Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't need them to make sense to anyone else. But it seems to be fine to criticise people for holding beliefs whereas it wouldn't be at all acceptable in this day and age to do the opposite. Have a debate all you want about whether green space is more important than burying dead people but it's the assumption that wanting to be buried isn't and can't ever be legitimate, whereas wanting green space is.

in places like Greece, Italy, Spain, where they believe strongly in the need to preserve the physical integrity of the body after death i.e. bury not cremate, it's quite customary to lease a burial plot for a fixed period of time. When this time is up, the bones are disinterred and re-buried more compactly - hence the catacombs and the ossuaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossuary you see in many European cemeteries - so they can manage with a limited amount of burial space.

It's only in England it seems that it's your bit of green and pleasant land for ever and ever, or at least until they build a car-park on top of you

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Totally genuine question here. Why if the body

> needs to be buried in order to keep its

> integrity, is it then okay for that to be time

> limited? Surely it either needs to be buried in

> one piece or it doesn't? I just don't understand

> it.


neither do I and I'm not even trying to understand it because I suspect there's no logic to it


if it's about taking a perfectly decent bit of wooded green space and turning it into a graveyard because the pious are worried about disturbing the long-dead in existing graveyards, then that just doesn't compute - other pious folk have no qualms about digging up their dead and repackaging them to fit the available space; it's done even in the best churches e.g. Westminster Abbey


or am I missing some element of religious orthodoxy here?

  • 2 weeks later...

mynamehere Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> John K do some research as you're interested in

> local history

>

> http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/recycled-graves

> -coming-soon-to-a-cemetery-near-you/

>

> History is a slippy thing

> Don't stop at the first thing you find. Cross

> check and watch your sources of course


Well, I was going to let this go, but...


Did you read the Spectator article?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone have any knowledge as to who (if any) is taking over the old Poundland unit in Lordship Lane? 
    • 100% agree and eloquently put. Trump's lawsuit will go nowhere. He can't sue in the UK as he is out of time and the bbc would have a case to countersue given all the times he has lied about the BBC. A court in Florida will have no jurisdiction in the UK and he would still have to prove malice and reputational damage. Well he won the elction so there's no argument on damage there. The program was not broadcast in the US, so very few if any people saw it. His entire speech is readily available to view elsewhere anyway. And on reputation, does he really want all the facts dragged out as you have listed them above? In what world does Trump thinks that leaves him with a good reputation that someone else could damage? It will go nowhere, like so many of his other lawsuits and court actions. The BBC should hold firm. A more curious question though is why the Telegraph waited until now to do their predictable mischief?   Agreed. To downplay the state murder of a journalist, in an embassy on foreign soil of all places, because he was 'not liked' by a lot of people, is just ludicrous and offensive. Compare that to his narrative around the murder of Charlie Kirk, who was also not liked by a lot of people. Trump is playing his guest as always, but it shows just how morally spineless he really is. 
    • He's done 34 foreign trips to 26 countries since becoming PM.  With all the in-fighting going on at #10 and with some MPs and one Labour mayor on manoeuvres,  should he not be staying at home and fighting for his premiership and the interests of the party?  or does he reckon he is already doomed and feels better away from it all?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...