Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa
I don't even care if they do that, since religion is a joke to me that is responsible for more wars and murders and ignorance than any other entity on the planet (besides government).
I'm very glad that they were able to preserve all of the unique architecture of these churches though.
|
I guess I had in mind scenarios where it is basically a government taking a religious building away from the religious entity without its consent (including cases where the religious community in question is exterminated or forcibly displaced from that locality), in which case there is one entity of each type you listed on the two sides of the transfer. That seems bad to me, and in certain parts of the world (not usually the U.S.) that is not an uncommon back story to formerly religious buildings.
But if say a religious building is voluntarily abandoned without being formally desanctified (for financial reasons, or the natural die out of a religious community, or so on), then I don't care about that building later being re-used for secular purposes without official permission.
However, I would hope even people who feel differently about those cases would be fine with cases in which a formal desanctification has occurred.