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

Killarney Cross over Crucifix

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    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.

    ..............

    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.

    Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this proposal, you should be aware, that the cross is a christian symbol and not just a symbol of roman catholics.

    The councillors, in a representative democracy, are free to decide for themselves whether they want to include a cross/crucifix or not. If there never was one in any case, I'd leave well enough alone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this proposal, you should be aware, that the cross is a christian symbol and not just a symbol of roman catholics.
    True.
    The councillors, in a representative democracy, are free to decide for themselves whether they want to include a cross/crucifix or not.
    I disagree. Suppose they were to put the symbols of a single political party on the wall? Maybe a big Fianna Fail banner or a big old Sinn Fein poster? That would be considered inappropriate by many, even if a majority of the council were of that party.

    This is not a private club, these are public representatives. It should be obvious that promoting any specific religious or political cause is an abuse of their position.
    If there never was one in any case, I'd leave well enough alone.
    Agreed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    swampgas wrote: »
    Originally Posted by I Heart Internet viewpost.gif
    Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this proposal, you should be aware, that the cross is a christian symbol and not just a symbol of roman catholics.
    True.

    Not true actually. Quite a lot of protestant denominations have strict prohibitions on religious imagery, including crucifixes, due to the idea that you are now worshiping an idol rather than god. There was a mass wave of iconoclasm in the then Netherlands (the ancient 17 provinces, roughly todays Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Flemish France) during the reformation, and rebellion against Hapsburg rulership.

    You can read more here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Not true actually. Quite a lot of protestant denominations have strict prohibitions on religious imagery, including crucifixes, due to the idea that you are now worshiping an idol rather than god. There was a mass wave of iconoclasm in the then Netherlands (the ancient 17 provinces, roughly todays Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Flemish France) during the reformation, and rebellion against Hapsburg rulership.

    You can read more here.

    Then it is not exclusive to Roman Catholics then, not general to all christians. Fair enough.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    .. the cross is a christian symbol and not just a symbol of roman catholics..
    Not true actually. Quite a lot of protestant denominations have strict prohibitions on religious imagery, including crucifixes, due to the idea that you are now worshiping an idol rather than god.

    I think you are both correct actually. One of the 10 commandments is a prohibition of worship to "graven images" (statues).
    Protestant churches take a stricter view on this, they would frown upon statues in a church. The practices of praying to a statue of Mary, or wanting to touch a hand against the statue of a saint are seen as contrary to the commandment. However the cross is still their symbol, it would be on the cover of a bible or a prayer book, headed paper etc...

    What is normally referred to as a crucifix is a cross with a Jesus corpse attached; that one is pretty much RC exclusively alright, because it contains a "graven image" and is usually placed where it will be the focus of the prayers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,067 ✭✭✭✭wp_rathead


    recedite wrote: »
    I think you are both correct actually. One of the 10 commandments is a prohibition of worship to "graven images" (statues).
    Protestant churches take a stricter view on this, they would frown upon statues in a church. The practices of praying to a statue of Mary, or wanting to touch a hand against the statue of a saint are seen as contrary to the commandment. However the cross is still their symbol, it would be on the cover of a bible or a prayer book, headed paper etc...

    What is normally referred to as a crucifix is a cross with a Jesus corpse attached; that one is pretty much RC exclusively alright, because it contains a "graven image" and is usually placed where it will be the focus of the prayers.

    Catholic's in Westeros are are deffo BoltonsBolton-map-marker.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    A Councillor wants a symbol of his religion to be present in the Chamber.
    He isn't attempting to prevent atheists, Muslims, Jews or other religious members having a representation of their faith on the wall. (what symbol would atheists use as a symbol of their non-belief?)
    Provided it isn't a solid gold crucifix, it will not cost the Council more than they spend on teabags in a week.

    Atheism Ireland have too much time on their hands. I have never been in the room where this crucifix is intended to be hung and probably never will be, so how is this a big deal? It is not explicit endorsement of one religion over another (awaits the arguments that 'prove' it is) but it is a request.
    If the walls are painted white, is that a promotion of the superiority of the Caucasian Race?
    There's absolutely no need for it. It won't have any affect on how members conduct their business, or at least it shouldn't. So, given that there presently is no crucifix on the wall sufficient justification should be provided to have one hung there. "Promoting my religion, or that of the majority of the people in the country" isn't sufficient justification to place a crucifix where there currently isn't one, especially in a government building.

    If he wants to have his religion promoted, do it in a place of worship.


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


    News of Mr Culloty's decision reaches the Irish Times:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/kerry-county-council-crucifix-a-challenge-to-religious-diversity-1.1879912
    The decision to erect a crucifix in Kerry County Council’s chamber recently should worry all concerned about the future of Irish public life. Supporters of councillor John-Joe Culloty’s move argued that they were “tired of apologising” for their religion and passed a motion that called for the erection of the crucifix “in light of our Christian faith and the strong Christian values contained within our Constitution”. Has serious harm has been done? After all, no objections have yet been received from council employees and some suggest local Muslims are actually in favour.

    No one has the right to go about their business shielded from any symbol with which they may disagree, and the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Lautsi v Italy in 2011 that the presence of a crucifix in a state school does not violate the European Convention, provided its overall effect is not oppressive. However, this decision raises broader issues about the relationship between religion and public life. The problem of enabling diverse religious believers to share a single political system is centuries old. In Europe, the destruction caused by the wars of religion following the reformation brought about what American historian Mark Lilla called “the great separation” involving recognition of political matters as distinct from religious questions, which allowed states to avoid highly-destructive religious contests for political power.

    That requires a degree of self-discipline – individuals must differentiate between what their faith and the law may require. In western liberal democracies we are well accustomed to this habit and can treat it as inevitable and universal. It is anything but. In large parts of the world, notably but not exclusively in many Muslim-majority societies, religion exercises a dominant influence and obedience to religious commands in matters such as sex, free speech or apostasy is enforced by law. For decades following independence the Irish State had an unhealthily subservient relationship to the predominant religion. A high degree of religious homogeneity meant the arrangement did not produce political instability though it had large costs in terms of individual rights.

    Immigration and the rapid rise in the number of those of no religion has meant that in the future our institutions will have to obtain the allegiance of a religiously diverse population. They cannot be seen, symbolically or substantively, to be the preserve of one faith. The republican tradition of Wolfe Tone means that when we enter the political arena we are not Catholic, Protestant or dissenter (or Jew, Muslim or Hindu) but citizens exercising collective democratic self-government for a population that will always be divided on religious matters. Recognising that life in such a society means we must all refrain from seeking to use politics and law to promote our particular faith will be difficult for some – and particularly for those with origins in parts of the world where religion dominates political life.

    It would be entirely unreasonable to ask Muslim citizens to place religious teachings advocating criminalisation of alcohol, apostasy or homosexuality to one side when they participate in public life when Christian fellow citizens refuse to separate their religious claims from their political activities.

    This does not mean losing contact with our culture or history. Christianity’s long influence means that, inevitably, some communal arrangements will bear its marks. The status of Christmas and Saint Patrick’s Day as national holidays is a case in point, an inevitable consequence of the need to have holidays and festivals that have historical resonance. Indeed, in the Lautsi case the ECHR upheld the display of the cross in Italian schools because the decision was merely perpetuating a pre-existing cultural tradition. Kerry County Council’s decision is different. It decided to erect for the first time in its history a religious symbol in its chamber to ensure that the values of a particular faith would have predominance in an institution meant to make rules for all the people of Kerry.

    This has nothing to do with tradition or identity, but with the promotion of a particular faith by a State institution. State bodies should not promote Catholicism, Islam or atheism, but be committed to co-existence and equal respect for those of all faiths and none. Culloty’s move undermines this. It is utterly inconsistent with the republican ethos his party claims to espouse and a threat to the development of a stable political order that can command the loyalty of all in diversifying Ireland.

    Dr Ronan McCrea, an Irish barrister, lectures in constitutional and European law at University College London


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Mr. Culloty will probably be delighted that he is at odds with the dublin intelligentsia.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    I finally managed to get around to this. Here is my letter:
    Dear Cllr. Sheahan,

    I am writing to you regarding your recent plea in the Limerick Leader for all constituents of the newly formed Limerick City & County Council to contact their local councillors to urge them to support your move to impose a crucifix on the council chambers.

    I find your attitude in this issue to be undemocratic and appalling. Ireland is de facto, if not quite de iure, a secular nation, and it has legal and constitutional safeguards protecting all its citizens no matter their religion or lack thereof. By advocating the placing a crucifix, which is not just a christian symbol but a catholic one, in the council chambers you are promoting the expression of one religion above all others, in direct contravention of Article 44.2.2 of our constitution which prohibits the endowing of religion by the state (of which the council is a subset), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which prohibits discrimination based on religious grounds (promoting a religion above others is discrimination), and the UN General Assembly Resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981: Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief which prohibits discrimination on religious grounds.

    As can be seen as a public servant you are required to act impartially to all citizens of this country, not alone as required by national law but also by international law. So therefore as an Irish citizen resident in the county of Limerick (and registered to vote here), I urge you to do the moral thing and drop your plan to impose the divisive symbol of a religion on the chamber which is the very heart and soul of democracy in the city and county of Limerick.

    In addition to sending this request to you I am also forwarding it to all Limerick councillors to ensure that my voice is heard.

    Yours sincerely,

    Brian Shanahan.

    I am on firm ground with Article 44.2.2, as it clearly forbids the endowing of religion (despite the utterly heinous attempt in 44.1 to curry favour with christians), and while the EU and UN declarations don't say anything about endowing religion, they do prohibit religious discrimination (of which placing a religious symbol in council chambers to the exclusion of symbols of other religions and none is an example), the EU charter with the full force of the law.

    If anyone can see any improvements to what I've written, I'd be happy to incorporate them into my letter (I plan to send this tomorrow), and if there are any other Limerick residents who wish to contact Cllr. Kevin Sheahan (the proposer) and Limerick's fellow public servants on this issue, their official contact details are here, and I will be happy if people would like to use my letter in their submissions.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    it'd probably be a cheap shot to ask him what religious iconography or ceremony (assuming he's in favour of prayer before the meetings) he would consider a bridge too far.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Brian, I think I'd try quote the relevant sections from the constitution. Odds are they haven't a clue what it says.

    Ok it might make it too wordy but I think its better to include the text


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Brian, I think I'd try quote the relevant sections from the constitution. Odds are they haven't a clue what it says.

    Ok it might make it too wordy but I think its better to include the text

    It's fairly short anyways (I was thinking along the lines myself):

    "The State guarantees not to endow any religion"

    Pretty clear cut.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Politicians aren't public servants, they are public representatives.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Politicians aren't public servants, they are public representatives.

    Even more important then, to make the case against this one showing such a clear bias in representation. He can serve Catholicism all he likes but he has to represent ALL his constituents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    I finally managed to get around to this. Here is my letter

    Make sure to send it by registered post. There can be no claims that a letter didn't arrive...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Make sure to send it by registered post. There can be no claims that a letter didn't arrive...

    I'm emailing it. I just call it a letter because anything even semi-formal I email (you should see my emails for Civ 4 PBEMs) gets the letter format.

    Edit: So I'll put a delivery report on the email.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I'm emailing it. I just call it a letter because anything even semi-formal I email (you should see my emails for Civ 4 PBEMs) gets the letter format.

    Edit: So I'll put a delivery report on the email.

    It's very easy to ignore an email. From experience of dealing with political stuff I'd send a letter by registered post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I sometimes make up a classic letter on word.doc and then save as a pdf. and then attach it to an e-mail. Just say in the e-mail "please find attached the letter". Most likely they will save or print it off then, before deleting the e-mail.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    lazygal wrote: »
    It's very easy to ignore an email. From experience of dealing with political stuff I'd send a letter by registered post.

    Well if I don't hear anything I'll send the letter by post, to Cllr. Sheahan.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    When dealing with any Govt. Dept. or Council or anything that is a tentacle of the State, it is better to send a physical letter. They are obliged to respond.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    I got two replies so far, one from Cllr. John Loftus, who thanked me for the letter and bringing my point of view to Cllr. Sheahan, as he is against the crucifix.

    The second is from Cllr. Jerome Scanlon who expressed a certain unease at the fact that this crucifix thing is an issue, as in (if I'm interpreting his email correctly) he thinks that this furore from Cllr. Sheahan is the problem, rather than other more important (but unspecified, not that I mind that, I wasn't talking about other issues) issues.

    So I've had my email read by two councillors at least, which is a good thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    recedite wrote: »
    I think a Baphomet statue would look really good on the other side of the council chamber. (The dark side :D)
    An update on how the Baphomet affair is progressing in the US;
    The statue was originally commissioned to counterbalance a stone monument listing the Ten Commandments which had previously been placed at the Oklahoma Capitol building. It was to show that a privately endorsed religious monument has no place on State property.

    But when the statue was ready, the Oklahoma Supreme court ruled that neither religious monument could be allowed on the site, so Baphomet would have to go elsewhere, and equally the Ten Commandments would have to be removed.

    The people behind the Baphomet staue were happy with this result, and have now installed the statue at some obscure private warehouse in Detroit.

    But back in Oklahoma, the Republican governor Mary Fallin has failed to comply with the court ruling on their side saying...
    The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws. The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible. It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged,"
    "Historical events" my ar$e ;)
    Her point of view is very similar to that of a certain Kerry Co. Councillor, so it will be interesting to watch and learn from this, to see how it pans out. I'm guessing this "appeal" will take an ordinate amount of time to prepare, and meanwhile the Ten Commandments monument will remain in place, illegally, while she tries to find some way of shifting the goalposts.
    Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government. At this time, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, with my support, has filed a petition requesting a rehearing of the Ten Commandments case," Fallin said. "Additionally, our Legislature has signaled its support for pursuing changes to our state Constitution that will make it clear the Ten Commandments monument is legally permissible. If legislative efforts are successful, the people of Oklahoma will get to vote on the issue."
    source


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    If the walls are painted white, is that a promotion of the superiority of the Caucasian Race?

    Really have to wonder why someone would take time out of their day to post something this profoundly moronic on a discussion forum. Is it for a bet? Is it some kind of contest to see who can reach the absolute lowest level of stupidity and irrelevance when trying to argue your point? Would really be fascinated to know.....


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


    Mod: ^^^ No need for that kind of post


Advertisement