All Religions are not Equal

[ericb]

Not Ok to give a kid a little cut (unless it's circumcision, which is FINE, right??? )

 

Yeah, that's really comparable. You can roll your eyes back from the back of your skull to view the real world again.

 

 

Dude. You slice a friggin' piece of flesh completely OFF the male's dick, without anesthesia. They have less to say about it than the kids in your post. The kids in the post aren't permanently altered.

 

ummm....not to bicker about minutia, but circumsion is a religious rite in Judaism and Islam, not Christianity. It's use in modern day America is more an issue of hygiene.

[chucK]

Fuck man, if you were given a choice between a cut on your scalp and a piece of flesh sliced off of your dick, which would you choose???!

 

KKK are you really a chick in disquise? If you can't see how the head wound is far preferable, you must be missing something.

 

Many sects of Christianity endorse bodily mutilation, and it's totally fucked up mutilation too. Jesus!

[ericb]

Many sects of Christianity endorse bodily mutilation, and it's totally fucked up mutilation too. Jesus!

 

Care to enlighten us with some examples, oh eloquent one?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Fuck man, if you were given a choice between a cut on your scalp and a piece of flesh sliced off of your dick, which would you choose???!

 

KKK are you really a chick in disquise? If you can't see how the head wound is far preferable, you must be missing something.

 

Many sects of Christianity endorse bodily mutilation, and it's totally fucked up mutilation too. Jesus!

 

you guys are masters of obfuscation and diversion. some whacko religious tools are slicing little boys on the head, terrifying them and scarring them for life emotionally and all you can talk about by comparison is circumcision? oh, I forgot, since you all worship your own dick, and what you do with it, that is the most inviolate offence imaginable.

[G-spotter]

having part of your penis cut off didn't scar you?

[pink]

Many religions contain sect(s) that practice some form of body mutilation/degradation in "honor" of the spirit albeit not forced upon children. Although, for the crying and fear I've witnessed in children forced to endure water baptism, it may be compared psychologically to the example you've posted.

 

Hindus have their Fakirs.

 

and Christians have their Penitentes...

 

...for which an awesome rockclimbing area is named:

 

 

 

i was baptised and to honest i don't remember it because i was an infant. i think babies generally just cry. how this compares to slashing your head with a knife i don't know. maybe more comparable to teenage circumcision.

 

 

 

[chucK]

oh, I forgot, since you all worship your own dick, and what you do with it, that is the most inviolate offence imaginable.

 

Whoa, you really are a chick aren't you?

[archenemy]

Many sects of Christianity endorse bodily mutilation, and it's totally fucked up mutilation too. Jesus!

 

Care to enlighten us with some examples, oh eloquent one?

There is indeed a history of bodily mutilation throughout Christianity.

The hair shirt, the cilice, the whip, etc have been used throughout history by the layman, the saint, the monk. It is to have originated with Saint Paul with his saying that the flesh must die in order to live through the Spirit. The modern sect that most people are familiar with utilizing self mortification is Opus Dei; but there are others.

 

Until you have experienced pain and discomfort with the intention of reaching a higher spirituality, you may wish to withhold your opinion of it. However, harming children is of course a tough thing to swallow and may be in a different catagory.

[drater]

amanita muscaria

 

smoke dat shit!

[mattp]

you guys are masters of obfuscation and diversion.

 

Say what? Your post kicking this of is example number one of obfuscation and diversion.

 

Given the way discussions go around here, and your frequent role in slamming the miserable pathetic excuse for a human being you see in the whiny liberals on this board, you can only have hoped for the reaction to be some critique of Christianity and a bandstand for you to go on your soapbox about how secula humanism is devoid of human spirit or whatever your point may be.

 

It was an intersting post, though the main point I can draw from it is that there are some freaks who do weird and potentially dangerous things in the name of religion.

[archenemy]

I like freaks.

[underworld]

KK...you forget you're arguing w/ folks that are condemning circumsision but are ok w/ killing the same kid a few months younger.

 

maybe if there was prenatal circumsicions - then it would be the woman doing it to her 'own body' and it would be ok, right?

 

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

Interesting Aside:

 

"Circumcision and HIV transmission.

 

* Quinn TC.

 

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland, USA bThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

 

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent literature on male circumcision and its effect on HIV acquisition. RECENT FINDINGS: The report from the randomized clinical trial of male circumcision in South Africa demonstrating a 60% protective effect in preventing HIV acquisition provided the first clinical trial evidence of efficacy of male circumcision in protecting men against HIV infection. This protective effect was consistent with both ecological and epidemiologic studies which also show a protective effect of 50-70% in men at high risk for HIV infection. Biological studies also demonstrate an increased number of HIV receptor cells in the mucosa of foreskin providing additional evidence of HIV susceptibility in the uncircumcised male. Male circumcision may also have a beneficial effect in preventing HIV acquisition in women and lowering selected sexually transmitted infections in both sexes. SUMMARY: The results of two ongoing randomized clinical trials of male circumcision in Kenya and Uganda are awaited with interest, however male circumcision should be carefully considered as a potential public health tool in preventing HIV acquisition. If other trials confirm the results of the South African trial, implementation of this surgical procedure will need to be carefully scaled up and integrated into other prevention programs with emphasis on surgical training, aseptic techniques, acceptability, availability and cultural considerations."

 

While I'd agree with the notion that all religions are essentially equal in the respect that they ultimately have to appeal to faith - belief in the unprovable - at some point, I think that it's patently absurd to insist that this renders all religious codes and the behavior that they inspire in their followers morally equivalent to one another. Are you really prepared to argue that because the codes that inspire both the beliefs and the conduct of the Quakers and the Salafis are both religious, there can be no distinctions made between them?

 

As far as circumcision is concerned, the practice needs to be viewed in light of its intentions and in the social context within which it occurs. Is male circumcision undertaken within a social context in which men are systematically denied rights and liberties available to women? Is the modification undertaken to deny men the capacity for sexual gratification as part of a larger strategy to enforce their obedience to their wives? These are only a couple of distinctions that separate male circumcision from the varieties of surgical desexualization practiced in the Islamic world. It's worth repeating again, that physical equivalence and moral equivalence are two different things. In this case, the distinctions are obvious and quite elementary to anyone with a capacity for making moral judgments that extends beyond a cheap and impulsive relativism that's as shallow as it is facile.

[mattp]

you guys are masters of obfuscation and diversion.

 

Say what? Your post kicking this off is example number one of obfuscation and diversion.

 

Given the way discussions go around here, and your frequent role in slamming the miserable and pathetic excuses for human beings you see in the whiny liberals on this board, you can only have hoped for the reaction to be some critique of Christianity and a bandstand for you to go on your soapbox about how secular humanism is devoid of human spirit or whatever your point may be.

 

It was an intersting post, though the main point I can draw from it is that there are some freaks who do weird and potentially dangerous things in the name of religion.

[kevbone]

Is this in spray....good.

 

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT THE RELIOUS FREEKS DO IN THE WORLD. LET THEM CUT EACH OTHER TO PIECES.

 

Ah....I feel better now.

[archenemy]

A 10%er no doubt

[kevbone]

What does that mean?

[ericb]

KK...you forget you're arguing w/ folks that are condemning circumsision but are ok w/ killing the same kid a few months younger.

 

maybe if there was prenatal circumsicions - then it would be the woman doing it to her 'own body' and it would be ok, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, isn't it

[Dechristo]

it means you lost 10% of your brain surgically within eight days of your birth

[archenemy]

you guys are masters of obfuscation and diversion.

 

 

Given the way discussions go around here, and your frequent role in slamming the miserable and pathetic excuses for human beings you see in the whiny liberals on this board, you can only have hoped for the reaction to be some critique of Christianity and a bandstand for you to go on your soapbox about how secular humanism is devoid of human spirit or whatever your point may be.

I would be surprised if this were K's point, mostly because:

 

1. Most Christians believe that a person can accept Christ at any point, even at the moment of death, so no one is pathetic, without hope, option, redemption, etc.

 

2. Most Christians understand that the only way to get into Heaven is through the Grace of God. One cannot "earn" one's way in; and living through good deeds is just a good way to live--not a bargaining chip for eternity.

 

3. Judging other peoples' spiritual worthiness is the sole domain of God. To do so oneself is to risk losing Grace. Does K strike you as someone willing to do that?

 

I realize these points don't address your statement directly, I am not beyond a little disconnect obscusifwhatever once in a while. But just a few thoughts to throw into the mix.

[archenemy]

KK...you forget you're arguing w/ folks that are condemning circumsision but are ok w/ killing the same kid a few months younger.

 

maybe if there was prenatal circumsicions - then it would be the woman doing it to her 'own body' and it would be ok, right?

 

Interesting, isn't it

Sounds perfectly human to me.

[ericb]

KK...you forget you're arguing w/ folks that are condemning circumsision but are ok w/ killing the same kid a few months younger.

 

maybe if there was prenatal circumsicions - then it would be the woman doing it to her 'own body' and it would be ok, right?

 

Interesting, isn't it

Sounds perfectly human to me.

 

Human as in faulty?

[archenemy]

Human as in complex.

[archenemy]

I think I mean to say that I have never felt the need to confine others' ways of thinking to the contricts of consisteny, rationality, etc.

I believe it is a uniquely human trait to be able to hold two seemingly conflicting ideals at once and still be able to function, make decisions, accept others, and accept themselves. I see beauty in that.

Edited February 1, 2007 by archenemy

[sexual_chocolate]

yes, but what if the contradictions are entirely inconsistent within any moral, ethical, legal, etc. framework?

do you think "anything goes"?