Religious Circumcision

[darkeyes]

I have laid a complaint with drew....tenni... you had no right to start a new thread in the main forum, with that post and using my name, as I have no intention of posting in your thread and you had no right to try and dictate who can post what in the forum

Honestly.. u are so touchy and the complaint so childish... Tenni has every right even although it isn't something I would choose to do. You can argue that he lacked manners in not asking or informing you of his intention, but when push comes to shove, no one has the right to stop a person quoting anything once in the public domain. Many people quote a post from another person out of one thread and into another on this site and have done since its earliest days,, and many newspaper and magazine articles are inspired by a quote from another person... and the quote is there bold as brass leading the article... and it is not unknown in books either... it is a common thing in both fiction and non-fiction literature and an even more common occurrence in the written media... not least the political written media..

I don't remember a thread being started in this way but it is tenni's post quoting ur post to begin a thread.. once a person has posted it is no longer her or his property and others may use it till their heart is content..

[Long Duck Dong]

yeah I asked drew to delete the thread so that way tenni could repost it without using my words, I just have no interest in using the thread he created for me and others to post in as he doesn't want us discussing something in this thread.... and in fact I am not interested in debating FGM, its tenni that is going on about that.... so he can go post his thread without dragging me into it

now if you read that I posted... I was not drawing attention to FGM, i was drawing attention to the way that people interpret it in the same way that people view circumcision.... as circumcision is being portrayed as a cultural / religious aspect... but there is a medical and body modding aspect to circumcision, so there is more to it than is being looked at.....

we do use the understanding that right of choice is something that belongs to each person, and I respect your stance that children have the right of choice... however you step to one side to justify subjecting a child to surgery.... and fran... pain and suffering is still pain and suffering, no matter what way a person wants to justify their actions.... and using the term * its to improve their health and wellbeing * only works if it does improve it, but for many children, it merely prolongs their suffering......

as the lady in the article says, what she saw and experienced, doesn't match what she was told it was like..... and that is much like in the ways of circumcision.... and yes there are horror stories galore, but there are stories of people that have not seen the traumatic experiences or experienced them and all too often their opinions and experiences are being dismissed as irrelevant..... we have even had some adult males in this site, post about their adult male circumcisions and were told to basically fuck off, by people that were anti circumcision advocates......

my reason for posting the article ??? to show that even the UN can not oppose something without strong emotionally charged wording, that others find to be offensive and insulting.... yet in this thread, it would be the female that would be told she is too sensitive.....

honestly, i am not sure that there is ever going to be a compromise as the debate against circumcision rests on the basis of strong, emotionally charged wording and the dismissing of peoples personal experiences that are not full of strong, emotional energy... but a simple and quiet peace.....

[darkeyes]

I do think u r touchy... ur post and its link does ask some very pertinent questions and really I have no idea why u object to tenni using it.. I am not criticising u in any way because of what u posted please understand that, but we all use our own words as best we can but sometimes there is a form of words already in existence which suits our purpose and is convenient. The link u gave was your way and the quotation from it; quoting u is tenni's. Tenni is partly right that as such it has no direct bearing on this thread but there is a crossover which is important. I do think it best for the issue to be given its own thread because it is a completely different issue and so the new thread should be discussed as a stand alone thread... how the OP on the new thread raised the issue is unimportant.. that it has been is....

[tenni]

Post 186

32 words from LDD
264 words from the article. (not including the link)

Just who/what is being quoted in the new thread?

LDD or the article?

Once again, LDD turns a thread not about LDD to be about the "victim" LDD.

That is one interesting "skill".

[Long Duck Dong]

I do think u r touchy... ur post and its link does ask some very pertinent questions and really I have no idea why u object to tenni using it.. I am not criticising u in any way because of what u posted please understand that, but we all use our own words as best we can but sometimes there is a form of words already in existence which suits our purpose and is convenient. The link u gave was your way and the quotation from it; quoting u is tenni's. Tenni is partly right that as such it has no direct bearing on this thread but there is a crossover which is important. I do think it best for the issue to be given its own thread because it is a completely different issue and so the new thread should be discussed as a stand alone thread... how the OP on the new thread raised the issue is unimportant.. that it has been is....

exactly, my post does ask some very pertinent questions...i have no interest in discussing the article outside of this thread as I am only interested in the ethical dilemma and conflict of interest aspects and asking the questions I did.... so the other thread and anything associated with that thread, has nothing to do with me as its about FGM and tenni's delibrate actions in adding my intials to the op then referring to me again in his second post in his thread Interestingly, the person who originally posted the above is not interested in the topic. This topic is as uncomfortable to explore as male circumcision.

if you wonder why I am so touchy as you put it... maybe now you can see why.....

Post 186

32 words from LDD
264 words from the article. (not including the link)

Just who/what is being quoted in the new thread?

LDD or the article?

Once again, LDD turns a thread not about LDD to be about the "victim" LDD.

That is one interesting "skill".

[tenni]

“my post does ask some very pertinent questions”
What are these questions as they relate to the thread topic of religious male circumcision?
(I read no question in the 32 words posted by LDD in post 186. I read a question in the article that relates to females but not religious male circumcision. The article does not link female procedures to religious male circumcision. There is no reference to religious male circumcision in the article at all. The question in the article is not pertinent to this thread but is important and deserving of its own thread)


“only interested in the ethical dilemma and conflict of interest aspects “
What is the ethical dilemma of the article as it relates to religious male circumcision?

What is the conflict of interest in the article as relating to religious male circumcision?
(I hope that you are aware of the meaning of "conflict of interest")

Please articulate your thoughts clearer if not in the first place, communicate clearer now.

[chicagom]

nutme is backkkkkkkkk!!!!!!

[darkeyes]

is that who it is, Chica? Thought I recognised the style.. Still constructive I see.

[chicagom]

Just trying to be helpful

[Brian]

Just trying to be helpful

- Drew

[ExSailor]

When you write "pre empted by state law", I got the impression that circumcision is legal but was there actually a state law before what Gov Brown did about circumcision?

Jerry Brown is a total closet queen and is a gay man. This has been known about him for decades yet that coward still stays deeply closeted and even married a woman when everyone knows he's gay.

Pul-eeze, as they say- everyone knows circumcision would be as noncontroversial as pierced ears but for the fact that it is associated in Western cultures with Jews, and in Europe in recent years, Moslems.

Actually Jamie there are Jews and Moslems who are against circumcision and refuse to mutilate their son or daughter's genitals in the name of a barbaric and non-consensual outdated silly religious tradition. Mutilating a child or infant's genitals is NOT the same as someone getting their ears pierced. Researchers found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys. One reason: Circumcised penises can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to non-snipped members, according to a study published in the British Journal of Urology International. Circumcision, which is male genital mutilation, is neural and vascular damage to the penis. As circumcision has no standards, the damage varies wildly from individual to individual. This is clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis. They vary in depth and location, being anywhere from the base to the glans. Most of the time, the loss of sensitivity is 75%, but it can be much more, depending on the specific damage. "Adults who undergo circumcision report less-satisfying sex, reduced sensitivity and erectile function, difficulty with intromission and increased premature ejaculation." ---------from Nature Clinical Practice Urology 20 January 2009

P.S. I would love to see a poll on what type of penis people prefer. Cut or uncut. I am voting that the good majority will say cut.

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax. A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright. The majority of the men in the world are intact with a foreskin and have no issues with having a foreskin.

[tenni]

"Jerry Brown is a total closet queen and is a gay man."

Really? How would any one know that unless they are in there giving blow jobs to Mr. Brown? As a bisexual activist rather than a gay activist why is it anyone's business? In a free non bigoted world freedom of sexual preference/disclosure would be respected in a politician.

I suspect that anyone who uses the term "closet queen" as a pejorative frequently seems to me that they are really a gay troll or at the least a person immersed in old gay politics? Troll like in the sense that most of their posts offer little intelligent thought and reflection on how bisexual activism differs from narrow minded gay queen catty chat. Trolls bring back controversial threads to still up merde. Demanding conformity to gay political activistism of the 70-90's. Adherence to gay political thought rather than bisexual political thought that permits much more promotion of freedom of choice as to whomever one choses to be sexual /romantic with regardless of their gender. Reading the threads here you find many promoting choice as to who we are sexual with. There is a philosophy of permissiveness and tolerance rather than slurring a person for their sexual lifestyle choice as to how they wish to live their lives.

Nope not much of a bisexual activist at all is the poster? I don't know Mr Brown's sexuality and a bisexual activist wouldn't care to slur him for his choices. Old 60's bitchy gay queens in their figurative semantic rainbow sequined drag queen uniforms might though. They haven't spent much time noticing that things are changing in the bisexual world. Bisexual activism is not the same as gay activism of the 70's. Promoting bisexual uniqueness from gay uniqueness would be more in line with a bisexual activist imo. Bisexual activists do not need to use gay language and politics.

It is all fine to decide and promote your view on circumcision but lets not be too bitter that Brown went against your wishes.

[darkeyes]

Jerry Brown is a total closet queen and is a gay man. This has been known about him for decades yet that coward still stays deeply closeted and even married a woman when everyone knows he's gay.

Everyone knows? Really? I didn't know, an' am not sure I do even now... but neither do I care.. and neither should u... pity u ruin a half decent post with a hysterical rant which has nowt do with the matter under discussion...

...an' as for Velorex... whether they say cut or uncut rather depends on the country in which u live... here it would be at least 80% uncut I would imagine being an overwhelmingly uncircumcised society... and the same would be found in most countries on the planet... so don't count on u being right... .com and the US are not very representative of the great mass of humanity... only a tidgy lil part of it...

[ExSailor]

Really? How would any one know that unless they are in there giving blow jobs to Mr. Brown? As a bisexual activist rather than a gay activist why is it anyone's business? In a free non bigoted world freedom of sexual preference/disclosure would be respected in a politician.

Everyone knows? Really? I didn't know, an' am not sure I do even now...

Both of you must not pay attention to politics or human nature at all. Many people both LGBT and hetero have known all about how Jerry Brown is a total closet queen for decades. His whole "relationship" with Linda Ronstadt and his current "wife" were and are just relationships for show, and now a marriage of convenience that many politicians get into when they are deeply closeted like Jerry Brown is and has been for decades. Closet queen is not an old "gay" term it's just a term for someone like Jerry Brown and other politicians and celebrities who everyone knows are gay, bisexual, or lesbian or hiding a major secret that they think is concealed but it's obvious to everyone but them. They should just admit it instead of being total cowards like they are. LGBT youth who have a lot more to risk than silly politicians and celbrities come out and the argument that politicians and famous people, as well as regular people have "privacy" is an illusion. Tenni I have done more for the bisexual "community" and bisexual people than you and darkeyes ever will, as neither of you are activists at all. Like it or not Tenni bisexual politics, language, and "culture" have been linked to the "gay" "community" and "gay" politics long before the term LGBT was invented or around.

[Mr. Suck]

Why would any woman or man be for male or female genital mutilation? People's genitals were not meant to be altered and just as female circumcision changes the function of the vagina male circumcision changes the function of the penis or how a penis actually should be. Most men and women worldwide have unmutilated genitals and have no issues at all with their genitals. Circumcision or male genital mutilation has been shown to reduce penis length and circumfrence, and a penis that is cut is a lot less sensitive than a penis that has a foreskin because a cut dick has a lot of nerve endings taken away without its owners consent. I have been with cut men who had penises that were dry and the heads were not smooth or fleshy like they are with men who are not cut. Circumcision of an infant or young boy is pointless and it's even more pointless for a silly religious or cultural reason, or a "health" reason since a man's penis is supposed to have a foreskin over it and not be cut.

[NMCowboys]

Pul-eeze, as they say- everyone knows circumcision would be as noncontroversial as pierced ears but for the fact that it is associated in Western cultures with Jews, and in Europe in recent years, Moslems.

Mutilating an infant or young girl or boy's genitals for religious reasons, let alone hygienic or cultural reasons is silly and pointless.

Circumcision or genital mutilation is not akin to piercing someone's ears, even if you want to pretend that it is. Pierced ears can heal up, while a mutilated penis stays mutilated after a circumcision and even a "foreskin restoration" will not make the hundreds of thousands of sensitive nerve endings and highly erogenous foreskin actually come back.

It's not Anti-Semetic, Anti-Jewish, or Anti-Islamic to be against circumcision. A person can still be Jewish or a follower of Islam yet not be for genital mutilation of infant boys. In many European countries there are lots of Jews who do not circumcise or mutilate the genitals of their infant boys.

An infant or very young child does not know the Torah, Talmud, or Koran from a phonebook. Plus it should be up to the owner of the penis or vagina and not some religious leader who likes to pretend they're a medical professional when really they're just a practitioner of involuntary genital mutilation.

I found this post and it has to be reposted here since it's chock full of facts about how circumcision is male genital mutilation, and how majorly mutilated and damaged a penis is after it has been cut.

Eventually circumcision or male genital mutilation will become a thing of the past since most men in the world have intact genitals and have zero issues at all with them, and most cultures around the world that do not circumcise their sons see it for what it is: genital mutilation.

Circumcision of a penis is genital mutilation and it detracts or takes away the natural astheticism of a penis the way it is supposed to be, and when it's done on an infant or young boy it's done without consent and just as bad as female circumcision.

Also there are health issues associated with circumcision such as how if a man is cut he is a lot more likely to have erectile dysfunction, not to mention how circumcision makes a man's penis dry, less sensitive, smaller in length and circumference, and a lot of nerve endings are removed. I guess the term I'd say that a cut penis is that it's lacking something major which is a completely whole foreskin.

I have seen some men who had half of their foreskin taken off and the rest left on but it begs the question why do anything to it at all in the first place? I feel bad for cut men since they have a penis that's far less sensitive than those of us who are in the majority and have a foreskin.

When I have been single I did not refuse men who were cut but I felt bad for them since they didn't have a choice and their genitals were mutilated. Men should make this decision on their own bodies themselves, not have it made for them when they're an infant.

I have met a lot of men who are cut who have told me how they are not happy with being cut and how they wished they'd been left intact instead of getting their foreskin literally ripped off which is what happens during a circumcision. Yes you can see the scar from genital mutilation on all circumcised men, and you can tell that the penis is not supposed to be that way. You do not have to be promiscuous, a "slut", or have had lots of male sexual partners in order to tell this.

Or as I once wrote before, "Having sex with a guy that's cut is like having sex with a woman who is missing her clitoral hood and who has mutilated labia" as both female and male circumcision are equally as barbaric and are both mutilating someone's genitals. A circumcision scar represents conformity, abuse, genital mutilation, and in some cases pointless religious dogma.

It's 2013 there's no need to mutilate anyone's genitals. Eventually the practice of mutilating a infant or boy's genitals will die off and become illegal, since worldwide most men are intact, have no issues with having an intact penis with a foreskin, and there are even Jews and Muslims who are not blinded by religious dogma who are against doing this to their sons.

I found this image and it shows just what exactly is lost and just how majorly desensitized a penis is when it's cut or mutilated during a circumcision. This is a graphic that shows how severely less sensitive a cut penis is compared to an intact penis. It also references a study.



This is an excellent article which has more reasons why genital mutilation of boys should be illegal and a thing of the past. http://www.theguardian.com/science/t...rt-of-comments

[jimdawg]

Mutilating an infant or young girl or boy's genitals for religious reasons, let alone hygienic or cultural reasons is silly and pointless.

Circumcision or genital mutilation is not akin to piercing someone's ears, even if you want to pretend that it is. Pierced ears can heal up, while a mutilated penis stays mutilated after a circumcision and even a "foreskin restoration" will not make the hundreds of thousands of sensitive nerve endings and highly erogenous foreskin actually come back.

It's not Anti-Semetic, Anti-Jewish, or Anti-Islamic to be against circumcision. A person can still be Jewish or a follower of Islam yet not be for genital mutilation of infant boys. In many European countries there are lots of Jews who do not circumcise or mutilate the genitals of their infant boys.

How is it not Anti-Semitic, Anti-Jewish or Anti-Islamic to try and uproot the religion by banning the views of male entry into religion? In many European countries, most of the Jews were simply killed. More fled out. Many refused to admit Judaism for fear that they would be killed.

Most of these posts are NOT REMOTELY DIFFERENT FROM VERY REAL HISTORICAL NAZI PROPAGANDA. Just because you say you're not anti-Semitic doesn't mean you're not anti-Semitic. Just because you say you're not anti-Islamic doesn't mean you're not anti-Islamic. I understand that most of you peddling the "BAN THIS RITE" idea don't think you're being racist or anti-religious. Trust me, I get that you think your intentions are good. But they're deeply misguided and ignorant of how these things have historically gone. Jews who do not get circumcisions choose not to. It isn't because of some ban. Jews who can't get circumcisions tend to flee the countries that ban it when they get the chance. I see no reason Muslims wouldn't react this way either. The side effect of this policy would be ethnic cleansing. Maybe you could argue that, because you don't support their removal from the land, you don't believe it is ethnic cleansing. It is still ethnic cleansing because at the end of the day, you'll be left with a land depopulated of a certain history-Islamic or Jewish-aside from of a handful who voluntarily or to get ahead socially left the flock. And that's the point: You're not giving people the option of leaving the flock on their own, you're giving them only the option to leave the flock or go to jail. And that...is wrong. On so many levels.

So great. Cosmetic surgery for children should be banned. Unless you like it. And that's not remotely anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic.

Are you joking?

I have posted real historical examples of when banning religious practices-right or wrong-backfires. It is amazing that white people seem to think they're the most civilized on the planet all the time. Last I checked, most people in the Americas weren't white in 1492. Not by modern definitions, anyway. Nor were they black. Somehow these non-white and non-blacks got depopulated severely. In the process, European civilization was spread; native languages are moribund. Native religions are dead. Many were banned for human sacrifice. That's a bit funny in the sense that, the Christians decided to sacrifice humans quite literally to their god so that he might end human sacrifice.

And now some of their descendents are coming around again telling all of us non-Christians that we're mutilated and evil. And our opinions are suddenly supposed to change, we're supposed to agree with all of you en masse, because, at least in terms of us Jews-yeah, we're white-we've never faced a genocide by people who have said that circumcision is mutilation and we're evil. And our practices for ritual slaughter were evil. And our morals and traditions were non-compatible and we would always be an anti-social element. And...lord...all those christians people who tolerate this? They're nothing but a bunch of Judaizers (Yeah, read your bible). They are sinners for going to the synagogue (in some spiritual degree). Yes, the world has come and gone and seen these arguments, and strangely, NOT ONE GENOCIDE HAS EVER OCCURRED.

Oh, but you're atheist, or at least not Christian? Guess what: Rosenberg and Himmler were Pagans. And Stalin-lord knows he wasn't remotely anti-Semitic, right?-Stalin was obviously not an atheist. And he didn't have a plan to deport and resettle all Jews to Siberia. That thing called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, you know, in one of those areas of Siberia that had no infrastructure to support that many people suddenly moving there? Yeah. That clearly was trustworthy. Yup. And Positive Christianity-which was supported by Hitler-was so obviously non-Christian that the only way anyone could embrace it was by coming off with no genuine religious belief (AKA: Atheism-inspired Nazi Christianity). And before I turn into a freakshow just talking about Christians, remember: Torquemata was born a Jew, and how many expulsions occurred during the Almohads, anyway?

Yeah. On that note: Are you joking?

The reality is most religious Christians have no want to ban circumcision in the modern world because 1. they're not opposed to it as much as opposed to those who want to ban it and 2. Despite the firebrand rhetoric that comes out of certain people, most Christians are peaceful and do not want to start a program of genocide, nor do they want to banish history. Want to end circumcision? Get people who support ritual circumcision to give up the practice. Because...like...we have so much reason to trust your arguments, even if they're correct, because we've obviously never heard them before.

You want to know why I'm so defensive about this? Because all the people who supported stuff like this are the reason I'm alive.

Why? Simple. All of you made my family's lives in Europe so miserable that we got up and left for America-though even that wasn't always voluntary. I know of one ancestor who was exiled.

And...because we had to leave for America, we didn't get killed in the Holocaust, by the people who were making the arguments back then.

Until you have that perspective, you will simply never understand the opinion of us uncivilized people that you're trying to civilize. And you will never win the argument without resorting to banning the religion and genocide. After all, what progressive in Europe would've believed what was going on in Europe until the camps were liberated without first being in the camps or getting a note from someone already in them? And by "the camps" I mean Soviet camps as well. I would rather die than live in a world where I was termed a mutilated pariah and treated as such until my death. And I know about millions more who feel the same. "Never Again" doesn't mean preventing industrialized death. It means so much more than that. If you think that the biggest sin of the holocaust was the death camps, you clearly don't understand the holocaust. The death camps were a side effect of the program, not the program itself.

And I think if a bunch of people went after you trying to snip your foreskin off and passing a foreskin ban, you'd suddenly figure out what this argument is really about for those who disagree with you; only if you can imagine such a society where having a foreskin made you a criminal would you understand a society that states that following a religious rite makes you a criminal.

[darkeyes]

How is it not Anti-Semitic, Anti-Jewish or Anti-Islamic to try and uproot the religion by banning the views of male entry into religion? In many European countries, most of the Jews were simply killed. More fled out. Many refused to admit Judaism for fear that they would be killed.

Most of these posts are NOT REMOTELY DIFFERENT FROM VERY REAL HISTORICAL NAZI PROPAGANDA. Just because you say you're not anti-Semitic doesn't mean you're not anti-Semitic. Just because you say you're not anti-Islamic doesn't mean you're not anti-Islamic. I understand that most of you peddling the "BAN THIS RITE" idea don't think you're being racist or anti-religious. Trust me, I get that you think your intentions are good. But they're deeply misguided and ignorant of how these things have historically gone. Jews who do not get circumcisions choose not to. It isn't because of some ban. Jews who can't get circumcisions tend to flee the countries that ban it when they get the chance. I see no reason Muslims wouldn't react this way either. The side effect of this policy would be ethnic cleansing. Maybe you could argue that, because you don't support their removal from the land, you don't believe it is ethnic cleansing. It is still ethnic cleansing because at the end of the day, you'll be left with a land depopulated of a certain history-Islamic or Jewish-aside from of a handful who voluntarily or to get ahead socially left the flock. And that's the point: You're not giving people the option of leaving the flock on their own, you're giving them only the option to leave the flock or go to jail. And that...is wrong. On so many levels.

So great. Cosmetic surgery for children should be banned. Unless you like it. And that's not remotely anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic.

Are you joking?

I have posted real historical examples of when banning religious practices-right or wrong-backfires. It is amazing that white people seem to think they're the most civilized on the planet all the time. Last I checked, most people in the Americas weren't white in 1492. Not by modern definitions, anyway. Nor were they black. Somehow these non-white and non-blacks got depopulated severely. In the process, European civilization was spread; native languages are moribund. Native religions are dead. Many were banned for human sacrifice. That's a bit funny in the sense that, the Christians decided to sacrifice humans quite literally to their god so that he might end human sacrifice.

And now some of their descendents are coming around again telling all of us non-Christians that we're mutilated and evil. And our opinions are suddenly supposed to change, we're supposed to agree with all of you en masse, because, at least in terms of us Jews-yeah, we're white-we've never faced a genocide by people who have said that circumcision is mutilation and we're evil. And our practices for ritual slaughter were evil. And our morals and traditions were non-compatible and we would always be an anti-social element. And...lord...all those christians people who tolerate this? They're nothing but a bunch of Judaizers (Yeah, read your bible). They are sinners for going to the synagogue (in some spiritual degree). Yes, the world has come and gone and seen these arguments, and strangely, NOT ONE GENOCIDE HAS EVER OCCURRED.

Oh, but you're atheist, or at least not Christian? Guess what: Rosenberg and Himmler were Pagans. And Stalin-lord knows he wasn't remotely anti-Semitic, right?-Stalin was obviously not an atheist. And he didn't have a plan to deport and resettle all Jews to Siberia. That thing called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, you know, in one of those areas of Siberia that had no infrastructure to support that many people suddenly moving there? Yeah. That clearly was trustworthy. Yup. And Positive Christianity-which was supported by Hitler-was so obviously non-Christian that the only way anyone could embrace it was by coming off with no genuine religious belief (AKA: Atheism-inspired Nazi Christianity). And before I turn into a freakshow just talking about Christians, remember: Torquemata was born a Jew, and how many expulsions occurred during the Almohads, anyway?

Yeah. On that note: Are you joking?

The reality is most religious Christians have no want to ban circumcision in the modern world because 1. they're not opposed to it as much as opposed to those who want to ban it and 2. Despite the firebrand rhetoric that comes out of certain people, most Christians are peaceful and do not want to start a program of genocide, nor do they want to banish history. Want to end circumcision? Get people who support ritual circumcision to give up the practice. Because...like...we have so much reason to trust your arguments, even if they're correct, because we've obviously never heard them before.

You want to know why I'm so defensive about this? Because all the people who supported stuff like this are the reason I'm alive.

Why? Simple. All of you made my family's lives in Europe so miserable that we got up and left for America-though even that wasn't always voluntary. I know of one ancestor who was exiled.

And...because we had to leave for America, we didn't get killed in the Holocaust, by the people who were making the arguments back then.

Until you have that perspective, you will simply never understand the opinion of us uncivilized people that you're trying to civilize. And you will never win the argument without resorting to banning the religion and genocide. After all, what progressive in Europe would've believed what was going on in Europe until the camps were liberated without first being in the camps or getting a note from someone already in them? And by "the camps" I mean Soviet camps as well. I would rather die than live in a world where I was termed a mutilated pariah and treated as such until my death. And I know about millions more who feel the same. "Never Again" doesn't mean preventing industrialized death. It means so much more than that. If you think that the biggest sin of the holocaust was the death camps, you clearly don't understand the holocaust. The death camps were a side effect of the program, not the program itself.

And I think if a bunch of people went after you trying to snip your foreskin off and passing a foreskin ban, you'd suddenly figure out what this argument is really about for those who disagree with you; only if you can imagine such a society where having a foreskin made you a criminal would you understand a society that states that following a religious rite makes you a criminal.

All this tosh tells us is that our ancestors were anti Christian for stopping witch burning and whichever denomination of Christianity for abolishing burning of heretics... of course many were these things but mostly it was Christians who stopped these things from happening., not heretics, witches, agnostics or atheists.. equally we have no right to stop the persecution of gays and bisexuals because it is anti islamic or jewish or Christian... are u honestly telling us that religion is unchangeable and that no one has any right to oppose religious belief? Is it so fucking perfect that it must stay the same ad infinitum? Good God...

..and I have never tried to say that male circumcision should be stopped.. I am saying it should not be carried out on anyone without their express informed consent when they are sufficiently mature to be able to rationalise it and decide for himself except for pressing medical need..... a different thing.. but of course for that I and people who think like me are anti Semitic which is also tosh...

[rabbit16]

Going through this same issue in my family now. Just had a son a few days ago. My father is furious that we aren't doing circumcision. Not because of religion but because of all the issues he WILL have according to him. He has now involved everyone in our extended families rather then have an adult conversation with us about it. Either way-we are not giving in unless out son WANTS or NEEDS it done. Until that time. This has nothing to do with religion (yes we are religious though). I believe a person should need or want it done. Not just have it done to them. I won't do this to my daughters nor my son. I won't pierce anyones ears either until THEY want it done.

[darkeyes]

Going through this same issue in my family now. Just had a son a few days ago. My father is furious that we aren't doing circumcision. Not because of religion but because of all the issues he WILL have according to him. He has now involved everyone in our extended families rather then have an adult conversation with us about it. Either way-we are not giving in unless out son WANTS or NEEDS it done. Until that time. This has nothing to do with religion (yes we are religious though). I believe a person should need or want it done. Not just have it done to them. I won't do this to my daughters nor my son. I won't pierce anyones ears either until THEY want it done.

u r luffly...

[jimdawg]

I'm saying banning a religion will result in genocide. Which is what you're doing. You're not talking about censoring a religion, you're talking about preventing its currently understood practice from EVER being done.

That said, there are numerous parts of the bible that almost no one takes seriously anymore. Why? It wasn't some stupid ban posed by a bunch of chauvinistic pseudo-progressives who say "We're progressive, so we can't be chauvinistic." There is a radical difference between saying something stupid and actually harming, say, gays and bisexuals; and most of society-even the anti-gay types-know injustice when they actually see it and can put themselves in others shoes. But even that is a false argument. Have you ever hung out in an American inner city or a European city-suburb and heard all the anti-gay bullshit that goes on? And have you ever thought how much was religiously inspired? Or does that not even compute as it doesn't fit into your world view? No?

How can you possibly understand this argument from a standpoint of not always supporting your own political point of view when you can't put yourself in the opposition's shoes? That's what I don't get. I have nothing wrong with rabbit not getting their son circumcised and I think he's right to stand up to his father and he has a very different point of view than the rest of you. That's a matter of freedom. It is a statement of breaking with the norm of society, and actually putting yourself in the shoes of the minority. Something a lot of the rabid anti-circumcision folk, in particular in Europe, can't ever understand. He has educated himself and decided the procedure is a bad choice. He will give up this tradition without resorting to hostility, and it won't end up with people feeling persecuted because they're less civilized than everyone else.

And you aren't saying circumcision should be stopped, you're saying a religious rite, necessary to the modern interpretation, should be banned without a shift in evolution, and clearly ignoring the concept across monotheism of Martyrdom.

What I'm saying is you're to a minority the descendant of those who burnt Christians, absolutely, while burning Jews in Judea. That you're the descendent of those who wiped out entire civilizations and overt genocides. It isn't a matter of white guilt as YOU didn't do it or even if you're not really a descendant either. However, you can understand why WE, having heard YOUR arguments before from others, are DEEPLY DISTURBED by it. You might be more liberal...honestly...you might really be. But in terms of shrill and tone...it sounds no different than National Socialist arguments. Or Communist arguments. And since you look like someone from those areas who supported this before...can't you understand why us minorities are so hostile to you getting involved? Us Jews have faced enormous persecution from non-Democratic Socialists in the 20th century. Why should us Jews believe them now?

[NMCowboys]

There are Jews and Muslim people who refuse to mutilate the genitals of their sons. Their children are still Jewish or Muslim except they don't have their penis mutilated. Getting your penis mutilated in Judaism or Islam is not necessary to practicing either of those religions at all.

A Jewish or Muslim person who forces their son into getting involuntary genital mutilation done on his penis is against their son's rights and free will as a human being.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-...65424110207450

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

https://www.facebook.com/muslimsagainstcirc

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconcep...cumcision.html

http://therealsingapore.com/content/...t-circumcision

http://www.beyondthebris.com/

Even in Israel not all Jews there are for male genital mutilation of their infant sons.

The whole practice of male genital mutilation or circumcision is barbaric, and a silly stone age outdated silly custom of genital mutilation that is best left in the past since it's pointless, and not needed if someone really wants to practice Judaism or Islam as a religion of their choice.

Getting rid of male genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam is not banning those religions, calling for genocide, or telling people they can't practice or believe in those religions if they want to.

[jimdawg]

There are Jews and Muslim people who refuse to mutilate the genitals of their sons. Their children are still Jewish or Muslim except they don't have their penis mutilated. Getting your penis mutilated in Judaism or Islam is not necessary to practicing either of those religions at all.

A Jewish or Muslim person who forces their son into getting involuntary genital mutilation done on his penis is against their son's rights and free will as a human being.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-...65424110207450

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

https://www.facebook.com/muslimsagainstcirc

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconcep...cumcision.html

http://therealsingapore.com/content/...t-circumcision

http://www.beyondthebris.com/

Even in Israel not all Jews there are for male genital mutilation of their infant sons.

The whole practice of male genital mutilation or circumcision is barbaric, and a silly stone age outdated silly custom of genital mutilation that is best left in the past since it's pointless, and not needed if someone really wants to practice Judaism or Islam as a religion of their choice.

Getting rid of male genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam is not banning those religions, calling for genocide, or telling people they can't practice or believe in those religions if they want to.

And there were Jews that fought for the Nazis...what's your point?

The fact you refuse to call it by its proper name and call it the loaded "mutilation" demonstrates that you have no interest in trying to rationalize the practice away. You're actively demonizing Jews and Muslims, and thus, you are indeed calling for ethnic cleansing.

The fact you can't see this is why sane people will disagree with you, and if a majority of people do agree with you, it'll only be in a state of genocide.

[NMCowboys]

And there were Jews that fought for the Nazis...what's your point?

The fact you refuse to call it by its proper name and call it the loaded "mutilation" demonstrates that you have no interest in trying to rationalize the practice away. You're actively demonizing Jews and Muslims, and thus, you are indeed calling for ethnic cleansing.

The fact you can't see this is why sane people will disagree with you, and if a majority of people do agree with you, it'll only be in a state of genocide.

Where did I write anything about saying that genocide of any type is OK, should be done, or permissible?

Secondly I am not demonizing Jews or Muslims. You fail to realize that there are Jews and Muslims who do not mutilate the genitals of their infant or young sons and this does not make them akin to "Nazis" or not devout Jews or Muslims except in your opinion.

Circumcision of an infant or young boy is mutilation of his genitals.

Infants and young boys have no choice in the matter and they're having their genitals mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon/doctor, or by the choice of their parents.

Men should have the right to choose circumcision as adults if they want it-or they can get a full castration if they want that when they are an adult and it's their chioce-, not have the choice of having their genitals mutilated forced upon them. Infant circumcision without consent or immediate medical justification is an unjustified violation of basic human rights, that shares more in common with ancient coming-of-age rituals than responsible or necessary medical practice.

Imagine waking up tomorrow morning to find yourself tied to your bed and rendered mute, your naked genitals exposed to the harsh glare of hospital lights. Your parents have decided that some skin should be hacked from your penis; perhaps so you can be forced into their religion, perhaps because they don't trust you to clean yourself in the shower, or perhaps simply because they think your penis should look more like your father's.

If you don't like the thought of this happening to you, if this offends your belief in self-determination or the rights you have over what happens to your body, then how can you justify this practice being inflicted on infants and young boys?

Deliberately inflicting injury and mutilation on a baby or young boy's genitals in order to enforce their conformity with a religion, or to satisfy their parents' views on what a penis should look like, is a sick act. It has no place in a modern society. Infant circumcision - regardless of gender - should be stopped and outlawed.

Based on your arguments you probably believe that female circumcision-which is just as bad as male circumcision is-is permissible since it's practiced by Muslims, and certain African people and cultures who have experienced genocide practice it, so it's OK and not really genital mutilation.

[jimdawg]

Based on my arguments, a hard ban on female circumcision is stupid and produces responses from women such as "We don't see the problem" which is common in areas where it is practiced, actually.

You're assuming my thinking your argument is profoundly stupid means I'm pro-circumcision. No, I'm anti-bigotry, as if you and people like you need to civilize the rest of the world to follow your view of the world.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding your parents thrown in jail because they decided to raise you in the manner of their parents and their parents parents. Rendered mute, your genitals not exposed, but being thrown into a foster home, from breast milk to formula. Perhaps this is to cruel, and you might decide to have a fourth trimester abortion-the parents are unworthy of parenthood, and perhaps the life unworthy of life, perhaps so you can be forced to practice the mandated religion of society, in this case, atheism or Christianity, or perhaps because they don't trust your parents to clean you in the shower when you're younger, or perhaps because they think you shouldn't resemble your father.

I can hit the emotional argument too that has almost NO RELEVANCE ON REALITY. Here's a newsflash: Babies are scared creatures. They're scarred of a lot. They'll cry in the arms of their parents from this fear. Deliberately inflicting mental injury and mental mutilation on a baby or young boy by removing them from their parents in order to enforce YOUR conformity to what you think a body should be is a truly sick act-and throwing people in prison for this has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY. Infant circumcision should be outlawed? Newsflash: You're outlawing all modern mainstream (ie: Non-extremist) views of religion in order for your "tokens" of "Good Jews" and "Good Muslims" and on this ground I would recommend reading the Pozen speech (ie: Every German knows a "good Jew" which is why we must conduct genocide in secret). I'm sure you have your lists of a lot of "good minorities" but guess what? We aren't here to please you. That's why I am comparing such Jews to Nazis. It isn't that Jews against circumcision are Nazis at all. It is that your bringing them up reminds me of David Duke bringing up Israel Shahak as both evidence that he is right and as a foil to say he isn't an anti-Semite. And the Germans could've said they weren't so anti-Semitic if they so desired in the war, the same way you're saying you're not demonizing people, by bringing up people who worked for them in authority, like Emil Maurice, or Ehrard Milch, or Bernhard Rogge. Your argument is essentially an "I'm not racist. I have some black friends" argument.

And again, last I checked, circumcision in Europe was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF GENOCIDE and female circumcision in good parts of the world was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF COLONIALIZATION AND GENOCIDE. It isn't approval of the religious practice. IT IS A DISAPPROVAL OF YOUR METHODS. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME TERMS PROPAGANDA AS NAZIS DID IN THE 1930S. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME PROPAGANDA AS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TO ANY OF US WHO AREN'T OF WHITE CHRISTIAN EXTRACTION. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. AND YOUR SHRILLNESS AND SAYING WE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED-WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE WILL HEAR THIS AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY "IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME" DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE. OUTLAWING CIRCUMCISION IS OUTLAWING JUDAISM AS IT IS PRESENTLY UNDERSTOOD. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND PRESENT-DAY JUDAISM. PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH WHO DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION ARE GROWING AND CHOOSE SUCH LIFESTYLES AND THEY DON'T DO THIS BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM ABANDONING THIS PRACTICE.

And that isn't to say we don't like people of white Christian extraction. We just don't like people of white Christian extraction who want to mutilate our culture in order to save a bunch of babies from problems that haven't historically seemed to be such a big deal, when real problems exist like babies not receiving proper medical treatment or healthcare. You seem to prioritize preventing babies from being raised Muslim or Jewish over preventing them from dying of other health issues. But maybe you think you can cure the world of our Semitism but not of nature. If it was about hostility to people of a white-Christian background, the counter argument would be "It is savagely unethical to allow any babies to go uncircumcised! Let's force them to do it."

Notice the comments about choosing not to get a circumcision? Notice how I react as that's a good thing-a choice made? Yeah. You're trying to say I'm supporting circumcision because I somehow think it is a good practice while again conveniently side stepping the whole problem of your arguments not being new, not being novel, and historically being incredibly dangerous. The only reason I'd actually have a son of mine circumcised? First, I'm circumcised and I really don't think it is that big of a deal. Second, it is to show that people like you can not tell me what to do, and it is a right-familiar determination-that I will die for, and millions have died for, needlessly. I really don't care if I have a son and he isn't circumcised until I hear people like you talk on the topic.

[NMCowboys]

Based on my arguments, a hard ban on female circumcision is stupid and produces responses from women such as "We don't see the problem" which is common in areas where it is practiced, actually.

You're assuming my thinking your argument is profoundly stupid means I'm pro-circumcision. No, I'm anti-bigotry, as if you and people like you need to civilize the rest of the world to follow your view of the world.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding your parents thrown in jail because they decided to raise you in the manner of their parents and their parents parents. Rendered mute, your genitals not exposed, but being thrown into a foster home, from breast milk to formula. Perhaps this is to cruel, and you might decide to have a fourth trimester abortion-the parents are unworthy of parenthood, and perhaps the life unworthy of life, perhaps so you can be forced to practice the mandated religion of society, in this case, atheism or Christianity, or perhaps because they don't trust your parents to clean you in the shower when you're younger, or perhaps because they think you shouldn't resemble your father.

I can hit the emotional argument too that has almost NO RELEVANCE ON REALITY. Here's a newsflash: Babies are scared creatures. They're scarred of a lot. They'll cry in the arms of their parents from this fear. Deliberately inflicting mental injury and mental mutilation on a baby or young boy by removing them from their parents in order to enforce YOUR conformity to what you think a body should be is a truly sick act-and throwing people in prison for this has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY. Infant circumcision should be outlawed? Newsflash: You're outlawing all modern mainstream (ie: Non-extremist) views of religion in order for your "tokens" of "Good Jews" and "Good Muslims" and on this ground I would recommend reading the Pozen speech (ie: Every German knows a "good Jew" which is why we must conduct genocide in secret). I'm sure you have your lists of a lot of "good minorities" but guess what? We aren't here to please you. That's why I am comparing such Jews to Nazis. It isn't that Jews against circumcision are Nazis at all. It is that your bringing them up reminds me of David Duke bringing up Israel Shahak as both evidence that he is right and as a foil to say he isn't an anti-Semite. And the Germans could've said they weren't so anti-Semitic if they so desired in the war, the same way you're saying you're not demonizing people, by bringing up people who worked for them in authority, like Emil Maurice, or Ehrard Milch, or Bernhard Rogge. Your argument is essentially an "I'm not racist. I have some black friends" argument.

And again, last I checked, circumcision in Europe was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF GENOCIDE and female circumcision in good parts of the world was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF COLONIALIZATION AND GENOCIDE. It isn't approval of the religious practice. IT IS A DISAPPROVAL OF YOUR METHODS. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME TERMS PROPAGANDA AS NAZIS DID IN THE 1930S. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME PROPAGANDA AS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TO ANY OF US WHO AREN'T OF WHITE CHRISTIAN EXTRACTION. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. AND YOUR SHRILLNESS AND SAYING WE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED-WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE WILL HEAR THIS AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY "IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME" DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE. OUTLAWING CIRCUMCISION IS OUTLAWING JUDAISM AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND JUDAISM. PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH WHO DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION ARE GROWING AND CHOOSE SUCH LIFESTYLES AND THEY DON'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM ABANDONING THIS PRACTICE.

And that isn't to say we don't like people of white Christian extraction. We just don't like people of white Christian extraction who want to mutilate our culture in order to save a bunch of babies from problems that haven't historically seemed to be such a big deal, when real problems exist like babies not receiving proper medical treatment or healthcare. You seem to prioritize preventing babies from being raised Muslim or Jewish over preventing them from dying of other health issues. But maybe you think you can cure the world of our Semitism but not of nature. If it was about hostility to people of a white-Christian background, the counter argument would be "It is savagely unethical to allow any babies to go uncircumcised! Let's force them to do it."

Notice the comments about choosing not to get a circumcision? Notice how I react as that's a good thing-a choice made? Yeah. You're trying to say I'm supporting circumcision because I somehow think it is a good practice while again conveniently side stepping the whole problem of your arguments not being new, not being novel, and historically being incredibly dangerous.

Too long. Didn't read.

[jimdawg]

Too long. Didn't read.

Yet reposted? Because you didn't post a lot of stuff before? That's dubious. Methinks you'd rather just argue that people who circumcise should be outlawed and not give a damn about any of the rest of the opinions of us Lebensunwertes Leben because we just "don't get it" and are too inferior to get it...you know, PTSD from the circumcision and all.

Serious question...have you ever read any Nazi propaganda on much of anything?

[jimdawg]

honestly, i am not sure that there is ever going to be a compromise as the debate against circumcision rests on the basis of strong, emotionally charged wording and the dismissing of peoples personal experiences that are not full of strong, emotional energy... but a simple and quiet peace.....

There can be a compromise, I believe, when people realize that reason generally wins out and people seek out the best practices when they're allowed freely to make their own decisions. People in reality are animals, and animals will fight intruders onto their territory-even if that intruder is carrying medical equipment which the animal desperately needs...It is when people make false promises of the benefits of circumcision or shrill arguments about it being this really horrible thing (that most people who have had it for thousands of years haven't complained about) that the emotions flare up. I have noted several times I am a fierce defender of the right to practice circumcision, not because I think it is good, but because historically, bone headed attempts to root out the practice have always backfired, except in cases of overt ethnic cleansing. It is the fact people are so emotional that makes me consider getting my children circumcised-if it was left between me and my family (ie: my parents) I probably would elect to not get a circumsion, for then my parents would be the one encroaching on how I raise my children and again, I believe as a parent, I have much more room for discretion than my parents over my child, let alone my cousins, let alone my friends, let alone complete strangers, let alone people who I don't know saying that I'm screwed up myself that remind me of many things I've luckily only read about in books, or occasionally witnessed in person.

And by that standard, there is no moral equivalence. I'm not going to someone's house shrilly saying all babies should be cut. I'm saying, respect my boundaries, respect my opinions, and then we could have a real discussion regarding concerns over such a practice. I am only intruding if my existence is intrusive as I'm not telling people how they should raise their kids. I am only telling people that their language and actions is counterproductive. And I really believe it is because a bunch of Seleucid Greeks decided 2250 years ago to outlaw circumcision in Judea that I still can't eat pork around my family without an argument. So these things do have a lot of negative consequences that a lot of people don't want to ever think about. And I hate reacting with the "You're of white Christian heritage" reaction but in this case, there's no acknowledgement of why people might be uneasy hearing these exact same arguments from similar political groupings. Without such acknowledgement, we can't discuss sincerely how to limit, reverse and end a disagreeable practice beyond criminalizing the behavior, and thus, turning groups of people de facto into criminals. Or even expand an agreeable practice, if that's what the science so decides (I doubt it would decide that).

[NMCowboys]

Yet reposted? Because you didn't post a lot of stuff before? That's dubious. Methinks you'd rather just argue that people who circumcise should be outlawed and not give a damn about any of the rest of the opinions of us Lebensunwertes Leben because we just "don't get it" and are too inferior to get it...you know, PTSD from the circumcision and all.

Serious question...have you ever read any Nazi propaganda on much of anything?

I'm not falling for your pointless rants, professional victim mentality, or baiting.

[jimdawg]

I'm not falling for your pointless rants, professional victim mentality, or baiting.

My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.