Religious Circumcision

[darkeyes]

Fran, just because you think it's not racist doesn't mean it's not racist. As someone who dislikes circumcision I can say I'm not mutilated, only one friend of mine actively complained about it, and non-circumcised men I've been with have in fact apologized over it at times.

Thats not to say there is anything wrong with foreskin. But over here it's not the norm and men who have it tend to like it. That's the point you tend to miss.

The reason the position is racist is quite simple. It provides the parents with no choices of their own aside from go against what they think to be right for the child based on the opinion of people not from the culture with a history of hostility towards the practice and importantly people of the practice. When you have the same types of people complaining about their homelands without basis half the time, banning their type of food practices, banning their types of architecture, and banning these practices, it's very difficult to see how it is not racist. Even if you are not racist you are supporting the same position as the neo-nazi parties and it's impossible to tell you aren't one of them on the point since there is no compassion for the immigrants culture-rather, based on western viewpoints of Muslims there is little way to escape the obvious subconscious hostility. Have you asked yourself why this anti circ movement isn't alive and well among the secular in the middle east? Because there are millions of secular modernists. Why is it that the socialist European position is so far away from theirs?

If you dismiss these points quickly, it means simply you don't understand the point of view of the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Circumcision in anglo-saxon societies is essentially a Victorian development by which the practice of male masturbation could be restricted.. it was quite short lived in the UK and never was universally accepted, and began to be less used in the 1940s...u do not feel mutilated because ur culture doesn't consider it mutilation.. yet that is exactly what it is, and outside of the Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK, it is a rarely employed practice today...... I have no objection whatever to circumcision.. if the person elects for the procedure to be done when old enough, aware enough and informed properly about it.. his decision.. no one elses..

Jim, I care not one jot whether a person is black, white, yellow or a very bright shade of purple.. neither do I care whether he is Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Sikh or Jane, athiest or agnostic.. ethnic origin or religion mean nothing to me when it comes to the rights of the child.. what does is that the children of all peoples, all religions grow up happy and understanding each other.. and that issues concerning their body, other than issues which are of pressing medical need, are left to them to decide upon when they are mature enough to take a properly informed decision.. their decision.. no one elses.. it is not a race issue.. it is a human issue and one for too long which has been allowed to continue..

..the fact that the Islamic world still practices circumcision is important but that does not mean that we should not attempt to influence them away from it.. most of the world does not practice circumcision and while I understand the rleigious and cultural traditions of those that do, in mmy view it is a wrong still, and simply because a relligion practices something does not make that religion right...many religious practices have been discontinued over centuries... and will be again..

Is it an imposition on a religion or culture? In a sense... but if a culture or religion is confident enough in itself they will survive such an imposition. Some children do not survive what is after all imposition upon their bodies... the main question is.. is it right to so impose upon an infant or a young child?

Cultures and religions do change over time.. often because of external imposition on practices they have employed for centuries.. sutee for instance...much more drastic, but equally the Hindu of the 19th century took exception to its outlawing by the British and many did not burn on the funeral pyre voluntarily ..many in fact were but infants and children themselves and it still occurs to some degree today, but in nowhere near the numbers of a century and a half ago.. also the practice of castrating young boys in the Ottoman and other Empires and other countries around the world.. it still goes on in parts of the world but would we wish Turkey to return to the days when thousands of young boys were so mutilated?? practices of human sacrifice in south and central America for rligous reasons.. hardly allowing free will to stand and no-one seriously would approve a return to the practices of Maya, Aztec or Inca...and even today, female circumcision, which at last seems to be on the wane.. far more serious than that of the male, but by disapproving and trying to eradicate it and accepting it for what it is.. a brutal cultural imposition on the rights of young girls... do our attempts at imposing its eradication make us racist? Or do we not owe out of common humanity, that all of these and other historical impositions upon the rights of human beings to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies not supercedes religious and cultural practices that have no place in our societies.. and indeed in other societies?

Nothing of what I say is racist.. nor is it religiously intolerant... it is intolerant of the removal of free will from millions of human beings who are allowed no say in in what happens to a part or all of their bodies. It may impose upon the rights of parents over their children.. but that I argue, when it comes to removing body parts of a child without his (or her) informed consent is an imposition and a right a parent should not have... save as I have always said, at times of pressing medical need..

If we accept the principle of freedom of choice, and that human beings have free will with which to determine their own future.. we can easily be accused of hypocrisy by keeping from millions of young boys the right to decide what happens to their own penises... a little thing u may think but a huge principle... parents can and probably will still influence a child as parents do, should they feel circumcision is best for their children.. but we don't own our children, and when a boy is old and mature enough, other influences should be allowed into his life to enable him to take that decision for himself.. it should be his decision.. no one elses...it is his body, and if we believe in a human being's right to determine his own destiny.. that is how it should be.. no matter his religion or culture...

[jimdawg]

Supporting a ban without going after the cause of the act is deeply insensitive and bordering on racism and no different than what Nazis say Fran. I understand your point. You just don't understand mine. You won't cure the "disease" this way-you'll only make it go into back alleys with more deaths, and more outrage. Economic development, political stability and enlightenment is the only solution.

You're right, its not inherently racist, nor is it inherently intolerant, but it is again highly ignorant of the history of this part of the world. I strongly advise you actually read more about European actions and-more importantly-European arguments. And then ask yourself how the ARGUMENTS have changed (sans mention of god) in the last 1400 years as well as the ideas of the solution. Also familiarize yourself with the Hadiths that mandate this and the Torah more and the political conditions around the time they were written (you're an atheist so you surely believe things were written by people of their time and not without some sort of earthly purpose I assume). Again, I see racism, but ignorant insensitivity generally looks the same. This isn't even an argument about being politically correct-this ban will have tremendous consequences, none of them peaceful, some of them dangerous, unless all parties involved have really changed that much in the last 2000 years (I submit, they haven't).

Deleted this line. Reread what you said.

You're right when to compare it to human sacrifice. But that's not the point. I'm strongly of the belief that the ban will be ineffective. And remember, human sacrifice in the new world was only ended after a program of massive genocide. Similarly, circumcision in Europe was dead in 1948. You really should analyze what you're advocating.

[darkeyes]

Supporting a ban without going after the cause of the act is deeply insensitive and bordering on racism and no different than what Nazis say Fran. I understand your point. You just don't understand mine. You won't cure the "disease" this way-you'll only make it go into back alleys with more deaths, and more outrage. Economic development, political stability and enlightenment is the only solution.

You're right, its not inherently racist, nor is it inherently intolerant, but it is again highly ignorant of the history of this part of the world. I strongly advise you actually read more about European actions and-more importantly-European arguments. And then ask yourself how the ARGUMENTS have changed (sans mention of god) in the last 1400 years as well as the ideas of the solution. Also familiarize yourself with the Hadiths that mandate this and the Torah more and the political conditions around the time they were written (you're an atheist so you surely believe things were written by people of their time and not without some sort of earthly purpose I assume). Again, I see racism, but ignorant insensitivity generally looks the same. This isn't even an argument about being politically correct-this ban will have tremendous consequences, none of them peaceful, some of them dangerous, unless all parties involved have really changed that much in the last 2000 years (I submit, they haven't).

One other thing: You say the fact that the Muslim world practices it doesn't mean you should intervene. This leaves an interesting solution for people in the UK who want a circumcision: Let them go home. Do you see how I find this racist now?

You're right when to compare it to human sacrifice. But that's not the point. I'm strongly of the belief that the ban will be ineffective. And remember, human sacrifice in the new world was only ended after a program of massive genocide. Similarly, circumcision in Europe was dead in 1948. You really should analyze what you're advocating.

I am an athiest.. and a humanist.. and I have no objection whatsoever on stepping on the toes of religious practice where this offends my humanity.. I hope that the day comes when a similar decision to that of Germany happens in the UK.. I may not think we should physically intervene by imposing on all of Islamic society our beliefs and morality, but do think that where those who are Islamic live in a part of the world which is of a different culture and history they should be and are subject to the law and practices of that place.. sometimes accusations of racism can be made because of things our societies unreasonably expect of non indigenous cultures and peoples... but some things are too important for us not to insist upon within our own societies.. the removal of children's body parts without their informed consent is one such.. but that our societies must make accommodation with those other peoples of other cultures who live within our societies is an essential part of the obligation of our societies to both make them fee welcome and recognise that our society is changing and must recognise their rights to retain most of their own culture and cultural traditions.. it cannot be simply a one way street all in our favour.. it is unreasonable to expect that to be the case...

..but also as we do now.. we also have a duty to try and shift the opinions of those societies and cultures elsewhere to act more in line with our own on some issues.. circumcision is one... they attempt it with us on some issues and that is their right and I have no objection to that whatsoever.. dialogue is so important, but sometimes when dialogue fails... where we can, we do what we must within our own country's borders.. but even when dialogue with other nations and cultures does fail.. we still have a duty to continue to convince.. and the attempt and the dialogue is a form of intervention...

[jimdawg]

Aside from missing the point again, I'm not debating the try and shift, as much as the hard ban...although your not physically intervene statement should very much correspond if anti-war with my deleted line, its remarkable in the idea that using state power is by its nature physical intervention in the lives of the subjects. It is advocating physical intervention. I'm not necessarily opposed to that if warranted.

In any event, it is racist, because you are calling for an end of a behavior practiced religiously by a very large group of people. Its tough to find a definition of ethnic cleansing of which this doesn't fit. The reasoning is simple; if you're religious, its a good bet that your personal beliefs of God dictate your personal beliefs of country. If the country is against God, then you are against the country. This means you have to leave, or in more violent cases, start a war, or give up your beliefs. You're giving someone an unreasonable choice between a job and their culture, one that creates no lasting belief, unless you're willing to commit genocide in the style of the Spanish Inquisition. I think the resurgence also of the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates the massive failing of this type of policy in Russia in the long run. Feel free to disagree with history if you desire. Secular humanism only sticks when someone arrives there by choice, or when you remove the people already there who reject it. Subsequently, Judaism is dead in Europe, and Islam is dead in most of Europe, aside from Turkey, Albania and the former Yugoslavia, except with the recent immigrant waves.

This isn't a question of being a one way street. Aside from again, the serious intolerance that statement implies, that you're merely tolerating guests in your society as opposed to citizens, it implies that there is only one answer to a solution, which is definitely not free, and in my opinion, the wrong answer as history demonstrated time and time again. When you're purposely choosing the wrong answer by acknowledging you're stepping on toes, you're basically announcing "I'm better than them" and that's not sufficient. Again, try and shift the opinions...but to what end? What's the punishment? If its a felony, that's jail time, that's physical intervention. If its breaking up the family, that might be worse for the rights of the child than a circumcision. So I'm sort of curious what reasonable answer you have aside from wishing Islam disappear, which if not racial genocide, is certainly cultural genocide. And as far as thinking its a one-way street on imposing your moral views on people who don't share them who aren't imposing them on you, this is pretty xenophobic and again, not different from the standpoint of BNP.

In the end such a position has no real meaning to minorities. Its the kind of behavior that seriously makes me consider circumcising my potential children and deferring the question of breaking the tradition to them. I am circumcised, I'm fully functional, and I am quite good at sex, thank you very much and I don't see a big problem with it aside from choice and rights-almost all people with circumcised penises in the US would tell you it really isn't a big deal and telling us what we are missing has no meaning since we can't actually imagine the difference. But to me, the highest order of a society should be to prevent the destruction of a society and avoid war. If you're a pacifist, stepping on toes should not happen unless its necessary, and clearly, there's an eagerness on this issue which isn't thought out on how to actually stop it aside from throw people in jail (German example), breaking up families, and what not. It doesn't acknowledge how to cause a paradigm shift aside from general entrenchment.

Last of all, finding another reason to condemn immigrants will probably lead to a general worsening of their economic situation-usually bad for bringing about secular humanism-and in the end probably be worse for the rights of the child and isn't the child's decision. But that doesn't matter compared to a piece of skin that should be there and is taken off because of a tradition, right?

[MelissaPDX]

The issue is racist

No it isn't, you're being a professional victim. People who are against circumcision or genital mutilation of infant boys can be Jewish and Muslim and still deeply faithful and into practicing those religions but they are just against genital mutilation that is practiced in their religion and it's not necessary to mutilate your kid's genitals in order to make them Jewish or Muslim. If you actually cared about any male sons you had you wouldn't mutilate their genitals at all. Circumcised men do not know what they are missing. They believe that the sexual sensitivity they have without a foreskin is "normal." (Similarly, a woman born in Somalia who had been subjected to female circumcision insisted that it had no impact. "It's the same thing. There is nothing different about my sexuality.") According to one man who was circumcised as an adult, sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost. noharmm.org/separated.htm

[jimdawg]

No it isn't, you're being a professional victim. People who are against circumcision or genital mutilation of infant boys can be Jewish and Muslim and still deeply faithful

Stop right there and find me these people.

I don't think you understand the argument against it from someone of that culture. You end the practice when the need for the practice ends. When people demand you stop doing it, you do it more, since they are effectively demanding you convert to their morality. If you combine this with how circumcisers were regularly killed/exiled from certain countries...then you run into an issue, yes, it is racist.

You can call it horrible mutilation all you like. Female circumcision is very rare inside of Europe. Do you know why? Because there's little reason for it in Europe socially. If you understood the reasons for female circumcision where it occurs, you'd see that a lot of people don't like it and would agree its mutilation and do it anywhere. And you can't compare a late in life circumcision in my opinion to one early in life. In all cases those individuals seem to NOT be able to enjoy sex as much as people who were circumcised early in life.

That's not the point. You know what the point is? You don't understand religion and trying to impose your beliefs on people who have their religion despite YOUR beliefs. They'll adopt the correct practices when they decide its not necessary to. Deciding a mark of difference is mutilation only increases the need for it. Also, it should be of note that when circumcision was somewhat outlawed in Judea, Jews responded by doing foreskin restoration techniques to move back to their homes. So rabbis started deeper circumcisions that were much more painful and prevented correct development so this didn't occur. You have to understand the historical basis of bans on this: They don't work unless you commit genocide, and almost always have really bad side effects. Failure to understand that means you don't actually care about the welfare of the people you claim to be protecting. Which makes the argument at least dubious. Its again like the ending of human sacrifice in the Americas was done by a policy of extreme extermination.

I'm defending myself as a circumcised man-I like my penis. If you dislike my penis, don't have sex with me. But the practice is best understood as a mark of independence and a mark of your tribe. I don't see why you can't understand that some things are more important to other people than YOUR morality. And remember, if you take away the right of my people to be my people through the traditions that caused us to leave Europe (and I would add, the part of my family that stayed behind was murdered by people morally opposed to circumcision...) then you are completely ignorant of why there are Jews in America for starters. The only way to get rid of the act is to make the act unnecessary. Bans make it necessary. Thus...you spread the practice. Congrats.

And if you cared about my male sons, you wouldn't tell them their parent was horrible and that they should be taken away and placed with a family with no bond to them aside from the state's condemnation and support of "better" people.

And sexuality without a foreskin isn't necessarily normal or necessarily good, like seeing without color. But it is sufficient, and if you disagree, you're wrong. Period. Why are you wrong? Simple: If it was less than sufficient, there wouldn't be generations of people doing this thousands of years-and furthermore, it would show an extreme indication of mental disorder in such a group (and to indicate this, which isn't grounded on any reality I've seen, is acutely racist, so I doubt you want to go down that road). The same actually does apply to female circumcision if you want to go that route. But you know, if you're neutered...here's the thing, I don't think neutering is a good practice at all and I'm glad its illegal, but people who tend to be neutered tend not to care about the same things to nearly the same intensity. If you are so fixated on a piece of skin for sexual pleasure, it makes me wonder just how limited of an understanding of male sexuality you actually have. Sure it might enhance, help, or make sex pleasurable on a whole new level. But there's a lot more to life than the foreskin. I know that's not a very good argument, and I'm not really arguing with you on the negatives of circumcision aside from stop telling me I'm defective. But it is to say that your shrillness is completely unjustified. And I would add, very few circumcised men seem to actually care. You seem to be completely glossing over that point. Saying how great some people says it is compared doesn't actually seem to mean we're unhappy with our lives. In fact, I would add, making men worry about penile dysfunction isn't a good idea. How many women (and men) wonder why men are so fixated on our penises? I'll ask-why are you so fixated on my penis? Why do you want me to feel deficient? To agree with your ban on a practice you don't actually understand? And maybe have mental problems while I'm at it? Hmm...seems you don't have my best interests in mind.

[MelissaPDX]

Stop right there and find me these people.

Google Jews against circumcision. As others have written in this topic there are Jews who are not for genital mutilation of their children and yet they are still Jewish and so are their sons who they allowed to remain intact with a foreskin.

[MelissaPDX]

How do you prevent an infant from practicing a religion that he doesn't even have the cognitive capacity to comprehend, pray tell? What you're really talking about is the "right" of superstitious parents to practice THEIR religion on the helpless body of their child and mutilating his genitals -- just like those religious nuts who refuse to provide their sick children with lifesaving medical care. religious reasons aren't good enough to justify cutting off any part of your infant's body. Mutilating any child's genitals without his or her consent is a heinous act. Mutilating a child due to the parent's religious beliefs has been correctly determined in Germany to be a criminal act. ---There are forms of female circumcision that "only" remove a minor part of the clitoris. Since this practice is extremely widespread in Indonesia, it is furthermore one of the most common forms of female circumcision. Still not OK. And wouldn't be even if the jews thought it awesome and Germany tried to outlaw it. No one is repressing anyone. It is about time the tables were turned on those who would surgically alter and mutilate another human being's genitals just for superstition or because they want to impose their religion onto their children. They should have more respect for the children here and now.

[darkeyes]

Aside from missing the point again, I'm not debating the try and shift, as much as the hard ban...although your not physically intervene statement should very much correspond if anti-war with my deleted line, its remarkable in the idea that using state power is by its nature physical intervention in the lives of the subjects. It is advocating physical intervention. I'm not necessarily opposed to that if warranted.

In any event, it is racist, because you are calling for an end of a behavior practiced religiously by a very large group of people. Its tough to find a definition of ethnic cleansing of which this doesn't fit. The reasoning is simple; if you're religious, its a good bet that your personal beliefs of God dictate your personal beliefs of country. If the country is against God, then you are against the country. This means you have to leave, or in more violent cases, start a war, or give up your beliefs. You're giving someone an unreasonable choice between a job and their culture, one that creates no lasting belief, unless you're willing to commit genocide in the style of the Spanish Inquisition. I think the resurgence also of the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates the massive failing of this type of policy in Russia in the long run. Feel free to disagree with history if you desire. Secular humanism only sticks when someone arrives there by choice, or when you remove the people already there who reject it. Subsequently, Judaism is dead in Europe, and Islam is dead in most of Europe, aside from Turkey, Albania and the former Yugoslavia, except with the recent immigrant waves.

This isn't a question of being a one way street. Aside from again, the serious intolerance that statement implies, that you're merely tolerating guests in your society as opposed to citizens, it implies that there is only one answer to a solution, which is definitely not free, and in my opinion, the wrong answer as history demonstrated time and time again. When you're purposely choosing the wrong answer by acknowledging you're stepping on toes, you're basically announcing "I'm better than them" and that's not sufficient. Again, try and shift the opinions...but to what end? What's the punishment? If its a felony, that's jail time, that's physical intervention. If its breaking up the family, that might be worse for the rights of the child than a circumcision. So I'm sort of curious what reasonable answer you have aside from wishing Islam disappear, which if not racial genocide, is certainly cultural genocide. And as far as thinking its a one-way street on imposing your moral views on people who don't share them who aren't imposing them on you, this is pretty xenophobic and again, not different from the standpoint of BNP.

In the end such a position has no real meaning to minorities. Its the kind of behavior that seriously makes me consider circumcising my potential children and deferring the question of breaking the tradition to them. I am circumcised, I'm fully functional, and I am quite good at sex, thank you very much and I don't see a big problem with it aside from choice and rights-almost all people with circumcised penises in the US would tell you it really isn't a big deal and telling us what we are missing has no meaning since we can't actually imagine the difference. But to me, the highest order of a society should be to prevent the destruction of a society and avoid war. If you're a pacifist, stepping on toes should not happen unless its necessary, and clearly, there's an eagerness on this issue which isn't thought out on how to actually stop it aside from throw people in jail (German example), breaking up families, and what not. It doesn't acknowledge how to cause a paradigm shift aside from general entrenchment.

Last of all, finding another reason to condemn immigrants will probably lead to a general worsening of their economic situation-usually bad for bringing about secular humanism-and in the end probably be worse for the rights of the child and isn't the child's decision. But that doesn't matter compared to a piece of skin that should be there and is taken off because of a tradition, right?

I am a pacifist Jim.. not one who qualifies her pacifism.. but an absolute pacifist.. there are no circumstances in which I will ever support war or any kind of violence. Neither do I support country because it is my country against others or my ethnic group against those who are not of mine because it is my ethnic group.. king and country right or wrong is not my way...every decision I take is taken for reasons of humanity.. what are we to do? Allow practices to occur simply because they are the practices of another country, or religion or ethnic group no matter how heinous? A wrong is a wrong no matter who commits it.. what we call race, religion or nation bears no relation to why I speak and argue as I do.. my humanity dictates what I believe, how I argue and what I say... I admit I am, like everyone a product of the culture in which I was raised and many of my attitudes and beliefs reflect that cultural tradition.. but I am not and never have been slavish to that tradition and never shall be... I have an independence of mind which comes from what I see around me and what I learn of the world.

To talk of Islam being dead in Europe is to know nothing of Europe.. the last 50 years has seen Muslims immigrate in very large number and they have added immensely to the richness of european culture.. in Germany there are some 10 million, France 3 million and over a million and a half in the UK and large numbers are to be found in other countries of the EU as well as some non Eu states.. it is estimated that there are over 50 million in Europe excluding European Turkey representing over 7% of the population... hardly a dead religion is it? neither is Judaism dead.. it may not have the numbers of once yet it lives on hale and hearty with over 2 million living and making their way through life throughout Europe.. nothing like pre war levels for reasons we know all too well but hardly a dead religion..

For human beings to co-exist in harmony there must be some movement to accommodate each other's beliefs and ways as far as we are able.. mostly this can be done relatively easily, but occasionally one group or other will find it has to concede more ground than it desires or even surrender it completely on a few issues... let me be qite clear.. I do not simply tolerate the large scale immigration of Islamic people and others into Europe or to my own country.. I welcome it with open arms, and try as best I can to understand their ways and their traditions. I do not feel threatened by their arrival or the increase in their numbers and never have.. I am no "little Englander" and xenophobia/racism plays no part in my thinking however much u may wish to think otherwise.. I have fought xenophobia/racism all my life and shall till its end. But u must understand this... as I fight against the issues which I abhor within my own culture including the xenophobia of many, I can do no other when I see things I abhor within others...

.. on the question of sex, Jim.. i don't care about whether it is better for a man to be circumcised or not.. the enjoyment of fucking is not important.. the rights of the child and of human beings to elect or not to be circumcised is...

My pacifism and humanity tell me one thing.. do no harm.. I consider circumcision as doing harm.. children die because of circumcision and infant circumcision since it is the removal of part of a child's body and he has no say whatever in the matter.. it is an abrogation of our obligation to the child by imposing a physical change in him and denying him the right to exercise his free will. it does not matter the religion in which he is to be raised if any, nor the colour of his skin... what is important is that in some indeterminate date.. about his own body, he is allowed the right to decide its future when informed enough and sufficiently mature to do so, as young girls should be in respect of "circumcision" of the female.. that transcends race or religion.. when we see what we believe to be a wrong we have an obligation to speak out and to work to eradicate that wrong.. it is irrelevant that the wrong in question is part of a cultural or religious tradition of people of a different tradition and belief to ourselves... if we waited until everyone thought the same way.. few injustices and few wrongs in this world would ever be righted... and about this injustice, in my opinion, based on my own core beliefs, there is but one solution.. to ban infant circumcision and allow the child the opportunity to decide his own destiny... and if that is racist... then I will happily plead guilty...

[jimdawg]

You can google Jews for Jesus too. Its an extremely small minority that isn't even one percent. You'll find tons of non-Jews/non-Muslims in the US for circumcision. I fail to see how this is relevant. Unless you mean to tell me the amount of people against circumcision is far fewer than the amount of people for it amongst these communities in the US.

I meant pre war, "Native" Islam, Fran. That was murdered out. I'm not referring to modern immigrants since WWII. Perhaps I should define this another way: Ethnically European Muslims. They're insanely few of those that actually exist today outside of what, three countries? (Turkey, which is mostly Asia, Albania and Bosnia)...in fact, that's I suppose my problem with your opinion. Please explain to me how it differs morally or philosophically IN ANY WAY from the BNP. Now look, that's not to say Nazis can't coop a good idea. But if you look at the origin of the issue, in almost ALL places in Europe, the first ones to complain about the practice were ALWAYS the most racist. A mutation due to a change of values in modern Europe is justifiable, but unless there is differentiation between the-what I will call-chauvanistic Atheists-and the Nazis, I do not believe anyone sympathetic to the minorities-in this case, those descended of Muslim immigrants, will be able to tell the difference.

If you want a modicum of support from me, you have to demonstrate sufficiently how you're not a member of BNP. And mind you, I know you're not a BNP supporter. But you haven't done that. Instead, I see a mirror image of the rhetoric instead of an explanation of how you'd actually keep the immigrants in Europe and get them to give up the practice beyond state power. If you still don't believe what I am saying, you're more than invited to research into a pan-European propaganda.

Furthermore, there is a direct conflict between ruling by diktat and pacifism. A person who believe that ruling under pressure of extreme force is not a pacifist no matter how many foreign invasions are not supported.

[darkeyes]

You can google Jews for Jesus too. Its an extremely small minority that isn't even one percent. You'll find tons of non-Jews/non-Muslims in the US for circumcision. I fail to see how this is relevant. Unless you mean to tell me the amount of people against circumcision is far fewer than the amount of people for it amongst these communities in the US.

It isn't relevant jim, ur right.. except as an interesting aside that not all within those communities are pro circumcision...what is relevant is the rightness or otherwise of the practice, ..... I'm so often in a minority it doesn't worry me.. just means working harder to convince the majority..and we will never convince all..

[jimdawg]

Yes but I meant a real statistical amount. Its true though that its evidence of a lack of rights. But also, one could say that because you have groups such as Neurti Karta, it means real Jews don't support the state of Israel. Of course, that's complete bull. They're an extremist fringe with a political agenda, in particular, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem of Jews that weren't there before them (because they think they're allowed to be in Israel, but no one else).

I want statistics on how many Jews are actually against the practice aside from organized interests that have no statistical support in reality.

Being a political minority is very different than being an actual minority. A sense of persecution on this issue is very similar to, again, what people in the BNP complain about. If you want to really be a minority, go to a country like Egypt and practice your beliefs. OK, that's not attractive economically nor is it outrageously safe at this time. I guess...Saudi Arabia...no...Pakistan...no...either way, you have the option of complete and utter conformity. You just don't want to practice that (nor should you). Someone who's of a different ethnic and religious background does NOT have that option.

And if you wonder why the suspicion? Look, you say you're a socialist, and we both know that means sympathy for the left leaning anti-US position in the Cold War. That doesn't mean pro-Soviet, but it doesn't mean opposition to the nonsense that came out of there. As far as how socialists could be racist, one needs look no further than a topic called "Zionology"-militant anti-Zionism no different than anti-Semitism, which, because ethnic Jews sometimes were involved, was claimed by being less racist than Zionism. Hogwash. Almost all supporters of a Palestinian National State can understand that this stream of propaganda IS extreme racism, and does not help their interests one jot. And when people who are Jews see these types of things, to them, it becomes indistinguishable from the far right. This is why sensitivity matters. These are just a few historical examples. The list can go on and on. Find me one time in history people opposed circumcision to a legal ban and that this actually did not have an extreme, racist element. You simply can not do it. It hasn't existed. Differentiation and sensitivity is necessary here for credibility.

[darkeyes]

Yes but I meant a real statistical amount. Its true though that its evidence of a lack of rights. But also, one could say that because you have groups such as Neurti Karta, it means real Jews don't support the state of Israel. Of course, that's complete bull. They're an extremist fringe with a political agenda, in particular, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem of Jews that weren't there before them (because they think they're allowed to be in Israel, but no one else).

I want statistics on how many Jews are actually against the practice aside from organized interests that have no statistical support in reality.

Being a political minority is very different than being an actual minority. A sense of persecution on this issue is very similar to, again, what people in the BNP complain about. If you want to really be a minority, go to a country like Egypt and practice your beliefs. OK, that's not attractive economically nor is it outrageously safe at this time. I guess...Saudi Arabia...no...Pakistan...no...either way, you have the option of complete and utter conformity. You just don't want to practice that (nor should you). Someone who's of a different ethnic and religious background does NOT have that option.

And if you wonder why the suspicion? Look, you say you're a socialist, and we both know that means sympathy for the left leaning anti-US position in the Cold War. That doesn't mean pro-Soviet, but it doesn't mean opposition to the nonsense that came out of there. As far as how socialists could be racist, one needs look no further than a topic called "Zionology"-militant anti-Zionism no different than anti-Semitism, which, because ethnic Jews sometimes were involved, was claimed by being less racist than Zionism. Hogwash. Almost all supporters of a Palestinian National State can understand that this stream of propaganda IS extreme racism, and does not help their interests one jot. And when people who are Jews see these types of things, to them, it becomes indistinguishable from the far right. This is why sensitivity matters. These are just a few historical examples. The list can go on and on. Find me one time in history people opposed circumcision to a legal ban and that this actually did not have an extreme, racist element. You simply can not do it. It hasn't existed. Differentiation and sensitivity is necessary here for credibility.

One example? In my view.. the one which is the cause of this thread.. you may argue to the contrary but it is out of concern for the child the decision was taken not because of any racist ideology.. I don't care how many Jews or anyone else is against the practice.. on a human level I believe it is wrong and an infringement on the rights of the child... and for no other reason...

My quip about being a minority was not meant to illustrate anything other than the fact it is something I am used to.. I am not so far as I can ascertain oppressed because of it..but let me make another illustration.. many religions the world over are opposed to our rights to be who we are.. they are anti lgbt. simply because those who adhere to those religions they are different from us, and hold differing viewpoints, Do we not have a right to fight our corner for recognition equality and acceptance of our right to be? Is it racist to do so? is it racist to, as I do, oppose war in all corners of the earth simply because it is a war between peoples other than our own? Is it racist, Jim, to oppose the abduction and virtual enslavement of young children pressed into arms by governements or rebels because they are black, or Asian, or anything else? Is it racist to oppose the practice of slavery wherever it is found simply because they are ot European or North American? Is it anti Christian to oppose the Catholic Church teachings on contraception and abortion? is it racist to strive for our vision of the world, where people are truly free, truly equal, where all have the right to exercise free will, live in peace and harmony with both nature and our human neighbours, is free of want, oppression and share in the earth's bounty? is it racist Jim, to oppose something we believe to be wrong wherever we find it?

There are those who have entered western society in the last half century and more who have very different views to mine about the world.. i neither wish to oppress or to take away from them their core beliefs and values or to impose my own or those of the indigenous society.. already the society in which I live has come a long way to in evolving to take account of the change in population demographics.. no where near enough but it will continue.. both immigrant and native populations have changed in that time, and that too will continue.. we are learning to respect each other (although sometimes u wouldn't think it) and to live together, not without some real problems and occasional upheavals but it is happening.. and that too will continue.. the true effects of the immigration of many different peoples, religions and cultures into my country will not be seen for a century and more and it will be with hindsight we will see just how successful we are in integrating and learning to adapt to each other. immigrants and those of all cultures and religions have a right to try and change society just as do we who are its indigenous population.. they live here too and have, or should have precisely the same rights as we...

I am a passionate believer in multi culturalism and the exchange in ideas between people.. but as those of different cultures strive for what they believe, please allow me the right to strive for what I believe.. I do not believe that their attempts to change my country is inherently racist in the least.. that some are, too many, is true.. but equally many, far too many native people of my own country are also racist and will argue an issue from a racist perspective.. an issue is not necessarily racist.. how an argument is employed may be.. I am no conservative.. I do not believe in defending the indefensible in my own society.. it doesn't matter where in society the indefensible exists, or inequality or injustice or among which sector of the population... I believe in and am happy to see my country change. the status quo is not an option for therein lies stagnation and ultimate demise.. change has to come and both immigrant and native populations have to change and they will change over decades as they have changed over decades and more.. most change will be by consent, and most change will occur without us noticing... I don't fear it.. I welcome it.. but some things must change in both indigenous and immigrant populations which will be not to the liking of one or t'other..sometimes both..mostly it will be through compromise, but occasionally there will be an issue, in this instance, infant and child circumcision, where no compromise is possible and something has to give...

Jim, u can argue all u like about the political dimension.. and the historical, and even the religious and cultural..I argue from the human, and argue that as I would like to be treated, so will I treat another... not u will note.. that as another treats me, so will I treat him...

We all have beliefs and it is right that we all express those beliefs and have the right so to do...but in expressing and arguing for the things we believe in, this is not necessarily racist.. on the issue of infant circumcision as I have conceded, some will argue with a racist motive.. but the principle is not racist, and neither is my motives for so arguing.. and neither may I add, do I think for one moment that the huge majority of people who argue against the circumcision of infants and young children is either.. but let's be clear about this.. while I concede that there are racists who argue against infant circumcision, there are those who argue otherwise who are equally as racist, and racist arguments can be made when debating that point of view also... but just as I believe that most on my side are not arguing from a racist perspective, neither do I believe it of those who are on the other side of the fence..

I argue for what I believe to be right.. my motive is solely concern for the child and his right to choose.. the rights of the child which I believe is far more important than trivial squabbles about race, culture, religion or a lack of it...

[jimdawg]

One example? In my view.. the one which is the cause of this thread.. you may argue to the contrary but it is out of concern for the child the decision was taken not because of any racist ideology.. I don't care how many Jews or anyone else is against the practice.. on a human level I believe it is wrong and an infringement on the rights of the child... and for no other reason...

My quip about being a minority was not meant to illustrate anything other than the fact it is something I am used to.. I am not so far as I can ascertain oppressed because of it..but let me make another illustration.. many religions the world over are opposed to our rights to be who we are.. they are anti lgbt. simply because those who adhere to those religions they are different from us, and hold differing viewpoints, Do we not have a right to fight our corner for recognition equality and acceptance of our right to be? Is it racist to do so? is it racist to, as I do, oppose war in all corners of the earth simply because it is a war between peoples other than our own? Is it racist, Jim, to oppose the abduction and virtual enslavement of young children pressed into arms by governements or rebels because they are black, or Asian, or anything else? Is it racist to oppose the practice of slavery wherever it is found simply because they are ot European or North American? Is it anti Christian to oppose the Catholic Church teachings on contraception and abortion? is it racist to strive for our vision of the world, where people are truly free, truly equal, where all have the right to exercise free will, live in peace and harmony with both nature and our human neighbours, is free of want, oppression and share in the earth's bounty? is it racist Jim, to oppose something we believe to be wrong wherever we find it?

To focus on one area of problems and not concentrate on others, yes, I would argue that's quite racist. I mean yes, you have to pick and choose, but cherry picking along a socialist narrative is indeed, again, racist, due to the fact that they only seem to care to go against perceived "imperialist" interests. Very few socialists actually complained-still don't-about conditions in Qaddafi's Libya or Assad's Syria. Yet they complain to the wazoo about Israel. Maybe also Saudi Arabia. Pakistan. But...you know, you can leave out talking about the USSR, except in the new stream which since its collapse has gone towards the fourth international, Trotskyist line. Whatever. When talking about Israeli occupation of Palestine, but not the fact Jordan is ruled by a royal family and populace that also are occupiers by definition, to the very real former occupation of Lebanon, to the expulsions of Germans from Eastern (not Central-DDR Germany) Germany, the moving of the Polish border...you just end up with a lot of stories about occupation. Its funny that people claim a right of return for Palestinians in the 1948 borders, but not Germans in the 1948 borders. Of course, looking at it from a Jewish perspective, it looks like European arguments are conveniently anti-Israeli. That's not to say there isn't legitimate criticism as much as "Don't look at the stuff WE pull. Look how evil YOU are." Israel is still a power at war with what amounts to a civilian, disorganized population. That's an enormous problem. In the case of Europe, however, it seems that just "Banning" people is an acceptable answer-for them. Subsequently the USSR was allowed to fix the borders and no one on the left seems to care.

I would say it is racism thus to oppose the enslavement of black children without considering the enslavement of the Belarussian people. I would say that socialists world over in fact have glossed over obvious examples of enslavement in their own societies-Syria being a prime example leading today to a nasty religious insurrection. Simply put, all over the Arab world states that at some point sided with the USSR, particularly on matters of religion, are getting overthrown by religious zealots. Clearly attempts at banning religious practice have failed and the counter revolution will be something that really comes to be painful when people actually wake up and see what the religious conservatives coming to power stand for and how they're fundamentally different than religious conservatives even 25 years ago.

You have a right to strive for what you believe. Just as I have a right to tell you, what you believe is inconsistent with what you believe. If you believe that people who have a circumcision have been brainwashed into not hating it (That isn't you but others), then in my opinion, you have a view of a child's rights that contracts the will of the vast majority of such children. If this isn't true, and this is what I mean how to point to people, please provide (I mean this seriously) a poll indicating that a substantial percentage of Muslims or Jews (including non-practicing) are opposed to circumcision. I don't think such a poll exists, but I would say that's a pretty democratic way of going about it that you can't argue with. However, I still don't see an end game here that doesn't result in expulsion: How do you deal with back-alley circumcisions? Do you break up families? Deport? Deprive of citizenship? Jail? Which is it? What is the mechanism of enforcement? I see NO answers on an actual solution as much as a wish to demonize people as criminals because you think an act is criminal. Justice has two parts-first, the crime. Second-the punishment. Avoiding the second part, including its consequences, is just a matter of wishing the problem away. Driving a problem under ground however is very good for people pretending its not there-that is until some deranged lunatic decides to blow something up. Then the entire country looks back in shock, while certain political interests attempt to blame it on some FOREIGN policy gone awry.

If you genuinely care about the HUMAN, as far as how people would like to be treated, you need to analyze the historical, religious and cultural views. Failure to do this will not result in any actual solution to the problem. Again, the solution lay in enlightenment and economic achievement, and at times, targeted pressures that don't result in reactionary attitudes. You're absolutely right, the principle isn't racist. However, the shrillness of the presentation means it is not a jot different than the racist attitudes of the Soviets towards Jews, or the Spanish inquisition towards the same, or the propaganda of the extreme right against Muslims. A lack of sensitivity on this matter shows an indifference that, again, I see as acutely racist. Just because you say you're not "one of them" doesn't mean we can tell the difference and it is incredibly important. Considering the VERY BAD HISTORY surrounding these activities towards Jews and Muslims, you need to create a sense of differentiation, no, we're not actually racist, and here's our plan, which doesn't involve (cultural) genocide. People calling for a blanket ban never actually do that. If the practice goes away, there's nothing to complain about. However, if the practice goes away without free will, that means religious thought is suppressed-when an insane terrorist blows something up and says Islam is under attack, or even an insane "Christian" like Breivik, you just tend to make people take them more seriously-like they might have some sort of point that should be listened to. If nothing else, you should be again addressing the root causes, giving people a reason to be peaceful, which includes I think by your definition not cutting off a piece of skin that every male is born with. I fail to see where the peace is, or the road to it to an action that is by its very nature not peaceful on either side. In any event, such a ban criminalizes Islam as currently practiced without any alternatives or reform in the religion. That can not reasonably be argued and is the nasty point everyone refuses to acknowledge.

I also would compare it to Israeli policy in this regard: The louder the Europeans moan about the evil Zionists, the more the Israelis believe they're right in what they're doing and that Europe doesn't understand what its saying and trying to impose its view on the conflict without being there. Blaming Israel (or the Palestinians) and deciding to "Ban" Israel (or Palestine) in such a regard just won't work if the regime expects it. I would point to Cuba, North Korea, Syria (which is collapsing from a domestic crisis that might be sparked by international forces), Belarus, Iran...embargoes against these countries has never actually worked and simply makes the regime in question even MORE powerful and more extreme. And I would argue, the same thing has happened with Israel and Pakistan-attacks on those lands and threats have not made these sides any more willing to argue, but rather more willing to develop their nuclear program, which they won't give up unless they trust you. The disorderly collapse of some of the communist dictators in Eastern Europe also only entrenched the current ones in their beliefs that their only retirement plan is torture and death. Think about peaceful transitions of power under such a scenario. North Korea has an insanely powerful army for its GDP and a ton of nukes. Do you really think they'll go down as peacefully as East Germany if they collapse even from interior pressures?

[BiDaveDtown]

Its not that Europe is going to even go on a genocidal quest again.

Yes, because protecting a minors' and infants' bodily and genital integrity is totally like the Spanish inquisition, the Spanish colonization of Mexico, the holocaust or other types of genocide. The cold HARD fact is that it also entails risks and medical (not to mention sexual) disadvantages. A recent example: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=mm6122a2_w The practice is clearly barbaric, genital mutilation, and unecessary. Quite the contrary, the earlobe and the labia are each a single layer or piece/flap of skin tissue but the foreskin is not; it is a folded-over sleeve of two distinct layers of tissue unattached to each other accept at the frenar band and of which only the outer FS surface is true “skin”. The inner FS lining is a mucosal membrane similar to the underside of the eyelids or the inside of the mouth and thus is not at all like the earlobe or labia. The tip of the FS, the frenar band, is analogous to the lips. Most of the nerve endings associated with sex are concentrated there. Preputialectomy (i.e., amputation of the foreskin, commonly called circumcision) removes these and is analogous to clitoridectomy. Imagine living with amputated lips! Circumcision reduces a man to a sexual cripple. After circumcision as a mature adult, few men would argue against that statement once they realize that an important component to their sexual satisfaction has been removed. Sexual relief never again reaches its former peak. The pre-eminent twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides, plainly states that the intended purpose of circumcision is to weaken the male libido. Although the Torah is clear that circumcision is a religious requirement for Jewish males, the Qur’an does not mention it. Muhammad is believed to have been born without a foreskin [In medicine, aposthia is considered a birth defect.]. Circumcision is a non medically necessary surgical operation performed without consent. I understand many Jewish people, especially the orthodox will consider this ruling anti-Semitic, but I believe that it is purely a decision that will better the Jewish people. There are groups who advocate for Brit Shalom, a non cutting ritual ceremony for those parents who would rather let their child choose to be circumcised when they can make their own decision. Your right to religious freedom does not extend to amputating parts of other people's bodies and mutilating a boy's genitals.

[jimdawg]

Yes, because protecting a minors' and infants' bodily and genital integrity is totally like the Spanish inquisition, the Spanish colonization of Mexico, the holocaust or other types of genocide. The cold HARD fact is that it also entails risks and medical (not to mention sexual) disadvantages. A recent example: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=mm6122a2_w The practice is clearly barbaric, genital mutilation, and unecessary. Quite the contrary, the earlobe and the labia are each a single layer or piece/flap of skin tissue but the foreskin is not; it is a folded-over sleeve of two distinct layers of tissue unattached to each other accept at the frenar band and of which only the outer FS surface is true “skin”. The inner FS lining is a mucosal membrane similar to the underside of the eyelids or the inside of the mouth and thus is not at all like the earlobe or labia. The tip of the FS, the frenar band, is analogous to the lips. Most of the nerve endings associated with sex are concentrated there. Preputialectomy (i.e., amputation of the foreskin, commonly called circumcision) removes these and is analogous to clitoridectomy. Imagine living with amputated lips! Circumcision reduces a man to a sexual cripple. After circumcision as a mature adult, few men would argue against that statement once they realize that an important component to their sexual satisfaction has been removed. Sexual relief never again reaches its former peak. The pre-eminent twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides, plainly states that the intended purpose of circumcision is to weaken the male libido. Although the Torah is clear that circumcision is a religious requirement for Jewish males, the Qur’an does not mention it. Muhammad is believed to have been born without a foreskin [In medicine, aposthia is considered a birth defect.]. Circumcision is a non medically necessary surgical operation performed without consent. I understand many Jewish people, especially the orthodox will consider this ruling anti-Semitic, but I believe that it is purely a decision that will better the Jewish people. There are groups who advocate for Brit Shalom, a non cutting ritual ceremony for those parents who would rather let their child choose to be circumcised when they can make their own decision. Your right to religious freedom does not extend to amputating parts of other people's bodies and mutilating a boy's genitals.

Actually, historically, the Spanish ban on circumcision did just that. No doors in houses, a priest overlooking you, deferring to a politically correct church body for everything...the cold hard fact is that did indeed happen and it had disasterous consequences for Spain and Latin America. Meanwhile the Jews and Muslims who were exiled still practice circumcision. You really need to read more on the position of the church. They really thought that protecting a body given by god from people who would take away from god's religion was important. It wasn't a matter of sexual health but natural law to them. Practicing Judaism in general was seen as evil and this was a key measure. Ever notice that a bunch of Arab style dishes in Spain have pork? Ever wonder why? Tell me, forcing people to eat this food...how does that advance human rights? It doesn't advance animal rights...but that's another argument. So you're not advocating forcing people's options to eat (you're not Mike Bloomberg, I suppose...). But still, how can you protect people in their own homes? Are you going to pull down people's pants to look at them? Really, do you think that a complete invasion of privacy-the only way to enforce this while making it a much less hygenic practice-do you think that's good for human rights?

If the decision will benefit the Jewish people, they have to come to it themselves or be wiped out by others who think that killing them, epelling them or throwing them in jail actually helps them. That's simply the only way history has ever gone. There is no actual known alternative here on this issue. No matter how much you hate circumcision, this is always the end game. Or the ban gets thrown out with extreme pressure in the other direction-a more extreme want to circumcise.

As far as Islam, its mentioned in the Hadiths, which carry an enormous religious weight. Its like saying Jews only believe in the Torah. Not true.

[BiDaveDtown]

Jim Dawg why do you keep going on and on about Spanish history, the crusades, etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at all. Cutting up an infant's penis is barbaric. It is mutilation. It is unnecessary and removes an important, useful, sexually stimulating piece of flesh. It is done at the behest of the parents for *their* welfare, not the child's. It's not sane or reasonable to use the justifications of 'religious freedom', or 'tradition - we've always done it'. The only two countries pushing all the ''medical benefits'' propaganda are Israel and the USA. When the USA is involved the motive is usually $$ fewer doctors in the U.S. are recommending it than ever. It's only America, Israel, Islamic countries, South Korea and some aboriginal tribes in Australia. Canada is gradually moving away from it. The rest of the world doesn't do it. One is not born a Jew or a Muslim but a human being. The correct response should be, “Shouldn’t the child be afforded his own religious rights? As well as genital integrity?”

[darkeyes]

Your entire argument can be encapsulated as this, Jim... that because a culture, ethnic group or religion has certain beliefs and practices, these practices are untouchable by we who are not of that culture, ethnic group or religion, and we must allow them carte blanche to continue doing whatever it is no matter how barbaric or heinous these practices are. Which means of course they have no right to utter a word or attempt to influence ours... and those practices, however barbaric and heinous they may be, must be allowed to continue even in our society without bar, and ours, in their societies similarly. To do other is therefore racist? What tripe... we have no right to cajole, bully or intimidate,and certainly not war, but we do have the right to try and influence by force of argument.. to a discuss, debate and attempt to have other societies discontinue practices which we believe to be morally wrong.. and they have precisely the same right to try and have us change our ways.. and in our own societies we, all of us including those we call immigrants, have the right to proscribe any practice which is felt by society as a whole to be heinous or barbaric by any sector and all sectors in our society...

We have historically generally exchanged ideas between cultures... even more so than now, it is when that exchange ceases that real problems begin... circumcision of infants and children is not only a practice, it is an idea, as the wish of those of us who wish it to be discontinued is an idea.. the principle of free will and control over the destiny of one's own body is an idea... what u propose does not eliminate racism.. quite the contrary.. for as the exchange of ideas between cultures dries up, we ensure greater suspicion and a greater likelihood of racism on both sides through isolation than if we continue dialogue and argument on ideas...

Racist ideas do exist, I won't argue with that.. but the idea of discontinuing or banning the practice of infant and child circumcision is not one however much u and others wish to muddy the waters by claiming it is...

[jimdawg]

Yes, you're right BiDaveDtown. Stop talking about when this historically happened, history has nothing to do with the whole thing! Out of curiosity, how does cutting up a child's penis help a parent's welfare? Just curious about that.

And again, if you actually look at religious practice, here's the argument you are making: Should you choose to be Muslim or Jewish, you only have the right to do that after it'll be of a scarring memory.

You seem to be arguing with me that this is a barbaric practice. I'm not arguing that beyond that I'm quite fine, thank you very much. What I am arguing is the place in history this argument has. A hard ban historically has meant ethnic cleansing. Clearly the child has more of a right to genital integrity than its biological parents...I'm not quite sure how you could argue this. Also I would like to add that pogroms as well as attempted bans on circumcision are the reason my family made it to the United States. Had we stayed in the places where the Soviets banned circumcision, we would've probably been murdered by people who thought Jewish tradition was unnatural and cruel, or become refusniks if we survived. You are saying that us minorities should trust you, even though the tone of your arguments on this matter are as shrill as theirs were throughout all those times. You don't seem to get it.

Talking about Spanish history, the crusades and Russian history is the topic and how people can in fact really really be scared of people like you who are basically tolerating Christianity, Atheism and neo-Paganism over Islam in particular.

I would also compare a circumcision by your arguments to getting braces. That's a procedure done for cosmetic reason that can really mess up the mouth, result in cavities as its harder to clean, teeth getting pulled, and all sorts of barbarism. Braces almost always go on children before they're old enough to consent legally. Braces hurt. Tell me, should braces be banned until you are 18 when they serve no actual medical use beyond ease of cleaning? And furthermore, you do realize that if you get braces older, its much harder to deal with them, painful, etc...tell me, if it were a religious mandate to have straight teeth, would you then oppose people getting braces?

OK, comparing it to braces is silly and absurd. Legally-what's the difference? Do you know? I don't. To me its the same concept, aside from you are far more obsessed with penises than teeth, so much that the teeth issue looks pointless to think about.

Let's also compare the tone of this argument to religious people fighting abortion. To them, its murder. Have you looked at their propaganda with fetuses? I'd say...its pretty convincing. There are very few health benefits to an abortion outside of when the fetus presents a health hazard. And furthermore, you don't give the fetus a choice. You don't see any irony in the idea of choice, that it is the mother's choice whether or not she wants to abort the fetus, but not in any way her choice on how to raise the child? I'd rather have my foreskin gone than be aborted.

OK, false argument here. Personally, I'm for abortion. But I'm not for hypocrisy, and this issue and the shrillness smells of it. You have passion-good, fine. You have morality, good, fine. You lack contextual understanding. That's not fine. Opposition to circumcision is certainly justified. However, citing studies done by people with anti-circumcision agendas is generally not going to sway me, though I do accept that circumcision probably isn't healthy. I could right now go and look through a lot of research that says circumcision has plenty of benefits, especially along the issue of STDs. But research IN FAVOR of circumcision for health reasons apparently has less credibility-since it obviously has an American or Israeli bias-than research against it, because, heck, those white people who do the research (South Africa, Canada, Europe) just matter more. And again, that misses the point on how all this SEEMS racist. White people = correct. Brown people = incorrect. Yellow people = neutral, red people = neutral. Am I reading this wrong?

And of course the rest of the world doesn't do it. Its generally a local custom that happened to be adopted by tribes that have been notoriously hard to conquer and control. And again, what has happened to these people when people have tried to conquer them? I see Korea with a very strong tradition of repelling foreigners. Israel, you can look at the many revolts by the Judeans against your civilization bearing Greeks and Romans. Today the Israelis have trouble putting down an Arab revolt as well. Of the countries you listed where its practiced, none have been easy to conquer. The US has never lost a defensive war.

Context matters. Being anti-circumcision isn't racist in itself. Being Islamophobic/anti-Semitically anti-circumcision and having a double standard for the intolerances of Christianity on the secular culture (American secularists are far more anti the celebrating of Christmas than Europeans in my experience, where Christmas is accepted as a holiday everyone celebrates...no one in America has ever asked me why I don't celebrate Christmas but every Christmas I always am asked-even by people who know I'm somewhat Jewish-why I'm not with my family like its a big deal and how horrible it is) smells of it. If you were from a religiously persecuted minority, you really wouldn't think "They're picking on us again?"

I can-and keep-going on and on about this same point. You simply don't understand that over a billion people are SCARED of people like you far more than they disagree with this practice. How does being afraid of you help convince that billion people they're wrong? Please give me this answer.

Jim Dawg why do you keep going on and on about Spanish history, the crusades, etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at all. Cutting up an infant's penis is barbaric. It is mutilation. It is unnecessary and removes an important, useful, sexually stimulating piece of flesh. It is done at the behest of the parents for *their* welfare, not the child's. It's not sane or reasonable to use the justifications of 'religious freedom', or 'tradition - we've always done it'. The only two countries pushing all the ''medical benefits'' propaganda are Israel and the USA. When the USA is involved the motive is usually $$ fewer doctors in the U.S. are recommending it than ever. It's only America, Israel, Islamic countries, South Korea and some aboriginal tribes in Australia. Canada is gradually moving away from it. The rest of the world doesn't do it. One is not born a Jew or a Muslim but a human being. The correct response should be, “Shouldn’t the child be afforded his own religious rights? As well as genital integrity?”

[jimdawg]

Your entire argument can be encapsulated as this, Jim... that because a culture, ethnic group or religion has certain beliefs and practices, these practices are untouchable by we who are not of that culture, ethnic group or religion, and we must allow them carte blanche to continue doing whatever it is no matter how barbaric or heinous these practices are. Which means of course they have no right to utter a word or attempt to influence ours... and those practices, however barbaric and heinous they may be, must be allowed to continue even in our society without bar, and ours, in their societies similarly. To do other is therefore racist? What tripe... we have no right to cajole, bully or intimidate,and certainly not war, but we do have the right to try and influence by force o argument.. to adiscuss, debate and attempt to have other societies discontinue practices which we believe to be morally wrong.. and they have precisely the same right to try and have us change our ways...

NO! It is, using the tactics of genocidal maniacs and their language is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THAT GROUP. And they don't have the same right to force YOU to get a circumcision is the point. No, no, no. Going on an Islamic crusade against the "House of War" (Europe) is NOT acceptable.

There is a HUGE difference between discontinuing and banning the practice. The waters aren't necessarily muddied by you, but what people have done for GENERATIONS using the same arguments that you have done. You refuse to say how you're different in any single capacity. That's because you have no actual plan for defeating a "social problem" beyond state power. And the fact people still circumcise I think is evidence that bullying is an absolute failure, and the places where it has worked to end circumcision have seen massive amounts of GENOCIDE.

This is a fact. You can deny it as much as you wish. You are saying that your belief in genital integrity is more important than human life. It is not a muddied scenario unless you turn a blind eye to human nature and behavior countless time and time again. Because people LIKE YOU tried to liberate my "people" 2300 years ago, I STILL can't eat pork in my parents house, and we STILL get circumcisions. The scar of genocide and forcing people to give up their religion by a bunch of tyrants who basically stole our land and resources is that strong. Without such scars, there would be no Islam and no Christianity. Judaism would've probably assimilated, like almost every other culture conquered by the Romans. But something very strange happened in that part of the world. And you seem to be sidestepping what actually happened. Banning circumcision only makes sense if you believe in a Christian god under such rubric, because God wills it, and that was the whole concept of Jesus coming back according to Paul...from an atheist perspective, it is illogical due to the fact it fails to ask why men started the practice in the first place and why they continue to practice it. Religion isn't a good enough answer-a lot of atheists of Muslim and Jewish descent still do this practice. There is obviously something else there. And THAT is what you have to go after if you genuinely are interested in ending this practice.

What's wrong with studying it? Afraid you might get tolerance towards it to the extent of liking it? Afraid that it'll shatter your beliefs? Honestly, I study something, and I generally understand better how to overcome what blocks me. Its a matter of learning how to express yourself, build confidence, and not scaring us religious minorities that we're evil and you're coming to interfere with our lives, throw us in prison, take our babies away, exile us from your lands and kill us.

Take a movie like http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010...-collaboration. Give it the treatment of "The Eternal Jew" and then look at the wedding scene, and the circumcision scene. What do you think this was? An attempt to show Jews as normal? Or "Look how barbaric their customs are! Look what they do to children!"

But what do I know? I'd only have been exterminated.

[elian]

Well I am a firm believer in the fact that most wars start at least 10 or 20 years before the first shot is ever fired.

[IanBorthwick]

And this is the kind of admission that reflects a very white/European attitude that deeply troubles people without a Christian background. Christianity is superior to Islam/Judaism. Thus, you can tolerate Christianity. Thus, you can support a holy war. This isn't just another slippery slope argument. Its happened dozens of times in history, and even in the last 25 years with the fall of the USSR. I'm not disputing what's worse. But I do see it disturbing that people don't understand why this can irk people and why people like me will defend the practice of it being legal.

Before you jump down my throat, Jimdawg, you need to go back and read my posts and drop an apology my way. Taking me out of context does not make you look bright OR informed. Not to mention the fact that you are railing against those who would stop the practice in a fashion that would be considered Civilized. The blather you threw at Darkeyes was, is and will always be, Libertarian rhetoric with no basis or foundation in anything more than what you accuse others of doing. Social change comes from raising awareness and passing laws against actions deemed barbaric. Has been throughout time and will always be that way, thus the term Progressive was born.

When you have something more cogent to share than your own blame casting, let me know.

[darkeyes]

Jim, I would appreciate not being spoken to as a brain dead little bimbo... I may not share your beliefs and may not entirely understand Islam or Judaism.. since I have no religious belief and never have had, such belief is something I will never quite grasp entirely. but am not entirely ignorant of history, nor am I entirely ignorant of oppression not simply of "your people", but of others around the world and in my own country also.

I know of holocausts and destruction of the beliefs of people, of contempt shown, and of genocide and I'm sorry if u believe that I am being contemptuous of what u say.. but I begin from a different place in a different land and from a very different point of view. My humanity, and belief in the right of human beings to live in peace, undisturbed by neighbours, and left to live unoppressed and to exercise the free will which is their right, and to do no harm to any other, outweighs any rellgious or historical considerations.. out of respect for you and your beliefs and what u have said I have taken a great deal of time to explain my own point of view and my own beliefs. Part of my belief, is the right of a human being to make decisions about his or her life and to use the free will which is all of our right to determine their own future, not have it removed from them by any other and a part of that is the right of a new born or young child to determine the fate of his or her body. His or her right... not the right of parent, guardian or the state or religious priest because of what happened long in the distant and also I accept the more recent past... or even for the much trumpeted and highly debatable medical precautionary reasons.

I can accept 99% and more of the ways of religions and other cultures and peoples without even thinking about it.. and I will defend their right to be with every fibre of my being and the things they believe... but when a people, culture or religion for whatever reason takes it upon itself to make a fundamental irreversible decision on the physicality of other human beings, there I draw the line. Yes I would prefer that they discontinued practices which involve removing from people free will by inflicting upon them medical procedures which alter their natural state without the permission.. the informed permission of the person or persons involved... but every year, thousands of infants and children are so altered.. some.. fewer boys than girls I admit die, and others have physical and sexual problems because of circumcision which last all of their lives. and if it cannot be discontinued voluntarily in our own societies, then what other option is their? It is not that I am genitally fixated as seem to think.. I do not believe in harming any human being, and we have to remember circumcision, like any medical procedure is not without risk. The decision is the person whose body is affected to make.. no one else in my view has that right, save in times of medical need. That, if u like, is a tenet of faith of mine and goes as deep within me as any that you or any other has and u dismiss that belief as almost of no importance.. worse.. u dismiss the right of a child to be unmolested and to be allowed to exercise his or her free will as of little import in the name of what was once and of faith.

My country is riven with division and has many paranoias.. religious, national, class, race... these I do know about and can speak with real knowledge and authority because these paranoias are our history, and don't think that our history was not one of oppression.. in just Scotland alone, we too had our own diaspora.. the scattering to the four winds of a whole people.. half the population of the country of one ethnic group. And far more recently than that of your own. We too had our own near holocaust.. maybe not death camps, but a huge slaughter followed by oppression, starvation, eviction and transportation and the near extermination of a people, their language and culture, and if I may say so, for a century and more, their religion. So I know of the things u speak in some small way, but I do not let them poison my heart or mind as so many Scots do. I have sadness about it, shame too, for I am a lowlander,and lowlanders allowed it to happen and many were roped in to make it happen, some were directly responsible and not a few benefited from that clearance and near disappearance of a race of people..

..but I also have within me the blood of those people who were so cruelly treated and abused.. My paternal grandmother was the daughter of a Gael and so I feel anger too, but in the time passed since the Gaelic diaspora began and ended, I see no point in being bitter, condemning those responsible blindly and allowing my mind to be twisted by the injustice of it all. I spend much of my life trying to stop Scots people from being bitter about the past and to channel their energies to the future. Of course we should learn from such times, and we do.. but sometimes we learn the wrong lessons.. and sometimes we retain the wrong symbols to remember our past... but whatever symbols we retain.. none should involve removing free will from a child and allowing him or her no say in what happens to his or her body.

Personally... if a physical symbol is required, I would have thought it more appropriate and meaningful if people elected for themselves with real knowledge to have their bodies changed physically.. but what the hell do I know.. I'm just a gentile female, an atheist and one who treasures human life and the rights of people to live in peace, unmolested and to be allowed the right to exercise their free will and determine their own kismet more than any ideology or faith...

We differ in our view of the world, Jim, about the things we believe, I suspect what lessons we should learn from history, even our interpretation of history, and certainly the place of free will and the rights of the child in our world and how best to deal with a particular problem.. I could continue the debate ad infinitum but it would serve no useful purpose except to make u even more agitated and angry, possibly even more bitter than u seem to be right now... so I leave the last word with u for I have no doubt that you will have much to say.. you know my feelings, but please treat me with a little more respect than u did with the last post..

[jarhead]

Or maybe they DID take a big lesson from Nazi Germany...that human rights are universal and must be vigorously defended, especially when it involves the most defenseless among us, the infants and children. Since it's already technically illegal for anyone to cut off healthy body parts from someone who can't consent, even one's own child, the German court has decided to apply the law equally to all citizens. To argue otherwise is to say that some people deserve special rights that others do not, as in: "This act would normally be illegal for anyone else to do, but we're going to give you the special right to ignore the law because of your religion." Okay, I think I got it now: if you're African, African Muslim, or Asian Muslim and you want your daughter's genitalia removed, you're crazy. If you're American, or if you are Jewish or Muslim and want to do it to your son it's an esteemed religious tradition, perfectly OK, and you've got your head in the sand that it's genital mutilation even though the infant boy can't consent to it at all and there's no need for circumcision of boys or girls at all. Actually most countries that do not practice male or female circumcision at all have not seen massive amounts of genocide at all that is with the exception of China, the former USSR and all of its countries, various south American countries, Cuba, and Cambodia. However all of this is a moot point and the idea that banning genital mutilation of infant boys and girls will make genocide happen or that it it's Anti-Semitic or akin to the crusades or Holocaust which is what you're arguing is completely laughable.

You anti-semitic asshole!

[IanBorthwick]

You anti-semitic asshole!

Love this response. Not respecting another religions DISRESPECT for someone makes you a hater. I see.

So if I started a religion where it was against the mores and tenets of my crafted belief system that all women must have their left boob removed and all men must have their ears and noses notched, then anyone who deemed my practice barbaric would be an asshole.

Or

If you are LGBT and you don't respect the person punching your to pieces and killing you for your differences, you're a hater.

Or

If you think they shouldn't be allowed to round people up by their differences, rob, rape, enslave, torture and murder them...you're the hater.

To quote a famous Vulcan:

There is no LOGIC to your logic.

Jarhead, if I were you, and gladly I can say that I am not, you need to spend some time in a critical thinking class and learn how to LEARN. It can only do you some good.

[darkeyes]

You anti-semitic asshole!

I see u forgot to put ur brain in today. Bedside cabinet, middle drawer... slip it in and try again, this time with an argument not a thoughtless and baseless slur arising from your own prejudice..

[goldenfinger]

You anti-semitic asshole!

Makes you wonder why some people join this site only to abuse others, with only a few posts to his name what is he thinking???

[ExSailor]

A circumcision was performed on me when I was an infant and unable to consent, as seems to be the case with most American men who are my age. Had I had a choice, I would have remained intact. I think that it would be better if parents would allow their male children to remain uncircumcised until they are able to choose for themselves if they want to remain intact or not. I wish I was not cut though and if I had the choice I would have wanted to keep my foreskin. I remember the first time I had sex with a man that has a foreskin I was envious since he got pleasure from his foreskin and penis in ways that I did not. His penis was also a lot more sensitive than mine and I could do things like lick inside the foreskin or roll it back and forth across his cock head and this pleasured him immensely. I do not have a foreskin so I can't get any pleasure like that. I know men who stretched out the remaining skin but that's not the same as having an actual foreskin with nerve endings that have never been completely removed. When I was 19 I had sex with a Latino man who was not cut and he fucked me up the ass and it did not hurt and was pleasurable. I had gotten fucked by cut men before that and I found a cut penis to be dry and very painful when getting fucked-even with lube; but a cock with a foreskin feels so much better and is pleasurable. Insofar as the Jews and Muslims of Germany are concerned, they too should accept that their male children have a right to choose circumcision or not. Performing the act on a child totally removes his opportunity to choose whether or not he wants to conform to that aspect of his faith. Secondly Germany is not telling Jews or Muslims that they have to stop being those religions, can't practice Judaism or Islam, or must leave Germany or not emigrate to Germany. Germany is also not imitating tactics of the Crusades/holy wars, or acts of genocide throughout history including the holocaust. As it has been written before in this topic circumcision or the genital mutilation of infants and boys is not necessary to be Jewish or Muslim and there are Jews and Muslims who do not do this to their sons yet they are still Jewish or Muslim but they left their sons penises intact. Frankly, if God or the creator(s) didn't want men to have a foreskin, then why are we all born with one? If there is no evolutionary purpose to a foreskin, then why haven't we evolved to be born without one? If I had the opportunity to choose, I would have kept my foreskin and my genitals intact. Sadly, that choice was taken away from me. If we were 'made in God's image', why the hell do these religious activists mutilate God's work...?

[elian]

Hmm, I heard on the radio today that there is a group of folks trying to get men in Africa to become circumcised to prevent the spread of HIV.. I did a google search and it would seem that there are plenty of opinions both for and against the procedure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

[jimdawg]

I've decided to delete my post. I've stayed away from this thread, I will continue to. I'm not apologizing to anyone about my views on this topic and no longer expanding on why. I think that there's too much insensitivity. Calling a ban "good" in a view of moral superiority combined with arguments about mutilation will do nothing but insult people like me and none of the people offended by my view of the rampant racism will ever understand that the problem is the shrillness of the supporters more than the morality of the issue, and the looseness with which people go after certain select people in a subconscious way that the arguer isn't even aware of.

But you lost most Americans, as well as Jews, Muslims, religious Christians and Africans, when you said "Mutilation" and made it about religion. If you can't understand that, you can't understand why there will always be opposition to such a ban. And thus, there's nothing to apologize for.