Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it isn't irrelevant. If so they are not respecting another's beliefs. And if they eat beef wtihout killing it themselves respectfully then they are not respecting their own beliefs.
So telling others to respect their specific reliefs about cremains doesn't make much sense. NOR by the way is it tolerant.
Interseting.
In Thailand most butchers are Muslims because Buddhists don't want to kill animals. Yet, once the animal is killed, the Buddhists are very willing to eat the beef, pork, or other meat. Similarly, monks will eat whatever meat is given to them, no problem, because they didn't do the killing.
I'm with the Navajo. The thought of sending human remains to the moon sent chills up my spine. There is something so unsettling about it that words can't express my vehement and intense response.
But you are not unsettled by human remains buried in the cemetery up the street?
Look, it's pretty clear that it takes a certain amount of entitlement (and $) to ship an ounce of anything to the moon, like a sort of final spasm of stating the specialness of that person relative to others. I find that aspect of it to have a distinct late-stage-capitalism cachet to it. I would never do it. However ... I am struggling to understand why the exact physical location of some ashes in and of itself matters to you (for example) so long as the location isn't on land you own.
Before long, people will be living up there, having sex up there, dying up there and probably being buried up there. Does one religion have the right to control any of that by themselves for religious reasons? I am kind of getting tired of the sense of entitlement that goes with that.
Seems a bit arrogant to suggest anyone needs their permission to go to a place they've never set foot on.
Thanks for your concern on the matter Baptist Fundie, just to let you know, right or wrong, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren has a good point you should consider. I only talked about my personal opinions about this article but will show you why it's desecration to put ashes on a sacred object. First I have to ask you what does the moon mean to you? Is it just a big rock in the sky that circles our Earth, or is it like a Global monument like mount Rushmore or the grand Canyon. Does it have a religious meaning to you like part of your Christian God's creation?
With the exception of the moon being a big rock in the sky you have to limit what you are able to do and not do on the Moon's surface. Let's just take the belief the moon has no religious or world identity and if it's just a big rock in the sky we can do whatever we want to it as long as we don't destroy it. If that's the case, I'm rich and going to hire a private space company to paint a big face of Taylor Swift on our moon facing the Earth and write "Taylor Swift Rules" for the whole world to see because she is so awesome! The moon is not sacred or a monument so why should I care if it hurts feelings. What if someone wanted to write "EAT At ARBY'S" or paint "666" on the moon, they don't need to consult with anyone because after all, it's just a big rock in the sky right! That's why we need laws to protect the sanctity of the moon because it has so many different meanings to different people.
Right now we have laws in America protecting Religion, Race, Age, Gender, and equality for all. There are some places that you can't have a burial or cremation at. If a vet wants to be buried or cremated in the front lawn of the White House. That's not going to happen even if they love their country, served honorably and want to be buried there. That is a National designated space that can't accept burials there.
The moon needs to be a designated a world monument to restrict what a person can and can't do on the moon. Who gave NASA authority to designate a burial, urn or ashes scattering place on the moon and what if a person wanted to build a golf course on top of that burial site. No one owns the moon so how can you stop someone from desecrating a sacred space.
We need to start having these discussions like these and I'm glad that Buu Nygren brought this issue up to protect the sanctity of our moon and protect it's special status as a celestial object and not someone's private rock in the sky.
The final thing I want to mention is that the television series Star Trek had a prime directive to allow planets, civilizations, and celestial objects to evolve on their own with as little interference to avoid any catastrophic damage to the natural development of each ecosystem and civilization forming on it's own. That is why I don't think the Navajo president was not arrogant when he voiced his concerns to NASA.
Last edited by High.priestess.Sarah; 01-02-2024 at 08:02 PM..
Thanks for your concern on the matter Baptist Fundie, just to let you know, right or wrong, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren has a good point you should consider. I only talked about my personal opinions about this article but will show you why it's desecration to put ashes on a sacred object. First I have to ask you what does the moon mean to you? Is it just a big rock in the sky that circles our Earth, or is it like a Global monument like mount Rushmore or the grand Canyon. Does it have a religious meaning to you like part of your Christian God's creation?
With the exception of the moon being a big rock in the sky you have to limit what you are able to do and not do on the Moon's surface. Let's just take the belief the moon has no religious or world identity and if it's just a big rock in the sky we can do whatever we want to it as long as we don't destroy it. If that's the case, I'm rich and going to hire a private space company to paint a big face of Taylor Swift on our moon facing the Earth and write "Taylor Swift Rules" for the whole world to see because she is so awesome! The moon is not sacred or a monument so why should I care if it hurts feelings. What if someone wanted to write "EAT At ARBY'S" or paint "666" on the moon, they don't need to consult with anyone because after all, it's just a big rock in the sky right! That's why we need laws to protect the sanctity of the moon because it has so many different meanings to different people.
Right now we have laws in America protecting Religion, Race, Age, Gender, and equality for all. There are some places that you can't have a burial or cremation at. If a vet wants to be buried or cremated in the front lawn of the White House. That's not going to happen even if they love their country, served honorably and want to be buried there. That is a National designated space that can't accept burials there.
The moon needs to be a designated monument to restrict what a person can and can't do on the moon. Who gave NASA authority to designate a burial, urn or ashes scattering place on the moon and what if a person wanted to build a golf course on top of that burial site. No one owns the moon so how can you stop someone from desecrating a sacred space.
We need to start having these discussions like these and I'm glad that Buu Nygren brought this issue up to protect the sanctity of our moon and protect it's special status as a celestial object and not someone's private rock in the sky.
The final thing I want to mention is that the television series Star Trek had a prime directive to allow planets, civilizations, and celestial objects to evolve on their own with as little interference to avoid any catastrophic damage to the natural development of each ecosystem and civilization forming on it's own. That is why I don't think the Navajo president was not arrogant when he voiced his concerns to NASA.
The moon needs to be a designated monument to restrict what a person can and can't do on the moon.
By international treaty, no one nation "owns" or controls the moon, so the USA does not have jurisdiction to make it a national monument; that would be something the other 230+ nations would rightly object to.
I did read somewhere that there is a coalition of scientists who want to establish standards for what would constitute damage to the moon's ecosystem. Most people assume there's nothing to damage as there's no atmosphere and no life. Well there is actually an extremely tenuous atmosphere, so tenuous that it can be effectively ignored when dealing with the orbital mechanics of landing on the surface ... but it IS there. And there is the scientific / research value of the surface, which creates questions around disturbing it. I believe they are advocating for certain AREAS of the Moon to be designated as off-limits for development. This seems reasonable to me. I think the Apollo and maybe Surveyor landing sites should be treated as historic sites, as well.
It certainly makes sense to not make the Moon a free-for-all, but I suspect that whether or not that happens depends on a majority of signatories to the Outer Space Treaty being willing to voluntarily make it so. These things don't have a very good track record though, so I'm not particularly hopeful. The OST, which was signed in 1967, prohibits placing any sort of nuclear weapon in space or in orbit. It specifically mentions the Moon must be used for nebulously-defined "peaceful purposes" but is silent about, e.g. mining activities. The thing probably needs updating. It was heavily based on the Antarctic Treaty, and was a good first effort, but I think is in danger of being overtaken by events.
This iconic picture from the Apollo 8 space craft is one of the most inspiring and sacred moments of our life, because for the first time in humanities existence we got to look back at our planet from another world!
I can't think of anything more inspiring than to look back at our beautiful fragile world to see just how beautiful it really is!
Thanks for your concern on the matter Baptist Fundie, just to let you know, right or wrong, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren has a good point you should consider. I only talked about my personal opinions about this article but will show you why it's desecration to put ashes on a sacred object. First I have to ask you what does the moon mean to you? Is it just a big rock in the sky that circles our Earth, or is it like a Global monument like mount Rushmore or the grand Canyon. Does it have a religious meaning to you like part of your Christian God's creation?
With the exception of the moon being a big rock in the sky you have to limit what you are able to do and not do on the Moon's surface. Let's just take the belief the moon has no religious or world identity and if it's just a big rock in the sky we can do whatever we want to it as long as we don't destroy it. If that's the case, I'm rich and going to hire a private space company to paint a big face of Taylor Swift on our moon facing the Earth and write "Taylor Swift Rules" for the whole world to see because she is so awesome! The moon is not sacred or a monument so why should I care if it hurts feelings. What if someone wanted to write "EAT At ARBY'S" or paint "666" on the moon, they don't need to consult with anyone because after all, it's just a big rock in the sky right! That's why we need laws to protect the sanctity of the moon because it has so many different meanings to different people.
Right now we have laws in America protecting Religion, Race, Age, Gender, and equality for all. There are some places that you can't have a burial or cremation at. If a vet wants to be buried or cremated in the front lawn of the White House. That's not going to happen even if they love their country, served honorably and want to be buried there. That is a National designated space that can't accept burials there.
The moon needs to be a designated a world monument to restrict what a person can and can't do on the moon. Who gave NASA authority to designate a burial, urn or ashes scattering place on the moon and what if a person wanted to build a golf course on top of that burial site. No one owns the moon so how can you stop someone from desecrating a sacred space.
We need to start having these discussions like these and I'm glad that Buu Nygren brought this issue up to protect the sanctity of our moon and protect it's special status as a celestial object and not someone's private rock in the sky.
The final thing I want to mention is that the television series Star Trek had a prime directive to allow planets, civilizations, and celestial objects to evolve on their own with as little interference to avoid any catastrophic damage to the natural development of each ecosystem and civilization forming on it's own. That is why I don't think the Navajo president was not arrogant when he voiced his concerns to NASA.
You do realize that even on Star Trek, if a civilization wanted to blow up its own moon, they wouldn't stop them, right?
That said, the Navajo Nation does not own the moon. They have no right to decide who can or cannot visit it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
