cross on Carrauntoohil cut down

hiddenmongoose

why would anybody go to the lengths to climb up to cut the cross down ? honestly why would you do something like that?

fits

There is a theory that the metal in the cross mast just failed. And its not implausible. Pretty windy up there after all.

captainwang

It looks very much like it was cut with an angle grinder unfortunately from the pictures. Rust isn't shiny like that.

fits

Saw this on after hours. Pole failing under load. I honestly think its the most likely explanation. hell of a job to carry cutting equipment up there.

http://polescentral.acuitybrands.com/Images/pdf%20images/wind_loading_harmonics___Wind_Induced_Vibrations_I_2.jpg

laoch na mona

this is my favorite non news story ever, honestly who is sad enough to get upset over an archaic symbol of holy Ireland being removed
and likewise who is sad enough to climb a mountain just to cut down a poxy cross

groovyg

Its odd that somebody would go to the bother of carrying an angle grinder up there to cut it down.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cross-on-summit-of-carrauntoohil-cut-down-1.2011907

Dunno what that Kerry county councilor is smoking tho!!

Kerry county councillor John Joe Culloty who earlier this year proposed a crucifix be hung in the council chamber in Killarney, said the cutting of the cross was a further step in the move towards “a Godless society”.

Mr Culloty said he had not known the cross had been cut down and expressed disappointment at the news. He would be doing all in his power to have the cross reinstated he said.
Mr Culloty said Christianity and Catholicism was the religion of the majority of the people and references to it were enshrined in the Constitution.

But he claimed both the Taoiseach and the President had last Christmas made speeches without reference to God, making it “very clear what is coming down the tracks”. This he explained was a reference to the State moving away from its Christian ethos and people having “to give up everything in an attempt to become secular”.

He said he saw the removal of the cross as part of a drive to “allow what is not normal and to become normal”. He said he meant abortion, gay

Its pure vandalism, it was only a few weeks ago that somebody sent me pics on fb of marked boulders in yellow paint all the way up to Carrauntoohil via heavenly gates.

Alun

I'm going to be a bit controversial here and say that it shouldn't have been put there in the first place. Things like that, and I don't just mean crosses, simply don't belong on the top of mountains.

BarryD

What about passage graves then Alun? Should they be bulldozed!!

I'd be concerned about John Joe Culloty etc., though - can you imagine what equipment they might want to bring up there to reinstate it.

I'd view it as vandalism as whether we like it or not, the mountain is in private ownership and the local people who live in that district saw fit to put it up for their own reasons.

More controversial perhaps are the placement of footbridges to assist walkers and/or carparks. And what about what seems to be a growing thing of having a personal memorial erected - 'So and so loved these hills, RIP' etc.?

BarryD

Probably used something like this http://www.ie.screwfix.com/makita-dga452z-4-angle-grinder-18v-bare-a13ec5.html

Here's the photo - who knows??

riffmongous

It's private land and anything that threatens the relationship between walkers and landowners should be condemned imo

loobylou

It was pig ugly, the mountain will be a better place without it.
Personally hope its not replaced, but if it is (as I suspect), how about a stone celtic cross which may at least blend somewhat into its environment.

Read the Pat Falvey status update on it.

It went like this.

Pat Falvey Pat Falvey Pat Falvey Pat Falvey cross cut Pat Falvey Pat Falvey.

fits

Deleted User wrote: »

Read the Pat Falvey status update on it.

It went like this.

Pat Falvey Pat Falvey Pat Falvey Pat Falvey cross cut Pat Falvey Pat Falvey.

lol!

fits

BarryD wrote: »

More controversial perhaps are the placement of footbridges to assist walkers and/or carparks.

I wouldnt have any objection to these at all. Have visited places like Slovenia which have high altitude huts and via ferrata cabling installed, and New Zealand which just has a fantastic well maintained, well marked hiking infrastructure in place. I wish we could open up the tracks in Ireland even more.

Smartly Dressed

Without wanting to sound militant, I hope it's the first of many to be cut down.

Lately I've observed a growing trend in my locality of people leaving religious paraphernalia and framed RIP notes to the deceased on top of mountains. I find it to be quite a selfish practice.

jank

Smartly Dressed wrote: »

Without wanting to sound militant, I hope it's the first of many to be cut down.

Lately I've observed a growing trend in my locality of people leaving religious paraphernalia and framed RIP notes to the deceased on top of mountains. I find it to be quite a selfish practice.

Why?

Do you think these are selfish too?

W1ll1s

To be quite honest,that looks better than a old rusty cross...

camlinhall

BarryD wrote: »

Probably used something like this http://www.ie.screwfix.com/makita-dga452z-4-angle-grinder-18v-bare-a13ec5.html

Here's the photo - who knows??

I was thinking portable generator and Sherpas.. but yes, a cordless might do it before the battery dies

Smartly Dressed

jank wrote: »

Why?

Do you think these are selfish too?

Yes I do. As people, we just can't seem to leave anything alone. We feel compelled to leave our (ugly) mark everywhere we go, whether it's by throwing pennies in a stream or blemishing stunning landscape with prayer flags and crosses. I don't want to see a framed, glass and plastic reminder that ''Lady Smith died on the 5th of October 2003, aged 4" every time I reach the top of a particular mountain. It's not that I don't feel sympathy, I just think it's inappropriate to leave things like that on public property.

I know a lot of these traditions are about socialising with future generations and interacting with the past, but it should be done in designated sites and definitely not by throwing a religious symbol on the top of a mountain.

Hugh_C

Smartly Dressed wrote: »

Yes I do. As people, we just can't seem to leave anything alone. We feel compelled to leave our (ugly) mark everywhere we go, whether it's by throwing pennies in a stream or blemishing stunning landscape with prayer flags and crosses. I don't want to see a framed, glass and plastic reminder that ''Lady Smith died on the 5th of October 2003, aged 4" every time I reach the top of a particular mountain. It's not that I don't feel sympathy, I just think it's inappropriate to leave things like that on public property.

I know a lot of these traditions are about socialising with future generations and interacting with the past, but it should be done in designated sites and definitely not by throwing a religious symbol on the top of a mountain.

To be fair on Sherpa and western climbers/trekkers who have left prayer flags in the photo above (at Dukla Pass if I'm not mistaken, one of the most moving places I've been), they last maybe a year before disintegrating and disappearing. They're transitory. The cross on the other hands is/was a lot more permanent and iconic. I think it should not be re-erected, I think it should be replaced by a stone carving/monument by a local artist depicting something that isn't as divisive and represents all aspects of the community.

a148pro

Smartly Dressed wrote: »

Lately I've observed a growing trend in my locality of people leaving religious paraphernalia and framed RIP notes to the deceased on top of mountains. I find it to be quite a selfish practice.

I couldn't disagree more. I feel close to my God (i.e. nature) when I'm in those kind of places. I also feel really really alive. So when I see a memorial to someone else, who probably loved the mountains too, it reminds me of how important it is to live my life to the full and do stuff like that more often.

As long as either of them aren't done gaudily I don't mind. I think its a bit selfish to want it all to yourself.

BarryD

Yes, but you wouldn't want a whole clatter of memorials either, would you?? It could get out of hand if everyone did it?

Odelay

Alun wrote: »

I'm going to be a bit controversial here and say that it shouldn't have been put there in the first place. Things like that, and I don't just mean crosses, simply don't belong on the top of mountains.

If they had to put something there a simple sculpture to acknowledge the hard work of the kerry mountain rescue might be more appropriate.

riffmongous

What's wrong with the old countryside code, leave property as it is and leave nothing behind but footprints?

robp

Smartly Dressed wrote: »

Without wanting to sound militant, I hope it's the first of many to be cut down.

Lately I've observed a growing trend in my locality of people leaving religious paraphernalia and framed RIP notes to the deceased on top of mountains. I find it to be quite a selfish practice.

Well it is militant and criminal too. The cross is a landmark on private land. I am all for maintaining untouched wilderness but Carrauntoohil is just not suitable for that. Anyway there is a certain dishonestly trying to remove all human traces there- the spot is steeped in human cultural significance.

From an aesthetic point of view the cross added a lot. Those who complain that a cross is divisive are being unreasonable precious. Why not leave Carrauntoohil as it is, cross and all.

If they had to put something there a simple sculpture to acknowledge the hard work of the kerry mountain rescue might be more appropriate.

The cross did acknowledge important local figures.

jank

Smartly Dressed wrote: »

Yes I do. As people, we just can't seem to leave anything alone. We feel compelled to leave our (ugly) mark everywhere we go, whether it's by throwing pennies in a stream or blemishing stunning landscape with prayer flags and crosses. I don't want to see a framed, glass and plastic reminder that ''Lady Smith died on the 5th of October 2003, aged 4" every time I reach the top of a particular mountain. It's not that I don't feel sympathy, I just think it's inappropriate to leave things like that on public property.

I know a lot of these traditions are about socialising with future generations and interacting with the past, but it should be done in designated sites and definitely not by throwing a religious symbol on the top of a mountain.

I see your point to an extent. However, humans by nature have left their mark on this planet in various forms of monuments, buildings and memorials. The Taj Mahal was built as a memorial to someones dead wife? Perhaps we should bulldoze it? The pyramids were burial sites for dead pharaohs. We should leave the desert alone! Newgrange and Stonehenge Etc...etc..

When people climb mountains it means different things to different people. For some its purely a physical feat, for others the meaning is almost entirely spiritual. We are all different and we should respect that. Therefore being militant about leaving memorials or religious symbols is not really a respect for other humans it is actually a manifestation of militarism and selfishness of itself. We should be tolerant of others even though we may not agree 100% of the means.

Anyone who has been to Tibet will recognise how much devastation and destruction the Chinese communists wreaked on the country especially its cultural and religious symbols of Tibetan Buddhism. I do not agree with many aspect of this religion but I respect that people have a right to it and would never go out of my way to deface or defile such monuments. The Chinese did this as part of 'liberating' and 'freeing' Tibet from superstition. Some 90% of monasteries were destroyed in the cultural revolution including in places of geographical significance like Everest base camp. This period of time was called "The Great Leap Forward" in China.

Nobody is saying that we should build a Burger King up on a mountain top, or have the place littered with hundreds of memorial picture's. If the problem was that bad then a solution could be marked out. However, the odd one here or there doesn't bother me personally and the cross itself is of cultural significance to the people of the surrounding land. You may not agree with it but that does not mean you have a right or a mandate to cut it down.

BreadnBuddha

That ugly pox of a cross was erected in the late 1970's. It was hideous.

I'm delighted it's been dropped and saddened at the prospect of some gob****e holy joe clown pushing hard enough to get it repaired or replaced.

You want to stick a cross on your living room wall or build a new chapel down the road, fire away. More power to you. Just leave that crap off the mountains.

From boots full of concrete to park benches to crosses, none of it has any place on a mountain.

Lucidly54

I am amazed no-body has cashed in on it and seen the potential for miracles and mirages and cures and stuff - Carrauntoohil could have been the Medujore of Ireland ( before the Cross was cut down) and all these boring Holy Mary and Holy Joe mountain clmbers could have had another dimension to running up and down damp mountains on a Saturday morning returning only with smelly socks and grazed knuckles. There could have been a far off mystical stare in the eyes.

From a local point of view there could be holy water straight from the streams being sold in bottles and these sheep farmers from the Gap and their mountain guides are so cute normally ( in a money making sense, one must stress) it is just incredible they let this opportunity slip.....and being non-salty,

I really hope they find the lads who did it...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...and get them to work on wind turbines...

robp

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

That ugly pox of a cross was erected in the late 1970's. It was hideous.

I'm delighted it's been dropped and saddened at the prospect of some gob****e holy joe clown pushing hard enough to get it repaired or replaced.

You want to stick a cross on your living room wall or build a new chapel down the road, fire away. More power to you. Just leave that crap off the mountains.

From boots full of concrete to park benches to crosses, none of it has any place on a mountain.

You really are a parody of yourself. I'd advise you not to comment on areas outside your expertise. By insisting on the mountain being its mountainty self you want to impose your own fanciful ideal of what a mountain should be, destroying any heritage in the process. From a legal perspective the fact the cross is 20 th century changes nothing.

I hope the thugs who did this are prosecuted. We don't value our heritage enough in the country. A year ago some scumbags went out of their way to smash a medieval cross in Dunsany Meath. This trend has to be combated.

Yawlboy

did it have planning permission in the first place?

BreadnBuddha

robp wrote: »

You really are a parody of yourself. I'd advise you not to comment on areas outside your expertise. By insisting on the mountain being its mountainty self you want to impose your own fanciful ideal of what a mountain should be, destroying any heritage in the process. From a legal perspective the fact the cross is 20 th century changes nothing.

I hope the thugs who did this are prosecuted. We don't value our heritage enough in the country. A year ago some scumbags went out of their way to smash a medieval cross in Dunsany Meath. This trend has to be combated.

A parody of myself? Down with this sort of thing and all that?

Outside my area of expertise you say?

There's a big difference between a stone cross at an 8th century monastic settlement being vandalised and a few pieces of box section steel, a handful of bolts and a few sacks of sand and cement that were dumped on the top of Carrauntoohil being chopped down with a cordless angle grinder.

1970's religious tat being dumped on the mountain isn't heritage. It's tacky crap that never should be been there in the first place. It's not like there was a celtic stone cross there back in the day, is it? It's the mountainside equivalent of the towers in Ballymun.

Good riddance I say, and may the man with the grinder wet his boots on a few more summits around the island before he hangs up his power tools.

BreadnBuddha

robp wrote: »

Well it is militant and criminal too. The cross is a landmark on private land. I am all for maintaining untouched wilderness but Carrauntoohil is just not suitable for that. Anyway there is a certain dishonestly trying to remove all human traces there- the spot is steeped in human cultural significance.

From an aesthetic point of view the cross added a lot. Those who complain that a cross is divisive are being unreasonable precious. Why not leave Carrauntoohil as it is, cross and all.

The cross did acknowledge important local figures.

Why not let someone put it back the way it was before some Jesus freaks decided to bolt some leftover ironwork together?

I'm getting a smell of Uppity Holy Joe off the soles of your boots, as you ride by on your oul' high horse there too.

Cementing that monstrosity onto a Mountain in a National Park was militant and criminal.

riffmongous

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Why not let someone put it back the way it was before some Jesus freaks decided to bolt some leftover ironwork together?

I'm getting a smell of Uppity Holy Joe off the soles of your boots, as you ride by on your oul' high horse there too.

Cementing that monstrosity onto a Mountain in a National Park was militant and criminal.

Are you wilfully ignoring the fact that it's private land?

BreadnBuddha

No.

I'm willfully declining to accept that the land should be labelled as privately owned in the first place.

But that's another discussion entirely and I won't digress or be drawn on it.

Again, well done that man with the Makita.

Yawlboy

Yawlboy wrote: »

did it have planning permission in the first place?

Was it needed? The cross was there since the 1940s or 50s afaik, before planning permission. It was replaced in the 1970s, but that might mean permission was not necessary then.

Manach

Well nice to know it is a foretaste of the delightful Ireland the PC brigade have in sort for a future Ireland. A type of Year-Zero approach to removing any aspects of non-approved or ideological different articles.

BreadnBuddha

This isn't about PC, ideology, religion.

It could have been a giant Michelin man or a 5 meter high ice cream cone and I'd have been just as happy.

None of that crap, yes crap, should be on a mountain top.

On the religion bit, say your prayers and grace. Go to confession. Take communion. Read the bible, the Quran, the Torah, whatever. Hangs a star of david, a crucifix or a pentagram on the wall of your house or tattooed on your neck if you want for all I care.

Just don't put it on a mountain.

If you do, someone will cut it down again. Probably.

Manach

No - that is purest non-sense, evasion and deflection that tries the skirt around the base responsibility that such engages in the PC culture. Not surprising. By seeking to eliminate traces of the past and to have one narrow progressive mindset that seeks to minimise or belittle its opponent ie"Jesus freaks".

This gives a patina of permission for the little ideological wunderkids to try their vandalising ways.

BreadnBuddha

Manach wrote: »

No - that is purest non-sense, evasion and deflection that tries the skirt around the base responsibility that such engages in the PC culture. Not surprising. By seeking to eliminate traces of the past and to have one narrow progressive mindset that seeks to minimise or belittle its opponent ie"Jesus freaks".

This gives a patina of permission for the little ideological wunderkids to try their vandalising ways.

The only people who will go to the trouble and effort to once again inappropriately position an alien structure on the top of a mountain in a stunning location like the reeks, will be those I fondly refer to as Jesus Freaks, the devout Christians who seem to think it's okay to do so because it's a symbol of their faith.

I don't care what one wants to put on top of this or any other mountain, one should leave it as nature created it, not as suits your own interests.

Manach

As opposed to the vandals, who seem to lack even the most emphatic understanding of the culture that there are wrecking by their wanton acts of destruction. It can either be tied in to other historical historical movements that sought to underpin their own truths by banishing others or perhaps liked to a Green movement that seeks purity by removing any human objects in the landscape.
Either way the gross crowing of the PC brigades to the destruction of the Cross paints an unflattering image of the "toleration" they profess and shows a contemptible regard for tradition for such monuments.

BreadnBuddha

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

On the religion bit, say your prayers and grace. Go to confession. Take communion. Read the bible, the Quran, the Torah, whatever. Hangs a star of david, a crucifix or a pentagram on the wall of your house or tattooed on your neck if you want for all I care.

I agree.

Hence if the landowners want it back up, it's their decision. If they want it to stay down, it's their decision.

BreadnBuddha

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree.

Hence if the landowners want it back up, it's their decision. If they want it to stay down, it's their decision.

Which turns the conversation to point again towards land ownership, something I'm not going to get into here. We don't agree on that point, so let's accept that and move on.

Mickeroo

Carrauntoohil isn't in a national park btw. I had no problem with the cross being there tbh and making something out of iron doesn't automatically mean it has no value in terms of heritage, the only difference between it and a monastic cross as far as I can see is it's a bit newer.

Also there's plenty of remote mountains with crosses on top of them around Europe, as far as man made structures go they're not particularly intrusive imo. Having said that I wouldn't be bothered with re-erecting it, now it's gone it's gone. I agree with not putting things like this on mountains in this day and age but I don't agree with removing legitimate monuments from the past, which this was imo.

BreadnBuddha

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Which turns the conversation to point again towards land ownership, something I'm not going to get into here. We don't agree on that point, so let's accept that and move on.

But there is nothing to not agree on! If you don't accept that it is privately owned, I'm afraid you are wrong. It is.

Now of course the public may have various rights, there may even be a public right of way to the summit, I am not sure whether that's ever been tested. But that does not come with the right to tell the landowners what they can and cannot do with their lands. We are invitees on their land.

It's their call.

Dan_Solo

Does anybody know what this cross was specifically for? Was it just a general statement "we're christians here, look we put up a cross"?

BreadnBuddha

Manach wrote: »

As opposed to the vandals, who seem to lack even the most emphatic understanding of the culture that there are wrecking by their wanton acts of destruction. It can either be tied in to other historical historical movements that sought to underpin their own truths by banishing others or perhaps liked to a Green movement that seeks purity by removing any human objects in the landscape.

Who offended first? Who deserves to claim the erection of their monuments to be right and fair? At what point did the tables turn for Christians to start adopting this approach? After millenia of oppression and destruction of those with differing beliefs to their own? Are you trying to make this a religious discussion or are we talking about a bunch of people who claim the right to put a hideous monstrosity atop a mountain in the idyllic setting of the reeks?

I make it about the latter, you make it about the former.

Manach wrote: »

Either way the gross crowing of the PC brigades to the destruction of the Cross paints an unflattering image of the "toleration" they profess and shows a contemptible regard for tradition for such monuments.

It's interesting that you raise the point of wrecking through wanton acts of destruction, then flop onto the 'green' and 'pc' limp wristed slap of someone with little valid perspective of the world in which you live.

It has little to do with Green or any other movement, nor with political correctness. You raise tolerance, but I suggest that it's the shrinking Christian populace who wish all others to show tolerance, including permitting the erection of monuments to their own faith in places that should be unspoiled for ALL to enjoy.

Smartly Dressed

Manach wrote: »

As opposed to the vandals, who seem to lack even the most emphatic understanding of the culture that there are wrecking by their wanton acts of destruction. It can either be tied in to other historical historical movements that sought to underpin their own truths by banishing others or perhaps liked to a Green movement that seeks purity by removing any human objects in the landscape.
Either way the gross crowing of the PC brigades to the destruction of the Cross paints an unflattering image of the "toleration" they profess and shows a contemptible regard for tradition for such monuments.

Many would find it difficult to summon up an emphatic understanding of a culture that led to this country being viciously Catholic since gaining independence from Britain - and the time at which this cross was erected coincides with that period.

You make it sound like having serious misgivings about a religious symbol directly associated with an institution that oppressed, assaulted and raped the people of this country is just shallow political correctness for the sake of trying to claim some moral high ground.

Maybe those points are extreme but they certainly aren't exaggerated.

laoch na mona

Deleted User wrote: »

I really hope they find the lads who did it...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...and get them to work on wind turbines...

ahh now turbines at least do something

laoch na mona

laoch na mona wrote: »

ahh now turbines at least do something

The love of the Good Lord Jesus electrifies the soul maaaaaaaan!

BreadnBuddha

laoch na mona wrote: »

ahh now turbines at least do something

It could be argued that both rely to some degree on the presence of a large amount of hot air in proximity to have effect ....