Tradition argument is BS. I find it fascinating that only goy traditions need to be deconstructed by regular ambitious activism. The "decreases HIV in Africa" excuse is sophistry. The christian (and Jewish) black Africans who practice male circ also impose promiscuity restriction; likewise if male has been damaged (at his core after all) and therefore is less likely to have successful encounters that also restricts promiscuity. That restricting of promiscuity is what causes lack of HIV spread. Duh. The cosmetic argument is purely relative. Societies condition their citizens to believe whatever they are conditioned to. Eg European females find male circ weird looking; Japanese females find the white(not red) large penis odd. ------------------ If alien zoologists saw it happen I contend they would say it is established males trying to eliminate competition from up and coming males. A type of male lion kicking young off territory thing. Graham and Kellogg (who started this in 19th century) reason: "to civilize males" (saying "it was to stop masturbation" is 20th century misreading of their writings). Same reason they recommended bland food /no hot peppers: Spanish are rapacious. ...Established males trying to eliminate competition from up and coming males...
Like winston, I have never considered that circumcision could be, on a subconscious level, a way to eliminate male competition. That said, it is the parents of the male that perform this and it's in their best interest to ensure that their blood line continue and not to encumber their male offspring. For this reason I find no validity in this thought.
But what Mr. Hitchens fails to recognize is that many of the mandates in ALL religions are suggested and function more as human prescriptions of power and control over others, not as divine suggestions that lead to the betterment of all. His criticisms of RELIGION could be paralleled by making equivalent criticisms of MONEY: very great evil has been done for profit and by the use of money. Does this mean that all money is bad, or simply that some people make use of money in harmful and destructive ways?
- very great evil has been done for profit and by the use of money.
Does this mean that all money is bad, or simply that some people make use of money in harmful and destructive ways?
Although I believe that most thinkers of this world (including often myself) can be befuddled by the complex and nuanced realities in which we all exist, and although I believe that the simplification of subjects can lead to fruitful and deeper understandings of their essences, I also believe that Mr. Hitchens offered little to the debate over the negative or positive qualities of religion. Having studied his book God Is Not Great I feel confident in saying that Hitchens’ arguments concerning religion did help foster debate and controversy; however I believe that a more nuanced treatment of any subject as complex as monotheism is the only productive avenue for their discussion.
- As a professor with a doctorate and two master's degrees in separate fields of study
I agree with Jason Cowley who, in the Financial Times, said this: "[Hitchens'] will be remembered more for his prodigious output and for his swaggering, rhetorical style."
-What you fail to include is the first word of the sentence you quote, which as you know was "unfortunately". The article you pulled it from was written by a man that obviously held Hitchens intellect in high regard. Context is king.I believe that a more nuanced treatment of any subject as complex as monotheism is the only productive avenue for their discussion.
-Of course you do, you are a believer. For many people it's not a complex issue at all, it's actually quite simple. For many people, religions omnipresence in our society and in our public policy is simply wrong. All topics are complex to those that are deeply engaged in them. Hemingway wrote extensively about the complexities and beauty of bull fighting but to most people its just a man painfully and slowly slaughtering a living creature. Monotheism is no different in that it appears complex until you take a step back and approach it from a high level, then what it is and why it exists becomes more simply observed. This is what Hitchens did well and it's hard for many believers to hear/read because their justification for irrationality lies within the nuance. What Hitchens also did well was use colorful language and humor to inflate his point to hyperbolic levels -No doubt about it.
- It's a procedure rooted in ritual and religious tradition and has no health benefits in a modern society.
Actually, it has been widely demonstrated to reduce the spread of HIV, among other STDs. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm I think Hitchen's view of it is colored based on his dislike of religion. I agree with b_b, male and female 'circumcision' is not a reasonable comparison. He's being a bit hyperbolic there.
It's just important to recognize that there are reasons beyond religious ones why the practice continues. One reason is cosmetic. In countries where it is dominant, some parents simply want their child to fit the norm. To be honest, I found the teeth I had pulled, braces, and other orthodontic procedures I had as a child to be infinitely more scarring than my circumcision. (I say infinitely, because I can't remember my circumcision at all.) And, those painful orthodontic procedures were by and large done for cosmetic reasons. If most people let their teeth go crooked, but one religious group didn't, we would have to call religious childhood orthodontics barbaric too.
If people consider an uncircumcised penis to be as socially negative as crooked teeth, then IMO it would be very difficult to justify being ok with one and not the other. And what is more, preventing crooked teeth can easily be a more painful process. I'm curious about this. Can't really search at work, but if you can point to one, I'd like to see. I think sex is pretty great. I'd hate to think it could have been even better. And I'm not even Jewish! :)There have also been studies that show that an in-tact penis provides more pleasure to both the man and the woman during sex.
- Circumcised males may also be at risk of premature ejaculation, or alternatively may have to resort to prolonged thrusting during intercourse in order to stimulate sufficiently the residual erogenous penile nerve endings to trigger ejaculation (Bensley & Boyle, 2001). They report that the unnatural dryness of their circumcised penis often makes coitus painful, resulting in chafing and/or skin abrasions (Gemmell & Boyle, 2001). Concomitantly, O'Hara and O'Hara (1999) found that female partners reported significantly greater sexual pleasure from intercourse with genitally intact men as compared with circumcised men. Money and Davison (1983) had previously documented a loss of stretch receptors in the prepuce and frenulum and an associated diminution in sexual response, thereby restricting a circumcised man’s ability to achieve arousal. Consequently, erectile dysfunction may be a complication of male circumcision (Glover, 1929; Ozkara, Asicioglu, Alici, Akkus, & Hattat, 1999; Palmer & Link, 1979; Stief, Thon, Djamilian, Allhoff, & Jonas, 1992; Stinson, 1973).
This video should be very enlightening to you.
Barbaric parts of the world... A tension exists here. On the one hand, we look at other parts of the world, see what they do, and say that it is simply "their" way; they have their own cultural and social meanings, and we have no right to tell them otherwise. On the other hand, sometimes what they do is just wrong to us. FGM is one such thing. It's wrapped up in their cultural meanings, but for the rest of us it is indeed a barbaric practice. Anyway, male circumcision is a different kettle of fish, I suppose (since FGM is used to control women's sexual behaviour, and causes sex to not be physically pleasing). As a European, I'm quite glad to be intact.
In the West we have the underground sex trade. That fails the religious criteria, so while it is equally disgusting, I think it is more of a law enforcement issue. No one in the main stream would argue against efforts to shut it down.
I agree. I wish more Americans would see the hypocrisy in this line of thinking, but they just don't and it's frustrating.
The video isn't showing up on this anymore. :( Heres the link: