Attending a Church wedding

Stealthfins

Such as splitting an atom JC

J C

DK man wrote: »

I went to a civil ceremony recently and even though I was tripping over cliché poetry and candles I went with the flow.

You don't have to go to the church - I would prefer a person who felt very uncomfortable at my wedding to just go to,the pub and join the party afterwards instead of feeling so out of sorts when asked to stand up and kneel down a few times etc...

This is not the right time to make big bold statements - just stay away

The cliché poetry could be difficult to 'digest' allright !!!:D

Seriously though, I'm increasingly of the opinon that, for cost and personal reasons, everyone, except close family and friends, should only be invited to the wedding 'afters'.
It means that aquaintences don't have to take a day's leave off work and aren't expected to cough up a lavish wedding present ... and they can join in the festivities for a few hours after work and express their good wishes to the newly weds ... rather than wasting a whole day making small talk with people they don't know and will never meet again !!!

It also excuses Atheists, who have knee problems, from having to kneel at church weddings !!!;)
It could also mean that couples won't have to take out a mortgage to pay for the wedding, rather than a house.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Not in the slightest. I respect entirely somebody else's right to hold a belief and expect the same in return. However, that doesn't imply that I hold any respect for the belief itself. Quite the opposite usually - somebody who bangs on that I should respect their belief has lost the battle for respect entirely.

"They" aren't banging on that you should respect their beliefs. I am suggesting that you should respect their right to hold those beliefs, and don't forget I'm not one of "them".

robindch wrote: »

You also have a peculiar understanding of the word "sectarian"

That may seem so, but only to someone who wishes to believe that sectarian behaviour is something that only "others" do, IMO.

If you feel more comfortable with the word "bigoted" instead of "sectarian", that's fine by me.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to suggest that "bigoted" or "sectarian" behaviour is something atheists can't do, then you are wrong.

robindch wrote: »

Atheists don't divide themselves along sectarian lines.

If you say so, but atheists can and do divide themselves from others on precisely those lines - and I suppose I can and do divide myself from such atheists. But once again, if you prefer to describe such behaviour as "bigoted" rather than "sectarian" that's reasonable enough.

robindch wrote: »

We tend to be more of an equal-opportunities lot - detesting all religions fairly equally.

Detest and hate are such strong words, don't you think? If you behave in a bigoted way towards Catholics it is no different to a Protestant doing so. Where you are coming from philosophically might be different, but your behaviour is still bigoted and still based on the notion that some "other" does not have the right to have a different set of beliefs to yours.

robindch wrote: »

However, whether by self-selection or some other way, I find a noticeable difference between atheists and religious on all those fronts. Your mileage may differ.

The notion that kindness, humour, honesty and intelligence are traits to be associated more with one belief system than another is at best self-serving - and at worst, it is every bit as nasty and bigoted as believing that good character traits are more likely to appear in one race than another, one nationality than another, one gender than another, or one sexual orientation than another.

I meet Christians (mainly Catholics) who are all sorts. I meet atheists who are all sorts. Unsurprisingly the people who are closest to me are all atheists, but I couldn't stand over the statement that atheists generally are in some way better people than those who aren't atheists. I don't have the basis for a scientific evaluation of that hypothesis, and I have no need to make an unscientific judgement to feed some sense of moral superiority over believers that I just don't have.

Lord Riverside

Bye bye Ulysses, I hope you enjoyed your time on boards.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

I respect entirely somebody else's right to hold a belief and expect the same in return.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am suggesting that you should respect their right to hold those beliefs

Deleted User wrote: »

[...] I couldn't stand over the statement that atheists generally are in some way better people than those who aren't atheists. I don't have the basis for a scientific evaluation of that hypothesis, and I have no need to make an unscientific judgement to feed some sense of moral superiority over believers that I just don't have.

Did you get a chance to read my post before you replied to it?

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Did you get a chance to read my post before you replied to it?

Yes, and my point stands. Just because you say that you "respect entirely somebody else's right to hold a belief and expect the same in return" doesn't mean that your posting is living up to that.

I noticed that you referred to believers who "bang on that I should respect their belief". But - as I pointed out - that's not what was happening on this thread. What was happening on this thread was that someone was suggesting that it was OK to be gratuitously rude and ill-mannered at a religious service, and someone else - who happens to be an atheist - took issue with that view.

Also, you made the suggestion that certain positive character traits are more prevalent in atheists than in other population groups. I disagreed that this is a proven case, and pointed out - and I'm still pointing out - that this idea is wrong. Moreover, I am putting it to you that this idea is inconsistent with saying that you "respect entirely somebody else's right to hold a belief and expect the same in return". Why? Because if a person makes the statement that positive character traits are more associated with atheists than believers, then they are claiming a form of moral superiority for atheists over believers. That is philosophically inconsistent with claiming to entirely respect the right of believers to their belief system. When Protestants do that it's wrong. When Sunni Muslims do that it's wrong. When anyone of any religious faith does that it's wrong. I'm not going to apply a different and lesser standard to myself or to any other atheist.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Jonotti wrote: »

Would you expect muslim friends to not attend or would you expect the to follow catholic procedures during the wedding?

I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply, as you're clearly not going to act as you say, but I have had Muslim friends at a Catholic wedding. They do as any decent human being in society does and attend respectfully. They didn't pray but they stood and sat at appropriate times.

This turning your back nonsense will not happen but if it did it would be a huge insult to the Bride and Groom and their families. You are living in a fantasy world if you think such an action is even remotely acceptable.

But then again it's all just a figment of a mind looking for an argument on the internet.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Did you get a chance to read my post before you replied to it?

I think he did, Robin.
As Atheists and Secularists increase in numbers and influence within society, people like Ulysses will be needed as ambassadors for Atheism, with the ability to win friends and influence people within society who aren't Atheists.

Respect is a basic courtesy to be afforded everyone we meet/talk with and it is an essential requirement for normal, smooth social interaction.
There is a fundamental contradition in saying that you respect the right of people to hold any belief and then reserving the right to disrespect anybody who holds a belief with which you disagree.
Just because we disagree with somebody doesn't mean that we should disrespect them ... indeed, it is even more important where we disagree, that we do so with mutual respect.
We don't need tolerance for those with whom we agree as we're already 'on the same page with them' anyway ... tolerance is a virtue required for those with whom we fundamentally disagree.

None of this prevents anybody challenging/questioning the beliefs of others ... and if they don't answer the challenge or engage in handwaving or any other logical fallacy, then it's reasonable to assume that their belief is poorly grounded and/or that they are in denial of the invalidity of their idea.

looksee

Jonotti wrote: »

Exactly. Turning your back is a tiny physical action that does not affect anybody else.

Have you ever tried to stand facing backwards in a pew?

J C

looksee wrote: »

Have you ever tried to stand facing backwards in a pew?

Maybe he has ... that might also explain his knee problems, when it come to kneeling, as well !!!!;):D

Jonotti

looksee wrote: »

Have you ever tried to stand facing backwards in a pew?

Yes. Had a few tuts but most people knew beforehand what was happening. No big deal.

haveringchick

Jonotti wrote: »

Maybe I will take on too much attention if I'm on my own but somebody has to make a start. Say in ten years time people might expect 10-15 people to turn their back, understand what it means and not take offence to it.

You don't get it really, do you? Your loved ones marriage ceremony has nothing to do with your atheism and their ceremony is not an appropriate place for you to make a "statement " but you'll never "get" it so I'll just leave you to it

haveringchick

looksee wrote: »

Have you ever tried to stand facing backwards in a pew?

This too, never mind the inconvenience to the guest sitting directly behind jonotti

looksee

Jonotti wrote: »

Yes. Had a few tuts but most people knew beforehand what was happening. No big deal.

No you did not, it is virtually impossible to stand straight, backwards in a pew. If you were in one of these modern new fangled churches with chairs you might have, but mostly - no.

J C

Jonotti wrote: »

Yes. Had a few tuts but most people knew beforehand what was happening. No big deal.

Were your knees banjaxed from this 'awkward stance' (in every sense of the words) that you took?:)

At least you're unlikely to suffer a repetitive stress injury from it, as I'm guessing that you will be off all future wedding invitation lists (at least all future lists made by everybody at the wedding you protested at, anyway) !!!:eek:

J C

looksee wrote: »

No you did not, it is virtually impossible to stand straight, backwards in a pew. If you were in one of these modern new fangled churches with chairs you might have, but mostly - no.

I wouldn't be quite so definitive, looksee, you never know ... he might be a good contortionist !!!:pac:

johnnyskeleton

G Spark wrote: »

Would like clarification on that also johnnyskeleton?

Also in relation to your first paragraph, I'm not keen on being fake/a liar in the name of politeness.

Sorry I only saw this now. I see no problem personally with standing, kneeling, saying words etc when its part of a ceremony. So what if it is untrue or you dont believe it. When you meet someone for the first time you say "nice to meet you". It probably isnt actually nice to meet them, but you say it because it is polite.

Its different for people of other faiths because if they believe in a different God/Gods or Prophet, uttering the words would be blasphemous for them. But i you dont believe then they are just words.

As to whether it is offensive to believers to participate in their ceremony, this can be done respectfully, such as not taking communion. You are there for the bride and groom.

A lot of the time weddings will have some schtick such as writing a message in a card etc. Does the strict code that says kneeling in a church makes you a liar mean that if you had to write a message to the bride and groom youd be perfectly honest in that? "Dave you look well even thouh we all know youre a slob", "Mary I think this wedding is a mistake and I give you guys 3 years at most"? Because to say "I hope you guys have a great life together you look fab" would be a lie unless you genuinely wish them well and they actually look fabulous.

johnnyskeleton

Shrap wrote: »

As for the bolded part, let me get this straight. Are you genuinely saying that it would be more respectful for an atheist to attend and pretend to be a believer than it would be to respect other's beliefs by not pretending to hold them?

Respectfull to the bride and groom, yes, when the alternatves are to not attend out of protest or to attend and sit there like an attention seeker. Obviously while doing that you dont have to do anything offensive to believers such as taking communion, which is exactly what I said the OP can skip.

There is nothing disrespectful for an atheist to go to a Christian ceremony and, while there, try to blend in. If, as you suggest, Christians would be offended by a non believer attending, standing, kneeling etc then of course I wouldn't suggest that he do it. But they are not offended by that and in fact encourage it (bar maybe some extreme right wing Christians).

Peregrinus

Christian worship is conducted in public and anyone, Christian or not, is welcome to attend. Simply attending, therefore, in no way implies endorsement of what is going on.

Whether you stand or kneel when others do is entirely up you you. Practically nobody else will notice, much less care. Well, your mammy might care, but nobody else.

Don't engage in flamboyant gestures intended to distance yourself from what is going on, e.g. conspicuously turning your back on the ceremony. You're there because you have chosen to be. Acting in a way that signals that you have chosen to attend in order to make the point that you don't want to be there marks you out as having the maturity of a four-year-old.

I take Michael's point in post 76 that there is social and family pressure to attend these events, and if you refuse you "you basically become a pariah in both the community and your family and friends". Fair enough, but anybody who engages in grandstanding gestures of repudiation and rejection at somebody else's wedding is clearly not bothered about becoming a social pariah. Nobody is going to believe that they have succumbed to social pressure to be there, but resisted social pressure to behave with a modicum of dignity and good manners. They'll give the impression of having chosen to turn up in order to make a complete arse of themselves, which is not a good look.

johnnyskeleton

robindch wrote: »

Atheists don't divide themselves along sectarian lines.

I dunno. By the parlance of the 90s I was an Athiest. Now Im probably seen as more of an Agnostic. My views haven't changed but to call oneself an Atheist these days suggests that one is actively trying to preach or prove the non-existence of a god rather than simply not believing.

I'm sorry if this is off topic but this thread does remind me that there is an increasing gulf between people who have thought about possible gods, dismissed the idea and then gone about their business and people who are passionate about not believing in a god.

the_syco

Jonotti wrote: »

Exactly. Turning your back is a tiny physical action that does not affect anybody else.

If invited to join the celebration of the wedding, or to pay your respects to the dead, you show your respect to the person.

Going to the church* and being a dick, is dickish. You want to protest the religion, fine, but being a dick at a mates wedding that you were invited to celebrate their union will make you be remembered as the dick that tried to ruin their wedding.

*christian/muslim/pastafarian/etc

Michael OBrien

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christian worship is conducted in public and anyone, Christian or not, is welcome to attend. Simply attending, therefore, in no way implies endorsement of what is going on.

Whether you stand or kneel when others do is entirely up you you. Practically nobody else will notice, much less care. Well, your mammy might care, but nobody else.

Don't engage in flamboyant gestures intended to distance yourself from what is going on, e.g. conspicuously turning your back on the ceremony. You're there because you have chosen to be. Acting in a way that signals that you have chosen to attend in order to make the point that you don't want to be there marks you out as having the maturity of a four-year-old.

I take Michael's point in post 76 that there is social and family pressure to attend these events, and if you refuse you "you basically become a pariah in both the community and your family and friends". Fair enough, but anybody who engages in grandstanding gestures of repudiation and rejection at somebody else's wedding is clearly not bothered about becoming a social pariah. Nobody is going to believe that they have succumbed to social pressure to be there, but resisted social pressure to behave with a modicum of dignity and good manners. They'll give the impression of having chosen to turn up in order to make a complete arse of themselves, which is not a good look.

I would agree that if you turn up to deliberately act out to draw attention then you are not doing anything to endear yourself to anyone.
I had not read about standing backwards (next to impossible without standing on the kneeling pad) when I posted, but I would never do that.
I would not kneel because I feel that goes too far, plus I have bad knees and the pads are extremely thin and uncomfortable. But I shake hands, stand, bow head, that kind of thing. I don't pretend to pray, I just keep silent.

If you go to church to deliberately draw attention to yourself, then you are being a bit of a twat. When I say draw attention, I mean go out of your way to do something that will make people uncomfortable.

Of course no atheist should go to take communion, that is obvious. It is hugely disrespectful to do so. It is not going to draw any attention if you don't, there are plenty that don't at these events, because they may have eaten beforehand or gone to an earlier mass, or not be christian, etc.

Michael OBrien

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dunno. By the parlance of the 90s I was an Athiest. Now Im probably seen as more of an Agnostic. My views haven't changed but to call oneself an Atheist these days suggests that one is actively trying to preach or prove the non-existence of a god rather than simply not believing.

I'm sorry if this is off topic but this thread does remind me that there is an increasing gulf between people who have thought about possible gods, dismissed the idea and then gone about their business and people who are passionate about not believing in a god.

Perhaps that should have its own thread to discuss the different attitudes. Let me know if you set one up.

J C

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Respectfull to the bride and groom, yes, when the alternatves are to not attend out of protest or to attend and sit there like an attention seeker. Obviously while doing that you dont have to do anything offensive to believers such as taking communion, which is exactly what I said the OP can skip.

There is nothing disrespectful for an atheist to go to a Christian ceremony and, while there, try to blend in. If, as you suggest, Christians would be offended by a non believer attending, standing, kneeling etc then of course I wouldn't suggest that he do it. But they are not offended by that and in fact encourage it (bar maybe some extreme right wing Christians).

Everything you say is correct and true ... and no Christian, that I know, would be offended by anybody respectfully attending a church wedding.

robindch

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

[...] this thread does remind me that there is an increasing gulf between people who have thought about possible gods, dismissed the idea and then gone about their business and people who are passionate about not believing in a god.

Can't disagree with that - though I should say that in fifteen-odd years of being involved, even only tangentially with atheism and atheists in Ireland, I've met very, very few proselytizing atheists, probably not more than five or ten - and they're exactly as much of a pain in the ass as proselytizing religious.

There is a persistent religious theme that most or all modern atheists are proselytizing and painful, but like much of what religious say about non-religious, it's simply untrue.

salmocab

How do you turn your back sitting in a church pew? Do you sit with your feet in the pew behind? Im genuinely struggling with how this is done. I go to friends weddings etc and I stand sit and do that pretend to kneel thing with your arse on the seat when everyone else does. I shake hands but don't do any of the praying part, I think its disrespectful of others beliefs to make any kind of scene in the church.

Jonotti

OSI wrote: »

Not gonna lie, if you turned up to my wedding to make a grandstanding gesture about your beliefs in the middle of the ceremony you'd be getting a swift box in the bollocks and an invitation to apologise to the bride before removing yourself from the rest of the celebrations.

You'd get done for assault so you'd only ruin your own wedding.

Cabaal

Jonotti wrote: »

You'd get done for assault so you'd only ruin your own wedding.

and thats as believable as you standing backwards in the church...
:rolleyes:

J C

OSI wrote: »

Not gonna lie, if you turned up to my wedding to make a grandstanding gesture about your beliefs in the middle of the ceremony you'd be getting a swift box in the bollocks and an invitation to apologise to the bride before removing yourself from the rest of the celebrations.

A simple request to leave would suffice.
Failure to do so could result in a request to the Gardai to use reasonable force to eject the offender ... and a possible conviction for a public order offense.

haveringchick

I'm guessing jonotti doesn't get invited to many weddings. Or much of anything really....
Jon. Try not to put yourself and your feelings at the centre of every little thing. Think about other people and what you can do for them. Your anger bitterness and frustration is eating you alive. Love life and just let everybody else get on with living the life they want.