Don't mutilate my junk!

[Brian4Liberty]

If it is illegal to surgically alter female infant genitals, should it be illegal to alter male infant genitals? And should it only apply to gentiles? ;)


Circumcision ban misses mark for city’s Jews
By: Erin Sherbert
Examiner Staff Writer
November 19, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — The Jewish community in San Francisco is outraged about the move to criminalize circumcision, which is an integral part of the religion.

San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield is proposing a measure for the November 2011 ballot to amend The City’s police code to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicles or penis of a man who has not reached the age of 18. Doing so would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail, according to the proposed measure submitted to the Department of Elections.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Circumcision-ban-misses-mark-for-citys-Jews-109123969.html

[Madly_Sane]

wtf?

[Rocket80]

If it is illegal to surgically alter female infant genitals, should it be illegal to alter male infant genitals?

Imo, absolutely, yes. It's barbaric and has no place in a civilized society. Admittedly though, I maybe have a few things higher on my list of priorities.

[Brian4Liberty]

Imo, absolutely, yes. It's barbaric and has no place in a civilized society. Admittedly though, I maybe have a few things higher on my list of priorities.

Agreed. My preference is no laws related to it at all. But the idea of irreversible, elective cosmetic surgery on an infant who can not consent is troubling, but do we need a law about it? And what would be the age of consent to this surgery? Using a Jewish measure, Mitzvah age might be appropriate, if one were to legislate this at all.

The Medical community and Medical Associations should really step up in cases like this. They should "police themselves" so to speak, by setting some standards, such as strongly recommending against infant circumcision. Do they routinely do cosmetic nose jobs on infants with ordinary noses? Would a Doctor who did that suffer some kind of censure or punishment by the Medical community or associations?

[amy31416]

If circumcision were a practice promoted/embraced by Muslims, they'd be raked over the coals.

Those barbaric, backwards Muslims! They cut a part of their babies penises off...!

I've read other articles about this and, of course, the "anti-semite" card is being played repeatedly. Mohels who follow the traditional route perform, as part of the ritual, an act that would get any other adult man thrown in jail (aside from removing the foreskin, that is.) It's repulsive.

[RonPaulCult]

Is this RonPaulForums/Liberty Forest or Government-making-decisions-for-parents-and-getting-in-the-way-of-religious-ceremonies-because-we-know-what's-best-and-the-government-is-awesome forums?

PS - THE JEWS!

[amy31416]

Is this RonPaulForums/Liberty Forest or Government-making-decisions-for-parents-and-getting-in-the-way-of-religious-ceremonies-because-we-know-what's-best-and-the-government-is-awesome forums?

PS - THE JEWS!

Shouldn't be any laws about it, people should know better than to cut a piece of their child off in order to appease a god in civilized society. If it were Hindus, it'd be ridiculous--in fact, Hindus have some baby-tossing event that is absolutely asinine as well. I doubt we'd condone that here.

Oh, and way to play the race card.

[oyarde]

This gentile is perfectly happy with his circumcision . Next problem please :)

[Brian4Liberty]

I've read other articles about this and, of course, the "anti-semite" card is being played repeatedly.

Really?


PS - THE JEWS!

Really. :D


Edit: It should be noted that many Doctors who are at the forefront of ending circumcision are Jewish.

Dr. Dean Edell and Dr. Paul Fleiss for example.

[Son of Detroit]

As a practical and visual benefit, I'm very grateful my parents decided to let the doctor "snip snip" me.

[Bruno]

Penn and Teller come to mind

[Brian4Liberty]

Is this RonPaulForums/Liberty Forest or Government-making-decisions-for-parents-and-getting-in-the-way-of-religious-ceremonies-because-we-know-what's-best-and-the-government-is-awesome forums?

You prefer not to discuss or even post about current news?

Your new sub-forum suggestion seems a little limiting, perhaps was can create two more general sub-forums?:

- Government-making-decisions-for-parents

and

- Government-is-awesome


That second one really needs to be a sub-forum in the "Philosophy" section. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

As a practical and visual benefit, I'm very grateful my parents decided to let the doctor "snip snip" me.

It appears that the law proposed in the news story has an age of 18 for consent. You would be free to snip, cut, tattoo, brand and pierce to your hearts content after that. :o

[Brian4Liberty]

Penn and Teller come to mind

Oh yeah, forgot about that. ;)

YouTube - Penn & Teller Bullshit: Circumcision 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUWMYpHtRTU)

[Guitarzan]

What about head cheese? :confused:

[Yieu]

It is sad that genital mutilation is allowed to be performed on a minor, who is unable to give consent. Many men have lost the most sensitive part of their body without consent, and all men should have a right to own their whole body, not just the parts their parents decided to keep. If someone decides they don't want it when they're old enough to make an informed decision, then they can make that choice, just like piercings and tattoos -- it is a form of body modification for cosmetic purposes, but it removes useful, sensitive skin. It is unreasonable to take the most sensitive part of a child's body away, forever depriving him of knowing what it is like, just because you want to.

Exceptions can be made for Jewish people, for whom it is a religious tradition.

But there is no religious purpose for Christians or those of other religions to do so other than peer pressure (I think Muslims might do it, not sure, if so an exception can be made), and that is not a good enough reason to mutilate your child's body with permanent cosmetic surgery without a rare dire medical necessity.

[denison]

so it's ok for the gov to tell you to not circumcise your kid? are we gonna start arresting parents now?

granted, i don't believe in circumcision, but to regulate/ban it through gov is stupid. and a form of religious persecution. it's a cultural custom that's generally accepted amongst some groups.

[denison]

Exceptions can be made for Jewish people, for whom it is a religious tradition.

But there is no religious purpose for Christians or those of other religions to do so other than peer pressure (I think Muslims might do it, not sure, if so an exception can be made), and that is not a good enough reason to mutilate your child's body with permanent cosmetic surgery without a rare dire medical necessity.

it is a religious tradition for muslims too.

[denison]

so in a decentralized anarchist society, who would enforce the ban on circumcisions? private protection agencies? come on.

[Bruno]

Oh yeah, forgot about that. ;)



Thanks for posting. :)

[Brian4Liberty]

are we gonna start arresting parents now?


Only if you are a member of Oath Keepers. Or would that be Member Keepers? ;)

[Yieu]

so it's ok for the gov to tell you to not circumcise your kid? are we gonna start arresting parents now?

granted, i don't believe in circumcision, but to regulate/ban it through gov is stupid. and a form of religious persecution. it's a cultural custom that's generally accepted amongst some groups.

Is it okay for the government to tell you not to cut your kid's arm off so he can "look like dad"? How about his leg? What about regular bloodletting?

How much violence is the parent allowed to inflict on their child without their consent before it becomes criminal?

I don't think anyone here is one to argue for government intervention -- but men can feel remorse for losing an important part of their body, which they should be entitled by natural right to have, unless they forgo that right. The parents have the right to cut off parts of their child's body? How about it's their duty to protect it, and he can cut parts off if he wants when he's old enough to decide!

[Feeding the Abscess]

If we are to believe in the non-aggression axiom, there is zero place for allowing an adult to remove a body part from an infant or otherwise non-consenting child.

This is so cut and clear that it is worrisome that some would come down on the side of protecting this practice.

[GunnyFreedom]

If we are to believe in the non-aggression axiom, there is zero place for allowing an adult to remove a body part from an infant or otherwise non-consenting child.

This is so cut and clear that it is worrisome that some would come down on the side of protecting this practice.

and yet holding families at gunpoint and telling them they are not allowed to practice their religion is somehow OK? :rolleyes:

Jews have been doing this for some 6000 years, and now FtA comes along and says "if you do what your God commands you to do, then I will put a bullet into your brainpan - deny your God or die bytchs!"

LMAO yeah, let's go with your interpretation of the NAP. Then we could just go around killing anybody who does stuff that we don't like and pretend it's all good. :(

[Elwar]

They should be given the choice of having a social security number as well.

[Yieu]

and yet holding families at gunpoint and telling them they are not allowed to practice their religion is somehow OK? :rolleyes:

Jews have been doing this for some 6000 years, and now FtA comes along and says "if you do what your God commands you to do, then I will put a bullet into your brainpan - deny your God or die bytchs!"

LMAO yeah, let's go with your interpretation of the NAP. Then we could just go around killing anybody who does stuff that we don't like and pretend it's all good. :(

A simple fix would be to make a religious exemption for Jewish and Muslim peoples, the only two religions I am aware of whose adherents are required to perform circumcision.

Then, everyone else who does not have a religious requirement to have this done to them can enjoy the choice of whether to own their whole body, or part of it, when they're old enough to make such a decision. Of course, being Christian would not be enough to allow it without dire medical necessity, because Jesus changed that law for Christians.

[Bruno]

They should be given the choice of having a social security number as well.

I'll add that to the long list - I'm thinking of starting a new religion that doesn't believe in SS#'s, circumcision before age of consent, or TSA searches. :D

[denison]

A simple fix would be to make a religious exemption for Jewish and Muslim peoples, the only two religions I am aware of whose adherents are required to perform circumcision.



so special exceptions for special groups?

if other wanna practice circumcision, that their choice.

you can't have laws that only allow one group to do something. discrimination?

[MyLibertyStuff]

As a practical and visual benefit, I'm very grateful my parents decided to let the doctor "snip snip" me.

Seconded! Lets hear it for circumcisions!

[Yieu]

so special exceptions for special groups?

if other wanna practice circumcision, that their choice.

you can't have laws that only allow one group to do something. discrimination?

I think it is a reasonable exception which allows for people to practice their religion.

You're acting as if I want to take a choice away from anyone. I don't. I want to give a choice to someone it is currently denied to -- the child. It is the child, once they are grown, who has the right to decide this. How can anyone claim the right to deny their child of the full experience of their body/sexuality? The only right is the right of a male to take the matter into his own hands. Otherwise, how far can the violence be taken? How much more skin and sensitive nerve endings can the parents amputate? What other body parts can parents take away from their children? There is no reason for parents who are not Jewish or Muslim to harm their child in this way.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Is it okay for the government to tell you not to cut your kid's arm off so he can "look like dad"? How about his leg? What about regular bloodletting?

How much violence is the parent allowed to inflict on their child without their consent before it becomes criminal?

I don't think anyone here is one to argue for government intervention -- but men can feel remorse for losing an important part of my body, which they should be entitled by natural right to have, unless they forgo that right. The parents have the right to cut off parts of their child's body? How about it's their duty to protect it, and he can cut parts off if he wants when he's old enough to decide!

I have to agree with the morality, however, I am happy my parents got me cut :D

[Brian4Liberty]

I am happy my parents got me cut :D

You probably weren't at the time. You screamed, you cried, your nervous system overloaded, and you went into shock. And since the Doctor was the authority figure, you now hate authority. :D

What would be wrong with waiting until you were older? 13? 16? 18?

[Yieu]

What would be wrong with waiting until you were older? 13? 16? 18?

I would think that if you wait until you're older, there's less chance that the doctor would cut more sensitive nerves off than you'd like him to, because you'd be fully grown.

[Brian4Liberty]

I would think that if you wait until you're older, there's less chance that the doctor would cut more sensitive nerves off than you'd like him to, because you'd be fully grown.

There would definitely be more to work with, making it easier.

Other notes:

- traditional Jewish circumcision performed by a Mohel removes less skin than "modern" clamp surgery.
- the majority of groups that perform circumcision do it as a right of passage (puberty age).
- According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim.

[Petar]

Mutilating babies to keep in fashion with some 6000 year old fairy tale is a very obvious crime.

Something must seriously be wrong with anyone who doesn't understand that.

[RonPaulCult]

Has anybody ever taken their parents to court over this issue?

[Yieu]

Has anybody ever taken their parents to court over this issue?

Someone in that Penn & Teller video won a case against the doctor that did it to him.

[justinc.1089]

I am circumcised, and I stand in absolute opposition to circumcision.

This is a direct contradiction of what a free society is about.

You cannot FORCE YOUR religious belief onto ANYONE, EVEN YOUR CHILD. My father was such a hypocrite about circumcision. He had my brother and I circumcised at birth, yet he was not circumcised, and did not get himself circumcised until he was forced to for some medical reason and had no other choice.

I mean seriously.

"Abraham if you believe in me and love me, prove it by murdering your son for me, even though I promised he would have children and eventually they would form a nation that you would basically be the father of. Sorry to kill your dream I promised you, oh, and your son too. But yeah, get to it, ok?"

How far does freedom of religion go?

It stops at harming another person. You have no right to hurt someone else, even if you believe God told you to do that. If God really truly told you to harm someone else, then God better be ready to defend you from the law, and you better be ready to face the law if God doesn't think you need to be spared from the law.

I wish I wasn't circumcised. But I don't worry about it because there's nothing I can do about it.

However, if I ever held a position of authority where I could defend people's right to life and right to pursue happiness, you better believe I have enough sense to understand that some religious nut has NO RIGHT to cut off part of their child's penis. Its sick and WRONG.


AND YES CHRISTIANS DO BELIEVE IN CIRCUMCISION.


Read the New Testament people. It tells Christians to circumcise their children, but people aren't religious for the most part anymore, so they don't follow the hardcore rules of Christianity anymore.

However, hundreds of thousands of Christians DO CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE GOD TELLS THEM TO CUT OFF PART OF THEIR PENIS.


Circumcision is right up there with other crazy beliefs such as:

Stone adulteress women
Don't eat pork, shellfish, and certain other meats
Footwashing
Its ok for God to have children killed by being attacked by a bear if they made fun of a bald guy
People are punished for the sins of an ancestor up to 7 generations back


And that list could go on much further to but I have probably already made enough people mad.

I'm not trying to insult Christianity as a whole, but the really religious people that believe in crazy things like listed above, and as well as circumcision, DO NOT have a RIGHT TO CUT OFF PART OF THEIR CHILD'S PENIS!

Luckily most Christians don't believe any of those crazier ideas thankfully.

[Cherder]

What about head cheese? :confused:

Daily showers.

[Freshwater]

In my experience there is very, very, very little overlap between people who think circumcision should be illegal and people who have actually been circumcised.

[Promontorium]

Very mature RPF, I start a thread in off topics about my own opinion on circumcision and my title using the medical term "penis" is censored by a mod, but "junk" is perfectly appropriate... in General Politics. And yes I will keep bitching about this because it's the only time I've been censored on this site, and the ironic hypocrisy is killing me.

[BamaAla]

I'll call for government intervention. We have a government in place and it is, ostensibly, tasked to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Parental rights, in my opinion, do don't extend to unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an unwilling child.

[amy31416]

Very mature RPF, I start a thread in off topics about my own opinion on circumcision and my title using the medical term "penis" is censored by a mod, but "junk" is perfectly appropriate... in General Politics. And yes I will keep bitching about this becauase it's the only time I've been censored on this site, and the ironic hypocrisy is killing me.

That doesn't seem like something any of the mods here would do.

[Yieu]

In my experience there is very, very, very little overlap between people who think circumcision should be illegal and people who have actually been circumcised.

My experience has been just the opposite.

[RonPaulCult]

This is a medical procedure that SOME say has medical benefits. Who are you to tell a parent or doctor that they aren't allowed to do what THEY feel is in the best MEDICAL interest of the child?

What about Vaccines? Many here would argue that the junk in vaccines will cause permanent damage to the child. Are we going to (with the force of a gun) not allow parents and doctors to put the vaccinations into their children?

This IS a tough issue because it does involve surgery (some are calling it mutilation) to a very important part of a boy's body. But is it done with malice? Is it done to harm the child? Of course not - and quite the opposite.

These parents brought the children into the world and are doing what THEY think is best for them. Nobody should give a shit about what your opinion is, and the government shouldn't force your opinion on anybody else either.

If the child grows up and feels strongly about it, he should take his parents to court and ask for damages.

[RonPaulCult]

I mean where does it stop? Feeding your kids McDonald's is probably child abuse too if you think about it. Should we force parents not to do this too? San Francisco is where they are trying to ban happy meals and circumcision - some of you guys should move here and enjoy all of the wonderful "freedom".

[denison]

But is it done with malice? Is it done to harm the child? Of course not - and quite the opposite.

These parents brought the children into the world and are doing what THEY think is best for them. Nobody should give a shit about what your opinion is, and the government shouldn't force your opinion on anybody else either.

If the child grows up and feels strongly about it, he should take his parents to court and ask for damages.

just to play devil's advocate and switch sides.....


wasn't there a guy(ex-military), not that long ago, who water boarded his kid because she wasn't learning the alphabet properly?

at what point does it stop. just because it's not done in malice doesn't mean it isn't harmful or abusive.

would also defend female circumcision, if the parents didn't have bad intentions.

abuse is not ok, just because it's done with good intentions.

[amy31416]

This is a medical procedure that SOME say has medical benefits. Who are you to tell a parent or doctor that they aren't allowed to do what THEY feel is in the best MEDICAL interest of the child?

What about Vaccines? Many here would argue that the junk in vaccines will cause permanent damage to the child. Are we going to (with the force of a gun) not allow parents and doctors to put the vaccinations into their children?

This IS a tough issue because it does involve surgery (some are calling it mutilation) to a very important part of a boy's body. But is it done with malice? Is it done to harm the child? Of course not - and quite the opposite.

These parents brought the children into the world and are doing what THEY think is best for them. Nobody should give a shit about what your opinion is, and the government shouldn't force your opinion on anybody else either.

If the child grows up and feels strongly about it, he should take his parents to court and ask for damages.

It's an irreversible, non-medically necessary procedure done on a non-consenting individual. While not that frequent, there are complications, one of which is death.

The possible medical benefit doesn't come until much later (and the verdict is still out on that), when he's sexually active--and at that point I'd hope that he's mature enough to make his own decision on whether he wants a part of his own body removed or not.

[denison]

I mean where does it stop? Feeding your kids McDonald's is probably child abuse too if you think about it. Should we force parents not to do this too?

happy meals and circumcision are very different, no? :D

is female circumcision ok? why or why not? no hypocrisy, please.

[amy31416]

just to play devil's advocate and switch sides.....


wasn't there a guy(ex-military), not that long ago, who water boarded his kid because she wasn't learning the alphabet properly?

at what point does it stop. just because it's not done in malice doesn't mean it isn't harmful or abusive.

would also defend female circumcision, if the parents didn't have bad intentions.

abuse is not ok, just because it's done with good intentions.

It's my understanding that the parents who had female circumcision done did it with the best of intentions as well, believing that it made their daughter more acceptable to the opposite sex and thus, more likely to marry well.

[denison]

It's my understanding that the parents who had female circumcision done did it with the best of intentions as well, believing that it made their daughter more acceptable to the opposite sex and thus, more likely to marry well.

exactly. there either both wrong or both ok. alot of people who defend male circumcision, bash female circumcision. both are ancient abrahamic practices.

[Philosoraptor]

lol very interesting, Never considered it as mutiliating genitals, I've always just thought of Circumcision as a normal thing, I'm not jewish at all and I was circumcised....

[denison]

lol very interesting, Never considered it as mutiliating genitals, I've always just thought of Circumcision as a normal thing, I'm not jewish at all and I was circumcised....

it feels normal, cause it's standard practice, even though it' unnecessary. you would got along fine with your whole we-we intact.

[Philosoraptor]

it feels normal, cause it's standard practice, even though it' unnecessary. you wouldn't got along fine with your whole we-we intact.

I realize that it's not a necessary thing, I've just never really thought of it as mutilation, but rather as a legit medical procedure, I think a person should have the right to decide if their child is to be circumcised or not.

[RonPaulCult]

It's an irreversible, non-medically necessary procedure done on a non-consenting individual. While not that frequent, there are complications, one of which is death.

The possible medical benefit doesn't come until much later (and the verdict is still out on that), when he's sexually active--and at that point I'd hope that he's mature enough to make his own decision on whether he wants a part of his own body removed or not.

That's just YOUR opinion (and possibly mine too - I'm not saying). But it is not the opinion of everybody and your opinion should not be forced onto others:

http://www.medicirc.org/major_benefits.html

[RonPaulCult]

happy meals and circumcision are very different, no? :D

is female circumcision ok? why or why not? no hypocrisy, please.

Some say it too has medical benefits. Praise be to Allah.

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45528

[amy31416]

That's just YOUR opinion (and possibly mine too - I'm not saying). But it is not the opinion of everybody and your opinion should not be forced onto others:

http://www.medicirc.org/major_benefits.html

What part, exactly, was an opinion of mine? And I'm not suggesting force, I'm suggesting that people get a grip and stop chopping off a part of their baby.

[RonPaulCult]

lol very interesting, Never considered it as mutiliating genitals, I've always just thought of Circumcision as a normal thing, I'm not jewish at all and I was circumcised....

Is it just me, or are we all learning FAR too much about one another's genitals? :D

[RonPaulCult]

What part, exactly, was an opinion of mine? And I'm not suggesting force, I'm suggesting that people get a grip and stop chopping off a part of their baby.

The part where you say there is no medical benefit until adulthood. That is not the opinion of every parent nor every doctor.

[Philosoraptor]

Is it just me, or are we all learning FAR too much about one another's genitals? :D

lol, seriously I thought that everyone in America were circumcised at birth, I thought it was just Europeans that were against it.....

[amy31416]

The part where you say there is no medical benefit until adulthood. That is not the opinion of every parent nor every doctor.

I didn't say until adulthood. I said until he is sexually active.

Unless you think it's impossible for a boy to learn how to clean his unit? In the rare case that there is an infection--then it may become medically necessary--until then, it ain't.

[BamaAla]

I realize that it's not a necessary thing, I've just never really thought of it as mutilation, but rather as a legit medical procedure, I think a person should have the right to decide if their child is to be circumcised or not.

You're a guy; I'm a guy. Why shouldn't you or I decide whether or not to lop off the end of our weeners? I love my parents very much, but they have no business in decorating my genitalia.

[GunnyFreedom]

I just don't think that "We know what's best for you, we know that your god is not real even if you refuse to see it. We will give you a choice: disobey your god, go to prison, or get shot. We know what's best even if you do not" is a very 'libertarian' argument.

I don't think people realize that whole wars were fought over attempts to prohibit the Jews from circumcising their young according to the commandment of their God.

At the end of the day, to make an argument for banning circumcision amongst Jews, you have to decide for them what they are and are not allowed to believe. You have to work from an original presumption that God is a fiction. I know plenty of people here DO believe that God is a fiction, and a few of those are even willing to enforce their beliefs on others at the point of a gun. I still say that is an awfully bad argument for a libertarian to make.

So the family across the street believes in God and that bothers you. Tough nuggets, suck it up. Freedom of religion is one of our most fundamental guarantees as Americans.

Just because you are an atheist does not give you the right to force atheism on others. You may not like the logical conclusion, but banning Jews from circumcising their young is the same thing as forcing atheism on them against their will.

Also, most of us here have realized by now that boys and girls have entirely different plumbing. The difference between them is not speculative but factual and demonstrable. And to correct a misunderstanding somewhere above, the Hebrew scriptures which Jews observe only permit male circumcision. The Koran does not prohibit female circumcision but seems to suggest that the preexisting practice should not be allowed to damage the pleasurable region.

Female circumcision is not Abrahamic, contrary to the statement given above, it seems to originate in ancient Egypt as a sacrifice to the gods. The practice developed exclusively in Africa, and was eventually to become a mark of slavery, as slaves unable to bear children were sold at a higher price.

So a lot of misconceptions are being tossed around all over the place here.

The bottom line is that I don't like the idea of government deciding on my behalf that my belief in God is a fantasy. I REALLY don't like the idea of you asking the government to point guns at me to demand that I deny, disobey, repudiate God, go to prison, or die at the hand of government thugs.

If we are expected un a free society to respect the fact that you are an atheist, shouldn't you also respect the fact that someone else is a Jew? I'm sorry guys, but why would you demand respect that you are unwilling to give others?

Surely there is room in this area for debate, but I will thank you to stop working from a presumption that you can enforce an atheist paradigm upon believing Jews against their will.

I am sure that this will piss a lot of people off, but the bottom line is you just do not have the right to decide for others what they are and are not allowed to believe. Is that not the very epitome of fascism?

And the argument that "Oh they are ALLOWED to believe in their fabled sky fairy just as long as they don't try to obey it" doesn't cut it. If anything that is even MORE cruel than disallowing the belief in the first place.

In either case, it's not good.

[BamaAla]

Not every child born to Jewish parents will grow up and be good Jews themselves. IF this is some right of passage for Jewish boys, then let the boy decide when that age comes around. Anything otherwise is one party imposing their will on another (defenseless) party.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not every child born to Jewish parents will grow up and be good Jews themselves. IF this is some right of passage for Jewish boys, then let the boy decide when that age comes around. Anything otherwise is one party imposing their will on another (defenseless) party.

So you are requiring that their parents to disobey what they perceive as the direct commandment of God. How do you intend to enforce it?


ETA: Here is the commandment. It does not leave much opening for interpretation. If it is not done and done on the 8th day, then the covenant is broken and the child misses out on eternity:


“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:10-14, KJV.
Emphasis added.

[amy31416]

I'm sorry Gunny, but if society can shun Hindu baby-throwing and some voodoo justifications for altering the genitals of baby girls, it's just as legitimate to shun those who promote circumcision for an ancient god who once required animal sacrifices and promoted genocide.

It's my understanding that in Christianity, circumcision is symbolic, even though most still choose it for their children.

I'm not saying to make it illegal, I'm just saying to think about what it is you're doing. It can not be reversed, there are potential complications. If god exists, he will not favor a circumcised fellow over a non-circumcised one as far as I can possibly tell. And you are promoting taking that choice away from a non-consenting individual. Can't get on board.

[amy31416]

So you are requiring that their parents to disobey what they perceive as the direct commandment of God. How do you intend to enforce it?

The Christian bible commands that Christian parents have this done to their babies?

Wasn't aware of that.

[BamaAla]

So you are requiring that their parents to disobey what they perceive as the direct commandment of God. How do you intend to enforce it?

We tell people to do that all the time. We wouldn't dream of allowing Jews to practice half of the commandments found in "the law," why is this different?

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm sorry Gunny, but if society can shun Hindu baby-throwing and some voodoo justifications for altering the genitals of baby girls, it's just as legitimate to shun those who promote circumcision for an ancient god who once required animal sacrifices and promoted genocide.

It's my understanding that in Christianity, circumcision is symbolic, even though most still choose it for their children.

I'm not saying to make it illegal, I'm just saying to think about what it is you're doing. It can not be reversed, there are potential complications. If god exists, he will not favor a circumcised fellow over a non-circumcised one as far as I can possibly tell. And you are promoting taking that choice away from a non-consenting individual. Can't get on board.

It's more than fine to use the freedom of speech to lobby against it. Using government force to make people deny or disobey their God at the point of a gun is not.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Christian bible commands that Christian parents have this done to their babies?

Wasn't aware of that.

Where did you get that from?

[GunnyFreedom]

We tell people to do that all the time. We wouldn't dream of allowing Jews to practice half of the commandments found in "the law," why is this different?

Like what?

[BamaAla]

Like what?

I'm not getting into that diversion tactic. You know well that every religion has rituals and practices that violate our law and violate any idea of individual natural rights.

I like you and your posts, but there is no way I'm going to agree that religious customs trump individual rights.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not getting into that diversion tactic. You know well that every religion has rituals and practices that violate our law and violate any idea of individual natural rights.

I like you and your posts, but there is no way I'm going to agree that religious customs trump individual rights.

What commandments of Judaism are banned in the US by law? You made the claim, now back it up or retract it. As I recall, it was a central point to your argument, therefore insisting that you back it up is more than legitimate.

[amy31416]

Where did you get that from?

http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/peron1/


Circumcision as defined in the Old Testament (Genesis 17) was a symbolic act of Covenant with God by which a Jewish male was entered into covenant with God. It required the participants in this covenant to accept and obediently follow sanctions and strict commandments. Circumcision became the "badge of membership" within the Covenant Community. It became the distinguishing mark of being a Jewish male.

The picture changes in the New Testament. The covenant with God for Christians is through acceptance and belief in the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ. By this New Testament Covenant, Christians are enjoined not to submit to circumcision. Christian families are not bound to God through the mark of circumcision. As defined by the Apostle Paul, circumcision could be interpreted as contrary to the Christian faith and teachings. Although Paul speaks only with regard to religious ritual circumcision and could not have conceived of the practice of routine infant circumcision, it is uncanny how his statements in Titus Chapter 1, Verses 10-11 defines the situation today. Circumcision was not simply viewed as a sign of the Covenant Community, but was viewed as a sign of separation. It was the sine qua non of being a Son of Abraham in distinction to being a Christian.

I am curious how a non-consenting, unaware baby can consent to a covenant with god in Jewish circles.

[GunnyFreedom]

I like you and your posts, but there is no way I'm going to agree that religious customs trump individual rights.

I appreciate it, but the bottom line is that a whole lot of people would rather die than deny or disobey God. Your characterization of "religious customs" demonstrates that they reason you think it's Ok is because you view their belief as a myth.

To them it is not a myth, but infinitely more important than life and death itself.

Are you really willing to deny them their right to worship God as they see fit because you fond their God distasteful? Would you, personally, hold a gun to their head and demand that if they obey their God you will blow their brains out?

[BamaAla]

What commandments of Judaism are banned in the US by law? You made the claim, now back it up or retract it. As I recall, it was a central point to your argument, therefore insisting that you back it up is more than legitimate.

Exodus 31:14

Back to the point at hand, how can you justify that someone make that decision for anyone else? Do "parental rights" mean that children are chattel until some arbitrary age of reason?

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/peron1/ (http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/peron1/)



I am curious how a non-consenting, unaware baby can consent to a covenant with god in Jewish circles.

Then lobby their parents to stop obeying their God. You can ask them to send their children to an eternal hell all you want to, but I somehow doubt that many of them will comply. You see, that's how they see it. Uncircumcised son = eternal hell. I'm not describing MY perspective, but theirs. I am capably of empathy. I am capable of putting the shoe on the other foot and seeing life from someone else's perspective.

Just because I do not consider circumcision to be an act of salvation does not mean that THEY do not see it like that. And for a matter of fact they DO see it like that.

On the other hand (and yes, I know you already said you didn't think it should be illegal) if someone is willing to ban the practice by law, then they should be the one required to hold the pistol themselves, and blow the parents away by their own hand for refusing to send their 8 day old sons to hell.

You see what I am saying? It is just not so simple and clear cut as y'all have made it out to be.

[GunnyFreedom]

Exodus 31:14

Back to the point at hand, how can you justify that someone make that decision for anyone else? Do "parental rights" mean that children are chattel until some arbitrary age of reason?

The commandment in Exodus 31:14 is "keep the Sabbath" I do not see that keeping the Sabbath has been outlawed in America.

The part about being put to death is not the commandment but what will happen of you disobey the commandment. Getting put to death is not the commandment, it is the consequence of disobeying the commandment that has been put forth.

Just like people who disobey the commandment to circumcise their male children means their male children will go to hell.

Perhaps you can try again?

[BamaAla]

I appreciate it, but the bottom line is that a whole lot of people would rather die than deny or disobey God. Your characterization of "religious customs" demonstrates that they reason you think it's Ok is because you view their belief as a myth. To them it is not a myth, but infinitely more important than life and death itself.

Then allow them to do so. I have NO problem with people practicing their faith. I have NO problem with an adult cutting off his foreskin. I have not advocated that anyone lose their ability to practice their religion. I do, however, advocate that people should be stopped from violently forcing it on others.



Are you really willing to deny them their right to worship God as they see fit because you fond their God distasteful? Would you, personally, hold a gun to their head and demand that if they obey their God you will blow their brains out?

Your Stefan Molyneux argument doesn't work here. I have not said that anyone should be denied the right to practice their faith only that children should be protected.

[justinc.1089]

If a parent doesn't have the right to hurt their child, how do they have the right to circumcise their child?

It is the child's right to decide what they want to do with their own body.

My parents decided to circumcise me when I was a baby, and I wish they had not done that so that I could decide that on my own.

I feel HARMED NOT HELPED by their action. They had no right to choose that for me, but they had a religious conviction that motivated them to violate my rights anyway. It is the government's purpose to protect people from being hurt by other people, and this is no exception.

This is not about freedom of religion.

Ancient people sacrificing people wouldn't have the "freedom of religion" to murder people to make their sacrifices, and religious people today don't have the "freedom of religion" to choose to HARM their children.

I'm also not an athiest just attacking Christianity.

This is a barbaric practice that must stop, or at the absolute very least be left to doctors to decide, not religious zealots FORCING THEIR FAITH ONTO THEIR CHILDREN.

You cannot argue that outlawing circumcisions is taking away people's freedom of religion. There are many more Jews, Christians, and Muslims that REJECT the barbaric practice of circumcision than there are that continue to hurt their children by having them circumcised.

That alone is proof they CAN practice their religion without the one particular violent aspect they believe in, which is circumcision.

Is it the proper role of government to defend violent religious practices that violate individuals' rights, or is it the proper role of government to defend the individuals' rights?

Lots of men live with damage from circumcision every day of their lives thanks to their parents choosing to impose their own personal religious beliefs onto them. Think about that. Serious damage they live with everyday of their lives that can NEVER be undone, hoping they aren't embarrassed by it somehow because they aren't the same as other men.

SERIOUSLY. Think about it. Damage. Done there. Permanently. Forever.

[amy31416]

Then lobby their parents to stop obeying their God. You can ask them to send their children to an eternal hell all you want to, but I somehow doubt that many of them will comply. You see, that's how they see it. Uncircumcised son = eternal hell. I'm not describing MY perspective, but theirs. I am capably of empathy. I am capable of putting the shoe on the other foot and seeing life from someone else's perspective.

Just because I do not consider circumcision to be an act of salvation does not mean that THEY do not see it like that. And for a matter of fact they DO see it like that.

On the other hand (and yes, I know you already said you didn't think it should be illegal) if someone is willing to ban the practice by law, then they should be the one required to hold the pistol themselves, and blow the parents away by their own hand for refusing to send their 8 day old sons to hell.

You see what I am saying? It is just not so simple and clear cut as y'all have made it out to be.

From my discussions with a rabbi, the vast majority of Jews don't believe in hell.

And even if they did, what's the difference from a voodoo practitioner who believes he's condemning his baby girl to eternal torture if he doesn't have her genitalia altered? Is it just because it's in the predecessor to your book?

Oh, and execution is not a reasonable punishment for someone who alters their child's genitalia for what they believe is a benevolent reason--at least not in a civilized society, education is key.

[GunnyFreedom]

Exodus 31:14

Back to the point at hand, how can you justify that someone make that decision for anyone else? Do "parental rights" mean that children are chattel until some arbitrary age of reason?

Again, you are working from the presumption that God is a fiction, and His commandments are random works of an overactive imagination. The people you are trying to impose your will upon simply do not see things that way. Are you really so unable to see things from paerspectives other than your own narrow range of experience?

[justinc.1089]

The commandment in Exodus 31:14 is "keep the Sabbath" I do not see that keeping the Sabbath has been outlawed in America.

The part about being put to death is not the commandment but what will happen of you disobey the commandment. Getting put to death is not the commandment, it is the consequence of disobeying the commandment that has been put forth.

Just like people who disobey the commandment to circumcise their male children means their male children will go to hell.

Perhaps you can try again?

And if kids mock bald prophets God will send a bear to eat them alive as punishment. Yet, I don't see parents going to violent extremes to prevent their kids from mocking bald men.... because thats not a commonly accepted belief anymore that God would send a bear to eat children for mocking a bald man.

You're letting your personal faith get in the way of defending the rights of the individual. Parents can't impose a belief onto their child when it includes a violent act against the child. If you were one of the many men out there damaged from a circumcision, you would feel very differently about this.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This gentile is perfectly happy with his circumcision . Next problem please :)

I would like to know from people who express this sentiment what is their own personal positive view of circumcision based on? If you are circumcised at a young age how would you ever know anything other than circumcision?

Is it based purely on a sense of beauty and a circumcised penis is more beautiful than a uncircumcised penis?

[heavenlyboy34]

Slide show here (http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/) regarding the medicalization of neonatal circumcision, FWIW.

[GunnyFreedom]

From my discussions with a rabbi, the vast majority of Jews don't believe in hell.

Not in a "christian" sense no. To be honest my own concept of hell is far more Jewish than Christian. There are 3 words n Hebrew that are translated as 'hell.' The grave, the garbage dump, and destruction. The frankly bizarre notion of sulferous pits of fire where lost souls are tortured by demons come not from Christianity but from Dante, author of fiction. It just kinda stuck, and now so many Christians believe it came from the Bible which it did not. To me "eternal hell" simply means 'destruction from which there is not return or recourse.' that is also what Jews believe.


And even if they did, what's the difference from a voodoo practitioner who believes he's condemning his baby girl to eternal torture if he doesn't have her genitalia altered? Is it just because it's in the predecessor to your book?

Fine, you think their beliefs are stupid. They disagree.


Oh, and execution is not a reasonable punishment for someone who alters their child's genitalia for what they believe is a benevolent reason--at least not in a civilized society, education is key.

Any state prohibition boils down to deadly force, no matter how minor. I dare say even the government prohibition against jaywalking boils down to deadly force in the end.

Say you think the law against jaywalking is stupid so you jaywalk. Cop stops you writes you a ticked. You think it's illegitimate so you ignore it. After a vew repeated violations the fines turn into a court summons. You ignore that too since it's illegitimate. Several court summons later you have a warrant for your arrest for flagrantly ignoring the law. You refuse to be arrested. You are shot dead.

ALL government prohibitions no matter how minor boil down to deadly force.

[BamaAla]

Again, you are working from the presumption that God is a fiction, and His commandments are random works of an overactive imagination. The people you are trying to impose your will upon simply do not see things that way. Are you really so unable to see things from paerspectives other than your own narrow range of experience?

If your definition of "narrow range of experience" is protecting individual rights, yes indeed. I am not advocating imposing any will; I'm advocating the restraint of imposing will. How is altering a body part of a non consenting individual anything other than a violent force of will?

[Andrew-Austin]

As a practical and visual benefit, I'm very grateful my parents decided to let the doctor "snip snip" me.

lol agreed.

I'm looking at my unit and the word "mutilate" does not apply. And I'm 99% sure it didn't affect me psychologically somehow.

And shit I'm not even religious and I don't think its a big deal.

If San Francisco is the first place to implement a policy, chances are its wrong.


You're a guy; I'm a guy. Why shouldn't you or I decide whether or not to lop off the end of our weeners? I love my parents very much, but they have no business in decorating my genitalia.

Because at the time we were babies. Babies can't make decisions, parents can make decisions for babies. World keeps on spinning.

[amy31416]

Not in a "christian" sense no. To be honest my own concept of hell is far more Jewish than Christian. There are 3 words n Hebrew that are translated as 'hell.' The grave, the garbage dump, and destruction. The frankly bizarre notion of sulferous pits of fire where lost souls are tortured by demons come not from Christianity but from Dante, author of fiction. It just kinda stuck, and now so many Christians believe it came from the Bible which it did not. To me "eternal hell" simply means 'destruction from which there is not return or recourse.' that is also what Jews believe.



Fine, you think their beliefs are stupid. They disagree.



Any state prohibition boils down to deadly force, no matter how minor. I dare say even the government prohibition against jaywalking boils down to deadly force in the end.

Say you think the law against jaywalking is stupid so you jaywalk. Cop stops you writes you a ticked. You think it's illegitimate so you ignore it. After a vew repeated violations the fines turn into a court summons. You ignore that too since it's illegitimate. Several court summons later you have a warrant for your arrest for flagrantly ignoring the law. You refuse to be arrested. You are shot dead.

ALL government prohibitions no matter how minor boil down to deadly force.

I do think that most superstitions are stupid--especially when they motivate people to do cruel things, but I respect religious and spiritual people.

And once again, I'm not advocating a law, I'm advocating common sense. Cutting off a piece of your child for God is just freaky--especially a piece of their genitals.

[GunnyFreedom]

And if kids mock bald prophets God will send a bear to eat them alive as punishment. Yet, I don't see parents going to violent extremes to prevent their kids from mocking bald men.... because thats not a commonly accepted belief anymore that God would send a bear to eat children for mocking a bald man.

Out of context. The story was about THAT specific man at THAT specific time for THAT specific reason. It has nothing to do with the mockery of all bald men.


You're letting your personal faith get in the way of defending the rights of the individual. Parents can't impose a belief onto their child when it includes a violent act against the child. If you were one of the many men out there damaged from a circumcision, you would feel very differently about this.

You are letting your personal lack of faith color your perception of where their parents are. I can see things from multiple perspectives, I always have been able to. Empathy is one of my strongest points. I am amazed at how atheists so often insist that everybody see the world as they see it.

I can in fact see things from the atheists perspective, and I have argued from that perspective on more than a few occasions. You, however, seem to demand that the believing Jews be forced to see things as unbelievers.

You have to come to a realization that not everybody shares your perspective.

I am looking at it from the perspective of Jewish parents right now, because they are the people folks are arguing to prohibit.

I don't know about you, but I am not only able to, but am pretty much compelled to place myself into the position of someone elses perspective when I am arguing on thir behalf. If that makes me sound like a Jewish parent to you, or that I'm "letting your personal faith get in the way," then that just means I am doing what I do well.

The argument of using government force to make people disobey God and thus send their kids to hell is not one that I am prepared to endorse. The original reason people fled to America was freedom of religion. Are you really willing to take that away at the point of a gun?

[GunnyFreedom]

I do think that most superstitions are stupid--especially when they motivate people to do cruel things, but I respect religious and spiritual people.

And once again, I'm not advocating a law, I'm advocating common sense. Cutting off a piece of your child for God is just freaky--especially a piece of their genitals.

yes, you think it's stupid and freaky. they, however, do not. I know that you are not advocating for a law (unlike some here) and I believe that I said that above somewhere. therefore I respect your position a lot more than others who ARE advocating for government intervention.

[Yieu]

A simple fix would be to make a religious exemption for Jewish and Muslim peoples, the only two religions I am aware of whose adherents are required to perform circumcision.

Then, everyone else who does not have a religious requirement to have this done to them can enjoy the choice of whether to own their whole body, or part of it, when they're old enough to make such a decision. Of course, being Christian would not be enough to allow it without dire medical necessity, because Jesus changed that law for Christians.

Gunny, what about this? Not everyone is arguing for the points you are arguing against. Common sense religious exemptions can be made for Judaism and Islam, though not Christianity because it is not a part of Christianity.

[GunnyFreedom]

If your definition of "narrow range of experience" is protecting individual rights, yes indeed. I am not advocating imposing any will; I'm advocating the restraint of imposing will. How is altering a body part of a non consenting individual anything other than a violent force of will?

What about the right of parents to obey God?

By advocating that the government restrain them from obeying God, it eventually boils down the the point of a gin. Are you, yourself, personally willing to place the muzzle of a gun against their head and pull the trigger if they refuse to disobey their God?

[Yieu]

I do not want government intervention, but what can be done to stop this blatant violation of natural rights known as routine infant circumcision? Is it illegal to cut off your child's fingers? Why is the most sensitive area of his body different than fingers, when it is not for religious reasons (meaning, the family is not Jewish or Islamic)?

[amy31416]

yes, you think it's stupid and freaky. they, however, do not. I know that you are not advocating for a law (unlike some here) and I believe that I said that above somewhere. therefore I respect your position a lot more than others who ARE advocating for government intervention.

I'd just encourage you to read the rest of the article that I linked before: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/peron1/

I don't think that parents who circumcise their boys are bad, I'm pretty sure my parents had the same done to my brother--we don't talk about those things though, thank god!

But yeah, I can't help but think that it's really freaky to cut off a piece of a baby's penis for God.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, what about this? Not everyone is arguing for the points you are arguing against. Common sense religious exemptions can be made for Judaism and Islam, though not Christianity because it is not a part of Christianity.

I've never understood the argument that different groups of people get different rights and prohibitions. I believe that all persons are created equal, and what applies to one person must necessarily apply to all people. I dislike the idea of a religious exemption for ANYTHING. If said exemption applies to one religion, then it must apply to all human beings, otherwise we have to assume that all people are not created equal.

[GunnyFreedom]

I do not want government intervention, but what can be done to stop this blatant violation of natural rights known as routine infant circumcision? Is it illegal to cut off your child's fingers? Why is the most sensitive area of his body different than fingers, when it is not for religious reasons (meaning, the family is not Jewish or Islamic)?

But who gets to pick and choose which religions are allowed to circumcise and which religions are not?

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't see why religion has to be dragged in to the discussion.

The question is do parents have the right to do something like this. I say yes.

Something comparable would be if parents pierced their baby's ears. That is "mutilating" the baby, and yet it isn't a big fucking deal at all. Maybe people just get tripped out when you throw dicks in to the equation.


I do not want government intervention, but what can be done to stop this blatant violation of natural rights known as routine infant circumcision? Is it illegal to cut off your child's fingers? Why is the most sensitive area of his body different than fingers, when it is not for religious reasons (meaning, the family is not Jewish or Islamic)?

Ear piercing is more similar to it than cutting a finger off. Circumcision doesn't involve cutting dicks off, which would be comparable to cutting a finger off.

[tremendoustie]

I've never understood the argument that different groups of people get different rights and prohibitions. I believe that all persons are created equal, and what applies to one person must necessarily apply to all people. I dislike the idea of a religious exemption for ANYTHING. If said exemption applies to one religion, then it must apply to all human beings, otherwise we have to assume that all people are not created equal.

Bingo.

[Yieu]

I've never understood the argument that different groups of people get different rights and prohibitions. I believe that all persons are created equal, and what applies to one person must necessarily apply to all people. I dislike the idea of a religious exemption for ANYTHING. If said exemption applies to one religion, then it must apply to all human beings, otherwise we have to assume that all people are not created equal.

I agree with you that all people are created equal, and it is nice to hear that from someone who (I suspect) is probably Christian, because many would tell me I am worth less than them and should go to hell for worshiping God slightly differently.

But there is a problem called routine infant circumcision and parents who are not Jewish or Islamic are stealing their childrens' natural right to his whole body. Are you okay with that violation of individual rights? When the parents are not Jewish, it is no longer a religious thing to have it done, but so many have it done out of habit, and if there is no religious reason the parents are robbing the child of important functional healthy parts of their body.

[tremendoustie]

I don't see why religion has to be dragged in to the discussion.

The question is do parents have the right to do something like this. I say yes.

Something comparable would be if parents pierced their baby's ears. That is "mutilating" the baby, and yet it isn't a big fucking deal at all. Maybe people just get tripped out when you throw dicks in to the equation.

Ear piercing is more similar to it than cutting a finger off. Circumcision isn't cutting dicks off.

I agree.

[Yieu]

But who gets to pick and choose which religions are allowed to circumcise and which religions are not?

I think it is fairly well known that only Judaism and Islam circumcise.

[BamaAla]

What about the right of parents to obey God?

By advocating that the government restrain them from obeying God, it eventually boils down the the point of a gin. Are you, yourself, personally willing to place the muzzle of a gun against their head and pull the trigger if they refuse to disobey their God?

Why are they allowed to obey god on behalf of a third person who is not willing or able to obey god for themselves?

Again, your Stefan Molyneux argument doesn't work. I'm not willing to stop or have stopped any individual that makes that decision for themselves, but I am more than willing to have anyone arrested that harms a child for any reason including religious ideas.

[Yieu]

I don't see why religion has to be dragged in to the discussion.

The question is do parents have the right to do something like this. I say yes.

Something comparable would be if parents pierced their baby's ears. That is "mutilating" the baby, and yet it isn't a big fucking deal at all. Maybe people just get tripped out when you throw dicks in to the equation.



Ear piercing is more similar to it than cutting a finger off. Circumcision isn't cutting dicks off.

It is more like cutting only the pads of the finger off.

The most sensitive part. They cut off the most sensitive parts of the skin.

It's not just useless "extra" skin that is cut off, it's the most sensitive part.

That's kind of a little important to some people.

[tremendoustie]

Why are they allowed to obey god on behalf of a third person who is not willing or able to obey god for themselves?

Again, your Stefan Molyneux argument doesn't work. I'm not willing to stop or have stopped any individual that makes that decision for themselves, but I am more than willing to have anyone arrested that harms a child for any reason including religious ideas.

Your logic is sound -- I just don't think circumcision represents clear harm, to the point where intervention to protect the child would be justified -- it is indeed more like ear piercing (though perhaps not exactly).

In general, I think we should err on the side of respecting parental rights.

[Yieu]

Your logic is sound -- I just don't think circumcision represents clear harm, to the point where intervention to protect the child would be justified -- it is indeed more like ear piercing.

If they were cutting off kids' fingers that'd be a different story.

It could only be like ear piercing if it made you slightly deaf.

Because it removes thousands of nerve endings in the most sensitive area of your body.

[BamaAla]

Your logic is sound -- I just don't think circumcision represents clear harm, to the point where intervention to protect the child would be justified -- it is indeed more like ear piercing.

If they were cutting off kids' fingers that'd be a different story.

I don't disagree with you. Hospitals should just stop the practice and that would be the end of it.

[Yieu]

I don't disagree with you. Hospitals should just stop the practice and that would be the end of it.

This is the best solution. The less laws on the books, the better.

Jewish people would still be free to do it, as they should be, and I don't think they do it in hospitals anyway as it is a religious ritual.

[tremendoustie]

I don't disagree with you. Hospitals should just stop the practice and that would be the end of it.

I think that solution is better.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why are they allowed to obey god on behalf of a third person who is not willing or able to obey god for themselves?

Again, your Stefan Molyneux argument doesn't work. I'm not willing to stop or have stopped any individual that makes that decision for themselves, but I am more than willing to have anyone arrested that harms a child for any reason including religious ideas.

The commandment of God is given to parents to circumcise their male children at 8 days old. Who are you to demand that they disobey God?

[GunnyFreedom]

Why are they allowed to obey god on behalf of a third person who is not willing or able to obey god for themselves?

Again, your Stefan Molyneux argument doesn't work. I'm not willing to stop or have stopped any individual that makes that decision for themselves, but I am more than willing to have anyone arrested that harms a child for any reason including religious ideas.

"why are they allowed to obey god"

because we have freedom of religion in America.

Just because YOU do not believe in God does not mean that you can force THEM to become unbelievers.

[amy31416]

The commandment of God is given to parents to circumcise their male children at 8 days old. Who are you to demand that they disobey God?

C'mon Gunny, read the article that I linked for you.

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with you that all people are created equal, and it is nice to hear that from someone who (I suspect) is probably Christian, because many would tell me I am worth less than them and should go to hell for worshiping God slightly differently.

But there is a problem called routine infant circumcision and parents who are not Jewish or Islamic are stealing their childrens' natural right to his whole body. Are you okay with that violation of individual rights? When the parents are not Jewish, it is no longer a religious thing to have it done, but so many have it done out of habit, and if there is no religious reason the parents are robbing the child of important functional healthy parts of their body.

I agree that making it a routine medical practice is stupid, and since most parents do notknow any better, I would say that defrauding parents who do not know any better into performing an unnecesary surgical operation is just as wrong as forcing them by government fiat to disobey their faith.

[forsmant]

Ladies should be thankful. We now last longer and look better. That is all I have to add. Even though it was worthless.

[GunnyFreedom]

C'mon Gunny, read the article that I linked for you.

I read it already. What does that have to do with Jewish parents and their belief in the commandment of God? I have never believed that physical circumcision was a Christian requirement, so I honestly do not need to be talked out of a belief that I do not hold. Christianity requires a spiritual circumcision of the heart. Something I can assure you that no doctor or scalpel is capable of.

Personally, I wholeheartedly agree that 'routine' circumcision is wrong. Circumcision should only be offered/provided if the parents specifically request it.

More than once, the idea of banning infant circumcision has been raised in this thread, I believe it was the topic of the OP no?

I know that you are not advocating for a legal ban, but some here are.

This would force some parents to decide between breaking the law or breaking the commandments of God. That is what I am objecting to, specifically.

[Yieu]

I agree that making it a routine medical practice is stupid, and since most parents do notknow any better, I would say that defrauding parents who do not know any better into performing an unnecesary surgical operation is just as wrong as forcing them by government fiat to disobey their faith.

So now that we have common ground, what can be done about the fraud going on in our hospitals where they convince unwitting parents into subjecting their newborn to invasive cosmetic surgery? We know government force preventing the individual from doing this has some questionable implications for religious freedom, but there's still the issue of natural rights when it is not one's religion to have it done, and there is a fair amount of propaganda towards urging parents to do this for non-religious reasons, and then grown men resent their parents not protecting them from having their skin taken.

[Yieu]

I read it already. What does that have to do with Jewish parents and their belief in the commandment of God? I have never believed that physical circumcision was a Christian requirement, so I honestly do not need to be talked out of a belief that I do not hold. Christianity requires a spiritual circumcision of the heart. Something I can assure you that no doctor or scalpel is capable of.

Personally, I wholeheartedly agree that 'routine' circumcision is wrong. Circumcision should only be offered/provided if the parents specifically request it.

I think our positions and the reasons behind them are very similar if not the same. Routine circumcision is a problem, but it is one that is difficult to not get emotional about and to come to terms with in our libertarian principles because it could involve two things close to our hearts: religion, and natural rights to own our body.

[amy31416]

I read it already. What does that have to do with Jewish parents and their belief in the commandment of God? I have never believed that physical circumcision was a Christian requirement, so I honestly do not need to be talked out of a belief that I do not hold. Christianity requires a spiritual circumcision of the heart. Something I can assure you that no doctor or scalpel is capable of.

Personally, I wholeheartedly agree that 'routine' circumcision is wrong. Circumcision should only be offered/provided if the parents specifically request it.

More than once, the idea of banning infant circumcision has been raised in this thread, I believe it was the topic of the OP no?

I know that you are not advocating for a legal ban, but some here are.

This would force some parents to decide between breaking the law or breaking the commandments of God. That is what I am objecting to, specifically.

When I stated that I didn't think that circumcision was a Christian requirement, you questioned where I'd heard that from. C'mon man.

[BamaAla]

The commandment of God is given to parents to circumcise their male children at 8 days old. Who are you to demand that they disobey God?

Your right to obey god ends at another person's body.


"why are they allowed to obey god"

because we have freedom of religion in America.

Just because YOU do not believe in God does not mean that you can force THEM to become unbelievers.

Why do you take my argument out of context? I've said on numerous occasions that I have no problem with anyone practicing their faith, nor have I advocated that anyone abandon their faith.

I simply assert that no one has a right to my body based on their beliefs.

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with you that all people are created equal, and it is nice to hear that from someone who (I suspect) is probably Christian, because many would tell me I am worth less than them and should go to hell for worshiping God slightly differently.

Indeed I am a Christian. Sometimes I imagine it can be confusing to try and pin down where I stand, because I can 'take on' the perspective of others pretty much at will. If I am arguing a point for Jewish people, I'll take on their perspective. If I am arguing a point for atheists, I take on their perspective. That's just what I do.

You have to divorce the tenants of doctrinal belief from the passing of judgment and the enforcement of government law. I was just arguing in another thread against the notion that Christians should enforce Christian doctrine at the point of a government gun. In this thread, I am arguing against the notion that atheists should enforce atheist doctrine at the point of a government gun. Let it not be said that I am inconsistent here.

In my experience, the vast majority of Christians have Christianity very wrong. Christianity says that belief in Jesus Christ is the only assurance of salvation. It pointedly does NOT say that all who do not believe in Jesus are certainly going to hell. There is a pretty big difference, and one should not require a Venn diagram to see that.

Christianity also says that passing judgment is one of the worst sins, and yet so many Christians love to pass judgment. Any Christian who says someone should go to hell (for whatever reason) is passing judgment and placing themselves in the position of God -- one of the worst sins in the entire Christian faith.

From the unbeliever's perspective, it can be difficult to discern between a statement of doctrine (people who do not believe in Jesus are not guaranteed admission into heaven) and a statement of judgment (people who do not believe in Jesus ought to go to hell). Understand that a difference DOES exist. The first is independent of will or desire, and rendered as a statement of doctrinal fact separate from will or desire. The second tries to put people into hell by force of will.


But there is a problem called routine infant circumcision and parents who are not Jewish or Islamic are stealing their childrens' natural right to his whole body. Are you okay with that violation of individual rights? When the parents are not Jewish, it is no longer a religious thing to have it done, but so many have it done out of habit, and if there is no religious reason the parents are robbing the child of important functional healthy parts of their body.

I agree that "routine medical circumcision" is wrong. It was developed through ignorance as a form of population and morality control, and perpetuated through dishonest tactics of fear. I think the best route to oppose routine medical circumcision would be to lobby the various medical groups like the AMA and the pediatrics association.

That is a wholly different subject than using the force of law to ban the practice altogether. I think there are a lot fewer people advocating a government ban here now than there were several hours ago...

[GunnyFreedom]

When I stated that I didn't think that circumcision was a Christian requirement, you questioned where I'd heard that from. C'mon man.

I'm looking at post #67 of this thread right now, and it certainly appears that you were questioning why I believed circumcision to be a Christian practice. I don't, and I never have. I was asking where you got the idea that I believed such a thing since I do not actually believe such a thing.

[Brian4Liberty]

This IS a tough issue because it does involve surgery (some are calling it mutilation) to a very important part of a boy's body. But is it done with malice? Is it done to harm the child? Of course not - and quite the opposite.

It's also a high profit, low effort procedure, covered by most medical insurance...


I know that you are not advocating for a law (unlike some here) and I believe that I said that above somewhere. therefore I respect your position a lot more than others who ARE advocating for government intervention.

How many people really, truly advocated government intervention in this thread?

We need to separate advocacy from legality, as I have often said about drugs.


I don't see why religion has to be dragged in to the discussion.

Yep, that makes it more difficult and emotional. But we can discuss that if we want. Some "religious" practices are condemned, prosecuted and crushed by the government with extreme prejudice, like polygamy. Some are actively supported, like circumcision (government and private insurance do cover it, no?).


More than once, the idea of banning infant circumcision has been raised in this thread, I believe it was the topic of the OP no?


Yep, the "news" item in the OP is about a proposal to ban the practice until the age of 18 in SF. The poster of the OP does not necessarily agree with that. ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

Your right to obey god ends at another person's body.

If God is real, then God transcends all of creation, including mere mortals. You are demanding that people who believe God is real look at the world through the eyes of an atheist, and that's just not going to happen.


Why do you take my argument out of context? I've said on numerous occasions that I have no problem with anyone practicing their faith, nor have I advocated that anyone abandon their faith.

I simply assert that no one has a right to my body based on their beliefs.

I am not taking anything out of context. If God says "You MUST do ABC" and BamAla says "You are NOT ALLOWED to do ABC" then BamaAla not only has a problem with them practicing their faith, but is actively trying to use force to prevent their belief in God.

You have to come to a point where you realize that your personal perspective is not the only perspective that exists.

Religious Jews are simply not going to look at the world through the eyes of an atheist. You and they inhabit entirely different paradigms in entirely different universes. What makes sense to you will not make sense to them, and what makes sense to them will not make sense to you.

I get that you are an atheist. I get that you refuse to apprehend ANY perspective other than that of an atheist. You should get that they just will not see the universe in the same way that you do, and nothing you can do will make them.

A religious Jew will rather die than violate one of the most fundamental principles of their faith, and that's just the way it is. Therefore, they will rather die than be prevented from circumcising their male children. That is not an exaggeration, it is fact.

They believe without even a notion doubt that if they do not circumcise their male child at 8 days old, that child will be lost from God and dead forever. The themselves will rather die than to see their infant son dead forever. Therefore no law on earth will stop them from circumcising their sons at 8 days old.

thus the only way to stop them from doing so will be to shoot them.

Are you willing to pull the trigger yourself?

[GunnyFreedom]

It's also a high profit, low effort procedure, covered by most medical insurance...

DING! And there is the source of the problem, no?


How many people really, truly advocated government intervention in this thread?

We need to separate advocacy from legality, as I have often said about drugs.

Well, at least one person is still arguing even now that the practice should be illegal. I saw another in this thread stating outright that they favored government intervention to stop it.


Yep, that makes it more difficult and emotional. But we can discuss that if we want. Some "religious" practices are condemned, prosecuted and crushed by the government with extreme prejudice, like polygamy. Some are actively supported, like circumcision (government and private insurance do cover it, no?).

Yep, the "news" item in the OP is about a proposal to ban the practice until the age of 18 in SF. The poster of the OP does not necessarily agree with that. ;)

But some here do agree with it.

I love advocacy. I will support people's right to advocate for any thing they please. Someone could advocate for the health benefits of swimming across the arctic ocean naked, and while I may point out that such an idea is likely to kill you via hypothermia I will defend their right to advocate for it no matter how stupid it is.

The poster of the OP may not agree with using government force to ban the practice of circumcision, but there are people in this thread who DO agree that the government should step in with lethal force to prevent it, religious beliefs be damned.

[BamaAla]

If God is real, then God transcends all of creation, including mere mortals. You are demanding that people who believe God is real look at the world through the eyes of an atheist, and that's just not going to happen.

So then your belief in god does not end at my body? Does that not fly in the face of individual rights?



I am not taking anything out of context. If God says "You MUST do ABC" and BamAla says "You are NOT ALLOWED to do ABC" then BamaAla not only has a problem with them practicing their faith, but is actively trying to use force to prevent their belief in God.

I'm okay with that. I have absolutely no problem with an individual practicing their faith so long as that practice has no consequences or repercussions on a third party; however, when those problems arise, someone has to protect the third party if they are unable to protect themselves. Sometimes that means protecting children from their parents.


You have to come to a point where you realize that your personal perspective is not the only perspective that exists.

As do you. You have been patting yourself on the back over your ability to objectively view questions from multiple angles; go ahead and put yourself in the position of an unwilling third party having your body altered due to the beliefs of another person or persons.


Religious Jews are simply not going to look at the world through the eyes of an atheist. You and they inhabit entirely different paradigms in entirely different universes. What makes sense to you will not make sense to them, and what makes sense to them will not make sense to you.

What makes sense to Jews will not make sense to Janes or Scientologist either, but that isn't the point. Individual rights and how those rights are to protected is the point.


I get that you are an atheist. I get that you refuse to apprehend ANY perspective other than that of an atheist. You should get that they just will not see the universe in the same way that you do, and nothing you can do will make them.

Not one time have I asserted that I am or am not an atheist. I'm not even arguing from an atheist standpoint.


A religious Jew will rather die than violate one of the most fundamental principles of their faith, and that's just the way it is. Therefore, they will rather die than be prevented from circumcising their male children. That is not an exaggeration, it is fact.

They believe without even a notion doubt that if they do not circumcise their male child at 8 days old, that child will be lost from God and dead forever. The themselves will rather die than to see their infant son dead forever. Therefore no law on earth will stop them from circumcising their sons at 8 days old.

thus the only way to stop them from doing so will be to shoot them.

Are you willing to pull the trigger yourself?

Can any religion practice their religion in any manner that they see fit? Can certain religions practice female genital cutting? Can Jews who interpret that verse I cited earlier literally kill those who don't keep the sabbath?

Conservatively, there are 20 widely practiced religions in the world today. Absent anarchy, there has to be and will be restrictions placed on there practices when involvement with an unwilling third party comes into play.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is more like cutting only the pads of the finger off.

The most sensitive part. They cut off the most sensitive parts of the skin.

It's not just useless "extra" skin that is cut off, it's the most sensitive part.

That's kind of a little important to some people.

That's a good analogy, but it's even more like removing the eyelids. (I'm proudly un-circed, btw)

[denison]

it's tough because it tantamount to religious persecution, if you ban it. an it's also tantamount to child abuse, because the infant is mutilated without choice.

and to top it off, libertarianism isn't really clear on child rights. are children the property of their parents until they become self-sufficient. or are they there own sovereign from birth, early childhood, teens etc....

[GunnyFreedom]

So then your belief in god does not end at my body? Does that not fly in the face of individual rights?

My belief in God requires me to respect your liberty. How does that violate your individual rights?


I'm okay with that. I have absolutely no problem with an individual practicing their faith so long as that practice has no consequences or repercussions on a third party; however, when those problems arise, someone has to protect the third party if they are unable to protect themselves. Sometimes that means protecting children from their parents.Jewish parents wholeheartedly and without reservation believe that if they do not circumcise their male children at 8 days old, that their children will be lost and dead to them forever. Therefore they will be willing to die themselves to ensure that their male children are circumcised at 8 days old. Thus, the only way to stop them is to use violent force to do so. Are you personally willing to pull the trigger?


As do you. You have been patting yourself on the back over your ability to objectively view questions from multiple angles; go ahead and put yourself in the position of an unwilling third party having your body altered due to the beliefs of another person or persons. I don't have to place myself into that position, as I am already in that position by the circumstances of fact.


What makes sense to Jews will not make sense to Janes or Scientologist either, but that isn't the point. Individual rights and how those rights are to protected is the point.So are you, personally, willing to put the pistol to that Jewish mother's head and pull the trigger to prevent her from having her 8 day old son circumcised?


Not one time have I asserted that I am or am not an atheist. I'm not even arguing from an atheist standpoint. You are certainly arguing from the standpoint that their God is a fiction. There can be no question about that. If you start by assuming their God is real then the question of circumcision for Jewish children becomes moot. From that perspective, a circumcised child is alive while an uncircumcised child is dead.

Let's say a child is born with an easily correctable birth defect that will kill them if left untreated. The parents decide to have the defect surgically removed. Their child therefore survives. Would you argue that that extra bit of bone (or whatever) might have been important enough that the child would rather have died, and the parents had no right to save the life of their child?

To the religious Jew, it is the same question. To them, the foreskin is a birth defect that will kill them at 9 days old unless it is removed on their 8th day. Only worse - the question of life or death there is an eternal matter not a temporal one.


Can any religion practice their religion in any manner that they see fit? Can certain religions practice female genital cutting? Can Jews who interpret that verse I cited earlier literally kill those who don't keep the sabbath? To start with, the practice of female genital mutilation is cultural and not religious. Every religion that even addresses it seeks to prevent or limit it. "Can they" is a null value, they don't.

The question of whether religion can provide a "free pass" for criminal activity has only ever (to my knowledge) been addressed in modern times through the practice of Santería and Voodoo. That question is generally resolved around whether the persons affected are 1) members of the faith and 2) consenting or past the age of consent. Earlier questions of criminality in the form of religion can be applied o the Salem Witch Trials and the like, where the victims were clearly non consenting adults, and the religion itself prohibited the crime of murder.

Today, the question appears in the form of upstarts like Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate. Is religious suicide illegal? How do you punish the criminal who's criminal act was to commit suicide?

At the end of the day, if God is real, then God's laws are above man's laws. To use the force of law to deny that is to use government fiat to dictate that God is not real.

I personally believe that the era of religious physical circumcision is past, but I am not willing to hold a gun to a Jewish parent's head and tell them that if they try to save their son's life I will kill them.

As to the question of putting someone to death for working on the Sabbath, that is only allowed by Jewish Law to be applied within the physical Kingdom of Israel, which this is not. If they are in the diaspora, which we are, then it is considered an unlawful killing, ie murder.


Conservatively, there are 20 widely practiced religions in the world today. Absent anarchy, there has to be and will be restrictions placed on there practices when involvement with an unwilling third party comes into play.

There are already such restrictions inherent in the freedom of religion. Joe's freedom to practice religion can not infringe on Jane's freedom of religion.

[Brian4Liberty]

and to top it off, libertarianism isn't really clear on child rights. are children the property of their parents until they become self-sufficient. or are they there own sovereign from birth, early childhood, teens etc....

Guess it depends on the "libertarian". For some, they are sovereign from conception. For others, it's eighteen. Most somewhere in-between. Probably a bell-shaped curve in one way or another.

"You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out. And it don't make no difference to me, I'll make another one look just like you." - Bill Cosby

[denison]

so what if someone wholeheartedly believed that they should amputated their child's arm in order to appease their god? would that be ok? where's the limit? and where's the choice for the child?

and why is no on defending female circumcision for the muslims with so much fervor, why are jews so important? people here don't care about oklahoma banning sharia law, why not ban male genital mutilation?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

it's tough because it tantamount to religious persecution, if you ban it. an it's also tantamount to child abuse, because the infant is mutilated without choice.

and to top it off, libertarianism isn't really clear on child rights. are children the property of their parents until they become self-sufficient. or are they there own sovereign from birth, early childhood, teens etc....

libertarians are clear on self ownership. parents are not owners of children they are guardians. guardians with the highest claim of guardianship.

[Brian4Liberty]

Jewish parents wholeheartedly and without reservation believe that if they do not circumcise their male children at 8 days old, that their children will be lost and dead to them forever. Therefore they will be willing to die themselves to ensure that their male children are circumcised at 8 days old.

Depends on the Jewish parent (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Humanistic, etc.). There are "official" exceptions to the rule, including the health of the child. A parent who does not believe that it is in the health benefit of the child can make the case that it should not be performed on the 8th day.

[denison]

libertarians are clear on self ownership. parents are not owners of children they are guardians. guardians with the highest claim of guardianship.

guardians with the right to mutilate or initiated into cults without consent?

[GunnyFreedom]

so what if someone wholeheartedly believed that they should amputated their child's arm in order to appease their god? would that be ok? where's the limit? and where's the choice for the child?

What religion advocates arm amputation as a commandment of their god?


and why is no on defending female circumcision for the muslims with so much fervor, why are jews so important? people here don't care about oklahoma banning sharia law, why not ban male genital mutilation?

I am guessing that you are just guessing as to Islam's position on female circumcision?

The Koran doesn't address female circumcision at all. The Sunna only touches on it briefly stating that the preexisting cultural practice should be limited because it damages women.

Therefore I do not believe that a valid argument can be made that Islam advocates female circumcision.

[GunnyFreedom]

Depends on the Jewish parent (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Humanistic, etc.). There are "official" exceptions to the rule, including the health of the child. A parent who does not believe that it is in the health benefit of the child can make the case that it should not be performed on the 8th day.

It is true that there are several different forms of Judaism, each having a different amount of stress on different tenets of the faith. For the sake of argument I was arguing the orthodox position. Once we delve into the modifications (clarifications) of the Talmud regarding Mosaic Law, things get a little murkier. I think the basic point remains the same, however -- if the child is not circumcised he is considered lost and dead. Most parents will do whatever it takes to prevent their child from becoming lost and dead, and so the government will need to take extraordinary measures to prevent it. Extraordinary measures from the government meas violent force. Violent force means guns. If an individual is not willing to pull the trigger himself, then he has no right to ask the government to do it for him.

[BuddyRey]

This isn't a "tough issue" at all; it's very simple in fact.

This is an elective surgery without any immediate medical necessity, performed on patients who lack the reason and cognitive ability to consent. If government has any place in society, it's to protect human beings from the whims, passions, and ill tempers of other human beings. Compulsory circumcision is a vile practice rooted, at least in this country, in 19th century Puritanism and modern junk science.

If circumcision has health benefits, and let's say for the sake of argument that it does, that still doesn't justify the procedure being carried out against the will of defenseless newborns.

[denison]

I am guessing that you are just guessing as to Islam's position on female circumcision?

The Koran doesn't address female circumcision at all. The Sunna only touches on it briefly stating that the preexisting cultural practice should be limited because it damages women.

Therefore I do not believe that a valid argument can be made that Islam advocates female circumcision.

so it can only be major religions that advocate mutilation and that makes it ok?

what about religious freedom for small sect? plenty of small religions and cults believe in weird rituals. If you respect and allow jews to practice their customs why not shia muslims. they make up a larger number then all of the jews in the world combined.

your cut offs of acceptance are arbitrary and hypocritical. and female circumcision is practices by muslims and africans widely. they deserve as much respect for their "customs" as the jews get in your eyes.

Muslim see health benefits in female circumcision:
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45528

[GunnyFreedom]

guardians with the right to mutilate or initiated into cults without consent?

Guardians with the responsibility and obligation to save their child's life from eternal death.

Let's assume for a moment that a child is 10 years old and has developed a deviated aorta in the heart. If the child does not undergo surgery to correct the deviated aorta then the child will die. The child is afraid of the surgery and says he does not want it. The parents say "I am sorry, you have to." They take their child to the surgeon, the child tries to flee, the anesthesiologist puts him under and the surgeon performs the surgery.

In that case, if the parents did not violate the child's will and "mutilate" the child's aorta, then the parents would probably be thrown in prison for neglect.

If you consider the question of circumcision from the parents perspective -- the perspective of believing Jews, the question is the same. For them, the circumcision has to be done or the child is dead. An even worse death than the child with the deviated aorta in the example above.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So are you, personally, willing to put the pistol to that Jewish mother's head and pull the trigger to prevent her from having her 8 day old son circumcised?

This thread is funny. Minarchists arguing for anarchy. Let's bring the thread back to minarchist reality...

In a Republic with limited government American values and the rule of law transcends religion. I believe that is the argument the entire right wing is making regarding Sharia Law.

Under Minarchy, if there is to be a limited government with a monopoly on violence it must protect the individual. If the rule of law and American values are we do not commit violence against innocent persons there are no exceptions.

If I am to believe in Minarchy I must be willing to put a gun to her head whether I want to or not. In the interest of justice she (and her collaborators) must be held accountable to the rule of law for acts of violence against an innocent person.



At the end of the day, if God is real, then God's laws are above man's laws. To use the force of law to deny that is to use government fiat to dictate that God is not real.

Whose God? Should there be a global war to settle the pissing contest of whose God is greatest and kill all persons who do not believe in the greatest God?

[BamaAla]

My belief in God requires me to respect your liberty. How does that violate your individual rights?

If your belief in god causes you to negatively effect my body without my consent that's a pretty clear violation of my individual rights.


Jewish parents wholeheartedly and without reservation believe that if they do not circumcise their male children at 8 days old, that their children will be lost and dead to them forever. Therefore they will be willing to die themselves to ensure that their male children are circumcised at 8 days old. Thus, the only way to stop them is to use violent force to do so. Are you personally willing to pull the trigger?

Why do you keep reverting to the "against me" argument? Its a little bit more nuanced than that.


So are you, personally, willing to put the pistol to that Jewish mother's head and pull the trigger to prevent her from having her 8 day old son circumcised?

And again. We all know the idea of that argument is to point out that the other person is willing to use violence to reach their goals. What it looks like, though, is that you don't want me to use violence against an adult endangering and child, but you seem to miss the fact that you are perfectly okay with violence being used against that same defenseless child.



You are certainly arguing from the standpoint that their God is a fiction. There can be no question about that. If you start by assuming their God is real then the question of circumcision for Jewish children becomes moot. From that perspective, a circumcised child is alive while an uncircumcised child is dead.

But you said that I am an atheist; not a Jew ≠ atheist. The vast majority of children circumcised are not Jewish.


Let's say a child is born with an easily correctable birth defect that will kill them if left untreated. The parents decide to have the defect surgically removed. Their child therefore survives. Would you argue that that extra bit of bone (or whatever) might have been important enough that the child would rather have died, and the parents had no right to save the life of their child?

Do you like comparing apples to oranges?


To the religious Jew, it is the same question. To them, the foreskin is a birth defect that will kill them at 9 days old unless it is removed on their 8th day. Only worse - the question of life or death there is an eternal matter not a temporal one.

I'm still unmoved. Religious conviction does not justify violation of individual rights.


To start with, the practice of female genital mutilation is cultural and not religious. Every religion that even addresses it seeks to prevent or limit it. "Can they" is a null value, they don't.

The question of whether religion can provide a "free pass" for criminal activity has only ever (to my knowledge) been addressed in modern times through the practice of Santería and Voodoo. That question is generally resolved around whether the persons affected are 1) members of the faith and 2) consenting or past the age of consent. Earlier questions of criminality in the form of religion can be applied o the Salem Witch Trials and the like, where the victims were clearly non consenting adults, and the religion itself prohibited the crime of murder.

Today, the question appears in the form of upstarts like Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate. Is religious suicide illegal? How do you punish the criminal who's criminal act was to commit suicide?

Then you are of the opinion that no religious practice, of any religion, is in conflict with American law or the theory of natural rights?


At the end of the day, if God is real, then God's laws are above man's laws. To use the force of law to deny that is to use government fiat to dictate that God is not real.

I personally believe that the era of religious physical circumcision is past, but I am not willing to hold a gun to a Jewish parent's head and tell them that if they try to save their son's life I will kill them.

As to the question of putting someone to death for working on the Sabbath, that is only allowed by Jewish Law to be applied within the physical Kingdom of Israel, which this is not. If they are in the diaspora, which we are, then it is considered an unlawful killing, ie murder.

So what you are saying then, is that you oppose the freedom of religion?

We have obviously reached an impasse. I'm always going to be of the opinion that we are living on earth and that on this planet your right to practice religion ends at my body. You can continue to advocate allowing people to do whatever they please to unwilling third parties under the guise of religious freedom if you want.

[GunnyFreedom]

so it can only be major religions that advocate mutilation and that makes it ok?

No such religion exists. Are you asking me to assume for the sake of argument that such a religion exists in order to further examine your argument?


what about religious freedom for small sect? plenty of small religions and cults believe in weird rituals. If you respect and allow jews to practice their customs why not shia muslims. they make up a larger number then all of the jews in the world combined.

I don't deny ANY religion the free practice of their faith. I do deny all beings the free practice of crime.


your cut offs of acceptance are arbitrary and hypocritical. and female circumcision is practices by muslims and africans widely. they deserve as much respect for their "customs" as the jews get in your eyes.

Muslim see health benefits in female circumcision:
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45528 (http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45528)

I am sure you could find a Christian sect claiming that the Bible commands them to murder abortion doctors also. That doesn't mean that the Bible actually commands them to do so.

The Biblical requirement for religious Jews to circumcise their male children is both extremely clear and long established. In the context of the religious text in question, it is unequivocally expressed as a direct commandment of God.

Female circumcision is not a religious commandment but a cultural indication. In America we have the freedom to practice RELIGION, not the freedom to do anything your culture allows. There is a significant difference between "religion" and "culture" even if they are conflated by some people.

[denison]

And again. We all know the idea of that argument is to point out that the other person is willing to use violence to reach their goals. What it looks like, though, is that you don't want me to use violence against an adult endangering and child, but you seem to miss the fact that you are perfectly okay with violence being used against that same defenseless child.


^This. All this.

[denison]

I do deny all beings the free practice of crime.

Mutilation without consent is a crime. Hypocrisy is your middle name.

[BamaAla]

This thread is funny. Minarchists arguing for anarchy. Let's bring the thread back to minarchist reality...

In a Republic with limited government American values and the rule of law transcends religion. I believe that is the argument the entire right wing is making regarding Sharia Law.

Under Minarchy, if there is to be a limited government with a monopoly on violence it must protect the individual. If the rule of law and American values are we do not commit violence against innocent persons there are no exceptions.

If I am to believe in Minarchy I must be willing to put a gun to her head whether I want to or not. In the interest of justice she (and her collaborators) must be held accountable to the rule of law for acts of violence against an innocent person.



Whose God? Should there be a global war to settle the pissing contest of whose God is greatest and kill all persons who do not believe in the greatest God?


Solid. +

[denison]

Female circumcision is not a religious commandment but a cultural indication. In America we have the freedom to practice RELIGION, not the freedom to do anything your culture allows. There is a significant difference between "religion" and "culture" even if they are conflated by some people.


and female circumcision is practices by muslims and africans widely. they deserve as much respect for their "customs" as the jews get in your eyes.

Muslim see health benefits in female circumcision:
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45528



Female circumcision is part of the Shia islamic religion. It is required in many shia schools. Why deny them their religious freedom?

[GunnyFreedom]

This thread is funny. Minarchists arguing for anarchy. Let's bring the thread back to minarchist reality...

...and anarchists arguing for government force.


In a Republic with limited government American values and the rule of law transcends religion. I believe that is the argument the entire right wing is making regarding Sharia Law.

I am not the entire right wing. I believe that different laws for different people is wrong. One law for all people. This ban on Sharia law is silly. There should never even be a consideration that some special group gets their own special law.


Under Minarchy, if there is to be a limited government with a monopoly on violence it must protect the individual. If the rule of law and American values are we do not commit violence against innocent persons there are no exceptions.

and what about the individual parents who believe that unless they circumcise their male son he will be lost and dead forever?


If I am to believe in Minarchy I must be willing to put a gun to her head whether I want to or not. In the interest of justice she (and her collaborators) must be held accountable to the rule of law for acts of violence against an innocent person.

I believe in Constitutional Minarchy, and for me justice demands the free practice of religion. I would not only not hold the gun to the parents head, I would take up the gun to defend them from other people's guns who would try and stop them.


Whose God? Should there be a global war to settle the pissing contest of whose God is greatest and kill all persons who do not believe in the greatest God?

Wouldn't that be a violation of the freedom of religion? That was the very thing that led the Puritans to flee to the New World in the first place.

[GunnyFreedom]

Mutilation without consent is a crime. Hypocrisy is your middle name.

I am a hypocrite because I believe in the freedom of religion? :)

I have never claimed to believe otherwise. And, my middle name is "Allen."

[BuddyRey]

Glen, I'm a Christian too, and I understand your desire to maintain freedom of religion, but please tell me how aggressive violence is ever excused by religion. If the legal prohibitions against barbarism and coercion had religious exemptions, wouldn't that open us up to quite a slippery slope? Couldn't radical Islamists complain that being prevented by the police from attempting to execute a religious Fatwa violated their freedom of religion too?

You said earlier that the Africans perform female circumcision because of cultural mores whereas Jews perform male circumcision because of religious dictates. My question to you is, what makes the latter pretext more worthy of legal recognition than the former? Isn't aggression aggression regardless of the motivation? I know that this is the same reason why I and most other libertarians reject hate crime laws as well; namely, that the motivation behind a violent crime should have no impact on the sentencing of the crime.

[GunnyFreedom]

If your belief in god causes you to negatively effect my body without my consent that's a pretty clear violation of my individual rights.

My belief in God causes me to ignore your body altogether. How is that a violation of your individual rights?


Why do you keep reverting to the "against me" argument? Its a little bit more nuanced than that.

How so? If you are willing to ask the state to stop them from obeying God, then you should be willing to pull the trigger yourself. If you are not willing to do so, then you have no right to ask the state to do it on your behalf.


And again. We all know the idea of that argument is to point out that the other person is willing to use violence to reach their goals. What it looks like, though, is that you don't want me to use violence against an adult endangering and child, but you seem to miss the fact that you are perfectly okay with violence being used against that same defenseless child.

That adult is not endangering the child, as far as they know they are doing the only thing in the universe that will save him.


But you said that I am an atheist; not a Jew ≠ atheist. The vast majority of children circumcised are not Jewish. [quote]

You are arguing from the fundamental perspective that God is not real. There are few options available at that point. Atheism, Buddhism, Taoism, and... ? One could argue that Buddhism and Taoism are by nature atheistic as while they believe in supernatural phenomena there is no 'god' per se. Other nature-borne religions like Gaia perceive a planetary God, druidism perceives natural god. Wicca may be considered 'atheistic' to a degree as there are more "forces" than "wills" and such wills as there are are not deistic. Animism, shamanism, the natural religions of aboriginal Americans (the Great Spirit) these all are deistic in nature and prohibit an argument from a perspective of the absolute non existence of deity.

[quote]Do you like comparing apples to oranges?

Shouldn't that question be directed inwards? I am discussing the quandary as it relates to a Religious Jew from the perspective that the Jewish God is real. You are discussing that quandary as it relates to a Religious Jew from the perspective that their God is a farce. I am comparing apples and apples, you sir are the one comparing apples to oranges.


I'm still unmoved. Religious conviction does not justify violation of individual rights.

You are arguing that the circumcision is a violation of the child's individual rights. I am not prepared to stipulate that. If the God they worship is real, then circumcision is the only thing that saves them from eternal death. You are NOT arguing from the assumption that their God is real but that their God is fake.

You are still arguing from the assumption that they are stupid and their god is fake. You can't make that assumption when arguing about the freedom to practice religion. Are they only allowed to practice their religion if they don't REALLY believe it? :)


Then you are of the opinion that no religious practice, of any religion, is in conflict with American law or the theory of natural rights?

Show me one and we'll discuss it.


We have obviously reached an impasse. I'm always going to be of the opinion that we are living on earth and that on this planet your right to practice religion ends at my body. You can continue to advocate allowing people to do whatever they please to unwilling third parties under the guise of religious freedom if you want.

Nobody is doing anything to YOUR body. You are not a member of the Jewish community whee the assumption is that you will suffer eternal death without this procedure. If you are going to take on the perspective of the child, then you have to take on the perspective of the validity of the Jewish God as well. When you look at something from a different perspective you don't get to pick and choose what parts you allow and disallow. Changing perspectives is an all or nothing proposition.

[denison]

You said earlier that the Africans perform female circumcision because of cultural mores whereas Jews perform male circumcision because of religious dictates. My question to you is, what makes the latter pretext more worthy of legal recognition than the former? Isn't aggression aggression regardless of the motivation? I know that this is the same reason why I and most other libertarians reject hate crime laws as well; namely, that the motivation behind a violent crime should have no impact on the sentencing of the crime.

exactly. just cause it's a cultural tradition doesn't mean it's not as important and sacred to them as jewish religious tradition.

in many communities cultural traditions carry the same weight of importance as religious traditions.

so would you be ok with using government force to prevent muslim and african from practing female circumcision or with you defend them with the barrel of a gun like you would the jews?

[GunnyFreedom]

Glen, I'm a Christian too, and I understand your desire to maintain freedom of religion, but please tell me how aggressive violence is ever excused by religion. If the legal prohibitions against barbarism and coercion had religious exemptions, wouldn't that open us up to quite a slippery slope? Couldn't radical Islamists complain that being prevented by the police from attempting to execute a religious Fatwa violated their freedom of religion too?

Neither the target of a Fatwa is not consenting, nor can a prima facie case be built from Islamic works of scripture and law that person XYZ merits capital punishment. Parents are responsible for determining the consent of their children, therefore I do not buy the 'non-consenting' argument for Jewish children either.

Banning the practice of circumcision from religious Jews is akin to genocide. You and I may not agree, but that's just the way it is. We kinda have to face reality where it is instead of where we would like it to be. If it were up to me, then all Jews would have come to Messiah by now and this whole circus would be moot.


You said earlier that the Africans perform female circumcision because of cultural mores whereas Jews perform male circumcision because of religious dictates. My question to you is, what makes the latter pretext more worthy of legal recognition than the former? Isn't aggression aggression regardless of the motivation? I know that this is the same reason why I and most other libertarians reject hate crime laws as well; namely, that the motivation behind a violent crime should have no impact on the sentencing of the crime.

Well, to begin with, we don't have freedom of culture in America, we do have freedom of religion. I do not consider Jewish circumcision to be a "crime." Religious Jews believe that without circumcision their male children are eternally dead. If we are going to consider circumcision to be a crime, then unless we are willing to actively force them to deny/disobey the direct commandments of their God, the only solution is to ban the Jewish religion from the United States altogether.

Clearly the Founders did not have that in mind.

We had Jews in America prior to the Revolution, and they have been circumcising their male children for going on 6000 years. If this was such an issue, why wasn't it banned in 1790?

Clearly the Founders of this nation believed that the Jews freedom to practice their religion trumped someone else's offense at the practice.

[BamaAla]

My belief in God causes me to ignore your body altogether. How is that a violation of your individual rights?

Are you being intentionally obtuse?



How so? If you are willing to ask the state to stop them from obeying God, then you should be willing to pull the trigger yourself. If you are not willing to do so, then you have no right to ask the state to do it on your behalf.

That's not how police forces work.


That adult is not endangering the child, as far as they know they are doing the only thing in the universe that will save him.

Ignorance is not an excuse. In reality, they are endangering the child and forcing their will upon that child absent a contract or any due process.



You are arguing from the fundamental perspective that God is not real. There are few options available at that point. Atheism, Buddhism, Taoism, and... ? One could argue that Buddhism and Taoism are by nature atheistic as while they believe in supernatural phenomena there is no 'god' per se. Other nature-borne religions like Gaia perceive a planetary God, druidism perceives natural god. Wicca may be considered 'atheistic' to a degree as there are more "forces" than "wills" and such wills as there are are not deistic. Animism, shamanism, the natural religions of aboriginal Americans (the Great Spirit) these all are deistic in nature and prohibit an argument from a perspective of the absolute non existence of deity.

Are you debating or trying to convince us how smart you are? The point is that millions of children are circumcised each year and only a small fraction of those children are born to Jewish parents. To make this argument wholly about religion is myopic at best.



You are arguing that the circumcision is a violation of the child's individual rights. I am not prepared to stipulate that. If the God they worship is real, then circumcision is the only thing that saves them from eternal death. You are NOT arguing from the assumption that their God is real but that their God is fake.

You are still arguing from the assumption that they are stupid and their god is fake. You can't make that assumption when arguing about the freedom to practice religion. Are they only allowed to practice their religion if they don't REALLY believe it? :)

Its starting to feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. I'm arguing that no one has the right to make that decision for the child whether they are religious or secular.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

...and anarchists arguing for government force.

Minarchists with their government monopoly on violence force Anarchists to adopt bi-political positions since the individual is coerced from seceding.


I am not the entire right wing.

Fair enough. Astute observation and poor choice of verbiage on my part. I think you get my point despite the poor verbiage.


I believe that different laws for different people is wrong.

Obviously not because you advocate persons of the Judaism religion can freely commit violence against innocent persons due to a religious belief.


One law for all people.

Under Republics of limited constitutional government that is the theory but if some people commit violence against some other people in some cases it is not a crime depending on your religion.


This ban on Sharia law is silly. There should never even be a consideration that some special group gets their own special law.

But that is what you are advocating. Some religious groups should in fact get their own special law to commit violence.


and what about the individual parents who believe that unless they circumcise their male son he will be lost and dead forever?

Not my problem and it wasn't Egypt's problem either. It is written God will intervene on behalf of his chosen people is it not? I forget was that before or after the new covenant?

If we are to be a Republic that respects the rule of law, American values dictate, and justice demands we do not condone violence against innocent persons.


I believe in Constitutional Minarchy, and for me justice demands the free practice of religion.

Does this include religious teachings or religious acts of violence?



I would not only not hold the gun to the parents head, I would take up the gun to defend them from other people's guns who would try and stop them.

Ironic you do not feel the same sense of justice in order to protect me from violence refusing to pay for immoral social defense.


Wouldn't that be a violation of the freedom of religion? That was the very thing that led the Puritans to flee to the New World in the first place.

What about the freedom of the individual who receives violence? Was the Declaration of Independence wrong to assert all men are born free?

Isn't the only proper role of limited constitutional government to protect the freedom of the individual?

[GunnyFreedom]

exactly. just cause it's a cultural tradition doesn't mean it's not as important and sacred to them as jewish religious tradition.

in many communities cultural traditions carry the same weight of importance as religious traditions.

so would you be ok with using government force to prevent muslim and african from practing female circumcision or with you defend them with the barrel of a gun like you would the jews?

I would not only be OK with using government force to prevent the cultural practice of female circumcision, but I would be willing to wield such force myself. If the parents pointed to the relevant passage in the Sunna and explained that per the teaching of Muhammad they would not allow the procedure to damage any of the 'pleasure' centers, then I would explain that Muhammad only allowed that as a cultural practice he was basically powerless to stop, while asking that the practice be limited to prevent the damaging of the pleasure organs such as the clitoris. In the United States, we are NOT powerless to stop such cultural practices, and as it remains at it's base a cultural practice not a religious dicta therefore it can be prevented by law.

Show me in the Koran or the Sunna where female circumcision is required by their God and I may be forced to rethink that position.

So far as I know, the ONLY physical alteration of the body directly required (commanded) by a religion's God is the practice of male circumcision effected by Jews and Muslims. Every other body modification I have ever heard of is entirely cultural.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I would not only be OK with using government force to prevent the cultural practice of female circumcision, but I would be willing to wield such force myself.

Are you personally willing to pick up a knife, permanently mutilate a person's penis you do not know, who can not defend themselves, and has not consented for you to mutilate them?

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I was thinking the same thing, but too polite to actually ask.


That's not how police forces work.

Sure it is. We live in a representative republic. Our representatives make law. If we are not willing to do something ourselves, then it is immoral to ask our representatives to do it for us.


Ignorance is not an excuse. In reality, they are endangering the child and forcing their will upon that child absent a contract or any due process.

Belief in God is not ignorance. Once again, you are filtering everything though a presumption that God does not exist. A society that practices the freedom of religion is not allowed that luxury.


Are you debating or trying to convince us how smart you are? The point is that millions of children are circumcised each year and only a small fraction of those children are born to Jewish parents. To make this argument wholly about religion is myopic at best.

How many times do I have to state that "the practice of routine medical circumcision should be abolished" before you actually read it?

Beyond that who is left? Jews and Muslims. I am speaking from the perspective of Jews because I know their scripture inside and out and can speak on those requirements with some measure of authority.

With regards to Jewish people specifically, they would be the ones most tragically affected by a ban on the practice. I dare say they would be calling it a new holocaust.


Its starting to feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. I'm arguing that no one has the right to make that decision for the child whether they are religious or secular.

And I am arguing that you have no right to force Jewish parents to let their sons die an eternal death when they can so easily prevent it. (which is how THEY see it whether you like it or not)

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you personally willing to pick up a knife, permanently mutilate a person's penis you do not know, who can not defend themselves, and has not consented for you to mutilate them?

Absolutely not. Why?

[denison]

too many zionist in gubermint. :(

[denison]

Absolutely not. Why?

then why do you support mass mutilation of children based on jewish tribal fairy tales. abuse is abuse, even if it's religiously mandated.

[Brian4Liberty]

I would not only be OK with using government force to prevent the cultural practice of female circumcision, but I would be willing to wield such force myself. If the parents pointed to the relevant passage in the Sunna and explained that per the teaching of Muhammad they would not allow the procedure to damage any of the 'pleasure' centers, then I would explain that Muhammad only allowed that as a cultural practice he was basically powerless to stop, while asking that the practice be limited to prevent the damaging of the pleasure organs such as the clitoris. In the United States, we are NOT powerless to stop such cultural practices, and as it remains at it's base a cultural practice not a religious dicta therefore it can be prevented by law.

Show me in the Koran or the Sunna where female circumcision is required by their God and I may be forced to rethink that position.

So far as I know, the ONLY physical alteration of the body directly required (commanded) by a religion's God is the practice of male circumcision effected by Jews and Muslims. Every other body modification I have ever heard of is entirely cultural.

We may not want to get into the business of validating or invalidating people's beliefs. Cultural, ethnic, religious, or otherwise.

As a society (preferably with minimal laws), we can agree that some things are "criminal" or banned. All societies work this way. Murder, robbery, theft and rape are generally illegal, no matter what the reason or justification. I tend to like a unanimous consensus, or at least 90% of the population agreeing. I do not like simple majorities forced their will upon the rest of society.

In all other areas, it is a disagreement between advocacy and rejection. We are all free to extol the virtues of smoking pot, or warn of the dangers. As there is not 90% agreement in our society, government should stay completely out.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Are you personally willing to pick up a knife, permanently mutilate a person's penis you do not know, who can not defend themselves, and has not consented for you to mutilate them?


Absolutely not. Why?

Of course not because you know it is wrong...


If we are not willing to do something ourselves, then it is immoral to ask our representatives to do it for us.

Dear elected Ruler with Power of Attorney to contract in my name and on my behalf;

I know it is wrong to commit violence against innocent people but would you please make an exception to this unlawful act of violence for __________.

Respectfully Requested,
Your Humble Servant

[heavenlyboy34]

If I may butt into this thread a bit-when the Torah mentions "circumcision" it usually refers to the removal of a very small portion of the foreskin. The tradition of "full circumcision" started much later (I forget the date now) because modern hygiene had not been developed yet. (there are some Judaic traditions that hold that a mohel should do the circumcision with his teeth! :eek: ) When the NT refers to "circumcision" it is in the figurative sense. Paul goes into quite a bit of detail about this "circumcision of the spirit". disclaimer: I am against neo-natal circumcision because a newborn does not have the mental capacity to agree to the procedure.
/end rant

[GunnyFreedom]

Minarchists with their government monopoly on violence force Anarchists to adopt bi-political positions since the individual is coerced from seceding.

So you are allowed to hold minarchistic positions but I am not allowe dto hold anarchistic positions? :D


Fair enough. Astute observation and poor choice of verbiage on my part. I think you get my point despite the poor verbiage.

Obviously not because you advocate persons of the Judaism religion can freely commit violence against innocent persons due to a religious belief.

Not even remotely true. If one parent has the right to circumcise their male child, then all parents have that same right. One law for everybody. This notion of different laws for different people is just plain bizarre. :confused:


Under Republics of limited constitutional government that is the theory but if some people commit violence against some other people in some cases it is not a crime depending on your religion.

To begin with, I do not stipulate that male circumcision is the commission of aggression. Is the removal of an appendix aggression? Is the removal of tonsils aggression? is the removal of wisdom teeth aggression?

Even WITH a total lack of consent on the part of the child, the parent is not only permitted, but has a DUTY to take their child in to remove an infected appendix. if they fail to do so then they will be arrested. No matter how much that child says "NO NO NO NO" if their appendix is infected the parents have to take that child to the doctor or they will be arrested for neglect.

Appendix surgery is FAR more invasive and potentially dangerous than circumcision, and yet the consent of the child is completely ignored, as the parents are presumed to know best, and to be looking out for the best interest of the child.

That very same presumption is denied to the parents wrt circumcision......why? because you, personally, think it's unnecessary? Based on what, your gut feeling? Because the infection is religious rather than microbial? Because penises are sacred and deserve more protection than intestines?


But that is what you are advocating. Some religious groups should in fact get their own special law to commit violence.

Not even remotely. It is only your assumption that has me making different laws for different people. I am simply incapable of thinking that way.


Not my problem and it wasn't Egypt's problem either. It is written God will intervene on behalf of his chosen people is it not? I forget was that before or after the new covenant?

So the Jewish race can rot in hell because you don't like what their God commands them to do? After all, God will save them if He chooses to ignore His commandment for them. Not your problem -- you'd rather see the secular Jew live 70 years and die forever than to allow him to live forever, just so long as he doesn't get his foreskin chopped.


If we are to be a Republic that respects the rule of law, American values dictate, and justice demands we do not condone violence against innocent persons.

The Constitution demands that we do not pass any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If we are to respect the rule of law, then we have to respect that. I go back to removing an appendix. Maybe the child doesn't want his appendix removed. Often, a perfectly healthy appendix is removed (the wisdom of THAT is surely subject to debate as well) just because a surgeon is already "in the area." Do we then put the surgeon in jail? How about the parents who allowed the healthy appendix to be removed?


Does this include religious teachings or religious acts of violence?

I do not stipulate that a male religious circumcision is an act of aggressive violence any more than removing an appendix is an act of aggressive violence.


Ironic you do not feel the same sense of justice in order to protect me from violence refusing to pay for immoral social defense.

Don't I? Taxation is immoral and theft. I advocate for the abolition of both income and property tax. Try not to just assume what you think my beliefs are going to be. ;)


What about the freedom of the individual who receives violence? Was the Declaration of Independence wrong to assert all men are born free?

I do not stipulate that a male religious circumcision is an act of aggressive violence any more than removing an appendix is an act of aggressive violence.


Isn't the only proper role of limited constitutional government to protect the freedom of the individual?

What about the freedom of Jewish parents to protect their child from eternal death?

[GunnyFreedom]

Of course not because you know it is wrong...



Dear elected Ruler with Power of Attorney to contract in my name and on my behalf;

I know it is wrong to commit violence against innocent people but would you please make an exception to this unlawful act of violence for __________.

Respectfully Requested,
Your Humble Servant

Your argument would have merit if we were talking about a law that required circumcision. I would vehemently oppose such a nightmare, and I think you know that.

[GunnyFreedom]

If I may butt into this thread a bit-when the Torah mentions "circumcision" it usually refers to the removal of a very small portion of the foreskin. The tradition of "full circumcision" started much later (I forget the date now) because modern hygiene had not been developed yet. (there are some Judaic traditions that hold that a mohel should do the circumcision with his teeth! :eek: ) When the NT refers to "circumcision" it is in the figurative sense. Paul goes into quite a bit of detail about this "circumcision of the spirit". disclaimer: I am against neo-natal circumcision because a newborn does not have the mental capacity to agree to the procedure.
/end rant

That's actually true. Biblical circumcision requires barely more than a drawing of blood.

[BamaAla]

I was thinking the same thing, but too polite to actually ask.

At least we're on the same page with something:D



Sure it is. We live in a representative republic. Our representatives make law. If we are not willing to do something ourselves, then it is immoral to ask our representatives to do it for us.

Perhaps its not moral to you, but last I checked you weren't the arbiter of my morality. We don't live in an anarchist society, so this idea that I have to do everything is not applicable.


Belief in God is not ignorance. Once again, you are filtering everything though a presumption that God does not exist. A society that practices the freedom of religion is not allowed that luxury.

Parents ignoring the effects of an operation is the ignorance I was referring to.



How many times do I have to state that "the practice of routine medical circumcision should be abolished" before you actually read it?

Beyond that who is left? Jews and Muslims. I am speaking from the perspective of Jews because I know their scripture inside and out and can speak on those requirements with some measure of authority.

With regards to Jewish people specifically, they would be the ones most tragically affected by a ban on the practice. I dare say they would be calling it a new holocaust.



And I am arguing that you have no right to force Jewish parents to let their sons die an eternal death when they can so easily prevent it. (which is how THEY see it whether you like it or not)

I keep coming back to the idea that our system of government was setup to protect individuals. The First Amendment absolutely protects an individual's right to practice his or her faith, but I don't believe that that right is extended to allowing individuals to initiate violence against another individual based on that faith. I respect people's faiths, but we live in a common law country and when faith comes into conflict with law, law takes precedent.

[GunnyFreedom]

In any case, I have to get some rest. I have to elect caucus leadership at noon, and there are rumors of some serious shenanigans with regard to the NCGOP ExComm being held at the same time. I will need a clear head to deal with some bad bad stuff possibly going down 10 hours from now.

[Brian4Liberty]

If I may butt into this thread a bit-when the Torah mentions "circumcision" it usually refers to the removal of a very small portion of the foreskin.

Absolutely. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and it's worth repeating.

[Brian4Liberty]

Even WITH a total lack of consent on the part of the child, the parent is not only permitted, but has a DUTY to take their child in to remove an infected appendix.

Of course. But we are talking about a completely normal, uninfected foreskin.

And even the removal of infected tonsils and appendixes is now questioned.

[Brian4Liberty]

And here it is, the real reason for removing foreskins: you could hide something in there!

YouTube - Coming Soon to an Airport Near You:Â*Prison-style strip searches? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLZq2iaMpXY)

[denison]

(there are some Judaic traditions that hold that a mohel should do the circumcision with his teeth! :eek: )

jesus. i thought you were joking. this is a real thing.


Rabbi probed for circumcised infants' herpes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/ns/health-kids_and_parenting
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br-smc/index.html

fucking sick.

so gunny, if there religious tradition requires them to suck baby penis, is that justified as long as their religion requires it?

[RonPaulCult]

I just want to point out to everybody that....you have spent your Friday night talking about penises.

Yeah...reflect on that for just a moment....

[Brian4Liberty]

jesus. i thought you were joking. this is a real thing.


Yes, it came up early in the thread. It is the exception, not the rule. It only applies to a few ultra-orthodox fringe mohels. The Catholic Church has had it's share of problems too...perhaps we should always be vigilant when it comes to giving "trusted" authorities access to our children.

[denison]

I just want to point out to everybody that....you have spent your Friday night talking about penises.

Yeah...reflect on that for just a moment....

http://files.myopera.com/AMGala/albums/200326/thumbs/Star%20Trek.gif_thumb.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

At least we're on the same page with something:D




Perhaps its not moral to you, but last I checked you weren't the arbiter of my morality. We don't live in an anarchist society, so this idea that I have to do everything is not applicable.

You don't have to do everything in society, but you should be willing to do anything that you are willing to ask your government to do on your behalf.

If you are willing to ask your government to go to war, then you should be willing to pick up a rifle and go. Physical disability may limit your ability to go to war or not, or you may have a more critical job towards the "war effort" back home than what good you might do on the front lines -- who knows? there may be a million reasons why tou simply CAN'T go to war, but if you are going to ask your government to go to war, then you should be willing to pick up a rifle and go to war yourself. Otherwise asking your government to go to war on your behalf is immoral.

We live in a representative republic. Anything, ANYTHING that you are willing to ask your government to do on your behalf, you had best be willing (even if unable for whatever reason) to do it yourself, otherwise requesting the government to do it on your behalf is immoral.

I could never imagine for a minute asking my government to do something on my behalf that I am unwilling to do myself if I were able.


Parents ignoring the effects of an operation is the ignorance I was referring to.

Parents are not ignoring the effects of an operation anymore than parents are ignoring the effects of removing an appendix. they are processing the issue like any parent, most likely in a cost/benefit type of scenario. Circumcision: Cost - 12 hours of pain with an extremely remote risk of complication. Benefit - Eternal life. No Circumcision: Cost - eternal death. Benefit - avoiding 12 hours of pain and zero risk of complication. When you look at it from their perspective, the math makes the choice pretty clear.


I keep coming back to the idea that our system of government was setup to protect individuals. The First Amendment absolutely protects an individual's right to practice his or her faith, but I don't believe that that right is extended to allowing individuals to initiate violence against another individual based on that faith. I respect people's faiths, but we live in a common law country and when faith comes into conflict with law, law takes precedent.

I do not stipulate that a male religious circumcision is an act of aggressive violence any more than removing an appendix is an act of aggressive violence.

[Brian4Liberty]

I just want to point out to everybody that....you have spent your Friday night talking about penises.

Yeah...reflect on that for just a moment....

What are you trying to say Willow? :p

[GunnyFreedom]

Of course. But we are talking about a completely normal, uninfected foreskin.

And even the removal of infected tonsils and appendixes is now questioned.

And yet, from the perspective of those parents, the consequences of failing to provide for the circumcision of a perfectly healthy foreskin is infinitely more dire than the consequences of failing to remove an infected appendix. If an appendix bursts the child merely dies, but he will live forever with them in the resurrection. If the child is not circumcised, then there is no life, no resurrection, no nothing. only eternal death.

OK, bed now or I will be completely loopy in 10 hrs. :D

[denison]

Yes, it came up early in the thread. It is the exception, not the rule. It only applies to a few ultra-orthodox fringe mohels. The Catholic Church has had it's share of problems too...perhaps we should always be vigilant when it comes to giving "trusted" authorities access to our children.

their should be no "exception" to sucking baby penis. even if it is smaller cult inside a larger one. it's a disgusting barbaric desert tradition that needs to be done away with for the health of the baby.

and nothing in catholicism allows for sucking baby penis. this "practice" is an official tradition of the "chosen" people. disgusting.

tribal customs shouldn't be allowed to endanger children's lives. :mad:

[denison]

so gunny, if there religious tradition requires them to suck baby penis, is that justified as long as their religion requires it?

[GunnyFreedom]

jesus. i thought you were joking. this is a real thing.


Rabbi probed for circumcised infants' herpes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/ns/health-kids_and_parenting (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/ns/health-kids_and_parenting)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br-smc/index.html (http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br-smc/index.html)

fucking sick.

so gunny, if there religious tradition requires them to suck baby penis, is that justified as long as their religion requires it?

I don't see such nonsense anywhere in the Torah Ketubim Neviim or the Talmud. Therefore I couldn't see it being justified.

[denison]

I just want to point out to everybody that....you have spent your Friday night talking about penises.

Yeah...reflect on that for just a moment....

this is so much more appropriate...

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm116/ashdump72/captain_kirk.gif

[Brian4Liberty]

it's a disgusting barbaric desert tradition that needs to be done away with for the health of the baby.

Aye! For a minute I thought you wrote dessert. :eek: I think it's past my bedtime too. :o

So what do you think, has this thread been thought provoking or informative?

[GunnyFreedom]

so gunny, if there religious tradition requires them to suck baby penis, is that justified as long as their religion requires it?

Some random dude can say any frelling thing he wants and call it religion. that doesn't play in my book. There has to be a REAL foundation for justification. Insane practices like this do not survive for thousands of years to form a foundation in religion.

Rastafarians, however, do have documented and historical justification for using cannabis during worship.

the rabbi penis sucking thing (yes, i have heard of it before) strikes me as something some pedo cult of moyen just made up one day. doesn't fly with me.

[Brian4Liberty]

this is so much more appropriate...

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm116/ashdump72/captain_kirk.gif

You're killing me!

I had no idea Bill Shatner was a mohel... :eek:

[BamaAla]

You don't have to do everything in society, but you should be willing to do anything that you are willing to ask your government to do on your behalf.

If you are willing to ask your government to go to war, then you should be willing to pick up a rifle and go. Physical disability may limit your ability to go to war or not, or you may have a more critical job towards the "war effort" back home than what good you might do on the front lines -- who knows? there may be a million reasons why tou simply CAN'T go to war, but if you are going to ask your government to go to war, then you should be willing to pick up a rifle and go to war yourself. Otherwise asking your government to go to war on your behalf is immoral.

We live in a representative republic. Anything, ANYTHING that you are willing to ask your government to do on your behalf, you had best be willing (even if unable for whatever reason) to do it yourself, otherwise requesting the government to do it on your behalf is immoral.

I could never imagine for a minute asking my government to do something on my behalf that I am unwilling to do myself if I were able.

You must be careful assigning morals to another person. Who's talking about war; for all you know I'm a pacifist.



I do not stipulate that a male religious circumcision is an act of aggressive violence any more than removing an appendix is an act of aggressive violence.

There's our impasse. An infected or ruptured appendix is not the same as foreskin. I would have no problem with the parents having a boy circumcised if the doctor ran into the room and said it was a matter of life and death, but that's not what it is. Absent that, individuals should decide for themselves.

[BamaAla]

I don't see such nonsense anywhere in the Torah Ketubim Neviim or the Talmud. Therefore I couldn't see it being justified.

Textual interpretation. Now are you willing to point the gun;)

[denison]

I don't see such nonsense anywhere in the Torah Ketubim Neviim or the Talmud. Therefore I couldn't see it being justified.


what separates this from being non-sense any more than mutilation with a knife?

it's accepted jewish religious custom and the talmud does allow it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_technique



metzitzah b'peh, (alt. mezizah), or oral suction,[11][12] where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. The traditional reason for this procedure is to minimize the potential for postoperative complications,[13][14] although the practice has been implicated in the spreading of herpes to the infant.[15]

A sterilized glass tube is now used.[16][17]The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. The Chasam Sofer observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child.

[denison]

Some random dude can say any frelling thing he wants and call it religion. that doesn't play in my book. There has to be a REAL foundation for justification. Insane practices like this do not survive for thousands of years to form a foundation in religion.

Rastafarians, however, do have documented and historical justification for using cannabis during worship.

the rabbi penis sucking thing (yes, i have heard of it before) strikes me as something some pedo cult of moyen just made up one day. doesn't fly with me.
you need to look it up more. it's in the talmud and the "chosen" people have been practicing it for thousands of years. :(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So you are allowed to hold minarchistic positions but I am not allowe dto hold anarchistic positions? :D

You are allowed to hold any position you want except acting on anarchistic ones. :)


Not even remotely true. If one parent has the right to circumcise their male child, then all parents have that same right. One law for everybody. This notion of different laws for different people is just plain bizarre. :confused:

What is bizarre about it? In America assault is criminalized (unless you are assaulting a male penis and happen to be ___________ ).


To begin with, I do not stipulate that male circumcision is the commission of aggression. Is the removal of an appendix aggression? Is the removal of tonsils aggression? is the removal of wisdom teeth aggression?

Even WITH a total lack of consent on the part of the child, the parent is not only permitted, but has a DUTY to take their child in to remove an infected appendix. if they fail to do so then they will be arrested. No matter how much that child says "NO NO NO NO" if their appendix is infected the parents have to take that child to the doctor or they will be arrested for neglect.

Appendix surgery is FAR more invasive and potentially dangerous than circumcision, and yet the consent of the child is completely ignored, as the parents are presumed to know best, and to be looking out for the best interest of the child.

That very same presumption is denied to the parents wrt circumcision......why? because you, personally, think it's unnecessary? Based on what, your gut feeling?

In order to insure the infection is eliminated, how do you measure an infected penis?



Because the infection is religious rather than microbial?

Religion is an infection? Is that your point? :eek:



Because penises are sacred and deserve more protection than intestines?

Based on previous posts in this thread it seems like: because vagina's are sacred and deserve more protection than penises would be more conforming to reality.


Not even remotely. It is only your assumption that has me making different laws for different people. I am simply incapable of thinking that way.

So the Jewish race can rot in hell because you don't like what their God commands them to do? After all, God will save them if He chooses to ignore His commandment for them. Not your problem -- you'd rather see the secular Jew live 70 years and die forever than to allow him to live forever, just so long as he doesn't get his foreskin chopped.

Does it become everyone's problem if you reject God?


The Constitution demands that we do not pass any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If we are to respect the rule of law, then we have to respect that. I go back to removing an appendix. Maybe the child doesn't want his appendix removed. Often, a perfectly healthy appendix is removed (the wisdom of THAT is surely subject to debate as well) just because a surgeon is already "in the area." Do we then put the surgeon in jail? How about the parents who allowed the healthy appendix to be removed?

I do not stipulate that a male religious circumcision is an act of aggressive violence any more than removing an appendix is an act of aggressive violence.

I do not stipulate that a male religious circumcision is an act of aggressive violence any more than removing an appendix is an act of aggressive violence.

I will await your wisdom on measuring infection before I comment on consistent application of the rule of law to remove appendixes.


to protect their child from eternal death?

Who can make such a claim? I am very interested in worshiping one who could make such a claim.

[denison]

You're killing me!

I had no idea Bill Shatner was a mohel... :eek:

everytime i see a mohel i'll think of that gif. ugh.

and i live in jersey city. :eek:

[denison]

Aye! For a minute I thought you wrote dessert. :eek: I think it's past my bedtime too. :o

So what do you think, has this thread been thought provoking or informative?

it's been fun but i'm tired. :D

[ammorris]

too many zionist in gubermint. :(


then why do you support mass mutilation of children based on jewish tribal fairy tales. abuse is abuse, even if it's religiously mandated.

Ah, the crux of denison's argument.


To begin with, I do not stipulate that male circumcision is the commission of aggression. Is the removal of an appendix aggression? Is the removal of tonsils aggression? is the removal of wisdom teeth aggression?

This is important, and I think that it's a point that has been missing from this debate; to me it seems much more important than the religious question. I'm not at all prepared to concede that circumcision is a violation of the rights of the child. Children, by their nature, are incapable of consenting to anything, at least until a certain age. Even when they reach an age at which they can think for themselves, it is assumed that parents will make certain decisions for them, because they are more capable of making the decision that is best for the child. Parents are entrusted with the guardianship of their children.

This is one of the hazier points in libertarian philosophy. To what extent are parents allowed to make decisions on behalf of their children, without the child's consent or even against its will? I have seen people on this board literally argue that it is a violation of the non-aggression principle and therefore unacceptable for a parent to require a child to brush his or her teeth. That is absurd. Clearly, parents have to be granted at least some leeway to decide what is best for the child and take appropriate action. I suspect that very few libertarians would object to this principle. The question is whether that leeway extends to the decision to circumcise a child.

Should children be sent to school or home-schooled (or not schooled at all?) Should they receive vaccines to immunize them against potentially dangerous diseases? Should they have an 8:00 bedtime, or should they be allowed to stay up late to watch TV? We might have different opinions on these matters, but most libertarians would argue that parents have a right to make these decisions, even if the child does not consent. We view these not as violations of the child's rights, but as examples of the parent's guardianship; the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the child.

We can probably all agree that parents have no right to do intentional and serious harm to a child, but what constitutes serious harm?

Removal of the foreskin has no real negative medical effects. The penis will continue to function in the same way. Complications sometimes occur, but they are rather rare, and this is true of any medical procedure. I suspect that a child is much more likely to experience serious bodily harm through school attendance than through circumcision, but no one is arguing that parents shouldn't be allowed to send their children to school. Sure, it hurts for a bit, but so do vaccinations. We can't ban any practice that causes a child pain. I see no reason why circumcision should be treated differently that any other example in which parents make a decision on behalf of a child who is incapable of or refuses consent.

[Brian4Liberty]

Removal of the foreskin has no real negative medical effects. The penis will continue to function in the same way. Complications sometimes occur, but they are rather rare, and this is true of any medical procedure. I suspect that a child is much more likely to experience serious bodily harm through school attendance than through circumcision, but no one is arguing that parents shouldn't be allowed to send their children to school. Sure, it hurts for a bit, but so do vaccinations. We can't ban any practice that causes a child pain. I see no reason why circumcision should be treated differently that any other example in which parents make a decision on behalf of a child who is incapable of or refuses consent.

So you seem to be arguing multiple issues:

a-That circumcision is no big deal, and that you have no problem with the procedure.
b-it does not violate the babies rights.
c-That it is the parents decision.

Most of use would agree on point (c), as we don't want government to make a law one way or another. Some would argue that it violates the babies rights, and not agree with (b). Many do not agree with (a), and believe that it is elective, unnecessary, risky and does have a negative impact.

Have you researched the practice from a medical perspective?

Take a look here if you are interested:

http://www.nocirc.org/

YouTube - Penn & Teller Bullshit: Circumcision 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUWMYpHtRTU)

[denison]

wow what happened to gunny, must be speechless. now that you now bloody baby penis sucking is allowed in the talmud, do you still support child mutilation in the name of religion?

[ammorris]

wow what happened to gunny, must be speechless. now that you now bloody baby penis sucking is allowed in the talmud, do you still support child mutilation in the name of religion?

Maybe he went to bed, dumbass.

[denison]

Removal of the foreskin has no real negative medical effects. The penis will continue to function in the same way. Complications sometimes occur, but they are rather rare, and this is true of any medical procedure. I suspect that a child is much more likely to experience serious bodily harm through school attendance than through circumcision, but no one is arguing that parents shouldn't be allowed to send their children to school. Sure, it hurts for a bit, but so do vaccinations. We can't ban any practice that causes a child pain. I see no reason why circumcision should be treated differently that any other example in which parents make a decision on behalf of a child who is incapable of or refuses consent.

does the blood sucking with a herpes fill mouth have no negative effect on the child? what's the stopping point for unnecessarily endangering a child's life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/ns/health-kids_and_parenting



metzitzah b'peh, (alt. mezizah), or oral suction,[11][12] where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. The traditional reason for this procedure is to minimize the potential for postoperative complications,[13][14] although the practice has been implicated in the spreading of herpes to the infant.[15]

A sterilized glass tube is now used.[16][17]The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. The Chasam Sofer observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_technique

[denison]

Maybe he went to bed, dumbass.

watch the name calling asshat. neg rep.

[low preference guy]

Maybe he went to bed, dumbass.

likely

+rep

[ammorris]

So you seem to be arguing multiple issues:

a-That circumcision is no big deal, and that you have no problem with the procedure.
b-it does not violate the babies rights.
c-That it is the parents decision.

Most of use would agree on point (c), as we don't want government to make a law one way or another. Some would argue that it violates the babies rights, and not agree with (b). Many do not agree with (a), and believe that it is elective, unnecessary, risky and does have a negative impact.

I'm not so much arguing (a), except as it incidentally relates to (b) and (c); i.e., if it was frequently harmful, then it would be a violation of the child's rights and would not be the parent's decision, but I don't find that to be the case (as evidenced by the millions of circumcised American men running around whose penises work just fine.) Because there is no lasting harm in normal cases (with rare exceptions), it falls under the parent's responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the child. (Incidentally, I would also argue that this is a significant difference between male circumcision and female circumcision, which--in my understanding--alters the structure and function of the genitals and often causes severe pain into adulthood.)

I hope that I'm being clear; it's late and I'm having trouble finding the right phrases to get my point across.

[denison]

likely

+rep

unlikey, since he disappeared right when he was corrected on the talmud reference.

- rep

[ammorris]

unlikey, since he disappeared right when he was corrected on the talmud reference.

- rep

Likely, since he wrote two pages ago that he was going to bed because he had actual grown-up obligations to attend to in the morning.

-rep

[Wayreth]

I believe it is important to understand that circumcision is altering a perfectly functioning organ and has no medical reason for it to be removed as well as for it to be so common place. There are cases where the foreskin is to tight, phimosis, and may need to be taken care of medically(although I never looked all that much further on phimosis so I could easily be wrong on that respect); however, without a case for medical procedures, circumcision as a normal practice can be nothing other than mutilation. For all that is lost do to circumcision, this link will be insightful: http://www.norm.org/lost.html

[Nate-ForLiberty]

200 penis posts.

congratulations LibertyForest!

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/celebrity-pictures-gary-busey-crazy-people.jpg

[denison]

wow, gunny disappeared for good, wonder why? :rolleyes:

[ammorris]

wow, gunny disappeared for good, wonder why? :rolleyes:

Are you illiterate? Did you not read the post three pages ago in which he wrote that he had a GOP caucus meeting to attend today?

[teacherone]

wow, gunny disappeared for good, wonder why? :rolleyes:

he walks the liberty walk and has better things to do than discuss dicks with dicks?

[Son of Detroit]

wow, gunny disappeared for good, wonder why? :rolleyes:

Being a state congressman and all, I don't think he has the time to talk about weeners on the internet.

[Brian4Liberty]

Being a state congressman and all, I don't think he has the time to talk about weeners on the internet.

I believe he was discussing freedom of religion.

[wormyguy]

There are limits to free exercise of religion - the freedom to exercise your religion applies to anything you want to do with yourself, but ceases as soon as it becomes something which is forced onto others (see Charles Manson et al). The fundamental source of all rights is the Non-Aggression Principle - free exercise of religion derives from it because it disallows aggression against individuals for harmless acts. The act of forcibly and irreversibly mutilating a person's genitals without their consent clearly violates the non-aggression principle, and so free exercise of religion does not apply (especially considering that children do not always end up sharing their parents' religion!). It's not even remotely comparable to requiring one's child to brush his or her teeth or to go to school - neither of those activities cause irreversible harm or trauma. Think about it this way - if your parents felt it was necessary to their religion, should they be allowed to kidnap you (as an adult), strap you down to a gurney, and, without anesthesia, have someone cut off your earlobes? If your answer is "no," and you agree that assaulting a child is equivalent to assaulting an adult, then you can only have one answer to the question posed by this thread as well.

[LibertyBrews]

I just don't understand the necessity to cut of a part of your dick(yes, foreskin is a part of your dick) for religious reasons. After all foreskin is a part of Gods "work", why would he want you to snip it off?

[heavenlyboy34]

I just don't understand the necessity to cut of a part of your dick(yes, foreskin is a part of your dick) for religious reasons. After all foreskin is a part of Gods "work", why would he want you to snip it off?

+rep Even a number of Jews now recognize the barbarism of circumcision. See Jews Against Circumcision (http://jewsagainstcircumcision.org/), for example. (plenty of resources on that page too, FWIW)

[GunnyFreedom]

wow, gunny disappeared for good, wonder why? :rolleyes:

Yesterday was hell, but we got it done.

WRT denison's question, your wondering where I went demonstrates that you do not bother to read my posts in this thread so why should I make the effort to post them?

I'll answer the question on the Talmud, but then I'm done. Nobody likes to waste 8 hours in a debate only to learn that the opposition is spewing without actually bothering to read what you write.

You will be hard pressed to find me defending the Talmud, to be honest. I consider it to be major way in which the Jewish faith went wrong. In inner ring is not bad, the middle ring is marginally OK, the outer ring is not good.

In the Talmud, the outer ring is the least authoritative. The passage you cite is in the outer ring. It also states in context that the only reason it allows such is to prevent infection. 500 years ago when it was written...maybe...today, no way. If you actually read the cited part in context, it only allows that disgusting nonsense because at the time they claim to have had no better means of preventing infection. That may be up for debate then, but today there is no room for debate. There are obviously methods a million times better than that for preventing infection.

In context, it's more like your friend gets bit on the ass by a snake and you suck the venom out because there is no other way to save his life. You may be willing to do it in the woods 200 miles from nowhere with no snakebite kit and without the means to extract the venom elsehow, but you certainly wouldn't do it right outside the door from the emergency room.

So once again, an argument can be made directly from the text that using the mouth would not be acceptable today. And I say that not being a fan of the Talmud anyway (at least certainly not the outer ring).

So I would still argue for a ban on that disgusting practice, and I would argue for the ban straight from the text you use to claim to support it.

Nevertheless, you have demonstrated that you are just trying to 'play a game' with me by keeping me sucked in to a mostly worthless debate, by posting challenges without actually reading my responses. Had you bothered to read what I was posting you would have known damn well where I was yesterday.

I won't get pulled in to that further. I have far, far more important things to do than to waste whole days just to entertain you, denison.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I can put it no plainer than its a simple violation of a non-consenting newborn human being when done for non-medical reasons. The fact that there are newborns that have died or had to have their sexual identity altered because of botched circumcisions is enough for me to say it should be banned. When someone reaches an age where they can consent (I go with 13 being the general demarcation line) they can choose what to do for themselves. There is no medical reason to perform routine circumcisions and the sick defenses of it I've seen (many of which come from women), ie - 'a clipped dick is nicer' is so much hogwash. Its no different than the reasons given in tribal hellholes where women are subjected to routine circumcision and/or mutilation.

A ban for non-medical circumcisions for newborn males is the only response as anything else is a gross violation of The Non-Aggression Principle.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are limits to free exercise of religion

There certainly are:

- Human sacrifice (we can include virgin and infant sacrifice here): banned.
- Honor killing: banned.
- Stoning: banned.
- Dismemberment/maiming as punishment: banned.
- Spouse beating: banned.
- Spouse raping: banned.
- Slavery: banned.
- Marrying children: banned.
- Non-consensual Polygamy among adults: banned.
- Consensual Polygamy among adults: banned.
- Use of some drugs for religious purposes: banned.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yesterday was hell, but we got it done.


Good work! Definitely more important than staying up all night on the internet. ;)

[Natalie]

//

[low preference guy]

i am circumcising my son when i have one.

tmi?

[Wayreth]

I am circumcising my son when I have one.

This seems intended to be antagonizing when I look at the thread title haha, but I'd like to ask, why? Out of curiosity, what are your views on female circumcision?

[Brian4Liberty]

I am circumcising my son when I have one.

Why don't you wait until he's 13 and ask him? Does the father get a say? :o

Did you watch this video?

YouTube - Penn & Teller Bullshit: Circumcision 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUWMYpHtRTU)

[Natalie]

//

[Natalie]

//

[low preference guy]

I will not feel bad about my hypothetical kid's circumcision. What about parents that pierce their daughter's ears when they are babies? They never asked the baby if she wanted her ears pierced. I don't really think circumcision is that big of a deal. Yeah, it probably hurts like hell, a lot more than getting your ears pierced, but it's not like the baby will remember it.

It's a pretty big deal. I don't think it is easy to get your prepuce back if you want to.

[Brian4Liberty]

I will not feel bad about my hypothetical kid's circumcision. What about parents that pierce their daughter's ears when they are babies? They never asked the baby if she wanted her ears pierced. I don't really think circumcision is that big of a deal. Yeah, it probably hurts like hell, a lot more than getting your ears pierced, but it's not like the baby will remember it.

Well, personally I would be against piercing any part of a baby or child. A closer analogy would be if there was a tradition where people cut off the ear lobes. Not something that can be reversed later.

Most circumcisions are done without any anesthetic, so yeah, it's pretty painful. Usually puts the baby into shock.

[Natalie]

//

[low preference guy]

I was going to say "Most people who are circumcised don't really want their foreskin back." Which is true, but I decided to google it just in case there was some foreskin movement I didn't know about. Turns out there is! Lol. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543481/


i bet your kid will join it. that would be funny!

[low preference guy]

I was going to say "Most people who are circumcised don't really want their foreskin back."

i think part of it is because it's actually impossible to get a full restoration, so many don't waste time wishing for something that can't happen. also, from the article you cited:


"Most men who do suffer, who are troubled by what was done to them, suffer in silence," says Bigelow. "If we didn’t have what is this foolish tradition in our culture, we wouldn’t have to do this."

and it seems to make a difference:


Nonetheless, restorers speak with quiet joy about their new foreskins. They describe heightened sexual sensation -- increased sensitivity for a man, less friction for his partner. They insist that the newly covered glans can become more sensitive.
Before he was restored, Griffiths says, those qualities made him envious. "I had to just absolutely beat myself to death, so to speak, to get feeling, to get some pleasure," says Griffiths. "The intact man just goes on forever. He enjoys the trip."

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Cutting off a girl's labia and clitoris means they will never enjoy sex. Having the extra foreskin doesn't really make a difference.

Not all female circumcisions are of that brand. Furthermore, removing 75% of the nerve endings of the penis DOES reduce pleasure for men. Its not 'a little extra foreskin'. I also love to point out to people that you would go to jail for animal cruelty if you circumcised a puppy or kitten.

[Brian4Liberty]

I was going to say "Most people who are circumcised don't really want their foreskin back." Which is true, but I decided to google it just in case there was some foreskin movement I didn't know about. Turns out there is! Lol.
... Having the extra foreskin doesn't really make a difference.

There has been much enlightenment on the issue, so there is a movement.

As for making a difference, they say that 70-90 percent of the nerve endings reside in the skin that is removed.

[BamaAla]

i bet your kid will join it. that would be funny!

Join a movement hell; that kid'll "deFoo!"


:DI kid, I kid.

[amy31416]

In regards to piercing a child's ears and thinking that there's no bad "side-effects," that's not necessarily true--I have bizarre metal allergies and based on the research I've done, it's quite likely that it's from wearing earrings at a young age.

The metals on bras bugs me, the buttons on jeans where it touches my skin breaks out, and anything but platinum and almost pure gold will make me break out in hives.

It's probably not that common, but it does happen.

[Wayreth]

I also don't think the effects of male circumcision compare to the effects of female circumcision.

Well I was able to get my answers indirectly. :) This is why I brought up female circumcision, it always seems that the argument falls on this position: that a less severe operation(which is normal within one's own culture) is acceptable when contrasted with an extreme form of another operation(which takes place in a foreign culture.)

Both are permanent disfigurations of the body regardless of severity.

[jmdrake]

If circumcision were a practice promoted/embraced by Muslims, they'd be raked over the coals.

Those barbaric, backwards Muslims! They cut a part of their babies penises off...!

I've read other articles about this and, of course, the "anti-semite" card is being played repeatedly. Mohels who follow the traditional route perform, as part of the ritual, an act that would get any other adult man thrown in jail (aside from removing the foreskin, that is.) It's repulsive.

Ummm....you do know that Muslims practice circumcision don't you?

[amy31416]

Ummm....you do know that Muslims practice circumcision don't you?

Yep. So do Christians...but they aren't required by their religion to do so. My point was that if it were a practice particular to Muslims, then it would certainly be considered barbaric. I think the sentiment would be similar if it were particular to Christianity as well.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I am circumcising my son when I have one.

personally?

[Brian4Liberty]

personally?

:D

http://cdn5.mattters.com/photos/photos/1227548/woman-with-knife.jpg

[Natalie]

//

[low preference guy]

I did a little research after posting in this thread and now I feel like a superficial asshole. I will no longer be mutilating my future baby's genitalia without his consent. I watched that Penn & Teller too, and sent it to my brother as well. It's a good one. I had to cover my eyes at some parts. *shudders*

that was a quick conversion. good.

[low preference guy]

this might be removed by the mods, but i think it's important information.


Sex question for girls : do you prefer circumcised or uncircumcised men ?


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

I've experienced both and my preference is for uncircumcised, but I would be happy with a circumcised guy too because I love a man for who he is, not his circumcision status.

Okay, honestly...it's weird to get into too much detail about this but you asked.

I find that a circumcised penis scrapes the vagina, while an uncircumcised penis glides more smoothly against it. I get sore after a while with a circumcised guy, and it can feel irritating. A lot of lube is needed and even still, I get irritated (partly because circumcises penises draw out a woman's natural lubrication).
Now an uncircumcised penis, the foreskin cushions underneath the part of the head that flares out (the coronal ridge) and there is zero irritation and soreness, even without lube.

Also I find an uncircumcised penis is far funner to play with, and uncircumcised men are FAR more sensitive. You can lightly touch the head and a shudder runs through their body. Circumcised, you have to kill your arm trying to get them off. And they just seem to enjoy only the orgasm, while uncircumcised guys enjoy the leading up to it as well.

I find that uncircumcised guys go slower and are more smooth and rhythmic. This is because they don't have to bang as hard to receive pleasure.

And for looks, the head of an uncircumcised penis is shiny and smooth, while the head of a circumcised penis is dried-out and calloused. So I prefer the look of uncut too.

To be honest...I think the girls who automatically say "I prefer circumcised!" have never even tried uncircumcised.


Edit; To Toxic, actually no, it has NOT been proven that circumcised men are less likely to get STDs. The USA, where 75-80% of adult men are circumcised, have a much HIGHER rate of STDs than Europe, where only about 10% of adult men are circumcised. If you want to know that the chances of getting an STD is lower, wear a condom! Circumcision status has nothing to do with it.
And did you know that females produce ten times as much smegma (the "mucous" you're referring to) as men? For all those of you saying foreskin "hides germs" or whatnot, how would you feel if a man said he preferred a circumcised woman, because there's no inner labia to hide germs? I think girls can often be hypocritical on this topic..."foreskin can be unclean"..uhm, yeah, so can our female parts but we don't cut those parts off.

Link (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100902021417AAEX5pw)

[Brian4Liberty]

I watched that Penn & Teller too, and sent it to my brother as well. It's a good one. I had to cover my eyes at some parts. *shudders*

Yeah, it's tough to watch a helpless baby tied down spread eagle, and then having the most sensitive part of his body torn, clamped and carved up, with no anesthetic or anesthesia at all. And people get upset over water-boarding...

[Brian4Liberty]

Bump for Traditional Conservative... ;)

[juvanya]

This gentile is perfectly happy with his circumcision . Next problem please :)

This, except not a gentile. The consent thing is a concern, but I think parents have the right to make consent. To argue otherwise means parents cant even feed a baby because it did not consent to being fed. Further, the concerns about consent are overridden by the fact that circumcision at an age when consent can be given is substantially more painful than at near birth (where little pain is experienced, if done correctly).

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This, except not a gentile. The consent thing is a concern, but I think parents have the right to make consent. To argue otherwise means parents cant even feed a baby because it did not consent to being fed. Further, the concerns about consent are overridden by the fact that circumcision at an age when consent can be given is substantially more painful than at near birth (where little pain is experienced, if done correctly).

I coerced a child to eat because I believe the human body requires food = I coerced a child's penis being assaulted to keep God happy?

[dannno]

I coerced a child to eat because I believe the human body requires food = I coerced a child's penis being assaulted to keep God happy?

Meh, look at Abraham.

[DamianTV]

Getting circumsized is one thing, a surgery replacing ones cock and balls with a toaster oven without their express concent is something totally different.

[Brian4Liberty]

...at near birth (where little pain is experienced, if done correctly).

Babies don't feel pain? And how do you explain the desperate screaming and going into shock that usually occurs with infant circumcision?

[Brian4Liberty]

To argue otherwise means parents cant even feed a baby because it did not consent to being fed.

Ridiculous. Two completely different things. One is elective plastic surgery with pain and risks, and one is necessary for life. And if there is anything that babies obviously consent to, it's feeding!

[leipo]

I'm glad i still have my foreskin. I wouldn't want to know what's it's like to have sex with a numb glans. I can't even imagine enjoying a blowjob that way, aside from the visual aspect.

[madengr]

Heard a talk show discussing this a few years ago. Two different Vietnam medics called in and said, on average, an uncircumcised male would last a few days in the jungle before coming back with a nasty infection. I'm glad I'm snipped.

It may be a religious custom now, but back in the days of yearly baths, it was beneficial. Same goes for eating pork. Back in the day before meat (deep) freezing, you could get trichinosis from undercooked pork, which are worms borrowing through your muscles. A very painful way to die.

My son was circumcised, but his pediatrician is an old Jewish guy, probably done 10000 circumcisions.

[dannno]

I'm glad i still have my foreskin. I wouldn't want to know what's it's like to have sex with a numb glans. I can't even imagine enjoying a blowjob that way, aside from the visual aspect.

lol

but ya I don't think it's that much different...nothing is "numb" down there, that's for sure..

[leipo]

lol

but ya I don't think it's that much different...nothing is "numb" down there, that's for sure..

You don't know what you're missing. When ones glans is exposed at all times, of course it will desensitize. It's not rocket science. Besides that, lots of nerve endings in the foreskin are removed with circumcision. Partial female circumcision (removal of outer vaginal lips) has the exact same effect. The clitoris is exposed at all times, and thus loses it's sensitivity.