Page 6 of 7

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:26 am
by ctr
What annoys me most is the drinking and drunkenness so early in the day.

Squads of children running wild in pubs then given Fanta and crisps for their dinner while mammy and daddy get pissed until late.

My blood boils. :x

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:58 pm
by lostexpectation
UDS wrote:It occurs to me that St Patrick's day must be one of the few widely-celebrated national holidays which does not commemorate a battle, the start or end of a war or a rebellion, or some other violent event or episode.
i guess the birth of most nations are bloody, i wouldn't wipe a tear for some beheaded king.

perhaps soldiers marching down a road, doesn't reflect the amount of civil disobedience that would have occurred during a rebellion too.

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:13 am
by UDS
lostexpectation wrote:i guess the birth of most nations are bloody . . .
But not, as it happens, the Irish nation. Ireland had a well-recognised social, cultural, ethnic, etc identity – and indeed St Patrick’s day was being celebrated - long before the state was founded, and even long before the political and military struggle which led to the foundation of the state began. The US celebrates 4 July as its national holiday because the formation of the nation was intimately bound up with the movement for independence, but this is not the case for us.

We already suffer from an excess of political nationalism in this country. I wouldn’t like to see a national day which implied that our very identity as a nation was in some way dependent on an event of political importance, whether that be the Easter Rising or the assembly of the first Dáil, or the declaration of the Republic.

We may or may not like the religious associations of St Patrick’s day, but it’s an irrefutable fact that the early conversion of Ireland to Christianity is an important chapter in the evolution of our national identity, giving us both a cultural cohesion and a cultural distinction from neighbouring pagan countries, and also giving us literacy, a written literary tradition and an intellectual link to Continental Europe and to the classical world, well ahead of our neighbours. I can’t welcome a secular ethos which wants to airbrush out all references to Christianity and its influences, because We Don’t Talk About That Any More.

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:23 am
by lostexpectation
i said i guess .... most...


you said fact?

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:16 am
by UDS
I’m not disagreeing with you. It may well be true that the birth of most nations was bloody, but if the subject under discussion is an Irish national holiday, then what is relevant is the birth of most nations, but the birth of the Irish nation. My point is that, currently, we have a national holiday which does not commemorate a bloody or violent event; I happen to think that that is a positive; I think that the alternative suggestions that have been made commemorate recent events whereas in fact the Irish nation is pretty ancient; and, like it or note, the conversion of the people of Ireland to Christianity is a rather more fundamental influence on the national character and psyche than the assembly of the first Dáil or the declaration of the Republic. It is possible for someone who is not a Christan to concede that the conversion of Ireland to Christianity was a signficant formative influence on the nation, and resentment of this fact or a reluctance to concede it can make secularism and atheism look small-minded, narrow and even bigoted.

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:32 pm
by lostexpectation
UDS wrote:I’m not disagreeing with you. It may well be true that the birth of most nations was bloody, but if the subject under discussion is an Irish national holiday, then what is relevant is the birth of most nations, but the birth of the Irish nation. My point is that, currently, we have a national holiday which does not commemorate a bloody or violent event; I happen to think that that is a positive; I think that the alternative suggestions that have been made commemorate recent events whereas in fact the Irish nation is pretty ancient; and, like it or note, the conversion of the people of Ireland to Christianity is a rather more fundamental influence on the national character and psyche than the assembly of the first Dáil or the declaration of the Republic. It is possible for someone who is not a Christan to concede that the conversion of Ireland to Christianity was a signficant formative influence on the nation, and resentment of this fact or a reluctance to concede it can make secularism and atheism look small-minded, narrow and even bigoted.

its not _the_ nation's holiday really.

yeah but i think people too readily think that that conversion to Christianity as the only significant thing to happen to Ireland ever. and alot of people worked very hard to contrive it to make it look like that, so it rights to question it.and relax that language were just having discussion here, i never said i had resentment or reluctance.

and you'll have to describe to me the hundred bloodless years around that time of that conversion.

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:56 pm
by aZerogodist
UDS wrote:
lostexpectation wrote:i guess the birth of most nations are bloody . . .
But not, as it happens, the Irish nation. Ireland had a well-recognised social, cultural, ethnic, etc identity – and indeed St Patrick’s day was being celebrated - long before the state was founded, and even long before the political and military struggle which led to the foundation of the state began. The US celebrates 4 July as its national holiday because the formation of the nation was intimately bound up with the movement for independence, but this is not the case for us.
Well that truely was the birth of a nation. note that St. Patricks day only became a public holiday in 1903, previous to that it was a religious holiday
UDS wrote:We already suffer from an excess of political nationalism in this country. I wouldn’t like to see a national day which implied that our very identity as a nation was in some way dependent on an event of political importance, whether that be the Easter Rising or the assembly of the first Dáil, or the declaration of the Republic.
We may or may not like the religious associations of St Patrick’s day, but it’s an irrefutable fact that the early conversion of Ireland to Christianity is an important chapter in the evolution of our national identity, giving us both a cultural cohesion and a cultural distinction from neighbouring pagan countries, and also giving us literacy, a written literary tradition and an intellectual link to Continental Europe and to the classical world, well ahead of our neighbours.
I am sure that Ireland would have of been one of the last European Pagan nations, also the "Celts" had their own verbal literature and culture. Fine you can say that the RC did contribute to the education of the masses, but so did, hasten I say it the British occupation building Universities and giving us an international language unlike the RC's Latin. But we don't have a day celibrating Cromwell, but this is a discusion where the most of us just see the day for celibrating the Irish culture without the imposed trappings of religeous hi-jacking. Also I wonder how Ireland would have of developed without the RC, as the Celtic Irish were intelligent they would of aquired a written langauge.
UDS wrote:I can’t welcome a secular ethos which wants to airbrush out all references to Christianity and its influences, because We Don’t Talk About That Any More.
Hummm did the RC teach the ways of the Celts and the real Irish culture or their own ethos. It is always the victors that write the history and "airbrushes" out the parts they don't like.

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:57 am
by UDS
aZerogodist wrote:I am sure that Ireland would have of been one of the last European Pagan nations, also the "Celts" had their own verbal literature and culture. Fine you can say that the RC did contribute to the education of the masses, but so did, hasten I say it the British occupation building Universities and giving us an international language unlike the RC's Latin. But we don't have a day celibrating Cromwell, but this is a discusion where the most of us just see the day for celibrating the Irish culture without the imposed trappings of religeous hi-jacking. Also I wonder how Ireland would have of developed without the RC, as the Celtic Irish were intelligent they would of aquired a written langauge.
I have to say that the facts are against you here. Ireland is one of the earlier European countries to have comprehensively adopted and retained Christianity, well ahead of England, Scotland, all the Scandinavian countries, Germany and all countries east of it, the Balkans, and also Spain and Portugal. Irish missionaries played a significant role in spreading Christianity throughout Europe, something they could hardly have done if the rest of Europe was mostly Christian already. (Incidentally, it was during this time that Irish monks were instrumental in spreading the idea of the university, an idea which some centuries later made it back to England.)

One of the reasons Celticism is so popular among neo-pagans is precisely because Irish paganism disappeared so long ago. We have relatively little detail on it, so you can project onto it pretty much what you like. For what it’s worth, our best source for understanding Celtic spirituality is in fact Celtic Christianity, which is well-documented and which – naturally – absorbed and retained a great deal of pre-Christian Celtic spirituality.

The Celts certainly had their own literature and culture before Christianity; it was reinforced, not eclipsed, with the arrival of Christianity, because the Christians brought literacy, which enabled a great deal of information and lore to be written down, recorded and propagated. Gaelic culture survived and prospered for centuries; it collapsed only in the seventeenth century under the influence, not of Christianity, but of Anglicisation. Your comment about the British “giving us an international language besides the RC’s Latin” is bizarre. Latin doesn’t belong to the Catholic church; the church adopted it precisely because it was the pre-eminent international language; it was much more an international language, for much longer, than English.

I’m not sure why you think “the Celtic Irish were intelligent they would of acquired a written language”. In the first place, there is no reason to think that they were any more intelligent than their neighbours. In the second place, you don’t have to speculate about this; they did acquire a written language. The fact that they acquired it in circumstances that don’t appeal to you is, I’m afraid, a fact of history which is at this point unalterable.
aZerogodist wrote:. . . did the RC teach the ways of the Celts and the real Irish culture or their own ethos. It is always the victors that write the history and "airbrushes" out the parts they don't like.
Indeed. And it seems to me that the attempt to airbrush Christianity out of the Irish story is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Ireland has a very long history with Christianity, and it has profoundly shaped the nation. A version of secularism which can’t deal with this and prefers to deny it is not very appealing.

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:54 am
by aZerogodist
UDS wrote:I have to say that the facts are against you here. Ireland is one of the earlier European countries to have comprehensively adopted and retained Christianity, well ahead of England, Scotland, all the Scandinavian countries, Germany and all countries east of it, the Balkans, and also Spain and Portugal. Irish missionaries played a significant role in spreading Christianity throughout Europe, something they could hardly have done if the rest of Europe was mostly Christian already.
Maewyn Succat aka Patrick was the son of Calpurnius, a Roman-British army officer, was kidnapped sold into slavery in Ireland, escaped and went to Britain, then to France, where he joined a monastery and studied under St. Germain, the bishop of Auxerre. He spent around 12 years in training, when he became a bishop he set out for Ireland with the Pope's blessings. There he converted the Gaelic Irish, who were then mostly Pagans, to Christianity. (note:Gaelic Irish)
UDS wrote:(Incidentally, it was during this time that Irish monks were instrumental in spreading the idea of the university, an idea which some centuries later made it back to England.)
Sorry "Univers"ity when the world was a flat centristic disk... You must mean "God"-isty or "Heaven&Earth-isty as there was no universe, god made all, and all was Heaven&Earth&Abaddon.

"UDS" - "aZero" ::One of the reasons Celticism is so popular among neo-pagans Thanks is precisely because Irish paganism disappeared so long ago. We have relatively little detail on it, well more facts than if Jesus existed so you can project onto it pretty much what you like. For what it’s worth, our best source for understanding Celtic spirituality is in fact Celtic Christianity, which is well-documented and which – naturally – absorbed assimilated?? and retained a great deal of pre-Christian Celtic spirituality. (anam-cara) Yep we still have pagan-trees @ winter-solstice, I mean J.christmas-trees.
UDS wrote:Your comment about the British “giving us an international language besides the RC’s Latin” is bizarre. Latin doesn’t belong to the Catholic church; the church adopted it precisely because it was the pre-eminent international language; it was much more an international language, for much longer, than English.
Romanisation
Under Caesar the Romans conquered Celtic Gaul, and from Claudius onward the Roman empire absorbed parts of Britain. Roman local government of these regions closely mirrored pre-Roman 'tribal' boundaries, and archaeological finds suggest native involvement in local government. Latin was the official language of these regions after the conquests.
Note also RC=Roman Catholic and what was the language of Rome????
UDS wrote:I’m not sure why you think “the Celtic Irish were intelligent they would of acquired a written language”. In the first place, there is no reason to think that they were any more intelligent than their neighbours.
Image
UDS wrote:In the second place, you don’t have to speculate about this; they did acquire a written language. The fact that they acquired it in circumstances that don’t appeal to you is, I’m afraid, a fact of history which is at this point unalterable.
Well HIStory as no HERtory but more to the fact Christory... :lol:
UDS wrote:
aZerogodist wrote:. . . did the RC teach the ways of the Celts and the real Irish culture or their own ethos. It is always the victors that write the history and "airbrushes" out the parts they don't like.
Indeed. And it seems to me that the attempt to airbrush Christianity out of the Irish story is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Ireland has a very long history with Christianity, and it has profoundly shaped the nation. A version of secularism which can’t deal with this and prefers to deny it is not very appealing.
Why would anyone wanna do that, you have to be able to blame someone....but seriously we all get scars in life and we learn, like getting drunk walking into a building and falling 30ft, won't do that again, but also god never crossed my mind even though I half-believed in him at the time. So if we "airbrushed it away" then it might just happen again (St.Mo!!!)

Re: Should St Patricks day be stopped

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:28 pm
by lostexpectation
you've yet to describe the 100 bloodless years around the time of our conversion to Christianity