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

Cabaal wrote: »

So it's just Christianity doing what it does then?

If it isn't obelisks it's celebrations in December or the story of a great flood. Must be so handy to just steal stories and images and claim them as your own all the time.

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.

When an event like this happens, it's inevitable AI will be asked for a comment. That's actually a good thing. Or would you rather that the Healy-Rae type view is the only one to be heard?


Letter in today's Irish Times:

Sir, – The comments of Colm O’Brien (“Cross on Carrauntoohil,” November 25th) shows the reality of intolerance now prevalent in society.

Questioning unhindered catholic/christian domination of society = 'intolerance' :rolleyes:

While, I have no wish for a Catholic theocracy; what is so offensive about a structure which you can see only if your up close at it or through the viewing of binoculars? What next: a bill in the Dáil for the removal of all roadway Marian shrines; the Sacred Heart at the Parnell Monument or the Papal Crosses at Phoenix Park and Drogheda? Would Mr O’Brien welcome that? – Is mise, etc,

FR JOHN MCCALLION, CC

Coalisland,

Co Tyrone.

Yes - all of the above mentioned are tacky, tasteless and ugly and should be removed.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

When an event like this happens, it's inevitable AI will be asked for a comment. That's actually a good thing. Or would you rather that the Healy-Rae type view is the only one to be heard?

But who cares? It side tracks the debate into an irrelevance instead of the serious institutional and structural discrimination within the state apparatus and wastes energy and attention on something that simply doesn't matter. It shouldn't be allowed to become a story, surely? So just don't comment and choose more significant battles.

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.

eviltwin wrote: »

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 doesn't speak to me either, but there again neither does the Millenium Spire or any number of other vacuous, meaningless public art works dotted around the country over the past twenty years to commemorate...something or other...or symbolise...something. I don't wander around with an angle grinder to make my point though.

eviltwin wrote: »

And what is it that makes you think it was an atheist who did this?

I didn't say it was

Michael Nugent wrote: »

.


How so? Arguing that something should happen does not imply condoning breaking the law to make it happen.

True, yeah, I'm not referring specifically to AI on that, just that approving of this incident of vandalism is clearly condoning breaking the law to make it happen. Because the law was broken to make it happen.

I'm just saying, pursuing a policy that focuses on what public art shouldn't do is implicitly negative: it seeks only to erase, and when the primary motivation is erasure, we are left with blankness. So that what is at best an irrelevance becomes at worst a postmodern nightmare. Your objection is to public art that is not representative of everyone. The only option, in that situation, is art that is representative of no one. That is, if it is to make any sense at all.

I take your point that you were approached for comment. And I also take your point that you are specifically against re-erecting this particular cross, which is akin to erecting new crosses in public spaces. All fine and dandy, and I wouldn't be in favour of those things either, but what kind of public art do you actually want? Saying it has to be inclusive of everyone is, to my mind, a truly terrible start.

Im feeling fairly indifferent about the cross. Trekking to the summit from Benkerragh or Cahir, its gives Carrauntohill a sense of scale. If they put it back up I wouldnt have an issue with it.

This event is quite revealing in that it shows that most Irish people (many atheists included) simply don't get the concept of a secular state.

Here we have a huge religious symbol on Ireland's highest peak, and many people are saying what's the problem? Lots of people seem to be falling into the same old habit of assuming that Ireland is a "Catholic country", and that if a majority of Catholics somewhere in Ireland want to impose their religious symbols on a mountaintop then nobody else should object.

The casual arrogance of Catholics assuming they can stick a gigantic Catholic icon on top of Carrauntoohil is breath-taking - the very idea that any non-Catholics (who are just as Irish as they are) might not want to see the damn thing is of no consequence to them.

This is the same mindset that says if a majority want Catholic dogma taught in schools, then everyone else should just suck it up and go along with it. Or that if a majority of Catholics want abortion, contraception and divorce made illegal, then they should be illegal for everyone.

I don't think this is the wrong battle to fight at all - I think it's one of the more important ones, to be honest.

gammygils wrote: »

Some madman has cut down a cross

You're sure its mad? And a man?