Churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc [Archive]

JKP

21st January 2006, 04:56

Maybe some of the historical ones will be turned into museums, but most will razed to the ground and/or turned into collectivised latrines.

To quote Orwell during the Spanish revolution:

"Practically every building
of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with
the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the
hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost
every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were
being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen."

"Some of the foreign anti-Fascist papers even descended to the pitiful lie of pretending
that churches were only attacked when they were used as Fascist fortresses.
Actually churches were pillaged everywhere and as a matter of course, because it
was perfectly well understood that the Spanish Church was part of the capitalist
racket. In six months in Spain I only saw two undamaged churches, and until
about July 1937 no churches were allowed to reopen and hold services, except for
one or two Protestant churches in Madrid. "

"For the first time since I had been in Barcelona I went to have a
look at the cathedral--a modern cathedral, and one of the most hideous
buildings in the world. It has four crenellated spires exactly the shape of hock
bottles. Unlike most of the churches in Barcelona it was not damaged during the
revolution--it was spared because of its 'artistic value', people said. I think
the Anarchists showed bad taste in not blowing it up when they had the chance...

Some select excerpts from Homage to Catalonia:
http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/0.html

redstar2000

21st January 2006, 06:54

The Cathedral and the Wrecking Ball (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083428859&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

VonClausewitz

21st January 2006, 07:06

A shame on both counts I think, although JKP seems a little less "Kill 'em all" than redstar2000.

Redstar2000 (you have your own site dedicated to yourself ?) - you have no qualms about destroying buildings, that once stripped of their significance, really are masterpieces of construction ? Only certain castles and palaces can match them for sheer genius of construction. (apologies, I'm a history bachelor/soon master with something of a passion for architecture).

I mean, you could even "educate" people and their offspring into just viewing them as a pile of intricatly wrought stone, save ruining history for future generations.

21st January 2006, 07:37

I really think that people will just turn away from religion. It will wither and die because of lack of interest. People will be turned away from religion because they will realize that it doesn't solve their problems and it won't save them.

Tormented by Treachery

21st January 2006, 07:40

One of few matters I agree with V.C. on... it would seem a waste to destroy the structures. The Coliseum stands today, despite standing for enslavement.

redstar2000

21st January 2006, 07:52

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)Redstar2000 (you have your own site dedicated to yourself?)[/b]

Astonishing, is it not?

redstar2000papers homepage
Back in March of 2003, it was suggested to me that my posts to various message boards were sufficiently interesting to be worth a site of their own.

This was a bit difficult for me to believe, but I acquiesced...and in early May of that year this site went on line.

Recently a guestbook was added...and you should see the nice things that people say about me.

I am truly amazed and enormously flattered. :D

Of course I delete all the nasty remarks. :lol:

...you have no qualms about destroying buildings, that once stripped of their significance, really are masterpieces of construction?

I look forward to it.

Just as the allies more or less deliberately destroyed nearly all of the surviving architecture of the Third Reich...regardless of its "historical significance".

Large-scale architecture is an "assertion of power" and its significance doesn't just "disappear" on the "day after the revolution".

The Christians themselves understood this very well; when they achieved power as Rome's "state religion", they either demolished pagan temples or took them over and remodeled them for Christian use. As soon as state resources permitted, they commenced at once to building their own "propaganda in stone".

They changed the landscape of public life to "shock and awe" the people into submission.

The Leninists in the 20th century could have done the same...and, in my opinion, should have!

Sadly, not only did they not do that, but they even wasted scarce resources to re-build cathedrals that were extensively damaged during World War II and, in Poland, even built new ones.

Gross blunder doesn't even begin to describe their policy.

I am not a "fan" of "monumental" architecture...I think communist society will deliberately and consciously build "on a human scale".

But I think it's imperative that we "change the public landscape" to remove the presence of all buildings that "scream God" at people.

They're the visual equivalent of a 20-story boom-box. :o :o :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Kittie Rose

21st January 2006, 14:45

Spirituality has inspired so many beautiful works of art - what truly beautiful works of art has fundamentalist communism given us? Or even if we were to extend it to that, the concept of atheism? The inspiration of creation and aspiring to be more than we are is reason enough to dismiss your claims of religion being nothing but a negatiev force.

I think you're missing the point of being "revolutionary".

You do NOT go out seeking violence and destruction, to kill and destroy. Those are things which occur as an unfortunate side effect of revolution, or steps which become immediately necessary to protect yourself from resistence in the heat of struggle. Burning down buildings which in no way present a threat to you or your movement is nonsensical and barbaric. That's not struggling, that's being oppresive.

In fact, it is even perfectly possible, just unlikely, that a non-violent revolution can occur. Revolution is merely defined as "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another." It is possible to have a revolution through political and social means. You are so quick to jump to violence when you could at least make some level of progress in a less barbaric manner. This does not make me a "pansy" it makes you bloodthirsty.

I am not doubting that lives may end up being lost for the good of everyone, as much as I despise the idea. However, you don't go out SEEKING death and destruction in a revolution; you're entirely missing the point of a revolution by doing so. It seems you're all filled with anger and little in the way of revolutionary ideas.

You're not revolutionaries. You're terrorists, fascists, totalarians, puritans and violent thugs in the making. The true spirit of revolution is liberation, not violence.

redstar2000

21st January 2006, 16:58

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
Spirituality has inspired so many beautiful works of art - what truly beautiful works of art has fundamentalist communism given us?

That's the best you can do?

Very well, "fundamentalist communism" hasn't really produced much in the way of "art" at all.

When you get right down to it, there haven't even been all that many "fundamentalist communists"...and the ones that have existed have had other priorities.

What "art" would be like in a communist society is impossible to know at this point.

Except it won't be "spiritual". :lol:

One "fundamentalist communist" suggested that "art" wouldn't even exist as a "separate sphere" -- people's lives "would be their art".

I don't know if that really means anything...but there you are.

I heard another "fundamentalist communist" say that "art comes from the conflict between what is and what ought to be...and in a communist society, that conflict wouldn't exist -- so, neither would art".

I'm afraid that speculation is the "best we can do" at this time.

You're not revolutionaries. You're terrorists, fascists, totalitarians, puritans and violent thugs in the making.

Ah, more abuse. :lol:

If you dislike us so much, why don't you just "take a hike"? :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Kittie Rose

21st January 2006, 17:42

That's the best you can do?

Very well, "fundamentalist communism" hasn't really produced much in the way of "art" at all.

When you get right down to it, there haven't even been all that many "fundamentalist communists"...and the ones that have existed have had other priorities.

But, there's still been enough. You don't have to judge famous artists, just artists. And the number of artists among fundamentalists commies is certainly very small.

One "fundamentalist communist" suggested that "art" wouldn't even exist as a "separate sphere" -- people's lives "would be their art".

What a wonderful way of saying "Well, art will probably be destroyed, so I'll through in some post modern nonsense so they don't notice that! Score".

I heard another "fundamentalist communist" say that "art comes from the conflict between what is and what ought to be...and in a communist society, that conflict wouldn't exist -- so, neither would art".

A society without art is not a society worth living in. You propose a model where we simply exist - not one in which we live.

If you dislike us so much, why don't you just "take a hike"? biggrin.gif

Because I have a backbone and stand up for my beliefs, and what's right. Oh, and that wasn't abuse. That was just me being "predictive" :) Which is of course, allowed under your rules, as is saying that all pagans would murder people if it wasn't illegal.

redstar2000

21st January 2006, 18:03

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
A society without art is not a society worth living in.

Ok...if a lot of people agree with you, then communist society will have art.

And if almost no one agrees with you, then you'll just have to "end it all"...please try not to make an unnecessary mess. :(

Because I have a backbone and stand up for my beliefs, and what's right.

Yes, there's much in your posts that suggests "brain stem" and "spinal cord" thinking...as if a really pissed-off alligator had learned how to type. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Amusing Scrotum

21st January 2006, 18:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:25 AM
....you have no qualms about destroying buildings, that once stripped of their significance, really are masterpieces of construction ? Only certain castles and palaces can match them for sheer genius of construction. (apologies, I'm a history bachelor/soon master with something of a passion for architecture).

Well I'm glad you're a "history bachelor/soon master" but I'm a "construction guy" and I really don't think you have the faintest idea of just how much work it takes to keep those "masterpieces of construction" from falling apart.

Most Churches (bar the modern ones which I doubt you are referring too) require a tremendous amount of upkeep. They are particularly prone to all kinds of rot in the timber and removing and replacing rotten timber takes a shit load of time.

Plus, a lot of the old Churches are made of poor quality stone which has a tendency to crumble and also makes the building very draughty and cold. Fixing this takes a lot of time too.

So the problem in a Communist society becomes who will be willing to spend all this time maintaining these "temples of ignorance"? ....a Religious person may not have the skills and a construction worker probably won't want to waste their time on such a big job.

So really the remaining "God botherers" will have to become competent Engineers, Brickies, Chippies etc. if they wish to maintain these "masterpieces of construction" (really?).

Only nutballs would go to all that effort to repair a building that hardly anyone visits. I mean, would you be prepared to change career to help maintain these buildings?

Kittie Rose

21st January 2006, 19:18

They're still history. History should not be destroyed or left to rot.

Amusing Scrotum

21st January 2006, 19:52

Originally posted by Kittie Rose+Jan 21 2006, 07:37 PM--> (Kittie Rose @ Jan 21 2006, 07:37 PM) History should not be destroyed.... [/b]

Well this is a moral argument.

No doubt it is a (great) shame that certain pieces of history are destroyed, but they are destroyed all the same.

For instance, the house I live in is probably built on a site where there was once a "mud hut". Now, it's a shame that I'll never get to see this "mud hut", but it would be an even greater shame if I had nowhere to live.

Historic buildings, culture etc. are not "sacred" or "divine". They are created by humans and can be destroyed by humans just as easily.

Kittie Rose
....or left to rot.

Well as I said, are you prepared to dedicate your life to their upkeep?

Tormented by Treachery

21st January 2006, 22:51

Does every single thread have to be reduced to "you're a fascist, you're a thug" versus "you're a godsucking twat"?

Can we not pay attention to the issue at hand? (Specifically, I speak at Kittie and RedStar)

I believe that not every structure need be kept, but we would not destroy Notre Dame or St. Paul's or other grandiose cathedrals, nor would we destroy the holiest of mosques or synagogues. They would not be held for their religious value (and if any tried to worship there, proper measures would be taken) but a society would need to have 'living history' so to speak. Call it nostalgia. I think that we keep concentration camps from th Nazis, the Coliseum in Rome, and Medieval castles around are not because we support fascism, slavery, or fuedal labor, but because the structures themselves draw people to be interested, understand the folly of these systems, and learn how to avoid this irrational set of beliefs.

violencia.Proletariat

21st January 2006, 22:59

^^ When two extremes meet they arent going to convince eachother of much.

Modern churches will be saved most likely (aside form taking down all their religious symbols) because they are decently built structures that can be used after some re-modeling.

Ancient churches which millions have dollars have been spent to keep them up will just be destroyed. We can take pictures of them or make 3d models of them on a computer before we knock them down for "history's sake".

Frankly, the only real place those structures hold in history is symbols of oppression and the lavishness of the capitalist class so FUCK EM.

DisIllusion

22nd January 2006, 05:10

I think you're missing the point of being "revolutionary".

A revolutionary is against reactionaries. Religion is reactionary, I think we can agree on that. If something is detrimental to a new society, how can it be allowed to stay? Have the Germans left the Reichstag stay the capital of Nazi power? Did the French let the Bastille stay? Now, I can see what you're thinking by arguing that they are pieces of art, and I agree, at least in this current society. If everybody truly does somehow turn away from religion, then those buildings will start to lack even artistic appeal. Our society is still very much based in religion so those buildings will still stand. As long as even one person worships in their mind, you can't totally destroy the cathedral. Until then, the only logical move is to convert them into something useful for society around them.

redstar2000

22nd January 2006, 05:37

Originally posted by DisIllusion
Until then, the only logical move is to convert them into something useful for society around them.

The 18th century French revolutionaries wanted to convert the cathedrals into "Temples of Reason".

It just didn't work out...the old associations were "too strong".

So as soon as we get a 50.001% majority in favor, down they come! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Zingu

22nd January 2006, 06:16

I think I could imagine a rough idea of what glee it would bring to be the one to push down on the trigger to bring a cathedral crashing towards the ground.

The Spanish Anarchists certainly must have experinced that feeling.

Tormented by Treachery

22nd January 2006, 06:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:29 AM
Now, I can see what you're thinking by arguing that they are pieces of art, and I agree, at least in this current society. If everybody truly does somehow turn away from religion, then those buildings will start to lack even artistic appeal.
Well, my only counterargument to that is that in no way am I christian, muslim, buddhist, jewish, etc etc, but they still do hold artistic value for me. We do not believe in the ancient Egyptian religion, and yet their pyramids stand to this day. I don't know, it'd be a tough issue. The picture/3D model idea is interesting, except does a postcard do the trick, rather than seeing the actual home of Trotsky in Mexico City? I don't know.

redstar2000

22nd January 2006, 13:07

There are few things as "sweet" as confirmation of one's views from a completely unexpected source.

Look what I found! :D

The architecture critic of London's Observer and the author of several books on the "art" has some very interesting things to say in his latest book.

On religious architecture

(Excerpts from Chapter 10 of The Edifice Complex by Deyan Sudjic, ISBN #1-59420-068-8)

Religious architecture is a question of continuity, interspersed with brief periods of rapid change. The purpose of a religious building is to send signals that are intended to tie worshipers together over long periods of history and across huge distances. When a new religion, or a new sect of an old one, seeks to establish itself or reinvigorate itself, it develops a new architectural language. (pp.296-7)

The orientation of religious buildings and their interaction with natural phenomena -- especially daylight, but also the stars -- reflect the earliest attempts of sacred architecture to frame the heavens. It's done to produce recognizable building types that in their fabric carry the implanted message of the sacred. (p.297)

Religion has continually used architecture as a propaganda vehicle and to create a shared sense of identity. A religious building is devised to make the individual worshiper feel a sense of belonging to the larger body of the faithful -- and in some sense to play a part in revealing sacred truths....Certain architectural languages have become associated with certain religious movements. (p.297)

But there is also a level on which architecture is used to define a mood: to create a sense of space and expectation, of reverence, that serves to make individuals feel that they have been transported out of the everyday world, and are for a moment open to the sacred. (p.298)

When faith is invoked by what can be seen as artificial or manipulative means, it is counterproductive....For an architect to consciously set out to create the atmosphere of sanctity is to reveal the underpinnings of the process. Hence the importance of tradition over innovation in church architecture. (p.298)

Religious architecture must follow a careful path if it is not to become a form of stagecraft and to reveal the mechanism by which the atmosphere is created. Religious faith cannot be seen to be reduced to a conjuring trick. (p.298)

All architecture has its origins in sacred building. Its techniques, intellectual as well as material, have shaped architecture's contemporary role and given us our understanding of an architectural language with a temporal as well as a spiritual content....But they are also both using architecture in the same way, as a means to create an aura around their churches, to demonstrate their continuing vigor and relevance. (pp.315-6)
------------------------------------------------------------

I hasten to add that this fellow is not any kind of "lefty". When he criticizes the ruling class, it's for "bad taste", not exploitation or oppression. Undoubtedly it was his publisher (The Penguin Press) that added the subtitle -- "how the rich and powerful shape the world" -- to make the book sound "hotter" than it really is. He has a little fun with some famous architects who at one time or another groveled to the Nazis or to Stalin in order to gain some commissions.

But his tone is quite matter-of-fact; here's how the public landscape came to look like it does. Here are the "important names" and "this" is what they did.

In the chapter I quoted from above, he is mainly concerned with describing -- critically -- two new churches in the Los Angeles area.

Which is why I was impressed by his reflections on religious architecture...they tie rather neatly into my own proposition that all those buildings must be demolished.

They really are "propaganda in stone"...just as I said they were without knowing squat about architecture. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Amusing Scrotum

22nd January 2006, 13:39

While I agree with most of Mr. Sudjic's sentiments, this is debatable....

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:26 PM
When faith is invoked by what can be seen as artificial or manipulative means, it is counterproductive....For an architect to consciously set out to create the atmosphere of sanctity is to reveal the underpinnings of the process. Hence the importance of tradition over innovation in church architecture. (p.298)

(Emphasis added.)

Three words; The Crystal Cathedral....

http://www.artexcursions.com/images/crystal_cathedral.jpg

:o

"Tradition" may appeal to some believers, but it seems if a Religion wants to attract new members, "innovation" is required. So certain Religious leaders will no doubt be trying to "get with the times" (sort of like how the Royal family now wears baseball caps and talks about watching popular TV shows).

Really it's not the "tradition" of something that makes Church architecture propaganda, rather the size. The same way a large Office buildings says "look what capital built." A large Church says "look what God built."

In this sense for God to appear powerful, God needs to be innovative.

boosh logic

22nd January 2006, 18:00

Modern churches, etc bare no real significance, but surely millenia-old cathedrals and other beautiful buildings would remain as a testament to what we can achieve if we work together?

Stone Henge was created by religious cults, so would it be destroyed for that sole purpose, even though it demonstrates outstanding initiative and ability? -unless you think it was a hoax, of course.

sort of like how the Royal family now wears baseball caps and talks about watching popular TV shows

Really? I thought they just dressed as Nazi's and stole our money.

Amusing Scrotum

22nd January 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by voiceofthevoiceless+Jan 22 2006, 06:19 PM--> (voiceofthevoiceless @ Jan 22 2006, 06:19 PM)Modern churches, etc bare no real significance, but surely millenia-old cathedrals and other beautiful buildings would remain as a testament to what we can achieve if we work together?[/b]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of those "beautiful buildings" that show how we can "work together" were actually built by slave labour. Not the kind of "testament" to co-operation that I want.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Stone Henge was created by religious cults, so would it be destroyed for that sole purpose, even though it demonstrates outstanding initiative and ability?

I doubt it.

No one worships at Stone Henge anymore (I think?) and therefore it holds no Religious significance. Christianity (Islam and Judaism) would still be fresh in peoples memory straight after a revolution, and therefore the Religious buildings would be (legitimate) targets.

voiceofthevoiceless
Really?

Yes. Apparently the Queen enjoys Ali G and Coronation Street.

violencia.Proletariat

22nd January 2006, 18:47

Well, my only counterargument to that is that in no way am I christian, muslim, buddhist, jewish, etc etc, but they still do hold artistic value for me. We do not believe in the ancient Egyptian religion, and yet their pyramids stand to this day.

The pyramids are not being maintained that I know of. Eventually they will wither away, but what would be the point of destroying these? There out in the middle of a fucking desert.

Feudalism with castles and ancient despotisms like egypt are far gone in history, the buildings are the only remnants and pose no "real" threat. However religion still EXISTS to this day, the buildings are therfore meaningful to religious people and they can still push their "beliefs" on people.

I don't know, it'd be a tough issue. The picture/3D model idea is interesting, except does a postcard do the trick, rather than seeing the actual home of Trotsky in Mexico City? I don't know.

I dont really see the need for having these architectual "marvels". If anything its a product of extreme WASTE and over extravigance. These buildings and their "great architectual designs" really serve no basis for study in order to create USEFULL structures this day in age. Most buildings built in a revolutionary society would not be about extravigance but PRACTICALITY!

boosh logic

22nd January 2006, 19:40

I'm pretty sure that a lot of those "beautiful buildings" that show how we can "work together" were actually built by slave labour. Not the kind of "testament" to co-operation that I want.

I see your point - surely some must have been built out of willingness for the cause though? If not though, I agree. And saying that, the cause was religion, so yeah I definately agree.

Stone Henge was a ritual site for the Druids I think, but you're right, not anymore.

Red Leader

22nd January 2006, 20:06

Ok, as far as i see it, art is art, beauty is beauty. And like somebody previously said, society is nothing without art. I dont care what the buildings stand for, they are still magnificent symbols of what mankind can produce.

Think about it. God obvioulsy didnt build them, it was workers.

The hands of everyday people who toiled hard and long so that these masterpieces could be built. Give the workers the respect they deserve and keep the buildings. Would you want all your work to be destroyed?

Like I said, it makes no difference as to what the initial intent of the art was, good art is still worth preserving. Its like music. I listen to anything that has real talent, no matter what they are singing about. If the art is progressive and furthers the revolutionary process so be it, but if it doesnt, it should still be respected as somebody's work.

Amusing Scrotum

22nd January 2006, 20:26

Originally posted by voiceofthevoiceless+Jan 22 2006, 07:59 PM--> (voiceofthevoiceless @ Jan 22 2006, 07:59 PM)....surely some must have been built out of willingness for the cause though?[/b]

Some of the newer ones and some of the wacky cult ones probably were. However I'd be surprised if any of the ones considered "art" were built "for the cause". I suspect they would have been built either through slave labour or wage labour.

Originally posted by Red Leader+--> (Red Leader)Ok, as far as i see it, art is art, beauty is beauty.[/b]

The Sun is the Sun, the Moon is the Moon. However "beauty" is not "beauty", beauty is subjective. I see little "beauty" in old buildings, they are (generally) poorly constructed and useless.

For me, beauty is a row of terraces or a block of flats, those things are useful. Therefore if I had to decide whether to keep an old Cathedral or knock it down and build modern apartments on the land, I would choose the apartments every time.

Red [email protected]
....they are still magnificent symbols of what mankind can produce.

Ok, please explain what is so "magnificent" about the construction in these buildings? ....because if "magnificent" construction is what you desire, there is better stuff out there.

Red Leader
Would you want all your work to be destroyed?

Not when I'm alive, no. When I'm dead? ....I won't care. :)

If you're going to make the moral argument about respecting the work of others, ask yourself this....

....is it morally "right" to preserve ancient buildings that cannot be used for human comfort, when in their place you could build new buildings in which the homeless could live???

"The tradition of all dead generations" does weigh "like a nightmare on the brains of the living". However my priorities lay with the living, not the dead.

boosh logic

22nd January 2006, 22:14

I don't think he was saying that the buildings should stay even if it means discomfort for people, as obviously then it needs to be done, but that if there is no real reason to remove it, then why remove it?

Wether or not you think that cathedrals/whatever look nice, take Notre Dame for example, it is the result of years, even decades of labour to create something many of the workers would not even be able to appreciate in their lifetime. I don't think that this is neccessarily a case where slaves were used (but feel free to correct me with proof), I think that generally people built these monuments for a communal cause, albeit one that was false.

Hegemonicretribution

22nd January 2006, 22:16

Grr, my post just disappeared <_<

Anyway, firstly I thought stonehenge was used a measuring device of somesort? It was what constituted science of the day? Or I might be getting my wires crossed.

About the artwork though, is this not really a question of that most irrational practice of sentimentallity? I try not to be sentimental, because I prefer rationality, but like religion itself, it can be comforting.

I wouldn't mind if these places went, just as I wouldn't mind if they had never existed. However I do think they stand as a testiment to an epoch in human existence. They can seek to reinforce your atheism, especially if you can go into one of those places and not even feel a trace of wonderment. I occassionally visit churches or cathedrals, and think of how they were created under the same cause that "justified" the crusades, and many other wars/deaths.

There is massive contrast, the splendor and excess of a cathedral and the suffering and human cost linked to it. There is definitely some intensity to be experienced. On topic though I like the idea that people would volutarily keep them up if need be.

I personally would beter spend my time doing other things. Would anyone actually dedicate part of their life to the preservation of such places?

boosh logic

22nd January 2006, 22:22

Anyway, firstly I thought stonehenge was used a measuring device of somesort? It was what constituted science of the day? Or I might be getting my wires crossed.

I'm pretty sure the Druids (or similar) used it like you said as a measuring device, but to know when planets/stars were in a certain place to carry out rituals and festivities, a bit like a calender, only heavier.

Hegemonicretribution

22nd January 2006, 22:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:41 PM
I'm pretty sure the Druids (or similar) used it like you said as a measuring device, but to know when planets/stars were in a certain place to carry out rituals and festivities, a bit like a calender, only heavier.
It might have been used to help with religious festivals and their planning, but it was itself more "scientific" in origin than religious. Churches were never really even an attempt at science. In fact they held it back. All I was saying really is that it is not a fair comparison.

redstar2000

22nd January 2006, 23:15

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Three words; The Crystal Cathedral....[/b]

That's one of the two churches in the Los Angeles area that gets blasted by Mr. Sudjic. It is, in fact, that kind of church that he's talking about here...

Originally posted by Sudjic+--> (Sudjic)When a new religion, or a new sect of an old one, seeks to establish itself or reinvigorate itself, it develops a new architectural language.[/b]

[email protected]
...but surely millennia-old cathedrals and other beautiful buildings would remain as a testament to what we can achieve if we work together?

No. What humans build, humans have a right to tear down. The reactionary symbolism of religious architecture necessitates their destruction.

They are an insult to modern civilization.

Stone Henge was created by religious cults...

Who cares? I understand that there are some "new age" nutballs who gather there once or twice a year...but they could be effectively discouraged easily enough.

Let it stand until it finally falls down.

Which it will.

Red Leader
Ok, as far as I see it, art is art, beauty is beauty. And like somebody previously said, society is nothing without art. I don't care what the buildings stand for, they are still magnificent symbols of what mankind can produce.

No, they are not beautiful and they symbolize the despotism of ignorance.

Like I said, it makes no difference as to what the initial intent of the art was, good art is still worth preserving.

The world is not a museum. It's a place where we live.

And we are not "obligated" to live in the shadow of ugly monuments to despotism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Amusing Scrotum

23rd January 2006, 00:03

Originally posted by voiceofthevoiceless+Jan 22 2006, 10:33 PM--> (voiceofthevoiceless @ Jan 22 2006, 10:33 PM)....but that if there is no real reason to remove it, then why remove it?[/b]

Fair point.

However it could be said that there is a really good reason to remove them....

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)They are an insult to modern civilization.[/b]

And....

Originally posted by redstar2000
....they symbolize the despotism of ignorance.

Personally I'm inclined to agree with redstar2000 on the "ethical" side, but as I said, there's a practical reason too. Plus as pieces of construction, they're not special or groundbreaking (anymore). Certainly not in the way the Dubai Palm Islands are....

http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/jpgs/palmjebelali_day_rmjm03.jpg

Originally posted by voiceofthevoiceless
....take Notre Dame for example

Well that's an interesting example, from wikipedia....

Originally posted by Notre Dame de Paris: [email protected] vandalism, and restorations
In 1793 during the French Revolution, the cathedral was turned into a "Temple to Reason" and many of its treasures were destroyed or stolen. Several sculptures were smashed and destroyed, and for a time Lady Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars. The cathedral's great bells managed to avoid being melted down, but the cathedral was used as a warehouse for the storage of food.

A restoration program was initiated in 1845, overseen by architects Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Lassus and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. The restoration lasted 23 years and included the construction of a flèche (a type of spire) as well as the addition of the chimeras on the Galerie des Chimères.

In 1871, a civil uprising leading to the establishment of the short-lived Paris Commune nearly set fire to the cathedral, and some records suggest that a mound of chairs within the cathedral was set alight.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame#Alterations.2C_vandalism.2C_and_restora tions).

Unfortunately the revolutionaries of 1789 didn't get their "Temple to Reason", the faithful got their way. If only the Communards of 1871 had finished the job. :(

Originally posted by voiceofthevoiceless
I don't think that this is neccessarily a case where slaves were used (but feel free to correct me with proof)

Well they it was built between 1163 and 1250/1345 (it could be done in a year now) and given the class relations in twelfth century France, slave labour being used wouldn't surprise me.

However after a quick search on the internet, I can't find out who actually built it. Which is a pain because I'm reasonably interested now.

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
On topic though I like the idea that people would volutarily keep them up if need be.

Well that seems like a sensible suggestion to me. If you really want to keep the (remaining) post revolution Religious buildings, you'll have to do it yourself!

After all, you won't be able to hire anyone. :lol:

[email protected]
That's one of the two churches in the Los Angeles area that gets blasted by Mr. Sudjic. It is, in fact, that kind of church that he's talking about here...

Sudjic
When a new religion, or a new sect of an old one, seeks to establish itself or reinvigorate itself, it develops a new architectural language.

That seems like a good assessment on Mr. Sudjic's part. Evangelicalism certainly seems like Christianities attempt to integrate itself into mainstream Capitalist "culture".

Certainly Religion (Christianity in particular) seems to be getting more commercial within my lifetime (which isn't very long).

Red Leader

23rd January 2006, 00:15

No, they are not beautiful and they symbolize the despotism of ignorance.

Each to his own.....I and many others consider cathedrals works of art and good art should be respected. Plain and simple. They are a symbol of man's hard work and an achievemnt of this.

The world is not a museum. It's a place where we live.

And we are not "obligated" to live in the shadow of ugly monuments to despotism.

If you want to just "live" in the world go ahead. I prefer actually achieving and progressing things as a race. You can only do that by occasionally reflecting backon society and seeing its achievements, good or bad. So you are saying that in a post revolutionary society there will be no museums, monuments or anything of the like? No thank you. I for one want my children and grandchildren to be able to look back on OUR achievements when we all die and be able to ponder and reflect upon them. By simply forgetting everything that ever happened in the past that was against our cause is a very dangorous thing.

They are an insult to modern civilization.

How are ANCIENT buildings on insult to MODERN civilization? Even with the newer (uglier) cathedrals, they are a testimony to modern civilization because they were built and designed not by the religious freaks, but by architechs and construction workers, who may have absolutly nothing to do with the religion. The same workers who built and designed non religious buildings. Take away the religious conotations to these buildings and you simply get the same thing as other, secular achievements. So you are saying that you are against ALL construction and advancements in engineering?

violencia.Proletariat

23rd January 2006, 02:31

Each to his own.....I and many others consider cathedrals works of art and good art should be respected. Plain and simple. They are a symbol of man's hard work and an achievemnt of this.

There is nothing "good" about it. It represents a time of EXTREME ignorance. The construction of these churches are no longer "extroidinary" or "undoable".

They are not a symbol of hard work but of SLAVERY to ignorace, something that should be destroyed by any revolutionary movement.

No revolutionary should respect the hate that came from and inspired such buildings and no revolutionary society should EVER supply resources to keep these buildings stable.

If you want to just "live" in the world go ahead. I prefer actually achieving and progressing things as a race.

Then why keep REACTIONARY (the opposite of progress) symbols around? Why donate resources to keep these structures of filth?

You can only do that by occasionally reflecting backon society and seeing its achievements, good or bad

Like we said, well take pictures with a disposable camera or something.

So you are saying that in a post revolutionary society there will be no museums, monuments or anything of the like?

Of course there will be but we will not keep shrines of reaction around. The removal of churches would be the same as removing statues of police or capitalist figures. They are symbols of the old hierarchacal world.

I for one want my children and grandchildren to be able to look back on OUR achievements

Your proud of religion? It seems if you like achievement you would like to see these places crumble, then take pictures. :lol:

How are ANCIENT buildings on insult to MODERN civilization?

Ancient buildings are not our concern, religious shrines are. We arent out to destroy every ancient religious tree or pave over every plot of land there was once a church. We do however want to take down the symbols of reaction that are RIGHT HERE in your face and still a threat. Religion still practiced today are symbolized with churches, not the ancient pyramids, etc. Therefore its obvious what needs to happen to them.

Even with the newer (uglier) cathedrals, they are a testimony to modern civilization because they were built and designed not by the religious freaks, but by architechs and construction workers, who may have absolutly nothing to do with the religion.

So it wasnt an honor to construct these monumental (for the time) cathedrals? Im sure many of the architects had to compete to design the cathedrals.

Like I said these buildings are not architectual feats anymore. Theres nothing special about them.

Take away the religious conotations to these buildings and you simply get the same thing as other, secular achievements.

You cant take away those conotations.

So you are saying that you are against ALL construction and advancements in engineering?

There is nothing advanced about these buildings, they are OLD and decreped, nothing we couldnt reproduce today.

redstar2000

23rd January 2006, 15:48

There's always the chance that many of these aging relics will save us the trouble...

Originally posted by AP
Historic Synagogue May Be Demolished

Part of the roof collapsed at a historic Lower East Side synagogue, creating the possibility that the 19th-century building might have to be demolished.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../a071100S37.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/01/23/national/a071100S37.DTL)

It may well turn out that only the churches of the rich and famous will still be standing by the time we have a proletarian revolution.

And we know how to deal with that, right? :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

VonClausewitz

24th January 2006, 03:29

Interesting topic, with the expected viewpoints emerging;

We have the 'redstar2000' camp, that wants to destroy everything that could symboloise religion, regardless of what other things it represents. These buildings may be easily replicable today (they aren't, can you imagine the cost and time it would take ?), but the fact is, they weren't when they were built. As has been said, people toiled for decades. Would you tear down the pyramids or the parthenon based on this same hideously flawed logic ?

Then, we have the 'lets not destroy everything' camp, which seem to have a more sounder grasp on reality. Things do need to be preserved. The cathedrals need to stay for the same reason the Lenin needs to stay in his little shrine; to remind people of the past, of the mistakes of the past (Once you're done 'educating' then of course), of things that people achieved.

I would gladly work to preserve any building that has significance, from the aforementioned Notre Damme, to Blenehim Palace, both of which are marvels of construction. I'm not sentimental, I'm an architect at heart, and I'd hate to see every decently constructed building (and they are, how else would they last so many hundreds of years ?) replaced by ugly soviet-issue tower-blocks.

As redstar2000 Himself said, we are not required to live in the shadow of despots and ignorance. We are though, required morally to provide for the future of humanity, not smother it in ugly concrete.

As a side note, how many of you really think that this '50.0.1 majority' can ever be aquired ? If the Australians can't vote out the Queen of England as their head of state, I think you'll have trouble 'educating' people into tearing down such things as the Vatican and the Haigia Sofia.

violencia.Proletariat

24th January 2006, 03:47

As has been said, people toiled for decades. Would you tear down the pyramids or the parthenon based on this same hideously flawed logic ?

As we have already stated this is a useless undertaking as we can just let them deteriorate. The parthenon and the pyramids are not a direct threat to revolutionary society as they are symbols of rule no longer influencing our society in a major way, religion still is.

Then, we have the 'lets not destroy everything' camp, which seem to have a more sounder grasp on reality. Things do need to be preserved.

Why do they need to be preserved?

The cathedrals need to stay for the same reason the Lenin needs to stay in his little shrine; to remind people of the past, of the mistakes of the past (Once you're done 'educating' then of course), of things that people achieved.

The cathedrals will stand as simples DECLARING that we have NOT defeated the enemy if they still stand. The priests will still be praising god and calling for divine intervention against the revolution at their home base, the cathedrals.

both of which are marvels of construction

Of times long ago which they were marvels as marvelous wealth was spent on their construction while people STARVED. They are not only symbols of religious reaction but also of a time of extreme greed and unecessary lavishness.

I'd hate to see every decently constructed building (and they are, how else would they last so many hundreds of years ?) replaced by ugly soviet-issue tower-blocks.

If they are so well constructed, let them be. By the time revolution comes they will have already crumbeled saving us some work. Soviet issue tower blocks? What is this tetris? This isnt the USSR which has nothing to do with communism or what we are talking about.

We are though, required morally to provide for the future of humanity, not smother it in ugly concrete.

I dont "morally" do anything. I base my decisions on rational perspectives not on morals that I must adhere to at any cost.

Does the future of humanity really need these bases of reaction? Do they need to know construction techniques of centuries before (which we can take note of before they deteriorate or are destroyed)

As a side note, how many of you really think that this '50.0.1 majority' can ever be aquired ?

Me, its already happened in history. Its going to happen again to, those glimpses in history were just that glimpses of whats to come.

If the Australians can't vote out the Queen of England as their head of state, I think you'll have trouble 'educating' people into tearing down such things as the Vatican and the Haigia Sofia.

I dont remember Australia being one of the advanced capitalist countries that might be ready for revolution within this century. Nor do the australians have anything to do with the decision making of what happens to buildings in Italy.

redstar2000

24th January 2006, 06:24

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
We have the 'redstar2000' camp, that wants to destroy everything that could symbolise religion, regardless of what other things it represents.

What "other things" do such structures "symbolize"?

Would you tear down the pyramids or the Parthenon based on this same hideously flawed logic?

No...a different logic applies to the structures of antiquity. To us, they simply symbolize...antiquity. Do you "remove your shoes" or "cover your head" when you enter the Parthenon or any other ancient ruin?

The cathedrals need to stay for the same reason the Lenin needs to stay in his little shrine; to remind people of the past, of the mistakes of the past...

Nope...even Lenin's "holy corpse" will receive a decent burial.

We do not need our noses rubbed in the past; let the dead bury their dead. :)

I'm not sentimental, I'm an architect at heart, and I'd hate to see every decently constructed building (and they are, how else would they last so many hundreds of years?) replaced by ugly soviet-issue tower-blocks.

Most "old buildings" have survived "so many hundreds of years" because enormous resources have been sunk into their maintenance and frequently total reconstruction. Resources that could have been used to meet the needs of the living.

As to the "ugly soviet-issue tower blocks", they were built that way to replace as quickly as possible all the Russian housing that was lost as a consequence of World War II.

The style that the Russians actually preferred was "wedding-cake" towers...like the University of Moscow.

I am an admirer of "art deco" myself...and I'd personally like to see communist society replicate the "luxury" apartment buildings that still stand in parts of Manhattan today...available to everyone, of course.

But I'd hesitate to even guess what kind of architecture people would really like in 2050 or 2100.

As a side note, how many of you really think that this '50.0.1 majority' can ever be acquired? If the Australians can't vote out the Queen of England as their head of state, I think you'll have trouble 'educating' people into tearing down such things as the Vatican and the Haigia Sofia.

Who would have thought that the loyal subjects of Czar Nicholas II in 1913 -- who enthusiastically celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty -- would rejoice in his downfall a scant four years later?

In times of revolution, people change rapidly.

When the time comes, we'll get that majority approval with ease. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

VonClausewitz

24th January 2006, 09:34

nate;

QUOTE
Then, we have the 'lets not destroy everything' camp, which seem to have a more sounder grasp on reality. Things do need to be preserved.

Why do they need to be preserved?

I've already said that, many times. Just skip back through the topic a bit ;)

QUOTE
The cathedrals need to stay for the same reason the Lenin needs to stay in his little shrine; to remind people of the past, of the mistakes of the past (Once you're done 'educating' then of course), of things that people achieved.

The cathedrals will stand as simples DECLARING that we have NOT defeated the enemy if they still stand. The priests will still be praising god and calling for divine intervention against the revolution at their home base, the cathedrals.

So 'educate' the priests. The home base of priests is actually the people, same as yourself. If people don't go to see the priests, then the priests have no power.

QUOTE
I'd hate to see every decently constructed building (and they are, how else would they last so many hundreds of years ?) replaced by ugly soviet-issue tower-blocks.

If they are so well constructed, let them be. By the time revolution comes they will have already crumbeled saving us some work. Soviet issue tower blocks? What is this tetris? This isnt the USSR which has nothing to do with communism or what we are talking about.

Okay, a simply metaphor escapes you. I don't know what country you're from, so I'll take a bit of a risk, and presume you understand the vast lumps of (now crumbling) concrete that the USSR put up to keep people in ?, I also take it that you've seen the same thing built in other countries ? The vast lumps of concrete and steel that at best stay up for 30 years before becoming hellholes of crime and well, bad construction.

QUOTE
We are though, required morally to provide for the future of humanity, not smother it in ugly concrete.

I dont "morally" do anything. I base my decisions on rational perspectives not on morals that I must adhere to at any cost.

Does the future of humanity really need these bases of reaction? Do they need to know construction techniques of centuries before (which we can take note of before they deteriorate or are destroyed)

You really base your decisions on whats going on around you rather than some moral code ? Seriously ? You'd be the first leftist I'd ever met if to do so if that was true. Most of them get terribly wrapped up in PC and liberalisms or extremism, and can't think straight.

Does the future of humanity need your revolution more than it needs standing monuments of history ? I know what you think the answer is, and I know what I think the answer is, but objectively, political change or living links to history ? Methinks we both know what is really more important.

QUOTE
If the Australians can't vote out the Queen of England as their head of state, I think you'll have trouble 'educating' people into tearing down such things as the Vatican and the Haigia Sofia.

I dont remember Australia being one of the advanced capitalist countries that might be ready for revolution within this century. Nor do the australians have anything to do with the decision making of what happens to buildings in Italy.

Just going to shut them out then ? I think if your revolution affects the most important places in the world so much as you say, then you really do have a slighlty major duty not to ignore the rest of the planet. ;)

redstar2000;

QUOTE (VonClausewitz)
We have the 'redstar2000' camp, that wants to destroy everything that could symbolise religion, regardless of what other things it represents.

What "other things" do such structures "symbolize"?

Again, I've said these things before.

QUOTE
Would you tear down the pyramids or the Parthenon based on this same hideously flawed logic?

No...a different logic applies to the structures of antiquity. To us, they simply symbolize...antiquity. Do you "remove your shoes" or "cover your head" when you enter the Parthenon or any other ancient ruin?

By the time that your revolution occurs, these buildings will be antiquity. The logic thus remains pretty much the same.

QUOTE
The cathedrals need to stay for the same reason the Lenin needs to stay in his little shrine; to remind people of the past, of the mistakes of the past...

Nope...even Lenin's "holy corpse" will receive a decent burial.

We do not need our noses rubbed in the past; let the dead bury their dead.

As I already said, people need reminded of past mistakes. Your revolution needs the mess that the Russians have made to keep it from doing the same. People need to be constantly told what not to do. If leaving a few 'holy' buildings standing helps them to realise that worshipping metaphysics is bad, then I do believe that that even helps your cause.

QUOTE
As a side note, how many of you really think that this '50.0.1 majority' can ever be acquired? If the Australians can't vote out the Queen of England as their head of state, I think you'll have trouble 'educating' people into tearing down such things as the Vatican and the Haigia Sofia.

Who would have thought that the loyal subjects of Czar Nicholas II in 1913 -- who enthusiastically celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty -- would rejoice in his downfall a scant four years later?

In times of revolution, people change rapidly.

When the time comes, we'll get that majority approval with ease.

Y'know, I always though that the Great War helped the Russians along their little revolutionary path, the death and destruction and all that. Plus all the ballsups that the Romanovs managed to make towards the end. Also, I always though that the Russians majority contained half an army.

By that logic, you're telling me that to get rid of any religious structure, to get your majority, you're going to have to really wind the people of the world up some how ? I can smell 'education' again.

violencia.Proletariat

24th January 2006, 20:43

I've already said that, many times. Just skip back through the topic a bit ;)

None of your reasons are valid, as redstar said, the resources maintaining these buildings are wasted when they could be put to sustaining life. LIfe takes priority over houses of ignorance for me.

So 'educate' the priests.

Maybe we should educate all the capitalists too? Because thats possible, you know since there is no such thing as someone being reactionary to a point that they cant be convinced of anything. ;)

The home base of priests is actually the people, same as yourself. If people don't go to see the priests, then the priests have no power.

Makes sense but these buildings will have the appeal they are intended for, awe. The priests still have the ability to keep their ignorance alive in communist society by saying the buildings shouldnt be torn down because they are so "great". This now gives the priest a reason to be. Not a chance I want to take.

I also take it that you've seen the same thing built in other countries ? The vast lumps of concrete and steel that at best stay up for 30 years before becoming hellholes of crime and well, bad construction.

I've also seen massive cathedrals in NYC that will never be re-finished because the cost is too extensive even for a heavy religious population in America.

These churches require much more upkeep than "lumps of concrete" and even if thats not so, we can KNOCK THEM BOTH DOWN. :)

You'd be the first leftist I'd ever met if to do so if that was true. Most of them get terribly wrapped up in PC and liberalisms or extremism, and can't think straight.

Hmm most leftists I know dont base their decisions on religious moralism.

Does the future of humanity need your revolution more than it needs standing monuments of history ? I know what you think the answer is, and I know what I think the answer is, but objectively, political change or living links to history ? Methinks we both know what is really more important.

Your system does not care about the well being of humanity. The effects are evident all over the world. I know what my answer is and yes, the future of humanity is much more important than any "historical" lump of shit building.

Just going to shut them out then ? I think if your revolution affects the most important places in the world so much as you say, then you really do have a slighlty major duty not to ignore the rest of the planet. ;)

Shut them out from what? Its the austrailian proletarians job to have revolutions, not mine.

VonClausewitz

24th January 2006, 23:02

nate;

QUOTE
So 'educate' the priests.

Maybe we should educate all the capitalists too? Because thats possible, you know since there is no such thing as someone being reactionary to a point that they cant be convinced of anything.

Quite true, though you'd have to do it somewhat on mass scale; the russians not carrying their revolution over the rest of europe/asia didn't exactly help them in the long run.

QUOTE
The home base of priests is actually the people, same as yourself. If people don't go to see the priests, then the priests have no power.

Makes sense but these buildings will have the appeal they are intended for, awe. The priests still have the ability to keep their ignorance alive in communist society by saying the buildings shouldnt be torn down because they are so "great". This now gives the priest a reason to be. Not a chance I want to take.

The best kinds of buildings always inspire awe/feelings. Like I said, 'educate' the priests, you won't have any problems then surely ?

QUOTE
I also take it that you've seen the same thing built in other countries ? The vast lumps of concrete and steel that at best stay up for 30 years before becoming hellholes of crime and well, bad construction.

I've also seen massive cathedrals in NYC that will never be re-finished because the cost is too extensive even for a heavy religious population in America.

These churches require much more upkeep than "lumps of concrete" and even if thats not so, we can KNOCK THEM BOTH DOWN.

To be honest, most buildings of that sort in America are just cheap copies of the proper ones built in the old world. they wouldn't be much of a loss to he world, save for the original Jewish and other buildings, which are unique to the US.

QUOTE
You'd be the first leftist I'd ever met if to do so if that was true. Most of them get terribly wrapped up in PC and liberalisms or extremism, and can't think straight.

Hmm most leftists I know dont base their decisions on religious moralism.

Nope, A lot do base them on something bordering on that though.

QUOTE
Does the future of humanity need your revolution more than it needs standing monuments of history ? I know what you think the answer is, and I know what I think the answer is, but objectively, political change or living links to history ? Methinks we both know what is really more important.

Your system does not care about the well being of humanity. The effects are evident all over the world. I know what my answer is and yes, the future of humanity is much more important than any "historical" lump of shit building.

MY system ? what are you ? psychic ? you don't anything about what I believe in, I've purposefully left that out of my posts on this site, as it'd probably confuse a few of the less intelligent sloganeers. Isn't it a little pretentious to think that you lot are the only 'future' of humanity ?

And the buildings aren't a lump of shit, just because you can't percieve their worth beyond your own narrow convictions, doesn't rob them of their value to others. (even the non-religious, shock bloody horror)