Universal Life Church

Just after Valentine’s Day, Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon solemnized the marriages of over seven thousand young couples in Seoul in yet another of the church’s signature mass-weddings. Many church leaders believe the ceremony will be the last wedding officiation for the nonagenarian, who has recently bequeathed his match-making authority to the parents of prospective brides and grooms. With the aging of the church’s founder and self-proclaimed Messiah, younger generations have become estranged with the church’s doctrines and theology, resulting in dwindling membership in the church. Moon recently elected his daughter, In Jin, to be head of the American branch of the church, and, in response, In Jin has sought to lure back these young, estranged Unificationists by modernizing the church.

In her struggle as minister to create a modern-day church which keeps the children of its members in the fold and, potentially, convert non-believers, In Jin has relied largely on and evangelical Christian mega-churches as a prototype. Some of the ways in which she has overhauled the New York church include the replacement of fluorescent lighting with concert-style stage-lighting, the installation of a video screen to give a movie-like feel, and the replacement of old church hymns with modern rock music, reflecting trends which have come to define suburban and exurban mega-churches across the United States—yet the headquarters of the American branch lies at the heart of a cosmopolitan city thronged with young, single entrepreneurs, professionals, and artists.

Like the greater Unification Church, formal education, family integrity, and a commitment to marriage first and love later form the focus of In Jin’s mission to create a mainstream, modern-day ministry. Josh Schanker, son of the church’s family department director, Phillip Schanker, is one of the young people who has sought to bridge the gap between mainstream society and the church, which some critics describe as cult-like. “Today, the church wants college valedictorians, not dropouts”, he said in the words of Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Fingerprints of God author and NPR religion correspondent. According to Hagerty, Josh “plans to be a consultant once he’s graduated from Boston College. The church wants the second generation to fit into society — not fight it.” Indeed, both young and old Unificationists have emphasized the value of formal education: Phillip Schanker’s eldest son is attending Harvard medical school, while two other sons of his have been granted full scholarships. In Jin herself is a graduate of the Harvard School of Divinity.

But, does this emphasis on formal education and the nuclear family merely reflect a staid and bourgeois attitude in the eyes of young and modern people, who are used to non-traditional couples and family structures? Perhaps, but maybe even more disconcerting for the church’s “stray sheep” is the dogma which they claim characterizes Unificationist family life. For Jason Agress, who left the church at 14 when his parents raised objections over his dating preferences, “[e]verything was a system of control [ . . . ]. They were kind of breeding us to be a certain way. And if you weren’t that way, there was something wrong with you.” Another former Unificationist, D.F. Spratt, says that she used to have nightmares about being matched with a stranger and married to him in a mass-wedding. As Hagerty reports, “The pressure of being blessed, and so different from her peers, drove her away — though with some trepidation.” For such wary young people, the match-making of their parents looks a little too much like arranged marriage, the belief that love can be cultivated with enough devotion seems unreasonable, and the time invested in fabricating this love, wasteful. For them, marriage is a personal decision between bride and groom and is nobody else’s business, and a family which insists on forging artificial bonds is an unhappy and dysfunctional one.

In Jin still hopes that, with its contemporary sermons and worship style, the Church will persuade its dubious youth to see the merits of traditional family values and parental matchmaking. People like Agress and Spratt, however, continue to view the church’s preoccupation with arranged marriage, inherited religious faith, professional and academic prestige, and contrived family structure as controlling, unsatisfying, and ultimately unfair. Perhaps the church does show a willingness to adapt its worship style to modern life, but it may also cling to traditional norms which leave its youth unhappy. Let us know your thoughts about what path In Jin Moon and the Unification Church should take in trying to appeal to youth.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

For those of you who never tire of asking the hard questions about God, the Universal Life Church Monastery storehouse has two excellent new releases to for your perusal. Since it is part of our mission to open up discussions about religious issues and accommodate all perspectives, we are happy to present our ministers with two complementary works which will challenge, fascinate, and satisfy the reader, forcing them to explore their faith (or lack thereof) in greater depth and with an abundance of insight.

As its name suggests, The Atheist’s Bible: an Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts is an invaluable handbook for those who seek an atheistic parallel to the world’s sacred texts. As the Philadelphia Inquirer put it in their review of the book, “If atheism’s going mass you need not just a sacred text but an easily portable one . . .”. The Atheist’s Bible is an ideal pick for those who seek vindication of their beliefs from an array of prominent thinkers in literature, philosophy, and the sciences. At the same time, the work provides an amusing and thought-provoking collection of atheist values, principles, and reflections. Like the Biblical book of Proverbs, the book consists of a series of pithy aphorisms which sum up some very big thoughts in just a few, short words. Among the more tongue-in-cheek musings to be found within this “sacred text” of atheism comes from British playwright Oscar Wilde, who says, When I think of all the harm [the bible] has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it, while Ralph Waldo Emerson muses, Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind.

As the book’s title suggests, the quips found within are an unapologetic, no-holds-barred attempts to vindicate atheist faith. While some might regard these sayings as unpleasantly evangelical, this is the very effect desired by the editor, Joan Konner. An uncompromising declaration of non-theistic values, The Atheist’s Bible is both a lighthearted read and a source of inspiration and affirmation for the questioning and skeptical mind.

If you are not settled on an atheistic world view, however, and are still searching for possible scientific justification for belief in God, Fingerprints of God: the Search for the Science of Spirituality, by National Public Radio correspondent Barbara Bradley Hagerty, is the perfect pick. Hagerty challenges the common belief in the incompatibility of science and spirituality, plumbing the depths of the scientific and religious communities in search of possible connections between science on one hand, and spiritual and mystical experience on the other. At one point, Hagerty relates her experience taking ayahuasca at a Navajo religious ceremony and discusses the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine, considering the possible chemical basis for spiritual experience. She also considers biological predispositions for belief in God, searching for evidence of a “God gene”. In addition to chemistry and biology, Hagerty explores the realm of physics and discusses how the phenomenon of quantum entanglement might allow for consciousness after death. Hagerty’s objective and rational-minded foray into the sciences, how it may inform spiritual experience, and what it says about her own Christian faith, is a fascinating read for agnostic and believer alike.

Whether theist or non-theist, readers will find these two books an excellent way to get themselves thinking, re-affirm their beliefs, and encourage further discussion on this very provocative question. As such, they are ideal selections for inclusion in any minister’s library. Visit the ULC Monastery storehouse to find out about more book releases and ministry supplies which will serve as valuable tools in your ministry and spiritual life.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Modern weddings have increasingly been taking the form of mass weddings in recent months, and Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon has not been the only one to officiate weddings for multiple couples at the same time. Rev. Moon is known for match-making couples in “matching ceremonies” by pointing them out to one another, subsequently solemnizing weddings for the couples in massive assemblies, often located in large stadiums.

Many ministers with Universal Life Church and its derivative online churches have shown interest in this unconventional yet increasingly popular type of modern wedding ceremony.

This past Valentine’s Day, nearly one hundred couples converged just outside Ptarmigan Roost Cabin, at an altitude of 12,050, in the Colorado ski resort of Loveland, as part of the 19th annual Valentine’s Day Marry Me Ski Free Mountaintop Matrimony, either to be married or to renew wedding vows. One of the Universal Life Church’s own ordained ministers, Harry Heilman, performed the ceremony. The crowds were drawn to the event by combination of Valentine’s Day, the long Presidents’ Day weekend, and fresh snow.

Are mass weddings a sign of the increasing degradation of the institution of marriage, or of its growing convenience and continued modernization? Perhaps this is too serious a question for so lighthearted an occasion, but it is nonetheless an interesting one to ask.

For some (and I won’t say “yesterday’s bride and groom”, because many still feel this way), the unique nature of the traditional wedding ceremony consists in its emphasis on the public declaration of love between two people, on whom the eyes of the entire community, the church, and even God, are set. For the traditional bride and groom, the day is a special one because the entire event is focused on them—it is “their day”, so to speak. But for other couples, the anonymity of the mass wedding is perhaps an outlet from the stress and anxiety that the ceremony itself places on bride and groom, an opportunity to eschew the old, burdensome trappings and melt into the crowd. Mass weddings like the Loveland event, furthermore, might even recall a primitive, communal urge to forget one’s individuality and get lost in the crowd, as it were.

For others yet, it may simply be an easy, no-frills way to obtain legal benefits, rather like drive-through wedding chapel officiations—characterized by entirely practical considerations.

Will the mass wedding trend evolve into a kind of modern-day festival in which couples rebel against the staid and solemn ceremonies of a bygone era? At any rate, the increasing popularity of such events shows how rapidly the face of marriage is changing—from drive-through ceremonies to sky-dive wedding vow exchanges and same-sex unions. It may simply be the natural course of evolution for marriage, which is constantly metamorphosing and adapting to reflect the individual personalities of those being married. As marriage becomes less and less an instance of property exchange and alliance-building shrouded in awe-inspiring mystery, and more a legally sanctioned declaration of love, couples will be finding new ways to challenge what constitutes holy matrimony.

Perhaps events such as the Valentine’s Day mass wedding at Loveland are just the forerunners of things to come.

Source:
Summit Daily News

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Exactly what is the face of Universal Life Church Monastery’s growing congregation of Christians, Buddhists, pagans, and myriad other faith groups? Not only does the church represent a wide variety of creeds, emphasizing the compatibility of these paths where they intersect, but also boasts a mix of members from highly diverse backgrounds, including film, television, and radio personalities alongside everyday individuals. The popularity of the church’s accessible, egalitarian approach with celebrities recently became apparent once again with the online ordination of British radio and breakfast television show presenter Steve Penk, famous for his telephone prank calls.

Perhaps there is something intrinsically rebellious about the personalities of comedians, actors, and other media figures that draws them to unconventional online churches such as ULCM. Like many online church ministers, Penk, who was ordained by ULCM’s presiding chaplain, Brother Martin, saw little use in following the traditional path of formal seminary training in order to earn his minister’s ordination credential: “I didn’t have time to waste taking the traditional route to ordination, so I fast tracked it and got my licence through . . . “, he said on Radio Today. Like many online church minister, he has received interrogations, if not criticism, for the lack of required training to receive his credential. In response, he points out that the disciples of Jesus Christ were “nothing but ordinary guys with everyday jobs—like fishermen”. Like other ministers with churches such as ULCM, Penk suggests that the sign of a worthy minister lies in a spark of personal passion and direct inspiration rather than in the official approval of a hierarchical body of clerics.

Further reflecting the unorthodox tendencies of online churches, Penk now intends to use his new credential to make marriage easier and more accessible for a wider range of hopeful couples. According to Radio Today, he is “aiming to become the first radio presenter to marry people live [on air]“. In addition to marrying couples on-air, Penk has now begun hosting weddings in the function room of his radio station, The Revolution, situated in a former pub and club. Individuals like Penk have exploited modern technology and lifestyles to accommodate the traditional institution of marriage—not only will he be conducting his wedding ceremonies inside a radio station instead of a church building, but will also be broadcasting the vows of the couples he marries over the radio.

But can this approach to the sacrament of holy matrimony be considered irreverent, even “tacky”? This question may depend on what constitutes the “sanctity” of marriage. Historically, the institution of marriage has been controlled by ecclesiastical authorities who have shrouded it in a powerful mystique, rendering it somehow holy, sacred, or worthy in the eyes of God. In the present day, however, marriage has evolved into a private commitment between two individuals which does not require the approval of non-participants, and its high regard is based on much more practical considerations, such as legal benefits. Perhaps the truly special thing about marriage is not some hazy notion of divine approbation, but the understanding that it should be as accessible and practical as possible to all loving and committed couples, and that bride and groom (or whichever permutation one chooses) should have the option of choosing the wedding officiant of their preference to bless their union, whether friend, relative, or admired public figure. For some couples, eccentrics like Steve Penk fit the bill.

It has long been the commitment of ULCM to make it easier for individuals to legally marry or legally officiate weddings which reflect diverse and contemporary backgrounds, interests, and lifestyles. But, as always, we would like to hear what our ministers have to say. Does this approach to solemnizing marriages and performing wedding ceremonies degrade and dilute this venerable institution, or help it fulfill its noble function of legally recognizing loving relationships?

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The establishment of a sexual moral code has long been a major objective for the religions of the world, which generally seek to define for their followers a pure and virtuous pathway to communion with the divine. More recently, civil libertarians and those who advocate for church-state separation have criticized the role of religion in sexual affairs as interference in the private lives of citizens of a secular state. But if we grant that religious authorities have influenced the sexual activity of their followers, for better or worse, exactly what constitutes sexual virtue varies widely from faith to faith.

While most faiths have an opinion on the matter, some are more permissive than others about what kind of sex is deemed acceptable. More conservative denominations maintain that the function of sex is procreation and the rearing of children through the stability of lifelong, monogamous relationships; some even maintain that sexual pleasure is merely an incentive for reproduction rather than an aim in itself. As Meredith Heagney of The Columbus Dispatch notes, “Conservative denominations teach that sex is reserved for marriage. To them, that means one man and one woman, ideally for the purpose of creating children”; for Jason Evert, a public speaker on chastity, the “medical dangers of birth control” are just one of many motivations for staying chaste until marriage, when, presumably, the woman will suddenly become ready to perform her office as a “vessel of life”. As people like Evert believe, it is in this procreative potential, and in its social and ecclesiastical approval through the sacrament of the traditional wedding ceremony, that sex has true spiritual significance.

But does this view treat sex and marriage as a mere breeding program (not to mention a means of property and inheritance exchange, and alliance-building) which excludes large segments of the population from the experience? After all, if the sole function of sex is procreation and child-rearing, it should be condemned among infertile couples, post-menopausal women, pre-marital couples (since the act is reserved for married couples) and couples who simply choose not to procreate, let alone homosexuals.

For more liberal faith groups, sex often serves a more relationship-centered than procreative function, and many progressive Christian denominations have taken this stance, especially in the Anglican Communion. As Heagney reports, at one Columbus, Ohio, church “with much more liberal theology, a group of lesbians was permitted to hold a sex-toy party because the pastor wanted them to have a safe place to talk about sexual pleasure”. But, of course, sex toys do not help conceive, two women cannot reproduce with one another, and the minister her/himself acknowledges the reality of “sexual pleasure” among non-heterosexual, non-reproducing couples. Another conventionally ordained minister, Bishop Thomas E. Breidenthal of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio, argues that the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus condemning homosexuality is meaningless outside its historical context, and that “same-sex unions can be just as faithful and holy as heterosexual ones”; as it happens, Briedenthal and his peers may soon begin to officiate weddings for same-sex couples when the diocese starts blessing such unions in April. What do the attitudes of institutions like the southern Ohio diocese say about the religious stance toward sex? Such churches often emphasize the “sacredness” of sex between loving, consenting adults, regardless of gender, legal status, or reproductive ability, as what is truly pleasing to God; they emphasize the intrinsic value of emotion and sensuality in sex rather than propagation of the species and the creation of little “family tribes”, thus validating the relationships of couples who engage in sex for pleasure, and not reproduction.

Judaism at some point may have extolled the virtue of sexual pleasure as a pathway to, and a reflection of, the divine. For many Jews and Christians, the Song of Solomon attests to this view—moreover, the declarations of sensual delight in the book are not one-sided, from man to woman, but reciprocal, between woman and man, giving a rare glimpse into female experience of sexual pleasure: “As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste” (2:2-3). Perhaps because such passages are too risque and erotic, the Church has traditionally treated them as an allegory depicting the relationship between the almighty God (the husband) and the fallible church (the wife), downplaying the obvious avowal of sensual pleasure as well as the reciprocation of it between male and female equals. But if we put aside this later abstraction and look at the dialogue itself, it becomes clear that the Church has sanctioned a text in which the speakers exult in and nearly worship the delights of the flesh, paying little heed to the function of procreation.

Given that some churches stress the virtue of sex and marriage for procreation, and others, the merits of sensual pleasure, what should be the view of Universal Life Church Monastery? As an ecumenical, or universal, church, ULCM incorporates compatible beliefs from multiple religions, insofar as these do not condone harm of others, and this “live-and-let-live” doctrine allows for the potential virtue in any mutually consensual activity which leads to pleasure and not harm. Nevertheless, at ULCM we always invite our ministers to offer their opinions. What should be the attitude of the church towards sex and marriage? Let us know what you think by giving us your comments.

Sources:
The Columbus Dispatch
The Holy Bible (KJV)

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Green may not be the first word that springs to mind as couples run through preliminary ideas how to make their wedding day truly special, but, taken figuratively, green can also refer to a wedding ceremony which reflects growing awareness of our impact on the environment. “Green buildings”, “green energy”, and “green products” are now common parlance among those of us seeking ways to live more ecologically conscious lives, so why not apply these same principles to the most special ceremony in every couple’s life? A truly unique wedding experience can be an environmentally sound one as well as a statement on the part of bride and groom about their larger commitments and responsibilities.

Ohio natives and Seattle residents John and Allyson Lindsley have helped pave the way for others with helpful examples of a green wedding from their own eco-friendly, socially responsible wedding ceremony. It was not enough just to blow a wad of money on an unforgettable wedding bash; For John and Allyson, it was important to make sure that their money was being put to the best use possible:

When we realized we were potentially spending a lot of money for just one day, we wanted to be sure our dollars were going to the right places. To us that meant ensuring our wedding would have a soft environmental impact, and that our dollars were contributing to supporting fair trade.

One important aspect of a green wedding, as the Lindsleys note, is to support both the local and global communities through such practices as buying local or fair-trade products. To support the local economy, it is crucial to buy locally, and this requires research into local florists, bakers, tailors, stationers, and decorators; beer, wine, liquor, and coffee can be bought from local breweries, wineries, and roasters, bouquets, from local florists, and fresh produce, from local farms. When products do come from foreign locales, it is necessary to consider the ethicality of their production: wedding feast ingredients shipped in from foreign countries, for example, should be sustainably grown and come from growers who are fairly compensated for their labor. Sometimes, products available only from foreign producers can be bought wholesale at fair trade and then manufactured locally: Alyson Lindsley bought the raw silk for her and her mother’s dresses at fair price from an Indian wholesaler and had the dresses made by a Portland, Oregon seamstress. It is also possible to support local businesses while also supporting their sustainable practices: the Lindsleys held their wedding reception at the Culinary Vegetable Institute, using their organically grown herbs and produce in their floral arrangements and bouquets.

The environmental impact of the wedding ceremony and reception can also be reduced by finding creative alternatives for things such as paper products and party favors. Published materials such as invitations and programs can be made of recycled paper; party favors can be an environmental investment rather than a disposable novelty. Instead of giving out traditional party favors, the Lindsleys donated to environmentalist organizations such as Oxfam Unwrapped, buying their guests gifts such as potted tree saplings to support the “Plant 100 trees” program, or potted flowers from local, sustainable growers—a great investment in any wedding guest’s own garden.

In addition to considerations of fair trade, buying locally, and environmental friendliness, a green wedding ceremony can reflect an investment in the social

well-being of the community. Although many couples find they require their entire wedding savings for the ceremony and its attendant expenses, those who spend frugally will be left with a profit—couples can donate this to charity in collaboration with the church where the ceremony is held. The church where the Lindsleys held their ceremony, for example, donated the profits to children of the working poor and autistic education efforts.

While the most important step in planning an eco-friendly wedding is putting these principles into practice, it does not hurt to incorporate them into one’s wedding vows too. Most churches have a long tradition of charity work, and an increasing number are recognizing their role as stewards of nature. A good idea is to work with the minister or wedding officiant to write vows which reflect the common commitment of bride and groom to social and environmental awareness.

There are an increasing number of green wedding resources for those seeking to leave a minimal carbon footprint with their wedding, and these include the following:

• www.greatgreenwedding.com
• www.fairtradefederation.org
• www.etsy.com
• www.ethicalweddings.com

Planning a green wedding may at first seem a daunting task, but with the growing plethora of resources, it has become an almost natural consideration for contemporary couples seeking a modern wedding. Respect for nature has long been a central value of many in the Universal Life Church Monastery congregation, including those from earth-based faiths such as paganism and Wicca. Ecologically friendly practices are yet another, creative way that ULCM ministers, as well as the couples they marry, can show their dedication to social and environmental awareness.

Source:
Green Is Sexy

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here at Universal Life Church Monastery, we have been following closely the situation of Muslim minorities in Europe and looking at the conflict between Muslim and secular European values. In a recent post, we discussed the passage of a law banning minarets on mosques in Switzerland and what this might say about both freedom of religious expression and freedom from religious imposition. Now, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has called on a collaboration between France’s parliament and its top court, the State Council, to draft a law banning the full veil—the niqab and the burqa—in government-operated French public spaces.

Where exactly to draw the line between freedom of expression and imposition has posed a problem for the French government, which has had to consider the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. According to Agence French-Presse, the thirty-two-member commission seeking the State Council’s help “stopped short . . . of calling for legislation to outlaw the burqa in the streets, shopping [centers] or other public venues after raising doubts about the constitutionality of such a move”. Indeed, many parliamentarians have exercised great caution over the proposed law in order to avoid violating the very principles they are aiming to protect: supporters of the ban posit that the full veil is being used by radicals to insinuate an extremist form of Islam into French society, while others counter that very few Muslim women actually wear the full veil, and hence it poses little threat to the equality cherished by French society.

France is not the only country where the trend toward banning veils has been growing, however, and other western European democracies have followed suit. “The Netherlands and Austria”, reports Agence French-Presse, “are considering a ban on the full veil, while Denmark said . . . it would limit the use in public of the burka and niqab veils although stopping short of an outright ban”. Increasingly, the proposed bans seem to be serving as a sort of “baptism“, “consecration”, or initiation into secular European society, a backlash against the fundamentalism slowly pervading the European continent and diluting its endangered Enlightenment philosophy. But, inevitably, the constitutionality of such bans becomes questionable, and as more governments consider legislation restricting use of the full veil, greater specificity will be required to delineate between freedom of and from religion, insofar as such a distinction is a part of a given country’s political tradition. (Not all secular democracies have the strict institutional separation of church and state that the U.S. has.)

How exactly the law protects women is not entirely clear. The French government’s attempt at preserving traditionally French values by restricting the public exercise of religious belief—whether Protestant, Catholic, or Muslim—might create a contradiction in the eyes of critics, who warn against an equally evangelical secularism. After all, does a law truly protect women’s rights if it dictates a woman’s choice in dress? On one hand, politicians who endorse a ban on full veils by citing sex equality may in fact be challenging a woman’s right to dress as she pleases; on the other hand, it is possible that women who wear the full veil do not choose to do so, but are coerced into doing so by male relatives. According to the BBC, the purpose of the parliamentary report backing the ban “is to make it as impractical as possible for women in face veils to go about their daily business”, which, ironically, allows women very little liberty; however, the BBC also reports that the French government has refused citizenship to a foreign national because “he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil” and, according to Immigration Minister Eric Besson, “he was depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered”. Then there is the case of Faiza M, a Moroccan immigrant denied citizenship by the French government because, according to social services, she lived in “total submission to her male relatives”. But one may argue that by denying Faiza citizenship to a country that protects women’s rights, the French government has actually denied her a life of liberty. In such a case, is the French government liberating women, or oppressing them?

Organizations such as ULCM embrace both the contributions of diverse religious traditions and the full equality of women and men. Does this approach create a contradiction for churches like ULCM, and is it necessary to settle on a compromise between the accommodation of religious custom and sex equality? The Anglican Communion, for example, has attempted to resolve this problem within its own ranks by gradually eliminating patriarchal hierarchy and including women as priests while preserving the church’s broader spiritual message. Perhaps it is possible to embrace a religion’s essence while rejecting individual discriminatory practices within that religion; in this way, every religion still has its own unique, yet also universally applicable, values to contribute to the church. Feel free to share your thoughts on what stance progressive, ecumenical churches should take towards this question.

Sources:
BBC World News
The Vancouver Sun

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

For all of its appeals to individual freedom, equality, and “justice for all”, the United States has often failed to serve as a model for the equality and justice it espouses, allowing other Western democracies to lead the way and demonstrate through active reform the very principles to which the U.S. only pays lip service. The slow-dying, discriminatory policies which linger on may not just affect minorities, but also members of majority groups, even ordained ministers at The Universal Life Church Monastery.

To vote in this poll, please get ordained and express your views.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Traditional wedding vows have always expressed deep love and commitment and, often, the ties of families, social bonds, and, for monotheists, the approbation of God. Certainly, many individuals today perceive marriage as an institution originally set up to legally recognize the exchange of property and inheritance rights rather than to solemnize the commitment to romantic love. Nevertheless, such a commitment has become the central function of marriage, and the wedding vow, the primary mechanism for their public declaration. Traditional vows, however, have grown clichéd and stale for many modern-day couples, who seek to personalize their vows in order to reflect their unique backgrounds.

Diane Warner’s Complete Book of Wedding Vows: Hundreds of Ways to Say “I Do” serves as a practical guide to choosing the most appropriate vows for the most non-traditional couples. As one of the largest compilations of wedding vows, minister and wedding planner, as well as bride and groom, will feel almost as if he or she has just entered a candy shop with boundless selection. Warner’s massive list, however, consists not of etched-in-stone dictations, but of helpful suggestions—it is even possible to combine elements from different chapters of the book in order to custom-make one’s own vows, depending on the composite of one’s ethnic, social, and religious background.

Many of Warner’s suggestions are non-traditional alternatives to such sexist and obsequious lines as “I . . . take you . . . to be my lawfully wedded husband . . . to honor and obey” and the paternalistic response, “I . . . take you . . . to be my lawfully wedded wife . . . to love and to cherish”. Warner’s guide takes into consideration divorcees and second marriages, widows, brides and grooms with children from previous marriages, and the more personal nature of the commitment which is coming to characterize modern-day marriage as a private affair. While many of the vows come out of the Judeo-Christian legacy, many others reflect the traditions of non-Abrahamic religions.

Warner’s book is also a helpful guide for those who view marriage more as a practical than as a spiritual commitment yet who still wish to symbolize their commitment in the form of a wedding ceremony. With an understanding of the diversity of her readers and the many different types of marriages, Warner devotes an entire chapter to secular vows in order to accommodate atheists, agnostics, and other non-spiritual or non-religious individuals who nevertheless have an interest in the benefits of civil marriage.

Thus, whether one is divorced, divorced with children, widowed, “heathen”, atheist, feminist, secular, or simply seeking creative alternatives to traditional declarations with which you may disagree or feel uncomfortable, the Complete Book of Wedding Vows is a veritable Bible of modern wedding vows, for planners, wedding officiants, and couples alike, which reflects the needs and interests of diverse, contemporary lifestyles.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Unlike states such as France, in which religious neutrality is preserved largely through secularism and a movement away from religiosity, the United States, through the First Amendment of its constitution, has maintained religious neutrality by accommodating all religions, as well as non-religion, by showing no preference for one over another; in the former approach, the state seeks to remove religion, or at least religious paraphernalia, from the public sphere, while in the latter, it seeks to enrich the public sphere with religious pluralism. One question remains, however: how far will the United States extend its commitment to religious neutrality when conflicts arise in the public sphere between religious conscience on one hand, and religiously neutral governmental and military duties on the other?

The U.S. Air Force Academy recently made a bold move to express its commitment to the unbiased accommodation of all religions represented within its ranks. The Academy recently moved a pair of stone circles, originally erected to provide cadets a space for relaxation, from a less stable site near its visitors center to a hilltop near the school’s campus. Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier, who identifies as pagan, discovered the site while searching for a place close to nature where he and his fellow pagans, druids, and Wiccans could commune and practice their rites. In response to the desire of these faith groups to find an appropriate site for their earth-based beliefs, the Academy, which has already provided worship places for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, designated the site as an official “place of worship”. According to Dan Elliott of The Huffington Post, the effort by the Air Force to provided worship sites for various religions follows in response to increased jokes and epithets among cadets directed at minority faith groups.”[S]o far”, Elliott reports Longcrier as saying, “we haven’t had any real issues.”

By inference, then, the Air Force must apply this same approach consistently with respect to all religious beliefs and practices which do not interfere with the civil and human rights of others. The Air Force may have succeeded so far in showing fairness and respect towards pagan, druid, and Wiccan cadets, but will it extrapolate its reasoning behind this to military chaplains who wish to discuss the homosexuality of the servicemembers they counsel, holding the religious conviction that a god or gods created homosexuals with same-sex preferences? The United States military is then presented with a contradiction between its own policies, between its accommodation of religious beliefs and its own sex-based discrimination. Currently, the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy proscribes its chaplains from discussing the subject as it pertains to the sexuality of other servicemembers, yet for some chaplains, the innateness of homosexuality is a doctrine of their faith, which must be engaged with unobstructed by the government; for them, it is a religious practice, hence a religious right, to counsel others with respect to their homosexuality.

The problem then becomes that the United States military has cherry-picked the religious rights of its servicemembers, patronizing some while discriminating against others, and has therefore violated the First Amendment injunction which requires the separation of church and state. As stated in its Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law, a part of Universal Life Church Monastery‘s mission is to defend freedom of religion where it does not impinge on the freedom of others, as well as the freedom from religion where it does. When a policy reflects an arbitrary bias toward some doctrines and a blind-eye toward others, it affects even ULCM members who wish to practice their beliefs unimpeded as chaplains in the military.

Do secularist states such as France provide an easier solution than pluralist states such as the U.S. to the problem of religious bias? Perhaps, but it is a long road to amending the Constitution in order to reflect the rejection of all religion, rather than the embrace of it, in the public sphere. Nevertheless, as long as the United States takes an “embrace all” stance, and as long as its military, whether knowingly or unknowingly, fails to reflect this principle by discriminating between which religious beliefs to accommodate, it is imperative for us to speak out against such hypocritical and discriminatory injustice.

Source: The Huffington Post

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•