Killarney Cross over Crucifix

lazybones32 · 12-06-2014 1:48pm

pauldla wrote: »

Water charges, property tax, local environment; all issues for the democratically elected representatives of the good people of Kerry to discuss, debate, consider, in the hope of making their corner of the world a better place.

Instead, they're voting on crucifixes. Earlier on this year we had Mayo (?) county council praying to make the roads safer. Such is Ireland in the 21st Century, it seems.

Now one could argue that this is a democracy, and they are meeting a need of the population, but I would counter that We The People have a democratic right to scrutinize the words and deeds of elected representatives; and if I lived in Kerry, my first impulse would be to contact this particular fellow and ask him if he could not think of any more pressing issue that getting a crucifix hung up in the Council Chamber. Perhaps it's me, but I am suspicious of politicians who play the religion card.

They voted on a crucifix- past tense. I assume they are voting, talking working on other matters too (I don't read their minutes) but this one past issue is the one that has been given National attention. At his behest? No. Atheism Ireland is giving the crucifix more attention than the Councillor ever did/could. Sounds like an own-goal but keep kicking...

lazybones32 · 12-06-2014 2:15pm

Cabaal wrote: »

But by far the VAST MAJORITY of these increases and tax's you are bitching about were decided by good catholic people in this country, but that can't be surely?

They have fine "christian values" that would mean they would never do anything to make life difficult for their fellow Catholics?

I guess the argument for having a cross in Kerry cc made sense,

After all those fine christian value's have worked well in Ireland so far after all,

Thousands of women treated like dirt, hundreds of baby's dead, thousands of babys sold off, thousands of children raped, whole sections of looked down on and classed as illegal.

Yep, it would be good to continue with those fine values.......the type of value's that still class much of our society as "unnatural".

Incorrect. I'm not bitching about any of those things. I did write that people have more pressing concerns (paraphrase). Do I have to write my statements twice so people will understand what I actually write, or is it that in order to vilify me, falsehood must be employed?

One one hand, people say that the majority of Irish Citizens aren't Catholic in the strict sense of the word but when it suits the agenda, Ireland is a Catholic Country and the politicians are Catholic. (I think one user who 'liked' this post gives such an example further down the board...)

You approval or contempt for "values" is no concern of mine. I am not responsible for actions that occurred before my birth or that were beyond my influence. I do agree with the paragraph "Thousands...as illegal" but that view was not particular to Ireland and probably was not solely the doing of the RCC: the experience from other European Countries and North America should show this. If you care to research a little.

Knasher · 12-06-2014 5:32pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

No. Atheism Ireland is giving the crucifix more attention than the Councillor ever did/could. Sounds like an own-goal but keep kicking...

How is it an own goal to draw attention to something that would get people talking about the separation of church and state?

Every story I've seen on this issue has focused exclusively on the secularism angle of the story, and promoting secularism is the primary goal of AI.

pauldla · 13-06-2014 2:48am

lazybones32 wrote: »

They voted on a crucifix- past tense. I assume they are voting, talking working on other matters too (I don't read their minutes) but this one past issue is the one that has been given National attention. At his behest? No. Atheism Ireland is giving the crucifix more attention than the Councillor ever did/could. Sounds like an own-goal but keep kicking...

You are attempting to retort on a point of grammar? Very well. The Present Continuous Tense can be used to talk about the past, especially when summarizing (it can also be used to talk about the future, as in 'I'm meeting him next Tuesday'. Quite a versatile tense). So, 'They're voting on crucifixes' is fair usage on my part.

Atheist Ireland (to give them their correct title) are concerned with the pursuit of an ethical secular Ireland. As such, I'd imagine that they would regard the issue of elected representatives seeking to push their own religious agenda as being within their remit, and I'd further imagine that they would very much like to draw attention to it. How is highlighting it an 'own goal'?

recedite · 13-06-2014 7:56am

lazybones32 wrote: »

when it suits the agenda, Ireland is a Catholic Country and the politicians are Catholic....

Thankfully this is an outdated concept, in most parts of the country at least.

lazybones32 · 13-06-2014 8:12am

Knasher wrote: »

... get people talking...

No, the aim of AI's challenge wasn't to get people talking; they are taking the case to the Equality Authority to try have the crucifix removed.
See the difference?

kylith · 13-06-2014 8:22am

lazybones32 wrote: »

No, the aim of AI's challenge wasn't to get people talking; they are taking the case to the Equality Authority to try have the crucifix removed.
See the difference?

Which has gotten people talking.

lazybones32 · 13-06-2014 8:26am

pauldla wrote: »

You are attempting to retort on a point of grammar? Very well. The Present Continuous Tense can be used to talk about the past, especially when summarizing (it can also be used to talk about the future, as in 'I'm meeting him next Tuesday'. Quite a versatile tense). So, 'They're voting on crucifixes' is fair usage on my part.

Atheist Ireland (to give them their correct title) are concerned with the pursuit of an ethical secular Ireland. As such, I'd imagine that they would regard the issue of elected representatives seeking to push their own religious agenda as being within their remit, and I'd further imagine that they would very much like to draw attention to it. How is highlighting it an 'own goal'?

The motion was tabled, voted on and carried 6-3. KCC are not voting on this issue on a daily basis, therefore time and taxpayers money is not being currently consumed by this non-issue.
As stated above, AI's aim was/is to have the crucifix removed; not to draw publicity. Or maybe it is all just a publicity stunt?..AI haven't been in the news for a few months and this is their way of reminding us that they are still around
(Would you attend a hospital with a Saints name or would that offend you?

lazybones32 · 13-06-2014 8:30am

kylith wrote: »

Which has gotten people talking.

Yeah...the ten of us here are the real movers and shakers....this will drift into obscurity until it is remembered when the hearing occurs and it will be forgotten again.

One chips away while another builds...to and fro...sunrise, sunset etc and blah, blah, blah.

pauldla · 14-06-2014 6:57am

lazybones32 wrote: »

The motion was tabled, voted on and carried 6-3. KCC are not voting on this issue on a daily basis, therefore time and taxpayers money is not being currently consumed by this non-issue.

Yes, I know the vote took place. As in, in the past. I know the motion was carried. I saw the photo of the chamber, with the crucifix. I imagine that taxpayers money is not being wasted on the upkeep of the crucifix (unless they are polishing it regularly with super-extra-strength crucifix polish).
But it is an issue, at least for secularists. And if you argue that it’s petty to argue that the crucifix not be displayed in a chamber of government, must you also not wonder if it is equally petty to call for a vote on putting the thing up in the first place?

As stated above, AI's aim was/is to have the crucifix removed; not to draw publicity. Or maybe it is all just a publicity stunt?..AI haven't been in the news for a few months and this is their way of reminding us that they are still around

AFAIK, AI want to see the crucifix removed. They could do this under cover of darkness (think Michael Nugent going in Ethan Hunt style) or they could try to draw attention to the issue in order to raise public awareness of it. I’d guess they’re quite happy to draw publicity on the matter, and I don’t see how you think this is an ‘own goal’.

(Would you attend a hospital with a Saints name or would that offend you?

Strange question. Relevance, please?

lazybones32 · 14-06-2014 12:02pm

pauldla wrote: »

But it is an issue, at least for secularists. And if you argue that it’s petty to argue that the crucifix not be displayed in a chamber of government, must you also not wonder if it is equally petty to call for a vote on putting the thing up in the first place?

AFAIK, AI want to see the crucifix removed. They could do this under cover of darkness (think Michael Nugent going in Ethan Hunt style) or they could try to draw attention to the issue in order to raise public awareness of it. I’d guess they’re quite happy to draw publicity on the matter, and I don’t see how you think this is an ‘own goal’.

Strange question. Relevance, please?

But why is it an issue? Surely, you see that this wasn't done at the behest of KCC but an individual. It was a personal choice, which 6 members agreed to.
If people see this as an insidious means to marry Catholicism and Politics, I would be inclined to call them paranoid. For example, if I wanted to hang a Man. Utd. calendar on the wall at work, would it be considered official endorsement of Man. Utd or is it insensitive to Liverpool supporters, or do non-Soccer fans seriously fear I am trying to convert them to following Man. Utd.?
Now, if Cllr. Culloty tries to instate mandatory Catholic Prayers before every meeting, that is a different issue. However, I wouldn't have a problem if there was an 'official' period of silence before every meeting, where members could calm and recollect themselves for the business at hand.

How it's an O.G.: Look at some of the arguments posted here...it's too gory, offensive to children, substitute it with a satanic(?) symbol, State enforced religion etc To come to any debate with such 'reasoning' is shooting yourself in the foot. How and why should anyone take AI or its supporters seriously, when they cannot reasonably express their views?

Re. Hospital names: Most Hospitals are Catholic-founded and run. If a crucifix in a room is so offensive, do you not feel more disturbed going into a Catholic Hospital, named after a Saint (promotion of Catholicism?) has a Chapel, crucifixes and nuns/priests?
I understand people's desire for separation of Church and State and the RCC will ever again taste power/influence like it did in this Country. So, is the 'uproar' anti-Catholic sentiment or anti-religious sentiment? I've browsed through AI's site and there is a definite 'theme'...

pauldla · 14-06-2014 1:16pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

But why is it an issue? Surely, you see that this wasn't done at the behest of KCC but an individual. It was a personal choice, which 6 members agreed to.
If people see this as an insidious means to marry Catholicism and Politics, I would be inclined to call them paranoid. For example, if I wanted to hang a Man. Utd. calendar on the wall at work, would it be considered official endorsement of Man. Utd or is it insensitive to Liverpool supporters, or do non-Soccer fans seriously fear I am trying to convert them to following Man. Utd.?

Well, as a secularist, I find the need to decorate a chamber of elected representatives with the paraphernalia of any religion to be abhorrent. Religion is not the business of the Chamber, so why the need to have objects of religious veneration there? Would it not be better if the Chamber was seen to favour no religion, and thus to treat all citizens of the state as equals, regardless of belief?

You regard concern about the marriage of Catholicism and politics in Ireland to be the result of paranoia? Did I read that correctly?

Now, if Cllr. Culloty tries to instate mandatory Catholic Prayers before every meeting, that is a different issue. However, I wouldn't have a problem if there was an 'official' period of silence before every meeting, where members could calm and recollect themselves for the business at hand.

An object of religious veneration is just as objectionable as a prayer, I would have thought. Why does either need to be there? Why is one OK, but the other not OK?

How it's an O.G.: Look at some of the arguments posted here...it's too gory, offensive to children, substitute it with a satanic(?) symbol, State enforced religion etc To come to any debate with such 'reasoning' is shooting yourself in the foot. How and why should anyone take AI or its supporters seriously, when they cannot reasonably express their views?

So AI have scored an own goal not by drawing attention to the presence of the crucifix, but by the standard of debate on a boards.ie thread. Again, did I read that correctly?

Re. Hospital names: Most Hospitals are Catholic-founded and run. If a crucifix in a room is so offensive, do you not feel more disturbed going into a Catholic Hospital, named after a Saint (promotion of Catholicism?) has a Chapel, crucifixes and nuns/priests?
I understand people's desire for separation of Church and State and the RCC will ever again taste power/influence like it did in this Country. So, is the 'uproar' anti-Catholic sentiment or anti-religious sentiment? I've browsed through AI's site and there is a definite 'theme'...

Crucifixes in rooms do not offend me; churches and chapels boast many, I am told. I don’t see any reason to have them outside there or the home, though I accept that others feel differently. If it’s the nuns’ hospital, why should I care how many crucifixes they sport, so long as the hospitals religious views do not interfere with the provision of medical care (but that could never happen, could it).

But I am at a loss; if you understand the desire for separation of Church and State, from where comes our exchange? Incidentally, I believe the word ‘uproar’ was used in the OP about the removal of a Statue of the Sacred Heart from a community hospital (pro-Catholic uproar, one must assume). ‘Infuriated’ is the word to use about atheists considering crucifixes, it seems.

recedite · 14-06-2014 6:07pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

But why is it an issue? Surely, you see that this wasn't done at the behest of KCC but an individual. It was a personal choice, which 6 members agreed to.
....For example, if I wanted to hang a Man. Utd. calendar on the wall at work.......

Your attempts to make this look like its just some guy hanging personal items in his office are wearing a little thin at this stage.
These are elected representatives of the local people, voting on community issues in the chamber of the town council.
They may well have calculated that the majority of townspeople would be quite happy with this, but that does not make it the right decision.
If you remember in the Borat movie, he joked about the "Running of the Jew" festival they had in his home town. A (ficticious!) sport which was very popular with the majority there.
But there is more to democracy than pandering to the majority.

shruikan2553 · 15-06-2014 2:07am

What about Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist values? Should they make a note of these as well by putting up a symbol for those too?

Why does a republic even care about these religious values?

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 10:04am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What about Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist values? Should they make a note of these as well by putting up a symbol for those too?

Why does a republic even care about these religious values?

Will start with the last first...
If a Jewish, Muslim or Scientologist member wants to erect a small symbol, I would have no problem with it provided the correct procedures were followed (table a motion, vote, etc). A symbol is just a symbol: it represents something but doesn't have mystical powers that brainwash anyone who looks upon it. Once the object isn't given priority of position (sited on the wall above the Mayors head). Likewise, I'd have no problem with having some relevant sayings/phrases/quotes about politics being hung on the wall. Anything that can help a human reflect - esp. one who has responsibility for others - is not a bad thing.

robindch · 17-06-2014 10:55am

lazybones32 wrote: »

Anything that can help a human reflect - esp. one who has responsibility for others - is not a bad thing.

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?

shruikan2553 · 17-06-2014 11:11am

lazybones32 wrote: »

Will start with the last first...
If a Jewish, Muslim or Scientologist member wants to erect a small symbol, I would have no problem with it provided the correct procedures were followed (table a motion, vote, etc). A symbol is just a symbol: it represents something but doesn't have mystical powers that brainwash anyone who looks upon it. Once the object isn't given priority of position (sited on the wall above the Mayors head). Likewise, I'd have no problem with having some relevant sayings/phrases/quotes about politics being hung on the wall. Anything that can help a human reflect - esp. one who has responsibility for others - is not a bad thing.

How many symbols can we have? How much can we spend on each? If these people wish to reflect I am sure there is a church nearby.

swampgas · 17-06-2014 12:02pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

If a Jewish, Muslim or Scientologist member wants to erect a small symbol, I would have no problem with it provided the correct procedures were followed (table a motion, vote, etc). A symbol is just a symbol: it represents something but doesn't have mystical powers that brainwash anyone who looks upon it. Once the object isn't given priority of position (sited on the wall above the Mayors head). Likewise, I'd have no problem with having some relevant sayings/phrases/quotes about politics being hung on the wall. Anything that can help a human reflect - esp. one who has responsibility for others - is not a bad thing.

Symbols are very important in politics, they have much more significance than you might think. A flag is just a symbol, would you be happy to see a foreign flag (say a British or American flag) hanging in an Irish political chamber or office?

Religious symbols can be important too, and are clearly important to the man who wants a cross put on the wall. It's a message to the world that he is a Christian, and that he wants to bring his Christianity with him, very overtly, into the performance of his job as a councillor. It is in fact a show of dominance over other religions and none, a statement that this council is a Christian council, and that is not something anyone should be happy with, regardless of their own beliefs, as it is inherently discriminatory.

robindch · 17-06-2014 1:10pm

swampgas wrote: »

[...] it is inherently discriminatory.

Less discriminatory and more supremacist(y).

This can be mitigated to some extent by allowing access to all other religions and non-religions on an equal basis. Else you can just agree to avoid the topic altogether and have people agree that they'll leave their private religious beliefs at the door. Cue the cries of "persecution" at that point, of course.

magicbastarder · 17-06-2014 1:27pm

it's quite simple; the job of a council should be performed without any influence or suggestion of influence from, or sympathy towards, a religious organisation or system of thought.
if hanging a symbol of an (at best) quasi fictional supernatural being on the main chamber wall is not a suggestion of influence or sympathy, I don't know what would be.

swampgas · 17-06-2014 1:38pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's quite simple; the job of a council should be performed without any influence or suggestion of influence from, or sympathy towards, a religious organisation or system of thought.
if hanging a symbol of an (at best) quasi fictional supernatural being on the main chamber wall is not a suggestion of influence or sympathy, I don't know what would be.

It's amazing how Irish people seem to have a massive blind spot when it comes to the RCC. Maybe because they are so used to the bishop or parish priest being in control of, or participating in, the management of many organisations.

The Red Cross is a secular organisation, yet the local branch of the Red Cross has the local parish priest on the committee. One of the previous chairmen wanted to organise official (RC) masses to remember deceased members, etc., etc. Many Irish people do not seem to grasp the fact that not everybody is, or wants to be, a Roman Catholic.

The fact that so many people don't see a problem with the cross on the wall is probably because they are used to seeing crosses all over the place already, from schools to hospitals to people's homes. It has become normalised for them and they just can't step back from it far enough to see the problem.

magicbastarder · 17-06-2014 1:43pm

swampgas wrote: »

The Red Cross is a secular organisation, yet the local branch of the Red Cross has the local parish priest on the committee. One of the previous chairmen wanted to organise official (RC) masses to remember deceased members, etc., etc. Many Irish people do not seem to grasp the fact that not everybody is, or wants to be, a Roman Catholic.

I wouldn't object to the PP being on the committee, per se - if his voice does not carry any more weight than any other committee member.
excluding someone because of their religion would be a greater ill than including them because of it.

swampgas · 17-06-2014 1:54pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

I wouldn't object to the PP being on the committee, per se - if his voice does not carry any more weight than any other committee member.
excluding someone because of their religion would be a greater ill than including them because of it.

I'm not sure myself. In the local instance, it seems that the PP is invited onto just about every committee in the area "out of respect", and the local PP is a very laid back guy. However the PP wasn't put on the committee because he has a special intererest in first aid, he is there because he is the PP. And that to me sends a message of sorts, and the message is that the local Red Cross organisation is a de facto Catholic organisation. I don't think it is deliberate; in small towns things just get done that way because they always have been.

The PP is not just somone who happens to be a Catholic, they are an agent of the RCC itself. Should there be a conflict between the Red Cross policy and the RCC, there would be a conflict of interest. If the Red Cross is supposed to serve the entire community, why should a representative of the religion of part of that community be given official representation?

Brian Shanahan · 17-06-2014 3:31pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

Anything that can help a human reflect - esp. one who has responsibility for others - is not a bad thing.

Well then, why don't you campaign for a replacement of that cross with a mirror. Mirrors reflect crucifixes don't.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 5:52pm

robindch wrote: »

And what if the cross makes some people angry...

It's called a "cross" for a reason.

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.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 5:54pm

recedite wrote: »

Your attempts to make this look like its just some guy hanging personal items in his office are wearing a little thin at this stage.
These are elected representatives of the local people, voting on community issues in the chamber of the town council.
They may well have calculated that the majority of townspeople would be quite happy with this, but that does not make it the right decision.
If you remember in the Borat movie, he joked about the "Running of the Jew" festival they had in his home town. A (ficticious!) sport which was very popular with the majority there.
But there is more to democracy than pandering to the majority.

Well, if it is not some guy hanging a personal item in the office, what exactly is it? I await with relish the conspiracy theory you are going to propose....

I never watched borat...too foolish for my taste.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 6:03pm

swampgas wrote: »

Symbols are very important in politics, they have much more significance than you might think. A flag is just a symbol, would you be happy to see a foreign flag (say a British or American flag) hanging in an Irish political chamber or office?

I see flags flying from buildings all the time (not all Rep.Ire flags) and am not bothered. I see EU flags flying higher than the tricolour and am no longer bothered (I was before). And I was working in a Public Job, when the Union Jack was raised to greet the English Ambassador to Ireland...again, I didn't freak out.
[/QUOTE]Religious symbols can be important too, and are clearly important to the man who wants a cross put on the wall. It's a message to the world that he is a Christian, and that he wants to bring his Christianity with him, very overtly, into the performance of his job as a councillor. It is in fact a show of dominance over other religions and none, a statement that this council is a Christian council, and that is not something anyone should be happy with, regardless of their own beliefs, as it is inherently discriminatory.[/QUOTE]

You got all that from a crucifix? Either you're a genius or paranoid...

Knasher · 17-06-2014 6:32pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

You got all that from a crucifix? Either you're a genius or paranoid...

The councillors who voted against this also raised their objections on the pretty much the same grounds.

"Christianity is not actually everyone’s religion and heritage. We are here to represent the wider community." -Cllr Wharton-Slattery
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/crucifix-conflict-splits-kerry-county-council-1.1763742

swampgas · 17-06-2014 7:32pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

I see flags flying from buildings all the time (not all Rep.Ire flags) and am not bothered. I see EU flags flying higher than the tricolour and am no longer bothered (I was before). And I was working in a Public Job, when the Union Jack was raised to greet the English Ambassador to Ireland...again, I didn't freak out.

Those flags are flown with full knowledge of their significance. The very fact that you can easily recall significant flag flying events means that at the very least you are aware which flags are flying, and you are aware of what priority they are being given. Not bad for someone who doesn't care about symbols.

You got all that from a crucifix?

This councillor went to a lot of trouble to get his cross up on the wall, don't go playing the innocent - I suspect you know exactly what he was up to.

Either you're a genius or paranoid...

I'll go with genius thanks

recedite · 17-06-2014 8:49pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

And I was working in a Public Job, when the Union Jack was raised to greet the English Ambassador to Ireland...again, I didn't freak out.

I think you mean the British ambassador.
Your self-control is admirable. A comparable situation might occur if a town council was being visited by the Papal Nuncio on some legitimate business, and the council erected a temporary crucifix or papal flag in their chamber.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 8:59pm

Knasher wrote: »

The councillors who voted against this also raised their objections on the pretty much the same grounds.

"Christianity is not actually everyone’s religion and heritage. We are here to represent the wider community." -Cllr Wharton-Slattery
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/crucifix-conflict-splits-kerry-county-council-1.1763742

Yeah, the posters here and Labour are singing pretty much the same song. Do you share Labour's 'vision' of Ireland too?

Why exactly does it bother you, that someone wants a crucifix in a Govt. building? Be honest...

shruikan2553 · 17-06-2014 9:08pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yeah, the posters here and Labour are singing pretty much the same song. Do you share Labour's 'vision' of Ireland too?

Why exactly does it bother you, that someone wants a crucifix in a Govt. building? Be honest...

Separation of church and state. Why does some want a crucifix in a government building? Is there home and church not enough?

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 9:14pm

swampgas wrote: »

Those flags are flown with full knowledge of their significance. The very fact that you can easily recall significant flag flying events means that at the very least you are aware which flags are flying, and you are aware of what priority they are being given. Not bad for someone who doesn't care about symbols.

This councillor went to a lot of trouble to get his cross up on the wall, don't go playing the innocent - I suspect you know exactly what he was up to.

I'll go with genius thanks

Being observant is quality of mine... doesn't mean I care.

I've been accused of 'playing innocent' already...The man said he wants to have a crucifix on the wall without saying exactly why he wants it there - not to my knowledge anyway. As I wrote previously in another reply, if you see this as a conspiracy to reinstate and promulgate Christianity officially as the religion of KCC, nothing I write will ease your paranoia but only add to it.

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Your-Paranoia

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 9:23pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Separation of church and state. Why does some want a crucifix in a government building? Is there home and church not enough?

Pure politics, then? I'd hate to think that people were motivated by their hatred/whatever of religion and masquerading it as political equality and being concerned that the State is sponsoring a religion.

Well, the vote was open for everyone eligible to vote and 9 of the 27 exercised their privilege. A democratic process was used and a decision was reached.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 9:29pm

recedite wrote: »

I think you mean the British ambassador.
Your self-control is admirable. A comparable situation might occur if a town council was being visited by the Papal Nuncio on some legitimate business, and the council erected a temporary crucifix or papal flag in their chamber.

All I know is that he spoke with a refined English accent and was driven in a nice, gold Jaguar.

I never get consulted about what gets poled and erections happen without my consent but if the majority agrees after a democratic process, I respect the will of the people. Well, I accept that it was their decision...not saying I agree with everything people vote for.

swampgas · 17-06-2014 9:37pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

The man said he wants to have a crucifix on the wall without saying exactly why he wants it there - not to my knowledge anyway.

At the very least, putting a crucifix up is rude and inconsiderate to everyone else who doesn't share his faith. As there were dissenting councillors, and he went ahead with a majority vote anyway shows that he doesn't care about minority opinions when it comes to religion.

You seem to agree with his approach - which is to ignore minorities and push ahead with the majority view, i.e. mob rule.

Knasher · 17-06-2014 9:51pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

Well, the vote was open for everyone eligible to vote and 9 of the 27 exercised their privilege. A democratic process was used and a decision was reached.

And I disagree with that decision and wish to exercise my right to air that grievance. I can only assume that you feel that people should have any right to disagree when a decision has been reached democratically, given the number of posts you've contributed on this issue.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you share Labour's 'vision' of Ireland too?

I assume you do, after all they were democratically elected.

shruikan2553 · 17-06-2014 9:58pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

Pure politics, then? I'd hate to think that people were motivated by their hatred/whatever of religion and masquerading it as political equality and being concerned that the State is sponsoring a religion.

Well, the vote was open for everyone eligible to vote and 9 of the 27 exercised their privilege. A democratic process was used and a decision was reached.

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.

recedite · 17-06-2014 10:06pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

All I know is that he spoke with a refined English accent and was driven in a nice, gold Jaguar.

I never get consulted about what gets poled and erections happen without my consent....

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

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 10:27pm

swampgas wrote: »

At the very least, putting a crucifix up is rude and inconsiderate to everyone else who doesn't share his faith. As there were dissenting councillors, and he went ahead with a majority vote anyway shows that he doesn't care about minority opinions when it comes to religion.

You seem to agree with his approach - which is to ignore minorities and push ahead with the majority view, i.e. mob rule.

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?

Knasher · 17-06-2014 10:30pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

No religious majority/minority has yet to complain.

So our concerns don't count as we aren't religious?

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 10:31pm

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.

lazygal · 17-06-2014 10:31pm

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.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 10:35pm

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.

shruikan2553 · 17-06-2014 10:35pm

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.

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 10:36pm

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...

lazybones32 · 17-06-2014 10:42pm

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.

Brian Shanahan · 17-06-2014 11:14pm

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?

robindch · 17-06-2014 11:23pm

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?

lazybones32 · 18-06-2014 8:34am

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.

Killarney Cross over Crucifix

Comments