nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Dave!

So which one of yiz was it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lazygal

I think it is the case, as was said before, that those of us who 'turn our back' on the faith we were raised in make others think about their faith, and that can be uncomfortable. I have no problem saying we're not catholic because we don't believe in god, don't believe there's any issue with IVF, abortion, gay rights and sex outside marriage. When people then say they don't have a problem with those things either, and they have 'their own faith', it's easy enough to ask why I should follow the strictures of the sacraments according to their pick and mix approach. I mean, if there's people calling themselves catholic who don't believe in God, that says more about how Ireland as a nation confused religious preferences with nationality.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Deeply flawed and biassed as it may be, it's based on people's self-identification. Call me a dangerous liberal, but on the whole I have a view that census participants have a better right to determine their own religious identity, and can do so with more authority, than you. If they say they're Catholics, I really don't care that Brian Shanahan says they're not.

Except that the label "Catholic" has become almost meaningless: we can infer almost nothing from such self-identification in terms of values, habits, or attitudes.

Someone who self-identifies as Catholic may be pro-divorce, pro-contraception, pro-Gay Rights, and might go to mass at Christmas and Easter.

Similarly, we could imagine that a lot of Irish "Catholics" might not care about a cross being cut down, when they are so out of sync with the church on other arguably more important issues.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

I actually genuinely think that the younger generations (I mean under about 40) tend to not be quite so badly impacted by this issue as they tend to define Irishness quite differently to their ancestors.

I'm fully convinced that once my parent's generation dies (my mother's in her seventies, my father's hitting retirement age), catholicism dies in Ireland. If you look at the vocations, nobody's joining and the average age for the priesthood is 65, we're soon going to be in a position where if the current school system continues (I'm not worried about mass attendance, they could close down half the churches in the country tomorrow without significantly inconveniencing attendees) half the primary schools in the country won't have suitable patrons according to department rules (which will probably be what'll actually secularise Irish education).

Most young people don't go to mass and are only nominal catholics because they don't want to disappoint mammy or granny. We'll see the rise of the openly cultural catholic, which like cultural jews, won't share any beliefs with the religion and be open about it, but which will identify as being linked and maybe even participate in some ceremonies for cultural and historical solidarity reasons (we have that now, but people are unwilling to acknowledge the reality of the situation).

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

They say that they're Catholics, but is it because they actually believe in the Catholic god and the churches teachings, or do they say it because Mammy said they were Catholic? , , ,

I take your point. But we're in the A&A form, where there are regular threads complaining (without any actual evidence) that the Catholic church "counts" as Catholic people who do not consider themselves Catholic. Here we have Pope Brian decreeing that people who do consider themselves Catholic are, in reality, not Catholic.

If we have any pretence at all to respect the dignity and autonomy of the individual, the starting point has to be that people's identification as Catholic means something, quite possilbly something that is significant to them. We can't just arbitrarily spout a caricature of selected Catholic teachings, assume without evidence that they don't accept those particular teachings as we have caricatured them, and decree that their identification is false.

If we genuinely care to know what their identification as Catholic means to them, we have to ask them. If we haven't done that, then we have no right to dismiss their identification as inauthentic or meaningless. And if we do dismiss their self-identification, then our complaints about how the Catholic church allegedly counts its membership are just so much hypocritical cant. Just sayin'.

SpaceTime

I think though there's a definite group of 1970s era Irish types who are of that: real life Father Ted, UCD, Maynooth, Mary I type busy body 1970s "social Catholics" and they're very much still influential in the top of the establishment at present.

They've an outlook that's a bit like that happy hippy Catholic religion teacher view of the world. Liberal on the surface but in reality not at all.

I'd exclude UCC and NUIG graduates from that label as they've always been secular and I think Trinity is just a bit more liberal despite being religious.

I constantly encounter people who used to be priests or who were briefly "in the nuns" who are in their late 50s to 60s and were the first generation of mass university education in the late 60s and early 70s.

It's like they're liberal but within a very conservative framework.

There's a similar protestant grouping too, also from that era. Its a very much patronising, controlling view of the world.

I think a lot of those people make up the policy making layer of Irish society and will do for another decade or so. They're still very much the power wielding generation although many are hitting retirement age now.

If you're in your late 20s to 30s they're likely to be your parents generation. If you're in your early 20s you've 80s parents who aren't likely to be quite as influenced by that buttoned up period of Irish society.

I think we've come a LONG way in 20 years but I think you'll see much deeper change as those of us in our 20s and 30s now hit our 40s and 50s and the current lot head off to St Clabbert's.

The other aspect is that the liberals of older generations are "coming out of the closet" where as they had been marginalised or just towed the line in the past.

My own granny was definitely born 60 years too early - liberal, open-minded, not religious at all... But it wasn't until the 1990s she started to really be open about that.

swampgas

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think though there's a definite group of 1970s era Irish types who are of that: real life Father Ted, UCD, Maynooth, Mary I type busy body 1970s "social Catholics" and they're very much still influential in the top of the establishment at present.

It was in 1979 (35 years ago) when quarter of a million people were turning out to see the Pope, that this age group were in their twenties. I imagine the changes they have experienced since then are quite dramatic.

And if you think about what their parent's generation was like - people whose formative years were in the 1950s - well they might feel quite radical themselves by comparison.

SpaceTime

swampgas wrote: »

It was in 1979 (35 years ago) when quarter of a million people were turning out to see the Pope, that this age group were in their twenties. I imagine the changes they have experienced since then are quite dramatic.

And if you think about what their parent's generation was like - people whose formative years were in the 1950s - well they might feel quite radical themselves by comparison.

They probably do, considering they would have pushed through things like equal pay for women, condoms being available without a prescription and all that.
It doesn't mean they not very conservative by modern standards though.

Considering that my grandmother said that in parts of Dublin in the 1950s it was shocking to be seen:
"out in your figure" (not wearing a shapeless coat to hide your figure) if you were a woman.
Or "out in your hair" (without a hat)

magicbastarder

swampgas wrote: »

It was in 1979 (35 years ago) when quarter of a million people

just to correct this - one and a quarter million people.
i only remember the massive lollipop i was given to keep me quiet.

expectationlost

Carrauntoohil cross footage ‘genuine’

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/carrauntoohil-cross-footage-genuine-300797.html

explorer Mike O’Shea. He said those responsible for cutting it down should have protested by other means. “It was a publicity stunt to try to get their message out there, but it served no purpose and people nowadays have plenty of other means of voicing protests,’’ he said.

but do they have others means to educate their children non-religiously?

Hotblack Desiato

swampgas wrote: »

It was in 1979 (35 years ago) when quarter of a million people were turning out to see the Pope, that this age group were in their twenties. I imagine the changes they have experienced since then are quite dramatic.

A friend of mine is ten years older than me, he was at the pope's youth mass in Galway.

Said the campsite was littered with used condoms...

Hotblack Desiato

SpaceTime wrote: »

I constantly encounter people who used to be priests or who were briefly "in the nuns" who are in their late 50s to 60s and were the first generation of mass university education in the late 60s and early 70s.

It's like they're liberal but within a very conservative framework.

Sadly there are a lot of people of that generation out there who were badly damaged by the RCC, and not just those physically or sexually abused in homes and the like.

The ex-seminary and ex-convent ones who 'failed' and 'shamed' their family. Who went in there with difficulties with relationships and sexuality and no doubt came out far worse. Who got no support when they left.

When I was a kid, there was a neighbour's son spoken of in hushed tones among the adults, he was in a seminary for years and went right through third level in it (university education was unheard of there and then) then pulled out at the last minute*. It was regarded as shameful, as if he'd cheated the church out of the college fees. Dublin, late 70s. He went off to live in England because of it.

Michael Harding's writings in the Irish Times are very good. Even now it seems he still hasn't quite got over the adolescent experience of wanting to be a priest and believe in it all, but then choosing a different life. It's certainly marked him.

* not a pun, honest.

Cabaal

swampgas wrote: »

Except that the label "Catholic" has become almost meaningless: we can infer almost nothing from such self-identification in terms of values, habits, or attitudes.

Someone who self-identifies as Catholic may be pro-divorce, pro-contraception, pro-Gay Rights, and might go to mass at Christmas and Easter.

Similarly, we could imagine that a lot of Irish "Catholics" might not care about a cross being cut down, when they are so out of sync with the church on other arguably more important issues.

Spot on,

I know a number of people who identify as catholic and the viewpoints vary MASSIVELY.

- One believes the sex abuse situation is blown out of proportion and its just people looking for attention. Most of it didn't happen.
- Only two go to mass every week, the rest only do births, deaths, marriages and Christmas.
- Majority are pro-choice
- All have no problem with contraception (even the one who doesn't believe the sex abuse claims)
- Most are pro marriage equality
- All including the uber religious people have no problem with couples living together and sex before marriage
- One of the uber religious people that goes to mass every week without fail hated the last pope, and I mean hated. Didn't like him or pay attention to anything he said.

So unlike 1970's Ireland its evident that most "catholic" people don't really care for the church's teachings on alot of real life, day to day issues that the church has clear rules on.

Cabaal

swampgas wrote: »

It was in 1979 (35 years ago) when quarter of a million people were turning out to see the Pope, that this age group were in their twenties. I imagine the changes they have experienced since then are quite dramatic.

They might get 250k these days if he visited, but I'd wager that easily over 60% would be people from other European country's.

I've always made it clear to my wife, if the pope visits Ireland I'll be taking time off work to protest against his visit.

I'd wager that I won't be the only one protesting either

shruikan2553

Cabaal wrote: »

Spot on,

I know a number of people who identify as catholic and the viewpoints vary MASSIVELY.

- One believes the sex abuse situation is blown out of proportion and its just people looking for attention. Most of it didn't happen.
- Only two go to mass every week, the rest only do births, deaths, marriages and Christmas.
- Majority are pro-choice
- All have no problem with contraception (even the one who doesn't believe the sex abuse claims)
- Most are pro marriage equality
- All including the uber religious people have no problem with couples living together and sex before marriage
- One of the uber religious people that goes to mass every week without fail hated the last pope, and I mean hated. Didn't like him or pay attention to anything he said.

So unlike 1970's Ireland its evident that most "catholic" people don't really care for the church's teachings on alot of real life, day to day issues that the church has clear rules on.

The most religious person I know has children and isnt married. Cant allow gay people to get married though. The mother is now using better contraception.

Religion, its great when its not you following it, doesnt matter if its easier for you not to.

swampgas

magicbastarder wrote: »

just to correct this - one and a quarter million people.
i only remember the massive lollipop i was given to keep me quiet.

Indeed, it was quarter of a million and more at individual events.

.

Michael Nugent

For clarification, Atheist Ireland is not motivated by being offended on this or any other issue in which we are involved.

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.

For example, I am not offended by the Angelus on RTE, or by the cross on Carrauntoohil. And, even if I was offended by them, that would not be a good reason for them to be changed. But I do want them changed. Why?

The Angelus should be changed because the state broadcaster has a duty to treat everyone equally, and the cross should be changed because community symbols should be inclusive of everybody in the community. These are positive reasons for changing symbols of discrimination, independently of how many people are offended by them.

On the other hand, I am offended by the Christian Bible, which says that a man should be stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, and that Jesus will kill the children of Jezebel for the sins of their mother. And I am offended by the Quran, which says that a husband can beat his wife and that a woman can inherit half of what a man can.

But I do not want these books banned. Why? Because Christians and Muslims have the right to believe what they want, and to publish and read about what they believe, even if it offends me or other people.

Their right to do this extends until practicing their beliefs starts to infringe on the rights of other people (such as the right to freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination, equality before the law, bodily autonomy, etc.) But the rights of religious people should not be infringed simply because atheists are offended, and vice versa.

There is also a distinction between us asking religious people to consider being more inclusive, and us insisting that the state protect our rights.

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.

This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to some religious people (and indeed some atheists) understanding secularism. Secularism is neutral between religion and atheism. It does not favour either atheism or religion.

Where we move from asking to insisting is where the State is involved. The State has a duty to protect equally the human rights of all of its citizens, and Ireland fails to do this with regard to the human rights of atheists and non-religious citizens.

Atheist Ireland will continue to insist that the State respect our human rights. These are not lofty aspirations. They are the rock-bottom minimum human rights standards that the State is obliged to respect. The only way for the State to respect equally the human rights of all of its citizens is to be neutral on questions of religion and atheism.

We will also continue to ask religious people to voluntarily move towards a more inclusive society, where everybody’s right to their beliefs are respected equally. We will continue to ask religious people to do this, not because they are offending us, which they are entitled to do, but because we want a more fair and inclusive secular society.

curioser

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!

shruikan2553

curioser wrote: »

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

Nobody has ever said something like this before.

It is also mainly white. So far we have 2 interesting facts. Anyone else wish to join in?

Pherekydes

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Nobody has ever said something like this before.

It is also mainly white. So far we have 2 interesting facts. Anyone else wish to join in?

There's a female majority.

Brian Shanahan

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!

No it isn't as I've already conclusively proved to you elsewhere in the forum.

You are no longer allowed to impose your unevidenced and fantastically illogical opinions on others, nor allowed beat people up in the street for not following them (as a number of poor jehovah's found to their cost in Kilalloe back in the day) either. Live with it, and don't be poisoning the well on the rest of us.

Insect Overlord

The sad thing is, I have relatives who do firmly believe that silly "Catholic country" BS. People out there really do think the old traditional majority rules thing is okay for pressing on everybody else.

Hotblack Desiato

A swift cure for them would be to imagine how they would feel if they lived in a 'muslim country' instead of a 'catholic country'.

All of a sudden, they'd be all in favour of tolerance of minority religious views...

jank

Michael Nugent wrote: »

For example, I am not offended by the Angelus on RTE, or by the cross on Carrauntoohil. And, even if I was offended by them, that would not be a good reason for them to be changed. But I do want them changed. Why?

The Angelus should be changed because the state broadcaster has a duty to treat everyone equally, and the cross should be changed because community symbols should be inclusive of everybody in the community. These are positive reasons for changing symbols of discrimination, independently of how many people are offended by them.

A few things...

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

Finally, What is your suggestion of an inclusive symbol?

jank

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A swift cure for them would be to imagine how they would feel if they lived in a 'muslim country' instead of a 'catholic country'.

All of a sudden, they'd be all in favour of tolerance of minority religious views...

Indeed, If this happened in a Muslim Country then people like Michael Nuggent would already be hanging from a tree somewhere. Ireland is pretty tolerant and gives a fair bit of leeway to minority views. Try that in a Muslim country and see how far you get...

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it isn't as I've already conclusively proved to you elsewhere in the forum.

You are no longer allowed to impose your unevidenced and fantastically illogical opinions.on others, nor allowed beat peopleup in the street for not following them (as a number of poor jehovah's found to their cost inKilalloe back in the day) either. Live with it, and don't be poisoning the well on the rest of us.

He's not trying to do any of these things. He's trying to put up a cross, and not have it cut down by people who don't think he should have put it up, and do think they are entitled to enforce their views about this on him.

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it isn't as I've already conclusively proved to you elsewhere in the forum.

You are no longer allowed to impose your unevidenced and fantastically illogical opinions.on others, nor allowed beat peopleup in the street for not following them (as a number of poor jehovah's found to their cost inKilalloe back in the day) either. Live with it, and don't be poisoning the well on the rest of us.

You have proved nothing of the sort. All you have done is re-defined what Catholic is in your own narrow view point and subsequently decided that x people of Ireland are not Catholic because they don't fit that view point. No true Scotsman's on crack cocaine!

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

Indeed, If this happened in a Muslim Country then people like Michael Nuggent would already be hanging from a tree somewhere. Ireland is pretty tolerant and gives a fair bit of leeway to minority views. Try that in a Muslim country and see how far you get...

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

Peregrinus

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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

According to Brian that is the minority view!

Turtwig

///MOD:///

curioser wrote: »

What the h*ll is a "none question"? And why does the plural of "area" merit an apostrophe? Bloody hell, I've had five pints and I still think I make better sense than the quote!

curioser wrote: »

If this is the sort of thing you normally get up to at 3.28 a.m. it would be no surprise if the wife decided to have it off with the neighbour!

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!

Either post something constructive, or don't post in this thread. Your future posts on this thread may be edited or deleted without notice. You may also receive cards, infractions or a ban.

Please heed this warning.

shruikan2553

Peregrinus wrote: »

According to Brian that is the minority view!

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