Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

Georgiegirl256

onlyroz wrote: »

But then we again get back to the difference between using a church to conduct music exams and using it to conduct a civil ceremony. Neither has anything to do with religion, but one is allowed and the other is not.

Or if you don't think the above is a valid comparison, what about conducting secular funerals in a church? Presumably that is allowed, and could even be conducted by a church minister. All we're talking about is a celebration of life or love that doesn't mention God. I'm not talking about spitting on your altar or sacrificing animals. Just a simple declaration of love and commitment between two people.

How many times does it have to be explained to you! I'm really not sure why it is not sinking in? :huh:

A church by it's very nature, is a 'house of god', it's a place where people go to 'praise and give thanks to the lord'. So with that in mind, why would anyone ask for a service there that removes the very things that a church exists for?

duchy

tea_lover wrote: »

God isn't something you 'chuck in' to a marriage ceremony. Not something you add a bit of to special days to please your aunt, like some sort of divine ice-cream topping.

.

I wish I could like this bit ten times over -it made me laugh but it illustrated the sticking point beautifully.

I don't attend church as regularly as I should but I do have a faith and I do get irritated at people who marry in church when they have no faith at all and it's all for "the look". Around here we have some lovely registry offices -one is right opposite a Cathedral and a castle so everyone walks across for photos and the other is this one which is stunning and nicer than many churches in looks http://www.akentishceremony.com/kcc-register-offices/the-archbishop-s-palace/

Lots of historic secular venues too- from barns to Napoleonic caves to stately homes . Here's one with a deconsecrated chapel that does weddings which might suit the OP. http://www.akentishceremony.com/venues/st-augustines/

Georgiegirl256

That registry office is stunning duchy! It could not be more removed from our towns one. Ours is basically a tiny square room with no character what so ever, it's actually quite depressing. It's on a road leading into a retail park, and the best bit....it's opposite a McDonalds! Handy for the reception then I guess?!

duchy

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

That registry office is stunning duchy! It could not be more removed from our towns one. Ours is basically a tiny square room with no character what so ever, it's actually quite depressing. It's on a road leading into a retail park, and the best bit....it's opposite a McDonalds! Handy for the reception then I guess?!

The one opposite the castle and cathedral isn't pretty from the outside but you walk across the cobbled historic high street to them which a lot of people really like. I think often people don't realize the choice that is available nowadays though.

Trixi

I will admit that I have only read some of this thread so might have missed something but I certainly understand the question. I am not religious but do admire beautiful buildings and always make a point of visiting a Cathedral when I can - I think they're wonderful. I also pop something in the donation box to support the maintenence of the building (not the religion).

Many people choose beautiful settings for their wedding ceremony and if the building happened to be a religious one I might have asked the same question as the OP. Not at the expense of anyone's beliefs, and not if it offended anyone, but simple because (to me) the building was beautiful/of historical interest.

I'm not sure why admiring beauty without religion should be irritating.

Trixi

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

How many times does it have to be explained to you! I'm really not sure why it is not sinking in?

A church by it's very nature, is a 'house of god', it's a place where people go to 'praise and give thanks to the lord'. So with that in mind, why would anyone ask for a service there that removes the very things that a church exists for?

Perhaps because, if you don't believe that God exists, then a church is neither of those things. It's (often) a lovely building with historical interest.

tea_lover

Trixi wrote: »

Perhaps because, if you don't believe that God exists, then a church is neither of those things. It's (often) a lovely building with historical interest.

But can you not see how offensive that could potentially be to those people for who the building is special?

A good place to start may be reading the many, many previous replies!

Gloomendoom

Trixi wrote: »

I'm not sure why admiring beauty without religion should be irritating.

I doubt anybody does find it irritating per se. What they find irritating is the idea of a civil wedding in a place of worship... even an ugly one.

Georgiegirl256

Trixi wrote: »

Perhaps because, if you don't believe that God exists, then a church is neither of those things. It's (often) a lovely building with historical interest.

Well, not really. I'm not religious, but even I can understand the reason why a civil ceremony would never take place in a religious setting such as a church.

You are going into a house of god, going to praise The Lord. You can't expect all religious references etc to be removed just because you think the building is pretty.

I too can admire beautiful architecture etc but I wouldn't dream of asking for a civil wedding ceremony there.

Pricivius

duchy wrote: »

Not to mention none of the ceremonies would be valid legal marriages

I think the OP simply thinks going to church is a pastime rather than something deeper so struggled to understand why it wasn't a workable idea.

Where did I give that impression? I asked a question out of interest and people have had an interest exchange of views and I have my answer. Where do I make any comment about going to church being a pastime?