> Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel?
They don't use it as one, at least most of the time. There are too many people passing through for it to be a place of worship or reflection. Once you start selling entry to tourists you lose the right to demand they do something other than tourism, IMO.
If they really wanted to keep it as a place of worship they'd close it to the unbaptized and allow free entry (as is done with the Kaaba IIRC). Of course, that would be much less profitable.
Just on a point of fact, you can worship/reflect/meditate anywhere, of course. It's like being at a pop concert in some ways, the imagery was commissioned with a purpose - which at least in part was to aid worship of God - if everyone is waving cameras around that inhibits that purpose in a way which is easily remedied. Cutting back to the thread start I was offering a reason to prohibit photography in the Sistine Chapel that I felt was better than some others, that's all.
Second point: The Kaaba, in Mecca is only accessible to Muslims. There are Umrah/Hajj costs to pay to get anywhere near the Kaaba.
They don't use it as one, at least most of the time. There are too many people passing through for it to be a place of worship or reflection. Once you start selling entry to tourists you lose the right to demand they do something other than tourism, IMO.
If they really wanted to keep it as a place of worship they'd close it to the unbaptized and allow free entry (as is done with the Kaaba IIRC). Of course, that would be much less profitable.