The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Las Vegas does not allow atheists to perform wedding ceremonies
Apparently in Las Vegas pretty much anyone can get a license to perform weddings -- Elvis impersonators, faux Liberaces, etc. -- except atheists. The rules are that in order to get a license you need to have ties to a congregation. The congregation can be as small as two people. But still, that's the rule. If you're not willing to lie and invent some kind of pseudo-religion that you're a member of, as atheist Michael Jacobson was unwilling to do, then you're barred from performing weddings.

Seems like a clear entanglement of church and state to me. Here in San Diego anyone is allowed to be registered to perform weddings for a day. No religious affiliation is required. So my sister was able to sign up as the "minister" and conduct the ceremony for me and my wife.

Link: Chicago Tribune
Categories: Sex/Romance
Posted by The Curator on Mon Dec 15, 2008
What a strange mess... But how much fun must it be to get to write a headline like "Atheist seeks same access to altar as fake Liberaces, Elvises" :-D
Posted by Erica  on  Mon Dec 15, 2008  at  06:25 PM
This seems appropriate to me. After all, when I think "place which adheres to religious dogma," I think Las Vegas.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Dec 15, 2008  at  08:22 PM
There's no such thing as atheist, just Pastafarians that don't know it yet.
Posted by Bauer22  on  Mon Dec 15, 2008  at  10:47 PM
Sounds like a civil rights issue smile

Of course, strictly speaking, atheists do not exist; Literally, "Atheism" measn "Without a belief systems" and since they *do* believe without solid proof that thier is no diety, they *are* believing in something. I prefer Andiest or Nondiest myself, but as has been discussed, I can be a condescending ass when it comes to being precise.

Still as NASA said about the Mars Orbiter, precise schemise.
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Mon Dec 15, 2008  at  11:06 PM
In Florida a Notary Public can perform weddings and there is no place on the application for religion.
Posted by geojen  in  gainesville, florida  on  Tue Dec 16, 2008  at  07:52 AM
"Literally, "Atheism" means "Without a belief systems""

Actually, literally it means "without god" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist).
Posted by David B.  on  Wed Dec 17, 2008  at  08:42 AM
David B, that seems an odd sort of definition, especially when the study of Theology can include religions and faiths that have no defined godhead, so calling it 'The Study Of God' seems innaccurate to me.

I was unaware that the linguists had dcided to muddy the waters between 'deism' and 'theism', but thne agian, they have also removed 'nun', 'minister' and 'abbey' from one dictionary as totally obsolete words for 10 year olds in England, and included 'database', 'lubricant' and 'attchament' instead.

Ah well, when I went to school, there were still some teachers bemoaning the change to a perfectly good legal term to make it a form of abuse - 'bastard'.
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Wed Dec 17, 2008  at  02:49 PM
Nevertheless, it is the correct one, oh stickler for precision.
Posted by David B.  on  Wed Dec 17, 2008  at  06:04 PM
LOL.

Still, it doesn't change my argument that atheists are a contradiction in terms, as most of them say they don't have *any* religious belief . . . And while the God part is true, they still maintain a belief system based on the idea that there is no afterlife or any of the trappings of religion, which therefore means they believe without proof . . . which is the very definition of faith itself.
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  AUckland New Zealand  on  Wed Dec 17, 2008  at  06:52 PM
Atheism means lacking belief in the existence of gods, not the supernatural in general. theres no reason atheists can't believe in animal spirits, reincranation or karma that I can see. Eg. many buddhists see themselves as atheists.

I don't get your second point tho. If they lack belief in something, thats not the same as believing it isn't there. So what are they believing without proof.
Posted by David B.  on  Thu Dec 18, 2008  at  06:48 AM
I have no religious beliefs and I'm an atheist. "How can this be possible?", you ask.

Simple - not all belief systems are religious in nature as you seem to indicate. Believing in or accepting something without proof is not religion. Religions are generally typified by belief in or acceptance of the supernatural.

I can believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. I can't prove that it will, but that doesn't make my belief a religious one as the rising of the sun is a comepletely natural and well understood phenomenon. The preponderance of evidence in our understanding of the natural world supports the idea that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, so to believe otherwise would almost certainly require invoking supernatural meddling. On the other hand the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a deity coupled with the fact that we don't need one to explain the universe leads me to believe there more than likely isn't a supreme being. It's not that there can't be one, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a point to one. Adding a deity into the mix just makes things more, not less, complicated. Therefore I can continue to live my life as if God doesn't exist.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Thu Dec 18, 2008  at  05:53 PM
Marriage is not a religious institution. You can have a non-r
Posted by Moriah  in  Midwest City, Oklahoma  on  Sun Dec 21, 2008  at  10:40 PM
I thought some of you may be interested in this. I came across it on Fundies Say the Darndest Things.

Now, while I don't think Dave F. Stuckey is a fundie, I will stand by my original assessment of him being a condescending ass.

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=54786
Posted by Madd Maxx  in  New Orleans  on  Mon Feb 02, 2009  at  12:27 PM
Maxx, there's no answewr to that . . .
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Mon Feb 02, 2009  at  02:40 PM
Like I said, I don't think you are a fundie. I was just floored when I happened across it.
Posted by Madd Maxx  in  New Orleans  on  Mon Feb 02, 2009  at  03:34 PM
NV State law makes it difficult for anyone to get a license to perform marriages, and the reason for that is incredibly simple. NV has and supports (by law) a very economically healthy marriage and divorce industry. In order to protect their incomes wedding chapels make sure that a person getting a license to perform marriages be licensed either through the chapel as an employee or contractor or has such a preponderance of supporting paperwork that your average clergyman is not going to bother going through that simply to perform one or two marriages a year.

Reverend Sindee - no, I do not perform marriages in this state at all.
Posted by Sindee  in  Northern Nevada  on  Thu Mar 19, 2009  at  05:13 PM
Chrybdis, I am in no way judging your values at all: As a scientist, I have to believe only in the things I can measure and determine by innstrument, measurement and reason. I do therefore, given the generally logical course of the universe, and even given the supposed random nature of soem of its events, that there is clearly some kind of guiding force or 'primium mobile' within or without it. Whether this force is mbeningn or malignnanat is the basis of religions, and I tend to believe that, if it exists, it must be capable of absolute power without responsibilty for any cation. Which must perforce make it malign.

Still, we certainly agree on one point I surmise: The state known as 'love' cannot exist.
Posted by D F Stuckey@hotmail.com  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Wed Apr 22, 2009  at  09:22 AM
ummm . . . Don, are you really in the US and are you also known as Jackson?
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Mon Jun 22, 2009  at  01:16 AM
The preponderance of evidence in our understanding of the natural world supports the idea that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, so to believe otherwise would almost certainly require invoking supernatural meddling. On the other hand the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a deity coupled with the fact that we don't need one to explain the universe leads me to believe there more than likely isn't a supreme being. Regards,
Posted by Joe  in  USA  on  Fri Sep 25, 2009  at  12:06 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.