half-serious remarks about homosexuality Silvio Berlusconi, Presidente del Consiglio di un Paese Europeo, nell’anno del Signore 2010, per difendersi dall’ennesimo scandalo a sfondo sessuale, dichiara che è meglio essere appassionato di belle ragazze che gay. Daniela Santanchè esprime la sua solidarietà al premier (una volta la solidarietà si esprimeva nei confronti delle vittime di soprusi e ingiustizie, non il contrario) al grido di “ormai i diversi siamo noi!”, intendendo gli eterosessuali, come a sancire che nel mondo contemporaneo (in Italia come nell’Iran più reazionario e intollerante), sia in atto una specie di guerra, di confronto all’ultimo sangue tra eterosessuali and homosexuals: either them or us! The Catholic Church has this huge sense of responsibility when, refusing to be finally and truly Christian, continues to cast anathemas of medieval against those who do not aligned to a totalitarian thought unjustifiably, because (especially on certain topics), totally unfounded , coherence and logic.
The Catholic Church for centuries has amply demonstrated its fallibility, then forced by the evidence for fine-tuning, to amend some of its anachronistic positions very slowly. He had to accept such scientific truths, after having long sought to suppress the truth by torturing and setting fire to many innocent people. The fact that very often in the past has been that way, should be a clear warning to the men of the Church (which have been shown widely, including in recent times, its fallibility) compared to present some of their positions as dogmatic dispute. Of course, the fear and to disrupt this aura of "gods", or rather pretend to act and speak through the mouth of one who can not be disputed. Challenged this simple assumption, the power (even and especially temporal) of the Church, and the countless privileges enjoyed may be questioned. Even the submissive attitude, loving and above all, indifferent to material possessions Francis of Assisi, at the time was seen as a threat. But in fact a danger why? Because if it was admitted that St. Francis of Assisi followed the gospel, then how could be justified, however, the opulence in which the prelates claimed to live?
The excuse of any indisputable "certainty" Catholic would be the Holy Scripture. The fact is however that, for various reasons, linguistic, cultural, time must first be understood and, above all updated. Another trick: the only possible correct interpretation is that the Catholic Church, because it is precisely in their choices of interpretation inspired directly by him in person. And the cycle begins again, without explaining the gross errors of the past. The scientific errors, such as ethical abominations. Think of the suffering inflicted on women (witches), as such. Signs of intolerance and a claim of masculine superiority in today (we know) the common sense hard to escape. Yet even the mere and simple "selection", undoubtedly made by the Catholic Church of the Holy Scriptures on the other hand represents a kind of interpretation of "human, all too human," and then (as happened in the past on numerous occasions) subject to fallibility. The point is that if these errors occurred in the past, if already on many occasions the Church, volente o nolente, è stata costretta a crescere, a rivedere le proprie posizioni, ad arrendersi all’evoluzione dei tempi, perché continuano a ricaderci, arroccandosi in posizioni insostenibili e addirittura inesplicabili?
La posizione cattolica nei confronti dell’omosessualità è una di queste. Per me personalmente, al di là della questione religiosa, la posizione di tutti coloro che vivono come un pericolo, un fastidio, addirittura un intollerabile oltraggio la sessualità degli altri è davvero incomprensibile. Come poi questo (e non invece l’amore punto e basta) possa avere a che fare con gli insegnamenti di un uomo (o di un dio) come Gesù Cristo mi confonde. E infatti, d’altra parte, le radici ermeneutiche dell’astio cattolico nei confronti dell’omosessualità non si fondano sui Vangeli, ma bensì sull’Antico Testamento, ovvero sulla religione ebraica (di cui d’altra parte Gesù stesso era un esponente). In particolare nel libro del Levitico (18,22) si legge che l’omessualità è un abominio. Esplicito, diretto. Questo dovrebbe tagliare la testa al toro. Hanno ragione loro, si direbbe. Certo il problema dovrebbe essere esclusivamente perosnale. Cioè se sei cattolico e gay! Se credi nell’inferno e vuoi vivere secondo la tua fede e gli insegnamenti della Chiesa devi rinunciare quanto meno all’attività sessuale. Se vuoi vivere liberamente la tua sessualità invece you must resign yourself to give to eat of god in the form of wafer during Sunday transubstantiation and resigned to the idea of \u200b\u200bliving post-mortem in a warm, very warm. But this still does not explain why this choice should extend to anyone other than you. Why can not I be an atheist and gay, not that anyone should hate me? But still why a secular state should refuse to recognize the civil rights of its gay citizens? What does have civil laws with the laws of God that are not, and God forbid, forced to recognize? A homosexual will burn in hell? It will be seen, meanwhile, over here on this earth, if you claim that he has obligations (paying taxes, enforce laws, queuing up in post), then it must be admitted that this city has also homosexual rights. One among them the freedom to live without discrimination of any kind, their lives.
But back to Leviticus. Leviticus is the third book of the Torah and Hebrew, written by unknown authors, can be traced in the final version of the sixth / fifth century BC on the basis of the earlier oral tradition. In short, we are talking about cultural norms, hygienic and rituals of tribes who lived in Judea more than 2,500 years ago. More or less the same period in Ancient Greece, on the other hand (undoubtedly a civilization more advanced than that found in Judea) was open to love, or anger aroused, men and women alike, as the Greeks were looking for love "good" regardless of gender of the beloved / a, so loving women or children it was just a different aspect of that feeling. Who was right? The pagan Greeks? O primitives (in many ways) the Levites? As I said this is not the point. But let's face for a moment for illustrative purposes only. Let us assume that (at least from the standpoint of Jewish Scriptures) the homosexual lifestyle is indeed untenable, where it takes us all for consistency? Because I would like to sell my daughter into slavery (as would be given in Exodus 21, 7), but continues to struggle with a some concern and finding it difficult to agree on price. Only Silvio Berlusconi indicated an interest, but that's another story. Even she (my daughter) rebels and are undecided whether to simply whip or put to death for disobedience. My wife on the other hand refuses to sleep on the floor during the menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19, 24) and insists on sleeping in bed with me. I have to strike it? I found it equally difficult to buy slaves, both male and female, as always expected from Leviticus 25:44 (although this is something that obviously can only Berlusconi in Italy). A friend of mine continues to work on Saturday. As we know, according to Exodus 35:2, should be put to death. To be a good Christian and conquer the paradise I personally do it dry? Not conflict with other rules and laws? In addition to homosexuality is also an abomination to eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), whether as a heterosexual, I was lucky enough to avoid the first, but I have sinned with the second, I like them too, I just can not resist. I asked for forgiveness in confession, but the priest confessor asked me if I was joking, throwing a little 'confused, to be honest. Everyone I know (even some friends of the Jewish religion), myself included, insist on shaving the hair, even including those near the temples (which is expressly prohibited in Leviticus 19:27). What might be the appropriate punishment? They can marry two people, heterosexual, but with shaved heads? They can, while living in sin, to adopt a child? I discovered that my father was young, when he was a farmer, going against the teaching of Leviticus 19:19, dared to plant two different crops in the same field. How should it be punished? A friend of mine almost always wearing garments made of two different types of tissue. What should I do? It should really gather all the neighborhood to get them to stone, as required by the scriptures?
The main conclusion of these my worthy too much thought would be a quote from Albert Einstein: "The mind is like a parachute. It only works if you open. "
that unfortunately the only good Einstein does not take account of culture and intelligence of the subject. Because anyone can open up to a point. It depends on how big the doors of the brain which nature has endowed. And the circle is vicious, because those with a narrow-minded (read idiot) will never understand the point of view of those who have an open mind (and lots of neuronal connections). I also fear that the former are the majority. In this regard, reference to the prologue of the film you find on the blog, which clearly explains why.
