The Holy Post just published A new gospel for Wall Street. It starts with the following:

Pope Benedict, whose official pronouncments mostly cover matters or religious faith and sexual behaviour, is about to weigh in on the ills of the economy.

In Charity in Truth, which should be released next week, he is expected to point out the failings of capitalism and lament the world’s roiling markets, exploited workers and the harsh disparity between rich and the poor.

In this article we have the following:

Pope Benedict has been concerned with growing secularism that puts Christian values outside the prevailing societal values, said Father Thomas Rausch, a Jesuit priest and theology professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.

Please go post a comment on the blog if you feel it appropriate.  Here’s what I just added:

I’m so confused.  I thought secularism was evil because it led society to godless communism.  Now it’s wrong because it leads to evangelical christian religious-right backed ultra capitalism.  Does the Pope know what secularism actually is beyond a convenient scapegoat for any target he’d like to bring down?

Lately the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been approaching me to send out atheist representatives to various “Does God Exist?” panel events they’ve been organizing with representatives of different faith groups.  We’ve done 3 or 4 of these now.

Most recently I appointed a spokesperson by the name of Phil Chin to represent us at one such event in Thornhill.  Trusted sources tell me he did a great job.  The only reason I’m choosing to report it here was because it resulted in the most egregiously biased bit of reporting I’ve ever experienced.  Namely, Chin was quoted entirely out of context.  When he was in fact quoting from another source so that he could then dismantle it, they reported him as himself saying those words.  Decide for yourself.  Does any of this sound suspicous:

Phillip Chin, offering an atheist perspective, could not speak of God in a way he was expected as a panellist. “I would have to be God myself. His glory is too great to come into anything close to his existence. This is an awesome glory of God. I don’t have a clue as to what he is. We only say God to describe him but there is nothing in this world that is as great as him. A thing we could describe but a God we can’t,” Chin submitted.

Granted the paper in question - the Indo Caribbean World - isn’t exactly being read coast to coast so I’m not quite as incensed as I would be if it were say the Globe and Mail.  In fact, accessing the story on their site is rather painful.  You can find it though.  Just go to http://www.indocaribbeanworld.com/main.htm, then click on “archives” at the top, then click on “May 20, 2009″, then scroll to the bottom and click on “Greater Toronto”.  Simple.

But even granting the fact that this pathetic excuse for a newspaper is unlikely to have working for them investigative reporters likely to earn any Pulitzer Prizes, does anyone truly believe this was an honest mistake?

A really terrific and rare editorial in the Alliston Herald called “Who’s Fighting for Men’s Rights” by divorcee turned father’s and men’s right activist Paulette MacDonald.  No, I didn’t get that wrong.  Not Paul - but Paulette.  How refreshing to see that some women who have been through the divorce system in our country understand how biased and sexist it truly is.  As she summarizes her experience:

My first trip to the lawyer after getting separated was like a trip to a first class financial buffet. Behind closed doors the plan was laid out at my fee. On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking.

A woman seeking a vendetta against her husband could financially and emotionally ruin him completely, in her opinion.  Ms. MacDonald goes further, stating:

This family law system is a joke. It should have been called the Flawed Family Law System. In my opinion, this is a predatory system in which women use the divorce laws as a legalized vehicle for harassment against men.

This true equalist actually took it upon herself to get involved in men’s activism.

I have been in touch with several men’s groups in Canada and I am a proud member of Fathers 4 Justice Canada. I have read literally hundreds of e-mails from men reaching their hands out of the gutters of life to simply come up to a living standard that you and your other female activists would call hell on earth.

We see men all the time unable to stop themselves from shifting any men’s issue back to women in the belief that protecting women - even at their own expense - is a form of progress, when in fact it’s just another form of the sort of chivalry that has characterized our species since it first emerged.

I mention Male Genital Mutilation, and I’m told any focus on men seeks to legitimize Female Genital Mutilation, which is orders of magnitude worse (I suppose I am naive to think ANY unnecessary brutalization of an infant ought to be opposed with vigour).  I mention violence against men, and I’m told we can’t setup shelters for abused men until ever single abused women has a place to go.  I mention increasing funding to prostate cancer and in response men demand proof that prostate cancer really requires the level of funding of women’s health issues like breast cancer.

But this woman - Paulette MacDonald - takes the very opposite approach.  A female men’s right advocate.  From various facebook discussions I have started I know she’s not the only one.  All I can say is thank you for “getting it”:

I am not here to wave the female activists’ banner, because much to their dismay I cannot in good conscience refer to myself as “the victim”.

This article - and several others in the broad domain of men’s issues - will be discussed in the new news segment on the Pendulum Effect podcast episode to be released this Friday.

A recent development in the burgeoning field of transgenic engineering as reported in the New York Times Editorial Gene by Gene:

Over the years, scientists have developed many strains of genetically modified mice, many of which incorporate human versions of similar mouse genes. But there is something different in a recent experiment performed at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Scientists there have created a strain of mouse that contains the human variant of a gene, called FOXP2, associated with several critical tasks, including the human capacity for language.

Despite the yuck factor that might come to the mind of certain people, these sorts of experiments will assist us in understanding just how we differ from species as different as mice and primates, and the intricacies of complex human functions like language.

For example, as a blog in Science Blogs describes the story:

In their basal ganglia, the mice with the humanised gene had neurons with longer outgrowths (dendrites) and were better able to strengthen or weaken the connections between them. This process, called synaptic plasticity, is vital for learning and long-term memory. In contrast, mice that lacked a copy of Foxp2 were more exploratory, had higher levels of dopamine and had basal ganglia that were full of neurons with shorter dendrites and poorer synaptic plasticity.

This is helping scientists understand the important role of the basal ganglia region of the brain in particular in guiding the function of language, an awareness which connects with our understanding of the way humans process words

Humans with lower levels of dopamine in the basal ganglia process the sounds of language faster and more accurately and our ability to understand the meaning of words depends on the activity of the basal ganglia’s neurons.

All this reminds me of the book I’m currently reading Your Inner Fish (by Neil Shubin) about just how much we have in common - even and especially at the genetic level - with everything from fish to sharks to birds.  Natural selection rarely invents anything thoroughly new.

The last time I was on the Michael Coren Show last Thursday was utterly unpleasant.  I had been sick for two straight weeks leading up to the week preceding the show with the worst flu I ever recall experiencing.   It probably wasn’t swine but the symptoms were more or less as bad (except for death, which, much to the chagrin of some of my critics, didn’t take place).  Then, having thought the flu was long behind me, I woke up the morning of the recording to find all the symptoms having returned for one last round.  Bad sign.

Nevertheless, I did my usual pre-show routine of researching the various topics to be discussed.  These included Obama’s speech in Cairo, Bill 44 parental choice in Alberta, the lack of useful sex ed instruction for teens, Ignatieff’s instructions to his MPs to go forth and multiply (the religious vote), three new resignations from the Order of Canada, an editorial about abortion and abortion doctor assassinations, and last but certainly not least, my most recent entry in the Holy Post on Atheist Teens  Lead the Way.

A lot of good issues to tackle, but sadly we never strayed from the very first and ended up focusing an hour on debating the minutia of Obama’s speech.  Was it too theological?  Was it too accommodating?  Was it too pro-Palestinian?  I do have a few criticisms of the speech myself and I’d be remiss not to mention them here.

Firstly, I could have done without the several references to the Koran:

1. As the holy Quran tells us: “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.”
2. The holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as it if has killed all mankind.
3. And the holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
4. The holy Quran tells us: “Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

I could have done without the “theistic club” lovefest routine that seems to forget about the existence of non-believers when they are too inconvenient (as they certainly were at that moment).

… let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

not to mention references to all of us as “god’s children”, and the ending was particularly annoying in this respect:

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The holy Bible tells us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you. Thank you very much.

But, truth be told, one can hardly expect the sort of atheist-embracing speeches Obama made on inauguration day and then even  more so later during the National Prayer Breakfast (when he acknowledged non-believer morality) in the middle of one of the oldest centres for Islam.  So I wasn’t about to harp on any of these rather trivial issues on the show.  Though they might have fit in rather well.

Rather, I was prepared to divide our time as we usually do on several issues of equal importance.  I even tried to remind Coren during the commercial break that his favourite subject - abortion - was on the agenda, but he refused to budge (had it been an attack on the Pope or another chance to charge Hitler with atheism things might have been different).

I especially wanted to deal with the issue regarding the Liberals wooing the religious vote:

“It’s important to recognize that religious people, believers, exist in our community…. They serve generously, motivated by their religious faith. They give generously and they are citizens and taxpayers,” Archbishop Collins said recently. “People of faith have earned a place at the table by their devoted service…. They walk the talk and therefore it would be very odd indeed if their values, which motivate them to do so much good, are marginalized.”

Marginalized?  Does the government really not support religion and culture in this country? How about:

Government of Canada announces support for Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

The projects were announced today by Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney and Minister of State (Status of Women) Helena Guergis. They are being coordinated by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada will provide $441,000 for a project called “MY CANADA.” It gives Muslim youth across Canada the opportunity to participate in activities such as multi-faith sessions for Muslim and non-Muslim youth in schools and community centres to teach peace building and inter-cultural dialogue and conflict resolution skills. It also encourages integration and active participation in Canadian society.  Status of Women Canada will provide $314,000 for a project called “Being a Canadian Muslim Woman in the 21st Century.” It will focus on equipping young Muslim women to lead and participate in a number of workshops with their educators and non-Muslim and male peers to discuss discrimination, violence and human rights.

or

Citizenship and immigration Canada Multiculturalism Programs:  The Government of Canada is committed to reaching out to Canadians and newcomers and is developing lasting relationships with ethnic and religious communities in Canada. It encourages these communities to participate fully in society by enhancing their level of economic, social, and cultural integration. CIC’s Multiculturalism Program draws its mandate from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988).   Priority one:  1.  Ethno-cultural/racial minorities participate in public decision-making (civic participation)…

I couldn’t find exact figures for financial investment on the website but this doesn’t sound trivial.  And that’s all on top of the usual charity write offs and property tax savings that religious organizations have access to.  What Collins wants is special privileges not accorded those of secular institutes to some sort of governmental inner circle that no other special interest group gets (well maybe one other special interest group).

And finally as to the article George Jonas: Where killers and abortionists meet, it’s just as well we didn’t get to it because while I have some strong concerns about the general tone of the editorial, I can’t help enjoying this part which has the rare courage to point to the elephant in the room with respect to the abortion debate - DAD:

We consider the ancient Spartan model barbaric, for instance, although in some ways it was much like ours. Spartans, too, regarded letting children live or die a private choice, although they did involve father in the decision, not only mother,

…

Living in an epoch that is selfish as well as matriarchal, our lifeboats are no longer marked “women and children first,” only “women first.” We invent euphemisms, such as “choice” for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia’s quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment — least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite.

Some put the question in terms of a woman’s right to control her own body. That would be valid enough in the realm of smoking, diet, liposuction or sex — but abortion? Abortion means controlling someone else’s body. Incidentally, I realize that as a man I have no authority to speak on the matter, but I’m not speaking as a man. I wouldn’t dare. I’m speaking strictly as an ex-fetus.   (emphasis mine)

“there are a lot of things that just weren’t addressed.  For instance rates of suicide of people 20-24… men have a 7 times higher rate of suicide, and that’s something that not only most people wouldn’t know it, it’s not addressed”
- Steve Saltarelli, leader of Men in Power, University of Chicago

With unemployment hitting men significantly worse than women in this economic time, and with the gender gap for bachelor and master degrees strongly skewed now in favour of women, not to mention all the other topics we explore on this show, many are starting to ask whether it isn’t time for some male empowerment on campus. and student leaders are beginning  to respond. On a future episode we’ll interview a leader from the new Men’s collective at Brandon College in Manitoba, Canada which formed earlier in 2009.

Today I’m really excited to have on the show Steve Saltarelli.  Steve is a third year University of Chicago student who recently launched a group that is claiming increasing attention called provocatively Men in Power.  Stating at the outset that those seeking a group to advance men at the expense of women are in the wrong place, Men in Power’s mission includes:

- Addressing and raising awareness of the issues and challenges that contemporary men face in society today
- Assisting young men in the community confronting the challenges in their lives and instilling in them a positive view of the role of the male sex
- Reducing if not eliminating the existing antagonism of the two sexes through civil discourse

Is this terribly exist stuff?  You can learn more about them at www.meninpower.com or find them on facebook by searching under Men in Power.  You might also find them covered in the following press over the last couple of months:

The chicago maroon
The chicago tribune
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Fox news
National public radio
Good morning america

Contact: meninpowerchicago@gmail.com

Maroon:

http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/3/2/men-in-power

http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/5/19/mens-advocacy-group-holds-first-meeting-amidst-protest

http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/5/23/article-slanted-against-men-in-power

http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/6/2/men-in-power-reflects-larger-rights-movement

Trib:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-c-mens-groupmay19,0,4707353.story

The Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/6540/male-advocacy-student-group-at-u-of-chicago-stirs-debate

FOX News:
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5421149&referralPlaylistId=search|men%20in%20power

Fred Thompson Radio Show: http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=312&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MTQ3JnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzEyJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01

National Public Radio
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104779051

Good Morning America
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7714313

You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Justin Trottier  Circumcision is a barbaric human right violation. Global TV: “16X9 exposes a new side to circumcision this Sunday–www.global16X9.com”
Darren at 7:00pm June 5
Perhaps, but it does reduce the transmission of HIV. See the links and/or the second segment -
http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/the-reality-check/62-episodes/200-the-reality-check-29-the-nocebo-effect-circumcisionaids-chicken-eggs-myth

Justin Trottier at 7:07pm June 5
and should female genital mutilation be shown to impede the spread of HIV (I wonder if we would ever even consider doing such research), would society then be advocating for it, or is a person entitled to bodily autonomy rather than having their penis used as a means to society - or some other individuals’ - end?

Summer
Male circumcision is necessary when done for medical reasons. When its done for religious reasons, than it is barbaric & ignorant. I have never heard of female circumcision done for medical reasons, only for religious/cultural reasons. Therefore, I am against female circumcision until the day science proves that its necessary for medical reasons.

Darren at 7:24pm June 5
Necessity is a tricky one. I’ll just say I don’t equate the two procedures for various reasons and I think most comparisons are false (due to severity, purpose, result, etc)

Bob at 8:47am June 6
I think that what Summer is saying (and I agree) is that you can equate the two if you’re talking about a religious or cultural reason for doing it. When the concept of male circumcision was first introduced, the health benefits were not known therefore it IS a barbaric ritual.

When you take away the ritual part of it, there are still questions as to the morality of doing it to babies however, the reasons for doing so are far more understandable therefore the barbarism simply isn’t there.

I equate the two in the first scenario and think they are completely different in the second…. Read More

There’s my .02 but in these tough times, I’ll charge you a quarter!

Justin at 9:44am June 6
Many parents are performing this act for reasons of aesthetics, religion, cultural norms, etc, and not considering the medical points, so I submit that in a large percentage of cases it is barbaric.

I’m not convinced by the medical arguments (especially their relevance in north america). We don’t prescribe vaccines until they’ve gone through rigorous testing and been shown to be more effective than alternatives that do not have side effects (in this case harming a man’s ability to fully enjoy his sexuality AND the drama to the infant). Until such has been shown to be the case here there should be a moratorium on the practice.

Perhaps in an effort to justify male genital mutilation we’ve funded the sort of research we’d never think to fund in the case of female genital mutilation. The latter we somehow realize is fundamentally immoral and can in no way be legitimized….

As to Darren’s point, I’m not convinced the percentage of the genital brutally removed defeats the comparison.

Darren at 9:47am June 6
I still think there are two separate, but related, issues: (1) The reasons for the action itself; and (2) the act itself.
The reasons for male circumcisions and FGM are nearly always completely different. This does not in itself justify either, but there are differences that should be part of the discussion; (2) The act itself- The severity and … Read Moreresulting of effects of FGM are so different from male circumcision that while they may both be along a continuum, I would not put them near each other.
Contrasting different cultural practices is useful to understand issues and the supposed reasons supplied for continuing such practices, but each of FGM and MC should be evaluated for what they are.

Somewhat relatedly, while replying to this I ended up thinking about other ‘harmful acts’ that parents inflict upon their children such as ear piercings, bad haircuts and forced involvement in numerous activities. I’m not saying any of the above are related to the main topic(I’ve run out of room!

Justin Trottier
Justin Trottier at 9:53am June 6
Darren, there is major difference between the permanent and irrevocable damage of MGM and ear piercings, bad haircuts and other activities, all of which can - in principle - be undone by a child’s decision down the line. Also, can you be more precise about why you wouldn’t put MGM and FGM near each other by specifying in what quantifiable or … Read Morequalifiable sense they are different? And what are the different reasons for MGM and FGM?

You watch a video of a helpless infant being mutilated (and I’ll give you a link if you want) or attend the actual event and then tell me the practice isn’t abominable. Let’s not just philosophize in the dark. We’re talking about something committed against like half of all boys on this continent. The numbers alone - far, far higher than FGM - suggest we should give this matter far more consideration.

Bob  at 10:02am June 6
But as someone born and raised a religious jew, I have been to many brit milah’s (brisses) and it is a barbaric ritual where the baby is given wine and then mutilated. It’s much different from having a true medical procedure.

The claims have changed many times as to the health ramifications of removing the foreskin however, to my knowledge, the evidence that it has been proven healthy has been unchanged in many years.

Again, I would appreciate evidence to the contrary if it’s there. I hate to be under a wrong or misinformed impression…. Read More

Thanks again for an interesting topic and healthy debate!

Justin Trottier at 10:07am June 6
Well I think we’re all agreed that the jewish and likely other religious practices are an abomination. Period. The government should remove all funding to any jewish/muslim/etc communities (eg. their heavily publicly funded community centres) where such rituals are being practiced. I might recommend you boycott these brisses. I was raised a jew… Read More too and i would never set foot at one.

When you refer to the evidence that is has been proven healthy, what health benefits are you referring to?

We don’t condone medical practices except when they’ve been shown in repeated tests to be better than a placebo and better than alternatives with less or no side effects with respect to a well defined medical problem we wish to solve, and after years of study. Is that the case here? Or did we go looking for problems we could use circumcision to solve in an effort to justify an unjustifiable cultural practice? The process whereby MGM has been raised up as a health panacea is troubling.

Bob at 10:36am June 6
I haven’t been to a bris since my youngest nephew’s and I would love to boycott them however that would lead to a divorce and loss of contact with my entire family so it’s not a good idea in my case. I simply go when I have to and step into an outer room when the ritual takes place. I was asked to stand by the baby last time and I refused.

As … Read Morefar as the health benefits, I am not talking about the prevention of AIDS because I still can’t see how that is proven.

I have read quite a few reports (and unfortunately, I can’t cite them right now nor do I have time because I’m heading out shortly) on how circumcision prevents infections due to cleanliness and although I’ve never experienced an infection there nor do I know anyone who has, the thought of it is unpleasant to say the least.

Xander  at 10:54am June 6
(Tongue in Cheek) There is a continuum of types of female circumcision too. The proceedures range from a mere estetic trimming away of the outer libia - a practice comparable to the removal of the foreskin, to removal of the clitoris - comparable to removing the penis, and the intentional scoring and stitching of the flesh so almost the entire … Read Morevaginal opening is sealed over by scar tissue.
As for the health benefits as a medical proceedure, they are undeniable and the same as completely severing a penis: by making clandestine sex impossible it offers 100% protection against STDs.
(Tongue between teeth) The medical benefits to
sub-saharan african males who routinely use prostitutes is besides the point. We don’t let parents arbitrarily make permanent physical modifications to there children except for this one case that has been culturally grandfathered in. MGM should stop.

Xander  at 11:06am June 6
To elaborate on what I mean on permanent physical modifications, I mean having their teeth altered to look like shark teeth or the teeth of a vampire, which would be cool but also grounds for calling children’s aid. Or body tattoos or havign silicon inserted under the skin to creat the appearance of bone ridges or horns. If MGM is either so … Read Morepainless and harmless or has such great health benefits (the arguments seem to go both ways) then why not wait for children to reach an age where they are able to make the rational decision for themselves.
If there is doubt you could rationally convince a young man to cut off the tip of his penis at age 18 then it is immoral for you to inflict that on him as a helpless infant, end of story.

Jonathan at 11:09am June 6
I have a few points to make:
1) The health benefits and risks of male circumcision are analyzed and weighed on a regular basis by major medical bodies. Health Canada’s most recent judgement is that the benefits equal the risks and therefore they instruct doctors to not recommend the procedure, nor recommend against it (I looked this up a while ago).
For more on the health/risks see Harriet Hall’s article on it:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269
… Read More
2) I don’t think you should refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation. Mutilation is too strong a word to describe an act that apparently does not cause harm. Reports of reduced sexual pleasure is purely anecdotal. My personal anecdote is that I couldn’t imagine enjoying sex more than I already do. (I’m circumcised)

3) Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is not only inaccurate but it’s damaging to the perception of the true horror that is female circumcision.
Jonathan
I find it odd that you would find the science around the benefits of circumcision to be ‘unconvincing’. Do you know more than doctors with this issue? Without good evidence to back up a ‘going against the scientific consensus’ stance, you’ll end up looking like a crank with an axe to grind.

Here’s reporting (by a doctor) on another recent study showing the STD reducing benefits of male circumcision.
I’m sure you’ll pick up on this:
“they found that men reported decreased erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity”… Read More

But don’t forget to read:
“but increased satisfaction”

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=431

Justin at 11:24am June 6
Jonathan, your personal experience and anecdotes don’t constitute proof. “Mutilation is too strong a word to describe an act that apparently does not cause harm.” How can you justify such a statement. Male genital mutilation does cause harm. Watch the video: http://www.intact.ca/. The fact that you couldn’t imagine enjoying sex more is also … Read Morebaseless because you’ll never have the experience of having sex with a foreskin. Nor will I. Talk to the men who have trouble getting an erection cause they were mutilated.

Since when does benefits= risks mean we allow a procedure? If benefits=risks in any other medical area we advise against the procedure, don’t we? Again, we are ignoring the usual medical process in order to justify the unjustifiable.

I’m comparing MGM&FGM on the legitimate grounds that they both cause needless pain and should be abolished. I’m not arguing that one is more harmful than the other. Why do some advocates against FGM feel they need to defend MGM?

Jonathan  at 12:02pm June 6
I never said my anecdotes constitute proof. you seemed to have conveniently ignored the actual evidence I provided to back up my claims. I suppose it was a mistake to counter anecdotes with an anecdote.

Here’s the study showing that most men were satisfied with being circumcised:
http://bit.ly/IuDZG
… Read More
I find it highly unlikely you could find a similar study about FGM. You are not just equating male circumcision and FGM because “they both cause needless pain”. In that case, you should be talking about ear piercing, it’s far more common in this culture. You bring up FGM as a way to make MGM appear more horrific than it actually is, and I don’t think that helps this debate.

Now I don’t mean to argue that babies should be circumcised (you may have read it that way). I just wanted to make clear that it isn’t the obvious horror you make it out to be. I personally am still undecided whether my “future son” should be circumcised. I have equally heated debates with the other side.

Darren at 12:15pm June 6
Hello all, first off I just wanted to say that it is great that we have having an interesting discussion about important issues and we haven’t descended into name calling or other absurdities (but I do have it on good authority that Xander is a witch; try to drown him, you’ll see!)
In addition to my previous comments, I align with much of what Jon … Read Morehas stated. So, let me reiterate and be more specific.
1) MC without anesthetic and proper medical procedures should definitely be ceased.
2) The negative effects of MC, in my opinion, do not indicate it is clear MC should be prohibited because of the positive effects. In addition to the link Jon posted (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269), there is also this from Mayo - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040/NSECTIONGROUP=2
3) MC and FGM are so different that, again, I don’t think they should be seen as similar and also that the phrase MGM should not be used. Compare the pros and cons of MC with FGM (CONTINUED)

Darren  at 12:20pm June 6
CONTINUED from above:
3) Compare MC with FGM - http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=610
4) Note that I am not prescribing MC for everyone. I just do not think it is overtly clear that it should be banned (given the aforementioned/linked pros and cons)
5) As we all know the plural of anecdote isn’t data, this is a tricky one … Read Morebecause if we leave out anecdotal info, then all testimonials, from the people who love their circumcision to the people who are trying to reconstruct their foreskin are thrown out. Consequently, we have to go with current studies, which again do not clearly indicate a ban on MC, as well that one could tenable argue that MC and FGM are different.
6) Justin, I do agree that some of this research was likely done with sketchy motivations, but the data stand on their own. (and the samples in the HIV study were mostly older boys/men).

Jonathan at 12:35pm June 6
I would also like to add to Darren’s comments about anecdotes that anecdotes don’t help settle scientific questions (i.e. is MC harmful/helpful?). But anecdotes can help to inform one’s opinion. For example, my personal anecdote is that I don’t ‘feel’ mutilated, therefore it will be very hard to convince me that MC is ‘mutilation’. But I am open to… Read More the argument that it should not be done, because of other reasons (pain to the child, risk of infection etc.)

By labeling it mutilation, MC opponents are trying to bring out an emotional response of disgust, one that I just don’t share.

I’m personally more annoyed with being raised to believe in the lies of religion than with being circumcised.

Justin at 12:46pm June 6
Jon, by that logic we should insist that opponents of FGM not use the term mutilation since it risks invoking emotional arguments of disgust, but I see no one having trouble with that terminology (perhaps because disgust is a valid response!). In fact, it is often those opposing FGM who go out of their way to distinguish it in terminology from … Read Moremale genital mutilation by insisting the latter be termed circumcision, who have created this situation where one is seen as entirely different than the other. As I mentioned, there is this belief that any redirection on our concern onto the wellbeing of boys/men risks trivializing the plight of girls/women, but that is obviously part of a larger debate.

And the fact that you don’t “feel” mutilated is hardly proof that you’re not and by your own admission that feeling will prejudice you against admitting the truth should that be the case.

The not so neutral sociologist and sympathizer with all things religious, Dr. Reginald Bibby, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta.

The National Post has kindly run my third contribution to their Holy Post blog, which they’ve rather aptly (I hope) named “Atheist teens lead the way.”  The source for this submission was the obvious inconsistency within the research of sociologist Reginald Bibby whose tiring complaints that the downfall of religion in Canada would bring on anarchy due to his findings that non-believers rated as less important certain social virtues, is squarely at odds with his other findings showing Canadian teens (30% atheist/agnostic) performing remarkably maturely.

Give it a read at http://tinyurl.com/qx9vrf and I encouage you to post your comments.  There are a couple up already and they aren’t all terribly friendly.  As always, I welcome your ideas and arguments for future submissions.  So far they’ve accepted all the pieces I’ve sent so there seems to be considerable flexibility to examine a whole range of new topics.

I also thought it might be interesting to post the original article I had crafted on this topic, which the written Post passed on actually running, prompting me to update it and shorten it for use in the Holy Post blog.

University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald Bibby has tied the unprecedented rise of atheism and the fall in church attendance to the possible collapse of civil society…again. His research demonstrates that believers rate as more important forgiveness, patience and certain other values. Ironically Professor Bibby’s own book The Emerging Millennials draws on research undertaken for Project Teen Canada which found that by measures like alcohol and drug use, smoking or sex, teens – that demographic group witnessing the highest rise in non-belief from 12 to 32% since 1984 – are doing quite well. Teens now even value monogamous relationships. All this while just two out of ten are regular church-goers. [this was reported recently in a cover story in Macleans Magazine]

Could it be that actions speak louder than words? As unlikely as it sounds, is it possible that those polled do not live up to their own high standards? People should be judged by their actions, not by how they respond to survey questions. A person can claim to be any number of things. Televangelists, for example, would certainly score high on Professor Bibby’s test.

But those countries with the highest levels of atheism, notably in northern Europe, rate as some of the best places in the world to live in terms of the very metrics like care for the poor or the sick that Bibby himself values. Nor are Canadian jails filled exclusively with atheist sociopaths.

Since we live in a 21^st century multicultural and secular democracy, it’s curious that Professor Bibby chose exclusively biblical values on which to base his poll. Kindness, politeness and courtesy are important, but where on his list were values like social justice, equality, freedom of expression, accountability, encouragement of education, commitment to democracy and some of the other civic virtues that sustain contemporary society. Professor Bibby carefully crafted specific values to poll, not even bothering to ask respondents the magic question “what constitutes civic values.”

Furthermore, religious believers generally tend to be more dogmatic, especially when it comes to beliefs and values. It isn’t surprising then that upon hearing keywords, they might commit themselves totally to their significance, wishing to identify themselves strongly with their religious tradition. An atheist is a bit more hesitant and careful, perhaps considering examples where the value in question needs to be weighed against alternative competing interests or simply is not appropriate. Secular ethics are after all not about lists of rules but rather rational systems based on general principles like maximizing happiness, which might call for situational considerations.

Regarding the aftermath of a society devoid of a religious framework for its ethics, Bibby asks “do we have any functional alternatives in place?” But he seems to have answered his own question, stating elsewhere “beliefs need social support like fish and the rest of us need water.” If this is true, then it is not really beliefs that are important but a social framework to reinforce social values.

Perhaps as church membership fades, society should begin funding secular community groups who can fill the void in a way that ignores religious differences. Currently ethical groups can not gain charity status if they do not contain a theistic component. One can not simultaneously decry humanists for failing to build alternatives while continuing to bias our financial support to the religious communities alone.

Let us also not forget that many atheists do not need a building with a partisan logo on the front to engage in building strong communities. Many parents sit on school councils, many of us coach sports teams or form community groups at animal shelters, blood clinics or food banks, and in other countless ways atheists blend anonymously into the secular volunteer community. We could certainly do more but the fact is that atheists have always found ways to improve society while passing on civic virtues to the next generation. Reginald Bibby’s research simply hasn’t caught up.

Finally, this is the final paragraph of the piece submitted to the Holy Post which was removed for the sake of space (I hope).  I think it was a poignant conclusion.  The Holy Post editors have a tendency to remove my conclusions so I will have to ensure I respect their word count better in the future:

How ironic that the Lilly Endowment, concerned as they are with promoting education and Christianity, should be one of the primary funding organizations for research demonstrating that a rise in atheism seems to have nothing but a positive effect on our hopes for the future.

I recently attended the Welsh Lecture in Physics at the University of Toronto to hear speak Lyn Evans, the project leader of the Large Hadron Collider.  The talk description included the following:

These projects require the co-operation of the scientists and governments of many countries due to the spectacular budgets that are required. Consequently Evans’ work has taken him all over the world and he is a physicist of truly international repute. His brilliant career has been one of continuous progression and he is currently Leader of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Project with 2500 staff. The machine that he is responsible for has a 28-mile circumference, and is due to start experimentation in October 2009. The LHC will answer fundamental questions on the structure of matter and the Universe.

It was in reading that description and listening to Professor Evans speak, that it struck me again, as it does repeatedly, just how international science has become. Consider that the Large Hadron Collider - which some criticize for its excessive waste of money - is being built by over 1