nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Dave!

So which one of yiz was it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dades

I'd be interested to know if AI were approached for comment, or released some form of statement/letter etc.

If the former, I can actually understand how AI would want to comment along the lines of suggesting something more inclusive was erected in its place.

Wouldn't agree with volunteering a statement, however.

Realt Dearg Sec

eviltwin wrote: »

Sorry I thought your previous post meant you thought it might have been an act by someone objecting to its presence on the mountain on atheism grounds. I don't think anyone is condoning acts of vandalism are okay but there are enough churches around the place for Catholics to display their crosses.

No, I mean, of course I don't know what motivated someone to vandalise it. We might argue that going to the bother of going up there to vandalise it implies that there was some greater motivation than just being a vandal, but we don't know what the motivation was (and really it could be anything). What I mean is that atheists (and I am one) arguing for the idea that crosses and other religious jiggery pokery are not representative of them and should by implication be removed from public view implicitly condones the cutting down of the cross.

Personally, I don't really care either way, I can actually see a perfectly good argument for cutting it down, even if that means breaking the law. I personally have no real problem even with things like grottos in local villages and so on, but I can see why people do have a problem with it. But I don't really see what's gained by pursuing an agenda that such monuments should be removed on principle, because what ends up happening, as sure as the tides, is the total deracination of public space as an end in itself. 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.

Michael Nugent

Dades wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if AI were approached for comment, or released some form of statement/letter etc.

If the former, I can actually understand how AI would want to comment along the lines of suggesting something more inclusive was erected in its place.

Wouldn't agree with volunteering a statement, however.

We were approached by the media for comment.

Michael Nugent

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No, I mean, of course I don't know what motivated someone to vandalise it. We might argue that going to the bother of going up there to vandalise it implies that there was some greater motivation than just being a vandal, but we don't know what the motivation was (and really it could be anything).

The only similar case that I am aware of was when the "moving statue" in Balinspittle was attacked in the 1980s with hammers and a hatchet. The culprits were three members of a rival Christian denomination, one a preacher, and they filmed themselves attacking the statue.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What I mean is that atheists (and I am one) arguing for the idea that crosses and other religious jiggery pokery are not representative of them and should by implication be removed from public view implicitly condones the cutting down of the cross.

How so? Arguing that something should happen does not imply condoning breaking the law to make it happen.

Realt Dearg Sec

Michael Nugent wrote: »

.

How so? Arguing that something should happen does not imply condoning breaking the law to make it happen.

True, yeah, I'm not referring specifically to AI on that, just that approving of this incident of vandalism is clearly condoning breaking the law to make it happen. Because the law was broken to make it happen.

I'm just saying, pursuing a policy that focuses on what public art shouldn't do is implicitly negative: it seeks only to erase, and when the primary motivation is erasure, we are left with blankness. So that what is at best an irrelevance becomes at worst a postmodern nightmare. Your objection is to public art that is not representative of everyone. The only option, in that situation, is art that is representative of no one. That is, if it is to make any sense at all.

I take your point that you were approached for comment. And I also take your point that you are specifically against re-erecting this particular cross, which is akin to erecting new crosses in public spaces. All fine and dandy, and I wouldn't be in favour of those things either, but what kind of public art do you actually want? Saying it has to be inclusive of everyone is, to my mind, a truly terrible start.

Dades

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We were approached by the media for comment.

Thanks for the clarification. I withdraw my objection.

Unsurprisingly the article (this one at least) words it in such as way that the AI complaint appear to be proactive rather than reactive.

Atheist group concerned over plans to restore Carrauntoohill cross

Atheist Ireland is voicing concern about the reinstatement of a cross at the summit of Carrauntoohill.

It's a small thing but it makes a difference, imo.

Michael Nugent

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

True, yeah, I'm not referring specifically to AI on that, just that approving of this incident of vandalism is clearly condoning breaking the law to make it happen. Because the law was broken to make it happen.

I'm just saying, pursuing a policy that focuses on what public art shouldn't do is implicitly negative: it seeks only to erase, and when the primary motivation is erasure, we are left with blankness. So that what is at best an irrelevance becomes at worst a postmodern nightmare. Your objection is to public art that is not representative of everyone. The only option, in that situation, is art that is representative of no one. That is, if it is to make any sense at all.

I take your point that you were approached for comment.

I agree with you that public art should be pluralist rather than neutral, if the public environment is one in which all artists are equally able to participate, obviously with whatever restrictions are necessary for practical purposes.

This cross doesn't fall into that category, though. It is an exclusively Catholic (at best Christian) symbol on Ireland's highest peak, erected for overtly religious not artistic purposes, during a time of Catholic dominance of the State, with no unique artistic creativity involved.

Realt Dearg Sec

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree with you that public art should be pluralist rather than neutral, if the public environment is one in which all artists are equally able to participate, obviously with whatever restrictions are necessary for practical purposes.

This cross doesn't fall into that category, though. It is an exclusively Catholic (at best Christian) symbol on Ireland's highest peak, erected for overtly religious not artistic purposes, during a time of Catholic dominance of the State, with no unique artistic creativity involved.

No creativity whatsoever, in fact.

This is pretty off topic and even off-forum but my idea for a public sculpture is a huge chrome sh1te, right in the middle of the lake by the IFSC. It would symbolise the effort to create a shining new society through a commitment to all of the things that shiny chrome monuments and financial centres usually symbolise, and yet revealing to us all what we actually ended up with. It's something that not quite everyone, but almost everyone, of all creeds and none in this country could agree with. And it would be wildly popular with natives and visitors alike. And for certain, it couldn't be ignored. I'd call it "Never Again".

Andrewf20

Im feeling fairly indifferent about the cross. Trekking to the summit from Benkerragh or Cahir, its gives Carrauntohill a sense of scale. If they put it back up I wouldnt have an issue with it.

fisgon

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Im feeling fairly indifferent about the cross. Trekking to the summit from Benkerragh or Cahir, its gives Carrauntohill a sense of scale. If they put it back up I wouldnt have an issue with it.

Yes but a similar sized sculpture that was not a symbol of one particular religion would do the same thing, wouldn't it? Doesn't have to be a cross.

swampgas

This event is quite revealing in that it shows that most Irish people (many atheists included) simply don't get the concept of a secular state.

Here we have a huge religious symbol on Ireland's highest peak, and many people are saying what's the problem? Lots of people seem to be falling into the same old habit of assuming that Ireland is a "Catholic country", and that if a majority of Catholics somewhere in Ireland want to impose their religious symbols on a mountaintop then nobody else should object.

The casual arrogance of Catholics assuming they can stick a gigantic Catholic icon on top of Carrauntoohil is breath-taking - the very idea that any non-Catholics (who are just as Irish as they are) might not want to see the damn thing is of no consequence to them.

This is the same mindset that says if a majority want Catholic dogma taught in schools, then everyone else should just suck it up and go along with it. Or that if a majority of Catholics want abortion, contraception and divorce made illegal, then they should be illegal for everyone.

I don't think this is the wrong battle to fight at all - I think it's one of the more important ones, to be honest.

Hotblack Desiato

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why? I didn't vote these people as spokespeople for me. Why are they more qualified to give the atheist perspective than any other atheist?

Utterly ridiculous post.

I'm a motorist and not a member of the AA and didn't vote for them to be spokespersons for me, but there they are.

Pick up a phone book and see how many organisations you can find with 'atheist' or 'atheism' in the title. Who else are RTE, Newstalk, the papers, going to call?

If you want to set up your Popular Atheists' Front of Judea there's nothing stopping you.

TheFarrier

FullblownRose wrote: »

Who says it was an angle grinder? I would have thought, hacksaw.

Hacksaw would take forever to take that cross out though, even an angle grinder would probably require 3/4 discs to chew it's way through it.
My first thought was a consaw, but the bit I struggle with is, we hear on the news regularly-ish about experienced climbers getting lost/stuck on carrauntoohill in broad daylight, so how in the name of jaysus did some vandal make his way up at night, with a consaw(or angle grinder), chop down a cross, and return down the mountain unscathed??

The mind boggles.

gammygils

Some madman has cut down a cross

lazygal

gammygils wrote: »

Some madman has cut down a cross

You're sure its mad? And a man?

Username32

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We were approached by the media for comment.

When you are approached for comment on these or other issues, I do hope you make it clear that you are only speaking for atheist in your organisation and not all atheists. Thats an important distinction that I think you have a duty to make clear.

Username32

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree with you that public art should be pluralist rather than neutral, if the public environment is one in which all artists are equally able to participate, obviously with whatever restrictions are necessary for practical purposes.

I'd leave it up to the artist to define what art should look like?

Public art can shock, offend, and leave people feeling uneasy at times. What happens though when a person objects to tax payers money being spent on such art? What if this person finds it offensive of their personal values? Do they have a right to object to it on grounds of conscience? Does the majority have the right to impose its values regarding art on such people?

Username32

swampgas wrote: »

This event is quite revealing in that it shows that most Irish people (many atheists included) simply don't get the concept of a secular state.

Here we have a huge religious symbol on Ireland's highest peak, and many people are saying what's the problem? Lots of people seem to be falling into the same old habit of assuming that Ireland is a "Catholic country", and that if a majority of Catholics somewhere in Ireland want to impose their religious symbols on a mountaintop then nobody else should object.

By that logic should we not be bull dozing the churches cathedrals mosques etc that litter our towns and cities?

Username32

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This cross doesn't fall into that category, though. It is an exclusively Catholic (at best Christian) symbol on Ireland's highest peak, erected for overtly religious not artistic purposes, during a time of Catholic dominance of the State, with no unique artistic creativity involved.

Same argument could be made for Buddhas of Bamiyan, made at a time of Buddhist domination of what we now know as Afghanistan, nothing uniquely artistic , nothing creative (as defined by me in this case)

youtube.com/watch?v=RYPjOeJyNDI

Still looks like mindless vandalism none the less.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hate to inject a note of reality, but . . .

Snip

So you don't dispute the Christians stole the story of the great flood, Christmas etc.

Thought not

Hotblack Desiato

gammygils wrote: »

Some madman has cut down a cross

We don't know that.

But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up

Username32

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We don't know that.

But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up

Or women?

Username32

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

But I don't really see what's gained by pursuing an agenda that such monuments should be removed on principle, because what ends up happening, as sure as the tides, is the total deracination of public space as an end in itself. 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.

That some very interesting sentiments there Realt and so true. Beautifully said

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

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.

One mindless ideology being replaced by another.. with the same high priests ... same intolerance and same moral certainty and righteousness....

swampgas

Username32 wrote: »

By that logic should we not be bull dozing the churches cathedrals mosques etc that litter our towns and cities?

I don't see how a dedicated building like a church is a problem, it's just another building. But sticking a cross on a mountain is like sticking one in the middle of the town square: it is being foisted on everyone, in a space that should be shared by everyone, and not hijacked by just one particular religion.

Username32

swampgas wrote: »

I don't see how a dedicated building like a church is a problem, it's just another building. But sticking a cross on a mountain is like sticking one in the middle of the town square: it is being foisted on everyone, in a space that should be shared by everyone, and not hijacked by just one particular religion.

Most of the churches in Ireland were built on public space to one degree or another. Have you looked at the town squares in Ireland today? Do you see that thing with the big cross at the top and with the big bell??

gammygils

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We don't know that.

But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up

And it took one to put up the one outside Craggy Island Parochial House!!!!!!!

TwoShedsJackson

Username32 wrote: »

Most of the churches in Ireland were built on public space to one degree or another. Have you looked at the town squares in Ireland today? Do you see that thing with the big cross at the top and with the big bell??

I love a good dose of condescension in a post, really helps the poster get their point across, I find.

lazybones32

"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.

robindch

lazybones32 wrote: »

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

Was it cheaper to hoist the nation's finest to the top of Carauntwohill by helicopter rather than let them climb up like the vandal(s) did?

All the same, I'm glad they're giving the time and resources that a crime of this magnitude deserves.

PopePalpatine

I wonder, how many Gardaí have been assigned to investigating the 800 or so children's remains in that septic tank in Tuam?