|
thesweetcheat wrote: OED def'n clearly links the word "sacred" to god(s) or religion:
"adjective
Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration"
The "deserving veneration" bit seems to be dependent on the god bit, so a scared site is deserving of veneration purely because it's connected with god. I don't much like that, it sounds like saying we should venerate Paul McCartney because he was a Beatle, rather than because of any intrinsic worth he has as a person or a musician.
That's the thing about language. Because it's fundamentally an evolving medium it's open to interpretation subject to context. That's not to say the OED is incorrect, just that words are often co-opted where necessary to serve in situations where technically specific alternatives either do not exist or are not widely known.... eventually broadening their meaning. I certainly think 'sacred' is a case in point and I have no hesitation in using it to imply a devotion to something of intrinsic, inherent value to me. My family's wellfare is sacred to me, free speech is sacred to me...etc.
Consider this: I could say "truth, love, understanding, tolerance and kindness are human attributes sacred to me" and my assumption - possibly false - is noone would assign any religious connotation to it whatsoever, no reasonably intelligent, open minded person would readily assume I only held those things to be worthy of veneration because of my belief in a god. Let's say I would be saddened if this was not the case, not least since history has shown religion to be inextricably opposed to such attributes.
I think it's fair to say that religions, by definition, demand their adherents renounce a fundamental degree of individuality and subsume themselves within a hive mentality characterised by what might be described as a form of metaphysically inspired quasi-nationalism. We are right, everyone else is wrong and must change. Independent thought is supressed together with all notions of curiosity, the desire to learn. Everything that makes us human. So to imply that individuals labelling something - e.g a stone circle - 'sacred' (as per the OED definition) leads to concepts of personal ownership is, in my opinion, a fallacy. In my experience religious people do not counter such thoughts, just follow established dictacts. Do as they are told to remain part of the collective. It is so scary outside. It seems to me that only those who have rejected religion in full or part - the agnostics, atheists - are in a position to make such a claim of ownership based upon 'sacredness'. And, by definition, they would not apply the OED definition.
I would very much doubt if the decision to erect those appalling, iron-spiked railings around such wondrous monuments as Kit's Coty, Lligwy and The Whispering Knights by The Ministry of Works was taken by people who viewed them as being 'sacred', applying any definition you care to choose - the narrow, or the generally used. Ditto the farmer erecting a multi strand barbed-wire fence. Cold, unassuming practicality. So, assuming your average monotheist isn't in the habit of hanging out within stone circles I would suggest it is those people who, for whatever reason, care about the well being and survival of our prehistoric heritage that should be championed. The people who, whether pagan or aetheist, view them as 'sacred' - of intrinsic value - and worth rather more than something to take a snap of to sell on your website. Guess it's a question of interpretation.
|
