Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

Why Florida’s School Prayer Bill is a Bad Idea

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

On the same day as the Washington state senate votes on a bill to legalize gay marriage, the Florida senate was preparing to vote on a bill that would legalize prayer in public school classrooms, further illustrating the widening rift between the religious right and the secular left in the United States. Ideally no such rift would exist in the first place, but the argument supporting public school prayer has several problems which deserve to be addressed: it is unrealistic to think that all religions will be accommodated, public school prayer could create unnecessary tensions and divisions in the classroom, and there is a perfectly legitimate alternative.

On the surface, the bill would seem to skirt any potential violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by ensuring that all religions are represented fairly and neutrally, as in a comparative religion class. Only students would be allowed to give the prayers, which would be required to include a message of inspiration. The definition of what is inspirational would be determined by the state, and school districts would not have the authority to change this definition. Additionally, in order to prevent public officials from endorsing a biased view of religion, public school employees would be barred from vetting or in any other way revising or changing the students’ prayers. Ostensibly, under the proposed law, any religious message could and would be accommodated.

It isn’t certain that this is the case, though, and there are some serious logistical problems with any attempt to accommodate religious prayers and messages in public schools. To be fair, the religions of all students must be accommodated, without a single exception. But how do we accomplish this? With some sort of special list or roster? Only so many students can be accommodated, and most students are Christian, so by the time a non-Christian student has the chance to get their name on the school’s special “prayer list”, it might be too late because every space is filled in with the name of a Christian student. Florida schools might have to start turning away non-Christians if and when Christians gain the upper-hand. Also, it’s hard to believe the average Florida school administrator would accommodate a Satanist or voodoo practitioner, so all religions probably wouldn’t be represented. The consequence is that the vast majority of prayers would represent a Judeo-Christian perspective, while some would most likely be flatly rejected or, at the very least, discouraged. And that isn’t exactly fair. So even if the stated intent is to represent a fair and neutral perspective on religion, it won’t necessarily turn out that way.

Besides, even if we were able somehow to bring together all religious viewpoints in the public school classroom, there is no guarantee that these viewpoints will meld together harmoniously and peacefully in an environment of mutual respect. People are passionate about their religious beliefs because, by habit, religion tends to be less concerned with calm philosophical reasoning. This is perhaps even truer for the male-dominated Abrahamic religions, which have been the source of much violence and terrorism in the world. Imagine if a Christian student said a prayer, and a fundamentalist Muslim student was offended by the Christian’s message, or, equally, if a Muslim said a prayer and a fundamentalist Christian decided he deserved to be harassed or beaten on the playground to punish his spiritual infidelity. Given their minority status, Muslim, pagan, atheist, and other students will be especially vulnerable to harassment and bullying in school if stormy, emotional debates about religion are opened up in public schools. This is particularly worrying due to the fact that schools are supposed to be places where students have access to education in a safe, peaceful environment. Creating opportunities for religious tension and, potentially, bullying, doesn’t seem like a good idea, then, especially given the growing cultural diversity of the United States.

The problems with Florida’s school prayer bill do not end with the difficulties of trying to accommodate every religion, or the tensions created by opening up the classroom to religious instruction; they include the assumption that all good moral and inspirational messages are necessarily rooted in religious instruction. One supporter of the Florida bill, Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, suggested that opponents of the bill didn’t want children to be inspired at all, as CBS Miami reports: Storms expressed her bewilderment over the mounting opposition to the bill, asking, “[d]o you suppose that opponents want, instead of to inspire little first graders, maybe they want to demoralize them?” But this is a fallacy. What Storms does here is create a false dichotomy, which states that only one of two options are possible when in fact there is a third (and, probably, many more), perfectly good option. Storms assumes that only religious inspirational messages or demoralizing messages are possible when in fact secular inspirational messages are possible, too. Nobody is arguing that children shouldn’t be inspired, but the inspiration of our nation’s children needn’t be rooted in religion; it is this secular inspirational message which is appropriate for public school situations. It almost seems as though Storms knows this but deliberately creates the impression that it isn’t the case. So, no, the people of Florida – as well as the rest of America – doesn’t have to settle with a bill that permits religious prayer in public schools.

All of this public school prayer legislation is a bit tiring, especially in a country which is supposed to be a secular democracy, but separation of state and church is a principle worth fighting for. Florida’s proposed school prayer measure is simply a bad idea: it’s unlikely that all religious viewpoints will be accommodated, it opens the door to religious tension and conflict, and secular messages offer a perfectly legitimate and neutral alternative for inspiring and electrifying students in a spirit of solidarity and harmony. When we reflect on these observations, legislation like the Florida bill begins to look more like an incrementalist attempt to insinuate religion into public policy, an ominous prospect indeed. This is something the Universal Life Church Monastery treats with extreme caution, because it is a fine line between letting students express their religious beliefs, and endorsing those beliefs through preferential treatment.

Source:
CBS Miami

    Creationism for Indiana Schools?

    Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

    Indiana Senate committee approves teaching CreationismAre Indiana public schools going to start teaching religion? It looks like a realistic possibility. As the Democrat-controlled Washington state Legislature advances a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, a Republican-controlled Indiana Senate committee has approved a bill that would allow creationism to be taught in Indiana public schools, further showing the stark religious and ideological divisions within the United States. But, as many ULC wedding officiants, priests, and ministers will agree, creationism doesn’t belong in public school science classrooms, and there are several reasons why: creationism isn’t science, it teaches the story of only one religious tradition, and it is best suited to the field of comparative religion.

    With regard to the first of these, creationism shouldn’t be taught in public school science classrooms because, well, it simply isn’t science. Naturally, the senators backing the bill, Senate Bill 89, will contest this. According to Dan Carden of NWI.com, “[s]tate Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, who voted for the measure, said if there are many theories about life’s origins, students should be taught all of them”. This, of course, assumes that the theory is scientific to begin with, and should therefore be compared with other scientific theories. But it isn’t scientific, says John Staver, professor of chemistry and science education at Purdue University: “Creation is not science”, Carden reports him as saying. “It is unquestionably a statement of a specific religion.” Staver is right: creationism is the doctrine of the legally ordained minister, not the research scientist. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it follows the principles of the scientific method, while creationism is not. The science classroom is supposed to teach students to compare scientific theories with other scientific theories, not to compare scientific theories with religious theories. Therefore, the public science classroom should not be teaching students to compare evolution with creationism.

    Besides, even if we do teach creationism in public school science classrooms, whose creation story should we teach? The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America bars Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion, and decades of judicial opinion have interpreted this to apply to individual state legislatures as well, the reason being that conflict arising from religious preference can occur at either the state or federal level. Besides, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires states to provide every citizen the equal protection of the law, so it is unfair as well as unconstitutional to ask students to study the Christian creation story, but not the creation stories of Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American religions, paganism, indigenous religions, or any other world religion. This is why people choose to become a minister, not a public school teacher. We might resolve this dilemma by teaching all religious creation stories in public schools, but this is logistically impractical, if not impossible, so it is simply more realistic to bar the teaching of any religious creation story in public schools. Passing a bill to teach creationism in Indiana would be unfair and unconstitutional, then, because it would violate both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

    This last point begs the question, how, then, does religion fit into public school curricula? After all, we might argue, it is impossible to avoid any mention of religion, because it is such an intimate and influential part of the human experience. To understand ourselves better as human beings, then, we must address issues of religion in some form or another. It is true that a discussion on human nature requires mention of religion, but it is not true that it requires the subjective endorsement of religion, as many people who get ordained online in a nondenominational church will already agree. For example, a history lesson on the profound social transformation taking place in Europe in the sixteenth century would be incomplete without mentioning the role of religion, but this does not require the teacher, school district, or government to endorse religion. And while it is unrealistic to teach all religious creation stories in a science classroom, we might still be able to find a place to do so in a comparative religion classroom–the only caveat is that no religion must ever be endorsed over another religion, and religion must never be endorsed over non-religion. So, even if Indiana does find a way to weasel Christian creationism into public school social science classes, it cannot be subjectively endorsed.

    To sum up, creationism cannot be taught in public school science classrooms in Indiana or anywhere else in the United States, because it isn’t science to begin with, it is unfair to teach one creation story and not another (and unrealistic to teach all of them), and it belongs in comparative religion classes, where all religions are treated equally and objectively. As many of our own ULC ministers and pastors already know, the Universal Life Church Monastery has always held the position that religion should never have any legal or official influence in any tier of government in the United States, in order to prevent religious conflict and to show respect for the unimpeded advancement of science in its own right. Perhaps you agree, but perhaps you don’t. We are always open to hearing your thoughts on these issues, so feel free to make them known on the ULC Monastery Facebook discussion page or our social network for ministers.

    Sources:

    National Center for Science Education

    NWITimes.com

    WSBT.com

      “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

        Bill Cosby Brings Humor to the Bible

        Thursday, December 29th, 2011

        As part of his comedy routine, Bill Cosby has taken on a rather precarious topic–the Bible. Fortunately, crowds have responded well to the venerable comedian’s jokes, which adroitly poke fun at Bible stories without denigrating the underlying message cherished by Jews and Christians alike. Humor helps introduce levity where it is most needed, as Cosby shows, but broaching the subject of Bible-based belief in a comedy routine has inevitably begged the question, what does the comedian really think? (And what do you think as a ULC wedding officiant?) While some of his views seem fairly commonsensical and down-to-earth, others deserve a little bit more scrutiny.

        An example of Cosby’s light-hearted interpretation of Biblical myth is his version of the story of the Great Flood and Noah’s Ark from the Book of Genesis, which has already successfully elicited roaring laughter from audience members. In his version of the story, Cosby imagines an exhausted Noah awkwardly trying to build an ark while gathering pairs of animals and cubits of wood. “Am I on Candid Camera?” Cosby has Noah asking. And in his book I Didn’t Ask To Be Born (But I’m Glad I Was) he tackles the story of Adam and Eve, asking why God had to make a woman out of a rib, and how Adam and Eve were able to cover their genitals with those little fig leaves if they didn’t have a needle and thread.

        This delightfully innocent take on the Bible points to the comedian’s real thoughts on the stories he parodies. And some of these seem pretty fair to the modern rationalist thinker, as well as the average minister ordained online. Cosby tells Adelle M. Banks of Religion News Service about a Christian proselyte he recently met on the street in Syracuse, New York, who offered him a miniature Bible, repeatedly asking the comedian if he knew Jesus Christ loved him, even though he said he already did. Cosby told the man, “It seems that you are more interested in conquering someone, and if you would read more about Jesus as he walked and talked and what he represented, you’ll find that he is not what you are” and that “[t]hat’s, as far as I’m concerned, not a model for the way Christ behaved.” This type of response is perfectly understandable from the point of view of a person who sees incessant religious peddling as a sign of desperate pride, and not genuine interest in the well-being of others.

        But some other things Cosby has said about the Bible and religious faith cause one to raise one’s brow in skepticism. Consider Cosby’s thoughts on the American football player Tim Tebow’s open displays of religious devotion at football games. Many people have criticized Tebow for being a disingenuous show-off rather than a devout Christian, but not Cosby. “I have no problem with his outspokenness about his faith…. Let him speak about it”, said the comedian, coming to the football player’s defense. But is this really the proper response? Perhaps as a minister in the Universal Life Church Monastery, you’ve asked this same question. If a person claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (as Cosby seems to do), she or he should take a more critical stance on Tebow’s showy displays of piety, because Christ himself criticized such behavior:

        And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

        person reading bookNobody is saying that Tebow shouldn’t have the legal right to express his beliefs in public; they are simply saying that it is obnoxious and hypocritical for him to do so, as Jesus Christ himself teaches (and, undoubtedly, as many of our own ULC priests, rabbis, and ministers have concluded), so, really, there is little reason for a Christian to come to the rescue and defend the man. Such actions scream, “Look at how holy I am, y’all!” more than “I genuinely wish for God to help me win this game”. Besides, how petty is it to think that God should help you win your football game, as if your team deserves divine favor over the other team, or, more important, as if a football game deserves greater attention than, say, world hunger?

        Certainly, humor is a salve for the soul–including the soul that seeks so long and hard to be “saved” (whatever that entails)–and Cosby does a superb job of turning age-old Biblical myths into lighthearted parodies, causing even the staunchest of puritans to crack a smile, but the “man behind the mic”, as it were, also has some serious things to say about religious faith and the Bible, as we’ve seen. Some of these make more sense than others. The comedian is very able to call Christians on their hypocrisy when they try to peddle Christianity on the street as part of some sort of pride-driven spiritual conquest for the souls of “infidels”, but this doesn’t quite extend as far as calling show-offs on their hypocritical public prayers. Maybe one day it will.

        What do you think about Cosby’s comments on the Bible and religious faith? Become a minister and make your thoughts known on the ULC Monastery Facebook page or our social network for ministers.

        Source:

        The Washington Post

          Musical Comedy Features ULC Wedding Vow Renewals

          Friday, December 23rd, 2011

          By now most of us are familiar with the many unconventional ways ULC ministers have re-interpreted the traditional wedding ceremony. Often, this involves some form of performance art, from stand-up comedy routines to rock concerts. Now, one minister ordained online in the ULC will be performing wedding vow renewals for audience members during a musical comedy on the often amusing trials of married life. It’s just another example of the creative and innovative approach ULC clergy members take to performing wedding ceremonies, wedding vow renewals, and other special occasions.

          The wedding vow renewals will be held during a performance of the musical play Let’s Pretend We’re Married, created and performed by Philadelphia comedians Jennifer Childs and Tony Braithwaite, at Act II Playhouse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As hinted at in the title, the play will follow the domestic exploits of a number of famous married couples from film, television, and radio, including Edith and Archie Bunker, Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, Sonny and Cher, and Burns and Allen, all of whom will be played by Childs and Braithwaite themselves. Sally Henry of Broadway World calls the play a “delightful, musical comedy celebration of the world’s greatest, and most complicated institution”.

          Braithwaite, who decided to become ordained online in the ULC ministry, will be performing the wedding vow renewals, whilst Childs will be the flower-girl (albeit a grown-up version). Adding to the unconventionality of the occasion, the comedy duo will be offering different themes for each couple’s ceremony: a Las Vegas theme, a Hawaiian theme, and a traditional theme for those who wish to play it safe and stay “classic”. And apparently every couple is welcome. Braithwaite and Childs will also be offering wedding vow renewals to same-sex couples, as Henry notes: “All married couples are welcome (including visitors from New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa!)”.

          It’s quite an unusual combination, to be sure. Fans of both musical theatre, situation comedies, and alternative wedding and wedding vow renewal ceremonies should have plenty to look forward to. According to Henry, the score for the play will include selections from George and Ira Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Stephen Sondheim, and Tom Lehrer. So, not only will audience members have the chance to watch couples renew their vows of love and commitment to one another with the help of a ULC wedding officiant, but they will have the opportunity to revel in the sweeping soundscapes of classic musical scores, with each ceremony set to a different theme: gambling “glitz”, tropical “paradise”, or good, old-fashioned, whitebread traditional. Certainly not a performance to write off as boring, from whatever angle you look at it.

          As Braithwaite and Childs show, alternative ceremony ideas aren’t limited to just weddings, but apply to wedding vow renewal and commitment ceremonies too. After all, to create truly lasting memories, sometimes it is necessary to buck the trend and do something a little bit off-the-wall. Perhaps we can apply the same principle to performing funerals, performing baptisms, or performing other sacerdotal rites. Of course, the trick is how to strike a balance between spontaneity and reverence. Of course, all that’s required is to get ordained online and do a little digging around about the do’s and don’ts of performing ceremonies as a minister in an online church. (But that’s what we’re here for.)

          Tickets to Let’s Pretend We’re Married can be purchased by visiting http://www.act2.org, or by calling the Act II Box Office at 1 (215) 654-0200.

          In other musical entertainment news, three time Tony award-winning music theatre legend Carol Channing gave a very warm and charming video message at Broadway Sings for Pride: the Winter Holiday Concert. The event is an organized effort by music theatre artists to show support for the LGBT community through the performing arts. As anybody who watches the video can tell, Channing’s support for the community is evident in her heartfelt message of love, solidarity, and inclusion, a message which nicely echoes the Universal Life Church Monastery‘s own motto, which is that, male or female, black or white, gay or straight, young or old, we are all children of the same universe.

          Source:

          Broadway World: Carol Channing on Broadway Sings for Pride

          Broadway World: Act II Playhouse Presents Let’s Pretend We’re Married Limited Engagement 1/11-22

            Rick Perry’s Weak “Strong” Ad

            Monday, December 19th, 2011

            A few days ago, Republican U.S. presidential hopeful Rick Perry released an advertisement criticizing liberals, gay rights, and secularism. In the bold, barefaced attack, the Texas governor claimed there was something wrong with the United States, because LGBT people could serve openly in the military, yet children couldn’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. He also vowed to defend America’s supposed “Christian heritage” against liberal “attacks”. The problem, though, is that none of Perry’s claims is actually based on solid fact or reason, but, of course, the veracity of a claim doesn’t matter for a Christian dominionist like Perry, who relies chiefly on appeals to emotion to persuade his audience.

            The first problem is with Rick Perry’s claim that children are not allowed to celebrate Christmas or pray openly. The plain fact is, they are, and Perry is simply fabricating the “truth” to incite a reaction in a paranoid audience. Most likely, Perry’s claim about celebrating Christmas stems from efforts in American public schools to avoid explicit endorsement of religion during the Christmas season. But Perry is creating a straw man: nobody is restricting students’ right to celebrate openly their religious holiday of choice, nor are they restricting students’ right to pray; they are restricting teachers’ right to endorse religion in their capacity as government workers. So, Perry doesn’t actually prove that children aren’t allowed to celebrate Christmas or pray–he is simply stirring up hysteria by making outright bogus claims.

            The second problem relates closely to the first, and it deals with the contrast Perry creates between gays serving openly in the military, and children being allowed to celebrate Christmas and pray openly. The former, he suggests, is the antithesis of the latter. In the video, he laments in his inarticulate drawl that “there’s something wrong with America when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.” By contrasting this with gay serving openly in the military, he creates an artificial contradiction between the two that need not exist. It is not the case that gays serving openly in the military and letting children pray in school and celebrate Christmas represent two separate, mutually exclusive agendas–a liberal versus a conservative one. Liberals aren’t taking away children’s rights to do these things while letting gays serve openly in the military. As shown above, of course children can openly celebrate Christmas and pray in school if they want; meanwhile, gays are allowed to defend their country. But Perry doesn’t care, because he has his warm, inarticulate cowboy “charm” to work with.

            But why, one wonders, should Perry so vociferously oppose gays openly defending their country in the first place? Let’s go back a few years to 1993, when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because law in the United States. Bill Clinton signed the bill into law despite the consensus in the scientific community that gays serving openly in the military does not compromise unit cohesion. Here are just a few statements by the American Psychological Association reflecting this consensus:

            Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).

            Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).

            When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.

            The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).

            So, never mind that Perry falsely claims that children aren’t allowed to pray in school or openly celebrate Christmas, or creates a false dichotomy between religious expression on one hand, and gays serving openly in the military on the other (as if you have to choose between one or the other because they’re inherently mutually exclusive and belong to separate political agendas, which, as shown above, they aren’t); his argument is problematic because his opposition to gays serving openly in the military is empirically unfounded in the first place. But Perry needn’t worry about academic insight, because he has the raging fury of the masses on his side.

            And, last but not least, Perry’s advertisement fails in the fact and reason department because he erroneously assumes that the strength of the United States rests on religious faith. He makes this clear near the end of his message, as he trudges up a hillside in a scene steeped in folksy masculine ruggedness: “Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.” In fact, the United States was founded by people who held a deep suspicion and wariness toward religion. Consider the following passages by a variety of figures who played a role in the country’s founding:

            “Whenever we read the obscene stories [of the Bible], the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the Word of God.”

            — Thomas Paine

            “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva     in the brain of Jupiter.”

            — Thomas Jefferson

            “The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of   clergy.”

            — George Washington

            “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the     System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity.”

            — Benjamin Franklin

            “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy,     ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

            — James Madison

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

            — John Adams

            Contrary to Perry’s claim that America’s strength lies in its Christian heritage, and that its foundation is essentially Christian, the founding fathers, who consisted more or less of agnostics and deists, openly criticized Christian beliefs, drawing largely from the principles of French Enlightenment philosophy to craft a secular government free of the strife and suffering caused by religion. America’s strength, then, lies in its roots in rationalist philosophy, not in religion, and its political heritage is defined by it. Now one might argue, “but most Americans are Christians, hence America is a Christian nation”. This is a bad argument, though, because there is a difference between the religion of the private population and the policy of secular government. That most Americans are Christian in private practice does not make their government Christian in public policy. And we know why–government religion just causes trouble. Again, though, Perry needn’t worry about this, because he’s just so darn folksy and charming, in that down-home kind of way. And that, sadly, proves sufficient to soothe his constituency.

            To sum up, Perry makes a desperate stab at persuading the audience to adopt the view that Christians are being persecuted, and LGBT people, privileged. He does this by creating the false impression that Christian children are suffering from widespread religious oppression, that liberals are fighting for gay rights while neglecting children’s religious freedoms, and that gays serving in the military somehow threatens military effectiveness. But, as we’ve seen above, he fails to provide any convincing evidence, rational, empirical, or otherwise, to prove these points. Perhaps what we are seeing here is a last desperate attempt by Christian dominionists to maintain its diminishing social control by clinging to the vestiges of old-time religion and resurrecting old-fashioned attitudes about things like sex, sexuality, and social class. However, as the internet media backlash against Perry’s bilious ad shows, their plan doesn’t seem to be working very well; indeed, it has incensed even Christians, who criticize it as dividing people, misrepresenting the teachings of Jesus, and abusing religion as a political platform. So, let’s cross our fingers and hope to God they fail.

            Source:

            The Washington Post

              Why Should Church and State Be Kept Separate?

              Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

              By now many of us are familiar with the right-wing argument that religion and government are inextricably intertwined, that the two have always mixed and can never be completely separated, and that the Constitution does not bar religious influence in governance. However, a group of legal experts at a recent forum have criticized this assumption as a myth, maintaining that secular civil government is critical for preserving civil liberties and American exceptionalism. The only problem is our reasoning for keeping church and state separate–what does America being “exceptional” have to do with it, anyway? As a ULC minister, do you find it relevant?

              The forum was held on Tuesday, 8 November, at the U.S. National Press Club, a professional organization and private social club for journalists in Washington, DC. (Every U.S. president since Warren Harding has been a member of the club.) During the forum, experts from the fields of law, history, and political science addressed growing concerns about references to God and religion on the part of conservative Republican presidential hopefuls during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign. The event was characterized by overwhelming support for separation of church and state as a vital component of American democracy, and suspicion toward how Republicans are disingenuously using God and religion to promote their political and social agendas.

              Those in attendance gave a number of reasons for their concern over the growing attempt to blur the boundary between church and state. John Ragosta, author of Wellspring of Liberty: How Virginia’s Religious Dissenters Helped to Win the American Revolution & Secured Religious Liberty, said that the United States would not have received the respect and support of non-Christians if it were an unequivocally Christian nation, according to Shahid Ali Panhwer and Maha Mussadaq in a story in The Miami Herald. Meanwhile, Jamie Raskin, Maryland state senator and director of the Law and Government Program at American University’s School of Law, argued that while the U.S. Constitution allows people to practice the religion of their choice, government actions themselves should rely on logic and science. He also pointed out that while most Americans may be Christian in a demographic sense, the government itself is not Christian, and forcing right-wing fundamentalist Christianity on to constitutional law would topple two centuries of developments in secular government. The basic message seemed to be that America needs to remain politically secular in order to remain exceptional as a paragon of democracy.

              There are many fantastic points being made by people like Raskin: there is an important difference between the majority of private citizens being Christian on one hand, and government being Christian on the other–while most Americans are Christian, the actions of government are not predicated on the majority religious belief, for such beliefs are a private and not a political exercise.

              But supporters of church-state separation are still emphasizing exceptionalism as their motive. Why should our commitment to secular civil government be motivated by America being “exceptional”? Isn’t the preservation of civil liberties reason enough? To say that the American government should remain secular (and thus preserve civil liberties) in order to remain exceptional is like saying that it should remain secular in order to look good in front of everybody else. While exceptionalism can be defined as “setting an example”, it also connotes superiority, so protecting secular civil government in order to be exceptional suggests greater interest in looking “cool” than in protecting people’s rights; it suggests a mercenary, “might makes right” sort of attitude preoccupied more with recognition and personal interests than with principles themselves. But that smacks of egoism. Perhaps you’ve asked the same question as a minister ordained online: should the U.S. be protecting civil liberties in order to be “better” than other nations; or should it be protecting civil liberties for their own sake?

              Besides, why shouldn’t other nations be expected to serve as examples of successful democracy? Why shouldn’t they be expected or encouraged to develop secular civil governments themselves, thereby preserving the civil liberties of their own people? Placing this expectation on the U.S. alone suggests either that Americans alone have the ability to develop democracy, or that only Americans deserve it. But, obviously, if the U.S. believes that non-Americans deserve the same rights as Americans, it follows that the U.S. should expect other nations to be exceptional too. It is not, in other words, the sole prerogative of the U.S. to embody and benefit from democracy.

              We do see the U.S. helping other nations demonstrate this kind of initiative with movements like the Arab Spring, in which fledgling Middle-Eastern democracies are earning the admiration of the world for toppling their erstwhile tyrants. Hopefully we will see more examples of this sort of assistance to other nations seeking the same liberties.

              There are many reasons why preserving secular civil government helps to nurture a healthy democracy (some nations, like the United Kingdom, manage to do this through organic secularization), but what should be our motive for doing so? To protect civil liberties for their own sake, or to make ourselves look like the cat’s meow, and the rest of the world chopped liver? If we wish for every citizen of every nation to enjoy the benefits of secular civil government, at the same time enjoying free exercise of religion, it should be the former. The U.S. needs to start fighting this cause because it benefits people, and not to get something out of it, like the sniveling, fawning admiration of weak and dependent foreign nations. That sort of attitude borders on nationalistic.

              What do you think as a nondenominational wedding officiant?

              Source:

              The Miami Herald

                Protecting Bullies in the Name of Religion

                Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

                It’s almost impossible to believe that a lawmaker would try to insert a religious exemption into a proposed anti-bullying law, but that’s exactly what one Michigan senator tried to do. Now, however, it looks as though that exemption will be removed from the bill, allowing action to be taken against all forms of bullying, including bullying perpetrated in the name of religion. And good riddance to that exemption, too–because the free exercise of religion does not include the right to torment and harass people to the point of suicide. As a Universal Life Church minister, perhaps you have witnessed incidents of religiously motivated bullying. What do you think?

                The Republican-backed bill, is known as “Matt’s Safe School Law”, after Matt Epling, a Michigan student who killed himself in 2002 after suffering from anti-gay bullying. Unlike its Democrat-backed counterpart, the bill, which was spearheaded by Senator Rick Jones, would have provided an exemption to bullying motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” against homosexuality, other religions, etc., in essence giving bullies license to harass and torment in the name of religion. Gay rights advocates are now applauding the senator’s decision to drop the religious exemption from the controversial bill, although many still think it will do little to protect youth.

                Republicans like Jones had claimed that the exemption to permit bullying on religious grounds was necessary to protect religious liberty, but there are several flaws with this argument, and it is wise to point these out, even if it appears that the religious exemption will in fact be removed. It can be an extremely daunting task to expose the sophistry of religiously justified bullying, because the concept of “religious freedom” has such a powerful, intellectually paralyzing grip on the American psyche, and right-wing fundamentalist Christians have exploited it so craftily as a rhetorical tool to sway people’s emotions, that reason becomes obscured in hysteria. But in a recent issue of Time, editor Amy Sullivan makes several points which help to undermine the Republican position.

                The first of these points addresses the concern over impingements on religious liberty resulting from prohibitions against harassment based on religious belief:

                [The Republican belief] relies on a warped understanding of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t give someone the right to kick the crap out of a gay kid or to verbally torment her. It doesn’t give someone the right to fire a gay employee instead of dealing with the potential discomfort of working with him.

                Put this way, the difference between free exercise of religion and religion-based oppression seems pretty straightforward here. What Sullivan is saying, and something which ministers ordained online should contemplate seriously, is that free exercise of religion does not include the right to torment another person: it only involves the right to practice one’s religion freely in peace, without impinging on the rights of others. Besides, even if bullying were part of somebody’s religious practice, so what? It still doesn’t mean that it should be protected a freedom: the Old Testament commands that we should execute adulteresses, but no civilized person in their right mind would argue that a person has the right to stone a woman to death because she cheated on her husband. So, no, an individual does not have the religious freedom to do whatever they want. And that includes bullying.

                In addition to this distorted perception of religious freedom, Sullivan also points out the double standard of religious liberty endorsed by Christians who pick and choose only those freedoms which benefit themselves:

                It’s also a highly selective conception of religious liberty. The same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan’s anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel.

                We all know Sullivan is right: if a follower of the Islamic faith bullied a Christian student for being an infidel, it is almost impossible to imagine the same conservatives who are backing the Matt’s Safe School Law defending that Muslim student. The law has to be all-or-nothing: if conservatives want to excuse Christian-based bullying, they have to defend all religion-based bullying in order to be fair. But this would be absurd, as it would allow anybody to use their religious beliefs as an excuse for bullying, so the only solution is to prohibit all religion-based bullying.

                Sullivan also points out how the conservative focus on allowing religion-based bullying overlooks the real, pressing threats against religious freedom around the world. She points out that while Michigan Republicans spend their time fighting efforts to prohibit bullying on the basis of religion, a Christian pastor is facing execution in Iran for refusing to convert back to Islam, “China openly represses religious minorities like Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims”, “Christians in Syria and Egypt continue to be targets of violence”, and “Muslims in Europe face civil penalties for wearing religious garb in public”. A person has to have a large “persecution complex”, she says, to overlook these issues and fixate on the right to ridicule gay people. Indeed, put into this perspective, Michigan Republicans’ plight to protect the religious right to bully people who don’t fit into your religious model of the world seems egregiously petty and insulting toward religious liberty, which faces far more significant threats globally.

                In addition to Sullivan’s points above, we might address the issue of free speech. A lot of people have defended the bill by invoking the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lines 1-4 of page 6 of the Matt’s Safe School Law describe an exemption for statements based on religious or moral conviction, and it might be argued that this language, taken in context, protects the free speech rights of students: students would be permitted to express moral objections to homosexuality, Islam, etc. But free speech isn’t the same as bullying. The First Amendment protects a person’s right to express his or her personal opinions, not to harass or torment others based on those opinions. So, even if lines 1-4 were to be included in the final draft of the bill, they could only be used to defend the expression of personal beliefs, not harassment based on those beliefs.

                Sen. Jones’s bill and its ominous implications were blasted in a censorious speech by Democratic senator Gretchen Whitmer:

                There could not be a more trenchant and concise critique of the bill than Sen. Whitmer’s.

                It’s a relief to know that Sen. Jones has agreed to remove the religious exemption in Matt’s Safe School Law. At first glance, the measure appears to protect bullying victims, but on closer inspection, it might do more to protect bullies themselves: if the exemption is taken to refer to anything other than a mere statement of personal opinion, it just grants students the religious freedom to cause others mental and emotional distress, and lost educational opportunities. But, as stated, it is not a religious freedom to torment another person and drive them to suicide just because you disagree with their perceived sexuality. And even if the bully’s “rights” did matter, whose rights matters more? The bully’s right to ridicule another person because that person’s hobbies, mannerisms, or perceived sexual preference offend the bully’s religious scruples, or the victim’s right to study safely in school and obtain an education peacefully, free of the dread of daily torment which, through the endless wearing down of mind and spirit, drives one to embrace the oblivion of death? If we have our priorities in the right place, and we know where our sympathy belongs, it seems pretty obvious that the psychologically tormented victim deserves our loyalty over the religiously offended bigot.

                So, we at the ULC Monastery have our fingers crossed that the Michigan legislature will do the right thing and throw out the religious exemption from the Matt’s Safe School Law, or at least make it crystal clear that only free speech, and not harassment, will be tolerated.

                What do you think as an interfaith wedding officiant? Get ordained online and share your thoughts by joining the ULC Monastery’s Facebook page or social network for ministers.

                Sources:

                The Huffington Post

                Time

                  Conan O’Brien Officiates Gay Wedding On-Air……

                  Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

                  Conan O’Brien may be better known for the occasional good-humored gay joke he cracks for his audience, but the ULC Monastery’s newest celebrity minister has proved to be a true supporter of social justice cause. On Thursday, O’Brien took advantage of New York State’s Marriage Equality Act to officiate a same-sex wedding in New York. The ULC Monastery couldn’t be happier with O’Brien’s clear public support for marriage equality.

                  The host of TBS’s Conan recently revealed to The Washington Post his reason for deciding to get ordained online and take his show to New York City’s Beacon Theater was to officiate the wedding–but it remained unclear who the lucky couple was. Now the Post reports, America’s beloved ginger comic will be marrying the show’s long time costume designer, Scott Cronick, to his partner David Gorshein on air during the show. The ceremony will be the first of its kind as well: O’Brien told The Post, “[t]his will be the first, I believe, same-sex wedding performed on late night television”. So, people have yet another good reason to tune in to the lightheartedly self-deprecating comic’s late night show.

                  It was originally rumored that the flame-haired comic decided to become a minister and perform the ceremony as part of a publicity stunt to boost the show’s ratings, which have fallen since he left NBC. However, it is wise not to jump to that conclusion, according to the Web site Vulture, show sources have suggested that the event is actually a quite serious and meaningful affair. His intentions should be taken seriously not only because the ceremony is being held in New York (and is therefore legal), but also because Cronick is a longtime staffer of the show. For those reasons it seems fair to treat the Conan ceremony as a genuine validation of same-sex affection.
                  And for that we are grateful. The ULC Monastery would like to congratulate Cronick and Gorshein on their new life together and to thank O’Brien for showing so much support for the gay and lesbian community. We hope to see many more quirky, offbeat ceremonies from the inimitable humorist for years to come–and a boost to those ratings, to boot.

                  Sources:

                  Vulture

                  The Washington Post

                    Does Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” Send the Right Message?

                    Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

                    Upon its release, Lady Gaga’s dance hit “Born This Way” instantly became a brazen vindication of homosexuality’s biological basis. The LGBTQ community revelled in the message that homosexuality was immutable and therefore deserved society’s approval. The problem, though, is that the song’s message is founded on the principles of biological determinism, a philosophy which reinforces the social inequities that the LGBTQ community and other minorities are struggling to eliminate. In other words, the song’s message relies on a socially damaging cop-out about human nature. Perhaps what we need to do is take a fresh approach on gay and lesbian apologetics by critically examining the consequences of biological determinist thinking for oppressed groups.

                    Essentially, biological determinism states that people are born with certain immutable biological characteristics, and that these characteristics help explain the social inequities we see in society. By contrast, social determinism (a seemingly non-canonical term) posits that the behavior of the individual is determined by social mores and institutions. Since they are both forms of determinism, biological and social determinism are the opposite of free will, a philosophy which states that human beings ultimately possess agency and volition over their actions. Finally, compatibilism states that free will and determinism are not incompatible, and that both simultaneously influence the behavior of the individual. And then there is epigenetics, which is relevant but lies outside the scope of this article.

                    One might think that, ostensibly, biological determinism would serve gays and lesbians, because it transfers responsibility for homosexual behavior from the person to the person’s biology, thereby exonerating that person of any claims of moral turpitude. According to this view, if homosexuality is biologically predetermined, gays and lesbians are not sinning against God, because they are blameless. A person’s sexual and romantic affection for members of the same sex is driven by the neurochemistry of his or her brain (which happens to be created by God, as Christians themselves would argue), and it is unfair to blame a person for the neurobiological processes they cannot control, hence it is unfair to blame a person for his or her same-sex affection. In short, the idea is, “You can’t blame a person for something they can’t control.”

                    It seems like a triumphant final “hurrah” in defense of homosexuality, but is it really a good philosophy for human beings in general? Maybe not so much.

                    Using biological determinism as an excuse for our behavior might inadvertently hamper efforts at achieving gender equity. The biological determinist model posits that boys are inherently more aggressive, lustful, and dominating than girls, and girls, more passive, emotional, and nurturing than boys, because of some genetically-influenced cocktail of hormones which shaped their brains in the womb. But is this philosophy scientifically sound, and does it serve boys and girls? As Cordelia Fine points out in her book Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference, scientists do believe that testosterone determines which set of genitals a baby will develop, but it is much less certain how it determines which toys children like to play with, let alone which types of careers they wish to pursue later in life. The neuroscience used to support the hardwired sex differences which result in gender inequity, Fine shows again and again, is methodologically flawed, misinterpreted, or simply nonexistent. If we think about it, we can see the slippery slope of excuses which might be used if we embrace biologically determined sex inequity: for example, when a man rapes a woman, it isn’t really his fault, because he was being controlled by testosterone. In effect, rapists get off the hook because “boys will be boys”. But bio-determinism is dehumanizing for another important reason: empathy is something that defines us as human beings (or as mammals at least), and we need as much of it as we can get, but bio-determinism posits that boys are inherently less empathetic than girls, so, essentially, what it is suggesting is that half of the human race should be crueller than the other half. This is absurd if our greatest goal is to encourage as much empathy as possible. Does the LGBTQ community really want to promote such destructive self-limitation?

                    Biological determinism could even be used to justify certain racist assumptions. As bio-determinists, we might argue that black people are inherently more violent than white people in order to explain the disproportionately high number of black people in American prisons. We might also invoke bio-determinism to explain the higher mortality rate of black people, and why they need this-or-that medicine (the commercialization of race for the purpose of lining the pockets of drug companies). This racialization of social issues is roundly criticized by Dorothy Parker in her book Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-First Century. When we embrace bio-deterministic explanations for racial inequity in health and crime rates, we are automatically enabling such inequity to persist. Clearly it is not beneficial for us, though, so we should probably stop making excuses, show some volition, and pick up the slack, no? For this reason, the LGBTQ community might wish to be cautious about how they use the bio-determinist explanation for homosexuality.

                    Ironically, the “Born This Way” maxim might not just hurt women and racial minorities–it might actually end up hurting the LGBTQ community, too. By using biological innateness to justify their desires, gays and lesbians are simply giving power to the oppressor, because they are sort of implying that they “can’t help doing something that is wrong.” In other words, they suggest, homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted because it is inherently good; it should be accepted because gay people can’t help being gay. It’s kind of like saying, “congenital heart disease is bad because it kills people, but it should be accepted because it’s biological.” That’s just ludicrous. Of course it shouldn’t be accepted just because it’s biologically-based; it should be eliminated because it kills people. What is taking place here is an “appeal to nature” fallacy, which states that a thing is good because it is natural, and bad because it is unnatural. But a thing is not good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural. So, what gays and lesbians should be doing is saying, “Even if homosexuality weren’t natural, that doesn’t make it wrong. It is also your choice to be a Christian, but I don’t discriminate against you because of that.” Thus, to deny power to the oppressor, the LGBTQ community might focus on critiquing the appeal to nature fallacy rather than affirming it.

                    As we can see, Lady Gaga’s widely adored anthem ostensibly vindicates same-sex desire, but in many ways it actually reinforces damaging social inequities for women and racial minorities. It is even self-sabotaging for the LGBTQ community itself, given how it requires homosexuality to be natural in order to be justifiable. Certainly, the body does play a role in how we behave as human beings, but it does not necessarily control our behavior in every way from birth. Absolute social determinism and absolute biological determinism both seem a little implausible, so perhaps we should consider paying more heed to compatibilism–the philosophy that allows for a complex interaction between the mind, the body, and society. We might even argue that we have more free will, more agency and autonomy, than we give ourselves credit for. Maybe we weren’t strictly “born this way” after all, and maybe there’s a bigger “socio-biological” picture to why we do what we do, but that doesn’t make homosexuality wrong any more than it makes Christianity wrong. Maybe what we should be doing is defending minority sexual identities for their own sake, not for their basis in biology.

                    Of course, at the end of the day, it just so happens that there is a mounting heap of evidence defending at least the partial innateness of homosexuality, but, alas, it is exceedingly difficult to teach a religious fundamentalist new tricks, isn’t it?

                    Source:

                    The Muck of Ages