Religulous
Do director de Borat, estreia dia 3 de Outubro o documentário Religulous. Lembrei-me do filme, cujo título conjuga religião e ridículo, ao ler no Guardian (obrigado, Rui) um artigo de opinião do pároco da St Mary's Church em Putney sobre as razões porque é proibido ler algo com conotações religiosas nos casamentos civis. Inicialmente Giles Fraser, contributor regular deste periódico assim como do Church Times e do think tank Ekklesia, pensou que tal se devia a uma conspiração laicista contra a religião. Mas, contrariamente ao que se passa cá no burgo, Fraser admitiu publicamente estar completamente errado nessa suposição:
«But I had got this one all wrong. There is no secular plot - indeed, the truth is almost the reverse. In 2005, the government published a consultation document on proposed changes to the current guidelines. "The religious organisations who responded were unanimous that no readings from religious texts should be allowed, even if they did not directly refer to the deity." The Catholic bishops were totally against allowing religious texts to be used. "Through secular use their particular religious meaningfulness can be diminished," they argued.
So, the reason you can't mention God in a civil ceremony is because the churches won't allow it. If there is any control-freakery here, it is from church authorities acting as though the Bible were their property and that they alone have the wisdom and responsibility for interpreting God. Members of the public can't be trusted to understand the Bible on their own or to use it respectfully. Just think - horror of horrors - what if a gay couple were to want a Bible reading at their civil partnership? Here, then, is the real scandal behind the prohibition of religious readings in civil ceremonies. It's all about monopolising the divine.»
