• Norgur@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        119
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        If only the owner of those churches was one of the wealthiest organizations on the planet… Oh, wait

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I know it’s just another type of lawful evil, but if it helps, I used to work in those types of insurance claims and we denied every single one where they knew or should have known about it (and the rapists themselves were never covered).

              I quit, because generallyfuck that, but part of what made me leave was the experience of gathering lists of credibly accused priests and finding their earliest accusation. Any wrongdoing after that could be considered expected and there would be no coverage for it. At the very most, we covered the person who initially hired the perpetrator, but only until the point that they should have fired them (first complaint, sketchy behavior, etc.). If they ignored or reassigned the priest into a new position with access to children, then often even that was denied.

              I’ve since moved to another country, where insurance works completely differently (and the church is in nearly every country), so they definitely have a variety of policies, but at least in the US, you can’t insure expected or intended consequences with most companies, and you can’t insure illegal conduct at all.

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        This monument was paid by indulgences. ADs on top of it are free money for the church they can spend brainwashing people into their cult.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Religious monuments in italy are owned by the catholic church. If they are in need of money perhaps the pope could sell same of their golden gauntlets or their apartments in london

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_Ambrosiano

      The italian goverment doesn’t lack money either, politicians just raised their salary.

      The really essence of this building is to be an AD for the church, which by the time it was build was a state with an army.

    • Striker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      The amount the Italian government makes in taxes should EASILY cover any restoration. I think the correct term you are looking for is economic mismanagement.

    • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      umm, you need something to mount the giant screen, don’t you? So might as well have some class while you’re at it.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    The church is under construction. What you see behind the ad is a printed photo of what the church will look like, it is not actual architecture.

    This is like a poster on the wood walls they place around construction sites, it’s fine.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    How utterly revolting. I get peoples comments about religion, but that doesn’t somehow remove the fact that this is a beautiful piece of architecture being marred by a disgusting shitty advert.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Agreed. What’s even the point of arguing in favor of the cultural legacy of a given religion in shaping a city’s architectural history if they pull shit like this?

  • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is definitely scaffolding erected to facilitate repairs. Of all use cases for advertising, I cannot possibly complain about this one as it seems to be funding the repairs and the ugly scaffolding is being camouflaged by the dressing that mimics the underlying surface. Yeah, its always gonna suck to a certain degree to see ads plastered on a landmark like this, but if it’s only temporary during repairs and helps maintain the building then I’m all for it.

    • IAmLamp@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh great……. CONTEXT. NOW what am I supposed to do with all of this boiling rage?

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ask why a historical monument has to rely on advertising dollars to be repaired. Why the kinds of organisations that would put a garish ad billboard over the top are the ones with all the power in our society.

        Just because the billboard is funding repairs doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s emblematic of how much is being hoarded by capitalists.

  • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Saw something similar when I was in Paris at the Louvre last fall. I couldn’t believe my eyes at first. As if the tourist masses (myself not excluded, sadly) weren’t bad enough.

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I didnt even notice that they even completely covered the wall in a fake facade at first. Like “oh we wanna protect the look of this beautiful monument” but also “here look at this advertisement!”

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Notice how not a single person down below gives one single flying fuck about the ad. Next they’ll try to smack you in the face with an add on a fly swater just to get your attention. And big boobs on the fly swater probably.

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      When I’d only seen the thumbnail and not the whole pic, I thought the title was talking about stupid glasses.

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Do you think people raging over pictures of it on socmed are part of the appeal to marketers?