Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

More insanity in the name of religion.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 218 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 24 Jul 2014 13:51:34 BDT
G. Heron says:
When I read this I felt sick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28466434

I can't help thinking that Britain also has a responsibility because we invaded Iraq and look what it has lead to.

Posted on 24 Jul 2014 14:03:08 BDT
Dan Fante says:
It seems to me that if god wished women to be like this then he could have arranged it so they were born that way.

Posted on 24 Jul 2014 14:21:22 BDT
G. Heron says:
Dan Fante

I suppose Allah being all powerful, all knowing and totally perfect doesn't need any help from anybody but having millions of devoted servants he has to have something for them to do and mutilating women and girls will keep them busy for a while.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2014 17:04:21 BDT
Stu says:
There is a lot better things to do with women G.H. than damn well mutilate them.

Posted on 24 Jul 2014 19:48:52 BDT
Spin says:
One cannot blame a religion itself for the actions of a few. Atheist secularism, in its variety of forms, has resulted in many horrors and tragedies, but one would be loathe to label all atheists and secularists as ignorant and evil animals...

Posted on 24 Jul 2014 21:51:25 BDT
Spin,

"One cannot blame a religion itself for the actions of a few."

Did you actually read that article? Most of the countries in Africa it affects well over 50% of females. 130 miliion females mutilated. Possibly 4 million at risk in Iraq now.
ANd you claim it is the actions of a few? Are you joking?

" Atheist secularism, in its variety of forms, has resulted in many horrors and tragedies"

Not in the name of atheism it hasn't.

Posted on 24 Jul 2014 22:01:18 BDT
Garscadden says:
It appears the statement may be a little less than true, and actually a hoax.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2014 22:02:05 BDT
Stu says:
Bottle talking yet again Rev, when a post always has two meanings.
Wishing to get attention and have an argument.

Posted on 24 Jul 2014 22:03:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Jul 2014 22:05:17 BDT
Spin says:
Here we go; a few dozen threads of nonsense before we get back to the point...

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2014 08:40:21 BDT
G. Heron says:
Garscadden

"It appears the statement may be a little less than true, and actually a hoax. "

That would be a great relief.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2014 08:55:04 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I'm surprised, given you're apt to remind everyone of your time living in the Middle East, that you're seemingly unaware of how common it is.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2014 09:00:37 BDT
I think he meant Birmingham : )

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2014 12:37:58 BDT
Spin says:
Dan; How common what is? Religion, Atheism or tragedy?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2014 17:30:58 BDT
"One cannot blame a religion itself for the actions of a few. Atheist secularism"

And here comes the hypocrisy.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jul 2014 14:03:57 BDT
Dan Fante says:
How common female genital mutilation is. You know, the thing that was being discussed? You inferred that it was the actions of a few (you may wish to check back through your posts before denying this). I was alluding to it being very common in the Islamic world. Were you being deliberately obtuse? Or is that too kind?

Posted on 28 Jul 2014 14:51:13 BDT
Actually it is an African custom but more popular amongst African Muslims. Although not unknown in the middle east it is still rare there. Very worryingly it is starting to be practiced in Indonesia and I can well believe ISIS would be attracted to this form of barbarity, as it is a means of humiliating and disabling women.

Mortality rates from the 'operation' are high and death from childbirth more common in those that have been butchered in this way. Millions of women worldwide have suffered this atrocity.

By the way, never refer to it as 'female circumcision' as that gives a wholly inaccurate comparison to male circumcision, which although a procedure to be deplored, does not destroy a mans sexual life, which is the foremost reason for committing FGM on women.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jul 2014 19:34:24 BDT
Spin says:
Dan; FGM is, in fact, a minority practice, more prevalent in Africa than anywhere else in the world. As I mentioned on another thread, the West raises its arms in horror over FGM in the name of religion but finds it quite acceptable to send women into frontline combat to be injured or killed. Secondly Male genital mutilation in the name of religion (what is cunningly called 'circumscision' to avoid accusations of anti-semitism) is accepted in the West. So, as I stated previously, there are tragedies and horrors in both religious and secular societies, but not every member of that society agrees with these practices.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jul 2014 21:48:46 BDT
Last I knew, women had the choice to join the army - FGM doesn't seem to be a practice that involves the woman having a say.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jul 2014 21:59:17 BDT
Stu says:
Very true Chief, although some posters seem to forget that do they not?

Posted on 29 Jul 2014 06:44:09 BDT
Withnail says:
Speaking as a hammer head (circumcised at age of 25) there is nothing barbaric about circumcision. Circumcision is the removal of a useless 1/2 inch of calamari. FGM is a dangerous, nasty, evil treatment of children and women where their external sexual organs are removed and sewn up, usually by someone who is not a doctor, in a non sterile environment, without anaesthetic. To put the two together is stupid.

Posted on 29 Jul 2014 07:17:45 BDT
Withnail says:
I don't usually check how people vote on my posts. It's a bit needy. However I note that 2 people read my post and felt they disagreed with what I said. I would (genuinely) be interested in what you disagreed with.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2014 07:56:29 BDT
Spin says:
Withnail; It is the mutilation of a natural organ that is the issue, not whether the organ is used, missed, essential or non-essential. Male and female circumcision should be performed as a medical necessity, not as a religious practice. In our society, the genitals are of great value and worth; some folk pierce their genitals, some have them removed completely in a sex-change operation. The net is packed with pornographic images of folk doing odd things to their genitals, etc. But the mutilation of the genitals in the name of religion, is a cultural tradition, akin to Japanese foot-wrapping or African 'neck-rings' which has absolutely no value or purpose except in the mind of those performing it on youth too young to make up their own mind as to whether to engage in it or not. Without informed consent, male and female circumcision is 'mutilation'. (PS; I do not use the 'voting' system for it reflects only agreement or disagreement, not the posts contribution to the debate. I personally think your post does contribute).

Posted on 29 Jul 2014 08:49:27 BDT
Great post Withnail, I will repeat my earlier post that there is no comparison between male and female circumcision, as circumcised men still experience sexual pleasure whereas mutilated women do not.

Currently the Evening Standard is running a campaign to abolish FGM in Britain where it estimates 100,000 women have been mutilated and to our shame, although he practice was made illegal in the 1980's, not one person has yet been prosecuted for facilitating this crime.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2014 09:01:59 BDT
Drew Jones says:
I agree. My opposition to circumcision would be where it is performed as some sort of mandatory initiation ceremony, but especially one that young children are given before they have understanding of what it is being done to them. That is not a reasonable or justifiable practice.

I have no issues with an adult deciding to have the operation performed for health or purely cosmetic reasons and thinking about that I don't think I'd have a problem with adult women being able to consented to FGM if they select to do so however, unlike circumcision, I can't see anyone in their right mind going for it and that is in itself very telling of the differences.

Posted on 29 Jul 2014 09:11:43 BDT
Spin says:
I do not see why a God would create the human male and female body as it is and then demand that humans actively engage in cutting parts of it off? Did God make a mistake but cannot recall the product? Or has he a very sadistic side to his nature? Circumcision cannot be argued for as an 'offering' to God because such an offering does not involve informed consent. The 'sacrifice' is not 'offered'; it is brutally taken...And not by God, but by Man...
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  218
Initial post:  24 Jul 2014
Latest post:  8 Aug 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions