Asked to be a Godparent

Crania

Recently, I was asked to be godfather by my sister and my brother-in-law of their recently born son. I was very honoured to be asked and duly accepted, in fact I don't know how I could've said no after my sister put her trust in me and asked me to have such a role in her child's life. But as an atheist, I am wondering do people think that I should've said no as it would be somewhat inappropriate for me, not as a follower of their faith, to take such a role?

For me, I see the role of a godparent as more a person who takes a special interest in the child and helps with the personal development of the child rather than as a spiritual and religious guide.

I don't exactly regard myself as an extreme or militant atheist, I'm quite moderate and I prefer to keep my views on religion private. Also the parents in question are hardly the most religious of people and I'd say the last time both of them even went to mass was their wedding so it's not as if it's an overly-religious family anyway.

What do others think? Am I being untrue to my beliefs? Am I denying my nephew appropriate spirtual and religious guidance?

liamw

Personally, I would have just kindly stated that I don't believe in any religion and that I may not be suited as godparent.

To be honest though, I wouldn't worry about it. Doesn't mean jack s**t nowadays really, it's just another meaningless title for most people. Won't affect your role in the childs life I doubt.

gnxx

Crania wrote: »

For me, I see the role of a godparent as more a person who takes a special interest in the child and helps with the personal development of the child rather than as a spiritual and religious guide.

This post indicates that you are an ideal choice :-)

By questioning your own position, I would suggest that you are aware of any potential bias towards your own beliefs and would tend to be an ideal role model.

Galvasean

Crania wrote: »

For me, I see the role of a godparent as more a person who takes a special interest in the child and helps with the personal development of the child rather than as a spiritual and religious guide.

I think that's how most consider the role of Godparent these days. Most people arent aware that a godparent is 'supposed to' bring up the kids in faith should something untoward happen to the parents.

hiorta

As was said, you do sound the ideal person for the task.
It might be better to frankly state your concern over the role expected of you and agree to approach the opening as you've mentioned to us.
Clean honesty cant be faulted, surely?

bleg

If I was asked I'd have to politely decline and ask why they want to introduce their baby to the Catholic Church.

Crania

Thanks for the responses so far, appreciate them.

Just wondering, does anyone know what, if any, questions I'll have to answer during the Christening? Will I have to say I believe in God and that I renounce the devil, etc? That would be a huge problem for me but I know this is important to my sister so I would do it, just reluctantly. I think they call that 'mental reservation', similar to when Irish TD's had to declare an oath of allegiance to the King.

dreamers75

Crania wrote: »

For me, I see the role of a godparent as more a person who takes a special interest in the child and helps with the personal development of the child rather than as a spiritual and religious guide.

hehheh thats funny.


You buy them presents and they will learn to expect the best present from you.

Oh and the other stuff you mentioned.

bleg

You have to answer those questions as far as I know.

Petrovia

My parents are atheists* yet I have two godparents (admittedly, one of them being my sister - she's 12 years older than me). I always thought of it as your godparents being those people who will take care of you in the eventuality of your parents dying or becoming unable to care of you while you are still underage.

I do remember that my godfather gave me a little cross on a necklace when I was little, but that was as far as either of their religious involvement went, really.

But I suppose it really depends on what they expect from you. You might try and ask casually what their ideas about your involvement are...?


*Even so, they went along with the rituals a lot of the time (well, when it suited them).

Dades

I would have agreed on the basis that they were made aware of your beliefs, and that the "spiritual" aspect wasn't going to be part of your brief.

Can't do any more than that.

rccaulfield

As long as your sister is aware of your views! I'm in the same boat- and will encourage the young lad to have a good world knowledge and to question things-including science! So thats a spiritual guide in a way!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liamw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And that's exactly how I imagine I would feel. I even feel it at funerals a bit.
Thanks for sharing

Ickle Magoo

As long as your sister & brother-in-law know your beliefs, or lack there of then I don't see an issue. If they expect any kind of religious input from you and you have already agreed then there could be problems.

We appointed guardians for our kids, with exactly the remit you speak of;

more a person who takes a special interest in the child and helps with the personal development of the child rather than as a spiritual and religious guide..

GLaDOS

My godparents don't so anything but give me a bit extra at Christmas and birthdays

robindch

Crania wrote: »

I see the role of a godparent as more a person who takes a special interest in the child and helps with the personal development of the child rather than as a spiritual and religious guide.

I believe the original intention of godfatherhood and godmotherhood was to ensure that the child was indoctrinated with the correct version of the appropriate religion. That belief has since largely lapsed and now the position seems to be more as you describe -- just somebody who looks over the fence from time to time, and hands over a larger prezzie on the birthday + christmas.

Crania wrote: »

Am I denying my nephew appropriate spirtual and religious guidance?

I think your sister found the right guy to tell her kid about religion

lucianot

I was offered this by my best friend and I politely refused. He accepted my answer and asked then someone else who was very happy and excited to take on that role.
My friend then thanked my honesty. I offered myself as the photographer for that day and all ended right.
Now everybody is aware of my convictions so this will also spare me any future invitations !:D
Man, it looks easier now to say that you belong to another religion than being atheist. If you say "I'm a Sarkanian" (just an example) everybody will say "oh, right, sorry", but if you say that you are an atheist rest assured there will be some negative comments.

Evolute

If you don't have a problem with being at the church for the childs communion and confirmation then you don't really have a problem at all.

lucianot

Well, I would avoid entering any temple at all, but I have offended somebody before by refusing taking pictures so I thoguht about it and decided to be more flexbile and not to declare total war, at least for now.

hiorta

[As long as your sister & brother-in-law know your beliefs, or lack there of then I don't see an issue].

It is assumed often that a belief in a particular doctrinal concept of a particular notion of a god, is all inclusive in the idea of 'religious belief' and nothing exists - or can exist - beyond this.
There are many concepts of what we are, where we came from for whatever purpose and what occurs after physical death, etc,.

ALL of such views are of equal veracity until one of them offers exclusive proof to the contrary.

Ickle Magoo

hiorta wrote: »

[As long as your sister & brother-in-law know your beliefs, or lack there of then I don't see an issue].

It is assumed often that a belief in a particular doctrinal concept of a particular notion of a god, is all inclusive in the idea of 'religious belief' and nothing exists - or can exist - beyond this.
There are many concepts of what we are, where we came from for whatever purpose and what occurs after physical death, etc,.

Eh, the OP stated they were an atheist - my post referred to his sister knowing that. Of course the world is a many coloured rainbow and all such other lovely sentiments and semantics but in the context of my post, this forum & the dictionary; theist = believes (whatever the omnipotent being/s) & atheist = lack of belief.

hiorta wrote: »

ALL of such views are of equal veracity until one of them offers exclusive proof to the contrary.

Really? Do you apply the same logic to faeries, leprechauns, unicorns, etc? :P

Dades

hiorta wrote: »

ALL of such views are of equal veracity until one of them offers exclusive proof to the contrary.

When you open someone's fridge do you anticipate there's an equal chance you'll find Puff the Magic Dragon, Anne Boleyn's head or some out-of-date coleslaw?

Coriolanus

Tbh, it'd be giving up a lifetimes worth of opportunities to do badly re-enacted scenes from the Godfather trilogy, so for that reason alone I'd say yes.

Honestly though, I very much doubt your sister and husband expect you to do much religious nurturing. Spiritual, ethical, political (godkids make great lackeys/soldiers) maybe, but nothing overtly religious, unless of course they are themselves very religious, which they don't seem to be?

Lollymcd

Does no one find it odd that people who are not religious and don't attend mass have church weddings and Christen their children? Why put everyone through the bother? Just my two cents.

Coriolanus

Lollymcd wrote: »

Does no one find it odd that people who are not religious and don't attend mass have church weddings and Christen their children? Why put everyone through the bother? Just my two cents.

The Emperor still has his talons firmly wrapped around the primary school system in Ireland.

That's him on the right, no idea who the other chap is?

Lollymcd

OMG I should have known, so obvious! Gosh that makes me so mad. Urrrggghhhhhhhhh *** kicks table***

hiorta

Dades wrote: »

When you open someone's fridge do you anticipate there's an equal chance you'll find Puff the Magic Dragon, Anne Boleyn's head or some out-of-date coleslaw?

I can't see tre relevance to the discussion of this comment, could you elaborate?
As I understand it, there is no proof, or evidence pointing to proof, that the Christian - or any - notion of their deity exists. Exactly the same can be said of the Atheist position, only this time non-existence.

It does seem that Atheists are far more tolerant of opinions on the topic, though.

Hippo

Lollymcd wrote: »

Does no one find it odd that people who are not religious and don't attend mass have church weddings and Christen their children? Why put everyone through the bother? Just my two cents.

Agree 100%.

WRT becoming a godparent, I never could as I'm an atheist. Why make all those 'promises' if you don't believe in them, it's complete nonsense.

liamw

Lollymcd wrote: »

Does no one find it odd that people who are not religious and don't attend mass have church weddings and Christen their children? Why put everyone through the bother? Just my two cents.

Are you really that naive? The reason it's a difficult decision for atheists is often becuase of others in the family who would want the child baptised or the wedding to be in a church.. primarily the parents it seems.

A lot of the time, I've seen atheists go through with it because their partner or relations would be upset if they didn't. You act as if it's all a 'bother' for everyone involved. I guarantee my mum wouldn't see it as a 'bother' to go to my wedding. In fact I'm sure she would insist on it.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I believe the original intention of godfatherhood and godmotherhood was to ensure that the child was indoctrinated with the correct version of the appropriate religion.

Originally the godparent was a sponsor who would vouch for the sincerity of an adult convert to Christianity. As the Church was being persecuted at the time, the sponsor would assure the Church leadership that the new convert was genuine and not a paid informer. A similar system still operates today in some churches in China, where a sponsor attests that the new Christian is not a government 'plant'.

When infant baptism was introduced then the role of the sponsor was changed to that of a godparent. In an age where life expectancy was much lower than today, the godparent would be expected to adopt the child if the parents died, thus ensuring that it continued to receive a spiritual upbringing.

As for the OP, the parents of the child, in asking an atheist to be a godparent, obviously see no spiritual significance at all in their kid's christening or the concept of a godparent, so you might as well go along with them and treat the whole thing as a harmless charade with no more meaning than kissing someone under the mistletoe.

bnt

Hippo wrote: »

Agree 100%.

WRT becoming a godparent, I never could as I'm an atheist. Why make all those 'promises' if you don't believe in them, it's complete nonsense.

Well, I'm a "godparent", but I never attended any ceremonies or made any promises to do with religion. My friends are nominally Christian and know I'm an atheist, but probably didn't notice the "god" in "godparent" because they're not going to church much. So it's more like robindch said - more like a "favourite uncle". I've already told my friends (in a nice roundabout way) that if I'm ever asked about religion, by my "goddaughter" or her brothers, I won't lie about my atheism.

Lollymcd

liamw wrote: »

You act as if it's all a 'bother' for everyone involved. I guarantee my mum wouldn't see it as a 'bother' to go to my wedding. In fact I'm sure she would insist on it.

I'm not suggesting that going your wedding would be a bother to anyone, sorry if this is how it came across! I would presume that if someone is an atheist that they would have a civil ceramony, no bother!!! I would be bothered by someone inviting me to their wedding if they were are pronounced atheist and it was in a church, it's just a sham, a lie, the same as standing on an altar and promising to teach a child about religion and you have no intention of doing it. It's lying, plain and simple. I detest the idea of just using the church for christenings, weddings, confirmations etc just to keep parent/neighbours/friends happy. People should have more respect.

If someone is an atheist perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask people to be guardians of their child?

liamw

Lollymcd wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that going your wedding would be a bother to anyone, sorry if this is how it came across! I would presume that if someone is an atheist that they would have a civil ceramony, no bother!!! I would be bothered by someone inviting me to their wedding if they were are pronounced atheist and it was in a church, it's just a sham, a lie, the same as standing on an altar and promising to teach a child about religion and you have no intention of doing it. It's lying, plain and simple. I detest the idea of just using the church for christenings, weddings, confirmations etc just to keep parent/neighbours/friends happy. People should have more respect.

If someone is an atheist perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask people to be guardians of their child?

To an atheist, it's all completely meaningless. Selfish as it may be, I value my partner's happiness over 'lying' in a Church at a wedding. And dude, seriously you say that as if 99% of the populations aren't either atheist or buffet believers that go to Mass once a year to chat to the neighbours. Are these people hypocrites too?

PS. I will avoid a church wedding if I can, and will not christen my child.

Dades

Lollymcd wrote: »

I detest the idea of just using the church for christenings, weddings, confirmations etc just to keep parent/neighbours/friends/wife/husband/partner happy.

I've included the most important people you left out.

Remember, you're not the only person getting married, nor the only parent with a say in the child's upbringing.
People always forget this.

If both partners were non-believers (rare, tbh) - I'm with you all the way.

Lollymcd

liamw wrote: »

To an atheist, it's all completely meaningless. Selfish as it may be, I value my partner's happiness over 'lying' in a Church at a wedding. And dude, seriously you say that as if 99% of the populations aren't either atheist or buffet believers that go to Mass once a year to chat to the neighbours. Are these people hypocrites too?

PS. I will avoid a church wedding if I can, and will not christen my child.

No talking in Mass, one must be silent and solemn and respect the sacrament!!! Just kidding!!!

Fair play for doing that for your partner, it's a big deal to do something that goes against the grain like that. I hope you have a lovely day.

Lollymcd

Dades wrote: »

I've included the most important people you left out.

Remember, you're not the only person getting married, nor the only parent with a say in the child's upbringing.
People always forget this.

If both partners were non-believers (rare, tbh) - I'm with you all the way.

Forgive my ommissions, I agree. I've just come across a lot of mothers and fathers who share the same beliefs/non beliefs. A situation where there are conflicting beliefs has to be in some way difficult for people. I would not wish to be in that situation.

Hippo

liamw wrote: »

Are you really that naive? The reason it's a difficult decision for atheists is often becuase of others in the family who would want the child baptised or the wedding to be in a church.. primarily the parents it seems.

A lot of the time, I've seen atheists go through with it because their partner or relations would be upset if they didn't. You act as if it's all a 'bother' for everyone involved. I guarantee my mum wouldn't see it as a 'bother' to go to my wedding. In fact I'm sure she would insist on it.

Well then atheists should have the courage of their convictions. Does no one ever consider that an atheist might be 'upset' at having to go through the motions?

liamw

Hippo wrote: »

Well then atheists should have the courage of their convictions. Does no one ever consider that an atheist might be 'upset' at having to go through the motions?

Indeed they should! You're absolutely right. But there's a distinct difference: For the Christian it's part of their religious ritual, for an atheist it's meaningless. If you don't believe, then technically it's just words and that's why people aren't empathetic towards atheists. Can't blame them really when we go around eating babies

Hippo

I don't agree at all; while I take your point that it's 'meaningless', to me, standing up in public and spouting a load of stuff I don't believe in is completely contrary to my convictions. And what are other people supposed to make of what I've just said, are they supposed to be in on the secret? Nothing 'meaningless' about all that. In fact, I'll go further and say that what you're suggesting is a kind of 'a la carte' atheism.

PDN

Hippo wrote: »

In fact, I'll go further and say that what you're suggesting is a kind of 'a la carte' atheism.

As opposed to a dogmatic 'toe-the-line' atheism?

What next, 'a la carte' non-stamp-collecting? Heaven help us!

liamw

Well, if you knew me you would probably say that I'm quite a strong atheist. I hate religious nonsense interfering with my life at all, and hate the fact that we live in 2010 with such amazing feats of scientific endeavour and yet betray all that with this mindless bronze age crap.

However, this is one subject that really tears me. Who do I care about more, myself or my partner and parents or children? You could almost argue that it's selfish for me to deny my partner her wedding day which she's looked forward to for years. You could also argue it's selfish to not baptise my kid becuase it could restrict him/her from certain schools and set him/her as an outsider for other occasions.

At the end of the day, it's just tradition. Weddings are f**k all to do with religion. So you could say buffet believers are just as bad as saying all those words, becuase they don't even think about the words either... the words have already faded by the time the groom kisses the bride.

Hippo

PDN wrote: »

As opposed to a dogmatic 'toe-the-line' atheism?

What next, 'a la carte' non-stamp-collecting? Heaven help us!

I say that purely because so many atheists would be quick to accuse, for instance, catholics of the very same thing. I'm not suggesting dogmatic, toe- the- line- anything, just that going through the motions of this kind of ceremony wouldn't sit well with me. And while I'm sure you're trying to be funny with the 'non-stamp collecting' comparison it doesn't really make any sense, sorry.

Sid_Justice

My friend was asked by his sister to be godchild to her son on the condition that be believed in God. After some personal reflection, he concluded he did not, so she asked the other brother to do it. I think he regrets missing out on the experience, and probably, wouldn't have had a problem going through the Christian motions.

I come from a very culturally Christian household. My grandparents would have been quite religious and avid mass goers throughout their life. My parents, however, in the last 20 years or so, only attend mass at ceremonies like baptisms/weddings/funerals, and occasionally Christmas.

Despite this, to the best of my knowledge, my parents still subscribe in general to the concept of Christianity and don't spend much time in theological thought about the exact nature of God, should one exist.

Furthermore, as far as I know, my brothers have a similar belief system to my parents, as did I until about a few months ago. As I've lost faith in the Catholic Church in Ireland as a organisation, I challenged my own spirtual beliefs as a whole and have decided to follow the scientific route, and as such, 'don't believe'.

To bring this back on topic, I expect to find myself in the same position as the original poster in a few years. While this time last year it would be a trivial thing for me to do to acquiesce to Christian traditions, i think it would be more difficult now. But at the same time, I would consider myself (perhaps slightly arrogantly) to be more knowledgeable and informed about the Christian faith(s) and perhaps just as good as candidate. sorry this post has got out of hand i'll stop now.

Ickle Magoo

Hippo wrote: »

I don't agree at all; while I take your point that it's 'meaningless', to me, standing up in public and spouting a load of stuff I don't believe in is completely contrary to my convictions. And what are other people supposed to make of what I've just said, are they supposed to be in on the secret? Nothing 'meaningless' about all that. In fact, I'll go further and say that what you're suggesting is a kind of 'a la carte' atheism.

I disagree, I'd call it compromising for the sake of people you love and their beliefs. I'm lucky, I happened to fall in love in love with another atheist - if I hadn't then our wedding day would have to be a compromise of both our beliefs, since they would both have equal status. I view it as much the same as life with an Irish husband, there are a few things we have to juggle around that people that come from the same country don't but that's the price we're willing to pay to have each other.

You can't help who you fall in love with for the most part and you can't demand they be the ones to make all the concessions or that their beliefs and wishes come second to your own - well, I guess you could but I suspect that's not the kind of relationship to which most people aspire.

Dades

Hippo wrote: »

I say that purely because so many atheists would be quick to accuse, for instance, catholics of the very same thing.

It couldn't ever be the same thing given there are no rules relating to not believing in deities. So what doesn't sit with you, might sit fine with another atheist.

PDN

Hippo wrote: »

I say that purely because so many atheists would be quick to accuse, for instance, catholics of the very same thing.

Indeed, because Catholicism is a religion, with dogma.

I'm not suggesting dogmatic, toe- the- line- anything, just that going through the motions of this kind of ceremony wouldn't sit well with me.

And isn't choosing to do that which does "sit well with you" the very essence of 'a la carte'?

And while I'm sure you're trying to be funny with the 'non-stamp collecting' comparison it doesn't really make any sense, sorry.

It's a common response round these parts if anyone attempts to portray atheism as a faith or a religion.

dvpower

Hippo wrote: »

I say that purely because so many atheists would be quick to accuse, for instance, catholics of the very same thing. I'm not suggesting dogmatic, toe- the- line- anything, just that going through the motions of this kind of ceremony wouldn't sit well with me. And while I'm sure you're trying to be funny with the 'non-stamp collecting' comparison it doesn't really make any sense, sorry.

One can be an atheist without being an anti theist.

Lets face it, even for most common or garden catholics these days the role of a godparent isn't a spiritual one; it is to have a special relationship with the child. Its a privilage to be asked so I wouldn't turn down an offer for anti religious reasons (and thb, I wouldn't have enough respect for the rc church to turn it down on grounds of respect for them).

So, as long as the childs parents are happy to have an atheist as a godparent, I'd be OK with it too.

robindch

Hippo wrote: »

Does no one ever consider that an atheist might be 'upset' at having to go through the motions?

I'm sure people do from time to time, but I don't ever recall it happening within my earshot.