|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 20:48:52 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | If the state only grants the power to marry to religions or religious organizations which meet certain standards, then no, refusing the power to organizations which fail to meet those standards would not be religious discrimination. |
It is religious discrimination if the standards cannot be met without violating the traditions, beliefs, or ethics of that religious organization. PA requires that officiates be associated with a congregation... this excludes religions which might oppose congregating. I know it might sound silly, but if we take the religious traditions and practices of one group seriously, all other groups need equal respect. ULC is set up specifically for people who either don't have clergy in their area or who don't want to be involved with organized congregations.
And what the heck does being associated with a congregation have to do being a proper officiate anyway? What the heck kind of "standard" is this and how does it benefit the state in any way? As far as I can see, all it does is exclude certain religious minorities and nonreligious folks.
| If an organization will accept anyone of any qualifications with no training involved as a member, then I would say that organization has no standards. |
I see what you are saying, but I disagree. The ULC does what it does for reasons which are philosophical. In a sense, they have done the opposite of what the Quakers did. While Quakers got rid of the clergy, making everyone a layman (which is why we have "self-uniting" marriage licenses in PA), the ULC makes it so everyone can be clergy. And the reasons for doing so are remarkably similar to the Quakers' reasoning. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2007 : 22:58:03 [Permalink]
|
I think Marf, Gorgo and I agree completely. It seems we are trying to reach an ideal where everyone is treated equally under the law, where the state has no role in judging religious or non-treligious organizations or people for "qualifications," and where people's beliefs and practices in these spheres are not restricted unfairly by the state, and not restricted second-hand by state-"qualified" clergy.
And it's funny, too, since Marf, Gorgo, and I have quite diverse, and sometimes clashing, beliefs in many ways. But we've all three been drawn to the same conclusions, which we see as fair and just, and even-handed.
Marf wrote: | What I'm saying is that in an ideal system, the clergy wouldn't be involved in the legal process of marriage at all; it really would be a matter between the couple and the state. However, since our current system does involve clergy in the legal marriage process, for the sake of religious pluralism, the state can't put restrictions on any clergy that they don't put on other clergy. And whether someone is clergy or not is decided by private religious organizations. I don't see how PA can invalidate the authority of ULC ministers without it being religious discrimination. |
Very nicely stated! The only little thing I'd add is that I would like to see those being wed have the option of making clergy a formal part of the process, as this may be an important part of their cultural traditions, or simply something they'd like to do.
(Also, remember that many times, weddings are deliberately planned by the couples so as to please some of the oldest people in the families. My first wedding ceremony, in 1969, was to a Chinese-American woman, who like myself, was then a Marxist-Leninist atheist. My fiancee's family had disinhereted her for marrying a non-Chinese, though they did not take the more severe step of disowning her. Yet both her mother and her very elderly, Cantonese-speaking paternal grandmother came to the wedding, something I attribute to a hidden Chinese female solidarity within Chinese tradition. We hired a Unitarian-Universalist minister to do the honors. I wrote the ceremony, which included some traditional Western wedding elements (with God and paternalism excised) as well as the traditional Chinese tradition of bowing while presenting a bowl of wine with both hands to elders in order of their "rank." Most of this was done in order to please and unite our diverse families, and it really helped. It also made us feel good in the doing.)
The idea of the state somehow "qualifying" clergy in any way seems in a legal way antithetical to the Constitution and secular governance.
It also opens an impossibly complex can of worms, in a practical sense.
One wonderful/horrible thing about religions is that they are ridiculously various in their dogma or lack of dogma. Some, like the Yazidi religion of Kurdistan, are nearly impossible for outside scholars to understand, due to the tightly-held secrecy of their traditions. How the Hell is some government functionary going to review the "qualifications" of religions or their clergy, when even comparative theologians and anthropologists are left guessing as to their beliefs and practices?
It seems obvious to me that, if only for practical purposes, the best choice is to simply accept all comers as what they claim to be. This, combined with a lack of tax-free status, and lack of exclusive powers to "officiate," is the ideal I'd seek.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/27/2007 23:04:11 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 03:50:03 [Permalink]
|
Mooner wrote: | The only little thing I'd add is that I would like to see those being wed have the option of making clergy a formal part of the process, as this may be an important part of their cultural traditions, or simply something they'd like to do. |
There is another atheist officiate in Philadelphia that I know of who legally wouldn't qualify in any state as an official to marry people. She's Margaret Downey, the current president of Atheist Alliance International. She was trained as an officiate to perform weddings and other secular ceremonies by the Council for Secular Humanism. But unlike the Humanist Society, the Council insists on maintaining its status as a purely secular organization, and as such, its officiates do not get the legal privilege of being able to marry couples. Atheist couples of this stance must get married by a state official at City Hall. If they want an atheist officiate, that is a purely symbolic and separate affair. When I first moved to Philadelphia and told Margaret I was getting certified by the Humanist Society, she warned me about how the Society is legally regarded as a "religious" organization. To her that seemed a terrible thing, and she doesn't like what the ULC does either, so her only officiating symbolic ceremonies is a form of personal protest against the discrimination of atheists.
In my opinion, those types of atheists are being discriminated against. I personally can get on board with the ULC 'cause I'm into this idea of destroying the stupidity of most organized religions by making religion itself an all-inclusive thing. But I can't deny that that this is a highly confusing concept. I see how it is confusing, or frustrating, or just outright ridiculous to many people in discussions such as this one (the idea that the ULC is a joke). I see how the junior high kids at my Quaker school get confused because of how the Quakers erase the line between the secular and the religious with their "Meetings for Worship". Religion is simply too damn diverse in this modern world for religious institutions to be involved in marriage.
To fully rid ourselves of religious discrimination, the legal contract itself should be separated from the social institutions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/28/2007 03:51:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 06:33:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Okay, I accept that we're having miscommunication, but that doesn't mean I understand exactly what the miscommunication is. |
I was trying to communicate that in my last post.| You did explicitely disagree with Mooner's stance, and I agree with Mooner, so presumably there is a disagreement we have, however subtle. |
I disagreed with Half until he clarified himself to me.| I'm sorry if I fail to understand what you mean as objective description and what is an expression of your personal opinion on the matter, but it isn't as if I'm not trying! |
Let's start with the basics. Do you agree that the state has an interest in ensuring that certain couples do not get married? For example, a 30-year-old and a 10-year-old. Or a man and his sister.| What I'm saying is that in an ideal system, the clergy wouldn't be involved in the legal process of marriage at all; it really would be a matter between the couple and the state. |
In this day-and-age, clergy are used by the state to report marriages. After all, anybody can say the words. My wife and I acted like we were married for years before we actually were. The new rights granted to us as a married couple didn't come from the minister, they came from the state. All the minister did, from a legal perspective, was sign a card and drop it in the mail. So far as the state is concerned, the minister need have said nothing to us, and we need not have taken any vows. None of the pomp and circumstance is a part of the legal process. So what does it matter whether clergy are involved or not?| However, since our current system does involve clergy in the legal marriage process, for the sake of religious pluralism, the state can't put restrictions on any clergy that they don't put on other clergy. |
And they don't. "Must have a congregation" is a restriction placed upon all clergy. Note well that the law as written in PA is vague, and doesn't actually say, "must have a congregation." It says, "regularly established church or congregation." Somewhere else is (probably) a list of "guidelines" based upon the law which are more explicit, since Reilly (in the article) is adamant that, "You must have a congregation, you must have an established church, you must meet on a regular basis and conduct meetings, religious ceremonies and you must have an order." But still, those are restrictions placed upon all clergy, even those from any potential atheist "church."| And whether someone is clergy or not is decided by private religious organizations. |
And the law doesn't address that. It certainly doesn't prohibit anyone from being clergy.| I don't see how PA can invalidate the authority of ULC ministers without it being religious discrimination. |
It's non-discriminatory in the same way that laws prohibiting keeping livestock within city limits aren't discriminatory against practitioners of Santa Ria: they treat all religions equally. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 07:09:26 [Permalink]
|
they treat all religions equally.
|
I think what Marf is saying is that they're saying all ULC weddings are not valid, regardless of whether or not they have a congregation, isn't it?
What is a congregation? As far as I'm concerned, the people I marry are my congregation. My friends are my congregation. The people I meet are my congregation. What makes me wrong? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 08:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. wrote:| I disagreed with Half until he clarified himself to me. |
To recap, Dave thought I was for a "hands-off" approach by the state toward qualifications for marriage. I clarified that my hands-off stance was limited to the state not having having a role in "qualifying" the ministers, etc. who might officiate.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/28/2007 08:06:27 |
|
|
|
universallifechurch
Spammer
USA
1 Post |
Posted - 02/16/2014 : 04:39:24 [Permalink]
|
The Universal Life Church World Headquarters of Florida provides faith based ordination that is valid in all 50 states, Canada and throughout the world. It is the only ULC that can make this claim.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2014 : 05:28:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by universallifechurch
The Universal Life Church World Headquarters of Florida provides faith based ordination that is valid in all 50 states, Canada and throughout the world. It is the only ULC that can make this claim.
|
You do realize you're responding to a post that is more than 6½ years old?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2014 : 07:10:20 [Permalink]
|
| Not a chance in Hell that I'm going to tolerate such a massive advertisement/disclaimer/contact dump as a signature. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Discrimination Against Alternative Ministers in PA
