Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
All I can assume is that there are some HUGE social differences between America/Australia and Europe/Britain.
This whole thing is wierding me out.
Even the perception of a Church is bizzarre Claude!. A church can be any building. My church meets in a film academy. If I wanted to get married in my church, I'd be getting married in a film academy.
What if my church met on the beach like Christian Surfers do? Would Christians be the only ones forbidden from getting married on that beach because it's their church?
A dedicated church building is owned by the members of the church. Not God. God is not paying the water rates or taxes, humans are. A collection of humans. They choose to dedicate the space to God, but that is all. Churches can and do get sold.
"The Limelight" is an old church building in New York City that is a nightclub. It hasn't been a church in years. Would getting married in a nightclub be forbidden?
Many churches buy old factory spaces. The members collectively own them. They can and do have parties, concerts, whatever else in them. Woudl weddings be the only thing forbidden??
This whole thing is bizzarre.
|
Yorick, maybe France is a special case, I don't know. The separation of church and state is
fundamental to all French citizens. For us, it means that a citizen can have any opinion and belief, BUT when he is performing a public service, he or she MUST put them aside, as then he or she represents the Republic. So to me it is simply unconceivable that a civil officer performing a civil marriage should put forth his personal opinions and beliefs while performing his civil duty. Thus, to me and to all French people, (a) a civil ceremony is absolutely required because it expresses the will of the couple to be a part of the Republic community and to accept the Republican rights and duties thereof, and (b) it is unconceivable that this civil ceremony should be mingled with a religious one, because then the civil officer and the attendants would not be putting aside their personal opinions and beliefs as is required from citizens attending a civil, Republican, duty. We feel that it is the best way to ensure a functioning community of widely different people - ensuring to all freedom of opinions and beliefs and practice of them BUT not allowing them to interfere with their public duties. The Republic is what cement all of us French citizens, it represents the core of rights and duties and choices of ALL citizens.
So, when you advocate that a marriage could be valid with no ceremony at all or with a ceremony both secular and religious, my cultural feeling is that YOU are interfering with my Republican right of being non-religious. Because you are asking the Republic, on my behalf as on the behalf of all French citizens, to grant rights to people who would not have fulfilled the primary requisite the Republic asks of them. Put it simply, you are asking me to pay for something I haven't chosen to buy.
In the same line of thought, a big debate has been going on for years in France about whether wearing an Islamic veil at school should or not be allowed. I, along with the supporters of this "laïcité" (which my dictionary says translates as "secularity") which is the core and fundament of the French Republic, say NO, NO, NO ! Because the fundamental principle of our "laïc" Republic is that you can wear any religious item you want but NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE - hence, not in a public school.
EDIT : Read
this. I couldn't find any article on the Web about the concept of separation of church and state as we understand it in France, but this article may have you understand somewhat better what I mean.
[ 08-04-2003, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]