Sadie sent me two posts which struck me as connected and possibly contradictory.
First off:
“Forget the crude scribblings of San Francisco anti-circumcision comic Monster Mohel, which missed its original publication date in Berlin by only seven decades, and think about the underlying idea behind the campaign instead. That direct democracy doesn’t mean running the government, it means telling other people how to live their lives. It’s not enough that you can choose how to raise your children, you have to be able to make other families raise them the same way.
“There’s something peculiar about a campaign to regulate what happens to children after they are born, in a city where the birth rate has been dropping sharply. San Francisco births are set to fall by 23% over the next decade as it becomes a city where there are more dogs than children.”
Next:
“Here are three consecutive photos of the Parsian Children’s Ensemble. The first photo was rejected because the girls are unveiled. I assume that the reason they are unveiled is that they are too young for compulsory veiling, which is the age of nine, when incidentally girls can also be ‘married’ off and you know the rest.”In the second one, though the girls are now veiled, the photo was still rejected because their veils were insufficient and their arms were showing; the genders were also mixed (shock, horror!) .
“The third photo finally satisfied the censors – it was perfect. Girls nicely covered up and in the back where they belong…”
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-sexual-apartheid-works-with.html
DQ here: to me the article in the second link is more interesting than the pictures. To quote:
“Seriously though, to read the most brilliant piece against child veiling and in the defence of the child, read
Mansoor Hemat. Start reading a few paragraphs down. Here’s a quote from it:
‘The child has no religion, tradition and prejudices. She has not joined any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with specific religion, tradition, and prejudices. It is indeed the task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind lottery.‘” Emphasis added.
DQ again. My question is, if it is a proper role of society (government) to neutralize the negative effects of the blind (religious) lottery, why is it not proper for the government to neutralize the negative effects of Christianity (if, for example, one views the cutting off of flesh as a negative effect)? Isn’t there a risk of inconsistency here?
