Don’t discourage Blake. His invention of humanists ranks in creativity with J. R. R. Tolkien’s invention of hobbits or Frank Herbert’s invention of Fremen.

I, er, can’t find the word ‘penis’ in either. Let alone ‘sacred penis’.

That is in reference to the fact that the only argument I have heard in favor of circumcision is that it allegedly reduces sexual pleasure (which strikes me as unlikely, but that’s beside the point).

Perhaps not all humanists are making this argument, but all the people I have heard making this argument are humanists, it’s the only argument there is that is capable of suggesting circumcision to be harmful.

As far as humanists and sex, both the secular and the “religious” (Unitarian Universalist) branches as a group hold that sex is so important, that sexual freedom justifies killing human beings if those human beings interfere with the sense of freedom/unfettered access.

Humanists as a group combat sexual boundaries in every form. Even strongly-held social taboos such as pedophilia are not safe: humanists condemn pedophilia when priests do it*, but they crusade in favor of child sexuality, even giving out condoms to children in elementary school.

So, yes, I do think it’s fair to say that humanists have an unhealthy relationship with sex – I will let you choose the word, if you like: fetishize? Worship? Idolatry? Obsession? Whatever it is, the fact remains that humanism has a dysfunctional relationship with sex and genitals, and the loathing and hatred of circumcision makes no sense outside this context.

* * *

*but not when schoolteachers, who are statistically far more likely to molest children than priests. Humanists typically defend liberals who violate sexual boundaries involving age of consent. They support Planned Parenthood, which openly describes in its literature its dissent with the very concept of an “age of consent”. In European countries, children are taught to use sex toys in school. Humanists even widely defended Roman Polanski, and Hollywood liberals even circulated a petition arguing that his drugging and raping of a 12 year old girl should be treated as a non-crime.

I repeat: I take my assertions from (a) the Unitarian Universalist creed and (b) the secular humanist association creed that I got from the Dover, PA “evolution trial” transcripts.

I, er, can’t find the word ‘penis’ in either. Let alone ‘sacred penis’.

This would be true if it were a simple matter of doing something vs. not doing something.

But it isn’t. It’s a zero-sum situation. SOMETHING is going to be amputated: this person’s foreskin, or this person’s ability to share the identity of his people.

You are welcome to believe that covenants with God are silly stuff, traditions are meaningless, and identity issues are only important when they’re, you know, people who matter (gays and feminists have the right to care about identity, while traditional religious groups are evil and bigoted for caring about their identity, if I am understanding today’s PC mentality correctly ?)

But the real question is, why should your beliefs carry more weight than the child’s parents?

That is why I believe the child’s probable consent should be anticipated – which means circumcision should be allowed in cases where a clear majority of the adult males actively value circumcision.

If you want to impose your will over this, you have to do more than simply take it as self-evident that an intact penis is obviously worth more than a covenant with God, a chance to belong to a close-knit tribe, continuity with a tradition that goes back thousands of years, or whatever it is that people who are pro-circumcision value so highly.

(I do agree that absent some reason why circumcision is valued highly, it should not be performed. But, then, that’s not really in dispute, is it, since people can and will use education far more effectively – the coercive force of the law is only necessary when people are actively pushing an ideological agenda on an unwilling populace.)

I repeat: I take my assertions from (a) the Unitarian Universalist creed and (b) the secular humanist association creed that I got from the Dover, PA “evolution trial” transcripts.

The penis is held to be sacred to humanists, because of the role sexual pleasure plays in their life.

When I asked you for the ‘statements of belief’ of ‘humanists’, you were… somewhat evasive. I would dearly love for you to provide some evidence to back up that statement. :)

This is it in a nutshell.

So-called “secular humanist” government is an ideology that tolerates no rivals.

For a parent to bring up a child as Jewish, Christian, or Muslim is to do that child a harm.

In this case, it is the damage to the penis that is the problem. The penis is held to be sacred to humanists, because of the role sexual pleasure plays in their life.

Certainly you don’t see equal concern for “integrity” when parents are mutilating their children in ways consistent with humanist values – even when those mutilations are far more damaging. Parents are allowed to unabashedly experiment on their children – turning boys into girls and vice versa, or trying to raise them to be neither at all – and this is not held to be a violation of the child’s “integrity”. These same people who complain about “integrity” have no problems with tattoos, piercings, delayed adolescence, cosmetic surgeries, etc. They are increasingly arguing that it’s okay to kill a newborn baby – but you can’t circumcise that child.

This is because the “integrity” being spoken of is not bodily integrity, but rather the integrity of the humanist identity.

cf. http://www.usccb.org/bible/1mc/1

So, would it be an Assault to his Permanent Impairment? Probably not. To his Severe Injury? Possibly. Permanent Disfigurement? Probably. To the Effusion of Blood (an aggravated assault)? Certainly. This only shows that the invasion of bodily integrity admits of degrees.