A Church Wedding

wicklowdub

HI

I had a look through the threads and dont see this discussed.

I'm getting married next year but am pretty ambivilent about whether god exists. However I do want to get married in a church, albeit its probably from a aestetic point of view for occasions and pictures etc.

What do Atheists in the main think about church weddings and would you get married in a church?

liamw

I've thought about this and I'd probably just go along with it if my partner wanted to. I would rather a secular wedding but I don't really know what viable options there are out there?

Tim Robbins

wicklowdub wrote: »

HI

I had a look through the threads and dont see this discussed.

I'm getting married next year but am pretty ambivilent about whether god exists. However I do want to get married in a church, albeit its probably from a aestetic point of view for occasions and pictures etc.

What do Atheists in the main think about church weddings and would you get married in a church?

It usually comes down to not being a hypocrite vis a vi taking a hit for the team.

Myself (atheist) and my missus (mild church goer) went through the following options:

1. Civil - Mon to Fri only. This would have meant anyone going would have had to take a day off work.
2. Humanist - Not a real wedding, has no legal standing, meaning.
3. Presbyterian - I ended up arguing with the Minister as he wanted to debate my lack of belief with me. He argued as if "The God Delusion" was my Gospel. I ended up pointing out to him his logic was circular and that he kept contradicting himself (he did I swear). One minute he'd say an atheist is incapable of love. Then I'd say well then why do you marry atheists. Then he'd say something like they were capable of love. Then he'd tell me completly respects my views then he'd treat me like he completly didn't.

I would have rather pulled my pants down and walked around town for a week than have him marry me.

4. Church of Ireland - Minister was sound as a pound but I would have had to say things I didn't believe in which I didn't feel comfortable with. He had no interest in arguing about faith and we actually had a good chat about rugby.

5. Unitarian - The winner. Cost a few bob but we respected them and they respected us.

wicklowdub

The thing is I selfishly like the church and grounds, plus I like the cermonial aspect of a "church" wedding. I know we could probably have gone for a civil wedding and that would have been fine to but it would mean a greater distance between wedding venue & reception venue also.

I suppose what I was really asking about was should I feel like a hypocrit for wanting to get married in a church when I dont believe in god or the church into which I would be marrying into?

Tim Robbins

wicklowdub wrote: »

I suppose what I was really asking about was should I feel like a hypocrit for wanting to get married in a church when I dont believe in god or the church into which I would be marrying into?

It's your day, be a hypocrite. If that's what you want.

wicklowdub

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's your day, be a hypocrite. If that's what you want.

Very true I suppose.

dan_d

What if you were told you couldn't get married in the church? For whatever reason?
How would you feel about that? Would it make a huge difference to you?

(I'm not trying to start a row here, I've just stumbled onto this thread and I'm curious about how atheists/agnostics would feel if they were told outright there is no way they could use the facilities of an organisation for one day, to get nice photos. Nor do I have any particularly strong feelings on religion - each to his/her own - so please don't attack me.)

Sea Sharp

Go to the church for a wedding.
I don't consider it hypocritic.
It's more of a traditional seremony than a religious seromony from my perspective.

Encouraging people to believe in God when you're an atheist, now that's hypocritical.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's your day, be a hypocrite. If that's what you want.

Isn't it more a case of:

It's her day, be a hypocrite. If that's what she wants.

Certainly was in my case.

Max Power1

Ive been with my OH for almost 2 years and this topic has come up. I would be described by friends as a "fundamentalist" when it comes to atheism. While i wouldnt neccesarily agree, it shows my strength of feeling on the subject. My OH is a catholic, while not neccesarily a staunch one. I have made it quite clear that a church wedding is not on the table as an option as I couldnt bring myself to do that. It goes on the same lines as baptising children for me. IE something I am idealogically opposed to

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Isn't it more a case of:


Certainly was in my case.

Bridezilla?

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Bridezilla?

Certainly not. Rather my dad put it in perspective with one simple question: "So are you paying for this gig?"

Goduznt Xzst

wicklowdub wrote: »

However I do want to get married in a church, albeit its probably from a aestetic point of view for occasions and pictures etc.

What do Atheists in the main think about church weddings and would you get married in a church?

See this is the thing, the dream wedding for most in Europe is a medieval wedding, in an old Gothic Building, with high vaulted ceilings, candles (maybe)... all that Jazz. You could of course get married in a Castle, but you are then paying for the setting, whereas with a Church the cost is minimal.

Ask yourself, if the Church was a reconditioned prefab community hall build in the late 1980's would you be getting married there? If the answer is no, then you know you are choosing the venue of your wedding for Aesthetic reasons rather than Religious.

Why should the Catholic Churches squatting on some of this countries finest pieces of architecture stop you from using it as the backdrop and setting of your wedding day?

Hippo

I got married over 20 years ago in the Registry office in Molesworth Street, it's moved now. As an atheist, I couldn't hack the idea of marrying in a church; whatever about the admittedly superior surroundings, a religious ceremony is something I would want no part of.

komodosp

What do Atheists in the main think about church weddings and would you get married in a church?

Sure, why not! Churches are probably have a lot nicer buildings and surroundings than most registry offices... You might have to lie to the priest about believing in God though.

It's not hypocritical though... (Unless you consider all lies hypocracy, as I said you might have to lie to a priest). The great thing about being an atheist is you can get married wherever you want and not have to worry about betraying some god or other, or your principles - because there is no God to betray, and you don't have beliefs or principles to be hypocritical against! A church is just another (particularly nice) building. If it keeps the relatives happy then why the hell not?

Having a secular wedding if you believe in God - now that's hyopcritical, but not the other way around.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Hippo

komodosp wrote: »

Sure, why not! Churches are probably have a lot nicer buildings and surroundings than most registry offices... You might have to lie to the priest about believing in God though.

It's not hypocritical though... (Unless you consider all lies hypocracy, as I said you might have to lie to a priest). The great thing about being an atheist is you can get married wherever you want and not have to worry about betraying some god or other, or your principles - because there is no God to betray, and you don't have beliefs or principles to be hypocritical against! A church is just another (particularly nice) building. If it keeps the relatives happy then why the hell not?

I can't understand this at all. How, as an atheist, do you not have 'beliefs or principles to be hypocritical against'? How would you in all seriousness participate (centrally!) in a religious ceremony?

Funglegunk

Plowman wrote: »

But is it not extraordinarily hypocritical for an atheist to get married in a Church? This is attacking religion on one front and engaging with it on another. It seems morally dubious, and surely even an atheist would agree?

Thats presuming that being an atheist means you attack religion. Which isn't true. If I was getting married in a church, and the bride asked me to go through the motions of the sermon for her sake, I would do it.

I don't see how its morally dubious to engage in some mild hypocrisy (i.e. saying you believe in God, Jesus during the ceremony etc.) instead of ruining your bride's wedding day.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Certainly not. Rather my dad put it in perspective with one simple question: "So are you paying for this gig?"

Brilliant.

komodosp

Hippo wrote: »

I can't understand this at all. How, as an atheist, do you not have 'beliefs or principles to be hypocritical against'? How would you in all seriousness participate (centrally!) in a religious ceremony?

"Does God Exist?" "No"
That is about the extent of my beliefs and principles where religion is concerned.

If it was tradition to hop on one foot, tap my head while rubbing my belly, all the time reciting "Supercalafrajalisticexpialadocious" when getting married and everyone else felt strongly about it (to the point that it would cause difficulty not to do it), I would probably still do it in spite of the sheer pointlessness of it.

I am participating in a ceremony, but because I'm an atheist, I consider the ceremony meaningless. I don't think that it is somehow allowing God to steal my soul back from atheism because he does not exist!

who the fug

I do think it is unfair to invite somebody to a wedding, and insult their beliefs, which is what atheists do by getting married in a church.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Hippo

komodosp wrote: »

"Does God Exist?" "No"
That is about the extent of my beliefs and principles where religion is concerned.

If it was tradition to hop on one foot, tap my head while rubbing my belly, all the time reciting "Supercalafrajalisticexpialadocious" when getting married and everyone else felt strongly about it (to the point that it would cause difficulty not to do it), I would probably still do it in spite of the sheer pointlessness of it.

I am participating in a ceremony, but because I'm an atheist, I consider the ceremony meaningless. I don't think that it is somehow allowing God to steal my soul back from atheism because he does not exist!

And you have no difficulty with how your participation would probably be interpreted by others? Absolutely, god does not exist. Why then make such a public declaration that god does exist?

Goduznt Xzst

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I wouldn't consider it extraordinary, rather pretty mundane hypocrisy. See your post assumes I have an issue with hypocrisy. I don't. Human society flourishes on hypocrisy. Today alone you will probably say or write more than a handful of hypocritical remarks.

Plus I don't really want to see Catholicism die rather have all it's power and influence in the state removed. Plus there'd be far to much traffic on the roads on a Sunday afternoon and I'd also have to reevaluate my elitist superiority over the Religious which I'm quite happy with atm.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It wasn't. But my opinions on Antiquities is neither here nor there.

Funglegunk

Plowman wrote: »

But this is unprincipled.

I don't understand how one can condemn Christianity for society's ills on the one hand, and get married in one of its churches on the other.

Again you're presuming a lot. Being an atheist, by definition, is not believing in a higher power. That does not assume that they automatically blame any religion, let alone Christianity, for society's ills.

You're engaging in a sweeping generalisation about what atheist's are, you are thinking of anti-theists. My point is that atheists engage in a mild hypocrisy, a small lie (and to most of them it is a very small lie, with zero consequences), for the benefit of their loved ones by getting married in a church.

Its an unprincipled as saying to your child that Santa exists (in my opinion, not very).

ArthurDent

Funglegunk wrote: »

Thats presuming that being an atheist means you attack religion. Which isn't true. If I was getting married in a church, and the bride asked me to go through the motions of the sermon for her sake, I would do it.

I don't see how its morally dubious to engage in some mild hypocrisy (i.e. saying you believe in God, Jesus during the ceremony etc.) instead of ruining your bride's wedding day.

hmmm to me that would be the start of a slippery slope - what about if children arrive - do you christen them, send them to Catholic school, allow them to receive the sacraments - just to go through "the motions"?

There are any number of lovely venues for a wedding (if its a photo op that's bothering you) and if there is a fundamental disagreement between ye on area of religion/athiesm surely that requires a bit of a conversation before you get married. My husband is athiest and no way I'd expect him to have to make promises in a church where he felt uncomfortable - not the best way to start a marriage imo.

Osgoodisgood

who the fug wrote: »

I do think it is unfair to invite somebody to a wedding, and insult their beliefs, which is what atheists do by getting married in a church.

I am a happy atheist who got married to a (very) occasional church goer in a church. The clergyman knew of my lack of belief in all things religious and was totally cool with it. Pretty much everyone who attended was aware of my views and I'm guessing that the guests had a wide cross section of views as well.

We chose a church wedding simply because it avoided some drama from some of the older family members to whom such things still seem quaintly important.

A great day was had by all and it didn't bother me in the slightest to have to tell a few insignificant porkies (to me anyway) in order that everyone could enjoy the day.

So tell me. Who was I unfair to? And how and when did I insult their beliefs?

komodosp

Hippo wrote: »

And you have no difficulty with how your participation would probably be interpreted by others? Absolutely, god does not exist. Why then make such a public declaration that god does exist?

I would think it would be interpreted by others as me going through the motions of a wedding, because it's the norm to have a wedding in a church. I can't see people going, "Oh isn't Komodosp really holy because he got married in a church, maybe there is something to this religion thing after all".

If someone does take my church wedding as proof God does exist, that's their own problem.

Atheism isn't a religion itself, though it often seems to be regarded as such. It is a lack of religion.

It's simply going with the rule, if one person cares what is done, and the other person doesn't care, we go with the one who cares.

Funglegunk

ArthurDent wrote: »

hmmm to me that would be the start of a slippery slope - what about if children arrive - do you christen them, send them to Catholic school, allow them to receive the sacraments - just to go through "the motions"?

There are any number of lovely venues for a wedding (if its a photo op that's bothering you) and if there is a fundamental disagreement between ye on area of religion/athiesm surely that requires a bit of a conversation before you get married. My husband is athiest and no way I'd expect him to have to make promises in a church where he felt uncomfortable - not the best way to start a marriage imo.

Nothing is 'bothering me' at all, my point is that if she wanted to have a Catholic wedding in a church, with all the things that day entails, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. The only thing a wedding would mean to me is that we both publicly declare both our love for each other and the intention to spend the rest of our lives together, and that our family and friends are there to see it. If the religious trappings of it made your husband uncomfortable then thats his prerogative and fair play to you for accommodating him. I personally have no problem with them, they are meaningless to me.

Yes the raising of our children would require a good bit of conversation before we got married. I suppose I'm assuming here that I would marry someone who was not devoutly Christian, and would not want to indoctrinate my children before they've had a chance to think for themselves. However that is for another thread...this is about weddings.

komodosp

hmmm to me that would be the start of a slippery slope - what about if children arrive - do you christen them, send them to Catholic school, allow them to receive the sacraments - just to go through "the motions"?

Why the hell not? Well... send them to whatever school I thought was best but if that turned out to be Catholic, then sure! I will also read them stories about Cu Chullain, Fionn MacCumhaill and pretend that Santa Claus exists.

My husband is athiest and no way I'd expect him to have to make promises in a church where he felt uncomfortable - not the best way to start a marriage imo.

The only person I would care about keeping my promises to, is my wife. It would have to be on the understanding that the religious-specific promises I am "making" might not be genuine, I'm sure she'd understand. I would explain beforehand, "you know I might not go to mass every week after we're married, right?" Although the promises are supposed to be between me, her and God, she would have to be clear they are just between me and her.

Dades

who the fug wrote: »

I do think it is unfair to invite somebody to a wedding, and insult their beliefs, which is what atheists do by getting married in a church.

All those mass-twice-a-year catholics sitting uncomfortably in the pews don't give a damn what the bride and groom are mumbling at the alter as long as someone isn't wearing the same hat as them and there's free booze at the reception.

drkpower

Hippo wrote: »

I can't understand this at all. How, as an atheist, do you not have 'beliefs or principles to be hypocritical against'? How would you in all seriousness participate (centrally!) in a religious ceremony?

If religon means nothing to you, the ceremony means nothing. So its not really hypocritical.

Churches are nicer than most other settings for a wedding.
Churches often have a particular tradition and meaning even for a non-believer (family married there, family funeralised there....is that a word?)

So if a particular building has a meaning for you, or looks more pretty, or because your OH is a believer, or if your parents are believers, or just cause you want to, who cares if God gets mentioned a bunch of times on the day.......it doesnt mean anything. I say "God bless you" etc every day....means nothing, mind - and it doesnt make me hypocritical!

Hippo

drkpower wrote: »

If religon means nothing to you, the ceremony means nothing. So its not really hypocritical.

Churches are nicer than most other settings for a wedding.
Churches often have a particular tradition and meaning even for a non-believer (family married there, family funeralised there....is that a word?)

So if a particular building has a meaning for you, or looks more pretty, or because your OH is a believer, or if your parents are believers, or just cause you want to, who cares if God gets mentioned a bunch of times on the day.......it doesnt mean anything. I say "God bless you" etc every day....means nothing, mind - and it doesnt make me hypocritical!

I would care if god got mentioned a bunch of times on such an important day. If the ceremony means nothing to you, then don't get married.

drkpower

Hippo wrote: »

I would care if god got mentioned a bunch of times on such an important day. If the ceremony means nothing to you, then don't get married.

Well, I wouldn't.... He doesnt exist. I dont care when Santa is mentioned a bunch of times on Christmas Day.

I wanted to get married. The issue was where. I chose the Church cause the building was the location for quite a number of significant events for both myself and my partner - it was laden with memories, good and bad......and it also looks nice in the photos. Am I evil/a hypocrite/deficient/stupid?

komodosp

To be honest this thread has made me think a little, and maybe I haven't been giving my relatives enough credit. I said I'd get married in a church, to keep the more religious of my relatives happy, not to mention the bride (if it was important to her) and her relatives.

The only insult I think I'm giving is that I'm assuming that it would cause them distress to have a non-church wedding in the family. And yes it might be a bit insulting later if they found out I made all those promises to their God under false pretences.

But as I said before, my point is that I wouldn't care whether the wedding was in a church or not. So if the fiancée wanted to get married in a church, (EDIT: Or if I thought it was better for family relations) I would not refuse on the grounds that I'm an atheist. And I would go through the motions of the ceremony for the same reason I would sit through a boring film she liked.

Same with getting a child Christened. People (atheists) act like getting the child Christened is a bad thing. She is not losing her atheist soul! Nothing happened, except we went into a nice building, sat through a lecture and then the lecturer poured some water on her head.

Christian ceremonies are not negative, they are simply needless. And I don't believe it can force Christianity on a person, I was Christened, had communion, went to a catholic school, made a confirmation, and I'm still an atheist.

Hippo

If all of this is meaningless, then why stand up in front of everyone and make these promises in the first place, regardless of whether you consider them binding or not? The same applies to the christening ceremony, why would you do this? Just to keep other people happy?

I take your point that of course as there is no god, these are empty gestures, but I seriously cannot see why you would conceal your atheism in this way, and to equate getting married in a church with accompanying your girlfriend to a boring movie is for me just a little simplistic .

Kooli

If I get married, that ceremony will mean SO much to me that I just will not be able to stand up their and utter phrases that are meaningless to me, or downright lies. I want the ceremony to represent what the marriage means to me, so I do NOT want a priest to start talking about how it's a marriage that god is the third member of, and I don't want to promise to raise my kids in the faith, and I don't want God even mentioned! (Let's hope my OH agrees when the time comes!)

As for baptism, I think it's really important for atheists to take a stand against it. Going along with it because it's 'no harm' helps to perpetuate the system we have now where the Catholic church has control of all important rituals in life (birth, marriage, death), and control of state schools. And it perpetuates this illusion that there are so many more christians than there actually are!

But I suppose it boils down to whether you are an 'angry atheist' (who is angry about the status quo) or a 'not too bothered atheist' (who doesn't believe in God but doesn't think about it that much or isn't too upset by how things are done these days)

drkpower

Hippo wrote: »

If all of this is meaningless, then why stand up in front of everyone and make these promises in the first place, regardless of whether you consider them binding or not? The same applies to the christening ceremony, why would you do this? Just to keep other people happy?

Loads of reasons...

But what does it matter? The point is that, if saying God a few times is entirely meaningless (which it is), anything with the bare minimum of meaning (my Dad would like it) wins...!

Its very straightforward.

Hippo

drkpower wrote: »

Loads of reasons...

But what does it matter? The point is that, if saying God a few times is entirely meaningless (which it is), anything with the bare minimum of meaning (my Dad would like it) wins...!

Its very straightforward.

Good for you.

Kooli

drkpower wrote: »

Loads of reasons...

But what does it matter? The point is that, if saying God a few times is entirely meaningless (which it is), anything with the bare minimum of meaning (my Dad would like it) wins...!

Its very straightforward.

Except for those of us that don't want to spout meaningless phrases at such an important event. I think it insults the seriousness of it to just go along with it as if the words said don't really matter. I would like to say what I mean, and really mean what I say, when I am pledging to spend my life with another person.

Dades

Kooli wrote: »

Except for those of us that don't want to spout meaningless phrases at such an important event. I think it insults the seriousness of it to just go along with it as if the words said don't really matter. I would like to say what I mean, and really mean what I say, when I am pledging to spend my life with another person.

What gives you the idea that not believing in God suggests that you don't mean what you say during your vows? Marriage is a symbolic event that doesn't need religion to validate it. Heck, you're not even married until you sign the civil docs.

The very fact that atheists allow themselves to be married in a church shows a compromise on their part.

NothingMan

I always said that I would get married in a church if my OH wanted it. but as I grow older and hopefully wiser, and definitely more arrogant I still would get married in a church but would not tell all the little porkies. I agree with Kooli, it should be a day where you express to each other your own personal intentions and throwing the word God around, although is just a word to me, does cheapen the meaning between you and your wife/husband.

I have already defected from the Catholic church so may not even be allowed to get married in a church. I know my sister got married in a church but as it was not her parish she had to get her own priest. I wonder if you could do this, but instead of getting a priest do your own secular ceremony and personal vows.

Definitely no on the baptismal deal. I just had to go and offically sign myself out of a club I was signed up to before I could think let alone talk, so I will not do the same to my kids.

Kooli

Dades wrote: »

What gives you the idea that not believing in God suggests that you don't mean what you say during your vows? Marriage is a symbolic event that doesn't need religion to validate it. Heck, you're not even married until you sign the civil docs.

The very fact that atheists allow themselves to be married in a church shows a compromise on their part.

Well as an atheist if I promised to bring my child up in the catholic faith (which is traditionally part of the ceremony) then I don't mean what I say. And if during the exchange of rings, I declare that I am sharing all with my partner 'in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit' then I don't mean what I say. And you can be sure that a lot of what the priest says is going to be about god's role in my marriage to my partner, which is not how I see it.

So yes, the part of the vows doesn't mention God directly, but the whole ceremony is so drenched in God-speak (as it rightly should be - it's a religious ceremony) that I couldn't take part in it without feeling like a fraud, and feeling a bit peed off that the ceremony isn't as genuine as it could be.

Panrich

A couple of years ago, we got married in a registry office here in Ireland with just the parents attending and then a few months later had a ceremony for the rest of the family on a boat in Lanzarote (catamaran) married by the ships captain. Sorted.

drkpower

Kooli wrote: »

Except for those of us that don't want to spout meaningless phrases at such an important event. I think it insults the seriousness of it to just go along with it as if the words said don't really matter. I would like to say what I mean, and really mean what I say, when I am pledging to spend my life with another person.

I mean the last bit - I dont mean the meaningless bits about "God". Why cant you seperate the two?

I often make light hearted jokes at meetings; when I start giving my actual advice, people dont think Im still joking (or at least I hope not...:D)

drkpower

Kooli wrote: »

but the whole ceremony is so drenched in God-speak (as it rightly should be - it's a religious ceremony) that I couldn't take part in it without feeling like a fraud, and feeling a bit peed off that the ceremony isn't as genuine as it could be.

A fraud in what respect?
Presumably those dear to you know your views on God so you are not being fraudluent to them.
And other than that, why would you care if you are being a fraud in respect of the priest or God?

wicklowdub

Thanks for all the replies, some very interesting points made.

The marriage is a very real and important ceremony to me. The religous aspect is not that important to me.

Kooli

drkpower wrote: »

A fraud in what respect?
Presumably those dear to you know your views on God so you are not being fraudluent to them.
And other than that, why would you care if you are being a fraud in respect of the priest or God?

Maybe fraud is the wrong word, because I wouldn't feel I am being a fraud TO somebody.

If this is a ceremony that I am going to enter into thoughtfully and seriously, with full intention to celebrate my love for someone and promise to spend the rest of my life with them, then I want the words of that ceremony to represent how I feel.

I don't want the words said (by me or by the celebrant) to be something I have to ignore or 'just go along with'.

I don't want the seriousness of the commitment to be represented by God's presence or blessing - that is not what makes it serious or important. I don't want to have to close my ears for those bits. And I don't particularly want a priest to be giving a speech about the nature of marital love/life.

None of that feels genuine to me, and this is one day of my life where I think genuineness is of the utmost importance.

Kooli

drkpower wrote: »

I mean the last bit - I dont mean the meaningless bits about "God". Why cant you seperate the two?

I often make light hearted jokes at meetings; when I start giving my actual advice, people dont think Im still joking (or at least I hope not...:D)

Why should I have to?

And I wouldn't compare it to jokes at a meeting. I wouldn't mind jokes at my wedding! But what if you started the meeting with a speech about how although you recognise the good work of your staff, you know that most of the credit for their recent success was due to the owner of the building you were working in, and then talked about the building and how great it was?

It's a completely nonsensical example, I do realise (but talking about God at my wedding makes as little sense to me). But would you expect your staff to just sit through that bit, ignore it, 'separate it' until they got a chance to present their work?

Perhaps not a good analogy , maybe I should have just stuck with my original question - why should I have to?

Funglegunk

Kooli wrote: »

Maybe fraud is the wrong word...

Well said. But if you were to marry a Christian, how would you both compromise your positions? I think that's the main point being made here: if most atheists' Christian spouse wanted a Christian wedding, then they would be willing to go along with the Christian parts of the ceremony as they wouldn't consider that an affront to their principles (so long as their spouse knew this before getting married that is).

Much of the money spent on a typical wedding ceremony goes into the pomp and spectacle of it all (the decorations, the reception, the dresses, the suits, the food, the drink...correct me if I'm wrong here as I've never planned a wedding!), this is pretty much for the shared benefit of everyone who attends. I'd wager many atheists would consider the Christian parts of the ceremony to also fall into this category.

Kooli

Funglegunk wrote: »

Well said. But if you were to marry a Christian, how would you both compromise your positions? I think that's the main point being made here: if most atheists' Christian spouse wanted a Christian wedding, then they would be willing to go along with the Christian parts of the ceremony as they wouldn't consider that an affront to their principles (so long as their spouse knew this before getting married that is).

Much of the money spent on a typical wedding ceremony goes into the pomp and spectacle of it all (the decorations, the reception, the dresses, the suits, the food, the drink...correct me if I'm wrong here as I've never planned a wedding!), this is pretty much for the shared benefit of everyone who attends. I'd wager many atheists would consider the Christian parts of the ceremony to also fall into this category.

Yeah I see that.

I do believe the wedding reception/party is for the benefit of the guests. But I don't think the ceremony itself should be about anyone but the couple involved.

If I married someone who was as Catholic as most Catholics I know (i.e. not bothered really, goes to mass once a year, would probably be atheist if they put much thought into it), then I think the fact that I feel more strongly about it than they do should mean that we don't do the church thing. If I was with a strongly believing Christian, then I would have bigger concerns than the wording or location of our wedding ceremony!