Why does God hate Tattoos?

Nope, the current ramble still doesn't change the continuing point that FGM and MGM are broadly comparable although I am pleased that at least you associate genital mutilation with being not 'healthful' and harmful. Quite why, since that people all over the place do things that are not healthy there's reason enough not to work or campaign against genital mutilation, something you imply, is entirely your own peculiar logic.  But on the wider basis that you have not argued the point but just typed verbiage, as repetition is never much fun, I will leave you to it until the next thread.

A fallacy, by the way such as an ad hominem is, cannot be logical - while insults instead of proper argument are never necessary, except of course for those who have nothing else to contribute. Just saying.


If by "intellectually inferiority of your friends" you again refer to my mentally handicapped brother then I feel sorry for you. No one else on this or the old board has been so deliberately crass, over and over or made the insults so personal, even when politely asked to stop.

I don't deny that MGM can be more readily reversible, but then I have been saying all along that the two types are broadly comparable when you said they were "totally" not so. The fact still remains that both FGM and MGM are most regularly justified for religious and cultural reasons, as I have shown (also sometimes for secondary 'health' reasons it must be said) and represent mutilation of a specific type, often worked on the young and which is non-consensual. Just because something can be more readily fixed does really not make it more acceptable, and I have never heard this weak argument before. By this same reckoning rape is presumably better than murder since only one of these is permanent, but neither is really acceptable is it?

The fact that FGM and MGM are both often justified for religious and cultural reasons and both involve non-consensual genital 'operations' would seem to be very pertinent. I suspect that in arguing such procedures in each sex are "totally incomparable" you are just suiting your argument, not the facts.



You have been asked to quote where I have 'defined religion' before - and failed to do so.

You will note that I am not saying that FGM is a religious requirement but it is certainly practised predominantly within certain Muslim societies, and also exists within some adjacent Christian and animist groups, and frequently justified for religious reasons. Muslim proponents of FGM rely on the following hadith (saying attributed to Muhammad): “Umm Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” Religious obligation is an important factor in the decision to practice FGM, but I agree is typically just one of several elements. Whether or not you claim that such practitioners are not really being religious is irrelevant to what they say to justify matters when asked since they believe it is (just as the burqa is nowhere mandated by the Prophet, or abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible). As we know, it has also been brought into the west. However male circumcision, or MGM is a religious requirement, being compulsory for Jews and is also commonly practiced among Muslims around the world. When performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God. I hope that helps.


Which is exactly why it is best to first address those non-consensual medical acts which can be irreversible, and why FGM in particular is outlawed in so many places. That does not mean however that comparable practices ought not to be looked at, as I said at the very start here. Remember how just earlier you said "I admire your efforts to persuade people to stop doing harmful things to their children" ? This suggests you agree that genital mutilation falls in that category. So why are you still arguing?


I am afraid you attribute me far more optimism about stopping some of the more barbaric practices justified (among other things) by faith and glory to God than I would ever do myself. Although one of the first steps is to confront the mindset who deny the obvious and think non-consensual genital mutilation, justified by culture, tradition and religion is 'not so bad'. I am naturally pleased that you say that you don't need to be persuaded. If so, then I ask again: why are you still disputing matters?

I don't have an agenda, Arlon. I simply observe the way the world is and make a point when something frequently justified by (among other things) religion means the cutting of children.

I’m with god on this one. I’ve always hated tattoos. I think they look ugly and disfiguring.

   You must mean on PlanetFilmFlaneur.

Please quote my questions which are irrelevant to the point. Or this will be straw man #3.

Since you apparently have nothing fresh to contribute I will excuse myself at this point.

1,2 A stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

3. Don't tell me what I believe. I have said, still say, and indeed have shown, that FGM and MGM is often justified by religion, cultural reasons and, less frequently for 'health reasons'.  The emphasis purely on religion alone is all your own and distorts the picture to suit your own purposes. Religious justification is common but not the only reason. 

4. A religious justification is not the same as religious requirement, but as we know especially from the reasons for much circumcision, sometimes the two occur at the same time. But I have told you this already.

5. I think MGM ought to be looked at as I find it equally objectionable (as I said in my first comment). Religious (and non-religious) circumcision is common in some predominantly richer Christian countries such as the United States, Canada, South Korea, then also Israel as well as elsewhere. So it is not true that MGM is found "only" in very poor countries, and you are wrong.  Neither, too is FGM "only found" in very poor countries (although more common there) since for instance it has be found necessary to make it illegal in the UK.  Statistics may be inexact but it exists, so you are wrong here as well. Says the EU Commission:


Then in the USA:

I hope that helps.

But despite your diversion, the fact is wherever it is found non-consensual GM is equally objectionable. The implication that bad things matter less since they are more common among the poor and underdeveloped is peculiar, ultimately immoral and I suspect all your own.

But now since I have corrected what you actually say, again, with links. I can't really do any more. See you on the next thread.

OK then, against my better instincts, one last time:


An ad hominem is still not an argument.



I repeat: GM is often justified for religious reasons and a religious justification is not the same as religious requirement. For Jewish people MGM it is mandated. It is common among Muslims. Since the Jews worship the same God as Christians, something which Muslims also say about Allah, BTW, if this purported deity really is successful in changing attitudes then with this one at least He is taking His time!

www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/do-christians-muslims-and-jews-worship-same-god


The point here, which I see you now acknowledge, would be that it is not true that GM is "only found in poor countries", which was as you insisted before. QED. And the estimated 513,000 victims in the USA is not something to be written off so casually as insignificant. Your callousness is not reflected by your Govt. With the passage of the federal law ban, the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1996, performing FGM on anyone under age 18 became a felony in the United States. No issue there then.



There is no reason to assume that the reasons given by the majority of those involved with GM are false, as they would be best placed to know. (The only confusion in Islam is over whether FGM is mandated. Senior Muslim religious authorities appear to agree that FGM is neither required nor prohibited by Islam. The Quran does not mention FGM or male circumcision. FGM is praised in a few hadith , sayings attributed to Muhammad, as noble but not required. Rightly or wrongly, Muslim proponents of FGM stress the religious necessity. Midwifes and mothers insist that it is “sunnah” – an opinion shared by most Islamic clerics. Yet, sunnah can either mean that a practice is religiously recommended or simply that it was done that way in the times of the prophet Mohammed.) In the case of Jewish people, as you ought to admit, circumcision is mandated, as part of their religion. The implication with those who attribute religious justification for GM, that they are all for some reason lying about their true motivation and that really it has nothing to do with religion is nonsense. Suppose I called you a liar whenever you deny abiogensis and you claim you believe only a supernatural designer could have created life? See how it works? Anyone who has bothered to read thus this far will. 



*sigh* As already carefully explained, for various reasons, it is best practice to take the religious at their word as they are best placed to know what they believe. They may be wrong in their interpretation of what is required over what is custom within a religion, but that does not remove the religious association. So for the last time: culture and religion are both contributing to the prevalance of FGM. Time for you stop making out the religious, whenever they contradict you, to be liars just because it suits your argument, as it looks silly - and, as I suggest, can ultimately can be used against your own claims based on faith.



Read after me: "in 2018 the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland classified removal of the clitoral foreskin, a less severe form of FGM, as sunna (recommended)." or " In May 2012 it was reported that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was working to decriminalize FGM." or "Shiite religious texts, such as the hadith transmitted by Al-Sadiq, state that "circumcision is makruma ("noble") for women."".




It is a fact that FGM, at least, is objected to among a host of nations, to the point of making it illegal. And it is certainly a fact I find non-consensual GM anywhere objectionable -which is not the same as saying that everyone objects to it. (One is unsure that you really do, for instance)

Now go find another thread to haunt, as your weird notions that religion is unconnected with GM, that the religious cannot be trusted to relay their beliefs truthfully and that in any case genital mutilation is not so bad when only practiced among the poor are by turn unconvincing, self-defeating and crass