falsereligions.com
In technology/religion news -- ordination is only a mouse-click away. The Universal Life Church has apparently ordained more than 20 million since 1959. They must have quite a school to train that many ministers. Actually, it is as easy as registering with any website.
The way I see it, if a state thinks this is legitimate, it should either (i) simply acknowledge that they don't care about the institution of marriage (thereby allowing the unawares to be properly outraged at the state of the world), or (ii) quit hiding behind some politically correct interpretation of the First Amendment and make a determination that this is a bogus religion. We as a society could easily define certain baselines that would not run afoul of guarantees of religious freedom, but we may have to hurt somebody's feelings.* I'm not sure what the standards would be, but the point is simply that we can constitutionally have standards.
_____________________________
* Wasn't there a fairly recent case involving alleged religious discrimination by Costco against a member of the Church of Body Modification, where the court found for Costco, but refused to decide if they were dealing with a legitimate religion.
“We make no religious hurdles, no hoops to jump through, no tests of loyalty, no rings to kiss and no fees to pay,” the church says on its Web site.Being ordained is free and does not require a social security number, which is a big deal when taking an important step like becoming a minister:
“As long as I didn’t have to give my social security number, I was going to do it,” Burke said.But what about its theology?:
“The ULC Monastery represents freedom, and to have freedom you cannot make demands upon individuals,” the church says. “In the ULC Monastery everyone is equal — the same level of greatness is enjoyed by all.”But the Universal Life Church is really helping people. The article cites one couple that "had been together for 15 years, but hadn’t tied the knot because they didn’t belong to a church and didn’t know anybody to officiate at a ceremony." Apparently they had not heard of a Justice of the Peace.
The way I see it, if a state thinks this is legitimate, it should either (i) simply acknowledge that they don't care about the institution of marriage (thereby allowing the unawares to be properly outraged at the state of the world), or (ii) quit hiding behind some politically correct interpretation of the First Amendment and make a determination that this is a bogus religion. We as a society could easily define certain baselines that would not run afoul of guarantees of religious freedom, but we may have to hurt somebody's feelings.* I'm not sure what the standards would be, but the point is simply that we can constitutionally have standards.
_____________________________
* Wasn't there a fairly recent case involving alleged religious discrimination by Costco against a member of the Church of Body Modification, where the court found for Costco, but refused to decide if they were dealing with a legitimate religion.
posted by Ransom at 11:14 PM
1 Comments:
You clearly read way more caselaw than I do. Not to say that wouldn't be an interesting case, but I'm starting to think that I left the intellectual pursuit of the law back in law school. Seriously, even the judges don't think like that around here, but now maybe that a geographic thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home