Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 22, 2022, 2:06 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sarah Palin's New Low: Funeral Crasher
#11
RE: Sarah Palin's New Low: Funeral Crasher
Point of clarification on Adrian's contribution regarding Thatcher and Heath. Yes Heath hated Thatch, the feeling was mutual. She probably would have enjoyed dancing on his grave, given the opportunity.
I know that I and many millions of my countryfolk will feel the same when the old, evil bitch finally coughs.
HuhA man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Reply
#12
RE: Sarah Palin's New Low: Funeral Crasher
I agree, Adrian. Funerals aren't crashed. Even if you had arguments with a person, you can still mourn their death.

I hate Palin as much as the next person, but funerals are open events. Maybe if it was explicitly stated that a funeral is for certain people only, though I think that's dickish.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :Tongueodcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Reply
#13
RE: Sarah Palin's New Low: Funeral Crasher
(May 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I agree, Adrian. Funerals aren't crashed. Even if you had arguments with a person, you can still mourn their death.

I hate Palin as much as the next person, but funerals are open events. Maybe if it was explicitly stated that a funeral is for certain people only, though I think that's dickish.

Funerals are not inherently open events. And the ones that are still prevent enemies of the individual in question from attending, often out of simple decency. You don't find too many Kurds mourning Saddam's death, for example. And one that did show up to such a funeral would be incur much wrath, as it is an insult to the memory of the dead one involved, at least in something they believed or held true to (guess in Saddam's case it was the extermination of Kurds in certain regions).

An open event often does not allow others who have explicitly opposite desires to the event itself to present. You would most certainly not find a presentation on how the Khmer Rouge wasn't as bad at a Cambodian Remembrance event, nor should one expect a known enemy or opponent to present themselves at a funeral for their enemy. This is, of course, beholden to certain exceptions, as in famous rivalries where two people may have been political opponents but in other respects were either good friends or decent allies with respect to another cause. Like Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush uniting to push for donations to Haiti reconstruction. But with that considered, I would never think of the relationship between Clinton and Bush (already mentioned) to ever delve as deeply as Palin did with Hickel.

I don't care if in Britain that Thatcher chose to visit her rivals funeral - frankly, if he really hated her, then she defiled his funeral, as part of is based upon celebrating the dead character involved, and I'd think that part of the character involved wouldn't want anything to deal with Thatcher.

You don't attend another's funeral unless, in some manner, you made peace with them either before they died or genuinely make it clear by your own means that while you two hated each other, you still miss them or something. The difficulty of doing such increases with how bad your living relationship was with them or how polarized you are.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)