|
Me and the secular police
I was wrong to blame the non-religious for banning God from
civil weddings. It's all the church's doing
Giles Fraser
The Guardian
Monday June 16 2008
I have spoken at dozens of weddings, but never at a civil ceremony. Being a
vicar, it was something of a challenge. "The law will not permit the use of
any wording, readings or music which may have religious connotations at a
civil marriage," is how the Weddings in Westminster brochure explained the
limitations. That seemed a mighty sweeping prohibition - I can get
"religious connotations" from pretty much anything. Under these
circumstances, what could I say that would be of any use to the happy
couple? Indeed, what could I say at all?
I phoned up the register office people to explain my plight. Things got
worse. They weren't sure if I could say my few words wearing a clerical
collar. And it was suggested that I might have to submit my script in
advance for clearance. I had heard about this bonkers state of affairs
before - of a couple who were banned from having a CD of Robbie Williams
singing Angels at their wedding because it was too religious - but this was
my first run-in with the secular culture police. This summer, all over the
country, wedding couples will be told that they can't have a Shakespeare
sonnet or Elizabeth Browning's How Do I Love Thee because it has some whiff
of the divine about it.
In the end I made a gag about the restrictions and spoke, tongue in cheek,
about the chemistry of love: testosterone, oestrogen, oxytocin,
phenethylamine. I made no use of the banned G word. Instead, I drew chemical
symbols on large boards that I then presented to my atheist mates Mick and
Nicky with the no-doubt hopeless explanations of what these chemicals
brought to a relationship.
But why have we prohibited from civil weddings some of the most moving and
thoughtful reflections on the ways of the human heart? Why are we allowed
only to paint from the limited palate of strict empiricism when this, above
all days, is when we ought to be making fullest use of the language of love?
I left the wedding grumbling to myself about secular control-freakery, all
pumped up to write something fierce about the way the secular has turned
into a campaign for the systematic eradication of all religion from the
public sphere.
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.
In 1401, Henry IV passed a law that forbade ordinary people owning a Bible.
Those caught were burnt at the stake. The Reformation did away with this -
the Bible was to be available for all and did not require a priest in order
to show people how it must be understood. Which is why, at a civil wedding,
the couple ought to be able to have whatever readings and music they choose.
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.
· Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney
|
