Not a criminal matter

Bridgehouse

Drew_TNBD said:

According to some around here, it's not religion. It's culture.

You could argue that religion is often culture for many people. 

As a philosophical type, I'm often described as a bit of a Kant.

Bridgehouse

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bidley said:

How do you enforce a complete ban on religion? Do you really want any governing body to have that sort of power?

The above article is sick, I'm not sure turning it into yet another abrasive attack on a large amount of people (who had nothing to do with it) is really doing it justice.

Guilty by association. 

Presumably all muslims are guilty of fundamentalist terror by association then?

In a way yes, not a popular view I'm sure, but if I worked at a business that did a lot of worthy and valuable environmental work in the community, but also had representatives culling seal pups, I would be part of the problem.  

Does that work/apply on a national level?

professorben

Drew_TNBD said:

According to some around here, it's not religion. It's culture.

Also how you refine biological weapons. 

guitarfishbay

Drew_TNBD said:

According to some around here, it's not religion. It's culture.

Well that's kind of true.  And it gives hope that over time the culture can change... look at the amount of people who are identify as Western Christians, except all they basically do is know roughly the meaning of a few holidays and possibly can still remember the Lord's Prayer from saying it at school... they're mostly secular apart from a few areas...

What's more important in the short term is that legal protection is offered to all people equally.  Yes FGM is wrong, and so is MGM.  If people want any kind of circumcision they can decide for themselves when they're old enough, rather than having irreversible decision made for them except in cases where it is medically necessary

professorben

guitarfishbay said:

Drew_TNBD said:

According to some around here, it's not religion. It's culture.

Well that's kind of true.  And it gives hope that over time the culture can change... look at the amount of people who are identify as Western Christians, except all they basically do is know roughly the meaning of a few holidays and possibly can still remember the Lord's Prayer from saying it at school... they're mostly secular apart from a few areas...

What's more important in the short term is that legal protection is offered to all people equally.  Yes FGM is wrong, and so is MGM.  If people want any kind of circumcision they can decide for themselves when they're old enough, rather than having irreversible decision made for them except in cases where it is medically necessary

Yes this is the issue, religion is big, it's clever, its rich and it's got people very high up in government and business.

Its tough to fight ignorance on a global scale.   

professorben

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

So you came up with your concept of a 'god' entirely independently? 

If the teaching of religious scripture and the whole organised religion infrastructure were to be outlawed, within a few generations religion would be no more.

we have answers for pretty much most things that affect us in the everyday due to science, we don't need to invent gods or goblins to explain what the naked eye cannot perceive. 

I prefer to think of myself as someone who engages in meaningful philosophical thought. 

I enjoy ruminating on the origins of the universe, the meaning of life, and the many and varied implications of that.

I enjoy pondering the idea of life on other planets, existence in other dimensions, and alternate universes. I also enjoy the possibility of things existing that we cannot see or currently explain. 

You can ban religion and scripture if you like. It won't stop people from pondering the imponderable. The ancient philosophers did the same. 19C thinkers did the same. Many modern day philosophers continue with this great tradition. 

Having pondered all of the many and varied forms of philosophical thought, I have come to the conclusion that there is space and possibility for a concept of some description that we currently cannot explain, and said concept may indeed have some sort of influence on our own universe as we see and perceive it. Maybe as scientific thought develops even further I may revise my thinking and change. After all, that's what humans do, take onboard knowledge and revise our thinking. 

You've simplified a belief in 'something' into the compartments of established religion. And that's exactly what I rail against. 

Or are you suggesting we ban all forms of philosophical thinking as well, and we only have one set of imposed and established belief constructs that are allowed?

I feel, controversial as it may be, that philosophical thinking and genital mutilation are not intrinsically linked. 

Where as religion and FGM/MGM are. 

guitarfishbay

So the best solution is to fight religion?

I think what is achievable and more important in the immediate future is to extend legal protection to both genders. If an adult male wishes to be circumcised for religious reasons then they should be able to make that choice. 

digitalscream

Can we cool it on the "religion is evil" side of things? There's enough about this case to get angry about without generalising it to everyone religious, and it'd be nice to avoid putting this whole thread in SC...

Bridgehouse

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

So you came up with your concept of a 'god' entirely independently? 

If the teaching of religious scripture and the whole organised religion infrastructure were to be outlawed, within a few generations religion would be no more.

we have answers for pretty much most things that affect us in the everyday due to science, we don't need to invent gods or goblins to explain what the naked eye cannot perceive. 

I prefer to think of myself as someone who engages in meaningful philosophical thought. 

I enjoy ruminating on the origins of the universe, the meaning of life, and the many and varied implications of that.

I enjoy pondering the idea of life on other planets, existence in other dimensions, and alternate universes. I also enjoy the possibility of things existing that we cannot see or currently explain. 

You can ban religion and scripture if you like. It won't stop people from pondering the imponderable. The ancient philosophers did the same. 19C thinkers did the same. Many modern day philosophers continue with this great tradition. 

Having pondered all of the many and varied forms of philosophical thought, I have come to the conclusion that there is space and possibility for a concept of some description that we currently cannot explain, and said concept may indeed have some sort of influence on our own universe as we see and perceive it. Maybe as scientific thought develops even further I may revise my thinking and change. After all, that's what humans do, take onboard knowledge and revise our thinking. 

You've simplified a belief in 'something' into the compartments of established religion. And that's exactly what I rail against. 

Or are you suggesting we ban all forms of philosophical thinking as well, and we only have one set of imposed and established belief constructs that are allowed?

I feel, controversial as it may be, that philosophical thinking and genital mutilation are not intrinsically linked. 

Where as religion and FGM/MGM are. 

We are in agreement. All I was saying is philosophy can include the contemplation of a god. 

english_bob

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bidley said:

How do you enforce a complete ban on religion? Do you really want any governing body to have that sort of power?

The above article is sick, I'm not sure turning it into yet another abrasive attack on a large amount of people (who had nothing to do with it) is really doing it justice.

Guilty by association. 

Presumably all muslims are guilty of fundamentalist terror by association then?

In a way yes, not a popular view I'm sure, but if I worked at a business that did a lot of worthy and valuable environmental work in the community, but also had representatives culling seal pups, I would be part of the problem.  

This is nonsense. All large groups contain dickheads who are unrepresentative of the group in that they are dickheads. 85% of the world's population follow a religion but nowhere near that number do things like the people in this article. 

Only bigots use these exceptions to tar the whole group with the same brush. Stalin and Mao were both atheists and mass murderers (and if you give me that "Communism is basically a religion" chat you can fuck right off), but you don't see me claiming that you should be forced to follow a religion because of what they did.

Bridgehouse

digitalscream said:

Can we cool it on the "religion is evil" side of things? There's enough about this case to get angry about without generalising it to everyone religious, and it'd be nice to avoid putting this whole thread in SC...

I did try...

professorben

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

So you came up with your concept of a 'god' entirely independently? 

If the teaching of religious scripture and the whole organised religion infrastructure were to be outlawed, within a few generations religion would be no more.

we have answers for pretty much most things that affect us in the everyday due to science, we don't need to invent gods or goblins to explain what the naked eye cannot perceive. 

I prefer to think of myself as someone who engages in meaningful philosophical thought. 

I enjoy ruminating on the origins of the universe, the meaning of life, and the many and varied implications of that.

I enjoy pondering the idea of life on other planets, existence in other dimensions, and alternate universes. I also enjoy the possibility of things existing that we cannot see or currently explain. 

You can ban religion and scripture if you like. It won't stop people from pondering the imponderable. The ancient philosophers did the same. 19C thinkers did the same. Many modern day philosophers continue with this great tradition. 

Having pondered all of the many and varied forms of philosophical thought, I have come to the conclusion that there is space and possibility for a concept of some description that we currently cannot explain, and said concept may indeed have some sort of influence on our own universe as we see and perceive it. Maybe as scientific thought develops even further I may revise my thinking and change. After all, that's what humans do, take onboard knowledge and revise our thinking. 

You've simplified a belief in 'something' into the compartments of established religion. And that's exactly what I rail against. 

Or are you suggesting we ban all forms of philosophical thinking as well, and we only have one set of imposed and established belief constructs that are allowed?

I feel, controversial as it may be, that philosophical thinking and genital mutilation are not intrinsically linked. 

Where as religion and FGM/MGM are. 

We are in agreement. All I was saying is philosophy can include the contemplation of a god. 

Hmmmmm grudgingly I concede we are on the same side 

professorben

english_bob said:

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bidley said:

How do you enforce a complete ban on religion? Do you really want any governing body to have that sort of power?

The above article is sick, I'm not sure turning it into yet another abrasive attack on a large amount of people (who had nothing to do with it) is really doing it justice.

Guilty by association. 

Presumably all muslims are guilty of fundamentalist terror by association then?

In a way yes, not a popular view I'm sure, but if I worked at a business that did a lot of worthy and valuable environmental work in the community, but also had representatives culling seal pups, I would be part of the problem.  

This is nonsense. All large groups contain dickheads who are unrepresentative of the group in that they are dickheads. 85% of the world's population follow a religion but nowhere near that number do things like the people in this article. 

Only bigots use these exceptions to tar the whole group with the same brush. Stalin and Mao were both atheists and mass murderers (and if you give me that "Communism is basically a religion" chat you can fuck right off), but you don't see me claiming that you should be forced to follow a religion because of what they did.

If you can't see that this is wrong you are probably part of the problem. 

Bridgehouse

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

So you came up with your concept of a 'god' entirely independently? 

If the teaching of religious scripture and the whole organised religion infrastructure were to be outlawed, within a few generations religion would be no more.

we have answers for pretty much most things that affect us in the everyday due to science, we don't need to invent gods or goblins to explain what the naked eye cannot perceive. 

I prefer to think of myself as someone who engages in meaningful philosophical thought. 

I enjoy ruminating on the origins of the universe, the meaning of life, and the many and varied implications of that.

I enjoy pondering the idea of life on other planets, existence in other dimensions, and alternate universes. I also enjoy the possibility of things existing that we cannot see or currently explain. 

You can ban religion and scripture if you like. It won't stop people from pondering the imponderable. The ancient philosophers did the same. 19C thinkers did the same. Many modern day philosophers continue with this great tradition. 

Having pondered all of the many and varied forms of philosophical thought, I have come to the conclusion that there is space and possibility for a concept of some description that we currently cannot explain, and said concept may indeed have some sort of influence on our own universe as we see and perceive it. Maybe as scientific thought develops even further I may revise my thinking and change. After all, that's what humans do, take onboard knowledge and revise our thinking. 

You've simplified a belief in 'something' into the compartments of established religion. And that's exactly what I rail against. 

Or are you suggesting we ban all forms of philosophical thinking as well, and we only have one set of imposed and established belief constructs that are allowed?

I feel, controversial as it may be, that philosophical thinking and genital mutilation are not intrinsically linked. 

Where as religion and FGM/MGM are. 

We are in agreement. All I was saying is philosophy can include the contemplation of a god. 

Hmmmmm grudgingly I concede we are on the same side 

You're on the same side as someone who believes there may well be a god?????


There's no emoticon for that!!!!!!!

english_bob

professorben said:

english_bob said:

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bidley said:

How do you enforce a complete ban on religion? Do you really want any governing body to have that sort of power?

The above article is sick, I'm not sure turning it into yet another abrasive attack on a large amount of people (who had nothing to do with it) is really doing it justice.

Guilty by association. 

Presumably all muslims are guilty of fundamentalist terror by association then?

In a way yes, not a popular view I'm sure, but if I worked at a business that did a lot of worthy and valuable environmental work in the community, but also had representatives culling seal pups, I would be part of the problem.  

This is nonsense. All large groups contain dickheads who are unrepresentative of the group in that they are dickheads. 85% of the world's population follow a religion but nowhere near that number do things like the people in this article. 

Only bigots use these exceptions to tar the whole group with the same brush. Stalin and Mao were both atheists and mass murderers (and if you give me that "Communism is basically a religion" chat you can fuck right off), but you don't see me claiming that you should be forced to follow a religion because of what they did.

If you can't see that this is wrong you are probably part of the problem. 

How is it wrong?

guitarfishbay

Guys stop multi quoting, you've turned this in to a scrolligious debate on mobile

strtdv

To play devil's advocate here, I'd say that the only issue here is that the grandparents did not have the parental authority or permission to consent to the operation, rather than any issue with circumcision.

Whether "medically necessary" or not, surely if you sincerely believe that your child will be both eternally condemned and excluded from their community if they don't get a circumcision, then a minor operation that really has the only medical effect of slightly lowering your risk of penile cancer and significantly reducing your risk of contracting HIV sounds like a win-win situation

professorben

english_bob said:

professorben said:

english_bob said:

professorben said:

Bridgehouse said:

professorben said:

Bidley said:

How do you enforce a complete ban on religion? Do you really want any governing body to have that sort of power?

The above article is sick, I'm not sure turning it into yet another abrasive attack on a large amount of people (who had nothing to do with it) is really doing it justice.

Guilty by association. 

Presumably all muslims are guilty of fundamentalist terror by association then?

In a way yes, not a popular view I'm sure, but if I worked at a business that did a lot of worthy and valuable environmental work in the community, but also had representatives culling seal pups, I would be part of the problem.  

This is nonsense. All large groups contain dickheads who are unrepresentative of the group in that they are dickheads. 85% of the world's population follow a religion but nowhere near that number do things like the people in this article. 

Only bigots use these exceptions to tar the whole group with the same brush. Stalin and Mao were both atheists and mass murderers (and if you give me that "Communism is basically a religion" chat you can fuck right off), but you don't see me claiming that you should be forced to follow a religion because of what they did.

If you can't see that this is wrong you are probably part of the problem. 

How is it wrong?

Because FGM/MGM is wrong, if you think otherwise you are a monster, religion is the driving force behind this, same as terror attacks. 

The people that perform these atrocities are extremists, religious nutters if you will, but that's the common thread that ties them all together, how many more kids need to get blown up or mutilated before you start to accept that maybe this whole religious concept might be flawed???

Across the world, thousands of people supported the Manchester and London bombings, in the same way people would support the grandparents of the baby in question for circumcision for him. 

Religion is the reason they do it. 

Surely it makes sense to cut it off at source, I'm not saying people can't believe what they want to believe, but the practice of TELLING people what to believe is dangerous and corrupt. 

english_bob

I can't find anything remotely sensible there to respond to. Backing slowly away.

Sporky

strtdv said:

surely if you sincerely believe that your child will be both eternally condemned and excluded from their community if they don't get a circumcision...

Anyone who believes that shouldn't be allowed near children.