"No real estate is permanently valuable but the grave."
- Mark Twain
Life is imitating art, in its own unique way. Michael Jackson was born and grew up in Gary, Indiana, a suburb of Chicago. This past week amid a quantity of media coverage, thousands of his fans attended his memorial service. His most famous music, from 1982, still the best selling album of all time was Thriller, about horror movies, monsters, and frightening things happening in graveyards away from the light of day. It is an ironic coincidence that sets the tone for a macabre news event.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-forensic-scientist_10jul10,0,7703736.story http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1659384,burr-oak-cemetery-bodies-chicago-070909.article
The imitation of Jackson's art of horror came this week in another suburb of Chicago, at the Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois. While no corpses left their graves through supernatural means, a number of dead bodies did depart - more than 100 of them.
The bodies were dug up, tossed in an overgrown, unused part of the cemetery, dismembered and left in a pile of bones. Caskets and headstones were smashed, and the surrounding concrete vaults destroyed.
Then the cemetery manager resold the vacated grave sites, off the books, altering the previous records. The cemetery manager, Carolyn Towns and three of her employees, grave diggers Keith Nicks, Terrence Nicks and Maurice Dailey were charged with Class X felonies.
The FBI will be using DNA to help identify the mixed up pile of bones, so that so far as possible, the deceased will be identified and eventually reburied, provided relatives can be located to provide blood or saliva samples. Relatives of those whose bodies were treated with such cruel disrespect are understandably distraught. This is not only an horrific act of greed, a terrible tragedy of disrespect for the dead, but also acts of utter disregard for the feelings of those whose loved ones were entrusted to their care and safety. It is an act of wicked cruelty to the family and friends of those who had been buried at Burr Oak Cemetery.
It is inconceivable that these four people who were employed by this cemetery could have so little regard for so many people, living or dead. It is sometimes said that we can tell a great deal about how we care for the living by how we care for the dead. The real events in Burr Oak Cemetery are a greater horror story than Jackson's fictional Thriller could ever aspire to be.
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't disagree with you DG, but some athiests think a dead body is the same as a dead tree... but actually has less value... I have heard some decry the use of some of the best land in a town..."
It is a mistaken characterization to assume that because someone is an atheist they dont' respect dead people as people. Nor is there any indication that these people are atheists.
The arguments against our modern style of burial customs has some merit. Personally, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, I either want to donate my corpse to science...or be cremated, for the very reason posited against cemeteries.
Although as a Jesuit I disagree with the very idea of atheism, as DG said there is no indication that these people are atheists. Moreover, respect for human remains isn't a religious issue. This is a basic human decency issue. Regardless of the argument about use of land, no one has the right to dig up those remains and simply discard them, especially when the motive is greed. This was a crime and a moral wrong of the highest magnitude. Fortunately, it appears that the law in Illinois will punish them severely if convicted.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if the criminals who so disrespectfully disposed of the remains of 100 or more of the loved ones of so many people were atheists - or not.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to guess, what I would suspect happened is that they were very greedy people, and they felt they had a need or a want, which was more important to them than other people. I would also bet that working in the funeral industry instead of making them more sensitive, were made less sensitive about taking care of the dead, because it became a business - and ONLY a business. No one thinks of themselves as evil; they have to find a rationalization to be evil and do evil. In my experience, that rationalization is nearly always about putting themselves first,about making themselves and their wants and needs disproportionately important. And putting others disproportionately distant, second (or even further away from themselves); regardless of their religion or ethical beliefs. They simply find a way to no longer apply those beliefs to the people they harm or wrong.
K,
ReplyDeleteYour line of questions is a non-sequitor. It's irrelevant to this discussion.
Clearly, CLEARLY, those people who burried their relatives in that cemetary DID care about the remains of those relatives. Whether some one, or some people don't, some place else, is of no material worth in this discussion other than as a theorhetical exercise about whether someone can dismiss the remains of a loved one as being simply a vessel, worth nothing once no longer living.
Can that happen, sure, but it didn't for these folks, and that's what this post was about.
Krod, yes this post is about the people who did this, AND the loved ones of the deceased who were hurt by their actions.
ReplyDeleteYes, the bad guys COULD be atheists, and could equally NOT be; I would be reluctant to make any conclusions without more evidence than has been provided. In response to your observation, may I point out that I know atheists who are ethical, and who have respect for the dead and grieving.
While I respect your choice to view this as a gang of atheists, I will not join you in your assumptions, out of respect for the atheists I know who are every bit as respectful and ethical as you or I, or anyone else here.
I think it would be fair to say the people who did this have little or no morals and ethics. While that describes some atheists it also describes some Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and people of just about every religion or belief on earth.While it is unlikely that an atheist would consider this a sacriledge as many religious people would, most would still consider it wrong because you are still stealing the grave back and selling it to someone else.
ReplyDeleteToday's news brings a new 'danse macabre'; the story that a 6'7" albino black gentleman who died of skin cancer was made to fit into his coffin by the assistant to the mortician (his father, as it turns out cutting the legs off of the corpse just below the knees in order to fit the man into a more standard size coffin. A disgruntled ex-employee told the family of the deceased about the mutilation, resulting in the corpse being exhumed, and a trial taking place. Why are we suddenly being swamped with these incredibly bizarre occurrences in regards to decency and respect for the dead? It's incredibly ghoulish. I cannot begin to understand how these ideas ever seemed like they made any kind of sense to someone...
ReplyDeleteKRod says:
ReplyDelete"K-Rod said...
Well, it's not like the mortician doesn't do a lot of altering of the bodies for viewing, sure cutting the legs is not a standard part of the altering that they indeed do.
I question the validity of a lawsuit. On what grounds?"
The procedures that morticians are allowed to perform are regulated; my impression is that with the exception of embaliming fluid in the body replacing the blood supply, and some relatively minor cosmetic procedures, anything else is prohibited by legal restrictions of the profession.
Certainly lopping off legs like inconvenient tree limbs and stuffing them into a coffin next to the body is mutilating a corpse, not appropriate activity.
There has already been a court case, and the mortician lost and lost his license besides. Have no idea what damages if any were awarded.
Truth to the cliche that fact is stranger than fiction could ever hope to be, LOL.
ReplyDeleteIn most states, desecrating a corpse is a criminal offense. For a mortician to do so, without the knowledge and consent of the family, would certainly be grounds for the loss of his/her license. Its also a tort. The deceased presumably did not give consent to be carved up, and the family (next of kin) presumably did not consent. The family would have an action against the mortician for misfeasance in his duties. I'm not certain how to award damages, those would probably be awarded based on emotional damage, etc. Regardless, there is a cause of action in the case.
ReplyDeleteBTW, K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteIf you are using the term "burbot" to refer to lawyers or attorneys, I find the use of the word to refer to attorneys or lawyers offensive.
A burbot, also known as the species lota lota is a freshwater cod-like fish. Its common in parts of the Great Lakes and upper North America.
Now that you know what a burbot is, you can see that the use of the term to refer to a lawyer or attorney is incorrect.
If I might use this topic to share a small anecdote...
ReplyDeleteWhen I was around 3 or 4 years old, my parents brought me along to the funeral of a relative that I didn't know. My father was left watching over me, and joined in conversation about ten feet away with one of my uncles, near where the coffin was available in the church for people to pay last respects prior to the start of the funeral service itself. Being a curious child, I remember walking up to the coffin and staring at it, fascinated with how the split lids of the top attached to the bottom part of the coffin.
While I was standing there, a man I did not know came up to the coffin and began chatting with me, asking me if I was afraid. Precocious urchin that I was, I deeply resented any instance where I thought an adult was being either condescending or patronizing, including this instance. I indicated quite emphatically that I wasn't afraid in the slightest. That the person in the coffin was dead, and they only climbed out of coffins in cheap horror movies, which were fiction. And elaborated further, that it was an over-used plot device.
This snapped my father to attention; he had no idea that I had ever seen one horror movie, much less formed an opinion of routine aspects of the genre. A playmate's older sibling loved horror movies, so I had been exposed to... probably all of a half-dozen in my short little life.
Instead of interrupting me, my father and uncle simply moved closer to hear the rest of our conversation, between the unsuspecting adult man and I.
Intrigued with my unexpected answer, the man asked me if I knew what did happen after a person died. My dad and my uncle drifted a little closer to listen.
Very matter of factly, I explained that yes, I understood very well what happened after a person died.
The man asked me what I thought happened. Taking quiet umbrage with the expression 'what did I think happened', which I took to mean he didn't believe I actually knew, instead of a more polite answer, I opted instead for the rude lyrics to that childhood ditty about 'the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out, the worms play pinochle on your snout; your stomache turns a slimy green and pus runs out like whipping cream...
I was midway into the second verse when the poor man fled the conversation. Trying very hard not to laugh out loud, my father and uncle each grabbed one of my arms and hustled me out to the church parking lot. Ostensibly to have a last cigarrette before the service, but mostly because they would have both caught holy hell from my mother and my aunt if they broke out laughing in such close proximity to a corpse in church before a funeral.
My mother and aunt eventually caught up with us. I caught holy hell for using the word 'pus' in church; my father and uncle caught less heck but still were spoken to sharply for not stopping me sooner. My uncle opined that watching an unsuspecting adult in conversation to me was like watching cartoon characters backing into cartoon buzz saws.
In my own defense, I pointed out that the strane man was the one who brought up the topic of decomposition.
Except that apparently, he hadn't actually. The man was the officiating minister, and he had intended to speak to me upliftingly about life after death, not ... decomposition and pus.
Once my aunt and mother had returned inside the church, my uncle and father continued to guffaw until it was time for the funeral itself to start and we had to go back in. I remained stubbornly unrepentant for my comments; I thought the man had it coming to him. I can only imagine now what the poor minister thought about it all. In any case, he did not speak to me again - not surprising, I suppose.
From an early age, I have had perhaps a sometimes too literal interpretation of events occasinally, and certainly a fascination with biological processes and comparative anatomy.
In hindsight I still think it was pretty funny; hope it gives you a chuckle as well, to lighten up the topic.
KRod, you were asked politely not to continue with lawyer insults.
ReplyDeleteThere were two of your comments pending, and for the first, the only time since I have been writing for Penigma, I did not pass the comments for publication. There was essentially no content OTHER than insults.
I do not wish to be a party to escalating insults. Not towards you, and not by you.
You can be very thoughtful and very articulate, and clearly are very passionate in your feelings about your conservative views. I hope we see more of those posts, and not any more of the ones I did not pass for publication.
If you are going to be angry with anyone, it will have to be me and only me.
Penigma never even had the chance to see them; the authority was entirely mine. I didn't like doing it, but I felt I was acting in accordance with how the administrative rules were to be followed.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"I apologize if I made TOE cry, that was not my intent. Quite the opposite actually."
You didn't get the chance to offend further KRod, nor would I call a polite if bored request to knock off a derogatory phrase making someone cry. I am the one who decided enough is enough.
You should know that I have been just as insistent in private conversations with Pen by phone that you be treated with greater courtesy as well.
It is worth noting that there were not any problems with courtesy without your participation, but there were not any of the positive aspects you bring so uniquely either.
It is because the written word lacks the cues of the spoken word that offense is sometimes more easily taken. In this case, I am less convinced that offense was not intended. So, no 'cry', just on my part an exasperated 'sigh'. I am Lutheran by background, the very conservative WELS, not roman catholic, so I do not have a lot of firsthand experience with Jesuits. However, the little I do know about Jesuits consistently has been commending their intellectual and academic capacities, and very rigorous training. I have a solid conviction that ToE is underneath his courteous and spiritual aspects, a pretty tough, rugged, and very disciplined individual.
Please feel free to resubmit your comments without the very personal language that addresses individuals rather than the subject in front of us. Addressing the topics at hand instead, with as much passion as you like, should avoid any further obstacles.
DG, apparently based on the inane comments from the peanut gallery..
ReplyDeleteWhen Mitch banned folks for calling him on his lies, was that further evidence of Conservative Fascism creeping into society?
When he banned people for questioning his understanding of his faith apparently it was a furtherance of Conservative Fascism penetration into our society.
KR:
ReplyDelete"K-Rod said...
"resubmit your comments"
I was supposed to save those comments in case you delete them? Really?"
No. You should reconstruct them, without the objectionable bits and then resubmmit THOSE. Think of it as self editing to leave just the good stuff.
The Obama faux chat, not so hot as you seem to think. But clearly you DO have some very clover moments, so the next idea may be gold.
Krod wrote:
ReplyDelete"Tracy claims Mitch has a bit of a liberal streak, so that might have been a bit of Liberal Fascism you saw, Penigma."
Who is Tracy and why would he / she say that?
Fascism is not a word that comes to my mind when I think of Mitch. But I have to admit that the Mitch I know personally seems in some ways very different from the Mitch persona on SitD and even his radio show. Which leads me to wonder how I might seem different to those who know me from what I suppose will be an inevitable development of my own blog persona...although the Pen I speak with directly seems very much the same person that writes here. Maybe it takes longer than either of us has been writing to develop?
K-Rod:
ReplyDelete"Tracy claims Mitch has a bit of a liberal streak, so that might have been a bit of Liberal Fascism you saw, Penigma."
Actually K-Rod, it was exactly like Mitch on SiTD, and MUCH like many conservatives I know. They don't see their own conduct (saying insulting things, for example), but complain mightily about it. I wasn't taking a shot at Mitch as much as making a joke about the fact that many fingers are pointing backward on your complaint. The irony is, you were blind to it again, and again tried to point it to something else.
In this case, you pointed it to a term YOU said meant something else, meaning the actions of liberals to force governmental control and to squelch dissent. NOW you seem to want to claim that ALL efforts to squelch discourse are in fact "Liberal Fascism." I think you've unfortunately fallen deeply into a hole of claiming EVERYTHING is this poorly substantiated euphamism, and by so doing, rob it of all meaning.
Regardless, I think between the attempts to ban books, call people who dissent "America Haters", call people who stood up for civil rights "n___er lovers" etc.. I think there is a substantial amount of evidence that the right has it's own brand of PC'ism - and what's more, that it is a ubiquitous charicataristic of the right that they refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy, will grasp or accept nuance, not because of incapacity, but because of indemic arrogance.
DG - I appreciate the fact that you find me to be consistent- but I hope that's a good consistency rather than a bad :). On this blog, though to much less a degree than elsewhere - I am hard pressed to suffer base and deragutory conduct. In real life, I'm a pretty amiable guy, so is Mitch. I try to be consistent in treating people the same here as in real life, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit I'm a bit more aggressive here with people who behave badly. So, I'm hoping your opinion reflected that you think I treat people well here, rather than treat people poorly offline :). Either way, thanks for the support.
I am still wondering who Tracy is... but as a purely housekeeping issue, may I please, politely request that the fascism thread adjourn to the fascism article instead of appearing under the topic Danse Macabre?
ReplyDeleteI don't want to squelch any discussion, but it would be easier to follow all of the disparate points under one heading.
In advance of your cooperation, thank you.
I'm sorry K-Rod, but it sure seems you are rather insecure that you think anyone is blaming you for anything - clearly that was not the case.
ReplyDeleteI clearly wasn't blaming you for Mitch, I was rather CLEARLY pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to claim that Mitch's conduct was either different from what you were complaining about (cencorship effectively) or worse, that it represented him "acting like a liberal" - Mitch is his own man, he reflects the character of most conservatives I know - and his conduct is entirely consistent with their conduct. Both liberals and conservatives find certain things objectionable, and both act to bring them to an end. I think conservatives fail to see their own similar conduct more often than most liberals, but that of course is purely opinion.
That said, if twisting/snipping my comments to salve your ego helps you.. well, ok - but I am reasonably confident that the other people reading here can see that snip/cut/paste out of context/abbreviated quotations is a pretty shabby method of argumentation.
The point being K-Rod, was not that YOUR conduct was exactly like Mitch, I don't recall you ever asking for me to delete a comment - but rather MITCH'S conduct deleting comments was consistent with past conduct in similar circumstances. While my wording could have (I suppose) been more direct - your inability to link logical ideas seems to be hindering your arguments. Obviously, since you've never sought to have comments here deleted (I can't say about anything else) - I pretty obviously wasn't talking about you.
ReplyDeleteThat said K, you HAVE objected to insults, or perceived insults, and asked (in a back-handed way) that they stop. Isn't that also a form of censorship, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? Wouldn't your demand to have insults cease, while ceaselessly insulting mean in fact you ARE just like Mitch (which again isn't blaming you for Mitch but rather noting the irony). Thanks for helping me realize the connection between you two.
Me thinks Penigma doth protest too much.
ReplyDelete"...trying to claim..."
Stop making things up, you silly. No quote brings you no credibility.
"...inability to link logical ideas..."
Excellent example of how more fingers are pointing at YOU, Penigma. Nice one.
"...other people reading here..."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
K-rod, may I invite you to read my most recent comments under Fascism part I; I think they may address your comment here under Danse Macabre...
ReplyDelete