Post edited 7:04 am – May 27, 2010 by RevJohn

Yes.  The First Amendment prohibits a government establishment of religion, and subsequently a prohibition of any specific types of religion.  Deism has been around for a long time, with several Founding Fathers as adherents.  Both of these facts coupled with the First Amendment ensure that federal, state and local governments will be loathe to challenge the authority of the Church.  Web-based churches of other denominations have been challenged in court and have prevailed, giving credibility to online congregations.  In our fast-paced, twenty-first century world it has become apparent to government and the people that the internet is a legitimate way to spread the word of God, no matter who or what you consider your God to be.  As an ordained Deist, you have the same rights as any other member of the clergy.

Is there any legal precedent?

Yes.  In 1974 the the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Civil No. S-1954, Judge James F. Battin presiding, ruled in favor of so-called "non-traditional" churches.  Here are some excerpts from the decision:

“…an Honorary Doctor of Divinity is a strictly religious title with no academic standing. Such titles may be issued by bona fide churches and religious denominations, such as plaintiff, as long as their issuance is limited to a course of instruction in the principles of the church or religious denomination… The statute is silent as to recognized honorary titles conferred for some meritorious recognition.”

“Certainly the ordination of ministers and the chartering of churches are accepted activities of religious organizations… The fact that the plaintiff distributed ministers’ credentials and Honorary Doctor of Divinity certificates is of no moment. Such activity may be analogized to mass conversions at a typical revival or religious crusade.”

“Neither this Court, nor any branch of this Government, will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion. Nor will the Court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the Court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. Were the court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantees of the First Amendment.”