20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

The Universal Life Church has ordained over 20 million clergy since 1959. Following is a sampling of the statements on the ULC website: www.ulc.org

Become an Ordained Minister in just Three Minutes

100% Legal

No Requirements or Commitments--Ever

Become A [sic] Ordained Minister Right Now

Gain Your...Respect and Honor from Others

Free Absolution

Observation:

20 million ordinants over the past 44 years. This is approximately 50 newly ordained clergypersons every hour, or almost one per second over the past 44 years.

Wow, they must be doing something right, huh?

 

Freedom of religion means that religion should not claim a unique status in society, at least as it is defined legally. This allows bare-assed cynical organizations like the ULC to operate alongside other, still-cynical-yet-less-obviously-so organizations, with equal legality. The only difference between the ULC and other religious organizations is in the acceptance of such by others. I like it.

I would draw distinct differences between the ULC, the CJCLDS (Mormons), Roman Catholics, other catholic churches, Protestant churches, etc. But they don't deserve even one iota of preference under the law. Under the law, Christianity and Satanism are equals. Again, I like it!

 

20 million ordinations and counting? Why does this remind of the tally on the "Golden Arches" sign whenever I drive past McDonalds? ULC also confers degrees in theology, metaphysics and psychology. There is no classroom attendance required, no books, no exams and no dissertation. So if I pay ULC $100.00, does that entitle me to use the title of "Doctor"?
I guess (and we've discussed this in other threads) it comes down to the separation of church and state. The state tells me that I need to attend a RA college for 9+ years and write a dissertation before being awarded the title of "Dr.". ULC, on the other hand only requries a cash donation and I receive the same title.
If I wanted to become a minister, I would have to attend bible college. ULC ordains its prospective students instantly (for a nominal donation). I find it difficult to swallow the fact that a ULC ordination and a minister ordained by a RA bible college are seen as equal under the law.

 

I wonder why?

 

Because of equal treatment. It is when we get statements like the Secretary of Education's recently that tilt the playing field towards a particular faith--by a cabinet official, no less--that I get disappointed in the application of the First Amendment. But the courts seem to do a good job of keeping demagogues like Paige in check.

 

Equal treatment.......I like it! So when I buy my degree in engineering I should be equally treated as the poor sod who labored for many years and at great cost in getting a job.

While I am a firm believer of freedom of religion, I must bring to mind that a minister is a teacher and a guider of lives, like a teacher or psychologist. There should be guidelines so we don't get kooks in leadership positions like the cult who killed themselves in the space comet fiasco. Throughout time the vast majority of spiritual leaders were trained in some way. It could be through a University, a master teacher who discipled, etc... But to just buy an ordination goes against everything we've been talking about here concerning degrees, accreditation, and such. Just as a person with a degree mill Phd. is considered bogus because of not meeting the standards set forth so is a person who without any instruction buys ordination. People expect a level of knowledge and expertise in an ordained minister just the same as the teacher who earned their masters in ED.

I believe in freedom, yet with freedom there must be responsibility or else chaos ensues.


Kevin

 

At times, so do I. It is often stretched to mean something which was not intended by the founding fathers. Constitutional Law is indeed a subculture all its own.

One of the wonderful things about America is the freedom one has to practice religion according to the dictates of one's own conscience. While pluralism is inmeshed in our society, Christianity, by and large, has been the faith which historically marked this nation. Mainstream Christianity has also allowed for peaceful co-existence with different faith groups. This is not the case in many countries.

 

I don't agree with the degree mill analogy. There is no prescribed separation of church and university. But, thankfully, there is a separation of church and state.

 

You're missing the principle of the matter. I'm not saying that a minister needs to go to an accredited school to be an ordained minister, but should have some schooling because of the position. That school can be a private school without any government control or say so. I agree with you in this area. Many denominations have schools who they recruit people from that aren't listed in any government database except possibly saying they exist. This is a matter of common sense not a political thing, at least I'm not trying to make it as such. So please don't read into what I say trying to find some hidden agenda. Even a baby-sitter usually will have references who will speak about their ability to be a good sitter. Freedom of religion is a personal matter. We can choose to follow God or not, or worship whatever and however we want. This also assumes that it isn't against the established laws. In ancient times followers of Molech(sp?) would sacrifice their children. On this I think we also agree. But a leader should be able to lead. If you are belonging to a certain denomination the people there expect you to know what you're talking about, and that comes through various forms of study.

And the establishment clause of the 1st ammendment speaks of congress not passing laws establishing a particular religion nor suppressing the free exercise thereof. To add or take away from this simple statement is opinion, but not binding. The purpose of this clause was to keep the government from inposing one way or another a particular religion or denomination. I don't think you can get much more from this. People can bend this to fit whatever they want but it's fairly cut and dry.


Kevin

 

No, I'm disagreeing. You see, I think religion is bunk. I think organized religion is organized bunk. As such, there is no difference to me between a rabbi, a catholic priest, or a ULC minister. Others may not agree. Fine. I like living in a country where people are free to pursue their religious beliefs. But any value placed on ordination and such is a distinction THEY make. It's relative; it has no absolute frame of reference. I'm just glad the law agrees.

I won't go out of my way to interfere with others' religious activities as long as they don't try to make it part of my life. Oh, and as long as I can laugh at it.

 

I'd say so.

My question to you still stands: If the ULC's ordinations are a joke, then presumably they fall short of some standard. What standard is it, and how was that standard established?

Why should your standard be binding on those who don't share your particular religious tradition?

If the government is going to extend privileges to religion, to clergmen and to churches, then how can that government draw the line between legitimate and illigitimate expressions of religion without violating the 'establishment' clause?

Is it possible for individuals to have their own unique religious sensibilities, completely separate from any established religious denomination? Is it possible for people to practice what one might call free-lance religion?

If the answer is 'yes', then is it possible for these unconventional individuals to offer other like-minded individuals spiritual direction, to serve as exemplars to them, to channel non-corporeal powers for them, to lead them in prayer, to heal them, to initiate them, to counsel them, to teach them, to sacrifice for them, or to perform any of the myriad of other functions performed by clergy or clergy-analogues around the world?

If the answer is 'yes', if these people can serve others, then should the government exclude them whatever benefits it bestows on religious practitioners?

I was completely serious when I wrote that the only accreditor in religion is God, and nobody on Degreeinfo is Him.

That's why I remarked on the difference between religion and scholarship. One has a transcendent reference, and the other doesn't. That transcendent reference makes reliable well-founded judgements in religion problematic since it would seem that only a divinity could make them.

That means that nobody on Degreeinfo can say with assurance where God can and can't be found, or what the "accreditation standards" in religion really are.

 

I like it too. I like it a lot.

The various religious denominations should think long and hard about whether or not they really want the government setting itself up as judge of who is and isn't a proper clergymen.

An open-admissions policy isn't an insult to religion, it's their protection. It's what assures that they answer to a higher power and not to political hacks.

 

Paige simply stated what he believes. He may or may not be correct. Should his First Amendment rights be limited by the position he holds? Would you rather he lie?

Personally, I would rather have government officials who say what they actually believe whether I think it's correct or not.

 

Ahhhhh now I see. You have a bias against religion! Now I understand.


Kevin

 

I'm familiar with the Paige quote (he was speaking about religious vs. secular universities, by the way, not K-12 schools); it seems clear to me from the context that he was only expressing his personal opinion, and not making any sort of decree in his capacity as education secretary. The only First Amendment issue I see here is a government official's right to free expression.

Bush's faith-based initiative is, of course, a horse of a different flavor. I agree that things should be easier for faith-based nonprofits, but any improvement should be made in a way that benefits non-faith-based nonprofits, too. I think it was Hugo Black who said that "'Congress shall make no law' means 'no law,' not 'few laws.'" One First Amendment exemption sets a precedent for other First Amendment exemptions, and pretty soon you have the Southern Baptist Convention and Unitarian-Universalist Association both answering to whatever the administration's corporate belief system happens to be at the time. I can't imagine anybody would want that.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: 20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

Nevertheless, every religion or denomination has it's own standards. If I try to deceive them with unearned credentials that is dishonest. If I say " why, yes, I'm an ordained minister", they will assume certain things. Just like my saying, "why, yes, I have a Phd." If a particular religion or denomination is o'k with ordination being given for a nominal fee then God bless them! My point wasn't making laws concerning religion, but worry concerning the deception factor. If people want to spend their money on a piece of paper then fine. I just hope that whereever they go they explain that fact. I'm talking about honesty, nothing more. Can we all agree on honesty?


Kevin

 

On a lighter, laughing, note I have a joke that I heard an old preacher once say.

Once I was a tadpole with a tail long and thin.
Next I was a frog with my tail tucked within.
I once was a monkey in a coconut tree.
Now I'm a professor with a Phd.

 

Why do you think ULC is a joke? I imagine that the vast majority of those who are "ordained" do indeed consider it a joke. However, there are some people who are very serious about it. In fact, I believe there was a participant on this board who mentioned his counseling as a ULC minister. Is his faith somehow diminished or invalid because other people believe it is a joke?

By the way, someone mentioned a fee for ordination. There is none. You can purchase certificates and some sort of "minister's kit," I believe, but the ordination itself is free. And once you are ordained, you are free to ordain others.

 

This isn't the truth, Rich. This forum alone reveals an archive of statements regarding your views on religion. You and I have agreed to disagree myriad times on this very issue. It remains an amazing thing to me that so many in our society speak of tolerance, i.e., until it comes to religion.

 

Re: Re: 20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

This isn't about comparing the ULC's standard of ordination to my particular religious tradition. Nor is it about the ULC's theological tradition. The ULC has the privilege to believe, operate, function and ordain as it chooses.

My post was in reference, juxtaposition if you will, to the ULC's instant ordination and the plethora of discussions on DegreeInfo regarding "schools" which award instant degrees.