Why is it that we accept, even celebrate, the mutilation of a male infant's genitals in the name of "god," but someone who mutilates his female infant's genitals in the name of "god" can go to prison for 40 years? The purpose in both cases is the same, to reduce sexual pleasure. If we allow one (which I think we shouldn't anyway), I don't see the reason for forbidding the other.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/10/27/national/a090408D09.DTLThe trial of an Atlanta-area father accused of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors is focusing attention on an ancient African practice that experts say is slowly becoming more common in the U.S. as immigrant communities grow.

Khalid Adem, a 31-year-old immigrant from Ethiopia, is charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Human rights observers said they believe this is the first criminal case in the U.S. involving the 5,000-year-old practice.

Prosecutors say Adem used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in their apartment in 2001. The child's mother said she did not discover it until more than a year later.

"He said he wanted to preserve her virginity," Fortunate Adem, the girl's mother, testified this week. "He said it was the will of God. I became angry in my mind. I thought he was crazy."

If convicted, Adem, a clerk at a suburban Atlanta gas station, could get up to 40 years in prison.

While I have my own opinions about male circumcision, I think it's a huge difference between having a doctor/trained person do it, and having a father cut off his 2 year-old son's foreskin with a pair of scissors. The latter should be and is a criminal offence. Mutilating the clitoris of a female child should also be and is a criminal offence.

I also don't think male circumcision's purpose is to reduce sexual pleasure. I could make a convincing argument that it actually increases it. (Hint: From a sheer pleasurable experience, would men prefer to use a condom or not?) Routine male circumcision is a religious practice of mutilation that people sometimes justify with pseudo-medical arguments.

Tudamorf is right: the two operations should be viewed exactly the same, from a legal basis.

(I would allow either if for genuine religious reasons, because this is constitutionally necessary, and outlaw either if done for any other reason).

Thicket, you're not understanding hwo an uncircumcised penis works if you think there is any way an uncircumcised penis is *less* sensitive than a cut one. The business end of a cut penis is rubbed 24 hours a day by underwear and pants, and becomes less sensitive as a result. The business end of an intact penis is protected during normal activities, and so remains ultra sensitive for when its brought out for the real business.

No one could argue that male circumcision reduces male sexual pleasure as much as female circumcision reduces female sexual pleasure, but both do the same *type* of thing, just to diffeent degrees.

According to UNICEF, "It is a dangerous and irreversible procedure that negatively impacts the general health, child bearing capabilities and educational opportunities of girls and women."

I think there is a difference in cultural intent and physical effect between male circumcision and female circumcision. To look at the two and say "you're cutting someone's genitals in both cases, it must be the same sort of thing" is a bit naive.

simple overview - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/femalecircumcision/

Hell is freezing over.

I happen to agree with Anka on something.

I think it's a huge difference between having a doctor/trained person do it, and having a father cut off his 2 year-old son's foreskin with a pair of scissors.What about a rabbi, who has no medical training at all? I fail to see a big difference here. Besides, if were only a question of expertise, he shouldn't be facing 40 years in prison, but rather a slap on the wrist for unlawful practice of medicine. Also, since the practice is illegal, he had no choice but to do it himself.I also don't think male circumcision's purpose is to reduce sexual pleasure. I could make a convincing argument that it actually increases it.Let's talk about the <i>effect</i> first. Aldarion_Shard raises a valid point about the sensitivity issue. Second, the foreskin contains a large number of nerve endings, and cutting them off objectively reduces the stimulus from sex. It's not really a debatable issue.

As to the <i>purpose</i>, it depends which culture you're talking about. Removing the clitoris (in African cultures) is designed to eliminate sexual pleasure and thus to encourage young women not to have sex. Removing the foreskin in semitic cultures is designed to reduce sexual pleasure, especially during masturbation. Some ancient cultures considered it a rite of passage (like the tooth sharpening in some African cultures, or bloodletting).

If you think there's some higher, ethereal purpose to either barbaric practice, you need to do a little research. That's all it is. In the mid 20th century, some people thought it was more hygienic, but there was no evidence to support it. The only documented medical benefit I've ever seen is the reduction in HIV transmission from vagina to penis, which has just been proven in the past year or two.I think there is a difference in cultural intent and physical effect between male circumcision and female circumcision. To look at the two and say "you're cutting someone's genitals in both cases, it must be the same sort of thing" is a bit naive.Yes, the female version is designed to eliminate sexual pleasure, whereas the male version is just designed to reduce it, with an emphasis on reducing masturbation. But it's just a matter of degree: in one case, you're cutting off all the nerve endings responsible for sexual pleasure, and in the other case, you're only cutting off most of them. The intent is similar: to restrict the victim's sexual pleasure.

A major issue with the female version in Africa is that it's done very crudely, without sterilization, and thus poses a health risk. However, we could solve that problem if a doctor did it (or was allowed to do it). He isn't, though, so parents are forced to do it themselves.

I have yet to hear a reasoned explanation as to why a parent should be allowed to freely mutilate their son's genitals, but not their daughter's.

I am circumcised, and not like I have any point of comparison(because was done just after birth), I can tell you that I have absolutely no problem with masturbating.

I would like that half inch back, but oh well, the chances of having some malformity of the foreskin outweigh that.

Besides, of the females I have polled, they prefer a cut man, when queried regarding preferences during oral sex. So that there, is a wiener.

What about a rabbi, who has no medical training at all?

I can not give you specific info or guarantee this 100 percent but I am fairly confident a Mohel ( Rabbi specially trained: pronounced Moyle )has medical/surgical training in performing a Briss( The name of the circumcision ceremony ) and is not just your neighborhood rabbi.

I am circumcised, and not like I have any point of comparison(because was done just after birth), I can tell you that I have absolutely no problem with masturbating.I didn't say it eliminates masturbation. I said it was intended to make it less pleasurable (and arguably harder dry, unless you stretch the skin).Besides, of the females I have polled, they prefer a cut man, when queried regarding preferences during oral sex. So that there, is a wiener.That's just because it's what young to mid-age American women are used to. Besides, aren't <i>you</i> the one who should make the decision, after puberty, not "god" acting through your parents?

Hey man, I don't want anyone cutting my dick when I can remember feeling it.

I have thought about putting beads in, of course, but that is entirely different. I am going to get a lingual frenelectomy, at least.

If you like your flap of skin, more power to ya. I don't really miss mine. What I do miss is cleaning out the cheese every morning, no thank you, you can have that.

Yes, the female version is designed to eliminate sexual pleasure, whereas the male version is just designed to reduce it, with an emphasis on reducing masturbation. But it's just a matter of degree:

It is not a matter of degree. Female circumcision may seem fine in a society where women are treated as chattel, deserve no sexual pleasure, and are designated from childhood as brood mares for a future husband. In any society where women have sexual freedom or choice of husband, perhaps a husband who doesn't appreciate genital mutilation, it seems barbaric.

I think one of the reasons why this has gotten so much play from the Liberal and Feminist crowd is because they believed that it was a convention of male oppression.

One of the things that these do gooders have found out, whilst trying to eradicated the practice, is that it is the mothers who are the strongest proponents of the custom.

It is not a matter of degree.Why not? They're both about sexual control (a primary theme in religion). One is just more severe. But they're both barbaric.

I know I was not cut because of god.

I just recently went through my OB rotation.

Saw a few males circumcised. With the local, it appeared no more painful than the actual birthing process.

And as a point of contrast, inserting IVs in babies appeared to be more painful to them than circumcision.

And since we are still in this vein. I had a patient last year, 24 year old new diabetic, who asked me if I could help him with a 'problem'. 24 years old, even had kids, and his foreskin was so tight that the glans could not go through it. Every erection was painful for him. I suggested he see a urologist(to get it cut), and gave him the name of one on staff. Catholic background, so I don't know why you keep harping on the religion thing for circumcisions in our culture.

Today, there are many reasons why parents cut their newborn boys.

I know I was not cut because of god.

Catholic background, so I don't know why you keep harping on the religion thing for circumcisions in our culture.Jews and muslims do it out of religion. It's a command in the bible, though I'm not sure where the muslims get it from. Christians only cherry pick sections from the older bible text, so they don't follow it. The only reason so many American Christians are circumcised today is that there was a big movement in the mid 20th century to do it for unproven health reasons. (That trend, incidentally, is reversing.)

The reason I bring up religion is that we celebrate it when a Jew does it in the name of "god," but the African guy faces 40 years in prison when <i>he</i> did it in the name of "god." Hello, 14th Amendment. I didn't mean that "god" is the <i>only</i> reason people do it.Today, there are many reasons why parents cut their newborn boys.Few of them valid or necessary. It's usually out of (1) religion, (2) an archaic notion that it's healthier, or (3) they had it done to themselves, so that's what they're used to seeing.

Decrease in HIV transmission is the only proven medical benefit, and that's not something that has to be decided by the parents at birth.

Today, there are many reasons why parents cut their newborn boys.
Hey! My first time here and I get to jump in on a hot topic such as this.

Yes, there are several non-religious reasons parents today circumcise their newborn sons - cosmetic reasons and ignorance. That's it. If you've just finished your OB rotation then I assume you know that no medical organization in the US or in the world recommends routine infant circumcision nowadays.
ost intact boys grow up without ever having any problems. The few that do, most are treated and respond well to antibiotics or steroid creams. If someone is unlucky enough to actually *need* a circumcision then adequate pain relief is given before and after the surgery. Unfortunately, the same pain relief isn't routinely afforded to infants.

I'm an OB nurse. I've witnessed many circumcisions and it just breaks my heart every time. Why cut off a perfectly healthy piece of skin? I mean, my kids ears get dirty and they could get skin cancer on them, but I didn't have their ears amputated as a preventative measure. I also didn't circumcise my daughter OR my son. And both children are healthy and asymptomatic. Sorry to the diabetic man with a problem. That still doesn't justify circumcising thousands of newborns each year.
I've also worked in the NICU many years ago. I have to disagree. The circs I've seen seem to hurt the child far more than the IV insertions.
Of course, you're always going to have some babies that just cry hysterically just because you look at them wrong. I guess that will never change. I am glad to hear that more and more Drs are using local blocks but I still think it's a shame to do it even with a local or EMLA cream. There is just no good medical reason to routinely perform it.

As far as religion goes, specifically the Catholic faith, I've been told that circumcision isn't allowed and is prohibited by the Pope. Now I'm not Catholic, so please excuse me if I'm wrong. There's a lot of info on Catholics and circumcision at http://catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/ .
There is also a growing number of Jewish people who are skipping the traditional bris also - http://jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ .

I'm sure most people have their minds made up on circumcision. There will always be those for and against it. If someone reading this is on the fence about it, you can check out a video on circ at http://intact.ca/video.html .

TWM - an OB nurse who didn't circ her own kids.

Welcome aboard, TWM! Always nice to have fresh blood. Bwahahahah!

I didn't know that circumcisions were carried out so much in the US, I'm pretty sure in Europe it's not done unless there are religous reasons for it.

Hey! My first time here and I get to jump in on a hot topic such as this.


Welcome.

Are your ears pierced?

Are you daughter's?

Welcome.

Are your ears pierced?

Are you daughter's?
Oh god, what a lame comparison. The pain of having my ears pierced didn't equal one evening of wearing clip on earrings that pinch. And I got my ears pierced as an adult.

It is a social and cultural convention and has no more or less reasons than circumcision. And more ubiquitious than circ, by any regard.

Why is it a lame comparison?

What were your reasons for piercing your ears?

Welcome.

Are your ears pierced?

Are you daughter's?

Thank you for the welcome!

Yes, and I was 16 years old and it was my choice to have them pierced, not my parents.

No. They are not. Nor would we ever pierce them unless she was old enough to make that decision for herself.

It is a social and cultural convention and has no more or less reasons than circumcision. And more ubiquitious than circ, by any regard.

Why is it a lame comparison?

What were your reasons for piercing your ears?
So I didn't have to wear clip on earrings that either fall off and get lost or pinch and hurt like hell.

Welcome.
Are your ears pierced?
Are you daughter's?I think you said it best in the abortion thread:You people and your analogies are absurd.Body piercing is up to the (adult, or nearly so) individual, not the parent. It's also painless and affects no significant body function. Circumcision is done against the infant's will, and is specifically designed to decrease sexual pleasure, a basic aspect of the organism.

Why is it that we accept, even celebrate, the mutilation of a male infant's genitals in the name of "god," but someone who mutilates his female infant's genitals in the name of "god" can go to prison for 40 years? The purpose in both cases is the same, to reduce sexual pleasure. If we allow one (which I think we shouldn't anyway), I don't see the reason for forbidding the other.

No, the purpose in male circumcision is not to reduce sexual pleasure. Its purpose was to differentiate the Jews from everyone else. Goyim, for the most part, do not circumcise for religious reasons.

And if we ever outlawed male circumcision, I think I'd become an armed revolutionary.

Further, male circumcision differs in significant ways from female circumcision.

Firstly, the prepuce is not nearly as...important to sexual pleasure as is a clitoris. Secondly, female circumcision is not specifically required by any religion, so far as I know, whereas in Judaism it is specifically mandated, required to be identified as a Jew (unless banned by an anti-semitic and oppressive regime...like the Soviet Union); even the time is mandated specifically in the Torah. It is so important to the Jewish faith that I have yet to meet a Russian Jew who immigrated to the US to escape the Soviet Union who did not voluntarily get circumcized when he came to the US. As for the sanity nature of circumcisions...well, Jews have been circumcizing their boys for neigh on 3500 years. If we could circumcize boys with flint...you can trust the Jews to have managed safe ways to do it now (The Rabbi or Mohel are specifically trained for the proceedure, there is topical anesthetic applied and anti-bacterial gel applied afterwards. The lil guy also gets his first drunk off the corner of a napkin dipped in wine =P)

I can not give you specific info or guarantee this 100 percent but I am fairly confident a Mohel ( Rabbi specially trained: pronounced Moyle )has medical/surgical training in performing a Briss( The name of the circumcision ceremony ) and is not just your neighborhood rabbi.

The mohel doesn't necessarily have to be a Rabbi and frequently isn't in a Jewish community large enough to sustain a mohel specifically (Think Brooklyn). In smaller communities (such as Toledo), the Rabbi's also act as Mohel's. And despite Tudamorf's uninformed speculations, they are trained.

Some Jews here are more sticklers for tradition and will hire a Mohel from Detroit to come down. Some are less traditional and will have their child circumcised in the hospital and then perform the Bris on the 8th day but obviously without the circumcision.

Aren't there easier ways to distinguish one group of people from another? Besides the practice kind of got ruined when Goyim get cut too. Not to point out obvious logical flaws... but it only differentiates the male.

Ok, I know I'm nuts trying to make sense out of religion. But you gotta admit the Jewish faith at least has reasons for things other than, "'Cause our prophet said so".

Why not? They're both about sexual control (a primary theme in religion). One is just more severe. But they're both barbaric.

There has never been a proscription in in the Torah against masturbation. While Talmudic Judaism considered it a sin, that long postdates male circumcision...but about 1600 years.

The sexual control in Judaism (in the Torah) is primarily against homosexuality, incest, sex during menstruation, the repurcussions of sleeping with a girl if you're not married to her (You either had to marry her, or pay her dowry price to her father, since she's now used goods), rape, and the responsibility of a man's brother to a man's wife, should the man die (Bro has to marry your wife).

The Orthodox, of course, have invented a plethora of laws surrounding sex.

However, it must be noted that Judaism has explicit and specfic opinions on the pleasures of sex...It isn't evil. It isn't a sin. Jews are very much permitted to engage in sexual congress for pleasure alone, prophylactics are permitted, as is oral and anal sex. Now, you aren't supposed to engage in such activities until marriage (But mainly because Judaism has revolved around marriage and family...and in the old days, marriage came only a few years after Bar Mitzvah). Further, Jewish law on divorce lists sex as one of the rights a wife has and it is one of the reasons she may ask the Rabbi's to force her husband to request a divorce.

No...not all religion is big on sexual repression. Your blanket statements are...ill informed.

Aren't there easier ways to distinguish one group of people from another? Besides the practice kind of got ruined when Goyim get cut too. Not to point out obvious logical flaws... but it only differentiates the male.

Ok, I know I'm nuts trying to make sense out of religion. But you gotta admit the Jewish faith at least has reasons for things other than, "'Cause our prophet said so".

Technically circumcision is a sign of the covenant between Jews and God. Which is a good enough reason in and of itself; however, the vast majority of the laws which seem to make little sense in the modern day (Kashrut, circumcision, a slew of others that had little practical or ethical reason) were actually enacted to seperate Jews from the other peoples in the area.

No, the purpose in male circumcision is not to reduce sexual pleasure. Its purpose was to differentiate the Jews from everyone else. Goyim, for the most part, do not circumcise for religious reasons.I guess it's just a coincidence, then, that the excised organ is the penis. What an odd way to differentiate yourself, since even in ancient times people didn't walk around inspecting one another's pensises. And how would you identify the females?

Face it, there's a <i>reason</i> it's the foreskin of the penis -- the most sexually pleasurable part of the male sex organ -- that's removed. It's about controlling sex, a recurring theme in major religions.And if we ever outlawed male circumcision, I think I'd become an armed revolutionary.Isn't that the victim's decision? Or do you believe the one being circumcised against his will shouldn't have a say in the matter?Besides the practice kind of got ruined when Goyim get cut too.Also, Christians flip-flopped on the circumcision issue for centuries until they decided not to do it, Muslims do it, and a few other cultures do it as well.

Oh, and regarding your earlier comment about the foreskin being "the most sensitive" part...I call bull**** on that one. I've never seen anyone, besides you that is, ever make that claim.
Few things are funnier than listening to a man who had a part of his body removed in infancy make claims about the properties of that part. Are you next going to lecture us on the properties of the clitoris?

Speaking as an intact, unmutilated male, I can say with all confidence that removing this particular part of a little boys body is tragic. If done for religious reasons, I have no objections. But there are no other reasons worth consideirng this action for.

And your decreased sexual pleasure point has to be proven, both intent as well as actual.

You know what, I think I remember reading of studies which said that uncircumcised males tend to have premature ejaculation more than cut males.

I suppose that corroborates Tudamorf's contention.

Few things are funnier than listening to a man who had a part of his body removed in infancy make claims about the properties of that part.

And I'm sure you're well qualified to comment on sex without a foreskin, eh? <eyeroll> And what I said is I've seen no literature to suggest there is a noticable difference in the sensation.

One of these days I'll ask one of my Russian friends if they notice a big different before and after.

Is this rhetorical?

If you mean me specifically,
I have several memories from infancy.

They aren't real memories then. Unless you're literally one of the most intelligent people ever born on this planet...its very highly unlikely you remember true and real scenes from an age earlier than 3. Most people are incapable of recollection of true memories from earlier than age 5.

yself..my earliest memories are from age three...and I only recall what age I was during they took place in our first home...and we moved to our second house when I was three. As I was able to walk, talk, and play with matchbox cars...I have to presume I wasn't 1 or 2.

And I'm sure you're well qualified to comment on sex without a foreskin, eh? And what I said is I've seen no literature to suggest there is a noticable difference in the sensation.
I dont need to be anauthority because that is common sense. Tissues that are constantly abraded (elbows, heels, circumcised penis heads) are less sensitive than tissues that are rarely touched (armpits, that spot behind your knee, uncircumcised penis heads). Of course an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive, common sense tells us that much.

But that wasnt my argument.

y argument was that the foreskin is an incredibly sensitive piece of equipment. And thats a subject I can speak on with all authority. Removing this incredibly sensitive piece of equipment without consent is tragic.

Post fux0red by server clock, and deleted.

Something is borked with this thread

I guess it's just a coincidence, then, that the excised organ is the penis. What an odd way to differentiate yourself, since even in ancient times people didn't walk around inspecting one another's pensises. And how would you identify the females?

Not particularly odd. I don't know why that was chosen. I know your cockamamie theories are the rankest of speculation. I don't particularly consider circumcision to be that odd considering the other people in the area were still performing human sacrifice. As for females...it was roughly 3500 years ago...you identified females by who their man was.

Face it, there's a <i>reason</i> it's the foreskin of the penis -- the most sexually pleasurable part of the male sex organ -- that's removed. It's about controlling sex, a recurring theme in major religions.

Face it, you're a religion hating moron who speculates on **** you have no idea about. It makes no sense for it to be about controlling sex, you blithering ****tard. Judaism has never suggested that sex should not be enjoyable and pleasurable. One of the first commands given to Abraham was to be fruitful and multiply...and you don't do that if you don't enjoy sex. Oh there were controls on who you could have sex with, sure, but zero suggestion that you shouldn't have sex or that it shouldn't be fun...or that sex should only be used for procreation. Infact just the opposite. Its a mitzvah for a man and a wife to enjoy no procreational sex. Sex for pleasure is considered a vital part of a good marriage.

It was Christendom which decided that sex is bad...something to do with something Paul said or some ****. I don't rightly know...


Isn't that the victim's decision? Or do you believe the one being circumcised against his will shouldn't have a say in the matter?

Not in my religion, you don't. One of the most important laws in the Torah, for it is the outward symbol of being a Jew, is that on the 8th day after birth, all male children shall be circumsized. Oh, and regarding your earlier comment about the foreskin being "the most sensitive" part...I call bull**** on that one. I've never seen anyone, besides you that is, ever make that claim.

Also, Christians flip-flopped on the circumcision issue for centuries until they decided not to do it, Muslims do it, and a few other cultures do it as well.

Actually it was Paul who first told Christians not to do it...much like the early Jewish laws were based on differentiating themselves from their neighboring people, many of the Christian customs up through and past the Council of Nicea in erm...317 iirc, were done specifically to distinguish Christianity from Judaism.

Something is borked with this threadThe server clock was screwed up earlier today, and then turned back to normal, so morning posts will appear after afternoon posts. It's like that on all the threads today.

I think you said it best in the abortion thread:
I was not bringing those up for analogies sake.


Body piercing is up to the (adult, or nearly so) individual, not the parent. It's also painless and affects no significant body function.
Body piercing is definitely not painless. I remember every piercing, I don't remember my circumcision.

Circumcision is done against the infant's will, and is specifically designed to decrease sexual pleasure, a basic aspect of the organism.
Lots of things are done against an infant's will. And your decreased sexual pleasure point has to be proven, both intent as well as actual.

Body piercing is definitely not painless. I remember every piercing, I don't remember my circumcision.
Do you remember anything from that time of your life?

Do you remember anything from that time of your life?
Is this rhetorical?

If you mean me specifically,
I have several memories from infancy.

Not in my religion, you don't. One of the most important laws in the Torah, for it is the outward symbol of being a Jew, is that on the 8th day after birth, all male children shall be circumsized.What if your child matures and doesn't want to be religious? You're acknowledging that the circumcision is all about you and what you want, not what's good for the child. (Then again, it <i>is</i> religion.)Oh, and regarding your earlier comment about the foreskin being "the most sensitive" part...I call bull**** on that one. I've never seen anyone, besides you that is, ever make that claim.The studies have mixed outcomes -- probably because of the subjective nature of sexual pleasure. But some men report erectile dysfunction and reduced pleasure after circumcision, with some studies being statisically significant.

Here are a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Certainly there are sufficient grounds to halt forced circumcisions until the child can decide for itself. Other than appeasing your "god", there's no reason whatsoever for circumcision to be performed before puberty.You know what, I think I remember reading of studies which said that uncircumcised males tend to have premature ejaculation more than cut males.Obviously, if you are desensitized to sexual pleasure, you're going to last longer. I think that's mentioned in the link above.

And I'm sure you're well qualified to comment on sex without a foreskin, eh? <eyeroll> And what I said is I've seen no literature to suggest there is a noticable difference in the sensation.

Seriously though, shouldn't one demand proof that it's somehow benificial to be able to remove parts of a person's body without their consent, not the other way around like you seem to be arguing here?

Seriously though, shouldn't one demand proof that it's somehow benificial to be able to remove parts of a person's body without their consent, not the other way around like you seem to be arguing here?

If you're considering the banning of a traditional religious activity for a health measure then the medical evidence does need to be convincing. There is very little anecdotal evidence of Jewish men suffering from their circumcision so it is slightly controversial to tell them that the religious circumcision of their own children has to stop.

If you're considering the banning of a traditional religious activity for a health measure then the medical evidence does need to be convincing.It's not a health measure, it's a personal freedom measure. If religious zealots can cut out healthy parts of my body without my consent to appease their "god", they have too much power. It sets too dangerous a precedent.

The main reason you're outraged by female circumcision and not the male version is that you're <I>used</I> to the male version, not that it trounces less on the child's personal freedom.

The main reason you're outraged by female circumcision and not the male version is that you're used to the male version, not that it trounces less on the child's personal freedom.

If you could find someone who has had the male version who feels that their personal freedoms have been trounced, bring them forward. I've never come across a Jewish man who's been resentful of their circumcision, although to be honest they probably wouldn't tell me about that sort of problem anyway :).

If you could find someone who has had the male version who feels that their personal freedoms have been trounced, bring them forward.In the past 20 years or so, an entire industry has grown around foreskin restoration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration), so obviously a significant number of men aren't happy about their circumcision. I've never come across a Jewish man who's been resentful of their circumcision, although to be honest they probably wouldn't tell me about that sort of problem anyway :).Maybe they're zealots themselves, in which case they've been brainwashed to believe this is something they must do in order to fit in (no pun intended).

Also, if circumcision as a religious ritual were performed at puberty and optional, I wonder how many Jews/Muslims would chose to do it? I bet most would be like the victims of female circumcision, you'd have to drag them to the knife, kicking and screaming.

Everything and more you ever wanted to know about The History of Circumcision (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1)

Maybe they're zealots themselves, in which case they've been brainwashed to believe this is something they must do in order to fit in (no pun intended).

No. I am pretty convinced that the Jewish men I've met who have been circumcised and want their children circumcised are not zealots. Has anyone got any Jewish friends who are zealots because they are mutilating their children, or are these imaginary other people we just talk about?

Some of the language here seems to be moving outside the realm of common sense. Male circumcision as a religious custom does not have a major health or social impact. It does not infringe the rights of the wider community. Let the people follow their different cultures without calling them savage zealots.

First, I'm opposed to male and female circumcision.

Second, there is a huge difference between circumcision done by a trained person and a father with a pair of scissors! For those that consider these two equivalent, get a grip on reality!!

I told the following personal experience a number of years ago on this board. Since it pertains to the topic, I'll repeat it.

When my son was about 4 years old, he got an infection under his foreskin. Our general practitioner referred us to a specialist. The specialist recommended circumcision. At this point in my life, I was quite ignorant about the medical aspects of circumcision. I questioned the specialist and his response was stunning. He berated me for questioning his advice. He warned me that my son could cause cervical cancer in a partner if he wasn't circumcised. He said that I was a problem. He did his utmost to bully me into agreeing to a circumcision.

When it comes to the health of my child, personal ego plays no part. I wasn't angry or upset. Frankly, I was concerned about my child's health, but I wasn't blithely going to agree to circumcision either. If the specialist had given professional and rational advice, I would have followed it. Instead, he was confrontational and emotional.

I went back to my family doctor and asked him for a second opinion. He was delighted and very supportive. I was given a referral to another specialist. This doctor was very busy, and the earliest appointment I could get was 6 weeks later.

Over the next few days my wife and I would bathe our son nightly. Using Vaseline, we stretched the foreskin of his penis. After about a week, the foreskin could be fully retracted. The infection went away. We taught our son how to clean under his foreskin. We saw our family doctor again, and our appointment with the second specialist was cancelled.

Our son hasn't had a problem since.

You can teach a boy how to brush his teeth, wash his face and hands, comb his hair, clean under his foreskin and all other aspects of personal hygiene.

I'm very skeptical of medical opinion in support of circumcision.

Maybe they're zealots themselves, in which case they've been brainwashed to believe this is something they must do in order to fit in (no pun intended).


Do you know any jewish people who you can ask about this in real life ? I've had some good conversations with some jewish friends about religion and can't say i've ever met a zealot yet. But could just be the people i know :)

I've also had good conversations with some rabbis from the local Beth Din when they come to the factory i work in is producing kosher products.

What if your child matures and doesn't want to be religious? You're acknowledging that the circumcision is all about you and what you want, not what's good for the child. (Then again, it <i>is</i> religion.)

What is good for any sons that I may have is to be consecrated into the religion of his ancestors and to then be raised with an appreciation of the sacrifices and martyrdom our people have suffered for being who we are and to take pride in the fact that he is part of a people who have survived the worst of tragedies and still succeed far beyond the rest of the world given our limited numbers. The price of a small insignificant piece of skin is nothing compared to the heritage, honor, and pride of being a Jew. I am not greatly religious. I'm very much a Reformed Jew. My keeping of the laws of Kashrut is loose, my attendance at schul is sporadic, and I am much more secular in my outlook than religious. Circumcision, though, is a fundamental aspect of being a Jew. It is the sign of the covenant between God and his chosen people and has been so for longer than most societies on this planet have existed. Those would suggest it should be banned or suggest we are wrong for doing so can **** themselves.

The studies have mixed outcomes -- probably because of the subjective nature of sexual pleasure. But some men report erectile dysfunction and reduced pleasure after circumcision, with some studies being statisically significant.

In the end, when I dip my wick, it feels good enough that I strive to do so whenever possible.


Certainly there are sufficient grounds to halt forced circumcisions until the child can decide for itself. Other than appeasing your "god", there's no reason whatsoever for circumcision to be performed before puberty.

First of all my God is sufficient reason in and of itself. Just because you have no faith in anything at all does not give you the right to inhibit mine. Jews do not attempt to force others to circumicise their young. Hell we don't even try to convert people.

As for the benefit of doing it before puberty. I can only imagine that **** hurts...I'm glad I have no recollection of it.

Seriously though, shouldn't one demand proof that it's somehow benificial to be able to remove parts of a person's body without their consent, not the other way around like you seem to be arguing here?

No...because there is no claim to medical benefit in circumcision. it is you who must provide proof that there is a significant danger in the practice in order for consideration to be given to not circumcizing Jewish boys.

It obviously has no truly serious medical side effects, because for 3500 years Jews have been doing it without mass illness or death.

Everything and more you ever wanted to know about The History of Circumcision (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1)

Wow, how incredibly biased...

In the past 20 years or so, an entire industry has grown around foreskin restoration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration), so obviously a significant number of men aren't happy about their circumcision.Maybe they're zealots themselves, in which case they've been brainwashed to believe this is something they must do in order to fit in (no pun intended).

ost jewish are less zealotrous in their faith than you are in your desire to mock, ridicule, and ban all faith. Your religion of secularism has made you as rabid as most evengelical christians. /applaud

Also, if circumcision as a religious ritual were performed at puberty and optional, I wonder how many Jews/Muslims would chose to do it? I bet most would be like the victims of female circumcision, you'd have to drag them to the knife, kicking and screaming.

As I mentioned before, I know quite a few Jews from the former Soviet Union ,where circumcision was banned, who came to the United States or Israel during various stages of their lives including well beyond puberty who got circumcised. It is beyond a sign of faith, but an acknolwedgement of respect and appreciation for the persecution and murder which Jews have suffered because they bore an obvious sign of who they were. They were circumcized because they were permitted and Jews throughout the ages have died for it.

As I mentioned before, I know quite a few Jews from the former Soviet Union ,where circumcision was banned, who came to the United States or Israel during various stages of their lives including well beyond puberty who got circumcised.That's their choice. Perhaps it was liberating for them, since it was banned in their home country, or perhaps they are zealots too, and felt they <i>should</i> do it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to mutilate your body if you want to; I'm saying it should be a personal choice, not a command dictated by a religious organization.First of all my God is sufficient reason in and of itself. Just because you have no faith in anything at all does not give you the right to inhibit mine.And just you because you <i>do</i> have faith does not give you the right to impose that faith on helpless infants.No...because there is no claim to medical benefit in circumcision. it is you who must provide proof that there is a significant danger in the practice in order for consideration to be given to not circumcizing Jewish boys.There's no "significant danger" to female circumcision, if performed by a surgeon.

If "significant danger" is the benchmark for allowing religious zealots to mutilate their offspring, there is no reason whatsoever to put the guy in the lead post in prison for as long as 40 years. Using your logic, his only crime was doing it himself, and the only reason he did <i>that</i> was because the practice is illegal. You could say he was oppressed.

Everything and more you ever wanted to know about The History of Circumcision (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1)Wow, how incredibly biased...Sure, the site has a clear agenda, but outside of the recent research on HIV transmission which it seems to ignore, the points raised are valid.

Why do you find it so difficult to accept that circumcision is simply an African/Middle Eastern tribal custom (both as a rite of passage and a sexual control mechanism) that predates your religion and was incorporated into it by the same guy(s) who wrote the rest of your religious texts?

That's their choice. Perhaps it was liberating for them, since it was banned in their home country, or perhaps they are zealots too, and felt they <i>should</i> do it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to mutilate your body if you want to; I'm saying it should be a personal choice, not a command dictated by a religious organization.And just you because you <i>do</i> have faith does not give you the right to impose that faith on helpless infants.There's no "significant danger" to female circumcision, if performed by a surgeon.

I have every right to "impose" my faith on my children. Its better than you, who are trying to impose a lack of faith on my children. You're as bad as the damn christians.

If "significant danger" is the benchmark for allowing religious zealots to mutilate their offspring, there is no reason whatsoever to put the guy in the lead post in prison for as long as 40 years. Using your logic, his only crime was doing it himself, and the only reason he did <i>that</i> was because the practice is illegal. You could say he was oppressed.

There is no religion on the planet which requires female circumcision. It is a cultural thing, not a religious thing, and unlike male circumcision, it causes a very very significant loss in sexual pleasure.

Sure, the site has a clear agenda, but outside of the recent research on HIV transmission which it seems to ignore, the points raised are valid.

Why do you find it so difficult to accept that circumcision is simply an African/Middle Eastern tribal custom (both as a rite of passage and a sexual control mechanism) that predates your religion and was incorporated into it by the same guy(s) who wrote the rest of your religious texts?

Why do you find it so difficult to accept that circumcision isn't simply an african/middle eastern tribal custom to Jews? (Oh and its "african" only in the context that Egypt is in Africa). Why can't you grasp that its purpose was not to repress sexuality (despite the very limited quotes people come up with by Jewish scholars thousands of years after the practice was implemented)? Why can't you grasp the fact that you have no ****ing right to attempt to influence my religion, especially consider it has zero effect on how you live your life and no real effect on our children.

Its assholes like you that make people like me think groups like the JDL are valid.

No...because there is no claim to medical benefit in circumcision.

There goes every rational argument in favour of continuing the practice of cutting parts of a person off without their consent.

There goes every rational argument in favour of continuing the practice of cutting parts of a person off without their consent.


...I'm sure that if Odin came and told you wacky Nords (or is it Norsk, or just Norwegians? I can never keep track of Scandanavians in my head) to cut the earlobes of your boys, or some such, y'all still wouldn't have a market for earrings today.

I don't need a "rational" argument. My religion dictates it and despite the pathetic puling of many people, there is no negative effect to male circumcision which is significant enough to warrant abandoning our faith. This is saying alot, considering Judaism has specific laws and rules which make it clear that should following our laws endanger the health of a person, then that person is to be exempt from the law until their health is cleared up. If you are sick, you are outright sinning if you try to fast on Yom Kippur...God wants us healthy, not ostentatious piety.

...I'm sure that if Odin came and told you wacky Nords (or is it Norsk, or just Norwegians? I can never keep track of Scandanavians in my head) to cut the earlobes of your boys, or some such, y'all still wouldn't have a market for earrings today.

it's Norwegians, or if you want to use the local language - Nordmenn.

I don't need a "rational" argument. My religion dictates it and despite the pathetic puling of many people, there is no negative effect to male circumcision which is significant enough to warrant abandoning our faith.

I don't buy the general argument you're making - namely that any person's religion should entitle them to cut off body parts of their children, and that those protesting such actions are the ones that would have to make their point any further than "oi, you're cutting off another person's body part without their consent, that **** just doesn't fly!".

Prohibiting circumcision for religious reasons would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. No judge in his right mind would allow such a law, and Im frankly surprised to see anyone even suggest it.

Prohibiting circumcisions done for non-religious reasons (which consitute the *vast* majority of circumcisions), on the other hand, is entirely reasonable and consitutionally allowable. Also, banning non-religious circumcisions would have a much larger effect, in terms of penis mutilations prevented per year.

I don't buy the general argument you're making - namely that any person's religion should entitle them to cut off body parts of their children, and that those protesting such actions are the ones that would have to make their point any further than "oi, you're cutting off another person's body part without their consent, that **** just doesn't fly!".

Religious freedom is not just about being free to hide away in your own home and say a few prayers or chants. It is the freedom to do some things that other people don't approve, don't appreciate, and don't understand. The wider community should only intervene when there is clear harm done. To my mind the liberty of the child is not greatly compromised, the circumcised male can live a normal life, and most do. In fact, most circumcised males probably wonder why other people are championing a right they'd rather not have.

There is no religion on the planet which requires female circumcision. It is a cultural thing, not a religious thingRead the lead post:"He said he wanted to preserve her virginity," Fortunate Adem, the girl's mother, testified this week. "<b>He said it was the will of God.</b>"Sure sounds religious to me. Or are you claiming that only <i>your</i> religion is valid, but not others? (Are you sure you're not a right-wing Christian zealot? You sound more like one each day. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>)

Circumcision is always a "cultural thing," whether it's written down in some book the culture considers "holy" or not. If you want your "cultural things" to be respected, you also have to respect others'.Religious freedom is not just about being free to hide away in your own home and say a few prayers or chants. It is the freedom to do some things that other people don't approve, don't appreciate, and don't understand.Not in the United States. The U.S. Constitution permits "free exercise" of religion, but it's extremely limited. You cannot violate a facially neutral law by claiming your religion requires it. So if tomorrow, Congress banned circumcisions, the law would be constitutionally valid unless you could prove that the intent behind the law was to discriminate against Jews and Muslims (<i>INTENT</i>, not <i>effect</i>).

The line between Religion and Culture is blurry at best.

One could argue that Religion is ritualized Culture (Usually involving some belief about what a god/supernatural entity wants his/it/her followers to do)

FWIW I think male circumsion and some forms of female are entirely different matters, some forms of female are more like the equivalant of cutting off of the whole head of the penis, or worse (IE the Sewing one) (Although some forms are roughly analogous to male if i remember what I read right)

Tudamorf, that wouldnt be too hard to prove: circumcision was invented by Judaism, as a religious rite. Thus, any blanket bans are circumcisions are deliberate attacks on Judaism by definition; in the same way, blanket bans on baptism-by-immersion would consitute deliberate attacks on the religion that invented this practice.

Your argument would only work for something that was practiced in a non-religious cultural context prior to its use in a religious context.

Tudamorf, that wouldnt be too hard to prove: circumcision was invented by Judaism, as a religious rite.No, it's an African-Middle Eastern custom that long predates Judaism as an organized religion. Judaism just incorporated the custom into the religion, as did Islam. And today, in the United States, boys are routinely circumcised for non-religious reasons. So banning it wouldn't necessarily be a directed attack on Judaism or Islam.

Got a source for that statement - that Judaism did not invent circumcision?

I've certainly heard lots about non-Jewish peoples who practiced it at various times and places, but pre-dating Judiasm? Is there really any proof of this?

Got a source for that statement - that Judaism did not invent circumcision?Yep (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=54). Here's another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#History_of_circumcision). Jews did not invent this practice at a time when Judaism was an organized religion; it predates the religion by thousands of years.

Having absolutely nothing to do with the specific topic under discussion, but did anybody else read about that Turkish scholar and author who was acquitted last week from 'insulting Islam' because she had dared to write that the tradition of muslim women to wear a headscarf had its origin in Summerian temple rites that were anything but chaste. The complete opposite in fact.

It has not been a good summer and autumn so far for Turkish religious zealots as far as lawsuits go. They also lost a case where they tried to get author and publisher of a novel convicted for something a personage in the novel 'said'.

Of course, the radical secularist Turks have their own share of silly lawsuits, including one where they are accusing the authors of a research paper of insulting the nation and slander because they dared to write that Kemal Attaturk, the founder of modern Turkey, once had to flee the palace dressed in women's clothing to escape an assassination attempt.

...

And despite all this I still believe it is better to be obviously serious about allowing Turkey into the EC, rather than obviously keeping them at arm's length as is happening now and watching them turn away from Europe and towards more fundamentalist Islam in anger.


Eri

Tudamorf, I have several quibbles with your sources.

#1, We will just pretend you didnt link to wikipedia and move on.
#2, your first link says the Torah was written in 600 BC. This immediately places it under suspicion.That date should be closer to about 1400 BC.
#3, the evidence for pre-Jewish circumcision seems extremely weak. Paintings of circumcised penises? These images could just as easily be explained as images of erect penises (in the erect state, there is no visible difference). One highly damaged stone engraving of somebody doing something to some genitals?

#1, We will just pretend you didnt link to wikipedia and move on.Strong Wikipedia hate. When will you realize that Wikipedia is as accurate as a major printed encyclopedia (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207&from=rss), not to mention more updated? Instead of judging Wikipedia as a whole, look at the individual pages, and the references cited. Long, detailed, well-organized pages citing many references are often far more accurate than any individual web site.#2, your first link says the Torah was written in 600 BC. This immediately places it under suspicion.That date should be closer to about 1400 BC.You're confusing the date it was written with the dates ascribed to the events it depicts. The best historical evidence dates the first books of your bible to around 600 BCE:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/heritage/episode2/index.html
The Persians began their expansion under Cyrus, who in 539 BCE put an end to the Babylonian Empire. Cyrus permitted the exiled Jews to return to the sub-province of Judea (consisting of Jerusalem and its environs) and to reestablish the Temple. According to some historians, it was during this time that the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) may have been completed and canonized as sacred scripture.There's certainly no archaeological evidence placing a written copy of the text earlier.#3, the evidence for pre-Jewish circumcision seems extremely weak. Paintings of circumcised penises? These images could just as easily be explained as images of erect penises (in the erect state, there is no visible difference). One highly damaged stone engraving of somebody doing something to some genitals?What do you want, a YouTube video? Archaeological evidence is often fuzzy. But at least it's some evidence, and it's corroborated by common sense, i.e., it explains why many cultures in that specific region do it. Your statement that "the Jews invented it" has zero evidence; even your bible -- a non-source of evidence really -- doesn't say the Jews <i>invented</i> it.

The U.S. Constitution permits "free exercise" of religion, but it's extremely limited. You cannot violate a facially neutral law by claiming your religion requires it.

Religious freedom and other personal freedoms are not just in the letter of the law but the creation of the law. Lawmakers should respect existing cultures and the ways in which people want to live their lives. They shouldn't blindly create laws without considerating the impact on known religious customs. In this case, they shouldn't consider a ban on circumcision without considering the impact on the Jewish faith.

Lawmakers should respect existing cultures and the ways in which people want to live their lives.They don't; that's why we have a First Amendment. If we could trust our lawmakers to be fair and just, we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights.

Lawmakers should respect existing cultures and the ways in which people want to live their lives.

Bollocks!

What a pile of steaming horse manure.

I have an existing culture, it is mine, a culture of one. Are you really supporting the idea that lawmakers must cater to it, and allow me to live my life?

I doubt it. I am more than sure that you don't REALLY support that.


Cultural Relativity hogwash again.

Countrys really only tolerate other cultures which do not overly conflict with their cultural or idealogical values. (nor should they, national and cultural indentity are an important part of social and national cohesion)

Granted thats fairly loose what any country's cultural or idealogical values are, both because they of course have large variance in the country, and both are a constantly evolving thing.

Granted of course every counrtry will be more or less accepting of other cultures, and be more willing to accept others, but every culture has certain lines or values that will come into too much conflict with another culture and they wont accept it.

Female circumsision is one of those for the US. male circumsision is not.

Tudamorf,

my hatred for wikipedia comes from people using it instead of going to the authorities. Wikipedia is wonderful for a review of the history of the A-Team, the Transformers, or Magic The Gathering: issues on which there are no real authorities. For academic subject,s it should never be used.

As for the date the Torah was written -- Moses wrote the Torah, Moses lived in about 1400 BC. Your evidence shows that the Torah existed by 600 BC, it doesnt disprove that it existed earlier.

Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah, or that Moses did not live in 1400 BC?

Wikipedia is perfectly fine for academic subjects too, as a starting point that gives an overview and lists further resources.

Factual claims (that wouldn't be considered "common knowledge", I suppose) on Wikipedia are supposed to cite external sources. So, when providing a reference to back up a claim here, the proper thing to do would be to provide a link directly to the source cited by the Wikipedia entry.

That does NOT mean that Wikipedia shouldn't be used at all, though!

I have an existing culture, it is mine, a culture of one. Are you really supporting the idea that lawmakers must cater to it, and allow me to live my life?

If there are plenty of people like you then yes, they should consider your requirements. Doesn't mean they have to agree with you or let you destroy everyone else's way of life. It's hardly a controversial statement to say that lawmakers should consider how legislation on circumcision would impact the Jewish community, is it?

If there are plenty of people like you then yes, they should consider your requirements.

So a culture is then defined by the NUMBER of adherents to that culture.

The more adherents the more legitimate a culture is, then; you are saying. The larger a culture, the more superior it is.

And there IS judgment as to which cultures are MORE better than other, well to the matter than one should be considered more than another.


Doesn't mean they have to agree with you or let you destroy everyone else's way of life.
Why not? They must surely TOLERATE my culture. If that happens to be my culture, as a Cultural Relativist, you have to view my culture just the same as everyone else's culture(no culture is better than an other, they are all the same). Since all cultures are relative, then you must believe that my culture is just as important and equal to all other cultures. Logically speaking of course, and in accordance with your ideology.

And just as you must be tolerant of other people's cultures, you must be tolerant of mine. If you are not tolerant of my culture, then that just makes you an intolerant ethnocentrist, right?

And if not, why not? How do you judge? Everything is relative right, there are no absolutes. Your Prime Directive says that you can't judge, so how do you?

Or are you really simply satisfied with the "more is better" idea that you posted.

It's hardly a controversial statement to say that lawmakers should consider how legislation on circumcision would impact the Jewish community, is it?

Actually, lawmakers should keep their hands off the foreskins of little Jewish boys entirely.

Unless you are like Aidon, and believe that in order for Law to be Just, it must be UnJust. In which case, let your lawmakers fondle Jewish boys all they like.

my hatred for wikipedia comes from people using it instead of going to the authorities.It <i>is</i> an authority. Read the article I linked, which compares it favorably with Encyclopedia Britannica as to the error rate. And that link is nearly a year old, when Wikipedia was far less detailed than it is today.

Wikipedia has a huge and detailed library about the major religions, with enough references to keep you busy for a long time. That's not to say it's error-free, but it's the single most informative and objective source I know of on the Internet discussing all of these topics in one area.As for the date the Torah was written -- Moses wrote the Torah, Moses lived in about 1400 BC.That's Judeo-Christian mythology, not fact.Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah, or that Moses did not live in 1400 BC?Take your pick, though I think the evidence points to a scribe writing it around 600 BCE. Perhaps Moses was a real guy who wrote <i>something</i> much earlier, or perhaps he said something that was later written down, but it's not likely that he was a real guy who wrote the actual text you now consider your bible around 1400 BCE. If he had actually written it that long ago, we would have seen some evidence in the archaeological record, but there's nothing even remotely that old.

So a culture is then defined by the NUMBER of adherents to that culture.

The more adherents the more legitimate a culture is, then; you are saying. The larger a culture, the more superior it is.

And there IS judgment as to which cultures are MORE better than other, well to the matter than one should be considered more than another.


Quote:
Doesn't mean they have to agree with you or let you destroy everyone else's way of life.

Why not? They must surely TOLERATE my culture. If that happens to be my culture, as a Cultural Relativist, you have to view my culture just the same as everyone else's culture(no culture is better than an other, they are all the same). Since all cultures are relative, then you must believe that my culture is just as important and equal to all other cultures. Logically speaking of course, and in accordance with your ideology.

And just as you must be tolerant of other people's cultures, you must be tolerant of mine. If you are not tolerant of my culture, then that just makes you an intolerant ethnocentrist, right?

And if not, why not? How do you judge? Everything is relative right, there are no absolutes. Your Prime Directive says that you can't judge, so how do you?

Or are you really simply satisfied with the "more is better" idea that you posted.

Nope. You're just putting forward pedantic arguments without following common sense. You're also paraphrasing me but twisting the meaning at the same time. Please don't do that.

As for more is better ... well if you're an elected representative trying to look out for your constituents then that has to be taken into account. It doesn't make one culture better than the other, or change right and wrong, it just means that local laws designed for local people have to address local culture. A very practical concern.

Just because Cultural Relativism is common, does not make it common sense.

There has very little sense to it, once you look at it, and study it, and unravel it as what it is, a logical paradox.

Just because Cultural Relativism is common, does not make it common sense.

There has very little sense to it, once you look at it, and study it, and unravel it as what it is, a logical paradox.

*shrugs* The opposite of cultural absolutism is equally paradoxical if you think of it.

After all, who is to decide that 'this culture is better than that' or 'this is the best cultural value and those who do not agree with that should be considered backward and must be educated'

That kind of thinking can only lead to tyranny.

The question is not so much in whether we must accept other cultures as valid as well in where to draw the line for dealing with it ourselves. We have laws based on our social and cultural values, that we should or should-not compromise on when dealing with other cultures. There is no one true way, so we can not with absolute certainty say that somebody else's way is worse than ours, but we can say if it is in conflict with ours. And just as we can not claim our culture is better than somebody else's, the reverse is also true. To live together we must find a way to ignore the small differences and deal with the big ones.


Eri

it's Norwegians, or if you want to use the local language - Nordmenn.



I don't buy the general argument you're making - namely that any person's religion should entitle them to cut off body parts of their children, and that those protesting such actions are the ones that would have to make their point any further than "oi, you're cutting off another person's body part without their consent, that **** just doesn't fly!".


It flys for me and mine and you and yours lost all right to render any judgement on the religious beliefs of me and mine the day a neutral Norway began selling zyclon B to a certain other nation.

So to you, madam, I extend my middle finger and render a "piss off".

Read the lead post:Sure sounds religious to me. Or are you claiming that only <i>your</i> religion is valid, but not others? (Are you sure you're not a right-wing Christian zealot? You sound more like one each day. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>)

Islam has no edict or requirement of female circumcision. Outside of Africa, female circumcision is virtually unheard of in muslim countries. Its not religion.

Circumcision is always a "cultural thing," whether it's written down in some book the culture considers "holy" or not. If you want your "cultural things" to be respected, you also have to respect others'.Not in the United States. The U.S. Constitution permits "free exercise" of religion, but it's extremely limited. You cannot violate a facially neutral law by claiming your religion requires it. So if tomorrow, Congress banned circumcisions, the law would be constitutionally valid unless you could prove that the intent behind the law was to discriminate against Jews and Muslims (<i>INTENT</i>, not <i>effect</i>).

No, actually, the effect is also grounds for constitutional challenge.

Yep (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=54). Here's another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#History_of_circumcision). Jews did not invent this practice at a time when Judaism was an organized religion; it predates the religion by thousands of years.

A date of 2100 BCE as the earliest picture of circumcision is not persuasive evidence...it falls within the possible date range when the Hebrews began to immigrate to Egypt after Abraham and before they were enslaved.

Tudamorf, I have several quibbles with your sources.

#1, We will just pretend you didnt link to wikipedia and move on.
#2, your first link says the Torah was written in 600 BC. This immediately places it under suspicion.That date should be closer to about 1400 BC.

The Torah wasn't correlated and put into written form until the Babylonian exile around 580 BCE. Prior to that it was passed along orally.


#3, the evidence for pre-Jewish circumcision seems extremely weak. Paintings of circumcised penises? These images could just as easily be explained as images of erect penises (in the erect state, there is no visible difference). One highly damaged stone engraving of somebody doing something to some genitals?

especially since the pictures do not fall before the date range of Hebraic residence in Egypt. The Hebrews lived in Egypt for some time before the Hyksos took over, forced them into Goshen, and enslaved them (and that wasn't instant itself...nor was the conquest by the Hyksos.

Tudamorf,

my hatred for wikipedia comes from people using it instead of going to the authorities. Wikipedia is wonderful for a review of the history of the A-Team, the Transformers, or Magic The Gathering: issues on which there are no real authorities. For academic subject,s it should never be used.

As for the date the Torah was written -- Moses wrote the Torah, Moses lived in about 1400 BC. Your evidence shows that the Torah existed by 600 BC, it doesnt disprove that it existed earlier.

Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah, or that Moses did not live in 1400 BC?

The current mainstream beleif is that the Torah, as we know it, was written by four authors historians call J, E, P, and D. There are distinct differences in writing style and J and E (iirc) frequently will tell the same story, but with significant differences, due to the difference in the oral tradition between Judah and Israel.

*shrugs* The opposite of cultural absolutism is equally paradoxical if you think of it.

After all, who is to decide that 'this culture is better than that' or 'this is the best cultural value and those who do not agree with that should be considered backward and must be educated'

That kind of thinking can only lead to tyranny.

The question is not so much in whether we must accept other cultures as valid as well in where to draw the line for dealing with it ourselves. We have laws based on our social and cultural values, that we should or should-not compromise on when dealing with other cultures. There is no one true way, so we can not with absolute certainty say that somebody else's way is worse than ours, but we can say if it is in conflict with ours. And just as we can not claim our culture is better than somebody else's, the reverse is also true. To live together we must find a way to ignore the small differences and deal with the big ones.


Eri


y culture is better than virtually every culture on this planet.

That doesn't mean I have any right to go impose my culture on someone else against their will. It does mean, however, that I am perfectly justified in saying "Arab/Muslim culture has devolved since the 16th century and has become a barbaric culture of ignorance and hate which has declared war on us and must be combated wherever it may show its wicked head".

Prohibiting circumcision for religious reasons would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Prohibiting circumcision in itself, yes - denying people the right to cut OTHER PEOPLE's body parts off - not so sure.

It flys for me and mine and you and yours lost all right to render any judgement on the religious beliefs of me and mine the day a neutral Norway began selling zyclon B to a certain other nation.

Norway's never been a neutral country. Try educating yourself before making an idiot out of yourself.

And - huh? wtf you on about?

Islam has no edict or requirement of female circumcision.Wrong.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/#Conclusion- The most often mentioned narration reports a debate between Mohammed and Um Habibah (or Um 'Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Mohammed. Having seen her, Mohammed asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively adding: "unless it is forbidden and you order me to stop doing it". Mohammed replied: "Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it (la tanhaki), because it brings more radiance to the face (ashraq) and it is more pleasant (ahza) for the husband". According to others, he said: "Cut slightly and do not overdo it (ashimmi wa-la tanhaki), because it is more pleasant (ahza) for the woman and better (ahab, from other sources abha) for the husband". We shall hereinafter refer to this narration as the exciser's narration.

- Mohammed said: "Circumcision is a sunnah for the men and makrumah for the women". The term sunnah here means that it is conform to the tradition of Mohammed himself, or simply a custom at the time of Mohammed. The term makrumah is far from clear but we can translate it into a honorable deed.

- Speaking to the Ansars' wives, Mohammed said: "Cut slightly without exaggeration (ikhtafidna wa-la tanhikna), because it is more pleasant (ahza) for your husbands".

- Mohammed has stipulated: "If both circumcised parts (khitanan) meet or if they touch each other, it is necessary to wash before prayer". From this, it may be deduced that men and women were circumcised in Mohammed's time.

The Shiites add a narration by Imam Al-Sadiq stating: "Female circumcision is a makrumah, and is there anything better than a makrumah?" They cite Al-Sadiq as the reporter of the exciser's narration 42.Outside of Africa, female circumcision is virtually unheard of in muslim countries. Its not religion.Wrong.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/#ConclusionSudan (98%), Somalia (98%) and Egypt (75%) are among the largest Arabic countries practicing it. In Egypt, 97.5% of uneducated families impose circumcision upon their daughters compared to 66.2% of educated families. Other Arabic countries practice it too: Yemen, the United Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, some areas of Saudi Arabia, Mauritania. It appears to be done also in some Muslim countries of Asia such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and India under the name of sunnah circumcision, here with a reference to religion.Now that I've educated you as to its religious basis (at least in some cultures), I would like to hear your explanation as to why it's OK to permit circumcision according to <i>your</i> religion, but to send another man to prison for doing it according to his.

No, actually, the effect is also grounds for constitutional challenge.No, it hasn't been for a long time (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html).A date of 2100 BCE as the earliest picture of circumcision is not persuasive evidence...it falls within the possible date range when the Hebrews began to immigrate to Egypt after Abraham and before they were enslaved.It's the best evidence we have. Your Judeo-Christian mythology is not evidence.

Now that I've educated you as to its religious basis (at least in some cultures), I would like to hear your explanation as to why it's OK to permit circumcision according to your religion, but to send another man to prison for doing it according to his.

We've done the evidence. You've not agreed and there's no need to repeat all of that again. I refer you to post #4 of this thread.

We've done the evidence. You've not agreed and there's no need to repeat all of that again. I refer you to post #4 of this thread.Post #4 is not an explanation of why one is permissible, and another isn't. Assuming both were performed by a competent medical professional, thereby creating no health risk, how do you justify the distinction?

Assuming both were performed by a competent medical professional, thereby creating no health risk, how do you justify the distinction?

I refer you back to post 4. According to UNICEF, female circumcision is "a dangerous and irreversible procedure that negatively impacts the general health, child bearing capabilities and educational opportunities of girls and women."

I don't consider male circumcision to be overly dangerous and it does not seriously impact on the general health, education, or fertility of the man involved. Jewish men seem just as well educated and virile as anyone else. Try telling Aidon otherwise :).

I refer you back to post 4. According to UNICEF, female circumcision is "a dangerous and irreversible procedure that negatively impacts the general health, child bearing capabilities and educational opportunities of girls and women."Only because it's performed by a group of people holding down and forcibly restraining the adolescent girl, without anesthesia, and then using a crude, unsterilized knife to cut out the tissue. (Reference (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/#Practice).)

If you tried to cut a young boy's foreskin that way, it would also cause a bloody mess and you'd risk serious infection or damaging the penis or surrounding tissue.

Your source says little about how it <i>could</i> be performed in a developed country, if it <i>were</i> legal. There are a number of ways to perform it on a female, including only partial removal of the clitoris, that pose no real danger and have no health impact whatsoever if done by a professional. Yet, the practice is still illegal here, which forces parents to either ignore their religious beliefs or try to perform surgery on their own.

So with that of the way, please explain to me why the female version is illegal and the male version is legal.

*shrugs* The opposite of cultural absolutism is equally paradoxical if you think of it.

Cultural absolutism is only one opposite of Cultural Relativism.

It is not THE only opposite of it. It is certainly NOT the only alternative to it either.

There is no one true way, so we can not with absolute certainty say that somebody else's way is worse than ours,
Why do you have to be absolutely certain?

but we can say if it is in conflict with ours.
True.

And just as we can not claim our culture is better than somebody else's,
Speak for yourself. I may certainly can. I certainly do. Now, you, Eri, may do what you like, including not claiming your culture is better than somebody else's. But resist speaking for me, you don't even know me.

Now there really is nothing to actually prevent you from doing so. Other than the fact that you are completely inaccurate, if being inaccurate is no problem to you, or a goal of yours, you may continue to speak for me, if you choose to. But you will continue to be wrong, of course.

the reverse is also true.
Not really. No more than the reverse of a one way road, is a one way road leading the other direction. While certainly it may, but a two lane, with opposing traffic may be a reverse(or opposite). Or a road with three lanes may be.

A road which requires one to actually drive the entire length, backwards, in reverse, may be an opposite or reverse of the one way road. But that is an absurd, Mad Hatter, type of example. Though completely valid.

To live together we must find a way to ignore the small differences and deal with the big ones.
aybe. Maybe not.

You may be of a culture which does not want to live together with me.

/shrug.

Why do you have to be absolutely certain?[quote]

I do not, but you claimed that cultural relativism was wrong. I merely pointed out that the alternative is making absolute claims about cultures.

[quote]
Speak for yourself. I may certainly can. I certainly do. Now, you, Eri, may do what you like, including not claiming your culture is better than somebody else's. But resist speaking for me, you don't even know me.

I am not speaking for you, nor was I. It was a rhetorical question.

What argument can you make about your culture being better that can not be made with equal validity by somebody from the culture you call inferior?

What you belief is up to you, but that does not automatically valid. If you want to belief that your culture is better, in absolute terms, than somebody else's then you have to come up with compelling arguments, otherwise it is just your unsubstantiated opinion.


Not really. No more than the reverse of a one way road, is a one way road leading the other direction. While certainly it may, but a two lane, with opposing traffic may be a reverse(or opposite). Or a road with three lanes may be.

You quite lost me with that analogy.


You may be of a culture which does not want to live together with me.


I would call that a major difference of opinion, not a minor one.

In the end the mistake that has been made that has given cultural relativism a bad name is that while we can not deny the validity of other cultures this does not imply we have to accept them blindly.


Eri

I do not, but you claimed that cultural relativism was wrong. I merely pointed out that the alternative is making absolute claims about cultures.

Only one of the opposites of Cultural Relativism is Cultural Absolutism.

Only one.

There are many, opposites, and they are only limited by your imagination.

Just because you have not critically thought through the alternatives, does not mean that there are NOT alternatives.

Only because it's performed by a group of people holding down and forcibly restraining the adolescent girl, without anesthesia, and then using a crude, unsterilized knife to cut out the tissue. (Reference.)

If you tried to cut a young boy's foreskin that way, it would also cause a bloody mess and you'd risk serious infection or damaging the penis or surrounding tissue.

Your source says little about how it could be performed in a developed country, if it were legal. There are a number of ways to perform it on a female, including only partial removal of the clitoris, that pose no real danger and have no health impact whatsoever if done by a professional. Yet, the practice is still illegal here, which forces parents to either ignore their religious beliefs or try to perform surgery on their own.

As far as I understand it, female circumcision does still have an increased general health risk. Seeing as medical experts cannot even agree on male circumcision, I doubt we're going to resolve that issue on a messageboard. As far as I understand it, female circumcision still does impact on the education and freedom of the girl, specifically to remove her sexual liberty. It's usage in some cultures seems to be social engineering, the removal of sexual promiscuity to force women into child bearing wives. The women will not be able to live their normal lives as they see fit. The operation is not merely a cosmetic change.

Even considering your arguments, I do not consider male circumcision to have the same impact.

Only one of the opposites of Cultural Relativism is Cultural Absolutism.

Only one.

There are many, opposites, and they are only limited by your imagination.


I am curious what those other opposites would be.
However, you are dodging the real question byfocussing on a side issue.

What argument can you make that your culture is better than mine that I can not make in reverse about your culture?

Unless you can make a compelling and convincing argument I am confident that my claim makes sense that we must approach other cultures with a large dose of relativism simply because we can not say that we are right and they are wrong. At least not without being ignorant, hypocrits or arrogant (or all of those three at the same time).


Eri

Prohibiting circumcision in itself, yes - denying people the right to cut OTHER PEOPLE's body parts off - not so sure.

I am sure. Its a violation of the 1st amendment.

Just like Christian Scientists do not have to take their children to a doctor (nor should they be forced to).

Norway's never been a neutral country. Try educating yourself before making an idiot out of yourself.

And - huh? wtf you on about?

Norway declared neutrality in 1939...

And at least one major company (now known as Hydro) had cozy relationships with German companies...especially IG Farben, manufacturing a variety of goods for Nazi Germany, including, according to some, manufactory of Zyklon B gas.

You should know, by now, that I always educate myself.

You, on the other hand, should really learn some of your own History

Norway was invaded by Germany in 1940 because their neutrality was permitting the Allies to penetrate too deeply into the North Sea.

So what I'm going on about, is that you and yours have zero right to suggest my religious beliefs are wrong, on a fundamental level. More especially, though, thanks to various forms of Norwegian collusion with Nazi Germany. Quisling and Hydro put the kilbosh on that one for you. So shut your yap.

Wrong.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/#ConclusionWrong.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/#ConclusionNow that I've educated you as to its religious basis (at least in some cultures), I would like to hear your explanation as to why it's OK to permit circumcision according to <i>your</i> religion, but to send another man to prison for doing it according to his.[]/quote]

First of all, you should stop using cirp as a source, they are not only horribly biased, but frequently outright incorrect.

This (http://www.minaret.org/fgm.htm) this a short discussion on female circumcision in Islam according to Dr. Imad-ad-Dead Ahman.

[quote = Dr. Ahmad]Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act (i.e., one following the practice of the Prophet and his companions). There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however. Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done. Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete) or infibulation, or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations.

A more in depth discussion by the "Minaret of Freedom Institute" can be found at http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm

Further..as you read the various legalities in Islam, it is permissible (though not mandated) in Shia Islam to circumcize the prepuce (hood) around the clitoris...I see nothing wrong with this and if this is the sort of female circumcision people are getting up in arms about, they can piss off.

With regard to its prevalence, from the Guttmacher Institute (Advancing sexual and reproductive health worldwide through research, policy analysis and public education):

"Female circumcision is currently practiced in at least 28 countries stretching across the center of Africa north of the equator; it is not found in southern Africa or in the Arabic-speaking nations of North Africa, with the exception of Egypt.6 Female circumcision occurs among Muslims, Christians, animists and one Jewish sect, although no religion requires it.*"
emphasis added

Found at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html



No, it hasn't been for a long time (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html).It's the best evidence we have. Your Judeo-Christian mythology is not evidence.

Read it more closely, in particular footnote 1:

319 U.S. at 112.

Yoder said that

the Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. And, when the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, more than merely a "reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State" is required to sustain the validity of the State's requirement under the First Amendment.


I would be difficult, if not impossible, to defend the constitutionality of a ban on circumcision with relation to Judaism, because it not only infringes on free excercise, but also free speech. Circumcision is the outward expression of Judaism for male's. It is not different than if we, by religious edict, had to tattoo ourselves.

Further..as you read the various legalities in Islam, it is permissible (though not mandated) in Shia Islam to circumcize the prepuce (hood) around the clitoris...I see nothing wrong with this and if this is the sort of female circumcision people are getting up in arms about, they can piss off.I'm glad we agree that Islam encourages it, and that it is a religious practice. And yes, that form of circumcision cannot be practiced here; it would probably be considered child abuse.

So I go back to the question you keep dodging: why is it OK for Jews to circumcise boys, but not OK for Muslims to circumcise girls (as well as boys)?I would be difficult, if not impossible, to defend the constitutionality of a ban on circumcision with relation to Judaism, because it not only infringes on free excercise, but also free speech. Circumcision is the outward expression of Judaism for male's. It is not different than if we, by religious edict, had to tattoo ourselves.Now you're just being silly. You cannot justify aggravated battery on grounds of freedom of speech.

As for free exercise of religion, it would depend on the intent of the law. If Congress set up a committee to study circumcision, and concluded that it poses a serious health risk to young boys, and banned it on <i>that</i> ground, it would be constitutional, even though it affects your religion.

So what I'm going on about, is that you and yours have zero right to suggest my religious beliefs are wrong, on a fundamental level. More especially, though, thanks to various forms of Norwegian collusion with Nazi Germany. Quisling and Hydro put the kilbosh on that one for you. So shut your yap.

For a moment putting the truth-of-your-claim debate aside, if, as you claim one loses one's right to state ones opinion based on something that was done by someone who happened to share the same colour passport as oneself two generations ago, shouldn't that by definition mean that you really ought to shut up yourself?

I find the notion hysterically uneducated, and extremely un-american. Noone "loses" one's right to free speech. Especially not based on what someone else has said or done. I also find it amusing that you'd blame the invaded nation for the fact that the aggressors actually put their own government in place in the defeated nation. It's not as if he was elected, you know.