Letters to Newsline
Please send your letters for publication to letters@secularism.org.uk. We want to publish as many letters as possible, so please keep them brief – no more than 250 words. We reserve the right to edit. Opinions expressed in letters are not necessarily those of the NSS.
15 January 2010
From Phil Jones:
I awoke this morning (Thursday 14 January) to the struggled musings of John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, on the Today programme. He was attempting to reconcile the supposed existence of a loving, omnipotent God with the tragic events in Haiti. The only appropriate response he was able to muster was that he could offer “nothing which makes sense of the horrors”. Had he paused at that point, then he would, at least, have been intellectually honest. But, no, he meandered onwards to utter several irrelevant, rambling, and borderline absurd opinions.
What, asked interviewer John Humphreys, should we make of this random suffering of innocent people? We need not despair, replied the Archbishop, because Jesus Christ had once been wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger. God was “like Jesus” and was “with us”. We can see God’s “power” expressed in terms of “mercifulness and humility”. Further, the world possessed “tremendous beauty” despite the occasional earthquake or fire. Water, for example, was “beautiful” but could be “devastating”.
With all due respect to the Archbishop – what utter drivel this was! The Haitian earthquake is a consequence of the indifferent application of nature’s physical laws. It is futile to invoke a supernatural context – as the Archbishop’s own responses made plainly evident. One is reminded of the story of the Wizard of Oz. When Dorothy finally reached the end of the road, there was nothing there – just a fellow human being trying his best. It had all been myth and mirage.
The salvation of the Haitian people — and perhaps of humanity in general — will depend upon the goodwill and efforts of human beings, not upon the whim of any fictitious deity.
Ed writes: Hear the Archbishop’s mangled and insulting musings
From Michael Green:
A little advice for those who want to donate in aid of victims of the Haiti earthquake but want to avoid giving money to a faith-based organisation – don't give through the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC). Of the thirteen members of DEC, 5 are faith-based: CAFOD (Catholic), Christian Aid, Islamic Relief, Tearfund (Christian) and World Vision (Christian). Instead, give directly to one of the other 8 or, indeed, to any other secular emergency relief charity which works or will work in Haiti.
From Guy Burch:
There was a wealth of responses in the 8 January Newsline to Ingrid Walker’s bad experience of a ‘secular’ funeral. I have had experience of numerous AIDS-related services where, as you might imagine, there was a high demand for something that excluded attempts by religions that consistently badgered or condemned the deceased in life only to try to claim ‘last rights’ when they died.
I must say first that several representatives of those churches (usually gay) were fantastic in attempting to moderate what was said at services organised by relatives with no knowledge, and often outright hostility to, the person’s life-style. On many other occasions I witnessed appalling, inappropriate ceremonies that had nothing to do with the person concerned but everything to do with going through the motions. The clerics’ default passage — for some reason — seemed always to start with a reading from the singularly inappropriate St Paul’s letters to the Corinthians (at least it wasn’t Leviticus!). In my experience of organising such things, there is nothing whatever to stop the executor from getting what is appropriate if it is prepared for. But one should bear in mind what one of the more empathetic clerics said to me which I think is true: funerals are for the living not the dead. When all is said and done the dead are compost.
In my experience, the secular or humanist approach, with contributions reflecting the individual, really does leave people celebrating and properly grieving. I have attended cremations where the family were joined by friends wearing full rubber and in one I organised I had to exclude the deceased person’s mother at his request. The way it was handled meant the people attending left both lifted and smiling. I personally took the mother and walked her through what had happened the next day explaining directly why he had me do it. The experience was deeply moving precisely because I explained why he asked me to do it, rather than a service that pretended the family were the model of Christian love. You don't need to be a cleric to empathise with both the memory and the living. So, three suggestions. For yourself, have courage and be very clear with everyone before the event — in your will and in person — about what you want on your death. Find a stroppy, conniving and stubborn executor. If you can’t prevent a religious service being decided upon, inveigle to make a little speech (or just stand up and do it) and speak about the real person (or offer to record the music and substitute the correct choice). In my experience you will be thanked by those who cared and the rest will be too timid or flummoxed to stop you. To quote Cicero, what matters in the end is that “the life of the dead consists in being present in the minds of the living”.
From Belinda Forbes:
As a professional civil funeral celebrant, when I meet a bereaved family for the first time, the only thing I know with any certainty is that they don’t want a religious minister to conduct the service. Quite a brave step for some people. Also, in the vast majority of cases, the deceased will have left no instructions about the kind of funeral service they would like (fair warning to you all). In my experience, the families do their utmost to arrange a service which would be appropriate for the deceased. Most people I meet are not atheists, humanists or even secularists. They are people for whom organised religion has little or no place in their lives. But only about 40% of the “non-religious” funerals I conduct are completely devoid of religious or spiritual content. Here are just a few examples of funerals I have conducted:
Young couple burying their baby twin boys aged 4 weeks and 6 weeks. The nurses from the SCBU wrote them a poem referring to their sons as being angels in heaven now. I read that poem.
Young man of 23 committed suicide. His best friend stood up to speak and spoke about him “being in a better place now”. Very moving. Grown up children choose “We’ll Meet Again” for their eighty three year old mum.
54 year old man’s children tell me that they can’t stand religion and nor could their dad. And then promptly choose their dad’s “favourite hymn” as well as the theme tune from Match of the Day. I led the singing!
I am an atheist – I do not believe there is a heaven, a better place, or angels, or that we’ll meet again. Many families may still want a song about angels or a poem about heaven but ... organised religion has no place in their lives – or deaths! And we should celebrate that.
From Barbara Smoker:
The letter from Hugh Drummond advising how to avoid any funeral whatsoever — even humanist — is exactly the instruction I have given for myself at the beginning of each will I have written in the past five decades. Even Jack Becconsall’s mention of the funeral director’s team being present is unnecessary, as they will simply leave the coffin for later disposal, with no one being advised when that will be.
At the same time, I recognise that this arrangement would be inappropriate for most atheists, whose family and friends might be upset by the lack of the funerary get-together. Indeed, I have officiated at well over a thousand non-religious funerals in the past forty-odd years, and was the tutor for the BHA’s first few training sessions for officiants.
However, there was an over-riding factor in my decision to avoid a funeral for myself. Many of my close relations are still practising Catholics, of varying degrees; others, and most of my friends, are non-believers – and I did not want to cause a dispute about the funeral, or even a compromise. In any case, the cremation will have to be delayed to fulfil the arrangement I have recently made with the Alzheimer’s Research Trust for donation of my brain and spinal cord for dementia research (hopefully as a ‘normal control’).
I have no objection to the Catholics arranging a requiem mass for me as long as the corpse does not attend it. Similarly, I have no objection (in fact, rather a sneaking hope) should the atheists consider me worth a memorial meeting. (That way, I’ll get double kudos). But no funeral.
From Graham Martin-Royle:
I have my own plan in place to ensure that my funeral is secular. My will stipulates a secular funeral and if any religion is introduced all provisions are null and void and all my money is donated to named charities. Hopefully this will work, counting on the greed factor that most of us humans have.
From Peter Arnold:
Reading Hugh Drummond's letter (8th Jan) about the way believers tend to organise the rest of us at human burials, we might add that they also try to do so at birth and marriage as well as death, and almost any other time fraught with anxiety and emotion. So it seems to me that perhaps we need a law to allow our next-of-kin to opt in to this imaginary world if they feel so inclined. As it is, and as Hugh has shown, believers have made it quite difficult to opt out.
My corpse will be in no position to object.
From Diana Brown:
Arriving at the age of 70 and having been rather unwell, I have had cause to think about my own demise.
I have become convinced that the traditional funeral ceremony, nowadays usually held at a crematorium, is too rooted in our religious past. If we accept that our lives finish when we die, there is no necessity to hold a funeral "service" in the depressing surroundings of a crematorium. The two essentials are to dispose of the body and to reach some sort of closure by celebrating the life of the dead person. These two essentials can be decoupled.
The dead body is not the person we knew and loved during life. It can be disposed of without ceremony and very cheaply without anyone other than professionals in attendance. In the meantime a celebration can be arranged anywhere the deceased might have approved of. This has the added advantage of avoiding the sausage machine feel of the typical crematorium ceremony, where time is strictly limited to make way for the next funeral.
I have told my family that my body is to be offered for dissection by medical students. I understand that there is quite a shortage of bodies, and it might as well be of use to someone else when it is no longer of use to me. Other readers might also consider practical arrangements of this kind.
From Richard Batchelor:
I wonder if the Austrian Bishops, who insist that the crucifix should be displayed in schools, would object if a model of a medieval gibbet or of a Nazi gas chamber were to be displayed in schools. After all, they are all symbols of torture.
From Mike Kaye:
I was impressed by Mike Lake’s enthusiasm and by his ability to make the vital step from saying that 'someone should do something' to being that someone, and would like to know more about how he actually managed to get involved with being a non-theist representative. Could he perhaps write an article outlining exactly who he contacted, what sort of steps and credentials he needed, what he says when he makes his presentation so that others might follow in his footsteps etc etc? I'm sure that many of us would like to follow his lead, but we just don't know how, nor do we know how much time or energy is required so we are more inclined towards assuming that we don't have the time to do our bit.
From Monty Dinsdale:
I found Mike Lake’s contribution to Newsline most refreshing and constructive although it would have been helpful to identify the ‘we’ referred to in the letter. Is this unique to Derbyshire – or are there other secularist/humanist or similar groups doing this elsewhere in the country? Perhaps NSS could call for the information via Newsline and publish the result. It would also be useful to tap into Mike’s knowledge on how he/his organization established their position and also to have access to his material. It is to be hoped that his example might act as a stimulus to others with similar views to establish the same facility in their areas. I imagine that Mike might even be available to lead a seminar on the subject for interested parties. In the light of the item ‘Church of England to target toddlers in effort to revive itself’ in the same edition of Newsline, Mike’s work is ever more important in providing balance.
From Roger Scotford:
Ivan Bailey's letter (Newsline 8th January) reminds us that Iris Robinson invokes God’s laws to condemn homosexuality and I have read that she quotes Leviticus to support her views. Some of your readers may not have read the article, “Why can’t I own a Canadian?” Those who read it will be rewarded with a good chuckle!
From Sue Cauty:
In his book States of Desire (Picador published 1980 which I recently acquired in a book swap) Edmund White writes (p297)...”The professor was very excited; he had just unearthed a number of medieval poems in Latin written by monks to young boys. These poems had been ignored or suppressed for centuries, and only the diligence of German scholars had preserved the texts at all”...That recalled my CD of Carl Orff's Carmina Burana (André Previn). Here we have 13th century monks having it off with both female, (quote)...Come, come my mistress, I entreat you sore...and male...Shopkeeper, give me the colour to redden my cheeks so that I may catch the young men, thanks to you, for lovemaking...Gershwin’s How Long Has This Been Going On comes to mind! Sad to say, Pope Joan is a myth: but has anyone collated a history of the Catholic Church’s forbidden sex cover-ups?