Cross on summit of Carrauntoohil cut down with angle grinder (Warning: contains TLAs)

Hotblack Desiato

gammygils wrote: »

Some madman has cut down a cross

We don't know that.

But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up

Username32

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We don't know that.

But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up

Or women?

Username32

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

But I don't really see what's gained by pursuing an agenda that such monuments should be removed on principle, because what ends up happening, as sure as the tides, is the total deracination of public space as an end in itself. What is intended as the removal of symbols that might exclude difference, is a kind of anaemic, vacuous public space so bent on total inclusion that it ends up being devoid of any symbolic meaning at all. It's not a coincidence that most of the new monuments we have are chrome, shiny mirror-like materials. They simply reflect without saying anything, create an anonymous void.

That some very interesting sentiments there Realt and so true. Beautifully said

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

And what fills that void is, basically, shopping, corporate culture, the market. It is much worse than a cross most of us didn't even know was there before someone cut it down.

One mindless ideology being replaced by another.. with the same high priests ... same intolerance and same moral certainty and righteousness....

swampgas

Username32 wrote: »

By that logic should we not be bull dozing the churches cathedrals mosques etc that litter our towns and cities?

I don't see how a dedicated building like a church is a problem, it's just another building. But sticking a cross on a mountain is like sticking one in the middle of the town square: it is being foisted on everyone, in a space that should be shared by everyone, and not hijacked by just one particular religion.

Username32

swampgas wrote: »

I don't see how a dedicated building like a church is a problem, it's just another building. But sticking a cross on a mountain is like sticking one in the middle of the town square: it is being foisted on everyone, in a space that should be shared by everyone, and not hijacked by just one particular religion.

Most of the churches in Ireland were built on public space to one degree or another. Have you looked at the town squares in Ireland today? Do you see that thing with the big cross at the top and with the big bell??

gammygils

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We don't know that.

But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up

And it took one to put up the one outside Craggy Island Parochial House!!!!!!!

TwoShedsJackson

Username32 wrote: »

Most of the churches in Ireland were built on public space to one degree or another. Have you looked at the town squares in Ireland today? Do you see that thing with the big cross at the top and with the big bell??

I love a good dose of condescension in a post, really helps the poster get their point across, I find.

lazybones32

"Cross to rise again before Christmas" - Kerry's Eye, 27/11/14

Outrage at the cutting down of the Cross on Carrauntuohill is fueling determination to have the religious symbol erected again 'this side of Christmas'. Central to the decision to reinstate the cross is the approval of the four local landowners who own the land in the vicinity of the peak. Seven farmers in all own the mountain and the surrounding land...

"We now accept the cross is on private land", Mr. Hinchliffe (Atheist Ireland member, Peter) said, "we would have liked to have seen something that was not just symbolic of one part of the community but it is their land and what they put up is their choice." - Breda Joy.

Forgot to add: it appears the Gardai had to investigate the vandalism on the top of the mountain and they arrived by helicopter.

robindch

lazybones32 wrote: »

Forgot to add: it appears the Gardai had to investigate the vandalism on the top of the mountain and they arrived by helicopter.

Was it cheaper to hoist the nation's finest to the top of Carauntwohill by helicopter rather than let them climb up like the vandal(s) did?

All the same, I'm glad they're giving the time and resources that a crime of this magnitude deserves.

PopePalpatine

I wonder, how many Gardaí have been assigned to investigating the 800 or so children's remains in that septic tank in Tuam?

jank

Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange. Then we can move onto dolmens and fairy rings. Finally, stage 3 of this cultural revolution will involve cutting down any cross or crucifix that disturbs the sentiments of the easily offended. We will then be all free, secular and equal together, Kumbaya My Lord biscuit...

lazygal

jank wrote: »

Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange. Then we can move onto dolmens and fairy rings. Finally, stage 3 of this cultural revolution will involve cutting down any cross or crucifix that disturbs the sentiments of the easily offended. We will then be all free, secular and equal together, Kumbaya My Lord biscuit...

My house is on private land, but I'd still need to get planning permission if I wanted to erect a giant biscuit or Hawaiian pizza made of steel to worship. Are you forgetting about planning permission?

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange. Then we can move onto dolmens and fairy rings. Finally, stage 3 of this cultural revolution will involve cutting down any cross or crucifix that disturbs the sentiments of the easily offended. We will then be all free, secular and equal together, Kumbaya My Lord biscuit...

People keep using this sort of thing as an example. They seem to have a self importance that makes them think that a cross has the same historical importance as the likes newgrange.

A building with incredibly advanced engineering is equal to a steel cross.

Pherekydes

jank wrote: »

Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange.

What religion does Newgrange represent? I like it. We should keep it. Especially at this time of year. It's proof for the 'Jesus-is-the-reason-for-the-season' crew that they are wrong.

Midwinter has been celebrated in Ireland for five thousand years.

Delirium

jank wrote: »

Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange. Then we can move onto dolmens and fairy rings. Finally, stage 3 of this cultural revolution will involve cutting down any cross or crucifix that disturbs the sentiments of the easily offended. We will then be all free, secular and equal together, Kumbaya My Lord biscuit...

The cross was illegally cut down.

This wasn't the local council or government pulling it down.

cerastes

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I still can't believe someone managed to take an angle grinder all the way up Carrauntoohil...but I'm less surprised Google Chrome's spellchecker won't recognise it as a word. :pac:

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, someone else got a large cross all the way up there; an angle grinder was probably easier by comparison.

i'd be curious if this was an act of well planned vandalism for the sake of vandalism, or an act of well planned vandalism for the sake of making a point about ireland's relationship with a patriarchical belief system.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hate to inject a note of reality, but . . .

While the obelisk in St Peter's square was arguably stolen, it was hardly stolen by Christians or by Christianity.

It was originally erected by an unnamed Pharaoh at Heliopolis, about 2,400 BCE. The original purpose or signficance of this particular obelisk is not known, but Egyptian obelisks generally are thought to have been treated as personifications of the sun-god, and to have marked the entrances to temples.

It was taken from Heliopolis around about the time of Christ on the orders of the Emperor Augustus - not a Christian - and reerected as the centrepiece of the Julian Forum at Alexandria.

From there, it was taken to Rome in 37 CE on the orders of the Emperor Caligula - also not a Christian - and erected as an architectural feature at the centre of the Circus of Nero, which was a little to the south of where St Peter's Basilica now stands.

The Circus became the site of numerous Christian martyrdoms. The tradition that says St. Peter was one of those martyred there is questionable, but the historicity of the martyrdoms generally, and their location, is not in any doubt. The Circus was abandoned in the second century, and over time the neighbouring cemetery spilled into the area, with tombs being erected among the ruins of the circus buildings. Part of the circus was incorporated into the first St Peter's Basilica when it was erected about two hundred years later, but the obelisk stayed where it was for another 1,200 years until the new St Peter's was built, when it was moved from the south side of the Basilica to the east front, to provide the focal point for the plaza.

In so far as the oblelisk has acquired Christian signficance, it is as a "silent witness" to the martyrdom of Peter and the Roman Christian community. It is hardly fair to blame the Christians for this circumstance.

Rome, in fact, has more Egyptian obelisks than any other city in the world, and indeed almost as many as the whole of Egypt today. But they were all brought there in pre-Christian times. Romans of the late republican period were fascinated by Egypt and all things Egyptian.

Werent they tools to aid observations of the movement of astronomical/celestial bodies.

TheFarrier wrote: »

Hacksaw would take forever to take that cross out though, even an angle grinder would probably require 3/4 discs to chew it's way through it.
My first thought was a consaw, but the bit I struggle with is, we hear on the news regularly-ish about experienced climbers getting lost/stuck on carrauntoohill in broad daylight, so how in the name of jaysus did some vandal make his way up at night, with a consaw(or angle grinder), chop down a cross, and return down the mountain unscathed??

The mind boggles.

Maybe they brought it up bit by bit on a number of journeys? ie not in pieces, just do it in a few trips? might be easier to drag back down in one go? on some kind of sled?

jank

lazygal wrote: »

My house is on private land, but I'd still need to get planning permission if I wanted to erect a giant biscuit or Hawaiian pizza made of steel to worship. Are you forgetting about planning permission?

No, I have no idea if planning permission was granted 30 years ago for this cross and if not then given the time frame involved usually means the statue of limitations has expired. This cross also replaced a wooden one that was there since the 50's.

Still, this cross was on private land and whomever cut it down had no legal right or mandate to do so. I am sure even you guys can agree with that?

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

People keep using this sort of thing as an example. They seem to have a self importance that makes them think that a cross has the same historical importance as the likes newgrange.

A building with incredibly advanced engineering is equal to a steel cross.

The premise is the same. Religious iconography in public places is bad right, therefore we should get rid. Fair is fair right? Those damm fairy rings, ruining my right to be at peace!!

jank

Pherekydes wrote: »

What religion does Newgrange represent? I like it. We should keep it. Especially at this time of year. It's proof for the 'Jesus-is-the-reason-for-the-season' crew that they are wrong.

Midwinter has been celebrated in Ireland for five thousand years.

I couldn't agree more! Yet, it has a pagan religious history, therefore in the new Ireland it has to go, for secularisation sake you know.

We can get tips of the Chinese. They did a great job 40 years ago where they destroyed over 90% of religious building (monasteries, stupas, player flags etc.) in Tibet. Go visit the place sometime. I was there a few months ago and the place is dotted with ruins. Sad to see but no doubt the red army thought they were doing the ignorant natives a favour by making them more 'enlightened'!

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

The premise is the same. Religious iconography in public places is bad right, therefore we should get rid. Fair is fair right? Those damm fairy rings, ruining my right to be at peace!!

If we were talking about tearing down churches you would have a point. Its a cross, a random cross.

Penn

jank wrote: »

No, I have no idea if planning permission was granted 30 years ago for this cross and if not then given the time frame involved usually means the statue of limitations has expired. This cross also replaced a wooden one that was there since the 50's.

Yes, but it wouldn't mean a replacement cross would have planning permission. If your house burns down in a fire, you still have to go for planning permission to rebuild it, even if you're rebuilding it the exact same as the original. Not only that, but there is no "statute of limitations". If something that should have required planning has been up for 7 years, the Council cannot enforce that it be taken down or changed. However, there is still no planning permission for it, it's still against the law for it to be up, and any changes or modifications removes the 7 year enforcement period, meaning a replacement cross/structure could be ordered to be taken down by the Council.

I'm not saying this applies to the cross or anything, just more of a general note on planning laws.

kylith

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If we were talking about tearing down churches you would have a point. Its a cross, a random cross.

Exactly. No-one is talking about bulldozing Newgrange for the same reason no-one is talking about bulldozing Christchurch Cathedral or the high cross at Moone; we actually can recognise a part of Ireland's cultural history when we see it. This cross is not part of our cultural history, it is some bits of rotting metal that were put, without planning permission, on top of a mountain. If it were there for 500 years, or was a marker of some great martyrdom then there might be a case for it being part of our cultural background, but it wasn't. It stood for nothing that hasn't been stood for in more appropriate places in more aesthetic fashions.

If the landowners want a cross re-erected that's up to them. If they don't give a toss what goes up then I think something secular would be better. If they don't want anything to be put there then that's ok too.

lazybones32

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder, how many Gardaí have been assigned to investigating the 800 or so children's remains in that septic tank in Tuam?

Ahem!...2. 2 senior Gardai were assigned to review the medical records. Do you listen to the news at all? (I thought the bodies were interred beside a septic tank? That's what the Indo changed their story to anyway...)

lazygal wrote: »

My house is on private land, but I'd still need to get planning permission if I wanted to erect a giant biscuit or Hawaiian pizza made of steel to worship. Are you forgetting about planning permission?

Oh right... your objections are solely on the grounds of planning permission? You are allowed to build objects without permission, provided they don't exceed certain specifications. 25 sq. metres of new house can be added without permission - unless they've altered the regs.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If we were talking about tearing down churches you would have a point. Its a cross, a random cross.

There was nothing random about the cross appearing on top of the mountain. Members of the local community carried it up in sections by hand.

seamus

Gardai arriving by helicopter to investigate who cut down a useless steel pole on private land.

In so many ways, Father Ted was a documentary, not a comedy.

Initially I was windering why in hell AI were bothering to make any noise about this, but having seen that they were in fact asked for a comment, then I see no reason why they wouldn't express their opinion.

Let them put it back up, then make a complaint on the grounds that no PP was sought, and let them pay to pull it back down again. They won't be bothered paying to put it back up again.

Username32

robindch wrote: »

BTW, try cut down on the "you guys" kind of stuff - let's try and leave slip a little cheery winterval spirit, eh?

Or else

#veiled threat

Username32

Pherekydes wrote: »

What religion does Newgrange represent?

It represents the culture of primitive pygmies who gawked at the Sun in awe. Who probably were involved in child sacrifice and spent their lives enslaving and killing each other while building heaps of rubble for no particular good reason.

An utterly pointless mound of rubble that has no real cultural value and one that I personally find offensive.

robindch

Username32 wrote: »

Who probably were involved in child sacrifice and spent their lives enslaving and killing each other while building heaps of rubble for no particular good reason.

I'm having a hard time distinguishing that from christianity, I must say.

Username32

robindch wrote: »

I'm having a hard time distinguishing that from christianity, I must say.

We both are.

Zillah

jank wrote: »

The premise is the same. Religious iconography in public places is bad right, therefore we should get rid. Fair is fair right? Those damm fairy rings, ruining my right to be at peace!!

You're just so bitter and silly.

seamus wrote: »

Gardai arriving by helicopter to investigate who cut down a useless steel pole on private land.

In so many ways, Father Ted was a documentary, not a comedy.

There's a satirical short film to be made in this.

kylith

robindch wrote: »

I'm having a hard time distinguishing that from christianity, I must say.

The main difference is that the people who built Newgrange made a corbelled roof that is still weatherproof after five millennia, whereas my aunt's local church is constantly begging for money to fix the roof.

If it was put up in 1976 it had no particular value. Does anybody claim ownership? Let the landowner, or their insurance company, decide if they want to replace it (if it was legally put there in the first place). If the State owns the land, there are procedures to follow to decide what, if anything to put there.

Pherekydes

Username32 wrote: »

It represents the culture of primitive pygmies who gawked at the Sun in awe. Who probably were involved in child sacrifice and spent their lives enslaving and killing each other while building heaps of rubble for no particular good reason.

An utterly pointless mound of rubble that has no real cultural value and one that I personally find offensive.

Primitive? At the winter solstice, the rays of the rising sun travel down a 19 metre shaft and illuminate the central chamber. Modern humans could probably manage this feat, but would it still work in five thousand years' time? It's a true wonder of human engineering.

Mound of rubble?

They may have been sun worshippers, but that makes an awful lot more sense than worshipping an imaginary deity, who'll send you to an imaginary punishment for all eternity if you don't worship it.

ShooterSF

Username32 wrote: »

Or women?

Or men who have the right to be women?

Smiley92a

Pherekydes wrote: »

Primitive? At the winter solstice, the rays of the rising sun travel down a 19 metre shaft and illuminate the central chamber. Modern humans could probably manage this feat, but would it still work in five thousand years' time? It's a true wonder of human engineering.

Mound of rubble?

They may have been sun worshippers, but that makes an awful lot more sense than worshipping an imaginary deity, who'll send you to an imaginary punishment for all eternity if you don't worship it.

And in fairness, we'd probably die without the sun.

Zillah

Pherekydes wrote: »

Primitive? At the winter solstice, the rays of the rising sun travel down a 19 metre shaft and illuminate the central chamber. Modern humans could probably manage this feat, but would it still work in five thousand years' time?

Yes.

Let's not get carried away. Newgrange is only impressive because it was made with primitive tools. We could today engineer something similar that is accurate to within microns and would stand for a million years without outside interference. Materials science is pretty damn fancy these days.

Cabaal

Username32 wrote: »

It represents the culture of primitive.... .

And yet they could seriously accurately map the passage of the sun, a related culture also transported 20-40 tonne stone 100s of miles to build the likes of stone henge.

And sure while we're at it, the former inhabitants of Skara Brae were thick as ****e.

Yeah, they hadn't a clue at all......any other Misinformed comments you want to make?

It's pretty disrespectful and ignorant for anyone in this country to try compare some cross made of modern metal or concrete made anytime within the last 100 years as somehow equal to the likes of new Grange.

Hell, it's ignorant to suggest that such crosses are even equal to a standing stone in a field. The standing stone has far more culture and historical importance behind it.

These crosses blight much of Irelands mountain tops and most were only resurrected from 50s onwards, out of the 3 recent mountains I've been on in the last 4 weeks there was a cross on each and all three put up after the 50s.

It seems the beauty of our countryside isn't enough for some people, they'd rather blight it with concrete and metal.

For people that think these crosses have historical importance then I put forward that we also waste money preserving the remains of old TV masts that also blight many of Irelands mountains.

After all, they are decades old, helped millions of people over the years and are also made of ugly concrete and metal. There's nothing like seeing a old TV transmitter to make you appreciate the beauty of a mountain you visit.

Username32

Cabaal wrote: »

It seems the beauty of our countryside isn't enough for some people, they'd rather blight it with concrete and metal.

I am hurt.

magicbastarder

Username32 wrote: »

one that I personally find offensive.

well, there's a new wrinkle. someone who is offended by the existence of newgrange.

Username32

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, there's a new wrinkle. someone who is offended by the existence of newgrange.

I am offended by Newgrange- its a reminder of the utter primitiveness and stupidity of ancient people. Obsessed with worshiping the sun when at the same time enslaving and torturing women and children. Savages.

Picking and choosing levels of stupidity/validity between spaghetti monster belief systems because some speak to the cultural fashion of the time while others don't is not something I'm willing to do. they are all stupid, all offensive and all deserve the ax or angle grinder.

Username32

Pherekydes wrote: »

They may have been sun worshippers, but that makes an awful lot more sense than worshipping an imaginary deity, who'll send you to an imaginary punishment for all eternity if you don't worship it.

These people buried their tools with them cause they thought they would need them in their next life. They were misguided stupid savages. Who built big mounds using slaves they tortured and beat to death.

shruikan2553

I have a feeling someone is trying to prove a point but I am still not seeing it.

Zillah

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I have a feeling someone is trying to prove a point but I am still not seeing it.

He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.

Username32

Zillah wrote: »

He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.

He?

Zillah

Sorry! "It".

Username32

Zillah wrote: »

He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.

Busted- no seriously as someone already said- fighting a battle like objecting to the cross- is pretty stupid IMHO.

Others have made the point already but it just that the atheists who object look like zealots-

And as an atheist-getting into making value judgement s about the validity or otherwise of these kind of places just leads people looking pretty thick.

And I consider myself having a broadly secular perspective on these kind of things.

People define/understand/come to know their values according to the age they live in- 1975 Ireland was a theocracy-but most ordinary people were complicit in this. This is a symbol of that time- which had a particular meaning for these people.

Meanings of particular symbols change over time though, are reinterpreted and take on new meanings. I am not going to be blind to the potential of any symbol to be able to be reinterpreted, re-understood and take on a new kind of value- because of my contempt for a particular religion. Now some might argue that its only a big hunk of metal and so it is, but I am not arrogant enough to make artistic or cultural value judgement on such a things with the value of hind-site and then cheer at the site of such vandalism. Are you?

Username32

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry! "It".

Ouch, ah now no need for the personal attacks.

Smiley92a

Username32 wrote: »

I am not arrogant enough to make artistic or cultural value judgement on such a things with the value of hind-site...

Why not? Artistic and cultural value exist only in the mind, you can have an opinion like anyone else. There's no reason we can't re-interpret some work of art further down the line. After all, it took academia a hundred years to decide Jane Austen was good.

Similarly, the cross on the mountain might have had positive connotations in 1975, but have lost it's sheen as the years went on and the meaning of Catholicism changed for many people. Perhaps what was once affirming became uncomfortable. The act of cutting the cross down was also symbolic. I'm not inclined to call it 'mindless' vandalism, considering how laborious it must have been, the sort of people who smash street furniture on their way home from a club usually aren't that motivated. It would have been unthinkable to cut the cross down in the 70s, but few people really cared now. I'll be very interested to see if the money or will can be found to put it back up.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure indeed that "us guys" not only can agree on that, but probably do agree on that, given that it appears to be pretty the opinion, direct or implied, of just about every poster in this thread.

BTW, try cut down on the "you guys" kind of stuff - let's try and leave slip a little cheery winterval spirit, eh?

BTW^2, it's "whoever cut it down", not "whomever cut it down". See here.

#gladtohelp!

You just can't help yourself can you Robin. What you did just there would have earned you a card in practically every other forum on boards including AH. But we all know where my reported post in this forum will go Dear Leader.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63152137#post63152137

Hotblack Desiato

Smiley92a wrote: »

After all, it took academia a hundred years to decide Jane Austen was good.

She's possibly the most rubbish author in the English language.

J Mysterio

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure indeed that "us guys" not only can agree on that, but probably do agree on that, given that it appears to be pretty the opinion, direct or implied, of just about every poster in this thread.

BTW, try cut down on the "you guys" kind of stuff - let's try and leave slip a little cheery winterval spirit, eh?

BTW^2, it's "whoever cut it down", not "whomever cut it down". See here.

#gladtohelp!

So helpful.