Archive for January, 2012

Featured Minister – Mayor Oscar B. Goodman

Friday, January 27th, 2012
UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH ORDAINS OSCAR B. GOODMAN, FORMER LAS VEGAS MAYOR AND FORMER GO-TO DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO THE MOB
Goodman to perform a mass wedding ceremony at The Mob Museum in Las Vegas on Valentine’s Day

Mayor Oscar B. Goodman

Former Las Vegas mayor and notorious lawyer for the old mob, Oscar B. Goodman has repented and seen the light! The spirit has compelled him to get ordained with the Monastery and begin his new heavenly career as a Universal Life Church wedding minister. His Honor will officiate his first wedding on St Valentine’s Day 2012 at the new Mob Museum, formerly the old  federal courthouse and U.S. Post Office in downtown Las Vegas, Nevada. It was there that mob lawyer Goodman made a name for himself representing such reputed mobsters and bad guys as; Meyer Lansky, Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal and Anthony Spilotro.  Today, Brother Goodman joins the ranks of celebrity ULC Ministers, including Conan O’Brien, Kathy Griffin, Jeff Probst, and Rob Dyrdek (who has just finished officiating his sister’s wedding on his upcoming Fantasy Factory MTV series).

Seven couples will have a chance to have the new “Mob Minister” marry them inside of the old historic downtown courtroom.  The couples will be chosen on February 1 via a random drawing and promotion hosted by Vegas.com, The Mob Museum and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.   For details and to enter the MARRIED AT THE MOB MUSEUM contest, visit www.vegas.com/weddings.

Brother Goodman enjoyed an exciting career as a young public defense attorney who later rose to become Las Vegas’s most popular Mayor of all time, an office he held from 1999 to 2011.  In 2007, he was re-elected for a third term, winning 86% of all votes!   He is also the first Mayor in the country to be succeeded by his wife, Mayor Carolyn G. Goodman.  During his career, Br. Goodman also worked as a spokesperson for Bombay Sapphire Gin for which he was compensated $100,000 and donated entirely to charity.  He currently serves as chairman of the host committee for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.

Mayor Goodman is a key visionary of The Mob Museum and oversaw the purchase of the building many years ago for $1 from the federal government with the promise to preserve its historic nature.  The Mob Museum, the National Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement, is a $42 million dollar project a decade in the making.  Recently named by Travel and Leisure as a “Las Vegas best new attraction”, The Mob museum was designed by the same team that created the International Spy Museum in Washington D.C.  It includes iconic one-of-a-kind artifacts and interactive, themed environments, and even a short film hosted by Hollywood producer Nicholas Pileggi (of the movie Casino fame).  By way of interest, Mayor Goodman appeared as himself in the 1995 Martin Scorsese film Casino.

The interactive exhibits include getting a chance to use the same type of wire-tapping gear as the FBI to listen in on conversations and a chance to go up against the bad guys in a hands-on Tommy gun exhibit. It is purported to be “as close as you can get to the Mob without being asked to wear a wire.”  The exhibit includes an insider’s look into some of the Mob’s biggest players including Al Capone, Whitey Bulger, Bugsy Siegel, John Gotti and many more.  Rumor has it that Whitey Bulger is trying to attend the affair but the Boston authorities are turning a deaf ear to his pleas.

To show the other end of the spectrum, in 1950 the former federal courthouse and U.S. Post Office was the site of one of 14 nationally televised Kefauver hearings to expose organized crime.  The hearings gained the highest ratings of any television show of their day. The nation was glued to its televisions as mobster after mobster took the Fifth Amendment, denying any association with the Las Vegas hotels they built and ran. The Mob Museum is also working with the FBI and many famous undercover agents who made a career of fighting the mob, including legendary agents Joe Pistone who infiltrated the Mob posing as a small time jewel thief, Donnie Brasco, Cuban-born Jack Garcia and others.

As “Hizzoner” has become an ordained minister, the Universal Life Church Monastery prays everyone will come to understand – we are all children of the same universe – no greater than the trees and no lesser than the stars. We all have a right to be here.

Contact the Monastery or follow us on Facebook and Twitter, video of the ceremony to follow.

    Washington State Secures Votes for Gay Marriage

    Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

    Marriage equality possible in Washington StateOn 23 January, at a packed Senate committee hearing in the Washington state Capitol in Olympia, the Legislature secured the last vote required to pass a pair of bills (House Bill 2516 and Senate Bill 6239) legalizing same-sex marriage in that state. There, Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) announced her support for the Senate bill, giving the deciding twenty-fifth vote needed for passage. The House already has majority support. Despite the optimistic outlook for gay marriage proponents in Washington, a host of right-wing conservative religious individuals and organizations are crawling out of the woodwork to fight the bills’ passage.

    It was uncertain whether Haugen, a moderate Democrat who chairs Washington State’s Senate Transportation Committee and seldom deals with social issues, would vote in the spirit of the Senate bill’s proponents, or that of its opponents. Her support became clear at the end of Monday’s hearing when she gave a speech about trying to balance her personal religious beliefs with the rights of other Americans, deciding ultimately that it was wrong to impose those beliefs on others:

    I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.

    But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.

    For as long as I have been alive, living in my country has been about having the freedom   to live according to our own personal and religious beliefs, and having people respect that freedom.

    Not everyone will agree with my position. I understand and respect that. I also trust that   people will remember that we need to respect each other’s beliefs. All of us enjoy the benefits of being Americans, but none of us holds a monopoly on what it means to be an American. Ours is truly a big tent, and while the tent may grow and shrink according to the political winds of the day, it should never shrink when it comes to our rights as individuals.

    Do I respect people who feel differently? Do I not feel they should have the right to do as they want? My beliefs dictate who I am and how I live, but I don’t see where my believing marriage is between a man and a woman gives me the right to decide that for everyone else.

    The rest of Haugen’s speech can be read at The Capitol Record. It may not be a ringing endorsement for gay marriage or the modern wedding ceremony, but it is sufficient for LGBT people fighting for marriage equality. Haugen sounds like a woman struggling to decide how far to apply her personal religious beliefs to the lives of others, and how to integrate the more progressive values of much younger generations (she is 70) with those she grew up with. What is important is that deep down inside (as much as we can tell, at least), Haugen seems to realize that she cannot, in her right conscience, pick and choose which loving, consenting adult couples get to enjoy married life. It is probably an extremely hard decision to make for somebody whose life-long worldview has been shaped by the assumption that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Those of us who support marriage equality should be grateful for her charity of spirit. She could have said “no”.

    Speaking of which, naturally, since this is all happening in the United States (although a case could be made that Washington is barely part of the U.S.), the bills have stoked the ire of some of the nation’s most vociferously anti-gay priests, pastors, and other ordained ministers, as well as many anti-gay lobbies. The National Organization for Marriage has pledged to donate $250,000 to primary challenges against any Republican who backs the bill. Others include Rev. Josh Fuiten, pastor of the evangelical Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell, Wa., the Most Rev. J. Peter Sartain, Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, and Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wa. To give people a taste of what Hutcherson is made of, in a recent ThinkProgress article, he said, “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end”, apparently expressing his own understanding of “Christ-like” masculinity. In the same article, he also compared Washington state governor Christine Gregoire to John Wilkes Booth–Abraham Lincoln’s assassin–for announcing her support for the bill. So, no, it’s not a pretty bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes that await gay marriage supporters at the marriage equality battleground.

    Some of these marriage equality opponents plan to fight the bills with a public vote on the issue. According to a Seattle Times article, they plan to file a referendum to place the issue on a ballot by November, but by state law Governor Christine Gregoire must sign the bills into law before they can do this. She has already promised to sign the bills into law when they reach her desk. No marriage equality bill put up to a public vote has ever been approved, but there is always a first time for everything: a study conducted by the University of Washington last October indicates that if a gay marriage referendum were put on a ballot in Washington state, 55% of voters would uphold marriage equality. Thus, it may not be so easy for people like our warm, friendly, Christ-like Ken Hutcherson to count on the will of the people to get his way, but it does signal hope for the bills’ proponents.

    Sen. Haugen’s decision may have clinched the last vote necessary to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state once and for all, but it is very possible that, once signed into law, the bills will be put up to a public vote through a referendum challenge spearheaded by religious conservatives. As mentioned, though, given recent findings on the growing acceptability of gay marriage, Washington state voters may be the first in the United States to uphold the law and support marriage equality for lesbian and gay people. We’ll have to see. At any rate, it goes without saying that the Universal Life Church Monastery fully supports Washington state House Bill 2516 and Senate Bill 6239, since this legislation would protect, affirm, and respect the family and the institution of marriage, regardless of sex. Let’s hope marriage equality becomes the highlight of 2012 for Washington state, and that those who get ordained online in the ULC will be able once and for all to legally officiate weddings for all loving couples, and to have each and every one of these recognized by the state.

    Sources:

    The Capitol Record

    FamilyScholars.org

    The Huffington Post

    The Seattle Times: Gay-Marriage Bill Draws Crowds for Hearings, Rallies at Capitol

    The Seattle Times: Gay Marriage in Washington: Legislature Has the Votes

    ThinkProgress

      “Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus” Video Sparks Furore

      Friday, January 20th, 2012


      Just two days after it was posted on Youtube, the video had racked up over 2 million views and now has over 15 million. The number of comments now totals over 30,000. In it, the author, Jefferson Brethke, recites a poem about the fundamental difference between Jesus and religion, and why we should follow the former, and not the latter. While some have criticized the poem as an attack on traditional right-wing values, others have argued that Brethke actually reinforces religion in his poem. In some respects, Brethke does seem to undermine his own message, and he does so in three ways: he avows a belief in the church and the Bible, re-affirms the doctrine of grace (a very orthodox and philosophically troubling doctrine), and employs a fallacy called a tu quoque argument, or “appeal to hypocrisy”.

      Brethke claims to reject religion, yet in almost the breath seems to embrace it. Watching the video, the viewer might think to herself, How refreshing—a critique of organized religion, but about midway through his video, Brethke reassures the listener that he does, in fact, believe in the church and the Bible: “Now, let me clarify: I love the church, I love the Bible, and I believe in sin…”. The problem with this statement is that, essentially, the church is synonymous with religion—it is an organized institution that teaches people what and how to believe with regard to spiritual phenomena. And the sacred text of that religion is the Bible, from which ordained priests and ministers teach lay members how to think, act, and behave in accordance with religious laws and doctrines which they themselves have invented but proclaim to have received from God. this is especially problematic given the extreme violence committed in the Bible on behalf of God’s “chosen people”. Brethke’s little Freudian slip here makes his video begin to look more like an excuse for religion—religion of the most violent kind—than a critique of it.

      But Brethke’s inadvertent endorsement of religion does not end with a vague proclamation of his love for the church and the sacred text which contains its teachings; he actually endorses specific doctrines found in the church’s sacred writings and taught by those who decide to become a minister in the church. The teaching Brethke invokes again and again to illustrate his position is called the doctrine of grace, a concept which is especially important for Protestant Christians:

      Religions might teach grace, but another thing they practice: / They tend to ridicule God’s people; they did it to John the Baptist. [...]. If grace is water, the church should be an ocean. [...]. I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin, because it doesn’t depend on me; it depends on him. [...]. Salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merits, but Jesus’s obedience alone.

      This screed on religionists’ failure to emphasize grace over judgement is actually quite orthodox, because it simply reinforces grace, a religious doctrine promulgated by the church, an organized religious institution. For those unfamiliar with American Protestant Christianity, the doctrine of grace basically states that salvation is possible only through the mercy of God, never through good deeds, and the mercy of God can only be earned by believing that he became a human being and committed suicide to atone for human sin. But wouldn’t a truly radical critique of religion involve a critique of religion’s doctrines, including the doctrine of grace? Wouldn’t a truly radical religious critic attack this doctrine as morally reprehensible? After all, it teaches that no matter how much good you do you’re worthy of eternal torment, so doing good deeds (like feeding the hungry) doesn’t matter to God, and only by accepting God’s suicide on behalf of humanity will humans ever earn salvation. Sucking up to a manipulative deity, a critic would argue, does not produce nearly as much moral improvement in the world as do good deeds, so the doctrine of grace has mixed up priorities. Thus, Brethke’s insistence on the centrality of grace further betrays his loyalty to religion.

      If this still doesn’t have you convinced that Brethke is secretly religious, there is still the fact that he relies on a tu quoque argument, or an appeal to hypocrisy, to create the false impression that he’s challenging religion. He makes this argument repeatedly throughout his video, which seems to focus on the church’s failure to “practice what it preaches”, as if what it preaches may still be perfectly fine and dandy:

      …just because you call some people blind doesn’t automatically give you vision/…[i]f religion is so great, why has it started to many wars, built huge churches, but failed to feed the poor, / Tell single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce, but in the Old Testament, God actually calls religious people whores. / Religion might teach grace, but another thing they practice: / They tend to ridicule God’s people; it happened to John the Baptist. / [...]. / Now I ain’t judgin’, I’m just sayin’, quit puttin’ on a fake look, ’cause there’s a problem if people only know you’re Christian by your Facebook.

      The problem with these pronouncements is that they don’t actually refute anything (although we certainly invite you to do so as a minister ordained online). By pointing out the church’s hypocrisy, Brethke doesn’t actually refute the church’s teachings; he merely points out the church’s inconsistency in following those teachings. In doing so, he deftly avoids having to attack the teachings themselves. But perhaps that has always been his intent—merely to hold the church accountable for failing to abide by religious beliefs which he and the church both share. At any rate, he ends up failing to refute any actual religious beliefs being promulgated by organized religion.

      Brethke’s “critique” of religion is well-meaning and derives from a pure, heartfelt source, but it isn’t exactly clear that it is a critique in the first place. He ends up admitting that he still loves the church (an organized religion) and the Bible (a holy book which lies at the heart of that religion), endorses the very orthodox and morally questionable doctrine of grace, and avoids actually refuting religion by focusing on the hypocrisy of the church rather than the teachings of the church themselves. Ultimately he paints a picture of himself as a modern, relatively liberal religionist, but not necessarily as a critic of organized religion.

      As a ULC minister, what do you think about Brethke’s video? Does he give the false impression that he rejects religion?

      Source:

      The Huffington Post

        Opening Doors for Student Ministers

        Monday, January 9th, 2012

        college students gets ordained onlineAs people find themselves pinching pennies left and right in the poor economy, more students are finding out the benefits of online ordination, and the Universal Life Church Monastery is one place they’re turning to. From Arizona State University and Ohio State University to the University of Iowa, the church has proved to offer promising opportunities for students of public research universities across the United States. The University of Georgia is also one of these schools, with over 115 students and professors claiming the title of minister ordained online. Often, the decision to become a minister in an online church is based on financial and ethical considerations.

        Because younger university students tend to be poorer than middle-aged adults, online ordination provides a suitable financial alternative to spending years and thousands of dollars on obtaining a traditional minister credential. One University of Georgia student to realize this fact is Michael Bryson, a third-year English major from Watkinsville, Ga. “I found out I could be legally ordained online“, Megan Ingalls of Red and Black, the UGA student newspaper, quotes him as saying. “One of my friends got married and spent around $400 on an officiator. I found out online it was very easy and free”. As Bryson shows, for students and other low-income people who want to perform wedding ceremonies, baptisms, funerals, and other sacraments, getting ordained in an online ministry works because the applicant is not judged by his or her financial status.

        But financial considerations are only one reason students at the University of Georgia are deciding to get ordained online in the Universal Life Church Monastery and other churches. Another reason young, well-educated people are turning to online ministries is the fact that they tend to be relatively liberal and open to new and different lifestyles. One of the weddings Bryson has performed since getting ordained was “for a former employee. The preacher refused to perform the ceremony because she was pregnant”, Ingalls reports him as saying. It’s not an uncommon complaint among people who want to find a wedding officiant, but that’s what churches like the ULC Monastery are for. People turn to internet churches because of their tendency to embrace nontraditional couples, such as same-sex couples, interfaith couples, couples who choose to have premarital sex, or interracial couples (yes, there are still bigots out there who refuse to marry people who have different skin color) without judgement.

        UG students get ordained onlineAnd, of course, like everybody else, a growing number of University of Georgia students are discovering that online ordination makes it easier for people to marry their friends and relatives. This is one of the reasons why online ministries are such a desirable alternative to traditional ministries, as ULC Monastery spokesman Andy Fulton tells Ingalls: “Easily the best aspect of the ULC Monastery ordination for college students is that it allows them to perform informal, fun and inexpensive weddings for their friends and family”. In other words, students and faculty members at UGA becoming online ordained ministers not only to save money and marry people from marginalized groups who are turned away from more traditional ministries, but also to make it easier for people to marry those they know and love, rather than send them off to a stranger who happens to have a piece of paper that says they’re ordained. So, there is also the level of intimacy and meaningfulness university students and professors are taking advantage of.

        More young, smart people like Bryson are rejecting the restrictions imposed on couples by traditional churches and joining nondenominational congregations, where they can fully realize their desire to recognize loving, committed unions. More and more, they are realizing that sex, race, nationality, and even faith are insufficient reasons to deny a couple recognition of their love. And that’s where churches like the ULC Monastery step in–to provide a platform for young, fresh minds with their own access to spiritual wisdom to pay tribute to these loving couples without having to face unfair and unrealistic financial and doctrinal impediments. After all, as the ULC Monastery believes, we are all children of the same universe. So, here’s to the student minister.

        Source:

        Red and Black (University of Georgia Student Newspaper).

          The Mystery of Empathic and Shared Death Experiences

          Thursday, January 5th, 2012

          shared death experienceHave you ever had the feeling that a loved one was in need, only to receive a telephone call revealing that they had just died? Or perhaps you’ve had the urge to call yourself to find out how they were doing, or dreamt about them immediately before receiving the call. Sometimes these experiences can be chalked up to coincidence, but other times they possess uncannily accurate details, causing doubt that they occurred by chance. Some people call this type of experience synchronicity, some call it energy resonance or linkage, and some call it empathic or shared death experience. Whatever one chooses to call it, more people (including some ULC ministers) are coming out with their stories about this phenomenon, and more scientists are presenting arguments to support it, challenging long-held assumptions about the relationship between consciousness and the brain.

          Perhaps you are one of these people.

          Empathic and shared death experiences differ slightly, but share certain fundamental characteristics. Empathic death experiences might be described as events in which a person suddenly senses the feelings of a loved one on the verge of death many miles away, whereas shared death experiences might be described as events in which a person partakes spontaneously in the subjective experience of a loved one dying in their presence. Both types of phenomena involve an emotional and experiential connection between the dying and the living. They are not yet entirely explained by current mainstream scientific assumptions about the nature of physics, reality, and the universe, yet scores of people, like ministers ordained online and others on their own spiritual quest, are coming forward to share their stories, maintaining that the experience was so real and coherent that it cannot be dismissed as an hallucination.

          But many scientists cite hallucinations, as well as coincidence, to explain empathic and shared death experiences. Empathic death experiences, they argue, might be mere coincidence: a loved one is on the verge of death, and for no reason other than chance, a person happens to feel concern for that loved one at the very same moment. Shared death experiences, they propound, may be the result of hallucinations caused by stress, anxiety, and grief. A common form of hallucination invoked by skeptics (and, indeed, even some ULC wedding officiants and other clergy members) to explain empathic, shared, and near-death experiences is anoxia—lack of oxygen in the brain. Anoxia often results from cardiac arrest, when the heart stops pumping oxygen-rich blood to the brain, resulting in strange sights, sounds, and emotions. Sometimes chemicals such as endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin, some of which become secreted in moments of great distress, have also been cited by skeptics to explain such phenomena.

          Other scientists and philosophers, however, have challenged the soundness of these claims. Among these individuals are Raymond Moody, author of Glimpses of Eternity: An Investigation into Shared Death Experiences, Sam Parnia, author of What Happens When We Die: A Groundbreaking Study into the Nature of Life and Death, and Pim van Lommel, author of Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near Death Experience. Anoxia does create hallucinations, but it is not clear how a perfectly healthy, uninjured person with normal oxygen levels in the brain standing at their loved one’s bedside can suffer hallucinations induced by anoxia. Nor does anoxia explain the fact that some people report having their shared or near-death experience as a result of depression, or immediately before suffering an injury which causes anoxia. Additionally, anoxia doesn’t explain how patients can be revived only to report incidents in minute detail that took place in the room while they were brain dead. (See the case of Monique Hennequin in van Lommel’s book). The above researchers have also argued that hallucinations differ fundamentally in nature from empathic, shared, and near-death experiences. They point out that drug or chemical-induced hallucinations generally involve chaotic, irrational, semi-lucid arrangements of sights, sounds, and emotions, and people who experience hallucinations often forget them soon after they occur, but death-related visions are highly organized, coherent, and extremely lucid, and patients tend to remember them years after they occur, remembering the minutest of details. In other words, such visions are not the stuff of hallucinations—in fact, they feel so real that they seem to be the direct opposite.

          The bandying back and forth between cynics and believers can certainly be productive, but insight can also be gleaned by listening to individual anecdotes themselves, which provide more detailed, personal accounts of empathic and shared death experiences. (Undoubtedly, some people ordained online in the ULC Monastery will have their own anecdotes to tell.) Annie Cap, of Canterbury, Kent, shared her story in a recent article in The Daily Mail. Cap was sitting in her home one day when she suddenly felt a sensation of blockage in her airways, as if she couldn’t breathe. She felt a sudden urge to call the hospital where her mother lay gravely ill, several thousand miles away, and she spoke with her sister. Still gasping for breath, she was astonished to find out not only that her mother was dying, but that she, too, had been coughing and struggling for air for the past half an hour. Fortunately, Cap was able to tell her mother good-bye before her mother died.

          minister has empathic experience with dying motherSo how do we explain such a phenomenon in scientific terms? A recent article in the BBC News reported that a group of psychologists from Edinburgh University and the Medical Research Council in Cambridge reviewed research on near-death experiences, concluding that they were a by-product of a dying brain. But, as mentioned above, this is not corroborated by the story of Monique Hennequin, whose brain was already dead when the incidents she described took place. Moreover, Cap’s experience could not have been the result of a dying brain, since her brain wasn’t dying when she had it, and yet, like many of us who decide to become a minister to guide others on their journey, somehow she shared an uncannily similar experience to that of her dying mother. Besides, a neuro-physiological correlate to death-related experiences does not constitute a neuro-physiological cause of such experiences. So, research which attempts to explain death-related experiences in terms of the dying brain hypothesis does not wholly account for these experiences.

          Perhaps a broader framework for understanding the relationship between the brain and consciousness is needed. While current research by individuals such as van Lommel, etc., does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the survival of consciousness after death, or the existence of a sixth sense, it does provide tantalizing evidence that these are possible. Certainly the subject remains open for debate, and eternally mysterious and fascinating for spiritual and scientific seekers alike. A step in the right direction might be to dismantle the artificial division created between scientific and spiritual insight, and consider how the former might inform the latter. We also need to listen to people’s stories and validate their need for opening up a dialogue. For this reason, we want to hear your empathic, shared, and near death experience stories. Have you ever had the uncanny urge to call a loved one you felt was in need? Did you experience any kind of synchronicity when you picked up the receiver, dialed the number, and got an answer?

          You can get ordained online and share your stories by visiting the ULC Monastery Facebook page or our social network for ministers.

          Source:

          The Daily Mail