Female genital mutilation is a crime in the US

[Silhouette]

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 200 million females alive today have been subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM). Aliens from the 30 countries where this practice is concentrated are immigrating to the United States, and a serious effort is not being made to prevent them from practicing FGM here.
Female genital mutilation is a crime in the US — so why is it rarely prosecuted?
View attachment 175766

Just turn your head it will all go away or you can act like a trendy leftist liberal and deny it even exist that's always the easy cowardly way out. They're experts at that.

See if you can find a doctor that performs it in this country. Good luck
We have a Somali community in Maine and the girls having the procedure done are being taken to the Caribbean or back to Africa to have it done.

Stanford will do it if the female says she's a boy trapped in a girls body.

 

[Tilly]

Changing the cultural beliefs is the best way to handle it, rather than throwing parents in jail for honoring their culture. It would be similar to outlawing circumcision for Jews.

I was with you up to this point.
Yes we need to try to stop the practice, but, in the meantime, those that continue to ‘honour their culture’ by mutilating their daughters do indeed need to be thrown in jail.

Also, there are plenty of muslims, imams and religious leaders included, who insist that fgm IS a religious requirement, and they quote chapter and verse to ‘prove it’ - they’ve even done so on national tv debates in the U.K. before, so no doubt they are asserting the same in their mosques and communities. They find the notion that fgm is merely cultural insulting and risible. It will probably not to be easy to convince such people otherwise.

As to you comparing fgm with circumcision, really? SMH.

I made it clear I'm comparing the cultural traditions behind the two procedures, not the procedures themselves. I also made a lot of other things clear that you are choosing to completely ignore. So I'm not arguing with you about it anymore.

I responded to your post - a post in which you made none of that clear, so no, I didn’t ignore what wasn’t there

 

[Aba Incieni]

If the discussion were about where circumcision originated, that would be important. However, you made the statement that circumcision "is not a religious practice." That is manifestly untrue. Whether the religions in question took the practice from cultural practices is irrelevant; circumcision IS a religious practice in some religions. There is no reason it cannot be a cultural practice and a religious practice.

It cannot be both in nature. Just because some religion embraces or co-opts an already-existing practice as a way of either selling itself or as a way of avoiding the alienation of that culture --- doesn't make it a "religious" practice if that's not what it was invented for.

If on the other hand a religion invents its own practice like say baptism --- that's a religious ritual if people were not already doing it. Its invention has a religious purpose. But some scribe making up a story about Abraham closing a deal with God, that sounds like just milking something that's already there and invented for another purpose entirely to sell the religion into a front-and-center position in daily life.

Christmas lights don't have a religious purpose at least as regards theistic religions --- they're there as sympathetic magic to bring back the sunlight -- but they may be associated with a religious practice.

I wonder why the scribe didn't include FGM, a widely practised form of mutilation at the time.

Prolly because FGM is more geographically spread among nomadic peoples and it didn't apply.

It was common in the area. So there goes that theory.

Did God tell Abraham that this was something brand new that had never been done before, or did it have more to do with His covenant with Abraham?

Too many unreferenced pronouns. Define "it".

If "it" refers to FGM, no it was not common in the area, obviously male circumcision was. That's why the marketing division of the new religion wanted to hop on that horse to ride it --- you already know it's going to be happening so you paint it over with a religion story, and you get guaranteed embedded advertising every time it happens, and you get a guaranteed commercial for your new religion literally every time a baby is born.

Just as while George Washington had nothing to do with making cars, yet car dealers will use President's Day to sell some. Yet it doesn't make George Washington personally responsible for bumper-to-bumper traffic.

This is the same thing I was trying to explain to Montrovant An established cultural practice comes from just that -- if a religion comes along to an already-entrenched practice and tries to incorporate it -- that religion is simply riding a convenient horse. But the horse is already there whether a religion incorporates it or not.

Yeah, when delineating your tribe from all others you make sure and use their customs. That way no one knows who you are. It's brilliant.

At least we know the Philistines didn't circumcise their males, don't we.

 

[Montrovant]

If the discussion were about where circumcision originated, that would be important. However, you made the statement that circumcision "is not a religious practice." That is manifestly untrue. Whether the religions in question took the practice from cultural practices is irrelevant; circumcision IS a religious practice in some religions. There is no reason it cannot be a cultural practice and a religious practice.

It cannot be both in nature. Just because some religion embraces or co-opts an already-existing practice as a way of either selling itself or as a way of avoiding the alienation of that culture --- doesn't make it a "religious" practice if that's not what it was invented for.

If on the other hand a religion invents its own practice like say baptism --- that's a religious ritual if people were not already doing it. Its invention has a religious purpose. But some scribe making up a story about Abraham closing a deal with God, that sounds like just milking something that's already there and invented for another purpose entirely to sell the religion into a front-and-center position in daily life.

Christmas lights don't have a religious purpose at least as regards theistic religions --- they're there as sympathetic magic to bring back the sunlight -- but they may be associated with a religious practice.

I wonder why the scribe didn't include FGM, a widely practised form of mutilation at the time.

Prolly because FGM is more geographically spread among nomadic peoples and it didn't apply.

It was common in the area. So there goes that theory.

Did God tell Abraham that this was something brand new that had never been done before, or did it have more to do with His covenant with Abraham?

Too many unreferenced pronouns. Define "it".

If "it" refers to FGM, no it was not common in the area, obviously male circumcision was. That's why the marketing division of the new religion wanted to hop on that horse to ride it --- you already know it's going to be happening so you paint it over with a religion story, and you get guaranteed embedded advertising every time it happens, and you get a guaranteed commercial for your new religion literally every time a baby is born.

Just as while George Washington had nothing to do with making cars, yet car dealers will use President's Day to sell some. Yet it doesn't make George Washington personally responsible for bumper-to-bumper traffic.

This is the same thing I was trying to explain to Montrovant An established cultural practice comes from just that -- if a religion comes along to an already-entrenched practice and tries to incorporate it -- that religion is simply riding a convenient horse. But the horse is already there whether a religion incorporates it or not.

And yet, even if was already an established cultural practice, it can still become a religious rite.

 

[MindWars]

Since we speak of Somalia i'm putting it here it just came down my news feed.

Violent Somali Rapist Told Teenage Victim She Can't Be a Virgin 'Because She's White'

 

[Pogo]

It cannot be both in nature. Just because some religion embraces or co-opts an already-existing practice as a way of either selling itself or as a way of avoiding the alienation of that culture --- doesn't make it a "religious" practice if that's not what it was invented for.

If on the other hand a religion invents its own practice like say baptism --- that's a religious ritual if people were not already doing it. Its invention has a religious purpose. But some scribe making up a story about Abraham closing a deal with God, that sounds like just milking something that's already there and invented for another purpose entirely to sell the religion into a front-and-center position in daily life.

Christmas lights don't have a religious purpose at least as regards theistic religions --- they're there as sympathetic magic to bring back the sunlight -- but they may be associated with a religious practice.

I wonder why the scribe didn't include FGM, a widely practised form of mutilation at the time.

Prolly because FGM is more geographically spread among nomadic peoples and it didn't apply.

It was common in the area. So there goes that theory.

Did God tell Abraham that this was something brand new that had never been done before, or did it have more to do with His covenant with Abraham?

Too many unreferenced pronouns. Define "it".

If "it" refers to FGM, no it was not common in the area, obviously male circumcision was. That's why the marketing division of the new religion wanted to hop on that horse to ride it --- you already know it's going to be happening so you paint it over with a religion story, and you get guaranteed embedded advertising every time it happens, and you get a guaranteed commercial for your new religion literally every time a baby is born.

Just as while George Washington had nothing to do with making cars, yet car dealers will use President's Day to sell some. Yet it doesn't make George Washington personally responsible for bumper-to-bumper traffic.

This is the same thing I was trying to explain to Montrovant An established cultural practice comes from just that -- if a religion comes along to an already-entrenched practice and tries to incorporate it -- that religion is simply riding a convenient horse. But the horse is already there whether a religion incorporates it or not.

And yet, even if was already an established cultural practice, it can still become a religious rite.

 

[danielpalos]

Women should insist on their birthright to their full human sexuality!

Guys love generous women.

 

[Aba Incieni]

I wonder why the scribe didn't include FGM, a widely practised form of mutilation at the time.

Prolly because FGM is more geographically spread among nomadic peoples and it didn't apply.

It was common in the area. So there goes that theory.

Did God tell Abraham that this was something brand new that had never been done before, or did it have more to do with His covenant with Abraham?

Too many unreferenced pronouns. Define "it".

If "it" refers to FGM, no it was not common in the area, obviously male circumcision was. That's why the marketing division of the new religion wanted to hop on that horse to ride it --- you already know it's going to be happening so you paint it over with a religion story, and you get guaranteed embedded advertising every time it happens, and you get a guaranteed commercial for your new religion literally every time a baby is born.

Just as while George Washington had nothing to do with making cars, yet car dealers will use President's Day to sell some. Yet it doesn't make George Washington personally responsible for bumper-to-bumper traffic.

This is the same thing I was trying to explain to Montrovant An established cultural practice comes from just that -- if a religion comes along to an already-entrenched practice and tries to incorporate it -- that religion is simply riding a convenient horse. But the horse is already there whether a religion incorporates it or not.

And yet, even if was already an established cultural practice, it can still become a religious rite.

Male circumcision practised as a religious rite is found in texts of the Hebrew Bible, as part of the Abrahamic covenant, such as in Genesis 17, and is therefore practised by Jews, Muslims, and some Christians, who constitute the Abrahamic religions. Some rabbinical sources indicate that even before the covenant of Abraham, the aposthia of Shem may have been an inspiration for circumcision; though the aposthia of Shem is not specifically mentioned in the Genesis text.[9][10]

Argue with Wikipedia.

Religious male circumcision - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

Uncircumcised may be of benefit with older women; unless you get into coconut oil, first.