And yet another thread about abuse to human beings gets hijacked into a semantic argument! 
:mad:
Hang on. What exactly is the African Anglican Church’s position on female circumcision?
Homebrew
First: wow, thanks for the link. That sure is frightening.
Where does it say that “50% of African women” are circumsised?
I will also note that “50% of Nigerian women are circumsised” =! “50% of Nigeria practises FGM” - all it takes is one or a few people to do the mutilating. Unless you are suggesting that being circumcised is equal to practicing it - in which case, why would you object to it since the women are doing it to themselves?
Perhaps this was a poor example on my part. Replace Bantu with something else:
“An Egyptian has little in common with an Ndbele, who has little in common with a Boer.”
However, your objection still doesn’t address my point about how you can’t ascribe characteristics/motivation/behaviour to people based on other people who live on the same continent.
I might if I began with the assumption that people had characteristics based on their national origins.
Please respond to my point re: calling Africans a “group.”
If I can demonstrate that most violent rapes are committed by men, do I get to condemn men because, as a group, they practice these vile acts?
And, along the same lines, I have heard similarly high numbers for American women who have been sexually assaulted. Do I get to condemn America and Americans as a gang of rapists?
Finally: compare these two statements
-
Terrorism is a Muslim custom
-
FGM is an African custom
Why have we all spent years objecting to #1 yet there’s nothing objectionable about #2? Honestly, what’s the difference?
Because it is a custom that goes back centuries. Terrorism is a political act and is not endemic to Islam. FGM is a cultural practice that originated in Africa among many tribes.
Hmmmm. Circumcision. More than 50% of the gender. American custom.
Irony anyone? Anyone?
I’m still waiting for Homebrew to explain the connection between Anglican gay clergy and female circumcision, if it isn’t just in his head. And why African Anglicans need to adopt barbaric and widespread African customs when so far they’re so spoilt for choice from the European ones that came with their religion. Pick one for a strawman to fit any occasion.
Terrorism is not a widespread practice amounts Muslim cultures.
These two are more analagous:
(1) Celebrating Christmas is an European custom.
(2) FGM is an African custom.
You could claim (1) is false, since Europe has many cultures and religions, some of which do not celebrate Christ’s birth. But it’s as true as (2).
Dragging back to the OP, as to the African Bishops I say fuck you and your evil beliefs.
I meant amongst, not “amounts.”
Female genital mutilation is really not the same as male circumcision. I don’t agree with routine circumcision of male infants (despite being cut myself), but the female procedure is truly in another category. It’s horrific.
Cute. Male circumcision: A surgical procedure that is alleged to reduce sexual pleasure slightly, but has debatable cosmetic and hygienic values. Female “circumcision”: An operation with no medical value whatsoever, intended to remove the chance for pleasure in sex for the girls and women on whom it is committed, done as a dominance and avoid-adultery custom.
Do you see anything ironic in that?
First off, it is not “in his head” – it’s been noted that the bishops who are oh, so aghast at American and Canadian Anglicans daring to welcome gay people as brothers and sisters among whose peoples the disgusting mutilations are most common – and if they are going to speak out about something horrifying, they need only look out their own back doors – in one case, literally.
As for the last two sentences, I have to ask if you really had to work to be that insulting, or if it came naturally. But don’t bother answering; for the first time in my presence on this board, I really don’t give a shit what the answer is.
Fuck you. Just fuck you.
You keep using that word. I dont’ think it means what you think it means.
Yes, male circumcision is an American custom. Around 60% of American males are circumcised. It’s also Jewish custom.
Again, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. It’s no strawman. Primate of all Niger, Peter Akinola, said that the issue of homosexuality is antithema to African customs. So it follows that he wishes the church to follow African customs which include FGM.
Uh, what is the African Anglican Church’s position on female circumcision?
There is no single “African Anglican Church” – there are quite a few Provinces (independent national churches or quasi-national churches covering several smaller related and adjacent nations).
Here is a complete list of member churches of the Anglican Communion. African national member churches include:
[ul][li]Episcopal Church of Burundi[/li][li]Church of the Province of Central Africa[/li][li]Province de L’Eglise Anglicaine Du Congo[/li][li]Anglican Church of Kenya[/li][li]Church of Nigeria[/li][li]L’Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda[/li][li]Church of the Province of Southern Africa[/li][li]Episcopal Church of the Sudan[/li][li]Anglican Church of Tanzania[/li][li]Church of the Province of Uganda[/li][li]Church of the Province of West Africa[/ul][/li]
Most of these have not spoken out on the issues, other than to regret the dissention caused by the American and Canadian churches’ actions and their fellow churches’ reactions to it. The three which have been most outspoken have been the churches in countries involved in genocidal civil wars within the last 40 years, and two of the three are in countries where FGM is common.
It’s always interesting to turn the process around and see how it works the other way: what would be the reaction if the American church were to demand that one of the African churches condemn and dethrone a bishop for what we deem immoral acts? Ones with far more deleterious social impact than committed homosexual unions? IMO, the Golden Rule comes into play here.
Whoops!
Here is a complete list of member churches of the Anglican Communion.
Poly, just out of curiousity, what is Bishop Tutu’s position on the whole thing?
I wanted to link to an absolutely incredible and affirming address he made last year, but didn’t turn it up in a quick Google search. But this should make his stance quite clear.
Male circumcision possibly reduces the capacity for sexual pleasure. However, a circumcised man is unquestionally capable of experiencing sexual pleasure.
Female genital mutilation destroys a woman’s ability to feel sexual pleasure. Savage Love addressed the difference this week. Female genital mutilation is equivalent to chopping the head off the penis.
Cowgirl
No. It takes a few people to do the mutilating, and the many people to stand by and let them do it.
The link made in the original post between “African perspective” and female genital mutilation and genocide is very weak and difficult to substantiate. Upon this link an argument of sorts has been built. But, an argument built on such sandy foundations will not stand.
No evidence has been produced that African Anglican bishops support either genital mutilation or genocide. What those bishops have spoken about publicly is homosexual sexual activity. They said “Where is the language of rebuke for those who are promoting sexual sins as holy and acceptable behaviour?” Their stance – that homosexual acts are sinful, not holy and unacceptable – is neither new nor extreme. It is the position adopted by many Christians around the world, and a position which is consistent with the Bible.
To suggest that, by supporting what they see as the Biblical position with regard to homosexual sexual activity, the African bishops are practising homophobia is at best intolerant, at worst dishonest. To further dub their stand on homosexual activity as a custom is akin to the work of a fairground magician. To go on to say that this custom (established as such, note, by fiat of the author) is an integral part of their religion is a further attempt to hypnotise the reader into submission in defiance of all reason.
The attempt to equate the bishops’ stance on homosexual sex with cutting off the clitoris and mass murder is one that must be opposed by those who support the open society.
Quite frankly, roger, that’s bullshit.
If they spent HALF of the energy speaking out on FGM as they do on homosexuality, they might actually make a difference on the former.
And what is more harmful? Homosexuality, even if it were a sin, is NOT harmful. Allowing homosexuals to have rights hurts no one. But allowing FGM harms a great deal of people.
But they squawk and squawk about gays. While pretty much not saying much about hacking off some girl’s genitals with a rusty knife. Tell me-which do you think is worse?
Thank you, Polycarp, for the info. I’ve always admired Tutu, and this reinforces my respect for the man.
Speaking out on an issue (by which you mean speaking out against it) is quite different from speaking out in support of it.
Have the bishops (even one of them) spoken out in support of cutting off girls’ genitals, or even suggested that they support this? (I leave genocide out, because I assume that no bishop would support this, but will consider all the evidence to the contrary.)
Does anyone have any cites on the bishops stated position regarding the cutting of female genitals (or genocide)? This is clearly what is needed on a board dedicated to the war on ignorance.
Severing the clitoris wouldn’t be the equivalent to cutting of the glans. The clitoris is its own organ, completely unnecessary for reproduction. The glans is a part of a man’s primary reproductive organ. Mutilating THE organ used for reproduction is more dramatic than removing an unnecessary one. At most, female circumcision would be a close approximation to cutting off the glans, because of their similar makeup, but not the equivilant.
And U.S. male circumcision started for the EXACT same reason that female circumcision is practiced, to discourage sexual immorality (masturbation in the male case), so get off of that high horse.