A tale of political correctness gone mad, again

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:02 pm

A COUPLE were banned from playing the Robbie Williams hit ANGELS at their civil wedding ? in case it offended non-Christians.

Howard Monks, 47, and Julie Sagar-Doyle, 36, wanted the star?s 1997 song played as they took their vows, because it is ?their tune?.

But just 15 minutes before the ceremony, politically correct bureaucrats barred the tune by Robbie, as it contains the word heaven ? giving it ?religious connotations?.

Instead the pair had to settle for Shania Twain?s From This Moment when they wed at Dukinfield registry office, Greater Manchester.
Printer Howard, of Hadfield, Derbys, blasted: ?It?s ridiculous to say this would upset ethnic minorities. It?s just a pop song. Robbie?s hardly some religious bigot.?

The General Register Office said it is now reviewing the content of civil marriages.

source made the local news as well

Gav-X · Post by **Gav-X** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:22 pm

That's f@cking insane, it's their goddamn wedding for crying out loud!!! Besides, when did heaven and hell become christian-exclusive concepts? And who else would attend their wedding other than their friends and relatives which wouldn't be offended? Who in their sane mind would be offended by a freaking pop song anyway? The human gene pool shows its greatest assets yet again

.

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:26 pm

I support a very strict separation of State and Robbie Williams.

The Alchemist · Post by **The Alchemist** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:25 pm

If you look at a real news source, it'd explain that having any religious content at a civil service wedding (a specifically non-secular marriage) is banned, and has been since 1948, about 30 years before the term "political correctness" was even invented. It's still bloody ridiculous in this case though, agreed... which is why people in government have been looking at changing it since they were alerted to it last may (not as a result Howard and Julie's unfortunate incident, as the Sun's predictably shoddy, sensationalist hack implied).

Gav-X · Post by **Gav-X** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:20 pm

Religious content being banned in a civil wedding is preposterous as well. If a couple wants their wedding to have some sort of religious content in their wedding and can't celebrate their wedding in a traditional religious building, how on earth would adding religious parts to a civil wedding be a bad thing?

not just souLLy now · Post by **not just souLLy now** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:35 pm

Good riddance, that song is terrible.

mikozero · Post by **mikozero** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:19 pm

Stormwatch wrote:I support a very strict separation of State and Robbie Williams.

LMAO

they should have came to Scotland and had a Humanist wedding.

seriously i hope whoever the pen-pushing asswipe was that decided to enforce that rule when they could just as easily have ignored it gets glassed by some of the bride/bridegrooms more unsavoury acquaintances next time they go down the pub.

The Alchemist · Post by **The Alchemist** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:43 pm

Gav-X wrote:Religious content being banned in a civil wedding is preposterous as well. If a couple wants their wedding to have some sort of religious content in their wedding and can't celebrate their wedding in a traditional religious building, how on earth would adding religious parts to a civil wedding be a bad thing?

I don't think you understand. If you want a religious wedding, you have a standard wedding of whatever denomination you choose, in whatever building you like, within the confines of reason and denomination. If you don't want a wedding to have religious content, you choose to have a civil wedding. It's a very clear choice and these two would almost certainly have been explained it in detail. That's not really an excuse to take exception at the song... not that any's needed, if you've listened to it...

Jeeba Jabba · Post by **Jeeba Jabba** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:53 pm

not just souLLy now wrote:Good riddance, that song is terrible.

Gav-X · Post by **Gav-X** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:08 pm

The Alchemist wrote:
Gav-X wrote:Religious content being banned in a civil wedding is preposterous as well. If a couple wants their wedding to have some sort of religious content in their wedding and can't celebrate their wedding in a traditional religious building, how on earth would adding religious parts to a civil wedding be a bad thing?
I don't think you understand. If you want a religious wedding, you have a standard wedding of whatever denomination you choose, in whatever building you like, within the confines of reason and denomination. If you don't want a wedding to have religious content, you choose to have a civil wedding. It's a very clear choice and these two would almost certainly have been explained it in detail. That's not really an excuse to take exception at the song... not that any's needed, if you've listened to it...

What about interreligious marriages? An actual religious ceremony is impossible in those cases, why shouldn't the bride and groom be allowed to add some elements of both religions to the civil ceremony if they want to?

P.S: for the record, I love that song.

mikozero · Post by **mikozero** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:54 pm

number 1 in the UK pop your clogs top five

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 336113.stm

actually the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards' Amazing Grace aint bad.

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:21 pm

The Alchemist wrote:If you look at a real news source

So the ITV news isnt reliable then? are you working for the BBC?

mikozero wrote:number 1 in the UK pop your clogs top five

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 336113.stm

actually the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards' Amazing Grace aint bad.

Bah my choices depending on method of disposal include for cremation the chorus of disco inferno followed by ring of fire. Killed by Death & Highway to Hell would be good also as would Dont Fear the Reaper, prefferably foe the last 3 being blared out of speakers on the hearse turned all the way up to 11

Orange_Ribbon · Post by **Orange_Ribbon** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:23 pm

Wouldn't it still offend people if it was played on the radio?

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:43 pm

Dont give em any ideas, they may have spies reading this which could lead to any song mentioning anything even vaguely religious being banned

greay · Post by **greay** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:04 pm

They should've picked Rock DJ instead; it's a much better song, and they wouldn't have run into this trouble.

mikozero · Post by **mikozero** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:29 pm

Robbie Williams in Rock DJ wrote:Music for your masses

Orange_Ribbon · Post by **Orange_Ribbon** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:10 pm

Hawq wrote:Dont give em any ideas, they may have spies reading this which could lead to any song mentioning anything even vaguely religious being banned

I am offended by anything sexual. BAN THAT!!

greay · Post by **greay** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:15 am

mikozero wrote:
Robbie Williams in Rock DJ wrote:Music for your masses

damn!

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:46 pm

Orange_Ribbon wrote:
Hawq wrote:Dont give em any ideas, they may have spies reading this which could lead to any song mentioning anything even vaguely religious being banned
I am offended by anything sexual. BAN THAT!!

Ban my right hand?

BaldMonk · Post by **BaldMonk** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:48 am

That's crazy.... "The world is going to shit" Sing it with me everyone....