Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: geronimotwo on June 27, 2012, 08:09:01 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/german-court-outlaws-religious-circumcision-172728400.html
a german court has ruled that the religous rights of the parents do not outwiegh the individual rights of the child. the jewish and muslim communities are outraged. the child does have the right to have the procedure once they come of age.
"fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents"
-
What is a "religious right"?
-
Why do I get the feeling the judge(s) is an atheist?
-
What is a "religious right"?
not to be confused with "a religious rite", or "the religious right", although the author did find its meaning interchangable.
Why do I get the feeling the judge(s) is an atheist?
what makes you think that?
-
Oh, when I see someone really dumping on Christians or Christian practices, it is normally either another denomination or a radical Atheist. I have found Atheists are often not just atheits, but very anti-religion. They don't believe in Live and Let Live (of course that is likely the more outspoken ones I see).
-
It is the more outspoken one, Mech. The ones that just don't believe for themselves, tend to not care about what others believe in
-
Circumcision is a Christian practice? I thought the Christians, by and large, gave up on circumcision after Paul?
-
Yeah, while many Christians do it as a cultural thing no denomination I am aware of requires it as a religious practice. This really seems to be more of an anti-Jew/Muslim act. And given the location it's especially odd.
-
Circumcision is a Christian practice? I thought the Christians, by and large, gave up on circumcision after Paul?
Paul was OK with circumcision, as long as it wasn't required for Gentiles converting. That got his strongest condemnation.
-
Seems that the issue is more one of malpractice than assault.
-
Leaving religion completely out of it, it seems fairly reasonable to me. Religious freedom is great, but some practices (human sacrifices, genital mutilation) objectively harm other people, and that's a reasonable place to draw the line.
-
Not this stuff again.
-
Maybe the German court should punish those Jews who break the law by making them wear a yellow star on their sleeve? [barf]
-
Maybe the German court should punish those Jews who break the law by making them wear a yellow star on their sleeve? [barf]
Godwined in 12 posts. Not bad because you know (right or wrong) saying a child has to be old enough to consent to a permanent body modification is exactly like a concentration camp. Same thing really.
-
Godwined in 12 posts. Not bad because you know (right or wrong) saying a child has to be old enough to consent to a permanent body modification is exactly like a concentration camp. Same thing really.
Dude, dogmush. This is now at least two logical, sane and reasonable posts I've seen. I suspect the Internet Gestapo will be along shortly for violating the Law of the Internet. All discussion must be unreasonable.
-
If circumcision were forced on an adult, it would certainly be considered an assault.
-
If circumcision were forced on an adult, it would certainly be considered an assault.
If I made an adult go to their room and spanked them for lying it'd be considered an assault too. Did you have a point?
Godwined in 12 posts. Not bad because you know (right or wrong) saying a child has to be old enough to consent to a permanent body modification is exactly like a concentration camp. Same thing really.
What other medical decisions are you ok with the government dictating that parents can or can't make for their kids? What harmless religious practices are you ok with the .gov banning? And really, German .gov telling Jews they cannot practice a central tenant of their religion kinda begs for the comparison.
-
What other medical decisions are you ok with the government dictating that parents can or can't make for their kids?
This isn't a medical decision. I don't think anyone, including the German court, would propose banning any therapeutic operation, including circumcision done for therapeutic reasons.
What's being discussed here is neonatal circumcision done for non-therapeutic, cultural reasons. It was a good strawman attempt, though.
What harmless religious practices are you ok with the .gov banning?
Strawman (refuting a different argument), loaded question (did you stop beating your wife?) and begging the question (circumcision is harmless because it's a harmless religious practice) all in one short sentence. Bravo!
-
If circumcision is an assault, what is abortion?
-
This isn't a medical decision. I don't think anyone, including the German court, would propose banning any therapeutic operation, including circumcision done for therapeutic reasons.
What's being discussed here is neonatal circumcision done for non-therapeutic, cultural reasons. It was a good strawman attempt, though.
Strawman (refuting a different argument), loaded question (did you stop beating your wife?) and begging the question (circumcision is harmless because it's a harmless religious practice) all in one short sentence. Bravo!
There is clear if limited medical value to the procedure. There is no medical evidence of harm, assuming the procedure is not botched.
It is an integral part of the Jewish religion. Banning it is a ban on the practice of that religion. Reciting the names of logical fallacies doesn't demonstrate that they in any way apply.
-
If circumcision is an assault, what is abortion?
Murder?
-
There is clear if limited medical value to the procedure. There is no medical evidence of harm, assuming the procedure is not botched.
It is an integral part of the Jewish religion. Banning it is a ban on the practice of that religion. Reciting the names of logical fallacies doesn't demonstrate that they in any way apply.
the court has not banned circumcision, only postponed it until the child is able to make the decision for himself.
why is this procedure so important to some cultures? when was it first started, and was there a logical reason for it?
-
the court has not banned circumcision, only postponed it until the child is able to make the decision for himself.
Genesis 17:12 specifically calls for it to be done at the age of eight days.
why is this procedure so important to some cultures?
Divine command.
when was it first started,
Genesis 17
and was there a logical reason for it?
"Do it or I'll condemn you to eternal suffering" is a pretty logical reason when it comes from a guy who can do just that.
-
Godwined in 12 posts. Not bad because you know (right or wrong) saying a child has to be old enough to consent to a permanent body modification is exactly like a concentration camp. Same thing really.
Because you know, a German court outlawing a basic tenet of Jewish law is nothing like Nazi persecution of Judiasm. ;/
the court has not banned circumcision, only postponed it until the child is able to make the decision for himself.
why is this procedure so important to some cultures? when was it first started, and was there a logical reason for it?
Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
It is a direct command to the Jewish people to circumcise the newborn. Its not just tradition of men, for Jewish belief, it is a basic law of Moses.
If one attempted to faithfully follow the laws of Moses, this is not an option regardless of what a judge or human law says.
-
There's a difference between believing circumcision should be legal, and believing circumcision is a form of basic religious freedom.
Supposing I belong to a faith that believes in in tattooing the young at age 5, is that a religious freedom? Assume, for instance, that we believe in tattooing the genital area of the young at age 5. This is an area that will not be observed by strangers. Should it be legal, then, to tattoo a swastika symbol on the pubic area of your offspring at a young age (after all, it's somewhat unlikely this will hurt your offspring's future employment prospects)? If not, why?
-
Genesis 17:12 specifically calls for it to be done at the age of eight days.
Divine command.
Genesis 17
"Do it or I'll condemn you to eternal suffering" is a pretty logical reason when it comes from a guy who can do just that.
okay....... genesis.........check.........made in god's image.......check........must remove part of that image to be saved.........check......... ???
-
Circumcision is a Christian practice? I thought the Christians, by and large, gave up on circumcision after Paul?
Someone should of told my parents that, :rofl:
the court has not banned circumcision, only postponed it until the child is able to make the decision for himself.
Frankly I'd much MUCH rather have it done as a newborn then as an adult.
If circumcision were forced on an adult, it would certainly be considered an assault.
I don't feel assaulted for being circumcised.
must remove part of that image to be saved
Are you not familiar with why circumcision is done?
-
Are you not familiar with why circumcision is done?
hence my previous question.
why is this procedure so important to some cultures? when was it first started, and was there a logical reason for it?
-
hence my previous question.
D'oh! My bad. :facepalm:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017&version=NIV
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. ”
-
so it is only for the descendants of abraham.......everyone else can get through the pearly gates without doing this? i wonder what he did to tick god off to that point. =|
aside from the twice mentioned divine command, is there any other benefit to the procedure?
-
aside from the twice mentioned divine command, is there any other benefit to the procedure?
Typically, the things that get brought up in that context are cleanliness and the lowered risk of diseases caused by lack of said cleanliness.
Personally, I think this is a pretty ridiculous argument in the modern world of running water and widely available showers. Even if you are hung like a horse, it just isn't that big of an area to clean. Circumcision typically exists in cultures that come from hot and dry areas, like Middle East and Africa, where this may have been and maybe still is a problem.
In the Western world and US especially circumcision was popularized as a means of preventing masturbation back when masturbation was thought to be a terrible disease. Didn't work very well for that, but it did become widespread, parental logic being mostly "because everybody does it" and "I had it, and you will too". IMO, neither one is a very good reason for inflicting anything on your child.