What do you do when the religion you believe in happens to believe in things you don't? In particular, when it endorses moral beliefs which you, simply, do not?
A recent example much in the news is San Francisco's proposed ban on ritual circumcision. You don't have to endorse abstract principles about bodily autonomy to feel uncomfortable with the obligation, as any Jewish or Muslim parent who has inflicted it upon his or her child knows. Or you might be quite passionately committed to your Catholicism and simply fail to share its equally passionate absolute restriction on abortion. Or you might be very devoted to your major western religion and just not accept its doctrinal condemnation of homosexuality.
Can you genuinely count yourself as a believer in that religion when you are inclined to reject some of its official beliefs?
There are three basic options. First, you can choose to give up the religion. Second, you can comply with the religion in practice while working on getting yourself to accept its uncomfortable doctrines. And third, you can comply with the religion while working from within on changing the religion itself. Each of these, however, has its virtues and vices.
The first strategy is of course chosen by many, who prefer to leave the religion rather than accept moral principles they find unacceptable. It reflects a kind of integrity, to be sure, but also a certain kind of arrogance, as if you know better than, well, God -- or if not God then the many smart and good people who have transmitted down the generations what they take to be God's word. You may be quite comfortable with your own intelligence and moral sensitivity, but if your religion was good enough for (say) Maimonides or St Thomas Aquinas, ought you really be so quick to give up on it?
The second strategy, in turn, does reflect some humility, insofar as it accepts the possibility that the moral truth might lie in the tradition after all, despite its poor fit with your own no doubt imperfect sensibilities. But for many this strategy just doesn't work. There are many powerful contemporary arguments to be made to permit abortions in some or many instances, for example, or to endorse universal gay rights, and so on. When you bring these arguments to bear against a moral belief whose source may be a mere assertion without argument in an ancient scripture, it is awfully hard -- and not clearly admirable -- to side with the belief rather than with the arguments.
And, indeed, it is impossible to deny that whatever the ultimate origin of the problematic belief, both it and the scripture asserting it have come down to the present day through a long line of human intermediaries -- each of whom is quite fallible in all the usual ways, ranging from the venial (prone to mistakes) to the truly awful (corrupt, deceitful, power-hungry, etc). This leads directly to the third strategy: once you recognize that religious doctrines and scriptures are ultimately in the hands of human beings, then you realize that they may well be malleable in all sorts of ways.
You don't need to be a scholar to see how religions change and evolve. How many different forms or denominations of Judaism are there today, or of Christianity, or of Islam? These evolve for many different reasons -- often over disagreements on doctrine -- but the point is simply that they evolve. You might in fact need to be a scholar to fully appreciate that ancient forms of each of these religions bear surprisingly little resemblance to the diverse assortment of contemporary forms, but the point is the same: religions change and evolve. They change and evolve when the human beings who espouse them drive those changes. And such human beings could well include you, with your dissonant moral beliefs.
There is, of course, an enormous peril here.
The moment you accept that you may be the driving force for the doctrinal change in your religion is the moment you accept that the official doctrine might not be correct, that it might not be divinely ordained, and so on. It is the moment you accept that nothing, strictly speaking, is actually sacred in the religion's doctrines: if it can err about your issue it can err about any and all others. If you care deeply about your religion, if you believe its authority must ultimately and absolutely derive from God, then this is a very dangerous thing to accept.
But it is a danger that you must embrace.
Follow Andrew Pessin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/60SecondPhilos
Sarah Sentilles: Breaking up with God
typica secular way of looking at it-- why is it always the unbelievers with their unbeleiever mind set writing this stuff
The Catholic Church, for instance, will never change in our lifetimes. They will continue to treat women and LGBT people as second class. That's the ultimate form of hubris in my opinion, to claim to know god's will for other people, there are real life consequences to this arrogance. Some Catholics may choose to put up with it but other Catholics have left the RCC and formed independent churches. Others have joined more tolerant, Protestant congregations or explored religions outside of Christianity. If I had to guess what god thinks, I'd say she is pleased with these choices.
"The first strategy is of course chosen by many, who prefer to leave the religion rather than accept moral principles they find unacceptable. It reflects a kind of integrity, to be sure, but also a certain kind of arrogance, as if you know better than, well, God -- or if not God then the many smart and good people who have transmitted down the generations what they take to be God's word."
I object to organized religions for that reason, because organized religion is a mechanism by which other human beings, intrinsically no better or worse than yourself, seek to interpose themselves between you and that which is divine and spiritual, as a means of gaining power and influence over the lives of others. I can't even stand being part of neopagan groups with Priests and Priestesses and High Druids and whatnot. My relationship to the divine is *my* relationship to the divine, and I reject the authority of another person to tell me what that relationship should be.
It's been my experience that most people of all religions do this same thing. Every person makes a choice which elements of their religion they will accept or ignore. The difference between us is that most of them pretend that they still hold to what they consider their religion's true core, and I don't.
I'm doing this to fit tlc-x the strapless restoration device then it can do the tugging for me, and it'll have the retaining cone to regain glans sensitivity. ~Greg
Here are a few links that explain foreskin restoration: http://norm.org/whyrestore.html http://norm.org/faq.htmlhttp://norm.org/lost.html
Here is a video of Aubrey Taylor explaining foreskin restoration she's really informative check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moII4GEVPv4
Here's a video of Ron Low and his Wife explaining foreskin restoration and how amazing it has been for them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raDMCRxIUbI
And watch the video above that I first for another explanation^^^^^
For more info: www.tlctugger.com www.norm.org www.restoringforeskin.com www.restoringtally.com www.foreskinrestore.com
Look at this penis to see how foreskin restoration undoes some of the damage: (*NSFW Graphic Education Nudity*) http://www.foreskinrestore.com/restored_foreskin.html http://www.foreskinrestore.com/results_1-24months.html http://www.foreskinrestore.com/latest_results.html
How a restored foreskin moves: http://www.foreskinrestore.com/movesvideo.html
Study on how genital cutting is sexually diminishing: http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html
http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-male-circumcision-and-sexual-difficulties-for-men-and-female-partners?fb_comment=34449916
http://nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
http://www.intaction.org/newswp.php?id=313
And aesthetically(visually) it is mutilation a cut v intact penis picture to visually to show the damage: (*NSFW Graphic Nudity*) http://hphotos-snc6.fbcdn.net/175106_10150117141913024_502498023_6417515_3672720_o.jpg http://www.cutedaveyboy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1240942124311.jpg http://www.circumstraint.com/gallery_images.html
Look at this penis to see how foreskin restoration undoes some of the damage: (*NSFW Graphic Nudity*) http://www.foreskinrestore.com/restored_foreskin.html
http://www.foreskinrestore.com/results_1-24months.html
http://www.foreskinrestore.com/latest_results.html
How a restored foreskin moves (NSFW Nudity): http://www.foreskinrestore.com/movesvideo.html
"To cut my long story short (no pun intended), orgasm decreased tremendously. The continuous “AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!” described above turned into “ah ah ah” at most. Masturbation (which I’m not a fan of for personal/desensitization reasons, but I realize many people like it) lost pleasure altogether. Barely a sound comes out. Ejaculatory force decreased, with loss of propelling powerful Orgasm, and indeed the penis is dry and uncomfortable. It’s been a year now, and I can’t wear boxers because it hurts when my uncovered head rubs against clothing. I bought the Manhood protection device, and it does help somewhat. I realize that soon my head will lose all sensation and it won’t hurt anymore, but that’s not consoling one bit." - " Circumcized at 23 - Personal Story": http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4791
"Without nerve endings,one cannot feel --
much as without eyes, one cannot see.
Fran P. Hosken"
"Only being able to see in black and white, for example, rather than seeing in full color would be like experiencing an orgasm with a foreskin and without. There are feelings you’ll just never have without a foreskin."
"The greatest disadvantage of circumcision is the awful loss of sensitivity when the foreskin is removed. . . . On a scale of 10, the intact penis experiences pleasure that is at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3."
"Within minutes, three feet of veins, arteries and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves and more than 20,000 nerve endings are destroyed; so are all the muscles, glands, epithelial tissue and sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin. Finally, what nature intended as an internal organ is irrevocably externalized..."
I am genitally mutilated and hate it - it's sexually diminishing. Circumcision affects women too: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ Because of a parent taking the choice over my body, I like 200,000 other men are restoring their foreskins to regain sexual sesnitivity and undo some of the damage of circumcision: www.tlctugger.com www.norm.org And am hoping for foreskin regeneration to get everything I lost back: www.foregen.org
The keratinization or drying out and building of a layer of keratin of the glans and penile mucosa to protect the penis from air and clothing due to the loss of the prepuce's protection further reduces sensitivity. Here is a picture of a penis with a keratinized glans v a shiny intact penis: http://intactivists.blogspot.com/2011/05/keratinization-and-circumcision-status_315.html
David Reimer commited suicide after losing his penis as an infant because of male genital cutting: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#jjj
Do you want your sons to commit suicide because you cut off the most important and sensitive part of their manhood?
Pain watch and look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRIT5IdTpgY
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched7ex.html
Hand test: Run your fingertip down the back of your hand. Now run it down the palm of your hand. Clear difference. Notice how even after you stopped touching the palm of your hand you could still feel the line you drew with your fingertip. Your palm has Meissner’s corpsucles (touch-sensitive nerves) that the back of your hand does not. The male foreskin has 20-70,000 of these. “Just a flap of skin”? Obviously not. Everything lost to circumcision: www.wholebabyrevolution.com/The-Lost-List.html
And aesthetically(visually) it is mutilation a cut v intact penis picture to visually to show the damage: (*NSFW Graphic Nudity*) http://hphotos-snc6.fbcdn.net/175106_10150117141913024_502498023_6417515_3672720_o.jpg http://www.cutedaveyboy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1240942124311.jpg http://www.circumstraint.com/gallery_images.html
Everything lost and what's restorable: http://www.norm.org/lost.html
Restore your foreskin and undo some of the damage and sexual diminishment like me and 200,000 other men restoring their foreskins: www.tlctugger.com
This baby just died a few months ago in Queens NYC from genital cutting: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/05/queens-baby-dies-on-table-during.html
All these deaths and rks are COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE by keeping your kids intact and whole as they're born. This is medically unnecessary and no medical organization in the world recommends male or female infant genital cutting. Do not risk your child's life and his suffering as an adult www.tlctugger.com
Massive Infection Takes Over Body After Circumcision: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/11/massive-infection-takes-over-body-after.html
Bleeding
Infection
Insufficient foreskin removed
Excessive foreskin removed
Adhesions/ Skin bridges
Inclusion cysts
Abnormal healing
Meatitis
Meatal stenosis
Urinary retention
Phimosis
Chordee
Hypospadias
Epispadias
Urethrocutaneous fistula
Necrosis of the penis
Amputation of the glans
Death
- Source: http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html#inclusion
All avoided by keeping your kids whole and normal