YODA

You must have missed the point. It wasn't about topic meandering. I said what I meant to add, but since it was missed, To wit: Must every topic devolve into a political diatribe? ... There is enough of that elsewhere without having it everywhere.

And, here we go again. Must every topic devolve into a political diatribe? Here, I thought this thread was about the differences between Humanist vs. Atheist, not about how much one hates the President. There is enough of that elsewhere without having it everywhere.

Is that the exception that proves the rule? DoD marches to its own drummer. Most of the UCMJ would be unconstitutional if asserted in civilian life, but those who enlist are free to waive their rights, I suppose. Thank Providence, and the founding fathers, for the principals of the posse comitatis act. At least until the administration declares marhsall law (or will a declared state of "emergency" suffice?) the rest of us civilians are not subject to government approval (and accreditation?) of our religious beliefs and practices.

I believe your confusion must be due to a misinterpretation of the text... The "religious body" to do the accrediting accredits the "clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi, or practitioner of (a) religious denomination." ULC is a religious body. The wording is apparently very specifically avoiding limiting the term to "denomination" or to any type of "religious body" that has to be defined by statute (anything else would be unconstitutional) and not specifically limited to any specific term ("clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi, or any practitioner of any religious denomination"). You are a clergy(person), minister, or practitioner of a religious denomination (or "body"), yes? You are ordained (i.e., accredited by) said religious body, yes? Then, you are a "clergyman, minister, or practitioner of a religious denomination" who has been "accredited by the religious body." And, yes, the ULC is a legitimate religious body. Why would you seek ordination in it if you did not believe it to be so? No American would want to believe that any religious body would be subject to accreditation, would we? Who would do the accrediting? Generally, for a government (even of a state) to require any kind of accrediting of a religious organization would be unconstitutional, anyway!

While I am not aware of cases brought, there have been at least two legal opinions brought by two different Attorneys General of South Carolina. Both are consistent, and apply the Constitutional principal as is appropriate, and without bias: 1971: (WestLaw Citation as: 1971 WL 22331 (S.C.A.G.)) Attorney General Daniel R. McLeod 1973: (WestLaw Citation as: 1973 WL 26680 (S.C.A.G.)) Assistant Attorney General James C. Harrison, Jr. (I will attempt to attach copies of both A.G.opinions.) I will quote the 1973 opinion, as it is the more recent, but as I said is consistent with the earlier: "It has been the previous opinion of this office that an individual who is authorized by the tenets of his faith to perform marriage ceremonies is a minister of the Gospel within the meaning of the marriage statutes of this State. Although I express no opinion as to whether the Universal Life Church, Inc. is a bonafide religious organization capable of authorizing its ministers to perform marriage ceremonies or as to whether or not {any particular individual} in fact has been authorized by the tenets of his faith to perform marriages, if these conditions do in fact exist, it would appear that without question {the minister of The Universal Life Church} may under the laws of this State perform marriage ceremonies." It would appear that no one needed to push further. It is also notable that, in the legal wisdom of the State of South Carolina, they will not consider whether any particular religious group is a religion, or whether any one person is truly ordained theerby. We (Americans) should not want it any other way, as to do so would put the government in the position of deciding the validity of a religion. That would be unconstitutional; it is certainly enlightened on the part of South Carolina. SC 1973.pdf SC 1971.pdf