I KNEW IT!
Okay, I've just randomly run into this article by Giles Fraser, a vicar who writes for The Guardian and he has just revealed something which I had suspected but hadn't been sure on until now.
Several months ago, I was working in a Register Office. There I discovered that there is a strict ban, not only within civil marriages but the building as a whole, on anything religious. The whole area is strictly secular. I found myself wondering what the point of this was, since surely the British Humanist Association hadn't campaigned for this and why would anyone want to limit the freedom of expression within non-religious marriages?
The actual rule is as follows:
"The law will not permit the use of any wording, readings or music which may have religious connotations at a civil marriage."
So strict is this rule that every copy of the brochure for that Register Office has a white sticker covering over a picture on one of the pages. The page is about how to get a registrar in your own place of worship and the picture is a photo of a Church. While some might suggest that this is because it might mislead those who want a registrar for their Synagogue or Mandir into thinking they are not catered for, this would be wholly missing the point. The fact is that the reason for the censorship is simply because it is a picture of a religious building. It's that absurd.
So I reasoned as follows:
- The Church of England still has a strong tie with the Register Office. Local planned marriages are still announced in Anglican Churches and less red tape is required for a couple to be married in an Anglican Church than being married by any other denomination.
- There's been a lot of fuss over Civil Partnerships for gay couples (hence why we aren't allowed to call them "Civil Marriages") and, for the most part, same-sex marriages in Church are strictly disallowed. But this is not the first case where certain people have been barred for religious, but not civil, marriage ceremonies. In the past (and to some extent still today) divorcees are not allowed to remarry with someone else.
- So I came to the conclusion that the Church of England had actually decided to ensure that any marriages not allowed by themselves must remain strictly non-religious. Thus no one is able to have a somewhat religious ceremony with Bible readings, a sermon and hyms in a marriage not allowed in Church. As such a marriage can either be entirely non-religious and authorised by the state or it can be religious and authorised by the Church and the state. However, if the couple want a religious marriage to which the Church objects they can neither be authorised by the Church nor even the state. It's a matter of Church control, not secularism gone mad.
Here's what Giles Fraser has to say:
But I had got this one all wrong. There is no secular plot - indeed, the truth is almost the reverse. In 2005, the government published a consultation document on proposed changes to the current guidelines. "The religious organisations who responded were unanimous that no readings from religious texts should be allowed, even if they did not directly refer to the deity." The Catholic bishops were totally against allowing religious texts to be used. "Through secular use their particular religious meaningfulness can be diminished," they argued.
So, the reason you can't mention God in a civil ceremony is because the churches won't allow it. If there is any control-freakery here, it is from church authorities acting as though the Bible were their property and that they alone have the wisdom and responsibility for interpreting God. Members of the public can't be trusted to understand the Bible on their own or to use it respectfully. Just think - horror of horrors - what if a gay couple were to want a Bible reading at their civil partnership? Here, then, is the real scandal behind the prohibition of religious readings in civil ceremonies. It's all about monopolising the divine.
Fraser's decision in the next part of his essay to explain how wonderful the Reformation was feels a little off. After all, the Church of England who are in the best position to counter this nonsense. However, in his final few sentences he sums up the difference between secularism and this Church-backed censorship of religion in the public sphere:
There is no secular transgression here, for it grants religion no special privileges. It simply recognises that the Bible is literature too - and owned by no one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/religion.civilliberties
There's a few other articles by Fraser which are worth checking out:
A Christian snuff movie that links blood with salvation
- Giles Fraser explains that, if anything, Apocalypto is a worse case of blood-thirsty theology than Gibson's previous Passion Of The Christ.
On the Genealogy of Morals part 1: Meet Dr Nietzsche
- Giles Fraser talks about Nietzsche and why Nietzsche would actually be a better focus for New Atheism than Mr. Dawkins. He says that Nietzsche should be the "patron saint" of Atheism.
(Don't bother with Giles Fraser's book about Nietzsche though. After an intriguing start it goes quickly downhill.)
Several months ago, I was working in a Register Office. There I discovered that there is a strict ban, not only within civil marriages but the building as a whole, on anything religious. The whole area is strictly secular. I found myself wondering what the point of this was, since surely the British Humanist Association hadn't campaigned for this and why would anyone want to limit the freedom of expression within non-religious marriages?
The actual rule is as follows:
"The law will not permit the use of any wording, readings or music which may have religious connotations at a civil marriage."
So strict is this rule that every copy of the brochure for that Register Office has a white sticker covering over a picture on one of the pages. The page is about how to get a registrar in your own place of worship and the picture is a photo of a Church. While some might suggest that this is because it might mislead those who want a registrar for their Synagogue or Mandir into thinking they are not catered for, this would be wholly missing the point. The fact is that the reason for the censorship is simply because it is a picture of a religious building. It's that absurd.
So I reasoned as follows:
- The Church of England still has a strong tie with the Register Office. Local planned marriages are still announced in Anglican Churches and less red tape is required for a couple to be married in an Anglican Church than being married by any other denomination.
- There's been a lot of fuss over Civil Partnerships for gay couples (hence why we aren't allowed to call them "Civil Marriages") and, for the most part, same-sex marriages in Church are strictly disallowed. But this is not the first case where certain people have been barred for religious, but not civil, marriage ceremonies. In the past (and to some extent still today) divorcees are not allowed to remarry with someone else.
- So I came to the conclusion that the Church of England had actually decided to ensure that any marriages not allowed by themselves must remain strictly non-religious. Thus no one is able to have a somewhat religious ceremony with Bible readings, a sermon and hyms in a marriage not allowed in Church. As such a marriage can either be entirely non-religious and authorised by the state or it can be religious and authorised by the Church and the state. However, if the couple want a religious marriage to which the Church objects they can neither be authorised by the Church nor even the state. It's a matter of Church control, not secularism gone mad.
Here's what Giles Fraser has to say:
But I had got this one all wrong. There is no secular plot - indeed, the truth is almost the reverse. In 2005, the government published a consultation document on proposed changes to the current guidelines. "The religious organisations who responded were unanimous that no readings from religious texts should be allowed, even if they did not directly refer to the deity." The Catholic bishops were totally against allowing religious texts to be used. "Through secular use their particular religious meaningfulness can be diminished," they argued.
So, the reason you can't mention God in a civil ceremony is because the churches won't allow it. If there is any control-freakery here, it is from church authorities acting as though the Bible were their property and that they alone have the wisdom and responsibility for interpreting God. Members of the public can't be trusted to understand the Bible on their own or to use it respectfully. Just think - horror of horrors - what if a gay couple were to want a Bible reading at their civil partnership? Here, then, is the real scandal behind the prohibition of religious readings in civil ceremonies. It's all about monopolising the divine.
Fraser's decision in the next part of his essay to explain how wonderful the Reformation was feels a little off. After all, the Church of England who are in the best position to counter this nonsense. However, in his final few sentences he sums up the difference between secularism and this Church-backed censorship of religion in the public sphere:
There is no secular transgression here, for it grants religion no special privileges. It simply recognises that the Bible is literature too - and owned by no one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/religion.civilliberties
There's a few other articles by Fraser which are worth checking out:
A Christian snuff movie that links blood with salvation
- Giles Fraser explains that, if anything, Apocalypto is a worse case of blood-thirsty theology than Gibson's previous Passion Of The Christ.
On the Genealogy of Morals part 1: Meet Dr Nietzsche
- Giles Fraser talks about Nietzsche and why Nietzsche would actually be a better focus for New Atheism than Mr. Dawkins. He says that Nietzsche should be the "patron saint" of Atheism.
(Don't bother with Giles Fraser's book about Nietzsche though. After an intriguing start it goes quickly downhill.)