Destruction of Ancient Churches

[Darth Wong]

I got to tour the ancient churches of Italy. Beautiful doesn't begin to describe them. If they were destroyed I'd be very upset.

You can say that again. What amazes me the most is that the whole thing was designed and built without the useage of computer assisted designs, electronics or modern machinery, all that and it's still damn cool!

Actually, all civil and mechanical engineers learn to do structural analysis with paper and pencil even today. It's not that remarkable.

Those ancient churches are historically significant, however I would hesitate to praise them no matter what their aesthetics are. I can't look at them without thinking of the fact that they were built with religious wealth that was extorted, taxed, and scammed out of an ignorant and fearful population.

[Singular Intellect]

Those ancient churches are historically significant, however I would hesitate to praise them no matter what their aesthetics are. I can't look at them without thinking of the fact that they were built with religious wealth that was extorted, taxed, and scammed out of an ignorant and fearful population.

One could point out it's a bit like someone marvelling at the engineering behind the Nazi execution chambers...perhaps it's technically impressive, but a bit hard to appreciate.

[Kitsune]

Look at the highways in North Korea with no cars on them?
They are pretty much useless and the people were forced into making them.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They were "actual atheists" extremely interested in destroying organised religion, which is something I think can be understood here. The thought of one of those megachurches built in Africa while the poor starve would fill me with some shadenfreude if it was destroyed, especially in some freak accident.

Who on earth is funding these churches? As I understand it, some of the fundies in the US go gung-ho and head to Africa but what they do I never followed up.

[Shroom Man 777]

I never knew the Enlightenment had anti-religious revolutions in it.

I say the Ancient Churches should be used for other awesomer purposes. Restaurants, gyms... brothels. Wasn't there a church in Germany that got sold and turned into a brothel?

[Darth Wong]

I never knew the Enlightenment had anti-religious revolutions in it.

I say the Ancient Churches should be used for other awesomer purposes. Restaurants, gyms... brothels. Wasn't there a church in Germany that got sold and turned into a brothel?

There's an old church in the Delaware Water Gap area that was purchased and converted into a private residence.

[Ford Prefect]

The Basilica San Pietro is too outrageously gigantic to destroy. 'Because it's big' is probably not a great reason but Jesus Christ is it enormous.

[Rye]

They were "actual atheists" extremely interested in destroying organised religion, which is something I think can be understood here. The thought of one of those megachurches built in Africa while the poor starve would fill me with some shadenfreude if it was destroyed, especially in some freak accident.

Who on earth is funding these churches? As I understand it, some of the fundies in the US go gung-ho and head to Africa but what they do I never followed up.

It's a mixture. Evangelicals in the US naturally fund the evangelical churches, and sometimes help their allies amongst the local african pentacostal and charismatics. The RCC also has a lot of influence, though I don't know if they're building their own megachurches. I know for a fact that the evangelicals and mormons have their fingers in a lot of pies, though, since they're even trying to spread here, and compared to here, Africa must be a "safe investment" since it's cheap and gets a lot more conversions.

[PainRack]

We have locally a restaurant which is a converted church...expensive though, only eaten there once.

I don't advocate destroying historic churches either because they have aesthetic or cultural value. I just wanted to get a feeling of the pulse on that subject here.

I know what others mean about some modern churches being both ugly and blocky. I also see them go up in places which were open fields which had some productive value in eco-systems and ask "How many churches do we really need"

Same. There's an entire ancient church here which was converted to a dining and commercial area, and apparently won some international award for historical conservation and shit like that.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Same. There's an entire ancient church here which was converted to a dining and commercial area, and apparently won some international award for historical conservation and shit like that.

Erm... that is a school, not a church. It used to be the main CHIJ school premises.

[Turin]

What amazes me the most is that the whole thing was designed and built without the useage of computer assisted designs, electronics or modern machinery, all that and it's still damn cool!

Actually, all civil and mechanical engineers learn to do structural analysis with paper and pencil even today. It's not that remarkable.

The design methods used today didn't exist at the time of the medieval churches, though. Guilds of master builders used "what did we do last time?" and built upon that in incremental stages. Up until the Renaissance, large-scale building follows something like an evolutionary path -- small incremental changes over time, and a lot of failures we don't see today because they took too big of a leap and fell down (often while being built).

Not that this changes the relevant point, which has to do with their historical and aesthetic significance. That's a question of utility like anything else; at what point does the cost maintaining these very old structures outweigh their historic/aesthetic value?

[Master of Ossus]

With regards to the OP: I definitely view them as historical places, just like I view ancient temples or mosques or what-have-you from other religions. One slight difference is that Christianity still exists, but I don't see that distinction as being meaningful for the purposes of historical interest. I would view the crusader cities the same way.

[Lord Revan]

I wouldn't want to destroy churches simply because they're churches, not only would it give fundies more fuel for their fire, but some churches are actually pretty decent looking.

[FSTargetDrone]

Well, the Taliban did with statues of Buddha.....

The Taliban are a bunch of misogynistic savages. The destruction of those statues was condemned by pretty much everyone else. Some groups apparently offered to move the statues out of the country (somehow, not sure how this would have been accomplished), but no, they were removed by way of explosives.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I'd really like to keep them as artistic monuments; there's little to gain from wiping them from history. If they were made by extorting the common people, at least we can appreciate the lasting results of their work, even if they were conned into it by a society organized around hierarchy and a few big lies. Honestly, I just love Gothic and Baroque architecture, so I would want to keep around as many good examples to look at. We wouldn't destroy Versailles or the Forbidden City or St. Petersburg just because we don't believe in the divine right of monarchs. As for Christianity and Islam still being active powers, they will eventually die out as major cultural shapers, though they will never disappear. Let them keep their monuments and not feel any more threatened by unbelievers than they already are.

The only thing I could see being useful would be the obliteration of pilgrimage shrines of central importance to major religions, like Jerusalem and Mecca, as a sort of Where is your God now? message, while removing territory to fight over and focusing attention on addressing more significant problems. Of course no existing political institution could carry it out successfully, and the backlash would be horrendous. It would have to be done by benevolent alien visitors or future AI's in a position of power to have much of a positive effect.

[Kanastrous]

Some groups apparently offered to move the statues out of the country (somehow, not sure how this would have been accomplished)

Cut them loose in sections, pack them up, crane them out, truck them to wherever.

Pretty much the same general approach as they used at Abu Simbel and other sites, when the Aswan High Dam was built.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Taliban saw ALL depictions of the human form anywhere as being an offense, so a deal to move the statues was inherently unsatisfactory. The fact that the statues were 50 feet tall and from a different religion was just icing on the cake. They also smashed hundreds of small statues with sledgehammers.

[Darth Wong]

I wouldn't want to destroy churches simply because they're churches, not only would it give fundies more fuel for their fire, but some churches are actually pretty decent looking.

The same won't be said of today's churches in a few hundred years. The average modern church is a fucking eyesore; it typically looks like a damned retail outlet except that someone stuck a steeple roof and a cross on top.

[Oskuro]

This reminds me of a detail that irked me in the Sim City 2000 game.
In that game, when a building became abandoned, it would sometimes be demolished, and new buildings built on its place when new citizens needed it.... unless it was a church. I had to manually bulldoze abandoned churches so the freaking game would build on the terrain.


And, back on topic, I agree with Darth Wong. Historical or artistically significan buildings should be preserved, but no matter what they are, they should be subject to the same standards that other buildings.

And yes, modern churches are an eyesore that no historian would ever consider significant, unless utilized as an example of how not to do things. They are actual proof that faith does not imply taste (like that CAPalert guy's website).

[FSTargetDrone]

The same won't be said of today's churches in a few hundred years. The average modern church is a fucking eyesore; it typically looks like a damned retail outlet except that someone stuck a steeple roof and a cross on top.

Hopefully, such buildings won't be around in 100 years, or even several decades. There are a pair of rather unremarkable churches near me that have gone up in the past few years. They went up quickly (one is a "movie church") and both wouldn't look out of place in a typical shopping mall-type area, sort of "big box" stores, as you suggest. They don't even have a steeple. I seriously doubt they will last more than few decades as churches.

[Patrick Degan]

I wouldn't want to destroy churches simply because they're churches, not only would it give fundies more fuel for their fire, but some churches are actually pretty decent looking.

The same won't be said of today's churches in a few hundred years. The average modern church is a fucking eyesore; it typically looks like a damned retail outlet except that someone stuck a steeple roof and a cross on top.

Those steel-building megachurches. Ye godz but those are FUGLY. Being built on the cheap, though, I don't expect they will last more than three or four decades. Just shows how standards for ecclesiastical architecture have really fallen even from a half-century ago.