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

J Mysterio

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.

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.

So vindictive, as so many here seem to be. Nasty group of self righteous people.

J Mysterio

Smiley92a wrote: »

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.

Would you call it vandalism?

It's people like these in this grouping that gleefully participate in events such as book burnings. Its clear most here would not need much encouragement.

Ironic that.another poster previously said 'Username 32' was 'bitter' when it is clear said poster is purely showing a level of tolerance you barbarians cannot appreciate.

Smiley92a

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

I'll see your Jane Austen and raise you a Stephanie Myer. Although now you mention it, Pride and Prejudice did bore the arse off me, and I never read any of her other books after being introduced to her in college, so...

I don't know if I'd call the destruction of the cross 'vandalism' because I really don't care. If you do care about the Church and it's symbols then you might call it vandalism. I'm sure you'll find someone on here who'll argue that the erection of the cross on Carrauntoohil was itself an act of vandalism.

And I'm not in the habit of burning books. Maybe I should get into it, they're starting to pile up. I'm sure I bought a dieting book at some point, that's definitely being used as a firelighter next time I see it.

Turtwig

Mod:

Zillah wrote: »

You're just so bitter and silly.



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

Zillah wrote: »

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

Keep accusations of trolling to reported posts or pm.
Attack the post not the poster.

Username32 wrote: »

He?

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry! "It".

No more snipes.

Shake hands please and start over.

jank wrote: »

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

I) after hours charter is not a and a. Your link is pointless.
ii) This is back seat moderation. Something you've been warned about before. Given the context I'm letting it slide but be advised I have no obligation to do so. To borrow from your own hyperlink that would mean your post warranted a card.
iii) I do feel you have a legitimate grievance. Not the way to go about resolving it and you're here long enough to know that.
So how bout Rob apologies to you?
You apologies to me.
We both share our biscuits and express our anger at the removal of the jelly star?

As a side note, I'm not in favour of considering every correction of grammar, grammar Nazism. Otherwise I'd still be saying intensive purposes. (Thanks bluey!)

J Mysterio wrote: »

So helpful.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Would you call it vandalism?

It's people like these in this grouping that gleefully participate in events such as book burnings. Its clear most here would not need much encouragement.

Ironic that.another poster previously said 'Username 32' was 'bitter' when it is clear said poster is purely showing a level of tolerance you barbarians cannot appreciate.

You clearly need to reconsider the tone and style of your posts. Otherwise your stay here will be a short one.

Here endth the mod warning
(All from a smartphone too. Now, back to Bones!)

obplayer

Smiley92a wrote: »

I'll see your Jane Austen and raise you a Stephanie Myer. Although now you mention it, Pride and Prejudice did bore the arse off me, and I never read any of her other books after being introduced to her in college, so...

I don't know if I'd call the destruction of the cross 'vandalism' because I really don't care. If you do care about the Church and it's symbols then you might call it vandalism. I'm sure you'll find someone on here who'll argue that the erection of the cross on Carrauntoohil was itself an act of vandalism.

And I'm not in the habit of burning books. Maybe I should get into it, they're starting to pile up. I'm sure I bought a dieting book at some point, that's definitely being used as a firelighter next time I see it.

You can't burn books!!! My favourite part of 'The Day After Tomorrow' is when they are about to burn books in the library, someone objects and they compromise with law books. At a pinch I'd allow that.

lazybones32

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.

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.

Yes, the Gardai arriving by helicopter is beyond satire but they are duty bound to investigate criminal acts within the republic. The fact that the cross was pulled towards a steep verge and that a plaque was removed (stolen) from the scene, technically, makes this a criminal case.

AI (that doesn't stand for artificial Intelligence) can't seem to help themselves... they suffer from foot in mouth 'disease'. They make themselves look foolish...and I say that as a man who's been drinking since 6 pm.

Zillah

Turtwig wrote: »

Keep accusations of trolling to reported posts or pm.
Attack the post not the poster.

No more snipes.

Shake hands please and start over.

I'm sorry, normally I only let Robin spank me. I would have thought we'd have an introduction before you jumped right into it.

Cabaal

Username32 wrote: »

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.

Yeah!
Worshipping a half dead 2000 year old man on a cross is so much more advanced, we live in the future!

Molester Stallone II

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah!
Worshipping a half dead 2000 year old man on a cross is so much more advanced, we live in the future!

He's only half dead? You mean we have another 2000 years of this rubbish?! Ah no, tell me you're joking please!

swampgas

lazybones32 wrote: »

"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.

This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners. This isn't an anonymous field in Kerry, this is the highest mountain in the state, and more of a public amenity than anything else.

I believe that everyone in the country can have an interest in the way Carrauntoohil is managed, and ultimately it should not be up to a few private individuals what religion (if any) is allowed to stamp its identity on it.

chrysagon

swampgas wrote: »

This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners. This isn't an anonymous field in Kerry, this is the highest mountain in the state, and more of a public amenity than anything else.

I believe that everyone in the country can have an interest in the way Carrauntoohil is managed, and ultimately it should not be up to a few private individuals what religion (if any) is allowed to stamp its identity on it.

Im just surprised planners didnt allow permission for a council estate up there during the boom!!

lazybones32

swampgas wrote: »

This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners. This isn't an anonymous field in Kerry, this is the highest mountain in the state, and more of a public amenity than anything else.

I believe that everyone in the country can have an interest in the way Carrauntoohil is managed, and ultimately it should not be up to a few private individuals what religion (if any) is allowed to stamp its identity on it.

The reality is that the mountains and land are mostly in private ownership: the vast majority of farmers/owners allow people access but there's always the one who won't. If the State were responsible for the mountains, would they also be held responsible for any accidents that happen on them?

How come the Cross on Car. wasn't an issue 2 months ago but now it is seen as a direct front to atheists and non-Catholics? It was there - in some shape or form for 60 years - and didn't merit mention. Now people are acting as if the RCC put the cross there as a mark of ownership and are forcing everyone who climbs the mountain to venerate the cross.
After this, I have more respect for the environmentalists who objected to the re-erection on grounds of spoiling the 'purity' of the mountain, than I have for the atheists* who are trying to hide behind planning permission to mask their anti-theist position. Such a tolerant, liberal and open-minded group indeed.


*the bitter minority

recedite

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

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. 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. That, it seems to me, is actually the best case scenario of concerning oneself with religious symbols and other such sentimental codology instead of the important stuff.

I see your point here, but its a false dichotomy. Statues and monuments in previous centuries were often put up to celebrate victories, ie one man or nation dominating another. Often a military man on a horse, or on a pedestal. These crosses we have around the place now are similar, in that they were put up during the 20th century to reflect the dominating effect of one religion.

I agree that most of the shiny steel sculptures put up since then are meaningless tacky crap, only agreed on by committees because they are seen to be "innocuous" things that nobody can object to.
But there are alternatives. We could glorify peacemakers, scientists, people who invented things or cured diseases. Or we could put up more "popular art" such as the Molly Malone piece in Dublin.

At the summit of Lugnaquillia there is a stone cairn and a horizontal brass plate. On it, all the directions of the compass are marked, and the names of the various other mountains and feature views to be seen in each direction are named.
So I think this is a good feature; it provides a focal point that marks the top, and it has some interest and useful value to all the people who make it to the summit. Its a secular feature, because secularism is all about inclusivity, not domination.

fisgon

lazybones32 wrote: »

Now people are acting as if the RCC put the cross there as a mark of ownership and are forcing everyone who climbs the mountain to venerate the cross.

After this, I have more respect for the environmentalists who objected to the re-erection on grounds of spoiling the 'purity' of the mountain, than I have for the atheists* who are trying to hide behind planning permission to mask their anti-theist position. Such a tolerant, liberal and open-minded group indeed.

*the bitter minority

I am sure that we are devastated that we don't have your respect.

I am really not clear how tolerance and open-mindedness is relevant in this discussion. The fact is that erecting a religious symbol in any place is an attempt to claim ownership. We put religious symbols on religious places, if you place a religious symbol in a non-religious setting, what you are clearly saying is "this is ours". Especially putting it on top of a mountain, so it can be seen from a long distance, it is an attempt in some way to claim ownership of the mountain, and the surrounding area for one particular belief system.

A cross is a christian symbol, it is not neutral.

(And I think you will find that if you are religious in this country, you are in the clear minority.)

Brian Shanahan

gammygils wrote: »

Some madman has cut down a cross

Whoever did it was probably saner than those who put it up in the first place. The odds are that he or she is not following rules imposed upon them by their imaginary friend.

Brian Shanahan

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.

And people who bring this up constantly neglect two things, 1) we don't know for certain whether the Newgrange site and others like it had a specifically religious meaning. For all we know they could have been simply royal bowers built to a very high spec, and 2) we don't keep Newgrange et al around for their religious meaning (it is because of their perceived religious meaning that they were neglected for hundreds of years and often looted after christianity came onto our shores), but for the highly significant cultural, historical and archaelogical impact. Newgrange alone, as the oldest freestanding building in the world has a worldwide significance as important as the likes of the Pyramids in Egypt (a fact attested to by it being the main reason for Bru na Boine being a UNESCO world heritage site).

The fact is religion has next to nothing to do with us honouring Newgrange, no more than it has anything to do with us honouring St. John's Castle, or the Germans honouring the Roman remains of Koln.

recedite

swampgas wrote: »

This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners.

I would agree with this. The reality is that most high mountains in Ireland are commonage. Its a kind of joint ownership by default, which is allocated to the various people who farm the arable land lower down. Historically it meant all these named families had the right to graze their sheep on the mountain. Its not "private ownership" in the normal sense of the word, even though it means technically the owners have the legal right to block public access.
In other countries like Scotland and the Scandinavian countries they have a public "right to roam" over mountain land and wild country. Basically, they have the concept of "commonage", but they extend common rights to all citizens, not just the locals.

We could have that here too, if enough people wanted it.

Brian Shanahan

Zillah wrote: »

We could today engineer something similar that is accurate to within microns and would stand for a million years without outside interference.

No it wouldn't, with the possible exception of it being placed on the moon (and with meteor impacts, that is a chancy possibility). If human civilisation died off in the morning, there would be little remaining other than ruins of the foundations by a thousand years, just like Ramsses's statue in Shelly's poem.

Pherekydes

Username32 wrote: »

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.

Jeez, some people still think there's a next life now!

And the RCC was enslaving women here in the 1970s. And stealing their babies. To be sold abroad.

J Mysterio

:pac:

Zillah

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it wouldn't, with the possible exception of it being placed on the moon (and with meteor impacts, that is a chancy possibility). If human civilisation died off in the morning, there would be little remaining other than ruins of the foundations by a thousand years, just like Ramsses's statue in Shelly's poem.

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Perhaps our generation being somehow arrogant and doomed to be forgotten syncs nicely with some ideological position that you've taken but the physics doesn't support you.

Smiley92a

Zillah wrote: »

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Perhaps our generation being somehow arrogant and doomed to be forgotten syncs nicely with some ideological position that you've taken but the physics doesn't support you.

Well, most modern buildings were built under the assumption that there would be someone around to maintain them, but that's been the assumption behind most buildings throughout history. The people who built Newgrange didn't actually live in it after all, they probably lived in wooden houses that have since disappeared. There are probably plenty of modern structures that will last a very long time unmaintained. There are still old Nazi bunkers dotting Germany because no one can find any economical way to get rid of them.

I suppose what's impressive about Newgrange isn't so much it's survival so much as what it represents, a vast amount of effort and labor spent on something not strictly necessary, and because it offers a glimpse of a society we know frustratingly little about.

And it also attracts tourists It's actually been tarted up immensely; that pristine white exterior is new. The pictures from around the 60s just show a heap of earth with a tunnel leading into it.

I'd recommend watching Life After People some time. Just don't watch it if you're feeling upset about anything.... Actually, I wonder, do you think the existence of a documentary like that has something to do with a pervading sense of pessimism to this generation? It's definitely a pessimistic show, investigating what would happen to the remains of human civilization if we all just died out one day. It even focuses on how people's pet's would die.

kylith

Username32 wrote: »

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.

I am actually very interested in learning more about Newgrange. Can you provide a link to the information about it being built by slaves who were tortured and beaten to death as I have never heard of this?

Hotblack Desiato

Anyway, the ugly fcukin' yoke is back up

expectationlost

that was quick https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/538771604734763008

nifty bit of engineering there

Cabaal

kylith wrote: »

I am actually very interested in learning more about Newgrange. Can you provide a link to the information about it being built by slaves who were tortured and beaten to death as I have never heard of this?

I'd also be interested to see evidence to back up these claims of slaves worked to death etc (am sure OPW would be interested also) , of course failure to provide such creditable evidence means the claims are full of ****e.

Recently watched some docs on stone henge no claims of slaves involved in that. So doubtful of slaves involved in Newgrange.

lazygal

expectationlost wrote: »

that was quick https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/538771604734763008

nifty bit of engineering there

You'd think an all-powerful deity wouldn't need it to reerect his trademark branding symbol.

expectationlost

is the cross now crucifixion ready?

lazygal

expectationlost wrote: »

is the cross now crucifixion ready?

Maybe David Quinn or Breda O'Brien could take it for a test run to please their maker

shruikan2553

expectationlost wrote: »

is the cross now crucifixion ready?

At least if you are being crucified you don't have to look at it.

Pangea

.

Molester Stallone II

So, no planning permission here either?

Zillah

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, most modern buildings were built under the assumption that there would be someone around to maintain them, but that's been the assumption behind most buildings throughout history. The people who built Newgrange didn't actually live in it after all, they probably lived in wooden houses that have since disappeared. There are probably plenty of modern structures that will last a very long time unmaintained. There are still old Nazi bunkers dotting Germany because no one can find any economical way to get rid of them.

I suppose what's impressive about Newgrange isn't so much it's survival so much as what it represents, a vast amount of effort and labor spent on something not strictly necessary, and because it offers a glimpse of a society we know frustratingly little about.

And it also attracts tourists It's actually been tarted up immensely; that pristine white exterior is new. The pictures from around the 60s just show a heap of earth with a tunnel leading into it.

I'd recommend watching Life After People some time. Just don't watch it if you're feeling upset about anything.... Actually, I wonder, do you think the existence of a documentary like that has something to do with a pervading sense of pessimism to this generation? It's definitely a pessimistic show, investigating what would happen to the remains of human civilization if we all just died out one day. It even focuses on how people's pet's would die.

A huge amount of our civilisation would dissolve into dust and be eaten by forests within a lifetime if we vanished, absolutely; but various concrete, marble and metallic structures would dot the earth unassailed for ages hence.

And that would just be incidental survival. If we built something planning for it to last as long as humanly possible, like a neo-Newgrange, built from the right ceramics or some other hard, chemically inert material it would outlast anything built by the ancients.

Newgrange is impressive because they were neolithic people, not because there's anything especially difficult about piling a bunch of stones together.

Bonedigger

Username32 wrote: »

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.

Username32 wrote: »

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.

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd also be interested to see evidence to back up these claims of slaves worked to death etc (am sure OPW would be interested also) , of course failure to provide such creditable evidence means the claims are full of ****e.

Recently watched some docs on stone henge no claims of slaves involved in that. So doubtful of slaves involved in Newgrange.

Come on guys,give Username32 a chance please!
Following the exhaustive search for excavation funding,a licensed excavation approval from the Minister for Arts,Heritage and the Gaeltacht,the excavation of Newgrange itself,and the much anticipated excavation findings and report,it's going to be some time before we'll get our answer!:rolleyes:
It's funny though that M.J. O'Kelly found no evidence of slave involvement in the construction of Newgrange,nor was evidence found to support Username32's assertion that women and children were tortured by these "savages" either.I think we know someone's speaking bull's squirt!
The neolithic astronomers and mathematicians who conceived of Newgrange were far from stupid.
I had a good chuckle when I read our friend is "offended by Newgrange".:D

recedite

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

So, no planning permission here either?

As they are only fixing the existing cross, as opposed to installing a new one, they don't need it.
I have to say, well done to those lads for their ingenuity, even if I don't support their cause. It looks like they spent very little money on the repair.

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born

shruikan2553

recedite wrote: »

As they are only fixing the existing cross, as opposed to installing a new one, they don't need it.
I have to say, well done to those lads for their ingenuity, even if I don't support their cause. It looks like they hauled up their own gear, and spent little or no money, unlike the gardai who were investigating.

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born

The challenge is who can cut down the biggest cross

lazygal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The challenge is who can cut down the biggest cross

Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park?

recedite

The Kerry jig; you step in and I step out again...

(thanks to SW for the pic)

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The challenge is who can cut down the biggest cross

As somebody who grew up in an era where anti-christs were generally of the liberal variety, this particular example of anti-christian religious intolerance, criminal damage and wanton vandalism surprises me.
We are supposed to live in a pluralist society, that respects diversity and the rule of law.
There is a very good reason why police take the destruction of religious symbols and property very seriously and it is because such property is a proxy for the people to whom the religious symbol belongs - and it is a relatively short step to move from violence against a person's property to violence against the person themselves.

Molester Stallone II

recedite wrote: »

As they are only fixing the existing cross, as opposed to installing a new one, they don't need it.
I have to say, well done to those lads for their ingenuity, even if I don't support their cause. It looks like they spent very little money on the repair.

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born

No planning permission for the original either.

recedite

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

No planning permission for the original either.

Yes but it was common for people to build stuff without PP up until quite recently. Often they just applied for retention afterwards. Something built back in the 70's would be considered legit after all this time, even if they had never looked for retention.
AFAIK the first house to be knocked because it was built without PP was about 2003, and there have only ever been a handful since. One or two court ordered demolitions as examples, was all it took to put an end to the practice.

Check out this, its our friends the Healy Raes encouraging people to ignore the planning laws.
It was the junior version of Healy Rae that was quoted earlier in this thread, I think, ranting about the anti-christ who felled the cross.

J C

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

No planning permission for the original either.

If there is a planning issue then the appropriate planning authorities are the only people who should be involved in resolving it.

recedite wrote:

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born.

This particular 'sport' based on gross religious intolerance, needs to be brought to an immediate end by rapidly apprehending the perpetrator(s) and letting the criminal justice system take its course.

I should have thought that the leaders of Atheism should be the first to condemn this, given that they claim to be liberal respecters of diversity and promoters of pluralism.
You can't get something more crass and disrespectful of diversity than the willful destruction of the cultural and religious symbol of a substantial section of the community - and I would say the very same if somebody had attacked and destroyed a symbol of any other religion or indeed a monument of significance to the atheist community for that matter.
Of course, we don't know who did this or what their motivation might have been ... but the fact that the people on the A & A seem to be publicly supporting it is both shocking and surprising.

Molester Stallone II

J C wrote: »

If there is a planning issue then the appropriate planning authorities are the only people who should be involved in resolving it..

Well, no, the people erecting the cross should be the only people involved. They haven't approached the kcc for permission as yet

PopePalpatine

I suppose if a councillor in KCC tried to raise an objection, they'd be denounced from the pulpit tomorrow (or any other Sunday) morning.

recedite

J C wrote: »

You can't get something more crass and disrespectful of diversity than the willful destruction of the cultural and religious symbol of a substantial section of the community - and I would say the very same if somebody had attacked and destroyed a symbol of any other religion or indeed a secular monument, for that matter.

I'd be the first to condemn somebody who cut down a cross from the top of a church, or a crescent on a mosque. But when the symbol is placed somewhere that I consider to be rightfully a place shared by everybody, then I feel that it is fair game. Even if the summit of Irelands highest mountain is technically in private ownership, it shouldn't be. It should be like a beach; owned by nobody. Nobody can own a beach in Ireland, unlike some other countries.

J C

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Well, no, the people erecting the cross should be the only people involved. They haven't approached the kcc for permission as yet

If there is a planning issue then the appropriate planning authorities are the only people who should be involved in resolving it.

Nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands and start attacking structures that they have a personal objection to.
... and if they do, they should get no support from any law-abiding person.

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Historic sculpture? It was put up in 1976 and is an eyesore..

You are correct that it is not a historic sculpture, but the matter of it being an eyesore is subjective opinion.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

Why shouldn't AI have an opinion on this? Everyone else does. Being an atheist organisation after all its not too much of a surprise that AI don't agree with crosses or other religious icons being placed on mountains. What do people expect them to say when asked?

Personally I don't care either way, its not a place I plan to ever visit so its not really on my radar but it does highlight the wider issue of how religion is represented in society. Crosses etc should only be seen in places of faith, there is absolutely no reason why a cross needs to be on a mountain or why grottos should be in villages or any of that other kind of stuff. My home town has a massive stone cross as you enter which is fine for the Catholics but it doesn't speak for me or represent me or the many other people from that town of other faiths and none. It shouldn't bother me but it does irritate me at times. There is a huge church down the road, by far the biggest building in the entire town ( like in most towns and villages ). Is that not enough?

I am in two minds about this cross being replaced, some of these structures are as much about history as they are about faith and its kinda letting the vandals win but I don't know - crosses on mountains? Seems a bit of religious overkill.

Surely religious belief or the lack of it shouldn't come into this. Something was vandalised; it was put back up, which is good, because it means the vandal didn't win. I don't care if it was a cross or a giant Mickey Mouse; what I object to is the wanton vandalism.

katydid

FullblownRose wrote: »

Who says it was an angle grinder? I would have thought, hacksaw.

You'd be up there a long time cutting that down with a hacksaw.

J C

recedite wrote: »

I'd be the first to condemn somebody who cut down a cross from the top of a church, or a crescent on a mosque. But when the symbol is placed somewhere that I consider to be rightfully a place shared by everybody, then I feel that it is fair game. Even if the summit of Irelands highest mountain is technically in private ownership, it shouldn't be. It should be like a beach; owned by nobody. Nobody can own a beach in Ireland, unlike in some countries.

The rule of law is what marks a civilized society ... and this case, involves a crime that is aggravated by its religious motivation.
The talk about cutting down crosses on this thread isn't confined to Carrauntoohil ... it has already spread to a proposal to cut down the Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park

lazygal wrote: »

Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park?

... and if cross destruction were to become an established practice, I see no reason why it wouldn't spread to cutting down crosses publicly displayed on churches or indeed crescents on mosques either.
To prevent this eventuality, a quick response from the criminal justice system should nip this particularly nasty type of religiously-motivated vandalism in the bud.
... and all law-abiding persons should assist the police in doing this.