…and this is a 
In case you missed the trail of links that magically appeared on several blogs this morning, here it is:
Almost Diamonds → Skepchick → Greg Laden's Blog → Whitecoat Underground → Traumatized By Truth → My Fair Scientist → Neurotopia → A Blog Around the Clock → Pharyngula
What it all led up to was a marriage proposal from Jodi Haynes to Jason Thibeault, which would have been a bit of a bummer if he'd said "No", but we're all pleased to hear that he said "Yes!"
A few people seem to be baffled by the business of a pair of proud atheists going through this "marriage" stuff. Isn't that a religious ritual?
No! It's an example of human values and human commitment that has been coopted by religious institutions — just as they want you to think you can't be born and you can't die without an attending parasite from some superstitious dogma, they also want you to believe you can't stand up and declare your love for another person without a holy gatekeeper. No gods intervene, no priests can sanctify, and no government can dictate when two people care enough about each other that they willingly and publicly declare that they have a lasting bond. Nothing else matters.
So good godless congratulations to Jodi and Jason, from one happily married pair of atheists to another.
Comments
Posted by: Zeno | June 27, 2009 9:06 AM
Felicitations to the happy couple and may their tribe increase!
Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | June 27, 2009 9:12 AM
Congratulations to J & J - and well said PZ :-)
Posted by: Sili
|
June 27, 2009 9:13 AM
He would have been pretty stupid to let such a prime specimen go.
(Not that some guys aren't that stupid ...)
Congrats Js!
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 27, 2009 9:17 AM
I hope J and J have little atheist children and keep us informed about their progress. My wife and I are not US citizens, though both of us are working in this country and will be here in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I often worry about bringing up children (when we have them) in a nurturing environment that is free from the god-bug and the religion-parasite. I hear that peer pressure is a significant force in the US culture, that molds and modulates the minds of young kids. If I happen to live and work in one of those states, I worry how I am going to deal with the unwelcome intrusion of religiosity in our children's lives. I don't know what the right approach is.
Is there an atheist parent support group?
Posted by: Chris Miller | June 27, 2009 9:25 AM
I actually just proposed a few months back (41 days until the big day), not because I need to get married for any reason but because I love my future wife. I don't have anything against marriage, but neither do I really have anything for it. All it is to me is a good way of telling the person your with that you are planning to be with them for the rest of your life.
Besides, whenever someone tells me that marriage is a sacred religious thing I just point out that my moderately religious, future brother-in-law is on his 3rd marriage at the age of 28 and his wife, who's age is similar, is on her fifth. Religion has very little to do with it.
Anyways, happy times to Jodi and Jason. May they find happiness together for the rest of their days.
Posted by: Nimic | June 27, 2009 9:28 AM
I can definitely see myself getting married one day. If I have my will, it won't be a church wedding, though. Weddings in Norway can very well be performed civilly (is that a word?)
Though I'm unlikely to ever marry a very religious person, I might be pushed into having a church wedding if the other party wants it, for traditional/family reasons. The church in Norway is pretty secular anyway, the consequence of a State Church.
Posted by: maddogdelta | June 27, 2009 9:38 AM
@pz
A few people seem to be baffled by the business of a pair of proud atheists going through this "marriage" stuff. Isn't that a religious ritual?
Whoa there PZ...did Jodi properly purchase the rights to Jason with an appropriate dowery, A suitable donation to the local bishopric, and her lords permission with a promise of a fruitful alliance with Jason's powerful family? If she didn't, it's not a proper marriage in the church's eyes.
Wait, you mean they love each other? Ewwwwww! Who gets married for that! Probably those immoral atheists.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | June 27, 2009 9:39 AM
I love this kind of magic, the only kind that seems to matter.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
June 27, 2009 9:41 AM
I'm delighted for those crazy kids, and I wish them all the luck in the world. On the other hand, they may need it.
Marriage for reasons other than legality has always struck me as a non-sequitur. It's saying, in effect: "We love each other very much, and want to stay together. So we're going to legally bind ourselves in a way that will tend to make it difficult, expensive and acrimonious should we later change our minds." How does this help?
Posted by: eddie
|
June 27, 2009 9:43 AM
All the best to J & J.
If you treat a marriage like Washington's axe, it'll last forever ;-)
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | June 27, 2009 9:53 AM
but as for @4 Kausik Datta's post - hoping that they "have little atheist children" it's the last thing i'd wish for a marriage. That's what the catholics do. (Although in their case they wish for lots of catholic children). We went to an RC wedding a couple weeks ago, and the whole point of the ceremony was to glorify (their) god and to command the new couple to produce lots more RCs. oh no no no, let's not ask anyone to produce anything in their marriage other than love for the light in each other.
Posted by: charley
|
June 27, 2009 9:57 AM
@Kausik Datta
Our family of 5 "deconverted" from an evangelical christianity sect to atheism about 4 years ago (individual decisions sort of led by me). Now we are happily godless in a mostly religious community. All I can say in this limited space is don't sweat it; you'll figure it out and find the support network you need. Your kids will make up their own minds in the end, but without religious coercion at home, chances are very good they will not choose christian foolishness.
Posted by: Rebecca C. | June 27, 2009 9:59 AM
On the previous thread, a few commenters seemed BAFFLED that Jodi would suggest that atheism and marriage are antithetical, reminding us that there's nothing inconsistent with matrimony and godlessness. Well DUH, everyone who reads this blog already knows that. But leave your skeptic blogroll and tight circle of rational friends, and you'll see how many non-atheists can't comprehend that love and commitment and honesty can exist without a bearded cloud man poking his nose in the couple's business. So I think Jodi is justified in feeling like she and Justin are bucking convention.
Congratulations from one godless married couple to another! Show 'em what real love really looks like.
My husband and I had fun getting legally married at the County Clerk's office a week after we got engaged, then getting pretend married in front of the friends and family a year later with vows we wrote ourselves. 100% sky fairy-free.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 27, 2009 10:00 AM
#4 My hubby & I also are resident aliens in the US. Came here when our youngest was 8 yrs and we live in the god-botting south. I raised 3 skeptic atheists.
Most of our friends never pushed their religion on us. But the kids got flak at school sometimes. "You're going to Hell" being a usual comment from peers. The young can be so cocksure they have the Truth and no tact about keeping it to them selves. My kids just wrote them off as idiots.
The main way I raised them as skeptics was to always look for real answers - i.e. that noise in the tree is a cicada; let's go to the library (or, later, the internet) to look them up. Plus a house full of books and astronomy as a hobby made them look to science & not woo for answers.
Posted by: Coleslaw | June 27, 2009 10:08 AM
Congratulations to the happy couple. A civil ceremony is preferable to an uncivil one (someone had to say it).
Posted by: eddie
|
June 27, 2009 10:15 AM
Jason has a poll up at lousyCanuck - "Should I marry Jodi?"
Yes - 120% - 12 votes
No - -20% - 0 votes
Total votes 10.
Canuck or floridian, you decide.
Posted by: Matt Pickard | June 27, 2009 10:19 AM
Congrats to the couple! I was married last year on Father's day to my wife. We just celebrated our first year married. We had a godless marriage centered on family.
We took Ann Druyan's sentiment over the death of her husband that Carl Sagan that chance had been so wonderful and kind to us.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault
|
June 27, 2009 10:22 AM
Somehow you crazy Pharyngulites went and voted twice, without counting yourselves as voters, and the poll plugin messed up on the math. I dunno how it happened, probably the plugin's fault and not yours, but I fixed it, and hopefully we won't go breaking laws of mathematics again.
Anyway, we'd danced around the subject a few times. I never said I thought it was inherently religious, but around here, there's a level of expectation that everything has to be "traditional". We're both a little worried about telling people that she proposed to me, that she did so over the internet, and that I then went and bought her a ring of her choice (sapphire on white gold, and on sale, so it fit ALL her criteria!), and that there's not going to be a priest or a chapel involved at all -- well, heads would explode.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
June 27, 2009 10:29 AM
Many many congratulations! Your wedding will be the best party you ever went to! Take lots of pictures and most importantly have a ton of fun!
Posted by: hubris hurts | June 27, 2009 10:38 AM
Congratulations to J & J!
Hubby and I had a gloriously secular, stress-free wedding at the courthouse. Our closest 6 friends were there and afterwards we celebrated by buying milkshakes. The woman who performed the ceremony made it extra special with a lovely little secular speach about love and marriage.
We had several friends getting married at the same time in huge, elaborate, stressful, and expensive ceremonies and nearly all later said that they wished they'd gone simple like us.
BTW - have you ever noticed how many people put far more thought into the wedding ceremony than they do into the actual marriage?
Posted by: hubris hurts | June 27, 2009 10:41 AM
er. That would be "speech," not "speach"
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 27, 2009 10:55 AM
Gosh, I am a little stunned. All you daring atheists fighting godbotting everywhere and, yet, when it comes to marriage, you shrivel up in a scared ball. "Oh, my do we have to go all religious and traditional now??"
Jason & Jodi, you're only real concern on this issue is your families. If they expect church blessings, you have to balance offending those you love versus personal convictions.
As for anyone else's opinion - tell them to get stuffed.
I believe every state offers civil marriages. Some states recognize civil unions, some don't. If the state recognizes civil unions, you could opt to skip an actual marriage because there are some fundamental protections in law for each person's rights.
Its nice to say this shouldn't matter but living together, owning property and having kids are all matters that the law has an opinion on and you want to make sure you are both protected if the worst happens. (When I lived with my hubby before we were married, his mother once told me that if her son died, she got everything in the apartment. I tartly told her, only the stuff he had paid for. After we got married, she mellowed out and we became good friends. I grieved deeply when she died.)
If the state does NOT recognize civil unions, you are best to get married. It is the only way to protect both your interests.
But don't get divorced. That gets messy. When people ask the secret of my long marriage, I tell them I don't believe in divorce. I believe in murder. And I didn't have a crawlspace until we moved into our last home.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 27, 2009 10:56 AM
Do you Yanks have a rule whereby one may only be elected to office by failing a test of sanity?
Posted by: Chialea | June 27, 2009 10:56 AM
One of the things that really bugged me during the Prop 8 debate was that people kept saying over and over that marriage is solely the province of religious institutions. I even had a coworker say it to me directly (and I work in a company that came out publicly against Prop 8) and was very confused when I snapped by "I'm just as married as you are".
My spouse and I were married by a friend in my parents' backyard. It was a lovely, secular wedding. I am every bit as married as someone who enlists the assistance of the their personal religious leader, and I hope that they're as happy as we are.
Posted by: Lana | June 27, 2009 11:00 AM
Aww! That's sweet. I love marriage. I've done it twice.
(giggle)
In both cases, I married nonbelievers who helped me produce little non-believers.
The first was in a Catholic church because I didn't care about the ceremony and it made my mother feel better. That one lasted about 12 years. The second was a meaningful 32 second ceremony by a civil officiant followed by a party at our house three weeks later. That one's lasted almost 22 years.
Posted by: Sam Paris | June 27, 2009 11:08 AM
Michael Kingsford Gray @23:
Yes, we call the test a "campaign".
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 27, 2009 11:15 AM
Oops, got my nomenclature confused. States recognize civil unions (performed by an agent of the state, such as a judge); if you live together, it can be considered a "common law" marriage. Some states grant common law marriage rights, others do not.
Posted by: shyster | June 27, 2009 11:19 AM
In a number of states a notary can "perform" a marriage. Most states are moving away from recognizing "common law" marriage.
Marriage is a contract between three parties: the two participants and the state in which they live. The legal benefits of marriage include fixing property rights, and care responsibilities for the spouse and any children.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 27, 2009 11:20 AM
As I tried to comment on the previous thread when registration was on, my "brother"* in Niš in southern Serbia married his long-term better half a month ago – in the registrar's office. And a beautiful office it was, a former villa or something.
Religion was not mentioned once on the entire, ehm, extended day (party and all), nor anytime else during the 3 days when I was there.
In Austria, the Catholic Church only marries people who have already married in the registrar's office (traditionally the day before). I was surprised to learn that some or all US states acknowledge religious marriages.
* Technically my half-cousin (whom I had only seen once before), but the language down there doesn't make such fine distinctions.
Getting divorced is much easier, bureaucratically, than getting married. At least in the case I'm halfway familiar with.
Posted by: Zeno | June 27, 2009 11:27 AM
While it's certainly true that Roman Catholic wedding services make a big deal of whelping litters of new Catholics ("accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church"), I can attest that Catholics do not necessarily breed true. For many, Catholicism is a passing phase. (Of course, the next phase is often some form of Protestant evangelicalism, which is not necessarily an improvement. The pathway to non-belief is fraught with peril.)
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
June 27, 2009 11:50 AM
Congratulations Jodi & Jason!
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 27, 2009 11:54 AM
PZ Myers:
So whether -- and how -- a couple get married is all about individual choice, ie what X and prospective partner Y find pleasing.
Questions of religious belief or non-belief aside, can such extremely individualistic 'ceremonies' ever constitute a force for cultural cohesion, or are they by definition unable to communally unite a society -- however emotionally satisfyng they might be for the individuals involved?
Shared rituals have always contributed to social cohesion by providing common cultural reference points between individuals, classes and generations -- an affirmation of common cultural identity. When a common culture of ritual, built up over centuries, disintegrates no synthetic substitute tailored for individual consumption can fulfil the same function -- no matter how beautiful, profound or fun it may be.
In a monocultural society a couple getting married would know they were participating in something in which their parents and parents' parents also participated before them. They would know their children and children's children would do likewise after them. They would know that this extended to their compatriots. They were part of something larger than themselves, and would be aware of this even if they didn't consciously ponder the matter while participating in the ritual. And that is a great source of comfort, strength and stability.
In a modern "multicultural" society that hasn't changed -- it's just been ghettoized. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc all participate in their own little "mini-nations".
None of this can apply to individualistic secular ceremonies because there is no 'core content' that remains constant (albeit organically developing) over time. A couple's children might choose to marry in a similar ceremony to their parents' -- or they might not. It's all just a matter of deracinated individual 'consumer choice'. Hence the very possibility of an enduring tradition is stillborn.
Posted by: Loc | June 27, 2009 12:05 PM
Congrats Jodi and Jason!!
I too am getting married in 42 days! I'm an atheist (from protestant family), and my bride-to-be is 'spiritual' (from a Catholic family). We talked about doing a destination wedding, but her family was completely against it. It has to be the traditional Catholic wedding (without mass at least). Needless to say, they're a little skeptical of my 'religious inclinations.'
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 27, 2009 12:07 PM
well, looks like I slept through all the excitement! :-p
anyway, congratulations and all :-)
not in the US in most cases. Unless you're lucky enough to be related to a paralegal, it's a massive pain in the ass, and expensive to boot. no idea about canada.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 27, 2009 12:13 PM
Pilty, what the bloody fuck are you talking about. I fully expect there to be traditional, alcohol-infused fun. If there's anything more traditional and cross-culturally and cross-generationally unifyin than that, I don't know what :-p
Posted by: Claire | June 27, 2009 12:15 PM
Oh! adorable. Find me a nice atheist boy, would you???
Posted by: Claire | June 27, 2009 12:18 PM
Oh! adorable. Find me a nice atheist boy, would you???
Posted by: M31 | June 27, 2009 12:27 PM
#31, well if the Catholic soon-to-be family members are 'skeptical' of atheism, that's a great start! See if you can get them to admit to skepticism about Zeus and Thor, maybe Shiva next, and then add more gods as you see fit. :-)
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 27, 2009 12:29 PM
First, congratulations to Jodi and Jason. May this be a source of happiness for both of you.
While most people are wishing the couple well, the seagull of brutality fucking shits on everything.
The fucking goddamned Hoax would have people put to death so that all of the survivors would go through the same ceremonies and feel like they a part of the same culture.
Hoax, could you have should some decency and civility and not said a fucking word. You are the lowest pile of toxic sludge. You do not have the sense to just keep fucking quiet.
I apologize to everybody else for my explosion. The fucking Hoax offended to my very core.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 27, 2009 12:35 PM
I was initially very surprised at the response to this that seemed to say "Meh, why get married if you are an atheist.... that's a religious thing"
Think about that for a second ... that attitude, if based on correct assumptions, is disturbing. Based on incorrect assumptions, it is actually insulting (although not intentionally, of course).
Many of us try very hard to keep the religious crap at bay, and although we may have different tolerances for what bothers us, we see non-involvement in religion as important, and casual involvement as hypocritical. I feel, for instance, that when I'm at a person's home and they'all decide to pray, and and everyone bows their head, that if I bow my head that I'm being a hypocrite. I'll be perfectly polite and nice and not complain about the praying. But if someone tells me "you could at least bow your head" then then they are going to get, well, a response.
So that's me. And I'm married. So, the implication here is that I'm a hypocrite, because marriage is religious?
Excuse me, but I'm kindly going to assume that that attitude is a misconception and those who hold it are at present being edumicated out of that misconception with the ongoing conversation.
And once that process is over, the implication will no longer be tolerated, OK?
In the mean time, have a look at my handy dandy guide to having a secular wedding in a religious cultural context:
http://tinyurl.com/nmobeo
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2009 12:37 PM
Poor Pilty, can't get his mind out of the moral sewer of the cat-o-lick church and see the real world where people don't give a hoot about his imaginary deities. Atheists can design their own rituals with you or your church. Nor does there need to be an eternal ritual except in a stagnant society like you delusionally envision. So Pilty, your opinion is irrelevant. As we have been telling you for ages.
Posted by: cass_m | June 27, 2009 1:01 PM
In Alberta, the most conservative of canuckland, there are two statements required in front of 2 witnesses and the wedding official and neither of them have anything to do with god.
Congrats to the happy couple. Here's another areligious couple hoping you have many happy years together.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2009 1:12 PM
Bah, can't write. #41 second sentence should read:
Atheists can design their own rituals without you or your church.
Posted by: Jodi
|
June 27, 2009 1:14 PM
Wait. Everyone stop. Something is not quite right here.
Two blog posts? Roughly 150 comments between them?
And not ONE of them is a Cuttlefish poem??!!1111
Srsly?
Posted by: JosherK | June 27, 2009 1:16 PM
Congratulations to the newly engaged!
May the flying spaghetti monster bless you and give you more descendants than Abraham (if you choose to procreate, of course).
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 1:38 PM
All y'all atheists with kids: I'm not sure what advice I have for you, especially if you are in one of the bible belt states. But I did briefly go to a Unitarian Univeralist Church in Hamden, CT and they did an excellent job of raising atheists. Well, I don't know if they were atheists, exactly, but they did really seem to enjoy mocking narrow-minded religious stupidity in their "graduation" speeches. You can check them out; they might be little too foofy for you, depending on where you are, the congregation, the pastor etc; they were still too taffy-headed for my tastes, but your mileage may vary.
Hey, nobody has mentioned the FAMILIES. Maybe you are all to Northern European protestant (culture, of course, not religion!) with a highly-individualistic leaning, but marriages are not just for the couple and for the state, they are also for the families of the bride and groom -- a chance to accept each into the family and begin enmities with the other family that will last until the divorce finally ends them.
Piltdown - Great name for a Poe, but if you are serious about generational continuity, shouldn't you be writing in Pict?
Also, the odds that I am going to marry an atheist are pretty slim; and I think I've already decided to just get some earplugs and some LSD and do the religious ceremony.
Posted by: Allytude | June 27, 2009 1:42 PM
Congratulations from another pair of happily married atheists...(though the other half says agnostic- as a differentiator). We did have a cultural Hindu ceremony( you deal with Indian parents without that!!!)
May the Invisible Pink unicorn bless you with her sacred hooves.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 27, 2009 1:45 PM
Piltdown - Great name for a Poe, but if you are serious about generational continuity, shouldn't you be writing in Pict?
Inkadu, the Hoax is as serious as a heretic burning at the stake. Yes, he approves of it.
Posted by: Cruithne | June 27, 2009 2:03 PM
Congratulations to Jodi and Jason, I hope you know how happy you've both made a lot of strangers on the interwebs. Love is like that, it's infectious.
A long and happy married life to the pair of you, may you continue to be happy and make others happy.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 27, 2009 2:09 PM
Mustn't be greedy, Jodi.
A bridal hymn takes time.
For all you know he's composing a villanelle (or one of those other fancy things with a very tight form).
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 2:11 PM
Piltdown man- how sad for you (thanks for the scary tip, janine)
And for your atheist child-raisers out there: I just remembered a very early episode of Minnesota Atheists where they interviewed an author of a book on how to raises children in an atheist home... If you are interested, check out the Minnesota Atheist web page and look in their first few months of podcasting or see if an Amazon search turns something up. But I think religion needs more than school or peers - it really does need parents. And if you are actively involved in the childs religious (or atheist, in this case) education, I think they will turn out fine. But I would make a discussion of what OTHER people believe part of their education; and, from what I've heard, the best approach is to ask questions, provide support, and let the kid come to their own conclusions. In my experience, religion can not function in the presence of a functioning questioning capacity, and if you ever talk to a religious person, you will quickly find that the ability to ask questions on religious topics has been short circuited -- either by fear of hell, rejection, meaningless, etc...
But my real advice to you is: get a dog; they're cheaper, more fun, and, for the most part, let you sleep at night.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 27, 2009 2:16 PM
Shorter Piltdown Man: "Durn kids get off muh lawn!"
"But my real advice to you is: get a dog; they're cheaper, more fun, and, for the most part, let you sleep at night. "
Not in the morning, though.
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 2:18 PM
Piltdown man- how sad for you (thanks for the scary tip, janine)
And for your atheist child-raisers out there: I just remembered a very early episode of Minnesota Atheists where they interviewed an author of a book on how to raises children in an atheist home... If you are interested, check out the Minnesota Atheist web page and look in their first few months of podcasting or see if an Amazon search turns something up. But I think religion needs more than school or peers - it really does need parents. And if you are actively involved in the childs religious (or atheist, in this case) education, I think they will turn out fine. But I would make a discussion of what OTHER people believe part of their education; and, from what I've heard, the best approach is to ask questions, provide support, and let the kid come to their own conclusions. In my experience, religion can not function in the presence of a functioning questioning capacity, and if you ever talk to a religious person, you will quickly find that the ability to ask questions on religious topics has been short circuited -- either by fear of hell, rejection, meaningless, etc...
But my real advice to you is: get a dog; they're cheaper, more fun, and, for the most part, let you sleep at night.
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 2:20 PM
Piltdown man- how sad for you (thanks for the scary tip, janine)
And for your atheist child-raisers out there: I just remembered a very early episode of Minnesota Atheists where they interviewed an author of a book on how to raises children in an atheist home... If you are interested, check out the Minnesota Atheist web page and look in their first few months of podcasting or see if an Amazon search turns something up. But I think religion needs more than school or peers - it really does need parents. And if you are actively involved in the childs religious (or atheist, in this case) education, I think they will turn out fine. But I would make a discussion of what OTHER people believe part of their education; and, from what I've heard, the best approach is to ask questions, provide support, and let the kid come to their own conclusions. In my experience, religion can not function in the presence of a functioning questioning capacity, and if you ever talk to a religious person, you will quickly find that the ability to ask questions on religious topics has been short circuited -- either by fear of hell, rejection, meaningless, etc...
But my real advice to you is: get a dog; they're cheaper, more fun, and, for the most part, let you sleep at night.
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 2:24 PM
"Please don't submit your comment again," looks an awful lot like, "Please sumbit your comment again." Apologies.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 27, 2009 2:24 PM
Inkadu, refresh the page to see if your message came through instead of resending it.
Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2009 2:31 PM
J&J, you could avoid all of the family hassle by running off somewhere romantic to get married. Even highly religious families usually accept that (if grudgingly), and then you don't have to give them excruciating detail of the ceremony so they won't know you left out all the god stuff. After you get back you can have a party for everyone, and only endure a toast and maybe at most a single public happy prayer for the couple.
Posted by: Steve | June 27, 2009 2:55 PM
May the FSM bless you and yours. Good Luck!
Posted by: reggie | June 27, 2009 3:12 PM
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part"
— George Bernard Shaw
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 27, 2009 3:13 PM
Jadehawk @ 35:
Merry-making involving the quaffing of vast amounts of ale is a wonderful thing but while it is certainly traditional it is not a tradition -- it's just something people do. It isn't specific to wedding ceremonies.
Inkadu @ 46:
I was merely suggesting that a synthetic personalised ritual can't provide any cultural continuity. The fact that rooted, ancient cultures change and die is beside the point.
Nerd of Redhead @ 41:
I didn't once mention Church or deity. In fact I specifically said Questions of religious belief or non-belief aside ...
Of course they can, and do. My point was that such individualistic made-to-order rituals have no wider cultural resonance outside the individuals concerned.
"Eternal"? "Stagnant"? Rituals change over time, adapting and evolving to changing circumstances. The point is that they are shared.
Janine @ 39:
Cool your boots. My remarks weren't intended as a gibe at the couple in question & I apologise if anyone took them as such. They were just rambling general reflections prompted by an equally general point PZ was making.
Um, where did I say that? I have expressed the opinion that established societies have the right to execute subversive elements on occasion. That's hardly extremism, just common sense.
By the same token PZ could have simply wished the happy couple well and left it at that. Instead he chose to use this specific occasion to make a general polemical point ("No gods intervene, no priests can sanctify, and no government can dictate when two people care enough about each other that they willingly and publicly declare that they have a lasting bond. Nothing else matters.)
Nothing wrong with that, that's what blogs are for. But blogs are semi-public and invite comment in kind.
Boo fucking hoo.
Newsflash to Generation Narcissus: It's not all about you.
Posted by: Louis | June 27, 2009 3:15 PM
Well I'm a part of an atheist married couple. It happens perhaps more often than you might think. We've also spawned, no idea yet whether the little chap is an atheist, that's really his decision, not mine. I have some hopes however, he definitely shat himself in an atheistic manner the other day.
We need more good ol' fashioned openly atheist couples in the world so congrats Jason and Jodi, Jodi and Jason. You people rock. You have our very best.
Now, can I get drunk, inappropriately proposition one of your relatives, abuse your open bar and vomit in the corner of your important venue?
Hurrah!
Louis
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 27, 2009 3:22 PM
Watch out or you are going to bump your nose on that mirror.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2009 3:27 PM
Pilty, no one wants to share rituals with idiots and killjoys like you. Nobody has to do anything because of what you say. You are out of touch with reality. And we know that. Everything you say is irrelevant to us. But you persist in saying it anyway. Just like an insane man.
Posted by: meh1963 | June 27, 2009 3:30 PM
Another half of an atheist married couple.
The purpose of getting married (for us) was less about ceremony (though it was rather sweet) than recognition of rights derived from the legal status of marriage....we now have the authority to take care of each other if necessary; it's come in useful once for each of us.
It's why we unequivocally support same-sex marriage. The legal rights conferred by marriage are not about child-raising or some horseshit soi-disant divine blessing; it's about being able to fundamentally take care of each other when one or the other isn't able to - it's the right to care for your beloved. Without it? You're up the creek.
And of the twenty-odd weddings we attended after college, most of them religion-drenched, we're one of two couples still together. Two. There were people who predicted that our particular union wouldn't last because we had no religious basis, no belief that God had blessed us, and had 'denied' a priest the right to speak at our wedding (a relative brought him in at the last minute, and we told him, less than politely, to get lost). But we're still together....and the godbotters are on their second and third marriages already. So much for atheists lacking commitment and religious people being moral and in-for-the-long-term.
Posted by: Michael X | June 27, 2009 3:52 PM
Three cheers from this atheist newlywed and my wife.
I might add that by not being restricted to the normal religious bull, we got to create an awesome ceremony all our own, with vows that vowed us to, well, us and us alone, and not some sky-bully watching over us.
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 3:58 PM
Pilty - You really don't make a lot of sense to me.
My point was that such individualistic made-to-order rituals have no wider cultural resonance outside the individuals concerned.
I am actually going to take your point seriously, though clearly you are deranged lunatic with very good grammar.
I would say that the crux of marriage is still intact -- that of standing before the community and declaring a life-time commitment. As far the "cultural resonance outside," it is still intact. If people know you are married, they know what it means. Nobody cares if you were married in a church, or by the beach, or by the iron chef. What matters if that you've made the commitment and called it by a word that everyone understands: marriage. That is what I'd call cultural resonance.
And your concerns are apparently not shared by the majority of people; for instance, gay marriage is offensive to people because the word and concept itself carries so much resonance. People aren't saying, "I think it's fine for gay people to marry, but not if they are going to get married under Catholic tradition." Clearly, the ritual isn't anywhere near as significant as word and concept of life-long commitment.
And, yes, things have changed and evolved, in ways that haven't broken the concept. What has changed, is that the community before which the commitment is stated is now different; but that's because the nature of communities themselves have changed. Families are not so extended, sometimes friends are more important, sometimes the church might be excluded, sometimes multiple cultures have to be accomodated.
That's what cultures do-- they change and they evolve. What you are arguing -- that what people are doing is somehow counter-cultural -- makes no sense. Marriage itself is a cultural idea, and people do not ever escape their culture, they are always a part of it, and even the most reactionary counter-culture warriors have their response mediated by the culture they are in.
So I just continue to be baffled. Maybe, if you'd like to explain it me, you can give me more details by what you mean, exactly, and explain what is crucial to a culturally-resonant marriage, and what is not, and what, if included, invalidates the marriage. Also, for bonus points, explain how best to combine rituals and traditions of Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, black, Haitian, Indian, Native American to have the most cultural impact in a multi-cultural society.
Posted by: James F | June 27, 2009 4:52 PM
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
-Matt Groening
....
Oh, heck, even I can't be cynical at a time like this. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Andy Williams!
(See, I didn't even play it over the end of Shallow Grave!)
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 27, 2009 4:57 PM
Combine that with your admiration of various Catholic saints who did imprison, torture and put to death nonbelievers. That makes you an extremist. And a fucking moral monster.
When was this about me? I was saying I was sorry to everyone in a thread that is about celebrating a good event. It was you, shit for brains, who had to spout off about how this nothing for the continence of society.
I hope it is one more small action that brings to an end of society as you believe it should be. You self centered, death to all infidels, pile of toxic sludge.
Posted by: DaveG | June 27, 2009 5:04 PM
Kausik #4,
Shameless plug for my tribe - Unitarian Universalists! You may find what you seek there.
We abhor abortion clinic killings but we're still fairly easy on stupidity (creationism in schools). Sorry, PZ.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 5:33 PM
Fixed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 5:44 PM
(Ahem. Sorry about that.)
Jodi and Jason, I approve of bricolage, synthesis, the fusion of disparate elements into aesthetic wholes, and other things that involve combining the best of wildly differing source materials. Enjoy being married!
Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2009 5:51 PM
Wait, did James F just start a battle of the happy songs? Here ya go.
Posted by: Newfie | June 27, 2009 6:15 PM
Congratulations Jodi and Jason, from a happily married atheist.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 27, 2009 6:17 PM
Inkadu @ 66:
Even if there is such a shared understanding of the concept of marriage, what is lacking is the embodiment of that understood concept through tangible cultural norms. Human beings are not disembodied spirits: they interact with the world through their senses. Ritual is a pre-eminent way of making an abstract concept visible.
And if that ritual is not shared by the wider participating community it can have no wider meaning -- a private ritual may be emotionally satisfying and aesthetically pleasing but is as culturally meaningless as a private language.
Well yes, opposition to 'gay marriage' is opposition to the perceived debasement of a concept enshrined by a word -- that 'marriage' = union between a man & a woman. But that's a separate issue to the one I was raising.
(And of course for Catholics, marriage is much more than either a concept or a ritual - it is a sacrament which is believed to have an objective spiritual effect on the souls of those taking part.)
Cultures and communities do change but we are talking about a state of total cultural flux where -- even if there are universally shared concepts (and I would question to what extent that is the case) -- there are no universally shared norms by which these concepts are expressed. How tenable is that?
That's true.
(BTW, it's interesting that you class the reactionary position as counter-cultural. That's one of our great potential strengths in the culture wars -- we have become the embattled rebels, while the liberals are now the entrenched establishment. As traditional morality becomes more & more marginalized, it's going to acquire more & more of the revolutionary cachet that liberalism & libertinism once had. The wheel turns ... )
Can't be done. You can have a multi-racial society but a multi-cultural society is a fantasy, doomed to disintegrate into its component parts.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 27, 2009 6:29 PM
Piltdown, every legal US wedding ceremony, regardless of form, is the same ritual at heart.
"We publicly announce and acknowledge our love and commitment, we declare our unity of interest (i.e., decisions will be made based on what is best for both rather than one). This unity is accepted by the state, and we hope our families and friends will respect it, too."
That's what it boils down to, no matter what the format is. And anyone who believes in love will probably respond emotionally to the emotional trappings that are built around this declaration, whether it is in a chapel or courthouse, on a beach or on the moon. If you don't believe a marriage under a different ritual than yours is significant, that's your problem. Most people are more open-minded than that.
Posted by: molliebatmit | June 27, 2009 6:32 PM
Congrats from yet another married atheist couple.
We did get married in a church (my parents the fundies and his parents the Catholics would have died if we hadn't), but our officiant spoke almost entirely about us and our relationship in the ceremony rather than the sky daddy (PLUS, she was a lesbian), so my fundie dad was still a little ruffled.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 6:58 PM
Of course. The conservative Catholics will decide that they are the only ones who are pure and holy, and that everyone else has to be killed in order to make God happy.
Posted by: Justin N | June 27, 2009 7:22 PM
Congrats, and kudos on the innovative proposal, from yet another happily married godless couple. (We had a small civil ceremony at the county registrar.)
Posted by: inkadu | June 27, 2009 7:27 PM
Piltdown - I could continue to argue with you, but your statements, as logical as they might be in their own way, are completely counterfactual. People are flexible critters, and they intuit deeper concepts through many ways; if we were only responsive to specific stimuli, as you suggest, we'd all be dead. The real fact is that almost everybody but you seems to recognize what marriage is, whether people step on a glass during the ceremony or read poetry. You are arguing that different kinds of ceremony don't have any meaning, but you are clearly wrong.
And I think your autistic-like obsession with form over function also makes you blind to how culture, and multi-cultural societies, actually work. For instance, people celebrate their children growing in various ways; some with batmitzvah's, others with quinceaneas, others with sweet sixteen; that seems "multi-cultural" on the surface, but it is all really reflecting the same cultural value, and everyone understands it.
Even you understand it, but you pretend like everyone else does not.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 27, 2009 7:41 PM
Owlmirror, why do you think that the Hoax tries to hide his murderous intentions behind words that he hopes sounds reasonable? Especially when he has said quite often that he approves of what the Catholic Church did to kill off other forms of thought when they were the supreme power in Europe?
Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2009 8:02 PM
Please let's not call Pilty autistic. The autistic people I know wouldn't want anything to do with him.
Really, Pilty, you're shitting all over a very happy moment, and for no real reason. Everyone understands rituals, and it's personalizing them that makes them meaningful both to the individuals as well as the larger community.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 8:09 PM
Because he's a hypocrite with double standards and a tribalistic conception of morality.
His tribe can do no wrong (as long as it meets his own conception of tribal morality). The actions of others against his tribe can never be right. Period.
But he's also knows that his tribe's morality has been called universal, and feels compelled to defend its universality -- even while simultaneously using a double-standard in judging against that standard of morality.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 27, 2009 8:24 PM
just because you think "traditions" are by default religious, doesn't actually make it true. what's important and near universal for all societies is the social gathering around food and drink. THAT is the base on which social bonds form; everything else is embellishment. and religion is an ugly one, at that.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 27, 2009 8:33 PM
Pilty has never been to a pub during the World Cup (or, for our American audience, anywhere with a TV during Superbowl), I see. Or else he'd know that religious rituals aren't the only ones that bring people together and cement societies.
Incidentally, that involves gathering around food and drink, too...
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 27, 2009 9:30 PM
Woot! Many happy returns for the pair of you!
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: heliobates | June 27, 2009 10:25 PM
@Piltdown Man
20, 30 or 300 million ethnically and geographically diverse people just can't have enough in common with everybody else.
Cultural homogeneity of the sort you're suggesting has never and cannot exist at the level of the nation state.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 27, 2009 10:49 PM
Been there,done that,not doing it again.
Some sort of civil union or arrangement,fine,maybe,but not the whole,even strictly secular, "marriage" thing, with all the legal baggage it carries in our society these days, which makes it feel more like a giant bear trap closes around your leg when you exchange rings.
So anyway,congrats to the pair,and all the best !
Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2009 11:27 PM
Piltdown:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
More than one in five Catholic marriages ends in divorce.
"Watch what they do, not what they say."
Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2009 11:30 PM
re my previous: posted too soon. Sorry.
Meant to add it's the same rate as that of atheists/agnostics (same link).
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | June 27, 2009 11:33 PM
Congrats J&J!
My husband and I had a wonderfully secular wedding-- the ceremony was performed by a judge and the whole event took place in our local science museum! We even had a planetarium show!
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 27, 2009 11:47 PM
Congratulations to the couple! You both seem like fairly awesome people, so I wish you a doubly fairly-awesome marriage. And Jodi, your proposal? Brilliant. Completely brilliant. And for what it's worth, I think atheist couples getting married is a nice, happy way for us to retake some ground from the religious co-opting of everything.
Yay for you guys!
Also, Hoax, your every post is a gold-mine...
Posted by: I_Heart_Iowa | June 27, 2009 11:59 PM
I'm somewhat of an Athiest newbie. We consider events like marriage, seasonal gatherings, and other similar occurrences to be considered "traditions"... whether it is of a familial or cultural nature. These are no longer specifically "religious" events. Harmless traditions should be upheld when they culminate in community gathering and/or family bonding. A wedding need not be religious, but instead can have the goal of introducing a new member to the family! Congrats on the engagement!... AND on the enlightenment!!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 28, 2009 12:24 AM
In a long, proud history of idiotic statements from Piltdown Man, I'm tempted to call this one as being the most inane and clueless.
All traditions are 'just something people do', you dimwit.
Your church, after its bloodthirsty destruction of all the competition - and their traditions - installed its own, and that's what you're clinging to. And you've got no more right to decry new traditions simply because they've reached a point where including your impotent, nonexistent god isn't something they're forced to do anymore.
Citation, please.
And even what you say is true (which it's not), why should the individuals act to please you? This is the point (well, one of so very many) that you don't seem able to grasp - they (we) don't care that you and your similarly-steeped-in-archaic-superstition co-religionists don't approve of it.
And gone are the days when you could run to your priest and ask for them to be killed for offending you and your stupid sensibilities - as much as I know it galls you.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Owlmirror @ 77:
We don't want to "kill everyone else"; we just want to stop everyone else killing us.
@ 82:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls ..."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 28, 2009 2:47 PM
Oh the poor persecuted ones.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2009 3:02 PM
*twilight zone music*The belief in gods make people insane. Pilty is a prime example of this.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 3:20 PM
We don't want to "kill everyone else"; we just want to stop everyone else killing us.
When one in convinced that one has the divine right to kill the infidels, it comes as no surprise that one is convinced that the infidels are out to kill them.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 28, 2009 3:22 PM
Liar.
Or rather: Perhaps you even believe that right at this moment. But given everything else you have written on the subject of dealing with heretics, religious dissidents, and other thought criminals, we know exactly how your raging bloodlust would drive you if you ever had the chance to act on it -- especially with the full approval of other conservative Catholics.
So you're a liar in denial.
Quoting another arrogant hypocrite with double-standards pretty much proves my point.
Say, I don't suppose it even occurred to you that with a name like "Santiago", the victim was probably Catholic -- and with a name like "Jessep", the one you so approve of probably was not Catholic.
I could be wrong, of course. And maybe you just like to approve of murder, no matter who gets killed, as long as the murderer gets on a high, high horse and claim that his rank gives him privilege.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 3:34 PM
I had to look up that quote, having never watched A Few Good Men.
How dare the Hoax use a Hollywood movie to back up his argument. After all; Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
The glibness of the Hoax does not fill the holes of his arguments.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 28, 2009 4:02 PM
Janine @ 99:
Haven't you heard? Catholics are the new Jews.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 4:07 PM
Hoax, you lack many traits. Among them is humor.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2009 4:12 PM
*Twilight Zone Music*Lets see the facts. 1.1 billion Cat-o-licks versus 13.2 million Jews. About 100:1. The intelligent man sees only paranoia by Pilty. No diaspora of Cat-o-licks. No being shoved out of their ancestral home for millennia. Just sheer idiocy on Pilty the Hoaxes part.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We need to send for the men in white with straitjackets.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 28, 2009 7:15 PM
Samantha Vimes @ 75:
Yes ... but an emotional response to the occasion, however heartfelt, isn't the same thing as an awareness of communal cultural continuity.
inkadu @ 79:
Perhaps they're just counterintuitive.
Samantha Vimes @ 75:
inkadu @ 79:
inkadu & Samantha
Your assumption that there is an easily identifiable 'common core' to cultural phenomena that transcends cultural differences reminds me of the Aldous Huxley school of comparative religion -- that exoteric dogma/theology is an inedible shell that needs to be cracked open and thrown away so one can feast on the mystical esoteric meat within.
This approach refuses to respect cultural phenomena's self-understanding. To a secular anthropologist, the Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony is essentially indistinguishable from any other ritualized union of two persons. The cultural specifics are merely "format". Similarly there is no "real" difference between a bar- or bat-mitzvah and any other ritualized coming-of-age ceremony. Well, maybe not for the secular anthropologist, but there is a world of difference for the believing Catholic or Jew.
And even if one could legitimately speak of a universal concept of birth/marriage/coming of age/death that was common to all cultures, it would not follow that the culturally specific "format" was trivial & could safely be dispensed with.
Such an assumption is akin to that of the deranged ideologues who promoted modern architecture -- that ornamentation compromises (or is at best superfluous to) the 'pure' unadorned functional structure of the building. in reality, the iconoclastic aesthetic of modernism produced buildings that, while they may have exercised a drably utilitarian function, nobody wanted to live in because they were so fucking ugly & soulless.
Maybe a disinterested observer can "recognize what marriage is" in different cultural contexts. The point is, the actual participants are not ordinarily thinking in those universalist terms -- they are immersed in how it looks & sounds and what it means in terms of THEIR culture.
"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan
"[T]here is no such thing as man in the world. In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never in my life met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me." - Joseph de Maistre
Jadehawk @ 83:
@ 84:
I'm not saying all traditional rituals are necessarily religious, I'm suggesting that humanistic rituals based on individual preferences are necessarily a-traditional and therefore severely limited in their ability to reinforce social cohesion. And I'm certainly not denying social gatherings involving food & drink can bring people together -- just not in the same way as highly formalized rites of passage.
heliobates @ 86:
Of course it has and can. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires united diverse peoples in a common culture. The USA seems to be losing its WASP culture in the melting pot.
Wowbagger @ 93:
I was trying to draw a distinction between formalized rituals and common practices.
I'm not doing that. I'm suggesting that humanistic rituals based on individual preferences are necessarily a-traditional and therefore severely limited in their ability to reinforce social cohesion.
I was making a general observation. It's got nothing to do with my approval or lack of it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2009 7:22 PM
In Pilty, the insane godbot speak, that means reinforcing religious underpinnings. But that is exactly what need to be undone in order for society to progress. Pilty, you still have no cogent arguments. Still no awareness that your religion is bankrupt and unneeded by modern society. We still need the men in white with straitjackets to cart you off for a full mental evaluation.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 28, 2009 7:36 PM
You're just grasping at yet another straw to try and convince people your obsolete god-belief still has relevance. Non-religiously inspired social cohesion is still social cohesion; that you keep saying it isn't means nothing unless you can support that claim.
Remember, I asked for a citation to support your claim regarding non-religious ceremonies not having wider resonance amongst a community. I haven't forgotten. Did you find one to actually back up your claim that there is any less 'resonance'?
The only reason religious traditions have prevailed is because the society they emanated from believed that such things couldn't be valid unless they
cast spellsinvoked the god they weren't given a choice to believe in.There is no difference between a religious tradition and a non-religious one. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Why? Not just because gods don't exist - that's always been the case - but because society is changing to reflect the fact that people are admitting it without fear of persecution. We live in more enlightened times and unneccessary baggage like belief in gods is slowly (but surely) being cast aside.
I just hope that it continues as such a rate that, within your lifetime, religious marriages become a quaint curiosity and are looked on by the vast majority as a novelty - much like we today look upon people who tie the knot dressed as Elves or Klingons.
'Look, dear - a couple getting married in a church!'
'Oh, isn't that sweet. Just like in the old days. You know, when people believed in those silly gods. Weren't they funny back then?'
'Funny is one way of putting it, dear.'
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 28, 2009 7:53 PM
Congratulations and best wishes to Jodi and Jason!
The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires united diverse peoples in a common culture. - Pilty
Pilty adds the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires to the long, long list of topics of which he has demonstrated his ignorance. We shouldn't underestimate this: ignorance as broad and deep as his isn't maintained without considerable effort.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 28, 2009 7:56 PM
Wowbagger:
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. From my above post: "I'm not saying all traditional rituals are necessarily religious" How can I make it any clearer?
Very well. Remove the word "humanistic" from the sentence "I'm suggesting that humanistic rituals based on individual preferences are necessarily a-traditional and therefore severely limited in their ability to reinforce social cohesion.
Someone could concoct a synthetic religion with accompanying ritual tailored to his personal beliefs and tastes. The end result might even attract a few followers, like Thelema, Scientology or Novus Ordo Catholicism. But it would still be unable to sustain an entire world-historical cultural matrix.
Posted by: Kel | June 28, 2009 7:59 PM
And thus the illusion of God is all that's required to maintain society, thanks Pilty for showing it comes down to belief in belief as opposed to the truth of beliefs.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2009 8:05 PM
No, we anything world wide based upon imaginary deities and fictional bible. Let the local stuff sustain the locals. Nobody has need for god or religion. What part of that don't you understand. Oh, the part where they are coming to drag you off to the insane asylum due to your insanity.Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 28, 2009 8:07 PM
The only thing essential to a marriage ceremony is for two people to commit to each other in front of witnesses. Hey presto, they're married. Two people can be married in the Sistine Chapel by a cardinal or in someone's back yard by a JP. Both marriage ceremonies are equally legal (and that's one thing you goddists often forget, marriage is primarily a legal construct) and both "reinforce" social cohesion.
It doesn't matter how or where my wife and I got married. We tell people we're married and everyone, and that is everyone knows the social and legal situation between my wife and me.
I work with a married Hindu. He got married in a different culture, in a different country, and even on a different continent. He signed up for the family plan with the company health insurance and the insurance company doesn't question his marriage. Again, everyone knows the social and legal situation between his wife and him.
So it appears that "a-traditional" marriage doesn't have quite the effect that you pretend it does.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 28, 2009 8:08 PM
Knockgoats:
"Invincible" ignorance might seem to make answering a question a pointless exercise. All the same, I'd be grateful if you'd humour me. Is that a central doctrine of socialism?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2009 8:14 PM
Invincible ignorance is the point of religion. Why haven't you learned that yet? Not using your brain or something?Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 28, 2009 8:16 PM
Jeez Pilty! And to think I defended you as being a better troll than the depraved Heddle. Now I have to eat my words.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 28, 2009 8:18 PM
Fine. Then what you're saying is this:
The wording is irrelevant because even without it you're still implying the depedence upon religion, since in your mind 'social cohesion' means 'religion'.
And I'll ask you for the third time: can you back that up with any kind of evidence? Who says they are 'severely limited in their ability to reinforce social cohesion'?
You? Based on what, exactly? Are you a sociologist or a social scientist? Which behaviours did you study to gather data? What was your methodology for obtaining data? If you are relying on others' findings, who were these others? Where are their findings published?
As is true of every religion, including yours. The only thing you have to differentiate boils down to argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad historium (even if that's not the correct Latin I'm sure you get the point).
Did I mention argumentum ad populum? And I think you underestimate Scientology; it seems to be doing okay - as ridiculous as it is. Though only slight more ridiculous than your quaint ooga-booga - and without any molestation charges (so far) to undermine it even further.
What does that even mean? You don't know what it will or won't sustain, because the movement of society away from your pissant superstition is in its infancy.
So, unless you can back these stupid claims up with actual evidence, stop making them.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 28, 2009 8:34 PM
Pilty,
What is distinctive about socialism is its belief that a massive coordinated effort by a centralized state apparatus with coercive powers is required to make the citizenry fulfill its moral duty.
I thought a central doctrine of socialism was the redistribution of wealth by the state in order to achieve a supposedly more equitable society?
Your two formulations are of course not equivalent.
Socialists differ widely on the role of the state, and on that of morality: anarchist socialists want to abolish the state altogether; many Marxist socialists would regard talk of "moral duty" as bourgeois ideology. Even those socialists accepting both the need for a state, and the concept of moral duty (among whom I count myself), differ as to how centralised and powerful that state should be, and what relation it has to moral duties.
You have grasped one central tenet on which all socialists would agree: the commitment to greatly reduced socio-economic inequality. The other is collective ownership of at least the most important means of production, distribution and exchange - but the collective(s) concerned may be the state, municipalities, voluntary cooperatives, pension funds, or any combination thereof. Some people calling themselves socialists would even drop the requirement of collective ownership; I would say they are no longer socialists, but of course, political terminology is both changeable and contested: Lenin called himself a "social democrat", while that term now refers to those non-socialists who want capitalism regulated to limit inequality and other evils.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | June 29, 2009 7:09 PM
Hey hoax, I am glad we don't all share your love for passion, otherwise slavery, one of the traditions your holy Church kept for centuries, would still be with us now.
By the way, despite not being Jewish or in any way having a Jewish ancestry, I find your "Catholics are the new Jews" highly offensive as it trivializes the worst of human suffering.
Posted by: PIltdown Man | June 30, 2009 4:23 AM
Wowbagger @ 114:
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
It's true that I think religion is unsurpassed in its ability to provide social cohesion - simply because I doubt if a non-religious culture could ever produce such intense ritualized spectacle.
It seems to me this is one of traditional organized religion's great evolutionary advantages over atheism -- it can provide a rich variety of cultural occasions and rites of passage which can appeal to people of all types, regardless of intellectual ability.
In theory there is no reason why an atheist society couldn't create its own beautiful cultural spectacles, but in practice it's very difficult because atheism cannot provide a dramatic 'grand narrative' to give meaning and hope to people's lives. Religion does provide this -- one vast enough to embrace all of history yet intimate enough to have personal meaning for every individual.
There may well be a "grandeur" in the Darwinian world-view; and Feynman and Dawkins are clearly right when they insist that a scientific understanding needn't lessen - & in fact can enhance - one's awestruck appreciation of the universe; but these experiences are in a sense 'impersonal' -- they don't in themselves impart any particular significance to my or anyone else's life. There is no purpose in the godless universe, hence no story, let alone one with a happy ending.
However, all this is beside the point. I was only suggesting that society benefitted from traditional rituals embedded in a common culture. Just because I happen to think religion does it best is tangential.
No, deo gratias.
Wowbagger, I described my original post as "rambling general reflections". I made no pretensions to scientific exactitude or even the mock-scientific verbiage of sociology.
Based on the common-sense observation that communal traditions transcend individual preferences. That's the whole point of them.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 30, 2009 4:53 AM
you fail humanity forever. it was never the stilted ritualistic crap that brought people together, it was the food and drink and merrymaking that was always part of holiday that made community.
yes of course. which is why Hungarian as a language didn't survive, there are no more Roma, and all the people of the Ottoman Empire considered each other as compatriots, while in the U.S. every village speaks a different language, and people are trying to violently secede, and slaughter their neighbors.
oh wait, I got that backwards. I guess you fail Modern European History and American Sociopolitics as well.
I think you're confusing synchronized behavior with social cohesion. And even then you'd be wrong.
Posted by: Gilles Vanwalleghem | June 30, 2009 10:02 AM
Congratulations you young atheists fool ! may you be as happy as my wife and I !
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 10:19 AM
Piltdown:
Yeah.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 30, 2009 6:39 PM
Jadehawk @ 118:
A society without ritual would be like a building without ornament -- boring, ugly and short-lived.
A common culture need not require a monolithic ethnic uniformity. Diverse ethnic groups can share the common culture provided by ... religion, for example. Religion is interesting in its ability to remain essentially the same while adapting itself to different ethnic groups -- which is why there is a distinctively French Catholicism, German Catholicism, Mexican Catholicism etc.
The United States of America is rather famous for its bloody suppression of a secessionist movement.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 6:49 PM
ReligionMusic is interesting in its ability to remain essentially the same while adapting itself to different ethnic groups -- which is why there is a distinctively French music, German music, Mexican music etc.Posted by: Knockgoats | June 30, 2009 7:02 PM
Pilty,
Did you notice that both the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires fell apart at the end of World War I? Seems their inhabitants didn't agree with you - as soon as they had the chance, they couldn't get out fast enough.
There is no purpose in the godless universe - Pilty
I know you can't help being an idiot, but can you really be that stupid? We don't have to rely on your imaginary sky-daddy to give us purposes - we can choose our own.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 30, 2009 7:10 PM
Insightful Ape @ 116:
Holy Church has always taken a suitably nuanced approach towards the complex issue of slavery.
I have Jewish ancestry, as it happens.
Jews don't have a monopoly of victimhood.
And the Holy Roman Catholic Church IS the New Israel.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 30, 2009 7:11 PM
Ah, Pilty, your god is imaginary since you have never proved he exists. Your religion is morally bankrupt, and with all the law suits against it for child molestation may soon be really bankrupt. That is your problem. You have nothing good in your life, so you have to try to make other people miserable. Do all of us a favor and delete us from your bookmarks.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 30, 2009 7:20 PM
Holy Church has always taken a suitably nuanced approach towards the complex issue of slavery. - Pilty
So it's not just torture and murder you and your "Holy Church" are in favour of, but slavery as well. What utter, disgusting, filthy scum you are.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 30, 2009 7:21 PM
Knockgoats @ 115:
That's a lucid and concise exposition.
Does socialism's "commitment to greatly reduced socio-economic inequality" mean wealth redistribution? If so, how could this be implemented without a centralized system of coercive power?
And why is inequality an "evil"?
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 7:25 PM
Piltdown:
Now and then, entirely contrary to the impression given by his chronic and tendentious railings, there are glimpses that Piltdown may well be a hoax, a playful exercise in pointless Poeing.
OTOH, slaves make great fodder for Catholicism; the last thing the Church would want is to deprive itself of such fertile targets, for whom (in the absence of earthly hope) only wishful hopefulness remains. No wonder that, in the days where serfdom was the norm for the populace, the Church held its greatest 'glory'.
Sometimes (assuming a suitably perverted worldview) Piltdown actually makes sense, in a deeply immoral way.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 30, 2009 7:27 PM
Piltdown wrote:
The problem with this - and with any opinions of this kind; hence why I asked for some kind of at least quasi-objective analysis - is that people in general (and, no doubt, you in particular) cannot be relied on to make 'common sense observations' regarding something they are predisposed to object to and judge accordingly.
This is why I asked for data to support your claim. If what you say is true, it should be easy enough to find. It's the sort of thing I assume PhDs in Sociology are made of.
You, a profoundly biased layperson with a demonstrated agenda, would look at a secular tradition and dismiss it as failing to transcend individual preference for no reason other than it was secular because - to you - there can be no transcendence without religion. You cannot begin to approach the situation objectively; that you can't even comprehend that despite my earlier comments indicates that.
So, unless you can find some objective support for your claims that non-religious celebrations are in any way less 'resonant' than religious ones, you are simply making easily dismissed assertions.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 30, 2009 7:41 PM
Piltdown Man wrote:
Oy, that you dishonour them so. What a putz!
Still, I'm comforted by the likelihood that your own children will forgo your obsolete religion in a similar fashion; however, it will - unlike many 'followers' of your religion - be thanks to the power of reason rather than a sword at their (or their childrens') throats.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 30, 2009 7:58 PM
John Morales @ 88:
Individuals can cooperate with or reject the sanctifying grace imparted by the sacraments. (Free will doncha know.)
@ 120:
Personally I'm in two minds as to whether traitors should be executed in public.
(Of course, the particular illustration you linked to depicts a notorious miscarriage of justice. They happen.)
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 8:07 PM
Piltdown @131, given there are no disparities in outcomes, there is no evidential basis for considering Catholics believe marriage to be more important than atheists/agnostics; hence it's not just for Catholics for whom "marriage is much more than either a concept or a ritual".
Like other claims intended to impute there is special merit or morality by the religious over the non-religious, it is unmeritorious.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 8:11 PM
PS
Pildown, I (reluctantly) give you credit for comprehending my ironic usage of your technique of posting a single link to an image as a response to a comment.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 30, 2009 8:15 PM
Knockgoats @ 126:
I gave my views on slavery in another thread a while back; as far as I know they conform to the traditional stance of the Church on the matter:
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 30, 2009 8:30 PM
Wowbagger @ 130:
I'm a self-hating Jew -- and fiercely proud of it!!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 30, 2009 9:20 PM
Pilty - Your use of language is rather exquisite in it's irony, as usual. Your views on slavery conform to the traditional stance of the Church, that being a suitably nuanced approach. The nuance beginning when?
1493 papal Bull justifying declaring war and enslaving any natives in South America who refused to adhere to Christianity? 1509 the jurist Encisco claimed: The King has every right to send his men to the Indies to demand their territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally fight them, kill them and enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the inhabitants of the country of Canaan.
St. Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters. St. John Chrysostom wrote: The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying god.
St. Augustine in The City of God: ...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.
Probably you will be offended by my tossing in an Anglican, fallen bastardized, wannabe Catholics, but I'll give you one anyway so you can point a finger and say See! They did it too!
Eighteenth century - Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson: The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men's Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptised, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.
As you must know the Inquisition continued on, and was still active in some places as late as 1834. In the most recent times we have seen the report about the abuse of Irish children by the Church. Do you disagree that their forced labor was anything less than slavery? Bill Donahue poo-pooh's their treatment, do you?
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 9:29 PM
Patricia, I hope you were being rhetorical, asking the Piltdown that!
It was good for their souls. Little buggers shoulda been grateful.
</Piltdown mode>
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 3:54 PM
cute, but incorrect. besides, as I've already pointed out, there's living, mutable rituals that create community, and sharing food and drink (as well as music) is the most basic of all of them.
but I am fully aware you're incapable of understanding this. To you, (rigid and unchangeable)form is more important than, and in some cases substitutes for, function.
and as far as ornament goes... I prefer classical minimalism to Baroque (or, worse yet, Rococo) revelry in excess.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 1, 2009 4:54 PM
Jadehawk @ 138:
I would question whether the act of sharing food, drink and music in itself qualifies as a ritual, although it can certainly be a crucial component of ritual. But clearly we're going to have to agree to differ on the question of just how "rigid" ritual has to be to perform its communitarian function. All I will say is that we seem to eat more food & drink and listen to more music than ever before, yet society doesn't seem very cohesive at the moment. (Of course, as Wowbagger would doubtless point out, I can't produce a knock-down proof of that.)
Classical architecture produced one of the supremely beautiful & flexible ornamental devices -- the Orders. "Minimalism" is a defining mark of Modernist buildings, not Classical ones. And the Baroque is a development of Renaissance classicism.
(I'm a Gothic man myself.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 4:58 PM
you missed the part where sharing those things comes into play.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 5:08 PM
Pilty is good at not hearing anything that might upset his delusions. And he has a lot of delusions.Posted by: Knockgoats | July 1, 2009 5:40 PM
Does socialism's "commitment to greatly reduced socio-economic inequality" mean wealth redistribution? If so, how could this be implemented without a centralized system of coercive power? - Pilty
Yes, it does mean wealth distribution. Coercion, of course, is present in all societies, and as far as I can see, some degree of it is unavoidable. On what grounds do you assume that it must be centralized? I favour direct democracy, so that coercive power is as equally distributed as possible.
And why is inequality an "evil"?
Aside from the inequity of some children being born to wealth and power while others inherit poverty and subjection (which I'm sure you see as "not a bug, but a feature"), I refer you to Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (2009). They show, based on a broad survey of evidence from a wide range of sources, that less equal societies lead to shorter lives, and higher rates of teenage pregnancy, violence, sickness (including psychiatric illness), imprisonment, obesity, addiction, social conflict and environmental damage. Of course, many of these findings are not new, but Wilkinson and Pickett bring them together and present a coherent picture. You'll ignore it, of course.