From Nathan Jordan.
I WRITE with reference to your article (JEP, 7 August) stating that Church leaders have condemned proposed reforms to divorce legislation by the law firm Hanson Renouf and the subsequent response of Advocates Timothy Hanson and Barbara Corbett (JEP, 20 August).
 
If there is blame to be apportioned in this matter, it is not only upon those who have forsaken rationality for superstition, but also upon those who allocate a religion more credence than any other pressure group.

When the Juedo-Christian God goes the way of Amon Ra, perhaps the irony of basing the true tenet of human love in marriage upon a myth will be appreciated. In the meantime, we can appreciate the incongruity of public speculation on matters of matrimony by adherents of a religion, whose unmarried progenitor demanded hatred of one’s own family.

In their letter, the lawyers rightly describe the archaic nature of the 1937 divorce law, enacted four years after the Catholic Church signed a concordat guaranteeing non interference with Hitler’s regime.

As the lawyers demonstrated the flexible nature of subsequent statutes, such as relaxing a three-year restriction in the case of excessive hardship, I wondered if such mitigations were possible within a religious context.

Is it stated specifically in Holy Scripture, for example, that a woman may divorce her husband if he is a violent drunk? Paradoxically, I am sure that many contemporary Christians would be appalled at the idea of one spouse causing another to suffer and would advise such a person to leave that unhappy situation.

This revisionism in itself shows the strength of a secular law which can take individual situations into account over blanket dogma.

The Dean compares a year-long marriage to ‘buying something from M&S and then taking it back because it doesn’t quite fit.’ Is he implying that one should simply walk around with a pained air of martyrdom in this easily soluble situation?

Christians do have something of a reputation for needless masochism, after all. The analogy is also rather ill fitting in that an article of clothing doesn’t possess the potential for cruelty and infidelity.

Should the proposed reforms be introduced in Jersey, as I believe, and this is not to the liking of local religious leaders, I would suggest that they have faith (pardon the expression) that fellow worshippers will choose to refrain from divorce after 12, rather than 36 months.

This issue, which apparently vexes our 14 billion year old creator so, could prove fruitful and give rise to much civil debate within the Church.

If any would-be theocrats decide that their personal faith should influence Island law, however, I suggest a far less civil, much shorter response.