The aunt probably felt very betrayed and violated.

Some people don't grow out of those stages fully.

Maybe not from you and anyone you know, but they do.

Some people believe this sort of brazen opportunism is an admirable quality. I do not, but am just pointing out that people often get moral support for this sort of thing.

I was once told by a career nurse that there are three kinds of nurses. Those who train but leave soon because they realize they won't be able to handle the work, those who stay a while and get by with drinking, and those who are just made for the job and are in their element. I would venture to add a fourth category, among those in nursing homes who want the money without too much responsibility. I was in and out of the hospital twice in the past two yesrs and came across some of those in rehab.

I think that's done by the nurses' aides. This was a licensed practical nurse charged with ability to formally declare someone dead.

Too many nursing home nurses go into nursing just for the money. They don't have any interest in the wellbeing of the residents.

Nice, thank you

The effort to promote circumcision was probably much larger than Kellog himself and doesn't seem to have accounted for the fact that the poverty in which many people were forced to live in Kellog's time was the cause of bad hygenie, not necessarily the moral character of the menthemselves. Even in the Sixties its medical value was being misrepresented by doctors to mothers..

White light is, but not white paint.

I did not assume it at all. If I had made a declarative sentence, stating that he definitely was an atheist that would have been an assumption. I asked if he were an atheist precisely because I did not want to assume it. And no one ever answered that question. Everyone assumed they needed to defend atheism and villainize and insult me personally as a theist. That kind of unneccessary defensiveness strongly suggests I may have been right. Apparently however the institute still thinks it morally acceptable to keep Byrnes skeleton, even knowing that he really didn't want them to have it. That kind of moral blind spot has to be the result of some kind of ideology.

And being an atheist is no guarantee of morality either. I n my experience here online atheists love to disrespect and abuse theists. Certainly Hunter believed he had some sort of right to try to contravene Byrnes stated last wishes and to try to own his body as if he were merely a piece of personal property, all in the name of science, which is often quite antagonistic to religion. Feel welcome to defend atheists all you want, but you're not going to convince me Hunter wasn't an evil person.

You're ignorant. So ignorant you're not even aware. You think that's your rightgeousness, but it isn't it's just your juvenile vanity. Feel welcome to have the last word. It's above my pay grade here to deal with a numbskull like you.

I'm sure you've got yourself all convinced about how rightgeous your discourse is. You are assuming way too much about me for which you have no evidence. Your fifteen minutes are up.

That's a childish sophistry.

You've pretty much disagreed with anything I've said, even to the extent of adopting opposing perspectives on an issue. You probably think you're being very clever, but you're just being obnoxious. Goodbye.

So, what you're saying is the you're just an average contrarian. That's not very interesting.

If the bodies in those mass graves remained untouched then there was no desecration. Being in a mass grave isn't the kind of abuse Byrne feared. Hunter's disrespect of Byrne's wishes for his own body is quite clear. I just simply asked if Hunter was atheist. I think now, that I've received so many defensive replies, that he could well have been so. Being an atheist doesn't mean one can't be a moral person, but it is no guarantee that one is one either. And it is certainly in my experience likely that atheists will abuse theists. The behaviour of some of the people who responded proves it.

The religious proscriptions are based in moral considerations as much as any other. Your vices are ignorance and condescension. You won't persuade people to your way of thinking by those. Rather you'll just alienate them.

The injunctions against it are pretty strong, even if they are broken sometimes. Certainly Hunter's actions are egregious. I think you're just an asshole atheist who thinks her shit doesn't stink.

The integrity of the body after death could arise from religious concerns. Atheists notably disrespect those.

Was Hunter an atheist?

The article does not indicate what would have been the motive for France to participate on the level suggested in the article and claimed by several commentators. Selling a few guns seems hardly to be worth the risk. I've read in such journalists as Kapuszinski that African politics can be quite chaotic and unpredictible. I would venture to guess that the French didn't believe what they first heard and then floundered trying to find an appropriate response. Nothing I have read here seems like more than a deflection of blame from the African killers, and the extortion of guilt offerings.

"Live recordings?"

Indeed