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

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

Options
12467…19

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I have a feeling someone is trying to prove a point but I am still not seeing it.


  • Options
    #93
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I have a feeling someone is trying to prove a point but I am still not seeing it.

    He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.


  • Options
    #94
    Username32
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Username32


    Zillah wrote: »
    He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.

    He?


  • Options
    #95
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Sorry! "It".


  • Options
    #96
    Username32
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Username32


    Zillah wrote: »
    He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.

    Busted- no seriously as someone already said- fighting a battle like objecting to the cross- is pretty stupid IMHO.

    Others have made the point already but it just that the atheists who object look like zealots-

    And as an atheist-getting into making value judgement s about the validity or otherwise of these kind of places just leads people looking pretty thick.

    And I consider myself having a broadly secular perspective on these kind of things.

    People define/understand/come to know their values according to the age they live in- 1975 Ireland was a theocracy-but most ordinary people were complicit in this. This is a symbol of that time- which had a particular meaning for these people.

    Meanings of particular symbols change over time though, are reinterpreted and take on new meanings. I am not going to be blind to the potential of any symbol to be able to be reinterpreted, re-understood and take on a new kind of value- because of my contempt for a particular religion. Now some might argue that its only a big hunk of metal and so it is, but I am not arrogant enough to make artistic or cultural value judgement on such a things with the value of hind-site and then cheer at the site of such vandalism. Are you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Username32
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Username32


    Zillah wrote: »
    Sorry! "It".

    Ouch, ah now no need for the personal attacks.


  • Options
    #98
    Smiley92a
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Smiley92a


    Username32 wrote: »
    I am not arrogant enough to make artistic or cultural value judgement on such a things with the value of hind-site...

    Why not? Artistic and cultural value exist only in the mind, you can have an opinion like anyone else. There's no reason we can't re-interpret some work of art further down the line. After all, it took academia a hundred years to decide Jane Austen was good.

    Similarly, the cross on the mountain might have had positive connotations in 1975, but have lost it's sheen as the years went on and the meaning of Catholicism changed for many people. Perhaps what was once affirming became uncomfortable. The act of cutting the cross down was also symbolic. I'm not inclined to call it 'mindless' vandalism, considering how laborious it must have been, the sort of people who smash street furniture on their way home from a club usually aren't that motivated. It would have been unthinkable to cut the cross down in the 70s, but few people really cared now. I'll be very interested to see if the money or will can be found to put it back up.


  • Options
    #99
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm sure indeed that "us guys" not only can agree on that, but probably do agree on that, given that it appears to be pretty the opinion, direct or implied, of just about every poster in this thread.

    BTW, try cut down on the "you guys" kind of stuff - let's try and leave slip a little cheery winterval spirit, eh?

    BTW^2, it's "whoever cut it down", not "whomever cut it down". See here.

    #gladtohelp!


    You just can't help yourself can you Robin. What you did just there would have earned you a card in practically every other forum on boards including AH. But we all know where my reported post in this forum will go Dear Leader.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63152137#post63152137


  • Options
    #100
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,050 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Smiley92a wrote: »
    After all, it took academia a hundred years to decide Jane Austen was good.

    She's possibly the most rubbish author in the English language.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #101
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm sure indeed that "us guys" not only can agree on that, but probably do agree on that, given that it appears to be pretty the opinion, direct or implied, of just about every poster in this thread.

    BTW, try cut down on the "you guys" kind of stuff - let's try and leave slip a little cheery winterval spirit, eh?

    BTW^2, it's "whoever cut it down", not "whomever cut it down". See here.

    #gladtohelp!

    So helpful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    seamus wrote: »
    Gardai arriving by helicopter to investigate who cut down a useless steel pole on private land.

    In so many ways, Father Ted was a documentary, not a comedy.

    Initially I was windering why in hell AI were bothering to make any noise about this, but having seen that they were in fact asked for a comment, then I see no reason why they wouldn't express their opinion.

    Let them put it back up, then make a complaint on the grounds that no PP was sought, and let them pay to pull it back down again. They won't be bothered paying to put it back up again.

    So vindictive, as so many here seem to be. Nasty group of self righteous people.


  • Options
    #103
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Smiley92a wrote: »
    The act of cutting the cross down was also symbolic. I'm not inclined to call it 'mindless' vandalism, considering how laborious it must have been, the sort of people who smash street furniture on their way home from a club usually aren't that motivated.

    Would you call it vandalism?

    It's people like these in this grouping that gleefully participate in events such as book burnings. Its clear most here would not need much encouragement.

    Ironic that.another poster previously said 'Username 32' was 'bitter' when it is clear said poster is purely showing a level of tolerance you barbarians cannot appreciate.


  • Options
    #104
    Smiley92a
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Smiley92a


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    She's possibly the most rubbish author in the English language.

    I'll see your Jane Austen and raise you a Stephanie Myer. Although now you mention it, Pride and Prejudice did bore the arse off me, and I never read any of her other books after being introduced to her in college, so...

    I don't know if I'd call the destruction of the cross 'vandalism' because I really don't care. If you do care about the Church and it's symbols then you might call it vandalism. I'm sure you'll find someone on here who'll argue that the erection of the cross on Carrauntoohil was itself an act of vandalism.

    And I'm not in the habit of burning books. Maybe I should get into it, they're starting to pile up. I'm sure I bought a dieting book at some point, that's definitely being used as a firelighter next time I see it.


  • Options
    #105
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mod:
    Zillah wrote: »
    You're just so bitter and silly.



    There's a satirical short film to be made in this.
    Zillah wrote: »
    He's a troll. I think he thinks he's doing an atheist parody.

    Keep accusations of trolling to reported posts or pm.
    Attack the post not the poster.


    Username32 wrote: »
    He?
    Zillah wrote: »
    Sorry! "It".
    No more snipes.

    Shake hands please and start over.
    jank wrote: »
    You just can't help yourself can you Robin. What you did just there would have earned you a card in practically every other forum on boards including AH. But we all know where my reported post in this forum will go Dear Leader.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63152137#post63152137

    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!)

    J Mysterio wrote: »
    So helpful.
    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Would you call it vandalism?

    It's people like these in this grouping that gleefully participate in events such as book burnings. Its clear most here would not need much encouragement.

    Ironic that.another poster previously said 'Username 32' was 'bitter' when it is clear said poster is purely showing a level of tolerance you barbarians cannot appreciate.

    You clearly need to reconsider the tone and style of your posts. Otherwise your stay here will be a short one.

    Here endth the mod warning
    (All from a smartphone too. Now, back to Bones!)


  • Options
    #106
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Smiley92a wrote: »
    I'll see your Jane Austen and raise you a Stephanie Myer. Although now you mention it, Pride and Prejudice did bore the arse off me, and I never read any of her other books after being introduced to her in college, so...

    I don't know if I'd call the destruction of the cross 'vandalism' because I really don't care. If you do care about the Church and it's symbols then you might call it vandalism. I'm sure you'll find someone on here who'll argue that the erection of the cross on Carrauntoohil was itself an act of vandalism.

    And I'm not in the habit of burning books. Maybe I should get into it, they're starting to pile up. I'm sure I bought a dieting book at some point, that's definitely being used as a firelighter next time I see it.

    You can't burn books!!! My favourite part of 'The Day After Tomorrow' is when they are about to burn books in the library, someone objects and they compromise with law books. At a pinch I'd allow that.


  • Options
    #107
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    seamus wrote: »
    Gardai arriving by helicopter to investigate who cut down a useless steel pole on private land.

    In so many ways, Father Ted was a documentary, not a comedy.

    Initially I was windering why in hell AI were bothering to make any noise about this, but having seen that they were in fact asked for a comment, then I see no reason why they wouldn't express their opinion.

    Let them put it back up, then make a complaint on the grounds that no PP was sought, and let them pay to pull it back down again. They won't be bothered paying to put it back up again.

    Yes, the Gardai arriving by helicopter is beyond satire but they are duty bound to investigate criminal acts within the republic. The fact that the cross was pulled towards a steep verge and that a plaque was removed (stolen) from the scene, technically, makes this a criminal case.

    AI (that doesn't stand for artificial Intelligence) can't seem to help themselves... they suffer from foot in mouth 'disease'. They make themselves look foolish...and I say that as a man who's been drinking since 6 pm.


  • Options
    #108
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Keep accusations of trolling to reported posts or pm.
    Attack the post not the poster.

    No more snipes.

    Shake hands please and start over.

    I'm sorry, normally I only let Robin spank me. I would have thought we'd have an introduction before you jumped right into it.


  • Options
    #109
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    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.

    Yeah!
    Worshipping a half dead 2000 year old man on a cross is so much more advanced, we live in the future!


  • Options
    #110
    Molester Stallone II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭Molester Stallone II


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Yeah!
    Worshipping a half dead 2000 year old man on a cross is so much more advanced, we live in the future!

    He's only half dead? You mean we have another 2000 years of this rubbish?! Ah no, tell me you're joking please!


  • Options
    #111
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    "Cross to rise again before Christmas" - Kerry's Eye, 27/11/14

    Outrage at the cutting down of the Cross on Carrauntuohill is fueling determination to have the religious symbol erected again 'this side of Christmas'. Central to the decision to reinstate the cross is the approval of the four local landowners who own the land in the vicinity of the peak. Seven farmers in all own the mountain and the surrounding land...

    "We now accept the cross is on private land", Mr. Hinchliffe (Atheist Ireland member, Peter) said, "we would have liked to have seen something that was not just symbolic of one part of the community but it is their land and what they put up is their choice." - Breda Joy.

    Forgot to add: it appears the Gardai had to investigate the vandalism on the top of the mountain and they arrived by helicopter.

    This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners. This isn't an anonymous field in Kerry, this is the highest mountain in the state, and more of a public amenity than anything else.

    I believe that everyone in the country can have an interest in the way Carrauntoohil is managed, and ultimately it should not be up to a few private individuals what religion (if any) is allowed to stamp its identity on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    chrysagon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,813 ✭✭✭chrysagon


    swampgas wrote: »
    This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners. This isn't an anonymous field in Kerry, this is the highest mountain in the state, and more of a public amenity than anything else.

    I believe that everyone in the country can have an interest in the way Carrauntoohil is managed, and ultimately it should not be up to a few private individuals what religion (if any) is allowed to stamp its identity on it.


    Im just surprised planners didnt allow permission for a council estate up there during the boom!!


  • Options
    #113
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    swampgas wrote: »
    This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners. This isn't an anonymous field in Kerry, this is the highest mountain in the state, and more of a public amenity than anything else.

    I believe that everyone in the country can have an interest in the way Carrauntoohil is managed, and ultimately it should not be up to a few private individuals what religion (if any) is allowed to stamp its identity on it.

    The reality is that the mountains and land are mostly in private ownership: the vast majority of farmers/owners allow people access but there's always the one who won't. If the State were responsible for the mountains, would they also be held responsible for any accidents that happen on them?

    How come the Cross on Car. wasn't an issue 2 months ago but now it is seen as a direct front to atheists and non-Catholics? It was there - in some shape or form for 60 years - and didn't merit mention. Now people are acting as if the RCC put the cross there as a mark of ownership and are forcing everyone who climbs the mountain to venerate the cross.
    After this, I have more respect for the environmentalists who objected to the re-erection on grounds of spoiling the 'purity' of the mountain, than I have for the atheists* who are trying to hide behind planning permission to mask their anti-theist position. Such a tolerant, liberal and open-minded group indeed.


    *the bitter minority


  • Options
    #114
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    What is intended as the removal of symbols that might exclude difference, is a kind of anaemic, vacuous public space so bent on total inclusion that it ends up being devoid of any symbolic meaning at all. It's not a coincidence that most of the new monuments we have are chrome, shiny mirror-like materials. They simply reflect without saying anything, create an anonymous void. And what fills that void is, basically, shopping, corporate culture, the market. It is much worse than a cross most of us didn't even know was there before someone cut it down. That, it seems to me, is actually the best case scenario of concerning oneself with religious symbols and other such sentimental codology instead of the important stuff.
    I see your point here, but its a false dichotomy. Statues and monuments in previous centuries were often put up to celebrate victories, ie one man or nation dominating another. Often a military man on a horse, or on a pedestal. These crosses we have around the place now are similar, in that they were put up during the 20th century to reflect the dominating effect of one religion.

    I agree that most of the shiny steel sculptures put up since then are meaningless tacky crap, only agreed on by committees because they are seen to be "innocuous" things that nobody can object to.
    But there are alternatives. We could glorify peacemakers, scientists, people who invented things or cured diseases. Or we could put up more "popular art" such as the Molly Malone piece in Dublin.

    At the summit of Lugnaquillia there is a stone cairn and a horizontal brass plate. On it, all the directions of the compass are marked, and the names of the various other mountains and feature views to be seen in each direction are named.
    So I think this is a good feature; it provides a focal point that marks the top, and it has some interest and useful value to all the people who make it to the summit. Its a secular feature, because secularism is all about inclusivity, not domination.


  • Options
    #115
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    lazybones32 wrote: »

    Now people are acting as if the RCC put the cross there as a mark of ownership and are forcing everyone who climbs the mountain to venerate the cross.

    After this, I have more respect for the environmentalists who objected to the re-erection on grounds of spoiling the 'purity' of the mountain, than I have for the atheists* who are trying to hide behind planning permission to mask their anti-theist position. Such a tolerant, liberal and open-minded group indeed.

    *the bitter minority

    I am sure that we are devastated that we don't have your respect.

    I am really not clear how tolerance and open-mindedness is relevant in this discussion. The fact is that erecting a religious symbol in any place is an attempt to claim ownership. 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.

    A cross is a christian symbol, it is not neutral.

    (And I think you will find that if you are religious in this country, you are in the clear minority.)


  • Options
    #116
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    gammygils wrote: »
    Some madman has cut down a cross

    Whoever did it was probably saner than those who put it up in the first place. The odds are that he or she is not following rules imposed upon them by their imaginary friend.


  • Options
    #117
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    People keep using this sort of thing as an example. They seem to have a self importance that makes them think that a cross has the same historical importance as the likes newgrange.

    A building with incredibly advanced engineering is equal to a steel cross.

    And people who bring this up constantly neglect two things, 1) we don't know for certain whether the Newgrange site and others like it had a specifically religious meaning. For all we know they could have been simply royal bowers built to a very high spec, and 2) we don't keep Newgrange et al around for their religious meaning (it is because of their perceived religious meaning that they were neglected for hundreds of years and often looted after christianity came onto our shores), but for the highly significant cultural, historical and archaelogical impact. Newgrange alone, as the oldest freestanding building in the world has a worldwide significance as important as the likes of the Pyramids in Egypt (a fact attested to by it being the main reason for Bru na Boine being a UNESCO world heritage site).

    The fact is religion has next to nothing to do with us honouring Newgrange, no more than it has anything to do with us honouring St. John's Castle, or the Germans honouring the Roman remains of Koln.


  • Options
    #118
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    swampgas wrote: »
    This is going off on somewhat of a tangent: I would prefer it if sites like Carrauntoohil were owned by the state (in some kind of National Park) and not by private owners.
    I would agree with this. The reality is that most high mountains in Ireland are commonage. Its a kind of joint ownership by default, which is allocated to the various people who farm the arable land lower down. Historically it meant all these named families had the right to graze their sheep on the mountain. Its not "private ownership" in the normal sense of the word, even though it means technically the owners have the legal right to block public access.
    In other countries like Scotland and the Scandinavian countries they have a public "right to roam" over mountain land and wild country. Basically, they have the concept of "commonage", but they extend common rights to all citizens, not just the locals.

    We could have that here too, if enough people wanted it.


  • Options
    #119
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Zillah wrote: »
    We could today engineer something similar that is accurate to within microns and would stand for a million years without outside interference.

    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.


  • Options
    #120
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    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.

    Jeez, some people still think there's a next life now!

    And the RCC was enslaving women here in the 1970s. And stealing their babies. To be sold abroad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    :pac:


Advertisement