Religious funerals for prominent nonbelievers

Hotblack Desiato

Can't imagine too many priests in the parishes in his diocese were too impressed with that brain fart of his.

Mark Hamill

is_that_so wrote: »

I think you've put far too much unnecessary thought into something that is about showing respect to the deceased. Neither the dead nor the "deceased community" care about any of this.

I've been to enough funerals, family and otherwise to know not to do anything other than respect the occasion. I've also learnt not to second guess whatever things may be in people's heads as regards commemorating the dead. As for people becoming estranged, well that's par for the course with funerals. Nothing like a living relative to make a funeral all about them!

How is it respecting the occasion (the occasion being the loss of a particular person) to ignore something they found important in their life? If you aren't respecting their wishes from when they were alive, then how are you respecting the occasion of the remembrance and celebration of their life when they die?
Is the extent of your argument really "I don't want to think at all about this"? Because that is monstrously selfish and disrespectful to the deceased person who you are claiming to mourn.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

No doubt true, but for many other people their main concern will be for those they care about that they're leaving behind, as with this poster who believes that they will predecease their parents. My question was very explicit in asking why not "if it gives those involved the solace they require without upsetting anyone else". While funerals are about the dead, you clearly can't upset the dead, so if no one else is upset yet your nearest and dearest gain some solace, I'm struggling to see what harm is done.

In situations were someone, who otherwise might not want anything to do with religion, has already said that they are fine with whatever funeral their family wants once it gives them solace, then whatever funeral they will be given by their family will be following their wishes so there is no problem. Their wishes are being respected so I have no major issue.

I am talking about situations were the deceased had previously made it known that they did not want a religious funeral under any circumstances (or they specifically did). If you really want to mourn them, then you should follow their wishes and take solace that you are doing so.

beauf

Lot of outrage about people who you don't know and a pageant you believe has no meaning.

I guess next time you can run into the funeral shouting objections. See how that works out.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am talking about situations were the deceased had previously made it known that they did not want a religious funeral under any circumstances (or they specifically did). If you really want to mourn them, then you should follow their wishes and take solace that you are doing so.

Rationally speaking, I agree entirely that this is what we should do. I don't however think that those involved necessarily behave in a rational manner at this time. Where no harm is done or upset is caused to other close friends or relatives, to my mind the preference of those most deeply affected is far more important than the ideals of an external 3rd party. You or I might see this as disrespectful of the dead but in what sense is it any of our business?

Hotblack Desiato

beauf wrote: »

Lot of outrage about people who you don't know and a pageant you believe has no meaning.

I guess next time you can run into the funeral shouting objections. See how that works out.

These endless juvenile comemnts are so tiresome.

And yes even totally non-religious funerals have meaning :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

beauf wrote: »

Lot of outrage about people who you don't know and a pageant you believe has no meaning.

I guess next time you can run into the funeral shouting objections. See how that works out.

MOD
There is an interesting discussion going on here and I, for one, would like to see it continue in a civilised and mutually respectful manner.
With that in mind please dial down the snark and before you hit post on any future comments consider whether or not they add anything of value to the discussion.
More value less snark going forward.
Thanking you.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

His 3 children (2 Catholic in name only and 1 atheist defector) organised a Catholic funeral as he was a Catholic - not because it gave anyone succor.
It was our final act of respect to the man who was our father.

While I daresay the Catholic funeral did not give those involved any succor doing the best by your father by respecting his final wishes may well have. I could imagine those religious people who press for a religious ceremony regardless of the wishes of the deceased honestly believe that they are doing their best by them. While I'd strongly disagree with this belief, which I personally find disrespectful in the extreme, I've no problem with the sentiment and would wonder what harm is being done if this was the consensus position of all those involved? For me a core part of secularism is allowing other people their beliefs, which extends to those they have guardianship over including deceased next of kin. What is the right course of action for one person may not be for the next.

beauf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

These endless juvenile comemnts are so tiresome.

And yes even totally non-religious funerals have meaning :rolleyes:

Please don't intentionally misrepresent what I've said.

I didn't say (or infer) non-religious funerals have no meaning. I said its a lot outrage for a pageant (a religious one) if you "believe" it has no meaning.

Also even if you believe its evil incarnate to have such a ceremony. How can you stop or prevent it, considering you're not next of kin.
Do you interrupt it as in the "The graduate". If not why not? Is it inappropriate? Is it disrespectful?
Is respect only due to the deceased not the next of kin? Does the next of kin have no consideration in terms of respect. Some here say no.

Because thats the crux of it. Who decides. At the end of the day its the next of kin. Its peoples choice to respect that or not.

Bannasidhe

beauf wrote: »

Please don't intentionally misrepresent what I've said.

I didn't say (or infer) non-religious funerals have no meaning. I said its a lot outrage for a pageant (a religious one) if you "believe" it has no meaning.

Also even if you believe its evil incarnate to have such a ceremony. How can you stop or prevent it, considering you're not next of kin.
Do you interrupt it as in the "The graduate". If not why not? Is it inappropriate? Is it disrespectful?
Is respect only due to the deceased not the next of kin? Does the next of kin have no consideration in terms of respect. Some here say no.

Because thats the crux of it. Who decides. At the end of the day its the next of kin. Its peoples choice to respect that or not.

Firstly I don't believe that those who push for a religious funeral because they are religious themselves believe it has no meaning - for them it has significant meaning which is why they push for it.

But, when they are pushing for it when the deceased during their life disavowed those religious beliefs then that disavowing is being disavowed in favour of someone else's religious beliefs.
The pageant may not have meaning to disbelievers - however the disavowing of the pageant does.
To insist on a religious funeral for a non-religious person is to disrespect that person's beliefs and give priority to your (as in generic 'your' not you specifically) own.

Of course in Ireland with our cultural Catholicism the case is often that people are given religious funerals because that how it's done in Ireland.
A crowd of a la carters who don't follow the tenets of a religion autoresponding to platitudes about the deceased who didn't follow the tenets of that religion being with the god believed in by that religion. When according to the rules of that religion the deceased is most certainly not with the god of that religion as they didn't follow the rules of that religion while they were alive.
It's positively Pythonesque.

Neither the deceased or the next of kin may have set foot inside a church bar funerals, baptisms, and weddings - the 3 biggies. Which makes insisting on a religious funeral even more ridiculous.

seamus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course in Ireland with our cultural Catholicism the case is often that people are given religious funerals because that how it's done in Ireland.
...
It's positively Pythonesque.

I agree it's comical, but I don't think there's any malice, or even any specific thought about symbolism forefront in most peoples' minds.

It's that they literally do not know how to do it any other way. In the aftermath of a sudden death and in the absence of any specific requests from the deceased, those left behind will just do whatever it is other people tell them to do, or if they've buried someone before, they'll do what they did last time;

Call the funeral home, pick a church, arrange the day, done. My mother in law once mentioned that a funeral "wasn't very religious" because the priest gave no sermon about the deceased (the homily was given by the family), and the music played and sung wasn't religious.

The fact that it was in an enormous church building with religious chants and prayers throughout, apparently doesn't count as "religious". And that's because for most people, that's the baseline. That's what a funeral is, it's what you do. Irish people who've lived lives where every major life ceremony takes place in the church, cannot conceive of ceremonies without it. It's like their brain malfunctions; you may as well be asking them to don a straw thong, take a shield and a spear and take part in a traditional African funeral.

My brother got married in a humanist ceremony just over a decade ago. For most of the guests there, it was the first time they'd ever gone to a wedding that wasn't a catholic one. The bride's mother had an actual panic attack before the wedding about the ceremony. She was concerned that she wouldn't know what to "do"; where to sit, when to stand, whether to clap, etc etc.
For all intents a purposes, a humanist ceremony in Ireland is the exact same as a catholic one, just omit any mention of god or jesus, omit the chants and the spooky bread. But still, such an idea is absolutely foreign to those who spent the first 5-6 decades of their lives going to a church for everything.

So while I find it disappointing that someone would choose a church funeral for a "out" non-believer, I am very sympathetic to the bind they may find themselves in, especially if they're in the haze and turmoil after a loved one has died.

beauf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly I don't believe that those who push for a religious funeral because they are religious themselves believe it has no meaning - for them it has significant meaning which is why they push for it....

As these people feel it has meaning and are not outraged, I'm genuinely baffled how you think I'm referring to them, when I said the exact opposite. However I'm not going to respond further, as we are obviously on entirely different wave lengths. Slainte.

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

I agree it's comical, but I don't think there's any malice, or even any specific thought about symbolism forefront in most peoples' minds.

It's that they literally do not know how to do it any other way. In the aftermath of a sudden death and in the absence of any specific requests from the deceased, those left behind will just do whatever it is other people tell them to do, or if they've buried someone before, they'll do what they did last time;

Call the funeral home, pick a church, arrange the day, done. My mother in law once mentioned that a funeral "wasn't very religious" because the priest gave no sermon about the deceased (the homily was given by the family), and the music played and sung wasn't religious.

The fact that it was in an enormous church building with religious chants and prayers throughout, apparently doesn't count as "religious". And that's because for most people, that's the baseline. That's what a funeral is, it's what you do. Irish people who've lived lives where every major life ceremony takes place in the church, cannot conceive of ceremonies without it. It's like their brain malfunctions; you may as well be asking them to don a straw thong, take a shield and a spear and take part in a traditional African funeral.

My brother got married in a humanist ceremony just over a decade ago. For most of the guests there, it was the first time they'd ever gone to a wedding that wasn't a catholic one. The bride's mother had an actual panic attack before the wedding about the ceremony. She was concerned that she wouldn't know what to "do"; where to sit, when to stand, whether to clap, etc etc.
For all intents a purposes, a humanist ceremony in Ireland is the exact same as a catholic one, just omit any mention of god or jesus, omit the chants and the spooky bread. But still, such an idea is absolutely foreign to those who spent the first 5-6 decades of their lives going to a church for everything.

So while I find it disappointing that someone would choose a church funeral for a "out" non-believer, I am very sympathetic to the bind they may find themselves in, especially if they're in the haze and turmoil after a loved one has died.

Not a word there I would disagree with.

I suppose what irks me is that it shows how ingrained the RCC (in particular) is in Irish life when we, as a people, cannot 'do' birth, death, or marriage sans Church involvement without people having conniptions.

It's also why I will find a way to haunt those who organise my funeral if it is religious. :P .

Religion is part of my life only to the extent that it keeps trying to butt in (thanks to aforementioned ingraining esp at State level) and I am forced to push back just to be left 'free from religion' as is my Constitutional right. I'll be damned (pun intended) if it weasels it's way into my death.

beauf

seamus wrote: »

....The fact that it was in an enormous church building...

I think for many there are associations with a building you can't ignore.
Its why they they often torn down instead of re-purposed.
Probably a whole different discussion.

I think places like hospitals, and nursing homes and funeral parlours have realized this and now have neutral spaces specifically because of this.

storker

smacl wrote: »

Leaving a glass of whisky on the coffin and sharing a few words with the recently departed.

When my dad died we put photos of his grandchildren in the coffin with him, along with a nagin of whiskey. It struck me that we were resurrecting (sorry) an ancient burial practice, but it seemed appropriate, as the photos had in his hospital room with him before he died, and we had joked about smuggling some whiskey into the hospital for him. I think it was my idea to include the photos, and my brother's idea to add the whiskey. I'm an atheist, he isn't. Our mother, the most devout Catholic in the family, liked the idea of Dad's "afterlife survival kit".

smacl

storker wrote: »

When my dad died we put photos of his grandchildren in the coffin with him, along with a nagin of whiskey. It struck me that we were resurrecting (sorry) an ancient burial practice, but it seemed appropriate, as the photos had in his hospital room with him before he died, and we had joked about smuggling some whiskey into the hospital for him. I think it was my idea to include the photos, and my brother's idea to add the whiskey. I'm an atheist, he isn't. Our mother, the most devout Catholic in the family, liked the idea of Dad's "afterlife survival kit".

Certainly was a thing in the West of Ireland where my Grandmother was from. In terms of tradition I suspect there were very many generations of ingrained paganism with a thin veneer of Catholicism over the top. In my experience wakes can be a far better send of for the dead than funerals. When my brother in-law died suddenly a few years back he was laid to rest in his own bed for one last night before the funeral. We all dropped in for a final goodbye, many leaving small bits and bobs as a final token. By the end of the night he looked fully ready for an end of the world part in Valhalla, with his football scarf on, a nice Cuban cigar in his top pocket and flagon of brandy at his side. There are no doubt lots of different ways of showing your respect, but that one struck me as one of the best. It's amazing how many older traditions surface at these times.

Hotblack Desiato

beauf wrote: »

I think for many there are associations with a building you can't ignore.
Its why they they often torn down instead of re-purposed.

I'd be interested to know of any in Ireland which have been demolished. The unlovely 1960s aircraft hangar in Finglas is due to be, but it'll be replaced with a much smaller and cheaper to run (and hopefully less ugly and freezing and leaky) church.

Many deconsecrated Protestant churches in Ireland have been converted - some into offices, a few into residences, one off Mary St in Dublin is now a pub.

beauf

I can't find a list.

This seems to be mainly older buildings.

http://archiseek.com/category/buildings/ireland-buildings/demolished/page/54/

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd be interested to know of any in Ireland which have been demolished. The unlovely 1960s aircraft hangar in Finglas is due to be, but it'll be replaced with a much smaller and cheaper to run (and hopefully less ugly and freezing and leaky) church.

Many deconsecrated Protestant churches in Ireland have been converted - some into offices, a few into residences, one off Mary St in Dublin is now a pub.

The last humanist wedding we were at was in a deconsecrated Protestant Chapel. I'm sure there's more of them being used this way.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd be interested to know of any in Ireland which have been demolished. The unlovely 1960s aircraft hangar in Finglas is due to be, but it'll be replaced with a much smaller and cheaper to run (and hopefully less ugly and freezing and leaky) church.

Many deconsecrated Protestant churches in Ireland have been converted - some into offices, a few into residences, one off Mary St in Dublin is now a pub.

Do you mean the church in Cappagh Finglas west?

Horrible building and good chance your car would be broken into if left in the car park, at least back in the 80s.

The one in Finglas village itself is much nicer.

Hotblack Desiato

This one:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-annunciation-finglas-celebrate-final-15245402

One of the many large unsightly monuments around the city to John Charles McQuaid's ego. What is it with absolute rulers and the desire to erect massive ugly buidlings

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This one:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-annunciation-finglas-celebrate-final-15245402

One of the many large unsightly monuments around the city to Charles McQuaid's ego. What is it with absolute rulers and the desire to erect massive ugly buidlings

Yeah that is the one I was talking about alright, we always called it Cappagh church.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Rationally speaking, I agree entirely that this is what we should do. I don't however think that those involved necessarily behave in a rational manner at this time. Where no harm is done or upset is caused to other close friends or relatives, to my mind the preference of those most deeply affected is far more important than the ideals of an external 3rd party. You or I might see this as disrespectful of the dead but in what sense is it any of our business?

The deceased, the person who died and who the funeral is supposedly about, is an external 3rd party?

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The deceased, the person who died and who the funeral is supposedly about, is an external 3rd party?

The external 3rd party I'm referring to is anyone other than those closest to the deceased who are seeking to influence a funeral ceremony in a manner contrary to the wishes of those closest to the deceased. The only exception I'd consider reasonable here is an executor operating on previous written instruction by the deceased. Outside of that I don't believe the manner of the funeral arrangements are anyone else's business.

Edit: Just add some rationale to the above, the alternative would be to demand we respect the unwritten wishes of the deceased to the best of our understanding even if that runs contrary to the wishes of the bereaved. My take on this is that personal human rights extend from birth until death (i.e. not the 'unborn' nor the dead), so the rights that take precedence here are those of the bereaved.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

The external 3rd party I'm referring to is anyone other than those closest to the deceased who are seeking to influence a funeral ceremony in a manner contrary to the wishes of those closest to the deceased. The only exception I'd consider reasonable here is an executor operating on previous written instruction by the deceased. Outside of that I don't believe the manner of the funeral arrangements are anyone else's business.

Edit: Just add some rationale to the above, the alternative would be to demand we respect the unwritten wishes of the deceased to the best of our understanding even if that runs contrary to the wishes of the bereaved. My take on this is that personal human rights extend from birth until death (i.e. not the 'unborn' nor the dead), so the rights that take precedence here are those of the bereaved.

I'm talking about the situation were the deceased made it clear and known beforehand that they didn't want a religious funeral. If the bereaved aren't giving the funeral that reflects the life and wishes of the deceased, then they aren't mourning them, it's just pageantry (usually for the sake of the church). The deceased wanted their funeral to be a specific way, I'm saying the funeral should follow their wishes, the next of kin want to disregard that - who is really 3rd party here?

I am not actually suggesting we bring in laws around this or anything, I see this as a domestic social issue, not something that outside parties should need to interfere with. What I am hoping is that people actually talk about this stuff with their kids or parents, let their wishes be known and respected. The only other poster, other than you, who responded against me in this thread made an argument that entirely amounted to "don't think about it, just get over it". That is whats wrong.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm talking about the situation were the deceased made it clear and known beforehand that they didn't want a religious funeral. If the bereaved aren't giving the funeral that reflects the life and wishes of the deceased, then they aren't mourning them, it's just pageantry (usually for the sake of the church). The deceased wanted their funeral to be a specific way, I'm saying the funeral should follow their wishes, the next of kin want to disregard that - who is really 3rd party here?

You are. And I am. We are not the deceased, and we are not his immediate family who are organising his funeral. We are further away from the situation than they are. The fact that we express views, one way or another, not about what we should do but about what the people who have both the right and the responsiblity to organise his funeral should do marks us out as third parties so far as the organisation of the funeral is concermed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am not actually suggesting we bring in laws around this or anything, I see this as a domestic social issue, not something that outside parties should need to interfere with. What I am hoping is that people actually talk about this stuff with their kids or parents, let their wishes be known and respected. The only other poster, other than you, who responded against me in this thread made an argument that entirely amounted to "don't think about it, just get over it". That is whats wrong.

I think you've put your finger on it there. You and I have little or no right to tell the grieving parents/spouse/children/whatever how they should mark Sean's death, but Sean himself has every right to do so. And while he can't do it when the occasion actually arises, he can certainly do so earlier. And, if it matters to him, he should do it. He can have conversations with his nearest and dearest that you and I can't, and I think if those conversations are had both Sean and his nearest and dearest are likely to fell better for it.

What can you and I do? If Sean is still with us, we can encourage him to have those conversations. If Sean is already dead, we can support his nearest and dearest in any way that they find supportive. If we can't do that, we can butt out. That's it, basically.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are. And I am. We are not the deceased, and we are not his immediate family who are organising his funeral. We are further away from the situation than they are. The fact that we express views, one way or another, not about what we should do but about what the people who have both the right and the responsiblity to organise his funeral should do marks us out as third parties so far as the organisation of the funeral is concermed.

My view is simply that we should follow the deceased wishes for their funerals. I am not adding a different notion of what the funeral for someone to be, and the deceased certainly isn't, so its the people who disregard the deceased wishes that are.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My view is simply that we should follow the deceased wishes for their funerals.

Sure. That would also be my view. But their view may be that they should hold the funeral which will be most effective at providing solace to the bereaved, and that this will be a religious funeral. And their view will (and should) prevail over the views of third parties such as you and me.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My view is simply that we should follow the deceased wishes for their funerals. I am not adding a different notion of what the funeral for someone to be, and the deceased certainly isn't, so its the people who disregard the deceased wishes that are.

Yes, but this is something people who care about such things need to make explicitly known and agreed with those that are going to look after the funeral arrangements, as opposed to a matter of speculation for those that aren't. My main interest would be to make the whole proceedings as easy as possible to those nearest and dearest that I leave behind. In my case they're all atheists, but for the sake of argument if they were Christians, Muslims or latter day Vikings, I'd be perfectly happy to have them see me off in accordance with their own tradition if that is what they wanted. I'd hope the majority of people would treat the deceased in the manner they'd like to be treated, but for those that don't for whatever reason, it is really none of my business.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

From where I'm sitting, you clearly seem to have the courage of yours. As Noz pointed out, that can include putting the needs of others before your own after you're gone. While I'm an atheist and a secularist myself, both are much less important to me than looking after my nearest and dearest.

For that very reason I would NOT want my funeral to be in a church, where they can attempt to indoctrinate my young children with their tales of Daddy waiting for them in Heaven.

Yes it would provide short comfort but at a potential life long cost.

My kids know how much I love them, they don't need a representative of an unrepentant paedophile hiding organisation to give them sky fairy delusions.