Classical Values blogs about a Pennsylvania court decision invalidating a marriage performed by a minister of the Universal Life Church, on the grounds that "the friend didn't qualify as a minister under state law because he had no regular congregation or place of worship"; the post condemns this decision, and also a Pennsylvania bill "that would exclude wedding officiants who are ordained 'by mail order or via the Internet or any other electronic means.'" "What part of 'make no law' don't they understand?" is the title of the blog post. (Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.)
I realize the title isn't supposed to be deep legal analysis, but lines like that strike me as a sort of smug textualism — hmm, maybe that would be a good name for an interpretive theory, Smug Textualism — that's pretty hard to justify. Even to the extent the argument is deliberately intended as rhetorical hyperbole, it wrongly trades on an assertion of textual clarity, and on the claim that the other side is betraying the clear and unambiguous meaning of the constitutional text. If the text is in fact not at all clear (and I'll explain below why it's not), the argument is a cheap shot at best and misleading at worst. And the rhetorical device is distressingly common, which is why I want to take the time to address this instance of it.
First, note that "make no law" comes from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which part of that didn't the post's author understand — Congress? Congress isn't doing anything here.
Of course, perhaps the First Amendment applies to state legislatures and judges via the Fourteenth Amendment, either through the provision that says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (that's what the Court has held) or the provision that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (that's what some scholars argue). So which part of that don't you understand — "deprive any person of liberty ... without due process of law," or "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"? The answer is probably both, and rightly so: Both are hard to figure out, especially as they apply to the Religion Clause, at least part of which doesn't seem specifically focused on personal liberty or citizens' privileges or immunities. In any case, there's surely no shame in differences in how to understand the text of either provision.
But let's accept the view that "make no law" applies to states as well as to the federal government, and to judiciaries as well as legislatures. The Court has certainly done so, though note that implicitly relying on precedent rather than text gets us beyond the "What Part of [the clear constitutional text] Don't They Understand?"
There's still the question of exactly how recognizing only certain marriages constitutes "mak[ing a] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No-one's religious practice is being prohibited, not even the Universal Life Church's. Nor is such a legal rule clearly a "law respecting an establishment of religion," since no religion is being established as a state religion — not Anglicanism, not Protestanism, not Christianity, not even theism generally.
All this having been said, I actually agree that giving legal preferences to ministers who have a congregation over ministers who don't, or even giving legal preferences to ministers who were ordained in person over those who were ordained by correspondence, is generally a bad idea, and may well be unconstitutional, likely as a violation of the Establishment Clause under Larson v. Valente. One can make sensible precedential arguments for such a judgment of unconstitutionality. One can make sensible prudential arguments. One might even be able to make sensible original meaning or textual arguments, though I'm skeptical about that based on my limited knowledge of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, and on my sense of the text. (Perhaps the strongest textual argument would be an Equal Protection Clause argument, though even there I think you can't make a decision based on the text alone.)
But one can't make the smug textualist argument that one's critics just don't understand the clear meaning of the constitutional text. There are a few constitutional law matters where a simple appeal to the text is largely dispositive — but only a few (at least among the matters that are likely to be contested), and this surely isn't one of them. And while there are many more for which careful analysis of the text, usually coupled with original meaning, precedent, structure, or other things, can be helpful or even dispositive, the smug "what part of '[textual provision]' don't they understand?" isn't conducive to such careful analysis.
All very important, especially when applied to contracts, regulations and humans' never-ending quest for more power and influence.
Why not agree on one basic principle? If the individual's liberty is furthered go for it. With some constraints of course, subject to analysis, interpretation and precedent ....
In this case it should be easy, no? Get government's tentacles out of marriage, completely, unambiguously, now.
(The above to be taken a bit tongue-in-cheek. Except the last sentence, of course.)
The business opportunity here is for Universal Life ministers to begin personally inducting others into the ministry, though the problem here is that God will probably have to appear personally after such a long absence just to get the process started in Pennsylvania.
Rainer's solution would, of course, be ideal but is unfortunately impossible. Government has gotten itself enmeshed in marriage and it can't get out.
Never seems to be a problem for the VC contributors. My hat is off to you. Is there a secret?
Even there I think there is room for considerable disagreement.
For those who are unaware, the Universal Life Church is an organization that advertises in the back of Rolling Stone that they will "ordain" you as a minister if you send them $20 or so. I think the commonwealth would be within its rights to treat that kind of thing as a sham, rather than as an actual religious organization. (There are a number of legitimate schools that offer correspondence and distance study in theology, and someone who became an ordained minister that way would seem to have a valid grievance.)
All of which is to support EV's broader point that Smug Textualism doesn't solve the problem.
I don't know exactly what the criteria are for determining that someone is a clergyman for purposes of evidentiary privilege, but Pennsylvania's criteria don't strike me as being obviously unreasonable.
The boundaries of what the ACLU calls the separation of church and state mystify many laymen: churches don't pay local property tax, but they are subject to local zoning ordinances. Nuns pay income tax but not FICA. Etc.
The state should not be concerned with whether people applying to be married in sight of the tax code have been married appropriately in sight of God. I don't understand what the point of this case is at all.
Replace 'marriage' with 'sacrament' and reconsider.
The state is not prohibiting anyone from conducting a marriage according to the rites of the Universal Life Church. The state is merely refusing to recognize such marriages as having legal consequences.
A governmental marriage license is not usually part of the [Quaker] ceremony, and can be signed at a separate time if desired. In many areas, the license must be signed by an "officiant," but in the state of Pennsylvania, self-uniting marriage licenses are available which require only the signatures of the bride and groom and witnesses. These licenses are available to any couple who wishes to be married without an officiant, regardless of religion.
A country where problems are ultimately resolved (and, fairly, created) by good old democracy. Oh, the horror!
Based on what criteria? That it's in Rolling Stone? Or that there is a fee? Which one makes the religion a sham?
Kevin
To quibble about whether or not the restriction is "reasonable" completely misses the point.
It would be completely reasonable, in my opinion, to require "ministers" to have completed an advanced degree in theology. How many current ministers with "congregations" would qualify under that standard? I don't know. But such a requirement just as intrusive and improper as requiring that the "minister" have a certain number of congregants.
Suppose a bride wishes to be married by her grandfather who is a minister. He used to have a flock but he retired a decade ago because of poor health. Under PA's law, he does not have a flock so he can't perform the ceremony.
Anyone who imagines that there is a constitutional defense of such a law has much to learn.
Rev. Ignoratio Elenchi
Fine. No federal perjury laws (for federal cases). And Congress may regulate any writing, picture, or artwork that travels in interstate commerce.
Textural enough for ya?
But the government recognizes the ceremonies of some religions as creating a binding civil marriage. This puts the government in the religion certification business favoring one religion over another. Of course the federal government does this with the tax code. For example the IRS granted the so-called Church of Scientology tax benefits denied to other religions. COS members can deduct the cost of courses provided to them. Other religions thought that they could do likewise, but the IRS said no. See Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 00-70753. Amazingly the Ninth Circuit upheld the IRS.
I think the idea isn't really reasonableness, but sincerity.
Having a congregation and a place of worship is just a proxy for sincerity. And there's a big difference between "your qualifications aren't enough to be a minister", and "you're not sincere about being a minister".
Here the state of Pennsyslvanis is determining who is and who is not a minister of a certain church.
To quibble about whether or not the restriction is "reasonable" completely misses the point.
What if I refuse to testify about what a friend told me on the grounds that I'm a Catholic priest, and he was confessing sins to me? Can the state determine that I'm not a Catholic priest?
And Congress may regulate any writing, picture, or artwork that travels in interstate commerce.
Writings would be covered by "press."
Realted Question--
For any lawyer who know about this stuff: The Seal of the Confessional is complete in the RC Church. Priests are not even allowed to reveal, say, a penitent's continuing abuse of a child. The priest can, and will, refuse absolution in such cases. But he may not go to the police. This goes beyond even psychiatrist/patient privilege.
So, I'm curious: Is this refusal to reveal continuing or potential crimes legally protected? Is it protected in the case of other clergy?
The WikiPedia article above cites Universal Life Church vs. State of Utah, US Dist. Court for the District of Utah (2002), in which the issues seem to be very close to the issues in this Pennsylvania case. Utah lost.
I started out in criminal law, and the clergy privilege never came up, so I have no idea.
I'm trying to think of a scenario in which the state would try to compel the testimony of a confessor and would know that a portion of the proffered testimony would not count as confessing past sins. I would think that a priest would completly refuse to answer any questions about what went on in the confessional.
Can judges now blatantly resolve child-custody cases on the basis of the religion or non-religion of the contesting parents?
Oh, wait a minute. They're already doing that.
Dr. Jones has violated the law, if I understand things correctly. But is Fr. Francis immune from prosecution? From civil suits?
What if it's Mr. Stein telling police that he confessed abuse to Rabbi Kapplan?
Is that a smug statement?
Does Judge Kimball of the US District Court have "much to learn"? Read the Utah case cited above, he managed to come up with "constiutional defenses" of a similar law.
That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to make some sort of determination of what is or isn't a religion for the purpose conferring benefits on them. Want the benefit of tax-free status, priest/penitent privilege, or performing marriage ceremonies? The government has to be able to have some sort of criteria to determine who qualifies. Just want to go and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you please? Government has no place deciding if you are or aren't a religion. They're two different things, IMO.
Correct. The couple (and Rev. Grandfather, as witness) can sign the self-uniting paperwork though. There's no requirement or prohibition about what goes on at the ceremony, and you don't have to be Quaker.
I think Pennsylvania does a nice job of staying out of the 1stA - a clergyperson is whomever says they are. A person who can sign a Pennsy marriage certificate is a person who regularly and notably takes a leadership role in the community - a minister with a congregation, a judge, mayor or county clerk. If you don't like those choices, you have to do the paperwork at the courthouse.
Dr. Jones has violated the law, if I understand things correctly. But is Fr. Francis immune from prosecution? From civil suits?
The doctor would subject to professional discipline from the state licensing body. Obviously there's no equivalent for priests.
In the states where I'm admitted, I'm not aware of any criminal penalties for anyone who learns of a plan to commit a crime and takes no steps to report it or prevent it. As long as you don't assist in the commission of the crime, you're off the hook.
As far as civil penalties go, I don't know, but I'm going to fall back on the general tort law rule that there's no duty of rescue. A person who learns of an intent to abuse a child is no more obligated to prevent harm to that child than someone who sees the child being abused and does nothing.
Although the privilege developed as a response to Catholic confession, today the privilege applies to clergy in religious groups that do not have individual sacramental confession.
The rationale is that discussion of moral matters with a clergyman is an important part of most religious experiences, regardless of the group's procedural policies on the forgiveness of sins.
"no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship."
I guess you could argue that there is no religious establishment or mode of worship unless there is a "regular congregation and place of worship." By that standard of course, most if not all of the early Christians did not belong to a religious establishment.
By the way, the problem may not be in the exclusion of these ministers, but in the state authorizing any ministers at all to perform a civil function. Why ministers and not others. It would be much simpler to have a licensing system by which anyone could become authorized to perform weddings, including ministers. It would work in much the same way that being a notary now works.
As you've probably noticed, I think that the state should have the power to determine what is a religion and who is a clergyman for tax, evidentiary privilege, and other purposes (such as exempting religious ceremonies from age restrictions on alcohol consumption).
However, I'm not convinced that the restriction on performing marriages has a rational basis. I really can't come up with a reason for saying that Person X can't bind two people in legal marriage once those people have been licensed to wed by the state.
I pulled a classic sophomoric prank (being then a college sophomore at UC Santa Cruz) with the Universal Life Church. I wrote to the Reverend Kirby J. Hensley in Modesto, California, gave him a $10 check for my ordination certificate, and included the student mailing list for all the students at Adlai Stevenson College of UC Santa Cruz. This was towards the end of the winter 1969 Quarter. And I pointed out that the first day of the Spring Quarter was April 1, 1969.
Hensley agreed that this would make a great April Fools' joke and sent me the ordination papers for every student at Stevenson, including my own. I and a friend spent half the night on Sunday, March 31, 1969, stuffing mailboxes in the mailroom.
So, when almost all students at Stevenson picked up their mail on Monday, April 1, 1969, they discovered that they had all been ordained as ministers in the Universal Life Church.
Personally, I find it disturbing to allow a branch of government to define what religion is (even a branch that isn't directly political such as the courts). However, that is the way our looney system has evolved with regards to the Establishment Clause, so I think it is ridiculous for so many legal scholars to turn a blind eye to the real problem and issue here.
What, exactly, are the identifiable distinctions between a "sham" and an "actual religious organization"?
Great comment: This is exactly what Madison was concerned about which is why he proposed the "no cognizance," standard.
You don't, but a minister may officiate at a marriage, along with various civil officials, such as judges and mayors. The point (or a point) is so people don't have to go to two different places to get married-- the church and the county clerk, for instance.
And having a congregation or such things presumably are indicia of the ability and willingness of the officiant to make some sort of check that the marriage is legal-- the both of the couple are old enough, they aren't too closely related to fall under incest laws, etc.
Of which I cannot speak to the legality.
Waldensian: on cynical days, I'd say that the difference between a sham religious organization and a real one is the amount of harm that they can do; the real ones, historically, have done a whole lot more. By that standard, the ULC is definitely a sham -- I don't think there's any evidence that the ULC or somebody acting in its name has ever so much as temporarily inconvenienced anybody.
alkali: I'm a ULC Minister (as is my wife, and as was my late cat, the Reverend Squish). It cost me nothing to sign up, and if you'd like to, it would it cost you nothing -- see http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=ordination .
Strange kind of scam that gives you the benefit without charging, isn't it? Think of it as Open Source Religion, and you'll pretty much have it. And what's wrong with that?
If you want extra merch or certain titles, sure, you've got to pay.
Far as I can tell, Kirby Hensley, the church's founder, was both serious and not -- he really believed in all the good stuff, but had a sense of humor about making religious certification easy and open for, well, everybody.
I haven't done anything with my certification (I signed up a couple of decades ago), but some friends have gone to the trouble to register with the state (Minnesota being "the" state where I am), so that marriages that they perform have the same legal standing as others. (I haven't; I just haven't had the occasion to want to marry anybody to anybody else, and the tenets of my own branch of the ULC -- the Congregation of the Appropriate Revolver -- forbid me, at the moment, from trying to take any advantage of my ordination, other than by mild criticism and mockery of those who think that the semiauto makes a generally better personal defense weapon.)
All in all, I think the ULC church is a good thing, by expanding religious choices among Americans to anything that doesn't interfere with the rights of others, and that for US states or the Feds to pick winners and losers among religious organizations is a bad idea, whether or not it's legal.
Obviously a "sham" is any religious organization I dont follow.
And of course, a person's religion could be the Church of Solitude, for which it would be silly to require him to have a congregation or meeting place, except for a meeting place for one!
The gummint should get the hell out of both marriage and religion, since there is really no way to determine what is a "sham" religion or a "sham" marriage.
I guess I should never move to Pennsylvania, where my marriage may not be recognized. After all, I was married in a Mormon temple by an unschooled elder who had no regular congregation.
This and the Quaker example strongly suggest the proponents of the narrow legal definition of minister simply haven't thought it through. Reminds me of my new motto for Congress: "Legislation unencumbered by the thought process."
One of the elders at our church told me that all of the church elders were legally ordained and could perform marraige ceremonies and that in Texas you just had to have someone ordained present and that anyone could perform the actual ceremony.
Who counts an ordained minister has changed recently in many churches since many "bible" and "non-denominational" churches do not have an established ordination procedure and many of the pastors do not attend seminary. Also many of these churches believe that sacraments can be performed by any church member. There is a large belief there in the "priesthood of all believers" see 1 Peter 2:9.
Well, to some extent, yes. Unless you want to amend the Constitution to prevent it. Of course, that would involve democracy again, so, once again, oh, the horror!
Not exactly. The ULC as a religion or denomination began in 1959. Although TRBC as a local congregation first met in 1956, Baptists have been around for centuries.
I've heard that there are some schools in New Haven and Cambridge that run some kind of "divinity" schools that issue advanced degrees without ordaning anyone. Whatever they are, they've got to turn out less-able preachers than those with lambskin from Domino's Church U. or Pat Robertson U.
Atheist chaplains are more commonly called Unitarians.
Heh. How do you get a Unitarian out of your neighborhood? Burn a big question mark in his front yard.
Joel, I agree with so much in your post that it's possible we were identical twins separated at birth. That should frighten you. Let me just note that I carry a 1957 Colt Detective Special. Good enough for Joe Friday....
Vivictius, I think you have it exactly right.
Meanwhile, how do I get to be an atheist chaplain?!? Does the military have atheist chaplains? They would be a HUGE hit in Iraq among the locals.
Buddhists are atheists, but have clergy (priests, monks, and nuns) who receive training similar to that of other religions.
Someone who knocks on your door for no discernable reason.
AK--Thanks. That answers my questions.
And yea, I ask of you, what caliber do you follow?
For if you follow the path of the .38, you are a heretic and an infidel.
But if you follow the path of the righteous .45, then you and yours are well and truly blessed.
--G
Urban sissies. Real men use a .30-.30 with 170 grain load or heavier.
Haven't seen many revolvers chambered in .30-.30.
'Course my pappy always said the only reason to have a pistol is to fight your way to your shotgun. :)
Personally, I'm a fan of the .308 for bringing the hurt from a distance.
But that's a conversation for another thread.
Sorry for the threadjack.
--G
There certainly is (as you note) a body of rulings and study that states oughtn't get too entangled in religions.
(I'll add my 2 cents that the less entangled the better. I'm not happy that the General Laws of Massachusetts attempt to map the particular clergy of different denominations, as regards marriages and relgious corporations. The bit about marriage ends with a catchall
In particular Judaism doesn't require either a rabbi or a cantor for a good religious marriage, but since Judaism is already listed, they are not any other church or religious organization. They don't say anything about ULC there.
I'm guessing that the underlying rationale is that there should be a person present at the wedding who would be credible and locatable who could testify to the validity of the marriage (the bride and groom were not drugged, under duress, etc.). A genuine member of the clergy would satisfy that criterion. Someone who sent away for an ordination certificate to a P.O. Box listed in a classified ad might not.
To be clear, I don't disagree that there are lots of sensible ways in which archaic and semi-archaic laws relating to this issue could be reformed. (Indeed, it is now the case that in many states, anyone of legal age can marry two people if they provide certain information to the secretary of state or some other authority in advance of the wedding date.) The question addressed by the post was whether Pennslyvania's law was constitutional, not whether it was the best of all possible legal regimes.
To clarify another point, I think it is fair to say that the ULC is not a genuine religious group, but I don't mean to suggest that there's anything nefarious about it. It may be a sham but it's not a scam, certainly so far as I know.
As a Buddhist I would like to point out that this is a patently false statement. As another poster pointed out The Buddha merely considered attempts to concern oneself with a deity to be fruitless with regard to enlightenment. I am definitely not an atheist, nor do I fit into any archetypal theistic structure. The majority of the Japanese people are Shinto/Zen practitioners who revere the traditional gods while still being Zen Buddhists. I suppose that it could be the case that I and my fellows are "bad Buddhists" or somesuch, but that isn't my first inclination.
And I'll take a reliable wheelgun over an automatic any day as a sidearm, whether it be a .38 or a .357 mag. (Not particularly interested in anything heavier as it slows down the ROF too much.) For a long-gun I'll take a Remington M700 with decent optics, reliable, accurate, and ammo's easy to come by.
My son and future daughter-in-law wanted me to conduct their wedding, in part because they thought my governmental position should allow me to. When I told them I legally could not and they still wanted me to officiate, my son, his bride-to-be, her father, and I all trooped down to the Justice of the Peace and he performed the legal ceremony--then I conducted one "for show" in front of the assembled guests. Problem solved.
Stop makin' fun of Unitarians. They actually have a rich history that goes back to America's Founding era. Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams clearly understood themselves to be "unitarian" by name. And Washington and Madison were probably theological unitarians as well. Only Adams was formally associated with a Unitarian Church.
Back then, unitarians were more religious; they were devout theists who believed in an active personal God. Some unitarians could be quite biblical, believing the entire Bible the Word of God -- but Jesus was not God, rather a great human moral teacher (Socinian) or perhaps a divine being created by but subordinate to the Father (Arian). Biblical Unitarians included Chief Justice John Marshall, Joseph Story and Jared Sparks, and from the earlier generation, Milton and Newton. Other unitarians -- like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin and perhaps Madison and Washington -- were rationalists who believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature and only partially inspired the Bible, leaving man's reason the ultimate arbiter of Truth. In this regard, they followed Joseph Priestly, a British Whig and the co-discoverer of Oxygen.
John Locke was also likely a unitarian of the Arian variety. But, scholars disagree on just how "biblical" his beliefs were.
These "unitarians" understood themselves to be true Christians. But given they rejected the Nicene Creed, i.e., the hallmark of Christian orthodoxy, whether they can truly be called Christians is debatable. At best, they were Christian heretics. And, as I've discovered, this Christian heresy was key to the political theology of American Founding thought.
Sounds similar to PA's statute permitting marriages with no one officiating.
As is not uncommon in Europe, I was married civilly in the Standesamt Berlin-Zehlendorf (as required by the FRG), and three days later in a religious ceremony. Most western European nations have no link between civil and religious marriage.
I don't think it's that debatable. The Council of Nicaea didn't happen until the 4th century. That's four centuries of pre-Nicene Christians, forming numerous heterogeneous groups with different philosophies and beliefs. The Arian "heresy" was one of those, and Arians participated in the 1st Council of Nicaea, even if they lost. Everybody's a heretic to somebody. I love the "burning question mark" joke, though.
But being a heretic was not a laughing matter after Nicaea, when it became a secular crime, and a capital crime in 382. Although, heretics were not actually burned till after the fall of Rome, in the 11th century.
The post title (an admittedly overwrought slogan I hear a lot) was meant to be eye-catching, to draw readers in.
Smug means "self-satisfied" -- and even if the title seemed smug, I didn't feel that way at all. When I wrote the post I was a bit irritated because I have known sincere ULC ministers, and to see them being treated as less "real" than the ministers in Phelps's "God Hates Fags" church just galls me, as I think Phelps' outfit consists of agents provocateur. While I'm willing to tolerate Phelps' crew being considered ministers, I can't accept the logic that they are, but ULC ministers aren't.
And if the state can set standards for ministers, why can't they set standards for journalists? I don't see the constitutional power to do either.
Baptist Bible Fellowship International, with which Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church was originally affiliated, was formed in 1950.
I think you're right. I stand corrected. My personal bias shines through.
Tony:
Didn't say it was. Just saying that they were Christians, too. I don't think you're right about Heretics not being burned until after the 11th century. I think they got to it earlier, but I'd have to pull out the books.
Jon:
Baptists in the Bible Belt frequently don't think of Catholics as Christians because they view them as worshiping idols and see the Papal See as a heresy in and of itself. Does that mean that any objective authority should define them that way?
"However, I'm not convinced that the restriction on performing marriages has a rational basis. I really can't come up with a reason for saying that Person X can't bind two people in legal marriage once those people have been licensed to wed by the state."
And alkali responded:
I'm guessing that the underlying rationale is that there should be a person present at the wedding who would be credible and locatable who could testify to the validity of the marriage (the bride and groom were not drugged, under duress, etc.). A genuine member of the clergy would satisfy that criterion. Someone who sent away for an ordination certificate to a P.O. Box listed in a classified ad might not.
I have been assuming that applying for the marriage license requires participation from both parties. I figured that the county clerk who gave the couple their license would be able to determine if one of the parties was drugged or under duress. Whatever ceremony and words are used to begin the marriage are subsequently used doesn't seem to be the business of the state.
It's an odd assumption for me to make, as I was married in a state where only one person needs to be present to apply for the license. In that case, I would definitely want someone responsible to ensure that both parties were entering freely.
I don't know what kind of Buddhist you are, but you're wrong about mainstream Buddhism. Yes, various types of Buddhists revere various beings sometimes dubbed "gods", but for Buddhists these are not gods in the usual sense. For Buddhists, the universe is law-governed, and these laws apply to all beings, including those with powers that appear to human beings to be supernatural. The gods of theistic religions create the laws of the universe (and in most are able to avoid them). "gods", buddhas, boddhisatvas, and the like are subject to the laws of the universe.
As for Japan, only about 25% of Japanese Buddhists adhere to the Zen sect. Jodo ("Pure Land") Buddhism is the most popular form, at around 35%. The remaining 40% are divided among 11 other sects.
I've already conceded my incorrectness regarding the makeup of Japan's religions. Thank you for pointing it out again. I wasn't, by the way, wrong about the relevant part of that statement that Shintoism is widely practiced alongside Buddhism. To be a Theist does not require by any stretch of the imagination that someone believe in a creator God, a la Christianity, but even Shintoism has the concept of Kanagara No-Michi, essentially comparable to Tao. While neither of these is a creator god, it is a universal sort of divinity that, in my opinion, precludes being anti-religious.
I'm also a little insulted (though I probably shouldn't be) at the characterization of my religious views as being somehow outside the mainstream of Buddhism. Having looked back at what I wrote, I can't fathom where that came from. Further, at no point did I suggest that I or any other Buddhist does or should revere any creator deity or deities. Characterizing my comments that way merely creates a straw man, begging to be toppled.
Goobermunch: for self-defense, I think the reliability of the mechanism is more important than the caliber; while I own a revolver in .45 ACP (and several in various flavors of .44), my usual carry piece is a .38 snubby, frequently a Detective Special.
Waldensian: well, yeah, I'm scared.
Getting back to the original posting, and with all due respect to our host: well, yeah, but I think that arrantly stupid decisions like this one are exactly the sort of thing that a hypothetical diety probably should have created "smug textualism" and other forms of cheap scorn for. (Whether or not such a diety exists and/or did so is a matter upon which the Congregation of the Appropriate Revolver takes no official position.)
Granted, that would probably be the wrong form to use in writing an appeal ("And beyond that question, the appellant notes that the Court's mother met its father only briefly, during a commercial transaction in an alley behind a pool hall, that its sister swims after troop ships") . . .
Can an entity that walks, waddles, and quacks like a business corporation avoid paying taxes or observing discrimination laws simply by declaring itself a church and declaring its activities to be religious worship?
There are hard cases because real churches regularly do many things, like education and health care, that business corporations also do. The test Pennsylvania has chosen is not necessarily ideal. But I think Pennsylvania is entitled to assure itself that there is some actual religion being practiced by those claiming religious priveleges, so long as it does so without interfering with the content of that religion. Simply receiving money and delivering certificates over the internet would seem to be more in the nature of what business corporations do than having anything to do with religion.