Largest church in Ireland to be demolished, replacement one tenth of the size.

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

So, if one attends service while not believing, but doesn't have a certain level of interest in church matters, one is not a not-real atheist, and can be called atheist? Similarly, if one has a prescribed level of interest in church matters etc but does not attend services, one is also not a not-real atheist and can be called an atheist?

I really must wonder if you've thought this through.

Have another read of your post paul! and you think I haven't thought it through!

realdanbreen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wouldn't ordinarily darken the door of a McDonalds either, but if I'm with my sister-in-law and she has my nephew with her, I'd go in with them. The coffee is actually OK these days.

Lovely little story.............but what's it got to do with anything?

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you know that I am referring to going into church to attend religious services.

There is a difference between going into a church and attending a religious service.

One can go into a hospital and not be in need of medical assistance.

magicbastarder

realdanbreen wrote: »

As for 'eating red meat' ? You must have been around in the 60's I guess.

well, the church certainly was.

realdanbreen

HensVassal wrote: »

There is a difference between going into a church and attending a religious service.

One can go into a hospital and not be in need of medical assistance.

I think we kinda figured that out a while back.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

Also they would have an almost obsessive interest in church matters, numbers attending services etc, whereas an Atheist have no interest in anything to do with religion.

Hate to burst your bubble pal but you can't be a partial atheist. You either believe in this God caper or you don't. I don't believe iron can be turned into gold. Why? Because it can't. It's not possible. I would be what you might call an anti-alchemist. I can't possibly be a believer in this fantasy on a few rare occasions thus dubbing me a "non-real anti-alchemist" like your "non-real atheists"

As a scientist I know time travel is not possible. But if I go into a cinema and watch "Back To the Future" are you going to condescend to calling me not a "real scientist"?

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

Lovely little story.............but what's it got to do with anything?

I wouldn't normally "darken the door" of the Good Shepherd in Churchtown (it isn't architecturally interesting being a just a 50s blimp hangar) but if someone invites me to an event like a christening, funeral, wedding etc then I will go along. The music was not bad last time I was there.

I have also attended Church of Ireland and Church of England ceremonies, and even a Hindu ceremony once. None of these events caused the Evil Atheist Conspiracy to tear up my membership card.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, the church certainly was.

God was quite a bit stricter when I was a lad, he seems to have chilled out since.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

I think we kinda figured that out a while back.

Well, likewise an atheist can go into a church or synagogue or temple and still not believe a thing about supreme beings, paranormal activity or an afterlife.

And you say you dislike hypocrisy.

You maintained that if an atheist went into a place of worship then they were not a "real" atheist. When the stupidity of this position was pointed out to you you hit back with some snarky oneliner.

ThisRegard

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Arguably they became more 'churched' once they did. The RCC put massive efforts and strained its resources in the 70s to ensure the new suburbs like Tallaght got plenty of churches..

Pretty much every estate in Tallaght got its own church, right into the 80s. And there's no issues of closures there, the churches are a more realistic size, albeit still relatively empty.

realdanbreen

HensVassal wrote: »

Well, likewise an atheist can go into a church or synagogue or temple and still not believe a thing about supreme beings, paranormal activity or an afterlife.

And you say you dislike hypocrisy.

You maintained that if an atheist went into a place of worship then they were not a "real" atheist. When the stupidity of this position was pointed out to you you hit back with some snarky oneliner.

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES.

Not only do I sometimes attend services, I find I still remember the words of some of the sing-along bits.

I don't see how a "real" atheist doing so is a hypocrite.

magicbastarder

well, they're confusing god, who doesn't know whose prayers to listen to anymore.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Why do you think that is great to see?

That the business model of pedaling lies and/or fantasy as true for profit is no longer pulling in the numbers? Why would that not be great to see?

realdanbreen wrote: »

True, although my question was not for you it was for stevecw.

Welcome to public internet forums, where all conversation is done in groups For one on one conversations you can refer yourself to the Private Messaging system which is perfectly functional.

Outside of there though, you can safely assume any question asked is asked of EVERYONE present, not the person you may have happened to direct it at.

realdanbreen wrote: »

The real atheists that I know have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services.

Well if you contrive to define "real atheists" as those that " have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services" then for sure all the "real atheists" you know will "have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services".

Sort of a given, is it not?

realdanbreen wrote: »

Without me rabbitting on about it the gist of it is that a real atheist would never set foot in a church, temple or any religious building and those people I respect.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Why would an athesis 'walk into church' ?

The people I respect are the ones who do not let their own personal views to get in the way of sharing important occasions with their loved ones.

I would therefore, for example, happily go into a church to attend a friends wedding, or the baptism of their children. My presence there is in no contradiction to any world views I hold.

Putting money in the baskets they send around during such ceremonies might however, which is why I don't.

I have gone into church to collect crackers for scientific purposes too as it happens. Unfortunately they only tend to hand them out to those who attend religious services so it was something of a requirement at the time.

And I have gone in to look at particularly well made windows and statues and paintings.

And that is just ME. There is likely any number of others reasons why other people go into churches without any conflict of their world views. So what you feel the issue actually is.... is not clear to me. And, I suspect from reading your posts..... to you either.

There is also a "know your enemy" kind of thing. I can attend talks and conferences and speeches by politicians I have no intention of voting for.... for the same reason I can attend religious services. That is, to say, to educate myself on what they are actually espousing and claiming and saying. Why would a "real atheist" (definition still forthcoming I assume) find it a contradiction to remain informed on such things?

realdanbreen wrote: »

Also they would have an almost obsessive interest in church matters, numbers attending services etc, whereas an Atheist have no interest in anything to do with religion.

Because it is not the god in question or the religion that has an effect on our lives, but some of the people who espouse belief in it's existence.

I would like to never have another discussion in this world about religions or gods, and leave peoples private faith to them privately.

I am not let.

ALL the areas of interest I have......... education, science, medicine, medical and bodily autonomy, politics, sexuality and much more are areas of discourse punctuated heavily by people pushing agendas that SOLELY exist on a basis assuming the existence of a god.

So demanding substantiation that this god even exists, or concerning myself with religion, becomes a necessity, not a desire. But these people consistently refuse to provide any. Like yourself for example.

And imagine how ridiculous that is in any other context. Imagine I walked into our halls of education or power and started making policy demands based on a sheet full of statistics I had in my hand. Imagine that I was wary of letting you read the sheet however, showing you only bits of it........... and I abjectly REFUSED in anyway to tell you anything about the source of the data on that page. Not who compiled it, how, or by what methodology. I merely demanded that you take my word for it that the statistics are sound, and that you should act upon them.

THAT is essentially the level of discourse we face from many in our halls of education and power. And THAT is essentially why we not only do, but MUST, demand they substantiate their claims or leave the field. The MOMENT you understand why you would demand background and substantiation for the page of statistics.... is the same moment you will understand why we unconvinced by the existence of a non-human intelligent creator of the universe do too.

And it has nothing to do with your arbitrary and vague definition of "real" atheism.

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

No reason to be surprised. It is consistent entirely as scientists, like atheists, do tend to not see things that are not actually there. Which I can not say about you and many theists.

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

You are ascribing a meaning to the word that's entirely your own.

Atheist = does not believe in a god

That is all.

Defenders of the church, like yourself, are trying to prescribe a behavior to atheists that isn't necessary in order to separate them and isolate them out from church adherents.

When a child is being baptized her parents want their family and friends around them even if said family or friends are atheist.

When a couple are getting married they want their family and friends present to witness the wedding. That's what's important, not the beliefs or lack of beliefs held by those present.

Funerals: I'll leave it as an exercise. Use the words 'support', 'comfort', 'family', 'friends' and 'beliefs or lack of' in your answer.

Christians! :rolleyes:

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

an aside, the crypt tour under st peter's was one of the best things i've ever done on holidays. largely because of the history obsessed american priest who led the tour.

Is this it? The Necropolis. Very cool name. I was in St Peters, but I didn't know it was possible to go below ground there.
I did the tour of the catacombs just outside the old city, where the corpses of the original Roman Christians are still waiting there on shelves to be re-animated, which is what they believed would literally happen.

Also there is this very peculiar building packed "artistically" with skulls in Rome city centre. I was fascinated by it.

Easier to reach, in Dublin, is the crusader crypt/tomb in St Michan's church. Well worth a visit if anybody has not been there yet.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

No you did not. You never mentioned an atheist attending church SERVICES.

Here are some quotes from you

realdanbreen wrote:

The real atheists that I know have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services.

There you simply expressed that whatever atheists you know would have no interest in the numbers attending services. There's no mention by you of atheists themselves attending church services. So it sounds to me like you're back-peddling.

Here's what you did say regarding atheists going into a church:

realdanbreen wrote:

Without me rabbitting on about it the gist of it is that a real atheist would never set foot in a church, temple or any religious building and those people I respect. Then you have the 'look at me the atheist' type who go to church several times a year in case not doing so would offend aunty margaret or 'heaven forbid' the wifes parents! Funeral respects can be paid at the funeral home and weddings can be celebrated at the wedding reception and that is what real atheists do.

So you maintained that an atheist would never go into a church, at least no self-respecting atheist, a "real" atheist, to use your phrase. Now you're trying to deflect away from that by saying that you said that no atheist would attend church services....which of course you didn't say.

You also asked:

realdanbreen wrote:

Why would an athesis 'walk into church' ?

This is just baffling. There are many atheists who love art, engineering and architecture. Are you saying they can't go into the Sistine Chapel to see the ceiling? The can't climb to the top of the Sacre Coeur to see the view of Paris? The can't admire the masonry, buttresses and gargoyles of the Kolner Dom?

As for your talk about not going to a wedding or funeral or christening if it's in a church and going to the after bash instead.....that's just plain rude. It would be akin to refusing to attend someone's graduation because you don't want to sit through the ceremony and the speeches but want the booze-up afterwards.

Qs

Dan do you also feel a catholic who enters a synagogue, mosque or even a protestant church is no longer a real catholic?

KingBrian2

Churches really do invite trouble for themselves. All the masses of the world are let in since as we know they let just about anyone in. They have no criteria for entry so it is up to the visitor to respect the Church. In terms of attendance at the Church are a lot of the people who go in really that devoted to religion i say no it is all about showing respect and that is about it. You don't have to pray in a church to be religious or have strong convictions.

KingBrian2

Qs wrote: »

Dan do you also feel a catholic who enters a synagogue, mosque or even a protestant church is no longer a real catholic?

Been to many religious places on the Continent and in Britain epic places i mean in terms or ornate design and culture. Just to see how the other half go about religion and prayer. It is nice to see.

realdanbreen

Qs wrote: »

Dan do you also feel a catholic who enters a synagogue, mosque or even a protestant church is no longer a real catholic?

No

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That the business model of pedaling lies and/or fantasy as true for profit is no longer pulling in the numbers? Why would that not be great to see?



Welcome to public internet forums, where all conversation is done in groups For one on one conversations you can refer yourself to the Private Messaging system which is perfectly functional.

Outside of there though, you can safely assume any question asked is asked of EVERYONE present, not the person you may have happened to direct it at.



Well if you contrive to define "real atheists" as those that " have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services" then for sure all the "real atheists" you know will "have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services".

Sort of a given, is it not?




The people I respect are the ones who do not let their own personal views to get in the way of sharing important occasions with their loved ones.

I would therefore, for example, happily go into a church to attend a friends wedding, or the baptism of their children. My presence there is in no contradiction to any world views I hold.

Putting money in the baskets they send around during such ceremonies might however, which is why I don't.

I have gone into church to collect crackers for scientific purposes too as it happens. Unfortunately they only tend to hand them out to those who attend religious services so it was something of a requirement at the time.

And I have gone in to look at particularly well made windows and statues and paintings.

And that is just ME. There is likely any number of others reasons why other people go into churches without any conflict of their world views. So what you feel the issue actually is.... is not clear to me. And, I suspect from reading your posts..... to you either.

There is also a "know your enemy" kind of thing. I can attend talks and conferences and speeches by politicians I have no intention of voting for.... for the same reason I can attend religious services. That is, to say, to educate myself on what they are actually espousing and claiming and saying. Why would a "real atheist" (definition still forthcoming I assume) find it a contradiction to remain informed on such things?



Because it is not the god in question or the religion that has an effect on our lives, but some of the people who espouse belief in it's existence.

I would like to never have another discussion in this world about religions or gods, and leave peoples private faith to them privately.

I am not let.

ALL the areas of interest I have......... education, science, medicine, medical and bodily autonomy, politics, sexuality and much more are areas of discourse punctuated heavily by people pushing agendas that SOLELY exist on a basis assuming the existence of a god.

So demanding substantiation that this god even exists, or concerning myself with religion, becomes a necessity, not a desire. But these people consistently refuse to provide any. Like yourself for example.

And imagine how ridiculous that is in any other context. Imagine I walked into our halls of education or power and started making policy demands based on a sheet full of statistics I had in my hand. Imagine that I was wary of letting you read the sheet however, showing you only bits of it........... and I abjectly REFUSED in anyway to tell you anything about the source of the data on that page. Not who compiled it, how, or by what methodology. I merely demanded that you take my word for it that the statistics are sound, and that you should act upon them.

THAT is essentially the level of discourse we face from many in our halls of education and power. And THAT is essentially why we not only do, but MUST, demand they substantiate their claims or leave the field. The MOMENT you understand why you would demand background and substantiation for the page of statistics.... is the same moment you will understand why we unconvinced by the existence of a non-human intelligent creator of the universe do too.

And it has nothing to do with your arbitrary and vague definition of "real" atheism.



No reason to be surprised. It is consistent entirely as scientists, like atheists, do tend to not see things that are not actually there. Which I can not say about you and many theists.

I'm sure your post is very interesting Nozz but I rarely bother reading a post that goes on for more than 5 or 6 lines.

magicbastarder

the bible must be an epic struggle for you so.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm sure your post is very interesting Nozz but I rarely bother reading a post that goes on for more than 5 or 6 lines.

I am not sure what your attention span issues have to do with my post though. You appear to be just trying to stack the deck on what you can dodge and ignore.

On another thread yesterday you were moaning that you wanted to start a discussion on a topic and no one was discussing it properly.

Now here when someone DOES discuss something with you properly it is magically "Too long".

Seems you apply whatever rule suits you, at the moment it suits you, regardless of what people are saying or not.

That is not an honest move. But the currency of credibility is yours to squander as you will. But the fact is that deep philosophical issues are religious issues are not going to fit neatly in fortune cookie format and you might need to be aware of that if you wish to pretend to be engaging with a discussion forum.

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure what your attention span issues have to do with my post though. You appear to be just trying to stack the deck on what you can dodge and ignore.

On another thread yesterday you were moaning that you wanted to start a discussion on a topic and no one was discussing it properly.

Now here when someone DOES discuss something with you properly it is magically "Too long".

Seems you apply whatever rule suits you, at the moment it suits you, regardless of what people are saying or not.

That is not an honest move. But the currency of credibility is yours to squander as you will. But the fact is that deep philosophical issues are religious issues are not going to fit neatly in fortune cookie format and you might need to be aware of that if you wish to pretend to be engaging with a discussion forum.

Classing the kernal of my point, that an atheist attending a religious service is being hypocritical or people pleaseing at the very least as some ' deep philosophical issue'is a lot less honest or credible than anything that I have posted.

realdanbreen

Let me put all of this another way. There's a guy who drinks at a clubhouse I go to who after a few drinks becomes an authority on many topics. One of his regular rants is how he doesn't believe in god and hates religion and all it stands for. Any time I go to mass this guy is there with his wife and kids and is one of the first up to receive. Do you think that this guy is being a hypocrite?
A simple yes or no response should suffice.

Peregrinus

Perhaps the real hypocrite would be someone claiming to be a Christian, but going around making judgments of this kind about other people. Just 'sayin. The beam in one's own eye, and all that.

Christian worship is celebrated in public precisely so that everybody, not just Christians, can observe, can see, can hear, can participate to the extent that they feel called to. It's not really consistent with that to go around calling them "hypocrites" because they attend, observe or participate in a way, or to a degree, that you think they should not. Your need to analyse and judge their behaviour in simplistic binary terms is your problem, not theirs.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps the real hypocrite would be someone claiming to be a Christian, but going around making judgments of this kind about other people. Just 'sayin. The beam in one's own eye, and all that.

Christian worship is celebrated in public precisely so that everybody, not just Christians, can observe, can see, can hear, can participate to the extent that they feel called to. It's not really consistent with that to go around calling them "hypocrites" because they attend, observe or participate in a way, or to a degree, that you think they should not. Your need to analyse and judge their behaviour in simplistic binary terms is your problem, not theirs.

And your actual response to my post is ? Yes or No?

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

an atheist attending a religious service is being hypocritical or people pleaseing at the very least

An atheist trying to please people? Stone him!

Peregrinus

The answer is (a) it's not my business to judge whether this guy is a hypocrite any more than it is yours. And (b) if it were my business, I'd need to talk to him about why he says what he say and why he does what he does before I could make any judgment that would be worth a damn.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Classing the kernal of my point, that an atheist attending a religious service is being hypocritical or people pleaseing at the very least as some ' deep philosophical issue'is a lot less honest or credible than anything that I have posted.

It was a comment about the forum in general, not your specific point. But as you demonstrate here you are more than willing to read posts over 5 lines when it suits you.

But your point appears to be well and truly rebutted anyway, whether you pretend not to have read the post or not. There are any number of MANY reasons why you would find such people in such locations, despite their world view.

realdanbreen wrote: »

And your actual response to my post is ? Yes or No?

One of the things I like about this forum is no one gets to dictate to you what your answer has to be. This forum is a conversation, not a multiple choice exam. You have every right to set the questions, you have no right to dictate the answers.

magicbastarder

i'm beginning to wonder if realdanbreen is one of those catholics who uses his faith as a way of giving himself a feeling of superiority over others.

nozzferrahhtoo

Perhaps, but such superiority would be about as real as the Emperor's New Clothes. I am sure the Emperor felt "dressed" for a moment there too.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm sure your post is very interesting Nozz but I rarely bother reading a post that goes on for more than 5 or 6 lines.

How convenient. Sounds like something one would expect from a stroppy teenager.

Walter H Price

realdanbreen wrote: »

The real atheists that I know have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services.

in a country where you still have to Baptiste your kids to get them into the vast majority of state funded primary school's , i would say there is a major vested interest among the non religious is seeing the Church fade out from relevance , sooner rather then later

looksee

Mod: realdanbreen, you do not get to dictate how people answer your posts, and if you do not wish to engage with longer posts then maybe you would be happier on Twitter.

HensVassal

magicbastarder wrote: »

the bible must be an epic struggle for you so.

Not to mention the 10 Commandments.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd need to talk to him about why he says what he say and why he does what he does before I could make any judgment that would be worth a damn.

Peregrinus - you'll never make much of a fundamentalist if you go around the place with that kind of careful, thoughtful, helpful and understanding attitude!

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

The answer is (a) it's not my business to judge whether this guy is a hypocrite any more than it is yours. And (b) if it were my business, I'd need to talk to him about why he says what he say and why he does what he does before I could make any judgment that would be worth a damn.

It's strange really. Caginess is not something I would expect in an A&A forum. I thought it was full of free spirits who would feel OK about giving an opinion on something. You have managed to answer a question that you were never asked IE Ididn't ask if you thought it was any of your business and I didn't ask you to judge the guy, just to give an OPINION on his actions.

realdanbreen

looksee wrote: »

Mod: realdanbreen, you do not get to dictate how people answer your posts, and if you do not wish to engage with longer posts then maybe you would be happier on Twitter.

No I'm as happy as Larry here mod. thanks all the same.

looksee

Mod: realdanbreen, please do not post in this thread again, and take time to reconsider your posting style and your interaction with mod posts.

KingBrian2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps the real hypocrite would be someone claiming to be a Christian, but going around making judgments of this kind about other people. Just 'sayin. The beam in one's own eye, and all that.

Christian worship is celebrated in public precisely so that everybody, not just Christians, can observe, can see, can hear, can participate to the extent that they feel called to. It's not really consistent with that to go around calling them "hypocrites" because they attend, observe or participate in a way, or to a degree, that you think they should not. Your need to analyse and judge their behaviour in simplistic binary terms is your problem, not theirs.

The same with a lot of religions all across the world. The Mosque is a place in Africa and South East Asia for all people to go in and pray and meet with one another. Religion has a good side it also has hypocrisy of the highest order and open themselves up for ridicule. They should be called out for this.

magicbastarder

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's strange really. Caginess is not something I would expect in an A&A forum. I thought it was full of free spirits who would feel OK about giving an opinion on something. You have managed to answer a question that you were never asked IE Ididn't ask if you thought it was any of your business and I didn't ask you to judge the guy, just to give an OPINION on his actions.

he did give you an opinion. you seem to be confusing opinions with being judgemental. it's an important distinction; keep at it, practice will make perfect.

jobbridge4life

Walter H Price wrote: »

in a country where you still have to Baptiste your kids to get them into the vast majority of state funded primary school's , i would say there is a major vested interest among the non religious is seeing the Church fade out from relevance , sooner rather then later

That is demonstrably false. Unbaptised children and children of divergent faiths are accepted, without question, into the overwhelming majority of schools in the country. It has been repeatedly confirmed that the only instance in which a child may be preferred over another on the basis of baptism is where the school in question is over subscribed and has a religious ethos.

The baptism barrier needs to go, without doubt, but putting forward falsehoods like the one contained in the quoted post serves no one.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you even open the article?

Yes, yes I did.

It says one of Dublins largest churches, not "Largest church in Ireland"

Yes, yes I know. I'm allowed add my own comments in threads that I start.

I suppose the truth is not as sensational, huh.

So if you are claiming it's not the biggest, which ones are bigger? and provide links and then I'll stand corrected.

Do you not think that reducing the size of a huge church like this by 90% is not noteworthy?

magicbastarder

i think i saw headlines at the time claiming it was the biggest church in ireland. if you google it, st. patrick's cathedral is listed as the biggest church, but i couldn't see any figures for capacity.

Hotblack Desiato

Yep St. Patricks is a very large building but due to its shape I doubt it would have as many pews.

According to Wikipedia though, Knock basilica can accommodate 10,000...! I can't find a citation for that and it seems an incredibly large figure.

Hotblack Desiato

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's strange really. Caginess is not something I would expect in an A&A forum. I thought it was full of free spirits who would feel OK about giving an opinion on something. You have managed to answer a question that you were never asked IE Ididn't ask if you thought it was any of your business and I didn't ask you to judge the guy, just to give an OPINION on his actions.

FWIW the person you were replying to is not an atheist.

magicbastarder

i see the CoI church in glendalough is closing; how common is such news these days? there seem to have been churches opening in industrial estates quickly enough though, mainly african evangelical ones as far as i can see.

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

i see the CoI church in glendalough is closing..

Is that St Johns Church?
Apart from a general decline in religiosity, I'd imagine that the whole concept of a "chapel of ease" has become outdated in an age when nearly every house in the area would have at least one car.

In the year 1843 a Subscription was opened by the parish to fund the building of 'the new church in Laragh'. As will be seen later the need for a church was related to the considerable size of the parish and the difficulty in those days of getting around. It was to be a Chapel of Ease, meaning that it was for the convenience, or ease, of the parishioners within its immediate vicinity. It can be imagined that the travel to the parish church, seven kilometres away, by horseback or horse-drawn vehicle, would have been tedious, and perhaps reserved for the more wealthy.

But as mentioned in the article, the main parish church closer to Roundwood (still hosting the grave of Erskine Childers) was unroofed several decades ago, so this is a definite retreat.

I wonder will they simply "unroof" this one, or sell it? It would be in a good location for some kind of hostel.