http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20357997 Without insulting anyone, does anyone here believe in these practices, and would they be willing to share their beliefs, trying to understand the logic.
Well I used to work in the legal system, and it is pretty cooky, all the political correctness ushers in mad ideas and beliefs.at one point a few years back a manager told me that I couldn't use the term " black Coffee" coz it is rascist how stupid can you get..so this doesn't surprise me at all having said that we have a real problem with Werewolves in my area, and the [police will just not investigate
If anyone said anything as stupid as that to me I'd tell them to get a check up from the neck up. What the hell do they think that black people call black coffee? To be honest, I'm never sure whether to believe this type of story or not. I've heard of some daft example of political correctness (even way back before anyone had invented the term 'political correctness') but some of the more far-fetched examples do the rounds with almost clockwork regularity.
:topic:in Spanish it would be cafe con leche or something like that, oops thats maybe coffee with milk.... cafe sin leche hmmmm
if im not mistaken, isnt belief in superstitious against mainstream Islam? also - im against religious circumcision but doesnt male circumcision decrease the risk of aids or something?
I'm far from an expert but from my E.R. and Grey's Anatomy experience it's not AIDS necessarily but other diseases certainly. And also done as an infant as it's less traumatic (well isn't that an emotive word) than if it was done when older. And it's not as if anyone would go "oh, so you're sexual active now? Time to visit the surgeon". Also regards to the religion thing, remember that in the olden days a lot of things where written into religious doctrine to use as a guide as a way to live your life. Now I have many problems with religious texts, but some of the advice would have actually been useful at the time it was written regardless of whether they knew why things worked or not.
The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics both support routine male circumcision. The WHO stresses the HIV prevention angle, whereas the AAP found that the decrease in early childhood urinary tract infections, and complications thereof, was significant enough to recommend routine infant circumcision. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...cide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not The argument that circumcision is only done for religious reasons is simply not accurate. Whether you personally make this choice with your children or not, there are solid medical reasons supported by mainstream medical organizations supporting routine circumcision. There is no comparable evidence or sentiments in the medical community supporting the medical benefits of exorcism.
The recommendation is for countries with high rates of HIV among heterosexual partners. They also recommend that it be considered, rather than simply practiced. On top of that they recommend that it be practiced only by trained medical professionals in safe surroundings, and they make no mention of it being carried out in early childhood. The foreskin does also provide protection against other infections, and there are other drawbacks to circumcision. One is potential post-traumatic stress in particularly young children, which can lead to them having difficulties bonding with parents. Overall the case is at best neutral, weighted depending on the prevalence of HIV in heterosexual populations in the nation involved. There are also solid medical reasons against infant circumcision, supported by mainstream medical organisations. It isn't a one-sided argument. There are plenty of studies into faith healing and similar which demonstrate a placebo effect.
If the disease angle had any merit, it would be recommended by doctors to parents of all religions, not just Judaism and Islam. People get angry about exorcism, but they don't blink at hundreds of thousands of unnecessary medical procedures being carried out on babies every year.
The American Association of Pediatrics (the main body of pediatricians in the United States) is making a recommendation for the US population, not African populations, and is making a recommendation for children, not adults. I linked to the National Public Radio article about the AAP's recommendation. I know it's not one-sided. This is an issue where reasonable doctors disagree and reasonable parents disagree. But the argument that childhood circumcision should be illegal (made in this thread) does not allow for that reasonable disagreement and choice by medical professionals and parents. It's forcing one choice on everyone--a bad idea when there's significant numbers of mainstream medical professionals on both sides of an issue.
It IS recommended by doctors to parents of all religions. Are you just ignoring the American Academy of Pediatrics' official position supporting routine circumcision (for children of all religious backgrounds) that I linked to? Religon has zero to do with the AAP's position. The AAP's position is based on preventing early childhood urinary tract infections and teen STDs. So by your own reasoning, then, I guess you concede that the disease angle has merit?
...well, since my reasoning is flawless, as always, I guess I am making that concession. (I missed your post earlier, I wasn't ignoring you)
