Proselytizing would mean that Amber got up and talked about the superiority of atheism. I agree that that would be inappropriate.
However, a major role of funerals is to help the living understand the life of the departed and come to terms with it. Honesty is nearly always the best way to handle that (“nearly” is a key word here–please don’t inundate me with contrived examples of when it isn’t).
Consider, for example, family members who know that Mitch was atheist–and according to the story, that should be all of them. A eulogy that pretends as though this weren’t true is unlikely to fool anyone, really–at best, people will pretend that it’s true, but unless they’re drooling morons, they’ll be haunted by knowing that he was an atheist and what that might mean.
Amber has the chance to show them that that might mean he was still a decent guy, and indeed that he found a way to live a strongly good life as an atheist. In this case, the truth might provide his parents a way to come to a real peace with their son’s beliefs (or lack thereof). Perhaps they, like some other Pentecostals, will move away from belief in Hellfire for Nonbelievers.
I don’t see an agreed-upon lie as the best solution for anyone. Certainly it’s not the best solution for Amber, and really she’s under no compulsion to lie about her beloved brother in order to protect the feelings of any bigots, no matter how much those bigots professed love for him.
I fall into the camp of Funerals being for the living, without dishonoring the dead or directly lying. There should be a middle ground where she makes his real views clear to those you are aware enough to read what is happening without forcing the rest of the family to absorb a public humiliation (in their eyes). No mention of atheism nor religion. The more the family has “laid it on thick” the bigger the gap will be to her honest but reserved eulogy
Well, ideally, she’d have written a third eulogy; one that doesn’t claim Jesus was the central part of Mitch’s life and briefly acknowledges his atheism, but doesn’t go out of it’s way to rub the family’s noses in his atheism either; one that focuses on his family and relationships, not on what he did for an hour every Sunday.
This. Delivering the eulogy stating that he was an atheist seems to me to be an act of aggression, with Amber taking out her anger by trying to hurt her family. The entire family is hurting enough right now. Why would any caring, thoughtful person want to inflict more distress on their grieving family members?
It seems like it would be incredibly simple to deliver a truthful eulogy that highlights what a wonderful person Mitch was without any hints of his religious affiliation or lack thereof.
The ones “shoehorning” aren’t going to change their minds, so what’s the point?
Unless this funeral is being broadcast to the community it won’t make a damn bit of difference. Who, exactly, is on the fence here? Is there anyone on the fence? The family will believe what they want to believe.
I agree with those who say she doesn’t have to bring up religion at all. Just say what a good brother he was and how much he helped her and never mention Jesus at all. Shoving atheism down the throats of Bible-thumpers is just as offensive as shoving religion down the throats of atheists.
Mr. Kobayashi is posting in a Skald the Rhymer thread?
I better clear out of here before the internet blows sky-high.
Before I do, though, is Amber going back to New York, or is she staying in Memphis? If she’s headed back to the Big Apple, she should go with the one that reflects her true feelings.
If she’s planning to stay and avail herself of the support her family is offering she should still give that eulogy. However, in deference to the fact that the support pretty clearly comes with hawsers attached, she should edit it on the fly and replace specific references to atheism with phrases such as “Mitch’s relationship to the Church”.
This funeral is for the family’s benefit, anyway, not Mitch’s. Amber can always honor his real memory in the company of those of his friends who accepted him for the man he was.
There’s no need to talk about his atheism. I mean, there could be, if it was an unusually central part of his life or profession (if he worked for American Atheists or some such), but for a typical atheist it’s simply not a vital part of his eulogy, or a brief summation of his life. In most families (even most Christian families) there’d also be no reason specifically not to mention it, but this isn’t most families.
In the case described in the OP, deciding to talk about Mitch’s atheism is deciding to pick a fight at a funeral. Amber has the rest of her life to have that fight if she so chooses. She could do it in private and without turning her brother’s remembrance into a clusterfuck that everyone will likely look back on with regret or anger.
There are lots of honest eulogies that don’t lead to an explosion of bickering and recrimination at the worst possible time. Amber should give one of those.
Does anyone here advocating that she either go along or at least shut up have any qualms at all about the lie?
edited to add: To everyone bringing up that there is no need to talk about his atheism? There is also no need to lie about a sudden deathbed conversion, is there?
Neither—a compromise between the two eulogies is possible. Do the second eulogy and leave out all mentions of religion/atheism. Discuss what he meant to her and don’t discuss the sticking point. There’s no need for it either way.
I think Czarcasm is commenting on the remark by the unnamed Grey sibling that no one knows whether Mitch changed his mind at the last second. Which of course isn’t true; Amber was clearly there when he died, and she knows he didn’t.
Did you read the OP? There is no lie. The only statement is that he was “saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost” at nine, which the OP points out is true. The rest is omissions with a large dose of rationalizations. There may be a time to break down those rationalizations. The funeral is not that time.
There is nothing in the OP saying that the family or the parents are bad people. In fact they have welcomed Amber back despite the fact that she shit on them for years. There is nothing in the OP to suggest that they aren’t genuinely feeling the loss and grieving deeply for their son. But somehow it is supposed to be best to get up in front of them *at the funeral * and tell them the only thing that is bringing them comfort (that he is in a better place) is not true. He is either in Hell for being an atheist or he is now nothing. Let them have their rationalizations. It does no harm to anyone at this point. It’s basically just being a dick at a funeral. A funeral being held in the church where her father is pastor in case anyone forgot.
The OP suggests that his atheism “informed his ethics, his personality, and his love for her.” I could see that being extremely important.
For me, atheism is pretty important to my ethics. I figure that we’re all we’ve got, this one life is our only chance to get it right, and the highest power we’ll encounter is the other humans around us, so if we treat those other people wrong, that’s literally the worst thing we can do. It’s a pretty different take on ethics from what your average monotheist has–but it arrives at a pretty similar destination to the one reached by your average monotheist (that is, we both believe in something approximating the golden rule).
If she wants to talk about who he was, and if he has an ethical system predicated on one another being all we’ve got, then she shouldn’t have to hide that to allow others to lie about him. Again, if someone is humiliated, they’ll be humiliated about having lied about a dead guy, and that’s on them.
They are rationalizing that he could have had a last second revelation in his heart. Sure its a rationalization. It’s a delusion that they are clinging to for comfort. You provided no evidence to prove it is a lie. Self-delusion yes, lie no.
A “Homecoming Celebration” is for when one returns to the church. No where is it implied that her brother kept his atheism a secret, his friends and family would probably have known of any recent conversions, and the family is certainly making it look like he was a Christian at the time of his death.
No. A Homecoming Celebration is a funeral. It’s a euphemism about going to heaven.
And, so what?
Again, they are dealing with their grief by rationalizing his death and afterlife. Since you have shown your disdain for those with religious beliefs often I’ll put it in a way you might relate to. Think of they religious family as a bunch of very small children. At some point you may have to show tough love and take their binky away. When you do it’s going to cause a lot of pain, hurt feelings and childish anger. Therefore you don’t choose to take the binky away in the middle of a restaurant or at the mall. You do it at home away from the rest of the world. There is a time and place for everything.
I don’t think this is a good analogy, not least because of the binky=religion meanness (which I understand you’re being snarky about). The binky in this case isn’t religion; it’s lying.
If they’re rationalizing based on a possible deathbed conversion, then telling the story of Mitch’s life honestly–how his secular outlook led to deep kindness and love toward those around him–will do nothing to interfere with that narrative. Certainly she doesn’t need to say anything about how Mitch would never have come to Jesus when he died. All she needs to do is to report accurately on his life.
And again, she doesn’t need to do it vengefully. She should do it accurately, because doing it accurately is a service to herself and to those who know him, including to his family. The “deathbed conversion” is pretty weak sauce, and they surely know it. Pentecostals have come before to the belief that not all heathens go to hell. This is much stronger sauce, and if she can paint a vivid picture of how Mitch was a wonderful person because of his secularism, it might help them with that.
But ultimately it’s not her job to help them rationalize or reform their bigoted beliefs about atheists. It’s her job to speak the truth in a way she can live with, and it sure sounds to me like she’ll live with herself better if she speaks forthrightly but not vengefully about Mitch.
To add to this, what if he were gay and his parents pressured him to date in high school. And what if the earlier speakers talked about what a ladies man he was, who never got married because he didn’t want to settle down. Would Amber mentioning a man who was a significant partner to Mitch be lobbing a grenade?
I think she could emphasize that his ethic came from his love for the world, which would be honest without saying religion was bunk.
However if the parents and Mitch were atheists, and Amber were deeply religious, she’d have no problem bringing God in. When my adviser, who was openly and outspokenly atheist, died his family had to bring in a minister to the memorial service. Who at least was moral enough to be embarrassed.