did Russell Crowe have to apologise for criticising the practice of circumcision?

**Thomas Hepburn** · 06-14-2011 10:26 AM

Russell Crowe questioned why a God would feel it necessary for his followers to sacrifice their foreskins via the practice of circumcision. Was he right to state his point of view?
For all I know, he didn't criticise Islam or Judaism, he just made his point. The question is, have we got to the stage where nobody can challenge old religions and their practices for fear of upsetting the followers of that religion? Surely, if the religion is that true and robust, it should be able to fend off any respectful challenges??

**WildChild** · 06-14-2011 10:57 AM

I agree, but religions aren't based on rational thinking or reasoned behavior. If what they teach is really true and the very best option for people then they should welcome all questioning, as they should have a very provable and clearly better answer than any other possibilities. The reason they avoid questioning and almost engage in some level of isolating or insulating their followers is because they fear that if anyone encourages rational thought or asks thought provoking questions, their stuff just won't hold up to scrutiny.

Its not a matter of have gotten to this point, neither of these belief systems (or many others) has ever been at any other point. Look back at history; stoning, burning alive, crusades, jihads, ghettos (the original meaning) wholesale slaughter of other cultures... it's all there, actually all you have to do is read their various scriptures, the descriptions of what they have done to instill their "faiths" is right there. Read the newspapers, it never stopped. It been called by different names at different times but it been driven by the same thing all along.

They cannot tolerate challenge of any type. Why else would a cartoon trigger riots and death? Look at what is going on in American politics right now regarding women's reproductive rights.

Circumcision is about several things - undeniable identity with a group, extreme sacrifice (remember this was originally done on adults (pre-anesthesia), it reduces and changes a man's sexual responsiveness and there has been some speculation by men who were circumcised as adults, that it makes rape easier, (I don't know if that is true the Roman were apparently big on rape and didn't practice circumcision).

**Texinator** · 06-14-2011 11:43 AM

I don't think we even need to have religion for people to get upset when someone criticizes circumcision. There'll always be those circumcised men that take a challenge to circumcision as a personal challenge to them, and there'll always be those women that think uncircumcised penises are gross and disgusting looking.

**SaharaJim** · 06-14-2011 12:20 PM

Why on earth would he "jump" into the middle of such an argument? I am a practicing Catholic but I firmly believe that when the "religious" fall back on "God says so" or "It's written in the _____"; it is a sure sign that they cannot defend the belief,practice,or event by ANY rationale argument.

They are saying; basically, you must take it on "faith".

This is "acceptable " if you share the faith but when you don't - it simply looks rediculous. I was "circumsized" at birth simply because the PHS Doctors felt it was "healthier". And no one "screamed' about it. I've never even given it a "second thought". I don't personally think God gives a rat's fanny either way

**rcoreyus** · 06-14-2011 02:21 PM

I think its reasonable to question any action performed on non-consenting people (babies) whether or not it is recommended by a religion. It is a difficult are to think about - what authority do parents have over their children. In the case of a permanent body modification, It isn't unreasonable to ask the question.

**Thomas Hepburn** · 06-15-2011 07:30 AM

thanks guys, same as my thoughts. RCOREYUS puts it well. It's funny isn't that when I started learning about Spiritualism that people of other faiths immediately starting saying to me "where's the proof that there's life after death". All the time they were ignoring the fact that their Religion has little proof. But, back to the main question, Why shouldn't we be able to challenge their ideals? I don't believe that a loving God would want babies mutilated at birth is his name, do you? Remember,as WC indicates, there were head hunters and cannibals in the world 200 years ago, or less! We never said to them "well that's your belief and culture to eat other people so it must be accepted". No, I think we should always challenge other ideals if they don't stick with us. Respect the people that follow it for it is after all their choice, but challenge it we should.

**WildChild** · 06-15-2011 09:08 AM

Thomas you make a good point. I think it is one thing to be willing to be open, to allow others their beliefs and to be able to look at them objectively (my mother was a cultural anthropologist) and to be tolerant of others, but flat out, not all practices and beliefs should be honored or preserved. I don't care how strongly someone believes that women who don't toe the line should be buried past the waist, standing, and stoned to death. It is wrong. It is not a belief that should be accepted.

I don't think that because some group of people believe that their god says parents should beat their children, even to the point of tying them to a futon frame, gagging them and taking turns, until they beat them to death, with their other children watching, that this should be permitted. Yet it has happened and religion was/is the defense.

Some things, like cannibalism, which one major religion practices regularly in symbolic form, should not be preserved or honored. I cannot countenance them. Despite all the posturing and justifying, the vast majority of wars and wholesale slaughter have been based on differences in belief or religion. This is certainly true of the US. The real, primary reasons we are fighting in the middle east are greed (oil) and religious differences. The odd combination is that because of our efforts at tolerance we have opened the doors to those who want to destroy us to come live in our land and communities, while fighting them in theirs. Of course there are plenty of people in our countries who would love to be able to and in the US are trying to force their beliefs on all. Challenging them is not really considered to be polite. In some cases its not legal. We have one group, the Westboro Baptist Church, which has a seemingly unlimited supply of funds, that protests funerals of soldiers and gay people. They preach a god of hate who will destroy and torture all. It is frankly beyond me why anyone would want to follow such a deity but they are very aggressive in their actions and have no doubt traumatized many grieving families and the courts have upheld their "right" to do so. Yet if I were to as aggressively challenge them I would be infringing upon their free speech and religion. I would probably be found to be wrong and acting illegally to try to stop them??? It makes no sense at all.

I could choose to believe that wearing shoe is an offence to the design and creation of feet, I could believe this with all my heart but I would still be denied access to restaurants and stores. If I had gotten a bunch of people to believe me 200 years ago and the group was still around we would probably be an exception to the laws. It is odd that time and numbers is seen to give ideas some sort of support or acceptability. In many ways humans really aren't very rational.

Thread: did Russell Crowe have to apologise for criticising the practice of circumcision?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

did Russell Crowe have to apologise for criticising the practice of circumcision?

Similar Threads

Perinium tear not stitched after birth, is this normal practice?

Russel Crowe--having Son!!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions