The title is somewhat tongue in cheek, but also a result of me getting self-ordained in the Universal Life Church, which began around sixty years ago and eventually split into various parts (exactly how many is somewhat silly to focus upon, especially given the nature of the organization). Later on, I registered (as was eventually possible -- there was actually a lawsuit years back saying it was not required) as a wedding officiant with the government of New York City. I never actually presided over some wedding; as with using my notary public powers (more clearly authorized) to swear/affirm an official in, that would be cool.
I have noted, one place this pops up is in NYT wedding announcements, people wanting to preside over weddings, at times same sex ones (back when this was less a thing). As I have noted, this is still legally a tricky thing. The ULC Church have been involved in lots of lawsuits over the years, including specifically on the marriage issue, with various results. See here, for a recent one. As I have noted, this litigation over the years also popped up in New York courts, but without one clear final decision.
Realizing New York has a lot to worry about -- after all it still has not legalized marijuana -- it seems to me sensible to clarify its laws here. Thousands probably at least unofficially married this way over the years and it is silly not to accept it. The law in place -- again as I have said in the past -- is problematic is various ways, including how it selectively favors religions with certain organization aspects as well as singling out certain ethical culture organizations by name.
Let me (this post is not just about them) repeat that I think the organization has a serious side. The basic principle is that people have the ability to decide using their own conscience on what is good, thus the "universal" part. This is standard Protestant philosophy on some level. The organizations also favor certain "church" type trappings, with supplies (yes, there is a profit side, but they aren't alone on that here either) if one desires. Thus, the idea certain people are "reverends" (or title of your choice). And, the organization does promote "good" (as a person decides) as dictated by the law. How this applies to conscientious objection, I presume, is left to the individual.
The basic part of of religious liberty is for the individual to determine on one's own the correct religious path. The U.S. particularly honors a special role of individual choice here, many wary of reliance on institutions. But, we also don't like all/nothing really too, so some trappings of organization might be useful. The Universal Life Church fed into this overall sentiment and there is something there as noted.
You can find it as an organization with "reverends" and such a bit silly to the degree that term should have some special authority, but even there certain religions (Quakers, let's say) believe each person might have some authority to speak as the spirit might move them. And, the basic idea of interpreting the Bible as one deems fit is again a basic well accepted principle.
(One person who had involvement in the ULC Church -- or some specific offshoot -- is Rev. Amy Long. Her videos could be found on YouTube for years along with other materials. Then, she at some point seem to disappear. Last night, I found something from 2017, a video explaining she was dealing with personal issues -- for one thing, her husband committed suicide earlier. She said she was taking time off from ULC related matters but would return at some point. Not clear if she did, but hope she is doing well regardless.)
The overall concept of "universalism" has had long been accepted by many people. There is actually apparently sometimes confusion between the ULC Church and Unitarians -- saw one thing from a few years back where the Unitarian-Universalist Church had to make clear that Jared Kushner was not a minister of their organization. The apparent contusion being that he might have registered to be a ULC minister (Jared is Jewish). As a related thing, Margaret Fuller was referenced in an interesting historical discussion last night, and she was involved in the transcendentalist movement. The current Wikipedia entry summarizes:
A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.
The ability and duty of the individual to decide for themselves what "good" means is apparent here without recalling someone like Thoreau. Margaret Fuller, by the way, died off Fire Island.
====
Okay. The last part is new, even if the stuff before is rehashing some old stuff. Nothing special there -- "there is nothing new under the sun" and all that. At some point, there is a certain boredom is rehashing the same stuff, but you know, the stuff just keep on happening. It's a bit like where you come back to school as a child, and you need to refresh your memory on certain things. School knowledge without that can be more compressed.
Religion Clause Blog has a link to a video of an oral argument involving invocations that was brought by The Satanic Temple, which is starting to get to be the Jehovah Witness of lower court litigation, at least going by how many times I'm seeing such litigation referenced. The Jehovah Witnesses has a slew of First Amendment lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court, including the famous flag salute case. Many saw and see them as a troublesome group that at times are rather unsavory (such as using anti-Catholic rhetoric).
This group from what I can tell is seen as more of a joke and putting its headquarters in Salem probably encourages that sort of thing. But, I see it does have tax exempt status. The name is used in an ironic fashion; it is actually more of a Unitarian sort of organization mixed with a humanism message that is particularly concerned about bodily freedom. This last part results in them being involved in multiple abortion related litigation, particularly targeting "informed consent" type laws.
As with the linked invocation lawsuit (the orals seemed focused on technical points), they might be a somewhat dubious conduit (let's say), but address some serious matters. The problem is there is that lower courts will use procedural means to avoid needing to decide some of the complex issues involved, so the "message" lawsuits (they really seem that way though you probably can find some real harms mixed in) by an organization that sounds like satire (if more serious than the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something) will be swiped aside if possible.
"Satan" is used as a rebellious character, who even as regularly portrayed might be something of an antihero that people could root for on some level. Satan originally appears to have been seen as an "adversary" of God, a sort of "devil's advocate" in a literal sense, and not necessary the fallen angel evil figure later developing. Thus, like modern day usage of "paganism," there is some logic here. But, the term and figure still has a negative aspect, even more than a nature religion might have.
I'm open to their arguments though and the more colorful/satiric aspects of the organization and its members are not somehow in a different category from many who consider themselves Christian or some other religion deemed more mainstream. Surely, we have some "out there" people there, including those with some rather strange ideas, and often not as overall benign as this organization. As with the Universal Life Church, therefore, the religion and/or organization in question should be taken seriously.
One more thing. Okay, Lieutenant. The video link shows how courts can do video and do so remotely. There were three judges (all women), but I saw Pete Buttigieg talk remotely to over ten people. The Supreme Court can handle it with nine. The video also helped the first advocate with visual cues -- more than once he saw a judge was ready to ask a question.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!