nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Dave!

So which one of yiz was it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, could it be AI's fault that you seem to think that people from Kerry and mountain climbers are "signficantly more indoctrinated than average"?

Seriously, you risk giving the impression that you think people who disagree with you do so because they are indoctrinated, as if you assume it to be impossible that anyone could disagree with you as the outcome of their own independent thought processes. Let's hope people don't impute that view also to AI. As a technique for winning hearts and minds, manifesting an assumption that those fail to accept your views are "indoctrinated" is somewhat counter-productive.

Or, it could be that they are more indoctrinated. From pg 10 of the 2011 Irish Catholic Bishops conference:

Dublin weekly attendance: 23.8%
Munster weekly attendance: 47.3%
Connaught weekly attendance: 47.3%

magicbastarder

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or, it could be that they are more indoctrinated.

i think you missed the point.
dismissing someone else's belief as being a result of indoctrination can come across as highly patronising.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you missed the point.
dismissing someone else's belief as being a result of indoctrination can come across as highly patronising.

The original point was that AI was "primarily an organisation of middle class Dubliners", not as inclusive as they thought because they didn't know about the cross.
The follow up point was a claim that AI is perpetuating a falsehood that people from Kerry are more indcotrinated than average.

Given my eivdence, which shows that people from rural Ireland are more indicontrinated than average, I don't see how I've missed either point.

If you want patronising, well we do have the accusation that one poster is labelling people as indoctrinated simply because they disagree with that poster, that's pretty patronising in my view.

Of course, none of this really matters. "Patronising" is just an ad hominem that gets thrown around a lot in these kinds of arguments, but (much like the another common label "arrogant") which has zero bearing on whether any point is actually accurate or not.

SpaceTime

I think though there's a difference between urban and rural areas in terms of religious observance for a few reasons:

1) The local church is often one of the few community focal points, so people tend to go for social reasons or may even go 'to be seen to go'.
2) Populations are often a lot older and less diverse simply because it's a rural area.
3) City dwellers can be a lot more individualistic because there's an option to be.

Cutting down a cross is quite a bizarre thing for someone to have done though. Obviously they're quite seriously put out by something. I know Kerry's been a little obsessed with crosses though, what with installing that cross in the County Council's new chamber and all of that. I wonder if there's some kind of local issue going on between pro/anti religious types that's a lot more 'full on' than anywhere else I'm aware of.

Given the amount of power the church had in the past though, I'm sure there's bound to be a few people out there who are harbouring a deep resentment to it, particularly anyone who was put through any of the institutions that were run by it + the state in the past. Or, if someone were perhaps being excluded from local schools or the local community on the basis that they weren't catholic or something like that.

There are a lot of possible motives behind this.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, except there is a point behind what Jank says. The initial comments attributed to AI turned out to have been made on the incorrect assumption that Carrauntoohil summit is in public ownership; those comments were later retracted. Now we seem to have someone from AI saying that they had never been aware that there was a cross on top of Carrauntoohil until it was taken down. There has been a cross there since the early 1950s, during which time thousands and thousands of people have climbed the mountain, many of them presumably atheists or others having strong feelings about the social position of the Catholic church in Ireland. If the cross didn't impinge on the consciousness of Atheist Ireland in all that time, you have to reckon it can't have been giving that much offence.

The overall impression created, I regret to say, is of a knee-jerk reaction - "It's a cross; we must object to it; we'll rationalise exactly why later". That's not a good look. The cross is a public expression of religious faith. AI risks making itself look like a bunch of people who will instinctively object to any public expression of religious faith, demand that public policy enforce their objections and offer ill-thought-out justifications for the demand. If they don't lift their game they'll end up being pilloried in the Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies thread.

Well, to be fair AI were simply making a statement that if a new structure is to be erected on public land, perhaps it should be something more inclusive? I don't think this can be considered a knee-jerk reaction, seeing as it consistent with secular principles. The fact that the mountain is not public land changed the situation so I don't see that there was any real inconsistency in their current position either.

The real knee-jerk reaction (IMO) has been the rather extreme counter-reaction from just about everyone else.

As for the cross being a symbol of religious faith, we have people arguing that it is and isn't as it suits them. So for some, it seems, it is simply a marker on a hill top which aids navigation and has no real religious significance, to others it has historical and social significance but not necessarily religious significance, and to others again it is primarily a religious symbol. There seems to be a lot of confusion (and little consensus) about just how much the cross is genuinely Christian/Catholic rather than just traditional/historical.

magicbastarder

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given my eivdence, which shows that people from rural Ireland are more indicontrinated than average, I don't see how I've missed either point.

no, your evidence shows that people in rural areas attend mass more regularly than people in urban areas.
your supposition is that they do so because they're more indoctrinated. the evidence does not show this. your conclusion is a theory.

you tell a rural mass goer that they go to mass because they're indoctrinated, and they'd tell you to **** off. and they'd be justified in doing so.

Dades

swampgas wrote: »

Well, to be fair AI were simply making a statement that if a new structure is to be erected on public land, perhaps it should be something more inclusive? I don't think this can be considered a knee-jerk reaction, seeing as it consistent with secular principles. The fact that the mountain is not public land changed the situation so I don't see that there was any real inconsistency in their current position either.

Credit to AI they only responded about the cross when asked about it. And condemned the act of vandalism involved.

However, extra credit could have been earned by suggesting that there are issues involving religion in Ireland that really matter, and that the re-erection of a decades old cross on private land is not one of them.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, except there is a point behind what Jank says. The initial comments attributed to AI turned out to have been made on the incorrect assumption that Carrauntoohil summit is in public ownership; those comments were later retracted...

What points were retracted?
If you mean they "suggested that if a new symbol was put up that it might be an inclusive one" that point still stands, whether the land is privately owned or not.
It is open to the public, so rules are slightly different. In the same way, a pub or a supermarket must behave in an inclusive way, even though they are private property.
Secondly, as the summit of the highest mountain in Ireland, the place has a unique significance. If some loyalist purchased a patch of land on the top of Cave Hill overlooking Belfast, and erected a Union Jack there on his own private property, how long do you think it would last? (About 2 hours; that's how long it would take people to walk up there and pull it down)
If you can't put "inclusive" monuments up on top of mountains, then don't put any up.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Now we seem to have someone from AI saying that they had never been aware that there was a cross on top of Carrauntoohil until it was taken down. There has been a cross there since the early 1950s, during which time thousands and thousands of people have climbed the mountain, many of them presumably atheists or others having strong feelings about the social position of the Catholic church in Ireland. If the cross didn't impinge on the consciousness of Atheist Ireland in all that time, you have to reckon it can't have been giving that much offence.

The basis of this argument has already been refuted.
Also how do you know that all climbers think these crosses are fine? Would there be any point in writing a letter of complaint to Kerry County Council, when they have just installed a similar one in the council chamber?
Its like when you find a load of orange peel at the summit. Most people just cringe, and carry on. The odd person decides to take it upon themselves to clean up the orange peel....

robindch

jank wrote: »

Do AI have any Kerry members or mountain climbers? Or is it primarily an organisation of middle class Dubliners. Maybe they are not as inclusive as they claim to be.

There are at least two people, both atheists, both well known to Michael Nugent, who are from Kerry and who have been to the top of Carrauntoohil and who have seen, and are familiar, with the cross there.

I hope this calms your fear that AI is not "inclusive".

robindch

Dades wrote: »

However, extra credit could have been earned by suggesting that there are issues involving religion in Ireland that really matter, and that the re-erection of a decades old cross on private land is not one of them.

I agree with this entirely - the online commentary has been mostly hostile, lead on by inaccurate reporting of what AI said. Perhaps, as you suggest, things might have been a little different if they'd said there were much more important issues worth highlighting, but I'm not sure they would have been.

As, for example, with the water charges debate, there simply seem to be a lot of people out there who aren't prepared to make any significant effort to trace primary sources, to understand all sides of the issues concerned and who are instead simply developing their own overheated misinterpretation based upon biased information sources and social media commentary.

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

Admitting that they didn't even know these crosses existed yet somehow feel compelled to offer the party line will be seen as reactionary and divisive to the mainstream of Ireland and the local people who, you know live in the area and know more about Carrauntoohil than some blogger from South Dublin. If they put their foot in it, then it is nobodies fault but their own.

Kinda makes my previous point.

By your logic then anyone who didnt see the cross being cut down cant care about it. Of course I am expecting "no no, thats different" and more moving of goalposts until we eventually get a very narrow definition that just so happens to about AI.

At least if you would just say their opinion doesnt matter because they are godless heathens we would see where you stand.

seamus

I like how so many people have assumed there is some atheism relevance in this whole thing.

Atheism is like the new "Pagan". Anyone who's not Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jewish is automatically a filthy baby-eating atheist.

In reality there are a lot of people out there who identify as non-catholic and/or anti-catholic, but do not identify as atheists.

In rural Ireland in particular, there are thousands of people who've found themselves at the hands of abuse from the local priests - be that sexual abuse, physical abuse or just the simple frustration of having to toe the line with some abrasive, ill-mannered hypocritical drunkard.

Now they've grown up and had families and and in order to secure a decent future for their children, they find themselves having once again to play the nice face to that same priest, who has no reason or qualification to be at all involved in education.

And they're sick of it. Incidents like this in rural Ireland will become more commonplace until the catholic church is removed from all state schools.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, your evidence shows that people in rural areas attend mass more regularly than people in urban areas.
your supposition is that they do so because they're more indoctrinated. the evidence does not show this. your conclusion is a theory.

They either attend weekly mass because they believe in it or they attend mass despite not believing in it. Either way, they are indoctrinated to some degree.

magicbastarder wrote: »

you tell a rural mass goer that they go to mass because they're indoctrinated, and they'd tell you to **** off. and they'd be justified in doing so.

Nobody likes being told that they are wrong or how they are wrong. However, that doesn't make them less wrong.

fisgon

jank wrote: »

Or is it primarily an organisation of middle class Dubliners.

I live quite far from Dublin, and am a member, and know quite a few others in my area. Sorry to disappoint, but actually, we're everywhere....

keane2097

jank wrote: »

Do AI have any Kerry members or mountain climbers? Or is it primarily an organisation of middle class Dubliners. Maybe they are not as inclusive as they claim to be.

They have at least one. I never mentioned to anyone about the cross to be fair, this whole thing may be my fault.

I've also stopped being upset about the babies in the septic tank as I realised it was stupid of me to be upset about it at this stage - sure I never even knew they were there.

robindch

keane2097 wrote: »

They have at least one.

Then make that at least two AI members from Kerry and two further Kerrypersons with strong AI sympathies. With that number of atheists from the county, the days of the catholic church there are clearly numbered - today, the Dail, tomorrow Gneeveguilla and the Blaskets!

curioser

obplayer wrote: »

So if you have never known about something which would upset you but then find out about it, you should still not be upset because you should have known sooner? So if I find my wife has been having sex with the neighbour then, because I never knew, when I do know I should be ok with it? 'Shure it did me no harm for all these years!'

If this is the sort of thing you normally get up to at 3.28 a.m. it would be no surprise if the wife decided to have it off with the neighbour!

expectationlost

kylith wrote: »

“What can we expect next? Will these people start burning down churches or attacking people on their way to mass?” - Fine Gael TD Brendan Griffin

it was a piece of metal

http://www.finegael.ie/latest-news/2014/release-of-carrauntoohill/index.xml

shruikan2553

expectationlost wrote: »

it was a piece of metal

http://www.finegael.ie/latest-news/2014/release-of-carrauntoohill/index.xml

In this country we advocate an attitude of tolerance and understanding of peoples’ beliefs.

When did this start happening?

Beaner1

Are there any plans to cut this down again? It's a horrible blight on the landscape.

SpaceTime

Not to totally take the thread OT but it does have a strong resemblance to that Jedediah Springfield (aka Sprungfeld) statue vandalism incident in the US in the 1990s..

swampgas

seamus wrote: »

In rural Ireland in particular, there are thousands of people who've found themselves at the hands of abuse from the local priests - be that sexual abuse, physical abuse or just the simple frustration of having to toe the line with some abrasive, ill-mannered hypocritical drunkard.

Now they've grown up and had families and and in order to secure a decent future for their children, they find themselves having once again to play the nice face to that same priest, who has no reason or qualification to be at all involved in education.

And they're sick of it. Incidents like this in rural Ireland will become more commonplace until the catholic church is removed from all state schools.

There is also the issue that in rural areas, people are far slower to go public when they have a grievance. I suppose when it's socially unacceptable to challenge the church's position, the end result might be actions like this - someone making an anonymous symbolic attack on the church and its supporters.

Is this event the end result of a failure of politics (at both local and national level) to deal with issues of religious freedom, I wonder?

Brian Shanahan

swampgas wrote: »

There is also the issue that in rural areas, people are far slower to go public when they have a grievance.

It's a fear of "what will the neighbours say". I get it quite a lot when contentious issues come up in my role with the local GAA club. You've got to remember too that rurally everybody knows you, and quite often in a parish everybody is a member of one or more of a small number of families who've been living in the same area for generations.
While people are a lot more open and free in what they say, and what they express about their true feelings, rural Ireland is only very slowly getting rid of the old bad habit of omerta.

lazygal

My relatives who live in rural Ireland would attend mass far more regularly than any city-based relatives. Same for other people I know. Weekly mass attendance is very much the norm when we visit, they still do the stations each year and the school indoctrination is something it wouldn't cross their mind to do anything about other than participate.
It's weird, on a micro level people are quite tolerant of 'the only gay in the village' or so and so who had to go to Liverpool because her poor baby wouldn't survive, but they are definitely less tolerant when it comes to allowing other gays in other villages, towns and counties the right to marry or allowing other women who don't want to be pregnant a choice. That's been my completely anecdotal experience anyway.

Shrap

My anecdotal evidence too, in a nutshell Lazygal. So close to how my little town is. We had a gay bar-owner here for years, who only dared to "come out" when he left the parish. Also had the underage pregnancies followed by the trip to the UK. Those were understandable circumstances, but hundreds of them?! What? No. It's a slippery slope we'd be going down...

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

My anecdotal evidence too, in a nutshell Lazygal. So close to how my little town is. We had a gay bar-owner here for years, who only dared to "come out" when he left the parish. Also had the underage pregnancies followed by the trip to the UK. Those were understandable circumstances, but hundreds of them?! What? No. It's a slippery slope we'd be going down...

Oh yeah, the only moral abortion is my abortion nonsense.

shruikan2553

I remember reading something like that. A woman who was completely against abortion found out her daughter was pregnant. Of course hers was understandable but everyone else is wrong.

lazygal

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Hotblack Desiato

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think though there's a difference between urban and rural areas in terms of religious observance

Religiously observant/follower of a doctrine is what I meant, not brainwashing. But interesting nonetheless the willingness in some quarters to see oppression at every turn.

lazygal wrote: »

It's weird, on a micro level people are quite tolerant of 'the only gay in the village' or so and so who had to go to Liverpool because her poor baby wouldn't survive, but they are definitely less tolerant when it comes to allowing other gays in other villages, towns and counties the right to marry or allowing other women who don't want to be pregnant a choice. That's been my completely anecdotal experience anyway.

Just hypocrisy, and as often happens, an unwillingness to think one's position on an issue through. Perhaps they just find it harder to hate people they know.

expectationlost wrote: »

it was a piece of metal

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not to totally take the thread OT but it does have a strong resemblance to that Jedediah Springfield (aka Sprungfeld) statue vandalism incident in the US in the 1990s..

That's it! The cross should've been replaced with an Inanimate Carbon Rod.

goose2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

The overall impression created, I regret to say, is of a knee-jerk reaction - "It's a cross; we must object to it; we'll rationalise exactly why later". That's not a good look. The cross is a public expression of religious faith. AI risks making itself look like a bunch of people who will instinctively object to any public expression of religious faith, demand that public policy enforce their objections and offer ill-thought-out justifications for the demand.

No, prayer or an open-air mass are an expression of religious faith. Erecting crosses is marking territory, like spraying a graffiti 'tag' or pissing on a tree.