“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Which for those who do not believe in the soul or God at all makes no difference. If there is no soul on which baptism can work it’s ontological change, then they were merely given a slight head rinse and some nice smelling oils, no harm done.

If you are a man who is greatly upset that a functional, sensitive, normal part of your sexual anatomy was amputated against your will when you were a baby, you definitely do have a physical and irreparable anatomical change to be upset about, and unfortunately can do nothing about it.

I wish we could all at least agree that in terms of actual, observable physical effects, the two do not equate. An atheist having a de-baptism ceremony isn’t an atheist at all; rather I’d charge they believe in God on some level and hate Him for some reason, or they wouldn’t care to have one meaningless ceremony to “undo” another meaningless ceremony.

“If you are a man who is greatly upset that a functional, sensitive, normal part of your sexual anatomy was amputated against your will when you were a baby, you definitely do have a physical and irreparable anatomical change to be upset about, and unfortunately can do nothing about it.”

I am a circumcised man as are all my brothers and cousins and most of my friends.I have NEVER heard ONE man complain about it and consider himself a victim.

This thread may I remind you and so deflect you from your OBVIOUS anti-circumcision agenda is about the RELIGIOUS implications of such a ban.The moderator has intervened two or three times regarding the skewing of this thread to “intactivist” agendas.Please observe and follow the moderators instructions or cease commenting.