Do you think that telling the truth is important? Do you think honesty and straightforwardness are virtues?
When I stand behind the lectern and deliver a funeral ceremony I have always tried to be guided by the needs of the family and those mourners who have come to support them and pay their respects. My ability to deliver a ceremony is based on the sharing of memories, as I am usually a stranger to the deceased.
I have to maintain a strong belief that what I am told is true and therefore I can repeat it feeling that I am speaking in honest terms about the life lived. I have often mused what I would do if I knew I was being fed a load of rubbish which I was then expected to regurgitate.
Delivering the eulogy is the easiest part of the job for me, creating it after visiting the family is the hard bit...you have to listen and listen carefully, not just with your ears but your eyes too.
In recent days I have delivered tributes for a lady who died at the age 94, and a man who ended his own life at 39.
In meeting with the families it soon became apparent that they both needed a degree of finesse in reaching a final ceremony that would serve their needs. For obvious reason I cannot go into specifics but needless to say I worked hard and prepared two unique ceremonies for two unique lives. The first was delivered without difficulty and the family were very pleased with the result, the second was more problematic because as I tried to deliver the ceremony I had prepared another one popped into my head.
It was for the same man but the words I had on paper did not come out of my mouth - instead I found myself talking about perspective and judgement.
We are very complicated creatures and we show different aspects of that nature to the people we share life with. Some are able to see more than one side of a personality because of the time they spend in that persons company but others might only see one glimpse of a mans life and from that glimpse draw a conclusion of what they are like.
The mourners all knew that the deceased had killed himself, and that had led some of them to reach a certain truth about him and his life - you could see the pity in their faces.
I pointed out that pity was a judgement on the life of the person they must have loved, or else why be at his funeral?
What really gives us the right to judge the life of another because of one choice and one decision that might have been driven by circumstances well beyond his control?
As it happens, I was very well aware of some of the reasons that may have helped this young man decide to end his life and I understood his choice. More than that, I can acknowledge his right to make that choice.
Buzzing around in my head as I spoke was a feeling that he had been truthful in his choice, and although some there believed his choice was indulgent and selfish it was plain that in his mind there was no other choice...and I knew as I looked into the eyes of his sisters that they believed that too. So I told THAT truth to the congregation. I challenged them to judge the choice if they wished but not to judge the man who made it.
Of course you don't have to agree with the choice, you can feel sad that it was made and that a life was ended, that is a valid response - but to judge the man is a different matter altogether.
I can hear you all saying, but Guru, you constantly judge others in your insightful witty way...this is true but of course I am the exception that proves the rule.
How do we sum up a life in words, in twenty five minutes, in a room that is designed to remind us of death? We could tell the story of where someone is born, goes to school, works, talk about their hobbies and retell a few funny tales or perhaps we should just acknowledge that a life is more than words and a list of things.
My closing words to the family and friends of the young man who died were something like:
...it's about the connection, that's the reason he sticks in your mind and in your heart and you know you'll never be rid of that feeling. It's because of all the choices he made with you, for you, because of you and of all the choices you made in return. It's because above all else he was who he was - and he could never be anything other than true to his nature. He was honest about that and he remained honest about that to the very end. Don't we applaud honesty in this country? Don't we hold honesty in high regard? Here lies an honest man...
Perspective and truth. I don't claim to be right all of the time and I know that some went away from that funeral a little lost but I also know that those who knew and loved that man best of all gave me the biggest hug and walked away with a renewed respect for the honesty of life and death.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Friday, 6 April 2012
The God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me Blues
It's Good Friday and it is a day with special significance - I get my hair cut.
Only joshing, but you expected some little jest didn't you? That's why you follow me on this journey of discovery and I wanted to share with you this thought, that as you follow so shall you lead.
I was invited to speak on the radio this morning and to answer the question posed by the presenter Frances Finn, in a modern world is there still a need for and space for god?
In her preamble to the discussion Ms Finn described atheists and non believers as sceptics, likening us all to Dawkins as extremist secularists. She also stated that those without faith consider those with faith as weak minded. She went on to suggest that in our attitude we might be condescending and dismissive to those who believe in their god.
The first speaker who contributed was a vicar and he claimed that true believers in his faith helped their fellow man to make positive contributions to life, that being a man of faith meant that you reflected on your actions and that you were full of humility and open to the possibility of what god could do for you.
He did accept that some good was done in the world that was not motivated by faith nor delivered by people with faith - I thought that was magnanimous (I don't mean that in a condescending way).
I would challenge his view that only the religious are open to reflection and self examination, I'm sure many atheists are deeply introspective.
There were other callers who revealed their personal stories of how they had found faith or been supported by faith through very difficult times and these stories were quite moving and illustrated how some people really do find a lot of support in their faith and through their church.
So, now it was my turn and I first of all suggested that not all Humanists and atheists are exactly alike - we are not all Dawkins and it's a little tedious to be compared with him all the time - although it makes a change from Hitler and Stalin!
I was then asked if I looked down on people with faith and thought of them as foolish and weak minded and I responded that I may well have done at one time but I now think it a foolish thing to argue about.
It seems very clear that some people will always have faith in god, in whatever form that happens to be and I accept their right to believe in god. I believe their faith is real and all I ask is that they allow me to not have the same faith.
I was joined in this discussion by another vicar, a very pleasant lady vicar and she told me that she felt that each of us had a god shaped hole in our body that we need to fill. I answered that I filled it with living, with being the best person I could be and that for me it was as simple as you are born, you live, you die.
I reiterated my belief that we should all follow our own path and be happy in our choices and that arguing about it was pointless.
The vast majority of those who contributed did so to illustrate the strength of their faith but I was heartened that there was some acknowledgement that not all good deeds in our lives are gifts from god.
Later, as I was driving to have my ears lowered, it suddenly dawned on me that there are two real issues here - one is a right to believe and to have faith and a separate issue is does god exist?
In fact there is a further point that arises in my mind as I write this scripture - those who have faith believe that god exists and those who choose to live without god do not have to decide if he exists or not, but can simply choose to live without him influencing their day to day lives.
But this is where it gets complicated and the real arguments starts because many secularists believe that the belief in god influences so much of our daily life that we are forced to defend the alternate view with as much vigour as those who claim he exists.
Does this make sense?
A child puts a tooth under their pillow, they have been told that a fairy will replace the tooth with some money. When the child awakes in the morning and finds the money they will accept that a tooth fairy exists - they will have faith in that belief.
A child hangs a stocking on the end of their bed because they have been told Santa will fill it with presents and when they awake and find a DS Lite and a banana, they accept that Santa exists and have faith in that belief.
But of course the fact that children believe that the tooth fairy and Santa exist does not make it true and yet their faith in these stories brings them great happiness, joy and comfort.
In the same way that we do not rob our children of their faith in the magic of fairies and Father Christmas, we are asked not to rob the faithful of their belief in god and I have decided that this is a sensible way to proceed. Your right to believe is important.
But as children grow up they use their brains and they ask questions and they eventually come to a conclusion that tooth fairies and Santa might not be exactly what they were led to believe. Some of us go a little further and decide that not only do we not need a tooth fairy, but we don't need a god - in any form.
So that is my easter message this year, not as long as the Pope and not as pious (hopefully) but a simple heartfelt plea....please allow me to have no faith.
Right off you all go and make your choice about what you will fill your god shaped hole with...Mrs B suggests chocolate for her, well it is easter and that bunny will soon be here with all those eggs!
In hindsight - I may come across as a little condescending during this blog, that's just my human weakness...forgive me.
Only joshing, but you expected some little jest didn't you? That's why you follow me on this journey of discovery and I wanted to share with you this thought, that as you follow so shall you lead.
I was invited to speak on the radio this morning and to answer the question posed by the presenter Frances Finn, in a modern world is there still a need for and space for god?
In her preamble to the discussion Ms Finn described atheists and non believers as sceptics, likening us all to Dawkins as extremist secularists. She also stated that those without faith consider those with faith as weak minded. She went on to suggest that in our attitude we might be condescending and dismissive to those who believe in their god.
The first speaker who contributed was a vicar and he claimed that true believers in his faith helped their fellow man to make positive contributions to life, that being a man of faith meant that you reflected on your actions and that you were full of humility and open to the possibility of what god could do for you.
He did accept that some good was done in the world that was not motivated by faith nor delivered by people with faith - I thought that was magnanimous (I don't mean that in a condescending way).
I would challenge his view that only the religious are open to reflection and self examination, I'm sure many atheists are deeply introspective.
There were other callers who revealed their personal stories of how they had found faith or been supported by faith through very difficult times and these stories were quite moving and illustrated how some people really do find a lot of support in their faith and through their church.
So, now it was my turn and I first of all suggested that not all Humanists and atheists are exactly alike - we are not all Dawkins and it's a little tedious to be compared with him all the time - although it makes a change from Hitler and Stalin!
I was then asked if I looked down on people with faith and thought of them as foolish and weak minded and I responded that I may well have done at one time but I now think it a foolish thing to argue about.
It seems very clear that some people will always have faith in god, in whatever form that happens to be and I accept their right to believe in god. I believe their faith is real and all I ask is that they allow me to not have the same faith.
I was joined in this discussion by another vicar, a very pleasant lady vicar and she told me that she felt that each of us had a god shaped hole in our body that we need to fill. I answered that I filled it with living, with being the best person I could be and that for me it was as simple as you are born, you live, you die.
I reiterated my belief that we should all follow our own path and be happy in our choices and that arguing about it was pointless.
The vast majority of those who contributed did so to illustrate the strength of their faith but I was heartened that there was some acknowledgement that not all good deeds in our lives are gifts from god.
Later, as I was driving to have my ears lowered, it suddenly dawned on me that there are two real issues here - one is a right to believe and to have faith and a separate issue is does god exist?
In fact there is a further point that arises in my mind as I write this scripture - those who have faith believe that god exists and those who choose to live without god do not have to decide if he exists or not, but can simply choose to live without him influencing their day to day lives.
But this is where it gets complicated and the real arguments starts because many secularists believe that the belief in god influences so much of our daily life that we are forced to defend the alternate view with as much vigour as those who claim he exists.
Does this make sense?
A child puts a tooth under their pillow, they have been told that a fairy will replace the tooth with some money. When the child awakes in the morning and finds the money they will accept that a tooth fairy exists - they will have faith in that belief.
A child hangs a stocking on the end of their bed because they have been told Santa will fill it with presents and when they awake and find a DS Lite and a banana, they accept that Santa exists and have faith in that belief.
But of course the fact that children believe that the tooth fairy and Santa exist does not make it true and yet their faith in these stories brings them great happiness, joy and comfort.
In the same way that we do not rob our children of their faith in the magic of fairies and Father Christmas, we are asked not to rob the faithful of their belief in god and I have decided that this is a sensible way to proceed. Your right to believe is important.
But as children grow up they use their brains and they ask questions and they eventually come to a conclusion that tooth fairies and Santa might not be exactly what they were led to believe. Some of us go a little further and decide that not only do we not need a tooth fairy, but we don't need a god - in any form.
So that is my easter message this year, not as long as the Pope and not as pious (hopefully) but a simple heartfelt plea....please allow me to have no faith.
Right off you all go and make your choice about what you will fill your god shaped hole with...Mrs B suggests chocolate for her, well it is easter and that bunny will soon be here with all those eggs!
In hindsight - I may come across as a little condescending during this blog, that's just my human weakness...forgive me.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
I'm Still Here
Life has been whizzing by at an unusually high speed and I find that my wisdom dispenser has been clogged with the dregs of everyday business but today I am taking a tooth pick to the little holes from which wisdom drops like pearls on swines ears. I think I may be mixing my metaphors but what is a metaphor, if not for mixing?
Lots to talk about and where better to start than the announcement by Rowan Williams that he intends to stand down from the post of Archbishop of Canterbury. I hear that he has been headhunted by some university who wish to study the microscopic life in his eyebrows.
Initially I was pleased to think he was leaving but then it hit me, who will replace him? The scary thing is that people are touting Sentamu, Archbishop of York. Although his eyebrows are not that impressive (and he seems to have lost his dog collar) his attitude is a little more evangelical than Dr Williams and that cannot be a good thing.
I know he has a high profile and has done some good work in denouncing Mugabe for example, but I am a little concerned over his very old fashioned stance on equality.
It's early days yet and no doubt other Bishops will throw their mitres into the ring but whoever we end up with will not have been elected by the people of this country and yet they will feel they have the right to speak for us all...I mean who do they think they are, messengers from God?
There have been discussions about reforming the House of Lords, in which 26 of the blighters dwell, and I think it is time that we limited the voice of the almighty in parliament and let it do its work on its own time and in its own buildings.
I am a realist, I think religion is here to stay but I think it should be a personal matter and not a matter for the state.
I do get angry with the religious elite because of their views, and there was another example this week.
Anyone who has seen how awful a disease cystic fibrosis can be, will surely be supporting the research into a gene therapy study announced this week. A two year blind study in which atomised gene replacement therapy tries to reduce or stop the progression of mucosal build up in the lungs of sufferers.
Well, not everyone thinks this is a good idea - because some true believers think messing with genetics and stem cell research is all the devil's work and we should not be allowed to tinker with such things.
I wonder how many of them take pain killers when they have a headache?
Here is my point, if you take their argument that God's plan should be allowed to unfold then why do we have medicine at all? If you fall ill, it is God's will and so let God decide if you live or die. After all what has a religious zealot got to fear from death? They believe they will be taken to a better place. To be honest if they live in some parts of the world, death might well be a better place.
It's the same with the Catholic stance on contraception, how they like to condemn the condom.
Two devout Catholics (a man and a woman of course) meet, fall in love and get married and decide to have children, sorry and then proceed to have children as decreed by God and the church.
Their first child is born and found to have an awful disease linked to a genetic problem with one of the parents. A doctor tells them that the chances are that all future children will be born with the same illness and that their lives will be short, painful affairs.
Quite a dilemma for the couple who decide that they do not wish to have more children but still wish to have a sex life. Of course having sex without any contraception other than natural family planning is risky and opens up the chance of conception, which is what the sexual act within marriage should really be about in the eyes of the church.
You can see how daft this whole scenario is getting, do the couple trust that they can avoid conception or do they commit a sin and use contraception?
Don't get me started on how ineffectual natural family planning is in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
It is these sort of issues that make people like me scratch their heads in disbelief.
People have brains and we have the need to use them, to learn things and to progress, to evolve.
As individuals, as communities and as a world, we should be finding ways to make life better for all.
Complete change of direction - David Cameron has been to America to see President Obama. The American public have seen our leader on their tv screens and still don't know who he is, where he comes from or what he wants...America is a very insular place we are told and to some extent I suppose it is. It is such a huge country and some people never leave the state they are born in, let alone know where Canterbury is.
David Cameron could appear all day and night on tv talking about the future of Sudan, but in getting arrested yesterday outside the Sudan's embassy in Washington,George Clooney has done the world a favour.
You see, the story will be on news channels and on entertainment channels too and if even 1% of the people who see the story think to look at why George made this decision, thousands of eyes will be opened.
I have a new favourite saying: you only have to have your eyes opened once before you start to see everything!
Well done George Clooney and we in England want to repay your efforts by making same sex marriage legal so you can come over here and settle down...
Lots to talk about and where better to start than the announcement by Rowan Williams that he intends to stand down from the post of Archbishop of Canterbury. I hear that he has been headhunted by some university who wish to study the microscopic life in his eyebrows.
Initially I was pleased to think he was leaving but then it hit me, who will replace him? The scary thing is that people are touting Sentamu, Archbishop of York. Although his eyebrows are not that impressive (and he seems to have lost his dog collar) his attitude is a little more evangelical than Dr Williams and that cannot be a good thing.
I know he has a high profile and has done some good work in denouncing Mugabe for example, but I am a little concerned over his very old fashioned stance on equality.
It's early days yet and no doubt other Bishops will throw their mitres into the ring but whoever we end up with will not have been elected by the people of this country and yet they will feel they have the right to speak for us all...I mean who do they think they are, messengers from God?
There have been discussions about reforming the House of Lords, in which 26 of the blighters dwell, and I think it is time that we limited the voice of the almighty in parliament and let it do its work on its own time and in its own buildings.
I am a realist, I think religion is here to stay but I think it should be a personal matter and not a matter for the state.
I do get angry with the religious elite because of their views, and there was another example this week.
Anyone who has seen how awful a disease cystic fibrosis can be, will surely be supporting the research into a gene therapy study announced this week. A two year blind study in which atomised gene replacement therapy tries to reduce or stop the progression of mucosal build up in the lungs of sufferers.
Well, not everyone thinks this is a good idea - because some true believers think messing with genetics and stem cell research is all the devil's work and we should not be allowed to tinker with such things.
I wonder how many of them take pain killers when they have a headache?
Here is my point, if you take their argument that God's plan should be allowed to unfold then why do we have medicine at all? If you fall ill, it is God's will and so let God decide if you live or die. After all what has a religious zealot got to fear from death? They believe they will be taken to a better place. To be honest if they live in some parts of the world, death might well be a better place.
It's the same with the Catholic stance on contraception, how they like to condemn the condom.
Two devout Catholics (a man and a woman of course) meet, fall in love and get married and decide to have children, sorry and then proceed to have children as decreed by God and the church.
Their first child is born and found to have an awful disease linked to a genetic problem with one of the parents. A doctor tells them that the chances are that all future children will be born with the same illness and that their lives will be short, painful affairs.
Quite a dilemma for the couple who decide that they do not wish to have more children but still wish to have a sex life. Of course having sex without any contraception other than natural family planning is risky and opens up the chance of conception, which is what the sexual act within marriage should really be about in the eyes of the church.
You can see how daft this whole scenario is getting, do the couple trust that they can avoid conception or do they commit a sin and use contraception?
Don't get me started on how ineffectual natural family planning is in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
It is these sort of issues that make people like me scratch their heads in disbelief.
People have brains and we have the need to use them, to learn things and to progress, to evolve.
As individuals, as communities and as a world, we should be finding ways to make life better for all.
Complete change of direction - David Cameron has been to America to see President Obama. The American public have seen our leader on their tv screens and still don't know who he is, where he comes from or what he wants...America is a very insular place we are told and to some extent I suppose it is. It is such a huge country and some people never leave the state they are born in, let alone know where Canterbury is.
David Cameron could appear all day and night on tv talking about the future of Sudan, but in getting arrested yesterday outside the Sudan's embassy in Washington,George Clooney has done the world a favour.
You see, the story will be on news channels and on entertainment channels too and if even 1% of the people who see the story think to look at why George made this decision, thousands of eyes will be opened.
I have a new favourite saying: you only have to have your eyes opened once before you start to see everything!
Well done George Clooney and we in England want to repay your efforts by making same sex marriage legal so you can come over here and settle down...
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Instructions To The Audience
I know what you're thinking. It's Tuesday and the Guru must have had an extra Omega 3 capsule if he's going to dispense his glorious thoughts midweek.
The power of the fish oil is strong this morning dear ones, (as is the after taste if you burp) and it compels me to offer these wonderful words of wisdom.
Family life is sometimes a little challenging, I hear stories everyday of how some families fall apart whilst others stick together through thick and thicker. I was musing only yesterday how working with family members can cause some real problems and perhaps there were days when Jesus thought about leaving the family firm and taking his magic show to Vegas. Father and Holy Ghost might not have had the same success without him.
But all this rambling about family is really bringing me to three hours sitting in the theatre last night, watching Long Day's Journey Into Night by Eugene O'Neill. I'm not going to review the whole show but its depiction of family life and the issues each member of that family were battling, was enthralling. The whole cast were magnificent and the evening flew by. This production has plugged a big gap in my theatre going experiences - my first O'Neill and I got to see David Suchet on stage.
It is at once a period piece but yet it has a strong resonance for modern life. One line really hits the mark:
The characters were so shockingly real you did get completely drawn into the story which was not complicated to follow in any way....unless you were the lady sat two rows in front of me!
I've written before about audiences and how they sometimes spoil a show and last night we had a few nose blowers and coughers, the odd sweet paper but the most annoying thing for me was the fact the some people come to the theatre and then don't pay attention.
The lady in question kept asking her husband about the plot, which if she had shut up and listened was all too clearly explained in the text.
In the interval, her husband did his best to catch her up and the debate about one character and their fingers was fascinating.
The character of Mary Tyrone complains of pains in her fingers which leads her to require medication. The inquisitive and yet stupid lady asked her husband "why are her fingers not more bent, like my mum's - she had arthritis and her fingers were much worse than that".
She went on to explain that she didn't believe there could have been any pain from such un-arthritic finger joints and that the actress (Laurie Metcalfe who was superb in the role) should try harder to make her fingers more bent!
Can you imagine how hard I was suppressing guffaws of laughter at this time?
She also commented on the costumes being 'familiar' and she thought she had seen them somewhere before. She mused that it might have been Downton Abbey. I had my fist in my mouth by now.
After the interval some people moved from the cheap seats to occupy some empty seats behind me (dress circle of course) and it was obviously some corporate jolly. They nearly all spoke with American accents and wreaked of alcohol. I did wonder if it was the James Tyrone Fan Club. One of them soon fell asleep but luckily didn't snore as that would have been the icing on the cake.
The English man with them said the following as the lights dimmed - "Don't you recognise the actor? It's John Suchet. Don't you get POYROTT back home? He's famous in this country for playing POYROTT, not sure what else he's done".
Anyway, I sat enthralled as the play continued its inevitable journey accompanied by more questions from the idiot woman, more sweet papers, coughs and sneezes...but in the end it didn't matter. I had witnessed something very good and I knew it.
I would willingly sit through the whole play again - as long as I got to pick the rest of the audience!
That's all today now go and busy yourself with life, enjoy your day and your family - who for all their faults are still your family.
The power of the fish oil is strong this morning dear ones, (as is the after taste if you burp) and it compels me to offer these wonderful words of wisdom.
Family life is sometimes a little challenging, I hear stories everyday of how some families fall apart whilst others stick together through thick and thicker. I was musing only yesterday how working with family members can cause some real problems and perhaps there were days when Jesus thought about leaving the family firm and taking his magic show to Vegas. Father and Holy Ghost might not have had the same success without him.
But all this rambling about family is really bringing me to three hours sitting in the theatre last night, watching Long Day's Journey Into Night by Eugene O'Neill. I'm not going to review the whole show but its depiction of family life and the issues each member of that family were battling, was enthralling. The whole cast were magnificent and the evening flew by. This production has plugged a big gap in my theatre going experiences - my first O'Neill and I got to see David Suchet on stage.
It is at once a period piece but yet it has a strong resonance for modern life. One line really hits the mark:
The past is the present, isn't it? It's the future too.
The characters were so shockingly real you did get completely drawn into the story which was not complicated to follow in any way....unless you were the lady sat two rows in front of me!
I've written before about audiences and how they sometimes spoil a show and last night we had a few nose blowers and coughers, the odd sweet paper but the most annoying thing for me was the fact the some people come to the theatre and then don't pay attention.
The lady in question kept asking her husband about the plot, which if she had shut up and listened was all too clearly explained in the text.
In the interval, her husband did his best to catch her up and the debate about one character and their fingers was fascinating.
The character of Mary Tyrone complains of pains in her fingers which leads her to require medication. The inquisitive and yet stupid lady asked her husband "why are her fingers not more bent, like my mum's - she had arthritis and her fingers were much worse than that".
She went on to explain that she didn't believe there could have been any pain from such un-arthritic finger joints and that the actress (Laurie Metcalfe who was superb in the role) should try harder to make her fingers more bent!
Can you imagine how hard I was suppressing guffaws of laughter at this time?
She also commented on the costumes being 'familiar' and she thought she had seen them somewhere before. She mused that it might have been Downton Abbey. I had my fist in my mouth by now.
After the interval some people moved from the cheap seats to occupy some empty seats behind me (dress circle of course) and it was obviously some corporate jolly. They nearly all spoke with American accents and wreaked of alcohol. I did wonder if it was the James Tyrone Fan Club. One of them soon fell asleep but luckily didn't snore as that would have been the icing on the cake.
The English man with them said the following as the lights dimmed - "Don't you recognise the actor? It's John Suchet. Don't you get POYROTT back home? He's famous in this country for playing POYROTT, not sure what else he's done".
Anyway, I sat enthralled as the play continued its inevitable journey accompanied by more questions from the idiot woman, more sweet papers, coughs and sneezes...but in the end it didn't matter. I had witnessed something very good and I knew it.
I would willingly sit through the whole play again - as long as I got to pick the rest of the audience!
That's all today now go and busy yourself with life, enjoy your day and your family - who for all their faults are still your family.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Getting Married Today
Good morning world, how nice to see you all washed and ready for action this chilly March morning.
What will you do with yourselves today? Perhaps a visit to a garden centre or a pub lunch, maybe a drive in the countryside. Or if you live in Mountain View California, you'll probably spend all day re-reading my blog back catalogue as you try and work out what adverts to send my way (thanks Google).
Of course some will be attending church, (don't laugh, some people do still go to church) and if any are going to church in Scotland this morning I guess they will be getting a sermon on the sanctity of marriage. In fact I imagine that in many catholic churches the pronouncements of Cardinal Keith O'Brien on 'gay or same sex marriage' will be the topic du jour.
I suppose I better declare an interest in that I am hoping that during the forthcoming consultation period on gay marriages in the UK, that celebrants such as myself will be granted the power to perform legally recognised ceremonies. The reason this is important to me is that next year I have been asked to celebrate a wedding for two very special people (not same sex) - and I can tell you now that it will be the wedding of the year! I'm already searching for a trained budgie to sit on my shoulder throughout the event, to accessorise my ringmasters costume.
In my eyes, marriage is about the commitment of one person to another, and not just because it is union in which that commitment is legally recognised by the state. I do, however, think equality is important.
Presently in the UK, a legally recognised marriage can take place in a civil ceremony at a registrars office or in a religious establishment overseen by a minister of that church. You can also get married in certain other buildings that have been approved by the local authority. No matter the location or the style of the wedding, the thing that makes the marriage legal is the signing of the register.
As I mentioned, here in the UK we are about to commence a period of consultation as to whether gay marriage should be legally recognised and there have already been many voices raised in protest. Some say that gay couples have the right to a civil partnership and this gives them legal rights on a par with marriage so why muddy the waters?
But why can't two people who love each other simply get married?
Let me tell you what the Cardinal says about gay marriage, or as he calls it a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".
He goes on to say... "Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."
I'm a little confused, which is easy for me as Catholics always confuse me. We have not even cut the cake and the Cardinal is worrying about children!
Of course, the Catholic church believes that the purpose of marriage is to bring more potential converts into the world and it has been a success in so many places...look at those countries in Africa where Catholicism is the main religion, no shortage of children there. Just a shortage of food to give them, medical aid, and parents who have died through contracting HIV. A success story to be really proud of - let's have a big cheer for the Pope.
The Cardinal also stated that by legalising gay marriage, the UK government would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the USA have legally recognised same sex marriage to some extent. I don't see any shame in joining that list do you? And we will not be alone, many other countries are moving towards legally recognising the concept of two people being able to make a commitment to each other, not just a man and a woman.
I don't have any objections to two men or two women getting married, I don't feel that it in anyway undermines the institution of marriage. Mrs B and I married in church more through tradition than religion and I think we are probably part of a great majority who uses the church in that way. Did that make our commitment any less valid? It might do in the eyes of the church but the eyes of the state are closed to such issues.
As a Humanist I don't think the church, any church, should own marriage and I think that if a state wishes to recognise the commitment of one human being to another, a commitment in exclusion to all others, then the world will not stop turning nor will the churches fall.
Religion is a part of our society, I don't think that will ever change. My opinion is that the church should not be given a right to run society, it should be there to support those who sign up to its rules - so all the gay catholics will have to be satisfied with....hang on, is there such a thing as a gay catholic?
The fear that recognising same sex marriage may marginalise even further those groups who are against it is no reason to stand still - if the church doesn't want to evolve that is their choice, but the rest of us are fed up with the 12th century and want to live in the 21st.
A happy marriage is one based on mutual respect, love, and the ability to work together - Mrs B and I are very happily married and I know this for sure because she told me just the other day.
My marriage to Mrs B has been a success because of Mrs B, I can take no credit at all. I have just honoured and obeyed her for almost 28 years and having lived through all of that joy I would like to see everyone suffer as I have. (It's a joke dear, let me fetch you another cup of tea to your bedside and toast you a crumpet).
One third of marriages between 1995 and 2010 ended in divorce so the same sex team hasn't been making a great success of things, so why not let someone else have a go? They can't be any worse at being married than us hetero's!
What will you do with yourselves today? Perhaps a visit to a garden centre or a pub lunch, maybe a drive in the countryside. Or if you live in Mountain View California, you'll probably spend all day re-reading my blog back catalogue as you try and work out what adverts to send my way (thanks Google).
Of course some will be attending church, (don't laugh, some people do still go to church) and if any are going to church in Scotland this morning I guess they will be getting a sermon on the sanctity of marriage. In fact I imagine that in many catholic churches the pronouncements of Cardinal Keith O'Brien on 'gay or same sex marriage' will be the topic du jour.
I suppose I better declare an interest in that I am hoping that during the forthcoming consultation period on gay marriages in the UK, that celebrants such as myself will be granted the power to perform legally recognised ceremonies. The reason this is important to me is that next year I have been asked to celebrate a wedding for two very special people (not same sex) - and I can tell you now that it will be the wedding of the year! I'm already searching for a trained budgie to sit on my shoulder throughout the event, to accessorise my ringmasters costume.
In my eyes, marriage is about the commitment of one person to another, and not just because it is union in which that commitment is legally recognised by the state. I do, however, think equality is important.
Presently in the UK, a legally recognised marriage can take place in a civil ceremony at a registrars office or in a religious establishment overseen by a minister of that church. You can also get married in certain other buildings that have been approved by the local authority. No matter the location or the style of the wedding, the thing that makes the marriage legal is the signing of the register.
As I mentioned, here in the UK we are about to commence a period of consultation as to whether gay marriage should be legally recognised and there have already been many voices raised in protest. Some say that gay couples have the right to a civil partnership and this gives them legal rights on a par with marriage so why muddy the waters?
But why can't two people who love each other simply get married?
Let me tell you what the Cardinal says about gay marriage, or as he calls it a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".
He goes on to say... "Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."
I'm a little confused, which is easy for me as Catholics always confuse me. We have not even cut the cake and the Cardinal is worrying about children!
Of course, the Catholic church believes that the purpose of marriage is to bring more potential converts into the world and it has been a success in so many places...look at those countries in Africa where Catholicism is the main religion, no shortage of children there. Just a shortage of food to give them, medical aid, and parents who have died through contracting HIV. A success story to be really proud of - let's have a big cheer for the Pope.
The Cardinal also stated that by legalising gay marriage, the UK government would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the USA have legally recognised same sex marriage to some extent. I don't see any shame in joining that list do you? And we will not be alone, many other countries are moving towards legally recognising the concept of two people being able to make a commitment to each other, not just a man and a woman.
I don't have any objections to two men or two women getting married, I don't feel that it in anyway undermines the institution of marriage. Mrs B and I married in church more through tradition than religion and I think we are probably part of a great majority who uses the church in that way. Did that make our commitment any less valid? It might do in the eyes of the church but the eyes of the state are closed to such issues.
As a Humanist I don't think the church, any church, should own marriage and I think that if a state wishes to recognise the commitment of one human being to another, a commitment in exclusion to all others, then the world will not stop turning nor will the churches fall.
Religion is a part of our society, I don't think that will ever change. My opinion is that the church should not be given a right to run society, it should be there to support those who sign up to its rules - so all the gay catholics will have to be satisfied with....hang on, is there such a thing as a gay catholic?
The fear that recognising same sex marriage may marginalise even further those groups who are against it is no reason to stand still - if the church doesn't want to evolve that is their choice, but the rest of us are fed up with the 12th century and want to live in the 21st.
A happy marriage is one based on mutual respect, love, and the ability to work together - Mrs B and I are very happily married and I know this for sure because she told me just the other day.
My marriage to Mrs B has been a success because of Mrs B, I can take no credit at all. I have just honoured and obeyed her for almost 28 years and having lived through all of that joy I would like to see everyone suffer as I have. (It's a joke dear, let me fetch you another cup of tea to your bedside and toast you a crumpet).
One third of marriages between 1995 and 2010 ended in divorce so the same sex team hasn't been making a great success of things, so why not let someone else have a go? They can't be any worse at being married than us hetero's!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)