[pbhjpbhj]

There's a better one still IMO. It's a place of worship, you're supposed to look at the images and ponder your relationship with, and position before, the Almighty Creator. If you're messing around with your camera, or others are, then you're invariably far to distracted to meditate on higher things.

[chrismcb]

So, one is only allowed to ponder your relationship before the Almighty Creator while one is in the Sistine Chapel? Or am I not supposed to be distracted by the beautiful works of art? While I appreciate the need to respect others who may want some peace and quite while worshiping, this is total hogwash. One can ponder one's relationship with their creator ANYWHERE, not just in some small made up room.

[jacquesm]

Except of course that that particular room was made for exactly that purpose.

As a total atheist I would still very much want to make room for the people who are using that place for its original purpose as opposed to me, who just comes to appreciate the work of the man that spent an appreciable part of his life creating one of our most important works of art. Even though they could do what they're doing anywhere and I could do (until I saw this link) what I'm doing only there.

[gnaritas]

That's a terrible reason, it's a tourist attraction, not a place of worship;even if it still were many don't care about your superstitions and don't need or want your superstitions imposed upon them. We don't all walk around with delusions of a creator in our minds.

[pbhjpbhj]

>not a place of worship //

Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel? And they don't have art work depicting the lives of important people in the Christian faith, or imagery that Christians might use as part of their worship.

When the Sistine Chapel choir sings the Miserere, say, to assembled members of the Roman Catholic church, you don't think that maybe, just maybe that means that the people who own the building consider it to be - perhaps - just a tiny bit of a building for religious devotion ... now what's that word, oh yeah, perhaps they consider it to be a chapel.

Would you go to a Mosque, perhaps the Great Mosque in Istanbul, and say "people shouldn't be imposing their religion on me, like, just because I came to a mosque".

"Why should I respect your beliefs as a Christian when I choose to visit a Christian chapel" is that really your considered opinion?

TBH if it weren't for your long standing on this site I'd have dismissed your comment as an obvious troll.

Now if I go picking apart your need to hide from God, your desire to run from the truth, your imposition of your beliefs on others in an affront to the truth ... I'm guessing you're going to consider that this isn't really the appropriate forum for such a conversation, that I'm being crass and troll-like, no? Perhaps you'll start by telling me you're only interested in the truth despite your "not a place of worship" claim being the most obvious of falsehoods and putting the lie to such a notion ...

- - -

¹ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQyLXKdF_M Roman Catholic mass being celebrated in the Sistine Chapel, March 2013.

[lmm]

> Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel?

They don't use it as one, at least most of the time. There are too many people passing through for it to be a place of worship or reflection. Once you start selling entry to tourists you lose the right to demand they do something other than tourism, IMO.

If they really wanted to keep it as a place of worship they'd close it to the unbaptized and allow free entry (as is done with the Kaaba IIRC). Of course, that would be much less profitable.

[pbhjpbhj]

Just on a point of fact, you can worship/reflect/meditate anywhere, of course. It's like being at a pop concert in some ways, the imagery was commissioned with a purpose - which at least in part was to aid worship of God - if everyone is waving cameras around that inhibits that purpose in a way which is easily remedied. Cutting back to the thread start I was offering a reason to prohibit photography in the Sistine Chapel that I felt was better than some others, that's all.

Second point: The Kaaba, in Mecca is only accessible to Muslims. There are Umrah/Hajj costs to pay to get anywhere near the Kaaba.

[gnaritas]

Was there some part of "even if it still were" that you found confusing? Obviously it "was" a chapel, now it's a tourist attraction.

> Now if I go picking apart your need to hide from God

Don't be a fool, I'm not hiding from something that doesn't exist. I don't have any "needs" related to your delusions.

[jacquesm]

True, but 1000 flash bulbs going off every minute is also not helping to see anything at all.

[gnaritas]

Never said it was.

[punee]

Yeah, sure, Mr. "Smalltalk and C# developer", the Sistine Chapel is a tourist attraction.

I am not sure if you have "delusions of a creator" but you sure seem to have other delusions.

Some people on Hacker News are honestly embarrassingly retarded.

[gnaritas]

It is a tourist attraction and you'd be a fool to try and deny that.

> Some people on Hacker News are honestly embarrassingly retarded.

Yes, you are.