J Mysterio wrote: » You call it indoctrination in Irish schools, I do not.
J Mysterio wrote: » Yeah, imagine the pope doing that. Forget comedy central, tune to EWTN, hours of.laughs for you.
expectationlost wrote: » you seem to have more information on this then the rest of us.
kylith wrote: » Thanks for that, as I said it was 1am when I posted that.
Cabaal wrote: » Nobody does, it could just as likely have been a pissed of Catholic, protestant, Muslim, scientology, Mormon etc Maybe it's just a local who had an axe to grind with one of the land owners or the local priest. Who knows. Could have also been metal fatigue
eviltwin wrote: » Getting into heaven isn't much of a consolation when you are denied the right to marry your partner just because you are gay.
Bloodwing wrote: » If I was a betting man my money would be on a group of criminals with a knowledge of the value of scrap metal who were perhaps disturbed or planned on returning to finish the job at a later point.
magicbastarder wrote: » it's not an insubstantial cross, but it's not particularly substantial either. i suspect someone who was in it purely for financial gain would have been able to benefit from far lower hanging fruit.
swampgas wrote: » You know, it would be nice if just once some of the people who are so adamant that the cross should be there, and who are so quick to point out that it has broad support from the community, could find it in themselves to admit publically that maybe there are other Irish people who they share this island with who are not Catholic and who do not want a cross there, or even some people who are Catholic and still don't want a cross there. Tolerance for other views, never mind religions, does not seem to be evident. Which makes their stance (IMO) all the more objectionable. There seems to be a siege mentality among some Catholics in Ireland, such that you'd think Cromwell was still running the place.
katydid wrote: » What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...
eviltwin wrote: » I wonder do they see it as vandalism or restoring the mountain to its former beauty. Most vandalism ruins an area and leaves it in a mess, this didn't.
katydid wrote: » Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal. If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?
lazygal wrote: » Which is where, exactly? And is this wanton vandalism? Is erecting an unnatural object in an area of natural beauty not wanton vandalism?
lazygal wrote: » Is the erecting of a man made object such as a cross ever vandalism?
Shrap wrote: » Ah yes...that slippery slope we all know and love here in A&A. The one where liking sweetness leads to multiple packs of chocolate chip cookies; supporting women's reproductive choice leads to plummeting birth rates and enforced abortions; gay marriage leads to gender ambivalent children with no respect for the tax system; secularism leads to an immoral society bent (no pun intended) on tormenting the RCC; etc. Wanton vandalism is, as you say, "wanton" ie. deliberate and unprovoked. We don't know why the cross was toppled, but if it were because some folk had had enough of the notion of the cross symbolising Irish people, I (for one) can't blame them. And at this stage in the game, I wouldn't call it un-provoked.
katydid wrote: » Like the Christ statue overlooking Rio? No, it's not. It's private property, and while there may be planning issue, it's certainly not vandalism.
katydid wrote: » What provoked it?
lazygal wrote: » Like a poorly constructed cross on top of a mountain? Is that vandalism? Would a statue of Kim Kardashian be vandalism on top of the mountain? Or how about a giant star of David, would that be vandalism if I put one up on the mountain?
Shrap wrote: » Totally. Yes. All vandalism.
lazygal wrote: » And tearing them down wouldn't be.
looksee wrote: » Some vandals in Waterford decided for whatever reason to chop down a 'fairy tree' on the way up to Mahon Falls. Were they Christians objecting to a pagan symbol? Or were they just ignorant fools who did it because they could? Another tree was planted to replace it, and rightly so, but the original tree which was a local landmark (for the magic road) is gone. Just because somebody wanted to inflict their views on other people.
eviltwin wrote: » I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.
