Best part was the ceremony was 10 minutes long tops. I can’t count how many people came up to me afterwards and said how they loved how short it was. I even had a few people come up and say they were envious and wished they could have had a non-religious wedding but they had to have it at a church for their parents’ sake.

We definitely had our share of super religious folk in attendance but they didn’t even notice the absence…. or they did and were very nice about not pointing it out.

When everyone can be a minister, then no one needs to be.

However, there is another value to ministers. People go to them for emotional support too and IMHO, it helps to have some knowledge of the human condition, be it sociology or psychology. There is more to be a minister than JUST weddings, baptism/naming ceremonies, and funerals/ funeral celebrations. Yes, they could go to a psychologist for that, but sometimes they want a minister of some sort- even if it’s a Humanist minister.

At the same time, the average Joe or Joanne, with no knowledge of what they are talking about can corrupt just as badly as one who knows how to use for corrupt means. Would you want someone who has no knowledge of Humanism to be a Humanist minister?

As for religious ministers, I think it is malpractice if they do not have a strong knowledge of religion. There is more to religion then just skimming over the Bible. What good is it, when someone like me, a non-theist, could trample them in matters of philosophy and religion? Please! I’d rather debate Mike. He’s not so easy, I’m sure. Thing is, we don’t need more people filling others with BS concerning what is in religious texts. We need more people like Bob Price or even Spong.

We also need educated Humanists ministers too. Not necessarily in religion, but educated none the less. Psychology would be an excellent area of education as far as relating to people.

We don’t need more people in it just for the money. If you aren’t a theologian of some sort, then I personally would not go to you with religious questions. If you don’t have a psych degree, then IMHO, it’s worthless to go to you for my mental health.

These people have no training in ministering to anyone- secularly or religiously. The AHA puts people through classes, just as any other type of ministry does. I think to be legit you have to have some understanding of people, as well as the philosophy/religion you are a minister of.

IMHO, it would be far better to learn something about what one is doing than to have a piece of paper handed to them that says they can do various celebrations. I don’t see how that piece of paper, without an education, gives them any credentials.

Mriana, I think I see where you’re coming from, but having an education in religion may mean little in the end, and a person who has nothing but life experience, but is a solid individual, may have something to offer as a minister. I’ve met people with little or no higher education that I’ve thought would make great counselors or mentors. One of the advantages of religion is that you don’t have to really have any qualification for membership except belief. That’s part of the appeal. Religion is an organization that anyone can join without qualification.

When you go down the road of requiring “credentials” then you raise the issue of having the right ones, or enough of them, or the right kind. And to what purpose? Is religion like medicine, where there’s a danger of malpractice? Depending upon the theology, the whole damned thing is a malpractice; having a degree in advanced whimsy is senseless.

Ministerial credentials are not like science credentials–where pedigree matters, except to other members of your religious group. That a minister has a D.D. from some seminary means little to me: it means that he or she can martial an impressive array of arguments to support whatever cockeyed notion they hold, complete with footnotes. Becoming ideologically confirmed in a theology by years of study won’t matter to some couple just wanting to get married without the officiant throwing around a lot of God-language.

And yes, I would say that the ULC is universalist. But I think that we could use a bit more of that philosophy right about now. People like Epstein have come to understand that humanists, agnostics, atheists, or what-have-yous are going to have to embrace each other, and also willing theists, if we’re going to make our suffering world any better. If a ULC minister believes in God, but is willing to live and let live, he’s my kind of minister.