REcircumcision

[dong]

Here's something very much talked of but not often talked about in a public forum- circumcision, or in this case, REcircumcision:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/26/1161749260137.html

Note: Due to my previous rambling there was a bit of confusion so the focal points will be in bold.

The gist is that rabbis claim that a boy on the cusp of his Bar-Mitzvah is not Jewish because his circumcision is incomplete.

I'm obviously raising the usual questions of what exactly a religion should be based on, and, perhaps more controversially reiterate my position for a more aggressive regulation or mediation of traditional rituals as while it is a practice ages old, we are increasingly aware that the habit of using rituals in religion as a tool of power and separation is not analogous with our ideals of cohabitation and co-operation. Despite calls for respect and tolerance, the practice needs changing and something needs to give.

But I won't go any further, because I've already said it several times. Over to you guys!

 

[hokeshel]

What? I am clueless on this one. The theory is that circumcision can help prevent AIDS? That doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

[Agaric]

Just another example of a ***** who will get listeners. I think we are all aware that circumcision in no way reduces or promotes the risk of aids.

 

[palefrost]

Circumcision is a barbaric practice and i would never allow anyone to cut open a newborn baby! Seriously i feel very strongly about this topic and it turns my stomach to think we still do this in this country. Its disgusting to me. Its purely for cosmetic reasons and desensitizes the penis. Its very easy to keep it clean you dont need to hack it off!!!

You cant convince me god would have wanted it done.

 

[dong]

Hm, that's not what I was getting at in this post at all. But since you asked, I wrote a response on my journal. Be aware that it contains explicit images of male genitalia (as used in the lecture):

http://dongstyle-ltd.livejournal.com/125139.html

The popular belief from established evidence today is that circumcision, indeed, has no conceivable health benefit. This is the result of the previously religiously and culturally motivated practices for a kind of "circumcision imperative", and as knee-jerk reactions go, they should be amended if proven incorrect.

Professor Roger Short has spent several years working closely with AIDS and AIDS related health issues around the world, and so I assure you that he will know more than any of us on this topic. Basically my response to his lecture was that while there was possibly compelling empirical and theoretically solid histological evidence that circumcised men may be at lower risk of AIDS (read the post), that this is not a sufficient consideration to advocate for circumcision as a routine practice.

Anyway, that wasn't the focus of the post. As I said earlier, it is largely believed that circumcision has religious motivations, and in strictly ritualistic religions, this is often the case. The ramifications of such are being presented to us in the article cited in the original post, and I was making a comment on the nature of religious practices. I am willing to argue that certain things should no longer be held sacred as they entail violations of moral codes that in our society I no longer consider acceptable.

 

[dong]

You cant convince me god would have wanted it done.

And while I'm at it, I find it contradictory to claim that as a creator God doesn't make mistakes and he would want people to lop off their foreskin for health reasons. That is, contradictory at the same superficial level that the people who might argue such would be thinking at.

Here's an example of how I see the Bible's working: Circumcision might have been a good idea back in the day when hygiene was an issue (it certainly would have been for such things as engaging in homosexual or bestial etc. conduct, the toxic effect eating the wrong kinds of animals etc. etc.), and so it might be reasonable to claim that the recommendation (or the imperative) for the practice at that time was God's word. How to make this recommendation widely practiced? Give it a religious angle, for society was religiously driven.

The problem arises when people start thinking of the permanence of religion. Because God is perfect, the morality derived from God must be ever-constant...but no! In theological terms, that morality comes from man's interpretation of God's will and word at the very best. We cannot use God's word to tell other people what we can and cannot do- this is being like the Pharisees that Jesus so abhorred.

 

[lizakollman]

Yes, I agree that it is a situation in which someone who doesn't understand has been given a platform from which to spout. It just doesn't make any sense.

But that is typical here, huh? I mean in the country. Not on this board. We all make sense here. Most of the time.

 

[Brandon]

Moved. This is more cultural than political.

 

[hokeshel]

I agree with you Dong. It is all in the interpretation but, must one temper it with a changing society. When reading Prof. Short's article, one must keep in mind that there could be other reasons for this outcome.

 

[dong]

Rightey- in which case I will provide the link to the source of his original presentation so we might be able to decide for ourselves, since all I provided was an extract and an editorial:

http://www.aids.net.au

 

[palefrost]

.

Anyway, that wasn't the focus of the post. As I said earlier, it is largely believed that circumcision has religious motivations, and in strictly ritualistic religions, this is often the case. The ramifications of such are being presented to us in the article cited in the original post, and I was making a comment on the nature of religious practices. I am willing to argue that certain things should no longer be held sacred as they entail violations of moral codes that in our society I no longer consider acceptable.

Well then, if you want a specific focus on a post you start you must ask a direct question relating to the points you are trying to stress.

I honestly dont see that angle and dont have a comment for it. Maybe use more examples of the behavior then just zeroing in on the topic of cutting a newborns weener off. No wonder men are hostile!

 

[dong]

Hm. I coulda sworn that I did have some questions in there, and I also thought that calling the first half "preamble" would indicate where the focus of the post lies. But I see that was too subtle, so I will additionally edit the syntax of the post so that we might try again!

(Also, call it exam-itis but that last jibe went over my head. Then again, it could be a women's thing )

P.S. I believe it's somewhat fixed now. My command of english is somewhere between some and none at the moment, so I guess the original post was also pretty vague.

 

[palefrost]

(Also, call it exam-itis but that last jibe went over my head. Then again, it could be a women's thing )

.

I have a big problem with circumcision. I think its beyond cruel and effects the psyche of that newborn male baby.

For the record, Im also a frustrated activist and humanitarian. I dont have the fund's, power or the life style to change the things i wish i could.