Attending a Church wedding

Stheno

Jonotti wrote: »

Yes, somebody has to take a stand. If all atheists did this then the godless couples of Ireland wouldn't be so quick to have their ceremonies in a church.

Seriously just don't go, it's not about you

Vojera

Jonotti wrote: »

Yes, somebody has to take a stand. If all atheists did this then the godless couples of Ireland wouldn't be so quick to have their ceremonies in a church.

All you're doing there is telling your friends that you don't respect them. Someone's wedding or funeral or other religious day is not the time for you to protest.

OU812 wrote: »

The more difficult part is not shaking hands.

I actually have no issue with shaking hands. After all, "Peace be with you" is a sentiment I feel we should all share with each other.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

I'm sorry, do you mean you'll literally turn around during the ceremony?

Of course not. The internet is full of complete BS like this.

Zillah wrote: »

Just don't go, you drama queen.

It's a feckin' wedding. The whole point of going is that you've been invited by people who are having a big event to celebrate THEIR day in THEIR way. Anyone who is too childish or plain ****-witted to go along with that simply shouldn't be going. Nobody has to kneel, or stand, or pray (me, I do the middle one of those only, but that's my choice). When my wife and I got married, we had an entirely non-religious ceremony; I'd say that apart from us there were a maximum of half a dozen atheists at the wedding. So everyone else just had to do things our way - and rightly so, because it was our day.

Nobody, but nobody, would disrupt a wedding, naming or funeral ceremony by behaving in the crass, immature, moronic and downright sectarian way described by that poster.

Take a stand? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Jonotti

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course not. The internet is full of complete BS like this.




It's a feckin' wedding. The whole point of going is that you've been invited by people who are having a big event to celebrate THEIR day in THEIR way. Anyone who is too childish or plain ****-witted to go along with that simply shouldn't be going. Nobody has to kneel, or stand, or pray (me, I do the middle one of those only, but that's my choice). When my wife and I got married, we had an entirely non-religious ceremony; I'd say that apart from us there were a maximum of half a dozen atheists at the wedding. So everyone else just had to do things our way - and rightly so, because it was our day.

Nobody, but nobody, would disrupt a wedding, naming or funeral ceremony by behaving in the crass, immature, moronic and downright sectarian way described by that poster.

Take a stand? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Hold on a second sonny. You refuse to follow the ceremony and kneel or pray. It's their day and you should just do everything to make them happy going by your logic.

Vojera

Vojera wrote: »

I actually have no issue with shaking hands. After all, "Peace be with you" is a sentiment I feel we should all share with each other.

Nor have I. In fact it's the one part of a Catholic church service in which I always take part, because it's a really nice thing to do.....


....although of course I mightn't think that if I was the kind of sectarian person who thinks that people who believe something different don't deserve respect or peace.

Stheno

Jonotti wrote: »

Hold on a second sonny. You refuse to follow the ceremony and kneel or pray. It's their day and you should just do everything to make them happy going by your logic.

There's a slight difference remaining seated as opposed to turning your back as you suggested

There's all sorts of reasons people don't kneel what you are propposing is rude to say the least

Lord Riverside

Lord Riverside wrote: »

You mean all your invited non atheists friends didn't protest and turn their backs and hiss and spit ? The hypocrites.

Actually, one kinda did. Obviously she wasn't such a numbnuts as to do that during the event - only a complete wally would do that - but one of our guests, who as it happened was an elderly nun, sent us a thank you letter a couple of weeks after our wedding. In the middle of a really sincere letter of thanks, she said it was a pity we hadn't gotten married in a church.

We laughed. What else could we do?

Jonotti

Jonotti wrote: »

Hold on a second sonny. You refuse to follow the ceremony and kneel or pray. It's their day and you should just do everything to make them happy going by your logic.

Thanks for confirming that you were spoofing and have never actually carried on in the stupid, crass, immature and sectarian way you described.

haveringchick

Stheno wrote: »

Seriously just don't go, it's not about you

No seriously, everything is all about him. The centre of the universe.

Lord Riverside

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, one kinda did. Obviously she wasn't such a numbnuts as to do that during the event - only a complete wally would do that - but one of our guests, who as it happened was an elderly nun, sent us a thank you letter a couple of weeks after our wedding. In the middle of a really sincere letter of thanks, she said it was a pity we hadn't gotten married in a church.

We laughed. What else could we do?

Yep she sounds exactly the same as 'Jonotti'. Two halfs of the same coin.

Stheno

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Yep she sounds exactly the same as 'Jonotti'. Two halfs of the same coin.

Ot but if you attend a wedding as a guest are you supposed to send a thank you letter?

Lord Riverside

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Yep she sounds exactly the same as 'Jonotti'. Two halfs of the same coin.

Actually, she doesn't, if we're being strictly fair.

She was a nun, and her vows must therefore have been a matter of some considerable significance for her. But nonetheless she sat through our wedding, took part in it fully and enjoyed herself in the company of others. She also gave us a very nice gift. She never made any comment or criticism of us on the day, and in fact our understanding is that she never commented about the atheist and humanist nature of the event in a critical way to anyone. But she wrote to us, and said it was a pity we hadn't gotten married in a church as a one-line aside in a letter of thanks that was genuinely sincere. In that sense, it's fair to say that she stood by her beliefs and made her point, and was careful to make no kind of disruptive or public criticism of our different way of doing things.

In my view - and I suspect you'll agree - that's a whole lot more considerate, sensitive, intelligent and mature than "taking a stand".

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Ot but if you attend a wedding as a guest are you supposed to send a thank you letter?

We got about 3 or 4 when we got married back in the 90s. All of them were from older guests. The guest to whom I was referring was born in the 1910s.

Stheno

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We got about 3 or 4 when we got married back in the 90s. All of them were from older guests. The guest to whom I was referring was born in the 1910s.

Ah ok thanks

Lord Riverside

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, she doesn't, if we're being strictly fair.

She was a nun, and her vows must therefore have been a matter of some considerable significance for her. But nonetheless she sat through our wedding, took part in it fully and enjoyed herself in the company of others. She also gave us a very nice gift. She never made any comment or criticism of us on the day, and in fact our understanding is that she never commented about the atheist and humanist nature of the event in a critical way to anyone. But she wrote to us, and said it was a pity we hadn't gotten married in a church as a one-line aside in a letter of thanks that was genuinely sincere. In that sense, it's fair to say that she stood by her beliefs and made her point, and was careful to make no kind of disruptive or public criticism of our different way of doing things.

In my view - and I suspect you'll agree - that's a whole lot more considerate, sensitive, intelligent and mature than "taking a stand".

Well that begs the question why you laughed at her letter ?

Stheno

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Well that begs the question why you laughed at her letter ?

They did so privately and appreciated the thank you but laughed at it being suggested they get married in a church

I didn't see anything offensive in the post, I thought it was actually nice

Lord Riverside

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Well that begs the question why you laughed at her letter ?

Because the juxtaposition of the one-liner and the rest of the letter tickled our senses of humour, I s'pose.

A few years later, the lady passed away. There was a religious funeral - a Catholic funeral. We went. We didn't mount any protests; there didn't seem to be any need. And anyway I'm an atheist, so it's not like I thought she'd notice a protest.

A few years after that, her sister passed away. Not only was that funeral religious, but it had one or two references to her beloved Celtic FC. I didn't turn my back on those - and if I can tolerate that, you can be sure I've no problem coping with someone having a ceremony in their own religious system to mark their passing or their marriage.

It's an hour (or less) out of one's life; I don't think showing respect for someone else is really that hard.

seamus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have no fear of kneeling. If theres no god then whats the problem?

It is in fact the more respectful position. The purpose of kneeling is to pray, to show deference. A non-believer kneeling is in effect pretending to partake in the ceremony, which is more disrespectful than just sitting there silently.

Do beliefs themselves require respect? No, of course not. But in the interests of being a decent human being, lines need to be drawn. You're in their clubhouse by choice, celebrating a ceremony for presumably good friends in the way that they want to celebrate it. The respect you are showing is for the couple, and their choices and/or those around you. Not for the beliefs themselves.

Going out of your way to be disrespectful during a ceremony to which you voluntarily attended is like turning up to a house party as an invited guest and then complaining about it all night.

Samaris

To be honest, if I was invited to a religious ceremony of any stripe, be it Pagan, Catholic, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, whatever, I would follow what the people on each side of me were doing and take part in it is as much as I could out of respect for the sincerely held beliefs of those around me. It wouldn't really bother me if I was "going against my beliefs", because, say if I was Catholic, I would hope that my God would understand that this was "love thy neighbour", and if I was atheist, I think my brain could cope with the concept of it mattering to others and I would take in the new experience and see if I could understand why others felt so strongly about it.

Wouldn't take Communion specifically, because that has very strong significance to Catholics and certain honour-bound rules about when and how you take it, but wouldn't bother me to recite prayers or to kneel and meditate/think for a few minutes. If it was a similar..oh, I dunno, everyone sips from a cup as a symbol of brotherhood and shared experience, I would, if I didn't know there was some reason I definitely shouldn't. If I'm a guest at someone else's ceremony, it's about -them- and their ceremony and I'm privileged to take part in it. I wouldn't consider myself a hypocrite for doing so.

When in Rome..

Akrasia

kylith wrote: »

^This.

When it comes to the shaking hands I shake hands but just smile. Or you can always just say 'Pleased to meet you'; since it sounds so similar it should pass without comment.

I don't mind saying the 'peas be with you' thing because even if you don't like them, you should still eat your vegetables.

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't mind saying the 'peas be with you' thing because even if you don't like them, you should still eat your vegetables.

Well, having lived in the deep countryside when this was introduced, and remembering some of the strong smells that accompanied some churchgoers, we used to use a word that sounded quite like "peace/peas" too.

Akrasia

Samaris wrote: »

To be honest, if I was invited to a religious ceremony of any stripe, be it Pagan, Catholic, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, whatever, I would follow what the people on each side of me were doing and take part in it is as much as I could out of respect for the sincerely held beliefs of those around me. It wouldn't really bother me if I was "going against my beliefs", because, say if I was Catholic, I would hope that my God would understand that this was "love thy neighbour", and if I was atheist, I think my brain could cope with the concept of it mattering to others and I would take in the new experience and see if I could understand why others felt so strongly about it.

Wouldn't take Communion specifically, because that has very strong significance to Catholics and certain honour-bound rules about when and how you take it, but wouldn't bother me to recite prayers or to kneel and meditate/think for a few minutes. If it was a similar..oh, I dunno, everyone sips from a cup as a symbol of brotherhood and shared experience, I would, if I didn't know there was some reason I definitely shouldn't. If I'm a guest at someone else's ceremony, it's about -them- and their ceremony and I'm privileged to take part in it. I wouldn't consider myself a hypocrite for doing so.

When in Rome..

I'll do the standing thing and the sitting thing and the scooting forward and pretending to kneel thing, but I won't say any of the prayers (including blessing myself) because they all involve 'professing faith' which I don't have, and it would be disrespectful to lie just to fit in.


I'll attend if I'm invited out of respect for the couple but I won't participate in the religious elements that don't involve me.

I always find church wedding ceremonies long boring uncomfortable snoozefests occasionally interspersed with moments of horror at what the gospels actually say and incredulity at how anyone can take those readings seriously.

I remember being at a wedding where this was the gospel

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he takes away: and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word I have spoken unto you. Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it remains in the vine; so neither can you, unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches: He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit: for away from me you can do nothing. If a man does not remain in me, he is thrown away as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, ask whatsoever you will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:1-7 )

Apart from the fact that a leaving cert student would have written a more poetic piece of prose, I was listening to a priest telling me that I was a withered branch that will be thrown into the fire and burned.

Michael OBrien

Akrasia wrote: »

Apart from the fact that a leaving cert student would have written a more poetic piece of prose, I was listening to a priest telling me that I was a withered branch that will be thrown into the fire and burned.

Yeah I have had that experience when forced to attend such events. I can only imagine that the other people there simply turn their minds off, or have a filter up so not to see how horrible their scriptures are.

Then they claim it is all about love. Yeah, sure. Don't believe in jesus?, wither and die, then burn. Makes my stomach turn.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Some people probably find it quite painful. And I'd say quite a few atheists and agnostics don't like signalling deference and respect towards an organization and a set of ideas which they feel deserves a mixture of pity, fear, ridicule and disgust.

I don't get this ... I have attended all kinds of ceremonies involving all religions and none ... and I have never felt any need to go 'grandstanding' on my own beliefs.
I respected the people involved and I therefore joined in with whatever everyone present was doing.
If I didn't want to do this, then I think a gracious non-attendance would be the way to go.
Respect for difference isn't expressed by ridicule or disgust IMO.

Michael OBrien

J C wrote: »

I don't get this ... I have attended all kinds of ceremonies involving all religions and none ... and I have never felt any need to go 'grandstanding' on my own beliefs.
I respected the people involved and I therefore joined in with whatever everyone present was doing.
If I didn't want to do this, then I think a gracious non-attendance would be the way to go.
Respect for difference isn't expressed by ridicule or disgust IMO.

In Ireland a lot of family events orbit around religious events. You cannot exclude yourself from all of them or you basically become a pariah in both the community and your family and friends.
It is not grandstanding to find the organisation and/or certain practices unpleasant. Atheists don't turn up with the famous quote from the God Delusion on their chests, that would be grandstanding. People recognize that not everyone is catholic or christian nowadays and accept that certain practices will be ignored. Some christians are more insulted if an atheist pretends to be a christian, saying prayers they don't mean, miming actual christians, etc.

"respect for difference isn't expressed by ridicule or disgust IMO." I wish more christians took that attitude towards atheists and homosexuals. Good for you.

Jonotti

Michael OBrien wrote: »

In Ireland a lot of family events orbit around religious events. You cannot exclude yourself from all of them or you basically become a pariah in both the community and your family and friends.
It is not grandstanding to find the organisation and/or certain practices unpleasant. Atheists don't turn up with the famous quote from the God Delusion on their chests, that would be grandstanding. People recognize that not everyone is catholic or christian nowadays and accept that certain practices will be ignored. Some christians are more insulted if an atheist pretends to be a christian, saying prayers they don't mean, miming actual christians, etc.

"respect for difference isn't expressed by ridicule or disgust IMO." I wish more christians took that attitude towards atheists and homosexuals. Good for you.

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

haveringchick

Jonotti wrote: »

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

Believe it or not Jon it's highly likely that the other guests at the wedding are in the church to see their loved ones marry. It seems you find it difficult to grasp that it's possible that nobody else present gives a tuppeny toss wether you are an atheist or a contemplative monk.
What will happen is that if you make a huge fuss by getting up to turn around so that you've given the finger so to speak to the alter, is that it will cause some other guests to turn their attention to you. And it's the B&Gs day. Not yours. Difficult as that must be for you it remains an indisputable fact. Is it so hard for you to just not go to places where you can't control yourself?

Lord Riverside

It's an invitation to your friends function (or at least they're under the impression that you are their friend), you're not required to accept the invitation or be there.

Hotblack Desiato

Jonotti wrote: »

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

I'm a harsh critic of religion of all types, but I can only describe that as dickish.

Jonotti

haveringchick wrote: »

Believe it or not Jon it's highly likely that the other guests at the wedding are in the church to see their loved ones marry. It seems you find it difficult to grasp that it's possible that nobody else present gives a tuppeny toss wether you are an atheist or a contemplative monk.
What will happen is that if you make a huge fuss by getting up to turn around so that you've given the finger so to speak to the alter, is that it will cause some other guests to turn their attention to you. And it's the B&Gs day. Not yours. Difficult as that must be for you it remains an indisputable fact. Is it so hard for you to just not go to places where you can't control yourself?

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.

Michael OBrien

Michael OBrien wrote: »

It is not grandstanding to find the organisation and/or certain practices unpleasant.

On the other hand, it would be grandstanding to behave in an unpleasant, rude or immature manner towards the people who have invited you.

Note that I say "would be" rather than "is", for the simple reason that nobody actually behaves that way. They might pretend to on an internet forum, but that's all it is - pretending.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Respect for difference isn't expressed by ridicule or disgust IMO.

I'm not quite sure what this "respect for difference" is - I suppose the top four things I "respect" must be honesty, generosity, humor and smarts - I'm not fully sure why I'd want to respect something that's the opposite of any of them.

.

J C

Michael OBrien wrote: »

In Ireland a lot of family events orbit around religious events. You cannot exclude yourself from all of them or you basically become a pariah in both the community and your family and friends.
It is not grandstanding to find the organisation and/or certain practices unpleasant. Atheists don't turn up with the famous quote from the God Delusion on their chests, that would be grandstanding. People recognize that not everyone is catholic or christian nowadays and accept that certain practices will be ignored. Some christians are more insulted if an atheist pretends to be a christian, saying prayers they don't mean, miming actual christians, etc.

"respect for difference isn't expressed by ridicule or disgust IMO." I wish more christians took that attitude towards atheists and homosexuals. Good for you.

I agree with practically everything you have said.
I would just add that we all shouldn't 'wear our beliefs on our sleeves' at all times and discretion can be the better part of valor.
Just like it would be churlish to attend a civil wedding, for example, and then start doing everything opposite to what is expected from winesses at such a wedding, to make some kind of point about your disagreement with the concept of civil marriage, if that were your point of view ...
... it is equally churlish IMO to do the same thing, for example, at a religious wedding service to make some kind of point about your disagreement with the concept of religious marriage, if that were your point of view.

Live and let live and respect everyone ... and if you can't do this, then graciously stay at home would be my advice.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

I'm not fully sure why I'd want to respect something that's different from them.

My Christian (for that, read mostly Catholic) friends and workmates are smart, honest, generous and funny. They are those things to varying degrees, just as my atheist friends and colleagues are.

People of particular religions sometimes feel less than fully respectful towards people of other religions. Why? Fundamentally, because they believe they are right about something really important and the other people are wrong. When they behave badly towards people of other religions, that is (quite rightly) defined as sectarian behaviour.

It is also sectarian behaviour for people of religious faith to behave badly towards people who do not have a religious faith, and the same applies the other way round. They may not realise that, but it is. Sectarian behaviour is not just something that one lot of Christians visits on another.

It is also common for people who behave in a sectarian way to blame the people on the other side, and to excuse their own sectarian behaviour on the grounds that "they do it as well". If you are behaving in a sectarian way that is your own fault completely and unreservedly; you don't get a pass because someone else behaves poorly or because you think they do.

We don't have to agree with what other people believe, and they don't have to agree with us. But we do have to respect their right to have a belief system, and they have to respect ours. Anything else is sectarianism, plain and simple.

And bad enough as it is to pick on Protestants, Muslims, atheists or some other group as a target for sectarian behaviour, the notion that a person would accept an invitation from a friend to a religious ceremony and then use that as a form of "protest" just doesn't compute - and, let's face it, just doesn't happen in the real world.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what this "respect for difference" is

It is certainly a buzz-word in modern parlance.
... and I think it is actually a good thing, in any pluralist society ... and liberals (and pseudo-liberals) generally purport to espouse it.

robindch wrote: »

I suppose the top four things I "respect" must be honesty, generosity, humor and smarts - I'm not fully sure why I'd want to respect something that's different from them.

I'm talking about respecting every person.
Feel free to (diplomatically) challenge their beliefs, by all means ... but don't cry foul if they, in turn, challenge yours.

BTW, diplomatically challenging somebodies beliefs doesn't include doing so on their wedding day (it's not the time or the place). I shouldn't even have to say this ... but looking at some of the posts on this thread, I obviously have to !!!

We can have our differences and still respect each other. Indeed it is essential to respect each other, to ensure a peaceful society.
Insulting somebody is classed as behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace, in an inter-personal situation ... and because of this it is a criminal offence.

Indeed, I'm quite sure that gratuitously disrupting a (civil or religious) wedding ceremony or engaging in anti-social behavour at it, would also fall foul of the law ... and quite right too. At best, you could be asked to leave ... and at worst, you could find your shoulder being felt by the long arm of the law.:eek:

DK man

MouseTail wrote: »

What would you do if you were invited to a Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Humanist ceremony. I assume you would follow and mimic the crowd? Just do the same out of courtesy and respect to your hosts, fellow guests, as well as the true believers there.

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

Jonotti

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

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

But we do have to respect their right to have a belief system, and they have to respect ours. Anything else is sectarianism, plain and simple.

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.

You also have a peculiar understanding of the word "sectarian" - the word itself implies some identification with some kind of sect. Atheists don't divide themselves along sectarian lines. We tend to be more of an equal-opportunities lot - detesting all religions fairly equally.

Deleted User wrote: »

My Christian (for that, read mostly Catholic) friends and workmates are smart, honest, generous and funny. They are those things to varying degrees, just as my atheist friends and colleagues are.

Varying degrees, yes. 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.

Stheno

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.

One would hope that in ten years times good manners would still prevail

Jonotti wrote: »

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

Muslims are under strict rules according to their faith. They may attend a wedding or funeral in a Catholic Church, but may not pray. Slightly different from your stance.

J C

Jonotti wrote: »

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

Most serious offences are tiny physical actions ... and believe me, people (and the law) do take them very seriously indeed.

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