posted
nope, neither does pointing to a practice being allowed historically or having been commonplace in the country.
Don't care either way though, I already explained how to get rid of circumcision, so we'll just see if it happens across the next couple of generations.
Posts: 12291 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then your argument that all it has to do is pass a secular test isn't valid.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and circumcision is a very large part of Judaism. And that's all it needs to be.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Jews don't circumcise. In fact, that's a growing movement. There's hope. But I shall still find a way to move to Europe out in the middle of nowhere where no one will bother me ever...
But first... to get filthy dirty stinky rich.
Posts: 9860 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. Can you point me to a post where you recall summarizing them?
Posts: 1263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do folks ever think maybe there's advantages to keeping foreskin? For most of the men in the world it really isn't a ticking time bomb of doom.
Posts: 9860 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a former owner of one, I can say with confidence, no, there is no advantage to having one, but, there are several disadvantages.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that sex is less pleasurable without one, but I don't know if there's any real data. I'm not sure if it's even possible to get real data for something as subjective as that.
Posts: 9732 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a study done in Denmark. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.short?rss=1 There's BILLIONS of men who do not have problems with their foreskins. I'm not even sure if the low risk of having a problem (which could be avoided if folks in this country understood it will retract on its own and to leave it alone until it does) is worth cutting it off. Keeping breast buds might be a bit more risky, actually.
Posts: 9860 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps that is the angle of approach for you...people need more education about proper handling instructions for the uncircumcised penis to avoid infection.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah if you don't get circumcised you don't have to worry about the risk of having a circumcision which will reduce pleasure doing sex, but generally I guess you can do just fine with or without according to both?
I don't know I have a lot of strange knowledge about the subject which would certainly bring an interesting perspective to the matter but might not be appropriate for this forum.
Posts: 12291 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Watch a video of it being done to an infant.
I've been in the room while it happened, multiple times. YOU have spent far more time "traumatized" for them then they have been.
Posts: 14797 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no. As he said, he has been circumcised, so he can't very well say "no skin off my penis," now can he?
I assume he's just letting us know that when he was circumcised nothing went awry and no extra skin was lost. Or at least, if something did go wrong, the skin on his back was, at the least, unaffected.
Posts: 3360 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started to get upset that the German court did that, but then I realized I actually can't argue with the idea that a child should have a right to no permanent body modifications until he comes of age and can decide for himself.
It seems like a reasonable thing to me. I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone doing anything to himself (to his own body) for religious reasons, though I think it's perhaps not wise to perform painful permanent procedures that aren't medically indicated. I wouldn't think it ought to be illegal, provided it's decided by the person himself, the one whose body is being modified. But there does seem to be a good reason not to do it to others against their will. So I agree with the German court.
Could the religious communities perform the operation on adults instead? It might be more meaningful that way, mightn't it?
Posts: 2814 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is, really, the vast majority of those who had it done, don't really care. And I've never had a sex partner who cared either.
Posts: 9215 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My concern with this ruling is that it primarily falls upon the observant Jewish population of Germany, as it directly contradicts a basic tenet of their religion. With the historic anti-Semitism in Europe, it gives rise to concerns that this is more of the same, just masked better than your average pogrom.
Posts: 556 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be noted that when done to an infant it is s minor procedure, but is major surgery for an adult.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Son, even though you consider yourself an atheist, and your wife isn't Jewish, you should have your son circumcised in case he decides he wants to be Jewish."
My Catholic aunt actually used the same logic for her son. "I accept that you don't actually believe in the Catholic faith, but lets go through with all of the confirmation stuff in case you decide you want to marry a Catholic girl one day."
Apparently we should just have all children go through all religious practices "just in case".
Posts: 3019 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Judaism is the LEAST able to compromise on this issue than virtually any other faith, it's like banning Catholics from Mass; someone tried to tell me that being forced to use birth control is about on par "and thus because catholics are fine in places, this should be fine too" I call BS on that though, it's a negative vs a positive action.
As far as I know, you *cannot* have any or participate in any of the various jewish activities and customs until it's done, which is supposed to be within the first week of birth as it is the physical representation of the Covenant.
IP: Logged |
posted
I've considered that having a husband who takes longer to reach orgasm might be a benefit. Since I like sex and all. I'm weighing that with the small possibility of getting an infection from contact with an uncircumcised penis and it's about even.
Posts: 6285 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure either of those things is a given.
A uncircumcised penis is -more- sensitive, not less.
Plus I've never seen a medical study (not saying they don't exist) which suggests that uncircumcised penis' are more likely to transfer an infection through sex then a circumcised one.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak to the sensitivity issue, but I've read in many places that uncircumcised penises are more likely to transmit infection, and frankly, it makes sense. The underside of the foreskin is a breeding ground for germs, that's why being so fastidious about cleaning it is so important.
Posts: 20473 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently we should just have all children go through all religious practices "just in case".
For some mysterious reason, this doesn't work in reverse. "Son, I know my grandson is probably going to (be raised to) want to be a Baptist in his adult life, but just in case, don't send him to church before, say, mid-teens."
The medical justifications for circumcision seem to be a wash-potential of risk of infection barring appropriate sanitation later in life if not done, potential for complications or lessened sexual pleasure (and there are very, very few people outside actual medical professionals who can remark intelligently on that, one way or another--'It feels great to me!' not having the needed perspective).
The truth is, though, without the cultural weight from inertia circumcision carries, most people would probably look quite askance at the idea of permanently altering an infant's body for the slim medical reasons offered.
Posts: 15562 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Sorry, I was asking for rational reasons.
You are asking for rational reasons of religion? I think that makes you irrational.
Religion requires the belief of something beyond mere fact. Might as well demand that apples taste like oranges.
I was asking for a rational reason for this: "Why would the parents' religious or cultural reasons trump their son's medical rights?!" As far as anyone knows the son has no religion when he is born, despite what the parents, grandparents, priest, rabbi, etc. would want to make you believe. So arguments like "We have freedom of religion in this country" fall flat when you consider the son's "religion". Which religion should you respect?!
Posts: 4249 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: I was asking for a rational reason for this: "Why would the parents' religious or cultural reasons trump their son's medical rights?!" As far as anyone knows the son has no religion when he is born, despite what the parents, grandparents, priest, rabbi, etc. would want to make you believe. So arguments like "We have freedom of religion in this country" fall flat when you consider the son's "religion". Which religion should you respect?!
Except that according to Judaism (AFAIK, as I'm not Jewish...) the infant IS Jewish provided the mother was.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not sure either of those things is a given.
A uncircumcised penis is -more- sensitive, not less.
I think she was saying an uncircumcised penis would be more sensitive and so more likely to orgasm early.
Posts: 13043 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: And that makes it true why?
And thus I direct you back to Stone_Wolf_s statement which you quoted.
Which misses my point. Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion? I agree that in most cases we cannot and should not block parents from teaching their children their points of view; there's just too much possibility of abuse from whoever's in power in these kinds of situations. But in the case of circumcision this is not teaching, it's (at least from my point of view) a violation of the son's medical rights.
I'm not gonna talk about adopted sons, since I don't know much about adoption and circumcision in Judaism or Islam.
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: And that makes it true why?
God says so according to them saying that god says according to some texts that are what god says or what they know god to have said and/or wanted according to the texts about what god says god says.
quote:Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion?
That is a much more interesting question!
The answer is in the case of snipping off foreskins: probably no good reason but whatever.
Posts: 12291 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not sure either of those things is a given.
A uncircumcised penis is -more- sensitive, not less.
I think she was saying an uncircumcised penis would be more sensitive and so more likely to orgasm early.
I have not found this to be true. In fact, using the unscientific poll (heh) of my recollection, the uncircumcised men I have been with have, on average, taken longer to climax.
Posts: 10289 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think she was saying an uncircumcised penis would be more sensitive and so more likely to orgasm early.
I think you are misreading her...from my reading she was saying that uncircumcised penis would last longer as a trade off for the risk of infection...but since it is more not less sensitive...
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: But in the case of circumcision this is not teaching, it's (at least from my point of view) a violation of the son's medical rights.
First off the parents of a child hold the medical decision making power. Second, a circumcision is quite often medically recommended. When my wife and I were discussing whether or not to snip our boy with his MD, the MD said basically, "There are a few risks, but generally, the rewards outweigh them. I recommend you do it." Just to be clear, we had asked her, she wasn't volunteering the recommendation. Considering my personal history of needing a circumcision at age 12, which sucked, it was a no brainer. I was worried they would not give him a local, as they sometimes just let them cry with no pain killer, but they were going to anyway. They gave him a pacifier with sugar syrup, and he loved it! He was happy and fine, and half way through the procedure he fell asleep. Just for the record, neither my wife nor I follow any formalized religion.
quote:Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion?
Pretending your kids have the same religion as you and then indoctrinating them into it is a time honored tradition. But seriously, an infant is incapable of making -any- choices, so all choices fall on the parents. And can you imagine what would happen if the government declared that all children where nonreligious until they could decide on their own? No baptisms, no nameday blessings, no bris, etc. Yea, ain't gunna happen.
And seriously who cares if people want to pretend that their kids are part of an organized religion? It's pretty durn harmless. The newborn doesn't care. Why should we?
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's pretty durn harmless. The newborn doesn't care. Why should we?
Erm, uh .. medical ethics doesn't get to make an exception for a religious test? I mean the comment you just made could be just as readily applied to like ... infant clitoridectomy or something, doesn't matter if you are part of a religion that says "THIS MUST BE DONE EVERYTIME ALWAYS GOD SAYS Clitorieuteronomy 66:15" it is an issue of secular medical ethics (for a secular government of course, it would be different elsewhere necessarily)
Posts: 12291 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument was for allowing people to claim infants as part of their religion, sprinkle some water on them, maybe chant a little, light a candle or two, a medically safe/recommended circumcision...NOT to do harmful, sexist, evil, dangerous genital mutilation on babies...because they don't mind.
Circumcision is often medically recommended, and while a very small portion of adult males seem to mind that this was done to them as a baby, the huge majority couldn't care less.
None of those things can be said for FGM. It is fundamentally an unfair comparison.
Were people castrating their boys, that would be a fair comparison. And it would be equally rejected and prosecuted.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no, that's not a fair comparison. FGM is a terrible thing, to understate things, but it's not castration. Type III comes closest, and is also the least common-really have to cast about for 'good' news on this subject.
As for male circumcision, though, outside of religious factors the benefits and drawbacks are most often pretty close to a draw-the risk of infection is there, but safely dealt with by careful, non-arduous hygiene. The sexual drawback is pretty easy to see, but men don't tend to complain that sex is unpleasant even when they've been circumcised, so not much of a big drawback here.
What we're still left with is cultural inertia for most of the men who are circumcised. If a sect should crop up proclaiming it was a commandment from God that infants have one of the middle toes cropped or removed as a sign of a covenant with God, well, people would probably get a little squeamish even though you don't much *need* that toe. We would probably be a little hesitant at just shrugging it off and saying, "Well, parents have medical rights over their children."
Because they don't, or rather this isn't an unqualified right. They have that right basically only up to the point we decide they're hurting their children, and no further. Fortunately when done in as humane a way as possible (that is to say, not as initially described), this harm if it exists is pretty low key.
Posts: 15562 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: But in the case of circumcision this is not teaching, it's (at least from my point of view) a violation of the son's medical rights.
First off the parents of a child hold the medical decision making power.
But there are ways to stop them from making potentially harmful medical (and other) decisions concerning their children.
quote:Second, a circumcision is quite often medically recommended.
In the US. How come European penises resist so much better the dangers of being uncircumcised? It's like the presence of openly gay people in the military, or the presence of women on submarines: it's so dangerous in the US, despite other countries showing that both have no effects. Doctors are people, and as such also prone to cultural bias.
quote:Considering my personal history of needing a circumcision at age 12, which sucked, it was a no brainer.
I might need an appendectomy at 40, doesn't mean that any child of mine would also need an appendectomy. Does not follow.
quote:Just for the record, neither my wife nor I follow any formalized religion.
But you do grow in a culture that views circumcision as normal. Religion is not the only form of cultural bias, it's *a* form.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion?
Pretending your kids have the same religion as you and then indoctrinating them into it is a time honored tradition. But seriously, an infant is incapable of making -any- choices, so all choices fall on the parents. And can you imagine what would happen if the government declared that all children where nonreligious until they could decide on their own? No baptisms, no nameday blessings, no bris, etc. Yea, ain't gunna happen.
As I said, when this involves ideas or harmless rituals, by all means, go ahead. There's no way to "police" this that isn't open to abuse. But in the follow-up I specifically made a difference between these and medical decisions.
quote:And seriously who cares if people want to pretend that their kids are part of an organized religion? It's pretty durn harmless. The newborn doesn't care. Why should we?
First of all, it's not harmless if you view religions as false and are pissed off at things like insistence of teaching creationism alongside evolution for example, or when seeing people donate money to build churches but become very squeamish when asked to do anything for the school their children go to. And it's not harmless if a male child has a botched circumcision or complications because of it, or simply will at one point in life resent his parents for mutilating his body.
Posts: 4249 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm repeating some of what Rakeesh, Samp and others said, but I'm trying to clear up my ideas about this so I'm writing it all down. Sorry if I make you guys read the same thing twice. Posts: 4249 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: But there are ways to stop them from making potentially harmful medical (and other) decisions concerning their children.
Are circumcisions harmful, medically speaking?
quote: How come European penises resist so much better the dangers of being uncircumcised?
Better hygiene? They aren't? Haven't looked up the stats...have you?
quote:I might need an appendectomy at 40, doesn't mean that any child of mine would also need an appendectomy.
If there was a huge medical advantage to getting it done at birth instead of as an adult...as it is with circumcisions...then yes.
quote:As I said, when this involves ideas or harmless rituals, by all means, go ahead. There's no way to "police" this that isn't open to abuse. But in the follow-up I specifically made a difference between these and medical decisions.
As a principal, I agree, but when it comes to this, as I feel it is medically sound, I don't mind, much as if your religion called for you to be kind to strangers or floss daily. Since it's already a good idea, I don't mind a bit.
quote:First of all, it's not harmless if you view religions as false...
This is not a good argument. If one views religions as false, they are free, in America, to raise their child that way. This is not a good reason to repress people's religions.
quote:...and are pissed off at things like insistence of teaching creationism alongside evolution for example...
This is an entirely different argument. What people claim for the religion of their children and teach them at home is utterly unrelated to what schools which receive public funds teach.
quote:...or when seeing people donate money to build churches but become very squeamish when asked to do anything for the school their children go to.
And this is yet another separate argument. Honestly, it isn't anyone's business how people spend their money, as long as they are not depriving their children of basic need stuff.
quote:And it's not harmless if a male child has a botched circumcision or complications because of it...
Now this argument might hold some water.
quote:...or simply will at one point in life resent his parents for mutilating his body.
Super rare, and again, please please please let this be the biggest thing my son has to deal with in his adult life, that would be such a blessing.
Posts: 4617 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all, it's not harmless if you view religions as false and are pissed off at things like insistence of teaching creationism alongside evolution for example, or when seeing people donate money to build churches but become very squeamish when asked to do anything for the school their children go to.
was just about whether raising children in your own religion and thus helping perpetuate religions is harmful or harmless. Not about whether we could or should do something about it other than try to educate people.
About the studies, I've mostly looked at stuff on the WHO website. I'll try to get some quotes from there tomorrow.
Posts: 4249 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Circumcision Ruling Is 'a Shameful Farce for Germany'
German religious leaders claim that Jewish life will not be possible in the country if a court ruling on circumcision sets a legal precedent.
A controversial German court ruling on circumcision has outraged Muslim and Jewish groups in Germany and abroad. German commentators say the decision was misguided and could have devastating consequences.
The ruling came nearly two weeks ago, but the reaction is getting increasingly vocal. At a meeting of the orthodox Conference of European Rabbis in Berlin on Thursday, the group's head warned that a June 26 court decision making a case of circumcision a crime had been the "worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust". Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt also threatened that Jews might leave Germany if the country doesn't move to provide legal certainty that the tradition of circumcision can continue.
In a case involving a Muslim boy, the Cologne regional court ruled that the doctor performing the circumcision had committed bodily injury to a child, thus criminalizing the act. The ruling has no legal bearing on other cases, but some fear it could be used as a precedent by other courts.
The ruling has outraged not only the Muslim community, but also Jewish groups. In the postwar years, the Jewish community in Germany has painstakingly rebuilt itself to the point that it has been flourishing recently. But many view the ruling as a direct attack on their religious freedom.
Germany's leading Jewish body, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, has called for a clarification of the country's confusing legal situation. "Circumcision is absolutely elementary for every Jew," the organization's president, Dieter Graumann, said in an interview with the Rheinische Post newspaper. He warned that if the Cologne ruling were to become the legal basis, that "Jewish life in Germany might ultimately no longer be possible."
Germany's parliament is currently on summer recess, but politicians are already discussing the possibility of making changes to German law to ensure that the religious rite of circumcision can continue here.
'Circumcisions Must Be Possible without Punishment'
"We know that a swift solution is necessary and that it can't be put off," said Steffen Seibert, Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman. "Circumcisions that are carried out responsibly must be possible in this country without punishment." However, Seibert did not comment to reporters on whether a new law would be created ensuring the legality of circumcision, something that has been demanded by the opposition Greens and center-left Social Democratic Party. A spokeswoman for Germany's Justice Ministry also declined to comment.
In addition to Jewish and Muslim groups in Germany, the ruling has also drawn strong condemnation from the state of Israel. Germany's ambassador to the country, Andreas Michaelis, recently sought to ease concerns by writing a letter to Knesset President Reuven Rivlin. In it, he stated: "The decision is an isolated case that is not legally binding for other courts."
In recent days, the ruling has drawn nearly universal criticism in the press. On editorial pages on Friday, most newspapers writing on the topic call for the German government to move to provide clarity for religious groups that their freedoms will be protected.
Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"It is understandable when religious leaders protest because they feel their faith and their rituals are being ridiculed. The ruling puts circumcision in a category that also includes beatings. The circumcised child is put on the same level as one who has been beaten up. Beatings belittle people and make a child the object of anger of the person beating it. But circumcision is an act of recognition: It makes the child the member of a faith and represents entry into a community. Some Christians and atheists may smirk over that, but Christians also don't have to celebrate the 'Feast of the Circumcision of Christ' on Jan. 1 if they don't want to. … The Cologne court's ruling was rash and the loud outcry is justified."
The regional Saarbrücker Zeitung writes:
"Under no circumstances can the circumcision ritual … of Judaism be reduced to an inherited, archaic religious law. To an overwhelming majority of secular Jews, it is viewed as much more of a foundation that is indispensable for establishing identity. Viewed in this context, there is no exaggeration in the objection that this legal decision makes Jewish -- as well as Muslim -- life in Germany impossible. … Another court, presumably (the Federal Constitutional Court in) Karlsruhe, will have to re-weigh the issues. If it affirms the (lower court's) ban, it would be unique in the entire world. It would do so in the full awareness that it risks triggering an exodus of Jews and Muslims (from Germany). One can't imagine what the consequences of this would be for Germany."
Conservative Die Welt writes:
"The circumcision of Jewish boys on the eighth day after their birth is a foundation of the Jewish religion. If it is suspended through disregard for freedom of religion, then Jewish life in Germany will no longer be possible. For the first time since the end of the Third Reich, Jews would be forced to leave the country in order to be able to adhere to this mandate of the scriptures. If that happens, it would send out a message with disastrous political consequences."
"There are also other reasons that legal certainty in the interests of freedom of religion and faith under Article 4 of the German constitution be created. A ban on circumcision, be it Muslim or Jewish, is a manifestation of the increasing intolerance shown towards religious groups in the world. It has been almost palpable since 9/11. ... Intolerance can swell like a flood: If you don't dam it up, it will continue."
"The reference (in the ruling) to the bodily integrity of the child is also only a pretext. No judge would seek to take action against the vaccinations given to infants -- an action that, statistically, can lead to greater complications than circumcision. And the 'castration trauma' that some dinner table psychologists have dreamt up cannot be taken seriously either. It certainly can't be any greater than the emotional burden faced by an adolescent who cannot take part in Jewish festivities and be consecrated because he is not circumcised. The Cologne judges didn't think about that and they issued a ruling that is unprecedented in the Western world. It is a shameful farce for Germany."
The left-leaning Frankfurter Rundschau writes:
"The rabbis' worries are justified. As long as German jurisprudence is concerned with finding a balance between the legally protected right of religious freedom and the right of physical integrity, religious Jews and Muslims will see themselves as confronted by a climate of defamation. In these emotionally charged debates, there is more at play than just investigating a position of legal positivism. Jews and Muslims don't need any advice or cultural-historical treatises on their rituals. What they need is legal certainty. And establishing this is also the job of politicians."
The regional Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"The decision of the Cologne-based court shouldn't be allowed to stand in this way, and there needs to be another judicial review. What is the signal that Cologne was sending out? Should religious Jews who want to circumcise their boys now use quack doctors or even go abroad? One would already like to see a trace of historical or cultural sensitivity from the courts. The decision offers the kind of material that could trigger cultural warfare, if it hasn't already begun."
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Then your argument that all it has to do is pass a secular test isn't valid.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and circumcision is a very large part of Judaism. And that's all it needs to be.
Ok, let's try this on some other cases.
"Eating babies is a very large part of atheism. And that's all it needs to be."
"Peyote is a very large part of shamanism. And that's all it needs to be."
"Not paying for abortions (or insurance that pays for it) is a very large part of Catholicism. And that's all it needs to be."
"Human sacrifice is a very large part of the worship of Hualotl. And that's all it needs to be."
Perhaps you would like to rephrase your argument in a way that doesn't utterly privilege custom you approve of and the status quo?
Posts: 10535 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I use the analogy of if ear piercing as being a mark of ethnic inclusiveness for a people some 5000 or so years of custom and history behind the tradition and since piercing an ear cannot be shown to have significant long term harm than it is an "allowable" level of harm as the "price of entry" into an ethnic group, or risk cultural genocide.
Male Circumcision strikes me as being little different from trimming your fingernails a little too deeply, you still have useable fingers.
IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand the argument that circumcision is invasive, but still, it doesn't harm the baby in any way. This tradition is harmless, and as I've heard, even beneficial for health and hygiene and stuff.
This ritual is thousands years old. I believe it is one of the things that make Jews Jewish. I'm afraid I don't know about how important circumcision is to Muslims, but I imagine just as much.
On the other hand we have the fact, that the baby has no right to decide. It's like baptism in Christianity or other sacraments in other religions that I do not know of. It is irreversible. I think it could be compared to having a word "Jew" tattooed on your buttock.
I think the first two points combined are much stronger than the third one. That's why I think this ruling is outrageous, extremely abusive, intolerant and I hate it.
If Jews and Muslims circumcised girls, it would be a completely different issue. In such case, I think, they should be given choice and such tradition should be banned.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand the argument that circumcision is invasive, but still, it doesn't harm the baby in any way. This tradition is harmless, and as I've heard, even beneficial for health and hygiene and stuff.
Well, there are drawbacks to being circumcised. They're certainly not major, but because of the weight of tradition it often gets put forward as an unmitigated benefit, with people who question it somehow cast-though it's not always stated openly-as less concerned with a child's welfare. But in any event, let's be clear, it is invasive, at least in the way the term is used. A part of a human body that isn't defective is removed. The response to that isn't ever that it's not, but only that it's good medically, therefore permission after the fact should be assumed. The benefits it offers to adult men of reliable, good hygiene are...less overwhelming, I'm afraid. It seems to me that all of the talk of infection would be much less compelling if it were being proposed as a new thing now.
quote:This ritual is thousands years old. I believe it is one of the things that make Jews Jewish. I'm afraid I don't know about how important circumcision is to Muslims, but I imagine just as much.
Frankly, this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how old this ritual is-as has been noted, there are other rituals with an even longer history that we are perfectly willing to ignore. As for being what makes Jews Jewish and Muslims Muslim, the state frankly shouldn't have any business in protecting the 'Jewishness' of infant children, who cannot outside of their religion be considered 'Jewish' as a question of identity. Setting aside the intersection of culture and religion that is pretty strong among Jewish communities, you can't be a member of a religion unless you pick it-and I fail to see how being born to Jewish parents makes one a Jew anymore than being born to Hindu parents makes one a Hindu. I realize this will seem pretty unconvincing to many people, but it seems to me true. Infants don't belong to any religion, even if any of the religions were true, unless they can be members without choosing to be such.
Anyway, the state doesn't have an interest and shouldn't be involved in protecting the religious identity of anyone, only in their ability to choose their own identity without compulsion from others. Permitting parents to permanently alter the bodies of infants, even if we accept that it is totally harmless, seems at odds with that.
quote:I think the first two points combined are much stronger than the third one. That's why I think this ruling is outrageous, extremely abusive, intolerant and I hate it.
Given that you liken it to a tattoo (which can, actually, be removed) I'm not sure how you would characterize prohibiting infant circumcision, unless it's for this specific ruling, and not the idea in general.
If today, I were to announce myself the new prophet of the One God and detail how as a sign of faith and identity, I would have the last knuckle of my future male infant's middle toes removed-something which if done properly in a hospital would pose very little risk, and down the line in life offer almost no drawbacks to my son-I think people would look at me a bit crosswise, and maybe even try to stop me. Without that weight of tradition, I wouldn't be able to just brush off challenges, as is appropriate. I would have to try and show why, before I have surgery done on my children, it is medically necessary.
Things are made complicated, of course, by the fact that for many such efforts, the motives really are plainly racist, anti-Semitic, hateful, etc. It's also more complicated because, if done properly, very very few children in our culture will mind, nor will they be hurt in an easily defined way. So the easy impulse is to go with the butt out instinct.
The problem there is that it actually is our business what we permit done to infant humans. We have a decision to make.
Posts: 15562 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that banning circumcision is a much greater violation of human rights than circumcising a child.
Comparison, a little weird maybe. It's a tradition to eat meat on certain Holidays. I can imagine that in perceivable future there could be a ruling that forbids to kill/eat animals.
I would rebel against a state that forbids me to eat meat. Animal rights aside - no government has the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong.
I guess what I'm trying to say is- the state now has way too much power. I can't believe something like this happened in Germany. Wars and insurections broke out for lesser reasons.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The argument I would use is that since banning circumcision would in effect, be a de facto ban of Judaism that would force those wishing to be practicing Jews to leave Germany to be worrisome. The "pros" of protecting the child I feel are vastly outweighed by the law of unintended consequences.
That and the leading legal arguments for its ban seem to rely on a notion of humans rights that for much of the world aren't even guaranteed for adults I just find silly.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
E-mail this page
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
