Printable View
While I personally think that a pierced dick is a turn off, the person who got the piercing made the personal decision to do so, and it was done with their consent. With circumcision of an infant boy he has no consent at all and it is genital mutilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jarhead
Elian no i did mean the spleen which simply fiters red n white cells and secondary fibres etc not needed liken the appendix, somewhat normal life can be achieved without it, just recently the docs have figured this out keep it if you can if not remove it which was the case with internal severe abdominal injuries and wounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
So what's decided? Medical? Religious? Savage Ritual? or a tidy combination of this n that???
Get over it already(best whiny accent) was gonna leave it alone but why not. Guess theb 100+ yearv old jackn booted Nazis are gettingb under your skin. Oh well, non worries save your scheckles the Dreaded Drahkma is back! soon!! and your vacations will be super cheap!!I wonder when these "New Age" Nazi's will tell the government enough is enough. The Deutsch Mark afterall is alive and well in major banks vaults. Woops Spain's next and that's that!!. Those damn Brits didn't fall for the great Euro scheme, that's right they have an actual economy like us Krauts. Greek Beachfront for Sale, CheapQuote:
Originally Posted by jarhead
next month. Get Over It already!!! Anyone for a Whisky??
Okay, thanks for the clarification, Lucy. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mariersa
The most recent statistics I could find were from 2007, at which time 98% of Jewish males were circumcised.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExSailor
Actually, the number of circumcised Jews has gone up in recent years rather than down, as more Jews have access to it than in the past. Adult circumcision used to be a rare procedure in American hospitals until the late 1980s and 1990s, when a newer wave of Jewish refugees from Europe came to the United States, many of whom had been denied the right to have a circumcision as infants.
Which in my view is overwhelming proof of the fact people would choose to take the procedure when they're threatened with attitudes that you see out of the German court case when they're old enough to. That alone should demonstrate that its not immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
The important thing is, guess what? I enjoy sex and am fully functional. And I think my parents did a great job. Am I brainwashed? No. I don't see much value in the circumcision. But I'm not the type that was told I couldn't follow my heart on my religious beliefs. You say brainwashed by religious dogma for people who were forbidden who did it later in life. And then you say infants wouldn't want to do the same thing the adults do when they're old enough to understand. It turns out, you might be brainwashed by your own religious point of view. Yes, atheism.
If religion causes war and is thus evil and limits the human mind, what is a brand of atheism that banishes deviant thoughts and uses all force necessary to banish religion? I say...no different.
You don't know what you're missing, if you had a foreskin you'd have a more sensitive penis and get a lot more pleasure out of it and your partner(s) also would too. shame on you for wanting men to lose pleasure parts for your cultural bias. About 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings are what is involved and they are unique. Once cut off that whole source of sensation is GONE. They make sex better for the guy and his male and female partners, they do not result in premature ejaculation -- instead they give feedback and help with timing. Also, with no condom, there is a dynamic action several partners said is wonderful and more intimate -- connected. I think an opinion that natural is somehow bad is not based on good information. Those that whant men to have natural pleasure parts CUT OFF. First, the proper terminology is "intact," "natural," or "normal" - NOT "uncircumcised." Second, having sex with a circumcised guy is like being poked with a broomstick. It's painful! Chopping off a fundamental part of the sexual organ has MANY negative effects on the man's sexuality. The foreskin has a PURPOSE: without it, the guy needs rougher sex that hurts the woman. He needs longer strokes that pull out lubrication, resulting in painful friction and irritation. He needs harder pounding, resulting in "bladder beating" and internal pain for the woman. A mutilated man has an on/off switch instead of an accelerator. Much less fun!!! Most of the men in the world are not cut and have foreskins. The foreskin adds a lovely velvety smoothness that I've never experienced with circumcised men. :) I've been with both, and I have to say I definitely prefer the uncircumcised penis. Comparing the two, the circumcised penis is almost leathery, whereas the uncircumcised penis in so silky soft and wonderful feeling. I'll admit, I had a bias at first, since I'm American and the vast majority of penises in my age range are circumcised, but given the choice, I'll never go back to rough, leathery penis heads! There are also things that you can do with a foreskin that give the man and you a lot of pleasure that you simply can't do with men who are cut at all since they don't have a foreskin and do not get nearly as much pleasure from their penis as men with an intact foreskin do. As a woman, I have been with both cut and uncut men, and to be there is a difference. Natural men feel waaaaaay better. just sayinQuote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
The vast majority of men in the world have normal, natural, intact penises. They work perfectly, they are clean, they don't suffer any problems. Sex was intended to involve a foreskin, it has several purposes and simply works better. How it looks is irrelevant, you can't seriously suggest that holding down a baby and ripping and cutting off parts of his penis is acceptable because it's pretty. It's a travesty, a human being should be entitled to keep all of their functioning body parts. I'm wary of circumcised men, because I don't want to hurt them. I think their penises are maimed, and inferior, and certainly not normal. Which brings me to my point - it is not normal to be so revolted and disgusted by something that is natural. What I am suggesting is that any man or woman who gets so offended by the sight of a foreskin, even on a little baby, has been severely culturally brainwashed. Now, if you defend yourself by saying that you are not prejudiced, but simply have a preference for the cut penis, then I ask you: what preference does a male infant who is about to be circumcised have? Huh? Do you actually think that any person other than that baby, that individual, can answer for him, can speak with authority about what he wants for his penis? So now maybe you can begin to see that your prejudice (yes, yours) perpetuates this abuse, this bodily assault, of male infant circumcision. I think an opinion that natural is somehow bad is not based on good information. Those that want men to have natural pleasure parts CUT OFF, well how about if men wanted that from you?Quote:
Originally Posted by æonpax
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelissaPDX
coughlans syndrome ? ... it can result in the same issues that you talk about in circumcised males .... so your statement about circumcised males and what they can have to deal with, is some what exclusive of other issues that can cause the same effect........
much of what you claim about the way that circumcised males have sex, is based around what ? your personal experiences with males that perfer sex that way, books you have read, websites that you have read ?????
many others have talked about different sizes, lengths, thicknesses, cut and uncut in different threads... but you are the first person to claim that cut guys fuck a certain way.... some you wanna share any med sites that can back up what you claim, as medical fact.... or it is just your own opinion that cut guys all fuck the same way ?
You're absolutely right. Every time I orgasm and feel close to someone and enjoy myself, I'm lying. That ejaculate did not leave my penis. I did not absolutely love what I felt and wanted to try it again. Being circumcised, I'm too stupid to know what I enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MelissaPDX
And shame on you for knowing how my family should live their lives better than my family. You talk about cultural bias? I'm not saying circumcise everyone at all. I'm talking about religious freedom and unlike you, I don't think its negatively affected my life.
Oh, and one other thing-20000 nerve endings isn't a big deal. Compared to how many there are in the whole penis, that's nothing. I find it tough to believe the number in the foreskin are that small, and if it really is, I'm inclined to say, even less of a big deal.
I'm done dealing with this post and this argument. A lot of people against circumcision and looking to ban it, as opposed to disliking it, seem to forget that millions of people are willing to die for their religion and think its infinitely more important than your thoughts. This issue has been used to ban religions in the past on the basis of cruelty. Yet people still do it and want to continue doing it. Your beliefs if you support banning it go against cultural tolerance, and furthermore, support a slippery slope in which you say our barbaric beliefs don't matter, and we have to give up our god and embrace yours, or your lack thereof. The communists made this argument and made cirucmcision near impossible in the USSR and subsequently Jews left their old homeland when they got the chance. Nowadays this argument is generally made amongst people who either 1. Hate the state of Israel and think that Jewish religion is cruel (that Jews are barbarians) or 2. Hate Muslims, their immigration, and think Islamic religion is cruel (that its incompatible with "Western Thought")-I've seen very little from people who want to ban circumcision from people who have any respect for religions. Even the Catholic Church is opposed to banning it on this basis. Now, is your belief in "no god" really worth imposing on others? Are there religious people who are opposed to circumcision? Certainly. But is it a coincidence that the greatest support for circumcision comes from religious areas, and the greatest opposition tends to come from people who have a problem with US foreign policy or immigration?
And why can't any of the people acknowledge how that MIGHT be racist? If you read David Duke, he always says he's not a racist. And he might genuinely believe he's not. And you can oppose circumcision and not be a racist. Nonetheless, the arguments I read when it comes to banning religious practices always seem to apply to minorities as far as civilization is concerned. If only us Muslims and Jews didn't have our crummy, backwards religion, we wouldn't be such awful people and support awful things because we'd think like you.
We don't want to think like you. Get used to it. And we don't think you have our best interests at heart, and certainly not the best interests of our children, based on the fact you condemn our parents and seem to attack everything we've been brought up to believe on the basis of a complete lack of understanding of not just our religion, but our thoughts on religious tolerance. We aren't trying to convert you for the most part, why on EARTH are you trying to convert us?
I would have liked to be able to make up my own mind about being circumcised. I don't care what anyone else thinks about it; it's not big deal, but I don't appreciate that the decision was made for me.
I've only had two lovers, and one acquaintance, who were uncut, and sex with them was amazing. Giving hand jobs, alone, was a great experience! I could grasp their cocks anywhere and still have enough skin for a full stroke. Unlike me, if grasped at the top, the skin will get tight and painful, before a full stroke is done. I didn't have anal with any of them, but I suspect that would be easier, too.
I've heard the arguments about disease and filth. But those guys were fastidiously clean and I never detected any objectionable odor. I enjoyed them!
I've certainly didn't mind the other male lovers being cut!
I read posts on this thread and accusations of racism, religious intolerance and Nazism don't entirely surprise me.. not from people from a nation who pride themselves in being the most free in the world, and where the liberty of the individual is all, and freedom of choice so important, and the principle of consent is so strong and powerfully ingrained in its people.. and here we are.. arguing about an issue which results in the forcible removal of a bodily part without the informed and educated consent of the individual whose bodily part it is, thus removing that from that person the freedom forever of choice of whether to consent or otherwise when he is old and mature enough to know and decide for himself what he would prefer...
I neither hate muslims, loathe Jews, nor do I detest any who has opted for their children to be circumcised.. I simply know a wrong when I see it... I live in a culture where it is not routine and oppose the forced circumcision of any person save for pressing medical need.. it has nothing to do with religion, race or anything else.. and Jim, it has bugger all to do with American foreign policy... few take decisions on their children's future on that basis... what it has to do with is the right of the individual to decide for whatever reason what happens to his body when he is old enough and informed enough so to do.. it is one thing to guide and advise..it is quite another to take a decision out of the hands of the person concerned with no recourse to appeal...
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.
How in the heck can you say that the issue of circumcision is a RACIAL one? I don't understand, YES a LAW limiting personal freedom is of questionable merit..but racist? Are you saying that only WHITE people circumcise their children..?
Of course your point of view of whose personal freedom is limited depends on the beholder. It either limits the rights of the child by not having the law, or it limits the rights of the parents by protecting the infant. Here in the US parents have the responsibility to act as the child's legal guardian and also take on the financial and personal obligation of supposedly protecting the best interests of the child.
Let's see if I can ingest this degrading self-hypnosis.....Quote:
Originally Posted by biguy71
Nope, my mind cannot tolerate this poor cooking. Back to the chef and have him shot.
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
So much for not harmful.
On top of that it's done without anesthetic, the child is screaming and goes into shock! A kind that oft times leads to death days later, and is chalked up as IMS. Look, we get it, you're fine with your circumcision. We're not. I stood up against Female Genital Mutilation, and in boys, VASTLY more pervasive int he world, I have to stand against it too. It's been pushed into Africa recently as a chance to reduce AIDS, which it is not and demonstrably has been shown to not be. All in the name of getting the raw material for Oprah's goddam favorite wrinkle cream. Yes, folks...women's wrinkle cream that Oprah gave away needs MORE raw materials.
My boys are not on the market for this, and I stand in FULL agreement with ANYONE who wants to abolish this.
Using religion as an excuse to mutilate ANYONE is simply wicked, inexcusable, and seeking the solace to continue your voodoo, witch-doctor, mumbo jumbo in a poor innocent.
If you want them sliced,let them reach the age of maturity and if they say,"Fuck you!" it's done. Religion is not an excuse to persecute us in the GLBT community, therefore it cannot be a reason to mutilate children, kill men or put women in a a position where she cannot get healthcare or ownership of their own reproductive rights. As an MRA, I stand for all rights that do not impinge on others...and by GOD, slicing children is impinging on a baby's rights to grow up unscarred!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBorthwick
Belongs in the same primitive context of infant baptism.
The issue is racist if you look at the history of the issue. I'm far less interested in the personal freedom part than the racism issue. I'm extremely understanding of the belief that its mutilation and that's not the problem. The problem goes back to the anti-Hellenic revolt over 2000 years ago: Greeks, after invading the Persian Empire, had a nasty problem of quelling revolts in Judea. Their solution? Ban Jewish slaughter, ban circumcision.
As a result of this, moderate Jews (such as myself [I'm an atheist, but I'm culturally highly influenced by Judaism]) ended up being enemy number one due to the fact we were willing to go along with the Greek movement. Worse, it set Judaism backwards in many ways-to this day, it is discussed and its hard for me to eat pork in my own house.
There are countless examples of this whole argument littered throughout history, and they all end the same way. Revolt, war, expulsion. Not just of Jews, but of Muslims too. And then you have the counter-revolutionaries amongst the Muslims historically, where they'd kidnap Christians and circumcise them and turn them into soldiers. That's by no means better. One needs to look at examples of banning circumcision like the Spanish Inquisition and expulsion. Of course, the final result of this militant Christiandom was a severe depopulation of Spain and the destruction of the economy. And the Jews mostly fled Russia (where most of them as adults got circumcisions since it was now available).
So when I say racist, I mean it in this way: 1. Your religion doesn't matter. 2. Only insane people practice your religion. 3. Only members of this minority race practice it 4. The minority race is insane.
Its the concept of Life unworthy life and all that other jazz. A blanket ban on circumcision isn't just a ban on personal liberty-anyone familiar with the religions know that its an outright ban on religion. To ask someone to circumcise themselves when they have less capacity to regenerate and nearly no capacity to not be effected by it is absurd. But that's effectively what people are doing. They're saying that any member of this minority-in this particular instance, Muslim, has no capacity to raise children humanely.
And that's racism.
It requires understanding the point of view of a religious minority. Mind you you might be in one. In America, most people don't really study racism along those lines. But again, I make this case.
European Socialists (not social democrats) are almost always:
1. Atheists
2. Anti-Religious
3. Anti-Israel (Israel and Zionists as racists)
4. Anti-Halal and Kosher slaughter
5. Highly critical of Muslim countries when Israel isn't involved (Muslim treatment of women in particular but also Shiara law without any sort of understanding of it)
I have never found an activist from Europe who was a (non-democratic) socialist who believed that there was any value in halal meat, and there are of course lawsuits in Europe all the time trying to get halal meat kicked out of places for being cruel to animals (going out and shooting an animal in socialist paradises like Sweden, however, defend the culture AND control the population). As an outsider, these things appear highly racist. Although again I'm an atheist, in my view, I would have more freedom with Christian fundamentalists than this brand of atheism, which severely limits my choice.
Now of course, there are many reasons to be against circumcision. Perhaps you don't like to see babies cry (by this standard, giving birth might be considered cruelty, but that's not a point). Perhaps you don't like to watch an operation. Perhaps you really are concerned about the welfare of children beyond the fact you don't think parents have a right to raise them with the religion of the choice of the parent. When you support a ban in such shrill language without understanding how it is that there are so few Jews or Muslims in Europe until recent Muslim immigrations, your lack of sensitivity to the history of your own country in relationship with the country of the immigrants is frightening. Bans aren't the answer. Removing the reason for the circumcision is. One also has to look at America in this paradigm which might explain the "conservatism" of this country: We absorbed millions of Europeans fleeing what their governments were doing. A hostile attitude towards Christianity? You can still be Christian in America. Pogroms? Jews were allowed to be Jewish without Pogroms in America. Circumcision? Can do that too. Unlike Europe, you can get citizenship which was pretty much enshrined in our constitution and be a member of the society. Its not just a Christian-Jewish issue. Whatever happened to all those Muslims that lived in Poland before World War Two? Oh, if you don't know about them, that's ok.
Its not that Europe is going to even go on a genocidal quest again. That was an extreme minority with an extremely apathetic majority who seemed to not understand that people could do that sort of thing. However, this stirs up really bad memories to other people. Its even scarier when you consider the social reforms in Europe of the 1920s and contrast them to the social reforms of the 1930s. Progress and liberalism can turn on a dime, and people can be highly sensitive to these sort of things. At best, its extreme cultural insensitivity to do this in such a way.
It should be of note that on the far right and racism argument, outside of the US, whites are almost never circumcised. That alone makes the issue very prone to racist rhetoric, even if people don't notice, on both sides. I'm certainly guilty of it when I think that white people really should be lecturing us on how civilized we are. But aside from Jews, if you look who circumcises, almost no one who does is considered European. And if you look up the nature of the term anti-Semitism, it defines the Jews as inherently not Europeans (that's the point: Semitism versus Aryanism).
That fact people can't understand also how this whole debate over minarets, slaughter, circumcision and dictatorships/Israel smells of racism to some people (it smells of vicious Islamophobia, and European white people tend not to be Muslim unless Iranian)...that's a major, major issue.
Also, excepting the Danish People's Party and the British National Party, its not clear to me what the difference on these issues between the Socialists Activists and the neo-Nazis are (and only those parties because they're hardcore supporters of Israel because they have the racist attitude that Israel is great for killing Muslims). Have you read their rhetoric? Its the exact same. To a minority, could it seem like Nazis have inserted this stuff into the mainstream? I would say...absolutely. Something else to strongly consider. I don't see anything wrong with Mosques being built in Switzerland. If someone's really for peace, justice and equality, why should socialists vote for it (and many did)?
I would say, if liberty really mattered and the issue wasn't racist, people would be absolutely screaming about Belarus, and would be demonstrating against Russia setting the clock backwards. But it seems that no one really cares about that little North Korea in the heart of Europe, and people don't want to complain that the presidential term is now six years as opposed to four in Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by elian
I'd classify it considerably more deeply disturbing than a well meaning blessing, personally. No one gets hurt with a dash of water and some prayers. This is surgery without anesthetic we're talking about....mutilation without consent or with deep coercion.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepperjack
Honestly, two people walking toward your baby.... one with a bottle of spring water and the other a scalpel, I'm mugging the guy with the knife and watching Mr H2O.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBorthwick
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
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...
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
..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...
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?
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.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
Stop right there and find me these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MelissaPDX
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
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...
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.
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
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?
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. :rolleyes: 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimdawg
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
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.
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?”
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...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
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.