“We don’t know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it.”
A Muslim mother in Iraq lures her seven-year-old into a female genital circumcision by lying to her about a “party.” A half-dozen other girls are also tricked. The Washington Post documented the torment.
Go here. But not if you have a queasy stomach or a weak heart.
The mother of 7-year-old Sheelan’s parting thought?
“We don’t know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it.”
An epigram that explains a lot of barbaric behavior these days. Years. Centuries.
Hat tip: Mookie
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- An Open letter to Dr Ron Paul on losing his Kibbles & Bits « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Jules Crittenden » Gaza, Trash Heap of Moral Authority
- Left Of Center » Blog Archive » I Don’t Know Why, Either
- Another Thought, Another Outrageous Muslim tradition « Sharp Right Turn
- Islam - Religion of Peace and Female Circumcision « The Swamp Hermit’s Report
- JABbering Stooge :: 15 billionth verse, same as the first :: January :: 2009
- BelchSpeak » Post Topic » Islam Means Mysogyny: Uncovered Meat Raped. Family Uses Razor to Perform Abortion
- Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » The Cost Of Interfaith Tolerance
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Islam
Sister Toldjah
» Today’s House schedule – Do the Dems have 216 votes?
Stop The ACLU
» Democrats Predict Historic House Vote On Health DestructionRiehl World View
» Petty Tyrants Play The Viktum Card, Oh My!Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats libel 'Kill the Bill' crowd as racist, violent crackpots when 99.99% are patriots concerned with the evisceration of the ConstitutionLegal Insurrection
» Look Who Really Is Killing American Soldiers (Hint, Not Israel)Mudville Gazette
» Protests in DC
The Koran does not require FGM, so they are lying about that too. Not that I expect much better out of them
Is this “the beauty of Islam” that I hear about
Not completely true. Islamic tradition holds that the husband determines whether the woman spends eternity in Paradise or Gehenna. It gives the man some serious power, while they are still living, to hold literally the power of heaven and hell over his wife.
The Taj Mahal in India was built by a Muslim shah because his favorite wife died in childbirth, and he wanted to demonstrate to the world his devotion to her. However, while this seems sweet and romantic, keeping in the Islamic tradition, the artisans and craftsman that built the Taj Mahal were put to death when the edifice was completed, so they could never build another structure as grand.
Although I admit I am not an authority of Islam, I strongly suspect is has less to do with the first (Islam) and more to do with the latter (the elders). Why do I think that? Because I seriously doubt that most women in Iraq can read…they (and I think most middle-eastern people) are *told* what Islam requires them to do by the demons who have control over these people.
That said, I wonder more and more if Muhammed (or however it’s spelled) is the “false prophet” that the Bible warns us about??
It was a tribal African custom that the woman hating religion of Islam happily adopted. It is a statement of woman as property, if they can’t enjoy sex, they will never be tempted to cheat on their husbands. Master is a better word than husband, which I believe implies a partnership between husband and wife.
The ‘Prophet’ Mohammad, when he married the six year old Aisha, but wa skind enough to wait until she was nine to rape her, certainly wasn’t Aisha’s husband, and she was his victim, not his wife.
Yep.
And undoubtedly now and then someone now dies during a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, root canal, cholecystectomy, allergic reaction to medication, etc, etc, etc,….
There is also the rare person who has fallen out of a plane without a parachute, or from 3rd story scaffolding, and lived; and occasional folks with a 200-pack-year-smoking history who did not develop COPD; nor head & neck nor lung cancer.
As far as I am aware, the risk arises pretty much only from a technical error of the surgeon, and is not an inherent property of the procedure itself.
And, the risk likely, or at least quite possibly, is significantly outweighed by the benefit.
Muslim converts in the US practice a watered down version of Islam in some respects, definitely, not all. They don’t practice every tenet of Islam – they pick and choose whichever ones that are suitable to their psyche. For example, the ability to have multiple wives, wearing the muslim garb, etc. That can be attributable to their lack of immersion in the more radical (for lack of a better term) or culture of Islam.
Think Patty Hearst.
‘Course, as I’ve said, there was and still is, as far as I am aware, a difference of opinion in medicine as to whether male circumcision should be recommended.
And that’s what it is…a difference of opinion.
In other words, different strokes for different folks. (Apologies – could not resist…!)
Besides, whether male circumcision should be recommended is not the topic of this thread.
MUSLIMS practice FGM for the same reason they strap bombs to themselves, and set them off in a crowd… The ELDERS tell them to… The same ELDERS who when confronted with JUSTICE will use the garb of WOMEN to escape to the hills…
Hence the different versions of the Koran?
Those who try to draw any correlation between female genital mutilation and male circumcision are simply trying to hide the utter barbaric nature of fgm.
The fact of the matter is, there are DEFINITE health benefits to male circumcision. These benefits aren’t seen nearly as much in first world countries, however, they can be seen in third world countries.
http://billgothard.com/bill/news/circumcision/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133688.php
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673607603122
Fgm exists simply to dominate women and prevent their bodies from functioning naturally. Urinating is painfuly and done drop by drop. Women can barely menstrate. Childbirth is deadly. Has anyone read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s discription of her own fgm? She had to be cut open with a knife in ordered to have sex with her husband.
There is no comparison between the two,
Yeah, and that really made a big impact on islam, didn’t it? Oprah is a lib. Her programs are geared for the sob sisters and that subject fit right in. She makes a lot of money. Enough said.
In fact, I think she has HELPED Islam quite well. Remember after 9/11 she was one of the first to proclaim Islam a “religion of peace”? Peace through dictatorship is very different from peace through democracy.
Kind of like liberals. They pick and choose which laws and parts of the Constitution they want to obey but demand absolute fealty from all to what they like.
Typical. Liberal. Hypocrites.
It is frustrating to watch our fellow man circle the drain into eternal abyss.
Agreed.
But, you repeat yourself!!
Yes. Very much like Liberals. Heck, for all we know they are Liberals. Birds of a feather … .
mockingbird, I am in no way trying to say that male circumcision is remotely as traumatic or evil as FGM. I am only trying to say that those who blow off other people’s position that it is not the totally painless/harmless/minor procedure they make it out to be is wrong as well.
Yes there are proven benefits of male circumcision in certain circumstances. But there are very real risks as well, risks that can have catastrophic and lifelong impacts on the child. Granted it does not happen very often, but the sheer devastation that can occur when it does gives me great pause and should give every other parent great pause as well. Those risks are too often glossed over.
Oprah helped Islam by getting Obama elected POTUS. As you might have noticed, I’m not a big fan of hers.
It mkaes me cry. Those poor little babies. Why they do this is beyond my mind ever to understand but my immediate thought is these people need a better education. Can these girls ever trust their mothers again?
Me neither…I have always distrusted someone whose “principles” depend on what makes her $$$.
Yes, it is.
As a Christian, I find it very sad.
But, I would find it sadder and indefensible were I not to defend myself, my family, my neighbors, my countrymen, and my “culturemen” against the unbelievable enemy of civilization that Islam relentlessly, progressively shows itself to be.
God forgive me, but does not this enemy dehumanize itself?
Granted that mulims in the US practice a somewhat watered down version. And there is a group of mulsim “scholars” that advocate updating islam to fit current knowledge & practices of society. But they still practice subjegation of women (i.e. womans testimony only valued 1/2 of a mans, female child inherets 1/2 of a male child, beating wives is ok etc.)
Granted civil law doesn’t yet accept these practices, but religious courts for civil issues have already been recognized in England, and efforts have been made (and nearly succeeded) in Canada.
And the fact that a woman that grows up in a non-muslim household voluntarily converts to islam, subjecting herself to second or third class citizenship status shocks me to the very core.
OK. Let’s call a spade a spade here. What exactly is the difference between Islam’s FGM for religious and cultural reasons, and the Jews’ MGM for those exact same reasons?
One only. The age at which it is performed. Would those aghast at FGM remain so if it was performed at birth thereby rendering it memory-less and less traumatic?
Have you been reading this thread?
Thank you.
You saved me the trouble.
You want to “call a spade a spade”? Fine. You’re fundamentally dishonest, ignorant, and you clearly didn’t bother to read the rest of the posts here, or to understand the difference between FGM and circumcision.
FGM renders a woman incapable of enjoying sex, makes a basic bodily function – urinating – painful and difficult, and can be deadly in childbirth.
Please, show me exactly where the stories are about Jewish boys so mutilated they can’t function or don’t enjoy sex.
granite, you’re welcome!
Rorschach,
Sure, male circumcision is a medical procedure with risks involved. I don’t see the need here in a first world country with hygenie opprotunities that might not be available in other parts of the world.
I am outraged by those who try to compare it to fgm though. There is no comparision.
The difference lies solely in the semantics you choose to employ. You refer to “circumcision.” I call it Male genital mutilation. As to deprivation of enjoyment later in life, who are you to say that a “cut” male has the same enjoyment as an uncut one?
You also ignore the fact that both processes are performed for the very same reasons–religious and cultural. Have you never heard of rabbis who engage in male circumcision performing the rite with their teeth? If not, you need to educate yourself.
Well said. And so true. We stop thinking of these barbarians as actual human beings. They are murderous cockroaches that need to be stamped out. You can pray for them all you want, but they still want to kill us and I just want to protect the country and people I love. It is them or us.
pubscout….you’re full of crap.
Male circumcision has been directly linked to a lower HIV and STD rate in third world countries.
Female genital mutilation leaves women incapable of living their lives because they can’t freakin’ pee. Their periods become races against time, will the blood be able to drip out in time, or will they die from toxic shock syndrome first? Sex? Hope the scar tissue tears because otherwise he’s coming in with a knife………
This thread isn’t about whether or not first world boys need to be circumcised. It’s about whether little girls in throughout the world have an opprotunity at life.
mockingbyrd
You need to educate yourself, as well as polish your debate style.
They, at least, have enjoyment. Women don’t.
But it’s clearly pointless to argue with you. You’re one of those “all cultures are equally valid” or “Judiasm/Christianity does X so it’s just as bad as Islam” folks.
Perspective, and rationality, are clearly out of your grasp.
Okay, any men out there who haven’t been able to function suxually or go the the bathroom normally since being circumsized? Speak up if you want to support pubscout’s point.
*crickets chirping* . . .
Pubscout….could you please address the points I made? That’s the debate style I’m familiar with.
My laugh of the day. Thanks! Or were you serious??
Good for you.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I know a negative cannot be “proven”, in the strictest sense; but, unless you can read every man’s mind during orgasm, who are you to say that a “cut” male does not have the same enjoyment…etc.?
I should think the answer to that question just might have been arrived at over the past – oh, I don’t know – multiple centuries.
Now we come (no pun intended-honest!) to the gist of the post.
In other words, who are we to judge?
Going unnecessarily out of your way to pick an argument, like the annoying clowns in high school.
What’s the matter?
Too much free time?
Pathetic….
Rorshach already provided us with an example of circumcision gone awry…isn’t that enough???
/sarc
On January 8th, 2009 at 10:38 am, FamilyMan said:
If there is no sexual satisfaction for women, do they just lay there and fake enjoyment. Islamic men must be really really sick.
—————————————
Of course, they are expected to “fake it” for their husbands although they are physically incapable of feeling that kind of pleasure. That’s part of the “beauty of Islam”, as another poster wrote.
On January 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am, MtsEdge said:
On January 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am, frostrt said:
Rorshach already provided us with an example of circumcision gone awry…isn’t that enough???
/sarc
————————————-
Point taken.
And may I add, his “example” was not the INTENDED result, whereas in FGM, they d@!m well INTEND to mutilate the girl’s body.
And I call my the Millenium Falcon. That don’t make it so.
There is a big, big difference between a hypothetical reduction of enjoyment and definitely making someone’s genitals completely incapable of basic functions. If you really can’t see that the problem is with you, not us.
If we’re setting the bar on mutilation that low there’s a lot of mutilation going on for “cultural” reasons. Piercings, tattoos, facelifts, liposuction and arguably even the wearing of high-heeled shoes.
Body modification based on cultural aesthetics is not wrong, in and of itself. Holding down a seven year-old girl so you can perform (without anesthetic or sterility) a procedure that permantly impairs her ability to function is wrong. Again, if you can’t see that the problem is with you, not us.
Assuming such a thing exists in this day and age (an assumption I’m not willing to make) you can hardly hold that up as emblematic of how circumcision is done. That is one lame strawman you just dragged out.
Only every bio/-human anatomy book that’s been published – the male foreskin does not contain the nerves associated sensual pleasure.
Either you’re being contrarian, or are just yanking our chains. I mean, how you can compare this torture to medically viable male circumcision is mind boggling.
Hey, folks, I just realized that my question from way back earlier in the thread has been answered!
A new opposite-worldview troll has indeed blessed us with his comments!
Our not-so-long wait is over!
It is horrifying to see the innocent, hopeful, happy, trusting look on the little girl’s face as she enters the room expecting a “party” and the shocked, pained look on her face after the procedure.
We have a lovely 10 year old daughter, and I cannot imagine something like this happening to her.
But by your erudite definition, the male foreskin PROTECTS the glans penis which does house the sensory nerve endings, right? So is it possible that removing it could decrease sensation? And that leaving it enhances same?
In which case, removal constitutes a non-voluntary deprivation, done for religious and cultural reasons.
And, like it or not, removing it certainly qualifies as genital mutilation, whether done in a sterile setting or not.
I certainly do not condone FGM. It is indeed barbaric.I only ask why there is comparably little outrage over the mutilation of males in our culture.
Perhaps because our culture realizes, based upon the experience and, yes, wisdom (I know, I know, anathema to socialists/nihilists/anarchists/opposite-worldview holders) of the past multiple centuries, that the difference between FGM and male circumcision is not simply a difference of degree; but, indeed, a difference in kind.
And, if you have to have that explained to you; you sadly cannot, will not, ever understand.
P.S.
And “who are we to judge”?
We are civilized man, that’s who…dammit!!!
Yet you still refuse to call the process mutilation when done on a male?
Interesting.
So your position comes down to mutilating females is abhorrent in any setting–sterile or not. But mutilation of male genitalia doesn’t exist because we’re civilized.
Perhaps it is your perspective that requires review.
Nice chatting with you.
Barbaric is not a strong enough term. I cannot nor will ever understand how parents…especially a mother…could EVER commit such attrocities upon their own child. To add insult to injury, they promise this child a party and fill her full of joy, only to smash her hopes and joy like a fly with a swatter.
Then again, these are the demons who will murder their own daughters/neices/wives all because of some perceived embarrassment to the “family”. These are people who treat women WORSE than cattle, who feel the sheep and goats they raise have a higher purpose and value in the world.
What truly boggles my mind is that Islam is a fast growing “religion” in the world today, even here in the “enlightened” United States. That means there are women out there who are just that stupid as to fall for the lies and subject themselves willingly to being treated in such barbaric ways.
It is one thing to have been born into it, where islam is all that you have been brought up around and know, but to actually convert to that cult of the moon god, well you could not possibly have the common sense that God gave road kill in Kentucky.
This practice actually occurs here in the United States, though they are carefull to keep it concealed. I am not sure what the laws here state, but hopefully “Religious Tolerance” is not used to excuse it when it is discovered.
I am the proud father of three daughters, and I would most definitely destroy by all means at my disposal, any man or woman who would ever lay a finger on any of them, ESPECAILLY in a manner such as this.
Actually, you were asking what the difference between the two proceedures were. Because you were under the impression that the only difference was the age at which they occured. This misunderstanding has been repeatedly clarified for you.
There is also a HUGE difference between the reasons behind the actions. Males are circumcisized as an improvement to their quality of life. Now you don’t have to agree that it does improve their life, but there are valid arguments to support either postion.
There is NO way that fgm can be justified as am improvement for a woman’s life. And even those mothers who were allowing this mutilation to occur, didn’t know why they were doing it.
Pubscout:
We have tried repeatedly to clarify the differences for you; it’s just sailing right over your head. If there is no difference between the two in your mind, then there is, indeed, no point in trying to discuss this with you.
mockingbyrd
“There is also a HUGE difference between the reasons behind the actions. Males are circumcisized as an improvement to their quality of life.”
There is no documented proof that your statement is accurate. There are assumptions and rationalizations, but no proof. European males were traditionally never circumsized, and no data exists to show that their “quality of life” was lessened in any way.
Do you also refuse to call the removal of a natural foreskin mutilation?
You say “the process” as though it’s the same process. It’s not. That’s the point.
Actually, that’s not our position at all. Your complete refusal to even acknowledge, let alone understand, anything we say clearly marks you as either a moron, a troll or possibly both.
Intellectual condescention from someone incapable of constructing or responding to a logical argument. I love it.
I guess we’re done here.
I guess by your definition:
The repair of a cleft lip and a cleft palate is “mutilation”?
The removal of a supernumerary digit is “mutilation”?
The separation of conjoined (“Siamese”) twins is “mutilation”?
(And, no, I am not a surgeon.)
I think the term “mutilation”, as we (or, at least the vast majority of us) here are discussing it and understand it, is defined at least as much – most likely much more so – by its intent (end), which is to improve health, vs savage, barbaric control/domination; as/than by the actual physical act of cutting (means).
To paraphrase one poster above:
Sure, you can call male circumcision mutilation;
and, I’m gonna call my garage door a cup of coffee…but, that doesn’t make it so.
frostrt
I know, I know, I’m feeding the troll. Sorry.
I’ll type slowly so you can understand.
The intention of male circumcision is to improve their life. Whether or not it does is arguable, but the intention is not.
The intention of FGM is to terrorize and subjugate. Whether or not is does is beyond any rational dispute.
Even the most obstinate moral relativist should be able to see the difference between a society that does one or the other.
No. My position comes down to the fact that the motives behind the two are different, as are the outcomes.
You can boil it down and say “Both are religious and/or cultural reasons” and leave it at that. But it’s a fundamentally simplistic and dishonest view.
Female circumcision is wholly unnecessary. As many others have pointed out, removal of the male foreskin has medical benefits and the foreskin is, ultimately, not a physically necessary body part.
Female circumcision denies women sexual pleasure, and the ability to urinate, menstruate, and bear children. Male circumcision does not interfere with sexual pleasure, nor does it inhibit their ability to function normally.
That you refuse (or fail) to see the difference is telling. And rather sad.
Folks:
Do you think this guy might be a lawyer, and is just practicing his moral equivalence, sophistry, nihilism, existentialism, confusion-diversion, non-judgmentality, spinning, word-twisting, and dishonesty with us?
Hey pubscout….I posted links to studies that showed a significant drop in HIV rates among circumcised African males. See, I don’t just care about white European males, but the men through out the world. Men in Africa benefit from circumcision.
Sure, we can call it mutilation. And we can group it with mole removal, wart removal,waxing, shaving, ear piercing since all of these involve the removal of naturally occuring things on the body.
pubscout,
You sound very bitter. Did you undergo a circumcision that left a scar on your butt?
James Felix
First, You are obviously ignorant of what the “intention” of circumcision is. Do some reading on the history of the practice in Judaism. You’ll discover its intention is religiously symbolic.
The intention of FGM is to preserve religious and cultural traditions. Doesn’t make it right, though, does it?
And we all know about good intentions as a paving material, don’t we?
And you’d be a much worthier adversary if you refrained from name-calling. It’s an indication you are losing the debate.
On January 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, Hannibal said:
LOL!!
He might not have enough to do.
Perhaps, as I have said now and then, he was one of those annoying clowns in high school who started the “underground newspaper”, or who went out of his way to be annoying.
Chap, is that you?
You don’t mean me, I hope?!
This seem to me to be your point. You are an anti-semite and are threadjacking for the purpose of venting your poison.
for the record…American Heritage Dictionary defines mutilation as
Ummm…the word being defined is itself part of its own definition?!
P.S.
Sort of reminds me of the amp “going to 11″ in “This Is Spinal Tap”.
(No, I don’t know the movie too well; but, our sons love it.)
Degenerate beasts.
b-cat
Your foolish, unfounded and untrue charge merits only one response:
There is no need for cretinous commentary.
oh…sorry about that. The phrase “mutilation of a body” was the example used, as in how to properly use the word. It’s not part of the definition.
OK.
Got it.
Thanks.
Of course not. I do understand how it could be interpreted that way. I was just referring to your description and was trying to make a funny, is all.
This may shock you, but during my 14 years of Jesuit education they did touch briefly on the Bible at some point. 5,000 years ago what you said is accurate, today it is not. People of all creeds and people with no creed circumcize their sons today. Your assertion that they do so for religious reasons simply runs counter to the facts.
… of violently subjugating women. I’m well aware of that.
It indicates no such thing. If we you were arguing that the Earth was flat and I called you a moron it wouldn’t indicate I was losing … it would just indicate I think you’re a moron.
And what you’re attempting to argue here is equally preposterous, for the numerous reasons already spelled out for you in the posts above.
Whew!!
Got it.
Thanks!
And you did.
Good to talk to you again, 30!
Keep on keeping on.
James Felix
While hospital circumcisions are performed by doctors, who performs the circumcision in most Jewish familes–doctor or rabbi?
It is apparent that your Jesuit education omitted a chapter on manners, as well as the principles of effective debate.
But here’s a link that may help buttress your pedagogical pedigree.
Nice chatting with you.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html
This may help bring the issue into focus for those capable of seeing the issue from both sides.
More info:
“Studies about the benefits of circumcision have provided conflicting results. Some studies show certain benefits, while other studies do not. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary.”
From http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/men/reproductive/042.html
Pubscout:
Show me studies that list the benefits of female circumcision, and then you’ll have a point.
Otherwise, multiculturalist moral equivalancy isn’t cutting it.
from the link you posted, pubscout…..
It certainly appears that there are valid reasons to choose circumcision. There are no valid reasons to choose FGM. Which is all anyone has been saying.
I think we’ve all exhausted enough computer memory trying to explain this to pubscout…
*insert Michelle’s head-banging graphic here*
Thanks for saving me a bunch of typing, MB.
Hoisted on his own petard.
This is how I came to that conclusion. It looks like your argument is the Jews are barbarians.
I reserve the right to be cretinous whenever I wish, however you can see it is not an unfounded conclusion.
b-cat, I think pubscout was referring to his/her own cretinous commentary. Just sayin’…
Obviously, the culture that supports the barbarism known as FGM believes that there are benefits as well. Are they misguided in my view? Sure. But so are those who rationalize MGM.
I recall a cartoon where God and Moses are sitting in a bar over a beer, and Moses says to God:
“Now let me get this straight. You want us to cut off the tips of our whats?”
Nice chatting with you all–or at least with most of you all.
You beat me to it.
Kudos to you.
That link rather more supports us than our troll.
Oops!
Our troll might have just had a “Three Stooges” or “Laurel & Hardy” moment with that link he provided!
The buffoon relief and yuks are appreciated!
Which, by the way, answers the original question: “why are we not outraged over it”?
If it’s obvious, please tell us what they believe the “benefits” are.
Or, are you afraid that we would be “judgmental” about what these animals believe the “benefits” are?
Ah, the moral equivalency again.
It is sad, really, that our interlocutor is such an empty, soulless shell.
Again, I believe my car is the Millenium Falcon, that don’t make it so.
From their own barbarous mouths we hear them say “I don’t know why we do it”. You’re trying to equate belief based on 21st century medical evidence with belief based on “Allah said so”.
Acutally your entire argument is based on comparing unequal things. At least you’re consistent.
I would better have said a cartoon moment:
Boioioioioiinnnggg!!!
Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hahhhh….!!
Ok, fine. Granted. FGM and circumcision are equally barbaric because both involve removing skin from the genitals with a blade.
Now that I’ve been properly educated it’s possible for me to draw several other conclusions.
The muslim practice of stoning women to death and women’s softball are both equally evil. Both involve throwing something small and hard at a woman, over and over again.
The muslim practice of hand amputation and the Western practice of getting manicures are also both equally evil. Both involve cutting things off the end of an arm.
And, of course, traditional 4th of July celebrations are as damnably diabolical as suicide bombing. Both, after all, require you to let children handle explosives.
Thanks for clearing all that up.
On January 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, James Felix said:
Another example of the Religion of Peace living in the 7th century. Was that racist? I do not care, their thinking is archaic…the majority of moooslimbs want the the world to turn back the clocks 1400 yrs. They may not all be radical jihadists, but they are all mooslimbs.
On January 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm, mockingbyrd said:
Sure, we can call it mutilation. And we can group it with mole removal, wart removal,waxing, shaving, ear piercing since all of these involve the removal of naturally occuring things on the body.
—————————————
Exactly. Ancient Greeks, I believe, saw ANY alteration of the human body as “mutilation”. They not only objected to circumsision, they also would have forbidden any kind of piercing or tatooing, which are so commonplace today.
However, the difference is whether the body is being “altered” for the person’s well-being, which could be argued for male circumsision, or to cause them pain and suffering, which is DEFINITELY the case with FGM.
Also, people generally CHOOSE piercing or tatooing (although they may not be exactly sober at the time they choose it, LOL), whereas girls are coerced into FGM.
On January 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pm, MtsEdge said:
I think we’ve all exhausted enough computer memory trying to explain this to pubscout…
*insert Michelle’s head-banging graphic here*
—————————————
Yup, like talking to a wall.
I, for one, give up.
And he makes my point by leaving with a swipe at the Jews.
I am sure he didn’t include me in the nice chatting with you group. Aw shucks.