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

whats newxt

Anyone want to donate a con saw to me i know of a few crosses near me that need taking down.

shruikan2553

J Mysterio wrote: »

You call it indoctrination in Irish schools, I do not.

In my school we were taught this is how it is, God is real and anyone who says otherwise was wrong. Catholicism is right and this is what we believe.

If we look at this we have the teaching of something while the person being taught isnt meant to question or critically examine it. If only we had a word to describe that.

Cantremember

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yeah, imagine the pope doing that. Forget comedy central, tune to EWTN, hours of.laughs for you.

It's even funnier than that: I don't have to imagine him doing that, he does it in the real world! You're right about the religion channels...incredibly funny.

Mech1

I read today that that cross / giant mickey, whatever you want, was erect again.

looksee

expectationlost wrote: »

you seem to have more information on this then the rest of us.

I do not understand this comment. Ok, maybe it was a large group, or an individual, either way it was still some one imposing their views on everyone else by vandalism.

Brian Shanahan

kylith wrote: »

Thanks for that, as I said it was 1am when I posted that.

Not a bother. I wasn't disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument either, just cleaning up the reported statistics.

Bloodwing

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody does, it could just as likely have been a pissed of Catholic, protestant, Muslim, scientology, Mormon etc

Maybe it's just a local who had an axe to grind with one of the land owners or the local priest. Who knows.

Could have also been metal fatigue

If I was a betting man my money would be on a group of criminals with a knowledge of the value of scrap metal who were perhaps disturbed or planned on returning to finish the job at a later point.

The theft of metal works of art is nothing new.

braddun

its back up

Brian Shanahan

eviltwin wrote: »

Getting into heaven isn't much of a consolation when you are denied the right to marry your partner just because you are gay.

And the rcc refuses even that. To get into heaven as a gay person you have to abstain from any sexual activity, even so far as looking on at another gay person with lust.

All this talk from Bergoglio is nothing but mealy mouthed propoganda designed to detract from the fact that the church is, in fact, getting more conservative and intolerant not less. He is a PR shill, and frankly doesn't even mean a word he says, but as he can lie welll "sure tisn't it all grand?"

magicbastarder

Bloodwing wrote: »

If I was a betting man my money would be on a group of criminals with a knowledge of the value of scrap metal who were perhaps disturbed or planned on returning to finish the job at a later point.

it's not an insubstantial cross, but it's not particularly substantial either. i suspect someone who was in it purely for financial gain would have been able to benefit from far lower hanging fruit.

Bloodwing

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not an insubstantial cross, but it's not particularly substantial either. i suspect someone who was in it purely for financial gain would have been able to benefit from far lower hanging fruit.

Very true, I was just putting another theory out there. Some of the individuals involved in metal theft would stun you with their stupidity though, so anything is possible.

swampgas

You know, it would be nice if just once some of the people who are so adamant that the cross should be there, and who are so quick to point out that it has broad support from the community, could find it in themselves to admit publically that maybe there are other Irish people who they share this island with who are not Catholic and who do not want a cross there, or even some people who are Catholic and still don't want a cross there. Tolerance for other views, never mind religions, does not seem to be evident. Which makes their stance (IMO) all the more objectionable.

There seems to be a siege mentality among some Catholics in Ireland, such that you'd think Cromwell was still running the place.

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

You know, it would be nice if just once some of the people who are so adamant that the cross should be there, and who are so quick to point out that it has broad support from the community, could find it in themselves to admit publically that maybe there are other Irish people who they share this island with who are not Catholic and who do not want a cross there, or even some people who are Catholic and still don't want a cross there. Tolerance for other views, never mind religions, does not seem to be evident. Which makes their stance (IMO) all the more objectionable.

There seems to be a siege mentality among some Catholics in Ireland, such that you'd think Cromwell was still running the place.

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

Which is where, exactly? And is this wanton vandalism? Is erecting an unnatural object in an area of natural beauty not wanton vandalism?

eviltwin

katydid wrote: »

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

I wonder do they see it as vandalism or restoring the mountain to its former beauty. Most vandalism ruins an area and leaves it in a mess, this didn't.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder do they see it as vandalism or restoring the mountain to its former beauty. Most vandalism ruins an area and leaves it in a mess, this didn't.

Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal.

If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal.

If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?

Is the erecting of a man made object such as a cross ever vandalism?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Which is where, exactly? And is this wanton vandalism? Is erecting an unnatural object in an area of natural beauty not wanton vandalism?

Like the Christ statue overlooking Rio? No, it's not. It's private property, and while there may be planning issue, it's certainly not vandalism.

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

Ah yes...that slippery slope we all know and love here in A&A. The one where liking sweetness leads to multiple packs of chocolate chip cookies; supporting women's reproductive choice leads to plummeting birth rates and enforced abortions; gay marriage leads to gender ambivalent children with no respect for the tax system; secularism leads to an immoral society bent (no pun intended) on tormenting the RCC; etc.

Wanton vandalism is, as you say, "wanton" ie. deliberate and unprovoked. We don't know why the cross was toppled, but if it were because some folk had had enough of the notion of the cross symbolising Irish people, I (for one) can't blame them. And at this stage in the game, I wouldn't call it un-provoked.

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Is the erecting of a man made object such as a cross ever vandalism?

It is possible to be so if it is done illegally in a clearly inappropriate place, without the consent of the landowner. You may think it was an inappropriate place, but that is a subjective opinion.

eviltwin

katydid wrote: »

Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal.

If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?

I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

Ah yes...that slippery slope we all know and love here in A&A. The one where liking sweetness leads to multiple packs of chocolate chip cookies; supporting women's reproductive choice leads to plummeting birth rates and enforced abortions; gay marriage leads to gender ambivalent children with no respect for the tax system; secularism leads to an immoral society bent (no pun intended) on tormenting the RCC; etc.

Wanton vandalism is, as you say, "wanton" ie. deliberate and unprovoked. We don't know why the cross was toppled, but if it were because some folk had had enough of the notion of the cross symbolising Irish people, I (for one) can't blame them. And at this stage in the game, I wouldn't call it un-provoked.

What provoked it?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

Like the Christ statue overlooking Rio? No, it's not. It's private property, and while there may be planning issue, it's certainly not vandalism.

Like a poorly constructed cross on top of a mountain? Is that vandalism? Would a statue of Kim Kardashian be vandalism on top of the mountain? Or how about a giant star of David, would that be vandalism if I put one up on the mountain?

eviltwin

Were the people who tore down the Berlin Wall vandals too?

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

What provoked it?

Weeelll, I don't know :rolleyes:. Perhaps the promotion of a religion on top of the highest Irish mountain peak that every Irish person should be able to call their own? Except a religion did call it their own, with a big ugly cross. That mountain is not belonging to Christianity/RCC/any other religion. It is OURS. Not theirs.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

Like a poorly constructed cross on top of a mountain? Is that vandalism? Would a statue of Kim Kardashian be vandalism on top of the mountain? Or how about a giant star of David, would that be vandalism if I put one up on the mountain?

Totally. Yes. All vandalism.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

Totally. Yes. All vandalism.

And tearing them down wouldn't be.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

And tearing them down wouldn't be.

Completely depends on if there was proper paperwork for said Kim/Star of David statues. If they were all legal, then yes it was vandalism. If not, then it wasn't. No?

recedite

looksee wrote: »

Some vandals in Waterford decided for whatever reason to chop down a 'fairy tree' on the way up to Mahon Falls. Were they Christians objecting to a pagan symbol? Or were they just ignorant fools who did it because they could? Another tree was planted to replace it, and rightly so, but the original tree which was a local landmark (for the magic road) is gone. Just because somebody wanted to inflict their views on other people.

That is a shame. I saw it there, a small hawthorn I think, with lots of little rags tied onto it. There is actually a thread about it, and boards gossip (which may be as truthful as gospel) seems to indicate that the culprit was a local landowner who cut it down after getting fed up with the public accessing the tree.
Anyway "adopting" a small tree is not the same thing as installing a large steel structure on top of a mountain. When you install some substantial man-made symbol on top of a mountain, it is like planting a flag. It is intended to send out a message. And a flag as, they say, is like a red rag to a bull.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.

My apologies. I thought you were approving of it.

I'm not sure if I agree that areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures where possible. I think it totally depends on the area and the structure.