Thread: Purgatory: Bad taste Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001033
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
OK, in the Circus we have a sweepstake on the Pope's death. And inevitably there's the usual division amongst Shipmates between those who say this sort of thing is wrong and in bad taste, and others who think it's fine.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW on the Circus thread:
It's really easy, Coot: don't click on the thread. It's not as if half the world isn't wondering every time they turn on the TV or radio or look at Google news, "Is he dead yet?"
Yes, but it doesn't mean that everyone's making a game of it (although some people obviously are, if some of the websites on the internet are anything to go by). I know this argument has come up more than once before and there's been mutual incomprehension on both sides. I haven't joined in the speculation because my point of view is that the Pope is an old man who is seriously unwell, to the point of it actually killing him, and more to be pitied than joked about. Yes, we all say things like, "I don't think he'll last the weekend" (and I don't think he will), but there is, as often, a fine dividing line between saying that and going on to make a joke of it.
So I have some questions.
Would it make a difference if he wasn't the Pope, just an elderly Polish man called Karol Wojtyla whom nobody had ever heard of - is it that you see it as a legitimate poke at a public figure? Would you be happy to have a sweepstake for your closest friend or relative?
We didn't have a sweepstake for Miss Molly when she died - at least, it wasn't on these boards if there was one. I don't think we had the Circus then, but if a similar situation occurs, would you feel comfortable about having one on another shipmate there?
I know some people joke about death as their way of dealing with it. If you were terminally ill, would you be fine with the idea of a sweepstake on your impending death? Would you want to join in, make jokes about it and so on?
If you're quite comfortable with the idea of sweepstakes, what, for you, would you consider to be "in bad taste" generally?
I'm just genuinely curious about how people perceive the whole idea of "bad taste" and what their personal definitions are. I hope we can discuss this without it getting Hellish on either side.
[ 06. May 2005, 01:14: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I would not be interested in a sweepstake on the death of the Pope. I could bring myself to take a sort of sporting attitude to the election of his successor - on the basis that I know as little about the eligible cardinals as I do about the runners in the 2:30 at Kempton Park.
But even then, it would probably be in my head. I think I actually dislike a whole way of social interaction, which is quite common in work or communal life. I don't do sweepstakes or quizzes or Friday after work at the pub, or Christmas lunches or even coffee rotas.
The basis of the dislike is, I suppose, around a certain 'unfeeling' aspect which is typical. They are not areas for genuine expression of feeling, or sincerity, or any kind of opening up. Rather they are usually around some sort of humour - which is, of course, a way of managing tension and negativity and hostility and fear and dislike etc. (Whereas my preferred way of managing hostility is by hating someone).
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
I think you're right Ariel. I looked at that thread briefly, clicked away and then went back and posted as a response to the media overkill, mainly. (I've already got into trouble on another thread for saying that I think the media response itself is in bad taste and threatens a dying old man's dignity, but hey, that's what I believe). I also hold other views which might distress RCs and I have no intention of posting them at this time. That would be unforgiveably bad taste and hurtful of me.
FWIF I think Miss Molly would have enjoyed the idea of a sweepstake but I agree it would have been in shockingly bad taste. That's why she would have enjoyed it. But those of us who knew her wouldn't have felt like posting, I don't think.
I suggest in mitigation for the Popping Papists that people on the thread are not, in their minds, dealing with someone real. The whole thing has a cartoon element at the moment and yet we are all being encouraged by the Meeja™ to emote as though it was of vital importance to us. Maybe that's what's going on?
[ 02. April 2005, 08:25: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Well, we weren't taking odds on Terri Schiavo, or were we (I may have missed it).
Maybe this is in bad taste, but I'm grateful for the Pope's timing because it is giving us respite from the siren-screaming of the media about TS. The pitch was about to pop one of my eardrums.
FF
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
What happens if the Pope's funeral is the same day as Charles and Camilla's low-key private wedding?? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
They really haven't had much luck, have they... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
At least His Holiness didn't die on Good Friday. Upstaging Charles and Camilla is one thing, but the Vicar of Christ upstaging Jesus would have been in very questionable taste.
FF
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
I told my wife about the circus thread. She said it was disgusting and in bad taste. I didn't tell her I'd posted. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I know some people joke about death as their way of dealing with it. If you were terminally ill, would you be fine with the idea of a sweepstake on your impending death? Would you want to join in, make jokes about it and so on?
I would SO be in on the joke. I'd even try to arrange it so that if there were some sort of pool, the person I liked most would win. What's the point of having problems if you can't laugh at them?
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
Certainly the Pope has been in countless Dead Pools. Still, I'm of a mind to not make specific wagers, etc., on his actual passing.
[ 02. April 2005, 14:35: Message edited by: The Riv ]
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
I guess that's how I feel. The Death Pool is a bit more nonpersonal, kind of a "let's see if we can pre-guess history" concept. Now that we know someone is really dying, and it's someone very special to many people and their faith, I just can't get really rah-rah about it. I don't have any strong feelings about the etiquette of death and honestly think too many people do. I think we place too much emphasis on it, myself. But I do hope the Pope's passing will be filled with comfort and peace. I'm sure he deserves it.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I know some people joke about death as their way of dealing with it. If you were terminally ill, would you be fine with the idea of a sweepstake on your impending death? Would you want to join in, make jokes about it and so on?
I would SO be in on the joke. I'd even try to arrange it so that if there were some sort of pool, the person I liked most would win. What's the point of having problems if you can't laugh at them?
Me too.
Yes, the thread in the Circus is in bad taste. That's why some of us find it amusing. I don't expect everyone to be amused by the things that amuse me, but I do expect them to allow me my amusements. I wouldn't make jokes about the Pope's impending death around anyone whom I wasn't sure shared my sense of humor, and I think it would be very insensitive to make such jokes around someone who feels close to the Pope as their spiritual father and who would be offended (though I'll bet there are people who both feel close to him and who would not be at all offended). I posted in response to Coot the way I did because he clicked on a thread whose title was pretty clear and then (I presume) read through the posts--our tasteless humor wasn't forced on him at the water cooler, he went out of his way to be exposed to it.
What people find funny varies enormously. There are people who can't get enough of the movie "Dumb and Dumber," which I find a complete waste of time and energy--but I don't lecture people who enjoy that sort of movie about what they ought to be watching. I find Andrew Dice Clay's humor tasteless and offensive and stupid, but I don't go up to people and tell them they should be ashamed of themselves for enjoying it.
As to joking about someone's death ... I have a friend who was recently diagnosed with an incurable cancer. The doctor gives him 3-5 years to live. He is 41, married, and has an 8-month-old son. A few weeks ago he told me that in response to the diagnosis, he was reading up, doing research, and then pulled a fat hardback book out of his backpack and tossed it to me. The title: Heaven. I laughed and asked if it was a travel guide, and he said no, he's looking into purchasing real estate. I said, "You're a sick, sick man," and he said, "Yes, that's what my doctor tells me."
It's absolutely heartbreaking that this man will not live long enough to raise his son to adulthood, that he will leave his wife a widow, that his mother will bury her only child. None of those things will stop him, me or his other friends and family from laughing at sick and tasteless jokes about his illness and eventual death.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
A little gallows humor never hurt anyone, but as far as being in good taste?
I remember riding down in a crowded elevator once, and when the doors opened at the third floor, there were two men waiting there with a body bag.
"It's OK, we can wait for the next one" they said.
I was the only person who was about to pee my pants laughing. The vision of them trying to sandwich themselves in amongst us, and then the implication that they were not in a hurry, just busted me up. It was like something out of Python.
It was a frosty ride from there to the garage.
No. Gallows humor is never tasteful, but sometimes it's unavoidable.
FF
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
"It's OK, we can wait for the next one" they said.
That's a classic, FF! Thanks for sharing! I would have been in stitches, too! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
-George Bernard Shaw
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I personally think the pope and celebrity death pool threads are a bad idea--worse than in bad taste. I think they're mean.
It's totally different if the dying person is the one starting the humor, or friends who are close enough to know it would be ok.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
I don't find the sweepstakes in Circus any more evidence of Bad Taste than people who weep and make public displays of grief for the Pope or any other celebrity who is actually a stranger IRL.
*shrug*
People are wired differently, I guess. I've already told my family's laughing in the morgue story more than once, so I'll spare the old-timers here. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
This brings up the interesting question of "What is Bad Taste?" and who gets to define it. Miss Manners? The courts? Your mother? Apparently it's like pornography. Hard to define but we knows it when we sees it.
"Bad Taste" is whatever I don't find humorous, attractive, or respectful. After all, my worldview is the measure of all things.
Personally I find anyone who buys furniture from Rooms To Go or isn't an Episcopalian guilty of Criminal Bad Taste, but that's just me. But I'm right.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
Who was it that said, "All good humour is based on the misfortunes of others."?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
I believe it was the German playwright and author, Herr Schadenfreude.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Well I'm glad you've raised this. I believe it reflects a barbaric and degenerate culture which, as a past-time, places bets on when someone is going to die.
The only time I could understand it or accept it (and then because it is a matter of personal freedom), is if it is at the invitation of the dying person, as Erin mentions. Even so, it strikes me as macabre and anarchic. In that instance it is friends having a final laugh together and done with affection - but that can't be the case of the participants on the Circus thread. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Death is a holy time and the ultimate 'rite of passage' - large nos. of Xtians recognise this sacramentally (hence anointing, last rites, viaticum) and some Xtians believe also, the body is holy after death.
It doesn't matter that it is the Pope (though it is doubly rude and provocative given that the high esteem he is held in by a great deal of Shipmates is well known) - I was similarly unimpressed and made it known when the Ship floated the 'Celebrity Death pool' - I haven't checked if that is still running.
I used strong words to describe making a game out of someone's death, and this is why:
Consider John Donne, explaining the interconnectedness of humans and the loss to each of us on the death of one of us:
quote:
Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII in the public domain:
The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another.
...
If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his [my note: the dying person], whose indeed it is.
...
Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.
It is an occasion that bespeaks dignity - now for Erin, making a joke out of her death and running a sweepstake may be a way to give it dignity. I'm guessing that's a minority view. In order to give dignity to an action or occasion, we have to behave in a dignified way. Betting on someone's death, is (I hope still, in relation to public mores), not dignified.
I will be diminished by the death of the Pope, because he is a member of the Body that I also am a member of (and he is being removed from the earthly part of my life). If I mentioned in the prayer thread that a member of my family was dying, would any of you publically run a sweepstake on when they would die?
If you justify the act because you wouldn't mind if it was done to you, extrapolate further than yourself. Pick one of your cherished relatives that you will or have already grieved over at their death - would you run a sweepstake on it? Well, the Pope is someone's cherished relative, in reality and spiritually. Even if you don't feel or accept Donne's notion of interconnectedness or diminishment (and it's not like universal brother/sisterhood is an esoteric Xtian notion): if you wouldn't run a sweepstake on your own relative, why would you do it to someone else's?
Where is the fun in this activity, and why is it fun, when in other circumstances it would not be? That it is a public figure should make no difference, I think.
I view this as a sort of hardness and failure to see the humanity of a public figure. Not new of course… the soldiers gambled for Jesus clothes at the foot of the cross.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
This brings up the interesting question of "What is Bad Taste?" and who gets to define it.
Quite. Reading some of the responses to this thread reminded me of some British comedians who have a certain following, yet are considered so offensive that their shows can't be broadcast on television. Someone in that case made a moral judgement on their material. Were they right to forbid the showing of (for example) a programme with a lot of racist humour? From this we could diverge into a general argument about censorship (if so please start another thread) but I'd like to stick to the question of what people find offensive.
quote:
"Bad Taste" is whatever I don't find humorous, attractive, or respectful. After all, my worldview is the measure of all things.
I don't know that I'd agree with that as a definition. Fashions change from age to age and who decides whether hoop earrings, aerosol cream, or B & Q furniture are Bad Taste? All these things have their place and are perfectly acceptable to many people.
A sense of humour is an individual thing and people differ and should be allowed to differ. However I do think that there can be cause for concern if that humour is either overtly aggressive (as in for example malicious practical jokes) or causes distress to a significant number of people (or even one if in a personal setting). That is what I would consider Bad Taste.
And yes, I know there's always going to be someone who's upset by something, but it seems to me that if a significant number of people find a particular attitude or action distasteful (and I'm speaking generally here), then I think questions do need to be asked about whether it's beneficial for that society as a whole to have it continue or flourish.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
I've prayed for the Pope (although I'm not RC and disagree with much of what he's said). I'll mourn his death, as he was a great example of what being a Christian should be. I also have picked a time on the Circus thread. Does that somehow cancel out my other sentiments?
Sieg
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
If I mentioned in the prayer thread that a member of my family was dying, would any of you publically run a sweepstake on when they would die?
No.
quote:
Pick one of your cherished relatives that you will or have already grieved over at their death - would you run a sweepstake on it?
I might. It would depend on the circumstances. If one of my parents were dying a lingering death, I could see myself saying to my brothers, "We each pick a date and time, and loser has to be the one who deals with the pastor of their church" (their church not being one any of us feels at home with).
quote:
Where is the fun in this activity, and why is it fun, when in other circumstances it would not be? That it is a public figure should make no difference, I think.
You think. I don't. Jokes are generally ruined when they're explained, but since you're not going to think it's funny no matter what, I'll attempt an explanation.
Running a sweepstakes on when the pope will die is funny to me because it makes fun of the question that is implied in so many recent conversations, in the media coverage of the pope's final days and hours, and in our consumption of that coverage: "Is he dead yet?"
quote:
I view this as a sort of hardness and failure to see the humanity of a public figure. Not new of course… the soldiers gambled for Jesus clothes at the foot of the cross.
You may not find such humor compatible with regard for humanity, but I do. I find such humor in fact to be very human. You wax poetic about dignity and holiness surrounding death, but death is a lot of things. It may be painful, messy, horrifying, saddening, and yes, some things about it may be funny.
What bothers me the most about what you're saying, Coot, is that you want to stop people from dealing with death in a certain way and make us deal with it your way. You deal with it your way, I'll deal with it my way. No one's making you read the Circus thread about the pope's death.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
[ETA:cross-posted with a gazillion people!]
But we're talking about Bad Taste, not humor.
(Excuse me a moment while I run up to re-read the OP...)
quote:
from the OP:
....there's the usual division amongst Shipmates between those who say this sort of thing is wrong and in bad taste, and others who think it's fine.
I think it's important not to confuse
Bad Taste with disrespectful, wrong, or inappropriate behavior.
Bad Taste is an arbitrary social convention at best, and at worst a mere elevation of personal preference and opinion to some unjustified Rule applicable to others rather than just to oneself. (As Sine so aptly demonstrated for us.)
Real life: I've been singing at funerals, roughly three per month, for the past ten or so years. That's 300 funer
als, most of them a deceased body and a family that I didn't know from Adam. I've seen plenty of Bad Taste both from the families and from those of us "backstage". What is important is how the Bad Taste is handled in public. I can joke with the organist and the priest about the tacky and sentimental piece of crap song the family chose, but I will also sing it with total sincerity when the time comes, because I know it means something special to them.
Bad Taste was choosing a crap song. Bad Taste was joking about it. Major social embarrassment would be if the family discovered we joked about. A true offense, a Wrong, however, would only be if I did not treat the song with the dignity and respect the family expected during the actual funeral.
As far as the Pope, I doubt he or those closest to him are reading the Circus on Ship-of-fools, so the only people being offended are strangers who are taking offense on his behalf without actually knowing him. And for them, the "if you don't like it, don't read the thread" rule seems more than sufficient.
[ 02. April 2005, 18:43: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Where is the fun in this activity, and why is it fun, when in other circumstances it would not be? That it is a public figure should make no difference, I think.
It obviously is fun for a number of shipmates. But as best I can tell they are wrong because you don't feel that way.
quote:
I view this as a sort of hardness and failure to see the humanity of a public figure. Not new of course… the soldiers gambled for Jesus clothes at the foot of the cross.
The man has been obviously and indeed ostentatiously dying in public for a number of years now. It's not like the Popemobile suddenly backed over him out of the blue. He is not only a public figure but also has made the process of his death a public occasion for reasons of his own.
Had he chosen to retire to a comfy secluded villa several years ago I doubt you'd be getting Circus threads on him. I don't remember any for Ronald Reagan.
Besides, I personally am capable of holding more than a single emotion toward the same set of circumstances. I feel sorrow, respect, and yes, giggles, all at the same time for both the Pope's death and lots of other things in life as well.
In any case, I respect your grief at the death of your close personal friend, the Pope. I was very upset when my close personal friend, Princess Diana died. (I wanted to type "Princess Di died" but it didn't look right.)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
But we're talking about Bad Taste, not humor.
True, but for me part of the humor depends on it being in bad taste, the way the impact of swearing depends on certain words being considered vulgar.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Setting aside the humor in it all, how is saying "I think he's going to kick it on Monday at 3 o'clock" disrespectful?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
And whoever had 2137 Saturday, April 2 won.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Damn. I knew it!
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on
:
Yay, finally.
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
In my part of the world, we laugh about death. We enjoy funerals. We cry, we tell stories and we drink a bit and we laugh some more. That's how it's always been.
We are not diminished because people have gone on before us - we share their dignity and rejoice in their passing. We are enriched by having known them. Since my father died so well, I have known no fear of death.
Erin, thanks for your post. Brilliant. Coot, sorry you are offended. But I doubt Erin is in the minority. She certainly wouldn't be in Yorkshire.
[ 02. April 2005, 19:44: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on
:
I guess people in Yorkshire have to have something to laugh about.
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
Pick one of your cherished relatives that you will or have already grieved over at their death - would you run a sweepstake on it?
Uh, actually... Yeah. In addition to the Croak pool, we've got Knocked Up, Hitched, Divorced, and Indicted pools, seperated further by generation. The odds are recalculated every year at the family reunion, buy-in for each category is five dollars.
One man's poor taste is another woman's cherished family tradition.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
I think my family would enjoy your family, Spiffy!
ETA: though my family never actually organizes family reunions, much less sweepstakes.
[ 03. April 2005, 01:32: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Personally I find anyone who buys furniture from Rooms To Go or isn't an Episcopalian guilty of Criminal Bad Taste, but that's just me. But I'm right.
How about Reformed Episcopalian? he asked anxiously.
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
As far as the Pope, I doubt he or those closest to him are reading the Circus on Ship-of-fools...
Oh, I dunno. I'm sure Cardinal Ratzinger's sitting there with a notebook and pencil half the time ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
I guess people in Yorkshire have to have something to laugh about.
Well we're kept pretty busy grinning cos we don't have to live in London, too, of course... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
As generally the touchiest Catholic on these boards, I would have to say that I didn't think it was in bad taste. In fact it seemed to display an authentically Catholic attitude and I am so glad that so many of you are real closet Romans despite your often lamentable lapses of doctrine.
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
As generally the touchiest Catholic on these boards
Is that a bit like being The Only Gay In The Village?
Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on
:
Vikki - surely that'd be The Most Touched Catholic?
I'll get my coat.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Setting aside the humor in it all, how is saying "I think he's going to kick it on Monday at 3 o'clock" disrespectful?
Mmm ... I know what you mean, but to me it sounds a bit like arranging a business appointment, with some degree of impersonality and a lack of compassion for what is after all one of the most important events in someone's life. It's the sort of let's-pin-it-down to-the-precise-minute, slot-it-into-an-agenda type of thing that looks, frankly, calculating and insensitive. Different people see things differently, that's just my point of view, and other people will (and obviously do) see it as nothing at all.
And from there I find myself wondering which is better: to be honest about how you feel, join a sweepstake and opt for a 4pm slot with a possible financial prize, thereby upsetting some people to whom it means something, or go along with expressions of condolence and sincerity to be socially acceptable when in fact you couldn't care a hoot either way. (I'm thinking of the tributes that have come in from politicians who probably had them prepared months in advance and stuffed in a file just in case.) Is it good taste to pretend to feel sympathy?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
It probably wouldn't have happened if we weren't getting hourly reports on which organ has failed now and how he's really going to die this time, we were just fooling before. For those of us who don't look at needless suffering as some great witness -- after all, God invented narcotics for a reason -- I'm not exactly sure what we were supposed to do with the information. The Vatican's news releases turned it all into a morbid spectacle and pretty much encouraged everyone to begin the betting.
I hate the politicians' frowning with sincerity, though. It makes my skin crawl.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Those of us who didn't enter the sweepstake probably still found themselves wondering when he would actually die - I know I did.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What bothers me the most about what you're saying, Coot, is that you want to stop people from dealing with death in a certain way and make us deal with it your way. You deal with it your way, I'll deal with it my way. No one's making you read the Circus thread about the pope's death.
I've been thinking about this, it's not that I want to stop people dealing with death in a certain way and make them deal with it 'my' way - it's that there still exist societal standards regarding what is a respectful response to death which are greater than the individual responses which you and Erin offer and more widely held - and which I expect people to respect even if they don't personally adhere to them.
Standards change, granted. Perhaps our society's solemn treatment of death (not precluding the joyful hope of resurrection) is one that will change. I think that will be a loss.
It's a similar notion to 'public decency'. eg. types of nudity, public displays of sexual intimacy. There is still a standard of what is 'allowed' and what is 'not allowed'. Usually backed up by legislation. But even when there isn't, it's courteous of people to give their expressions of individualism a back seat for the comfort of others.
Respect for the dead is one of the basic civilities, fergawdsake!!!!
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
quote:
Sine:
In any case, I respect your grief at the death of your close personal friend, the Pope. I was very upset when my close personal friend, Princess Diana died. (I wanted to type "Princess Di died" but it didn't look right.)
I know you're just being a bitch, ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
but the point is not that I am personally close to the Pope. (Certainly he has been more significant to me than Princess Di, and I am more deeply moved by his death than hers - though I don't think we should receive the news of any death in a blaise way). The point is, that their experiences will be my experience also. You do as you would like to be done to, and until Miss Manners indicates that the usual etiquette surrounding death is to take a sweepstake on the moment of departure, I'll continue to view non-standard responses not instigated by the dying person, with distaste.
Look what happened to Don Juan.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
I am right with Cooty here. The "shuffle 'em off in a box", "let's crack open the champers!" attitude toward death which trivialises grief and despoils the dignity of the reposed is something I find grossly offensive.
If you are used to (as in my tradition) giving the reposed a farewell kiss and honouring the body as well the soul then you will appreciate just how unacceptable sweepstakes and generally taking the p*** really is.
I don't expect (some) to agree with me but it would be a shame for these not to have some appreciation of just how such things affect the rest of us.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
In contrast, I think that the really sick and offensive thing was the wall-to-wall coverage of the man's last hours.
Yes, I know he was very important to a lot of people and I can appreciate that people cared a lot about him. But I really did not need to hear constant news reports that amounted to well he is still here but he might not be by the next news broadcast .
He was old, he was sick. Why could they not have honoured him by quietly allowing the man to die?
Compared to that, the circus thread pails into insignificance. It was less of 'when is he going to die?' and more of 'when are we going to have some other news?'.
C
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Standards change, granted. Perhaps our society's solemn treatment of death (not precluding the joyful hope of resurrection) is one that will change. I think that will be a loss.
Respect for the dead is one of the basic civilities, fergawdsake!!!!
The thing is, I don't equate solemnity with respect.
When I was waiting to see whether my mother would die a complete brain death (better for organ donation) before we pulled the plug, my friends and I made any number of bad jokes (including running Monty Python's 'Bring Out Your Dead' almost constantly and idly speculating on which ring of hell you go to if you steal a priest's car while he's administering last rites). That is, quite simply, how I deal.
I understand that it's now how everybody deals. As a general rule of thumb, I don't ever try to joke at a hospital or funeral unless the sick person or a close family member does so first.
The Pope chose to die a very public death. Given the number of people who seem to want to pretend that death doesn't exist or shouldn't be talked about, I really respect his choice. However, I suspect he was intelligent enough to know that in dying a public death, people were going to deal with it as they deal with things.
Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
... But I really did not need to hear constant news reports that amounted to well he is still here but he might not be by the next news broadcast .
He was old, he was sick. Why could they not have honoured him by quietly allowing the man to die?
C
Precisely.
He'd had a nice long life. Everyone liked him. Then he got ill, and was probably suffering lots. He's just a person. And yes, I'd find it quite amusing if there was a sweepstake on me if I was terminally ill.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
it's not that I want to stop people dealing with death in a certain way and make them deal with it 'my' way - it's that there still exist societal standards regarding what is a respectful response to death which are greater than the individual responses which you and Erin offer and more widely held - and which I expect people to respect even if they don't personally adhere to them.
Standards change, granted. Perhaps our society's solemn treatment of death (not precluding the joyful hope of resurrection) is one that will change. I think that will be a loss.
I don't know what you folks down in Australia do, but American society doesn't deal well with death at all, and I don't see why any of us should be bound by "standards" which serve us so badly.
quote:
it's courteous of people to give their expressions of individualism a back seat for the comfort of others.
I repeat, you went out of your way to click on that thread and read the posts. We weren't being discourteous to anyone, because no one (aside from the hosts) is forced to read what they don't want to read. It was in fact rather discourteous of you to intrude your po-faced remark upon what was just a bit of fun.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't expect (some) to agree with me but it would be a shame for these not to have some appreciation of just how such things affect the rest of us.
Uhm...so just how did it affect you, Father Gregory? Did you have to go lie down in a darkened room with a cold compress on your forehead? Or just get a lovely self-affirming little thrill of righteous indignation. Or what?
The Community Editor and the Administrators probably need to know in case you're going to try to collect damages for emotional distress.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
Everyone liked him.
Really? Everyone? I can think of some who might disagree.
I'd find it refreshing if anyone would stop kissing the man's ass posthumously. I also think it would be respectful to speak honestly about successes and failures, agreements and disagreements, rather than spewing endless phony lovey-doveys.
Just a man? Maybe, but, like the hundreds of saints canonized under JPII's oversight, he has been set up as something extra-special.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I'd really like to know, too, why it is that the Circus sweepstake on the pope's death bothers Coot but the Blessed Sacrament Webcam thread in Ecclesiantics doesn't. Is the pope's death more holy and worthy of solemn respect than the body of Our Lord?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
I know you're just being a bitch
(By-the-by, I was rather distressed the hosts interpreted this as a statement of fact rather than as a personal attack. I have feelings too, ya know.)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Note: posting as a shipmate, as I am far too personally involved in this thread to be hosting.
I thought Coot's tongue was lodged in his cheek at that point, Sine, on account of the bleeding heart smilie. And given that you suggested that Fr Gregory experienced "a lovely self-affirming little thrill of righteous indignation," it seems to me that you're hardly in a position to complain about personal attacks.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Sorry, Ruth. I was joking. The Coot of course was absolutely right.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Sorry, I should have realized you were joking when you claimed to have feelings!
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on
:
saysay, you are so totally invited to my funeral. I'll even bequeath you my cowbell.
Fr. G., you're invited also, but you may not like it much. In the honored tradition of my ancestors, I'm having a Irish/Italian/Hispanic/Napa Valley wake, which means there will be much booze available, and lots of stories told, and some of them might even be sans cursewords and innuendos. But knowing the stories will be about me, don't count on it.
In Brazil, mothers whose children die in infancy are told not to cry, because their tears will send their child's soul to Hell. We're not all brought up with the same concept of 'proper' grieving and a 'proper' death.
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on
:
Just this past week I've been to a family funeral for my granddaughter's Daddy who died unexpectedly at age 36.
All his pall bearers dressed in jeans and identical Carolina Blue UNC Tar Heel basketball T-shirts...each with a white carnation pinned on.
I'm not going to mention the Tar Heel Ram stuffed animal, which had been restuffed with marijuana and placed in his coffin...
One of the young children got up and sang the only two verses of Amazing Grace that she knew - acapella and totally off-key...that was it for the music.
This would have been the best funeral I've ever been to, except for the fact that the minister preached an altar call. Now that was Bad Taste and Tacky.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
The pope had a great sense of humor; he may himself have been amused about it, had he known.
[ 04. April 2005, 03:22: Message edited by: Zeke ]
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
I only said Sine was a bitch because I was secure in the strength of our mutual brotherly affection.
And yes, also because I knew he was just being bitchy.
(Heart you babe, will so be waving on the dock in Sinny when your ship comes in)
Have been thinking about the Blessed Sacrament Webcam thread. I think I am really viewing a place where the Body of Our Lord is present in the MSB when I look at the cam. So I don't think it is a joke or cause for scorn - I didn't/don't think (or haven't realised if they are) that the people participating on the thread are doing it to take the piss. (Those monks are total dudes I reckon!) I suppose worship on the internet is too young for what is appropriate/inappropriate to be 'codified'.
I've been taught that taking photos in a church at the consecration is disrespectful. But I'm willing to be persuaded one way or the other re: the Blessed Sacrament Webcam. About death there's been a lot of time for our traditions to evolve (should we have a new thread on this? Why is American society having difficulty with death?! People have been dying now for 6 million years!), the MSB webcam is new territory. I am open to teaching on right and appropriate ways to behave with respect to this.
I recognise that I'm a product of my culture regarding my attitude to death (I thought this culture was a bit more widespread... but er, it seems not. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
) so maybe there is a bit of culture clash going on. lol, honestly, I'm not dealing with the concept that it's possible to be respectful and still run a sweepstake on someone's death. (Nor for that matter to do Monty Python skits at the bedside as saysay related) Ruth, who I admire very much, says it is not imicable with human dignity. saysay (who I don't know well, but I'll take your word for it) says it is not imicable with respect.
I don't know. Sweepstakes are for Melbourne Cup day! imo, death will lose its 'specialness' or holiness ('set apartness'). I laugh and joke every day - a death is special (in the same way a birth is special), so I do different things.
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
quote:
I am right with Cooty here. The "shuffle 'em off in a box", "let's crack open the champers!" attitude toward death which trivialises grief and despoils the dignity of the reposed is something I find grossly offensive.
Wow - I'm amazed you are able to minister in Manchester and avoid that culture. Lucky you aren't Anglican.
Champers? Bloody champers? We get 't' whippet ter pee in us glasses and toast the departed, in Yorkshire.
My Dad's funeral was one of the most joyful occasions I've ever been to in a church. My Ex preached a damned good sermon, which had us alternately in tears and in fits of laughter (I'm talking about 600 people - so gales of laughter, really).
Then we had a burial - the first in our family as far as I know, at Dad's request. His brother, who was utterly distraught, noticed some drainage pipes in the grave just as they lowered the coffin and muttered a little too loudly, "Trust Our Kid, eh?! Bloody central heating!"
And we were all reduced to helpless giggles. That was the utmost mark of respect to my Dad because he'd have loved it. Of course, it was also a healthy release of emotion.
So yes - perhaps it is right to see that there is no prevalent culture. Theat Brazilian custom sounds terrible to me - but if I were there I would respect it. I have very strong views on the Pope and some of what he did, which I certainly haven't expressed because it would upset lots of people. That doesn't prevent me from seeing that he did some wonderful things too and that he was an old man deserving of respect. As the last few posters have said, I found that respect totally lacking in the last few days, but when I said so on another thread I was accused of 'talking like an Orangeman'. (And Sine, Honey, it wasn't said in love; I found it deeply insulting but the hosts didn't pick up on that either - maybe they're just jealous of the last few to get through SoF Idol..? )
I'm beginning to think I should have 'Let's agree to disagree' as my sig... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
On the passing of my aunt's mother, she walked into her (22 year old) sons room, woke him up, and said:
"You know your grandmother?", she asked.
"Yes" he replied groggily.
"Forget her" she quipped. And left the room.
In my family, this made us all laugh so hard we just about puked, including the son who was the "victim" of the joke. Now when anyone says "Do you remember so and so?" we all kinda freak out! We celebrate at funerals in the BEST Irish wake fashion, laughter and crying, all the better. If anyone told us it was in bad taste, then they need to go to their own family and get out of mine! I suspect this may be cultural/familial and people that call it bad taste can do it with their families/culture and please leave mine out of your "taste".
I like so many others here would LOVE the joke if they held a dead pool/dead lottery on me, I'd just be upset if I couldn't rig it for someone I preferred! And if they don't throw a BIG wake with lots of humor upon my death then I'll come back to haunt them. I will! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on
:
I've just remembered very belatedly that we actually ran a sweepstake on the time Holly would be born. Of course we considered what would happen if something went wrong (we would have paid up) but I have to say it was tremendously helpful during Labour to look at the clock and think, "Ooooh! Annie might win if it's born soon!" etc.
Yes, that was GROSS bad taste. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Fun, though.
At least with someone who's dying, if they recover and ruin it there's still a positive.
Now if you want REAL bad taste, take a look at what I think is the Hindustan Times picking up an April Fool somewhat belatedly (Reuters date is April 1st, HT's date is April 2nd). On the other hand, I've often had the same thought about Dubbleya's face so maybe it isn't a joke after all?
[ 04. April 2005, 07:55: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
I told my wife about the circus thread. She said it was disgusting and in bad taste. I didn't tell her I'd posted.
Did you tell her that you'd won?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I'm not sure how much the various anecdotes along the lines of 'when somebody dies in our family we deck the house with bunting and hire a brass band' actually relate to the OP. I took the point of that to be that however we as individuals respond to death in our own orbit (which will vary with cultural background, circumstances, temperament etc), ought there to be a level of public decorum?
I agree with the various posters who pointed out the media-driven mood of 'more, we need more'. Anyone who's ever been anywhere near that sleepless hydra which is 24-hour, rolling, global news broadcasting knows that 'Yes, Pope dying' followed by 'Yup. Still dying' is not going to sate the beast.
I'm inclined to think that is what has really destroyed any possibility of an agreed standard of public reticence on any topic. Everywhere and always, human lives are being turned into fodder for the TV screens. Sometimes with consent ('reality' shows), more often not. Everything can ultimately be reduced to a gameshow, a format, a soap.
So, it's all the fault of the Evil Murdoch. (Ever notice how close that name is to Moloch? Coincidence? I think not.)
Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
Everyone liked him.
Really? Everyone? I can think of some who might disagree.
Ok, that was more one of those glib generalised statements that people make when someone dies. I know nothing about the guy (nor am I really interested!!)
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
So I don't think it is a joke or cause for scorn - I didn't/don't think (or haven't realised if they are) that the people participating on the thread are doing it to take the piss.
Blimey. I thought the whole thread was a pisstake. I didn't realise that people were taking it seriously.
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on
:
What I think is bad taste is the hypocritical sycophancy of the Western media. They keep using the words 'monumental' and 'highly significant' to describe the life and influence of the 'pope of popes' etc. blah, blah, blah...
But next week they'll be writing Christianity off once again as repressive, irrelevant, and in terminal decline.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
quote:
Pants:
Blimey. I thought the whole thread was a pisstake. I didn't realise that people were taking it seriously.
Well this is the thing. I can take the MSB very seriously, while being amused at the surrounding trappings. Very anglo-caff style (not that I am one) - outside the Mass, to be self-deprecating about the trappings; over-emphasise them; camp them up; treat them as more important- the creature rather than the Creator (you mean they aren't); yet still conduct the Mass with deadly serious sincerity and solemnity.
I think (?) Ruth is getting at something similar to this regarding death. Or maybe not. Maybe not also for Erin and saysay. Sorry, bit obtuse, me at the moment. Not sure if they are coming from a position that solemnity is not an issue/can be dispensed with or that levity does not preclude it and it occurs concomittantly or concurrently but distinctly.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
When some of you have finished interpeting my own thoughts and feelings for me let me repeat that I expect Christians to take death, mourning and hope very seriously and not to trivialise that. How that gets translated into not enjoying wakes or being up my arse about anything God only knows.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
When some of you have finished interpeting my own thoughts and feelings for me let me repeat that I expect Christians to take death, mourning and hope very seriously and not to trivialise that. How that gets translated into not enjoying wakes or being up my arse about anything God only knows.
When some of YOU have finished deciding that you're the moral arbiter of the world let me repeat that I don't actually care what you expect Christians to do.
Posted by Doohickie (# 7817) on
:
I haven't read the whole thread; forgive me if I cover the same ground.
The original post makes several excellent points regarding the death of the pope and the inappropriateness of jokes regarding the event. I have tremendous respect for the John Paul II and think he will be remembered as one of the greatest world leaders of the late 20th century.
Nevertheless, I guess I totally disagree with you in that I find the jokes about the pope's death hilarious. I've been reflecting on this since I first saw this thread, and some thoughts have come to me as to why I can see your points, yet still enjoy the humor:
1. Humor, the best humor, is irreverent. Gallows humor, battlefield humor, humor about death are among the best.
2. We've been through a vigil- a period of waiting for death to relieve John Paul II from the concerns of this world. His suffering is over now. The humor is merely a normal reaction to the end of this tense time.
3. Carol Wojtyla was reported to have a pretty good sense of humor. As someone who has endured all that he did in his life (not only his late-life ailments, but his resistance to the Nazis and Communists), a sense of humor would be a valuable asset.
4. In his last days, John Paul II was at peace. He said repeatedly as his health deteriorated that he was in God's hands. I'm sure he believed it. I do.
5. Even as we speak, Carol Wojtyla is in the bosom of the Lord. No words we say here on earth can hurt him now. This is a time to rejoice; his suffering is over and the servant has been called home.
As Pope John Paul II himself said with his last words, "Amen!"
Be at peace, Carol Wojtyla!
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Erin
So?
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
How can I be expected to take death seriously when by His resurrection, my beloved master Jesus taught me to laugh in its face?
He made a mockery of death. I follow Him.
Cheers
FF
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
my beloved master Jesus taught me to laugh in its face?
How did he teach you that?
He wept when Lazarus died.
Resurrection is not immunity from death. The Risen Christ still bears the marks of his wounds. Our sins are forgiven us, but they still offend. And still have real consequences in this world if not the next, causing real pain and real distress. Death and Hell are defeated, but still, to us, terrible.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Hi Ken,
They may be terrible to you, but not to me. You're entitled to believe in death and hell. I don't and won't. Not since my Master lived and died and resurrected expressly so that I might be free from their depressing influence.
Jesus promised me eternal life. He showed me through His resurrection and through Lazarus that death has no power over life if I believe in Him. And I do.
I'll use His words from John 11 25&26:
"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even though he may die, will live and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
I think death is a bad joke, and deserves to be laughed into nothingness. If you want to think otherwise, be my guest. I would never huff at you because I thought your perceptions offended MY beliefs about death.
FF
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oh for fuck's sake Gregory, knock off that "Dear Erin" crap. I'm not your dear anything, and posting on a message board is NOT writing a letter.
As to your "so?" remark... well, I'm somehow not surprised. I mean, after all, what would a thread be without you demanding that other people respect your sensibilities while simultaneously talking to us like we're your children or -- worse yet -- your particular congregation. You're not any sort of spiritual leader around here, so you can drop your lectures any old time.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
would never huff at you because I thought your perceptions offended MY beliefs about death.
But you just did.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Sorry Ken,
I have no control over the tone you "hear" me posting in. If you hear a huff, it's more a reflection of your mood than mine.
Try reading again in a different tone.
FF
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
You are still doing it. You are writing in a patronising-sounding way.
But I'm not in a huff - I was just pointing out that your opinions, which you are as entitled to as anyone, are not the teachings of Jesus as we have them in the Gospels.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Sorry Ken,
I am writing in a direct way. You are ascribing the "tone" in your head.
You are entitled to your view and if you don't think I have gotten the lesson of the gospel, then that's entirely OK with me. I don't see how this can be viewed as patronising. If your experience and life are enhanced by a fear of death and hell, then I can't argue with it. All I can do is say "sorry, not my cup of tea."
There's a logical fallacy that goes "everyone believes X is true, therefore it must be true." You're definitely in the majority, Ken. Whether or not you're ultimately right can only be told in time.
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but my money is on God and Jesus, not death and hell.
Cheers
FF
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
No Erin. I was just returning the compliment in a sort of infinite regression. It was a joke. You know, why should I care that you don't what I care ... etc. etc. You don't have to care what I care about but perhaps sometimes it's useful simply to receive what the other person has to say.
BTW, I doubt whether I shall be able to shake "Dear ...." treat texting and emailing in no different way than I treat letters. You couldn't have thought I meant anything else shirley?!
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Not sure if they are coming from a position that solemnity is not an issue/can be dispensed with or that levity does not preclude it and it occurs concomittantly or concurrently but distinctly.
I guess I’m coming from the position that levity doesn’t preclude solemnity.
Death is solemn. Death is going to remain solemn no matter what I do or don’t do. Since the nature of death doesn’t depend on me, I think of my job as needing to deal with people’s reactions and their needs.
I tend to think that respecting a person means treating the person as they want to be treated, as long as doing so doesn’t cause me to violate the dictates of my own conscience. So when we visited my best friend’s father (who was a very traditional and intellectual man made uncomfortable by displays of emotion) in the hospital, we acted as he wanted us to act in public and saved the laughter and tears until we got home.
On the other hand, my mother was raised by people who thought that any display of emotion besides a calm radiant joy was proof that you weren’t a Good Christian. One of the things she told me she admired about me was my ability to laugh until I cry and cry until I laugh. Had I suddenly become all prim and stiff-upper-lipped proper, she would have read me the riot act (if she could have).
Maybe it’s a cultural difference. Although you wouldn’t know it from the news the past few weeks, death is rarely mentioned in public (apart from politicians nattering on about our culture of death). To paraphrase Aries, at some point the prohibition against speaking about sex was replaced with a prohibition against speaking about death. When death does get mentioned, it’s usually accompanied by a maudlin sentimentality, as if the only appropriate way to feel is heartbroken.
Death is more complicated than that, as are people’s reactions to it. I have no idea what relationship people posting on the circus thread have to the Pope, but I don’t think it’s my job to determine their internal states or their intentions.
And Spiffy, I’ll be there with bells on…
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Thinking about this, I remembered reading about a South American tribe that actually adds a little bit of the deceased into a meal in a respectful gesture, I think there was also a 'making them part of you' sense as well. So obviously culture determined. I am not actually horrified by that, whereas outlined responses of my fellow Westerners cause me consternation, so there you go.
But, leaving the 'appropriate response to death' aspect, I wanted to get back to Firenze's excellent post.
quote:
Firenze:
I'm not sure how much the various anecdotes along the lines of 'when somebody dies in our family we deck the house with bunting and hire a brass band' actually relate to the OP. I took the point of that to be that however we as individuals respond to death in our own orbit (which will vary with cultural background, circumstances, temperament etc), ought there to be a level of public decorum?
I agree with the various posters who pointed out the media-driven mood of 'more, we need more'. Anyone who's ever been anywhere near that sleepless hydra which is 24-hour, rolling, global news broadcasting knows that 'Yes, Pope dying' followed by 'Yup. Still dying' is not going to sate the beast.
I'm inclined to think that is what has really destroyed any possibility of an agreed standard of public reticence on any topic. Everywhere and always, human lives are being turned into fodder for the TV screens. Sometimes with consent ('reality' shows), more often not. Everything can ultimately be reduced to a gameshow, a format, a soap.
So, it's all the fault of the Evil Murdoch. (Ever notice how close that name is to Moloch? Coincidence? I think not.)
Specifically: "I took the point of that to be that however we as individuals respond to death in our own orbit (which will vary with cultural background, circumstances, temperament etc), ought there to be a level of public decorum?", which I was also trying to (cof) address.
Obviously, I think there ought to be a level of public decorum, and that there has been in former times, and that it is not lost, and that a public thread entitled: 'The Popping Pope Sweepstake' does not meet it. (Ya know, this provocative headline is not really something I can ignore, or choose not to read).
Media saturation doesn't really affect me as I don't watch TV but I think if there has been a loss due to human lives becoming media fodder, it is not an irreversible situation or a fait accompli. A few ppl mentioned on the Terri Schiavo thread that they admired the way Michael Schiavo wasn't joining the media circus. That's all it would take imo, a continuing trickle of ppl showing the world a different way - if ppl's attitudes can be molded one way, they can be molded another way...
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
I suppose you could blame it on Dave Allen, the Irish comic who died recently:
I'd see the Pope in a little chair being wheeled around, and I'd laugh. It reminds me of Allen's "Pope on the throne" sketches, and the "Pope goes waterskiing" bits.
And, today, I see the Pope's body being brought to St. Peter's, I see them lift him a bit to be seen by the throng and I think, "Gosh, what if he slipped down?"
Am I the only one who thought that? I don't think so.
I laugh at the memory of a Dave Allen sketch, and of it possibly being brought to life.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
(Ya know, this provocative headline is not really something I can ignore, or choose not to read).
I am making an effort these days to talk only from my own experience because really, that's all I've got. So I can't say what's true or not true for someone else. I am also trying to come to grips with the fact that I only have control over me, and not a lot of it at that. I certainly have no control over other people.
Therefore I am finding trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do, or how they should or shouldn't feel is a particularly pointless use of my time.
On the other hand I do find I have choices about what I do or how I feel.
There was a post the other day that I allowed myself to be really offended by. I wrote at least three scathing and irate responses. Then I says to self "Do you really want to get into this or do you just want to go on about your business?" I decided that I had the power to chose to ignore it. I am so glad I did. Had I not I wouldn't have changed the other poster's opinion in the slightest and I would have gotten myself all in a twit.
There seems to be a wonderful freedom and relaxation in laying down the burden of feeling I have to mind other people's business for them. And also in not giving the control of my emotions into the hands of other people by allowing myself to be offended by what they choose to do or choose to think.
I know this sounds kinda smarmy, but I thought I'd throw it out there for what it's worth.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
And, today, I see the Pope's body being brought to St. Peter's, I see them lift him a bit to be seen by the throng and I think, "Gosh, what if he slipped down?"
Am I the only one who thought that? I don't think so.
I've never heard of Dave Allen before, but I wondered the exact same thing when I saw the footage of them lifting the head of the bier so the crowds could get a look.
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Obviously, I think there ought to be a level of public decorum, and that there has been in former times, and that it is not lost, and that a public thread entitled: 'The Popping Pope Sweepstake' does not meet it.
I don't think these requirements of public decorum associated with the pope's death ought to be applied to the Ship. I think that it would be inappropriate for the Swiss guards to be making faces at the crowds lining up to pay their respects, but the Ship's boards are a different public forum, and here I think it's altogether appropriate to make jokes. I still think you're trying to make everyone adhere to standards that not everyone recognizes as important or useful, imposing what feels right to you.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
I was about to ask if anybody could make obnoxious, childish, asinine personal attacks on this holy thread or if it required a special dispensation. This before sharing my own particular fart in church.
Then I read this: quote:
There seems to be a wonderful freedom and relaxation in laying down the burden of feeling I have to mind other people's business for them. And also in not giving the control of my emotions into the hands of other people by allowing myself to be offended by what they choose to do or choose to think.
Now I've a mind to have Sine beatified upon his death. I promise to find a large and ridiculously funny hat for him and a lovely string quartet for the occasion.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Oh for fuck's sake Gregory, knock off that "Dear Erin" crap. I'm not your dear anything, and posting on a message board is NOT writing a letter.
As to your "so?" remark... well, I'm somehow not surprised. I mean, after all, what would a thread be without you demanding that other people respect your sensibilities while simultaneously talking to us like we're your children or -- worse yet -- your particular congregation. You're not any sort of spiritual leader around here, so you can drop your lectures any old time.
Dear Erin and Fr Gregory
Please feel free to pull each other's pigtails and stamp on each other's toes in Hell.
Thanks ever so much.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I was about to ask if anybody could make obnoxious, childish, asinine personal attacks on this holy thread or if it required a special dispensation. This before sharing my own particular fart in church.
I don't give out special dispensations, Gort. I'm not in charge of beatifications either.
[ 05. April 2005, 06:41: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I wondered the exact same thing when I saw the footage of them lifting the head of the bier so the crowds could get a look.
I'm guessing there's a big strip of Velcro™ on the back of the cope. And we don't even want to know how they're keeping the miter on.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Obviously, I think there ought to be a level of public decorum, and that there has been in former times, and that it is not lost...
I could apply this sentiment to an awful lot of things that people don't want to see in public. Doesn't follow that it's right or even healthy. It is, in fact, very repressive.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
...I guess I’m coming from the position that levity doesn’t preclude solemnity.
Death is solemn. Death is going to remain solemn no matter what I do or don’t do. ...
Some people define "solemn" as (essentially) "pompous" and "serious" as "important". In this schema, death is "serious", but doesn't need to be "solemn".
I was at a memorial service once that had a clown. "Serious", also funny, but not at all "solemn".
Posted by Ann (# 94) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I wondered the exact same thing when I saw the footage of them lifting the head of the bier so the crowds could get a look.
I'm guessing there's a big strip of Velcro™ on the back of the cope. And we don't even want to know how they're keeping the miter on.
I suppose they could have used that silver hammer and a few silver nails.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
There's a logical fallacy that goes "everyone believes X is true, therefore it must be true."
I'm sure there is, but no-one here is doing it.
quote:
You're definitely in the majority, Ken.
I am? When did the majority of people become Christians? Never mind Calvinists with universalist tinges?
quote:
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but my money is on God and Jesus, not death and hell.
So is mine, but I prefer to base it on what he gives us in the Gospels and the Bible, not a mixture of my private fantasies and New Age fluffy-bunny waffle.
And I certainly would not make your claim that everyone who suffers from sickness or who dies only suffers because they have fallen short of your elevated state of perfection. The world is real, not some Gnostic stage-show put on by a mendacious godlet for the benefit of a super-spiritual elite of ex-hippy Pelagians. And Jesus quite clearly tells us in the Gospels that people do not die or suffer only because of they are greater sinners than anyone else.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I certainly would not make your claim that everyone who suffers from sickness or who dies only suffers because they have fallen short of your elevated state of perfection. The world is real, not some Gnostic stage-show put on by a mendacious godlet for the benefit of a super-spiritual elite of ex-hippy Pelagians. And Jesus quite clearly tells us in the Gospels that people do not die or suffer only because of they are greater sinners than anyone else.
Thanks, ken. I'm sure AFF is a very nice person, but I'm not sure she realizes how unbelievably offensive it is to suggest that people (such as my mother) who suffered from cancer, or people such as the millions who die from it were just not elevated and enlightened enough to overcome death.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
All this talk of taste reminds me of when two weeks after one of those limitlessly tragic things to which life on earth seems to tend - friend's young husband died, leaving her with small children - the crematorium sent her a:
Customer Satisfaction Survey.
We both thought this was pretty funny. If you don't laugh, you'd be crying all the time.
[ 05. April 2005, 16:16: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Hi Laura,
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I really am a nice person. I wish you would pop by the CoF board so we could chat realtime, the board doesn't always give the most accurate view of a person.
I do most humbly submit, though, that you are the one taking offense. I fail to see how I give it. You imply that I think people are stupid when they suffer and die. That's not it at all, and I would hardly be a Christian for thinking so, let alone saying so but if that's how you insist on interpreting my POV then I can't prevent you. I'm just sorry you see it that way, because I like you.
People have their own experiences for reasons of their own which are between them and God. Not my place to judge whether they are "enlightened". In fact, I doubt you and I even have the same definition of the word. For me, it means something very literal, as in "Made lighter, less burdened, more levity, less weight". NOT "more bright" as in "less dull" in the intellectual or spiritual attainment sense, which you seem to think I am implying.
That's why I always made it a pun "en-LIGHT-ened".
The rewards of heaven don't go to the smartest or most spiritual, at least I'm smart enough to figure that out. They go to those who are most prepared to receive them (have their lamp wicks trimmed). For me this means it is a concrete, physical state of be-ing, not an intellecual or spiritual abstraction. I may be a bloody fool for seeing life the way I do, but all I'm trying to communicate is that it really works for me.
Shalom
FF
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
don't want to get involved in this discussion at all, but i do want to say, vikki, that snopes.com verified the belgian thing about bush and the chimps as true. make of it what you will.
ok, i will add one other thing. i notice several people have said that their families do run pools on when someone's going to die and etc. but i haven't seen anyone saying that they wouldn't mind if total strangers ran a pool on when their loved ones would die, or etc.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
AFF: I'm not the only one -- 'twas ken who initially brought up the implication of what you are saying. And the implication is clear. Your clarification has only deepened that impression. If only these sad losers had followed your enlightened lead and decided they would not die, or if only they were as you say, able as you are (and they are not) to receive God's gifts, then they would still be alive. I think that's making a judgment on another's ability to accept God's gifts. What we're saying is, your version of Christianity is wholly unwarranted by scripture (except in the extreme out-of-context way you use it) and so it seems a bit much for you not only to flog it here, but also to suggest that people who die are somehow less able than you to accept what God has to offer.
And thanks for your kind offer of chat in the Cafe, but alas as I am not immortal, time permits only one web-based time commitment, and this is the one I've chosen.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
Personally, I prefer reality dosed liberally with grace to spaced-out close-your-eyes-and-pretend-it-isn't-happening claptrap any day of the week.
Suggesting that it 'works for you' is surely the same as suggesting you are on a higher spiritual plain to all of the rest of us poor mortals, and that all we need to do to be holy is follow your example.
Bollocks.
Pain is real, death is real, grief is real. Nothing is achieved by pretending that it isn't there any more than a dead mouse disappears from under the carpet by constantly jumping on the lump.
C
[spelling]
[ 05. April 2005, 17:57: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Hi Cheesy,
That's funny, you using the term "mere mortals". Does part of you suspect I might have actually attained eternal life? I doubt it, but the choice of expression was kinda Freudian.
Are you saying I am not supposed to not take Christ at His word? Are you saying I should substitute His promise to me with the popular "accepted" perception of life, even though He went to the cross and rose from the grave and so proved that perception is flawed and that He is the King of Reality?
Should I be singing "Hallelujah He is risen, Death is swallowed in victory" but thinking "Bullpuckey, death is more powerful than Christ any old day because my loved one died. Christ can't do a thing about death."?
Should I be saying "Jesus promised me eternal life" but thinking "Unfortunately I have to be dead in order to obtain it."?
It's a logically untenable position for me. I hope you can see that. If the Gospel is true, then the accepted perception of reality and it are not measuring up.
I think that's why there's "doctrine", because the Gospel is in fact so powerfully and simply True in every sense of the word, that it HAS to be "spun" in order to fit people's experiences, rather than people should allow their life experiences to teach them the truth of the Gospel.
If you want different results, you have to do things differently. So I tried it the other way around, and decided to take the Gospel literally. And it works for me.
Shalom
FF
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Have we uncovered a new heresy?
There is a little bit of the Barefoot Doctor, a large dollop of Mary Baker Eddy, a streak of Gnosticism a mile wide, a superstructure of New Age misperceptions of Buddhism, a small flavour of neo-Paganism, and an underlying rigid Pelagianism.
Strange mixture.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
In the gospels (or at least the ones I have), the Christ weeps with those who weep, lifts up those of little faith, helps the rejected, heals the sick, walks and talks with the forgotten.
Nowhere does he suggest living in the unreal world you seem to inhabit where 'bad stuff' is just an illusion. Quite the opposite in fact.
I suggest to you that you are running from unpleasant realities and glossing over people's obvious pain with wooly mouthed platitudes that neither help or comfort them. Which is emphatically not what Christ did.
C
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ok, i will add one other thing. i notice several people have said that their families do run pools on when someone's going to die and etc. but i haven't seen anyone saying that they wouldn't mind if total strangers ran a pool on when their loved ones would die, or etc.
If my loved one chose to be a public figure (which is the only way that I can imagine total strangers knowing or caring that they were going to die - and yes, I am willfully ignoring certain shameless recent events), then I wouldn't care.
Being a public figure has certain advantages and certain disadvantages. They knew that when they accepted the role. How strangers react to them is really none of my concern.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Thank you Ken!
I accept the label of heretic with humblest gratitude. It's a true honor.
I have to laugh though, I never would have thought that on a Christian board, one could be honored with the title for saying "I tried the whole Gospel and I found it to be true".
I just can't win, it seems! LOL
I love you guys! You are the best! Thanks for everything you are and do, and for allowing me to share. It really is a stretch and you're awfully good sports. Exemplary Christians, in fact. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Much love and many hugs.
FF
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I have to laugh though, I never would have thought that on a Christian board, one could be honored with the title for saying "I tried the whole Gospel and I found it to be true".
1. ITTWACW is the oldest and crappiest replies in the history of old and crap replies.
2. Suggesting that you have 'tried the whole gospel and found it to be true' is a hilarious claim to fame. I might just write that down.
Returning to the OP, I was wrong. The really offensive thing is not the wall-to-wall pope-tv, but this kind of attitude that suggests people's genuine grief is a sign of not 'living the whole gospel'.
C
[one day that Lord will bless me with the gift of spelling and good english]
[ 05. April 2005, 19:20: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
The world is real, not some Gnostic stage-show put on by a mendacious godlet for the benefit of a super-spiritual elite of ex-hippy Pelagians. And Jesus quite clearly tells us in the Gospels that people do not die or suffer only because of they are greater sinners than anyone else.
How very ironic! One completely unprovable belief system casting aspersions on another!..and on a debate board! This last little dust-up is as fine an example of "bad taste" as can be found under the several OPs on the subject recently.
I'd find it rewarding to see more of an effort to find common ground with belief systems here than the petty, unending attempts to kick the crutches out from under each other.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
First, I have to admit that I didn't find the Pope terribly interesting when he was alive, and I've only begun to find him interesting lately as a consequence of inescapable media coverage.
The appropriate response to this seemed to be participation in a Pope Death Sweetstake, which I alas didn't win.
I don't know the Pope, or anyone beloved to him so I didn't realise that this was in poor taste.
But then I remembered that death instantly confirms (mainly upon public figures) a great deal of callow concern from people who never knew the dead person and probably didn't care much about them when they were alive, but care a great deal about an unmissable opportunity to tell other people who ALSO didn't know the dead famous person that they are being horribly incorrect.
Which brings me back to this excellent question which received no answer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
This brings up the interesting question of "What is Bad Taste?" and who gets to define it.
I also have to wonder what the difference is between "Bad Taste" and "something I just don't like."
quote:
Coot said
I believe it reflects a barbaric and degenerate culture which, as a past-time, places bets on when someone is going to die.
Which reminds me that in George III's lifetime, and during a prolonged, painful, and degrading illness no less, his courtiers and even members of the Royal Family placed wagers on the likelihood of his recovery from madness and whether or not he would survive. And this in what used quaintly to be called the Age of Elegance.
quote:
ken, getting his Holy Scripture confused
How did he teach you that?
He wept when Lazarus died.
Resurrection is not immunity from death.
Whoops. Lazarus was revived, not Resurrected. Lazarus died again (kind of sucks for Lazarus, if you think about it). Our Lord was Resurrected, and did not, nor has, nor will die again.
quote:
posted by nicolemrw
i haven't seen anyone saying that they wouldn't mind if total strangers ran a pool on when their loved ones would die, or etc.
Put me on record for not minding if total strangers ran a sweepstake about a loved one's death. If they are strangers, why would I care what they do? And if someone I know is running a sweepstake, I want in on it.
Two last things. I thought the Blessed Sacrament Web Cam thread was a massive piss-take. And yes I wondered aloud whether the Pope would slide right off the red stretcher when they displayed him to the crowds (I wondered if he wasn't perhaps sewn on).
Apologies for length.
HT
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
ken, getting his Holy Scripture confused
How did he teach you that?
He wept when Lazarus died.
Resurrection is not immunity from death.
Whoops. Lazarus was revived, not Resurrected. Lazarus died again (kind of sucks for Lazarus, if you think about it). Our Lord was Resurrected, and did not, nor has, nor will die again.
I never said Lazarus was resurrected or living a deathless life - but that Jesus wept when he died. Illustration of real nature of stuff.
And Jesus doesn't need to die again & neither will we after the general resurrection.
We are promised resurrection, which may involve having to die first. Not immunity from that first death.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
ken:
Give it up. AFF is better than we are. You PROVED that you believe it yourself by using the phrase "mere mortals" to describe us. Besides, it's been so long since we had such a credible substitute for a very-long-departed old-boards denizen whose name began with a small "b" that it's kindof refreshing.
AFF: Good luck with the whole immortality thing!
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
How very ironic! One completely unprovable belief system casting aspersions on another!..
My thoughts exactly. I just didn't see much point in commenting, what with people being so sure their beliefs are right...
Bad taste seems somehow trivial in comparison.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
I find it odd, that in a thread about Bad Taste we have once again moved into a discussion about immortality-through-the-power-of-positive-thinking. Back on track please or start a new thread on this tangent.
There are some overly personal comments being made in pursuit of this particular tangent, too. You know who you are.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
This has been the best Hell thread for weeks.
Strange its in Purgatory.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
Purgatory is the new Hell.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0