FGM case in Atlanta

---

Nigeria is largely either Muslim or Roman Catholic. Besides, using the bible as a moral compass is questionable at best. Such ideas as treating your neighbour as you would yourself are good, but what about slavery? The bible condones that, but is agreeing with slavery (which is inherently interwined with racism) a good moral concept?

Using something other than the Bible, such as personal values, is disasterous at best. In order to remain viable, a compass must lay outside the will to alter. Seems to work these days as either you want to follow it or you don't care...either way, nobody is looking to change it.Slavery is a social-class issue...not a moral one. Treating a slave good or bad is just as important (according to the Bible) as treating anybody else good or bad. Seems in this regard that the Bible treats slaves as equals. We live in a society today that has deamed it unacceptable to have a social class defined as "slave". However, there are numerous classes of people that are worse off than slaves...at least a master is interested in maintaining the health and wellbeing of slaves he owns. I personally find slavery unacceptable...but I also find a lot of what we still have going on with other classes of folks (such as the homeless) unacceptable. How about you? I suppose I should add, for the sake of clarity, that the Bible is focussed on spiritual issues. This would seem to indicate that a person's social status is not an issue when it comes to the applicability of the Bible. I believe this to be true.

I wasn't arguing I was just stating a point.

>>>"Treating a slave good or bad is just as important (according to the Bible) as treating anybody else good or bad. Seems in this regard that the Bible treats slaves as equals."

So by that logic your saying god has no problem with me exerting my dominion over another individual and extinguishing his freedoms as long as I do it in a Christian manner.

This kind of logic, to me at least, does go along way in explaining the limiting and attempted limiting of freedoms we see today from the, largely, Evangelical right and the willingness of it's member to go along with such limitations of freedom.

In reply to:I personally find slavery unacceptable...but I also find a lot of what we still have going on with other classes of folks (such as the homeless) unacceptable. How about you?Now there's your individual moralities speaking out as well. Religion isn't the only moral compass, as our morals are defined by laws, other cultural aspects, and even our wellbeing in addition to personal morals and those we are brought up with since childhood.I also am against slavery. Today I read something, it's a weblog by an improv comedy actor and business owner who also has a great deal of insight into the plague of class distinctions, particularily pertaining to racism. It has many good articles on how the focus on such differences in individuals by placing them in groups, and your own perceived group, have a profound effect on your social and mental health. Well, that actually may be too much a summary of the most recent article, but I have yet to explore the whole weblog. The more general idea is specifically on the problems with white people's lack of perception for cultural differences, being primarily a majority in the areas where the greatest caucasian populations are situated, and current as well as previous class distinctions that adversely affect our world through our http://www.tadhargrave.blogspot.com/Before I get reminded of the glass house analogy again (not by you, but ClasyBlackWoman who accused me of being some what of a hypocrite), I can also safely say that this idea actually supported my point of not having economic disparities in that previous topic. Although it's not particularily relevant to the argument I was making before and I believe I'm making quite a flip from my lack of insight before.Now back to you, I also see placing yourself above another person or culture in status or otherwise to be wrong. The bible condones proper treatment of all individuals, but it still remains that it says you can have slaves - people who are considered inferior to yourself - to be forced to work for you and remain under your command. You can't treat them just as well as other individuals on your class level, because you've defined those differences in class that are such a rudimentary concept of slavery, therefore it would be a true paradox to say that you can treat a slave as good as anyone else. The bible is full of paradoxes though.

That's a twisted logic, OldFolks. My put is that the issue of slavery was not adressed in the Bible, and that it was not done so for a reason.Although I cannot prove it, it is my belief that the US abolished slavery because of its strong Christian morality...something more secular countries did not do until after the US has already done so. Just because it isn't directly addressed in the Bible does not mean it wasn't accounted for when the Bible was written. The US was the first Christian country created...what other possible motives were there in other countries that have existed ten times longer with slavery already? Then along comes the US and abolishes it in less than 100 years. Hmmm.

Actually, Armenia adopted Christianity around 306 AD.

"Religion isn't the only moral compass, as our morals are defined by laws, other cultural aspects, and even our wellbeing in addition to personal morals and those we are brought up with since childhood."I didn't say religion was the only moral compass...I said the Bible, apart from any religion and the will of others to change, is the only viable moral compass. What good is a compass if what it shows true-north to be can be altered by somebody who has a personal desire to do so (for whatever reason)?And, furthermore, it is our morals that ultimately define our laws and culture...not the other way around. Remember abolition? Didn't work, did it. That's because it was a law (OK, amendment) that did not accurately reflect the morals of the time. History has shown time and again that you cannot legislate morality. Laws made must reflect the morals of a given culture in order to be enforceable. Laws that are not are a joke at best. Smoking weed is another such law. Downscaled over time because the government realized that doing so was socially acceptable to a great enough degree that a strong law against it was unenforceable and did no good to change anything. Laws MUST reflect the morals of the greater majority or they don't function.

In reply to:And, furthermore, it is our morals that ultimately define our laws and culture...not the other way around.Actually, it's more of a two way thing really. The cultural environment we are brought up in influences what we believe is normal and rational. Abolition of slavery has influenced widespread beliefs greatly in the countries it has had an impact on. Belief of slavery in such countries as the United States has significantly declined since the time it was practiced. Can you not say that the law and cultural attitude had a profound influence on that shift in attitude?In a similar light, it's also true that laws need support from the population to function properly (and the ability to enforce them, but that's another topic). Weed is a good example, but it also proves my point. It may be practiced illegally because many people don't agree with it, but it's still condemned more than tobacco is. Wouldn't it make sense that that is because tobacco is legal and weed is not? So the law does influence what people believe is morally right and wrong.

> I personally find slavery unacceptable...but I also find a lot of what we still have going on with other classes of folks (such as the homeless) unacceptable.

But the bible is accepting of slavery. Slavery is discussed in the bible. Where does it say it's not?

Religion and culture both contain irrational beliefs, FGM among them, prostration before a leader (whether it be Kim Jong-Il, the Pope, an image of Mary in a piece of toast, or Jesus) another. If you ask a Sudanese person why he mutilated his daughter, he would say that his religion demanded it.

Are you going to be the arbiter of what "real" religious belief is?

> Although I cannot prove it, it is my belief that the US abolished slavery because of its strong Christian morality...something more secular countries did not do until after the US has already done so.

You are so very wrong here. You really need to review your history. While the white Southern Baptist folks who had slaves happily kept owning slaves, the practice had already been abolished in many other parts of the world (from [http://abolitions.free.fr/):

You think the the U.S. was less religious than France? Then read Alexis de Tocqueville.

People who think that religion makes people more moral are barking up the wrong tree. It may keep some gullible people from doing terrible things, but it also motivates people to fly jets into office towers.

Learn about the Enlightenment. It has a lot more to do with contemporary morality than the bible does. ][0]

[0]: http://abolitions.free.fr/):

"Slavery is discussed in the bible. Where does it say it's not?"LOL! Yeah...I can just imagine. "Slavery will not be discussed here." If the Bible actually listed all the things it didn't discuss it would be a huge book indeed.The Bible mentions slavery in several instances but this is nowhere near the same thing as discussing it.

The Bible mentions slavery in several instances......but it doesn't condemn it. Apparently God wasn't much of a visionary, or he would have told people not to use the citations of slavery as a justification for the instution. He would have also said that mutilating female genitalia is sinful. I guess he just never thought of those things.The U.S. will spend over a trillion dollars on a lost cause in Iraq. I wonder how much money and effort they're putting into fighting FGM in North Africa (not to mention genocide in Sudan). More information on FGM.

I pointed out your hipocracy when you claimed that Helms isn't for the advancement of gays. From what I read for your past posts, I would say that you aren't for the advancement of the indigenous peoples of Canada. As I recalled, you stereotyped them as being lazy and a drain on society. Doesn't that smell like hipocracy to you?By the way, if this thread turns into a religious debate, I'm locking it. It's okay to argue how religion plays into FGM, but I don't want us to get into why religion is the moral compass of our society (which it looks to be heading that way).

I don't think RobBob's hypocrisy, or lack therof, has a whole lot to do with FGM. If you exclude religion as a topic, though, then there's a lot less to talk about, since many, if not most, of the people who practice it justify it through their religious beliefs.I doubt that you're going to get a post from anyone who supports the practice. Rather than congratulating each other for being against something evil, what can we do about the practice?I'll bet very, very few cases wind up in U.S. courts. I'll bet it's more commonly practiced here than people think.

so, someone tell me the difference between cultural and religious beliefs... any one?there is no difference as they are both the creation AND victim of the collective consciousness. There have been numerous religious debates on this board wich is good. I've seen many debates between people of (suposedly) the same faith, wich is even better.Culture, faith, belief, religion... all creations of the human mind. If pure faith exsisted, why do cardinals debate the issues before a papal ellection? I'll never change anyone's mind about what they believe but as soon as anyone claims an absolute truth, they'd better be ready to answer questions In reply to: By the way, if this thread turns into a religious debate, I'm locking it how nice for you that you have the power to stifle the natural organic progression of a discussion about faith while god herself doesn't

I said that extra native rights are a costly expense to the system that are gained only by a select racial group and I considered that unfair. I also used far reaching stereotypes as a means of defending my point in a not so thoughtful way. It sometimes takes someone to point out your mistakes, in this case Oldfolks, to realize you made them. The difference between me and my contrasted poster is that I listened to what people replied with and replied accordingly rather than replying with "my skin is so thick it doesn't matter what someone on a forum says to me". Please don't tell me this isn't the case, I try to be as honest as I can be.Thor, what makes you think that religion is the only concrete set of morals we can have? Why can't an individual follow their own society's and cultures morals? What is so much better about the morals handed down from times long past than morals that are in a society that surrounds us in modern days?

> what makes you think that religion is the only concrete set of morals we can have?

Especially with so much evidence of moral progress pushed forward by the Enligtenment. Belief if magic, such as theistic religion, holds back a society's progress, including his moral progress.

If he is willing to present a cogent argument, preferably with something to back it up, I'm all ears. I expect, rather, an insult (something along the lines of "you just don't get it").

"so, someone tell me the difference between cultural and religious beliefs... any one?there is no difference as they are both the creation AND victim of the collective consciousness."Here's where our beliefs diverge. Many religious beliefs are based on the Bible instead of what you say here. If you consider that the Bible was God inspired, then there is more than simply men's ideas that are finding their way into that book. That makes it something more...which is why it can stand outside of the hands of man and serve as a moral compass and other, relative moralities can not.

Many religious beliefs are based on the Bible instead of what you say here. If you consider that the Bible was God inspired...Christians constitute less than 1/3 of the world's population, and the percentage is dropping. Of that 1/3, certainly not all of them accept that the bible is the literal word of God. Also (and somewhat unlike the Koran), the bible is not a law book. What's legal, and what constitutes acceptable behavior, are set by people. But even among people take their marching orders from the bible, there are numerous interpretations. There are disagreements over the meaning of modern legal documents; the bible wasn't even written in a modern language.And then there's the Muslim person who thinks his holy book is right, not yours; and there's the Hindu person who thinks his holy book is right, not yours; and there's you, who thinks your holy book is right, not theirs. And if you're fundamentalists, and certain in your interpretations, the only possible result is conflict.And what about the many people who believe that none of those books are the inspired word of a god? They don't seem to much matter to you.

I forgot to post the piece last night Thor, sorry. Here it is:MGM?The plight of Nigerian mother Pamela Izbekhai, a resident of Sligo arrested earlier this month for ignoring a deportation order, has raised the issue of Irelands refugee policy in relation to those fleeing Female Genital Mutilation. Before looking at the particulars of Ms Izbekhai’s situation, it would be interesting to turn the whole thing on its head and imagine this barbaric ‘tradition’ practiced in reverse:MGM; Male Genital Mutilation! A procedure whereby enough of the mans sexual organs are hacked off with a rusty blade to ensure that he will never experience sexual pleasure; that’s ok though, because enough are left to allow him procreate. A cultural rite of passage that all boys must go through before they can be deemed fit for marriage. Can you imagine it? Can’t you just picture the horrified faces of men from all corners of the earth at the mere thought of such a procedure? Such shock, such disgust, would surely provoke an understandable outcry on an international scale; and doubtless failsafe procedures would swiftly be rushed into place to stop this affront to humanity. Men just wouldn’t put up with such a thing. The societies in which FGM is practiced today are strongly patriarchal, in fact this practice could be said to be a direct by-product of a patriarchal society. Surely somewhere along the line Germaine Greer has had something to say on the subject; it would be most interesting to hear it.An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk of the procedure, this breaks down to approximately 6,000 per day. It is practised extensively in Africa (in 28 countries, no less) and is common in some countries in the Middle East. It also occurs, mainly among immigrant communities, in parts of Asia and the Pacific, North and Latin America and Europe. The procedure sometimes consists of clitoridectomy (where all, or part of, the external clitoris is removed), excision (removal of all, or part of, the labia minora), and cutting of the labia majora in such a way as to create raw surfaces, which are then stitched together in order to form a cover over the vagina when they heal. A small opening is left to allow menstrual blood escape.According to the World Health Organisation the ages of females violated in this way ranges from shortly after birth to sometime during the first pregnancy, but is most commonly preformed between the ages of four and eight. Sometimes girls will be told to sit in cold water beforehand, a paltry attempt at pain reduction. More commonly, however, no steps at all are taken to reduce the pain. The girl is immobilized, restrained by an adult or adults and her legs are forced and held open. Mutilation may be carried out using broken glass, a tin lid, scissors, a razor blade or basically any available cutting instrument. When the mutilation has taken place, thorns or stitches may be used to hold the two wounds of the lost labia majora together, and the legs may be bound closed, often for up to 40 days. Antiseptic powder may be applied, or, more usually, pastes - containing herbs, milk, eggs, ashes or even animal excrement - which is believed to facilitate healing.The effects of this procedure can lead to death. When it does not, the horror of genital mutilation doesn’t end with the healing of the wounds. During the procedure pain, shock, haemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur. Afterwards urine may be retained and serious infections often develop. [Use of the same instrument on several girls without sterilization can cause the spread of HIV. More commonly, the chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumours of the nerve which can result from clitoridectomy and excision cause discomfort and extreme pain. FGM can have even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, excessive scar tissue, keloids, which are raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars and dermoid cysts.] – Amnesty International.The psychological, psycho-sexual and emotional effects of Female Genital Mutilation are serious, and they are life lasting. The removal of the clitoris head seriously impairs the woman’s sexual pleasure; indeed one of the reasons put forth by advocates of the practice is that it discourages excessive masturbation and that a mutilated woman is far less likely to be unfaithful to her husband. The ritual is seen a sexual ‘cleansing’ of sorts and the words used to describe it are synonymous with that; ‘tahara’ in Egypt, ‘tahur’ in Sudan or ‘sili-ji’ among the Bambarra, an ethnic group in Mali. These words, in direct translation, mean purification, decontamination and cleansing. The mindset is obvious; if a mutilated woman is considered clean by way of her mutilated state then the unmutilated woman can only be dirty. In some FGM-practising societies unmutilated women are regarded so unclean as to be disallowed handle food and water. A Mrs Njeri, described as a defender of female genital mutilation in Kenya says: "Circumcision makes women clean, promotes virginity and chastity and guards young girls from sexual frustration by deadening their sexual appetite". The same Mrs Njeri is a woman who has undergone the procedure herself and doesn’t fully understand what has been done to her, in that she cannot know how much more responsive and enhanced her sense of sexual sensation would be had she not been mutilated in this way, it seems safe to assume.[First sexual intercourse can only take place after gradual and painful dilation of the opening left after mutilation. In some cases, cutting is necessary before intercourse can take place. In one study carried out in Sudan, 15% of women interviewed reported that cutting was necessary before penetration could be achieved. Some new wives are seriously damaged by unskilful cutting carried out by their husbands. A possible additional problem resulting from all types of female genital mutilation is that lasting damage to the genital area can increase the risk of HIV transmission during intercourse.During childbirth, existing scar tissue on excised women may tear. Infibulated women, whose genitals have been tightly closed, have to be cut to allow the baby to emerge. If no attendant is present to do this, perineal tears or obstructed labour can occur. After giving birth, women are often reinfibulated to make them "tight" for their husbands. The constant cutting and restitching of a women's genitals with each birth can result in tough scar tissue in the genital area.] – Amnesty InternationalThat women are expected to go through this sort of physical and mental torture in order to keep their vaginas ‘tight’ for their husbands is, thankfully, beyond the imagination of most western women. Apart from the obvious downside, there are far more psychological and emotional issues affecting these women than the damage to their sexual enjoyment and expression. Personal accounts of mutilation reveal feelings of deep anxiety, terror, humiliation and betrayal, all of which would be likely to have long-term negative effects in a mental and emotional sense. One brave victim of the barbaric procedure, Hannah Koroma of Sierra Leone, relives her experience:“I was genitally mutilated at the age of ten. I was told by my late grandmother that they were taking me down to the river to perform a certain ceremony, and afterwards I would be given a lot of food to eat. As an innocent child, I was led like a sheep to be slaughtered. Once I entered the secret bush, I was taken to a very dark room and undressed. I was blindfolded and stripped naked. I was then carried by two strong women to the site for the operation. I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg. Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper body from moving. A piece of cloth was forced in my mouth to stop me screaming. I was then shaved. When the operation began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable. During this fight, I was badly cut and lost blood. All those who took part in the operation were half-drunk with alcohol. Others were dancing and singing, and worst of all, had stripped naked. I was genitally mutilated with a blunt penknife. After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk. The stuff they put on my wound stank and was painful. These were terrible times for me. Each time I wanted to urinate, I was forced to stand upright. The urine would spread over the wound and would cause fresh pain all over again. Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain. I was not given any anaesthetic in the operation to reduce my pain, nor any antibiotics to fight against infection. Afterwards, I haemorrhaged and became anaemic. This was attributed to witchcraft. I suffered for a long time from acute vaginal infections.”To regard this simply as a method of controlling women’s sexuality and reproductive functions however, would be wrong; simply inaccurate. The act of mutilating women in this way is now so old as to have become a deeply embedded tradition and is accepted and even actively encouraged by many women themselves. It is culturally significant and besides that, the sense of shame connected with being unmutilated is so great in many cultures that women defend it and wouldn’t dream of having their daughters avoid the procedure. These points in no way condone it, but rather are useful in considering the reasons why this practice has survived as long as it has and why people, women in particular, could ever have come to accept it. Female genital mutilation is considered grounds for an asylum application, but Peter O’Mahonoy of the Irish Refugee Council contends that it is notoriously difficult to secure refugee status on those grounds alone. The flaw in the policy is as barbaric as the act of genital mutilation itself and it cannot be accepted that this is in any way an exaggeration or amplification of the facts. To refuse a woman fleeing FGM asylum is to condemn that woman and any female children she may have to that fate, not inadvertently, but directly.Ms Izbekhai was jailed in Mountjoy Prison earlier this month for ignoring a deportation order which would, she contends, have condemned her two young daughters (five and three) to this practice. She is reported to have broken down several times in court while explaining to the judge that she had gone into hiding because she feared the genital mutilation they would face if sent back to Africa. She said, after having explained this: “I am afraid for my children”. She was granted conditional release pending a challenge to the deportation order, but ordered to surrender herself to Gardai within one hour should she be refused leave to challenge that order. Most women who apply for asylum on those grounds would do so, I suspect, for the sake of their young daughters, rather than for themselves who most likely have already undergone the procedure. A doctor could confirm whether this was so in about two seconds flat (as could any woman, and most men with half a wit) and any mother of accompanying female children who is proven to have undergone this ‘surgery’ herself ought to be allowed automatic asylum. It is the only humane response to a situation which is inhumane by its very nature. On the subject of asylum seekers though, the laws of the land wherein a person resides must be the laws that person abides by and no special concessions should be made for people who break those laws based on their cultural background. Mutilating people is illegal in Ireland, thank God, and girls and women should not and must not be subjected to this barbaric treatment here, regardless where or what sort of cultural environment their parents hail from.