Religious Predators Target Girls?

For many years, Africans and immigrants
from the Middle East have secretly remained faithful to cultural rituals and
rights of passage that have been designed to keep their young women chaste and eligible
for marriage. Partial or total female circumcision is one of these practices.
In an alarming reversal of protocol and wisdom, this dehumanizing practice is
gaining acceptance within the U.S. In fact the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) has recommended that American doctors be given permission to perform
“ceremonial” female circumcisions.  

Once again American leaders are
fearfully overcompensating for cultural and religious practices from other
lands. America especially seems to be intimidated by rituals found in Islam.
There are some cities in the nation that even desire to allow Sharia law to
operate in the United States. In that spirit of accommodation, the AAP wants to
give pinpricks or to “nick” the genitals of young girls here in the U.S. whose
families come from cultures that mandate female circumcisions. The doctors’
rationale is that if they perform the lesser procedure here in the States,
it would keep their families from sending the girls overseas for full
circumcisions. 

Before I go further, let me explain
exactly what female circumcision is. The biological reason behind this practice
is to reduce a girl’s sexual desire. Many cultures and religious groups are
convinced that this practice will ensure a young woman’s virginity until marriage.
Removal of all or part of the clitoris is the essence of female circumcision.
The more extensive procedure could also involve stitching the vagina. Reducing
the size of the vagina is also intended to increase the husband’s enjoyment of
the sexual act. 

Although the current law “makes
criminal any non-medical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the
United States, the AAP believes that U.S. residents will be discouraged from
returning to their homelands for the cruel surgeries often administered by
midwives or female village elders.

Thankfully, there are many opponents to
female genital mutilations. Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, actually
introduced a bill that would make it a crime to take a girl oversees for such a
purpose. Georgeanne Chapin of Intact America has urged the AAP to avoid moving
down a “slippery slope.” More specifically she said, “There are countries in
the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow
people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have
slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives
a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.” 

Today, the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists report that over 130 million women and girls
have undergone female genital cutting. Circumcisions are typically performed on
girls under 15-years old in countries including Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia.
Earlier this week, I saw a BBC special from South Africa which had a village
“mother” explaining her commitment to cutting the genitals of the younger women
with wives tales about their sex organs growing backward inside of their
bodies, thus creating long term health problems. Unfortunately, the true story
is that there are severe consequences to this surgery. The problems
include: 

1.) severe complications with
pregnancy, 

2.) problems with childbirth, and 

3.) sexual dysfunction later in
life. 

Nonetheless, the AAP restates its
rationale as follows “in some countries where FGC (female genital
cutting) is common, some progress toward
eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual ‘nicks’ for
more severe forms.”

America needs to take an about face
from our temptation to tiptoe around problems like these. Our national leaders
like Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, are reticent to “tell it like it is”
if another faith -especially Islam – could be seen in a bad light. We must take
a different approach and speak out against genuine sexist or dehumanizing
practices which can harm our people. We cannot let any faith tradition get away
with abusing our citizens – especially children.

We applaud our national desire to allow
religious freedom. This openness is something we have all learned from
Christianity. Other nations, however, are hardly as open or respectful of human
rights.

More specifically let’s look at the
Muslim faith’s track record of religious tolerance. In the Islamic world there
are several nations, which have large populations of non-Muslims who had been
conquered by jihad wars. Historically Islam conquered huge territories in
Africa, Asia and Europe from the 630s AD until 1683 or so.  In these
nations, dhimmitude is a status given to non-Muslims and their own
formerly sovereign land. The word “dhimmitude” comes from dhimmi,
an Arabic word meaning protected.

Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to
indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma).
 Dhimmitude is an extension of the ideology of jihad. 

The dhimmis – the conquered
people who remain Christian or Jewish – have a protected status under Islamic
law. Yet, they also are targets of mass discrimination. In Iran, for example, dhimmis
may have to change the names of their children to Islamic names in order for
them to be able to attend school. Their local religious leadership may be
persecuted or deliberately eliminated to inhibit their practice of their
“protected” religion. In addition, strict rules concerning public conduct have
been imposed on dhimmis in certain communities. 

In Turkey, religious freedom does not exist according the
definition established by the United States or the international community. Due
to their policy of secularism, religious freedom walks on a tightrope.
Secularism is practiced not as a way to insure that religious groups do not
exploit or abuse religion or religious feelings for personal or political
influence, but it is mechanism for state control over religion and the
practices and rights of religious groups. 

In conclusion, our parents, our
schools, our doctors, and our laws must protect our most vulnerable residents
and citizens. Until other faiths, especially the Islamic community, observe the
basic rights and freedoms of all people regardless of their race, color, gender
and religion to enjoy constitutional and legal protection, they cannot lay
claim to humanitarianism.  At the same time we must resist non-productive
compromises that endanger our people.