On climbing sacred places

I'm sorry - I really, really do not wish to be showing any sympathy to the obnoxious Right in Australia huffing and puffing about Uluru being closed to climbing, but I do think it's reasonable to see the decision more motivated by an aboriginal rights power play, rather than to do with the question of respect for sacredness of the site to the local indigenous.

Generally speaking, I think humans should get over the belief that any natural formation is more inherently sacred than any other natural place; but you can't tell people they have to stop believing in local or ancient folklore relating to a site, so we have to live with that.

But let's be honest here - there might be lots of "sacred mountains" in the world, but my impression is that very, very few of them are rendered "unable to be climbed" because of that status.   I've been on the side of Mt Fuji and watched some Japanese women do something like a bit of sun worship as it rose - but no one thinks Westerners should be banned from its side.

Similarly, can white liberals stop using such a trite comparison between cathedrals (oh, it's just the same as not allowing people to climb over a cathedral, because it's sacred) and Uluru?   Because, let's face it, hundreds of thousands of non-Christian tourists have been allowed to ascend the domes or bell towers of the great cathedrals of Europe merely to admire the view, and that is actually the closest analogy to white folk ascending Uluru up a set path.  Sure, they wouldn't allow tourists to climb up the outside of a cathedral by ropes, for reasons of both damage that could be caused and aesthetics.   But similarly, no one has a problem with Uluru enforcing a one route ascent because they want the minimum of the rock damaged.   In both cases, if there is one route to the top to accommodate tourists, it's a case of a "sacred" space being allowed to be accessed by people who may or may not think the spot is spiritual.   

The other factor is, of course, that the rock has been climbed for a very long time, giving the impression that the sacredness being defiled was not such an important issue in the past as it is now.

And really, isn't it kind of obvious that claiming, or inflating, sacred importance is just the easiest way indigenous groups have for feeling they can exert power?  Have liberals forgotten the Hindmarsh Island affair?

Having said all of this, I am not suggesting that there is any point in politically disputing the decision - I don't actually feel they should not have the right to ban climbing for whatever reason.  (And actually, the safety issue is a fairly significant one, given the number who have died on the climb.)

But I don't think the populace has to feel guilty about assessing that the decision is not particularly well justified, or high-minded, even on the popularly claimed  "must respect the sacredness" grounds.  Hence, I won't join in the criticism of those tourists who have rushed to climb it (even though I don't really see why climbing it on a hot day has that much inherent attraction, either.)   It reads more just an indigenous political power play.