Printable View
This pisses me off, is this a leftist provocation? If true what else can it be. Even the dead aren't safe in the state of self-denial? Isn't there some other lawn somewhere, why, exactly, there?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=487017
This actually true?
It's the Daily Mail.
I'd put this in a wait-and-see before getting any outrage meters up.
They're being dug up all the time so the space can be used for other purposes. Whether it's so that some newer bodies can be buried (The Mail doesn't do outcries of "Bodies dug up to make way for Christian burial ground", for some reason), because they want to build some houses or a new supermarket there, or because they want to extend the road or rail system there. The fact that those bodies are being dug up is an everyday occurrence, and has been happening for centuries - it's the consequence of living in an densely populated city. The only difference is that the Mail is outraged that this is being done so so that Muslims can make use of that space - I doubt they'd make as much noise if the cadavers were being moved to make way for a luxury housing complex.
Wow a London cemetry that wasn't sold to developers for one pound . wonders never cease
Probably, but seems like they are fixing a problem that doesn't exist, most if not all dutch muslims want to be burried in their home-country's, I suspect it is the same in England. This has an air of multicultural pleasing-contest all over it. I know they can do it, but I just don't understand why they insist on having it there, seems like people will miss it. I highly doubt anyone asked for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's to be reused as a cemetery for all faiths, not just Muslims. There's only a corner of the cemetery that's going to be dedicated to the more conservative Muslims who follow strict requirements, not much different from dedicated corners for conservative Jews and devout people of other faiths who differ from the norm. The article speculates that it would likely be used mostly by Muslims because there's a large Muslim population nearby, but there's nothing in the description that backs this up. In short, it's trying to provoke outrage where there is cause for none - typical Daily Mail in other words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Big deal - a bunch of people who have long been dead and are no longer cared for will be moved to make way for dead people who are cared about.
I don't see what the fuss is about, ultimately in the end they're all fertiliser, whether they're Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
Willing to take your word for that, but it's the mentality that pisses me of, why must something be broken down to build something? Just build something new and keep what you got.
"To preserve the respect and dignity for everyone, I think most of the graves would have to be cleared out and we'd start afresh."
Well apparantly not, the city planner may not value it but historians and the people actually visiting it do, this is the sort of cultural relativism that tears country's apart. Can't shake the feeling that everything has to go because of the silly ideals of an elite that will never actually visit the place, just doing what is fahionable. But what you break down you can't actually rebuild, it is gone forever.
because if you that you´ll run out of space.......this isn´t some cemetery out in the countryside were there is lots of space and you can just keep expanding it....this is in the middle of London and space isn´t plentifully like thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templ...fm?newsid=8220
''There are no plans to re-open Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park as a cemetery. Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park is a popular and historic nature park and if there were any proposals to alter the look or the functionality of the Park, there would be a full consultation with interested parties.''
well it seems that a certain daily mail has jumped to conclusions... :inquisitive:
Even more reason to do it elsewhere, can't empty muslim and jewish graves because of their religion, will have to expand anyway. But I bet nobody asked for this in the first place, and that it is a pet project of some upperclass nitwit that is completily out of touch with sensitivities. Well some. It's a bloody waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Well Fragony, if you expand and expand and expand, you won't have a lot of nature left in the end, you can't just turn all the crop fields and forests outside cities into cemetaries or you're literally left with only cemetaries in the end.
It may be hard to imagine for some but a dead body is more or less a bunch of atoms or dirt, even the bible says so, so what's the big deal about dignity etc?
Also it seems like the Daily Mail overreacted anyway.
Seems like it. But it wasn't about dignity mind you (well also a bit but to a lesser extent, I understand the need to empty graves on modern cemetary's), but look at these graves they are centuries old, it's part of the cultural heritage and should be left alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
the irony is that this cemetary is a great example of finding an adtional use for our old cemetarys, useing it as a wildlife haven is a great idea.
indeed there is now the option to have a tree instead of a gravestone in some places another way that graveyards can serve more then one purpose
...isn't it a centuries-old practice in cities in particular to "reuse" cemetry land after enough time has passed, simply because space is somewhat scarce and the dead need to be put into the ground somewhere, anyway ? :inquisitive:
Well yeah but this one already serves another purpose, and it is just too old to destroy, would be a waste of so much cool stuff, of which I am a complete nut. Removing a 50 year old grave is no waste, a 150 year old is something entirely different. But as it turns out this is a non-issue, as you noticed I aproached this particular article with some caution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Granted, that's fairly cautious for you. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The nature-preserve issue is another thing, but what do you do ? Needs must, city grows, and the dead people still need to be buried somewhere.
And I may perhaps be excused if I work from the assumption it wasn't actually that you were worried about... :inquisitive:
Working from your assumption me being against putting muslims undergrounds wouldn't be very consistent now would it ~;)
It's like this, multicultist want to build something new and I want to preserve what they want to destroy to built something new. Simple as that, you have to stop them somewehre because multiculturalism is a religion like any other, and in religion's people happen to radicalise. It's not between immigrants and natives but between multicultists elites and people that have a sense of heritage and belonging. Newcommers are caught between them.
I don't think it's true, and browsing through Google I think it's a load of Bollox design to make the population think, "Those dirty ******* Muslims!".
Yup it was bollox and you are right, but that is logical consequence of multiculturalism. May not like it but it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
It's actually logical conclusion of racism and xenophobia, but don't let me rain on your parade...
It works both ways, but you are pretty eager in dismissing one of them. Can't change human nature. Homo sapiens non vrinat im vintum, you can find that on a house from 1560 in Amsterdam, 'a wise man doesn't piss against the wind'. Isn't diversity the one and only scource of every genocide in human history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
This particular graveyard was opened 1841 and closed 1966 and the legal system to reuse graves are 75 years. So unless you have a continious dig up of graves you'll end up with digging up some very old graves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Frag avoid te Mail , its philosophy is to give the idiots something they can hate on a daily basis while its current focus is on Islam(plus people on benefit , unmarried mothers...) it does tend to get around tohaving a pop at every non middle class english grouping that lives outside the environs of "concerned from Tunbridge Wells"
Sometimes I get the feeling Tribesman secretly has some hope for me ~;)
What more can you expect from the Daily Mail, the paper that up until September 1st 1939 considered Hitler to be a jolly good chap?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
Load of bigotted ***** in my opinion.
Not really; it's intolerance of diversity, which is a bit different thing and something civilized people these days are expected to learn out of because we're not a bunch of bloody illiterate savages who think the cow is infertile because a jealous neighbour looked at it funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Seeing as how it's nowadays regarded as a distinctly bad form to want to gut your neighbour and burn down his house just because he reads the Bible a bit differently (or more banally, competes with you in business), which was not the case in, say, the 1500s...
As I fondly recall from an old Clancy Brother's album...
Oh They're Moving Father's Grave to Build a Sewer.
They're moving father's grave to build a sewer
They're moving it regardless of expense.
They've dug up his remains to lay down nine-inch drains
To irrigate some posh bloke's residence.
Now what’s the use of havin’ a religion
If, when you’re dead, your troubles never cease.
If some posh city chapper—wants a pipeline to his …privie—
They’ll never let a british workman rest in peace.
Now father in his life was not a quitter
And I'm sure that he'll not be a quitter now.
And in his winding sheet, he will haunt that privy seat
And only let them go when he'll allow.
Now won't there be some bleedin' consternation,
And won't those city toffs begin to rave!
But it's no more than they deserve, 'cause they had the bleedin' nerve
To muck about a British workman's grave.
--these lyrics are found on http://www.songlyrics.com
Seemed appropriate.
wow, the way dead are disrespected like this is deplorable...
no more "rest in peace"???
Have you read any of this? Graveyards are reused all the time whether for new graves or not, especially in cities.
"Rest in peace" is a phrase to soothe the grieving, it means nothing to the dead.
have you no respect for the dead?
what are they going to do with the bones and and coffin? return it to the family?!?!?:no:
Indeed, but someone always needs to catch up. It is just like that, you mean well, yes it is intolarance, it just is. But it just is no? What can I do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Please explain who or what rests in peace there.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
For me it's a dead body, that's a bunch of cells or atoms and after so many years it doesn't even look human anymore, so what exactly is the problem?
Do you support the Native American movement to stop all excavations and developments on their "holy" grounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Also, burial is teh old, and so is cremation and stuff. Cryogenics' the way to go. :yes:
cant believe i was challanged on that
who, or "what"??!!111
Is the org so full of morraly challanged disrespectfull people that they cant even respect resting spots??
so its ok to dig up dead people to make room for new ones? whats the difference between the people's grave that died before and the one that died now?
sheesh some people really do need Jesus, more than they know.
Watch news tonight, something is going on here in Netherlands, this is bad probably.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the bible says you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again. You have a mortal hull and once it's dead it's basically dirt, whether you have a soul that goes to heaven or hell is another discussion but a dead body is a dead body, even according to the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Mandatory grave relocation should happen every five years or so. The farther away from the original gravesites, the better.
If a zombie attack ever does happen, I want to be up against people that have no idea where they are or where they're going.
I doubt the zombies care where they are(or would even remember?), they just want some brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
the body is the temple of the lord, its important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And the dead file notoriously few complaints, anyway. It must not bother them too much.
I asked a relevant question about a related issue and this is your answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
*sigh*
You're aware that it's been standard practice for millenias in places were burial space is small, like old cities?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
That's why you can find Ossuaries and Charnel houses in cities like Rome... Otherwise you would end up with more space allocated to the dead than to the living.
The old ones have decomposed so far that they're safer to disinter and they also have a tendency to lack living relatives that knew the person in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Do you visit the graves of your ancestors that died 150 years ago? Do you know who they were?
Do you find archeological diggings as offensive?
Still after that the user of the temple (aka mind, soul, whatever) has left it for ages ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
I take it that you don't approve of cremation then (that incidently takes up much less space=reusing graveyards getting more rare).
As long as you're alive, the lord kinda kills the body so he decides when it stops being important. After all he decides when you die, doesn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
edit: Might want to add that the bible says you get a new body in heaven, why would you still need the old one, especially after it's completely rotten and eaten by worms?
Chapter and Verse please.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Disinterment is necessary but it should always be done sensetively and the remains should be reburied, in consecrated ground if they were Christian or taking acount of any other religions concerns.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Thank you seamus:bow:
antiochus- ur question wasnt there when I was typing the answer.:inquisitive:
ironside-"You're aware that it's been standard practice for millenias in places were burial space is small, like old cities?
That's why you can find Ossuaries and Charnel houses in cities like Rome... Otherwise you would end up with more space allocated to the dead than to the living."
rome could accept this as they werent christian for a long time during their reign, and there primary concern then was to get rid of the person one way or another.
"The old ones have decomposed so far that they're safer to disinter and they also have a tendency to lack living relatives that knew the person in question.
Do you visit the graves of your ancestors that died 150 years ago? Do you know who they were?
Do you find archeological diggings as offensive?"
so when its easier to get rid of the remains of the deseaced(<<SP?) then that means its ok to remove it despite wether the person wished to be and stay buried?
150 years ago? i think they'd still be in the old country, and if i ever saw their grave i'd be pist as hell if someone tried to remove it.
do i find archeological diggings offensive? now that i think about it.... i'd rather the scientists just recognize i lay here and leave me be instead of putting me in a mueseum~D
Perhaps, but not for the reasons here. Jews don't, but Christians do clear their graves, have done so since time immemorial. Temple of the Lord or not, bodily remains are not necessary to enter heaven in Christian doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
Graves are cleared all the time, this is the Christian tradition. The dead should not rule over the living and keep precious space in a dead hand. Cities are not necropolises.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Thank you seamus
Unless you are talking about necrophilia what on earth has that passage got to do with the subject .:dizzy2:
Errrrr...graves in public cemetaries are leasehold not freehold .Quote:
so when its easier to get rid of the remains of the deseaced(<<SP?) then that means its ok to remove it despite wether the person wished to be and stay buried?
that was a response to a counter argument
second-stay buried, the land can be leased longer.
louis- really? who has? does the church or jesus say i should?
You're absolutely right. In the same way that short skirts and perky breasts are the one and only source of every rape ever perpetrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I didn't know that Frag was that close to muslim extremist thought. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Also K COSSACK, thanks for ignoring my point but let me repeat:
If God thinks your body aka his temple is and stays very important, then why does he allow it to die and rot? And why does he say things like "you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again"?
Well I know which one answers if you ask, anyway... :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
It's the pasage in 1st Corinthians referring to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This is the biblical source of Cossack's statement and the answer to PVC's query for chapter and verse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
In particular, I'm using the St. Joseph New Catholic edition, 1961.
Perhaps you have a different version?
Death is rather present in my life right now, but I have no love for it.
K Cossack, can you tell me about British burial practices, and also how this differs from the norm? Before you go into arguments about how this is an insult to God's Kingdom and so on, remember that this is primarily the United Kingdom, whose laws and practices override those of the Holy Book.
Also K COSSACK, thanks for ignoring my point but let me repeat:
"If God thinks your body aka his temple is and stays very important, then why does he allow it to die and rot? And why does he say things like "you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again"?"
um... ur welcome? well ya gots ta got to heaven sometime, and that other part means the body will decay....no ups no downs.
watchman-that'll help others (not me though):whip:
"K Cossack, can you tell me about British burial practices, and also how this differs from the norm? Before you go into arguments about how this is an insult to God's Kingdom and so on, remember that this is primarily the United Kingdom, whose laws and practices override those of the Holy Book."
british burial practices...bury their dead? this argument is turning out to be "insult to God's kingdom", but what i meant in the first place was maybe the graves shouldnt be dug up.
Why not ? It's not like the dead people care. (And if they do and begin actively voicing their displeasure, well, there's rather bigger problems anyway then.)
What is the previous line .Quote:
It's the pasage in 1st Corinthians referring to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.
By who ? the dead...they have a bit of a problem when it comes to completing the paperwork to extend the lease they took out .Quote:
the land can be leased longer.
Good point, it's about not living a sinful life and not to have sex with prostitutes which sort of underlines what I said that it's not important anymore once you're dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The notion that the dead rest as in their bodies rest is simply a romantic, desperate try to think about something peaceful in connection with the loss of a loved one.
So the catholic church and the Pope weren't Christian at 1626? :inquisitive: You learn something new every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
They're free to complain about it at any time. :yes: And they do take consideration of this issue, as it's mostly about space and as mentioned usually happens a very long time after the person's death.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
So it's now a long lost grave, that serves on purpose for the living then?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
So removal of most of the archeological diggings when you're at charge then? Does this also extend to animals? If no, to neanderthals and other predecessors to modern humans (and if any creationists drop by, supposed predecessors)?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
People in not in hallowed ground? Moved to hallowed ground or not (as it disturbs thier peace)? This for non-christians and christians btw.
If you had said a 1000 years, I might have agreed with you. But a 150 years old grave is just that, a 150 years old grave. No way is that a "historical landmark".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's overgrown, old and ugly. Torch the place.
yes tribes graves can be leased longer, but i thought u knew that? u know alot of things...
And ironside if u didnt know the dead cant speak.
and dose this extend to animals...IMO no, but someone else might disagree
perhaps you can contact a medium on their behalf to get their signature:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
yes tribes graves can be leased longer, but i thought u knew that? u know alot of things...
oh and a little bit of advice Cossack , generally speaking it isn't very wise to quote a few words of scripture to try and back up your case ..since the few words are surrounded by lots of other words that give it context .
"....a little bit of advice Cossack....very wise to quote....and back up your case ..since... give it context."
I havent done that.
besides that was an answer that dealt with a question, sorta a side argument just to counter another. besides cant really beat that? huh? huh? huh?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and it countered it ...how exactly ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
besides that was an answer that dealt with a question, sorta a side argument just to counter another
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
"God doesnt care about bodies"
my counter argument sez.....
...errrr ...don't sleep with prostitutes wasn't it....a great counter arguement about moving graves ehQuote:
my counter argument sez.....
Not really Tribes. That was the specific behavior being admonished, the concept of the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit was the reason for such an admonishment, i.e. as a believer, you should try to be above such things BECAUSE the spirit is in you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Historically, of course, the disinterment and reinterment of remains has always been a part of Christian practice. Once reduced to bones, the bones would often be moved to an ossiary of some form or another and the graves re-used. The Church has always called for some degree of "reverence" when so doing, but the practice has a long history.
The Church does not hold re-interment to -- of itself -- constitute an act of desecration, so Cossack's point on this is more or less moot.
Genesis 4 : 19, how about that? It's the Old Testament but if you ever digged up an old grave and had a look inside, you'd know it's still true. ~;)
u dont support STD prevention?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Now then Seamus , you wrote that Cossacks "point" was more or less moot , where I would say that it was irrelevant nonsense displaying a lack of knowledge of scripture that is generally the norm from those who like to shout "I am a Christian" on this forum .
But what can you say about his last wonderful contribution ?:inquisitive:
Hmmmmmm....one wife is enough for me ????????Quote:
It's the Old Testament but if you ever digged up an old grave and had a look inside, you'd know it's still true.
It's about how you are made of dirt and will become dirt, at least in my bible. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Foolish, as you can see husars argument was the aim of my argument, but it looks like you diregarded many times, instead saying that my argument was not to sleep with prostitutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
maybe because you think "morals" and "God" are far from useful in todays society, and that to you it would only lead to another crusade, and would prefer that graves be dug up (God knows what next) and make room for the new arrivals till they can be thrown out.
Morals of today and (<<mostly)past , comes from Good (justice, righteosness) NOT self righteosness.
People (u know who u are) are scared of religion and seek to to make it obscure today because of their fear of another "self righteos hunter" and say that society is better off without religion just because of the "bad" that came out of it, and never pay attention to the good of morralistic people.
Are you implying one cannot be a moral and upright person without being religious or something... sir ?
Wrong chapter Husar , try again .Quote:
It's about how you are made of dirt and will become dirt, at least in my bible.
Watchman , I don't think he knows what he is trying to say or imply :shrug:Quote:
Are you implying one cannot be a moral and upright person without being religious or something... sir ?
Errrrr...you quoted a passage that has nothing to do with the subject and Husar (OK he was only one chapter out) directed to a passage that doesn't support the claim that you are trying to make .Quote:
Foolish, as you can see husars argument was the aim of my argument, but it looks like you diregarded many times, instead saying that my argument was not to sleep with prostitutes.
As for ........I do wish people that like to make an issue of the religeon they claim to follow would show at least a little knowledge of scripture..but repeatedly that sadly isn't the case .Quote:
People (u know who u are) are scared of religion and seek to to make it obscure today because of their fear of another "self righteos hunter" and say that society is better off without religion just because of the "bad" that came out of it, and never pay attention to the good of morralistic people.
As for this rant .......barking mad :dizzy2:Quote:
maybe because you think "morals" and "God" are far from useful in todays society, and that to you it would only lead to another crusade, and would prefer that graves be dug up (God knows what next) and make room for the new arrivals till they can be thrown out.
:oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You're right, it's Genesis 3:19, I saw the 4 on the same page and...:wall:
of course you would say i wouldnt know what im talking about tribes, is that why you dont bother to put anything up more than generaly
...you cant read...barking mad...quote scripture....
go ahead and ask a preist if not me, or if u have one read the bible. if fact an argument u wouldve used if i gave several EX's would be that God and christianity is irrelevant to this, so u can keep denying my arguments no matter what statement people CAN agree on.
And yes watchman that is my view.
Oh bloody hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
:wall: :wall: :wall:
So, I'm immoral and debased in your opinion, K COSSACK?
"It's overgrown, old and ugly. Torch the place." from this thread
oh and what about
"I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer)" from police brutality or not thread.
yeah...I guess those thing are pretty immoral.
Samuel 18:25-27 genteleman