German court bans circumcision [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Skybird

06-28-12, 05:01 AM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/religious-communities-debate-court-s-circumcision-ruling-a-841276.html

About time, i would say. It compares to branding of horses and is the abuse of the weak and young once again - that still cannot judge, weigh and assess due to young age - to mutilate them without medical need. Religious ideology claims posession of the individual by marking it irreversibly, and it is revealing that the two archenemies in theistic beliefs, Jews and Muslims, are standing side by side here. It cannot be accepted any longer that freedom of religion weighs heavier than the right of physical integrity and children being protected from physical assaults like this. The alternative is to leave children unattacked by ideologic indoctirnation and physical mutilation until they are 18 or 21 years. When they are adult in the law'S sense they may decide whether or not they want to join this or that club or not, or whether they want a tatoo, a piercing, a branding, a tongue splitting or a genital mutilation. But of course religions want nothing less than this: to leave the children unharmed by religions' ideology, and leave individuals a choice to decide for or against them. What gets glossed as cultural habit and religious rite, in reality is just this: the branding of horses to mark claims of possession.

Parents do not have total rights over their children, they do not own or possess them. Sexual assault is forbidden, physical assault is forbidden, letting kids starve or exlcuding them from needed medical treatment. Even slapping a disobedient kid now can earn you a call to court today. But mutilating them over religious claims - that should go by because it is founded on religion...?

A good German comment from the conservative FAZ:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/urteil-zur-beschneidung-das-wohl-des-kindes-11801160.html

joegrundman

06-28-12, 05:06 AM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/religious-communities-debate-court-s-circumcision-ruling-a-841276.html

About time, i would say. It compares to branding of horses and is the abuse of the weak and young once again - that still cannot judge, weigh and assess due to young age - to mutilate them without medical need. Religious ideology claims posession of the individual by marking it irreversibly, and it is revealing that the two archenemies in theistic beliefs, Jews and Muslims, are standing side by side here. It cannot be accepted any longer that freedom of religion weighs heavier than the right of physical integrity and children being protected from physical assaults like this. The alternative is to leave children unattacked by ideologic indoctirnation and physical mutilation until they are 18 or 21 years. When they are adult in the law'S sense they may decide whether or not they want to join this or that club or not, or whether they want a tatoo, a piercing, a branding, a tongue splitting or a genital mutilation. But of course religions want nothing less than this: to leave the children unharmed by religions' ideology, and leave individuals a choice to decide for or against them. What gets glossed as cultural habit and relgious rite, in reality is just this: the branding of horses to mark claims of possession.

A good German comment from the conservative FAZ:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/urteil-zur-beschneidung-das-wohl-des-kindes-11801160.html

a) germany will back down from this law
b) it may be revealing that the Jews and Muslims unite in opposition to this, but what it reveals is neither surprising nor interesting

06-28-12, 05:14 AM

Ahhh...very strong vocabulary...i would have to see anyone complain about it besides the people who have nothing to do with it.

WoW Sky....you really care so much :haha:

BossMark

06-28-12, 05:19 AM

Well it will stop a lot of FORE Skinless pain :rotfl2::rotfl2:

Skybird

06-28-12, 05:24 AM

The court'S ruling will serve as an precedent in every indiovidual court case from now on. It is not mandatorily binding for all later cases to come, but will be considered and influence.

It may not be intzeresting to you, or surprising (it is not if you know the three desert dogmas), but it is revealing indeed. It means that even more important than their mutual animosities and hostilities is their shared interest to defend their priviliges, their exlcusiopns from legal standards, their special roles being accepted as if they were founded on something worthy. It reveals what a bigot accumulation of cynical hunger for power they all are, and that the fundaemtalism in all three of them is not worth to be differentiated.

Absuing children is the lowest level to which man can fall. It's time that our legal systems start to treat it accordingly. We are no pri8mitive sheep shepards from 3 thousand years ago anymore. We should knopw better by now, and must not copy the relics of our primtive pasts anymore. It is neither genes nor drives that tell us to violate children. It is human stupidity only, fanatism, and ideologic claim of superiority over others.

Abuse of animals thta are at our mercy, of weaker ones, of children - that are things that really make me boil hot. Dispicable.

BTW, circumcision is not even demanded for in the Quran. Like almost evertyhign else they just copied the Jews when they saw that it functions: and again, it is about the branding of horses to claim possession of them. That'S the only real purpose behind it.

Skybird

06-28-12, 05:27 AM

Ahhh...very strong vocabulary
Strong vocabulary? It is calling things by their real name, which is not offensive, but precise. The offense is taken by those only who as a result are ripped of their masks behind which they were allowed to hide for too long.

06-28-12, 05:34 AM

Strong vocabulary? It is calling things by their real name, which is not offensive, but precise. The offense is taken by those only who as a result are ripped of their masks behind which they were allowed to hide for too long.

WOW what can i say the Muslim flood is really getting on your nerves there...stop being such hypocrite.

antikristuseke

06-28-12, 05:40 AM

About damn time this pointless mutilation of the genitalia of children was stopped. Good riddance.
If you feel strongly about it, get it done as an adult, do not mutilate children.

Herr-Berbunch

06-28-12, 05:45 AM

About damn time this pointless mutilation of the genitalia of children was stopped. Good riddance.
If you feel strongly about it, get it done as an adult, do not mutilate children.

:agree:

It should be an informed choice made by an informed adult, not foisted upon the innocents.

Rockstar

06-28-12, 05:50 AM

Let me guess, Roland Freisler was the court president reviewing this case.

Rockstar

06-28-12, 05:54 AM

Amazes me how some get all up in arms over this. Especially the hypocrites who on one hand can say kill them in the womb then turn right around pat themselves on the back for being such ardent supporters of the rights of a child.

antikristuseke

06-28-12, 05:57 AM

Two different issues entirely, please do not derail the thread.

06-28-12, 05:58 AM

I just wonder what are the statistical complications due to piercing or tattooing.
:hmmm:

joegrundman

06-28-12, 06:03 AM

I just wonder what are the statistical complications due to piercing or tattooing.
:hmmm:

also a different issue!

06-28-12, 06:10 AM

also a different issue!

No it is not....it is about underling motivations of such laws.
I suspect it is outcome of inability of EU to deal with their problems directly or calling things by their true names.:03:
So they sell this bull...

Skybird

06-28-12, 06:17 AM

While I think that abortion in 12th week probbaly leads too far, I refuse to compare a fetus of 4 weeks with a born child of several years in age. The criterion to me is the excistence of a nervous system and sensory system whose signal inpout gets computed in an already existing brain that is sufficiently developed to form an indiviodual "print" of this input. Before this is the case, to me it is just a bunch of cells, no human being with any form of philosophical identity of its own. And for that, 12 weeks (the limit at which abortion in Germany under certain circumstances can remain free of penalties) is probably too much.

But anyhow, circumcision and abortion have nothing to do with each other. You could as well complain about attacking pedophile priests when not at the same time protesting against abotion, too.

Article 1, German Basic Law (=coinstituion of Germany) : "The dignity of man is untouchable.". Ther eis no exception mentioned for Islamic or Jewish people. There is no word on that the dignity of children may be violated in the name of religious ideology and branding to claim cultural possession of children. The dignity of children is untouchable. Parents and priests or whomever have no right to do physical damage to them. You are not allowed to beat them, to mistreat them, or to cut off their nosetips or earlobes.

In Judaism there is even an extremely orthodox sect that pushes the mutilation of genitals even further. There the hero carrying out the procedure has to nibble on the cutoff foreskin and on the bleeding gential of the kid. I beg you! How much more is needed toi illustrate how absurd and idiotic the whole thing of circumcision is?

Again, the Quran, to my knowledge, does not demand it, at least I cannot remember it.

The circumcision of females is even more inhumane and disastrous, and an extremely painful and dangerous procedure as well, traumatizing the victim in most cases for the rest of her life. Here again the underlaying motive is about patriarchalic claims of possessing and being in power over females. The same motivation it is with mutilating male children: to claim possession of them in the name of an ideology and its subordinate culture.

If we protest against female circumcision, and make it illegal, then there is no excuse to not do the same with the circumcision of boys.

Or we could also allow 5 year old girls which are physically absolutely normal brought by their parents to cosmetical surgery, becaue parents want a certain physicaol feature: a different nose, longer legs, a different skin colour...

Leave these things to free decision of the individual once it has grown up and is 18. I know I know - religions hate it to leave people in freedom, there is nothing they hate more than free people that think independently from them. That is one of the reasons why I am so bitterly hostile towards any religion.

Rockstar

06-28-12, 06:25 AM

OK, the issue at hand is circumcision. It is a medical procedure routinely done at birth and a procedure done on the 8th day according to the law of Moses. Whats the big deal?

I was circumcised at my parents request, Im perfectly fine. What the heck is your issue with it? Mind your own business, leave me and my parents out of your holier than thou hypocritical self righteousness rants.

If by chance a procedure has gone wrong whether it was performed by a doctor or rabbi then investigate that case and that case alone. Dont lump it and me with my parents decision in with your assinine arguements.

Jerks

06-28-12, 06:28 AM

So who is complaining here?
The poor victims?

We all probably are so religiously brainwashed we don't know whats good for us.

It will truly solve your integration problems....outlawing branding.:haha:

Herr-Berbunch

06-28-12, 06:31 AM

I was circumcised at my parents request, Im perfectly fine.

Jerks

As are most people, but at the age of 18, 21, 30, 40 would you choose to have it done if not for a purely medical reason?

Nice sign off, by the way. :haha:

Skybird

06-28-12, 06:44 AM

Herr Berbunch, that is exactly the point that I often have on my mind when being confronted with some religious claim or practice that is aimed at the young, weak, defenceless ones: children. Would people will to do when they are grown-up adults what they have been forced to do while they were little kids? And mind you, mutilation is a one-way street only, there is no reversing possible.

For relgious reasons, children are not left a later choice. rElious mitives denies them the right to make a free choice later, when theya are grown up and adult enough to actually form opinion by themselves and make decisions by their own. If people want to snibble thewir gentials when they are adults, I cannot care less. When people do that to helpless children that simply get forced, I have a problem with it. Like I have with raping children or beating up children or letting starve children as well.

Parents are responsible for their children. That does not mean they own them, or that they are their possessions. Parents are not owners, they are somebody with a duty to care for somebody else until that somebody can take care for himself by his own means.

joegrundman

06-28-12, 06:46 AM

this law is not going to stand. Seriously, anyone here thinks that Germany is going to let a law stand that outlaws jewish practice?

think again. No matter how silly the practice is on the face of it.

It will be dropped, and soon.

06-28-12, 07:02 AM

Parents are responsible for their children. That does not mean they own them, or that they are their possessions. Parents are not owners, they are somebody with a duty to care for somebody else until that somebody can take care for himself by his own means.

here we go..so who's possession are they...yours....the state's...the politicians'?

antikristuseke

06-28-12, 07:12 AM

No-ones, they are the wards of their parents and in some bad cases wards of the state.

06-28-12, 07:17 AM

No-ones, they are the wards of their parents and in some bad cases wards of the state.

Fine with me....

Rockstar

06-28-12, 07:49 AM

As are most people, but at the age of 18, 21, 30, 40 would you choose to have it done if not for a purely medical reason?

Nice sign off, by the way. :haha:

Its something that doesnt concern me really as the procedure has been done already. I have no animosity towards my parents or for their descion concerning my well being when I was a child. They didnt take anything from me that I want back. But frankly knowing what I know and where my faith lay, yes my desire would be for circumcision if I wasnt already.

As I said I personally have no resentment for the decsion my parents made. What I find odd and irks me a bit is that there are some nosey busy bodies here that do.

Skybird

06-28-12, 08:21 AM

By that logic of yours - the deed is done, so get over it - you can screw all law enforcement. The crime is done, so why the noise?

It is not about you and your past. It is about those children today and the freedom to choose that now or in the future gets taken away from them - or is bein g left to them so that thy can choose by their own decision when they are grown up.

Why I care? For the same reason why i care when children in my neighbourhood would get beaten up by parents, or would get hurt by their parents, of would get abused.

If you do not understand that, you would just illustrate the kind of egoist desinterest that is so very much modern today and that time and again gets brought to new heights if this kind of coldhearted desinterest is founded on religious rules and thoughts. Nothing beats the the inhumanity and mercilessness that religion shows when it comes to enforcing its morals on people. "The maximum of possible cruelty is still not enoiugh for the enemies of my God". "Whatever hit you in suffering and pain, it serves oyu right for you do not follow the will of my God." "You do not believe in my God, so we pull you into the light of the purifying fire."

I do not care much for babies getting baptised, it is just water and a ritual that causes nothing, done in a round of adults who still got stuck in the superstitiuon of even pre-medieval eras. I got baptised, too, but who cares? There is no watermark on my forehead, nor is anyone in the family caring for such magical stauff anymore - I made them all turning their back on the church.

But circumcision is somethign else, here damage gets done, physcial injury that is irreversible. That is what separates a superstitious but harmless watershow that takes itself way too serious but beyond that does not cause effect, from a crime. And a crime is what it is when you physically or mentally abuse or violate children, pupills (=Schutzbefohlene).

IMO it just adds another argument against religions that there is no moral outcry amongst them over this kind of abuse. If the same thing would be done to children without referring the deed to a religious cult, law enforcement immediately would get engaged and prosecute the parents and the person carrying out the deed.

Sailor Steve

06-28-12, 08:31 AM

06-28-12, 08:34 AM

joegrundman

06-28-12, 08:40 AM

I always thought the reason for hospitals doing it was medical, not religious, and I'm not sure how much damage is really done. It looks to me like a bit of overreaction, I don't have a real opinion one way or another on this yet, so that's all I'm going to say.

it is done in hospitals because it is more hygienic and safer than people doing it in less regulated conditions (ie in ceremonies done at home).

only very rarely is circumcision done for direct medical reasons, although people do say all sorts of nonsense about "better hygiene" etc. to justify circumcision.

It is done for religious/cultural/traditional reasons in almost all cases

as for how much damage is done - i'd say it's less than losing your little toe, but more than having your fingernails cut.

In any case most of Skybird's argumentation is missing his primary problem.

Germany is going to drop this law. The question is, how much of a fuss do you wish to make before this happens?

It does not look good for Germany to be making this sort of law, and you can either drop this law pronto while making it clear that this was some sort of weird judicial aberration .. or you can wait until the maelstrom kicks up with Jewish groups in Israel and the USA joining in and start saying unpleasant things.

I recommend you take the first option and drop it quickly and be glad for the triumph of common sense.

Sailor Steve

06-28-12, 08:42 AM

joegrundman

06-28-12, 08:47 AM

Okay. I'm not sure I understand, but that may be because it was done to me despite the fact that neither of my parents were believers. I just thought it was considered routine.

well...ok...there was a time when the medical establishment in various western parts decided it was cleaner to be circumcised, and that one was less prone to infections. It is now considered nonsense.

06-28-12, 08:53 AM

...... It is now considered nonsense.

Depends on whom you ask.

Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

joegrundman

06-28-12, 08:58 AM

Depends on whom you ask.

as i said earlier, lots of people come up with all sorts of reasons why circumcision is healthier and cleaner in order to justify what is done for cultural reasons. there is no statistical evidence to support these claims.

edit: missed that quote you gave when i posted - sorry

Skybird

06-28-12, 09:07 AM

The medical debate is about anaerobic versus aerobic bacterias, and is even linked lately to AIDS. But - that plays no role here. The argument given by relgions for circumcision is no medical one, but a religious one. Not to mention that the medical arguments for the most have been proven since long to be no arguments, but lousely examined excuses to construct an argument. Again there is nothing in the statistics letting it appear unreasonbale to ask why subjects are not allowed to wait to grow up and when they are 18 or older form a decision by themselves whether they want to undergo circumcision or not.

And even if it were true that it helps to lower AIDs infection rates, this is no issue a baby (Jews) or just 6 year old (was it six years for Muslims?) must be protected from, since at that age babies and kids have sexual intercourse only against their will and ability, and always to their disadvantage. - Where we again close the circle to religions: fatwas by Muslim clerics and namely Ayatollah Chomenei ruling that the penetration of a baby's openings by finger is okay as long as no penetration by penis takes place, or the massive ammount of personality deformations you see in the personell stock of Christian clerics, leading to high numbers of sexual child abuse there, and attempts by their higher offices to hide and cover that.

joegrundman

06-28-12, 09:18 AM

it is a good point that you make when you say that the medical excuses given are themselves largely not applicable before adulthood

06-28-12, 09:19 AM

Were we again close the circle to religions: fatwas by Muslim clerics and namely Ayatollah Chomenei ruling that the penetration of a baby's openings by finger is okay as long as no penetration by penis takes place, or the massive ammount of personality deformations you see in the personell stock of Christian clerics, leading to high numbers of sexual child abuse there, and attempts by their higher offices to hide and cover that.

Leave the Ayatollah and the Rabbinate out just ask average secular "victims" if they are bothered by this...you are totally mixing stuff here and try to paint this as something sinister with your graphic analogy.

it is a good point that you make when you say that the medical excuses given are themselves largely not applicable before adulthood

Depends...:03:

Skybird

06-28-12, 09:22 AM

it is done in hospitals because it is more hygienic and safer than people doing it in less regulated conditions (ie in ceremonies done at home).

only very rarely is circumcision done for direct medical reasons, although people do say all sorts of nonsense about "better hygiene" etc. to justify circumcision.

It is done for religious/cultural/traditional reasons in almost all cases

as for how much damage is done - i'd say it's less than losing your little toe, but more than having your fingernails cut.

In any case most of Skybird's argumentation is missing his primary problem.

Germany is going to drop this law. The question is, how much of a fuss do you wish to make before this happens?

It does not look good for Germany to be making this sort of law, and you can either drop this law pronto while making it clear that this was some sort of weird judicial aberration .. or you can wait until the maelstrom kicks up with Jewish groups in Israel and the USA joining in and start saying unpleasant things.

I recommend you take the first option and drop it quickly and be glad for the triumph of common sense.
That you wish for the third time now that Germany skips this law, and that you even demand it and threaten with those Jewish lobby groups in the US (last time I mentioned them it was denied that they even exist...), does not mean that it will happen so easily, or at all. chances are 50:50 that it will hold on n ational court levels, and what the European cpouret says, I do not predict - the EU recently decided that it wants to form a tough front against female circumcision.

But you live in a country (US, I assume) that even seriously argues that scientology is no commerce company selling slavery, but seriously considers it to be a religion, giving it full religious priviliges, tax evasion, and immunity from laws. So who do you demand to take that sende rof the message serious? The US govenrment has repeatedly demanded ermany and other Eiuroppean nations to recognise scientology as a relgion, and look where it led: we have not, and even have it under close observation by the federal police and the office fore the proteciton of the constitution. As a result, scientology since some years runs dry in Germany, and that is good so.

The same should be done with a campaign to ban religiously motivated physical violence.

It was the second level of the German legal system that gave the sentence today, and it is not binding for all courts in Germany, but it will serve as a precedence that will be considered and taken into account at other courts when such cases gets negotiated. Muslim and Jewish groups threaten to go to the highets European court to defend their precious little hobby of violence against kids. Le thtem. That is the same EU that has released an official proposal that nations should (and some have already) make criticism of religions a punishable crime by declaring all criticism of religion a discrimination. I am certain that man people in this thread love that. Religion cannot defend its claims by facts, arguments and sane reason, so it must be saved from getting put into question - that is the logic bewind it.

That is so pitiful.

joegrundman

06-28-12, 09:49 AM

Herr-Berbunch

06-28-12, 10:01 AM

Page 3 already, and it's not totally gone to pot. :yeah:

I've nothing further to add to the debate, I've said my piece and you too can have your say.

Safe-Keeper

06-28-12, 10:11 AM

WOW what can i say the Muslim flood is really getting on your nerves there...stop being such hypocrite.
Now that is so dramatic and graphic another foreskin man comes to our rescue....:haha:
Let's try to stay serious here, shall we? If you can't discuss this rationally, no one is forcing you to participate in the thread:03:.

I just wonder what are the statistical complications due to piercing or tattooing.
:hmmm:A very relevant point. I'll get back to this below.

OK, the issue at hand is circumcision. It is a medical procedure routinely done at birth and a procedure done on the 8th day according to the law of Moses.Utterly irrelevant. European courts do not make decisions based based on scripture from 3000 years ago.

I was circumcised at my parents request, Im perfectly fine.Your anecdote aside, lots of babies which undergo circumcision do not turn out perfectly fine. Some grow up wishing their parents had left their bodies alone. Some suffer complications. A miniscule number dies. What is gained? Something as archaic as tradition and religious rites.

What the heck is your issue with it? Mind your own business, leave me and my parents out of your holier than thou hypocritical self righteousness rants.The irony here is this is exactly what we're trying to do. We are objecting to adults performing surgery on babies without their consent. In effect, we want a nation where adults do not impose their archaic traditions and religious beliefs onto infants.

If circumcision is to be allowed, why not purely cosmetic snipping of female babies' genitalia? Note that I say purely cosmetic, as in, a visible difference but, unlike male circumcision, no ill effects to, say, sex life? What if I was to tattoo a scarlet "A" for atheism on my infant's calf? Or decide to cut its eartips off? If you wouldn't permit these practices, why permit circumcision of non-consenting babies?

What do you say we "mind our own business" and permit Muslems to make cosmetic alterations to their babies' vaginal areas? We don't want to be jerks, now do we?

Why I care? For the same reason why i care when children in my neighbourhood would get beaten up by parents, or would get hurt by their parents, of would get abused. Another very good point. "Spanking" doesn't even cause permanent physical changes in the body of the child, yet surprise surprise, it's banned in many countries.

Sailor Steve

06-28-12, 10:12 AM

well...ok...there was a time when the medical establishment in various western parts decided it was cleaner to be circumcised, and that one was less prone to infections. It is now considered nonsense.
That makes more sense to me now. After all I was born more than sixty years ago.

Thanks for the clarification.

06-28-12, 10:13 AM

precious little hobby of violence against kids.
That's bull....still you seem to be too busy with so many issues to take this in...:o

Skybird

06-28-12, 11:01 AM

That is no "bull", that is exactly what it is. An extremely painful and often traumatising expereince. Until this morning I thought that at least it would be done with local anaestitics, but I meanwhile learned better: at least in Muslim communities it must be done without.

You cannot campaign against the circumcision of females but accept it for boys. That would be a completely self-contradicting opinion.

Aother German comment, his time from the perspective of a Turkish woman in Germany, Necla Kelec, a known critic of Islam and Turkish rejection of integration in Germany, and a profound sociologist and publicist, she is author of several books on the matter. She fled from her family and is an apostate. She accuses Germans of shying away from the confrontation with Islam, being unwilling to value the freedom that they have and take it for granted, and giving too much ground to it. In the german debate on Islam, I count her as a heavy-weight. Politicians avoid her (she is too competent to buy their appeasing lies), and Muslim lobby groups dispise and hate her as an enemy and apostate.

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article107288230/Die-Beschneidung-ein-unnuetzes-Opfer-fuer-Allah.html

It is interesting that the sacrifice for thei deity is not being done by cutting the nosetip, or the earlobes or a piece of a finger, but the sexual organs. All three desert dogmas are obsessed with supressing sexuality, and turning into into a perverted, often brutally sanctioned stigma of man, a sign of sin, a cause of endless guilt, an alibi for supression of women, and life-long neurosis and traumatization. Every year several hundred thousand girls and women are estimated to die miserably due to having been circumcised, the suffering is unimaginable, so is the pain, the shock, and the trauma. The result is a lifelong horror of sexual intercourse, which always means just pain, no pleasure, and I can only speculate how it messes up healthy relations between a man and a woman when the man knows that sex always hurts the woman even if he approaches her in a loving, careful attitude (mind you, by Quranic descritpions women are no real hmans but somethign like satanic halflings, that must be controlled and kept in check, so do not read too much into it when I mentioned the possibility that man may apoproach woman in acaring, loving attitude - one of thr worst fates oyu can suffer is to live as a female in some of the most backwardly Muslim place son this planet, let'S say Afghansitan for example). We ban this circumcision of women and campaign against it when it effects girls and young women, but we shall tolerate it in case of boys - for nothing better, for nothing less non-substantial than religious claim and hear-say? We cannot be serious. Religion does not deserve this, it is nothign that justifies this repeal of mental sanity and reasonability - and humanism.

06-28-12, 11:18 AM

That is no "bull", that is exactly what it is. An extremely painful and often traumatising expereince.

Is it?

You cannot campaign against the circumcision of females but accept it for boys. That would be a completely self-contradicting opinion.

Ask the women who can freely speak their mind....this female circumcision example is boring and childish stretch.
I don't think they would disagree with you....that's the difference.

Safe-Keeper

06-28-12, 11:27 AM

Is it?
Again, please try to actually contribute to the discussion.

Ask the women who can freely speak their mind...Oh, but we do. Who do you think perform female circumcision in many countries? The women themselves, of course. They have it done to themselves when they're young, and then grow up to do it to their own offspring when the time comes. I read an interview with two immigrants from Somalia who had both had their vaginal openings sewn shut. Despite all the pain they went through, both when the procedure was done, and in the time thereafer when they urinated, for example, they didn't consider what was done to them a wrongdoing until they came to Norway and us evil ethnocentric secularists convinced them that their culture was inferior to ours in this regard.

Em, why do you ask?

..this female circumcision example is boring and childish stretch. Please explain. Why is circumcision a boring a childish stretch in a discussion on circumcicion?

I asked a question earlier in this thread: are you for or against purely cosmetic circumcision of young girls, for reasons of tradition, culture and religion? Why or why not?

CaptainMattJ.

06-28-12, 11:27 AM

Circumcision of females IS mutilation. Cutting off a clitoris is incredibly painful and unethical. it permanently disables that aspect of the female and causes noticeable disfiguration and disables the role of the clitoris. This is the most widely practiced Female circumcision, and its usually not in sanitary conditions or performed by trained medical personnel.

Male Circumcision has been thoroughly and repeatedly studied for signs of decreased performance or any medical problems with cutting off the foreskin, and its been proven that no such problems exist. Average length, sensitivity, size, and functions are relatively the same between non-circumsized and circumsized men. The only possible problems arise when it is done incorrectly, which isnt a problem with trained medical personnel. Circumcision also has been used as medical relief from problems such as phimosis.

i agree with MH, you use harsh language like "mutilation" to prove a false point about how circumcisions disfigure a Man and cause health problems when, if done correctly, it does not. I also take offense at you comparing Male and Female circumcision so freely.

Now, whether or not cutting off the foreskin of a possibly non-consenting infant is ethical is the only real topic that can be debated, as whether or not it mutilates Men has been proven many times to be inaccurate. AFAIK Adult male circumcision is more harmful (yet still hardly mutilation) because the Penis is fully grown. Men have reported that their Penis had decreased sensitivity and swelling after Adult circumcisions, but more research is needed.

Im leaning towards the ban of child circumcision for religious and or cosmetic reasons because the infant/toddler doesnt know what the procedure is for, and cant make an educated decision on whether or not he would really want it.

Tribesman

06-28-12, 11:30 AM

a known critic of Islam and Turkish rejection of integration in Germany, and a profound sociologist and publicist, she is author of several books on the matter. She fled from her family and is an apostate. She accuses Germans of shying away from the confrontation with Islam
Thats the german Hirsi Ali isn't it, though she got rumbled for inventing her research rather than inventing her life story like Ali did.:hmmm:

06-28-12, 11:31 AM

Again, please try to actually contribute to the discussion.

Which part of "is it?" did you not understand...

I asked a question earlier in this thread: are you for or against purely cosmetic circumcision of young girls, for reasons of tradition, culture and religion? Why or why not?

I'm not aware of such tradition....but you would have to ask the women about it if they would mind.

Gargamel

06-28-12, 12:55 PM

Anybody who calls the circumcision of a 1 week old traumatizing is an idiot. Name your first memory. Is it from less than 2 years old? Doubt it.

I know for a fact that I would much rather be snipped at birth than now. You have no memory of it! There is NO lasting traumaitization!

Why don't we outlaw baptism due to the chance of drowning while we're at it??

joegrundman

06-28-12, 01:19 PM

That you wish for the third time now that Germany skips this law, and that you even demand it and threaten with those Jewish lobby groups in the US (last time I mentioned them it was denied that they even exist...), does not mean that it will happen so easily, or at all. chances are 50:50 that it will hold on n ational court levels, and what the European cpouret says, I do not predict - the EU recently decided that it wants to form a tough front against female circumcision.

But you live in a country (US, I assume) that even seriously argues that scientology is no commerce company selling slavery, but seriously considers it to be a religion, giving it full religious priviliges, tax evasion, and immunity from laws. So who do you demand to take that sende rof the message serious? The US govenrment has repeatedly demanded ermany and other Eiuroppean nations to recognise scientology as a relgion, and look where it led: we have not, and even have it under close observation by the federal police and the office fore the proteciton of the constitution. As a result, scientology since some years runs dry in Germany, and that is good so.

The same should be done with a campaign to ban religiously motivated physical violence.

It was the second level of the German legal system that gave the sentence today, and it is not binding for all courts in Germany, but it will serve as a precedence that will be considered and taken into account at other courts when such cases gets negotiated. Muslim and Jewish groups threaten to go to the highets European court to defend their precious little hobby of violence against kids. Le thtem. That is the same EU that has released an official proposal that nations should (and some have already) make criticism of religions a punishable crime by declaring all criticism of religion a discrimination. I am certain that man people in this thread love that. Religion cannot defend its claims by facts, arguments and sane reason, so it must be saved from getting put into question - that is the logic bewind it.

That is so pitiful.

Hi,

firstly I'm not saying that I wish Germany would drop this law (although I do), I am saying that once this arrives in Merkel's in-tray, I'm betting that it's going to be squashed.

secondly, I am not demanding anything, and I am most certainly not threatening you with anything. I am not in a position to make threats since I have no influence with these groups. I am simply saying what I think will happen once the story comes out.

You say that chances are 50:50 that it will hold at the national courts; I think the chances are much lower than that. So if you wish to make a private gentleman's wager with me, at even odds, I will be glad to accept :)

As for my location, you are wrong, but in any case, it is irrelevant here.

The salient point in this case is that circumcision of newborn males after one week is extremely important in Judaism.

All Jews do this, even the most atheistic ones (and there are many who are atheists), even those who eat pork (and there are quite a few, and not just for salami either). To not circumcise your male child is to signify your intention to abandon Judaism.

Now, you may or may not be right that circumcision is a barbaric practice or whatever. We surely agree that the ill consequences of circumcision are vanishingly minor.

The important thing is this: Germany is AGAIN outlawing the practice of Judaism.

This is not a message that Germany wants to make. Believe me, I mean Germany well, and Germany just cannot be the one to decide this. It will work out badly for Germany.

I generally agree with your efforts to fight the forces of unreason, but you have to pick your battles. Let France, Norway, or better still Israel, be the first land to decide circumcision of infant males is wrong, and let them provoke the debate within Judaism and Islam about the value of this practice. But for Germany to start this debate is deeply unwise, I think.

ciao!

Catfish

06-28-12, 02:55 PM

It depends on the tools used ..

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/schneideisen.jpg

:hmm2:

Safe-Keeper

06-28-12, 04:07 PM

Anybody who calls the circumcision of a 1 week old traumatizing is an idiot. Name your first memory. Is it from less than 2 years old? Doubt it. I'll let Skybird back up his own statements, but I'll just say this: trauma is in no way dependent on memory. If a baby is abused or suffers from neglect, he or she probably won't be able to remember it later on, but the effects may stay with him or her for a long time still. Skybird can probably tell you more about this, and explain it better than I can.

Skybird

06-28-12, 04:37 PM

Anybody who calls the circumcision of a 1 week old traumatizing is an idiot. Name your first memory. Is it from less than 2 years old? Doubt it.

Muslims in germany do it at several years of age, and without injection. If you understand Germanb, read the article by Kelec I linked. Also, circumcision includes girls. And that is traumatising in almost every case.

If you lobby against female circumcision, whiochz is en vogue in Europe, you have no excuse to allow it for babies or for boys of several years.

What needs to be done now is to prevent circumcision tourism. That could be done by checks in regular school tests that are already run for vaccination and regular medical examinations. Parents of branded cattle, sorry, parents of boys and girls, should be brought to court and serve penalty time for severe physical abuse and gross mistreatment of wards. We enforce prison verdicts against parents boycotting school visits of their children for religious reasons. We do the same for parents arranging gang rapes, commercial child abuse, or failing in their parental duties. We should do the same for gential mutilations.

Religion means that adults do to children what had been done to them when they were children themselves. So there is only one solution: stop parents abusing children now.

Catfish

06-28-12, 04:49 PM

[...]
I'll just say this: trauma is in no way dependent on memory. If a baby is abused or suffers from neglect, he or she probably won't be able to remember it later on, but the effects may stay with him or her for a long time still. [...].

^ This.

Also, why shouldn't you select your religion you want to believe in yourself, when you are grown up, or at least, say, 16 ?

I will invent a new religion:
Everyone of my followers has to get his right leg sawed off, at the age of 2. Anyone can convert later, but only at the age of 2 or after the age of 20, if he wishes to, i just doubt there will be so much convertites.

Maybe taking out the brain will be an even better method to guarantee the faith of my followers.

Skybird

06-28-12, 04:59 PM

^ This.

Also, why shouldn't you select your religion you want to believe in yourself, when you are grown up, or at least, say, 16 ?

I will invent a new religion:
Everyone of my followers has to get his right leg sawed off, at the age of 2. Anyone can convert later, but only at the age of 2 or after the age of 20, if he wishes to, i just doubt there will be so much convertites.

Maybe taking out the brain will be an even better method to guarantee the faith of my followers.
Well, I often said that all religions practice circumcision - right in the middle between the temples.

Tribesman

06-28-12, 05:00 PM

Well Skybird has taken the biscuit there, checking people to see if they are circumcised.
No one expected the Spanish Inquisition.

06-28-12, 05:19 PM

This thread is geting wiredly traumatic but thanx you all for your care...it means a alot.

Skybird

06-28-12, 05:42 PM

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_psychological_effects.html

Dr Janet Menage on Circumcision and Psychological Harm.

She gets quoted by the article of Necla Kelec that I linked earlier in German.

Also, this book, I just ehared of it before and had excerpts from it some years ago, so I do not know it in full, but the pieces I read were iumpressive and disillusionising:

Circumcison the hidden trauma, by Ronald Goldman PhD (http://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-The-Hidden-Trauma-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340922633&sr=8-1&keywords=Circumcision+the+Hidden+Trauma)

The book scores over 4.5 stars in the shop.

Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma is the first intensive exploration of the unrecognized psychological and social effects of this American cultural practice. The book has been endorsed by dozens of professionals in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, child development, pediatrics, obstetrics, childbirth education, sociology, and anthropology.
Plain facts and recent research results revealed in the book conflict with popular beliefs and raise serious questions. Goldman's application of psychological and social research coherently explains both the tenacity of circumcision and the contradictory information and beliefs about it. He discusses the potential adverse effects of circumcision not only on infants, men, and sexuality, but also on mother-child relationships, male-female relationships, and societal traits and problems.
The social analysis is provocative, but it is the exploration of the deeply personal effects of circumcision on individuals that is most compelling. We learn how some men discover their feelings about circumcision, why men do not generally talk about them, and why this is changing. The book illustrates how specific male behaviors can be connected to circumcision, even though a man may be unaware of the connection. The text is supported with clinical reports, interviews, surveys, illustrations, and thorough documentation.
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma identifies an overlooked source of early pain and simultaneously points us in the direction of both healing and preventing this pain. It is of particular interest to parents and children's advocates; men who seek to explore their sexuality and deepen self-awareness; women who want to understand men better; childbirth educators and allied workers; and mental health, medical, and academic professionals. The book has wide appeal because it is not just about circumcision and the critical importance of proper infant care. More generally, it is about trusting our instincts, questioning some of our cultural values and assumptions, and reflecting on who we are and who we can be as individuals and as a society.
I know from the past that Goldman is seen as kind of an niche-expert on the matter of traumatization by genital mutilation. He heads an international organisation against circumcision, I think.

You can read him in an interview where he finds some plain words for what circumcision is: http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/baltimore.htm (http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/baltimore.htm)

Circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic. No anesthetic has been proven safe and effective in preventing this pain. Sometimes, the infant does not cry because of withdrawal into traumatic shock. Circumcision often results in behavioral changes and disrupted mother-child bonding, and there are risks as with any surgery.

Crippling and distorting sexuality and the energy it represents, maybe for destroying a source for rebellion to claimed ídeologic authorities in religion. It is probably not for no reason that sexuality is so much under attack in all three desert dogmas.

Skybird

06-28-12, 05:45 PM

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu_Resolution

The Ashley Montagu Resolution refers to the petition to the World Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Court) to end the genital modification and mutilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation) of children worldwide.
Endorsement of the petition also includes the 1989 Universal Declaration on Circumcision, Excision, and Incision which holds that medically unnecessary surgical circumcisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision), excisions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excision) and incisions on male and female genitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitals) constitute an act of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment within the terms of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights).
The original endorsers include Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine Francis Crick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick) and NOCIRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOCIRC) founder Marilyn Milos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Milos). The petition has also been signed by at least two Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize) winners and Jonas Salk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk).

Full text of that resolution from here:
http://www.montagunocircpetition.org/ (http://www.montagunocircpetition.org/)
http://montagunocircpetition.org/univ_declaration.pg (http://montagunocircpetition.org/univ_declaration.pg)

Universal Declaration on Circumcision, Excision, and Incision

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948 adopted and proclaimed the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS; and

WHEREAS, said Declaration affirms to "strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance...;"WHEREAS, Article 2 of said Declaration affirms that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status;" and
WHEREAS, Article 5 of said Declaration affirmst that: "NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR TO CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT;" and

WHEREAS, the practice of medically unnecessary surgical circumcisions, excisions and incisions on male and female genitalia that are conducted:
without anesthesia, inflicts incalculable pain and human suffering, constitutes and act of TORTURE within the terms of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
with anesthesia, constitutes and "act of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" within the terms of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
WHEREAS, other forms of male and female genital mutilation that are conducted as a matter of social and religious custom, e.g. as in "ritual rites of passage," constitute acts of "TORTURE (AND) CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT" within the language of Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
WHEREAS, the above violations of Articles 2 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights frequently involves helpless newborns and adolescents—religious and social customs notwithstanding;

The First International Symposium on Circumcision:

Calls upon all persons and institutions to engage in "progressive measures" to end the practice of torture, cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment that is inherent in circumcisions and other forms of male and female genital mutilation that are conducted as a matter of social-cultural and religious custom and which are de facto violations ofArticles 2 and 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
Calls upon all humane nations to pass legislation prohibiting the practice of torture, cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment that is inherent in circumcisions and other forms of male and female genital mutilation that are conducted as a matter of social-cultural and religious custom which are de facto violations of Articles 2 and 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
Calls upon all humane nations to petition the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF THE HAGUE to formally render an advisory opinion and judgement that the practice of medically unnecessary surgical circumcisions, with or without anesthesia; and other forms of male and female genital mutilation that are conducted as a matter of social-cultural and religious custom, e.g. in "ritual rites of passage" constitute de facto acts of violation ofArticle 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which specifically states:
"NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR TO CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT."

06-28-12, 06:21 PM

Tribesman

06-28-12, 06:22 PM

Right... OK we are in the copy paste Internet bull stage....just look for something to paste that contradict your claims.

Why not just look at the links
The "resolution"
I do like that petition
a whole 4000 signatures from people like "I GOT NOMINATED FOR A GRAMMY IN 1888" "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu"
"Employee of the month (2001)"

August

06-28-12, 06:50 PM

I will invent a new religion:
Everyone of my followers...

As if anyone would follow you... :rotfl2:

Seriously, circumcision is a pretty common practice over here and it has nothing at all to do with religion.

Penguin

06-28-12, 07:01 PM

In Germany the age to choose religion is 14.
Why not let them decide when they're old enough?
Does it make anyone a less believer if a little bit of skin is attached to the penis or not? Does a faith relate to a foreskin?

Some stuff to think about:
60% of all Swedish Jews have a little more skin on their dick, so? Are those no more people with faith, less worth, Untermenschen?
Some sane believers:
Muslims: http://www.quran.org/CIRCUMCISION.HTM
Jews: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Rockstar

06-28-12, 07:30 PM

Just want to put your mind at ease Skybird and let you and The First International Symposium on Circumcision know that my foreskinless penis works just fine and I am extremely pleased with its performance. Oh, and my wife who calls it 'Sparticus' can attest that it keeps her VERY happy too. If you dont believe me I can have pictures sent for you and your fellow professionals at the U.N. to ogle over.

06-28-12, 07:55 PM

antikristuseke

06-28-12, 08:12 PM

As if anyone would follow you... :rotfl2:

Seriously, circumcision is a pretty common practice over here and it has nothing at all to do with religion.

It has nothing to do with medical benefits either. IIRC the practice of circumcision became popular when there was widespread belief that masturbation was bad and circumcision was utilized as a means to keep boys from masturbating. Nowadays it seems to be more about fashion and tradition than anything else.

Penguin

06-28-12, 08:47 PM

I personally have no issues with choices still i have yet to see all this reasoning behind child abuse,sexual issues and all the rest in reality.
Something that would really out right parents to make those decision for silly traditional reasons or whatever.
So far i have seen claims on verge of bigotry or ignorance or some stretched arguments on this forum...still i don't deny that danger of complication may exists...after all it is sort of surgical procedure.
Also doing this at later age is painful and much more problematic as someone already mentioned here.

Jews against circumcision made their choice and this is fine with me...

I think the "let them decide when they're old enough"-people in this discussion made their point clear that a male circumsition is not the same as cutting off a clitoris - which is violence and abuse, as they can't have any fun anymore when shagging, I think we all know enough men who say that it doesn't effect sexuality - and women who say the same :03:

I once have commented a video on here of a 4 year old child who 'preached' religion as child abuse and got **** for it. The people who were upset about it didn't realize that I have nothing against teaching your kid the values/beliefs that you think are right. The problem is forcing someone into a role which they have no intellectual capacity to realize.

Of course you still have the choice to become an atheist when you are circumsised, but why shouldn't the opposite be also true: You can also become a believer no matter how many foreskins you have or not. I do not see the big fuzz about it and frankly I don't see anymore behind it than the fear of the religious crew to lose members. Maybe they would get less followers when they ask the kids at 14.
If it's more painful to a juvenile or adult than a baby is questionable, because you can't actively remember stuff before you were 3 years old. When you get a tattoo it hurts, so why can't religious people have the same commitment and say: I do it because I think it's worth it.

06-28-12, 09:05 PM

As a matter of indoctrination i'm against schools which are purely religious...like orthodox.
The schools must be forced to teach some general sciences at some reasonable levels or denied money or closed if needs to be.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

06-28-12, 09:17 PM

Right... OK we are in the copy paste Internet bull stage....just look for something to paste that contradict your claims.
Better yet talk to all the secular people about how they feel about it..secular for preventing your suspicion of bias.
Make them look hard at their dick and tell you how they feel about it...ask some of their more experienced women which one they might prefer.

Its about fighting religion nothing more...as much heretic unbeliever as i am i can't agree with your vision of pluralism by wiping out traditions and cultural heritages in pursuit of some sort of tyrannic hegemony...
Male circumcision does not affect your rights does not hurt anyone and the "victims" have no regrets so stop all this mantra about child abuse.

"The First International Symposium on Circumcision:"
Thats gettin silly...

As a secular atheist who already got clipped for ostensible* medical necessity (at ~3, not as an infant, and my penis was tender for a good while after it), I do mind somewhat.

*Ostensible, b/c with the zeitgeist surrounding circumstition, it is hard not to suspect they gave up trying to save my foreskin at the slightest sign of trouble.

First, whether someone gets hurt. Even if you assume our foreskin is "just a little flap" with no nerves at all, so it was absolutely painless when it was cut and no complications ever happen with the procedure (all of which are false), it still existed on the kid and now it is gone. There's no room for subjectivity in this, there's the objective fact that mass was reduced

2nd, as an objective fact, a fairly large family of nerves did reside on my foreskin. Now, I know that many studies say my sexual sensitivity won't be negatively affected, but there are some that do, and the one I read is more objective in actually measuring the theresholds or rates of sexual dysfunction.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-cut.jpg
v
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-int.jpg
+
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-graphs-coloured.gif

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/Complic/frisch-denmark.png

Considering that less sensitivity is a logical outcome of losing so many nerves, guess which I buy. They have a "prima facie" case. Besides Sorrells chart matches up well wiith my own experience

Besides, perhaps a crude analogy is appropriate. Every kid comes born with $2 million dollars. Due to religious reasons parents like to take away $1 million, though not for personal gain - it is thrown into the trash. Even with an infinite amount of studies to "prove" that kids are no less happy with $1 million than $2 million, I don't think it is possible to argue thus the kids did not really lose due to this practice, or that it should be continued for religious reasons.

3rd, the zeitgeist when it comes to circumstition is similar or worse to that of slavery in the early 19th century. Due to (religiously-motivated) tradition, progressives may consider it an anarchic, inefficient and/or immoral practice, but they won't look at a slaveowner as if he's a monster like we would today either.

It wasn't so long ago when having a foreskin was considered lumped into the category of pathology and circumstition is not even a surgical procedure - objective untruths!

Given this background, asking secularists is probably ... futile.

Nevertheless, objective indicators suggest something is being lost. Thus it is an objective wrong, and if we are to hold fast to the principle that ones rights stop where another's begin (with perhaps a narrow mutual-coordination zone), then religion or tradition MUST lose here. How many more foreskins do we have to lose, how many more accidents do we have to suffer while waiting for the zeitgeist to move up.

06-28-12, 09:36 PM

Nevertheless, objective indicators suggest something is being lost. Thus it is an objective wrong, and if we are to hold fast to the principle that ones rights stop where another's begin (with perhaps a narrow mutual-coordination zone), then religion or tradition MUST lose here. How many more foreskins do we have to lose, how many more accidents do we have to suffer while waiting for the zeitgeist to move up.

The background means something....in theory you are correct in practice very few seem to mind.
If religion or tradition must lose is not for you to decide it a matter of people involved in this.
I don't think that turning the issue into some sort of crusade will do much good.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

06-28-12, 10:21 PM

The background means something....in theory you are correct in practice very few seem to mind.
If religion or tradition must lose is not for you to decide it a matter of people involved in this.
I don't think that turning the issue into some sort of crusade will do much good.

I don't think wishing for a righteous law to stand is exactly a crusade...

I think that "very few" seem to mind for two reasons:
1) The prevailing zeitgeist, which makes getting clipped feel normal (perhaps even more normal than not getting clipped).
2) The fact it was lost so long ago means they don't know what they are losing out on. They say they don't feel they are losing but the fact is they can't know.

Yet the fact that objective loss occurs suggests that perhaps it is about time to stop any new circumcisions for anything but medical reasons (of at least the severity that would motivate the cutting out of an appendix).

The important thing is this: Germany is AGAIN outlawing the practice of Judaism.

This is not a message that Germany wants to make. Believe me, I mean Germany well, and Germany just cannot be the one to decide this. It will work out badly for Germany.

When I read the news, I had similar thoughts. On the other hand, you can't always choose where your battle takes place, and I hope Germany holds firm on this.

If the Jews do play the cards as you suggest, I finally understand why Japan sticks firm to the position that things settled by treaty are done. People always say the solution to the Far East history problem is for Japan to make Germany style apologies complete with Germany style compensations. But here we see it. No matter how many apologies you make or how sincere they are, people never are satisfied even if they formally accept. Aggress them even once, even on something that you are in the right on, and they drag everything back out of the history bin to emotion-load the argument in their favor.

At some point, you have to stop letting apologies and history keep pulling youa round the nose.

Or perhaps the Jews can prove me wrong here by not playing that card. I understand they have to throw a temper tantrum first but when they are done perhaps they can take the chance to accept that their practices have to evolve with the times.

06-28-12, 10:44 PM

I don't think wishing for a righteous law to stand is exactly a crusade...

I think that "very few" seem to mind for two reasons:
1) The prevailing zeitgeist, which makes getting clipped feel normal (perhaps even more normal than not getting clipped).
2) The fact it was lost so long ago means they don't know what they are losing out on. They say they don't feel they are losing but the fact is they can't know.

Yet the fact that objective loss occurs suggests that perhaps it is about time to stop any new circumcisions for anything but medical reasons (of at least the severity that would motivate the cutting out of an appendix).
.
What can i tell...highly intelligent people are for circumcision...many no less than you and probably some a lot more.
We can think for our selves about that silly matter......all cosidered!

August

06-28-12, 11:52 PM

It has nothing to do with medical benefits either. IIRC the practice of circumcision became popular when there was widespread belief that masturbation was bad and circumcision was utilized as a means to keep boys from masturbating. Nowadays it seems to be more about fashion and tradition than anything else.

Maybe that's the reason given in your country but here it's always been about cleanliness. Besides, if that truly was the aim then it failed horribly. Circumcision does nothing to prevent masturbation. Especially when it was performed, like mine was, in infancy.

antikristuseke

06-29-12, 12:40 AM

Here circumcision is not popular, I know exactly one person who has been circumcised and he had it done last year as his personal choice last year.

I was talking about the United States in my reply to you. One of the leading proponents of circumcision at the time when it became popular was John Harvey Kellogg, who supported it for the reason I mentioned in my previous post. If my memory serves me right to do it because of cleanliness came up several decades after that. Though that being said I have only looked into this with for a limited time for no reason other than curiosity so my information is not exhaustive by any means.

Tribesman

06-29-12, 02:08 AM

Just want to put your mind at ease Skybird and let you and The First International Symposium on Circumcision know that my foreskinless penis works just fine and I am extremely pleased with its performance.
The beauty of Skybirds link is that it happens to include from a medical view people ""who for now many years I have say are frauds and not medicinals at all they are charlatans and kwacks"":03:

Catfish

06-29-12, 03:23 AM

But it is not about religion.
If a god can only part his followers from others by checking for circumcision or the "lost leg" i mentioned ?

I thought i had made this clear:
I have nothing against a person who does whatever with his/her own body - for religious or other reasons when he/she can decide him/herself.

A 2-year-old child can't.

Circumcision at the age of 2 is causing pain (later remembering subconsciously or not) without the child having any chance to understand it nor to decide about it. And it is not about removing an appendix, indeed it is a bit senseless nowadays. If you go for cleanliness, if you are afraid as a parent to tell your kid how to wash the body at places "that may not be mentioned", you will probably also fail in other education.

joegrundman

06-29-12, 04:37 AM

When I read the news, I had similar thoughts. On the other hand, you can't always choose where your battle takes place, and I hope Germany holds firm on this.

If the Jews do play the cards as you suggest, I finally understand why Japan sticks firm to the position that things settled by treaty are done. People always say the solution to the Far East history problem is for Japan to make Germany style apologies complete with Germany style compensations. But here we see it. No matter how many apologies you make or how sincere they are, people never are satisfied even if they formally accept. Aggress them even once, even on something that you are in the right on, and they drag everything back out of the history bin to emotion-load the argument in their favor.

At some point, you have to stop letting apologies and history keep pulling youa round the nose.

Or perhaps the Jews can prove me wrong here by not playing that card. I understand they have to throw a temper tantrum first but when they are done perhaps they can take the chance to accept that their practices have to evolve with the times.

It's not about playing cards and temper tantrums, and Germany most certainly can choose whether to have this battle.

Tribesman

06-29-12, 06:42 AM

But it is not about religion.

But it is for some people.
You only have to look at the background.
For some people this is a chance to attack a religion or all religion, for others it is a chance to defend their religion or someone elses.
What is more disturbing in the background is some of the really nasty groups which latch on to the wider debate.

AngusJS

06-29-12, 06:43 AM

06-29-12, 07:01 AM

The problem is in your eyes because you want it to be a problem.

(another secular guy who thinks that just by being secular and uncircumcised somehow makes him more advanced and Nobel prize nominate)

You don't own your children. The only body that you own is your own.
Oy vey

Herr-Berbunch

06-29-12, 07:19 AM

August

06-29-12, 07:24 AM

Don't force a permanent change in your child's body to be in line with your ideology, when you know that he might wish that he had been able to choose for himself, rather than have it imposed upon him.

This is so blindingly obvious, but yet again religion keeps creating problems like this which otherwise would have been solved and forgotten ages ago.

And yet most atheists, at least the ones on this board, seem to have absolutely no problem with drugging a child to delay the onset of puberty in order to provide more time to convince it that the gender they were born with is somehow wrong and should be changed, by surgery, before they reach adulthood. Others have no problem with piercing the ears of infants but I guess it all depends on which ideology you subscribe to.

Personally I have no problem with the procedure. Had it done to me soon after I was born and believe me it's no big deal.

06-29-12, 07:28 AM

Me...each time i look at my dick have irresistible urge to become religious fanatic...cant help it...otherwise i would consider being Swedish.

joegrundman

06-29-12, 07:36 AM

And yet most atheists, at least the ones on this board, seem to have absolutely no problem with drugging a child to delay the onset of puberty in order to provide more time to convince it that the gender they were born with is somehow wrong and should be changed, by surgery, before they reach adulthood. Others have no problem with piercing the ears of infants but I guess it all depends on which ideology you subscribe to.

Personally I have no problem with the procedure. Had it done to me soon after I was born and believe me it's no big deal.

:huh:

joegrundman

06-29-12, 07:53 AM

You don't own your children. The only body that you own is your own.

Feel free to snip, pierce and tattoo yourself to your hearts content, for whatever reason. Don't force the same on your children.

"But it's part of my tradition/religion." Yes, it's part of your tradition or religion. Your child knows nothing of your ideology, and cannot accept or reject it.

If these traditions or religions are so important, why do people insist on cheapening them by physically forcing children to join them? Wouldn't the religion/tradition be more meaningful if its followers actually chose to follow it of their own free will?

How arrogant do you have to be, to be certain that not only were you lucky enough to join/be forced to join the correct religion, but that your child will eventually see just how correct your religion is, too? Maybe, just maybe, what works for you won't work for them. Maybe they should follow their own conscience and choose the path that makes sense to them.

Don't force a permanent change in your child's body to be in line with your ideology, when you know that he might wish that he had been able to choose for himself, rather than have it imposed upon him.

This is so blindingly obvious, but yet again religion keeps creating problems like this which otherwise would have been solved and forgotten ages ago.

There are multiple factors here. This is one of them, but this belongs in the realm of debate. If you think that circumcision of infant males is ill fitting for today's world, then say so and explain why. You may even, given time, win the debate. Religious norms do change over time, even Jewish ones.

But I think there is a serious problem when Germany bypasses the debate process and just moves to make it illegal. What happens then if it turns out you have not won the debate? At present circumcision of infant males is central to the issue of Jewish identity (i can't really speak about its significance in Islam, and so I will not mention how things may appear to Muslims), and Germany, of all places, is to say that this has to change.

That in short Germans consider Judaism as it is practiced to be incompatible with German society. Excuse me, but what a message.

So what if, since there has been no major debate on the issue, Jews don't think this is a tolerable decision, and that there is no room for compromise to accommodate this law? Is that it then? Jews are again not welcome in Germany?

This is a serious matter, and Germany is at risk of making a big mistake.

I think if such a thing as this is to change it should follow the following order:

1. widespread debate producing a sea change in attitudes
2. jews (and muslims) begin in increasing numbers to delay circumcision until old enough to take responsibility for own decision
3. some countries begin legislating to enforce what is now only a minor practice
4. germany legislates the same.

VipertheSniper

06-29-12, 07:55 AM

06-29-12, 08:07 AM

Tribesman

06-29-12, 08:07 AM

:huh:
If you go recall the topic it wasn't really about that, so I guess its just another strawman

AVGWarhawk

06-29-12, 08:14 AM

What's worse than lobsters on your piano? Crabs on your organ. :D

Thanks for the tip. :shifty:

Sorry fellas...could not resist.

joegrundman

06-29-12, 08:34 AM

@joegrundman question is why this should be an issue for debate since it is no more that purely theoretical mantra when taking into account the health risk or you know...the million $ i might miss.
It certainly not worth pushing it on any one besides possibly satisfying people who have nothing to do with it and seem very ignorant about the prosiger ...or maybe some others who might want some minorities out of Germany...which is another issue or maybe not.

well, the "wait until older" argument is not completely trivial, and fits better into modern standards of behaviour. It is not completely unimaginable that the norm changes at some point in the future so that circumcision occurs at an older age eg bar mitzvah age. But i think a change of this nature will be taken because the Jewish communities have themselves decided to, and not because Germany has decided it's barbaric.

In any case unlike skybird who offers 50:50 odds on this passing, i offer only 1:20 odds on this passing. I am very sure that this will be shot down with extreme prejudice once it gets to Berlin.

Skybird

06-29-12, 09:01 AM

The sentence today gained the force of law and became legally valid, after the prosecutor saw no chance for success in an appeal and thus folded over that option. A revision now is no longer possible.

The church now has joined the chorus of Jewish-Muslim complaints.

Nice! :up: By constitution, Germany should be a formally secular state where the state has no right to intervene and propagate on behalf of religious communities and their demands for priviliged treatement. While this is violated on many instances (mandatory church taxes enforced by the state, major public tax funding for church property, tax relief, diplomatic status of Vatican clerics, bypassing laws of the civil penalty code and replacing them with internal club rules designed to hide and prevent internal crime from the public), at least this time simple healthy reason has taken the second hurdle.

You do not cut off body parts of your wards without consensus over the medical necessity , religious claims for being given special status do not rule above the law of the penalty code and the constitution. ;)

"The dignity of man is untouchable" (German constitution, article one). The right of wards for physical integrity supercedes the desire of parents to push them into their religion's schemes or to ill-treat them over religious motives.

Let them grow up, let them collect and compare infomation on philosophies and religions that they take interest in, let them weigh and assess and judge it, and then let them make a choice for or against one lineage, school, traditon, teaching, or against it, and let them make that choice in freedom. If then, as adults, they chose to snip or brand, to tic or to pierce, it is indeed their own business for which they are responsible themselves only and for which they have freely decided.

Of course, for the three desert dogmas that want a submissive, obedient, dependant, stupid crowd of sheep that is not educated enough and intellectually uncapable to question clerics' motives and powerpolitical interests , this is a nightmare scenario, and that is why they so bitterly agitate against it. They even killed, and still kill over it.

Where there are no sheep, there would be no need for a shepard.

August

06-29-12, 09:35 AM

You conviniently leave out that those discussion weren't about all children, but those with disorders of sex differentiation.

Just like the opposite side here conveniently ignores the fact that most circumcisions are not done for religious purposes.

Personally I think this whole issue is just another instance of anti-religion and mixed in with a large dose of latent antisemitism.

06-29-12, 09:49 AM

well, the "wait until older" argument is not completely trivial, and fits better into modern standards of behaviour. It is not completely unimaginable that the norm changes at some point in the future so that circumcision occurs at an older age eg bar mitzvah age. .

Wait till older sounds cool in general still doing it at later age is not most optimal solution.

antikristuseke

06-29-12, 10:04 AM

Not doing it without a medical reason is the optimal solution, but if a person does it by choice it is their body and their call.

Safe-Keeper

06-29-12, 12:14 PM

Right... OK we are in the copy paste Internet bull stage....just look for something to paste that contradict your claims.Oh, pardon us for backing up our claims rather than just sitting trading opinions and fallacies. Such as,
It's about fighting religion nothing more...as much heretic unbeliever as i am i can't agree with your vision of pluralism by wiping out traditions and cultural heritages in pursuit of some sort of tyrannic hegemony...:shifty:Poisoning the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well), some rather offensive and faulty ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks and a full-blown conspiracy theory, all rolled into one:-?. Could you please stop attacking your debate opponents and focus on actually arguing for your position?

Male circumcision does not affect your rights does not hurt anyone and the "victims" have no regrets so stop all this mantra about child abuse.Stop lying. There's plenty of cicumcized people out there who wished the procedure had not been performed on them. They exist no matter how much people like you try to convince each others that they don't.

Just want to put your mind at ease Skybird and let you and The First International Symposium on Circumcision know that my foreskinless penis works just fine and I am extremely pleased with its performance. Oh, and my wife who calls it 'Sparticus' can attest that it keeps her VERY happy too. If you dont believe me I can have pictures sent for you and your fellow professionals at the U.N. to ogle over.You do know anecdotes are worthless as evidence, right?

The big picture, with apologies to those of you who prefer we don't post facts in here:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=518&pictureid=5185

Source:http://www.davidwilton.com/files/mc-and-sexual-function---denmark-2011.pdf(Male circumcision and sexual function in men
and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional
study in Denmark. 2011).

I halfway expect you to pretend studies like this don't exist either, just like you pretend no one ever object to having their penises circumcized in infanthood.

Don't force a permanent change in your child's body to be in line with your ideology, when you know that he might wish that he had been able to choose for himself, rather than have it imposed upon him.

This is so blindingly obvious, but yet again religion keeps creating problems like this which otherwise would have been solved and forgotten ages ago.A great summary of our side's view. Good job.

The sentence today gained the force of law and became legally valid, after the prosecutor saw no chance for success in an appeal and thus folded over that option. A revision now is no longer possible.
Yay:yeah:!

06-29-12, 12:26 PM

Of course, for the three desert dogmas that want a submissive, obedient, dependant, stupid crowd of sheep that is not educated enough and intellectually uncapable to question clerics' motives and powerpolitical interests , this is a nightmare scenario, and that is why they so bitterly agitate against it. They even killed, and still kill over it.

Where there are no sheep, there would be no need for a shepard

I'm not quite sure who is who.... but congratulations.:yeah:

Tribesman

06-29-12, 12:59 PM

I think what you are seeing there MH is the angle of the people who just hate and are using the other arguements as an avenue to drive their hate along.
You can see the pile of falsehoods he writes there are more illustrative of his real views than any real concern on the issue of circumcision.

Penguin

06-29-12, 01:14 PM

A little to the ruling, to make it a little more clear to the international community:
It is a ruling of a local court. The ruling is legal and valid, but has no legal binding - except in this particular case. Of course it can be used as a precedent, but it is no law or edict. Other courts may rule different. In fact there are still 2 higher courts than a Landesgericht, the last being the Supreme Court. While in this case, no more revision is possible, it is certain that the people who disagree with this particular decision will try to fight it. So I estimate in the next 1,2 years we can expect a decision by the Supreme Court regarding circumcision.

There are multiple factors here. This is one of them, but this belongs in the realm of debate. If you think that circumcision of infant males is ill fitting for today's world, then say so and explain why. You may even, given time, win the debate. Religious norms do change over time, even Jewish ones.

But I think there is a serious problem when Germany bypasses the debate process and just moves to make it illegal. What happens then if it turns out you have not won the debate? At present circumcision of infant males is central to the issue of Jewish identity (i can't really speak about its significance in Islam, and so I will not mention how things may appear to Muslims), and Germany, of all places, is to say that this has to change.

That in short Germans consider Judaism as it is practiced to be incompatible with German society. Excuse me, but what a message.

So what if, since there has been no major debate on the issue, Jews don't think this is a tolerable decision, and that there is no room for compromise to accommodate this law? Is that it then? Jews are again not welcome in Germany?

This is a serious matter, and Germany is at risk of making a big mistake.

I think if such a thing as this is to change it should follow the following order:

1. widespread debate producing a sea change in attitudes
2. jews (and muslims) begin in increasing numbers to delay circumcision until old enough to take responsibility for own decision
3. some countries begin legislating to enforce what is now only a minor practice
4. germany legislates the same.

Ok, I made my point clear about the age of consent in my previous posts. The more important question is: How many special rights should religion get: my answer is clear: none, nix, nada I can't see any logical reason why other believes should be more (or less) protected than my own. I can't see why Freedom of Religion should be an extra freedom, as all those issues are covered by other laws like freedom of thought or expression

The point about a debate is a very good one, that's why I try to focus on it.
To say that circumcision was a hot topic of debate here would be a gross overstatement. Regarding religion vs. human rights, the debates focused on heavy and serious offenses like forced marriages, dishonor killings or child abuse.

However even though there was not much of a debate here, this ruling certainly fuels, if not even starts, the debate. I hope this will be an honest debate.

Let me give you an example of an dishonest debate, regarding a similar topic.
Some years ago, in 2006, ritual slaughter was legalized in Germany. There was much debate about it, in this case Freedom of Religion vs animal rights.
But the animal rights arguments often looked pretextual, just because of the fact that you can't call one thing cruel when not pointing out how cruel to the animals the "humane" killings in slaughterhouses are in the very same debate. So it indeed often looked like some people used animal rights to cover their agenda.

So an honest debate about children's rights must also cover the point how in Germany authorities de facto tolerate abuse - with or without religious background - by doing nothing even when alarmed.

An honest debate about revoking special rights for religion also must include the call to abolish idiotic stuff like blasphemy laws or the prohibition to dance on certain Christian holidays - the Tanzverbot (http://www.irishberliner.com/2011/11/dancing-verboten.html) :doh:

And it must also include the question how much a religious identity is dependent on a piece of foreskin. To me no more or less than a Metalhead's identity depends on long hair - you can believe in Slayer with or without :cool:

06-29-12, 01:48 PM

And it must also include the question how much a religious identity is dependent on a piece of foreskin. To me no more or less than a Metalhead's identity depends on long hair - you can believe in Slayer with or without :cool:

In orthodox communities you would have to do it till 13 anyway or faced with theological problem i think.
I can hardly see any benefit in delaying it till then.
Other than that this vary on weather its orthodox or reformist or conservative sect and how flexible they could be since the inheritance is based on mothers religion and not necessarily on the act of circumcision by it self.
Also personal views come into play here some may feel about it stronger than others.
Some not really religious people may follow the orthodox tradition when it comes to religious ceremonies(?)some may be less strict.

Skybird

06-29-12, 05:07 PM

German article focussing on Jewish circumcision.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/religioeser-ritus-ein-einschneidender-beschluss-11802683.html

They reveal that there is a growing trend in Israeli population to reject circumcision, in 2006 one third were found to undergo the procedure only and exclusively due to social pressure and fears of social discrimination.

They also quote Jewish Rabbis from Israel saying that although the Brith is mandatory for converts, despite opppsoite cliams in the Thora Jewish men by birth still can enter paradise even when not getting circumcised.

The opposition to circumcision in Israel is constantly growing. There are groups and activists in Israel that openly welcome the German court's decision. I assume that their profiles will sharpen and they will win support the tougher the inner-Israeli confrontation with the Jewish ultra-orthodox and rightwingers becomes: "Druck erzeugt Gegendruck."

Another nice detail: the way circumcision in Judaism is carried out, is not original and authentic anyway. Abraham, they say, just cut off a very tiny piece of the skin, and around the time of the second temple, they further say, it had become common habit to artifically prolongue the foreskin again. This led the Rabbis to demanding that from now on all and everything shut be cut off. But that is not the original procedure of Brith at all. The Jewish author explaining it calls it barbaric and sadistic. He reminds of Judaism having chnaged its habits repeatedly in history, and adapted to new standards: the rite of offerings has been abandoned two thousand years ago, polygamy was banned in the medieval. He proposes to turn the - already unauthentic - Brith into a purely symbolical rite.

I earlier read that 55% of American males are circumcised, which surprises me, in Germany it is only 10-15%. But not 55% of the Americna male population is Mulsim or Jewish. Obviously many males thus do it not for relgious Jewish ands Musklim motivces, but due to fashion - and a fashion it saw indeed in the 60s, encoruaged by questionable medical claims that since then for the most has been proven wrong and also often founding on anylsis of faulty methodlogical standards. This means that such American males most likely had it down under local anesthesia, which maybe leads some peop,e here wondeirng wht the big deal is. But I mind you that for the religious purpose in Judaism and Islam, the demand is that it is carried out without an injection, and it is by far not just a small fast snip.

You can go to youtube and search for videos. I found some of circumcions of boys that receive the procedure in the religious correct manner. The pain must be immense, the three films I have on mind are revealing a nightmare. I do not link them directly, the mods maybe would have a problem with that.

I do not know to what degree families allow compromise and injections being used.

Anyway, the procedure is originally extrenely painful, and traumatising for sure. And even if it were not, or an injection gets used, this still would not excuse to commit an act of physical injury to a ward that cannot choose, assess, and decide by itself, but is subjugated to the procedure, no matter what. What I wanted to illustrate is that originally it is not a painless, but an extremely painful procedure.

NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR TO CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.

06-29-12, 09:40 PM

joegrundman

06-30-12, 12:33 AM

Diopos

06-30-12, 01:08 AM

It is a german thingy! They hate deficits and adore surpluses!!!

:)

.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

06-30-12, 01:29 AM

It's not about playing cards and temper tantrums, and Germany most certainly can choose whether to have this battle.

The battle has come to them. They can choose not to fight it, but that is called a retreat versus evil.

Yes, evil. Some evils are subjective but the unnecessary amputation of mass and nerves is an objective evil.

Sure, it is not as bad as Female Genital Mutilation, which is why FGM got banned first. Ultimately, it is the same thing, only a matter of degree.

A good analogy is to foot binding. Objectively, it is harmful and it is also started early. Still if you revert to the era and regions where it was popular, you will find the victims supportive of the practice, arguing that their feet work adequately, and that men like small feet! Does not make it right.

joegrundman

06-30-12, 01:42 AM

The battle has come to them. They can choose not to fight it, but that is called a retreat versus evil.

this is not true. the battle is entirely a german driven thing. it's not like the euro crisis. They totally have the ability to say "this is not our fight", and at that point the problem will disappear. This is the difference between picking a fight and have one come to you.

06-30-12, 02:27 AM

A good analogy is to foot binding. Objectively, it is harmful and it is also started early. Still if you revert to the era and regions where it was popular, you will find the victims supportive of the practice, arguing that their feet work adequately, and that men like small feet! Does not make it right.

Answer to this dumb analogy is it the analogy itself.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

06-30-12, 04:44 AM

Answer to this dumb analogy is it the analogy itself.

I am completely unable to comprehend this response beyond that it is negative.

I am pleased to read, by the way, that a substantial fraction of Jews, even in Israel are against this. I presume "this" meant circumcision and not Germany's banning of it.

this is not true. the battle is entirely a german driven thing. it's not like the euro crisis. They totally have the ability to say "this is not our fight", and at that point the problem will disappear. This is the difference between picking a fight and have one come to you.

Any time, you can say it is not our fight. Depending on what you are not fighting for, however, you may be retreating from a evil.

In 1938, someone said "this was not our fight" and forked over the Czechs. OK, I'll grant it is a different size, but otherwise it is the same thing.

There are multiple factors here. This is one of them, but this belongs in the realm of debate. If you think that circumcision of infant males is ill fitting for today's world, then say so and explain why. You may even, given time, win the debate. Religious norms do change over time, even Jewish ones.

It is a sign of the backward state of our zeitgeist that despite the objective loss of mass and nerves, we can classify it as "realm of debate". Of course, 100 years ago the West probably thought FGM was "realm of debate" or less, 150-200 years ago the West considered slavery "realm of debate".

What's even snarkier is that these parents, having snipped their kids, will spend the rest of their childhood convincing them it is right and natural. If I cut off my kids' little toes, spending the rest of his childhood trying to convince him it is all right and natural will only make me look like even more of a bastard, even if I A) succeed (and in utilitarian terms, one can thus argue I've actually minimized the harm in my action) and B) they become decent athletes.

But I think there is a serious problem when Germany bypasses the debate process and just moves to make it illegal.

The Judiciary did what it is supposed to do. Interpret the law as presently on page.

Besides, I suspect the debate was already lost before it was ever fought, and the Jews know it (see final section)

At present circumcision of infant males is central to the issue of Jewish identity (i can't really speak about its significance in Islam, and so I will not mention how things may appear to Muslims), and Germany, of all places, is to say that this has to change.

The idea of the Jews "central" identity being the ruthless cutting of helpless infants' foreskins (even if I generously pretend the foreskins don't have a single nerve in them) does not improve my impression of them, nor does it improve their legitimacy - it weakens it.

That in short Germans consider Judaism as it is practiced to be incompatible with German society. Excuse me, but what a message.

Here's my counter-question. How many barbaric practices, and how severe, must Germany tolerate in order to keep Judaism happy? Yes, Germany is feeling very sorry for having killed so many Jews, but there are limits.

So what if, since there has been no major debate on the issue, Jews don't think this is a tolerable decision, and that there is no room for compromise to accommodate this law? Is that it then? Jews are again not welcome in Germany?

Germany welcomes Jews, but Jews must recognize they are in Germany, not Israel. They won't get any special rights just because they are Jews. The UN already sacrificed the interests of many Palestinians to give them a whole nation-state they can run as they please. I won't get into the rights and wrongs of the last but isn't that enough?

If it is so intolerable to them, and they think a debate is the solution to the problem, then why did they not seek to clarify it early on by pressing for the below law to make the correlation between rights clear?

With the goal of respecting a parent's religious rights, a child's right to self-determination. to security against grave bodily harm, to an intact body and to any other relevant rights may be permanently compromised by his parents when said parents consider it religiously necessary within the below limits:

Females:
No compromise is permitted.

Males:
Up to 100% of the foreskin.

Unless of course, they know they'll lose and thus were trying to hide under the veil of legal ambiguity. If so, wasn't the debate lost by default before it started?

Skybird

06-30-12, 04:48 AM

and it is also beside the point. If jews in israel start questioning the importance of circumcision it is one thing. If Germany decides to make illegal standard jewish practice, that is another thing altogether.
The court did not ban "Jewish practice", but physical violence against children, saying that proteciton of the child'S right to physical integrity supercedes parent'ÄS relgious claims. Try as often as you want to turn this into a German crusade against Judaism, it is not. Every relgion doing so, is effected, every non-refgious parent and well. And Muslims parents, too.

Skybird

06-30-12, 04:58 AM

I think it is over drama by skybird...as usual.

Even in Israel they are against it....wow
Some small group of activist may be against it and be vocal about.
Other than that it is all about showing finger to orthodox establishment more than anything else through stupid claim of child abuse....due to some other religion/state issues which i support.
The reformist are gaining strength here because most Israelis think that the orthodox had been pain in the back for too long.

I'm against outlawing circumcision or making it mandatory while i certainly don't support orthodox.
How Abraham really did this is difficult to say there are many currents and rabbis in Judaism arguing about things as usual..which is good thing.
Some of those guys can be really fascinating and bring new fresh breath to Judaism.
When an Israeli research from 2006 finds one third of families in Israel following the rite only due to fear of social repressions and disadvantages due to discrimination, then this is not just a small activist group, but a great share of the population, even more so when considering that it has grown more in the past 6 years since then.

And no matter how often you, or Joe, try to make it appear like that, it is not about banning circumcision, it is about committing an act of physical violence not against adults, but against children. Nobody said circumcision is banned in germany. It is not. The court only said that parents have no right on the grounds of religions to commit an act of physical violenbce against their children, their wards that is.

You could as well say "Sex is banned in Germany", while the law indeed only says sex with minors is prohibited.

It is also illegal in germany that children get piercings, tatoos and such below a certain age. 'Cosmetic surgery without medical indication also is banned below a certain age. The age is 16, and even written permissions by parents do not lift the ban for children below that age.

joegrundman

06-30-12, 06:16 AM

The court did not ban "Jewish practice", but physical violence against children, saying that proteciton of the child'S right to physical integrity supercedes parent'ÄS relgious claims. Try as often as you want to turn this into a German crusade against Judaism, it is not. Every relgion doing so, is effected, every non-refgious parent and well. And Muslims parents, too.

No it did not ban Jewish practice in general, but it would ban a specific and central Jewish practice.

I am not trying to turn this into a German crusade against the Jews (I am sorry if I had not made this clear to you). I am convinced that anti-semitism, anti-islam, and anti-religion-in-general feelings play no direct part in this, although of course the issue will likely appeal to those who do have such feelings.

But in practice it is the case that Germany will be forcing Jews to change their ancient practices against their will, and not for the first time.

I think you need to consider, just for a few minutes, what this might look like to Jewish people.

Now for your information, I am pretty much in agreement with the idea that circumcision should not occur with infants. But I think that Germany is extremely ill-advised to be the one that forces the issue.

As you have said, there are Jews that think infant circumcision is disagreeable in the modern world, and in time it may well be that the view would prevail all by itself, without German assistance.

And no matter how often you, or Joe, try to make it appear like that, sorry did i say that? I thought I was explicit in showing we were talking about circumcision of infant males for religious reasons. Again, sorry if i was unclear.

Skybird

06-30-12, 07:20 AM

No it did not ban Jewish practice in general, but it would ban a specific and central Jewish practice.

I am not trying to turn this into a German crusade against the Jews (I am sorry if I had not made this clear to you). I am convinced that anti-semitism, anti-islam, and anti-religion-in-general feelings play no direct part in this, although of course the issue will likely appeal to those who do have such feelings.

But in practice it is the case that Germany will be forcing Jews to change their ancient practices against their will, and not for the first time.

I think you need to consider, just for a few minutes, what this might look like to Jewish people.

Now for your information, I am pretty much in agreement with the idea that circumcision should not occur with infants. But I think that Germany is extremely ill-advised to be the one that forces the issue.

As you have said, there are Jews that think infant circumcision is disagreeable in the modern world, and in time it may well be that the view would prevail all by itself, without German assistance.

sorry did i say that? I thought I was explicit in showing we were talking about circumcision of infant males for religious reasons. Again, sorry if i was unclear.

Again, as far as I know, the sentence does not menjtiin "Jewish practice", nor did it directly refer to "Islamic practice" . The court rules that the standard laws of the German state and the constitution as well shall have superiority over relgious calls for being allowed spoecial status that excludes them from the law being imposed on them. And here is where you possibly are wrong, here is where the iossue goes beyond the interest of the children, but the cofnrotnation between secularism and religion come sinto play for sure. Christians do not circumcise for religious reasons, but if it were not about secularism versus religion, why then takes the church a position in this dispote when it is not effected at all? Of course it is also about secularism versus religion here. And people lie me just insist oin that the laws of a state that is secular must be valid FOR ALL, and that magical manuals shall not be treated as if they had an equal status to the law, making them a parallel legal system indeed. I attack this not only over the issue of circumcision, but over the issue of parrallel "justice" practiced by Sharia courts which effectively messes up law enforcement by the polcie and erodes the validity of the German laws, and I attack the same over the special stazus and priviliges enjoyed by the Catholic chuirch in germany, I have listed them some posts earlier.

But do not mistake me, I do not instrumentalise the cirmcucision of children for the secularism-religion-debate, the interest of the children from being protected from physical damage in itslf is a perfectly legal and sufficient motive in itself to raise a fight over it. It just happens that both things come together here.

The debate is waged with quite some passion here in germany, and Chuirch, Jews and Muslims have vowed bitter resistence to the sentence, which is not surprisin g, since relgions do not like to be rejected special prioviliges they are used to enjoy since millenia. But all polls that got pousblished so far show that a huge majoirty of Germans support the court's sentence and reasons.

I also ask this: when many "Jews" have no problem to drink alcohol and to eat pork, whith many "Muslims" doing like this, too, and when Jews in their history have chnaged and skipped and altered some of their former "holy rites" as well, like I already quoted earlier: that they banned polygamie in the medieval and left offering service behind already two millenia ago - why are they so obsessed then to think their deity would punish them by enying them paradise if they do not sacrifice body parts of their sons? That is double standards, that is hypocrisy.

This is not the primitive Gallilea, and we are no longer a bunch of superstitious, uneducated herdsmen who think a God is speaking when there is a bolt striking earth during a thunderstorm. Also, this is no theocratic country that is governed and ruled on the grounds of priests claims and there desire to stay in influence and control over their community.

We should be beyond this primitive level of a mindset.

Anyhow, the law must be valid for everybody. Even Jews. Even Muslims and Ctholocs. Or atheists like me. No exceptions, especially not for religious demands. I shiver when I think about how barbaric it turns out every time in the past twothousand years whenever religions had been given the space and opportunity to decide the governing of people, and countries. Are we a species of masochists that so many of us refuse to learn from our past bad experiences, and that we invite the same tyrants onto the throwns time and again?

Skybird

06-30-12, 07:24 AM

P.S. I find it ironic that Germany until today gets measured with double standards. The world wonders and tells us that we should finally leave behind our guilt complex and our bad conscience over WWII. But when we do that, fingers imemdiately get pointed at us and it is the bad Hun again. And while in the EU everybody is negotiating in the interest of his nation, to get more credit at the cost of Germany, and to finally get a debt union and a tranmsfer union, again at Germany's cost, that is fine and the actors get applauded for their egoism and lacking soldiarity. But when Germany does the same and tries to negotiate like the others for its own interest, which is to not endlessly pay for the spending frenzies of others, immediately fingers get pointed again, and again it is the bad Hun that gets reminded to know his place and stay put.

Split tongue talking.

Armistead

06-30-12, 07:35 AM

Well, I'm glad I had it done as an infant, don't remember it. Would be much harder to do as an adult.

06-30-12, 07:37 AM

@Kazuaki Shimazaki II...nice response i guess you have lots of grunge against evil Jews and barbaric Israel so enjoy....being civilised.

When an Israeli research from 2006 finds one third of families in Israel following the rite only due to fear of social repressions and disadvantages due to discrimination, then this is not just a small activist group, but a great share of the population, even more so when considering that it has grown more in the past 6 years since then.

If one third of Israel had been activist the issue would probably be hot on the table.
while many issues are debated i have yet to hear about circumcision.
It is very complicated how people try to follow traditions while being secular....my daughter may eat evil bacon but fast or even go to synagogue on Yom Kipur:hmmm::doh:
I don't challenge her on that...she may be sorry for all the bacon she has eaten.??:haha:

In my opinion bottom line is... Germany is your country so you should be able to decide what you wish.
No one should mess with your legislation just as others should leave our to our own...but Jews there as minority should have some say i think.
Good part is that Jews probably will not riot too much all though the orthodox have tendency to use biological weapons like diapers full of crap.
Be warned.
I have faith in your nazi police.

.............

antikristuseke

06-30-12, 09:00 AM

MH, what the hell are you on about?:huh:

06-30-12, 09:04 AM

MH, what the hell are you on about?:huh:

Meaning?....should i had add smiles somewhere?

antikristuseke

06-30-12, 09:08 AM

You reply with a one liner to a thorough post and then make a reference to nazi police for no good reason. Are you incapable of actually addressing points or just unwilling to do so?

06-30-12, 09:16 AM

You reply with a one liner to a thorough post and then make a reference to nazi police for no good reason. Are you incapable of actually addressing points or just unwilling to do so?
.
It was a joke... some orthodox name Israeli police nazi sometimes when unhappy about something.
Anyway i was kidding.:damn:

Say again...no accusation had been made here.

antikristuseke

06-30-12, 10:03 AM

Fair enough, glad to have that cleared up.

06-30-12, 10:20 AM

I also ask this: when many "Jews" have no problem to drink alcohol and to eat pork, whith many "Muslims" doing like this, too, and when Jews in their history have chnaged and skipped and altered some of their former "holy rites" as well, like I already quoted earlier: that they banned polygamie in the medieval and left offering service behind already two millenia ago - why are they so obsessed then to think their deity would punish them by enying them paradise if they do not sacrifice body parts of their sons? That is double standards, that is hypocrisy.

Many Jews don't feel so bad about it because in practice have no reason to. The ethics here is sort of theoretical issue vs tradition.
If it was so dramatically bad as you like to describe it things might be different.

For religious Jews it is a mitzvah/commandment so its like written in stone.
polygamy is not mitzvah,drinking alcohol is not forbidden...on some occasions it is even recommended to get a bit drunk.:D

Tribesman

07-01-12, 04:10 AM

Again, as far as I know, the sentence does not menjtiin "Jewish practice", nor did it directly refer to "Islamic practice" .
Weasel words. The sentence rejects the german constitutional right of freedom of religion in this matter.

But do not mistake me, I do not instrumentalise the cirmcucision of children for the secularism-religion-debate, the interest of the children from being protected from physical damage in itslf is a perfectly legal and sufficient motive in itself to raise a fight over it. It just happens that both things come together here.

Look at me I am riding an invisible elephant while juggling the moon.
Its just about as credible as that statement. After al your arguements on animals are all about animal welfare and not about the dumb backward dogmatic desert freaks who are secretly behind every problem in the world.

I attack the same over the special stazus and priviliges enjoyed by the Catholic chuirch in germany
You mean the tax status which equates churches charities and community groups or do you mean the special secret status where the vatican is in league with the atheists to make germany an islamic state:doh:

Anyhow, the law must be valid for everybody.
And which are the three seemingly conflicting laws the court had to decide upon as having one invalidating the others for some people but not for everybody.

Safe-Keeper

07-01-12, 01:12 PM

Weasel words. The sentence rejects the german constitutional right of freedom of religion in this matter.Not so. German citizens have every right to get themselves circumcized. The law even opens for circumcizing consenting children.

They merely no longer have the right to circumcize infants. Huge difference.

Look at me I am riding an invisible elephant while juggling the moon.
Its just about as credible as that statement. After al your arguements on animals are all about animal welfare and not about the dumb backward dogmatic desert freaks who are secretly behind every problem in the world.Okay, for the last time,

will you stop it with the personal attacks?!

I could just as well make the claim that you're against this because you hate Germans. Frankly I'm starting to grow seriously sick of everyone trying to paint us as anti-Semites just because you disagree with us.

If this is a too emotional matter for you to be able to discuss seriously, no one's stopping you from leaving the thread. If you're going to stay, though, defend circumcision by defending circumcision, not by making up conspiracy theories about your debate opponents.

Tribesman

07-01-12, 06:16 PM

Not so.
Yes so.There were three funadamental aspects considered and one was held to overide the other two in this matter.

Okay, for the last time,

A comment on a persons views, sincwe that person makes a very big issue about all religions and a severe hatred for one particular religion then his views are open to question in a topic that impacts on those issues.
As has been pointed out many people are jumping on this case simply because of their hatred for other groups, likewise with the previous rants about practices of animal butchering.

I could just as well make the claim that you're against this because you hate Germans.
Is there anything that can possibly back that claim up?
If not then your claim would be laughable.

Frankly I'm starting to grow seriously sick of everyone trying to paint us as anti-Semites just because you disagree with us.

Wow:doh:

If this is a too emotional matter for you to be able to discuss seriously, no one's stopping you from leaving the thread. If you're going to stay, though, defend circumcision by defending circumcision, not by making up conspiracy theories about your debate opponents.

Sorry, skybird is the one with the conspiracy theories. I treat anything he writes remotely concerning Muslims exactly the same as I treat anything Zeewolf writes about Jews.

But onto topic.
For equal consideration, or even for greater consideration due to their actual nature...... jug lugs and googly eyes.
Should medical proceedures on those be banned on kids?
After all its only a silly cosmetic alteration that is done to fit some view of social acceptability and have no medical basis at all.
Can you reasonaly prohibit one proceedure without prohibiting those also?

07-01-12, 06:29 PM

will you stop it with the personal attacks?!

I could just as well make the claim that you're against this because you hate Germans. Frankly I'm starting to grow seriously sick of everyone trying to paint us as anti-Semites just because you disagree with us.

If this is a too emotional matter for you to be able to discuss seriously, no one's stopping you from leaving the thread. If you're going to stay, though, defend circumcision by defending circumcision, not by making up conspiracy theories about your debate opponents.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2009/3/16/128816842306220846.jpg

Safe-Keeper

07-02-12, 12:48 AM

Frankly I'm starting to grow seriously sick of everyone trying to paint us as anti-Semites just because you disagree with us.Wow:doh:Not "wow". This thread has been one big personal attack from the pro-circumcision side. I don't have an ounce of anti-Jewish blood in me, and yet that's been the tone of the opposition in this thread since pretty much their first post, that we seek to outlaw circumcision because we're evil Nazis or something. Given that I've never, ever, expressed anti-Semitism on this forum, I do firmly believe that the slander I'm getting in this thread comes from the fact that I disagree with tradition on circumcision.

You defend your stance by defending your stance. Not by going after the political/philosophical views, real or imagined, of your opponents. You can "wow" this as much as you want, but it's how things are. Deal with it.
Is there anything that can possibly back that claim up? That's my point exactly. In order to make accusations that a given opinion is fuelled by a given view, you need evidence this is true. You can't just barge into a thread and make wild accusations about other peoples' motives without a shred of proof.

I am so glad one of you have finally, finally understood this. Thank you so very much.

Sorry, skybird is the one with the conspiracy theories. I treat anything he writes remotely concerning Muslims exactly the same as I treat anything Zeewolf writes about Jews.That saddens me. When I try to make a decison about something, I go by facts and arguments (ie. "this is wrong because x, y and z"). Drawing conclusions based on your views towards the people around you (this is wrong because I believe people a, b and c are racist") must be incredibly difficult for you.

07-02-12, 01:35 AM

Safe-Keeper
Take it easy... i think there is nothing more to be said here besides going in circles.
On a philosophical/ethical level or whatever you might be correct in your view but all the same i could argue against abortion without involving religion in the subject.
Its a matter of perspective and state of mind-not a black and white matter but what aspects of the issue is important to you and which you disregard as nonsense or not important....

Tribesman

07-02-12, 02:07 AM

You defend your stance by defending your stance. Not by going after the political/philosophical views, real or imagined, of your opponents. You can "wow" this as much as you want, but it's how things are. Deal with it.

Safe Keeper, read what was written.
As for dealing with it, honestly answer the question about jug lugs then come back to defend your view about foreskins.
After all you must think things through to get a balanced view mustn't you.

That's my point exactly. In order to make accusations that a given opinion is fuelled by a given view, you need evidence this is true. You can't just barge into a thread and make wild accusations about other peoples' motives without a shred of proof.

But it was already backed up, which was why your "anti german" angle fell flat.

That saddens me. When I try to make a decison about something, I go by facts and arguments (ie. "this is wrong because x, y and z"). Drawing conclusions based on your views towards the people around you (this is wrong because I believe people a, b and c are racist") must be incredibly difficult for you.
The fact is he simply makes stuff up to support his views on muslims and really pushes his agenda on muslims means it is rerasonable to conclude that on this subject he is one of the small group who is moaning about circumcision because of the religion not because of the issue.
If you had read what is written you would have noted that its all been dealt with and you were rather unwise to go off on one about blanket attacks on one sides views as I specified that it is just some people on one side who are following that agenda and will follow that agenda no matter what the actual subject is.

Safe-Keeper

07-02-12, 03:06 AM

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I can tell this is going nowhere, and I have a feeling you must be pretty fed up with this discussion, too.

Tribesman

07-02-12, 10:35 AM

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I can tell this is going nowhere, and I have a feeling you must be pretty fed up with this discussion, too.
Not really, I want to see if you actually can go somewhere on this
So answer the question Safe Keeper, as you were getting so touchy over it I want to see if you have actually thought through about the issue.
It is a simple question, are you in favour of kids having surgery on their ears to make them "fit in"? When you have done that do the same with the eyes, then come back and make your arguements again about the foreskin.
All I want is consitancy in the points and by widening it to those two it removes any religious angle to it.
If you want you can go into other surgical proceedures they do on kids that have little or no medical benefit, there is no shortage of them to consider.

Safe-Keeper

07-02-12, 03:33 PM

Neither me nor Google knows what a "jug lug" is, but "googly eyes" seems to be an expression for strabismus. So basically, you're comparing corrective surgery to tribal body modification, implying that if I want to correct birth defects, I must also support circumcizion, because otherwise I'm being inconsistent?

What a ridiculous proposition. If every Norwegian baby was given a harelip at birth due to some ancient tradition or religious demand, I wouldn't cut my baby's lips open to get him to "fit in", I would fight to outlaw the practice of giving infants artificial harelips.

So yes, I'm "inconsistent" enough to be in favour of corrective surgery to make up for birth defects, while opposing the body modification of healthy infants to fit some social norms. So sue me.

joegrundman

07-02-12, 05:19 PM

Frankly I'm starting to grow seriously sick of everyone trying to paint us as anti-Semites just because you disagree with us.

FYI, safe-keeper, I'm not painting you as anti-semites. I had hoped it was clear by now.

I believe you when you say you are not at all motivated by anti-semitism, but one of the practical effects of banning the circumcision of infant males is that it will be a direct attack on the practice of judaism as it currently is.

can i state it any more clearly?

The weakness on 'your side' is that you depend for success on those parties who are most affected to see it from your point of view. I think you will end up ( and more specifically, Germany will end up) with a serious political problem when you find out that they do not see it your way.

If you are already fed up with my disagreement, which has been polite and reasoned i think, well brace yourself. If this issue doesn't die, then things are going to get much nastier in the real world. And no, that's not a threat, it's a prediction.

At the moment it seems to me that you see this purely as an ethical problem with a right answer and a wrong answer. I ask you, while we are in the early stages of this issue, try to think of this in political terms, and ask yourself what you expect to happen if jewish people (and/or muslims) decide not to accept this kind of law.

Now ask yourself, what is the real cost of infant circumcision, how evil is the evil, and then weigh this up with the good that germany can expect to gain from banning it, with the attendant international maelstrom and outrage and offended peoples and nations (and germany's peculiar history with the jews most certainly will be a factor).

It's not that I think you are ethically or morally wrong, it's that I think you are making a mistake in pushing for this. I think the costs far outweigh the gains in even a best case scenario. But after you think it over, if you still think it's that important to fight for, then don't be naive about how the argument is going to develop. They are not going to fight it the way you want them to.

Tribesman

07-02-12, 05:26 PM

What a ridiculous proposition
Not in the slightest, the eye surgery does not correct vision it is purely cosmetic so that people have the correct "tribal" appearance, likewise with jug lugs, all it does is alter the ears appearance to societies "norms".

So yes, I'm "inconsistent" enough to be in favour of corrective surgery to make up for birth defects, while opposing the body modification of healthy infants to fit some social norms. So sue me.
You equate big ears with birth defects, well done.:yeah:
What you have done is argue for body modification of healthy infants to fit some society norms while opposing body modification of healthy infants to fit some society norms. You have tied yourself in a knot of contradictions.
It shows you don't read before you went off on one, I did specify that the common surgical proceedures were purely cosmetic not medical when I asked you the question.

If I wanted a more medical one I would have gone for webbed feet as it is vital to fix that so people can wear flip flops.:O:

Skybird

07-02-12, 06:25 PM

http://endmalecircumcision.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/german-court-rules-male-circumcision.html (http://endmalecircumcision.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/german-court-rules-male-circumcision.html)

http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/26/boys-circumcised-for-religious-reasons-are-victims-of-assault-says-german-court/ (http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/26/boys-circumcised-for-religious-reasons-are-victims-of-assault-says-german-court/)

And this, to make it clear that the intention of it all is to delay the procedure being done until the subject is able to independently decide whether it wants to undergo it or not.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/uk-germany-circumcision-jurist-idUKBRE85S0XK20120629 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/uk-germany-circumcision-jurist-idUKBRE85S0XK20120629)

Once you are a grown-up adult, I could not care less whether you decide to snibble your little Willy or to take a pencil and poke it in your right eye - as long as public health insurrance must not pay for the consequences.

Safe-Keeper

07-02-12, 08:36 PM

You equate big ears with birth defects, well done.:yeah:I don't... I ... uh... wut.

Neither me nor Google knows what a "jug lug" is

How you equate that with me liking it to birth defects is truly beyond me.

Tribesman

07-03-12, 01:51 AM

How you equate that with me liking it to birth defects is truly beyond me.
It is simple you were asked for views on two proceedures which had been specified as purely cosmetic. You came back with a reply about birth defects.
You half got one reference which actually is a bloody big category with only a small subset where proceedure includes surgery.

I asked (as I specified) to see if you were thinking things through, you replied that well you don't know but you are right and any other suggestion is a ridiculous proposition.
So your answer was "No I havn't really thought about it but even without thinking I know I am right because I don't understand":yep:

07-03-12, 03:33 AM

Yeah... free the willy!!!

Tribesman

07-03-12, 11:02 AM

Yeah... free the willy!!!

Terms and conditions apply:03:

joegrundman

07-17-12, 06:11 AM

Angela Merkel intervenes over court ban on circumcision of young boys
Spokesman says right to circumcision must be restored as a matter of urgency, after Cologne court's ruling against practice

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/13/angela-merkel-intervenes-ban-circumcision

"For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany," said Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert. "Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment."

It seems the story is developing as i expected. Those who love Germany should be feeling relieved.

But to add a lighter touch to the debate, I came across this fantastic web comic by an intactivist: Foreskinman!

http://www.foreskinman.com/images/foreskin-man-no-2-front-cover.jpg

http://www.foreskinman.com/

Skybird

07-17-12, 07:25 AM

Politicians are spineless opportunists. She has so much crisis boiling hot around her that she wants to shut down this new construction site as soon as possible, but as a matter of fact a majority of Germans is against the issue and welcome the court ruling.

Before Merkel gets her ruthless will, she needs a majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat to pass an according law, which will be challenged before the constitutional high court, because it would mean the state is making a law on behalf of a religious lobby group - and like in America, formally the German state is not allowed to do that. The doctors interest organisation has spoken out against a religious permission to snip children, and has warned its members to carry out such surgery. The polls the media did in past days, also indicate that up to 80% of Germans, roughly, are against formal permission to mistreat children. We do not want child abuse over tribal cult reasons - that simple.

In Germany we have also laws that prohobit that teens get a tatoo even if there is written perimssion of the parents agreeing to it.

Let them grow up, and when they are above 18 years, let them decide wehtehr they want to get a tatoo, a piercing, a branding, a pslit tongue, or a genital "altertation". Just thjat the state agaiunst conspirates with relgions like in the times of absolutism kings conspirated with clergy to supüress the people as best as possible - this should not be tolerated.

Many newspüappers also have printed confessio0ns of - mostly Jewish - men who expresswed theirt disgust for this barbaric rite, and that they are thankful for their oarents and afthers that they have dared to resist to the pressure to get them circumcised back in their chiuldhood. Add to this the growing secularims movement in Israel itself, and that already six years ago research showed that up to one third of families got circimsuscion done only over fears of social boycotting and being brandmarked at jobs and school as heretics. It takes a very long shot to argue that "all Jews" agree on this practice. That simply is not the case, a prominent number opposes it, and this group is growing.

Needless to say that the zealots and the establishement cry hell and heaven over that and do their usual tamtam again. As if they would be of any meaningful importance. As always, the only thing coming from them, is conflict and mess. As always with relgions.

And "religions" claiming the right to abuse babies and children (mind you: the vast ,majority of circumsions for relgious reasons get doen withiut injection) and calling that "a cultural habit" deserve to be spit in the face anway.

Let them grow up, and when they are adult, let them choose. That is a basic human right. We call it a part of freedom. And it is a thoiuisand times mor eimprotanmt than relgiou claims for being excepted from the rules andsbeing given special status. Since 3000 years thy do it? Well, time to gte beyond that primitive mindset people had 3000 years ago, I would say. At least one has to get beyond it when it is about wheter or not doing harm to a vulnerable, eak indiovidual who is not capable to decide himself. We could as well tatoo a number code into imbiciles and old people living in asylums. Oh wait. We ha dsomething like that already, some decades ago. That wasnot done on behalf of relgion, which would have made mit okay,k but on behald of poltical ideology, which was not okay then. What a wonderful world whgere the same thing can be judged by so many different standards, basing on the final verdict you want to have. Barbary argued for in name of religion: okay. Barbary on behalf of poltiics, race supremacism: not okay.

Why?

Interesting that Merkel mentioned Jewish circumcision only, but no Muslim , though. The court case in Cologne was about a Muslim boy who almost died from the mutilation procedure.

Tribesman

07-17-12, 11:02 AM

It seems the story is developing as i expected. Those who love Germany should be feeling relieved.

I like this line from the other article on that link

The philosopher Emil Fackenheim, himself a survivor of Sachsenhausen concentration camp, famously added to the 613th commandments of the Hebrew scriptures with a new 614th commandment: thou must not grant Hitler posthumous victories.

07-17-12, 11:07 AM

Here is nice article that is 1:1 my thoughts on the issue as whole and some more...:03:

The sacred brit and other myths
The debate over circumcision and ritual slaughter in the U.K. forces us to take an honest look at our customs.

By Anshel Pfeffer (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/anshel-pfeffer-1.292) | Jul.13, 2012 | 2:09 AM | http://www.haaretz.com/images/icons/comment.png19

By Reuters | Jul.13,2012 | 2:09 AM | http://www.haaretz.com/images/icons/comment.png 6
Here are three cliches about circumcision. First, that it is a sacred covenant between God and the Jewish people. The fact is that whether or not you believe in the biblical narrative of Abraham and his sons, this is hardly a unique Jewish custom. Every day around the world, thousands of babies, young boys and fully grown men have their foreskins removed in a wide variety of rituals and medical procedures. Only a small minority of them are Jews and even among Jews, most are not doing it out of religious conviction, but for reasons of social necessity, family and peer pressures and because it's a good excuse for having a big party.
Second, being circumcised is good for your health. While there is research that points to certain health benefits, there are opposing studies which purport to prove that tampering with male genitalia causes trauma, impaired sexual function and carries well-documented risks. This conflicting medical evidence is hardly surprising - doctors are also partisans, who are every bit as biased as newspaper columnists when it comes to marshaling the facts.
The third cliche is that circumcision is a hallowed religious custom and in a democracy, people should be allowed to observe their traditions without politicians or courts intervening. This is normally an argument for which I have a great deal of sympathy. I don't want the government telling me how to live my life. Except for the fact that it's not my life. None of my four sons were asked in advance when, at the age of eight days, intense, intimate pain was inflicted upon them, and their private parts irrevocably changed. Hardly a democratic act.
And now for good measure, three cliches about ritual slaughtering.
One: Millions of animals are butchered daily for human consumption, so the focus by animal rights groups on Jewish shechita or Muslim halal ritual slaughter is hypocritical. Well, perhaps in another hundred years humans will no longer be eating animal flesh. But while carnivorism is still socially acceptable, there is no reason not to make every effort to minimize the animals' suffering in the process. Organic free-range husbandry also produces healthier food for humans.
Two: Shechita is a humane method ensuring a minimum of pain to the animal. This one always make me laugh as it goes against the most fundamental tenets of halakha, Jewish religious law. The only reason for the laws of Orthodox Jewish ritual slaughter is the belief that they are divinely ordained. Therefore, these rules are never to be changed, even if it is clear that more modern "animal-friendly" methods exist.
Three: Animal-welfare campaigns against shechita are actually thinly-veiled anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish customs. After all, wasn't a prohibition on ritual slaughter one of the very first restrictions the Third Reich imposed on German Jews? True, Jew-haters have traditionally used shechita in their propaganda to prove the Jews' bloodthirstiness, and indeed you can find it on neo-Nazi websites to this day. But equating all opposition to shechita with judeophobia is about as accurate as saying that every vegetarian is a Nazi, just because Hitler had a fetishist revulsion to eating meat.
And here's another cliche that applies to both issues: Jewish and Muslim communities share the same concerns regarding legislation against circumcision and ritual slaughter and this can be the foundation for interfaith cooperation. I would love to see closer, more harmonious relations between Jews and Muslims around the world, but I get frightened whenever I see fundamentalist rabbis and imams making common cause. The next step is joint lobbying for censorship laws against the "defamation" of religious icons by the media and popular culture, and muzzling democratic discourse by labeling it as "hate crime."
Cliches all have at least some element of truth to them but their overuse renders them obsolete. We are living in an age of increasing scrutiny of both well-established religions and newer cults. Serial sexual abuse scandals and cover-ups engendered unprecedented degrees of suspicion toward the Catholic church, while celebrity atheists such as Professor Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens hoisted antitheism to new heights of respectability.
Muslims in the West are subject nowadays to increasing levels of interference, while the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney and the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes divorce have redirected hostile spotlights on Mormonism and Scientology. Much of this attention is justified and has highlighted scandalous affairs in new and old beliefs alike. At the same time, there has been a lot of unwarranted hysteria and erroneous reporting. This is the nature of mass media and Jews cannot think they will evade similar attention for long.
While some journalists and other critics may be more restrained when dealing with a people that has undergone centuries of murderous persecution in the past, others if bothered at all by history, will make the valid argument that Jews are no longer an endangered community and deserve no special treatment. Indeed, many of those critics may well be Jews themselves.
Defenders of circumcision frequently remind us that this is the one custom that the overwhelming majority of Jews, religious and secular, adhere to. You could also argue that the majority of Jews who do not observe kashrut still want kosher meat to be easily available for their relatives and friends who do. These are valuable rallying points and they should spur liberal and secular Jews who want to continue celebrating their tradition - even if they don't keep mitzvot or believe in God in the Orthodox fashion - to take an interest in these issues and not leave them to the rabbis. We have to be clear that these are religious rituals which are often hard to defend, and to do so, we have to take all these concerns into consideration, not simply as lip service.
I will not live in a country that forbids Jews to perform their ancient customs. But I want circumcision and ritual slaughtering to be carried out utilizing all the benefits of modern medicine and technology and I want the government to have the power and political willpower to act against those who use unhygienic and dangerous methods. I want mohels to be licensed and trained by doctors and ritual slaughterers to be licensed and trained by veterinarians.
And I want them and the rabbis who endorse them to fully recognize medical concerns and the importance of animal welfare. To effectively defend the Jewish practices of circumcision and ritual slaughter, we have to ditch our cliches and make sure the practitioners clean up their act. Only if this is done seriously, will the majority of Jews feel they can continue supporting these practices in the future.
Above all, I don't want the battle for religious freedom to be hijacked by those who have scant respect for the values of democracy

Penguin

07-17-12, 11:50 AM

First: this is typical for Germany. Since 4 weeks doctors refuse to do circumcision due to legal uncertainty. So there has to be a discussion and a circumcision law - nonetheless in which form - has to be passed. And now already the first statement: Wow! Now you all know why nothing ever moves in Germany.... :mad:

Second: Tattooing minors is not illegal in Germany. It is technically battery - just like the court decided circumcision is. So every tattoo artist only does people who give consent, otherwise they would do something illegal. Most artists would never tattoo someone under 16 though for various reasons. Some require a letter of consent from the parents by minors, however most do it only when a parent accompanies the client.

My prognosis is that circumcision will become the same matter like a tattoo - a battery that is legal when the affected party gives consent and if they are under 18 also the parents consent will be required.

So my question to the pro-circumcision guys: At what age would you think a tattoo is OK for a kid?

The third cliche is that circumcision is a hallowed religious custom and in a democracy, people should be allowed to observe their traditions without politicians or courts intervening. This is normally an argument for which I have a great deal of sympathy. I don't want the government telling me how to live my life. Except for the fact that it's not my life. None of my four sons were asked in advance when, at the age of eight days, intense, intimate pain was inflicted upon them, and their private parts irrevocably changed. Hardly a democratic act.

aeehm, you know this has been the point made by "our" side all the time? :03:

07-17-12, 12:11 PM

aeehm, you know this has been the point made by "our" side all the time? :03:

Sure.:D
Still doing it on 8th day is the best solution if done in proper way...most people don't mind it in general when its done to them as infants but have "ouch" feeling about the issue at later age.

I got to know some who people who circumcised at older age and it wasn't very encouraging.
On ethical level the argument stands on practical not so much.
Also the practical side is compatible with jewish religious practice.

Line should be drawn what is parents responsibility and what is not....but actually thinking about it there are countless thing that government can legislate for the "greater good".

...............

Penguin

07-17-12, 01:18 PM

Well let's see how it will play out in the German parliament, in about 973 days when those lazy asses will meet the next time.

On a lighter note:

it is very likely that our politicians will give in to the lobbying of one of the most powerful, sinister and ruthless groups in the world.
They have people in any government, put pressure on anyone who disagreess and have the financial means to do the fight.
They have been around since a long time and certainly try to influence the discussion with their pro-circumcision-agenda....

The Zipper industry
:sunny:

Skybird

07-17-12, 05:17 PM

Today: German association of children'S doctors also join the rows of those criticising that physical violence against children should be legalised due to relgious demands, warning of trivializing the basic Law which not only mentions the freedom of relgious practice (article 3), but also rules that every person (that includes children of religious stoneagers) shall have the right to free developement of his personality (that alone should be enough to rule out religious indoctrination of small children) as long as this does not violate the freedom of others, the constitutional order or the moral law, and that every person has the right to physical integrity.

German: http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108314004/Kinderaerzte-Koerperverletzung-wird-bagatellisiert.html

And Israel, there they have a crisis now due to the state wanting to delete religious priviliges for ultraorthdox so far enjoying to be freed from serving in the armed forces or from doing a replacement service. The secularism movement there seems to grow slowly but constantly, too, maybe in coincidence with government's interest to bring up enough conscripts, but still - or is it simply human reason?

But lets not forget, the circumcision issue in Germany is not about Jews only, but about Muslims as well.

I fear politicians will mess this up again, like they almost always tend to do. So in the very logn run Joey may be right with his expectations. But it probably will take much longer time. And who knows, maybe there will be a surprise in the end. The minister of justice, a liberal FDP woman, again put a foot on the brake today.

I think it is not by chance that the desert dogmas picked the most sensible part of the body for their sick rituals. The genitals are linked to human'S most intense feeling and feeling fo shame and moral vulnerability as well, and implementing huge pain on these necessarily cause an according traumatising expoerience that in cases of babies maybe get deeply buried in their subconmsciousness, but nevertheless still is there, while Musli8m boys the age of 8 not only feel the pjysical pain and the misery od the days after that, but often associate the procedure with intense fear, and - maybe even more important - shame of being manipulated in such a cruel way at their genitals and afterwards walkling for many days like a drunken donkey. Then there is the issue of the betrayed trust of the child in his parents, whcih is true for babies as well as 8 year old. The exprerience of being def3encelessly handed over to the act by the parents. A deep feeling of betrayal. I think relgions picked this to anchor deep the experience of shame and helplessness in the human soul, by that making the individual feeling exposed and weak and thus depending even m ore on the religion'S claim of being the answer. Hm. My English finds its limits here to express this in adequate clearness what I mean. Sorry. Maybe you get an idea, I do not know how to put it better in English.

I saw three times young boy who just had the procedure behi8n them, all three times in Turkey. Let me just say this: they were noeithe rhappy, nor proud, but they gave the impression of feeling hurt, and they were scared. They amslo tried to hide, since they could not walk "like a man/boy", but looked very funny in the way they stumbled around. A very sad sight., the sight of abused innocence. The parents acted as if they did not realise it, and big party was going on.

I always have had the impresison that the whole horror show is not about the children at all - just about the damn adults.

This issue should be settled on article 2 of the German constitution. And the uncompormised decdflration of that every religion is equal before the law like everybody else is, and that noi relgion shall be granted special rights for the mere reason of it being "religion". Laws shall never be bend or distorted on behalf of religions, no matter which one. And the German laws on physical violence against children and parents absuing or mistrteating their children, are clear. They must be enforced against "religious parents" as well - like they get enforced against secular or antireligious parents as well.

Red October1984

07-17-12, 06:01 PM

07-17-12, 06:32 PM

WHY?

its a conspiracy to turn Jews and Muslims into wankers.:D

or is it simply human reason?

Human reason...integration also equality in right and responsibilities.

Skybird

07-17-12, 06:54 PM

Human reason...integration also equality in right and responsibilities.
Very well then - and certainly better than if it were only parties' powerpolitical bluffs as usual.

Skybird

07-17-12, 06:55 PM

I first read the title of this thread. I next thought. "The hell i just read?" Then i thought, "Who wants to sit down and talk about circumcision with a bunch of other guys......."

Im sorry if this is ruining this thread, but i just have to ask one thing.

WHY?
Sorry, but it takes much more to ruin a thread in GT. :D

Let' say I'm getting easily passionate when it is about freedom versus religion, and equality of all before the law versus religious claim to get specially exempted from valid laws but to enjoy undeserved priviliges instead.

Red October1984

07-17-12, 07:50 PM

Takeda Shingen

07-17-12, 07:59 PM

HE [Obama] IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP!!

This implies that things were working before he was elected.

Red October1984

07-17-12, 09:22 PM

Takeda Shingen

07-17-12, 10:13 PM

Ok. Lets look at Obama's presidency and Bush's last. :hmmm:

Obama came rocketing into office early 2009. He hasnt kept any of his "promises for Change", he is trying to force healthcare onto us. He wants to take our money, and as a tax, force us to pay for birth control and contraception. His stimulus plan? FAIL.

Bush had some good days, and some bad days. He is one of my favorites. It wasnt him so much as it was Congress. His CONGRESS spent all the money that caused this recession.

I could go on......but i think this is enough for now. :D Mitt Romney wasnt my first choice for Republican, but, I think he'll do good for us. Its a shame that Rick Santorum dropped out. I really liked the guy. Hopefully he'll run in 2016

Then why do you not hold congress responsible for the spending under Obama's presidency?

In terms of Bush and spending, federal spending rose by 70% under his administration. Tax revenues were up by almost 14%. Defense spending alone rose by 107% in fighting a war that should never have been fought. He spent more on Medicare and Social Security than any president in history. These are all budget items. The executive branch makes the budget, not the legislative, remember?

And let us not even forget the so-called Patriot Act and the disasterous No Child Left Behind Act. Forcing upon us indeed. Obama is a bad president, but he is bad becuase he his actions are like a third Bush term. And you are right in that this is no change at all.

EDIT: And Santorum? Guy was my senator for 12 years; I know a whole lot about him. I'll pass on a Santorum presidency.

Red October1984

07-17-12, 11:17 PM

Then why do you not hold congress responsible for the spending under Obama's presidency?

In terms of Bush and spending, federal spending rose by 70% under his administration. Tax revenues were up by almost 14%. Defense spending alone rose by 107% in fighting a war that should never have been fought. He spent more on Medicare and Social Security than any president in history. These are all budget items. The executive branch makes the budget, not the legislative, remember?

And let us not even forget the so-called Patriot Act and the disasterous No Child Left Behind Act. Forcing upon us indeed. Obama is a bad president, but he is bad becuase he his actions are like a third Bush term. And you are right in that this is no change at all.

EDIT: And Santorum? Guy was my senator for 12 years; I know a whole lot about him. I'll pass on a Santorum presidency.

I also completely hate the Obama Congress. And supreme court. I am not as well informed as you are. I think that if the Iraq war never happened and we just went after Bin Laden, things would be better.

We'll call it a draw. :smug:

kiwi_2005

07-17-12, 11:46 PM

I think it should be up to the parents whether they want their child circumcise. Ive read that an uncircumcised man has more chance of getting cancer around the penis area (yes it does exist!) than a man that isn't because with an uncircumsize man (warning if you read on, you may throw up) the mucus under the foreskin can over the years cause cancer later in life.

My mother wanted me circumcise but my father said no way, so the chop never happened. Back then the husband was still the boss of the household. :D

07-18-12, 12:17 AM

Sorry, but it takes much more to ruin a thread in GT. :D

Let' say I'm getting easily passionate when it is about freedom versus religion, and equality of all before the law versus religious claim to get specially exempted from valid laws but to enjoy undeserved priviliges instead.

Be careful not to turn liberal democracy into your own sharia...:O:

Skybird

07-18-12, 06:08 AM

Two GERMAN articles from a magazine site I know since longer, focussing on gender mainstreaming and social engineering, family, female emancipation and such issues. Good site, I recommend to visit it occaisonally for latest entries. It often puts social and family policies from head back on the feet.

Religionen sind zu schonen? Um jeden Preis? - 10 Thesen und Antithesen (http://www.cuncti.net/streitbar/223-religionen-sind-zu-schonen-um-jeden-preis-10-thesen-und-antithesen)

Fragen und Antworten zu einem politischen Tabuthema (http://www.cuncti.net/haltbar/221-beschneidung-von-jungen-fragen-und-antworten-zu-einem-politischen-tabuthema)

And while going over the headlines this morning, i stumbled over the latest poll. 88% of the asked individual expressed strict opposition to tolerance for religiously motivated circumcision.

Skybird

07-18-12, 06:16 AM

Be careful not to turn liberal democracy into your own sharia...:O:

Oh, I pretty much leave others alone - as long as they do their blakc magic stuff to themselves only, not to others, not to state or society - and not to their children. The right of parents to educate their children the way they want ends where they do violate the legitimate rights and interests of the child and abuse it. This issue in this thread is about a 3000 year-long era of intellectual darkness while this abscence of light should excuse to cut off body parts from children. Maybe this is because in darkness you cannot see?

BTW, what many people do not seem to know is: neither in Islam nor in Judaism the circumcision of babies and children is a religious "must". It is not.

Skybird

07-18-12, 06:22 AM

Oh, and this: the big Vogue of doing it thjat has been seen in the Us in recent decades, seems to be over, too. Numbers are in sharp decline. Note en passant, from the first German essay I linked: when it got introduced in the US, that was just 150 years ago - and the main argument was to prevent boys from masturbating. To prevent blindness and early mental retarding, you see.

http://www.examiner.com/article/circumcision-rates-drop-to-33-percent

According to the CDC (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/17/cdc-us-circumcision-rate-has-plunged-to-33/) rates of circumcision (http://www.examiner.com/topic/circumcision) performed on newborn males in the U.S. declined sharply from 56 percent in 2006 to just 33 percent in 2009. The decision to circumcise a newborn so that he will fit in with peers in the locker room is no longer valid.

Circumcision in the U.S. has been a controversial and hot button topic for years. Circumcision rates in 1970 were almost 90 percent. The credit for this incredible decline might be due to the ever increasing number of parents who are educating themselves about this unnecessary cosmetic procedure before making a choice.

No national health organization in the world recommends circumcision for healthy male infants, not the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Medical Association. Nearly all European males are intact, with no epidemic of penile health problems, thus discrediting the American held believe that circumcision is healthy.

Another myth is that circumcision removes just a little flap of skin. The truth is that roughly 15 square inches of tissue is removed, amounting to anywhere from one-third to one-half of the skin covering a normal penis. Removed with this tissue are 240 feet of nerves and up to 20,000 nerve endings.

Activists spreading the word about circumcision call themselves intactivists (https://www.circumstitions.com/). Their argument is that an intact penis is the default and natural condition. Don***8217;t fix it if it ain***8217;t broken. Risks and side effects (http://www.suite101.com/content/common-complications-of-infant-circumcision-a173262) can include hemorrhage and even death. The foreskin that is removed actually has a function (https://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html).

Another argument against routine newborn circumcision is consent. An infant can***8217;t give it. It***8217;s his body; he should make the decision when he***8217;s older. Some circumcised men have even opted for foreskin restoration (http://www.norm.org/).

Many organizations have come out against routine infant circumcision. Just a few of which are: Doctors Opposing Circumcision (https://http//www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/), Mothers Against Circumcision (http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/) and even Jews Against Circumcision (https://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/).

07-18-12, 08:48 AM

\BTW, what many people do not seem to know is: neither in Islam nor in Judaism the circumcision of babies and children is a religious "must". It is not.

Depends who you may ask...as been said its not only the religious people's choice.
Other than that you don't have any intellectual superiority to decide whether it is right thing or wrong...no more than next Jew.
Also pasting all the cons can be easily addressed with pasting a lot of pros which only illustrates haw insignificant is the medical issue...there is no concrete data just opinions.
Actually the pro circumcision data is widely accepted as for now.
On de facto level millions and millions of people have no medical problems.

Skybird

07-18-12, 09:31 AM

Actually the pro circumcision data is widely accepted as for now.
Actually< -this is wrong. The medical mythology that gas been erected around this in defence of it, has been picked apart since longer time now. And the - also claimed - protection against sexual diseases and infections also plays no role relating babies. Like the Geman doctors for the most say and agree on: the claimed health benefits are very much in doubt, the gains, if they exist, are empircally so minor that they rank as almost natural statistic deviations too small to counter the risks and the severity and consequences of the surgery, and thus the whole thing stands on extre3mely weak legs when it is being done for the sake of disease preventions (again: why is sexually transmitted disease considered to be an argument considering babies and little boys?)

Today, BBC or a German newspaper reported that in British faith schools girls get denied to receive an immunisation injection against cervical cancer. They instead are expected to have no intercourse before marriage. What is the logfic here? To allow thosuands of girls getting cervical cancers in Europe every years in order to treach a mmoral lesson, a lesson basing on Catholic vlaues, not evenm values universially agreed upon? One got to love it with those religious hypocrites. Must be the same reason why they do not allow to fight AIDS by propagating the use of condoms, and to battle population explosion by using contraceptives. And this is the gang that wants to tell us about the morality to allow mutlaqtion of babies and boys?

HA...!

On de facto level millions and millions of people have no medical problems.
Which also in doubt in that various shares of questioned male populations reported that they regret that they got snipped, becasaue they feel their sexual sensitivity being effected. Which is no surprise when considering that in no way it can ba argued that it were just a piece of useless skin being cut off . This useless piece of skin is integral part of the organ, with hundreds of meters mof nerve fibres and a functional purprose in protecting the organ.

Alsop, statistics of doctprs ion Germany say that even those cuts done in hospitals and by doctors, ´cause problems in 1 of 50 cases, problems with conseqeunces that effect the organ´and the sexual behaviour of hte individual for the rest of his life. By these - proven empirical - numbers from hospitals, it is estimated that the number of medical complications when the procecdure being done outside hospitals and by non-mdical surgeons, is around 10%, some even estiumate up to 20%.

This is intolerable.

But it is not the only issue. The issue is that relgion shall be no excuse why parents should bve allowed to cut off body parts of depending, defenceless, vulnerable little babies and boys. It violates criminal laws. It violates basic prinmciples of the constittuioon, and the ethical value system of the West. It is somethign that the subject likely would not voluntarily agree to once grown up and being in full knoweldge and education oof the Why behind it. It is somethign that if it would be dopne by people not claiming relgion to be their mtoivation, would make the polcie show up immediately and the parents bein brought to court, possibly even loosing the right to raise children. Child abuse, we call it by law. Our laws are quite clear there - the court in Cologne was just guilty of for the first time ever indicating that these laws must be imposed on religions as well and that relgions shall be no safe heaven to escape valid laws.

One of the essay I linked above mentions that the issue sooner or later will end up at the human rights court anyway, and I think it will end like that indeed. Meanwhile, the duscissiopn has reached Austria as well, wehre also a majority of people are against this stoneage medicine practices on children and babies. I think it will not stop in Austria. With an official European capaign against female mutilation, it will be hard to explain why mutilation of boys and babies shall remain allowed, and how the abuse of children and babies can be argued not to be violating their right for pohysical integrity and a violation of their most profound human rights. With the number of circumcisions done for reasons of being en vogue declining, social arguments like boys falling out of their peer groups also lose the little teeth that they may have had.

Let people do to their bodies whatever they want - once they are grown up enough to know and to judge and to decide. Like it is being enforced by the law with other self-muztilating or body-alteration things as well.

Needless to say that religions will not give up their demand that they shall be allowed to brandmark their young prey as early as possible to mark their property claims. I said in the beginning it is about branding cattle on the meadow. And I'll stick to it. That'S all it ism about: power over people, control. Too bad if that happens with adult people, still. But something that really is intolerable and disgustoing when it is being done by absuing theweakest and innocent there are. One could as well carry out mutilations on the disabled, the elder, the mentally insane. But then one would call it Nazi-medicine, or euthanasia, if it is lethal. When mutilation is done on behalf of superstition and Abrakadabra, then it should be fine?

Not with me. What relgious people do to themselves, I take little interest in. But when they start to do it to others as well, to children, to the state'S legislation, to free secular society - then that brings me quicker into arms than many other things. I would feel dirty and honourless if I would just silently toleate it and do nothing. Because I think human freedom is precious, and human dignity is, like the German constitution says already in its very first sentence, untouchable.

Even the dignity of little, small humans still being young.

07-18-12, 09:50 AM

Let go with the Muslim thinking then....
Lets outlaw alcohol because it does more damage to people than anything else including killing little children.
Again...culturally booze is so deeply rooted in western culture that even defining it as drug is out of the question.
Can you see here the cultural issue...let outlaw coke
The change if ever... should come from the community itself in particular in a case where ethics is of cultural debate,damage is totally matter of opinion and cultural importance is big issue.

Actually< -this is wrong. The medical mythology that gas been erected around this in defence of it, has been picked apart since longer time now
Depends who you ask...

Penguin

07-18-12, 11:19 AM

If it is a matter of religion, I shall not stand in anybody's way. I shouldve read more closely. :shifty:

I will never restrict anybody's religious beliefs if i ever became a government employee. Unlike this BS that Obama is tossing around here in America. HE IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP!! I have yet to meet somebody who thinks he is a good president.

Thank you very much for your deep and profound analysis of the topic. :yeah:
Hey, there's no need to read the thread or even the OP's article before replying. Why not inform the people in the other threads, too? I think the lolcat thread could also need an "Obama screws everything up" posting.
Protip: You can certainly convince more people if you don't only use capslock, also play a little with the font size. This way your message is clearly heard.

Please inform us in case you should ever work on a Sunday, so that we can put you to death. Exodus 35:2 says so and you don't want to stand in the way of religious beliefs, do you?

Sailor Steve

07-18-12, 11:40 AM

Please inform us in case you should ever work on a Sunday.
Well, technically speaking that would be Saturday. :O:

Skybird

07-18-12, 11:46 AM

Let go with the Muslim thinking then....
Lets outlaw alcohol because it does more damage to people than anything else including killing little children.
If alcohol were being injwected via injeciton hoses into children to intoxicate them to death, yes, then it woul dbe an option to ban lcohol. Or better: to ban alcohol being used this way on children. If you want to drink yourself to death, go ahead, I couldn'T care less. If you aise hcildren, the authorities will take them away from you sooner or later, according to the law which says children mjust be protected from their parents if these abuses them or do not treat them to their minimum bsic needs and interests.

Again...culturally booze is so deeply rooted in western culture that even defining it as drug is out of the question.
Can you see here the cultural issue...let outlaw coke
The change if ever... should come from the community itself in particular in a case where ethics is of cultural debate,damage is totally matter of opinion and cultural importance is big issue.

Circumcision: somethiong is being done to children, actively, violating them, absuing their weakness. It gets done to you. Alcohol, Coke, or, like in the essay I linked: giving a child a prescribed drugs against a a coronar problem with its heart - these are not the same thing at all.

Depends who you ask...
No, it is not an issue of interpretation, it is an iussue that stands or falls by empirical experience, by numbers. For example it is not interpretation whether or not there were medical complications in every 50th child after circumcision done in a hospital, it is fact. Counting events and getting a total number is no interpretatioin issue, it is empirical evidence.

It also is no interpretation only when questionaires result in total numbers on men reporting this or that experience, it again is - empiry. "Three in ten subjects say" means 30% - not more, not less, there is no interpretation.

The mythology of hygienics benefitting from circumcision, has been pretty much shown wrong EMPIRICALLY that way. Like we also know today for sure that masturbation does not blind you, that it does not kill your brain, and that it is a myth that men have only so and so many "shots" in life, and not more. We also know that it does not ain bread from heaven, that a shepard does not divide the seas by swinging a magical wand, and that mutilating the gentical of little children doe snothing to please or annoy any god. The only ones being annoyed are the kids and people like me, and the only ones being pleased are priests and parents who do to their kids what has been done to them by their own parents. One generation infects the next one.

The prescribed cure to heal this: education, and enforcing the right of children to grow up unmobbed by religions, and as adults decide by their own, in freedom and self-determination, whether they want to join the skinner-club, or not.

I mean I hope you would call the police when you learn that your neighbours use to cut off the left little finger from the hands of their children when they reach the age of 4, which means the age of holy fingerlessness, eh?

Penguin

07-18-12, 11:51 AM

Well, technically speaking that would be Saturday. :O:

In Euroland's calenders the week starts on a Monday. :know:
However the TV Guide's week starts already on Saturday - we don't know if god is a big TV fan, so also better don't work on a Friday! :DL

Takeda Shingen

07-18-12, 12:13 PM

Penguin

07-18-12, 12:24 PM

August

07-18-12, 12:26 PM

August

07-18-12, 12:31 PM

...and leaves only a tiny permanent mark

Ahh Penguin, A foreskin is a pretty tiny thing too. Who gets to say how tiny a permanent mark has to be before it can be considered acceptable?

Penguin

07-18-12, 12:39 PM

Ahh Penguin, A foreskin is a pretty tiny thing too. Who gets to say how tiny a permanent mark has to be before it can be considered acceptable?

I am not an expert, but I have the very strong feeling that most foreskins are bigger than a needle's diameter. :03:
I would also see it critical, when parents would force streched earlobs on their kids.
The keyword is reversibility.

August

07-18-12, 01:02 PM

The keyword is reversibility.

But "permanent" implies IRreversible. By what right would anyone have to differentiate based on the size of a permanent mark?

And what about wearing shoes? It's medically proven to cause irreversible changes to the foot, leaving them so tender and weak that by the time the "victim" turns 18 he's pretty much forced to wear shoes, at least when he goes outside, for the rest of his life. I think that's a heckuva lot more intrusive, painful and permanent than some tiny snip of skin.

Are you Germans also going to go to all the primitive tribes around the world and tell them their ancient practices and rituals are criminal too? :)

Skybird

07-18-12, 01:11 PM

We need to stop parents from getting their little girl's ears pierced. This sort of loblular multilation is nothing more than an archaic vanity practice from the dark ages of man. These parents are criminals, nothing more. When an individual comes of the age of majority, they can decide if they wish to undertake this barbaric practice on their own accord. Our children have a right not to have notions of societal conformity placed upon them until they themselves are informed enough to make that decision.
Such a crap - from you...? Tak, you are better than that.

Sorry, but the things do not compare, and you should know that better. Not only is it hardly the parents, but the girls that want their mom'S to allow they getting an ear lobe pierced (or want a tatoo), but the piercing of an ear lobe does not compare to the removal of an integral part of the genital that has a protective function, a sexual function, and is not just some useless piece of skin, but comes along with 2-3 hundred meters (!) of nerve fibres, and in fact means the removal of not just a small piece of skin but up to one third of the penis' skin and especially the frenulum whichis a highly sensitive tissues - at the cost of intense pain (mind you: in most countries it still is egal to get it done without injection, and the tradiiton even demaqnds it to be done without injection), severe risk of medical complications that could cause additonal lifelong damage - additional to the obvious damage that is already done, plus infections making additonal surgery necessary, or criplling the sexuality of the baby/child in later years when it has become an adult.

If you compare that to piericing an ear lobe, then this shows how despertaely you cravy to find a reaosnbale arugment allowing mutolaiton of babies and children in the modern time anymore, on the asis of relgious ideology and superstititoion only, and enforced by social pressure of cultural perr groupos (Muslims, Jews) and fear by families for social isolation if they do not fulfill the command of the anonymous master in the sky.

It does not compare. Get it, please. It's so obvious and really not difficult to see. Promised.

In the Netherlands, Dutch medical profession have released a position paper and announcement that clearly expressed the Dutch doctors' opposition against medically non-indicated gentical surgery. In most countries of the West "cosmetical surgery" is forbidden below a certain age, even if the parents would allow it. In Germany, piercings, tatoos, branding are not allowed for teens below the age of 18 even if the parents would allow it. In Sweden, circumcision without injection is simply banned. The Swedes also have made a minimum age mandatory, I do not know though what age that is. And the essay I linked says that in whole Scandinavia the issue gets increasingly debated time and again since several years. I also linked an article today that says that the number of cirumcisions done in the Us has dropped from 90% of males in the 70s, to 50% in 2006 and 35% today. I referred earlier to the treend in Israel where a - since years slowly increaisng - number of secular Jews at leats have doubts and express criticism, admitting they do not do it for rtelgious reaosns, but only due to fear of social repressions. One third of Israelis are like that, a study from 2006 says.

The WHO gets quoted with saiyng that wordwide, 30% of all mmales are circumcised. OIfd these, 70% are Muslims, 1% are Jews, and 13% are american males not confessing to any religion. (February 2011).

Tak, you are a decent and intelligent guy. Please do not bother me with this strawman argument you just gave, this hollow rethoric. You know it better, I'm sure.

10 Thesen und Antithesen (http://www.cuncti.net/streitbar/223-religionen-sind-zu-schonen-um-jeden-preis-10-thesen-und-antithesen)

Fragen und Antworten zu einem politischen Tabuthema (http://www.cuncti.net/haltbar/221-beschneidung-von-jungen-fragen-und-antworten-zu-einem-politischen-tabuthema)

Sailor Steve

07-18-12, 01:19 PM

In Euroland's calenders the week starts on a Monday. :know:
However the TV Guide's week starts already on Saturday - we don't know if god is a big TV fan, so also better don't work on a Friday! :DL
In Jewish tradition Saturday is the Sabbath. The Christians started worshipping on Sunday because according to tradition that is the day Jesus rose from the dead, so it is commonly called 'The Lord's Day'.

In Spanish Saturday is still called Sabados.

mapuc

07-18-12, 01:28 PM

The debate about circumcision of boys are also being debated in Denmark. Here are a majority in the Danish parliament for a ban on circumcision. The last few days I have via the Internet, newspapers, radio and television witnessed much fiery discussion about this.

Parliament will not implement a ban until they have explored all Aspekte in this delicate topic

Each side must be heard.

Markus

Takeda Shingen

07-18-12, 01:44 PM

Such a crap - from you...? Tak, you are better than that.

Sorry, but the things do not compare, and you should know that better. Not only is it hardly the parents, but the girls that want their mom'S to allow they getting an ear lobe pierced (or want a tatoo), but the piercing of an ear lobe does not compare to the removal of an integral part of the genital that has a protective function, a sexual function, and is not just some useless piece of skin, but comes along with 2-3 hundred meters (!) of nerve fibres, and in fact means the removal of not just a small piece of skin but up to one third of the penis' skin and especially the frenulum whichis a highly sensitive tissues - at the cost of intense pain (mind you: in most countries it still is egal to get it done without injection, and the tradiiton even demaqnds it to be done without injection), severe risk of medical complications that could cause additonal lifelong damage - additional to the obvious damage that is already done, plus infections making additonal surgery necessary, or criplling the sexuality of the baby/child in later years when it has become an adult.

If you compare that to piericing an ear lobe, then this shows how despertaely you cravy to find a reaosnbale arugment allowing mutolaiton of babies and children in the modern time anymore, on the asis of relgious ideology and superstititoion only, and enforced by social pressure of cultural perr groupos (Muslims, Jews) and fear by families for social isolation if they do not fulfill the command of the anonymous master in the sky.

It does not compare. Get it, please. It's so obvious and really not difficult to see. Promised.

In the Netherlands, Dutch medical profession have released a position paper and announcement that clearly expressed the Dutch doctors' opposition against medically non-indicated gentical surgery. In most countries of the West "cosmetical surgery" is forbidden below a certain age, even if the parents would allow it. In Germany, piercings, tatoos, branding are not allowed for teens below the age of 18 even if the parents would allow it. In Sweden, circumcision without injection is simply banned. The Swedes also have made a minimum age mandatory, I do not know though what age that is. And the essay I linked says that in whole Scandinavia the issue gets increasingly debated time and again since several years. I also linked an article today that says that the number of cirumcisions done in the Us has dropped from 90% of males in the 70s, to 50% in 2006 and 35% today. I referred earlier to the treend in Israel where a - since years slowly increaisng - number of secular Jews at leats have doubts and express criticism, admitting they do not do it for rtelgious reaosns, but only due to fear of social repressions. One third of Israelis are like that, a study from 2006 says.

The WHO gets quoted with saiyng that wordwide, 30% of all mmales are circumcised. OIfd these, 70% are Muslims, 1% are Jews, and 13% are american males not confessing to any religion. (February 2011).

Tak, you are a decent and intelligent guy. Please do not bother me with this strawman argument you just gave, this hollow rethoric. You know it better, I'm sure.

10 Thesen und Antithesen (http://www.cuncti.net/streitbar/223-religionen-sind-zu-schonen-um-jeden-preis-10-thesen-und-antithesen)

Fragen und Antworten zu einem politischen Tabuthema (http://www.cuncti.net/haltbar/221-beschneidung-von-jungen-fragen-und-antworten-zu-einem-politischen-tabuthema)

It isn't hollow. I know plenty of parents that take their 2-year-olds to get their ears pierced. Are the children making that decision? Is this not mulitlation of the ears? Are we not shoving a metal rod through one's earlobe? Is mutilation not mulitlation? Or is your anger now that you see the flaw in your argument through the example of absurdity? Are you unable to see past your own hatred? It is you that jumps through the hoops to make an artificial distinction.

Skybird

07-18-12, 03:04 PM

It isn't hollow. I know plenty of parents that take their 2-year-olds to get their ears pierced. Are the children making that decision? Is this not mulitlation of the ears? Are we not shoving a metal rod through one's earlobe? Is mutilation not mulitlation? Or is your anger now that you see the flaw in your argument through the example of absurdity? Are you unable to see past your own hatred? It is you that jumps through the hoops to make an artificial distinction.

I never heared of any people piercing the ear lobes of their 2 year old. Maybe I live in a too protected and clean and tidy part of the world. And yes, stitching the earslobes of 2 year old is questionable. Seems they want the cuty-cute look for their sugarbabies. Well. That is more about the parents than about the children. And that is never something good, when parents educate their kids not to the kid's welbeing, but the wellbeing of the parents. Becasue kids are not thewir parents' belongings.

But that is not the point anyway. The point is that genital mutilation, the according pain, functional alteration, shame and psychological experience in general, - DO NOT COMPARE TO quick-piercing AN EARLOBE. An earlobe is unsensitivetive, relatively, and the functionality of the ear is not altered at all. So in principle the parents indeed should not pierce their children, yes - but even if they do, it does not compare to genital mutilation.

Or do you compare cutting fingernails to amputating let'S say every third finger...?

Man, come back to your senses. If I get a razorblade and cut you 3 mm deep into your arm, let'S say 3 cm long, a scratch that is, and afterwards I do the same kind of cut to your youknowwhat, I am absolutely certain you will immediately realise the difference in sensational quality.

Better believe me that without trying it out first. ;) I fell into a slope of barbed wire when I was 20, left some marks on my back and side - but that was a pain one could handle. I am certain that a circumcision would feel - less friendly...
Earlobes - I thought I was dreaming when reading that... :nope:

Tribesman

07-18-12, 03:18 PM

Or is your anger now that you see the flaw in your argument through the example of absurdity?
What is worse is the absurdity he now object to being used as a comparison is one that he was using as a comparison already in the topic.
Does that make it self evident that the reasoning of Skybird in this matter is fundamentally flawed?

Earlobes - I thought I was dreaming when reading that...
Maybe you was dreaming when you brought it up first.:rotfl2:
Come to think of it including your very first post on the topic how many times have you made that exact comparison you are now running from?

August

07-18-12, 03:29 PM

The point is that genital mutilation, the according pain, functional alteration, shame and psychological experience in general

There is so much crap in this statement that it needs a whole roll of toilet paper. Shame and psychological experience indeed.

Unlike some here I'm speaking about something I have personal experience with. I was circumcised at an early age and I know that there is absolutely no shame or psychic trauma or pain involved and my wiener works just fine thank you very much.

It's just another opportunity for Skybird to slam religion but do it this time under cover of a faux concern for the poor little children. Remember this is the guy who advocated assasinating the children of Burmese generals just to teach them a lesson.

u crank

07-18-12, 03:40 PM

Takeda Shingen

07-18-12, 03:48 PM

I never heared of any people piercing the ear lobes of their 2 year old. Maybe I live in a too protected and clean and tidy part of the world. And yes, stitching the earslobes of 2 year old is questionable. Seems they want the cuty-cute look for their sugarbabies. Well. That is more about the parents than about the children. And that is never something good, when parents educate their kids not to the kid's welbeing, but the wellbeing of the parents. Becasue kids are not thewir parents' belongings.

Okay, then we have determined two things: (1) Two years old is too young for getting ears pierced and (2) parents do not have the an actual right to raise their children according to their beliefs. I would follow up with two questions.

1. How old is old enough for ear piercing? Children and teenagers are impulsive and frequently do not give things rational thought.

2. Since parents are not going to make this decision, who should do it? It clearly cannot be the child until the child reaches majority, so who will serve as surrogate until majority is reached?

Skybird

07-18-12, 04:02 PM

I would ask this question.

Which is worse, having a baby circumcised or plunking your child in front of a TV set for endless hours of mindless tripe? Allowing your child to eat junk food and get no physical exercise? Teaching your child by example and behavior to be a racist, homophobic, misogynic and lazy citizen? Teaching your child by example that some how society owes you something and you have no social responsibility? Allowing your child to grow up without showing them any love or affection? I could go on. And on.
You offer these scenarios as if they would mean real alternatives to judge differently, where in fact thay all are bad.

Let me ask you questions by your own ruleset, then: when a priest rapes a child, is it a bigger sin if he does it outside a holy church? If Iranian girls in prison get executed, is it a bigger sin to do that without raping them first? If parents beat up their child, is it less criminal and less terrible for the child if afterwards it is found that they were drunk?

You get my point about your logic.

Until a state/government/court can address these kinds of abuse and neglect and actually do something about it, I would consider circumcision way down the list of things that would be detrimental to a child's welfare.
As a matter of fact we have several laws in place that empowers the authorities to intervene on behalf of the child'S interest if parents do not fulfiull both their moral and their legal obligations, act in violation of the child'S legal rights and interests, or abuse their right for eduacting their child to a degree where that education leads to the violation of the child's rights and interests. What many people do not seem to get that in Germany as well as in several other Wetsern states laws are already in place that simply would ban circumcision of children below the age of 18. The scnadal in Cologne simply is that this was the first time a German court has dared to confront relgion from being given a free ride to avoid already valid laws on the matter, and just used already xisting laws on the issue, insisting that these laws are valid for religons claims risen by parents, too. Being religious does not exclude you from be subject to the lawcode. And that explains why the catholic church joined the chorus of relgious hypocrites as well. No religion wants to give up its special status and priviliges it so far enjoys in our states. So much for secularism.

If every single man who was ever circumcised had a complaint, okay something is wrong. We know that's not the case.
Wrong. Research done by doctors and psychologists by using questiuonaires showed that many men, up to one third some numbers sdaid, deeply regret what had been done to them, and say they feel limited in their way to enjoy sensual pleasure from sexuality.

One thing Judiasm, Islam and Christinaity all have in common, is the extremely pathologic atttioude towards sexuality, and the perverted relation between men and women, the latter beign declared subject of minor grace and value and thus being subordinate to men. To destryo healthy mutual realtions between thew sexes, to pervert sexuality and making it something disgraceful and painful, at least unpleasurable, of course helps in keeping this rotten gender model alive. Many critics of Islam say what Islamic societies desperately need, is a sexual revolution to get rid of all the supressed sexual complexes of males that lead to their aggressive attitude of women, and that these societies need a recognition of femaqles equal rights and importance for a heakthy,m functiuonal society. They are absolutely right there. Interestingly, this often is said by apostates from Islam, it seems to me these people are more aware of this than most non-Muslim Islam-critics .

Why then is this an issue? Considering the fact that most circumcisions are for religious reasons .....hmm...
Exactly that is the issue, yes. That most circumcisions are not done due to medical indication but due to religion - right that is the issue indeed.

Tribesman

07-18-12, 04:21 PM

Its wierd, I am thinking of all of my daughters various friends, it covers young girls from just about every european nation, lots from the middle east and far east, quite a few from Africa, US americans, canadians and various south and central americans plus a couple of australians and even some locals.
I cannot think of a single one that doesn't have her ears pierced, not even the German ones.
Obviously I must live in a dirty unprotected part of the world and all those kids parents are scum as none of the children are of the age of majority.

u crank

07-18-12, 05:10 PM

You offer these scenarios as if they would mean real alternatives to judge differently, where in fact thay all are bad.

No I didn't. They are all bad. That's why I listed them.

Let me ask you questions by your own ruleset, then: when a priest rapes a child, is it a bigger sin if he does it outside a holy church? If Iranian girls in prison get executed, is it a bigger sin to do that without raping them first? If parents beat up their child, is it less criminal and less terrible for the child if afterwards it is found that they were drunk?

Again, no. It's all bad.

You get my point about your logic.

No I don't. I think you missed my point.

As a matter of fact we have several laws in place that empowers the authorities to intervene ....

Yes, most democratic societies have these laws. The question is, how can they be enforced? If a child shows up at school with obvious signs of physical abuse most of the time something is done. On the other hand if that child is being abused in any of the ways I mentioned there is little or nothing the state can do. You cannot force people to love their children or be a good role model for them. If you could we would be living in a perfect world. My point, and I hope I'm not over stating it, is that there are far worse things being done to children every day.

Wrong. Research done by doctors and psychologists by using questiuonaires showed that many men, up to one third some numbers sdaid, deeply regret what had been done to them, and say they feel limited in their way to enjoy sensual pleasure from sexuality.

Can't say. Not circumcised . Ask August.

One thing Judiasm, Islam and Christinaity all have in common, is the extremely pathologic atttioude towards sexuality, and the perverted relation between men and women, the latter beign declared subject of minor grace and value and thus being subordinate to men. To destryo healthy mutual realtions between thew sexes, to pervert sexuality and making it something disgraceful and painful, at least unpleasurable, of course helps in keeping this rotten gender model alive. Many critics of Islam say what Islamic societies desperately need, is a sexual revolution to get rid of all the supressed sexual complexes of males that lead to their aggressive attitude of women, and that these societies need a recognition of femaqles equal rights and importance for a heakthy,m functiuonal society. They are absolutely right there. Interestingly, this often is said by apostates from Islam, it seems to me these people are more aware of this than most non-Muslim Islam-critics .

Is that so? Funny thing, but now as a Christian I have a far more open and healthier attitude toward sex and towards women than I ever had as a non-believer. Then again, I can't speak for any one else. Maybe you shouldn't either.

Exactly that is the issue, yes. That most circumcisions are not done due to medical indication but due to religion - right that is the issue indeed.

No argument there.

Skybird

07-18-12, 06:11 PM

Can't say. Not circumcised . Ask August.
No, I have a look at questionaire results that give me somethign better than just one or two individuals's opinions: they give me an empiric basis grounded on a much bigger pool of raw data, a bigger population.

Is that so? Funny thing, but now as a Christian I have a far more open and healthier attitude toward sex and towards women than I ever had as a non-believer. Then again, I can't speak for any one else. Maybe you shouldn't either.

I tend to judge a religious ideology by its scripture, becasue it claims to base on that scripture. And in all three "holy" scirptires of the desert dogmas, women are subordinate to men, and second class beings.

The church surely did its best to supress women. Until today it prevents equality being recognised.

I know there are bad distortion sof emancipation movement. This thing called gender mainstreaming brings me up to arms, too. But that is not what equality means.

Maybe you are better than that - maybe you are not that Christian/fundamentalist/"Churchian" at all. What do I know about you!

Skybird

07-18-12, 06:40 PM

Okay, then we have determined two things: (1) Two years old is too young for getting ears pierced and (2) parents do not have the an actual right to raise their children according to their beliefs. I would follow up with two questions.

1. How old is old enough for ear piercing? Children and teenagers are impulsive and frequently do not give things rational thought.

2. Since parents are not going to make this decision, who should do it? It clearly cannot be the child until the child reaches majority, so who will serve as surrogate until majority is reached?

Again I tell you that piercing an earlobe by needle and and mutilating genitals DO NOT COMPARE - no more than fingernail-clipping compares to cutting off the finger. Something in that range.

So the questions you should ask instead, are these:

1. How old is old enough for genital mutilation? - I give you a clue: the law says: piercing (not that earlobe poiercing I mean, but the bigger callibre), tattoos and branding shall not be done to younbg human before they reah ther age of 18. A studio doing itz below that age, gets visits from the police, the parents also get some vistors. It doe snot matter whether they gave written permission or not: teenagers are banned from ordering such services. It is illegal. So what do you think: what is the adequate age for doing soemthing even more serious: circumcision? Younger than for the above things? Or older or the same age? Eh?

2. And the second quesiton you shoudl ask for sure is: sine children are not fit to make a decision for medically non-indicated circumcision, why should the parents make a deicison for medically non-indicated circumcision then? Why not leaving it to the child reaching majority and actually can understand, weigh and judge the pro and contra?

And I would ask you for a personal opinion on yours. What is your verdict on the first article of the German constitution: 1. The dignity of man is untouchable? Do you think that religions shall claim the right to violate it nevertheless? Do harm, do pain to the weak, the small, the innocent? Sentence it to unneeded surgery and pain? If you search the web, you can find many sites on this issue of circumcision where circumcised males remember their experience of the procedure (Muslims get it done later than Jews, and many Americans got it done under local anestesia as adults, for non-religious reasons, becasue it was en vogue). And many report that the weeks of after-pain, during the healing, were painful as hell, and walking was a terrible experience. What allows parents to harm their babies like this, their boys (and their girls, for that matter)? What allows them to violate the dignity of their child to expose it to this, and to accept the risk of medical complications and long-lasting health consequences and a reduced sexual sensitivity that many men report in quesitonairtesd and interviews to feel sorry for? What do you say to the many men that say they regret what had been done to them as boys, and they wioshed they could reverse it - just that they cannot? Isd this the kind of thing parenbts should be allowed to do to children - without any medical need or indication at all?

When you learn that your neighbours abuse, beat, torture or ill-treat their children, what do you do? When you learn they cut off body parts? Or let their children starve, or give them drugs and alcohol, and hand them to foreign men? Do you say: that is their freedom, their business, parents have the right to educate their children like they want and I am not interested, or do you try to find help on what to do about this? Ask the police, the social wellfare, the authorities? And what do the laws in America say on what in Germany is called "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" - denial of assistance? Be advised, in Germany you can earn prison time for denial of assistance, I think up to one year in bad cases, I am not certain. It is a punishable offence for sure. When you know about bad things happening in your neighbours flat, may it be the husband is beating his wife or they are absuing their children, then you can get into trouble if the police can porve that you knew it. In other words: you are in a legal responsibility before the law if you learn about such things. You must not like it. But the law will hold your responsible, if it can - no matter whether you like it. And I think that is generally a good thing by intention.

Let them grow up, gain knowledge and educatiuon so that they can judge and decide by thremselves. If then they say they want to get snibbled, no problem for me. What enrages me is that abvsue of children, and tghe case of relgion once again claiming to have the right to bypass basic rules and the laws of the state, instead being given a special status, special respect, special recognition.

Also, I would like to know how you can justify to be against female genital mutilation, like it is beign campaigned for by the UN and Wetsern states, if you want to allow the same thing beign done do babies and little boys. Female mutilation comes in various forms of practice, some of which are 1:1 equivalent to what is done to males. Why is it okay to do to boy and on behalf of claims made in the name of traditgion and religion, if the same should be banned when done to girls and young women, also in behalf of claimed traditions and religion? That is double standards!

August

07-18-12, 06:40 PM

Then again, I can't speak for any one else. Maybe you shouldn't either.

:) That's like asking the wind not to blow!

Takeda Shingen

07-18-12, 06:46 PM

Again I tell you that piercing an earlobe by needle and and mutlating genitals DO NOLT COMPARE - no more than fingernail-clipping compares to cutting off the finger. Something in that range.

So the questions you should ask instead, are these:

1. How old is old enough for genital mutilation? - I give you a clue: the law says: piercing (not that earlobe poiercing I mean, but the bigger callibre), tattoos and branding shall not be done to younbg human before they reah ther age of 18. A studio doing itz below that age, gets visits from the police, the parents also get some vistors. It doe snot matter whether they gave written permission or not: teenagers are banned from ordering such services. It is illegal. So what do you think: what is the adequate age for doing soemthing even more serious: circumcision? Younger than for the above things? Or older or the same age? Eh?

2. And the second quesiton you shoudl ask for sure is: sine children are not fit to make a decision for medically non-indicated circumcision, why should the parents make a deicison for medically non-indicated circumcision then? Why not leaving it to the child reaching majority and actually can understand, weigh and judge the pro and contra?

And I would ask you for a personal opinion on yours. What is your verdict on the first article of the German constitution: 1. The dignity of man is untouchable? Do you think that religions shall claim the right to violate it nevertheless? Do harm, do pain to the weak, the small, the innocent? Sentence it to unneeded surgery and pain? If you search the web, you can find many sites on this issue of circumcision where circumcised males remember their experience of the procedure (Muslims get it done later than Jews, and many Americans got it done under local anestesia as adults, for non-religious reasons, becasue it was en vogue). And many report that the weeks of after-pain, during the healing, were painful as hell, and walking was a terrible experience. What allows parents to harm their babies like this, their boys (and their girls, for that matter)? What allows them to violate the dignity of their child to expose it to this, and to accept the risk of medical complications and long-lasting health consequences and a reduced sexual sensitivity that many men report in quesitonairtesd and interviews to feel sorry for? What do you say to the many men that say they regret what had been done to them as boys, and they wioshed they could reverse it - just that they cannot? Isd this the kind of thing parenbts should be allowed to do to children - without any medical need or indication at all?

When you learn that your neighbours abuse, beat, torture or ill-treat their children, what do you do? When you learn they cut off body parts? Or let their children starve, or give them drugs and alcohol, and hand them to foreign men? Do you say: that is their freedom, their business, parents have the right to educate their children like they want and I am not interested, or do you try to find help on what to do about this? Ask the police, the social wellfare, the authorities? And what do the laws in America say on what in Germany is called "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" - denial of assistance? Be advised, in Germany you can earn prison time for denial of assistance, I think up to one year in bad cases, I am not certain. It is a punishable offence for sure. When you know about bad things happening in your neighbours flat, may it be the husband is beating his wife or they are absuing their children, then you can get into trouble if the police can porve that you knew it. In other words: you are in a legal responsibility before the law if you learn about such things. You must not like it. But the law will hold your responsible, if it can - no matter whether you like it. And I think that is generally a good thing by intention.

Let them grow up, gain knowledge and educatiuon so that they can judge and decide by thremselves. If then they say they want to get snibbled, no problem for me. What enrages me is that abvsue of children, and tghe case of relgion once again claiming to have the right to bypass basic rules and the laws of the state, instead being given a special status, special respect, special recognition.

You ducked my questions and proceeded with yet more doublespeak. I call shenanigans. Although, to be honest, I am not surprised.

u crank

07-18-12, 07:25 PM

I tend to judge a religious ideology by its scripture, becasue it claims to base on that scripture. And in all three "holy" scirptires of the desert dogmas, women are subordinate to men, and second class beings.

Judging a religion or for that matter any group by what they say or by what they hold as a doctrine while 'disregarding' what they actually do in practice will give you a distorted view of them.

The church surely did its best to supress women. Until today it prevents equality being recognised.

I'm not sure of which 'church' you are speaking about but I know of no non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations that suppress women. In fact some of the fundamentalist types would call these denominations 'too liberal'. So you cannot make that generalization. I do not know any women who attend church or profess to have faith in God who claim to be suppressed. Quite the opposite, many are leaders and teachers.

- maybe you are not that Christian/fundamentalist/"Churchian" at all. What do I know about you!

Well Skybird I am a Christian but under the current definition of 'fundamentalist' I would fail completely. Not sure what a "Churchian" is. Is this a new sect? :D

Yes, I guess we all have lots to learn about each other.

Tribesman

07-19-12, 01:47 AM

Again I tell you that piercing an earlobe by needle and and mutilating genitals DO NOT COMPARE
Again I say that it was you who made the comparison to support your views, it blew up in your face and now you are argueing against your own arguements.

I give you a clue: the law says:
I could have sworn you already claimed it said something else.

And I would ask you for a personal opinion on yours. What is your verdict on the first article of the German constitution
Is that the one you said meant children couldn't get their ears pierced as it was mutilation and child abuse?
Since you appear to have run away from your views while trying to maintain your views as unchanged should we ask you for your current verdict on article one?:rotfl2:

07-19-12, 12:11 PM

When you learn that your neighbours abuse, beat, torture or ill-treat their children, what do you do? When you learn they cut off body parts?

Whats wrong with you?

Skybird

07-19-12, 04:14 PM

You ducked my questions and proceeded with yet more doublespeak. I call shenanigans. Although, to be honest, I am not surprised.
No, you made a totally absurd comparison. Earlobe piercing by a needle - to full cutting off parts of the genitals with massive nervous tissue damage, pain, weeks of serious more poain, psychological consequences, possible traumatization.

If you need to point fingers at somebody, then point it to yourself for a totally absurd - and I say: idiotic - comparsion.

It does not compare at all and thus your constructed case that bases on this idiotic and totally misled comparison does not deserve recognition as something that must must or should be given serious consideration. I would make myself hilarious if I would do that.

Consequently, I refuse to comply.

Maybe should come over and ram a needle into your earlobe, and then cutting off what there is to be cut off at your Willy'S tip, then you would realise what a bogus argument you try to set up. It would be a case of true and sudden enlightment, no doubt.

Dissappointing, Tak. I expect better standards from you.

Skybird

07-19-12, 04:32 PM

Judging a religion or for that matter any group by what they say or by what they hold as a doctrine while 'disregarding' what they actually do in practice will give you a distorted view of them.
Or a correct view that shows that they are distorting the holy texts they claim - wrongly - to base upon.

I'm not sure of which 'church' you are speaking about but I know of no non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations that suppress women.
Then you never have heared of the Catholic church, and have not read the Bible - both old and new testament. Even Jesus apparently was not at all in that all-embracing mood to unconditionally welcome the idea that women shall be equal in rights to men. Allthough by the standards of his time he was a revolutionary improvement in that regard, I give him that.

In fact some of the fundamentalist types would call these denominations 'too liberal'. So you cannot make that generalization. I do not know any women who attend church or profess to have faith in God who claim to be suppressed. Quite the opposite, many are leaders and teachers.
Show me a Catholic female Cardinal. Priests. Show me the Vatican allowing females equal rights in their hierarchy. Allowing them self-determination regarding whether or not they want to use contraceptives, may it be for preventing pregnancy, may it be condoms for protecting against AIDS. As I said somewhere above, some Catholic private schools in Britain just have forbidden their female students to get injections against cervical cancer.

Well Skybird I am a Christian but under the current definition of 'fundamentalist' I would fail completely.
You said that before in an early thread, and it ended ugly. I take you by what you express in opinions, not by what you claim you want to be understood as. And I see you not as that harmless secular guy you want me to believe. Niot the ultra-.hardcore fundamentlaist, but still: fundamentalism is on oyur list, without you being aware of it.

Not sure what a "Churchian" is. Is this a new sect? :D
I differ between Chrisztians in the meaning of truly listening and basing of the only authority Christians can have: the man whom they claled the Christ and what the four gospels claim he had said, and Christians in the meaning of being members of sects or the main churches, becaswue I think Jesus'Ä preaching sand the church have nothing in common. The chuich is not Christzian at all. It is what it is: the Church. Not "Christianity". If oyu think that si qujeer, then remeber from Isalam threads that I make the same distinction between Muslims truly basing on the basis of IKslamic dogma - the exmaple of Muhammad's lie, Quran, Sharia - and Muslioms who do not consequently lived by that and thus ion principle qualify for apostacy and thus: exceution, althought they stillc laim to be Muslims. On 24th December, the churches are crowded with people claiming to be Christians. I say most of them are not Christian at all. Most of these people are sentimental - and that is something different.

Yes, I guess we all have lots to learn about each other.Really? Regarding what has been discussed between you and me, aren't things not already clear? We are very different, you and me.

Takeda Shingen

07-19-12, 04:38 PM

No, you made a totally absurd comparison. Earlobe piercing by a needle - to full cutting off parts of the genitals with massive nervous tissue damage, pain, weeks of serious more poain, psychological consequences, possible traumatization.

If you need to point fingers at somebody, then point it to yourself for a totally absurd - and I say: idiotic - comparsion.

It does not compare at all and thus your constructed case that bases on this idiotic and totally misled comparison does not deserve recognition as something that must must or should be given serious consideration. I would make myself hilarious if I would do that.

Consequently, I refuse to comply.

Maybe should come over and ram a needle into your earlobe, and then cutting off what there is to be cut off at your Willy'S tip, then you would realise what a bogus argument you try to set up. It would be a case of true and sudden enlightment, no doubt.

Dissappointing, Tak. I expect better standards from you.

You made the comparison yourself, so you can take that finger and turn it right back at you. All I did was show you the inevitable end of this slippery slope that you are so eager to push us down. I am glad that I don't like in your personal utopia, Skybird. It sounds like a truly frightening place.

Skybird

07-19-12, 06:12 PM

You made the comparison yourself, so you can take that finger and turn it right back at you. All I did was show you the inevitable end of this slippery slope that you are so eager to push us down. I am glad that I don't like in your personal utopia, Skybird. It sounds like a truly frightening place.
So I have written your post #181. Hear, hear.

Takeda, you set up a strawman argument over earlobe piercing and dressed it into two questions all by yourself, that you set up to give the impression as if their content - earlobe piercing - would in any way be comparable to gential mutilation.

Both do not compare. Not in severity. Not in pain. Not in medical complications possible. Not in rate by which medical complications appear. Not in effects of living quality and the way it gets effected.

And I dare say that most girls ask their parents for permission to get a needle-hole in their earlobe to wear some gem or whatever it is. I scanned the web via google a bit after your statement you knew many parents making the decision to needle their little girls in the earlobe. In the German web, I found little evidence that this is the common way. Most testimonies reported that instead the girls kill their parents' nerves untoil these allow it.

The responsiblity for that hilarious construction you set up as if the two issues compared where comparable at all - this responsibility we leave where it belongs - with you.

Needle your earlobe. Cut off your forsekin with a knife , and frenulum and all that. Then report back and tell us about your experiences. I am certain you will not deal the one for the other anymore. Absolutely certain.

:nope: Come back to your senses.

Skybird

07-19-12, 06:19 PM

A board member who has choosen not to join the thread nevertheless has sent me this, from 1997.

http://www.menweb.org/svocirc.htm

And some German media reported today and yesterday that there is already a trend observed that in the shadow of the parliament'S attempted crash-course-legalising of boys' circumcision, growing efforts are being run from accoprding lobby groups up to the level of the WHO and the UNHRC to legalise female circumcision in full, too. That is bad news. In Germany, some media pointed out that there is concern over the dignity of girls being violated when being subjected to the procedure. It gets asked if boys have no such dignity thta must be protected, then.

Well. That questions stands.

Tribesman

07-19-12, 06:31 PM

As I said somewhere above, some Catholic private schools in Britain just have forbidden their female students to get injections against cervical cancer.

He just can't stop himself from making up rubbish.

The schools cannot forbid anything of the sort.:doh:

The 24 various schools in question out of the thousands out there can regualte to a certain extent what they do in their property on their time.

Since this injection is not compulsory then what is it?
Something parents can decide on for their children:yep:
Damn parents making decisions for kids its all wrong I tell ya:rotfl2:

Isn't it funny that one of Skybirds regular "oh no its the muslims" newspapers happens to be frequently running a scare campaign against administering this very same vaccination.

Could it be that the Daily Mail says to parents that these cancer vaccinations give your children cancer?:03:

Tribesman

07-19-12, 06:36 PM

So I have written your post #181. Hear, hear.

No young man, you wrote post#1.
Hear hear, you introduced an arguement you are now describing as idiotic:yep:

Takeda Shingen

07-19-12, 07:24 PM

So I have written your post #181. Hear, hear.

Takeda, you set up a strawman argument over earlobe piercing and dressed it into two questions all by yourself, that you set up to give the impression as if their content - earlobe piercing - would in any way be comparable to gential mutilation.

Both do not compare. Not in severity. Not in pain. Not in medical complications possible. Not in rate by which medical complications appear. Not in effects of living quality and the way it gets effected.

And I dare say that most girls ask their parents for permission to get a needle-hole in their earlobe to wear some gem or whatever it is. I scanned the web via google a bit after your statement you knew many parents making the decision to needle their little girls in the earlobe. In the German web, I found little evidence that this is the common way. Most testimonies reported that instead the girls kill their parents' nerves untoil these allow it.

The responsiblity for that hilarious construction you set up as if the two issues compared where comparable at all - this responsibility we leave where it belongs - with you.

Needle your earlobe. Cut off your forsekin with a knife , and frenulum and all that. Then report back and tell us about your experiences. I am certain you will not deal the one for the other anymore. Absolutely certain.

:nope: Come back to your senses.

It must be exhausting being this angry all the time. I will pray for you. Christ be with you.

u crank

07-19-12, 07:29 PM

Then you never have heared of the Catholic church, and have not read the Bible - both old and new testament.

The catholic church is not a non-fundamentalist Protestant denomination.

The Bible, yeah I glanced through it once. :O:

You said that before in an early thread, and it ended ugly. I take you by what you express in opinions, not by what you claim you want to be understood as. And I see you not as that harmless secular guy you want me to believe. Niot the ultra-.hardcore fundamentlaist, but still: fundamentalism is on oyur list, without you being aware of it.

Your powers of discernment are remarkable given the distance and your knowledge about me. I will repeat once more. I am a Christian. I am not a fundamentalist. The two are not mutually inclusive. Neither am I this 'harmless secular guy', whatever that is. I am beginning to doubt your knowledge and insight on this subject.

Really? Regarding what has been discussed between you and me, aren't things not already clear? We are very different, you and me.

We are very different and some things are very clear. So?

Does every one you know agree with every thing you say or do you browbeat them into submission? I make an attempt at some sort of conciliation and you seem to reject it. Are you rejecting it?

For my part I can't help it. That book I glanced at says "to be at peace with all men, if at all possible."

Sailor Steve

07-19-12, 08:30 PM

Does every one you know agree with every thing you say or do you browbeat them into submission? I make an attempt at some sort of conciliation and you seem to reject it. Are you rejecting it?
It's what he does. I just finished standing up for Skybird because I thought the opposition in that case was unwarranted. Now I will take the other stance. I have had him dump on me, not because I disagreed but because I didn't agree with him the way he thought I should.

This is his bad habit.

kranz

07-20-12, 05:05 AM

seems like sheep are leaving Skybird's Congregation.:hmmm:
(dunno why, but I have these rats squeals and an image of a sinking ship in my head...)
Long time ago, someone wise on this board said that "he didn't come here to discuss but to preach." (forgot who said that but he should have been awarded with POTY)

anyways...I know it will sound perverted but actually this is one of two arguments (among all he has posted) with which I agree. (I need to give myself 20 lashes for that...)

Skybird

07-20-12, 05:32 AM

It's what he does. I just finished standing up for Skybird because I thought the opposition in that case was unwarranted. Now I will take the other stance. I have had him dump on me, not because I disagreed but because I didn't agree with him the way he thought I should.

This is his bad habit.
The total freedom thing? Well, Steve, you simply did not see that certain inner contradiction in your thinking, and were angry that I put the finger into that wound.

I do not chnage mind or alter my opinion just to do somebody favours. I also do not respect a different opinion for the mere sake of respecting a different opinion. Opinions are not respectable in themselves - the reasons behind them are what makes them respectable, or not. I respect a different opinion if the other can explain reasonably, not just by making random and arbitrary speculations, why he comes to his differing conclusions. An opinion itself means little to me, at worst it is an annoyance reality greets me with - as a realist I take note of its exitence, and that'S it. Wheter or not people can explain their opinion without entangling themselves in illogical contradictions or flawed information - that is what it was about. u_crank claims to be this thing, while by what I take from his other comments indicates he his quite something different. Many people do not want to be labelled as what they seem to behave at, or do not want to be held responsible for the consequences of the positions they take. And you did ignore certain self-destructive implications of your position back then, when you and me collided. You were not able to resolve it until the very end of the story. Well.

I was not convinced by you two. If that equals that I "dumped on you", either you or u_crank: I have occasionally changed my mind in the past, and I said that in forum posts, and sometimes it was due to something said in this forum, sometimes it was due to "life" and may have taken a bit longer than just from one day to the next. I also sometimes went wrong, or attacked in unacceptable ways. I repeatedly admitted to that then, and were due I apologised then. But that was when I was forced to see my wrong, or was convinced of new input forcing me to change my former views, or I realised all by myself that I behaved bad.

But do not expect me to just do favours, opinion- or apology-wise.

And while the obvious rethoric counterstrike is inviting after the above sentence: don't . Just don't. Just leave it in the context I said it in.

07-20-12, 05:55 AM

http://www.menweb.org/svocirc.htm

It is worth remembering that the two developed countries in which circumcision is most widely practiced, Israel and the United States, have what many consider to be two of the most violent governments in the world. On a criminal level, we are probably the most violent developed country. Research has suggested that these facts are connected and not simple coincidence

What...you people losing it.

Skybird

07-20-12, 05:57 AM

It must be exhausting being this angry all the time. I will pray for you. Christ be with you.
Can't you just ask people before you get going? Now I feel as if getting served and charged for something that I did not order. :-?

07-20-12, 06:07 AM

@skybird..seriously the more you are challenged on some issues the more you seem to sink into insanity.
Lake onion that reveals layer after layer lol.

Tribesman

07-20-12, 07:06 AM

The total freedom thing? Well, Steve, you simply did not see that certain inner contradiction in your thinking, and were angry that I put the finger into that wound.

Is that the one where Steve said Skys dogma and unthinkling insistance that he was right meant he was just a big a threat to freedom as the nutty fundy muslims he was complaining about.

@skybird..seriously the more you are challenged on some issues the more you seem to sink into insanity.

I disagree, on some issues he managess to leave his insanity behind altogether.

But hey he is topping it all off now......
Wheter or not people can explain their opinion without entangling themselves in illogical contradictions or flawed information - that is what it was about.
How much flawed information and illogical contradictions does the average Skybird post contain in each paragraph?
By what proportion does that increase if it involves religion?
By what massive factor does it further increase if it involves his favorite religion?

But do not expect me to just do favours, opinion- or apology-wise.

The only person you need to do a favour to is yourself.
You seriously do need to do yourself a favour.

u crank

07-20-12, 08:58 AM

It is worth remembering that the two developed countries in which circumcision is most widely practiced, Israel and the United States, have what many consider to be two of the most violent governments in the world. On a criminal level, we are probably the most violent developed country. Research has suggested that these facts are connected and not simple coincidence. Psychobiological studies support this theory.

Yeah. I stopped reading when I got to that part.:nope:

I do not chnage mind or alter my opinion just to do somebody favours. I also do not respect a different opinion for the mere sake of respecting a different opinion. Opinions are not respectable in themselves - the reasons behind them are what makes them respectable, or not. I respect a different opinion if the other can explain reasonably, not just by making random and arbitrary speculations, why he comes to his differing conclusions. An opinion itself means little to me, at worst it is an annoyance reality greets me with - as a realist I take note of its exitence, and that'S it. Wheter or not people can explain their opinion without entangling themselves in illogical contradictions or flawed information - that is what it was about.

Entering any debate or discussion with this mindset puts you at an extreme disadvantage. Not only do you lose the respect of those you debate with, but you shut yourself off from any possible new ideas. The fact that you don't respect other's opinions because they cannot be explained to 'your' satisfaction must mean that you would expect the same treatment. What is the point then? It now changes from debate to 'dogmatic preaching. It's just useless shouting. Perhaps this is what you prefer?

u_crank claims to be this thing, while by what I take from his other comments indicates he his quite something different. Many people do not want to be labelled as what they seem to behave at, or do not want to be held responsible for the consequences of the positions they take. And you did ignore certain self-destructive implications of your position back then, when you and me collided. You were not able to resolve it until the very end of the story. Well.

A further explanation will be necessary, although I don't really require it. Your past attempts to tell me what I believe or what I represent have been entertaining, but unfortunately incorrect. Other than stating a simple fact.."I am a Christian', I have said little. You are attempting to put me in a box that suits your view points. I refuse to get in it.

I was not convinced by you two.

But do not expect me to just do favours, opinion- or apology-wise.

I am not trying to convince you about any thing. I am not expecting any favours either.

What I am hoping for is friendly, respectful and meaningful debate. Is that possible?

Sailor Steve

07-20-12, 09:17 AM

The total freedom thing? Well, Steve, you simply did not see that certain inner contradiction in your thinking, and were angry that I put the finger into that wound.
And you start it all over again. When I tried to explain that my position was not absolute, but simply a starting point for discussion, you attacked me for being absolute. When I tried to explain that I agreed with you in certain points, you ignored that and continued to attack the position you decided I held. You didn't even listen to me when I tried to have a discussion - you attacked the position you insisted I held even when I tried to explain that my position wasn't what you thought it was. You didn't even listen to me, or argue with me. You attacked one thing I said long ago. There was no discussion on your part, just attack and dismissal.

I do not chnage mind or alter my opinion just to do somebody favours. I also do not respect a different opinion for the mere sake of respecting a different opinion.
The problem isn't differing opinions. You insist that your opinion is fact, and you dismiss anything else as flat wrong. You treat everyone else as your inferior, and you talk down to them, as if lecturing a first-year student. You consider yourself "right", and leave no room for anything else.

You are arrogant, pure and simple. Even your fellow Germans think you're a joke.

Takeda Shingen

07-20-12, 09:33 AM

Can't you just ask people before you get going? Now I feel as if getting served and charged for something that I did not order. :-?

May you walk in the path of almighty God.

Skybird

07-20-12, 10:01 AM

And you start it all over again. When I tried to explain that my position was not absolute, but simply a starting point for discussion, you attacked me for being absolute. When I tried to explain that I agreed with you in certain points, you ignored that and continued to attack the position you decided I held. You didn't even listen to me when I tried to have a discussion - you attacked the position you insisted I held even when I tried to explain that my position wasn't what you thought it was. You didn't even listen to me, or argue with me. You attacked one thing I said long ago. There was no discussion on your part, just attack and dismissal.
You were logically inconsistend and completely ingored a certain dilemma that I showed to you, and for which you ha dno solution, but you did not draw a consequence from that, and but sticked with your self-contradictory position. That'S waht it wa sabout, always, not more, not less. What you later put into it in explanations, were your follow-on excuses. no explanations, no solution to that dilemma.

And since you mentioned my "fellow Germans", back then two guys, one moderator, from your country mailed me, recommending that I should stop it, that you were simply stuck over your false argument and could not see the contrtadiction you entangled youzrself in, and thus it were useless to carry on. Which proved to be right. Obviously I were not the only one perceiving you knocking yourself out.

And you still give a flawed story about what it was about. I wonder if you really had not realised that dilemma, or if I just had touched a sore nerve of yours.

Anyhow.

The problem isn't differing opinions. You insist that your opinion is fact, and you dismiss anything else as flat wrong.

No, I dismiss somethign as unlikely or wrong when the wrong aspect alraedy has been shown or whether the correctness is very unlikely. As I said, not the opnion is whta counts, every Peter and Paul can claim soemhtign and demand recongition buy nennobling his wild speculation by calling it "an opinion!" Reasons and arguments for that opinion, basis in data and information - that is what decides wheter I respoect an opinion or not. An opinion that ignores own self-contradictions and behaves as if these were non-existent, certainly does not motivate me to take it any more serious.

You treat everyone else as your inferior, and you talk down to them, as if lecturing a first-year student. You consider yourself "right", and leave no room for anything else.
Sometimes. When I think I have a solid reaosn not to take the other's opinion serious anymore. Which is not a given from all beginning on. You can coinvince me - but you need according arguments or information. Yopu see, I see no worth in vopicing an opinion of my own that I have not thought about and that I later must chnage time and again, becaseu I did not give it enough thinking and informing myself. The more often somebody alters his opinion, the more this is a sign that he has had a very poor and ill-thought-out opinion from beginning on. That certainly is no compliment to this somebody. For exyample I I would start to discuss techncialities of subamrine reactores, I would need to chnage my "opinion" very often, probbly, becasue I now not much about these things, and have had no experience and no education on them. So I decided I am better off to not start such a thread, because I have too little interest in the matter as if I would want to get that education and invest that time needed. But on other things, I have had a better level of inpout and experience. I invested the time, and read some sutff and observed some things and so on. And my current opinions try to relect and take into account all that a sbest as I can manage. The more seldom others force me by their argument to change my position, the more certain I am that my position is well chosen, and so why should I give it up and change my mind? To do you a favour and appear "not arrogant" in your eyes? As I said: do not expect me to do favours in debate. I don't. And sometimes, when the same straman argument or the same "tactic" of evading or distracting is used, the same diffamation or rethorical trick, I sometimes cut things short, or ignore them completely, yes. Everything becomes tiresome from some point on, and not worth to put any more effort into it. If not taking such things or people serious anymore makes me "arrogant", then I think I am still not "arrogant" enough. Which would be to my shame, then.

You are arrogant, pure and simple. Even your fellow Germans think you're a joke.Not the ones I know for sure. And I probably know many more of them than you do. ;) Anyhow: better arrogant than being inconsequent, or self-contradictory. With an "arrogant" man, you still can come to terms and reach a deal, with an inconsequent and self-contradictory, you cannot, and any deal you reach you never can really trust in.

Skybird

07-20-12, 10:03 AM

Thread has been derailed enough by now, and now starts to get sunk by exchnages of personal animosities. I hereby declare my pull-out from this one. No more replies form me.

Tribesman

07-20-12, 10:16 AM

May you walk in the path of almighty God.
Stick to the road, stay away from the Moors:har:

joegrundman

07-20-12, 10:25 AM

Thread has been derailed enough by now, and now starts to get sunk by exchnages of personal animosities. I hereby declare my pull-out from this one. No more replies form me.

i think you are wise to henceforward avoid the opinion part of this discussion, however since you are plugged into the German political news cycle, I would be grateful if you could post updates on the debate in the German parliament

joe

u crank

07-20-12, 10:28 AM

Stick to the road, stay away from the Moors:har:

Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, 'Where have I gone wrong?' Then a voice says to me, 'This is going to take more than one night.'.

Charlie Brown

Tribesman

07-20-12, 11:13 AM

i think you are wise to henceforward avoid the opinion part of this discussion, however since you are plugged into the German political news cycle, I would be grateful if you could post updates on the debate in the German parliament

So the German political news.
The politicians said the cologne court had turned Germany into a laughing stock didn't they.
But hey thats just politics isn't it.
I suppose you could take a medical angle.
The German Medical Association says it opposes the ban on circumcision, No word from them on Skybirds own personal comparison with ear piercing though.
I wonder if the ear piercing he brought up will be included in the new bill the bundestag voted to draw up and make law this autumn.
Its amazing isn't it what you find plugged into German politics. The Parliament is attending to the little local ruling banning circumcision by making it all definately legal kosher and above board throughout the whole country.

Takeda Shingen

07-20-12, 11:14 AM

Stick to the road, stay away from the Moors:har:

I see what you did there.

Sailor Steve

07-20-12, 11:18 AM

You were logically inconsistend and completely ingored a certain dilemma that I showed to you, and for which you ha dno solution, but you did not draw a consequence from that, and but sticked with your self-contradictory position. That'S waht it wa sabout, always, not more, not less. What you later put into it in explanations, were your follow-on excuses. no explanations, no solution to that dilemma.
You really do live in your own fantasy world, don't you?

[edit] Upon rereading I'm forced to go back into this. Skybird claims my argument was self-contradictory, yet he never showed that. I was standing up for one simple point, that point being the law regarding that subject. He chose to turn it into a major philosophical argument, and when he couldn't prove his point he turned to accusing me of all sorts of interesting things. He never argued the original point one way or the other.

As I said, it's what he does.

07-20-12, 11:26 AM

No, I dismiss somethign as unlikely or wrong when the wrong aspect alraedy has been shown or whether the correctness is very unlikely. As I said, not the opnion is whta counts, every Peter and Paul can claim soemhtign and demand recongition buy nennobling his wild speculation by calling it "an opinion!" Reasons and arguments for that opinion, basis in data and information - that is what decides wheter I respoect an opinion or not. An opinion that ignores own self-contradictions and behaves as if these were non-existent, certainly does not motivate me to take it any more serious.

Check the "information" you post....and derive your opinion from... Mr Spock:haha:

BW
Are you clipped?
You sort of seem to fit the profile but the invention of soap should address this problem.:rotfl2:

Tribesman

07-20-12, 11:45 AM

Skybird claims my argument was self-contradictory, yet he never showed that.
I think the problem is that he is a prime example of that paradox and underneath the bluster he still functions enough to realise it but is loath to face that reality.

Skybird

07-22-12, 06:50 AM

I said I would not return to this thread, and indeed I will not continue a debate here. But I just found this very reasonable, very balanced, very fair , very calm essay by a Jewish doctor who is reflecting over his people's habits and identity and about what he should do himself - now that he has become a father of a baby-boy himself.

German only, sorry. But still, possibly the best piece I have read about the issue so far. I just post it "as is", without further participation of mine. From the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/beschneidungsdebatte-unsere-seltsame-tradition-11827726.html

Das Urteil der nichtjüdischen Richter in Köln sollte Anlass für zwei urjüdische Akte sein: nachdenken und diskutieren. Wir brauchen keine Rechtssicherheit, sondern eine Denkpause. Juden sollten die kommenden 15 Jahre in Deutschland nutzen, um sich zu vergegenwärtigen, warum sie ihre Söhne beschneiden: ob sie das wirklich wollen oder nur aus Angst davor tun, anders zu sein. Die Feier des Brith am achten Tag nach der Geburt könnte ein wichtiger symbolischer Akt werden, in dem der Vater nicht seinen Sohn zu seiner Religion verdonnert, sondern sich selbst dazu verpflichtet, ihm ein bedeutungsvolles Judentum vorzuleben und zu übermitteln.

Wenn meine Erziehung zum Judentum dazu führt, dass mein Sohn eines Tages als mündiger, überzeugter Jude von seinem Vater fordert, ihn endlich zu beschneiden, dann werde ich seinen Wunsch erfüllen, mit Liebe, Stolz und Schmerz. Aber nicht früher.

Respect, Sir! That's what it is about, imo.

07-22-12, 08:06 AM

Skybird

07-22-12, 09:14 AM

Good that you drank glass of cold water....

That's what it is all about and it should be left this way.
Anyone should reflect about it the way he wishes...without this stupid drama.
Drama? To let the babies grow up, wait until they are adult men and then accept their sovereign, own self-responsible and educated decision pro or against circumcision - that and not more and not less it was about from all beginning on. The judge in Cologne even suggested that, if I recall correctly. ;) What adults do, by their own voluntary decision, never was the issue, not for me, and not for the court in Cologne, and not for German laws or the German constitution.

Religions would not be such a nuthouse with more minds like this author deciding their shape and realisation, their powers - and also their limits. And he did not deny his Jewish identity, still. Not at all. I had the impression he still takes it serious. Nevertheless he has found a way to not betray it, but also not to ignore the inviolability of dignity and right of not getting physically harmed of that baby-boy that now is in his care.

Good outcome for everybody.

Tribesman

07-22-12, 09:42 AM

Drama?
Yes, the sort of drama where you make a hysterical statement to support your view and then call it an idiotic statement when other people mention it but still try and defend it.
The drama is pure comedy of the farcical nature:rotfl2:

07-22-12, 09:57 AM

Religions would not be such a nuthouse with more minds like this author deciding their shape and realisation, their powers - and also their limits. And he did not deny his Jewish identity, still. Not at all. I had the impression he still takes it serious. Nevertheless he has found a way to not betray it, but also not to ignore the inviolability of dignity and right of not getting physically harmed of that baby-boy that now is in his care.

Good outcome for everybody.

I hope very much that Jewish identity is more than just about circumcision... :haha:
When it comes to religious nuttiness this issue not a problem at all.
Actully this issue would not be problem if someone did not decide that this has to be a problem.
The biggest hysteria about this comes from people who have nothing to do with it in direct way....just look at the "scientific" links you posted.
Even when i try to be so much open minded that may brain almost spills out:03: i cant help but laugh.

..........

Skybird

07-22-12, 10:30 AM

I hope very much that Jewish identity is more than just about circumcision... :haha:
When it comes to religious nuttiness this issue not a problem at all.
Actully this issue would not be problem if someone did not decide that this has to be a problem.
The biggest hysteria about this comes from people who have nothing to do with it in direct way....just look at the "scientific" links you posted.
Even when i try to be so much open minded that may brain almost spills out:03: i cant help but laugh.

It is about equality before the law - that religions also have to comply to them. It is about certain guarantees in the constitution of certain inalienable rights that religions - and parents - have to respect, too, in a secular society. Bypassing and avoiding them, making it a privilige for some benefitting subgroup like a religion, is something that touches upon the state'S most profound principles. It puts the "Rechtsstaat" into doubt, if you tolerate different levels of equality before the law. See, many people avoid the law, politicians, bankers, VIPs, etc etc. And they all are having a bad image, therefore, well-deserved. Why should it be different with religions?

One has to remember it: the legal situation is clear over here: circumcision of babies and boys in germany always has been a punishable offence, the laws are clear on that and the vast majority of legal experts and judges I read and heared and see in the past weeks agree on that. It is just that one had agreed not to use these laws against practitioners of religious motivation, although here is no legal basis for this exclusion before the law, becasue it remains to be an act of illegal and thus punishable physical violence if it gets done to babies and children: to minors.

Due to equality of everybody before the law, it should be an issue for everybody living in that state (and culture, for that matter). Else law becomes arbitrary, and some people are more equal than others, to use Orwell'S words. This should not be. That'S why I and many others who are not any Jewish or Muslim at all, care for this nevertheless. It is also due to the cruelty, of course, because doing that procedure without injections simply means terrible pain. But it is also a human rights issue - and not to cut off body pieces from girls and boys and babies not able to consent to that is a human right for sure.

So leave things as they are, is no option. Right now the laws get ignored, and that is unacceptable. Either the laws get changed, or they get enforced. Arbitrarily ignoring them sometimes, and sometimes not, depending on whether it is about religion or not, is no option, but an erosion of "law and order". There need to be certainty of laws (Rechtssicherheit). And that has to be based on the grounds that the procedure means legal prosecution if carried out against minors. It is the only humane and reasonable solution. The Jewish doctor who authored the essay I linked above, thinks into that direction, although he comes to the conclusion not on basis of legal considerations, but due to reflecting over his own responsibility towards his son. That people like him and people like me, coming from different directions, nevertheless can reach the same conclusion: no circumcison before the subject is adult and voluntarily decides for it (which means it is also to be respected if as an adult he/she decides against it), means that the issue can be settled without religious activists being allowed to claim their powerpolitical interst of being seen as the only authority allowed to decide on it. Because that is what these lobby speakers, Muslim and Jewish alike, really are about. They claim Deutungshoheit, I do not know an English word for that, and they claim that to even rank higher than the law and the constitution. And that is at the latest where they overstep the red line.

Do you still wonder and laugh about why Non-Jews/Non-Muslims like me are so upset and concerned? Then you still have not really understood the nature and reason of the conflict. It is about protecting the principle of an open, secular society, of equality before the law, and of course also about protecting children and babies from physical violent abuse. I see nothing laughable in that. One could as well laugh about protesting about relgious lobbies wnating to infiltrate the curriculum of a public school, and bypassing legal guarantees safeguarding a secular basic order of the state. You have certainly noted in the past that I attack such attempts, too.

FYI, I am as upset and noisy regarding female circumcision.