Cross on summit of Carrauntoohil cut down with angle grinder (Warning: contains TLAs)

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In Ireland you can have a minority view, just do everything the catholic way or you are being awkward.

The very fact that you are on an Irish registered website discussing topics relating to A&A with other Irish people disproves this theory.

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Depends, what I meant was the Irish form of Catholicism. The statistics here show that very few people actually follow Catholic teachings. You can call it a duck if it swims like one but if it doesnt quack or have feathers then it may not actually be a duck.

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

Well, that is like saying there are no 'real' socialists in Ireland because they don't practice what they preach....

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

The very fact that you are on an Irish registered website discussing topics relating to A&A with other Irish people disproves this theory.

How? Just because atheists arent being rounded up to be sent away it doesnt mean that Ireland is a utopia of equality were everyone is welcome.

jank wrote: »

Well, that is like saying there are no 'real' socialists in Ireland because they don't practice what they preach....

If a Catholic doesnt have to believe in God or other such basic catholic teachings to be a Catholic the term becomes pointless. A theist who doesnt believe in God goes against the entire definition of theist. Might as well call black white.

Peregrinus

shruikan2553 wrote: »

How? Just because atheists arent being rounded up to be sent away it doesnt mean that Ireland is a utopia of equality were everyone is welcome.

Hold on, hold on. What we're discussing in this thread is a religious symbol [allegedly] being destroyed by [allegedly] people who object to its religious symbolism.

This isn't an instance of oppressive religion. This is [allegedly] an instance of the supression of religious expression. This issue is not whether theists are oppressive but whether [alleged] atheists are.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If a Catholic doesnt have to believe in God or other such basic catholic teachings to be a Catholic the term becomes pointless. A theist who doesnt believe in God goes against the entire definition of theist. Might as well call black white.

Sure, but this line of argument works both ways. This case is usually run by people who pick some relatively specific Catholic teaching or practice chosen precisely because it is widely neglected or rejected, arbitrarily decree that it is now the essential definining characteristic of Catholicism, and then decree that those who neglect or reject it are not Catholics, despite the fact that the people concerned consider themselves to be Catholics and they are so considered by the Catholic community at large.

If you choose some more defensible characteristic as your non-negotiable essential - like your own suggestion, belief in God - then it become impossible to maintaint the Brian's claim that Catholicism is a minority position in this country. 10% of Catholics don't beleive in God, according to the survey referenced in your own link? Well, that would reduce the census figure from 84% to 75%. Not a minority. Its' a fairly substantial majority, unless black means white.

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

How? Just because atheists arent being rounded up to be sent away it doesnt mean that Ireland is a utopia of equality were everyone is welcome.

Ah, so you want utopia so? Ireland is a pretty free country given all the international standings and statistics that we have on offer. Indeed the facts that there is huge migration from other EU and non EU countries the last 15 years blows your 'not welcome' argument out of the water completely. I will form my opinion on these statistics rather than some pubescent teenage angst on the internet regarding some cross that they never saw nor never know existed.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If a Catholic doesnt have to believe in God or other such basic catholic teachings to be a Catholic the term becomes pointless. A theist who doesnt believe in God goes against the entire definition of theist. Might as well call black white.

The vast majority of 'Catholics' or indeed Irish people do people in a 'God' of some sort your point is mute there.

I always find it bemusing to hear other Atheists tell us the real definition of a 'Catholic' more so than actual Catholics. It gives off a air of a superiority complex tbh.

Would they from the same opinion that only violent Muslims like those in ISIS are the 'real' Muslims while peaceful Muslims are actually non Muslims because they reject the violent notions of Islam?

Michael Nugent

These are useful questions, Jank.

jank wrote: »

There are many old Pagan relics dotted around the country side. Ireland is not really Pagan anymore so these relics do not amount to symbols that are inclusive of the surrounding community. Should we replace these relics with symbols of that are inclusive of the community?

No, I would see those as part of our historical heritage. I don't see a plain cross erected in 1976 as falling into that category.

jank wrote: »

You gave no mention to the fact that the cross is on Private land. Do you not think property rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be ignored in this case?

Does the moral argument of inclusiveness trump property rights in your opinion?

That question is more complicated than it seems. As far as I understand from ambiguous descriptions to date, the land is commonage, which means that it is jointly owned by several farmers whose animals graze there.

The extent of the farmers rights with regards to building, as opposed to grazing, has not been clarified. But even granting them the strongest property rights, they would still require planning permission to erect a structure like that.

In 2011 Mayo Council decided that Joe McNamara's Achill-henge structure, which was also built on commonage, required planning permission, and the Council's decision was upheld by the High Court and An Bord Pleanala.

Kerry County Council has said the erection of the cross was exempt from planning permission, but did not say why, and this opinion does not seem to be supported by the planning acts. Mountaineering Ireland said that, in their opinion, whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear.

I had naively hoped that the Garth Brooks fiasco might have set a precedent that would have discouraged people from ignoring the planning process and just doing what they want anyway, but I was overly optimistic about that.

jank wrote: »

Before this incident took place the known facts are that
a) Nobody in AI objected publicly to this cross
b) Nobody in AI was even aware it existed
c) Nobody in AI was aware that this was on private land
d) Nobody in AI or elsewhere made a public reference to the unacceptable nature of this cross.

Just for accuracy, some Atheist Ireland members were aware of it (such as those living in Kerry, or those interested in mountaineering), but that specific cross had not arisen as a specific policy issue within Atheist Ireland.

jank wrote: »

Do you still think its OK to be reactive and give the party line regarding the removal of this cross given its lack of historical controversy and acceptance by the local community?

If by "give the party line" you mean "when an issue is brought to our attention, articulate with integrity what our policies are, rather than try to be populist," then yes.

The cross, by the way, is accepted not "by the local community" but by "most of the local community".

jank wrote: »

With the above out in the open, do you not then see why many people look at these facts and give little or no credence to AI's opinions regarding this specific matter?

I can see how some people could do this if they looked only at what you have outlined, and did not also look at what we have actually said.

jank wrote: »

After this incident took place no group (including Mountaineering Ireland) or public body (apart from AI) objected to reinstating this cross. It seems that the local community i.e. those that live in Kerry near that mountain, appear to vastly favor its reinstatement. Given this apparent majority in the local community do you still think wish to have it removed?

Mountaineering Ireland took what I consider to be a strange position.

They said that if the cross had never been there Mountaineering Ireland would be absolutely opposed to it being erected; that Mountaineering Ireland has opposed a number of developments in the Irish mountains in recent times; that whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear but Mountaineering Ireland will not object to it.

The vast majority of the local community may well favour its reinstatement, but that is at the core of our concern about the issue. Questions of religion or atheism should not be addressed by community or mountaineering groups, precisely because a majority position fails to reflect the inclusive nature of a community.

jank wrote: »

Finally, What is your suggestion of an inclusive symbol?

My personal suggestion would be a symbol of nature, or of the universe, that religious people could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as created by their god, and that atheists could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as naturally evolved.

Of course, there was already a powerful symbol of nature there in the first place, which was the unspoilt peak of Ireland's highest mountain.

.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

The very fact that you are on an Irish registered website discussing topics relating to A&A with other Irish people disproves this theory.

Nope. 96% of primary schools under religious patronage Jank.

swampgas

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The cross, by the way, is accepted not "by the local community" but by "most of the local community".

A crucial distinction.

Mountaineering Ireland took what I consider to be a strange position.

They said that if the cross had never been there Mountaineering Ireland would be absolutely opposed to it being erected; that Mountaineering Ireland has opposed a number of developments in the Irish mountains in recent times; that whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear but Mountaineering Ireland will not object to it.

Mountaineering Ireland have to keep on the right side of the land owners to ensure cooperation and access. As such they are fudging the issue, but I can completely understand why.

Of course, there was already a powerful symbol of nature there in the first place, which was the unspoilt peak of Ireland's highest mountain.

Exactly - "gilding the lily" springs to mind.

SpaceTime

jank wrote: »

The very fact that you are on an Irish registered website discussing topics relating to A&A with other Irish people disproves this theory.

Try commenting on gay marriage on a licenced broadcaster in a totally non political way without any referendum date announced and the BAI will show you how their complaints-driven, selective enforcement system works and send you straight back to the 1950s.

It would seem that gay or gay friendly people must always be put on with a homophobe to ensure 'balance' or someone writes in a complaint that gets upheld.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on, hold on. What we're discussing in this thread is a religious symbol [allegedly] being destroyed by [allegedly] people who object to its religious symbolism.

This isn't an instance of oppressive religion. This is [allegedly] an instance of the suppression of religious expression. This issue is not whether theists are oppressive but whether [alleged] atheists are.

I was under the impression that "religious expression" meant you know, praying, going to mass, engaging in ceremonies, and perhaps wearing certain items of clothing.

I didn't realise that the right to religious expression also included the right to build huge crosses on what could be considered to be a public space?

Brian Shanahan

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The cross, by the way, is accepted not "by the local community" but by "most of the local community".

And I'm 95% certain what "most of" boils down to is a small group of vocal and obnoxious people are in favour of the cross, while everybody else is staying quiet for either a quiet life, lack of interest or lack of knowledge.

It is the way of rural Ireland. If you want anything done get the biggest b'stard in the village behind you and everybody else will fall silent. And if he is agin you, nobody will help you out no matter how wrong he is (or how illegal it is what he is doing).

swampgas

curioser wrote: »

Is there any chance of people in here getting a life at any time in the near future?
The country is mainly Catholic - live with it!

What about: Ireland isn't 100% Catholic, it has lots of other beliefs too - live with it ?

Is it really so difficult to get the concept that a majority need to give minorities space to exist? What's your take on Northern Ireland, if someone said "there is a Unionist majority - live with it, here's your orange sash, wear it" - would that be okay too?

My guess is the status quo suits you just fine, so anyone who doesn't like it can go get lost. After all, we wouldn't want you having to actually go to the trouble of treating your fellow citizens with any respect.

Dades

curioser wrote: »

Is there any chance of people in here getting a life at any time in the near future?
The country is mainly Catholic - live with it!

We're mostly able-bodied, too. Yay! Burn those unsightly wheelchair ramps!

shruikan2553

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on, hold on. What we're discussing in this thread is a religious symbol [allegedly] being destroyed by [allegedly] people who object to its religious symbolism.

Yes it is. jank is in one of his disprove everything without disproving anything moments and I was commenting on that.

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't an instance of oppressive religion. This is [allegedly] an instance of the supression of religious expression.

This issue is not whether theists are oppressive but whether [alleged] atheists are.

It was a cross being cut down [allegedly] in protest over the church patronage of schools. No religious expression was being suppressed. An object was cut down, everyone is still free to practice their religion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure, but this line of argument works both ways. This case is usually run by people who pick some relatively specific Catholic teaching or practice chosen precisely because it is widely neglected or rejected, arbitrarily decree that it is now the essential definining characteristic of Catholicism, and then decree that those who neglect or reject it are not Catholics, despite the fact that the people concerned consider themselves to be Catholics and they are so considered by the Catholic community at large.

If you choose some more defensible characteristic as your non-negotiable essential - like your own suggestion, belief in God - then it become impossible to maintaint the Brian's claim that Catholicism is a minority position in this country. 10% of Catholics don't beleive in God, according to the survey referenced in your own link? Well, that would reduce the census figure from 84% to 75%. Not a minority. Its' a fairly substantial majority, unless black means white.

What is a Catholic? If there are no standards of what makes a Catholic then what is the point in the term?

In Ireland there are a large group of what people call cultural or a la carte Catholics. These are the baptism, wedding, funeral for the days out or to keep their parents happy, have children before marriage, living in sin. Majority may be Catholic but following Catholic teachings is a minority. The stance on the likes of SSM, abortion are largely in favour despite the church being against them.

jank wrote: »

Ah, so you want utopia so? Ireland is a pretty free country given all the international standings and statistics that we have on offer. Indeed the facts that there is huge migration from other EU and non EU countries the last 15 years blows your 'not welcome' argument out of the water completely.

Migration is an indicator of how tolerant a country is towards other religions?
You must think United Arab Emirates is more tolerant then Ireland going by those statistics.

I'll give you a chance to backtrack before I use more statistics like more Irish people are leaving than returning and 20% of immigrants were from Brazil, which happens to have Catholicism as the majority religion too.

jank wrote: »

I will form my opinion on these statistics rather than some pubescent teenage angst on the internet regarding some cross that they never saw nor never know existed.

The UN looks to be a bit past puberty. Well done trying to get a dig in at someone by use that, its below the kind of crap most trolls would come out with. You really outdid yourself there.

Whenever everyone is omnipresent and all knowing the second part may hold true. Until that time someone cant hold an opinion on something until they know about it.

jank wrote: »

The vast majority of 'Catholics' or indeed Irish people do people in a 'God' of some sort your point is mute there.

Most believe in a God of some sort? You have just proven my point. In Catholicism there is one true god. A Catholic believing in Allah or Thor must get a bit confused.

jank wrote: »

I always find it bemusing to hear other Atheists tell us the real definition of a 'Catholic' more so than actual Catholics. It gives off a air of a superiority complex tbh.

When you have to explain the likes of transubstantiation and immaculate conception to Catholics you dont hold the highest expectations of what they know they are supposed to follow. My grandmother explained why she was a Catholic once.

"Because it is what we were told, you were a Catholic and that was that"

It goes into the whole cultural Catholic thing. Most atheists in Ireland started off as being Catholics, many learnt what Catholicism was about and then decided it wasn't for them. It is a US link but backs up what I said.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

jank wrote: »

Would they from the same opinion that only violent Muslims like those in ISIS are the 'real' Muslims while peaceful Muslims are actually non Muslims because they reject the violent notions of Islam?

They both follow the quran, just different interpretations.

lazybones32

swampgas wrote: »

What about: Ireland isn't 100% Catholic, it has lots of other beliefs too - live with it ?

You made me laugh. Thank you. A.I. - Atheism Irony

Is it really so difficult to get the concept that a majority need to give minorities space to exist? [/QUOTE]
Existing on top of Carr.? You must have balls of steel.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Existing on top of Carr.? You must have balls of steel.

so a person most live up there?
Great! cross gets cut down again tomorrow so :pac:

Username32

Michael Nugent wrote: »

My personal suggestion would be a symbol of nature, or of the universe, that religious people could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as created by their god, and that atheists could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as naturally evolved.

I don't agree with your logic here. Most religious people believe in evolution, in fact I would say all Catholics do. Creating that kind of distinction of interpretation (between the evolution believing atheist as apposed to the Grand designer view of people of religion) could cause further animosity between atheists and theists. Furthermore as an atheist I have no wish to worship the theory of evolution or create symbolism around it. I find that kind of pseudo religious thinking around scientific theory a bit disturbing tbh.

Michael Nugent

Username32 wrote: »

I don't agree with your logic here. Most religious people believe in evolution, in fact I would say all Catholics do. Creating that kind of distinction of interpretation (between the evolution believing atheist as apposed to the Grand designer view of people of religion) could cause further animosity between atheists and theists. Furthermore as an atheist I have no wish to worship the theory of evolution or create symbolism around it. I find that kind of pseudo religious thinking around scientific theory a bit disturbing tbh.

I meant symbolise nature or the universe, not symbolise the theory of evolution or any scientific theory.

I was using the word evolved in the wider sense of the gradual development of something, in this case nature and the universe, not the specific sense of the theory of evolution of living species on earth.

And it wouldn't involve worship. Think of it as art, which atheists can appreciate without any theological baggage.

jank

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, I would see those as part of our historical heritage. I don't see a plain cross erected in 1976 as falling into that category.

Therefore you see it as a matter of personal interpretation. Some people would definitely see that cross as part of our historical heritage even though you personally may not. Do you accept this on your part?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That question is more complicated than it seems. As far as I understand from ambiguous descriptions to date, the land is commonage, which means that it is jointly owned by several farmers whose animals graze there.

The extent of the farmers rights with regards to building, as opposed to grazing, has not been clarified. But even granting them the strongest property rights, they would still require planning permission to erect a structure like that.

In 2011 Mayo Council decided that Joe McNamara's Achill-henge structure, which was also built on commonage, required planning permission, and the Council's decision was upheld by the High Court and An Bord Pleanala.

Kerry County Council has said the erection of the cross was exempt from planning permission, but did not say why, and this opinion does not seem to be supported by the planning acts. Mountaineering Ireland said that, in their opinion, whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear.

Commonage land is still private land is it not?

So at best we have the official line that planning permission is not needed, at worst we hear that the requirement is unclear. The Joe McNamara case is irrelevant as it was a new structure and the county council of Mayo deemed that it should be taken down. Why then in this case that AI do not accept the official county council line?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Just for accuracy, some Atheist Ireland members were aware of it (such as those living in Kerry, or those interested in mountaineering), but that specific cross had not arisen as a specific policy issue within Atheist Ireland.

However, the official line is correct as I previously stated, is it not?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The cross, by the way, is accepted not "by the local community" but by "most of the local community".

For all intents and purposes, semantics and nitpicking aside is that not the same thing? Either way one can spin it as the tyranny of the majority or the veto of the minority.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I can see how some people could do this if they looked only at what you have outlined, and did not also look at what we have actually said.

The saying 'perception is reality' I think is the appropriate response here.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Mountaineering Ireland took what I consider to be a strange position.

They said that if the cross had never been there Mountaineering Ireland would be absolutely opposed to it being erected; that Mountaineering Ireland has opposed a number of developments in the Irish mountains in recent times; that whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear but Mountaineering Ireland will not object to it.

The vast majority of the local community may well favour its reinstatement, but that is at the core of our concern about the issue. Questions of religion or atheism should not be addressed by community or mountaineering groups, precisely because a majority position fails to reflect the inclusive nature of a community.

If this question should not be addressed by the local community or indeed Irelands premier mountaineering group, then who should addresses these questions? Atheist Ireland (who were unaware of this cross in the first place) and/or the Roman Catholic Church (do we really want them involved)?

I am surprised to this answer as no religious group were overtly involved in this issue. It seems the issues was entirely handled by the local community without being led by a pipe piper. Shouldn't this be the direction Ireland should take, community lead rather then being led by religious leaders of various and vested institutions (and I include AI in that)?

Has anyone in the local community publicly complained about this cross or are you assuming without evidence that this is the case.
What would have to happen in the local community for you to accept this cross. A public vote? A public forum?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Of course, there was already a powerful symbol of nature there in the first place, which was the unspoilt peak of Ireland's highest mountain.
.

Was as in 1952?

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Migration is an indicator of how tolerant a country is towards other religions?
You must think United Arab Emirates is more tolerant then Ireland going by those statistics.

I'll give you a chance to backtrack before I use more statistics like more Irish people are leaving than returning and 20% of immigrants were from Brazil, which happens to have Catholicism as the majority religion too.

Where are you getting that 20% Brazilian figure from? Yes, it is one indicator. People from other places in the world can freely practice their religion or non religion if they want to in Ireland. You have not challenged this point directly but try and muddy the waters with unrelated points.

Do you attribute Irish people leaving Ireland in numbers that are more do with religion or just plain ol-economic push and pull factors. I have meet many an Irish person in NZ and Australia (I am one myself) and no one has EVER mentioned religion as a push factor. Perhaps you should do some travel yourself and open up that mind.

The UN looks to be a bit past puberty. Well done trying to get a dig in at someone by use that, its below the kind of crap most trolls would come out with. You really outdid yourself there.

Whenever everyone is omnipresent and all knowing the second part may hold true. Until that time someone cant hold an opinion on something until they know about it.

Thank you. Quick, there is an agenda somewhere waiting for you to comment on, you just don't know it yet.

Most believe in a God of some sort? You have just proven my point. In Catholicism there is one true god. A Catholic believing in Allah or Thor must get a bit confused.

Your the one that mentioned Catholics that don't believe in god. If you are going to make such a weak argument that you cannot defend after one attempt, here is a tip. Use better arguments.

It goes into the whole cultural Catholic thing. Most atheists in Ireland started off as being Catholics, many learnt what Catholicism was about and then decided it wasn't for them. It is a US link but backs up what I said.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

That surrey also notes that African-Americans were more religious than white people, yet knew the least of all about religion. One could then form the view about African-Americans intelligence on this and knowledge on other matters. Careful what stats you post. They can be used to prove many different things.

They both follow the quran, just different interpretations.

So are they both Muslims, my point proved. Maybe 'Catholics' have different interpretations of the bible and RCC teaching, yet they are still Catholic, hence my point.

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

Where are you getting that 20% Brazilian figure from? Yes, it is one indicator. People from other places in the world can freely practice their religion or non religion if they want to in Ireland. You have not challenged this point directly but try and muddy the waters with unrelated points.

Do you attribute Irish people leaving Ireland in numbers that are more do with religion or just plain ol-economic push and pull factors. I have meet many an Irish person in NZ and Australia (I am one myself) and no one has EVER mentioned religion as a push factor. Perhaps you should do some travel yourself and open up that mind.



Thank you. Quick, there is an agenda somewhere waiting for you to comment on, you just don't know it yet.




Your the one that mentioned Catholics that don't believe in god. If you are going to make such a weak argument that you cannot defend after one attempt, here is a tip. Use better arguments.





That surrey also notes that African-Americans were more religious than white people, yet knew the least of all about religion. One could then form the view about African-Americans intelligence on this and knowledge on other matters. Careful what stats you post. They can be used to prove many different things.



So are they both Muslims, my point proved. Maybe 'Catholics' have different interpretations of the bible and RCC teaching, yet they are still Catholic, hence my point.

In short, immigration is a sign of tolerance when it suits you, doesnt count when it doesnt. Emigration from said countries is economical. Im not even going to waste my time with the rest.

This thread just makes it look like you are looking for an argument. Its a shame, you used to just have different opinions but here its like arguing with a Christian about Leviticus. How can atheists claim to no more about religion than Catholics? Gets study showing Atheists have been known to know more about religion. Conclusion? Black people are stupid.

The mental gymnastics are impressive.

PopePalpatine

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In short, immigration is a sign of tolerance when it suits you, doesnt count when it doesnt. Emigration from said countries is economical. Im not even going to waste my time with the rest.

It's the Will of the Free Market!

recedite

jank wrote: »

Either way one can spin it as the tyranny of the majority or the veto of the minority.

Tyranny of the majority when the cross goes back up, despite it not being an inclusive symbol.
Veto of the minority if the (minority) objectors had the power of veto, which they don't.

So its not a case of how you spin it. There is no veto. That's it.
The tyranny of the majority was challenged by an individual, who chose to fell the cross in an act of defiance, which was an illegal act.
Now the majority grouping have chosen to re-assert their symbol, knowing that it is not inclusive, and not everyone supports it, yet still happy to install it in that knowledge.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Religious people have the right to offend atheists, and vice versa. And we completely support the right of religious people to say and do things that offend us. But there is a difference between being offensive on the one hand, and discriminating and denying rights on the other hand....

With regard to the cross on Carrauntoohil, we did not demand that anything should happen. We did not even initiate any comment on the matter. We were asked by the media what our opinion was on the matter, and we said that (a) the cross should not have been vandalised, and we hoped that the perpetrators are brought to justice; and (b) the local community who put up the cross in the 1950s, and replaced it in the 1970s, should consider replacing it now with a more inclusive symbol that everyone in the community can identify with...

Some religious people seem to have interpreted that suggestion as (a) a demand instead of a request, and (b) an attempt to impose our beliefs on religious people, instead of an attempt to prevent religious beliefs being imposed on atheists, and to instead have no beliefs imposed on anybody who does not share them.

jank

recedite wrote: »

Tyranny of the majority when the cross goes back up, despite it not being an inclusive symbol.
Veto of the minority if the (minority) objectors had the power of veto, which they don't.

So its not a case of how you spin it. There is no veto. That's it.
The tyranny of the majority was challenged by an individual, who chose to fell the cross in an act of defiance, which was an illegal act.
Now the majority grouping have chosen to re-assert their symbol, knowing that it is not inclusive, and not everyone supports it, yet still happy to install it in that knowledge.

People are re-iterating that they there are local people who do not support it, yet has anyone in the community in question publicly stated this? It seems that it is taken as an axiom yet there is no evidence.

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The mental gymnastics are impressive.

Indeed, Atheists telling Catholics they are not Catholics....

Pherekydes

jank wrote: »

Indeed, Atheists telling Catholics they are not Catholics....

Catholics seem to be unable to recognise this self-evident truth. Ticking catholic on the census does not make one a catholic.

lazygal

jank wrote: »

Indeed, Atheists telling Catholics they are not Catholics....

Can you be Catholic if you don't believe in God?

Brian Shanahan

lazygal wrote: »

Can you be Catholic if you don't believe in God?

I think the current rule is "you can be a catholic as long as the church needs your nominal membership to pretend its relevant in order to keep its power over the people andlegislature"

And to those that think the church is a majority in any real sense, whiy are the bishops in crisis mode over its imminent death?

shruikan2553

Pherekydes wrote: »

Catholics seem to be unable to recognise this self-evident truth. Ticking catholic on the census does not make one a catholic.

lazygal wrote: »

Can you be Catholic if you don't believe in God?

Nobody appears to want to explain what is a Catholic. Yet we have people going on TV and telling us what the Catholic viewpoint is but Catholic seems to be as broad a term as atheist so they cant really claim to represent Catholics when Catholics can believe anything.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Indeed, Atheists telling Catholics they are not Catholics....

So you see no issue with a person who believes in no god and by its very extension no Jesus calling themselves a Catholic and then having the Catholic Church claim they represent this persons views?

Hard to claim you are representing a person when you claim the gays are bad as declared by God when the person you claim to represent sees no issues with gays and doesn't believe in said God.

If I say my cat is actually a horse by your logic even though it's clearly a cat everybody must accept it's a horse. It's wrong for anyone to call it a cat.