close
more_vert

nigelswift wrote:
Hope you all like mosque calls and church bells then else its trouble for everyone! ;)

Well yes, there's a strong case for saying those are intrusive and people mostly tolerate them (but for lots of obvious reasons that can't apply to offerings at megalithic sites).

The other big thing about church bells and mosque calls is that they aren't imposed on the rest of society 24/7, which offerings left at sites are. This is my bacon sandwich point. If offerers came back in half a day and removed the stuff it would at least show a bit of respect to other visitors and people would be a lot more tolerant towards them no doubt. But just going home and leaving whatever they've left to annoy, detract or biodegrade smellily until people with more respect for the site and their fellow visitors remove them (AND get larupped for doing it!) is just a teeny bit naughty. ;)

Like I said, I don't leave anything apart from an echo and wonder around picking up peoples fag butts and sweet wrappers (I did the same thing in India, but its a bit of a losing battle...) I just think it can be difficult to say who is right and who is wrong here. YES you shouldn't leave old socks and scraps of plastic tied to trees at these places, but you have no idea about the situations that have lead to it. Drunken idiots just leaving tat? Most likely. But how about a little girl whos daddy used to bring her up here as a child and she wants to leave something to remember him by.

Everyone seemed very touched and happy about the story of the carved pebble left in memory of a relative but what if EVERYONE did that? You wouldn't be able to get anywhere near the bloody place and then it would be considered tat and moved. What if you cant afford a nice carved pebble but the passed relative loved pottery cows (I'm sorry to keep coming back to the cow, I actually think its a bloody stupid thing to leave but thats not the point)! It shouldnt be any less important because we (the observer) think its less tasteful, it could be just as meaningful.

But how about a little girl whos daddy used to bring her up here as a child and she wants to leave something to remember him by.

Aw come on, don't play the orphaned little girl card, you know I can't say anything now without sounding like a monster!

Anyway, can't she leave it near but not at? And as for offerings having a "significance" to the offerer that makes them immune from removal, that would mean anyone could leave anything anywhere - and no-one could tidy up in case it was Fido's favourite toy! Nah, personal significance is personal and shouldn't be imposed on the community. Graffiti can be deeply personal yet dreadfully vandalistic at the same time.

This discussion could go on for ever, perhaps what we are missing out on is that humans live within a social framework, we make rules for this and that, 'belt up'(seat belts), 'tidy litter' etc.... but when it comes to religion and individual belief we get tied up with trespassing on someone elses 'feeling', offerings are'nt after all dangerous (unless of course you slip on a banana skin) but they are scattered in an indiscriminate fashion across certain sites...

So Faerygirl what is your solution, to the bringing of 'stuff'? I know where you are coming from with this argument that belief has a right of expression, something I would stand by myself.. but what happens at sites is a multitude of personal beliefs. Could it be that a new way of spiritual thinking is evolving maybe, or people are being like 'sheep' and just following what everyone else is doing?
For those of us who went through the 60s, a 'new age' wave of religious belief took place then and I don't think any of that has survived unless you call secularism a religion, which is in a sense what you are arguing against.

Actually today I read in the news that an Ulster museum is debating whether to introduce the idea of 'creationism' into its galleries..now that is seriously worrying. ;)