Atheist's family claims he was Christian at his funeral. Should they be called on it?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Certainly not. Are you suggesting her brother was an enabler? Or is there perhaps a third, more Jesus-esque option, that involves accepting someone for their faults and helping them to master them? Your example is necessarily silent on the matter, but my own experiences and prejudices compel me to believe the roots of her bad behavior were never the focus with her family as much as the stuff she did.

I do, however, recognize some form of abandonment as a necessary (interventions come to mind) part of generating the deisre to reform. I stand by my point, though. Her brother was, ostensibly, one of her former victims. And it was he alone who had the bravery to forgive.

22

Funerals also shouldn’t be used to manipulate people and memories.

23

It sounds to me that there would be plenty of good things to say about Mitch, without broaching the topic of religion at all. She need not lie and say Mitch was a faithful Christian, nor draw attention to the fact that he repudiated Christianity. She need only speak of his caring warmth.

24

We are agreeing with each other. As I said in my first post:

I thought I made it clear that I believe she could give an honest eulogy without mentioning religion or the lack of religion. Unless her brother was Christopher Hitchens her brother’s lack of faith was not his most notable feature.

25

Do you mean that it’s important for Amber to stand up and be known as an atheist? I ask because the OP does not say or even imply that she is.

26

Give the real eulogy. Religious “feelings” are coddled way too much in general.

Where’s the bar?

27

How about honoring him for being a good atheist? Once again, this isn’t about her or her family-this is about him.

28

Whaddaya think this is, an Episcopalian funeral?

29

How strong would this “Just go along to make the family happy” argument be if the fake conversion had been from gay to straight to satisfy the family’s(and family’s religious community’s) need?

30

He was an atheist. He knows there is no afterlife. It is not about him. He is not around to care. It’s about those who are still alive.

31

I’m a bit ambivalent about this one. On the one hand, I’m not really one for ceremonies and, in fact, the whole point of a funeral isn’t about honoring the dead, per se, as much as it is about helping those left behind with their grieving process which usually leads to it, but I’d say it’s more important to fulfill the needs for grief than specifically honoring the person, whatever that means.

Further, there comes the question of what exactly is needed for someone to grieve. If someone was a genuinely good and well-liked person, then people will pretty much only have good things to say about them. Hell, even if they’re pretty average, death has a way of helping us forget a lot of the bad stuff. But what if someone was just rotten to the core or if someone who really needs to be there, like a child or sibling, had a very rough relationship with that person. Should that person who maybe feels the need to air things out not do so for the sake of others? Or in this case here, the question is whether or not her need to be honest outweighs the grief of her family. That’s a tough call.

On the other hand, since it is clear that she wants to honor him, I’m not really sure exactly what that means. For some people, religious or atheist, that is something that is integral to who they are. For instance, my dad is very religious, attends church multiple times a week, it would be remiss of anyone giving a eulogy not to mention that. But for me, though I am a theist, I’m not defined by my theistic beliefs; in fact, other than the few people I’ve really gone into depth with on it, I’m not sure anyone else would be in the right place to say anything about it. Similarly, I’ve known atheists on both sides, some who are defined by that, and some who you really wouldn’t know either way.

So, the question she should ask herself is, really, how important is his atheism to who he was? From the story, that he’d even repudiate a chaplain, it sounds like it may have been something that was part of defining who he was.

So, with all that consideration, particularly given that she’d been largely disowned by her family anyway, she deserves to do what she needs to do to be at peace with his death and help her grieving. Further, though it would probably upset her family, I don’t think it’s a particularly healthy way to grieve by pretending that someone was something he wasn’t. And, I’d think it would even help her stay clean more, by being straight with the one person that was helping her, than forsaking that one connection for the hope of reconnecting with the rest of the family. If that connection was enough to make her go to that meeting and write the new eulogy, then it’s probably the one most worth cherishing and honoring.

32

What is a good atheist? Atheism has no teachings, no beliefs, no tenets, no rules.

Mitch was a good brother, at least to Amber; he may have been a good brother and son overall, but the OP doesn’t say, and it’s likewise silent on whether he was a good person overall. But I don’t think the phrase “good atheist” has any possible meaning, unless it’s short for “good person who was an atheist.”

33

I disagree. ALthough he is, strictly speaking, dead, our understandings of dead people can function almost like a relationship: the way we think about the departed can shape who we become while we still live. She should stay true to her memory of him.

The way you describe the honest eulogy sounds perfect to me: she talks about him as an excellent person whose high ethics are informed by his atheism. As long as she doesn’t go the next step and imply that theists are less ethical than atheists, I think this is the version she should give. Sure, it’s going to upset family members who are bigots–but at the same time, it might introduce a new perspective to some bigots at a pivotal and memorable moment.

If the situation were reversed, I’d absolutely call for a dead bornagainer to have an accurate eulogy read at his funeral, no matter the feelings of his atheist family. Honoring the dead is a promise to the living, that we’ll represent them accurately when they’re gone, and we’ll be shaped by who they were, not who we pretended they were.

It’s tremendously unfair to suggest that Amber is lobbing a live grenade. Rather, family members who suggest he was a devout Christian have lobbed a grenade at Amber and at Mitch’s memory. If telling the truth about him necessarily calls them out as liars, perhaps they will have the occasion, going forward, not to lie about the departed. Amber cannot bear the blame for their poor choices.

34

Funerals are for the living, not for the dead.

Bow to what will benefit/make happy the family for the funeral.

I don’t see the benefit to pissing off the family under the circumstances. She can remain true to herself without starting battles over religion. Proselytizing at a funeral is something a Christian would do, why does an atheist, or Amber, need to attempt to change peoples’ minds at such a time?

35

And remembering them as best as you can. Memories are fragile, and are best protected by frequent applications of truth.

36

Perhaps we would have to see the two eulogies before making a final decision. I wouldn’t encourage Amber to say anything combative, nor to proseletyze. But portraying his love and devotion to her, and his sacrifice, which enabled her to kick her drug habit, as an intrinsic part of his identity as an atheist, is fine.

Further, it’s probably necessary for her to be honest for her own self-respect and self-worth. She might piss off her family, but in the long run she’ll be better off if she doesn’t ruin her own sense of self – and being dishonest about Mitch might do that.

37

No job is too hard for the person who does not have to do it.

No consequence is too hard for the people who do not have to live with it.

She should have just said, “No.” when asked.

This scenario has been played out a million times. How many chose to blow up the funeral?
How many times did blowing up the funeral create a positive out come for the reader in the long run? How many did it again at the next family funeral?

IMO, causing an uproar at a family funeral when their are several ways to not do what is needed so that I can leave my personal hang ups intact to save my ‘delicate flower’ self which I put myself into the situation because I was too much of a wimp to politely decline, is one of the high points in a completely self centered life.

38

Neither one. She needs a third option, that celebrates Mitch’s life, but won’t offend his family. There is no reason to mention religion at all. Other speakers apparently have covered that issue. Mitch is dead, so nothing she says is going to matter to him. No need to confront those that want to think Mitch followed that old time religion. No need to start a fight at a funeral. Discretion is the better part of valor in situations like this. She can talk about what a great person her brother was, and most of what he did for her, and she can otherwise sit down and shut the fuck up about the religion issue. It doesn’t matter, and it is definitely not worth causing a scene over. Just let it be, and do what it takes to keep the peace.

39

By shoehorning in this fake deathbed conversion, they are the ones attempting to change peoples minds about their son. You don’t get to put that one on Amber, sorry.

40

These are the words everyone at the funeral should be saying, not just the one or two who who haven’t drunk the Christian Kool Aid. From the OP, it looks like devout in the group are the ones a who will make a stink and ruin the funeral if they don’t get exactly what they want. Bowing to that pressure is almost impossible. What percentage of Christians in an audience is required before anyone else is allowed to practice their own beliefs? 90%? 50%? Or does it have to be 0% Christain before Amber can give HER eulogy to her brother?