David QuinnAtheists don’t want an Ireland devoid of all symbols, but merely one devoid of religious symbols, writes David Quinn
What would possess a person, or persons, to climb Ireland’s highest peak with a heavy piece of equipment in order to cut down the cross that has stood there for almost 40 years?
Remarkably, the chief reaction to what happened seems to have come from Atheist Ireland which didn’t want the cross re-erected at the summit of Carrauntoohil at all.
There was some uproar in Kerry itself at the act of vandalism, but precious little nationally. It would have been quite a different story if the Islamic crescent had been vandalised or an LGBT flag burnt – then the action would have been seen as a hate crime. Government ministers would have had their say and the airwaves would have filled up with expressions of outrage. We would have had editorials about the matter.
But a cross seems to be fair game. What happened at the top of Carrauntoohil cannot be put down to a random, opportunistic act of vandalism. No-one goes to the bother of climbing a mountain in order to do that. This was calculated. Someone objected so strongly to the cross being there that they went to the bother of climbing the mountain with the intention of cutting it down, despite it being made of metal and therefore requiring special equipment to do the job.
It is therefore very hard to avoid the conclusion that this was an anti-Christian act. Unfortunately, we will probably never know who did it and therefore no-one will ever be punished for this action.
Atheist Ireland obviously in no way condoned what happened but it was quick out of the blocks in demanding that the cross not be put up again. They objected that the cross did not represent the whole community.
But if that is the basis of their objection, then there are precious few monuments or statues or religious symbols that could appear in public.
For example, the James Connolly statue nearby Liberty Hall would have to come down because many people would not agree with Connolly’s politics.
The James Larkin statue on O’Connell Street in Dublin would have to be removed for the same reason. So would the statue of O’Connell himself for that matter. As popular and all as he was, O’Connell was controversial in his day and his legacy is still fought over.
Controversial
Charles Stewart Parnell, at the other end of O’Connell Street, would have to go as well. He was hugely controversial and his career ended in disgrace because of the moral standards of his day.
Should the statute of Oscar Wilde remain on display in Merrion Square Park, given his penchant for underage male prostitutes?
The list could go on, but the point is made; it is extremely hard to think of anything we could put on public display that would not have some objectors.
But how often in practice do we hear demands for the removal of the aforementioned statues? The answer is never. And if one day someone was to topple one of those statutes it would be hard to find anyone who would demand that it not be put back in place instantly.
The fact is that public monuments are erected to people and ideas that have a large number of followers, rather than the support of the whole community, because winning the support of a whole community is almost impossible.
Indeed, all prominent ideas and all prominent people will have their opponents because that is in the nature of things. If we restrict public monuments only to those people and those ideas that have the support of the whole community, we would end up with a ‘naked public square’ or else the only monuments or symbols we would erect would be the likes of the Spire on O’Connell Street because that doesn’t really represent anything at all.
As one person remarked about it when it was erected to mark the start of the second millennium, it is “a point without a point”.
But Atheist Ireland’s singling out of the cross on Carrauntoohil was revealing because what Atheist Ireland wants isn’t a public square devoid of all symbols, but merely one devoid of religious ones, and that shows an animus towards religion itself.
In Atheist Ireland’s vision of society, religion would be a purely private thing. It would rarely if ever be seen in public. An over-sensitive atheist could drive from one end of the country to the other and the only thing that would remind him of the existence of religion would be the presence of churches. He would hardly object to that, unless he wants religion expunged from society completely.
In Atheist Ireland’s vision, religion would have no influence on our laws or on public policy. Politicians would have to keep their political convictions (such as they are) entirely separate from their religious ones.
Promise
Like former justice minister Dermot Ahern, they would promise to leave their religion at the door of their office every day.
State funding would go to nothing religious – not to schools, not to hospitals, no matter what taxpayers themselves might actually want.
But notice again how it is religion that is being singled out here. Atheist Ireland doesn’t mind politicians allowing their politics to be influenced by other convictions, for example, by socialism.
Likewise, it has no objection to public policy and our laws being similarly influenced.
Nor does it mind public money being funnelled into the things it likes. I doubt very much if it objects to public money being given to the likes of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission despite the fact that this body’s vision of human rights and equality is open to serious intellectual challenge.
So in the end Atheist Ireland’s vision of life is very badly skewed by its animus towards religion because only this seems to explain why it wants only religion separated from public life and not all other convictions that also lack the assent of ‘the whole community’.
Fortunately, the people of Kerry are more sensible than this because the cross now stands atop Carrauntoohil once more.