±«Óãtv

You know, I haven't a clue what the offside rule is all about. Asking me for an opinion on the merits of its a bit of a non-starter, footballs just not my thing. I could give you a bluff answer but it wouldn't be based on knowledge or conviction, as far as i'm concerned 22 blokes running about a field kicking a ball and making millions doing it is crazy, paying to watch it is even worse.

I believe its a similar thing asking atheists their views on why some "Christians" wont attend funerals of other "Christians". Its not their thing and I fear any answer given may not be based on knowledge or conviction. From their perspective I can only assume it appears crazy at best and offensive at worst. Whilst that view is understandable, its not necessarily correct.

To many "Born again Christians" the ceremony of the bread and wine is central to their faith, the catholic view and doctrines of transubstantiation and the continual sacrifice of Christ are anathema. Attendance at a ceremony where a priest offers up Christ again is completely contrary to the teaching of scripture for them and if one truly studies scripture and holds it as the absolute authority in all things Christian its easy to see why they feel that way.

However, someone has died and that tragically. For the Born again Christian this question has always been a difficult one. Attend the ceremony and be seen to condone a practice you feel wrong or dont attend and appear bigoted and hard?

There will always be those who use non-attendance as a stick to beat them with for their own purposes anyway so its a no win in many ways.

What to do?

Personal choice I think.

I recently had this same dilemma myself.

Well, a friends father had died and the family being catholic the funeral was in a chapel. I have my own faith and views but at the end of the day my friends father had died. For me it wasnt a time to debate theology, it was a time to show respect and compassion. Indeed had I argued theology at such a time with my friend it would most probably have been the last theological conversation I would have had with them.

So I attended and was happy to do so, indeed it was good to be reminded that those of differing faiths or none are as human as me. Familiarity may breed contempt but lack of it breeds worse.


Peter Robinson has this same issue to deal with and it appears that life experience has changed his view, we should all give each other the room to change our minds (the room to change is often more scarce than the desire too).

Personally I can attend a friends funeral without hurting my faith and explained properly my witness (I hope). Its a big world out there, we don't need to fear it.


Beece

Hamilton is taking a step in the right direction, but if Northern Ireland had a non-sectarian education system this tiny step by Hamilton would be seen as something perfectly normal and not some sort of landmark in community relations.

Dont underestimate just how big a step this is for him newlach.

Its a question of maturity, not just for him, but more-so for those who look on, like you.


Regarding the school system, good point.

Well, good for him.
But we've had older Baptist-leaning friends here in the States who would not attend Catholic masses,even funeral masses because of their beliefs.They're good people but that's how they were brought up. In any other event they would be there for you, but just not at Mass.Which is OK in a free country.They have their rights, too.

I heard Normal Hamilton talk about attending Mass. I must admit he came across as a bit of a pratt - a real Norman No Mates.

I'm glad he's decided to change his theological mind for Ronan Kerr's funeral.

Part of this comes down to priorities.

There also seems to be a general assumption that not attending a funeral mass must also mean a lack of respect, lingering bigotry or what have you.

Hamilton's change of heart is interesting because he now believes it is appropriate for him, as a Presbyterian minister, to move from attending only some of the service, to all of it in this particular instance. I'd be interested to know the reasons for the change.

The theological issues remain the same and I presume Rev. Hamilton would still take a line on these issues. Perhaps the circumstances are such that Hamilton believes attending the whole mass to be appropriate. Yet it is hardly the case that he could consider it respectful to refuse to attend the act of communion at other funeral services and in this instance consider it disrespectful to slip out early.

Over the past number of years a 'civic religion' seems to have been developing around the political and social establishment, and in many ways funerals have been a testing ground.

This funeral presses a particular dilemma; a young police officer killed because he was a Roman Catholic, and then political and religious leaders refusing to attend the funeral because he was a Catholic. What kind of message does that give?

The only reasonable course of action, it seems, is an unequivocal one; attend the whole service and remove all doubt. The butchers who planted the bomb have failed, here we are, together.

Politically this makes sense for both Robinson and Hamilton; as I said, although I don't question the sincerity of either man, this is about priorities.

Effectively communicating solidarity with the family, community unison, and at the same time refusing to go to the funeral because of theological commitments, is difficult. So it's about priorities. What's more important. And both men have their reasons for thinking it is attending the service.

But as a Christian, and one with theological commitments within the same orbit as Robinson and Hamilton, it is interesting that they would make this choice. If nothing else it is the implicit minimising of the spiritual for the civic.

I guess I'd rather us have our differences and own them. And if by quirk or design it so happens that someone believes the Roman Catholic mass to be a blasphemous fable, as the 39 articles has it, the last thing in the world they should be doing is attending that blasphemous fable.

Beecefromsuff,

I haven't a clue about the offside rule either but then I never played football so why would I. I did however get brought up within a schooling system which taught the protestant religion and attended Sunday School, church, scouts (run by a Cannon) etc so at least have some experience from which to have a perspective.

To say that atheists cannot have view is to deny many of them their past experiences and in some cases beliefs. In fact being an atheist may actually be a useful perspective from which to look at the issue.

There are two things I would contribute

First is that I do not know too many atheists who would refuse to go to a service to show respect for someone who has died or to support the celebration of a marriage etc. The fact that we think it is a load of old nonsense is neither here nor there, it is the respect for the persons right to believe in their religion which is supported (not the religion itself). Chucking wine and biscuits about will have no effect on me as I will not be partaking (it is not compulsory) so what people think they do or don't turn into is irrelevant. I won't be praying or singing hymns (again not compulsory) so I won't be being hypocritical. My experience is that people of faith are quite understanding that you don't take an active part but recognise that you have shown respect and support by attending. I see all that as no different a problem to a person of one religion attending another's place of worship. The only place I draw the line is if asked to carry out a task which would require belief or respect of the belief itself (for instance I would not swear on a bible or swear to instruct a child in the religion as a god parent).

The second point was brought up later and it is to do with Peter Robinson. He is the joint leader of this clump ot mud we live on and as such has to represent all of the people in Northern Ireland of all religions and none. He cannot pick and chose which citizens to show respect to on our behalf in the same way we would do ourselves. His personal religion has to come secondary to his duty to the secular office he holds. To be honest if he cannot put the wishes and needs of the people over the edicts of his personal religion he has no place running for office to govern them (we do not live in a theocracy)

Andrew I think you have an interesting point - when someone labels another belief as blasphemous they are actually disrespecting someone's right to their belief. That is disrespecting their human rights. Now I am not surprised that some churches and 'a belief in human rights' are not well acquainted given their actions.

Overall I think that the issue of respect here is not one of respecting or giving credence to any belief but of a fundamental respect of the human right for someone to hold a particular belief (or none).

I think Dave the relevance of my offside rule analogy is that to truly understand the reservations a "Born again" Christian feels about attending a mass you perhaps need to be one, or at least understand whats really going on in the heart and head of a person in that situation.

Far too often those who choose not to attend are lambasted and criticised for their conscience, more often than not this is done simply as an excuse by others to "get the boot in". I have no doubt it is very difficult to take the stand that they should not attend, ridicule from the wilfully ignorant can not help either.

I do not doubt that you as an atheist are any less a decent upstanding person than any person of faith. I do not compare your lack of belief in God to a lack of humanity and common decency. I appreciate your respect for those who do believe in God and commend your non-hypocritical stance.



Re your second point on Peter Robinson. I think you are wishful thinking here, though he is the first minister of all he was elected by some.

"He cannot pick and chose which citizens to show respect to on our behalf in the same way we would do ourselves. His personal religion has to come secondary to his duty to the secular office he holds."

Sorry but I disagree. His religion SHOULD effect everything he does, if it defines him how can it not? You yourself state how you are not hypocritical in such matters, would you have him be so?
After all hes not a dictator and we do have a choice (quite soon actually) if we arent happy with the man and what he stands for we can simply not vote for him or his party.

"Overall I think that the issue of respect here is not one of respecting or giving credence to any belief but of a fundamental respect of the human right for someone to hold a particular belief (or none)."

I would add....and to live a life and make choices based on that belief.

Two points to make here;

Firstly, it's actions by Dr Hamilton; showing a willingness to tolerate other peoples opinions and beliefs in the face of criticism and even accusations of hypocrisy, that will ensure lasting pease in NI. Not politicians with their policies and rebranding, but real people doing things to show those on the 'other side' that we're all the same when you get down to it. If more catholics were willing to put up with protestant practices (not just religious ones, but political too) and visa versa, then it'd be a much better place.

Secondly;

"Sorry but I disagree. His religion SHOULD effect everything he does, if it defines him how can it not? You yourself state how you are not hypocritical in such matters, would you have him be so?"

If you're a politician, and you represent people, a variety of people, who hold different views and beliefs, in a secular manner, then religion -must- take second place to the good of the people. If you hold your religious beliefs to supercede everything, then you have no place in a position of secular power. I have no trouble with people basing their political opinions on their religious views, so long as they understand that forcing that belief on others in a political manner isn't why they're in power.

Beece,

I suppose if someone believes that another is blasphemous and won't go to another's service that's up to them, they have their right to believe and act on it. I may not understand it, I may think it is a disrespectfulness of the human right of another to believe what they believe, I may think it is an arrogance or pride that they think they are the only ones who have got the true understanding out of all the understandings (of even their broad branch of belief), I may even think they are daft. It may be hard for them to make that move but they should think about the people they are disrespecting and think about what they actually signify by their presence but hey - they have a right to believe and not be told by others what to do within the law.

The Peter Robinson one I disagree with you a bit. I agree that his personal religion will effect everything he does (as it should) but the role he is elected to is to serve all of the people (not just those who elected him). There may come times where he has a choice - do do what is right in the eyes of the law, the people and the rest of the elected body or to do what is right for his beliefs. His job requires him to set aside his beliefs in that instance. His job is not (as Iris Robinson once put it) "to enact god's law" it is to serve the people. Even Ian Paisley had to do things which he had stated went against his beliefs - though to be honest you had to be there to spot it.

So there are two issues - the Presbyterian Moderator is perfectly entitled to go or not, I would not lambaste him though I would think him disrespectful and my view of his beliefs would not be enhanced in any way. Peter Robinson on the other hand has to stand by the promises he made to the people to serve them as they need not as his god wants. I don't have much time for old Pete but I do have to applaud him on this move, and the fact that he had flagged it in advance some weeks ago so it cannot appear as electioneering. If he had decided not to go I would have every right to lambaste him as he failed in his duty to represent us where we wanted and needed him to be, it would be his failure of duty not his personal religious decision I would be lambasting.

Hi Natman

"Two points to make here;

Firstly, it's actions by Dr Hamilton; showing a willingness to tolerate other peoples opinions and beliefs in the face of criticism and even accusations of hypocrisy, that will ensure lasting pease in NI. Not politicians with their policies and rebranding, but real people doing things to show those on the 'other side' that we're all the same when you get down to it. If more catholics were willing to put up with protestant practices (not just religious ones, but political too) and visa versa, then it'd be a much better place."

Agreed.



"Secondly

If you're a politician, and you represent people, a variety of people, who hold different views and beliefs, in a secular manner, then religion -must- take second place to the good of the people. If you hold your religious beliefs to supercede everything, then you have no place in a position of secular power. I have no trouble with people basing their political opinions on their religious views, so long as they understand that forcing that belief on others in a political manner isn't why they're in power."


Not quite as simple as that for many reasons. I may hold that abortion is good for the nation as it reduces the welfare budget BUT at the same time conclude it is immoral and against my personal convictions.....which do I run with?

"If you hold your religious beliefs to supercede everything, then you have no place in a position of secular power."

Why?

Remember we live in a democracy, the only reason hes there is because people agree with his views. If they dont they can bin him.

Sometimes I think we simply want "public opinion meters" in power and not men and women of conviction. I would caution against appointing "public opinion meters" as public opinion can be manipulated and by extension policy.


"I have no trouble with people basing their political opinions on their religious views, so long as they understand that forcing that belief on others in a political manner isn't why they're in power."

I do not see anywhere where this has been suggested that this is the case?

In fact you desire the opposite, ie because he is in power he should be forced to ignore his religious convictions, which is as bad.

Dave.

I think we can agree that the whole thing comes down to respect.

In this case I think theyve all based their decisions on that and I too applaud them for it.

Beece,

""If you hold your religious beliefs to supercede everything, then you have no place in a position of secular power."

Why?"

Simply put?

I'm a secularist. There should be no authority based on religious conviction, nor should religious conviction be the basis for governmental policy. If the only reason for something either being allowed or not allowed is due to religious practices or the like, then it shouldn't be in the law.

Sunday trading restrictions, clothing, dietry or ornamental requirements, idolatry (such as the bizarre view that the destruction of a privately owned mass of wood pulp and ink pigments is iconclasm) and thought crimes (incitement to religious hatred? Eating pork could be covered under that if you think about it). All of them are inspired and enforced by those who seem to harbour the opinion that if you're a follower of a religious creed, everyone else should obey your beliefs in the, shock, horror and zomg! chance that you offend them.

Northern Ireland would be on its way to a much better place if people's religion was their own business and no one else's (that and there were no politicians).

Of course the 'secularist' argument works both ways; if it is illegitimate to bring religious conviction into the public square, then it must also be illegitimate for a person as a political representative to attend a religious service because they are a political representative.


On a side note I'd recommend reading Stephen Smith's book on secular discourse.

*"My favourite redaction in the KJV is the 'Johannine Comma', not just because it single-handedly demolishes the notion of 'Sola Scriptura', but because it does so in a way that is very illuminating' from a historical perspective, on how the theology of Christianity evolved over the first few centuries AD." *

Care to explain how it single-handedly demolishes sola scriptura or should we just take your word for it?

Second, it's not like the Comma Johanneum issue is something you've just discovered and us sneaks have been trying to hiding it; the textual history of the New Testament, including the comma, has been debated and discussed within Christianity for quite some time.

*"The integrity of the older version, the version naturally more likely to be closer to the original autograph manuscripts, was ignored for reasons of theological expediency"*

Even accepting it was for theological expediency, although I wonder how you know this, what is the implication you want to draw?

*"2. At some point in the late 4th century the text of 1 John was deliberately changed to reflect the new thinking within orthodox Christianity - the invention of the Trinity."*

This is historically dubious to say the least. More importantly, the exegetical case for the Trinity does not rest on the Comma Johanneum.

Eek, I haven't done that before!

That post was meant for the good book thread.

• The most interesting thing about these discourses is that they are always held during the whirlwind. People are therefore forced to make decisions often based on the context rather than a principle.

Dare we ask, what influence did the forthcoming election have on the politicians' decisions? What influence did the fact that Ronan Kerr was a PSNI officer have on Norman Hamilton's decision?

Likewise when we suggest that everything is based on respect, do we actually believe that? Are all views worthy of respect? If the next moderator, as previous ones have, decides not, under any circumstances, to attend a funeral mass, will we respect that? Had Ian Paisley been first minister and had he opted not to attend because of his religious beliefs would we have respected that?

Fundamentally my point is that frequently in fact almost always we only respect the views of those who agree with us or who follow the consensus, normally the media consensus but is that right, respectful or principled?

Your a bit cynical ultonian

Perhaps a little clarification is required.

Its not the view or opinion we're respecting but the individuals right to hold that opinion or view.

Lets face it its not a pious stand to take, people will hold whatever views they want accepting that they do doesn't make us superheroes.

All views are not worthy of respect, but all views are held by human beings, even if we dont agree with them we still share common existence.

All views are not equal, are all principles?

Not sure if this ties in with the discussion, but this was on Radio 4 yesterday
/radio4/features/in-our-time/
It highlights the universal social responsability aspect in Christianity & how it has been & can be an agent for change & for good.

Was the programme on Octavia Hill (the link is quite a busy looking page)

Only on this site would you find someone taking advantage of the murder of a Catholic policeman to attack Catholic education. It's just too pathetic.

Mccamely, people were only mentioning how a secular education might improve relations here. That people might not grow up thinking each other to be so different. That under different conditions- a presbyterian moderator going to a Catholic funeral would be accepted practice. My point about Octavia Hill is the social responsability of Christianity to others first, rather than the selfish beliefs of a minority who put their own percieved spiritual wellbeing before others. Your point in the other thread is right though, that we need more peacemakers and less mythmakers