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

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.