FGM, Male Circumcision......comparable? Cultural norms or infringement on rights?

AudreyHepburn

I hope this is in the right place. If not I apologise and please Mods do move it if necessary!

I’ve recently been reading religious threads in various areas on boards and this topic has come up quite frequently. I thought it would be interesting to give it its own thread just to see where people stand on the issue.

The main argument seems to over whether Circumcision can be in any way compared to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

There is also a question as to whether FGM and other such practices , which cause harm to people, such be banned completely or accepted as cultural norms or as something people simply need to be educated against.

In terms of whether you can compare the two, for me they aren’t even close!

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Male circumcision is done generally for medical reasons and within a hospital environment.

[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
[http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

[FGM is done for no other reason than that that part of a woman's body is seen as unclean and evil. It has no medical benefits whatsoever.

It is extremely painful and causes all sorts of complications at the time and later in life such as infection, problems with childbirth and problems during intercourse. Not to mention the pyscological problems.

You cannot compare one to the other.
As to whether such practices should be banned, if it causes harm, physical or mental to a person or in any way infringes on their rights then I’m all for making it illegal.

metrovelvet

Circumcision can be done for medical reasons but it is also done for superfluous religious ones as in islam and judaism. Up until recently it was standard practice in US neo natology.

While painful, afik it doesnt have the same consequences as fgm, but that still doesnt make it ok.

Dades

Both are unnecessary practices, but I think to compare them belittles the horror of the female version. (At least as far as practiced circumcision of males in the West, is concerned).

seamus

Anything which involves the mutilation of a person without their actual consent and which is not medically necessary, should be outlawed tbh.

It should be illegal to tattoo children or pierce children's ears. If they want them when they're 18, they can go nuts.

That said, I think that circumcision is right down there with ear piercing in terms of the effect they have.

To compare it to FGM as being a similarly effective procedure would be grossly misguided. One pretty much has little effect on the person's functioning as an adult. The other is a disgustingly invasive procedure which leaves the person with a permanent disability.

However they both fall under the same bracket of "stop ****ing with your children's bodies".

Herbal Deity

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Male circumcision is done generally for medical reasons

Which medical reasons would these be?

Male circumcision is done for archaic religious reasons and outside of a religious context has its roots in preventing masturbation. There are absolutely no medical benefits unless you are living in a 3rd world country with an AIDS crisis.

Of course you can compare them. Just because one is much worse than the other doesn't mean that one should be seen as acceptable. You're taking a knife to a child's genitals for no reason whatsoever. I don't actually care whether the result of one is worse than the other, they both enrage me equally.

Infant male circumcision should be completely banned unless absolutely medically necessary. Furthermore, there exist much less drastic methods of treating conditions like phimosis than circumcision and it should be an absolute last resort.

Denerick

I'm not terribly moved by it. All Jewish men go through it and have done so for thousands of years. I see no reason to stop it now. I can understand the non consensual argument, but really is that so different to the doctor cutting off the umbilical cord at birth? (I'm assuming that cutting off the umbilical cord serves only a cosmetic and not a hygenic or health benefit) A child is incapable of giving any kind of consent whatsoever.

This should not be confused with female genital mutilation, an evil that must be stamped out.

Herbal Deity

But the foreskin serves a purpose. It contains nerve endings, it protects the glans, it allows masturbation with ease.

The umbilical cord separates from a newborn baby naturally after a few days if not cut. It's not a valid analogy. Perhaps lopping off an infant's little toe could be comparable.

Denerick

I've been trying to think of a comparable practise in Christendom but I can't. The umbilical cord was the nearest at hand.

Admittedly, circumcision is in the abstract sense, totally wrong. But I won't lose much sleep over it. There are far more pressing issues going on in the world.

Elle Collins

FGM and male circumcision are in no way comparable and could not be unless the prime purpose of male circumcision was to utterly handicap men's sexual pleasure.

Herbal Deity

Elle Collins wrote: »

FGM and male circumcision are in no way comparable and could not be unless the prime purpose of male circumcision was to utterly handicap men's sexual pleasure.

One of the primary purposes was to handicap men's ability to masturbate.

I don't understand why you can't compare certain aspects of them. It's not belittling FGM, more exposing Male circumcision for what it is.

Quite frankly, I think that the fact such a blatant, unnecessary mutilation of the male genitalia has become so commonplace and is accepted in civilised countries as a routine procedure to perform on infants with no medical necessity is extremely disturbing in its own way.

I guess what pisses me off is that when people say so vehemently that they aren't comparable seems to me like saying that male circumcision is completely ok and is a valid practice that should not be stamped out, which I fundamentally disagree with.

Wibbs

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not terribly moved by it. All Jewish men go through it and have done so for thousands of years.

Not quite. Jewish males had much less tissue taken away in the past. It was more a blood letting ceremony. It was only when young Jewish guys competed in the greek games did the all foreskin off thing come into play. The Greeks considered circumcision barbarous, so the Jewish guys used to roll their foreskin forward. IE they had enough to. The Jewish elders did not like this so insisted on the more invasive all off procedure.

Dades

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I guess what pisses me off is that when people say so vehemently that they aren't comparable seems to me like saying that male circumcision is completely ok and is a valid practice that should not be stamped out, which I fundamentally disagree with.

On a theoretical level they are comparable, but not on a real world level. And saying one is much worse than the other is not saying the other is acceptable.

They are both wrong, but one has much more serious real-life effects.

Macha

Fascinating but very disturbing video (and article) about FGM at the following link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/25/female-circumcision-children-british-law

Male and female circumcision should be banned but serious efforts and resources need to go into protecting young women and girls because their lives can be completely ruined, including infertility and never enjoying sex.

Herbal Deity

Dades wrote: »

On a theoretical level they are comparable, but not on a real world level. And saying one is much worse than the other is not saying the other is acceptable.

They are both wrong, but one has much more serious real-life effects.

Of course, but why do certain people get so mad when they are compared?

IMO, the idea that they cannot be compared in any way seems to be the product of defending male circumcision as opposed to concerns over belittling FGM by doing so.

You're right when you say that saying 'one is much worse than the other is not saying the other is acceptable', but so often when I read reasons why they aren't comparable, I see things like are written in the OP's post - that male circumcision is done generally for medical reasons, which is completely incorrect.

So I guess that rejecting the idea that they can be compared often results in the belittling of male circumcision as a real issue, which is wrong.

Elle Collins

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Quite frankly, I think that the fact such a blatant, unnecessary mutilation of the male genitalia has become so commonplace and is accepted in civilised countries as a routine procedure to perform on infants with no medical necessity is extremely disturbing in its own way.

I guess what pisses me off is that when people say so vehemently that they aren't comparable seems to me like saying that male circumcision is completely ok and is a valid practice that should not be stamped out, which I fundamentally disagree with.

I'd disagree with that myself. I don't think anyone's genitalia should be mutilated against their will for any reason, gender irrespective - but there is an enormous gulf between the experience of male circumcision and female genital mutilation, and I think that gulf should be recognised.

Male circumcision does not equate to FGM and could not do unless MC routinely involved boys as old as ten being held down by village elders while the entire head of their penis was sliced off with tin lids, broken glass shards and rusty, insanitary blades.

Herbal Deity

I think we're both on the same page, just looking at it from different angles.

As disturbing as I find male circumcision, it is not in any way as horrific or life ruining as FGM.

And as long as male circumcision isn't dismissed as being a perfectly reasonable procedure done for medical reasons if it is ever mentioned alongside FGM, there's no problem.

AudreyHepburn

I just want to stress that I am not in any trying to belittle the experience of being circumcised. I do realise it is a painful procedure to go through.

However when one looks at the way it is carried out and the reasons, in general, why it is done I just don't think you can compare it to a little girl or young teenager being held down and having her body mutilated with dirty blades in unsanitary conditions.

There are medical reasons and benefits to being circumcised as the links in my first post show.

FGM however is done for no other reason other the removable of a part of the body consider dirty and evil. The immediate risks and suffering as well as the long term consequences are in no way comparable to being circumcised IMO.

Herbal Deity

In your OP you posted a link to a bizarre, extremely biased, pro-circumcision website.

The notion that routine infant male circumcision has medical reasons and benefits needs to be dispelled.

I realise that in some cases circumcision may be necessary to treat certain disorders such as phimosis, when a man reaches adolescence or adulthood. But we're talking less than 10% of men here. And tbqh, circumcision seems to be recommended far too often over less drastic measures such as steroid creams.

Elle Collins

I think what some women get into here is a mindset of: 'We've got it worse therefore that nullifys the male experience'. I think I was mistaken in the wording of my earlier post when I stated that 'FGM and male circumcision are in no way comparable'. They are comparable in certain aspects, as Herbal Deity pointed out, although they do not equate.

I don't think any rational logical person could say that FGM was not a considerably more horrific and life-damaging assault on the person, but that does not negate the negativity inherant to male circumcision. To simplify matters, I think of this reasoning as akin to saying: 'I got punched several times in the head therefore lets not bother acknowledging your slap in the face'.

Chuchoter

Not to say I agree with male circumcision, it is a papercut in comparison to FGM. At least male circumcision has some benefits, but FGM ruins lives. Many people die just getting it, and if they live, sex, pregnancy, birth and periods are unbelievably painful. In most cases, they literally hack off every visible part of the female genitalia and partially cover up the vaginal opening. Women have their legs tied together and are left to piss on themselves so the wound heals. Its an atrocity that isn't even close to male circumcision.

Neither should happen, but if I was given a magic wand to only get rid of one of them, FGM is going.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I guess what pisses me off is that when people say so vehemently that they aren't comparable seems to me like saying that male circumcision is completely ok and is a valid practice that should not be stamped out, which I fundamentally disagree with.

I think that reaction can be explained in a few ways. Barbaric as male circumcision is, it's quite widely practiced and culturally accepted, it's carried out by doctors in hospitals and there aren't many highly visible campaigns to eradicate it, so until you actually stop and consider it, you might just assume it's not anything bad. On the other hand, FGM has a much higher awareness rate in terms of the circumstances under which it's generally carried out, the health complications and the sheer pointlessness of it. People's initial, possibly unconsidered reaction to seeing the two compared might be outrage simply because they're previously aware of one being bad and not previously aware of the other being bad.

I'd say it hits a highly sensitive feminist nerve as well. It did for me until I stopped to think it through. As has been said, FGM is truly horrific and women probably have a stronger emotional response to it because they can imagine it in a way that men can't. So seeing male circumcision mentioned in a context which even hints that the two procedures are equally as bad has the potential to elicit the knee-jerk response of "bloody men bastards!", especially if it's a man saying it, and especially considering the unbelievably disturbing levels of cultural misogyny underlying FGM.

I don't think either have any case for living on purely because of their cultural significance, because they have none worth preserving. One appears to be little more than unnecessary surgery arising from centuries of habit and the other an horrific physical enactment of extreme misogyny.

linda massie

Male circumcision kills many American babies in hospitals every year and injures many others. All men who are circumcised have had part of their penis amputated and are therefore damaged.

I recently attended an international conference at Berkeley University on the genital mutilation of children regardless of gender, the men there, some who have lost all sensation in their penis would be very upset that their pain is seen as less than females who have lost similar sensations.

For further information on this topic please see

http://nocirc.org/symposia/eleventh/symposium2010web.pdf

It is child abuse plain and those suggesting it has benefits need to look at the facts.

The Commissioner for Children in Tasmania helped launch the international campaign over 2 years ago to protect all children from genital mutilation. People who state that FGM is worse than MGM must be unaware of the child deaths, total amputations and life long trauma suffered by males.

For information on the international campaign please see

http://genitalautonomy.org/

Fox McCloud

While both are wrong and unneccessary, they are quite different in origin and practise which is why people sometimes dont think they're comparable.

FGM is rooted in hatred of women, cutting out a big part of there womanhood and sexuality so they can become baby machines, making sex as painful and dangerous as possible for them. The manner in which its done confirms the general disregard for female life. I think its generally done in childhood as opposed to infancy, the accounts I have read have been anyway. The child is given no pain relief, tied or held down and cut open in an unsanitary, dark hut. The whole experience is of secrecy and negativity surrounding being a woman and having female genitals.

Male circumcision, I admit, I dont know a whole lot about. It seems to be based on the idea that the male genitals are unclean. Similar idea to FGM but not as extreme. It seems that it had been accpted bacause its carried out in hospitals and doesnt have as extreme results as FGM. Men can still enjoy sex, if not as much, and are not at risk of dying when they do attempt to have sex for the first time etc.

I think the instinct to cut up babys genitals is a serious manifestation of how fu*cked up peoples views of sexuality are.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fox McCloud wrote: »

FGM is rooted in hatred of women,

Partially true but not always and not exclusively. Sometimes it can be purely cosmetic!!!

It is a shame that a topic so big as this often gets conflated with religion. It is a conversation worth having on a secular rational level too.

I can find little or no evidence for the claims of religion so religious claims of circumcision necessarily hold no interest for me.

However what is done NOT in the name of religion in the realm of circumcision is no less horrific or baffling.

I was particularly horrified at recent news about cosmetic surgery of the clitoris in children.

Parents who feel their Daughters is "too big" actually get them cut down to size. The child of course has no say in this although the procedure is entirely a cosmetic one as a large clitoris has no medical implications.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/16/female-genital-mutilation-at-cornell-university

The "Doctor" engaged in this then does "follow up" visits with the children. He engages in a practise that most Paedophiles would give their right arm to spend a night engaged in. He spends time "testing the sensitivity of their genitalia" with a vibrator over an extended period of time of the life of the child as the parent stands on and watches.

I am sorry but as far as I know in my country, going at a 6 year old girl with a sexual instrument is a crime of the highest order.

At annual visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch.... Poppas has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to conduct annual exams with these girls....

Yes, I am sure he does.

Truley

Fox McCloud wrote: »

FGM is rooted in hatred of women, cutting out a big part of there womanhood and sexuality so they can become baby machines, making sex as painful and dangerous as possible for them. The manner in which its done confirms the general disregard for female life. I think its generally done in childhood as opposed to infancy, the accounts I have read have been anyway. The child is given no pain relief, tied or held down and cut open in an unsanitary, dark hut. The whole experience is of secrecy and negativity surrounding being a woman and having female genitals.

I don't know about that. Some of the biggest advocates of FGM are women, and the precedure is largely carried out by other women who have undergone circumcision themselves. Many of them will swear blind that it has minimal negative effect on their sexuality, child bearing or day to day lives.

I'm not condoning the practice by any stretch, I'm just pointing out that it's not always as gory and traumatic as people like to make out. And it's not a simple case of domineering men imposing it on their women. It's women not men who carry it out on their neighbours and daughters, so I hardly think it's done out of hatred.

Also I don't think any FGM advocates claim it's done to make sex painful and dangerous. FGM is primarily done for cosmetic reasons, the same as male circumcision.

spurious

They remove the clitoris. The point is to make sure the woman has no pleasurable feelings from sex and so will not stray.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

Many of them will swear blind that it has minimal negative effect on their sexuality

Considering the age that such procedures are normally performed.... what in your personal opinion do you reckon these women are basing that comparison upon? Point of reference if you will.

Nemi

linda massie wrote: »

Male circumcision kills many American babies in hospitals every year and injures many others.

It might also be useful to point out that male children have died as a result of circumcision in Ireland. So, indeed, the dismissal of the procedure as risk free is simply wrong.

Incidently, when a prosecution took place involving the death of one of those children, the Judge directed the jury to acquit. So we've even an acceptance in our justice system that its acceptable to put a child in danger for cultural reasons.

I find FGM next to impossible to understand. Thankfully, its much less of a risk to people in this State than male circumcision.

spurious wrote: »

They remove the clitoris. The point is to make sure the woman has no pleasurable feelings from sex and so will not stray.

Just to be clear, aren't there forms of FGM that don't involve this.

Which is not intended as a defence of the practice; its just to be clear what we're talking about. I feel none of these weird practices should be permitted to be carried out on infants.

Once people are adults, I don't see how we can sensibly regulate the practice. The law just ends up tripping over issues like genital piercing and gender reassignment surgery. Where an adult is consenting, I don't really see what the difference is.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Considering the age that such procedures are normally performed.... what in your personal opinion do you reckon these women are basing that comparison upon? Point of reference if you will.

I'm not saying they are comparing it to anything. I'm merely pointing out that being circumcised does not always automatically = agony for all day everyday for the rest of your life. Otherwise people wouldn't do it.

Many women say they can enjoy sex despite being circumcised, I can't say whether they are telling the truth or not. I do know it's possible to achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation.

spurious wrote: »

They remove the clitoris. The point is to make sure the woman has no pleasurable feelings from sex and so will not stray.

Some forms do, some forms don't. Sometimes the clitoris is partially removed or only the hood is removed. Some forms of circumcision don't touch the clitoris at all only the labia.

Herbal Deity

There probably are forms of FGM that are ultimately as "mild" as male circumcision all right. You only ever hear about the most extreme versions.

I remember hearing of one procedure which is completely analogous to male circumcision - just the clitoral hood is cut off.

But this doesn't make it any more right in my book.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

I'm not saying they are comparing it to anything.

Exactly. The testimony being referred to is entirely baseless as it is coming from women who not only DO NOT know any better but COULD NOT know any better. These women say they can "enjoy" sex? What is their point of reference exactly. Enlighten me if you will. Im agog to hear this one.

Wibbs

Outside of physical/emotional trauma, what's interesting to me is how many similar reasons are given for both.

It's a cultural thing.

My mother/father had it done.

It's a religious duty.

It's a useless piece of skin/tissue.

It's "cleaner".

It looks better.

It reduces/calms the sexual appetite(the Victorians were big into the male form for that reason and its one of the biggest reasons it was practiced for secular reasons in the west).

Truley

Wibbs wrote: »

Outside of physical/emotional trauma, what's interesting to me is how many similar reasons are given for both.

It's a cultural thing.

My mother/father had it done.

It's a religious duty.

It's a useless piece of skin/tissue.

It's "cleaner".

It looks better.

It reduces/calms the sexual appetite(the Victorians were big into the male form for that reason and its one of the biggest reasons it was practiced for secular reasons in the west).

It's true that both forms of circumcision are done for largely the same reasons. The only reason the female form is so unacceptable is because it's presumed to be more painful. However it is physically possible for a woman to be circumcised without feeling long term pain, or significant sexual problems. And so arguing that male circumcision is better than the female form because of the pain difference becomes irrevelant.

Personally I think any from of infant genital mutilation is barbaric. However It seems that on a media/cultural level the effects of the female form is fair game for gross sensationalisation. While at the same time the effects of male circumcision are minimised or outright dismissed.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly. The testimony being referred to is entirely baseless as it is coming from women who not only DO NOT know any better but COULD NOT know any better. These women say they can "enjoy" sex? What is their point of reference exactly. Enlighten me if you will. Im agog to hear this one.

Most human beings are able to adequately judge whether they enjoy sex or not. I'm not saying they wouldn't enjoy it more if they were uncircumcised. But the point is, it is still possible to have a painless and pleasurable sex life if you are circumcised.

The Corinthian

Comparing or discussing in tandem, female and male circumcision is a good thing, but not because they are the same thing - they're not. The female version can be extreme (there are lesser forms that affect only the clitoral hood, but this does not make it right) and can result in the equivalent, were it a man, of the head of the penis being removed entirely.

However, putting the two side by side has a strong benefit, in that it reopens a debate that few people even think about. By using such an comparison, with something that Western society is abhorred of, it forces us to reexamine our complacent acceptance of male circumcision, that while lesser to the female form is a mutilation that is carried out needlessly the vast majority of the time.

Indeed, how many would even have posted in this thread were it not for that comparison to attract them?

Nonetheless, in our outrage against female circumcision we've invented a new term; Female Genital Mutilation, so as to both catch the attention of the public and to set it aside from the male variety, even though both are ultimately forms of genital mutilation - the only difference is the level of severity. This is very depressing, because such needless and frankly barbaric procedures should be opposed by all for all, and not on the basis of gender.

Fox McCloud

Just to note , women can hate women. They can be part and parcel of a system of oppression. I dont think that the menfolk sit in their huts planning how to hurt and crush their mothers, wives and daughters in more extreme ways. Oppression is a system, the only way it works is if those complicit dont even realise it.


The thing to look at is who does it benefit, and who doth protest too much when its challenged.


Also I agree the language used is important. Female Circumcision sounded harmless enough so they changed it to explain what is actually involved rather than a nice fancy latin word for 'cut' or whatever. If one believes male circumcision is mutilating the genitals of babys for no reason then lets call it Male Genital Mutilation from now on.

Herbal Deity

The prefix "circum-" means "around". So, for example, "circumnavigate" means "to navigate around".

The suffix "-cision" means "cut". So, for example, "incision" means "to cut into".

"Circumcision" therefore means "to cut around".

The term "circumcision" doesn't make much sense if used to describe FGM, as it's not usually a circular cut around anything, like the male version.

"Circumcision" does sound a little too benign compared with "Female Genital Mutilation" though.

seamus

Herbal Deity wrote: »

"Circumcision" does sound a little too benign compared with "Female Genital Mutilation" though.

That's because "prepucectomy" makes it sound like the unnecessary medical procedure that it is.

Overheal

Herbal Deity wrote: »

One of the primary purposes was to handicap men's ability to masturbate.

Myth, I assure you.

The Corinthian

Overheal wrote: »

Myth, I assure you.

Says who (other than you)?

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

I'm not saying they wouldn't enjoy it more if they were uncircumcised.

Maybe you did not mean to say this, but this IS in fact what you came across as saying. You said:

"Many of them will swear blind that it has minimal negative effect on their sexuality"

This is not the same as saying they do not enjoy their sexuality AT ALL. The words "negative effect" are relative. Unless they HAVE a point of reference on which to make such a judgement how can they know?

Yes you are right, they can still enjoy sex, but this is NOT the same as making the claim that there has been "minimal negative effect" at all.

If someone edited my eyeballs when I was born so I could only see in Black and White, I could still very much enjoy life, nature and art. I could NOT claim it has had "minimal negative effect" however.

Jarndyce

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4

metrovelvet

Jarndyce wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4

It was very brave of Hitchen's to take on a Rabbi in the US. Im sure he got a lot of heat and possibly a few death threats for that. I didn't agree with all his points about religion, after all secularity can make people do evil things too, and circumcision is not only part of a Jewish practice but encouraged in American secular hospitals.

All you have to do is watch a circumcision on youtube to see it for the sick practice it is.

It should be illegal for both Rabbis and doctors to practice it unless medically necessary.

Its absolutely outrageous that the UN sits on the same property where all around it millions of little boys have had this done to them and will continue to and wont recognize it as a human rights violation and downright child abuse.

Jarndyce

metrovelvet wrote: »

I didn't agree with all his points about religion, after all secularity can make people do evil things too

He did not say that or anything like that. It is axiomatic that a secularist may do evil things just as a religious person may also do evil things, unrelated to the religion. If you disagree with him on the mistaken belief that he holds an opposing view on this point then I suggest you pay more attention to what he is saying, for it is quite clear that he has never suggested such a thing.

The difference is as follows. For the religious person, there is an added dimension upon which they may base their evil act. For example, the Quran enjoining the flogging of adulterers, the Bible (Leviticus and Deuteronomy) mandating the killing of homosexuals, in Judaism the circumcision of children as espoused by Maimonides and the Old Testament etc etc.

It is furthermore axiomatic that a secularist cannot commit the aforesaid atrocities for the rationales which are given, as the secularist does not subscribe to such religious texts and doctrines.

My point, therefore, is that it is a fatuous comparison to state that secularists are just as capable of doing evil things. It is plainly obvious that any person, compos mentis or non compos mentis, secular or religious, is capable of perpetrating an evil act. The difference, however, is that a secularist cannot commit an evil act which is enjoined by the myriad passages of religious texts. The religious person can, however, commit any evil act that a secular person is capable of committing, 'and then some'.

metrovelvet wrote: »

and circumcision is not only part of a Jewish practice but encouraged in American secular hospitals.

This comment seems to imply a justification for the practice. While the circumcision of newborns is common in the United States, this is a most contentious issue, the justifications of which have changed like the wind. Ultimately, the practice is carried out based on social pressures, not medical science.

metrovelvet wrote: »

It should be illegal for both Rabbis and doctors to practice it unless medically necessary.

I agree. I believe that severe criminal liability should be imposed on the perpetrators.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its absolutely outrageous that the UN sits on the same property where all around it millions of little boys have had this done to them and will continue to and wont recognize it as a human rights violation and downright child abuse.

This is true. As Hitchens says in the clip, it is illustrative of just how much people can get away with when disgusting and barbaric acts are committed under the banner of organised religion.

Jarndyce

Overheal wrote: »

Myth, I assure you.

I just noticed this post.

Overheal, you are astoundingly uninformed, I assure you.

It is no myth. Maimonides unequivocally states that the purpose of the procedure is to dull sensitivity of the organ so as to diminish the sexual activity of the man.

metrovelvet

Jarndyce wrote: »

He did not say that or anything like that. It is axiomatic that a secularist may do evil things just as a religious person may also do evil things, unrelated to the religion. If you disagree with him on the mistaken belief that he holds an opposing view on this point then I suggest you pay more attention to what he is saying, for it is quite clear that he has never suggested such a thing.


.

Listen again. From about 3:55 -4:12.

Jarndyce

metrovelvet wrote: »

Listen again. From about 3:55 -4:12.

You misunderstand his point.

He states that "[religion] makes ordinary, moral people, compels them, forces them and in some cases orders them to do wicked, disgusting an unforgivable things. There is no expiation."

I fail to see how secularism per se makes ordinary, moral people, compels them, forces them and in some cases orders them to do wicked, disgusting an unforgivable things.

It may be the case, and indeed it has been, that a secular dictator makes ordinary, moral people, compels them, forces them and in some cases orders them to do wicked, disgusting an unforgivable things, but this is quite differently entirely.

metrovelvet

Jarndyce wrote: »

You misunderstand his point.

He states that "[religion] makes ordinary, moral people, compels them, forces them and in some cases orders them to do wicked, disgusting an unforgivable things. There is no expiation."

I fail to see how secularism per se makes ordinary, moral people, compels them, forces them and in some cases orders them to do wicked, disgusting an unforgivable things.

Fair distinction. I suppose its better to say secularism permits rather than forces disgusting things to happen.

However....

Although up until the 1950s FGM was used in the US and England as a treatment for lesbianism and female masterbation. And that had nothing to do with religion. That was secular medicine. And it was the same with male circumcision, which was routine up until recently. None of these acts were reigiously forced, but by secular western, American medicine.

Herbal Deity

What?

The kind of thinking that fuelled ideas like female masturbation or lesbianism having to be cured, or routine circumcision in the US, are quite plainly religious in origin.

Jarndyce

metrovelvet wrote: »

Fair distinction. I suppose its better to say secularism permits rather than forces disgusting things to happen.

I would say that free will permits disgusting things to happen. To simply what Hitchens is saying:

Take two people who are equally moral and good, one is a secularist and one is, say, a Muslim.

The secularist's wife, living in her secular society, commits adultery, much to the upset of her friends and family in the local community. That is, by and large, the worst that will happen to her.

The Muslim's wife, on the other hand, in Iran, for example, must be subjected to brutal flogging (or worse) for her infidelity. She has, as an animal (like all of us are), merely acted upon her sexual desires which is entirely natural. Like the secularist's wife, she would cause upset and disappointment to her friends and family, however that is not enough. Rather, the Quran clearly dictates that she must be subjected to barbaric cruelty because Allah said it was so. This is not merely tradition in the community, it is expressly enjoined by religion.

So the distinction is quite clear.

However....

Although up until the 1950s FGM was used in the US and England as a treatment for lesbianism and female masterbation. And that had nothing to do with religion. That was secular medicine. And it was the same with male circumcision, which was routine up until recently. None of these acts were reigiously forced, but by secular western, American medicine.

True, FGM is not expressly enjoined by religion, however you will find that it is customary in many religious communities. It also occurs in non-Islamic / non-Christian communities, however you will find that these communities are, by and large, third world / developing countries. I think it would be reasonable to speculate that were these countries developed and secular, the practice would not continue. So there is a parallel between secularism and the absence of such barbaric practices.

While you say that circumcision was not religiously imposed by force, this is not entirely true. The point I would make is this. If you look at deeply devout and close-knit religious communities in, for example, the United States, you will find that members of the community cannot deviate easily from the ubiquitous practices therein e.g. Jewish communities and circumcision. Therefore, while they are not forcing circumcision by dragging a young child by his ankles to undergo the procedure, the social pressure of the community itself essentially forces the parents to comply with the disgusting practice, on the basis of Maimonides and the Old Testament, not medical science.

metrovelvet

Jarndyce wrote: »

True, FGM is not expressly enjoined by religion, however you will find that it is customary in many religious communities. It also occurs in non-Islamic / non-Christian communities, however you will find that these communities are, by and large, third world / developing countries. I think it would be reasonable to speculate that were these countries developed and secular, the practice would not continue. So there is a parallel between secularism and the absence of such barbaric practices.

While you say that circumcision was not religiously imposed by force, this is not entirely true. The point I would make is this. If you look at deeply devout and close-knit religious communities in, for example, the United States, you will find that members of the community cannot deviate easily from the ubiquitous practices therein e.g. Jewish communities and circumcision. Therefore, while they are not forcing circumcision by dragging a young child by his ankles to undergo the procedure, the social pressure of the community itself essentially forces the parents to comply with the disgusting practice, on the basis of Maimonides and the Old Testament, not medical science.

Yes I know what you are saying and it would appear reasonable. However, male circumcision was the norm in the US up until the 1980s. I would say the odd 10 percent or so where werent had weirdo European parents like mine who deviated and chose not to have the males circumsized. The practise was not limited to semitic communties by any stretch. It was the norm across the nation.

metrovelvet

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What?

The kind of thinking that fuelled ideas like female masturbation or lesbianism having to be cured, or routine circumcision in the US, are quite plainly religious in origin.

Can you say more? Can you show they are not Victorian or Freudian? It's not that plain to me.

Even if religious in origin, they were secular in evolution.