Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   For those of you who do not know, who is St. Patrick?   (pennlive.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, St. Patrick's, Emerald Isle  
•       •       •

3154 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:17 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-12 11:38:49 AM  
He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.
 
2014-03-12 11:44:30 AM  
Is it just me or does it look like St. Patrick is holding a ciagarette in his right hand?
 
2014-03-12 12:21:13 PM  
And I'll get in a drunken brawl with the first person who posts a bunch of unwarranted Irish stereotypes.
 
2014-03-12 12:38:04 PM  
Why are you asking me if I don't know?
 
2014-03-12 01:18:13 PM  
Screw St. Patrick. St. Urho's the real deal.
 
2014-03-12 01:19:38 PM  
Patron said of Bad Sports Announcers.
 
2014-03-12 01:19:59 PM  
He's an excuse for Americans to get drunk. Be sure to thank him.
 
2014-03-12 01:20:24 PM  
He invented green beer.....
 
2014-03-12 01:20:59 PM  
Clearly, he is piccolo from dragon ball Z.

It's the only explanation for the green thing.
 
2014-03-12 01:21:19 PM  
Green beer and green bagels. Can't wait.
 
2014-03-12 01:21:25 PM  
Tl; dr... *takes a shot of Jameson*
 
2014-03-12 01:27:29 PM  
he's the f*cking reason you can't spend a March weekend in Boston without a 20-something non-Irish dude wearing some green and telling you he's more Irish than you then trying to fight you over it as long as his friends outnumber yours.
/He retreats to the bleachers sometime in April where he'll tell you he's a bigger Red Sox fan than you.
 
2014-03-12 01:28:03 PM  

uncleacid: Green beer and green bagels. Can't wait.


*GASP*

Don't do that. You'll give yourself a headache and look like an amateur. Try this instead:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-12 01:29:30 PM  
Only 5 more days 'til St. Patti's Day!
 
2014-03-12 01:30:31 PM  

bdub77: He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.


Oh my god I thought you said anally wasted.
 
2014-03-12 01:30:56 PM  
Few people know the story of exactly how he drove out the snakes. He stood on a broad plain, raised his arms and said "Enough is enough. I have had it with these motherfarkin' snakes on this motherfarkin' plain!"
 
2014-03-12 01:34:20 PM  

zulius: Tl; dr... *takes a shot of Jameson*


You poor thing...Jameson is high in grain, low in malt...have a Redbreast.
 
2014-03-12 01:35:24 PM  
"Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a British man..."

I know that stories of his origins vary, but while he may have been born in the British Isles, wasn't he the Roman son of a Roman diplomat ?

Doesn't this make him more Italian than British ?
 
2014-03-12 01:35:45 PM  

Werehamster: Few people know the story of exactly how he drove out the snakes. He stood on a broad plain, raised his arms and said "Enough is enough. I have had it with these motherfarkin' snakes on this motherfarkin' plain!"


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-12 01:35:51 PM  

Tangenital: bdub77: He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.

Oh my god I thought you said anally wasted.


Hmm... sometimes poop is green.  I guess that's festive.
 
2014-03-12 01:37:07 PM  

Werehamster: Few people know the story of exactly how he drove out the snakes. He stood on a broad plain, raised his arms and said "Enough is enough. I have had it with these motherfarkin' snakes on this motherfarkin' plain!"


A new keyboard please.
 
2014-03-12 01:42:49 PM  
St. Patrick? Isn't she the chick that drives the Go Daddy car in NASCAR (usually near the back of the pack)?

vegas-to-you.com
 
2014-03-12 01:46:46 PM  
I always wear red on St. Paddy day to be contrary.

/ drink tawny port instead of crappy green beer too.
 
2014-03-12 01:48:37 PM  
Saint Patricius (the name means Patrician and indicates noble ancestry) was a Welshman, although I have seen attempts to claim him by Scots. He was captured and enslaved by the Irish. When he gained his freedom, rather than go home to Wales he sought his revenge on the savage Irish by going back and converting them to Christianity. His feast day was once March 16 and March 18. Another Saint stepped into the dispute over the dates by splitting the difference and declaring March 17 Saint Patrick's Day.

Saint Patrick is the Patron Saint of Ireland (can you name the patron saints of Scotland, England and Wales?).

He is said to have driven the snakes out of Ireland, but in reality, it was the Ice Age that did that. By the time the ice retreated, Ireland was cut off from the mainland by rising sea levels and the Irish Sea.

It was long believe that Saint Patrick's magic was so strong that Irish soil would drive away snakes. There was a thriving trade in the stuff in the larger of the two British Isles. Skeptics could not be having with that and attempted to disprove the myth scientifically. They did this by exposing snakes to Irish soil. One man went so far as to smuggle a viper into Ireland. It should have died mid-sea on the way to Ireland but it didn't. In fact it bit some Irish person in the proto-scientist's garden. It did not die from the bite. But if IRCC, the Irish person did.

So that proved once and for all that Irishmen are not poisonous to snakes. Bite them all you like. Or buy a pot of Irish shamrocks direct from Irish greenhouses. It will not kill your pet snakes unless it contains a viper or some sort of disease or something.

This may sound like foolishness I made up, but every word of it is true and I am willing to swear upon my Mother's grave that it is so. At the present time I do not know where my Mother's grave is located as she is still alive and kicking. With any luck she'll out live me but should I hear that she and my Father have settled on a grave plot, I'll let you know that this post contains no lies.
 
2014-03-12 01:54:10 PM  
Some snakes are good swimmers but they are not good enough swimmers to cross the Irish sea, which is as cold as witch's teats.

Snakes are believed to have lost their legs during a marine stage of their evolution, or else while they were burrowing animals, like certain legless lizards such as skinks. There are fossil sea snakes from Israel which date back over 90 million years.

Perhaps these inspired the idea that snakes once had legs and were deprived of leggy locomotion by God when they tempted Adam and Eve to disobey their Master. Some snakes still have vestigial leg-bones, however, so maybe that was the clue, like the leg bones of some whales.

Two-legged snakes are found in the fossil record, and there are two-legged lizards.

This stuff is also true, but I think I will swear on my Father's grave for a little variety.
 
2014-03-12 01:54:44 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: St. Patrick? Isn't she the chick that drives the Go Daddy car in NASCAR (usually near the back of the pack)?

[vegas-to-you.com image 850x566]


.....or the wall. Just sayin'.
 
2014-03-12 01:55:26 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-12 01:56:44 PM  
He didn't slaughter the peacemakers on the 15th day... he waited until the 16th day, when they trusted him.

He killed our enemies, burnt their churches and then went to hell to ask Jesus to increase the severity of their punishment.
 
2014-03-12 01:58:52 PM  
St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland, according to legend. However, today we understand that Ireland is snakeless because of its climate and the fact that the water that surrounds it is too cold for British snakes to migrate over. The snakes are believed to be symbolic, meaning the pagan religions.

Gee-hod them pagan mother-farkers.
 
2014-03-12 02:00:45 PM  
As I was named after saint Patrick, I looked up his history and read his life story.

While christanity in general paints a fairly rosy picture, the facts of the matter are not at all positive.  It would not be unfair to pronounce him an unrepentant murderer who not only advocated genocide towards the pagans, but actively participated in it.   He'd use deceit to rile up communities in fear, claiming they kidnapped children, poisoned their crops and animals, and so on, and get them to lynch whole groups en masse.  It was, effectively, the irish version of the inquisition, with wide scale religious persecution which has colored the culture of ireland to affect it to this day (see catholics vs. protestants).

This isn't really that surprising.  Conversion by the sword was a mainstay of religions of that time.

What is surprising that we still think he's great.  I hate to Godwin my own post, but he was the hitler to the pagans-as-jew.
 
2014-03-12 02:02:23 PM  
They didn't even mention his Corned Beef and Cabbage recipe. It is to die for.
 
2014-03-12 02:05:47 PM  
For those of you who don't know, bullshiat qualifiers make you look like a moran, subby

/for those of you who don't know, it's a pet peeve
//for those of you who do know, it's a pet peeve
///harumph
 
2014-03-12 02:09:20 PM  
I will admit to unabashedly enjoying the Dallas Greenville St. Patrick's day parade. There is an undeniable energy about 100,000 people gathered along a relatively short stretch of road to watch strippers in hot tubs on flat bed trucks throwing beads and herpes. On that one magical day the rules are suspended and people can drink out in public without fear of arrest (as long as they don't do anything stupid of course).

I brew an English pale ale and a dry Irish stout, fill up a couple of growlers and then hop the train to get out there early near the end of the parade route. We stay until almost the end of the parade then walk to Trinity Hall in Mockingbird station. Have a few beers there then catch the train home once it starts getting too packed around 3:00 pm or so.
 
2014-03-12 02:12:29 PM  
St. Patrick must be the patron saint of 20-something Hoboken douche-bags who can't hold their liquor.
 
2014-03-12 02:12:59 PM  
According to science there never were any snakes in Ireland.

Paddy was a conman. (Maybe he was Scottish after all)
 
2014-03-12 02:14:04 PM  
Isn't he the deaf, dumb and blind guy who learned to read while hiding from the Nazis in an attic?
 
2014-03-12 02:14:21 PM  

brantgoose: Saint Patricius (the name means Patrician and indicates noble ancestry) was a Welshman, although I have seen attempts to claim him by Scots. He was captured and enslaved by the Irish. When he gained his freedom, rather than go home to Wales he sought his revenge on the savage Irish by going back and converting them to Christianity. His feast day was once March 16 and March 18. Another Saint stepped into the dispute over the dates by splitting the difference and declaring March 17 Saint Patrick's Day.

Saint Patrick is the Patron Saint of Ireland (can you name the patron saints of Scotland, England and Wales?).

He is said to have driven the snakes out of Ireland, but in reality, it was the Ice Age that did that. By the time the ice retreated, Ireland was cut off from the mainland by rising sea levels and the Irish Sea.

It was long believe that Saint Patrick's magic was so strong that Irish soil would drive away snakes. There was a thriving trade in the stuff in the larger of the two British Isles. Skeptics could not be having with that and attempted to disprove the myth scientifically. They did this by exposing snakes to Irish soil. One man went so far as to smuggle a viper into Ireland. It should have died mid-sea on the way to Ireland but it didn't. In fact it bit some Irish person in the proto-scientist's garden. It did not die from the bite. But if IRCC, the Irish person did.

So that proved once and for all that Irishmen are not poisonous to snakes. Bite them all you like. Or buy a pot of Irish shamrocks direct from Irish greenhouses. It will not kill your pet snakes unless it contains a viper or some sort of disease or something.

This may sound like foolishness I made up, but every word of it is true and I am willing to swear upon my Mother's grave that it is so. At the present time I do not know where my Mother's grave is located as she is still alive and kicking. With any luck she'll out live me but should I hear that she and my Father have settled on a gr ...


Isn't the patron saint of England St. George?
 
2014-03-12 02:17:00 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-12 02:19:21 PM  

capt.hollister: "Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a British man..."

I know that stories of his origins vary, but while he may have been born in the British Isles, wasn't he the Roman son of a Roman diplomat ?

Doesn't this make him more Italian than British ?


It's generally accepted that he was the son of a local "Roman" official. Given the way things were done at that time, it meant he was of "British" (Celtic--ancestors to the Cornish and Welsh) stock but heavily Romanized in Culture. A tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the Roman Empire was actually Italic in ancestry. The weren't like modern empires that imposed racist criteria for being of the "right stock". If you grew up speaking Latin or Greek and were born within the boundaries of the Empire, you were as Roman as any Caesar, when it came to Imperial identity. As for "Citizen of Rome", that was different. That meant you were actually considered an important person in the city of Rome, and many people born and raised in Rome never made it to "citizen of Rome".
 
2014-03-12 02:23:00 PM  

Silly_Sot: capt.hollister: "Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a British man..."

I know that stories of his origins vary, but while he may have been born in the British Isles, wasn't he the Roman son of a Roman diplomat ?

Doesn't this make him more Italian than British ?

It's generally accepted that he was the son of a local "Roman" official. Given the way things were done at that time, it meant he was of "British" (Celtic--ancestors to the Cornish and Welsh) stock but heavily Romanized in Culture. A tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the Roman Empire was actually Italic in ancestry. The weren't like modern empires that imposed racist criteria for being of the "right stock". If you grew up speaking Latin or Greek and were born within the boundaries of the Empire, you were as Roman as any Caesar, when it came to Imperial identity. As for "Citizen of Rome", that was different. That meant you were actually considered an important person in the city of Rome, and many people born and raised in Rome never made it to "citizen of Rome".


that was the genius of the Roman empire.
subjugating people from the start tends to lead to revolt.
making them one of you and merely demanding taxes and military service tends to buy loyalty from people who you have just subjugated.
 
2014-03-12 02:23:04 PM  
The article was one of the lower-bullshiat annual stories about St. Patrick. One thing it didn't note was that Ireland was already well along the way to becoming Christian. Druids and bards were having their children baptized and getting them recruited into the Church hierarchy--they saw which way the wind was blowing. Patrick regularized the administrative side of things. In fact, the Christianization of Ireland went so smoothly that Continental Christians took to criticizing Ireland for having had too few martyrs killed by pagans.
 
2014-03-12 02:28:34 PM  

bdub77: He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.


He banished the snakes from Ireland and into choirboys' backsides, where they writhe to this day! ERIN GO BRAGH!
 
2014-03-12 02:29:12 PM  

Sybarite: And I'll get in a drunken brawl with the first person who posts a bunch of unwarranted Irish stereotypes.


And what about warranted ones?
 
2014-03-12 02:29:20 PM  

capt.hollister: "Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a British man..."

I know that stories of his origins vary, but while he may have been born in the British Isles, wasn't he the Roman son of a Roman diplomat ?

Doesn't this make him more Italian than British ?


Check it out:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/bath-roman-baths

It's a really nice place to visit. :)
 
2014-03-12 02:31:55 PM  

mainsail: zulius: Tl; dr... *takes a shot of Jameson*

You poor thing...Jameson is high in grain, low in malt...have a Redbreast.


I approve of this post, and offer up a redhead's red breasts. Poor thing: needs some cooling balm.
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-03-12 02:33:30 PM  
Damned xians.
 
2014-03-12 02:38:08 PM  
He drove the snakes out of Ireland. They became the NYPD.
 
2014-03-12 02:41:05 PM  

brantgoose: Saint Patricius (the name means Patrician and indicates noble ancestry) was a Welshman, although I have seen attempts to claim him by Scots. He was captured and enslaved by the Irish. When he gained his freedom, rather than go home to Wales he sought his revenge on the savage Irish by going back and converting them to Christianity. His feast day was once March 16 and March 18. Another Saint stepped into the dispute over the dates by splitting the difference and declaring March 17 Saint Patrick's Day.

Saint Patrick is the Patron Saint of Ireland (can you name the patron saints of Scotland, England and Wales?).


St. George for England
St. Andrew for Scotland
No clue about Wales (St. Llywlyndlydnyllk?)

I always heard that the "drive out the snakes" myth was an allusion to Patrick converting pagans to Christianity.  "Snakes" being symbols for pagan traditions (aka demon worship) and Patrick "driving" them to extinction (i.e. getting them out of Irish culture).
 
2014-03-12 02:48:38 PM  
He's the patron saint of Amateur Hour
 
2014-03-12 03:00:17 PM  

syberpud: brantgoose: Saint Patricius (the name means Patrician and indicates noble ancestry) was a Welshman, although I have seen attempts to claim him by Scots. He was captured and enslaved by the Irish. When he gained his freedom, rather than go home to Wales he sought his revenge on the savage Irish by going back and converting them to Christianity. His feast day was once March 16 and March 18. Another Saint stepped into the dispute over the dates by splitting the difference and declaring March 17 Saint Patrick's Day.

Saint Patrick is the Patron Saint of Ireland (can you name the patron saints of Scotland, England and Wales?).

St. George for England
St. Andrew for Scotland
No clue about Wales (St. Llywlyndlydnyllk?)

I always heard that the "drive out the snakes" myth was an allusion to Patrick converting pagans to Christianity.  "Snakes" being symbols for pagan traditions (aka demon worship) and Patrick "driving" them to extinction (i.e. getting them out of Irish culture).


St David is the Welsh St. Just missed his feast day. March 1st.

St Davids cross is like the English one but a white cross on a black field...

... or is it a gold cross on a black field?

One is Cornwall and one is St. Davids... always confuse the two.


Incidentally the red dragon on the Welsh flag is from a legend where a red dragon chased off a white dragon. This was prophesized to mean the Welsh would rise up and chase the English out of Britain.

(White dragon on a red field was England's flag prior to 1066)
 
2014-03-12 03:07:27 PM  

quietwalker: As I was named after saint Patrick, I looked up his history and read his life story.

While christanity in general paints a fairly rosy picture, the facts of the matter are not at all positive.  It would not be unfair to pronounce him an unrepentant murderer who not only advocated genocide towards the pagans, but actively participated in it.   He'd use deceit to rile up communities in fear, claiming they kidnapped children, poisoned their crops and animals, and so on, and get them to lynch whole groups en masse.  It was, effectively, the irish version of the inquisition, with wide scale religious persecution which has colored the culture of ireland to affect it to this day (see catholics vs. protestants).



You have to take that sort of thing with a grain of salt, though.  The Internet is full of bogus history, like all those nonsense articles about Christ being just like Mithras/Osiris/Horus/Krishna/Dionysius, or vikings civilizing Polynesia and building the Easter Island statues because Kennewick man and cocaine mummies.

There are a bunch of subcultures that have a motivation to promote an alternate history.  Wiccans and neo-pagans like to imagine their religion as ancient rather than a recent invention, and often identify themselves with pre-Christian pagans and with victims of historical persecution---while at the same time, Internet people have a long-held love affair with alternate historical theories that undermine Christianity.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Internet research yields a version of Saint Patrick as a genocidal maniac, mostly promoted by people with names like "seeker of wisdom."  I would be skeptical enough to examine the sources, however, since Patrick is historically known for co-opting pagan symbology and beliefs in his attempts to convert the Irish.
 
2014-03-12 03:19:52 PM  

Xcott: quietwalker: As I was named after saint Patrick, I looked up his history and read his life story.

While christanity in general paints a fairly rosy picture, the facts of the matter are not at all positive.  It would not be unfair to pronounce him an unrepentant murderer who not only advocated genocide towards the pagans, but actively participated in it.   He'd use deceit to rile up communities in fear, claiming they kidnapped children, poisoned their crops and animals, and so on, and get them to lynch whole groups en masse.  It was, effectively, the irish version of the inquisition, with wide scale religious persecution which has colored the culture of ireland to affect it to this day (see catholics vs. protestants).


You have to take that sort of thing with a grain of salt, though.  The Internet is full of bogus history, like all those nonsense articles about Christ being just like Mithras/Osiris/Horus/Krishna/Dionysius, or vikings civilizing Polynesia and building the Easter Island statues because Kennewick man and cocaine mummies.

There are a bunch of subcultures that have a motivation to promote an alternate history.  Wiccans and neo-pagans like to imagine their religion as ancient rather than a recent invention, and often identify themselves with pre-Christian pagans and with victims of historical persecution---while at the same time, Internet people have a long-held love affair with alternate historical theories that undermine Christianity.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Internet research yields a version of Saint Patrick as a genocidal maniac, mostly promoted by people with names like "seeker of wisdom."  I would be skeptical enough to examine the sources, however, since Patrick is historically known for co-opting pagan symbology and beliefs in his attempts to convert the Irish.


It was a good attempt at trolling, but it's missing that vital spark that makes the reader really believe you believe it.
 
2014-03-12 03:20:42 PM  

Werehamster: Few people know the story of exactly how he drove out the snakes. He stood on a broad plain, raised his arms and said "Enough is enough. I have had it with these motherfarkin' snakes on this motherfarkin' plain!"



Is there a Post of the Year??  EPIC!
 
2014-03-12 03:21:27 PM  
He's the one with the funny hat.
 
2014-03-12 03:28:18 PM  
My parents both agreed on my name.
Patrick is a good one.
Then March 17th, 1984 came.
Hi, I'm Nick.
 
2014-03-12 03:34:59 PM  

quietwalker: It was a good attempt at trolling, but it's missing that vital spark that makes the reader really believe you believe it.


Seriously, though, are there any scholarly sources that establish Patrick actively participating in genocide?

It's hard for me to find any sources quickly, because Google searches just yield a bunch of opinion pieces and comment threads where people just up and say "I'm boycotting St. Patrick's day because here's a bunch of unsourced claims."
 
2014-03-12 04:22:44 PM  

NixStix: My parents both agreed on my name.
Patrick is a good one.
Then March 17th, 1984 came.
Hi, I'm Nick.


Mmmmkay...I don't quite follow. What's so significant about that date that they changed their minds?
 
2014-03-12 04:38:34 PM  
Wasn't he a pagan snake charmer? Good Christians don't partake in that kind of witch-craft.
 
2014-03-12 04:51:17 PM  
He's my youngest stepson. 20 years Ranger. Demolitions expert.
 
2014-03-12 05:05:43 PM  

bdub77: He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.


Yeah, you and a few million others.

I can't figure out how that works with lent.  The catholics have this big "you should limit yourself" thing going on.  Fat Tuesday is a huge party because you aren't supposed to do all those things during lent.  Yet St Patricks day is a huge party that falls during lent.

I'm assuming it gets some kind of catholic exemption, which in turn makes that party even bigger than it would be otherwise.

Tangenital: I will admit to unabashedly enjoying the Dallas Greenville St. Patrick's day parade. There is an undeniable energy about 100,000 people gathered along a relatively short stretch of road to watch strippers in hot tubs on flat bed trucks throwing beads and herpes. On that one magical day the rules are suspended and people can drink out in public without fear of arrest (as long as they don't do anything stupid of course).


It seems like every year, the Dallas Morning News has an article where the cops are saying "If we catch you drinking in public, we'll arrest you".  But they simply can't do that.  If every cop in Dallas arrested four people, there would still be thousands of people drinking on the street.  So for effective purposes, you're right.  Get stupid, start fights, that sort of thing, and they'll take you downtown.  Drink, watch the parade, have a good time, all without being an idiot, and the cops won't bother you a bit.
 
2014-03-12 05:20:28 PM  
What this thread needs is more St. Gertrude of Nivelles / rat pride!

img.fark.net
img.fark.net
img.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-12 05:41:22 PM  

Xcott: quietwalker: It was a good attempt at trolling, but it's missing that vital spark that makes the reader really believe you believe it.

Seriously, though, are there any scholarly sources that establish Patrick actively participating in genocide?

It's hard for me to find any sources quickly, because Google searches just yield a bunch of opinion pieces and comment threads where people just up and say "I'm boycotting St. Patrick's day because here's a bunch of unsourced claims."


Actually, it's very hard to pin down.  There's a very solid set of evidence that indicates there were two 'Saint Patricks' who's lives were alternately swapped or co-mingled, and most of the religious claims attributed to him range from the early 4'th to middle 5'th centuries, while verifying the source of letters and writings is fairly difficult.  Those who wrote most about him dated in the 7'th century, over 150 years since his death, so much of it is - like the bible - at best whitewashed and biased descriptions of events, and mystical fiction at worst.  Like camels in the bible, there are many indications that the writers were making up elements whole cloth.  As the 'victors' of the catholic vs pagan battle, they had the opportunity to write the histories.

So good references are hard to find, on either side of the debate.  The best we can do is drum up summaries from what is written, what we know of the politics and behaviors of people at that time, and attempt to piece together motivations and events as they happened, as opposed to how they were written.

So, among the collected letters and writings, there include references to him as the god of war, the bit where he declares himself a bishop (and one with the power to excommunicate, at that), and specifying certain groups of individuals as devil  He appeared to be associated with kings/warlords who, shortly after he arrived, used religion as an excuse to wage war on other groups of people (pagans ostensibly)  and claim their land. 

He was in several battles-and-or-assassination attempts, though there isn't any indication that he personally killed anyone, there are accounts of deaths - usually only of his followers - after which the combat is simply resolved and never spoken of again.  One must assume that his caravans of clergy and such either had a sizable military following or themselves acted in a military manner (which was standard for much of the clannish/tribal conflicts of that day) and were able to repel enemy warriors.

As far as the church goes, letters about him by those who would have been his superiors in Briton indicate that he was a problem; possibly a charlatan using the name of the church to further his own agenda, and refusing to answer to Rome.  In an era where news between ireland and rome took months or years, there was little to stop someone from claiming they were any given religious role.

In the end, there's quite a lot of indications that - like most of the church through recorded history - he was an awful person, doing horrible things.
 
2014-03-12 05:47:36 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: NixStix: My parents both agreed on my name.
Patrick is a good one.
Then March 17th, 1984 came.
Hi, I'm Nick.

Mmmmkay...I don't quite follow. What's so significant about that date that they changed their minds?


Never mind, I'm an idiot.
 
2014-03-12 05:50:19 PM  

CleanAndPure: I always wear red on St. Paddy day to be contrary.

/ drink tawny port instead of crappy green beer too.


You should try wearing orange. And you should do it in actual Ireland.
 
2014-03-12 06:10:07 PM  
My CSB:

I went to Ireland for a two week trip, and absolutely loved it, except for the day after I climbed 'The Reek':

upload.wikimedia.org

I could barely walk, so glad I was staying at a Pub/B&B, so didn't have to go far to get Guinness for pain relief.

/people climb it barefoot in July
//I drank a  can of Murphy's Stout when I got to the top
///CSB
 
2014-03-12 07:44:43 PM  

quietwalker: Actually, it's very hard to pin down.


The statement that drew my skepticism is this:

"It would not be unfair to pronounce him an unrepentant murderer who not only advocated genocide towards the pagans, but actively participated in it. "

There are three claims here:  that he was a murderer, that he advocated genocide, and actively participated in it.  Which of these claims is "hard to pin down?"  All three?

And what does "hard to pin down" mean?   Do you mean that the scholarly case for these claims is based on vague clues that may only support a tenuous claim of unspecifiable bad behavior?  Does it mean that there's no scholarly case at all?

quietwalker: One must assume that his caravans of clergy and such either had a sizable military following or themselves acted in a military manner (which was standard for much of the clannish/tribal conflicts of that day) and were able to repel enemy warriors.


Wouldn't one have to make the same assumption about any other major figure in "that day?"  I don't see how this counts as a credible argument that St. Patrick, or any specific person, committed atrocities.

In any case, that's just a line of reasoning, and not a scholarly source.  I hate to get all citation-needed on this, but I think that any claim of St. Patrick committing or advocating murder or genocide is extraordinary enough that it should be backed up with something.  It certainly wouldn't be fair to pronounce this guy a genocidal murderer if nothing can be sourced to back that up.
 
2014-03-12 11:49:32 PM  

Tangenital: bdub77: He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.

Oh my god I thought you said anally wasted.


stupidknews.com
 
2014-03-13 12:22:12 AM  

JuggleGeek: bdub77: He's the excuse I use to get annually wasted.

Yeah, you and a few million others.

I can't figure out how that works with lent.  The catholics have this big "you should limit yourself" thing going on.  Fat Tuesday is a huge party because you aren't supposed to do all those things during lent.  Yet St Patricks day is a huge party that falls during lent.

I'm assuming it gets some kind of catholic exemption, which in turn makes that party even bigger than it would be otherwise.



There are no exemptions, it's just that Catholics are not all that zealous about lent. They haven't been zealous about it in a very long time, assuming they ever were.

Here in Montreal, this Sunday will be marking the 191st St.Patrick's day parade this Sunday despite a long history of the Catholic church dominating all aspects of life. Of course, nowadays the church has become largely irrelevant to most people.
 
2014-03-13 01:00:47 AM  

Xcott: quietwalker:

In any case, that's just a line of reasoning, and not a scholarly source.  I hate to get all citation-needed on this, but I think that any claim of St. Patrick committing or advocating murder or genocide is extraordinary enough that it should be backed up with something.  It certainly wouldn't be fair to pronounce this guy a genocidal murderer if nothing can be sourced to back that up.


That is a totally fair and rational stance, but it's based on an unreasonable assumption.

I propose we first prove the individual existed and who he actually was prior to taking the person of Saint Patrick.  Personally, I don't believe he existed and I'm aware of no reputable scholarly source that actually pins it down.  There are a few guesses, but nothing substantive.  Without that, how can we say "who" did what?

Anything beyond that is - as you point out - pure speculation, and if we restrict ourselves to a black and white view, of course we can't consider that at all.  Further, if we go by the rules of scientific evaluation, there must first be evidence that can be tested with scientific rigour when we claim for the existence of a thing.  Without proof, it's not rational to believe the thing to exists at all.

So the base rational assumption is that there was no such person, and therefore, every act attributed to him is entirely fiction.

I'm getting a bit sophistic here, so bear with me, but if he's a fiction, he's one that obviously exists as an icon, concept or idea.  That idea, in turn, has led to the death of a group of people due to religious persecution, as well as subsumption of their culture.  In this light, it's not unreasonable to state "Saint Patrick caused the death of pagans" - in the same way we can say that other ideas such as racism or homophobia are responsible for deaths.

... so I'm going to stick with him being a killer by default, unless we want to forego the existence thing and attempt to derive a picture of an individual based on reported actions from biased and unreliable sources. ... which in my opinion point to him being the source of religious persecution, though it's obviously only speculation based on available data.

I'd say that between two arguments indicating Saint Patrick was a bad person, the second involving speculation is the weaker of the two, but in order to engage it, you'll have to accept that all the good things are equally speculative.  Personally, I'd say go with that, but we can also just default to saint-patrick-as-a-murderous-concept role too!
 
2014-03-13 01:50:25 AM  
quietwalker:  I propose we first prove the individual existed and who he actually was prior to taking the person of Saint Patrick.  Personally, I don't believe he existed and I'm aware of no reputable scholarly source that actually pins it down.

You mean, aside from primary sources like his written confessions and letters.

But okay, so let's start with that:  you don't believe he really existed, but you also believe he committed murder and participated in genocide.   I suppose this is something like those conspiracy people who think that Osama Bin Laden is still alive but was also already dead before he was allegedly killed.


Further, if we go by the rules of scientific evaluation, there must first be evidence that can be tested with scientific rigour when we claim for the existence of a thing.

The "rules of scientific evaluation"?  To determine if an historical figure existed?  Quick, call up the president of Physics!  There's no chemical evidence that George Washington was real!

Sorry, but no:  not only is it silly to demand testable scientific (as opposed to historical) evidence that a 5th century historical figure existed, but it is doubly silly to demand such things after cavalierly claiming that he took part in genocide without citing so much as a single scholarly source.


I'm getting a bit sophistic here, so bear with me, but if he's a fiction, he's one that obviously exists as an icon, concept or idea.  That idea, in turn, has led to the death of a group of people due to religious persecution, as well as subsumption of their culture.

This also requires a source.  What group of people was massacred due to the "idea" of Saint Patrick?

I should add that in two posts we've gone from "one must assume he had a sizeable army" to "we need scientific proof he existed" to conjecturing a large population supposedly killed by or for him.  So where's the evidence for that army?  Where's the evidence for this massacred group?  There doesn't seem to be any consistent standard in your argument, beyond saying whatever to advance the argument.


I'd say that between two arguments indicating Saint Patrick was a bad person, the second involving speculation is the weaker of the two, but in order to engage it, you'll have to accept that all the good things are equally speculative.   Personally, I'd say go with that, but we can also just default to saint-patrick-as-a-murderous-concept role too!

"I have no sources, but we can just default to taking what I said as the null hypothesis."

Here's a better idea:  let's start with the conventional historical understanding of Saint Patrick, as a person that actually existed and who took part in converting the Irish to Christianity.  If you want to argue that he mass-murdered the pagan Irish instead, or that he was a fictional character, you'll have to provide some basis for that beyond some postmodern assertion that everything is equally speculative.

Personally, I think it would be less trouble to simply pony up a source.
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report