Rights of Religion?

ranmaonehalf said:

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

Click to expand...

Here is the complete set of rights that a religion should receive:




.

yasic said:

I would think the natural position would be "You can practice your religion any way you wish unless it either harms another individual or is illegal."

You on the other hand are saying "You can priactice your religion any way you wish unless it does much serious harm to another human being, or is a felony (but not a minor offense)"

I see no reason to award religion those two exceptions.

Click to expand...

Question:

Is circumcision illegal for anyone?

If not, then point out the specific legal issue here, or special legal right being granted.

If there's no special privilege being granted Judaism, then this whole discussion has exactly 0% bearing on the OP. A better example would be that in several Christian churches, it is perfectly acceptable for a minor to be provided alcohol by an adult under the context of communion. However, were this same adult to give the minor alcohol in any other circumstance, it would be illegal.

Basically, this whole circumcision discussion is one of personal preference, not any special privilege being granted a specific group. If only Jews performed circumcision, then there might be an argument...but they don't. If only Jews were ALLOWED to perform circumcisions, there might be an argument...but they're not. If you want to argue that infant circumcision should be illegal, then take it to your local legislator.

Now then: I think allowances for illicit substances should be made for religions, mainly because I don't think they should be illegal in the first place.

ranmaonehalf said:

You dont consider the mutilation of kids to be bad? Now i think you have the right to cut off whatever part of your own body that you want. But you dont have that right to do that to others.

Click to expand...

The question of the OP wasn't good/bad, it was legal/illegal. Thus, derailing it to talk about a legal medical procedure is off-topic and a shift of the goal posts. Do you voice equal objections to parents' getting their childrens' ears pierced? That's also unnecessary, can lead to infection, etc.

sidhe said:

Question:

Is circumcision illegal for anyone?

If not, then point out the specific legal issue here, or special legal right being granted.

If there's no special privilege being granted Judaism, then this whole discussion has exactly 0% bearing on the OP. A better example would be that in several Christian churches, it is perfectly acceptable for a minor to be provided alcohol by an adult under the context of communion. However, were this same adult to give the minor alcohol in any other circumstance, it would be illegal.

Basically, this whole circumcision discussion is one of personal preference, not any special privilege being granted a specific group. If only Jews performed circumcision, then there might be an argument...but they don't. If only Jews were ALLOWED to perform circumcisions, there might be an argument...but they're not. If you want to argue that infant circumcision should be illegal, then take it to your local legislator.

Now then: I think allowances for illicit substances should be made for religions, mainly because I don't think they should be illegal in the first place.

Click to expand...

Circumcision falls under the 'cause serious harm to another human being' clause, not the 'illegal' one.

And the exception being made here is not one in which a certain religion benefits over another, but rather that a harmful medical procedure is allowed to the public because of religious reasons.

Last time I checked, if you wanted to do cosmetic surgery on an infant (or other small child) with no medical reason behind it... say if you wanted to server the middle toes... the procedure would be illegal (without due medical justification.) However, circumcision, which is at least in my opinion much worse, and certainly (factually, not solely my opinion) much more dangerous to the child, is fully legal based simply on the fact that it is a religious tradition. This is the exception to which I object.

Do you voice equal objections to parents' getting their childrens' ears pierced? That's also unnecessary, can lead to infection, etc.

Click to expand...

I do indeed. I see no reason any cosmetic alterations should be done to an unconcenting child. I would take this so far that if a woman were to seriously want to pierce our future daughters ears, I would find this a serious block to have to work around in terms of having a serious relationship with such a woman.

Perhaps not on the same level: I would object to piercing an ear equally as I would object to someone piercing a childs penis (the skin only), not a common practice with children but often done with certain adults, as it is quite safer than circumcision and if the child does not still want the results at a later age; the small hole, if it did not heal, would not serve as any severe hurdle one would need to hide and can for the most part be ignored.

If you must compare the two, I would find circumcision to be more like getting a childs ear (forgive me I lack the terminology for this area) punched so that a quarter inch sphere can be inserted into it. This leaves the child with a permanant non-healing gaping hole in their ears that is not reversable.

Would you feel comfortable with a parent doing this to a childs ear? (I am adding the picture so you know what I am refering to)

yasic said:

Circumcision falls under the 'cause serious harm to another human being' clause, not the 'illegal' one.

Click to expand...

...which is why the vast majority of circumcised men around the world are calling attention to their plight of being mutilated?

And the exception being made here is not one in which a certain religion benefits over another, but rather that a harmful medical procedure is allowed to the public because of religious reasons.

Click to expand...

Is that really why it's allowed? Again, it's not just Jews who circumcise, and when a bris is performed it's generally not a hospital circumcision.

Last time I checked, if you wanted to do cosmetic surgery on an infant (or other small child) with no medical reason behind it... say if you wanted to server the middle toes... the procedure would be illegal (without due medical justification.) However, circumcision, which is at least in my opinion much worse, and certainly (factually, not solely my opinion) much more dangerous to the child, is fully legal based simply on the fact that it is a religious tradition. This is the exception to which I object.

Click to expand...

Post proof, or retract. Is that why circumcision is legal. And, also, are you arguing that the removal of what amounts to loose skin is more dangerous than an amputation?

Lastly, on this paragraph, doctors are still discussing whether or not circumcision is purely cosmetic or if there are medical reasons.

I do indeed. I see no reason any cosmetic alterations should be done to an unconcenting child. I would take this so far that if a woman were to seriously want to pierce our future daughters ears, I would find this a serious block to have to work around in terms of having a serious relationship with such a woman.

Click to expand...

Almost no hypocrisy...

Perhaps not on the same level: I would object to piercing an ear equally as I would object to someone piercing a childs penis (the skin only),

Click to expand...

...you realize that male circumcision is not the removal of vast amounts of tissue, but of skin, correct? Regardless of what the rabid anti-circumcision folks say, they aren't chopping off the first inch of the baby's penis.

not a common practice with children but often done with certain adults, as it is quite safer than circumcision and if the child does not still want the results at a later age; the small hole, if it did not heal, would not serve as any severe hurdle one would need to hide and can for the most part be ignored.

Click to expand...

You're relatively new here, so you'll be excused not knowing why I bring up piercing - I'm an enthusiast. I like punching holes through my body.

The places which would perform an ear piercing on a small child are certainly not safer than a circumcision. 1) Piercing guns cause trauma to the entire cartilage of the earlobe on impact, 2) the workers at a Piercing Pagoda, Claire's, Wal-Mart, etc. are not trained in prevention of cross-contamination nor transmission of bloodborn pathogens, and also do not have an autoclave on site to maintain the sterile nature of the tools, 3) "piercing studs" are not sharp enough to create clean holes, but rather rip through the flesh of the earlobe and also do not allow enough space to effectively clean the piercing area or jewelry movement to create a well-healed piercing.

Also, and this is likely something you didn't know, infected ear piercings can lead to deafness if the bacteria make it into the ear canal.

Any place where I would take ANYONE to get pierced would not perform a basic 16ga lobe piercing (autoclaved forceps, surgical needles disposed of in biohazard containers, implant-grade surgical steel hoops to allow for horizontal movement and creation of a cleanly healed piercing) on anyone under 13.

If you must compare the two, I would find circumcision to be more like getting a childs ear (forgive me I lack the terminology for this area) punched so that a quarter inch sphere can be inserted into it. This leaves the child with a permanant non-healing gaping hole in their ears that is not reversable.

Click to expand...

Again, your lack of knowledge of this sphere of operation shows - the kind of piercer who would perform a 0ga dermal punch on anyone is the kind who is looked at askance by the rest of the APP, as that's a major removal of tissue.

Most folks with the larger holes (like myself, though I've gone down to 0ga from 7/16" plugs) started with standard 18ga or 16ga holes and slowly stretched the cartilage. And you can slowly stretch it back - if not to "normal" - to being unnoticeable.

Giving your child a 2ga apadravya is comparable to dermal punching. Circumcision is not.

And did you know that circumcision is reversible? With patience, medical tape, and some small weights, over the course of a couple years a man can make the skin around the shaft of the penis stretch over the head again.

Would you feel comfortable with a parent doing this to a childs ear? (I am adding the picture so you know what I am refering to)

Click to expand...

Most children's ears don't have the extra tissue required to allow for a 7/16" (approximately, guessing based on appearance) lobe stretching, and you couldn't perform either a tragus or conch on a child due to size constraints.

Now...I've seen an unsupported claim (circumcision is only legal due to religion) followed by a vast miscomprehension of another subject, and apparently a lack of understanding of what is removed in male circumcision.

Click to expand...

And that's just good work.

First off, I am confused by your claim that I lack knowledge of the procedures of circumcision. I have in fact studied on this subject, and know of various forms of circumcision involving which parts are removed. The vast majority of all circumcisions do not, as you stated, remove anything but the skin tissue (and the ones which do are generally frowned upon by most societies), though the specific amount and sections of skin tissue which are removed varies greatly depending on whom you go to for circumcision.

And I never claimed to be an expert, or even to have any knowledge at all about piercings, so I find it odd that you attack my post as a whole. I mean the reason I included the picture is exactly because I have no real way to describe what is done to get such piercings.

Anyways, on with the post...

sidhe said:

...which is why the vast majority of circumcised men around the world are calling attention to their plight of being mutilated?

Click to expand...

The vast majority of victims of female circumcision are not calling attention to their plight of being mutilated, so am I to assume that you have no issue with that practice either?

Is that really why it's allowed? Again, it's not just Jews who circumcise, and when a bris is performed it's generally not a hospital circumcision.

Post proof, or retract. Is that why circumcision is legal. And, also, are you arguing that the removal of what amounts to loose skin is more dangerous than an amputation?

Click to expand...

Well for starters, I rule out that circumcision is used for medical reasons (except about 2%) based on the fact that many countries like Canada do not include circumcision as a medically justifiable procedure and thus cannot be done with the socialized health care system.

Furthermore, whenever a law passes which restricts circumcision except for medical reasons, the opposition to this law is almost fully an advocacy group for circumcision (usually a combination of Muslim and Jewish ones) [Example]

Now, the argument for if circumcision is done for religious reasons or not is a much harder one. A good place to start is by looking at circumcision rates of countries and their religiosity. Countries with a low circumcision rate such as Sweden, Norway, or England tend to have very low religiosity levels, which countries with a very high circumcision rate tend to be ones populated by a Muslim population, though an argument can be made that the reasons for circumcision are cultural and not religious, and that countries with a high density of Muslim population simply have a similar culture. Note that the US and Australia are exceptions to the general trend found around the world.

We can furthermore look at statistics at which religious groups have circumcision done such as [This] one for England. As you can see, more than 50% of all circumcisions done are for groups that are not christian or non-religious. What is important to note here is that this group makes up 4.5 of the population. Thats right, more than 50% of all circumcisions in england are done by 4.5% of the population which is non-christian and non-atheist.Of those 4.5% (3.2/4.5)% are either jewish or muslim, while the rest are mostly hundu or other small sects which are not known for much circumcision practices. As such you can see that about 40-50% of all circumcisions in england are done by jewish or muslim groups while they makes up less than 1/20 of the population. I would think this makes my point fairly well [Source]

Lastly, on this paragraph, doctors are still discussing whether or not circumcision is purely cosmetic or if there are medical reasons.

Click to expand...

About as much as biologists are debating if the earth is 6000 years old or not. The vast concensus over the medical community is that circumcision is not a valid procedure, and in many countires most of all doctors refuse to perform circumcision except in rare cases.

Almost no hypocrisy...

Click to expand...

I fail to see it, can you please point it out?

...you realize that male circumcision is not the removal of vast amounts of tissue, but of skin, correct? Regardless of what the rabid anti-circumcision folks say, they aren't chopping off the first inch of the baby's penis.

Click to expand...

I don't remember ever making such a claim.

You're relatively new here, so you'll be excused not knowing why I bring up piercing - I'm an enthusiast. I like punching holes through my body.

The places which would perform an ear piercing on a small child are certainly not safer than a circumcision. 1) Piercing guns cause trauma to the entire cartilage of the earlobe on impact, 2) the workers at a Piercing Pagoda, Claire's, Wal-Mart, etc. are not trained in prevention of cross-contamination nor transmission of bloodborn pathogens, and also do not have an autoclave on site to maintain the sterile nature of the tools, 3) "piercing studs" are not sharp enough to create clean holes, but rather rip through the flesh of the earlobe and also do not allow enough space to effectively clean the piercing area or jewelry movement to create a well-healed piercing.

Also, and this is likely something you didn't know, infected ear piercings can lead to deafness if the bacteria make it into the ear canal.

Any place where I would take ANYONE to get pierced would not perform a basic 16ga lobe piercing (autoclaved forceps, surgical needles disposed of in biohazard containers, implant-grade surgical steel hoops to allow for horizontal movement and creation of a cleanly healed piercing) on anyone under 13.

Click to expand...

As I said, I know nothing about piercings at all. From what your writing here, your only making me even more opposed to infant ear piercings than I was before.

Giving your child a 2ga apadravya is comparable to dermal punching. Circumcision is not.

Click to expand...

Your going to have to excuse me, but I have absolutly no idea what those terms mean. Could you explain this to me in laymans terms? Thanks.

And did you know that circumcision is reversible? With patience, medical tape, and some small weights, over the course of a couple years a man can make the skin around the shaft of the penis stretch over the head again.

Click to expand...

First off, not all routine circumcisions are reversable fully (as in you may get the skin back, but certain features of the skin are forever lost... granted many of those are not necessarily useful) but yes, I know it is reversable.

This however is a process which is both costly (if done right) and has an element of danger, not to mention uncomfortable. It is similar to how an amputated toe is also reversible.


So my question to you: Do you support parents being able to make multiple piercings on their infant? If not, why not?

Ok, question here.

Let's say you were able to eliminate circumcision except from hospitals and all that and pretty much end the practice in a medical sense, and the only people left practicing it were Jews and Muslims who found it fundamental for their religion or culture to continue. Would you still press for laws making those two groups essentially outlaws and criminals?

This however is a process which is both costly (if done right) and has an element of danger, not to mention uncomfortable. It is similar to how an amputated toe is also reversible.

Click to expand...

Alright, I'd actually written a long, long response to this earlier.

Then I read this line.

Okay, I want to hear this, seriously - your pinky toe is amputated as a child. Twenty years later, you decide you want your toe back. How do you reverse an amputation? This is some kind of technology with which I am obviously not familiar. I'm not talking about a transplant, because that wasn't what I was referring to in the reversal of circumcision...I mean how does one REVERSE an amputation? As in, cause the toe to grow back without invasive surgery.

See, circumcision can be reversed in some cases without surgery, simply taking advantage of the regenerative powers of the human body.

Also, the comparison to female circumcision is pure emotionalism - female circumcision is a rite practiced in patriarchal cultures to maintain the submissiveness of the women. It is performed - frequently - with the same force and invasiveness as a rape. Male circumcision has its roots in the patriarchal Abrahamic religions, and does not cause the same health or equality issues as female circumcision. It's rhetoric like this that draws the question - do you think circumcision involves cutting off the head of the penis, so as to remove the primary source of sexual pleasure and maintain the oppression of men? Because that's the only way one would be able to compare the two in any valid way.

So my question to you: Do you support parents being able to make multiple piercings on their infant? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

No, but due to technical issues involved with piercing, needle size, and such. Parents are going to get their small childrens' ears pierced - I'd rather it be able to be done antiseptically and correctly, and lobe piercings are technically possible, but as many modern piercers incorporate meditation techniques into their procedure performing such on a toddler is impractical. However, multiple facial piercings et al I'm not down for because of technical factors.

Personally, when I was four, I wanted a nose ring. So it goes.

Also, b&wpac's question - were circumcision made illegal, would you then prosecute religions which continued to practice it?

I have four sons. One (the oldest) is circumcised and the other three are not.

Many pediatricians these days are saying it's not a needed procedure. I'm fine with that.

I'm also fine with those who want to circumcise their sons.

As to religions practicing things that are considered illegal...It's a hard call to make. JWs don't believe in blood transfusions. Blood transfusions aren't a legal issue. Most churches I know aren't smoking up the joint with, well, joints - it's actually the medical community pushing for some leeway with marijuana. Some states actually have laws allowing parents to give their kids alcohol in the home under supervision, so communion isn't necessarily "illegal" either.

So I guess I'd have to ask what is illegal that all these religions are partaking of right now?

sidhe said:

Alright, I'd actually written a long, long response to this earlier.

Then I read this line.

Okay, I want to hear this, seriously - your pinky toe is amputated as a child. Twenty years later, you decide you want your toe back. How do you reverse an amputation? This is some kind of technology with which I am obviously not familiar. I'm not talking about a transplant, because that wasn't what I was referring to in the reversal of circumcision...I mean how does one REVERSE an amputation? As in, cause the toe to grow back without invasive surgery.

Click to expand...

Well of course I am talking about a transplant . . . I am not aware of any other procedures to regrow a toe. And I fail to see why transplanting a toe is so different than stretching skin to regain a foreskin. Both require the aid of advanced medicine and higher learning, and both of the restored items come with a certain risk factor (as well as a very large medical bill).

See, circumcision can be reversed in some cases without surgery, simply taking advantage of the regenerative powers of the human body.

Click to expand...

It may not be surgery, however its still far from simply the regenerative powers of the human body. The skin should be shaped properly which requires a medical engineer to monitor and plan the procedure out, as well as the right equipment for the job. The foreskin is not just a flab of skin sticking out there doing nothing at all, so the results any old guy with a hook and a ball gets would hardly resemble the real thing.

Also, the comparison to female circumcision is pure emotionalism - female circumcision is a rite practiced in patriarchal cultures to maintain the submissiveness of the women. It is performed - frequently - with the same force and invasiveness as a rape. Male circumcision has its roots in the patriarchal Abrahamic religions, and does not cause the same health or equality issues as female circumcision. It's rhetoric like this that draws the question - do you think circumcision involves cutting off the head of the penis, so as to remove the primary source of sexual pleasure and maintain the oppression of men? Because that's the only way one would be able to compare the two in any valid way.

Click to expand...

I understand that female circumcision is in almost most cases far worse than male circumcision... which is the very reason I used it as an example. See you made the argument that male circumcision is not bad because most circumcised men do not speak out against it. I countered this argument by also showing that most circumcised women do not speak out against female circumcision- Something that we all understand is a horrible procedure.

Also, b&wpac's question - were circumcision made illegal, would you then prosecute religions which continued to practice it?

Click to expand...

To answer his question and this one at the same thing:

Yes, I would make circumcision illegal for ALL groups, regardless of race, religion, nationality, political or sexual orientation, or any other reason.

I would indeed prosecute people who continue to practice it for religious reasons: the reason I would outlaw circumcision is because it is harming the young children involved. I see no reason to not prosecute people who are actively harming young children, and I see no reason at all for why religion should be a legitimate reason to not try to stop young children from being harmed.

yasic said:

Well of course I am talking about a transplant . . . I am not aware of any other procedures to regrow a toe. And I fail to see why transplanting a toe is so different than stretching skin to regain a foreskin. Both require the aid of advanced medicine and higher learning, and both of the restored items come with a certain risk factor (as well as a very large medical bill).

Click to expand...

Then it's not "reversing", is it? It's "undoing in a way which is still somewhat problematic." Also, limb transplants involve considerably more work and risk merely by it being a foreign body transplanted in. A lifetime of hoping the limb doesn't reject vs. a few years of stretching your own skin with medical supervision and assistance? Not really the same at all.

I understand that female circumcision is in almost most cases far worse than male circumcision... which is the very reason I used it as an example. See you made the argument that male circumcision is not bad because most circumcised men do not speak out against it. I countered this argument by also showing that most circumcised women do not speak out against female circumcision- Something that we all understand is a horrible procedure.

Click to expand...

Do you not grasp that this is a really bad comparison because the majority of the victims of clitorectomy are forbidden from speaking out due to the oppressive view of women in their culture?

Really, do you think that the average, western, circumcised male is incapable of speaking out against circumcision due to the risk of being killed by their oppressor?

Again, that's what the difference is - given the highly patriarchal culture of the groups which primarily utilize male circumcision, and the malleability of religion, don't you think they would have come up with some way it really isn't required by now were it a horrific, life-destroying mutilation?

Again, the comparison is emotional rhetoric - there's no actual comparison between the two - neither in severity of nor motive for the procedure, nor within the practicing cultures' view of the gender on which it is performed. It's like comparing someone who likes bondage to a necrophiliac - they're both sexual fetishes, yes...but that's about where it ends.

Think about it for a minute using basic logic - this comparison is on the same level as "gays and pedophiles", and is only made to get the emotional reaction. So far as actually comparing one to the other, there's the point that they both involve removing a small bit of tissue from the genitals. One removes the foreskin, which isn't any more necessary than a pinky toe. The other removes the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which is necessary for the majority of women to experience sexual pleasure. One is, normally, done for reasons of religion within a patriarchal society as a mark of membership, and by some other individuals due to concerns about hygiene. The other is to maintain the control and oppression of a gender for socio-cultural reasons. One is reversible. The other is not, not even by transplant. So...how is this in any way anything more than emotional rhetoric?

Yes, I would make circumcision illegal for ALL groups, regardless of race, religion, nationality, political or sexual orientation, or any other reason.

I would indeed prosecute people who continue to practice it for religious reasons: the reason I would outlaw circumcision is because it is harming the young children involved. I see no reason to not prosecute people who are actively harming young children, and I see no reason at all for why religion should be a legitimate reason to not try to stop young children from being harmed.

Click to expand...

Now, for another question - would you outlaw circumcision for adults as well?

yasic said:

Yes, I would make circumcision illegal for ALL groups, regardless of race, religion, nationality, political or sexual orientation, or any other reason.

I would indeed prosecute people who continue to practice it for religious reasons: the reason I would outlaw circumcision is because it is harming the young children involved. I see no reason to not prosecute people who are actively harming young children, and I see no reason at all for why religion should be a legitimate reason to not try to stop young children from being harmed.

Click to expand...

How exactly would you go after them? The procedure isn't even performed in a hospital. Would you setup sting operations to catch them?

england's rose said:

unfortunately in my country less people seem to be christians and morals are decaying. i think it would be a good idea to give christians special priveleges such as letting them join the front of a que at the supermarket, maybe money off some items and pay less tax. i think this will encourage more people to become christians. i think the problem would be people pretending they are christian when there not, so theyd have to agree to go to church and do some charity work too as proof. i think this could have a real positive effect on the country.

Click to expand...

Pay people to be Christian? Interesting.

Morals are decaying in England compared to what time period?

Would you say England's morals were aligned with those of Christianity in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s?

-Lyn

b&wpac4 said:

How exactly would you go after them? The procedure isn't even performed in a hospital. Would you setup sting operations to catch them?

Click to expand...

I am not too familiar with current practices used to catch people who do drug trafficking or female circumcision or any other crime at all really so I cannot say for sure, but I would imagine it would be regulated similar to how female circumcision is regulated currently.

Again, I am probably wrong here and this is only my uneducated opinion, but I think female circumcision is regulated in that if a police station gets evidence of the circumcision practice they will do a raid on the place to stop it, but otherwise does not actually go after it, and it seems to have worked very well in this country in terms of regulating it.

sidhe said:

Then it's not "reversing", is it? It's "undoing in a way which is still somewhat problematic." Also, limb transplants involve considerably more work and risk merely by it being a foreign body transplanted in. A lifetime of hoping the limb doesn't reject vs. a few years of stretching your own skin with medical supervision and assistance? Not really the same at all.

Click to expand...

I would take an operation followed by a lifetime of having a chance of it not working out, over having to stretch my skin in that particular area using weights with regular supervision over the period of a few years any day.

Do you not grasp that this is a really bad comparison because the majority of the victims of clitorectomy are forbidden from speaking out due to the oppressive view of women in their culture?

Really, do you think that the average, western, circumcised male is incapable of speaking out against circumcision due to the risk of being killed by their oppressor?

Click to expand...

Do you really think that victims of male circumcision are completely free to speak out? Most of them come from a Jewish or Muslim background, and speaking out against circumcision is essentially speaking out against their religion and heritage, something that the community will not be pleased with.

And even if they don't come from such a background, speaking out against circumcision is speaking out against your parents, and your friends and neighbors. One would essentially be saying that the parents or friends who had a circumcision done on their child harmed or mutilated the child. That is a very serious accusation that will not be taken lightly, even if they say that they are not mad at the parents or friends. This is a very strong reason not to speak out against the procedure even if they thought it was a horrible thing that happened to them.

Again, that's what the difference is - given the highly patriarchal culture of the groups which primarily utilize male circumcision, and the malleability of religion, don't you think they would have come up with some way it really isn't required by now were it a horrific, life-destroying mutilation?

Again, the comparison is emotional rhetoric - there's no actual comparison between the two - neither in severity of nor motive for the procedure, nor within the practicing cultures' view of the gender on which it is performed. It's like comparing someone who likes bondage to a necrophiliac - they're both sexual fetishes, yes...but that's about where it ends.

Click to expand...

Few things here. Firstly from a logical point of view, the comparison does not even have to be related. My point was that your argument was a fallacy and any argument which uses the same line of reasoning as yours and comes to an opposite conclusion is one which works, regardless if it has to do with circumcision or cars.

And secondly, yes while the female version (well most female versions) is much worse than the male one, they are still very much comparable. They both are done on victims who are unwilling or incapable of consent, both are done for cultural or religious reasons, both produce a result with is for all practical purposes irreversible.

Think about it for a minute using basic logic - this comparison is on the same level as "gays and pedophiles", and is only made to get the emotional reaction. So far as actually comparing one to the other, there's the point that they both involve removing a small bit of tissue from the genitals. One removes the foreskin, which isn't any more necessary than a pinky toe. The other removes the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which is necessary for the majority of women to experience sexual pleasure. One is, normally, done for reasons of religion within a patriarchal society as a mark of membership, and by some other individuals due to concerns about hygiene. The other is to maintain the control and oppression of a gender for socio-cultural reasons. One is reversible. The other is not, not even by transplant. So...how is this in any way anything more than emotional rhetoric? (emphasis mine)

Click to expand...

No, both are done for religious or cultural reasons, not for hygiene reasons. The hygiene excuse is sometimes given as a justification for why such a horrendous procedre took place, but it is completly unjustified.

If it were really done for hygiene purposes one would expect either some evidence that it is benefitial (Last time I checked, its actually more hygenic to have the foreskin rather than not), or for it to be done in families which are more hygenic in nature. Instead it is done more in communities with a conservative point of view, and in cultures with a religion which mandates (or in the case of islam highly encourages) male circumcision. Obviously the conservative and religious viewpoints go hand in hand.

Now, for another question - would you outlaw circumcision for adults as well?

Click to expand...

No, why on earth would I?

As an adult, one is able to give informed concent and is fully capable of choosing to become circumcised for a religious or any other reason.

Just thought I'd throw in my support for Yasic. Circumcisions are truly unnecessary for both genders, but are standard practice for males at least in most western hospitals.

Removing the foreskin has a lesser but similar effect to removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]--it makes sex less pleasurable. This is the sort of tradition that arises in cultures that consider sex sinful.

The belief that removing the foreskin is hygienic stems in part from the instructions that doctors gave to the parents of uncircumcised boys to pull the foreskin back and separate it from the shaft to clean. This actually hurts more than it helps and irritates the skin, causing infections sometimes. It is better to roll the skin back very gently and wipe with a soft damp cloth, no soap.

It is true that uncircumcised boys stand a slightly higher chance of getting bladder infections, but girls are more likely to get bladder infections as babies than either group of boys and no one is suggesting preventative surgery for them.

So it's just a pointless procedure that nets the doctor some extra bucks and dampens the ability to enjoy sexual intercourse when the kid gets older.

Pretty damn barbaric when you think about it.

(Dunno if this has been mentioned, but there are some orthodox jews who refuse to perform circumcisions because they consider them marks of slavery from the pharaohs of Egypt who apparently started the tradition in the first place. I don't know why they would do that, really...)

sidhe said:

Do you not grasp that this is a really bad comparison because the majority of the victims of clitorectomy are forbidden from speaking out due to the oppressive view of women in their culture?

Really, do you think that the average, western, circumcised male is incapable of speaking out against circumcision due to the risk of being killed by their oppressor?

Again, that's what the difference is - given the highly patriarchal culture of the groups which primarily utilize male circumcision, and the malleability of religion, don't you think they would have come up with some way it really isn't required by now were it a horrific, life-destroying mutilation?

Click to expand...

That's incredibly narrow thinking. There is social taboos against speaking of anything that can be viewed as a "lessening of masculinity", in patriarchical cultures. Or do you also believe that rape against men is also not that serious, because not many men who have been raped/molested come forward?

PreachersWife2004 said:

I have four sons. One (the oldest) is circumcised and the other three are not.

Many pediatricians these days are saying it's not a needed procedure. I'm fine with that.

I'm also fine with those who want to circumcise their sons.

As to religions practicing things that are considered illegal...It's a hard call to make. JWs don't believe in blood transfusions. Blood transfusions aren't a legal issue. Most churches I know aren't smoking up the joint with, well, joints - it's actually the medical community pushing for some leeway with marijuana. Some states actually have laws allowing parents to give their kids alcohol in the home under supervision, so communion isn't necessarily "illegal" either.

So I guess I'd have to ask what is illegal that all these religions are partaking of right now?

Click to expand...

It all depends on if the ends justify the reasons/beliefs given. If a procedure or practice leaves the affected persons neutral or better, then barring any other legal situations, it ought to be legal in most cases. However, if a procedure or practice harms the affected persons, no belief system should claim any right to keep it legal, unless we are talking about some form of self-defense.

Faith healing is a classic example. If a doctor has declared a disease incurable or untreatable, then because the afflicted has nothing further to lose, faith healing should be legal. However, if faith healing is rendered in place of a procedure or medication that has a reasonable chance of curing or otherwise helping the patient, then it ought to be strictly forbidden.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." -Galileo