This is the first time I recall the Jesus and Mo artist dealing with cats. There is, of course, a religious/medical point to be made.*
*Note: One source, at least, asserts that cats do have foreskins (I’ve never looked). Legend claims, as well, that Mo did get a cat, a female.
h/t: Malgorzata
if they did get a cat it should be named “Pussy” for a number of reasons. 1) their collective lack of originality. 2) it can be used in a number of humorous ways, we all would like to see jeebus and mo calling out for pussy as we all know they did, despite what the fundies say. 3) it will give the tee shirt haters yet another reason to hate, while giving some more food for thought.
😉
Don’t cats have backward pointing spines on their penises which trigger ovulation in the female because of the pain caused when the penis is removed? Presumably circumcising the cat would get rid of those.
Last time they spoke about getting a cat, Mo didn’t want any of it:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/21/pets/
I was kinda under the impression that Jesus was rather into the whole personal mutilation thing….
b&
Officially the Catholic Church is against circumcission, among other reasons I guess because it is Jewish. In ignorance of the official Catholic position however, many Catholics especially outside of Europe think it is their religious duty to have their male children circumcised. The Vatican meanwhile happily refrains from clarifying its official position to its flock outside Europe, such that we are in the strange circumstance that no Pope since Peter (and before Francis) may have been circumcised while Americans have been cutting off their children’s foreskins for generations.
Have not checked the prevalence of circumcission in South America so I can’t tell the chances of Francis being cut or not.
Wikipedia says the circumcision rate is below 20% in South America, so I’d guess he isn’t.
The European Parliament have just passed a resolution recommending that circumcision should require the consent of all interested parties. Seems reasonable. What do you think kitty?
All interested parties would surely have to include the individual being targeted?
what? piss your diaper for yes, or shit your diaper for no???
No, wait patiently until legal age has been reached for a valid answer.
your forgetting this is theist driven, they can not think nor see that far… repent/submit now or burn… they care not about others and know for sure whats best for them.
“All interested parties would surely have to include the individual being targeted?”
Well, that party would clearly be the most interested. So, yes, precisely.
http://www.circinfo.org/Aldeeb_HumanRights.html
Sorry, wrong link, though that page has some interesting stuff on it.
This is the right link:
http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20057&lang=en