...... and the prisons are full of theists.
Cherie Booth (aka Cherie Blair) has decided that claiming to be a "devout" Muslim is a reason for leniency in sentencing. The "devout" Muslim receiving a suspended sentence in this case was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, having thumped a man so hard he broke his jaw. Her precise words (as reported in today's "Independent") were “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.”
What exactly is her point here? Is she saying that those professing a religion (whilst clearly not sticking to the letter of it) are intrinsically better than those of no religion, deserving a lesser sentence simply because of their religious beliefs? Do atheists not know what is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? Does ignorance require a harsher sentence than hypocrisy?
How far does her prejudice extend? Would she say the same about a devout Wiccan? Or a self-proclaimed Jedi Knight? Where does she draw the line? What gives her the right to draw a line anywhere, when religion, by definition, relies on faith, and one man's faith is another man's heresy?
It is the height of arrogance, and a common fault, for those of a religious persuasion to claim moral superiority over those who do not have a faith. These prejudices have no foundation in fact. Three quarters of the prison population claim to be religious, and religion has often been a major factor in inspiring such criminal activities as terrorism, gay-bashing and so-called honour killings.
I hope the official objection made to the Judicial Complaints Office by the National Secular Society succeeds in raising awareness of this issue and prevents such rubbish being spouted in court in future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Read an interesting article in the Guardian the other day- said that while religious FAITH doesn't make any difference to the liklihood of reoffending, religious ATTENDANCE (with its human support structure) makes a huge difference (I wonder if being members of the mika fan club would count?). So (he says) Cherie Blair was right in her judgement- and, ironically, if you and I were tried in court together, all other things being equal "Christianity" would save you, the atheist, but not me, the enthusiastic but somewhat crap evangelical.
ReplyDeleteHuman support structures do affect behaviour - I believe that the need for approval from family, friends, colleagues is a major factor in moderating people's behaviour. But you don't need religious belief for that, and it doesn't prevent the occasional selfish lapse.
ReplyDeleteThink of the MFC - generally people want to be sociable, and see the benefits of co-opration, but occasionally some will risk disapproval if they think they can get something that cannot be shared.