Vlad's laws of antitheism

[Outrider]

I think preservation of that is the only way to keep people out of jail here.

I don't see any immediate danger of it being stripped away - there's no appetite for that in any of the major political parties, and by and large the 'anti-theist' groups you talk about are not talking about removing the exemption entirely. There's a case to be made that discrimination in, say, employment for schools with a religious flavour should not be included, but I can't see anyone suggesting that churches (or mosques or synagogues) should  be compelled to marry against a fairly common interpretation of the tenets.

O.

[Outrider]

There does remain the question of Outrider reducing holy matrimony to merely a blessing in the state's eyes. That sounds like a phrase calculated to demean to me...New atheism at it's shit stirring best perhaps?

Is levity something that's exclusive to 'anti-theists' too? What is it about getting married in the pointy-house that makes it holy? What is it that makes it holy if it's not being blessed? The point is that the state no longer cares if it's 'holy matrimony' (copyright Christianity-de-jour) or 'Allah's Blessing' or whatever the Judaist equivalent might be - they're all 'blessings', and therefore for the state's purposes entirely irrelevant. For anyone getting married who isn't choosing to do so in one of those traditions it's entirely irrelevant.

What the church does then becomes of interest only to those who want to go to the church, and the rest of us can carry on untroubled by it.

Time to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's', no?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is that the state no longer cares if it's 'holy matrimony' (copyright Christianity-de-jour) or 'Allah's Blessing' or whatever the Judaist equivalent might be - they're all 'blessings', and therefore for the state's purposes entirely irrelevant.

Correct - marriage has always been a legal construct within particular societies and without the appropriate legal element there is, frankly, no marriage.

VG's link is clear on this as it describes situations where individuals have engaged in a religious "marriage" ceremony but failed to complete the legal requirements for marriage and the position is clear - this is a "non-marriage". In other words these people are not married regardless of what any religion may claim.

So religions can install all sorts of "marriage" ceremonies etc, but without the legal part these are really nothing more than a blessing or a ceremony - these aren't marriages and the couple isn't married without the legal part.

So I guess the question here is firstly whether we should keep the legal part and the religious ceremony separate - as is already the case for most religions as their religious officials aren't registrars and their premises aren't registered. That seems to be Outriders preference and this would bring, largely CofE and RCC in line with other religions. Alternatively we can allow the legal bit (the actual marriage) to be embedded within the religious bit (the "non marriage") but surely if we want equality we should support this for all religions, not just a few as seems currently to be the case with CofE, in particularly having special privileges in this regard.

Unlike Outrider I think I'd go for the latter approach as personally I think we should allow people to get married (legally married) in as many places as possible, as this will often be very personal to the individual. So we once had a situation where your choice was a pretty church (which would require a religious ceremony) or a austere civic building for a civil ceremony. We've moved on, allowing all sorts of beautiful, but non religious, venues to be licensed for marriage. I don't really see an issue with this being extended to other religious buildings. Indeed I think this would reduce the likelihood of non marriages where couples have gone through a religious "marriage" ceremony but aren't actually married.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct - marriage has always been a legal construct within particular societies and without the appropriate legal element there is, frankly, no marriage.

VG's link is clear on this as it describes situations where individuals have engaged in a religious "marriage" ceremony but failed to complete the legal requirements for marriage and the position is clear - this is a "non-marriage". In other words these people are not married regardless of what any religion may claim.

So religions can install all sorts of "marriage" ceremonies etc, but without the legal part these are really nothing more than a blessing or a ceremony - these aren't marriages and the couple isn't married without the legal part.

So I guess the question here is firstly whether we should keep the legal part and the religious ceremony separate - as is already the case for most religions as their religious officials aren't registrars and their premises aren't registered. That seems to be Outriders preference and this would bring, largely CofE and RCC in line with other religions. Alternatively we can allow the legal bit (the actual marriage) to be embedded within the religious bit (the "non marriage") but surely if we want equality we should support this for all religions, not just a few as seems currently to be the case with CofE, in particularly having special privileges in this regard.

Unlike Outrider I think I'd go for the latter approach as personally I think we should allow people to get married (legally married) in as many places as possible, as this will often be very personal to the individual. So we once had a situation where your choice was a pretty church (which would require a religious ceremony) or a austere civic building for a civil ceremony. We've moved on, allowing all sorts of beautiful, but non religious, venues to be licensed for marriage. I don't really see an issue with this being extended to other religious buildings. Indeed I think this would reduce the likelihood of non marriages where couples have gone through a religious "marriage" ceremony but aren't actually married.

What is the difference between you slyly referring to a religious marriage as a ''marriage'' and a homophobe referring to a same sex marriage as a ''marriage''?

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the difference between you slyly referring to a religious marriage as a ''marriage'' and a homophobe referring to a same sex marriage as a ''marriage''?

Because the government via the legislation in this country does not consider a religious ceremony that does not include the requisite legal elements (specific wording, licenses premises and licensed person) to be a valid marriage, hence their term of "non-marriage".

By contrast the law is clear that gay couples are married if their ceremony meets those legal requirements. They are not been through a 'marriage', they have been through a marriage and are married. By contrast a couple who have not completed the legal elements are not married, hence their ceremony can reasonably be considered a "marriage" (although government prefers "non-marriage" which is rather stronger) rather than a marriage.

[Outrider]

Unlike Outrider I think I'd go for the latter approach as personally I think we should allow people to get married (legally married) in as many places as possible, as this will often be very personal to the individual. So we once had a situation where your choice was a pretty church (which would require a religious ceremony) or a austere civic building for a civil ceremony. We've moved on, allowing all sorts of beautiful, but non religious, venues to be licensed for marriage. I don't really see an issue with this being extended to other religious buildings. Indeed I think this would reduce the likelihood of non marriages where couples have gone through a religious "marriage" ceremony but aren't actually married.

Personally I'm not that invested either way, but I understand the viewpoint of people who feel aggrieved at the discrimination the current situation implements. Disestablishment of the CoE, presuming that make the CofE weddings on a par with other religious ceremonies as having no legal weight, means that the state is no longer involved in the discrimination, which for me removes a lot of the underpinnings of the argument.

If it doesn't result in that then not only does that state discrimination still exist, which is problematic, but it also discriminates on the basis of religion between adherents of the CofE and every other religion in the country.

In and of itself not the greatest problem facing the world, but clearly not justifiable in the long term.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Personally I'm not that invested either way, but I understand the viewpoint of people who feel aggrieved at the discrimination the current situation implements. Disestablishment of the CoE, presuming that make the CofE weddings on a par with other religious ceremonies as having no legal weight, means that the state is no longer involved in the discrimination, which for me removes a lot of the underpinnings of the argument.

If it doesn't result in that then not only does that state discrimination still exist, which is problematic, but it also discriminates on the basis of religion between adherents of the CofE and every other religion in the country.

In and of itself not the greatest problem facing the world, but clearly not justifiable in the long term.

Yes to all that, but it's an anomaly in another way - if (selected) churches can carry out marriages that are both religious and civic, why not divorces too? Or indeed other civic legal proceedings? There was a row a while ago when the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Sharia law should play a larger part in civic society, and I know there are tensions in the Jewish community about gender disparity in obtaining Judaic divorces. I don't sense any great desire from the main faiths to extend their civil law reach just yet, but if they did "but you already allow us to conduct legal marriages so what's the big deal about extending to X?" would be a useful precedent.

Like you I'm not particularly invested in this issue, but on balance I tend to the "render unto Caesar" line i think.       

[ProfessorDavey]

Outy,

Yes to all that, but it's an anomaly in another way - if (selected) churches can carry out marriages that are both religious and civic, why not divorces too? Or indeed other civic legal proceedings? There was a row a while ago when the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Sharia law should play a larger part in civic society, and I know there are tensions in the Jewish community about gender disparity in obtaining Judaic divorces. I don't sense any great desire from the main faiths to extend their civil law reach just yet, but if they did "but you already allow us to conduct legal marriages so what's the big deal about extending to X?" would be a useful precedent.

Like you I'm not particularly invested in this issue, but on balance I tend to the "render unto Caesar" line i think.       

I think the potential way around this is to insist that the bit of the ceremony which is the actual legal part is clearly indicated as such. And to require the celebrant (whether religious or non religious) to indicate that in this part they are acting as a legal registrar rather than a priest, imam, humanist celebrant etc, under circumstances where it is one and the same person.

[Outrider]

I think the potential way around this is to insist that the bit of the ceremony which is the actual legal part is clearly indicated as such. And to require the celebrant (whether religious or non religious) to indicate that in this part they are acting as a legal registrar rather than a priest, imam, humanist celebrant etc, under circumstances where it is one and the same person.

I'm not really sure I see how that helps - it's not that people do or don't recognise that's the problem, it's that people who are kept outside and don't get to see are being discriminated against by an organisation which is part of the state that's supposed to be committed to equality.

I don't see a need to interrupt what is, for the people that want to take part in it, a traditional and beloved ceremony in order to shoe-horn in a legal disclaimer - I think the legal element can be as subtle as need be, it's about ensuring that in the eyes of the law the CofE is not discriminating on behalf of the state, either against (say) gay people, or in comparison to adherents of other faiths.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

I think the potential way around this is to insist that the bit of the ceremony which is the actual legal part is clearly indicated as such. And to require the celebrant (whether religious or non religious) to indicate that in this part they are acting as a legal registrar rather than a priest, imam, humanist celebrant etc, under circumstances where it is one and the same person.

But conducting the “legal” part of the marriage in a non-religious context must be done by an official registrar who’s been trained, employed and state authorised. There’s an alternative of being employed as a “celebrant”, which also has some formal civic standing. As I understand it though when clerics officiate on the civic part they act as if they are a registrar/celebrant, but without any of the obligations that would apply to anyone else wanting those jobs.

Of course if the cleric concerned was also an official registrar/celebrant then I suppose s/he could do both the religious part and the civic part wearing different hats for each, but as it stands they enjoy an “as if” exemption not afforded to the rest of us.           

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

But conducting the “legal” part of the marriage in a non-religious context must be done by an official registrar who’s been trained, employed and state authorised. There’s an alternative of being employed as a “celebrant”, which also has some formal civic standing. As I understand it though when clerics officiate on the civic part they act as if they are a registrar/celebrant, but without any of the obligations that would apply to anyone else wanting those jobs.

Of course if the cleric concerned was also an official registrar/celebrant then I suppose s/he could do both the religious part and the civic part wearing different hats for each, but as it stands they enjoy an “as if” exemption not afforded to the rest of us.           

Of course those conducting the legal part would need to be appropriately trained. In some cases that could be the same person - trained as both a registrar and, in effect a celebrant (whether that be a minister of religion of, for example, a humanist celebrant). The alternative would be the need for the presence of a second person, who steps in for the legal bit. I think this is all pretty common in lots of religious and non-religious marriages. I think the issue is consistency and equality and not providing special privileges to, largely the CofE, that don't apply to other religions, nor to non religious marriages.

But there is clearly an issue with people entering into "marriage" within a religious ceremony that is not valid and therefore is not recognised legally, does not provide legal protections and presumably would not be recognised in other countries.

[splashscuba]

https://www.atheistalliance.org/blog/sponsored/the-anti-theism-international-convention-april-2020/

But that's for atheists not anti-theists although I'm sure anyone is welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course those conducting the legal part would need to be appropriately trained. In some cases that could be the same person - trained as both a registrar and, in effect a celebrant (whether that be a minister of religion of, for example, a humanist celebrant). The alternative would be the need for the presence of a second person, who steps in for the legal bit. I think this is all pretty common in lots of religious and non-religious marriages. I think the issue is consistency and equality and not providing special privileges to, largely the CofE, that don't apply to other religions, nor to non religious marriages.

But there is clearly an issue with people entering into "marriage" within a religious ceremony that is not valid and therefore is not recognised legally, does not provide legal protections and presumably would not be recognised in other countries.

Guys.
I think you are trying hard here to make it look as though antitheism is not a factor here and that there is no weaponising
This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.

Toksvig says this is causing LGTBQ people mental issues but same sex holy matrimony wasn't a thing until it was adopted by atheists and so one must question who is responsible for any anguish. I can foresee many LGBT Christians disturbed at having been played by antitheists.

Let us not forget that Toksvig is patron of Humanist UK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that's for atheists not anti-theists although I'm sure anyone is welcome.

What we have here is atheists linking themselves with antitheism something that was previously a straw man link made by theists according to some of the same people now coming out as antitheists.

[Sebastian Toe]

but same sex holy matrimony wasn't a thing until it was adopted by atheists

When and where was same sex holy matrimony adopted by atheists?

[ProfessorDavey]

Guys.
I think you are trying hard here to make it look as though antitheism is not a factor here and that there is no weaponising
This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.

Do you actually bother reading what others are posting rather than come out with knee jerk responses (emphasis on the jerk .

I was actually arguing for making it easier for most religions to be able to conduct valid weddings as part of religious ceremonies within their religious buildings. Easier, not harder.

As a secularist I believe in level playing fields. And that isn't just a level playing field between the religious and non religious but also a level playing field between various religions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When and where was same sex holy matrimony adopted by atheists?

As a weapon? Subsequent to the legalisation of same sex marriages.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you actually bother reading what others are posting rather than come out with knee jerk responses (emphasis on the jerk .

I was actually arguing for making it easier for most religions to be able to conduct valid weddings as part of religious ceremonies within their religious buildings. Easier, not harder.

As a secularist I believe in level playing fields. And that isn't just a level playing field between the religious and non religious but also a level playing field between various religions.

I have little trepidation for your apparent proposals however they do mask operators like certain MPs and humanist UK personnel who want to flip this into state intervention into the consciences and theology of certain parts of the church church. Their actions fulfil my observations that this issue is digital and coercion of belief with draconian penalties are inevitable and all for that nice wedding in that particular church...and since the downsides of that far exceed any benefit, it must be part of the scheme to annihilate religion.

[Sebastian Toe]

As a weapon?

Is that what you meant because you never stated it?

[ProfessorDavey]

I have little trepidation for your apparent proposals ...

What, making it easier for most religious organisations to be able to conduct valid marriages as part of a religious ceremony within their religious settings. I mean FFS - in what way is that somehow an attack on religion.

... however they do mask operators like certain MPs and humanist UK personnel who want to flip this into state intervention into the consciences and theology of certain parts of the church church.

News for you chum, the state already 'intervenes' in marriages - because a valid marriage has to be conducted in accordance with the relevant laws, which are defined by the state. What I am proposing is a mechanism to make it easier for most religions to conduct valid marriages, not least because I have concerns that there are too many illegal marriages being conducted that are not legally valid and that impacts both those going through such ceremonies, but also the organisations conducting them. Now I'm not suggesting that there is somehow deliberate law breaking here, but clearly there is an issue if couples are going through a 'marriage' ceremony which is not legally valid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.

Your paranoia is showing again. The argument isn't for the "elimination" of religion; it's for just the removal of the various special rights and privileges (some) religions arrogate to themselves and the state indulges. If religions became private members' clubs subject to the same laws that apply to any other private members' clubs (as I think they should) no-one would have an issue about that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your paranoia is showing again. The argument isn't for the "elimination" of religion; it's for just the removal of the various special rights and privileges (some) religions arrogate to themselves and the state indulges. If religions became private members' clubs subject to the same laws that apply to any other private members' clubs (as I think they should) no-one would have an issue about that.

What you propose is nothing short of an atheist state run for the benefit of atheists with automatic repression of religion. It is difficult to see how LGBT christians are being benefitted by possibly getting a wedding in a particular church and definitely getting a state church whose theology is written by committed humanists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What you propose is nothing short of an atheist state run for the benefit of atheists with automatic repression of religion.

Wow – your bonkers paranoia is strong with this one. It’s no such thing of course – it’s just the proposed removal of the anomaly that various religions are permitted responsibility for some civic activities (eg marriage licences) but not for the rest (eg driving licences). Those religions would of course be free to continue as now with whatever rituals, naming (“holy”), incantations and anything else that took their fancy, but the civic bit would be regularised as rendered unto to Caesar.   

It is difficult to see how LGBT christians are being benefitted by possibly getting a wedding in a particular church…

Why? Do you not think that equality is a basic, foundational principle that should be respected?
 

…and getting a state church whose theology is written by humanists.

Now you’ve gone mad again. What on earth “theology” do you think humanists write?

Humanists are merely concerned that various civic activities should be separate from theology, not subject to a different stripe of it. Good grief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wow – your bonkers paranoia is strong with this one. It’s no such thing of course – it’s just the proposed removal of the anomaly that various religions are permitted responsibility for some civic activities (eg marriage licences) but not for the rest (eg driving licences). Those religions would of course be free to continue as now with whatever rituals, naming (“holy”), incantations and anything else that took their fancy, but the civic bit would be regularised as rendered unto to Caesar.   

I think there was a bit of a difference between what Jesus wanted rendered unto Caesar and what Caesar wanted rendered unto Caesar.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think there was a bit of a difference between what Jesus wanted rendered unto Caesar and what Caesar wanted rendered unto Caesar.

So? Are you suggesting that whatever Jesus (allegedly) said should therefore be the model now for state/church separation?