Posts Tagged ‘online ministry’

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

    Featured Minister – Mayor Oscar B. Goodman

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

    Mayor Oscar B. Goodman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Washington State Secures Votes for Gay Marriage

      Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sources:

      The Capitol Record

      FamilyScholars.org

      The Huffington Post

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

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

      ThinkProgress

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

        Friday, January 20th, 2012


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Source:

        The Huffington Post

          The Mystery of Empathic and Shared Death Experiences

          Thursday, January 5th, 2012

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

          Perhaps you are one of these people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Source:

          The Daily Mail

            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

              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

                  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