Pagan places

[Nearly Sane]

That was NS's point I think - they're very big on respect for (their version/interpretation of) Islam - but nothing else. The sacredness to Buddhists of the Buddhas of Bamiyan didn't matter to them because it wasn't their sacredness.

To an extent, I think though that the sacredness does matter but it conflicts with their idea of sacrednesd

[Rhiannon]

But I'm suggesting the reason they aren't is because of their concept of sacred. In a sense their destruction of Palmyra is much more respectful to the import of its meaning than those who would take tourists round it.

Which is why I think respect for the sacredness of place to others is important for those of us who aren't religious nutters. If an oil company can't respect a First Nation's sacred land or historians a pagan henge, it makes anything, any place, the environment, potentially disposable. When there is such intolerance and hate in the world, we need every shred of tolerance, respect and let-and-let-live that we have. It's what makes life tolerable and it may be what stops us from destroying ourselves.

[Nearly Sane]

That may be taking it seriously, but it's hardly respect.

Surely taking something seriously, deeply seriously, is a exactly a form of respect? Much more so than someone wandering round 'doing' Palmyra?

[Nearly Sane]

Which is why I think respect for the sacredness of place to others is important for those of us who aren't religious nutters. If an oil company can't respect a First Nation's sacred land or historians a pagan henge, it makes anything, any place, the environment, potentially disposable. When there is such intolerance and hate in the world, we need every shred of tolerance, respect and let-and-let-live that we have. It's what makes life tolerable and it may be what stops us from destroying ourselves.

Oil companies don't hate, ISIS do. ISIS believe in the sacred.

[Rhiannon]

To an extent, I think though that the sacredness does matter but it conflicts with their idea of sacrednesd

Maybe that is why they destroyed it. But there is also speculation that they were looking for treasure rumours to be buried on the site.

And quite frankly I think they destroy 'just because'.

[Rhiannon]

Oil companies don't hate, ISIS do. ISIS believe in the sacred.

Oil companies often hate anything that stands in the way of profit.

And it's not just about hate, it it? It's about respect and tolerance.

[Shaker]

Surely taking something seriously, deeply seriously, is a exactly a form of respect?

Yes - but destroying it isn't, IMO.

Much more so than someone wandering round 'doing' Palmyra?

But (aside from sulky teenagers dragged along against their will) someone wandering around has presumably chosen to go there out of their interest in it, because they want to see it - also a form of respect, I'd say.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe that is why they destroyed it. But there is also speculation that they were looking for treasure rumours to be buried on the site.

And quite frankly I think they destroy 'just because'.

What does that mean? Why is it that you want to ignore their statements about why they act and then effectively make up something that appears to make no useful sense. The destruction of Palmyra was propaganda

[Shaker]

Which is why I think respect for the sacredness of place to others is important for those of us who aren't religious nutters. If an oil company can't respect a First Nation's sacred land or historians a pagan henge, it makes anything, any place, the environment, potentially disposable. When there is such intolerance and hate in the world, we need every shred of tolerance, respect and let-and-let-live that we have. It's what makes life tolerable and it may be what stops us from destroying ourselves.

This ties in with some thoughts I've had (considered a thread on it) about whether a rise in active and engaged paganism might go some way toward fighting those who see only instrumental (meaning financial) value in nature as something to be used, a resource to be exploited. We're often told that paganism is a fast-growing religious stance after all. But I won't derail this thread by going further with that 

[Rhiannon]

Surely taking something seriously, deeply seriously, is a exactly a form of respect? Much more so than someone wandering round 'doing' Palmyra?

Destroying something because of religious superstition is fear based, not respectful.

Not all tourists just 'do' a place and even those that might arrive with that attitude may leave with something different.

[Nearly Sane]

Oil companies often hate anything that stands in the way of profit.

And it's not just about hate, it it? It's about respect and tolerance.

No, they really don't. They might not understand it but hate is a nonsensical term here. It could be argued that people who want their vague feelings of "sacredness' to override providing cheap affordable energy for people are incredibly hateful in their selfishness. Ethics are way more complex than this 'oil companies nasty' stuff.

[Nearly Sane]

Destroying something because of religious superstition is fear based, not respectful.

Not all tourists just 'do' a place and even those that might arrive with that attitude may leave with something different.

Fear is not unrelated to respect. We fool ourselves if we think differently. One of the groups takes the claims seriously, the other doesn't

[Shaker]

Looks to me as though the insertion of the word vague is an attempt to belittle by diminishment the concept of sacredness. If a feeling is vague, it doesn't matter much if it's trampled on.

[Rhiannon]

Fear is not unrelated to respect. We fool ourselves if we think differently. One of the groups takes the claims seriously, the other doesn't

Yeah, fearing the Lord hasn't led to hugely respectful consequences.

[Shaker]

No, they really don't. They might not understand it but hate is a nonsensical term here. It could be argued that people who want their vague feelings of "sacredness' to override providing cheap affordable energy for people are incredibly hateful in their selfishness.

... except that we now know rather a lot about exactly what this "cheap, affordable" energy entails for the planet. If you want to call anything hateful and selfish, it's that.

[Nearly Sane]

Looks to me as though the insertion of the word vague is an attempt to belittle by diminishment the concept of sacredness. If a feeling is vague, it doesn't matter much if it's trampled on.

It's an expression of my feeling about it. But to be useful here the concept of sacredness has the burden of proof on those who think it is valyabldy, just like Alan Burns and his soul, so if it isn't a vague feeling what is it and what is it's worth?

[Anchorman]

As a matter of interest, Rhi, how do you think human remains should be treated - if their original place of interrment is no longer tenable as a repository, or, for that matter, if their original burial place is unknown?

[Rhiannon]

No, they really don't. They might not understand it but hate is a nonsensical term here. It could be argued that people who want their vague feelings of "sacredness' to override providing cheap affordable energy for people are incredibly hateful in their selfishness. Ethics are way more complex than this 'oil companies nasty' stuff.

I do know a good deal about the oil industry - don't patronise me.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, fearing the Lord hasn't led to hugely respectful consequences.

lots of people who believe in the sacred disagree with your position on that, why are they wrong?

[Shaker]

It's an expression of my feeling about it. But to be useful here the concept of sacredness has the burden of proof on those who think it is valyabldy, just like Alan Burns and his soul, so if it isn't a vague feeling what is it and what is it's worth?

We have an entire thread dedicated to just those questions kicking around somewhere in the catacombs.

[Nearly Sane]

I do know a good deal about the oil industry - don't patronise me.

then don't write nonsense about companies 'hating' things.

[Rhiannon]

lots of people who believe in the sacred disagree with your position on that, why are they wrong?

You seriously need an answer to that?

[Nearly Sane]

You seriously need an answer to that?

it seems to be the issue you are not dealing with. Arguing that something, in this case the idea of sacredness', should  be respected needs to cover what the idea of sacred covers.

[Rhiannon]

As a matter of interest, Rhi, how do you think human remains should be treated - if their original place of interrment is no longer tenable as a repository, or, for that matter, if their original burial place is unknown?

It's a difficult one. A lot of the time even the correct rites aren't known. There was something on Newsnight ages ago about it, I'll have a rummage and see what I can find.

[Nearly Sane]

We have an entire thread dedicated to just those questions kicking around somewhere in the catacombs.

And we are, as we often do, revisiting discussions. Doesn't mean that the questions can't be asked again.