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

gammygils

Some madman has cut down a cross

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FullblownRose

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

Brown Bomber

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

When an event like this happens, it's inevitable AI will be asked for a comment.

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?

eviltwin

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I didn't say it was

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.

Realt Dearg Sec

eviltwin wrote: »

And what is it that makes you think it was an atheist who did this?

I didn't say it was

eviltwin

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

It doesn't speak to me either, but there again neither does the Millenium Spire or any number of other vacuous, meaningless public art works dotted around the country over the past twenty years to commemorate...something or other...or symbolise...something. I don't wander around with an angle grinder to make my point though.

And what is it that makes you think it was an atheist who did this?

Realt Dearg Sec

eviltwin wrote: »

My home town has a massive stone cross as you enter which is fine for the Catholics but it doesn't speak for me or represent me or the many other people from that town of other faiths and none..

It doesn't speak to me either, but there again neither does the Millenium Spire or any number of other vacuous, meaningless public art works dotted around the country over the past twenty years to commemorate...something or other...or symbolise...something. I don't wander around with an angle grinder to make my point though.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No.

And we have been through the reasons several times in previous threads.

There is an old sales phrase "win the argument and lose the sale". I would imagine there is a sizable minority if not a majority that would be broadly in line with the secular ideals AI espouse. However, coming out on the front foot for issues like these - profoundly important to some and irrelevant to others - would make you come across as vindictive and petty and turn reasonable people off from your crusade. A little tolerance goes a long way.

I think you need to decide if you want to be influential in societal change or only appeal to the tiny minority of hardline anti-theist who demand zero-tolerance.

eviltwin

Why shouldn't AI have an opinion on this? Everyone else does. Being an atheist organisation after all its not too much of a surprise that AI don't agree with crosses or other religious icons being placed on mountains. What do people expect them to say when asked?

Personally I don't care either way, its not a place I plan to ever visit so its not really on my radar but it does highlight the wider issue of how religion is represented in society. Crosses etc should only be seen in places of faith, there is absolutely no reason why a cross needs to be on a mountain or why grottos should be in villages or any of that other kind of stuff. My home town has a massive stone cross as you enter which is fine for the Catholics but it doesn't speak for me or represent me or the many other people from that town of other faiths and none. It shouldn't bother me but it does irritate me at times. There is a huge church down the road, by far the biggest building in the entire town ( like in most towns and villages ). Is that not enough?

I am in two minds about this cross being replaced, some of these structures are as much about history as they are about faith and its kinda letting the vandals win but I don't know - crosses on mountains? Seems a bit of religious overkill.

Hotblack Desiato

Are you taking the mick? This story was all over the media and internet already and would have been whether AI commented on it or not. If AI would rather talk about education and the Toledo Principles but the media want to ask them about a bloody cross, what can they do? Refuse to comment, and then not get asked again when another issue arises - because that's how the media work.

Realt Dearg Sec

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

When an event like this happens, it's inevitable AI will be asked for a comment. That's actually a good thing. Or would you rather that the Healy-Rae type view is the only one to be heard?

But who cares? It side tracks the debate into an irrelevance instead of the serious institutional and structural discrimination within the state apparatus and wastes energy and attention on something that simply doesn't matter. It shouldn't be allowed to become a story, surely? So just don't comment and choose more significant battles.

lazygal

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah, that's what he said: you SHOULD choose your battles. By not choosing your battles and responding to every stupid nothing issue that arises, you come off as reactionaries who needn't be taken seriously on other issues. It's daft to not choose your battles, is presumably the point.

Which battles would you suggest?

Hotblack Desiato

When an event like this happens, it's inevitable AI will be asked for a comment. That's actually a good thing. Or would you rather that the Healy-Rae type view is the only one to be heard?

Letter in today's Irish Times:

Sir, – The comments of Colm O’Brien (“Cross on Carrauntoohil,” November 25th) shows the reality of intolerance now prevalent in society.

Questioning unhindered catholic/christian domination of society = 'intolerance' :rolleyes:

While, I have no wish for a Catholic theocracy; what is so offensive about a structure which you can see only if your up close at it or through the viewing of binoculars? What next: a bill in the Dáil for the removal of all roadway Marian shrines; the Sacred Heart at the Parnell Monument or the Papal Crosses at Phoenix Park and Drogheda? Would Mr O’Brien welcome that? – Is mise, etc,

FR JOHN MCCALLION, CC

Coalisland,

Co Tyrone.

Yes - all of the above mentioned are tacky, tasteless and ugly and should be removed.

Realt Dearg Sec

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We don't choose battles.

Yeah, that's what he said: you SHOULD choose your battles. By not choosing your battles and responding to every stupid nothing issue that arises, you come off as reactionaries who needn't be taken seriously on other issues. It's daft to not choose your battles, is presumably the point.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

So it's just Christianity doing what it does then?

If it isn't obelisks it's celebrations in December or the story of a great flood. Must be so handy to just steal stories and images and claim them as your own all the time.

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

While the obelisk in St Peter's square was arguably stolen, it was hardly stolen by Christians or by Christianity.

It was originally erected by an unnamed Pharaoh at Heliopolis, about 2,400 BCE. The original purpose or signficance of this particular obelisk is not known, but Egyptian obelisks generally are thought to have been treated as personifications of the sun-god, and to have marked the entrances to temples.

It was taken from Heliopolis around about the time of Christ on the orders of the Emperor Augustus - not a Christian - and reerected as the centrepiece of the Julian Forum at Alexandria.

From there, it was taken to Rome in 37 CE on the orders of the Emperor Caligula - also not a Christian - and erected as an architectural feature at the centre of the Circus of Nero, which was a little to the south of where St Peter's Basilica now stands.

The Circus became the site of numerous Christian martyrdoms. The tradition that says St. Peter was one of those martyred there is questionable, but the historicity of the martyrdoms generally, and their location, is not in any doubt. The Circus was abandoned in the second century, and over time the neighbouring cemetery spilled into the area, with tombs being erected among the ruins of the circus buildings. Part of the circus was incorporated into the first St Peter's Basilica when it was erected about two hundred years later, but the obelisk stayed where it was for another 1,200 years until the new St Peter's was built, when it was moved from the south side of the Basilica to the east front, to provide the focal point for the plaza.

In so far as the oblelisk has acquired Christian signficance, it is as a "silent witness" to the martyrdom of Peter and the Roman Christian community. It is hardly fair to blame the Christians for this circumstance.

Rome, in fact, has more Egyptian obelisks than any other city in the world, and indeed almost as many as the whole of Egypt today. But they were all brought there in pre-Christian times. Romans of the late republican period were fascinated by Egypt and all things Egyptian.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well they were a means of sun god worship for the Ancient Egyptians and this was later co-opted and repackaged by Christianity.

So it's just Christianity doing what it does then?

If it isn't obelisks it's celebrations in December or the story of a great flood. Must be so handy to just steal stories and images and claim them as your own all the time.

Brown Bomber

Links234 wrote: »

Weren't obelisks phallic symbols? Nothing to do with ressurection, just erection.

Well they were a means of sun god worship for the Ancient Egyptians and this was later co-opted and repackaged by Christianity.