Ongoing religious scandals

Hotblack Desiato · 28-10-2014 10:33pm

jank wrote: »

A good article explaining the methods of Sinn Fein cover ups and how never ever ever, they are at fault. They brand themselves as guardians of social justice. Their record of the type of justice they dish out speaks for itself.

In short, ex-IRA are untouchable and SF want it to stay that way.
As you say, their attitude to a crime depends entirely on who committed it.
Deeply depressing that just when we seem as a country to be throwing off the shackles of one completely untrustworthy and unjust organisation, we are willing to embrace another.

Nodin · 29-10-2014 3:15pm

On the bright side, at least hes not anti-science.

"Hindu nationalists have long propagated their belief that many discoveries of modern science and technology were known to the people of ancient India. But now for the first time an Indian prime minister has endorsed these claims, maintaining that cosmetic surgery and reproductive genetics were practiced thousands of years ago.
As proof, Narendra Modi gave the examples of the warrior Karna from the Sanskrit epic Mahabharata and of the elephant-headed Hindu god Ganesha."

"Modi went on: “We worship Lord Ganesha. There must have been some plastic surgeon at that time who got an elephant’s head on the body of a human being and began the practice of plastic surgery.”

"This is not the first time that Modi has publicly articulated such ideas. But he did so earlier as chief minister of Gujarat state, and not as prime minister. He also wrote the foreword to a book for school students in Gujarat which maintains, among other things, that the Hindu God Rama flew the first aeroplane and that stem cell technology was known in ancient India."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-science-existed-ancient-times

SebBerkovich · 29-10-2014 3:27pm

Nodin wrote: »

"Modi went on: “We worship Lord Ganesha. There must have been some plastic surgeon at that time who got an elephant’s head on the body of a human being and began the practice of plastic surgery.”

[/URL]

If someone has a better idea about how to get an elephant's head onto a human body - i'd like to hear it!

I bet Lord Ganesha got really sick of hearing people ask "are those tusks real?"

Peregrinus · 30-10-2014 6:41am

Nodin wrote: »

On the bright side, at least hes not anti-science . . .

Far from being anti-science, he seems to be to be absurdly pro-science.

robindch · 07-11-2014 1:02pm

Cardinal Francis E. George, the cardinal who runs the archdiocese of Chicago has released a large amount of information, much of it heavily redacted, on sex abuse by priests.

Initial reports suggest that the archdiocese is now as clean as a whistle, as the data only refers to priests who are either dead or retired from the priesthood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/chicago-archdiocese-offers-sex-abuse-data.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Valmont · 24-11-2014 1:28am

What do you all make of the cross on Carrauntoohill being cut down? It wouldn't be to my taste seeing a cross on top of a mountain but a lot of people went to some serious trouble to get it up there. Maybe Christ the Redeemer is next?

Shrap · 24-11-2014 8:49am

Valmont wrote: »

What do you all make of the cross on Carrauntoohill being cut down? It wouldn't be to my taste seeing a cross on top of a mountain but a lot of people went to some serious trouble to get it up there. Maybe Christ the Redeemer is next?

Oh right...they left it lying there! I didn't hear till now, but I just assumed they'd made off with it for the metal value, but no! Intriguing. I think it's a pity it's going to be put back up though. Who on earth gave the 100 people permission to put it there in the 70's in the first place?!

Pherekydes · 24-11-2014 8:53am

Valmont wrote: »

What do you all make of the cross on Carrauntoohill being cut down? It wouldn't be to my taste seeing a cross on top of a mountain but a lot of people went to some serious trouble to get it up there. Maybe Christ the Redeemer is next?

An act of sheer vandalism. But it seems it's been known about since 1976, so how come it's taken this long for it to be "cleaned up"?

PopePalpatine · 24-11-2014 10:59am

What I heard was that the cross could have collapsed due to weathering, but let's allow the Christian Right some more ammo to bully us with.

TheChizler · 24-11-2014 11:10am

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/probe-of-carrauntoohil-summit-cross-vandalism-299270.html

What angers me is that at this stage, vandalism, to what I would consider originally vandalism to our highest peak, has seen more Garda resources allocated to it than the Tuam case.

Vivisectus · 24-11-2014 3:23pm

Mindless vandalism - deplorable.

It DOES rather makes me wonder what would happen if I tried to legally organize a great big pentagram or something similar in a spot like that!

Hoagy · 24-11-2014 4:09pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

Mindless vandalism - deplorable.

It DOES rather makes me wonder what would happen if I tried to legally organize a great big pentagram or something similar in a spot like that!

Once it's on your own land, why not?

Vivisectus · 24-11-2014 4:11pm

Hoagy wrote: »

Once it's on your own land, why not?

I dont think the cross was on owned land?

TheChizler · 24-11-2014 4:15pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

I dont think the cross was on owned land?

It's private landownership all right. All sorts of complications with right of way and that. Don't know if it had planning permission or an exemption in the first place though.

robindch · 24-11-2014 4:16pm

Hoagy wrote: »

Once it's on your own land, why not?

Planning permission, visual amenity, fitting in with the land scape, that kind of thing.

I don't know what the rules are like in Kerry, or which rules would apply in the first place, but I'd certainly have thought that the county council should be looking to erect something a little more tasteful and original than 30-odd feet of black-painted box section steel.

Hoagy · 24-11-2014 4:22pm

robindch wrote: »

Planning permission, visual amenity, fitting in with the land scape, that kind of thing.

I don't know what the rules are like in Kerry, or which rules would apply in the first place, but I'd certainly have thought that the county council should be looking to erect something a little more tasteful and original than 30-odd feet of black-painted box section steel.

This is the county council with a crucifix in the council chamber.

Vivisectus · 24-11-2014 4:33pm

It would be an interesting experiment, if it went up somewhere nice and visible.

Peregrinus · 25-11-2014 1:57am

Vivisectus wrote: »

I dont think the cross was on owned land?

All the land in Ireland is owned by somebody, though I have no idea who owns this particular piece of land.

robindch wrote: »

Planning permission, visual amenity, fitting in with the land scape, that kind of thing.

Within certain limits, monuments, shrines, etc, are an exempted development - they don't require planning permission. I don't know whether this cross came within those limits. For that matter, I don't know when this cross was erected, or what the exempted development limits were at the time.

obplayer · 25-11-2014 2:08am

Peregrinus wrote: »

All the land in Ireland is owned by somebody, though I have no idea who owns this particular piece of land.

Within certain limits, monuments, shrines, etc, are an exempted development - they don't require planning permission. I don't know whether this cross came within those limits. For that matter, I don't know when this cross was erected, or what the exempted development limits were at the time.

Does that mean any monuments or shrines or only Christian ones?

Peregrinus · 25-11-2014 2:45am

obplayer wrote: »

Does that mean any monuments or shrines or only Christian ones?

Any, religious or non-religious.

obplayer · 25-11-2014 2:48am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any, religious or non-religious.

So what defines a monument or shrine? Links to the appropriate legislation? I am genuinely vey curious.

Peregrinus · 25-11-2014 3:20am

obplayer wrote: »

So what defines a monument or shrine? Links to the appropriate legislation? I am genuinely vey curious.

Here's a link to an "unofficial" (but presumably reliable) consolidation of the Planning and Development Regulations on the Dept of the Environment website.

Under Art 6(1) (page 19), any development of a kind mentioned in Schedule 1 Part 1 is exempt - i.e. it doesn't require planning permission - subject to any conditions applicable to that particular kind of development that are set out in the Schedule, and subject also to some general conditions applying to all development set out in Art 9.

(The Art 9 conditions are things like: must not contravene an existing planning permission, must not cause a traffic hazard or obstruct road users, must not interfere with character or amenity value which is protected under a Development Plan, etc.)

OK. Now skip to page 262, where you'll find that among the many development listed in Sch 1 is Class 33(b); the development of any land as a roadside shrine. That is exempt, provided the shrine is not more than 2 square metres in area, isn't more than 2 metres higher than the centre of the adjacent road, and isn't illuminated (and provided, of course, it doesn't run foul of any of the restrictions in Art 9).

"Shrine" isn't defined. It has its ordinary extended meaning which, the dictionary tells me, includes any object of veneration or a structure built to contain one.

I have to admit that a cross on top of Carrauntouhilll is not a "roadside shrine", not least because it's many kilometres from the nearest road. There may be some other heading in Sch 2 that covers it - or, more to the point, there may have been a suitable heading in whatever planning regulations were in place whent the cross was erected, whenever that was. Or it may simply be "grandfathered in", having been erected long enough ago, and having been unchallenged for long enough, that it either never needed planning permission, or the time for challenging it on the grounds that it doesn't have permission has elapsed.

And I haven't read the whole regulations. There may be other classes of exempted development that cover things that are not, strictly speaking, shrines - e.g. memorial plaques.

And, of course, it's worth noting that all an exemption does is to avoid the need for planning permission. It doesn't authorise you to erect a structure on land you don't own without the permission of the landowner, or to erect a structure which offends against the building regulations, or local bye-laws, or whatever.

obplayer · 25-11-2014 3:46am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here's a link to an "unofficial" (but presumably reliable) consolidation of the Planning and Development Regulations on the Dept of the Environment website.

Under Art 6(1) (page 19), any development of a kind mentioned in Schedule 1 Part 1 is exempt - i.e. it doesn't require planning permission - subject to any conditions applicable to that particular kind of development that are set out in the Schedule, and subject also to some general conditions applying to all development set out in Art 9.

(The Art 9 conditions are things like: must not contravene an existing planning permission, must not cause a traffic hazard or obstruct road users, must not interfere with character or amenity value which is protected under a Development Plan, etc.)

OK. Now skip to page 262, where you'll find that among the many development listed in Sch 1 is Class 33(b); the development of any land as a roadside shrine. That is exempt, provided the shrine is not more than 2 square metres in area, isn't more than 2 metres higher than the centre of the adjacent road, and isn't illuminated (and provided, of course, it doesn't run foul of any of the restrictions in Art 9).

"Shrine" isn't defined. It has its ordinary extended meaning which, the dictionary tells me, includes any object of veneration or a structure built to contain one.

I have to admit that a cross on top of Carrauntouhilll is not a "roadside shrine", not least because it's many kilometres from the nearest road. There may be some other heading in Sch 2 that covers it - or, more to the point, there may have been a suitable heading in whatever planning regulations were in place whent the cross was erected, whenever that was. Or it may simply be "grandfathered in", having been erected long enough ago, and having been unchallenged for long enough, that it either never needed planning permission, or the time for challenging it on the grounds that it doesn't have permission has elapsed.

And I haven't read the whole regulations. There may be other classes of exempted development that cover things that are not, strictly speaking, shrines - e.g. memorial plaques.

And, of course, it's worth noting that all an exemption does is to avoid the need for planning permission. It doesn't authorise you to erect a structure on land you don't own without the permission of the landowner, or to erect a structure which offends against the building regulations, or local bye-laws, or whatever.

Ok, thank you. Your link didn't work but the excerpts you provided were informative. I suspect that the cross in question would not pass todays legislation but because it was there so long would get a 'free pass'.

Now, can we replace it with a pentagram or indeed a scimitar do you think?

Peregrinus · 25-11-2014 4:20am

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, thank you. Your link didn't work but the excerpts you provided were informative. I suspect that the cross in question would not pass todays legislation but because it was there so long would get a 'free pass'.

Now, can we replace it with a pentagram or indeed a scimitar do you think?

Let's assume you own the land, or have the landowner's permission. Let's also assume that your chosen site is not in a national park or similar area enjoying additional layers of protection or regulation.

I think it would be wise to seek planning permission. As noted, given the location this doesn't come within the exemption for "roadside shrine", and as yet I haven't found another exemption that would clearly cover it. (Not that I'm looking too hard.) And given today's higher standards for enforcing planning legislation - yes, it's not perfect, but it's enforced much more consistently than a generation ago - you would be prudent either find a relevant exemption and agree with the county council that it covers you, or apply for permission.

But if you play your cards right you should get permission with little trouble. Statues, monuments, etc, both religious and non-religious, are quite common on mountains (as of course are cairns), and some mountains have particular significance in both ancient and modern celtic spirituality. A monument which refers to this is likely to be approved, I would think. If I'm not mistake there's already a pagan monument on, is it Sleivenamon? And I doubt if it's the only one.

You might have more trouble with a monument which didn't reference a spirituality traditional in or indigenous to the area, or connected with the mountain. I don't think they want the mountain treated as an advertising hording for novel ideas. Mountains have heritage value and your monument is more likely to be approved if it respects that.

Subject to that, your main issue, these days, is likely to be satisfying them that neither the monument nor the work required to erect it are going to damage the fragile mountain ecosystem. In other words, depending on exactly where you propose to erect it, you're going to have to cart this thing up the mountain and erect it in a secure and workmanlike fashion without the use of a JCB, cement mixer or similar. That's going to limit the size and style of your monument, and test the resolve of the team of volunteers that you will assemble for this noble work.

robindch · 25-11-2014 2:32pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

obplayer wrote: »

Does that mean any monuments or shrines or only Christian ones?

Any, religious or non-religious.

Anybody on for climbing the mountain and building a pentagram or something similar?

I'm not joking, btw

Shrap · 25-11-2014 3:53pm

robindch wrote: »

Anybody on for climbing the mountain and building a pentagram or something similar?

I'm not joking, btw

Totally am! However, having once been part of a 20 strong team who carried the main support of a private windmill up a short hill, I can see how the fallen edifice required 100. It may have to be a very tiny pentagram.

Edit: Hmm. The FSM would make a point.

robindch · 25-11-2014 3:55pm

Shrap wrote: »

It may have to be a very tiny pentagram.

There are lots of stones up on the top. Just need to bring a few slings! No mortar needed. At least until the first one's destroyed

Shrap · 25-11-2014 3:59pm

robindch wrote: »

There are lots of stones up on the top. Just need to bring a few slings! No mortar needed. At least until the first one's destroyed

Sounds good

I'd be afraid of meeting the resident Christians seeking culprits for their recent erectile dysfunction though...

Mr_A · 25-11-2014 5:16pm

A giant colander would look well up there.

riffmongous · 25-11-2014 9:25pm

robindch wrote: »

Anybody on for climbing the mountain and building a pentagram or something similar?

I'm not joking, btw

On private land? :eek:

All this sort of stuff will do is get the mountain closed.

Ongoing religious scandals

Comments