The Holy Christian text sets rules on many aspects of life, some widely ignored, others perpetuated

Journalist Dan Savage ruffled more than a few feathers a couple of weeks ago when he made a speech at a high school journalism convention in Seattle about how Christians use the Bible. The gay-rights advocate did fling a few unnecessary invectives, but he also presented a cogent argument against picking and choosing Bible verses for discriminatory purposes. As ULC ministers, we should look at all sides of the issue. While Savage could have handled his delivery a little more graciously, he also demonstrated some fairly rock-solid reasoning.

A fair assessment of Savage’s actions requires a look at the events that transpired. During his speech, he suggested that Christians are hypocrites because they cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality, but ignore what it says about women and slaves. “We can learn to ignore the [B.S.] in the Bible about gay people”, he said, “the same way we learned to ignore the [B.S.] in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about masturbation…. We ignore [B.S.] in the Bible about all sorts of things.” At that point, several offended students walked out of the hall in protest.

The harshest critique came later, after the students had left the auditorium. The “It Gets Better” project co-founder accused the offended students of cowardice and resorted to name-calling to drive his point home. “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall to come back now, because I’m done beating up the Bible”, he said, adding, “[i]t’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back”. Understandably, Christians denounced Savage’s words as hypocritical, unfair, and mean-spirited, accusing the anti-bullying advocate of acting like a bully himself. No ordained pastor wants to emulate that kind of behavior in the name of justice. The students who walked out weren’t necessarily guilty of bullying, so Savage’s hostility seems misplaced, not to mention infantile.

The red cross represents salvation through Jesus, the blue signifies truth, the white symbolizes forgiveness and surrender to God

At the same time, however, he did make a good point about the Bible being used inconsistently, and this is what we can focus on. The Bible does teach that homosexuality is wrong (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), but it also teaches that slaves should obey their masters (Titus 2:9, Colossians 3:22) and that brides should be stoned to death if they are not virgins (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). However, many Christians emphasize the teachings on homosexuality while ignoring those on slavery and stoning non-virgins to death. So, it is a fact that some Christians use the Bible arbitrarily, as Savage argued, and, as ministers ordained online, this is an argument we should be making in the name of justice. Besides, he apologized later for calling the offended students “pansy-assed”.

Savage’s reasoning was intact, but his approach certainly missed the mark. There are two things we as Universal Life Church ministers can take away from this unfortunate debacle: it is good to point out the unfair use of religious texts to condemn minorities, but it is bad to adopt the oppressor’s tactics in doing so. The radical feminist poet Audre Lorde very pithily made the same point: “The master’s tools can never dismantle the master’s house”. She’s right. We can’t end bigotry by acting like bigots.

130 couples were married recently in Xi'an, China recently in a Han-style mass wedding

China’s culture is one of the oldest existing ones in the world, and it thus has wedding traditions that are ancient as well. The phrase “mass wedding” often conjures up images of stadiums filled to the brim with white-gowned brides and black-clad grooms as a wedding officiant pronounces them man and wife. Not all mass weddings subscribe to this hallmark of globalization, however. The ancient Chinese city of Xi’an recently hosted a dazzling, crimson-washed, Han-style mass wedding that recalled the practices of a dynasty that ruled most of eastern China over two thousand years ago.

A beautifully-illuminated pagoda in Xi'an, capital of the former Han Dynasty

The traditional take on the mass wedding concept took place on 1 May in the old imperial capital of the Han Dynasty, now the capital of Shaanxi province in central China. One hundred and thirty newlywed couples–comparatively few by mass wedding standards–celebrated their unions in a beautifully choreographed ritual wearing the same style of deep red, Han Dynasty-era costumes that their ancestors wore several millenia ago. With almost perfect symmetry and synchronicity, each couple took their place before their own fastidiously decorated altar, knelt, and held hands to show their commitment in much the same guise and manner as their cultural forebears did.

A loving young couple kiss during the mass wedding ceremony

The ceremony reflects the rich heritage of this part of China, near the heartland of the Han culture. The city of Xi’an is more than three thousand, one hundred years old (by comparison, London is only about two thousand years old), and one of the four great capitals of ancient China. It served as capital under several of the great dynasties of Chinese history, including the Han, Qin, Sui, Tang, and Zhou dynasties, as well as the eastern terminus of the Silk Road. With China’s recent investment in the country’s interior, the city has emerged as an important cultural, educational, and industrial center, with facilities for national security, research and development, and China’s space exploration program.

A fearsome terra cotta warrior made during the Han Dynasty

As China becomes globalized, rituals like the Han-style wedding ceremony have helped the Chinese to appreciate their own culture. In recent years the Far East has been flooded with Western ideas about the modern wedding ceremony. South Korea’s Unification Church, for instance, draws on many strains of Christian theology and peddles a modern, Western ritual style in its mass wedding ceremonies. One commenter at a China Daily article on the recent Han ceremony remarked, “I don’t understand…why we have to copy the West when our own ceremony is so unforgettably beautiful”, while another entreated the Chinese to “[s]upport [keeping] our own culture”. Increasingly, it seems, the Chinese are remembering the beauty of their own wedding traditions and growing comfortable with embracing it.

Modern marriage innovations like online ordination and Asia’s Western-style wedding trends are excellent ways to adapt in a shrinking world, but cultural traditions have their place, too. A thing isn’t necessarily good just because it is new, or bad just because it is old, and it would be false to say that tradition cannot co-exist with modernity. Xi’an’s Han-style wedding ceremony shows that it’s possible to honor the past while looking toward the future, and it teaches us to appreciate the beauty of timeless ritual.

Sources:

The Atlantic Cities

China Daily

The Girl Store - sells munificent souls the ability to fund little Indian girls' educations

Universal Life Church ministers love weddings, but not all weddings are legitimate affairs. This holds especially true for child marriages, which have received greater attention lately in India in the wake of that country’s Akshaya Tritiya, a festival of mass weddings. To combat child exploitation, one partnership has developed a campaign called “Buy A Girl”, which resembles a sex-trafficking scheme but actually purports to save girls by funding their education. It may seem tasteless, but the point is that we pursue the most effective ways of protecting children against exploitation.

A screenshot from The Girl Store's website, where people can purchased basic supplies for impoverished Indian girls at risk of sex slavery

The campaign is being sponsored by the non-profit Project Nanhi Kali, an initiative of Indian businessman Anand Mahindra. Together, the charities have designed a Web site called “The Girl Store”, which resembles an online clothing store but purports to sell something much different from hats, shoes or scarves. “Experience the sensation of buying a girl–her life back”, says the introduction. It even has a brick-and-mortar store Midtown Manhattan. In actuality, the store doesn’t sell girls; it funds school supplies for girls’ education. Sponsors (including nondenominational wedding ministers like ours) have the option of purchasing everything from pencils and backpacks to workbooks and uniforms, all with the aim of giving impoverished Indian girls the chance to escape sex slavery and child marriages through education.

Not everybody appreciates the attention-grabbing irony of the campaign, however. Catherine A. Traywick of the Ms. Magazine blog has has criticized the campaign’s marketing strategy as counter-productive: “[H]ow does purchasing a handful of school supplies handily solve the rampant global problem of human trafficking or the much less visible—though similarly pervasive—sexual abuse of children within the home?” she asks, adding that “[i]t’s an outrageous and absolutely erroneous notion, and one that implicitly places the onus of personal safety on the child rather than on her family, her community, or the potential perpetrator.” Some might say the “Buy A Girl” campaign fails by taking the wrong approach to tackling trafficking and overlooking the core of the problem–where abuse starts.

A shockingly large number of young Indian girls become child brides, like this one

Others have lauded the campaign, defending its strategy as an effective way of marshalling support and gathering resources. For some, selling pencils and backpacks might seem like a pittance in the global fight against sex trafficking, but apparently it has made a difference. According to one Forbes article, the store “sold out all stock in less than 24 hours of its launch”, while Nanhi Kali “mobilized over $10,000 in less than 24 hours, which means that another 150 Nanhi Girls will be educated for a year. It costs only $65 to sponsor a girl’s education for one year through the program.” People like Traywick might criticize the “Buy A Girl” campaign’s strategy as misguided, but Goodson’s data show it has succeeded in helping girls by putting them in school and giving them opportunities.

It is indisputable that sex trafficking devastates lives, but it remains less clear how it should be dealt with. Nanhi Kali’s “Buy A Girl” campaign tries to fight trafficking by funding girls’ education, but the controversial use of satire has elicited mixed reactions from the public. While it offends the sensibilities of some, it seems to have produced concrete, positive results. Either way, those who become a minister to fight injustice should be doing whatever it takes to prevent girls being sold into marriage or slavery.

What do you think? Would YOU be comfortable “buying” a girl?

Recent research has delved into the brain's role in spirituality

Where in the brain does God reside? Does spiritual experience originate in the mind? Such questions are nearly unanswerable, but scientists are beginning to paint a clearer picture of what happens inside our brains during moments of spiritual insight. We are beginning to get a better glimpse of physical mechanism behind some of our most profound and transcendent revelations, and Universal Life Church ministers can benefit from this newfound knowledge.

A topic has been studied closely by Brian Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions at the University of Missouri. Researchers have been trying unsuccessfully to find a “God spot” in the brain, but new evidence suggests the reality is a bit more complicated, and many ministers who became ordained online will be curious to know the latest findings. “We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain”. Rather, Johnstone’s studies show, spiritual experience is a complex phenomenon that involves many different areas of the brain as well as decreased activity in a brain region called the right parietal lobe.

Johnstone arrived at his conclusion by examining brain injury victims. He looked at people with brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe and discovered that this region showed reduced activity. He also surveyed these individuals on characteristics of spirituality, and they reported feeling a greater connection to a divine force. A similar brain state has been found in Buddhist meditators and Francisco nuns with normal brain functions (and probably exists in some nondenominational wedding ministers, too). The right parietal lobe, Johnstone explains, is involved in self-orientation, and when activity in this region is compromised, people experience decreased focus on the self and a greater connection with others, and with a higher force. Consequently, Johnstone concluded that reduced activity in this brain region is linked with increased feelings of spiritual experiences.

The brain's parietal node self-orientates the being in controls, including their spirituality

But Johnstone’s findings do not prove that decreased activity in the right parietal lobe causes spiritual experience. According to The Huffington Post, “[t]he research does not make claims about spiritual truths, but demonstrates the way that the brain allows for different kinds of spiritual experiences”, depending on one’s religious (or nonreligious) worldview. Indeed, emerging research is challenging the reductive materialist paradigm underpinning the view that consciousness is a by-product of brain activity. In his book Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of Near-Death Experience, Dutch cardiologist Pim Van Lommel makes a compelling case for a non-material basis for consciousness, citing new research in quantum physics as well as cases like that of Pamela Reynolds, in which a brain-dead person experienced lucid consciousness. Australian philosopher David Chalmers–an atheist–also challenges the materialist model in his book The Character of Consciousness.

Johnstone’s research may not answer whether the brain produces spiritual experience, or merely mediates it, but it does seem to show that the brain plays a role. As ULC ministers, we should embrace the work of scientists like Johnstone and resist urges to reject it outright like so many anti-intellectual philistines populating the American social and political landscape do; science and spirituality are not necessarily one another’s enemies, and the world would be a better place if this notion were accepted by all. Scientific enquiry may never fully explain spirituality, but it could go a long way in doing so.

Unsurprisingly, right-wing, conservative Christians have decried the move, arguing that a Pagan curriculum is a bad idea for many reasons. “[S]chool children are already as familiar with the solstice as with the sacraments”, claims conservative Catholic columnist Cristina Odone, adding that “[i]n pockets of Cornwall, children will point out a nun in her habit: ‘Look, a Druid!’” while parents shrug indifferently. She asks, “[h]ow long before the end of term is marked by a Black Mass, with only Health and Safety preventing a human sacrifice?” For many ULC ministers these are absurd, ridiculous suggestions, but for people like Odone, teaching about Paganism is redundant because it’s already widely accepted, and dangerous because it will inevitably lead to violence and black magic.

Other Christians have a more open mind about Cornwall’s Pagan curriculum, showing a more calm and rational understanding of the place earth-centered religions have in Celtic British culture. “We must celebrate the spiritual and religious heritage of Paganism for our children”, said Sue Green, director of education for the Anglican Diocese of Truro. “For many of our schools there will be children who come from Pagan families, and we wouldn’t want those children to feel [marginalized]“, she said, adding that no school would be forced to teach about Paganism. The Rev. Mike Coles, Baptist pastor of Falmouth Evangelical Church and chairman of the Cornwall advisory council on religious education, argued that it makes sense to develop a distinctly Cornish curriculum which recognizes the Duchy’s significant pre-Christian elements.

This support from progressive Christians has buoyed existing Pagan efforts to gain greater acceptance and understanding. Fiona MacDonald, co-ordinator of Cornwall’s Pagan Federation, told The Huffington Post UK that Pagans have been campaigning ten years for schools to introduce the new curriculum, saying “[w]e are just normal human beings with different ideas”. Importantly, she emphasized that “[i]t is not a question of teaching children Paganism, [but] rather teaching children about Paganism”, echoing Green’s point above that the curriculum’s purpose is to provide a neutral and objective survey of Paganism, not an endorsement of it.

Britain may lack separation of church and state, but its local Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education have proved capable of demonstrating fairness by increasing the range of religions taught in its RE syllabi, largely with the support of the English Church. It’s a lesson in interfaith solidarity for every one of us. Hopefully, one day, the curriculum will incorporate secularism, too.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, thinks Christians have a special calling: to take back the rainbow from the LGBT community. Hutcherson made the proclamation in a recent article on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, arguing that gays and lesbians have co-opted the rainbow from Christians. We think this is a fantastic idea! Below are a few reasons why homosexuals should give the rainbow back to its real caretakers.

Everybody knows that the rainbow is a Christian symbol. As the Biblical book of Genesis states, God created the rainbow as a promise of peace after wiping out the majority of life on Earth with a Great Flood–therefore it belongs to Christians, not Jews or homosexuals, even though this is a pre-Christian, Hebrew story borrowed by Christians many centuries later. So, homosexuals should give the rainbow back to Christians because the homosexuals stole it from the Christians, and it doesn’t matter that the Christians themselves stole it from the Hebrews. You see, stealing is wrong when gays do it, but not when Christians do it. It makes perfect sense!

Besides, it isn’t really stealing when Christians take it, because Christians have a copyright on rainbows. Rainbows aren’t simply natural phenomena that occur where light and water vapor interact–they are a magical message created by God to remind Christians that he won’t drown them ever again. Of course, since rainbows were created specifically for this purpose, they couldn’t have existed before the Flood, but that’s all right. The water vapor canopy theory helps us escape that predicament. It tells us there was no rainfall on Earth until a vast water vapor canopy enveloping the planet collapsed in the Flood, just a few thousand years ago! So, you see, God did make rainbows for Christians, not for the Hebrews, homosexuals, or anybody else.

We must also remember that Christianity and homosexuality are mutually exclusive, so when homosexuals use the flag, it must be for their own selfish, ungodly reasons. Homosexuals can’t be Christian, because Christians follow the teachings of Christ, which include things like treating others how you want to be treated, giving to the poor and needy, showing forbearance and magnanimity, and practicing peace and nonviolence, and it’s common knowledge that homosexuals are incapable of these things. However, people like Hutcherson are acting in perfect Christ-like fashion when they proclaim that “God hates effeminate men” (men like Jesus–who is, er, God) and that “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end“. So, all those inner-city churches donning the rainbow flag are co-opting it from real Christian churches, the true stewards of the rainbow.

Christians–that is, real Christians like Hutcherson–should take back the rainbow from homosexuals before they tarnish it beyond recognition with their calls for equality, tolerance, and respect for the private lives of mutually consenting adults. The rainbow isn’t merely a natural phenomenon–it is a symbol made by God for Christians to take from whomever they want to use however they want, no matter how irrational or unjustified their claim. Hutcherson should fight for his rainbow at any cost–no matter how un-Christian it makes him.

As part of our awareness campaign, we’ll be donating $1 to the National Autism Association for every “Like” we receive on Facebook before May 20th, up to a total of $1,000 – so if you haven’t already done so, please visit our Facebook page and click the “Like” button. You can also help by sharing the page with your friends so we can help this issue reach a larger audience.

That’s all you need to do, so spread the word!  Time is of the essence; if our goal can be reached before the end of April, the organization Mayer-Johnson will match the ULC’s donation dollar for dollar, thus doubling it to raise $2,000 for this important cause!  Otherwise, the deadline for the campaign is set for May 20^th, so if you haven’t yet done so, visit our Facebook page, and just below the main banner click the “Like” button.

About Autism:

The scientific understanding of autism is revealing that it is a complex, bio-neurological and treatable disorder that presents itself during the first three years of a person’s life.  It targets brain function, affecting communication skills, the ability to interact socially, and is often accompanied by other disorders such as asthma and epilepsy.  One in every eighty-eight children will be diagnosed with autism, and boys are four times more likely to be so than girls.  These individuals deserve our understanding and compassion.

Donations to the National Autism Association can help provide services for families of autistic children as well as fund research.  Their mission is to respond to the most urgent needs in the community, and provide real help and hope so all can reach their full potentials.  They are a parent-led non-profit organization and have conducted important work since 2003.  The Universal Life Church Monastery wants to raise awareness of this issue and we encourage you, in addition to helping out with the Facebook campaign, to donate directly to the cause.  For more information on autism, and to learn how to donate and become involved, please visit the National Autism Association at http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/.

Before we can expose predatory lending practices, we need to identify the more fraudulent loan types. According to financial author and radio host Dave Ramsey, borrowers should always avoid “Buy Now, Pay Later” type loans, tax refund anticipation loans, and payday loans. For “Buy Now, Pay Later” type loans, interest not only begins accruing on the day of purchase, but increases to a whopping 24 to 30 percent once the “free” period is up. Meanwhile, tax refund anticipation loans often have an annual interest rate of 40 to 500 per cent, and the typical payday loan of $325 ends up costing on average $793. Lenders know the huge profit they’re extorting from borrowers, while borrowers themselves often don’t. But ULC ministers can fight this kind of financial exploitation by drawing attention to the issue in church operations, providing counseling services for indebted church members, and pooling community resources to assist financially-strapped families.

Aiding victims of predatory lending doesn’t stop with pinpointing fraudulent loan types, though–it also means identifying which groups are most commonly targeted by predatory lenders, such as racial and ethnic minorities. A 2007 analysis of home loan data by researchers at New York University shows that home-buyers in black and Latino neighborhoods in New York City were more likely to get loans from subprime lenders than home-buyers in white, non-Latino neighborhoods with similar income levels, revealing how lenders financially exploit buyers on the basis of race. Any discussion on predatory lending by ministers ordained online must begin with a discussion on which groups lenders prefer to target.

Just as predatory lenders target minorities for underhanded loan practices, they also target women. Women compose a key group of the subprime mortgage crunch, according to studies by leading consumer groups. In her article “Women and the Subprime Crunch”, Professor Anita F. Hill argues that women make up a large percentage of first-time home-buyers, and that, consequently, loan officers exploit the lack of financial knowledge of many women applying for their first home loan. Thus, people who become a minister to fight injustice need to confront both racial and sexual inequity in lending practices. This begins with organized awareness-raising efforts in churches and open dialogue between ministers and lay-members on the racial and sexual components of financial exploitation.

Predatory lenders exploit underprivileged groups by taking advantage of their vulnerability, lack of knowledge, and financial inexperience, but Universal Life Church ministers can fight this injustice by using their ministry to raise awareness about extortive loans and lending practices which target women and minorities. These may be small baby steps, but they are the grass roots efforts that lead to change on a larger scale. Give us your thoughts. Have you ever been a victim of predatory lending? How would you use your ministry as a means of protecting people against usury?

Sources:

CBS News

Economica

The New York Times

The abortion bill is intended to protect women, argue supporters. Under the new law, abortions would become illegal after the twentieth week of pregnancy except in a “medical emergency” in which an abortion would prevent the mother’s death or substantial injury. An ultrasound would also be required twenty-four hours before an abortion. The new restrictions, argue supporters, will reduce abortion-related health risks, which they say increase substantially after the twentieth week of pregnancy.

The Bible class bill is intended to make Bible electives available, but it has yet to be signed by Gov. Brewer. It would allow public and charter schools to offer elective courses which teach the Bible’s influence on Western civilization from a “neutral” perspective. Proponents argue that the course should be allowed because the Bible’s influence on Western thought has been so deep and pervasive, and students deserve to learn about their Biblical heritage. It would not be compulsory, they add.

But the abortion bill isn’t really fair. Governments intervening in women’s personal health decisions is just a form of paternalism. It is not for the state to decide whether a woman should risk health complications–it is for the woman herself to decide, because the decision affects her body, not the state’s. Whether or not a woman wishes to risk health complications due to abortion is her business, not the government’s; the role of government is merely to provide access to literature on the risks. But the bill does not simply require the state to educate women; it makes it as difficult as possible them to make personal decisions about their own bodies.

The Bible class bill is also unfair. Proponents claim it is optional, not compulsory, but the class isn’t biased because it’s compulsory–it’s biased because it’s the only religious course available. Imagine legislators proposing a similar bill to let schools teach the Quran, atheist literature, or witchcraft. It’s almost impossible. “But the Bible has had such a profound influence on Western thought!” proponents will argue. But so have other traditions, so why shouldn’t they be taught also? Besides, it doesn’t make sense to teach students what they already know, and not what they don’t know. After all, being exposed to new and different ideas is the whole point of learning. So, offering Bible classes alone is like preaching to the choir.

These bills mean trouble for church-state separation and women’s self-sovereignty. The abortion bill feigns protection of women but strips them of personal liberty, while the Bible class bill disguises religious bias as superficial neutrality and denies students the opportunity to form a worldview. Not only are these new laws poorly thought-out intellectually, but they threaten the integrity of civil government and the rights of women, both of which the ULC Monastery staunchly defends.

Sources:

The Arizona Republic

The Huffington Post

The study was conducted by University of Arkansas professor Scott Eidelman and his colleagues, and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. In the first part of their study, they asked people their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory setting. (They tested bar patrons with a breathalyzer and controlled for race, sex, and political identification.) Bar patrons showed higher rates of conservative ideology than sober laboratory participants. The second part of the study showed that participants under cognitive load (pressure to think) reported more conservative attitudes than no-load participants. The third part showed that time pressure also increased participants’ endorsement of conservative views, and the fourth part showed that participants asked to endorse views in a cursory matter held more conservative views than those asked to take time to contemplate their views.

Eidelman and his colleagues concluded that conservative viewpoints may be a consequence of low-effort thought. The suggestion is that well thought-out ideological viewpoints tend to be inhibited by the inebriating effects of alcohol, pressure, time constraints, and hastiness. Under such conditions, conservative views are preferred because they are easier to accept without putting much cognitive effort into justifying or rationalizing them. However, as Eidelman pointed out to The Huffington Post, the findings do not show that conservatives use low-effort thinking; they only show that conservative ideology results from low-effort thinking. In other words, conservatism doesn’t cause low-effort thinking, but low-effort thinking might cause conservatism.

This may be the case for this particular study, but there is other evidence showing that poor cognitive ability might lead to conservatism, or at least use it as a tool for prejudice. A study from Brock University in Ontario published in Psychological Science found that lower general intelligence in childhood predicted greater racism in adulthood via conservative ideology, while poor abstract-reasoning skills predicted anti-gay attitudes via authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. That is, lower IQ levels predicted greater prejudice later on in life via right-wing conservatism.

In short, research shows a link between cognitive ability and conservatism. Sometimes this

conservative ideology results from time constraints, pressure, and other inhibitors which burden the thought processes of an otherwise intelligent and open-minded person, but it can also result from inherently lower IQ levels. Whether a person is smart but frazzled, or simply less intelligent, the consequences of “cutting corners” in higher-level reasoning can be dangerous: they take the form of racism, misogyny, and homophobia, and we all know the ugly social manifestations of these fear-based attitudes.