28th July 2005, 02:04 PM
I for one have no interest whatsoever in living in a country where to offer examples of poor practise is seen as libellous. Technically speaking, any such charge in this (BAJRforum) context, of libel, would not pass the front desk of the Crown Prosecution Service. The subscriber simply offered a view without details of those involved. As Dr Wardle points out, the Christian Church is not a single entity by any means and therefore, in this context has not been subjected to libel-simply critiscism in a general way. I too have numerous examples of poor practise in my dealings with the "Church"-meant here to describe an organisation that claims to practise the teachings of the Torah and the Injeel. I feel that we may be drifting from the main point and expanding into the realms of "Church" attitudes/practises in relation to/with architecture and historic CRM. The crux of this dialogue, as I see it, is simply the treatment of Human remains and for me, the issue concerns all-including the secular world. As an inflammatory opener, I am hardly surprised that more resources are acquired for the land/building assets of the "Church"-after all, Human remains are no longer seen as an attractive income raiser by modern "Christian" establishments. I welcome the newly published guidelines for the "Church" however, as we have/continue to see in our own profession-guidelines are only guidelines. In an increasingly litigious society, the law no longer (if indeed it ever did) champions what is right and further, on technicalities, admonishes the nauseatingly guilty. So, what about Human remains?-whoever the "curatorship" falls to, a standardised and policed policy is needed.......[8D]