Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 | Reason : Religion as Child Abuse | print version Print | Comments

Document [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

by CNN.com

Reposted from:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/ashoura.children.ap/index.html

STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
• Some Shiites believe cutting children honors a 17th-century Muslim leader
• Kids as young as one-month-old and as men as old as 100 are slashed
• Ashura marks the decapitation of their most revered Saint Imam Hussein
• Rite continues despite being banned in Lebanon


boy1NABATIYEH, Lebanon (AP) -- The 6-year-old boy screamed and shook his head to avoid the razor blade. But his father held him firmly as Hajj Khodor parted the boy's black hair and sliced his forehead three times with the blade.

Ali Madani's cries became more violent as blood gushed from the wound, covering his small, terrified face.

His father and a few other men, waving daggers, broke into a religious chant, recalling how the 7th-century Shiite Muslim saint, Imam Hussein, was decapitated, his head placed on a lance. (Watch Shiites flagellate themselves as part of an Ashura ritual )

In marking the holiest day of Ashura, some Shiites believe children should learn at an early age about Hussein's suffering, which is at the heart of their faith.

Lebanon's top Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, has banned bloodletting during Ashura, even for adults.

Clerics in mainly Shiite Iran forbid it as well, saying the practice is un-Islamic because it harms the body.

But traditions die hard, especially in a rite as fervent and emotional as Ashura, marked Tuesday by Shiites across the Islamic world. (Attacks on Shiite pilgrims kill 38 in Iraq)

babyToddlers and babies cut

In the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh, hundreds of nervous young boys -- ranging from early teens to toddlers -- were ushered by their fathers into a hall hung with black banners and paintings of Hussein's last moments.

Hajj Khodor, a businessman and organizer of the Ashura ceremonies, and several other men wiped blades with alcohol before swiping each boy three or four times on the forehead.

Some boys cried and resisted, but the cutting proceeded.

"We're used to it," said Mahmoud Jaber, 43, who brought his five boys and two girls for the ritual. "We've been doing this since we were kids. I started when I was 3. It doesn't hurt because the cry of pain goes away with the faith."

Hussein Shihab, 13, wrapped in a white sheet symbolizing Hussein's burial shroud, said he felt a burning sting -- "from the alcohol" -- as the blade hit.

His father, Jaber Shihab, told Hussein not to be "a wimp," and to "be brave" as a reporter photographed him after the cut.

It was "for the sake of Hussein" that he had his head cut, the boy said. "Because blood came from Hussein's head. They cut his head off and blood flowed."

For their blood, cookies and juice

In the Ashura rites, Shiites march in huge processions, beating their chests in mourning for Hussein's martyrdom at Karbala -- a city in present-day Iraq -- in A.D. 680. The most fervent cut themselves with swords or razors or lash themselves with razor-lined chains to draw blood.

The bloodletting is a reminder of Hussein's suffering, as well as punishment for the failure of Muslims to help Hussein in his battle against Islamic ruler Yazid, leader of what became the majority Sunni branch of Islam.

Hussein was the son of Ali, the Prophet Muhammad's cousin, who Shiites believe should have been his rightful successor. The loss at Karbala effectively consigned Shiites to minority status in the Islamic world -- and it became a symbol of the sense of oppression that runs through the sect's beliefs.

Women in Ashura processions usually confine themselves to striking their chests with their fists, without drawing blood. But in Shiite areas of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and elsewhere, processions of men marched drenched in blood -- along with boys.

In the Nabatiyeh hall, splashes of bright red blood covered the floor from the cutting. Some of the children held back tears and tried to put on a brave face as Hajj Khodor sliced the skin of their foreheads.

Their reward was fruit juice and cookies.

A father shoved a pacifier into his toddler's screaming mouth, the boy's forehead stained with blood.

Ali Madani's screams did not save the 6-year-old from the razor blade. His father, Bilal Madani, said his son was crying because the smell of blood scared him.

Afterward, Ali said he was happy he had gone through with it -- "for Hussein's sake."

What did he expect in return?

"God will make me do well in school," he said, sipping juice from a straw.

Hajj Khodor, wrapped in white and wearing a white turban, said he has done cuttings on boys as young as 1-month-old and men as old as 100.

Asked if it was difficult for him to hurt the children, he said: "The child doesn't understand what's going on. The parents are faithful and believe by doing this, their children will be protected and will enjoy a long life."

Hind Abinabi, a 52-year-old Shiite woman and mother of four, said to maim children was not only cruel, but also against the religion.

"When the rest of the world is going to the moon, look where these people are -- still drawing blood from their heads," she said.

One boy's screams and resistance Tuesday did pay off.

"No, no, I don't want it," the terrified boy kept yelling at the top of his voice.

After a few failed attempts, his mother quietly walked him down the stairs and out of the hall.

Comments 1 - 50 of 53 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #19976 by yokebutt on January 31, 2007 at 12:59 am

Pythonesque.

Other Comments by yokebutt

2. Comment #19977 by Ohnhai on January 31, 2007 at 1:01 am

 avatarIs this any different from any religiously motivated cutting or mutilation? If you are horrified by this ask your self do you accept Jewish circumcision as OK?.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

3. Comment #19978 by Myryama on January 31, 2007 at 1:10 am

This is horrendous. It is the most horrible treatment of children I have ever seen. What sort of people condone this behaviour and what sort of parents are happy to inflict this sort of suffering on their children?

I was in a good mood this morning, but this article has really taken the edge off it; is this the peaceful, moderate Islam that we keep hearing about?

Other Comments by Myryama

4. Comment #19982 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 1:36 am

This is an argument from prejudicial language and is therefore invalid.

If you accept that the Muslim (Shi'ite) faith is correct and true, then this behaviour is acceptable.
If you do not think it is true, then this behaviour may well not be.
It is not acceptable to me because I do not accept the Muslim faith and my personal morality tells me it is wrong.

However, using it as an example of how those heathen types are so evil plays to our idea of morality and deliberately tries to pluck at our heartstrings by overplaying the graphic and sensationalist elements of the story.
It avoids having to make a valid or reasoned argument by using prejudicial and sensational language.

This is what I would expect from our local mass market tabloid papers - it is not what I expect from this site.
I have come to expect better, I do not think this story, in this form, should have been proprogated here.

Other Comments by Squiddity

5. Comment #19983 by Roy_H on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 am

"When the rest of the world is going to the moon, look where these people are -- still drawing blood from their heads," she said.
It is good to know some of them are waking up. Is "The God Delusion" available in Arabic?

Other Comments by Roy_H

6. Comment #19985 by deepanjan_nag on January 31, 2007 at 2:02 am

I reject all religions, but Islam must be the most horrific and most anomalous. How can a civilized society allow people to be so cruel to their own children? If this isn't indicative enough of how flawed these 'holy texts' are, what is?

Religion is nothing but institutionalized and misguided thought that enslaves people.

Other Comments by deepanjan_nag

7. Comment #19986 by stephend on January 31, 2007 at 2:02 am

 avatarSquiddity - what a load of nonsence. You can try to dress this child abuse up any way you like, but at the end of the day, it is still physical child abuse, and should be treated with the contempt t deserves.

Other Comments by stephend

8. Comment #19987 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 2:10 am

StephenD - I think you misunderstand my argument - I am not arguing in favour of this behaviour, to assume that is deeply uncharitable on your part.

I am arguing that to present this article with such prejudicial language undermines it's usefulness as an argument against Muslim practice.

The same details, presented with rational argument rather than flowerly and dramatic language, make a much better case to argue that Islam is flawed.

Lastly, please make sure you understand the argument before accusing someone of speaking 'nonsence(sic)', all arguments should be considered charitably before you start using impolite language.

Other Comments by Squiddity

9. Comment #19989 by Luthien on January 31, 2007 at 2:32 am

 avatar4. Comment #19982 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 1:36 am

"This is an argument from prejudicial language and is therefore invalid.

If you accept that the Muslim (Shi'ite) faith is correct and true, then this behaviour is acceptable.
If you do not think it is true, then this behaviour may well not be.
It is not acceptable to me because I do not accept the Muslim faith and my personal morality tells me it is wrong.

However, using it as an example of how those heathen types are so evil plays to our idea of morality and deliberately tries to pluck at our heartstrings by overplaying the graphic and sensationalist elements of the story.
It avoids having to make a valid or reasoned argument by using prejudicial and sensational language.

This is what I would expect from our local mass market tabloid papers - it is not what I expect from this site.
I have come to expect better, I do not think this story, in this form, should have been proprogated here."


Sensational language? How else can you describe taking a knife to young children and cutting them? What is not "valid and reasoned" about the article, it's not like you need to quote academic sources to prove that this is child abuse?

Other Comments by Luthien

10. Comment #19991 by toaldingham on January 31, 2007 at 2:42 am

 avatarI despair!

Other Comments by toaldingham

11. Comment #19993 by faouloki on January 31, 2007 at 2:45 am

 avatarSquiddity, you do realise this is reposted from CNN and not written by anyone at RD.net? The way it is written is not the issue here, it is merely posted to highlight what is being done to these children in the name of religion.

Other Comments by faouloki

12. Comment #19998 by Myryama on January 31, 2007 at 3:25 am

I think CNN have posted a remarkably restrained article, considering the subject matter. The language seems appropriately descriptive to me - the problem is that the subject matter is astonishingly unpleasant and I don't think anyone outside the small clique performing these barbaric rituals would approve of them.

It really isn't a question of "heathen types", it is merely an example of people driven to commit evil acts by their religion. We have to express our views about this and oppose it whenever an opportunity arises.

Other Comments by Myryama

13. Comment #20006 by stephend on January 31, 2007 at 3:50 am

 avatarSquiddity - I didn't understand your post at all. The article, as posted here, was simply reporting events. It did not provide an editorial opinion on the events at hand using "flowerly(sic) and dramatic language". As such, it was in no way prejudicial. Indeed you could hardly get less prejudicial.

Finally, if you think describing your post as nonsense is using impolite language, you are clearly far too delicate a flower for an internet forum. I think you'll find nonsense is a very polite word.

Other Comments by stephend

14. Comment #20007 by rhea on January 31, 2007 at 4:00 am

In response to Ohnhai:
Personally, I feel any incision or invasive medical procedure performed on a minor for anything other than verifiable medical purposes is at best questionable and in many cases abhorrent.

Other Comments by rhea

15. Comment #20009 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 4:06 am

faouloki: Yes, I do realise it was reposted from CNN, I said that I did not think it should have been proprograted here.
I rely on this site as providing good quality reasoned arguments as it has done in the past.
I found this argument to be based too much on appeals to emotion, which has had the desired effect from the other responses.
Appeals to emotion are the bread and butter of tabloid journalism, which this site is not.

Other Comments by Squiddity

16. Comment #20010 by Lord Asriel on January 31, 2007 at 4:08 am

 avatarI found the article surprisingly balanced. You just need to read everything (and not just what confirms what you think to know anyway).
Lebanon's top Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, has banned bloodletting during Ashura, even for adults.
Clerics in mainly Shiite Iran forbid it as well, saying the practice is un-Islamic because it harms the body.

So it seems to be a minority within a minority amongst Muslims. Unfortunately there is no indication how common this practice is and makes the story therefore somhow anecdotical (still shocking though).

As it was said before: It shows what people are capable to do in the name of religion. What it does not show is that Islam is worse than other religions. A conclusion many seem to be very quick to adopt reading this kind of stories. I think some more nuances can be expected at least here on this forum.

Other Comments by Lord Asriel

17. Comment #20012 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 4:13 am

StephenD: I did consider the phrase 'Ali Madani's cries became more violent as blood gushed from the wound, covering his small, terrified face.' to be sensationalist.

It is what I would expect from CNN, or even from our own news networks, but it is not what I have come to expect from RichardDawkins.net.
This site is so good at presenting reasoned arguments that I was dissapointed that it proprogated this story in this way and not one that looked at the other effects that Ashura has had such as the thousand years of bloody internecine strike and war and the effects of that rather than focusing on the elements likely to provoke emotion.

Do you agree, based on the responses that people have given so far, that the majority of responses to this article have been emotional rather than reasoned?

Other Comments by Squiddity

18. Comment #20013 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 4:16 am

Heatnzl : You might want to notice that I said that I disagree with this practice and consider it immoral.
At no point have I supported it in any way.
I too would intervene and try to prevent it, because I think it is unjustifiable.

My problem is with the style and content of the reporting, which is promoting emotional responses rather than reasoned ones.
Emotional responses will not help argue or convince people that this is wrong, they will simply respond with emotional arguments themselves and it degenerates into a shouting match.

Other Comments by Squiddity

19. Comment #20021 by aleprechaunist on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 am

Disturbing stuff. Physical mutilation seems to be a frequent feature of religions - I guess it's a powerful way of tying someone into a faith, and 'implanting' group identity. Baptism just doesn't have the same 'oomf', it would seem...

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

20. Comment #20022 by stephend on January 31, 2007 at 5:09 am

 avatarSquiddity, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think my response was particularly emotional (though as Heatnzl says, what's wrong with it if it is?).

What you are basically saying is that you would have liked this article to be censored. I disagree.

Other Comments by stephend

21. Comment #20024 by Martin The Mess on January 31, 2007 at 5:30 am

This actually reminded me of the (rare) custom in some Catholic societies of commemorating Easter by holding a re-created Passion procession, complete with some guy (essentially always an adult male volunteer) getting crucified at the end. Usually, he's just tied to the cross with ropes, but sometimes, in some places, they actually nailed him up for a while. More often, but still rarely, they whipped and scourged him in imitation of the pre-crucfiction tortures supposedly endured by Christ (and memorably recreated with special effects in Mel Gibson's recent gorefest).

I also recall a Hindu festival somewhere in Malaysia or Indonesia where participants march down the street with swords, knives, and other various objects piercing their skin. I remeber seeing one guy with a floor lamp through the skin on his back or chest. This festival also included kids, although not infants or toddlers.

Other Comments by Martin The Mess

22. Comment #20030 by mdowe on January 31, 2007 at 5:50 am

 avatarUnbelievably barbaric and cruel. Exactly what I've come to expect ...

Other Comments by mdowe

23. Comment #20031 by Mango on January 31, 2007 at 5:54 am

 avatarThe damage done to the children' scalps pales in comparison to the damage their parents and clerics are doing to their minds.

Other Comments by Mango

24. Comment #20043 by madpatriot on January 31, 2007 at 6:16 am

Very true, Mango.

How many of these children will one day be walking around with explosives strapped to their bodies? They've already been taught the first lesson of the suicide bomber - that "Allah's will" is more important than their health, or their life.

Other Comments by madpatriot

25. Comment #20064 by BigJohn on January 31, 2007 at 8:02 am

 avatarThis slashing is not as bad as circumcision. The only result of slashing is a scar. Circumcision actually removes a functional portion of the body. Both are the result of religious beliefs and, so, have no real benefits.

What I find interesting is that everyone here sounds so shocked and appalled by the slashing and only one person, Ohnhai(#2), even mentions the more painful and disfiguring circumcision.

Other Comments by BigJohn

26. Comment #20067 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 8:30 am

Heatnzl: There is nothing wrong with emotion per se.
However, there is something wrong with using an appeal to emotion about a subject like this.

It encourages bigotry, jingoism and prejudice, as some people have already fallen prey to in these responses (mdowe's comment above being the best example of prejudice currently) and this is a group of relatively intelligent and thoughtful people - this kind of reporting among the wrong people causes a huge amount of anger and hatred, which only leads to violence.

I amn well in favour of preventing this kind of behaviour and would be in favour of removing all religious behaviour if that were possible.
But you do not acheive this by promoting behaviour that leads to violence as that only creates more violence, as the US are learning (again) in Iraq at the moment.

I found Lord Asriel's comment above useful - don't react to what the people writing the article want you to react to, look into it and form a more rounded view.

Other Comments by Squiddity

27. Comment #20069 by PASmith on January 31, 2007 at 8:35 am

There is a similar practice in parts of Italy as seen on "Francesco's Italy". Men hit parts of their bodies with wooden blocks studded with pins. The children often play the part of helpers (holding wine and flags) and are expected to follow in their Father's (bloody) footsteps. That happening in such an enlightened place as Italy is truly shocking.

Other Comments by PASmith

28. Comment #20074 by Pantore on January 31, 2007 at 8:48 am

 avatarThis is just CNN propoganda to rally up public support for the upcoming war against Iran(shiites).

I hope it's not going to happen but it looks like it's going to take place somewhere in March-April,
when the 3rd US carrier will arrive in the Persian Gulf.

Let's hope Israel and USA will not do it but I fear worst tbh.

Other Comments by Pantore

29. Comment #20079 by poppythinks on January 31, 2007 at 9:12 am

 avatarok all you cool unemotional people out there -
here's some emotional reasoning.
there are no words to express how horrific these
pictures are. they speak for themselves.
just imagine yourself as a child, or your own children in the pictures.
this is child abuse, and this is why i hate all
'religions' - for what they have done to our minds and bodies when we depended on our primary carers.
some of us have evolved and do not wish to either
harm ourselves or anyone else in the name of
'religion'. (or anything else)
and if child abuse is not outlawed, then we can all look forward to a barbaric future.
what future do you want?

Other Comments by poppythinks

30. Comment #20096 by Diplo on January 31, 2007 at 10:49 am

 avatar
It encourages bigotry, jingoism and prejudice...

Oh dear. Why do some many people feel they have to bend over backward to apologise or censor any criticism of Muslim behaviour? It's just a double standard, as you bet if this was about right-wing US Christians there would no such qualms in laying into them.

As for encouraging prejudice, then good, it should encourage a very strong prejudice against abuse of children in the name of religion (be it physical, mental or whatever). This is not unique among Islam, but that doesn't mean that criticism of Islam isn't valid, either. Let's stop this self-censorship and moral relativism and not bow to pressure to give Muslims more respect than any other group simply because some white Western liberals feel guilty about the Iraq war. Neither one excuses the other.

Other Comments by Diplo

31. Comment #20108 by Shuggy on January 31, 2007 at 12:36 pm

 avatarOhuhai asks "Is this any different from any religiously motivated cutting or mutilation? If you are horrified by this ask your self do you accept Jewish circumcision as OK?."

Why pick on religiously motivated circumcision? One US boy is circumcised every 26 seconds - a significant proportion without anaesthetic - for any of hundreds of ever-changing bogus reasons (see http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs.html) but mainly for conformity. The rest of the English-speaking world used to do it but has largely given it up, but the US has made it part of its culture.

A father in Oregon insists on circumcising his 12 year old son. The mother is taking him to court and needs your help. See http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6965
Charity begins at home.

Other Comments by Shuggy

32. Comment #20133 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 31, 2007 at 2:52 pm

 avatarSquiddity's posts read like an undergraduate who has just learned about informal fallacies yet doesn't quite understand them.

To use horrific examples when talking about something you argue against is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the dangers of totalitarian states by pointing out specific horrific regimes, and there isn't anything wrong with using emotion in reference to these stories--"this is horrible!"

The assumption of this story being on the site already is that the reader doesn't believe in Islam. It is here because it showcases how religion is not a simple, harmless thing but how the superstition fosters pain and can really hurt people.

Stop trying to call out fallacies to make yourself feel educated.

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

33. Comment #20155 by Jiten on January 31, 2007 at 4:04 pm

 avatarDostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazoff said that without god all is permitted.Well it's exactly the opposite.With god all is permitted.

Other Comments by Jiten

34. Comment #20162 by Friggertool on January 31, 2007 at 4:40 pm

 avatarThis is just circumcision for dickheads.

Other Comments by Friggertool

35. Comment #20167 by grolaw on January 31, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Fact: perfectly normal tissue is lacerated.
Fact: the laceration is subject to infection.
Fact: the administration of the laceration causes pain.
Fact: the children subjected to this practice cannot consent.

Fact: we would be better off without bodily mutilation - be it circumcision or this practice.

Fact: no rational parent would willingly harm their child.

Ergo, these parents are irrational and their children pay the price.

How do we stop the process? Simple - there are standards of care contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in November 1989 - we could educate people to follow them - perhaps by bribing them with food and luxury goods.

Or, there is the American Solution: bomb them. If you kill all the parents and children then the religion dies with them. Somebody named Hitler tried that and Pol Pot made a shot at the same target (along with Stalin and all of the others).

Cutting a foreskin, slashing a head and female "circumcision" are all aberrations that unfortunately inflict insufficient harm to make the practice self-eliminating through natural selection.

Other Comments by grolaw

36. Comment #20215 by Logicel on February 1, 2007 at 5:31 am

 avatarI also think that this article was written fairly, and though the activity itself is shocking, it is not surprising to an adult with any experience/knowledge of the world, in the sense that humanity does awful things to each other, especially to women and children, in the name of religious tradition, regardless what tradition it is. As other posters have stated, equivalent bloody practices are done in the name of Christianity, and with these I am already familiar, and when reading this article, I just added this particular one to the number of bloody religious practices that I already know exist.

That is what the content of this article delivered to me, something that I already know in general, but packaged in a cultural way that is unfamiliar to me. This particular Islamic custom as revealed to me for the first time in this article is not going to make me hate Arabs or Muslims or even the deluded, dangerously ignorant people featured in this article who are allowing the cutting of their own children's foreheads. I do not consider the content of this article to be inflammatory in itself, but if someone hate Arabs/Muslims than such an article can be used by the hater to fan the already existing flame of hatred within.

Without emotion, filtered through reason, humans would not get up in the morning, they would not do anything--as the man whose areas of the cerebrum which initiate and sustain emotionality were destroyed because of a terrible accident proved in a very concrete way, he was listless and completely unmotivated. Reasonal, rational people are emotional, or they would not bother to learn about increasing their critical thinking skills or learn about science. The concept of a rational person being without emotions is inane and dated.

As for the quality of mainstream journalism, regardless in which vehicle it is delivered, it is woefully biased, driven by commercial/political goals. And it is suffering, losing its audience because they are not giving their audience what their audience wants and now can get via the Web.

Other Comments by Logicel

37. Comment #20270 by privateeye on February 1, 2007 at 11:45 am

 avatarSquiddity, I am sure that if you are able to re-write the article in a manner which is reasoned and does not prey on our emotions, then you could log it here and everyone might then be able to exactly what you are on about. I for one cannot see where the reporter has strayed from the facts in this article.

Other Comments by privateeye

38. Comment #20279 by Pieter on February 1, 2007 at 1:13 pm

I wonder if anyone has seen the Passionate Eye documentary from a few years ago titled "In the Name of God: Scenes from the Extreme". In it they show a scene from one of these shia rituals, also with screaming children, but mostly psychotic older men dancing around in their own blood. a good movie in any respect, no narration, only what the camera captured.

oh, and in keeping with the child abuse theme of this thread i'm wondering if anyone has been following the story in Vancouver about the sextuplets (well there's only four of them now) that were taken from their jehovah's witness parents to give them blood transfusions. here's a link in any respect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6321363.stm

cheers- Pieter

Other Comments by Pieter

39. Comment #20280 by writenow on February 1, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Actually circumcision has a practical end --- I've read studies on several-- including one very recent on which said, I think, that women married to circumcised men were less likely to develop cervical cancer. I have to look up the studies to get the exact data.

Anyway, circumcision is now performed with anesthetic, and is done at a time when an infant sleeps most of the time -- also the child is too young to have the dread of the procedure -- that dread accounts for a lot of the horror.

But this does not discount the pain. It's awful those children were submitted to pain for a religious reason. Anyway, why compare the two. This was about kids getting slashed -- that is the subject matter. And it is awful. We should have an emotional response. When we stop having emotional responses to physical child abuse, we stop being humans.

Emotion coupled with facts have lead to a lot of progress. Newspaper reports on child labor-- where physical accidents among children were common and reported with much more emotion than presented here -- lead to child labor laws. Outrage about women getting raped lead to less societal acceptance of rape, etc. You need to have the facts, yes, but without emotion, things seldom change. We need both. Lack of empathy is a brain disorder. The extreme of this can be found in some people with autism or Asperger's.

Other Comments by writenow

40. Comment #20299 by Shuggy on February 1, 2007 at 3:46 pm

 avatarwritenow wrote then:
"Actually circumcision has a practical end --- I've read studies on several-- including one very recent on which said, I think, that women married to circumcised men were less likely to develop cervical cancer. I have to look up the studies to get the exact data."
Yes there are a gazillion reasons (see http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs.html), all of them more or less shonky, including that one. An early study compared Jewish women with gentile women, but cervical cancer also has a genetic component. A more recent one basically compared Philippine women with women in four other countries - again, many other factors could account for the difference.

"Anyway, circumcision is now performed with anesthetic,"
- some of the time
"and is done at a time when an infant sleeps most of the time"
Actually, he goes into shock, which looks like sleep.
" -- also the child is too young to have the dread of the procedure -- that dread accounts for a lot of the horror."
On the contrary, having no idea what is going on must make it that much worse.

"But this does not discount the pain. It's awful those children were submitted to pain for a religious reason."
It's awful that any children are subjected to unnecessary pain for any reason.

"Anyway, why compare the two. This was about kids getting slashed -- that is the subject matter. And it is awful."
A baby is circumcised in the US every 26 seconds, and it is still condoned throughout the western world. Someone once said something about motes and beams.

"We should have an emotional response. When we stop having emotional responses to physical child abuse, we stop being humans."
Exactly.

Other Comments by Shuggy

41. Comment #20346 by John Phillips on February 1, 2007 at 11:53 pm

intelligentperson: If you can't see the difference between a child crying because they are refused something and a child crying because they have been physically abused or fear such by their parents then I fear that there is an 'un' missing from the beginning of your username.

That others have highlighted similar arcane practises in other religions or cultures doesn't justify this one but only highlights the fact that humans are very good at deluding themselves and not always for religious reasons.

As to learning to cope with suffering, considering that this happened in Lebanon with its myriad problems, some directly related to religious belief, I would suspect they will unfortunately get plenty of practise.

Other Comments by John Phillips

42. Comment #20376 by forexamplejohnsmith on February 2, 2007 at 4:34 am

It's practically a law of nature that if any article is the slighest bit critical of Islam, there will be people who will jump in with defence - even people who call themselves atheists.
This is because their racist PC moral-equivalence pavlovian response trumps all other notions of what is right and wrong.
Once you have observed this, it can be hilarious to see just how quickly one of the Islam Defence Response Team gets their comment in.

In this case, it was by the second comment, although it is a bit of a shame that George W Bush or US fundamentalist christians didnt get mentioned.

Nonetheless: good work Team!

Other Comments by forexamplejohnsmith

43. Comment #20441 by whisper on February 2, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I have to agree with Squiddity.

Sensationalism is a problem in the media.

Nobody is disputing the "facts" so much as the way they were delivered, and from a North American perspective.

I'm not saying that this 'ritual' is right or should be tolerated... but there are better angles for an arguement than appealing to the masses emotions... this type of approach is what really perpetuates these problems. We know it's wrong, bad, horrific... but let's not sit and argue the same arguements over and over again... let's try something else.

The responses I've been reading sound more like they are from people of 'faith' than people of reason.

Other Comments by whisper

44. Comment #20462 by Luthien on February 2, 2007 at 5:40 pm

 avatar56. Comment #20441 by whisper on February 2, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I have to agree with Squiddity.

Sensationalism is a problem in the media.

Nobody is disputing the "facts" so much as the way they were delivered, and from a North American perspective.

I'm not saying that this 'ritual' is right or should be tolerated... but there are better angles for an arguement than appealing to the masses emotions... this type of approach is what really perpetuates these problems. We know it's wrong, bad, horrific... but let's not sit and argue the same arguements over and over again... let's try something else.

The responses I've been reading sound more like they are from people of 'faith' than people of reason.


You say that people know this is "wrong, bad, horrific", obviously this is not the case. Obviously these people think that this is a "good" thing to do to their children.

Taking a knife to a young child is wrong. We have evolved a "gut" reaction to things like this for a reason, so an emotional response is unavoidable. Do I need to give a logical and reasoned argument for why we don't eat our own shit? No, because everyone has an automatic reaction of disgust that does not require a detailed explanation (though we are perfectly capable of giving one anyway).

I think you are just argueing for the sake of it... Look, a black crow :-P

Other Comments by Luthien

45. Comment #20470 by neander on February 2, 2007 at 7:20 pm

 avatarI too, would like to see squiddity rewrite the passage in a more PC manner. As for cirumcision, lets have everyone posting a comment actually state their condition. Their own possession or lack will obviously affect their "bias" when reading articles that support their beliefs. Suggestions that circumcision reduce the rate of spread of cervical cancer or aids tend to be used to support the practice in favour of the significantly more effective practice of using a condom! (Intact and healthy).

Other Comments by neander

46. Comment #20480 by mmurray on February 3, 2007 at 1:12 am

 avatarDid anyone see this covered in their local media ? I was suprised by how it seemed to be completely ignored.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

47. Comment #20483 by Shuggy on February 3, 2007 at 2:17 am

 avatarHeatnzl wrote:
"at that time the memory of WW2 and the New Zealand Division's involvement in North Africa were still fresh in memory. In the desert many non-combat 'wounds' were the result of infections caused by sand getting under the foreskin and the lack of sanitation facilities. Circumcision meant an effective fighting force."

Ah yes, the sand myth: see http://www.circumstitions.com/sand.html .

And was the Afrika Korps not an effective fighting force?

Other Comments by Shuggy

48. Comment #20490 by Roy_H on February 3, 2007 at 4:58 am

Comment #20280 by writenow on February 1, 2007 at 1:28 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7772002181711601907&q=%22penn+and+teller+bullshit+%22+%22circumscision%22&hl=en

Penn and Teller on the unkindest cut of all.

Other Comments by Roy_H

49. Comment #20492 by poppythinks on February 3, 2007 at 5:44 am

 avatarsaturday 3rd february guardian article in 'family' section about jewish male circumcision.
illustrates the emotional blackmail used by families to keep the religion going.
and made me very angry.
you can find this article at
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2003819,00.html

Other Comments by poppythinks

50. Comment #20506 by Shuggy on February 3, 2007 at 1:50 pm

 avatarHeatnzl wrote:
"Shuggy, It was no myth. At least not to the friends of my dad that I spoke to."
Sorry, Friends Of A Friend won't do. Did you visit the link? The official records do not show any significant numbers of circumcisions. One suggestion is that some were circumcised to punish them for getting VD: desert sand infections were their cover story.

""And was the Afrika Korps not an effective fighting force?". Yes, but not against NZers."
Are you trying to claim that is because they weren't circumcised? You'd think that would be in the official records.

"BTW, what is your response to neander's 'challenge'?"
It seems to be an invitation to ad hominem attacks: "You're only saying that because you're...."

"I feel ashamed. Bothering with male circumcision is trivial compared to the horror of FEMALE 'cirumcision'."
Numerically, male circumcision is much more common, and it's not trivial when the baby loses his penis or dies. Why not oppose both? And infant sex (re-)assignment. And slashing boy's foreheads. None excludes the others.

"Anyone have any references to that?"

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

Other Comments by Shuggy
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: