Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Your argument appears to be that it must be alright because it has survived, which frankly is utter bolleaux.
I'd be interested, seeing you suggested that not all rituals are acceptable, what you would suggest as a set of rules to determine if a ritual involving children is or is not acceptable. I'd be very surprised if this list did not involve some notion of harming a child. What's more: I'd be very surprised if many of the rituals that would be banned would be covered by existing legislation (i.e. banned by the state).
I think the only way in which you could conceivably justify allowing circumcision is on the basis of it being a long-established practice. Frankly, I'd say, that is a very thin reason.
|
Again, like Nomadking earlier, in order to strengthen your argument against male circumcision you appear to want to push the argument on to other practices not under discussion, thereby clinching the argument by association with a neat little straw man.
As a matter of fact, I've not even made the argument 'it must be alright because it's survived' - what I've suggested is that it shows a crushing lack of perspective on your part to hope that millions of people down countless centuries would have behaved differently had they only chosen to think about things in your terms.
That said, what I do believe is that, while longevity does not automatically equate to rightness, longevity is most certainly a factor to be taken very seriously into consideration if you want to quite suddenly declare 'wrong' something which a lot of people have always considered 'right'.
---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
This isn't a medically necessarily procedure. It's not a decision that has to be made so what it the harm in waiting until the child is older? I understand in the Jewish faith at least it needs to be done as a child, in which case I concede it would be the state interring in a religious matter.
|
I addressed this point earlier in response to Dan, hope you don't mind if I just copy and paste it again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Your assumptions in the above would appear to be:
1. Only medical reasons can be compelling.
It's perhaps difficult for an atheist, agnostic or general non-adherent to understand, but religious practices and ordinances, to the devotee, are compelling in and of themselves. This is something that is recognised in law in this country and pretty much everywhere else. To object on lack of medical grounds is to miss the point entirely.
2. Parents should not conduct religious rituals on infants that can't 'give permission'.
Infants cannot, by definition, give permission. It is the parents' right and responsibility to decide these things for them. Again, atheists etc frequently argue for parents not to do all sorts of religious things on behalf of their children as if it is somehow possible, or desirable, to bring children up in a religious household and yet insulated from the beliefs and practices that go with it. Every family brings its children up in its own customs and practices. Arguing that non-harmful interventions like circumcision should be exempt is absurd - not least because there are arguably far worse things that children can be exposed to as they grow up by parents exercising their right to give their kids a poor diet or to have nothing to do with their education beyond ensuring they actually turn up at school.
|
Dinner beckons ...