German court bans circumcision

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You get my point about your logic.

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

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

- 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?

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

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?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

Come back to your senses.