[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It's just a rotting sack of meat and bones. If people would realize that then they wouldn't cling to the corpse as if it were actually the living person, and the WBC would have no power at all and we could spend more time discussing how evil George Bush is.

It's more than just the corpse though. Not that I've thought about it until this moment, but I'd say there's a diluted ancestor worship thing going on too. Rather than in the home though, the "altar" (as it were) occupies the same semi-public physical location as the corpse.

Just a thought as to why people are getting their undies in a bundle.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I guess you've never lost someone that close to you. It's amazing how upset one gets over that rotting sack of meat and bones when the time comes. It's not about "clinging" to them as you assume but trying to accept the loss.

It's amazing how just because you may cling to a carcass that you assume that I am ignorant to the situation.

Yes, I have lost several close family members over the years, and I nearly lost my brother 2 years ago in car accident and my son to cancer 11 years ago. It's just a meat sack, it's no longer the person that it used to be.

It's just a carcass and it IS about clinging. Clinging to a dead body that no longer means anything because in our society we taught to do so and we hoard our dead as if they are precious possessions.

My point of view is a personal belief of mine and is not as insensitive as it sounds. I understand loss, but I also understand death is not a tragedy, it is a natural part of life. When we don't see that we can cling to the dead in all kinds of ways, like carting around a dead body in an expensive box with satin lining and a pillow. (a pillow for a dead person!)

[Chuckit]

People can't just suddenly become rational after a tragedy.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego

It's more than just the corpse though.

Only if you make so.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

People can't just suddenly become rational after a tragedy.

I don't know about can't, but I agree that they usually don't. All the more reason not to create legislation for the sake of irrational people. To do that is to fight irrationality, by irrational means for the sake of the irrational.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Perhaps we can explore this from a different angle then(hope I'm not repeating someone else). If someone blares a radio down my street or yells at 3am, that person can be ticketed for violating a noise ordinance. In a pure sense, isn't that violating free speech? But no one complains when that person gets a ticket(except for the person themselves)

The scope of a noise ordinance plausibly removes it from suspicion of attempting solely to silence protected speech.

I dare say any angle that you try to to work this from will be under that suspicion because, let's call a spade a spade, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

[Y3a]

Funerals are for the living. I'm not surprised that some of you don't get it though. I think is has to do with the thickness of the skull.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It's amazing how just because you may cling to a carcass that you assume that I am ignorant to the situation.

Yes, I have lost several close family members over the years, and I nearly lost my brother 2 years ago in car accident and my son to cancer 11 years ago. It's just a meat sack, it's no longer the person that it used to be.

It's just a carcass and it IS about clinging. Clinging to a dead body that no longer means anything because in our society we taught to do so and we hoard our dead as if they are precious possessions.

My point of view is a personal belief of mine and is not as insensitive as it sounds. I understand loss, but I also understand death is not a tragedy, it is a natural part of life. When we don't see that we can cling to the dead in all kinds of ways, like carting around a dead body in an expensive box with satin lining and a pillow. (a pillow for a dead person!)

Why is it amazing? The post of yours that I responded to was brief and to the point and it didn't include this additional information you have given me here. I'm sorry for the loss of your family members by the way.

At any rate, part of what is driving this debate is obviously how people regard death and dying. You view it a certain way while other's view it another. Neither is better than the other. However, you seem to think that your view is superior while everyone else's is inferior. This seems to limit your ability to empathize.

[Jawbone54]

Again, people trying to prove that in America, you have the right to be incredibly, ridiculously, hopelessly stupid in public.

I have nothing else to say about the Westboro Baptists, except that I hope they stay away from NW Lousiana.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by subego

The scope of a noise ordinance plausibly removes it from suspicion of attempting solely to silence protected speech.

I dare say any angle that you try to to work this from will be under that suspicion because, let's call a spade a spade, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

Sure, I'm just saying that from a purist point of view a noise ordinance limits free speech. However, the person doing the yelling at 3am may not consider what they are doing to be
noise. Would it be different if they were yelling political points at 3am? Should we let them deprive people in the neighborhood of sleep because of free speech?

Likewise, a person attending a funeral may consider these protests to be noise. I guess what I am saying is that there should be no protests allowed within hearing distance of anyone's funeral, soldier or not.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Only if you make so.

While brevity is the soul of wit, I'm afraid you may have been a tad too brief here.

Since I wasn't debating whether the ritual of erecting a memorial for someone was socially constructed, how did you intend for me to interpret your statement?

Do you consider that ritual as equally "silly" as a pillow for worm food?

I'm with you on the pillow thing, but as some form of ancestor worship seems so universal, I'm not necessarily convinced we haven't socially constructed something around a biological need.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I guess what I am saying is that there should be no protests allowed within hearing distance of anyone's funeral, soldier or not.

Do you think this is constitutional because other noise ordinances are constitutional, or is this just your wish for things in a perfect world?

The former (as I feel I have demonstrated, but will elaborate on if helpful) is flatly incorrect. The latter, while I sympathize with the sentiment taken in context, in a broader sense I'm quite pleased that things work the way they do.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

At any rate, part of what is driving this debate is obviously how people regard death and dying. You view it a certain way while other's view it another. Neither is better than the other. However, you seem to think that your view is superior while everyone else's is inferior. This seems to limit your ability to empathize.

Well, I can see how you would think that my view on death is what is driving my opinion. My posts have focused on that opinion a great deal. I sort got off on a tangent on an issue that does indeed puzzle me.

However, it is only a small part of my opinion on this issue. My main issue is with the wider social/political trend of legislating everything that people find offensive or inappropriate. As I said before, whenever something like this happens people want something "done" about it and that bugs me. To borrow a phrase from the separation of church and state issue: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from speech.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Funerals are for the living.

This is exactly my point. They ARE for the living. My problem is, on a personal level anyway, is that people tend to center their grief around the carcass. To me, honor and reverence of the dead has nothing to do with the body itself.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Again, people trying to prove that in America, you have the right to be incredibly, ridiculously, hopelessly stupid in public.

They do have the right. It's just that most of them go into politics.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego

While brevity is the soul of wit, I'm afraid you may have been a tad too brief here.

Since I wasn't debating whether the ritual of erecting a memorial for someone was socially constructed, how did you intend for me to interpret your statement?

Do you consider that ritual as equally "silly" as a pillow for worm food?

I'm with you on the pillow thing, but as some form of ancestor worship seems so universal, I'm not necessarily convinced we haven't socially constructed something around a biological need.

I would say that your idea about the diluted ancestor worship thing may have a ring of truth to it, but only a very small ring. In this country, in this modern age a persons worship of their ancestors generally amounts to feeling sorry for themselves for having to live without that person.

Yes, to permanently mark a "resting spot" for a corpse is silly to me. A memorial in the home would make far more sense but somehow we view that as weird, or even morbid in this country.

Look, the days of real respect and reverence for the dead are nearly gone. People generally treat the loss of a loved one in terms of how it affects the remaining, living family and friends, in other words it's another manifestation of the "it's all about me" culture we live in. We are taught from birth to cling to nearly everything, ESPECIALLY your loved ones. They are to be held onto forever at all costs. In my opinion this is not conducive to a healthy attitude towards death, it creates unnecessary grief over something that is 100% inevitable.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by subego

My apologies for not addressing the issue directly thereby encouraging this tangent.

In response to the question as to why you disliked the ACLU you responded:



Can you clarify this and provide some examples?

You may consider this incident an example, but there are still parts of your statement that would benefit from some clarification: i.e do you have a problem with the ACLU over this even though the proposed law is unconstitutional, or is the proposed law constitutional in your opinion, and this is an example of the ACLU "twisting the law"?

I'll try and be alittle more specific. I should say they put the rights of the guilty over the rights of the innocent. The problem is, when you break the law, you may give up your rights as a citizen. An example: They furiously defended the rigthts of child molesters to be able to go about in public parks etc and be around children. When they touched their first kid, they gave up their rights to be around kids. End of story. What about the rights of the kids? And their parents? Do they not have right to go to a public park free of child-molesters? More to this topic... Do innocent survivors of the dead have a right to a peaceful burial of their loved ones? According to you, no. While you and the ACLU can go on defending child-molesters and others. I'll keep defending the truly innocent who are getting trampled on in the process.

</angry and emotional rant>

[loki74]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It's just a carcass and it IS about clinging. Clinging to a dead body that no longer means anything because in our society we taught to do so and we hoard our dead as if they are precious possessions.

Well, that IS just ONE person's stance on life and death... anyway. You are in no position to say what is and isn't to any single person or group of people.

Sure, to you it may just be a meat sack, but if someone wants to "cling," why begrudge them that right? You demand that people respect your position on this topic, and that it is not as shocking as it sounds. Well, how about you show some of the same? I don't think the tradition of funerals is as ridiculous or shocking as you make it sound.

Part of what you say is true--the physical body by itself is meaningless. However, it symbolizes much more than bones and rotting tissue. Consider this: we live in a physical world--we are corporeal beings. While we do to some extent recognize each other on a depper-than-physical level, our primary mode of recognition between each other is through our phyisical manifestation: the body. So (and I am just hypothesizing here) I tend to believe that a funeral represents a show of respect not to a dead body, but to the memory of the person who was once in that body.

I mean, is a photograph any different than a gravestone or a dead body? It's just a piece of paper. But it can mean so much. Why? Because of what it symbolizes--someone you once knew or loved.

As far as ancestor worship--this notion is completely nonapplicable as an argument. If that was the purpose of funerals, there would be no funerals for children or spouses.

Now you may disagree with all of this. And that's fine, because that's just what I, one man, believe. You and everyone else can believe something entirely different. My beliefs are no better than yours, and yours no better than mine, and that's that.

So please, try to avoid condescending to anyone or looking for any respect until you are willing to show it yourself.

PS we seem to have deviated quite far from the original topic. The question was not regarding the point or lack thereof of funerals, but wheter or not the WBC should be demonstrating at them, and the ACLU's involvement in them. The ACLU is wrong to defend the WBC, because the free speech rights they claim apply equally to those having the funeral. The funeral holders should have the right to hold that funeral without being disturbed by any sort of hate. Whether or not you agree with funerals, for some it is a very huge, major thing, and their right to have this ritual undisturbed should be protected. The ACLU has once again demonstrated their extreme, completely outlandish position that transcents any left/right classification by aligning themselves with these disgusting people. Truly, I wish them the worst.

$0.02

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

In my opinion this is not conducive to a healthy attitude towards death, it creates unnecessary grief over something that is 100% inevitable.

With absolutely no sarcasm intended. I applaud your spiritual cojones.

At least, I assume it's spiritual cojones. Though the truth of this concept is not related to one's spirituality, from my (for the most part) unspiritual perspective this is just way the **** too existential.

I'll "live" with the consequences of my unhealthy attitude.

[subego]

Originally Posted by loki74

PS we seem to have deviated quite far from the original topic...

This is by far the best argument I've heard so far. I'll see if I can come up with a response of equal quality.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by loki74

Well, that IS just ONE person's stance on life and death... anyway. You are in no position to say what is and isn't to any single person or group of people.

Yeah, I said it was MY belief.

You demand that people respect your position on this topic

I demand no such thing!

Part of what you say is true--the physical body by itself is meaningless.

I never said that, and the physical body is absolutely NOT meaningless. In fact, to take it further I would say that people seem to feel that they are soul or and ego IN a body, and I would say that we don't accept that our bodies are just as much part of who we are as our minds, personalities etc. Problem is, when we die we are just fertilizer. Once the lights go out, everything that made the body what it was rots away and is no more.

However, it symbolizes much more than bones and rotting tissue.

I mean, is a photograph any different than a gravestone or a dead body? It's just a piece of paper. But it can mean so much. Why? Because of what it symbolizes--someone you once knew or loved.

Just think of all the suffering we bring upon ourselves by clinging to symbols of things that no longer exist. Photo's are wonderful and I have many of my family, but enjoying something and clinging to it are two different things. I know a woman who cried hysterically over the loss of her family photos…most of them were of people STILL LIVING. People who come to my house ask me why I don't have any pictures of my children on the walls. They think I am nuts when I say: "They live with me, why would I display pictures of what they used to look like?" I prefer to view people as they ARE, not live in a place that doesn't exist…the past.

As far as ancestor worship--this notion is completely nonapplicable as an argument. If that was the purpose of funerals, there would be no funerals for children or spouses.

Well, I didn't bring it up but even a dead spouse or child is eventually someone's ancestor.

Now you may disagree with all of this. And that's fine, because that's just what I, one man, believe. You and everyone else can believe something entirely different. My beliefs are no better than yours, and yours no better than mine, and that's that.

Um…yeah…I know.

So please, try to avoid condescending to anyone or looking for any respect until you are willing to show it yourself.

Sir, I expect no respect or disrespect from anyone. I simply give my point of view and take whatever responses for what they are. You are the one who seems to have an issue with respect, don't project that upon me.

PS we seem to have deviated quite far from the original topic. The question was not regarding the point or lack thereof of funerals, but wheter or not the WBC should be demonstrating at them, and the ACLU's involvement in them. The ACLU is wrong to defend the WBC, because the free speech rights they claim apply equally to those having the funeral. The funeral holders should have the right to hold that funeral without being disturbed by any sort of hate. Whether or not you agree with funerals, for some it is a very huge, major thing, and their right to have this ritual undisturbed should be protected. The ACLU has once again demonstrated their extreme, completely outlandish position that transcents any left/right classification by aligning themselves with these disgusting people. Truly, I wish them the worst.

$0.02

The issue of how we treat death is at the very heart of the matter. It is our unrealistic attitude toward our carcasses and our love of media entertainment that gives the WBC their voice.

And your opinion on the issue is wrong!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego

With absolutely no sarcasm intended. I applaud your spiritual cojones.

At least, I assume it's spiritual cojones. Though the truth of this concept is not related to one's spirituality, from my (for the most part) unspiritual perspective this is just way the **** too existential.

I'll "live" with the consequences of my unhealthy attitude.

Well, I don't know if "cajones" is the right term…it's just the way I feel.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, I don't know if "cajones" is the right term

That's how I see it from where I'm standing.

I mean it with a lot of respect too in case you can't tell from the expression on my face.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yeah, I said it was MY belief.
...
I demand no such thing!
...
Um…yeah…I know.
...
Sir, I expect no respect or disrespect from anyone. I simply give my point of view and take whatever responses for what they are.

Well I'm glad you feel this way, although it was most definately not the impression I got from your posts. But I'll take your word for it.

Originally Posted by smacintush

You are the one who seems to have an issue with respect, don't project that upon me.

Nope. I believe I have made my respect of your's and others' beliefs abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by smacintush

I never said that, and the physical body is absolutely NOT meaningless. In fact, to take it further I would say that people seem to feel that they are soul or and ego IN a body, and I would say that we don't accept that our bodies are just as much part of who we are as our minds, personalities etc. Problem is, when we die we are just fertilizer. Once the lights go out, everything that made the body what it was rots away and is no more.

You misunderstand--I meant to say physical body without the mind, sould, ego, personality, and whatnot...ie, a dead body. Sorry for the lack of specificity. And again we agree--the body is part of who we are (my rationalization for this is partly due to the fact that we are corporeal beings...)

Originally Posted by smacintush

Just think of all the suffering we bring upon ourselves by clinging to symbols of things that no longer exist. Photo's are wonderful and I have many of my family, but enjoying something and clinging to it are two different things. I know a woman who cried hysterically over the loss of her family photos…most of them were of people STILL LIVING. People who come to my house ask me why I don't have any pictures of my children on the walls. They think I am nuts when I say: "They live with me, why would I display pictures of what they used to look like?" I prefer to view people as they ARE, not live in a place that doesn't exist…the past.

I see your point, but to me that is not what is at issue here! If people want to bring suffering upon themselves by clinging to symbols, that should be their right, no? And the WBC should not have the power to infringe on that right, correct?

Originally Posted by smacintush

The issue of how we treat death is at the very heart of the matter. It is our unrealistic attitude toward our carcasses and our love of media entertainment that gives the WBC their voice.

Perhaps... but the tradition of funerals is long standing and well established in America and around the world, regardless of how unrealistic or ridiculous is may be or seem. It is not right that an entire nation, or anyone for that matter, should have to sacrifice such a major tradition simply to "take the voice away" from the WBC, as it were. The right to have a funeral in peace should be protected.

Originally Posted by smacintush

And your opinion on the issue is wrong!

No, yours is wrong!!

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by subego

Can you clarify this and provide some examples?

You may consider this incident an example, but there are still parts of your statement that would benefit from some clarification: i.e do you have a problem with the ACLU over this even though the proposed law is unconstitutional, or is the proposed law constitutional in your opinion, and this is an example of the ACLU "twisting the law"?

Originally Posted by greenG4

I'll try and be alittle more specific. I should say they put the rights of the guilty over the rights of the innocent. The problem is, when you break the law, you may give up your rights as a citizen. An example: They furiously defended the rigthts of child molesters to be able to go about in public parks etc and be around children. When they touched their first kid, they gave up their rights to be around kids. End of story. What about the rights of the kids? And their parents? Do they not have right to go to a public park free of child-molesters? More to this topic... Do innocent survivors of the dead have a right to a peaceful burial of their loved ones? According to you, no. While you and the ACLU can go on defending child-molesters and others. I'll keep defending the truly innocent who are getting trampled on in the process.

Okay subego you've had a day to think about a good comeback...

[subego]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Okay subego you've had a day to think about a good comeback...

I'm working on it. I got double teamed by you and loki's damn good response.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by loki74

You misunderstand--I meant to say physical body without the mind, sould, ego, personality, and whatnot...ie, a dead body. Sorry for the lack of specificity. And again we agree--the body is part of who we are (my rationalization for this is partly due to the fact that we are corporeal beings...)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I see your point, but to me that is not what is at issue here! If people want to bring suffering upon themselves by clinging to symbols, that should be their right, no? And the WBC should not have the power to infringe on that right, correct?

So if we agree that they have that right (and we do), then does that right also give them (or the government) the right to infringe upon the WBC's right to express something that they obviously feel strongly about? The last I checked, freedom of speech was in the Bill of Rights. There's nothing there about freedom of undisrupted funerals.

No, yours is wrong!!

If there's one thing that 11 years of marriage has taught me, it's that I'm always wrong!

[subego]

Okay folks. I'm back.

Originally Posted by greenG4

They furiously defended the rigthts of child molesters to be able to go about in public parks etc and be around children.

I'm not sure which case you're referring to. The most recent one I've found is in Indianapolis where:

Originally Posted by indystar.com

The ordinance prohibits sex offenders convicted of crimes against children from coming within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or facilities when children are around

I sincerely hope this isn't the example you're thinking of. 1,000 feet? That's more than three football fields. It covers so much territory the interstate ends up in an exclusionary zone for Pete's sake. Twice.

This law is like beyond unconstitutional.

Frankly, If I wasn't a believer in the commandment "thou shalt not explain by conspiracy that which is more simply explained by stupidity" I'd say this law was created specifically to bait the ACLU into suing.

I mean, who can resist "ACLU furiously defends rights of child molesters" as a headline?

That being said, the ACLU charges this law with being "vague", which seems to imply they don't so much have an issue with the concept, just its blatantly egregious implementation.

Originally Posted by greenG4

Do innocent survivors of the dead have a right to a peaceful burial of their loved ones? According to you, no.

Well, I might argue with the way you phrase it, but for all intents and purposes that is the effective result of my position. At least until loki presented his argument. The protester's protected political speech is in tension with the mourner's protected religious speech. I'm certainly not qualified to split such a fine constitutional hair.

I certainly don't have any problem with this being determined by someone who is qualified (like a judge) and abiding by their decision. Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing, but some (perhaps you) seem to be nauseated by this fundamental aspect of our legal system.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by subego

I certainly don't have any problem with this being determined by someone who is qualified (like a judge) and abiding by their decision. Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing, but some (perhaps you) seem to be nauseated by this fundamental aspect of our legal system.

I am not in the least nauseated by our legal system. It's has its flaws, but overall it's better than most. It's the ACLU that nauseates me. Another example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they fight for allowing underage girls to have abortions w/out parental consent or knowledge? This too, is just sick in my book.

Edit: I didn't realize you responded this morning. Glad you did.

[subego]

Originally Posted by greenG4

I am not in the least nauseated by our legal system... It's the ACLU that nauseates me.

The more I think about this the bigger the problem I have seeing these two statements as anything other than mutually exclusive. The ACLU is a healthy outgrowth of several of the more enlightened fundamentals of our government, not the least of which is that the most innocent of the innocent and the guiltiest of the guilty are both equally "worthy" of a defense.

You accuse the ACLU of "defend[ing] things that are inexcusable". If you think inexcusable things don't deserve a defense you have a fundamental problem with how our legal system works.

Originally Posted by greenG4

Another example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they fight for allowing underage girls to have abortions w/out parental consent or knowledge? This too, is just sick in my book.

On more than one occasion, you've proposed an argument with the basic form of "the ACLU defends [heinous wrong] therefore the ACLU is [scathing adjective]".

Should one of these examples see an ACLU win, explain to me how your argument does not become functionally equivalent to "the ACLU defends [the law of the land] therefore the ACLU is [scathing adjective]"?

How is a dislike of the ACLU in this instance not more accurately described as a dislike of the permissiveness of the Constitution?

Edit: typo