Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
darkmoonlady

S.F Circumcision ban vs. Religious Freedom

167 posts in this topic

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/

It seems the Evangelical community is throwing its weight behind opposition to the ban on circumcision based on the Abrahamic root of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Calling it a religious debate seems to me to be shifting it away from the human rights issues. Female genital mutilations are considered a human rights violation based on gender, so why not circumcision? I could understand invoking religious freedom if it were adults who were making this decision however, tradition seems to me to be a weak excuse. The bible also calls for stoning people and treatment of women like property, so how is that an acceptable or valid reason to continue circumcision. For the record I'm against it for infants, if someeone wants it after the age of consent then go for it. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Evangelical community are full of extremists and I thumb my nose at them.

There is a thread on this already, 35 pages I think. I suggest asking to have the Evangelical element merged with that thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it's pretty archacic.

If an adult wants one, that's their decision but it should never be done to a child and religon certainly shouldn't be used an excuse for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Evangelical community are full of extremists and I thumb my nose at them.

There is a thread on this already, 35 pages I think. I suggest asking to have the Evangelical element merged with that thread.

The reason I started this is that the Evangicals basically have no dog in this fight, other than being based on Abraham which is a stretch. I don't cotton to evangelical thinking either, I just think it is interesting that they are joining a fight that really doesn't effect them as a means of what? Solidarity? They aren't interested in a big hugfest with Jews or Muslims I just thought it was interesting that they got in the fray. I find it hard to believe it is about religious freedom at all. I was more curious as to what others thought of evangelical involvement and why they aren't at all interested in human rights. I never once saw evangelicals condone female genital mutilation which some Islamic believers find to be a religious matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree the Evangelical community does have a large share of extremist but why does SF seem to harbor such a liberal crowd that makes most Judeo-Christian belief sets and for that matter some US beliefs wrong? It seems to me that this area will ban anything no matter how insignificant. Just wondering when the idiocy will end...

More on topic, I am a male, I was circumcised before I was brought home from the hospital. I do not remember it. It has not affected me in any way that I can think of. I say what is wrong with it?

Banned Items in SF.

  • Toys in Happy meals.
  • Plastic bags.
  • Bottled water.
  • Smoking.
  • Some baby animals.
  • Segways.
  • Soda and juice drinks on some city properties.
  • Arizona.
  • Firearms in advertising.
  • Sitting on the streets within certain hours.
  • ROTC.
  • Yellow pages directory.
  • Commercial advertising vehicles.
  • Guns, ammo, and transfer of ownership inside City.

Edited by Lei Ren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it's pretty archacic.

If an adult wants one, that's their decision but it should never be done to a child and religon certainly shouldn't be used an excuse for it.

It's a bit different for Jews because it's not just a circumcision (Bris), it's the giving of a Hebrew name to a Jewish male on the 8th day of his life. I'd like to see how many Mohels and Jewish parents are arrested for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a bit different for Jews because it's not just a circumcision (Bris), it's the giving of a Hebrew name to a Jewish male on the 8th day of his life. I'd like to see how many Mohels and Jewish parents are arrested for it.

I'll repeat: religion shouldn't have a way to legitimise essentially mutilating babies. All too often x religion has ways of getting past all kinds of laws when no religion should. If the ban passes, those people that you mention should be the first to be arrested and not get out of it.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat: religion shouldn't have a way to legitimise essentially mutilating babies. All too often x religion has ways of getting past all kinds of laws when no religion should.

Is it not true that female circumcision is often done in the teenage years whereas male circumcision is usually done within days of birth? I also wonder what are the benefits of males being uncircumcised as opposed to being circumcised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not true that female circumcision is often done in the teenage years whereas male circumcision is usually done within days of birth? I also wonder what are the benefits of males being uncircumcised as opposed to being circumcised?

There;s no benefit to be c$ircumcised or not there's a lot of propoganda but none of it is true.

Circumcision for both genders should be banned until adult years and only then should an adult be allowed to make an INFORMED decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit different for Jews because it's not just a circumcision (Bris), it's the giving of a Hebrew name to a Jewish male on the 8th day of his life. I'd like to see how many Mohels and Jewish parents are arrested for it.

It also includes the rabbi sucking on the little boys penis when it's circumcised.

Don't know how people are alright with that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this isnt about mutulation of a child, this is about religious freedom.

this is the same city that tried to force the whole country into accepting same sex marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this isnt about mutulation of a child, this is about religious freedom.

this is the same city that tried to force the whole country into accepting same sex marriage.

This is about mutilation masking itself as religious freedom. If there was a religion that commanded it's members to have one of their own fingers cut off to be a part of it, how long do you think that would last?

Those things are hardly the same. One is physically removing something from achild, the other is about a loving commitment between two pwople.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also includes the rabbi sucking on the little boys penis when it's circumcised.

Don't know how people are alright with that...

ShadowSot, innuendo implying a reprehensible purpose, without explaining the real purpose is a disingenuous way of attempting to sway an argument. May I suggest that you should have explained the purposes of "Metzitzah" instead of insinuating some type of deviant sexual action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ShadowSot, innuendo implying a reprehensible purpose, without explaining the real purpose is a disingenuous way of attempting to sway an argument. May I suggest that you should have explained the purposes of "Metzitzah" instead of insinuating some type of deviant sexual action.

Ah, so it's fine so long as it's part of religious ritual then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Circumscion (male) can stand alone on medical grounds. Religion need not play a part in deciding for or against it. When i was born, medical not religious opinion was almost unanimously in favour of circumscision for male infants, and so over 90 percent of males i nmy time in austrlalia were circumscise. I never met an uncircumscised male until i was an adult. Today after declining, circumscion is making a comeback on medical grounds in australia again. There are many medical reasons for this but one of the strongest is the correlation between being circumscised and reducing cerival cancer in females. Cervical cancer is caused by a virus and, apparently, circumscision greatly reduces the transmission of that virus.

SUMMARY

Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.

http://www.circinfo.net/

I can tverify the impartiality or particular bias (if any) of the author here, but the facts about cervical cancer are repeated in many articles and journals in Austrlaia and are in part the reason for a resurgence in male circumscision in the last 10 years.

Even the 'official medical position feels the position delicately balanced enogh to leave to a parental decision.

AustralasiaThe Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons."[214]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

In other words, while the evidence is not compelling enough to institute universal circumscision as in the middle of last century, it is enough to be taken seriously into consideration, on an individual basis.

And that is medical, not religious, opinion.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumscion (male) can stand alone on medical grounds. Religion need not play a part in deciding for or against it. When i was born, medical not religious opinion was almost unanimously in favour of circumscision for male infants, and so over 90 percent of males i nmy time in austrlalia were circumscise. I never met an uncircumscised male until i was an adult. Today after declining, circumscion is making a comeback on medical grounds in australia again. There are many medical reasons for this but one of the strongest is the correlation between being circumscised and reducing cerival cancer in females. Cervical cancer is caused by a virus and, apparently, circumscision greatly reduces the transmission of that virus.

This sounds like a excuse not to practice safe sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This sounds like a excuse not to practice safe sex.

I think that is the wrong way of looking at it. One could also say that if one practised truly safe sex, ie in a singular, long term, monogamous relationship, one would never need to wear a condom other than for birth control. The reality is, many, if not most, humans do not practice safe sex; either by using a condom or by a long term monogamous sexual relationship. So, not just in the west, but in devloping countries, circumscision may play a part in reducing a variety of medical problems.

I had to think about your post for a while. I have never used, or even owned a condom, in my 40 or so years of sexual activity. And i have never had a single sexual disease or other sexual problem /complication.

I have demonstrated their use to numerous classes of aolescents in health/sexual education classes. :devil: But they came out of the health faculty's budget :innocent:

There is a very simple reason for that. I have had an exclusive, long term, monogamous reltionship with one woman in that time, and she has never had any sexual activity with anyone other than me, since we met in 1972.

Thus, I am not used/accustomed to thinking in terms of condom use for safe sex; only for birth control. And i never needed one for that, because my wife used the pill when we did not want to have children.

While I am sure this doesnt make me unique, or even unusual, it does colour my world view until I stop and put myself in another's shoes.

ps past, and some current, medical opinion supports circumscision as a general health practice which applies even to men who are too young to have sex, or do not have it for other reasons. Its not just about sexual health.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so it's fine so long as it's part of religious ritual then?

About right up there with implying that religious rituals and sexual molestation of babies are one and the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between male and female circumcision. Males are generally circumcised soon after birth. Girls are not circumcised, usually, until they are of an age to get married, depending on their particular tribal custom. And it is only a tribal custom. There are NO religious laws concerning the practice, at least not in the big three.

In males, a small piece of, arguably, superfluous skin is removed. In some female circumcisions everything is removed, labia majora, minora and the clitoris, often only leaving a very small opening that soon heals over with scar tissue. This practice can cause catastrophic infections and lifelong pain.

Some societies do wait to circumcise their boys until they reach the age of "manhood". And for these boys the procedure is as painful and dangerous as that of female circumcision. It is good to note here that the cultures that practice this rite of manhood are usually very archaic and none to sanitary. It is much the same for the young women who go through the most severe of circumcisions.

There are Drs who perform female circumcisions in a medical setting for those families that have the money. And what is worse there are some physicians who provide this service right here in the US. But for the most part female genital mutilation occurs in dirty unsanitary conditions with NO anesthesia or anesthetic, performed by a tribal mid-wife.

I don't know where I stand on the subject of male circumcision. I had my son circumcised. As a care provider I have had many elderly male clients who suffered horribly from infections under the foreskin as they aged. The skin becomes less elastic and eventually will not retract to allow for maintaining proper hygiene. I did not want my son to ever have to go through that. But, I was not told at the time of my son's circumcision that my beautiful baby would be subject to this procedure without any anesthetic. When I found out this was the normal practice I was appalled.

So, you see there is a medical reason for the tradition of male circumcision. I imagine that in hostile desert climates with no real knowledge of sanitary practices that there were lots of elder men with bacterial or fungal infections of the foreskin. In Judaism cleanliness is truly next to Godliness, with many of the religious laws having to do with sanitation and hygiene. In the context of the Hebrew's ancestral homeland and agrarian culture it is very easy to understand why circumcision became so important. So important that it became part of the covenant with their God.

There is no medical necessity for female circumcision. It is a misogynistic practice, done to keep the woman from ever enjoying sex, because if she doesn't enjoy it she will not be tempted to commit adultery.

The debate over male circumcision will continue for quite some time I am sure. As I said I have ambivalent feelings about the practice myself. Regarding female genital mutilation though I have no such mental debate. It is a cruel and dangerous practice that needs to be stopped and those who continue to engage, participate and perpetuate it need to be punished until it is understood that in an educated society the brutalization of young women will no longer be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also includes the rabbi sucking on the little boys penis when it's circumcised.

Don't know how people are alright with that...

WTF? Are you a total idiot? Ignorance is bliss, huh? Have you ever been at a Bris? Do you know what a Mohel is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat: religion shouldn't have a way to legitimise essentially mutilating babies. All too often x religion has ways of getting past all kinds of laws when no religion should. If the ban passes, those people that you mention should be the first to be arrested and not get out of it.

Thank you for your opinion.

I'm glad that in America we have a Constitution that guarantees and protects Freedom of Religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your opinion.

I'm glad that in America we have a Constitution that guarantees and protects Freedom of Religion.

There's nothing wrong with freedom of religion until that 'freedom' of religion is twisted and leads to things that wuld otherwise be illegal if it wasn't for the protection of freedom of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ShadowSot, innuendo implying a reprehensible purpose, without explaining the real purpose is a disingenuous way of attempting to sway an argument. May I suggest that you should have explained the purposes of "Metzitzah" instead of insinuating some type of deviant sexual action.

Hey K-Man, only a very small percentage Chassidic Mohels use that practice; the overwhelming majority do not. 99% of all Brises (Metzitzahs, specifically) go like this: "Snip-snip > gauze > 'It's a Mitzvah!' > brunch."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

WTF? Are you a total idiot? Ignorance is bliss, huh? Have you ever been at a Bris? Do you know what a Mohel is?

I'm aware that there are many Jewish people who have adapted this procedure, though it depends. Good old tradition and the like.

I'm not talking of those who don't, but those who do.

Obviously, reading the procedure online does not imply the same understanding as attending one and watching the procedure.

So, please, explain why it is right and proper that a religious institution be allowed to continue this practice.

Now, before you get to far, I am well aware of the right to freedom of religion.

However, I would argue that it doesn't extend to those who are having religious rituals put on them, like newborns, or on religios practices that cause harm to the person. While there is medical evidence to suggest this possibility, I will instead refer to religious practices that are banned in the States, like ritual killing, female circumcision, subjugation of women, women are allowed to teach here in the States. Slavery is endorsed in the Christian Bible, which includes the Jewish Torah.

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your religion involves compulsory surgery on your children you're wanting a good look at yourself, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.