Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[bulge]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

All those religo's come with the most stupid arguments ever like freedom of religion!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? My freedom of religion orders me to kill you.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

All those religo's come with the most stupid arguments ever like freedom of religion!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? My freedom of religion orders me to kill you.

Hmm. Hitler's armies were free of Freedom of Religion. And they killed (by the millions), too.

Interesting how your rhetoric has that in common with the Nazi party at its height.

And you're really comparing apples to big, juicy mushroom heads here. Human slaughter vs a little off the top? And not even to mention the chasm between intents.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

All those religo's come with the most stupid arguments ever like freedom of religion!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? My freedom of religion orders me to kill you.

In the eyes of the state, any such religion must be classified as false, because it is contrary to the state's responsibility of equally protecting the equal rights of all.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

In the eyes of the state, any such religion must be classified as false, because it is contrary to the state's responsibility of equally protecting the equal rights of all.

A state should not be in the business of classifying religions as "false" or, worse, "true." A state should regard religious opinion on any given subject as irrelevant to its mandate as developed over centuries of democratisation.

 

[Centipede]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

i'm always tempted to post my uncut dick in these threads just to shut everyone the fuck up.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

i'm always tempted to post my uncut dick in these threads just to shut everyone the fuck up.

continue.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

A state should not be in the business of classifying religions as "false" or, worse, "true." A state should regard religious opinion on any given subject as irrelevant to its mandate as developed over centuries of democratisation.

Won't work. Any religion actively endeavoring to propagate beliefs and behaviors contrary to the state's job of keeping the peace and protecting equally the equal rights of all has to be ruled false by the state -- else the state abdicates its authority to that religion.

Maybe you'd prefer the term "invalid"? Either way, if a religion arose and gather two million fanatical followers in North America, and then its Prophet/Seer/Revelator/Manifestation-of-the-Divine proclaimed it the duty of every adherent to kill one government official each month, whether him or herself or by hire, would you recommend the state regard that with equanimity and just go about iots work because it isn't supposed to judge a religion?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

OK, I've sort of been giggling at the debate to this point, as it usually breaks down to religious: freedom of religion/health benefits, non-religious: it's mutilation with a sick religious twist, although the anti-semitism was an interesting twist (which, BTW, has been argued by those in Germany, for those that really think it's just us Yanks pointing it out). However....

Won't work. Any religion actively endeavoring to propagate beliefs and behaviors contrary to the state's job of keeping the peace and protecting equally the equal rights of all has to be ruled false by the state -- else the state abdicates its authority to that religion.

This is, interestingly enough, one of Hitler's points in Mein Kamf; the religion has to serve the state and help fuel fervor for it or else it doesn't belong in the state. It was also the reason that communist leaders (Stalin/Mao) went after the religious, fearing that they would serve powers in other countries (such as Catholics in respect to Rome) or would foment rebellious tendencies towards the state (as, at the time, most martial arts were taught by temples, and the martial arts were originally developed as a way to deal with bandits and rampaging soldiers).

Maybe you'd prefer the term "invalid"? Either way, if a religion arose and gather two million fanatical followers in North America, and then its Prophet/Seer/Revelator/Manifestation-of-the-Divine proclaimed it the duty of every adherent to kill one government official each month, whether him or herself or by hire, would you recommend the state regard that with equanimity and just go about iots work because it isn't supposed to judge a religion?

Interestingly enough, this isn't just theoretical, but it applies more towards atheists than most religious. In the early years of the communist revolutions, the revolutionaries were encouraged to go after officials, especially those with a religious bent. Later on this expanded to the religious in general, and they were either executed, sent to a gulag, or "re-educated".

On the other hand, even the US has put some religious groups on its terrorist list due to their extreme issues with government.

Just so you know it goes both ways...

RG

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Won't work. Any religion actively endeavoring to propagate beliefs and behaviors contrary to the state's job of keeping the peace and protecting equally the equal rights of all has to be ruled false by the state -- else the state abdicates its authority to that religion.

Maybe you'd prefer the term "invalid"? Either way, if a religion arose and gather two million fanatical followers in North America, and then its Prophet/Seer/Revelator/Manifestation-of-the-Divine proclaimed it the duty of every adherent to kill one government official each month, whether him or herself or by hire, would you recommend the state regard that with equanimity and just go about iots work because it isn't supposed to judge a religion?

Perhaps we're saying the same thing. I was of the view that governments should not rule on the truthfulness of religion (at least I don't think religions would enjoy that), and that regardless, the government should be indifferent to the truth claims of religion and preserve peace, order, and good government regardless. Thus a government would say "I don't care if your prophet has revealed it to be a divine commandment to kill a government official, that's not how this society operates," but also "I don't care if your prophet has ordered you to serve as bodyguards and sacrifice your life for elected officials; that's not how you become a secret service agent."

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

OK, I've sort of been giggling at the debate to this point, as it usually breaks down to religious: freedom of religion/health benefits, non-religious: it's mutilation with a sick religious twist, although the anti-semitism was an interesting twist (which, BTW, has been argued by those in Germany, for those that really think it's just us Yanks pointing it out). However....


This is, interestingly enough, one of Hitler's points in Mein Kamf; the religion has to serve the state and help fuel fervor for it or else it doesn't belong in the state. It was also the reason that communist leaders (Stalin/Mao) went after the religious, fearing that they would serve powers in other countries (such as Catholics in respect to Rome) or would foment rebellious tendencies towards the state (as, at the time, most martial arts were taught by temples, and the martial arts were originally developed as a way to deal with bandits and rampaging soldiers).


Interestingly enough, this isn't just theoretical, but it applies more towards atheists than most religious. In the early years of the communist revolutions, the revolutionaries were encouraged to go after officials, especially those with a religious bent. Later on this expanded to the religious in general, and they were either executed, sent to a gulag, or "re-educated".

On the other hand, even the US has put some religious groups on its terrorist list due to their extreme issues with government.

Just so you know it goes both ways...

RG

Fortunately, the Old Testament trumps Mein Kampf in most circles.

I don't think that circumcision though quite qualifies for either serving or threatening the state, though.

Conversely, though, I do tend to think these state or secular rulings & laws not only fail to serve religion (or the free practice of it) but is a direct threat to it.

And again, you tend to believe that the state (in this case Cologne, German courts) are being completely free of intending religous offense on any level. Yet have them try to write up similar rulings which would affect the much larger Christian base in its city.

I don't think that an impartial, secular ruling banning Christians from certain practices would go over terribly well - even in Cologne.

Hence we're not reading about court rulings pertaining to a practice not practiced (in a religious manner) by Christians.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

i'm always tempted to post my uncut dick in these threads just to shut everyone the fuck up.

if you post it to me, i'll promise to shut up

In the eyes of the state, any such religion must be classified as false, because it is contrary to the state's responsibility of equally protecting the equal rights of all.

like the equal right of physical integrity?

On an only slightly more serious note, this thread is a bit unfair in a forum that disallows frontal nudity, as a lot could be said in pics, much more so that links.

you can post them as links, just label them as such.

 

[THORIS]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I was Circumcised at age 5 " My mom Remarried"

I wish i was uncut ...

As a joke when people ask me " Are you Jewish you don't look Jewish..." I say " Well I am Jewish by circumcision.. The rabbi wanted Half off and he kept the tips"

 

[freefall]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I would disagree with the notion that circumcision reduces STD risk should be an advantage. While the research proves there is an association, release of the notion is dangerous. It can lead to increased unsafe sex practices due to the paradigm of "Oh, I'm circumcised; that means I don't have to protect myself and other because I'm more immune." It is highly misleading.

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean, but by what I think I understand, I don't think you're necessarily disagreeing with me.

The thing is most people here who whine about losing a part of them due to being circumcised early represent only a small fraction of those circumcised early.

The only thing complained by men who were circumcised early is, "What is a foreskin? I don't have one." After the enlightenment however, most of them usually don't give a damn.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

This is, interestingly enough, one of Hitler's points in Mein Kamf; the religion has to serve the state and help fuel fervor for it or else it doesn't belong in the state. It was also the reason that communist leaders (Stalin/Mao) went after the religious, fearing that they would serve powers in other countries (such as Catholics in respect to Rome) or would foment rebellious tendencies towards the state (as, at the time, most martial arts were taught by temples, and the martial arts were originally developed as a way to deal with bandits and rampaging soldiers).
RG

Hitler was full of shit. It isn't necessary for the church to serve the state; in fact, that's abhorrent. The only question is whether the church is actively getting in the way of the state doing its job of protecting lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by upholding equally the equal rights of all.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Kul: I think religion is at its best when it challenges the status quo, as opposed to attacking it, such as Martin Luther's theses and th Abolitionists of the 19th century, and is at it's worst when it becomes the status quo, such as in certain Middle East countries. And, yes; for this go-round I'm including atheism as part of that.

Fortunately, the Old Testament trumps Mein Kampf in most circles.

Heh.

Conversely, though, I do tend to think these state or secular rulings & laws not only fail to serve religion (or the free practice of it) but is a direct threat to it.

Definitely. As long as there is some discourse and the situation isn't life-threatening, I think that the state should keep out of it. Or at least the courts...

And again, you tend to believe that the state (in this case Cologne, German courts) are being completely free of intending religous offense on any level. Yet have them try to write up similar rulings which would affect the much larger Christian base in its city.

No offense, but I mentioned merely that the concern arose not from Americans, as has been suggested in numerous posts, but from actual Germans. Personally, I'd have to re-read the issue to make sure, but I do understand where those Germans are coming from and hope that this was a unique case. Nonetheless, the local Jews and Muslims do have a reasonable case.

I don't think that an impartial, secular ruling banning Christians from certain practices would go over terribly well - even in Cologne.

True. At the same time, European Christians don't have as many objectionable practices as their American counterparts. You know, with wine and crackers being healthy and all ;-) .

Hence we're not reading about court rulings pertaining to a practice not practiced (in a religious manner) by Christians.

I would point out that one of the differences between American and European Christians is that the Americans are much more likely to practice circumcision, and is why you are hearing from us Yanks on this issue; to us it is a religious matter. We can argue the health merits all day long, but the bottom line that most of us in this discussion are going the way we are is because of our religious and/or philosophical beliefs and not the health issues.

Again, I hope this truly is, has as been noted, a unique situation. If not, it's not going to end well in Germany...

RG

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I would point out that one of the differences between American and European Christians is that the Americans are much more likely to practice circumcision, and is why you are hearing from us Yanks on this issue; to us it is a religious matter. We can argue the health merits all day long, but the bottom line that most of us in this discussion are going the way we are is because of our religious and/or philosophical beliefs and not the health issues.

Again, I hope this truly is, has as been noted, a unique situation. If not, it's not going to end well in Germany...

RG

Yes, to you it is a religious matter....the children concerned have no religion and may see no reason to lose a healthy functioning part of their anatomy because of their parents' religion. There is no reason to think circumcision is any less barbaric than the scarification of children practised in some cultures.

Parents make choices that affect their children's outcomes and future potential all the time. But legitimate choices do not have the effect of removing any part of the child's healthy body. There is no reason for the law to allow circumcision any more than it should allow the parents to carve the word "animist" or "catholic" or "buddhist" into the child's forehead with a knife.

 

[Texbo1]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

After all, this ruling seems to directly interfere with a Jewish or a Muslim's right to practice his religion.

That's another point though, it doesn't interfere their rights, it only interferes with their ability to impose a part of their religion on their children.

If this were a choice that a person had once they reached a certain age then it's a non-issue. Right now it's just another part of forcing a religion on a child and giving them zero choice in the matter.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I would point out that one of the differences between American and European Christians is that the Americans are much more likely to practice circumcision, and is why you are hearing from us Yanks on this issue; to us it is a religious matter. We can argue the health merits all day long, but the bottom line that most of us in this discussion are going the way we are is because of our religious and/or philosophical beliefs and not the health issues.

RG

For Americans it cannot be a religious matter, or they aren't Christians: to perform circumcision for religious reasons is to cast away Christ, according to the apostle Paul, and that hardly leaves one in a position to claim to be a follower of Jesus.
Paul wrote that neither being circumcised nor being uncircumcised has any benefit before God. So if American Christians choose to have their kids circumcised, they do it as opinionated people, not as Christians.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Parents make choices that affect their children's outcomes and future potential all the time. But legitimate choices do not have the effect of removing any part of the child's healthy body. There is no reason for the law to allow circumcision any more than it should allow the parents to carve the word "animist" or "catholic" or "buddhist" into the child's forehead with a knife.

No, but we're well on the way to allowing the government to slip a little computerized life-tracking chip under each newborn's skin, to track their whereabouts and spending at all times.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

If this were a choice that a person had once they reached a certain age then it's a non-issue. Right now it's just another part of forcing a religion on a child and giving them zero choice in the matter.

There's a clear division here: the pro-circumcision faction is relying on the conviction that God can be bought.