It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 29
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by ColoradoJens

How can anyone think it is ok to do this to children, all in the name of God? The truth lies in the fact that religion HATES your sexuality and wants you to be both ashamed of it and to be scarred for life - that to lessen your sexual pleasure somehow makes you more closer to God's ideals.

What an ignorant thing to say.

I realize Germany has a lot wrong with it, but regarding this (and scientology) they have it right. Who are YOU to say I should have my genitals mutilated because your God demands it?

What in the hell are you talking about? The common practice of circumcision - for Christians at any rate - is not religious. It became a 'fad' of sorts but it is not mandated by Christian law, therefore, has nothing to do with any religious or metaphysical ideas.

I don't even know why I'm going to bother to appeal to such a hate-ridden and ignorant post, knowing you'll just retort whatever is in your 'heart' to retort, but nevertheless, someone should put forward some common sense into this thread.

Opposition to circumcision is an ancient ideology; it was the Greeks who first sought to impose laws against circumcision against the Jews - as well as observance of Sabbath (which in their minds proved how "lazy" the Jews were) and study of the Torah - which was a senseless book of mythology. In other words, everything hateful to the precepts of liberal democracy, the Greeks embodied. They refused to accept a way of looking at things different from their own.

Now, overlooking the extreme irony of extolling tolerance only to show intolerance to a practice you only choose to understand in your secular terminology, I will endeavor to explain to you the metaphysical basis of the Jewish logic for circumcision.

The God of Judaism, in metaphysical parlance, is a God of this world - this dimension of existence. It is intimately personal, emotional, and relevant to the ways in which men live. Conversely, the god of the Greeks, or the Hindus - of most pagans - in it's highest estimation is what philosophy calls the Godhead. This is God as He is in Himself, unrelated to man and unrelated to physical reality; it is the "I" before its differentiation into a determinant reality, as opposed to the "I" which decides and restricts itself to a particular mode of existence. Therefore, this conception of God is negative - it is the negation of all determined states - which is to say, the negation of our earthly experience. The Hindu, Greek, or Buddhist (and Sufi as well) worships God in spirit alone, as the Christian Bible teaches "“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"; In other words, there is universal agreement despite outward dissimilarity between the New Testament and Eastern ideas: all differentiated states of being are subsumed by the experience of homogenous oneness, making 'morality' an issue of essentially conventional import.

Judaism doesn't see things that way. Morality - justice - is the sine quo non of earthly experience and intimately bound with man's total connection with God. Personal experience is the province of mysticism. Judaism objectifies man, see's man as a being who essentially finds meaning and purpose outside himself and in the 'other' - which Viktor Frankl called 'the will to self transcendence' - where the individual in order to find himself, paradoxically needs to look outward, into 'other things': this is a fact of psychology, and it is also a fundamental fact of metaphysical dynamics. Judaism is all about this. In order for man to achieve inner and outer peace, in order to really enter union with God, he must first look outward into the social world and concretize his inner freedom as moral institutions - which preserve those freedoms.

Now, onto the issue of sexuality and circumcision. You were right here in that circumcision seeks to 'sanctify' sexuality. Why?? Looking deeper, circumcision expresses a more fundamental outlook of Judaism: it basically argues that man as he is is not enough. If man is truly to be man, he must be more than man, otherwise his instinctuality will cause him to descend lower than animals; and as a self conscious being with the power of reason, to act like an animal is indeed to be worse than an animal, who knows no better. So that, this idea of the ideal - of what man CAN be, of what human society CAN ATTAIN, is the chief motivator of Judaism. It doesn't expect perfection - since that is impossible, and really, only something Christianity maintains - but it does expect us to try, to 'wrestle' with the conditions life or God puts before us and become more because of it. This is the esoteric reason for Jacobs name Israel - which literally means "wrestle with God"; wrestling with our lower selves - which God implanted in man, and with belief in a God that baffles our minds - our logic.

Circumcision of the foreskin symbolizes the hardness of mans heart. The foreskin 'sensitizes' one to sensuality - and by doing so, desensitizes ones apprehension of the divine concern: the concern for man in his totality, in his social relations, in his becoming what he can become. So, we can be enslaved to our passions - forgo the usual idea of marriage (of loyalty, faithfulness and trust in the other - ideas begotten by the Jewish religion) and accept the evil that will result (and evil, i.e something self destructive, always results from indulging in sexuality; HPV and Herpes being some biological examples :lol
or, we can accept Gods yoke, try to live better, and by doing so, enslave ourselves to Him. I'd prefer to be a slave to God than a slave to my penis.

You may not like this - since from the animalistic - man perspective, it's irksome to hear. You may invoke doubts and satheism and argue that such a conception doesn't deserve to exist. You can do that. But since this is a completely harmless practice that brings up children in a tradition more beautiful and sublime in it's conception of man and the world, it is nothing short of astounding to my moral sensibility to hear anyone trash talking it. It looks to me as the grumbling of a child, wrapped up in sophisticated language to give it the pretense of moral superiority.

I don't challenge your right to live as you please. Likewise, I EXPECT the same decency, since this is what liberal democracy requires: not a 'melting' into one homogenous culture where every one has to act, think and be the same - NO! - i rebel against that bawdy conformism. I want a world with a conservatism to contrast liberalism. A world in which everybody fulfills what the law requires of them. But law should not encroach upon the issues of religion. Society should never become so much a vehicle for a particular philosophy - which unfortunately it is increasingly becoming - so as to eliminate any opposition. Just as governments are mixed, so to should society.

This, in the end, is an attack on Judaism. And it's especially brazen that the Germans - oh those lovely germans, who so enjoyed tormenting it's Jews 70 years ago - who would propose this law. And if you complain about them doing it - they invoke the holocaust card, which is to say, "the holocaust is so overused" card. But does that change the bare fact? That what motivates them in this decision is identical to the feelings which motivated the Nazis in their hatred of Judaism (A Jew according to the nuremberg laws was any person with a parent or grandparent who followed the Jewish RELIGION: it was an attack on their IDEOLOGY, foremost, rather than an attack on their race. The issue of race was contingent on their spirituality: a 'halfling' contained the 'spirit' or some measure of spirit of the attitude towards life that Judaism engenders)
edit on 26-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:47 PM
The debate shouldn't be ended by accusations of racism and whatnot. The fact of the matter is this: circumcision isn't necessary ESPECIALLY for gentiles with no religious stake in the matter.
The science points the fact that there is no discernable benefit, health wise, for anyone.
Time to move past this ignorance. Same goes for usuary and slavery

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:53 AM
reply to post by dontreally

You realize you sound like a male hating bigot? On top of that, your pulling bs out of thin air. Male circumcision was in the Bible described as a way to separate those in the Lords flock from those who are not. The reason why it was done at such a young age is because that was then the safest time to do it. Now, circumcision can be done safely at an older age.

If an 18 year old+ male wishes to remove the part of his sexual genitalia that makes up 70% of the nerve endings down there, that should be his decision. If you want to talk about male gender roles and use that as an excuse to advocate for removing part of a little infant boy's genitalia, I better see you protesting the loss of privilege that used to go with said burden.

If this was about little girls it wouldn't be an issue in the matriarchal west, but because it is about little boy's, animal's would have more rights in said situation.

Hitler was Jewish and the holocaust wasn't just about Jewish Europeans(the wholesale slaughter of Jewish Europeans didn't begin until the Nazi's started to lose the war and had to rely on the tens of thousands of Muslim recruits from the Balkans who where more anti-semetic then the Nazi's). Well over 7 million non Jewish persons died in the Holocaust. By trying to use such a horrific tragedy to your own benefit you are committing the holocaust all over again.
In the end, this is the beginning of the end of male disposability, the beginning of the end of the Western matriarchy. I bet white knights and mangina's everywhere are shaking in there boots.
edit on 19-9-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by HamrHeed

The debate shouldn't be ended with judgments about cleanliness either given the availability of modern hygiene facilities and habits.

I always thought the conspiracy centered around (IVELT) and perception of women's satisfaction in future relationships. There have been studies done with some clinical objectivity.

Results: There were no signs of inflammation and no serious adverse reactions in all cases after operation. IVELT significantly increased from 64.25 before surgery to 731.49 sec after surgery (P

new topics

top topics
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in