"Saint" Patrick did not "drive the snakes out of Ireland". that is christian propaganda

[msongs]

Ireland never had snakes. The "snakes" were original Ireland-inhabiting pagan human beings who were killed in the name of Jesus

http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/the-real-reason-why-there-arent-any-snakes-in-ireland-sorry-st-patrick

[samnsara]

1. doesnt it have something to do with selenium?

[jberryhill]

2. Well, they should have kept Trump's mom

[Maeve]

7. She was Scots.

[OriginalGeek]

16. Probably so was St Patrick

His parents were Romans living in Scotland at the time he was born as best we can tell.

[Maeve]

19. Yeah, that's still argued

One modern author believes he may have come from Brittany and others say England or Wales.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/st-patrick-may-have-been-from-brittany-not-britain-1.1575923

[greatauntoftriplets]

53. My mother always said he came from Luxembourg.

[Drahthaardogs]

25. By blood he was probably of Mediterranean descent

Conchessa was closely related to Martin of Tours.

[KingCharlemagne]

3. +Infinity - nt

[uppityperson]

4. Thank you, it was religion based genocide. I understand having a holiday or celebration for a countr

but Catholocism was involved with killing people who held religious beliefs different from them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. When do you think this "genocide" happened? (nt)

[Drahthaardogs]

26. She's making stuff up.

The Catholic Church has a lot of issues. Genocide is NOT one of them.

[uppityperson]

36. The crusades were about fluffy bunnies?

[Drahthaardogs]

47. The Crusades were not a genocide

And generally speaking, the Catholics lost. Do you even k ow the definition of the word "genocide"?

[NutmegYankee]

64. The Albigensian Crusade was absolutely a Genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

[Drahthaardogs]

65. Do you realize in the article you posted

It explicitly says some experts do NOT consider it a genocide?

I mean, if you are going to support your argument, don't link to an article that says YOUR position is controversial.

Funny

[NutmegYankee]

71. Some "experts" don't believe the climate is changing. The majority do.

The Majority believe the Albigensian Crusade was a genocide.


Why do you seek to deny it?

[Drahthaardogs]

76. Your article does not say that

Sorry.

[NutmegYankee]

80. I don't have time for "Catholics are perfect" apologists. It's clear you are extremely biased

The Genocide section clearly notes that many consider it a Genocide. One guy is quoted as disagreeing as he considers murder over faith OK, another disagrees with the argument that it was the historical precedent of modern genocide. Classic Wikipedia citations.

Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide, referred to the Albigensian Crusade as "one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history".[3]

Mark Gregory Pegg writes that "The Albigensian Crusade ushered genocide into the West by linking divine salvation to mass murder, by making slaughter as loving an act as His sacrifice on the cross".[4] Robert E. Lerner argues that Pegg's classification of the Albigensian Crusade as a genocide is inappropriate, on the grounds that it "was proclaimed against unbelievers... not against a 'genus' or people; those who joined the crusade had no intention of annihilating the population of southern France... If Pegg wishes to connect the Albigensian Crusade to modern ethnic slaughter, well—words fail me (as they do him)."[67] Laurence Marvin is not as dismissive as Lerner regarding Pegg's contention that the Albigensian Crusade was a genocide; he does however take issue with Pegg's argument that the Albigensian Crusade formed an important historical precedent for later genocides including the Holocaust.[68]

Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Solveig Björnson describe the Albigensian Crusade as "the first ideological genocide".[6] Kurt Jonassohn and Frank Chalk (who together founded the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies) include a detailed case study of the Albigensian Crusade in their genocide studies textbook The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies, authored by Joseph R. Strayer and Malise Ruthven.[7]

Colin Tatz likewise classifies the Albigensian Crusade as a genocide.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade#Genocide

[Drahthaardogs]

81. You said it definitely was

Sorry. It's not semantics. It is debatable at the least.

[NutmegYankee]

83. Oh Bullshit! Any contrarian can debate anything.

Global warming is real - Fact Albigensian Crusade is Genocide - fact.

Go Away!

[Drahthaardogs]

84. Outrage, pearl clutching, are you going to stomp your feet too?

You said it definitely was, many disagree. Really, this whole OP is just pure Catholic hate.

The Church has many faults, did many shitty things, but I see no reason to sit here and suffer lies and or at the best conjecture.
.
This is right in line with the "Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible". Huge stretches and exaggerating supported by a few facts.

[NutmegYankee]

86. Oh Noes, not faux persecution complex!

Granted, it was obvious from the first post. I knew this was going to be like arguing with a holocaust or global warming denier from the first reply.

And the sad thing here is I fully was going to comment that the main crusades into the Levant were clearly for land and power, not genocide. Minor nobles saw a chance for free estates and land.

[Drahthaardogs]

88. Ridiculous

Equating not buying your exaggerating to Holocaust denying. How's your tinfoil

[LanternWaste]

100. Anyone who disagrees with your allegations are merely Catholic Apologists.

Anyone who disagrees with your allegations are merely Catholic Apologists. How incredibly simplistic and convenient for a lazy mind to conclude...

[NutmegYankee]

72. Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined the word Genocide, considers it a Genocide.

[Decoy of Fenris]

73. It most certainly was not a Genocide.

The Cathar Wars were brought about not because of religion but of rebellion.

Segments of the southern French region were predominantly Cathar, true, but both Cathar and Christian populations were in an open state of revolt against the rulership of the French king. This was largely caused by the Aragonian crown sharing western French territory with the county of Toulouse. The Cathar population, the Christian population and the entire county of Toulouse desired independence and were willing to fight for it. The crown royalty of France at the time (and de jure owner of the affected territories), called for the Crusade from Pope Innocent III, resulting in the Albigensian Crusade (after the pope sent a delegation to ascertain the motives and state of affairs in Toulouse). The Crusade itself was not "Anti-Cathar", nor genocidal against the Cathars except incidentally: The Crusaders made no difference between Catholics and Cathars, most notable at the Massacre at Béziers, where the entire population of the city was annihilated regardless of religion.

The Albigensian Crusade was certainly no genocide. It was simply another civil war, no better or worse than our own.

ON EDIT: And before you bring up Lemkin, I'd like to remind you (although I'm sure you must be aware) that his definition of genocide is ludicrously vague and nebulous. "A crime against a person" would qualify as genocide by almost any of his exceptionally loose standards.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. A load of rubbish. There was no 'rebellion'. The nobles owed feudal allegiance to the French king

and were fine acknowledging that. It was their tolerance of the Cathars that made them targets, and it wasn't an army organised by Philip II that attacked them - it was knights who got forgiveness of sins for a short period of service, and commanded by a papal legate, before de Montfort took over - again, not fighting for the French king, but for the crusade announced by the Pope (and not "called for" by French royalty; if anything precipitated it, is was the murder of a papal legate).

[Decoy of Fenris]

77. I guess if you redefine "Rebellion" enough times, you'd be right...?

When a count and his associated baronies and bishoprics face excommunication not for heresy (being Cathar) but for refusing the orders of their liegelord, that marks said counties and baronies as in rebellion against the crown. Yes, they were both tolerant and accepting of the Cathars, but those same Cathars were driving for an independent Cathar state. That drive for independence (also known as rebellion) was led by Count Raymond himself after being excommunicated not once but twice for failing to comply with both papal decree and the orders of his liegelord. And while you can split hairs about whose army was actually involved in the Crusade (I'm quite well-versed enough in Crusade-era military formation and drafting already, thank you), Philip II had every ability to stop the Crusaders from moving on the Cathars, but he chose to let them march. Letting them do so was as good a declaration of war as any; If his Crusaders took the field and won a decisive victory in Toulouse, the lands associated were considered his by proper claim of military victory and divine right. That would be as good as any revoked title without the loss of prestige or vassal opinion that may come with revoking or usurping Count Raymond's claims directly.

And as much as I'm sure we could split hairs back and forth regarding the history, that still doesn't make the Crusade a genocide. War, yes. Genocide, no.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. To be honest, it looks like it's you who is redefining rebellion

"Philip II had every ability to stop the Crusaders from moving on the Cathars, but he chose to let them march"

Yes, and that's not the action of someone putting down a rebellion. It's someone seeing they can gain from someone else's fight - get direct control of lands. The Crusaders were organised by the Catholic church.

" Letting them do so was as good a declaration of war as any"

'As good' does not mean 'was', and 'letting them' points to what actually happened. Saying who controlled the army is not just 'splitting hairs'; it's about what the attack was for, and who carried out the massacres. It's important that Raymond was excommunicated, because that also shows it's a religious thing, not a "rebellion" of a vassal against his king. But I don't know what you mean when you say it involved "the orders of his liegelord", beyond a general "everyone has to do what the pope says in matters of religion" - and that meant suppressing the Cathars in this case. And I don't think Cathars were looking for an independent state, either - there was no attempt at organisation like that.

The fighting went far beyond just destroying the power of Raymond and other nobles; towns were attacked purely because of the Cathars. And it developed into the Inquisition.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

97. Gotta love Du - an entire subthread about the Albigensian Crusade

a/k/a the Cathar Wars. That's something you aren't likely to see anywhere else.

I'm not going to take sides in the argument over whether the persecution of the Cathars constituted genocide; but it's interesting to note that while the Cathars regarded themselves as Christian, the Church considered them to be heretics, as their take on Christianity was quite outside the mainstream even at the time. The Church responded to this heresy as it was always inclined to do in those days. There's an interesting historical novel/mystery about the Cathar Wars, Labyrinth, by Kate Mosse. I thought it was fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(novel)

[grantcart]

46. Astonishing. Of course the Catholic Church was involved in

genocide. The incorporated it into the office of the Inquisition which murdered 150,000 people.

[Drahthaardogs]

48. Still not a genocide

Obviously you do not understand the word either. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were a genocide.

[grantcart]

57. Your ignorance is surpassed by your arrogance.

The only thing exceeds the arrogance and ignorance of your response is your ability to read. I never mentioned the Crusades so why do you refer to it in your response? Wars between countries, like the Crusades, generally don't fit definitions of genocide although the Serbian war against Kosovo is a notable exception. You appear not to have a very sophisticated working knowledge of the history of the Catholic Church between 1200 and 1800 where the Catholic Church, Princes of Catholic States and Colonization forces of Spain and Portugal were repeatedly involved in actions that fit the definition of genocide.

And yes I studied genocide at graduate school and for 8 years I was employed by the UN to resettle survivors of the Cambodian genocide, so I am intimately involved in exactly what genocide is and isn't.

There are numerous cases where followers of the Catholic Church were involved in genocide.

First the accepted definition of genocide:

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Here is a more detailed and widely accepted scholarly definition:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[9]

1) The Spanish Inquisition

The whole point of the Alhambra Decree of 1492 was the elimination of the Jewish population of Spain:

The Alhambra Decree (also known as the Edict of Expulsion) was an edict issued on 31 March 1492, by the joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain (Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon) ordering the expulsion of practicing Jews from the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon and its territories and possessions by 31 July of that year.[1] The primary purpose was to eliminate their influence on Spain's large converso population and ensure they did not revert to Judaism. Over half of Spain's Jews had converted as a result of the religious persecution and pogroms which occurred in 1391, and as such were not subject to the Decree or to expulsion. A further number of those remaining chose to avoid expulsion as a result of the edict. As a result of the Alhambra decree and persecution in prior years, over 200,000 Jews converted to Catholicism and between 40,000 and 100,000 were expelled, an indeterminate number returning to Spain in the years following the expulsion.[2]

When you order the expulsion, mass forced conversion and murder of those that do not comply you are implementing acoordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups. In all the Inquisition Against Depraved Heresy targeted 400,000 and burned 31,000 at the stake

2) Organized persecution campaigns against Protestant minorities in Europe

While Protestants were still relatively small in number and isolated in geography there were many attempts at mass murder to eliminate them or eliminate their communities. In some cases their efforts were successful in other cases the community survived. In any case genocide is not the successful elimination or destruction of a national group but only the intention. In Europe military forces of Catholic Princes and Kings organized to eliminate various Protestant groups such as the Waldensians and the Hugenots

Piedmont Easter attack against the Waldensians

By mid-April, when it became clear that the Duke's efforts to force the Vaudois to conform to Catholicism had failed, he tried another approach. Under the guise of false reports of Vaudois uprisings, the Duke sent troops into the upper valleys to quell the local populace. He required that the local populace quarter the troops in their homes, which the local populace complied with. But the quartering order was a ruse to allow the troops easy access to the populace. On 24 April 1655, at 4 a.m., the signal was given for a general massacre.

The Duke's forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:

Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die.[32]

This massacre became known as the Piedmont Easter. An estimate of some 1,700 Waldensians were slaughtered

St. Bartholomew's Massacre of the Hugenots would eventually lead to Huguenot Wars of the 16th century and "the Approximately 3,000,000 people perished as a result of violence, famine and disease in what is accounted as the second deadliest European religious war".

The massacre began in the night of 23–24 August 1572 (the eve of the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle), two days after the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, the military and political leader of the Huguenots. The king ordered the killing of a group of Huguenot leaders, including Coligny, and the slaughter spread throughout Paris. Lasting several weeks, the massacre expanded outward to other urban centres and the countryside. Modern estimates for the number of dead across France vary widely, from 5,000 to 30,000.

3) Church supported colonization of South America

The Inter caetera and the Treaty of Tordesillas were Papal moves to give Church approval of the colonization of South America which was genocide with a capital G. Some indigenous populations sustained a 90% loss of life while 16 million Spaniards migrated to South America and took over their lands.

Now as to your reply

a) I never mentioned the Crusades so in addition to the arrogance and ignorance of your reply I have to add that you are not particularly adept at reading. Wars between countries or groups of countries usually are not genocide. I made no mention of the Crusades or any other wars between countries.

b) Not only was the Catholic Church involved in numerous acts of genocide like the Hugenots, the Waldesians and the native populations of South America, they actually developed their own Institution of Inquisition whose explicit mission was the destruction of the Jewish population in Spain as was made explicit in the Alhambra Decree, all of which meet the definition of genocide.

Again the definition of genocide is:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

[Drahthaardogs]

59. Blah, Blah, Blah

The Inquisition was not a genocide by the Church and neither was the colonization of the New World.

But thanks for playing

And on edit, neither of those events were orchestrated by the Church, but by Kings and queens.

Better keep studying.

[grantcart]

60. Boy you really don't know what you are talking about

Inquisition was an office of the Church, not of the secular authority. It was established by Pope Innocent III in 1233 and abolished in 1808

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-inquisition

The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal for discovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused.

While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.

. . . Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance.

The colonization by Spain and Portugal were sanctioned by Papal bulls. Secular authority was commissioned by the Pope to go forth and take over native populations and in exchange for taking any wealth and exploiting the populations Spain and Portugal were obligated to take priests, assist in forcing conversions and the establishment of missions.

Dum Diversas (English: Until different) is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to "perpetual servitude".[1][2] Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Inter Caetera (not to be confused with Alexander VI's), renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera.[3][4][5][6]

Romanus Pontifex, Latin for "The Roman Pontiff",[1] is a papal bull written in 1454 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands south of Cape Bojador in Africa. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of Saracen Turks and non-Christians, it repeated the earlier bull's permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull's primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal's rights of trade and colonisation in these regions.

This bull should not be confused with a September 21, 1451 bull by the same name, also written by Nicholas V, relieving the dukes of Austria from any potential ecclesiastical censure for permitting Jews to dwell there.[2]

The papal bull Aeterni regis [English: "Eternal king's"] was issued on 21 June 1481 by Pope Sixtus IV. It confirmed the substance of the Treaty of Alcáçovas, reiterating that treaty's confirmation of Castile in its possession of the Canary Islands and its granting to Portugal all further territorial acquisitions made by Christian powers in Africa and eastward to the Indies.

Inter caetera ("Among other [works]&quot was a papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI on 4 May 1493, which granted to Spain (the Crowns of Castile and Aragon) all lands to the "west and south" of a pole-to-pole line 100 leagues west and south of any of the islands of the Azores or the Cape Verde islands.[1]

You have an aggressively sheltered education which only brushed at the veneer of what history was really about. The Holy See was at the center of all of the Spanish/Portuguese colonialization. They orchestrated it, approved of it, defined the boundaries, established the motive and condoned the genocide which included but was not restricted to:

quoting from the Papal Bulls: "perpetual servitude", "enslavement of such peoples" "the seizure of the lands of Saracen Turks and non-Christians" " territorial acquisitions made by Christian powers in Africa and eastward to the Indies" "granted to Spain (the Crowns of Castile and Aragon) all lands to the "west and south" of a pole-to-pole line 100 leagues west and south of any of the islands of the Azores or the Cape Verde islands"

If the inhabitants of these lands resisted them being taken or refused to be converted then they were commissioned to use the necessary force to steal the lands and if necessary kill any resisting "pagans".

Not only was the Catholic Church a primary mover in the Inquisition and the Colonialization of the New World and involved in acts of genocide that cannot be directly tied directly to any other religious institution it isn't relevant to the central question of involvement in genocide. If the Church wasn't involved directly in genocide but Catholic Kings and Queens were that would establish Catholic involvement in genocide because it was Catholics doing it. In the case of the Serbian genocide of Bosnia the Serbian Orthodox Church of Serbia must accept responsibility for its involvement in the genocide if they passively agreed to or gave comfort to those committing war crimes even if they didn't formally approve.

In the case of the Catholic Church from 1200 to 1808 the Catholic Church openly sponsored and carried out actions that would be termed "war crimes", "crimes against humanity" and "genocide" today. Fortunately the Catholic Church of the 20th century openly resisted those actions and in the latter part of the 20th century became one of the leading voices for refugees and tolerance and Pope Francis is one of the leading voices of tolerance. Its unfortunate that your education has wiped out 6 centuries of Papal misdeeds and that you are so ignorant of what is well documented and universally accepted.

[Drahthaardogs]

63. LOL

And you are still wrong, but you can really cut and paste.



Here is one though, how many actually we're killed by the Church during the Inquisition?

[msanthrope]

70. Recently had a discussion with same poster. Defense of the RC

is all that matters, will not look at any evidence...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141724954

[Drahthaardogs]

82. Post stalkings huh?

Figures..

[msanthrope]

85. Climb off the cross. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

89. Go take another dog that's not yours...

We can do insults all day

[msanthrope]

90. I have no clue what that even means, or why it would be an insult. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

91. The time has come the tortoise said to speak of many

Things. Of ships and sails and sealing wax, cabbages and kings....

[msanthrope]

92. Now you think you are The Walrus? Back away from the bong, dude. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

93. For someone who thinks they are so smart, you are clueless

Yeah. That's what that meant. I think I am the Walrus.

Hint...Maybe YOU are

[msanthrope]

94. I have yet to make heads or tails of any of your last few posts. Why not speak plainly?

That way, all DUers may read your charges against me and judge for themselves.

[Drahthaardogs]

95. Charges against you?

Oh my but though art full of themselves

[msanthrope]

96. There you go again.....you speak cryptically, without saying what you mean.

why not speak plainly?

[marybourg]

78. Tell that to the Jews and Muslims

who lived along the various routes of the several Crusades. Or the Native Americans who were subjected to the Spanish Inquisition.

[uppityperson]

38. Read the OP. Ok, genocide may be overstated.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Ah, so your basis for 'genocide' was an OP on DU. That place we all use pseuodnyms.

If I write an OP saying Alexander the Great laid siege to Rome, and massacred the civilians when he took it, will you believe me?

[WhiteTara]

28. more than religion based genocide, I think it was femicide.

The hatred of women was so strong and they wanted everything that women had and were, so they killed them, stole from them and subjugated half the population.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. What do you base that on? What were the deaths you are talking about?

The conversion of Ireland was peaceful:

It must be acknowledged, however, that Ireland itself falls outside the traditional Grand Narrative of the conversion of the Empire and of fourth/fifth-century migrating peoples, because it lacks the characteristic themes of persecution, imperial acceptance of the new faith, integration of the clergy into the Roman government, establishment of clearly-defined ecclesiastical hierarchies and jurisdictions, doctrinal debates at ecumenical church councils, delineation of heresy versus orthodoxy, rise of clerical ruling elites governing from towns, and so on. Ireland could nevertheless be argued to have been indirectly touched by phenomena that affected the late Empire and its newcomers, but no more than that.

http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/conversion/logos/Flechner_Conversion_Ireland.pdf

[Tribalceltic]

31. History is Always written by the winners

They rarely paint themselves in a bad light.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. That's a non-answer

There was no point in posting it.

[Tribalceltic]

41. My post was an observation

Not an answer. The Druids eschewed the written language for the most part, and recorded their history in songs and poetry. No reliable written record exists of "Saint Patrick", other than those written by Christians. A few of those writings suggest strongly that the story of his life was a parable, and that snakes were actually Druids that he banished , killed or had killed.

I reject the theory that just because a written record does not exist today of something that happened in the 5th century CE, that it did not happen.

To Celebrate the acceptance of a culture by celebrating St. Patrick's Day is fine, using a celebrations to try and proselytize a single religious sect is not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Saying that you read a tale about snakes as being a parable about killing humans

is just inventing another fairy tale. It's not just the absence of a written record; it's the absence of any evidence of any sort - oral, written or physical.

Does no one care about reality? Do they just feel that druids were killed, so they'll happily assert they were? This isn't about proselytization; it's about accusations of genocide/femicide/murder.

[Tribalceltic]

58. There is historical evidence

He also prayed for an old Druid to die we are told that Arch-Druid Lochru was lifted up high in the air but Patrick knelt in prayer and the Druid fell and was dashed to pieces upon a rock. St Patrick is said to have caused the murders of almost eight hundred Druids. The folk tale of a she-beast called Caoranach that he banished to an island in the middle of Lough Derg in Donegal is accompanied by the tale of a woman who followed him very closely and that after he had banished the she-beast, this woman was never seen again... The pilgrimage today to the retreat centre on Lough Derg is a trick for the followers of this St Patrick religion because it is on the wrong island the Pagan cave temple on the island that the Catholic Church tried to use was not hospitable to them so them moved their Purgatory to another island in the same lake and achieved some commercial success for a while.

Source:

http://www.druidschool.com/page/4515676

a simple google of "st patrick pagan murder" turns up almost 1/2 a million pages.

There is plenty of evidence. Closing your eyes to evidence you do not like is not acceptable

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Tales of magic are not 'historical'. They are more fairy tales.

Oh, the irony of it all - an OP is based on an article pointing out that you shouldn't believe the stuff about Patrick magically removing the snakes from Ireland because it's just a magic story, and people then try to say "but you should believe the bit where Patrick prayed for a druid to be killed and he was, by being lifted up and dropped by a magical force".

Evidence? How gullible would someone have to be to accept that as 'evidence'? And no, Google search numbers are not evidence either.

[greatauntoftriplets]

54. Thank you.

[niyad]

5. which is why this wiccan does NOT observe the day of that murdering bastard.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Who do you think he killed or had killed? (nt)

[niyad]

98. have you READ this post?

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. Now that you've written it, yes, I've read it. I repeat my question: who do you think he murdered

or had murdered?

I'll add: why do you think that? Is it only because the OP made an unsupported accusation of some unknown Irish pagans being killed at some point in history, and you've decide to believe that, and assign the deaths to Patrick?

[Maeve]

6. My favorite explanation for this is an early Irish joke

Apparently, there is (or was) a Norse term for toads--"paud". When the Vikings noted there were no 'pauds' in Ireland the natives explained that their patron "Paudrig" had expelled them all!

No real history of pagans being killed in Ireland; that occurred mostly in Roman-held lands. Nor were there any early Christian martyrs--those didn't happen until the Reformation.

Oh, and St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin is Protestant; both orange and green claim him since he pre-dates the split. He's also accepted by the Orthodox.

[FSogol]

9. Plus he isn't an official saint of the Catholic Church. He was never canonized.

Maybe the OP can go after Santa Claus and Santa Barbara, CA next?

[Maeve]

10. Yes and no--formal canonization didn't happen until at least the ninth century

Well after Patrick was gone. Prior to that, people were simply acclaimed as such and the church went along for the most part. (Then you have folks who probably never existed, like Christopher, but that's another story!)
Slainte!

[FSogol]

11. Slainte!

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Of course he is

Pope Francis remembers Saint Patrick ahead of his feast day

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis ended his General Audience by invoking St. Patrick, the Apostle to Ireland, whose feast day is commemorated on Thursday.

The Holy Father always concludes his General Audiences by greeting young people, the sick and infirm, and newlyweds. On this particular Wednesday, he did so with a twist.

“Tomorrow we will commemorate St. Patrick, the apostle of Ireland,” Pope Francis said.

“His spiritual stamina stirs you, dear young people, to be consistent with your faith; his trust in Christ the Savior sustains you, dear sick and infirm people, in times of great difficulty; and his missionary dedication reminds you, dear newlyweds, of the importance of the Christian education of your children,” he said.

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-remembers-saint-patrick-ahead-of-his

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. The Norwegian word for "toad" is "padde"

so the part of the story about the Vikings is credible. But are there also no toads in Ireland? The climate seems pretty toad-friendly.

[Maeve]

37. One species of frog, one toad, the common lizard and smooth newt

Excuse my spelling on padde--got the tale from a old book by Padraic Colum (1881-1972) A Treasury of Irish Folklore

And here's the link to The Herpetological Society of Ireland's website

https://thehsi.org/native-reptiles-and-amphibians/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. It's interesting that they even have a herpetological society

with only four species to study apart from some sea turtles and non-native snakes.

("Padde" is the modern Norwegian word for toad, similar to Icelandic "padda." Since Icelandic isn't much removed from old Norse, "paud" or something close to it probably was the word at the time. There are no toads in Iceland so it's interesting that they even have a word.)

[Dawson Leery]

8. Christianity and Islam have the shared history of using violence

to spread their way. The use of violence is a sign of moral emptiness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. For Ireland, what violence are you talking about? (nt)

[gilbert sullivan]

45. Murdering every man, woman, child, animal and tree wasn't violence by drowning??

Wow.

[Mendocino]

55. The bible is my favorite fictional book.

-Lisa Simpson



www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Have you a source for saying that Patrick had people killed?

Nothing about that in your link. Compared with the revenge taken by Christians in the Roman Empire taken on pagans when they finally got power, the conversion of Ireland seems to have been very peaceful.

[Drahthaardogs]

49. Of course they dont

Even the Catholic Churchs records on St. Patrick are limited. No historical record exists. They are making shit up and it's hilarious

[H2O Man]

14. They weren't killed.

[mainer]

17. I'd never heard that before, about the killing of pagans.

Interesting.

[Mendocino]

18. Isn't the term

christian propaganda redundant?

[brooklynite]

20. Gee, the next thing you'll be telling us is that the snakes didn't talk...

[hunter]

24. It did to Eve.

Feckless Adam was like, "Whoa! I didn't know it could do that!" and men have been thinking with their smaller heads ever since.

[BannonsLiver]

21. The OP's link is informative

But it's kind of funny to see people get so worked up over a dumb fable.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Look, man, it's an excuse to drink beer and dye the Chicago River green.

Like many things, whatever Christian stuff is in there is deeply buried under a whole lot of much more fun and interesting human celebratory impulses. Sort of how Easter really doesn't have much to do with Jesus, I mean the eggs represent fertility and the bunnies represent, well... what bunnies like to do


But you are correct in that the history of Western Monotheism in general includes an awful lot of atrocious killing of people for not thinking the "correct" shit in their own heads.


Which kind of begs the question why, even here on a supposedly "progressive" site, we still have people perpetuating bullshit about how Atheists are supposedly inherently less moral than people who believe there's a big angry man in the sky obsessed with human sexuality.

[gilbert sullivan]

33. Religion was born when the first scammer met the first gullible dope.

There are many amazing things in this world. One of the most astonishing is that many people still appear to believe in talking snakes and asses, global floods, virgins magically impregnated, invisible undetectable gods up in the sky, men living inside fish, eternal paradise/heaven, prophets riding horses up to heaven where 72 virgins await martyrs, and dead guys waking up after 3 days.

But then people who substitute faith for thinking have no intellectual horsepower anyway.

[WinkyDink]

35. Or maybe when the first person croaked. And there is geological evidence for global floods. Religion

not required.

BTW: Atheists can include morons, too.

[gilbert sullivan]

42. Where is this geological evidence?

It is every bit as imaginary as
http://www.godimaginary.com

Imaginary gods are not relevant to the real world and obscene old books of campfire
tales handed down from illiterate bronze age goatherders who routinely massacred
each other over which of -their- imaginary gods had the biggest penis, are not useful.

Unless, that is, one happens to run out of toilet paper.

[Mendocino]

87. I was hoping for a flood geology debate.

I'm not a biologist, geologist or a nautical engineer, but the myth of Noah can so easily be blown out of the water.

I had a heated discussion with a creationist/flat earther a few weeks back. She was one that also adheres to the Earth has no trees nonsense, the world is 6000 years old, if we came from apes why are there still apes etc, a defender of the flood fable.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. "Global" floods?

You mean, like the oceans?

Or are we talking Kevin Costner Waterworld type stuff?

[Mendocino]

51. Are you talking about Noah?

Or large floods in general?

[Adrahil]

44. Let's be careful....

The "Irish" peoples were likely not the "original" inhabitants.

[Panich52]

52. He wasn't even Irish

He was a Roman citizen

[whistler162]

56. Yup, he flew them out on the

back of the dragon before St. George slew it!

[BainsBane]

61. It's a myth

It doesn't rise to the level of propaganda.

[hunter]

62. The serious discussion in this thread makes my Irish laugh.

I've ironically kissed the Blarney Stone and have other Irish tales too ticklish to tell, as in being in Ireland without a passport and sneaking back into the U.S.A. with a California Driver's license. Mind you, I was born in California, by accident for sure, please don't deport me!

My 18th and 19th century Irish ancestors jumped off the boats and hit the ground running just as fast as they could into the American wilderness. The "nope, no Irish here," genealogies they claimed for themselves are delightfully fanciful. There was no internet then and public records were spotty. It was polite to accept a white man at his word. Manx, Cornwall, Scotland, straight up Anglican, yeah that's the ticket. Suppress that urge to cross yourself.

My wife's heritage is not so duplicitous. Her Irish and Native American ancestors hid out in Mexico and Canada whenever things got too hot for them here in the U.S.A.. A few later returned as "immigrant" U.S.A., field workers and warriors in World War One and Two. My wife's uncle was killed by the Nazi's in the very last days of the war and he's buried in Arlington. My wife's dad was born in a tent to Mexican parents near a small farm my parents later owned. My wife's ancestors were here first. My white-ass Irish Catholic and Protestant ancestors were the pretenders.

[jeanmarc]

66. It's like every thing associated with Ireland is a myth

Of course there were no snakes for the Roman guy to kick out.

I'm Irish from 2 generations and I'm tired of these stupid tales. A good leprechaun type tale is welcome, but much of our knowledge about Ireland is just ignorant.

The Irish don't drink to excess to the point of staggering drunk. That's what drunks do and they are in every country.

While Ireland has a huge share of redheads, it's just 10%. It's still a recessive gene. And the Vikings could never be responsible for it.

St. Paddy's day is one stupid holiday. It's mainly American and commercialized, like Christmas. But it's sadder in that it makes for lots of drunk bastards.

I drink on the regular but I can't celebrate St. Paddy's day. That green beer is piss water. And any bar is overcrowded with a bunch of lightweights that can't drink and probably shouldn't.

Kiss me, I'm Irish. Fuck you, you're everything but Irish and this holiday is a joke. Thank god it's over.

[Maeve]

75. If it's light enough to dye it green, it's too light to call it beer!

Guinness, please! I could tell you some great true tales of Ireland, but that's for another thread...

And Hubby refers to it as "Amateur Drinker's Day" as well!

[raccoon]

67. We need St. Patrick to drive the snakes out of Washington, regardless of whether

or not he drove snakes out of Ireland.

[ucrdem]

69. Perhaps, but neither did Britain, and now they have three species, per the article.

Fancy that.