Burials

Jon, there were several inventions patented for that very purpose. In the Victorian Age there seemed to be a fascination with people being mistaken for dead and accidentally buried alive. Certainly it had to have happened at times in the past, before the use of embalming, though post-embalming the process should certainly kill the dead person nonetheless. Coffins with escape hatches was one type of invention, while another type was ways to signal the above-ground world as to your plight having awakened in a burred coffin. The only one of the latter type that I remember (I had to have read that at least a couple decades ago) was a bell mounted in the headstone attached to a cord that went down to the coffin into the hand of its most-probably-departed occupant.As I have heard, customs surrounding the dead include measures and waiting periods to ensure that the dead person is indeed dead. The viewing, in which somebody is always present to observe the open casket of the individual. The wake in which the dead person is the centerpiece, or close to it. To have many witnesses together to observe the departed at all times and to effectively verify that he/she is indeed dead. Of course the same customs also have cultural, emotional, and psychological purposes. Have you ever watched the cable-movie-channel series, Dead Like Me? Loved that show, but then I saw it after the death of my son and the destruction of my life. Its premise was that some of the departed become Reapers whose job is to release souls from the bodies. Their supervisor (played by Mandy Patinkin) would mysteriously receive a list of people to die and when, though those lists are not complete in their information, so the Reapers assigned to them have to do some guesswork. He would transfer that list to Post-Its that he would hand out to his Reapers at their morning meetings in Der Waffle Haus. Reapers need to show up on time for the death, observe and figure out who's to die, and touch them in order to release their soul before death, so that the soul does not need to experience that death. Further details are that Reapers deal with people who died the same way as they did -- Reapers who were victims of the Plague are basically stuck in their existence, since Reapers are released randomly in performing their duty. The main character, Georgie, was killed by a piece of space-vehicle debris that re-entered the atmosphere, a space toilet, so she has to be a Reaper for people who die violent deaths, Mandy's group at Der Waffle Haus.What makes this relevant to your post is that Georgie, being a teenager, rebelled against the Reaper system and refused to release a soul. Mandy took her to the morgue where the guy's body was being kept after the autopsy. His soul was still in the body during the autopsy and he was awake and aware throughout the procedure. She learned her lesson.OK, so now I've completely freaked you out. Or I've turned you onto a show that you will want to track down. Or both. It's no longer on NetFlix, BTW.

Funny, I thought that name was spelled "Leeroy Jenkins!" Are you aware of the Icelandic movie, "Astropia"? Low-budget, though not painfully so. It was on NetFlix but no longer is so. The premise is kind of similar to that of "Big Bang Theory" on TV, though the movie came out in August of 2007 and BBT debuted in September 2007. A knock-out beauty (played by a former Miss Iceland, Ragnhildur Steinunn Jnsdttir) whose rich boyfriend she'd been living off of has been arrested is desperate for a job, so she applies to work in a comic-book store. Her first entrance in the store is classic as everybody there freezes and one of two patrons dressing in Star Trek:TNG uniforms drops his merchandize; the only female patron, a geek grrl named Beta, remarks in English to a friend, "I sense a great disturbance in the Force." She is put in charge of the role-gaming department and, knowing nothing about RPGs, she starts playing them, etc, etc. Later when her boyfriend and other prisoners escape from prison and kidnap her, her RPG friends assemble to rescue her. The one who had summoned them tried to appraise them of the situation and to present his plan, but Beta immediately shouts "LEEROY JENKINS" and leads the charge that everybody else had no choice but to follow. Just thought you'd appreciate that story and I hope you can find a DVD of that movie. BTW, the name Beta had chosen for her DnD character was ... Inigo Montoya.As for the rest, you are young and you will learn more as you mature. That is to be expected. I am 62 years old and have been an atheist for about a full half-century, having become one a bit younger than you had.Society runs according to its culture. A society's culture develops and adapts over time in a manner not dissimilar to the processes of evolution, such that we feel confident to speak in terms of "cultural evolution." Basically, the culture that is able to function well enough (remember, natural selection is not "survival of the fittest", but rather "survival of the good-enough") will be one that can thrive, whereas cultures that institute changes that do not work will be in danger of not surviving. Cultures that survive are ones that are able to sufficiently balance the needs of the society with the needs of the individuals within that society, with the factors stressing that society influencing which way that balance must tilt. It is by no means an easy call to make and in many if not most cases in which an arbitrary call is been made the outcome will not be good. Every plan to create a perfect society has unforeseen consequences of its implementation. A major factor in the ultimate outcome of arbitrary decisions made by a government (AKA "the laws that its legislature enacts") is in how the population, which includes both individuals and corporations and other aggregate entities (eg, unions, associations), reacts to those arbitrary decisions. If a "solution" to fix one specific problem conflicts with a myriad of other social structures, then that creates a problem. When a proper solution to a problem creates a myriad of abuses of the system, then that creates a problem. Everything within the system is interrelated; change one part of the system and you affect other parts of the system, most often in ways you never could have predicted. Kid, welcome to the grown-up world.Is there any practical sense in maintaining land for cemeteries? No, not really. I live in a region of Southern California where real estate is really crazy and population density has been increasing dramatically. Where can we bury all these people and who could afford to buy the land to bury them on? Now, in some societies (mostly Latin America, from what I've heard), cemetery plots are rented out, not sold. So if your family falls behind on its rent, you get dug up and your remains are transferred to the catacombs (or some other large-group-remains arrangement) and your grave can be used by somebody else. That is one society's solution to this problem; there are many others.OK, so we cremate everybody and they're kept on some family member's mantle or bookcase. Is that satisfactory? How does the family keep track of those remains? I grew up with two older sisters, but we all had an even older sister, the first-born of our family, Sandra Jean. She was born with a birth defect in which her esophagus had failed to attached to her stomach, but rather had attached to her lungs; every time she was fed, she would start to drown. There was no choice but to allow her to starve to death. In 1941 there was no corrective surgery for her yet; that was not developed until a year later. My mother's family were all back east in Illinois; only my father's family was out west with them in California. My father and his family told my mother that Sandra Jean's body had been donated to science; as reported, the corrective surgery for that particular birth defect was devised a year later, so for the rest of her life (54 years thereafter) she at least had that to inadequate console her for the death of her child. My father and his family had lied to her. In 2001, years after both my parents' deaths, my sister tracked down our sister, Sandra Jean, to a local cemetery where she had been kept on a shelf all these decades. Now, with that family history, I'm faced with a similar situation. 12 years ago, my younger son killed himself. Two years later, we divorced. I agreed to allow my ex-wife to keep his ashes, since I am an honorable man who would not deprive a mother of that little comfort. In the divorce, we had agreed that I would receive his remains upon her death, but she is not an honorable woman and I have received intelligence that she has no intention to allow me to regain possession of my son's remains. My sister, Sandra Jean, went missing for 60 years; I do not have that much time to wait out to find my son again. Just to hang a lantern on this foreshadowing, I have a very strong emotional stake in this issue.You want to argue for a totally rational solution to the problem of handling the dead. Do you read science fiction? If not, then you should: "Those who ignore the lessons of science fiction are doomed to live them." If you do, then please read one of classic short stories: The Cold Equations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations:

quote:

---

The story takes place entirely aboard an Emergency Dispatch Ship (EDS) headed for the frontier planet Woden with a load of desperately needed medical supplies. The pilot, Barton, discovers a stowaway: an eighteen-year-old girl. By law, all EDS stowaways are to be jettisoned because EDS vessels carry no more fuel than is absolutely necessary to land safely at their destination. The girl, Marilyn, merely wants to see her brother, Gerry, and was not aware of the law. When boarding the EDS, Marilyn saw the "UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT!" sign, but thought she would at most have to pay a fine if she were caught. Barton explains that her presence dooms the mission by exceeding the weight limit, and the subsequent crash would kill both of them and doom the colonists awaiting the medical supplies. After contacting her brother for the last moments of her life, Marilyn willingly walks into the airlock and is ejected into space.

​

The story, first published in the August 1954 issue of Astounding, has been widely anthologized and even dramatized.

---

I encountered that short story in an English lit class. Almost everybody in the class argued passionately against the decision to space the girl, even suggesting that the pilot, Barton, sacrifice himself for her, totally disregarding the simple fact that she could not have landed the ship to complete its mission. The cold equations are complete. There is no other solution. We are all trapped by them. And yet everybody who reads that story rebels against it.So if we apply cold equations to how we handle the dead, what will be the reaction? Will everybody accept the inevitable? Or will they rebel against it?How do we handle the dead? Why do we handle them in that manner? OK, let's put that in evolutionary terms with an analogy. Have you studied the human eye yet? The blind spot? The retina, with the light-receptors pointing backwards? Very inefficient. How could that possibly be the "best" solution? Well, it isn't! Why isn't everything done in the most efficient manner possible? Because that's not the way that evolution works. Evolution works by starting with whatever already exists; if an eye's retina starts with the light receptors pointing backwards, then that's what you are stuck with.So then, how do we handle the dead and why do we handle them in that manner? This is where history and cultural tradition come into play. Why bury them? Well, we have to do something with the dead, dispose of them in some way. Burial is one option that has existed at least back to the Neanderthals. Why six feet deep? Well, a shallow grave would allow scavengers to dig up the remains and eat them. Apparently, six feet deep had somehow been established as deeper than a scavenging animal would dig.What about cremation? That has certainly been chosen by some cultures. Of course, the last episode of "The Last Ship" notwithstanding as well as the traditional punishment for homosexuals by burning at the stake leading to referencing them as "faggots" (ie, pieces of wood for the fire), human bodies do not burn very readily but rather require a not insignificant amount of accelerant
to complete the job. But unless in situations of highly restricted resources (eg, Berlin at its fall, when gasoline was required to cremate Hitler's remains), that should not be a problem -- eg, Hindu funeral pyres.But what happens when there is a cultural requirement for the preservation of the body? We saw that in Egypt, wherein even defacing public representations of someone would result in a similar defacing in the after live (or, as suggested by Douglas Adams, in an aprs-vie). There does not appear to be a similar Christian belief, but preservation of the body does seem to still persist. Leeroy (er, Leroy), I was raised Protestant. As a trained Catholic, do please tell us the Catholic teaching about the preservation of the body of the deceased and what the Catholic teachings are about cremation.Now, at this point you should be thinking about the population's thoughts about burial and about cremation. Here is something that you probably do not know about people: they hate change. They resist change. They will be willing to do anything they can to oppose change. They hate change.There are traditional attitudes about burial. If you try to change those attitudes, they will resist you. There are traditional attitudes about cremation. If you try to change those attitudes, they will resist you. Even if you are completely right, they will resist you.Now, eventually, more and more the economic factors will win out. More and more people will find that they cannot afford to buy burial plots and so must resort to cremation or other options.But still, the emotional state of the family will come into play. For example, I had agreed to have my father cremated. He could have been cremated in a cardboard container or in a wooden one. The cardboard container would have made so much more practical sense, but I chose the wooden one. That was an entirely emotional decision. Leeroy, have you lost a parent yet? Or a child? Have you ever had to make that decision? Do please let me know when you have.So what's the use of funerals or of burials or cremations? To the dead, none of that means anything at all. To the living, the survivors, that can mean a very great deal.James Burke was a correspondent for the BBC. I first encountered him in a latter Apollo Moon Mission TV report in which he covered the moon astronauts' toilet protocols (ie, diapers). Later, he did a number of series that ran on PBS called "Connections", in which he would trace historical technological and social developments. In his episode on the development of the information age, he started with medieval Europe where absolutely everything anybody could possibly know had to be memorized. He pointed out that all that graphically ornate artwork in Catholic churches was actually learning, whereas the "artwork" in Protestant churches, which emphasized directly studying Scripture, is austere and abstract -- eg, in a friend's family he was Catholic and she was Protestant and when he took their son to a Catholic service, suddenly his son shouted out, "Hey! Who's that guy on that cross?"Part of James Burke's treatment involved how people used to remember things. Souvenirs. Why buy souvenirs? You were there, you remember everything, so why buy souvenirs? How do people remember things? After my own life had fallen completely apart, I started writing down a timeline of what had happened when. Every event had some other event associated with it. When did I meet that special friend? What were we first discussing or what movie did we first go to see? Souvenirs, come back to us. That is the key.To begin with, the ancient academies used to rely entirely on memorizing everything. For example, after the Diaspora (the dispersion of the Jews after the Romans destroyed their homeland), the Talmud developed. The Talmud is the entirety of Jewish learning in one epic work the size of an encyclopedia. There is not index, there is not table of contents, there is absolutely no organization whatsoever. The entire Talmud had to be memorized completely. Have you ever watched the original Star Trek series? "Dagger of the Mind", screenwriter Simon Bar David. Kirk is reminded of the story of the philosopher who was challenged to recite the whole of human wisdom while standing on one foot. Actually, that was the chief Pharisee, Rabbi Hillel, who was so challenged by an arrogant Gentile. His response was, "Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law (ie, the first five books of the Bible, AKA the Torah), the rest is just explanation. Now go and learn it." Yes, that was the Golden Rule, delivered in 20BCE, 50 years before Jesus' purported ministry.So in that pre-information age, how did you remember everything? With souvenirs. Knives and other practical tools that you would use forever were popular. You'd be asked about some event and you had been given a knife during that event, so with that knife you'd remember that event. You had no written reference to depend on, only your own memory.Who were your ancestors? How would you ever know? They are in the cemetery. Your family history all right there. Whom have you lost so far, so very young and nave as you are? Are your grandparents still alive? If they are not, then when you gaze upon their headstones do you not remember them? If they had died when you were too young, when your parents gaze upon their headstones do they not remember them? Do you not listen to your parents at that time? Why not?Headstones are souvenirs, they recall for us the memories of the events that they represent. Graves are not silly, but rather they are history. History is extremely important, but the very young seem to oblivious to that fact. And when history has been obliterated, then it is gone forever.Children care nothing for history. Old people (like me) care greatly for history. When children, such as yourself, destroy history, then when later they care greatly for history and that is no longer any history, then it is their fault and nobody else's.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Over?Sorry. Faith, but nothing you posted makes any sense. Have you had any children? Have any of them died? If either question is "No", then what the freaking fuck does what you have to say mean anything whatsover?Since my father was a WWII war veteran (a CPO in the Seabees), he was afforded a burial at sea in the very area where he would sea fish {by the USS George Philip}
.My own son died by alcohol-and-incident-induced suicide (aided very greatly by his mother's indulgence in providing him a firearm completely against my wishes, just because he wanted one and forbidding me any say in the matter).Faith, as usual you demonstrate how clueless you are. Please read my previous post and respond to it.That is to say, respond to my post itself, not to whatever you imagine. If that is at all possible.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot Over?????"the fertilizer and skeleton type comments as if one's own death can be taken so lightly."??? What are you talking about?Here's an evangelical question for you. My son died a non-Christian. For me to accept a Christian theology, I would need to accept that my son, whom I love no less than any father could possibly live his child, was condemned for all eternity to eternal damnation. How could any loving father ever accept such a theology? Do please elucidate om this point.

I am reminded of an atheist tag-line/signature/bumper-sticker: "I am Pro-Life! I believe in life after birth and before death, whereas they only believe in life before birth and after death."To truly treat people properly, we need to do it while they are alive, since when they are dead then it won't make any difference where it really matters, which is with the individuals involved. Of course, that almost never happens. But it is not only Christian hypocrisy (of which there is so much to go around), but also a sad commentary on almost everybody (some exceptions, but even there there will be the feeling that not enough had been done). Far too often, the "decent treatment" that people receive after they die is far more likely be due to survivors' individual guilt for how they had not done enough or what they feel they should have for the departed.Now, on the "Christian hypocrisy" front, I have found that "true Christians" will lie, cheat, and commit heinous sins against those they simply disagree with, but that is all resolved for them. Ever see that fundamentalist Christian bumper sticker, "Not Perfect, Just Forgiven."? That's the attitude I'm talking about. Having been a fundamentalist "fellow traveler" (a McCarthy-era term for non-communists who had otherwise tainted themselves in those witch-hunts by having associated with Communists; refer to an English translation of the German play, "In der Sache J. Robert Oppenheimer") during the early 1970's, I both learned a lot about Christian fundamentalist theology (at least as was spoon-fed to the "Jesus Freak Movement" -- on this forum I had seen mention of how traditionally one had to undergo a life-long study program, but with the sudden surgence of the "Jesus Freaks" circa 1970 they now suddenly had to bring huge numbers of new members up to speed instantly, so the life-long study program was scrapped in favor of providing "Scriptural sound-bites" with not understand nor explanation, at the end taking far too many things out of context) -- half a decade prior to this experience I had stopped being a Christian because I had started to read the Bible and simply could not believe what I was reading; this experience as a "fellow traveler" very strongly cemented my atheism, since what the fundamentalists were teaching made far less sense. A side-benefit of my "fellow traveler" experience came in the late 1980's when Pat Robertson made his own Presidential bid. A reporter had asked him whether a non-Christian could be saved. His response was that if that individual had obeyed all the laws in the Bible all his life, then he would be saved. The reporter walked away satisfied, not knowing how deeply he/she had been lied to. But I had "eyes to see and ears to hear" (*), so I knew what Pat Robertson's real answer was. Part of the whole fundamentalist argument was that the Law (ie, Mosaic Law) had been given as an impossible task. Nobody could ever possibly follow the whole of the Law for all his/her life. Any single infraction would make all other efforts ineffective; hence seeking salvation bhy following the whole of the Law for one's entire life would be an impossible and futile task. It is only through Jesus, the Christ (whichever), that salvation could ever be possible. So, while Pat Robertson's answer to the reporter was that it would be possible, since I had "eyes to see and ears to hear" then I knew for a fact that his answer was, "No!"{FOOTNOTE *:
Christianity is obviously one of countless mystery religions that had circulated in the vicinity of the Mediterranean from 300 BCE to 300 CE. One characteristic of a mystery religion was that it centered around a mystery, a central symbolic story in a god or demi-god had performed a number of acts which somehow led to the death or execution of that god or demi-god, followed by a resurrection of some sort. By following through and reenacting the story and symbolism of that gods'/demigod's death and resurrection, you yourself personally gained part of that god's/demigod's immortality. This would very commonly involve a symbolic eating of the god's/demigod's body and/or the drinking of his/her blood. Sound at all familiar?Another aspect of the mystery religions was the separation between the Inner Temple and the Outer Temple. The Outer Temple consisted of those services and teachings that were made available to anybody and everybody. Obviously, the whole of the Outer Temple was wrapped up in symbolic teachings and stories, none of which the outsiders could understand without having been taught what the symbolism meant.The Inner Temple was reserved for initiates, those who were initiated into the Mystery and taught what the symbolism and stories really meant.Mark is considered the earliest Gospel (at first, I thought of it as a "Reader's Digest" version of Matthew, since it was the same only very much condensed, but then I did read Matthew first. In Mark's presentation of the teaching of the parables, he describes them as being incomprehensible to the audience, except for "Those who have ears to hear". Mark was clearly talking about those who had already been initiated into the mysteries of what Jesus was teaching. And very explicitly, Jesus then takes his apostles aside in order to initiate them into the mysteries of Heaven and to explain to them the meanings of the parables (literally, "to throw around someone", meaning to say something that is meant to go over their heads (Drax: "Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast. I will catch it!")Loved it when I read Mark. More so when I read it in German (actually, I had read a Gideon New Testament I had been handed before I worked in Germany one summer, twice). I also acquired a Keppler Bibel which was my first exposure to the question of the short and long endings of Mark. }To reiterate, a "true Christian" will very willingly sin most heinously against any and all other persons. But then should his/her actions ever cause them to pause, then they will reflect upon their imperfection. From fundamentalists, I would often hear of their human imperfections, including that they would inevitably stumble and fall. And what would happen then? Well, stumbling and falling is inevitable, to be expected. Whenever that would happen, they would simply ask Jesus for forgiveness. And like any other invisible friend (unless you happen to have some very serious psychological problems), Jesus would invariably forgive you automatically without you ever needing to receive any kind of confirmation communiqu; you just knew it.So what about the person you had sinned against? You had done damage to that person. Jesus had forgiven you (what kind of invisible friend would ever do otherwise?), so you're cool, and yet the person you had so grievously wronged is still dissatisfied. OK, he's not a believer, so who would ever possibly care?That is "true believer" fantasy land. The true believer sins against an outsider. In reality, that creates very real damage. The true believer asks for and gains absolution from his/her "invisible friend" and that is good enough for him/her. In the meantime, the damage that sin had created still exists, unresolved and potentially festering.At the same time, we have what Faith had said: I am truly astounded at the sudden and unexpected grasp of morality that Faith has so suddenly realized. I could never have scarsely imagined any "true Christian"of being able to even begin to understand morality.

We are talking about a kid, a sixteen-year-old, as I recall. One who is trying to look at practical considerations, albeit in a nave manner.Faith, haven't you ever had to deal with kids? Another term could be "newbie". Every newbie walks into a new enterprise/endeavor/whatever. There is a particular way in which things happen and are done. Why is that? Well, because there is a history of such things happen and are done. It is up to the newbies to learn all that. The ship has existed for a long time and works; the newbies need to learn all the ropes to be able to run the riggings.In the meantime, Faith, many things have changed. So much of what we both have taken for granted just simply does not hold true anymore. For example, when you were driving your car up an upgrade and your engine was starting to overheat, what would you do? According to my c. 1966 7th-grade "California State Requirements" course regarding driving, you would turn your air-conditioning off and your heater on. Turning the heater on still can make sense, but not turning the air-conditioning off. More and more, our cars are being run by "brick-brain" computers, so in order to understand what our cars will do we need to understand more completely how they work. Back in the late 60's when I took States Requirements, the cooling of the engine was totally dependent on the fan that was being driven by the engine itself (picture the engine's drive shaft as running fore-and-aft). By the 1990's, far more car engines were transverse, mounted with the drive shaft going left-right instead of fore-and-aft. As such, the engine itself could no longer directly drive the radiator fan, so that job had to be handed off to a separate and independent electric fan. And the control of that fan had to be handed off to a brick-brain engine computer.In the late 1990's, I was driving a Ford Taurus with cooling problems. As it would start to overheat, conventional wisdom dictated that I turn air-conditioning off. Wrong! The electric fan for the radiator wasn't working! I had to turn air-conditioning on in order for the fan to turn on! The old arbitrary rules do not always apply. Your own theology implies the inability to change, but yet the basic rules do still keep changing.The very idea that the manner in which we view other people is so very important is one that I share. And to be frank, I am extremely amazed to find a "true Christian" who would express the exact same idea. To me, that is the very basis of morality. It is extremely surprising to find a Christian expressing the same idea.

It is late. I am self-medicating for the night. Some things may be fuzzy."True Christians" are indeed a disparaged population. That is completely because of the self definitions of such "true Christians". Basically, all the worst nightmares any rational person (obviously none of the "true Christians") could ever have about "true Christians" To be sure, most "true Christians" are completely deserving of whatever didpariging remarks may be said about them.The thing is that "true Christians" would be expected to define everything completely in terms of standard Christian theology. And yet ... .What is "moral"? Whatever GOD says it is! Really? Are you qualified to talk for God?But then you come along and talk about how we think of each other. HUH? That isn't the normal "Christian" talk about morality. Suddenly, that is surprisingly real. Not the least "Christian".Here is one of my political turning points. In the early 1980's, Ronald Reagan was talking about two political issues, abortion and female rights. Abortion. OK, that is a complex issue. Something that would take a lot of work to figure out.OK, female rights. Very straight-forward. Women are obviously fully enfranchised citizens. Nothing could ever be more straight-forward.Reagan's view was that abortion had to be dealt with with a constitutional amendment abolishing it. That was the really messy moral issue to be worked out.His view on womens' equal rights was that it was a messy moral issue that had to be worked out on the state=-law level.IOW, Reagan didn't have a clue about the most obvious issue (Equal rights for equal citizens) while at the same time thought that a truly contentious issue was some kind of slam-dunk.Faith, what is "Moral"?Let's take it down to a more appropriate lower level. The treatment of the dead.OK, let's move it back up to the level of abortion. How do we deal with that?Every zygote is full of potential. But most zygotes never ever majeure.What is the value of any individual zygote? At least half of them are not viable, could not possibly survive to maturity. Is each and every one sacred? Or are we to factor in the ones that do not survive?The hard truth about abortion is that we have to deal with individual situations. Yet at the same time, we are also having to deal in general terms. What we are dealing with is not about individual cases, but rather with the general terms in which we view and deal with individuals. Abortion is not an important moral issue because of the adult individuals involved, but rather because of all the people involved, and even more so because of the overall view of life that it engenders.