[continued from previous message]   
      
   [384] Wherever the circumference of the foreskin is less than that of the last   
   portion of the penis, then that foreskin cannot go up. Under such   
   circumstances, much dirt may be accumulated under the foreskin, and that dirt   
   may be the cause of many    
   diseases. In such a situation it is certainly desirable to make a slight   
   operation in order to enlarge the circumference of the foreskin. It may be   
   noted, however, that such an operation is not always necessary nor even, when   
   it is seen as necessary, can    
   it be technically called circumcision, which denotes removal of the entire   
   foreskin. No doubt, in the early days of Judaism, people understood very   
   little of hygienic science, and so the institution of circumcision as a   
   religious requirement may well    
   have had considerable advantages in its favor. Nevertheless, the point remains   
   that, even in those days, baptism was generally a more appealing and a far   
   easier rite of initiation than circumcision.   
      
   [385] Deuteronomy 23:3-8.   
      
   [386] Acts 15:22-29.   
      
   [387] Romans 14:14-23.   
      
   [388] When Christianity was first established in Iceland, the Church not only   
   tolerated local customs in respect to free sex but, further, it became an   
   active participant in them. Even now in Iceland, one finds a general disregard   
   for the institution of    
   marriage and an extraordinarily large percentage of the population who can   
   trace their ancestry back to one or another Catholic priest.   
      
   The Catholic Church today is much more concerned with abortion, and any form   
   of birth control, then it is with fornication. In the latest Roman Catholic   
   Code of Canon Law, anyone directly involved with an abortion, for any reason,   
   is still, at least    
   theoretically, subject to automatic excommunication, whereas non-marital   
   sexual relations, and even adultery do not lead ineluctably to the Church's   
   supreme punishment.   
      
   [389] That is – Orthodox, Conservative and Reform congregations.   
      
   [390] Esther 3:1-15.   
      
   [391] Matthew 22:15-22; Romans 13:1-7.   
      
   Note here that this doctrine was propagated not just by the priests and the   
   apostles, but also by Jesus himself.   
      
   [392] This analysis goes to the heart of the reason why the Jews have faced a   
   long history of persecution, whereas the Christians have remained relatively   
   unscathed. Of course, it is well known that the early Christians did suffer   
   some amount of torture    
   in consequence of their faith, but most historians today dismiss this as being   
   largely confined to a few isolated and local incidents. As regards the   
   traditional difficulties faced by missionary workers, this subject is, no   
   doubt, a related one, but of a    
   somewhat different order.   
      
   [393] This argument applies equally well for other religions. For example,   
   Buddhism, which is nowadays virtually extinct in India, the land of its birth,   
   might well have died an early death but for the colossal efforts of King   
   Ashoka, who organized the    
   propagation of the Eight-Fold Path throughout Southeast Asia. It may also be   
   observed that Lord Buddha, who was born a prince of royal blood, was   
   well-trained in political affairs before he abandoned his claim to the throne   
   in order to pursue his    
   spiritual quest and that, even after propounding his four Noble Truths, Buddha   
   carefully steered his religion away from any hint of political controversy. In   
   any event, it must be conceded that Buddha was primarily a spiritual, or   
   religious leader; but,    
   in the cases of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, a strong argument may be made that   
   these men were, at least in their own lifetimes, primarily political leaders   
   rather than spiritual, or even religious guides.   
      
   [394] In this respect, the United States is essentially the exception that   
   proves the rule. When the English colonized North America, they shipped out   
   most of their religious dissidents to America – with the effect that England   
   had a revolution on its    
   hands in almost no time. In contrast, the colonization of Australia commenced   
   at about the same time as that of North America; but it was largely social   
   undesirables, rather than religious undesirables, who were sent to the   
   so-called “lucky” continent.    
   Even to this very day, Australia remains a loyal crown colony of the United   
   Kingdom.   
      
   [395] Two simple examples of this are the Catholic Church's traitorous record   
   of undermining the Irish revolution and the Rev. Billy Graham's recent   
   evangelical trip to Russia. With respect to Ireland, the entire problem can be   
   traced back to an unholy    
   alliance between Pope Adrian IV, the first and only English Pope, and King   
   Henry II of England. Although the Catholic Church has refuted the matter,   
   there is nonetheless considerable evidence that Adrian IV actually granted to   
   Henry II the “Donation of    
   Ireland” (supposedly without hereditary rights) in a papal bull known as   
   Laudabiliter. It is certain that both Adrian IV and his successor, Alexander   
   III, openly encouraged Henry II to invade Ireland and, subsequent to that   
   invasion, the recognition by    
   the Church of Henry II as the rightful ruler of Ireland was a main factor in   
   reducing an independent Ireland to the second-class status of an English   
   colony. Thereafter, the Church assisted the British in every possible way with   
   respect to the    
   suppression of Gaelic culture, most notably the Gaelic language, and the   
   imposition of the English pseudo-culture. In this manner the Church actively   
   participated in the psychological subjugation of Ireland and, in fact, paved   
   the way for the politico-   
   economic exploitation of that fair country – as well as the ongoing problems   
   which have culminated in the emergence of the IRA and its offshoots. We should   
   carefully note that, even today, many Irish patriots view with considerable   
   skepticism the    
   activities of the Catholic Church and also, perhaps needless to say, the   
   Protestant Church.   
      
   Similarly, in Russia the Protestant Evangelist Billy Graham (the most noted   
   religious adviser to all the U.S. Presidents in the past decades) forthrightly   
   discouraged political and intellectual dissidence on the grounds that the   
   Russian Government, in    
   his opinion, really does have the best interests of the Soviet people in mind   
   and is sincerely working toward that end.   
      
   [396] Just as in the past, the Christian Church today sustains what little   
   vitality it may have primarily with the help of political leaders. Hence, we   
   find the emergence of such political lobbies as the “Moral Majority” in the   
   United States, which wants    
   to revitalise Christianity there by making religious prayer once again   
   compulsory in public schools. (President Reagan is inclined to help in this   
   project, because he presumes, probably correctly, that such a program can   
   boost the membership in those    
   social and political camps which are sympathetic to him and his political   
   party.) However, this dependency on political leaders applies not only to   
   Christianity but, to a greater or lesser extent, to virtually every single   
   religion.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)