Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[colander]

Orthodontia is to correct what is seen as a defect. You can, if you wish, decide that the human body is always in a defective state. I do not necessarily always support paediatric orthodontia, but if it were carried out routinely on all children, to produce an effect that is not generally seen in nature, I probably would condemn it, particularly if it gave no appreciable benefit.

You can condemn it all day and all night and nobody would have a problem with that. However, what you are actually doing is advocating that it be made illegal. Were that to occur, the rights of Jews to freely practice their religion will have been dashed to bits.

That you have devoted exactly zero thought to articulating any observable benefits that society would derive from such a ban--let alone a benefit large enough to justify the enormity of denying a perfectly functional minority ethnic group's ability to preserve their own religious and cultural identity!--leads me to believe that your true motivations have less to do with improving societal welfare and more to do with your desire to suppress activities that you personally find to be distasteful.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Babies cannot make any decisions. They're babies. Someone has to make decisions for them. The choices are: the children's parents or you. I vote for the parents.

False dilemma. We obviously do not accept such a black and white proposal, so I don't know why you are even trying.

Article 24. The rights of the child

Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.

Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.

Linky.

We, as various societies, have made rules about the interests of children for a while now.

 

[lopeyschools]

There seem to be some posters who are under the mistaken idea that western democracies offer their citizens unlimited rights and freedoms.

This is not the case.

Just as your freedom to move your arm ends at someone else's face, your right to practice your religion ends with someone else's penis.

The supporters of ritual circumcision refuse to acknowledge that by practicing their religion, they are interfering with the fundemental rights of their offspring. Perhaps if they viewed their children less as their property and more as human beings who will grow up to have their own thoughts and opinions of what should be done with their penises, they would reconsider their position.

 

[ddt]

You can condemn it all day and all night and nobody would have a problem with that. However, what you are actually doing is advocating that it be made illegal. Were that to occur, the rights of Jews to freely practice their religion will have been dashed to bits.

Advocating is a bit of a strong word - Rat isn't lobbying a political party or such, we're just discussing this on an internet forum.

Secondly, "that it be made illegal" is too strong too. What the Cologne Court found was that it was already illegal to begin with, deriving from the German constitution. Upthread, someone else posted a snippet from the Norwegian constitution which amounted to the same, if I remember correctly. And I expect (but haven't checked) that it also would be illegal on the basis of the various human rights treaties that countries have signed.

That you have devoted exactly zero thought to articulating any observable benefits that society would derive from such a ban--let alone a benefit large enough to justify the enormity of denying a perfectly functional minority ethnic group's ability to preserve their own religious and cultural identity!--leads me to believe that your true motivations have less to do with improving societal welfare and more to do with your desire to suppress activities that you personally find to be distasteful.

So why don't you - or LossLeader - explain to us in a paragraph or two why it is so central to Judaism that Jews - and even secular Jews - would lose their identity when they can't be snipped as an 8-day infant?

 

[Craig B]

A note on human sacrifice:
It appears that father Abraham didn't kill his son, but he apparently did trim his todger. Why does human sacrifice get brought up in this conversation?

Not sure, but there's a good reason why it should be brought up. According to some commentators including, notably, the late Prof Hyam Maccoby (The Sacred Executioner. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipporah_at_the_inn. Exodus 4. "Various Interpretations" for Maccoby's view, which seems the most plausible to me, of this strange episode.) circumcision is a substitute for human sacrifice, which was practiced in pre-scriptural times, but of which clear traces remain in the Scriptural canon. For the evolution of circumcision see also http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/341/341_reisslet.pdf

Rabbi Jeffrey M. Cohen ... points out the connection between hatan [son-in-law] and "to circumcise" in Arabic ... Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, is rarely mentioned without the qualification "hatan moshe."

This suggests that originally circumcision was performed at the time of marriage, by the bride's family, and this was later replaced by infant circumcision, the weird Exodus 4 story being a scriptural justification for the change. Human sacrifice is referred to several times. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter in Judges 11, evidently with the approval of YHWH. Exodus 34 decrees thus

19 The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

Or, originally, the sons would be slaughtered too, presumably.

In this view, human sacrifice was replaced by a rather extreme form of circumcision and that in turn was replaced by the milder infant procedure. In parallel, of course, human sacrifice was also replaced by animal sacrifice, and this development was retrojected to the time of Abraham by later scriptural redactors.

All this means that the practice of circumcision is most unlikely ever to induce a reversion to human sacrifice, because it is in fact a substitute for that, as the Zipporah story indicates. But it also means that the form of circumcision has altered since it was first instituted in prehistoric times.

Finally I am certain that the Nordic governments are not actuated by anti semitism in their move against circumcision. Jews have abandoned animal sacrifice without ceasing to be Jews. Even if they successfully resist these attempts to ban circumcision, to accuse these governments of seeking to suppress their own religion or Islam is quite absurd.

 

[GlennB]

If FSMism had

1. a history of being a minority religion is a place where the majority religion(s) actively persecuted FSMism
2. modernity had made overt anti-FSMism socially unacceptable
3. attacking FSMism was still possible by asserting that the practices FSMists had used to set themselves apart from other religions and therefore formed an integral part of the FSMist identity

you might actually have a valid point with respect to statutorily proscribing circumcision. However, you're blithely ignoring the historical context of European (and European-derived) Christian persecution of Judaism and Islam--and how that may be legally effected now that overt anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are no longer socially acceptable--to make a extremely superficial rhetorical point. FSMism is a "religion" that was expressly established by its proponents to parody fundamentalist Christianity, and trying to make analogies between hypothetical (and undocumented) FSMist practices and real (and documented) Jewish and Muslim practices is profoundly ahistorical and utterly dishonest. FSMism is neither a religious belief system nor an ethno-cultural identity; it is a trope expressly promulgated by atheists to mock religion, making any practice claimed a central to FSMism highly suspect as expression of religiosity.

Why not actually consider the persecution real, historical religions and legal method used to effect it legally, instead of relying on the hypothetical of a farce "religion" created expressly for demonstrating the absurdity of religion itself?

You appear to be defending the religious practices of Islam and Judaism here by appealing to the facts that they are well-established and both have a history of being persecuted. Is that right?

There's also a hint that you believe the proposed ban on circumcision is persecution by stealth. Is that also right?

Incidentally I don't think Pastafarianism was designed to mock religion - I believe it was designed to mock the absurdity of giving special treatment to a specific religion or two.

 

[Rat]

Nonsense. Laws requiring a reading test to register to vote were aimed at ensuring that voters could at least understand their ballots. Those laws had a disparate impact on African-Americans. You propose a law that will have a disparate impact on the practice of Judaism. I see no difference.

I'm surprised that you can see no difference, particularly considering what you were responding to. The difference, rather obviously, is intent. The reading test voting qualifications were obviously designed with the specific intent of excluding black voters, made clear by the fact that they were often only applied to black voters and white voters did not need to take them. In this case (in northwestern Europe) the laws already exist, at least arguably, that prevent infant circumcision, and Jews and Muslims have either been exempted or a blind eye has been turned.

Incidentally, since the OP was about Norway, it certainly wouldn't have a disparate effect on Jews, but on Jews and Muslims, since the latter outnumber the former by at least fifty to one.

Babies cannot make any decisions. They're babies. Someone has to make decisions for them. The choices are: the children's parents or you. I vote for the parents.

The parents make some decisions for babies. That you support the parents' rights to decide whether to removed the baby's foreskin is obviously and trivially true. I simply don't believe that you think that parents have the right to do whatever they want with a child. Children are not the property of the parents. To imply that a child is either brought up by the parents or by the state is sophistry.

 

[catsmate]

I have a problem with it as an adult procedure. The evidence shows that circumcision of adults or teens is higher risk than circumcision of infants.

Citation required.

It also is more likely to cause a decrease in sexual pleasure or sexual disfunction. If it were done, medically it is far better to do it to an infant.

Citation required.

The free exercise of religion is that of the parents and of the parents on the child's behalf. Children cannot consent to anything, eight day-old babies least of all. Someone makes their decisions for them.

So anything parents want to do to their children is fine if it's justified by religion?

Laughable is right. Your statement is downright silly. My parents marked me as an American by teaching me english as a baby.

What had this utterly ridiculous strawman got to go with mutilating the genitals of infants?

Parents make all sorts of decisions that leave an indelible mark on their children. Should they just stay mute and wait to see what language I want to speak as an adult? Of course not. Your argument is nonsense.

Or this one?

I was unaware that you possessed the ability to determine which exact religious practices bind Jews as one people and which are extraneous. How did you complete your study? Did you refuse to circumcise one Jewish population and do mandatory circumcisions on the other? What were the rates of retention across successive generations? Where were you published?

Religions change and adapt to changes in society.

Or, perhaps, do you have absolutely no idea what combination of practices have allowed Jews to endure over the centuries?

So you're justifying MGM for infants in the name of "Jewish identity"?

How about Allah? With 1.5 BILLION people who are followers of Islam, the % of males is probably about 1/2 that number getting snipped. That is a of chopping. Islam is #2 in religion and hardly a minority ethnic group. I see no reason to be concerned with the tiny % of Jews being circumcised when the followers of Allah are the big boys in circumcision plus, of course, throwing in a lot of the Islam women and girls for female genital cutting which is truely mutilation. Wonder if those Nordic Countries are concerned about that is their huge Muslim populations.

Strawman. The proposed legal changes in Scandinavia would effect all religions that practice MGM equally.

Cosmetic, but far more importantly for penis and whole body Health.

Citations for circumcision:

1. having overall health benefits
2. that outweigh the risks
3. that outweigh the side-effects and consequences

Muhammad is Allah. No cap on the discussion as being European countries only.

I see you're as ignorant of Islam as you are of circumcision.

More like boring. Exhausting my interest in penises and circumcision or not.

Don't let the door hit you as you flounce out.

 

[catsmate]

I'm going to turn that question around on you and ask: Do you think the magnitude of the harm done by circumcision is so great that it justifies criminalizing the free practice of an entire religion?

Strawman. If genital mutilation is part of a religion, that religion should change. Just like if that

If so, then please explain to me why the demographic makeup of the people pushing for the practice's criminalization is proportionately nearly bereft of the members of the group that you think is actually suffering harm?

This simply isn't true.

Newborns find it difficult to join political movements I suppose.

Oh I don't know, I've seen them dragged to anti-abortion rallies as trophies.

In the game of HIV, anything that will help with any protection will do. Clearly, with the millions of deaths from AIDS, men don't care about condom prevention while getting themselves and any partner infected.

Rubbish. Firstly you've yet to cite evidence for your supposed HIV preventative effect, then look at side-effects and consequences, them examine risk compensating behaviour and finally study resource utilisation.

The title is "Nordic Countries" not "Western". Muslims treat Muhammad as G-d.

Again you demonsatrate yoru ignorance of Islam. And what's with the "G-d"?

It's always hilarious to see circumcision opponents fall all over themselves saying "Oh, no, our opposition to circumcision is not anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim"

Because this is true perhaps? Or are you going to repeat your strawman anti-semitism claims?

and to have them explicitly and viciously attack Judaism and Islam for practicing ritual circumcision.

It really doesn't matter how many Jews or Muslims practice circumcision;

Correct. Any level of non-therapeutic genital mutilation is unacceptable.

Blithely dismissing the legal proscription of circumcision as disproportionately affecting historically persecuted religious minorities due to the importance of "bodily integrity" completely disregards the fact that the foundational legal documents contain a fundamental conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community and that both are considered fundamental.

Sorry but religions don't get a pass to engage in repugnant acts just because of past persecution. Or should xians, pagans et cetera be allowed similar "rights".

Do you support legalized homosexuality? Why stop there, why not legalize raping infants?

Oh good grief what a pathetic strawman. Are you not capable of understanding the concept of consent? If an adult wishes to undergo circumcision, let him. If adults wish to engage in homosexuality, let them. If adults wish to have their bodies pierced, tattooed et cetera, let them.; If adults wish to engage in sado-masochistic activities, let them.
However leave the children alone.

Seems like outlawing circumcision is sending a rather explicit message that state knows better how to raise the children of Jews than the Jew know themselves.

I see you're focusing exclusively on Jews again.

Knowledge of Jewish theology is not relevant to whether circumcision is acceptable. Circumcision is indisputably genital mutilation, notwithstanding that the term has some connotations that some find unacceptable.

Yep.

 

[spin0]

What the Cologne Court found was that it was already illegal to begin with, deriving from the German constitution.

Yes. In Germany the constitution (Basic Law) requires equal protection regardless of gender and regardless of religion. Which means the new law passed by the Bundestag is likely unconstitutional. But it will take time until the law gets tested in the Constitutional Court, because AFAIK only someone directly affected can do it and infants are not known to be very active in filing legal complaints.

One has to remember that this is also a gender equality issue: boys are not excluded from the human rights. The same conventions protect their right to their physical integrity just as well as those of girls.

And I expect (but haven't checked) that it also would be illegal on the basis of the various human rights treaties that countries have signed.

Such as:
The Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine which bans removing living tissue from a person who cannot consent:
"No organ or tissue removal may be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent under Article 5."

That treaty was ratified in Finland in 2010, and is one of the prosecution's legal arguments in the current court case. AFAIK in legislation such ratified treaty has a status comparable to a directive.

And there's also the recent Council of Europe's resolution:
"[The Parliamentary Assembly] is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery."
(full resolution available here: Children’s right to physical integrity)

According to Israeli Foreign Ministry the resolution cast "a moral stain on the Council of Europe, and fosters hate and racist trends in Europe." And that "any comparison of (male circumcision) to the reprehensible and barbaric practice of female genital mutilation is either appalling ignorance, at best, or defamation and anti-religious hatred, at worst."

Yeah, U racist. FGM "barbaric", MGM good. The barbarians do FGM. U ignorant. U racist. U foster hate. U.

What Israel missed in the resolution is that nowhere it made a comparison of MGM to FGM, and they are clearly mentioned as different categories of violation of the physical integrity of children which they both undeniably are. I don't know if Israel said anything about the other very relevant stuff in the resolution such as early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery, or whether those acts are "barbaric" and "reprehensible" or not.

Then again Israel is not a member of the Council of Europe but an observer state.

 

[Tolls]

Such as:
The Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine which bans removing living tissue from a person who cannot consent:
"No organ or tissue removal may be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent under Article 5."

Not sure that section is relevant as it covers "Organ and tissue removal from living donors for transplantation purposes".

I've only had a quick peek at the rest of it, but the only thing that might be relevant would be Article 6, para 1:
"
Subject to Articles 17 and 20 below, an intervention may only be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, for his or her direct benefit.
"
and I'm sure that's vague enough to be interpreted anyway you want.

 

[ABC10]

It will be worth the price of Admission to see the "Nordic Countries" try to enforce a No Circumcision on their Muslim populations. They will get their cities burned down in short order by the followers of the "religion of peace".

 

[Craig B]

It will be worth the price of Admission to see the "Nordic Countries" try to enforce a No Circumcision on their Muslim populations. They will get their cities burned down in short order by the followers of the "religion of peace".

I consider that to be most improbable, but at all events I am sure that the police and security forces will suppress such disorder most vigorously, in the event that it occurs.

 

[spin0]

I'm surprised that you can see no difference, particularly considering what you were responding to. The difference, rather obviously, is intent. The reading test voting qualifications were obviously designed with the specific intent of excluding black voters, made clear by the fact that they were often only applied to black voters and white voters did not need to take them.

Additionally tests specifically directed to black voters were implemented with the specific intent of making them almost impossible for them to pass: Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

Incidentally, since the OP was about Norway, it certainly wouldn't have a disparate effect on Jews, but on Jews and Muslims, since the latter outnumber the former by at least fifty to one.

Not to forget Christians and whatever other religions or belief systems people may have.

BTW, the OP is not only about Norway. The resolution is by ombudsmen for children, paediatricians, and paediatric surgeons from Nordic countries Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland along with Greenland.

 

[spin0]

Not sure that section is relevant as it covers "Organ and tissue removal from living donors for transplantation purposes".
I've only had a quick peek at the rest of it, but the only thing that might be relevant would be Article 6, para 1:
"
Subject to Articles 17 and 20 below, an intervention may only be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, for his or her direct benefit.
"
and I'm sure that's vague enough to be interpreted anyway you want.

Yup. Sorry for being unclear, but I refrenced it as an example related to the court case and it is one of the things the prosecutor quoted. Don't know the prosecutor's case in it's full, and remains to be seen what the court eventually decides. Earlier in the district court the father got fined.

Speaking of tissue donations the infant foreskins are not thrown away at least in the US - don't know how it goes in the EU or in the Nordic countries.

 

[Rat]

Additionally tests specifically directed to black voters were implemented with the specific intent of making them almost impossible for them to pass: Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

I did that a couple of weeks ago, but I have no idea whether I passed, since there are no answers, and whether you passed was down to the person setting the test.

BTW, the OP is not only about Norway. The resolution is by ombudsmen for children, paediatricians, and paediatric surgeons from Nordic countries Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland along with Greenland.

You are correct. My mistake. Although I suspect the numbers are similar in all of those places, except possibly Greenland.

 

[Giz]

Do you oppose parents taking their 12 year-old daughters to the mall to get their ears pierced? The parent is making the decision to violate the child's bodily integrity.

Parents deciding to (slightly) mutilate their baby is not the same as a 12 year old begging and wheedling their parents into allowing them to be (trivially) mutilated.

The ear piercing is the child's decision. Maybe leave circumcision to be performed when the child actually asks for it? I'm sure that some would. A few.

 

[colander]

Correct. Any level of non-therapeutic genital mutilation is unacceptable.

Really?

Why?

Sorry but religions don't get a pass to engage in repugnant acts just because of past persecution. Or should xians, pagans et cetera be allowed similar "rights".

If you're proposing to change the laws in a way which restricts a human right as fundamental as the practice of free religion, the burden isn't on the religious people to justify why they should be allowed to do their stuff. Instead, it is up to you to explain why you think such a change would do more good than harm. We already know that you find circumcision repugnant, but your personal revulsion with a practice does not constitute a persuasive argument for its criminalization. To justify that, you have to explain how you think that outlawing circumcision will lead to a concrete improvement in the quality of life of the people who live in your country. And it better be a big damn improvement, because you're weighing it against the curtailment of free right to religion in your country.

But despite your all your talk of sado-masochism and mutilation, you haven't presented any evidence that circumcision actually has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of the people who've been circumcised. So... why are you so concerned?

 

[jeremyp]

If you're proposing to change the laws in a way which restricts a human right as fundamental as the practice of free religion, the burden is on you to explain why you think such a change would do more good than harm.

The proposal is not to restrict people's rights to practise their religion but only to prevent them from infringing other people's rights not to be mutilated without consent. I don't think anybody has suggested that people be banned from having themselves circumcised when they reach an age at which they can fully understand what is involved and why.

 

[colander]

The proposal is not to restrict people's rights to practise their religion but only to prevent them from infringing other people's rights not to be mutilated without consent.

So what? It doesn't matter that the text of the law doesn't explicitly say anything about restricting religious practices specifically. The fact is that if the law is instituted, it will have the inevitable effect of--surprise!--restricting freedom of religion. Or do you think it would pass religious freedom scrutiny if a country decided to outlaw cross-shaped objects (what pointy edges they've got!) or sprinkling water on children (my god-nephew got water up his nose!) Neither of those things are inherently religious, after all.

I don't think anybody has suggested that people be banned from having themselves circumcised when they reach an age at which they can fully understand what is involved and why.

So it would be cool with you if we outlawed crosses and water-sprinklings? After all, Christians can just put wooden spheres on their church buildings and start baptising their kids by briefly setting them down next to sno-globes. No biggie, right?