Requiring a religious wedding would be quite unconstitutional. In Pennsylvania you can marry yourself. I was in the county marriage license bureau when the people at the window next to mine got married by the clerk. (Pretty damn secular.) I got married in the Ethical Culture Society because they had a nice hall, and was very atheistically satisfied.
In Germany if you don’t get married in a church you get married by a town clerk or something, but you are limited to two attendees or something like that. That’s why my daughter who was living in Germany at the time got married in California.
Think of SA and humanist organizations as social outlets for those who have something in commmon. People who live in areas where volunteer opportunities and community tend to be defined by which church you belong to know that it’s either this or doing toy run type stuff with the bikers, frying fish for the American Legion or being active in the political party of your choice.
I think that the reason that SA hasn’t taken off as well in the northeast US is that there are more options available. Nashville and Atlanta, among others, have growing SA communities (Atlanta just hosted the international conference this past weekend). For me, it gives a social outlet in an area where, without it, oI could become one of the “angry atheists” stereotypes for lack of knowing anyone like me. YMMV.
I belong to both Nashville Atheists and SA. They are two groups with overlap, but SA gives more opportunities to volunteer at a group level.
I’m not sure what SA is, and the only thing that comes up on google for “SA atheism” is a group in Australia.
Again, I am torn on the idea of “atheist social organizations.” I see the point and the social/civic need. OTOH, I am so tired of the “atheism == religion” notion, even or especially in the expressions of people who should know better, that I am leery of anything that looks like a “Church of Atheism.”
I also don’t have much patience with angry, strident Atheists. Like all skeptical positions, a relaxed attitude in everyday life goes a lot further than a chin-out, chip-on-shoulder challenge to every perceived slight. It becomes like trying to share a dinner table with an ardent, hard-line feminist who won’t let the slightest nuance of sexist language pass without diatribe. If you’re an honest gender-equality type, or a true a-theist, the rabid ones are just an embarrassment. That’s why I’m so insistent on the message of “atheist: means I don’t play the game at all” over religious-peer type debates.
Yeah, I agree. It’s clear that people in general want to be part of something larger than themselves, and be fervent about the group’s goals, tenets and beliefs. For a lot of people, that group is their church. For a lot of others, it’s their college/college’s sports. Others really get into their local pro sports. Some get into other secular groups. The common thread is that they get into them, and it’s a way for them to belong, and be excited about something.
Saying that people have that urge doesn’t at all mean that people have “church shaped holes”- it means that people have group membership-shaped holes. I know WAY too many people who have taken the whole activity of being an alumnus of my alma-mater (Texas A&M) to levels of fervor otherwise only seen at revival meetings and snake-handling to believe otherwise.
And that’s fine- I can totally buy that people want to be part of something larger than themselves, and that some fill it with church, some with sports, some with volunteering, etc… I do admit that I find it perplexing that there are atheists who fill that void… with secular church. That’s a real head-scratcher to me.
I too find the idea of a “religion-shaped hole” in my life to be condescending as hell. Those people have a “rational thinking” or “well-founded ethics” shaped-hole in their lives which they mistakenly elevate to a virtue instead of recognizing the deeply-seated and crippling mental shortcoming it actually is. But because they represent a noisy majority they get to define normalcy.
Imagine a world where sociopaths ruled and defined their defective way of thinking as the right way. Hey, wait a minute …
You are aware that “church-shaped hole” comes from the article I was castigating and is not my interpretation or addition? Also that the article celebrates the churchiness of getting together to Secularly Humanist as a group?
I am objecting to specific points and attitudes in the article that (IMHO) are contrary to both the author’s overall intent and that of giving atheism and atheists a fair shake in popular perception. Where do you think I was “overly sensitive”?
He is in England, and I think he does more funerals than weddings. And I’m sure it’s not legally required to have a celebrant, but people do like to gather with their community, whatever it is, to acknowledge major life events.
But he doesn’t do “atheist weddings”, he does “secular humanist weddings”. And secular humanists aren’t exactly a religion, but they do share some core beliefs. They don’t just all not believe in some stuff.
And I have a problem with the opposite - people who think we should just sit and be quiet and content with sexist, racist, and religiously-discriminatory laws and social behavior because hey, it’s better than it used to be. It’s better because people made and effort to effect change and make it better.
Oh, and of course, atheist are called “militant” for trying to keep teacher-led prayer and religious proselytization out of schools and prayer out of council meetings, but Christians are only called militant for actual violent actions (hell, truthfully I’ve never heard “militant” used to describe Christians, even those that carry out violent actions in the name of their faith).
In England, there does need to be some sort of official. Traditionally that’s been a priest/vicar etc, but you can get married in a registry office by a registrar. These weddings are not only secular in nature, but any mentions of god or religion are barred (for the legal part, anyway; if you want to have a prayer/hymn/whatever once the ceremony itself is over, then that’s fine. But then, if you want that why not get married in a church?).
Humanist weddings are starting to become popular in the UK - in fact I had one. It’s a good middle ground between church weddings and registry office weddings (which, TBH, can be a bit sterile). Interestingly, though, humanist weddings aren’t legally recognised in England yet (although they are in Scotland), so I had to go and marry my wife again, legally this time. :rolleyes:
(In fact, as my wife has sometime Pagan leanings, we also had a handfasting. So I actually married her three times. )
I’ve debated this until I’m blue in the face, so I won’t go on and on here. I hope :).
Anyway, if I were bald, and there were a reason I had to communicate my hair color to someone, I’d be fine saying, “I’m bald.” It gives them the information they want. If someone asked what kind of stamps I collected, “I don’t collect stamps” would be a fine answer.
Most folks I know who are atheist have far more beliefs about God than my coffee mug has. They believe in a universe that lacks omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent entities. THat’s certainly my provisional belief.
You might object that I also believe in a universe that lacks froghemoths, but I don’t define myself by that belief. To which I’d answer:
Froghemoths are a lot likelier to exist than Yahweh, IMO; and
If I lived in a society in which belief in froghemoths were extremely common, then yeah, I’d probably define myself by that lack of belief.
What we believe in is culturally influenced, of course. But what we don’t believe in can fall into two categories which are also culturally influenced. THere are those things we don’t believe in because it’s never occurred to us (blue-fuzzed triple-eyed oak trees who can sing operatic arias, for example–I don’t believe in them, but prior to this sentence my lack of belief in them was connected to my lack of thought about them). ANd there are those things that we don’t believe in because we’ve considered them and decided that the balance of evidence for their existence isn’t strong enough.
The first category of non-belief might be called non-reflective non-belief. The second category is reflective non-belief. And most atheists I know have reflective non-belief in omnipotent etc. entities. A reflective non-belief in an entity’s existence is functionally equivalent to a reflective belief in the entity’s non-existence.
I’ve actually considered looking into a Unitarian Universalist church. Not so much for ceremony and sermons (things I mostly loathe) but for the mutual support, emotional and sometimes even material, that a church can provide to members who are facing difficulties. That is a role that churches can play that can be hard to find elsewhere unless you’re fortunate enough to have a large extended family.
There is difference between secular humanism and atheism. When I looked at secular humanism in the '80s I definitely got the impression that it was aimed at atheists who felt like the had “church-shaped voids” and wanted to belong to an organization. That may have been a hasty generalization on my part but that was definitely how it looked to me. That’s why I call myself an atheist but not a secular humanist.
Going back almost that long, I’ve seen conservative Christianity try to equate the two by vilifying secular humanism. I have no idea why but they seemed to think that secular humanism sounded worse or something. That might have lead to others equating the two.
That describes agnosticism, not atheism. I tell people that I am agnostic by certain knowledge, but an atheist by belief.
Just for the record, the piece was titled “The theology of atheism”, which is an oxymoron. But the real point was to emphasize that atheists are not amoral and for that they put on the trappings of observance. Silly, in my opinion.
Interestingly, my parents, after practicising no religion all their lives, joined a reform synagogue after the nest emptied, doubtless for the social life it brought. I can see these “services” as fulfilling the same purpose.
Aside from the idiotic idea that atheists want to have an atheist-church on Sunday, this quote really irks me:
That I find really objectionable. I’m not tangling with anybody and I resent someone telling me what I need. That’s really the crux of it, isn’t it? Just leave me alone and stop preaching at me!
Yes, that’s why I don’t see what benefit a “humanist celebrant” confers over going to a Justice of the Peace or whatever. And yet the Minnesota Atheists are fighting for “humanist celebrants” to be recognized.
Useful for the people who have been advised to consummate such a union!
Yes, I know what you meant. It’s for the Quakers, right? That’s why it would be unconstitutional – not for atheists, who have no religion, but for people whose religion refuses to perform marriages or has no clergy.
I wonder, if a state did attempt to impose such a requirement, if they could respond to the 1A challenge by pointing to the UUs and the ULC.
Unless that something is the desire to waste a perfectly good hangover opportunity, I don’t get it. Like I said, unlike Amateur Barbarian, I’m happy to work against the social and legal hegemony of religion, but I don’t need to sing hymns to Nothing.
Ian Cromwell’s hypothetical depiction makes it sound like something I have no need for in my life, and I honestly can’t see what it provides others with. Perhaps SA isn’t like that, but I’m not sure what differences would improve it.
But I am one of those northeastern elitists you mention.
If no one challenges slights, they go unchallenged.
I draw a distinction between atheists and Atheists; the latter usually make me embarrassed to be the former.
But challenging them by insisting your Nonreligion stands on a par with their Religion is to do both sides a disservice and confuse the issue yet further.
It really should be the goal of the nonreligious to promote the idea that there are nonreligious who are not just alternate-religious.
In many parts of the US it’s pretty common to find people that have the mindset of atheists being amoral and anything that can be simply presented to show that atheists aren’t amoral might well be a positive thing. Just the past few days I’ve been trying to think of how to explain some of my moral views in an atheistic framework and have been utterly baffled.
You make some good points, especially about the “membership-shaped hole.” That’s a huge improvement on “church-shaped hole.” I belong to a Sunday Assembly, and it has added much to my life, mostly in the form of friends who are similar to me in their values and beliefs. I live in Tennessee, the buckle of the Bible Belt, and a very red state. It’s been wonderful to be with people who I can volunteer with, or have brunch with, or have a picnic with, who don’t say Obama’s name with a sneer in their voice, and who don’t ask me what church I attend.
As to your question about why Sunday Assembly is “secular church,” there are two answers. One is that it began when two British comedians (Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones) were talking about her secular wedding and how it had the lovely parts of a traditional wedding, but no mention of God. They began talking about what aspects of church they missed and started brainstorming about how to keep the parts they liked (enthusiasm, community, and love), but drop the parts they didn’t (all the God stuff). Ta da, Sunday assembly was born. The second reason is that many of us at Sunday Assembly believe that traditional church is a good model to copy for building something to believe in* for those of us who want to believe in something, and want to have transcendent, joyful experiences in our lives, along with a community.
*What do we believe in, you ask? Our motto is “live better, help often, wonder more.” So just like a Christian might say they believe that their life’s purpose is to “serve God” or “do God’s will” mine is to live my best life, learn as much as I can, and help others.
)