Look for advice.

How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony? Have 
looked on the net and there is very little material available.
Can't believe with the lowering (sic) of restrictions on where or how and 
the content of ceremony that it's so difficult to plan a naked ceremony.

Need help with:

I'm based in Eastbourne (East Sussex) so will be looking for a venue in the 
surrounding area.

For me it doesn't matter if the registrar is nude or textile. But is there a 
list of nude registrars?

Need a place for the reception. Do all venues have to now accept the wishes 
of the wedding couple? Or do Nudist lose out on this issue?

Would also like to do the traditional 'drive-off' in the nude..........so 
would be looking for chauffeur driven car ( I suppose I can't be too 
specific on the car, otherwise I won't get a naturist tolerant driver).

Will the police object to a group of naked people having the traditional 
photos being taken on the lawn in the possible sight of the public?
Will the photos (sign of the times) now have to exclude children? Do I have 
to get the parents consent?

Will getting a temporary liquor license at the naked reception caused added 
complications? ( I think I better get a stiff drink down Auntie Marge's 
throat, bless her, it's going to stressful day with all that naked flesh on 
display plus her having to remove her bra as a token of joining in).

Are there naked tolerant Hotels in the South for the wedding night? (to be 
able to arrive naked and perhaps have an evening supper).

I better start planning now!

Any suggestions?

Lynne
(Sorry to use Nude, naked and naturist above, but I needed to convey that 
not all participants to the Wedding will have signed up to the naturist 
lifestyle.......see my reference to Aunt Marge above).

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:54 Lynne wrote:


> Look for advice.


Standard recommendation in response to requests for advice on
uk.rec.naturist is to check out NUFF, the Naturist UK Fact File,
which evolved from this group's FAQ.  Home page
<http://www.nuff.org.uk>.  If it's useful and it's not on NUFF,
it should be linked from there.

Sure 'nuff, there's a page about naturist weddings:
<http://www.armage.demon.co.uk/nuff/activities/marrying.html>


> How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony?

Varies.

> Have looked on the net and there is very little material available.


Umm, don't need material for a naturist wedding?


> Can't believe with the lowering (sic) of restrictions on where or
> how and the content of ceremony that it's so difficult to plan
> a naked ceremony.


The change in the law was on locations which could be licensed to
hold the civil formalities.  The "content" of civil formalities
has not changed.  Ceremonies have always been up to those
involved.  Remember that the overwhelming majority of locations
licensed to hold civil marriages treat weddings as an important
source of income and profit - and that includes many/most
churches.  If you can make it clear to the venue that there's
money in it for them, then you should find things easier.  If the
venue thinks there is more hassle and cost than justifies the
return, they won't be interested.

It's possible that a couple could invoke the Human Rights Act and
require the state to allow them to have a civil ceremony in a
register office which gave due respect to their naturist beliefs
under the "private life" provisions, but I suspect this would be
a very long, arduous and expensive process - with little prospect
of success.


> I'm based in Eastbourne (East Sussex) so will be looking for a
> venue in the surrounding area.


Large hotels?  Or simply get the civil formalities over at a
registry office then have the ceremony of your choice with the
officiator of your choice at a naturist club or a naturist beach
or in a suitable private house/garden?  I believe that in some
countries, it is quite normal to have completely distinct civil
and personal/religious marriages, with one or the other having
the majority of the expenditure of time and elaboration,
depending on the views and wishes of the couple and their
friends/family.  That is precisely what Prince Charles and
Camilla Parker-Bowles did - a relatively small and private civil
ceremony at a register office, followed by a lavish church
blessing with a large congregation (and an enormous TV audience).


> Need a place for the reception. Do all venues have to now
> accept the wishes of the wedding couple? Or do Nudist
> lose out on this issue?


I would expect any hired out venue to have their particular
conditions of hire.  Which might include dress code.  I can't see
that any venue is under any obligation to accept the wishes of
anybody, other than as expressed in the contract between the
parties.


> Will the police object to a group of naked people having
> the traditional photos being taken on the lawn in the possible
> sight of the public?


If the assembly is sufficiently in sight to cause possible
distraction to drivers, or alleged possible offence to
hypothetical bigots, then the police _might_ intervene.  At least
one of Steve Gough's arrests in Scotland was on the basis that he
was potentially distracting drivers.  And particular adverts on
hoardings have been taken down on the basis of similar arguments.
And art nudes (paintings and sculptures) have been removed from
displays in window displays following alleged concerns of
possibility of causing offence.   But all that takes time.  I
suspect even a tardy wedding photographer would have done all
that needed doing before the cops could turn up!


> Will the photos (sign of the times) now have to exclude
> children?


There's no "have to" about it - it's a matter of personal choice.
Again, there's information about photography of naturist children
on NUFF:
<http://www.forcers.org.uk/nuffoto/kids.htm>


> Do I have to get the parents consent?


IMO, that is only common courtesy.

HTH,

-- 
Tim Forcer               tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

In message , Lynne 
 writes

>Look for advice.
>
>How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony? Have
>looked on the net and there is very little material available.
>Can't believe with the lowering (sic) of restrictions on where or how and
>the content of ceremony that it's so difficult to plan a naked ceremony.


First of all, you may find it helpful to regard the wedding as a whole 
as a series of connected events which may or may not be held at the same 
venue. In your case you may find that parts (but not all) of the day 
need to be clothes-optional.

In particular, be prepared for the registrar to have an opinion! For 
example, it seems 'normal' for the registrar to insist that no food nor 
drink be visible during the civil ceremony. At a wedding that I attended 
recently, a pagan blessing ceremony was held the previous evening (not 
sky-clad). On the day itself, there was a short interval between the 
civil ceremony and the reception while tables where moved in and chairs 
rearranged. Further rearrangement was required in the early evening in 
preparation for dancing and a late night buffet. The couple in question 
turned this imposed framework to their advantage in order to give shape 
and coherence to what was a very happy occasion.

Such an approach would seem to be a good idea if you find too many 
obstacles placed in the way of continuous wall-to-wall nudity for the 
whole day!

Alternatively, is it possible to base the event around a landed naturist 
club or venue? Places such as the Naturist Foundation and the White 
House come to mind.

-- 
Mike Hopkins
Swim? Naturally with MADNAT
<http://www.madnat.org/>

In message , Lynne 
 writes

>Look for advice.
>
>How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony? Have
>looked on the net and there is very little material available.
>Can't believe with the lowering (sic) of restrictions on where or how and
>the content of ceremony that it's so difficult to plan a naked ceremony.
>

The first thing to remember, if the ceremony is held in England and 
Wales, is that a wedding ceremony is a public occasion to which the 
public legally have right of access.

There is no such restriction on the reception of course.

I understand that there are no obstacles to nude weddings in France and 
some states of the US, as long as you can find a willing officiant.
-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of CCBN or any other organisation
email: c-o@spamex.com
Yahoo instant messenger: gymnophileuk

While I believe this is a TROLL, if genuine, let me know and I will get you 
a good deal on professional photography, AND put you in touch with contacts 
for all you need.

I would be AMAZED if this was genuine, however my company has photographed 
natuist weddings before and we have a contact database for other 
information.

Clive



"Lynne"  wrote in message 
news:2NydnYu7zafm7JzeRVnygw@pipex.net...

> Look for advice.
>
> How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony? Have 
> looked on the net and there is very little material available.
> Can't believe with the lowering (sic) of restrictions on where or how and 
> the content of ceremony that it's so difficult to plan a naked ceremony.
>
> Need help with:
>
> I'm based in Eastbourne (East Sussex) so will be looking for a venue in 
> the surrounding area.
>
> For me it doesn't matter if the registrar is nude or textile. But is there 
> a list of nude registrars?
>
> Need a place for the reception. Do all venues have to now accept the 
> wishes of the wedding couple? Or do Nudist lose out on this issue?
>
> Would also like to do the traditional 'drive-off' in the nude..........so 
> would be looking for chauffeur driven car ( I suppose I can't be too 
> specific on the car, otherwise I won't get a naturist tolerant driver).
>
> Will the police object to a group of naked people having the traditional 
> photos being taken on the lawn in the possible sight of the public?
> Will the photos (sign of the times) now have to exclude children? Do I 
> have to get the parents consent?
>
> Will getting a temporary liquor license at the naked reception caused 
> added complications? ( I think I better get a stiff drink down Auntie 
> Marge's throat, bless her, it's going to stressful day with all that naked 
> flesh on display plus her having to remove her bra as a token of joining 
> in).
>
> Are there naked tolerant Hotels in the South for the wedding night? (to be 
> able to arrive naked and perhaps have an evening supper).
>
> I better start planning now!
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Lynne
> (Sorry to use Nude, naked and naturist above, but I needed to convey that 
> not all participants to the Wedding will have signed up to the naturist 
> lifestyle.......see my reference to Aunt Marge above).
> 

In England and Wales a legally binding wedding can ONLY be taken by a 
Registrar. Many Vicars of CofE are also Deputy Registrars and so they 
can do a one-stop shop. If you want a secular or Humanist wedding 
celebration, then you have to have TWO ceremonies. The legally binding 
one and then the real one (that is, the one that you will look upon as 
your wedding and is the emotionally fulfilling one.

I am a humanist celebrant and have been taking non-religious ceremonies 
in England for over 14 years. As it happens, I took a wedding in 
Eastbourne last Sunday! The couple had gone to the Register office on 
Friday to knock off the legal bit in ten minutes flat. You answer the 
questions, sign the paper and they change your tax code. You do not have 
to exchange rings.

In Scotland, the law has already been changed to allow humanist 
celebrants to take legally binding marriage ceremonies and the law in 
England and Wales will change in a year or two - but not yet.

I have not read the page on NUFF because I do this for a living and know 
the answers! However, I will try and find time to look at it and add 
anything that I can.

Feel free to ask more questions.
Simon

Lynne wrote:

> How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony?

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:06:55 +0100, Southern Africa
 wrote:


>In England and Wales a legally binding wedding can ONLY be taken by a 
>Registrar. Many Vicars of CofE are also Deputy Registrars and so they 
>can do a one-stop shop. If you want a secular or Humanist wedding 
>celebration, then you have to have TWO ceremonies. The legally binding 
>one and then the real one (that is, the one that you will look upon as 
>your wedding and is the emotionally fulfilling one.
>
>I am a humanist celebrant and have been taking non-religious ceremonies 
>in England for over 14 years. As it happens, I took a wedding in 
>Eastbourne last Sunday! The couple had gone to the Register office on 
>Friday to knock off the legal bit in ten minutes flat. You answer the 
>questions, sign the paper and they change your tax code. You do not have 
>to exchange rings.
>
>In Scotland, the law has already been changed to allow humanist 
>celebrants to take legally binding marriage ceremonies and the law in 
>England and Wales will change in a year or two - but not yet.
>
>I have not read the page on NUFF because I do this for a living and know 
>the answers! However, I will try and find time to look at it and add 
>anything that I can.
>
>Feel free to ask more questions.
>Simon


Er, the question was about "naturist" weddings not "humanist"
weddings.

Rik

Yes indeed it was. I was providing information about the status of 
weddings in this country. The enquirer did not say if they were seeking 
a secular or religious wedding.

I hoped that, by pointing out some of the legal problems, that it would 
give as much information as possible to as many people as possible.

Thus:
1) If they wish to have a religious wedding, they must find a naturist 
vicar.
2) If they want a secular wedding, they must go to a Register Office OR 
a duly Registered venue. This because, in England and Wales, both the 
person taking the wedding and the venue must be licensed.
3) If they want a wedding at a venue that is NOT registered, then they 
must have the 'double-barrel' ceremony. This because they may not find a 
Registrar that will allow them to be naked AND a registered venue that 
will allow them to be naked.

Hope that clarifies.
Simon

Rik wrote:
  > Er, the question was about "naturist" weddings not "humanist"

> weddings.
> 
> Rik

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:24, Southern Africa wrote:


> Yes indeed it was.


Umm, what was?

Oh.  scroll down and there it is.  Top-posting confustion strikes
again!


> I was providing information about the status of 
> weddings in this country.


Which was exactly how I read it.


> The enquirer did not say if they were seeking 
> a secular or religious wedding.
> 
> I hoped that, by pointing out some of the legal problems,
> that it would give as much information as possible to as
> many people as possible.
> 
> Thus:
> 1) If they wish to have a religious wedding, they must find
> a naturist vicar.


Umm, only half the story.  The vicar needs to be a registrar, and
while I understand that all CofE vicars are registrars, I'm not
sure that curates are necessarily registrars, and I am fairly
certain that many ministers of other religions are NOT
registrars.  Furthermore, even a naturist vicar might find they
had difficulty allowing nudity inside the church and its grounds.
Various stories in recent years indicate that some incumbents
have been able to ride roughshod over the wishes of their
parishioners and/or bishops, while others have been ridden
roughshod over by parishioners and/or bishops.


> Rik wrote:
>>
>> Er, the question was about "naturist" weddings not
>> "humanist" weddings.


Indeed.  But much of the information applied to all weddings and
marriages (taking the former to mean that part of getting married
which the couple regard as significant, and the latter as the
formal state-recognised process of converting two individuals
into a married couple).
-- 
Tim Forcer               tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

Yes, you are correct. I did not break it down into the different 
religions as there are so many of them! I would reckon that the chances 
of getting a vicar (that is also a Registrar) to allow a nude wedding 
couple and nude guests in their church is unlikely!

There will be exceptions, of course, but if the couple are keen to have 
both a naturist wedding and have a church be a part of it, then they 
might consider a variant of the double-barrel. A naturist secular 
wedding (with a registrar) and then a blessing in church under 
conventional circumstances.

Simon.
Tim Forcer wrote:

> Umm, only half the story.  The vicar needs to be a registrar, and
> while I understand that all CofE vicars are registrars, I'm not
> sure that curates are necessarily registrars, and I am fairly
> certain that many ministers of other religions are NOT
> registrars.  Furthermore, even a naturist vicar might find they
> had difficulty allowing nudity inside the church and its grounds.
> Various stories in recent years indicate that some incumbents
> have been able to ride roughshod over the wishes of their
> parishioners and/or bishops, while others have been ridden
> roughshod over by parishioners and/or bishops.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:44:59 +0100, Tim Forcer 
wrote:


>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:54 Lynne wrote:
>
>> Look for advice.
>
>Standard recommendation in response to requests for advice on
>uk.rec.naturist is to check out NUFF, the Naturist UK Fact File,
>which evolved from this group's FAQ.  Home page
><http://www.nuff.org.uk>.  If it's useful and it's not on NUFF,
>it should be linked from there.
>
>Sure 'nuff, there's a page about naturist weddings:
><http://www.armage.demon.co.uk/nuff/activities/marrying.html>
>
>> How easy is it now for a couple to hold a naturist wedding ceremony?
>
>Varies.
>
>> Have looked on the net and there is very little material available.
>
>Umm, don't need material for a naturist wedding?
>
>> Can't believe with the lowering (sic) of restrictions on where or
>> how and the content of ceremony that it's so difficult to plan
>> a naked ceremony.
>
>The change in the law was on locations which could be licensed to
>hold the civil formalities.  The "content" of civil formalities
>has not changed.  Ceremonies have always been up to those
>involved.  Remember that the overwhelming majority of locations
>licensed to hold civil marriages treat weddings as an important
>source of income and profit - and that includes many/most
>churches.  If you can make it clear to the venue that there's
>money in it for them, then you should find things easier.  If the
>venue thinks there is more hassle and cost than justifies the
>return, they won't be interested.
>
>It's possible that a couple could invoke the Human Rights Act and
>require the state to allow them to have a civil ceremony in a
>register office which gave due respect to their naturist beliefs
>under the "private life" provisions, but I suspect this would be
>a very long, arduous and expensive process - with little prospect
>of success.
>
>> I'm based in Eastbourne (East Sussex) so will be looking for a
>> venue in the surrounding area.
>
>Large hotels?  Or simply get the civil formalities over at a
>registry office then have the ceremony of your choice with the
>officiator of your choice at a naturist club or a naturist beach
>or in a suitable private house/garden?  I believe that in some
>countries, it is quite normal to have completely distinct civil
>and personal/religious marriages, with one or the other having
>the majority of the expenditure of time and elaboration,
>depending on the views and wishes of the couple and their
>friends/family.  That is precisely what Prince Charles and
>Camilla Parker-Bowles did - a relatively small and private civil
>ceremony at a register office, followed by a lavish church
>blessing with a large congregation (and an enormous TV audience).
>
>> Need a place for the reception. Do all venues have to now
>> accept the wishes of the wedding couple? Or do Nudist
>> lose out on this issue?
>
>I would expect any hired out venue to have their particular
>conditions of hire.  Which might include dress code.  I can't see
>that any venue is under any obligation to accept the wishes of
>anybody, other than as expressed in the contract between the
>parties.
>
>> Will the police object to a group of naked people having
>> the traditional photos being taken on the lawn in the possible
>> sight of the public?
>
>If the assembly is sufficiently in sight to cause possible
>distraction to drivers, or alleged possible offence to
>hypothetical bigots, then the police _might_ intervene.  At least
>one of Steve Gough's arrests in Scotland was on the basis that he
>was potentially distracting drivers.  And particular adverts on
>hoardings have been taken down on the basis of similar arguments.
>And art nudes (paintings and sculptures) have been removed from
>displays in window displays following alleged concerns of
>possibility of causing offence.   But all that takes time.  I
>suspect even a tardy wedding photographer would have done all
>that needed doing before the cops could turn up!
>
>> Will the photos (sign of the times) now have to exclude
>> children?
>
>There's no "have to" about it - it's a matter of personal choice.
>Again, there's information about photography of naturist children
>on NUFF:
><http://www.forcers.org.uk/nuffoto/kids.htm>
>
>> Do I have to get the parents consent?
>
>IMO, that is only common courtesy.
>
>HTH,



Posted a responce to this a few days ago but it seems to have got lost

There was a thread on this a year or so ago to which I posted a long
contribution.

Briefly and basically, as has been said, in England the ceremony has
to be public, in an authorised (licenced) place and conducted by an
authorised person. 

Local authorities are responsible for licencing premises. The
authorised person may be a registrar, CofE vicar (most are
automatically registrars because of history), an authorised priest,
rabbi or other minister of religion (not all are) or any suitable
person appointed by the registrar. The ceremony can be religious or
secular.

Put all that together and it is difficult, but not impossibe, to have
a naturist wedding in England.

Much easier in Scotland where the weding can be private, take place
anywhere (even on top of a mountain) and only needs an authorised
person to do it.

Regards

Ronnie

In all of the following, I am referring to a legally binding wedding 
ceremony in England or Wales, under current law.

Tim Forcer wrote:

> The change in the law was on locations which could be licensed to
> hold the civil formalities.  

Correct. This was the 1994 change that enabled hotels and stately homes 
to charge a lot of money for doing very little. It also allowed the 
Registrars to charge as much as they liked to come out of their office 
and attend at the venue. They could also charge the venue whatever they 
liked for said license. Accordingly, charges vary across the country.

The "content" of civil formalities

> has not changed.

It has now. After a number of years the Registrars allow many more 
readings and alternative music and so forth. But they must approve 
EVERYTHING beforehand. For example, if is a wedding taken by a 
Registrar, then that ceremony may NOT contain anything religious. No 
prayers or hymns at all, of any kind.

   Ceremonies have always been up to those

> involved.  


Not really. The Registrar can veto anything they 'think' is not 
appropriate to the ceremony (see above). In this regard it is similar to 
many other areas of discretion given to people in this country without 
much by way of guideline. One example is the way that public nudity is 
viewed by people in authority!

Secondly, the vicar/priest/rabbi has total veto of anything said in 
their religious building.

Remember that the overwhelming majority of locations

> licensed to hold civil marriages treat weddings as an important
> source of income and profit - and that includes many/most
> churches.  If you can make it clear to the venue that there's
> money in it for them, then you should find things easier.  If the
> venue thinks there is more hassle and cost than justifies the
> return, they won't be interested.

Commercial venues will accept many things but the Register attending at 
that commercial venue might not! Anything that takes place inside the 
room that has been licensed is under the jurisdiction of the Registrar. 
The room is, for the time that the Registrar is present, for all intents 
and purposes AT the Register Office. So the venue management get NO say 
on what happens in that room. They might make the whole venue/hotel 
naturist but if the Registrar does not agree - it will not happen.


> Large hotels?  Or simply get the civil formalities over at a
> registry office then have the ceremony of your choice with the
> officiator of your choice at a naturist club or a naturist beach
> or in a suitable private house/garden?  

That was my suggestion from the outset because of the enormous 
difficulties in getting religions or registrars to agree.

I believe that in some

> countries, it is quite normal to have completely distinct civil
> and personal/religious marriages,

Yes, France for one. You must be married legally in the Town Hall as 
well as going to church. If you want the full explanation that ask!

Sorry to go on at length but I have been involved in secular weddings 
for 14 years (took another one this afternoon) and know this subject well.

Simon

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:53:29 +0100, Southern Africa
 wrote:


>It has now. After a number of years the Registrars allow many more 
>readings and alternative music and so forth. But they must approve 
>EVERYTHING beforehand. For example, if is a wedding taken by a 
>Registrar, then that ceremony may NOT contain anything religious. No 
>prayers or hymns at all, of any kind.


I think there are proposals to change this so that some religious
references may be allowed. See http://tinyurl.com/dbcnf

The full URL if you prefer is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/14/nwed14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/14/ixhome.html

Rik

"Rik"  wrote in message 
news:08ehg1tu9ou84iet5jblnot11socutteov@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:53:29 +0100, Southern Africa
>  wrote:
>
>>It has now. After a number of years the Registrars allow many more
>>readings and alternative music and so forth. But they must approve
>>EVERYTHING beforehand. For example, if is a wedding taken by a
>>Registrar, then that ceremony may NOT contain anything religious. No
>>prayers or hymns at all, of any kind.
>
> I think there are proposals to change this so that some religious
> references may be allowed. See http://tinyurl.com/dbcnf
>

As someone without religious convictions myself  I regard the present rules 
as, quite frankly, bloody stupid. Why shouldn't a civil marriage include 
some religious element if the couple want it, what business of the 
registrar, the state, or anyone else is it?

David.

"David Looser"  wrote in message 
news:3mrup9F17vd13U1@individual.net...

> "Rik"  wrote in message 
> news:08ehg1tu9ou84iet5jblnot11socutteov@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:53:29 +0100, Southern Africa
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>It has now. After a number of years the Registrars allow many more
>>>readings and alternative music and so forth. But they must approve
>>>EVERYTHING beforehand. For example, if is a wedding taken by a
>>>Registrar, then that ceremony may NOT contain anything religious. No
>>>prayers or hymns at all, of any kind.
>>
>> I think there are proposals to change this so that some religious
>> references may be allowed. See http://tinyurl.com/dbcnf
>>
> As someone without religious convictions myself  I regard the present 
> rules as, quite frankly, bloody stupid. Why shouldn't a civil marriage 
> include some religious element if the couple want it, what business of the 
> registrar, the state, or anyone else is it?
>
> David.


As someone WITH religious convictions, I agree with David ! People have 
different approaches to religions so a 'bog standard' Church service may not 
be what they can 'sign up to', so I see no reason not to let them design 
their own a bit. It's their marriage just as its their life.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:17:11 +0100, "David Looser"
 wrote:


>"Rik"  wrote in message 
>news:08ehg1tu9ou84iet5jblnot11socutteov@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:53:29 +0100, Southern Africa
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>It has now. After a number of years the Registrars allow many more
>>>readings and alternative music and so forth. But they must approve
>>>EVERYTHING beforehand. For example, if is a wedding taken by a
>>>Registrar, then that ceremony may NOT contain anything religious. No
>>>prayers or hymns at all, of any kind.
>>
>> I think there are proposals to change this so that some religious
>> references may be allowed. See http://tinyurl.com/dbcnf
>>
>As someone without religious convictions myself  I regard the present rules 
>as, quite frankly, bloody stupid. Why shouldn't a civil marriage include 
>some religious element if the couple want it, what business of the 
>registrar, the state, or anyone else is it?
>
>David.
>


AIUI, at one time most civil marriages were for folks who could not
get married in church (divorcees, etc) and the church was adamant that
there could be no inkling of religious approval for the marriage

Hence the ban

regards

Ronnie

"Ronnie"  wrote in message 
news:6t8jg1hfj3rh532mnfri0n4762v1q33b8d@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:17:11 +0100, "David Looser"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Rik"  wrote in message
>>news:08ehg1tu9ou84iet5jblnot11socutteov@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:53:29 +0100, Southern Africa
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>It has now. After a number of years the Registrars allow many more
>>>>readings and alternative music and so forth. But they must approve
>>>>EVERYTHING beforehand. For example, if is a wedding taken by a
>>>>Registrar, then that ceremony may NOT contain anything religious. No
>>>>prayers or hymns at all, of any kind.
>>>
>>> I think there are proposals to change this so that some religious
>>> references may be allowed. See http://tinyurl.com/dbcnf
>>>
>>As someone without religious convictions myself  I regard the present 
>>rules
>>as, quite frankly, bloody stupid. Why shouldn't a civil marriage include
>>some religious element if the couple want it, what business of the
>>registrar, the state, or anyone else is it?
>>
>>David.
>>
>
> AIUI, at one time most civil marriages were for folks who could not
> get married in church (divorcees, etc) and the church was adamant that
> there could be no inkling of religious approval for the marriage
>
> Hence the ban
>

Ah! the established church claiming a monopoly on spirituality - that 
figures.

David.

>>AIUI, at one time most civil marriages were for folks who could not
>>get married in church (divorcees, etc) and the church was adamant that
>>there could be no inkling of religious approval for the marriage
>>
>>Hence the ban
> 
> Ah! the established church claiming a monopoly on spirituality - that 
> figures.
> David.


Yes, that was the point originally. The state church wanted to withhold 
their blessing. The fact that some of us do not want their blessing ...

Ceremonies are moving VERY much towards a Pick-n-Mix approach. The 
churches do not like this, understandably, but there is zero that they 
can do about it. A church can only set out it's particular convictions 
and then minister to those who agree with them.

Civil ceremonies are also moving more towards that direction. For 
example, at the [secular humanist] funeral that I took today, someone 
very close to the deceased wanted to have the reading 'Footprints'. It 
was not something I could read but it was read by a friend of the 
family. Not what I would really want in a secular ceremony but some give 
and take must be made.

Our society is currently in the middle of a very considerable change of 
ethics and morality and the church is, of course, caught up in that. The 
simplest example is that the conversation we are having now would have 
been somewhat scandalous even 30 years ago. A bit like public nudity. 
Whew - back on thread!!

Simon

Duncan Heenan wrote:

> No. I remember 30 years ago, ie 1975. Such conversations were held all the 
> time and not scandalised. As a student in the 60's we talked about such 
> things ad nauseam. Ain't nothin' new.
> 

Sure, I accept that, I think that difference now is that these subjects 
are discussed in the daily press, on radio and television. Schools have 
to cover the full range of religious belief systems and non-belief.

There have always been groups that spoke 'out of time' with the 
prevailing mood but now it is public everywhere and not considered 
strange. That, I suggest, is a difference.
Simon

"Southern Africa"  wrote in message 
news:430bb639$0$3556$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>> No. I remember 30 years ago, ie 1975. Such conversations were held all 
>> the time and not scandalised. As a student in the 60's we talked about 
>> such things ad nauseam. Ain't nothin' new.
>>
> Sure, I accept that, I think that difference now is that these subjects 
> are discussed in the daily press, on radio and television. Schools have to 
> cover the full range of religious belief systems and non-belief.
>
> There have always been groups that spoke 'out of time' with the prevailing 
> mood but now it is public everywhere and not considered strange. That, I 
> suggest, is a difference.
> Simon


I disagree. In the 60's & 70's discussion, both in private and in the media 
was a lot more free, as we were all less hedged in with political 
correctness censoring what we could say. Nowadays on topics such as ' 
foreign ' (note the quotes!) religions, immigration, children etc you can't 
say anything outside the 'received wisdom' without someone shouting 'racist' 
or 'paedophile' etc at you. I think that real freedom of expression is less 
than it was 30-40 years ago on a lot of 'no go' subjects. I don't remember 
these 'no go' areas of discussion back in my youth.

On 22/08/05 23:34, Southern Africa wrote:

<snip>


>> Ah! the established church claiming a monopoly on spirituality - that 
>> figures.
>> David.

> Yes, that was the point originally. The state church wanted to withhold 
> their blessing. The fact that some of us do not want their blessing ...


It is good that we have moved on from the time when the blessing 
of the Established Church was a necessary pre-requisite to 
holding official office or achieving a particular status in society.


> Ceremonies are moving VERY much towards a Pick-n-Mix approach. The 
> churches do not like this, understandably, but there is zero that they 
> can do about it. A church can only set out it's particular convictions 
> and then minister to those who agree with them.


An established church (the Anglican Church in the UK) is also 
limited by the law of the land in what it can do, not just by its 
own constitution and particular credo. This could be an argument 
for disestablishment, but that would be well OT.


> Civil ceremonies are also moving more towards that direction. For 
> example, at the [secular humanist] funeral that I took today, someone 
> very close to the deceased wanted to have the reading 'Footprints'. It 
> was not something I could read but it was read by a friend of the 
> family. Not what I would really want in a secular ceremony but some give 
> and take must be made.


Your last sentence is interesting. Were you out to make a point 
by your "secular humanist" funeral beyond that of marking the 
passing of a life?


> Our society is currently in the middle of a very considerable change of 
> ethics and morality and the church is, of course, caught up in that. The 
> simplest example is that the conversation we are having now would have 
> been somewhat scandalous even 30 years ago. A bit like public nudity. 


The church in particular is caught between a rock and a hard 
place in this. If it seeks to reinterpret its teachings in the 
light of changes of understanding and practice in society, it is 
lambasted by traditionalists within and is accused of being 
spineless and unprincipled by some without. If it stands its 
ground it is called dogmatic and old fashioned. It's a lose-lose 
situation if ever there was one.


> Whew - back on thread!!


And I've tried to steer it back OT again. I'll get me coat.

-- 
+-----------------------+
| David C               |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
|                       |
|  |
| Replace NOSPAM with   |
|      undressed        |
+-----------------------+

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:45:26 +0100, David C 
wrote:


>On 22/08/05 23:34, Southern Africa wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Ah! the established church claiming a monopoly on spirituality - that 
>>> figures.
>>> David.
[snip]
>
>> Ceremonies are moving VERY much towards a Pick-n-Mix approach. The 
>> churches do not like this, understandably, but there is zero that they 
>> can do about it. 


that really depends on the particular church (at local rather than
institutional level) - many will seek to take into account as fully as
possible the wishes of the participants. There are limits of course;
the legal requirements cannot be changed and (if we limit this
discussion to Christian churches,  but only for convenience of
argument) then clearly the church will wish to include a Christian
emphasis - references to God, an understanding of the spiritual
dimension of what is happening and so on.


>>A church can only set out it's particular convictions 
>> and then minister to those who agree with them.
>

True, and most mainstream churches fully recognise that - the days of
seeking to impose a particular set of beliefs are gone - except for a
small but very vocal minority. On the other hand the churches must be
free to set out those beliefs in a clear and unambiguous way and
expect them to be treated seriously


>An established church (the Anglican Church in the UK) is also 
>limited by the law of the land in what it can do, not just by its 
>own constitution and particular credo. This could be an argument 
>for disestablishment, but that would be well OT.


Actually, established only in England.

>
[snip]
>> Our society is currently in the middle of a very considerable change of 
>> ethics and morality and the church is, of course, caught up in that. The 
>> simplest example is that the conversation we are having now would have 
>> been somewhat scandalous even 30 years ago. A bit like public nudity. 
>
>The church in particular is caught between a rock and a hard 
>place in this. If it seeks to reinterpret its teachings in the 
>light of changes of understanding and practice in society, it is 
>lambasted by traditionalists within and is accused of being 
>spineless and unprincipled by some without. If it stands its 
>ground it is called dogmatic and old fashioned. It's a lose-lose 
>situation if ever there was one.
>


Not necessarily lose-lose. It comes back to understanding what are
core principles and what is actually simply habit and accretion



>> Whew - back on thread!!
>
>And I've tried to steer it back OT again. I'll get me coat.


But perhaps putting on your coat takes the matter away again from
naturism!  Not that anything I have said here could not be said in a
non naturist group - and I'm even clothed as I type this. Tut tut!

Just a minute - I'll take my shorts and shirt off. 

OK. Is that better?


Regards

Ronnie

PS sorry - I've lost the sense of who wrote what in the thread.

On 24/08/05 10:53, Ronnie wrote:


> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:45:26 +0100, David C 
> wrote:
> 
<snip>

>>An established church (the Anglican Church in the UK) is also 
>>limited by the law of the land in what it can do, not just by its 
>>own constitution and particular credo. This could be an argument 
>>for disestablishment, but that would be well OT.
> 
> 
> Actually, established only in England.


I sit corrected. I was careless. I know that in Wales the 
Anglican Church is called the Church _in_ Wales, in contrast to 
the Church _of_ England.



>>The church in particular is caught between a rock and a hard 
>>place in this. If it seeks to reinterpret its teachings in the 
>>light of changes of understanding and practice in society, it is 
>>lambasted by traditionalists within and is accused of being 
>>spineless and unprincipled by some without. If it stands its 
>>ground it is called dogmatic and old fashioned. It's a lose-lose 
>>situation if ever there was one.
> 
> Not necessarily lose-lose. It comes back to understanding what are
> core principles and what is actually simply habit and accretion


Are you implying that being aware of criticism from all sides 
will encourage a more rigourous analysis of the issues in order 
to defend decisions etc. when they are made, thereby producing 
something positive instead of all lose-lose?


>>>Whew - back on thread!!
>>
>>And I've tried to steer it back OT again. I'll get me coat.

> But perhaps putting on your coat takes the matter away again from
> naturism!


A naturist leaving a naturist environment (unfortunately) has to 
get dressed (unless perhaps you're AndyC). Hence fetching ones 
coat is a suitable thing to do.


> Not that anything I have said here could not be said in a
> non naturist group - and I'm even clothed as I type this. Tut tut!


So am I. It's not warm enough in here to be nude, despite the hot 
air generated by this group :-)


> Just a minute - I'll take my shorts and shirt off. 
> 
> OK. Is that better?


Much, but don't catch your death!

-- 
+-----------------------+
| David C               |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
|                       |
|  |
| Replace NOSPAM with   |
|      undressed        |
+-----------------------+

"Southern Africa"  wrote in message 
news:430a52d3$0$22097$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

>>>AIUI, at one time most civil marriages were for folks who could not
>>>get married in church (divorcees, etc) and the church was adamant that
>>>there could be no inkling of religious approval for the marriage
>>>
>>>Hence the ban
>>
>> Ah! the established church claiming a monopoly on spirituality - that 
>> figures.
>> David.
>
> Yes, that was the point originally. The state church wanted to withhold 
> their blessing. The fact that some of us do not want their blessing ...
>
> Ceremonies are moving VERY much towards a Pick-n-Mix approach. The 
> churches do not like this, understandably, but there is zero that they can 
> do about it. A church can only set out it's particular convictions and 
> then minister to those who agree with them.
>
> Civil ceremonies are also moving more towards that direction. For example, 
> at the [secular humanist] funeral that I took today, someone very close to 
> the deceased wanted to have the reading 'Footprints'. It was not something 
> I could read but it was read by a friend of the family. Not what I would 
> really want in a secular ceremony but some give and take must be made.
>
> Our society is currently in the middle of a very considerable change of 
> ethics and morality and the church is, of course, caught up in that. The 
> simplest example is that the conversation we are having now would have 
> been somewhat scandalous even 30 years ago. A bit like public nudity. 
> Whew - back on thread!!
>
> Simon


No. I remember 30 years ago, ie 1975. Such conversations were held all the 
time and not scandalised. As a student in the 60's we talked about such 
things ad nauseam. Ain't nothin' new.

Duncan Heenan wrote:

> I disagree. In the 60's & 70's discussion, both in private and in the media 
> was a lot more free, as we were all less hedged in with political 
> correctness censoring what we could say. Nowadays on topics such as ' 
> foreign ' (note the quotes!) religions, immigration, children etc you can't 
> say anything outside the 'received wisdom' without someone shouting 'racist' 
> or 'paedophile' etc at you. I think that real freedom of expression is less 
> than it was 30-40 years ago on a lot of 'no go' subjects. I don't remember 
> these 'no go' areas of discussion back in my youth.


OK, that may well be so but, and this may sound like back tracking, I 
was referring to the topic of religion and death, rather than the wider 
political spectrum. I was in college in the mid-70s and I agree that 
conversation new little bounds. In this discussion, I am biased as I am 
an atheist and yet, curiously, deal with discussions about religion 
almost every week. When I visit family's to prepare for a funeral (or 
wedding/naming) there is usually one member of the family who wants to 
discuss my attitude to religion.

A funeral director said to me, "Twenty years ago, it was extremely rare 
for a family to ask for a funeral without religion. Even if they did not 
believe in god, they would not say so and just have the vicar. That has 
all changed now."

Simon

David C wrote:

> On 22/08/05 23:34, Southern Africa wrote:
>> very close to the deceased wanted to have the reading 'Footprints'. It 
>> was not something I could read but it was read by a friend of the 
>> family. Not what I would really want in a secular ceremony but some 
>> give and take must be made.
> 

> Your last sentence is interesting. Were you out to make a point by your 
> "secular humanist" funeral beyond that of marking the passing of a life?

No. I (and other Humanist officiants) should never use someone else's 
funeral to proselytize and in every funeral I always make time for quiet 
reflection and invite those with religious convictions to use the time 
for their private prayer. However, as it is a secular ceremony, it would 
be contrary to have religious components.

As mentioned, some people do conduct Pick-n-Mix ceremonies but I do not. 
Any funeral director that I deal with knows this. The reason is simple, 
I am an atheist and cannot say things that are contrary to my own 
convictions. Any more than a Vicar should take a non-religious funeral. 
It is just that our society is changing it's views on religion at the 
moment and many people do not understand the different 'points on the 
compass'.

Is that an answer to your question?


> The church in particular is caught between a rock and a hard place in 
> this.

Yes it certainly is and I have sympathy for CofE vicars who are at the 
sharp end of it


>> Whew - back on thread!!
> And I've tried to steer it back OT again. I'll get me coat.

As it is now 02:24 and the thermometer says it is 12C outside and 19C in 
here, I have my dressing gown on and hope that will be overlooked under 
the circumstances!

Simon

"Southern Africa"  wrote in message 
news:430d1e2f$0$21147$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> As mentioned, some people do conduct Pick-n-Mix ceremonies but I do not. 
> Any funeral director that I deal with knows this. The reason is simple, I 
> am an atheist and cannot say things that are contrary to my own 
> convictions.


There is, I think, a vast difference between asking you to say something 
contrary to your convictions and allowing others present to say something 
that is contrary to your convictions. IMO if a family wishes to include 
items of a religious nature that should be their right, just as it is your 
right not to be seen to be endorsing any religious view.

David.

On 25/08/05 02:26, Southern Africa wrote:


> David C wrote:
> 
>> On 22/08/05 23:34, Southern Africa wrote:
>>
>>> very close to the deceased wanted to have the reading 'Footprints'. 
>>> It was not something I could read but it was read by a friend of the 
>>> family. Not what I would really want in a secular ceremony but some 
>>> give and take must be made.

>> Your last sentence is interesting. Were you out to make a point by 
>> your "secular humanist" funeral beyond that of marking the passing of 
>> a life?

> No. I (and other Humanist officiants) should never use someone else's 
> funeral to proselytize and in every funeral I always make time for quiet 
> reflection and invite those with religious convictions to use the time 
> for their private prayer. However, as it is a secular ceremony, it would 
> be contrary to have religious components.


I think see what you're saying. Do I understand correctly that 
your aim is not to provide a "neutral" ceremony, but one which 
seeks to mark the passing of a person's life within a frame of 
reference excluding what is usually termed the mystical or 
spiritual. You are thereby making the point that religious 
references are not necessary in such circumstances, but it is not 
made for its own sake but is a legitimate aspect of the ceremony.

I can see that "Footprints in the Sand" could therefore seem as 
out of place as, for example, a reading asserting death as the 
absolute end of consciousness would in a church funeral.


> As mentioned, some people do conduct Pick-n-Mix ceremonies but I do not. 
> Any funeral director that I deal with knows this. The reason is simple, 
> I am an atheist and cannot say things that are contrary to my own 
> convictions. Any more than a Vicar should take a non-religious funeral. 

Fine.

> It is just that our society is changing it's views on religion at the 
> moment and many people do not understand the different 'points on the 
> compass'.

> Is that an answer to your question?


Yes, thank you.

<snip>

-- 
+-----------------------+
| David C               |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
|                       |
|  |
| Replace NOSPAM with   |
|      undressed        |
+-----------------------+

On 24/08/05 07:45, Duncan Heenan wrote:


> "Southern Africa"  wrote in message 
> news:430bb639$0$3556$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

<snip>

>>There have always been groups that spoke 'out of time' with the prevailing 
>>mood but now it is public everywhere and not considered strange. That, I 
>>suggest, is a difference.
> 
> I disagree. In the 60's & 70's discussion, both in private and in the media 
> was a lot more free, as we were all less hedged in with political 
> correctness censoring what we could say.


Whilst finding the extremes of PC absurd, I suggest that what has 
happened is that we're being required to think more carefully 
about the impact of what we say before we say it. That I consider 
a Good Thing.

However, when taken too far, PC becomes deeply patronising to 
those it purports to defend.

The pendulum did swing too far and there is, thankfully, evidence 
of it moving back in some areas.

 > Nowadays on topics such as ' foreign ' (note the quotes!) 
religions,

> immigration, children etc you can't 
> say anything outside the 'received wisdom' without someone shouting 'racist' 
> or 'paedophile' etc at you. I think that real freedom of expression is less 
> than it was 30-40 years ago on a lot of 'no go' subjects. I don't remember 
> these 'no go' areas of discussion back in my youth.


That sounds suspiciously reactionary.

Back in the good old days of your youth, like mine, it was still 
considered acceptable to insult groups of people in the name of 
humour. As a society we are beginning learnt more respect and 
tolerance. The sort of respect and tolerance we as naturists 
would like to experience rather than having crude jokes, sexual 
innuendo and fnarr fnarr thrown at us.

There you are - back on topic!

-- 
+-----------------------+
| David C               |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
|                       |
|  |
| Replace NOSPAM with   |
|      undressed        |
+-----------------------+

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:45:13 +0100, David C 
wrote:


>On 24/08/05 10:53, Ronnie wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:45:26 +0100, David C 
>> wrote:
>> 
><snip>
>
>>>An established church (the Anglican Church in the UK) is also 
>>>limited by the law of the land in what it can do, not just by its 
>>>own constitution and particular credo. This could be an argument 
>>>for disestablishment, but that would be well OT.
>> 
>> 
>> Actually, established only in England.
>
>I sit corrected. I was careless. I know that in Wales the 
>Anglican Church is called the Church _in_ Wales, in contrast to 
>the Church _of_ England.
>

Not to forget the Church of Scotland (not established) and the Church
of Ireland!

>
>>>The church in particular is caught between a rock and a hard 
>>>place in this. If it seeks to reinterpret its teachings in the 
>>>light of changes of understanding and practice in society, it is 
>>>lambasted by traditionalists within and is accused of being 
>>>spineless and unprincipled by some without. If it stands its 
>>>ground it is called dogmatic and old fashioned. It's a lose-lose 
>>>situation if ever there was one.
>> 
>> Not necessarily lose-lose. It comes back to understanding what are
>> core principles and what is actually simply habit and accretion
>
>Are you implying that being aware of criticism from all sides 
>will encourage a more rigourous analysis of the issues in order 
>to defend decisions etc. when they are made, thereby producing 
>something positive instead of all lose-lose?


Yes. That is certainly happening in the parts of the church often
described as "liberal" (and frequently dismissed as wooly minded,
which they can sometimes be)

>
>>>>Whew - back on thread!!
>>>
>>>And I've tried to steer it back OT again. I'll get me coat.
>
>> But perhaps putting on your coat takes the matter away again from
>> naturism!
>
>A naturist leaving a naturist environment (unfortunately) has to 
>get dressed (unless perhaps you're AndyC). Hence fetching ones 
>coat is a suitable thing to do.
>
>> Not that anything I have said here could not be said in a
>> non naturist group - and I'm even clothed as I type this. Tut tut!
>
>So am I. It's not warm enough in here to be nude, despite the hot 
>air generated by this group :-)
>
>> Just a minute - I'll take my shorts and shirt off. 
>> 
>> OK. Is that better?
>
>Much, but don't catch your death!


Seem to have survived - but I'm clothed again today - a lot cooler
than yesterday! (It was warm enough to be pottering about nude in the
garden  yesterday afternoon.)

Regards

Ronnie

Ronnie wrote:


> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:45:13 +0100, David C 
> wrote:
>
> >On 24/08/05 10:53, Ronnie wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:45:26 +0100, David C 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >>>An established church (the Anglican Church in the UK) is also
> >>>limited by the law of the land in what it can do, not just by its
> >>>own constitution and particular credo. This could be an argument
> >>>for disestablishment, but that would be well OT.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, established only in England.
> >
> >I sit corrected. I was careless. I know that in Wales the
> >Anglican Church is called the Church _in_ Wales, in contrast to
> >the Church _of_ England.
> >
> Not to forget the Church of Scotland (not established) and the Church
> of Ireland!


The point which David C appeared to be making was that the Church in
Wales was not established because it is called "in" rather than "of".
But the Church of Ireland so described itself when established (to 1801)
and unestablished (since 1869).   (From 1801 to 1869 there was the
United Church of England and Ireland.)   Other unestablished churches
also use the term "of", e.g. Church of Nigeria, Church of Pakistan.

I must say I thought the Church of Scotland was established, although
Presbyterian rather than Anglican.   Isn't that the reason the Queen
goes to Presbyterian services when in Scotland?

John

"John Goodwillie"  wrote in message 
news:430E2CAE.F7C3CE9C@indigo.ie...

> Ronnie wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:45:13 +0100, David C 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 24/08/05 10:53, Ronnie wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:45:26 +0100, David C 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>>An established church (the Anglican Church in the UK) is also
>> >>>limited by the law of the land in what it can do, not just by its
>> >>>own constitution and particular credo. This could be an argument
>> >>>for disestablishment, but that would be well OT.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Actually, established only in England.
>> >
>> >I sit corrected. I was careless. I know that in Wales the
>> >Anglican Church is called the Church _in_ Wales, in contrast to
>> >the Church _of_ England.
>> >
>> Not to forget the Church of Scotland (not established) and the Church
>> of Ireland!
>
> The point which David C appeared to be making was that the Church in
> Wales was not established because it is called "in" rather than "of".
> But the Church of Ireland so described itself when established (to 1801)
> and unestablished (since 1869).   (From 1801 to 1869 there was the
> United Church of England and Ireland.)   Other unestablished churches
> also use the term "of", e.g. Church of Nigeria, Church of Pakistan.
>
> I must say I thought the Church of Scotland was established, although
> Presbyterian rather than Anglican.   Isn't that the reason the Queen
> goes to Presbyterian services when in Scotland?
>

In my view having an established church is bad for the church,  and bad for 
the state. In all the recent fuss over Charles and Camilla what really stuck 
in my gullet was the argument by some of the old farts in the CofE that they 
"owned" the crown because the Monarch is head of the CofE.

The sooner we rid ourselves of an established church the better IMO.

David.

David Looser wrote:

> The sooner we rid ourselves of an established church the better IMO.
> David.

Hear, Hear! Although I acknowledge that the Church will be stronger for 
being disestablished, it would be better for the country.

Simon

David Looser wrote:

> There is, I think, a vast difference between asking you to say something 
> contrary to your convictions and allowing others present to say something 
> that is contrary to your convictions. IMO if a family wishes to include 
> items of a religious nature that should be their right, just as it is your 
> right not to be seen to be endorsing any religious view.

Well, if the family ask the funeral director for a non-religious funeral 
and then they want to bring in religion - there is a contradiction in 
terms. In a few years, the funeral trade - and the populace - will have 
understood the difference between Religious / Inter-denominational / 
Mixed / Secular. This is why some vicars get families who don't want 
religion and I get some who do!!!

If I was comfortable with Pick-N-Mix funerals, I would have been doing 
them for over a decade and making a lot of money. But I am an atheist 
and take non-religious ceremonies!

The same problem would arise if a couple ask me to take their secular 
wedding (non-legally binding) and then ask for someone to read from the 
bible. I do not do that kind of mixed ceremony.

Simon

David C wrote:

> I think see what you're saying. Do I understand correctly that your aim 
> is not to provide a "neutral" ceremony, but one which seeks to mark the 
> passing of a person's life within a frame of reference excluding what is 
> usually termed the mystical or spiritual. You are thereby making the 
> point that religious references are not necessary in such circumstances, 
> but it is not made for its own sake but is a legitimate aspect of the 
> ceremony.

Indeed! The important fact is to make a ceremony that is appropriate to 
the life of the person who has died. I often have widows say to me, "I 
am a regular communicant at church but my husband was not - and that is 
why you are here."

I do not aim to make a ceremony that is harsh or brutal about life and 
death and I do not harp on about my view that there is no life after 
death. The fact that I am an atheist and that this I am taking a secular 
funeral makes that clear. Also, of course, many people present will have 
religious convictions and I have no wish to be rude to them.

A religious funeral thanks the god for the life of the person and 
commends the spirit back to the god. In traditional (high) church 
ceremonies there is little time given to consider the person as an 
individual. This is why they use the (now classic) term "Our dearly 
departed brother/sister" as the person is seen in terms of the god, not 
of the humans. This is why many people do not like church funerals, as 
they can skip right over the human being that they have known.

Sorry to go on at such length but this is my area of speciality and my 
daily work.


> I can see that "Footprints in the Sand" could therefore seem as out of 
> place as, for example, a reading asserting death as the absolute end of 
> consciousness would in a church funeral.

Yes, that is it entirely. I know, of course, that some people close to 
the person will have religious convictions but if I have been asked to 
take a non-religious funeral ...? As mentioned, unless the person 
concerned was a strident atheist, I would not talk about that aspect. My 
job is talk about the human being that has been known and loved/hated. 
Recall those aspects of their nature that will be treasured and missed. 
Perhaps, delicately stepping over others. That said, highlighting the 
foibles of the person is also vital. There is no purpose in making a 
'Hutton Report' funeral as that will ring false.

Simon

In article ,
   David Looser  wrote:


> >
> In my view having an established church is bad for the church,  and bad for 
> the state. In all the recent fuss over Charles and Camilla what really stuck 
> in my gullet was the argument by some of the old farts in the CofE that they 
> "owned" the crown because the Monarch is head of the CofE.

> The sooner we rid ourselves of an established church the better IMO.


I have no feelings about "established churches" since I don't know what the
phrase implies.

What "sticks in my gullet" is two things.

1. How a church can find it morally possible to refuse to perform a
ceremony (marriage of a diverced person) but bless the arrangement? Either
it approves or it doesn't in my book. Not that I'm bothered much either
way. In my case, iF ya don't play-a da game, don't make-a da rules.

2. More important (to me). I got rather annoyed about sanctimonious
suggestions that C & C should be examining their consciences and repenting
their sins. AIUI, C&C knew and loved each other long before Diana came on
the scene and I reckon would probably have married if the country had not
had some established rule that the heir to the throne had to come from
titled parents. Without "our" demands, three people would probably have had
happier lives and a young girl (too young to realise that she was becoming
a royal brood mare not a wife) would not have been sacrificed to our whims.

Jane


> David.
>


-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

In article <430e5f9a$0$27022$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Southern Africa  wrote:

<snip>

 That said, highlighting the 

> foibles of the person is also vital. There is no purpose in making a 
> 'Hutton Report' funeral as that will ring false.


Interesting. So "Hutton Report" is becoming an accepted synonym for
"whitewash".

:-)

Jane


> Simon


-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

In article <430e5d62$0$32676$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Southern Africa  wrote:

<snip>


> If I was comfortable with Pick-N-Mix funerals, I would have been doing 
> them for over a decade and making a lot of money. But I am an atheist 
> and take non-religious ceremonies!

> The same problem would arise if a couple ask me to take their secular 
> wedding (non-legally binding) and then ask for someone to read from the 
> bible. I do not do that kind of mixed ceremony.


If you don't do that kind of ceremony, don't. That's fine. You don't have
to.

I can, however, understand people who find some parts of a doctrine
acceptable and other parts of the same doctrine, not, and surely they
should be catered for too. 


> Simon


-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

"Peter & Jane"  wrote in message 
news:4da05ff10bpeter.jane@ukgateway.net...


>
> I have no feelings about "established churches" since I don't know what 
> the
> phrase implies.


It means that the C of E has a special legal position within England & 
Wales. For example the appointment of Bishops has to be approved by the 
government, and Bishops sit in the House of Lords. In particular it means 
that the Monarch is the head of the C of E. Thus, the argument ran, members 
of the C of E had a special right to object to the wedding of C & C because 
that would mean a re-married divorcee as head of their church, a church that 
still refuses to re-marry divorcees.

>
> What "sticks in my gullet" is two things.
>
> 1. How a church can find it morally possible to refuse to perform a
> ceremony (marriage of a diverced person) but bless the arrangement? Either
> it approves or it doesn't in my book. Not that I'm bothered much either
> way. In my case, iF ya don't play-a da game, don't make-a da rules.
>
> 2. More important (to me). I got rather annoyed about sanctimonious
> suggestions that C & C should be examining their consciences and repenting
> their sins. AIUI, C&C knew and loved each other long before Diana came on
> the scene and I reckon would probably have married if the country had not
> had some established rule that the heir to the throne had to come from
> titled parents. Without "our" demands, three people would probably have 
> had
> happier lives and a young girl (too young to realise that she was becoming
> a royal brood mare not a wife) would not have been sacrificed to our 
> whims.
>
> Jane
>

And I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. Camilla is the wife that 
Charles should have had from the start. She is no more a "scarlet woman" 
than Diana was. Diana was a remarkable woman with many excellent qualities, 
but she was no saint.

David.

On 26/08/05 10:10, David Looser wrote:


> Thus, the argument ran, members 
> of the C of E had a special right to object to the wedding of C & C because 
> that would mean a re-married divorcee as head of their church, a church that 
> still refuses to re-marry divorcees.


Not true any longer, although individual clergy may refuse to 
conduct a remarriage on grounds of conscience. Details are here:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/mcad/mcad.pdf

 > "Peter & Jane"  wrote in message
 > news:4da05ff10bpeter.jane@ukgateway.net...
 >

>>What "sticks in my gullet" is two things.
>>
>>1. How a church can find it morally possible to refuse to perform a
>>ceremony (marriage of a diverced person) but bless the arrangement? Either
>>it approves or it doesn't in my book. Not that I'm bothered much either
>>way. In my case, iF ya don't play-a da game, don't make-a da rules.


See above. I think there was a time where what you said what 
true, and it was obviously a compromise, reeking of pragmatism. 
It allowed more liberal minded clergy to offer something for 
remarrying couples while it dealt with the slow and painful 
process of changing hundreds of years of tradition.

Our ex archdeacon very wisely once said that nothing happens 
overnight in the Church of England, except somebody dying.


>>2. More important (to me). I got rather annoyed about sanctimonious
>>suggestions that C & C should be examining their consciences and repenting
>>their sins. AIUI, C&C knew and loved each other long before Diana came on
>>the scene and I reckon would probably have married if the country had not
>>had some established rule that the heir to the throne had to come from
>>titled parents.


More than that, there's the vexed question of Camilla being a 
Roman Catholic as well. That's yet another historical anachronism 
that needs to be dealt with.


>>Without "our" demands, three people would probably have had
>>happier lives and a young girl (too young to realise that she was becoming
>>a royal brood mare not a wife) would not have been sacrificed to our 
>>whims.


What rights do we have to make demands of people we pay for from 
our taxes? Some, surely. Not that I really disagree with what 
you're saying, but there is another side of the coin.

<Back to David Looser>

> 
> And I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. Camilla is the wife that 
> Charles should have had from the start. She is no more a "scarlet woman" 
> than Diana was. Diana was a remarkable woman with many excellent qualities, 
> but she was no saint.


Agreed.

-- 
+-----------------------+
| David C               |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
|                       |
|  |
| Replace NOSPAM with   |
|      undressed        |
+-----------------------+

"David C"  wrote in message news:430f31da.0@entanet...

> On 26/08/05 10:10, David Looser wrote:
>
>> Thus, the argument ran, members of the C of E had a special right to 
>> object to the wedding of C & C because that would mean a re-married 
>> divorcee as head of their church, a church that still refuses to re-marry 
>> divorcees.
>
> Not true any longer, although individual clergy may refuse to conduct a 
> remarriage on grounds of conscience. Details are here:
>

Well yes, I know (I go skinny-dipping once a week with a member of the 
General Synod so I am kept up to date on these things). I was trying to keep 
it simple. Remarriage is at the discretion of the individual priest, and the 
couple will be expected to jump through some hoops first. The real point is 
that those who objected to Camilla were the sort of people who also object 
to the principle of remarriage.

David.

On 26/08/05 17:16, David Looser wrote:

> "David C"  wrote in message news:430f31da.0@entanet...

>>On 26/08/05 10:10, David Looser wrote:

>>>Thus, the argument ran, members of the C of E had a special right to 
>>>object to the wedding of C & C because that would mean a re-married 
>>>divorcee as head of their church, a church that still refuses to re-marry 
>>>divorcees.

>>Not true any longer, although individual clergy may refuse to conduct a 
>>remarriage on grounds of conscience. Details are here:

> Well yes, I know (I go skinny-dipping once a week with a member of the 
> General Synod so I am kept up to date on these things).


You are better connected than I am!


> I was trying to keep it simple.


Simplified to the point of being untrue (or at least misleading), 
I fear.


> Remarriage is at the discretion of the individual priest, and the 
> couple will be expected to jump through some hoops first.


Is it not reasonable that any couple wishing to marry in church 
should "jump through some hoops first"? The Christian view of 
marriage remains that it is a lifelong commitment before God and man.

Part of me (the part with principles) doesn't at all like people 
who view a church wedding purely as a show and never normally 
darken the doors. Similarly for baptisms.

The Church Treasurer part of me thinks "S*d that, take the fees - 
it's good business".


> The real point is 
> that those who objected to Camilla were the sort of people who also object 
> to the principle of remarriage.


I'm not sure how true that is. Certainly anyone objecting to 
remarriage on principle must object to C&C, but are they the only 
objectors?

-- 
+-----------------------+
| David C               |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
|                       |
|  |
| Replace NOSPAM with   |
|      undressed        |
+-----------------------+

Peter & Jane wrote:

> In article <430e5d62$0$32676$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>    Southern Africa  wrote:
>>The same problem would arise if a couple ask me to take their secular 
>>wedding (non-legally binding) and then ask for someone to read from the 
>>bible. I do not do that kind of mixed ceremony.
> 
> If you don't do that kind of ceremony, don't. That's fine. You don't have
> to.

Indeed! As I have to remind families and funeral, directors!

> 
> I can, however, understand people who find some parts of a doctrine
> acceptable and other parts of the same doctrine, not, and surely they
> should be catered for too. 

Indeed! And, to an increasing degree, they are. Curiously the middle 
ground of ceremonies is taking longer to develop, although the pace is 
now increasing and couples wishing to marry and people seeking a funeral 
that is a mix-n-match, should be able to find someone but it may take a 
little time.

Simon

Peter & Jane wrote:

> In article <430e5f9a$0$27022$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>    Southern Africa  wrote:
>>foibles of the person is also vital. There is no purpose in making a 
>>'Hutton Report' funeral as that will ring false.
> Interesting. So "Hutton Report" is becoming an accepted synonym for
> "whitewash".
> :-)
> Jane

I believe it is. For, on every occasion that I have used the term (since 
  the ridiculous report) and in whatever company AND under whatever 
circumstances, no one has failed to understand that I meant a Whitewash 
and has usually laughed at the usage. Others may well be using it too, 
so I do not claim exclusivity!!

Simon