…and this is a 
Ken Ham spits on Steve Irwin's corpse
Category: Religion
Posted on: September 6, 2006 9:33 AM, by PZ Myers
My baby sister (she was in her thirties and had two kids of her own, but she'll always be my little sis) died a few years ago of one of those sudden, massive infections—the kind of unexpected reminder of bacterial dominance that killed Jim Henson. When I attended the funeral, I was reminded of another lower life form that afflicts humanity: the minister was an ecstatic Jesus freak who, rather than talking about the young woman we'd lost, or trying to give words of reassurance to a grieving family, instead tried to turn the affair into a revival meeting, asking people to TESTIFY FOR JESUS!!! and otherwise making her superstition the center of attention, rather than Lisa and loss. It galled me no end, as you might guess, and if it weren't for my respect for members of my family I would have grabbed her by the scruff of the neck and thrown her into the street.
Maybe I should have anyway. Goddamn all preachers, pastors, and priests.
My anger was rekindled by Ken Ham's "eulogy" for Steve Irwin. The sanctimonious prat uses it as an excuse to babble rationalizations for his religion, throw a little fear at readers to proselytize for his false promises, and use death as a threat. He doesn't come right out and say it, but the implications he makes are clear. Irwin wasn't a creationist. Ham knows that people tried to reach out to him with creationist literature. For all his wealth and popularity, Irwin died—and you will too. Repent or burn in hell for all eternity. We're left to guess where Steve Irwin is right now…except you'd better accept Jesus or you'll end up in the same place.
Ham is a vile little man, but his sentiments reflect standard Christian tropes. The promises and fears of an afterlife are used to herd the flock into the approved norms of behavior—norms that include respect for and gratuities to the shepherd, naturally—and death becomes an opportunity for reinforcing 'spiritual' authority rather than a time for reflection and appreciation. They don't even use it as a reason to emphasize the importance of living well—death is a reason to waste your time in worship of a phantasm.
The life and death of Steve Irwin reminds us of mortality and enthusiasm and danger and passion. The life of Ken Ham reminds us of how low and despicable and worthless our lives can be if we let religion leech our minds away. Just remind yourself that someday death will whisk Ham away, too, and all he'll leave is a legacy of lies.
Speaking of insensitive jerks, I've been told that Scott Adams also did a little corpse-spitting, had second thoughts, and deleted the entry. The episode has been archived, though.
Comments
PZ I never wanted to kill a sombitch as much as I did the pompadoured grease weasel that performed my mamaw's funeral. That low life scum preached a sermon complete with a call to the altar, and I'm purty sure he was preaching at me since he had been the pastor of my parent's church for twenty years and knew I was a reprobate and that I knew that he knew that I knew he was full of shit. Beginning the day at age 7 I heard him say 'If evolution is true why don't monkeys have human babies?" and I knew that was b.s. then.
Days like this I agree with you that religion is a festering boil on the ass-orifice of humanity.
Posted by: Erasmus | September 6, 2006 9:52 AM
They're just bitter that a hugely popular, enthusiastic guy, made more of an impact communicating the wonders of the natural world than their own particular brand of agressive hellfire.
Still, did anyone honestly expect that Ham wouldn't let Irwin's death go without a little feverish ranting.
Posted by: SteveF | September 6, 2006 9:56 AM
Why th fss? Y r ll spcsts. Th Ry hd s mny rghts s rwn.
t flt thrtnd.
t ctd.
[ NOTE: We really don't have a large scale infestation of trolls. We've got one or a few obsessed creeps who comment under a great many pseudonyms. --pzm ]
Posted by: Peter Singer Follower | September 6, 2006 9:56 AM
Yeah, what's up with these funerals-as-excuse-for-preaching? When my step-grandmother, a lifelong devout Catholic, died a few years back, her funeral was a 3-hour service at the very large church she had attended every Sunday for pretty much her whole life. The family was good friends with the monsignor, very generous to the church, yadda yadda.
During the entire service, the deceased was mentioned exactly twice, both times in the context of what a good church-going Catholic she was. The rest of the service was a long elaborate infomercial for the church.
From now on, it's Irish wakes for me.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | September 6, 2006 10:03 AM
*looks for where anybody suggested the wholesale slaughter of stingrays*
*fails to find it*
Gee, all I see here is a criticism of Ken Ham being a complete opportunist bastard. (As usual.) I don't see any criticism of stingrays at all.
Unless you're suggesting that we should be mourning for the stingray? Well, problem with that is the stingray isn't the one who died in this particular encounter.
Posted by: Joshua | September 6, 2006 10:04 AM
Actually, I'm glad I read that article. I was wondering why Irwin died. Luckily Ham is on hand to provide us with some absolutely vital information:
"Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish (Luke 13:2-5)."
So, now you know.
Posted by: SteveF | September 6, 2006 10:05 AM
Do not feed the trolls, please. Ignoring them is a surer way of getting rid of them than dsmvwllng them.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 6, 2006 10:05 AM
Being (pleasantly) associated with a few Aussies may I suggest that Ham be dropped off in the middle of the Australian Zoo and explain his position and delusions to Mr. Irwin's family and co-workers.
I'd bet we could sell tickets to the event, and the pay-per-view fee would be quite nice.
And I have to agree with PZ, Erasmus and Jonnhy. The last funeral I went to (on my husband's side) was nothing more than a 'come up and be saved or end up like her' bullshit festival. I DID end up taking my children out of the church and spending the 40+ minutes under a tree explaining to my children why some people are so afraid of death.
Posted by: flame821 | September 6, 2006 10:19 AM
I had an experience at a friend's wedding a couple of years ago that was similar to yours at your sister's funeral. I decided then and there that never again would I step foot in any church for any reason. If invited to a church for any of the customary rituals, I will send my regards but will not be part of a captive audience to have my intelligence and charachter insulted.
Posted by: Marlon | September 6, 2006 10:25 AM
To vaguely defend Chrsitian funerals, I went to my Grandads a little over a year ago. It was in a methodist church and obviously the whole God and Jesus lark was mentioned as you might expect, but it was pretty restrained. The vicar concentrated on my Grandad and his life a whole lot more.
I guess it depends on where you go - my local methodist chruch is from the British school of religion, rather laid back about the whole thing. I suspect most of the congregation would be as horrified as your average atheist by the mad ranting form of evangelism that passes for Christianity in much of the US.
Posted by: SteveF | September 6, 2006 10:28 AM
I didn't hear the Ham-headed One's comments, but I can surmise. What a shame. As someone who lives in the Bible Belt, I've been to too many such funerals when the focus was bringing new Christians into the fold rather than comforting the grieved and celebrating pleasant memories of the person who died. And I resent feeling the societal pressure to conform and nod in affirmation of the pastor's words rather than rage at the intrusion. Like a previous poster, only respect for the family has kept me from standing up and walking away. (Ditto for wedding "sermons" too.)
Such intrusive opportunism is appalling.
Posted by: Carolyn Bahm | September 6, 2006 10:33 AM
Yeah, what's up with these Funerals-as-excuse-for-preaching?
Lousy sense of boundries.
One of them started up at my uncle's funeral. My Jewish uncle.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 6, 2006 10:39 AM
Come to think of it, we threw the guy out. How come this doesn't happen more often?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 6, 2006 10:42 AM
Oh, Ken Ham. Just contemptible!
I am fortunate in that my family gets involved in the funeral service. Funerals therefore consist of people getting up and talking about the deceased's life. I must say that the pastor who officiated at my father's funeral was a warm, kind, gentle person and that whole situation went as well as it could go for me. Before my religious father died, he became very scupulous about avoiding sin, etc., and it just makes me crazy to hear the things that he worried about--but the pastor would tease him, "Oh, what insignificant little sin did you commit now?" My father actually thought that he was supposed to "suffer as Christ suffered," and I was scared that he was going to refuse painkillers but his pastor convinced him otherwise, and I'm grateful for that.
Posted by: Kristine | September 6, 2006 10:51 AM
HERE HERE PZ! I just finished reading the AIG article before I got to your blog, I'm glad that you posted exactly what I was thinking.
They JUST stopped short of literally saying that he's going to hell. Shame on them, Steve-o's life may have been short, but he lived the life of 10 men in the span of 1 lifetime. Few people in the this world will EVER do as much good as he did. He was/is truely a treasure, and an inspiration to myself. It's exactly because of passionate people like him that I decided EARLY in my life that my path would be the path of science and the environment.
By the way, I don't know if anyone caught Larry King last night, but it was all about Steve and I thought it was pretty good (they had jack hanna, jeff corwin, and others). There is a little bit of that episode on his website here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/ . I also can not believe how quickly Steve Irwin tributes have been showing up on youtube, there are allready a ton of them.
Again, if anyone wants to donate to Wildlife Warriors (Steve's creation), here is their website: http://www.wildlifewarriors.org.au/ They have to look for new sources of funding now that their biggest backer, and founder, is gone...
Posted by: matthew | September 6, 2006 10:56 AM
Ken Ham is a disgusting, appalling excuse for a Christian. Whatever miniscule respect I had for him is gone. Part of me wants to see him flayed for this reprehensible, inexusable act.
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2006 10:57 AM
PZ: Sorry about that. I forgot that trolls were being disemvowelled here. Sometimes, I just can't hold back the snark, ya know?
As for preachy funerals, it definitely depends on who leads the service. It's equally definitely really, really tacky. If not straight-out offensive. (Ken Ham's statements are clearly offensive, but I like to believe that most of the ministers who preach at funerals don't say, "Well, he deserved it!" That's a quite special brand of sickness.)
I've been fortunate in that the family funerals I've been to have always been focussed very strongly on remembering the deceased, with people getting up and telling stories. Sure, there would be prayers, but that really just reflects the religiosity of most of my family rather than any kind of conversion agenda. Prayers are just their form of well-wishing and rememberance. Nobody coopted the ceremonies for preaching fire and brimstone.
I think it is, to great degree, a cultural phenomenon, moreso than being specific to any brand of Christianity. My father was a very strong, very fundamentalist Baptist for most of his life (later switching to a Foursquare church, which is more Pentacostal-style; one fundamentalism for another), but even still his funeral service was as I said above: rememberance, not preaching. That's just the culture in Hawaii. It's very family-oriented, rather than religion-oriented (while claiming to be family-oriented) as it may be in other parts of the US.
Posted by: Joshua | September 6, 2006 11:00 AM
Is there a way I can send the following?
Hey Ken Ham,
How's that criminal case going? You know, the one where you and your wife lied to the IRS about your income and didn't pay the taxes (aka rendering unto Ceasar)? The rest of us call that theft. And how about your museum that got shut down because you violated permit ordinances? We call that obeying the law. And then there is that whole "Dr. Dino (or is it Dinero?) shtick where you misrepresent, misquote, mislead the audience about science and scientists. We call that lying. It's nice to know you are on high moral ground so you can exploit the tragic death of another to push your con...er, "message" on the public. I believe we call that parasitism, or maybe necrophaga. Oops, just noticed I'm out of TP. Can you send me some of your tracts so I can put them to their proper use?
Posted by: King Spirula | September 6, 2006 11:01 AM
From the Suggested Corrections Dept.:
Rewrite as:
I think the second rendering is clearer, and likely subtle enough to fly below the right-wing radar.
Posted by: Warren | September 6, 2006 11:03 AM
Somehow I'm reminded of Thoreau: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation... From the desperate city you go into the desperate country and have to console yourself with the braveries of minks and muskrats... Yet it is characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things." Ken Ham and his ilk are all about the desperation-- without it, no one would be fool enough to pay them for their 'services.' No wonder they seize on death like the vultures they are.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | September 6, 2006 11:06 AM
Um, King Spirula, you're thinking of Kent Hovind, who doesn't happen to be officially affliated with Answers In Genesis...
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2006 11:07 AM
I think you're talking about Kent Hovind, King Spirula.
Which is not to say that I have never mixed those two up. Partners in crime, Ken and Kent. Opportunists both.
Posted by: Kristine | September 6, 2006 11:09 AM
I've had the same funeral experience you described -- at the funeral for an agnostic friend who had a Catholic family. They spent a good part of it praising her faith, which she didn't have, because she was smarter than the rest of them.
I've really had enough of this Christianity crap. Everyone who contributes to the spread of organized religion should receive the same prison sentence as anyone who contributes to the spread of anthrax.
Posted by: JasonN | September 6, 2006 11:24 AM
In Late 2004 my niece was almost killed by a black rhino while doing research on rhinos in Imfolozi-Hluhluwe Game Reserve, Kwazulu/Natal, South Africa. Airlifted from the site of the accident, she remained unconscious for 6 weeks while doctors and surgeons sought to save her and repair extensive damage to both legs and pelvis.
Fearing the worst, my sister called on myself, and two of my nephews to head up to the IC ward in the hospital where she was being housed. One of them is a member of a charismatic christian church being trained as some sort of missionary.
Viewing my niece, lying unconscious in a critical state, with all manner of tubes, monitors and medical equipment attached and having a spell like incantation being chanted at the same time (along with a few exhortations thrown in) chilled me. I
It was not so much what was said but rather the tone in which it was said: an almost arrogant, superior one which, in a way mocked us and our fear. It mocked the science that was trying (and did) keep her alive. What was insidious, was the way in which it seemed he pursued his own selfish feelings above those who had perhaps come to see, and be with someone who perhaps had only afew moments left to live.
Her story can be read here:
http://www.talkingtravel.co.za/november2005.html#kirsten
& here:
http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/2004/09/23/news/n04_23092004.htm
And details about the research project here:
http://www.5050.co.za/inserts.asp?ID=6073
Posted by: jacksondbn | September 6, 2006 11:31 AM
I have attended three Quaker funerals in my time. (my mother and my grandmother, and grandfather) I found it rather respectful of the deceased. The Quaker "service" is held in a room with pews or chairs. There isn't any alter or anything like that. There isn't any preacher. Everyone comes in and sits down. When somone has something to say they stand up and say it. They can tell a joke, they can read from a book, they can speak from their heart. When they are finished they sit down. Then someone else can stand up and speak if they feel like it. The general rule is not to get up and speak while someone else is speaking.
Most people talk about the deceased. Some tell a funny story. (and people do laugh) In the three I went to no one tried to prothalisize or preach "hell fire and damnation". It was more like a get together of friends to remember someone.
It ends when no one has anything else to say. (generally about an hour later) There is a designated person to kick it off and end it, but all they do is welcome everyone, explain the "rules" (standard ettique, don't interupt others) and notice when no one has anything more to say they get up and dismiss everyone.
Posted by: jim | September 6, 2006 11:35 AM
My dad died in May and the preacher at the funeral did the exact same thing. I think they need to undergo sensitivity training, if this is the norm.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | September 6, 2006 11:39 AM
For my grandfather, we didn't really have a funeral. He was cremated, and we had a bit of a wake with friends and family. No preacher was present, and everyone thought it was good. We didn't even bury him or scatter the ashes; he's still in an urn in the living room.
I did have experience with preacher weddings. A friend's wedding was like that, hardly any talk of my friends getting married, or of marriage itself. Mostly just preaching; it was exactly like a church service with a 5 minute wedding ceremony tacked on the end.
Posted by: King Aardvark | September 6, 2006 11:41 AM
My great-grandfather died recently, and they held the funeral at the Pentacostal church he had founded and pastored for 70+ years.
I was not surprised that the funeral was used as a sermonizing opportunity. It's exactly what my great-grandfather would have wanted. There were a lot of people there who would never step foot in the church otherwise. A lot of unsaved souls.
The logic is that there is nothing in this world more important than being saved. Once you accept the Christian cosmology, it's the only logical way to be. What does suffering or death in this world mean in the grand scheme of your eternal existence? This life isn't your real life, it's some shadowy, muddy, fleeting, dreamlike precursor to your real existence, which will be eternal, and clear and sharp with pure joy or unrelenting hellish torment. Given this worldview, what kindness can you do anyone that compares to saving his soul? Grief is irrelevant. You'll never know true grief unless you find yourself in hell.
So I understood what they were doing and why it was appropriate at this man's funeral, but I also felt very alienated and rather cold toward the whole thing. Then two of my cousins got up and started to speak about their memories of the man. These two women are no longer part of the church, and I know they asked to speak because they wanted at least a small part of the service to be dedicated to the memory of the man as a grandfather rather than a preacher. I was grateful to them for speaking, because it was the only time during the service I felt emotionally involved. It was the only time I didn't feel like an outsider at my own grandfather's funeral.
But I could see the elders of the church sitting behind them getting antsy and even irritated. These two women were creating a distraction. They were wasting time that could be used for something more important. And I knew that my great-grandfather lying in the casket in front of them would have agreed. Heck, he probably would have refused to let my cousins speak.
It's wrong to stereotype ministers as cynical manipulators. I'm certain my great-grandfather believed in what he preached. He wasn't in it for money. He never lived a lifestyle more opulent than what would be described as lower middle-class. The salary he took from the church in later years was $300 per month.
I walked away from the church as soon as I was old enough to assert myself. I have lots of issues with the church and the role the religion has played in my family. But I do recognize that the funeral sermon is an unavoidable byproduct of consistency of belief.
I think only a pastor or priest with shallow belief could give a funeral service that comforted the living without regard to their religious alignment, and honored the life of the dead as if it were his real life. Such priorities don't really make sense if you've truly embraced the Christian cosmology.
Posted by: Max Udargo | September 6, 2006 11:41 AM
One of the catalysts of my "embracing my inner atheist" was the sudden death at 38 of a childhood friend, who had some 12 years earlier been born again. She attended the Calvary Chapel megachurch, so her service was less about her life (other than how she prayed so hard for her loved ones' salvation in Christ) than it was about getting people to come up for the obligatory altar call. Her own daughter wasn't even allowed to eulogize her mom, much less anyone else. The preacher was the sole speaker and he sermonized for 45 minutes. My friend's (nominally Catholic) father was fit to be tied, and I barely retained enough composure to wait to start screaming obscenities until I got into the car after the service.
Ken Ham isn't fit to scrape the muck from the boots of Steve Irwin; and it's difficult NOT to wish there's a place of eternal torment into which people like him, who prey upon the vulnerability of those in mourning of a loved one in order to get more converts. It's disgusting.
Posted by: OB | September 6, 2006 11:54 AM
It is a reasonable assumption that anyone who is a long-time member of a church has some understanding of that church's funereal rites, and expects no less on the occassion of their own death. What makes this inappropriate is when family, making decisions for the deceased, provide them the dubious benefit of posthumous membership in a church to which they never belonged in life. The lesson those of us without religion should take from this is to make clear our wishes: that we wish to be remembered as we lived, and that in our memorials, we want no religious rites, no prayers, no preachers, pastors, or priests.
Posted by: Russell | September 6, 2006 11:58 AM
My atheist uncle died suddenly of heart disease at age 54. "For the family", we had the Catholic funeral he never wanted. I can understand that some of the living might want something different from the last wishes of the dead, but the idea of holding a religious funeral for an adamant atheist disturbed me at the time (I was 19) and still disturbs me today.
As for Ham: I don't care a whit about him while he's living, and I don't give a crap where he goes when he dies.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | September 6, 2006 12:04 PM
My brother's funeral several months ago was the same evangelical advertisement. Creepy, really creepy. The funeral home was the same way. So, where was the comfort for the grieving family?
Next time, I guess I'll take my iPod and find a nice science podcast to listen to.
This looks like a good reason to get ex-communicated from the Catholic church. They'd have to refuse to give me a funeral, I would think. Awww.
Posted by: Mrs. Peach | September 6, 2006 12:07 PM
Thank you for your website and views. At first I thought you might just be an angry old bastard, but I guess I myself am an angry young bastard. I sympathize with you on the funeral for your sister and I know a lot about the whole, "come to Jesus" fiasco. I had to listen to this girl I worked with over the summer tell me that I'm going to hell for my thoughts and views. I myself am hoping for a deeper circle of hell, haha, just keeping my fingers crossed in some cynical slur of sarcasm.
I myself wasn't a huge fan of Steve Irwin, but when I saw he had died I felt bad, because he was such an ecstatic guy, glad to be alive... and the whole crickey brought a smile to mine and everyone's face. He brought some forms of joy to me when I saw him on television, and in these times, people will always show their true colors... and unfortunately they're be a lot of these assholes who feel a need to "convert" people and make Steve's an example because of his misfortune. He's a lot better man than a majority of the preachers out there. He's done a lot more than all the preachers I know.
Thank you again.
Posted by: Will Clingan | September 6, 2006 12:11 PM
Kristine,
You're right, my mistake. Although, for some reason, I keep confusing the two, maybe something to do with their virtually identical arguments.
Posted by: King Spirula | September 6, 2006 12:11 PM
for some reason, I keep confusing the two
So do I. Their initials don't help. I think those two even look alike!
Posted by: Kristine | September 6, 2006 12:25 PM
I've been here a few times now and I am absolutely amazed at how each and every one of you highly-evolved brights are so totally and utterly convinced that the movement of your own particular neuro-chemicals are somehow TRUE.
You must be constantly measuring the truthiness of your molecular movements against something "out there" otherwise how could you know your "thoughts" (simply molecular motion remember) are TRUE. This TRUTH idea is imponderable.
I don't mind if you state what the current movement of your molecules force you to state but you all seem so convinced that it's better to have your molecules moving in a certain way than in another way. Where did you get this idea from? It's certainly NOT part of the evoutionary canon.
Why are you so angry at Mr Ham? He can't help it.
Just state what your molecules are doing and leave it at that. That's all Mr Ham was doing. He is NOT repsonsible for the position of his chemicals. Responsibility is also NOT part of the evolutionary canon.
I am NOT responsible for these words either. I have no choice but to simply state what position my chemicals are in at this point in time. Moralizing. Isn't that absurd? A remnant of your religious past? It's absurd to assign a TRUTH value to your molecules.
Shortened Form: The chemicals made him do it.
P.S. Whatever response you might make to this essay has no meaning for me. In your world meaning can have no meaning. Virtually everything you have written is philosophy, psychology or religion. For self-professed scientists most of you appear to have little ability to do real science. Just measure and report please. None of us can help the position that our chemicals are in. Blame? That's just trying to force your own particular version of chemicals on mine. Absurd waste of time.
Posted by: Ronald Van Wegen | September 6, 2006 12:25 PM
The first step is to realize that pastors and deacons really just don't have any authority--they aren't able to reach into some deep dark realm which the rest of us can't find. Their revelations are mundane and human, and so are their motives.
If you don't understand something, don't give them the benefit of the doubt. If something goes unspoken in your small group, bring it up. Realizing a lack of faith or belief is the first step to either solving it or discovering that no one is satisfied with the question.
Posted by: Mayonaise | September 6, 2006 12:29 PM
Jacksondbn, I can sympathize
When my wife had some fairly invasive surgery she was in intensive care for a day and in a hospital room for 3 more. While she was checking in, when the hospital asked her about her religion she told them she wasn't religious and asked them to not send a religious counselor during her recovery.
During intensive care I was by her side the whole time and never saw a religious person. After she had checked into a room and was heavily sedated I took a break to get some food. Once I got back I found a preacher comfortably seated in her room and talking to her. My wife, whose first language is Korean, not English, was groggy with morphine, confused, and asked me in Korean who this guy was when I entered the room.
I asked the preacher what the hell he was doing, and he had the nerve to tell me that my wife had called him. I later figured out she had called for me in Korean because she wanted a blanket. Since she was on morphine her speech was a mash-up of Korean & English that no one would understand. Preacher man came in and started a one-sided 'conversation' with my incoherent wife.
When I told him we were non-believers and that he had to leave, he tried to give me a cheap pocket bible. I'm afraid I got rather nasty afterwards.
Posted by: Calladus | September 6, 2006 12:32 PM
They do it then because it's all they've got. Think of it - if you follow the basic tenets, you give up most all of the fun things of life and doom yourself to a lifetime of feeling guilty when you do slip up and always afraid that Daddy's going to get you for it. The only time they've got a decent chance to convert people is by forcing open the tiny chink of worry about mortality and shoving god into it.
Do not feed the trolls, please. Ignoring them is a surer way of getting rid of them than dsmvwllng them
I keep thinking it would be fun to take one of those posts and rewrite it with different vowels to create an entirely different meaning, or perhaps a version of spam gibberish, but I have neither the time nor creativity needed to do so.
Why th fss? Y r ll spcsts
Why those ferrets? You race llamas, spectators.
See? I can't do it.
Posted by: Carlie | September 6, 2006 12:33 PM
My little brother was 18 when he died after a 10-month battle with cancer, and he will always be 18 and my little brother). My parents are atheist and agnostic, but my grandparent were religious. My grandmother insisted on a church service, but we attached some conditions. The whole service was entirely about my life-loving brother, and we played heavy metal and hard music the entire time, there wasn't a single "hymn" throughout the ceremony. My brother was rather popular and about 300 people attended the ceremony, and I remember through my tears, I could see people nodding their heads to Metallica, Iron Maiden and the like. And the reverend never once mentioned that the background music was inapropriate. I've never known another funeral like it. It is definitely possible to have a service that pleases both sides of the family.
Posted by: makita | September 6, 2006 12:34 PM
It's their chance to try to recruit new converts who don't normally go to any church service.
What's scarier than death? Great opportunity to make your case for your eternal soul.
We're all gonna die! Come to Jesus and you get to see you relatives when you do!
I say wear your "Jesus was wrong" t-shirt to the church.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 6, 2006 12:36 PM
PZ, I just want to thank you again for the kill file script!
It has really helped bring me a more rational understanding of molecular movement in neuro-chemistry.
Posted by: Calladus | September 6, 2006 12:41 PM
I've never been to a Quaker funeral (but my grandmother was offered one by her Quaker friends if a humanist one couldn't be arranged- this was in the '80s and the British Humanist Association wasn't as influential, or widespread as it is now), but I have attended a Quaker wedding- which is much the same. I think God was mentioned once. Maybe not at all.
My mother's parents both had humanist funerals- they're becoming much more common in the UK, and they concentrate on the person. They're very much like the Quaker ceremonies in that respect. And yes I think we did laugh.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | September 6, 2006 12:59 PM
Ronald, you fail to realize that the reason why Prof Myers is so angry with Ken Ham is because Ken Ham is using Steve Irwin's death as an opportunity to both insult the deceased (by inferring that because Steven never repented the sin of believing in evolution, his death was not only just, but inevitable, and that he's now burning in hellfire, forever denied God's love), and to frighten more people into converting to Christianity.
...
Tell me, Ronald, does your faith in God excuse you for belittling justified anger towards injustices committed by a charlatan?
Posted by: Stanton | September 6, 2006 12:59 PM
I kicked a minister out of my father's funeral reception. I had explicitly asked him to go light on the religious aspect, and yet he assured all comers - many of whom were non-Christian - that they'd burn in hell without Jesus. I regret not punching him, but my mom wouldn't have been impressed with that.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2006 1:05 PM
My grandma was catholic, but all of her sons and grandchindren are atheists (except for one guy who keeps seeing flying saucers, but never mind him). When she died, we held a service in her church, mostly for her (many) religious friends. It was a very small church, and all of us bunch of atheists had to seat in front. In the middle of the service (I don't really remember what the priest said) my uncle whispered us to stand up
- Stand up, everybody is up! Tell the others!
and a few moments later:
- Sit, sit! Everybody is sitting again!
And on it went untill the end of the service. None of us knew when to sit or stand, we had to keep looking towards the back of the church, where the religious people were, to see what to do.
Even though it was my grandma's funeral, that was very funny!
Posted by: andre | September 6, 2006 1:07 PM
I went to my landladies humanist funeral recently. I was very impressed (if thats the right word to use); dignified, moving yet also positive and uplifiting.
Also, I was happy to learn that she was buried a few plots away from the legendary British geologist Roderick Murchison, who instituted the Silurian system and performed some absolutely heroic feats of geologic mapping.
Posted by: SteveF | September 6, 2006 1:08 PM
"I had an experience at a friend's wedding a couple of years ago that was similar to yours at your sister's funeral. I decided then and there that never again would I step foot in any church for any reason."
If it was their wedding, clearly that was how they wanted their wedding to be run. That shouldn't offend you, as the day was specifically about them. Obviously, their faith was very important to them, it is part of their relationship, and therefore they felt strongly it should be part of their wedding.
As for preaching at funerals--if it is for a very devout person who clearly would want their funeral to be administered in that fashion, then there shouldn't be a problem in anyone's mind--again, if it was important to that person, they probably would have wanted that, and in fact, probably expressly requested it. If, however, the person was not devoutly religious and would not have ever wanted that kind of a funeral--you are correct, that is, in fact, disrespectful to the deceased and their wishes, and therefore offensive.
My uncle's funeral was of the former variety, and since I knew him, I knew that was exactly how he would have wanted it, and it was a very fitting and appropriate memorial to him.
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2006 1:16 PM
It's stuff like this that makes me, at exactly Steve Irwin's age, to have my funeral already laid out and communicated to my loved ones to prevent ANY preaching being done at it or about it. I have a great reading from Phil Pullman's "The Amber Spyglass" about death, some good quotes from the infidel Greek philosophers (but you know, like the sunny upbeat ones--"Where you are, death is not; where death is, you are not"--that sort of thing), a few god-free songs (including the Rush song "Bravado"), and even a clip from Joss Whedon's TV series "Angel." To reflect who I am in the least, my funeral must "testify" for the other side, and promote reason and human values. I think this might be a good idea for other non-religious people, too.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | September 6, 2006 1:17 PM
Actually, the last funeral I went to was a rather nice experience, considering. I'm an atheist and the funeral was for a friend of mine who was agnostic, but his family was devoutly Catholic. However, out of respect for Vinny (my friend) the family limited the priest to an opening benediction and one hymn. The rest was an hour of memories of him. I can't imagine a better way to recognize someone's death than to share all the memories you have with others who will miss him just as much. Far more meaningful than any sermon.
Posted by: Claire | September 6, 2006 1:17 PM
I think that you really need to know who is going to be giving the service. The priest at my step-father's father's funeral started the sermon telling us that it was too late for him because his life was over but the rest of us should start going to church because we needed to be ready for when our time comes. My father-in-law was from Turkey and wasn't a very devout muslim and even went to church occasionally. He once told me that he wanted to have freedom of religion in his house so his kids would have been allowed to go either way or have none at all (which is what happened). He really was a wonderful man in a lot of ways. My mother-in-law is friends with the minister at her church. He gave a Christian service but also included passages from the Koran rather than getting an imam. It was a real service, not a generic "go to church!" lecture that seems to be the norm from what I am seeing here. I wonder how many other families that priest annoyed.
Posted by: Mena | September 6, 2006 1:20 PM
Kristine:
Here's the question. Have they ever been seen together? Perhaps they are only one person?
That said, I've confused the two. Differentiating is like trying to decide if an egg is spoiled or rotten.
PZ and everyone: I'm sorry for your losses, and even more sorry that you were abused by the clergy while dealing with them.
Posted by: ArtK | September 6, 2006 1:21 PM
andre: my husband's family is devout catholic and I've had to go to church with them for family functions a few times. I had exactly the same experience, except I was on my lonesome. My inner dialogue was like this:
Oh crap, everyone is kneeling!
Okay, stand up now. Do that thing with your hands
And now they're all sitting.
Man that incense makes me want to sneeze.
Why do people keep trying to shake my hand?
And so on. And it was weird to see my husband, who is not officially an athiest but has no religious practice at all, do everything so robotically and automatically.
Catholic mass is not for the uninitiated, I guess.
Posted by: plucky punk | September 6, 2006 1:39 PM
FALSE. At our wedding, we had a preacher at the in-laws request, and we said specifically that we were not religious, and asked him to refrain from a lot of religious talk -- that it would be inappropriate. He even agreed. Then, once the two of us were standing up there, he went into the Jesus jive.
What the happy couple wanted was for there to be no incidents and for everything to move smoothly so we could get on with our lives, so I didn't smack him. I've gotten more curmudgeonly over the years, though, so if we were to go through it again, I would tell him to shut up and sit down.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 6, 2006 1:47 PM
This behaviour (trying to sell your religion at a funeral) is every bit as tacky--and morally worse-- than if , e.g., McDonald's bought the rights to come in, erect some golden-arches decorations over the casket and spend a few moments explaining to the bereaved why they deserve a break today. At least McDonald's would pay the bereaved a few bucks for the rights.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 6, 2006 1:49 PM
Oh, and I wrote about this a while back. Warning: there is another picture of a youthful PZ there that will frighten the horses.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 6, 2006 1:51 PM
Man, Scott Adams is a fuckwit. WTF. And his commenters are apparently as dense as he is. How's about we make a little jokey joke about tragic death! So funny!
Posted by: Michael | September 6, 2006 1:55 PM
Even a civil marriage is no guarantee that the god-botherers won't try to preach at you, at least in the Bible Belt. My fiancee at the time (now wife) arrived a few weeks ago from Thailand on a fiancee visa, which has the condition attached that you contract a marriage within a certain period of time. Since we were planning a Buddhist ceremony back in Thailand for this coming spring, we decided to have a civil ceremony to get the legal niceties taken care of. Got our license, picked up a friend to serve as a witness, showed up at the courthouse, got an appointment to see a judge. The judge started his little spiel about the importance of marriage, the importance of communication, blah blah... boring but rather inoffensive stuff. Then he started the Jesus stuff. I winced but didn't say anything (was just ready to get the paper signed and get out), my fiancee just smiled (she can't understand Southern accents very well and had no idea what he was talking about)... my witness, after the first couple minutes, helpfully interjected "Umm... your honor? She's Buddhist and he's an atheist." Which deflated him a bit, but not enough to stop him- his remark was that he was just doing his standard speech, it wouldn't last more than a couple minutes, and at the end we'd be just as married one way or the other. Which we were.
In the end, I guess it serves me right for expecting a government official in Mississippi to understand the distinction between civil and religious authority.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 6, 2006 2:06 PM
My younger sister, a great-hearted and loving person, was diagnosed with a rare, progressive liver disorder, possibly caused by exposure to agricultural chemicals while she was working at an experimental seed farm in order to pay for college.
A Southern Baptist friend of her husband's used my sister's illness to terrify him into converting. However my sister refused to knuckle under this guy's persistance. During the fifteen years, as her disease slowly progressed, was briefly held off by a liver transplant, and then finally descended to the end, she maintained her independence and dignity.
Her funeral however was an outrage. It was held in her husband's church. The friend got up and announced that during the week before she died, he and two other church members formed a 'tag team' that prosthletized my dying sister daily until she finally 'accepted the Lord'. I lived four hundred miles away from her, and had spent the previous week with her, helping her wrap up personal matters. If I'd known tht this evil plan was afoot, I'd have stayed and defended her to the end.
Needless to say, my other siblings and I were appalled both at these heartless 'spiritual' marauders, and her husband for failing to defend her peace.
Posted by: N'Mom | September 6, 2006 2:09 PM
PZ writes, "At our wedding, we had a preacher at the in-laws request, and we said specifically that we were not religious, and asked him to refrain from a lot of religious talk."
One of the tropes common to Christians is that their religion isn't actually a religion at all. Since what they believe and do was invented by a "real" god, unlike all those other religions invented by man, it's not really religion. Or by religion, they mean the church and its trappings, not the beliefs behind it. In other words, their brainwashing is so deep that many believers have lost the understanding of some common English words. It's really an amazing thing.
Posted by: Russell | September 6, 2006 2:12 PM
Stingrays will sting you if you mess with them, and so will preachers. It's what they do.
Posted by: Jim Wynne | September 6, 2006 2:17 PM
This reminds me very much of my cousin's funeral. There was, to the pastor's credit, quite a bit about his life, but the "Christian" elements of it were overemphasized (I'm not sure much of anything else was, actually), and the tone of the sermon was aggressively pro-Jesus and in addition to a kind of evangelical opportunism vibe, it gave me a presumably unintentional, but intense, message of exclusion. "This is a Christian funeral for Christians. What do you mean we aren't all Jesus Freaks here?" is what they seemed to be saying; and I KNOW I wasn't the only unbeliever present. And I found it particularly galling when the pastor insisted, almost verbatim, that "our only hope and comfort is the promise of resurrection through Christ." Somehow, I don't think my cousin, devout as he was, would have agreed with that.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 6, 2006 2:23 PM
I'm with PZ here. Weddings do NOT go exactly as the happy couple want them to, because the pastor will do whatever he damn well pleases. Point of fact, I went to a wedding of two very good friends, and it included a long, long, LONG harangue on the evils of divorce. Much longer than the ceremony itself. Another friend who was attending said at the reception afterward very sweetly, "I didn't think that was really appropriate". Oh, BTW, the couple is now divorced. Lotta good that harangue did.
Posted by: mndean | September 6, 2006 2:35 PM
Ronald, what on earth are you babbling about? I think it's time you upped the dosage on your own 'chemicals.'
Posted by: minimalist | September 6, 2006 2:36 PM
I can't reach the archived link to Scott Adams' fuckwittedness. Is it me or has it been removed?
Posted by: mndean | September 6, 2006 2:40 PM
Ronald,
Stay off the pipe man.....and go get some help.
Posted by: Alex | September 6, 2006 3:15 PM
Please, shhhh, I think that Ronald's chemicals have settled to a steady state. Don't shake him or he may react again.
He's a mixture. Vinegar and water. If you get my drift.
Posted by: Kristine | September 6, 2006 3:17 PM
does anyone have a copy of the scott adams thing? the archive seems to be gone too
Posted by: zwa | September 6, 2006 3:21 PM
@Ronald
What a coincidence...
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | September 6, 2006 3:49 PM
I think this is the Scott Adams post in question:
Posted by: Nicholas | September 6, 2006 3:52 PM
Ronald.. You are clueless. First off, not valuing your BS doesn't mean we arbitrarilly devalue other things. Second, I also don't blame my computer when a part fails, my software for when it crashes or the cord on my TV when the power fails. I do blame, in proper order, the company that made the defective parts, the company that wrote buggy software, then didn't give me much option to buy something that worked better, and the city of Lake Havasu for not #$@#$#$ following their own charter by installing underground systems, but opting instead to put up over head powerlines every place, in an area that, for roughly 2-3 months a year, has massive lighthing storms every other week.
I don't **entirely** blame the clueless dimwits that get dragged into religion, turned into mindless zombies that can't understand that they shouldn't use every person they see as a urinal, in order to promote their delusions, but human brains, despite being nothing but chemicals, have a) adaptive ability, and b) unpredictable events that effect how thoughts form, both of which lend this mass of chemicals the capacity to change its opinions, or at the very least, opt to show enough respect to fracking shut up. Ken Ham has obviously never had the need or d