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

Dades

J C wrote: »

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.

Ah now J C, to suggest that people here support the vandalism is simply not true. There's support for not having big crosses on mountains but that's not the same thing. I've seen some banter but nothing more.

J C wrote: »

You are now adding insult to injury, by comparing a Christian Cross to a 'giant Mickey' ... and if this is the kind of blasphemous stuff that people like you want to say to our Christian children, when ye take over the schools of Ireland, then ye must be joking.

Your usual sense of humour has deserted you. That wasn't even the suggestion.

Also, we'd like the dept of eduction to take over the schools. No religious or non religious organisation should have anything to do there.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

And the crucifix? The symbol of the worst punishment the Roman Empire could devise? Nope, I think we are celebrating Roman / Pagan things here.:D

This wasn't a crucifix ... it was a cross, the symbol of Christianity for all Christians.

... and how or why it was cut down is one thing ... but the supportive reaction on the A &A that all publicly displayed crosses should receive a similar fate prompts me to ask who exactly do you guys think ye are?

The people of Ireland are tolerant respectful people who believe in true pluralism including the public expression of all religions and none.

Ye guys seem to be advocating the criminal destruction and vandalism of religious symbols
... and ye seem to believe that all Christians are complete fools, if Challengemaster represents your views ... and nobody has challenged what he has said yet.

kylith

katydid wrote: »

Nope, we celebrate Christmas and Easter, which are based on pagan festivals. But they are Christian festivals.

Not everyone does. I don't, for a start. I would be unlikely to celebrate them regardless of what they were called.

I'd even argue with the claim that Ireland is a mainly Christian country. 80% might have put Catholic on the census, but 10% of them don't even believe in god, and only 34% go to mass. Which works out at (forgive me if my maths is wrong, it's 1am) 27% of the country being practising Catholics. Not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. The census question should really be 'What religion are you a practising member of'.

challengemaster

J C wrote: »

The people of Ireland are tolerant respectful people who believe in true pluralism including the public expression of all religions and none.

You keep saying this, yet somehow it seems to be going way over your head that erecting crosses in public places is neither tolerant nor respectful towards people who do not share the same belief.

J C

Dades wrote: »

Ah now J C, to suggest that people here support the vandalism is simply not true. There's support for not having big crosses on mountains but that's not the same thing. I've seen some banter but nothing more.

The fact is that the cross on Carrauntoohill was vandalized ... and not only was this not condemned by you guys ... it was justified ... and not only that ... proposals were made to vandalise other crosses, like the Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park ... and the Christian Cross was compared to a penis (or a 'giant Mickey' as it was crudely termed).

Dades wrote: »

Your usual sense of humour has deserted you. That wasn't even the suggestion.

This is serious stuff, as it impinges on the rights of everyone in our society (of all religions and none) and indeed the rule of law.
... and there was a suggestion that a Cross is as offensive as a public display of a penis and I have dealt with this here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93247222&postcount=178

Dades wrote: »

Also, we'd like the dept of eduction to take over the schools. No religious or non religious organisation should have anything to do there.

Parents have legal responsibility and authority for the education of their minor children. Ironically, I would wish my children to have a broad liberal secular education, (respectful of all religions and none) like I had.
However, when I see such deeply antichrist stuff (advocacy for the destruction of crosses not challenged) emanating from a forum that seems to be representative of current secular opinion, it certainly makes me consider other solutions for my children's education other than an illiberal secular one.

... and BTW who is the 'we' who would like the dept of education to take over the schools (with a view to removing all religious influence from them)?
... many atheists protest that they aren't members of any organisation of atheists ... yet you are saying that some group of people, to whom you belong, are campaigning for the displacement of all religion from all schools.

J C

challengemaster wrote: »

You keep saying this, yet somehow it seems to be going way over your head that erecting crosses in public places is neither tolerant nor respectful towards people who do not share the same belief.

I don't see this at all ... true tolerance is respecting the right of others with whom you disagree to express themselves ... it isn't, as you suggest the suppression of this right on the spurious basis that they aren't being respectful towards you, by a reasonable expression of their faith.
I think the public display of a cross or a crescent, or indeed any other religious symbol is a reasonable expression of faith, that shouldn't cause offense to any person of tolerance and goodwill.

Turtwig

Mod:

JC, do NOT post in this thread again!

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:



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!)

Apologies for the back seat modding.

J Mysterio

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:

JC, do NOT post in this thread again!

Why?

Why is he singled out? His points seem reasoned and respectable. He seems to be keen to engage in thoughtful debate as much if not more so than the majority of the posters in this thread.

J Mysterio

I thought the whole point of Atheism was to be somewhat indifferent to religion etc? Not too get over excited by other peoples religious dogma and its accompaniments.

When I was 12 or 13 I realised I didn't identify with Christianity and considered I may be an atheist. However, If the views represented here are representative of how most atheists behave I will have to find another term with which to describe myself as the majority (not all) of atheists on display appear to be loathsome and embittered. Almost acting as if those who have faith should be persecuted for having some sort of naive comfort. Worse than that: their monuments should be destroyed and can then be laughed at. How horribly nasty that is, no matter what the justification i.e. 'their naivety'.

Really, I find the whole idea of atheists grouping together, as in 'AI', to be totally ludicrous. How does that work? 'We identify as a group as we don't believe in other peoples groups (i.e. religion)'? That's a very tenuous affiliation. I had always thought atheists to be liberal, open minded, individualistic and accepting.

Why can't people live and let live. Can you not see the irony of railing against the catholic church for abuses and then behaving like animals yourselves?

Is it ok to be destructive and negative if it is anti religion rather than pro religion?

Turtwig

Mod:

Mysterio,

This isn't the place for discussing moderation.

It's also not the thread for your opinions on atheists which you are basically soap boxing at this stage anyway. This thread is not your soapbox.

Either post something constructive or relevant. Or don't post at all.

Future posts in this thread by you may be edited or deleted at a moderators discretion.
Consider this fair warning.
Please heed it.

Saipanne

So, now that the storm has passed. Has it been actually proved that the cross was *cut by vandals*?

Gordon

Just to clarify the ridiculous Mickey/phallus froth, this is actually how it started.

recedite wrote: »

katydid wrote: »

I don't care if it was a cross or a giant Mickey Mouse; what I object to is the wanton vandalism.

Do you not think putting up a giant Mickey in a scenic area would be vandalism?

weisses

kylith wrote: »

I'd even argue with the claim that Ireland is a mainly Christian country. 80% might have put Catholic on the census, but 10% of them don't even believe in god, and only 34% go to mass. Which works out at (forgive me if my maths is wrong, it's 1am) 27% of the country being practising Catholics. Not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. The census question should really be 'What religion are you a practising member of'.

I have to disagree ... Being christian does not automatically mean being Catholic

Religion means different things to different people. It can have to do with beliefs (such as belief in God) and practices (like church attendance and prayer) but also with religious orthodoxy, that is, whether people follow church teachings or not. Let’s begin with beliefs.
The three measures include – a belief in God, hell, and life after death. These relate to generic Christian beliefs rather than distinctly Catholic precepts. The survey in the 1970s, showed that 95 per cent of respondents said they believed in God. Move on to more recent times, and looking internationally, how does this compare. In the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2008, it was found that 90 per cent believed in God, representing just a 5 per cent drop.
With regard to a belief in hell, 51 per cent of respondents in the 1973–74 survey said they believed in it, compared to 50 per cent in 2008. Whereas in the 1970s, 65 per cent of respondents said they believed in life after death, in 2008, 75 per cent believed in this.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-is-ireland-a-nation-of-a-la-carte-catholics-861758-Apr2013/

Cabaal

weisses wrote: »

I have to disagree ... Being christian does not automatically mean being Catholic
/[/url]

Ok so, but clearly these people identify themselves as Catholic on the census... Not Christian.

Yet many don't believe a god exists, don't believe the eating Jesus bit and certainly have no interest in listening or reading any sort of scriptures. I doubt they even own bibles.

weisses

challengemaster wrote: »

You keep saying this, yet somehow it seems to be going way over your head that erecting crosses in public places is neither tolerant nor respectful towards people who do not share the same belief.

Can you describe how this is In-tolerant and disrespectful ?

As a non believer I could see your reaction to this issue as one of intolerance and disrespect as well

kandoola

Im athiest.
I dont bother myself worrying about other peoples beliefs and let them believe what they like.
They really dont have any effect on me at all in my daily life. They cause me no harm, i cause them no harm.
Live and let live.

Now thats out of the way.
I like an aul cross on the top of a mountain. I think it looks nice and I like climbing up to it.
I read no religious significance at all into it being in the shape of a cross.
If someone else wants to then thats ok with me too.

Cabaal

weisses wrote: »

Can you describe how this is In-tolerant and disrespectful ?

Not everyone sees crosses as wholesome icons.

To many it represents a history obsession, death, oppression and rape. It's a icon used by a deeply backward organisation that continuous to cause needless deaths throughout the world, allowed criminals to go unpunished and is happy to openly advertise that they see half the world's population as simply inferior. Not to mention that they are happy to deny many equal rights.

The oppression of the religion that uses the cross as its icon in ireland continuous to this day in ireland towards children in this country and our health case system.

It's not an icon of hope to everyone,

Most of these ugly mountain crosses were put up in the catholuc religious year in the 1950s, they represent the Catholic Church.

Dades

J Mysterio wrote: »

Why can't people live and let live.

Because the church in this country does not.

When the state ends forced indoctrination in our schools I'll happily hang up my atheist-online hat and get on with something else. Do you think it's right that non-believers have to pretend to be catholic to get into schools?

Cabaal

kandoola wrote: »

Im athiest.
I dont bother myself worrying about other peoples beliefs and let them believe what they like.
They really dont have any effect on me at all in my daily life. They cause me no harm, i cause them no harm.
Live and let live.

Yeah, yeah you're right those Catholics don't have an affect on daily life

It's not like none Catholics can be refused entry to state funded schools because they are not Catholic, gay nurses can be fired from state funded hospitals for being gay or certain medical treatment can be denied being made available because it goes against religious ethos in state funded hospitals.

All these things are on religious grounds,

You think it's live and let live? If you do then you're fooling yourself as Catholic ethos is used to deny equal rights and treatment.

They don't believe in live and let live, which is ironic as they preach peace and love,

kandoola

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, yeah you're right those Catholics don't have an affect on daily life

It's not like none Catholics can be refused entry to state funded schools because they are not Catholic, gay nurses can be fired from state funded hospitals for being gay or certain medical treatment can be denied being made available because it goes against religious ethos in state funded hospitals.

All these things are on religious grounds,

You think it's live and let live? If you do then you're fooling yourself as Catholic ethos is used to deny equal rights and treatment.

They don't believe in live and let live, which is ironic as they preach peace and love,

My child is in a state funded school. There was no problem at all.

I know at least two gay nurses. One male and one female. Both working in public hospitals. They havent been fired and everyone they know, knows they are gay.

I think you are looking for problems where there arent any.

lazybones32

fisgon wrote: »

The fact is that erecting a religious symbol in any place is an attempt to claim ownership.

It has been established that the Mountain is owned by 4 farmers.

fisgon wrote: »

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.

This wasn't a decision by the RCC. It was the initiative of the people of M. Reeks and Beaufort, using steel donated by Liebherr.
The 15ft cross isn't visible from the base of the 3,400ft Mountain or from any approach.

Molester Stallone II

lazybones32 wrote: »

It has been established that the Mountain is owned by 4 farmers.



This wasn't a decision by the RCC. It was the initiative of the people of M. Reeks and Beaufort, using steel donated by Liebherr.
The 15ft cross isn't visible from the base of the 3,400ft Mountain or from any approach.

On the ownership front, yes, it remains in the hands of the farmers, but the upkeep and maintainace of the mountain is provided by KCC and development projects.
There are also calls for security and cameras to be installed to protect the cross, so at this stage I think the charade of private ownership is well and truly out the window.
If farmers and locals want the cross, then they should pick up the tab for the works on the mountain from now on

Pro Hoc Vice

kandoola wrote: »

My child is in a state funded school. There was no problem at all.

I know at least two gay nurses. One male and one female. Both working in public hospitals. They havent been fired and everyone they know, knows they are gay.

I think you are looking for problems where there arent any.

So you have never seen or heard anything so therefore it must not happen.

In Ireland religious ethos business are exempt from equality law that's plan and simply wrong.

The argument you use is the same as up to the 90's we know it's criminal but sure no one ever charged. To keep a situation that allows discrimination is plain and simply wrong it does not matter if it has not effected you and yours.

To say there is no problem is insulting to all who have been on the receiving end of State and Church bigotry.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gay-teachers-homophobia-1319137-Sep2014/

http://www.thejournal.ie/lgbt-legislation-jobs-815578-Mar2013/

http://changingattitudeireland.org/news-blog/in-the-press/irish-times-ireland-is-continuing-to-fail-its-gay-teachers-in-the-classroom/

Brian Shanahan

kylith wrote: »

Not everyone does. I don't, for a start. I would be unlikely to celebrate them regardless of what they were called.

I'd even argue with the claim that Ireland is a mainly Christian country. 80% might have put Catholic on the census, but 10% of them don't even believe in god, and only 34% go to mass. Which works out at (forgive me if my maths is wrong, it's 1am) 27% of the country being practising Catholics. Not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. The census question should really be 'What religion are you a practising member of'.

Actually those figures are wrong. First of all 80% don't identify as catholics, because it is a census figure, and censuses in Ireland are fraught with errors and biases (for example mostmammies fill out the census as if their student and working children are still living at home, and tick catlick even when they know the kids are not. The same inflation can be seen with Irish, supposedly half the country speak it.

Second the 10% non-belief is not in the 80% but in the core weekly mass going demographic, which is about 10%, lower than the already low 34% of occasional mass goer you are quoting. The true figure for non belief is going to be higher, especially if you factorin the true agnostics who don't know and frankly don't care.

I'd put the proper catholic figure at about 25%, non-believers at about 30%, and a seperste cultural catholic group (don't actually believe but are afraid to lose the comfort of group belonging) at another 30%, out of the census "figure" of 85%.

kandoola

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you have never seen or heard anything so therefore it must not happen.

In Ireland religious ethos business are exempt from equality law that's plan and simply wrong.

The argument you use is the same as up to the 90's we know it's criminal but sure no one ever charged. To keep a situation that allows discrimination is plain and simply wrong it does not matter if it has not effected you and yours.

Feel free to point out where ANY gay nurses are getting fired for being gay and where ANY child will not being allowed to go to school based on their religion.

If we can keep the examples to this century that would be good too.
And please post example of it actually happening instead of it could happen. Sure they good become astronauts and walk on the moon some day too, but its as unlikely.
And the people in those articles problems stem from bigotry, not religion. That can happen in any workplace / town / school in the world.
Thats a problem of society. They arent going to be fired for being gay.

But to go back to the topic. Im sure a cross on a hill isnt going to hurt gay nurses or teacher or even children going to school either.

weisses

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok so, but clearly these people identify themselves as Catholic on the census... Not Christian.

That was not the point I was making I even gave an example being christian doesn't automatically means being catholic

Cabaal wrote: »

Yet many don't believe a god exists, don't believe the eating Jesus bit and certainly have no interest in listening or reading any sort of scriptures. I doubt they even own bibles.

And you are entitled to your opinion ...Figures however say otherwise

weisses

Cabaal wrote: »

Not everyone sees crosses as wholesome icons.

To many it represents a history obsession, death, oppression and rape. It's a icon used by a deeply backward organisation that continuous to cause needless deaths throughout the world, allowed criminals to go unpunished and is happy to openly advertise that they see half the world's population as simply inferior. Not to mention that they are happy to deny many equal rights.

The oppression of the religion that uses the cross as its icon in ireland continuous to this day in ireland towards children in this country and our health case system.

It's not an icon of hope to everyone,

Most of these ugly mountain crosses were put up in the catholuc religious year in the 1950s, they represent the Catholic Church.

Nice wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_cross

I agree with the part where you say its an "History" obsession

All the anger... What is next kicking over and trembling crosses by the side of the road remembering loved ones who died .... Just for the reasons you gave above? ...... sad society we are living in then

gleesonger

kandoola wrote: »

Feel free to point out where ANY gay nurses are getting fired for being gay and where ANY child will not being allowed to go to school based on their religion.

If we can keep the examples to this century that would be good too.
And please post example of it actually happening instead of it could happen. Sure they good become astronauts and walk on the moon some day too, but its as unlikely.

I have to agree with this, this topic and the comments have become ridiculous, Godwin's law is soon to proven true.

Everybody, Irregardless of beliefs should condem the act of a single person conducting such a serious acts of vandalism, else anarchy will be the way of things.

kylith

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually those figures are wrong. First of all 80% don't identify as catholics, because it is a census figure, and censuses in Ireland are fraught with errors and biases (for example mostmammies fill out the census as if their student and working children are still living at home, and tick catlick even when they know the kids are not. The same inflation can be seen with Irish, supposedly half the country speak it.

Second the 10% non-belief is not in the 80% but in the core weekly mass going demographic, which is about 10%, lower than the already low 34% of occasional mass goer you are quoting. The true figure for non belief is going to be higher, especially if you factorin the true agnostics who don't know and frankly don't care.

I'd put the proper catholic figure at about 25%, non-believers at about 30%, and a seperste cultural catholic group (don't actually believe but are afraid to lose the comfort of group belonging) at another 30%, out of the census "figure" of 85%.

Thanks for that, as I said it was 1am when I posted that.

weisses wrote: »

That was not the point I was making I even gave an example being christian doesn't automatically means being catholic

No, but since non-Catholic Christians account for a smaller group than the non-religious I took the statistics for the largest Christian group.