Why is circumcision for religious reasons tolerated, while other religious barbarism

hatrickpatrick

...is not?

Every time a move is made to ban or restrict circumcision of baby boys, you get a chorus of people crying "religious oppression!!!", and this argument is apparently taken seriously by a vast number of people.

To play Devil's Advocate, why does something being a religious tradition somehow make it ok? Honour killings are usually carried out for "religious" reasons as well, should we be more tolerant of those? How about ritual sacrifice of animals, which is part of some religions?

I'm not here to start another generic debate about circumcision itself, it just baffles me how "religious tradition" can excuse some, but not all of these things. Surely they're either all ok or they're not? If a religious movement decided that all newborns should have their belly buttons pierced at birth, would that be acceptable?

EDIT: I bring this up today because of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyregion/jewish-groups-seek-to-block-new-nyc-rule-on-circumcision.html?src=recg

eth0

Not too bothered really. Wouldn't call it barbarism

ejmaztec

I think that only female circumcision is barbaric.

--Kaiser--

eth0 wrote: »

Not too bothered really. Wouldn't call it barbarism

What would you call the unnecessary mutilation of children?

blatantrereg

Comparing circumcision with killing is silly. Calling it barabric is also silly.

Circumcision for religious reasons is accepted because circumcision for non-religious reasons is accepted. It reduces the chances of contracting a range of infections, including HIV and other STIs, as well as urinary tract infections and skin conditions. It even is protective against cancer.

The level to which something is accepted for religious reasons is generally in line with the level it is accepted for non-religious reasons, in Western societies.

dilapidating

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely they're either all ok or they're not?

They're not.
Circumcision shouldn't be put in the same category as people getting stoned to death.

hatrickpatrick

^ The fact that it's accepted at all on healthy babies is absolutely moronic.
Should tonsils be removed at birth because they might go bad later? What about appendices?

foreskins are used in skin grafts aren't they?

--Kaiser--

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ The fact that it's accepted at all on healthy babies is absolutely moronic.
Should tonsils be removed at birth because they might go bad later? What about appendices?

Appendices should always be removed. I mean, who actually reads them?

suicide_circus

Any medically unnecessary surgery on a baby is retarded.

Ellis Dee

I'm glad my parents never had my lad snigged. I suppose they thought: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.":D:D:D

Peregrine

It is barbaric, what gives people the right to cut their child's foreskin?? :eek:

Sure religious ceremonies like baptism and communion is one thing, but circumcision on a 8 day old baby is just not the same
If they want it so much, they can do it at their own will once they're older :rolleyes:

DazMarz

Thanks to an elective module of medicine in college, I learned that at birth, a boy's foreskin is adhered to the glans and should not be interfered with. Circumcising baby boys or even older children can damage the penis as the adhesions have to be torn. Obviously, tearing something that is tightly adhered can cause damage. It also causes pain and a huge amount of bleeding.

Not pleasant.

Circumcision is something that should not be done unless it is medically necessary for the person upon whom it is being performed. Otherwise, it should be banned.

Sierra 117

Circumcising a child for any reason other than medical necessity is barbaric. No doubt about it.

Ghost Buster

Im not sure how good circumcision is as an example but i get the OP's point. It seems sufficient to just say "this is part of our religion/culture" for the watching world to back away withe their palms up saying "Oh ok sorry about that. Carry on".
Im not sure if its Hitchins or Dawkins who made the analogy about if the South African govt claimed that their practice of apartied was part of their religious beliefs they would have possible gotten another couple of decades out of it such would be the lessening of pressure.

seamus

blatantrereg wrote: »

Circumcision for religious reasons is accepted because circumcision for non-religious reasons is accepted. It reduces the chances of contracting a range of infections, including HIV and other STIs, as well as urinary tract infections and skin conditions. It even is protective against cancer.

This is at best disingenuous.

Circumcision decreases the risk of cancer and STIs for individuals who already have a disorder of the foreskin such as priapism (tight foreskin). For healthy penises, circumcision provides zero medical benefit or prevention and is an unnecessary removal of a human erogenous zone, i.e. mutilation.

As has been pointed out, we don't whip out children's tonsils or appendixes, so the medical argument in any case is complete nonsense, it's a cynical attempt to retrospectively justify religious mutilation. It's no better than FGM.

Matt_Trakker

It is barbaric, unless it's medically necessary and if it's not medically necessary then it isn't necessary. Male circumcision is completely & totally useless, therefore it is mutilation, just as female circumcision is.
The worse thing is that, in the Jewish ceremony, rabbis even kiss the boy's penis if blood is drawn. That's messed up.

Potatoeman

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that only female circumcision is barbaric.

That's sexist, both reduce sexual pleasure although female circumcision is more extreme, male circumcision still reduces sensitivity.

Odysseus

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

The worse thing is that, in the Jewish ceremony, rabbis even kiss the boy's penis if blood is drawn. That's messed up.

It is not something that I would like to undertake, however, can I ask why you would classify it as messed up? Would you mind expanding?

yore

seamus wrote: »

This is at best disingenuous.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Circumcision for religious reasons is accepted because circumcision for non-religious reasons is accepted. It reduces the chances of contracting a range of infections, including HIV and other STIs, as well as urinary tract infections and skin conditions. It even is protective against cancer.

Circumcision decreases the risk of cancer and STIs for individuals who already have a disorder of the foreskin such as priapism (tight foreskin). For healthy penises, circumcision provides zero medical benefit or prevention and is an unnecessary removal of a human erogenous zone, i.e. mutilation.

As has been pointed out, we don't whip out children's tonsils or appendixes, so the medical argument in any case is complete nonsense, it's a cynical attempt to retrospectively justify religious mutilation. It's no better than FGM.

Yeah, it's a stupid reason. Let the kid choose himself then when he hits 12 or 16 or whatever. I'm not sure that the stats are too high for 10 year old boys who've contracted Aids due to not being circumcised.

ballsymchugh

there was a case in germany a few months back where circumcision for religious reasons was banned in a state. i heard a discussion on the radio a few days later where a jewish guy from new york was talking to the nigerian presenter. circumcision is done in nigeria for cultural reasons, not necessarily religious reasons.

at the end of the fairly one sided discussion (the presenter had pretty much given up trying to make his point), you would think that anyone who circumcises a kid for cultural reasons was barbaric, but if you dare oppose it for religious reasons, then you're an anti-semite.

Matt_Trakker

Odysseus wrote: »

It is not something that I would like to undertake, however, can I ask why you would classify it as messed up? Would you mind expanding?

You trolling?

You don't think it's messed up that an authoritative member of a religion, after cutting off a piece of a baby boy's penis, kisses it if he draws blood? :eek::eek:

Ghost Buster

Potatoeman wrote: »

That's sexist, both reduce sexual pleasure although female circumcision is more extreme, male circumcision still reduces sensitivity.

No. Is not sexist.Its an opinion based upon the bit in bold with which you agreed.

Madam_X

Male circumcision should only be carried out at the request of the boy/man himself - some folk view it as beneficial so at least it has a purpose.
Carrying it out on a non consenting (obviously) infant is barbaric for sure.

Ghost Buster

Odysseus wrote: »

It is not something that I would like to undertake, however, can I ask why you would classify it as messed up? Would you mind expanding?

In some circles the rabbi actually sucks the bleeding severed knob end which is messed up.
Remove the religious aspect and see how society would react to a religious leader sucking a babys willie.

Odysseus

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

You trolling?

You don't think it's messed up that an authoritative member of a religion, after cutting off a piece of a baby boy's penis, kisses it if he draws blood? :eek::eek:

Serious answer NO.

It's certainly unusal, and as I said something that is well... not my cup of tea.
However, I think it is fair to say that the is nonthing overtly sexual about it, in that the rabbi is engaging in this act as a religous/cultural act, not to get his jollies off.

I can see people having various objections, however, to say itb isw messed up tells me nothing of why you think this act is inapporpriate, which is why I ask the question, what do you mean when you say messed up?

Madam_X

The circumcision itself is far more messed up IMO. The sucking thing isn't sexual - people are only imbuing it with such connotations. It's no more sexual than seeing/touching a baby's genitals (to clean them or whatever) when changing their nappy. But the circumcision of an infant shouldn't be happening on the first place IMO.

jaffacakesyum

I agree that circumcision shouldn't be routinely done for medical reasons. As another poster has said, we don't remove tonsils just on the off chance that they will need to be removed later.

That said, I still have difficulty calling circumcision barbaric. Female mutiliation is a LOT more extreme in my opinion.

While the female version is more extreme, I understand that circumcision can also reduce sensitivity. So perhaps it is just that society accepts circumcision more? That is why I don't see it as barbaric?

I'm not sure. Barbaric really seems like a strong word for it.

1ZRed

Any parent that would agree to circumcising their child purely for the sake appearance and his future sex life is messed up.

My name is URL

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

While the female version is more extreme, I understand that circumcision can also reduce sensitivity. So perhaps it is just that society accepts circumcision more? That is why I don't see it as barbaric?

I'm not sure. Barbaric really seems like a strong word for it.

Just because it's culturally accepted doesn't mean it isn't barbaric. Lots of things are accepted by different cultures and societies but they are still bloody barbaric in my book.

What word would you use to describe it if not barbaric?

jaffacakesyum

My name is URL wrote: »

Just because it's culturally accepted doesn't mean it isn't barbaric. Lots of things are accepted by different cultures and societies but they are still bloody barbaric in my book.

What word would you use to describe it if not barbaric?

I know. That's what I am questioning here.

I think it's 'wrong' to circumcise for non-religious reasons. But barbaric? The definition of barbaric is "savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal" I'm not sure if circumcision fits the description.

My name is URL

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I know. That's what I am questioning here.

I think it's 'wrong' to circumcise for non-religious reasons. But barbaric? The definition of barbaric is "savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal" I'm not sure if circumcision fits the description.

Yeah, fair enough. I guess it doesn't really matter what words you use to describe it. It's a cruel ceremonial mutilation carried out by nut-jobs, but perhaps not barbaric.

Daftendirekt

While I think having kids circumcised for non-medical reasons is abhorrent, I hate seeing it compared to FGM. The two really aren't comparable. FGM would be more akin to amputating the entire penis.

If there really are health benefits to circumcision, then the child should be allowed to make up his own mind whether or not he wants to have it done once he's old enough to give informed consent.

joolsveer

I was circumcised as a child in 1953. I am Irish and not jewish or muslim. I have no idea why it was done. I have a daughter but no sons so I don't know if I would have had a son circumcised or what are the reasons for having it done. I don't think of it as barbaric though.

ejmaztec

Potatoeman wrote: »

That's sexist, both reduce sexual pleasure although female circumcision is more extreme, male circumcision still reduces sensitivity.

No it's not, it all depends on how squeamish you are as to how you would use the word "barbarism". The fact that female circumcision is more extreme and completely unnecessary makes it barbaric in my opinion. I don't think that male circumcision is barbaric, whereas female circumcision clearly is, not that I support any unnecessary surgery for reasons of religion, because I consider that to be feckin stupid.

Pottler

Circumcision is for kn0b-ends, IMO. People should never flute around with what God gave you, this is just the tip of a much larger issue.

kowloon

Ghost Buster wrote: »

In some circles the rabbi actually sucks the bleeding severed knob end which is messed up.
Remove the religious aspect and see how society would react to a religious leader sucking a babys willie.

If I remember correctly this is extremely rare and not something practiced by normal a normal Rabbi.

JuliusCaesar

seamus wrote: »

This is at best disingenuous.

......For healthy penises, circumcision provides zero medical benefit or prevention and is an unnecessary removal of a human erogenous zone, i.e. mutilation.

As has been pointed out, we don't whip out children's tonsils or appendixes, so the medical argument in any case is complete nonsense, it's a cynical attempt to retrospectively justify religious mutilation. It's no better than FGM.

I agree with all above.

however,

a disorder of the foreskin such as priapism (tight foreskin)

I think you must be confusing priapism with phimosis.

joolsveer wrote: »

I was circumcised as a child in 1953. I am Irish and not jewish or muslim. I have no idea why it was done. I have a daughter but no sons so I don't know if I would have had a son circumcised or what are the reasons for having it done. I don't think of it as barbaric though.

It was thought to be hygenic in the past and was routinely done. If you think of it, 'hygenic' means instead of washing it!

I think if more people saw the pain a baby goes through after circumcision - don't forget these are babies, who are incontinent - and so every time they pee, they are hurting the wound. A acquaintance had her baby 'done' and the poor wee thing cried for days and days. So, yes, I'd call it barbaric.



And FGC is misnamed - it's not a circumcision at all, it's nothing like circumcision, it is nothing but mutilation: there are 3 types - removal of the clitoris together with the hood; removal of clitoris and inner labia; removal of the clitoris, inner labia, and outer labia. So the equivalent would be amputation of the penis, or amputation of the penis and testicles.

Madam_X

Potatoeman wrote: »

That's sexist, both reduce sexual pleasure although female circumcision is more extreme, male circumcision still reduces sensitivity.

How on earth is it sexist? FGM *is* worse - you even say yourself it's more extreme. It involves slicing off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina save for a tiny opening - this leads to agony added to menstruation and even mere urination. It has no purpose other than to subjugate the woman and heighten the man's pleasure when having sex with her. I shudder to think about birth. :-/
It's often carried out with crude, dirty, rusty implements also.

FGM isn't considered worse because it's endured by women or to take a pot-shot at men - it's simply worse. But that doesn't take away from the fact that circumcision of a baby boy is utterly horrible too.

Pottler

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I agree with all above.

however, I think you must be confusing priapism with phimosis.





It was thought to be hygenic in the past and was routinely done. If you think of it, 'hygenic' means instead of washing it!

I think if more people saw the pain a baby goes through after circumcision - don't forget these are babies, who are incontinent - and so every time they pee, they are hurting the wound. A acquaintance had her baby 'done' and the poor wee thing cried for days and days. So, yes, I'd call it barbaric.



And FGC is misnamed - it's not a circumcision at all, it's nothing like circumcision, it is nothing but mutilation: there are 3 types - removal of the clitoris together with the hood; removal of clitoris and inner labia; removal of the clitoris, inner labia, and outer labia. So the equivalent would be amputation of the penis, or amputation of the penis and testicles.

^That's what I wanted to say, but it came out as a kn0b joke instead.

Matt_Trakker

Odysseus wrote: »

to say itb isw messed up tells me nothing of why you think this act is inapporpriate, which is why I ask the question, what do you mean when you say messed up?

are you seriously trolling me or what?
Like, ya can't be, you're supposed to me a Mod.

But OK, for the benefit of doubt......here's why I think it's messed up, even though I've already explained.

An authoritative member of a religion cuts a piece of skin off a boy's penis, if blood is drawn from the 'operation' he bends over and puts his lips to the boy's penis and sucks away the blood.

I don't think there's anything sexual about it for the rabbi or anything but I do think it's disgusting.

Recently a kid died coz a rabbi kissed his dick during this ritual and the rabbi spread his STI to the kid
Check this out:

The practice, which involves a rabbi literally sucking the blood from the circumcised boy's "wound" with his mouth after the circumcision has been performed, has long been considered by many, including those in the public health sector, as extremely high risk -- some even attribute it to child abuse. And in this particular case, the boy, who is not the first to have died during a metzitzah b'peh ritual, contracted oral herpes from an unidentified, infected rabbi.

from here

also more here

That's why I think it's messed up, f*cked up, wrong, nonsense, brutal, unnecessary, disturbing..... *add more synomyms.

blatantrereg

seamus wrote: »

This is at best disingenuous.

Circumcision decreases the risk of cancer and STIs for individuals who already have a disorder of the foreskin such as priapism (tight foreskin). For healthy penises, circumcision provides zero medical benefit or prevention and is an unnecessary removal of a human erogenous zone, i.e. mutilation.

As has been pointed out, we don't whip out children's tonsils or appendixes, so the medical argument in any case is complete nonsense, it's a cynical attempt to retrospectively justify religious mutilation. It's no better than FGM.

It's not disingenuous. Not sure why you would suggest it was

Priapism isn't the condition where the foreskin becomes tightened. Priapism is when you have an erection that won't go away. But that is beside the point.

Circumcision does help prevent infections - including serious infections - in healthy penises as well as ones with some existing condition. If you check your facts you'll find that the statistics demonstrate this. It also makes sense intuitively: Things dont usually go into the male uretha, and it is a pretty small opening compared to a vagina. However the foreskin provides a warm damp environment for a disease or fungus to grow - that simply isn't present in the area without it.

It's not a clear cut issue. You could just as easily say it's unethical not to circumcise people because it would reduce the spread of disease - particularly HIV. Most boys born in the USA are circumcised. This is purely for health reasons, and nothing to do with religion in most instances.

One way or another, it's silly and hysterical to compare it to ritual killings or to apartheid in South Africa.

A better example for the topic this thread puts forward would be the cruelty involved in ritualistic animal slaughter in both Judaism and Islam. While that is tolerated, it is certainly widely frowned upon. This is in line with society's general attitudes to cruelty to livestock - and illustrated the point I made that the level of aacceptance of religious practices is pretty much in line with teh level of acceptance of the
practices abstracted from religious context. However I would think this specific instance might suggest another factor...

The other factor is the level to which a religion is accepted. People are often critical of the muslim form of animal slaughter, but you dont hear many people talk about the Jewish form of it, even though they are pretty much the same as far as the animal is concerned. So perhaps a second factor is the level of acceptance for the religion. [The more a religion is accepted, the more its practices are too, and vice-versa).

Chuck Stone

So not being allowed to mutilate (let's call it what it is) the genitals of a baby is an attack on religious freedom?

What a twisted, ****ed up excuse to continue a barbaric practice.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Circumcision does help prevent infections - including serious infections - in healthy penises as well as ones with some existing condition.

This is such a ridiculous defence of a barbaric practice. Circumcision kills babies (100+ per year in the US) and goodness knows how many around the world with approximately 1 billion people who adhere to this archaic violence against babies.

Circumcision is elective by proxy (if there can be such a thing) and thus is completely unnecessary.

Pottler

If a priest wandered up and said "I want to cut off the end of your kids mickey and then suck it-for religious reasons" what answer would you give him? I know what mine would be.

Chuck Stone

Pottler wrote: »

If a priest wandered up and said "I want to cut off the end of your kids mickey and then suck it-for religious reasons" what answer would you give him? I know what mine would be.

My answer would be in Morse Code with my fists.

Pottler

Chuck Stone wrote: »

My answer would be in Morse Code with my fists.

Oh vey!:D

Odysseus

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

are you seriously trolling me or what?
Like, ya can't be, you're supposed to me a Mod.

But OK, for the benefit of doubt......here's why I think it's messed up, even though I've already explained.

An authoritative member of a religion cuts a piece of skin off a boy's penis, if blood is drawn from the 'operation' he bends over and puts his lips to the boy's penis and sucks away the blood.

I don't think there's anything sexual about it for the rabbi or anything but I do think it's disgusting.

Recently a kid died coz a rabbi kissed his dick during this ritual and the rabbi spread his STI to the kid
Check this out:


from here

also more here

That's why I think it's messed up, f*cked up, wrong, nonsense, brutal, unnecessary, disturbing..... *add more synomyms.

Cheers, see now I can see what your saying, messed up is such a ambigious signifer that I could not really see what your objections were. I could stand over the comment in one of those links equating it with child abuse, though, that is really pushing the boat out.

The point is I was trying to see if it was the cutting itself you seen as messed up or the sucking of the blood/penis and why you seen it thay way. Going by your links it's about the latter which you percieve as disguisting. I wouldn't see it that way myself, but each to their own.

pablomakaveli

I think circumcision on children for non-medical reasons should be banned. If they want to adhere to their parents religion when they are adults then let them make the decision then when they are able to decide that is what they want.

The only reason circumcision became popular, particularly in america where its widespread, is that in the earlier 20th century it was (mistakenly) seen as a good way to prevent masturbation. Unfortunately this ridiculous practice has stuck.

As for the religions that require it, well religion isnt a reason to justify mutilating a babys penis.

fedor.2.

Odysseus wrote: »

Cheers, see now I can see what your saying, messed up is such a ambigious signifer that I could not really see what your objections were. I could stand over the comment in one of those links equating it with child abuse, though, that is really pushing the boat out.

The point is I was trying to see if it was the cutting itself you seen as messed up or the sucking of the blood/penis and why you seen it thay way. Going by your links it's about the latter which you percieve as disguisting. I wouldn't see it that way myself, but each to their own.

What a strange person. You may be thinking about this way too much.

Sulla Felix

Odysseus wrote: »

Serious answer NO.

It's certainly unusal, and as I said something that is well... not my cup of tea.
However, I think it is fair to say that the is nonthing overtly sexual about it, in that the rabbi is engaging in this act as a religous/cultural act, not to get his jollies off.

I can see people having various objections, however, to say itb isw messed up tells me nothing of why you think this act is inapporpriate, which is why I ask the question, what do you mean when you say messed up?

There've been dozens of cases of children contracting Hepatitis from a Rabbi in NYC. Reason enough for it?

Matt_Trakker

Odysseus wrote: »

Going by your links it's about the latter which you percieve as disguisting. I wouldn't see it that way myself, but each to their own.

I think the whole idea of anything to do with circumcision is disgusting, wrong, brutal & unnecessary.
Each to their own indeed, but if some douchebag comes near my kid with a knife and tries to hack off part of his dick and then wants to suck the blood from the wound then that chaps gonna be getting a his knife in his eye.