Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Craig B]

Yah, but the overarching and ethusiastic denial that the affirmation of the free exercise of religion has any valid place in the socio-legal discourse on circumcision speaks volumes as to the deniers respect for minority religious rights.

Again, does this (alleged denial of the affirmation of the free exercise of religion) apply to the ban on female excision, where, as we have repeatedly been reminded, religious belief and custom are explicitly set aside? Polygamy was part of Mormon religious practice before being banned in 1890 in he USA. Animal sacrifice is customary in several religious traditions. Can no laws be made about such things?

 

[colander]

No. But you said "Hitler and allies were the only ones who ever felt the need to build a motorway".



Yes, I get the fact that anti-semites are happy to sign up to anything that gives Jews a hard time, but that doesn't mean that the law itself, which is still in place, is there for anti-semitic reasons.

I think it's instructive to note that whenever civic discussions to repeal those laws occur, spikes in antisemitic incidents usually follow.

Or do you think that Norway is institutionally anti-semitic?

Somewhat, yes. I would say the same for most of the continent. I suspect, however, that anti-Muslim sentiment is the main driving force behind this circumcision ban proposition, though. A lot of very influential Europeans hate the **** out of some Muslims.

Indeed, anti-semitism was rife in France, Russia, Poland, even in England. But are you suggesting that there can be no reason for bans on say circumcision other than anti-semitic reasons?

I'm saying that that antisemitism is the reason that Jewish ritual slaughter, out of all cruel practices, was singled out for a ban, yes. You'll note that in Canada and America, countries that have been historically notable for their relative absence of antisemitism, nobody has ever thought to make any issue of it. Do we just hate animals more over here, do you think?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Again, does this (alleged denial of the affirmation of the free exercise of religion) apply to the ban on female excision, where, as we have repeatedly been reminded, religious belief and custom are explicitly set aside? Polygamy was part of Mormon religious practice before being banned in 1890 in he USA. Animal sacrifice is customary in several religious traditions. Can no laws be made about such things?

False analogy man strikes again!!!

Do you bother to think before you put fingers to keyboard?

Do you have any evidence that circumcisions performed under medically approved conditions have any where near the complication rates that FGM as it is most often performed does?

Does male circumcision render infants into the a state of continuing inequality that traditionally practiced polygamy does?

By the way, the circumstances under which polygamy was outlawed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is pretty much analogous to the circumstances under which European countries are trying to outlaw male-infant circumcision. That is, polygamy then and circumcision now are offensive the mores of the politically powerful who are using Wester liberal-democratic politico-legal discourse to rationalize their disgust and run rough-shod over the fundamental rights of politically less powerful in direct contravention of the fundamental right the very same liberal democracies claim to afford to everyone under their jurisdiction.

 

[rustypouch]

False analogy man strikes again!!!

Do you bother to think before you put fingers to keyboard?

Do you have any evidence that circumcisions performed under medically approved conditions have any where near the complication rates that FGM as it is most often performed does?

Does male circumcision render infants into the a state of continuing inequality that traditionally practiced polygamy does?

By the way, the circumstances under which polygamy was outlawed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is pretty much analogous to the circumstances under which European countries are trying to outlaw male-infant circumcision. That is, polygamy then and circumcision now are offensive the mores of the politically powerful who are using Wester liberal-democratic politico-legal discourse to rationalize their disgust and run rough-shod over the fundamental rights of politically less powerful in direct contravention of the fundamental right the very same liberal democracies claim to afford to everyone under their jurisdiction.

So where's the line on how much parents can mutilate their children?

 

[ABC10]

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.

The debate is not about slaughtering animals but circumcision in male humans.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So where's the line on how much parents can mutilate their children?

So where's the evidence that a penile prepupectomy performed in infancy is mutilation?

 

[Craig B]

By the way, the circumstances under which polygamy was outlawed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is pretty much analogous to the circumstances under which European countries are trying to outlaw male-infant circumcision. That is, polygamy then and circumcision now are offensive the mores of the politically powerful who are using Wester liberal-democratic politico-legal discourse to rationalize their disgust and run rough-shod over the fundamental rights of politically less powerful in direct contravention of the fundamental right the very same liberal democracies claim to afford to everyone under their jurisdiction.

Are they indeed? At least you've become clear on your assessment of the "roughshod" character of Western liberal democracy as a mere vehicle to enforce the "mores" of the politically powerful. As if illiberal non-democracies were more effective in curbing the misbehaviour of powerful people. To take an example under discussion, Utah before it became a state had something of the character of a theocracy dominated by a clique of polygamous cult leaders.

ETA Why do you specify "male"-infant circumcision? Will you not defend female circumcision with equal vehemence? If not, why not? It too is a subject of the disgust whose rationalisation you so deplore.

 

[angrysoba]

The debate is not about slaughtering animals but circumcision in male humans.

That is indeed true, but the response was to your gleeful and confident prediction that the Nordic countries will get their cities burnt down by worshippers of the god Mohammed if they try to ban circumcision. Try to keep up with the debate you are engaged in.

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.

 

[Rat]

Somewhat, yes. I would say the same for most of the continent. I suspect, however, that anti-Muslim sentiment is the main driving force behind this circumcision ban proposition, though. A lot of very influential Europeans hate the **** out of some Muslims.

If there is antisemitism in this country, I have certainly never observed it*. I have witnessed some of the most disgusting racism that the country has to offer, from various sources, and have never heard anything about Jews. I would perhaps agree that there is more sentiment against Muslims, but I would wager that not one person in ten realizes that circumcision is common to Muslims.

I'm saying that that antisemitism is the reason that Jewish ritual slaughter, out of all cruel practices, was singled out for a ban, yes. You'll note that in Canada and America, countries that have been historically notable for their relative absence of antisemitism, nobody has ever thought to make any issue of it. Do we just hate animals more over here, do you think?

I am against ritual slaughter as it exists, and it is nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. I would guess the same is true for many people. North America has perhaps less of a history of antisemitism, but I would say that an absence, even a relative one, is an exaggeration.

*ETA: I'm certain that there is antisemitism in this country, but I have never observed it.

 

[colander]

Again, does this (alleged denial of the affirmation of the free exercise of religion) apply to the ban on female excision, where, as we have repeatedly been reminded, religious belief and custom are explicitly set aside? Polygamy was part of Mormon religious practice before being banned in 1890 in he USA. Animal sacrifice is customary in several religious traditions. Can no laws be made about such things?

They can be made, yes. However, the harm done by the outlawed practice must be sufficiently severe to warrant such restrictions.

Braces don't do much harm overall. They hurt while they're there, but they fix your teeth when they're done.

Circumcision? Makes your wang a little easier to clean, but makes dry wanking a bit more of a challenge. A bit less glans sensitivity, but then again, that's not always a bad thing. Overall, there's not all that much difference in sensation or function one way or the other. I'd call it a wash.

Scraping off peoples' clitorises and sewing their vaginas shut? Uh, no. That's way over the line. I don't think less severe female circumcision procedures should necessarily be banned, though. I wouldn't have a problem with a procedure that surgically removed the clitoral hood, for example. (Heck, it was a somewhat popular elective surgery trend for Western women in the 1970s.) The majority of female circumcisions performed for cultural reasons entail at least clitoral removal, though. I gotta draw the line there.

 

[rustypouch]

So where's the evidence that a penile prepupectomy performed in infancy is mutilation?

Still not an answer, and you're being obtuse.

How many body parts is it acceptable to remove from infants?

 

[colander]

If there is antisemitism in this country, I have certainly never observed it*. I have witnessed some of the most disgusting racism that the country has to offer, from various sources, and have never heard anything about Jews. I would perhaps agree that there is more sentiment against Muslims, but I would wager that not one person in ten realizes that circumcision is common to Muslims.

Why not ask around? You'd be surprised what other people know.

I am against ritual slaughter as it exists, and it is nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. I would guess the same is true for many people. North America has perhaps less of a history of antisemitism, but I would say that an absence, even a relative one, is an exaggeration.

What makes you think that? It really is substantially better over here.

*ETA: I'm certain that there is antisemitism in this country, but I have never observed it.

I haven't observed much anti-black racism here in America, either. I strongly suspect this has something to do with the fact that I am not black, as they do tend to get the worst of it.

 

[angrysoba]

I think it's instructive to note that whenever civic discussions to repeal those laws occur, spikes in antisemitic incidents usually follow.

This may well be the case so I am not douting you, but do you have statistics that bear this out?

Somewhat, yes. I would say the same for most of the continent. I suspect, however, that anti-Muslim sentiment is the main driving force behind this circumcision ban proposition, though. A lot of very influential Europeans hate the **** out of some Muslims.

I think that neither is the case. Indeed there are anti-semites and anti-Muslim bigots out there in Europe, but I don't think there is institutional anti-semitism in most of Western Europe even though there used to be.

I don't actually know what motivates this ban, but I will let you know what I think on the matter.

I think from the point of view of what parents should be permitted to do with their children there is no defence that doesn't rely on special pleading. Having said that, I would not support a ban on male circumcision and know that my grounds for saying this is also special pleading. I am not opposed to it because on the whole I think that risks are too low to go to all the trouble of upsetting religious and ethnic groups who practice it. It's a pragmatic opinion.

I'm saying that that antisemitism is the reason that Jewish ritual slaughter, out of all cruel practices, was singled out for a ban, yes. You'll note that in Canada and America, countries that have been historically notable for their relative absence of antisemitism, nobody has ever thought to make any issue of it. Do we just hate animals more over here, do you think?

Well, give or take a Ku Klux Klan or two and nativist hatred of immigrants in the 19th Century, it probably is true that American anti-semitism is not as virulent as it was in Europe in the 1930's.

Anyway, it's not quite true that nobody has ever thought to make an issue of it (ritual slaughter) in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_ritual_slaughter#United_States

 

[mijopaalmc]

Still not an answer, and you're being obtuse.

How many body parts is it acceptable to remove from infants?

I noticed you just moved the goal posts. You went from the vague term "mutilation" (which Rolfe and ddt have used to describe some sort of loss of function) to the specific descirption of "body parts...remove[d] from infants". There is essentially no way to adequately respond to questions about "mutilation" until the user of the term defines it.

As for the removal of body parts, it depends on how the risks of removal/non-removal relate to the benefits of removal/non-removal. As I understand it, in the case of cirumcision, the risk benefit analysis comes down to a complex network of deferred pain to immediate pain and how the decision making proxy values each, which is not necessarily something that the State can adequately universally prescribe and is probably best weighed by those closer to the actual infant.

If you were looking for a more definitive answer (and usually the morally righteous are), I'm sorry, "It depedends" is the best I can do. But you would be best advised that "best parenting practice" are not fixed. The person upon whom you choose to enforce your moral preferences on as they raise their children (and their children themselves), therefore, may in fact be the people who have the political power to enforce there moral preferences on you when it comes time to raise your children, so it might behoove you to consider how much you want other people to raise your children before you back up your insistence that you know how best to raise their children with your political power.

 

[Craig B]

Are you under the impression that Norway was some sort of enlightened antisemitism-free oasis in Europe? Got some bad news for you, then.

Germany wasn't any kind of outlier. Hell, they looked like one of the more egalitarian countries in Europe before the war. The truth is that up until a half a century ago, the whole damn continent was a sinkhole of antisemitism.

Oh, but not any more, though. Now everything is fine.

I just noticed this, and I can't let it go. I regret that it's completely delusional. Germany on the eve of the war had been ruled by the Nazis for upwards of six years. I will not trouble to refute that the Nazi régime was egalitarian, let alone "more egalitarian". And whatever may have been the incidence of antisemitism in other countries in those days, Nazi Germany was indeed an "outlier" in this regard. That you could think otherwise borders on the incredible. The Nordic countries and the UK were emphatically not uniformly "sinkholes of antisemitism" in the nineteen thirties. France had a Jewish Prime Minister who served two terms during the time that the Nazis ruled Germany. A list of prominent Jewish UK politicians from 1900 to 1939 may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Jewish_politicians. They include several cabinet ministers and a Viceroy of India.

If what you say was at all valid, then Jewish Germans would have seen no change in their fortune and status following the advent of the Nazis in 1933. Is this true, or even an approximation of reality in any way?

None of this is intended to imply that there was not antisemitism prior to the Nazi régime, or in other countries than Germany, but to state that the Nazis were no worse than the rest of the "sinkhole" is absurd, I'm happy to be able to say.

 

[ABC10]

That is indeed true, but the response was to your gleeful and confident prediction that the Nordic countries will get their cities burnt down by worshippers of the god Mohammed if they try to ban circumcision. Try to keep up with the debate you are engaged in.

Insults show a definite lack of ideas and does nothing to forward the debate.

 

[ABC10]

This may well be the case so I am not douting you, but do you have statistics that bear this out?





I think that neither is the case. Indeed there are anti-semites and anti-Muslim bigots out there in Europe, but I don't think there is institutional anti-semitism in most of Western Europe even though there used to be.

I don't actually know what motivates this ban, but I will let you know what I think on the matter.

I think from the point of view of what parents should be permitted to do with their children there is no defence that doesn't rely on special pleading. Having said that, I would not support a ban on male circumcision and know that my grounds for saying this is also special pleading. I am not opposed to it because on the whole I think that risks are too low to go to all the trouble of upsetting religious and ethnic groups who practice it. It's a pragmatic opinion.



Well, give or take a Ku Klux Klan or two and nativist hatred of immigrants in the 19th Century, it probably is true that American anti-semitism is not as virulent as it was in Europe in the 1930's.

Anyway, it's not quite true that nobody has ever thought to make an issue of it (ritual slaughter) in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_ritual_slaughter#United_States

The Nazis were after the wealth of the Jews and anti-Semitism was the "reason".

 

[mijopaalmc]

Insults show a definite lack of ideas and does nothing to forward the debate.

Are you a context-free grammar?

 

[colander]

I think that neither is the case. Indeed there are anti-semites and anti-Muslim bigots out there in Europe, but I don't think there is institutional anti-semitism in most of Western Europe even though there used to be.

I... think you haven't done much research on this thing.

Well, give or take a Ku Klux Klan or two and nativist hatred of immigrants in the 19th Century, it probably is true that American anti-semitism is not as virulent as it was in Europe in the 1930's.

Talk about your faint praise! Actually, as of 2008 Europe and America Pew Global Attitudes survey, America tested as substantially less antisemitic than any of the other countries surveyed. Except for England, which was pretty close behind. Holy crap, though. Recently, it has actually been getting worse in all the other countries.

Especially Spain. **** you too, Spain.

 

[angrysoba]

The Nazis uses anti-Semitism as an excuse to confiscate the wealth of the Jews.

You mean the Nazis were not really anti-semitic? Just greedy? And they just pretended to be anti-semitic for PR purposes?

I would love to see your sources for this one. Although on the other hand, maybe I wouldn't.