Universal Life Church

As discussed in recent articles here on the ULC Monastery blog, alternative wedding ceremonies have gradually increased in popularity in North America, but on the other side of the Atlantic, in Britain, there is a growing trend toward traditional religious weddings in churches, which the Church of England sees as a boon to its influence in the community. Rapidly declining church attendance in the United Kingdom has left many cathedrals virtually empty, but the centuries-old structures may be seeing a revival as wedding facilities for couples who look back nostalgically on their cultural heritage.

In fact, it is the English Church, through a campaign called the Weddings Project, that is spearheading the effort to lure Britain’s brides and grooms back to Europe’s old, crumbling cathedrals to celebrate the sacrament of marriage.

After Parliament reformed a law in 1995 allowing weddings to be held outside register offices, in places such as castles, hotels, and stately homes, the Church saw a decline in wedding numbers. According to The Telegraph’s religious affairs correspondent Jonathan Wynne-Jones, “the number of such civil weddings rose to more than 50,000 a year, while the number of Church of England marriages fell by 40 per cent to about 55,000 a year”. It was a bleak period for the already bleak, musty, withering official state church of England, which has seen the virtual disintegration of its congregations in a grimly post-industrial, cynical Britain.

Now, the Church has taken a number of unconventional steps in order to compete with civil weddings and show young couples how relevant and meaningful a traditional religious wedding can be. As Wynne-Jones reports, churches now provide newlyweds with feedback forms to fill out, allowing clergy to assess their own performance and improve their standards. The resemblance to job evaluations and university course evaluations is certainly noteworthy, suggesting a modern twist to the church’s wedding operations. In addition, Wynne-Jones reports, bishops and vicars are now attending wedding shows where they hope to convince couples how down-to-earth the clergy are, and how accepting they are of modern-day atheists, agnostics, non-believers, and secularists seeking to tie the knot. Recently, the General Synod (the Church’s parliament) made it easier for persons to wed in parishes where they have familial links.

So while many North Americans are responding to the poor economy by pinching their pennies and opting for quirky yet inexpensive alternative weddings, many Britons are nostalgically re-discovering their own backyard by embracing the glory of the cathedral wedding. But it is not without practical considerations. Most likely the Church would have failed had it not taken such an egalitarian, interactive approach to luring customers. What seems to be taking place in both Britain and North America is something akin to creative “crowdsourcing”—in which the public play a role in imagining and creating the product to be consumed. Reflecting this trend, the English Church has been seeking out the creative insight of its own clients in order to re-create the traditional church wedding in a fresh, attractive light.

The rite of marriage and holy matrimony no longer requires the distant blessing of a dictatorial ecclesiastical hierarchy—rather, it reflects an equal, open exchange between clergy and client in an era when religious institutions have fallen under increasing pressure to re-imagine the traditional wedding ceremony in order to re-populate Europe’s great, empty churches. Perhaps these contemporary wedding trends and ideas reflect the increasing democratization of marriage, which used to mark social approval of a bargain or alliance between tribes but now defers to the individual rights of bride and groom, symbolizing the personal, romantic bond between two people. If this is the new face of marriage, is up to bride and groom to determine how best to celebrate their union, whether in a Home Depot, on a skydiving expedition, or on the verdant lawn of a ruined English abbey.

Source:

The Telegraph

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

Religious studies are, to say the least, a very precarious discipline to navigate, especially when compared with the far more straightforward sciences; emotions often run high (especially among younger, more impetuous first-year students) over religious attitudes about sexual morality. Certainly this was the case when adjunct professor Kenneth Howell of the University of Illinois was fired for explaining to his class the theoretical views of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality. This case illustrates nothing more than an unfortunate misunderstanding between teacher and student, and the former’s loss of a job as a consequence.

In preparation for an upcoming examination, Howell sent out an email to his students in which he discussed the philosophies of utilitarianism and natural law, and how these undergird much of the Catholic Church’s stance on moral issues such as same-sex affection. It is the view of the Universal Church of the Holy See, as Howell attempted to convey, that homosexuality is incompatible with the self-evident tenets and principles of natural law. In the email, he explained that,

Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to reality. In other words,  sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.

The explanation (not least because of the leap of logic it explains) did not go over well with all students, however, and one student, wishing to remain anonymous, persuaded a friend to email the head of the Department of Religion with a complaint over Howell’s alleged denigration of homosexuality on philosophical grounds, and the accusation that his words constituted “hate speech”. According to the Christian news magazine World, which serves as an online forum for Christian apologetics, the email complaint read that,

Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

Upon receiving the complaint, and as a consequence of the ensuing fracas, the University of Illinois reviewed the matter and, eventually, decided to formally terminate the professor’s employment.

But, ironically, it was teach about the tenets of a religion, and not endorse them, that Howell did. He never said it was his position that “sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same”; he said that it was the position of the Roman Catholic Church, on the grounds of natural law principles. Quite simply, the poor man never challenged the morality of homosexuality or same-sex relationships; he said that another group of people did so. Therefore it is quite impossible to convict him of hate speech. Unfortunately, for once he decided to forgo the convention of giving a disclaimer and stating explicitly “this is their view, not my own”, but the context clearly suggests he is giving the Church’s opinion on the matter, not his own.

Howell did not engage in hate speech; he merely explained in an objective manner the philosophical stance of a totally independent religious organization on a moral issue. As a professor of comparative religion and religious studies, it is his job to teach about what religious organizations teach, so we hope he gets his job back. Perhaps first-year university programs should place greater importance on semantics, logic, and basic reasoning skills. It might help students to grasp the concept of “voice”, and to distinguish between personal opinions and reported speech, before they take the liberty of pointing fingers.

Source:

World

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

The current economic recession has put a damper on the traditional wedding ceremony, with its lavish reception, catering, décor, and wedding favors, forcing many couples to seek creatively frugal alternatives to tying the knot. And it does not end with modern wedding vows. In a recent blog entry we discussed the growing popularity of retail weddings, in which couples choose their favorite store or retail outlet for the big event, allowing them to take advantage of free, store-supplied decorations that also create a unique, meaningful context for the ceremony. Increasingly, weddings are being performed in the most unlikely of settings.

As an example of the innovative ways in which couples are shaving dollars off their wedding expenses, Rachel Sifuientes and her groom held their contemporary wedding ceremony in a bowling alley, where they danced down one of the aisles to say their vows. The event did not turn out to be as tacky as Sifuentes feared, however. The bride and groom had an elegant Italian buffet set up for their seventy wedding guests—they invited only their closest friends and family members. In addition, rather than carry expensive bouquets, the women waved long streamers to usher the couple onward, and rather than hire a DJ to play music, they relied on an iPod hooked up to a set of speakers. Normally brides spend around $3000 for the wedding gown of their dreams, but Sifuentes purchased a chic, deep-blue silk gown at discount. Altogether, the price-tag came to $5,000.

According to wedding planners and wedding experts, there are myriad ways in which young couples can cut costs for this (ideally) once-in-a-lifetime event. Some of these include reducing the number of wedding guests—as Sifuentes did—to friends and relatives who are closest to the bride and groom. Couples can also save money by holding their ceremony in public venues, such as museums, libraries, and city parks, rather than booking lavish banquet halls or hotel ballrooms. Simplifying the wedding feast also helps—rather than serve a traditional five-course meal replete with fine china, one bride in Maine had a baked potato bar set up. Others save money on wedding supplies by substituting Rice Krispies treats and chocolate chip cookies for gourmet wedding cakes. Some items can be omitted entirely—for example, why give away fine china vases as wedding favours, or any wedding favours at all? The net effect, interestingly, is a simpler, more intimate reception focussed on the celebration itself rather than the material trappings which characterize more profligate weddings.

Inexpensive weddings need not be seen at all as “cheap”—in fact, wise planning and a focus on quality over quantity may simply enhance the overall elegance of the occasion. Jennifer Crawford of Huntington Beach, California, managed to incorporate the chic and fashionable into her ceremony by hiring a seamstress to re-create a $2,800 designer wedding gown; Crawford’s replica cost her only $650. Ironically, not only was it cheaper—it was cheaper and hand-crafted. Of course, it always saves to have friends and family officiate a wedding for a lower fee than the traditionally ordained minister, priest, or rabbi, and yet it is friends and family who make a truly special contribution to the ceremony. (And churches such as Universal Life Church Monastery offer free online ordination.) So, perhaps the “poor man’s wedding” proves to be a more elegant, “boutique-style” affair than its more frivolous counterpart.

Have you ever performed or attended an alternative modern wedding ceremony which reflected a quirky, creative use of resources? Or do you have some creative wedding ideas of your own which you believe would be great innovations on traditional marriage? Feel free to share your stories and ideas about how to make this special occasion both wallet-friendly and elegantly refined.

Source:

CNN

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

The ULC Monastery would like to congratulate “Survivor” host (and wedding officiant) Jeff Probst as well as newly-weds “The Office” star Jenna Fischer and writer Lee Kirk for the wedding performed earlier this month.

With millions of people ordained in the ULC and hundreds of thousands of weddings performed by ULC Ministers, it’s exciting to see a prominent case of having a close friend preside over a wedding.

Probst and Fischer are old friends, making Probst a perfect fit for the intimate ceremony.

Probst was ordained into the Universal Life Church, allowing him to perform weddings.

Image credit: watchwithkristin

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

While it is normally a bilious thing to watch the politicians of an officially secular state debate policy in terms of religion, it is at times so pathetically misguided as to be laughable—especially when the dictums of an ancient Israeli war god are invoked to determine what to do about impoverished illegal immigrants from Mexico. Nevertheless, evangelical Christian doctrine and morality once again insinuated its way into U.S. politics Wednesday when members of a House Judiciary subcommittee cited various passages from the Bible during a debate on immigration reform. For most of those present, the question was not whether the bible should be used to debate immigration reform, but rather how.

The number of Congress members who belong to religious councils and conventions is quite gobsmacking—it is almost as though membership in such organizations is a prerequisite to holding a seat in the House or Senate. Among those who attended the hearing were Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention; Bishop Gerald Kicanas, of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; James Edwards, Jr., a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies; and Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University law school. The hearing revealed a giant, gaping philosophical chasm dividing politicians over Arizona’s controversial new law granting officials unprecedented authority in arresting individuals they suspect to be illegal immigrants.

It probably comes as no surprise that the “sermons” which characterized the hearing were carried out in large part by southern Republicans. Texas Representative Lamar Smith, the Judiciary Committee’s top-ranking member of the GOP, quoted several passages from the Christian bible to support his belief in stricter border security: “The bible contains numerous passages that support the rule of law. The scriptures clearly indicate that God charges civil authorities with preserving order, protecting citizens and punishing wrongdoers”. Citing Romans 13, Smith stated, “[l]et every person be subject to governing authorities”, and, citing Leviticus, added, “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong”, stipulating that the passage does not suggest we should ignore civil law. Finally, after arguing that a passage from Matthew 13 about caring for the needy did not conflict with a strong stance against illegal immigration, Smith asserted that a “truly Christian moral approach would be not to acquiesce to illegal immigration, but to work to end it”. Never mind the counter-intuitive, slippery-slope use of contradictory evidence to support his argument (how, again, does a command to help the needy support deporting illegal immigrants?), or the fact that John Adams stated quite unambiguously in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli,

…the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….

Smith is certain that, somehow, he aced this one. Some will ask, “but what about context?” Well, the treaty makes the overall argument that because the United States is not a Christian country, it has no grounds for conflict with Muslim nations. It does not somehow, in some way, suggest, “okay, we’re a little bit Christian” or “okay, maybe we really are pushing a secret Christian agenda”. It says flat out that the United States is not founded on Christianity. It is hard to imagine John Adams participating in the sort of discussion the subcommittee held, at least from a bible-based perspective.

But the use of religious literature and sacred texts was not limited to those who have “hardened their hearts” to the humanitarian aspect of illegal immigration. Referring to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop Kicanas argued, “Church teaching acknowledges and upholds the right of a nation to control its borders. [But] it is our view that the best way to secure our southern border is through [comprehensive] immigration reform”.  That pesky little establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states,

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion

seems to have fallen by the wayside. One might argue, “but they didn’t pass any law; they merely invoked the Bible”, yet if we understand the purpose of the clause to be the need to keep religion out of politics, then it does not exactly help to defer to “Church teaching” in a political discussion, does it?

Still the evangelizing did not abate, nor did anybody seem to think twice about its appropriateness. Iowa GOP Representative Steve King chimed in with his own exegesis of the holy scripture, complaining how reform advocates saw the bible as excusing open borders: “I didn’t realize that the Bible barred the enforcement of immigration laws and neither did I realize that it erased borders, demanded pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants, or … forbid the leaders of a nation from caring most about the well-being of its own citizens”. Further illustrating the biblical basis of his position, he then pointed out how Israel, the land of the bible, had recently constructed a fence to keep foreigners off its soil.

It would probably sorely disappoint most of those present at the hearing to discover the religious views of founding “father” Thomas Jefferson himself, whose proclamation that,

Religions are all alike—founded upon fables and mythologies

has, surprisingly, fallen into obscurity given its significance to the current debate over church-state separation. Given how this one little maxim would pulverize the conservative argument for America’s Christian foundation, it has been very conveniently ignored, rather like the following juicy tidbit by Abraham Lincoln:

The bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.

What is perhaps most disturbing about the religious nature of the hearing is the subjectivity with which religion was treated, and the fact that, apparently, it did not cross a single person’s mind that quoting bible passages at work might be a little bit unprofessional for lawmakers of a secular nation-state. Needless to say, separation of church and state is a principle ULC Monastery strongly supports, so the House Judiciary subcommittee’s hearing is more than slightly alarming. We invite our ministers to share their thoughts: Should Congress members be holding sermons and bible devotionals on the job? Check back often for updates on this and other issues concerning religion and politics.

Source:

CNN

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

In celebration of all our ULC Ministers, we would love to create a photo album featuring ULC weddings and religious services.  Do you have photos from your wedding, weddings you’ve officiated, or other religious services that you’d like to share on our blog and Facebook page?

If so, please e-mail your photos as an attachment in .jpg, .gif, or .png format to larry.ulcmonastery@gmail.com (just be sure to ask permission from the people in the photos).  Once we receive the photos, we’ll post them to a Facebook album and here in the blog.

We can’t wait to see all your lovely pictures!

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

Here at ULC Monastery blog we try to cover the latest news on freedom of speech and religion, so the recent developments in federal free speech protection are of particular interest. On 13 July, a federal appeals court in New York City struck down the media profanity ban imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), declaring it an unconstitutionally vague threat to the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling illustrates how constitutional freedoms seem to be a work in progress rather than a practical reality in the United States, especially with regard to freedom of speech in media broadcasting; it also reflects the schizophrenic preoccupation with “protecting” children and families in the U.S.

Judge Rosemary Pooler of the 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan sent down a statement for the three-judge panel explaining the decision to throw out the ban, which was put in place by the FCC in 2004 to “protect” viewers from “indecent” references to sex and excrement. (Read our blog entry on religious attitudes towards sex and sexuality.) Until the decision, the FCC had the power to fine broadcasters for allowing even a single expletive deemed “indecent” by the FCC to make it on air. In the statement, the court argued that “[b]y prohibiting all `patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what `patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive “, adding that “[t]o place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster’s peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment”. The decision allowed for the FCC to lay out a new policy which did not violate First Amendment freedoms.

While some will view opposition to the ban as a frivolous preoccupation, the ban has had a substantial impact on how information is communicated in the media. One example of “chilled speech”—speech which reflects nervous self-censorship—which the court cited is a Vermont radio station’s refusal to broadcast a political debate because one of the politicians was known for having sworn on-air; another is a Pennsylvania station’s refusal to air news coverage that did not deal directly with public safety. In reference to such decisions, the court stated that the “chill reaches speech at the heart of the First Amendment”. Broadcasters who opposed the ban reported satisfaction with the court’s decision.

Perhaps the most intriguing response to the decision comes from the FCC itself and deals with the protection of children and families from “indecent” speech. FCC Chairman Julian Genachowski expressed the Commission’s views on how to harmonize public decency, morality, and free speech when he said in a statement, “[w]e’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment”. Meanwhile, Tim Winter, president of the Parent Television Council, inveighed against the ruling: “A three-judge panel in New York once again has authorized the broadcast networks unbridled use of the `F-word’ at any time of the day, even in front of children”. Apparently, the grave and solemn fear that American parents harbor over the corruption of children’s minds by words they already hear on the playground is alive and well.

Does this fear make any sense, and does it coddle children while sanitizing artistic expression of its inherent attributes? For people who subscribe to evangelical and fundamentalist religious values, words such as fuck and shit are so deleterious to children’s psyche that artistic integrity and honesty in music, film, and literature should take a back seat to the delicate purity of a child’s mind. But, ironically, by maintaining that children and families should not be exposed to profanity, opponents of the court’s ruling seek to deprive individuals—including children and families themselves—of their right to unadulterated self-expression. It is hard to see how it makes any sense to protect people’s rights by taking them away. Of course, one might argue that children and families care about freedom from dirty words, and not the freedom to use them—but of course they do. Artists, writers, and commentators belong to families as well, and all of them were children at one point, so, in essence, by shielding children and families from profanity, it is impossible not to impinge on their rights.

As many of our legally ordained ministers and clergy members already know, ULC Monastery believes strongly in freedom of speech and, indeed, in any freedom which does not interfere with the freedoms of others, so we see the court’s decision regarding the FCC’s policy as a move in the right direction. Perhaps more parents might choose to remove their television sets and radios from their homes and force their children to play on the playground, but here, again, they will hear the same expletives that they would hear on the airwaves, so protecting them from profanity proves impracticable and, ultimately, detrimental to their careers when they grow up to become artists and writers.

Read our ecclesiastical proclamation of canon law to find out more about our stance on individual rights.

Source:

Associated Press

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

The impending vote in France’s National Assembly on a proposed Muslim veil ban has raised important questions about what constitutes women’s rights. On one hand, opponents of the ban claim that a truly feminist approach would be to allow women the right to wear veils if they choose, and that arresting and fining women for choosing to do so can hardly be seen as liberating women; on the other hand, proponents of the ban argue that defending a woman’s right to wear a veil if she so chooses only protects that one particular right while supporting an overarching ideology that denies women all other rights. It is the latter argument which is put forth by Egyptian-born journalist Mona Eltahawy, who identifies as a Muslim as well as a liberal and a feminist.

Eltahawy’s support for the proposed ban reflects a division between European and American attitudes on the issue of religion and women’s rights. In Europe, she explains, centuries of religious conflict and efforts to keep religion out of people’s personal lives have led to a tradition excluding religion from the public realm; in America, however, the individual can invoke religious freedom to justify almost any act, creating a sort of “hallowed ground” which to defile is taboo. If we are to defend women’s right to choose, the Americans argue, this must include women’s right to choose to wear a veil, but Eltahawy counters,

“I’m really outraged that people get into these huge fights and say that as a feminist you must support a woman’s right to do this, because it’s basically the only kind of ‘right’ that this ideology wants to give women. Otherwise they get nothing.”

For Eltahawy, it is ironic to defend women choosing to wear burqas, because this simply supports the very ideology which denies women the right to choose in general, so the principle is essentially a self-defeating one. However, the journalist admits that the effort to ban the burqa is in the wrong hands—namely, right-wing conservatives and Christian fundamentalists—and should be taken back up as a liberal cause. “[W]hat really disturbs me about the European context”, she explains, “is that the ban is driven almost solely by xenophobic right wingers who I know very well don’t give a toss about women’s rights”, adding that “they’re hijacking an issue that they know is very emotive and very easy to sell to Europeans who are scared about immigration, Europeans who are scared about the economy, Europeans who don’t understand people who look and sound different [from] them”. Thus, in Eltahawy’s view, the ban is not a conservative assault on women’s freedom, but a liberal boon to it; it has just been co-opted by disingenuous bigots who care little about women’s rights and whose main agenda is to stem a terrifying influx of strangers into the European subcontinent.

But does Eltahawy’s argument hold water? She claims that supporting the right to wear the veil is ultimately opposing women’s rights in general since it supports the overall tradition of oppression, yet this seems like an over-simplistic argument—this is because supporting a woman’s right to choose to wear a veil does not necessarily require or presuppose denying them all other rights; indeed, it is possible to support a woman’s right to choose to wear a veil and her right to do anything else. So, perhaps the best path towards solving the veil dilemma is in neither a strict outright ban, nor an endorsement of veil-wearing which ignores its underlying fundamentalist Muslim ideology, but rather a third solution entirely. Hypothetically, it should be possible to allow women the right both to wear a veil and to drive, go shopping, and go to the hospital wherever and whenever they want, and without a male chaperon. That is, the French might simply pass a law that allows women the choice to do anything (as long as it does not harm another, of course), and the result is that everybody wins—women who want to wear the veil may do so, but she may also drive, go shopping, and travel without a male chaperon if she so chooses.

It would be naïve for Americans to overlook the fact that, for Europeans, veils are highly evocative symbols which conjure up images of oppression, hierarchy, and domineering, theocratic societies in which women are subordinate to men, and that these images cut to the sensitive core of the cherished secular Enlightenment philosophy and values which Europeans have literally spent centuries cultivating. Of course, the absolutist attitudes of anti-veil zealots do not really reflect such values, especially given their ulterior xenophobic motives. Maybe veil proponents need to heed the warning of people such as Eltahawy that blind support of choosing to wear veils inadvertently justifies a larger system which denies choice in general, while opponents should consider the possibility of both—that women can wear veils and do anything else if they want to.

Learn more about the tenets of the Muslim faith by visiting out Guide to Divinity.

Source:

Salon

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

Over the weekend, many news outlets reported the story of former US President William (Bill) Clinton’s officiating the wedding of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner – longtime aide of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Many stories proposed that his ordination was a ULC ordination, as many become ordained to perform a wedding.

Because there are no official sources to this story, our telephone lines and e-mail boxes have been full of people asking to verify the legitimacy of President Clinton’s ordination. We want to make it publicly clear that we take privacy very seriously and will never reveal any information on our ministers at any time.

Occasionally a celebrity chooses to make their ordination public as we saw last week when Jason Segal married a couple on Jay Leno’s show. In Clinton’s case, we cannot confirm or deny the status of his ordination. We do wish him the best of luck and thank him for his years of service to this country.

You can see a list of public famous ULC ministers. **NOTE These are ministers who have publicly stated their affiliation with the Universal Life Church.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

Jack Mosley, songwriter, entertainer and one of the best “TropRock” artists in America, has released his newest song, “Drill Baby Drill”, in response to the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  When thinking about ways in which he could help, Mosley decided to produce a video for “Drill Baby Drill”, showcasing the devastating effects that this man-made disaster continues to have on Gulf Coast communities, beaches, wildlife and ecosystems.

It is crucial that the pain and suffering of residents, the destruction of habitats and recreational beaches, and the mounting deaths of wildlife remain in the consciousness of today’s decision makers, media and general public.

“The mentality and hubris behind BP and all companies involved in this mess – drill at any cost – is unbelievable! They don’t care about us, the oyster beds, the fishermen and their families and the thousands of other ecosystems that are affected by their mistakes. It’s just the bottom line for them and they’re willing to take short-cuts to get that bottom line fatter. I grew up that area playing on those beaches – this goes back to my beginnings. That’s why I had to write this song.”

Drill Baby Drill – Jack Mosley from ULC Monastery on Vimeo.

In keeping with his life-long convictions, Jack Mosley will be dedicating all proceeds from the sale of his new CD, “Heading South”, to the World Wildlife Fund, who have promised that 100% of donations will go directly to wildlife rehabilitation, without the imposition of administrative costs.

“This makes me sick to my stomach” Jack went on to say. “I have an engineering background and why they didn’t have a simple auto-shutoff system in place that kicks in immediately when the power to the rig is lost is beyond me! … It’s just common sense and good business but these guys don’t care! It’s all about the money – they don’t give a damn about us!”

To date, the Gulf oil well disaster has:

• Spilled 60,000 barrels, or 2.5 million gallons of oil, EACH DAY into the Gulf of Mexico – as of June 30th, 2010 equates to over 140 million gallons
• Killed 11 workers due to the explosion on the off-shore rig
• Killed hundreds of thousands of organisms – flora and fauna.  This number will rise to the millions before this is over
• Created a new wave of unemployment – 16,000 unemployed in Louisiana alone – as a direct result of the spill which has shut down fishing, tourism and other businesses

These statistics are just the tip of the iceberg…

The Universal Life Church Monastery is proud to be involved in the effort to help Jack get the word out, by producing the video for “Drill Baby Drill” for the internet. We are honored to be a part of Jack Mosley’s vision and to do our part to help – by doing that which is right!

You can purchase or download Jack’s new album at CD Baby, iTunes, or any other CD Baby distribution partners.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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