-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
European Christian Heritage
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
I get what you are saying. I think without prejudice we must concur that just because we change a bit and develop new worldview or/and priorities, we should not forget our heritage because this heritage is part of what we are today. We should be taught to respect it by our parents and teachers in my opinion. Maybe that's not really happening.
But these are just my emotional thoughts alone. I have no clue what is best. In my mind, it is best to value our heritage.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Europe.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
If these are Catholic churches, then they are the property of either the Catholic Church or some kind of subsidiary organization tasked with maintaining its buildings. In either case, it's they who decide what happens with their church, not the public.
I don't get the scare quotes, though. You don't believe Christians' doing the same thing to the material culture of various paganisms at certain points in history was a crime?
I think the post mixes up a few things:
- For attacks on churches, arson, and other acts of vandalism and violence, governments should definitely step up and combat those in the same way they should attacks on synagogues, mosques, or any other establishments. Arson and vandalism are unacceptable, but not because these are churches per se; it's because committing these acts encroaches on the safety, property, and freedom of another person or resident of the country in question.
- For the closure of churches due to lack of usage, I don't see the issue. Irreligiosity is on the rise in multiple parts of the world, and it's logical that churches and other places of worship are getting less use. Unless they're historical buildings or date back to, say, 100 years ago, I don't see the issue with closing them to save up the space they're taking now that they're barely getting any use.
- France has overseen immense efforts to restore Notre-Dam following the fire that damaged it, so it seems to me that even one of the most staunchly secular European countries still cares about its heritage, Christian or not. The fact that France considered it a tragedy when the cathedral caught fire makes it clear that the French government doesn't just consider their Christian heritage dispensable or insignificant.
- Finally, Christianity is only one part of European heritage. Among other major parts of it are Roman and Greek mythology, Greek philosophy, Norse mythology, and various cultural influences and traditions that had nothing to do with Christianity and were actually sometimes at odds with it.
I believe in protecting all parts of one's ancient sites, but that doesn't entail giving special treatment to churches over, say, Pagan temples or ancient Greek monuments. The idea that Christianity is somehow special or entitled to continue to influence present-day European culture seems to me more often than not rooted in religious supremacism and lack of acknowledgement for the bigger picture that history gives us.
Augustus
…
I don't think it is a crime for a government to choose not to subsidise a place of worship that is not self-funding.
I don't think it is a crime to turn an empty church into a block of flats or a cafe.
It wasn't a crime when early Christians did it either, or when they chose not to spend exorbitant amounts of money to preserve every pre-Christian religious or philosophical text.
With hindsight, we now wish they had, but it's not a crime to spend limited resources on A rather than B based on current priorities.
I was commenting on the irony that the people happiest about the current process, tend to be the ones who see the ancient process as a crime and evidence of the primitive and hateful nature of the society that let it happen.
Collectively, we humans tend not to learn from our mistakes though unfortunately.
I agree with these points; however, my question was more about stuff along the lines of what I saw while touring ancient Egyptian sites a few years ago, such as crosses carved onto the walls of Egyptian temples as a form of vandalism.
I generally don't believe governments should subsidize places of worship or spend taxpayer money on them, but I don't think they should destroy or vandalize historical sites either.
Augustus
…
I'd guess that applies to most churches in the UK.
A church built in the early 20th C would count as 'modern' to me
If anything, Christianity's influence is massively understated
Those who favour Enlightenment Values™ have engaged in a centuries long and highly self-aggrandising campaign to promote the idea that The Enlightenment was a radical break from the past and the source of everything good.
It was just the latest iteration of the same myth Europeans have been telling for 2000 years:
The Romans saved society from barbarism
Christians saved society from paganism
Protestants saved society from Popery
The Renaissance saved society from Christian absolutism
The Enlightenment saved society from superstition and irrationality
"Common knowledge" in much of Europe still assumes the Enlightenment myth is actual history which is why they are so resistant to any attempts to correct it (that's just apologetics, everyone knows....)
Augustus
…
Many temples were repurposed as Churches, that may be a crude attempt to 'sacralise' them.
Looking at today though, gutting a church of its sacred objects and turning it into a McDonalds is not a comparable act of vandalism?
Also, how many derelict churches can you imagine would not be vandalised today?
I was hoping for a country, lol. If you're not comfortable sharing it's okay.
No, I'm descended from Orangemen.You’re an Orangeman? No wonder you’re so argumentative
But do you see my point, right? The well-being of European Christianity would be better served by me being apathetic to Christianity than it would be by me "embracing my Christian heritage" and being downright antagonistic to a big chunk of European Christianity.
I think it's fine to protect historical sites based on their historical value.
Heck... we have railway bridges here - and not even particularly large or fancy ones - with historical designations. I'm just as happy to say that a diocese (or whoever buys a church off them) can't tear down a moderately historically significant church as I am to say that a railway can't tear down a moderately historically significant bridge.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
There are other, less harmful ways to embrace one’s European heritage, than celebrating the Battle of the Boyne on the streets of Derry though. Listening to Handel’s Messiah in St Paul’s Cathedral, for instance. Or giving gifts at Christmas.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I'd respectfully suggest that is somewhat overplaying the situation. I am totally in favour of protecting heritage, including religious heritage but I think the topic is more complex and nuanced than this article gives credit.
There is an odd core to the idea that heritage is just about buildings (often empty buildings) when surely it is much more than that. There is also the implication that all Catholic buildings should be retained, something that doesn't apply to any other area of heritage for obvious practical reasons. The article explains that 15,000 Catholic sites in France are officially protected, which I suspect is more than any other category and surely demonstrates intent to maintain the Catholic aspect of French heritage.
The article covers some related issues such as touching on, though offering no solutions to, the difficulties of maintaining cathedrals (which applies to many large, old buildings of course). It might be more relevant to expand on those practical aspects, though that could get in to areas when the Church itself might have some responsibilities, something the article seemed keen to avoid.
There are also a whole load of largely unrelated aspects, such as the non-too subtle dig at Muslims in France and a few statistics about crimes against religious buildings (and Catholic ones specifically) but without any real analysis or discussion of them.
I'm not convinced the overall motive behind this article is simply about protecting heritage but about protecting the image of Catholicism as dominant and a priority in France.
I didn't say this and I think a lot of folks are misunderstanding my OP.
Why can't I get this into people's heads?
They will miss these buildings when they're gone and future archaeologists will wish we protected them. Is that hard to grasp??
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, not really. I will miss them if they are all gone. You don't have to keep them all.
Why do you keep taking everything so personally? Are you an archaeologists from 2,000 years in the future? Don't you wish ancient sites that are now crumbling in the Middle East and Africa had been better preserved? That the tombs were not robbed and the temples not vandalised?
Most churches in Europe are at least 500 years old. Victorian churches are still considered modern. I'm not talking about new churches. Many churches date back to the high Middle Ages. My local ones as a child and a teenager were from the 1300s.
We are talking seriously old buildings here, often with even older foundations dating back nearly 1000 years. They also often have crypts beneath them and attached graveyards. I've never seen a graveyard without a church.