- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
[html][/html]A number of factors have raises concerns over the future of the Monasterboice crosses in Ireland which have stood outside for more than a millennium.Threat may see Irish high crosses movedOne of the threats to these crosses is the impact of visitors/vandalism. This just leaves me shaking my head:
However, it notes that fencing off the crosses may not protect them, with the cross at Moone on County Kildare sustaining damage after a visitor took a cast of one of the panels. The oily substance they used penetrated the stone and caused discolouration.
This brings up a point I have talked with my wife about. It seems to me that sometimes we try to stop history for some sites. As an example: When I was on Ibiza several years ago I visited the Roman fortress on the Island, the fortress has been continually manned since the like the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. when the Romans built it during the Punic Wars. In the lower portion of the fortress there are many tunnels and predictably, the walls are covered with graffiti, some of it dating back to shortly after its construction. What struck me at the time was there was some fresh graffiti and one of the tour companions asked how people could be so thoughtless as to deface such a historic place. I had to say something at that point and point out that I bet there was a Centurion 2,000 years ago chewing out one of his subordinates for scratching on the wall or a medieval soldiers superior doing the same thing, and asked how modern graffiti was any different than ancient except for its age. History does not stop just because people want to look at stuff.Talking about moving the crosses to save them kind of defeats the purpose of putting them there in the first place. This quote says it all "Some local residents strongly oppose any option that involves moving the high crosses because of their spiritual connection to the site". The crosses were not put there to be a tourist draw and it is a crying shame that modern preservationists want to save them but in saving them they will probably destroy the whole reason for their construction and existence in the first place. The crosses serve a religious purpose, something apparently only the locals still think about and care about. This kind of stuff aggravates me, it is the exact same thing as people visiting an ancient church that is still used and complaining because there is a service going on and they are not allowed to just wander around. I saw that in Rome.
That doesn't sound like vandalism more than just plain ignorance. What I don't get is how do other monuments/statues etc stay safe, especially those that are less or equally guarded as these crosses.
The crosses were not put there to be a tourist draw and it is a crying shame that modern preservationists want to save them but in saving them they will probably destroy the whole reason for their construction and existence in the first place. The crosses serve a religious purpose, something apparently only the locals still think about and care about. This kind of stuff aggravates me, it is the exact same thing as people visiting an ancient church that is still used and complaining because there is a service going on and they are not allowed to just wander around. I saw that in Rome.
That raises a good point. Why do we value historical things in the first place? Does historical value trump religious/cultural value, or vice versa? I agree with you about the crosses here. I know that this kind of issue comes up more when dealing with "primitive" or non-Western cultural objects, but curiously not so much with Western religious objects.
That doesn't sound like vandalism more than just plain ignorance. What I don't get is how do other monuments/statues etc stay safe, especially those that are less or equally guarded as these crosses.
Could have been some company rep who wanted to get the mold to reproduce it commercially. Who knows? Whatever the case, it was really a bad idea.
Come on Phid, to western elitists Christian values are meaningless. The atheists simply cannot believe that someone in the west can have faith. They have no problems trampling on our christian heritage, they actively despise it. That is why you will so often hear the myth that religion is responsible for most wars repeated.I would bet that these monuments will be moved, to save them, thus eliminating any meaning they hold other than as artistic curiosities.
Come on Phid, to western elitists Christian values are meaningless. The atheists simply cannot believe that someone in the west can have faith. They have no problems trampling on our christian heritage, they actively despise it. That is why you will so often hear the myth that religion is responsible for most wars repeated.I would bet that these monuments will be moved, to save them, thus eliminating any meaning they hold other than as artistic curiosities.
;D I remember a presentation given in class a few semesters ago on the big Native American museum in D.C., and I think the presenter brought up the issue of whether some of the artifacts in the museum really belong there in the first place because they were of religious value to the Native Americans. Yet in one of the photos from inside the museum, there was also a crucifix on display - presumably from early missionary work - and nothing was said regarding the propriety of displaying that. In another class I have also heard people discuss the ethics of displaying primitive islander masks in museums. So it seems to me that there is a lot of sensitivity to these non-Western religious customs, but not so much to Christian religious customs.
