Stop family from giving a religious funeral

OK, some good stuff coming out here. Dades suggests in post #86 that, if the thought of a religious funeral bothers an atheist while he's alive, that means its right and important that he be reassured that he won't have such a funeral. That's entirely correct, of course, through strictly speaking all it means is that we have to tell him, while alive, that he will have a secular funeral. If, after he dies, we give him a religious funeral ("surprise!"), is any harm done?

Yes, I think it is. First, we've lied to him, and in most moral systems lying is generally wrong. Sure, we have lied to comfort someone, and maybe that's acceptable when it's the only way to comfort him, but that's not the case here. We didn't have to lie to him. We could have actually intended to give him the secular funeral he wanted, and then truthfully told him he would have it.

And, secondly, if we lie to the first atheist who feels like this, and then give him a religious funeral, it becomes more difficult to comfort the next atheist with a similar lie, since he will know that he cannot depend on what we say. If it's important to comfort and reassure people by promising them the funeral that they want, then it's important actually to deliver on those promises. Otherwise they lose their power to provide any comfort or reassurance.

(And of course if you take the case of a person who wants a religious funeral, you can turn this argument completely around, and it still holds good. So this isn't an argument for giving atheists the funerals they want; it's an argument for giving everyone the funeral they want, if the knowledge that we will do so is something that will comfort them and sustain them as they face death.)

But can we go a bit further? Take the case of an atheist who is actually not terribly bothered about his funeral and expresses no particular wishes about it. (And we know from this thread that there are plenty of those.) Can we say that, even for him, it would be wrong to celebrate a religious funeral?

I think we can say that. But there are actually arguments both ways on this.

Argument for ignoring his atheism: He's dead and, dead or alive, his funeral was not important to him anyway. He is unaffected by the kind of funeral he has. But his family and friends are affected; they are the ones who are dealing with his death, who are mourning and grieving. At least arguably, the funeral is mainly for them, and the funeral should be the one which best comforts and supports them. Which may or may not suggest a religious funeral, but it certainly suggests a funeral which accords with their beliefs, in priority to his.

Argument for not ignoring his atheism: He's dead. And the reason we mark his death is because he was important, and therefore his loss is important. No man is an island; every man's death diminishes me, etc, etc. And I don't know that we can mourn his loss if we start out by denying or ignoring who he was, and what he brought to his family, his friends and his society. Among the things he brought were his beliefs and values. If we are going to do this decently and with integrity, we shouldn't have a funeral which denies or ignores important truths about him.

Almost certainly, some compromise is possible, and perhaps even necessary. It may be true that Joe was a complete and vocal unbeliever, and also true that Joe's friends include believers who want to pray for him, and can hardly be stopped from doing so. I've been to plenty of civil funerals in Australia at which the Lord's prayer is recited, or a psalm is sung. The funeral celebrates not only Joe's contribution to his community but also the community's loss at Joe's death as well as the community's feelings towards Joe. Almost certainly, Joe's community will include people who want to pray for him in one way or another. I don't think it's a denial or rejection of Joe's beliefs for his funeral to include room for the expression of that need. But what we can't do, with integrity, is to make or imply claims that Joe's beliefs or values were other than they were.