Marriage and Atheism

[Theophilus]

Most other contracts.....

One question to ask is whether marriage is a contract or a covenant. Traditional Christian belief has been that it is the latter (it is not dependent on the partner meeting their obligations), but clearly the more common view now, in both Christian and secular society, is that it is a contract (nullified if the partner doesn't meet their obligations). I'm a hopelessly old-fashioned believer in marriage as a covenant, rather than a contract. But I still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

[JimC]

Most other contracts.....

One question to ask is whether marriage is a contract or a covenant. Traditional Christian belief has been that it is the latter (it is not dependent on the partner meeting their obligations), but clearly the more common view now, in both Christian and secular society, is that it is a contract (nullified if the partner doesn't meet their obligations). I'm a hopelessly old-fashioned believer in marriage as a covenant, rather than a contract. But I still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

They seem like 2 extremes of a spectrum, Theo (disregarding any religious aspect). The "contract" extreme can seem very cold-blooded, as exemplified by celebrity pre-nups. The "covenant" extreme could imply the absurdity of remaining with a marriage in the most appalling circumstances.

The human reality, as usual (for most of those who want to get married, anyway) lies somewhere in the middle. You don't spit the dummy and walk out at the first intimation that a partner is not holding their end of the "bargain" as you would expect, you do some serious work to try to preserve the relationship. On the other hand, somewhere down the track, a dissolution will be the best move available...

[Midget]

I too like digital watches but never really put any thought into marriage in the same way I'd never considered taking any children to have water dripped on their head. I'd completely forgotten about registry offices but they're a bit bureaucraty and I'd not swear an oath to god in a church, I'd just always assumed marriage was more of a religious thing than a legal thing .... other than the fact she gets 50% of everything if it ends.

I could pretend to be Greek Orthodox so I could get drunk and smash plates.

As a side question how quick do interflora deliver?

[FBM]

I passed up on an offer from a drop-dead gorgeous Korean girl because she was the local version of a fundie*. When I told her I didn't believe in gwod, she said, "I'll pray for you". I almost replied 'Yay', but bit my lip.


*The other reason is that I'd rather be shot in the face with a shotgun than take a chance on re-living the 2-yr torment that I've spent the last decade trying to forget.

[MrFungus420]

It's not issued by the church, it's issued by the government. It gives legal rights to the spouse (such as being able to make medical decisions if the spouse is incapable of doing so). Marriage is an agreement between people that is given legal recognition by the government.

Just for info, marriages may also have a legal status within the church in addition to the state.

No. They don't.

The church may have it's own internal rules about how they perform the ceremony, but those have no legal status.

For example, marriage in the Catholic church is covered by the Code of Canon Law, which is international law covering members of the Catholic church.

For example, this is not international law. These are rules of the Catholic church.

The only time people are likely to be impacted by this is they wish to remarry in the Catholic church, as the church (as Henry VIII knew all too well) must pronounce the first marriage void before a second marriage is allowed. The Code of Canon Law would also impact in a few other ways, such as two non-Christians cannot marry in the Catholic church (I can't I imagine they'd want to anyway!) and same-sex marriages are obviously not considered licit or valid in the Catholic church. Of course none of the above applies to non-Catholics, so it is a legal aside that only covers Catholics.

It's not a legal aside. It's internal church rules. Divorce is legally recognized even if the original marriage was performed by the Catholic Church. Second marriages are legally allowed even if a prior marriage was performed in a Catholic Church and never voided by the Catholic Church.

And, unless I am mistaken, they still need to get the marriage legally recognized by the government.

I can perform a legal marriage (legally, I am still a Wiccan Priest). My sister got UU certification so that she could perform the marriage ceremony for a friend of hers (and has since done several). But the marriages still need to be certified by the government.

[BrettA]

Compared to sole parenting, marriage looks pretty good in terms of long-term results for the child. (Do I need to cite that? Surely not, so I won't bother.)

Compared to cohabiting non-married relationships, marriage tends to last longer and be more stable: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... 022&db=all

Although the study was done by a Canuck, so may not be all that reliable. There are other studies showing similar results.

Marriage wins.

LOL... Well then, how'z about a cite for the rationale behind the second underlined passage dealing with Canucks and - what? - unreliability in studies? Especially given the similar results in other studies - was that just good ol' Canuck 'luck', plagiarism or what?

[Theophilus]

No. They don't.

Oh, yes they do.

(We could do a pantomime act together.)

The reality, I think, is that there are lots of people who are also governed by religious law (though Catholic Christians are likely only to be affected by marriage laws). Is this where we ponder how religious law (be it canon law, Jewish Halakha or Islamic Sharia) fits in with secular law? For me, for example, canon law would trump English law, and I could not/would not remarry if my marriage did break down (the Church recognises that secular divorces may be required to financially protect one partner, but the marriage still exists and so another marriage is not possible). Like Halakha and Shariah these laws only govern those within the particular religious community.

I think, in practice, it is a matter of both conscience and local culture how one views religious vs. secular laws, and in the UK there is little conflict for Christians as our law largely originated from Judeo-Christian law and with the Anglican Church still being ties into the UK legal system. Jews have long used Beth Din courts in their local communities. Rowan Williams was brave enough to talk about religious and secular legal systems existing in parallel, but in 2008 he was largely shouted down. In 2010, as Islam continues to increase in presence and confidence in the UK, I think we can all see now that Rowan was talking about something that is now becoming a wider reality.

[Thinking Aloud]

Is this where we ponder how religious law (be it canon law, Jewish Halakha or Islamic Sharia) fits in with secular law?

It fits in only insofar as its adherents believe it to be binding upon them. In the UK, at least.

[Theophilus]

Is this where we ponder how religious law (be it canon law, Jewish Halakha or Islamic Sharia) fits in with secular law?

It fits in only insofar as its adherents believe it to be binding upon them. In the UK, at least.

Yes, and one can always leave the religious group (though that may be hard in tight-knit communities and in families with a very strong religious culture). Of course the same is true for secular law; there are some that decide to leave the UK as they do not wish to live under UK law (especially those who wish to live outside of UK tax law).

But I think the reality is not as simple as you suggest, especially in more minority cultures such as Judaism and Islam where the religious laws are very closely tied up with a person's cultural identity. Additionally, a person may frequently risk being shunned by friends and family if they break cultural law or tradition (which can also happen if people move the other way, if they become a Muslim for example). There s a lot of peer and cultural pressure operating I think that goes far beyond being able to say "you don't have to obey that law". In fact I would go as far to say that cultural and peer pressures will usually dominate over secular legal frameworks.

[Thinking Aloud]

Is this where we ponder how religious law (be it canon law, Jewish Halakha or Islamic Sharia) fits in with secular law?

It fits in only insofar as its adherents believe it to be binding upon them. In the UK, at least.

Yes, and one can always leave the religious group (though that may be hard in tight-knit communities and in families with a very strong religious culture). Of course the same is true for secular law; there are some that decide to leave the UK as they do not wish to live under UK law (especially those who wish to live outside of UK tax law).

But I think the reality is not as simple as you suggest, especially in more minority cultures such as Judaism and Islam where the religious laws are very closely tied up with a person's cultural identity. Additionally, a person may frequently risk being shunned by friends and family if they break cultural law or tradition (which can also happen if people move the other way, if they become a Muslim for example). There s a lot of peer and cultural pressure operating I think that goes far beyond being able to say "you don't have to obey that law". In fact I would go as far to say that cultural and peer pressures will usually dominate over secular legal frameworks.

I don't disagree.

[Trolldor]

where the religious laws are very closely tied up with a person's cultural identity

That is the fault of a populous who choose to respect 'cultural identity' to the point of isolation. It's an absurd ideal to assume that we should just leave people to their own cultural devices, it's not what we should be doing at all.

[Theophilus]

where the religious laws are very closely tied up with a person's cultural identity

That is the fault of a populous who choose to respect 'cultural identity' to the point of isolation. It's an absurd ideal to assume that we should just leave people to their own cultural devices, it's not what we should be doing at all.

Hmm, but what gives you the right to impose your culture on others? Or is it your impression that only other people live in cultures, and you are a neutral culture-free arbiter? Would you seek to deny me my cultural identity and freedom to follow my own religious practice (which includes accepting the cultural norms of my religion)?

[Trolldor]

It is my impression that you stop people living in ghettos. It's not about there being a superior culture, it's about stopping them from being Isolated.

[Theophilus]

It is my impression that you stop people living in ghettos. It's not about there being a superior culture, it's about stopping them from being Isolated.

How would you stop people "living in ghettos" (remembering that the people themselves may prefer to think of themselves living in "supportive communities of people who share a common belief and culture")? And how would you tackle those of us who interact quite normally in the real world but still have a cultural sense of identity which extends to respecting the norms of our faith community?

I think the thing is BAA that secular society cannot impose its culture-free secularism on the rest of us, because we actually value our culture and value our community (the "cult" of the the "culture") too highly. We freely choose to live in a way that may seem too restricted to those outside of our community. Of course my culture is easily adapted to English culture, indeed the two are closely inter-twined, but I can still see how those from another cultural group (based on faith, ethnicity, or any other strong bond between people) may very much value their own culture and will never give it up. It seems to me that the secularist is doomed to failure and disappointment if what they wish see is an end to cultural identities and communities based on faith (or ethnicity); such homogeneity has never existed. No, I think Dr. Williams was right in that we need to consider how these different cultures can exist alongside each other.

[Trolldor]

secular society cannot impose its culture-free secularism

You've got it wrong, again.

It's not about imposing anything, it's about stopping Isolationism. There is a huge difference between saying "Our culture is better" and "There are other ways of looking at things."