Infant and child mutilation in abrahamic systems

[Pookarian]

It isn't anger, it's more confused bemusement that people consider it perfectly acceptable to consider something a perfect as an infant child to have 'an ancillary piece of skin' (it isn't ancilliary, it does serve a very important function), that needs cutting off.

I really have spent years struggling with the concept that a deity would command people to cut bits off babies. I used the language in that fashion simply because that is what circumcision is, cutting a bit off a baby.

Anyway, wasn't it Rabbi Moses Maimonides in the twelfth century who promoted the current style circumcision?

"Teach thy tongue to say I do not know and thou shalt progress."

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Pookarian

It isn't anger, it's more confused bemusement that people consider it perfectly acceptable to consider something a perfect as an infant child to have 'an ancillary piece of skin' (it isn't ancilliary, it does serve a very important function), that needs cutting off.

What important function does it serve?

Originally Posted by Pookarian

Anyway, wasn't it Rabbi Moses Maimonides in the twelfth century who promoted the current style circumcision?

As far as the way it's done? Possibly. Rambam was a doctor, after all.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Pookarian

It isn't anger, it's more confused bemusement that people consider it perfectly acceptable to consider something a perfect as an infant child to have 'an ancillary piece of skin' (it isn't ancilliary, it does serve a very important function), that needs cutting off.

Perhaps I'm being naive and ignorant here, but I always presumed that living in areas in or around deserts, or subject to desert winds, that sand could be a real problem for men in terms of irritations and infections through sand getting into the foreskin.

In which case, removing the foreskin as a basic health practice for the peoples of the time and place, that has continued as a tradition even where not utterly necessary for the same reasons, at least in part because there's no apparent harm done to the child.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Perhaps I'm being naive and ignorant here, but I always presumed that living in areas in or around deserts, or subject to desert winds, that sand could be a real problem for men in terms of irritations and infections through sand getting into the foreskin.

In which case, removing the foreskin as a basic health practice for the peoples of the time and place, that has continued as a tradition even where not utterly necessary for the same reasons, at least in part because there's no apparent harm done to the child.

Actually quite correct. The issue was one of health for the child, and for future offspring. Unlike other life forms that tend to stay within certain environes, man goes everywhere. So, man had to adapt to the new environement they were in. The foreskin was a detriment to the health of the male, and caused many infections and death. So the simple cure was to cut away that which harbored infection.

I will point out that in the US military, lesson is being learned in the middle east today. as time went on, most American males have had circumcision observed, and have no problems, but many that did not, for what ever reasons, are having to deal with health issues, not normally dealt with back in the states. Quite a few of them are opting for late life circumcision, as a means to keep from developing health issues in a foreign environment, where sanitation is not the best.

v/r

Q

[jiii]

You say that child disfigurement isn't advocated, and then go on to dress it up with the word 'holy'. Taking a knife to a child, of either gender, for purely religious reasons is wrong.

Alright, first of all, the word "disfigurement" is a pretty strong term. Furthermore, it really seems like the attempt is being made here to paint those that practice circumcision in a most evil light, as if you, yourself, were the worlds authority on morality. Now, don't misinterpet, we are all entitled to our opinions, of course...we just ought to remember the difference between opinion and fact. It isn't as if people crowd around a baby with saliva dripping from their maniacal grins, all wielding scalpals and closing in to dice up the child with vigor. That's essentially an extension of the same exaggerated degree as what has been presented against circumcision here, but I would be equally as justified in calling it nothing more than a benign surgical procedure. I just think you're getting too hung up on the semantics here.

I mean, if you would lash out against Judaism and Islam about something as simple as circumcision, I would hate to see what you would do if you took a little trip to Africa and saw the initiation rites employed by some of the native, tribal cultures to elevate a boy to manhood. With such an ethnocentric viewpoint as has been expressed, I wouldn't be surprised to hear you calling them "savages"...kind of reminiscent of the excuses used to validate genocide of the Native North Americans in the 1700's and 1800's.

I am not an adherent of an Abrahamic religion, and I wouldn't be too happy about waking up to find my foreskin missing. I'm not trying to say that I'm "all about the idea." Is it a little weird? Sure. But it's only weird to people who haven't known that to be a part of their lifestyle and of their culture. It's also weird that Muslims, so I am told, forbid the use of alcohol, whereas Christians drink it down to the last drop. It's weird that in Eastern religions, people usually don't have a problem saying that they are the Godhead, whereas in the West, saying you're God winds you up in a mental institution. It's also weird that my grandmother goes to Church to eat the body of Christ. People do many strange things, this is for sure...but, strange to who exactly? Who gets the last word?

I suppose you could say all of these things are much different than circumcision. But, really, it's only different in that it is physical rather than psychological or behavioral. There's more to life than having a foreskin, my friend. And although there will always be a person here or there that gets real hung up on it and forms an organization to protest it, it's a pretty widely accepted practice. People have formed organizations for everything from painting all cars blue to making the turkey the United States official bird. Name any idea, and somebody has formed a group somewhere to say it's bad. Organizations aren't proof that so-and-so is immoral, it just means that people want to complain about it in large groups rather than by their lonesome. (Never did like those special interest groups )

-jiii

[Pookarian]

So I take it that it has now moved from covenent from God, to a hygene related cutting?

[dauer]

Pook,

For Jews, religiously, no. I think you're being given the historical answer, which may very well be true. In Judaism, it's traditionally understood as a sign of the covenant between the Jewish people and God.

In our times some people have suggested that it be regarded more as a chok, which is a category of mitzvah that doesn't really have a meaning we can readily understand, although experiencing them can be powerful. To help explain this, the two other categories are mitzvahs related to ethics and mitzvahs that recall a certain event. For example, Shabbos recalls both the Exodus from Egypt and God's resting/ceasing from creating on the 7th day of the Creation Myth. Dwelling in the sukkah on Sukkot recalls how our ancestors dwelled in temporary dwellings in the dessert.

Dauer

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Pookarian

So I take it that it has now moved from covenent from God, to a hygene related cutting?

I'm not sure how it specifically applies in this instance, but I recall someone once explaining that many of the commandments set up by G!d had very practical applications.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pookarian

So I take it that it has now moved from covenent from God, to a hygene related cutting?

From a survival in a particular environment perspective, yes. Though laws were given from a faith/religous perspective, does not mean there were not practicle reasons for adhering to the same as well (following the law reaped certain benefits and health enhancing results). Take the ritual washing before certain actions or events. We know now the importance of personal hygene. More importantly, we know why besides, it being a law to do so.

I don't think we were given instructions out of arbatrariness. We understand today the practical benefits of carrying out those instructions.

v/r

Q

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I don't think we were given instructions out of arbatrariness. We understand today the practical benefits of carrying out those instructions.

Not boiling a kid in its mother's milk (beyond the action being inhumane) is pretty arbitary. I can't find any practical or rational reason for it at all.

I'm not advocating doing it per se, just acknowledging that there are commandments that, near as anyone can tell, are just God saying do this or don't do this and there is no practical application of them.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Karimarie

Not boiling a kid in its mother's milk (beyond the action being inhumane) is pretty arbitary. I can't find any practical or rational reason for it at all.

I'm not advocating doing it per se, just acknowledging that there are commandments that, near as anyone can tell, are just God saying do this or don't do this and there is no practical application of them.

milk, boiled poisons the drinker. What makes you think milk boiled calf wouldn't do the same? Never mind the heineousness of killing a calf with the own mother's milk, which was to nurture it?

Oh, I wouldn't test the theory, unless you wish to suffer a sour stomach for the rest of the night...

v/r

Q

edit: that is you must boil it for as long as it took to 'cook' a calf (about 4 hours). Of course if one is lactose intollarant...that just might be more than an upset stomach...

As an aside, boiling a calf in milk, brought the flesh to just this side of putrice (tenderized or aged), and was considered "soft meat" and a delicacy. Using a calf's own mother's milk did other things (consider dna), that undermined the health of one eating the flesh...sort of like eating food off of lead plates...

[dauer]

Q,

what about the mitzvah not to wear clothing of wool and linen mixed found in Deut 22:11?

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

milk, boiled poisons the drinker. What makes you think milk boiled calf wouldn't do the same? Never mind the heineousness of killing a calf with the own mother's milk, which was to nurture it?

Oh, I wouldn't test the theory, unless you wish to suffer a sour stomach for the rest of the night...

Did not know this... Point taken.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by dauer

Q,

what about the mitzvah not to wear clothing of wool and linen mixed found in Deut 22:11?

Easy enough. Wool, traps heat, regardless of wet or dry. Linen wicks heat away, and is for summer use only. To mix the two, is a contradition in terms. Wool and Linen is an oxymoron. Sort of like wearing cotton underwear, and a wool uniform, then wondering why one has jock itch...

I'm not joking.

v/r

Q

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Easy enough. Wool, traps heat, regardless of wet or dry. Linen wicks heat away, and is for summer use only. To mix the two, is a contradition in terms. Wool and Linen is an oxymoron. Sort of like wearing cotton underwear, and a wool uniform, then wondering why one has jock itch...

I'm not joking.

v/r

Q

Might I add that Linen and Wool get washed at different temperatures... so says my washer-dryer

.