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

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?

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.

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...

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.

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?

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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.

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?

challengemaster

J C wrote: »

You are now adding insult to injury, by comparing a Christian Cross to a 'giant Mickey'

Well, think about it logically for a second. You find the thought of a giant mickey being erected in a public place offensive and an eyesore. Similarly, atheists find the erection of a giant cross offensive and an eyesore.

It seems an ideal comparison based on that reaction alone. You no more want to be forced to look at a phallus than we want to see symbolism of religion going about our day.

Ye must think that all Christian parents are complete fools

Yes, but that's besides the point

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

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 Roman / Pagan heritage. We celebrate Christmas Saturnalia and Eostre... Easter

FYP

J C wrote: »

You are now adding insult to injury, by comparing a Christian Cross to a 'giant Mickey' ... and if this is the kind of blasphemous 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.

We were talking about the mouse. Some people have filthy minds

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It was a joke.

Who would that be?

All atheists are potential leaders, I guess.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

And again:

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

I should have thought that all people of goodwill should have no problems with the public display of religious symbols of all religions.
It's what I thought a pluralist society is all about ... respect for all religions and none ... and their public expression.

shruikan2553

katydid wrote: »

So what year is the cut off point?

Some stuff about protected structures here

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/building_or_altering_a_home/protected_structures.html

J C wrote: »

I should have thought that all people of goodwill should have no problems with the public display of religious symbols of all religions.
It's what I thought a pluralist society is all about ... respect for all religions and none ... and their public expression.

Pluralist is all well and good until Satanists and Scientologist want to put crap on the top of a mountain. How do we decide what gets put up there and what doesnt?
Keep religious symbols in places of religious meaning.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

All atheists, I guess.

All atheists are leaders of atheism???

obplayer wrote: »

FYP

Nope, we celebrate Christmas and Easter, which are based on pagan festivals. But they are Christian festivals.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Some stuff about protected structures here

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/building_or_altering_a_home/protected_structures.html

.

Not really an answer to my question.

Saipanne

Has it been proved that is was cut? I read a compelling argument that it just snapped.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

Nope, we celebrate Christmas and Easter, which are based on pagan festivals. But they are Christian festivals.

And the cross? The symbol of the worst punishment the Roman Empire could devise (crucifixion)? Nope, I think we are celebrating Roman / Pagan things here.:D

shruikan2553

katydid wrote: »

Not really an answer to my question.

Well there is no year. The link is the closest explanation to it I could find. Im sure you can contact the local planning authority and ask them if theres a year that a structure must be built before for it to be considered as historical.

recedite wrote: »

We were talking about the mouse. Some people have filthy minds

Unfortunately, for your point I'm correct in my assessment.
Your fellow Atheist has confirmed his belief that a Christian Cross is as offensive as the public erection of a phallus.
Thereby comparing the Christian Cross to a penis ... and not a mouse.
... and you even thanked the post.

challengemaster wrote: »

Well, think about it logically for a second. You find the thought of a giant mickey being erected in a public place offensive and an eyesore. Similarly, atheists find the erection of a giant cross offensive and an eyesore.

It seems an ideal comparison based on that reaction alone. You no more want to be forced to look at a phallus than we want to see symbolism of religion going about our day.

... so much for the idea that crosses on churches won't be the next item for attack and removal by you and your fellow travellers

wrote:

Originally posted by J C
Ye must think that all Christian parents are complete fools

challengemaster
Yes, but that's besides the point

Your honesty is to be applauded ... but nothing else.

A very illuminating comment to be presented to all Christian parents when and if they are asked to place their children in schools run by people with attitudes like yours.