Wednesday, June 27, 2012

God in the dock

Today in the Hague, the International Criminal Court tried, convicted, and sentenced God in absentia for the crimes against humanity; to wit: ordering the circumcision of newborn males.

Its ruling was the outcome of a class-action suit filed by Casanova, Errol Flynn, Bill Clinton, Louis XIV, and King Solomon. Plaintiffs allege circumcision left them with deep feelings of sexual inadequacy. Asked why he had 700 wives and 300 concubines, Solomon said that was a painful, but necessary duty of high office. 

The International Criminal Court issued a bench warrant for God’s arrest, under various aliases (e.g. Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus, Jehovah). Executing the warrant was complicated by the fact that heaven has no extradition treaty. Dog Chapman was retained as a bounty hunter to apprehend Jesus at the Second Coming and conduct him to the Hague to begin serving his sentence.

Because Jesus has a security detail reportedly comprising twelve legions of angels, concerns were expressed that attempting to take him into custody at the Parousia might lead to serious collateral damage, viz. crashing asteroids, boiling oceans.

A delegation consisting of Henry Kissinger, Benedict XVI, Michael Lerner, Alan Dershowitz, Jesse Jackson, Ron Sider, Gregory Boyd, and Kofi Annan was dispatched to open negotiations with heaven, in hopes of talking God into voluntarily turning himself into the authorities. The proffer was written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French, Esperanto, and Ebonics.

3 comments:

  1. Today in the Hague, the International Criminal Court tried, convicted, and sentenced God in absentia for the crimes against humanity; to wit: ordering the total destruction of ethnic groups.

    Seems fair to say that sometimes God commands things that, absent his sanction, would be clear-cut cases of morally impermissible acts.

    The real issue seems to be: does God still command circumcision for Jews, or has that covenant been fulfilled? If it has been fulfilled, then there is no longer a sanction for circumcising anyone. (And if the covenant has not been fulfilled, I don't expect a secular court to recognize that fact and grant dispensation to Jews.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're failing to draw an elementary distinction between what's prescribed, proscribed, or permitted. Circumcision is not forbidden. Paul circumcised Timothy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Forbidden in what sense? Something can be implicitly forbidden by merit of the kind of thing it is, as you very well know. There's no express proscription against performing type 1 FGM on infants either. Am I to assume that you think type 1 FGM for infants is therefore morally permissible?

    If not, what is the relevant distinction between type 1 FGM, and male circumcision?

    ReplyDelete