It's About Time. Germany Rules Religious Circumcision on Boys is Assault

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by dorkfish87
Well then what about the small percent of kids born with gills or tails. Taking them off would be cruel by your standard.

? How so? What part of the bible states that we should do that? How is religious genital mutilation comparable to cosmetically altering a "tail"? I agree that the child has no say in the matter but the intent of the parent is to make the child "normal" and thus they have a more "normal" life.

CJ

Well, I don't mean to digress, but if I'd had a tail as a child, I'd have wanted to keep it. I like tails. I always look at my cats and dogs and think I wish I had a tail. I don't care if it was just a little piggy tail on the end of my back. I'd be like, OMG I got a tail! Who wants to be normal when they could have a tail? Tails are so cool. (to me, at least.)

reply to post by hadriana


Thanks for that input hadriana. I am circumcized and have never thought about it until a few years ago. I can't say anything regarding the "non-attraction" to an uncircumcized person as my ex left me for a man who isn't (as she happily let me know). I think that the issue is one of simple morals. If left to our own devices and we had no religious dictate to do it, we wouldn't. And I agree that the Muslim mutilation of girls is even worse. Both practices are ultimately weapons used against people to lessen the enjoyment of sex, a common theme in religion.

CJ

reply to post by Wertdagf


Have you asked them about why they did it?
They probably had what they thought at the time were your best interest in mind.
Was it indeed religious?

Is your resentment based on having the religion pushed on you, or is it really all just about the circumcision?

I'm so weird. If I were a guy, I'd want to be circumsized, but no matter what sex I was, if I had a tail, I'd want to keep it. I ain't right. lol

reply to post by hadriana


And to this I said I agreed, this is being done without the consent of the child. The difference is that on a worldly scale, few have tails. All have genitals. A tail is not your reproductive organ and can be a medical issue.

CJ

reply to post by Wertdagf


Yes indeed it should be Wertdagf. It is so ingrained, as many religious oddities are, in our everyday world that most think nothing of it. Why shouldn't you be able to be the person you were born?

CJ

I'm replying before some of those "they're unclean and unhealty" people show up. If that were true then Finland would be the land of stinky dicks. We dont do that here you see. I'm sure some of course do it but as a standard we're all natural. If it's a health issue, such as the foreskin being too tight then sure do it. Every child here has their foreskin inspected in their early teens to see that there isn't any medical reason for cutting it off. If I were a religious person I could go in and have it done now that I'm an adult and I have a free choice to about it.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

Dear ColoradoJens,

Thank you very much for your thorough and helpful post. Make me a mod so I can applaud. (By the way, does Blue Bomber Captain have anything to do with the Winnipeg football team?) I don't think I gave the religious aspect the emphasis you were looking for, thanks for reminding me.

There doesn't seem to be any outrage, frankly. It is accepted practice. It is an unquestioned (like so many other) religious belief. . . .And really, what value is there in mutilating someone's genitals? NONE.

I think the fact that it is a long standing religious practice is what makes people stand up and ask what business is it of the state's. And the value in it? Hardly none, since they believe it has huge value to their religion, culture and identity.

I stated in the OP this has to do with the religious practice of genital mutilation. If there are medical resasons why the operation should be done, then so be it. The fact is, it isn't a medical necessity in almost all cases.

Thank you, now I understand the emphasis on religion. If there's a medical reason for it, it's OK, but not for a religious reason. But I think (I don't know) that medicine says circumcised people avoid some future medical problems that the uncircumcised have to watch out for. So while it might not be an overwhelming medical reason, perhaps we could say that the benefits outweigh the temporary pain for the baby.

This next part is the paradox of religion. It is ONLY because of religion that we could ever imagine the brutal and sadistic practice of genital mutilation as being "normal". The state should tell anyone who is mutialting someone else it is wrong - because of simple decency.

The state says it is a brutal and sadistic mutilation, the parents say it isn't. There appears to be no permanent harm to the baby, so why does the state's interpretation win out over the parents'? Perhaps your point is that the parents' reason is based in religion and it is, therfore, inferior to the state's interpretation. If that is the premise we start with then the only objection Jews or anyone else who chooses circumcision has left is, "even if we are wrong, it is none of your business."

Of course you want to prevent pain in a baby and what does abortion have to do with any of this?

Oh, abortion? I thought that was much more painful than circumcision and definitely disfigured the baby for life, what there is left of it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by hadriana

 

Thanks for that input hadriana. I am circumcized and have never thought about it until a few years ago. I can't say anything regarding the "non-attraction" to an uncircumcized person as my ex left me for a man who isn't (as she happily let me know). I think that the issue is one of simple morals. If left to our own devices and we had no religious dictate to do it, we wouldn't. And I agree that the Muslim mutilation of girls is even worse. Both practices are ultimately weapons used against people to lessen the enjoyment of sex, a common theme in religion.

CJ

Sorry to be a nose poker into your conversation, but you know, I never really, and I do mean really thought about that last line in relation to circumcision, but I guess there must be an element of truth in there somewhere considering it was used in the Victorian era to prevent chronic masturbation.

I suppose from my uncircumcised perspective I just thought they amputated the end to make it as painful as possible for those they deemed chronic masturbaters in the short term, and I never thought on any kind of long term effects as the short term idea keeps circling in my mind making my eyes water.

However getting beyond my internal wincing I wonder if their intent was to remove pleasure in the long term.. If that is true, I find it desperately sad, and am not surprised this is a hard topic for some people to discuss.

reply to post by thoughtsfull

Please allow me to assure you that circumcised males experience a good deal of pleasure.

reply to post by PsykoOps


"Land of stinky dicks" lol. Thanks for mentioning it - clearly the reasons for it being a religious mandate have nothing to do with health, only their strange and twisted (God only knows) dictates. Happy health!

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Great topic here. I didn't have my son circumcised, wasn't happening. I don't feel that we should be chopping on little newborns or piercing their ears either, I've seen this too. Sad.

Let them come to age 13 and decide for themselves if they want it done. I'll bet it won't happen. Really no problems with my kiddo. I feel it's brutality against little ones who cannot defend themselves. Just because of something written over 2000 years ago. Please.

S&F ColoradoJens for an important topic.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Ok yeah, I get that - but I think the 'covenant with God' states you are to have your newborn males circumcised before they are 8 days old. or at 8 days old.

I hate it when I hear about when they screw the little boys up. I think they use machines to do it automatically or something. Somehow I don't think that was part of the God contract.

The problem I have is that contracts are supposed to be negotiable. 2 ways. Both parties agree. I'm just trying to think this through. I think God's contract was with Abraham. For some reason, in those days, God was really interested in his best men's boys. Ok, so like, when God told him, again, Abraham, that he had to go sacrifice his Issac, his son, an angel and a ram appeared and said, it was all just a test. here, kill this pure white animal instead.

So that covenant was all set up with Abraham. Just thinking, Mithra wouldn't have done it that way. The contact would have to be between the two involved parties. I guess we gotta wait on Jesus to come before we can negotiate a new one.

(Really the religious stuff makes NO sense to me. Well...actually it does, but it ain't right ( a lot less right even than me wanting a tail) and it's kinda scary.)

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

Please allow me to assure you that circumcised males experience a good deal of pleasure.

Appreciate the response I've never really thought about this topic until I got on the Internet as everyone I knew growing up was uncircumcised so there was never anything much to discuss..

reply to post by charles1952


Hi charles1952, thanks again for the civil discourse.

I think the fact that it is a long standing religious practice is what makes people stand up and ask what business is it of the state's. And the value in it? Hardly none, since they believe it has huge value to their religion, culture and identity.

I agree. Many religious people hold on to beliefs such as cutting up your penis because it is their religion and they don't want the state to interfere. They also can state with utmost certainty that this act of mutilation has huge value on their religion, culture and identity. This doesn't make it so. How, in any way, can mutilating a childs genitals have any value whatsoever? It doesn't. Unless one feels that mutilating someone makes them more of "my clan" than yours. A marker, a branding, so to speak. I would ask, without religion telling so many people to do this, would they? Someone who cuts a defensless childs' genitals and justifies it through their religion can thank their religion for morally corrupting them.

The state says it is a brutal and sadistic mutilation, the parents say it isn't. There appears to be no permanent harm to the baby, so why does the state's interpretation win out over the parents'? Perhaps your point is that the parents' reason is based in religion and it is, therfore, inferior to the state's interpretation. If that is the premise we start with then the only objection Jews or anyone else who chooses circumcision has left is, "even if we are wrong, it is none of your business."

So parents then agree it is simply mutilation? Isn't the mutilation of a baby (especially their genitals) brutal and sadistic? Again, if there was no religion to tell you it isn't, it would be. And I disagree regarding the permanent harm. You have taken part of their body and thrown it in the trash. I guess we could chop off hands at birth and they could still live their lives without medical complications from the procedure, but it would be permanent. And yes, in response to who is "right" the state most certainly has a duty to say - "DO whatever you want TO YOURSELF - only be at an age where you have learned the consequences of your actions - WE, as a society, will not allow you to do harm defensless children" Once you've reached an age of understanding, feel free to cut off all your body parts in the name of whomever.

Oh, abortion? I thought that was much more painful than circumcision and definitely disfigured the baby for life, what there is left of it.

I would imagine you are correct. However there is no correlation between the two as far as I can see. No where is there an "abortion" mandate.

CJ

It really bothers me that most of the pro-circumcision people here make it sound as if the court ruled that circumcision is okay in all cases except if it's done for religious reasons. The ruling effectively applies to reasons other than medical, not just religious ones. If this becomes a law (as it should), circumcising an infant because of the Old Testament will be just as illegal as doing it for kicks and giggles.

The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination."

Bullcrap. Absolut, utter, complete, painfully self-righteous bullcrap.
The fact that this guy even mentions the right to self-determination in a debate over religious circumcision of infants is proof of his hypocrisy. He wants religious communities to have self-determination?

Great, go ahead! Self-determine the hell out of these communities! Educate your children about your religion, and teach them about the holy books and the morals they offer. And then, when they are old enough to make an informed decision on the matter (which if I remember correctly is 14 in Germany, at least legally) give them the choice. Let them make a conscious and informed decision about a matter that will affect them for the rest of their life. What is so hard to understand about this?

I keep hearing "It's an attack on religious practices!" And you know what? Good.
Causing severe, permanent bodily harm to an infant in the name of superstitious or religious beliefs should be attacked relentlessly. Slicing off a part of a child's genitals because Yahweh demands it is no different from cutting off the last phalanx bone of a child's little finger to please the God of Phalanges.

And please don't even get me started on the whole "but it's purdy when it's circumcised!" stuff.

reply to post by charles1952


but is it the same? of course it would seem like a great deal if thats the best youve ever known
how can you be certain it doesnt effect sensitivity? did you have it done later in life as im sure many others have? what happens to your hands when they see a lifetime of work without gloves on? because the same can be said for your wang (think of it as a retractable little wang glove)

I think the religious will never see eye to eye on this issue and if people were smart they'd leave it alone and worry about bigger things.

Or maybe people are not so religious now and it will fly. In the past, as I've said, there were nearly wars fought over such things. Personally I don't think a foreskin on someone else's boy child is worth a war.

Maybe times have changed and it will be accepted. If it's not, I hope it's not sticking said wang into a hornet's nest.

I just sorta really like peace.

One day we will decide who babies belong to. All of us, collectively, or the parents.

reply to post by DaphneApollo

I feel it's brutality against little ones who cannot defend themselves.

Thanks Daphne Apollo. Your quote above sums it up nicely. And I agree, when you get to "The Age of Decisions" as the Jewish faith says, then you can decide for yourself. I know it is not accepted thought, but there really is something sinister about religious people demanding to chop up babies genitals. Again, sounds like something a satanist would push for.

CJ

reply to post by Whipfather

I keep hearing "It's an attack on religious practices!" And you know what? Good. Causing severe, permanent bodily harm to an infant in the name of superstitious or religious beliefs should be attacked relentlessly. Slicing off a part of a child's genitals because Yahweh demands it is no different from cutting off the last phalanx bone of a child's little finger to please the God of Phalanges

Here here! Again I claim that it is precisely BECUASE of religion that this immoral and indefensible practice occurs. Religion makes even the best people do things that are immoral. Without religion telling us to do it, would we? Any moral society would say no, in my opinion.

CJ

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by charles1952

 

but is it the same? of course it would seem like a great deal if thats the best youve ever known
how can you be certain it doesnt effect sensitivity? did you have it done later in life as im sure many others have? what happens to your hands when they see a lifetime of work without gloves on? because the same can be said for your wang (think of it as a retractable little wang glove)

edit on 27-6-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

Good point. The idea is that the foreskin is very sensative and makes sexual pleasure that much greater - I wouldn't know because I am circumcised - the same goes for clitoral mutliation for muslim girls - and again it all comes back to religion telling us we should somehow not enjoy the pleasure of sex.

CJ