So, I made a recent public comment about the passing of a certain individual who had had a challenging life which included the tragic accidental death of their teenage child, a terminal illness themselves and a spouse who was not faithful. I expressed the view that this person was, from the grave, grateful to finally be enjoying peace from a life of challenge and travail.

An individual wrote to complain to me, via a letter also sent out for publication, as follows:

"What a tasteless [view] . . . .

". . . [Your] opinions are off base . . . . [S]hame on you . . . [for] . . . depicting [this individual's] tombstone.

"There is a biblical verse which reads 'A fool who says nothing is percieved to be wise' which I believe applies to [your view]."
_____


I replied:

"Interesting.

"I received a phone call today from [someone] who regarded [my view] as having been [expressed] sensitively and appropriately, given that [the deceased individual] is now at rest from all the trials and pain associated with [their] life (the loss of a son, [their] battle with cancer and the philanderings of [their spouse]).

"Perhaps you two should coordinate in the future. :)"

(I didn't mention to the critic that this person who emotionally phoned in to agree with my view also said, "God bless you." I mean, hell, why rub it in?)
_____


The critic replied:

"Thank you for your reply. Your [view] does contain an element of truth though I believe that those who were close to [this person] might prefer it not be presented in a public forum . . . . From a theological standpoint, I would like to believe [they are] now residing in heaven rather than a hole in the ground. Both of those thoughts prompted me to send my original E-Mail."
_____


To which I responded:

"The death of [this person] has been reported in public forums. I commented on it in a public forum. That’s what I do. Thanks for your input. It sounds like you are projecting on to [this individual] your own beliefs, however--as you yourself have essentially admitted. Some might consider that offensive. :)"
_____


These holier-than-thou hypocrites who think that a self-righteously uttered scripture from their Bibles wins the day.

Think again, pal.

Geezus.



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 07:17PM by steve benson.

Christians have the "moral high ground", so they get to judge non-christians by their standards, but we don't get to judge christians by those same standards. And it ain't just on the issue you present, either. It's pretty much over anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 04:58PM by helamonster.

Sigh.

Please, don't be coy.

I just hate when Christians are so serious and screw it up for ones like me to be taken seriously by people who are not Christians. Just that old "race" card-esque type deal about Christians being judgmental and pegging them that they all think alike about everything and everyone and that you've got their "number" so to speak about their ideas on everything. I don't think anything like that person who criticized his cartoon.

Just please realize that when I make sweeping statements about christians, I am only using the same kind of argument that the author of that letter might have made.

I recognize that most christians are actually decent folk (IN SPITE of, rather than due to their faith), but then the decent ones aren't the ones who are generally the most vocal, are they?

Haha! Well, I'm not so sure most of us ARE decent, to be honest with you. There are many times in my life I've rolled my eyes at narrow view points, and extreme ideas and beliefs. Mine have evolved and changed over the years and I believed some pretty ridiculous things, and probably still do. To me that cartoon was nowhere near offensive in any way. So, really I don't get that person.

Poignant and tasteful. (But, I'm not a Christian.)

Indeed, she must have suffered greatly during her tragic and tragically-shortened life.

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/commphotos/show.php?colid=16346&slide_nbr=1&fAZ=1&HTTP_REFERER=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/#2


I do wonder what RfM Christians would think of the cartoon.

Well, I can't give The View of RfM Christians because we're not a collective, but I can say I agree with your view about it - poignant and tasteful.

If some see it as an atheist's view that one's body lies rotting in a grave after death, okaaaay. But I saw it as evidence of life after death - a conscious thought being expressed by the deceased. :)

Not that I uber-analyzed it for evidence of the creator's religious views (or views on religion) until you asked.

I think it shows that one sees things in the way that corresponds to their most dominant filter. In my case, it didn't indicate an atheist's view that the deceased is not in heaven. I focused on the peace part, being at peace being such a predominant concept when it comes to death, whether the peace is attained by being in paradise or being non-existent. Either way, any unhappiness as well as the toil of mortal life will be done.

I have never had the thought of writing in to express myself about a political cartoon. But I guess it shows that people are reading and becoming engaged, no matter which side. That has to be good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 06:07PM by Nightingale.

errrrrrrrrr ... I mean MORMON ; ), I would have interpreted the cartoon much the same as you--I'm sure I wouldn't have viewed it as necessarily coming from someone without a belief in an afterlife or as being in any way disrespectful.

Also, I really wasn't trying to imply that all RfM Christians would think alike with regard to Steve's cartoon--I was just interested in hearing opinions from RfMer's who happen to be Christian. (I think Steve got feedback from someone with a bone to pick.) And I don't want to influence any one else's opinion on the matter, but I'll bet most RfM Christians would feel the same as you.

Thanks for your response!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 06:35PM by Fetal Deity.

. . . making note of other commentary of mine with which they "frequently" disagreed.

Perhaps if I was only more in line with their own views, they wouldn't be digging up such stuff, so to speak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 06:44PM by steve benson.

Probably about the same as you normal people. That she doesn't have to live her life with an idiot who cheats on her and has children by other women; or suffer that humility anymore.

Want to have it both ways I mean? :)

"...I expressed the view that this person was, from the grave, grateful to finally be enjoying peace from a life of challenge and travail."

I had the exact same thought. Now, that is scary!

Except my version left out the phrase "from the grave". I was just focused on the peace-at-last part, after first feeling sorrow for the foreshortened life and the inevitable unhappiness that must have been felt in the last few yrs. I cannot comprehend what it must be like to know your death is imminent and you are leaving young kids behind. :(

That person seemed to have decided to be offended by you no matter what you said.

So why did they write?

Looks like some xstian fool lost his "faux-wisdom-effected-from-silence" credits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 09:19PM by atheist&happy:-).

It depends on the motive, the mens rea. If the motive was to comfort, then great. If the motive was to mock, then not great. Only SB knows his motive.

Really, this is not a Christian v. non Christian issue. It's more about common decency.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 09:57PM by steve benson.

The motive was NOT to mock. The Christian wacko who got all exercised over it has been the only one to complain to me about it.

And in the case of that grumpy Christian's own arguments, it WAS about Christianity. After all, he's the one who cited Bible verse to call me a fool, as well as then followed up by telling me he believed, from a "theological standpoint," that she was in heaven, not in a hole in the ground.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2010 01:20AM by steve benson.

Maybe ask yourself.....

What humor or insight would be gained from mocking a dead woman who suffered so much in her life? Especially when her husband is a poster boy for valid material for mocking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 04:22PM by atheist&happy:-).

If you happen to be convinced, as Steve is and as I am, that consciousness ceases with the functioning of the physical brain, then pointing out the peace that death's oblivion brings to a pain-filled person is probably the most compassionate thing you can do in the wake of such a death without compromising your integrity. A very obvious point which hasn't yet been made is that even if Steve had decided to throw honesty out the window and draw a cartoon depicting a pleasant afterlife for Elizabeth Edwards, or at least intimating the possibility of one, nobody who knows the first thing about Steve and his worldview would have taken it seriously, anyway. In fact, it would have come across as offensively patronizing: "I don't share your beliefs, but I understand this is a sensitive time for you, so I'll pretend that I do, at least for a little while." What could be more contemptible--or contemptuous?

The critic betrays himself when he writes, "From a theological standpoint, I would like to believe [they are] now residing in heaven rather than a hole in the ground." Not, "I believe," but, "I would like to believe." He as much as admits to wishful thinking.

A person who is *honestly convinced* that consciousness continues past the death of the brain can certainly assert that view without compromising his integrity, but one who simply wants to believe such an idea, and for that reason attempts to convince himself and others that it is true, is weak and dishonest. (I must acknowledge, however, that my own life hasn't exactly been one travail piled on another. I can't say with any certainty that I wouldn't have turned out to be a self-deceiving, wishful thinker myself, if fate had handed me Elizabeth Edwards's lot.)