Would you get married in a church?

[RDM]

You are taking something objective and making it subjective. A church, by definition, is a place of worship, regardless of whether you worship there or not.

To be fair, as far as weddings go, an Anglican Church is a place of business with generally a set rate for the hire of the building and an additional fee for the vicar. The Catholic church is similar but calls it "a donation" instead

 

[Nix]

not to me

Regardless, the building's purpose is for those who don't share your belief. Parliament would still be Parliament even if you were an anarchist.

It isn't simply your eyes versus anothers, it's the whole picture. There is you who doesn't share their belief and those who do share. The building was built and maintained for the latter - that is its purpose. Until religion becomes completely defunct, that is what it shall remain.

 

[Nitefly]

To be fair, as far as weddings go, an Anglican Church is a place of business with generally a set rate for the hire of the building and an additional fee for the vicar. The Catholic church is similar but calls it "a donation" instead

Well, that's the whole issue. Should a Church really be used a function room, from the 'consumer's' view?

 

[Skidder]

You are taking something objective and making it subjective. A church, by definition, is a place of worship, regardless of whether you worship there or not.

No, actually I'm being objective. Of course it's a place of worship, that is blindingly obvious, the question is whether or not that matters to an atheist and I don't think it does.

If you think something is based on made up nonsense, lies, half-truths and chinese whispers does it merit tip-toeing around it so as not to offend?

My point, which I think I made better previously, was that it doesn't matter to me how others view a church in this context, only how I view it.

 

[Skidder]

Regardless, the building's purpose is for those who don't share your belief. Parliament would still be Parliament even if you were an anarchist.

It isn't simply your eyes versus anothers, it's the whole picture. There is you who doesn't share their belief and those who do share. The building was built and maintained for the latter - that is its purpose. Until religion becomes completely defunct, that is what it shall remain.

Yes, I don't literally think a church is not a place of worship

 

[Nitefly]

No, actually I'm being objective. Of course it's a place of worship, that is blindingly obvious, the question is whether or not that matters to an atheist and I don't think it does.

If you think something is based on made up nonsense, lies, half-truths and chinese whispers does it merit tip-toeing around it so as not to offend?

My point, which I think I made better previously, was that it doesn't matter to me how others view a church in this context, only how I view it.

That's fair enough. Out of curiosity, would you be happy to have a drunken rave in a church, considering it is just a building, or would that be disrespectful?

 

[Hellsmk2]

I would get married in one if my partner wanted to.

I would prefer not to, because I'd rather not lend support to an archaic and oppressive institution.

 

[Nix]

Yes, I don't literally think a church is not a place of worship

Then why be so brash earlier? Say what you mean, we can't infer through a computer screen.

Also, you are not being objective. You're still using the first person as your reference point.

To be objective, you need to be looking at things from the third-person, as a stranger.

There's you (first), them (second) and the outsider (third).

Remove yourself fairly from the situation then you can be objective.

 

[Skidder]

That's fair enough. Out of curiosity, would you be happy to have a drunken rave in a church, considering it is just a building, or would that be disrespectful?

Good question!

I don't go out of my way to offend people (mostly) so I would only have a drunken rave in a church if the vicar was on the decks.

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Regardless, the building's purpose is for those who don't share your belief. Parliament would still be Parliament even if you were an anarchist.

It isn't simply your eyes versus anothers, it's the whole picture. There is you who doesn't share their belief and those who do share. The building was built and maintained for the latter - that is its purpose. Until religion becomes completely defunct, that is what it shall remain.

good post Nix

 

[snowdog]

Nope, I think the people who build churches should not waste their time and instead build something more useful, like a new motorway or railway line. Utterly utterly useless expensive buildings.


I wouldn't marry in one as I simply don't agree with the idea of the church itself.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I am not at all religious. I shall be getting married in a church

 

[martinturner]

That's fair enough. Out of curiosity, would you be happy to have a drunken rave in a church, considering it is just a building, or would that be disrespectful?

That would be hugely dependent on whether you like rave music

 

[RDM]

Well, that's the whole issue. Should a Church really be used a function room, from the 'consumer's' view?

It is the Church that is making that decision, so why not? They could quite easily have stuck to their guns and said "No, only commited Christians can get married here" but instead they have chosen to turn their house of worship into nothing more than a commercial function room. So if they are happy to do it, why should an atheist/agnostic/whatever not take advantage of it?

That's fair enough. Out of curiosity, would you be happy to have a drunken rave in a church, considering it is just a building, or would that be disrespectful?

Again, if permission is granted, why not? I have seen churchs that have been made in to offices, homes and even night clubs. They are, after all, quite striking buildings at times.

 

[Skidder]

Then why be so brash earlier? Say what you mean, we can't infer through a computer screen.

Also, you are not being objective. You're still using the first person as your reference point.

To be objective, you need to be looking at things from the third-person, as a stranger.

There's you (first), them (second) and the outsider (third).

Remove yourself fairly from the situation then you can be objective.

Sorry if you found my posts brash

I gave my opnion in pretty clear terms, so not sure what you have needed to infer.

Thank you for the lesson above.

 

[Nitefly]

Good question!

I don't go out of my way to offend people (mostly) so I would only have a drunken rave in a church if the vicar was on the decks.

Haha, good answer.

I imagine it would be hard to draw the line when deciding what is 'disrespectful' if a church truly is 'just a building'. I think partying is a good example as it isn't something we consider to be impolite anyway.

 

[Kol]

I love churches, but I am not Christian so I will not be having a vicar pronounce me as married. Much like I wouldn't get married in a mosque. Despite it being a beautiful building, it was built for Christians to make prayer and I'm not going to take advantage of that. My opinion, though.

 

[LordSplodge]

I have seen churchs that have been made in to offices, homes and even night clubs. They are, after all, quite striking buildings at times.

They would have been unconsecrated first though so would no longer be holy ground.

I wouldn't get married in a church because it is a place of worship and out of respect for the christians that use it. Same as I would expect a Christian to show similar respect to my places of worship.

They probably wouldn't though!

 

[Sankari]

If the church staff don't have a problem with it, then there is no problem.

 

[Smit]

I would get married in a church or a castle yes, even though I am not very religious.

To 'add fuel to the fire', do you think you could get married in a church when your partner is of a different religion? Buddhist/Muslim etc..