So you are saying that it is purely coincidental that after the Uluru Statement wasn't implemented that the same people that hosted the event decided to close down the rock [bigwhistle]
Printable View
They never wanted it opened, but were forced to agree back in the day as a condition of being granted the land rights. The park is leased from them, so be grateful they don't just shut the gate and tell us all to buggar off, same as any other landowner could do.
Given that they've wanted the climbing stopped since tourists started doing it in the 1950s, that it was an issue when the land was given back in the 1980s, and there were signs asking people to not climb when I visited in the mid-90s (and the signs clearly weren't new), yes, it had nothing to do with the Uluru statement.
Being a natural object doesn't mean it can't be sacred - as an example, there are sacred rocks, mountains and trees all over Japan. There are sacred mountains in Greece and Tibet.
But you're saying that they can't really be sacred to Shinto, or Buddhism or Christianity because they're not man-made?
Given that Red Dan doesn't give a **** about his tunnel undermining St Paul's in Melbourne, I guess the answer to your question is a resounding NO. The question should be what, if anything IS sacred. Sacred depends on your belief system. Mine suggests that Ayers Rock is just that, a rock. Yours seems to suggest otherwise. Is yours more important than mine?