8 masses for Axel

El_Duderino 09

Musketeer4 wrote:

Indeed. Look of course its bad that a man died suddenly and its sad for his family but the country lost the run of themselves, mourning one man who most didn't even know. Was like a lite version of Kim Jong Il's funeral with all the public displays of grief. Meanwhile over in Syria hundreds of people are being shot, butchered, bombed and burned to pieces every single day and no-one seems to give a shít. Good to know that the Irish public prioritise rugby over war crimes on being committed on a grand scale.

It's a human story and it's easier to relate to than a war in a far away place. And he was known for sport which is easy to get behind. Nobody is obliged to do anything so it's not really like North Korea at all, is it?

It's neat over noe

meeeeh

Well one can go to mass for next 8 Sundays and pray for dying kids in Syria. Or waste couple of hours in front of TV. Oh the dilemma.

robindch

Walter H Price wrote: »

All that could come of critizing the campagin is backlash [...]

I couldn't agree more. Even here in A+A where discussion of sensitive issues related to religion is common, there are posters who are clearly incensed that somebody has even simply asked the question about how appropriate this memorial is. That's one of the ways in which religion tries to control discussion and it seems it's working.

In a febrile atmosphere like that, it really is probably better just to keep quiet. People are just having too hard a time separating the tragedy of the death from the way that religion is helping, or pretending to help, the family through the grieving process.

frostyjacks

robindch wrote: »

In a febrile atmosphere like that, it really is probably better just to keep quiet. People are just having too hard a time separating the tragedy of the death from the way that religion is helping, or pretending to help, the family through the grieving process.

What do you mean by religion is "pretending to help" the family? Only his family know what is helping them through this time. If they believe in it, then where is the pretence?

meeeeh

robindch wrote: »

In a febrile atmosphere like that, it really is probably better just to keep quiet. People are just having too hard a time separating the tragedy of the death from the way that religion is helping, or pretending to help, the family through the grieving process.

I think most of us are able to separate the tragedy from the role of religion. Personally I see no problem if someone turns to religion to deal with grief. Problems start when there are monetary and similar gains for religion. So as long as he is not asking to donate to local church I really don't care.

On a separate note I think this is also a way of avoiding all well intending people who would be contacting family with ideas and offering money for setting up funds, charities or whatever else in the name of deceased. Not every grieving family wants to deal with that kind of hassle.

robindch

frostyjacks wrote: »

If they believe in it, then where is the pretence?

As before several times - on the part of the church which is pretending, in the context of death, that its doctrines are true and that its rites are meaningful, when they are not.

Of course, the actions of the church in this are not specific to Anthony Foley's death or the public or private reaction to it. Instead, stepping in and holding up this pretense is the daily business of the church.

Mr Arrior

robindch wrote:

As before several times - on the part of the church which is pretending, in the context of death, that its doctrines are true and that its rites are meaningful, when they are not.

robindch wrote:

Of course, the actions of the church in this are not specific to Anthony Foley's death or the public or private reaction to it. Instead, stepping in and holding up this pretense is the daily business of the church.

Says you. That's your opinion, obviously not Foley's family's.

fisgon

First of all, I am not in any way trying to influence what the Foley family does or does not do. I have posted on an Atheist forum on a tiny corner of the internet. I am not writing in the Irish Times. If you do not like the discussion, then you do not have to read it or take part. There is no hate being expressed here, unless you actually desperately want to find it, I am simply raising a question.

Secondly, this was Tony Foley's idea, but it has been taken up by adults around him, and by a certain section of the community that is promoting the campaign. It may have started as a boy's tribute to his father, but it has already changed into essentially a religious campaign to get people to go to mass, pray, perform other religious duties. What is happening now is that the official way to express your grief and support for the family over the death of a folk hero is to go to a religious service every week for eight weeks.

All I am saying is that linking a revered and respected personality, and his tragic passing, to religious practice, as if religion was the only way to remember a lost loved one, doesn´t necessarily have to follow, and I am questioning the portrayal among some sections of the media that such a campaign to get people into churches is "amazing", "courageous", and "incredibly thoughtful".

swampgas

It's unfortunate when a religious event (of one specific denomination) is used to celebrate or commemorate a "public" event, as it reinforces the idea that "we are all Catholic". We're not. It's a bit like prayers before Dáil sessions. It excludes anyone who isn't of that religion, or who isn't religious at all.

Rugby, and sport in general, can unite people of different religions or none. It's slightly awkward (for me) that this means of remembering his Dad goes against the grain of that.

But he's a kid who lost his Dad, and I absolutely can't and won't criticize him for it.

robindch

Mr Arrior wrote: »

Says you.

Spot on there Mr Arrior - discussion is very much what happens on a discussion board like A+A.

If you're not happy with the idea of discussion, or don't understand what a discussion board is for, or simply don't want to take part in this discussion, then I suggest you take yourself at your word and don't take part in it.

frostyjacks

robindch wrote: »

As before several times - on the part of the church which is pretending, in the context of death, that its doctrines are true and that its rites are meaningful, when they are not.

Of course, the actions of the church in this are not specific to Anthony Foley's death or the public or private reaction to it. Instead, stepping in and holding up this pretense is the daily business of the church.

But if it's helping the family, then it's not pretend, is it? I think you're the one pretending that something isn't meaningful.

Mr Arrior

robindch wrote:

Spot on there Mr Arrior - discussion is very much what happens on a discussion board like A+A.

robindch wrote:

If you're not happy with the idea of discussion, or don't understand what a discussion board is for, or simply don't want to take part in this discussion, then I suggest you take yourself at your word and don't take part in it.

I'm commenting on the opinion of urs which is wrong in the Foley's eyes.

Fleawuss

This is a child's initiative born out of loss and grief. A modern child reaching out with the tools he has: social media and the formal religion his family and education has given him. His Dad was a hero to thousands of Limerick and Munster and rugby people. The boy is looking for the comfort he found in those thousands. I'd be very reluctant to say anything more about a child's post on Facebook except this: I don't think he realizes how tagging people to join in can draw him into a more complicated world where people will find that unwelcome. He deserves his privacy and he deserves not to have to deal with an adult world where religion is much more complicated than he imagines.

MintyMagnum

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Indeed. Look of course its bad that a man died suddenly and its sad for his family but the country lost the run of themselves, mourning one man who most didn't even know. Was like a lite version of Kim Jong Il's funeral with all the public displays of grief.
Meanwhile over in Syria hundreds of people are being shot, butchered, bombed and burned to pieces every single day and no-one seems to give a shít.
Good to know that the Irish public prioritise rugby over war crimes on being committed on a grand scale.

Just wondering what are you doing/have you done for the Syrians?

zulutango

Any idea who actually set up the page?

If it was the family, or if they directly asked for it, then it's obviously ok. But if it's someone using their grief to push an agenda then it's not. I'm not sure which is the case but the fact that it's not clear who set up the page is unsettling.

looksee

fisgon wrote: »

First of all, I am not in any way trying to influence what the Foley family does or does not do. I have posted on an Atheist forum on a tiny corner of the internet. I am not writing in the Irish Times. If you do not like the discussion, then you do not have to read it or take part. There is no hate being expressed here, unless you actually desperately want to find it, I am simply raising a question.

Secondly, this was Tony Foley's idea, but it has been taken up by adults around him, and by a certain section of the community that is promoting the campaign. It may have started as a boy's tribute to his father, but it has already changed into essentially a religious campaign to get people to go to mass, pray, perform other religious duties. What is happening now is that the official way to express your grief and support for the family over the death of a folk hero is to go to a religious service every week for eight weeks.

All I am saying is that linking a revered and respected personality, and his tragic passing, to religious practice, as if religion was the only way to remember a lost loved one, doesn´t necessarily have to follow, and I am questioning the portrayal among some sections of the media that such a campaign to get people into churches is "amazing", "courageous", and "incredibly thoughtful".

No, this was not a 'revered and respected personality' this was a child's dad. Just because the mawkishly sentimental press have picked this up and run with it because it makes a good story for a reasonable percentage of the population does not alter that fact.

Anyone who does not want to get involved in this rather overblown family remembrance could go off and start a campaign for a memorial for the 'revered and respected personality' - not in competition, but as a permanent and secular gesture.

Meanwhile this was someone who did special work for a particular sport. Good for him, but people do this kind of thing all the time; maybe there is a reason to give an award for 'special service to' sports and voluntary services while people are alive?

meeeeh

swampgas wrote: »

It's unfortunate when a religious event (of one specific denomination) is used to celebrate or commemorate a "public" event, as it reinforces the idea that "we are all Catholic". We're not. It's a bit like prayers before Dáil sessions. It excludes anyone who isn't of that religion, or who isn't religious at all.

Rugby, and sport in general, can unite people of different religions or none. It's slightly awkward (for me) that this means of remembering his Dad goes against the grain of that.

But he's a kid who lost his Dad, and I absolutely can't and won't criticize him for it.

While father was part of rugby and public person, the rest of family are not. They don't owe rugby community anything. I suspect that more likely than not this came out so public would leave them alone.

fisgon

Fleawuss wrote: »

I don't think he realizes how tagging people to join in can draw him into a more complicated world where people will find that unwelcome. He deserves his privacy and he deserves not to have to deal with an adult world where religion is much more complicated than he imagines.

Exactly. What I find most curious about the whole campaign (and it is obviously being run by an adult or adults, Tony Foley is spoken about in the third person on the FB page) is that is seems to look on religion and religious practice as something totally uncontroversial. Sure why wouldn't people want to go to 8 masses.?..

It sees the Irish public as either mass-goers, or potential mass-goers, and that there could be nothing more natural than urging people to go to 8 masses to show support for the Foley family and to remember Anthony. It might have made sense in the seventies or even eighties, but in 2016 a minority of Irish people regularly go to mass, and this is obviously for a reason.

The campaign is not just a general encouragement to go to mass. On the FB page you are asked to tag 8 of your friends to encourage them to do the 8 masses too. There seems to be no real awareness that a lot of people will not really be very happy to be encouraged/ urged /guilted into going to church, something a lot of people have happily given up.

Right2Write

fisgon wrote: »

The campaign is not just a general encouragement to go to mass. On the FB page you are asked to tag 8 of your friends to encourage them to do the 8 masses too. There seems to be no real awareness that a lot of people will not really be very happy to be encouraged/ urged /guilted into going to church, something a lot of people have happily given up.

Indeed, I've no problem with the idea myself if that will bring them comfort. But I'm not quite so convinced as to the wisdom of publicising it via Facebook and other social media.

fisgon

looksee wrote: »

No, this was not a 'revered and respected personality' this was a child's dad.

Well, you are wrong. This was a child's dad, but he was also a public personality - this is an intrinsic part of the campaign, the "8" motif of 8 masses over 8 weeks, and 8 FB friends, refers to the number that AF used to wear for Munster and Ireland. We are being asked to remember a public figure, someone who represented his country and who many of us were proud of and admired. That is precisely why this has got some media attention.

And so that is why I am a little uncomfortable with the 8 masses idea. This campaign is not being run by an 11-year old, there are clearly adults involved in it. And in remembering this national sporting hero, and this Munster sporting icon, we are being asked to attend 8 Catholic religious ceremonies. This is the officially sanctioned form of remembrance. There is no awareness - or no interest - in the idea that there may be Protestants, non-believers or catholics who have no interest in going to mass among Munster and Ireland rugby fans.

The "8 masses" idea seems to me to be something from a different era, when you could safely assume that everyone was mass-going, (or else they were disreputable, and weren't worth inviting to anything).

recedite

meeeeh wrote: »

I think most of us are able to separate the tragedy from the role of religion. Personally I see no problem if someone turns to religion to deal with grief. Problems start when there are monetary and similar gains for religion. So as long as he is not asking to donate to local church I really don't care.

You don't think the church is going to benefit financially from this (even if only temporary) boost in membership?

IMO there is a difference between a family member pledging to attend mass themselves for the next 8 Sundays, and a family member urging Foley fans to do the same.
If you are a fan, there is some sort of guilt trip associated with turning down this invitation.

At the same time, I find it completely understandable that a kid in those circumstances would not see that difference.

frostyjacks

Criticising an 11yr old boy for how he deals with his father's death...a new low for atheists. Give yourselves a round of applause. You make me sick.

swampgas

frostyjacks wrote: »

Criticising an 11yr old boy for how he deals with his father's death...a new low for atheists. Give yourselves a round of applause. You make me sick.

Deliberately twisting the posts on this thread to give yourself a false sense of outrage - not a new low for you, unfortunately.

Danzy

fisgon wrote: »

This is problematic, I think, in more ways than one. Though of course voicing any kind of dissenting opinion will be seen as insensitive.


THE 11-YEAR-OLD son of Anthony Foley has launched a different kind of Facebook call-out in his dad’s memory.
The Facebook page – dubbed #8masses4no8 – says that the family has been overwhelmed by the support it has received in the last week, and urges fans to attend mass for the next eight Sundays in tribute to Foley, whose birthday would have been this coming Sunday.
Foley’s son, also named Tony, has asked “that this page be set up in his memory” according to the Facebook page.
Munster head coach Anthony Foley passed away suddenly and tragically in France last week from a heart complaint.
“The number 8 (Foley’s former position) is, of course, a special number for Tony and his family but the eight Sundays also bring us up to that special family time of year, Christmas,” the page continues.

http://www.thejournal.ie/anthony-foley-son-mass-3044192-Oct2016/

Why would you think it is problematic?

If it an issue for you don't go, you may not realize this but a time like that is about what they want and what brings comfort to them.

Don't ride the arse of the purist stance.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Criticising an 11yr old boy for how he deals with his father's death...a new low for atheists. Give yourselves a round of applause. You make me sick.

Most of the atheist posters here have no issue at all with this but don't let that get in the way of your faux outrage

Danzy

robindch wrote: »

Mostly because it's false, and arguably manipulative, to pretend that praying or going to mass achieves anything.

Apart from that, setting up a scholarship respects Foley's memory and interests more closely - he was, after all, not a priest but a rugby coach who loved the game and devoted much of his life to it.

Your post sounds very arrogant, I'm guessing that you are still in your 20s and life has a of rounding out your edges yet.

If you are older, then you have been very lucky in life so far.

Danzy

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Indeed. Look of course its bad that a man died suddenly and its sad for his family but the country lost the run of themselves, mourning one man who most didn't even know. Was like a lite version of Kim Jong Il's funeral with all the public displays of grief.
Meanwhile over in Syria hundreds of people are being shot, butchered, bombed and burned to pieces every single day and no-one seems to give a shít.
Good to know that the Irish public prioritise rugby over war crimes on being committed on a grand scale.

Faux outrage will not help them either.

recedite

Danzy wrote: »

Your post sounds very arrogant, I'm guessing that you are still in your 20s and life has a of rounding out your edges yet.

If you are older, then you have been very lucky in life so far.

I think your crystal ball may be a bit fogged up

looksee

Ok, I have looked at the page, finally. It seems to me that it is just the kind of thing that a youngster would come up with, and fair play to him. I can see the argument though that it has been picked up and run with by various parish and diocesan representatives giving it a great deal more authority than it might have had.

Given that this was started within the family, who were probably not thinking of the wider religious/ political implications to non Catholics - no doubt they were thinking of family and friends - and this is entirely understandable in the circumstances of a sudden death like that then I don't think it is something to get upset about.

If it had been the sporting body that had come up with this idea, then there would be good reason for objection, but as it is I do think that the family should be cut some slack and allowed to mourn in whatever way gives them comfort.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

Most of the atheist posters here have no issue at all with this but don't let that get in the way of your faux outrage

Oh it's not faux, trust me. Who wouldn't feel sick at supposed adults rounding on a boy mourning his father? Critics of this are no worse than those Free Presbyterians you see protesting at football games played on the Sabbath; utterly detached from reality.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Oh it's not faux, trust me. Who wouldn't feel sick at supposed adults rounding on a boy mourning his father? Critics of this are no worse than those Free Presbyterians you see protesting at football games played on the Sabbath; utterly detached from reality.

Most atheists would agree with you. Not sure why you're getting so annoyed about it. If you read the thread properly you'll see the majority of atheist posters support the child.

fisgon

frostyjacks wrote: »

Oh it's not faux, trust me. Who wouldn't feel sick at supposed adults rounding on a boy mourning his father? Critics of this are no worse than those Free Presbyterians you see protesting at football games played on the Sabbath; utterly detached from reality.

Please, get a grip. Quote one post where someone has "rounded on a boy". Please, just one quote. You are so desperate to be offended that you will simply make up something if you can't find it, and ignore the actual points that were made.

The fact is that this campaign is not being run by an 11 year old boy anyway, it is clearly being run by adults involved in the project. It is this idea of the "wronged 11 year old" that is the great red herring in this whole story. The truth is that he may have been involved in the idea of the 8 masses, but it takes adults to begin and promote and publicize such a campaign, to share it and comment on it and tag people and spread the word.

No-one has in any way "rounded on " anyone, apart from you in your last few outraged posts, where you have invented something to be outraged about.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

Most atheists would agree with you. Not sure why you're getting so annoyed about it. If you read the thread properly you'll see the majority of atheist posters support the child.

Really? Some are critical, some say the family should be 'allowed' to do it, as if they needed permission to grieve.

A majority don't have an issue, but clearly some atheists do. That's quite disturbing. Any other section of society would be 100% accepting of this boy's action.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Really? Some are critical, some say the family should be 'allowed' to do it, as if they needed permission to grieve.

A majority don't have an issue, but clearly some atheists do. That's quite disturbing. Any other section of society would be 100% accepting of this boy's action.

Some do yeah but I'd imagine that's more about the kind of person they are rather than anything to do with atheism.

meeeeh

frostyjacks wrote: »

Really? Some are critical, some say the family should be 'allowed' to do it, as if they needed permission to grieve.

A majority don't have an issue, but clearly some atheists do. That's quite disturbing. Any other section of society would be 100% accepting of this boy's action.

No section of society is 100% accepting of actions of others.

While I agree that the outrage is complete overreaction and I don't like this public onus on the family to help fans grieve in acceptable way (how arrogant and heartless is that), I also think your mud slinging is completely wrong. As said in previous pists most of us disagreed with sentiment expressed by some and you decided to isolate comments of few to skew the perception.

frostyjacks

meeeeh wrote: »

No section of society is 100% accepting of actions of others.

While I agree that the outrage is complete overreaction and I don't like this public onus on the family to help fans grieve in acceptable way (how arrogant and heartless is that), I also think your mud slinging is completely wrong. As said in previous pists most of us disagreed with sentiment expressed by some and you decided to isolate comments of few to skew the perception.

Not all atheists are critical of this boy, but all the critics are atheist. The fire and brimstone preachers of yesteryear are being replaced by the thought police of the 21st century.

meeeeh

frostyjacks wrote: »

Not all atheists are critical of this boy, but all the critics are atheist. The fire and brimstone preachers of yesteryear are being replaced by the thought police of the 21st century.

It's an atheist forum. Did you expect I don't know a huge community of atheists in Ireland to provide their opinion?

Anyway this thread is a bit ridiculous and I posted earlier out of boredom. I'm done with this nonsense.

Wegian

fisgon wrote: »

There is no awareness - or no interest - in the idea that there may be Protestants, non-believers or catholics who have no interest in going to mass among Munster and Ireland rugby fans.

The "8 masses" idea seems to me to be something from a different era, when you could safely assume that everyone was mass-going, (or else they were disreputable, and weren't worth inviting to anything).

So a grieving child should have considered the various groups you refer to and outlined appropriate forms of remembrance to account for the not-different era?

ffs, the level of entitlement is astounding and gives a good insight into the motivation behind the OP

looksee

frostyjacks wrote: »

Really? Some are critical, some say the family should be 'allowed' to do it, as if they needed permission to grieve.

A majority don't have an issue, but clearly some atheists do. That's quite disturbing. Any other section of society would be 100% accepting of this boy's action.

That is the spiteful, pedantic twisting of the meaning of a word just to 'allow' you to be outraged and self righteous.

xabi

Is this for real? Seriously, why let this bother you, I just hope the Foley family or friends never stumble across this clust fuk of a thread. Leave them alone to grieve however they see fit, it's a child that's organising it ffs.

frostyjacks

looksee wrote: »

That is the spiteful, pedantic twisting of the meaning of a word just to 'allow' you to be outraged and self righteous.

I'm not twisting anything. You said the family should be, "allowed to mourn". Who's doing the allowing?

zulutango

frostyjacks wrote:

Not all atheists are critical of this boy, but all the critics are atheist. The fire and brimstone preachers of yesteryear are being replaced by the thought police of the 21st century.

Not a single poster on this thread has criticised the boy. Please stop making things up to suit your agenda.

zulutango

xabi wrote:

Is this for real? Seriously, why let this bother you, I just hope the Foley family or friends never stumble across this clust fuk of a thread. Leave them alone to grieve however they see fit, it's a child that's organising it ffs.

No, it's not a child that's organising it. And there's no criticism of the child in this thread. Read it properly.

frostyjacks

zulutango wrote: »

Not a single poster on this thread has criticised the boy. Please stop making things up to suit your agenda.

The very first post was critical of him. Others have accused him of mourning in an inferior way, that he should have set up a scholarship, that's he's used his father's death as some kind of clarion call to boost mass attendances. It's sick.

Danzy

recedite wrote: »

I think your crystal ball may be a bit fogged up

The dog may have licked it.

Having recently buried my father and several in laws I think the poor bugger must have not learnt a lot from life to date.

The coffin brings perspective and I think that he has lost his.

zulutango

frostyjacks wrote:

The very first post was critical of him. Others have accused him of mourning in an inferior way, that he should have set up a scholarship, that's he's used his father's death as some kind of clarion call to boost mass attendances. It's sick.

The very first post is not critical of him. Read it again. Nobody has criticised the child. It is adults who set up the page, not the child.

Hotblack Desiato

Whatever about who started this, it is grown adults spreading this, and the church is jumping on board the bandwagon for its own ends as usual, and THAT'S what I find distasteful.

El_Duderino 09

fisgon wrote:

And so that is why I am a little uncomfortable with the 8 masses idea. This campaign is not being run by an 11-year old, there are clearly adults involved in it.

Private adults and private children making a private appeal on social mefia. Nothing that uses public money or has any kind of official connotation.

fisgon wrote:

This is the officially sanctioned form of remembrance.

Official? In what sense is it official? There's nothing official about this appeal. It's a private person's appeal on Facebook, not a political party or government institution or any organisation that uses public money. It's a private appeal.

Lads I'm not a fan of religion but I'm a big fan of minding my own business. Private people can do what they like as long as they're not telling me what to do.

El_Duderino 09

frostyjacks wrote:

Oh it's not faux, trust me. Who wouldn't feel sick at supposed adults rounding on a boy mourning his father?

Nobody fas said a word to the young fella, let alone rounded on him. We're discussing the idea of making the appeal. Has anyone even said anything unkind about the young fella?

So it's not faux outrage, it's just misplaced outrage?

frostyjacks

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whatever about who started this, it is grown adults spreading this, and the church is jumping on board the bandwagon for its own ends as usual, and THAT'S what I find distasteful.

Adults spreading it...well the last time I checked adults were free to share facebook posts.

Distasteful to compliment a young boy for his way of mourning his father...you need to get over yourself. There's plenty of sticks you can use to beat the church with. Draw a line somewhere.