Instead of Spiritualism, how about Grokking?

“Spiritual” is easily to understand once you see it as a description of a subjective experience, not an objective relationship. We could say it is the experience of having a sense of being related or connected in some way to things outside us (for many people who call themselves spiritual, they think of their sense of a relationship to everything), integrated within (someone I like very much describes it as all our parts working together in harmony) and, energized by this sense of connectedness within and without, a sense of vibrancy or intense alive-ness. It’s a perfectly fine, and excellent, way of going through life, as long as you don’t get into the New Age trap of thinking that you’re describing inanimate nature.

Consider the three elements and ask a question about each:
(1) Are we related to the universe? Of course we are. We are part of the universe. As my Unity minister said when I attended there, “You’re made of star stuff.” Well, he’s right. We are made of the elements found in nature. So far, so good, just don’t start getting loosey-goosey. Stay focused and disciplined and you’ll be fine.
(2) Does “integrated within” mean anything and have any value? Yes and yes. We’ve all had experiences of internal conflict. Our emotions led us one way but our intellect knew it was the wrong way to go, or “part of us” is itching to get out and weed the garden but another “part of us” seems to hold back. Those conflicts make us less productive. When all the parts - thought, emotion and action - are working together in harmony, we can be in flow, feel great and get things done. I don’t see a problem with any of that.
(3) Is there anything wrong with feeling great? Please.

Now here’s the trick. How we feel about our relationships to others and to nature does affect our well-being and our productivity. People who feel they fit, are confident about their place in the scheme of things and are full of energy do better and are more productive than people who do not have those attributes. The relationships are real, in a sense. The trick is in not overstating the case. For example, a person who thinks that the universe has a plan and that he’s part of it has gone too far.

That’s all the distinction you need to make this a good and useful Humanist idea, fully consistent with scientific naturalism. In fact, if we don’t sign onto it, we will be denying or ignoring things about the nature of homo sapiens that we need to know in order to be productive. That is distinctly anti-humanistic. counterproductive and self-defeating. So we should stop doing it. Now.

Dear Carson.
The ‘Church of Spiritual Humanism’ is an online group that was formed (I believe) after 911.  Some people joined it who were spiritual were affected by 911 by losing family, etc., and it provided an online way to exchange thoughts and share grief, in a non-religious community. Thus the ‘spiritual’ tag and the ‘church’ tag.  It then copied the “Universal Life Church” and became simply an online ‘ordination mill’.  It has gone through some ‘schisms’ as some of the original founders had some sort of scandal, I forget what - but I think it was some sort of money thing.  LIke the ULC, people who join can get licensed from their state to perform legal weddings in some states (you don’t need a license for funerals and baby-namings).  However, some places have more stringent requirements, and so the ULC and the CSH can get around this by making you buy a ‘kit’ which is a fake incorporation kit, saying you are a ‘member in good standing’ of their congregation, plus fake incorporation papers, etc.  Much of the information on their website is quite wrong - (with poor grammar, as well as incorrect facts!—so be warned.)  They want you to buy all sorts of things.  It’s a business, really, under the guise of a community.  They do have some pretentions to being a ‘spiritual group, though, and this is how they define themselves.
http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua1.htm

The WEIRD thing, is that they are declaring themselves a non-theistic spiritual group, but they don’t seem to even understand Buddhism.  Though they’ve borrowed some stuff from New Age practice, as well as meditation.  I don’t think they’re too widely read - at least by their website…  AND, I don’t think they’ve updated their website in years -looks the same as when I last looked at it 5 years ago (web 1.5).  So they set it up, take in the money, and seem to be happy.  They are rather harmless, in many ways, but like any online community, only as good as the MODS and the contributors.

Remember, licenses to conduct weddings vary by state (and sometimes City). In some places, you have to be a ‘church’.  IN some, you can simply be a member of an ethical society - with a fully declared secular agenda.  For secular/atheist/freethinker/humanist weddings, you can always contact the Humanist Society of AHA, of course. (Humanist-Society.org).  Their officiants are all humanists, which means mostly secular humanists and atheists.  The Humanist Society predates the AHA, of course, and has been conducting legal secular weddings in most states since the 1930s. Of course people can always go to the Court House, and have a civil wedding, if that is available in your town.  But secular humanist weddings are usually more personal - and tend to use readings from John Stuart Mill, Massachussetts vs Goodridge on equal marriage, secular writers, Neruda, Plato, Margaret Atwood, and even Douglas Adams, etc. They are funny, personal, and totally non-religious. The British Humanist Association has been conducting secular ceremonies for decades, and the Scottish Humanist Association can now legally marry people (not in England yet, tho).  Secular Humanist Weddings are legal in Canada, and Australia, AFAIK. 

And, of course, all Humanist societies and organizations (including Unitarians) have been conducting non-religious same sex weddings, commitments, etc. for decades.  Also, of course, secular funerals, memorials, child-naming, (and I have even seen a Humanist Divorce celebration - quite refreshing).  Hope this helps.

sorry wrong thread.

@erasmus

Thank you so much for your thoughtful kind reply, it has caused me to rethink the whole spiritual humanism thing. I was considering the secular celebrant program through cfi, but I think you have to become a notary public.

Also, you point out that The Humanist Society can conduct weddings, but cfi will not allow anyone who is a cfi secular celebrant to conduct a wedding using humanist society credentials.

CFI is not a religious organization, so the management of CFI does not allow anyone acting as a CFI Secular Celebrant to solemnize a marriage under any religious designation or pretense, or using the certification of any religious organization.  This includes but is not limited to The Humanist Society, The Ethical Union, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, traditional religions, and so called “mail order” ordinations such as the Universal Life Church.  Accordingly, people who conduct marriage ceremonies as CFI Secular Celebrants cannot solemnize a marriage (i.e, cannot sign a marriage license) unless they are also certified by their state to solemnize a marriage under a civil, secular designation, such as “notary.”  If the CFI Secular Celebrant does not have a civil license to solemnize marriages, couples will need to find an individual licensed by the state to legally sign the marriage license, either a civil official or a religious leader.

Actually , the right thread

Can a church or any entity but the state perform a “legal” wedding?  i.e a legal contract where a “joining in holy matrimony” is legally acceptable in lieu of the laws of a “civil union”, the legally registering of two humans as a “single entity”, with certain legal advantages.

Can a church dictate to the State what is and what is not legal? If so, would that not be in conflict with the separation clause?

I always thought that a “civil union” was the legally recognized term and all other ceremonies were just a form of celebration, which had nothing to do with the legal status of the couple. Only the State can declare something to be legally recognized.

IMO, from a purely objective standpoint, using the word wedding should have no legal standing under any circumstance. It is a ceremony and celebration where two people publicly declare their mutual love before their family and friends and then we all have cake and punch. Then the legal document can be obtained at the state’s courthouse.

corrected to replace the word religious with legal

Write4U - 27 June 2011 12:47 AM

Can a church dictate to the State what is and what is not legal? If so, would that not be in conflict with the separation clause?

The Religious Reich does that now, despite it being unconstitutional.  I’d explain, but it could cause the thread to digress.  However, given the current state of affairs, I would not be surprised if the Religious Reich strong armed their way with marriage too.

Write4U - 27 June 2011 12:47 AM

Actually , the right thread

Can a church or any entity but the state perform a “legal” wedding?  i.e a legal contract where a “joining in holy matrimony” is legally acceptable in lieu of the laws of a “civil union”, the legally registering of two humans as a “single entity”, with certain legal advantages.

Can a church dictate to the State what is and what is not legal? If so, would that not be in conflict with the separation clause?

I always thought that a “civil union” was the legally recognized term and all other ceremonies were just a form of celebration, which had nothing to do with the legal status of the couple. Only the State can declare something to be legally recognized.

IMO, from a purely objective standpoint, using the word wedding should have no legal standing under any circumstance. It is a ceremony and celebration where two people publicly declare their mutual love before their family and friends and then we all have cake and punch. Then the legal document can be obtained at the state’s courthouse.

corrected to replace the word religious with legal

The CFI Celebrant page includes THIS LINK that shows the marriage laws in each state.

Edit to add:
In NY, it looks like becoming a Notary is not gonna work:
A notary public has no authority to solemnize marriages; nor may a notary public take the acknowledgment of parties and witnesses to a written contract of marriage. (From LINK)

Unless it’s changed for MO in the last 9 years (mind you, I’ve been married twice in MO), we didn’t need our tax info or even had to apply 1 month before the wedding.  Two weeks was enough.  We didn’t have to bring any witness, except at the ceremony.  I don’t think that site is the best source of info.

IMO, the main problem is a confusion from the lack of knowledge of language and sloppy application of words.

Wiki: marriage
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. 

It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

But it really may not!!

NOTE:

World dictionary: marry 1 (ˈmærɪ)
 
1.  to take (someone as one’s husband or wife) in marriage
2.  ( tr ) to join or give in marriage
3.  ( tr ) to acquire (something) by marriage: marry money  
4.  to unite closely or intimately
5.  to fit together or align (two things); join
6.  ( tr ) nautical  
a. to match up (the strands) of unlaid ropes before splicing
b. to seize (two ropes) together at intervals along their lengths
C13: from Old French marier,  from Latin marītāre,  from marītus married (man), perhaps from mās male] 
‘marrier 1 — n

And here we run into the problem of sloppy association

mat·ri·mo·ny noun \ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē\
Definition of MATRIMONY : the union of man and woman as husband and wife

Origin of MATRIMONY
Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron — more at mother First Known Use: 14th century

Somehow the two words have come to mean the same thing, but they are not the same thing.

Sorry I enter this thread way too late.
A famous Singer in Sweden got married in a Free Church.
Words of Faith inspired by the Tulsa Bible School something.

Anyway they trusted that they had the legal paper to do marry
and to their surprise they had not. But everybody thought they had.

So one need to marry two times. At the legal place like a real Judge
that are assigned to do legal marraiages and then at the Church
that can arrange something that look as a Church marriage but
it does not do the legal stuff that allow for things like what happens
at a divorce and so on. Only the paper that the Judge do is the legal document.

So the The First Church of Atheism and similar would not work in most of Europe?

What I kind of agree with is that some of us atheist/humanist do want some social
togetherness that other atheists would see as almost a fatal sin they would want to
punish us for doing. Some atheists hate togetheness so much they do anything
to stop atheists from getting together Just kidding but it is very obvious if
one participate for some years on atheist forum. Again and again they tell us to not
get together.