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

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2012 02:09PM #1

...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 · 13-10-2012 02:15PM

Not too bothered really. Wouldn't call it barbarism

ejmaztec · 13-10-2012 02:18PM

I think that only female circumcision is barbaric.

--Kaiser-- · 13-10-2012 02:18PM

eth0 wrote: »

Not too bothered really. Wouldn't call it barbarism

What would you call the unnecessary mutilation of children?

blatantrereg · 13-10-2012 02:19PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:19PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:20PM

^ 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?

13-10-2012 02:21PM

foreskins are used in skin grafts aren't they?

--Kaiser-- · 13-10-2012 02:22PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:23PM

Any medically unnecessary surgery on a baby is retarded.

Ellis Dee · 13-10-2012 02:24PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:27PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:32PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:38PM

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

Ghost Buster · 13-10-2012 02:39PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:42PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:43PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:59PM

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 · 13-10-2012 02:59PM

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 · 13-10-2012 03:16PM

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 · 13-10-2012 03:26PM

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 · 13-10-2012 03:40PM

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 · 13-10-2012 03:55PM

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 · 13-10-2012 03:56PM

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 · 13-10-2012 03:57PM

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 · 13-10-2012 04:02PM

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 · 13-10-2012 04:08PM

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 · 13-10-2012 04:11PM

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 · 13-10-2012 04:16PM

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 · 13-10-2012 04:24PM

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 · 13-10-2012 04:27PM

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.

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

Comments