German Courts Rules That Circumcision Is Mutilation - Civilization Vs. Religious Superstition

Cut versus -

A botched circumcision to a four year old Muslim boy in Germany has led to a court ruling that circumcision is mutilation or body harm.  It also opens the can the worms regarding the religious tradition thing of the mean desert god theme as well as adults initiating a child into religious beliefs and practices that should be made only by legal adults themselves. 

Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders

Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm. 

Representatives of the two religious communities called the ruling insensitive and discriminatory, saying it was an attack on centuries of religious tradition. 

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation. 

Religious leaders said the court had stepped into a minefield with its decision, which undermined their religious authority and contravened Germany's constitution.

The bottom line on circumcision once you get past the religion and superstition part of it is in the old Testament.  In that old Testament, battle after battle of ethnic cleansing in Palestine takes place.  In the heat of the battle, it gets very hot, how do you identify friend from foe? If a warrior strips off his armor or clothes in the heat and blood bath of battle, or is left dead on a battlefield stripped of his armor and identification, what better way to identify both the living in a fight or the dead for a proper religious burial than to see if the living or dead is friend or an foe, cut or uncut on the tip of the penis. 

- versus Uncut

.

When did Christianity turn into a Religion of Hate Doctor Bachmann?

There seems to be a theme of Matthew that runs through this rant.

I have to wonder what personal torture that white heartland born-agains have to endure in order to fit into the still existing heartland prairie town square where conformity is of utmost important and existence? 

You conform or you get shunned, banished and or killed for your personal instinctual sexual being.  The ghost of Matthew Shepard’s memory, of Wyoming hate crime fate, lives on, a victim of being different.

I do not want to say this with anger and or hate.  But I think that two suppressed sexual human beings in the form of Marcus and Michele Bachman are hiding behind a cross of confusion in their desire to establish a Christian theocracy in America.  It is a life but not much of one IMHO.

The above photo is of a gaydar billboard outside St. Matthews church in Auchland, New Zealand.

'Gay-dar' church billboard vandalised

An Auckland church known for its edgy billboards has come under another attack from vandals. 

St Matthew in the City put up a "gay-dar" billboard on Friday, which shows a spectrum from gay to straight, with a cross acting as a gauge.

A message underneath states: "As used by the Anglican Church to assess potential priests." 

Church spokesman Clay Nelson said the sign aimed to highlight discrimination in the Anglican Church against members of the gay and lesbian community. 

However, it had already been vandalised.

Gay-dar or gaydar is a word I had to look up very recently. It is a new acronym for gay and radar.  Meaning that certain types of body language and or presence supposedly connotes gayness.  In a way, gaydar is more often used to taunt children or young people who do not seem to conform even if they are or are not by nature homosexual.

What is the good in this vandalism in New Zealand?  At least the topic of homosexuality, a 19^th century pseudoscience terminology, is being put on the table for discussion in the Anglican Church worldwide.

Sexuality, and not just homosexuality, is a closeted subject in all of Christianity or so it would seem to me. 

I am looking at the current civil rights thing here in the United States regarding legal rights for Homosexual Humanity.  And even if I only believe in limited legal connection and not marriage as a right, I have to step back and realize that partial rights are really a statement or justification for no rights.

That the 3/5 clause in the original U.S. Constitution to appropriate representation based on a slave, first as property, and secondly only as 3/5 of a human being status, has long ago been changed in that Constitution.

But this is not about voting rights which is what the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s was all about.  That movement’s overall mission was to start establishing the reality of equality by first guaranteeing free access to the voting booth for all citizens.

This present era is bogged down in the decay of old ideas and old prejudices and things long closeted against the rights and privacy of each individual not only in this country but on this planet as well.

That the struggle for humanity throughout the ages has been to find one shiny perfect moment, a city on a hill moment, when man and woman, as part of God’s evolving creation, can stand on stable ground and separate the animal from the divine in our split natures and to maturely recognize the differences.  That, and to move on to higher ground and on to true ordained potential.

It is one thing to legislate equality.  It is quite another to legislate morality.  You cannot legislate what your definition of morality is.  Morality is oft times defined by geography more so than by any magic make believe revelation from above any normal timeline and existence.

Somewhere along the timeline, Christianity got obsessed about sex.  All sorts of twisted and bizarre justifications for spiritual enlightenment have to do with fasting from sex to get that spiritual high.  Rather than having discussion about sex, sex was not discussed.

All sexuality got hidden and closeted.  “So deep in the closet – you could see Narnia.”

Anything sexual got put under the label of sin and only the clergy could dole out definition or dispensation on a monopolized area of natural human activity.  Bizarre!

In fact, one of the things the first Council of Nicea did was ban self castration as mentioned in Matthew 19:12.  There was also no doubt a backlash against the old pagan practice of having sex with a temple prostitute to elevate your spirit and mental being up into your preferred god and or goddess presence.  But let’s not go there at the moment.

Never the less, Jesus, in the imperfect account of him in the gospels, does not seem to specifically mention homosexuality.  Paul mentions it here or there and usually in a long litany of sins.  Though they say that Paul was light in his sandals, I don’t believe it.

I think that Paul, the self appointed “Apostle”, was more likely a victim of a botched circumcision reversal operation so popular with middle class Hellenistic Jewish boys who wanted to fit in at the local gym amongst their gentile peers, so to speak.  “Look guys, I fit in, I am just like you now.” (wow)

For Paul, the lack of sex is a good thing, a spiritual thing.  But it was his thing.  Not necessarily any of our individual things.  There are many roads to spirituality, not just one.  And so it goes.

When did spiritual enlightenment, in so-called Christianity, get divorced from personal obligation to try and love yourself and your neighbor?  Love first.  Salvation second.  Not the other way around I would think.

When did the privacy of sexuality become the peeping Tom right of civil or church government to interfere in the life of an individual, or consenting adult individuals?

If you are unhappy in your own skins, in your own sexuality dear Marcus and Michele, please do not try to impose your unhappiness on others.  

In other words - get a life! 

Have a nice day.