Tuesday, January 16, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

by Tim Butcher, The Daily Telegraph

A little comedy.

Reposted from:
http://www.nysun.com/article/46585

JERUSALEM — A controversy is brewing in one of the holiest Christian shrines, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, after the Israeli government found that it violates health and safety rules because it has only one exit.

Israel says an emergency exit must be built even though this risks antagonizing the three mutually suspicious Christian communities who run the church built on the site where Jesus is said to have been crucified and resurrected.

But while the three communities — Greek Orthodox, Franciscans, and Armenian Orthodox — rarely agree among themselves, they are unanimous in their opposition to the building of a second door.

"Such an action would be an unprecedented violation of the status quo," a Franciscan spokesman said.

The Israeli Jerusalem affairs minister, Yaakov Edri, was shocked when he recently joined Christian pilgrims visiting the Holy Sepulchre.

"If there was a fire inside the church near the door, people inside would have no way of escaping," he said.

Prime Minister Olmert is backing Mr. Edri's call for an emergency exit to be constructed.

In the mid-1990s, the three Christian communities failed to reach an agreement on an emergency exit to cope with the large surge in pilgrims expected for the millennium.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 32 of 32 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #17799 by Mel Z on January 16, 2007 at 4:01 pm

"If there was a fire inside the church near the door, people inside would have no way of escaping,"

And this is bad because?.....

Other Comments by Mel Z

2. Comment #17800 by NeoGothic on January 16, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Wow. The religious fail to use reason even when building their temples.

Other Comments by NeoGothic

3. Comment #17804 by diquea on January 16, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Because most of us don't like to see loss of any life. I'm hoping that was not serious though.

Other Comments by diquea

4. Comment #17808 by Chris Davis on January 16, 2007 at 5:12 pm

You'd expect a church to be more intelligently designed.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

5. Comment #17809 by Homo economicus on January 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm

The importance of health and safety being secular could not be better illustrated.

Seriously though. For sites with historical significance are there different applications of health and safety requirments around the world?

Other Comments by Homo economicus

6. Comment #17817 by Jack Rawlinson on January 16, 2007 at 6:14 pm

"an unprecedented violation of the status quo"

Man, I haven't heard that expression since I goosed Francis Rossi in 1974

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

7. Comment #17820 by Fouad Boussetta on January 16, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Mel Z wrote:

""If there was a fire inside the church near the door, people inside would have no way of escaping,"

And this is bad because?....."

Ha ha ha, that's hilarious!

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

8. Comment #17826 by debugrr on January 16, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Chris Davis wrote:

"You'd expect a church to be more intelligently designed."

i almost blacked out, laughing so hard.

Other Comments by debugrr

9. Comment #17838 by DavidMarsh on January 17, 2007 at 1:10 am

"I suppose putting in a second exit in case of fire would reveal a lack of faith..."

I've always felt similar about churches with lightning rods on them, to me it shows a lack of faith.

Other Comments by DavidMarsh

10. Comment #17840 by Lord Asriel on January 17, 2007 at 1:40 am

"You'd expect a church to be more intelligently designed."

Of course it IS intelligently designed.
The designer simply knew that there will never be a fire!

Other Comments by Lord Asriel

11. Comment #17841 by Jiten on January 17, 2007 at 2:08 am

Chris Davis wrote

You'd expect a church to be more intelligently designed.

Great stuff!

Other Comments by Jiten

12. Comment #17846 by captain underpants on January 17, 2007 at 2:53 am

Why would an omnipotent, benevolent god allow there to be a fire in the church?

Other Comments by captain underpants

13. Comment #17850 by Duff on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 am

Our omnipotent, benevolent god has never allowed there to be a fire in any of his churches. Never!! Never never never! If you tell me that is not true, I will deny it with all my being. I will never, never believe such a thing. I believe, I believe!! I do, I do, I do!

Other Comments by Duff

14. Comment #17851 by Luthien on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 am

1. Comment #17799 by Mel Z on January 16, 2007 at 4:01 pm

"If there was a fire inside the church near the door, people inside would have no way of escaping,"

And this is bad because?.....

Well, who will save them, eh? ;-)

Re. the lightning rods on churches comment, I seem to remember someone saying that was the first great victory of science over religion.

Other Comments by Luthien

15. Comment #17855 by saneatheist on January 17, 2007 at 3:57 am

One of my local churches was burned down, an act of god?
http://www.visitcumbria.com/wc/chw4.htm

Other Comments by saneatheist

16. Comment #17857 by elzoog on January 17, 2007 at 4:21 am

Saneatheist:

Since god would never allow a fire in one of his churches, the church you mention must obviously not be one of his "true churches".

Other Comments by elzoog

17. Comment #17859 by Will S on January 17, 2007 at 4:28 am

Just to be slightly serious: isn't it striking how the various denominations are constantly squabbling over the management of these sacred sites? If Christianity really is a religion of peace, reconciliation and love, surely you'd expect them to be able (at least there if not anywhere else!) to work out a sensible way of going about things.

OK - if you're a Christian reading this, your knee-jerk reaction is likely to be that I'm a nasty atheist who's making a nasty debating point. But think about it. In all seriousness, isn't there an indication here that there's something wrong with the underlying ideas?

Other Comments by Will S

18. Comment #17862 by Roy_H on January 17, 2007 at 4:34 am

Yes it needs at least 2 exits, but ideally no entrances.

"Since god would never allow a fire in one of his churches" What about York Minster in 1984, or was that "Tongue in cheek" ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/9/newsid_2498000/2498525.stm

Other Comments by Roy_H

19. Comment #17865 by dom9inic on January 17, 2007 at 4:47 am

Given that there have been a number of human tragedies surrounding over crowding and death at religious sites, they ought to take more notice of health and safety.

Other Comments by dom9inic

20. Comment #17867 by Luthien on January 17, 2007 at 5:01 am

Saneatheist says:

"Since god would never allow a fire in one of his churches, the church you mention must obviously not be one of his 'true churches'."

Perhaps we could determine who the "true church" actually is? Someone should compile the statistics on all accidents occurring on the "sacred ground" of every religious denomination. If there really is a "true church" they should have a clean record. ;-)

Other Comments by Luthien

21. Comment #17868 by MouthAlmighty on January 17, 2007 at 5:33 am

Perhaps we could determine who the "true church" actually is? Someone should compile the statistics on all accidents occurring on the "sacred ground" of every religious denomination. If there really is a "true church" they should have a clean record. ;-)

Why not evacuate all the holy sites around the world and then simultaneously toss a petrol bomb into each one? Surely the Big Fella in the sky will have no option but to intercede thereby showing his 'true' hand and settling all the disputes in one go. Any denomination which refused to participate would be demonstrating such an absolute lack of faith as to earn immediate disqualification.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

22. Comment #17872 by madpatriot on January 17, 2007 at 6:02 am

You know, at one time in the past there was no church there. So the building of the church itself was a "violation of the status quo". Let's tear it down!

Living in Alabama, I've seen many churches completely destroyed by tornadoes. Including one destroyed on Palm Sunday (one week before Easter) while the congregation was inside. We also had about a dozen churches hit by arsonists about two years ago - none were destroyed if I remember correctly, but still... It certainly doesn't show God as having a very good track record of protecting his worshippers' investments.

Other Comments by madpatriot

23. Comment #17874 by MaxieZ on January 17, 2007 at 6:21 am

Not that this needs proving, but there are plenty of church fires that I'm aware of. Especially in the bible belt (where I live).

There was this string about a year ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/12/church.fires/index.html

Granted that's arson, but I'd like to think God could still intervene despite some pesky kids (It turned out to be teenagers doing it. Not a hate group)

In 1902 a Birmingham, Alabama church fire, killed 115 on September 20

Here's are two pages listing church fires
http://gbgm-umc.org/advance/Church-Burnings/firenews.html
http://www.greatdreams.com/church_fires.htm

I've even heard as a result of this people use the phrase "Die in a church fire" as one would call someone a "jerk" (though "Die in a church fire" is obviously a touch more harsh :) ).

About a year ago we had a mega church burn to the ground in the suburbs of Atlanta. I can't remember the cause, but it wasn't arson.

And then we have all the churches destroyed by Katrina (Not fires, but if God is punishing New Orleans for a lesbian comedian living there, you'd think he could spare his property. He at least had that kindness for Lot).

Of course all of this is evidence, which has no place when dealing with religious matters. There are, of course, no church fires

Other Comments by MaxieZ

24. Comment #17875 by gcdavis on January 17, 2007 at 6:24 am

Yeah and while you're at it, lets re-point the wailing wall, and lick of paint wouldn't go amiss!

Other Comments by gcdavis

25. Comment #17876 by epeeist on January 17, 2007 at 6:59 am

"Why not evacuate all the holy sites around the world and then simultaneously toss a petrol bomb into each one"

You mean a bit like the Abbot of Citeaux and the inhabitants of Beziers - "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

Other Comments by epeeist

26. Comment #17878 by Geoff on January 17, 2007 at 7:14 am

15. Comment #17851 by Luthien on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 am

Re. the lightning rods on churches comment, I seem to remember someone saying that was the first great victory of science over religion.

That was Isaac Asimov.

Other Comments by Geoff

27. Comment #17880 by jonecc on January 17, 2007 at 7:57 am

The problem for the theists' point of view is that this is all happening in the middle of a theological and political war zone. The eastern and western Christians have been squabbling since Roman times, and the Eastern Orthodox churches still haven't got over the Catholic sacking of Constantinople in 1205. On top of that, the colonisation of Palestine by European and American settlers has been given a theistic interpretation by the naive. This whole squabble over health and safety is as if the Chinese had interfered in the battle of the Somme to point out to both sides that their trench systems had inadequate damp proofing.

Other Comments by jonecc

28. Comment #17883 by MarcKeys on January 17, 2007 at 9:07 am

Whilst I may not believe in the story behind the building historical architecture is none the less important and should be preserved. Certainly putting a great big fire exit into the church would compromise the original work. There must be an amicable way round for all parties.

Other Comments by MarcKeys

29. Comment #17886 by jeff_n on January 17, 2007 at 9:17 am

epeeist says:

You mean a bit like the Abbot of Citeaux and the inhabitants of Beziers - "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

Interestingly, Blitz Latin translation tool (availble here) reports that "caedite" can be translated as "sodomise" (as well as "chop", "strike" or "slaughter"). So if any Christians out there wish to deny the massacre took place ...

:o)

Other Comments by jeff_n

30. Comment #18108 by whoopscareless on January 18, 2007 at 11:26 am

Actually, there's already a second doorway, but it's been blocked since medieval times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2543319_2,00.html

Other Comments by whoopscareless

31. Comment #19227 by linck on January 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm

If a fire consumes the church and everyone within - Well, God's providence!

His ways might be mysterious but they were never marked with escape signs...that might give people wrong ideas about "leaving" the church.

And who could ever want such a horrible thing to happen? :)

Other Comments by linck

32. Comment #34509 by Cormac on April 24, 2007 at 9:54 am

This would seem a reasonable observation by the Israeli Government. After all, they insist on having a two exits from their buses too. One for men, situated at the front of the bus, which conveniently operates as an entry too. There is a second exit down the back, for the women, which conveniently acts as an entry too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6584661.stm

I thought this kind of thing ended with Rosa Parks of Montgomery fame...

Honestly - modesty buses! Whatever next? Wigs instead of veils?

Last year my wife and I were in an airport in Naples waiting for our flight home. We were surrounded on almost all sides by a bunch of gay american tourists, who were on their way back from a cruise (no pun intended) in the Med. All were in great spirits, and having a great laugh. One seat up from me on my left was an orthodox jewish guy, in his mid-twenties. He was looking fairly uncomfortable with all the sinful sodomites. My wife came to sit down on the only seat available, the one between me and the orthodox guy. He almost puked. Now, my wife is a pretty woman, with a fit size 8 figure, blonde hair, green eyes, and was wearing summer clothes. Any normal guy would appreciate a girl like that sitting next to them. He actually physically turned his body 90 degrees away from her, and moved his bags around so they wouldn't touch her.

I've got to say that this was every bit as bad as the rubbish that many muslims spout about men and women. They're missing out on so much!

Why on earth someone deliberately limits their life in this way I can't imagine.

Naomi Regen is a modern Rosa Parks. Keep up the good work Rosa.

Other Comments by Cormac

Reload Comments | Back to Top