Question re elderly atheist relative and funeral arrangements by Catholic family.

Benny_Cake

mathepac wrote: »

1. Only an extreme control freak with a wish to exert malign influence and impose unnecessary hurt on survivors would insist on removing the comfort of the traditional rites from his family.
2. Typically, in this thread some atheists (already dead?) yet again want to impose their will on grieving families.

If you turn this around, is it ok for atheist relatives to deny a Catholic funeral to someone who had been a practising Catholic all their lives? Would the dying family member be acting in a deliberately hurtful manner to their loved ones by insisting on a church funeral with all the trimmings? I don't think so, so why is it any different if the dying person is an atheist?

At it's best, a funeral should in some way reflect who the deceased person was. Some people probably aren't bothered one way or another, but if a person clearly expresses their wishes, then I think those wishes should be respected.

jimd2

Worztron wrote: »

As far as I know, no. I only saw him once every few years as he lived very far from me. He was quite and probably did not want hassle caused.

I cannot understand why you are making such a big deal so and that your stomach is turned.

Either accept it or make your case to the family but if someone we only ever saw every few years tried to hijack a family funeral like that I would take peasure in skinning them alive;)

mathepac

Dades wrote: »

... You have posited something I find unreasonable. ...

I have no problem with that.

Dades wrote: »

... I, and others, have suggested scenarios that would show this position to be unreasonable in certain cases ...

by composing outrageously outlandish scenarios that I regard as simply trolling. Having been in this position before, I know that any answer I give will be further attacked, the very definition of trolling.

Sorry lads, but ye'll have to go hungry tonight.

Dades wrote: »

... You have studiously ignored these (even after quoting them) in your effort to simply repeat your stance. Could you please address these and at least openly reject them rather than standing off incredulously?

Yes I no longer feed trolls. Feeding on each other might be a good idea rather than feeding off each other, IMHO

Turtwig

mathepac wrote: »

I have no problem with that.
by composing outrageously outlandish scenarios that I regard as simply trolling. Having been in this position before, I know that any answer I give will be further attacked, the very definition of trolling.

Sorry lads, but ye'll have to go hungry tonight.
Yes I no longer feed trolls. Feeding on each other might be a good idea rather than feeding off each other, IMHO

As has already been said to you. Don't accuse anybody of being a troll in your post. If you think somebody is trolling report the post(s). If you have an issue with moderation PM us or lodge a complaint thread in the helpdesk.

For persistent insinuations and accusations on the character of other posters you've been carded.

Dades

mathepac, we could be having an actual discussion here. I don't really get why you're being so evasive and reactive.

Anyhow, the readers of this thread will make their own minds up.

Peregrinus

Mathepac’s point is, essentially, that funerals are for the benefit of grieving survivors, not for the benefit of the deceased (who is beyond any benefit or detriment now). Therefore, he reckons, the kind of funeral that the deceased would have wanted is not really the issue here; the issue is the kind of funeral that the bereaved will find supportive.

It’s not an unarguable point, and indeed others have said something similar. But it does have implications that need to be teased out.

First, if we accept the argument, I think the logic is that, while the next of kin may have no moral obligation to the deceased, they do have a moral obligation to the wider family, friends, and community to organise a funeral which is appropriate to their needs. This means that they do have to attach weight to the views of someone in Worztron’s position, since he is one of the bereaved. I appreciate, of course, that different people may have different views, and that could give the next of kin some awkward dilemmas, but I don’t see that there is any “default” to a religious funeral because some of the bereaved would prefer that.

Secondly, paying attention to the views of the bereaved may work to bring back in the views of the deceased as a relevant consideration. It wouldn’t be surprising if, for many of the bereaved, part of what made a funeral supportive and healing would be the degree to which the funeral reflected, respected and honoured the beliefs and values of the deceased. Thus, if you impose a funeral that the deceased would not have wanted for himself, for a lot of the bereaved that may make it a poorer funeral, regardless of whether it’s the funeral that they would want for themselves.

COYVB

Deleted User wrote: »

One should respect all religions.

Is this only for religious belief or all beliefs? Should we respect the man who believes he's an alien? Or the killer who believes he's doing the work of a deity?

Should we respect the beliefs of conspiracy theorists? Should we respect the beliefs of those who believe it is okay to have sexual relations with children?

Where does it end, exactly? Or did you just mean to say that the poster in question should respect YOUR religion, because YOU think you're right?

Sarky

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mathepac’s point is, essentially, that funerals are for the benefit of grieving survivors, not for the benefit of the deceased (who is beyond any benefit or detriment now). Therefore, he reckons, the kind of funeral that the deceased would have wanted is not really the issue here; the issue is the kind of funeral that the bereaved will find supportive.

It’s not an unarguable point, and indeed others have said something similar. But it does have implications that need to be teased out.

Couldn't he just have said that instead of being a jerk about it?

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Couldn't he just have said that instead of being a jerk about it?

I also have to ask you to refrain from character remarks.

Also Pere has a ****ing awesome command of the English language that not many other posters possess or choose to exhibit.
*swoons*

Turtwig

Jernal wrote: »

I also have to ask you to refrain from character remarks.

Also Pere has a ****ing awesome command of the English language that not many other posters possess or choose to exhibit.
*swoons*

I fainted before I could finish my post. Rest assured the irony was intentional.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

I also have to ask you to refrain from character remarks.

Also Pere has a ****ing awesome command of the English language that not many other posters possess or choose to exhibit.
*swoons*

...a feckin big licky tongue is what he has.....

Peregrinus

Jernal wrote: »

Also Pere has a ****ing awesome command of the English language that not many other posters possess or choose to exhibit.
*swoons*

Bet you say that to all the boys, ya flirt ya!

Peregrinus

Nodin wrote: »

...a feckin big licky tongue is what he has.....

Bet you say that to all the boys, ya flirt ya!

kylith

mathepac wrote: »

Wagon jumpers please see above. Thanks.

1) Not a wagon jumper. People post similar posts sometimes, welcome to the internet.

2) "See above" doesn't answer my question. Do you agree that if it is acceptable to ignore an atheist's lack of beliefs and give them a religious funeral 'for the sake of the family' then it is similarly acceptable to ignore the beliefs of a religious person and give them an atheist send-off, if that's what the family wants?

jimd2

If an atheist feels strongly enough about having a non religious funeral then it is up to them to inform the next of kin.

As the years pass and more and more people choose that route then it will be accepted more by families and alternatives will be found that work out and are practical in a local area.

Worztron

jimd2 wrote: »

I cannot understand why you are making such a big deal so and that your stomach is turned.

Either accept it or make your case to the family but if someone we only ever saw every few years tried to hijack a family funeral like that I would take peasure in skinning them alive;)

I brought up a valid topic. Recall that I did say 'far away'. When did I mention hijacking a funeral?

jimd2 wrote: »

...if someone we only ever saw every few years tried to hijack a family funeral like that I would take peasure in skinning them alive

Would you bless yourself after skinning them alive with joy?

Get help!

mathepac

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mathepac’s point is, essentially, that funerals are for the benefit of grieving survivors, not for the benefit of the deceased (who is beyond any benefit or detriment now). Therefore, he reckons, the kind of funeral that the deceased would have wanted is not really the issue here; the issue is the kind of funeral that the bereaved will find supportive. ...

Thanks for that decent attempt at explaining me.

If the default set of arrangements usually put together by a funeral director is used as a template, there is ample opportunity to satisfy most of mourners and the wishes of the deceased.

Day 1 - Removal of the remains from the place the person died to the undertakers for preparation. This day may include a brief period of repose at home or in a hospital mortuary. There are few if any religious rites or ceremonies attached to this day or section of mourning and lots of opportunity for non-believers or members of different faiths to participate.

Day 2 Lying in state in the undertakers or at home. Again no religious displays, rites or ceremonies until the very end just before the coffin is closed. Generally the undertakers close the doors and seals this part to the next of kin. Prayers / blessings are traditional at this stage. This is usually followed by removal to the church / chapel where the deceased rests overnight.

Day 3 Religious ceremonies followed by removal to the grave-yard for burial or cremation. Little if any religious displays at the grave-yard. It would be traditional to go somewhere for refreshments after the burial in a hotel, pub or next of kin's home.

Given the predictability of a traditional set of funeral arrangements, there is ample opportunity for reasonable people to participate in the grieving and the farewells as well as opportunity to design in or leave out specifics requested by the deceased or next of kin.

Reasonable people, non-believers and otherwise, can go with the flow or choose to absent themselves completely instead of just selectively from the bits they might find unacceptable.

EDIT: I've described a traditional Irish Judeo / Christian funeral arrangement, the one I'm familiar with. Other faiths will of course follow different rites and ceremonial patterns.

Mark Hamill

mathepac wrote: »

Wagon jumpers please see above. Thanks.

Ok, lets have a look:

mathepac wrote: »

I have already written that a big part of the rites, ceremonies, traditions and cultural observations around the death of a loved one are designed to give solace to the survivors of the departed. You'd want to be very hard-hearted and selfish to deny them potential sources of comfort after your death by insisting (somehow) that they do your thing.

I have mentioned nothing about Catholicism in making my point - mine was a general one.

So, thats a yes to my question then? Basically, in your eyes, the deceased's burial ceremonial preferences should be ignored in favour of the next of kins?
So if a christian convert dies, s/he gets the hindu funeral his/her hindu relatives want, or if a muslim revert dies s/he gets the humanist funeral his/her humanist relatives want.

I know that funerals are really "for" the living, but they are also about the dead. If you cant let a funeral be on the terms the deceased would have wanted, then its not about them, its about you and it becomes a lie. You turn an event to mark and respect a lost loved one into an event to mark and respect your own personal loss and that is very selfish. You only lose the deceased, the deceased loses everyone and the chance to say goodbye to them on his/her own terms.

Dades

I'm really confused mathepac.

You've missed the point entirely by focusing on how non-believers have opportunities to mourn in a non-religious setting. But this whole discussion is about THE DECEASED. Their rights. Their beliefs. Their wishes.

These weren't the people I came on this thread to defend. I came on because you suggested the deceased shouldn't put people out because, essentially, Irish folk are more comfortable with the scenario you describe above.

I actually can't believe you've posted again, and still won't stand by what you originally said in clear English. You even left out the parts of Pere's post that mirrored what other people had been saying.

Maybe you're right. Maybe there is a troll in this thread.

mathepac

First look up and read the post's title and then do the same with my previous post's title. Maybe the titles should read "Possible Compromise Arrangements" but for now they say what they say.

Dades wrote: »

I'm really confused mathepac. ...

I've explained your apparent confusion to my satisfaction.

Dades wrote: »

... You've missed the point entirely by focusing on how non-believers have opportunities to mourn in a non-religious setting. But this whole discussion is about THE DECEASED. Their rights. Their beliefs. Their wishes. ...

No I haven't. On the basis that it isn't possible to please or even appease all of the people dead or alive all of time, I've suggested a compromise. Read my post again the bit that says "... ample opportunity to satisfy most of mourners and the wishes of the deceased ..." and "... opportunity for reasonable people to participate in the grieving and the farewells as well as opportunity to design in or leave out specifics requested by the deceased or next of kin. ..."

"... Their beliefs... " Now I'm confused. I seem to remember getting indignant lectures and posts in another thread and I thought the key point was that atheists had no beliefs. I may have missed something though. Does the non-belief bit change when they die?

Dades

The non-belief bit generally entails an absence of religion. Prayers, blessings, a priest saying things from a pulpit that the deceased believed to be untrue. None of that in any way represents the life of an individual who wishes for a service to reflect who he really was.

Alternatives to traditional (i.e. religious) funerals are readily available, and threads about them in this forum have often talked about how special they can be. Perhaps your opinion would be different if you knew of the alternatives to the convenient "we're going to pretend you we're catholic for our own comfort" funeral

mathepac

Dades wrote: »

The non-belief bit generally entails an absence of religion. Prayers, blessings, a priest saying things from a pulpit that the deceased believed to be untrue. None of that in any way represents the life of an individual who wishes for a service to reflect who he really was.

Alternatives to traditional (i.e. religious) funerals are readily available, and threads about them in this forum have often talked about how special they can be. Perhaps your opinion would be different if you knew of the alternatives to the convenient "we're going to pretend you we're catholic for our own comfort" funeral

OK so the infamous "No Surrender" banner needs to be affixed to all posts relating to atheist death or funerals. That's consistent at least but it renders "discussions" redundant and brands invitations to participate in said non-discussions as trolling.

I have to say it's been enlightening, far from rewarding, uplifting or enjoyable but educational. Between my learning here and the learning I had about athesits' willingness to make false affirmations, and the conscienceless way they exhorted others to do the same in the confirmation sponsorship thread, I've learned lots about atheists' views and their moral compass.

Hotblack Desiato

Well if I was unsure as to your intent, your last post makes it very clear.

For the record, many atheists including myself object to any and all hypocrisy in relation to religion. Infant baptism is wrong and I will have no part in nor attend any such ceremony. Ceremonies such as confirmation should not take place before age 18 and atheists should have nothing whatsoever to do with either, and screw what the relatives or wider society think.

Your so-called 'compromise' is laughable, imposing your religion on non-believers is not compromise in any way, shape or form.

Dades

mathepac, your brand of adherence to the rules of debate wold make a rock cry.

Somewhere in fact, a rockery is in tears.

Good luck.

mathepac

ninja900 wrote: »

... For the record, many atheists including myself object to any and all hypocrisy in relation to religion. ...

For the documented record, refer to the thread about an atheist sponsoring a confirmation candidate - the ultimate hypocrisy, making a false affirmation in order to take part in a religious ceremony they don't believe in

ninja900 wrote: »

...
Your so-called 'compromise' is laughable, imposing your religion on non-believers is not compromise in any way, shape or form.

Another atheist who "don't read too good" when it suits

Mark Tapley

mathepac wrote: »

I have no problem with that.
by composing outrageously outlandish scenarios that I regard as simply trolling. Having been in this position before, I know that any answer I give will be further attacked, the very definition of trolling.

Sorry lads, but ye'll have to go hungry tonight.
Yes I no longer feed trolls. Feeding on each other might be a good idea rather than feeding off each other, IMHO

On the other hand I think that your need to condescend and belittle is being fully sated.

Pherekydes

mathepac wrote: »

For the documented record, refer to the thread about an atheist sponsoring a confirmation candidate - the ultimate hypocrisy, making a false affirmation in order to take part in a religious ceremony they don't believe in

To placate their family, which you think atheists should do during their own funerals.

Hotblack Desiato

mathepac wrote: »

For the documented record, refer to the thread about an atheist sponsoring a confirmation candidate - the ultimate hypocrisy, making a false affirmation in order to take part in a religious ceremony they don't believe in
Another atheist who "don't read too good" when it suits

Actually I'd recently read this 2009/2010 thread in full, and both of us have posted in this recent one.
If you 'read good' yourself you'd see I'd already answered your point in my previous post.

Your so-called 'compromise' is a religious funeral. As usual, non-believers are the only ones ever expected to 'compromise' in this country.

It's obvious you're just here to repeat yourself and throw out insults so no point replying to you any further.