Should there be laws to protect kids from religous inflence?

[DarkSilver]

ghetto Edit:
[quote="me"]
I will do what I will do; which ends up giving me a system of ethics probably similar to yours.[/b]

[Imperial Overlord]

Again, I said my definition may be wrong, but that's how I think of it. Are you going anywhere with this beyond "look at him, he doesn't know what spirituality means"?

I find, in general, the word "spirituality" is thrown around a lot by people who can't define it in any way at all. I'm not looking for a dictionary definition of the word, I'm looking for your definition of the word. You claim to receive "spiritual" benefits from your religious explorations, but you do not define "spiritual" in any way that differs from morality. Yet clearly the concepts mean two different things to you. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean.

[Ghost Rider]

Off to SLAM because havok is right, this has virtually nothing to do with News or Politics, except Ray's dumbass dream of regulation that are beyond the wet dreams of dictators.

I will say, there should regulations against a number of idiotic notions that are completely based on religions, to say nothing of the faith school bullshit as well the current stream of religious based crap as a science.

And since the discussion quickly resolved in that direction, off it goes.

[DarkSilver]

Again, I said my definition may be wrong, but that's how I think of it. Are you going anywhere with this beyond "look at him, he doesn't know what spirituality means"?

I find, in general, the word "spirituality" is thrown around a lot by people who can't define it in any way at all. I'm not looking for a dictionary definition of the word, I'm looking for your definition of the word. You claim to receive "spiritual" benefits from your religious explorations, but you do not define "spiritual" in any way that differs from morality. Yet clearly the concepts mean two different things to you. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean.

Ah, I understand now.

The spiritual benefits I'm getting, is knowledge in the fact, I am doing ultimately a good thing, thus helps me grant me a sense of inner peace.

perhaps that will help clarify a bit. Morality and Spirituality need not be completely seperate, the former can bolster the later.

[Covenant]

Morality as absoluetly no need of spirituality though, it would do just fine without it. The best moral and ethic systems are the ones that make no allowance for religion, because religion or even spirituality assumes there's some larger purpose that should be served before or beyond the one in front of you. If the spiritual system makes no edicts concerning human interaction, then it is excess weight and should be removed. If it does, even if they're positive ones, it's misinformation and should also be cast out.

Even in the weakest sense, of humans as posessing a spirit force with a reward at the end, you're setting up a system that makes assertions based on a higher authority's judgement. It's a short step from "some magical force rewards the good" to "oh yeah, and it punishes the wicked as well." And we all know where that goes. It's just an extremely poor thought process, and dangerous territory to root a system of ethics and morality in.

[lazerus]

Yes to banning things like circumcisions. Any kind of permanent change to the body should not be legal until the child has reached the age of majority.

Seconded. I still find it unbelievable this is not already law. Our medical ethics in North America regarding Routine Infant Circumcision is disgusting. I can't imagine a more gross form of child abuse short of raping them. Why people cannot see this is beyond me. Even the fucking tremendous PAIN it causes should be enough let alone the elective, irreversible nature of the stupid procedure.

Uh, hi. Speaking as someone who had to have a circumcision at age 8 (for legitimate medical reasons), and can thus actually remember the incredible, agonizing pain...

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

Certainly, the medical evidence for circumcision having health benefits is extremely sketchy at best. When I have kids I doubt I'll have them circumcised (simply because there's no reason too), and I think the governments position of subsidizing such a thing is silly, but you act like it's somehow permanently traumatizing.

It's not. It stings. It stings worse then just about anything else I can remember in my life, mind. Eyes-watering, crying kind of stinging. But it stings. You get over it. In a few months it's just "Ho-hum, yeah, that really hurt." And that's at an age old enough that you can really remember, the baby dosn't even do that.

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been circumcised and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

[Havok]

DarkSilver
First I am absolutely not bashing on you for your beliefs. It is actually nice to see people not kowtowing to the leaning of this board and say without fear that they do believe.

However.. How can you believe in a "soul" but not an afterlife?

[General Zod]

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

Certainly, the medical evidence for circumcision having health benefits is extremely sketchy at best. When I have kids I doubt I'll have them circumcised (simply because there's no reason too), and I think the governments position of subsidizing such a thing is silly, but you act like it's somehow permanently traumatizing.

99% of the time it's utterly needless surgery. The last I checked this is the only operation in the world that doctors can perform and not get smacked with a huge ethics violation for performing a needless operation.

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been circumcised and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

We never had a say to begin with, so how the fuck can we know any different? The fact that it's completely unnecessary should be enough to make anyone but the apologetic dipshits think twice.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

There have been several circumcision debates on this board in the past few years, and in many of them, evidence has been shown that circumcision can cause complications, even potentially life-threatening ones.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Sidewinder
When was the last time a kid read about Norse mythology and started believing in it? Or read the Illiad and started worshiping those gods? Stuff like that just doesn't happen very often because the "smart" people in a child's life say "this is a myth, it's not real."

You've read very few how I became a Pagan stories haven't you?

[Justforfun000]

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been circumcised and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

Are you telling me that they circumcised you with absolutely no anesthetic at all? The same as when they do it to babies?

[Justforfun000]

Besides the argument of intensity of pain, the real issue has to do with what you've LOST in terms of sexual pleasure capability. A valid medical issue is a completely different ballgame, and no one here would dispute that being a valid reason.

And again, if you're of any "conscious" age to have a say in the process, then fine. It's your body. That's the whole point. Fuckwits who try to insist on their supposed God-given right to completely control their children's body even on an irreversible, elective procedure are sick pricks when it comes right down to it. I don't care that they believe they are doing the best for their child, they are NOT and the law should be on the side of protecting children from religious bullshit as well as pseudo medical trumped-up quackery.

[rhoenix]

Though I don't post here as often as I once did, I did want to step in here and illustrate my own point of view, for what its worth.

For some background - as far as religious beliefs go, I simply call myself a philosopher of life, without holding strictly to any one religion. That being said however, I do tend to lean toward Buddhist and Taoist ideals more than others.

I once was an atheist. For me however, reaching a state of feeling a strong sense of inner peace, as well as learning to quiet the ego were not possible without literally feeling a connection to things outside of myself. I found both of these from my studies of qigong - but I am still but a beginner on this path.

Morality as absoluetly no need of spirituality though, it would do just fine without it. The best moral and ethic systems are the ones that make no allowance for religion, because religion or even spirituality assumes there's some larger purpose that should be served before or beyond the one in front of you. If the spiritual system makes no edicts concerning human interaction, then it is excess weight and should be removed. If it does, even if they're positive ones, it's misinformation and should also be cast out.

Even in the weakest sense, of humans as posessing a spirit force with a reward at the end, you're setting up a system that makes assertions based on a higher authority's judgement. It's a short step from "some magical force rewards the good" to "oh yeah, and it punishes the wicked as well." And we all know where that goes. It's just an extremely poor thought process, and dangerous territory to root a system of ethics and morality in.

I heard one rather intelligent person say that "enlightenment is not attainable, but it is mostly unavoidable. Morality is much more difficult."

I don't believe in a reward or finding peace at the end of one's life, since I feel that misses the point of trying to find peace and happiness within one's lifetime.

Learning to have understanding, compassion, and acceptance of who one is right now, without qualifications or especially time limits "when x happens, then..." are necessary to have any degree of those three for others. Learning to have those three for yourself is necessary to feeling happy with who and where you are in this time, in this moment.

I will grant that attaining understanding, compassion, and acceptance of who one is does not necessarily imply morality or ethics - after all, one can still end up a calm but selfish bastard and feel good about it unless other work is done with the darker parts of one's self.

How can you believe in a "soul" but not an afterlife?

I think of one's body and one's lifetime within it as just a game we (the souls - the actual "us") play. When we die, we play the same game again, with part of the fun being that one rarely remembers what happened the last time around. After all - that would miss the point of playing.

[DarkSilver]

Morality as absoluetly no need of spirituality though, it would do just fine without it. The best moral and ethic systems are the ones that make no allowance for religion, because religion or even spirituality assumes there's some larger purpose that should be served before or beyond the one in front of you. If the spiritual system makes no edicts concerning human interaction, then it is excess weight and should be removed. If it does, even if they're positive ones, it's misinformation and should also be cast out.

Even in the weakest sense, of humans as posessing a spirit force with a reward at the end, you're setting up a system that makes assertions based on a higher authority's judgement. It's a short step from "some magical force rewards the good" to "oh yeah, and it punishes the wicked as well." And we all know where that goes. It's just an extremely poor thought process, and dangerous territory to root a system of ethics and morality in.

This would be a excellent arguement......

If I had that the two are intertwined always and one always leads to the other.

I only said Morality can help one Spiritually. It's pretty much a one way street - my morals do not come from any base in religion. They come (as they should) from being human. They are no different than the morals a Atheist or Agnostic or Taoist or Catholic may have.

I don't think Religion should dictate morals (mines certainly does not dictate my own), but some people will associate the two naturally (some religious people thinking Atheist are immoral sinners, for instance, because they do not have religion).

Though, when it comes down to it, I'll use Buddhism as a example, the moral concepts of Buddhism is the same as basic human morality - Love others, do no harm, seek to remove harm from others and the environment. I had these same morals before I started to study, so what harm is there in adopting it's teachings?

First I am absolutely not bashing on you for your beliefs. It is actually nice to see people not kowtowing to the leaning of this board and say without fear that they do believe.

However.. Wink How can you believe in a "soul" but not an afterlife?

firstly, thank you havokeff. Especially after earlier discussion, I tend to adopt a defensive tone in such things. It's a reflex action I'm having to unlearn.

As for not believing in a afterlife? I don't believe in a defined afterlife, doesn't mean i don't believe there isn't anything after. The best way I can put it....and I know this will sound excessively silly to almost everyone, is that when we die, our spirits are reborn. It may not be right away, but eventually, it will occur. Our spirits remember our accumulated experience from our previous lives, and we add to that accumulated knowledge by living a entirely new life. Unfortunately, we don't remember those previous lives during the "new" life.

It's not exactly the best way to state it, but it's close enough to get the idea across.

[Cairber]

Uh, hi. Speaking as someone who had to have a circumcision at age 8 (for legitimate medical reasons), and can thus actually remember the incredible, agonizing pain...

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

Certainly, the medical evidence for circumcision having health benefits is extremely sketchy at best. When I have kids I doubt I'll have them circumcised (simply because there's no reason too), and I think the governments position of subsidizing such a thing is silly, but you act like it's somehow permanently traumatizing.

It's not. It stings. It stings worse then just about anything else I can remember in my life, mind. Eyes-watering, crying kind of stinging. But it stings. You get over it. In a few months it's just "Ho-hum, yeah, that really hurt." And that's at an age old enough that you can really remember, the baby dosn't even do that.

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been circumcised and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

If you would like to know more about the "big deal" I recommend searching for some of the threads here where it has been discussed...also you can check out www.cirp.org for a large collection of works, studies, news pieces and personal accounts concerning circumcision. (you will even find studies showing infants who have been circumcised have a more acute reaction to pain 6 months and later)

I don't want to beat a dead horse since it's been done so many times here and I'm sure people are pretty sick of cairber's long winded, angry posts on the subject


(but just to add, if you were cut for phimosis, I hope you were offered the many other remedies for the problem....but also I hope you realize that many boys do not become retractable until puberty, and, due to lack of knowledge, many doctors in the USA go directly to cutting it off when it is completely unnecessary or fixable in other ways)

[Covenant]

The problem in both instances is, though, that you're using morality to inform spirituality. In that sense, you're really just creating a fictional worldview based on good actions as you define them. And as stated, peace and calm don't necessarily make for right action. Someone that achieves a sense of inner peace and calm with themselves and the universe but is still an asshole is just using the crutch of his self-delusional philosophy to justify, or ameliorate the results of, his own poor behavior.

For example, Buddhism in the Tibeten sense creates a priest-dominated theocracy that enforces horrific living conditions on the suffering underclass while the enlightened priesthood (so self styled) lives in the lap of luxury. This haven of Buddhist thinking should have been an ideal utopia if tibetan Buddhism, in it's natural environment, had much to offer. But by adopting those teachings and being true to what it says, all it's done is made a ruin of social justice in that state. This history is pretty much unknown to most folks, but Tibet really was a fairly horrific slave-state run by an appointed divine leader. While you could consider some of these accounts biased, the evidence is certainly there.

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.” Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed.

And so on and so forth. But it used to be even worse, so you can't even say these are new excesses foreign to buddhist teachers and such. Honestly, if the leaders of a religion can't keep themselves in order, what merit does it hold for the laypeople?

For hundreds of years competing Tibetan Buddhist sects engaged in bitterly violent clashes and summary executions. In 1660, the 5th Dalai Lama was faced with a rebellion in Tsang province, the stronghold of the rival Kagyu sect with its high lama known as the Karmapa. The 5th Dalai Lama called for harsh retribution against the rebels, directing the Mongol army to obliterate the male and female lines, and the offspring too “like eggs smashed against rocks…. In short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.

Outside of Tibet, it's not much better either. We'll skip over the fantastic example of Imperial Buddhism used by the Japanese to justify the sort of Emperor-worship and zealous nationalism that fueled their Imperial genocides during world war II, since that really does seem to be an absolute perversion, and focus more on just normal folks:

In South Korea, in 1998, thousands of monks of the Chogye Buddhist order fought each other with fists, rocks, fire-bombs, and clubs, in pitched battles that went on for weeks. They were vying for control of the order, the largest in South Korea, with its annual budget of $9.2 million, its millions of dollars worth of property, and the privilege of appointing 1,700 monks to various offices. The brawls damaged the main Buddhist sanctuaries and left dozens of monks injured, some seriously. The Korean public appeared to disdain both factions, feeling that no matter what side took control, “it would use worshippers’ donations for luxurious houses and expensive cars.

And so on again. That's the danger. By saying "I'm into peace love and stuff, I'm a buddhist" you're just being duped. You might as well say "I want inner peace, clarity, and kindness for all--so I'm a scientologist" or "I believe that we are all interconnected and I want to have an inner calm knowing that good is rewarded somehow, and so I worship Wotan, bringer of victory and wisdom." If you can reject Christianity for being false in evidence, hypocritical in deed, and dogmatic in it's organized forms, then you've got to say the same for buddhism as well, and any other large religion. They all go down the same path.

So any faulty logic or bad philosophy that could one day combine into a movement, yes even the bullshit spiritualism new age nonsense that a lot of people consider to be harmless 'peace and calm' stuff, is eventually going to exploit the weak-minded, twist things around, and end up causing all variety of mischief. It doesn't matter if it's informed by Morality. You'd be better off with a straight shot of ethics, as would everyone else.

[Covenant]

What I'm really saying is that I can find fault with Buddhism, even if your more general assertion of acting kindly is rather faultless. However, having these brainbugs in your life opens the door for people like those Buddhists to hurt, oppress, etc, other people. I'm glad you've got comfort, but it's a comfort that would--across a wide population--be negative for the wellbeing of the society and people.

[Rye]

Uh, hi. Speaking as someone who had to have a circumcision at age 8 (for legitimate medical reasons), and can thus actually remember the incredible, agonizing pain...

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

Certainly, the medical evidence for circumcision having health benefits is extremely sketchy at best. When I have kids I doubt I'll have them circumcised (simply because there's no reason too), and I think the governments position of subsidizing such a thing is silly, but you act like it's somehow permanently traumatizing.

It's not. It stings. It stings worse then just about anything else I can remember in my life, mind. Eyes-watering, crying kind of stinging. But it stings. You get over it. In a few months it's just "Ho-hum, yeah, that really hurt." And that's at an age old enough that you can really remember, the baby dosn't even do that.

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been circumcised and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

Uh, hi. Speaking as someone who had to be kicked in the balls at age 8 (for legitimate medical reasons), and can thus actually remember the incredible, agonizing pain...

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

Certainly, the medical evidence for being kicked in the balls having health benefits is extremely sketchy at best. When I have kids I doubt I'll have them kicked in the balls (simply because there's no reason too), and I think the governments position of subsidizing such a thing is silly, but you act like it's somehow permanently traumatizing.

It's not. It stings. It stings worse then just about anything else I can remember in my life, mind. Eyes-watering, crying kind of stinging. But it stings. You get over it. In a few months it's just "Ho-hum, yeah, that really hurt." And that's at an age old enough that you can really remember, the baby dosn't even do that.

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been kicked in the balls and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

[Darth Wong]

Yes to banning things like circumcisions. Any kind of permanent change to the body should not be legal until the child has reached the age of majority.

Seconded. I still find it unbelievable this is not already law. Our medical ethics in North America regarding Routine Infant Circumcision is disgusting. I can't imagine a more gross form of child abuse short of raping them. Why people cannot see this is beyond me. Even the fucking tremendous PAIN it causes should be enough let alone the elective, irreversible nature of the stupid procedure.

Uh, hi. Speaking as someone who had to have a circumcision at age 8 (for legitimate medical reasons), and can thus actually remember the incredible, agonizing pain...

...I don't see what the big deal is about.

Certainly, the medical evidence for circumcision having health benefits is extremely sketchy at best. When I have kids I doubt I'll have them circumcised (simply because there's no reason too), and I think the governments position of subsidizing such a thing is silly, but you act like it's somehow permanently traumatizing.

It's not. It stings. It stings worse then just about anything else I can remember in my life, mind. Eyes-watering, crying kind of stinging. But it stings. You get over it. In a few months it's just "Ho-hum, yeah, that really hurt." And that's at an age old enough that you can really remember, the baby dosn't even do that.

As evidence I would site the fact that many people have been circumcised and I doubt you can find many who say the pain ruined their lives.

I look forward to your next post, "Lazerus: A stirring defense of waterboarding, because it doesn't ruin your entire life".

[Covenant]

I think where it comes to the circumcision debate, a lot of people confuse "Well I don't feel too bad about having been through it" with "Are they saying there's something wrong with me?" It's like an unintentional kneejerk response to an assumed dicksult. However, it's really just a debate about a surgical procedure and the medical issues for and against.

And I think it goes the other way too--there is an amazing amount of outrage from people against it for more reasons than the medical questions about botched unnecessary surgeries and so forth. I almost feel like this is a debate that women should figure out on their own because men seem too heavily invested in it. I don't understand the emotional quantity to it at all, but if it's got no medical reason then it should stop, right?

[Molyneux]

I don't understand the emotional quantity to it at all,

It's a piece of my goddamn penis. Part of my body. Not a defective part; one with a definite use, too. Large number of nerve endings, mostly used for pleasurable sensations.

And I will never have one again. I won't know how sex would feel with a foreskin as opposed to without one, because my parents fucking cut it off when I was a baby.

You don't understand the emotional quantity of having a useful organ removed without your consent? How about if your parents gouged out an eye at one week old - you've got another, you won't miss it. Why get emotionally invested in it?

[Justforfun000]

And I think it goes the other way too--there is an amazing amount of outrage from people against it for more reasons than the medical questions about botched unnecessary surgeries and so forth. I almost feel like this is a debate that women should figure out on their own because men seem too heavily invested in it. I don't understand the emotional quantity to it at all, but if it's got no medical reason then it should stop, right?

I can't speak for all men, but this is how I personally feel and what I assume most males feel when they admit to being pissed off that they were circumcised.

1) We knew we were born with a penis that actually had MORE to it, and it was forcibly, painfully and violently ripped off our body without our consent. I'm sure most men are just FINE with the idea of reducing the size of their dick considering circumcision removes the equivalent of 5 square inches. Of highly erogenous tissue at that.

2) We also suspect and seem to be supported by many good quality studies that having a foreskin enables greater sexual feeling and pleasure. Plus the many personal anectdotes I've read from people stating quite emphatically that there is DEFINITELY a huge amount of sensation lost. (Funny how these studies that claim otherwise always seem to couch their conclusions in a cryptic manner like "Satisfaction with penetration was the same in both groups"... )
So we know that this alleged potential of greater sensation is FOREVER lost.

3) To add insult to injury, we hear apologists bullshit like "Well it's tradition" or "But it's cleaner" and all the other trite excuses they throw out and couple it with the attitude of "Why should you care anyway, you can't remember it"?
(My reaction? FUCK YOU!)

It's be like comparing it to surgically removing your sense of smell as an infant. People could argue, "It doesn't dramatically change things much, you can STILL taste things, so what the fuck are you complaining about?" Besides, your chance of vomiting is reduced since you won't be bothered by disgusting smells."

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Justforfun000]

On top of all this, from a gay man's perspective, it took away the right of being in a preferred group. Do you know how many gay men love uncut? Trust me, to some guys being cut would be as bad as being 2 inches.

Of course it's extremely shallow, but even so, at least the adult has the CHOICE of putting themselves in one category or another.

I personally MUCH prefer uncut and so conversely I can totally understand how that lowers my attractiveness to certain people.

Hell, bottom line is circumcising a child takes away the right to make your own damn decisions for your body. I see no difference between that and sexual abuse. I actually feel it's worse personally, but that's opinion.

Actually... it's technically the same thing but we're used to the term being definitive of sexual satisfaction being involved from the perpetrator and I'm sure THAT is unlikely from the doctor unless he's a really sick fuck.

[Covenant]

Do you see where I'm coming from?

To both of you, I'm not saying that your claims are unjustified, just that a prompt of "Don't you wish ___" does prompt people to say "No, I'm not bothered by it" like Lazerus did. So when it turns into a battle of emotions, people will fall on both sides in defense of their own wang.

I don't have a personal opinion on it either way. I'm not terribly bothered about it, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for it to continue anyway, jsut as an intellectual matter and not an emotional one.

[Covenant]

Note, and that's also not me saying "stop saying it." I was actually saying that people too often (as he did) fail to see it as an unnecessary and as you might say detrimental surgery--and they fail to see it because they're invested in defending what they've got. It's silly to defend something merely because they didn't suffer one of the negative side effects of it--like saying lead in water is fine because they didn't get sick. I'm just offering why an emotional appeal can be less successful than an intellectual one when it comes to issues like this.