AIBU to think that barring children from RELIGIOUS weddings misses the point about what religious weddings are for?

[Wamster]

A couple of disclaimers first:

Not religious myself. Am agnostic verging on atheist.

If the couple marry in a secular ceremony (NOT involving religion), well I don't think they are being unreasonable not to invite children. After all, all they say is the legal bits with perhaps a few personal words in their vows. Fair enough.

But given the fact that most religions are based upon concepts of community, family life, why do people think it OK to bar children from such events when they are a vital part of what a religious wedding is supposed to be about?

Also, is it practically possible to ban children during wedding service (it obviously IS for private party/functions after wedding)? Cannot anybody walk in off the street to witness a church wedding? I've been to a lot of weddings where casual passers-by are at back of church just looking. Or can the Vicar lock the door?
Isn't the fact that everybody (not just guests) can witness vows a vital part of it for most religions, anyway?

Weddings, religious or otherwise, aren't FOR or ABOUT children. They're about two people who are making a public commitment to spend the rest of their lives together, which may or may not involve them having children of their own, and they are entitled to make that commitment without having to raise their voices above wailing children. If you're invited to a wedding and it says no children, book a babysitter and let your hair down ffs. It's their day.

I'm donning my asbestos suit now but we did invite children to our wedding and it was great (although their parents whisked them all away early, which was a shame for them, as I have very happy memories of running round til midnight at cousins' weddings). But we did ask that children were "seen and not heard" during the ceremony, because we'd been to so many weddings where no-one could hear the vows due to some insipid parent refusing to remove their screaming child from the ceremony.

The vows I make to my DH for me would be more meaningful by being made in a church, even though I'm not religious, because I feel the weight of tradition and my cultural heritage around them, and they are a significant part of my experience of English weddings. Not sure that that makes them shallow. I have happily said vows as a godparent on the same basis.

Presumably the C of E feels like it might convert some who go down this route? And as far as they are concerned they would be marrying me "in the eyes of God", which is what they themselves believe is right. Don't think that this makes them shallow either, just a broad church

"Wamster I am not religious at all (agnostic / aetheist same as you) but am contemplating a church wedding. I love the tradition of churches and the solemnity of the occasion and the gravity of the vows; seems so much more real to me than the more prosaic civil ceremony"

The gravity of the vows that you don't believe in? Starting your marriage with fake promises and standing in a church you don't believe in to make something feel more real ?

Coupla sandwiches short of a picnic is what you are.

Its not just C & E vicars that will marry people who are agnostic.

I know a Vicar who marries agnostics sometimes and he doesnt mind but he does roll his eyes at the choice of hymns as ppl tend to choice ones like 'all creatures great & small' because thats what they know but its not exactly weddingy.

Anywho back to the point - I dont mind if ppl want to exclude children from weddings, quite often ppl don't make provisions for children or they make it a grown up affair so its not appropreiate. I went to one where they didnt have a disco just a formal sit down meal so any kids would have been bored.

No, just of a different opinion to you Winter. The promises to my DP/H won't be fake.

I happen to think of churches and the C of E marriage service as part of my cultural heritage, but am not personally religious - is that so weird?

Yes. Widespread, but weird. Churches are about religion, and a religious marriages makes solemn promises about that religion. Just because a lot of people bullshit their way through it because they like the ambience and the pretty pictures doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

Why is it hypocritical if I am upfront with the vicar?

Because you will have to say something along the lines of this Venetia:

I, N , take you, N ,
to be my husband,
to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part;
according to God's holy law.
In the presence of God I make this vow.

N, I give you this ring
as a sign of our marriage.
With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Do you believe in 'God's holy law'?

the Vicar should know better as well then and tell you to take a hike.

I understand Venetia's point. I am not religious and would not get married in a church because I don't feel it is appropriate. However, I do occasionally attend carol services and enjoy church weddings. I always think that churches have a very particular atmosphere, particularly old ones. They are places where people have gone to think about things other than their daily lives for hundreds of years. My late grandmother was not religious but whenever she missed my mum, her daughter who died, she used to drive to a tiny, old village church in the country and sit there and think about her. The vicar knew she wasn't religious but understood why she wanted to be there and often used to come and sit and chat with her, not about God or religion, just about life and death and things like that.

Old churches have been the heart of their communities for such a long time that, for some people, the weight of tradition is as important as the weight of religion for others.

"Yes. Widespread, but weird. Churches are about religion, and a religious marriages makes solemn promises about that religion. Just because a lot of people bullshit their way through it because they like the ambience and the pretty pictures doesn't make it any less hypocritical".

agree 100%, same for christenings which people "do" for tradition and the party and presents - have a civil ceremony if you dont mean what you are saying

thats different kungfu, thats not standing up and making religious promises in public.

Actually I find it quite insulting to people of a religion to appropriate their faith and rituals for your own ends.

"Guestzilla" - brilliant. Know a few of these.

"Most religions are based upon concepts of community, family life."

I get what you mean. I know at my civil service we wanted children out of the way to focus on genocide, tyranny, goat-sacrifice and eugenics...

If the church do is open for everyone, then that does that mean that I can pop along to Will and Kate's service?

TondelayoSchwarzkopf, to be honest the things you describe here tend to be prompted by religion not atheism. Atheists do not sacrifice goats. Genocide tends to be prompted by religious belief.

As for the rest, well I certainly can understand why church services hold meaning for the religious. Fair enough.

I can also understand why people wish to marry in pretty environments like a nice church.
What I cannot understand is how an agnostic/atheist can say that wedding vows made in a church have any gravity for them. How can it? The vicar may as well be saying:

With the love of Tinkerbell,
Peter Pan, and the cast of Glee

I suspect that a lot of child free weddings have come about because of some parents who believe their children are sooooooo wonderful and that everyone else should believe their children are soooooo wonderful as well. These parents are the ones who will not take a screaming baby outside and beam as their toddler/young child runs around, shouting so nobody can hear the vows

Consequently, the bride and groom make the decision not to invite children because it's more diplomatic to simply not invite children then to turn around to these parents and say "We're inviting other people's children but not yours because we cannot trust you to do the right thing."

The C of E are ok with me being involved in a church ceremony as an agnostic / aetheist; if they weren't, and I was pretending to be religious to get married in church, then I would feel hypocritical. As it stands, I don't.

I will take the vows to DP seriously and mean to keep them; I don't know why it is difficult to understand that the beautiful verses and traditional language resonate and appeal to my sense of history and culture. For me they emphasise the enormity of the commitment that we will make to each other; they are words that will have been said by my forebears upon their marriages for centuries.

*Wamster", C of E vicars aren't supposed to tell you to take a hike: the main practical implication of being the established church is that the parish church has a responsibility to everyone who lives in the parish, not just those who attend the church, and that includes a responsibility to conduct a (first) wedding ceremony. Some vicars would like to be able to refuse, but at the moment they can't.

Has it occurred to you that that your forebears had no choice in the matter as regards whether they married in church or not? That, deep down, they may not believe in this god business but were not able to say it and simply had to get married in a church?

I'm not even sure people have married in churches for centuries, anyway. Marriage as we know it today came about about 200 years ago because of a dispute over money and the churches stitched things up so that they were only places were people could get wed.

Or, alternatively, they did believe in Christ and therefore the vows did make sense to them?

I appreciate the beautiful verses and churches, too; they are nice places but this is not the same thing at all to actually making promises which invoke a being that I do not believe in at all.

Vicars probably allow agnostics/atheists to marry in church for financial/practical reasons. The Church of England's website says that the cost of having a wedding in one of their churches is around £260.

If vicars banned those whose reasons for marrying in church are anything other than because they believe they would lose a lot of money. This money probably goes towards the maintenance of church buildings and other costs of running a church, the lack of which may lead to the church being closed.

Just to say I realise my last post was slightly off topic but someone did mention wishy washy vicars so I thought I'd point out that some reasons for marrying non believers in church are practical ones.

Think we'll have to agree to differ, Wamster; clearly the whole church tradition thing means something to me but not to you, and I'm more concerned about the substance of the promises as I interpret them, rather than the whole "invoking an imaginary being" bit. (BTW have gone back over 400 years on bits of the Lanyon family tree, and churches always appear to have been in the equation for weddings)

When did weddings stop being about what the bride and groom want or what other people want?

When did they become the number one "I must offer my opinion" topic?

If people don't want kids at their wedding. So be it. Does that make them less of a couple? Less religious?

No it doesnt.

It is what they want.

I didn't want flowers at my wedding but I wanted balloons. Does that mean my wedding was shit? If so, I don't care.