Boardwatch: November 1995, page 11
Gentlemen:
My name is Daniel R. Zimmerman and I have been a member of the Universal Life Church for more than twenty-five years and a mem- ber of the HQ staff since 1980 and there is something I would like to share with you.
First: YES, we are the church that was called the "Mother of all Mail-Order Ministries," and we have ordained cats and dogs and plants.
Secondly: YES, we have had many battles with the government, especially the IRS, in the 80's due to the misuse of the church as a tax dodge by thousands of our members.
Thirdly: YES, The Universal Life Church will ordain anyone that asks without ques- tion of faith, for life, without a fee. The church has two tenets: the absolute right of freedom of religion and to do that which is right. Anything else, within the law, is allowed. As an ordained minister of the church, you too may ordain new ministers. The Universal Life Church will not stand between you and your God and recognizes that each person must choose his own path. Each person in the ULC is free to follow any path as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Today I would like to invite you to visit the church's HOME PAGE and view for yourself our latest outreach. We realize that when we cast our net far and wide on the NET we will draw many different people into the church. Over the years the ULC has drawn interest- ing personalities into its ministryfrom U.S. Presidents, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas, and many celebrities and, sadly, even Jim Jones in 1971 when he pastored the small church in Ukiaha, California.
Our credentials are just pieces of paper, though they are legal and fully authorize individuals to perform all sacerdotal duties as are accepted by THEIR BELIEFS. We hope to empower people and we do.
Please visit our site and hopefully you will grant us a favorable mention in your publi- cation. The site address is http://ulc.org/ulet
Sincerely,
Brother Daniel
ulc@Ruphoria.org
Modesto California
Brother Daniel:
But are we ready for you?
My natural libertarian tendencies normally lead me to a rather live-and-let-live posture. But the unnaturally cheery tone of your letter led me to a deeper series of thoughts. Always alert to those so I might avoid them, rll cast them into this reply in the hopes that they go away.
Sure, you're a church. So is the Church of Scientology. So is the Church of Bob. In fact, the Reverend Bob Dobbs, church of the sub- genius also has a web page a http://sunsite.unc.edu/subgenius. In fact, we found over FORTY web sites devoted t to Reverend Bob - which was a joke twenty years ago. The Church of Bob and the quest for some "slack."
But my reaction is that this is not simply innocent freedom of religion with a smirk. It belies a cynicism and intellectual bankruptcy that is both obnoxious and ultimately dan- gerous. We have gone down a path in the last few decades that hopelessly and thoroughly confuses every issue for the great mass of our populace. It is NOT based on freedom of belief or of expression - quite the opposite. It is a cynical attack on it by those who do not believe in these principles.
The result has been that every point of view, no matter how preposterous, becomes arguably valid on the simple basis that it is held. Actually, in some cases, NO SINGLE PER- SON believes in it, but that it can be proposed renders it ostensibly valid in this newthinklnewspeak of freedom. We do have churches. Fm not myself particularly comfort- able with organized denominations and reli- gious rituals, but I do view myself as quite religious and understand the raison detre for Churches per se. They hold an important role in many people's lives and because of some harmful conflicts between churches and gov- ernments we wisely separated the Church function from the functions of state, and granted Churches special privileges as legal entities. Cynical people have then declared themselves "Churches" to the harm of all. And currently, we have one that has now again cynically discovered a legitimate feature of our copyright law system that they can use to ran- sack the homes of innocent individuals and seize their computer equipment with the ready participation of our ever more confused gov- ernment - solely as a club to beat up on Church dissidents who are trying to wam the rest of society about the less attractive ele- ments of what is really a fundraising scam that has nothing to do with religion at all.
Similarly, we have had groups in this coun- try that were "victimized," minorities and others who suffered what any reasonable per- son would consider grievous and intentional harm at the hands of others - even within our government. In a well intentioned effort to address these grievances, some of these vic- tims have been made at least partially whole. And so we now have hundreds of different victim groups, each clamoring that their vic- timization is more gruesome than anyone else's. At a glance, we can see that these claims are specious, but the track has been laid. If you can postulate it, it must be valid.
This has led to the wholesale intellectual bank- ruptcy of debate in this country. Discussions are held cynically manipulating the fashion tool of the monwnt. Most recently, you can gain credibility for any cause, no matter how dis- tor-ted or ridiculous, by claiming it is for "the children the reports of horrors visited on our children grow daily. I don't think the hor- rors have grown -just the reports.
The worst part is that it directly abuses the stupid among us. I was at the mall today with my three-year-old son. He is unnatural- ly precocious. We walked across the mall thoroughfare and I allowed him to wander perhaps ten feet away though keeping him in site. We meandered over to a display of knives and cutlery at a mall store and were standing less than a foot apart, looking at the hardware through the window. A woman rushed up pushing a baby carriage with a young boy of about 14 strapped securely into it and started questioning my son. She asked him where his mother was. He told her she was at home. And she took him by the hand and very firmly and officiously instructed him to come with her, she would take him to the information desk and contact the authori- ties. He noted several times that he didn't want to go anywhere and that he was fine thank you but she was so insistent that I finally had to intercede and ask herjust what she intended to do with him. She very self- righteously informed me that he was a lost child and SHE was taking charge and that I should stay out of it - what was MY interest in the child anyway?
What was incredible was that when I did finally get across to her that I was the boy's father, she wasn't the least apologetic. First, I'm not sure she believed me. But secondly, she assured me that terrible things happened to young boys in malls and she was simply trying to protect him. I did start to inquire what terrible things she actually had first- hand knowledge of, but when I looked into her eyes I saw the distinctive pattern of hair growing out the back of her head and decided I was facing a losing battle here. She mum- bled something about television - her primary information source I suppose. I could hardly forfeit my son to her, but if I could escape with him - no further conversation would enlighten either of us.
Our legal system has bought into this whole hog. Whatever the situation at the scene of the crime, we can argue it near to death with no guidelines for right or wrong or moral or immoral, because all of those "walls" have been clubbed into non-existence. This has rendered our enforcement nwchanisms powerless to deal with right and wrong, and they have taken instead the role of defender of 1. Themselves and 2. The state. They are roving gangs of out- laws with a slightly better dress code.
And I fear we are becoming a nation of morons. The rules of debate and discussion have become hopelessly muddied. And they have been muddied by cynical people who have intentionally advantaged themselves of what is truly best in us and our land - our rev- erence for freedom of speech, of religion, and of individual liberties. You, and your Church, and your web site, seek, in the final analysis, to enslave us all. Most alarming is that a suffi- cient percentage of our population is so woeful- ly undiscerning, that it seems you win.
So rather than my hearty approval of your right to any religion you like, and your engaging use of modern technology as an organizing strategy, may I rather say this:
You're a moronic sack of shit with a modem. And when we extend this network to reach everyone on the planet, you'll still be a moronic sack of shit with a modem.