DUDLEY, Mass. (AP) — A small Massachusetts town says it’s allowing a local Islamic group to build a cemetery after earlier plans were rejected.

The Islamic Society of Greater Worcester had sued the town of Dudley in July after a zoning board ruled that the group didn’t have standing to seek a special permit for a cemetery. The group argued that its constitutional rights had been violated and accused the cemetery’s opponents of thinly veiled bigotry.

But in an agreement approved Thursday evening, town leaders said the society can return to the zoning board and will gain approval for a 6-acre cemetery. In exchange, the group won’t seek to expand the cemetery for at least a decade and will drop its lawsuit.

Both sides said they’re pleased with the deal.

Comments (4)
  1. All cemeteries should be banned. If the native Americans buried had cemeteries as people do today with all the blight of grave stones consuming the land then when the settlers landed by then the ir would be no land left on the continent for the living, In Muslim countries like Christian countries their are growing numbers of people wanting that form of end of life disposition out lawed and banned. Do the math , look at Bourne Mass. a once gorgeous town now appearing more and more to be abolished and transformed into one big cemetery, The living will in time have no place to live, no land to farm or play on. Cremation is the option left impacting to the environment It makes no sense that forever and ever in all time to come that some one will have to cut the grass and be paid first by the perpetual care fund at a cemetery which eventually will go defunct and then have the town and it’s residents if they can fit in the town or state once the cemetery consumes everything to then pay from the tax levy by their labor to have to cut the grass at the cemetery for eternity to come. Cremation eliminates the people getting upset by tiny kids knocking stones over and thus means they do not go to jail for their life and that the tax payer pay 70,000 dollars per year to keep them their on civil rights violations or fund litigation continually for years on end, It means people will not be upset over missing flowers and etc…. It means the land can be re used for numerous things to come — and we can all live in peace and not in seperate ends of a cemetery that eventually no one visits. First for so many years family will visit, then for scores no one, then the tourist bus will bring people from all over the country to visit the historical cemetery , then later no one will come again for eternity, except paid care takers by the tax payer who pays more to take car of the dead when the math is done and they consume more land than the living can live on thats left, Cemeteries are blight a mound of granite stones not natural in environment those that choose this form of burial should say to themselves what have I done to the people of the future, they will have to clean up that land and re use it some day , we should all be biodegradable and leave the earth so others can live on it ! — the town should ban the cemetery — not based on discrimination as finger pointers allege bu based on it makes the most sense and is the right thing to do —- all cemeteries should be banned in all states !

    1. You have a good point Richard. I disagree. I don’t think using land for burial grounds is the best land use practice but I think it is far from the worst land use practice. Think of the alternative uses. Some uses would be better than a burial ground. A park would be nice but it would require ownership and maintenance. Left to Mother Nature it would go back to forest. Industrial uses are ugly and pollution causing. With a burial ground the land is preserved and maintained. It provides habitat for wildlife. It does not cause profound eyesore like so many alternatives would.

Leave a Reply