Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Killarney Cross over Crucifix

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    No religious majority/minority has yet to complain.
    So our concerns don't count as we aren't religious?


  • Options
    #93
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    So you are saying that treating all religions and none equal is hatred/whatever?
    And why did someone want a crucifix in a state building? I'd hate to think that people were motivated by their religion to treat it superior to others.
    If the majority voted to sacrifice 30% the population to the blood god it's ok? A democratic decision was made.

    No. What I wrote is there for you to read. You even reprinted it in reply. If you can't understand any or all, ask me to rephrase.

    When you liken hanging a crucifix in a room to justify killing 1,300,000 people, I know I'm wasting time replying to you.

    Which I will no longer do.


  • Options
    #94
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    A link posted this evening showed he spoke to Imams and they had no problem.
    No religious majority/minority has yet to complain. Are you seriously likening this instance to mob rule? Isn't there a crucifix in Leinster House: why haven't atheists been burned at the stake etc?

    There are no crucifixes in the Dail, Seanad or committee meeting rooms in Leinster House. There are Irish and European flags in the chambers.


  • Options
    #95
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Knasher wrote: »
    So our concerns don't count we aren't religious?

    Who's "we"?

    I tried including atheists among the groups to be consulted for representation earlier and was insulted for doing do.


  • Options
    #96
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    No. What I wrote is there for you to read. You even reprinted it in reply. If you can't understand any or all, ask me to rephrase.

    When you liken hanging a crucifix in a room to justify killing 1,300,000 people, I know I'm wasting time replying to you.

    Which I will no longer do.

    So you agree that democratic decision isn't an excuse to do something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    lazygal wrote: »
    There are no crucifixes in the Dail, Seanad or committee meeting rooms in Leinster House. There are Irish and European flags in the chambers.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.1763741.1397633957!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300_160/image.jpg


    As real as can be...


  • Options
    #98
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    recedite wrote: »
    Well, now you know that there is no such thing as the English ambassador, only the British ambassador. What's more you may have learned that the Union Jack is not the English flag, and that the Papal Nuncio is the ambassador of a slightly fictitious country called the Holy See.

    As for your second problem, you'll find that will diminish with advancing age ;)

    No...some people are still getting aroused about an erection in Killarney. Too much leisure time and it being misspent.


  • Options
    #99
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    recedite wrote: »
    and that the Papal Nuncio is the ambassador of a slightly fictitious country called the Holy See.

    And a country furthermore, created by and deriving its sole legitimacy from a treaty signed in 1929 with a vicious and murderous fascist dictator. Not exactly the best kind of country to be extending diplomatic ties with, now is it?


  • Options
    #100
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Why are you advocating any religious material (would you personally prefer a picture of R Dawkins' anus on the wall....and give it a kiss upon entering/exiting?) One day you want nothing religious, the next you are proposing having a religious image...try to be consistent.
    Why don't you go back and read what I wrote, rather than humorlessly shadow-boxing at something I didn't?


  • Options
    #101
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    robindch wrote: »
    Why don't you go back and read what I wrote, rather than humorlessly shadow-boxing at something I didn't?

    And what if the cross makes some people angry - are you ok with that, so long as it helps balance of people who see it "reflect"? And what about a monument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and some Satanist symbols - since you're happy with one religion, should we take it that you're happy with all religions?

    These are your words...words you wrote, mentioning symbols of FSM and Satan, implying that they be erected. If members of KCC want either/all of these erected, they can follow the procedure as was done with the crucifix.

    Like I have already written, I have no problem with any religion/group having something erected on the wall, if they find it helps them do a better job and correct procedure has been followed. A symbol is just a symbol. The goddess Europa is watermarked on 5 euro notes and I've no issue with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    A link posted this evening showed he spoke to Imams and they had no problem.
    No religious majority/minority has yet to complain. Are you seriously likening this instance to mob rule? Isn't there a crucifix in Leinster House: why haven't atheists been burned at the stake etc?

    So Imams are supposed to be the arbiters on whether a religious symbol should be displayed? The people who did complain were some of the other councillors.

    Read the original article again:
    The crucifix would mark a new departure for the council in Kerry which has hitherto eschewed all religious symbols, a meeting of the council was told this week.
    So, the council already had a long standing policy of keeping religious symbols out of the chamber, which John Joe Culloty decided to change. That's not something you do on a whim.
    Six councillors voted for the motion which stated: “In light of our Christian Faith and the strong Christian values contained within our Constitution, that Kerry County Council erect a Crucifix on the wall of the new Council Chamber.”
    And part of the justification for the crucifix is "our Christian Faith". Well, who says everyone has "Christian Faith"? What message does that say to those of different faiths or none?

    Why the hell can't people like this demonstrate their "Christian Values" by being kind and considerate to other people, especially those who don't share their faith? Why the need to stamp a symbol of their own specific religious identity onto a shared space?


  • Options
    #103
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,878 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Back to post 22:
    ninja900 wrote: »
    Democracy does not mean the majority get the right to do whatever they like.

    So do you now accept that this motion forced the council to endorse a religion?

    Do you think it is acceptable for a government body to endorse a religion?

    Can you answer these questions please, which you just dodged?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #104
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Like I have already written, I have no problem with any religion/group having something erected on the wall, if they find it helps them do a better job and correct procedure has been followed.

    I have no problem with a religious group having icons and symbols on the wall of their own churches or homes. I object when they bring it to work.
    A symbol is just a symbol.
    And yet somehow these symbols can help people work better? So you accept that symbols can have an affect on people, but you also seem to be arguing that they are harmless.
    The goddess Europa is watermarked on 5 euro notes and I've no issue with it.

    I don't either, as I don't have a problem with Thursday being named after the god Thor. Are you seriously trying to equate Christianity with Greek mythology?


  • Options
    #105
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    swampgas wrote: »
    I don't either, as I don't have a problem with Thursday being named after the god Thor. Are you seriously trying to equate Christianity with Greek mythology?

    Well, there's as much evidence for one as for the other. I prefer the Greek gods though, at least they knew how to have a good time.


  • Options
    #106
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    [...] I have no problem with any religion/group having something erected on the wall [..]
    You seemed to have serious problems with a picture of Dawkins on the wall.

    That said, and reading your posts as carefully as they merit, I don't get the impression that you're very interested in debating the topic honestly. That, in itself, is typical of what happens when this issue comes up - somebody demands a privileged position for their own religion; very often, they get it; subtle obstacles are often placed to block out other religions and non-religions; and perhaps most relevantly, it's seemingly impossible to have an honest debate concerning the principles involved.


  • Options
    #107
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kylith wrote: »
    I prefer the Greek gods though, at least they knew how to have a good time.
    Having only recently read the Norse myths, I have to say that the Norse gods give the Greek ones a serious run for their money.


  • Options
    #108
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    swampgas wrote: »
    So Imams are supposed to be the arbiters on whether a religious symbol should be displayed? The people who did complain were some of the other councillors.



    Why the hell can't people like this demonstrate their "Christian Values" by being kind and considerate to other people, especially those who don't share their faith? Why the need to stamp a symbol of their own specific religious identity onto a shared space?

    Did you even read the articles yourself? Both Q's were answered in them.


  • Options
    #109
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Did you even read the articles yourself? Both Q's were answered in them.

    I did read the article. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing that placing religious symbols on the walls of council offices is completely harmless and that nobody should worry about it?


  • Options
    #110
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    robindch wrote: »
    You seemed to have serious problems with a picture of Dawkins on the wall.

    That said, and reading your posts as carefully as they merit, I don't get the impression that you're very interested in debating the topic honestly. That, in itself, is typical of what happens when this issue comes up - somebody demands a privileged position for their own religion; very often, they get it; subtle obstacles are often placed to block out other religions and non-religions; and perhaps most relevantly, it's seemingly impossible to have an honest debate concerning the principles involved.

    If you are going to engage someone, you should afford them the respect of reading their words attentively -which you obviously didn't: I never said that the crucifix should be erected but I have no problem if a person wants to hang a religious/non-religious object in a place of work provided due process has been followed...which it was.
    You cite honesty?! You and many others jumped the gun and accuse me of imposing the crucifix when I've done nothing of the sort (kudos to users' objectivity and use of logic). Again, I've defended the process where a motion was tabled, voted on and carried.

    The "principles" involved are straight-forward: a motion was tabled, voted on and then carried by a majority. People here are trying to make this out to be a deep, subversive action to re-introduce Church rule over politics or it is simply one man who wants a crucifix to be hung over a door.

    If KCC councillors decide to table a motion to remove it, vote on it and the majority agree to remove it, I will accept and defend their right to do so.

    Apparently, there is a crucifix in one of the Chambers in Cork Co.Co; I suggest you rally the troops and tackle that 'issue' next.


  • Options
    #111
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    swampgas wrote: »
    I did read the article. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing that placing religious symbols on the walls of council offices is completely harmless and that nobody should worry about it?


    FFS! MOTION WAS TABLED - COUNCILLORS VOTED ON IT - CARRIED.

    I AM NOT ARGUING SPECIFICALLY IN FAVOUR OF RELIGIOUS IMAGES BEING HUNG ON PUBLIC PROPERTY BUT IF AN INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO DO SO, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, PROVIDED DUE PROCESS WAS IMPLEMENTED.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    There are no crucifixes in the Dail, Seanad or committee meeting rooms in Leinster House. There are Irish and European flags in the chambers.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.1763741.1397633957!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300_160/image.jpg

    As real as can be...

    All you had to do was admit you were wrong with your assumption, is that so hard?
    :pac:


  • Options
    #113
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    FFS! MOTION WAS TABLED - COUNCILLORS VOTED ON IT - CARRIED.

    I AM NOT ARGUING SPECIFICALLY IN FAVOUR OF RELIGIOUS IMAGES BEING HUNG ON PUBLIC PROPERTY BUT IF AN INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO DO SO, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, PROVIDED DUE PROCESS WAS IMPLEMENTED.

    Fair enough, but in this case it seems the individual here was going a little further than putting a religious icon on his desk. I think that's what causes people to object, he was attempting to "Christianise" (if that's a word) the public office space. Due process is well and good, but it cannot be used to justify what is otherwise incorrect.

    I suspect we are more in agreement than disagreement, so will leave it at that.


  • Options
    #114
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Back to post 22:



    Can you answer these questions please, which you just dodged?
    I didn't dodge. I ignored. I'm tired of repeating myself using different words.

    So do you now accept that this motion forced the council to endorse a religion?
    http://www.kerrycoco.ie/en/
    Which religion exactly is it endorsing: Judaism believe Jesus was a prophet who was crucified; Christians believe He is God, Muslims believe He was a prophet too and honour Him.
    Having a crucifix in a room is not explicit endorsement on behalf of KCC. I'm sure their letterheads don't have a crucifix or religious symbols unless the County crest has it. The crucifix wasn't at the behest of KCC, so they didn't endorse it but allowed it...after procedure was followed.

    Do you think it is acceptable for a government body to endorse a religion?
    It is not their place to say that one religion should be adhered to over another, or none, which hasn't been done.

    KCC haven't officially endorsed any religion. Repeat as often as needed and don't ask me again.

    Actually, KCC do endorse Christianity...http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBLwCYZSVq8bxBE&w=379&h=379&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F2f%2FKerrycocologo.svg%2F720px-Kerrycocologo.svg.png
    there are crosses in the picture and the boat is that of St. Brendan. This is nothing to do with culture and must be the explicit attempt to impose one of the +30,000 branches of Christianity upon people by force.


  • Options
    #115
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    The "principles" involved are straight-forward: a motion was tabled, voted on and then carried by a majority.
    As before, the principle of whether the state should elevate one religion above another is ignored - as it always is in cases like this.

    Still, I think your implication that this isn't about deeper principles at all, and that it's only a superficial issue is probably worth following up.

    If I get some time, and as as a native of Killarney myself, I might write the excellent councillor a letter requesting that he put up some Flying Spaghetti Monster insignia too.


  • Options
    #116
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    robindch wrote: »
    As before, the principle of whether the state should elevate one religion above another is ignored - as it always is in cases like this.

    Still, I think your implication that this isn't about deeper principles at all, and that it's only a superficial issue is probably worth following up.

    If I get some time, and as as a native of Killarney myself, I might write the excellent councillor a letter requesting that he put up some Flying Spaghetti Monster insignia too.

    If the State elevated one religion over another, wouldn't the EU/ECHR waded in to stop the discrimination? I'd never accuse you of magnifying a little issue into something drastic, so it must be that the EU have missed the oppressive regime that you are suffering under...

    So you could have done something concrete, like write to Cllr. Culloty and find out his motivation and goal of having a crucifix but didn't? (and yet expect answers from me)
    I think if this was a real issue for you, you would have done so.


  • Options
    #117
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    If the State elevated one religion over another, wouldn't the EU/ECHR waded in to stop the discrimination?
    *facepalm*
    lazybones32 wrote: »
    [...] yet expect answers from me [...]
    Well, in all fairness, you're the one attempting to defend him - though you're making a dog's breakfast of it.


  • Options
    #118
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    It is not their place to say that one religion should be adhered to over another, or none, which hasn't been done.
    Clearly those of us who have posted in opposition to you on the matter feel differently. As this thread hasn't really gone much further than that, despite being on it's eight page, I think I'll follow swampgas' example and leave it at that.


  • Options
    #119
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    robindch wrote: »
    *facepalm*Well, in all fairness, you're the one attempting to defend him - though you're making a dog's breakfast of it.


    Incorrect again. I never defended Cllr. Culloty but his Right to do what he did. He followed the process and achieved what he sought.


  • Options
    #120
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,878 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Which religion exactly is it endorsing: Judaism believe Jesus was a prophet who was crucified; Christians believe He is God, Muslims believe He was a prophet too and honour Him.

    What nonsense. A crucifix is THE symbol of christianity, not any other religion. The councillor himself said it was intended to represent christianity. There can hardly be a person in Ireland who would not recognise a crucifix as a christian symbol. This is precisely the reason he sought to have it put there.

    Having a crucifix in a room is not explicit endorsement on behalf of KCC.

    It absolutely is. It's not part of a historic coat of arms or anything else, it was put there intentionally as a symbol of a specific religion.

    It is not their place to say that one religion should be adhered to over another, or none, which hasn't been done.

    In that case they should have refused to put it up, then.
    there are crosses in the picture and the boat is that of St. Brendan. This is nothing to do with culture and must be the explicit attempt to impose one of the +30,000 branches of Christianity upon people by force.

    No those are artifacts of history which were already there, we are talking about something new which didn't exist before.

    A cross (as opposed to a crucifix) can be a heraldic rather than a religious symbol, anyway.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Cathaoirleach of the new Limerick City & County council Kevin Sheehan declared to the Limerick Leader (it made the front page of the County Edition at least) that he was "speechless" over opposition to his plan to favour roman catholicism over all other religions by placing a cross in the council chambers.

    He went on to speak, at length, about this issue:
    Cllr. Bloody Idiot wrote:
    I understand some councillors are opposed to the idea. They are talking about their constituents being muslims and other religions. Muslims would have no issue with the cross in their faith. The jewish faith would not object to a cross. There are crosses and grottoes on the landscapes of Ireland and I have never heard an atheist objecting to them

    I thought it would be nice to donate something to the chamber, to the members. There is no christian of any description in the chamber.

    He is furthermore urging the people of Limerick to contact their councillors and tell them to vote for the cross.

    I'll get to the objections to his reasoning in a minute. First is the words from Cllr. Daniel Butler which engendered this idiotic tirade:
    Cllr. Butler wrote:
    We are living in a secular society, and councillors are there to represent the people. So we need to be a reflection of the people. Our pracitses need to reflect this. I think the erection of a cross is inappropriate.

    Mayor of Limerick, Michael Sheehan, in opposing this move, also pointed out that there was never a cross in the city chamber (a fact verified by my mother who was a Limerick City Council employee for 20 years), which will be the chamber for the new unitary council.

    A further article here about him complaining that councillors are not wanting to say their prayers like good little brainwashed sheep, sorry, I meant catholics.

    Ok objections to his framing of why Limerick C&CC needs a cross:
    1) We are a multifaith society, and Limerick is no different, with a large muslim population, a number of protestant populations, jehovah's witnesses, quakers, people of no religion, hindu's &c. The only reason Limerick doesn't have a jewish population is because of the 1904 progrom, caused by the same religious chauvinism that Cllr. Kevin Sheehan want's to engender in chambers.
    2) Muslims and jews do object to the cross, not least for the prohibition on graven images in their religions (its also in christianity too, but they have this strange notion that you should follow at least some of the laws of your religion), and because neither accept Jesus as a deity, both considering christians to be essentially polytheistic because of this acceptance. Jews aslo get the "blood guilt" double whammy because as we all know the image of Jesus on the cross (despite it probably having no historical reality) has been used to whip up christians for most of the last two thousand years to mass violence against jews. It is also offensive to may different christian sects, because they too have issues with graven images of god.
    3) Just because there are crosses elsewhere doesn't mean that atheists objecting to them being placed in a public forum (that's what the council chamber is) is any more mean spirited. As long as these memorials or installments are on private land and not causing a public hazard, why would anybody object to them? We object to things like this because they are undemocratic, and they place one system of thought above all others, like as if we were living in a theocratic state (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea come to mind).
    4) It is manifestly not for the councillors, because Limerick has gotten along very well for who know's how many years without any christian symbology in the chambers of it's elected officials. It is nothing more than Cllr. Sheehan throwing his weight around and thinking that his religious views have more validity and rights than other people's.

    I am seriously debating about writing in a letter (cc'd to all other councillors) to him detailing my disgust at his anti-democratic mien over this issue.

    I won't speak about the idiocy in the linked article. That speaks well enough for itself.


Advertisement