Risk

[VonNoble]

There is some risk announcing to the world "you are clergy" - no matter what the title of  your choice.

People will, often, comment upon that decision (some favorably, some incredulously, and a few 

perhaps negatively.)

 

What makes it worth the risk?  Ego. Belief in a message.  Hoping to make a difference.   Shock

value.  Some on this Forum over the years liken their decision to painting a target on themselves.

Others never reveal they have been ordained.  Others go out in the world and proclaim it loudly.

 

What's your story.    Why did you take step to be ordained?  (motivation)

And the action you invested following step one?  And the reaction to that action?

 

And what's happening currently or planned for the future?

 

von

[Innerfire]

Where I am, people don't accept it because I did not go through an established seminary or a Judeo-Christian recognized organization, and an online ordination sounds like a "fly by night" setup to most people where I am. However, my father is a retired pastor who had his own church in an established major denomination, and he "sort of" recognizes me. I did not set out to be a minister or pastor, not really. My strength is more in pastoral counseling (not officially), in that everyone talks to me and asks me for assistance and always has. I never tried to do this, it just happens - everywhere. I have always kept confidentiality naturally, so it was never a problem. Now due to my job, I am also a mandated reporter and have resources to direct people to as needed, so that helps also. My plans (eventually) are that I hope to do interfaith chaplaincy work, not necessarily in law enforcement, but with elderly, addictions, crisis centers, family supports, special needs, unusual settings that call for unusual skill sets. I tend to "go where I'm needed" and I often don't know where that will be, I just end up there, or people will find me. That is my thinking ....... Will see how it turns out.  

[mark 45]

i actually was drunk when i applied for ordination.it was about 3 days later that i discovered what i had done.
 

since then,i have conducted a few marriages,and almost 1 funeral(that is a long story).most of my work is what ever the people who approach me need.some just want to talk,others have serious questions we try to explore.noone asks about who did my ordanation,so i don't bother telling them(anymore).

[cuchulain]

The risk is strictly external, and so no risk at all.  What others think of my choice to be ordained here, it does not affect me unless I choose to allow it to do so.

[Songster]

There's risk in everything....

I don't proclaim my ordination in public, but have told my friends....

I don't wear a distinctive costume or collar that would lead others to believe I am anything other than the sinner that I am...

The future.... Who knows?

[emalpaiz]

I have always felt an inner spiritual calling, but  not to follow the traditional religions.  I rarely tell people that I am a minister, nor do I wear any ministerial paraphernalia.  I feel that God is the God of all, not just of any particular religion.

hermano Luis

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In the beginning, my ordination was a joke to me.  To my surprise, over the years, I have grown into it.

My ordination from ULC -- and others -- is on my Facebook page.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Youch]

Titles are how some people accessorize themselves.  Some consider titles the same as accomplishments. I think the best of the ordained did it as a means to an end.  I'm not sure I fit into any of those boxes, as I've never told anyone ("risk"), nor have I ever used it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

When ever I pick up the phone, and I'm addressed as Reverend -- I know that I'm about to be asked for money.

[Atwater Vitki]

Just to be able to offer alternative life style ceremonies to folks. Not many within the established realms of clergy have a clue what a "Handfast" is or how to conduct a Pagan House Blessings. Marriages have been a few over the years as I'm selective about the "who" since I don't charge for my services...my main goal is to help those who otherwise have no alternatives through regular lines of clergy. So far it has been a real eye opener into the outer realms of humanity and I very much like it.

[ClericThomas]

Well I'm a Militant Atheist, Pragmatic Atheism specific wise and a Skepticist (I deny all deities and don't believe Jesus even existed) so when I park near a church, temple or street ministry folks and preach the beauty of Atheism and denounce their faith I can do it as an ordained minister sticking the freedom of religion up their respective a**es being as ordained as they are under the law. I have my ID badge, clergy clip on, Skeptics Annotated Bible or other books and signs and voice amplifier and I give as good as I get.

They don't like me but religious critics and such love me, and I at least find the ULC amusing I just wish they had more fun titles like God, Pope, Supreme Authority, Atheist Minister and such.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, ClericThomas said:

Well I'm a Militant Atheist, Pragmatic Atheism specific wise and a Skepticist (I deny all deities and don't believe Jesus even existed) so when I park near a church, temple or street ministry folks and preach the beauty of Atheism and denounce their faith I can do it as an ordained minister sticking the freedom of religion up their respective a**es being as ordained as they are under the law. I have my ID badge, clergy clip on, Skeptics Annotated Bible or other books and signs and voice amplifier and I give as good as I get.

They don't like me but religious critics and such love me, and I at least find the ULC amusing I just wish they had more fun titles like God, Pope, Supreme Authority, Atheist Minister and such.

If that's what you're into -- Have you tried the First Church of Atheism?  Go all the way with an Atheist ordination.  Enjoy.

[ULCneo]

On 9/2/2017 at 1:44 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If that's what you're into -- Have you tried the First Church of Atheism?  Go all the way with an Atheist ordination.  Enjoy.

I have a hard time believing that such a thing exists. Atheism by definition would seem to be against any theory of organized religion and indeed even tries to say that it isn't a religion. So how we get any concept of ordination from that I don't know.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, ULCneo said:

I have a hard time believing that such a thing exists. Atheism by definition would seem to be against any theory of organized religion and indeed even tries to say that it isn't a religion. So how we get any concept of ordination from that I don't know.

I know.  It is silly.  Atheism is not a religion.  If religion is music, Atheism is silence.  Still, the First Church of Atheism seems to be legally incorporated as a church.  Such is life.  Things can be strange.  Nothing is stranger than the law.    

There is also, the Apathetic Agnostic Church  (UCTAA).  The church motto is "We don't know and we don't care".  This -- at least to me -- is an actual religious philosophy.   The Apathetic Agnostic Church is not incorporated.  The founder thought it was too much trouble and too much money.  It suits me well. Apathetic Agnostics don't need government recognition.    

[ULCneo]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I know.  It is silly.  Atheism is not a religion.  If religion is music, Atheism is silence.  Still, the First Church of Atheism seems to be legally incorporated as a church.  Such is life.  Things can be strange.  Nothing is stranger than the law.    

There is also, the Apathetic Agnostic Church  (UCTAA).  The church motto is "We don't know and we don't care".  This -- at least to me -- is an actual religious philosophy.   The Apathetic Agnostic Church is not incorporated.  The founder thought it was too much trouble and too much money.  It suits me well. Apathetic Agnostics don't need government recognition.    

Well I suppose that from the dictionary's definition of "religion" (which is the one the law tends to apply) is simply a "system of beliefs" where it could be submitted that the lack of belief is still a statement of one's belief system of a sort- where in order not to step in the apparent cowpie there, the supreme court instead simply forwent any analysis of any particular religion beyond the fact that a belief is "sincerely held". This was of particular note in the eleventh circuit court opinions dealing with the religious monument business on the courthouse lawns. Locally we had the issue of the ten commandments monument where the atheists sued (and won) the right to place a stone bench at the same site- which people sit on amongst the flowers in the flowerbed, has been defaced several times, and the thing is just an outright eye sore that people overall want removed on grounds of aesthetics alone. (never mind that half the county is Christian Fundamentalist.) 

Though, in order to incorporate as a church, generally one must set forth a position of religious doctrine in the articles of incorporation, especially if you want 501(c)(3) status. Hence, I would think it would be quite difficult to meet the general requirements in that context of things- but hey nobody claimed that the government was intelligent.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 minutes ago, ULCneo said:

Well I suppose that from the dictionary's definition of "religion" (which is the one the law tends to apply) is simply a "system of beliefs" where it could be submitted that the lack of belief is still a statement of one's belief system of a sort- where in order not to step in the apparent cowpie there, the supreme court instead simply forwent any analysis of any particular religion beyond the fact that a belief is "sincerely held". This was of particular note in the eleventh circuit court opinions dealing with the religious monument business on the courthouse lawns. Locally we had the issue of the ten commandments monument where the atheists sued (and won) the right to place a stone bench at the same site- which people sit on amongst the flowers in the flowerbed, has been defaced several times, and the thing is just an outright eye sore that people overall want removed on grounds of aesthetics alone. (never mind that half the county is Christian Fundamentalist.) 

Though, in order to incorporate as a church, generally one must set forth a position of religious doctrine in the articles of incorporation, especially if you want 501(c)(3) status. Hence, I would think it would be quite difficult to meet the general requirements in that context of things- but hey nobody claimed that the government was intelligent.

In the early days of the ULC, the American government declared that the ULC was a bogus church.  Kirby James Hensley fought back and prevailed.  The Federal Judge declared that the American government does not get to say which churches are real.

Aside from that, there is a rich history of governments persecuting churches.  This is an obvious lesson from history.  Governments do not have any but a legal authority to ban a church.  Certainly, not a moral authority.  Neither are churches dependent on government recognition for moral authority or legitimacy.

If the church does not want tax advantages, there is no need to incorporate.  Without tax breaks, the church is free to be what ever it wants.  That is true freedom of religion.  The downfall of churches is not being willing to live without government support.  Government support comes with strings.  (Chains.)  Government support always comes with a price.  "Sheckles have Shackles."  

[ULCneo]

14 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In the early days of the ULC, the American government declared that the ULC was a bogus church.  Kirby James Hensley fought back and prevailed.  The Federal Judge declared that the American government does not get to say which churches are real.

Aside from that, there is a rich history of governments persecuting churches.  This is an obvious lesson from history.  Governments do not have any but a legal authority to ban a church.  Certainly, not a moral authority.  Neither are churches dependent on government recognition for moral authority or legitimacy.

If the church does not want tax advantages, there is no need to incorporate.  Without tax breaks, the church is free to be what ever it wants.  That is true freedom of religion.  The downfall of churches is not being willing to live without government support.  Government support comes with strings.  (Chains.)  Government support always comes with a price.  "Sheckles have Shackles."  

What ULC V. United States said was that it "would not look to the merits of any one religious doctrine PROVIDED that the belief is SINCERELY HELD..."  in analysis of whether the belief is "sincerely held" the court looks to whether a reasonably-sized number of people share the same belief as well as whether that belief can reasonably be supported by a religious text - and in some respects even sincere belief will not shield religion from government intervention. (as organized criminal elements have often in history tried to masquerade as religion in some manner or another- everything from Jonestown to the Abuse scandal in the Catholic Church took on the general tenor of religion.) As such- since certain religions are claimed by the right-wing conservatives to be implicit to acts of terrorism- I wouldn't be surprised if the courts don't narrow the precedent considerably in interest of national security. 

Edited April 24, 2017 by ULCneo

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 minutes ago, ULCneo said:

What ULC V. United States said was that it "would not look to the merits of any one religious doctrine PROVIDED that the belief is SINCERELY HELD..."  in analysis of whether the belief is "sincerely held" the court looks to whether a reasonably-sized number of people share the same belief- and in some respects even sincere belief will not shield religion from government intervention. (as organized criminal elements have often in history tried to masquerade as religion in some manner or another- everything from Jonestown to the Abuse scandal in the Catholic Church took on the general tenor of religion.) As such- since certain religions are claimed by the right-wing conservatives to be implicit to acts of terrorism- I wouldn't be surprised if the courts don't narrow the precedent considerably in interest of national security. 

I expect you are talking about the Islamists?  We need to learn the lessons of history.

In 1492, the Jews of Spain got an ultimatum from the Spanish Monarchs.  They could convert to being Catholic or they could leave Spain.  So many Jews had sham conversions that the Catholic Church became suspicious of it's new members.  That is how the world got the Spanish Inquisition.  This is how it starts.  One group is set aside for special treatment.  Before it's over -- everybody has cause to be afraid.  

[ULCneo]

8 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I expect you are talking about the Islamists?  We need to learn the lessons of history.

In 1492, the Jews of Spain got an ultimatum from the Spanish Monarchs.  They could convert to being Catholic or they could leave Spain.  So many Jews had sham conversions that the Catholic Church became suspicious of it's new members.  That is how the world got the Spanish Inquisition.  This is how it starts.  One group is set aside for special treatment.  Before it's over -- everybody has cause to be afraid.  

So then your submitting that the first amendment should be an "absolute right"? (Which departs from the last 200 years of judicial opinion and indeed departs from the intended meaning of the framers of the constitution.)

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, ULCneo said:

So then your submitting that the first amendment should be an "absolute right"? 

That is the primary belief of the ULC. If you do not agree, why are you here?

Edited April 24, 2017 by mererdog