I don’t usually allow emotions to run rampant in my writings, but it is a necessary recourse toward an important end. The emotions will dampen as we proceed. As many know, I try not to let emotions have any impact on my writings whatsoever. I even state I will not deal with emotions as a legitimate defense, because ideas must stand on their own merit not one what feels good or right. That simply misses the point. Nonetheless, when it comes to those I love, emotions are a big factor. As Russell highlighted, those we love can safely be left up to intuition; it is those we hate that must “fall under the domain of reason”. And not just people but ideas, too.
Thus I allow leeway because this involves the people I love.
I live in Cape Town, but my mother’s family lives in Pietermaritzburg (most readers will not care but it means I had to take a flight to see them). I arrived to warmth and happiness which is the stable diet of my maternal family. It is unlike any other reception one can have. Thus I cherish it. My cousin, 24, had found the woman who he was ready to “spend the rest of his life with” (as they say).
Now, personally, I find marriage, romance and romantic love quite silly, crass and shallow. It is not fulfilling for the most part and simply bizarre for the rest. I did not tell my family or cousin this – I do not tell most people. It simply is not appropriate. They do not even know about my views on god, religion and so on. And, as with most nonbelievers I’ve met, I have spent more time than they have on the topics of gods, faith and the afterlife. It is using thinking and self-reflection that results in the abandonment of faith after all (if you ever had it in the first place).
We attended the wedding ceremony today, in a beautiful church. The wedding began with the pastor speaking. What I noticed was this: 90% of his subject was his god, 5% had to do with how marriage is eternal and will be hard, and 5% had to do with my cousin and his bride. I was appalled by this brazen display of dismissal. I could stand all that, but I got protective when he uttered following statement: “You may be able to live without god, as many millions of successful people do…” this was followed by silence, then… “but you can not die without god!”
That sounds like a threat to me, with an undertone of Pascal’s Wager. Correct me if I’m wrong but did he not just say – ignore the smile and warm face, many pedophiles and sociopaths were better looking and more eloquent before making smiles in people’s necks – “You better believe in god or else you will die and burn in hell.” I can find little else he could be speaking about. He is obviously referring to the afterlife; and given that the notion that you will be tortured and decapitated and other torrid examples of dehumanisation only occurs in the New Testament (not the Old, as far as I know), this must be the case.
This proved to me quite finally that when it comes to weddings, funerals and so on, the faithful often have a disgusting appraisal of normal human sensibility. The argument that one needs religion for human binding and self-expression is as patronising as saying all religious people are stupid; or, all atheists are immoral. None of those latter statements are true. However, the religious have no argument when it comes to ceremonies except that their establishments have the two major advantages that will conquer everything: time and money.
When it comes to secular events, it will usually have the undertone of being personalised to the nth degree. Readings from their favourite writers, poets or songwriters. Or their favourite artist. Something that can be researched and have the flavour of the persons involved. Afterall, it should be the couple’s day not god’s. Naturally, I would like to see my fellow man remove the shackles and cull the living flower, to paraphrase Marx, but I do not see that happening. Instead, it should at least raise our hackles that god is mentioned more than those we love during ceremonies made for them. Notice how much the focus is refracted toward their god and consider if you think this is a good thing. If you do, why is the focus on a god more important than the focus on the couple in a wedding? If you want to add god, fine, but why more than the couple? (Ignoring for the moment the argument that marriage is a religious duty; to people I know it their expression of love and that is what I’m focusing on).
The major point is this: Religious festivities only appear to have the power of rituals and expression from groups. But secularists and nonbelievers have as much, if not better ones. The reason: It is focused on the individual people, thus meaning more work and personalisation. Once again, religion has outlived its purpose and needs to go the way of alchemy and the belief that Elvis is alive. It can hold no water against the nature of one’s fellow man, his self-expression, compassion, art, and individualism. It is truly more beautiful than the constant reference to the deity, whilst the couple fades into the background. This is their time to shine.
I will leave you with one last thought: Think of any ceremony that is traditionally performed by religions, (funerals, weddings, etc.) and think of one example where adding the notion of a god would make it better than one which does not mention gods, but simply focuses on the person or couple. This does not make it atheist or anti-theist, but keeps gods simply out the picture to cater for everyone. This to me seems reasonable. But I write this for interesting responses and bitter critiques.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Tauriq Moosa
- Within Liberty
- Our Generation Must Make Greater Strides
- What I Believe for the 21st Century – Tauriq Moosa
- Who Cares About the Stripper? – In honour of America’s 4th of July
- The Incoherent Spheres, or the Need to Be Understood
- Rise, Reason, Rise
- In Defence of Johann Hari
- No More Labels
- Anti-theist at a Christian Wedding
- What Are You Willing to Die For?
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Those who wish to be married in church must submit to the ceremonies the church provides. Take it or leave it. (I’ll leave it, thanks.)
The trouble is, these are pretty much the only ceremonies available, and those who wish for a ceremony have to take what’s on offer, or else invent something else, which is often beyond people’s resources. It’s the way society is made – until it gets re-made by those sufficiently motivated to do so.
Good point. But it still remains that the argument that religious ceremonies are better or somehow repudiate the secular echoes of them, is faulty. They are not better. And adding a god to the equation does not make it more special. True, if we enter a church, we should accept what is given. However, it is not particularly my focus here. It is ceremonies and stuff in general when we are able to, say, organise one.
Tauriq- great post. I plan to comment more on it when I’m back home (getting read to leave).
Thanks, my friend
Agree completely. My experience is that secular ceremonies are usually much better than religious ones. I have noticed in New Zealand that more and more people go for secular ceremonies – and also that churches are, in consequences, adopting some of the secular forms (such as involvement of friends and family in personal tributes) that first arose with the non-religious ceremonies.
I think that, with time, people will gradually switch to more secular funerals, etc., as they find from experience that they are much more meaningful than the religious ones.
As for the inappropriate comments made by religious celebrants at funerals and weddings – this is the reason I often feel uncomfortable in those situations. I can accept that people should have their own form of ceremony but I don’t think that gives them permission to insult the non-religious people present who, after all, are their guests.
“The major point is this: Religious festivities only appear to have the power of rituals and expression from groups. But secularists and nonbelievers have as much, if not better ones. The reason: It is focused on the individual people, thus meaning more work and personalisation.”
-I like this point. Growing up, I went to my share of Jewish Bar Mitzvahs and weddings. These involved a lot of chanting and prayer in a language I didn’t understand. Needless to say, I was somewhat uncomfortable.
As I got older and decided I did not believe in the warrior-god of the Old Testament, I began to feel more uncomfortable at these events. Judaism has cultural and religious elements, and a lot of Jewish atheists I know are still “culturally” Jewish. They participate in the rituals and everything. I just don’t share the same love for ritual or prayers in a language I can’t even read or speak (needless to say, it’s 80% or so about God and the nationalism/tribalism that I was also disgusted by in the Torah).
A few additional thoughts- one of the things that bothered me was the assumption in Jewish culture that even if you don’t believe, you WILL marry a Jew, or someone who will convert to Judaism for you. This is particularly important if you are male, because Jewish tradition includes a matrilineal reckoning of descent. I always found this ethnocentric.
One of the things that often gets ignored when discussing the major monotheisms is that, as I pointed out earlier, Judaism is a religion but Jewish is an ethnicity, and a very small minority at that. I wonder if minority status and size doesn’t breed exclusionary practices. I understand the basis of the fear that one day there may be no Jewish people. And I’ll give the Jewish religion props for its lack of proselytization (though the orthodox are known to proselytize secular Jews). The tribalism that I found so prevalent in Jewish culture was probably my first disenchantment with traditionalism of any kind, religious or otherwise.
Hey Tauriq.
This all assumes that weddings are for the purpose of expressing love for one another. It also assumes that the focus of weddings is properly on the couple, and that it is ‘their day’. As far as I’m aware, weddings are typically more focused upon whole families, parents giving children away for unions etc., not obviously to the exclusion of the couple, but certainly it is more than the individualistic event you’re describing. If weddings were about the things that you’re describing, then your points have a degree of validity (although it would make it a matter of preference, and therefore up to the couple and outside of the scope of such criticisms).
However, you do seem to ignore the solemnity of weddings, particularly the much-downplayed component of vows. We don’t really care about vows much anymore, but they’re what the couple are there to make. I think it’s actually fairly ridiculous when people prefer to insert songs and poems that they love in order to increase entertainment and romance value, but the commitments that are actually important are trodden on within a few years.
Consequently, you also fail to see the extra value of Christian weddings as distinct from others. It’s not a case of adding God, as though He is some kind of embarrassing relative that we choose to invite. There are rather important parabolic and sacramental elements present in the ceremony that put God squarely at the centre of the wedding act, but even leaving that aside, for Christians, vows are supposed to exist in order to marry a couple for life before God. Both to emphasise the gravity of the promises being made and to make clear that marriage is a God-instituted office, it is thoroughly appropriate to speak about God in weddings.
It’s no wonder that you find weddings romantic and silly and shallow, and the personalisations that you suggests are likely only to exascerbate the problem. Individual Christian weddings may be done badly, insensitively, shallowly (such as my brother’s one, sheesh) etc. But that’s not to say that weddings in general are.
Hey Pastor
I will speak to you about this when I see you.
You are sooo not getting off the hook. Your sense of humour once again shines through.
T
Many evangelicals (go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to all people) are making a point or including more god stuff into their ceremonies. My nephew and his wife deliberately chose so for their wedding. They feel this may be the only opportunity that their loved ones might have to be saved and so they must use it to the max!
I have no doubt about that Alexis.
But I think you are missing the point with regards to secular ceremonies, which is my focus. I am simply wondering the difference between secular and religious ceremonies. Particularly, the notion that somehow they are “better” – In my opinion, I think the focus on the couple or the individual is important and can get lost amidst the religious prosletysing.
For those who want to be saved, I’m sure its great.
But if its a secular (ie nonreligious) ceremony, it would cater to every0ne but not being inclusive in godtalk. I think that secular ones cater to more people but distinguishing between religions (I know many christians who are uncomfortable with all the Muslims weddings my family has, for example, and vice versa); and usually are more deep because they focus on the actual people more and not god-talk.
Since you state that this ceremony was in a beautiful church, I assume that it was a religious ceremony. I myself feel rather foolish at a religious ceremony where everyone is singing, chanting, praying to some higher spirit that I don’t believe exists. And that something that doesn’t exist obviously cannot confer any blessings on the marriage that the couple does not bring to it themselves. But the couple believes that god talk consecrates the marriage, and it’s their choice. To my view, it is the personal dedication of one partner to the other that matters.
Then you and I agree
I think your observation of the time spent on a) God, b) Marriage as an institution and c) the bride and groom is very accurate. However, your criticism misses the point of those who believe our main purpose (what we are hardwired for) is worship. Those who do not worship God will worship something else, even good things – whether it’s intellect, power, money, sex or love itself… but those who do worship God make that the framework for their entire life, every moment… and everything else hangs off of that framework. This is why, I believe, my marriage is wonderfully fulfilling – and difficult – and never boring.
Thanks Brad. You have committed a false-dichotomy: that is, there are only two choices in a your statement. Either we must worship a god, as you say, or we must worship “something else”. But this is incorrect – I do not worship anything. The whole point of being a nonbeliever is that I do not worship anything.
I certainly do not worship intellect, power or money. I think worshipping should go the way of snake-oil merchants. We are able to stand on our own two feet without someone holding our hand. If you want to worship, thats different to us needing to. If it makes you happy, I am glad. But I think we can do otherwise and better.
And I certainly didn’t say anything about the marriage itself. I only spoke of the wedding. I am glad that your marriage is going well and is fulfilling. I rarely hear someone say “fulfilling … and never boring” about their marriage. That’s something a lot of people would be green in the face about
Well done.
Thanks for your comment
“marriage is a God-instituted office, it is thoroughly appropriate to speak about God in weddings”
Well, like stonings for gathering wood on the sabbath is a god-instituted office! God (all thousands of them) are made up to fit the needs of the culture and time. We’ve just grown so accustomed to them (like christmas gifts) that it’s hard to give them up (especially with all of the money their supporters get to use to keep us brainwashed).
Well, a short comment from a humanist marriage officiant –
In terms of time and our human history, most marriages have been civil, not religious. No need to go into it all, but major religious movements often declare that marriage is a ’sacrament’ in times where religions feel they are losing their jurisdiction on the civil/legal arrangement. There’s a good exhibit at the Met Museum right now on love and marriage in Renaissance Italy, where the church doesn’t even appear – as marriage contracts were validated by a civil handshake, or “fede”, between the two parties. And lets not talk about dowries and child brides and things at this point – an entire other topic, as marriage is a legal contract about property –
but I’ll add my 2 cents. I view marriage as an agreement between 2 people (and since I’m Canadian, two people of any sex) that they have agreed to form a partnership. A wedding is simply the village/family gathering round, and through a meal, or gifts, or a handshake or some ritual, giving witness to the fact that “All here take notice: Og and Bagog are now a couple. They live in that hut over there. Everyone recognize that that is their hut, these will be their children- if any – and these are their chickens and their cow – now eat up and let’s party”.
That means, that if one person dies, or the marriage breaks up, or someone wants to build a superhighway over their hut, that Og and Magog have some rights. And at various times, the civil basis of marriage meant that Or OR Magog could also sue for divorce, on other grounds than the impotence of Og (the Catholic version).
The religious bits, and the love, the poetry and the rituals are nice, or dumb, or atavistic, or inspired, but they are window dressing. The contract has already been made between Og/Magog. So as a representative of the State, I must legally we insure that THEY are willing participants: Of age, in sound mind, not bought or sold or coerced. Then I simply represent the village, supporting their own mutual decision. (As a matter of fact, since nobody “give away” anyone in modern marriages, we usually say something like this to the guests -” Og and Magog have decided to form a family. They will need your help, and support and love in the future, as well as on this day, and that is why they have invited you here, to witness their happiness, and to offer your friendship and support, by saying “We do”). It’s a very inclusive moment, and makes you feel better for dressing up
.
now, back to my moutons – Erasmus