Would Pagans Occupy The Hill of Tara If It Was A Muslim Holy Site??

Hero Of College

Kharn wrote: »

I'm very confused...

I don't consider Tara to be a religious site. Religious things have happened there, I've no doubt, but as the seat of power for a nation, that can't come as a surprise. By your rationale, Dáil Éireann and the Whitehouse in Washington DC are also religious sites as they are seats of power where religious things have happened (swearing in with God as their witness etc). Do you believe this to be the case?

I'm not here to have a go at Christianity, I spent too long in my past being that "angry aethiest-Christian" and I'm done with it - live and let live tbh. I'm just curious as to why you think that hundreds/thousands of years of a certain way of life have been suddenly made null and void because someone had a different idea that's no more or less valid than the last.

You see, I don't equate "religions things" with what happened in/around/on Tara. Going to mass is a "religious thing". A crucifix is a "religious thing". But when Christ broke bread for the first time or when Christ was crucified....these are more than "religious things". They are seminal events, seismic almost. They are new departures. I know you don't believe, and thats cool. But the fact remains, even from a Pagan perspective, that the arrival of Saint Patrick into Ireland and his audience with the High Kings is a seminal moment. It is not an instance of "Saint Nonsense" taking a "dump". Even, and I reiterate, from a Pagan Perspective, it must be a seminal moment- and, ironically, you make the point for me in a backhanded sort of way in the second part of your post.

I agree, and you will see why, that the Pagan history of this Island is important and is not to be trod upon gleefully. To do so would be to embrace a Hitler-esque stance. Hitler once said, in preparing his "Final Solution".... who, after all, remembers the Armenians". This country cannot afford to trample on past traditions, simply because nobody ever met the High Kings.

However, look at Istanbul. Once the predominating belief was Roman and Christian. Today it is Turkish and Islamic. Who remembers and reveres Byzantium? The Hagia Sophia was turned into a Mosque, then into a Museum. The ideas and ways of the Eastern Roman Empire {Constantinople} were quite valid, and amongst the most cultured of Europe, a far cry from the general brutality of Medieval Europe. But they were swept aside by a more vibrant force whose time, it seems, had come.

Pagans of Ireland must realise this. I despise the dogma of organised religion, I believe in Jesus and therefore God but in the sense of God as a MAN, not some invisible deity who can see what I am doing.:rolleyes: And I believe the word and teachings of that man were made known to the native inhabitants of this island at Tara some 1600 years ago, and that those teachings were readily embraced voluntarily, and not by force, as was the case with Islam in Constantinople- but peacefully, and to the betterment of the Island. {Think Boru at Clontarf} And THAT, for me, is of considerable religious significance.

All I ask is that the protesting Pagans bear that in mind.

Peace.

Sapien

Hero Of College wrote:

Tara is a Christian site.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean it is also a Christian site - as well as pagan and pre-Christian? Do you mean it is more Christian than pagan? Do you mean it is solely Christian, and has ceased to be pagan? How does this relate to its standing in secular heritage? Do Christians have a special claim over it?

Hero Of College wrote:

Lets take the Islamic view- and suppose for a minute that Tara was instead a Muslim shrine. What treatment do you think the Pagans on Tara would be in for if they defiled a Muslim Shrine.

The pagans, like the rest of the protesters at Tara, are trying to prevent it from being "defiled". They are trying to preserve it. The fact that some people, apparently, attach a Christian significance to Tara has absolutely nothing to do with it. The pagans, presumably, want it to be preserved because it figures importantly in their spirituality. Others wish for it to be preserved because it is part of the history, heritage and culture of Ireland. Others, possibly, want it to be preserved because it features in the legend of Patrick. These different approaches are not exclusive - they converge upon the same aim. Now, unless you are suggesting that, for a reason that is far from obvious, pagans are being anti-Christian by preventing Tara from being destroyed, I fail to see what your problem is.

Hero Of College wrote:

Thus, two points, which you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp.

1. Tara is Christian.

Not in any meaningful sense. Please answer the above questions.

Hero Of College wrote:

2.Christianity is a soft touch.

Whatever. You seem to have managed to warp the desire of these people to protect Tara into some mysterious anti-Christian agenda. I still have no idea why.

Hero Of College wrote:

And, while I am at it:- 3. Pagans need to show some respect to the Christian nature of Tara- they wouldn't do it to a Muslim place {chop chop} so why do it to a Christian place.

Ah. Why be maieutic about it when you can just come out and say it. Socrates would be proud.

Hero Of College wrote:

I am sure there were some pretty heady Zoroastrian times down Iran way back in the day, but you don't see Squeak and buddies flouting Iranian dress sense in Tehran in defence of Zoroastrians, now do you.

No idea...

Shiminay

That's the first bit of sense you've made on this thread I think I got the distinct impression that you were of the opinion that Pagan's no longer had any sort of "claim" to the place because St Patrick is supposed to have had his audience with the Kings there. For the record, I think Tara should be enjoyed by everyone and again make the point that all this sort of protesting and so on will only serve to give the OPW the urge to take control of the whole site and put up gates and fences, which whatever about a road being build several miles away, that would be the biggest crime.

WindSock

Instant Karma wrote: »

Why 'hypothetically' would there even be a Muslim religious site smack bang in the middle of a majority Christian country?

Spain?

Also, I think Tara is of more Historical signifigance than Religious. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you saying Pagans are Anti Islamic and Pro Christian?

Doctor DooM

Hero Of College wrote: »

All I ask is that the protesting Pagans bear that in mind.

Peace.

Hi Hero,

I notice you completely ignored my post and seem to be picking your arguments.

Do you have any evidence at all there is some form of Pagan influence in the Tara protests?

I ask because, as stated above, I happen to know two Church of Ireland people who are involved. Which kind of completely debunks your point.

Perhaps Squeak is a Catholic, just like yourself?

Or are you just picking on a minority you dislike?

Hero Of College

WindSock wrote: »

Spain?

Also, I think Tara is of more Historical signifigance than Religious. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you saying Pagans are Anti Islamic and Pro Christian?

Not at all.

Actually, as good a point as Spain was, try the converse, and consider Istanbul.

The Pagans aren't anti Christian, I just wonder if they wouldn't be a little more reticient about occupying the place if a Fatwah was put on them. Thats all.

I think they {as evidenced by the girl in the tunnel} are as big a risk to themselves as anything else.

Hero Of College

SDooM wrote: »

Hi Hero,

I notice you completely ignored my post and seem to be picking your arguments.

Do you have any evidence at all there is some form of Pagan influence in the Tara protests?

I ask because, as stated above, I happen to know two Church of Ireland people who are involved. Which kind of completely debunks your point.

Perhaps Squeak is a Catholic, just like yourself?

Or are you just picking on a minority you dislike?

I am

1. At work

2. On dialup.

Give a bro a chance.

Hero Of College

Sapien wrote: »

What do you mean by this? Do you mean it is also a Christian site - as well as pagan and pre-Christian? Do you mean it is more Christian than pagan? Do you mean it is solely Christian, and has ceased to be pagan? How does this relate to its standing in secular heritage? Do Christians have a special claim over it?

It is both. It has significance, and rightly so, to both groups. I defend it on the grounds that it is {a} the historical site of power in Ireland and {b} the place in which Christianity first raised its ugly head, so to speak. If people will stare at holes made by asteroids, they should at least respect Tara Hill.

Sapien wrote:

The pagans, like the rest of the protesters at Tara, are trying to prevent it from being "defiled". They are trying to preserve it. The fact that some people, apparently, attach a Christian significance to Tara has absolutely nothing to do with it. The pagans, presumably, want it to be preserved because it figures importantly in their spirituality. Others wish for it to be preserved because it is part of the history, heritage and culture of Ireland. Others, possibly, want it to be preserved because it features in the legend of Patrick. These different approaches are not exclusive - they converge upon the same aim. Now, unless you are suggesting that, for a reason that is far from obvious, pagans are being anti-Christian by preventing Tara from being destroyed, I fail to see what your problem is.

The "problem" is that, as I see it, the "defence" of Tara has been unilateral, from the Pagan POV, with very little cross dialogue. Now maybe thats the fault of more than one group....but your flat out denial of Taras status as a Christian site leads me to believe that Pagans have a particularly entrenched view, namely that historical significance outweights religious signifiance.

Sapien wrote:

You seem to have managed to warp the desire of these people to protect Tara into some mysterious anti-Christian agenda. I still have no idea why.

Not anti-Christian, just indifferent.It would be a trifle polite if they considered the Christian nature of the place and, well, gave Christians a shout out. I fail to see why the entire thing should be so exclusive.

Caoimhín

OP.
Are you suggesting christians should behave the same way muslims do if their holy sites are desecrated?

Sapien

Hero Of College wrote: »

The "problem" is that, as I see it, the "defence" of Tara has been unilateral, from the Pagan POV, with very little cross dialogue. Now maybe thats the fault of more than one group....but your flat out denial of Taras status as a Christian site leads me to believe that Pagans have a particularly entrenched view, namely that historical significance outweights religious signifiance.

I am not a pagan. I simply think the Christian associations of Tara are trivial compared to its connection with Ireland's pre-Christian heritage.

So your problem is not with the actions of these alleged pagans, but with the fact that they have not asked Christians to join in. Is that it? You agree with their aims, but want to be in on the action?

Hero Of College wrote: »

Not anti-Christian, just indifferent.It would be a trifle polite if they considered the Christian nature of the place and, well, gave Christians a shout out. I fail to see why the entire thing should be so exclusive.

I think I'm getting it now. How preposterously petulant of you. How have you managed to convince yourself that Christian apathy towards Tara is the fault of pagans? And why on earth did you feel the need to use the word "defile" so many times?

So basically, if Tara is saved, you don't like the idea that pagans and not Christians will get the credit for it. Are the pagans somehow preventing Christians from campaigning and protesting? Why should people who have no interest in Christianity make an effort to highlight this Christian folk tale, when there are millions of self-professed Christians in the country who could, if they were bothered, do it themselves?

And, once again, the "Christian nature" of Tara is a wishful invention of yours. The legend that Patrick visited Tara is a throwaway novelty compared to the mythological attribution of Tara as the seat of the Tuatha De Danann, and both of these pale in significance to the historical importance of the place in pre-Christian politics. Tara looms large as an asset in our heritage - the Patrick story is a mere scribbled footnote.

Now explain where Islam comes into it.

Nevyn

Hero Of College wrote: »

It is both. It has significance, and rightly so, to both groups. I defend it on the grounds that it is {a} the historical site of power in Ireland and {b} the place in which Christianity first raised its ugly head, so to speak.

Actually historical record show there were christains on cape clear Island off the coast of cork 30 years before St Patrick was meant to have 'brought' christianity to here.

But you have already stated you think for a site to be sacred it has to be of christian import which I find rude and dismissive.

Hero Of College wrote: »

The "problem" is that, as I see it, the "defence" of Tara has been unilateral, from the Pagan POV,

Actually it has not. Infact the likes of tarawatch have come in for some very scathing comments by myself and other regular pagan posters in this forum.

I disagree with their reasonings and methods quiet frankly and with the disrepute some of their members are bringing to paganism as a whole in Ireland, one of thier very active members is not just banned from this forum but was site banned.

I don't' see the point of saying Tara is not a christian site as well when there is clearly a church up at the hill of Tara I might as well try and say that there are no stars in the sky.

But again even this thread is falling into the trap of only talking about Tara as in the Hill and not the fact the protesters are not at the Hill of Tara and that the Hill of Tara is not under threat the issue is the routing of the road through the Skryne Valley where there was a better route available.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Not anti-Christian, just indifferent.It would be a trifle polite if they considered the Christian nature of the place and, well, gave Christians a shout out. I fail to see why the entire thing should be so exclusive.

I don't think that the efforts to do 'somthing' ( no matter how misguided it is ) are closed to those who are christian. It has been stated twice in this thread there are CoI people invovled.

I have complained repeatedly going back two years at this stage that making
the ill chosen route of the road seem like a pagan only issue would be very damaging to getting people engaged and getting them to care and lobby to have this mess sorted out.

I think that the Hill and the Valley are of historical importance to everyone no matter their creed or beliefs.

Doctor DooM

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that the Hill and the Valley are of historical importance to everyone no matter their creed or beliefs.

This would be my POV as well.

Surely if the entrenched religions of Ireland are not defending this site which apparently is of import to you, OP, it is their fault, not the Pagans?

As there is no "Church of Pagianity" I don't even think its fair to be referring to the Pagans involved as some form of umbrella organisation, opposed to Christianity's involvement, tbh.

Hero Of College

Thaedydal wrote: »

Actually historical record show there were christains on cape clear Island off the coast of cork 30 years before St Patrick was meant to have 'brought' christianity to here.

But you have already stated you think for a site to be sacred it has to be of christian import which I find rude and dismissive.

Tell me, was "Cape Clear Island" of the Coast of Cork the traditional haunt of the most powerful Pagan Kings? No, it wasn't. Then again, you have probably missed the point on the distinction which exists between minor and major events. They could have re-enacted the crucifixion of Christ on Inis Moir, for all the difference it would have made- what made Patricks interevention here so important was its manner:- he gained Audience with men who were prepared to lead the people of the island in a new {Christian} direction. Thats the significance- he appealed to the highest authority in the land- the first such movement in the history of Ireland, and one of the earliest introductions of Christianity on a formal basis anywhere on the earth {I think Armenia and Ethiopia have even younger Christian traditions}




Never said that. In fact, I said I held it in esteem for two reasons, one historical, the other religious.

Thaedydal wrote:

Actually it has not. Infact the likes of tarawatch have come in for some very scathing comments by myself and other regular pagan posters in this forum.

I disagree with their reasonings and methods quiet frankly and with the disrepute some of their members are bringing to paganism as a whole in Ireland, one of thier very active members is not just banned from this forum but was site banned.

Well, there you go. A lot of the media reporting has left this out. I'm not for bannings or confrontations but thanks for pointing these things out. I wasn't aware of where exactly you personally stood, nor did I say that the Pagan movement on Tara was indicative of the ENTIRE pagan population- but it is unilateral in the sense that it gives jack-sh!t in the line of credence to the POV that Tara is a Christian site.

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't' see the point of saying Tara is not a christian site as well when there is clearly a church up at the hill of Tara I might as well try and say that there are no stars in the sky.

Grand. Thats something that more people should take into account.

Thaedydal wrote:

But again even this thread is falling into the trap of only talking about Tara as in the Hill and not the fact the protesters are not at the Hill of Tara and that the Hill of Tara is not under threat the issue is the routing of the road through the Skryne Valley where there was a better route available.

Possibly so- but the media insist on calling it "Tara" so there's one explanation, also, with developers making statements like "they eat their kids on the Northside" its not hard to see how hardnosed some of these sh!ts can be when it comes to getting their own way with these "developments".

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't think that the efforts to do 'somthing' ( no matter how misguided it is ) are closed to those who are christian. It has been stated twice in this thread there are CoI people invovled.

Bottom line is that the preponderance of people in this country are of a RC persuasion. WHen it comes to swinging something in ones favour, its best to appeal to the majority. I think it was an awful error for people to represent the defence of Tara as being a "Crusty" issue, immediately turning off an awful lot of potential support, as happened with the Glen of the Downs. Thats just how a democracy works, its a numbers game. Calling oneself "Squeak" and then disappearing down a hole with a candle is not good PR, and lets face it, its all about PR. We are appealing to a BEBO generation for help here, unfortunately.

Thaedydal wrote:

I have complained repeatedly going back two years at this stage that making the ill chosen route of the road seem like a pagan only issue would be very damaging to getting people engaged and getting them to care and lobby to have this mess sorted out.

Exactly. See above. Sapien thinks I fear that the "Pagans will Win" and Christians will lose out on the support and clamour which follows. Nonsense. An opportunity has been lost here for people to pool in on this- and I don't think we are getting another chance.

Thaedydal wrote:

I think that the Hill and the Valley are of historical importance to everyone no matter their creed or beliefs.

Exactly...and the first thing the first person who got to the top should have done was plant a flag to that effect. Unfortunately it appears the situation has degraded to the state that it bears more in common with the Glen Of The Downs than it does with say an anti-war protest in O'Connell Street. In otherwords- its exclusive. And thats never good.

Hero Of College

Sapien wrote: »

I am not a pagan. I simply think the Christian associations of Tara are trivial compared to its connection with Ireland's pre-Christian heritage.

Nonsense. The Irish Constitution is one of the finest documents of our era, and it draws heavily on this Country and its Christian traditions. Given that the Constitution is the basis of the State, and the Constitution is based on Christian beliefs and mores, and that our Christian beliefs and mores were introduced by Patrick at Tara, then surely more significance must be attached to Tara as a Christian site.

Sapien wrote:

So your problem is not with the actions of these alleged pagans, but with the fact that they have not asked Christians to join in. Is that it? You agree with their aims, but want to be in on the action?

As stated in a previous response, we are in the PR game now, and some numbers might help. Getting extra support involves sending the right messages. The PERCEPTION of a crusty down a hole with a candle and a car jack is likely to turn the entire thing into one great big joke, thus playing into Johnny Developers hands more and more.





[Qupte=Sapien]I think I'm getting it now. How preposterously petulant of you. How have you managed to convince yourself that Christian apathy towards Tara is the fault of pagans? And why on earth did you feel the need to use the word "defile" so many times?[/Quote]

Christian apathy towards Tara is a result of our apathy as a nation in general. In general, people are sheep, prepared to be pushed and herded and taxed and bullied. In an apathetic age as ours, it behoves concerned activists to inform and educate and gather support, not reduce themselves to laughing stock.

As for "DEFILE"...maybe that is too strong. But they shouldn't have dug a tunnel system. Sure that is as bad as a bleeding road......

Sapien wrote:

So basically, if Tara is saved, you don't like the idea that pagans and not Christians will get the credit for it. Are the pagans somehow preventing Christians from campaigning and protesting? Why should people who have no interest in Christianity make an effort to highlight this Christian folk tale, when there are millions of self-professed Christians in the country who could, if they were bothered, do it themselves?

No. Read above. Tara won't be saved BY ANYONE.

Sapien wrote:

And, once again, the "Christian nature" of Tara is a wishful invention of yours. The legend that Patrick visited Tara is a throwaway novelty compared to the mythological attribution of Tara as the seat of the Tuatha De Danann, and both of these pale in significance to the historical importance of the place in pre-Christian politics. Tara looms large as an asset in our heritage - the Patrick story is a mere scribbled footnote.

Tara has a distinct Christian nature. Your refusal to acknowledge it is so childish and head-in-the-sand as to be ridiculous. Most kids in the street think De Dannan is a band or something, and that Tuatha are something in your mouth. Pre Christian politics be damned, this Country of ours is run by a Parliament in Dublin who is beholden to a Constitution, one of the finest documents for Government ever written, and that Constitution was based in Christian mores and beliefs, and that Christian faith was introduced by Patrick to this country via the High Kings at Tara. You can dismiss "The Patrick Story" as "mere scribbled footnote", but you can NEVER dismiss the Constitution as same. And I'll say this much- at least Patrick could write....The High Kings only had Ogham. There was precious little being scribbled before Patrick, most of our "scribbling" I think you will find took place during our age of Enlightenment, when Christian Ireland led the way during the "Dark Ages".

Sapien wrote:

Now explain where Islam comes into it.

You would NEVER diss a Muslim like you just dissed me, for fear of your life. Thats where Islam comes into it. They have a solution for you. I don't, other than to patiently spell out my opinions and ask others to patiently tolerate them.

Tabnabs

Hero Of College wrote: »

You would NEVER diss a Muslim like you just dissed me, for fear of your life.

Shiminay

I don't think state and religion should EVER be mixed and as such, I'm ashamed of our constitution and all that has sprung up around it. By it's very nature, it excludes non-Christians and as a result, we see that in everyday Ireland where people are looked at as having something wrong with them if they say they're Pagan (this happens to me all the time) or that they're foreign if they're (for example) Islamic.

You're assuming a Muslim person would commit murder on the grounds of someone having no interest in or being dismissive of in their faith is just so disappointing. I honestly felt you'd clawed back some credibility in this thread (at least in my eyes you had), but you lost it all with that statement.

Wasn't that long ago when the Christians put people to death for having differing beliefs too - but then again, people and religions change. They're even giving people who commit suicide funerals now aren't they? Just something you should think about...

Sapien

Hero Of College wrote: »

Nonsense. The Irish Constitution is one of the finest documents of our era, and it draws heavily on this Country and its Christian traditions. Given that the Constitution is the basis of the State, and the Constitution is based on Christian beliefs and mores, and that our Christian beliefs and mores were introduced by Patrick at Tara, then surely more significance must be attached to Tara as a Christian site.

Whose "Christian beliefs and mores" exactly? Certainly not mine. Nor these pagans either. I couldn't care less if the Constitution invoked the name of L Ron Hubbard. This is a secular republic and no one's religious convictions are given precedence. The folk tale of Patrick is a blip in the millennia long story of Tara. Just because Christianity happens to be more important to you, to Irish Catholicism and to the authors of the Constitution, it doesn't mean that an alleged stunt by a fifth century Christian missionary gets to trump thousands of years of pre-Christian ritual and politics.

Hero Of College wrote:

As stated in a previous response, we are in the PR game now, and some numbers might help. Getting extra support involves sending the right messages. The PERCEPTION of a crusty down a hole with a candle and a car jack is likely to turn the entire thing into one great big joke, thus playing into Johnny Developers hands more and more.

I see. And some rosary rattling old dears would send a better message? I hate to break it to you, Hero, but as religions go, Christianity is no more appealing to the masses than paganism. At least paganism is interesting, new in one sense, ancient in another, vibrant, eccentric and going somewhere. I've no doubt the local pp could muster up a troop of doddering legionnaires to sit in front of the bulldozers while saying decades - but in terms of PR? Please! What quicker way to make conservation of Tara grey, uninteresting and oppressively trite, I cannot imagine. And for what? - a folk tale that isn't even recognised by the Church or believed by any remotely discerning historian.

Hero Of College wrote:

Christian apathy towards Tara is a result of our apathy as a nation in general. In general, people are sheep, prepared to be pushed and herded and taxed and bullied. In an apathetic age as ours, it behoves concerned activists to inform and educate and gather support, not reduce themselves to laughing stock.

And so far, among the only groups to take an active interest in Tara's conservation are pagans. And you condemn them for it. And the Christians who stay at home and turn a blind eye as their elected officials prepare to plough through their heritage - these are the victims in your scenario. You should really think through this again.

Hero Of College wrote:

No. Read above. Tara won't be saved BY ANYONE.

I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote. So you're pessimistic about the developments being prevented. What does that have to do with it? Are the pagans doing anything to prevent Christians, or anybody else, from campaigning to save Tara? How can they be blamed for the apathy of others?

Hero Of College wrote:

Tara has a distinct Christian nature. Your refusal to acknowledge it is so childish and head-in-the-sand as to be ridiculous.

Is this "distinct Christian nature" simply because of the story of Patrick lighting the bonfire, or is there something more to it? Was there a monastic settlement of some kind of which I am unaware? Any lasting Christian presence? Anything that is more significant that an alleged stunt by a missionary? If not, then I'm very sorry, but Christianity barely makes a dent. It may seem to you that this droplet of Christianity in an ocean of pre-Christian history makes the whole thing a creature of your religion, but that's only because it is your religion, you are being blindly subjective. If you had any objectivity whatsoever, you would have the grace to accept that Tara means at least as much to other people as to yourself, and for different reasons, and that your unique claim to it is jaundiced and paltry. But I'm increasingly getting the impression that access to such perspectives is just a bit beyond you.

Hero Of College wrote:

Pre Christian politics be damned, this Country of ours is run by a Parliament in Dublin who is beholden to a Constitution, one of the finest documents for Government ever written, and that Constitution was based in Christian mores and beliefs, and that Christian faith was introduced by Patrick to this country via the High Kings at Tara. You can dismiss "The Patrick Story" as "mere scribbled footnote", but you can NEVER dismiss the Constitution as same.

Of course I can. Your esteem for the Constitution is as baffling as it is bizarre. You seem to revere it as some would a holy text. To hell with the Constitution. And even if I did think highly of the Constitution, what this would have to do with the issue we're discussing, I don't know. If you are suggesting that, because the state in which I was born was founded by people of a particular religious conviction, I should share or defer to that religious conviction - I'm sorry but that is one of the most feeble arguments in support of the religious establishment I have ever heard.

Hero Of College wrote:

You would NEVER diss a Muslim like you just dissed me, for fear of your life.

Of course I would. I do it all the time. I have only known a handful of Muslims personally, but I have never been reticent with them on the topic of religion. Not all Muslims are jihadis, you know. Not only are pagans crusty freaks, but Muslims are habitual murderers. Charming. Tell me - might you be a bit of a Christian chauvinist and bigot?

The idea that critics of Christianity somehow pull punches with other major world religions is irritatingly widespread and completely without basis in fact. And I have only "dissed" you because of the wretchedly poor arguments you have been posting, and the baseless impugnations you sling against pagans who are ingenuously trying to conserve our common heritage. For no other reason, it seems, than that they are pagan. Or not Christian. Your mention of Islam in the title of the thread must then suggests that pagans are somehow "dissing" Christianity by the very act of protecting Tara. That is a mysterious contention, and one which you have failed to justify.

Hero Of College

Sapien wrote: »

Whose "Christian beliefs and mores" exactly? Certainly not mine. Nor these pagans either. I couldn't care less if the Constitution invoked the name of L Ron Hubbard. This is a secular republic and no one's religious convictions are given precedence. The folk tale of Patrick is a blip in the millennia long story of Tara. Just because Christianity happens to be more important to you, to Irish Catholicism and to the authors of the Constitution, it doesn't mean that an alleged stunt by a fifth century Christian missionary gets to trump thousands of years of pre-Christian ritual and politics.

I don't care about your beliefs.;) In the spirt of Democracy, the Constitution takes note of the beliefs and mores of the preponderance of the population at the time it was constructed. Now the beauty of the Constitution is that, unlike hardcore religious dogma {of any persuasion} we can change or have it changed as the majority sees fit. Examples being the Citizenship Referendum and the Abortion Referenda. The Constitution recognises the majority- and sometimes, as we saw with the Divorce referendum, that majority can be damn slim. As soon as your beliefs are in the majority, you can get things changed. Then agai, your mindset seems to revolve around "trumping" and general one-up-manship. It may grind the sh!t out of you, but the modern Constitutional Republic that this Country is draws not on "thousands of years" {like you were there} of Pre-Christian worship but on 1600 years of POST-PAGAN beliefs.

Sapien wrote:

I see. And some rosary rattling old dears would send a better message? I hate to break it to you, Hero, but as religions go, Christianity is no more appealing to the masses than paganism. At least paganism is interesting, new in one sense, ancient in another, vibrant, eccentric and going somewhere. I've no doubt the local pp could muster up a troop of doddering legionnaires to sit in front of the bulldozers while saying decades - but in terms of PR? Please! What quicker way to make conservation of Tara grey, uninteresting and oppressively trite, I cannot imagine. And for what? - a folk tale that isn't even recognised by the Church or believed by any remotely discerning historian.

What makes you think that the vanguard of Christian sentiment is comprised of "rosary rattling old dears". Paganism is "vibrant and exciting"??? I'm sorry, but the image of the Brazilian football team, arm in arm reciting the Our Father in Brazilian before the World Cup Final in 2002 largely kicks the crap out of any crusty inspired mud-caked nonsense that currently goes on in "Pagan New Age" demonstrations. Doddering Legionaries? HA!! I am in a Boxing Club with a half dozen Born Again Christians who wouldn't be too long about, well, converting the current mindset you have about Christians as physically decrepit octagenarians.. Somehow I should think the sight of an extremely fit, attractive well-paid footballer blessing himself and looking to the heavens after each goal {Kaka, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho} largely trumps any of this "hip vibrant" paganism that you speak of. You didn't see Kaka after the European Cup Final last year, did you? He didn't have a T-shirt that said sanything about fairies and druids.:D

Sapien wrote:

And so far, among the only groups to take an active interest in Tara's conservation are pagans. And you condemn them for it. And the Christians who stay at home and turn a blind eye as their elected officials prepare to plough through their heritage - these are the victims in your scenario. You should really think through this again.

I didn't condemn them for it- I criticised the unilateral manner in which they behave.

Sapien wrote:

Is this "distinct Christian nature" simply because of the story of Patrick lighting the bonfire, or is there something more to it? Was there a monastic settlement of some kind of which I am unaware? Any lasting Christian presence? Anything that is more significant that an alleged stunt by a missionary? If not, then I'm very sorry, but Christianity barely makes a dent. It may seem to you that this droplet of Christianity in an ocean of pre-Christian history makes the whole thing a creature of your religion, but that's only because it is your religion, you are being blindly subjective. If you had any objectivity whatsoever, you would have the grace to accept that Tara means at least as much to other people as to yourself, and for different reasons, and that your unique claim to it is jaundiced and paltry. But I'm increasingly getting the impression that access to such perspectives is just a bit beyond you.

Any lasting Christian presence? Well....try this for size: one minute the Country is Pagan, the next its Christian, and the leading light of Europe int he Dark Ages. We don't need to show you some rotten concrete blocks, just have a look at the last Census. I think its a safe bet that the lasting legacy of this "alleged stunt" is a wholesale castin-off of Pagan Beliefs in preference of/for Christianity. Who needs a ruined church when you have wholesale Conversion??

Sapien wrote:

Of course I can. Your esteem for the Constitution is as baffling as it is bizarre. You seem to revere it as some would a holy text. To hell with the Constitution. And even if I did think highly of the Constitution, what this would have to do with the issue we're discussing, I don't know. If you are suggesting that, because the state in which I was born was founded by people of a particular religious conviction, I should share or defer to that religious conviction - I'm sorry but that is one of the most feeble arguments in support of the religious establishment I have ever heard.

Of course I revere it. "To Hell With The Constitution" you say. A document written in 1937 when the world was GOING TO POT.....the single greatest document for Government in this Islands history. I am not asking you to defend a religious conviction, I am merely struck by your inability to see how the Reloigious Persuasion of POST PAGAN Ireland inspired the Constitution, and how the malleability of the Constitution and its inherent content helps to make this Country what it is today. The Constitution guarantees your Rights of Free Association, Speech etc. Not some fairy down the woods under a stone. When your rights are infringed, the Constitution is there to defend you- and it does so IRRESPECTIVE of your religion, sexuality, financial status, gender etc.

Sapien wrote:

Not all Muslims are jihadis, you know. Not only are pagans crusty freaks, but Muslims are habitual murderers. Charming. Tell me - might you be a bit of a Christian chauvinist and bigot?

I never said any of that. But its a safe bet that Muslims are far less patient when their "God" is infringed in some way. Thats all I meant. They do have a tendency to dispense with dialogue a little bit sooner.

Shiminay

It's not a safe bet at all you rascist, you've lost all credibility here so please stop digging. Post reported.

Tabnabs

And there we finally have, the no holes barred fundamentalist rant. :rolleyes::mad:

How long before the Islam forum will get the same treatment? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Doctor DooM

Hero Of College wrote: »

I don't care about your beliefs.;)

Hero Of College wrote: »

How very Christian of you.

Hero Of College wrote: »

In the spirt of Democracy, the Constitution takes note of the beliefs and mores of the preponderance of the population at the time it was constructed. Now the beauty of the Constitution is that, unlike hardcore religious dogma {of any persuasion} we can change or have it changed as the majority sees fit. Examples being the Citizenship Referendum and the Abortion Referenda. The Constitution recognises the majority- and sometimes, as we saw with the Divorce referendum, that majority can be damn slim. As soon as your beliefs are in the majority, you can get things changed. Then agai, your mindset seems to revolve around "trumping" and general one-up-manship. It may grind the sh!t out of you, but the modern Constitutional Republic that this Country is draws not on "thousands of years" {like you were there} of Pre-Christian worship but on 1600 years of POST-PAGAN beliefs.

Pagans still exist, so by your own rules, Ireland is not post pagan.

Bear in mind also that the special place of the Catholic church has been removed in all but name from the Constitution.

Hero Of College wrote: »

What makes you think that the vanguard of Christian sentiment is comprised of "rosary rattling old dears". Paganism is "vibrant and exciting"??? I'm sorry, but the image of the Brazilian football team, arm in arm reciting the Our Father in Brazilian before the World Cup Final in 2002 largely kicks the crap out of any crusty inspired mud-caked nonsense that currently goes on in "Pagan New Age" demonstrations. Doddering Legionaries? HA!! I am in a Boxing Club with a half dozen Born Again Christians who wouldn't be too long about, well, converting the current mindset you have about Christians as physically decrepit octagenarians.. Somehow I should think the sight of an extremely fit, attractive well-paid footballer blessing himself and looking to the heavens after each goal {Kaka, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho} largely trumps any of this "hip vibrant" paganism that you speak of. You didn't see Kaka after the European Cup Final last year, did you? He didn't have a T-shirt that said sanything about fairies and druids.:D

Reporting this. If you have such a problem with Pagans, why are you even posting here?

There are plenty of cultural icons for Pagans in music and film and the like just like Catholicism. Its not Paganisms fault you aren't looking for them.

Hero Of College wrote: »

I didn't condemn them for it- I criticised the unilateral manner in which they behave.

Whats wrong with it?

Hero Of College wrote: »

Any lasting Christian presence? Well....try this for size: one minute the Country is Pagan, the next its Christian, and the leading light of Europe int he Dark Ages. We don't need to show you some rotten concrete blocks, just have a look at the last Census. I think its a safe bet that the lasting legacy of this "alleged stunt" is a wholesale castin-off of Pagan Beliefs in preference of/for Christianity. Who needs a ruined church when you have wholesale Conversion??

If you think it happened like that you need to read a few history books. too many primary school storys about St Pat, I think.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Of course I revere it. "To Hell With The Constitution" you say. A document written in 1937 when the world was GOING TO POT.....the single greatest document for Government in this Islands history. I am not asking you to defend a religious conviction, I am merely struck by your inability to see how the Reloigious Persuasion of POST PAGAN Ireland inspired the Constitution, and how the malleability of the Constitution and its inherent content helps to make this Country what it is today. The Constitution guarantees your Rights of Free Association, Speech etc. Not some fairy down the woods under a stone. When your rights are infringed, the Constitution is there to defend you- and it does so IRRESPECTIVE of your religion, sexuality, financial status, gender etc.

I never said any of that. But its a safe bet that Muslims are far less patient when their "God" is infringed in some way. Thats all I meant. They do have a tendency to dispense with dialogue a little bit sooner.

Once again, a small minority of Muslims you choose to represent the whole. Your posts are betraying a little bit of anger to all things non catholic.

Nevyn

I have reopened this thread and I expect a lot more of a civil and respectful tone as per the charter for this forum or else there will be bannings as well as infractions.

Dyflin no more lolpics, kthksbye.

Nevyn

It is the preamble of the constitution to which you are referring and not to any of the legal articles of it, and with the fifth amendment in 1972 the specail status of the catholic church was removed so really waving about the constitution saying it means we are a christian country will not do you any favours esp here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

If you have such issue with the lack of christians rising up to take up the struggle to defend Tara and the valley I suggest you turn to your bothers and sisters in christ in the Christainity forum or at your next local parish meeting.

Sapien

Hero Of College wrote: »

I don't care about your beliefs.;) In the spirt of Democracy, the Constitution takes note of the beliefs and mores of the preponderance of the population at the time it was constructed. Now the beauty of the Constitution is that, unlike hardcore religious dogma {of any persuasion} we can change or have it changed as the majority sees fit. Examples being the Citizenship Referendum and the Abortion Referenda. The Constitution recognises the majority- and sometimes, as we saw with the Divorce referendum, that majority can be damn slim. As soon as your beliefs are in the majority, you can get things changed. Then agai, your mindset seems to revolve around "trumping" and general one-up-manship. It may grind the sh!t out of you, but the modern Constitutional Republic that this Country is draws not on "thousands of years" {like you were there} of Pre-Christian worship but on 1600 years of POST-PAGAN beliefs.

...

Of course I revere it. "To Hell With The Constitution" you say. A document written in 1937 when the world was GOING TO POT.....the single greatest document for Government in this Islands history. I am not asking you to defend a religious conviction, I am merely struck by your inability to see how the Reloigious Persuasion of POST PAGAN Ireland inspired the Constitution, and how the malleability of the Constitution and its inherent content helps to make this Country what it is today. The Constitution guarantees your Rights of Free Association, Speech etc. Not some fairy down the woods under a stone. When your rights are infringed, the Constitution is there to defend you- and it does so IRRESPECTIVE of your religion, sexuality, financial status, gender etc.

I'm not going to entertain your fetish for the Constitution any longer. It has precisely nothing to do with the topic we're discussing. If this is your way of proving that Ireland is really very Christian indeed, then don't bother - I don't care and it's irrelevant. I understand the religious history of this island as well as anyone. The predominance of Christianity doesn't change the fact that Tara was a centre of pre-Christian rule and worship. Your story about Patrick is all very lovely, but it's not particularly interesting to non-Christians, especially in terms of Tara's greater significance.

And almost every nation on Earth has a Constitution - ours is nothing special.

And what the hell is this?

Hero Of College wrote: »

"thousands of years" {like you were there}

Are you disputing the fact, or were you momentarily possessed by the spirit of a fifteen year old Valley girl?

Hero Of College wrote: »

What makes you think that the vanguard of Christian sentiment is comprised of "rosary rattling old dears". Paganism is "vibrant and exciting"??? I'm sorry, but the image of the Brazilian football team, arm in arm reciting the Our Father in Brazilian before the World Cup Final in 2002 largely kicks the crap out of any crusty inspired mud-caked nonsense that currently goes on in "Pagan New Age" demonstrations. Doddering Legionaries? HA!! I am in a Boxing Club with a half dozen Born Again Christians who wouldn't be too long about, well, converting the current mindset you have about Christians as physically decrepit octagenarians.. Somehow I should think the sight of an extremely fit, attractive well-paid footballer blessing himself and looking to the heavens after each goal {Kaka, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho} largely trumps any of this "hip vibrant" paganism that you speak of. You didn't see Kaka after the European Cup Final last year, did you? He didn't have a T-shirt that said sanything about fairies and druids.:D

Right. I'm not sure what you have in mind then. Flying in Brazilian footballers to promote conservation of Tara? And evangelicals inspire only fear, disgust or ridicule in most reasonable people - you can tell that to your pugilist god-botherer pals from me. No, I'm sorry Hero, but buff South American imports aside, Christianity as it exists in Ireland is a PR nightmare. Pagans, though not everyone's cup of tea, are both apposite to the cause and, seemingly, committed to it. If it weren't for them, there would be little coverage of the crisis. Where are your Christians?

Hero Of College wrote: »

I didn't condemn them for it- I criticised the unilateral manner in which they behave.

You have condemned them. There is no other way to interpret what you have written. You believe that they should not have done what they have done. That they have been somehow wrong in their actions. And, though you partially rescinded it, you accused them of "defiling" Tara. That qualifies as condemnation.

And you haven't suggested what they could have done differently. Approached Christian groups to form some kind of... multilateral organisation? Why couldn't the Christians have done that - there are more of them after all. Oh, that's right - Christians think pagans are godless and damned. No. The pagans have done whatever they could to protect Tara.

How could their actions have been less "unilateral"?

Hero Of College wrote: »

Any lasting Christian presence? Well....try this for size: one minute the Country is Pagan, the next its Christian...

If you really believe that's how it worked, then there is really no point in me pursuing this with you. I suppose it makes sense. If you imagine that the spirituality of the people of this island changed with the flick of a switch, I suppose it's inevitable that you would have a simplistic attitude towards the interpretation of our history and a boorish conception of the significance of our heritage.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Who needs a ruined church when you have wholesale Conversion??

So, just to be clear - there was no lasting Christian settlement at Tara. In fact there has been nothing at Tara - but a few short-lived, makeshift barracks and, more recently, a deal of tourism - since it was an ancient pre-Christian centre of rule and religion. Just so we're clear.

Hero Of College wrote: »

I never said any of that. But its a safe bet that Muslims are far less patient when their "God" is infringed in some way. Thats all I meant.

I don't believe you. What, then, was their "solution" to which you referred? I'm pretty sure you meant bombing or beheading. Not an abrupt exit from the debate. Backpeddle much?



I'm afraid your anger is badly misdirected, Hero. The majority in this country don't care about the danger posed to Tara by planned development. They don't care about the disregard our politicians show for our heritage. They don't care because they are complicit, because ultimately they want the same thing as the politicians: roads, houses, car parks, shopping centres. Money. Around the dinner table most will express pride in our ancient history, or some kind of spiritual connection to our "Celtic" ancestry. But when it comes down to brass tax, and the average registered elector is faced with the choice of putting on his wellies, tacking a slogan to a board, and chanting in the rain on a Saturday morning, or watching the World War Two matinee movie on RTE in his slippers, contemplating the ten extra minutes he'll have to himself every morning once the new road opens... well, who can really blame them. It's only a funny looking hill after all.

It's people who are outside of the system, apart from the majority, who have different priorities and perspectives who are making the stand. People to whom the ancient past is as important as mortgage payments or traffic hours. Not your average Church-at-Easter-and-Christmas, Parents' Association, Two Car, Three TV, Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael automaton. But hippies, pagans, druids, crackpots and freaks. They take upon themselves the cultural conscience that your precious, Constitutionally enshrined Christian majority have managed to suppress into deafening silence. Your side has let you down, and you have to lash out. We understand. Just get over yourself as quickly as you can and, possibly, do something about it. Bus your boxing mates down to Meath one day to pitch in. How better to make the actions of these bloody pagans less unilateral? They're not like Christians - they don't think everyone else is damned. They'd be happy for the help and open to suggestions.

Talliesin

Hero Of College wrote: »

hard to say, though anybody who buries themselves under an esker with only a car jack holding them up must have a pretty strong faith in something, apart from car jacks.

There are plenty of Agnostics and Atheists who've done the similar.

Now. Can somebody find a single sentence in all of this crap that has anything to do with Paganism?

Hero Of College

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is the preamble of the constitution to which you are referring and not to any of the legal articles of it, and with the fifth amendment in 1972 the specail status of the catholic church was removed so really waving about the constitution saying it means we are a christian country will not do you any favours esp here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

If you have such issue with the lack of christians rising up to take up the struggle to defend Tara and the valley I suggest you turn to your bothers and sisters in christ in the Christainity forum or at your next local parish meeting.

First: thanks for re-opening the thread.:cool:

Second: I never said anything about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church could get mentioned, included, referred to etc a dozen times and I wouldn't pay it any heed. I say "CHRISTIAN" values lay at the foundations of the Constitution, and it is the Constitution which underpins so much of what this Country stands for today. I'm not sectarian, I am not trying to be triumphalist, I just feel Tara, and the events which took place there {vis a vis Christianity}, are responsible, in the long run, for moving the country in a particular direction, and that this should be recognised.

Nevyn

Sapien personal abuse is not tolerated, as much as the valley girl comment made me laugh please show some restraint.

Nevyn

Oh please

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Prudence, Justice and Charity are natrual law and not christain mores.

You may chose to live as a chrstian in this country others do not and ergo do not live in a christain country.

Talliesin

An interesting thing about the Irish constitution is that while there is reference to particular belief systems it doesn't hinge upon them.

While it is done in the name of "The Holy Trinity", the source of the constitution is "We, the people of Éire" who "Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution".

Hero Of College

Sapien wrote: »

And almost every nation on Earth has a Constitution - ours is nothing special.[/Sapien]

Shocking. Just shocking........its almost...well.....perverse. #1, very few countries have Constitutions, even fewer have written Constitutions.

Sapien wrote:

Right. I'm not sure what you have in mind then. Flying in Brazilian footballers to promote conservation of Tara?

Nah, I am just suggesting that you would do well to purge yourself of the stereotypical notion you have of Christians being old and doddery. Some of us are pretty able bodied.

-Sapien wrote:

Christianity as it exists in Ireland is a PR nightmare. Pagans, though not everyone's cup of tea, are both apposite to the cause and, seemingly, committed to it. If it weren't for them, there would be little coverage of the crisis.

If Christianity is such a tough sell then explain its position as a leading global religion? Explain its position as the predominating faith in this Country. For every Paedo Priest there is a Jihadist Muslim and a Crazed Loonie Hippy. They are all tough sells, at the end of the day. By the way, I don't think we are at crisis level- yet.

Sapien wrote:

Where are your Christians?

You sound like Josef Stalin, and his sneering mocking enquiry as to "How many Divisions does the Pope have?"As I already said, Christians appear to be more tolerant of the situation- perhaps too much so. My argument goes that if Tara is beholden to Christians, and Christianity has helped make this Country what it is today {decent enuff place, I would argue} and if the Christians can take a back seat on Tara, then why not Pagans?? Personally I feel, prima facie, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but not everybody feels that way, you see.

Sapien wrote:

You have condemned them. There is no other way to interpret what you have written. You believe that they should not have done what they have done. That they have been somehow wrong in their actions. And, though you partially rescinded it, you accused them of "defiling" Tara. That qualifies as condemnation.

I already retracted on the "defiling". I never condemned them- I feel they really are doing no favours by demonstrating how their little tunnel system could collapse a road, cause carnage and thus that the developers better back off. Thats borderline terrorism. They really could have gone about this a better way- a fortiori considering that the issue of Tara, as i see it is not solely a Pagan preserve.

Sapien wrote:

And you haven't suggested what they could have done differently. ......

How could their actions have been less "unilateral"?

Thats a good question. I guess attracting support has two sides, one is you go out and recruit it, the other is that you attract it with your own actions, leading by example, for want of a better phrase. And proudly showing off your maps of how your little tunnels can collapse a road is NOT how to go about it.

Sapien wrote:

If you really believe that's how it worked, then there is really no point in me pursuing this with you. I suppose it makes sense. If you imagine that the spirituality of the people of this island changed with the flick of a switch, I suppose it's inevitable that you would have a simplistic attitude towards the interpretation of our history and a boorish conception of the significance of our heritage.

I admit i was simplistic:- I don't think this islands spirituality believed at the flick of a switch. But to deny St Patricks legacy would be equally pig-headed about the whole thing. By the way, do Mass-Attending Christian Poles give a damn about Tara? Probably not. Do they attend Mass? Yes. Do they seek suffrage under the Constitution and the Common Law?Yes. Explain that.

Sapien wrote:

So, just to be clear - there was no lasting Christian settlement at Tara. In fact there has been nothing at Tara - but a few short-lived, makeshift barracks and, more recently, a deal of tourism - since it was an ancient pre-Christian centre of rule and religion. Just so we're clear.

That doesn't mean a damned thing. There are no statues at the top of Mount Everest...I guess Hillary never made it to the top so.

Sapien wrote:

I'm afraid your anger is badly misdirected, Hero. The majority in this country don't care about the danger posed to Tara by planned development. They don't care about the disregard our politicians show for our heritage. They don't care because they are complicit, because ultimately they want the same thing as the politicians: roads, houses, car parks, shopping centres. Money. Around the dinner table most will express pride in our ancient history, or some kind of spiritual connection to our "Celtic" ancestry. But when it comes down to brass tax, and the average registered elector is faced with the choice of putting on his wellies, tacking a slogan to a board, and chanting in the rain on a Saturday morning, or watching the World War Two matinee movie on RTE in his slippers, contemplating the ten extra minutes he'll have to himself every morning once the new road opens... well, who can really blame them. It's only a funny looking hill after all.

To your astonishment, we may well be in agreement about the majority of this. I already said people are sheep, there to be lead and then culled when the mood takes "The Man".

Sapien wrote:

Not your average Church-at-Easter-and-Christmas, Parents' Association, Two Car, Three TV, Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael automaton

And they say its me who needs anger management classes. Come on...I'm male, single, 25 yoa, no political affiliations, no mortgage, no kids....no car...no TV.....you seem to have a gripe with good old comfortable middle-class Ireland. Jesus, even I was trying to keep it an issue of Pagan/Christian. You're off on a tangent altogether.

But hippies, pagans, druids, crackpots and freaks. They take upon themselves the cultural conscience that your precious, Constitutionally enshrined Christian majority have managed to suppress into deafening silence.

I don't have a cultural conscience in the same way you do. Not to the same degree, and not about the same things. And I acknowledge that dissent and civil disobedience have their purposes. Just don't show me pictures of a tunnel system collapsing a road and tell me I should be impressed.

Sapien wrote:

Your side has let you down, and you have to lash out.

My side may have let me down, possibly so- but it is my side that are keeping you UP. Remember that the next time you take out trade union membership, remember that the next time you attend your subsidised GP- remember that the next time you seek to defend your good name, or your life or property. The Constitution, based on Christian mores, has your interests at heart. A pagan digging a tunnel to collapse a road or threatening agri-immolation does precious little for me.