The Sage Garden

[Joe Republic]

Actually, it kinda is related...  Why else would the US once again be bucking the trend of the rest of the civilized world?

But no, Antonio, I quickly got Nathan's holier-than-thou treatment as well as soon as I called him out.  But hey, at least it was better than that other guy who keeps posting that picture of the fat guy wearing a hat whenever someone states an opinion that religion is weird and annoying.

[courts]

i'm a little scared to be agreeing with joe and memphis so readily on anything but well, yeah. not really anything to even debate here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, it kinda is related...  Why else would the US once again be bucking the trend of the rest of the civilized world?

But no, Antonio, I quickly got Nathan's holier-than-thou treatment as well as soon as I called him out.  But hey, at least it was better than that other guy who keeps posting that picture of the fat guy wearing a hat whenever someone states an opinion that religion is weird and annoying.

Your first post in this thread was calling Nathan's argument "literally disgusting". I agree with you that it's wrongheaded, but come on, circumcision is nothing worth getting so outraged about.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Actually, it kinda is related...  Why else would the US once again be bucking the trend of the rest of the civilized world?

MURICA = ONLY REAL CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My reaction to this thread:


Seriously, though.  Why is it such a big deal?  If you were circumcised, chances are you don't remember it, and you have nothing for which to compare your current 'penile state' to the one you had when you were born.  I would also point out that, all controversy aside, there are non-religious reasons for why parents choose to circumcise their sons. They may not be valid to you, but let's try not to act as if this is even remotely comparable to getting a hand chopped off.  Circumcision only makes a noticeable difference if it's performed on females, and of course, most developed countries have outlawed that practice.

[TNF]

I mean maybe it's not a big deal to you that someone else decided it was a good idea to lop off part of your genitalia without your consent, but I tend to think that decisions about my body are best made by me, not other people. If I want to have the procedure done when I'm 18 years old, that's great. But no one should make that decision for me when I'm not old enough to protest it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As stated before the circumcision rate in the countries with the highest levels of Christian observance in the world (think ones like El Salvador and in central and southern Africa) is close to zero.

[Flake]

There are medical reasons to get rid of foreskin, all of you are overreacting to something that isn't remotely important.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I, for one, am glad I was circumcised. Who would not want to be circumcised is what I want to know.

I mean maybe it's not a big deal to you that someone else decided it was a good idea to lop off part of your genitalia without your consent, but I tend to think that decisions about my body are best made by me, not other people. If I want to have the procedure done when I'm 18 years old, that's great. But no one should make that decision for me when I'm not old enough to protest it.

I agree with you in the sense that almost every non-essential (and most essential) operations should of course be consented to by the patient, but why make the point over something as minor as circumcision?

[TNF]

There are medical reasons to get rid of foreskin, all of you are overreacting to something that isn't remotely important.

[citation needed]

I, for one, am glad I was circumcised. Who would not want to be circumcised is what I want to know.

I mean maybe it's not a big deal to you that someone else decided it was a good idea to lop off part of your genitalia without your consent, but I tend to think that decisions about my body are best made by me, not other people. If I want to have the procedure done when I'm 18 years old, that's great. But no one should make that decision for me when I'm not old enough to protest it.

I agree with you in the sense that almost every non-essential (and most essential) operations should of course be consented to by the patient, but why make the point over something as minor as circumcision?

Minor though it may be, is it not something that the person effected should have a choice in? The entire "eh, it's okay" side of this debate seems to justify it in that the person affected doesn't remember it happening to them and/or doesn't remember the pain that (possibly) comes with the procedure. I don't think that's a satisfying argument. It's not a satisfying argument for any other kind of invasive medical procedure, so why should it be for circumcision? Because someone believes that lopping off foreskin is a covenant with God or some such nonsense? I'm sorry, but there are plenty of other archaic passages from the Bible or whatever holy book you subscribe to that modern humanity doesn't take seriously, and I don't think that this is obviously one that we should make an exception for.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Except most circumcision in the US isnot rreligious.

[Flake]

There are medical reasons to get rid of foreskin, all of you are overreacting to something that isn't remotely important.

[citation needed]

The primary reason: foreskins can easily get infections without proper care/cleanliness, so it's just easier for everyone to not have one.

Why are you so passionate on the issue of foreskin removal?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are people here arguing that circumcision is a Christian practice? Because as far as I know, the US are the only place in the world where Christians actually do it. No idea why, but if someone is circumcised here everybody assumes he's Jewish or Muslim.

As to the main point of the discussion, I actually have to agree with Joe on the main point, though I'd like if he'd put it in less condescending terms. Even a benign mutilation is still a pretty serious personal violation, and should require a compelling motivation. Religion should be left some leeway of course, but not at the expense of basic individual rights.

Memphis and Einzige say a lot of crap as usual.

Yeah, see, put this way, without the histrionic 'won't somebody please think of the penises' aspect that invariably creeps into arguments about this or the self-satisfied pomposity that certain posters often bring to bear, this is all definitely understandable, even though I tend to think it's morally irresponsible for reasons related to the specificity of the groups that characterize this as a religious tradition and what the relevant history there is. I'd make the argument 'denying people the right to practice their religion is more evil than bodily autonomy is good' and half-believe it but I'm also fully aware that that creates a pretty enormous slippery slope with regard not only to cults and such but also to 'normal' (in the sense of culturally dominant or at least accepted in whatever areas) religions that make much more severe and worrying demands--and it is at least partially a matter of degree here, for all that memphis seems to think this is somehow comparable to human sacrifice--so instead I'll just say that I find the attitude to culture and group identity (in terms of what constitutes a compelling motivation for this particular custom) required to take this position troubling, and think of it as akin not so much to preventing people from forcing women to wear hijab as banning those women from wearing hijab whether they want to or not. At least in terms of cultural effect and general outcome it's more comparable. If you're just looking synchronically and ahistorically at what's being required of people it's indeed more comparable to the former, but why would you do that? That's (I believe) both intellectually and morally unsound.

Joe is a great poster in many ways, but the idea that he has any high ground from which to accuse anyone else of condescension (even though I'm, yes, entirely guilty of condescension and not especially proud of myself for it) is ludicrous.

I do however have a mental image of Yahweh with a constantly refreshed bucket of foreskins in an Ed Gein sort of way...

I laughed. (And that's...not a bad characterization of King Saul, really, if the story of Micah's, uh, 'dowry' is anything to go by.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Pretty much everyone knows what my view of group identity is, and I would never support a practice to be allowed on those grounds. In fact my position is basically that it should never be legal for only one ethnic/religious group to do something but not others.

But in the case of circumcision I believe it should be legal to everyone for the health and hygiene benefits, so this is not an issue.

[Joe Republic]

But no, Antonio, I quickly got Nathan's holier-than-thou treatment as well as soon as I called him out.  But hey, at least it was better than that other guy who keeps posting that picture of the fat guy wearing a hat whenever someone states an opinion that religion is weird and annoying.

Your first post in this thread was calling Nathan's argument "literally disgusting". I agree with you that it's wrongheaded, but come on, circumcision is nothing worth getting so outraged about.

Correct, it isn't.  The main part of what was disgusting about Nathan's behavior - which spurred me to interject stating as such - was this:

Whoooa, easy there, sport! Hold your horses! Cool your jets! Don't hitch your wagon to a star!

sarcastic use of old-person cliches and posting in the Sage Garden without remark are all that such a stupefyingly disgusting suggestion deserves. On further reflection, should instead have said 'Poo-tee-weet?', but oh well, it's too late now.

You sound like, quite literally, a bad joke.

Not to interrupt your hysterical and frankly worrying straw-manning of the position on this

No, you still don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

memphis: Defender of the defended! Voice for the vocal! He Helps The Well-Served!

Fortunately, I don't care about your proudly and apparently invincibly uninformed opinion on anything even tangentially related to religion.

Treating the word 'disgusting' as one to which 'literally' can be applied in a way that makes sense is an interesting choice, though, and as always the form of your magisterially ignorant pronouncements on such matters is of far greater value than their content.

Doesn't matter what topic is actually being argued over; nobody should be able to be such an arrogant blowhard and not be called out for it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I stand by the content of everything I said in all of those posts. The first two and last two are considerably more impolitic than I wanted them to be and I apologize for that.

[Meursault]

The idea that circumcision in the U.S. has "nothing to do with religion" is a deliberate, self-conscious lie. It only became public policy in the early 20th century because of religion. That most circumcisions performed now are done for secular reasons no more mitigates its origins in Abrahamism than does the fact that having Sunday off has become secularized remove it from its origin in Christianity.

[Meursault]

Further, that the Bible does not demand circumcision of Christians is practically irrelevant. It is a cultural practice, imported from religion. Christianity can be blamed for suggesting it to the culture in the first - Europeans did not mutilate their youth so long as they were pagan.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's a shame I can't remember where to find the DU radical feminist accusing circumcision of being yet another tool that the patriarchy uses to subjugate and oppress women and claiming it increases rape rates, as not only does it fit for being pure sage, it's also possibly the single most f[inks]ing moronic thing I've ever read.

[Vosem]

Lots of cheering for urinary tract infections in this thread right now.

The idea that circumcision in the U.S. has "nothing to do with religion" is a deliberate, self-conscious lie. It only became public policy in the early 20th century because of religion. That most circumcisions performed now are done for secular reasons no more mitigates its origins in Abrahamism than does the fact that having Sunday off has become secularized remove it from its origin in Christianity.

This is like arguing that since Christmas is descended from pagan practices it's fundamentally a pagan celebration. That doesn't make sense. Yes, circumcision and taking Sundays off both originate from religion, and for some people both practices are justified religiously, but for the overwhelming majority of people in this country neither practice has much to do with religion at all.

[7,052,770]

Further, that the Bible does not demand circumcision of Christians is practically irrelevant. It is a cultural practice, imported from religion. Christianity can be blamed for suggesting it to the culture in the first - Europeans did not mutilate their youth so long as they were pagan.

Given the health benefits, it likely would have come about in the 20th century anyway, although it might be seen as a non-mainstream hippie-ish thing to do.

[Meursault]

Vosem:

Do you always repeat your opponent's arguments as a substitute for refuting them?

There are Christian groups who in fact do refuse to celebrate Christmas, regarding it as pagan (the Puritans historically; Jehovah's Witnesses today). I hold no opinion on the subject, save to say that mass public circumcision under the current empiricist regime is at least as Christian as Christmas is still pagan, and almost assuredly moreso. The aim is to excise these vestigals.

Harry:

If that were so, why have the Europeans not adopted it wholesale?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If that were so, why have the Europeans not adopted it wholesale?

You realize that this could be asked of your proposed aetiology too, right?

[Meursault]

The Europeans pioneered the genealogical method...

[7,052,770]

Harry:

If that were so, why have the Europeans not adopted it wholesale?

I don't know, why do people everywhere knowingly make suboptimal decisions about their health?