Fuck Sexism

[FaustWolf]

Boo, did you mean "circumcision" when you said "castration," or were you making a point by increasing the severity of the procedure?

We could bring up issues of sexism in the old imperial Chinese system, where you had to be castrated to get a state job at the imperial palace (obviously excluding women too, if "castration" was an absolute requirement in the job description). And not just removal of the testes -- everything in some cases. Like, everything. Solanas would have been proud. I think it was an attempt to keep the empress pure or something, but I seem to recall at least one case in which an empress kept a fully castrated man as her lover on the side. Hahaa, this is why college history classes are so fun. You just don't get this stuff in high school.

[Truthordeal]

FW, I believe that practice is where the English gets their word for eunuch.

Boo, just as Zephira took it too far in one direction, you're taking it a bit too far in the other. I agree with you, but you're setting yourself up.

[Thought]

Indeed, even if science did discover some practical benefits to it, I suspect Z would still demand that the religious rites surrounding it be eliminated. So there is really no way, based on Z’s criteria, for circumcision to be given a favorable verdict.

You'll notice that I qualified my criticisms with "IIRC the reduction of AIDs incidence in Africa from circumcision has been proven false" beforehand.

Yup.

The hilarity is that you are using a god-of-the-gaps-like argument against a religious practice.

To inform our readers (since you're familiar of Dawkins I am quite sure you're familiar with this phrase as well, so feel free to skip to the next paragraph), the God of the Gaps argument essentially claims that when there are elements that science can not presently explain, those most be instances in which God is directly interfering with the universe. I believe it was Newton who, having established a model for gravity, actually hypothesized that God must have set everything in motion because his model of gravity did not provide a reason for why the planets move in a uniform direction and why they do so on a single plane. God was the explanation for the gap in his scientific knowledge. That gap has subsequently been closed as science has determined how the solar system (and the galaxy) formed. In short, it is claiming that because we don't know everything, God exists in what we don't know.

So, Z seems to be make a similar argument, but with important differences. Instead of God existing where Science does not yet have answers, he is inadvertently implying that justification for religious practices might exist where Science hasn't yet closed the gap. We don’t know, so hope can be kept alive. To attempt to be totally ridiculous, if science discovers that circumcision raises a child's IQ by 30 pts, cures cancer, and ends world hunger, then the practice of circumcision will have found a degree of justification.

The problem is that though there might be a degree of justification for the practice, under Z's criteria, there can be no excuse for the religious element of that practice. That is, if science discovers that circumcision does those outlandish things listed above, then science gets the honors and religion is just considered lucky for having blindly stumbled upon something advantageous. Consider the Jewish dietary laws regarding the consumption of pork; eating improperly prepared pork can cause more health problems than many other meats. Is kosher law praised because of this? Not really, the standard non-religious approach is that they reached this practice through observation (observation being the foundation of science). Doesn’t excuse the unwillingness to eat a cheeseburger (and Jews are totally restricting the experiences of a child and the possible culinary pleasures that come from combining meat and cheese… or something like that).

The religious rites surrounding circumcision would still be, to my understand of Z's stance, despicable and worthy of eradication. Better to have it done in a sterile hospital with a machine that goes PING! than by some religious figure with no "real" medical training, right Z?

So Z's justification-in-the-gaps implications for circumcision is really just a false hope for religion. It doesn't matter if it mutilates a child, it doesn't matter if it is traumatic, it doesn't matter if it initiates an individual into a society, it doesn't matter if there is even scientific evidence to suggest that it is beneficial. All that matters is that it is religious. Because it is, it is damnable.

... holy crap, Z's an LOLCat!
Passionate Zeality is Passionate.
Religious Circumcision is Religious.
Do not want (religion)!

It all makes horrible sense now.

Anywho, this means that for the religious aspect of the practice of circumcision to be justified, it must be done so on religious grounds. Since Z's labeled those grounds as unjustifiable, it can't be done.

As a totally unrelated side note, ritual scarification might be more analogous to circumcision than tattoos, and if there are no medical reasons for circumcision, it might also be more analogous than vaccinations as well. Just throwing that out there.

[ZeaLitY]

You try to paint a caricature; I haven't denied that religion does some good things. My point is that it does more ill than good, and has so historically. And of course, science should take the credit! The same observation that led the Jews to denigrate pork for being unclean led them to write all that material in Leviticus about women being unclean after childbirth and needy of purification, or the banishment of men from the camp for a couple days for nocturnal omissions. The root of these example practices was superstitious fear, with disease and pain seen as punishment for offending God; it was nothing so idealistic and noble as wanting to understand the universe and improve humanity. No, humanity was always to blame, best represented by the flagellants who thought that beating themselves was the best way to stave off the bubonic plague.

[Samopoznanie]

To inform our readers (since you're familiar of Dawkins...

A guy like Dawkins, I just find irritating, borderline embarrassing. The man gives atheists a bad name.  

That he'd be as spiteful and condescending as to write a whole friggin' book called 'The God Delusion'... I just don't see the point. That sort of contempt for others' beliefs is largely what turned me off of religion in the first place. Is the man really so insecure that he needs to write a whole book on the damn thing? What, and use science to try and disprove a concept that's closer to a philosophy or a culture? What's the point? If it was just a reaction to the last 8 years of having too much religious influence in the White House, maybe I could understand it. But the man just seems like a dick, an atheist's Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson.

It's a pity that a guy like Dawkins is hailed as the poster boy for atheism these days. Whatever happened to the days when we produced folks like Bertrand Russell? His essay, Why I Am Not A Christian, is a more persuasive and articulate commentary than Dawkins will write in his lifetime. The man was infinitely quotable to boot.

"If there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

^^^ That's always been a favourite of mine. Sad to see athiests taking on just such 'uneasy vanity' these days. Maybe the collapse of the USSR has thrown us into a state of insecurity.  

[FaustWolf]

About the trauma of being circumcised shortly after birth: Birth itself is a far greater trauma.

Touche, I hadn't thought of that; all too seldom do we (or at least I) consider the flipside of the mother's pain, which is the child's pain. The moral rubric upon which I was basing my agreement with ZeaLitY on the issue of male circumcision was this: human beings should avoid inflicting pain if it can be avoided, and whether an individual remembers physical pain is of little consequence in that rule. You've forced me into a corner logically, and now I must advocate the creation of children solely through means of laboratory pods. Problem is, while this should become technologically feasible within a few decades, it willl likely only be available to the wealthy, taking centuries to propagate worldwide (or galaxywide, depending on what stage we're in in the great escape from our temporary home planet). Large parts of Africa still lack drinking water and basic plumbing, for chrissakes.

I should also advocate the synthetic creation of meats. Should be possible with animal stem cell research, should it not? Imagine, carnivores and vegetarians finally in harmony, while un-embodied animal muscle tissue flexes in response to electrodes in lab-farms until they reach perfect muscle tone. From my understanding, cattle are typically slaughtered in the developed world nowadays by having some kind of iron bar shot through their skulls. While the idea is probably an improvement over simply shooting them or the old "slit their tracheas and let them run around until they bleed to death," I imagine it's far more imperfect than what the manufacturer advertises. It's probably about as humane as forcing the animal into a plane crash.

Come to think of it, a diet consisting entirely of cheese pizza, rice, and veggies doesn't sound all that bad in the meantime.


Truth, looks like the Assyrian Empire may have had China beat by a few centuries with regard to eunuchs. I totally forgot it was the Ming Dynasty though.


Hey, get this. I'm sort of having trouble wrapping my mind around the whole concept of a third sex; probably my Western cultural training. Move over, girls and boys, and make way for...these people!

[Truthordeal]

"If there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

^^^ That's always been a favourite of mine. Sad to see athiests taking on just such 'uneasy vanity' these days. Maybe the collapse of the USSR has thrown us into a state of insecurity.  

That's my entire point behind religious reconciliation. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians and even atheists all share a belief in a basic moral and ethical code.

So why should it matter if we call our deity God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Shiva or Barack Obama(I know I'll piss some people off for that one)? They all want us to do pretty much the same thing; do good works and live morally.

If Jews think that the "true" path to Heaven is not eating pork and celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday, then why condemn them to hell for that?

There's no logic  behind the rationale that our small nuances are damnable.

[Thought]

You try to paint a caricature;

Try? Not at all, and I am sorry if anything I said did not reflect reality.

Rather I was attempting to point out a degree of futility in the present discussion. It seems that to you, where religion does good, it does so in spite of being religion. Therefore, if circumcision is good, it is good in spite of the religious rites surrounding it. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that there is no logical way for an individual to convince you that the religious nature of circumcision is good.

Thus the entire discussion on if there is a medical benefit to circumcision is a red herring, at least insofar as to your original statement: http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg171032.html#msg171032

To inform our readers (since you're familiar of Dawkins...

A guy like Dawkins, I just find irritating, borderline embarrassing. The man gives atheists a bad name.

He's an ass, but a lot of scientists are asses (James Watson being my perennial favorite example). Supposedly, his treatment of religion is not significant different than his treatment of his scientific competitors.

Dawkins' science is good, though in my estimate the conclusions he draws from it are at times zealous and often untenable, and his rhetorical style is reminiscent of Erich von Daniken. I'd still recommend reading his work, though; he does have some very good and very valid points. But I'd also recommend reading Francis Collins' The Language of God; the book has a fundamentally different focus than anything Dawkins writes (he attempts to illustrate that religious and scientific perspectives can coexist without compromising each other), and Collins affable style is wonderfully cooling after the heat of Dawkins' text. The Biologos foundation's website also has some interesting material.

Just because a book pisses you off is no reason to not read it. Indeed, the fact that it envokes such a strong negative emotional responce means that it can be particularly useful to read, so that you might gain a better understanding of that perspective.

[ZeaLitY]

It seems that to you, where religion does good, it does so in spite of being religion.

Yes, I don't deny this. If a tree's rotten, then any good fruit is in spite of the sprout's corruption.

I'm also going to defend Dawkins and the New Atheists; I think it's an overreach to call them vain. Atheists and agnostics have been downtrodden for centuries, and only recently in human history has it been possible to be one without risking persecution and execution from religious establishments. Atheists are still the most hated minority in the US and the least electable, and meanwhile, the religious thrust themselves into every decorum they can. Religious leaders make the staggering claim of moral authority on human affairs. The Pope cows populaces and demands respect when he makes his travels. The Dalai Lama attracted hordes of trendy nirvanists when he came to New York City. And Obama had to talk to pastor Rick Warren to appease religious voters. Criticism of religion is seen as rude at the lightest, and blasphemous at the worst. And most of this comes from religion's idea that it knows best, just as it presumes to answer metaphysical questions without a scientific basis; just as it prescribes and enforces prohibitive ways of living on its followers and others.

And yet, when atheists finally call out this state of affairs, we're hellraising bigots. I suppose we should just retreat into the closet and accept our persecution and any malice directed to us silently, and no longer concern ourselves with the folly of the religious, even though religious policy worsens our lives, too.

Lies. Dawkins is brave for rallying and inspiring the irreligious to criticize anti-human faith, and religion should be treated as a matter of reason, like every other phenomena or event in this universe. The policies of science, organization, and other humanity are debated and forged through reason, and religion shouldn't get a free pass because it holds itself to be sacred. That is vanity.

[Truthordeal]

You want us to respect your opinions, unpopular though they may be, but still want to constantly condemn us and our ideals for the sins of our ancestors?

Sure, go on ahead. That makes perfect sense. Oddly enough, I'm in favor of it.

[Lord J Esq]

You've forced me into a corner logically, and now I must advocate the creation of children solely through means of laboratory pods.

Mission Accomplished. =)

Actually, I don't know that removing the trauma of birth would automatically be a good thing for people...

If it's a child's decision to get his pee-pee cut, then it can also be argued we as parents should give the child the decision making control for everything in his / her life. Let's let them chose what they want to eat for dinner; let's let the kiddies choose what time we go to bed; let's let them entirely choose who and what they do in their free time, whether it be drugs, sex, booze, video games, painting, karate, farming, shitting; let's let them choose to get vaccinated or not; let's let them choose to take their own life if they see it a proper decision. Point being, children often don't know how to make proper decisions; they aren't mentally capable of grasping the importance of many concepts.

That's a logical fallacy. You are arguing that any attempt to control a child would justify every attempt to control a child, thus setting them up for future inadequacy. Your assertion is completely indefensible.

A guy like Dawkins, I just find irritating, borderline embarrassing. The man gives atheists a bad name.

Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, and he's good at helping people who already agree with him to better understand why, but I'll give you that he is also good at making heavily religious people feel defensive. I suspect, however, they are not specifically his intended audience. Religious people are terribly egocentric when it comes to religious arguments: it's always about them. In truth, no it isn't always about them. Maybe Dawkins has calculated that most of the people who are going to be most offended by his books and speeches aren't viably persuadable anyway, and so he has opted to appeal to those who already possess either: A) the critical analysis framework, or B) a friendly philosophical position. Maybe his intent is to give voice to the nonbeliever community. Believers have done this for a long time: Using their special-order language and imagery, they say far worse things about nonbelievers than Dawkins has ever said about them. That doesn't in itself justify Dawkins, but it does make it more difficult for religious people to complain about him on those grounds, since they'll end up taking a lot of fire themselves.

What justifies Dawkins is not that he's aggressive, but that he's right. However, if you're looking for my seal of approval, Carl Sagan did the best job of appealing to the religious.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

(Yes FW, it was tongue-in-cheek.)

[Radical_Dreamer]

Oh, I forgot to add: About the trauma of being circumcised shortly after birth: Birth itself is a far greater trauma. I wouldn't worry too much about this angle.

That birth is more traumatic in no way justifies the trauma of circumcision. The value of the procedure (and it is in some cases medically beneficial) is independent of the subjective experiences of the mother of the boy in giving birth to him.

[Thought]

While it might not justify it, it does make evaluation difficult. To offer an analogy, if some's been hit by a bus, it is a little difficult to figure out the trauma caused by a bowling ball that hit them shortly afterwards.

[Truthordeal]

While it might not justify it, it does make evaluation difficult. To offer an analogy, if some's been hit by a bus, it is a little difficult to figure out the trauma caused by a bowling ball that hit them shortly afterwards.

Doesn't mean you should hit them with a bowling ball though.