• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ban circumcision in San Fran???

How do those irrational cultists explain that God created foreskins in the first place? Was he in error? Or just another cruel joke by the scumbag? How is this rationalized?

In my book it's clear cut. *cough* People who do harm to babies private parts with sharp objects are sick in the brain. Period.

For a moment I was feeling a little faint there as it looked like I would be agreeing with CE. But then I realised ...

The Garden of Eden was originally in Malawi which is nice and moist and fertile. But God had to move The Chosen Ones to somewhere drier and desert-like (for reasons explained by His omniscience), where sand under the foreskin would be a real hassle. So HE invented cicumcision and used it to mark out The Chosen Ones from the mere riff-raff.

Then I realised that this all happened on FSM's hangover day, and CE was right all along.
 
1. So what part of it is necessary?

The religion part.

2. What does it do other than change the appearance?

It purifies your soul, and marks you as a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, and is the first step in the process of serving God.

1/2A. The first amendment also protects people from having religion forced upon them.

Whoa! Finally! An answer! But a weak one, at best.

The First Amendment is designed to protect the religious from persecution by the government and society. It is not meant to keep parents from deciding to raise their own children up in their religion. It is not being "forced" on anyone.
 
Given that statement I have to say that you are very ill-informed of normal male anatomy!

Be that as it may, it serves no purpose for the continued and healthy functioning of the male penis.

I would rather not go into another thread, if it is being described as a "marathon" thread. Sorry, but I am new around here, and really do not feel like reading through 15 million pages atm. I would much rather talk about the specifics of the OP. That is, the banning of an established religious practice, that is protected under the First Amendment.
 
"Yeah, we had your foreskin cut off when you were a baby, but we're not forcing you to be circumcised. If you can find a time machine, you can go back in time and explain to us that you'd rather we didn't have you circumcised."
 
The religion part.

It purifies your soul, and marks you as a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, and is the first step in the process of serving God.

Whoa! Finally! An answer! But a weak one, at best.

The First Amendment is designed to protect the religious from persecution by the government and society. It is not meant to keep parents from deciding to raise their own children up in their religion. It is not being "forced" on anyone.

I don't argue about "souls" or "serving gods." Those things mean nothing to me.

And how can it not be called "forced"? Does the baby have a say? Can it argue against your decision? Or is it being held down forcefully, possibly crying and screaming?
 
I'm against genital mutilation of children regardless of their sex or religion.

All in favor say AYE.
 
So....what does a foreskin do, other than have a certain appearance? Pretty much: Nothing.

You're the one in favor of the aesthetic surgery.

Circumcision on babies is wrong because any permanent, aesthetic surgery on a child is wrong. It doesn't do anything other than change the appearance of the child, except that because it's a surgery, it has the possibility of complications.
 
First off, mutilating a child is barbaric. I don't care if your religion says to do it or you're doing it because you think it looks good, it's barbaric and should be grounds for the child being removed from those parents.

The ear piercing thing. I have no problem with making ear piercing illegal for children, and I really don't see why we're comparing the two things. Comparing male and female circumsion makes sense because they're both irreversible genital mutilations carried out on people without their consent. Just because people have been doing it for a long time doesn't make it right.

1. Circumcision isn't "mutilation."

2. It is no more "barbaric" than an ear piercing.

3. No need to be so hasty in coming up with excuses to remove children from their parents.

4. It is protected under the First Amendment rights, because government cannot "restrict the free exercise thereof."

In short: There is no legal or moral basis to ban circumcision. It is not "barbaric." It doesn't affect the normal functioning of the penis. It doesn't affect the child living a normal, healthy lifestyle as they grow older. Basically: I think a lot of people just need to get over themselves, and accept the fact that there are other cultural practices that they may not themselves believe in, and have no stake in. Unless there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the said practice adversely affects the child.

Seeing as there is a major lack of evidence for unsupported claims being brought to the table in this thread regarding health and lifestyle issues, I will bow out for the time-being.
 
You keep bringing that up. You seem to forget that it also means you can't force your religious practices upon other people. Specifically, on a child incapable of making their own opinions.

Also, religious practices that deliberately harm unwilling persons aren't protected.

I will comment on this:

First Amendment wasn't meant to restrict the PARENT'S from raising their children in their own religion. It was meant to restrict the GOVERNMENT from limiting the free exercise of religions. And circumcision happens to be a major part of being Christian, Jew, or Muslim. This would be seen as being a SERIOUS violation of the First Amendment, which allows religions to operate under normal circumstances.
 
I shall support this law as soon as they pass a similar law making it illegal to pierce the ears of young children. In fact, the only time a child should have his/her ears pierced is when he/she can sign a legal document stating that they understand the procedure about to take place and willfully engage in it.

You are happy to compare male circumcision with ear piercing, but reject the comparison with female circumcision...
 
It purifies your soul, and marks you as a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, and is the first step in the process of serving God.

not as far as Jews are concerned.

for us, circumcision is a sign of our covenant with "God".

but as I am not a religious Jew, I see it as a sign of our peoplehood.

nevermind the fact that if I do not do it to my son when he is 8 days old, he might chose to do it later in life, when it is a lot more painful.

so, I'd rather do him the service of having it done quick and early.
 
I don't argue about "souls" or "serving gods." Those things mean nothing to me.

I knew that from the start, based on your logic. The US government protects you from religion, and protects the religious from persecution. It is not meant for those who do not believe to impose their will on those who do.

And how can it not be called "forced"?

It is being raised in a household of parents who have a certain belief, and would like their children to follow in that belief. The government cannot, and should not step in on such raising of children. Otherwise, the government might as well strip all parents of all rights, and completely institutionalize everyone when they are born.

If Sally's mom doesn't want her 12 year old daughter to be out past 5 O'clock in the summer, it isn't illegal for the mother to force her daughter to come home under her rules. Nor is it illegal to force another mother to tell their 12 year old daughter to be home by 9.

They are both different beliefs of what the parents think are appropriate for their own child. And since Christians, Jews, and Muslims are in the business of "saving souls," it is entirely appropriate they raise their children in such a way to hopefully save their own kids' souls. And the government has no say in this whatsoever.

Does the baby have a say? Can it argue against your decision? Or is it being held down forcefully, possibly crying and screaming?

No. On all three questions, obviously. But all those questions are framed in a biased manner.

1. The baby has no say. Much like any child living under their parent's roof has any say in what they are and/or are not allowed to do.

2. No. Any more than any child living under their parent's roof should be allowed to argue. Older children have the ABILITY to argue, but those arguments should not sway a good parent's decisions for what they think is good for the child. If the parents want to feed their child broccoli, and the child wants cupcakes instead, the parent obviously knows broccoli is better for their child's health. It is no different with circumcision. Parents strongly belief it is a necessary part in the spiritual life of the child. And the spiritual life is just as important as the physical life. Usually even more so.

3. Is the baby boy being held down forcefully? No. Otherwise, the child would be hurt in other places, like maybe bruises on the arms, legs, chest, etc.

4. Does the baby cry and scream? Maybe. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. All babies sometimes cry and scream. It could be because they are hungry, sleepy, or want their mommy. Crying and screaming doesn't necessarily indicate pain.
 
I will comment on this:

First Amendment wasn't meant to restrict the PARENT'S from raising their children in their own religion. It was meant to restrict the GOVERNMENT from limiting the free exercise of religions. And circumcision happens to be a major part of being Christian, Jew, or Muslim. This would be seen as being a SERIOUS violation of the First Amendment, which allows religions to operate under normal circumstances.

So if a minor Muslim (for example) sect had female genital mutilation as a centrepoint of their religion, you'd be okay with that?

I don't believe that the First Amendment gives carte blanche for all religious behavior.
 
Jews have been circumsizing their newborn babies in the United State of America for more than 400 years.

Long usage is a very, very weak reason to continue a practice. Slavery okay then? After all, it was practised for hundreds of years.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom