I have always been completely baffled why this primitive act of mutilation is so popular with the Abrahamic religions.We are constantly being told by apologists of these flavours that life should be protected from the moment of conception, that we are made in God's image and that the birth of a child is a miracle from God to be cherished and celebrated. At what point did someone look at a beautiful newborn baby and think, I know how we can improve on this, let's hack away at junior's genitals because that's clearly what the creator of the universe would want us to do..
In this particular case it seems that "religion" has gotten this criminal off the hook once again, if he had chopped a finger off he would be looking at criminal assault or assault with a deadly weapon, i.e. a much more serious offence; "negligence" doesn't seem to cover it in my view, unless of course you are talking about him forgetting to engage his brain.
Utterly baffling...
12 comments:
You'd think that an omnipotent God would simply decree: "Henceforth, as a mark of being My chosen people, all Jewish males shall be born with no foreskin," - and ZAPP, the DNA is altered to make it so.
CB, you'd think so wouldn't you, I dunno, shoddy workmanship.. :)
Yes, Steve, I was thinking the same and would love to see the police report. Was the negligence charge for his lack of care in executing his religious beliefs, or for the actual choosing of religious beliefs?
But you know this is a cultural problem and not really a strictly religious one. In the states the overwhleming majority of infant males have this cosmetic surgery. And most people in the US do not belong to religions that require or advise this practice.
Hi Lisa, the origin of it is religious though, one of those art mirroring life mirroring art things ... totally baffling.
Just the thought of genital mutilation causes me to cross my legs...
Interestingly there are some studies (possibly with a specific religious agenda) which claim transmission of hiv is reduced when the man is circumcised, and that this suggests the origin of the practice.
Social and sexual diseases have historically reached public health risk status when the behaviour patterns associated with transmission begin to reach a level of prevalence. So whether it is hiv, syphillis, chlamydia or whatever the political response will be defined by the state of political debate in the society at that historical moment.
I also read that one of the major differences between those who promoted circumcision and those who didn't was their attitude towards use of and ability to manufacture effective prophylactics.
So in a simplified sense it comes down to a choice between whether you prefered to risk septicemia through a delicate (later ritualised) operation (without anaesthetic) or whether you find shagging through the intermediary of a dead animal's bladder conducive.
Put in those terms the ancients had to be pretty damn kinky to discover the choices - which makes it surprising that they even survived.
Clearly the Romans preferred bestiality, while Jews preferred sadism and masochism.
Hi OP, I agree it is alarmingly unpleasant!
I have heard the health claims about male circumcision before but since the genital mutilation club is an entirely religious one, female circumcision certainly has no such benefits and the ancient Hebrews certainly had no knowledge of retro-viruses then it seems to me like one of those coincidentally beneficial things to me, like not drinking blood.
Our preoccupation with sex and reproduction seems to confirm evolutionary theory quite nicely, the fact that this preoccupation has been hijacked and morphed into bizarre rituals by later man made institutions like religions seems consistent with what you would expect I suppose; baffling (to me at least) why people continue to adhere to them in the 21st century though.
"the genital mutilation club is an entirely religious one"
That's not accurate, if you mean to include all male circumcision.
I'm aware it is a common procedure undertaken without religious overtones in many parts of Europe (apparently it is offered as a choice in German hospitals to all parents of male babies, though not in all regions), and I recall seeing some stats saying there are more circumcised than uncircumcised men in NAmerica (though I'll leave that to the experts here to confirm).
Doesn't it just depend on social norms? Religious institutions are just a by-product of those norms.
Which brings me back to this tactical question. Religion is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself - do you want to mask the symptoms, cure the disease or prevent further outbreaks?
OP, I think that's a tenuous point, certainly if you talk about FGM it's 100% religious, as for the cosmetic constituency in countries like the USA etc. perhaps, but I would find it hard to believe that the practice isn't simply a hang-over (excuse the pun) from culturally religious origins.
Religion is only a "symptom" from our educated and secular perspective, it's a "cause" for the vast majority of believers on this planet, they actually believe it's true!
Can you explain to me how you know what other people believe.
I won't accept that you're psychic and I'm not prepared to assume that the descriptions religious people make of their own faith is entirely reliable.
OP, I'm not psychic, but I knew you'd say that :) You ask how I know, well the old fashioned way of course, I read what they write and listen to what they say.
I think you have a bigger problem trying to explain why you think that isn't a reflection of what they believe, how do you know that?
I didn't take you for the credulous type - not when you consistently rail against it in others, but then you can't completely trust what people say.
Personally speaking I think inconsistency is a more generous and more rational explanation for inaccurate belief systems than plain stupidity. It also provides a suggestion for understanding how and why they may be mistaken as well as a method for allowing them to change their minds and accept any errors by letting them retreat with their dignity intact.
I don't think anybody ever gets converted by being told they are plain and simple wrong as though they are some kind of dunderhead.
That's not credulity it's drawing conclusions from available data? Anyway, don't you think it is incredibly arrogant to say something like...
"I know you say you're going to heaven to meet 72 virgins when you detonate yourself, but you don't really believe that do you; of course you realise it's an allegorical meme reinforced by cultural and social norms"
Personally I think its more honest to say, sorry but I think you are deluded *and* wrong.
Post a Comment