Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
There is a difference between being against something where it is only performed because of religious practice, and being against it because it is a religious practice.
|
I think you're splitting hairs. The meaning in the post I quoted was quite clear. A simple operation that is performed quickly and safely under local anasthaesia countless times every day all over the world, if performed as a religious observance rather than as a medical treatment, is in his view "child abuse".
I am thankful that this view is shared only by a small-minded minority, because in times and places where large numbers of people have been persuaded that certain relgious beliefs and practices should be regarded as abusive, primitive, sub-human, etc etc etc, rather a lot of people have ended up being murdered.
There is clearly an issue with the way the circumcision was conducted in this specific case, and this case should be seen in that light and dealt with accordingly. But to use it as a pretext to condemn religious circumcision
per se is just bone-headed.