Ship of Fools: "We won't bury him"

Thread: "We won't bury him" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025287

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Caught part of a public radio show today in which a Muslim person was talking about effects of the Boston bomb on the American Muslim community, the ridiculousness of "racial profiling" of Muslims when there are people of multiple races who are Muslim including the two brothers who are white.

In the course of saying Muslim religion is emphatically opposed to harming civilians, and all American Muslim groups spoke out against the Boston bombing, he said the dead brother will not be buried in a Muslim cemetery because "his violence proved he is not one of us."

That concept intrigued me. There was a time when Christian burial in Christian cemeteries was denied to people who were judged to have strayed too far. Does that still happen at all? Should it?

Would Christian groups refuse to bury someone who threw bombs in "Jesus' name" on the grounds a random killer obviously wasn't Christian, or would they say "we have to forgive and put him in God's hands?"

I think if no American Muslim group will bury the dead brother, that's a politically smart move because burying him would be taken as endorsing his actions. But we would say burying one of our strays is not endorsement of the dead one's actions, right? Does it have to be different if you are a minority and too often distrusted group?

Musing, not sure what I think. Just struck by the rejection after death of someone apparently "religious" because of what he did - both the political wisdom, and a personal queasiness about that stance if we applied it to ourselves. Or maybe we do? What do I know.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Christians should then bury him in a Christian cemetery. We should embrace him. After having embraced his victim's families.

I thought it was terribly sad here after 7/7 that the parents of at least one of the murder-suicide bombers asked to be included in a Christian memorial service but the parents of victims refused. All VERY understandable. But I'm not aware of Christians going to the bomber's funeral.

As it is his remains will be disposed of by the Commonwealth in a minimal fashion I imagine.

[ 22. April 2013, 07:48: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is/was an issue re death by suicide. I found this link. and also this one. It seems clear from the other Catholic Encyclopedia article on suicide that the position is clear in principle and nuanced in practice.

I think of it as a service to be provided with compassion to grieving relatives whose state of mind can only be imagined where there is public notoriety or shame surrounding the death of a loved one. Providing a rite of passage, even for the most depraved of individuals, seems like a merciful thing to do on behalf of the relatives.

And on the other hand, making any kind of "in yer face" public show of a decent act of committal may cause great additional hurt to those who have been deeply hurt by the deceased. Plus, for any celebrant, there is the issue of conscience. Sometimes it must be very hard to find the right words to use, the right things to say. That's not a trivial issue.

These things speak to me more to the question of how things should be done, rather than whether they should be done. I'd say "if at all humanly possible, help with the rite of passage".

[ 22. April 2013, 07:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It is definitely the case that the Christian church did deny burial to people it considered "beyond the pale".

I think it has changed as municipal graveyards became common, so the approval of the church was less important. Along with the increased occurance of cremation, this broke the churches hold on the afterlife.

Blog posting

I put up this post the other day because I found the demonisation of them as Muslims - and the presentation of them as "foreign" is bad.

I think this action is a good idea. They are being denied acceptance into the faith they claim, and this distances Islam from these acts. Good on them.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Sophocles gets it right in Antigone. To deny burial, even to your worst enemy, is a monstrous breach of human dignity.

Posted by loggats (# 17643) on :

I don't think the RCC advocated denying burial in the sense of leaving ta body exposed for wild animals and things to get at... but that bodies were buried outside consecrated ground for various reasons was (perhaps still is?) a historical reality.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

In recent years, RC bishops have required that funerals for notorious evildoers be downgraded, that is, without the full works of ceremonial music etc. I recall reading of funerals from mafiosi in the New York or New Jersey area which were held in smaller churches with no eulogies, just a (text pre-approved) homily.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I think if no American Muslim group will bury the dead brother, that's a politically smart move because burying him would be taken as endorsing his actions.

Since when does burying someone mean endorsing his actions? My liturgy always contained a call for mercy for the deceased and confession of sins for those present. Truly, there'd be few people one could bury if one had to endorse their actions.
Whether people "take" you "as endorsing his actions" is different. That surely depends on
a) the words you find upon the occasion - always a challenge when burying known criminals and
b) people's ill-will towards you. Antigone's king Kreon is the bad example on that front.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

One of the more touching incidents of recent times came out of the Nickel Mines shooting of 10 Amish schoolgirls. Surely we could reach out to the family - and, in time, even the surviving brother - in such a manner? It's hard, now, I know, but I pray for the man as well as the victims. He'll spend the rest of his life in prison, if they don't sentence him to death, but he could still be free in Christ...

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Leaving someone deliberately unburied is an affront to human dignity. That is not what is being suggested. It is the equivalent of refusing to accept a burial in sacred ground, which was the fate of suicides, and, I think, anyone who died unshriven at some point.

The burial of a person with full honour is an acknowledgement of support for the person. That is one reason why the Thatcher funeral rankled - the type of funeral was an indication that she had been a great minister of state, which some people believe, but others so not.

That is why this seems to be an appropriate act. It is not refusing to bury them, it is refusing to acknowledge their claims to represent Islam.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I think if no American Muslim group will bury the dead brother, that's a politically smart move because burying him would be taken as endorsing his actions.
Since when does burying someone mean endorsing his actions?

I didn't say it did, but do you really think the papers and internet wouldn't be full of "see, they buried him in their cemetery, that means they admit he's one of them, that proves they're all bombers at heart." And attract protests (some destructive) at the grave.

Letting the state bury him quietly seems smart politically.

I just wondered how common it is to refuse burial to someone who was a recent regular at your worship community, which articles I'm reading say he was. (But we know how reliable articles are.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Leaving someone deliberately unburied is an affront to human dignity. That is not what is being suggested. It is the equivalent of refusing to accept a burial in sacred ground, which was the fate of suicides, and, I think, anyone who died unshriven at some point.

It might be closer to say that they were declaring him excommunicate by his actions, and so not burying him with the faithful. And surely it's possible to pray earnestly for someone's salvation whilst saying that at the time of his death he was separated from the Church. So if the Muslim community in Boston is refusing a Muslim burial for the bomber, I think they're doing the right thing.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I take your point Barnabas as ever. But the Church MUST take every opportunity to declare the gospel to ALL who grieve, without partiality. And suffer for it as it did under Margaret Thatcher in the persons of the Robert Runcie then Archbishop of Canterbury and Alan Webster then Dean of St. Paul's.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
the dead brother will not be buried in a Muslim cemetery because "his violence proved he is not one of us"... Would Christian groups refuse to bury someone who threw bombs in "Jesus' name" on the grounds a random killer obviously wasn't Christian, or would they say "we have to forgive and put him in God's hands?"

We can't say that of anyone who has become a member of the church by a sacrament that we hold to be indelible. But some sects are not as objective as this. Therefore, anyone's continued membership is contingent on the absence of popular hysteria. We make our choice and take our chances, don't we (sorta like taking a pension either with or without guaranteed death benefits-- a decision I have to make very soon [Big Grin]

)

I'm afraid I know nothing about the terms of membership in a mosque, or initition into the Muslim community. If they vary from flavor to flavor as much as Christians do, then this total rejection could be totally unsurprising and legitimate.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians should then bury him in a Christian cemetery. We should embrace him. After having embraced his victim's families.

You mean very well with this, and I sympathize. But absent any last-minute change of heart, the choices one has made should be respected after death. Isn't that part of a sincere embrace. If he was not a Christian, then it would be paternalistic and arrogant to treat him as one, as though we know his desires better than he.

Unless you also approve of the Mormons' posthumous baptism of ancesters (as much as it has facilitated the pastime of genealogy) [Snigger]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That concept intrigued me. There was a time when Christian burial in Christian cemeteries was denied to people who were judged to have strayed too far. Does that still happen at all?

In the Orthodox Church, there are strictures surrounding the funerals of those who choose to be cremated. The application of leniency on this matter varies from one jurisdiction or even bishop to another, the particular circumstances often being taken into account.

In Japan, for instance, I understand that there is simply no provision in law for the burial of the dead, so economia is stretched as far as it will go.

In Britain, where cremation is not a legal requirement, I have only two experiences of it in an Orthodox context. In one example, the funeral was simply not allowed but a memorial service of prayer (panykhida) for the departed was permitted because the cremation was not the will of the deceased, but was decided upon after his death by his family. In the other example, in a different jurisduction, although the cremation was the expressed desire of the deceased, the first part of the funeral (in church) was still allowed but the priest was not permitted to have anything to do with what was to take place afterwards.

This reminds me that, now that I have stable work and pennies, I really ought to put some practical plans in place. Finding somewhere to be buried might be a good start.

[ 23. April 2013, 10:00: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Leaving someone deliberately unburied is an affront to human dignity. That is not what is being suggested. It is the equivalent of refusing to accept a burial in sacred ground, which was the fate of suicides, and, I think, anyone who died unshriven at some point.

SC, I don't know if you were taking issue with my reference to Antigone, but your comment is pertinent. In Antigone, the issue isn't that Polyneices' body is left exposed on the battlefield, but that he is denied the burial rites. When Antigone proposes breaking the law for Polyneices' sake, she's not going to bury him in a hole to prevent his body being eaten by animals - she's intending just to sprinkle a handful of earth over him to satisfy the ritual requirement.

The ritual disposal of the dead is one of humanity's oldest and deepest impulses, and its denial is a profound and disturbing thing.

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

Anyone else remember the church funeral of Ronnie Kray - the attempt to show him as a working-class hero? That was most disturbing - a public approval of evil. That sort of thing is rightly what the Muslim community in Boston want to avoid. Refusing to bury him is very much the lesser of two evils.

[ 23. April 2013, 12:58: Message edited by: John D. Ward ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Alogon. Thank you. His adapted, fallen, meaningless, autonmous identity before the resurrection is irrelevant. Like ours. His restitution should be as celebrated as possible.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I see he's been officially refused by the mosque they attended. I understand why, but i wish my congregation was in the area so we could offer to help.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

A variation on this topic was discussed about three years ago in Dead Horses. It's not a long thread, and may provide useful context.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I see he's been officially refused by the mosque they attended. I understand why, but i wish my congregation was in the area so we could offer to help.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0