Religious Help Desk

[Gatefan1976]

So all you faithful think God made a mistake with His design of the human body?

Circumcision is unnecessary for any kind of relationship with God, it's purely symbolic. Of course it is occasionally medically necessary. But let me clue you boys in on a fact that some of us gals know,

Spoiler:

if I had my preference, I would choose an intact man. (but I don't choose my relationships on such things) Circumcision often causes an unnatural sexual experience; ie. uncomfortable. The male organ as originally designed is most preferable. And no, I will not elaborate on my experience further.

For your spoiler:
I would say thats just your personal experience, which is all good for you, yet I know of women who feel that uncurcumsised is just as "unnatural" or "unfulfilling" as well.
This one falls into different strokes for different folks IMHO.

[Goose]

In Europe, circumcision is extremely uncommon, and only really happens because of religious or medical reasons. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with being "intact"; it all works just fine down there!

[The Urban Spaceman]

Taoism in the end of the day did not appeal to the Chinese as much as Confucius' teachings did for a reason.

Yes -- because to China's leaders, a religion which placed emphasis on respect to ancestors and leaders was more beneficial than a religion which advocated greater personal freedom and encouraged questioning of the status quo.

At some point in order to develop a peaceful and working society, aspects of the individual must be sacrificed.

That's one way of looking at it. I personally don't believe that to be true.

We must all share a common set of morals or else our varied "unique" morals will contradict and cause conflict.

Must we? Very well. Let us agree on a common set of morals. I say that we embrace the morals of islam... in particular, we should adopt sharia law. I'm sure that once we're all worshipping Allah, there will be far less conflict in this world. It would certainly end islamic extremism and the associated acts of terrorism.

Or perhaps we should take on the Hindu morals. No longer shall poor, down-trodden cattle be slaughtered for food. They shall be elevated to their rightful status as sacred animals, protected by the highest laws.

In short, it's all well and good saying that we need to share a common set of morals, but who decides what those morals should be? Men claiming that they need to impose their own morals and views on others is how despots and tyrants are created. Do you know the name of anybody who tried to impose their own morals on others? I do... I think his name was something like 'Hitler'.

You say that in order to get along we all need to have a common set of morals, which lack uniqueness and individuality. I say that in order to get along we all need to understand that we are different, that we have different morals, and be more accepting of each other, and realise that we can't force our moral views on each other.

How are you an individual?

I will allow Carl Jung to answer for me; I am individual in the sense that I have gone through the process of individuation.

Are general broad beliefs the end all and be all of individualism?

No, rather I'd say that specific, personal beliefs are what constitute individualism.

In the sense that "individualism" means "A belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence" then I do consider that I am somewhat individualistic, but I also accept that nobody can be totally self-reliant and independent. To survive, I need nourishment, which despite even my best vegetable patch efforts, I can't fully provide for myself. To be enriched, I need culture; music, books, conversation, which comes from other people. To move forward spiritually, I need the guidance of those who have come before me, like Laozi, or any number of people whose teachings I consider wise. But although my life and my beliefs stem partly from others, my interpretations of those beliefs, of culture, and wise words, are my own.

So can you truly say that you are an individual in this sense?

Yes and no. I am an individual in the sense that I acknowledge that I can't be entirely self-sufficient. I recognise this shortcoming and do not deny it, which is something that contributes towards my individuality.

In addition, how do you see individualism as "destructive" ? Like any good Doomguard should, I welcome the forces of destruction. But destruction -- natural destruction -- is simply the way of things. There can be no life without death. Entropy is a part of our existence. How do you equate individualism with destructiveness? I may be an individual, but I'm not alone. I'm connected to everything. Even the rocks. Especially the rocks. They're much easier to understand than humans, after all. But I still can't see how you could associate individuality with destruction.

How I see it is irrelevant. This is about you being asked questions for you to think about and me wondering what your thoughts are out of intellectual curiosity.

Oh, but how you see it is very relevant. You are the one who is asking the question. You need to put it in to context for me. You can't ask me to comment on the destructiveness of individuality without defining what you mean by destructiveness. I do not see individuality as destructive, therefore I can't answer your question without further parameters.

Any other viewpoint is irrelevant for we are not discussing other viewpoints. We are discussing individualism in a vacuum.

You can't put individualism in a vacuum, just as you can't put any social model in a vacuum. You also have to take the human equation into account.

It's implications in relation to other viewpoints is a discussion that may result after this one, naturally of course. But my "individual" ways lead me to not want to jump the gun yet. What do your "individual" was lead you to do in this regard?

My individual ways lead me to require further information before I can answer some of your questions, as they are not clearly defined enough or out of context.

[Ukko]

Until he clarifies whether or not what he said was in jest, im simply going to ignore MG.

Is piercing a child's ear "bodily harm?"

Even though it isnt permanent, i would say yes.

Is there any medical reason why a circumcision should not be preformed on a child?

Yes. It can cause medical issues in the future.

Why? As someone who has had it done to them....for reasons that I am not sure of...it does not cause any harm. And its exisistance in the bible means this has been a practice that has been around for centuries.

You were not given a choice about whether or not an important part of your body is sliced off.

No, I no have criticism of your lifestyle bud, what I was trying to draw your attention to was that once you criticise based on culture, then you had better have a "pefect culture" of your own otherwise you open yourself up to similar criticisms by people who do not agree with your lifestyle.
Get me?

No, like you I think it should be optional, but parents should be able to make an informed decision on the matter. My boy is circumcised, not because I am Jewish, but because I have had personal contact with people who have suffered because they have not been. Now, it's true that my boy may never have had a problem, but my wife and I made that decision based on personal (3rd party) experience and on medical grounds. Did we overstep our "parental rights"?, I suppose you could argue that we did, but we did so for objective, solid reasons, not on cultural or religious ones.

I would have to answer yes (sorry). Going by what you said, there was no medical need at the time for it to be done. Yes, you knew someone who hadnt been circumcised that had problems, but, you could very well meet someone tomorrow who has had serious problems because of circumcision. What if you had met both before the fact?

(Anyone wanting to respond to this, take a note. This is not a discussion on GF's parenting or his family. He simply used a personal experience as an example. Personal attacks will simply be ignored.)

[Gatefan1976]

In Europe, circumcision is extremely uncommon, and only really happens because of religious or medical reasons. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with being "intact"; it all works just fine down there!

Not doubting thats true

[Gatefan1976]

I would have to answer yes (sorry).

Don't be sorry, just be objective

Going by what you said, there was no medical need at the time for it to be done.

Here's the trick.
Much like getting your Tonsils removed, circumcision becomes more dangerous the older a person gets. I "chose" to remove that potential problem, much like my parents chose to innoculate me against certain viruses/diseases. YES, it was based on personal experience, and YES others will see it differently, but I am willing to accept peoples "disagreement" in this case.

Yes, you knew someone who hadnt been circumcised that had problems, but, you could very well meet someone tomorrow who has had serious problems because of circumcision. What if you had met both before the fact?

Then I would have to re-evaluate my position. We can only act on what we know can we not?

(Anyone wanting to respond to this, take a note. This is not a discussion on GF's parenting or his family. He simply used a personal experience as an example. Personal attacks will simply be ignored.)

I never knew you cared Ukko
But thank you nonetheless, I do appreciate the seriousness your request

[lordofseas]

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism. Like (I think) you, I actually relish it BECAUSE it promotes self evaluation and growth. What bugs me is........ "ignorant criticsm" where people lash out because something is just different to what contitutes thier "norms" and continue no matter what evidence or argument is presented to the contrary. Take the Burka. Many Westerners jump up and down about womens rights and abuse and such over it, yet does anyone bother to ask those who wear it?

I'm actually in favour of women wearing whatever the hell they want. If they want the Burka, let them at it.

Would you argue that child immunization is just as much of a infringement of a childs rights as well?

No, because it doesn't violate bodily integrity, and the immunization will prevent specific diseases from taking hold. If one decides to argue that circumcision is to prevent disease, that sounds like cutting off your foot so you don't get athlete's foot.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I'll just leave this here *link*

Always fun to get more than one opinion...

[jeri]

For your spoiler:
I would say thats just your personal experience, which is all good for you, yet I know of women who feel that uncurcumsised is just as "unnatural" or "unfulfilling" as well.
This one falls into different strokes for different folks IMHO.

folks are just never satisfied are they?

[jeri]

Somebody () defended the Jewish faith, well, not all Jews agree...
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

[jeri]

In Europe, circumcision is extremely uncommon, and only really happens because of religious or medical reasons. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with being "intact"; it all works just fine down there!

It was not common in the US either until the 1950's, along with Cesarian sections, hysterectomies, bottle feeding, etc., all in the name of "modern sanitary medicine". All these things have their place and necessity of course, but the trends are people are interested to going back to natural child birth, breast feeding and daring to ask for a second or third opinion on a hysterectomy.

My parents talked about the fight they had for mom to have a natural childbirth, and not to have brother circumcised. No one in the family had been before, and they weren't going to do it to my brother. There was no medical reason to. My mom worked in the hospital insurance billing department, so she certainly understood one of the reasons for all these new procedures. Also C-sections minimize the risk of malpractice lawsuits for doctors.

[Womble]

Somebody () defended the Jewish faith, well, not all Jews agree...
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

You can always find someone somewhere who disagrees, regardless of the subject. It proves absolutely nothing.

Here's something from the World Health Organization, for flavor's sake:

Male circumcision for HIV prevention

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

[Ukko]

WHO talks about voluntary adult male circumcision. And it mentions nothing about countries with high circumcision rates that also have high rates of HIV.

More on circumcision.
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

[Womble]

WHO vs. an ideological advocacy website. Who do I trust? Choices, choices...

[mad_gater]

as usual Ukko exaggerates....calling circumcision a procedure in which the part in question is completely sliced off....circumcision does NOT turn people into eunuchs, at least not in principle anyway unless the person doing it botched it

[Ukko]

as usual Ukko exaggerates....calling circumcision a procedure in which the part in question is completely sliced off....circumcision does NOT turn people into eunuchs, at least not in principle anyway unless the person doing it botched it

I never once said anything about turning anyone into a eunuch. Please, pleeease, for the love of all that is squishy and heathen, find where i said that and quote it for all to see.

And You are certainly one to talk of exaggeration. Especially after calling me an anti Semite for being against child circumcision and after making the post im quoting right now. You're whole deal seems to be exaggeration and hyperbole, so please, before throwing these accusations around, take a good long look in the mirror.

[Gatefan1976]

I'm actually in favour of women wearing whatever the hell they want. If they want the Burka, let them at it.

Agreed, but our agreement does not stop people jumping up and down about it does it?

No, because it doesn't violate bodily integrity, and the immunization will prevent specific diseases from taking hold. If one decides to argue that circumcision is to prevent disease, that sounds like cutting off your foot so you don't get athlete's foot.

And we got it done to prevent a disease taking hold that we had both had a friend face because he had not been circumised. The guy in question is now sterile because of it.

[mad_gater]

I never once said anything about turning anyone into a eunuch. Please, for the love of all that is squishy and heathen, find where i said that.
You are certainly one to talk of exaggeration. Especially after calling me an anti Semite for being against child circumcision and after making the post im quoting right now. You're whole deal seems to be exaggeration and hyperbole, so please, before throwing these accusations around, take a good long look in the mirror.

You were not given a choice about whether or not an important part of your body is sliced off.

right there....you made the implication that circumcision entails the complete removal of certain "man parts" when in fact it does not

disagreeing with sincerely held tenets of many Jews is one thing.......I have no problem with that....what I have a problem with, and the reason I called you an anti-Semite....is because you admit to agreeing with the idea of making circumcision illegal.....that I do not agree with....just because you may disagree with certain religious practices that are not in principle designed to cause permanent physical damage nor are they designed in principle to rob a person of their free will....gives you no right to seek to make those religious practices illegal

[Ukko]

right there....you made the implication that circumcision entails the complete removal of certain "man parts" when in fact it does not

disagreeing with sincerely held tenets of many Jews is one thing.......I have no problem with that....what I have a problem with, and the reason I called you an anti-Semite....is because you admit to agreeing with the idea of making circumcision illegal.....that I do not agree with....just because you may disagree with certain religious practices that are not in principle designed to cause permanent physical damage nor are they designed in principle to rob a person of their free will....gives you no right to seek to make those religious practices illegal

And circumcision does involve cutting a part of the body off. Whats your point? Its just hyperbole again. Not thinking, whether due to inability or unwillingness. I never said anything about slicing off the penis or testicles....
Again, i ask you to find where i talk about turning people into eunuchs.

Illegal for under-age children unless medically needed. You have absolutely no grounds for calling me an anti Semite (also amusing since it shows you dont actually know what an anti Semite is), its just your usual reactionary...overreactionary hyperbolic nonsense.
Circumcison is a solely Jewish affair is it? Why not call me an Islamophobe, no i forget, you are fine with hate against Islam. How about calling me anti American, since circumcision is popular in the US?

[mad_gater]

And circumcision does involve cutting a part of the body off. Whats your point? Its just hyperbole again. Not thinking, whether due to ability or unwillingness. I never said anything about slicing of the penis or testicles....
Again, i ask you to find where i talk about turning people into eunuchs.

Illegal for under-age children unless medically needed. You have absolutely no grounds for calling me an anti Semite (also amusing since it shows you dont actually know what an anti Semite is), its just your usual reactionary...overreactionary hyperbolic nonsense.
Circumcison is a solely Jewish affair is it? Why not call me an Islamophobe, no i forget, you are fine with hate against Islam. How about calling me anti American, since circumcision is popular in the US?

again.....circumcision does NOT cut off the whole part....a donation of foreskin hardly causes permanent damage in principle....when you say "cutting off an important part" you imply that circumcisions cause some kind of permanent damage to the part in question....well since generally speaking most people who have been circumcised still retain the natural ability to urinate and engage in sexual intercourse...the 2 functions for which the "man part" in question was designed

I hate Islam more because it gives rise to Shariah Law, not because it might share something in common with Judaism and Christianity.....a completely un-civilized system of laws....good only if you plan to live like a barbarian, and indeed the Muslims enforcing it are truly barbarian....and usually when a vast majority of a faith's adherents act in such a manner I am inclined to believe that there is something endemically wrong with Islam itself

an·ti-Sem·ite
? ?[an-tee-sem-ahyt, an-tahy- or, especially Brit., -see-mahyt] Show IPA
noun
a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

since you have openly admitted to seeking to illegalize circumcision you seek to discriminate against the religious practices of Jews...that therefore makes you an anti-Semite....much in the same way I'd call you anti-Catholic if you were to seek to make things like baptisms and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Masses illegal

if you need proof of you openly admitting to agreeing that circumcision should be illegal and therefore openly admitting to agreeing that the government should discriminate against Jews and peaceful Muslims:

Good. I hope they make circumcision of children illegal (unless there is a serious medical need for the child to have it done). If a consenting adult wants to do such a thing to him or her self for whatever reason, fine. But dont force it onto children. To fiddle with a quote from a gentlemen interviewed on the subject. "Its an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the rights of children to future self-determination."