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

swampgas

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Perhaps the vandals dumped the statue rather than hold onto it, as a sort of loophole in the 7th commandment.

If they're biblical fundamentalists then they probably are not constrained by logic anyway. Difficult or inconvenient thoughts are simply ignored!

jank

swampgas wrote: »

The cross-cutter was certainly a vandal, but...

.

The question hasn't been answered. It's all a bit silly tbh. A big willy waving contest about moral codes and what not.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

The question hasn't been answered. It's all a bit silly tbh. A big willy waving contest about moral codes and what not.

Do you mean this question?

I wonder what moral code did the person who cut down the Cross on Carrauntoohil break?

If so, I'm not sure I get what point you're making? Cross-cutter-man was obviously upset at something he felt the church had done, and so he struck at one of its symbols. He wasn't claiming (AFAIK) to be following any specific moral code.

The other lot, by contrast, have specifically used a reference to one of the ten commandments as (one assumes) justification for the theft of the statue that they found so offensive. There is a basic irony in that that doesn't apply in the first case.

In any case, Carrauntoohil being the higher mountain, you could argue that cross-cutter-man has the moral high ground

(Sorry - I simply couldn't resist shoehorning a "moral high ground" pun in there somewhere.)

lazygal

I'm sure there'd be a slippery slope pun in there somewhere too.

jank

swampgas wrote: »

Do you mean this question?


If so, I'm not sure I get what point you're making? Cross-cutter-man was obviously upset at something he felt the church had done, and so he struck at one of its symbols. He wasn't claiming (AFAIK) to be following any specific moral code.

The other lot, by contrast, have specifically used a reference to one of the ten commandments as (one assumes) justification for the theft of the statue that they found so offensive. There is a basic irony in that that doesn't apply in the first case.

A number of things.

I am sure the Al-Queda Islamists felt they were upset by Charlie Hedbo before they killed 12 of their journalists. Being upset or offended by something or other does not give one ANY right to cause damage to private property or go out to cause violence. This should be a line in the sand across the board, by theists and atheists alike we should all agree on rather than act like in some Neanderthal tribe (the other lot?)

Yet people engage in whataboutery. You have displayed a very similar rational that some Muslims engage in when people in their name go out and do violence onto others. They may disagree with it, but some sympathies are prevalent to their action. Cross-cutter man in this case, may have been technically wrong but (and its always a but) it really really is the fault of the RCC ain't it?

Cross-cutter man and whomever stole that Manannán statue are both idiot and criminals. They should be prosecuted equally under the law and compensation paid out to those affected. No ifs or buts.

Finally, arguing over moral codes, who they apply to and who they do not is just a big willy waving contest that seems to happen regularly for whatever reason. Playground stuff.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

A number of things.

I am sure the Al-Queda Islamists felt they were upset by Charlie Hedbo before they killed 12 of their journalists. Being upset or offended by something or other does not give one ANY right to cause damage to private property or go out to cause violence. This should be a line in the sand across the board, by theists and atheists alike we should all agree on rather than act like in some Neanderthal tribe (the other lot?)

Yet people engage in whataboutery. You have displayed a very similar rational that some Muslims engage in when people in their name go out and do violence onto others. They may disagree with it, but some sympathies are prevalent to their action. Cross-cutter man in this case, may have been technically wrong but (and its always a but) it really really is the fault of the RCC ain't it?

Cross-cutter man and whomever stole that Manannán statue are both idiot and criminals. They should be prosecuted equally under the law and compensation paid out to those affected. No ifs or buts.

Finally, arguing over moral codes, who they apply to and who they do not is just a big willy waving contest that seems to happen regularly for whatever reason. Playground stuff.

You seem to think I am arguing something I'm not?

I'm still not sure what your beef is here. Yes, CCM (cross-cutter-man) and SRM (statue-robbing-man) have both vandalised what might be considered public monuments. Clearly both have their motivations.

What I found ironic with SRM was the implied justification - that it was idolatry, contravening the first commandment, but that their solution was theft.

A bit like terrorists justifying murder as a solution to perceived injustice - their solution is a bigger crime than their perceived problem.

I really don't get the willy-waving reference though.

jank

swampgas wrote: »

I really don't get the willy-waving reference though.

Comparing moral codes like top trump cards.

Waerobic Woxajack

Disgusting. This is the result of the lack of respect for others that the vulgar, crude, trashy media have created in this country.

obplayer

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

Disgusting. This is the result of the lack of respect for others that the vulgar, crude, trashy media have created in this country.

Sorry, not following you. What is disgusting? Willy waving, cutting down crosses, cutting down statues?

BlaasForRafa

jank wrote: »

A number of things.

I am sure the Al-Queda Islamists felt they were upset by Charlie Hedbo before they killed 12 of their journalists. Being upset or offended by something or other does not give one ANY right to cause damage to private property or go out to cause violence. This should be a line in the sand across the board, by theists and atheists alike we should all agree on rather than act like in some Neanderthal tribe (the other lot?)

Comparing the charlie hebdo massacre to someone cutting down an iron cross on a hill? Not exactly comparing like with like are you?

And I'm not surprised you don't mention why the cross was there in the first place. It's the usual thing that religions do, place their symbols in the most prominent place to display to the population who's in charge...in this case, "This is a catholic country and don't you lot forget it!".

If people want to look at crosses then they can do so in their own home or their churches, they don't have to despoil natural landmarks with their ugly symbols of blood sacrifice.

Brian Shanahan

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

Disgusting. This is the result of the lack of respect for others that the vulgar, crude, trashy media have created in this country.

Yes, I agree with you, the rcc and its media cronies in this country have perpetrated disgusting acts on the Irish people for long enough. It's time we throw off the yoke of reactionary religion and implement the secular society our grandfathers fought for in 1916 and 1919-1921.

jank

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Comparing the charlie hebdo massacre to someone cutting down an iron cross on a hill? Not exactly comparing like with like are you?

And I'm not surprised you don't mention why the cross was there in the first place. It's the usual thing that religions do, place their symbols in the most prominent place to display to the population who's in charge...in this case, "This is a catholic country and don't you lot forget it!".

If people want to look at crosses then they can do so in their own home or their churches, they don't have to despoil natural landmarks with their ugly symbols of blood sacrifice.

A bit late to the debate aren't you. I answered all these already. If you have anything new to add to the debate by all means have a go.

expectationlost

Pilgrim Paths Day, 2016 http://www.pilgrimpath.ie/pilgrim-paths-day-2016/ who's up for it

see how they try and hide that crosses and mountains are recent thing https://www.facebook.com/SkelligKerry/posts/963264040400730

jank

Recent as in a few hundred years old or recent as in built yesterday?