Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of law . . .
By Eric Schaveland
November 1, 1998
This was the action of Urantia Foundation in 1991. By choosing this path, many inevitable consequences were also embraced. When Jesus' admonition to his followers about not going to law among themselves, was tossed out for a supposed "greater good," the result was a cult whose "the ends justify the means" battle cry could operate in the 20th century legal arena very successfully.
Let me explain. To the dogs of law, there is no such thing as truth. There are only different arguments that can be used to win for your client. If it will serve your client to tell a federal judge that the Urantia Book is not a religious book, then you do so without reservations. This is just a legal argument, it doesn't have to be true. This is proven by the fact that at the same time Foundation lawyers were making this argument in Arizona, they were arguing in Illinois (Martin Myers v. Urantia Foundation Trustees) that the Urantia Book is obviously a religious book. I think this is what former trustee Pat Mundelius called speaking in "legalese." I had assumed that the point of all the legal talk ("legalese") is to find truth. Truth is powerful, living, and must be consciously rejected to be ignored. I believe the legal system is capable of finding truth. (While truth cannot be fixed or dogmatized, it can be found.)
The problem is that once the Foundation embarked on this path where truth is abandoned and everything is just an argument to attain a supposed "greater good," there is no way someone looking in from outside this cult bubble can justify such a rejection of Jesus, who is after all, the Spirit of Truth.
Consider when the Sanhedrin of old decided that "the end justified the means" with an Epochal revelation. Their house was left to them desolate. Jesus simply will not condone the sacrifice of truth for a supposed greater good. If you want to operate on simply legal terms, you operate in a moral vacuum. The Ten Commandments and the rules of Dalamatia do not apply. As Clinton argued, "I did not have sex with that woman." Legally, you can argue your way out of any claim. Perhaps the Foundation really thinks it is not "bearing false witness" when it claims Bill Sadler or the forum or the contact commission or the sleeping subject is the "human author" of the Urantia Papers -- they simply are making as many "legal arguments" as they need to to "win" their perceived greater good, the copyright.
The shock and outrage of believers concerning the Foundation's "bearing false witness" is seen by the Foundation and its supporters as simply childish or naive reactions to the "real world" in which the Foundation operates. Statements that believers in the revelation perceive as outrageous lies are simply viewed by Foundation personnel as savvy legal strategies. For instance, when trustee Phil Rolnick stated that Urantia Foundation "owned" the Banner of Michael on this world and that no one could use it without their permission, he must have thought that this was a good legal argument that would help the cult attain their end: controlling the emblem of the Paradise trinity. But, when I heard him make these statements, I told him that he was insane.
As we can see, the Foundation "won" their copyright lawsuit by convincing the Appeal Court that the Urantia Papers have human authorship. To inner bubble cult members the end has indeed justified the means. The dogs of law have retrieved copyright claims from the very jaws of defeat!
And their house is left to them desolate.