And while we’re at it, tell them what Islam’s prophet Jesus said about those who would harm a child –that God’s punishment will be worse than a drowning for those who would harm one of these little ones.

This is an unnecessary and harmful procedure. Men who won’t marry their daughter if she doesn’t claim to have had this done to guarantee her ‘virtue’ –which the procedure doesn’t do, btw –tell them such a man isn’t enlightened enough for their daughter.

You multi-culturalists seem to think the Somalians and others who do these barbaric rituals cannot be brought up to date in the 21st Century. I suggest we try. I give them more credit for being teachable. If they aren’t, then they won’t be satisfied with a ritual “nick” anyway.

OrenWithAnE: Barb: You need the whole passage, Oren. He does say elsewhere that he will separate sheep from goats –the sheep to eternal life and the goats to damnation.

Oren: No, he says that his Father will judge.

I don’t think so. Read HERE.

Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man–and says The Son of Man will sit on His throne –and He, the King, will separate HIS sheep (who are blessed by my father, He says) like a shepherd. Jesus said elsewhere, “I am the good shepherd who looks after His sheep.” He is talking about the Kingdom of God –where Jesus is King/Shepherd/Son of God — not God, the Father, but God, the Son. “King of the Jews,” Pilate labeled him. And so He is the King of us all –who believe. The King will save the sheep and He decides who they are.

But you are right that Jesus did not come to condemn but to save –because we are ALL condemned to die already. We all die. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 3:23.

John 3:17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.[a]

He will save His sheep from eternal death and/or damnation –and he says the sheep are the ones who believe in Him and do the compassionate acts of Matthew 25. Christians believe Christ is the good shepherd of Psalm 23. He is the suffering servant with whose stripes we are healed, who was “wounded for our transgressions.” – See Isaiah 53. It describes Jesus and how He died –in the Hebrew scriptures, long before JEsus came.

the cut should be as small as possible; and this is the only reference to “female circumcision” in either the Koran or Hadiths.

Wiki sez:

FGM is illegal in Egypt, Eritrea, and 10 other African countries. The Grand Mufti of Egypt has stated it is prohibited. Al-Azhar University has stated it “has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions”. 34 Islamic scholars in Mauritania issued a fatwa against it. It’s unknown in the Maghreb.

Other sources say it is unknown in Turkey, and in Iran (except among Kurds).

Barb: Proclaiming the Bible’s standards of right and wrong is education.

That’s what the Dover school board said (until adult supervision arrived).

OrenWithAnE: No, he says that his Father will judge.

You don’t expect her to understand any interpretation that doesn’t support her preconceived viewpoint do you? Someone has obviously already told her exactly what god was/is thinking years ago…

You need the whole passage, Oren. He does say elsewhere that he will separate sheep from goats –the sheep to eternal life and the goats to damnation.

No, he says that his Father will judge.

Elliot: Biblical? The bible means whatever folks say it means.

Just like the Animal House script, a similarly rich source of wisdom.

“Knowledge Is Good.”

37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him…

39For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40″He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”[h] 41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

42Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.

44Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. 46I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.

47″As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Who are “we”? Please read martinned’s comments re WHO report about twelve hours back. Women who believed they had gotten a “pinprick” turned out to have undergone substantial mutilation.

That is indeed horrific.

By “we”, I mean the American people and our policies and laws. I was never suggesting that we allow just anyone to call anything a “pinprick” regardless of what it actually is.

Anatid: Barb: I said that churches trying to condone homosexuality were not Biblical…someone else said: “but they are still Christian.”

Barb said, “By what definition? Following and believing Christ on the topic of marriage? Nope.

Anatid asks: Is marriage really that important compared to turning the other cheek, or letting he who is without sin cast the first stone? By your definition, you’re not Christian either. You’re trying to convince yourself that those stones in your hands are actually teddy bears.

The problem when Jesus protected the adulteress from stoning was that men who Jesus says have all lusted in their hearts and thus, also, committed adultery, were trying to stone an adulteress –so Jesus says he who is without sin could cast the first stone. And then told the woman to “go and sin no more.”

What we have today is different. People are saying that sin is not sin–that we can all do whatever we want and anyone who disagrees is judgmental and unloving. Jesus said marriage of man to woman was God’s plan since creation of man and woman. He said God hates divorce because it promotes adultery. The Bible says men should stay with the “wife of your youth” and not cast her aside for a younger model–or a young man.

I’m not judging anyone to say these things; I don’t know how any of you live, for example, that I could “judge” you –but I hear what you say and I’m telling you what the Bible says–whether or not you know it already–and yes, I’m “preachin’” –or “telling forth the Word of God –from the Scriptures.” That’s not judging. I’m not trying to throw any kind of stones at anyone. But homosexuals and their defenders, abortionists and their defenders, consider it “stoning” to have someone proclaim the Bible’s view on sexuality and marriage and life in the womb. It’s not stoning. I’m not wishing anyone to be punished or suffer damnation –but if the Bible is true, we ALL need to repent for sin –and need to agree with God about what IS sin and what is not. We can’t make up our own definitions.

WEll, actually, we DO try to define sin for ourselves –and the latest definition of sin is: intolerance of sin and naming sins –yet, the Bible names sins and is intolerant of sin. Nowhere did Jesus Christ condone immorality or suggest it doesn’t matter. He just said none of us is more sinless than any other that we don’t need to repent. “All we like sheep have gone astray, every one unto his own way.” “There is none righteous, no not one.” “All have sinned and come short of God’s glory.”

Jesus tells us not to bother the sinner about the mote in his eye until we’ve removed the beam from our own eyes. THEN, he says we can help with the mote in another’s eye. He saw that the Pharisees were uncompassionate, arrogant, and sinners in their hearts–devoid of humility about themselves and compassion for others. He stresses over and over that we are all sinners in need of repentance and salvation–and He gives it freely for trusting and following Him.

Bleh: Romans 2:1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Aha! But i don’t do the very same things, do i.

Yes, Paul tells us not to condemn one another –Jesus said he didn’t “condemn” the adulteress –but he told her then to “go and sin no more.” So “judging” doesn’t mean what we commonly think it to mean It is not wrong to teach right vs. wrong –to proclaim what God will judge –that’s what the prophets of old did. jesus was put on the cross for a reason for which he was unpopular. Judging is a condemning attitude of one sinner toward another –especially repugnant when the finger-pointer is doing the same sins. Proclaiming the Bible’s standards of right and wrong is education.

Elliot: Biblical? The bible means whatever folks say it means.

You living biblicalist, you.

AnonyMouse: Either way, you have no place at the adult table

Ur funny.

“By what definition? Following and believing Christ on the topic of marriage? Nope.”

There is no commonly accepted definition of a Christian. Each sect calling itself Christian has a definition designed to exclude some or all of the other sects calling themselves Christian. Given that situation, I simply accept self-identification.

Biblical? The bible means whatever folks say it means.

ShelbyC: “I have no idea.”

There is the first reasonable thing you’ve in this thread. Your replies in this thread clearly indicate that either:

1.) You are a troll

2.) You can’t understand basic aspects of the human condition to a point where your ability to perceive reality should be called into question. If this is the case, you don’t need the Volokh wesbsite, you need a therapist.

Either way, you have no place at the adult table.

Barb: I said that churches trying to condone homosexuality were not Biblical.
By what definition? Following and believing Christ on the topic of marriage? Nope.

Is marriage really that important compared to turning the other cheek, or letting he who is without sin cast the first stone? By your definition, you’re not Christian either. You’re trying to convince yourself that those stones in your hands are actually teddy bears.

You think we cannot distinguish the difference between a pinprick that draws a single drop of blood and permanent removal of tissue?

Who are “we”? Please read martinned’s comments re WHO report about twelve hours back. Women who believed they had gotten a “pinprick” turned out to have undergone substantial mutilation.

Anatid: Barb:
A little tough love.

That’s tough, but it’s not love. Just sayin’.

It’s love for the kids!!! Just sayin’.

Elliot: Perhaps. But they are still Christian.

By what definition? Following and believing Christ on the topic of marriage? Nope.

Barb:
A little tough love.

That’s tough, but it’s not love. Just sayin’.

ptt: In retrospect I would rather have had a nick to my glans at age six than removal of my foreskin at birth.Of course, I would have preferred neither, but the nick would be my second choice by a long shot.One thing that’s not mentioned is that some, not all, not even most, of the societies which practice FGM do horrific things to their boys’ genitalia as well, usually even later in life, closer to puberty.What they do does not have the same consequences in regard to destroying sexual pleasure, but given a choice between the full procedure and a pinprick, I can’t imagine any boy choosing the former.

Perhaps you should experience both now as an adult so you can compare the pain of each and be the resident authority on the topic.

It is ridiculous to accommodate this vile cultural custom with a surgical “nick” in what another woman described here as a part of the female anatomy no bigger than a pea. A nick in a pea is a pretty big injury and scar –no stitches possible, i’m thinking. Regardless, it’s just insane to even consider accommodating a practice so vile and with such vile intention –to force women’s chastity by mutilation. We need to bring the Somalians into civilization and point out that
“Allah does not command this ritual in Mohammad’s book (I believe) and that it is considered barbaric and inhumane to do this to our daughters in America. It will not be allowed. Do not take them out of country to do it and expect us to let you back in if we find out that you have abused your daughter sexually in this manner.” If you do it here or overseas, your child will be placed in protective custody. This part of your culture is not to be practiced here.”

A little tough love.

However, it is more likely that this policy would not protect girls it would simply allow full female genital mutilation to occur in the United States under the cover of being a “ritual nick”.

You think we cannot distinguish the difference between a pinprick that draws a single drop of blood and permanent removal of tissue?

You can have your son (or yourself) circumcised at any age.

Indeed. I misspoke. All the same, I suspect that circumcisions performed on 6-year-old boys are vanishingly rare. FGM, er, FGC on 6-year-old girls, OTOH …

Michelle Dulak Thomson: ShelbyC,I have no idea. But don’t we allow “little nicks” on 6-yo boy’s penises?I think not. Circumcision happens much earlier than that.

Uh, do you think circumcision becomes illegal after eight days? You can have your son (or yourself) circumcised at any age.

I am sorry that I’ve made you waste your time. Indeed I am.

All the same, when you post something like

Also, up until the 50s, FGM was used in this country to “cure” masturbation, lesbianism, and other “mental disorders”,

you might expect someone to want particulars. I was not especially surprised to find them not forthcoming.

To answer your question, obviously they are not the same thing. Why would anyone confuse the removal of sexual organs in one gender in order to cure homosexuality with the removal of sexual organs in another gender in order to cure homosexuality? The differences are so extreme, it’s utterly laughable to even consider the former having any bearing on the latter, especially since American medicine and American culture have always so considerate towards lesbians and women in general and doctors never ever have any crackpot ideas that they’re willing to inflict on the “mentally ill” and politically powerless.

I have no idea. But don’t we allow “little nicks” on 6-yo boy’s penises?

I think not. Circumcision happens much earlier than that.

ptt: One thing that’s not mentioned is that some, not all, not even most, of the societies which practice FGM do horrific things to their boys’ genitalia as well, usually even later in life, closer to puberty. What they do does not have the same consequences in regard to destroying sexual pleasure, but given a choice between the full procedure and a pinprick, I can’t imagine any boy choosing the former

Yeah I had a friend from Gabon recount to me her experience seeing a cousin get circumcised, and it sounded pretty bad.

So what you’re saying is that there was some clinic somewhere that claimed to cure lesbianism via clitoridectomy, only you can’t find the reference, so here’s a bunch of cites showing that castration has been used as a “cure” for male homosexuality, and that’s obviously the same thing as FGM prescribed as a cure for lesbianism.

Michelle Dulak Thomson: Would you think a “little nick” on a six-year-old boy’s penis “perfectly benign”? Would the boy think so?

I have no idea. But don’t we allow “little nicks” on 6-yo boy’s penises?

One thing that’s not mentioned is that some, not all, not even most, of the societies which practice FGM do horrific things to their boys’ genitalia as well, usually even later in life, closer to puberty. What they do does not have the same consequences in regard to destroying sexual pleasure, but given a choice between the full procedure and a pinprick, I can’t imagine any boy choosing the former.

Duracomm: I notice ptt was not able to provide the cite you asked for.

Look, one tool to another, I lost the link to an article about a clinic that performed full clitorectomies on lesbians. I wasted half an hour looking for it and provided the links I did and went off to a meeting. If providing MORE evidence than requested makes me a tool, fine. And excuse the heck out of me that everyone hasn’t gone and digitized the medical literature for the last hundred years for you.

Interesting that what he cites in support of his position would be criminal malpractice today.

Uh… DUH. Unacceptable now, acceptable then. That was sort of my point.

And that he has to go back almost 120 years (1893) to obtain some of those cites.

I left the earlier ones in there on purpose to show how long the practices had been going on.

Michelle Dulak Thomson: Actually, the thing I found most interesting is that practically all of his cites involved castrating men, not FGM. There was one reference to “curing” lesbianism, but it involved a drug rather than “cutting.”

See my notes above.

Memo to ptt: Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims in her latest book (citing UN stats) that something like 98% of Somali women and 97% of Egyptian women have been mutilated in this way. I don’t think anything you can find in US history is remotely comparable.

I never said that anything remotely comparable was done here. Those subjected to mutilation in this country were the misfits and the insane.

Clayton E. Cramer: Reading threads like this convinces me that homosexuality is incompatible with civilization.

Yeah, it’s not like this whole issue isn’t about twisted heterosexual ideas about virginity, shame, sex, and fidelity. (Note the high overlap between these jerks and things YOU think are important.)

Clayton E. Cramer: Note that those defending this ritualized FGM–or at least using it to attack decadent Western culture–are overwhelmingly men, and many of them are homosexuals.

Yeah, we’re used to settling for what makes things better though far from perfect. We’re more practical. If allowing a practice that we find unpleasant protects even one girl from having her sexuality destroyed, I’ll go for it. Sexual autonomy, sexual freedom, sexual fulfillment is our area, as you so deridingly point out all the time. Social conformity, respect for social norms, respect for religious traditions, respect for parental authority even when it is harmful… those are all YOUR ideals.

These barbarians are YOUR allies, Clayton, not mine.

Depends, of course, on how you define benign. I just haven’t yet figured out a way to define it in a way that includes for[e]skin removal and ear piercing, but excludes a little nick that heals without doing perm[a]n[e]nt damage.

Would you think a “little nick” on a six-year-old boy’s penis “perfectly benign”? Would the boy think so?