FIVE FAMILY MEMBERS and a teenager used “medieval violence” to “butcher” father of seven in “an honour killing” during a Co Kerry funeral, carrying out a “biblical atrocity”
43-year-old Mr Thomas Dooley was killed at Rath Cemetery, Rathass, Tralee, Co Kerry on October 5, 2022.
His younger brother, plus four other Dooleys and a teenager (presumably named Dooley; minors can’t be named in the press under Irish law), have all pleaded not guilty. They gave a halting-site address.
Counsel said the trial had a combination of the macabre, a provincial tragedy and appalling medieval violence. Ultimately, he commented, it was a biblical atrocity of a case where one brother had killed another brother.
Counsel suggested the motive in the case was ‘reasonably clear’ and submitted it was because of an unhappy end to a childish relationship. Two teenagers were going out together (the daughter of the dead man + the son of one suspect), and the relationship had broken down. He said this had resulted in what some might call “an honour killing”.
This reads like it was written by a not very good AI, wtf.
deleted by creator
When they say ‘biblical’ they just mean epic or intense or bloodthirsty. Nothing religious about it. Sure it even says in the last paragraph what the motive was.
You atheism monomanics. honestly.
something being “biblical” or the concept of “honor killings” have nothing to do with religion in any way, got it. honestly.
the concept of “honor killings” have nothing to do with religion in any way
Agreed. There is zero reason to believe “religion” had anything to do with this. The motive is stated at least 3-4 times in the article: the daughter of one refused to marry the son of another. Offense was taken. It’s their usual feud stuff.
I agree with your statement that honour is nothing to do with ‘religion’.
When they say ‘biblical’ i’m assuming they are using the definition as defined in pretty much any dictionary
Unless you are arguing that the bible doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have anything to do with religion?
I mean it’s a radical stance, but not one i am opposed to personally.
Arguing that the motive was religious is a stretch, sure, but arguing that the word ‘biblical’ isn’t religious is significantly more of a stretch.
ugh, pointless discussion at this point
It was a Traveller feud. Some nerd posted a wrong take and deleted it.
Obviously the barrister wasn’t saying “It was an attack related to the Bible”, that wouldn’t make any sense.
When he said it was mediæval he didn’t mean it was related to 14th century history, he was characterising the attack.
ugh, pointless discussion at this point
Agree to disagree, i find the varied perspectives interesting in their own right, not so much the content of the original post.
Obviously the barrister wasn’t saying “It was an attack related to the Bible”, that wouldn’t make any sense.
Agreed, but the definition and modern day usage of the word biblical does bring the context of religious behaviour as a comparison point, specifically the type of religious behaviour in the bible.
They aren’t saying “it’s caused by the bible” as much as “This is the type and level of behaviour one would expect to find in the bible ( a religious text )”
Which is still religious, unless you don’t consider the bible to have any religious significance.
When he said it was mediæval he didn’t mean it was related to 14th century history, he was characterising the attack.
The whole point of using a word whose definition is to evoke a relationship to a period or concept is to relate this meaning to the subject.
Otherwise you’d just describe the situation directly.
If you wish to argue that someone is using a word in a way that is explicitly ignoring the actual definition (and common usage) of the word, you’re free to do so.
Seems an odd hill to die on, but i’ve my own equally strange hills.
