2007-05-23 09:51:41 · 11 answers · asked by shawnp089 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I do believe they should be undisturbed as they are supposed to be the final resting place but it's not happening.
2007-05-23 09:56:05 · answer #1 · answered by mes210 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Archaeolgy has taught us much, by digging up the graves of other peoples around the world. while this is so, I find it very hard to believe that the reason they were burried in the first place was to save it for later, don't you? Rest in peace has little meaning to those who seek to discover our past through digging up the dead. My answer is grave sites should go undisturbed if at all possible. Personally I respect the living and the dead.
2007-05-23 17:07:26 · answer #2 · answered by cynthia k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would be okay to disturb the body if the people in the dead person's family won't be offended. And if there was a relevant need to see the body or whatever. If there was a clue to a really important mystery in the person's past that affected a lot of living people, or if the person's body contained some medical miracle that the world of science could use to save lives, then sure. But that stuff should be taken care of before the burial, don't you think?
2007-05-23 17:03:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,the needs of the living must come before the grave-sites of the dead,but only as a last resort.
2007-05-23 16:56:02 · answer #4 · answered by michael k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how you look at it. If you think "progress" is a lack of respect for our ancestors and the history of the human race, than by all means, you may build whatever you want on their graves. I think there may be a spike in "supernatural" activity shortly afterwards though. I consider becoming a ghosthunter.
2007-05-23 17:11:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I do. Once in a while we go to the town where my great-grandparents are buried to place flowers and whatnot. In this cemetery are ancestors of mine from all the way back to 1750. I would be upset if someone decided to "dig them up" just to put a shopping mall there or something. I mean, they've been dead for a very long time but they're still my family.
2007-05-23 16:57:12 · answer #6 · answered by fantasmababe77 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is respectful. I think letting people have a peaceful place to mourn loved ones is more important than a new housing development or anything.
But there is a limit - if it's really old like a roman or medieval or something it would be ok after archaeologists had investigated it.
2007-05-23 16:55:43 · answer #7 · answered by HazyEyes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Eventually, we'll run out of room. Even if civilization stopped progressing, the bodies would keep adding up. The entire world will be a graveyard eventually. Your idea is illogical (no offense).
2007-05-23 16:56:21 · answer #8 · answered by drink_more_powerade 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, I don't really give a crap about what happens to my body after I die. It's a pitty to waste all that fertilizer though if people build over the site. it would be better to plant a forest and grow some nice trees.
2007-05-23 16:57:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yup b/c the ghost could come back to haunt the place.
2007-05-23 17:06:16 · answer #10 · answered by missgigglebunny 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋