Josh, in response to your responses…. Just as we will die, so will our markers eventually disappear – even the pyramids can’t escape this. Both battles are lost causes. But a battle that is lost at the outset might still be worth fighting. Not for the material results but for the spiritual and cultural rewards. The attempt to leave a longer mark than your body’s lifespan attests to a higher aspiration than mortal human life. And an aspiration can sometimes work apparent miracles. Isn’t your whole American way of life based on trying the impossible? Are we not brave enough to aspire to the same regarding death? But here I really am mixing my categories – or I set a different priority. As I see it, the practical realization of something is guided by the aims of a higher spiritual imagination or vision. In the green burial movement, this higher spiritual vision is focused on the earth’s well-being, and the movement attempts to realize this. I come first from a vision of man’s cultural and spiritual needs, rather than the earth’s. But I do not for a moment doubt that our needs and the earth’s can be reconciled; I simply want to maintain the cause of the humanity in the huge challenge which faces mankind and the earth together. Regarding the right to have or not to have markers, perhaps you misunderstood me – I agree that the law should actively preserve the possibility of a free choice regarding markers, and that if free choice is allowed, then market demand will naturally provide what is desired. When I say it is unfair to either require or forbid markers, I meant that for the lawmakers, not the cemetery owners. Let the various shades of green cemeteries make their offers and the public will go where they want for what they want. But just as the green burial movement sells its view emphasizing the earth’s well-being to the public, so I feel the need to sell the view that the well-being of the individual and collective human soul should not be forgotten. Finally, you are quite right that none of us has a right to dictate what is good for the public, for others in general. I realize my tone was a little preachy in promoting my idea of a nice new aesthetic for cemeteries! On the other hand, it is to the benefit of everyone that people express opinions and even disagree with others publicly. Some people have good ideas, which everyone would like to learn about. To withhold them is not productive. Mutual respect is everything here. In my own case, I only want to remind people of the transcendent, non-material aspects of death and funeral customs – I do not want to tell anyone what they should believe under these aspects. The environmental reformers of burial and cemeteries hopefully take the same open view with their perspectives. They can – and should – raise the issue and clearly state their informed views – but each of us must remember that we are only illuminating one perspective on the whole problem. If we can see that all perspectives are required for a genuine solution, then we can really win the battle. Thomas Friese
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG
NEWS CATEGORIES
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG
NEWS CATEGORIES
