humanist wedding

[JoeP]

Last newspostslut for today.

Britain's first legally recognised humanist wedding has taken place in Edinburgh (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4102310.stm)

... united by a humanist celebrant after it was agreed that previous rules were restrictive and discriminatory

Rules on the venues in which Scottish couples can marry had been relaxed, but services still had to be carried out by a minister of religion or registrar. ...

Before the changes, anyone choosing a humanist wedding had to have a civil ceremony beforehand to legalise the marriage. ...

"Neither of us are religious and it would have felt hypocritical to get married in a church.

"But at the same time we wanted something more meaningful than the legal civil ceremony."

I can't decide if this is about time the right thing was done, or a big deal over very little (not to downplay the happy couple's day).

[TomJoe]

"Neither of us are religious and it would have felt hypocritical to get married in a church.

"But at the same time we wanted something more meaningful than the legal civil ceremony."

More meaningful? More meaningful how?

[JoeP]

That's a good question. I didn't feel such a need when I got married, but if I speculate on what they felt, it might be to get recognition from or within their community of belief - but integrated with the legal aspect, ie on the same footing as a church wedding. It makes some sense to me.

[Beth]

"Neither of us are religious and it would have felt hypocritical to get married in a church.

"But at the same time we wanted something more meaningful than the legal civil ceremony."

More meaningful? More meaningful how?
More meaningful that maybe they could have a more traditional wedding without having to go to the courthouse to get married or without having to go to a church to be married by a minister? More meaningful because they got to be married their way and not have to settle for a courthouse wedding? I cannot even understand why this was questioned.

[TomJoe]

That's a good question. I didn't feel such a need when I got married, but if I speculate on what they felt, it might be to get recognition from or within their community of belief - but integrated with the legal aspect, ie on the same footing as a church wedding. It makes some sense to me.

Well, that's what gets me, and is why I asked it Beth. Same footing as a church wedding? For people who want nothing to do with religion, why would they feel the need to make things more like a religious ceremony?

[JoeP]

Still projecting into other people's minds, don't shoot me: I meant the same footing as a church wedding in terms of legal recognition, not "more like" one. The aspect of being part of a community that share beliefs is strong even for atheists, and I would guess humanists especially. Maybe even a community that shares ritual, although this is likely to be opposed by some atheists (and some theists I guess).

[Beth]

Dunno. I like traditions, which I suppose could be considered rituals. They make me feel connected and I like the symbolism. I can perfectly understand why someone would want a traditional wedding, without a minister delivering a ceremony. I especially would like the thought of someone who delivered the ceremony having either similar beliefs, interests, or some sort of connection with me.

[TomJoe]

Still projecting into other people's minds, don't shoot me: I meant the same footing as a church wedding in terms of legal recognition, not "more like" one.

Whether you get married in the courthouse, your backyard, or the local parish ... if the minister is allowed under state law to perform weddings/civil unions, they are all on the same legal footing.

The aspect of being part of a community that share beliefs is strong even for atheists, and I would guess humanists especially.

Coming from a Catholic background, where the notion of "community" is one of the focal points of church doctrine, dogma and worship, I find this statement very interesting ... though you may tell me what I'm thinking is offbase.

[TomJoe]

They make me feel connected ...

Connected to what? Connected to things which don't exist? Connected by things which don't exist?

I like the symbolism.

Symbolism? Seems overly superstitious coming from an atheist.

[Beth]

They make me feel connected ...

Connected to what? Connected to things which don't exist? Connected by things which don't exist? I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand. Connected in thought or philosophy.

I like the symbolism.

Symbolism? Seems overly superstitious coming from an atheist.
[/quote] I cannot understand why you make this comment at all. How is symbolism superstition? And why am I expected to totally devalue symbolism? A Christmas tree still symbolizes fun and joy to me. A birthday cake still symbolizes celebration to me. Red still symbolizes love, passion, and unrest to me. Blue still symbolizes tranquility, calm skies, and calm water to me. Green still symbolizes life, peace, rest to me. I think you get the picture. I would not enjoy my life if I totally walked away from traditions and symbols that give me joy or comfort. I would be denying who I am and trying to change myself into something I am not.

[TomJoe]

I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand. Connected in thought or philosophy.

Nothing is more of a turnoff when you're trying to have a discussion when people come back with these sort of pissant comments. If you think I'm an idiot Beth, put me on ignore, don't insult me. Or, let me know you think I'm an idiot so I can put you on ignore. Capeesh?

As I alluded to in my post to JoeP, I'm interested in this desire to "relate" to others, to be a community.

I cannot understand why you make this comment at all.

Not as if I haven't been describing my thought process throughout these several posts, eh?

How is symbolism superstition?

I suppose I always figured symbolism is more of a religious construct, and would be shunned by non-religionists. I know there are sight/smell/taste/sound associations people make with things that have happened in their past, and I'm certainly not of the frame of mind to suggest that atheists don't reminisce, but I do find it peculiar that atheists would put a huge significance into a wedding ceremony, something which especially in this day and age is intimately tied into religion.

And why am I expected to totally devalue symbolism? A Christmas tree still symbolizes fun and joy to me. A birthday cake still symbolizes celebration to me.

Given your examples, I think you've cheapened (and hence devalued) the meaning of symbolism. Christmas tree = fun and joy? That's it? That's a pretty superficial symbolism. Birthday cake = celebration? The same. These barely scratch the surface of what symbolism really means.

[Beth]

I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand. Connected in thought or philosophy.

Nothing is more of a turnoff when you're trying to have a discussion when people come back with these sort of pissant comments. If you think I'm an idiot Beth, put me on ignore, don't insult me. Or, let me know you think I'm an idiot so I can put you on ignore. Capeesh?
What the fuck? I never said I thought you were an idiot. I simply cannot understand why you are saying this. It is a polite way of saying that you are not making sense to me. You may feel perfectly free to ignore me, though.
As I alluded to in my post to JoeP, I'm interested in this desire to "relate" to others, to be a community.
It is human nature to desire to relate to others. Are humanists/ atheists supposed to be devoid of human emotions and desires?

I cannot understand why you make this comment at all.

Not as if I haven't been describing my thought process throughout these several posts, eh?
I did not see your post to Joe, previous to mine, first of all. Secondly, I still am puzzled why you think this. I do not think you explained your thought process. It seems that you are attacking the notion that someone would not want a religious minister to marry them.
How is symbolism superstition?

I suppose I always figured symbolism is more of a religious construct, and would be shunned by non-religionists. I know there are sight/smell/taste/sound associations people make with things that have happened in their past, and I'm certainly not of the frame of mind to suggest that atheists don't reminisce, but I do find it peculiar that atheists would put a huge significance into a wedding ceremony, something which especially in this day and age is intimately tied into religion. Many people have a certain idea of what they see as love and romance and want certain symbols to enhance their day. I'm not getting into this any further, cept I'll say some people think like you, some don't.

And why am I expected to totally devalue symbolism? A Christmas tree still symbolizes fun and joy to me. A birthday cake still symbolizes celebration to me.

Given your examples, I think you've cheapened (and hence devalued) the meaning of symbolism. Christmas tree = fun and joy? That's it? That's a pretty superficial symbolism. Birthday cake = celebration? The same. These barely scratch the surface of what symbolism really means.
You know, I tried to make it very simplistic for you, TomJoe. I made the example superficial purposely. Christmas tree also represents the one time in my life when people get along. It represents family, a break from impoverishment. It represents hope from when I am just about to give into misery. All these stem from childhood and are personal symbolisms. But I'm sure an ass such as yourself would demand an even deeper and more painful represention of what a xmas tree represents to me.

Continue to think atheists should fit into your mold. I'm done talking to you.

[Crumb]

I find that to me symbolism has much more to do with literature, music, and art than religion. That is where I look for it that is where it moves me. All of these things have historically been used by various religions to express their ideas and therefore have a history of being religious in nature. I think the secular use of symbolism in this manner still outweighs the religious though.

It seems to me a human thing to read more into a thing than is actually there. This, in a sense, is what symbolism is.

[viscousmemories]

In my opinion people's natural instinct to favor community, ritual, symbolism, etc. is what spawned religion, not vice versa.

[TomJoe]

It seems to me a human thing to read more into a thing than is actually there.
A simple, but interesting (at least for me) question ... Why?

[Crumb]

A simple, but interesting (at least for me) question ... Why?
Because all humans seem to do it, and only humans seem to do it. That's makes it a human thing to me.

[TomJoe]

Because all humans seem to do it, and only humans seem to do it. That's makes it a human thing to me.

Would it shock you to learn of something similar being observed in chimpanzees or dolphins?

Though, the "because" reason does skirt the issue a bit ... what is the reason (be it physical, chemical, social or what have you) behind symbolism? What utility does it serve?

[Crumb]

Would it shock you to learn of something similar being observed in chimpanzees or dolphins?
Oh no it doesn't shock me at all. I am very interested in koko, and the chimps doing math and what not. These species are very closely related to us and can achieve language and math on par with about a 3-5 year old human. It is fascinating and makes the Gorilla by far my favorite mammal.

Though, the "because" reason does skirt the issue a bit ... what is the reason (be it physical, chemical, social or what have you) behind symbolism? What utility does it serve?
Oh, I misunderstood your question to be asking why I thought so, not what use is it to us. From what I have read the human brain, or a large part of it, acts as a language machine. Are brains are built to connect meaning to things that don't have meaning for communication. The sound /love/ has absolutely no inherent connection to the feeling or the various concepts of love. Any more than :beating: resembles an actual heart, and yet they are inextricably linked in our minds.

Symbolism is merely an overuse of this device. And why shouldn't we over use it? It is very powerful and has served our species well. I would say there is no species whose individuals can really know each other like humans can. That being entirely due to our ability to connect arbitrary symbols to meanings. It brings us together, creates communities, and we find great joy in doing it.

The reason I like smilies is because there can be so much emotion symbolized in them. They tell so much with so little, and in themselves are a symbol of just how similar all us talking apes are to one another. :squeeze:

[TomJoe]

I was going to just leave this alone, and move on with things here, but I'm going to make a couple of statements here to explain my position.

What the fuck? I never said I thought you were an idiot.

Your constant mantra of "I don't understand what's so difficult to understand ..." said as much.

I simply cannot understand why you are saying this. It is a polite way of saying that you are not making sense to me. You may feel perfectly free to ignore me, though.

It was not polite. Polite is saying: I don't follow you, can you explain this to me? Polite is saying: I'm not sure where you are going with this, can you rephrase your question so I can more accurately answer it for you? Polite is not saying: This is so fucking simple, I can't believe you have to ask another question asking me to explain further for you.

It is human nature to desire to relate to others. Are humanists/ atheists supposed to be devoid of human emotions and desires?

No, they're not. However the OP made me think that such an extensive focus would seem like a waste of time for many of them. Perhaps I've mistaken many atheists for taking the "practical" approach to things.

It seems that you are attacking the notion that someone would not want a religious minister to marry them.

Then you best go back and re-read what I've written. I said I found it fascinating that some atheists would want have a marriage which had all the bells and whistles of a religious ceremony. There was no attack there.

You know, I tried to make it very simplistic for you, TomJoe.

I didn't ask for simplistic, for Christ sakes! I want the truth, I want people's point of view. I did not ask for people to give me watered down drivel, I did not ask people to treat me like some buffoon. If I were a simpleton, I'd ask for people to simplify things ... but I'm not, so it's not what I wanted.

Continue to think atheists should fit into your mold. I'm done talking to you.

The purpose for asking my questions was not to fit anyone into a mold, it was to see where my mold was "off", and why it was "off".

[JoeP]

Still projecting into other people's minds, don't shoot me: I meant the same footing as a church wedding in terms of legal recognition, not "more like" one.

Whether you get married in the courthouse, your backyard, or the local parish ... if the minister is allowed under state law to perform weddings/civil unions, they are all on the same legal footing.Exactly. Humanist "ministers" (whatever they might be called) were not previously recognised under Scottish law to perform weddings. Now they're on the same legal footing. I think you're agreeing this is a good thing.

The aspect of being part of a community that share beliefs is strong even for atheists, and I would guess humanists especially.

Coming from a Catholic background, where the notion of "community" is one of the focal points of church doctrine, dogma and worship, I find this statement very interesting ... though you may tell me what I'm thinking is offbase.Very much on base. You're agreeing, again, that the notion of community is important. But "interesting"? Isn't it kind of obvious? I'd like to hear more about in what ways you find the statement very interesting.

Joe

[TomJoe]

Exactly. Humanist "ministers" (whatever they might be called) were not previously recognised under Scottish law to perform weddings. Now they're on the same legal footing. I think you're agreeing this is a good thing.

Yep, makes no difference to me. I'm not against atheists getting married or anything like that. I've always been amused by the notion of "humanist ministers" however (according to a website I came across, Texas has four of them) ... it just seems like a situation of "the more things change, the more they stay the same", to me.

Very much on base. You're agreeing, again, that the notion of community is important. But "interesting"? Isn't it kind of obvious? I'd like to hear more about in what ways you find the statement very interesting.

Yes, I very much agree that the idea of "community" is important. Now, I suppose that you'll tell me community came about as a necessity ... a "safety in numbers" way of survival for our earliest ancestors, and it's something that we've continued to hold onto as we have evolved. I have no problem accepting that, but I think it goes much more deeper than that ... "Like Father, like children."

Now, it's not so much the social aspect of community which I found humorous from this humanist couple, it was their desire to link into what I saw as religious elements of marriage, though they're professed atheists. I found it somewhat ironic. Is it hard for the atheist to completely leave behind all facets of a religious upbringing if they did grow up with one? Is this a result of that? Something they remember stirring up in them a desire to mimic what they have professed to reject?

[JoeP]

OK, now we disagree. I am pleased that you are amused ... I may be too, at least by the title "minister". Apart from this, however, there isn't any "linking into religious elements of marriage" but rather into the social-legal elements of marriage.
A wise man once said:In my opinion people's natural instinct to favor community, ritual, symbolism, etc. is what spawned religion, not vice versa.

And another wise man once said:Would it shock you to learn of something similar being observed in chimpanzees or dolphins? - implying that a sense of community is not something created in man by god.

It's the monopolising of basic human nature by religion that is at fault here. Religion did not invent community, or law, or partnership.

[viscousmemories]

Is it hard for the atheist to completely leave behind all facets of a religious upbringing if they did grow up with one? Is this a result of that?
Of course it is. I still know the words to a dozen songs I was forced to learn and sing at weekly prayer meetings, etc. and now even 20 years later I often find myself singing "My Soul Magnifies the Lord" or some other such song when I'm doing the dishes or something. And I can honestly say that I don't have the tiniest inkling that the soul or Lord are real. The brain works in mysterious ways.

[TomJoe]

OK, now we disagree. I am pleased that you are amused ... I may be too, at least by the title "minister". Apart from this, however, there isn't any "linking into religious elements of marriage" but rather into the social-legal elements of marriage.

Well, let me clarify here. I was not amused in the sense of "Look at these idiots." I was amused at what I perceived to be irony ... irony in professing no need for religion, but turning around and basically inventing religious ceremony in a new guise.

It was the whole "We wanted something more meaningful ..." comment of theirs which got me chuckling. What is meaning when your whole life is predicated on the notion that this was a random occurance without a defined purpose?

A wise man once said:In my opinion people's natural instinct to favor community, ritual, symbolism, etc. is what spawned religion, not vice versa.

And another wise man once said:Would it shock you to learn of something similar being observed in chimpanzees or dolphins? - implying that a sense of community is not something created in man by god.

It's the monopolising of basic human nature by religion that is at fault here. Religion did not invent community, or law, or partnership.

Well I think you may have took my question of you differently than I intended. I know of no such instances. I asked to see what your idea of such would be. I would have been shocked if you had said that it would shock you ... but you didn't, so there is no inconsistency there.

Obviously we disagree, you being an atheist, and me a theist. Where you see a monopolizing of human nature by religion, I see a yearning to reach a higher ideal, an ideal bestowed upon us by God ... and that is religion to me.

[godfry n. glad]

Obviously we disagree, you being an atheist, and me a theist. Where you see a monopolizing of human nature by religion, I see a yearning to reach a higher ideal, an ideal bestowed upon us by God ... and that is religion to me.

Well, I see a yearning to reach a higher ideal, an ideal agree upon by the particpants and with far more meaning that any god.

[JoeP]

TomJoe, all we disagree on is where this need for a sense of community comes from. "Monopolising" was a harsh word. I just meant that I disagree with the religious interpretation of this sense, and therefore I don't see any irony in atheists feeling they have a right to ceremony and legal recognition.

I was about to write that there's nothing more to say ... unless we want to resolve once and for all the existence of god - have you got a few minutes? ... but there is always something more to say:a yearning to reach a higher idealYearning, yes. But what you see as a higher ideal (in community and ceremony) I see as an observed facet of social behaviour - one which isn't unique to humans. All we've done is to take social structures and pecking orders (which are developed by evolution) and overlay law on top.

Joe