Then both parties litigate and an impartial court decides what is “fair”, which is exctly what is happening.
I realize this is only tangent to the story, but it may be worth reminding that while the Muslims are stringent about fulfilling their own customs (as is their right), they seem rather… hmmm… lieberal when it comes to other religions.
Sorry… make it some Muslims :o
More along the lines of Adverse Possession, where your property is compromised, publicly and continually without comment or action on your part. After a certain length of time, your rights to reverse that condition cease.
Information here seems limited, but the cemetary stopped taking new burials in 1948, and was a parking lot since 1976, who knows what it was inbetween? If it was considered important that the cemetary be honored, how did this project get started, be in review for years, and only become an issue when the workers discovered the bodies?
The concept that it is more disrespectful to move the body from under a parking lot to a well maintained cemetary is odd, but understandable. Even though I was being sarcastic initially, I did wind up learning something.
But, if you want me to respect your rights, it would be nice if you said something about them before the very last possible moment. They had the opportunity to stop this before the digging, all they had to do was say something, and they didn’t.
So you’re against Museums, but parking lots are OK?
How about if they just build the museum over the graves? If it’s OK to build a parking lot over the graves (which it seems to be), what’s wrong with building a museum?
The Center is intolerant for not scrapping their plans the second they found the cemetary? You’re an idiot. Why is it intolerant to try to, you know, fucking negotiate?
Asshole.
And what shouldn’t happen. A court ruling has no bearing on whether or not moving the bodies is offensive for muslims. Remember, it’s a “museum of Tolerance”, not a “Museum of the Rule of Law”
And a court ruling has no bearing on whether or not pushing the issue is the right thing to do, either. A court doesn’t decide what is “fair” but what is “legal” , and these are ery different concepts.
Tangent and irrelevant. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And certainly don’t add up to achieve tolerance.
The difficulty with this situation (and in fairness to the OP, he or she may not know) is that in Israel, pretty well everywhere has “sacred human remains” buried in it; and plenty of religious types (not only Muslims) willing to be offended at any hint of sacrilage towards them. It is a major issue.
After all, the area has been lived in very intensively for millenia; Jerusalem in particular is where many chose to be buried for religious reasons - Jews for example used to export human remains to Jerusalem.
That is why the OP is so very unreasonable. It isn’t asshattery to have your construction project buggered up because someone was buried there, and barrel on regardless - subject to reasonable mitigation, it is par for the course; you simply cannot find a plot of land in which it is “impossible” that someone has been buried, or alternatively which is not potentially someone’s “eternally sacred holy site”, in or near Jerusalem.
To state (as the OP and those defending the OP seem to be doing) that someone’s offence taken at desecration of a burial, whether recent or not, is sufficient to preclude construction sets a standard of perfection clearly impossible, on this ground, to ever meet; you would in effect never be permitted to construct anything. Obviously, there must be some sort of compromise or middle ground - which is what the Museum folks appear to be pushing, and they are both ethically and legally right to do so.
This issue shouldn’t be discussed on a legal basis. Pursuing the case in court is precisely what makes this situation idiotic as in “I piss all over your sensitivities because it’s important to show what tolerance is”.
Probably because nobody remembered there was a cemetary there, I would assume. It doesn’t change the issue, which is apparently that digging up the bodies is perceived as offensive.
Only if they previously knew there was a cemetary there. If they didn’t, how could have they objected before the graves were discovered?
And once again, it’s not about " respect for my rights" but about “tolerance for my sensitivies and cultural/religious objections”.
In this particular case they appear to be morally, ethically and legally right.
The standard for whether something is morally or ethically wrong because it is “offensive” to someone is not purely subjective. It must have an objective component to it. In this case, the removal of human remains from a construction site simply cannot be held to be beyond contemplation - the effect of such a determination would be to effectively prevent construction.
Well, of course it doesn’t happen all the time, but it happens some of the time.
As more facts come out about the specifics of the Wiesenthal construction plan, the less justified your objection (as well as the objection of the involved Muslims) becomes. Cemeteries can and do get moved and a great deal of diligence, respect and care can be part of the process, so how is this a sign of intolerance? If anything, the developers have shown remarkable tolerance when the discovered the problem, well after the process had begun, when they could have gone out of their way to just shred the terrain over all objections.
The Muslim on the Radio interview speaking about his Granddad was apparently aware it was a cemetery and he never raised an objection until after the bodies were discovered by accident. You would have to listen to the entire story on NPR.
I have to say, I admire your willingness to argue **Fear Itself’s ** case. You are doing a much better job than he has. I hope you see where his Op does not smack of honesty and his condemnation was unmerited.
Jim
Hey it’s not my religion. I cited a Muslim website that interpreted Sharia law exactly that way. If you can build a museum without excavating a foundation and disturbing the remains, then the Muslims would have no religious objection. That’s why they didn’t object to the parking lot; no excavation.
Other cites of cemeteries moved without family permission:
The Montgomery Square United Methodist Church
Another Corp of Engineers project in which they moved nearly 100 cemeteries. This site looks more anecdotal than the others, so I’m a bit more concerned about it’s accuracy.
Uganda – a rather interesting story, where officials stopped the development of two old cemeteries apparently due to bad press. Descendents of the dead were actually going in and digging up family members themselves, ahead of oncoming development. Clearly, the government at first at least had no compunctions about the family reactions.
New York City to widen a street.
Grave relocation happens EVERYWHERE. You can find cases where descendants fight and win court battles, but from what I have seen, their victories seem by and large based on the cemetary site itself being deemed as historically or culturally important by the local government. The fact that “Grandpa’s there” really doesn’t much enter in to it.
This is interesting: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761415.html
Do these two little factual tidbits - basically, that the parkinglot was a deep (4 storey) excavation and that there exists a religious ruling by an Islamic Court stating that the land is not sanctified - affect your opinion in any way?
Ironically, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s new Museum of Grave Desecration was finished on time and under budget, despite being constructed on top of a bunch of tolerant people.
Said one tolerant person, “No, it’s okay, really. We’re cool with it.”
I didn’t mean to suggest this was the legal basis for my opinion, more of a conceptual basis. If something is important to you, it is your responsibility to maintain an interest in it. You can’t spend a few decades ignoring it, then suddenly claim intense interest when someone reminds you about its existance.
It was an active cemetary less than 60 years ago, not 600 years ago. It was paved over less than 30 years after it was active. That’s within living memory, there’s no excuse for forgetting, not that quickly.
Personally, I think this whole “graveyard” thing is just another Muslim plot.
Yes, along with sneakily changing the spelling of their rekigion.
When I was a kid they were MOSLEMS! And before that they were MOHAMMEDANS!
Consarn it!
Yeh! :mad:
:: shakes cane ::
Get off my dune!