Hawaiian telescope project protested on religious grounds

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the protesters named in the CNN report (hyperlinked within the link) is quoted as saying, “Personally, it’s not so much a cultural issue as it is a human rights/environmental issue.” This protester didn’t even mention religion. So to present the controversy as religion vs. science is inexact. Human rights and environmental protection are easier to analyze in quantifiable terms. Whose rights are being infringed? And how extensive is the alleged damage to the environment? These are questions that courts are accustomed to dealing with.
 
The article stated:

“Considered a temple and a house of worship, native Hawaiians believed the gods created Mauna Kea for them to ascend to the heavens.”

I guess that’s the religious aspect.
 
captainrick said:
The article stated:

“Considered a temple and a house of worship, native Hawaiians believed the gods created Mauna Kea for them to ascend to the heavens.”

I guess that’s the religious aspect.
Click to expand...
There was also mention of a burial ground in the article.
 
I buy it. I am fine with not building the telescope. Sounds like they have plenty of telescopes already. I don’t see much point in pushing it against local opposition. I hope that doesn’t mean I am unAmerican or unCatholic.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I buy it. I am fine with not building the telescope. Sounds like they have plenty of telescopes already. I don’t see much point in pushing it against local opposition. I hope that doesn’t mean I am unAmerican or unCatholic.
Click to expand...
I was born and raised in Hawaii and have followed this political movement since the start. While those protesting the construction of the new telescope on Mauna Kea have a point as far as cultural aspects, it’s also interesting to note there are MANY sites throughout the Hawaiian island where they have NO opinion. The question that begs to be questioned: why Mauna Kea? Is it only because a high profile telescope has been permitted for construction there?

Yes, there several existing telescopes on the peak because this location puts the telescopes provide optimum observation conditions. It’s far above a lot of atmospheric effects, located within the US, and has a robust communication network. There are really not too many sites like this in the entire world and none within the US.

These telescopes are not for the exclusive use of one organization or country but used by literally hundreds of organizations a year. Buying telescope time is extremely expensive and these high tech site cost quite a bit of money to build and to operate.

Another interesting note about the Hawaiian activists: while they observe cultural rites, they generally belong to recognized religions. Protestants, Baptists, LDS, Assembly of God, etc. Very, very few actually claim “pagan” as their religion. In the strictest of definitions, the religion of old Hawaii (defined as pre-European contact) is pagan.

My sense is that the every day person who lives in Hawaii understands their point of view but believe the telescope is a good thing for Hawaii and building the telescope was already approved through official government channels. It’s not like the telescope can be relocated to another location without significant additional cost and there are several telescopes already located on site.
 
808Catholic said:
I was born and raised in Hawaii and have followed this political movement since the start. While those protesting the construction of the new telescope on Mauna Kea have a point as far as cultural aspects, it’s also interesting to note there are MANY sites throughout the Hawaiian island where they have NO opinion. The question that begs to be questioned: why Mauna Kea? Is it only because a high profile telescope has been permitted for construction there?

Yes, there several existing telescopes on the peak because this location puts the telescopes provide optimum observation conditions. It’s far above a lot of atmospheric effects, located within the US, and has a robust communication network. There are really not too many sites like this in the entire world and none within the US.

These telescopes are not for the exclusive use of one organization or country but used by literally hundreds of organizations a year. Buying telescope time is extremely expensive and these high tech site cost quite a bit of money to build and to operate.

Another interesting note about the Hawaiian activists: while they observe cultural rites, they generally belong to recognized religions. Protestants, Baptists, LDS, Assembly of God, etc. Very, very few actually claim “pagan” as their religion. In the strictest of definitions, the religion of old Hawaii (defined as pre-European contact) is pagan.

My sense is that the every day person who lives in Hawaii understands their point of view but believe the telescope is a good thing for Hawaii and building the telescope was already approved through official government channels. It’s not like the telescope can be relocated to another location without significant additional cost and there are several telescopes already located on site.
Click to expand...
I think the telescope is good for more than just Hawaii… Especially if this location is truly as unique as they say in the article.
 
chimo said:
Why don’t they just put down some of their older telescopes and replace them with this newer one?
Click to expand...
Each telescope is legally owned by individual organizations. Although they co-occupy a small section of the peak of Mauna Kea, they are competitors in the sense they each “sell” telescope time. To recover the cost of their original investment, pay their operating expenses, and generate profit that is reinvested back into their organizations is the key. This is similar to airlines who all use the same airport and pay for the rights for the route as well as landing fees. No airlines gives up their route or airport terminal if it’s making them money.
 
chimo said:
Why don’t they just put down some of their older telescopes and replace them with this newer one?
Click to expand...
I believe that part of the proposed compromise includes removing some of the other telescopes.
 
I do not believe it. Thirteen telescopes are not a desecration. Fourteen telescopes however are a desecration? I am all for legitimate religious objections, but this one smells fishy.
 
pnewton said:
I do not believe it. Thirteen telescopes are not a desecration. Fourteen telescopes however are a desecration? I am all for legitimate religious objections, but this one smells fishy.
Click to expand...
Thirteen telescopes are considered a desecration. One telescope is also considered a desecration. If the activists had their way, there would be no telescopes.

Like Texas, there is an active secessionist movement in Hawaii which seeks to make Hawaii into an independent nation, maybe even an independent kingdom, like the old days.
 
Sarcelle said:
Like Texas, there is an active secessionist movement in Hawaii which seeks to make Hawaii into an independent nation, maybe even an independent kingdom, like the old days.
Click to expand...
I would believe that. Then this would be more of a political, sectarian statement. Okay, my opinion will be that this is a reasonable application of eminent domain, but from a Catholic point of view. Namely, that all resources are willed toward the common good, past and present. If this project can benefit all of mankind and only be done here, then it is properly geared to the common good of all.

From the article, “One of the protectors, Kaho’okahi Kanuha, lived on the mountain for months…” I appreciate that this man may feel this establishes a sense of ownership in his mind, but this remains managed lands. As we are taught as kids, share. This mountain is huge. It should be no major accomplishment to manage all archeological sites and the lion’s share of the acreage as a preserve for native Hawaiians, while allowing a few hundred acres for scientific use to benefit the rest of humanity.

I understand where the use for any sort of commercial profit would be out of line.
 
pnewton said:
I would believe that. Then this would be more of a political, sectarian statement. Okay, my opinion will be that this is a reasonable application of eminent domain, but from a Catholic point of view. Namely, that all resources are willed toward the common good, past and present. If this project can benefit all of mankind and only be done here, then it is properly geared to the common good of all.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I myself have had the experience of working and studying the stars in those telescopes. It was an amazing, amazing experience. Studying the stars felt like gazing into God’s face. This experience has played a role in my journey from atheism to the Church.
 
Sarcelle said:
Thirteen telescopes are considered a desecration. One telescope is also considered a desecration. If the activists had their way, there would be no telescopes.

Like Texas, there is an active secessionist movement in Hawaii which seeks to make Hawaii into an independent nation, maybe even an independent kingdom, like the old days.
Click to expand...
While I applaud the Hawaiian people for reviving their culture, I believe they need to be (totally) truthful and knowledgeable about the “old days.” If they’re going to revert to “kingdom” days, the common people exist only to serve the monarchy. Even looking at the monarchs could earn them a death penalty. Rape would require the criminal to drown himself. People could have marital relations within their own family blood lines. Homosexuality would be permissible. Private ownership would disappear and all property would be the kingdom’s to be loaned to whomever the king/queen wants (key to how the original kingdom was lost in the first place.) The pre-European contact kingdom believed in a pagan system of religion and there was no schooling; they youth would be trained on how to work the land, harvest from the sea, and learn crafts that will be useful to their families. It would be a very agrarian society.

This reversion has been done and continues to be practiced on the island of Niihau which is owned by one family. They have their own water supply but no power; whatever power they need is provided by fossil fuel shipped to the island and burned in generators. They don’t raise enough produce so they ship cans of food. Even the protein is canned and shipped because catching fish and raising goats and such is not totally sustainable. It’s not a total reversion to the old kingdom but the closest anyone’s come. Very noble but how will it play out when faced with the globalism of the 21st century?

I understand the plight of the Hawaiian people and truly, sincerely applaud them for resurrection their dying culture. It’s amazing what they’ve done (led by very prominent and well funded Hawaiian organizations) to bring back their culture. The question is: how can this very visible interference with progress help or hurt them? :confused:
 
808Catholic said:
While I applaud the Hawaiian people for reviving their culture, I believe they need to be (totally) truthful and knowledgeable about the “old days.” If they’re going to revert to “kingdom” days, the common people exist only to serve the monarchy. Even looking at the monarchs could earn them a death penalty. Rape would require the criminal to drown himself. People could have marital relations within their own family blood lines. Homosexuality would be permissible. Private ownership would disappear and all property would be the kingdom’s to be loaned to whomever the king/queen wants (key to how the original kingdom was lost in the first place.) The pre-European contact kingdom believed in a pagan system of religion and there was no schooling; they youth would be trained on how to work the land, harvest from the sea, and learn crafts that will be useful to their families. It would be a very agrarian society.

This reversion has been done and continues to be practiced on the island of Niihau which is owned by one family. They have their own water supply but no power; whatever power they need is provided by fossil fuel shipped to the island and burned in generators. They don’t raise enough produce so they ship cans of food. Even the protein is canned and shipped because catching fish and raising goats and such is not totally sustainable. It’s not a total reversion to the old kingdom but the closest anyone’s come. Very noble but how will it play out when faced with the globalism of the 21st century?

I understand the plight of the Hawaiian people and truly, sincerely applaud them for resurrection their dying culture. It’s amazing what they’ve done (led by very prominent and well funded Hawaiian organizations) to bring back their culture. The question is: how can this very visible interference with progress help or hurt them? :confused:
Click to expand...
It remains to be seen. Understandably, a lot of native Hawaiians I know would not want to go back to the old days, when breaking “kapu” means being put to death.
 
Sarcelle said:
It remains to be seen. Understandably, a lot of native Hawaiians I know would not want to go back to the old days, when breaking “kapu” means being put to death.
Click to expand...
I agree! 👍 My wife is part Hawaiian and so are our children!
 
808Catholic said:
I agree! 👍 My wife is part Hawaiian and so are our children!
Click to expand...
While not being native Hawaiian myself, I was raised in the culture, and have family members who are part Hawaiian.

I noticed your location says Honolulu. I am from Maui originally.
 
Sarcelle said:
While not being native Hawaiian myself, I was raised in the culture, and have family members who are part Hawaiian.

I noticed your location says Honolulu. I am from Maui originally.
Click to expand...
Hey hey! Maui no ka oi! I have relatives who still live on Maui and my parents came from different locations on Maui. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top