Did you baptise your kids? (Atheist parents poll)

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

What would the fallout be I wonder if people had the courage of their convictions and didn't allow the hissy fits of other adults to dictate the religious ceremonies their children partake in? Would it really be long term hassle or a nine day wonder that could be ignored until the offending party got over themselves?

9 day wonder was my experience. Most rabidly Catholic of my family were my grandmother and my father. I adored my grandmother and she was my staunchest ally and told everyone to mind their own business and look to their own children and leave me to look to mine.

My father on the other hand...we were all going to hell for not baptising. Then we were all on a fast track to hell for not being heterosexual/homophobic.

Now - he visits every 2nd weekend to see his his gg kids and spends most of the time chatting and laughing with my OH - he has even made jokes about us having sex :eek:.

When grandson was being baptised 4 years ago, Sonofmine agreed to attend but refused to participate. He sat at the back minding his daughter.
Sarg. Opus Dei (maternal grandfather) was on one that day and was trying to bully Sonofmine into participating - when that failed he complained to me and tried to bully me into bulling son into participating.

When that failed he approached my Dad...and that was the rock he perished on as my rabidly Catlick father loudly announced how proud he was of his Grandson's utter refusal to go against his personal beliefs and what a fine, principled young man he was.

My Dad still talks about how proud Sonofmine made him that day.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any genuinely puggalised why people allow family/social pressure to dictate their choices and cause them to agree to do something which is so at odds with their personal beliefs...it really just seems to me to be saying that the beliefs of others trump ones own.

It's like that with every aspect of Irish life though. OH laughs at me for being childish when I run around like a blue-arsed fly tidying when my parents are due to visit, only to run around in his turn when it's his parents on the way.

For some reason we Irish seem programmed with a fear of Mammy's disapproval that is very, very difficult to break away from.

Dades

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get adults giving into the wishes of other adults either when they don't believe. I know every couple has to compromise, but for me there's no 'compromise' when it comes to things like baptisms, you either baptise or you don't. I'm so glad me and my husband were in firm agreement on this...

I absolutely agree where both parents are in agreement that they would rather not baptise the child. Not so easy if that's not the case. Certainly parental/societal influence is a very poor excuse for going through with it. Depending on circumstances/location, however, schools can be a huge issue, and imo, potentially a deciding factor.

As an adult I gave into the wishes of another adult. She was their mother however. I have made it clear though that I will never step foot in a church with or without my kids save for funerals, weddings, or other family affairs. Any sacrament preparation will be without me. Im fact I still have 'faith' my missis will see through the nonsense and decide it's all a sham. If my eldest doesn't decide herself before that.

CiDeRmAn

I'm an atheist but my wife is Catholic.
I had no problem with baptism, it's a chance to show off my son and not a life sentence for dogmatic subservience.
When he decides to make his own mind up about his relationship to a god or abandon religion all together, being baptised isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.
I was baptised 41 years ago and I'm an atheist for 21 of those.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

As an adult I gave into the wishes of another adult. She was their mother however.

I hate to (tentatively even!) suggest it, but could it be true that in cases where couples disagree, the mother usually puts the foot down? Have to admit to that being true for me (twice) and both father's of my children suggested going along with their folks wishes, for an "easier ride". Not only did they have to put up with me banging on about hypocrisy and the fact that I'd rather sign my kids up to any other religion than the RCC, and wouldn't agree to them either, they also had to carry back the message to their families that not only would I attend a baptism that was carried out against my will, I would say my piece in public and make a huge scene. One that would surely have me arrested. Their respective families never brought it up in conversation with either of them/me again. End of.

Acceptance of change in society won't and can't actually happen until after the changes are made. The kind of hypocrisy that enables people to "go along" with people's wishes against their own opinion, is anti-change.

Banbh

The kind of hypocrisy that enables people to "go along" with people's wishes against their own opinion, is anti-change.

Exactly. Those who argue that baptism and religious conformity is no big deal are only able to do so because others have stood up to church control.

As a youth, I had my appendix removed in a hospital where Mass was said in the ward every day, and there were no dissenters allowed. That was St Vincents Hospital, St Stephens Green, Dublin. And I wonder how our a-la-carte atheists would fare in court with a judge who regarded a citizen standing up for his right to affirm as an opportunity to fulminate against low morals, foreign influences? Until very, very recently, there was no room in Irish society for those who rejected the Catholic Church except they were card-carrying Prods. And still they control our schools, our teacher-training colleges and much more.

Catholicism is a religion, perpetuated by those who are afraid to say what they think to their Mammies but happy to proclaim their intellectual independence in the privacy of their MacBooks.

At what age should an Irish Catholic-Atheist tell his Mammy?

Dades

Obliq wrote: »

I hate to (tentatively even!) suggest it, but could it be true that in cases where couples disagree, the mother usually puts the foot down? Have to admit to that being true for me (twice) and both father's of my children suggested going along with their folks wishes, for an "easier ride". Not only did they have to put up with me banging on about hypocrisy and the fact that I'd rather sign my kids up to any other religion than the RCC, and wouldn't agree to them either, they also had to carry back the message to their families that not only would I attend a baptism that was carried out against my will, I would say my piece in public and make a huge scene. One that would surely have me arrested. Their respective families never brought it up in conversation with either of them/me again. End of.

Acceptance of change in society won't and can't actually happen until after the changes are made. The kind of hypocrisy that enables people to "go along" with people's wishes against their own opinion, is anti-change.

Your situations sound like the fathers were only bothered because of family pressure, rather than personal faith, which is a much simpler situation for you to argue from. I don't see this as a gender thing.

For me, marriage and family harmony take precedence over ideological wishes. I can only speak from my own experience. In such scenarios someone will always lose out, but in a relationship there's always another battle down the line to be won.

clumsyklutz

I don't have kids yet (not really very maternal but partner and I have agreed on 1 maybe 2 sometime in the distant future) and we have had many arguements over the fact that I would really rather not have any child of mine baptised.

His argument is the same as I've seen a number of posters have issue with 'that it's easier' to go along with it for the sake of his mother. I have told him I won't be consenting at all or allow any child of mine to be a sheep in the RCC flock.

Just like our wedding (planning stages atm) have told both his mother and mine that we won't be having a church wedding, my mum was completely supportive while his mum said 'you're not really married' and that 'she wouldn't support anything other than a church wedding or blessing'. Funny thing is - she's younger than my mum

Should be fun telling her my views on baptism :P

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

I hate to (tentatively even!) suggest it, but could it be true that in cases where couples disagree, the mother usually puts the foot down?

Not the case here in terms of religion. My husband would be even more unmoving about the avoidance of god bothering than me. It came up at an early stage in our relationship, which was great because we were united for the wedding questions and the baptism mentions.

I think it depends on what the issue is - there's things I know I won't 'win' on and vice versa, but generally we balance each other out pretty well. It'd be a red flag for me though if I felt I was always the one 'compromising'.

Real Psycrow

Our hand was forced to a certain extent. I was adamant that we wouldn't, to the point that our daughter was walking before it actually happened. But my wife visited our local school and the first 2 rules of entry are "1. Children who have a sibling who has attended the school. 2. Catholic children". There wouldn't be any places left in the school after all those children in the area are considered. There's no educate together in the county, and any other school might mean one of us having to give up our job as you can't exactly leave a 4 year old at a school on her own 1/2 an hour before anyone else gets there so you can be at work in time. At least with the local school, its not too much of an imposition for Granny to take her every morning.

It was the worst day of my life. There was no one there except my wife, myself, my daughter and the 2 people who will look after her if something happens to us acting as Godparents. There was no celebration, there was no pictures taken. It was purely mechanical.

smacl

swampgas wrote: »

Getting up in front of everyone and vowing to bring up a child as a Catholic when you have no intention of doing so is, I suggest, making a mockery of the ritual, and also, I feel, shows a certain lack of integrity.

That would also be a major issue for me. The splash of water on the head is neither here nor there, the fact that my kids would look back on me as the type of parent that could be so easily browbeaten into openly lying to a gathered assembly of family and friends is a big thing. I want to be a good role model for my children, and that includes not giving in to bullies for the sake of an easier life. If they want to go off and get baptised in the future, that's their call.

For me, the same holds true for getting married in a church, or having a church funeral. Simple as.

Our hand was forced to a certain extent. I was adamant that we wouldn't, to the point that our daughter was walking before it actually happened. But my wife visited our local school and the first 2 rules of entry are "1. Children who have a sibling who has attended the school. 2. Catholic children". There wouldn't be any places left in the school after all those children in the area are considered. There's no educate together in the county, and any other school might mean one of us having to give up our job as you can't exactly leave a 4 year old at a school on her own 1/2 an hour before anyone else gets there so you can be at work in time. At least with the local school, its not too much of an imposition for Granny to take her every morning.

This, on the other hand and IMHO, is a great example of pragmatism over dogma. Big difference between bowing to parental pressure, and putting yourself under a financial burden for no good reason.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

That would also be a major issue for me. The splash of water on the head is neither here nor there, the fact that my kids would look back on me as the type of parent that could be so easily browbeaten into openly lying to a gathered assembly of family and friends is a big thing. I want to be a good role model for my children, and that includes not giving in to bullies for the sake of an easier life. If they want to go off and get baptised in the future, that's their call.

For me, the same holds true for getting married in a church, or having a church funeral. Simple as.

That highlighted bit was a huge thing for me. I wanted to be someone my son respects and if I had just gone along with it I wouldn't respect me so how could my son?

Dades

Banbh wrote: »

And I wonder how our a-la-carte atheists would fare in court with a judge who regarded a citizen standing up for his right to affirm as an opportunity to fulminate against low morals, foreign influences? Until very, very recently, there was no room in Irish society for those who rejected the Catholic Church except they were card-carrying Prods. And still they control our schools, our teacher-training colleges and much more.

You do realise the phrase a-la-carte atheist is a nonsense right?

This debate has little to do with atheism and everything to do with actively not wanting a child to be part of a church. Undoubtedly there are atheists out there who don't give a crap about religion either way, and that doesn't make them any less atheist.

If you want to rage against a label, then rage against a-la-carte professed anti-church parents who don't walk the walk.

3DataModem

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now, some 20 odd years later my son's daughter is being told she has to make her communion.

By whom? Her teacher? Her parents?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

She wants to know why/what does it mean/what does it do/ Is she required to make any promises - if so what exactly is she expected to promise. She wants it to be explained to her and have a discussion and is completely frustrated that those who are telling her she must do it are the same people who are refusing to explain why.

I don't get it... what are her parents doing?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To me, the cop-out is having a child participate in something one thinks is meaningless just because other kids do it - how do you explain that to a child?

Just because it is 'hard' does not make me ignore it. When my daughter asks me where grandad is I tell her he's gone because he died. When granny tells her "grandad is in heaven" I tell her that grandad believed that he would go to a nice place called heaven after he died, and many people believe this, and it made him feel better to believe it, but I don't really think so.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Well love, I think it's a load of crap myself like but sure do it anyway because everyone else is doing it and look at the pretty dress you get to wear and won't you get loads of money....!'

That's pretty reductionist, it's a nice thing to do with her friends and her brother, she gets to have a pretty dress and a nice day with her family. A beautiful and largely innocent tradition.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's either that or lie to your children and pretend to hold a belief in this farce.

That's not the only two choices. I can tell her what I think. I can tell her what some others think. I can trust her to form an opinion even if many of her peers hold a differing one to mine.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Heaven forfend our children should learn to stand on principle and that one does not have to 'go with the flow'.

What principle is that exactly? The principle that her parents believe something, so she should not participate in a fun, exciting, celebration with her peers? I'm not an expert on parenting, but I trust my daughter and son to generally take good choices and hope to lead by example rather than by scripture (mine OR the bibles). I will be very disappointed if they choose to restrict their lives based on religion, but I don't think that having a parentally-contextualised baptism, communion or confirmation materially increases the chance of this happening.

3DataModem

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That highlighted bit was a huge thing for me. I wanted to be someone my son respects and if I had just gone along with it I wouldn't respect me so how could my son?

I think that's an excellent perspective; it is so important to parent by example. If taking an active stand against the organized religion promoted in schools (and otherwise to children) is important to you, then it is great that you're reasons are not "I don't believe in it so I'll keep him away from it" but "I don't believe in it so I'll show him that I don't".

Rev Hellfire

3DataModem wrote: »

That's not the only two choices. I can tell her what I think. I can tell her what some others think. I can trust her to form an opinion even if many of her peers hold a differing one to mine.

I'd imagine most kids hold a fairly pragmatic view of confirmation, its a money racket plain and simple. Those who do it get the loot while those who don't don't.

I think people here are giving kids far less credit when it comes to understanding what's going on. I'd imagine given an informal census most confirmation kids would tell you that a) they don't believe it b) its good for the bank balance.

sbsquarepants

Dades wrote: »

For me, marriage and family harmony take precedence over ideological wishes. I can only speak from my own experience. In such scenarios someone will always lose out, but in a relationship there's always another battle down the line to be won.

Whereas harmony might be overstating it, it's one less thing to fight about and that's good enough for me.
Anyway last time i checked there weren't any rules to being an atheist (ok 1 rule;)) I took no blood vow to oppose the church or fight organised religion or anything like that. Having this christening is not my first choice, but then again you can't always have your own way in life. Somethings are worth the row and somethings just aren't. In my opinion baptism falls firmly into the "isn't worth it" category.
Also i agree, "a la carte atheist" is a fairly meaningless phrase.

kylith

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd imagine most kids hold a fairly pragmatic view of confirmation, its a money racket plain and simple. Those who do it get the loot while those who don't don't.

I think people here are giving kids far less credit when it comes to understanding what's going on. I'd imagine given an informal census most confirmation kids would tell you that a) they don't believe it b) its good for the bank balance.

But that is hardly a valid reason for participating in a ritual you don't believe in. In fact if the kids don't believe it then they should be prevented from participating. I'd also be in favour of removing the financal element.

I've found it quite amusing that catholics are vehemently in favour of non-catholics signing their children up for catholic rituals; how strange that atheists have more regard and respect for their religious ceremonies than they do.

smacl

3DataModem wrote: »

it's a nice thing to do with her friends and her brother, she gets to have a pretty dress and a nice day with her family. A beautiful and largely innocent tradition.

Just like Christmas is about the presents and Easter is about the chocolate, communion and confirmation are about the pretty dress and cash in hand? I can think of many better ways of having a nice day with the family that don't involve the rampant consumerism and sham ritual. Or bowing your head to the collected RC hierarchy for that matter. As an atheist, it smacks of cynicism.

Cabaal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd imagine most kids hold a fairly pragmatic view of confirmation, its a money racket plain and simple. Those who do it get the loot while those who don't don't.

I think people here are giving kids far less credit when it comes to understanding what's going on. I'd imagine given an informal census most confirmation kids would tell you that a) they don't believe it b) its good for the bank balance.

Kids know its about the money,
My niece had money from her communion ear marked for a netbook 12 months before it actually took place, she knew she had a good load of money coming.

Rev Hellfire

kylith wrote: »

But that is hardly a valid reason for participating in a ritual you don't believe in.

I don't believe in Santa, but still play along for the entertainment and material benefits.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

Kids know its about the money,
My niece had money from her communion ear marked for a netbook 12 months before it actually took place, she knew she had a good load of money coming.

And the local hierarchy are also keenly aware that it's all about the money. If you think of the RC church as an organisation keen to maintain its power base by not losing subscribers in upcoming generations, throwing a bit of rampant consumerism into the mix that benefits the child at the cost to the parent is a pretty effective tactic. Basic Christian philosophy would eschew this behaviour, but the church relies on it for numbers. I don't think it's an innocent tradition in any way, shape or form.

beeceedeecee

I did , but only for my extended families sake , my kids wont have the same pressures and of the 3 i dont think any of them will bother with theirs .

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

And the local hierarchy are also keenly aware that it's all about the money. If you think of the RC church as an organisation keen to maintain its power base by not losing subscribers in upcoming generations, throwing a bit of rampant consumerism into the mix that benefits the child at the cost to the parent is a pretty effective tactic. Basic Christian philosophy would eschew this behaviour, but the church relies on it for numbers. I don't think it's an innocent tradition in any way, shape or form.

Oh I agree, its not innocent.,
Its a racket on numerous levels, but mainly its a racket to keep the catholic church numbers up.

I'm merely pointing out that kids are well aware of the benefits to them, I know i certainly was and I enjoyed receiving the money but even at such a young age the church stuff meant nothing to me.

Bannasidhe

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't believe in Santa, but still play along for the entertainment and material benefits.

Yes, I can see how Santa and the RCC are so very much alike that the comparison is justified.

Now, where did I put that envelope, it's that time of year where Santa's parish elf is looking for the dues to help pay for the local grotto.

Rev Hellfire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now, where did I put that envelope, it's that time of year where Santa's parish elf is looking for the dues to help pay for the local grotto.

That would be the envelope collection in the masses that no one goes to.

Bannasidhe

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That would be the envelope collection in the masses that no one goes to.

Actually I think the dogs got it...and possibly the elf too.




:pac:

swampgas

Real Psycrow wrote: »

Our hand was forced to a certain extent. I was adamant that we wouldn't, to the point that our daughter was walking before it actually happened. But my wife visited our local school and the first 2 rules of entry are "1. Children who have a sibling who has attended the school. 2. Catholic children". There wouldn't be any places left in the school after all those children in the area are considered. There's no educate together in the county, and any other school might mean one of us having to give up our job as you can't exactly leave a 4 year old at a school on her own 1/2 an hour before anyone else gets there so you can be at work in time. At least with the local school, its not too much of an imposition for Granny to take her every morning.

It was the worst day of my life. There was no one there except my wife, myself, my daughter and the 2 people who will look after her if something happens to us acting as Godparents. There was no celebration, there was no pictures taken. It was purely mechanical.

That must have been galling.

Can I ask a question though? Are there enough non-Catholics competing with your children for a place that baptising your child would make any difference? I'm not quite sure how that works ...

Benny_Cake

swampgas wrote: »

That must have been galling.

Can I ask a question though? Are there enough non-Catholics competing with your children for a place that baptising your child would make any difference? I'm not quite sure how that works ...

I think the point is that in a Catholic school, Catholic children will be higher up the pecking order when it comes to getting a place. In some cases, depending on the area and the amount of children starting, a school may not even have enough places for the Catholic children, never mind the non-Catholics. It's a real concern for people and as long as it continues to be an issue, I find it hard to blame parents for jumping through the hoops regarding baptism.

swampgas

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think the point is that in a Catholic school, Catholic children will be higher up the pecking order when it comes to getting a place.

Understood.

In some cases, depending on the area and the amount of children starting, a school may not even have enough places for the Catholic children, never mind the non-Catholics.

That would be my concern - it would be doubly galling to go through with the unwanted baptism and still fail to get a place.

It's a real concern for people and as long as it continues to be an issue, I find it hard to blame parents for jumping through the hoops regarding baptism.

Agreed.

swampgas

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd imagine most kids hold a fairly pragmatic view of confirmation, its a money racket plain and simple. Those who do it get the loot while those who don't don't.

I think people here are giving kids far less credit when it comes to understanding what's going on. I'd imagine given an informal census most confirmation kids would tell you that a) they don't believe it b) its good for the bank balance.

My gut feel (and that's all it is) tells me that there are plenty of kids who do get caught up in the guilt and the shame, etc., etc., though.

I would love to see a proper study/survey of kids at different ages (just before communion and confession, say) done to see what the kids actually do believe. That would be fascinating, especially if the mammy factor could be eliminated.

swampgas

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't believe in Santa, but still play along for the entertainment and material benefits.

I'll bet there isn't a big semi-naked Santa nailed to a cross on the wall of your kid's school though!

Hotblack Desiato

I think the 'access to schools' reason excuse for a fake baptism is way overdone, both generally and on this thread. We have several posters alluding to it but only one substantiating that position. Also children have a legal right to a state education irrespective of their religion or that of their parents.

But if nobody ever stands up for their rights, is it any wonder that those rights are never respected, and we continue to have our kids shoved to the back of the enrolment lists (usually behind those of any religion) and then subjected to mandatory mumbo-jumbo once enrolled?

I'd be very wary of living anywhere where there was only one school within reach, irrespective of the religion question - there are plenty of crap schools and crap principals out there, and if your one and only local school turns out to be rubbish, what then?

I'm in one of the many large swathes of Dublin with no ET and no prospect of getting one, but there is a very good CoI school and we were lucky enough to get our elder into there. Hopefully we can get our younger in too in a couple of years but numbers are growing so it's not certain. The RC schools are all further away and not co-ed so it'd be 2 kids going to 2 primary schools, a major PITA even disregarding the 'ethos' issue.

Oh yeah the score is Kids 2 - Baptism 0
and I agree the key to setting out your stall is not having a church wedding if you give in on that due to spousal or familial pressure you can be sure it won't be the last thing you'll be expected to give in on. It's never the religious ones who compromise, is it...

Real Psycrow

swampgas wrote: »

That must have been galling.

Can I ask a question though? Are there enough non-Catholics competing with your children for a place that baptising your child would make any difference? I'm not quite sure how that works ...

Hi,

It doesn't matter about the non-catholics, if I'm understanding your question. If there are 60 places in the school, but more than 60 applicants (and there has been a baby boom, so there will be) then siblings and catholics will get preference and will most likely leave no places left for non-catholics.

kylith

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't believe in Santa, but still play along for the entertainment and material benefits.

Do Santaists discriminate against non-Santaists in education and the workplace?
Does Santa preach a message of hate towards women and homosexuals?
Do Santaists demand that their beliefs be of utmost importance when it comes to reproductive rights?

Obliq

I'm finding the margin of less than 6% between the yes's and no's above quite depressing, considering the title of the poll (Atheist parents). It would be interesting to see the results of a poll about "Is the other parent of your children religious, yes/no/icecream?". Unless it is the case that whether to baptise or not nearly ALWAYS goes the religious parent's way, the results of this one are even more depressing than it looks. Or my pathetic grasp of figures is way off as usual....

pwurple

kylith wrote: »

Do Santaists discriminate against non-Santaists in education and the workplace?
Does Santa preach a message of hate towards women and homosexuals?
Do Santaists demand that their beliefs be of utmost importance when it comes to reproductive rights?

Oh for goodness sake. Most Catholics do nothing of the sort.

There's a calm middle ground of athiests and cultural catholics who pretty much seem to believe the same thing. That religion doesn't matter a whole pile in their lives either way. They will take the path of least resistance. Similar for one of my muslim colleagues who eats sausages, and a hindi colleague who eats meat. They are not too fussed, but use the religious services for marking births, deaths and marriages. Like they would use a dry cleaners service or a tailoring service.

People who go around insisting that catholics aren't catholic enough, muslims aren't muslim enough, and even now that athiests aren't bloody athiest enough are just veering towards fundamentalism as far as I can see.

Fundies are the ones I am wary of.

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

I'm finding the margin of less than 6% between the yes's and no's above quite depressing, considering the title of the poll (Atheist parents). It would be interesting to see the results of a poll about "Is the other parent of your children religious, yes/no/icecream?". Unless it is the case that whether to baptise or not nearly ALWAYS goes the religious parent's way, the results of this one are even more depressing than it looks. Or my pathetic grasp of figures is way off as usual....

It's actually exactly 6%, the Sasha votes are throwing off the percentage a bit. As an atheist, one generally tries to respect other people's, particularly loved one's, beliefs. The same doesn't necessarily hold true for most religions, who believe that other beliefs are wrong and dangerously so. The spouse who believes they're putting their child in danger (of eternal damnation no less) by not baptising it is going to be a lot more motivated than the spouse who views it as meaningless to get their way.

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's actually exactly 6%, the Sasha votes are throwing off the percentage a bit. As an atheist, one generally tries to respect other people's, particularly loved one's, beliefs. The same doesn't necessarily hold true for most religions, who believe that other beliefs are wrong and dangerously so. The spouse who believes they're putting their child in danger (of eternal damnation no less) by not baptising it is going to be a lot more motivated than the spouse who views it as meaningless to get their way.

Sad, but true. I suppose I'm just a little surprised that there isn't a bigger margin of atheists who became parents with other atheists. I know that if you love someone, it shouldn't matter that they believe in a sky-being, but that always mattered to me too much to get past it in any relationship. Maybe I'm a bit black/white about the whole thing...:o

Obliq

pwurple wrote: »

People who go around insisting that catholics aren't catholic enough, muslims aren't muslim enough, and even now that athiests aren't bloody athiest enough are just veering towards fundamentalism as far as I can see.

Fundies are the ones I am wary of.

I don't see that at all though. It seems pretty legitimate to me to think that no change towards secularism will happen unless people actually get counted for what they believe/do not believe. I know that "going along with it" for whatever reason, whether semi-religious or non-religious is the easiest (and sometimes safest) option in a lot of cases, but my resentment of that literally comes down to how much easier that makes it for the government to not have to consider any changes to our excessively Catholic constitution and state policies. That's not fundamentalist - it's more despairing on behalf of proper consideration for all beliefs than narrow-mindedly wishing everyone believed what I do.

Dades

The poll really needed to distinguish between voters whose partners were catholic, or those who were non-religious. It's too easy to draw conclusions when there's more to these decisions than meets the eye.

And for the record I met my wife when we were both in school, so religious belief back then was as much a concern to me as starting a pension.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

Sad, but true. I suppose I'm just a little surprised that there isn't a bigger margin of atheists who became parents with other atheists. I know that if you love someone, it shouldn't matter that they believe in a sky-being, but that always mattered to me too much to get past it in any relationship. Maybe I'm a bit black/white about the whole thing...:o

I'm black and white too. I couldn't have seen myself falling in love with someone who wanted to do any religious rituals. As I said already in this thread, when it comes to religion there is no compromise - you either do the rituals or you don't. You can dress it up with all the usual excuses "The missus really wanted it", "The school wanted the baptism cert", "Sure if it doesn't mean anything its not really a big deal" but at the end of the day I see atheists doing far more 'going along with' stuff than quasi religious people. And I know I sound intolerant but I'm getting mighty sick of people taking the talk but not walking the walk.
It just makes the status quo even more entrenched and people will continue to go along rather than kick up a fuss, or not even kick up a fuss, just not do the religious stuff. Those of us who don't do these things, even when great pressure is applied, will continue to be the odd ones out, as will our children.

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

I'm black and white too. I couldn't have seen myself falling in love with someone who wanted to do any religious rituals. As I said already in this thread, when it comes to religion there is no compromise - you either do the rituals or you don't. You can dress it up with all the usual excuses "The missus really wanted it", "The school wanted the baptism cert", "Sure if it doesn't mean anything its not really a big deal" but at the end of the day I see atheists doing far more 'going along with' stuff than quasi religious people. And I know I sound intolerant but I'm getting mighty sick of people taking the talk but not walking the walk.
It just makes the status quo even more entrenched and people will continue to go along rather than kick up a fuss, or not even kick up a fuss, just not do the religious stuff. Those of us who don't do these things, even when great pressure is applied, will continue to be the odd ones out, as will our children.

Were the state to mandate I had to go to church. I'd protest and try my hardest to get out of it. I still go with my Mum once a year at Christmas. There's a huge difference between bowing to corrupt state laws and doing something to make a loved one happy.

Beruthiel

Dades wrote: »

The poll really needed to distinguish between voters whose partners were catholic, or those who were non-religious. It's too easy to draw conclusions when there's more to these decisions than meets the eye.

And for the record I met my wife when we were both in school, so religious belief back then was as much a concern to me as starting a pension.

Indeed.
I also met my daughters father while I was still in school.
After giving birth to her I was not well for some time and my caring about crap was at an all time low.

When he said he wanted to get her baptized, at the time, I had the attitude of, if that's what you want go ahead, but I'm not getting involved.
Now that I'm older and wiser (?), I regret that!
Lets put it down to me being young and stupid.

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

Were the state to mandate I had to go to church. I'd protest and try my hardest to get out of it. I still go with my Mum once a year at Christmas. There's a huge difference between bowing to corrupt state laws and doing something to make a loved one happy.

I guess with me I draw the line on what I do to make a loved one happy. Of course I want my parents to be happy, but I'm not going to go against my wishes or that of my husband to make them happy. Everyone draws their own lines, but myself and my husband also deserve to be happy, and our parents not imposing on our decisions about our family is part of that. It would have made my husband's family happy if we agreed to do godparents duties, but it would have made us extremely unhappy do go along with it, so we declined.

Their right to happiness does not trump ours simply because their happiness includes religious events.

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Were the state to mandate I had to go to church. I'd protest and try my hardest to get out of it. I still go with my Mum once a year at Christmas. There's a huge difference between bowing to corrupt state laws and doing something to make a loved one happy.

The state has mandated that you must be Catholic to be guaranteed a school place in your locality. It's a little more insidious than telling you to go to church, but amounts to much the same thing.

I have been to religious funerals, weddings and christenings of various belief systems. Doesn't mean that by going to them, I have a negative impact on other atheists. There's a huge difference between looking on and subscribing.

kylith

pwurple wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake. Most Catholics do nothing of the sort.

But the Catholic church does. Why on earth would I tacitly condone a sexist, homophobic, bigoted organisation by signing my child up to it? Why would anyone who knows that I think the RCC is a sexist, bigoted, homophobic organisation think I should sign my child up for it for no reason other than a get-together?

There's a calm middle ground of athiests and cultural catholics who pretty much seem to believe the same thing. That religion doesn't matter a whole pile in their lives either way. They will take the path of least resistance. Similar for one of my muslim colleagues who eats sausages, and a hindi colleague who eats meat. They are not too fussed, but use the religious services for marking births, deaths and marriages. Like they would use a dry cleaners service or a tailoring service.

Do you not think that someone who only uses a religion for their only benefit would be a hypocrite? I think that it is hugely offensive to proper Catholics to pretend to follow their beliefs for no reason other than 'a day out', or to say their holy words but believe they're meaningless nonsense. Is it not profaning their temples?

If someone decides that they want to follow Islam, except that they want to eat pork, I would consider that a matter for their own conscience as I think religious dietary restrictions are silly, but I cannot imagine that an immam would perform a wedding for a couple that he knew drank, ate pork, and only saw the inside of a mosque at Eid because their parents made them go. That's because, IME, Muslims take their religion a lot more seriously than Catholics do.

People who go around insisting that catholics aren't catholic enough, muslims aren't muslim enough, and even now that athiests aren't bloody athiest enough are just veering towards fundamentalism as far as I can see.

There are no rules for atheism, so once you don't believe in deities you're as atheist as you can get. However if a person calls themselves a vegetarian and then goes and has a steak they're not a vegetarian. Similarly if a person calls themselves a Catholic but doesn't follow the teachings of the Catholic church then they are not Catholic; these are the RCC's own rules. If a person calls themselves a Muslim and eats pork they are not truly Muslim by Islam's own rules.

Like I said; atheists seem to take the rules of a religion more seriously than people who would claim to be adherents to that religion.

Obliq wrote: »

Sad, but true. I suppose I'm just a little surprised that there isn't a bigger margin of atheists who became parents with other atheists. I know that if you love someone, it shouldn't matter that they believe in a sky-being, but that always mattered to me too much to get past it in any relationship. Maybe I'm a bit black/white about the whole thing...:o

It would be a dealbreaker for me also. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone whose opinion differed so greatly from mine on something so fundamental. Luckily OH is one of us, and my family has now gone through 4 children not being baptised so my parents are used to it. OH's mum will probably be a bit of a row, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

pwurple

Obliq wrote: »

. It seems pretty legitimate to me to think that no change towards secularism will happen unless people actually get counted for what they believe/do not believe.

You're talking about actively converting people to a faith / non-faith. The desire to convert others is a good example of fundamentalism ideals.

kylith

pwurple wrote: »

You're talking about actively converting people to a faith / non-faith. The desire to convert others is a good example of fundamentalism ideals.

Secularism isn't a faith or non-faith. It holds no opinion on faith. Secularism is the separation of church and state so that, for example, there would be no baptismal requirement for a school place.

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

You're talking about actively converting people to a faith / non-faith. The desire to convert others is a good example of fundamentalism ideals.

It's not about getting people to convert - there's many self described atheists who will agree to a church wedding, baptism, godparent role etc - its about getting them to actually follow through on what they describe themselves as rather than retreating behind excuses like 'making the parents happy' or 'the misses really wanted it'. I know loads of couples who don't believe a word of the catholic church's doctrine and openly say so, but get really defensive if you ask why they still go along with the rituals. Its not me saying they're not catholic, they say it themselves but still don't follow through on it.