Recommended Posts

This might be comparable to the American Indian Church that has a dispensation from the government to use Peyote.

If there were actually a church group that practiced canibalism as a sacrament -- they might well petition the government for permission to practice their rite, only among their own group. After that, it would be up to the government and the courts.

I can't predict the outcome. A Jamaican church was refused the rite of ganga.

:)

I've had to do a little research on this for work. The courts, thus far, have rejected any expansion of the sacred use peyote to any other group or apply it to any other drug. And barring some radical shift in the court's reasoning this will remain the case. (caveat: my research is a couple of years old and primarily dealt with it's application to the sacred use of cannabis). Edited by Rev'd Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post

There are still a few faiths that do ptactice cannabilism, most notably the Aghoras in India. In countries where it is (at times) practiced, it is neither discussed nor legally dealt with. In countries where it is not (like the US) it is rarely dealt with as a religious subject. Cannabilism itself is not a crime by US Federal Statute, nor is it covered by most state law. In the very few actual legal cases I now of, the supplicants have been charged with related offenses, illegal disposal of human remains, etc., but not cannabilism itself. No religious exemptions have EVER been granted to my knowledge in this country.

Share this post


Link to post

As for belief, we must also look at practice. You regularly partake in a ritualized form of cannabilism. I come from a family that regularly consumes (nonhuman) raw flesh. Others believe the eating of any animal parts or biproducts is a minor evil. Who are we to judge, and thus not stand behind, those who feel an obligation to honor their relatives in the way they were brought up to do?

Share this post


Link to post

If no one was harmed intentionally to obtain the flesh, I personally wouldn't object. I think the body is inconsequential once the spirit has vacated. There are cultures that eat horses, cats, or dogs; I do not believe we have the right to enforce our beliefs on those other cultures. And if the human remains were battered, fried, and smothered in brown gravy, then so much the better :grin: .

Edited by Gwynn.ab.Lludd

Share this post


Link to post

~ Thank you Feld for the clarification on the legal aspect :) I agree, if no one is harmed & it's religiously necessary... it should be.

{ Christians nibble on Christ at communion. Yes, metaphorically, but encouraged to contemplate consuming His flesh & blood :dntknw: }

~ I don't know Gwynn... Probably slivered, slightly sauted & served with pasta & a rich red sauce ;) Probably a lot of wine too :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post

So you want to eat beans and ass? Go right ahead. I don't care as long as you didn't kill the ass to get the meat. Oh, and don't invite me for dinner.

Btw, Cannibalism is such an interesting topic. I usually try to catch the history channel or watch Taboo when it's the subject. I forget their name, but I know there's one tribe who has practiced cannibalism for many generations and now have a disease because of it. So whoever said eating human flesh isn't healthy, I agree.

ETA: The disease name is Kuru. Don't watch the video if you don't want to see a naked woman shaking limbs.

Share this post


Link to post

There are a couple different afflictions that pop up. Most of them are prion diseases- like Mad Cow Disease, which developed from feeding cows leftover cow parts. Laughing Disease is one of the reasons human is now used less often in "bush meat".

Share this post


Link to post

~ I was making light of a serious discussion in describing preparation, & I apologise. I shouldn't have. I am sorry.

If it is a vitally important aspect of one's religious beliefs to consume the flesh of other dead humans, then I feel that should be respected.

I personally would never disrupt a culture by proclaiming, "Now we know what you do with your dead, you're **!"

People ingest a wide variety of unhealthful & dangerously lethal shtuff... It was about their belief system, not their health regimen.

Share this post


Link to post

I do believe there is a tremendous difference between the German Armin Meiwes in 2006, who put an ad up on the internet looking for apparent volunteers-- killing and eating the willing victim--is murder. Though the mindset of the victim is highly questionable also. Meiwes, had a `fetish for human flesh` and did it for sexual pleasure--however it is apparent even to a non-professional that he is not normal. How could he? When even at trial he had admitted that he still had fantasies about devouring the flesh of people.So, I do think that anyone doing that has serious mental aberrations and is not normal.

The ritualistic consumption of human remains-- like in some parts of Borneo that still exist today, for me that is acceptable. The amounts are very little--though it is not a great feast, but even if it were I could accept it. Even in the Catholic church we--eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. Maybe ritual only, but it does mean we become `One`, part of God through the action--and the actual idea, instuction is there from the mouth of God for me being a Catholic.

In that sense,consuming minute amounts --eating human flesh would be for me quite acceptable morally and ethically, though I doubt if I could do it. If we believe that the body is a mere vehicle carting our souls around, then it is even less of a problem for me.

Now the story of Martin J Hartwell is different. How would you feel? Me--I don`t think I could do it for survival even.

`On November 8, 1972, Hartwell was given a charter to fly from Cambridge Bay, N.W.T. (now Nunavut) with three passengers who had just arrived from Spence Bay; a pregnant Inuk woman named Neemee Nulliayok, a 14 year old Inuk boy named David Pisurayak Kootook (who was suffering from appendicitis), and an attending government nurse named Judy Hill.[1] Hartwell was not flying a normal scheduled route, but happened to be in Cambridge Bay after dropping off prospectors on the Barrens. His aircraft, a Gateway Aviation Beechcraft 18,[1] was chartered by the nurse and doctor in Cambridge Bay to fly on to Yellowknife where his passengers could receive medical care at the local hospital.[2]

Some time after taking off from Cambridge Bay in bad weather and low cloud, the plane crashed into a hillside near Hottah Lake, just south of Great Bear Lake. The nurse, Judy Hill was killed on impact. The Inuit woman died during several hours later.[1] Hartwell and the young boy survived the crash, although both of Hartwell's ankles, his left knee and his nose were fractured.[1][3] For weeks the two survived the brutally harsh weather where the average temperature was −35 °F (−37 °C). Kootook was instrumental in the pair's survival by erecting a tent and making fires. He died after the 20th day whereupon the pilot survived by eating part of the leg of the nurse.[4]`

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Hartwell

I think I have the most problem with this one--because of moral and ethical issues because this is not a religious, traditional, ancesteral, sacrificial beliefs--simply survival. Could you do it?

blessings, love and light,

Suzanne

Edited by Quetzal

Share this post


Link to post

There has been a lot of talk and discussion about respecting others opinions and whether or not it is right to say someone else's beliefs are wrong. At one time or another cannibalism was practiced in many parts of the world. Those practitioners often BELIEVED that by eating certain parts of their enemy's body, that they would gain their enemy's courage and strength. This can be inferred to be a spiritual belief. Are there any here among us who would defend these beliefs in our "all encompassing" Universal Life Church or would we say that that is just wrong and indefensible. I think that if it is wrong and indefensible, it is only so because OUR beliefs on the subject are so strong as to override our "all encompassing" Universal acceptance of other's beliefs. Furthermore, if any can accept cannibalisms spiritual foundations as wrong and should not be allowed, then why cannot any of us say that any other belief is wrong and should not be accepted?

Just how accepting are we, really, of other's beliefs and spiritual paths?

I personally have rather split views on this idea of cannibalism. However my personal beliefs and preferences have a lot to do with my cultural and religious upbringing and the Scandinavian cuisine I was raised with....just like everyone else and what they are use to and find palatable. I know people who would probably rather eat human flesh than sil, ko tunga, jëtost or lox öch lingon-ber*....so So Be It....leaves more for me! :eat:

If we, as the ULC, were to have a congregation of ritualistic cannibals join our ranks (and we just may have somewhere in this world) then I would say they have as much right to be a part of our organization as anyone else.

We have several people here on this forum who firmly and adamantly believe their Beliefs are the only proper beliefs and routinely attempt to prove their correctness based on those Beliefs....it honestly doesn't make them Right...but vigorously expresses their conviction to their religious thinking. The bottom line for me is that anyone is free to express and share their religious views in any manner except telling others theirs is wrong.

The ancient idea that eating the flesh of fallen warriors bestows upon the consumer special or enhanced powers crosses many societal boundaries....but unfortunately all of those warring cultures that did so are now long gone to history. I surmise this leaves a bit to be desired as for the supposed benefit of cannibalizing.

Even to go as far as people leaving their remains to others to be consumed, it should be a personal right and choice. Every person responding above that thinks cannibalism should be allowed within the ULC ranks should also be accepting of all other aspects of people's beliefs....and yes, I agree Bro Kaman, there's a lot of talk about that yet posts seem to differ greatly when compared to actual mileage!

Blessings of Peace,

*(pickled herring), (cow tongue), (goat cheese), (raw salmon and lingonberry)

Share this post


Link to post

not to crazy about goat cheese,raw fish or cow tongue(and yes i have tried them).found pickled herring to salty.

as far as eating another human,no sorry,i don't believe i could.would i accept that someone else does,not really a choice in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post

~ Suzanne, good question.

1] Hartwell and the young boy survived the crash, although both of Hartwell's ankles, his left knee and his nose were fractured.[1][3] For weeks the two survived the brutally harsh weather where the average temperature was −35 °F (−37 °C). Kootook was instrumental in the pair's survival by erecting a tent and making fires. He died after the 20th day whereupon the pilot survived by eating part of the leg of the nurse.[4]`

Personally, being that miserable for that long... I can't even imagine how ghastly that must have been.

Eating human flesh would be unpleasant in so many ways, the concept is difficult for most everyone to contemplate.

It has probably occured more than most want to think of in die-or-survive situations & definately no one wants to discuss it. The Big Taboo.

Living with the after the act...

...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this