nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Having to go to church: Should I stand?

Rory McNicholas

I recently attended an anniversary mass for my grandfather. Being an atheist, I quietly sat in the same row as my family, staying seated while the congregation stood. My parents respect that I am an atheist, but think it was rude and disrespectful of me to not stand. Are they right? Should I stand when everyone else does? I personally don't think I have to do that to pay my respects.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

endacl

Dades wrote: »

Let's try and keep at least one thread on topic this month.

Oh Holy Mother of Unforeseen Tangents, pray for us!!

endacl

ninja900 wrote: »

Mmm. You can't really get more arrogant than 'have you been saved'? 'Unbelievers are going to hell' and that sort of thing.

In fairness now, that's more a feature of new Evangelical nutjobs than the RC church here, Legion of Mary/Opus Dei etc excepted. You're unlikely to hear it at an Irish wedding/funeral.

I get what you're saying. It only annoys you if you let it though. I don't care if people think I'm going to hell. I have the odd private giggle when I imagine them in the life after death, when they look for me in the queue to clock in with Peter. Their glee at the fact that I'm nowhere to be seen is short-lived, as they realise in short sequence that Peter is also not there, and neither are they!

endacl

Holy Jebus! I'm leaving an awful batter o' posts here!

Isn't it lovely to see the lack of dogma in this thread though? Wonder how it would fare 'across the fence'...?

Hotblack Desiato

endacl wrote: »

I don't believe for a second in the holygod elements of the christening. Neither does my sis, as it happens. That's her business. Nor does her daughter who'll be having her head splashed, but she'll be free to join this forum in her own good time. But I'm happy to commit to taking a special interest in her daughter as long as we're both alive. Does this make me a hypocrite. I don't care. I'll respect all assembled there present and hope that respect would be returned. If its not, no skin off my nose.

If you're making promises which you have no intention of carrying through, in terms of indocrinating the child in a particular religious belief, then yes you are absolutely a hypocrite. That's not to say that the failure to indoctrinate is detrimental to the child

quite the opposite imho
I made similar promises many years ago and I deeply regret it now. I wish I had had the courage to declare then what I really believed (or rather, didn't believe) in.

endacl

ninja900 wrote: »

If you're making promises which you have no intention of carrying through, in terms of indocrinating the child in a particular religious belief, then yes you are absolutely a hypocrite. That's not to say that the failure to indoctrinate is detrimental to the child quite the opposite imho
I made similar promises many years ago and I deeply regret it now. I wish I had had the courage to declare then what I really believed (or rather, didn't believe) in.

If it was my day, I'd declare it. Its not. My sister and her husband asked my to do something rather special. They are fully aware of and comfortable with my atheism. I'll hold the child and commit to look out for her welfare and happiness. The priest's interpretation of this commitment is his own affair. I won't take him all that seriously. He'll be wearing a dress...

I will know what I'll mean. As will the parents. As will the child, in time.

Child in time! A soundtrack to late night boardsin' suggests itself!

ShooterSF

endacl wrote: »

As an aside, my sister honoured me by asking me to give her away on the day. Should I have refused? Because it was in a church? Or would that have been daft? I'll be godfather to her second child in a couple of weeks. I agreed immediately when asked. To refuse wouldn't have been 'standing on principle'. It would have been 'being an arse'.

That's a bit unfair. While I'm happy you can go through with it, if my sister ever had kids, as her only sibling, she might ask but I'll have to refuse. I don't agree with the idea of baptism and couldn't offer to fulfil the requirements it would put on me. Now some people might say that's being an arse but then some people have already said that if you can't go through the ritual then you should point blank refuse! So it seems I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place (hopefully not a priest's "hard place" it's dark in here)

endacl

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's a bit unfair. While I'm happy you can go through with it, if my sister ever had kids, as her only sibling, she might ask but I'll have to refuse. I don't agree with the idea of baptism and couldn't offer to fulfil the requirements it would put on me. Now some people might say that's being an arse but then some people have already said that if you can't go through the ritual then you should point blank refuse! So it seems I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place (hopefully not a priest's "hard place" it's dark in here)

That'd be your decision Shooter. I'd respect that. I can play the role. I'd rather she wasn't baptised, but then I'd rather nobody was baptised. It's not my choice to make, and nor should it be. On any level.

It's their choice, their day. They are important to me. Refusing to take part would make me an arse. In my eyes. Doesn't necessarily follow it would make you one. We don't do dogma over here...

Dades

Czarcasm wrote: »

This is why some of the posts in the thread annoy me, It's not the fact that people are atheists at all, it's the fact that some posters lack the decorum to act in an appropriate and respectful manner as if they purposely have to go in and act in such a juvenile fashion simply "to prove a point". Most people there really couldn't give a fiddlers, and the only one the atheist person is truly embarrassing, is themselves.

Let's be clear - some of posts in this thread annoy most of us. The idea that you wouldn't stand in a church, or that you'd skip a wedding ceremony altogether is behavior most wouldn't engage in (see the poll for more). So this isn't an "atheist" trait, but an individual trait. You seem intent on making general comments when in fact you should be quoting certain responses only.

Czarcasm wrote: »

As I read through more and more threads in the forum too, it seems to bear out my initial thoughts that most atheists are what I call natural atheists- they have no grievance with religion, they just don't believe in a deity, and then there are a small minority who are what I call rebellious atheists- those who have become atheist purely because of their various issues with religion. The rebellious atheists are the type that I find annoying because they seem to go out of their way to make a statement of their rebellion.

All atheist are atheists because they have an issue with religion... i.e. the lack of any evidence to suggest any of it is true! People aren't atheists because they don't *like* religion, or because they *reject* God. You either believe it's true or you don't. What happens after that is down to the individuals attitude toward the religion and those who practice/preach it.

Religious people generally find vocal atheists annoying as religion is used to being immune to criticism. It doesn't cope well with uncomfortable questions or the thought of losing it's grip on it's flock. Believers as per the most vocal ones in the media peddle ridiculous notions of what a secular society would mean for us, ignoring the horrors that were perpetrated behind closed doors in times when the cloth ruled the country.

Czarcasm wrote: »

In my opinion, this only does a dis-service to atheism, because people would see them as a bit, well, "unhinged" and irrational, the very thing these rebellious atheists seem to want to dismiss people who believe in a deity for!

It's only a dis-service to atheism when observers cannot separate one individual as being an atheist, and another as being anti-theist.

Czarcasm wrote: »

As one poster mentioned earlier- you really DO have to pick your battles, and I understand they didn't mean battles in the aggressive sense of the word, but in the way that if you come across to people as a confrontational and arrogant person, they aren't going to give you much time, and so your message is lost, but if you talk to people, you have a much better chance of getting your message across than behaving like a juvenille and stroppy rebellious teenager with no regard for anybody but yourself.

Agreed! Insofar as we're talking about the way the 'battle' has been fought by certain posters on this thread.

Czarcasm

It's true Dades I was trying to make a more general comment on the whole decorum in a religious place rather than quoting posters specifically because I figured that might come across as attacking the poster and not the post and might be seen as me being confrontational. I actually only wandered into the thread off the boards home page and that post I initially quoted wasn't meant to come across as having any particular objection to the poster, but just the way an atheist would use the expression "throwing their eyes up to heaven", and then nobody else spotted it, I just thought it was funny in an ironic way was all...

I was only browsing boards on the mobile at the minute, I don't usually post from mobile because of dreaded JSON errors and timeouts making it a pain in the proverbial, so I was waiting til later when I could make a proper post, but when I saw your post I just thought I had better make a reply to make it clear that I'm by no means a fire and brimstone catholic, etc, nor do I in any way tacitly approve of the abuses of the hierarchy carried out in the name of the catholic church (my own view on that is that these scum were pedophiles and pederasts before they were ever priests, and the way the hierarchy of the church was set up, enabled them to indulge their proclivities).

I may not be an eloquent wordsmith, but I didn't want my posts to be seen as trolling or disrespectful to any of the posters in here either.

Dades

It's all good.

I've probably seen too many threads where newcomers read a minority of posts and assume the views expressed are shared by all atheists.

A belated welcome to you... do stick around!

Maggie 2

"I'll be godfather to her second child in a couple of weeks."
How hypocritical! What the hell are you doing agreeing to do something you don't believe in? A Godfather swears to help bring the child up as eg Catholic. How can you do that if you don't believe? Starting off on a lie is not a good start!

endacl

Maggie 2 wrote: »

"I'll be godfather to her second child in a couple of weeks."
How hypocritical! What the hell are you doing agreeing to do something you don't believe in? A Godfather swears to help bring the child up as eg Catholic. How can you do that if you don't believe? Starting off on a lie is not a good start!

Chill pill Maggie!

It is hypocritical. Its also a family occasion. If I refused to be godfather but still attended, I'd still be a hypocrite by participating. I've explained why I'm OK with it. I get why you're not, and while I'm tempted to reply 'none of your business', that would be a bit cowardly. I'll try again....

My sister is atheist. Her husband is not. Her child is a child. I'm the uncle. My sister and her husband, both of whom I respect and value greatly and who know well my position in matters of faith, have asked me to take a unique position in the life of their daughter. I agreed. I won't be assisting raising the child catholic. Neither will her parents. Their reasons for baptism are their own business. I will take my commitment to the child seriously. Just not in matters of faith. That will be her own business in the fullness of time,

There is hypocrisy inherent in the situation. My regard for family however, outweighs my disdain for the church. It is something I've thought about. This is the decision I've come to. My atheism is my business. Yours is yours. This is a good thing Maggie. Individual choices with no judgement. Isn't that what we all want?

username123

endacl wrote: »

Chill pill Maggie!

I agree with Maggie. Why on earth would someone who is atheist agree to be a godfather, and by doing so, participate in further indoctrination when you are expected to hold the candle at various ceremonies like communion and stand for them at confirmation!! Its because of this kind of sham behaviour that the catholic church has the hold it has in this country. If people who didnt believe actually didnt participate and encourage the play acting then the church would have less power.

Just bizarre. No judgement man, but just weird!!

endacl

username123 wrote: »

I agree with Maggie. Why on earth would someone who is atheist agree to be a godfather, and by doing so, participate in further indoctrination when you are expected to hold the candle at various ceremonies like communion and stand for them at confirmation!! Its because of this kind of sham behaviour that the catholic church has the hold it has in this country. If people who didnt believe actually didnt participate and encourage the play acting then the church would have less power.

Just bizarre. No judgement man, but just weird!!

I get what you're saying 123. Next time I'm accused of militancy I'll point them in the direction of this thread. I suspect they'll find it just as offensive. Funny that...

username123

endacl wrote: »

I get what you're saying 123. Next time I'm accused of militancy I'll point them in the direction of this thread. I suspect they'll find it just as offensive. Funny that...

As I said, no judgement, but it is weird and it does have the unintended consequence of empowering the church - but sure, none of us believe in that malarkus

endacl

username123 wrote: »

As I said, no judgement, but it is weird and it does have the unintended consequence of empowering the church - but sure, none of us believe in that malarkus

And my not taking part would prevent what exactly...?

username123

endacl wrote: »

And my not taking part would prevent what exactly...?

Imagine if everyone who felt like you stopped participating.

Zillah

username123 wrote: »

Imagine if everyone who felt like you stopped participating.

This is like the voting argument. He doesn't have the power to control what other people do - and certainly not what everyone else does. I don't like participating in masses either, but I honestly think arguing here is more like to have an impact on our society than sulking over a ceremony.

username123

Zillah wrote: »

This is like the voting argument. He doesn't have the power to control what other people do - and certainly not what everyone else does. I don't like participating in masses either, but I honestly think arguing here is more like to have an impact on our society than sulking over a ceremony.

Elections have been lost or won on just a small number of votes you know

swampgas

I like the idea that non-adherents are in some way identifiable, for example they might be the ones that are sitting while everyone else is kneeling. At least that way when a time comes where there are more people sitting than kneeling, maybe we can all stop playing along.

If the believers and non-believers are indistinguishable, all standing,kneeling and muttering, then it's possible that the church could be full of unbelievers, all unaware of each others existence. And that would be silly.

Feathers

Zamboni wrote: »

Anyone else find themselves very conscious of their hands in a church when standing?

I feel awkward just leaving them by my side.
I don't want to put them in my pockets as I think that would be disrespectful.
I am certainly not going to put them into a praying position.
I am conflicted as to whether folded arms is disrespectful or not.

As a (at times) practicising Catholic, I'd say folding your arms (a good countryman approach

) or placing your hands on the back of the bench in front is fine, not disrespectful at all.

seamus wrote: »

You can't claim that something doesn't change materially, but it does change. There is nothing else.

Surely, if you want to argue about the inherit logic of Catholic beliefs from a philosophical point of view (as opposed to the likelihood of them being true), you can't start from a point of 'there is only the material'?

With the idea of kneeling being submissive: sometimes I get the feeling from some atheists friends, rightly or wrongly, that they don't want to kneel because it seems to them to be too much like being involved in the mass 'as a Catholic'.

I've gone to a Hindu temple, which had a queue of worshippers going up to the shrine in prayer. Everyone who looked into the shrine was expected to bow as a mark of respect. I wanted to take a look in (it was beautifully decorated), so did the symbolic gesture. I saw no problem with it because there was no meaning behind it for me.

I would've thought it would be the same for atheists & kneeling at mass (though I've no problem with people who don't). Sometimes it seems that people are trying to distance themselves from it as much as possible — like homophobic men who won't make any comment or gesture that could ever be construed as being gay :pac:

emuhead

I think it's disrespectful not to stand. I think it's good manners to respect the beliefs of others when you are in their church. This does not mean praying or kneeling, but at least not drawing lots of attention to yourself.

The ceremony is not about you. I attended a muslim wedding and as a woman covered my head and sat in a separate area from the male guests. I don't believe in Islam or indeed in the reasoning behind these practises but as a guest I feel it is good manners to respect their traditions. Respecting the religious beliefs and traditions of others is not the same as saying you share them.The time to make statements is not when you are inside a church (especially as a guest) IMO. It's how you live your life and there are plenty of opportunities to express your disagreement in life.

Janedoe10

It's a form of respect . Try that in any other certain religions and u would certainly be told . That said whether u stand or not if u were frail or sick it's ok .No one is going to lecture u leaving the church .

TheChizler

emuhead wrote: »

I think it's disrespectful not to stand. I think it's good manners to respect the beliefs of others when you are in their church.

I think most people here would advocate the opposite, respect people, and their right to beliefs, but not their beliefs themselves.

emuhead

Fair enough - when I said beliefs I meant their right to hold them. What I'm trying to say is that you can disagree while being respectful.

Feathers

TheChizler wrote: »

I think most people here would advocate the opposite, respect people, and their right to beliefs, but not their beliefs themselves.

I always find this a funny distinction that everyone seems to make. I've always understood one of the meanings of respect being "have appropriate consideration for", which can change from situation to situation.

If I'm playing football with my boss, what constitutes respect would probably be very different than if I was in a salary review meeting. In the same way, I'd say having due respect for Christianity in your day to day life is simply refraining from hostility to people. In a church though, it would change to not doing things that run contrary to the environment — like wearing inappropriate clothing for instance.

I don't think anyone means 'agree with' when they say 'have respect for their beliefs' — I can think my boss is a twat but still show him respect — but this meaning always seems to be taken on message boards

(Maybe I don't understand the word correctly :pac:)

Czarcasm

Feathers wrote: »

I always find this a funny distinction that everyone seems to make. I've always understood one of the meanings of respect being "have appropriate consideration for", which can change from situation to situation.

If I'm playing football with my boss, what constitutes respect would probably be very different than if I was in a salary review meeting. In the same way, I'd say having due respect for Christianity in your day to day life is simply refraining from hostility to people. In a church though, it would change to not doing things that run contrary to the environment — like wearing inappropriate clothing for instance.

I don't think anyone means 'agree with' when they say 'have respect for their beliefs' — I can think my boss is a twat but still show him respect — but this meaning always seems to be taken on message boards (Maybe I don't understand the word correctly :pac:)

I had a reply typed out on the mobile here, but the stupid JSON error crap and it vanished into the ether, but feathers you pretty much covered what I was going to say anyway the way some atheists go on with the whole sky fairy and spaghetti spaceship nonsense. It sounds ridiculous, and if you're going to talk to someone about atheism or the other persons belief in a deity, using terms like that just sounds a bit childish!

Where I'm coming from is that I would respect anyone's beliefs, or lack thereof, simply as a matter of courtesy, for me it's just manners, but some people I meet who claim to be atheist now, it almost comes across like they WANT to be antagonistic, as if they have some sort of a point to prove, or to make themselves feel better about themselves at your expense. To me this just comes off as the person trying to be a faux intellectual and a bit of an attention seeker.

It's particularly prevalent in this generation in my experience because I first came across atheism about 20 years ago in my teens, when some of my friends became atheists, there was no big deal made of it and there was no scorn because I was catholic, we had more interesting things to talk about.

Its like a couple of weeks ago I was out in the club, met a girl and she was telling me about her degree course in psychology, and eventually the conversation got around to religion and she started giving it welly about catholic abuse and sky fairy, etc, and I just thought to myself "fu.ck, she seemed like an incredibly intelligent girl a few minutes ago, now she's just making herself sound like a spanner!", but she eventually stopped to take a drink anyway and looked at me as if to say "Chime in here any time like!".

I just said "Oh I'm Roman catholic, but don't let that stop you, do go on?".

The big "we are not amused" head on her was priceless!

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

the way some atheists go on with the whole sky fairy and spaghetti spaceship nonsense.

The FSM is nonsense, that's the point, to get people thinking about how arbitrary religious beliefs are. There is plenty of stuff in the bible more ridiculous than the FSM.

It sounds ridiculous, and if you're going to talk to someone about atheism or the other persons belief in a deity, using terms like that just sounds a bit childish!

Well, not childish in general but it can be. I wouldn't use that sort of terminology to a believer if I thought it would offend them. Offending people only puts people on the defensive about their beliefs anyway and makes them closed to other ideas.

Where I'm coming from is that I would respect anyone's beliefs, or lack thereof, simply as a matter of courtesy

So that means no 'atheists have no morals', 'there is no real love without god', 'atheists are doomed to eternal torment', 'atheists' lives are meaningless' etc. crap we so often hear. I wish other theists would copy your example!

for me it's just manners, but some people I meet who claim to be atheist now, it almost comes across like they WANT to be antagonistic, as if they have some sort of a point to prove, or to make themselves feel better about themselves at your expense.

I want to be antagonistic towards the fake, cultural catholic, fit in, be seen at mass, practices so many people hold and their passive acceptance of church control of education and health and the deeply malign influence of religion and sectarianism on our society in general.
I am extremely antagonistic towards the RCC for its many heinous abuses and continued failure to do what they instruct their followers to do - confess, repent, and make amends.

To me this just comes off as the person trying to be a faux intellectual and a bit of an attention seeker.

And of course we all know what Irish society thinks of intellectuals :rolleyes: 'that fella is getting above himself'

It's particularly prevalent in this generation in my experience because I first came across atheism about 20 years ago in my teens, when some of my friends became atheists, there was no big deal made of it and there was no scorn because I was catholic, we had more interesting things to talk about.

Which generation is 'this generation' ?
There are people posting here who are quite a bit older than you. There are people posting here a good bit younger than you too.

The big "we are not amused" head on her was priceless!

So what. People have their own reasons for holding the views they do about religion whether positive or negative. Having a negative view of religion is not about being childish, or rebellious, or a 'pseudo-intellectual'. There is something very smug and judgemental about the term 'pseudo-intellectual' or 'faux intellectual' anyway.

grindle

People go on about the sky fairy and spaghetti monster because religious beliefs are just as inanely valueless.

In real life I tend not to say that kind of stuff and generally stay silent whenever anybody starts spouting crap because if they really believe in what they say they believe, they're too deranged to be convinced otherwise. Learnt that a long time ago.

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

It's a trap that many atheists fall into (including myself on the Internet), and that quote is so true that a majority of atheists now seem to revile any atheist who tells anybody why they're an atheist, even if they've just been asked "Why are you an atheist/Why don't you believe in God?".
Me: "[whatever the answer may be - shorthand version: It makes no sense.]"
Other atheist: "Oh for fuck's sake, why'd you have to be all militant, just respect their beliefs!"
"But she asked m... I wanted to answer her questio..."
"Don't, just don't... You were really mean. And antagonistic. Making her think the Cat in the Hat doesn't rock her to sleep every night [or whatever stupid religious belief she has]... Really mean, maaaan." :rolleyes:
Self-hating atheists, who'd've thunk it?
Everything turns in on itself, and all for the sake of poor dotes who certainly don't respect your beliefs or your right to them
You're a bona-fide weirdo for thinking there is no god in their circles, actually. Hard to hold the tongue at the dinner table when you're being smugly patronised by people who maintain the unfathomable is, in fact, the most fathomable thing they've ever heard someone tell them to believe.
But I manage to just smile smugly back, every pause-filling "Yeah" or "Maybe" a condescending pat on the head.

philologos

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Are you not disrespecting the Church and/or believers by just 'playing along with the routine'?

From what I can tell most believers don't feel disrespected by having guests in their churches. Some regard it as an opportunity to share about the Gospel with others.