Why religious circumcision?

Post Reply New Topic

Gosh, you're right. It was thinkinginpictures.

A public school in the UK isn't the same thing as in the US. In the US, it's a school for the general public, presumably run by the government. In the UK, it's a fee-paying school for the elite, and in spite of its name, it's a private school. Apparently those schools got their name because they were run by public subscription (don't know quite what that means), not because they were open to the public.

Anyway, the situation is likely rather mixed when it comes to teaching religion. For regular State-run ordinary schools, religion is probably still taught, but there's not supposed to be any attempt to indoctrinate the kids on the behalf of any particular religion. There's also a general assembly which I think by law has to have some kind of spiritual element, but again, these days it's not an indoctrination and it doesn't embrace any particular religion. And there's always been an opt-out for any parents who don't want their kids involved with it. I guess what with so many of the kids being from different religious backgrounds, they can't push Christianity.

I've no idea what happens in the fee-paying schools. And since Tony Blair's reign, there are "faith schools" which I know little about, except that I'm wary of them. There are also Muslim schools which presumably are for Muslims and presumably do indoctrinate, don't know how the funding works.

As for the head of state being the leader of the State church, AFAIK it's just a title and a bunch of ceremonies. It used to say "fid. def." on the coins, meaning "defender of the faith," but I've not seen her defending it, and it's hard to see how she'd do that. Immigrants who get themselves citizenship have to swear loyalty to her, but I don't think it means anything in practice.

That's the theory. In practice most infant / junior schools seem to have some sort of religious affiliation, and that's mostly to different Christian denominations (well, outside of big towns and cities, at least). So the most common choice will be between a CofE and Catholic school. And that's assuming you get any choice at all, as catchment areas also matter and property prices near popular schools are insane.

Secondary schools also tend to give more airtime to Christianity than anything else, even though in theory all major religions should be covered. Not sure whether they give any space for discussion on agnosticism or atheism, either.

Most R.E. teachers seem to be Christians, too.

So the public schools (using the widely held definition, not the British definition) are still religious.

Yes... and no.

It's really inconsistent. The primary schools are actually more happy clappy than the secondary ones, but it's still relatively subdued. So in a Christian primary school you might sing hymns in assembly and celebrate Easter and Christmas but the rest of the time religion isn't mentioned. It's not like it's dragged into every single lesson. Anyone trying to promote creationism here is still regarded as a weirdo.

And, of course, while most primary schools theoretically 'belong' to one religious group or another, in practice very often the choice of schools is more to do with geography than anything else. So a C of E school most definitely won't only have C of E kids in it. And the Teachers know this, and they won't all be Christians either, so nobody pushes their luck. And in more diverse areas you will find a more diverse choice of schools, some with fuzzier limits on religious standards than others. Parents know which are which.

I think the general principle has been to build primary schools to reflect the populations they serve. But that also reinforces the status quo and discourages open discourse, at least in theory. In practice many Christian schools are Christian in a very British, "weddings and funerals only" kinda way. We tick the boxes but don't actually pay that much attention to it. Ironically some of the non-Christian religious primary schools take it far more seriously and that's one of the reasons they're contentious. I suspect a Muslim kid would find it easier to fit into a Christian school than the other way around, though perhaps I'm simply exhibiting subconscious bias there? I do find it quite funny that the True British Way is - apparently - to pay just enough lip service to the Church to pass muster, but regard any deeper devotion as infinitely suspicious.

Secondary schools aren't generally associated with any religion, but do have R.E. classes that are often taught by Christians who don't necessarily devote equal time to all the major religions like they should. Social studies classes and assemblies may also get hijacked by agenda-driven religious Teachers, too. The extent to which they're dissuaded from trying to indoctrinate the kids varies wildly depending on the Head Teacher, PTA, Schools inspectors, the ethnic mix of the schoolkids, location etc. etc.

To the best of my knowledge A-levels and upwards are completely free from religion unless that's something you specifically choose to study.

Hymns in assembly sounds a bit weird to me but celebrating Christmas and Easter doesn't seem like much of a problem. They had heavily secularised versions of those in my school anyway. Christmas was largely focused on tinsel and non-religious Christmas carols like Jingle Bells. They would set up a Christmas tree by the reception desk. That sort of stuff.


I heard about some requirement in the UK for high school students to choose two different religions to study. I guess this is to ensure that at least one of the religions will be one that isn't theirs. I think studying someone else's religion is more like anthropology than indoctrination.

It seems the parents' wishes are quite a strong overriding factor in the schools that aren't labelled as faith schools, thanks to an opt-out clause somewhere. Indeed it's hard to see how the peace could be kept if it were otherwise, given the number of people in the UK who are strongly of persuasions other than Christianity. When my son was in primary school he asked me to talk to one of his teachers who was trying to force him to sing hymns. So I phoned her, she was obstructive, I was just winning the war of words when the headmaster intercepted my call to her and also talked as though he had no intention of moving, but magically they stopped applying the force.

The word on the street was that parents generally failed to get that headmaster to respond well to their complaints about anything, so I presume he only caved in because he knew he was sailing close to the wind legally and that I didn't look as if I was going to back down. It was a fight I hadn't wanted to enter into, and I didn't feel very confident about it at all, but I couldn't just sit by and let them bully my son. I looked into exempting him from their religious stuff completely, but I couldn't get his mother's support so I reluctantly dropped the idea, as I could find no information on what happens when one parent wants to apply the opt-out and the other doesn't. His mother was secular, but somewhat authoritarian and even less keen than I was on openly rocking official boats. I was surprised at the views of those around me. Although they were secular, they felt that religious instruction helped to teach kids right from wrong, which I thought was ironic considering the bullying my son had experienced in the name of religion and pointless control freakery.

Only about one in three primary schools are religious schools, which is still too high but it’s not the most common experience. I went to a C of E primary alongside a fairly large population of Muslims and Sikhs - I only remember one parent pulling their child from the more religious aspects.

While my experience was by no means typical, attending a church school did solidify a Christian identity in me that stuck through most of my teenage years despite having non-religious parents. I think most of the kids weren’t affected the same way I was. I’m pretty sure parenting is generally a more important factor - I do remember having arguments about evolution with the more fundamentalist kids when I was nine or ten

I agree parenting is likely stronger than schooling. I had secular parents and the school's attempts to Christianise me ultimately failed. Nevertheless, even though the school wasn't very intense about it, I didn't have an easy time bucking its influence. For anybody with a religious parental upbringing AND religious schooling, I would think it extremely difficult - and painful - for them to choose for themselves. In a sense I wish it were illegal for parents to try to shape their children's religious views, but I don't see how it could be enforced, either in practice or in any socially-acceptable way. It's rather a conundrum that we want to stop parents from harming their kids but we hate the idea of interfering with parenting. And we don't know for sure that being religious is harmful overall. I'd say that it can't be good to fill a child's head with superstition, but it must be an amazing comfort to be convinced on a deep level that you're not going to die. Sometimes the truth really hurts and you wish you hadn't discovered it.

Religious circumcision? In ancient Hebrew religion the point of circumcision was to establish one's identity as being "cut away" or set aside as belonging to God. It set you apart from the pagan "dogs."

I'm sure that counted for something in the ancient world and was a requirement for Hebrew men. Christians believe that God sets us apart and establishes our identity, not our genetics, and the religious purpose of circumcision only applied to them rather than everyone. Circumcision is not unique to them and doubtfully even began with them, but it is definitely indicated as what God intended for his chosen people.

I like the idea of bearing a mark as being set aside from birth for a special purpose. My dad was trimmed, I was trimmed, and now both of my sons are trimmed. Besides that, it keeps you neat and clean and slightly reduces sensitivity. That means less dirt and bacteria and more stamina. And THAT means a more satisfied woman.

Religious or not, getting snipped is good for everyone. A trimmed p***s is a happy p***s.

Oh? Why say that if you are an atheist?

One downside of being Christian and knowing that heaven exists is the feeling of despair that in order to be fulfilled and escape this fallen creation you must first suffer death. I don't think it's reasonable to wait until you're dead to enjoy all that this world has to offer.

But on the other hand, if you KNEW that this is the only trip you get to take and then...darkness...nothing, what would you change about the way you live? Everything there is to achieve must be done in the 80 give or take years you have to live. Wouldn't you dare to make every second count?

Sometimes I wish I could live that way, just pretend that there's nothing, and make it all about living for now and realizing everything I ever wanted right here, right now. It doesn't exactly stop me from doing my best, but it's hard to have quite the same sense of urgency I see with people who have been extremely successful. Atheists aren't shackled with that burden. It's easier to be more optimistic.

Why not say it if I'm an atheist? I see no contradiction. If you do, what is it?

But on the other hand, if you KNEW that this is the only trip you get to take and then...darkness...nothing, what would you change about the way you live? Everything there is to achieve must be done in the 80 give or take years you have to live. Wouldn't you dare to make every second count?

Seems to me that my mortal life is indeed all I've got. All I can do is make myself as happy as I can until the game's over. Though I don't see the pursuit of happiness to be something that can necessarily be done directly. Often I feel great at times when I've done nothing to make it that way and can see no reason why I feel so good. Other times I don't know why I'm in a bad mood. I can only control how happy I am to a limited degree. I think one of the best feelings I get is when I'm pleasantly surprised how well something has turned out. I can no more plan for that to happen than I can tickle myself. There's also the social dimension - getting pleasure out of helping other people out - but that's no more easy to control than any other pursuit of happiness is. So ultimately I find myself doing what I can, but not to an obsessional level because that way ceases to work. I have to resign myself to knowing that I'm never going to eradicate every trace of pain from my life, that I can only do my best to stay reasonably comfortable. Of course giving up completely would be asking for pain, and probably impossible, because it's in our nature to solve our problems and to go for what makes us happy.

Sometimes I wish I could live that way, just pretend that there's nothing, and make it all about living for now and realizing everything I ever wanted right here, right now. It doesn't exactly stop me from doing my best, but it's hard to have quite the same sense of urgency I see with people who have been extremely successful. Atheists aren't shackled with that burden. It's easier to be more optimistic.

If by "success" you mean material gain, if I caught myself envying people like that, I'd just remind myself of the miserable look on the face of a "successful" person such as Alan Sugar or Rupert Murdoch, in photographs I've seen. Money is a great way of alleviating the pain and anxiety of poverty, but accumulating it beyond what's necessary to pay the bills and have a bit left over for a few nice toys, I think it becomes an unhealthy addiction and that there is quite a bit of truth in the adage that great material riches can't ultimately make a person happy.

If by "success" you mean happiness, it's rare I notice anybody happier than I, though of course it's hard to know what goes on in people's minds because of the social masking, stiff upper lips, fake smiling, or even outward exaggeration of how hard done by they are (sometimes having a good whinge can be a splendid tonic, so paradoxically a person who seems very bitter and negative can actually be feeling a lot better than they look, if they feel they've articulated their gripe effectively). And sometimes there's a sense of ease about a person, or I might meet somebody with Downs' Syndrome who exudes a simple joi-de-vivre that I've not known since I was a child, but if I do envy them at all it's not in a sad way, I find such kinds of happiness seem to rub off on me just by being with them. I don't know if it's more a product of nature than nurture or the other way round, but I think some people are just intrinsically more content than others. Some folks seem to have a knack of courting pain and worry, while to others, a bad deal that would send most of us into a crisis is like water on a duck's back.

Same thing with me. I had a tee shirt with a picture of the great musician Louis Jordan. The picture at the start of the below video. He recorded on the Aladdin label, so they photographed him in a turban levitating a sax. An older Black guy at a music festival LOVED it. So at least ONE person appreciated it the short time I had it before it just vanished in the laundry one day!

Yes thats because you cant submit minority, or shouldn't in general. Theyre still people with rights. But this is a case that actually affects a lot of children. Maybe though they dont think it's negative enough to the people. But Genital Mutilation on religious tribal tradition grounds is discouraged and warned against by the US in Africa. I suppose they opt for an educational approach.

I'm against GM and tradition as the truth. It's much more modern to have an uncut child, anyway.

People often don't realize that belief is not a choice. I dont believe im gonna fall in the river if i jump because the distance is too far just because it pleases my ego. I believe im gonna fall because it's the most likely and accurate possibility in sight and humans have done it before, filmed themselves and failed. Reality and admitting weakness isnt easy. It's not all positive things. Sometimes reality of life is scary. But we have to accept the truth.

Then again personally, as an atheist, I dont fear death. The mechanics of it aren't that scary and dont by a mile compare to going to hell or some life hardships as loss. Life can be boring, wearisome, repetitive. No matter where in the world ill be is just world. And the world is boring and annoying as f**k. Well, not as f**k, but yknow what i mean.

I dont feel sad about letting go of that delusion as much anymore. Yeah might be a sense of feeling support to know youve got someone even if hes totally nuts and hes got you, if you obey his command like a slave [slave master relationship is portrayed to have explained the relationship between god and human in christianity for example which i think is completely old defective thinking for our current advancement] because he can be there. But then you realize that you can make your life positive by focusing on what you have, because no one has that, they just think they do. The world is still there after all and despite that we only have humans and are the worst at connecting with them and having friends and support, there are things about the world that are cool. And there are things we can see without being influenced by religious traditional stuff that aren't actually scientific. So i would say, the world and its workings are clear to us. And we have each other, even though we are so rare. Thousands of people in churches, theres nobody meeting that i can talk with in rl about my beliefs and practice what i think is positive for me and the world. But i can listen to videos. I mean, who talks in churches anyway, not I, I wouldn't due to anxiety likely.

The idea that people have a choice whether or not to believe has always seemed plain wrong to me. I was never certain that the religion they were teaching me was the truth, and that idea of theirs, that I could only escape damnation or whatever by choosing to believe, caused me a lot of anxiety. If it had been that simple I'd have just done it and saved myself all that worry.

I agree that just going out like a candle isn't so bad. Ceasing to exist can be a scary thought, but really I'm more concerned these days with the quality of my death, and I just hope it's not a painful, drawn-out death, I hope I don't know much about it. At least I won't have to worry about hell. I've often thought that I wouldn't want to take away somebody's belief that they're going to heaven, especially if they knew they didn't have long to live, because if they'd become dependent on that then psychologically it could be very nasty for them, but I'd have no problem telling them they weren't going to hell. And I don't know how a superstitious person can be 100% confident that they've made the grade and will get to the Good Place. The entrance requirements are so open to interpretation. Compared with all that, just ceasing to exist, though not exactly pleasant, isn't so awful. It won't hurt.