I know this post is pushing the current events bubble, at least what caused me to think of it. I have a question about the morality of using religious sites, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc, as shelter in combat. In one of Shep Paine's diorama books he mentions how he was asked to pull a diorama of a 88mm ATG set up in a church. I didn't find anything objectionable at all to that dio. I guess the feeling was that it was some how sacrilege to use a church as a shelter in war. My feeling is that this is something that IS done in war, and that when it is done it basically means all bets are off. If you hide in a religious site and try to fire from it, you deserve what you get back in return. To me this should cross all religious bounds. In other words Christians shouldn't be expected to honor other sites, if they are used against them, any more than Jews or Muslims should honor a church if it is used against them.
I know I'm really pushing the envelope here, and won't be hurt at all if this is pulled.
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Religious sites and combat
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:13 AM UTC
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:02 PM UTC
I think it's a really good question and is something that has been going on for centuries.
One recent example that is NOT Iraq would be the standoff at Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002. Were talking about a very important site to Christians, so just bombing it out would cause an extreme reaction.
Many people have used, and still use places of worship as places of sanctuary during conflicts.
Steve
One recent example that is NOT Iraq would be the standoff at Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002. Were talking about a very important site to Christians, so just bombing it out would cause an extreme reaction.
Many people have used, and still use places of worship as places of sanctuary during conflicts.
Steve
chip250
Member Since: September 01, 2002
entire network: 1,864 Posts
KitMaker Network: 606 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 02:32 PM UTC
I don't understand why religious sites would be off limits in combat. I mean theres the enemy in that church, kill him before he kills you.
kkeefe
Member Since: May 12, 2002
entire network: 1,416 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 02:43 PM UTC
I believe that places of religion are described as sanctuaries in the Geneva Conventions somewhere, altho I am not 100% sure of that. Unfortunately, we play by the GC rules of warfare whereas others, especially the fanatical idiots of the world do not. Shooting up a place of religion serves the propaganda machine of these idiots even tho there is armed resistance coming from within.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:45 PM UTC
Sheltering war fighters in religious places historically hasn't worked out really well... Monte Cassino anyone...
Shaun
Shaun
AJLaFleche
Member Since: May 05, 2002
entire network: 8,074 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,574 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 01:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Sheltering war fighters in religious places historically hasn't worked out really well... Monte Cassino anyone...
Shaun
You took the words right out of my mou..., er, ah, keyboard. And in this case, the two sides fighting were predominantly Christian, as was the site.
The bombings of London and the German cities made no significant effort to avoid religious sites. although the US made an effort to not bomb the emperor's palace in Japan.
The concept of santuary goes back many hundreds of years wherein if you took sanctuary in a church, you were not to be attacked or forced out. However, there was sort of an understanding that you also weren't going to be firing arrows out of the parapet while you were taking sanctuary.
greatbrit
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 01:44 AM UTC
what AJ says is true,
during the blitz coventry cathedral was completely destroyed, and many other famous churches (st pauls cathedral etc) were damaged.
cheers
joe
during the blitz coventry cathedral was completely destroyed, and many other famous churches (st pauls cathedral etc) were damaged.
cheers
joe
sgirty
Member Since: February 12, 2003
entire network: 1,315 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 02:16 AM UTC
Hi Halfyank, I think I know the dio. you're talking about and I really liked it. Very nice set up. And I remember seeing not to long ago in some modeling magazine a dio. of a blown up Panther in a church as well, and thought is was very nicely done too. Sort of a combination of war and peace all in one. (Although we know that religions, or various peoples concepts of what is religiously right or wrong, have caused more wars that we can count, down through the ages of mankind.)
And I do believe I read some place or other that Paine's dio. wasn't allowed in one model show, I assume for the religious reasoning. Go figure.
I can't really see where there is any problem using a religious site during war to hide military armaments from an enemy. Hey, you use what you need to use it. And whatever works, works, by either side. And all nations have been guilty of elemintating religious sites down through their history, if they feel at the moment that it needs to be done to eliminate a potential military target.
As the picture that keenan posted of Monte Cassino reminds me I don't even think the German occupied this site until after the Allied bombed it. But that didn't stop it from being considered a viable military target at that time. Whether this was the right or wrong thing to do, this isn't my call to make.
Civilians tend to be more sensitive about things like this, where those on 'sharp edge' of things are more in tune with what's really important to survival and getting the job done.
I know we Americans have done much to destroy certain Nat. Am. sacred places here in this country. A good example is the mountain that the 4 presidents are carved on out West there. This is considered sacred ground to certain tribes and they feel it has been vilolated by us for doing this. And I can understand this totally.
Take care, Sgirty
And I do believe I read some place or other that Paine's dio. wasn't allowed in one model show, I assume for the religious reasoning. Go figure.
I can't really see where there is any problem using a religious site during war to hide military armaments from an enemy. Hey, you use what you need to use it. And whatever works, works, by either side. And all nations have been guilty of elemintating religious sites down through their history, if they feel at the moment that it needs to be done to eliminate a potential military target.
As the picture that keenan posted of Monte Cassino reminds me I don't even think the German occupied this site until after the Allied bombed it. But that didn't stop it from being considered a viable military target at that time. Whether this was the right or wrong thing to do, this isn't my call to make.
Civilians tend to be more sensitive about things like this, where those on 'sharp edge' of things are more in tune with what's really important to survival and getting the job done.
I know we Americans have done much to destroy certain Nat. Am. sacred places here in this country. A good example is the mountain that the 4 presidents are carved on out West there. This is considered sacred ground to certain tribes and they feel it has been vilolated by us for doing this. And I can understand this totally.
Take care, Sgirty
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 03:42 AM UTC
Touchy topic. We are not as secular a society as some would want us to believe and do not reside in a secular world. Religion for the better or worse is a mainstay of life. In Iraq, we witness people using the symbols of a religion and the structure it is housed in as a platform for a political agenda. Monte Cassino on the other hand at the head of the Liri Rivier Valley blocks Highway 7 leading into Rome which for some unknown reason the allies believe they just had to take. Bombing the abbey was an uncalled for action. As pointed out the abbey sits on the topographical crest of the mountain ( a way up there in the sky place, been there several times). However, the clever Germans were on the military crest of the ridge which afforded them better long range observation of the valley floor. The allies completely misread the clear signs that the abbey was not occupied and bombed it into a pile of rocks. Now, if we even attempted to do the same thing today, it would bring the supposedly secular world down on our necks in a New York City minute. Thus, religion is always a part of man and as such putting it in a dio is a kool idea. We recently had a fellow post a dio than had a blown cross as part of the ground work. It was obvious to me that he took the cross from a rosary bead which my religion consider a sacred article. Should I report him to higher authority?
DJ
PS--it is a touchy subject area.
DJ
PS--it is a touchy subject area.
greatbrit
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 04:08 AM UTC
dj,
i believe the dio you refer to is my RMG dio.
the base is a verlinden item, 'at the chapel'.
personally, im not religious, so maybe failed to realise the significance of the cross.
i apologise if it has offended you in anyway
cheers
joe
i believe the dio you refer to is my RMG dio.
the base is a verlinden item, 'at the chapel'.
personally, im not religious, so maybe failed to realise the significance of the cross.
i apologise if it has offended you in anyway
cheers
joe
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 06:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
dj,
i believe the dio you refer to is my RMG dio.
the base is a verlinden item, 'at the chapel'.
personally, im not religious, so maybe failed to realise the significance of the cross.
i apologise if it has offended you in anyway
cheers
joe
Joe,
I'm not really what you would call a religious guy myself but think in the case of your dio the religious elements were appropriatly used. I think in this instance it adds to the sense of what war really is; destruction, death, and very un-holy in its very nature.
Now, if someone chooses to depict a soldier urinating on or defacing some religious idolitry, that would be a different story. But again, such secenes may be of importance. Think of when the centuries old statues of Buddah were blown-up by the Taliban in the summer of 2001. Maybe in the West we wouldn't see it as more than the awful destruction of an ancient monument, but if it had been a Christian artifact there might be a different reaction.
I see religion as an internal and personal thing. The idea of Holy places is of great interest to me since I have been doing my work in Isreal - especially in places like Hebron where things exist that are of extreme importance to Jews and Muslims. I'm speaking of the Tomb of the Patriarchs.
When you see so much suffering because of rocks that take on such value to believers, you start to question things.
People do need to be carefull and think about these things, but in your case Joe you handled the subject well. I can't say what would or should be more offensive - depicting the death of a human or the destruction of a sacred place. I can say that churches, statues, and shrines can be rebuilt. People are not as easily brought back.
Yes touchy subject, but what part of war isn't of great offence when you get right down to it. Strange how it is easier to discuss the death of hundreds or even hundreds of thousands yet adding places of worship into the mix gives us such pause.
Steve
Hollowpoint
Member Since: January 24, 2002
entire network: 2,748 Posts
KitMaker Network: 841 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 06:59 AM UTC
As has already been pointed out, places of worship and cultural/archeological significance are generally considered non-targets and are to be protected. Trouble has always been that too many people violate their sanctuary.
Using WWII as an example, church and cathedral steeples were almost always the tallest things for miles around -- they made ideal observation posts and sniper nests. Though firing on churches -- and using them as OPs -- was officially forbidden, lots of soldiers unofficially began firing at steeples as "insurance" before entering a new town or village. Once someone broke the "rules," all bets were off, so to speak.
Personally, I think using religious symbols or architecture in dioramas brings more of the human element into a scene, and perhaps a sense of irony. One image I remember clearly from a unit history was a photo taken of some GIs resting under a roadside shrine, which is/was a fairly common thing along European country roads. Here was the group of exhausted GIs, one eating, one snoozing, another reading mail, etc., while looming over them a large stone crucifix. Commo wire was strung from the cross. The figure of Christ seemed to be looking down with pity at the soldiers -- a very stirring image. If I ever find the right sized crucifix with the proper pose, I might try to do a vignette. It certainly wouldn't be meant to offend anyone (though it might); the intent would be the opposite -- that perhaps there is at least some sort of spiritual sanctuary these fighting men sought in the shadow of the cross.
Wow, this discussion is a lot more serious than most on our boards. Hope we can keep it civilized, like the discussion a few weeks ago regarding the Holocaust diorama.
Using WWII as an example, church and cathedral steeples were almost always the tallest things for miles around -- they made ideal observation posts and sniper nests. Though firing on churches -- and using them as OPs -- was officially forbidden, lots of soldiers unofficially began firing at steeples as "insurance" before entering a new town or village. Once someone broke the "rules," all bets were off, so to speak.
Personally, I think using religious symbols or architecture in dioramas brings more of the human element into a scene, and perhaps a sense of irony. One image I remember clearly from a unit history was a photo taken of some GIs resting under a roadside shrine, which is/was a fairly common thing along European country roads. Here was the group of exhausted GIs, one eating, one snoozing, another reading mail, etc., while looming over them a large stone crucifix. Commo wire was strung from the cross. The figure of Christ seemed to be looking down with pity at the soldiers -- a very stirring image. If I ever find the right sized crucifix with the proper pose, I might try to do a vignette. It certainly wouldn't be meant to offend anyone (though it might); the intent would be the opposite -- that perhaps there is at least some sort of spiritual sanctuary these fighting men sought in the shadow of the cross.
Wow, this discussion is a lot more serious than most on our boards. Hope we can keep it civilized, like the discussion a few weeks ago regarding the Holocaust diorama. Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 07:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Wow, this discussion is a lot more serious than most on our boards. Hope we can keep it civilized, like the discussion a few weeks ago regarding the Holocaust diorama.
I frankly wouldn't have even it brought it up on some boards I've been on. Because the people here are so international, and so civilized, I thought it could be brought up.
Funny isn't it that, as a group, modelers, who model objects of war after all, can be so civilized.
kkeefe
Member Since: May 12, 2002
entire network: 1,416 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 07:58 AM UTC
The town that I was stationed in while in Germany (Ulm) was leveled by the 8th AF (including by an uncle) however, the Munster Cathedral in town was untouched. It was rumored that flour sacks were dropped on it to prove a point. When 10th Armored entered the town just before the end of the war, one mortar man on my Honor Roll page did have the Cathedral all sighted in but was not allowed to fire on it. I do not recall if he mentioned whether or not there was fire coming from it but, I doubt that there was as they probably would have been allowed to return fire. The Munster Cathedral has the highest spire in Europe IIRC.
Ulm
Ulm
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 03:22 AM UTC
I totally agree with Steve's assessment. If you are constructing a dio to represent reality than the unfortunate "reality" of war is that children and innocent civilians die and symbols most of us hold sacred are destroyed. The artistic display of reality can only be admired. Anyone seeking to replicate a scene of war has that license to freely make what they think is an accurate depiction of the subject. I have a tough time gluing two pieces of plastic together after thirty plus years of building and therefore truly admire those folks who turn my desired end states into actuality. Drive on, no apologizes necessary when done in good taste as are the items this site depicts.
DJ
DJ
4-Eyes71
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 04:10 AM UTC
It also depends on the religion. Muslims are very sensitive when mosques are destroyed in war. Gives them reason to go on warpath.
Chrstians nowadays (in some countries) don't rise up in arms when a church is attacked/destroyed (unlike in the Crusades).
Aside from the Geneva Convention, during the Middle Ages, the Church came up with this Peace and Truce of God. It was something like the Geneva Convention, calling for combatants to spare holy sites. Unfortunately, it was less successful.
I figure when bullets start flying, politics and religion fly out of the window.
Chrstians nowadays (in some countries) don't rise up in arms when a church is attacked/destroyed (unlike in the Crusades).
Aside from the Geneva Convention, during the Middle Ages, the Church came up with this Peace and Truce of God. It was something like the Geneva Convention, calling for combatants to spare holy sites. Unfortunately, it was less successful.
I figure when bullets start flying, politics and religion fly out of the window.
Hollowpoint
Member Since: January 24, 2002
entire network: 2,748 Posts
KitMaker Network: 841 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 04:46 AM UTC
I spotted this item on the Web this morning and thought of this thread:
You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/n04082004_200404087.html
Quoted Text
Marines Prepared, Trained for Iraq Mission, Says Commander
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 8, 2004 -- Although the rules of engagement specifically identify mosques as protected structures, Iraqi insurgents forfeited that protection when they used a mosque in central Fallujah, Iraq, April 7 to launch attacks on U.S. forces, the commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade told reporters at Camp Pendleton, Calif., today.
Marine Maj. Gen. Keith Stalder said that when a platoon-size group of enemy forces occupied the mosque and the grounds immediately surrounding it and fired on Marines, that mosque lost the protection of the law of war. At that point, Stalder said, the Marines' right to defend themselves became the most important issue.
"If anybody shoots at us from a mosque, then we are going to do what we need to do to protect ourselves," he said.
Stalder said the Marines subdued and suppressed the enemy operating from the mosque, killing at least one.
During the firefight, in which the Marines called in an air strike that took out a wall surrounding the mosque, Stalder said the Marines made every effort to minimize damage inflicted. "But once we do return fire or engage, we minimize the damage to the degree that we can, and we ensure that the response is proportional to the threat."
Stalder said that once security is established, the Marines will return to help the local citizens there rebuild any damage ...
You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/n04082004_200404087.html
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 05:20 AM UTC
Wow,
It took some serious googlage but I finally found the section of the Geneva Convention that deals with religious sites...
Submitted without any current events commentary:
Art 52. General Protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Art 53. Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:
(a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
(b) to use such objects in support of the military effort;
(c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.
It is from "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977"
The whole doc. can be found at the linkage below.
Shaun
Additional Protocol
It took some serious googlage but I finally found the section of the Geneva Convention that deals with religious sites...
Submitted without any current events commentary:
Art 52. General Protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Art 53. Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:
(a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
(b) to use such objects in support of the military effort;
(c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.
It is from "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977"
The whole doc. can be found at the linkage below.
Shaun
Additional Protocol
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 07:55 AM UTC
I firmly believe people honestly try to avoid destroying any structure (farm, barn, museum, church). Sometimes it is unavoidable. But, as so convincing pointed out, people make a conscious effort to avoid the so-called collateral damage.
DJ
DJ
kkeefe
Member Since: May 12, 2002
entire network: 1,416 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 07:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Art 52. General Protection of civilian objects
Great find Shaun!
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 11:09 AM UTC
Thanks Kevin. Like I said, it took me forever. It also took everything I had not to put a current events spin on that post.
Glad to help,
Shaun.
Glad to help,
Shaun.
4-Eyes71
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 09, 2004 - 12:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I firmly believe people honestly try to avoid destroying any structure (farm, barn, museum, church). Sometimes it is unavoidable. But, as so convincing pointed out, people make a conscious effort to avoid the so-called collateral damage.
DJ
I could not help but bring up the rather obvious. I somehow wish the Iraqis understand this. These militants are sure to inflame their emotions if any mosques get damaged or destroyed in the process.
Since these are paramilitary/insurgents, I don't think they heard or read any of these rules from Hague or Geneva.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 12:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI firmly believe people honestly try to avoid destroying any structure (farm, barn, museum, church). Sometimes it is unavoidable. But, as so convincing pointed out, people make a conscious effort to avoid the so-called collateral damage.
DJ
I could not help but bring up the rather obvious. I somehow wish the Iraqis understand this. These militants are sure to inflame their emotions if any mosques get damaged or destroyed in the process.
Since these are paramilitary/insurgents, I don't think they heard or read any of these rules from Hague or Geneva.
You are absolutely correct. Their actions use a mask of religion to cover their inhumane criminal activities. It has nothing to do with worshipping a supreme being or respecting your fellow man. It has everything to with greed and jealousy. Some folks are just too lazy to get a life and would rather place a weapon between someone's eyes and threaten them. Thus, they do not have to work and can continue to live off the labor of others. Until the world wakes up to the threat these criminals pose, we will continue to see so-called spiritual leaders incite criminals. They are no more spiritual leaders than Hitler. In fact, they resemble him on a daily basis with their refusal to appreciate others ways of life in the world and the perfect right of people to continue to have that lifestyle in a given society.
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.