To think that this is another stupid example of how religion has a crazy amount of influence in everyone's eyes?

[Thistledew]

DP and I are atheist. We are having a civil wedding ceremony. The rules of a civil ceremony are that we are not allowed to have any religious references as part of the ceremony.

One of my favourite pieces of music of all time, by my favourite composer Handel is a piece that he wrote for the Coronation of King George I .

I have just had a call from our Registry Office to say that just because this piece of music mentions the words 'priest' 'god' 'amen' and 'hallelujah' I am not allowed to have it played at my wedding ceremony.

AIBU to think that if it were not for the stupid influence that religion has in our society, this piece of music would be judged solely on its artistic merit and the lyrics would have no more significance than Ba Ba Blacksheep?

FYI the lyrics in full are:

Zadok the priest,
And Nathan the Prophet,
Anointed Soloman, King.

And all the people
Rejoiced.

And all the people (Alleluia)
Rejoiced, and said
God save the King!
Long Live the King!
God Save the King
May the king live forever,
Alleluia, Alleluia, Amen.
Amen, Amen, Amen, Alleluia Amen.

God save the king,
long live the king,
may the king live forever,
amen amen alleluia alleluia amen,
Amen, May the king live,
may the king live,
forever, forever forever,
Alleluia Amen, Amen.
Alleluia Alleluia Amen.
Amen Amen, Amen Amen,
Alleluia Amen.

Long live the king,
God save the king,
long live the king,
may the king live,
may the kinge live,
forever, forever, alleluia alleluia amen,
amen, amen, amen alleluia amen,

Alleluia, alle amen, alleluia!

So is it the churches who wanted the ban then? Would they still lobby against it? Can't see that what goes on in a civil ceremony has anything to do with church or that the church should have any say.

I found this really frustrating when we had our Civil Ceremony. We couldn't have any readings we liked or the vows we wanted to do as even without mentioning god, they were adapted from the religious ones so a no no.

However we successfully got round the music issue as all our choices were in German. Lots of mentions of god, heaven and angels but clearly the registrar wasn't going to look up the lyrics and put them in google translate.

If I did it again we would get married in the registry office in jeans with 2 witnesses dragged off the street and then have a big ceremony with a Humanist celebrant. You can then have music, vows, hymns, dancing girls, whatever you fancy with no-one to tell you it's religious/tasteless/too long etc etc. Unfortunately I only found out about this as an option when everything was already booked.

Problem is that this song/music isn't a bit religious, it's very religious. Not even close to some of the more border line songs that have also been disallowed.

Also, there's nothing to stop you having a civil marriage and then any kind of "marriage ceremony" you like, with any music you like.

Lots of the christians I know have done something similar. A civil marriage to make it legal and then a christian ceremony wherever and however they want. This gave them much more freedom to have exactly what they wanted and no restrictions. Worth a thought?

i think its a bit churchy

Can't see that what goes on in a civil ceremony has anything to do with church or that the church should have any say.

The sceptic in me says that church ceremonies are generally a lot more expensive than civil ones and that it's potentially a nice little earner if more people sway towards having a church marriage because of these rules.

In spite of being C of E myself I think it's another issue that contributes to the argument for separation of church and state. It's really getting increasingly unworkable.

Hahaha! I hear where you're coming from, but when the rules state no religous music and then you choose a piece of music that's lyrics are three quarters religious references - well, it's a bit ridiculous to go spoiling for a fight.

Being an atheist surely doesn't give you the power to suddenly declare that religious words and phrases have no significance just because that's how you feel. It's disrespectful to those who actually do use those words that were originally designed for people of faith to use to express that faith. Of course you can appreciate it, it just doesn't mean it's religious connotations are erased. Even if you take the line that religion is the cause of all the suffering in the world, it doesn't do any harm to recognise that some truely beautiful art that has been inspired by it, it doesn't make you any less of an atheist to appreciate something that is religious.

Would it be a possible compromise just to use the music without the lyrics?

Apart from anything else, it's fecking long. About 7 mins? You can really only use a piece like that as a entrance piece if you are getting married in a cathedral or abbey and/or your name is Kate Middleton. In your average church/register office you'd be at the front before the intro had finished.

Phyllis - I want it for our exit music.

What I will do, if I cannot change the opinion of the Registrar and persuade him/her that it does come within the criteria for permitted pieces (interestingly, the consultation document I linked to above specifically mentions it as a piece that where references to god may be considered to the meaning of the piece) is to have the ceremony end, then allow the registrar to leave the room, then play the music whilst we mingle with our guests and have some photos taken.

For me, the lyrics are about an (allegedly) historical event, rather than for the purpose of praising or worshiping a god. People of faith may disagree, but I don't see why their interpretation should prevent me being able to enjoy the music in the way I want.

But Hallelujah literally means 'Praise God'. This is a word still in use in that context, it's not an old fashioned, rarely used word, it's current and still important to a couple of major religions - never mind what you believe, it's respecting their beliefs.

It's little ironic that as an atheist the whole ethos of keeping religion out of a civil service is completely passing you by because you want to introduce a piece of extremely religious music

Handle wrote the piece as a religious person, the guy also wrote 'Messiah' and has his own feast day in some churches -he meant it as a religious piece, that's what makes it unsuitable. It's not like Robbie Williams' Angels being open to debate about the the actual religious tone of the piece and the main emphasis of the song. The piece is blatently religious

Yes it's your right that you can enjoy it as a purely historical piece of art and to attribute emphasis to other traits of it -it doesn't mean that's all it actually is to the wider world though. The rules are what they are, you could argue that no religous organisation can lay claim to art even if that was it's original intention and still relevant to followers today, but that's quite intolerant and rightly going to be contested whilst the living religions are widespread and have followers.

Again, it doesn't diminish atheism to recognise and respect religious beliefs.

I wasn't allowed a reading of a John Donne poem that starts 'For God's sake hold your tongue, & let me love.'

Nor would they let me change it to 'For fuck's sake...', which I very reasonably offered to do.

Agree it's a daft rule.

Now that is funny and ridiculous.

But if you read the lyrics, what it says (in an abridged form) is:

And all the people rejoiced and said, "God save the King! Long live the King! Alleluia! Amen!".

I have no doubt that 'all the people' did in fact say those things. It doesn't make the song an act of worship.

I disagree that my view that the song is not per se an act of worship is offensive to people who believe it is. It is merely a point of disagreement, and as it is my wedding, with invited guests, I should get to set the terms of reference for that event. Not leaders of a religion that I do not choose to follow.

It's just music, much of it written a long time ago by composers. I don't see that it belongs to a religion and they have a monopoly on it. You can buy it, listen to it on youtube - it's just music and can be enjoyed independently from religion and more as a piece of historic art.