Universal Life Church

Ever wondered how to perform a long-distance wedding? One couple who are barred from marrying in their home state have successfully married via the software application Skype, which allows users to engage in voice and video calls. The event illustrates the creative ways in which people are using modern technology to navigate the often arbitrary system of wedding laws that characterizes the United States.

The practice is called “e-marriage”, and longtime partners Mark Reed and Dante Walkup have pioneered a new use for it. Conventionally, e-marriages are held when one party cannot be present—for example, when one of them is stationed abroad in the military, however, the wedding between Dante Walkup and Mark Reed, who serves as a board member for the U.S. LGBT direct action group GetEQUAL, constitutes the first gay digital wedding. It was held inside the W Dallas Victory hotel in the conservative U.S. state of Texas, where same-sex wedding nuptials are still illegal, and was performed by wedding officiant and marriage equality activist Sheila Alexander-Reid from a similar W Hotel room in Washington, DC, where same-sex marriage is legal. Alexander-Reid appeared before the couple on a 6-foot-by-8-foot screen in one of the Dallas hotel’s conference rooms. The couple received their marriage license in the mail a few days later.

But why not simply travel to a district, state, or country where same-sex marriage is legal and hold your ceremony there? The reason, for Reed and Walkup, is that their friends and family are back in Dallas, not in Washington, DC. “The reason we wanted to do it this way is because we wanted to have a wedding here in Dallas with our family and friends”, said Reed, according to John Wright of Dallas Voice, adding that “It was very important that all of our family came. It was the first time they actually met, even though we’ve been together 10 years. If we had to go to D.C., there’s no way we could have had the people there who we wanted to be there”. As the case of Reed and Walkup shows, e-marriage is an ideal solution for couples who wish to circumvent the outmoded and discriminatory marriage laws of their local jurisdiction, but who also wish for friends and family to be present at little inconvenience. The couple did, however, have to travel to Washington beforehand in order to register (which makes one wonder how military couples manage this).

Of course, there are some very powerful and vociferous opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, a country not only mired in red-blooded machismo and stubborn patriarchal sentiment, but notorious among industrialized nations for its hysterical and schizophrenic attitude towards the very thought of two men kissing. As Wright explains, while there is no law in Washington barring e-marriage, same-sex marriage opponents may very well challenge the practice in order to annul the two men’s marriage. After all, everything about the Reed and Walkup marriage is subversive to the status quo—two men in love have been married to each other over the Internet by a gay rights activist and a legally ordained minister who is black and a woman, no less.

The long-distance wedding between Reed and Walkup vividly highlights the absurdity of granting and denying civil and constitutional rights on the basis of imaginary state boundaries. If such rights are universally applicable, and not relative to regional differences, then denying them in one state but granting them in another contradicts this principle of universal applicability. Opponents will argue, “but the right was granted in such-and-such a state, and not another, because of a majority rule in that state”. But this observation does not refute the point that civil and constitutional rights are granted and denied on the basis of imaginary state boundaries; indeed, it merely confirms this point by admitting that even majority rule is incumbent on fictive and arbitrary lines drawn across prairie grasses and mountain passes. (Besides, there is the problem of majorities ruling on issues which do not affect them, and the question whether, in a true democracy, legislators are compelled to make decisions reflecting the interests of their constituents when the decision at hand does not involve or concern their constituents.)

Despite this looming threat, the e-wedding between Reed and Walkup is an encouraging move forward in erasing such ridiculously arbitrary lines and enabling rights which are universally applicable in theory to be universally applicable in practice as well. Maybe someday somebody, whether an individual or a consortium of equality supporters, will successfully achieve this task by invoking the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, and thus trumps states’ rights to deny the sacrament of marriage on the basis of sex. In the meantime, we can rely on Skype and other software applications to make marriage a little bit more accessible to those who deserve it, but are otherwise denied it.

Source:

Dallas Voice

Globe and Mail

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

The rapid growth of communication technology has proved to be a mixed bag in the eyes of people of faith. While the interface of social networking and spirituality has provided creative alternatives for religious observance, it has also been characterized as a source of temptation. Now, one megachurch pastor has even blamed Facebook for tempting individuals to cheat on their partners. Thus, the real question has become whether or not technology is good for religion. But blaming Facebook is unfair, because people should be held accountable for their own mistakes, and social networks also offer a great deal of benefits and resources which help strengthen marriages.

Reverend Cedric A. Miller, senior pastor at the evangelical and nondenominational Living Word Christian Fellowship Church in New Jersey, recently expressed his view that married lay members should cancel their Facebook accounts, revealing also that he will force his church staff, junior ministers, and other clergy members to do the same or resign from their jobs. Miller says that his counseling sessions over the past year-and-a-half or so have dealt largely with marital troubles stemming from Facebook, which, he claims, tempts individuals to cheat on their spouses by re-connecting with old flames. According to Nancy Shields of APP.com, last Tuesday the minister said, “It’s to the point now that this Sunday, anyone in our church in a leadership position and who is married and is on Facebook has to resign their church position if they do not give up Facebook”. Rev. Miller said he will give a sermon on the matter this coming Sunday.

Next Sunday’s service will not be the first time the reverend has spoken on the subject.  Just a few weeks ago, he held a sermon in which he blamed Facebook for luring congregants away from the Christian god and Christian teachings, and re-connecting them to a sinful past: “I spoke on it a few weeks back, and just admonished people that there’s a reason why your past is the past and hopefully you have grown in the Lord, matured to not link up with a past that for many people is a Christless past”. Originally, the pastor had advised couples to avoid cheating by simply sharing their passwords with one another, but the problem has gotten so out of hand, he claims, that he has adopted a position of outright opposition to the use of Facebook for all married couples. In order to drive this message home once and for all, he has gone so far as to characterize the social network as un-Christian: “I know from where we stand in the Christian perspective, the connection is inappropriate”.

While some individuals, such as the chair of Living Word’s board of trustees, have expressed their support of the reverend’s position, others have contested it as misguided. Psychotherapist William Rosenblatt is one professional on relationships who suggests that Facebook and religious observance are not mutually incompatible: “Facebook doesn’t

create dissatisfied marriages”, Shields quotes Rosenblatt as saying. “People who are dissatisfied now have better means of creating support systems and networks that are much more vast [sic], and it’s much easier to connect with people that way.” Rosenblatt also describes three types of possible responses individuals may have to new and unfamiliar environmental demands:

I would see the pastor’s decree as sort of another example of how, when we as a group are faced with dramatic change, there are three paths people take…. One path is we need to go back to the way things were, the conservative path…. Another group are those who just want to rush ahead and change everything. Then a third group says, let’s not paint this black and white. Let’s be mindful and thoughtful how we do this.

In other words, Rosenblatt suggests, rapid changes in the environment cause some people to react by rejecting these new environmental stimuli and seeking to revive old ways of doing things, and this is exactly what Rev. Miller is doing. One might compare the example of Miller to that of men who attempt to revive traditional masculine sex roles in a sort of

stubborn, retrogressive backlash against the fact that the new, emerging U.S. economy requires more men to fill traditionally feminine jobs such as teaching, nursing, and social work, and yet more men will need to adapt and fill such positions if the economy is to remain vital. Either way, new environmental and social demands are met with resistance to change and adaptation (which, of course is, the whole point of evolution).

However, Miller’s resistance to the increasing influence of technology (the internet, smartphone apps, etc.) in the lives of the faithful is not exactly fair or logical.

First, the Reverend suggests that the source of temptation (Facebook) should be blamed for the individual’s transgressions rather than the individual him/herself, because the individual cannot help their own behavior. (This is like saying, “Satan made me to do it”.) But perhaps what the Reverend should be doing is teaching people that they are responsible for their own actions, because they do have agency over themselves. If evangelicals and other religious fundamentalists are constantly preaching that the individual has free will, they should therefore be preaching that the individual has free will to reject the temptation to cheat on their spouse. Indeed, teaching fortitude and discipline in the face of temptation, and thus demonstrating profound personal growth, ought to make a far more meaningful and insightful sermon on integrity.

Second, the Reverend is throwing the baby out with the bathwater by focusing only on the potential ills of social networking. It doesn’t make sense to reject an entire thing just because of its negative traits when it also possesses a substantial number of positive traits. Even if Facebook threatens marriages by tempting married people to re-connect with old sweethearts and cheat on their spouses, it also provides myriad resources and support networks which offer assistance for troubled marriages. For example, while John Doe might re-discover his old flame Jane Doe, he might also discover an online forum offering advice and support on marriage issues. So if Reverend Miller is to criticize Facebook for its more salacious side, he should also be commending it for its dedication to preserving moral uprightness.

Social networking and religious belief will only become more interconnected. As they do, it will be curious to see how spiritual leaders and clergy members, as well as the laity itself, react to these changes, and whether or not the faithful will treat this technology as a curse, or as a boon to morality. As always, though, we’d like to know what our ordained ministers think. Should married people avoid using Facebook in case it tempts them to cheat on their spouses, or should they use it because of the resources it provides for strengthening troubled marriages?

Source:

APP.com

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

Who would want to marry a prisoner? Apparently a lot of people—one minister in the Universal Life Church has found a surprisingly stable market in prison weddings. Cindy Richardson, a notary public who decided to get ordained online, has since made it her career to bring together loved ones—despite the bars that may, quite literally, keep them apart.

For nearly two years, Richardson has been performing inmate weddings—she even drives a van that says “Jailhouse Weddings” on it. When her son, Josh, was sent to jail, Richardson decided it would be easier to match him up, and create a more intimate and meaningful experience, if she became ordained in the ULC. Eventually she married Josh to Amanda Eddlemon, who became ordained as a minister herself and now performs most of the inmate weddings. Meanwhile, Richardson has focussed her efforts on obtaining notarized proof of ID required to issue a legal marriage license to individuals, such as inmates, who cannot be present at the county clerk’s office.

Richardson describes the motive behind prisoners wanting to get married as a desire for a heartfelt affirmation of love and commitment, despite the prisoner’s status. Usually it happens once an individual has been sentenced to jail time, she notes, and this is largely based on a sense of insecurity. Prisoners, she explains, are often uncertain of the loyalty of their romantic partners, and “tying the knot” in prison serves as surety against a partner’s abandonment. “Guys [all of the inmates have been male thus far] get the whole insecurity thing going on”, says Richardson. “Girlfriends or fiancées want to reassure them, ‘I’ll be here for you’”. If a person is willing to marry a lover even if that lover is sequestered away in a cell, it suggests a level of commitment which the inmate can rely on.

Inmates also get additional visitation rights if they are proven to be legally married according to the laws of their state or other jurisdiction. Richardson describes how they are allowed a surprisingly substantial amount of visitation time with individuals to whom they have been. “When you’re married, you can have family visits. You go in on a Friday and come out on Sunday.” Whether or not these scheduled visitation times give couples the opportunity to consummate their love remains unclear, however.

Of course, Richardson and Eddlemon’s wedding business doesn’t hinge entirely on what the man wants. As Eddlemon explains, she designs her ceremonies to reflect the expectation that the inmate will take his new duties as husband seriously, regardless of his status as a prisoner. During the exchange of wedding vows, which are often written by the bride and groom themselves, she asks the groom, “Do you take her to be your wife through freedom and incarceration [sic]?” For Eddlemon, this is meant to encourage an expression of sincere devotion and solemn respect for the sacrament of holy matrimony. “”I get straight to the point”, she says, adding, “I tell the guy you owe them big time when you get home. They’re giving up everything to stand by your side.” In this sense, at least, jail weddings reflect a particularly strong sense of commitment.

Richardson and Eddlemon’s jail weddings are just one of myriad offbeat, quirky, or otherwise unconventional types of modern wedding ceremony officiated by ministers ordained in online churches. Often, it is these clergy-members who are the first to extend their services to couples who want their special day to be presided over by somebody who understands them, or who expresses sympathy for the shunned and under-privileged of society. Share your stories with us. As a minister ordained online, have you ever officiated at a prison wedding, or some other wedding, funeral, or baptism which others were unwilling to handle because it fell outside acceptable or conventional social norms in some sense?

Source:

The Riverside Press-Enterprise

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

In an attempt to bring traditional Roman Catholic values back to an increasingly progressive Spain, Pope Benedict XVI visited the country’s centuries-old pilgrimage site of Santiago de Compostela, where he criticized the growing “anti-church” sentiment of the Spanish people and compared it with the anti-church violence of Spain’s civil war of the 1930s. Although the Pontiff was met by cheering crowds, this was offset by protests bearing a strong anti-Catholic sentiment. The visit highlights the increasingly weak grip of the Church on one of its traditional strongholds.

Pope Benedict has made efforts to combat what he sees as a disturbing wave of antipathy towards the Universal Church of Rome, and he voiced his concerns to the crowd upon his arrival. According to Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press, he told journalists en route to Santiago—where he met with Crown Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia—that he had set up a special office within the Vatican to combat increasing secularization worldwide, with special emphasis on the traditionally Catholic Spain. Winfield quotes the Pontiff as saying, “In Spain, a strong, aggressive laicity, an anti-clericalism, a secularization has been born as we experienced in the 1930′s”, adding, “For the future of the faith, it is this meeting—not a confrontation but a meeting—between faith and laicity, which has a central point in Spanish culture”. The pope reminded those he greeted upon arrival that Pope John Paul II had issued a similar warning upon his visit to the site in 1982, describing his hope of seeing “[a] Spain and Europe concerned not only with people’s material needs but also with their moral and social, spiritual and religious needs, since all these are genuine requirements of our common humanity”.

After his visit to Santiago, on the country’s wet and foggy northwestern coast, Benedict made an appearance in Barcelona, in the Mediterranean coastal region of Catalonia, where about two hundred gay, lesbian, and bisexual citizens jeered and staged a “kiss-in” protest on the street as the head of the Church passed by in his bulletproof popemobile on his way to celebrate Mass at the city’s famed basilica, La Sagrada Familia. Despite their efforts, the protesters were outnumbered by throngs of supportive Catholics. Once inside the church, Benedict focused his censure at those laws which he sees as anti-Catholic—particularly those granting easier access to abortion and allowing same-sex marriage.

For the Vatican, Spain is essentially a vital organ in the church’s global “empire”, and the current government threatens to undermine the country’s traditional loyalty. Since its return to democracy after the death of the fascist dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, Spain has become one of Europe’s most economically prosperous and socially progressive countries. Under Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s socialist government, the country has allowed access to abortion, fast-track divorce, and same-sex marriage, in contravention of the official policy of the Vatican.

Dark storm-clouds seem to have followed the pope wherever he has travelled in his European junket. He was also met with protests during a recent visit to Britain, a country whose people have for centuries shown particular suspicion towards the Holy See. As he arrived at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh to meet the Queen, he received the usual swarm of adorers waving flags, but this, too, was offset by several contingents of protesters. As he spoke, he praised Britain for its role in defeating Hitler’s allegedly “extremist atheism”, and he noted the country’s attempts to forge a modern, multicultural society, but qualified this statement with an admonishment against “aggressive forms of secularism” which threaten to derail more traditional values and morals.

Perhaps most ironic about the Pontiff’s statements is the fact that the actions of protesters have not appeared in the least bit violent or in any way reminiscent of the fascist take-over of Spain in the 1930s. The Barcelona kiss-in apparently succeeded as a peaceful, yet deliberately calculated and irreverent, form of resistance to what a growing number of modern Spaniards view as an oppressive, ironclad regime which itself has had Europe in its grip for centuries, especially in the form of such brutal tribunals as the Spanish Inquisition. For many young, modern Europeans, this is not so much different from the military dictatorships which characterized Europe in the twentieth century.

It will be interesting to observe how the attitudes of Europeans toward the Roman Catholic Church change in the coming years, and whether the Vatican succeeds in persuading people to return to more traditional Catholic values, or in turning them away through its refusal to adapt to modern society. We would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Is the Church as strong and venerable an institution as ever, or is it gradually losing ground in an increasingly secular Europe?

Sources:

Washington Times

CBC

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

In a bid to nurture more understanding for the humanist way of thinking, the Humanist Association of America has launched a new advertising campaign contrasting the shortcomings of religion with the benefits of humanism. Marketing experts have said the campaign probably will not succeed in converting many people, but will succeed in directing the discourse on religion.

The campaign attempts to highlight the negative aspects of religion—especially Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity and Islam—in part by citing passages from the Bible and Quran which describe crimes against humanity. For Roy Speckhardt, head of the association, these books contain “horrific material, and to say you get your morality from there” is problematic. One technique of the campaign is to take violent or sexist verses from holy books and contrast them with more compassionate, humane quotations from progressive and humanistic thinkers, such as renowned physicist Albert Einstein.

According to Speckhardt, the goal of the campaign is to make humanism more acceptable by challenging right-wing, fundamentalist ideas about ethics and morality. Paraphrasing Speckhardt, CNN’s Richard Allen Greene explains that “[t]he target audience is people who may not realize they are humanists”. “We’re targeting for criticism those who read the Bible literally, not those who pick and choose what they like,” he quotes Speckhardt as saying. “We’re telling (people who pick and choose), ‘You’re more like us.’ Biblical literalists and Quranic literalists are holding us back.” Speckhardt wants to try to convince people that people can be good without belief in God: “We know that you can be good without God, but many folks in America don’t know that”. In addition, he states, the AHA does not expect to convert people with the new billboards, but, he adds, there are 34 million people in America unaffiliated with a religion, and the AHA hopes to make it easier for these individuals to be open and honest about their humanistic beliefs. “We feel those (unaffiliated) folks don’t yet know they can admit that they don’t believe in God”, Green quotes him as saying.

Marketing analysts agree that the AHA’s goal should be in making humanism more acceptable, not necessarily in trying to convert people, at least not with its current campaign strategy. According to marketing expert Allysen Stewart-Allen, “[o]ne of the things that the humanists need to articulate is what success looks like for the campaign—if it’s converts, I wouldn’t think that is a realistic measure”. Indeed, it seems rather improbable that humanists will change any minds soon with slogans such as “Some believe; humanists think”. Stewart-Allen does, however, see potential for the campaign to broaden and deepen the discussion on religion: “It will certainly get people talking”. Of course, as mentioned above, the campaign’s goal has never necessarily been to convert people, but rather to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, thus it seems plausible that the campaign should succeed.

Not all of the AHA’s campaign epigrams insult the intelligence of the faithful, however. Some of them are simply thought-provoking. One particular catchphrase that the organization has exploited asks people to “be good for goodness’ sake”, and not just because it pleases an almighty deity or god. In other words, the idea suggests, ethics possess their own inherent value, and we should be ethical toward our fellow human being because of the value of being ethical, not because some god told us to. That would just be “sucking up”.

Open and honest discussion about different spiritual beliefs and philosophies has always been an important part of the ULC Monastery’s interfaith mission, so we look forward to seeing how the AHA’s campaign turns out, and whether it succeeds in making people consider new and fresh ideas about religious faith, and, perhaps, even inching closer yet toward a place of reconciliation. If nothing else, hopefully the efforts will level the playing field in religious discourse and provide a calm, rational, alternative voice to the often zealous, fundamentalist beliefs being promulgated far and wide across America.

Learn more about apatheistic humanism, and how it contrasts with atheism, by visiting our guide to world religions.

Source:

CNN

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

We have heard about extreme adventure weddings (sky-diving, bungee-jumping) and retail weddings held inside a favorite store, but one couple from Florida has added yet another dimension to the modern wedding ceremony. Kelly Morningstar and Sean Wilson decided to hold a vampire-themed Wiccan wedding ceremony inside the Florida mall where Kelly works as an event planner, and the date they chose for the special day, naturally, was Halloween.

The wedding apparel, cakes, and decorations reflected the theme quite effectively. Rather than the usual black tuxedo, white shirt, and bow-tie, the groomsmen donned black tuxedos with purple ties, and the bridesmaids, black dresses with purple sashes. The bride herself wore a deep purple, satiny gown embroidered with sparkling silver arabesques. The main wedding cake was purple and black, with maroon and cream mixed in, and consisted of three coffin-shaped tiers; the cake for the groom, who is a fan of the T.V. cartoon show “Transformers”, was topped with the transformer character Optimus Prime. To complete the theme, everybody wore fangs.

The mood was anything but sinister, however. Bride and groom picked Tood Ernst, a minister in the Universal Life Church, as their wedding officiant. As Ernst explained, the mission of the Universal Life Church has always been a benevolent one—chiefly, to reconcile divergent faith groups, from Islam and Christianity to Wicca and atheism. There were no blood rituals or animal sacrificing at the Wilsons’ wedding; rather, it reflected uniquely Wiccan traditions. The ceremony began with the exchange of dark red roses, followed by the lighting of candles, the exchange of rings and wedding vows, and the blessing of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water.  Ernst then blessed the four cardinal directions and joined the couple’s hands in the sign of infinity, and draped colored cords over the joined hands. The couple recited vows in which they promised to honor, respect, love, and express uninhibited sensuality for each other. They ended by kissing and stepping over a besom, or broomstick, in accordance with Wiccan custom.

Guests expressed an appreciation for the unconventionality of the Wilsons’ modern wedding ceremony, and for the bride and groom’s deliberate eccentricity. The groom’s mother, Shirley Wilson, noted that the couple have always been unusual, and that the ceremony works for her, while the bride’s father said, “I think it’s excellent. I really do…. We’re an unusual family. The kids have always been taught to do what they want to do.” Perhaps the Wilsons simply wanted to embrace that taboo, “dark” side which has gained an unfair and undeserved reputation for malevolence. When asked why choose vampires for a theme, Ms. Wilson responded, “[t]here’s just something seductive, something forbidden.” Maybe vampirism is just a metaphor for the couple’s interest in exploring and vindicating once and for all a tradition which has been historically maligned.

The Wilsons’ vampire-themed Wiccan ceremony is yet another example how increasingly diverse the modern wedding ceremony has become, and a sign that more couples are brave enough to buck the trend, show some originality, and exert some authority and influence over their own personal lives.

Have you ever had an unusual wedding that flew in the face of tradition? Have you ever attended one? We invite our ministers ordained online to share their wedding stories with us.

Source:

Ocala.com

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

Recently on the ULC Monastery blog, we discussed the online ordination of T.V. personality Jeff Probst (who officiated at “Office” star Jenna Fischer’s wedding) as well as pop singer Lady Gaga’s plans to become an ordained minister so that she could marry her gay fans. Now, David Byrne, former frontman of the pioneering new wave/post-punk band Talking Heads, has performed his first wedding since his ordination as a minister in the Universal Life Church Monastery. Byrne describes a multicultural wedding ceremony and reception, noting also the curious perquisites that come with being a legally ordained minister.

The happy couple consisted of Byrne’s friend and musical partner, Mauro Refosco, and his fiancée, Suyeon Kim, who toured with Byrne and Refosco from 2008 to 2009. The first part of the modern wedding ceremony was traditionally Western in style, with Refosco in a black tuxedo and Kim in a white gown, but for the second part they changed clothes and donned traditional Korean wedding garb, melding different cultures and traditions. Even the guest-list reflected a cosmopolitan character, with guests hailing from Brazil and Korea. In addition, the reception included catering featuring traditional Korean cuisine, while both the wedding planner and bartender have performed with Byrne and Refosco on tour. Even the space where the wedding was performed was pleasantly non-traditional—a studio that doubles as an events space when not being used as an art and performance venue.

Byrne also describes the benefits of pastoral care and working as an ordained minister. Some of these, such as no-parking exemptions on New York City streets, are rather amusing. Citing the New York City Department of Transportation, Gothamist contributor Jen Carlson notes that New York City offers permits to clergy members which allow them,

parking for up to five (5) hours in No Parking zones adjacent to the house of worship,

for up to three (3) hours in No Parking zones adjacent to hospitals and for up

to four (4) hours in No Parking Zones adjacent to a funeral establishment

when such member of the clergy is performing official duties. Clergy qualify

if they work an average of at least twenty hours per week officiating at or

presiding over services of a religious corporation or association of any denomination.

According to Gothamist, the permits apply only if the ordained minister or priest is working at least twenty hours a week. For Byrne, who got his permit without trouble after getting ordained online, it is a helpful gesture, even though he doesn’t have a car. There is an easy solution to that, writes Carlson: “We say he uses his clergy sticker to lock up his bike wherever he pleases”.

But becoming an ordained minister online isn’t just about the perq’s, notoriety, or even the sense of belonging to a “club”—it is about being involved in the lives of friends and family. Critics argue that online ordination shows irreverence for the institution of marriage, but who really shows irreverence? Is it the stranger who officiates weddings because he or she has spent years studying religion in divinity school, or the city clerk who sells marriage licenses to those who have the right set of genitals and $50 to spare? Or is it the familiar loved one who plays an instrumental role in the most important day in the life of their friends and family? It seems as if letting people become legally ordained online in order to officiate the marriages of their own loved ones reflects a greater, more solemn respect for the institution of holy matrimony.

Byrne says he has considered performing weddings of all types in the future—from gay and straight to Hindu and Sikh—and perhaps even funerals and exorcisms. In the meantime, he says, he’s content taking things one step at a time. At any rate, Universal Life Church Monastery would like to congratulate Byrne on his virgin wedding officiation, with the hope of seeing many more, of myriad kinds, to come.

Read more about Byrne’s ceremony by visiting the link to his online journal below.

Sources:

DavidByrne.com

Gothamist

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

When U.S. president Barack Obama’s proposed health-care overhaul was making headlines in the news last year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was one of the first to challenge it, arguing that there should be no provision for abortion in a universal health-care program. They ultimately succeeded in persuading Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to this end. Now the Conference is challenging provisions for free contraceptives as well. This recent turn of events further illustrates the tenacity with which religious groups seek to manipulate the most powerful and influential government in the world—with faulty premises.

Ignoratio Elenchi

The Conference hopes to sway the decision-making process in an upcoming meeting between the federal government and a panel of medical experts by challenging the parameters of the proposed health-care provisions. Much of the contention the bishops have against providing free contraceptives is motivated by the definition of “preventive medicine”. Abortion and contraception, they argue, are not forms of preventive medicine, because preventive medicine deals with the prevention of disease, and pregnancy is not considered a disease. This syllogistic proof, they contend, therefore demonstrates that abortion and contraception should not be covered by preventive medicine under Obama’s new health-care program.

The Catholic bishops are correct—“preventive medicine”, or prophylaxis, does refer to the branch of medicine the goal of which is to prevent disease or illness. The goal of contraception and elective (as opposed to therapeutic) abortion is not to prevent disease or illness, but to prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies which may in no way negatively affect the mother’s physical health. It would seem, then, that the bishops have a point in arguing that abortion and contraception should not be provided under a preventive health-care program.

But the focus on the definition of “preventive medicine” constitutes a type of informal fallacy called ignoratio elenchi, or “missing the point”. The real question is not whether abortion and contraception are forms of preventive medicine that should thus be covered in a preventive health-care program; the real question is whether the health-care program should be limited to just preventive medicine in the first place. If abortion and contraception cannot be covered under the current, preventive health-care program, then the current program should simply be expanded to accommodate non-preventive medicine such as abortion and contraception. For a woman’s overall health and well-being are not defined strictly in terms of physical illness or disease (such as cancer), but also in the psychological terms of happiness, contentment, and control over family planning and her own reproductive abilities.

The “Establishment of Religion” Problem

Besides, the conduct of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the subsequent capitulation of powerful government figures such as Obama and Pelosi, might be considered illegal, since it constitutes a form of religious insinuation into government affairs.

Religionists routinely challenge the theory that the United States was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. The argument usually goes like this: “The United States wasn’t founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, because the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not found in the Constitution”. They are correct—the phrase is not found in the Constitution. But it is found in an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the religiously persecuted Danbury Baptist Association [1]. In that letter, Jefferson explains the purpose of the establishment clause of the First Amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State [emphasis my own].

Dissenters will then point out, “but Jefferson was serving as the ambassador to France at the time the Bill of Rights was being drafted”. But that makes no difference. Jefferson was involved in the development of the Bill of Rights, despite his continental provenance. He wrote a letter in March, 1789, to James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights and “father of the Constitution”, expressing his support of a Bill of Rights [2]. Madison was initially apprehensive about the dangers and limitations of a Bill of Rights; Jefferson countered that the instrument may be an imperfect one, but it is better than any alternative, and that some rights are better than none: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.” Only three months later, Madison finally changed his position and offered a package of twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution. So, yes, Jefferson (despite his misogyny—he hated intellectual women [3]) did influence the creation of the Bill of Rights, and thus his belief in the separation of church and state did provide the philosophical backdrop to and inspiration for the drafting of the First Amendment.

Moreover, this notion that the First Amendment bars Congress—but not individual states—from legislating religion, implies that any state with a majority could just as easily vote to make paganism, Islam, or even atheism the official religion of that state. And yet we know that evangelical, right-wing Christians—the ones who themselves believe the First Amendment implicitly allows states to legislate religion—would be the first to inveigh against such a law and to invoke the First Amendment to reverse the decision. This, of course, is an unfair double-standard. So, for their own interests, even conservatives have to agree that the establishment clause can, theoretically, be extended to individual states. And if the federal government favored this group in extending the First Amendment’s scope, it would constitute a preference for one religion over another, which could easily be construed as an establishment of religion in the legislative process, certainly in contravention of the First Amendment.

Besides, the question of states legislating religion is a moot point. The bishops aren’t cozying up to any state legislature—they have been working their charms on the federal legislature itself (i.e. Congress and House Speaker Pelosi), and we already know that, if anything, it is illegal for Congress to pass any law with a particular religious bent.

The Bishops’ Beef is Baseless

With respect to the issue at hand, then, the contention of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops over the provision of abortion services and free contraception in Obama’s universal health-care bill is baseless. First, it misses the point by fixating on the definition of “preventive medicine”. If free contraception isn’t preventive medicine, so what? We’ll just expand the health-care bill to include free contraception. It’s good for the sanity of couples who wish not to have children. Second, the bishops’ influence on the passage of the health-care bill violates the First Amendment, since it reflects religious influence in the federal legislative decision-making process. This should be a clarion call in any democracy for intervention, even if it requires a resort to the oft-maligned tactic of filibustering.

Share your thoughts. Should Catholic bishops be telling the U.S. government that free contraception shouldn’t be covered under Obama’s health-care bill?

Sources:

Associated Press

[1] Jefferson Letter to Danbury Baptist Association

[2] Jefferson Letter to Madison

[3] Jefferson on Women in Politics

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

I am writing a few words about homosexuality and why it is neither sinful nor immoral.

For the record I am completely heterosexual. I was raised as a Catholic, and in my younger years was much less educated and open minded. I was shocked but supportive when my best friend came out to me ten years ago. That’s when I started doing research on the topic. It is my intent with this article to dispel the myths surrounding homosexuality.

People try to claim that homosexuality is a choice and therefore homosexuals should simply choose to be straight…

Interested? Read more at: http://blog.ulc.org/

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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

In recent articles on the role of religion in HIV and AIDS awareness, we have discussed the interfaith effort to end AIDS as well as the recent HIV screenings at predominantly black churches in Chicago. Now, one South African pastor has taken AIDS awareness a step further—by preaching that Jesus Christ had AIDS. Most Christians in the region have decried the notion as sacrilegious, but if the intent is to show that there is nothing shameful about having HIV/AIDS, shouldn’t this help break down the stigma and enable progress?

The pastor in question, Xola Skosana, has delivered a series of sermons about Jesus having AIDS at his charismatic, non-denominational ministry and outreach organization in Cape Town, with the intent of increasing public awareness of the epidemic, which is particularly rampant in Africa. The suggestion that Jesus could have contracted HIV, however, has roiled up Christians who rely on the moral superiority of Christ and his essential difference or separateness from the average human being. Pastor Mike Bele, of Nomzamo Baptist Church, objects to the sermons because, he believes, they suggest that Jesus led a promiscuous lifestyle:

The subject of my Jesus being HIV-positive is a scathing matter. I believe no anointed leader with a sound mind about the scriptures and the role of Christ in our lives would deliberately drag the name of Christ to the ground.

But Skosana doesn’t believe he is dragging Christ’s name to the ground—he argues he is simply attempting to portray an image of a more socially accessible, radical Christ. Lawrence Mijares, of All Headline News, paraphrases Skosana’s position on the matter:

…though there is no evidence linking Jesus Christ with HIV/AIDS, by modifying the image of Jesus as having AIDS, Skosana hopes to send the message that AIDS victims are not to be shunned by the public, that people with AIDS are not cursed but are instead brought up by God. This, hopefully, would release inhibitions by many South Africans to take an HIV/AIDS test and get immediate treatment if necessary.

In essence, then, Skosana claims he is not attempting to prove a connection between the great avatar of the Christian faith and a modern-day disease commonly contracted by sexual promiscuity; he is simply exploiting Jesus Christ’s cachet to effect social change in a practical way, by saying that God understands the problem.

So why is Skosona’s approach to spreading AIDS and HIV awareness so offensive to people like Bele? The idea of pointing out fault in Christ threatens to crumble the very theological bedrock of Protestant Christianity, which is centered on the doctrines of grace, atonement, and redemption. It purports that humans are essentially evil and hell-worthy, and that the only way they can avoid hell is to believe that God became a human being who was perfect—a crucial distinction—and had himself tortured to death in their stead. (This notion of the mission of Jesus Christ is essentially a preservation of the barbaric and superstitious Bronze Age practice of animal sacrifice, but with the deity incarnating and serving as the sacrificial offering—usually depicted as a lamb—presumably to quench in blood his own rage at the imperfection in the humans he himself created.) If we imagine Jesus as having AIDS, this would imply an error in his behavior, such as sexual promiscuity or some other foolish lapse in judgement, which, in turn, would imply his fallibility, thus utterly obfuscating the dynamics on which the Protestant conception of salvation is founded. After all, it is an innocent or perfect thing that has to be slaughtered for God, just like the noble-blooded elites in ancient Britain, or the finest, healthiest goats in ancient Judea.

But the fixation on Christ’s character misses the point. Skosona is not being literal when he claims that Jesus had AIDS—he is simply using a metaphor to illustrate the point that God, or Jesus, does not stand aloof, but commiserates with us in our suffering. The Reverend Siyabulela Gidi, a legally ordained minister and director of the South African Council of Churches in the Western Cape, is one clergyman who views Skosona’s ministry from this perspective. Quoting Gidi, Mijares writes, “To associate Jesus with HIV is powerful, particularly for those who go to church…. Now people are starting to think: ‘If Jesus could be HIV-positive who am I not to have it even if I go to church?’” The main thrust behind the pastor’s ministry seems to be that nobody who is living with HIV or AIDS should feel as though Jesus is too good to empathize with them or offer them sanctuary from their plight.

Besides, one might suggest that if Jesus did have such a disease, and that he was so spiritually and morally advanced despite it, then there is no reason why it should preclude the spiritual advancement of any ordinary human being, either. And this brings people hope. Of course, one might go a step further and suggest that Jesus was just an ordinary person, and not God incarnate, which forces people to consider the possibility that ordinary human beings, with their frail, diseased bodies, can attain spiritual enlightenment, that they do not require the savage butchery of an innocent avatar in order to find salvation.

Feel free to tell us what you think. Are Skosona’s “Jesus Has AIDS” sermons an insult to a distant, infallible Jesus Christ, or do they help people living with HIV and AIDS feel welcomed by their God, thus opening up an honest dialogue on the problem and helping mobilize societal efforts to eradicate the disease?

Source:

All Headline News

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

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