St. Patrick was a Roman Catholic and said Mass.

[inherit the deficit]

Pelagius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
www.jstor.org/stable/2848172

3 major heresies could have made there way to these shores before the legendary
Saint Patrick

Arianism
Pelagianism
Priscillianism

The Irish monks had the same tonsure as Pelagianism and our ancestors did not celebrate Easter at same time as Rome.

There is even a claim that Pelagius was from here.

[Mic]

Am I right in concluding from this that replacing a religious symbol with a symbol which differs from it in only in that it doesn't have any religious symbolism is considered being inclusive? It's not entirely clear where you stand on the question. I am curious as to how somebody can make out that this is being inclusive, and not being an aggresive "secularist" like yourself, I am curious to know your take on this somewhat philosophical question.

I love the shamrock like any good Irishman. I also have a framed four-leaf clover in my stairwell -- a memory of when me and her found one early in our still star-struck relationship.

I simply think the outrage of idiots is not a reason for a public service broadcaster to make a programme on the number of leaves on a piece of clover used to advertise a small shopping centre.

Probably none of anyone's business, certainly not very interesting and absolutely a waste of good air time by a public service broadcaster.

I don't see where any fraught philosophical questions come up.

I don't know where the fraught comes into it. Maybe you find the question fraught, since you seem to be avoiding it?
I'll put it to you this way: let's say the shamrock symbolises something because of it's shape. If people are ignorant of the details, fair enough (note this doesn't neccessitate labelling idiots). What I find difficult to understand is: if people are cognisant of the details, what makes them think that getting this detail wrong makes use of the symbol more inclusive? An approach to inclusion which equates to "including other cultures" with "rejecting this culture" seems questionable at best. Would you not think that this is what people might be offended by, or is it just easier for you to imagine that people are idiotically outraged by something nobody could find offensive?

[fionnmccool]

If you would actually like to understand, maybe you would stand a better chance by listening to the show rather than diligently searching the web for examples of things you think people might have right to be offended about? Then you wouldn't completely misunderstand who was or wasn't offended by what.

I dont want to listen to that sh1te. It would have taken less effort for you to explain than to lecture above. I am still waiting for an explanation.

[lostexpectation]

LostExpectation, do you always like to answer a question with a question, or do you also need to go off on a tanget? Maybe you think your are illustrating something with this question, but the only thing this post illustrates is an apparent inability to distinguish between different kinds of fruit

Perhaps you genuinely don't understand the difference between the symbolism of a the 3 leaves of a shamrock and a cross. Would you like it explained?

im not trying to make the shop-keepers point for him, im asking why the religious would want to apply sacred symbology to a commercial activity

[dunno]

Some geezer in Dundalk put a fourleafed clover in A St. Patricks Day ad for his shopping centre in Dundalk. This made Liveline - I know, I know - and drew enraged comments. People who rang in were absolutely certain that St. Patrick was a Roman Catholic who said mass.
Liveline aside, who teaches this stuff in schools ? Priests ? Teachers?

People apply a lot of stupid, anachronistic labels to St Patrick, whether Protestant, Catholic or worst of all Celtic. A topic on Live Line gives something the stench of utter fail. He probably existed, but wasn't a lot of the work attributed to him because the monks of Armagh wished to aggrandise themselves, and really done by Palladius and others now known only to God? If people will contort history so much, it should not be taught. St Patrick is really a blank canvas, therefore the perfect symbol of unity, hopefully. Still, it's better that Joe Duffy is not inciting arson against headshops again.

[Riadach]

What on earth was their reasoning? Have they found a work-schedule that indicates Sunday was his church-founding day or something?????

Their reasoning was it was a very early word that was no longer in use, therefore must have been introduced with the first Christian Missions. Not bad reasoning actually, but it completely ignores, (purposely) the actions of other early christian missionaries.

And I know the last bit was a joke, but just to be sure, dé domhnaigh comes from domhnach, not the other way round

[macdarawhitfield]

Well after having a scope at the offending ad I can't see a clover there at all.Clover leaves have little white bits on them as any fule kno.Tis a four leafed shamrock,I used to keep one in my prayer book,guess I was already a heretic!

[Mic]

im not trying to make the shop-keepers point for him, im asking why the religious would want to apply sacred symbology to a commercial activity

Ah, I see. You're not actually trying to answer my question in the first place. You know you needn't have posted your question in the form of a reply to mine?

In response to your question, then I would suggest that you're stretching the point a bit.
- I doubt if religious want to apply "sacred symbology" to a commercial activity.
- Having said that, nobody is averse to a bit of free publicity.
- We might add to that that people have traditionally been proud to display the shamrock.
- Given that the tradition is there, can we get back to the question and ask what is it that is offensive about it?

I'm not 100% sure what meaning you are attaching to the term "sacred symbology", but assuming you mean a symbol for something people hold sacred, then given the sitution where a commercial entity does choose to use it, then does it not seem a tad denigratory to suggest that it is more "inclusive" to seek to dissociate the symbol from it's traditional meaning? Is there not an implication that there is something about the original meaning which we explictly need to disavow?

[Mic]

Well after having a scope at the offending ad I can't see a clover there at all.Clover leaves have little white bits on them as any fule kno.Tis a four leafed shamrock,I used to keep one in my prayer book,guess I was already a heretic!

Well done for calling yourself a fool! Not sure if you were the intended target of your humour.
Would you mind explaining the difference between these two assertions:
- a clover is a four-leaf shamrock and
- a shamrock is a three-leafed clover
... not that either of them are correct.
Not making any assumption that you wish to, but if you would enlighten yourself on the subject, you could do worse than to start here Shamrock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[Mic]

None of it makes any sense to me. The shamrock/4 leaf clover is not an exclusively religious symbol. If he used a little man on a cross to advertise his store than I'd totally understand why people would be offended. I never heard of someone being upset at a shamrock/clover before. It's nuts.

Why arent the religious right picketing O Carrolls tacky stores for example where stuff like in the images below is freely available linking Irish flags, booze and shamrocks galore ?

If you would actually like to understand, maybe you would stand a better chance by listening to the show rather than diligently searching the web for examples of things you think people might have right to be offended about? Then you wouldn't completely misunderstand who was or wasn't offended by what.

I dont want to listen to that sh1te. It would have taken less effort for you to explain than to lecture above. I am still waiting for an explanation.

Even allowing for the use of the quote function, i'm not sure where you get the idea that summarising a radio interview or traipsing around google for some pictures is easier? Here's a link for you RTÉ.ie Media Player: RTÉ Radio 1.
If I have time later, I might summarize it for you benefit, but to be honest, your defence of posting uninformed comment on the basis that you don't want to listen to "sh1te" might leads one to suspect you're not actually interested...

I would second the comment that if something shows up as a complaint on the whineline, it's something of a lost cause already. Perhaps it would be good to try to summarize it, but I don't know if my summary would be biased. As I said, I think the subject was handled very well, particularly if you listen to the whole show.