NO-ONE has pointed to the fact that many Christian families cannot contemplate a church service prior to a brief committal at the crematorium.

While everyone who is an Anglican parishioner is entitled to use their parish church, for funerals, there is a statutory fee expected, just as for a wedding ceremony.

This adds to expenses, so many funerals combine their ‘slot ‘ and invite their priest, to conduct this last service, either in the building, or in the case of a burial, at the graveside, thus fees are reduced, This was probably the intentional usage envisaged originally. Now of course, we have mutiicultural differences and Atheist/Agnostic or Humanist views.

So, yes, these matters warrant attention, but for a committee to arbitrarily change something sensitive to so many seems high-handed and unnecessary.

Many people who are not official members of any church, wear a cross around their neck, and many Jewish people, as well as Muslims, learn about Jesus, Mary, etc., and still use given names, from scriptures, even if mostly from Old Testament pages.

Perhaps they should be included in the debate as to whether they mind whether a cross is in evidence, or do they consider it a ‘blessing’ from another faith?

I add in conclusion that most faiths strive to do good, but perhaps we do so, very quietly, and in all modesty, so that only sensational, negative news is known?

This leads to the growth of those who want rid of the cross – a symbol which has the power to make people uncomfortable.

God bless all who think this through (and may disagree with my point of view); isn’t this our democratic right, still?

E Townley, Knuzden