Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

Tagging churches?

By radonezh - 3 June 2009 37

I turned up at the Russian Church in Narrabundah two weeks ago and a large graffiti tag had appeared on the front entrance. 

Clearly this artist was looking for somewhere to express him/herself, but it would’ve been nice if he/she had’ve found somewhere else.

I must admit I’m a fan of calligraphic art, but not when it disrespects something else that is also an artistic expression (such as an architectural piece of cultural or spiritual significance).

It’s a real pain to have to remove this stuff and to be honest, reporting it to the police is tiresome and likely to get someone in trouble that they don’t want or need.

A bit more cultural sensitivity by the street artists out there would be wonderful.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Tagging churches?
phototext 1:10 pm 03 Jun 09

So, if the tag had been on Uluru would it be just as non offensive ?

fnaah 1:09 pm 03 Jun 09

Your point is well made danman, of course I would be upset if a building that I cared about was defaced.

I guess we have no real way of knowing whether the offender specifically chose the church as a target though.

The point I was making was not that it’s OK to vandalise a church, just that it’s somewhat narrow-minded to assume a church is still afforded the same “universal” respect that it used to.

Danman 12:55 pm 03 Jun 09

Hey, Im not saying how it is, I am saying that someone whose church got tagged would care more about that getting tagged than say somewhere that does not hold spiritual significance.

As Fnaah pointed out, and I have to agree, if the George Harcourt got tagged, or any heritage listed building, I would be justifyably pissed off, I dont care if a church gets tagged, I was not trying to make an example of the church being superior than any other building, what I was saying was that a church getting tagged was probably intended to hit the churchgoers where it hurts… Why chose a church over the shops ? They are all buildings? Maybe one was intended to be more emotive than another.

If I spraypainted pentagrams on a church and then on a shop – who would it offend the most ?

How can anyone who is outside the circle say a building is as significant as another.

I think they would be devestated, moreso than if their local shops got tagged…That was the point I was trying to exemplify (and that you all missed/ignored)

Graff the Pyramids, or the local shops…After all, they’re all buildings, it would be the same.

Could it not be that the offended did such things to get a rise out of the victims.

For the record, I am spiritual but not religious, my coincern is as much as if another building was tagged.

fnaah 12:53 pm 03 Jun 09

Don’t give in to Pascal’s wager, justbands! 😛

MrPC 12:47 pm 03 Jun 09

While I’m not a fan of Graffiti, I am even more not a fan of churches. The entire idea that religion is privileged and should warrant un-earned respect among the community is abhorrent to me.

IMHO only defective people believe in their ultimate imaginary friend, so they should be in good company with the defective people that deface public structures.

Thumper 12:43 pm 03 Jun 09

All taggers should have their tagging hand cut off.

justbands 12:42 pm 03 Jun 09

Hehe…we’re all going to burn in hell! Or not, considering it’s all just made up.

screaming banshee 12:40 pm 03 Jun 09

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

So which was it:

– your omniscient God didn’t know the church was tagged
– your omnibenevolent God didn’t care that believers would be hurt if the church was tagged or
– your omnipotent God was powerless to stop it?

If it was none of the above, then He wanted the church to be tagged, and you should be grateful.

Nice work WMC

screaming banshee 12:40 pm 03 Jun 09

justbands said :

+1 for fnaah.

Tagging is stupid & looks ugly…but as far as I’m concerned, a church is just another building.

+2 tagging is annoying but churches are no more special than any other building

Woody Mann-Caruso 12:22 pm 03 Jun 09

So which was it:

– your omniscient God didn’t know the church was tagged
– your omnibenevolent God didn’t care that believers would be hurt if the church was tagged or
– your omnipotent God was powerless to stop it?

If it was none of the above, then He wanted the church to be tagged, and you should be grateful.

fnaah 12:04 pm 03 Jun 09

Pubs and clubs are spiritual houses for those that attend them. For many, they hold much more cultural significance than a church ever could.

Tagging anything is, as you say, like pissing on it. Expecting a tagger to value the subjective sanctity of a funnily-shaped building with public announcements of humanity’s imminent demise printed in big letters out the front, on the other hand, is probably expecting a bit much.

Isn’t it time for religious people to stop being shocked and offended when non-religious people don’t see things the same way as them? (Oh, and i’ll have a dose of gloobal nuclear disarmament, while I’m wishing for the unattainable.)

Danman 11:53 am 03 Jun 09

Fnaah, I have to disagree mate, Churches are spiritual houses for those that attend them, they would hold more significance to them than say…Riverside Plaze.

In my opinion, tagging one, which is the human equivalent to a dog pissing on a lamp post is volumes more disrespectful

None the less, its all black and white legally, but on an emotive scale, I would be more pissed off if (Should I attend one) my church was tagged, as opposed to say, riverside plaza (Nothing against the plaza, I spent many a shopping thrip there when living in the Q)

Furthermore, the only thing that taggers have in common with those who do full productions, is the style in whihc a full production is signed off (Akin to an artist signing and dedicating their work) – Artistically speaking, the stylised single line words is all that they have in common with “Taggers”.

justbands 11:49 am 03 Jun 09

+1 for fnaah.

Tagging is stupid & looks ugly…but as far as I’m concerned, a church is just another building.

fnaah 11:45 am 03 Jun 09

A bit more cultural sensitivity by the street artists out there would be wonderful.

Devil’s advocate: why? What make a church more special? It’s a building, nothing more. Plenty of people will argue that the Cameron/Benjamin Offices had more architectural significance, and I’d bet they were viewed and used by an order of magniture more people than the Russian Church. Same goes for pubs, clubs and schools.

I’m not a big fan of tagging (most of it is ugly, imho), but suggesting that a church should somehow be any more or less “off-limit” than any other building is silly.

Pommy bastard 11:36 am 03 Jun 09

A “tag” is not someone “expressing themselves,” for gods sake! It’s a piece of meaningless graffiti,the moral and artistic equivalent of a dog peeing on a lamppost.

The person who did it SHOULD be reported to the police and face the consequences of their gross bad manner, and unutterable stupidity.

The non -reporting of, and mitigation of, CRIMES like this by people who should know better, is par for the course these days, no wonder kids today have no respect for anything!

“Express themselves” my ******* ****!!!!

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au

Search across the site