Church Weddings

Splendour

I found the opinions on the 'funeral' thread interesting, and it got me thinking about athiests and weddings.

I cannot understand why people if they don't believe in God, get married in a church. Or those who have their kids baptised in the church promising to bring them up in the faith of that church and the kid doesn't see the inside of a church until communion time. Like, what's the point?

The question I'm asking is how many of you guys got married in churches and if so, why?

Or maybe this topic has been done before..?

Tar.Aldarion

Not married, but my gf and a lot of women like the idea of getting married in a church. It just appeals to them(even if not religious). Men don't seem to care as much, whatever you say honey!

Acid_Violet

I think non-believers wanting and getting married in a church shows just how frivolous belief is to most people in today's Ireland. If they had a conviction in not believing in God they'd not be getting married in a church but it's general apathy and the quaint fancy of a pretty church wedding with Pié Jesu sung for communion that is the reason most people get married in churches today.

I'd like to get married in a church but if I didn't have any religious beliefs and my partner didn't either, I'd personally feel like a hypocrite getting married in a church and by a priest.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

philologos

Acid_Violet wrote:

I think non-believers wanting and getting married in a church shows just how frivolous belief is to most people in today's Ireland. If they had a conviction in not believing in God they'd not be getting married in a church but it's general apathy and the quaint fancy of a pretty church wedding with Pié Jesu sung for communion that is the reason most people get married in churches today.

except for the Christians who actually believe and want to get married in God's presence.

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah but there is not as many of them in Ireland anymore, as the older generation dies out.

rockbeer

Splendour wrote:

I cannot understand why people if they don't believe in God, get married in a church.

Well I wouldn't do it myself, but I suppose it's all about the ceremony and tradition for people. The same as they like to go to midnight mass and sing carols at christmas. Don't get it myself... but I would take it one stage further and ask why people who don't believe in god feel the need to get married at all.

Isn't marriage all about sanctifying your relationship in the eyes of god? If you don't feel bound by the no-sex-outside-marriage stipulation then what other purpose does it serve?

death1234567

rockbeer wrote:

If you don't feel bound by the no-sex-outside-marriage stipulation then what other purpose does it serve?

Tax reasons.

rockbeer

death1234567 wrote:

Tax reasons.

How romantic

Tim Robbins

It's a flipping tough question. Personally, I don't like the idea of having to lie in front of friends and family and have to make references to something you categorically don't believe in and pretend one of your deepest convinctions just doesn't exist in front of those who know you best. A farce really.

5uspect

I wouldn't like a church wedding, I don't particularly like churches for that sort of thing. A friend of mine (I think I mentioned this before) got married recently at the local Yacht Club) Nothing religious or anything and it was great.

I think for most Irish people a church is becoming just another venue, like it or not.

jasonb

The Catholic Church, to the best of my knowledge, have different types of Wedding Ceremonies. The most common one ( and familiar one if you've been to many church weddings in Ireland ) is the Wedding Ceremony and a Mass.

However another ceremony is available that doesn't include a mass ( so, for example, there'd be no communion ). For some atheists ( or non-catholics ) this might be a better option. As far as I know though, it really all comes down to the priest and what he's comfortable doing. Hopefully a sensitive priest will listen to the couples' wishes.

Personally, I'm an atheist and my fiancée is Catholic. She'd like to get married in a church, I'd prefer not to ( not wanting to be a hypocrite on my wedding day ). However, I'm aware that while I'd feel married after a civil ceremony, she wouldn't, so we've agreed to get married in a church. We hope to talk to the priest and see what can be done so that it's still a catholic ceremony ( it is a catholic church after all ) but one that I'm more comfortable with. Most important to me is that I can tell the priest that I'm an atheist and not have to go down the 'ah, I just don't get around Mass as much as I should father, wink wink' line of conversation...

J.

Acid_Violet

Jakkass wrote:

except for the Christians who actually believe and want to get married in God's presence.

Which is the exact reason why I said 'most people'.:rolleyes:

Dades

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

LMAO!

I got married in a church 2 years ago. Other than some of my mates, nobody had a clue as to my beliefs, and so my missis and both our families got the day they wanted. It's just a day out - the civil contract is the only legal bit.

Hypocrisy for me is where you abandon your principles because it suits you, rather than out of consideration for others.

Now if one was a militant™ atheist then it maybe you could ask questions...

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

LMAO!

I got married in a church 2 years ago. Other than some of my mates, nobody had a clue as to my beliefs, and so my missis and both our families got the day they wanted. It's just a day out - the civil contract is the only legal bit.

Hypocrisy for me is where you abandon your principles because it suits you, rather than out of consideration for others.

Now if one was a militant™ atheist then it maybe you could ask questions...

I take you're point and respect your ability to see the bigger picture and put other people before you.
However, some people (myself included) get panic attacks about the thought of doing what you did. I wouldn't call myself a militant atheist, more the liberal type even if it does appear quite wooly at the best of times.

Beruthiel

Also, a church is a pretty building and makes for good pics.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

However, some people (myself included) get panic attacks about the thought of doing what you did. I wouldn't call myself a militant atheist, more the liberal type even if it does appear quite wooly at the best of times.

Ultimately it's a question of perspective. Does it mean more to you that you marry in a registry office, than it does to your spouse and family to have their day in a church.

I found that perspective changed more the closer the decision got.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Ultimately it's a question of perspective. Does it mean more to you that you marry in a registry office, than it does to your spouse and family to have their day in a church.

I found that perspective changed more the closer the decision got.

Saint Atheist has spoken

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

The question I'm asking is how many of you guys got married in churches and if so, why?

I wouldn't get married in a church (would they even let two atheists get married in a church?), nor would I baptize my children.

Tar.Aldarion

What if the girl in question would get very emotional about it, and was an Atheist?
It usually means a lot more to one person than the other and to the families.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What if the girl in question would get very emotional about it, and was an Atheist?
It usually means a lot more to one person than the other and to the families.

Well if she wanted to I wouldn't care, but I'm not going to like pretend to be a devout Catholic just to get married in a church. Though I can't really see myself marrying someone who would get that worked up about it, I tend to go for more down to Earth girls

Sangre

death1234567 wrote:

Tax reasons.

No, you can't discriminate between the married/un-married. In fact, the unmarried used to have it better off!

Although if you're a man and you want children you'd be absolutely mad to have them outside of wedlock.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote:

except for the Christians who actually believe and want to get married in God's presence.

Is he present in the church?

Dades

Jakkass wrote:

except for the Christians who actually believe and want to get married in God's presence.

Mmmm.
Wedding presence...

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

I wouldn't get married in a church (would they even let two atheists get married in a church?), nor would I baptize my children.

Happens all the time; thing is most people aren't up front about their beliefs so how would a priest know. And if the priest did know, he would probably give a church blessing, which brings us back to the original question as to why an athiest would want this??

The baptismal bit kills me though. Why the Catholic church allows this is beyond me. For most babies being baptised the priest knows the kid ain't gonna see inside a church for years,yet they blatantly allow parents to lie in church about bringing their child up in the Catholic faith.

philologos

JimiTime wrote:

Is he present in the church?

Well thats what the principle of marriage is in the Christian church. When a man and a woman come to be as one in the presence of God. I always thought that was the understanding behind it anyway.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

The baptismal bit kills me though. Why the Catholic church allows this is beyond me. For most babies being baptised the priest knows the kid ain't gonna see inside a church for years,yet they blatantly allow parents to lie in church about bringing their child up in the Catholic faith.

I would imagine the priest is more interested in the child, since Catholics teach that unless baptized the kid is screwed (though I think they stop that recently)

Its like the priests that went out with the armies in North America to baptise all the native American children without the wishes of the parents.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine the priest is more interested in the child, since Catholics teach that unless baptized the kid is screwed (though I think they stop that recently)

They should reword the baptismal service so parents don't lie in church.
Of course if they were to go by the bible, they would see the complete futility of this excercise anyway.

They recently did away with 'limbo' which was were still born, or babies who died before they were baptised went. On one hand a priest will tell you it is a necessity to have a child baptised so they go to heaven. On the other hand, the'll tell you God is all loving and once you live ahalf decent life you'll get to heaven anyway. Thing is the Catholic church are always moving the goalposts to suit the masses,(excuse the pun!)

For the record, I was a practising Catholic (heavily involved) for years...

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

Well thats what the principle of marriage is in the Christian church. When a man and a woman come to be as one in the presence of God. I always thought that was the understanding behind it anyway.

Of course 'the church' is actually a body of people (Greek ekklesia - the called out ones) rather than a building. So, you could get married in a pub, but if you are surrounded by believers then it is in 'the church' & so in the presence of God. Then you could get married in a church building, but if there are no believers present then that's all it is - a building.

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

Of course 'the church' is actually a body of people (Greek ekklesia - the called out ones) rather than a building. So, you could get married in a pub, but if you are surrounded by believers then it is in 'the church' & so in the presence of God. Then you could get married in a church building, but if there are no believers present then that's all it is - a building.

But what beautiful buildings some of them are!! In Dublin alone, St. Patrick's Cathedral and Christ Church Cathedral never cease to inspire a sense of awe in me. Such architecture is one thing that religion has inspired that I am truly thankful for!

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

How many Muslims and Jews do you know have baptised their children as Christians to get them an education?

Very few of the overall Muslim children population go to the Clonskeagh School, and as far as I know there is no Jewish primary school. I don't buy the idea that atheists are genuinely forced into baptising their children as Christians. I'm not saying that the educational system works well here, but in fairness it shouldn't be exaggerated either.

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

How many Muslims and Jews do you know have baptised their children as Christians to get them an education?

Very few of the overall Muslim children population go to the Clonskeagh School, and as far as I know there is no Jewish primary school. I don't buy the idea that atheists are genuinely forced into baptising their children as Christians. I'm not saying that the educational system works well here, but in fairness it shouldn't be exaggerated either.

What happens is that most schools have an admission policy, whereby they state who they give preference to. It is usually by Religion.
A lot of schools can accomodate a minority Religion but they are not obliged to.

aidan24326

I don't expect I'll get married in a church. My girlfriend is no more a practising catholic than I am, but I'd say a part of her would probably like the whole big church wedding thing, though she knows it would be somewhat hypocritical and it's not a big thing for her. I certainly wouldn't do it just to appease family/friends/others, if they don't want to come to my civil wedding then fine, don't come. Thankfully I wouldn't envisage a major problem here. The majority would be ok with it and one of my cousins already had a civil ceremony last year, no church. He had it in a hotel that also has civil ceremony facilities on site.

The whole baptism issue is a thorny one for me. Ideally no, but a child's education has to come first. I think it's outrageous at this day and age that you may have to baptise your child just to get them into a school. Utterly ludicrous and a clear indication that we're a long way from being a secular state. I'd go through the motions if it were really necessary but would make a point of inviting nobody other than the required two witnesses.

Tar.Aldarion

Jakkass wrote:

Well thats what the principle of marriage is in the Christian church. When a man and a woman come to be as one in the presence of God. I always thought that was the understanding behind it anyway.

Well is god not present everywhere?

InFront

Tim Robbins wrote:

What happens is that most schools have an admission policy, whereby they state who they give preference to. It is usually by Religion.
A lot of schools can accomodate a minority Religion but they are not obliged to.

I understand very well what happens when you want to send children to a Catholic primary school, I'm just saying that this idea of being forced to baptise your child a Catholic is rubbish.
While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to), they don't tend to have a shopping list of those outside their particular religion beyond obviously preferring other Christians. To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.
Muslims and Jews don't suffer this forced conversion, I can't see why some atheists imagine they do.

Dades

InFront, let me give you an example.

Last year was the first year in the history of the school I went to, that the entire 1st class contingent were sons of past pupils. No doubt there were other past pupils sons who couldn't get in. With competition like that, I don't think I'd risk not submitting a baptismal cert with my hypothetical son's application form.

Bottle_of_Smoke

InFront wrote:

I understand very well what happens when you want to send children to a Catholic primary school, I'm just saying that this idea of being forced to baptise your child a Catholic is rubbish.
While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to), they don't tend to have a shopping list of those outside their particular religion beyond obviously preferring other Christians. To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.
Muslims and Jews don't suffer this forced conversion, I can't see why some atheists imagine they do.

If you're a Muslim or a Jew you're not going to convert because your faith means something to you. If you're an Athiest it doesn't mean anything to you, it's just an absence of a belief in religion.

So as an Athiest you have a choice between "baptise so your child has a better chance of education" "don't baptise & more hassle getting child learned"

Athiests feel they shouldn't have to do this. People aren't being completely literal when they say forced for this situation.

InFront

The Atheist wrote:

Last year was the first year in the history of the school I went to, that the entire 1st class contingent were sons of past pupils. No doubt there were other past pupils sons who couldn't get in. With competition like that, I don't think I'd risk not submitting a baptismal cert with my hypothetical son's application form.

It's clearly a religious school. You do have other choices, you will get your kids into other (Catholic) schools without having to baptise them, it depends on the school, and the most it's going to mean is probably driving a bit out of your way to get there.
If baptism doesn't mean anything to you, and you do it even when you don't need to, that's fine, just please don't grumble about it as though it were some sort of religous persecution that one is forced into.

People aren't being completely literal when they say forced for this situation.

Yes it would seem that way, but I'm not sure what the point of complaining is when it is optional or youre just doing it to make life easier.

Sangre

I can't name one non-demoninational school in my area. Which means they are either non-existant or aren't very good.

5uspect

It seems that the views of atheists are not worth the same respect as the faithful? Its a simple fact that the vast majority of schools in this country are run under a Christian (shiver, here comes the dirty word) ethos. For a school to favour children from any religous families before non religous families is clear discrimination.

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

I understand very well what happens when you want to send children to a Catholic primary school, I'm just saying that this idea of being forced to baptise your child a Catholic is rubbish.
While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to), they don't tend to have a shopping list of those outside their particular religion beyond obviously preferring other Christians. To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.
Muslims and Jews don't suffer this forced conversion, I can't see why some atheists imagine they do.

They are not forced to. The probability of the kid getting in depends on whether they have been baptized or not. That's the inescapable fact.

robindch

InFront wrote:

While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to),

Huh? Public schools in Ireland are funded from central government funds, but the catholic church oversees around 93% of them, with another 5% or so run by the CofI. The Catholic and CofI churches, in accordance with the Equal Status Act, 2000 (see the legislation here), are permitted to reject a child's application if the religious body running the school feels that the applicant is the wrong religion. No other grounds are necessary and the church concerned does not have to give a reason, or justify its action in any way. Just a simple rejection slip.

This isn't just unethical, this is a bloody disgrace. BTW, in the light of the recent Diswellstown mess, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has demanded that the current system of religious oversight be changed. More power to him! (and it's not often that I say that )

InFront wrote:

To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.

Completely wrong -- my brother knows more than a few who've turned into (CofI) church-going citizens from gallivanting heathen, to say nothing of the kids who've been dipped.

InFront

robindch wrote:

but the catholic church oversees around 93% of them

Where you have written "oversees", try "owns". These are their schools. They do not belong to you. The Government can fund them until the end of the world, until there's a purchase agreement they'll never own them, nor dictate ethos and admissions policy.

the church concerned does not have to give a reason, or justify its action in any way... this is a bloody disgrace.

No, it isn't. It's their school they can do what they want. They are under no obligation to abandon their ethos or their fellow believers for the sake of others. The Government funds them in full knowledge of what their policy is.
I don't know what kind of religion would refuse its own followers an education before non believers, don't you think it's top be expected? As someone who received a fair bit of his education in a Christian ethos school, I think the Christians actually go quite far in facilitating those who do not submit to their beliefs in terms of education and resources.

Dades

InFront wrote:

Where you have written "oversees", try "owns". These are their schools. They do not belong to you. The Government can fund them until the end of the world, until there's a purchase agreement they'll never own them, nor dictate ethos and admissions policy.
No, it isn't. It's their school they can do what they want. They are under no obligation to abandon their ethos or their fellow believers for the sake of others. The Government funds them in full knowledge of what their policy is.

If you accept that our taxpayers money is funding this, then why are you asking why non-believers are complaining about having to get their children 'dipped'?

BTW don't mention the "E" word to Robin - he might get mad.

InFront

The Atheist wrote:

If you accept that our taxpayers money is funding this, then why are you asking why non-believers are complaining about having to get their children 'dipped'?

But they don't "have to", that simply isn't true. This thing of forced baptisms is a complete myth. You're no different to Muslim and Jewish and Hindu parents in this regard.
There's nothing wrong with complaining about where your tax goes or what the Government spends it on. Everyone does that to some extent. What I'm saying is that you don't actually "have to" get a child dipped or baptised (or do anything religious with it) to get it an education, and that any given taxpayer doesnt really have any say in who a private school - i.e. a religiously owned school - chooses to admit among its pupils anyway since that is not the condition of a school's funding.

BTW don't mention the "E" word to Robin - he might get mad.

Ethos? Then I'm not sure what he's doing using the word 'unethical' in his last post.

Dades

InFront wrote:

But they don't "have to", that simply isn't true. This thing of forced baptisms is a complete myth. You're no different to Muslim and Jewish and Hindu parents in this regard.

You don't "have to" in the same way you don't "have to" wear pants to a job interview. But it helps. The point is simply that you don't get a fair shot at your choice of educational facility unless your child is dipped. And that goes for Muslims, Jews & Hindus too if they were so inclined to send their kids to a RC school - i.e. the vast majority of schools.

InFront wrote:

Ethos? Then I'm not sure what he's doing using the word 'unethical' in his last post.

No doubt he will put us straight on the difference.

Tar.Aldarion

InFront wrote:

But they don't "have to", that simply isn't true. This thing of forced baptisms is a complete myth.

Doesn't sound like you know how our schools work. I would not have gotten into my school had I not been baptised. No myth there.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

robindch

InFront wrote:

Where you have written "oversees", try "owns". These are their schools. They do not belong to you. The Government can fund them until the end of the world, until there's a purchase agreement they'll never own them, nor dictate ethos and admissions policy. [...] It's their school they can do what they want. They are under no obligation to abandon their ethos or their fellow believers for the sake of others.

One can't help but wonder if the churches would be so enthusiastically disposing of unsuitable children if the government didn't pony up the cash to allow them to do so.

Mind you, as I pointed out above, Diarmuid Martin has said that the current system of arbitrary segregation can't continue, and he's quite right in that. You may disagree with the bishop if you wish.

InFront wrote:

As someone who received a fair bit of his education in a Christian ethos school, I think the Christians actually go quite far in facilitating those who do not submit to their beliefs in terms of education and resources.

What are schools for? Are they there to ensure the continuity of religion, or to educate children?

PDN

I agree that the present educational system is a disgrace & discriminates against non-Catholics. However, I'm interested by the attitudes expressed here. Who do all feel is primarily responsible for educating our children - the parents or the State?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I agree that the present educational system is a disgrace & discriminates against non-Catholics. However, I'm interested by the attitudes expressed here. Who do all feel is primarily responsible for educating our children - the parents or the State?

Both have responsibilities not sure how you could argue one more than the other.