Should religious induction of children be banned?

RobertKK · 19-05-2014 12:21PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Are you totally unaware of the Saudi theocracy? It is a country where apostasy = death penalty! It is a country which considers anyone who doesn't believe in God/Yahweh/Allah a terrorist!

They are against the freedom of religion.

Bubbaclaus · 19-05-2014 12:23PM

Religion still existing in 2014 is pretty worrying in itself, never mind kids being force fed it.

AdolfHipster · 19-05-2014 12:25PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Religion still existing in 2014 is pretty worrying in itself, never mind kids being force fed it.

Ignorance pure and simple - I cant wait to see the look on your face when the Leader finally takes us to Blisstonia - known for its high levels of bliss.

tfitzgerald · 19-05-2014 12:28PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Are you totally unaware of the Saudi theocracy? It is a country where apostasy = death penalty! It is a country which considers anyone who doesn't believe in God/Yahweh/Allah a terrorist!

Why do you think I suggested Saudi. It's one of the few things in really like about the kingdom

PopePalpatine · 19-05-2014 12:31PM

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Why do you think I suggested Saudi. It's one of the few things in really like about the kingdom

Then why aren't you out campaigning to turn Ireland into a totalitarian theocracy, if you're that fücking spiteful?

SimonTemplar · 19-05-2014 12:32PM

I don't mind schools teaching religion in a historical / social context but they should include other religions and not just Christianity.

However, teaching kids that the bible is 100% accurate in the same environment where they learn basic skills such as reading and writing is just wrong. America has a lot of problems but at least they recognized this fact.

To this day, I still remember some of those rubbish propaganda songs that we had to learn - "Jesus sat down in the shade of a tree and said to the children come sit by me. They sat at his feet and he touched them and smiled". :rolleyes:

greenpilot · 19-05-2014 12:34PM

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Why do you think I suggested Saudi. It's one of the few things in really like about the kingdom

...they also would not tolerate your Solphadine addiction in Saudi.

osarusan · 19-05-2014 12:34PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's no one's business apart from the parents.

Except when it's not.

Bubbaclaus · 19-05-2014 12:38PM

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Why do you think I suggested Saudi. It's one of the few things in really like about the kingdom

So you are of the belief that anyone that doesn't believe in religion should be killed for being a terrorist?

Really?

You are actually saying that?

19-05-2014 12:40PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Religion still existing in 2014 is pretty worrying in itself, never mind kids being force fed it.

Don't worry Catholicism is going nowhere. The catholic bashes and militant atheists posting here (who are far over represented here compared to real life) are just p*ssing into the wind.

Bubbaclaus · 19-05-2014 12:42PM

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Don't worry Catholicism is going nowhere. The catholic bashes and militant atheists posting here (who are far over represented here compared to real life) are just p*ssing into the wind.

And yet its a theist saying atheists should be murdered in this thread.

Any opinion on that?

osarusan · 19-05-2014 12:43PM

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Yes because it's what most parents want and for those who don't at least it's giving the child the catholic teachings that they don't get at home.

Remove the religious aspect of the 'teachings' and what is left that the child wouldn't get at home?

I Heart Internet · 19-05-2014 12:49PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

However, teaching kids that the bible is 100% accurate in the same environment where they learn basic skills such as reading and writing is just wrong.

I would suggest there are precisely zero schools in Ireland who teach this (that the bible is a 100% representation of fact).

19-05-2014 12:50PM

osarusan wrote: »

Remove the religious aspect of the 'teachings' and what is left that the child wouldn't get at home?

You answered the question yourself, the religious aspect will be left out.

padd b1975 · 19-05-2014 12:52PM

osarusan wrote: »

Except when it's not.

Do you think a 4 year old child's autonomy is credible?

whisky_galore · 19-05-2014 12:55PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

To this day, I still remember some of those rubbish propaganda songs that we had to learn - "Jesus sat down in the shade of a tree and said to the children come sit by me. They sat at his feet and he touched them and smiled". :rolleyes:

That sounds really dodgy now!

Wonder which is worse; an unquestioning following of the rc church or going through the motions of mass, communion, confirmation to please gran and gramps/so the kid doesn't feel 'left out'/so the neighbours won't think we're pagans?
Think the latter is more spineless tbh.

I Heart Internet · 19-05-2014 12:59PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

That sounds really dodgy now!

Wonder which is worse; an unquestioning following of the rc church or going through the motions of mass, communion, confirmation to please gran and gramps/so the kid doesn't feel 'left out'/so the neighbours won't think we're pagans?
Think the latter is more spineless tbh.

Both are undesireable. But thankfully, we don't live in a binary world where one can only be one or the other.

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 01:16PM

pauldla wrote: »

Shaking hands is hardly the same thing as removing a foreskin, Czarcasm. I'm not forcing my will on anybody (or at least, until I have perfected my army of flying monkeys); I'm just wondering why ritual genital mutilation of minors is not considered child abuse. Why does 'It's our belief!' give a free pass to such activities? If the Spartans were still on the go today, would we allow them to leave babies on mountaintops overnight on the understanding that it was their religious belief?

Well I used the example of the funky handshake to illustrate that what you call ritual child mutilation, is as normal to them as their funky handshake. It's been practised for thousands of years, generation after generation, and it doesn't just have religious significance, but also social and cultural significance - a child may not be considered a full member (no pun intended!) of their Jewish or Islam community without being circumcised.

Here's the thing though - In the very same way as Spartan traditions fell out of favour as society evolved, so too has is the practice of circumcision. In the same way as Spartan civilization didn't disappear overnight - it will take another few generations for the practice of circumcision to become outdated. I'm not aware of any country in the world where the practice is illegal, which is why, while certainly it's frowned upon in certain societies, it's not considered child abuse, because it has far more significance than just the physical absence of a foreskin.

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Well you should tell him he doesn't have the right to circumcise his children, it's barbaric. Putting a baby in agony like that for no good reason is disgusting.

I won't be telling him anything, simply because I have no right to impose my morality on another person. I don't agree that it's barbaric, because I understand the symbolism and significance of the practice. I wouldn't encourage it, but I'm not going to demonize them for it either. It's not the agony you think it is either, because modern medicine and techniques mean it's carried out in as safely a manner for the child as possible. It also may seem like no good reason to you, but as I've outlined above, you also aren't the person who is ostracized from their community for not being circumcised, and that can have a more damaging psychological effect on the child than the physical effects of circumcision.

To be absolutely blunt about it, the objections to circumcision raised here seem to be based more on objection to the religion as a whole, rather than just objection to the practice of circumcision. In order to understand the reasons for the practice, it's better to understand it's significance as much more than just the religious reasons, because imposing our morals arbitrarily with no understanding of why they practice circumcision, is just as intolerant and bigoted as they are towards those who they consider inferior to them because we do not share their moral viewpoint.

Amirani · 19-05-2014 01:25PM

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Lovely another "knock the Catholic Church thread". People here are religious in there hatred for the church and are not happy unless they are bashing it. Well ye live in a majority catholic country. If ye don't like religion why not move might I suggest Saudi Arabia

You really seem to have very little understanding about how modern democracies work. Just because the majority of people in a country are in favour of something, doesn't mean that it is forced upon everyone else. This is just basic sort of knowledge that you'd expect most citizens to have.

Ireland is not a catholic country, it is a country that allows and guarantees freedom of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Try taking a read of the constitution, it may go some way towards curing your gaping ignorance on this matter.

Cazzoenorme · 19-05-2014 01:26PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well I used the example of the funky handshake to illustrate that what you call ritual child mutilation, is as normal to them as their funky handshake. It's been practised for thousands of years, generation after generation, and it doesn't just have religious significance, but also social and cultural significance - a child may not be considered a full member (no pun intended!) of their Jewish or Islam community without being circumcised.

Here's the thing though - In the very same way as Spartan traditions fell out of favour as society evolved, so too has is the practice of circumcision. In the same way as Spartan civilization didn't disappear overnight - it will take another few generations for the practice of circumcision to become outdated. I'm not aware of any country in the world where the practice is illegal, which is why, while certainly it's frowned upon in certain societies, it's not considered child abuse, because it has far more significance than just the physical absence of a foreskin.

I won't be telling him anything, simply because I have no right to impose my morality on another person. I don't agree that it's barbaric, because I understand the symbolism and significance of the practice. I wouldn't encourage it, but I'm not going to demonize them for it either. It's not the agony you think it is either, because modern medicine and techniques mean it's carried out in as safely a manner for the child as possible. It also may seem like no good reason to you, but as I've outlined above, you also aren't the person who is ostracized from their community for not being circumcised, and that can have a more damaging psychological effect on the child than the physical effects of circumcision.

To be absolutely blunt about it, the objections to circumcision raised here seem to be based more on objection to the religion as a whole, rather than just objection to the practice of circumcision. In order to understand the reasons for the practice, it's better to understand it's significance as much more than just the religious reasons, because imposing our morals arbitrarily with no understanding of why they practice circumcision, is just as intolerant and bigoted as they are towards those who they consider inferior to them because we do not share their moral viewpoint.

Babies have died as a result of circumcision, it's imposing an unnecessary risk on a baby. There is no justification for that.

tfitzgerald · 19-05-2014 01:27PM

greenpilot wrote: »

...they also would not tolerate your Solphadine addiction in Saudi.

Asshole. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone

osarusan · 19-05-2014 01:27PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Do you think a 4 year old child's autonomy is credible?

No, but that's not relevant.

You can say that it's nobody's business but the parents, but that's only true in cases where the state decides that it's nobody's business but the parents.

There are plenty of examples of aspects of children's development/education in which the state does make it its business.

kylith · 19-05-2014 01:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That was for church investigations - an oath of secrecy to church officials while the church investigates, do you read what you post?

Yes we know the church investigated and in most cases didn't deal with them properly - certain bishops/dioceses in particular.

The claim that it is for church investigations was made after the document came to light, and I would consider it the actions of a church trying to cover its arse.

I cannot understand how any oath of secrecy could apply to 'secrecy to church officials while the church investigates'. Would the victim not be allowed to tell church officials? But they already would have, that's what would have sparked the 'investigation'. Is it for church officials ne keep secret? Then how could it apply to anything other than keeping it secret from civil authorities? That bishops were instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication' seems fairly clear to me that the instruction is 'no-one outside the church is to find out about this or you're in trouble'.

I would welcome you clarifying this for me.

partyguinness · 19-05-2014 01:32PM

Yes, considering in the Catholic Church baptism, communion, and confirmation are all done by the age of 12/13. Think of the lost money...:eek:

Mike747 · 19-05-2014 01:35PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well I used the example of the funky handshake to illustrate that what you call ritual child mutilation, is as normal to them as their funky handshake. It's been practised for thousands of years, generation after generation, and it doesn't just have religious significance, but also social and cultural significance - a child may not be considered a full member (no pun intended!) of their Jewish or Islam community without being circumcised.

Here's the thing though - In the very same way as Spartan traditions fell out of favour as society evolved, so too has is the practice of circumcision. In the same way as Spartan civilization didn't disappear overnight - it will take another few generations for the practice of circumcision to become outdated. I'm not aware of any country in the world where the practice is illegal, which is why, while certainly it's frowned upon in certain societies, it's not considered child abuse, because it has far more significance than just the physical absence of a foreskin.

I won't be telling him anything, simply because I have no right to impose my morality on another person. I don't agree that it's barbaric, because I understand the symbolism and significance of the practice. I wouldn't encourage it, but I'm not going to demonize them for it either. It's not the agony you think it is either, because modern medicine and techniques mean it's carried out in as safely a manner for the child as possible. It also may seem like no good reason to you, but as I've outlined above, you also aren't the person who is ostracized from their community for not being circumcised, and that can have a more damaging psychological effect on the child than the physical effects of circumcision.

To be absolutely blunt about it, the objections to circumcision raised here seem to be based more on objection to the religion as a whole, rather than just objection to the practice of circumcision. In order to understand the reasons for the practice, it's better to understand it's significance as much more than just the religious reasons, because imposing our morals arbitrarily with no understanding of why they practice circumcision, is just as intolerant and bigoted as they are towards those who they consider inferior to them because we do not share their moral viewpoint.

You could say the same about female genital mutilation, but I'm guessing you're opposed to that practice.

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 01:42PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Babies have died as a result of circumcision, it's imposing an unnecessary risk on a baby. There is no justification for that.

There's no justification for the practice that meets your moral standards. That's quite distinct from no justification full stop. Fully grown men have also died of circumcision, but it happens so, so rarely, that the risk of death by far and away outweighs the risk of being ostracized from their community when they're not babies any more.

The only way you can overcome this is by educating adults and letting them make their own decisions for their children, because sure as hell there are Muslim and Jewish extremists who would seek to impose their will on you and call your parenting into question according to their moral standards, and I don't imagine you'd be too willing to give them a hearing either, so why would you expect they should listen to you?

partyguinness · 19-05-2014 01:44PM

Circumcision was initially used for hygiene purposes in hot climates to avoid infections etc where water was scarce. It gradually became part of the religious 'induction' process i.e. killing 2 birds with the one stone. It became part of the religious process almost by default.

A bit like celibacy in the Catholic Church, it was introduced circa 12/13th century to stop property passing to the spouse on the death of the priest. It was all to do with inheritance as the Church was losing property. Of course the official line was that it brought the priest closer to God.

Absoluvely · 19-05-2014 01:50PM

In Germany in May 2012, the Cologne regional appellate court ruled that religious circumcision of male children amounted to bodily injury, and was a criminal offense in the area under its jurisdiction. Unfortunately by December it was decided surgeons could legally circumcise infant boys for religious reasons in the region, given certain conditions.

My opinion is that circumcisions should be treated the same as piercings and tattoos and should be illegal unless voluntary and after passing a minimum age of consent. There should be no religious exemptions.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Ireland is not a catholic country, it is a country that allows and guarantees freedom of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Try taking a read of the constitution, it may go some way towards curing your gaping ignorance on this matter.

You're making it sound as if the Irish constitution is secular, which it isn't.

Amirani · 19-05-2014 01:52PM

Absoluvely wrote: »

You're making it sound as if the Irish constitution is secular, which it isn't.

It's not completely secular, but it does guarantee freedom of religion, ergo Ireland can't be categorised as a theocratic state like the previous poster suggested.

Ireland does not have a state religion, at no point is Catholicism identified as such in the constitution.

Cazzoenorme · 19-05-2014 01:54PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no justification for the practice that meets your moral standards. That's quite distinct from no justification full stop. Fully grown men have also died of circumcision, but it happens so, so rarely, that the risk of death by far and away outweighs the risk of being ostracized from their community when they're not babies any more.

The only way you can overcome this is by educating adults and letting them make their own decisions for their children, because sure as hell there are Muslim and Jewish extremists who would seek to impose their will on you and call your parenting into question according to their moral standards, and I don't imagine you'd be too willing to give them a hearing either, so why would you expect they should listen to you?

I'm willing to listen to anyone who challenges my moral standards and willing to amend my outlook. On what basis can anyone justify causing such pain and risk to a child? Then there is the lifelong effect of reduced sexual pleasure due to reduced sensitivity and the pleasure caused by the foreskin.

Should religious induction of children be banned?

Comments