Shrap wrote: » I disagree. I think he's being disingenuous with this: It's hardly the "magical" power of the cross that I would have a problem with, it's the symbolism of the power they have over every institution in this country. That's not primitive, that's present. Every time you walk through the doors of a hospital with a cross on it, that symbolises that you will be treated under a Catholic ethos. When you investigate schools in your area, a cross symbolises that your children may be discriminated against for a place in that school. IMO the symbolism of the cross in Ireland to atheists has nothing whatsoever to do with the power of a god and everything got to do with the power of an institution over people who don't subscribe to it.
Such objections irk as many non-believers as they do the faithful because it simply evokes a phrase beloved of so many liberals: "Not in my name." After all, Atheist Ireland doesn't represent atheists in Ireland, they simply represent their members, and like all successful lobby groups, people often get the impression that they speak for all of their 'community'. They don't.
jank wrote: » Points he raises are valid by the way.
Yet for people who have come to a conscious and logical conclusion that there is no afterlife, no God and no magic, many atheists seem to hold an almost primitive belief in the power of symbology
robindch wrote: » And a guy named Ian O'Doherty at the indo is similarly moved to invect.
Fundamentalism and extremism are the greatest threats since the end of the Cold War but a cross, or a nativity scene in a hospital, or even the relic that is the Angelus aren't part of that threat. And if you're offended by them, then there's really only one piece of advice - get over yourself.
Peregrinus wrote: » None of this is true, but don't let that worry you.
jank wrote: » FYP
robindch wrote: » Did either of these get posted? Don't think so. Cora Sherlock weighs in. We've reached Stalin by the forth paragraph. Original screed here
Not a word of sympathy from Michael for any of the locals who might be upset that such a thing could happen. No acknowledgement from him either that all of the people who sent correspondence and emails to the local Council supporting the reinstatement of the cross have any right to their opinion.
Ian O'Doherty wrote: Well, a little-known cross, which became a lot better known once it was cut down has now been re-erected, much to the chagrin of some people who really should have better things to occupy their time. The cross of Carrauntoohil has been in place, in one form or another, since the early 1950s, and locals in Kerry were understandably outraged to see that someone had taken an angle grinder to the landmark last week. The vandalism was quickly followed by one of those spats which manage to be both depressing and unintentionally hilarious, as various sides of the religious divide waged an intellectual battle which, frankly, could have been ripped straight from a Fr Ted script. We're well used to controversial eyesores which divide opinion in this country, we normally just call them wind turbines. However, once the news emerged that the cross had been removed with extreme prejudice, Atheist Ireland argued that it should not be replaced because it wasn't "inclusive" enough and probably didn't even have the proper planning admission. And, with that first salvo, we once more wandered down the rabbit hole of common sense. Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland appeared on radio to list his objections, which were many and varied and featured the old canard that such an overtly religious symbol didn't reflect our new "inclusivity". He further added, correctly, that there should be a separation of Church and State, before graciously allowing that the locals should be encouraged to come up with a new symbol to express their sense of community. Funnily enough, that's exactly what they did - by going back to the mountain on Saturday and reinstating the old cross after a repair job. That's unlikely to be the end of the matter, which has now become a public issue. Instead, it's merely the latest in a long line of ridiculous and some might say, vexatious, complaints by atheists here and abroad who seem to delight in taking offence. These seasonal arguments, usually about the horrors of seeing a nativity scene in a public space and just as silly as the objections to the Carrauntoohil cross, simply reinforce the idea that all atheists are dour, pursed-lipped commissars determined to rip any sign of religion from the public psyche. Not the for the first time in these pages, I should point out that I'm an atheist and both know Nugent and respect him, even though we don't actually agree on very much. But that's the point or, to be more accurate, the result of atheism. It simply means that you don't believe in something, not that you should join a collective and look for things to offend your delicate sensibilities. Yet for people who have come to a conscious and logical conclusion that there is no afterlife, no God and no magic, many atheists seem to hold an almost primitive belief in the power of symbology. Such objections irk as many non-believers as they do the faithful because it simply evokes a phrase beloved of so many liberals: "Not in my name." After all, Atheist Ireland doesn't represent atheists in Ireland, they simply represent their members, and like all successful lobby groups, people often get the impression that they speak for all of their 'community'. They don't. Cranky religious types, who think everyone should behave according their particular moral law, have long held the monopoly in daft objections and telling people what to do, which is one of the reasons why so many people turn their back on religion. If atheists are united by one thing it is surely a desire to be left alone, a courtesy which should have been reciprocated here. Fundamentalism and extremism are the greatest threats since the end of the Cold War but a cross, or a nativity scene in a hospital, or even the relic that is the Angelus aren't part of that threat. And if you're offended by them, then there's really only one piece of advice - get over yourself.
Cora Sherlock wrote: If you want an insight into the thinking of Atheist Ireland, you could do worse than listen to this Newstalk debate between its chairperson, Michael Nugent, and Timothy Moriarty, chairman of Beauford Community Council. Following the recent vandalism of the cross atop Carrauntoohill, most people seem to think that it should be re-instated. Not Michael Nugent, who thinks that this is the perfect opportunity to put a more “inclusive” symbol in its place. I can’t imagine most atheists listening in were too thrilled with the position taken by the most well-known spokesperson for atheism in the country. After all, he admits that the existence of the cross, never mind its location, wasn’t even on his radar as one of the things to be offended by – not until it was cut down in the middle of the night by angle-grinding vandals, that is. But now that’s happened, well I suppose a cynic might suggest it’s a good chance to get on the radio and rail about how the cross was just a sign of bad old Catholic Ireland with its Magdalene Laundries and child abuse (two things Catholics are incensed over, in case Michael’s wondering). Not a word of sympathy from Michael for any of the locals who might be upset that such a thing could happen. No acknowledgement from him either that all of the people who sent correspondence and emails to the local Council supporting the reinstatement of the cross have any right to their opinion. And you know, for a man who loves the idea of inclusion, Michael specialises in a peculiar form of double-speak. According to him, aggressive Muslims fly planes into buildings and aggressive Catholics bomb abortion clinics, while the most aggressive thing atheists do is write books. He blames the tyranny and unbelievable cruelty of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot on their fascism rather than their atheism – this despite the fact that they were communists, not fascists, and a central tenet of communism is the annihilation of organised religion. (Come to think of it, they were all more interested in burning books than writing them but best not let this particular atheist fantasy unravel). Michael had another excuse ready anyway – there’s all kinds of atheists apparently, good and bad – just like there’s good and bad religious people. Hooray! Isn’t it strange though, how, whenever you point out the shortcomings of well known atheists, you’re suddenly told that there’s all kinds of atheists, when up to that point, Catholics have been painted with the same judgmental, Magdalene-promoting, abortion-clinic-exploding brush. Funny, that. I do wonder if Michael ever steps outside the narrow confines of this country at all. I suppose chasing down tales of vandalised crosses must take up a lot of time but it is strange that the only other recent case he could think of where a religious icon was vandalised was in Ballinspittle. Michael was quick to point out that the culprits were members of another Christian group. He also said that they were praying on their bibles while in court. What he didn’t say was that this happened in 1985. Maybe he doesn’t know the date. Maybe he also doesn’t know that there are plenty of other cases of vandalism and aggression by atheists. A quick google search for example, will turn up the Femen Group. Founded in Ukraine in the far-more-recent 2008, they’re now based in Paris and part of their raison d’etre is to protest against religion. To date, they’ve attacked the Orthodox Christian Leader in Russia, desecrated Cathedrals and crucifixes, and seem incapable of making a political comment without taking their clothes off. Shows a lack of confidence in their argument if you ask me, but there you go. They’ve also been known to chop down a cross or two themselves (weapon of choice: chainsaw), and seeing as they like to test the forebearance of law enforcement agencies throughout most European countries, I’m surprised they haven’t popped up on Michael’s radar before now. I suppose they don’t fit the bill of what he considers a non-aggressive atheist, even on days when their actions are solely directed at religious institutions and religion in general. Now that I come to think of it, the only words they’re known for are the ones scrawled across their bare breasts while they’re shocking families who are taking their children to see St. Peter’s Square in Rome. So no “writing books” then. Oh well, maybe Michael will enlighten us on what sub-genre of “aggressive atheist” they fall into in his next media blitz. Here’s hoping. Perhaps this is one crusade that Michael should have avoided. The way to respond to vandalism is to neutralise it by replacing what was lost. Anything else very quickly looks like a campaign built on its coat-tails, or worse, an obvious own goal.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Actually, unless the law has changed since 1921, the state owns all the land in the country. Because under British law (and remember Irish law is still 75%+ British law) the land is owned legally by the monarch, and what ordinary private citizens own is freehold rights on the land they posses, which under certain circumstances can be revoked quite easily.
Cabaal wrote: » its a none question and a silly none question at that because what makes these sites of interest is they are area's of outstanding natural beauty, Doesn't matter if its 10 feet above sea level, area's of outstanding natural beauty shouldn't be in private ownership.
Cabaal wrote: » you don't think area's of outstanding natural beauty should be run by the state to ensure the public has access to them?
Username32 wrote: » How do you define what's "an area of outstanding beauty".
I suppose you could seek a majority view of such a decision. But you would be imposing this view.
What about the individual who does not share this view? You impinge on their rights.
Also are you advocating some communist style take over of private land?
curioser wrote: » And the altitude question?
Cabaal wrote: » you don't think area's of outstanding natural beauty should be run by the state to ensure the public has access to them? what about history sites?, should we allow Newgrange to be in private hands? How about Kilkenny castle? a site of importance shouldn't be in private hands, nor should it be modified to promote any specific agenda.
curioser wrote: » At what altitude might it become mandatory that land be owned by the state?
swampgas wrote: » The private land aspect is a red herring, it's not like you need an invite to climb the mountain. There is an argument to be made that the mountain should be owned by the state. .
lazybones32 wrote: » The Law is 100% behind the landowner and a farmer/landowner can deny access to his/her land without reason.
riffmongous wrote: » How is it a red herring? I am not 100% certain on this but I would believe access to the mountain could be withdrawn similar to how dogs were banned from the mountain entirely last year. There is definitely an argument that the mountain should be owned by the state but that's a red herring in this case
swampgas wrote: » The private land aspect is a red herring, it's not like you need an invite to climb the mountain. There is an argument to be made that the mountain should be owned by the state.
MrPudding wrote: » I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of cutting the cross down. Your point was that someone "[...]chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else." It seems that you have the standard theist attitude that as long at it is your 'preference/belief/whatever' being inflicted, there is no problem. How long ago it was done or, that some arbitrary period during which an objection can lodged has lapsed, takes nothing away from the fact that the erecting of the cross in the first place was an example of someone inflicting their 'preference/belief/whatever' on everyone else. Would you not agree? MrP
riffmongous wrote: » But since it was installed on private land and isn't visible to anyone who isn't climbing the mountain (with permission) is anything really being inflicted on everyone else?
lazygal wrote: » So once no one objects at the time anything that later becomes offensive has to stay? This is the same excuse used for maintaining religious schools, that the churches set them up and because those of no faith didn't bother to set them up our children can go hang in terms of indoctrination.
looksee wrote: » The time to object was before the cross was placed originally. Now if you want to object do it through proper channels. People object to windmills being placed around the countryside, does that make it ok to chop them down? Is it ok to demolish churches or take crosses out of graveyards? If you do not like the mosque or synagogue in your town can you demolish it?
PopePalpatine wrote: » Sharing is for the weak, according to the Gospel of Rand.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
