>> Do you think that it would be a bit rude for a girl to strip & do a little dance at the altar of Westminster Abbey? How long would she survive at Mecca? << (Gorufus, Friday, 2 July 2010 8:10:29 PM)

In response to Gorofus – which I guess is directed at me. Firstly, that is not really the issue here and secondly as a secular person I take the whole notion of “respecting” sacred sites of any persuasion with a hefty grain of salt.

Additionally, is the top of Uluru comparable to the altar of Westminster Abbey? This is what Thomas Keneally had to say in 1983 in his book, Outback.

“In 1963 the Yankuntjatjara and Pitjantjatjara elders permitted a chain to be installed along Webo (tail), for Webo - although a site of significance - is not a major Dreaming site.”

His observation twenty years after the climbing chain was put in place, would seem to be consistent with what other observers told of the traditional owners’ attitude to the Climb at that stage. The push against the Climb seems to have come largely from Tony Tjamiwa who was not born and raised at Uluru but hailed from Ernabella (now Pukatja) in northern South Australia.

Yet as Keneally also noted, the closer you were born to Uluru the more authority you would have in matters to do with the Rock and its spirituality. I have often wondered whether many of Tjamiwa's pronouncements were made by him to assert his authority over those who traditionally would have had a greater say in affairs at Uluru.

As for the idea that Alizee Sery would not survive long at Mecca; are you unaware that non-Muslims aren't even allowed to go to Mecca? It is against the law in Saudi Arabia – that bastion of religious freedom ... NOT.

Lastly, there has been no physical damage done by Sery to Uluru. But dancing on the altar at Westminster Abbey would most likely damage it. But if she danced and stripped in the aisles I would not be concerned.

- Ross Barnett

Indeed Severin- sadly most people are skipping past what DO the locals think, but the arguers are instead telling them what they should be thinking this way because of (insert lazily assumed prejudicial assumption)
I keep asking this question but they refuse to answer.

Also, I should point out that the Church has changed its dress code expectations considerably- men are no longer encouraged to walk into one wearing a skirt, or short-legged pants, and sandals, like the good ol days.
Am I getting my point through yet to the others?

Also, WAU- don't be so fast to declare the rock 'everyone's as we didn't exactly acquire it voluntarily.
In this case, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the one concession and respect the locals request that you do not climb it, just to be fair and balanced.

Sadly Severin, I think there is too strong an angry, bitter reverse anti-guilt psychology in many of the posters where a simple issue of respect gets distorted into an embittered rage to offset some kind of historical blame OFF themselves, which really is NOT what this is about (sadly I think aside from us two, there aren't many else who get this).

Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer "If you cannot evaluate an Aboriginal issue without tying it to the 'black armband' discourse, please don't bother posting, grownups are having a conversation'

I'll prove it- somebody will reply to me stating that it's not their fault, and prove that they're not getting the issue is not about 'guilt' at all.

Two people (CJ Morgan and Severin) have mentioned the idea of charging people to climb the Rock. There already is a substantial $25 per head charge to enter the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. This charge applies to everyone aged 16 and over. And this charge is regarded by many people as the fee that they pay to climb Uluru.

Along with Kakadu National Park – where a $25 entry fee was re-introduced by the Minister for Burning Batts, Peter Garrett, on April 1st – the national park at Uluru has the most expensive entry fees of any mainland national park in Australia. The $25 entry fee at Uluru is only for three days and would cost a couple who might be travelling with a 16-year old child, $75 just to visit the national park.

Compare that to the situation in New Zealand or Queensland for instance, where all national park entry is free. Even in the United States an annual pass to visit all of the American national parks (Acadia, Badlands, Denali, Everglades, Grand Canyon, Isle Royale, Olympic, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, etc, etc.) is only $80 and that covers an entire vehicle not a single person.

- Ross Barnett

Ross

Food for thought regarding your examples of park fees. My concern is at a specific level, rather than a general one.

Uluru is a very small part of the NT parks. It is subjected to more foot traffic than any other portion. I am guilty of taking a couple of rocks from its surface. There is nothing else quite like it anywhere and is deserving of extra protection. While it is more vulnerable to damage it is also much easier to monitor than many other landscape features. I think an extra fee can be administered both for the preservation of the Rock and for the benefit of the local people.

BTW

Totally agree with you on the viewing platform - that has to be a rort of some kind.

PS

Stripping is not an environmental hazard. Bare feet cause far less damage than hiking boots. I'm guessing the locals have less concern with nudity than a few Christians.

:)

As with all religions, *first* prove they are probably true (in the sense of electrons and viruses, which we cannot see either) and *then* we will consider it.

Rusty

Also, WAU- don't be so fast to declare the rock 'everyone's as we didn't exactly acquire it voluntarily.
In this case, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the one concession and respect the locals request that you do not climb it, just to be fair and balanced.

True King Hazza; thanks.