What ever happend to the people who saw moving statues in Ireland

Kipperhell

I remember there being moving statues in Ireland or they may have just cried can't remember. There were people who claimed to have seen them so what are they at now? Do they still believe they saw them?

Are there any accounts of people at such things who once said they saw such things and then denounced it? I know there is some asian film about a woman who faked stigmata and I think it is based on a true story.

I am not saying they aren't true but I personally don't see the point of such visions and it seems like unlikely and normal human nature is a better explanation.

stevoman

honestly, i beleive the lack in faith in people has a part to play. im not a churchgoer myself and im not proud to say it, but i do beleive some moving statues are a reward for just faith to the religion.

i also dont think its just a coincidence that decline in the catholic church in ireland in happening the same time society is basically falling apart.

Bduffman

stevoman wrote: »

honestly, i beleive the lack in faith in people has a part to play. im not a churchgoer myself and im not proud to say it, but i do beleive some moving statues are a reward for just faith to the religion.

I could also think of far greater 'reward' on this earth than seeing stones move. Personally I think most people who claim the saw statues move back then are too embarrassed to admit they believed it at the time.

stevoman wrote: »

i also dont think its just a coincidence that decline in the catholic church in ireland in happening the same time society is basically falling apart.

The old 'society is falling apart' line. How many times have we heard that? Somehow I think society is far stronger now than it has ever been. There have been far worse events in the past that laid far greater claim for causing the downfall of society. I'm still waiting however.

robindch

Kipperhell wrote: »

I remember there being moving statues in Ireland or they may have just cried can't remember.

There were certainly a lot of weeping statues, but there was the odd mover too. The one in the grotto on the Tralee road out of Killarney springs to mind, as does the story of the two lads who, five minutes before the monthly prayers at the grotto, hopped up into the alcove behind the statue to give it a rattle about.

If memory serves, the biggest of the movers and shakers was in Ballinspittle, but I'm not sure how much help, if any, they had.

PDN

They're still sticking to their stories: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ballinspittle-statue-is-still-on-the-move-465550.html

Here's a wee article describing the Ballinspittle phenomenon and the attack on the statue by three iconoclasts. http://www.answers.com/topic/ballinspittle I love the quote that "there isn't a safe statue in the country."

robindch

PDN wrote: »

http://www.answers.com/topic/ballinspittle

Fun article -- I'd forgotten that three lads had gone at the Ballinspittle statue with pickaxes to preserve the religious purity of the country.

Even more fun to see that they were members of a Pentecostal church whose intergalactic uberlord was none other than the eloquent, calm and gentle Gene Scott, beloved of more than one or two posters here. Where's Soul Winner when we need a comment?

ntlbell

a lot of them are too busy buying property in budapest and shopping in milan to notice any statue's i'd say.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

Fun article -- I'd forgotten that three lads had gone at the Ballinspittle statue with pickaxes to preserve the religious purity of the country.

Even more fun to see that they were members of a Pentecostal church whose intergalactic uberlord was none other than the eloquent, calm and gentle Gene Scott, beloved of more than one or two posters here. Where's Soul Winner when we need a comment?

"Meanwhile from Los Angeles evangelist Scott indignantly disassociated himself from the activities of the Irish statue smashers and described the Robert Draper group as "the most ridiculous association I have ever heard in a lifetime of confronting ridiculous things." In a press statement he specifically said, "I abhor violence in any form. I am in the process of preserving and restoring a 23 million dollar religious shrine in Los Angeles at the present. I am also president of Sunset Mausoleum in Berkeley, California, which has a 16-foot statue of Christ commanding the cathedral chapel, which was made of the marble from the same quarry from which Michelangelo made Moses. I abhor the thought of anyone anywhere in this world defacing any religious object and totally disassociate myself from anyone who claims to perpetrate such activity in my name."

Did you even finish the article? Just wondered... or do you just ignore what doesn't suit you? Like any kind of a phenonmena like this these things usually happen in waves, spikes of activity and then long periods of quiet. See UFO sighting patterns for example. It creates a kind of hysteria. I'm not saying the statues didn't move for some people, just saying thats how these things generally go, famine and feast scenario.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

Did you even finish the article?

Er, yes I did.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes I did.

My mistake, it sounded to me like you were still trying to associate their actions with Gene Scott. A lot of people have done crazy things in the name of many religions/religious leaders.

Kipperhell

I didn't realise the people claimed they saw it move when there was video evidence of it not moving at the same time. I know I thought something moved when I kept staring at it. Haven't most people experienced this?

PDN

Overheard in Protestant East Belfast after the Ballinspittle statue was attacked: "It obviously didn't move fast enough!"

mehfesto2

Sure there's still a good few statues moving on Grafton Street.
...odd profession, that.

Phototoxin

Ahh Iconoclast ... one of my favourite words

i also dont think its just a coincidence that decline in the catholic church in ireland in happening the same time society is basically falling apart.

It wasn't falling apart in the last recession? Or the famine then?

Is it falling apart because the church is failing to educate/indoctrinate/moral-ify people which leads to the decline, or does the decline lead to the church declining? Chicken or egg?

prinz

Phototoxin wrote: »

Ahh Iconoclast ... one of my favourite words


It wasn't falling apart in the last recession? Or the famine then?

Is it falling apart because the church is failing to educate/indoctrinate/moral-ify people which leads to the decline, or does the decline lead to the church declining? Chicken or egg?

Pretty clear that the Christian Churches (and indeed most other religions) played a major role in bringing stability and sustainability to society. Without the structure they promote society will flounder on the rocks of selfishness, materialism, immorality.

The basic building block of all stable societies has been the family unit. Look at the damage that is being done to that in this country. Look on the relationship forum on this site and see all the broken people.

Bduffman

prinz wrote: »

Pretty clear that the Christian Churches (and indeed most other religions) played a major role in bringing stability and sustainability to society. Without the structure they promote society will flounder on the rocks of selfishness, materialism, immorality.

Did the churches not also bring their own instability, selfishness, materialism & immortality to society?

prinz wrote: »

The basic building block of all stable societies has been the family unit. Look at the damage that is being done to that in this country. Look on the relationship forum on this site and see all the broken people.

Since when do christian churches have a monopoly on the family unit? There is no religion in my home but I am part on a stable, happy, family unit.

Galvasean

Ah the 'family unit', forcing people who can't stand each other to stay in wedlock. That'll keep 'em happy.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Fun article -- I'd forgotten that three lads had gone at the Ballinspittle statue with pickaxes to preserve the religious purity of the country.

Even more fun to see that they were members of a Pentecostal church whose intergalactic uberlord was none other than the eloquent, calm and gentle Gene Scott, beloved of more than one or two posters here. Where's Soul Winner when we need a comment?

I'm right here. I think Prinz already and quite adequately pointed out that Dr Gene Scott distanced himself from these 'Iconoclast' (great word that ) in his statement which I will re-post in case there is any confusion:

Dr Gene Scott wrote:

"the most ridiculous association I have ever heard in a lifetime of confronting ridiculous things." "I abhor violence in any form. I am in the process of preserving and restoring a 23 million dollar religious shrine in Los Angeles at the present. I am also president of Sunset Mausoleum in Berkeley, California, which has a 16-foot statue of Christ commanding the cathedral chapel, which was made of the marble from the same quarry from which Michelangelo made Moses. I abhor the thought of anyone anywhere in this world defacing any religious object and totally disassociate myself from anyone who claims to perpetrate such activity in my name."

Whoever these guys who destroyed those statues were, they did not have the backing of Dr Gene Scott.

prinz

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah the 'family unit', forcing people who can't stand each other to stay in wedlock. That'll keep 'em happy.

If they can't stand each other what are they married for? The family unit got us to the world we live in today..

Just because 100% of marriages are not successful does not mean that the benefits to society of the family unit can be disputed.

Also the family unit is actually more than wedlock. It is about the parent-child relationship more importantly, as the greatest source of guidance, advice, living by example, moral teaching and personality shaping in the world. It is no coincidence that a huge majority of criminals, anti socials, addicts, etc etc come from so called 'broken families'. That is what I was referring to.

prinz

Bduffman wrote: »

Did the churches not also bring their own instability, selfishness, materialism & immortality to society?


Since when do christian churches have a monopoly on the family unit? There is no religion in my home but I am part on a stable, happy, family unit.

Yes they have. I cannot dispute history. However all that goes out the window if one practices real Christianity does it not? The churches were corrupted to suit the aims of many people. However it was not the teaching of Jesus that promotes these aims.

I never said Christian churches had a monopoly on anything. One can have a perfectly happy stable family/home without it, I know from experience. However, there are very few organisations which actively promote the idea of the family. Have you seen any secular organisations defending the family unit? This is my point.

getz

stevoman wrote: »

honestly, i beleive the lack in faith in people has a part to play. im not a churchgoer myself and im not proud to say it, but i do beleive some moving statues are a reward for just faith to the religion.

i also dont think its just a coincidence that decline in the catholic church in ireland in happening the same time society is basically falling apart.

since when has a graven image been christian ?,second commandment. me my best christian memories was walking behind the salvation band as a 10 year old on a sunday morning, nowt better than a good singsong

Bduffman

prinz wrote: »

Yes they have. I cannot dispute history. However all that goes out the window if one practices real Christianity does it not? The churches were corrupted to suit the aims of many people. However it was not the teaching of Jesus that promotes these aims.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone in the history of christianity has even practiced 'real christianity' so thats a rather moot point.

prinz wrote: »

I never said Christian churches had a monopoly on anything. One can have a perfectly happy stable family/home without it, I know from experience. However, there are very few organisations which actively promote the idea of the family. Have you seen any secular organisations defending the family unit? This is my point.

No - but why should they? It is up to every individual to defend their own family unit. I don't see the point nor the benefit of organisation defending the idea of a family unit. It makes no sense. Every family unit is different. Some families benefit from being a unit - others don't. So there is no point in defending the idea of a family unit if it doesn't benefit everyone.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think anyone in the history of christianity has even practiced 'real christianity' so thats a rather moot point.

Thankfully we rely on Someone else's judgment on that point, not yours.

prinz

Bduffman wrote: »

No - but why should they? It is up to every individual to defend their own family unit. I don't see the point nor the benefit of organisation defending the idea of a family unit. It makes no sense. Every family unit is different. Some families benefit from being a unit - others don't. So there is no point in defending the idea of a family unit if it doesn't benefit everyone.

So you are just isolationist and anti-social in general then? It's all about me, me, me, me. How lonely it would be in your world.

The dole doesn't benefit me.Therefore should we scrap it?

Is it up to every person starving to death to fend for themselves? Is it up to everyone to defend their own property........Should we abolish the Gardai?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Thankfully we rely on Someone else's judgment on that point, not yours.

Is that your day job? Oh you mean god. Well, I suppose if anyone can find someone who practices 'real christianity' its him. (Might take an eternity though

Bduffman

prinz wrote: »

So you are just isolationist and anti-social in general then? It's all about me, me, me, me. How lonely it would be in your world.

The dole doesn't benefit me.Therefore should we scrap it?

Is it up to every person starving to death to fend for themselves? Is it up to everyone to defend their own property........Should we abolish the Gardai?

Whoa - talk about broadening the argument. Personally I can't do much for disfunctional families in general. Maybe I could help one or two at a time - but thats about it.

I'm curious to know what sweeping measures you or any organisation (other than perhaps the government) can bring in that would help 'the family unit' - this mythical catch-all phrase? There are already (flawed perhaps) laws in place to deal with abusive fathers, neglective mothers, drug-taking adolescents etc etc.
I'm all ears.

Fanny Cradock

What do you mean by real Christianity?

Lobelia Overhill

I was raised Catholic but never really got into it properly and have well and truely lapsed these days. some 15 - 20 years ago we (8 or 9 family members) went on a day trip somewhere (forget where) and en route we stopped at Ballinspittle to look at the statue that moves. One of the children started screaming "oh my god Mary's talking!" (ie she could see the BVM's mouth moving)

The next day child's mother phones my mother to say her daughter hadn't slept a wink all night for having nightmares about the statue.

My mother tells me "I didn't want to say anything, but I could see the statue's mouth moving as well"

So had I. :eek:

I dunno what caused it, in my case I reasoned it was bad eyesight - but two other people saw the same thing.

and Just to reiterate for them what don't read posts properly, it was only the mouth of the statue that anyone saw moving, not the head, hands, whole thing, just the mouth/chin area.

I'm not joining a convent or anything, I know what I saw and I'm sticking to my story ...

Fanny Cradock

Even as a Christian I am naturally very sceptical about such things. I just don't get why God would do such obscure things like this. Grand or subtle - yes; but obscure? Humm... then again I guess 'speaking in tongues' is quite obscure.



Anyway, Lobelia, I'm not trying to shift your position, but I do have a question for you. Do you think that the trip could have been so anticipated that you effectively convinced yourselves?

prinz

Bduffman wrote: »

So there is no point in defending the idea of a family unit if it doesn't benefit everyone.

There are not many things which are of benefit to everyone. However there is still a point in defending and promoting such things, particularly when they are of benefit to society at large.

Bduffman wrote: »

There are already (flawed perhaps) laws in place to deal with abusive fathers, neglective mothers, drug-taking adolescents etc etc.

Yes, the very symptoms of a society starting to fall apart. Alcoholism, other addictions, senseless acts of unprovoked violence, kids carrying weapons, kids killing other kids, teenage mothers, those kids in the UK ie that girl who had a baby, she was 15, and the father could have been any one of 5 or 6 boys, whom she had slept with in her parents house!!?!?!

The very things the Chistian churches try their best to campaign against.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What do you mean by real Christianity?

Dunno - Prinz used that phrase first - in the context that the ills caused by christianity would be 'out the window if one practises real christianity'. So I presume he is talking about some sort of perfection?

But you'll have to ask him that.

Bduffman

prinz wrote: »

There are not many things which are of benefit to everyone. However there is still a point in defending and promoting such things, particularly when they are of benefit to society at large..

But again I ask - how do you propose to defend the familiy unit to 'benefit society at large'?

prinz wrote: »

Yes, the very symptoms of a society starting to fall apart. Alcoholism, other addictions, senseless acts of unprovoked violence, kids carrying weapons, kids killing other kids, teenage mothers, those kids in the UK ie that girl who had a baby, she was 15, and the father could have been any one of 5 or 6 boys, whom she had slept with in her parents house!!?!?!

The very things the Chistian churches try their best to campaign against.

I suppose it comes back to your opinion that society is falling apart. Another poster already asked how society is any worse off compared to the disasters that have already happened. I think every society going back through history has believed that society is falling apart. How long before it actually falls apart?

prinz

Bduffman wrote: »

Dunno - Prinz used that phrase first - in the context that the ills caused by christianity would be 'out the window if one practises real christianity'. So I presume he is talking about some sort of perfection?

But you'll have to ask him that.

How kind of you to let me answer that , I merely meant it in the sense of living by the teachings of Jesus, it doesn't require prefection to know that using condoning materialism, power-grabbing, the conversion by the sword were wrong. I do not mean 'real' in relation to any denomination as opposed to another. My point being that people used religion in the past as an excuse to commit atrocities - as they did, then they weren't being in a sense really Christian were they? They were using it for their own ends.

People have committed atrocities in the name of democracy yet we don't now hold it in disgust because of that.

prinz

Bduffman wrote: »

But again I ask - how do you propose to defend the familiy unit to 'benefit society at large'?

I suppose it comes back to your opinion that society is falling apart. Another poster already asked how society is any worse off compared to the disasters that have already happened. I think every society going back through history has believed that society is falling apart. How long before it actually falls apart?

By promoting the idea of man, woman, kids as the family. Stable and secure. Anything seems to be going these days.

That's a good question. How low can we go. Watch this space.

Any sort of community feeling or social responsibility seems to be disappearing. Parents are no longer taking responsibility for their own children's actions, everyone is out for #1.

Bduffman

prinz wrote: »

By promoting the idea of man, woman, kids as the family. Stable and secure. Anything seems to be going these days.

That's a good question. How low can we go. Watch this space.

Any sort of community feeling or social responsibility seems to be disappearing. Parents are no longer taking responsibility for their own children's actions, everyone is out for #1.

So you're saying that a single parent family cannot be stable & secure? And if you say that it is better to have two parents then how do you suggest you 'promote' a two parent arrangement? Don't you think that a single parent has already considered the options & either cannot or will not marry / co-habitate? Maybe you're suggesting setting up a dating agency?

robindch

prinz wrote: »

Parents are no longer taking responsibility for their own children's actions, everyone is out for #1.

Is it safe to assume here that you're speaking not for everybody (and especially, not for me), but just for yourself and your own failure to take responsibility for your kids (if you have any) and your own selfishness?

Galvasean

prinz wrote: »

Any sort of community feeling or social responsibility seems to be disappearing. Parents are no longer taking responsibility for their own children's actions, everyone is out for #1.

The way you go on you'd swear bad parenting was a new thing.

prinz

@ Bduffman - Coca-Cola 'promotes' it's drink, but they don't go out and buy it for you.Not sure where you're going with that dating agency point.

@Robindch - as I was referring to society, it was general everyone, a social collective responsibility. Next time try not being so petty.

@Galvasean - Bad parenting has always been around, no contest there, but it seems, to me anyway, to have reached a new low.

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

@Galvasean - Bad parenting has always been around, no contest there, but it seems, to me anyway, to have reached a new low.

While I certainly think that some of the kids nowadays are little **** n comparison to when I was a kid - doesn't every generation say that?

prinz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I certainly think that some of the kids nowadays are little **** n comparison to when I was a kid - doesn't every generation say that?

I'm sure they do.However I'm equally sure I won't be seeing my future kids in the newspaper for murder/mansalughter/assault/kicking a student through the upstairs window of a double decker bus/robbery/drug dealing... etc.

studiorat

prinz wrote: »

I'm sure they do.However I'm equally sure I won't be seeing my future kids in the newspaper for murder/mansalughter/assault/kicking a student through the upstairs window of a double decker bus/robbery/drug dealing... etc.

I'd say pretty much every parent would say that, even the ones whose children do end up in the predicaments you mention. You think the parents of the guys involved in the killing of Brian Murphy outside that nightclub a few years ago were sure their kids weren't going to end up in the newspapers.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/blackrock-college-was-an-easy-target-479001.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/teen-in-anabel-killing-case-facing-public-order-charges-1620285.html

robindch

prinz wrote: »

Robindch - as I was referring to society, it was general everyone, a social collective responsibility. Next time try not being so petty.

If you're going to talk about "everyone" abandoning their responsibilities, then you're saying that about me, and all the other parents here too.

That's neither a pleasant nor an accurate thing to say and I suggest you retract it.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I certainly think that some of the kids nowadays are little **** n comparison to when I was a kid - doesn't every generation say that?

The disgruntled elderly and others have saying that for millennia. Here's a quote attributed to Hesiod from the 8th century BC:

Hesiod wrote:

The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers. I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint

Could be from today's Daily Telegraph

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

The disgruntled elderly and others have saying that for millennia. Here's a quote attributed to Hesiod from the 8th century BC: Could be from today's Daily Telegraph

That's the quote it was thinking of! Still, it would be interesting to see if there is or is not a higher rate of 'moral decay' (I don't know how you would define that) between generations.

Soul Winner

[quote=Hesiod]
The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.[/quote]
It's hardly anything like kids today staying out all night and partying with really loud music not caring about anyone else's peace and quiet. Getting off their heads on drugs and drink, after which they kick, stab or even shoot some poor inocent to death, rob a car, crash it somewhere then burn it out, then come home still doped out of the head on all sorts drugs and stay in bed all day only to do the same thing again that evening. If only not rising when elders enter a room was all they did wrong now. :pac:

studiorat

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's hardly anything like kids today staying out all night and partying with really loud music not caring about anyone else's peace and quiet. Getting off their heads on drugs and drink, after which they kick, stab or even shoot some poor inocent to death, rob a car, crash it somewhere then burn it out, then come home still doped out of the head on all sorts drugs and stay in bed all day only to do the same thing again that evening. If only not rising when elders enter a room was all they did wrong now. :pac:

Apart from robbing cars it sounds like a character from a Tolstoy or Zola novel.

Plato btw also outlined the contribution of music to the moral decline of society.

Drug taking is nothing new either, a google search for the "Ether Epidemic" around 1880 in Ireland will illustrate this.

allegedly, it was Fr. Matthew’s temperance movement which caused this great epidemic. One of the pledgers to Matthew’s movement was a Dr. Kelly, an alcoholic Doctor from Draperstown. Apparently, in his need to indulge in mind altering drugs, but being averse to breaking his solemn pledge to the movement, he found a ready substitute in Ether. He thereafter imparted his knowledge to some friends and pretty soon, all of Draperstown was ‘ethered up’, or E’d up as the parlance was at the time.

Unfortunately without the threat of "moral decline" there isn't much use for religion IMO.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

it would be interesting to see if there is or is not a higher rate of 'moral decay' (I don't know how you would define that) between generations.

It's certainly interesting to wonder about it, but there seem to be a few possible reasons which account for most of the perceived effect. Amongst these are:

1. When you're a kid, you (hopefully) have everything provided for you, you're protected from danger, and nurtured in a loving environment and have as much danger and nastiness hidden from you. As you mature and leave your parents, the world can become a much colder and certainly more dangerous place. It seems reasonable to think that a lot of people mistakenly ascribe to "moral decay" things which they were simply unaware of when they were growing up. Or quite possibly, did things which their elders regarded as "moral decay" with a certain degree of relish (listen to loud music, pissing off the grouchy neighbour next door), but cannot accept that other people can do the same, years later (becoming the neighbour next door who's grouchy because he's an alcoholic).

2. Older people have typically spent a long time investing time and effort in developing status within a particular social code, political system, whatever they grew up with. Societies change over time for one reason or another and those coming up frequently reject social codes which they don't believe match the circumstances they find themselves in. Hence a static older generation will have to endure a younger one which has no time for their conventions.

3. A lot of it seems to be caused by bad education, or the dripfeed of continuous state-sponsored propaganda. So people will moan about the moral decay of the kids of today while forgetting that 100 years ago, most kids were out working by the time they were 14 or 15 and could expect a nasty, brutish and short life. Or, people whinge that 65 years ago you could leave your door unlocked, while forgetting that, also 65 years ago, there was a war on in continental Europe which killed millions.

4. A reasonable portion of elderly people seem disappointed by what they've achieved and frequently seem to blame everybody else's dishonesty, tightfistedness, whatever for their failures in life. A nation with more than its fair share of Victor Meldrews.

5. Certain political and religious leaders make much of this "moral decay" and acquire considerable political clout by banging on about it endlessly, regardless of whether or not it's actually there or not. The important thing is to make people think it's there.

6. The very simple notion that people read newspapers, watch telly and so on, which dramatizes bad crap happening. Quite a lot of people fixate on this bad news and assume, in the absence of equal quantities of good news, that bad is simply taking over the place.

Anyhow, as I write the above, I'm reminded of a few years back when I hit Russia and Cuba within a few weeks of each other. In the former, one late-middle-aged Russian lady from an educated, well-to-do family, whinged to me at enormous length about the moral decay of the kids in Russia these days and that things had been much better under the Commies (ok, you could travel now, but who really wanted to travel?). In Cuba, my landlady of around the same age gave much the same lecture about Cuban kids of today, versus the lined-up, squeaky-clean teens that populated her memory of her youth. Then back home, an elderly female relative of around the same age (again!) delivered exactly the same lecture about how things in Ireland were going to hell in a handbasket these days and that the 1950's was where Irish society reached closest to perfection.

Regardless of whether "moral decay" is being measured, or even could be measured, and if it could, whether it's going up or down, there are certainly lots of people out there who think it's a real and from the political/religious point of view, that's really all that matters.

CDfm

A friend of mine saw a moving statue in Mellory and it spooked him.

He lives in the USA with his wife and child and is now teetotal.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It seems reasonable to think that a lot of people mistakenly ascribe to "moral decay" things which they were simply unaware of when they were growing up. Or quite possibly, did things which their elders regarded as "moral decay" with a certain degree of relish (listen to loud music, pissing off the grouchy neighbour next door),

I see what you're saying, but it's hard not to see a change in the lengths to which things go.

When I was a kid we certainly used to piss off the grouchy neighbour next door. Today kids are more inclined to piss on the grouchy neighbour!

studiorat

I got a taxi home from work a few years ago, the conversation in the car went a little like this...

Taxi Driver: "Had that Phil Coulter in the car last night!"
Me: "Oh yeah, I was working with him actually, I rang the cab for him..."

TD: "I said I'd seen him on the Late,Late."
"I was on the Late Late you know. I asked him did he see me on the Late, Late. He hadn't, did you see me on the Late, Late?"

Me: "Err! No."
TD: "Yeah, I was on it a while ago"

Me: "Ok, why were you on the Late,Late?"
TD: "You know that statue down in Ballinspittle?"

Me: "Yeah?"
TD: "Well me and a friend drove down there and smashed it up with a hammer!"

Me: "No way!!"
TD: " Yeah! In front of everybody there too!"

Me: -silence...

Next day, in work again...
PC: " 'Rat? Let's use a different taxi company when we finish up tonight!" :eek:

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Today kids are more inclined to piss on the grouchy neighbour!

Quite possibly, but I'd still say that this was a risk even when kids knew their place -- up a chimney cleaning it.