For refusing to go to Church?

@Ineedcoffee2021 Men in religion see housekeeping and childcare as women's roles, there is no physical attribute that makes women better at it

Again, you have a wrong viewpoint

I know of plenty of married priests who do most of the housework and childcare because they have more time (in the week) and their wives work. At weekends the roles are reversed.

At my last church whenever we had a "Faith Supper" (where everyone brings food for a meal and we all tuck in) the Vicar bought some really tasty dishes for us. He did all the cooking at home (except on a Sunday).

@Ineedcoffee2021 Could she have held the highest role in the church like a male?

I think you have a wrong viewpoint with this "highest" and "lowest" notion.

Being a Bishop isn't "higher" than being a Priest as people are placed according to their skills.
Just about every Priest I have chatted to doesn't want to be a Bishop. They join the Church to bring souls to God and try and spread Our Lord's Gospel to try and make the world a better place. They are "people people" in other words and like to work "at the coal face".

However, there are are some who are happier working in an admin capacity as Bishops and leading a team in a Diocesan role. They govern the diocese, ensuring the proper functioning of parishes, assign clergy, and oversee finances.

My great aunt was a Deaconess in the Church of England.
She assisted in administering sacraments, leading public worship, and offering pastoral care to the congregation, including visits to the sick and housebound. She also played a role in preaching and teaching, preparing people for sacraments, and leading prayer groups and Bible studies.
So it would not be fair to say she was of less value than the Vicar because she wasn't ordained, she just had slightly different ( and equally valuable) roles.

Could she have held the highest role in the church like a male? no
The church do not see a woman as equally valuable, just doing the busy work or they would also be allowed to hold the highest role and be ordained
Her role wasnt equally valued as it wasnt on the same level as the vicar and never would be. They would have always seen themselves as above her
She likely did much more for people but never would have got the proper credit for it
There is no physical attribute that would make her not able to be a vicar apart from the fact she a woman

Men in religion see housekeeping and childcare as women's roles, there is no physical attribute that makes women better at it
Men told they the 'head of house' after god and a good wife will obey her husbands and gods will
Why? what makes him head of house? Why not an equal partnership and say?

Aside from the fact that the OP hasn’t even mentioned her MIL to be wanting her to meet her friends on this church visit - why does it have to happen at church at all? Do they never go out for lunch or a drink? Does MIL never have people around for coffee or a barbecue? These options remove the issue of church altogether.

Why would OP even need to meet MIL’s friends anyway? I doubt any of my parents’ friends could pick my BIL out of a line-up.

to me I can see this segueing into "and have you booked the church yet" Oh and you must chat to Father Whathisname....."

Clearly you don't understand the dynamics of social interactions at a church.

To me, I can see the MIL2B to be beaming as she introduces her future DIL to her friends. It would simply be a:

"Can I introduce xxx's fiancee"
"Lovely to meet you - are you here for long?
"Lovely to meet you too"
"How are the wedding preparations going?"

Rinse and repeat.

This is not a dubutante's ball or a full on "at home". That would be weird.

Surely if OP's MIL simply wants to spend time with OP and wants OP to meet her friends, she could organise a social event that would fulfil both those requirements without OP, an atheist, having to attend a Catholic church service?

Attending a church wedding or visiting a NT property does not have the potential to set some sort of precedent where OP's boundries are continually challenged and MIL's expectations are raised about OP agreeing to a Catholic wedding ceremony and sending her children to Catholic schools.

From experience this is exactly the thing to avoid

Once you have stepped foot into the church once you won’t have any excuse about not going again when she asks and she most definitely will ask,

OP hasn't said that anywhere so I'm not sure where you've got that from?

“Can someone be driven by a genuine desire to be loving and kind even if they don’t believe in god?” isn’t a complex question at all though. Perhaps some other people of faith on the thread could answer if you’re uncomfortable doing so and have said you don’t want to explain further, as is your prerogative.

FWIW it’s not some sort of trick question. I find it refreshing when people of faith acknowledge that non believers are just as capable of behaving in good, selfless, kind and loving ways as religious people. I think someone of faith openly expressing that can actually help facilitate a more open and sensitive discussion all round 🤷🏻‍♀️

No hard feelings though, I respect that you don’t want to explain further.

This is a very complex question and would take a long time to respond to. I'm sure you are hoping for a one worded answer which I can't give you. I'm disappointed you didn't engage with what I actually said in my post and feel it's probably not worth trying to explain further. But for the sake of not sidestepping a direct question completely - I might question that they do not believe in God, they might not conceptualise God as some cosmic material entity, but I would be curious to know the ways they act against Christs teaching

See I did it really fascinating that your answer isn’t a ‘yes’ to what I proposed - which was simply whether the driving force behind some people’s decisions can be selfless if they don’t believe in god. I grew up in a religious setting and believe almost everyone there would have said simply ‘yes, of course that can be the case even if they don’t in god’.

I know a number of people who have dedicated their lives to service of various sorts for poor pay and scant societal reward / recognition (I can think of three women I know who are carers for the elderly in their work life, do charity fundraising and are lovely mums in their personal life, for example).

You would be very hard pushed to find anyone from any walk of life who wouldn’t consider them to be kind, loving and caring. Through their deeds and their choices which routinely put other people first.

Two of them are atheist, one is Hindu. Do you believe that the atheist ones can be driven by a genuine desire to be loving and kind even though they don’t believe in god?

Kind, loving and caring are all highly relative and subjective. Societies who don't agree on values are not cohesive or fruitful environments for thriving or productivity. The disagreements over what kind, loving and caring are lead to serious conflict. Its an interesting exercise to keep looking further - what do you consider kind, loving and caring in any given situation and why?

Every Sunday or just this coming Sunday, which is Easter Sunday?

Either way, this is for your fiancé to deal with.
"Mum, I don't go to Mass any more. I haven't gone to Mass regularly since X/Y/ZZZZ (or since I left home). I realise this is a matter of concern for you, and probably a disappointment too, and I'm sorry for that. As you know, TheGreyPony wasn't brought up in any faith tradition and has no wish to go to any religious service. We love you very much and value the bonds that tie us all together, but are both feeling uncomfortable about the invitations to go to Mass with you and kindly ask that you stop asking."

He needs to be honest with his mother. No need for rudeness, but he needs to make it clear that he is an adult who has made decisions for himself on his religious practice, and who will make decisions about the future religious practice of his family unit with you.

No! Tell her not to ask again as you will never go, & any further questions on church will be ignored. Should it continue ask her to join you on a nudist beach as you know she’ll love it, more than church.

So are you saying that a deaconess is a very specific role that is distinctly different from the role of deacon (which can be held by a man)? Because if not, the only difference is that you’re using a feminine form of the title.

@whathaveiforgotten My point was that secular laws have traditionally been very heavily influenced by the religion of the country in which they are made. By Christianity in the UK, as per my example. I’m not sure how you could disagree with that?

I would agree but not that the influence was necessarily negative.
The Church of England, as the established church, has had an impact on the legal system, and many laws reflect Christian principles and values

Many laws, including those related to morality, family matters, and social justice, can be traced back to Christian teachings and beliefs. For example, laws against murder and theft are rooted in the Ten Commandments.

Spin your head round and do a spider crawl down the church steps.

except the OP (who knows her MIL) sees it as a foot in the door to a church wedding and christened children........

@godmum56 houses of religion were used to "store" spare women.

Sometimes, houses of religion, particularly nunneries, were used as refuges or "dumping grounds" for unmarriageable daughters of middling and gentry families. While many nuns had genuine religious vocations, some were sent to convents as a way to address social pressures related to unmarried women

Nunneries provided a place for these women to live under religious discipline and away from potential social pressure. Sending daughters to convents could also be seen as a way to avoid the financial burden of providing dowries for marriage.

Surely this was a lot better than throwing them on the streets to earn their living by prostitution or selling them as slaves?

You’ve quoted someone who isn’t me. My post was in response to you saying (direct quote) “religious bodies don’t make secular laws that disadvantage women”.

My point was that secular laws have traditionally been very heavily influenced by the religion of the country in which they are made. By Christianity in the UK, as per my example. I’m not sure how you could disagree with that?

And I think sometimes there is confusion over the SAHM issue where it can appear people are saying the role is less valuable but actually (not always, but often) they’re saying it’s more vulnerable.

Should I pretend, and go to church to keep the peace? Or be true to myself?

It doesn't have to be either/or, though.
Going to church occasionally doesn't automatically mean you follow that religion.
The vicar isn't going to identify you as a non-believer and exorcise you from the building if you turn up with MIL.

People go to church (and the equivalent for other religions) for various reasons - to try it out, for a sense of community, to support someone who is religious, for a place of quiet reflection, because they are interested in the history or architecture, to attend a specific celebration (e.g. wedding/christening), or just to see inside the building (I went to a service in St Paul's because I wanted to look inside but didn't want to pay the £20plus charge, for example!)

I've been to different denomination celebrations/services for a few religions. As long as you are respectful while you're there, it's not an issue if you don't actually follow said religion.

Of course you don't HAVE to go, but if you otherwise get along with MIL and it means a lot to her, I don't think the 'religious' element needs to be as much of a big deal as you a making it into - you could just think of it in the same way as, for example, going to the cinema with her to see a film you're not that bothered about, or going to a NT property with her even though it's not your sort of thing - basically occasionally doing something you're not that keen on because it's something she wants to do and you want to spend time with her.

Let's go back to the original criticism -

"Most of them - a womans place is to serve and be the house slave for a man
Christianity, islam, all the same broken down
She is 2nd to a man, not an equal, seen as an incubator"

I don't see any complaint about Property Rights?

However, women could own property as far back as the Middle Ages, but their rights varied significantly based on marital status and legal traditions. While married women were often legally considered subordinate to their husbands, and their property might be transferred to them upon marriage, single and widowed women often retained significant control over their own property and business affairs.

Which is one reason why Elizabeth 1st of England didn't marry - she wanted to keep the power to herself (also the fact that her mother had lost her head by being involved with a man may have also influenced this choice ! 🙄)

It would appear that the author of the complaint sees being a SAHM a less valuable position than that of her partner/husband.

Now when someone on a thread a while ago said that SAHMs were "unemployed" the thread nearly burst into flames 😮
People were incensed at this derogatory attitude, saying it was an equal position to a man, and a very valuable one.

Now we have someone advocating the opposite. My brain hurts🤔

That "discrimination" works both ways.