What's Next Anglicans? Female circumcision?

[WeRSauron]

Is there any evidence that Christians in Africa practice female genital mutilation?

What relationship is there between African Anglicans and female gential mutilation that you would bring this up in the same theme?

Are you not aware that a high-ranking member of Al-Azhar, the official spokesinstitution for Islam in Egypt, and highly renowned throughout the Muslim world, spoke out in favor of female genital mutilation? Are you going to be consistence and blast them as well?

So, I ask again, where, pray tell, are the Christians of Africa, particularly the Anglicans of Afria, in such active support of or commission of genocide and mutilation? (Hint: you won’t find it in the Christian countries.)

Although I myself am gay - there, I have come out to the SDMB - I strongly, strongly, strongly disapprove of what the Episcopalian Church in the USA has done. They knew this would cause a rift, but they went ahead and did it anyway. They are trying to push their beliefs and standards down other people’s throats. This is foul play. Sure, the clergypeople in the West (America, Canada, England) are upset with non-Westerners being upset about this, accusing them of causing too much of a to do over this. Essentially the Windsor Report says, “Sorry, it’s done. Now let’s stop fighting and play nice.” Nothing, nothing whatsoever to assuage the outrage that more traditional elements of the Church feel. Nothing to chastise those who knowingly went through with an act that goes against what the general conferences of the Church have until that point determined. Now they’re all smug and holier-than-thou, throwing their hands in the air in frustration at the insistence of other elements in the Church to stick to old traditions. No, they believe. They believe what they did was right and that the rest of the Church should shut up, accept it, and act like good Episcopalians.

Remember, this is a communion: what each member does is of interest to all members as well as to the general body of the communion.

Following your title, it would be perfectly reasonable for the traditional element of the Church to ask: So, what’s next, America? Pederasts? Priests who’re sleeping with their sisters? The blessing of bestiality? How many chapters of the Bible would you like to throw out now, just because they’re inconvenient to how you would like to live your life? How else would you like to lord yourself over us, who are obvious inferior to you rather than your fellow brothers and sisters?

And don’t spew forth garbage that the priests should be concentrating on female genital mutilation. Why aren’t American priests focusing as much on broken homes, broken lives, broken trust? They spend money on lavish buildings, elaborate ceremonies, missions, books, and other unnecessary items. Where are the Episcopalian hospitals, schools, homes for the aged and homeless? Where are the Episcopalian diatribes against immorality, teenage pregnancy, lies, dishonesty, hypocrisy?

(And if you are not an Episcopalian, this issue should not concern you. Stay out of it. Engage in this only if you are willing, truly willing and open, to consider both sides of the issue. It is the hight of ignorance to ignore what the other side thinks and believes in an issue. To refuse to consider their plight would make you no better than them.)

WRS

[DocCathode]

@pizzabrat

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.

First, get a clue as to the actual argument I’m making.
Show me a post where I endorsed male circumcision for any medical reason. A quick skim of the last circumcision thread will show I am against male circumcision as a routine medical practice.

The only arguments I’ve made in this thread are that male circumcision leaves the person capable of experiencing sexual pleasure and that FGM does not. If you can provide a cite that removing the clitoris (and in some cases the outer labia) does not destroy the ability to experience sexual pleasure, then I shall get off my high horse.

[pizzabrat]

@DocCathode

First, get a clue as to the actual argument I’m making.
Show me a post where I endorsed male circumcision for any medical reason. A quick skim of the last circumcision thread will show I am against male circumcision as a routine medical practice.

The only arguments I’ve made in this thread are that male circumcision leaves the person capable of experiencing sexual pleasure and that FGM does not. If you can provide a cite that removing the clitoris (and in some cases the outer labia) does not destroy the ability to experience sexual pleasure, then I shall get off my high horse.

I think the fact that direct clitoral stimulation isn’t the only way a woman can enjoy sex is enough to guess that a clitoridectomy wouldn’t destroy all capability of any sexual pleasure. But even still, here’s an article that contains a reference to first hand accounts from clitorisless women who claim “intense sexual pleasure”, and an explination that sexual pleasure can’t be destroyed just from removing the clitoris (the second to last paragraph).

[Tamerlane]

@WeRSauron

Is there any evidence that Christians in Africa practice female genital mutilation?

Yes, in areas where it is the cultural norm, it often cuts across all religious boundaries. For example it is just as common among Coptic Christians as Muslims in Egypt. This chart ( posted a couple of times previously ) is handy:

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/9305.htm

By the way re: the above chart, I’ll also note that the circumcision rites performed in southeast Asian countries like Indonesia aren’t anywhere near the same league as what you find in Egypt and the Horn of Africa.

Are you not aware that a high-ranking member of Al-Azhar, the official spokesinstitution for Islam in Egypt, and highly renowned throughout the Muslim world, spoke out in favor of female genital mutilation?

Actually the head of al-Azhar spoke out against FGM in concert with the Coptic Pope. At the same time he made a point of mentioning that his own daughter was not circumcised. But Egypt and the Horn of Africa is really where this problem is most entrenched.

That said, I’ll agree with cowgirl et al - there is no point in tarring all Africans or even the Anglican clergy in Africa ( barring direct evidence that they are ) with the charge of being soft on FGM. The point that Africa is huge and encompasses many areas where FGM is unknown is quite correct and even after just a very quick and cursory search I have found indications that elements of the Anglican Church in at least Uganda and Kenya have been active at some level in fighting against the entrenched practice.

• Tamerlane

[Futile_Gesture]

@Homebrew

You keep using that word. I dont’ think it means what you think it means.

Keep? You’re hell bent on labelling a barbaric practice as an African custom endorsed by the Anglican African church ( a position that you made up) and then defended yourself by comparing it to a hypothetical American custom, when it isn’t hypothetical at all. Your own argument served as an example that, if we’re going to start slinging accusations on the basis of only living on the same continent, then we’re all equally vulnerable to blame. That’s ironic.

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.

Strawman = putting words into the mouth of your opponent because it’s easier to attack that than what they’re really saying. At no point have Angican Africans declared in favour of female circumcision. Therefore attacking them from this basis is using a strawman. It’s about as valid as “American Gay priests, eh? What American thing are you going do next? Exterminate the Indians? Enslave millions of Africans? Burn up all the fossil fuels? Oh my god! You must want to do all these things!” A bullshit strawman argument is a bullshit strawman argument.

[Futile_Gesture]

@Polycarp

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.

Please indicate where I indicated the two were equal, morally, medically or in terms of barbarism.

Do you see anything ironic in that?

Should I explain for you? The irony was in Homebrew’s ridiculous extrapolation of the African Angican Church’s position on gay priests and “African customs” to being an endorsement of female circumcision. I merely extropolated his own example in a similar way and similar direction to make a nonsense of it. That’s ironic.

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.

Great. We’ll put all opinions from everyone on hold now until they first disown everything else bad that might be occurring on the same continent as them. Until they’ve tackled them they have no right to say anything.

I’m not defending their opinion. It’s stupid. But they’ve every right to it. But quite frankly I’m puzzled as to why anyone should care what they say. And even more astonished that there’s a need to create strawmen arguments in order to influence anyone’s opinion of them.

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.

:rolleyes: What? You don’t think there’s any European customs that we could suggest the Anglicans might also be considering following? Why pick on the African ones? They’re Anglican christians too you know. If we’re wanting a really juicy strawman to attack why limit ourselves?

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.

Thanks. That made me laugh.

[Homebrew]

Hyperbole is not the same thing as irony.

@WeRSauron

Following your title, it would be perfectly reasonable for the traditional element of the Church to ask: So, what’s next, America? Pederasts?

No, but it would be equivalent to say

“What’s next Catholics? …”

@WeRSauron

Although I myself am gay - there, I have come out to the SDMB - I strongly, strongly, strongly disapprove of what the Episcopalian Church in the USA has done. They knew this would cause a rift, but they went ahead and did it anyway. They are trying to push their beliefs and standards down other people’s throats. This is foul play.

Shouldn’t the church lead rather than follow? This reeks of the inane logic that homophobes use about okaying gay marriage, that it’s “pushing it down their throats.” That is an asinine position. Me and mine exercising our civil liberties is not pushing anything on anyone. It’s is merely protecting my rights from infringement.

[irishgirl]

pizzabrat…tell me you didn’t just say what I think you did.

Asshat.

Go look at an anatomy textbook. You will see that the structure which becomes the glans in the male becomes the clitoris in the female, that the structure which becomes the labia minora in the female becomes the shaft of the penis in the male, and the structure which becomes the labia majora becomes the scrotum.

Therefore in the most severe form of FGM, the equivalent of the glans, shaft and scrotum is removed.

If you ask some women (because, quite frankly, I assume you’re male) whether they would rather have hysterectomy or a clitoridectomy, their responses might surprise you. Especially if the clitoridectomy is performed without anaethaesia, in non sterile conditions, by non medical personal, with a rusty knife, and with a high chance of dying from infection or blood loss. Oh yes, and with increased risk of UTIs, complications in childbirth, fistula formation and incontinence.

You apparently believe that one involves removal of a major part of the reproductive system, and the other removes an “unecessary” organ. I, and I would imagine the majority of women, do not consider the clitoris to be unecessary, to be frank, it astounds and disgusts me that you do.

Since 70% of women cannot experience orgasm without clitoral stimulation, I’d say it damn well does make sexual pleasure unobtainable for many. For those who have been infibulated, I would imagine that they would simply settle for painless sex. Having the introitus sewn up to the size of a matchstick is about as barbaric as it gets, and can in no way be construed as being of benefit to the woman.

Pizzabrat, I think you’re misogynistic and ignorant, and in short should go and get a clue.

Sorry for continuing the hijack, but I was pissed off.

[Polycarp]

Applying the logic of WeRSauron, the original Republican Party should never have been formed – since it was opposed to slavery, and taking steps to do what they felt was right – oppose slavery – would “cause a rift” – the Civil War, as it turned out.

Homebrew, it was a good fight. But I think you’d be best set to go back to your wife and redecorate a comfortable closet, and raise little Rootbeerbrew to fight for what’s right another day when he grows up. Based on the election results and this thread, it’s clear that even on this board, people are not about to take stands for doing not only what is right from a humanistic point of view but what’s commanded by Jesus Christ, even – especially – those who claim to be following him, like our Anglo-Chinese missionary whose comments are reported above.

It was a good fight, and I’m glad to have been by your side in it, across three different boards. But obviously personal freedom is to antiquated to be worth defending any more. So let’s just be good little cogs in the machine, shall we?

I think I’ll go over to GQ and read something on the effect of threads on the hamster digestive system, or other valuable and important information. It seems about as useful as anything else, right about now.

[furt]

@Homebrew

Are you daft? The first clause is the stated reason for the strife.

Your claim was that the root cause was

Episcopal Church’s move to accept homosexuals as fellow Christians.

which is not correct. There have been gay-friendly episcopal churches for many years and no one has said much of anything. The problem came to a head because the American church chose to go beyond accepting homosexuals as Christians and started ordaining gay Bishops. That’s a big distinction, and blurring it is disingenous.

In my diocese (Central Florida) the bishop has been very clear about saying that it is only the ordaining of a bishop that has made this an issue. Prior to that, evrything fell into the category of tolerable disagreement among brothers. There has never been any implication that those in other dioceses are not to be accepted as Christians; just the opposite in fact. The attitude has been that this is a “family dispute.”

I’m not necessarily interested in arguing the larger issue; but your characterization of the situation is a strawman.

[furt]

@Polycarp

Me, I’m not playing with racial stereotypes.

Several of the bishops and archbishops who have been most outspoken about Gene Robinson and the blessing of gay marriages have been from countries which practice genital mutilation of females. They happen to be Africans of what’s traditionally classified as “black” in racial breakdowns. Another such outspoken person is from Singapore, and is not black; I don’t know what his ethnic background is, offhand. There are African Anglican leaders who hold a quite different view, and I have no interest in criticizing them.
…
Would you care to rethink your comment?

Not for an instant. Their racial or ethnic background has nothing to do with the issue. It was deliberately brought in to tar these bishops and imply that somehow their ethnicity makes them unqualified to have an opinion.

If you can produce a cite that indicates that these Bishops endorse or excuse FGM, I will withdraw my objection. Otherwise, it’s an odious bit of guilt-by-ethnicity.

[Polycarp]

@furt

Your claim was that the root cause was which is not correct. There have been gay-friendly episcopal churches for many years and no one has said much of anything. The problem came to a head because the American church chose to go beyond accepting homosexuals as Christians and started ordaining gay Bishops. That’s a big distinction, and blurring it is disingenous.

In my diocese (Central Florida) the bishop has been very clear about saying that it is only the ordaining of a bishop that has made this an issue. Prior to that, evrything fell into the category of tolerable disagreement among brothers. There has never been any implication that those in other dioceses are not to be accepted as Christians; just the opposite in fact. The attitude has been that this is a “family dispute.”

I’m not necessarily interested in arguing the larger issue; but your characterization of the situation is a strawman.

Do you remember a poster named Mars Horizon? John Howe is the reason he is no logner a Christian. Before he became bishop, he was rector of the only Episcopal Church I’ve ever been in where the little white sign with the shield out front was lying.

I’ve been a “second-class citizen” – entitled to be a member (subject to unspecified standards) but not permitted to take a leadership role – in a number of groups, none of which I belong to any more (if I ever did).

I bluntly reject any claim from the supposedly Rt. Rev. Mr. Howe that there was any “brotherhood” there before Gene Robinson’s consecration – and I can with some effort dig up some statements on his part that will justify that rejection.

At rock bottom, though, what Homebrew was saying in the OP, I took to mean “Do not presume to pick the mote out of your brother’s eye, when you have a plank in your own.” In nations where genital mutilation is common, it’s the duty of the Christian leaders to speak out against it – and, I might add, against tribally-based genocide – before they begin to criticize another nation’s autonomous, autocephalous church for violating some standard perceived by them as being essential.

And I am going to offer Jeffrey John as an example of the total hypocrisy of their stance – opposition to the consecration of an open but celibate homosexual man makes clear what their real position is. And it’s not founded in the Gospel, despite any bluster to the contrary.

[furt]

@Polycarp

At rock bottom, though, what Homebrew was saying in the OP, I took to mean “Do not presume to pick the mote out of your brother’s eye, when you have a plank in your own.” In nations where genital mutilation is common, it’s the duty of the Christian leaders to speak out against it – and, I might add, against tribally-based genocide – before they begin to criticize another nation’s autonomous, autocephalous church for violating some standard perceived by them as being essential.

Of course, we are free to hold them accountable for the legacy of FGM, what with our American eyes being so mote-free.

[Homebrew]

@furt

Of course, we are free to hold them accountable for the legacy of FGM, what with our American eyes being so mote-free.

I don’t recall the Epsicopal Church USA threatening to splinter off over the continued violence against women in Africa. This is no tu quoque.

Your claim was that the root cause was [Episcopal Church’s move to accept homosexuals as fellow Christians] which is not correct. There have been gay-friendly episcopal churches for many years and no one has said much of anything. The problem came to a head because the American church chose to go beyond accepting homosexuals as Christians and started ordaining gay Bishops. That’s a big distinction, and blurring it is disingenous.

Yes there have been gay-friendly churches. But the Church itself hadn’t fully accepted gay people as equal Christians. To be fully equal would mean that gays are accepted and welcome in every office. The fact that they were barred from being a Bishop means they were not fully equal. This move by the Episcopal Church welcomed Bishop Robinson and other gay Christians as equals. Gays being accepted as equals is the root cause.

Their racial or ethnic background has nothing to do with the issue. It was deliberately brought in to tar these bishops and imply that somehow their ethnicity makes them unqualified to have an opinion.

Not so. the Archbishop of Nigeria and other African bishops brought up the fact that acceptance of homosexuality is “unAfrican” and are considering starting their own schools of theology based on an “African perspective”. So it is a relavant question to ask just what the “African perspective” includes. FGM is one old African custom. While I can’t find anything specific about Peter Akinola’s stance on FGM, it’s interesting to note that there’s no evidence of him opposing it. And interestingly, this article suggests the practice is decline among non-religious people in Nigeria; while the highest rates of FGM are among evangelical Christians and the lowest rates were among Muslim women. I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; but we sure can find him speaking out against homosexuality. Of note, also, is the fact that African churches do not ordain women.

[Tamerlane]

@Homebrew

And interestingly, this article suggests the practice is decline among non-religious people in Nigeria; while the highest rates of FGM are among evangelical Christians and the lowest rates were among Muslim women.

No, no - that’s an artifact of the study, which was conducted in Edo province in southern Nigeria. Only 5% of the participants in the study were Muslim.

Province maps of Nigeria:

http://www.geographic.org/maps/nigeria_maps.html

In point of fact you will find Muslim ethnic groups in Nigeria where FGM is completely absent, but you will also find Muslim groups where it is very prevalent. Same for Christians, I’m pretty certain.

• Tamerlane

[roger_thornhill]

@Polycarp

Applying the logic of ** Based on the election results and this thread, it’s clear that even on this board, people are not about to take stands for doing not only what is right from a humanistic point of view but what’s commanded by Jesus Christ, even – especially – those who claim to be following him, like our Anglo-Chinese missionary whose comments are reported above.

Which Anglo-Chinese missionary are you referring to, Poly?