Should funeral processions be banned?

[SP Cook]

30 minutes? 

In order to have a funeral procession lasting greater than 30 minutes, you would probably need 500 - 750 vehicles in that procession.  Figuring 2 mourners per car, that would translate to a service of 1,000 - 1,500 people.

I meant 30 minutes from the point the lead car leaves point A (church) to where it arrives at point B (grave yard), not 30 minutes from the lead car to the trail car.  This was in response to several posters talking about long trips between A and B. 

[1995hoo]

One of the things I've found a bit odd appears to me to be a regional practice: Every time I've been to a funeral in New York City, we go to Mass and then form the funeral procession to the cemetery, and the first thing the procession does is to go past the decedent's residence. (In the case of my father's mother, who lived in an apartment in Far Rockaway, it used Seagirt Boulevard to go past the complex where she lived, although since her window four floors up overlooked Seagirt, I guess that counts as going right past her residence.) It really jams up the traffic in some of the narrower streets in neighborhoods like Bay Ridge, where my father's mother lived.

In other states I've never seen that sort of thing, and I guess my two cousins who grew up in San Diego hadn't seen it either because when my mother's mother died and we were all in the limo together, they were baffled at why the procession was going through the residential streets in Bay Ridge and they were more baffled when we told them why ("baffled" as in "why bother doing that?"). As I type this it occurs to me that it's a less viable practice in suburban areas where a lot of people live on cul-de-sacs or in neighborhoods with one outlet. My father, who is even more cynical than I am, says it's the New York funeral directors milking the experience to wring out all the emotion they can.



Regarding comments about distance to cemeteries and whether they should be close by, don't forget people move over time. To use my father's mother as an example, she's buried in St. John's Cemetery in Queens. It's around 13 miles from her apartment complex and the drive takes around 45 minutes if you get stuck at a lot of red lights. The reason she isn't buried closer to where she lived? Family plot. My father's father died many years earlier, sometime around 1960 or so. At the time they lived closer to St. John's. My grandmother was a widow for around 35 years and moved several times, but for obvious reasons she was buried back in the same plot as my grandfather. The funeral Mass, of course, was at the parish she attended near her apartment in Far Rockaway (like many ladies of her generation, she did not drive and so walked to church). On my mother's side of the family, it's similar–a lot of them are buried in a family plot in Flatbush (Holy Cross Cemetery, if anyone knows the area) that's been in the family for at least 70 years, but neighborhoods change over time and none of them now live near that cemetery. (Then you have special situations: My father, and by extension therefore my mother as well, is eligible for inurnment in Arlington National Cemetery. It so happens that's local to them, but it still requires a drive. The bigger issue with Arlington is scheduling logistics because it's so busy.)

[Pete from Boston]

I recently wondered about the fact that no funeral I've been in for years had a passage by the decedent's home.  Going back several decades this was common, but as people spread out, it has presumably faded due to complexity.  My parents lived on a dead end, so it would have been a traffic nightmare exceeding that of a simple red light delay.

[hbelkins]

I get impatient about parades, small-town festivals that close through streets, and stuff like that, but not funeral processions.

[US71]

I get impatient about parades, small-town festivals that close through streets, and stuff like that, but not funeral processions.

We had a bike race here today and parts of streets were blocked off. Fortunately, I was able to negotiate around it.

[Scott5114]

banning sports parades

Oh, here's a good idea.

Hell, I'd approve if there was serious talk of

banning sports

[Pete from Boston]

I get impatient about parades, small-town festivals that close through streets, and stuff like that, but not funeral processions.

We had a bike race here today and parts of streets were blocked off. Fortunately, I was able to negotiate around it.

For several years I had to cross the Boston Marathon to get to work.  The bus would stop well short of the route on one side, and pick up again a ways past it. 

The first year I did this I called the MBTA and asked what the alternative provided was.  "Get a six pack and enjoy the nice day," the agent told me.  "Sometimes there's just an inconvenience that's bigger than you."

[Scott5114]

Dead people have just as many fucking rights as living people do.

Yeah! Dead people should be allowed to bear arms and vote!

[J N Winkler]

This is just by the by, but obstructing the mail (a violation of 18 USC § 1701) requires mens rea, so funeral processions cannot be prosecuted for it.

[US71]

We seem to be going off on a tangent here. Let's try to get back on topic

[PHLBOS]

Is it me or does it appear that the majority of those who believe that funeral processions should be banned are under the age of 40?

Just an observation.

[J N Winkler]

Is it me or does it appear that the majority of those who believe that funeral processions should be banned are under the age of 40?

Gray vision is one of the few things that improves with age.

I also see some signs that attempts to push the idea that funeral processions should be tolerated for humane reasons (as part of the normal grieving process, etc.) are generating their own resistance.  With very few exceptions, I seriously doubt the people who loudly object to the principle of having funeral processions are actually doing anything to disrupt them when they encounter them in person.

Often the best way to win an argument is just to stop arguing.

[Scott5114]

As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition. I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder), weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead), football homecomings (what are you coming home from again, exactly?) and so forth. So I am not going to disrupt funeral processions, and will tolerate them because I'm a civilized member of society, but if I had my way I'd dispense with them, especially since I feel they can be dangerous and disruptive themselves. 

[DaBigE]

weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead)

I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic.   [/rant]

[Pete from Boston]

I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic.   [/rant]

So no parties ever, then?  I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.

For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share.  I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't.  I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that.  I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.

[briantroutman]

As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition.

I'm with you for the most part. To expand on that, many firmly cemented traditions are not only unnecessary, they're counterproductive.

I lost my very dear grandmother in October 2013 and my wife lost her father a few months earlier. In both cases, I watched the closest family members do their damnedest to keep a stiff upper lip in public–when all they truly wanted was to cry in private. The next closest tier of family and friends felt some duty to provide comfort, but their efforts were neither wanted nor successful. And finally, distant family members and acquaintances showed up to lap up free food.

If I believed in any kind of an afterlife (I don't), I could not help but think that the dearly departed would be looking down, heartbroken that their funerals–ostensibly intended to comfort the most important people in their lives–had instead amplified the already incredible grief their closest loved ones had to endure.

Instead, only two groups benefited from the funeral:
1.) The disposable distant relatives, who got a free lunch and were thus spared the inconvenience of digging through the ValPak envelope for a valid Sizzler coupon that day, and
2.) The oily members of the funerary-industrial complex who profited handsomely by selling wares at many times their cost–and with odious selling propositions like "wouldn't your loved one want the best?"

[english si]

I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder)

As someone who has had that, it was underclimatic. It was like 'oh, OK'. That's fine for finishing Middle School. That's not fine for finishing with compulsory education and the 13+ years put into it.

A bit better was all going in for results day to see how well we did (in the UK, final exams at high school are external, and the school only knows the results a day before the students), but (despite the national press being there on both occasions I got mine) the milling about and finding out how others did and excitedly sharing the good bits of your results lacked the pomp that such an event actually deserves.

I got a certificate ceremony, but it was hollow as it meant nothing - purely administrative (and a way to get us signed up for alumni stuff). The pride came with the results in August, rather than getting the certificates (that they hadn't had time to print in the summer) in December. It was billed as a chance to see everyone again, and while that wasn't bad, everyone (like me) had moved on to the next phase of life. I think most people went straight home afterwards, though I went out with a couple (literally) of friends to the pub as we felt that there had to be something more to the evening than the boring ceremony.

My BA graduation ceremony in Summer 2017 (at least that's when it's pencilled in!) is something that I'm looking forward too - it will be a chance to see everyone again (and with a cohort of 8 scattered across the country that I wouldn't have seen that year, rather than 180 who I saw a few months before and will mostly return to a fairly small geographical area come the holidays and aren't hard to see the ones I'd want to, that means more) and thank the staff, etc. All the things that I got to do on results day at school, but with the pomp and ceremony that such an achievement deserves.

weddings and receptions

Think of the reception as a party with some generally accepted features. A board game party is a party: all you need is a couple of short speeches and a dance, and you have a perfectly protocol-compliant wedding reception.

[DaBigE]

I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic.   [/rant]

So no parties ever, then?  I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.

For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share.  I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't.  I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that.  I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.

Wedding receptions are not the same as a party in my book. I don't spend $10k+ to throw a party.

[Pete from Boston]

As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition.

I'm with you for the most part. To expand on that, many firmly cemented traditions are not only unnecessary, they're counterproductive.

I lost my very dear grandmother in October 2013 and my wife lost her father a few months earlier. In both cases, I watched the closest family members do their damnedest to keep a stiff upper lip in public–when all they truly wanted was to cry in private. The next closest tier of family and friends felt some duty to provide comfort, but their efforts were neither wanted nor successful. And finally, distant family members and acquaintances showed up to lap up free food.

If I believed in any kind of an afterlife (I don't), I could not help but think that the dearly departed would be looking down, heartbroken that their funerals–ostensibly intended to comfort the most important people in their lives–had instead amplified the already incredible grief their closest loved ones had to endure.

Instead, only two groups benefited from the funeral:
1.) The disposable distant relatives, who got a free lunch and were thus spared the inconvenience of digging through the ValPak envelope for a valid Sizzler coupon that day, and
2.) The oily members of the funerary-industrial complex who profited handsomely by selling wares at many times their cost–and with odious selling propositions like "wouldn't your loved one want the best?"

Agreed about the funeral industry.  For better or worse, though, they streamline a lot of hassle someone in the worst moments of their life knows nothing about.  And again, for better or worse, there are laws controlling how human remains may be handled and licensing people in this regard.  You have to have someone regulated take care of the dirty details.  I'm sure this is like many industries–partly due to past abuses, partly due to business interests protecting their niche.  Either way, you can't bring or keep a body home.  You have to pay someone to handle it.

However, as for the funeral, I see there being more to it, and this is why I cannot stress enough let somebody know what you want for yours!

Most folks in older generations than mine in my family have died.  I've been to a lot of funerals, including those of my parents.  In their case it was incredibly difficult to summon the energy to do any of the work that needed to be done, the funeral being almost the easiest (the legal work we leave upon dying is considerable).  The funeral gave an opportunity for friends and more distant family to take part in the farewell.  They deserved that.  Moreover, they came for us, to show some familiar beloved faces and say that we and the deceased were important to them.  I was grateful for every person that decided it was important to be there.

Grieving comes in many forms, even in one instance of loss.  Coping alone, having people come and share collective sadness, and even a somber little ritual can all fill needs.  No one grieves the same, and none of it quite fills the void, but there is a place for many ways of doing these things.

[Pete from Boston]

I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic.   [/rant]

So no parties ever, then?  I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.

For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share.  I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't.  I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that.  I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.

Wedding receptions are not the same as a party in my book. I don't spend $10k+ to throw a party.

I've been to fun wedding receptions that didn't cost nearly that much, quite a few in people's yards.  But whatever works for someone is what they should do.

[Scott5114]

Exactly why we're doing the board game café for our reception: it's something we will enjoy, and if the guests don't, they can bow out early and we won't mind. The café itself is a startup owned by a group of our friends that will have only been open for a few months, so besides having fun we hope to give them a shot in the arm by getting a bunch of people in there that otherwise wouldn't have ever checked it out.

In re high school graduation: don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the US it's a tedious affair where friends/relatives are crammed into a usually overwarm gymnasium and graduates are called one by one to a stage (with applause from the friends) to receive the empty diploma holder. It's incredibly dull.

[DaBigE]

I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic.   [/rant]

So no parties ever, then?  I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.

For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share.  I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't.  I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that.  I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.

Wedding receptions are not the same as a party in my book. I don't spend $10k+ to throw a party.

I've been to fun wedding receptions that didn't cost nearly that much, quite a few in people's yards.  But whatever works for someone is what they should do.

I know you can have a good time for a lot less. Ironically, it's her parents that want all the "traditional components" of the reception, despite bitching about the price of everything. My fiancée wants all the traditional stuff too, course my family, being old-fashioned is probably the same way. It's a lost cause asking "why". It doesn't help that she has a big huge family and they all have to be invited...don't want WWIII breaking out in the family.

There was an old episode of Home Improvement, where during Tool Time, they were talking about the high cost of a wedding. Tim said he could do it for something like $19.95 (+/-). That would be my kind of wedding.   I got the look of  when I even joked about that idea.

[US71]

My sister got married in a simple backyard ceremony.

My parents had a full ceremony, but that was almost 60 years ago.

When my dad passed away 4 years ago, we had no vitiation, per his instructions. We drove to the cemetery, but opted not to "follow" the hearse. A few of my dad's former co-workers showed up at the funeral and he was given full military honors.

When mom passed away in April, we had a visitation that only 3 people showed up at besides family.We opted not not to go to the cemetery.

Funerals are for the family and friends of the departed. My dad really wanted us to just dig a hole and dump him in.

If you have a big family or are someone "important" people will want a big funeral. Otherwise, it seems like a lot of people don't give a flying crap.

I stop for funerals...it's how I was raised. If you choose not to, that's your prerogative.

[algorerhythms]

As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition. I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder), weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead), football homecomings (what are you coming home from again, exactly?) and so forth. So I am not going to disrupt funeral processions, and will tolerate them because I'm a civilized member of society, but if I had my way I'd dispense with them, especially since I feel they can be dangerous and disruptive themselves. 

There's a board game cafe in Norman? Why the hell did I not know about this when I lived there?

edit -- And I didn't go to my graduation after I got my Ph.D. at OU, because I had already moved to a different city by then and didn't want to be bothered going back just for that.

[hbelkins]

As I've said before, funerals and the attendant ceremonies are for the survivors, not for the deceased.

My mother didn't want a funeral We had a visitation at the funeral home and then a short graveside service the next day at the cemetery.

When my dad died, I didn't want any kind of service or ceremony. I would have been content to just let the funeral home place him in the casket and bury him. But my brother insisted on doing some sort of service because my dad had four siblings who are of an age that they expect that kind of tradition. So we didn't do any public visitation at the funeral home -- for which I was glad, because my mom's visitation was pure torture for me -- and instead met at the cemetery for a short service conducted by his niece's husband.

I kinda feel sorry for future generations that won't have any traditions to hold on to.