Religious funerals for prominent nonbelievers

is_that_so

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

Oh, I've thought about it and my position is the dead don't care as I've said quite a few times and we do what we believe they wanted or as best as we can do. If we don't like what is being done but are not those who are making decisions then we can choose to show respect or just stay away from it.

The alleged "offence" to the dead person's memory is the living taking umbrage at what they imagine to be an affront. None of us are the ultimate arbiter on what a person who cannot respond really wanted but we set ourselves up that way.
In the heightened emotions of the aftermath of a death there are as many regrets about the departed as there are over how people behave towards each other in their own sense of what was right and wrong about how it was treated.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Having been at a few recently I didn't get the impression they do that at all. They were all about remembering, honouring and saying goodbye. Sure that stuff is in the liturgy but that comes with the choice. As for kids I think we explain death in ways they can grasp and their understanding will always come from parents.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

With a bit of luck, you're children won't be young any more at your time of death. For most people, it will be children taking care of their parents funerals, which they will do according to how they were raised.

I also don't buy the notion that going into a church on that rare occasion of a funeral or wedding will have any significant detrimental effect on kids, any more than entering the golden arches for a big mac once or twice a year will lead to coronary problems. Kids aren't particularly fragile and in my opinion this level of over-protectiveness does them more harm than good.

Lux23

Funerals are for the people you leave behind, if I died now, my partner and mother would probably want a funeral so I wouldn't necessarily object to it even though I think its a silly ritual.

smacl

is_that_so wrote: »

Having been at a few recently I didn't get the impression they do that at all. They were all about remembering, honouring and saying goodbye. Sure that stuff is in the liturgy but that comes with the choice. As for kids I think we explain death in ways they can grasp and their understanding will always come from parents.

As an atheist, all but one of the religious funerals that I've attended have been rather cold affairs from my point of view and not particularly meaningful to those other than the deeply religious.

In many ways I actually think that kids deal with death better than adults and are surprisingly resilient. When my dad died my kids were consoling me more than I was them. I agree the responsibility for explanation lies with the parents, which can make for some interesting discussion after bringing your young atheist kids back from a religious funeral. I took the line that different people believe in different things, that I personally didn't believe in a god or heaven, and that those we lose live on in our memories. Seemed to work well enough.

storker

smacl wrote: »

With a bit of luck, you're children won't be young any more at your time of death. For most people, it will be children taking care of their parents funerals, which they will do according to how they were raised.

I also don't buy the notion that going into a church on that rare occasion of a funeral or wedding will have any significant detrimental effect on kids, any more than entering the golden arches for a big mac once or twice a year will lead to coronary problems. Kids aren't particularly fragile and in my opinion this level of over-protectiveness does them more harm than good.

Our kids made their communions and confirmations, and were even altar servers for some time. I don't see this as likely to influence their opinions about religion as they grow older any more than it did with me. And if they don't end up coming to the same conclusions I did, that's fine too.

Sebastian Dangerfield

My wife isnt especially religious, but still goes through all the usual motions. Im quite anti-church, and didnt go to the kids christenings.

Ive told her I wanted to be cremated when I go, but Im sure she'll probably end up giving me a funeral regardless. Maybe it brought comfort to the family in the cases you mention? Its not like the person can argue

Hotblack Desiato

A cremation is an alternative to burial. It's not an alternative to a funeral.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A cremation is an alternative to burial. It's not an alternative to a funeral.

It is if you choose not to have a religious ceremony before it.

Hotblack Desiato

You can have a burial with no religious ceremony - or no ceremony at all - if you want.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can have a burial with no religious ceremony - or no ceremony at all - if you want.

Good to know - might save a few bob

Peregrinus

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Good to know - might save a few bob

If saving a few bob is the driving consideration, go for cremation rather than burial. No need to buy a grave-plot.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Peregrinus wrote: »

If saving a few bob is the driving consideration, go for cremation rather than burial. No need to buy a grave-plot.

Assumed I need a coffin for a funeral, but not for a cremation? Its clear I havent given this much thought, I shall have to plan the disposal of my corpse much better.

Peregrinus

SFAIK there's no law on the subject, but I think it would be socially unacceptable not to have a coffin of some kind at a funeral service, whether civil or religious. However if you intend to save money by not having any funeral service, that's not a consideration.

You don't need a coffin for either burial or cremation (unless particular cemeteries have rules requiring a coffin for burial, but I'm not aware that any do).

As betweeen burial and cremation, even if you have access to a family grave plot and don't have to buy one, a cremation costs less than having a grave opened for a burial. So, yeah, cremation without a service of any kind is going to be your cheapest legal, decent option.

If you fail or refuse to take any steps at all to dispose of your dead next-of-kin, the HSE will step in and organise it. They'll provide a basic service in accordance with community standards (which will include a coffin, a shroud, a hearse and bearers, a funeral service and a grave opening or cremation). Then they'll seek to recover the cost from the estate of the deceased, so unless the deceased was insolvent this won't be the cheapest option.

(You could always try just wrapping the body in black plastic and abandoning it at the county tip, but that kind of thing might get you into trouble.)

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

You are both arguing for a point I already conceded.
If someone has said that they want people to give them the funeral that best helps the bereaved, regardless of their own views on the specific type of funeral, then that is of course completely fine. If someone never made their views on their funeral known, and the bereaved choose a funeral that best helps them, then I not criticising that either.

I am talking about something like my situation, where my family knows what I want - for my body to stripped for parts when I die, given to whoever needs them for transplants or medical science, anything left can be cremated or composted or whatever is environmentally soundest, with my family and friends getting together in a house party with lots of games to remember me by (if they want). I do not want some religion claiming anything over me, I don't even want a humanist event. I do not begrudge any of my relatives doing their own religious or spiritualist thing, but I do not want it to be an obligatory group event, pretending it represents me.

Mark Hamill

is_that_so wrote: »

Oh, I've thought about it and my position is the dead don't care as I've said quite a few times and we do what we believe they wanted or as best as we can do.

I'm not sure how much of that thought you are bringing to this discussion because that is also what I am arguing for.

is_that_so wrote: »

If we don't like what is being done but are not those who are making decisions then we can choose to show respect or just stay away from it.

From a practical point of view, I would also agree with this. I'm not saying we should disrupt funerals.

is_that_so wrote: »

The alleged "offence" to the dead person's memory is the living taking umbrage at what they imagine to be an affront. None of us are the ultimate arbiter on what a person who cannot respond really wanted but we set ourselves up that way.
In the heightened emotions of the aftermath of a death there are as many regrets about the departed as there are over how people behave towards each other in their own sense of what was right and wrong about how it was treated.

Again, I'm talking about people who specifically and clearly let their desires known about their prospective funeral. Situations were is no uncertainty about what they wanted.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

I also don't buy the notion that going into a church on that rare occasion of a funeral or wedding will have any significant detrimental effect on kids, any more than entering the golden arches for a big mac once or twice a year will lead to coronary problems. Kids aren't particularly fragile and in my opinion this level of over-protectiveness does them more harm than good.

It puts in their head that churches are automatically an integral part of those events, regardless of whether of not the follow anything else the church declares. It's what is helping cultural catholicism last so long, allowing the church (even just the building) impregnate the important events of our lives. It might not be too detrimental on an individual level, but it makes it much harder to make societal level changes when so many people will defend the church on traditional or "never did me any harm" levels (see any discussion about removing religion from schools, or religious oaths from politics etc.)

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are both arguing for a point I already conceded.

I think to an extent we are all vehemently agreeing with one another here.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If someone has said that they want people to give them the funeral that best helps the bereaved, regardless of their own views on the specific type of funeral, then that is of course completely fine. If someone never made their views on their funeral known, and the bereaved choose a funeral that best helps them, then I not criticising that either.

I am talking about something like my situation, where my family knows what I want - for my body to stripped for parts when I die, given to whoever needs them for transplants or medical science, anything left can be cremated or composted or whatever is environmentally soundest, with my family and friends getting together in a house party with lots of games to remember me by (if they want). I do not want some religion claiming anything over me, I don't even want a humanist event. I do not begrudge any of my relatives doing their own religious or spiritualist thing, but I do not want it to be an obligatory group event, pretending it represents me.

You may think that now, but of course when the time comes you won't think that, because you won't think anything at all, because you won't exist. (And presumably you don't believe that you'll be in some kind of supernatural afterlife, looking down on your relatives and cursing them for flouting the wishes during your sojourn on this earthly plane.)

So your relatives might reasonably argue to themselves that they need no longer attach any weight at all to the views you formerly expressed; you have no interests than can possibly be damaged by having those views ignored. They might think that their first obligation is to the living.

And lets suppose that some of the living will find solace in a conventional religious ritual (which is not an unreasonabe supposition). But lets also suppose that others of the living will be appalled and angry at seeing your wishes ignored in this way. So even if your family can have no continuing obligation to you to give you the funeral you wanted (because they have no obligations to a non-existent being, period) they may have an obligation to others to give you the funeral you wanted.

But they're the ones who have to identify who among the living will benefit from a religious funeral, and who will be injured by it, and they are the ones who have to strike a balance between their competing obligations to the two groups.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If saving a few bob is the driving consideration, go for cremation rather than burial. No need to buy a grave-plot.

Also, while it may seem a bit morbid, planning the funeral in advance rather than picking the first undertaker in the book when under pressure can make things much cheaper. We went with a smaller local firm who ended up costing much less than some of the big names and who were excellent. I suspect many people overspend on funerals for all the wrong reasons. AFAIK, all crematoriums in Ireland require a coffin, St Jeromes certainly does.

Useful article from the Indo here looking at burial options, including natural burial grounds which look like an attractive option.

lazygal

The American Way of Death is worth a read. Undertakers are looking for profits first and foremost.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Also, while it may seem a bit morbid, planning the funeral in advance rather than picking the first undertaker in the book when under pressure can make things much cheaper. We went with a smaller local firm who ended up costing much less than some of the big names and who were excellent. I suspect many people overspend on funerals for all the wrong reasons. AFAIK, all crematoriums in Ireland require a coffin, St Jeromes certainly does.

Useful article from the Indo here looking at burial options, including natural burial grounds which look like an attractive option.

I don't know if The Island Crematorium in Ringaskiddy require a coffin as no other option was available but I do know the cheapest coffin we were able to get from undertaker was just under €1k.
The undertaker bill for my Dad's funeral last Oct was €5,534 - that was for 'Removal', embalming, car to Crematorium, coffin, notice in paper, cremation.
Church part was separate. don't know how much that cost but I did hear my brother give a high pitched "how much for a priest?!?!... thank **** there weren't any alterboys" when given the bill. I think it came to about €500.

seamus

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Assumed I need a coffin for a funeral, but not for a cremation? Its clear I havent given this much thought, I shall have to plan the disposal of my corpse much better.

You don't even need a body to have a funeral.
It's a memorial for the individual who is already gone. The presence of a corpse is merely symbolic.

Wicker caskets are becoming increasingly more popular and they're considerably cheaper (and better for the environment). I assume crematoriums will take them. They'd burn easier and produces less toxic fumes than a traditional coffin.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It puts in their head that churches are automatically an integral part of those events, regardless of whether of not the follow anything else the church declares. It's what is helping cultural catholicism last so long, allowing the church (even just the building) impregnate the important events of our lives. It might not be too detrimental on an individual level, but it makes it much harder to make societal level changes when so many people will defend the church on traditional or "never did me any harm" levels (see any discussion about removing religion from schools, or religious oaths from politics etc.)

Certainly hasn't been the case with my kids in my experience, who have been to both religious and non-religious funerals and weddings. Society is already changing in this regard as evidenced by the massive increase in number of civil marriages for example, with nearly 30% of marriage ceremonies not being religious in 2018 as opposed under 6% in 1996. (Source). I don't see any CSO stats from funerals, but given the more general move away from church involvement in these major events in our lives, I wouldn't think this would be any different albeit with a time lag of 1-2 generations.

While I share the sentiment that the church have an undue influence on our society that we clearly need to remove, I'd ask what evidence you have to support the above assertion? I think that children's attitude to religion is first and foremost driven by their parents and then to a lesser extent by peers, teachers, and extended family.

Hotblack Desiato

Body bag funerals should be a thing.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Body bag funerals should be a thing.

I certainly like the idea of being buried in some forest over being cremated, taking a small bit off my final carbon footprint rather than adding a sizable chunk to it. Cardboard box would be fine as a coffin.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

I certainly like the idea of being buried in some forest over being cremated, taking a small bit off my final carbon footprint rather than adding a sizable chunk to it. Cardboard box would be fine as a coffin.

That would be my preference too.
Whicker box, unbleached canvas bag - something natural and biodegradable.
Stick me in the ground and have a picnic. Only good food mind, no processed muck or sammichs from the local garage 'deli'.
If anyone feels the need to 'visit' my grave then taking a dog (or several) for a walk in the forest would be the single most apt way of remembering me.

AndrewJRenko

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That would be my preference too.
Whicker box, unbleached canvas bag - something natural and biodegradable.
Stick me in the ground and have a picnic. Only good food mind, no processed muck or sammichs from the local garage 'deli'.
If anyone feels the need to 'visit' my grave then taking a dog (or several) for a walk in the forest would be the single most apt way of remembering me.

It's a nice idea, but do we have enough forests to accomodate large numbers of these burials?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't know if The Island Crematorium in Ringaskiddy require a coffin as no other option was available but I do know the cheapest coffin we were able to get from undertaker was just under €1k.
The undertaker bill for my Dad's funeral last Oct was €5,534 - that was for 'Removal', embalming, car to Crematorium, coffin, notice in paper, cremation.
Church part was separate. don't know how much that cost but I did hear my brother give a high pitched "how much for a priest?!?!... thank **** there weren't any alterboys" when given the bill. I think it came to about €500.

Terrible costs there. Do you really need embalming in Ireland, given that we tend to wrap things up quickly in 2 or 3 days. If you're keeping the coffin closed and going for cremation, what's the point in embalming?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

So your relatives might reasonably argue to themselves that they need no longer attach any weight at all to the views you formerly expressed;

If the bereaved don't attach any weight to the funeral views the deceased formerly expressed and the life they lived, then they aren't grieving the deceased and the funeral means nothing at all. You argument should be that they shouldn't even waste the time or money on it.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Certainly hasn't been the case with my kids in my experience, who have been to both religious and non-religious funerals and weddings. Society is already changing in this regard as evidenced by the massive increase in number of civil marriages for example, with nearly 30% of marriage ceremonies not being religious in 2018 as opposed under 6% in 1996. (Source). I don't see any CSO stats from funerals, but given the more general move away from church involvement in these major events in our lives, I wouldn't think this would be any different albeit with a time lag of 1-2 generations.

While I share the sentiment that the church have an undue influence on our society that we clearly need to remove, I'd ask what evidence you have to support the above assertion? I think that children's attitude to religion is first and foremost driven by their parents and then to a lesser extent by peers, teachers, and extended family.

And if those parents, peers, teachers and extended families all do the church wedding and funerals because they are the "done thing", then change might eventually still come but how much longer will it take than it should?
My evidence is how any discussion about removing religion from school or politics invariably getting "tradition" and "did me no harm" responses, both in this forum and in real life. Even threads on removing the Angelus get the same responses.

Mark Hamill

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Body bag funerals should be a thing.

Wasn't there some hullabaloo about some Muslims, in the West of the country IIRC, burying their dead in funeral shrouds? Maybe it was just when the law was changed to allow for it in the early 2010s, but some people where complaining about it being unhygienic or bad for the environment. It turned out the cotton shrouds were much more biodegradable than varnished coffins (not to mention a fraction of the cost).