|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "I don't want a funeral or any kind of service"
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
And yet the opinion most commonly expressed on this thread is that their wishes SHOULD control us. We're being icky awful naughty survivors if we don't kowtow to their wishes after they've shuffled.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can do whatever we want and their wishes are so much wind, or they're being controlling, via guilt manipulation if nothing else. There's really no middle ground. If their wishes have any bite on us at all, if we are under any obligation (moral, if not legal) to follow their wishes, then by giving us such wishes they are being controlling.
[ 11. August 2016, 23:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
lilBuddha, I'm not sure it's worth carrying this on as I think we are talking past each other.
However, here goes. To me, it doesn't matter whether someone knows or not, you are still disrespecting them (using 'disrespect' as a verb is really horrible, isn't it?) Therefore, to me it doesn't matter whether the dead survive in some manner or not. One can still be disrespectful of them.
I don't, however, equate 'no longer exists' with 'never has existed'. I do believe my parents existed, whether or not they do now. Sadly, I concluded when I was quite young that I don't believe Father Christmas has ever existed*.
I did ask whether you believe that being disrepectful of, say, a friend behind their back is acceptable if they don't find out?
M.
*Yeah, yeah, St Nicholas.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
And yet the opinion most commonly expressed on this thread is that their wishes SHOULD control us. We're being icky awful naughty survivors if we don't kowtow to their wishes after they've shuffled.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can do whatever we want and their wishes are so much wind, or they're being controlling, via guilt manipulation if nothing else. There's really no middle ground. If their wishes have any bite on us at all, if we are under any obligation (moral, if not legal) to follow their wishes, then by giving us such wishes they are being controlling.
I don't agree, things are rarely 'all or none' and, like I said, some discussion and negotiation is often possible before they die.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I think there is plenty of middle ground on the issue as people are often vague about what their nearest and dearest do after their death.
Sometimes people stipulate burial over cremation, (or the other way round), I personally think it would be disrespectful to deliberately go opposite to such a wish.
Re. OP, if someone forbids any formal acknowledgment or ceremony following their death then presumably that would include a few friends or relatives getting together for a drink, or cup of tea, and talking about the departed? Or is that simply getting ridiculous.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Making a request or a wish could be 'controlling' if it were combined with some kind of force or emotional blackmail.
But requests and wishes for what happens after we die are so common they couldn't, surely be dubbed 'controlling' except in exceptional circumstances.
And yet the opinion most commonly expressed on this thread is that their wishes SHOULD control us. We're being icky awful naughty survivors if we don't kowtow to their wishes after they've shuffled.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can do whatever we want and their wishes are so much wind, or they're being controlling, via guilt manipulation if nothing else. There's really no middle ground. If their wishes have any bite on us at all, if we are under any obligation (moral, if not legal) to follow their wishes, then by giving us such wishes they are being controlling.
This is too simplistic I think. Are we never to express our hopes, then, for what happens after our death - outside of the Will situation of course - because that is 'controlling' and manipulative? Or are some post-mortem requests more justifiable than others; how are they to be graded, and who gets to say which survivors are 'icky and naughty' for ignoring them, and which are being perfectly reasonable?
Am I right to observe my dead mother's request to reconcile with an estranged sibling and wrong to observe her other request that she have no flowers at her funeral, or even no funeral at all? If I allow the one and not the other, who's being controlling? If I refuse to let her 'guilt' me into abandoning the convention of a service, based on the principle of not being controlled and manipulated by her, then I should also, by principle, refuse to let her 'guilt' me into offering forgiveness and reparation in a relationship that requires healing.
It's really not as black and white as you make it sound.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"Please bury me in my favorite bicycle shorts" is quite a different thing from "do not under any circumstances get together with other people to mourn me." Asking somebody to do something versus forbidding them to do something -- can no one else on this thread see the difference in how controlling the latter is?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I did ask whether you believe that being disrepectful of, say, a friend behind their back is acceptable if they don't find out?
Kinda depends.
The how is important. If I think something but never say it or allow it to influence my interactions, then no. If I say it to others, then yes. Because it then affects their interactions with others.
But it is still not that simple. Our interactions with others, especially our friends, are dynamic and should be multi-directional.
I do not know about your friends, but mine are not perfect. I do not respect everything all of them do.* Nor do I accede to all their wishes and desires. Especially not when that will have a negative effect on others. The best-good for all involved should be the intention.
That will sometimes be messy and imperfect.
*Part of this will also be my own imperfection, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
can no one else on this thread see the difference in how controlling the latter is?
I agree that dictating what the living, grieving loved one should do is controlling. And shows massive disrespect and unconcern for those still living and feeling. It is a far worse sin than ignoring the wishes of a dead person could ever be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I can see how some people might think it unreasonable. But I think 'controlling' is much too strong a word. I see where you're coming from, Mousethief, and can even imagine a manipulative person setting up conditions for their demise which they know will inflict difficulty, even pain, for their loved ones. Maybe even in an attempt to somehow remain in control, even though dead! I guess we all know people like that.
But I think intent to be controlling, and to what extent the loved ones submit to being controlled are what matters, in this case.
If my next of kin made this request, I'd regret it terribly. But I wouldn't think of them as controlling, even if mistaken or selfish. But then I'd probably find a way to justify to my conscience, my response to their request, whatever that is. So control just doesn't come into it. It would be my decision and I would take responsibility for it.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
OK, last shot, because I'm losing the will to live about this.
Macarius and I have invited friends to dinner tonight. One of them is vegetarian. My part of the cooking has been to make a gooseberry fool. I wanted to crush up amaretti biscuits into it but when he did the shopping, Macarius couldn't find any that said they were suitable for vegetarians. The ingredients don't say what shortening was used. My friend would never know if I used them (I suppose she might ask, but I doubt it). But although she wouldn't know, I think it would be disrespectful, unfair and downright unpleasant if I did.
I can be all those things and more as of course I am not perfect, neither is she. But whether she is or isn't wouldn't make it any less disrespectful on my part.
It's the breach of trust.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I don't think that is a good parallel, but I do not feel like going further down that path at the moment.
Back to the OP.
You appear to be saying that it is morally better to ignore the wishes of the living, to cause them grief now and potential lasting distress for the sake of someone who can no longer be affected.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
OK, last shot, because I'm losing the will to live about this.
Macarius and I have invited friends to dinner tonight. One of them is vegetarian. My part of the cooking has been to make a gooseberry fool. I wanted to crush up amaretti biscuits into it but when he did the shopping, Macarius couldn't find any that said they were suitable for vegetarians. The ingredients don't say what shortening was used. My friend would never know if I used them (I suppose she might ask, but I doubt it). But although she wouldn't know, I think it would be disrespectful, unfair and downright unpleasant if I did.
I can be all those things and more as of course I am not perfect, neither is she. But whether she is or isn't wouldn't make it any less disrespectful on my part.
It's the breach of trust.
M.
That's a good example of a dilemma, gets me thinking.
I think I'd probably solve it by asking the person about the biscuits and if they are okay to use*. In the situation of someone who is dead it's harder to discern the response, though if you know the person well, you can generally know pretty much what the response would be, even if their death means a direct response isn't possible to a question.
(Notwithstanding I find rigid vegetarianism trying and that I think it subordinates politeness: that one shouldn't ask after ingredients or be otherwise fussy about what someone graciously cooks when invited to their home, except if there is a real health concern. But then, I'm currently posting about in Hell how I fail to assert myself across situations, and thus probably have unrealistic expectations of others. I have eaten many a perogi and zimne nogi I'd rather avoid [tasteless Ukrainian dumplings and pigs feet in jelly].)
*Here, it'd be listed as "lard" and "vegetable oil/based shortening" or "[partially] hydrogenated vegetable oil". Lard is hard to find as an ingredient except in store-boughten pie crusts.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You appear to be saying that it is morally better to ignore the wishes of the living, to cause them grief now and potential lasting distress for the sake of someone who can no longer be affected.
Did you make a promise to the deceased? If so, you are bound by your promise. Assuming you didn't:
As far as considering the wishes of the living goes, are you sure you're counting right?
There was a case a year or so ago that I remember of a teenage trans woman who, IIRC, committed suicide after prolonged bullying. Her family (who were conservative Christians) buried her under her male birth name, dressed her as a man for the funeral, showed older photos of her as a boy, and generally suppressed the trans woman that she thought she was in favour of they young man they wished she was.
The relatives were undoubtedly much comforted by this act - to have buried her as a woman would have caused them significant distress.
The young woman's friends, on the other hand, were completely horrified by this, and saw it as a betrayal of everything that the young woman had gone through.
As far as I see it, respecting the dead young woman means you should bury her as the person she was, regardless of how much pain this causes you. Only being concerned with the living means you should consider the feelings of the family and friends, perhaps in some kind of weighted sum, and choose to bury her as a man or woman depending on which will cause least pain.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
LC,
That is a case where someone is going to be distressed whatever the circumstance. And, the family probably did not fully respect her in life.
Her friends and the trans community will feel the pain of this, she will not.
The family is showing lack of respect for what she was, and for those who are in a similar position.
Again, living people's problems.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The family is showing lack of respect for what she was, and for those who are in a similar position.
Again, living people's problems.
So the correct action should be determined by measuring the total pain of each choice? The trans woman with lots of friends and few family gets buried as a woman, and the trans woman with few friends and lots of conservative family gets buried as a man?
I don't think that's the right thing to do, but it seems to me to be the logical consequence of your position.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baker
Shipmate
# 18458
|
Posted
The thing I've done to help things along when I get nailed to the perch, is to have my funeral planned out already, with specific instructions about the music, and which prayers to use. It will be straight out of the ECUSA Book of Common Prayer. The only two things slightly out of the ordinary is the the pre-service musis is not to be soft and solemn, the organist is specifically instructed to play like they are practising for a concert, loud and celebratory. Also, no viewing for me. Throw me in the box and nail it shut.
I have the plans on file at the church, and when I handed them to the cathedral dean he sighed and said "I wish more people did this" Since I'm the only Episcopalian in my family I figure I'm doing any survivors a favor.
--------------------
Ad astra per aspera
Posts: 108 | From: Tottering-on-the-Brink | Registered: Aug 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The family is showing lack of respect for what she was, and for those who are in a similar position.
Again, living people's problems.
So the correct action should be determined by measuring the total pain of each choice? The trans woman with lots of friends and few family gets buried as a woman, and the trans woman with few friends and lots of conservative family gets buried as a man?
I don't think that's the right thing to do, but it seems to me to be the logical consequence of your position.
The right thing to do is to bury her as a woman.
I am simply saying that doing otherwise will not hurt her, because she is past that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You appear to be saying that it is morally better to ignore the wishes of the living, to cause them grief now and potential lasting distress for the sake of someone who can no longer be affected.
Did you make a promise to the deceased? If so, you are bound by your promise. Assuming you didn't:
As far as considering the wishes of the living goes, are you sure you're counting right?
There was a case a year or so ago that I remember of a teenage trans woman who, IIRC, committed suicide after prolonged bullying. Her family (who were conservative Christians) buried her under her male birth name, dressed her as a man for the funeral, showed older photos of her as a boy, and generally suppressed the trans woman that she thought she was in favour of they young man they wished she was.
The relatives were undoubtedly much comforted by this act - to have buried her as a woman would have caused them significant distress.
The young woman's friends, on the other hand, were completely horrified by this, and saw it as a betrayal of everything that the young woman had gone through.
As far as I see it, respecting the dead young woman means you should bury her as the person she was, regardless of how much pain this causes you. Only being concerned with the living means you should consider the feelings of the family and friends, perhaps in some kind of weighted sum, and choose to bury her as a man or woman depending on which will cause least pain.
As others have noted, there is a disconnect here between what would cause pain to her family, and what would cause pain to her closest friends-- friends that may even have become surrogate family in the face of (I assume from the context) the lack of acceptance from her family.
But even w/o that, this is a "hard case". And, as they say, "hard cases make bad law." The right thing to do in this case is to bury her as she would would wish to be remembered-- i.e. to honor her wishes. But that may not be the right thing to do in every situation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
You keep assuming there's no pain for the deceased. But prior to dying they may feel pain on what their family will do with them.
The whole thread makes me wonder if there's a deathly equivalent to the marriage tradition of eloping. (By the time you read this I will have been planted in a location that will not be disclosed to you....)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There is no deceased prior to death.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am arguing from to POV.
One is that a person ceases to exist and the other, which IMO includes Christianity, that whatever constitutes the afterlife has no more connection to the still living. And, even did it, the dead are not in a state where the living's opinion would matter.
I came back to this to re-read it, but I still remain quite unimpressed to discover that you are apparently holding two points of view for the sake of it, instead of, as I had at first assumed, a sincerely held belief of your own. I will not engage with you any further on this thread.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
So, you are saying that - either way - the dead don't matter at all?
I agree, in the sense that what the living do will have no effect on the dead whether they go to dust or something else.
But I am arguing that the memories of the living do matter. Those closest to the deceased will be the ones carrying out their wishes (or not) and how they feel matters.
If the deceased was rather selfish in their choices then disregarding those choices won't help the people who are left to find peace imo, far from it. Knowing we have carried out their final wishes will help.
My parents left no instructions at all, so we had to guess what they would have liked.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I agree, in the sense that what the living do will have no effect on the dead whether they go to dust or something else.
But I am arguing that the memories of the living do matter. Those closest to the deceased will be the ones carrying out their wishes (or not) and how they feel matters.
If the deceased was rather selfish in their choices then disregarding those choices won't help the people who are left to find peace imo, far from it. Knowing we have carried out their final wishes will help
I think that's too black-and-white. If, for example, the deceased uses their near-sacred-status "last wish" to manipulate you into indulging their grudge/revenge fantasy-- say, not inviting your sibling-- participating in their feud will only cause you more pain. Breaking with it might bring you the peace you need, and the comfort of reconciliation in a fragmented family.
As with most things, it depends. We've heard good examples here of when honoring last wishes is good, and helpful, and needed. But it's not true in every situation. Just as in life-- sometimes it's a good idea to listen to your parents/honor their wishes-- sometimes it's not. "Last wishes" are no more sacred or perfectly healing than any other wishes.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am arguing from to POV.
One is that a person ceases to exist and the other, which IMO includes Christianity, that whatever constitutes the afterlife has no more connection to the still living. And, even did it, the dead are not in a state where the living's opinion would matter.
I came back to this to re-read it, but I still remain quite unimpressed to discover that you are apparently holding two points of view for the sake of it, instead of, as I had at first assumed, a sincerely held belief of your own. I will not engage with you any further on this thread.
It is, of course, your right to engage or not. But I am confused. Why does it matter if I am arguing my belief? Most people on this board are Christian or Christianish. We have a few Buddhists as well.* So I am arguing within those POV because that is what is relevant and polite. If we were to merely state belief, this would hardly be a discussion board.
*And atheists, but since that is not a codified belief system, it is difficult to have a blanket discussion. I did engage Susan Doris but that is from reading previous posts, I have a sense of her POV.
As far as the pagan(s), I do not know enough about her/their particular system(s) of belief.
[ 13. August 2016, 13:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If the deceased was rather selfish in their choices then disregarding those choices won't help the people who are left to find peace imo, far from it.
How does this statement even make sense? I do not mean that in a rude way, it is truly baffling.
quote:
Knowing we have carried out their final wishes will help.
This is what will help you, not everyone. With no censure or offence intended, you are merely stating what will make yourself most at ease.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I'm trying to say that nobody's perfect and may make funeral/non funeral choices which feel selfish to those left behind.
I'm saying that complying, if possible, with their last wishes will - hopefully - bring more peace to those left behind than not doing so. I've no idea how I would feel if it happened to me. I'm simply trying to imagine what would be best in an incredibly sad situation where the deceased and their next of kin are so at odds as to what they want too happen.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm trying to say that nobody's perfect and may make funeral/non funeral choices which feel selfish to those left behind.
I'm saying that complying, if possible, with their last wishes will - hopefully - bring more peace to those left behind than not doing so. I've no idea how I would feel if it happened to me. I'm simply trying to imagine what would be best in an incredibly sad situation where the deceased and their next of kin are so at odds as to what they want too happen.
But again, you are generalizing from your experience to every person in every circumstance. Just because complying with "last wishes" in one situation brings peace does not at all mean it would bring peace in every situation. It's a complex though experiment, with too many variables to make a sweeping one-size-fits all decree.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
That's why I said "if possible". There are plenty of circumstances where it would not be possible.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
That's why I said "if possible". There are plenty of circumstances where it would not be possible.
"If possible" denotes to me "if you have the ability." But there are plenty of circumstances where you have the ability to comply with last wishes, but it would not bring peace. One can disinvite a sibling or ask the sibling to hide his/her sexuality, for example, at the request of a homophobic parent. It is within your ability to do that-- it's "possible"-- but I very much doubt that would bring peace.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It is dreadfully easy to wind up at odds with the to-be-deceased over funeral wishes. All that needs to happen is for the not-yet-dead to specify that close family member X be barred from the service.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I'm still of the opinion that when it comes to religious observance (or lack thereof) the beliefs of the departed should trump the beliefs of the bereaved (and the opposite for non-religious commemorations, whether instead of, or alongside the religious).
I saw several posts stating that the departed is unaware of what is happening (either because they are "asleep in the lord", or happily in heaven not caring what goes on on earth, or simply because there is no such thing as life after death). And that's fine.. but I think what the DEPARTED thought about that should matter. let's say I belie there is no life after death, but my mom believes there is, and further, that the departed can and do know what is done at a funeral. should my belief trump hers? what if I'm wrong?
It works the other way, too, I think. the point is that the departed had some belief about the afterlife, and what ceremony is appropriate, and regardless of whether or not I think it's as real as the ground beneath my feet, or as imaginary as santa, my beliefs are not the ones that matter here. it's not even about respect. it's about whose version of the unknown/unknowable matters, and since it's the departed soul which is in question, doesn't it make sense that their beliefs about it are the ones that matter? if they think that unless they are buried with a sword the Valkyries won't come take them to Valhalla, I think it's up to me to make sure a sword goes into their grave with them, even if I think it's all a crock. If they think dead is dead, and I think if we don't have a proper service they will burn in hell, again, my beliefs aren't the ones that matter.
non-religious commemoration is a different matter, and while I should think those who love the deceased would want to comply with their wishes as much as is reasonable, in the end, how they remember someone is not up to that person to decide. Remembrance is what *I* do (if i"m the survivor), not what the deceased does.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I'm still of the opinion that when it comes to religious observance (or lack thereof) the beliefs of the departed should trump the beliefs of the bereaved (and the opposite for non-religious commemorations, whether instead of, or alongside the religious).
For the most part I agree. I would certainly agree that anything that smacks of suggesting that the departed had religious belief when none was in evidence is wrong, wrong, wrong. As is speculating about the eternal location of the departed, or using their death as an opportunity for hell-scare evangelism. Just. Don't. Go. There.
I do think, though, that when the person(s) closest to the departed (the "inner circle" of grieving) is a person of faith, it's acceptable, appropriate even, for those person(s) to seek comfort in their community. Which may mean some sort of service where there are Scripture and prayers not for the departed but for the comfort and peace of the bereaved.
(Conversely, I have been to many funerals of relatives who were men and women of faith, but whose non-believing adult children chose to give them very secular funerals with no mention of the faith that was such an important element of the deceased lives. I found that sad, but it was their choice to make).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
[quot]I do think, though, that when the person(s) closest to the departed (the "inner circle" of grieving) is a person of faith, it's acceptable, appropriate even, for those person(s) to seek comfort in their community. Which may mean some sort of service where there are Scripture and prayers not for the departed but for the comfort and peace of the bereaved.[/quote]
Well, OK, fair enough I guess, if it has no implications for the departed. I would definitely distinguish that from a true funeral. As you say, if it's explicitly for and about the bereaved and not the departed. They can seek comfort of that sort on their own, and in that case I would group it with the non-religious "wake" or other such commemoration.
quote:
(Conversely, I have been to many funerals of relatives who were men and women of faith, but whose non-believing adult children chose to give them very secular funerals with no mention of the faith that was such an important element of the deceased lives. I found that sad, but it was their choice to make).
I also find that very sad, and while technically is is their choice to make, I think morally it's wrong to do so. I would be very upset (and yes, I believe there would be a "me" to be upset) if my family chose not to have an Orthodox funeral for me. They can do whatever the heck they want at a wake, and they can even have other services in other religions if they want (I don't mind, to me they are meaningless), as long as all the proper rites of my own faith are observed, as much as reasonable. I would feel more than upset, I'd feel like I was deprived of something. It's not my belief that I won't "get into heaven" if the right rituals aren't said, but I do think that it would have an impact on me, at least in the short term. I can't say what that impact is, just that somehow there would be one.
My preference is for a "green" funeral. MY daughter knows this. I have also made sure that she knows that she should not go to any great lengths to make sure it happens. if getting a cardboard casket is difficult, no problem, get the cheapest one that is available. if a "green" cemetery is not available locally, fine, just use whatever the parish generally uses. She knows what I would prefer, and also that the preference is not so strong that I want her (Or whoever ends up dealing with things.. I say her because if it happened tomorrow, she'd likely be the one) to go to great lengths to make it happen. I just don't care THAT much.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
yes, my sentiments are very similar to yours. I've had similar conversations with my daughter, who, as I noted upthread, may very well chose to undergo a vicarious LDS baptism on my "behalf". So be it. But I have other preferences that I hope she will honor-- including a recognition of my faith. But what will be will be, and most of all, I hope she will find comfort (assuming she needs comfort and isn't dancing on my grave! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
