Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by John Scott

So if I just slice his arm a couple times and do it in the name of some god it's ok?


Of course I know - where did you get the idea I didn't? Are you suggesting that if something happens in the US, then it must be ok?



And that makes it ok? So is female circumcision, but I ain't about to call that civilized. It seems you think that if something happens a lot, it must be ok. Have you seen the figgures for rape?I bet more rapes happen than kids being sliced across their foreheads, and by your logic it means that rape should be ok.

You are grasping at straws and making (il)logical statements for me, which I do not appreciate. We are not talking about rape, we are not talking about killing, we are talking about scarification and it's place in cultural and religious rites. Scarification happens in many cultures and many tribes... without them knowing it happens else where. This is not some small random ritual, but part of a long held tradition. You and I have debated over morality and moral issues, and you know as well as I do that what one person finds moral cannot define morality for everyone else.

We have religions here in the United States that beliefs prevent them from seeking any medical intervention, including their children. Many of these children die from easily curable ailments.. yet they still die and no one gets put into jail. Our country recognises religious beliefs and rituals even if we as a majority find it wrong and immoral. I could never slash my 4 years old's forehead... and I could never ever deny her medical attention.. heck I would pay the doctors with my own limbs if I had to. But it isn't for me to decide how others express their cultural and religious beliefs. I think us putting them on display and up for "trial" is morally wrong, but hey I can't tell others what to do.

[John Scott]

You keep talking about what happens, as if the mere fact that it happens is a defense for allowing it. It isn't a defense. Please state a criteria that you are willing to stick by that allows children to be subjected to violence.

[IslaScotts]

Well I guess that is where the problem lies. You don't see it as a legitimate cultural rite, you just consider it as an act of violence against someone. I see it as one of the many scarification rituals from around the globe. Rituals always seems weird to outsiders. I was just raised to try to learn and understand all religions, to try to embrace and accept those cultures and beliefs which are different from my own. I just don't know how to look at it from any other stance.

[Brian]

Personally, I think I'm VERY open-minded when it comes to others and what they do with their life. I'm a firm believer that people can do what they want without harming anyone else... a libertarian perhaps. I'm so open-minded that a lot of my mothers side of the family has disowned me...

... but I find this horrid. People can do whatever the **** they want to themself, it's their life.

Note the bold.

g'day

(if anyone is confused, i'm not pro for what they have done to these children )

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You keep talking about what happens, as if the mere fact that it happens is a defense for allowing it. It isn't a defense. Please state a criteria that you are willing to stick by that allows children to be subjected to violence.

Dude, circumstision is exactly that, it's children's mutilation. For non-believers there's no difference between mutilating children's weeners, or this practise. Of course, you wil not agree with me, we've been there before. Your reaction to this muslim rite, for a non-believer like me, is pure hypocritical.

Both practises, this rite, and the cutting off a piece of a baby's weener, are barbaric in my book. Funny how Christians condemn other religion's insane bloody rites while praising their own insane bloody rites.

Originally Posted by John Scott

No, one harms the baby, the other is done for medical reasons for the benefit of the baby, like cutting the umbilical cord.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Funny how Christians condemn other religion's insane bloody rites while praising their own insane bloody rites.

How does Christianity come into circumcision here?

btw - There is a difference between circumcision and slashing your childs head - One has some medical justification (be it for and against), the other is just slashing your childs head.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

One has some medical justification (be it for and against), the other is just slashing your childs head.

NO medical nessetity whatsoever. only hygienic arguments and 'could be' scenarios. Billions of men walk around this earth with an intact weener and no problems whatsoever. In fact, only people with bad hygiene 'could' get infections, it's not even so that they 'wil' get infections.

Look it up.

[G10]

Circumcision is not the same thing and a bit more of a gray area.

Research studies suggest that there may be some medical benefits to circumcision. These include the following:

• A lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
• A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.
• A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, the AIDS virus.
• Prevention of foreskin infections.
• Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
• Easier genital hygiene.

Just as there are reasons parents may choose circumcision, there are reasons why parents may choose NOT to have their son circumcised:

• Possible risks. As with any surgery, circumcision has some risks. Complications from circumcision are rare and usually minor. They may include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing.
• The belief that the foreskin is necessary to protect the tip of the penis. When removed, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. Rarely, this can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.
• Some people believe that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life. This has not been proven by any medical or psychological study.

Almost all uncircumcised boys can be taught proper hygiene that can lower their chances of getting infections, cancer of the penis, and sexually transmitted diseases.

btw - I am not for it myself and haven't had it done

Originally Posted by Ferre

NO medical nessetity whatsoever. only hygienic arguments and 'could be' scenarios. Billions of men walk around this earth with an intact weener and no problems whatsoever. In fact, only people with bad hygiene 'could' get infections, it's not even so that they 'wil' get infections.

Look it up.

But I did, that is why I said it is a gray area.

[Ferre]

Sure, but these are the counter arguments;

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, is assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California Medical Center. He is the author of numerous scientific articles published in leading national and international medical journals.

Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.

What Are the Foreskin's Functions?


The foreskin has numerous protective, sensory, and sexual functions.

• Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.
• Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14
• Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.15 These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
• Coverage During Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.
• Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.
• Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.
• The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male's internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the cervix-a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.

The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptors in its basal epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the University of Manchester found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These specialized glands produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed to fully understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.

How Does Circumcision Harm?


The "medical" debate about the "potential health benefits" of circumcision rarely addresses its real effects.

• Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.
• Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.
• Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.
• Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.32

Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.33 The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.34

• Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.35 This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

• Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has long-lasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,36 adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.37 Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well. 38, 39
• Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto-mucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself. Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

[maldives]

Lets leave the culture one side and talk about the realitly! It is not what Islam calls for. There is no mentioning of it in muslim holy book Quran.

It promotes violence & hate. Should not be allowed to happen to kids.

[John Scott]

Well I guess that is where the problem lies. You don't see it as a legitimate cultural rite, you just consider it as an act of violence against someone.

I have to say, I think you suffer from the ability to think rationally. It's common amongst Americans, especially women.

I asked you for a criteria, and you are trying to say "religion" or "culture" can be invoked as an affirmative defense of these acts. But when I can that criteria and apply it elsewhere, we end up with women being mutilated in the name of culture and religion, or children being raped in the name of culture and religion (remember that girl who was gang raped by as punishment for talking to a boy, a rape ORDERED by the Taliban religious leaders.)

I'm asking you for a criteria that makes sense. Simply invoking culture or religion doesn't make sense. It is an attempt to bypass logical argument.

[maldives]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Simply invoking culture or religion doesn't make sense. It is an attempt to bypass logical argument.

Could not agree more.

[DharmaConsulting]

Originally Posted by maldives

Could not agree more.

i also agree

[IslaScotts]

I could put out a criteria that I find morally acceptable, but that doesn't mean other people have to follow that criteria. That is my whole point. I think it is up to THAT country and THAT culture and THAT community to decide, to converge and come to an agreeable conclusion. Many people find abortion to be morally wrong, many other people don't. In some countries it is legal, in other countries it is forbidden. Who am I to say what is right for another, especially in another country. I am not condoning or promoting this ritual, I am simply trying to be accepting and understanding of another community's religious beliefs. Religion is a very powerful thing to people, whether I agree with them or not. Heck, I'm atheist but I understand the history and significance behind ritualistic scarification.

[John Scott]

Who am I to say what is right for another

You are a member of society, and as members of society we have not only the right but the obligation to say what can and cannot be done to others.

Why do you think you are protected from being raped in the middle of the street on Sunday? You think that is some random protection afforded you?

It isn't. It is society at work. Society is a pact - it says I will protect you from harm and you will protect me from harm and together we will protect other members of society from harm.

And that pact falls by the wayside when we allow some members to harm others. When we allow Whites to harm Blacks, or mothers to murder their babies, we see that pact falling by the wayside.

It's people that disregard that pact that cause harm to society, and when we do not hold that pact as sacred, we put ourselves in harm's way.

[IslaScotts]

I can see your view on society there hun, but majority doesn't always mean correctness. I think it speaks more on laws. Laws are passed by majority here in the US. Sometimes those laws help protect and sometimes they just plain take away, sometimes majority doesn't know best. I bet that's how the pro-lifers feel. That part of society says it is wrong, unjust, and immoral. Then you have the other part of society that doesn't think it is wrong, unjust, or immoral. It just creates people fighting over it. So sue me if I think you and I are both valid in our opinions. Sadly they are opposites, which is the true representation of society fractured, sided, and oh so opinionated. There isn't so much of that togetherness you just talked about. The world isn't that way, it isn't black and white... it's just a whole lot of grey.

[IslaScotts]

Umm 1) I care about laws, because I live in a country governed by them. I want to be a law abiding citizen, whether I agree with the laws or not... following them rather than going to jail is in my best interest.

2) You mentioned togetherness:

Originally Posted by John Scott

together we will protect other members of society from harm.

Ya I must have just mentioned "togetherness" because I have breasts and a vagina. Darn those monologues >snaps fingers hastily< hehehe

3) Glad you abide by your pact.. it isn't mine and I never made such a pact with anyone or anything. And since I didn't make that pact I don't have to follow it nor does anyone else who doesn't ascribe to it. Many people have made a pact with God and follow it diligently, doesn't mean you or I have to follow their pact either.

4) What harm did it cause the children?
Was it the knife? We use knives for medical reasons
Was it the blood? Blood can come from medical or accidental reasons
Is it the scar? Those can come from medical or accidental reasons

All three of those things occur in the religious ceremony of using a knife to cut away skin, that bleeds and leaves a scar... this is called a brisk.

I think you are more upset about the reason behind the occurrence of all these things. It's ok to use a knife on a baby to cut away skin and leave them with a scar if its more hygienic but it's not okay to honor a saint. Both "harm" the baby.. but one is ok and one is not. One is optional and not a medical necessity and the other is optional and not medically necessary either. The only difference is the reason. You are just against them being harmed for the wrong "reasons." Or what you deem "wrong reasons."

[John Scott]

but majority doesn't always mean correctness

That is my point, as I stated here.

Laws

I don't give a rat's ass about laws. Laws do not tell me anything. Laws are contradictory and silly and nonsensical in every sense of the word.

That part of society says it is wrong, unjust, and immoral. Then you have the other part of society that doesn't think it is wrong, unjust, or immoral.

I don't care about what people think is moral or immoral.

The pact I abide by has one criteria - that people be given freedom to act as they wish as long as they do not impinge upon the right to freedom of others. Killing a unborn child is obviously impinging on that child's freedom to live. But people like you, who believe it is society's right to abridge the freedom's of others, defend that decision. One by one, the freedoms and rights are abridged and altered and the "pact" no longer exists. Violence is condoned in one area - abortion, etc - so society's members see that the pact need not be strictly abided by, and then engage themselves in violence.

There isn't so much of that togetherness you just talked about.

I never mention togetherness. Why must you think in emotional terms? Do you not understand that "thinking" and "emotional" are not good bedfellows? Think in logical terms and you'll be better off.

I don't care at all for togtherness. I care that society abide by the pact that it is established upon.

The world isn't that way, it isn't black and white... it's just a whole lot of grey.

That's a common tactic of attorneys. Confuse the court, try to paint black as grey. It is of course nonsense. 2+2 equals 4, and always will.

[John Scott]

Glad you abide by your pact.. it isn't mine and I never made such a pact with anyone or anything. And since I didn't make that pact I don't have to follow it nor does anyone else who doesn't ascribe to it.

Exactly, and neither do you get to enjoy its protections. You pretty much just declare it's open season on you by rejecting the pact and its protection.

[John Scott]

All three of those things occur in the religious ceremony of using a knife to cut away skin, that bleeds and leaves a scar... this is called a brisk.

Again with invoking religion. I don't care if it's a brisk or a tea ceremony - I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE MOTIVATION IS. Is that so hard to understand?

Does it matter? If I rape a girl and say I raped her because she was a hottie, is that any different from raping somebody for religious reasons? Can your Liberal Democrat mind comprehend the fact that the act is the same, no matter what religion one adheres to?

I think you are more upset about the reason behind the occurrence of all these things. It's ok to use a knife on a baby to cut away skin and leave them with a scar if its more hygienic but it's not okay to honor a saint. Both "harm" the baby.

No, one harms the baby, the other is done for medical reasons for the benefit of the baby, like cutting the umbilical cord.