08.07.07
Mini-breaks
After years of persuasion by the extended family we finally went on a mini-break sans enfant. 4 days in Juan le Pin dans la beau villa de sister-in-law. Conclusions:
- They were right – 4 days alone is much better than insanity of spending two weeks abroad with small children. What WERE we doing for the past few years?
- Money is nice. The villa is fab. Two minute walk from the town centre.
- France is nice. The food! The food! The sun! The sea! The wine!
- The Cap D’Antibes is fab. So sociable. Met other friends down there and had great fun.
- The Cap D’Antibes is weird. It’s a human zoo. We went on a glass-bottom boat trip we THOUGHT to see exotic fish. Instead the boat cruised within yards of the villas along by Eden Rock. A few kids went downstairs to check out the pedestrian collection of fish and the adults stayed upstairs while the guy gave a commentary (in French) of each villa, its size, history and ownership. The people STAYING in the villas sunbathed and watched us watching them. Totally weird. I averted my eyes 
- Money is hilarious – the bling, the posh cars, the luxury of lolling around all day on sun beds with les garcons fetching and carrying. The place is crawling with dodgy Russian mafia type characters.
- Money is bizarre – so many of the moneyed looked sooooooo discontented and bored. Especially the women. Although, another sister-in-law said that the women only looked bored. They just couldn’t smile much on account of the botox.
- You can tan too much. Oh my god the tans. Don’t these people read the papers? They’re all going to shrivel up with melanomas in a couple of years.
- SOME tan is nice. I look much better than I did last week
- Being in a fashionable spot makes you really paranoid. Everyone thinks everyone else MUST be someone but actually no one is anyone (though the brother in law SWEARS he saw Bruce Willis and other assorted starts in the last few weeks).
- A posh car is very useful. It means you don’t have to park. You just drive up to hotels and hand your keys to uniformed men and they park it somewhere and bring it back when you need it even if you are not staying in the hotel.
- Michael McDowell was on the flight home! I didn’t introduce myself
- I read The God Delusion. No more dabbling. I am now a committed atheist. I just have to figure out two things:
- do I continue to shrug my shoulders and not challenge religious people (like friends and family)? I think Yes. No point taking away that which gives consolation to the old and good.
- how do I get my children out of the whole first communion stuff? What if they WANT to be like the other kids? Do I just assure them its all rubbish but let them go ahead so they’re not the weirdo kids? (this is at least 4 years away btw but I figure you have to start planning now).
Anyway, business as usual…
Niall said,
August 7, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Sarah, there’s nothing wrong with atheism. There are loads of good reasons to be an atheists. Many smart people are atheists. In fact, if I didn’t believe in God, I’d probably be an atheist.
What worries me is that you read TGD and it somehow evoked a positive reaction. The book is either certainly under-researched. In fact, Dawkins doesn’t seem to have read anything he couldn’t find on google. There are many factual errors. Add to that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t understand the arguments he attacks and the argument he is most proud of – The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument – is nothing short of ridiculous.
PS, what on earth are you doing mixing in the same circles as arrogant law abusers and the Russian mafia?
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Ok Sarah well firstly lets disregard the silly comments by Niall who like so many others can merely “attack” Dawkins” and make false assertions about the man and his work.
As for really absurd statements?
“In fact, if I didn’t believe in God, I’d probably be an atheist.”
That is high on the chart listing of one of the dubest of all time – Sorry Niall but it is!
The book is an excellent read and if nothing else that trip/break was well worth it to see you “come out”.
To be honest I wont claim that I agree with all of what Dawkins says or the way he argues some of his main points- for example I get annoyed by him and other when they use the North of Ireland as a case of religious divisions. He an CH both overlook or skip over the fact that it had very little to do with religion as it had to do with the core issue of nationalism and tribal issues of of idenity. Though their point made elsewhere subsequently about religion being an identifer and tag which compounds the differences and makes worse divisions is imporant to note too.
Well worth a read too though is the CH book “god is not great” which is excellent for different reasons. I just got it recently and it is a most enjoyable read.
The key point about the superstious masses who sheepishly alow their crtical facilties to be suspended is that, as you say, sure believe whatever you like just dont have it in my face – grin and bear the stupidity of it all as best as one can without being irrate at having to indulge such backward thinking as is evidenced by the so called relligious folk.
Put simply, it is not a big deal to be an “atheist” as in truth, as pointed out by dawkins, harris , hitchens and daniel dennet, most people if not virtually all, are atheist as regards many gods such a Thor, Zeus and many others .
For a very very entertaining and stimulating series of lectures and debates which have been very amusing and perhaps most importantly, refute the lies and downright ignorant propoganda, that has been rampant among those who get so defensive about their “beliefs” , and the way they have simply been exposed as nonsense.
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Have a look at some links and you will see that Dawkins is anything but a “fundamentalist” or “arrogant” he is in fact positively polite and personally I dont know how he keeps his coolin the face of such cringe inducing simple mindedness as often is presented by those of “faith”
CH by contrast can be very abrupt or even rude but I think he is still brilliant in the way he deals with the fruitcakes and religious con artists- of which there are so many.
Sam Harris is very funny and I like his delivery very much.
Rejecting superstition is a pertfectly moral position to take whereas one might be a diest in the abstract sense and this not be a prepostrous or absurd position to take. Claiming to know that there is a ” creator and whats more know its mind and preferences as is the case for just about all the main religions well that is not moral or inteligent. If I were born in Bejing or Tokyo of parents of those countries Id never have been exposed to the christian teachings as I would have been here in Ireland. The same can be said of anyone who happens ot be born in a particular place at a particular time so clearly if one believes in “faith” someine must be right and of course every single one of the religions will claim it is they who have ot right! Which means all others are wrong [by what degree is a secondary point.
This was shown when good auld pope Ben merely stated this view- which by the way, makes perfect sense -if you are roman catholic/superstious person! So why should anyone be giving him such a hard time within the “religious world” I think the guy is very misguided and delusional but he is entitled to merely say what his gang believe in without similar gangs having a go.
Ok here are some of the links- some of which will have you falling around
the place laughing too.
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:13 pm
http://richarddawkins.net/article,772,Religion,George-Carlin [funny as hell/heck!]
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:15 pm
["the inteligent idiot" also see http://richarddawkins.net/article,1479,They-let-anybody-onto-the-faculty-at-Oxford-nowadays,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Apologies for all the messy links, I couldnt get them all together neatly and yes I know that is a lot of stuff to put in a post so sorry for that. SOME OF IT might be of interest?
Anyway I think it provides a good frefwerence point to a place in which many of the related issues have been debated with great skil and inteligence by well informed and educated people of all sorts.
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Here below is some excellent views offered about an interview Dawkins done with a guy called Alister E. McGrath who is a Christian theologian, with a background in molecular biophysics, noted for his work on historical, systematic and scientific theology
In his writing and public speaking, he [Alister E. McGrath] promotes “scientific theology” and opposes atheism. McGrath was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and is currently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He was until 2005 Principal of Wycliffe Hall.
=========================================
First the video – and then the comment in response!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626
“That’s the best interview I’ve ever seen Richard Dawkins give. He comes over as being a great listener, capable of thinking on his feet and really interested in the other point of view, rather than being simply exasperated by the same old nonsense. In other interviews he occasionally seems on the verge of losing his cool (or maybe it’s just my own blood that’s boiling through not being able to jump through the TV screen and strangle whoever he’s debating).
I think Richard does better when he’s matched by another civilised person who has no desire to antagonise, and Alistair McGrath is certainly civilised. However, whereas Richard came across as genuinely human, Alistair McGrath, with his head constantly cocked to one side in pensive pose and his infuriatingly condescending manner, was almost robot-like and it made me wonder if he is completely human.
I actually started to wonder if he also talks to his wife and in this authoritative-lecturing style, as this is the only style I’ve ever heard him use (he also, equally infuriatingly, debated Peter Atkins). Rather than the actual discussion, I became obsessed with the following question: Are we dealing here with a real human being or a ‘humanoid’, something akin to a ‘pod-person’ in Invasion of the Body-Snatchers? ”
and then there was this
Doesn’t the slippery, addled blather of McGrath just about distil the ‘intellectual’ basis of Christianity? Pressed quite reasonably by Dawkins to explain the inconsistency in claiming his god can, and does, on occasion save an individual child whereas in most cases it is humanity’s lot to learn about existence through capricious hardship, McGrath can come up with no better than the standard Christian trump card along the lines of ‘well, I’ve explained myself quite satisfactorily, if you cannot understand it I’m not going over it any more.’ If you wish to observe the true essence of Christian thought, as practiced an Oxford theologian scholar, look no further than 49:40.
Apart from the temerity of chiding Dawkins, as if he is some dullard undergraduate, McGrath is apparently completely unaware of the ludicrousness of his own position. Tssch. Christians are the same the world over. Only this one puts up the semblance of a reasonable argument. Which makes him even less worthy of any respect for his lofty academic position. Utterly shameful. A complete fake.
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:43 pm
this link was not working above -here it is again
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_facu.php
brian t said,
August 8, 2007 at 12:10 am
Well, well! I’m must admit I’m quite surprised at the mostly positive comments here. Does that mean we’ll see you posting on http://www.atheist.ie ?
A bit of reading I would recommend is Douglas Adams’ Biota speech, in which he manages to use a puddle to illustrate how we see “Intelligent Design” when there isn’t any.
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
I think this is an important concept for Ireland: you’re “swimming” in Catholicism from the day you’re baptised, and so it seems normal to you – but countries like Norway do fine without any pervasive religion. When you decide to leave the Church(es) behind, a little “fish out of water” sensation is to be expected. It will pass.
PS: Douglas was the same hoopy frood who created the fictional Total Perspective Vortex, in The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: a machine that showed you just how important you are on a universal scale: a vanishingly infinitesimal dot labelled “You Are Here”. The experience usually sends people insane – with one exception that is important to the story. Also highly recommended.
Joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 12:10 am
“The God Who Wasn’t There”
is amusing too.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zLqqGy2SqmM
“I am talking about the Jesus fairy tale that copied previous stories such as Mithras. Christianity is the biggest hoax of all time.”
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=JMiAwe6TAYM
“Lets be honest here, you couldnt make up this shite and yet so many slavishly and sheepishly profess to believe in this crap”
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=aP0x81L3vmk
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=QMLbH_mN52Q
IN SHORT
Christians are at best Jews who went wrong – ie jesus is a fairytale!
Niall said,
August 8, 2007 at 12:15 am
Jesus Joe, chillax.
“That is high on the chart listing of one of the dubest of all time – Sorry Niall but it is!”
Well as it happens I’m a culchie. Apologies if I’ve contracted a Jackeen sense of humour.
As for only attacking Dawkins, well as it happens I’ve participated in online atheist book discussions about the book (most of the atheists involved felt the same way), and I’ve written chapter reviews of TGD on my blog. However, I’ve also praised Dawkins in the past (and will do so in the future no doubt) for his work in popularising evolution and particularly evolutionary psychology, and for his work against creationism. Strangely enough, I’m not going to post full-scale discussions of TGD in the comments thread.
Oddly enough, you’ve chosen to criticise me for “attacking” Dawkins and then post a link to a chap who “attacks” McGrath for his posture among other things.
Now as for Sarah coming out, she’s written about her atheism many times before on this blog, so TGD hardly inspired her.
Now I’m returning to sleep.
GW said,
August 8, 2007 at 1:02 am
why does this blog attract so many assholes?
Joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 2:46 am
“most of the atheists involved felt the same way”
SAYS WHO?
I couldnt give a crap about a numbers game. Most people in the USA believe in all manner of stupid things, it doesnt make it true.
“In fact, if I didn’t believe in God, I’d probably be an atheist.”
That is indeed high on the chart listing as one of the DUMBESTstatements of all time – Sorry Niall but it still is!
So a mere typo is enough to obscure the meaning? NOPE!
So your reply is again silly.
As for this
“As for only attacking Dawkins, well as it happens I’ve participated in online atheist book discussions about the book (most of the atheists involved felt the same way), and I’ve written chapter reviews of TGD on my blog. However, I’ve also praised Dawkins in the past (and will do so in the future no doubt) for his work in popularising evolution and particularly evolutionary psychology, and for his work against creationism. Strangely enough, I’m not going to post full-scale discussions of TGD in the comments thread.”
Well so what?
Your comments were silly and was indeed a brainless attack on Dawkins as I have seen all too often from people who usually have not actually read the book or have jusy read reviews by others.
If your going to make an assertion as you have done you need to say what you mean exactly and back up your points with something.
Instead you take the cheap route like so many I have seen who think they are being clever by being the “rebel of more “measured” in reaction to RD and TGD. It is fake and empty.
You seem to be a religious nut masked as something less than that.
“Oddly enough, you’ve chosen to criticise me for “attacking” Dawkins and then post a link to a chap who “attacks” McGrath for his posture among other things.”
Yes cause you make silly comments and false assertions without backing them up with anything.
As for McGrath well it is clear that his argunents were being attacked and refuted which then combined with the fact that, as it happens, he is obviously a fecking gobshite of the highest order. The attacking of him as you call it ncludes the refutation of his absurdly stupid views which are more relevant. The fact that I see the guy as a complete nut job and delusional or fake fool is not important.
As with all these faith heads you get plenty of bluster and nothing that stands up to scrutiny. As dawkins has said you no more need to understand
“Theology” than the gardener does. It is total codology wjereas Philosophy is something quite different. No doubt there are “Theologians” who do and have done some very useful research but that has nothing to do with the harsh reality that Theology is a load of rubbish.
Joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 2:52 am
As for being a clutchie.
What has that to do with anything? names like jackeen or clutchie are meaningless thesedays.
If your trying to tell me your from a rural background then so what? That doesnt mean you have to be any less inteligent or sophisticated than someone from a city.
Niall said,
August 8, 2007 at 5:45 am
“SAYS WHO?”
The Atheists involved.
“If your going to make an assertion as you have done you need to say what you mean exactly and back up your points with something.
Instead you take the cheap route like so many I have seen who think they are being clever by being the “rebel of more “measured” in reaction to RD and TGD. It is fake and empty.
You seem to be a religious nut masked as something less than that. ”
Joe, you’re being an asshole. Worse still, you’re acting like an asshole without a sense of humour. Try and realise, this is not a message board designed for debate. It is the comments section of a message board. If Sarah talks about The God Delusion, I’ll give my two cents. If Sarah talks about The Simpsons movie, I’ll give my two cents. However, I’m not going to write an essay in either case, and I feel perfectly justified in giving quick summaries of my views. That’s the convention. Now I’m perfectly happy to back up my views. Indeed if you’d simply asked me for an example or some of the examples of Dawkins poor/lazy research, I’d have been more than happy to provide them. In fact, if anybody else here wants some of those examples, I’d still be happy to provide them. Quite frankly though, I’m not really interested in debating with somebody who decides to call me a “religious nut” based solely on the fact that:
1. I didn’t like The God Delusion
2. I said some nice about Richard Dawkins
“If your trying to tell me your from a rural background then so what? That doesnt mean you have to be any less inteligent or sophisticated than someone from a city.”
This is like talking to a brick wall, so I’m leaving it. Hopefully this will mean you stop spamming the comments section. I’ve said what I meant to say, although you clearly didn’t understand me. If anybody else didn’t understand what I said, or if they want examples of what I was referring to, I’ll be more than happy to oblige. Otherwise, I’m done.
Niall said,
August 8, 2007 at 5:47 am
“It is the comments section of a message board.”
Fuck. Should read: It is the comments section of a blog.
Joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 6:10 am
LOL LOL! fecking hilarious!
Fair enough Nial
So you know best and well lets just leave it at that then if you want?
If you say things like “Dawkins doesn’t understand the arguments he attacks”
or
“an example or some of the examples of Dawkins poor/lazy research,”
Well I just have to defer to you over someone like Mr Dawkins who clearly lacks your wisdom and inteligence.
Yep if you say that “most atheists involved feel the same way as you” then sure I am indeed wrong, you are right, and it is silly of me to doubt your wisdom.
But all the same I cant help but feel that if I have to choose between you and a very lowly quailfied intellect like RD I simply have to go with RD everytime. I know its silly to think he knows and understands far more than you ever could but all the same I cant helpbut feelthat way?
Maybe I just lack any FAITH in you? Sorry about that.
Primal Sneeze said,
August 8, 2007 at 6:24 am
Sorry to change the subject, but I’m glad you enjoyed the break, Sarah. I could do with one myself.
copernicus said,
August 8, 2007 at 10:36 am
“Sarah, there’s nothing wrong with atheism. There are loads of good reasons to be an atheists. Many smart people are atheists. In fact, if I didn’t believe in God, I’d probably be an atheist.”
It should have been obvious to even the meanest intelligence that this was a joke, a bromide, a set-up with a punchline.
I think Joseph has mixed up atheism and literalism and, as an arch-literalist, embraced the cause. A flat-earther but, you know, for the left.
I’m not a religious person but Dawkins work has been comprehensively eviserated not least by fellow evolutionary scientists. Of course, TGD is not a scientific work at all, it’s a political and philosophical one. But sadly Mr. D has decided not to bother to take the time to understand either politics or philosophy.
In fact, what I find strangest of all is that the positor of the excellent selfish gene theory of evolution has overlooked the blindingly obvious when trying to figure out why the world is such a fucked up place. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that man is a competitive animal.
A viewing of The Crucible will tell you far more about what is really behind conflict than anything Dawkins has to say. Not to mention a perusal of the latest print media reports from our energy war in the Middle East.
V said,
August 8, 2007 at 11:20 am
‘GW’, that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time on a blog. In the midst of a decent argument, you wade in with that comment. And yes, I’m laughing AT you not WITH you. Thanks for that!
Sarah said,
August 8, 2007 at 11:27 am
What I liked best about Dawkins was the preface. For years I’ve been saying “I don’t believe in God BUT” and went onto to list benefits of God and religion. His preface is devoted to those who say “I am an atheist but” and he systematically and funnily destroyed the arguments. So it was an amusing and privately embarrassing experience reading my own arguments (which of course lamely match others) being completely refuted.
Anyway…joseph the links are appreciated but you leave so many that your comments keeping getting classified as spam! short comments, one link, and it’ll get more attention…
V said,
August 8, 2007 at 11:45 am
Re: The Russians.
Take a look at how they live at home. BBC cameras have been given access to this compound which I had only previously read about :
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=moscow+rich+suburb&tab=all&edition=i&recipe=all&scope=all&start=1
It’s a bit of a long winded link but the video is worth it.
Paul said,
August 8, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Sarah — bring them to mass once a week for the next 5-6 years.. Also take them to confession once every two months, depending how much time you have. Do the communion/confirmation thing as well.
Then when they are about 10/11 years old– take a step back and let them decide themselves if religion is for them
Paul said,
August 8, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Re The 2 questions you posed at the end of your post.
I think the worst thing you could do with Athesism is get evangelical about it…. so yeah… i shrug the shoulders and let em off… i even go too mass with my mammy sometimes (my dad died last year)… and i don’t get wracked by guilt that i have somehow sold out on my principles.
Re The children….. same thing… I’ve been through this too… no point getting on the high horse…let em roll..let them know that you don’t believe in God but by jaysus (that was a joke joseph) you believe in them and whatever makes em happy you can go with for now… they can make up their minds in years to come too
Sarah said,
August 8, 2007 at 2:28 pm
hmmm good advice I think.
Niall said,
August 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Thank you Copernicus. It’s nice to know that I wasn’t alone in wondering how Joseph didn’t understand the fact that I was joking.
Sarah, the best thing you can do is teach your children how to think. Allow them the opportunity to engage in practices that are the norm within the society in which they are based, but don’t force them to.
joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 8:07 pm
“Dawkins work has been comprehensively eviserated not least by fellow evolutionary scientists”
Again a bold and wild assertion. ITS JUST NOT TRUE!
Be enough to just say you think this or that.
FACT IS
Spme agree
Some don’t
And all manner of shades between!
Most thinking people by a fairly young age have figured out that religion is just nonsense and dismiss the notion of a personal God while being agnostic about the more specific question of whether or not their is some sort of a creator/deity. Thats reasonable enough. And yes it is true to say that most of humans problems are not because of religion alone but rather religion has compounded more often than it has alleviated. It is indeed a worry that in the absence of religion there would be something worse. LIke “new age” hocus pocus etc etc. The institutions and traditions of religion have been with us for so long that it is unreasonable to think or hope that this could all be discarded all at once. But we should at least have the intellectual honesty to call a spade a spade when it comes to the superstition that is religion and “faith” based believe systems.
Oddly enough some might recall that after the recent Rachel O Rielly murder the mother gave a lengthy interview and any normal person would have to feel compassion and sympathy for her. She was impressive in terms of her dignity and humanity and then all of a sudden she started telling us about her believe and on and on with stuff that really was unbearable to listen to. It was as if she suddenly became a stupid babbling crackpot that you couldnt afford any crediblity now [for that moment]
I mean, as i listened it really annoyed me that such nonsensical child like rubbish was being invoked and all of the public were subject to this at the very moment when we would have had nothing but sympathy for the woman.
Now that feeling I had was mine [and i am sure many others to to some degree or other] and it is my problem in how i deal with being confronted with that. Ultimately it did not lessen my sympathy for the woman and it did make me think would I want to “set her straight” about the total absurdness and falseness of her “believe”- “faith” or whatever one calls it>
Well no I wouldnt! But in a different context and time I also would not indulge this as anything other than a personal right to delude oneself so long as it is understood that no assumption can or should be made that I or anyone else would share such fantastical and weird views.
It was like I had to turn off the sound such was the pain of listening to such utter rubbish and yet I, like all who saw this poor woman, had nothing but sympathy and compassion for her.
By all means lets respect peoples right to beleve or take comfort in anythig they wish and I certainly would to want to take that away from people but just at the same time it would be nice if people did not feel so free to make such incredible claims and assertions without being sensitive to the fact that there are some who not only would not share or understand such things but actually would not be able to avid thinking such people were a bit screwy in the head or a simple even?
No more than I would want to engage my elderly mother in a debate about the stupidity of thinking she is going to a better place when she dies and she will see her mother /brothers sisters etc etc.
I let her have her believes and she has come to respect mine in so far as she can. Key point is that we don’t force or thrust our believes on others.
Robust debate in the right medium being a different matter.
Personally I think I would not like my kids to be subject to religion outside of it being a comparative study subject maybe.
We all want to fit in and want this for our kids too so yes the balance s hard to make but the best is to simply not have them branded as this or that and the little difference of not getting communion and the other rituals is a small price in terms of being different than the damage done by having them exposed to such indoctrination.
Just tell kids to find out for themselves and if they show an dinterest then you can engage with them.
Its like the thing about when a kid asks were did they come from- how babies come about. Just tell the truth in a matter of fact way and most kids lose interest and move on! I didnt because I was told something that simply didnt seem to make sense! I was told at about the tender age of 6-7-8 that babies come from god! And that you pray for them! To this day I can recall the sense of discomfort of my mother and the tiny secret little smile she couldnt hide and can vividly recall the sense I had that it didnt make sense so I persisted a little it more [still with no satisfaction] as the answer only lead to more questions! I quickly lost interest and thought something along the lines of- sure ill find out later anyway- because as a child i really had no great interest. In fact a couple of years latter when someone on the street actually suggested that men put their willy into a woman I thought they were mad as hell or making it up like my mother was making up stuff and it made no sense to me at all. Being nice and innocent I had no further interest in the matter and found the whole topic of sextalk to be soooo boring.
Kids have a lot more wisdom and sense than we credit them.Dont indoctrinate and lie to them [when possible] and they find their own natural ability to reason will flourish.
Alternatively jst explain religion as being just a tradition and we go through the rituals like we would we lots of others things in life.
OK I WILL SHUT UP NOW
Sorry for rambling and earlier spam like posts- good advice In futrue ill keep it short
HH said,
August 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Sarah, just wondering, were you married in Church? And if so, was there any to-ing and fro-ing for you over the decision to do it there – if you were veering towards atheism at the time? I’m facing into a church wedding myself without a smidge of religious belief. It’s total hypocrisy but I feel it has to be done for the sake of the folks. Though it may well be more a question of cowardice than hypocrisy.
Sarah said,
August 9, 2007 at 1:57 pm
oh yeah – did the whole Church thing. At that stage I hadn’t given my lack of faith any serious thought. I didn’t particularly believe in anything but hadn’t attempted to follow through. Also, I really doubt, that even if I had thought about it seriously, I would have gone for a non-church wedding. At that time there were still very few places where you could have a non-church wedding that would be state approved. The hassle factor would have been too significant so I just went ahead. As you say, the folks, the folks!
HOWEVER I did make this agreement with myself and wrote a column about it – its not fair of the atheists, or even the can’t be arsed brigade, to show up when they want a wedding and demand a church. The priests are there and do a lot of excellent pastoral work year round and deserve to be supported. So since I got married I make sure to contribute a respectable amount to the “upkeep of the priests of the parish” annually. (When I say respectable I mean about €250-300 – my uncle who collects the money assures me that given income and circumstances I am well above the local average – the local property developers are the only ones expected to get into 4 figures). Also, even if I didn’t use the church personally I think I’d still be tempted to give something to the priests anyway. They are good men and do good things, even if I have issues with faith, religion, etc. Oh AND I got the children christened. Another go with the flow job.
I also give the money because unless I go out of my way to arrange a humanist funeral then if I dropped dead tomorrow I’d be carried into the same church. The local graveyard is theirs and I can’t expect to buried in it if I don’t do something constructive for them in the meantime. I guess I’ll have to start considering the cremation and ashes on the mantelpiece job if I am to maintain some consistency between words and deeds. Remind me to contact the Humanists!
Gerry said,
August 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm
F…in hell Sarah you might as well be buying indulgences. Less started the reformation. Wasn’t there an anglican priest that used to frequent these pages? Maybe he ought to make a serious bid to bag a convert. At E300 p.a down payments and someone will be tipping at the funeral itself Sarah (hopefully a few years off ) it’s going to work out as a pricey gig.
Sarah said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:28 pm
well instead of buying time out of purgatory, I consider it the rental of the church premises for landmark events and a 3m x 3m plot in the conveniently located graveyard. Property prices are high you know!