Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rat]

It boggles the mind that you need the illegitimacy of such comparisons spelled out for you in any level of detail.

But what he originally said was not to compare the two, so that's neither here nor there. Why is it that I can see this and you can't?

 

[colander]

I previously made the point that water sprinkling of children and cutting bits off children are different sorts of activities. The law is entitled to view them differently. We are discussing the treatment of children. Both in the United States and in Europe, the imposition of sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, on children, is strongly prohibited by law. It is permitted to mature persons on their own account, as body cutting and piercing also rightly are. Find another analogy.

I shall now make the point that having sex with children and circumcising children are different sorts of activities. The law is entitled to view them differently. We are discussing the treatment of children. Both in the United States and in Europe, Jewish ritual circumcision of infants is not currently prohibited by law. As with ear piercings and orthodontic braces, parents are given the authority to make decisions regarding minor cosmetic bodily alterations on behalf of their own children. Find another analogy.

 

[gumboot]

If a religious practice can't be shown to have, on balance, a detrimental effect on society, I don't see any value in banning it.

Thank you.

Personally, I am thankful that most western countries do not think the same way.

 

[gumboot]

That all of the religious practices that circumcision opponents equate with circumcision (e.g., human sacrifice, infant rape, and now cannablism)

I have, at no point, equated circumcision with any of these other activities.

violate other principles than bodily integrity, so claiming that allowing circumcision entails allowing these other religious practices that allegedly violate bodily is in fact a red herring because, for instance, human sacrifice and cannibalism violate taboos against killing people.

Since I at no point made the argument that allowing circumcision entails allowing cannibalism, what, exactly, is your point?

It boggles the mind that you need the illegitimacy of such comparisons spelled out for you in any level of detail.

It boggles my mind that you're inventing arguments which I have never made.

 

[rustypouch]

That all of the religious practices that circumcision opponents equate with circumcision (e.g., human sacrifice, infant rape, and now cannablism) violate other principles than bodily integrity, so claiming that allowing circumcision entails allowing these other religious practices that allegedly violate bodily is in fact a red herring because, for instance, human sacrifice and cannibalism violate taboos against killing people.

It boggles the mind that you need the illegitimacy of such comparisons spelled out for you in any level of detail.

So where is the line on how much cosmetic surgery parents can have performed on their infant children?

I'd like the limit to be zero.

 

[colander]

Advocating is a bit of a strong word

It's exactly the right word. My mom advocates that I marry a doctor. You are advocating countries in Europe criminalize circumcision. I am sorry that you don't like it when people use words to correctly describe the things that you are doing.

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?

Because I honestly don't think that either of you could possibly give less of a crap about whether it is or not. That said, here's a link to a brief summation of the central role that ritual circumcision plays in Judaism. Enjoy.

The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".
The circumcision of newborn Jewish boys belongs to the essence of Judaism, it marks the entry into the Jewish community and symbolises the ties between God and Abraham and between God and the Jews. The command is compulsory for Jews.
Circumcision is also practised by secular Jews and connects Jews of all tendencies, from orthodox to reform, with another. It is not only a tradition but a central part of the Jewish identity. It is of essential significance and constitutive for being a Jew.
Circumcision counts as one of the most important commandments in Judaism and even outweighs the commandments of the highest Jewish feast days, Shabbat and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), on which certain activities may not be carried out.
Even during the Nazi era, when circumcision was a sign of belonging to Judaism and could be a death sentence, Jewish boys were still circumcised: it was even carried out in Nazi labour camps. To abolish circumcision in Judaism is not under any circumstances conceivable.

You're welcome.

 

[colander]

Thank you.

Personally, I am thankful that most western countries do not think the same way.

Hate to break it to, but as far as I know, they do. Hence the reason that Jewish ritual circumcision is currently legal in all western countries. Did you not know that?

 

[angrysoba]

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".

In fact, female genital mutilation is also illegal in many countries including, if I recall correctly, the US and yet few cities have been burned down over the issue.

Of course, it may not prevent old Mohammed hurling a thunderbolt from the Heavens.

 

[colander]

So where is the line on how much cosmetic surgery parents can have performed on their infant children?

I'd like the limit to be zero.

So why aren't you just as outspoken about banning braces and ear piercings for children as you are about banning circumcision?

 

[rustypouch]

So why aren't you just as outspoken about banning braces and ear piercings for children as you are about banning circumcision?

Nice non-answer. Evasion noted.

How do you know I'm not?

 

[Craig B]

Huh? ... Uh, since when have parents ever been prohibited from forcing religious practices on their children? Not that it won't come as a relief for all those children forced to waste their Sunday mornings listening to sermons.

Are parents permitted to force their children to attend church? To be sure, tiny infants are baptised, but once they grow up they can repudiate this ceremony if they wish to, for it leaves no indelible physical scar. Circumcision does have a permanent effect. This is the distinction. If an act ought to be prohibited, its having a religious motive should be no defence. If parents who are members of an art appreciation society or a bowling club are not permitted to cut their children's flesh, even if the rules of the association call for it, neither should those who are members of a religious assembly be permitted to do it.

But I'm not so strongly in favour of this principle as to go so far as to punish parents who circumcise their children in the normal Judaeo-Islamic manner. Peaceful exhortation is better. But I would not accept a religious justification in the case of radical female genital excision, and I can't see a difference in principle between the two cases.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So where is the line on how much cosmetic surgery parents can have performed on their infant children?

I'd like the limit to be zero.

And like cicrumcision opponents to stop pretending that circumcision is performed solely for aesthetic reasons. However, as long as you're going imply that cirumcision is the preference of shallow and conforming parents, I'd like to know why we can't just delay orthodontia until the patient is of legal majority. Sure, the same procedure when preformed on an adult is longer, more expensive, and more painful because adults bones a less malleable that adolescent bones, but we simultaneously have children who are old enough no only to express their explicit, verbal opposition to the course of action, but also old enough to remember both physical pain endured as a necessary part of remodelling bones and the emotional distress of social ostracism due to their obvious difference in appearance during the procedrue. It seems that concern for bodily integrity and sovereignty only extends to those individuals whom we can't be sure consent, while those who explicitly withhold consent are ignored because their parents are acceptable proxies.

Are parents permitted to force their children to attend church? To be sure, tiny infants are baptised, but once they grow up they can repudiate this ceremony if they wish to, for it leaves no indelible physical scar. Circumcision does have a permanent effect. This is the distinction. If an act ought to be prohibited, its having a religious motive should be no defence. If parents who are members of an art appreciation society or a bowling club are not permitted to cut their children's flesh, even if the rules of the association call for it, neither should those who are members of a religious assembly be permitted to do it.

But I'm not so strongly in favour of this principle as to go so far as to punish parents who circumcise their children in the normal Judaeo-Islamic manner. Peaceful exhortation is better. But I would not accept a religious justification in the case of radical female genital excision, and I can't see a difference in principle between the two cases.

Wait, what? You oppose circumcision because the side-effects are permanent, but you support orthodontia because it end goals are...not peramanent?

You are truly a paragon of evidence-based logic!

 

[colander]

Nice non-answer. Evasion noted.

How do you know I'm not?

Uh. Because I can read English?

 

[Rat]

Wait, what? You oppose circumcision because the side-effects are permanent, but you support orthodontia because it end goals are...not peramanent?

You are truly a paragon of evidence-based logic!

People are normally born with foreskin, and it normally causes no problem. If there was a movement to carry out orthodontic practices to make teeth in everyone conform to some platonic ideal that doesn't otherwise exist in reality, then I would be against it.

 

[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".

Seems the Norwegians are willing to risk seeing Oslo reduced to smouldering rubble by mad mullahs. From the BBC

There has also been much criticism of the Afghan government's failure to deal with corruption, which along with lack of progress on significantly improving women's rights, saw Norway cutting some its aid to the country last week.

The main motive for denial of women's rights in Afghanistan is extremist Muslim bigotry. Is this another assault by the evil Norwegians on the rights of religious people? Not since the Vikings burned monasteries have we seen such an onslaught!

 

[spin0]

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".

Yeah, just like cities burned down because of the animal welfare laws.

The laws require that animals are slaughtered without undue stress, pain or suffering, and that the animal must be appropriately stunned or killed before bleeding. This means that some methods of slaughtering related to religious rituals are not possible to perform legally. It also means that person's religious beliefs are not a legal reason to cause undue pain or suffering to animals in Nordic countries.

No, wait. I remember no cities burning. And I do buy meat from local Muslim halal-butchers. That's because they have adjusted their methods of butchering to observe the law.

Neither did any cities burn for banning the FGM, if I recall correctly.

 

[rustypouch]

Uh. Because I can read English?

You're able so ascertain my views on something when I haven't stated them in this thread? Impressive. I was also unaware that orthodontics were put on infants.

So what is the limit for elective, cosmetic surgery performed on infants?

 

[colander]

Yeah, just like cities burned down because of the animal welfare laws.

The laws require that animals are slaughtered without undue stress, pain or suffering, and that the animal must be appropriately stunned or killed before bleeding. This means that some methods of slaughtering related to religious rituals are not possible to perform legally. It also means that person's religious beliefs are not a legal reason to cause undue pain or suffering to animals in Nordic countries.

No, wait. I remember no cities burning. And I do buy meat from local Muslim halal-butchers. That's because they have adjusted their methods of butchering to observe the law.

Uh, you do realize that those laws were passed during Hitler's rise to power, right? You know, as one of many manifestations of Europe's then-swelling tide of virulent antisemitism?

 

[angrysoba]

Uh, you do realize that those laws were passed during Hitler's rise to power, right?

Ah yes, and Hitler built motorways meaning that if you drive on a motorway you are a Nazi. I believe he was also a vegetarian and fond of dogs too meaning that if you are a vegetarian or fond of dogs then you may as well have a swastika arm-band and goose-step around yelling "Zeich heil!" for you, meine freund, must be a Nazi!

 

[colander]

Ah yes, and Hitler built motorways meaning that if you drive on a motorway you are a Nazi. I believe he was also a vegetarian and fond of dogs too meaning that if you are a vegetarian or fond of dogs then you may as well have a swastika arm-band and goose-step around yelling "Zeich heil!" for you, meine freund, must be a Nazi!

If Hitler and allies were the only ones who ever felt the need to build a motorway, I do think that I would stop for a second to ponder why.