• Elledra

    Regarding that article about Christian Rock: I can’t believe somebody wants to have this conversation now–this is an issue Christians were fighting about in the early ’80 s. And since it looks like rock has been eclipsed in popularity by hip-hop, the writer is arguing about whether Christians should appropriate someone else’s music whose heyday was years ago. Good grief. Far better to go create your OWN popular musical style from scratch! (Something Christians haven’t done well for a long time now . . .)

  • John McGrath

    Christian rock is pretty lame. Christians would be wise to ban it. A lot ofit seems to be merely imitating (somewhat woodenly) the gestures and stage stunts of rockers. Going through the motions.

  • Atheist Max

    The most Christian states execute people all the time.

    Yet you will find Christians objecting to executions
    in small numbers, particularly those Christians who don’t know much about their Bible.

    1. Christianity supports irresponsible behavior because it supports unconditional forgiveness – this is immoral.

    2. Religion lulls people into an idea that there is more life after this one
    so there is a chance to do some things over. – This is immoral as there very likely is no afterlife and besides, the Bible describes an impossible situation where nobody could go to Heaven anyway.

    Religion is immoral from top to bottom and it brings out the worst in people.
    Atheism is much better. And more honest.

  • RE: “So, what’s Yiddish for NSFW?”

    That image has been doing the rounds on circumcision advocacy and fetish sites (and the two overlap in many ways and are often difficult to distinguish) for years now.

    For those interested, please see the following link for a brief summary, with linked references, of the ethical, legal and methodological flaws with past research informing the present campaign of circumcision-as-HIV-preventative in Africa (which also inform much of the “renewed interest” in circumcision in the English-speaking world), some of the adverse consequences of funding circumcision-as-HIV-preventative in Africa (coercion of men and boys to be circumcised; misdirection of limited medical resources from higher priority areas) and the absence of oversight of organisations promoting and facilitating male circumcision in Africa:


  • Clayton Winters

    Circumcision changes the brain. Circumcision changes psychology. How could it work as a meaningful religious or spiritual practice if it did not change psychology ? It could not. It should not take an advanced psychology degree to understand that maybe taking a vulnerable infant and restraining him helpless while the most sensitive part of his penis is cut, crushed, and torn away with radically insufficient (usually ZERO) pain relief at the time of his life when he is most impressionable and his only and every instinct is to form bonds of unconditional love in his mother’s embrace instead might not be the best thing for a child’s development. Jewish circumcision changes love for mother into fear of God on a fundamental pre-verbal biological level of infant bonding.

    Circumcising your child only makes sense if you want to ritually indoctrinate him by force into our male-dominated authoritarian sexually repressive fear-based culture of dominance and aggression at a time in his life when that ritual will have the greatest effect on his fragile and vulnerable young psyche. Circumcision belongs in the graveyard of history right along with foot-binding, animal sacrifice, and ritual cannibalism.

    You can read more about the psycho-social dark side of circumcision here:

    As for the “medical benefits” -most of them are bunk but what if they are true ? I say “So what ?” Where else do we cut healthy babies as a preventive measure ? We don’t. We know better than to cut healthy babies before there is a problem just for prevention everywhere on their bodies except for baby penis. We still cut there. Why ? What makes baby penis special ?

    If we learned tomorrow that cutting baby vagina meant 10% fewer infections and small protection against HIV would we do it ? Would we start cutting baby vagina if somebody figured out that it really was cleaner ? Of course not. We know better than to cut baby vagina for that kind of reason. We know it takes better reasons than that to cut baby vagina. We know it is wrong to cut healthy baby vagina unless there is very severe medical emergency than can not be treated any other way. Why is baby penis different like that ?

    If I learned my daughter had BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes like Angelina Jolie, I would be forbidden from getting her double mastectomy to reduce her breast cancer odds from 80% all the way down to zero. No reputable doctor would cut my daughter’s breast buds off unless she was eighteen and chose preventive mastectomy for herself. How come it is wrong to do preventive surgery on healthy daughter to change breast cancer chances from 80% all the way down to zero but we think it is a good idea to cut baby penis to barely change odds of minor UTI’s ? We know it is wrong to cut baby breasts to save them from breast cancer -even if the chance is 80%. How is cutting baby penis for tiny reduction in chance for minor infections easy to prevent (good diet, hygiene) and easy to treat without surgery (antibiotics) different in this way ?

    We do not have any weight control surgeries to perform on healthy babies to protect them from obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke (plus all kinds of other things linked to being overweight). If a doctor wanted to do liposuction or gastric bypass or even invent a new weight control surgery for babies to prevent obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke -he would laughed at and probably lose his license and maybe go to jail. We know better than to cut baby fat unless the baby is already morbidly obese for those kinds of reasons. Why is cutting healthy baby penis before there is a problem different in this way ?

    Think think think and please wake up. We cut baby penis in America for no good reason. There is no good reason to cut healthy baby penis when there is no severe medical problem that cannot be cured any other way. Having foreskin is not a medical problem. Prevention ? That’s not a good enough reason to cut baby vagina. It’s not a good enough reason to cut baby breasts. It’s not a good enough reason to cut baby fat. It’s not a good enough reason to cut babies anywhere else on there bodies. It’s not a good enough reason to cut baby penis.

    Why is that so hard for Americans to understand ?

  • Zulfiqar Malik

    Most religious sites visited numbers are very incorrect.
    The following article can give more accurate information: