|
On the female circumcision point.
Religious tolerance?
I'm sorry, how many outdated, idiotic, downright stupid positions in society have been defended as being either 'an essential part of the fabric of our society' or 'our birthright and sacred duty, handed to us by God, as X book/prophet said'.
Tosh.
YOU can have any opinion YOU like, so long as you can logically justify it (IMHO) AND IT CAUSES NO SERIOUS HARM TO OTHERS.
Female circumcision is beyond pretty much any other religious/social status quo in terms of barbarity. I can't believe anyone would say that people should be allowed their own views on this.
Hey, I think stupid people should be executed. I think the excessively egotistical should be chemically castrated and sent to special prisons for reprogramming. Both sets of people poison the lives of those of us who are the next step in evolution, get rid of them.
Palatable? Mais non.
Should people tolerate this view? Even if i say an invisible lever pulling chap in the sky with a white beard and booming voice told me that this is the way to go? Mais fucking non.
Sometimes, in fact not even sometimes, everytime, people in the first world have the moral responsibility to stamp out the barbarism of other cultures.
If a lady hits puberty and decides they'd like their newly discovered and rather pleasurable clitoris to be crudely ripped from their anatomical make-up, then fine. they can, kinda, make that 'choice'. Past a certain point and age.
A baby certainly cannot.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
|