On the magazine we reported (in 2005) that Aberdeen City Council forced owners of the controversial Aberdeen club, The Cross, to take down its offensive mock-Christian crosses. Although the removal these crosses from 2, Justice Mill Lane is good news the whole episode leaves a number of questions unanswered.
First, is the extraordinary position in which the licensing laws do not give the local Board the powers to stop a licence holder from using an offensive name. The only legal power available was to remove the signage. What next, will we see clubs called the 'The Prophet', 'The Torah' or 'The Buddah'? Theoretically these could happen as long as they do not have offensive graphic signs on the outside of these premises. Insensitive names have already been vogue in our converted churches. 'Ministry of Sin' 'Babylon' 'Gabriels' and 'Slains (Dracula's) Castle' - all were former churches. Should not the law be changed to stop this? These names appear to pour contempt from the new owners about the previous sacred usage?
The second unanswered question comes from G1's letter to the Lord Provost where they remarked that 'The Priory' nightclub on Belmont Street displays a large Christian cross suspended from the ceiling. Since these are 'Public Houses' and not private clubs should the law not also block overt offensive religious symbolism being installed inside as well as out? If for example a pub or club decided to have an upside-down crucifix inside its premises, or chalice-shaped toilets - would the law give churches the power to act? These may be extreme examples but as we have seen this week with the Madame Tussaud's nativity featuring Posh and Becks there is sense in which the boundaries of taste are being pushed continually.
Third, there is the general question, of turning former places of worship into pubs and clubs. The club lifestyle can be very hedonistic, more so than many church goers of an older generation probably appreciate. With there being wide concern over binge drinking, date rape, drink driving, an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, and the casual availability of drugs, should not former church buildings, witness to a more positive function? Would it not be healthier to restrict the use of former churches through new planning laws to organisations which will contribute overtly to the community?
Finally, if pub developers as G1 have found that a quasi-religious (or "gothic") ambience is attractive to the punters should we not investigate how the remaining church buildings in the city centre can employ this to their advantage? In some sense this is already being done in the proposed re-development of the Kirk of St. Nicholas' but it could be done elsewhere. There are over 6000 pew spaces in our city centre alone and many of them remain firmly inaccessible during the week where as these converted churches are open all hours throughout the week.
by Rev Daniel French
December 2005