Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

Attacking the church is symbolically and literally attacking the community as a whole. It destroys the central social gathering place, the symbol of a people culture and causes harm to all its members. Its "churchiness" does make it more reprehensible an act than burning an empty warehouse or an individuals home.

Not by my measure. The destruction of a gathering place is not, to me, more distasteful than burning a place where someone lives. People can gather in other places, but finding a new home is not so easy, and I suspect the loss of a home more demoralizing. What is more, one would lose many of the belongings contained within. Some belongings have sentimental value and can never be replaced.

I don't think you understand what the building means to people. The building has become so important to so many Christians that it has become a symbol more powerful than the cross. People will refuse to go back to the original home gathering method of worship over it. It has come to mean a lot more than can be substantiated by Scripture because so many people have made it into a second home for themselves.

In terms of emotional investment of the people who attend, yes, it's like burning down a home.

[Fenrir]

I don't think you understand what the building means to people.

That is entirely probable, as I have lived without religion for many years, and I happen to be an atheist ( though I do not feel entirely comfortable officially identifying with any particular mode of thought ). I have also been told that I presume too much about other people.

So, you are probably right.

But I still think it less reprehenisble. Not by much, but less. I would sooner see a church in flames than a home. The point is, I have no reverence for supposed sacred ground, so I object to Truean’s suggestion that such a lack makes the arsonist more villanous, so there must be something villainous about said lack. Perhaps I missed the point.

[Rose]

The point is that, barring anything supernatural, many of the people who use it consider it as important, if not more so, than their own homes.

[Heron TSG]

More people use it, I suppose. I think that the arson of any community center is a worse crime and thus deserves harsher punishment than any private building, barring the accidental/purposeful death of people inside. It doesn't matter if the community center is a church or a youth center.

[Rose]

More people use it, I suppose. I think that the arson of any community center is a worse crime and thus deserves harsher punishment than any private building, barring the accidental/purposeful death of people inside. It doesn't matter if the community center is a church or a youth center.

Ah, but you see, being an atheist requires that you value a church less specifically because it's religious.

[Heron TSG]

No, as an atheist, I don't require that at all. People still meet there to do things together.

[Gunner-Chan]

As far as I know most Athiests don't actually inherently value anything religious less.

Though this board would have me fooled.

[Willfor]

As far as I know most Athiests don't actually inherently value anything religious less.

Though this board would have me fooled.

I find the ones who do are often far louder than the ones who don't. Just like most of the religious people who irreligious people find intolerable are far louder. There is no person on earth who cannot be embarrassed by people who share their own views, in my opinion.

[Fenrir]

More people use it, I suppose. I think that the arson of any community center is a worse crime and thus deserves harsher punishment than any private building, barring the accidental/purposeful death of people inside. It doesn't matter if the community center is a church or a youth center.

Ah, but you see, being an atheist requires that you value a church less specifically because it's religious.

An atheist shall likely value a religous building less than a theist will. I never said that it would require the same. I am not sure what your point is. I only mentioned my godlessness to further the point that I may well misjudge how much others value churches. I’m not being spiteful, if that is what you suppose.

No, as an atheist, I don't require that at all. People still meet there to do things together.

In my opinion, I would say that preserving a place that one person lives is more important than one-hundred people gather — but, as I have no intention of committing any arson of any kind, it probably was not worth my furthering this particular deviation of topic.

[Bauglir]

I may no longer partake of the religious activities of my youth, but I appreciate the social bonding and comforts provided by the church my family was a member of while I was a teenager no less now than I did at the time. I'm pretty cool with a lot of church-based organizations. I may not think religion is necessary to provide those benefits, but it'd be pretty obnoxious to claim that they don't exist because of a religious affiliation. And hypocritical to a fairly alarming degree to attack somebody on the basis of their religious beliefs' existence, considering the reasons for which I'm not religious myself.

As to the topic at hand, the relative importance I guess would depend on variables such as the financial status of the family in question, the amount of property with sentimental damage that was destroyed, the size of the church, the number of charitable programs in place and their effectiveness, and things like that. Average church versus average house, though, I'd wager the house is a bigger problem, but that doesn't make the burning of a church any less awful.

[Nadaka]

In my opinion, I would say that preserving a place that one person lives is more important than one-hundred people gather — but, as I have no intention of committing any arson of any kind, it probably was not worth my furthering this particular deviation of topic.

Like I said before: Burning a house hurts 1 family. Burning a church like that hurts an entire race, community and the desire for equality and liberation from oppression. It is an important symbolic distinction. Just as important as the distinction between putting up a tent in you backyard and putting a tent up in the middle of wall street.

[G-Flex]

Just as important as the distinction between putting up a tent in you backyard and putting a tent up in the middle of wall street.

Or, perhaps more appropriately: Between burning a plank of wood on someone's lawn and burning a cross on it instead.

[Andir]

The thing that keeps someone from burning down a building is fear of punishment and community disdain for the act (where the punishment comes from). Some houses are ugly. Frankly, someone'd be doing the world a favor reducing them to ashes, and I mean this. [I'm lookin' at you smurf blue house, you know who you are]. Yet the community frowns on burning down said houses whether or not doing so would help the community as a hole (O,yes that's intentional).

People in general, consider it far worse to burn down a church than most other buildings and thus that community disdain is greater against that type of action compared to other similar ones. It could be "right or reasonable," to have said disdain, or it could be "completely nuts and not make sense, because a church is a building like any other." Not the point.

The point is, "If in light of the heightened stigma of burning a church (no matter the validity of that stigma) what would keep you from burning something with a lesser stigma?"

It's the presence and intensity of the stigma, not its validity....

I'm not sure I can place any inherent value on a building based on how the community feels about it.  It's a lifeless structure built for some purpose.  Value the life inside of it, but the building should not be a symbol (even though I know people do place some arbitrary value on it.)  I cringe when I heard about people trying to "save" my old school building because they remember going to school in it.  It was probably the most inefficient building in town and it was literally falling apart.  It would have cost more to restore it than to build new.  Yet, somehow, it was a prized building and people tried holding protests in front of the building that was replacing it.  IMHO, stupid.

In my opinion, I would say that preserving a place that one person lives is more important than one-hundred people gather — but, as I have no intention of committing any arson of any kind, it probably was not worth my furthering this particular deviation of topic.

Like I said before: Burning a house hurts 1 family. Burning a church like that hurts an entire race, community and the desire for equality and liberation from oppression. It is an important symbolic distinction. Just as important as the distinction between putting up a tent in you backyard and putting a tent up in the middle of wall street.

Burning a church does not hurt a race of people.  A community, maybe... but not a whole race.

[G-Flex]

I'm not sure I can place any inherent value on a building based on how the community feels about it.  It's a lifeless structure built for some purpose.  Value the life inside of it, but the building should not be a symbol (even though I know people do place some arbitrary value on it.)

People hold things to have sentimental value. You might as well bitch about people trying to preserve art because it doesn't serve a practical purpose. A building can easily have a lot of history and tradition behind it. This kind of thing might not matter to you, but try to understand that it does matter to people.

Also: There's no such thing as "inherent value" in the first place. Value is inherently subjective, and people value whatever has a purpose to them. If people get enjoyment or fulfillment out of a building that is important to them for whatever reason, then it has value to them. Wanting to belong to a group, a culture, etc. is a very legitimate and fairly universal human need, and a building can provide a very important outlet for that even in terms of its own history and construction. And even if they don't care about the building, per se, they're sure as hell going to care about that building being burned down, considering what it represents to them.

Burning a church does not hurt a race of people.  A community, maybe... but not a whole race.

A racially-motivated crime is an offense against the race. It's an extremely threatening gesture (burning down a church, and all) toward anyone belonging to the class that is the target of the hate crime, e.g. black people in this case. Black people living in similar communities elsewhere would certainly have a bit of a reason to be afraid that this kind of thing is going on, and white supremacists elsewhere probably don't need to be getting any ideas.

[Jackrabbit]

As far as I know most Athiests don't actually inherently value anything religious less.

Though this board would have me fooled.

I find the ones who do are often far louder than the ones who don't. Just like most of the religious people who irreligious people find intolerable are far louder. There is no person on earth who cannot be embarrassed by people who share their own views, in my opinion.

That's very apt and I agree. I don't value anything religious less due to its, uh, religiosity? Is that a word? Wordcheck thinks it is. In fact, I find it really wrong on a personal level when somebody destroys a holy book, although that's probably a product of growing up in such a religious environment. That said, I don't see burning a church as inherently worse than burning a house or a community centre, they're pretty equally bad.

In my opinion, I would say that preserving a place that one person lives is more important than one-hundred people gather — but, as I have no intention of committing any arson of any kind, it probably was not worth my furthering this particular deviation of topic.

Like I said before: Burning a house hurts 1 family. Burning a church like that hurts an entire race, community and the desire for equality and liberation from oppression. It is an important symbolic distinction. Just as important as the distinction between putting up a tent in you backyard and putting a tent up in the middle of wall street.

I have to disagree simply because of Matthew 18:20.
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
A church may be destroyed, but the actual church is in its congregation and as a gathering place, the church is just a building. There can be other gathering places. Never forget that even if you lose the Host (I'll admit I'm working from a Catholic perspective here because I don't know that much about the Protestant one) and the Altar and the Tabernacle and all the religious paraphernalia, that hasn't killed your religion. And if it has, was it ever really faith to begin with? Symbolism isn't as important as belief.

I guess what I'm trying to say in a rambling sort of way is that I can completely understand how much of a punch to the gut it would be to lose a church and it's totally understandable that you'd want to string the bastard up, more-so than usual, but justice can't work like that. It has to be equal. A church is, at the end of the day, just another community centre. The most important part of it is the community. If somebody burned that, well, that's kind of more serious.

Tangential Topic: Does anyone else get really nervous posting in this thread? I can't shake the distinct impression that every time I post I'm completely missing the point, because everybody seems so much smarter than me. I hope that didn't happen this time.