BS: Church V State

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 07:53 AM

"Hmmm....unless they've been watching a lot of TV."
Hmmm.... sounds like literacy snobbery to me! - it's a myth that if you don't read, you don't know anything.
The 'Egyptian' and Middle Eastern connection is quite common among Travellrs - Gordon Boswell spoke at length on it during the making of The Travelling People.
Travellers were said to have been first condemned to take to the roads as a punishment for making the nails for Christ's crucifixion. , and their part in building the pyramids is a common piece of folklore among then - read Borrow.
It's not beyond the realms of fantasy that itinerant tribes were sold into slavery - basically, the song is a boast on the well-proven fact that Travelleers are capable of turning their hands to anything to make a living, wherever they are.
Johnny was a Traveller activist who learned to read (sort of) shortly before we met him in 1973, while a guest of Her Maj in Winson Green Prison for his activities.
He wrote a chapter of Jeremy Sandford's book, 'Gypsies', which is how we got to know him.
He became an Irish representative on the European Gypsy Council, where he met Travellers from all over the world, while at the same time, collecting scrap in London.
Amazing what you can do when you set your mind to it - even if you only have the rudimentarys of reading - one amazing man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 07:54 AM

Gollocks!!


http://www.wexfordweb.com/tintern.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM

Hmmm.... sounds like literacy snobbery to me!

Hell no, just remembering what you said once about the impact of TV on traditional Traveller culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 08:30 AM

Should these parts of our heritage get state support ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 08:33 AM

"Hell no, just remembering what you said once about the impact of TV on traditional Traveller culture."
That was about the destruction of the tradition - not about the tradition itself.
Don't forget, the term 'Gypsy' is a misinterpretation - a claim that they originally came from Egypt ,and were a lost tribe of the Jews who fled Pharaoh's wrath.
Nice to know that something I once said was remembered though!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 08:52 AM

#, my response last night seems to have been lost in the ether.

You have a point about Mayan Temples, and we can add Kivas in the Southwest, ritualistic ball courts, the large burial mounds of the Mississippian nations, and totem poles honoring mythic ancestors of the Northwest Coast, to name only a few. But you must recall that when Columbus landed the first time in North America that he concluded the natives must be heathens because there were no church spires in view amongst their buildings. ;-) I didn't draw a line between all of the possibilities because the discussion was Western style churches, and in particular, something only slightly older than the Victorian churchyard as mentioned in a post above.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 08:58 AM

Level pegging Davie Boy ......... one more post and I'll have WON!!!!


Yippee, you're only hope is to get the thread deleted.

What should I do ........ get a blue plaque made or celebrate with a pint of Guinness ...... no contest really.

AND as a bonus not one post from his nibs since Sunday!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM

And as I can't spell YOUR I now claim victory

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM

Should they get state support? Absolutely. Remove the religions and their pious idiocy that mars many a visit to a nice cathedral with calls to prayer which everyone's somehow obliged to respect. Here's a piece I did based around a field-recording I made in York Minster - they were turning the organ when the call to prayer came...

York : Prayer & Pilgrimage (aka Cursed Deference) 20th & 23rd December 2013

In Durham Cathedral, you're not even allowed to take photographs. A lot of cathedrals will charge £5 - £10 for a permit , York covers it in the entry free - valid for year if you gift aid it, whereas Norwich is free these days with voluntary donations, which I'm only too happy to give. I once had an unpleasant run-in with a cathedral usher in Bristol who told me I had to stop akin pictures because the service had started. 'But there's no one here!' I protested, which there wasn't apart from a small gathering in the quire. He demanded respect, but I heartily apologised and told told him I couldn't oblige.   

*

Don't forget, the term 'Gypsy' is a misinterpretation - a claim that they originally came from Egypt ,and were a lost tribe of the Jews who fled Pharaoh's wrath.

Seems this teacher took this legend a little too literally - thought that by teaching them about Ancient Egypt she was enriching their heritage.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM

XX, As has already been stated, get rid of the religious money grabbers and have the state run them seems like a good idea ..... however I have seen at first hand how organisation like English Heritage and the National Trust waste sheds loads of money.

For example some years ago an archaeological dig was taking place at Whitby Abbey. I drove past one Saturday afternoon and saw what I took to be cloches I presumed the multi-coloured cloths were protecting graves that had been excavated. I found later that they were an "art installation" and that the "artist" had been paid (I think) £25,000 !!

Personally I like the Irish approach, many ancient ruins are kept in order by the state and can be accessed free of charge, no ice-cream vendors, no tourist tat shop and you can wander round to your hearts content.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:27 AM

From the Wiki notes on Jamie Macpherson -

Forasmeikle as you James McPherson, pannal [accused] are found guilty by ane verdict of ane assyse, to be knoun, holden, and repute to be Egiptian and a wagabond, and oppressor of his Magesties free lieges in ane bangstrie manner, and going up and down the country armed, and keeping mercats in ane hostile manner, and that you are a thief, and that you are of pessimae famae. Therfor, the Sheriff-depute of Banff, and I in his name, adjudges and discernes you the said James McPherson to be taken to the Cross of Banff, from the tolbooth thereof, where you now lye, and there upon ane gibbet to be erected, to be hanged by the neck to the death by the hand of the common executioner, upon Friday next, being the 16th day of November instant, being a public weekly mercat day, betwixt the hours of two and three in the afternoon....

So, we now know that Macpherson was an 'Egiptian', which as an offence in Scotland, but WTF was 'keeping mercats in ane hostile manner' all about? Did he go to ComparetheMarket.com for his legal aid or something?

And I win now because I totally ignore your last points.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:59 AM

It,s true, I'm guilty as charged I've crossed a lot of markets in my time ..... yu 'onour

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 12:11 PM

Davie Stewart claimed to be descended from him. For sure, no one could sing the Rant with such conviction or authenticity. But then, I'm a bit of a fan...

http://research.culturalequity.org/get-audio-detailed-recording.do?recordingId=12484

*

I saw MacPherson's broken fiddle once on a childhood holiday in Scotland:

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/newtonmore/clanmacpherson/

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 03:11 PM

The old Highland tinkers had no relationship to Romany Gypsies, I remember the last of them on the roads of Argyll in the 1950's
They made tincraft, kettles and cans, from where came the "tinker" name, they also sold hardware from baskets and played pipes or fiddles(usually very badly)....they carried their homes on their backs and formed bow tents from ash and hazel saplings.
On the East Coast many were employed in seasonal agricultural work
They are long gone and sadly missed by those who still remember them.
They have been replaced by the scrap metal merchants, and cowboy builders who con the elderly all over this part of Scotland.
They now have the protection of Special Status Group, which keeps them above the law on most occasions.
Maccoll said it all in "Thirty foot trailer"

Like the "Working Class", the "Travellers" are a part of history

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 03:49 PM

"Like the "Working Class", the "Travellers" are a part of history"
Not necessarily
Even those that have been (often forcibly) settled consider themselves Travellers and spend half the year Travelling, were possible.
We met a lady who is working with the grand-daughter of one of our best singers in Waterford, who we are told, is now on the road and will not be back till October.
There's enough evidence to suggest this was always the case - Travellers rented houses in winter and prepared the following year's tinware
Travellers always gave a place they identified with, sometimes where they or one of their parents were born, but quite often, where thy chose to stay the winter.
Until urbanisation, they had set routs, which often conined them to one or maybe two counties.
Couldn't begin to understand your "working class" reference - seems was living a lie for fifty years and many of my family still are...
But not here.
Jim CarrollA

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 04:29 PM

Like the "Working Class", the "Travellers" are a part of history

What planet are you on, Ache?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 02:56 AM

There are "workers", but the "working class" as an organised political entity has been decimated.

Technology has done the same to the "tinkers"


Jim ...our house stands on an isolated crossroads, in the early fifties the door was always open, and the travellers knew that there was always a cup of tea, a fill of tobacco and in the cold weather a nip of whisky waiting for them.
They always insisted on leaving a string of "whangs"(leather boot laces), a card of buttons, or some hooks and eyes and a "purn" of thread...they could tell the finest stories.....our family were well known to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:03 AM

but the "working class" as an organised political entity has been decimated.

The working class never were an organised political entity, rather the servile underdogs of a stratified system of cultural & economic apartheid that continues unabated from the Norman Conquest (and earlier) to the present day.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:39 AM

Stated above: as for the great cathedrals, abbey, friaries of the UK a good majority were "stolen" from the catholic faith who originally built them.

As a Catholic, I've heard that, but I wonder if it's true. Who really "owns" the York Minster, for example? The Church of Rome, or the Church of England? I think it's the people of York who have the most legitimate claim to the building.

Nowadays, though, Gothic cathedrals are huge liabilities, and it costs lots of money to preserve them. They're of little use to churches in this day and age. Should they be torn down? If not, who should pay for their upkeep?

We have the same problem with the Franciscan missions here in California. They're a terrific tourist attraction, but they don't work very well as churches any more. So, who should own them, and who should pay for their upkeep?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:43 AM

"Jim ...our house stands on an isolated crossroads, in the early fifties the door was always open, and the travellers knew that there was always a cup of tea"
All very romantic Ake, but your earlier posting reads like the interviews MacColl and Parkerdid with householders who were claiming that "these people aren't real Travellers", and that they "don't want to live like us" and insisted that they be driven out of the society of "decent people"
One man described "the dark-haired bints in long dresses dancing around the camp-fires" wearing earrings and beating tambourines".
This is dangerous, racist nonsense and has led to the persecution of today's Travellers that we witnesses (and sometimes experienced because of our association with them), throughout the time we worked with them.
Nobody knows for certain how Travellers originated - the earliest of them probably came from Asia, but persecution, urbanisation and inter-marriage makes nonsense of claims of being "a real Gypsy" or "a real Romany" - a term used to scapegoat the Scots and the Irish, sadly, often by English Travellers.
The offensive description you give of " the scrap metal merchants, and cowboy builders who con the elderly all over this part of Scotland", is largely due to Travellers losing their traditional rural occupations, moving into cities and picking up the worst of city habits.
It may describe a small number of them, and it equally applies to groups of settled people using shady methods to eke out a living in post-Thatcher Britain.
As someone who describes himself as a Socialist, you really should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt that you are.
I agree entirely with what Jack Blandiver said about your equally nonsensical view of the working class.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 04:04 AM

As a Catholic, I've heard that, but I wonder if it's true

It is. Same with all other medieval cathedrals in the UK. Though York Minster often hosts events by other faiths (at a cost) the rite is very much Anglican. Much emphasis is placed on continuity of Christian Worship at these sites, but it's the discontinuity that makes it interesting.

https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/our-buildings/cathedrals.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 04:38 AM

I think most people can understand the vast cost of maintaining such buildings as Durham Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, however the church now charges exorbitant amounts of money to even enter the building. They do set aside a small chapel at York Minster for people who just want to pray. This is carefully screened off so you cannot see the interior of the main building. I, for one, refuse to pay the fee to enter such a building and confine myself to looking at the external architecture. At York adult admission is £10 for the minster or £15 for the minster and tower. I would gladly make a donation (probably equal to if not exceeding the fee) if I were not being "forced" to pay it. However judging by the number of people who do visit each day, week, month, year (some 1,600,000 in 2000) visitor fees alone are substantial, that is not taking into account money spent on tourist tat which seems to be ever present(and in increasing amounts) at such venues together with guide books, candles etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 05:42 AM

The buildings were paid for by the fruits of the labour of working people in the area. I guess some credit might be due to effective planning and management by the fuedal heirarchy - but they paid themselves well enough for that.

Unlike (as it would seem) some folks here I can't go round these places without being reminded of the inequality and authoritarian nature of the society that built them. But unlike the same folks here I don't think that is relevant now - it's in the past.

I still think it's OK for some of those in the present day heirarchy to be chosen to express their views in an organised talking shop. Otherwise they and the rest of the gang there would be doing it behind closed doors. They may still be but leaks revealing hypocrisy and inconsistency spread fast now.

Just at the moment they same to be arguing against current inequalities.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 05:50 AM

On an early visit to London I was quite amazed at the high cost of entering Westminster Abbey compared to the free entry to Westminster Cathedral. On looking it up I see that the Abbey is now £20 for a standard adult ticket while the Cathedral is still free apart from entry of £6 to the viewing gallery in the tower and there is a separate exhibition of treasures for which the cost is £5. At least it is free to just have a look round. Not sure what this tells us though.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:13 AM

"I still think it's OK for some of those in the present day heirarchy to be chosen to express their views in an organised talking shop. Otherwise they and the rest of the gang there would be doing it behind closed doors. They may still be but leaks revealing hypocrisy and inconsistency spread fast now"

My problem XX as I have said before the church has 26 seats in the House of Lords in perpetuity. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any say in the matter. We, the people, cannot decide we do not like what they are saying or doing and remove them. It can easily be argued that they are not representative of the population, a small minority of people attend church on a regular basis and those numbers are propped up by the migrant population (which is sure to "please" a number of posters on this forum.)

The House of Lords in it's current format is an anachronism which is past it's sell by date, but as I've previously stated that is a separate discussion. I would prefer if people would stay on the main argument much as I love architecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:17 AM

At York adult admission is £10 for the minster or £15 for the minster and tower.

Peanuts compared to what you get for your money. As I said earlier, if you Gift-Aid it, it's valid for a whole year. I don't think you can say fairer than that really.

Unlike (as it would seem) some folks here I can't go round these places without being reminded of the inequality and authoritarian nature of the society that built them. But unlike the same folks here I don't think that is relevant now - it's in the past.

History is integral to our heritage. For sure, it's pretty rancid but the old hierarchies endure defining the nature of British society from the homeless to the monarchy. Remember, such functionalist conservatism is an integral part of Christian thinking. As they still sing : the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate - God made them high and lowly - He ordered their estate. All things bright and beautiful etc.

Not sure what this tells us though.

It tells us that Westminster Abbey (c. 1090) is a very different sort of place to Westminster Cathedral (c. 1903). Love them both myself; the latter was recently mistaken for a mosque by the idiots of UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:30 AM

Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any say in the matter.

This is a democracy.
When enough people want change, it will happen.
The fact is that it is not an issue for many people at all.
When did you last hear it being discussed anywhere other than Mudcat?

We have abolished hereditary peers.
We have gay marriage.
When enough people want change, it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:39 AM

Jack, As XX has clearly stated these buildings were erected by the labour of "the people" the masons, the carpenters etc etc. Now I, and you, have to pay to visit a so-called house of god. Something fundamentally wrong with that in my book.

BTW I do understand the massive cost of upkeep. I used to be responsible for the running of various buildings in my employ for most of the last twenty years of my working life.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:45 AM

Not wishing to put too fine a point on it KAOH


FUCK OFF!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:47 AM

Now I, and you, have to pay to visit a so-called house of god.

Why should you expect something for nothing?
Attendance at services is free, but a voluntary collection will be made.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:48 AM

Rag, re. your post 15 Jul 15 - 06:45 AM,

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:12 AM

Jack, As XX has clearly stated these buildings were erected by the labour of "the people" the masons, the carpenters etc etc.

Nothing so very clear about it, Raggytash - it's just rhetoric, and quite inaccurate at that. These buildings were erected by highly skilled labourers and master of various guilds in direct employ of the Church and it does us good to remember their artistry & cough up a miserly fee in the hope it's directed to the upkeep so that future generations may enjoy it too. Am I remembering that it costs somewhere in the region of £20,000 a week just to keep York Minster warm & dry?

This is hardly Folk Art we're talking about here, despite some cunning flourishes on the vernacular of the time, theological & otherwise. For £10 quid you're getting access to the enduring legacy of human ingenuity however ill-founded or mis-directed, but the same might be said of the Pyramids or Stonehenge or my humble old Victorian terraced house or the M6. So I happily pay my tenner for a few hour's time-travelling whilst seeking out the devil that endures in the details of the centuries.

I'm an atheist so God really has nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:23 AM

Jack, As I've previously stated I do not mind contributing to the upkeep of the building but to have someone forbid me to enter unless I pay does not sit right with me.

The Anglican Church is an extremely wealthy organisation, even I was surprised at the vast amount of investments they had two years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23467750

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:26 AM

As XX has clearly stated these buildings were erected by the labour of "the people"

No I didn't. I said "The buildings were paid for by the fruits of the labour of working people in the area." The masons etc were paid by money collected as taxation, tithes and so on.

However, even if a building was put up by public subscription maintenance has to be paid for. Whether it is from general taxation or a fee on the door is a debate that goes beyond old churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM

You can not get in to the Tower of London without payment.
You can attend a service at any church or cathedral for nothing.
Most churches are left open and free all day too.
Perhaps you expect them to pay you something Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:49 AM

Minor point but attending a service is not nothing. It is time that could be far better spent appreciating the art and architecture of the building. I do not know for certain but I strongly suspect that if you started wandering round the abbey during a service you would be asked to sit down or leave.

As to the difference between Westminster abbey and cathedral, yes,the age is significant but is not the cost in maintaining both very high? If so, why does one charge and the other not? Anything to do with one giving something back to the people while the other, being part of the state, is still taxing them? Just asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:12 AM

You can get into Salisbury Cathedral without paying if you really want to dig in, but you have to run the gauntlet of the extremely vigilant staff at the "voluntary donations" booth! :-). I think it's a suggested £7.50 these days. The same applies at Bath Abbey (wonderful) but the suggested donation is two quid. Pay up!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:30 AM

"These buildings were erected by highly skilled labourers and master of various guilds"
No they weren't - the intricate work may be carried out by artisans and craftsmen (who were very much a part of the labouring classes - certainly not princes, Dukes, Bishops, merchants...) but the heavy lifting was done by unskilled labour - no diffrent from any other job requiring a mixture of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:32 AM

Times I've been to Westminster Cathedral I was in the company of practising Catholics who attended for Mass. I don't think Westminster Abbey has the same intensity of devotion somehow - maybe that's true of Anglicanism as a whole?? I never sense much religion in York Minster - just the occasional call to prayer or a wee service going on in as side chapel - it's mostly happy tourists. Do you get tourists in Westminster Cathedral in the same way I wonder? Even in the Mersey Funnel the place seems weirdly votive somehow. Norwich Catholic Cathedral likewise (well worth a look by the way). I used to attend Evensong in Durham Cathedral because of the music - nice to sit up there and be immersed in so vivid a choral tradition unbroken but a brief hiatus during the republican era. I don't think you have to pay though...

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:44 AM

"You can not get in to the Tower of London without payment."
No church, or cathedral is in any way comparable to The Tower of London with all its displays.
You don't have to pay to enter art galleries and museums in Britain - far more culturally important and informative than anything any church, and essential to our and our children's education.
Only a tenth of the population visit church. and well over half the voting population are opposed to paying for and in many cases allowing religious schools.
Perhaps the churches should be considering changing for services as it is very much a minority habit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM

no diffrent from any other job requiring a mixture of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour.

Do you get much unskilled labour on a building site? Not in my young day! You got a lot of pride in a job well done & well earned pay packet whatever the time-served skill. Sorry if this getting all a bit Auf Wiedersehen, Pet! (and I know I'm talking to a skilled spark) but you have an even more exacting cause for precision at all stages of the job in medieval Romanesque & Gothic architecture. Then as now - unskilled meant unemployed.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:50 AM

There is much more to see in a church or cathedral than just the building, and the services are the reason they exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket laughing
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM

"services are the reason they exist."

More God botherers nonsense.

There are thousands of old buildings that used to be churches but like Jesus, society has less use for them than they used to when the majority of people were superstitious.

Even those that are used for rituals, many have lottery grants that include making the building available for non Jesus use. I sang at a concert in a church only a few weeks ago. Booked for a concert of acoustic roots. The church has to demonstrate being active in attracting bookings for community use that has nothing to do with their hobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 10:55 AM

"£Do you get much unskilled labour on a building site?"
Compared to what?
Hod carriers, mixers, general labourers, tea lads, all need certain skills, but how would compare them with sparks, carpenters, plumbers.. all of whom come with training and certification (nowadays)
"Then as now - unskilled meant unemployed."
Fair enough, but you mentioned highly skilled labour, masters and guilds, which is what I was responding to.
"There is much more to see in a church or cathedral than just the building"
o there isn,t, basically you go in to look at the architecture (unless they have the odd Caravaggio hanging on the wall)
"and the services are the reason they exist."
Nine people out of ten have rejected general use of the ordinary church, and those people who use Cathedrals and Abbeys for worship are miniscule, and quite often confined to the elite.
As Musket says, you don't need an elaborate, cold draughty damp and often neglected building to worship, anywhere will do.
When one local church was renovated years ago, the faithful went to mass in the pub (Gleesoms, for anybody who knows this area).      
As god is supposed to be everywhere, you don't need a building at all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:33 AM

The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services.

Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those.

Churches may allow other events between services but, as I said, the services are the reason churches exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:40 AM

Churches may allow other events between services but, as I said, the services are the reason churches exist.

Howsabout....

The Fall - Manchester Cathedral 29/05/2015

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM

Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those.

I don't think that is strictly true. People pay for various things at, for instance, All Souls, Bolton or Circomedia at St Paul's, Bristol. As churches fall out of use they will, thankfully, be better utilised and provide a service rather than just, er, a service... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:24 PM

People pay to use a holiday let I own in Fife that used to be a chapel.. Still got the altar, although I moved it to the back where we built a kitchen annex. It makes an excellent island, and we had a double butler sink cut into it.

Most old ruins that used to be churches are run by English Heritage, NT etc, and people pay good money to walk round them.

They may have been built to the glory of some god or other, but they remain to the glory of man and heritage.

By the way, many churches do not "allow" other things but are required to open up the use of the building in return for certain charitable funding. It isn't in the gift of the church to dictate terms when agreeing to conditions, same as any other applicant for grants.

Do you think people only visit churches because of the weekly rituals? No wonder it's called the god delusion....

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:27 PM

"The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services."
Leaving aside the hoodoo, if they no longer fulfill their purpose for a significant enough number of people, they should be closed or given to communities for something else.
Many Church of Ireland Protestant Churches are used as music venues, and some for heritage centres
Tuamgraney
Why continue to keep buildings that are empty, especially if they become dangerous if they are not maintained or unused (perhaps god is looking for new tenants up there!!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:31 PM

For the third time...

Change hands.