What kind of atheist are you?

I am undecided about destroying church buildings as opposed to reusing them. Obviously by doing so we deprive ourselves of potentially useful buildings (in Catalonia they were used as warehouses and communal assemblies (for voting etc.) simply because there was no other space, especially for the communal assemblies (for reasons that should be obvious) and, as well, the architecture is sometimes spectacular and historically significant.

Beyond that, however, a part of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Revolution had a deep effect on me. In 'Mutual Aid in the Medieval City' he describes how most of the great buildings of the High Middle Ages, which were mostly churches, had been built by members of the Guilds in each town, often simply out of civic pride/duty, providing a meeting place and stage for a communal pursuit (yes, religion). The guilds, as most of you will know, were one of the foremost forms of mutual-aid society in those times. Destroying all of those buildings would seem to me to be, as well as smashing symbols of religion, smashing symbols of the mutual-aid of the past, an ancient collectivism, a precursor to our ideology.

We don't worship Zeus in Greek temples, and we don't sacrifice virgins at stonehenge - why would we pray at churches if the religion was eradicated?

Well, he thinks that we should use churches for something else because they're pretty, never mind the sweat and blood, and the reason that sweat and blood was shed. Fuck churches, the only one that illuminates is one that is burning.

Now that I've read Haraldur (sorry buddy, you'll always be Haraldur to me )'s post on the subject further insight:

The only thing I can think of in support to your idea is that it would really be a decision of the people whose area the church-as-was is located. Further, I suppose the workers' labour in making the church was wasted as it was a church, but could be reused otherwise, bringing a communal value to that labour. And, as you said, some of this labour was in itself communal; only in the sense, however, that it was to provide meeting place and mutual aid. The fact it was a church makes it communal in that sense but not communist.

I'm generally undecided on the matter, but I really think that most religious institutions would either be destroyed during some sort of uprising (and why rebuild?) or destroyed as a strengthening of culture of workers and the destruction of culture of bourgeoisie and their interests.

I am in favor of an immediate banning of all organized religion and the destruction of all churches and public places of worship or their transofmation into a whole other facility, compeletely removing their status as place of worship.

I believe that private religion will become unnecessary in the future as the material conditions that create this need will be destroyed.

transformation of churches into public buildings has been tried in the USSR and after the collapse they where reverted into churches again.

we should just demolish them and use them for parking-space.

transformation of churches into public buildings has been tried in the USSR and after the collapse they where reverted into churches again.

And you think that if the church buildings had been destroyed there would have been no religious resurgence in Russia? I'm sure the newly powerful Orthodox Church as well as all the other religious movements trying to exploit people's fear and uncertainty brought on by social, political, and economic turmoil and hardships would have just looked around and said 'aw fuck it, I don't want to have to build shit.'

As I mentioned before, here in Montreal we have probably the most church buildings per capita in North America, yet we also have the most secular society. The belief that these buildings act as 'propaganda in stone,' outside of the context of religious political hegemony is simply ridiculous and demonstrably false.

Do you really think that demolishing churches will turn everyone (or even anyone for that matter) into atheists overnight? It will achieve nothing, piss off alot of people, non-religious included, destroy some great architecture, and allow the religious people to play the martyr. The way to destroy religion is to demonstrate its irrelevance, as well as increased education and removing people's desperation that leads them to it in the first place.

In specific circumstances, desecration of certain religious institutions can potentially be symbolically beneficial, but an all out assault on the infrastructure of religion is nothing more than an angsty "revolutionary" wet dream.

The belief that these buildings act as 'propaganda in stone,' outside of the context of religious political hegemony is simply ridiculous

they are meant to serve as "propaganda in stone" that is their entire fucking purpose !

they are monuments to the tyranny of religion over mankind ofcourse they need to be demolished.
and no it would not turn the religious into atheists but it would destroy one of their most important real world foundations to organize around.

and if we where to destroy a cathedral the religious would be very unlikely to be able to rebuild it as they no longer have the wealth they did in the dark ages.
and as society is becoming more and more secular so odds are that if we where to destroy all churches and other religious places there would indeed be a lot of people that would say 'fuck it' and refuse to have society's resources diverted into houses of superstitious bullshit.

an all out assault on the infrastructure of religion is nothing more than an angsty "revolutionary" wet dream.

depending on the person you ask the revolution itself is a wet dream.

Militant, but I do not agree with the destruction of churches unless they are in the way of some public project. I certainly don't think we should arbitrarily smash them up - they have artistic/historical value.

-Alex

they are meant to serve as "propaganda in stone" that is their entire fucking purpose !

Of course that was their purpose. That doesn't mean it's effective once society changes. Back in the day that stuff might have been impressive, but I seriously doubt that anyone today would walk by a church and suddenly start believing in god because they think the architecture is cool. Not to mention that today, all of the architectural and engineering marvels (skyscrapers, dams, etc) have nothing to do with religion.

depending on the person you ask the revolution itself is a wet dream.

Irrelevant.

Of course that was their purpose. That doesn't mean it's effective once society changes. Back in the day that stuff might have been impressive, but I seriously doubt that anyone today would walk by a church and suddenly start believing in god because they think the architecture is cool. Not to mention that today, all of the architectural and engineering marvels (skyscrapers, dams, etc) have nothing to do with religion.

This might be true of architecture, but I do not think it true of music.

There are some concertos by Bach, for example, which beautifully express the agony of man's inability to know God. Five centuries later we can listen to it, and many people will be hard-pressed to say they aren't made a little sadder by it. When you say "this piece was designed to express the impossibility of understanding the divine", many people, including secularists, nod their head in agreement.

This isn't to say that religion is correct, only that the trappings of religion touch a nerve that is touched by art - and that music that was deliberately designed to touch this same "chord" (ok, sorry, sorry) still does so today...

This might be true of architecture, but I do not think it true of music.

There are some concertos by Bach, for example, which beautifully express the agony of man's inability to know God. Five centuries later we can listen to it, and many people will be hard-pressed to say they aren't made a little sadder by it. When you say "this piece was designed to express the impossibility of understanding the divine", many people, including secularists, nod their head in agreement.

This isn't to say that religion is correct, only that the trappings of religion touch a nerve that is touched by art - and that music that was deliberately designed to touch this same "chord" (ok, sorry, sorry) still does so today...

But, if you're anything like me, that sort of music means absolutely nothing specifically unless I'm already looking for it, or if I'm thinking about something relevant in my life.
When I hear my parent's church choir music that they like to play, it makes me feel depressed and emotional, but never religious.
I simply find myself unable to take the religious seriously in that way because I know their God doesn't exist. Why would listening to emotional music made by them make me think any different? Instrumental music can perpetuate moods and emotions, but rarely a specific message - and I'd doubt that atheists, those who know God doesn't exist, would be easily turned to religion simply by listening to them sing complex harmonies in an echo-ey hall.

Equally so, architecture. Removing the religious symbols from a building such as the cross, and so on ... what more does this represent? It could represent community? The work of the people? Beautiful buildings can represent pretty much anything we want them to - much like music can!
In reference to the "sweat and blood" that went into making these buildings, all the old buildings of beautiful architecture were built with sweat and blood.
Are we going to destroy all the old world architecture that still exists simply for that reason?
Are you going to destroy the pyramids? After all, they were created from the sweat and blood of slaves, from the religious beliefs of Ancient Egypt as tombs for the Pharaohs. They just happen to be marvels of architecture and even today we can't quite figure out how they were made.
Are you going to destroy Notre Dame? Or St. Pauls cathedral?
Simply because these are religious buildings?

If you guys had any respect for the sweat and blood that went into making these things you would let them stand! They are products of architectural genius and it would simply be a spiteful waste to destroy them.

The purpose of buildings is decided by those who use them. They may have been used as tools of religious oppression, but think of what else we could use them as? The possibilities are endless!
(Oh, and .. wahey, people are posting in the HPG forum again!)

I ticked militant though I'm not really militant. Got no real need to be in the UK thankfully. Though I do find myself dodgily close to Chris Hitchens when it comes to theism. So not as active as Dawkins but certainly ruder.

But, if you're anything like me, that sort of music means absolutely nothing specifically unless I'm already looking for it, or if I'm thinking about something relevant in my life.

To be fair, the basic premise of many of these works is that most people are seeking something profound - something that is divine, sublime and inarticulable all that the same time. In architecture, there are some examples of this as well.

Even many athiests "wished" they believed in a god, even if this was only residual guilt from a religious upbringing. Being unable to, they turn to the arts. This has a long tradition in western thought going back to the Homeric epics. This impossibility of the human predicament is what is a central theme in music. In some respects, I think this brings people closer not so much to god as to the religious among us. It helps us appreciate this lamentation of the religioius.

However, modern choral pieces are geared more towards the converted, kind of like socialists singing the Internationale.

And to be sure, not everyone comes away from a work of art in the same way, architecture or music. It helps to have thought about these issues ahead of time. Still, once you start thinking of it in these terms, the message of humanity's lack of divinity is readily appreciated.

I still think this (destr. of churches) is exactly a tool to deminish the relevance of religion. We need to be unfair, outrageous, spiteful and violently strict on this.By never pussyfooting we open the space for anti-religiousness to be the norm.

Well, sure, but it is not the only way. As there are alternatives, why destroy something that is aesthetically pleasing?

In strongly atheist societies like Japan and Scandinavia, religious relics like cathedrals and temples are considered "national treasures" and carefully maintained. Even North Korea and the USSR did this and managed to convince most people that religion is bullshit. Sure, religion isn't entirely stamped out in any of these cases, but the objective isn't "stamping out religion", it's making religion irrelevant.

In strongly atheist societies like Japan and Scandinavia

Japan? Are you sure? I was under the impression that most of the country considered themselves "spiritual" in some way, with very bizarre syncretisms.

Japan? Are you sure? I was under the impression that most of the country considered themselves "spiritual" in some way, with very bizarre syncretisms.

You ask most people what impact religion has on their daily lives and they'd say next to none. True, there are strange superstitions here and there (like using the numbers 4 and 9 which are synonyms for death and suffering). But I think this is akin to astrology in the west - a harmless waste of time that no body takes seriously.

i'm the tolerant one...

In what context are 4 and 9 synonyms for death and suffering? I have never heard about that.

Sorry for the delayed reply. There are a few words for 4 in Japanese, one of which is "shi". "Shi"also means death. Ditto for 9, one of the ways to say it is "ku", which also means "suffering".

That shit don't interest me.