Rebutting the rebuttal

I should have been more specific. Death should take place in a BROADER sense than simply in a hospice. I should have taken my ideas to the logical conclusion that death, in fact, and the processes involved in it, should be completely public and every day. And tombstone makers are, I'm sure to a great extent, secular businessmen, but so are bible printers and by that logic, weapons manufacturers. Secular intentions that lead to non secular execution is simply a way to escape from blame.

And attaching a religious message to death is essential. Churches and hospices have chapels, people recant their atheism in fear on their death-beds at any given time. Death is religious and always will be. Death cannot help, after all the religious history we've had to have it's own religious references. Did that person die for a cause? Then they are compared to a martyr. Did that person die after being executed? Vengeance and smiting. Did that person die after a good life? Then they're moving on to heaven to be rewarded. Are they dying too soon? Perhaps someone would say they're in a better place. Perhaps I have based an argument too much on my own preferences. I believe that monuments and tombstones are a perversion of how I view my own death, but to call them simply a benevolent expression of grief is too far. Wishing to visit the resting site of a dead person has, historically, always existed. Mr. Self Destruct is completely right. But I should have been more forward thinking and taken this statement to it's conclusion as well.

I would also like to differentiate talking about death and talking about what happens after death. I would agree with Mr. Self Destruct that death is often a religious topic, but not exactly. The topic of the actual dying is seen simply as a gateway, as a ticket to an afterlife. You cannot refute this. I have been to churches, I have been to services in almost 7 different denominations now, and this is a recurring theme. The topic of death is avoided, while the after-death is the real topic. Dying for beliefs is even an example for this. What better way to than to hide the nastiness of death by attaching a cause to it?

Another point I'd like to argue is the historical references in Mr. Self Destructs post in relation to mine. I think I may have been, once again, too vague. Cultures in the past certainly DID allow each other to see death, because they really had no choice. When you live in a group of 40 people in a mountain valley, you're gonna see death. I mean modern, 21st century canada. I have never seen someone die. I know for a fact Mr. Self Destruct has seen dead people, and most likely someone die as well, but I never have. I live in a city of a million people. Death is not a part of my life, unless you count the cemetery c-train tunnel. Maybe I've fallen victim to my own ignorance.

I would also like to point out that I don't hate religious people. I have in fact been dating a die-hard Mormon for 6 months now, and the last thing I do is disrespect her views of death or ask her if she'd like a nice solo island vacation. Having a problem with her views does not mean I want them gone. I just think we can grow beyond them.

This is the first lively discussion between two members of this blog and I am honored to be a part of it. All due respect to Mr. Self Destruct, and I look forward to your reply. Unfortunately I have to go to "history of canadian landscape painting" but when I return this will be my first click.