I agree.
The default position of the world is not atheism – it’s respect for others’ beliefs.
START said what he believed to be the truth, in an effort to comfort a grieving child. He who wants to bring a seven-year-old into the midst of a Great Debate on the existence of God deserves to get a new one torn, not a 16-year-old trying to comfort a grieving child.
Had START been 26 or 46 or 96, I’d still cut him some slack. He didn’t start up a fundie TV show intended to bilk millions out of unsuspecting viewers, he tried to make a small child feel better in the face of tragedy. He’s not Phred Phelps, he’s someone who can show compassion for someone who desperately needs it.
I agree too, that it has gone overboard. For sure START was just trying to be kind, and had no idea that what he had said might upset the mother so much.
But, I do think that people may have gone easier on him had his original post not included the phrase "his mother came with all that good memories crap"
That really shows how much respect he has for the views and beliefs of others, and while I think some have been too harsh, it’s no surprise to me that people would be offended by that kind of attitude.
Exactly. I expect you to respect my right to not believe. In return, I respect your right to believe whatever you want. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.
When we atheists try to shut down all dissenting thought, we become as intolerant as those we most despise.
But I don’t think most of the responses here are really upset with him for having said what he said, it’s for his reaction to the mother kindly and gently explaining to him that she prefers her child be raised differently than that.
His reaction was not to the mother’s face, it was on an anonymous message board. In a forum like the Pit, that’s acceptable.
Agnostic here chiming in with the folks who think there’s just a little much vitriol going on here. START didn’t know they were atheists. START comforted the child the same way he’d comfort someone of his own faith, because he didn’t know they were atheists. It’s not like START read the obituaries, found out the father was dead, and set out for their house with the intention of taking this sparkling grief opportunity to snare a few souls for Christ.
I do think the “good memories crap” reaction was a little much, but START is 15 or 16 years old. Rhetorical excess is expected.
WhyNot Well Said.
Start, you’re a good man. (You’re a 9.5 
)
Seems like its time to coin a new term, the “fundamentalist atheist”
I would expect that Start’s use of the word “crap” relates solely to its effectiveness at comforting a seven year old.
I thought it was “evangelical atheist”. Oh well, means the same thing.
What buttonjockey said. Both times.
Part of allowing children to discover their own spiritual path in life is exposing them to all available paths. It may be easier for me, as an agnostic, to go along with our daughter’s belief in heaven or a higher power, but mostly because I can see the value of faith, whether I share it or not. It’s comforting. Which is exactly what is needed for a young person in such a crisis. Comfort.
If it comforts our daughter to believe that our kitty (who passed away this past year) is in heaven, then I’m not comfortable with bursting that bubble. As much as I want my daughter to embrace truth, I want her to be happy that much more. Besides, what is truth? To Start, heaven is truth. To the child’s mother, it’s not. Unfortunately, it was more important to her that her child believe her truth, then to allow the child to be comforted. It’s understandable, but sad.
The truth is you can speculate all you want about death and there’s only one thing you can say with any certainty. The body dies and living people do not get to enjoy their physical presence anymore. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess.
That being said, Start, I don’t think it would hurt to apologize and let the mother know that your intentions were to comfort the child in way you find comforting, not convert. I would think it would be comforting to her to know that others sympathize with her child’s pain and wish for him be at peace.
Actually I don’t like Whynot’s suggestion at all. When a seven year old has just lost a father it is not a time for comparative religion discussion, at least not with someone he barely knows.
START, you just made a social faux pas. It’s not the end of the world- live and learn.
Can you tell me more about why this would be an inappropriate time to discuss religion? (OTHER than the kid’s mom didn’t want him to. He didn’t know that when he started talking.) I’m not saying he should give a run down of the major 5 and the minor 645 religious views, just one will do. Really, the most important part is the “and then listen to what the kid has to say.”
All discussions with children have to happen when they’re willing to sit still and listen and talk. I find religious discussions have to happen when they’re applicable to the child’s experience or at the child’s request, otherwise they are intellectual exercises only and get you nothing but eye rolls and sighs. (Not that intellect shouldn’t have some place in religion, it should. But intellectual examination can happen after comfort is achieved.) If a kid’s taking this moment to try to figure out what happened to his father, what better time to offer him one or more of the ideas people hold about what happened to his father?
“Some people believe” also gives the kid’s mom an opportunity to share her beliefs. “Some people believe dad is in heaven watching us, some people believe he’ll be born again as a wolf or a tiger or another little baby. I believe that no matter what, we have good memories and pictures, and we’ll never, ever stop loving him. What do you believe?”
It’s only the inappropriate time if you are the inappropriate person. That’s the case here, I believe. A seven year old is going to be pretty vulnerable right now and I can’t imagine any mother wanting her child having unchaperoned(the mother was not there when he started up) religious discussions with neighbors. You disagree?
That makes more sense to me. I was reading the “When a seven year old has just lost a father it is not a time for comparative religion discussion” as the important point, not the “at least not with someone he barely knows.” With that shift in emphasis, I’m more likely to agree with you.
Although I really don’t mind other people talking to WhyKid about their religious beliefs as long as they’re clearly presented as their beliefs, not something he has to believe OR ELSE. Since that would be difficult to determine as a mom walking in mid-conversation, I agree with you that this woman was justified in being upset.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Fair enough. Change “lying” to “uttering a monumental untruth”
I figured that was the confusion. For me it’s appropriate to discuss religion whenever the parent and/or the child feel the need (and when it doesn’t annoy everyone else in the room 
).
Because it really is a core parental duty, I am very cautious on treading the ground- that’s how I would suggest START proceeds.
Let’s not forget that START is pitting the mother. He thinks that she transgressed somehow. To my way of thinking she behaved admirably. Also, while of course his beliefs must be respected, he was out of to line impose his belief system on the child. And who is bringing anyone into the debate, if not START? If he had told the child to go sacrifice a goat and blow some voodoo powder over his father’s grave and maybe he would come back to life, would that have been OK? What, voodoo is not a religion?
Heh, I was surprised by all the over-reaction too, until I remembered I was on the Straight Dope Message Board. The board where a comment like “I’m a guy who has difficulty talking to women” will end up getting two diagnoses of Asperger’s Syndrome, two comments that you’re probably a homo, and at least three or four saying that women can think for themselves and how dare you presume that women want to talk to you. Over-reaction is the gestalt of the SDMB, even when you don’t mention religion.
I bet by the time the thread ended, the story would have turned to START’s abducting the kid, reading him Chick tracts on the drive to the church, strapping him to a chair Clockwork Orange-style and making him watch Left Behind and The Greatest Story Ever Told, getting him through a Communion and halfway through baptism before the quick-thinking mother managed to storm the church and break up the proceedings.
START, don’t sweat it too much. It’s not as if the kid could go through his entire childhood without ever hearing of the concept of heaven and an afterlife. I’m surprised that he hadn’t heard of such things before the age of 7. Still, though, you have to recognize it’s the mother’s right to raise the child how she wants until he’s able to make his own decisions, and adding the idea of religion to the mix just complicates things for her in what was already a very difficult situation. It sounds to me like you were doing the right thing but you have to realize that so was she, and what she’s teaching her children is what she’s teaching them, not “crap.”
I’d recommend that if a similar situation ever comes up, say what you feel is appropriate and will help, but be sure to preface it with “I believe that…” to make it clear that you’re not saying which is right and which is wrong.
Heh. Good one. So which was the part where you were respecting his beliefs, again? Was it when you said he was “lying” to the child, or was it the bit about his “foisting his superstitions?” Or was it when you said that there is no heaven and that anything else is a “monumental untruth?”
Because I’m confused and look to you on matters of religious tolerance.