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

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I doubt any sane people have problems with historical buildings that were used for religious purposes.

So what year is the cut off point?

katydid wrote: »

Glendalough is a very nice scenic spot. Should we get rid of the unsightly reminders of Christianity that the monastic city represents?

Glendalough monastery represents the historic victory in the battle for hearts and minds between early christians and the druids. St Kevin and his followers chased off the druids who had been doing druid stuff around there previously (probably throwing bodies into the lake), and then he squatted the place to make sure they didn't return. The actual name of the upper lake is Loch na Peiste, the peists or snakes being nickname/metaphor for the druid shamans.
But that's all in the past. There is a maltese cross at the archway entrance to the church. There is no cross outside of the monastery grounds. No modern cross on top of the nearby mountains.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Did you not read the whole thread? There are examples given right here showing how metal fatigue can make some very neat breaks.

No, I didn't see those. As I said, I'm no expert.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If it was an accident or design, it should be put back up

katydid wrote: »

If it was metal fatigue, the edges wouldn't be so neat. But then, I'm no expert.

A complete irrelevancy ... the fact is that this cross was maliciously cut down.
We don't know who did it or what their motivation was.
For all we know it may have been a Theist who did this.
... but what is very telling is the general reaction of Atheists on this thread ... instead of condemning it as the criminal act that it was ... the mood is one of support and / or treating it as some kind of joke.

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in an era where anti-christs were generally of the liberal variety, this particular example of anti-christian religious intolerance, criminal damage and wanton vandalism surprises me.
We are supposed to live in a pluralist society, that respects diversity and the rule of law.
There is a very good reason why police take the destruction of religious symbols and property very seriously and it is because such property is a proxy for the people to whom the religious symbol belongs - and it is a relatively short step to move from violence against a person's property to violence against the person themselves.

It was a joke.

J C wrote: »

leaders of Atheism

Who would that be?

katydid wrote: »

Glendalough is a very nice scenic spot. Should we get rid of the unsightly reminders of Christianity that the monastic city represents?

And again:

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.

I doubt any sane people have problems with historical buildings that were used for religious purposes.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

If it was metal fatigue, the edges wouldn't be so neat. But then, I'm no expert.

Did you not read the whole thread? There are examples given right here showing how metal fatigue can make some very neat breaks.

recedite wrote: »

Do you not think putting up a giant Mickey in a scenic area would be vandalism?

You are now adding insult to injury, by comparing a Christian Cross to a 'giant Mickey' ... and if this is the kind of stuff that people like you want to say to our Christian children, when ye take over the schools of Ireland, then ye must be joking.

Ye must think that all Christian parents are complete fools if ye think that they will hand over their children to be taught under an ethos devised by people like you, with such gross intolerance for everything they hold dear.

recedite wrote: »

Its only box section steel. Maybe half an hour, maybe a little bit longer, with a supply of fresh new blades. And considering it takes a few hours to get up there, and a petrol angle grinder is very heavy to carry...
It could have been either. And some say it could have been just metal fatigue, although I doubt that.

If it was metal fatigue, the edges wouldn't be so neat. But then, I'm no expert.

katydid wrote: »

You'd be up there a long time cutting that down with a hacksaw.

Its only box section steel. Maybe half an hour, maybe a little bit longer, with a supply of fresh new blades. And considering it takes a few hours to get up there, and a petrol angle grinder is very heavy to carry...
It could have been either. And some say it could have been just metal fatigue, although I doubt that.

recedite wrote: »

I'd be the first to condemn somebody who cut down a cross from the top of a church, or a crescent on a mosque. But when the symbol is placed somewhere that I consider to be rightfully a place shared by everybody, then I feel that it is fair game. Even if the summit of Irelands highest mountain is technically in private ownership, it shouldn't be. It should be like a beach; owned by nobody. Nobody can own a beach in Ireland, unlike some other countries.

Glendalough is a very nice scenic spot. Should we get rid of the unsightly reminders of Christianity that the monastic city represents?

Brian Shanahan

Zillah wrote: »

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Perhaps our generation being somehow arrogant and doomed to be forgotten syncs nicely with some ideological position that you've taken but the physics doesn't support you.

Ah, without constant maintenance weather process and regrowth of foliage will pretty much destroy anything we build within the next thousand years. And with the more recent trends in architecture, e.g. emphasising grandiosity over quality, that phenomenon is only going to get more pronounced.

You have to remember that the last 10,000 or so years of human existence (where we've had the capabilities of building lasting structures) has a) seen increasing decay the farther back one goes, and b) is only an eye blink in the greater scheme of total history, e.g. it is only 1/450 of the span of the Earth so far. It is undoubted that as soon as humanity goes, all but the faintest clues of our existence will soon after disappear.

fisgon wrote: »

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.

Have you a problem with the Christ figure overlooking Rio de Janero? The reality is that in mainly Christian countries you will find many similar symbols, in Eastern countries you will find giant Buddhas. It's just a cultural reality. Just because we are not totally Roman Catholic or even Christian doesn't mean that our culture doesn't reflect our Christian heritage. We celebrate Christmas and Easter...

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.

It is certainly not uniquely Catholic (by which I presume you mean Roman Catholic). But even if it were, it is no more objectionable (except in an artistic sense) than the Christ figures on hilltops all over the world, including Rio De Janero.

katydid wrote: »

I don't care if it was a cross or a giant Mickey Mouse; what I object to is the wanton vandalism.

Do you not think putting up a giant Mickey in a scenic area would be vandalism?

recedite wrote: »

I'd be the first to condemn somebody who cut down a cross from the top of a church, or a crescent on a mosque. But when the symbol is placed somewhere that I consider to be rightfully a place shared by everybody, then I feel that it is fair game. Even if the summit of Irelands highest mountain is technically in private ownership, it shouldn't be. It should be like a beach; owned by nobody. Nobody can own a beach in Ireland, unlike in some countries.

The rule of law is what marks a civilized society ... and this case, involves a crime that is aggravated by its religious motivation.
The talk about cutting down crosses on this thread isn't confined to Carrauntoohil ... it has already spread to a proposal to cut down the Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park

lazygal wrote: »

Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park?

... and if cross destruction were to become an established practice, I see no reason why it wouldn't spread to cutting down crosses publicly displayed on churches or indeed crescents on mosques either.
To prevent this eventuality, a quick response from the criminal justice system should nip this particularly nasty type of religiously-motivated vandalism in the bud.
... and all law-abiding persons should assist the police in doing this.

FullblownRose wrote: »

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

You'd be up there a long time cutting that down with a hacksaw.

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

Surely religious belief or the lack of it shouldn't come into this. Something was vandalised; it was put back up, which is good, because it means the vandal didn't win. I don't care if it was a cross or a giant Mickey Mouse; what I object to is the wanton vandalism.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Historic sculpture? It was put up in 1976 and is an eyesore..

You are correct that it is not a historic sculpture, but the matter of it being an eyesore is subjective opinion.

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Well, no, the people erecting the cross should be the only people involved. They haven't approached the kcc for permission as yet

If there is a planning issue then the appropriate planning authorities are the only people who should be involved in resolving it.

Nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands and start attacking structures that they have a personal objection to.
... and if they do, they should get no support from any law-abiding person.

J C wrote: »

You can't get something more crass and disrespectful of diversity than the willful destruction of the cultural and religious symbol of a substantial section of the community - and I would say the very same if somebody had attacked and destroyed a symbol of any other religion or indeed a secular monument, for that matter.

I'd be the first to condemn somebody who cut down a cross from the top of a church, or a crescent on a mosque. But when the symbol is placed somewhere that I consider to be rightfully a place shared by everybody, then I feel that it is fair game. Even if the summit of Irelands highest mountain is technically in private ownership, it shouldn't be. It should be like a beach; owned by nobody. Nobody can own a beach in Ireland, unlike some other countries.

PopePalpatine

I suppose if a councillor in KCC tried to raise an objection, they'd be denounced from the pulpit tomorrow (or any other Sunday) morning.

Molester Stallone II

J C wrote: »

If there is a planning issue then the appropriate planning authorities are the only people who should be involved in resolving it..

Well, no, the people erecting the cross should be the only people involved. They haven't approached the kcc for permission as yet

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

No planning permission for the original either.

If there is a planning issue then the appropriate planning authorities are the only people who should be involved in resolving it.

recedite wrote:

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born.

This particular 'sport' based on gross religious intolerance, needs to be brought to an immediate end by rapidly apprehending the perpetrator(s) and letting the criminal justice system take its course.

I should have thought that the leaders of Atheism should be the first to condemn this, given that they claim to be liberal respecters of diversity and promoters of pluralism.
You can't get something more crass and disrespectful of diversity than the willful destruction of the cultural and religious symbol of a substantial section of the community - and I would say the very same if somebody had attacked and destroyed a symbol of any other religion or indeed a monument of significance to the atheist community for that matter.
Of course, we don't know who did this or what their motivation might have been ... but the fact that the people on the A & A seem to be publicly supporting it is both shocking and surprising.

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

No planning permission for the original either.

Yes but it was common for people to build stuff without PP up until quite recently. Often they just applied for retention afterwards. Something built back in the 70's would be considered legit after all this time, even if they had never looked for retention.
AFAIK the first house to be knocked because it was built without PP was about 2003, and there have only ever been a handful since. One or two court ordered demolitions as examples, was all it took to put an end to the practice.

Check out this, its our friends the Healy Raes encouraging people to ignore the planning laws.
It was the junior version of Healy Rae that was quoted earlier in this thread, I think, ranting about the anti-christ who felled the cross.

Molester Stallone II

recedite wrote: »

As they are only fixing the existing cross, as opposed to installing a new one, they don't need it.
I have to say, well done to those lads for their ingenuity, even if I don't support their cause. It looks like they spent very little money on the repair.

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born

No planning permission for the original either.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The challenge is who can cut down the biggest cross

As somebody who grew up in an era where anti-christs were generally of the liberal variety, this particular example of anti-christian religious intolerance, criminal damage and wanton vandalism surprises me.
We are supposed to live in a pluralist society, that respects diversity and the rule of law.
There is a very good reason why police take the destruction of religious symbols and property very seriously and it is because such property is a proxy for the people to whom the religious symbol belongs - and it is a relatively short step to move from violence against a person's property to violence against the person themselves.

The Kerry jig; you step in and I step out again...

(thanks to SW for the pic)

lazygal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The challenge is who can cut down the biggest cross

Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park?

shruikan2553

recedite wrote: »

As they are only fixing the existing cross, as opposed to installing a new one, they don't need it.
I have to say, well done to those lads for their ingenuity, even if I don't support their cause. It looks like they hauled up their own gear, and spent little or no money, unlike the gardai who were investigating.

I wonder how long the cross will last this time, now that the new sport of "cross-felling" has been born

The challenge is who can cut down the biggest cross