PopePalpatine wrote: » I wonder, how many Gardaí have been assigned to investigating the 800 or so children's remains in that septic tank in Tuam?
lazygal wrote: » My house is on private land, but I'd still need to get planning permission if I wanted to erect a giant biscuit or Hawaiian pizza made of steel to worship. Are you forgetting about planning permission?
shruikan2553 wrote: » If we were talking about tearing down churches you would have a point. Its a cross, a random cross.
jank wrote: » No, I have no idea if planning permission was granted 30 years ago for this cross and if not then given the time frame involved usually means the statue of limitations has expired. This cross also replaced a wooden one that was there since the 50's.
jank wrote: » The premise is the same. Religious iconography in public places is bad right, therefore we should get rid. Fair is fair right? Those damm fairy rings, ruining my right to be at peace!!
Pherekydes wrote: » What religion does Newgrange represent? I like it. We should keep it. Especially at this time of year. It's proof for the 'Jesus-is-the-reason-for-the-season' crew that they are wrong. Midwinter has been celebrated in Ireland for five thousand years.
shruikan2553 wrote: » People keep using this sort of thing as an example. They seem to have a self importance that makes them think that a cross has the same historical importance as the likes newgrange. A building with incredibly advanced engineering is equal to a steel cross.
PopePalpatine wrote: » I still can't believe someone managed to take an angle grinder all the way up Carrauntoohil...but I'm less surprised Google Chrome's spellchecker won't recognise it as a word. :pac:
magicbastarder wrote: » well, someone else got a large cross all the way up there; an angle grinder was probably easier by comparison. i'd be curious if this was an act of well planned vandalism for the sake of vandalism, or an act of well planned vandalism for the sake of making a point about ireland's relationship with a patriarchical belief system.
Peregrinus wrote: » 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.
TheFarrier wrote: » 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.
jank wrote: » Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange. Then we can move onto dolmens and fairy rings. Finally, stage 3 of this cultural revolution will involve cutting down any cross or crucifix that disturbs the sentiments of the easily offended. We will then be all free, secular and equal together, Kumbaya My Lord biscuit...
jank wrote: » Are most people here are forgetting that this is private land. If we are going down the road of cleaning public spaces of religious icons, then surely we have to start with the oldest, that being newgrange.
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.
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??
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » We don't know that. But we do know it took 100 madmen to put it up
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.
Username32 wrote: » By that logic should we not be bull dozing the churches cathedrals mosques etc that litter our towns and cities?
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.
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.
gammygils wrote: » Some madman has cut down a cross
Peregrinus wrote: » Hate to inject a note of reality, but . . . Snip
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.
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.
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.
Michael Nugent wrote: » We were approached by the media for comment.
