Archive for the ‘Politics’ 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

      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.

        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

          What’s the Best Answer to Evangelical Extremism?

          Monday, December 5th, 2011

          How should Americans respond to evangelical extremism in the United States? Some liberal commentators have suggested that evangelicals need to start showing as much commitment to their nation’s interests as they show to their religious faith. But is it really a good idea to tell evangelicals, “You should place greater priority on nationalistic fervor than on religious fervor”? After all, both religion and nationalism, in their more extreme forms, constitute a type of bigotry. Replacing one type of bigotry with another seems a little counterproductive if our goal is to participate fully in the global and human communities.

          Certainly, religious fervor among rich and powerful evangelicals is a growing problem in the United States, and a threat to secular democracy and civil government. David Sirota of Salon points this out in a recent article entitled Are Evangelicals a Threat to National Security? In his article, Sirota cites a recent Gallup poll which suggests that, contrary to popular opinion, Christians are more likely than Muslims to put their faith before their country. The implication is that Muslims will be there for their country before Christians, who have traditionally dominated the cultural landscape of the United States, and who claim a link between American politics and their own religion which should be defended. It is rather ironic, then, that a dominant religious group which views Christianity and American culture as one and the same should put faith before country as compared with a minority religious group.

          But, as mentioned above, asking Christians to put country before faith, and not the other way around, is potentially dangerous since it simply replaces one type of ideological zeal with another.

          The first reason why this is dangerous is that it presupposes the assimilation of differing groups into American society. Sirota makes this suggestion when he cites the Gallup poll to disprove the stereotype that Muslims pose a greater security threat to the U.S. than Christians. In his attempt to do so, he unwittingly assumes the arguably conservative position that being American means being the same as everybody else. But, of course, this is nonsense: there is no official language of the United States nor an official religion for the government to peddle as the true language or religion of the nation. Clearly, though, Americans have to get along with one another. Why, then, not promote the idea of integration of different peoples in the form of a “cultural mosaic”–a system in which each citizen participates fully in a secular government while retaining their own unique customs and identity? But Sirota never even mentions integration: even he implies that Americans are supposed to be the same as one another. And then comes the burden of deciding whose language, religion, dress, customs, etc. will be the American prototype for everybody else to emulate under a policy of assimilation, and how we arrive at this decision remains a mystery unless we assume it is supposed to be white, male, heterosexual, English-speaking, and Christian (which, of course, defeats Sirota’s vision of Americans putting country first in a secular nation-state). So perhaps we shouldn’t be responding to fundamentalist evangelicalism with calls to assimilation.

          But Sirota’s response to fundamentalist evangelicalism is questionable not only because it promotes assimilation over integration (and thus paves the way for making Protestant Christianity the national prototype for Americans to assimilate to), but also because it substitutes nationalism for religion, which isn’t very productive if our goal is to eliminate all forms of fanaticism. In its more xenophobic, chauvinistic form, nationalism purports that one person’s nation is better than another person’s nation in a sort of ridiculously macho “My dad can beat up your dad!” kind of showdown. But this just teaches people to identify with their nationality over their humanity, which is ridiculous since each person belongs to both their nation and planet Earth, and, besides, a lot of countries are better than the United States in many things: France has a better health-care system, Japan has a better transportation infrastructure, and most countries in the developed world have much lower per capita murder rates, so unbridled nationalism is just sort of provincial and arrogant. There is, after all, a vast wonderful world outside the United States. So, rather than telling evangelicals to be more nationalistic than religious, what liberals like Sirota might try doing is encouraging evangelicals to identify with their humanity over their nationality or religion, for while we all may come from different nations and hail from different religious traditions, we are all human beings. (This, by the way, is compatible with integration, in which different groups retain their unique customs and characteristics.)

          Of course, Sirota might be implicitly promoting a more benign and cosmopolitan form of patriotism characterized by efforts to improve one’s own country through grass-roots efforts, etc., and this is a noble cause as it recognizes that nationalism begins with the uncompromising attitude that no imperfection exists in the first place, but if this is Sirota’s intent, it isn’t exactly crystal-clear.

          The irony in all of this is that religiosity and nationalism are intertwined in American culture anyway (unfortunately), so telling evangelicals to place greater priority on patriotism than on faith is rather redundant. Sirota acknowledges that American culture and Christianity are often seen as interchangeable: “Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America — indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter”. In this sense, he notes, there is no separation between the American government and the Christian religion. This view is the product of efforts on the part of evangelicals to create an artificial synonymity between the two, and, unfortunately, to some extent they have succeeded. Liberals like Sirota can’t tell evangelicals to put their country before their faith if those same evangelicals have craftily and successfully blurred the boundary between the two, making loyalty to one the same as loyalty to the other. Rather, what we should be doing is confronting evangelicals for making this inappropriate association in the first place and dismantling it. But the next step should not be to encourage them to place priority on xenophobic chauvinism–it should be to encourage them to place priority on secular civil democracy, as their Muslim peers seem better able to do.

          The point is that liberals like Sirota seem to have good intentions when they tell evangelicals to put their country before their faith, but ultimately even that approach is misguided, since it just replaces one potential form of bigotry with another. And there are three ways in which Sirota inadvertently and indirectly makes this possible: by unquestionably extolling the notion of assimilation instead of integration, by promoting nationalism over religion without acknowledging the potential for zealotry in both, and by overlooking the fact that evangelicals are already trying to create an artificial association between nation and religion in order to obviate choosing between the two. With regard to the last of these, clearly this conflation of politics and religion should not be happening, but we need to acknowledge that if we are telling evangelicals to place their country before their faith, they will think this ludicrous, since in their minds the two are one and the same. So, essentially, what we should be doing is telling evangelicals to be less fanatical, whether it involves religion or patriotism. For their Muslim peers seem to have a better perspective on fanaticism living in the United States.

          Source:

          Salon

            Russell Brand Brings Ministry to New Comic Heights

            Monday, December 5th, 2011

            Recently on the ULC Monastery blog we wrote about Russell Brand’s online ordination in the Universal Life Church and his subsequent role officiating weddings on-stage alongside his often shockingly irreverent, “I-know-you-didn’t-just-go-there” comedy routine. Brand once again took his art of uniting hearts and igniting laughs to the stage, this time in the Mullins Center at the University of Massachusetts. This time, however, the comedian married not one, but two couples, integrating humor with the solemnity of marriage for an overall off-the-wall evening.

            The decidedly alternative wedding ceremonies came after a late start to a performance characterized by Brand’s trademark taboo shock humor, as Kate Evans of The Massachusetts Daily Collegian writes. Brand made up for his tardiness with hugs and kisses doled out to audience members, then dived into the act itself, brandishing his prowess in everything from bawdy jabs at popular culture to improvisational comedy. Referencing the Twilight series of teenage vampire films, the ULC minister made an impertinent joke about what vampire lovers do when their mates accidentally leave their sanitary pads at home, joking that her worst time of the month will end up being his best, and at one point he even invited an audience member up on stage and called his parents on his telephone to notify them that he had converted to homosexuality over his love for another audience member. All in all, it was an awkward evening for the squeamish prude, but a cathartic relief from life’s trials for everybody else.

            After the unabashedly vulgar comic segment came the ceremonies themselves, which certainly weren’t over-sanitized to humor the conservative sensibilities of the unsuspecting puritan. In a spontaneous twist, Brand, who decided to become a minister to perform weddings during his comedy routines, found a couple in the audience at the beginning of the show that he vowed to marry by the end, and this is exactly what he did, bringing together in holy matrimony Vincent and Francesca, who had been together for three years. But that’s not all. Brand followed up this wedding with a second that brought together a couple that had been together for seven years, proving that it takes more than seminary school training and a traditional minister’s credential to validate a happy, loving union. Truly, it must have been an enjoyable bizarre and surreal evening for couples and audience members alike.

            Of course, Brand’s style of wedding officiation isn’t for everyone, but it goes a long way in showing that a meaningful wedding doesn’t have to be a dour and boring affair, and that, on the contrary, it ought to involve a certain degree of whim and fancy, reflecting the joy and happiness of the couple being brought together. Naturally, we hope to see many similar weddings by Brand in the future, as they blur the boundaries between the solemn wedding the joyful one, as well as re-define what constitutes a proper public statement of love and commitment. It’s refreshing for once to see a couple getting married in a venue besides a church, without the traditional trappings like the giant white wedding gown and the old, moribund priest half-murmuring a series of obsolete vows. And even to hear a rude joke or two. What’s really the harm in that?

            Source:

            The Massachusetts Daily Collegian

              Members of Village People Officiate ULC Wedding

              Monday, November 21st, 2011

              We all know the Village People for classic hits like “YMCA” and “In the Navy”, and for their eccentric, flamboyant outfits depicting archetypes like the biker, construction worker, police officer, sailor, Native American, etc., and now two members of the inimitable dance-pop group can add “Universal Life Church wedding officiant” to their resume: the two band-members, Eric Anzalone, the “biker”, and Felipe Rose, the “Native American”, recently performed a wedding ceremony in concert for two of their fans, Elberta Smoak and Frank Goldsmith.

              The wedding was performed on-stage at the Starlite Theatre in Las Vegas after an email request from Goldsmith, the groom-to-be. Initially Goldsmith assumed the band would reject the request. “I saw that the Village People were playing [in Las Vegas] and thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if I could email them and get a little rejection letter that said, “We can’t do your wedding, but we’re so happy for y’all”?’” he told Huffpost Weddings, adding, “I’d frame it and give it to [Smoak] and say, ‘Hey, the Village People are happy we’re getting married”. To Smoak and Goldsmith’s surprise, however, the band responded in the affirmative and agreed to perform a modern wedding ceremony for the couple. According to Huffpost Weddings, Anzalone said “[the wedding] was never on my bucket list, but it’s definitely one of those cool things I can say that I’ve done”, adding that it is “going to be one of those things where I can say, ‘Yeah, I performed at Radio City Music Hall. Yeah, I got a star on the Walk of Fame. Yeah, I’ve actually married somebody’”. The “yes” response to Goldsmith’s email turned out to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him and Smoak and added some rather idiosyncratic, attention-grabbing entertainment value to the band’s repertoire.

              The ordination process for Anzalone and Rose turned out to be surprisingly easy. All they had to do was to become ordained ministers in Smoak and Goldsmith’s church, the Universal Life Church, which is exactly what they did. Smoak and Goldsmith registered their ordinations online themselves, but the ordination was consensual: they met Anzalone and Rose for the first time at the Starlite Theatre, where they knelt, placed their hands on the band-members’ shoulders, and said a short prayer as part of an ordination ceremony. That allowed Anzalone and Rose to legally marry the couple, and this is what they did in a short ceremony in concert just before performing “YMCA”.

              And that’s how you get married by members of The Village People: send an email, get them ordained in your church, and attend an in-concert wedding performed by a man in leather and another one dressed as a Native American chief. All the right ingredients for an offbeat wedding are there: the celebrities, the flamboyance, the concert, Las Vegas. Even better, because it is a ULC ordination, it is completely legal. Now, we’re not recommending tens of thousands of fans start flooding the band with emails requesting them to officiate their weddings, but is nice to know the band can be so accessible to their fans. The ULC Monastery would like to congratulate Smoak and Goldsmith on their wedding, and we hope to see Anzalone and Rose perform many more in the future.

              Source:

              The Huffington 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