Category: Death Ethics

Categories
Burial Death + Crime Death + Popular Culture Death + the Law Death Ethics

On the Death of Osama Bin Laden

Watery Grave, Murky Law
Leor Halevi, New York Times (May 08, 2011)
Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea and the history of Shariah.

 

Bin Laden Exits the Scene
On the Media, WNYC and National Public Radio (May 06, 2011)

It has been one week since President Obama announced that Osama Bin Laden was dead. I happened to be in New York City when the announcement was made so I immediately began taking stock of the entire situation. Within the annals of infamous dead bodies (Eva Peron, Hitler, Che Guevara, Mao, Lenin, etc.) Bin Laden’s corpse is an important specter for twenty-first century human history. I began collecting news articles on what exactly happened to Bin Laden’s dead body since I knew that controversy was sure to follow.

My first inkling that something was askew came on Monday morning when National Public Radio reported that Bin Laden received a sea burial with full Muslim funeral rites. I’m not a Muslim burial rites specialist but at no time have I ever read about a Muslim burial at sea. The Death Reference Desk has certainly covered contemporary (mostly American) Muslim burial practices and you can read that information here. But even the most contemporary, American Muslim traditions still hew to much older Islamic funeral traditions.

 

gaza-burial

Over the course of last week much back and forth ensued over what exactly happened to Bin Laden’s dead body and how, if at all, it conformed to Islamic funeral practices. Slate.com’s Explainer column posted one of the first good pieces on the entire concept: Bin Laden Sleeps With the Fishes. Central to what occurred was a choice by US Government Officials (I can only assume that this starts with President Obama) that burying Bin Laden anywhere would be problematic. This is a point that many people discussed so I won’t belabor it.

There is one place, however, that I imagine could be used for a “proper” burial and that is Guantanamo Bay. But even mentioning that scenario would create global havoc. That said, I bet money that Gitmo got mentioned by someone and then quickly passed over.

As a result, Osama Bin Laden’s dead body got put in the ocean because the United States wanted to get rid of it. I don’t think that the narrative is much more complicated than that. The use of Muslim funeral rites are nice but what happened to Bin Laden’s body was not a particularly Muslim burial.

Here’s the rub: that might not be a problem. In Sunday’s New York Times, Vanderbilt University history professor Leor Halevi wrote an a particularly good op/ed piece on this very topic, linked at the top of the page. Halevi’s article is the best that I have come across to date. Here’s the crux:

Bin Laden’s religious status is a matter of contention among Muslims. On one end of the spectrum are Muslims who consider him an outsider to Islam: if not quite an apostate, a terrorist whose right to an official Muslim prayer is debatable at best. (In 2005 the Islamic Commission of Spain essentially excommunicated Bin Laden, arguing that he should not be treated as a Muslim.) They must find it as perplexing as I do that the United States government granted the man it identified not as a Muslim, but as a “mass murderer of Muslims,” the dubious honor of a quasi-Islamic funeral.

 

On the other end are Muslims who believe that Bin Laden is now enjoying the blessings of martyrdom. From a theological perspective, it matters little to them how Americans on the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson disposed of the corpse.

 

Which is all to say that Bin Laden’s burial was doctrinally irrelevant to some Muslims, and confusing to others. Most of the rest feel uneasy. Perhaps the United States could not have avoided that. But a deeper understanding of the history of Islam’s sacred law could have prevented us from seeming so at sea.

Here is what I know for sure: by the middle of this coming week everyone in America will be talking about something else and that over time conversations will come and go, mostly amongst academics, on whether or not Osama Bin Laden got a proper funeral.

The more immediate political question focuses on whether or not the photo(s) of Bin Laden’s dead body should be released. This question, too, will go away by the middle of the week. The photos were not released now but they will surface in the future. How soon is an open question but we will eventually see the images.

The On The Media program at the top has several good radio segments on Bin Laden, his dead body, and the future of his memory.

I have a hunch that Meg, Kim, and I will be discussing Osama Bin Laden’s dead body again in the near future since America has a long history of dealing with the infamous dead and in ways that keep those infamous dead bodies very much alive.

Categories
Death + Crime Death + Technology Death + the Law Death + the Web Death Ethics

“What About Morals?”

A Victim, Her Picture and Facebook
Jim Dwyer, The New York Times (March 29, 2011)

Photo credit: Mark Musarella, Caroline Wimmer/SIlive.com
Photo credit: Mark Musarella, Caroline Wimmer/SIlive.com

An instant was all it took to post the photo.

The photo I am referring to is the one taken by Mark Musarella. In March of 2009, Musarella—a then retired police officer and EMT from Staten Island, NY—snapped a photo of the beaten and strangled body of Caroline Wimmer in her apartment and posted it to his Facebook page. While the photo was taken down fairly quickly, the implications—legal, sociological and moral—are still being sorted out to this day.

While Musarella’s motivations for taking the photo are unclear, his instantaneous ability to share it make it profoundly clear the frightening speed at which lives can be changed forever. Posting the photo to Facebook—even for the short time it was up—allowed the perpetrator, even unintentionally—to re-victimize a family still grieving for their murdered daughter.

The New York Times ran a story this past week about the crime and the Wimmer family’s attempt to sue Facebook to get the gruesome picture back or have it destroyed. In Facebook’s vernacular, the photo is considered “intellectual property”, although a Facebook spokesperson now claims that the photo was removed long ago with no other copies remaining on any of its servers.

But I wonder about that. Here’s a 2009 article from PC World about Facebook’s track record with user’s deleted photos and a more recent article via Arstechnica.com revealing a 16 month or more lag time. Facebook says it is “working with” its CDN [content delivery network] partner to “significantly reduce the amount of time that backup copies persist.” This is obviously of little comfort to the Wimmer family and precisely why, I imagine, they are suing.

More and more, society is grappling with issues around death and dying in a technological age. Crissy Chriscitiello, Caroline Wimmer’s sister, was quoted in the NY Times as saying, “Everyone is all about technology. “What about morals?” We here at Death Ref have been posting about the intersection of death and the digital life for a while. Take a look at our “death + technology” or “death + the web” categories to view past posts. This June, the Centre for Death & Society (Bath, U.K.) will host a conference titled “Death & Dying in the Digital Age”—at which our very own Dr. John Troyer will present. It will be an engaging conference—hope you can make it.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Suicide Tourism

The Suicide Tourist
Frontline (March 22, 2011)

On March 22, 2011, Frontline will re-broadcast its brilliant documentary The Suicide Tourist. This is an exceptionally well done documentary (even for Frontline) and it captures the end of one man’s life, Craig Ewert, with an unflinching gaze. I watched it last year. Unfortunately, the website version of the documentary is only available in America, which is too bad because everyone should watch this Frontline piece.

h_vid

The entire story is presented without sentimentality or moral judgement. It forthrightly and honestly follows Craig Ewert and his wife Mary as they travel to Dignitas in Switzerland. Many Death Reference Desk readers will have come across Dignitas either on Death Ref or in other situations. Dignitas was founded in 1998 by Ludwig Minelli and it remains one of the few places in the world that individuals can travel to, in order to end their life without hiding. Ludwig Minelli appears in the documentary and you can read a longer interview with him here.

The documentary speaks for itself, so I won’t drone on and on.

But watch it.

For those who are interested, the state of Oregon has now published its official 2010 Death with Dignity Act statistics. This is the annual report that Oregon files, as required by the DWDA, documenting how many individuals used the law and for what reasons.

These statistics are worth reading too.

Categories
Death + Popular Culture Death + Technology Death + the Web Death Ethics Suicide

Samaritans and Facebook Partner

The Samaritans, a confidential, emotional support service serving the U.K. and Ireland, launched a partnership with Facebook this past week. Now, any Facebook user who suspects another Facebook user may be suicidal or experiencing other emotional crises, can report it to the Facebook Help Center. Other suicide prevention organizations are also listed via the Help Center including the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in the U.S., Kirkens SOS in Norway and Befrienders.org serving other countries.

As reported in The Guardian, Samaritans chief executive Catherine Johnstone said:

“Through the popularity of Facebook, we are harnessing the power of friendship so people can get help. As a friend you are better placed to know whether someone close to you is struggling to cope or even feeling suicidal.”

The impetus behind the move is the Simone Back case, among others. On Christmas Day of last year, Back, of Brighton, England told her 1,048 Facebook friends “Took all my pills, be dead soon, bye bye everyone.” In the ensuing hours, no one went to Ms. Back’s aid. According to The Telegraph, “Some users of the site even taunted the 42-year-old over her final status update instead of trying to save her, calling her a “liar” and saying the fatal overdose was “her choice”. Some out of town friends implored online that she give them her address and/or phone number, but by the time her body was discovered the next day, it was too late.

BBC News aired a segment showing just how the system works. The mechanism for reporting is a bit cumbersome as Facebook is obviously trying to walk a fine line between having the service be too visible or too discreet. Although, in its test phase, several people reported suicidal concerns to the Help Center even before an official announcement was made. It will be interesting to see if statistics about Help Center usage for this purpose will be shared with the public and whether this will set a precedent for other social networks.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Westboro Baptist Church Wins Funeral Protest Case

Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Westboro Church’s Right to Picket Funerals
Robert Barnes, The Washington Post (March 02, 2011)
A nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech about public issues and upheld the right of a fringe church to protest near military funerals.

 

Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals
Adam Liptak, The New York Times (March 02, 2011)
The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-1 decision.

 

Supreme Court of the United States
Snyder v. Phelps decision

For people who read United States Supreme Court decisions, the most important thing to do with any new ruling is immediately flip to the second or third page and look for the verdict. Then you can go back and and actually digest the text.

So, without much further ado, here is what the Supreme Court said about the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and its funeral protests:

Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

We’ve been following the Westboro Baptist Church case here on the Death Reference Desk and you can read all of that coverage here.

In brief, the Westboro Baptist Church, which is based in Topeka, Kansas was sued by Albert Snyder after its members protested outside his son’s military funeral in Maryland. This was in 2006. Snyder’s son was a US Marine and the WBC, led by Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley, appeared with signs which proclaimed “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and other, similar statements. The WBC is also known as the group God Hates Fags and fervently believes that soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because America has embraced homosexuality. God is showing his displeasure with America by letting the deaths happen.

The case worked its way up and down the US Court system after Albert Snyder won an earlier case and was awarded millions of dollars in damages. Last October, the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides.

I’m not surprised that the Supreme Court decided in the WBC’s favor, since the entire case was a classic First Amendment debate. I also understand the logic which the eight justices in the majority used, even if the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts seems a bit forced. By this, I mean, that the Justices could have simply said that the WBC protests were allowed to be obnoxious and ridiculous because the First Amendment guaranteed that right.

Instead, the decision uses an array of legal points which really reach reach reach for legal justifications.

Ok. That’s a little unfair.

Adam Liptak, of the New York Times summarises:

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the ruling that three factors required a ruling in favor of the church group. First, he said, its speech was on matters of public concern. While the messages on the signs carried by its members “may fall short of refined commentary,” the chief justice wrote, “the issues they highlight — the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy — are matters of public import.”

 

Second, he wrote, the relationship between the church and the Snyders was not a private grudge.

 

Third, the members of the church “had the right to be where they were.” They were picketing on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral, they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence.

 

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the proper response to hurtful protests are general laws creating buffer zones around funerals and the like, rather than empowering of juries to punish unpopular speech.

So there you have it.

Funereal protests by the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. You can read an excerpt of Snyder v. Phelps here.

You can also read the full decision at the top of the page.

The lone dissenter, Justice Alito, built his dissent around empathy for the grieving families and their desire to be left alone during a funeral. He has a point but that does not mean individual states can create laws banning certain groups from protesting outside funerals.

And even though the WBC won this particular US Supreme Case, which is significant, it just means that anytime the Westboro Baptist Church shows up at a funeral with its handful of members the number of counter-protesters will be even larger.

Finally, the first sentence of the Snyder v. Phelps decision is, hands down, the best ever. It is a sentence that implicitly states, for both good and bad reasons, only in America:

For the past 20 years, the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church has picketed military funerals to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in America’s military.

The Death Reference Desk will post any relevant updates on this story. It’s not going to disappear now. That’s for sure.

Categories
Death + the Economy Death + the Law Death Ethics

Donating Dead Bodies to Save Money

Donating Body Can Save Families Money
Dan McFeely, The Indianapolis Star (February 08, 2011)

A short post on a perennial topic for the Death Reference Desk: how the dead body is transformed into some kind of cash value. Rarely, if ever, does this postmortem value involve direct cash exchanges, mostly because the law frowns upon such things. No, these are situations where a dead body is handed over to an institution of some kind in exchange for compensation of some kind.

So, as this article discusses, families donate a body to the Indiana University Medical School and in exchange for their donation receive significantly reduced if not totally free funeral services. More often than not, this means that the cremation of the remains (post dismemberment, more or less, by medical students) is covered by the institution receiving the body.

Most American medical schools accept cadaver donations and gladly thank the next-of-kin with a non-cash gift of some kind. It’s true that even though money isn’t being exchanged there is still a quid pro quo involved…but not too many people that participate in any of this complain.

The bigger question to ask is this: What happens when medical schools, for example, start paying families with cold, hard cash for a dead body? The historians amongst you will already be thinking about Burke and Hare in Scotland, and that’s the historical example that usually scuttles these kinds of questions.

But I’m not so sure, given the economic conditions which many people currently face, that it won’t come to pass.

We’ve been adding story after story about these kinds of dead body transactions and you can see them all here: Death + the Economy.
Never say never…especially when dead bodies are involved.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Discussing End-of-Life with Jane Brody

Personal Health: Keep Your Voice, Even at the End of Life
Jane E. Brody, The New York Times (January 18, 2011)

Here is a quick follow-on article to the recent post on End-of-Life discussions in the American medical system.

Jane Brody has been writing for some time about the importance of End-of-Life planning with a person’s doctor. Her most recent column is a response to the Obama administration’s back and forth on Medicare funding for End-of-Life discussions between patients and physicians. I wrote about that recent debacle (for lack of a better term) two weeks ago. Brody’s writings have appeared before on the Death Reference Desk. In August 2009 I wrote about her push for End-of-Life planning in the (then) proposed American health care reform bill. You read that here.

Brody’s commitment to this issue is partly personal and she has been extremely open about the recent, unexpected death of her husband. She makes the following case for End-of-Life planning in her most recent column:

For many more of us these days, the end does not come swiftly via a heart attack or fatal accident, but rather after weeks, months or years battling a chronic illness like cancer, congestive heart failure, emphysema or Alzheimer’s disease. When doctors do not know how you’d want to be treated if your heart stopped, or you were unable to breathe or eat and could not speak for yourself, they are likely (some would say obliged) to do everything in their power to try to keep you alive.

 

A year ago, my husband was given a diagnosis of Stage 4 cancer. As his designated health care proxy, I had agreed long before he became ill to abide by the instructions in his living will. If he was terminally ill and could not speak for himself, he wanted no extraordinary measures taken to try to keep him alive longer than nature intended.

 

Knowing this helped me and my family avoid agonizing decisions and discord. We were able to say meaningful goodbyes and spare him unnecessary physical and emotional distress in his final weeks of life.

Not much else to say, really.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

One Step Forward…Two Steps Back with End-Of-Life Discussions

Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
Robert Pear, The New York Times (December 26, 2010)
Advance care planning, which touched off a political storm over “death panels,” will be covered under Medicare – a “quiet victory” that supporters have been urged not to crow about.

 

‘Death Panels’ Controversy: Is Obama Avoiding Congress?
The Obama administration is set to expand options for ‘end of life’ counseling for Medicare recipients. The White House says it’s practical. Sarah Palin says it’s akin to ‘death panels.’
Gail Russell Chaddock, The Christian Science Monitor (December 27, 2010)

 

‘Death Panels’ are Real — Brought on By Budget Pressures
Norman J. Ornstein, The Washington Post (December 31, 2010)
During the debate over health reform, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Sarah Palin and others railed against the “death panels” that would result from the bill. Government bureaucrats, critics said, would decide who would die and when. The bill passed – and indeed there are death panels. But they do…

 

A Reversal for Medicare on Planning for Life’s End
Robert Pear, The New York Times (January 05, 2011)
The Obama administration will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual examinations covered under the new health care law, officials said.

 

End-of-Life Planning Dropped from Medicare Checkup Rules
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press (January 5, 2011)
Reversing a potentially controversial decision, the Obama administration will drop references to end-of-life counseling from the ground rules for Medicare’s new annual checkup, the White House said Wednesday.

While most people were enjoying the 2010 holiday season, a most peculiar series of American End-of-Life stories slid under the radar.

Right after Christmas, many news outlets reported that the American Medicare rules had been changed to allow Doctors and their patients to discuss End-of-Life planning as part of an annual medical exam. This was big news because the very idea of discussing End-of-Life issues almost derailed President Obama’s health care initiative. I wrote about that debacle in August 2009: America and End of Life Care: Death, Dying, and Mortality

Then, all of a sudden, there was a policy reversal and it looks like Medicare coverage won’t include End-of-Life discussions– as originally reported a few days earlier.

 

The whole situation is a little suspicious, and it suggests to me that if the post-Christmas stories had never run, then the End-of-Life rules might have remained.

Who knows.

I have compiled a group of the articles that I read through at the top of the page. They’re all good. Norm Ornstein’s piece is particularly smart.

More than anything, we’ll be back discussing Medicare funded End-of-Life issues in 2011. I guarantee it.

Categories
Death + the Economy Death Ethics

Body Fishing Up Ahead

Bodies floating in the Yellow River near Changpo Village in China’s Gansu Province. Photo credit: Tom Lasseter/MCT

This story has affected me in a way that many others about death have not. The complete and utter sense of tragedy permeating it is hard to shake and the mental imagery conjured up while reading it is the stuff of nightmares. In what has got to be one of the more grim and disturbing jobs in the world, CNN and other outlets reported this week on the “body fisherman”; mostly men who trawl for murder, suicide and the occasional drowning victim that floats down the Yellow River, about 20 kilometers to the west of Lanzhou, China. Those who perform this grim work advertise their services and cell phone numbers on hand painted signs that read “Body Fishing Up Ahead”.

The story, which has been picked up here and there since September, appeared in the Asia Times and various McClatchy news service outlets. Most recently, CNN reported on it just this week.

There seems to be two overarching threads in these stories. Some believe the people who would do such work are nothing more than ruthless mercenaries taking advantage of grief-stricken families. Charging what would be exorbitant fees—even by Western standards—the fisherman turn bodies over to families only as a fee is paid. Others say that the work they do is a necessary public service that local authorities cannot or will not provide. Who is right? It is clear that there are no easy answers and very little offered in the way of solutions to help stem the deathly tide.

In 2008, a documentary called The Other Shore, brought the practice to light for those outside of China. The film profiles Wei Zhiqian from Xiaoxia village in Gansu, a longtime body fisherman who recently ended his life’s work due to the building of a giant dam upriver. In his place, new families have taken over the trade despite increasing pressure from authorities to stop. There is still potentially much money to be made.

Lun Lun, 24, stated to CNN, “I have worked on this section of the river for several years. I’ve seen hundreds of bodies float downstream. They gather around here and we fish them out one by one. I’d like to say I’m a boat operator but really, I search for the dead.”

While China’s economy continues to grow, perhaps other unforeseen odd and gruesome jobs such as this one will present themselves. Scores of bodies will be needed to support and feed the industrial engine of the world’s second largest economy. It is sad to think that many of those bodies will be casualties in this accelerated march toward “progress” and empire building.

Categories
Death + the Economy Death + the Law Death Ethics Grief + Mourning

Frontline Documentary: Facing Death

Frontline: Facing Death
Miri Navasky and Karen O’Connor (November 23, 2010)

 

A Final Cocoon: Dying at Home
Joyce Wadler, New York Times (November 11, 2010)

Yet again, Frontline (the documentary film unit of America’s Public Broadcasting Service) delivers an unbelievably moving and intellectually engaged program. Frontline has won every major and minor documentary film award on the planet so it should come as no surprise that this new program Facing Death is so good.

Everyone needs to watch to this documentary. Everyone. Take the 55 minutes it requires and then watch it again.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

The documentary tackles one of the most pressing questions for any person with a terminal illness: when to stop heroic (potentially excessive) medical treatment and to then opt for palliative care in a hospice.

When Meg, Kim, and I started the Death Reference Desk we all agreed that End of Life issues would be fundamentally important to this entire project. I can honestly say that this Frontline documentary is one of the best programs that I have seen in a while on this very topic.

Critics of the American health care system (of which I am one) will lament the over medicalization of the patients in this film and I agree that the film really captures what aggressive, end of life medicalization becomes. The documentary also shows the medical staff and families involved in each case thinking through these bioethical quandaries.

What this film highlights, more than anything, is how impossibly difficult and heart wrenching all of these decisions become. None of this is ever simple or easy. My job is to think about death and dying all day, every day. I’m the son of a funeral director. I’ve watched my grandparents die.

These experiences are all valuable but they never fully prepare a person for that most difficult end of life decision: to die.

So watch this documentary and make your friends watch it. Then make sure that your end of life wishes are known to your next-of-kin and in writing.

The New York Times article at the top of the page is another side of the Frontline documentary, which is when people decide to stop the medical treatments and die at home. It’s a wonderful article about people choosing to die on their own terms in their own living spaces.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

Westboro Baptist Church Supreme Court Case

Anti-Gay Minister Shouldn’t Be Able To Intrude On Soldiers’ Funerals
Doug Gansler, The Washington Post (October 6, 2010)

 

Funeral Protesters Have A Free-Speech Right
Editorial Board, The Washington Post (October 6, 2010)

 

Westboro Baptist Church, Phelps Family Speak Out About Funeral-Protest Case
Ian Shapira, The Washington Post (October 6, 2010)

 

Court Considers Westboro Baptist Church’s Anti-Gay Protests At Military Funerals
Robert Barnes, The Washington (October 6, 2010)

 

Justices Hear Arguments In Funeral-Protest Case
Adam Liptak, The New York Times (October 07, 2010)

 

Lamentable Speech
Editorial Board, The New York Times (October 7, 2010)

 

Court Weighs Free Speech vs. Privacy At Funerals
Robert Barnes, The Washington Post (October 7, 2010)

A hardly definitive roundup of articles about Wednesday’s Supreme Court Case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and its funeral protests.

This NewsHour television report is really good too.

Categories
Death + the Law Death Ethics

US Supreme Court Hears Funeral Protest Case on Wednesday

Westboro Baptist’s Funeral Protests Put Free Speech To Test
Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers (October 1, 2010)

 

Supreme Court Term Offers Hot Issues and Future Hints
Adam Liptak, The New York Times (October 2, 2010)

 

Free speech: Westboro Church Supreme Court Case Tests First Amendment
Warren Richey, The Christian Science Monitor (October 2, 2010)

On Wednesday, October 6, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in an important free speech and protest rights case. Death Ref has been covering this case for a while and you can read those previous posts here. In brief, the Westboro Baptist Church, which is based in Topeka, Kansas was sued by Albert Snyder after its members protested outside his son’s military funeral in Maryland. Snyder’s son was a US Marine and the Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley, protested outside the funeral with signs which proclaimed “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and other, similar statements. The WBC is also known as the group God Hates Fags and fervently believes that soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because America has embraced homosexuality, therefore God is letting the deaths happen.

 

The WBC’s theology is an island unto itself when it comes to its funeral protests but it has garnered a lot of attention over the years. It has also drawn the ire of people who don’t like the church at all.

Albert Snyder’s case has been working its way through courts for a few years now and the US Supreme Court faces a particularly difficult set of arguments. Warren Richey’s piece in the Christian Science Monitor does an excellent job of positioning the case within a broader historical context.

And it looks like this decision will be historic, in one way or another. The politics involved are making for odd mixes of both conservative and liberal thought. It is also really difficult to know how the Justices will respond during the oral arguments.

Keep checking back to Death Ref for updates.