100ft Religious statue on top of Croagh Patrick?

nuac

Mayo Miss wrote: »

Up until recent years the tradition for some was to go straight from the pub/disco to the reek and have it climbed before you'd sober up, so I'd say there was a bit more than prayers going on alright.

Yes there was an urban myth in Murrisk ( if you excuse the oxymoron ) that if you could get as far as the back of Owen Campbells without falling, that that qualified as a pilgrimage. You could then wait in the bar f or the returning pilgrims.

Further due to an ancient tradition which had no statutory authoriity all pubs in the Westport to Lecanvey stayed open all night on Reek Saturday to refresh the pilgrims

Lucena

yop wrote: »

Ummm, I can put my hands up for that "trick"

There was wall to wall 3somes, 4somes and snackboxes

I call shenanigans. The snackboxes would be cold by the time you get to the top.

Notch000

thye should go for the biggest christ statue ever while there at it.
the biggest one is only 112 Ft tall (Christ cochabama Bolivia), Be a shame to wast the opertunity. Id would definetly become an instant attraction for foreign visitors, even more so than croagh patrick is already

yop

Notch000 wrote: »

thye should go for the biggest christ statue ever while there at it.
the biggest one is only 112 Ft tall (Christ cochabama Bolivia), Be a shame to wast the opertunity. Id would definetly become an instant attraction for foreign visitors, even more so than croagh patrick is already

Jaysus your cocky aren't u, better than CP itself!

Irishgoatman

1/ I feel quite sure that there's no proof that Patrick ever climbed the Reek.

2/ Drove the snakes out of Ireland from the top of what is really only a large hill? I don't think so.

So just leave it as it is. In any case, it's wearing away so fast that it will probably be worn down in a few years.:)

nuac

Oh ye of little faith!

'tis local tradition ( for a start )

and there are no snakes in Ireland since QED

Fear_an_tarbh

And its all over....he's pulling out due to 'hateful opposition':D or what you and I call well-articulated, reason-based criticism.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17430:sculpture-plans-tumble&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

PogMoThoin

Fear_an_tarbh wrote: »

And its all over....he's pulling out due to 'hateful opposition':D or what you and I call well-articulated, reason-based criticism.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17430:sculpture-plans-tumble&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

Nimbyism is the word

Neyite

Fear_an_tarbh wrote: »

And its all over....he's pulling out due to 'hateful opposition':D or what you and I call well-articulated, reason-based criticism.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17430:sculpture-plans-tumble&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

I cant even see how that statue would last a winter in Mayo with the gales coming straight in off clew bay and the atlantic. Croagh Patrick does not need to attract tourists, its got a steady stream all year around and thousands in July and any more than would further erode the paths and rubbish pollute the place.

biko

Now, I'm an atheist but it'd be kinda nice with a statue.
Maybe not that tall but twice the height of the church or so.
It is Patrick's hill after all.

There is one at the bottom but a large one up top would be ok for me.

Just Like Heaven

Aww... As much as I hate the thought of there being another religious statue anywhere in Ireland, I do love the thought of there being a 100ft tall anything in Mayo.

Mickeroo

It's a mountain at the end of the day, a natural area, something that should be protected. I think its enough of an eyesore up there with the litter strewn across the cone, the scar from the erosion that's visible 20 or 30 miles away and the church on top of it without adding another to it. I'm not trying to diminish it's cultural significance or anything but we'd be better off preserving whats there rather than trying to add stuff to it imo.

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a mountain at the end of the day, a natural area, something that should be protected. I think its enough of an eyesore up there with the litter strewn across the cone, the scar from the erosion that's visible 20 or 30 miles away and the church on top of it without adding another to it. I'm not trying to diminish it's cultural significance or anything but we'd be better off preserving whats there rather than trying to add stuff to it imo.

I can see where you're coming from, but by the same token, should the Christ the Redeemer statue not have been built in Rio? Should there be no railway to, or gift shop on top of, Pike's Peak?

Stuff gets built on top of mountains all the time.

Neworder79

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a mountain at the end of the day, a natural area, something that should be protected. I think its enough of an eyesore up there with the litter strewn across the cone, the scar from the erosion that's visible 20 or 30 miles away and the church on top of it without adding another to it. I'm not trying to diminish it's cultural significance or anything but we'd be better off preserving whats there rather than trying to add stuff to it imo.

Well said. He didn't do his case any good with that tacky, kitsch, fugly celtic cross muppet show mish mash of a "design" either.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but by the same token, should the Christ the Redeemer statue not have been built in Rio? Should there be no railway to, or gift shop on top of, Pike's Peak?

Stuff gets built on top of mountains all the time.

Considering Christ the Redeemer was built within a national park it most certainly should not have been built at all imo and would not be permitted to be built today if it were proposed. I wouldn't agree to the stuff on pike's peak either, but a great deal of that stuff has been there over 100 years at this stage.

Just because stuff is built on mountains all the time doesn't mean it should be. The reek, much like the places you mentioned, is famous for it's history and what is already there, putting a statue at the top is completely pointless and would be more akin to putting a top-hat on christ the redeemer rather than it's inital construction imo.

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Considering Christ the Redeemer was built within a national park it most certainly should not have been built at all imo and would not be permitted to be built today if it were proposed. I wouldn't agree to the stuff on pike's peak either, but a great deal of that stuff has been there over 100 years at this stage.

That's pretty much just an argument that people shouldn't go to the tops of mountains, tbh.

The reek, much like the places you mentioned, is famous for it's history and what is already there...

What is already there shouldn't be there, by your argument. In fact, your argument would suggest that people shouldn't climb the Reek at all.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's pretty much just an argument that people shouldn't go to the tops of mountains, tbh. What is already there shouldn't be there, by your argument. In fact, your argument would suggest that people shouldn't climb the Reek at all. What is already there shouldn't be there, by your argument. In fact, your argument would suggest that people shouldn't climb the Reek at all.

Seriously? How does not agreeing with statues, gift shops and railways being built on top of mountains equate to people should not climb mountains? The stuff you mentioned was all built prior to the environmental movement even existing for the most part (the christ statue even predates the national park it's in), different times different standards.

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying any of the stuff shouldn't be there now, I was expressing my opinion that I would be against developments like that in a nature reserve if they were to be put forward now, as would a lot of people I would imagine. What I was also trying to say is that the likes of christ the redeemer, pikes peak and the reek all have cultural significance now due to their history and fame, they are all national monuments in their own right and I don't see why anyone would want to alter a national monument from it's current state.

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Seriously? How does not agreeing with statues, gift shops and railways being built on top of mountains equate to people should not climb mountains?

You also mentioned the "scar from erosion" on the Reek. That scar is a result of the mountain's current status as a visitor attraction. If you don't want a visible footpath on a mountain, you can't let people climb it.

The stuff you mentioned was all built prior to the environmental movement even existing for the most part (the christ statue even predates the national park it's in), different times different standards.

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying any of the stuff shouldn't be there now, I was expressing my opinion that I would be against developments like that in a nature reserve if they were to be put forward now, as would a lot of people I would imagine. What I was also trying to say is that the likes of christ the redeemer, pikes peak and the reek all have cultural significance now due to their history and fame, they are all national monuments in their own right and I don't see why anyone would want to alter a national monument from it's current state.

Does that mean you wouldn't have the same objection to a large statue (not necessarily of St Patrick) being built on top of Neiphin, along with a road leading up to it?

I'm not arguing with you because I necessarily disagree with you; I'm ambivalent about the idea and using you as a sounding board for teasing out my feelings on the matter. I've been to Christ the Redeemer and been wowed by the view over Rio; I've been to Pike's Peak and frozen inside a cloud (but would have been wowed by the view over the Rockies if I could have seen it).

As you say: different times, different standards. If the standards you now want to enforce were in place at the time, I wouldn't have had that view of Rio or enjoyed a fantastic railway journey to a 14,000'+ peak.

PogMoThoin

Indeed, I took a train to the top of Snowdon in Wales, the view is breathtaking, you can see Ireland on a clear day. There's even a post office at the top http://www.visitsnowdonia.info/

It's typical nimbyism to turn away something like this. It could have been a big attraction.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You also mentioned the "scar from erosion" on the Reek. That scar is a result of the mountain's current status as a visitor attraction. If you don't want a visible footpath on a mountain, you can't let people climb it. Does that mean you wouldn't have the same objection to a large statue (not necessarily of St Patrick) being built on top of Neiphin, along with a road leading up to it?

I'm not arguing with you because I necessarily disagree with you; I'm ambivalent about the idea and using you as a sounding board for teasing out my feelings on the matter. I've been to Christ the Redeemer and been wowed by the view over Rio; I've been to Pike's Peak and frozen inside a cloud (but would have been wowed by the view over the Rockies if I could have seen it).

As you say: different times, different standards. If the standards you now want to enforce were in place at the time, I wouldn't have had that view of Rio or enjoyed a fantastic railway journey to a 14,000'+ peak.

I'd probably object even more to a statue on Neiphin than I would to one on the Reek since neiphin is still a lot more untouched than the reek.

There's not much that can be done about the erosion now apart from maybe put in an actual trail with proper measures to try and stop it getting any worse. Would be money better spent than shelling out to get a statue up there. Most countries i've hiked or climbed in would have done that decades ago to prevent the state it's currently in but then again it's been a pilgrimage site for so long the path had probably been worn in long before that kind of thing was common practice.

I get what you're saying about your experiences and thats great, I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone (a train up wouldn't appeal to me personally though), like I said, those things are there now and are famous the world over. For me though a statue on top of the reek isn't going to make the view from the top any better or the slog any more rewarding, nor will it add any more cultural significance to the mountain than it already has, so why put it there?

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd probably object even more to a statue on Neiphin than I would to one on the Reek since neiphin is still a lot more untouched than the reek.

But it's not in a national park or nature reserve, isn't a national monument and doesn't have cultural significance. So why not stick a statue on it?

I get what you're saying about your experiences and thats great, I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone (a train up wouldn't appeal to me personally though), like I said, those things are there now and are famous the world over.

The train to Pike's Peak has a cultural significance in its own right, as the world's highest cog railway. It's also a way for less physically able people to access a mountain that would otherwise be inaccessible to them.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

But it's not in a national park or nature reserve, isn't a national monument and doesn't have cultural significance. So why not stick a statue on it? .

I simply place value on nature areas regardless of them having an official designation