Getting Inked

For what it's worth, here's my part of a dialog over at Maverick Philosopher's blog regarding the moral and social issues surrounding tattoos.

The arguments were basically that: (a) it marks a degenerating of our society since it was always slaves and barbarians who sported tats, (b) they are unsafe and getting one unwisely puts you at risk for contracting viruses like HIV, and perhaps most importantly (c) the Bible condemns them - specifically in the Old (Lev.19:28), and implicitly in the New (I Corinthians 6:19).

The two reasons for this post are: (i) Many apostates have a weird view of what a "Christian" should be. Heck, many of us brew beer, smoke stogies, and watch the UFC! These apostates were raised in a Appalachian Mountain Fundamentalist (AMF!) sort of way. Then, when they had the urge to get inked, knock back a few cold ones, or take some pulls of a meerschaum, they left the faith. (Next thing you know, they're visiting our comboxes and writing "YAWN" after every post!) Sure, you can call us Victorian because we do not think that it is okay to commit adultery against your wife, or molest your neighbors kids, or forsake the gathering as some are in the habit of doing, but other than that, the Christian life isn't the life of a Mormon Missionary. No, no, no; we not only get to chug Mountain Dew, we sip fine whiskey too!

(ii) would be for the Christian -- perhaps head pastors, youth pastors, and parents -- who spend their time condemning tattoos rather than watching out for the real spiritual (and physical) dangers kids can get into. Certainly certain types of body modification and tattoo work are immoral -- say pornographic images or satanic themes -- but we wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid on this point. However, most Christian kids don't want to get an upside-down cross on their back, they want to get the 5 solas, the symbol of the trinity, a cross, or something like that. Perhaps, though, they might want a religiously neutral tattoo in the sense of their favorite animal, say, a lion fighting another lion on their back, a picture of a loved on (perhaps a young married person in college), etc. The are plenty of morally dangerous situation younger people might get into that it would better if the above mentioned group didn’t spend it judging (for the most part) moral non-issues. All Christians, especially the young, have a hard enough time obeying the laws God has set forth in Scripture, let alone following man-made ones. Hence this post is also for your benefit.

************

************

5.11.2007 3:17pm

I find this odd. First, the comments about contracting HIV seem a bit uniformed. This isn't the 70's and 80's. If one goes to a reputable artist the risk of getting HIV is the same as getting it from surgery.

Second, one need not get it to be an "individual" but to "identify" with an idea, group, philosophy, etc.

Third, since the Bible doesn't forbid it, and assuming we have liberty of conscience, then what prohibits it? Subjective opinion? Much like the parents of the kids in the 60's who told them not to listen to the Beatles, or the kids in the 50's who were told not to watch Elvis shake his hips?

Fourth, what it may have represented is not what it represents now. Doctors, lawyers, and even house wives are "getting inked." I mean, why should I ever choose to eat rice and beans (if I had the money to eat steak) since it represents what poor people ate? The lower class.

Anyway, I have about 12... :-)

__________________________

5.12.2007 8:23am

Hi Ian,

I am familiar with that verse, and I must now come clean with what I forgot to add in my original post. I didn't get any of my tattoos "for the dead." Furthermore, I don't believe that Lev. 19:28 is part of what is commonly referred to as part of the moral law. It has ceremonial intentions, i.e., the setting apart of Israel from the nations around them.

Hi Mike,

Well, I don't know the specifics, but certainly we can take things too far. Did your father get involved with the drug-counter culture? Were the Beatles a gateway into that? And, yes, sometimes conservative intuitions are right. I am myself a conservative. But, that doesn't mean that they always are. I've still seen no moral reason to not get one, and the reasons above are mostly false and outdated. They don't affect my speech, driving, thinking, sensor-motor control, personality, behavior, &c. So, that you notice something in your father which would cause you to think he shouldn't have listened to Elvis, that would be unnoticeable with me.

Hi Thomas,

I don't have a "casual attitude" toward HIV. And, I may be more youthful that some, but not others. I'm older than the above commenter, Michael Sullivan. Your claim that my comments about a reputable establishment RE are "amusing," and the following question, only reinforce my assumption that you haven't really looked into this specific issue before.

For starters, a RE will have FDA approved ink. Every customer, according to industry standards, has a brand new package of needles opened right in front of their eyes. The actual tattoo gun and other non-disposable tools are is autoclaved. This is the same procedure that your local hospital uses on its non-disposable tools. Gloves are always worn. During one of my visits my artist took off his glove to answer a phone, and then put a brand new one on after he hung up the phone. Fresh ink is used for every session. The ink used on a previous client is tossed into a biohazard trash can, like in your local doctors office. Or, take Oregon. Performing tattoos there, without a license, is a felony. To get a license, in most states, requires being certified as to your knowledge of health and safety precautions, as well as the current state regulations. Lastly, if you get a tattoo from a RE, and have the papers to prove it, you are even allowed to give blood. In the old days you had to wait 12 months.

So, as I said, it's about as dangerous as getting HIV from a routine stitch-up at your doctors office.

And, lastly, there has not been one documented case of someone contracting HIV from getting tattooed. This according to the CDC who began studying this issue in 1985. But, there have been 7 known cases where someone has contracted HIV from their dentist! This is found in the CDC's "Estimated incidence of AIDS and deaths of persons with AIDS, adjusted for delays in reporting, by quarter-year of diagnosis/death, United States, January 1985 through June 1997." They also claim this in this report published in 2006. CDC categorizes tattooists as "personal service workers" along with hairdressers, barbers, manicurists, acupuncturists, and massage therapists.

best,

Paul


____________________


5.12.2007 8:45am

Hi Bill,

I checked out the article. No doubt the history is correct. But then, modern reasons for getting tattoos have changed. As I said, doctors, lawyers, politicians, high powered sports agents, college professors, singers, professional athletes, the military, CEOs, &c, &c, &c. All walks of life have them. And, considering the cost - it aint cheap - the "lower class" would be excluded from getting any descent tattoo at a reputable establishment.

Be that as it may, the article closed out this way:

"It's a sign of the degeneracy of modern life that tattoos have become so widespread. What used to be a mark of degradation (in the case of slaves and criminals) or uncivilized behavior (in the case of barbarians) is now commonplace and accepted in most social circles. In 1 Corinthians 6.19, we read "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" To tattoo the body is to deface this temple."

The argument is odd:

1. If something was uncivilized then, it should be now.

2. Tattoos were.

3. They are now.

That seems odd. And, to use the homosexual Greeks as a standard of "conservativism" seems a bit odd. Women were for making babies, boys for fun, went a saying. And some scholars don't agree that this was the common practice, but was reserved for the aristocracy (Bruce Thornton is one such scholar). So, should we argue that the resurgence of popularity with homosexuality means that we are getting more civilized? Or, the attempts at stopping gay marriages is a mark of "degeneracy?"

Lastly, the context of 1 Cor. 6 is about joining your body with a prostitute. These out of context arguments from 1 Cor. 6 are always funny. After all, why eat McDonalds, your body is a temple. Why play sports where you could get injured, your body is a temple. Should you work out, make your temple bigger? And, why can't you adorn your temple? If you can't, should women ditch the makeup?

best,

Paul


________________________


5.13.2007 8:20pm


Hi Bill,

I suppose I don't get offended over this issue because I've been discussing it with those who make much the same claims as the above for the past 13 or 14 years. So, it rolls off my back now.

I certainly agree that some types of body modification are defacing, and can definitely hinder one's acceptance in the mostly non-tattooed world. None of mine are unable to be hidden, if I need them to be. So, many people don’t even know that I have any. No "tear drop" under my eye! But, perhaps in the next 30 years CEOs will be sporting full sleeves (that's code for arms tattooed from shoulder to wrist)!

I'm glad you're not a "hidebound" conservative, since there's now a tattooed conservative group! But since some have conservative meaning tattoos, I guess they are hidebound. :-)

And, lastly, you could get that tattooed on your arm from an RE for around $100; a bit more than a haircut, but you don't need to keep going back every 6 months. :-)

best,

Paul

************

************