Is Religious-based Mourning Immoral?

[JLTucker]

An old classmate of mine recently lost her daughter of 15 years. She made a post on Facebook that included the following:

'Who would know it would be her best day of all. Who would know when she walked out of my house at 7:20 that Friday morning, she was going home. She was going to where she knew she belonged. One thing was very clear in her writings was the she considered this place her house and heaven her home."

I found this appalling and immediately thought back to my disgust at similar sentiments when I used to attend church and actively participate in Christianity. In what way can this be seen as a positive justification for the loss of someone you loved deeply? It reeks of approval for the death and tacitly says God was okay to take her.

What goes through the minds of these people? Is this immoral?

[biostem]

I wouldn't say that the mourning itself is immoral, but that the related thinking can be. What I mean is that if your religious belief leads you to *not* take reasonable measures that could save someone's life/not lead to someone's death, because you think that they'll be in a better place after death, can be/is a very dangerous position to take. Assuming your actions prior to said person's passing were not compromised in such a way, then I'd say that your actions afterward weren't necessarily immoral...

[LadyTevar]

My mother is a very Godly woman, but even she finds that kind of "going home" talk to be stupid. You died, you passed away, you lost your battle with illness. You did not "go home to be with" anyone.

[JLTucker]

My mother is a very Godly woman, but even she finds that kind of "going home" talk to be stupid. You died, you passed away, you lost your battle with illness. You did not "go home to be with" anyone.

I can somewhat understand the “going home” sentiments for someone who suffered significantly before death. But the OP situation was a car accident and completely unexpected. I just don’t understand the mother’s thoughts given the spontaneous death. She’s even finding her daughters artwork to make the justification that her daughter wanted to go home to heaven.

[Sea Skimmer]

I just had my best friends brother die, my second close relation to die in five months, 10 days ago.

If you think can understand what a mother is thinking after loosing a 15 year old daughter unexpectedly, off a single facebook post no less, and make some morality judgment off it, something is wrong with you.

[biostem]

I just had my best friends brother die, my second close relation to die in five months, 10 days ago.

If you think can understand what a mother is thinking after loosing a 15 year old daughter unexpectedly, off a single facebook post no less, and make some morality judgment off it, something is wrong with you.

So instead of trying to vilify the OP, why not address the question they posed: "In what way can this be seen as a positive justification for the loss of someone you loved deeply? It reeks of approval for the death and tacitly says God was okay to take her."

If you have no answer, and/or don't wish to make a conjecture, then just refrain from trying to take the moral high ground with your "righteous indignation".

[Sea Skimmer]

So instead of trying to vilify the OP, why not address the question they posed: "In what way can this be seen as a positive justification for the loss of someone you loved deeply? It reeks of approval for the death and tacitly says God was okay to take her."

If you have no answer, and/or don't wish to make a conjecture, then just refrain from trying to take the moral high ground with your "righteous indignation".

Why don't you take your own advice, you do realize this is an entirely hypocritical reply right? In that you have attempted to vilify me, added nothing of your own, and failed to even try to address the actual topic or share anything personal what so ever.

I've been here since day one,meaning a full decade longer then you, I've always been a straight shooter about what I think, and I given it freely. I'll say what I want.

[TheFeniX]

So instead of trying to vilify the OP, why not address the question they posed: "In what way can this be seen as a positive justification for the loss of someone you loved deeply? It reeks of approval for the death and tacitly says God was okay to take her."

The OP is trying to find a logical justification for an incident that brings out some of the worst emotional trauma in a person. The woman who made the Facebook post could be a bible-bumping fundie, but it's also possible she's trying to attribute any kind of justification or order on the random loss of a loved family member.

It's not exactly all that hard to understand why someone would fall back on religion after a significant loss. The idea that your loss was part of a plan and not just a tragic accident can be incredibly comforting. Otherwise, as a parent, it's easy to drown in guilt that you didn't "do more" even though it's almost certain there was nothing you could do.

I won't speak for Sea Skimmer, but the OP comes off to me as a "Can you believe people act irrationally after emotional trauma ?" And I say "duh."

[biostem]

So instead of trying to vilify the OP, why not address the question they posed: "In what way can this be seen as a positive justification for the loss of someone you loved deeply? It reeks of approval for the death and tacitly says God was okay to take her."

If you have no answer, and/or don't wish to make a conjecture, then just refrain from trying to take the moral high ground with your "righteous indignation".

Why don't you take your own advice, you do realize this is an entirely hypocritical reply right? In that you have attempted to vilify me, added nothing of your own, and failed to even try to address the actual topic or share anything personal what so ever.

I've been here since day one,meaning a full decade longer then you, I've always been a straight shooter about what I think, and I given it freely. I'll say what I want.

I posted a response on the topic already - first reply to the OP in fact, therefore, my calling you out is not hypocrisy.

[Lord Revan]

So instead of trying to vilify the OP, why not address the question they posed: "In what way can this be seen as a positive justification for the loss of someone you loved deeply? It reeks of approval for the death and tacitly says God was okay to take her."

The OP is trying to find a logical justification for an incident that brings out some of the worst emotional trauma in a person. The woman who made the Facebook post could be a bible-bumping fundie, but it's also possible she's trying to attribute any kind of justification or order on the random loss of a loved family member.

It's not exactly all that hard to understand why someone would fall back on religion after a significant loss. The idea that your loss was part of a plan and not just a tragic accident can be incredibly comforting. Otherwise, as a parent, it's easy to drown in guilt that you didn't "do more" even though it's almost certain there was nothing you could do.

I won't speak for Sea Skimmer, but the OP comes off to me as a "Can you believe people act irrationally after emotional trauma ?" And I say "duh."

indeed irrational behaviour after major tragegy like accidental death of a child is ironically fully logical and rational when the (emotional) "wound" is fresh, the desire to think it was all part of larger plan rather just a random roll of a dice is merely human.

I'd say being able to act rationally after such a tragegy would be a bigger red flag then irrationally trying to look for a purpose where there is none.

[biostem]

I'd say being able to act rationally after such a tragegy would be a bigger red flag then irrationally trying to look for a purpose where there is none

So you think being able to keep a level-head after a tragedy is a bad thing? That raises a red flag...

[TheFeniX]

I'd say being able to act rationally after such a tragegy would be a bigger red flag then irrationally trying to look for a purpose where there is none.

This is a hard one to gauge. I wouldn't put it the way you do. I would say: it's perfectly logical for someone to break down and search for any meaning after an event like that, but it's also easy to see people swing the other way.

I had to do some research years and years ago on this. Essentially, men are better able to deal with this kind of shit because we're primed at an early age to just be that rock. So, we internalize our grief much better (or worse actually, it's not healthy) than women because society impresses that women are "supposed" to freak out, men are not.

I don't know if men are biologically wired to handle this kind of stress better, it just works out that way. A common issue with marriages after the death of a child is, as said, the wife wants to talk about it and the man just wants to deal with his grief alone or thinks that's his "job" in that situation.

Everyone copes with shit in different ways. The problem is judging them based on how you would, or think you would, react.

[Formless]

Its not immoral. I would say, rather, that the whole "going home" talk is a kind of immature form of existential coping. Not only is she forced to confront the reality of death, but also the fact that it was a meaningless death. A random death. So rather than admit that her daughter was killed at random, she's decided to take solace in religion in two ways: denying the awfulness of death (which is a major selling point of religion), and denying that the death was truly random, even if others conclude the opposite.

Psychologically, people (most people, if not all people) aren't fully prepared to cope with existential crises like that. But no coping mechanism is fully rational, some are just more obviously absurd than others. After all, can you imagine what its like to not exist? Would you even find solace in it if you could? Even attempting to answer those questions is irrational and absurd.

About the only sentiment similar to this where moral condemnation is justified is if she herself was responsible for the accident. Then instead of being a desperate attempt to make sense of senselessness, it would instead be a form of victim blaming and denial of personal responsibility. But it does not look like that is what is going on here. So I would reserve judgement for a time that it isn't so personal for her.

[Lord Revan]

I'd say being able to act rationally after such a tragegy would be a bigger red flag then irrationally trying to look for a purpose where there is none

So you think being able to keep a level-head after a tragedy is a bad thing? That raises a red flag...

there's a difference at "keeping a level head" and being cold blooded, if you looked at what I said instead of just looking for an excuse to be an asshole you'd see what I said is that, not wanting to accept that something bad "just happened" without rime or reason, trying to look for a plan or purpose where there is none is normal.

Or do you really think going "oh well shit happens" after being subject to such a tragegy is a normal response?! No, that comes with time, at first people who aren't total madmen will try to excuse it in their minds as something that "meant to happen" to deal with guilt of "if I had done this then...".

A second time as you probably gonna ignore this anyway in your mad crusade so at least it'll be out there for rest to see. Accepting that bad things just happens comes over time, at first people will irrationally make excuses what to deal with their own guilt, but even then they won't be turning into the Joker as you seem to think I implied.

After all normal people can act irrationally on one thing and fully rationally on other things.

[biostem]

I'd say being able to act rationally after such a tragegy would be a bigger red flag then irrationally trying to look for a purpose where there is none

So you think being able to keep a level-head after a tragedy is a bad thing? That raises a red flag...

there's a difference at "keeping a level head" and being cold blooded, if you looked at what I said instead of just looking for an excuse to be an asshole you'd see what I said is that, not wanting to accept that something bad "just happened" without rime or reason, trying to look for a plan or purpose where there is none is normal.

Or do you really think going "oh well shit happens" after being subject to such a tragegy is a normal response?! No, that comes with time, at first people who aren't total madmen will try to excuse it in their minds as something that "meant to happen" to deal with guilt of "if I had done this then...".

A second time as you probably gonna ignore this anyway in your mad crusade so at least it'll be out there for rest to see. Accepting that bad things just happens comes over time, at first people will irrationally make excuses what to deal with their own guilt, but even then they won't be turning into the Joker as you seem to think I implied.

After all normal people can act irrationally on one thing and fully rationally on other things.

You said "being able to act rationally", not "being cold blooded". If you equate the two, then that's on you, and it's the former that I was responding to. To use your own phrasing "if you looked at what I said instead of just looking for an excuse to be an asshole you'd see what I said is that". Now please stop with the ad hominems.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem implies that your arguments are being ignored in favor of personal attacks. That's not what is happening here, because you don't even have an argument (even the kernel of an interesting philosophical debate to be had in your question is drowned out by your unnecessary vitriol ... I mean, when you make comments like "What goes through the minds of these people?" it's hard to believe you are approaching this from a detached and logical perspective).

No, you're literally just being an asshole for no reason. You are throwing a tantrum because someone in mourning made a vague, generically religious Facebook post, and then throwing another tantrum because people here aren't agreeing with you. And it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in actually having a discussion on the subject, because you've ignored EVERY post in this thread except the ones that you felt gave you an excuse to insult the poster (if you were coming at this in good faith, you would have responded to Formless, for example, instead of continuing to misrepresent Lord Revan's posts). Ironic, too, that you smugly accuse Sea Skimmer of "trying to take the moral high ground with [his] "righteous indignation"," when that is precisely what you are doing in the OP and in every other post in this thread.

Seriously, take a few deep breaths and reflect for a few minutes, because you are acting incredibly immature in this thread.

[Lord Revan]

The funny thing is that I sort of agree that this type of behaviour can be a bad thing should the timeframe from the tragegy be long enough. People mourn in different ways and for different times. but if the time from tragegy is a year or more and you're still in the irrational "there has to be reason and purpose for this" then there's a problem.

People are not robots and when a major tragegy hits you rarely act or think 100% rationally but as I pointed already PEOPLE DON'T TURN INTO THE JOKER JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACT 100% RATIONALLY!. As personal note the death of my maternal uncle hit much harder then the death of my maternal grandfather for the reason that my grandfather died after a long illness so I had time to come to terms with his death before it happened, while my uncle had a sudden heart failure no-one could have predicted, so it came like a lightning bolt from a clear sky.

EDIT:I'm obvious come to terms with both of those deaths since I can discuss them rather breaking down in tears just thinking about, but also obviously their deaths aren't something I like think about either.

[JLTucker]

I just think it’s a cynical way to look at death, that God was justified in killing your daughter and leaving you and others to suffer. Your kid wasn’t suffering whatsoever so he takes her to alleviate her of what, exactly? I don’t think this kind of “coping” comes from anything but a religious mindset and it really is deplorable and does a disservice to the life your loved one lived.

[Formless]

I prefer to think it is immature because, well, it literally reminds me of how children cope with death. Or rather, that they don't have to because they don't understand death to begin with. They tend to think the person or pet that died has just gone to some other physical location, like they are on vacation or something. The metaphysical concept that someone or something can cease existing is cognitively beyond them. The main difference is that religion tells you that while the childish impulse is essentially correct, it isn't a location on Earth or even on the material plane of reality that they have gone to. It denies the other metaphysical possibility, which is impossible for any human to imagine on a base level. On the rational level, death would always be something that happens to other people, not yourself. That's why I say that both coping mechanisms are absurd in their own way, but the religious way is only more obvious because its got an element of denial and, arguably, delusion built in.

But I don't think it is cynical, at least in the form it usually takes in Christianity. No, cynical would be, for instance, the Hindu believer who thinks that poor people were born poor because they committed sins in their past life. Sins they can't even remember. That's victim blaming, and absolves the believer of any duty to help the poor get out of poverty. Or the Calvinist belief that your place in Heaven is predestined and is reflected by your wealth or lack thereof in this life. Or any other religious belief that denies the believer is responsible or has the free will to choose right or wrong action if they understand the concepts. I hope the difference should be obvious.

[Simon_Jester]

I would go farther than that.

I'd say even that becomes cynicism only when it is used by a person to excuse an action we can reasonably say that they 'know' is wrong. Believing poor people were born poor because of sins in a past life is not, in itself, an action that is wrong. And it does not prevent people from working for the overall benefit of society, including the poor, as the recent history of India illustrates.

Denying that the believer is responsible or has the power to choose right or wrong actions are ammunition that can be fired by cynicism, not cynicism itself.

[NecronLord]

JLTucker, you are a twat and a shit head. Same for you Biostem. Words can't do justice to the level of shits you are being.

Skimmer's already said pretty much what I think but Biostem, no, we have an absolute right to vilify the OP when the OP is being cruel for the sake of smugness.

Your decision to parade this woman's pain here and to try and say 'look how morally superior I am for having the sense to disbelieve in fiction' being your chief reaction to human suffering is repellent. Do you look at images of Cholera deaths and decide to come here and post about how smart you are for washing your hands? Of course you fucking don't. People behave in a number of ways and religion, for all its faults, is how most people in the world deal with grief. Have some fucking dignity and compassion. Being an atheist is not a license to mock people's pain or call their reactions childish.

[Broomstick]

I've long said that religion fills needs that logic does not.

If losing a child isn't the worst thing that can happen to a human being it's still damn close to the top of the list, and for most it IS the very worst thing. Even if someone's religion, or religion-inspired viewpoint, is repugnant to me personally if that viewpoint/story/whatever helps the grieving parent cope with horrific loss then it is serving some good. After all, what is the alternative? Drug the person into numbness? Let them suffer unrelieved mental agony?

Or does being an atheist require you to deny comfort to the suffering? That doesn't square with the kind, decent atheists I've known in life.

[JLTucker]

JLTucker, you are a twat and a shit head. Same for you Biostem. Words can't do justice to the level of shits you are being.

Skimmer's already said pretty much what I think but Biostem, no, we have an absolute right to vilify the OP when the OP is being cruel for the sake of smugness.

Your decision to parade this woman's pain here and to try and say 'look how morally superior I am for having the sense to disbelieve in fiction' being your chief reaction to human suffering is repellent. Do you look at images of Cholera deaths and decide to come here and post about how smart you are for washing your hands? Of course you fucking don't. People behave in a number of ways and religion, for all its faults, is how most people in the world deal with grief. Have some fucking dignity and compassion. Being an atheist is not a license to mock people's pain or call their reactions childish.

Blah blah blah. I never said I was morally superior. I also never mocked her. I’m simply tying to understand whether or not this type of behavior is acceptable. I don’t think it is.

It’s a shame you didn’t take the place of her daughter, you rancid cunt. How’s that for legitimate repellant behavior?

Edit: Your appeal to tradition with OMG MOST PEOPLE GRIEVE THIS WAY is hilarious.

[Broomstick]

And what you do have to say to my reply? Or are you just interested in arguing, as opposed to an actual attempt at answer?

[JLTucker]

I've long said that religion fills needs that logic does not.

If losing a child isn't the worst thing that can happen to a human being it's still damn close to the top of the list, and for most it IS the very worst thing. Even if someone's religion, or religion-inspired viewpoint, is repugnant to me personally if that viewpoint/story/whatever helps the grieving parent cope with horrific loss then it is serving some good. After all, what is the alternative? Drug the person into numbness? Let them suffer unrelieved mental agony?

Or does being an atheist require you to deny comfort to the suffering? That doesn't square with the kind, decent atheists I've known in life.

I typically ignore your posts because they offer very little insight in anything, but as you wish.


After spending all day thinking about it, it would be wrong to attempt to rob anyone of their right to mourn and use whatever resources are at their disposal to get through tough times. However, I would not want to hear a friend or even a relative use religion to justify the mourning they're going through. Those assholes did that shit after my dad died and I did tell them to not speak to me, ruining one relationship completely.