Ritual genital cutting kills boy in Italy + A hijab is not a hat

#1
Ritual genital cutting kills boy in Italy
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2019/...y-in-italy

INTRO: A two-year-old boy has died and his twin brother has been hospitalised after their genitals were cut for religious reasons at a migrant centre in Italy. The boys were circumcised at the request of their mother, who wanted to mark Nigeria's Islamic traditions, according to local media reports. An American man of Libyan origin has been charged with murder.

National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans said the death was "a reminder of the risks and harm associated with the ritual circumcision of baby boys". The NSS campaigns for an end to non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision. In recent years several other babies' deaths from circumcision have come to public attention....

MORE: https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2019/...y-in-italy




Dear Nancy Pelosi & the Democrats: A hijab is not a hat
https://religionnews.com/2019/01/03/dear...not-a-hat/

EXCERPT: After Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives today, one of their first agenda items is to change an 1837 rule banning hats on the House floor, in deference to a new Muslim congresswoman who wears religious headwear known as hijab. You might think that as a scholar who has studied Muslim women’s sartorial choices for more than a decade I’d be excited by this news. But I find myself disappointed and uneasy.

Disappointed because Democrats think they need to change a 182-year-old rule in order to accommodate Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s headscarf, a bit of attire that should be automatically protected by the First Amendment.

Uneasy because the premise for their proposal is that a hijab might be reasonably equated with a hat. We have conflated religious expression and fashion too often in the United States, and it must stop. A Muslim woman’s headscarf has literally nothing in common with a hat other than it is on top of her head.

[...] To be fair, Democrats are trying to inoculate against future discrimination against religious minorities. They are worried that the old hat ban could also be used against Sikh men in turbans, Orthodox Jewish men in kippahs and even orthodox Jewish women who wear wigs. While I understand why the amendment is being proposed, I am disappointed it had to happen. [...] Equating a hijab to a hat has dangerous implications beyond Congress....

MORE: https://religionnews.com/2019/01/03/dear...not-a-hat/
Reply
#2
Probably be in more trouble than the actual killer if I was to openly attack Islam for some barbaric & brutal religious rituals/customs/traditions. What's that popular refrain?..... 'it's not the religion that kills".
Reply
#3
(Jan 4, 2019 04:44 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Probably be in more trouble than the actual killer if I was to openly attack Islam for some barbaric & brutal religious rituals/customs/traditions. What's that popular refrain?..... 'it's not the religion that kills".


"Safe speech" is probably the prophylactic oral attitude to take for this era. Especially since the incrementally creeping, para-Orwellian protocol does seem to have finally reached the stage of planting duct tape over the mouths of atheists (career consequences if ripped off). The latter can still poke some measurable fun at Christianity since the latter was a cohort of Euro colonialism; occasionally even Jewish politics if a stripe of such is deemed favoring Israel bullying of the gentile-Semitic locals. But beware hellfire and brimstone ominously threatening to rain down should Enlightenment tyrants speak even facetiously ill of what displaced crackers in Deadwood years ago crudely labeled the wide spectrum of "heathen" cultures. Wink

~
Reply
#4
Quote:"Safe speech" is probably the prophylactic oral attitude to take for this era.

I think the political arena has come to realize the value of stifling what has become known as 'hate speech'. But I think politicians need the odd incident every now & then.
Reply
#5
There is no value in stifling free speech and no such thing as "hate speech" beyond what is already actionable by law, like actual threats or incitement to violence, slander, etc..
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ritual killings aided social complexity + Sci as God substitute + The End of Atheism? C C 2 511 Apr 6, 2016 11:14 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)