Whatever religious instruction is warranted in this case is the business of the mother and no one else. From the mother’s perspective, heaven is a superstition and the statement that her late husband resides there is a monumental untruth. If the situation were reversed and an unbeliever were to tell your child that Daddy is gone forever and heaven exists only in the imagination, would you tell said child that all beliefs are equally valid and we must respect what the unbeliever said? My respect for your beliefs pretty much ends at my doorstep, especially if you are attempting to impose them upon an emotionally vulnerable child, good intentions or no. START is pitting the mother for not going along with his interpretation of theology. That is intolerance. START believes he is able to provide “80-93 years of comfort” with his witnessing. That is arrogance. START believes that anyone else would have done the same. That is ignorance. His pitting of the mother is asbolutely undeserved. If religious tolerance is what he wants he needs to practice it himself.
Hmmm, good point.
:smack:
Another thing that could cause the mother to be a little abrupt in contradicting START - what if it was the father who was the “strong atheist” in the family? If that was something that she loved and respected about him, I can see how it could really set her off to have someone start telling his kid the exact opposite of what he believed.
All supposition, but it could explain some of the reactions, and her insistence on the “pictures and memories” thing.
Or perhaps the mother knows that her son is going to go through more grief & pain when she has to sit down with him & explain that, according to their beliefs, his father isn’t in heaven.
That’s pretty much it. First the kid loses his dad, then he’s told he’s “having a great time in heaven,” only to lose him a second time when his mother, *who is * the ultimate authority in this matter, has to explain that life in heaven is inconsistent with their beliefs.
I’m not pitting the Mother but the entire situation in a very mild way, (if that makes any sense) I’m not upset at anybody, I just feel sorry for the boy.
Someone please explain to me why the statement “80-93 years of comfort” is proof of my religous intolerance.
I’m just saying whether or not Heaven is real, he wouldn’t know it until he was dead and if there is no Heaven or Hell it wouldn’t matter much anyway but in the meantime he wouldn’t be as upset about his Dad’s death.
That one wasn’t described as intolerance, but as arrogance. You really think that the boy is going to spend 90 years believing that his father is in heaven because some random teenager told him so?
START, as you probably know, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are important to people. They matter. I’m sure that if something mattered to you, you wouldn’t want someone to lie to you about it.
As has already been explained, some people simply don’t believe in God or Heaven, and they have valid reasons, which are important to them. It is important to the Mom that her son share her beliefs, just as it was important to your mother that you share her beliefs. To her thinking, whether you understand it or not, “83-90 years of comfort” are simply not worth it, because they are based on (what she thinks is) a lie. She would rather have her son live with “the truth”, than live with comforting lies. The trade-off is worth it to her.
Can you understand that?
You display religious intolereance when you pit the mother for disagreeing with your concept of religion. It is particularly egregious considering that you went on her property to do so, at a time when her child was particularly vulnerable. And if there is no afterlife, how in the world is someone going to know that after “he was dead”?
Enugent, Kung Fu Lola and trandallt…
You really think that the boy is going to spend 90 years believing that his father is in heaven because some random teenager told him so?
Unrealistic expectations perhaps but arrogance, I just don’t see it.
*She would rather have her son live with “the truth”, than live with comforting lies. The trade-off is worth it to her.
Can you understand that?*
Understood.
You display religious intolereance when you pit the mother for disagreeing with your concept of religion. It is particularly egregious considering that you went on her property to do so, at a time when her child was particularly vulnerable. And if there is no afterlife, how in the world is someone going to know that after “he was dead”?
Did you read anything I wrote?
[QUOTE=START]
It is arrogant to assume that a two minute conversation with someone will have an effect on his life for the next 90 years.
I think so. Please point out to me what I seem to have missed.
Granted you’re not giving a verbatim transcription of the conversation, but I read your reply as a non sequitur.
If the kid had been raised in the context of christian mythology, I would assume that he’d already heard the heaven spiel. Playing it again would not add further comfort. You would have gotten an “I know. I still miss him.”
While I don’t think you acted with malice, I also can’t quite believe you didn’t think that the Heaven spiel would be new material for this kid. The only reason this make for an interesting story is the wonderous restorative powers of Christ being foiled by the Godless atheist mom’s intervention.
I think you were trying to comfort someone in a time of grief. What you accomplished was to distract him from it, instead. Even if he is in heaven, Patrick still misses his dad.
Incidentally, my response if a child asked me “What happens when people die?” would be “I dunno. What do you think?”
Not “Well, I believe…” and not “Go ask your mom.” Mom is not the ultimate authority, despite what others have said, the kid is.
What? You mean that Christians/other religious people don’t tell the grieving that their loved one is in Heaven, all better now, waiting to meet up with them (the grieving) some day? You mean they never repeat that, over and over, even though everyone already knows it? News to me.
I certainly got no impression that START had the remotest clue that the kid’s family was atheist. So I guess you’re calling START a liar, then?
Oh how poetic if START were to turn inward and isolated from the enlightened responses received here.
Given the responses, I’ll be kind.
He made an honest mistake. START, realize that you did make a mistake. Something like 666 said - it’s probably best to offer general condolences unless you know what you’re saying is going to be well-received.
The arrogance is in (apparently) believing that you are so powerfully persuasive that you can expect this child to believe you for 90 years, on the basis of a single, brief conversation. Does that make more sense now?
I’m going with the last couple of posts and a few others in the same vein. START made a mistake, but he was not trying to convert anyone. He tried to offer words of comfort, not realizing that his choice of words might be troubling to a family that he clearly did not know was atheist.
Whenever I am told of someone’s death and I do not know their religious background or that of the one who died, I choose the safest answer: “I’m very sorry to hear that.” It’s neutral and doesn’t open up the doors of theism vs. atheism. Condolences need not be specific to any belief system.
<hijack>
I have a very distinct memory of START being female. I shall let her weigh in on this, but if I have to find the post, I shall. (And, if I’m wrong, I will apologize all over myself, but as I said, it’s a very distinct memory.)
Sorry, but gender is very important to me.
</hijack>
START is a male.
START is either a masculine looking young woman, or a perfectly nice looking young man.
I say; *“I was telling Patrick about the universal kind of Heaven that you go to if your a good person not witnessing to him about the Christian Heaven you go to if you accept Jesus Christ.” * and then I’m accused of intolerance “You display religious intolereance when you pit the mother for disagreeing with your concept of religion…”
I say this; “I’m not pitting the Mother but the entire situation…” * and you say; “Let’s not forget that START is pitting the mother…”*
I say; "I’m just saying whether or not Heaven is real, he wouldn’t know it until he was dead and if there is no Heaven or Hell it wouldn’t matter much anyway…"
and you ask this; "And if there is no afterlife, how in the world is someone going to know that after ‘he was dead’?"
I dropped off a non-religous sympathy card and told a kid about a Heaven that basically anybody and anything could get into and now that has become intolerance.