Log in

View Full Version : Desecration of places of worship



Fawkes
7th January 2007, 20:29
What are people's opinions on the desecration (i.e. vandalism, arson, etc.) of places of worship such as mosques, churches, temples, and synagogues?

manic expression
7th January 2007, 20:39
It's extremely insensitive, spiteful, detrimental and belligerent to do such a thing, unless there is a real situation where confrontation with the institution is reasonable (as in a priest is molesting kids and the church isn't doing anything about it).

That's roughly my view.

loveme4whoiam
7th January 2007, 22:08
Unnecessarily antagonistic and upsetting to people, and presents the wrong image of a movement. For example, where I used to live there have been a spate of vandalism of tombstones in church graveyards. This is sickening to me and to other people - imagine if this kind of behaviour was linked to a group trying to force a political view forward: not exactly the best PR one can get.

Being opposed to religiousity is (in my opinion anyway) essential to a progressive attitude, but unrequired violence and idiocy will not win over anyone. Demonstrate against churches and mosques etc, but smashing windows only angers people, it doesn't persuade them.

Jazzratt
7th January 2007, 23:47
I do not condone it because it doesn't help remove the stain of religion.

I do not condemn it because fuck knows those places need torching to the motherfucking ground.

For these reasons I will not take part in desecration, but I sure as hell won't stop anybody doing it.

RevMARKSman
8th January 2007, 00:55
Agreed Jazz. I do not condone it unless a very specific message is sent - "What you believe is ridiculous and society would be better off without it." So if someone burned down a mosque, that could be interpreted as racist and will contribute to a persecuted-faithful complex in Muslims in the area. But if someone simply tagged "NO GODS NO MASTERS" or "DOWN WITH SUPERSTITION" I'd overwhelmingly support it.

Cryotank Screams
8th January 2007, 01:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:29 pm
What are people's opinions on the desecration (i.e. vandalism, arson, etc.) of places of worship such as mosques, churches, temples, and synagogues?
Though I don't condone or support these actions, I don't see anything at all wrong with them, they are just material buildings, and nothing more.

Publius
8th January 2007, 02:26
It would be difficult to think of a more facinorous approach to the matter of a religion. You are to be commended for reaching the apex of wrong-headedness, if for nothing else.

Can you honestly not see the obvious problem in this sort of action? If someone burned down the local union building or commune, or spray painted "CAPITALISM 4 LYFE" on the walls, would that make you more likely to drop your leftist leanings, smack yourself in the forehead and say, "Wow, it all makes so much sense now!"?

Then why the fuck would that approach work for ridding the world of religion? It would obviously be detrimental to the cause, if you thought about for more than, oh, I don't know, 5 fucking seconds and looked at, hell, me for example, an atheistic anti-theist who's more than a little sympathetic to leftist ideals (though I'm not actually a leftist.)

Think about it: The best way to get children off of their security blankets is to burn them in front of their eyes, right?

Oh wait, no, that'd be fucking stupid, repellent, repugnant, and a completely infantile display of iniquity, to wit, exactly what I'm expecting from your side of aisle more and more.

Who'd of thunk that people might take issue with your approach to vandalizing buildings, right?

Must just be my 'bourgeois values' at work...

Demogorgon
8th January 2007, 06:23
Burning churches, Mosques etc is just plain bad behaviour and nothing else. It is frustrated people behaving in a childish fashion because they feel they can't get their point across any other way.

Plus it operates completely against our goals. Remember when there was that run of church burnings in Norway? Every time a church burned down, the congregation ended up getting more religious. Strikes me as rather counter-productive.

Sadena Meti
8th January 2007, 13:41
Vandalism, desecration, or destruction is pointless.

But clever and ironic direct action is fun. Like replacing all the hymn books with copies of Darwin's "On The Descent of Man". Or Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker".

I once drove past a church were some vandals had picked the lock on those "paste-up-letter-sign-things" (you know the things I'm talking about? Can't think of a word for them) and rearranged the letters "Church Closed - Read a Science Textbook".

This was back when Intelligent Design controversy was in the news.

Luís Henrique
8th January 2007, 13:41
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 08, 2007 01:09 am
they are just material buildings, and nothing more.
Sometimes they are works of art, too.

Luís Henrique

loveme4whoiam
8th January 2007, 14:22
But clever and ironic direct action is fun. Like replacing all the hymn books with copies of Darwin's "On The Descent of Man". Or Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker".

I once drove past a church were some vandals had picked the lock on those "paste-up-letter-sign-things" (you know the things I'm talking about? Can't think of a word for them) and rearranged the letters "Church Closed - Read a Science Textbook".
See, now that shit is funny and a I totally support it as an exercise in humour - it doesn't really hurt anyone; at least, not in the same way as vandalising gravestones etc does.

But it would be foolish to think that something progressive could be achieved by this activity.

MrDoom
8th January 2007, 15:05
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+January 08, 2007 01:41 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ January 08, 2007 01:41 pm)
Cryotank [email protected] 08, 2007 01:09 am
they are just material buildings, and nothing more.
Sometimes they are works of art, too.

Luís Henrique [/b]
That is no reason to keep them around after a revolution.

loveme4whoiam
8th January 2007, 16:53
That is no reason to keep them around after a revolution.
Really?? :huh:

I live in Canterbury, which you might know is built around Canterbury Cathedral, which is roughly 1000 years old and considered the central Church to the Anglican Church of England. It's also absolutely beautiful as only a massive stone building can be (I get to graduate inside it, which is pretty damn cool).
My point is that while it's a symbol of religiosity in England, its still an artistic triumph. You seem to think that just because the revolution will make the purpose of the cathedral defunct, the building no longers serves a purpose and should be pulled down. Frankly, this strikes me as vandalistic thinking at its most absurd. Why the hell would you tear down buildings of architectural quality, which quite a lot of churches and mosques are, when you wouldn't have to?

Fawkes
8th January 2007, 21:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:26 pm
It would be difficult to think of a more facinorous approach to the matter of a religion. You are to be commended for reaching the apex of wrong-headedness, if for nothing else.

Can you honestly not see the obvious problem in this sort of action? If someone burned down the local union building or commune, or spray painted "CAPITALISM 4 LYFE" on the walls, would that make you more likely to drop your leftist leanings, smack yourself in the forehead and say, "Wow, it all makes so much sense now!"?

Then why the fuck would that approach work for ridding the world of religion? It would obviously be detrimental to the cause, if you thought about for more than, oh, I don't know, 5 fucking seconds and looked at, hell, me for example, an atheistic anti-theist who's more than a little sympathetic to leftist ideals (though I'm not actually a leftist.)

Think about it: The best way to get children off of their security blankets is to burn them in front of their eyes, right?

Oh wait, no, that'd be fucking stupid, repellent, repugnant, and a completely infantile display of iniquity, to wit, exactly what I'm expecting from your side of aisle more and more.

Who'd of thunk that people might take issue with your approach to vandalizing buildings, right?

Must just be my 'bourgeois values' at work...
Of course burning down a church is not going to stop people from believing in religion. However, burning down a church would, while it could possibly hurt us, be very unlikely to help the religion in any way.

Publius
8th January 2007, 22:10
Of course burning down a church is not going to stop people from believing in religion. However, burning down a church would, while it could possibly hurt us, be very unlikely to help the religion in any way.

You need only watch the television news when, after a fire or a natural disaster or something, a church that was destroyed 'bands together' with help from the community, to see that that's simply untrue.

Many religious people are brought closer to their religion by tribulation; that's why it's such a stupid tactic. Aside from the obvious idiocy of vandalism to begin with, it's counter-productive, period.

The Feral Underclass
9th January 2007, 00:28
I think burning down a church or mosque would be very dangerous and would lead to a criminal investigation by the police and consquently a prison sentence when the caught you.

Activists in prison are no help to anyone, although I would give my solidarity to anyone sent to prison for a political action of this nature.

Vandalism on the other hand or other forms of direct action against these buildings and the homes of priests/vicars/imams etc are totally justified and worth doing. Hypothetically speaking, of course :ph34r:

Cryotank Screams
9th January 2007, 01:27
Publius;

I attribute the whole fear of burning churches and holy places to be completely idiotic really, you may make your arguments of "oh, it's so wrong, it will only push people away," to an extent this may be true, however, if the people did this, it would also be away to liberate themselves, to stare straight into the face of all spiritual fears and severe them completely with torching the place that manufactures them, to psychological break any and all connections, that is what it could do for the people.

Also, I see nothing wrong with burning and destroying the factories of ignorance and fear.


That is no reason to keep them around after a revolution.

Totally agree

Severian
9th January 2007, 01:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:23 am
Plus it operates completely against our goals. Remember when there was that run of church burnings in Norway? Every time a church burned down, the congregation ended up getting more religious. Strikes me as rather counter-productive.
And incidentally, those churches in Norway were burned by Nazi-sympathizing "black metal" paganists.

Or often it's an expression of attack against those who believe in a particular religion - an expression of anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Semitism, etc. Does the same action have a different effect depending on who carries it out or what their subjective ideas are? No.

The whole idea of crusading against religion is pointless and an obstacle to the class struggle. It tends to transform atheism into its own religion, as idealist and dogmatic as any other.

There were a number of churches burned by some bored idiots here in Alabama a little while back and the usual popular backlash against 'em was definitely seen.

***

BTW, I notice the insane administrative habit of moving anything touching on religion to this subforum is still in effect. In this case, a discussion of political tactics was moved out of Practice where it normally belongs. What next, shall we move all discussion on board administrative policies on religious members or preaching to this subforum too?

Fawkes
9th January 2007, 01:46
QUOTE
That is no reason to keep them around after a revolution.



Totally agree

Though I do agree with loveme4whoIam that religious buildings should not be destroyed if they are a feat of architecture.

Zero
9th January 2007, 04:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:46 am



QUOTE
That is no reason to keep them around after a revolution.



Totally agree

Though I do agree with loveme4whoIam that religious buildings should not be destroyed if they are a feat of architecture.
Completely agree. If anyone has ever had the privilage to visit Mon St. Michelle you will know what we mean.

Publius
9th January 2007, 20:27
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2007 01:27 am




Publius;

I attribute the whole fear of burning churches and holy places to be completely idiotic really,

I'm not afraid of burning down churches or other holy buildings, I'm just saying it's infantile and stupid.

Also, if churches are nothing more than buildings (which is what you imply here), why do they even need to be burned down?



you may make your arguments of "oh, it's so wrong, it will only push people away," to an extent this may be true,

It is true.


however, if the people did this,

If Christians burned down their own churches?

Do you realize what you're saying and why it makes no sense?


it would also be away to liberate themselves, to stare straight into the face of all spiritual fears and severe them completely with torching the place that manufactures them, to psychological break any and all connections, that is what it could do for the people.

It wouldn't do any of that.

That's just a bunch of poetical bullshit that doesn't mean anything. You don't need to burn a fucking building to the ground to be an atheist, why then burn the fucking building down? What difference does it make?

It's completely impossible to portray arson and vandalism as anything less than juvenile, infantile, wastes.

But that won't stop you from trying, will it?



Also, I see nothing wrong with burning and destroying the factories of ignorance and fear.

You didn't understand my point, did you?

Publius
9th January 2007, 20:28
There were a number of churches burned by some bored idiots here in Alabama a little while back and the usual popular backlash against 'em was definitely seen.


Oh, so you mean the locals didn't cheer about being freed from that oppressive edifice?

Who'd of thunk it?

Cryotank Screams
9th January 2007, 22:14
I'm not afraid of burning down churches or other holy buildings, I'm just saying it's infantile and stupid.

Also, if churches are nothing more than buildings (which is what you imply here), why do they even need to be burned down?

Just because you say, it's infantile and stupid doesn't make it so, it does provide a purpose, the destruction of a church, is no different from the destruction of a bomb factory, because churches and such act as factories of ignorance, and fear.


It is true.

Wow, great justification, "it's true," woa, I mean woa, hard to argue with that logic, :rolleyes:.


If Christians burned down their own churches?

Do you realize what you're saying and why it makes no sense?

No, I am talking about the people, as in the general public, in a post-revolutionary society, not christians now, burning their own factories, in pre-revolutionary societies.


It wouldn't do any of that.

Yea, I wouldn't expect you to.


That's just a bunch of poetical bullshit that doesn't mean anything. You don't need to burn a fucking building to the ground to be an atheist, why then burn the fucking building down? What difference does it make?

It's completely impossible to portray arson and vandalism as anything less than juvenile, infantile, wastes.

But that won't stop you from trying, will it?

You obviously have absolutely no idea, of what I am getting at do you? I mean it really is quite clear, do I think destroying churches post-revolution, will make the public atheists? No, do I think it will be a symbolic act, to better severe the chains of spiritual fear, and bondage? Yes, I mean if any of you have tried to break free of the religious spell, it's hard to overcome the indoctrination of the disease, however, confronting all the blasphemies, and performing symbolic blasphemous acts, works to cut down, fear and bondage, it's a symbolic ritual that leads to psychological liberation.

Also, I am not trying to portray arson and vandalism, into something that it is not, what was being discussed was the destruction of churches, post-revolution, by the general public, which much to your dismay, would certainly not be any of the verious negatives adjectives that you have listed.

I am not, nor have attempted to portray anything in any manner, sorry.


You didn't understand my point, did you?

I ask you the same question.

Fawkes
9th January 2007, 22:36
Why was this moved to Religion? I feel that it is definitely more appropriate in Discrimination where it was originally or in Practice.

Guerrilla22
9th January 2007, 22:40
Its fine, just as long as you vandalize or destroy places or worship from all types of religions equally.

Luís Henrique
10th January 2007, 00:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:27 pm
You don't need to burn a fucking building to the ground to be an atheist
Unless, of course, you destroy the building as a symbol of the destruction of your inner theist... much like homophobes attack homosexuals to purge their own unadmissible homosexual tensions.

Luís Henrique

Publius
10th January 2007, 02:09
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2007 10:14 pm






Just because you say, it's infantile and stupid doesn't make it so, it does provide a purpose, the destruction of a church, is no different from the destruction of a bomb factory, because churches and such act as factories of ignorance, and fear.

No, churches are piles of bricks or wood.

They aren't 'factories' of anything. You could teach school in them. You could house the poor in them. You could make them museums.

You could do, I don't know, anything except burn them to the ground, things that might actually help people and serve a useful purpose.

Vandalism is, by definition, infantile.



Wow, great justification, "it's true," woa, I mean woa, hard to argue with that logic, :rolleyes:.

It's not a justification and it's not 'logic', though I'm unsurprised that you don't, or rather can't, realize this.

It's a simple statement of an immutable fact: destroying a building where people go to worship or pray does nothing to diminish worship or prayer and, due to the somewhat unique nature of Christianity, can only be seen as a message to get closer to God.

The fact that you don't realize why a church destruction would make Christians more, not less, religious is unsurprising.




No, I am talking about the people, as in the general public, in a post-revolutionary society, not christians now, burning their own factories, in pre-revolutionary societies.

Which is what makes your point all the more ridiculous.



Yea, I wouldn't expect you to.

Forgive me for my lack of superstition, but it makes no difference to me whether or not churches exist.

The existence of big, ornate buildings has no influence of the truth value of the statement 'God does not exist.'

Any social aspects of the church are extraneous and, one could reasonably surmise, would be done away with easily without resorting to physical destruction.


You obviously have absolutely no idea, of what I am getting at do you? I mean it really is quite clear, do I think destroying churches post-revolution, will make the public atheists? No, do I think it will be a symbolic act, to better severe the chains of spiritual fear, and bondage? Yes, I mean if any of you have tried to break free of the religious spell, it's hard to overcome the indoctrination of the disease, however, confronting all the blasphemies, and performing symbolic blasphemous acts, works to cut down, fear and bondage, it's a symbolic ritual that leads to psychological liberation.

No, if anything performing blasphemy serves only to go against your deeply ingrained senses of revulsion which would only server to FURTHER ideas that churches are somehow 'different' than other buildings.

The correct course of action is to treat them as if they are no different, which will mean they will BE no different.

You simply cannot see things from the perspective of someone on the edge, even in a post revolution society, who was brought believing these places holy. If you burn them, what's he to think? That they are, and that you are denying them; what could be more inline with Christian thought? You would, very simply, be 'doing the work of the devil.'

Now, if instead you just turn churches into daycare centers and promote reason and discourse on the topic, now you avoid powerful emotional responses while still fostering atheistic thinking.

Ex-Christians have every reason to be confused. You think burning down churches would solidify their tentative atheism. I think that's nonsense. The emotional ties of religion go far beyond what you can argue in a day, a week, or a year, or what you can burn down in an hour.

You can't give them the impression, while they're still impressionable, that you're on the side of 'sin'. As long as superstition is in them (and it will, be for a long time), you have to recognize their sensibilities, however ignorant or misguided.



Also, I am not trying to portray arson and vandalism, into something that it is not, what was being discussed was the destruction of churches, post-revolution, by the general public, which much to your dismay, would certainly not be any of the verious negatives adjectives that you have listed.

No, it's still very much infantile.

Why do you need to destroy buildings? Can't you overcome religion with thought and reason?

Are you weak?



I ask you the same question.

You have no need to.

Cryotank Screams
10th January 2007, 02:48
They aren't 'factories' of anything.

It was a figure of speech, I could of went with snake oil shops, fear peddlers, shackle salesmen or any other various descriptive titles, however the fact remains it is much more than just a building, if this were true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation however, since we are it proves that there is a certain psychological stigma place upon the building, it means and represents something, it becomes a symbol to the general public, hence it's power, and hocus pocus holy site value, hence if say a commune decided to destroy it, it would provide some sort of psychological liberation to severe the chains of archaic bondage.



Vandalism is, by definition, infantile.

So, ornate and often beautiful graffiti, is infantile? Certainly not, just because you use polysyllables over and over in attempts to look smart and make your argument seem more mature proves nothing, so go ahead use all the negative adjectives you want, it won't make a bit a difference, vandalism can be both stupid, or highly artistic and meaningful, therefore it is just idiotic to assert "vandalism is infantile, boohoo, dirty punks."


It's a simple statement of an immutable fact: destroying a building where people go to worship or pray does nothing to diminish worship or prayer and, due to the somewhat unique nature of Christianity, can only be seen as a message to get closer to God.

it's not a fact in any context, just because it does nothing for you, doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential therapeutic value for the general public if that be there so desire, it's just like the denunciation rights preformed in china during the revolution, the bourgeoisie land owners held a certain stigma over the people, and to help the people overcome this, and to help them become liberated, and break the psychological traditional hold of the bourgeoisie, the had these denunciation rights, same goes for the church, it could provide the same kind of effect, and would sharply diminish the psychological power hold of the church, along with learning and study of more rational and scientific modes of thought, just like the bourgeoisie denunciations help the chinese peasants overcome their psychological chains along with reading and revolutionary study.

It is act followed with study.


Which is what makes your point all the more ridiculous.

Woa, you sure made my point mute, nice rebuttal, but seriously now, do you honestly think saying and labeling my arguments “infantile,” and “ridiculous,” make them so? Just because you insult something, doesn't mean you get a bypass card to evade the arguments being presented, how about actually refuting what I am saying, instead of insulting, hmm?


No, it's still very much infantile.

"It's just [x]," are not arguments, just stupid ramblings, nor does it magically change the nature of what I am saying, but by all means go ahead and continue.


Why do you need to destroy buildings? Can't you overcome religion with thought and reason?

Are you weak?

It's not about weak and strong, it's about a symbolic act, that people could do to help them progress, I mean it's a provable fact that it would have a progressive effect when combined with study and education, and that it would be much quicker, and more lasting, I mean thoughts only mean so much, but to destroy the very heart of something that holds bondage over you, that can prove to be a very powerful tool, that's what desecration is, a tool that can be used.

If the people didn't want a building around why couldn't they do what they liked with it, even destroy it? I mean you said it youself, it's just a building, so why can't it be torn down just like any other building, if the people so desire?

Am I calling for desecration? No, do I see any point in churches existing post-revolution? No, do I see the psychological benefits of such blasphemy if the people so desired? Certainly, in the end I see nothing wrong with it, and it it up to the people.


You have no need to.

I beg to differ.

La Comédie Noire
10th January 2007, 03:51
Vandalism is, by definition, infantile.

People who use words like "infantile" are people obsessed with being "civil" and in doing so play right into the oppressors hands. This is exactly what institutions like the church want, docile people afraid of looking "infantile". They don't want you to question why even thou you barley make rent every month you still have to put money in the collection plate every sunday, they dont want you to hate your burgeoise neighbor, they want you to love him. As far as I'm concerned tag it up, burn it down, and chase them out of your community, it's only self defense.