with Atheist Ireland is something his counsel will mention in mitigation of sentence?

Ermmm. No?

People commonly conflate religiousity with morality. This is why, when we have a debate on the ethics of birth control, priests have a tendency to show up when we should be seeing psychiatrists and doctors.

PopePalpatine

BBC article on marital rape in India: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32810834

I could only shake my head reading about a "men's rights group" defending this shit.

kylith

PopePalpatine wrote: »

BBC article on marital rape in India: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32810834

I could only shake my head reading about a "men's rights group" defending this shit.

I suppose it's what's going to happen when you have arranged marriages. If you force your daughter to marry a man, possibly many years her senior, possibly for money or for strategic reasons, you can't then allow her to refuse to have sex with him because she would then exercise that right. In fact it could be said that once a woman is forced to marry* then any sex within that marriage is de facto rape.

* I know that the woman in the article chose to marry, but I'm talking about the reasons that marital rape would be considered acceptable.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

I suppose it's what's going to happen when you have arranged marriages. If you force your daughter to marry a man, possibly many years her senior, possibly for money or for strategic reasons, you can't then allow her to refuse to have sex with him because she would then exercise that right.

Common error here. "Arranged marriages" =/= "forced marriages". I won't say there are no forced marriages in India, but most arranged marriages are not forced.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Common error here. "Arranged marriages" =/= "forced marriages". I won't say there are no forced marriages in India, but most arranged marriages are not forced.

I would say that many of them are forced by the massive weight of family and cultural expectation and a slim to no chance of any reasonable alternative.

Hotblack Desiato

Shrap wrote: »

I would say that many of them are forced by the massive weight of family and cultural expectation and a slim to no chance of any reasonable alternative.

We have our own little tiny echo of that here with non-believers pressured into religious weddings and baptisms.

Peregrinus

Shrap wrote: »

I would say that many of them are forced by the massive weight of family and cultural expectation and a slim to no chance of any reasonable alternative.

The fact that you would say it doesn't make it true. No offence, but is your opinion based on observation of the arranged marriages among people you know, or on preconceptions about people that you don't know?

For the record, I know several people in arranged marriages. Every one of them considered and rejected several proposed partners before finding one they wanted to marry. Every one of them had also dated independently in the western fashion, and could have married a partner they met that way. I also know people who considered and rejected partners arranged by family and friends, before eventually marrying somebody they had met independently. (Yes, I have Indian friends.)

Now, I'm not going to pretend that the experience of my friends is normative for the whole of India. Still, it does tell us relevant things about India's marriage arrangement culture, which is that it's object does not have to be - and, I think, generally isn't - to bend the will of the young adult to that of their parents, but more to maximise the chances of a happy and successful marriage by bringing to bear the experience and insights of people who know the young adult well.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We have our own little tiny echo of that here with non-believers pressured into religious weddings and baptisms.

Until about a generation ago we had a much bigger echo, in the form of "shotgun weddings" when a couple got pregnant. Which, again, underlines the distinction between arranged and forced marriages. Those marriages were forced, but not arranged.

Nodin

kylith wrote: »

I suppose it's what's going to happen when you have arranged marriages. If you force your daughter to marry a man, possibly many years her senior, possibly for money or for strategic reasons, you can't then allow her to refuse to have sex with him because she would then exercise that right. In fact it could be said that once a woman is forced to marry* then any sex within that marriage is de facto rape.

* I know that the woman in the article chose to marry, but I'm talking about the reasons that marital rape would be considered acceptable.

"arranged marriage" can mean different things in different places. In India the idea of marriage for romantic love is considered "a bit mad", and people often aid in picking their future other half.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that you would say it doesn't make it true. No offence, but is your opinion based on observation of the arranged marriages among people you know, or on preconceptions about people that you don't know?

No offence taken! People I know actually, specifically two young Indian women who I knew in the UK who both felt they had no choice but to leave their families when they rejected the arrangements that had been made for them. Of course, at least in the UK, they had the choice to leave.

I admit that my imagination extends to wondering if in a country without a social welfare fall back, would the choice to leave be much of a choice? But as that's not something I know as a fact about anyone I actually know and is a preconception, then it's not allowed in the discussion, clearly.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that you would say it doesn't make it true. No offence, but is your opinion based on observation of the arranged marriages among people you know, or on preconceptions about people that you don't know?

For the record, I know several people in arranged marriages. Every one of them considered and rejected several proposed partners before finding one they wanted to marry. Every one of them had also dated independently in the western fashion, and could have married a partner they met that way. I also know people who considered and rejected partners arranged by family and friends, before eventually marrying somebody they had met independently. (Yes, I have Indian friends.)

Now, I'm not going to pretend that the experience of my friends is normative for the whole of India. Still, it does tell us relevant things about India's marriage arrangement culture, which is that it's object does not have to be - and, I think, generally isn't - to bend the will of the young adult to that of their parents, but more to maximise the chances of a happy and successful marriage by bringing to bear the experience and insights of people who know the young adult well.

Shrap wrote: »

No offence taken! People I know actually, specifically two young Indian women who I knew in the UK who both felt they had no choice but to leave their families when they rejected the arrangements that had been made for them. Of course, at least in the UK, they had the choice to leave.

I admit that my imagination extends to wondering if in a country without a social welfare fall back, would the choice to leave be much of a choice? But as that's not something I know as a fact about anyone I actually know and is a preconception, then it's not allowed in the discussion, clearly.

Would the ability to turn down an arranged marriage be something that would depend on socio-economic factors? We've seen in the past that in some sections of Indian society that women seem to be viewed as barely human, so presumably a woman's ability to reject a marriage, or to feel that she could reject a marriage, would be tied to her perceived worth as a person to her family.

Shrap

kylith wrote: »

Would the ability to turn down an arranged marriage be something that would depend on socio-economic factors?

I would think so, but I don't think educated guesses are enough for Peregrinus - no offence meant P

Hotblack Desiato

kylith wrote: »

Would the ability to turn down an arranged marriage be something that would depend on socio-economic factors?

All choices in life depend on socio-economic factors - even having a choice at all...

expectationlost

No double beds allowed for unmarried elderly http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/no-double-beds-allowed-for-unmarried-elderly-1.2228219 the pervasive control the church has

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

Would the ability to turn down an arranged marriage be something that would depend on socio-economic factors? We've seen in the past that in some sections of Indian society that women seem to be viewed as barely human, so presumably a woman's ability to reject a marriage, or to feel that she could reject a marriage, would be tied to her perceived worth as a person to her family.

Good point.

There could, in fact, be two things going on. First, a man may in practice be much freer to turn down an arranged marriage than a woman. This will obviously depend on the attitude of their respective families, but it wouldn't be amazing to find that families tended to give more freedom to their male children than their female children. (And not just in India.)

Secondly, more middle-class families may well be more accepting of their children's choices in this regard, partly because they are more westernised, and partly because their children (being middle class) are a "good catch" in marriage terms, and find it easier to make good marriages (or marriages perceived as good) even without family intervention.

The other point worth mentioning is that in the very lowest socioeconomic classes arranged marriages are comparatively rare, because low-status low-wealth partners don't have much value in the "marriage market". Why would you arrange a marriage for your child with an uneducated and penniless partner with no prospects?

But none of this, I respectfully suggest, counts as a "hazard of belief". It may well be that Indians mostly have different religious beliefs from Europeans, but it doesn't follow that every aspect of Indian culture which differs from European culture is down to religion. Indian practices with regard to arranged marriages, and our attitude to those practices, are largely down to different family dynamics, economic factors and the fact that India hasn't entirely embraced the romantic understanding of marriage that has dominated in European culture for the past two hundred years or so.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Good point.

There could, in fact, be two things going on. First, a man may in practice be much freer to turn down an arranged marriage than a woman. This will obviously depend on the attitude of their respective families, but it wouldn't be amazing to find that families tended to give more freedom to their male children than their female children. (And not just in India.)

Secondly, more middle-class families may well be more accepting of their children's choices in this regard, partly because they are more westernised, and partly because their children (being middle class) are a "good catch" in marriage terms, and find it easier to make good marriages (or marriages perceived as good) even without family intervention.

The other point worth mentioning is that in the very lowest socioeconomic classes arranged marriages are comparatively rare, because low-status low-wealth partners don't have much value in the "marriage market". Why would you arrange a marriage for your child with an uneducated and penniless partner with no prospects?

But none of this, I respectfully suggest, counts as a "hazard of belief". It may well be that Indians mostly have different religious beliefs from Europeans, but it doesn't follow that every aspect of Indian culture which differs from European culture is down to religion. Indian practices with regard to arranged marriages, and our attitude to those practices, are largely down to different family dynamics, economic factors and the fact that India hasn't entirely embraced the romantic understanding of marriage that has dominated in European culture for the past two hundred years or so.

A good point. India's attitude to women seems to be very often vile, as evidenced by the documentary I have provided a link too, but little of the vileness exhibited in the documentary I have linked to seems related to religion but more to the cultural attitudes shown by those defending the rapists.

Nodin

expectationlost wrote: »

No double beds allowed for unmarried elderly http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/no-double-beds-allowed-for-unmarried-elderly-1.2228219 the pervasis control the church has

In particular -

"Single and widowed residents of a €17 million State-funded senior citizens’ complex have been refused permission for double beds by the Catholic housing agency that owns and runs the apartments."

"A spokesman for the society said tenants signed contracts to live in furnished apartments. “The contract says the apartment is fully furnished and it was made very clear to everyone that they are signing a contract based on that.”
It was “not a hard and fast rule” and some tenants had been permitted double beds, “mostly for orthopaedic reasons”, he said.
However, the society had a “serious storage problem” and was not in a position to store unwanted beds. There were also “certain standards” it was trying to maintain in the apartments, he said. "

(my bold)

kylith

This is the bit that stands out for me

“The residents are not asking CHAS to supply them with double beds, they are happy to provide their own, but they have been told they are not allowed, and those who have already bought them have been told to remove them,” residents’ association chairman Anthony Egan said.

On the one hand; their building, their rules. On the other hand; come on! Regardless of anything else if you're used to sleeping in a double bed it's hard to sleep in a single without worrying about falling out all the time.

Also, you'd know these priests live a sheltered life; there's little you can do in a double bed that you can't do in a single, and nothing you can't do on a blanket on the floor

Pawwed Rig

Not sure if these tenancies will fall under the PRT acts but if they do once the tenants get part 4 rights then there is little a landlord could do to enforce stupid rules like this one.