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.