Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ongoing religious scandals

1…4849515354…75

Comments

  • #2502
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    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!


  • #2503
    Hoagy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Hoagy


    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?


  • #2504
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Hoagy wrote: »
    Once it's on your own land, why not?

    I dont think the cross was on owned land?


  • #2505
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,474 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    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.


  • #2506
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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.


  • #2507
    Hoagy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Hoagy


    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.


  • #2508
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


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


  • #2509
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • #2510
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    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?


  • #2511
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    obplayer wrote: »
    Does that mean any monuments or shrines or only Christian ones?
    Any, religious or non-religious.


  • Advertisement
  • #2512
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Any, religious or non-religious.

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


  • #2513
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • #2514
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    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?


  • #2515
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • #2516
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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 :)


  • #2517
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    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.


  • #2518
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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 :)


  • #2519
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


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


  • #2520
    Mr_A
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Mr_A


    A giant colander would look well up there.


  • Advertisement
  • #2521
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    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.


  • #2522
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    robindch wrote: »
    Anybody on for climbing the mountain and building a pentagram or something similar?

    I'm not joking, btw :)

    Sadly I've just been put on the waiting list for hip replacements, 'till that happens mountains are out for me.:mad:


  • #2523
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    obplayer wrote: »
    Sadly I've just been put on the waiting list for hip replacements, 'till that happens mountains are out for me.:mad:

    Are you my Dad?! He'd cheerfully climb a mountain to do that, if his one remaining natural knee and corresponding hip were up to it. Often wondered if he was up here on boards and just not telling me. Would be just like him :cool:


  • #2524
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Shrap wrote: »
    Are you my Dad?! He'd cheerfully climb a mountain to do that, if his one remaining natural knee and corresponding hip were up to it. Often wondered if he was up here on boards and just not telling me. Would be just like him :cool:

    Don't think so, not anyone's dad as far as I know.


  • #2525
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    obplayer wrote: »
    Don't think so, not anyone's dad as far as I know.

    Right so. You're ruled out ;) Still, I sympathise about the hip problem. My Da is disgusted he can't charge up and down mountains at the moment. Best of luck with it.


  • #2526
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Cutting down that cross was pure thuggery .plain and simple


  • Advertisement
  • #2527
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha wrote: »
    Cutting down that cross was pure thuggery .plain and simple

    Interestingly, it may have fallen down all by itself. I'm happy to see it down though, as it always disturbed me that an icon of a particular religious belief should be spoiling one of the most beautiful mountains in my country (I have the same opinion about wind turbines btw, but at least they're somewhat useful).


  • #2528
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Shrap wrote: »
    Interestingly, it may have fallen down all by itself. I'm happy to see it down though, as it always disturbed me that an icon of a particular religious belief should be spoiling one of the most beautiful mountains in my country (I have the same opinion about wind turbines btw, but at least they're somewhat useful).
    Locals gathered money to put it up.should only be locals to take it down.agree with u about turbines though


  • #2529
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha wrote: »
    Locals gathered money to put it up.should only be locals to take it down.

    Locals may have caused it to fall down by not building it right in the first place. And as for the "right" to build any ol' crap around the place because you're local....well, there's laws about that y'know.

    Me and the locals here would very much like to build more houses on land owned by us, but un/fortunately there are laws about what should/shouldn't be allowed to be seen from some beautiful amenities in our area. Therefore we are restricted - understandably to some, and to the great chagrin of others.

    Hopefully these locals of your's will have to apply for planning permission to put it up again.


  • #2530
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Well vast majority of thelocals here want it back up.only people I've heard say to get rid of it are those who've never actually been up there or just visit one day in the year.we live here all year around.thus we surely have a bigger Say than johnny come once in a wonders.


  • #2531
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha wrote: »
    Well vast majority of thelocals here want it back up.only people I've heard say to get rid of it are those who've never actually been up there or just visit one day in the year.we live here all year around.thus we surely have a bigger Say than johnny come once in a wonders.

    Same as the tourists on the lake I live near sure. They only come once a year at most. Why should they get any say in how many houses are lining the lake shore and surrounding hills? Oh wait. That's right...the view is for everyone and that's why there's laws about not spoiling it. We'd all like a bigger say in what we get permission to do locally, but planning permission has rules. I guess the locals didn't need those rules back in the 70's?

    There's many people come to your area for the mountains. Some of them have had to bite their tongues about the inappropriate cross on that beautiful mountain, me included.


  • Advertisement
  • #2532
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Whoever knocked it(and it was knocked)is not a local anyway.they must have no real problems in life if this is the issue that bothers them.I've land i cant build on either due to planning but the mountain is private land and if i owned it id seriously consider not allowing people trespass anymore if they are going to vandalise my property.


  • #2533
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha wrote: »
    Whoever knocked it(and it was knocked)is not a local anyway.they must have no real problems in life if this is the issue that bothers them.I've land i cant build on either due to planning but the mountain is private land and if i owned it id seriously consider not allowing people trespass anymore if they are going to vandalise my property.

    Well I'd take your point on that if you'd take my point that the cross is not something that would or should be given planning these days. The mountain being privately owned does not exempt it from planning, as we all know. The fact is, loads of people considered it to be a big, ugly eyesore no matter whether the majority of locals like it or not.

    The person or persons who own that land wouldn't get permission for a cattle shed up there, so they shouldn't have permission for a 5 metre high symbol for a religion. How would your locals feel if there was a pentagram on the top? I think that's the point. They wouldn't like it, any more than people with no religion or other religions liked that cross.

    Edit: TBH, I can imagine the culprits were a few bored locals with little else to be doing than making mischief.


  • #2534
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Shrap wrote: »
    Well I'd take your point on that if you'd take my point that the cross is not something that would or should be given planning these days. The mountain being privately owned does not exempt it from planning, as we all know. The fact is, loads of people considered it to be a big, ugly eyesore no matter whether the majority of locals like it or not.

    The person or persons who own that land wouldn't get permission for a cattle shed up there, so they shouldn't have permission for a 5 metre high symbol for a religion. How would your locals feel if there was a pentagram on the top? I think that's the point. They wouldn't like it, any more than people with no religion or other religions liked that cross.

    Edit: TBH, I can imagine the culprits were a few bored locals with little else to be doing than making mischief.
    Tbh no local here would be arsed climbing it with an angle grinder.that was someone on a mission.im not a practicing catholic but i see the succour the cross gives to the local auld ones.
    If one thinks its ok to cut down the cross then yer man in Dublin had every right to destroy those monet paintings cos he didnt like them.if they dont put the cross up again its open season on all cultural monuments.its a cross in a field that is wanted by locals.should be a plebiscite here and be a local choice.thats my opinion anyway.i respect your opinion but i think we are never going to agree.but thats democracy:-)


  • #2535
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha, I don't know if you saw these posts by SpaceTime in AH on the subject (and all his interesting posts in between), but I'm totally prepared to believe it was metal fatigue that caused it. Have a look at these posts:


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93142589&postcount=84


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93143097&postcount=121


  • #2536
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha wrote: »
    If one thinks its ok to cut down the cross then yer man in Dublin had every right to destroy those monet paintings cos he didnt like them.if they dont put the cross up again its open season on all cultural monuments.

    I don't think many think it was ok to cut it down (if it was knocked...) but now it's down, a lot of people are understandably a bit happy about it. Plus, it's already open season on monuments/statues made of metal. All across the country they're being robbed.


  • #2537
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Shrap wrote: »
    I don't think many think it was ok to cut it down (if it was knocked...) but now it's down, a lot of people are understandably a bit happy about it. Plus, it's already open season on monuments/statues made of metal. All across the country they're being robbed.

    Ha ha fair point.....as i said ure entitled to ur view.still should be up to locals what to do next.people here understandably angry.


  • #2538
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    padohaodha wrote: »
    Ha ha fair point.....as i said ure entitled to ur view.still should be up to locals what to do next.people here understandably angry.

    I really think you should mention to a few that it might have been metal fatigue. SpaceTime seems to know what he's talking about and from the one pic of the felled cross, it would have caused much more mess if it was cut you'd think, and it's so close to the bottom. Have a look at his posts! Anyhow, you're entitled to your view too of course! With full planning permission that is :pac: ;)

    Off to bed, night!


  • #2539
    padohaodha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 232 ✭✭padohaodha


    Shrap wrote: »
    I really think you should mention to a few that it might have been metal fatigue. SpaceTime seems to know what he's talking about and from the one pic of the felled cross, it would have caused much more mess if it was cut you'd think, and it's so close to the bottom. Have a look at his posts! Anyhow, you're entitled to your view too of course! With full planning permission that is :pac: ;)

    Off to bed, night!
    Good night ha ha heading up the mountain now to put up a massive Kerry version of the mosque in Riyadh.good luck.


  • #2540
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    padohaodha wrote: »
    Ha ha fair point.....as i said ure entitled to ur view.still should be up to locals what to do next.people here understandably angry.
    Personally I'd say it's up to the landowner what to do next. If they want to erect another cross on the site there's nothing to stop them applying for planning permission.

    Personally I'd prefer to see a more secular summit marker/memorial for those who lost their lives on the mountain. Speaking purely aesthetically that cross was hideous.

    I kind of really hope it blew over, just to watch some of the people blaming 'evil secularists' back peddle.


  • #2541
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    kylith wrote: »
    Personally I'd prefer to see a more secular summit marker/memorial for those who lost their lives on the mountain. Speaking purely aesthetically that cross was hideous.
    A cairn would be the traditional summit marker. Whether that's secular is something that lies in the eye of the beholder, I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #2542
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A cairn would be the traditional summit marker. Whether that's secular is something that lies in the eye of the beholder, I think.

    A cairn would certainly be more beautiful, and like with other mountain tops, people rebuild it all the time. It's interactive and inclusive.


  • #2543
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Shrap wrote: »
    A cairn would certainly be more beautiful [...]
    Perhaps fifteen/twenty miles from Carauntwohill lies the rather splendid mountain-pair known as The Paps, clearly visible in their finest aspect from the main Killarney to Cork road though google's image search isn't producing exactly that.

    Anyhow, imagine the following photos combined - the luscious, inviting slopes of the lower picture, with the curiously large cairns from the upper picture and you might get an idea of what they actually look like from teh right angle. And why they were associated in ancient times with the figure of the mother goddess. Not sure how you'd make these, uh, interactive :o

    329650.jpg

    329651.jpg


  • #2544
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    robindch wrote: »
    And why they were associated in ancient times with the figure of the mother goddess. Not sure how you'd make these, uh, interactive :o

    Ha ha, perfect! Might suit everybody, considering the god-like pap's proportions could only be interactive for a second suitably sized deity.


  • #2545
    Hoagy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Hoagy


    "INDEPENDENT TD MICHAEL Healy-Rae has condemned whoever cut down the iconic cross at the summit of Carrauntoohil.

    The Kerry TD told TheJournal.ie that whoever was involved in the incident was “an anti-Christ”.

    “It was an outrageous act. The only person that would have committed this crime is some sort of an anti-Christ,” Healy-Rae said.

    “The person that committed this act is the lowest of the low life, such an effort was made by local people to erect it.”

    Healy Rae said about 100 people were involved in the erection of the cross, adding: “I take comfort in the fact that 1000 people will be there when the next cross is erected.”

    To hell with the person that cut it down … Right-thinking people will see that a new cross is erected."

    http://www.thejournal.ie/carrauntoohil-cross-1799228-Nov2014/


  • #2546
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    "A commemorative plaque was also stolen." Ah feck it. :mad: I was SO hoping it was metal fatigue. :mad:


  • #2547
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Shrap wrote: »
    "A commemorative plaque was also stolen." Ah feck it. :mad: I was SO hoping it was metal fatigue. :mad:
    Uh, why can't it be a miracle? If I was Jesus, I wouldn't like to see people erecting tasteless monuments to the thing that killed me. Stands to reason, that does.

    Still, at least people haven't said they'd take the law into their own hands, like one Ballinspittle resident said he would in 1985, the last time somebody was prosecuted for unbecoming treatment of a religious monument. In this case, the vandals were three christians of some other denomination:

    #irelandintheeighties

    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Three-Men-Charged-in-Attack-on-Reputed-Moving-Statue/id-2ef193ede3852971f600a1fbb1448da2
    AP wrote:
    PORTLAOISE, IRELAND PORTLAOISE, Ireland (AP) _ Three men were arraigned Friday on vandalism charges, accused of smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary as three Roman Catholic nuns and about 30 worshipers watched in horror. The statue has attracted hundreds of thousands of pilgrims since last July when two women claimed to have seen it sway gently. Others later said they had seen the statue's hands and feet move.

    Police had to restrain a crowd gathered outside the courthouse as the three accused men walked inside holding Bibles. Two of them read Bibles while waiting for their cases to be called. The three, Roderick Murphy, 36, Robert Draper, 33, and Anthony Fowler, 24, were arraigned on charges of causing malicious damage in connection with Thursday's attack at a roadside grotto near the village of Ballinspittle. They were released on bail equivalent to $960 each, pending a further hearing.

    Murphy was described in court as a truck driver, Fowler as a cleaner and Draper as a ''Christian preacher.'' They did not mention their religious denomination and were not available for comment after the arraignment. The trio was arrested a few hours after three men smashed the head, halo and hands of a life-size concrete statue of the Virgin Mary with a hammer, ax and iron bar.

    During the attack, one of the worshipers shouted, ''You must be Satan to do something like this 3/8'' One of the vandals shouted back, ''You are worse to be adoring false gods.'' Since the reports of movement, the local Roman Catholic bishop urged caution about the claims. A scientist said the movements were optical illusions caused by the statue's gray background and glare from the illuminated halo.

    At Ballinspittle, the village's grotto committee said the statue would be repaired within days and that prayer - which has gone on virtually around the clock since the first claim of movement - should continue at the site. Maurice O'Donnell, the sculptor who made the statue in 1954, said he was confident he could repair it. The chairman of the grotto committee, Stephen Nolan, said: ''People from all over the country have been telephoning here all night to convey their sorrow. This will not stop worshipers coming to Ballinspittle.''

    Another committee member, Dennis O'Reilly, said, ''If we caught the vandals, they wouldn't walk again. We should take the law into our own hands.''


  • #2548
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    I vaguely remember my folks chuckling about that one alright. I'm still holding out for the commemorative plaque having been jolted off it's moorings and it be found at the bottom of the cliff sometime in the future. However, I would love it even more if the vandals were caught and they turned out to be Kerry separatists determined to shake off the shackles of "The Mainland". Bit of a long shot perhaps...


    Edit: About crosses, yes. The cross as a representation of Christianity is rather like calling a new style of harpoon after Steve Irwin. Tacky.


  • #2549
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    robindch wrote: »

    Anyhow, imagine the following photos combined - the luscious, inviting slopes of the lower picture, with the curiously large cairns from the upper picture and you might get an idea of what they actually look like from teh right angle. And why they were associated in ancient times with the figure of the mother goddess. Not sure how you'd make these, uh, interactive :o

    329650.jpg

    And if you put a crucifix on both hills, then it would look like pierced nipples (at the right angle).

    That's just sick Rob, sick.

    Opens Photoshop .......


  • #2550
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Yiz can all stand down the outrage and upset. The cross is to be stuck up again "as soon as possible".

    http://www.killarneytoday.com/mountain-cross-to-be-re-erected/
    Killarney Today wrote:
    THE cross severed by vandals at the summit of Carrauntoohil is to be re-erected as soon as possible, it has been confirmed. The MacGillycuddy Reeks Mountain Access Forum, made up of representatives of all the stakeholders involved in the area, has met to discuss the crux and it was decided that the cross would be repaired and re-erected as a matter of priority.

    The group, facilitated by South Kerry Development Partnership, includes local landowners, community and business groups, National Park and Wildlife Service staff, Kerry County Council, Department of the Environment representatives, community groups, guides and climbers. It is not known when exactly the cross was cut down but it was discovered by climbers on the peak early on Saturday morning. The matter is currently being investigated by gardaí in Killarney.

    At the forum meeting in Killorglin, the group condemned the cutting of the cross describing it as “an act of sheer vandalism.” Since news of the damage to the cross emerged, members of the forum have been inundated with offers to help re-instate the steel structure from both local, national and overseas people and companies.

    “We will look at all options open with regard to undertaking the work and decide on the best course of action to achieve the safe and proper reinstatement of the cross,” said group spokesman Seán de Buitléar. The group is to put in place a long-term management plan for the Reeks, enabling the mountain range to be sustainably used for recreation purposes by all while recognising that the land on the mountains is in private ownership.


  • Advertisement
  • #2551
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'd be willing to bet a sizeable sum it was one of the A&A regulars. You're probably being watched now. Seriously though, vandalising shrines isn't the sort of thing any atheist wants to be doing if they want their lack-of-belief to be taken seriously. Blowing up Nelson's column didn't get the IRA anywhere either!


Advertisement