Atheism is pretty important to my ethics as well, but it’s not as if someone would be unable to sum up who I am without explicitly stating “he did not believe in god.” Amber can accomplish nearly everything she might want to without saying such a thing. She could talk about the humanistic motivations for his ethics (caring for others’ well-being for its own sake, e.g.) and I don’t think anyone would object.
I don’t read the family members in the OP as lying, but rather as self-deluding, clinging to the notion that Mitchis saved, etc. In any event, not to fall back on cliche, but it takes two to tango. Having a fight at a funeral is a bad thing. If it’s in your power to avoid it, you can’t entirely fob off the responsibility for that fight just because it’s also in someone else’s power to avoid it.
If she feels that doing him justice doesn’t mean mentioning his atheism, then sure. But the OP makes it pretty clear that she doesn’t think that does justice to who he was.
She’s not fighting by telling the truth. She should read the eulogy that she feels honors him without worrying about whether her family members acted correctly. Her family members, whether acting through deceit or self-deceit, acted poorly. If she acts correctly–by honoring her brother with an honest eulogy–then she’s not engaged in a fight. Her family will have to choose how to proceed, and if they decide to pick a fight with her for telling the truth, that’s on them.
Again, I’m imagining the honest eulogy doesn’t mock religious folk or claim they’re wrong or glare daggers at them or anything. As long as it sticks to eulogizing her brother honestly and fully for who he was, it’s the right one.
No, it’s a euphemism for funeral, very common among black Pentecostals. I suppose Catholics & mainline protestants may use the term too. I’ve never heard of the term being used to refer to one returning to the church – or, for that matter, a public celebration being held for same.
Tell the truth. She shouldn’t let Mitch’s legacy be the promotion of lies in his name. As for the family, screw them; they never really loved either Mitch or Amber or any of their children. They are clearly the sort of Christians who simply look at their children as a vehicle to get Christianity into the next generation.
You just made me lose a bet with myself. I saw your name as last posted, and I bet myself you’d say “fuck 'em.” But no, you went with “screw them.” Thanks for nothing, dude!
I see two options I would consider acceptable. Option 1, she can simply leave out all mention of religion or the lack thereof, and just talk honestly about how good he was, and how much he helped her out, and so on. It doesn’t sound like she prepared a speech along these lines, but she maybe should have. Option 2, she can put his atheism front and center in her sermon, and talk about how religion is not necessary for a person to be moral. It sounds like this is the second sermon she has prepared. If done properly, this can even be respectful of the family’s beliefs.
There are also two options I see which I do not consider acceptable. Option 3, which is absolutely not acceptable, is to lie about her brother. If he didn’t proclaim his faith on his deathbed, then don’t say that he did. A funeral is supposed to be honoring the person he actually was. Option 4, which is considerably less odious but which would still fall short of what I consider acceptable, would be to casually mention his atheism without making a big deal out of it. I consider this unacceptable because it’s the worst of both worlds: It’s just as likely to hurt the family as Option 2, but without any benefit from it.
I think that which of Options 1 or 2 I would choose would depend on precisely what the rest of the family is saying and doing. If they’re not actually saying anything about his faiths or beliefs, and just leaving it implicit that he was a good Christian without actually stating it, then I would go with Option 1, the eulogy which likewise doesn’t state it. If, however, they are explicitly stating that he was a Christian, then they’re dishonoring him (the real him), and the honor of his memory demands that they be called out for it.
I suppose that another influence in the decision might also be Amber’s own religious beliefs, which the OP doesn’t specify. My answers were from the point of view of a religious person who does believe that atheists can be just as moral, or immoral, as theists.
I’m sorry, buddy, but I think you’re projecting. There’s no evidence that the family doesn’t love Amber or Mitch. The estrangement was clearly Amber’s fault, not theirs. She is the one who stole from them repeatedly to support her addiction. And they clearly weren’t estranged from Mitch. The OP says that he was in regular contact with them, and his word alone was enough to convince them that Amber had changed.
Huh. I exactly disagree: I think she needs to make her decision independently of what her family is doing. They’ve got their own drama to direct; she needs to do what’s right for herself, to help herself remember her brother in the right way. Preaching to her family ain’t the right thing to do, but neither is censoring herself in order to allow them to lie to themselves.
I think if she honors him beautifully, persuasively, and honestly, she’s done the best she can do and should be proud of it.
Sure, but that leaves the question: just what is the value of doing justice to her brother in an abstract sense vis-à-vis the much more tangible harm, to perhaps dozens of people, of precipitating an ugly fight at the funeral? Ignoring the very abstract matter (as I am wont to do), that leaves Amber to weigh her own anguish from being less than comprehensive in her eulogy against the anguish of the many members of her family because she picked this specific moment to disabuse them of their ignorance (and Amber is likely to experience some measure of anguish from the fight, regardless).
See, I’d kind of expect you to be on my side in here. Remember this thread? “People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, to the extent that they are, in fact, reasonably foreseeable.” Etc. Amber may not *wish *to fight, but she should be aware a fight will likely result from one of her eulogies. Choosing the action that she knows will lead to a fight is not, in most practical respects, different from choosing to fight. There could be other, countervailing interests, but I’m not seeing any real benefit to counterbalance the sizable harm I’d envision.
The way they are trying to use his death to push their religion is evidence. People like this don’t love anyone; they simply look at other people as either vehicles to spread their religion or as impediments to their religion.
The Aslan option! (Of, if you’re me, the Athena option, which has the advantage of being taken into the bosom of a hot smart warrior chick rather than a gigantic lion.)
I think she should give the honest eulogy. There’s no need to rub the family’s nose in it, but I think it’s more important to honor the person who died (and that includes not deluding people about them) than it is to appease the family (especially since Amber was the one he loved and who loved him). There’s nothing shameful about being an atheist–it’s just another way of living your life. It sounds like Mitch was a good and moral person, and that should be brought out during his eulogy.
I really don’t get why hardcore religious types have to insist that everybody else be religious too. Why can’t they be happy and content in their faith, but accept that maybe other people might want to take a different path?
Yeah, I know. Don’t answer that. I already know the answer. But it still bugs me (as much as it does when hardcore atheists insist on religion-bashing).
Yes the binky is their rationalization allowing them to believe that he is in heaven instead of roasting in Hell.
This is not a memorial service in front of Mitch’s heathen New York friends. It is a religious funeral in the church that Pastor Mitch Senior runs. Going in guns ablazing about how Mitch was an atheist will serve no purpose. The scene of Amber walking out of the church with her head held high with a slight smile on her face after she told it like it is consequences be damned sounds like it’s out of a bad college film project. In reality she just made her mother cry and feel worse on what is probably the worst day of her life.
I think some people’s perceptions are clouded by the fact that they believe that anyone who is deeply religious is a bad person. Despite being non-religious and thinking that all religions are silly, I don’t believe that all religious people are bad. There is nothing in the OP to suggest that these are bad people. Just the opposite. I do find it funny that some vocal atheists are acting like telling the whole truth is somehow going to make a difference to Mitch as if he was somewhere looking down on the procedures. He’s not.
I’ve tried to explain what I see the value is. Let me try again.
First, the value is to herself, telling the truth.
Second, the value is to her relatives, showing them a narrative of a good person who was not religious. I’m not convinced either that her eulogy, honestly delivered and without malice, will start a fight; on the contrary, it might give some folks solace, since they already know he was an atheist (despite any self-delusions to the contrary), but they may not have a clear narrative of how an atheist can nevertheless live a good life, adhering to what some folks would consider Christian precepts. Her provision of this narrative may do them real good.
Heh, good call :). It may well be an inconsistency on my part.
However, as I said, I’m unconvinced that a fight will result from her eulogy, as long the eulogy is delievered for its own sake and not for the purpose of saying IN YOUR FACE to her relatives. What I do NOT think she can do is to worry too much about that humiliation, because in general, getting humiliated for lying about people is a salutary thing. It’s a feature, not a bug, of speaking honestly, that folks who didn’t speak honestly feel bad about their lies when the truth is heard.
If they choose to start a fight with her because they feel bad about lying, I really don’t think it makes sense to offer that as a reason for backing down. That’s awful, bullying behavior, and backing down out of fear of bullying behavior rewards such behavior, leading to its spread. The best thing to do is to refuse to be intimidated by it, to act as though it doesn’t exist. That makes such behavior less productive for bullies, makes it less likely they’ll engage in it in the future.
I’m beginning to think that none of you have ever been to a funeral. It’s the last place I would expect complete honesty. “We are here to lay to rest Uncle Paul. He was a total douchebag but what the hell, he was family.”
If the rationalization is based on the possibility of a deathbed conversion, there’s no way to take that away from them. If it’s based on the idea that he was Christian all along, that’s not the OP: the OP has him publicly repudiating religion. I ain’t talking about either binky.
Again, I’m also not talking about guns blazing, and I don’t know how to make that clearer. I’m talking about her telling the truth. And I’m not convinced at all that it’d make her mom’s life worse: on the contrary, it could well help her mom reconcile two ideas that many Pentecostals struggle with, namely, the idea of a good person and the idea of an atheist. Amber may be in a unique position to help her mother understand her son in a way that will bring her mother peace.
While you’re right in general that some people (not naming names) are motivated by an irrational hatred of religious people, please understand that’s not where I’m coming from. I strongly dislike the idea of lying about dead people as a flimsy sop to the living; I think that doing so does a disservice to the living, since it makes us mistrust what will be said about us when we die. And I strongly dislike the idea that someone asked to give a eulogy would simultaneously feel pressured to lie during that eulogy, absent exceptional and bizarre circumstances. That’s all. As I said before, I’d fully support describing Mitch’s Christian charity to a roomful of handstabbers if the situation were reversed.
Who called for complete honesty? Eulogy derives from “good words,” and that’s what’s expected: tell why the person was good. Insofar as you’re telling why the person was good, however, I expect you to do so in an honest fashion.
No worries. I do see where you are coming from. I just don’t see doing it in public in front of Dad’s congregation as being the best or even a good place to do it.
You just made me lose a bet with myself. I saw your name as last posted, and I bet myself you’d say “fuck 'em.” But no, you went with “screw them.” Thanks for nothing, dude!