In this debate about Henson, it struck me yet again how easy it is for people to be swept into 'fury' like a mob and how difficult it is for them to think rationally about something. Is it really that hard to form a consistent, concrete argument? I say this because the arguments against Henson simply are not credible. Period. Disagree all you want but you are wrong for multiple reasons and from multiple angles. No one of you can demonstrate this teenager was harmed in any shape or form.

No one has been 'abused'. Normal people are not pedophiles. Nudity is natural. Images, films and music ARE. NOT. mind control. Everything was consented. The model is both happy and proud.

With this in mind, I want to raise an issue about something that is actually destructive to children across the world, because it reveals a lot of hypocrisy and blindness and complete lack of perspective that many adults seem to be afflicted with. It twists and shapes the young mind. The proponents of it often abuse and rape children under their duty of care. This is religion.

Threatening children with eternal damnation and endless pain is child abuse. Telling them lies about the world from such a young age is exploitative and destructive to the normal development of their minds and emotions. Saying they are sinful by birth is instilling shame and fear. This is Christianity and Islam.

This is Kevin Rudd's religion and his belief system. He is a part of it and condones it. This is happening now. And it is happening without consent of the victim. It is happening to extremely young children. And it's perfectly legal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X043xVrQBr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nTHNGFvBJ0

Then there are the religious circumcisions, that mutilate and violate thousands of children every year across the world without their consent.

Now what some people are doing, including the PM and the 'Bravehearts' representative, are silently condoning all this while pointing their filthy fingers at a teenager and her parents who expressed herself through art (with all the contradictions and critical weaknesses inherent in their 'arguments')

Dear Steel
to be on the correct legal footing, and to avert any possible legal action against you, you should have added a question mark at the end of your title.

You cannot state as fact "is Child abuse" .. you can raise it as a question which can then be debated, but not vilify all religions as you have done.

I don't mind debating the 'issue'..but I DO take strong exception to your assertion as a 'stated fact'....

You could have redone your title "In my opinion.... etc"

Please re-think how you word things in future.

ON TOPIC.

You said:

1/ Threatening children with eternal damnation and endless pain is child abuse.

2/ Telling them lies about the world from such a young age is exploitative and destructive to the normal development of their minds and emotions.

3/ Saying they are sinful by birth is instilling shame and fear. This is Christianity and Islam.

We can and will of course debate points 1 and 2, but point 3 is factually incorrect.
CHRISTIANITY DOES teach a fallen human nature from Adam and hence from birth.

ISLAM does not. Islam teaches people are born sinless. This rather appeals to the shallow sentimental mind, but is theologically flawed.
"Salvation" is similarly shallow "be kind to a dog and you will goto paradise".. there are many such statements in the Hadith from Mohammad.

As for teaching children about 'eternal damnation and endless pain'

Just like the shop "NotQuiteRight".. I think teaching children about the horrors of hell should be done in an 'age appropriate' manner.
Also, the central focus of the Bible is reconciliation to the Love of our Creator...a re-union with His grace not that He is a great Ogre in the sky who is out to 'get' you.

I presume you are telling us more about your own sad childhood experience than the reality of Christian truth.

So, to the extent that children are 'dangled over hells fires' at an impressionable age, I can agree.. there is potential for abuse.

Its not wrong to speak the truth about hell to children Steel.
Go over to Mary K Baxter-a divine revelation of hell heaven.
Take your time and read it.
When I first heard her testimony on tape years ago I knew it was true... and it terrified me.
We have to remember that God is a Holy God of huge, vast Power and Might and doesnt like rebellion to His Word and what it says.
The Holy Bible is only for the betterment of mankind.
Children are "fallen lifeforms" from birth (out of relationship with God because of Adam and Eves' fall) and need correction from early on so they dont grow up to become criminally-minded bashers, drug addicts, drunkards, pornographers and sexual deviants that destroy societies.
Dont spare the rod or firm correction.
Shivers...hell is so real.

Steel is obviously exaggerating slightly here, but we do seem to be experiencing a re-definition of 'child abuse', don't we?

I mean if a work of art is construed by many to be a form of child abuse, it is hardly more hysterical to extend that to psychological damage caused by religious indoctrination. Clearly, many of these poor kids are scarred for life!

Somebody alert Hetty Johnson to this scandalous state of affairs. I believe it's been going on for decades with general social approval, but I've just become aware of it.

"No one of you can demonstrate this teenager was harmed in any shape or form."

Presumably it hasn't yet got to the subjudice stage? Are you arguing that the relevant criminal law should require evidence of harm?

"Everything was consented."

Are you saying that the parent could legally consent on the child's behalf or that the child could consent to nude pics?

"Threatening children with eternal damnation and endless pain is child abuse. Telling them lies about the world from such a young age is exploitative and destructive to the normal development of their minds and emotions. Saying they are sinful by birth is instilling shame and fear. This is Christianity and Islam."

How often are Christian children threatened will eternal damnation? It certainly isn't the approach normally taken in religious education. What lies are told about the world? The point you are misguidedly attempting to make about sinfulness at birth is unsustainable due to the message of love and forgiveness integrally tied to the sinfulness one.

"...religious circumcisions, that mutilate and violate thousands of children every year across the world without their consent."

That is as silly as saying that immunisation brutalises and violates children without their consent. Irrespective of whether immunisation was carried out for medical reasons or (hypothetically) religious reasons it doesn't violate children. Ditto for circumcision. Brutalise is probably too strong but having sat through immunisations it seems a bit like it. I have heard ritual circumcisions of infants are not as bad but it is beyond my experience. I presume you are covertly singling out Jews as I believe Islamic faith doesn't require infant circumcision to be ritualistic and believe that indigenous Australians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders do it as a rite of passage later on. Christianity doesn't require circumcision for faith.

"...pointing their filthy fingers at a teenager and her parents who expressed herself through art..."

So the unwashed masses (which curiously includes a wealthy PM) are pointing their fingers at the child they consider exploited not the guy who's nude pictures of kids have been seized as part of a police investigation.

Steel

"...how easy it is for people to be swept into 'fury' like a mob..."

The only 'fury' I have seen is one person from Bravehearts - hardly a mob - dissent does not always imply 'fury'. Emotiveness is fine but let's keep some persepctive.

I personally think religion of any denomination is bollocks but I have many Christian friends who have raised their children (without fanaticism) and they are now happy and well adjusted young adults.

The current world frenzy of fundamentalism is a concern but don't equate moderate and peaceful religious practitioners with extremists, Christian or otherwise. Culture and religion are very closely connected and the 'new' world is still coming to terms with those differences.

CJ,

"...but we do seem to be experiencing a re-definition of 'child abuse', don't we?"

We do? My only knowledge of the facts of the case are from the media so I can only go on that. They claim that the subject of the police investigation has been photographing naked children. In one case he apparently depicted a naked young girl being held back, exposed, by a naked boy and girl. If hypothetically what they seem to suggest the artist has been caught producing is correct then I would have thought it would fit squarely within standard definitions of child abuse. Some people seem to think it requires a lewd motive by the photographer but I have seen someone locked up for a long time with less indication of lewd motive. Whether you think the laws are too tough or not doesn't mean that there is somehow a redefinition. There was no issue of change of laws just police becoming aware of something and acting on current laws.

Obviously it isn't what you were referring to but there does however seem to be an elitist exemption being argued for whereby if a recognised artist takes photos of nude kids for an artistic purpose and the intended viewers aren't expected to derive sexual gratification then they should be exempt or perhaps if a famous person is involved an exemption should apply. There is nothing of the sort currently in place. However (in the hypothetical above) if the photographer on reasonable grounds thought the kids were adults or he was insane or he was sleepwalking or suffering an epileptic fit or otherwise acted involuntarily then he would be entitled to be acquitted if prosecution proceeds.

BOAZ_David wrote:

"CHRISTIANITY DOES teach a fallen human nature from Adam and hence from birth.

ISLAM does not. Islam teaches people are born sinless. This rather appeals to the shallow sentimental mind, but is theologically flawed."

BOAZ_David has the unfortunate habit of equating the superstitions of Christianity with truth. Original Sin is Christian nonsense.

Jews interpret the curse put on the earth by Adam's act lasting only as long as Adam was alive. Eden is Jewish Dreamtime, a tale of how things started. Patriarchy triumphs over matriarchy. The Hebrew word for earth has female gender, but man was created from earth and Adam is the masculine form of the Hebrew word for earth. Plato's Fall of Man grafted on to Genesis produced the concept of original sin.

Elaine Pagels in "Adam, Eve and the Serpent" tells how the doctrine of Original Sin was adopted. Augustine promoted the idea, and Pelagius, an English monk, argued against it. Saint Augustine was obsessed with original sin, punishment and the shamefulness of the body, an outlook Pelagius regarded as pessimistic and irrational. P became a focus of opposition to Augustine's views, emphasising free will, people born with a clean slate and sex and death as natural parts of life. Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire and the emperor had a voice in the final decision. The emperor was a great lover of horses, and a supporter of Augustine gave the emperor eighty Numidian horses. Emperor Honorius found in favor of Augustine. In 418 the pope excommunicated Pelagius, and the emperor ordered him fined, expelled from office and sent into exile.

Augustine was a neurotic individual. He had guilt over such trivia as stealing pears from an orchard when he was 15 and having a long-lasting loving sexual relationship which he gave up along with his son when he became a Christian and embraced celibacy which is a cold thing to embrace. By getting Original Sin adopted as a Christian doctrine he managed to put his neuroses on a lot of other people who he caused to suffer from irrational guilt.

Dear David F

please feel free to describe the notion of original sin as "Christian nonsense" :) as of course you did.

But your argument lacked a couple of important aspects.

SOURCES would be most welcome.

and then, you tried to argue against the doctrine/teaching (Please refer to Pauls letter to the Romans-it came from there, along with the whole of the Old Testament) not from Augustine.

Pelagius was just one of many heretics.. *BD looks around for some straw..and a stake.. aaah..now..where is David F...*...hmmmm :)

yes, Islam doesn't have those characteristics about sin, but I included it for the indoctrination and the kind of threats made against those who leave the faith etc... I think it's an automatic death warrant (in life as direct punishment, whereas christianity makes the threat in the afterlife)?

Now pelican mentioned the moderates and defended them. And this is intersting. Images of naked children in and of themselves are not sinful. Nudity of a child is innately 'innocent' and all Australians will see it that way. In a sense, nudity in art such as Henson's and the religious biblical commissioned paintings of many hundreds of years ago that show naked children are the 'moderate'. However there is a further technical distinction in that the artists and normal Australians don't belong in the same 'religion' or any 'religion' for that matter and hence do not even have any association.

I think CJ got part of this and in that sense it is very serious indeed. If you look at both videos i linked to, it shows the destruction of the individual and the replacement of their natural state of mind with an artificial punishment system. When you think about it, why aren't these extremists illegal RIGHT NOW, as they tangibly inflict incredible harm on the mind by filling them with these lies and punishments (let alone *approved* and *registered* by the Uk Tony Blair's government)?

Also, someone objected to circumcision and compared it with a needle for immunisation. I can't believe the person even believes that as the procedure by definition is mutilation and obviously different from injecting a needle, but I will see it as down to pure ignorance. Go take a look at some pictures and videos of the procedure and you will see that parental child abuse of an horrific and permanent kind is both MAINSTREAM and LEGAL. Here are some links anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwU-UsaYEGA
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
http://www.cirp.org/news/dagensnyheter03-16-01/

BOAZ_David wrote:

"SOURCES would be most welcome.

and then, you tried to argue against the doctrine/teaching (Please refer to Pauls letter to the Romans-it came from there, along with the whole of the Old Testament) not from Augustine.

Pelagius was just one of many heretics.. *BD looks around for some straw..and a stake.. aaah..now..where is David F...*...hmmmm :)"

I cited sources. Why should I cite a source you select for me? The New Testament is not a reliable document considering its construction and canonisation. The Christian heresy stemmed from Judaism. It adopted the pagan idea of a man-god in Jesus.

I cited the scholar, Elaine Pagels. Unlike Paul or Augustine her works were subjected to peer review before publication.

Rabbi Hertz in his commentary on the Soncino edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs commented that guilt for the sin of Adam died with Adam. A rabbi commenting on the Jewish Bible is the best source in that area. In his commentary Rabbi Hertz cites both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Have you consulted any but Christian sources for the non-Christian Jewish Bible?

You demeaned the Islamic view rejecting original sin as 'shallow sentimentality'. I referred to the superstitions of Christianity. We can make an effort to show respect for those views differing from ours.

Augustine got Original Sin accepted as doctrine. It was appropriate to discuss the politics that went into the decision. Before Augustine it was not accepted Christian doctrine. I cited the Platonic view of Genesis. Paul was another neurotic. Original Sin is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible influenced by Platonism.

Unfortunately the heretics like Pelagius often make much better sense than accepted Christian doctrines. Should one reject a sensible idea because neurotics like Paul and Augustine rejected it?

One problem with Christian Fundamentalism is that it regards the Bible as complete in itself and neglects the context in which it was written and other documentation of the time. Bishop Spong has written "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture”. I suggest the book to help put the Bible in context.

“Disagree all you want but you are wrong for multiple reasons and from multiple angles. “

How typical of this character Steel. No matter what anyone who disagrees with him thinks, they will be wrong. Nice of him to ‘allow’ others to disagree, though!

It could be years before any effects will appear in the children photographed.

However, in South Australia at least, if teachers, doctors, social workers and any public servant dealing with children got wind of the fact that a child was to be photographed,or had been photographed naked, they are legally obliged to report to police that the child is ‘at risk'.

I would hope that this is standard procedure in other states, too.

Steel,

I'll get back to it. No time right now.

Religious teaching doesn't have to be child abuse - ultimately, religious people would argue that becaue they believe they're right, that non-religious teaching is a denial of god's connection, and is 'abuse' as well.

Which leads to the religion-v-non-religion circle.

A few points though - boaz, I'd also like you to state your posts in relation to god and Islam are merely opinion. I understand your desire to tone down Steel's rather vehement post, but given how often you pop up with religious tracts which you then claim as fact, I can't help but feel that the kettle just got rather irate at the pot for being too black.

What made me giggle was this particular post, boaz: "Islam teaches people are born sinless. This rather appeals to the shallow sentimental mind, but is theologically flawed.""

1) Theologically flawed: translation: in the fairy tale rules I've decided apply to reality, this doesn't fit. Therefore, it is wrong.

I find the idea of a sinful newborn to be... well, I was going to say 'shallow and sentimental', but I think 'repugnant' is more apt. The 'Islamic' notion people are born sinful makes perfect sense.

If sin is a product of our actions, the most basic reasoning would indicate that a newborn baby, which has not had the chance to make any actions of significance, is therefore, without sin.

The only way it can be 'theologically flawed' is if your idea of theology requires a mindset where we start out bad. As theology in the most literal sense is no more than a study of religions, if a religion decides that this ugly 'guilty until redeemed' isn't necessary, then by clear logic, it can only be theologically flawed if you are trapped in that mindset, as not all religions/theologies fit that mould.

And you, boaz, claim to be some kind of expert in theology. What unadulterated bull. I know that sounds harsh and dismissive, but don't you dare claim that a proposition is 'theologically flawed' when it's very clearly only possible to make that statement from a hopelessly biased, dismissive, highanded standpoint.

MrRight.>"It could be years before any effects will appear in the children photographed."

What effects? Some of these models have been subjects of Henson's for 25 years already. Didn't you know? This is also a random hypothesis that appeals to fear. I could as easily make up a random hypothesis to assert she will gain 50 IQ points in 1 years time.

MrRight>"However, in South Australia at least, if teachers, doctors, social workers and any public servant dealing with children got wind of the fact that a child was to be photographed,or had been photographed naked, they are legally obliged to report to police that the child is ‘at risk'."

How sad. Talk about hysteria. Now your ignorance and blindness is showing (this includes the policy writers in the South Australian government). There are numerous circumstances in which some beautiful photographs of children could be made as a celebration of humanity (or a darker documentation of it). I guess all those aid workers and photographers were reported for putting starving naked african children "at risk"? Families taking pictures of their children at play? Are the children "at risk"? Are the neighbours to look over the fence and report them like communists or fascists and public 'informants'/secret state police did 50 years ago in communist states? That is what is being demanded by this law and it easily splits your bigoted reactionary opinion apart. You are oppressing the majority over fear of an infintessimally small minority, and bringing citizen and state spying into law.

TLTR, this isn't an intellectual exercise to be debated one way or another. It is an observation of some actual facts that are happening to children now. If your definition of abuse includes physically harming a child, then you must conclude the religious promotion of circumcision child abuse/harm. If your definition of abuse includes the shaming of children for mythological reasons (such as most believe with scientology), then you must conclude child harm/abuse has taken place. Pelican has shown he had some level of understanding my post, so how about you actually think about the children in those videos and links i have provided in this thread?

Can you seriously tell me that these children in those videos are developing normally? Can you seriously tell me that threatening them with eternal suffering and saying they are sinners does not disrupt the normal development of their emotions and self-identity/esteem? Circumcision is also a religious promotion and that mutilation is incredible pain and suffering is inflicted wihtout any consent onto the child. The damage is permanent also.

Steel - any extremities of religious teaching is abuse. Regrettably the machine I'm on now is incapable of playing youtube clips, so I cannot view the video, but I'll assume it is an ugly display of religious indoctrination upon children. I've no truck with that and you'll not find my defence of religious teaching particularly vociferous.

I guess my point is that ultimately, were I to criticise all religious teaching as being abusive, I'd feel it would be akin to boaz's harping on about how Islam in its entirety is evil.

Moderate teachings of any persuasion are fine. Regrettably, few teachers in such loaded subjects, be they politics or religion, distinguish between their view, and what is right. Some do, and they are the best of the lot.

I totally agree that teachers who scare children with tales of burning hellfire are stepping across that line. It's ugly. It's wrong. I'd even concur it's abusive.

But not all religious teachers are like that. I went to a christian school for many years as a high schooler, and a different one for several months when I was very young. Neither of those schools used the 'hell and damnation' approach.
It was all Love and Christ and isn't Jesus great? sort of stuff. Didn't really appeal to me, and it didn't take, but none of it was 'abusive.'

So I guess my final observation is that yes, religious teaching can be abusive, but it doesn't have to be.

Steele

'Then there are the religious circumcisions, that mutilate and violate thousands of children every year across the world without their consent.

Under secular humanism the child is likely to be mutilated in the mother's womb before it even has a chance to be abused. If anyone had any doubts about the adamic nature you are sure proof of it. The results of your philosophy leads to sick minded artists being defended even when producing child porn. I could see thousands of parents wanting you to brainwash their kids with your deceitful representation of God. Your free (perverted) thinking is a sure way to hell.

Religious education and religious indoctrination are different.

Religious indoctrination puts forth a religious doctrine as truth.

Religious education sets forth an explanation of a religious belief without a value judgement as to its truth or falsity. Religious education in a religion different from that of the student's parents can be like learning another language as a tool to understanding how people using a different language think.

There could be a survey of the books different people regard as scripture. Many students are even unaware of the history of the religion of their parents. History is too often taught as a narrative of battles, movements and changes of governments without an account of the social matrix in which these events came about. Religion is an important part of that matrix.

Most people in Australia subscribe to God-centred religions. Australia is in the neighbourhood of eastern Asia where most people do not follow theistic religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Jainism are such religions. Most Australians don't even know the names of those religions. To our north is the most populous Islamic country in the world. To deal more effectively with those countries we should learn about their religions.

Together with learning the languages of those countries enough about the religions of those country could be learned so the student could know what they were about. Comparative religion as a subject is often discouraged because of fear. Believers in a religion may fear that if students learn about another religion they might adopt it. That is possible. Should one keep to a religion because of ignorance of alternatives? Believers in a religion may fear that if students learn about other religions they will abandon all religions. That is also possible. There is a risk that in exposing students to new ideas they may make unexpected decisions. However, that is one purpose of education. Make students aware of new ideas, encourage them to think about those new ideas and develop ideas of their own. Let them come to their own conclusions whether we like those conclusions or not.

The failure to educate a child in the social wisdom and values of a society is child abuse.

I witness more heartache and pain in children's lives who have no adult guidance and boundaries. For instance the religious value of "Thou shalt not steal"; a child will act from self centered motives and has no boundaries of others property. They will feel no conscience to take from others for themself because an adult has not set boundaries and consequences. Warning a child of consequences teaches them boundaries.

We have a 16 year boarder who has a friend at school that has had 3 abortions in the last 12 months. This firend ought to be warned of the long term consequences to herself and society of her actions.

Parents have abandoned their responsibility to teach children social behaviour and boundaries. Religion is supposed to be the behavioural practices acceptable to the good function of a society.

Dear TRTL...*ouch* :)

your last post was nice..

The one ripping me to shreds and feeding me to the Tazzie devils was a bit.. radical :)

But..UR RIGHT.. on one thing.. when I speak about a position being 'theologically flawed' yes...it is definitely from a Christian standpoint.

The same goes for when I 'harp' about u know what. Please have a look at Galatians 1:8 and see what I COULD be saying, louddddd and clear.

If anything..I'm exercising restraint.

Bear in mind though.. sometimes I'm not 'harping' as will be seen by a post of mine in the Camden School thread.. responding to John Dorey who says he has not read the Quran. I quote it, and seek to explain why Jews and Christians might view things that way.

So..responding to new people in good faith should not be seen as 'harping'...k?

In the mean time, keep up your incisive posts which keep me in line 0_^

Philo wrote:

"The failure to educate a child in the social wisdom and values of a society is child abuse.

I witness more heartache and pain in children's lives who have no adult guidance and boundaries. For instance the religious value of "Thou shalt not steal"; a child will act from self centered motives and has no boundaries of others property."

One can certainly agree on the value of educating a child in the social wisdom and values of a society.

However, his following statement is contentious. A child reared by religious values is no more likely to be honest and regard other people's property with respect than those who are taught that it is simply more reasonable to live that way without any appeal to the supernatural.

Ernest Hooton, the Harvard anthropologist, examined the social attitudes of various segments of US society. Among the most religious were prisoners. I know of no evidence which yields a positive correlation of honesty and respect for property with religious belief. If anyone on the list knows of such evidence please cite it.

BOAZ_David wrote:

"But..UR RIGHT.. on one thing.. when I speak about a position being 'theologically flawed' yes...it is definitely from a Christian standpoint.

The same goes for when I 'harp' about u know what. Please have a look at Galatians 1:8 and see what I COULD be saying, louddddd and clear.

If anything..I'm exercising restraint.

Bear in mind though.. sometimes I'm not 'harping' as will be seen by a post of mine in the Camden School thread.. responding to John Dorey who says he has not read the Quran. I quote it, and seek to explain why Jews and Christians might view things that way."

You viewed the Islamic position on Original Sin as theologically flawed. However, it is unreasonable to lump the position of Jews and Christians in that area. The normative Jewish position is to regard human beings as born with a clean slate. The guilt for the sin of Adam died with him.

What is your source for lumping Jewish and Christian opinion in regard to Original Sin?

My source is the commentary of the late Rabbi Hertz, chief rabbi of the British Empire, on Genesis. What is yours?

You never cite any reliable source for your beliefs concerning Jews. The New Testament is not a reliable source in that area since the new religion was trying to distance itself from the 'true faith'. Jews do not accept either the validity of the New Testament or the creedal statements of various Christian councils.

I agree with your statement that the position is 'theologically flawed' from a Christian standpoint. However, your original statement on the subject omitted the qualification "from a Christian standpoint." Please stop your illegitimate lumping of Jews and Christians together. You have neither the right nor the knowledge to speak for Jews.

Steele,

Link 1

Dear oh dear a u-tube video the ultimate in credible information!

I was expecting a Christian boot camp or something like TRTL. It showed someone talking not an event.

Some old codger apparently takes time off from a Halloween party to claim he is a neuroanatomist and as such knows how useful the relevant flap of skin is. As far as I can figure he translates the size of a baby foreskin to an adult (I’m guessing that to fit in with the other information there is a little exaggeration) and basically hints that the relevant flap of skin is a big sexual organ in an adult. This then is developed into claiming that uncircumcised men miss out on a huge amount of sexual pleasure.

Unsurprisingly a few issues leap to mind. But hell it was a u-tube video so what would you expect.

English sexologist Dr Chartam observed that a certain self circumcision happens as men age. The foreskin normally shrinks from babyhood to adulthood. In some cases it shrinks dramatically. I am aware of an uncircumcised man whose erect penis was indistinguishable from a circumcised penis. Likewise I viewed the flaccid penis of another man whose uncircumcision was not apparent. Dr Chartam described a category who have a foreskin that shrinks so much that they wear it back like a circumcised man. Accordingly, extrapolating an infant foreskin to the foreskin on an adult penis seems like an extremely dodgy endeavour.

The next thing is the “fact” that because of this sexually charged thing (which is the misrepresentation of the humble foreskin) was removed the circumcised men are missing out on something. I am aware that the self reports of men circumcised as adults that it makes no difference are discounted by the loopier anti-circumcision enthusiasts as lacking candor. The belief that circumcision ‘toughens up’ the gland to the extent that longer lasting sex is possible is more mainstream. However neither insensitive penis theories hold water. The issue was objectively resolved by physiological measurement in a Canadian study last year.

Link 2. Sorry but it just wasn’t working for me and I’m not going to download software specially for the occasion but it is clearly a video of surgery. Naturally that makes me wonder why you would provide it. The contentious issue was mutilation. If I was to argue that a caesarian operation mutilated a woman I would obviously be showing the scars not showing the operation. It does have the appearance that you lack confidence in your argument and are seeking to show gore for an emotional effect to override your lack of argument. There are still pictures below and commentary. I presume that is the best they can do. I note the substitution of an upset black baby when the bleeder baby is clearly white. Doesn’t that embarrass them? The natural inference is that the black baby was upset but the bleeder was not upset. I don’t know how honest the annotations below about anaesthetic not being used are. I live in Australia and it seems to be normal here. Perhaps America is different but I wouldn’t taken their word for it. The commentary claims that topical anaesthetic creams can be dangerous. How! Dangerous if you eat a bucket of it or just if you have an unusual allergy? I suspect they are fibbing.

Link 3

A link to some loopy anti-circumcision website which funnily enough makes the claim that it is mutilation. Of course that is just a rhetorical description to prop up their claim that circumcision should be banned. A irrelevant horror story of someone who is injected with too much anaesthetic related only because it occurred during a circumcision is given and a number of incorrect assertions are provided. Hardly compelling. Do you want a more detailed analysis?

To other contributors,

Sorry for this diversion but I believe Steele’s lateral attack on religion by condemning Jewish custom (now broadened to circumcision generally) should be challenged as it is plainly incorrect.

Steel,

Effects vary with individuals. Do you know any of these ‘models’ who were photographed 25 years ago? They could be real weirdos for all you know.

You are twisting and turning. The topic has arisen now, not 25 years ago. And what you call my “ignorance (you love that word) and blindness” is not in question. I don’t make laws.

The laws mentioned do exist in South Australia and, obviously, the police are investigating Henson and the children’s’ parents. You seem to be overlooking that fact. Perhaps you could check laws in your state, and others, to find out who you are batting against.

It’s all very well to take a position of your own on this matter, but is it permissible by law.

A nude photograph is not a “celebration of humanity” or anything else; it’s a nude photograph. How did “aid workers and photographers” put starving native african (sic) children at risk? You have again sidetracked and brought an entirely different culture and an entirely different set of circumstances to bear.

You opinions of the law in South Australia are too incoherent to comment on.

Henson and anyone else can take as many nude photographs of adults as they wish, but children must be left alone

mjpb,

Link 1,

There are two videos in my first post.

Here you use a mocking tone to describe a neuroanatomist (and throw in some pejorative terms that have no relation to the video), while later quoting a sexologist. Do you what the difference is between the two?

As for self-circumcision, people are not snakes and shed their skin. Honestly, if the skin is still there with the array of nerves then it's not circumcision, by definition. Otherwise men would circumcise themselves every time they drew back the foreskin? That's what you are arguing and such arguments are to be expected from a 'sexologist'. have you heard of scientologists and astrologers? That's the ground you are on here.

Link 2
And now you compare circumcision of a baby. The removal of a huge amoung of skin without consent of the child to be the same as a grown mother voluntarily having a caesarian, later to be stitched up? That's absolutely stupid. Tell me, if a parent slashed a knife across a child's body as a punishment for disobediance(without removing skin, merely scarring the boy for life), would you call that child abuse?

Furthermore, this is not an appeal to emotion, it is an documentation of reality and abuse. You can observe the mutilation of the baby's sexual genitalia. Much as watching a child being beaten to death might elicit an emotional response in addition to the documentation of a crime.

Mutilation: The removal of the skin on the baby's penis is by definition mutilation. Unless you are for female circumcision, then you are equivocating and merely playing word games to avoid the fact. Those pictures in one of the links I provided are real. Adding to that the operation is done when the person is unable to even speak or understand language while they were a newborn baby, and they will never have any say in it.

Link 3, How is it "loopy" exactly? The only thing that is loopy is your dancing around on this without acknowledging the facts and the evidence before your eyes and particularly your equivocation, as well as your desire to create pejorative labels for those represented in my links.

don't forget to check those two videos in the first post of mine.

mjpb

"My only knowledge of the facts of the case are from the media so I can only go on that... In one case he apparently depicted a naked young girl being held back, exposed, by a naked boy and girl."

The media has deceived you here. It sounds like it conflated a couple of different exhibitions. There is a Henson piece that shows a naked girl being carried by a naked girl and boy — could this be the one you are talking about? That picture is quite old and not one of the photos seized from Roslyn Oxley, but I definitely remember seeing it at the retrospective at the Art Gallery of NSW ten years ago.

"...I would have thought it would fit squarely within standard definitions of child abuse."

Why? Child abuse has many definitions, but involves the harm of a child. I think anyone else is suggesting it's child abuse, including the police — the potential charge is one of child pornography.

"...there does however seem to be an elitist exemption being argued for whereby if a recognised artist takes photos of nude kids for an artistic purpose and the intended viewers aren't expected to derive sexual gratification then they should be exempt..."

Assuming you mean exempt from pornography charges, then I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But he needs to be producing pornography before he is charged with it. That's the source of contention — I certainly don't believe he was producing pornography. Some people do. Other people don't think it was pornography, but feel we should ban it in case pedeophiles derive sexual pleasure from it.

The other issue is consent. The kids and their parents all consented, so the issue is whether that consent was legal because of the children's ages. As I understand it, the letter of the law allows for parents to consent on behalf of their children. But I'm sure we'll hear more on this issue as the weeks go on.

Steel,

You probably realised I meant "glans" not "gland" in my last post so I was saving that correction for an opportunity like this.

Link 1,

There are two videos in my first post.

"Do you what the difference is between the two?"

I have no problem with neuroanatomists. However when someone purporting to be one states something so confidently as if it is known from his area of expertise but is plainly wrong it makes it hard for me to take him seriously. By claiming to be an expert he put something on the line that can be measured and found wanting.

I agree that the receding foreskin is not circumcision. I was using the term "a certain self circumcision" very broadly for illustrative purposes on the assumption that you would read past the first sentence. The point I was making is that the video exagerated the amount of skin because you can't directly extrapolate the length of skin on an adult from the length of skin on a baby's foreskin because it proportionally shrinks. Sexology might not be the ultimate science but by being one Dr Chartham viewed many penises and made an observation which on a smaller scale I have also done. I rely only upon his observation.

Link 2

Babies have all sorts of things done to them without their consent. We aren't talking about nude photos or oral stimulation. We are talking about a medical procedure. I doubt that a young child would volunteer to get immunized but the parent is entitled to act in their interests when they are too young to make decisions themselves.

"Tell me, if a parent slashed a knife across a child's body as a punishment for disobediance(without removing skin, merely scarring the boy for life), would you call that child abuse?"

Yes. Likewise if they stabbed them with a needle for punishment.

"Furthermore, this is not an appeal to emotion, it is an documentation of reality and abuse."

It is a film of minor surgery. It sure looks like an appeal to emotion.

CONT

"You can observe the mutilation of the baby's sexual genitalia."

It isn't getting mutilated. A flap of skin is being removed.

"Much as watching a child being beaten to death might elicit an emotional response in addition to the documentation of a crime."

Of course we aren't dealing with a child being beaten to death are we? We are watching a medical procedure.

"Mutilation: The removal of the skin on the baby's penis is by definition mutilation."

Sure like jabbing three successive syringe sharps into a leg with enough time in between for the child to realise what is happening in advance for the second two is torture.

In reality neither are. In the first case it is the removal of the foreskin in case it proves useful and mutilation is a ridiculous description. In the second case it is just injecting something in the unlikely event that it proves useful and it is called immunisation.

It is ludicrous to describe legitimate preventative medicine as mutilation or torture. It would be like describing the caesarian as an assault occasioning grevious bodily harm.

"Unless you are for female circumcision..."

I am neutral on the circumcision of the clitoral hood (female circumcision) but I don't believe it provides any benefit and it is incredibly rare. If you mean female genital mutilation then it is irrelevant here. That is the equivalent of cutting off the penis not removing a flap of skin.

The pictures are real but the cherrypicking to achieve a misleading effect is palpable. I noted the shameless substitution of the black baby in the still pics. Many worthwhile things and operations are conducted on babies who don't have a say in it. For circumcision the lack of capacity factor is a plus for those who would otherwise develop phimosis and require circumcision later on. There must be some feeling of embarassment or indignity for such older boys or men that the babies don't have to worry about.

mjp, you are grossly abusing the equivocation fallacy. but i will respond despite your silly games.

1. How is this neuroanatomist "plainly wrong"? Do you deny there are nerve endings in the foreskin that is removed?

2. You are talking about a medical procedure which disfigures their genitalia visibly and permanently, depriving them off an intact organ. So your suggestion that this comes under the title of "all sorts of things" is disingenuous.

3. There is a serious flaw in your argument that you keep persisting with that is also disingenuous. Your idea that a needle injection to immunise against a life threatening disease is equivalent to cutting off the foreskin. There is no comparison to be made here. Sorry. An injection generally leaves no trace. It is immunising the child against life-threatening disease. There is no mutilation of an sexual organ. There is no removal of skin with specific functions and properties.

4. Something that elicits an emotional response doesn't necessarily invalidate the content. The video shows what is cut off and how, from the newborn baby's body and in what circumstances (non consent).

5. "A flap of skin" This flap of skin, which constitutes a huge part of the toal skin on the baby's penis, is part of their sexual anatomy. It's disfigurement. It has a function. It is not idle piece of skin under the child's heel that is an anomally, as your disregard implies. Look up the definition of mutilation.

6. Anyone can play these stupid games mjpb. Castration will prevent testicular cancer. Genocide will cure Judaism. You are playing word games. So what are the "uses" of circumcision and the removal of the foreskin that justify the mutilation of the penis?

>"It is ludicrous to describe legitimate preventative medicine as mutilation or torture."

Don't put words into my mouth. I did not use the term torture anywhere. How is circumcision "preventative" and how is it "medicine" (euphemism or equivocation?).

>"It would be like describing the caesarian as an assault occasioning grevious bodily harm."

That's not the definition of assault, nor grievous bodily harm. It is also consented medical operation that only leaves a scar. It does not permanently disfigure/mutilate a sexual organ, for example.

>"If you mean female genital mutilation then it is irrelevant here. That is the equivalent of cutting off the penis not removing a flap of skin."

I think i will finish responding here. Nowhere more apparent is your bias than this. Cutting of the penis prevents sex altogether. It prevents urination. It prevents impregnation and orgasm. It is also far more visible and psychologically damaging. FGM on the other hand: Does not prevent orgasm.
-Does not prevent sex.
-Does not prevent urination, nor complicate it.
-Is less visible.
-Does not prevent reproduction.
Removing the entire female vagina has the same effect as cutting off the penis, however. But that is not FGM. Your inability to distinguish these things from an objective viewpoint really explains the various problems in your posts i have identified so far, as well as your regular desire to equivocate.

Hi Vanilla,

”The media has deceived you here.”

That doesn’t surprise me!

”…. I (don’t) think anyone else is suggesting it's child abuse, including the police — the potential charge is one of child pornography.”

I’ve noticed that since I posted. I was responding to a post in here which seemed to suggest that.

The legally contentious thing I believe is whether or not there is a sexual context. As he depicts the sexual transition from childhood to adulthood there appears to be a clear sexual context in one sense. However a former Judge opined that it is and a barrister opined that it is not so the only way to find out is if it goes to court.

”The other issue is consent... As I understand it, the letter of the law allows for parents to consent on behalf of their children...”

I’ve heard that it is not like a medical procedure or something where parents can consent but noone is strong on it so I’m guessing that also isn’t clear cut.

Steel,

1. “How ...this neuroanatomist "plainly wrong"? Do you deny there are nerve endings in the foreskin that is removed?”

Of course the relevant flap of skin has nerve endings. But he takes it much farther than that. He leads up to clearly suggesting that circumcision is like chopping off part of the sexual part of the penis and uncircumcised men are missing out heavily. This is objectively false.

”2. You are talking about...”

No the organ is fine and intact. It just has the flap of skin removed from it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the difference in appearance is naturally replicated either wholly or to some extent for many men. Further, for what it is worth surveys of women have found many that prefer the clean cut look. Thus to say it is disfigured just doesn’t slice it. (No pun intended)

”3. There is a serious flaw ...”

The obvious comparison is that they are both common forms of preventative medicine and inflicted on non-consenting children so they are strongly analogous.

The difference is that the syringe ultimately leaves no trace whilst circumcision normally would as there is removal of skin.

”4. Something that elicits ..”

We know what is cut off and how and we know that babies can’t consent to preventative medicine. Nothing is gained but the emotional issue of watching the gore. Hence the inference I made.

”5. "A flap of skin" ...”

Well if he lives in a tropical country the only function seems to be to put him at risk of discomfort or life threatening illness. Removing that function I don’t believe can be considered mutilation.

”6. … Castration will prevent testicular cancer. Genocide will cure Judaism. You are playing word games. So what are the "uses" of circumcision and the removal of the foreskin that justify the mutilation of the penis?”

No you can’t do a comparison with castration. Isn’t that called a categorical error? You are the one playing word games with words like “mutilation” and falsely trying to represent a flap of skin as being analogous to the testicles.

”… How is circumcision "preventative" and how is it "medicine" (euphemism or equivocation?).””

It is preventative because it can prevent things. It is medicine because it is a medical procedure and the things prevented are medical conditions.

”That's not the definition of assault, nor grievous bodily harm...”

The key thing is that it is a medical operation for a legitimate purpose. If you cut open a woman’s stomach for the heck of it it would definitely be an assault. Again disfigurement and mutilation are not an issue.

>"… female genital mutilation … is the equivalent of cutting off the penis not removing a flap of skin."

”I think i will finish responding here.”

Fine. This branch is a little out of place in this thread.

“Nowhere more apparent is your bias than this...”

In spite of your four point list the clitoris has a lot in common with the penis. It isn’t a penis and you can draw distinctions but that would be the equivalent removal

mjpb,
1. Objectively false huh? Care to research this subject,rather than talking out of your ass? I can guarantee the neuroanatomist is accurate. Your layman opinion certainly is NOT objective...that thought gave me a chuckle that you cannwrite it so easily and without shame.

2. Now you insist the organ is "fine and intact"..look up the definition of mutilation and permanent disfigurement and more pictures of the result. THIS is an objective fact by common definitions of the english language.

And women prefer the "clean cut" look eh? Is that a defence is it? Many men (and women) who practice the severest female genital mutilation prefer the look too-you are suggesting that makes it 'right'. I for example, might prefer class 3 female circumcision for my daughters. You can't have it both ways.

3. More word games and euphemisms. This is like saying pricking someone with a needle is the same as shooting them with a gun. Both are forms of assault and both commonly inflict pain and bleeding.

Ok that's all i can stomach :)

“1. Objectively false huh? Care to research this subject,...”

I have and you are wrong. I referred to research proving him wrong not layperson opinion.

2. Now you insist the organ is "fine and intact"..look up the definition of mutilation and permanent disfigurement....

“Definitions of mutilation on the Web:
• an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part
• Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.
• The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part."

So much for mutilation. Nothing essential lost. Hence the contrived stuff spun by the anatomist and loopy anti-circumcision groups desperately trying to bridge the gap.

"Definitions of disfigurement on the Web:

• A technical term in workers' compensation cases for a serious and permanent scar to the head, neck, or face.
• In Texas law, disfigurement is defined as that which impairs the appearance of a person, or that which renders unsightly, misshapen or imperfect, or deforms in some manner. ...
• an appearance that has been spoiled or is misshapen; "there were distinguishing disfigurements on the suspect's back"; "suffering from facial disfiguration"

So much for disfigurement particularly pursuant to definitions relating to head and neck.

The terms just have rhetorical value for loopy anti-circumcision groups.

”And women prefer the "clean cut" look eh? Is that a defence is it?...”

It seems relevant to both the definition of mutilation and disfigurement. As you have demonstrated it doesn’t stand alone but it adds weight to the fact that it is neither of those words you used.

”3. More word ...”

Precisely (referring of course to the second sentence). However just like circumcision the needle provides a potential benefit so it is acceptable whereas the gun only harms so it is illegal. Of course if you pricked them with a syringe full of Hiv blood instead it would become an illegal assault. The word games are the exaggerated terms used by loopy anti-circumcision groups.

1. The point was, there is research from more than your single sexologist on the internet, just like their are 'astronomers' (my basis) vs. a single 'astrologer' (your basis).

2. You said it was "fine and intact"..

Now mutilation: sub points 2 and 3 fit. You are focussing on the "lost...limb" part exclusively

Disfigurement: You really think this applies to head and neck's only

Steel,

We can discuss this all we want but it doesn’t change the fact that things like immunization and circumcision are a good idea.

1. The relevant research related to the internet video guy’s claims. I know there has been a few posts and it is only natural to lose track to a degree so I’ll refresh your memory.

You introduced a video where someone claimed to be a neuroanatomist and proceeded to claim that the foreskin is essentially a sex organ and he directly extrapolated the amount of skin involved from the amount of skin removed from the baby.

I pointed out that that is wrong for two reasons. The extrapolation failed to take into account the normal effect of aging on foreskins. To add to my own limited observation I relied upon the observation of someone who has seen many examples due to his job (the sexologist). That is the extent of his involvement in this discussion. Simply a compelling observer to establish that the video guy was overestimating the size of the skin removed.

More importantly the video guy argued that the foreskin is effectively a sexual organ. That is the crux of it as otherwise the amount of skin makes little difference. In this regard I noted that loopy anti-circumcision groups reject as rationalisations the observation of men who are circumcised later in life that it makes no difference. The point is that the issue was considered more objectively last year when a Canadian researcher established that the video guy’s inference about the function of the foreskin is wrong.

I note from my prior research that he is not the first to make such claims and that similar speculative claims presented as fact are rife on loopy anti-circumcision internet sites and even some published papers. Extravagent and often elaborate inferences have been made about receptors in the foreskin of unknown function and thus significance. Fortunately due to physiological measurement we can put a rest to the false inferences.

2. Thanks for conceding that the first definition doesn’t fit. That narrows things. Lets consider the remaining ones.

“• Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death. “

Yes it is an act and if surgery can be said to injure would be an injury. Yes it doesn’t usually cause death. No it does not degrade the appearance or function. In relation to appearance it apes one extreme end of the continuum of a natural process. Further, many consider it improves the appearance. Hence it cannot be said to degrade the appearance. In relation to function in a tropical country the only effect on function is to dramatically reduce the likelihood of certain diseases. That is clearly not degrading the function. Accordingly, the definition doesn’t fit. (For the record just as treating breast cancer often involves removal of the breast treating penile cancer often involves removal of the penis. So it potentially prevents things that most people would consider might be mutilation or maiming.)

”• The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part."

Wipe out the limb part obviously although it highlights the absurdity of applying the definition to the flap of skin. Is there deprivation of an essential part? Obviously not. Removing the flap of skin causes no detriment so nothing essential is lost. The whole idea of the wishful thinking guesses of people like that video guy is to argue that the foreskin is an essential component of a sexual organ and there is therefore a deprivation of an essential part. We now know that is wrong. Unless something essential about the flap of skin can be found then there is no deprivation of an essential part. Indeed in this case there are potential benefits so it is the opposite. Hence the definition does not apply.

“Disfigurement: You really think this applies to head and neck's only”

No not exclusively as there are other definitions. I’m just pointing out that disfigurement is particularly glaringly obviously irrelevant pursuant to definitions that refer exclusively to heads and necks.

There are, no doubt, examples of lessons in the guise of religious instruction, having really been actual abuse.

However, the marked and unavoidable difference between real religious instruction, and every other form of teaching, is that religion actually teaches people how to cause the least possible harm.

I know it is terribly unfashionable to be worried about sinning these days, but the basic fact is that sins are defined by being the combination of an attitude and a behaviour, in which it is acknowledged internally, that another person might become harmed.

Any form of teaching which teaches us to be less harmful to life, has to be the winner in the long run.

Most supporters of pornography also support the same attitude as the Nazis had: that of supposing that one person, or one minority, can only benefit BY causing harm to others.

Religious teaching is all about how to find joy and happiness in life without causing harm to others, and so normally we oppose fabrications of religious teaching, as well as opposing those who oppose the real traditions of religious moral values.

Curaezipirid, my original post contradicts your moderate position.

Specifically the examples in it show the manipulation of children by telling them lies and about how they are sinners at birth and will be punished if they don't do what the liars say. Religion exploits children and harms the formation of their identity.

mjpb, the definitions of disfigurement do not refer "exclusively" to head and necks. limbs are not "essential" either, if you really want to look at it.

if you searched with google.com a little you would see the claims in the video are correct. it would be appropriate to reverse the roles you place in your comment. the single sexologist's opinion is the "speculative" one

Curaezipirid,

What are you doing posting something that actually relates to the thread title?

You might be interested in Salt Shakers...

Steel,

Your original post left me wondering what the specific lies were. The sinners at birth allegation was out of context as it always comes in conjunction with the message of love and forgiveness and is seldom the type of religious teaching provided to young children.

"mjpb, the definitions of disfigurement do not refer "exclusively" to head and necks. limbs are not "essential" either, if you really want to look at it."

Not all the disfigurement definitions refer exclusively to heads but...eg.
"• A technical term in workers' compensation cases for a serious and permanent scar to the head, neck, or face."

I agree that the limb part is not essential to the definition although it highlights the absurdity of applying the definition to the flap of skin. Nevertheless the definitions require deprivation of an essential part and the flap of skin doesn't slice it.

"if you searched with google.com a little you would see the claims in the video are correct."

Steel if I do a google search as I have done (many) there is no doubt that loopy anti-circumcision sites that propagate that type of nonsense google well. If I hadn't done so I would not have known about the receptor stuff as he didn't go into that detail. I note that there are published papers on the topic that give the detail about the receptors and engage in the speculation. As I recall a Brit was responsible so perhaps he is the man.

"The single sexologist's opinion is the "speculative" one"

But he was making an observation which I believe logically relates to the amount of skin removed.

When I spoke of speculation I referred to the anatomists claim based on wild speculation about the role of certain receptors in the foreskin. Physiological measurement in recent research has proven the speculation incorrect.