Ilhan Omar Said Something Which Makes Sense

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Abhorrent indeed. Of course, Genesis 12 from the bible is similarly abhorrent:

'Generation after generation, every male must be circumcised when he is eight days old, including those born in your household and those purchased from a foreigner—even those who are not your offspring.'

Or is it only the mutilation of female genitalia that bothers you?

Not similar at all. Male circumcism has been practiced in diverse cultures for thousands of years, and I've never once heard of it being called abhorrent. That's only your opinion.

It can hardly be compared to the kind of mutilation involved in FGM.

Key facts (World Health Organization)

~ Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
~ The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
~ Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.
~ More than 200 million girls and women alive today have been cut in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where FGM is concentrated (1).
~ FGM is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15.
~ FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Wikipedia is the Apologetic Site for Islam ,
How appropriate that you would continually use it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it. How about actually addressing the pertinent points in my post (or are you limited to Wikipedia? )


The hadith in question has Muhammad explaining how to carry out FGM, which kind of negates its absence from the Quran (bearing in mind the gravitas his words have in Islam).

'Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.”

@secondson said
Not similar at all. Male circumcism has been practiced in diverse cultures for thousands of years, and I've never once heard of it being called abhorrent. That's only your opinion.

It can hardly be compared to the kind of mutilation involved in FGM.

Key facts (World Health Organization)

~ Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter ...[text shortened]... oung girls between infancy and age 15.
~ FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

Explain why circumcision isn't a violation of the human rights of boys, occurring as it does at such a young age where consent isn't given?

You appear conveniently lopsided in your abhorrence of child mutilation.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Explain why circumcision isn't a violation of the human rights of boys, occurring as it does at such a young age where consent isn't given?

You appear conveniently lopsided in your abhorrence of child mutilation.

Lopsided?

Characterizing male circumcision as mutilation in comparison to female circumcision is lopsided. To make it comparable the penis would have to be removed.

Male circumcision, according to everything I've read, is a low risk procedure with virtually no medical ill effects, and can actually have some benefits. There are pros and cons associated with the practice, but in no way can it be characterized as mutilation as it is with FGM.

One of my sons is circumcised and the other not. In neither case is there anything to report negatively about.

FGM is butchery, causing great lifelong emotional, physical and psychological pain.

You appear conveniently lopsided in you abhorrence of FGM by comparing it to male circumcision.

@SecondSon

The practice of male genital mutilation is far older than recorded history. Certainly, it is far older than the Biblical account of Abraham (Genesis 17). It seems to have originated in eastern Africa long before this time.8 21

Many theories have been advanced to explain the origin of genital mutilation. One theory postulates that circumcision began as a way of "purifying" individuals and society by reducing sexuality and sexual pleasure. Human sexuality was seen as dirty or impure in some societies; hence cutting off the pleasure-producing parts was the obvious way to "purify" someone.

It is now known that the male foreskin, or prepuce, is the principal location of erogenous sensation in the human male (see Anatomy.) Removal of the prepuce substantially reduces erogenous sensation.14,19 Therefore (in the appropriate cultural context), circumcision is revealed as a sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment (in this earthly life), for the sake of holiness in the afterlife.

The Christians took a strong stand against circumcision in the first century. Christians rejected circumcision at the Council at Jerusalem.16 (Acts 15) St. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, taught parents that they should not circumcise their children. (Acts 21:25) In a reference to the old practices of genital mutilation, St. Paul warned Titus to beware of the "circumcision group." (Titus 1:10-16).

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It seems everything is subject to controversy.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@SecondSon

The practice of male genital mutilation is far older than recorded history. Certainly, it is far older than the Biblical account of Abraham (Genesis 17). It seems to have originated in eastern Africa long before this time.8 21

Many theories have been advanced to explain the origin of genital mutilation. One theory postulates that circumcision began as ...[text shortened]... itus to beware of the "circumcision group." (Titus 1:10-16).

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

I hear you Ghost.

Circumcision was practiced long before it was institutionalized in the law of Moses, and before Abraham by others.

Aside from circumcision being a token of the covenant between Abraham and God, I see no value in it for today. It's obsolete in that regard.

@secondson said
I hear you Ghost.

Circumcision was practiced long before it was institutionalized in the law of Moses, and before Abraham by others.

Aside from circumcision being a token of the covenant between Abraham and God, I see no value in it for today. It's obsolete in that regard.

You have shared that one of your sons is circumcised (and I'll fully respect if you don't want to elaborate). How do you balance that with your statement that you ' see no value in it for today, It's obsolete in that regard,' and also with St. Paul warning Titus to beware of the "circumcision group"? (Titus 1:10-16).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You have shared that one of your sons is circumcised (and I'll fully respect if you don't want to elaborate). How do you balance that with your statement that you ' see no value in it for today, It's obsolete in that regard,' and also with St. Paul warning Titus to beware of the "circumcision group"? (Titus 1:10-16).

First of all, Paul's warning to Titus with regards to the "circumcision group" has nothing to do with circumcision per se, but with the fact that they, those of the "circumcision group", were saying that unless one was circumcised he couldn't be saved.

Acts 15:1
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Paul clearly taught that neither circumcision or uncircumcision is of any value relative to salvation.

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

If I had known then what I know now my first son would not have been circumcised, simply because it seems unnatural to me now, and because there's no biblical directive to practice it, either for health or spiritual reasons.

@secondson said

If I had known then what I know now my first son would not have been circumcised, simply because it seems unnatural to me now, and because there's no biblical directive to practice it, either for health or spiritual reasons.

Like FGM, circumcision is indeed an 'unnatural' procedure. I have been careful not to assert they are equal in regards to the mutilation involved, but both have no place in any society, irrespective of tradition or of how widely practiced they were in the past.