Circumcision and Atheism
Yes there is a connection.
A couple of days ago “Drew” decided to comment on a post from 5 months ago:
Any atheist who has arrived at that position through study of history or attention to current events should not only support the move to have religious and Christian references removed from public events; they should insist upon it. Robert Porter, you are part of the problem if you cannot see this. This is not a waste of time, it is one of the most useful things that can be done in reducing the harm that religion causes. Public ceremonies which legitimise god-belief are a decisive factor in keeping the undecided in the “religious” camp, and in continuing the “tabboo” against criticism which all religion cultivates. We see this from Christians here; we see it from Muslim mullahs abroad. Removing public legitimisation of religious ritual has been a key element of the decline of religious belief in free societies in the last 100 years. Only when religion loses the power of coercion does it lose the power to control people, and therefore the power to harm people. Darren R., I can see where you are coming from, but do think that honouring ones country is a noble thing - as is honouring ones family honouring ones community, and upholding the principles of freedom and democracy.
I’m afraid Drew is mistaken. Focusing on removing mentions of “God” from public events is focusing righteous anger on the wrong place. While the removal of such might be a decent long-term goal, if people like Drew think that going around and removing “God” is going to help further the cause of non-believers, he is sadly mistaken. Such a focus only serves to miltarize Christians against such things.
It is absolutely ridiculous to say that removing mentions ”is one of the most useful things that can be done in reducing the harm that religion causes.” No, I’m pretty sure that focusing on the actual harmful acts is more important. Your case that removing mentions from from public will delegitimize relgion is utopian at best. Atheists should focus on promoting rationalism, not the removal of century’s old traditions. Doing otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.
Cato scholar (and PhD historian!) Jason Kuznicki, makes a salient point in a post about circumcision (go read it!):
This isn’t an issue that can be won or lost with legislation. It goes deeper than that. It’s about attitudes and values. It could just be the ultimate issue in the great debate between rationalism and tradition. And tradition still runs strong. Legislation is probably doomed to fail, no matter where the reasoning leads us. That’s how politics works. Or rather, how it often doesn’t. Prohibiting something that 50% of American parents are already doing is a non-starter. Change minds first. Yes, it will be difficult. But reducing the amount of cruelty in the world always is.
Let me emphasize: change minds first.
As for Drew’s defence of patriotism, all I’ll say is this: there is nothing noble about lauding the abstract concept of the state. Honoring one’s family or community, is also virtually useless. Honoring worthy people is the only thing worth one’s time.