Because Jews and Muslims do it – we have to BAN it

brianlux wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Rediculous. Not that I'm a big fan of either but what next- are they going to try to ban tattoos and piercings? And by the way, I'm not glueing anything back on.

The difference is (for argument's sake) if you get a tattoo or piercing, you have a choice in the matter.

Good point, keepon rockin, and good call- I hadn't thought of it in those terms an I admit my first post on this subject wasn't well thought out. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just not sure it's something that it will ever be banned. Yet it does seem rather barbaric and I have a difficult time imagining someone coming up with the idea in the first place.

It's all good. I'm not sure how I feel about the topic, if we're thinking logically, we are causing many newborns unnecessary pain. However, I myself do not remember it, and not sure it's a big deal either way, as it doesn't cause the same kind of permanent effects as FGM. However, the super traditional methods where rabbi's bite off the foreskin (as outlined in 'The God Delusion') is completely over the top.

Ok, no rabbi has ever bitten off the foreskin. First off the ritual is performed by a "mohel," who need not be a rabbi. Second, there was a very rare custom where the mohel would "clean" the affected area by sucking on the site of the incision, but I don't know of anyone who does this anymore.

With regard to the pain the infant feels, I've been to a whole lot of these ceremonies, and the fact is that the baby almost always stops crying pretty quickly after the ritual is completed. I guess babies do have incredibly short attention spans, but still, if the pain was that severe you'd expect (or at least I would expect) a more prolonged response.

As for where the ritual comes from, in the Bible God tells Abraham to circumcise himself and all the males of his household as a symbol of the covenant between them. Think of it in terms of signing a contract in blood, with the added symbolism that God has promised to make Abraham the father of a great nation, and the sign of this covenant is "inscribed" on the very organ that will bring this about.

yosi wrote:

Ok, no rabbi has ever bitten off the foreskin.

Actually.. yeah, they have. And there was recently a case where a two babies were infected with herpes because of it. One of them died.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/ns/ ... ts-herpes/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 234AA7N4Jt

It's a barbaric practice and should be illegal.

Dude, yes, that is a terrible story, but it's ONE GUY, practicing a ritual that is otherwise unheard of in the modern Jewish world. I'm circumcised, as are all the other Jewish guys I know (which is a whole fucking lot) and we're all perfectly fine. What you're talking about is an absolute infringement on religious liberty.

1) The ritual requires that circumcision be performed on the eighth day after birth (barring a medical condition necessitating that it be put off) so waiting "till someone is 18" is out of the question. Doing so is tantamount to annulling the ritual entirely.

2) You're right, a baby can't speak for itself, which is exactly why the parents are empowered to make decisions on the child's behalf. You are trying to frame the issue as an infringement on the child's rights, except that the parents speak for their child, so that if circumcision is performed on the parents' wishes no rights have been violated.

Red, if you were Jewish you would probably feel differently. With regard to the safety of the procedure, the "mohel" who performs the rite is trained in the necessary surgical techniques, which includes ensuring the sterility of his tools. It has also become well accepted to use a local anaesthetic when performing circumcision.

I get that people here wouldn't choose to circumcise their own kids, but I fail to understand the seeming lack of tolerance and understanding for the religious practice of others (a practice that causes no lasting harm to anyone involved).

yosi wrote:

2) You're right, a baby can't speak for itself, which is exactly why the parents are empowered to make decisions on the child's behalf. You are trying to frame the issue as an infringement on the child's rights, except that the parents speak for their child, so that if circumcision is performed on the parents' wishes no rights have been violated.

If parents are making the decision of the "child's behalf" to cut off part of his body, they're not very good parents.

Hiding behind religious tradition is pretty weak.

In some religions, women are forced to marry their rapists. Do you also defend that?

Red, how is this not about intolerance towards religion. That's exactly what this is about. You are militating for a legal ban on an absolutely central religious rite. Were the government to actually ban circumcision it would be unquestionably be engaged in religious persecution.

As for harm, I'm circumcised and I enjoy sex quite thoroughly, thank you very much.

No, I do not defend forcing women to marry their rapists. I do not blindly defend every element of religion. This particular rite, however, I happen to know from personal experience to be utterly harmless (as opposed to the rape example you gave). I am not psychologically scarred by my circumcision, my dick works just fine, sex is still awesome, I didn't have any sort of complications related to the procedure (as virtually all infants who undergo circumcision also fail to have), and I am secure in the knowledge that my parents did not break with our faith, and that I am a citizen of a country that actually respects religious freedom.

yosi wrote:

I get that people here wouldn't choose to circumcise their own kids, but I fail to understand the seeming lack of tolerance and understanding for the religious practice of others (a practice that causes no lasting harm to anyone involved).

Well, just because it's part of a religion doesn't make it right.
A good friend of my mom's (when she was a young teenager) sustained a head injury that required a blood transfusion. Unluckily for her, her family was JW... So they just let her die.

When the religion has rules that hurt or harm, or degrade, someone (I mean, any religion in general) then I don't see any need to be tolerant of those practices.

:?:
Because they were jooish they didn't let her get a blood transfusion?
deets please??

:ugeek:

haffajappa wrote:

yosi wrote:

I get that people here wouldn't choose to circumcise their own kids, but I fail to understand the seeming lack of tolerance and understanding for the religious practice of others (a practice that causes no lasting harm to anyone involved).

Well, just because it's part of a religion doesn't make it right.
A good friend of my mom's (when she was a young teenager) sustained a head injury that required a blood transfusion. Unluckily for her, her family was JW... So they just let her die.

When the religion has rules that hurt or harm, or degrade, someone (I mean, any religion in general) then I don't see any need to be tolerant of those practices.