"Jesus Christ!' Using this as an expletive is offensive to Christians. It's 'taking the lord's name in vain' and many Christians (if not all) would prefer we didn't do it. But I'd be hard pressed to find a friend who didn't do it, or at least doesn't care if I do.
One of the big jobs or religion is to find things offensive. The entire foundation of Christianity is making you feel bad for simply being human. Harmless, natural, pleasurable activities like sex (if you're not married to the other person) and masturbation are heavily frowned upon. And god forbid if you're in a relationship with someone of the same sex!
We disregard these Christian rules as though they're meaningless. Because they are. We argue things like 'if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't get one'. It's a fair and reasonable argument.
But if the objection to harmless things that cause 'offence' come from people who are the original inhabitants of an area and their religion is 'earthly' and 'natural'...well, suddenly we're expected to respect their beliefs.
Why there's this difference in perspective, I couldn't really say. Claiming you have a 'Spirit Animal' is offensive, I've read, to native Americans, which leads to some non-native Americans telling other non-native Americans not to do it. But using 'By Our Lady' (Bloody) in an anti-drink-driving campaign raises no religious ire. 'God's Truth' (Struth) doesn't batter an eyelid, but claim, equally harmlessly, that 'Wine is my spirit animal' in front of the wrong person, and you'll be given a sermon.
On October 26, 2019 climbing of Uluru will be banned.
If you're unaware, Uluru, formerly known as Ayers Rock, is one of Australia's and the world's great natural landmarks. It's a massive monolith in the middle of the 'red centre'. a free standing rock, with an elevation of 863m (2,831ft) and an age somewhere around 500 million years.
It's also sacred to the Pitjantjatjara people, who are the indigenous Australians of the area.
Because it's sacred to them, they don't want you to climb it. The government has agreed with them, and Parks Australia will be taking down the chainhold that helps tourists climb to the top.
People, non-aboriginal, are, from what I've observed, almost unanimously agreeing that climbing Uluru should be banned, because these people don't want you to climb it. No one is saying 'if you don't think Uluru should be climbed, don't climb it.' Instead they're saying 'it's disrespectful to climb it, so don't. I mean, you wouldn't take a dump in a church or a cemetary, would you?' I'm honestly struggling to see how climbing a rock (just a rock) is the same as 'taking a dump' in a church. I've seen two people us this exact terminology.
As an aside, it has come to light that people do, in fact, literally 'poo' on the rock. Apparently because the round trip takes so long, some people think their only option is to drop their pants, and evacuate their bowels on the rock. THIS is indeed disgusting, and not at all something I advocate. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mere act of climbing.
So because the Pitjantjatjara people think the rock is sacred, we've all got to adhere to their beliefs and now not climb it. Someone's religious beliefs having an impact on the lives of people who don't share that religion...hmmmm, I can't say I'm a fan of this. At all. Sure the Pitjantjatjara people might be lovely, and their beliefs are intouch with the earth and let's not forget they've lived in the area for thousands and thousands of years. But is that enough for them to impose their beliefs onto other people? I don't think so.
Just as Christians don't get to tell me who I can and can't marry, and Muslims don't get to tell women I know they have to wear burkas or hijabs, and Hindus don't get to tell me I can't eat beef, I don't think followers of the Dreamtime religion should get to tell me I can't climb a rock.
The belief that the rock is sacred is not based in reality. It's not based on evidence. Uluru is no more sacred than the pages of a Quran are sacred. Two thirds of Australians don't care that Christians are offended at same-sex marriage. We knew they didn't want it, but we voted for it anyway. You know why? Because the religious beliefs of someone shouldn't impact the lives of someone else.
This wonderful quote by Matthew Shultz sums it up perfectly:
The other analogy that I've seen used regularly that sums up this perspective well is this:
"I'm on a diet, so I can't eat ice-cream' <- Fine.
"I'm on a diet, so YOU can't eat ice-cream" <- Not fine.
Most, if not all people I know, would agree with the above. But add:
"I'm on a diet, and I'm the elder of a local native population, so you can't eat ice-cream" and suddenly everyone is agreeing that they can't eat ice-cream.
With the news of the impending ban, tourists are now flocking to the area to have their last chance at climbing. From around 140 people climbing per day, it's now between 300 and 500. Like any tourist filled place (or human filled place) with the tourists come rubbish and waste. If the locals were wanting to keep people away because of their disgusting rubbish and waste, I'd be all for it!
On October 26, 1985, the government returned ownership of the land to the Anangu indigenous community. (Hence October 26 being the date of the closure). So with that in mind, these people are well within their rights to ban climbing. They, legally, own the rock. That being the case, they can do with it what they wish. Just as a land owner can tell visitors smoking isn't permitted or that they can't have dogs there.
But there are legitimate reasons for banning smoking or dogs from an area. Yes the people who own the land on which Uluru/Ayers Rock sits have the right to ban people from climbing it, but, please, let's not pretend their reason are legitimate.
