Papua New Guinea's speaker destroys 'pagan' carvings.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would be outraged too -even if you aren't a pagan, these are still part of your cultural heritage. 

Then I approve of this action strongly.

(Hyperbole. Actually no. But seriously, "cultural heritage" is turning into something I'm growing disgusted by.)

When one is to the point of denying it to other people who aren't disgusted by an extremely broad concept that's both nebulous and unavoidably pervasive, I would hope we can all agree that one has gone way too far. That's not being 'counterculture', that's being Herostratus of Ephesus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Iconoclasm has as long a history as anything else.

But an iconoclasm that targeted cultural heritage insofar as it is cultural heritage rather than because of any actual real or perceived problems with what that cultural heritage involves would be a far-more-than-usually--although not unprecedentedly--puerile iconoclasm. Although I guess it does suit the times, in a sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Iconoclasm has as long a history as anything else.

But an iconoclasm that targeted cultural heritage insofar as it is cultural heritage rather than because of any actual real or perceived problems with what that cultural heritage involves would be a far-more-than-usually--although not unprecedentedly--puerile iconoclasm. Although I guess it does suit the times, in a sense.

But it's the latter what this person is doing.

I know. I was talking about BRTD's (as he admits hyperbolic) approval; I guessed, maybe falsely, that Xahar was too.

Once again I was being hyperbolic and don't approve of this. I judt disapprove of the wording that something should be respected BECAUSE of "cultural heritage" rather than simply being historical items. Especially if the person in question no longer has anything to do with that and has rejected it. Though this guy is going further and is being a dick.

'Cultural heritage' in this context means historical items with particular significance to a certain area or group of people. Who else was supposed to take care of and value these carvings? Some museum in London?

To put things into perspective, my grandmother seemed to have an air of disapproval when I said one of my pastors is a Vietnamese immigrant and Buddhist convert, obviously she's not a Buddhist but her attitude seemed to be that Buddhism is what her culture is and what her family is and she should stay with that because your family and culture doesn't change and abandoning that is just wrong. Of course she wouldn't like any white converts to Buddhism either. It's a view I imagine most people of our generation would find strange, but I bet Snowstalker and a good chunk of people in Ireland would agree to some level. That's what I think of when I hear about "cultural heritage".

You've told this story before. What I think of is a friend of mine from India who feels listless and not really at home anywhere because when he and his parents moved to New Jersey he was bullied without end until he learned to change his accent and eventually half-forget how to speak Hindi.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Slightly off topic, but I'm very curious- in the upper midwest is there a distinct cultural heritage which is passed through the generations? By that I mean, if someone were to be brought up in a (say) Italian-American household, would they still identify as a Catholic even if they never went to church and didn't believe in God?

Some would, surely, but, BRTD holds, not nearly as many as in other parts of the country or the world. Of course BRTD's social group is probably a pretty unrepresentative cross-section of the Upper Midwest but I see no reason to really doubt him on this and those of us who frequent Religion & Philosophy have generally decided to acknowledge that he's probably right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Abrahamic Slave Morality.

Thank you for your insightful and original analysis.

I feel kind of bad now, because I've got two serious and interesting answers to a facetious point, and it's my fault for not being clear (I should have used a wink or been super hyperbolic)- so sorry all. I like pretty much everyone else on the forum accept that the upper midwest has less of cultural religion (as opposed to a religion being a hypothesis which you assent to based on what you see as evidence and nothing more), I was trying to make the point that you (BRTD) mention it in almost every thread, no matter how tangential it is to the topic.

In fairness to BRTD it's at least vaguely relevant here, because it's relevant to why a Papuan might (or might not) care about the carvings. I think his distinction between his bête noire 'cultural heritage' and an apparently acceptably protected status as 'historical items' is specious in this case but it's his right to make it if he wants to. (Incidentally, I'm not sure that 'a hypothesis which you assent to based on what you see as evidence and nothing more' accurately describes Religion The BRTD Way either--note that he's made mention, including in this thread, of considerations like what environment one might want to raise one's own children in, what's available in one's area, what seems to suit one's political leanings, et cetera--but it's certainly closer than religion as a sort of calque for ethnic or familial attachments.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's about time someone got to 'em.

This essentially sums up my view on thid. Christianity would have found it hard to progress and obtain it's dominant position (in terms of the faith held by the majority of people in the western world, at least until the 20th century) without isolating and/or crushing rival systems of 'belief'. As to the comment that this form of Christianity is intellectually and philosophically lazy, well, all I can say is that not everybody has the intelligence and is well-versed enough in philosophy to understand the deeper points of Christianity (I certainly don't). Does that mean it should simply fester on the irrelevent fringe of those capable of understanding the religion in it's entirety? No, and if some purity of thought is sacrificed in the process of getting the basic message across, then, frankly, the end justifies the means.

I really, really don't think that this sort of behavior is, at least at this point in history, at all necessary to 'obtain[ing] a dominant position' or 'getting the basic message across', and am unconvinced that it ever was. I'm also unconvinced that an earnest desire to propagate the Faith is really your main motivation for holding this position.