Number of Atheists on MAP

I had to reply to this comment because you posed a question that (IMO)needed answering. (Actually you posed two, but I only tackled the first. )

Since it's clear from this comment that you do know what FGM involves, I'm puzzled as to why you made the first comment.........

On the issue of circumcision without consent, however, I'm with you. There are circumstances in which male circumcision is medically necessary (for instance, a tightening of the foreskin which prevents it being rolled back or, in some cases, affects the ability to urinate) in which case I can't see why anyone would have a problem with parents offering consent on behalf of their child as they would for any other necessary medical procedure. Circumcision by someone with no medical qualifications, done purely to satisfy conditions laid down in a multi-authored ancient tome, is a different matter. Back before modern medicine, there was some value to circumcising baby boys - less chance of penile infection from bad personal hygiene, for instance - but humans have moved on a bit since then.

Many of the rules for living laid down in the Old Testament were a matter of common sense in the time and place they were written. The rules on diet and food preparation make a lot of sense if you happen to live in a hot climate with no refrigeration. We now have adequate refrigeration, so the Old Testament rules about not mixing milky and meaty foods don't need to be adhered to to prevent food poisoning. In a similar way, circumcision of babies is no longer necessary either. Times change, people change, society changes. Sometimes religion takes a while to catch up............

 

PASmith: You're too kind ;-)

Aikiwolfie: A few points. One,

"<snip>are the people who will solely focus on past atrocities that really would have been committed by the people in power regardless of their religious background.<snip>"

There's a few issues here. First off, I don't think anyone is solely focusing on the past. Secondly, they are not past atrocities. Acts such as these are still occurring right now. Third, you're making a big assumption there with the last segment of your statement. The point is that religion HAS and IS being used to give really horrible acts a pass. I am certainly not going to say it's been the sole tool used, but it's a persistent and resilient one, and relevant to the thread.

Now in regards to male/female circumcision (which I apparently am unable to spell)/"mutilation". The reason (I'm guessing, I hope I'm not mis-characterizing anyone) that there's been posts pointing out the difference are the major differences in both the severity and the cause. There's a lot of black-and-white floating in this thread. However, I think most people will agree that the amount of damage and pain done to a woman far exceeds that of a man. A circumcised penis still works, and still brings pleasure.

Also, I'd wager the vast majority of circumcisions nowadays have little to nothing to do with religion. That's why I centered more on the female part of this equation. It's just more relevant to the thread.

It seems I'll be in the minority here, but I have no issue with male circumcision. When we breed, an we have a boy, we will circumcise him. The damage or loss to the child is small compared to the risks as the boy gets older. We are not "pressured/forced" as you say. There's simply higher risks of infection amongst the uncut. My fiancée worked with a man that had to get cut when he was around 45, since he contracted a bad infection, and would otherwise risk losing his (presumably) favorite bodypart. Couldn't use it for quite some time. Months, I believe it was. I'll take the knife, thanks.

There's also a difference when someone can hop on the web and learn the pros and cons to circumcising their boy in a hospital as opposed to a woman being dragged off in a crowd.

 

I've been so popular. I should be anti-PC more often.

Consent is the issue and barring any genuine medical condition there is no need for it for males or females. Male circumcision was always done out of superstition. It had nothing to do with penile hygiene. Which is a relatively recent excuse. And a weak one too. Wash properly and there shouldn't be a problem.

To mention FGM without sparing a thought for males who are circumcised suggests one form of mutilation is acceptable while the other isn't. I'd argue they're both unacceptable. Both forms of circumcision expose the victim to potential infections that can simply be avoided.

Those rules still make a lot of sense. Even in your fridge you're not supposed to mix meat and dairy on the same shelf and you're supposed to keep cooked meat away from raw meat to prevent any potential cross contamination.

You're fridge doesn't kill bacteria. It only makes it go dormant. As soon as the temperature raises back up it's salmonella city.

 

Some one did mention it straight off the bat after one of my posts. So I'd argue it was a fare statement to make on those grounds alone as well as the fact someone always brings up something like the crusades or the Spanish inquisitions.

Past, present or future. It makes no difference. Religion is not the cause. It's the excuse. The justification. Like WMDs in Iraq was an excuse for regime change. There are terrible people in the world who will do terrible thing and use whatever means they can to rally others to their cause.

With or without religion these atrocities would still happen. Look at Libya as an example. The conflict there has nothing to do with religion. But Gaddafi was still threatening to go house to house and wipe out anybody who opposed him. Are we to believe that Islam is some how responsible for this?

That doesn't change the fact that religion is just a tool. It's short comings are social and it's doctrines can be challenged and changed.

Really? So far as I know apart from in the USA male circumcision is still pretty much a religious act. Performed to satisfy religious superstition and that is where it's real function ends.

In the places I know of where female circumcision is performed it's done completely for religious and superstitious reasons.

So show me the proof I'm at a greater risk of infection than you. What infections are we talking about? Aids? Some fungus? A bacterial infection? Show me an infection that absolutely depends on the presence of a foreskin to gain a foot hold, develop and spread.

Practice good personal hygiene and there really shouldn't be an issue.

So male circumcision only takes place in clean western hospitals? I'm thinking your logic is a bit faulty there.

 

Quite right - I should have said some of the rules don't need to be adhered to. I'm pretty sure any mixing of milk and meat is forbidden at any stage in preparation (bear with me, I don't have a copy of the Bible to hand to double-check so if I'm wrong feel free to shoot me down) so, by that logic, chicken korma and beef stroganoff would be out of bounds even though we can prepare and cook them safely. And don't forget, raw meat should be stored below cooked in the fridge, so it can't drip bacteria onto food that won't be heated before eating....... (My other half keeps having to do food hygiene courses - can't tell, can you? )

 

LOL who was talking about the Bible

 

Me, obviously!

Since this thread has derailed completely into a 'religion vs science' debate, shouldn't it be renamed? :topic: Just a thought.........

 

my bro got snipped because he was always getting infections and it hurt

I believe if there aint a medical reason, dont get it done.

 

Possibly. But I did try my best to keep it away from the religion vs science thing. Simply because the shortcomings of religion have nothing to do with science.

 

I agree here. However, I believe it's your contention that religion is beneficial for a society. I was arguing against that. I apologize if I misunderstood.

I find that a tough sell, looking at the Middle East.

Nope. For the Jewish folk, sure. But it is not really much of a religious thing anymore.

From Wikipedia:

"Experimental evidence was needed to establish a causal relationship between lack of circumcision and HIV, so three randomized controlled trials were commissioned as a means to reduce the effect of any confounding factors.[162] Trials took place in South Africa,[163] Kenya[164] and Uganda.[165] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[164]"

I'm sure there's more. However, you're drifting back into black-and-white. The risk is HIGHER, it's not assured. No one is saying it "depends" on a foreskin.

The above shows this is not the case. Also, my fiancée's coworker I was referring to was really upset partially due to the very fact that he took extra care to be clean, knowing there needed to have extra attention paid to that area.

I'll give you that. I really don't know. But I would say it's a safe bet that it's done in clean hospitals much more often than the female version.

 

We have evolved to have a foreskin - that alone is sufficient reason as to why I am holding on to mine.

Evidence on both sides is far from conclusive, but if nature decided it was needed I suspect it is!

 

You were wrong. If you've paid attention to anything I've said throughout this thread I've been pretty consistent in what I've said.

Why? The middle east is currently in revolution. Every time an anti-western Imam comes on TV and denounces the west a whole bunch more notably living in the UK or USA denounce that Imams interpretations of scripture. We get the whole "Islam means love" speech.

The only non-Jews I know who have had this done are American. The world is bigger than America.

Neither of your examples mean anything. One example is an isolated incident which you could have made up and is purely anecdotal and the other is a failed trial. To determine if the foreskin plays a role in HIV contraction we'd need to expose both circumcised and uncircumcised men in equal measure to HIV. We'd also have to discount natural immunity to HIV. Which does exist in some populations in Africa and a few other places around the world. Given that all the evidence says you can only contract HIV through fluid exchange, I fail to see how a foreskin increases the risks.

Your assertion that there is a higher risk is nothing more than your opinion. Typing it in block capitals won't change that fact.

Given that female circumcision isn't that prevalent in the west if at all, I'm failing to see your point. You seem to be hoping male circumcision only happens in the west. It doesn't. It happens all across Africa and the middle east.

 

"If at all"? Seriously?
It's well know that many females of asian/african origin in Britain (and I assume other western nations) have a rather unpleasant "holiday" back to the old country sometime in their teens and come back with their genitals in a different state from when they left.
It's something that is hard to quantify due to the closed nature of the cultures involved but I'm pretty sure most sources agree that it does happen in much greater numbers than we would guess.

 

WTF? When did this become the circumcision thread?

 

Right after it was determined that science > religion.

At that point the thread turned into this trainwreck. And not even the good kind thats fun to watch.

 

\
I'm pretty sure he was referring to extremism and groups like the LeT, AL Qaeda and Taliban.

Firstly the reasons stated by most of the people committing these atrocities is religion.
You may be right, however that doesn't change the fact that they said they're doing it for religion. Also, it may be a tool for the higher up's maybe, but for a majority of those involved in Conflicts based on religion, religion is the only cause, When a suicide bomber detonates an explosive attached to his torso, I'm quite sure religious beliefs in the virtuosity of his act play a big role in it.

How is that a failed trial in any way whatsoever?

True that. I'd rather have a doctor and anti biotics versus a priest and holy water any day of the week.

 

This comment is either completely facetious (and therefore completely irrelevant) or indicative of a tremendous ignorance. Are you under the impression that religious people see their faith as an alternative to medicine?

 

I am under the impression that a lot of superstitious people see their beliefs as an alternative to medicine.

In fact that is way there is a whole business in alternative medicine.

Just google alternative medicine and you'll see.

BTW, I see no deferences between superstition and religion. Belief in the supernatural is belief in the supernatural no matter what the organization structure of the believers community.

 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science (for those who missed it when I posted the link earlier in this thread).

 

The trials were stopped before completion - that makes them failed trials. If the trials had been continued for their planned periods of time and all required data had been recorded for analysis, any confounding variables* could have been taken into account when interpreting the data, and the trials could then have been deemed successful (I use the word 'successful' to describe a useful outcome to the trials, not necessarily the outcome hoped for).

The trials were stopped because the circumcised subjects had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control (uncircumcised, one assumes) subjects. This may have been because circumcision affects HIV susceptibility. It may also have been due to a whole host of other factors. Those in the circumcised group may all have been from a similar ethnic background with a genetic resistance to the virus. They may have had healthier diets which improved their immune systems - we don't know, and because the trials were not completed and these possibilities investigated, we may never know. I doubt very much that the trials were randomised; for that to be the case, all the subjects would have to be initially uncut, then a random sample selected for circumcision prior to the trials starting. Unless this was done, the trials would only be observational, not interventional.

I've been reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre - I think he's been mentioned earlier in this thread, but it's worth mentioning him again. If you've ever wondered how credible media reports of scientific findings really are, get hold of his book or look at his website........


*"Confounding variables: these are things which are related to both the outcome you are measuring....., but which you haven't thought of yet. They can confuse an apparently causal relationship, and you have to think of ways to exclude or minimise confounding variables to get the right answer, or at least be very wary that they are there." - Ben Goldacre, Bad Science (p90)