German Court says child circumcision 'an assault'

[Princess Luna]

Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court has ruled.

The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled on Tuesday that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.

"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court said.

The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes.

A few days after the operation, with the boy bleeding heavily, his parents took him to a hospital. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous bodily harm.

The doctor was acquitted by a lower court that judged he had acted within the law as the parents had given their consent.
On appeal, the regional court also acquitted the doctor but for different reasons.

The regional court upheld the original charge of grievous bodily harm but also ruled that the doctor was innocent as there was too much confusion on the legal situation around circumcision.

The court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children.

'Court not scared off'

"The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."

The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community.
The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination".

The judgement was an "outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," added Graumann. "This religious right is respected in every country in the world."

Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the ruling was "enormously important for doctors because for the first time they have legal certainty".

"Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance," said Putzke.

The World Health Organisation has estimated that nearly one in three males under 15 is circumcised. In the United States, the operation is often performed for hygiene reasons on infants.

Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country's large Jewish and Muslim communities.

The court specified that circumcision was not illegal if carried out for medical reasons.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/201262743137489117.html

I support this, parents have no right to abuse their status as caretakers to mutilate an individual, who has no way of consenting, because of their religious beliefs.

[Krano]

"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court said.I will guarantee the amounth of circumcisions will drop because of this which is of course a good thing, hey Bob do you want to cut part of your dick off? uhhh... no?...

[seventeethdecember2016]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

[Book O'Dead]

I don't agree with outlawing circumcision and, as it happened in Germany makes very nervous. And I'm not even Jewish or Muslim against whom this law will more heavily fall.

I don't like the smell of it, and I don't mean the foreskin either!

[Drosophila]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

That seems a bit far-fetched. Circumcision isn't exclusive to Judaism, and isn't practiced by all Jews.

[Veovis]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

If some religion said that a baby's fingernails must be ripped off X days after birth, would banning the practice amount to religious discrimination?

Body modification without consent is considered barbaric by most sensible people, but why is the male penis the exception to this rule?

[Igor]

Well, under Jewish law, a boy must be circumcised within 8 days after birth. There is little chance for 'consent' in that time period. This is a victory for antisemitism.

Well fuck the Jewish law, then. Being Jewish (or Muslim) doesn't give the parents the right to give their children permanent genital modifications for no actual reason. It has nothing to do with antisemitism.

[GPDP]

I'm all for religious tolerance, but circumcision is a practice that should have been banned long ago.

I assume most of us are against things like Sharia Law, so why not oppose Jewish Law as well? Because we're afraid of being branded anti-Semitic? I'm going to go ahead and assume that's the case here.

[Book O'Dead]

That seems a bit far-fetched. Circumcision isn't exclusive to Judaism, and isn't practiced by all Jews.

Perhaps you're correct but it makes no difference to people who do practice male circumcision as matter of religious custom. I think it invades their privacy and violates their religious freedom. Moreover it's stupid to regulate something that is common practice even among non-Semites and is performed routinely for innumerable reasons.

What's to stop a parent who decides that his newborn infant should be circumcised for hygienic reasons? His religion?

And so what if people decide to throw a party when their male children are deprived of so small a thing as a foreskin?

[hatzel]

Body modification without consent is considered barbaric by most sensible people

The very obvious implication here being that Muslims, Jews, vast swathes of Africa etc. are either 'barbaric' or not 'sensible people'...

[Book O'Dead]

If some religion said that a baby's fingernails must be ripped off X days after birth, would banning the practice amount to religious discrimination?

Body modification without consent is considered barbaric by most sensible people, but why is the male penis the exception to this rule?

No, because they're not the same thing, morally, physically and even numerically: Men have ten fingers and only one pee-pee.

Come to think of it so do women!

[Nox]

This is a victory for antisemitism.

There's always one idiot who uses this fallacious argument to oppose the banning of a form of child abuse.

When someone's religious beliefs infringe someone else's human rights/wellbeing, then there's a big problem. Circumcision does just that.

What you just said is the same as saying abortion clinics are a victory for antisemitism.

[Blanquist]

ｇｒｅａｔ　ｎｅｗｓ！　ｉ　ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ　１００％

[Veovis]

The very obvious implication here being that Muslims, Jews, vast swathes of Africa etc. are either 'barbaric' or not 'sensible people'...

http://marks.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/slow-clap.gif

Anyone who thinks that cutting a baby's penis is ok deserves to be called something much worse than 'unsensible' or 'barbaric.'

[Book O'Dead]

I'm all for religious tolerance, but circumcision is a practice that should have been banned long ago.

I assume most of us are against things like Sharia Law, so why not oppose Jewish Law as well? Because we're afraid of being branded anti-Semitic? I'm going to go ahead and assume that's the case here.

You can't be for religious tolerance if you say its okay to suppress harmless religious practices.

Also, it makes no sense to be against circumcision and at the same time be pro-choice.

[pushing my chest and jaw as if I were ready to duke it out]: Think about that one, buddy!

[Book O'Dead]

http://marks.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/slow-clap.gif

Anyone who thinks that cutting a baby's penis is ok deserves to be called something much worse than 'unsensible' or 'barbaric.'

How about "prick"?

[Veovis]

How about "prick"?

I was thinking of something with more adjectives in front, but that will do.

[Book O'Dead]

I was thinking of something with more adjectives in front, but that will do.

Thank you. You're a gentleperson.

However, I still think that there is a taint of the anti-Semitic behind that "don't clip your baby's pee-pee law".

[Veovis]

Thank you. You're a gentleperson.

However, I still think that there is a taint of the anti-Semitic behind that "don't clip your baby's pee-pee law".

What about Islamophobia? There are a lot more Muslims that mutilate their babies, (although to their credit, there is a small minority that refuses to do so).

[hatzel]

Anyone who thinks that cutting a baby's penis is ok deserves to be called something much worse than 'unsensible' or 'barbaric.'

As one of our fallen soldiers would say...

whitemansay.txt

Anybody who's spent any time whatsoever amongst Europe's Muslims (not to mention anybody else) will know that they (rightly) realise that legal condemnations of Islamic practices - be it circumcision, slaughter, headscarves, mosque-building, whatever - are wrapped up in racist and discriminatory politics intended to threaten, harass and (very literally!) criminalise whole minority populations. Which is why they are actively resisting these kinds of policies (and, speaking from a Jewish perspective, this is actually one of the precious few fields of struggle where Jews and Muslims are still unconditionally acting side-by-side, rather than the unfortunate conflicts that we normally see - unfortunate for us, that is, but it certainly plays into the hands of the divide-and-conquerors up top, so they'd probably object to my calling it 'unfortunate').

You'd also know that plenty have this strange idea that the Left is full of annoying middle-class white student dickheads (with only the most superficial or understandings or, in fact, even interests, in race relations). Part of this is because annoying middle-class white student dickhead leftists are often the very people who are pushing through these laws- often in collaboration with right-wing anti-immigration parties, as has been seen in the Netherlands, France and elsewhere. Sometimes I wonder why the downtrodden of Europe don't always feel the Left has anything to offer them...oh no, I lied, I don't wonder at all. Nor, in fact, do I blame them :)

Support it or not, but keep the flagrant racism (all this talk of savages, oh my!) out of it, if you don't mind...

[Book O'Dead]

What about Islamophobia? There are a lot more Muslims that mutilate their babies, (although to their credit, there is a small minority that refuses to do so).

I think you're right about "Islamophobia". But Antisemitism as well.

[Veovis]

(and, speaking from a Jewish perspective, this is actually one of the precious few fields of struggle where Jews and Muslims are still unconditionally acting side-by-side, rather than the unfortunate conflicts that we normally see.

Here's another one. (http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/04/30/catholics-muslims-jews-consider-anti-gay-marriage-alliance)

Many Jews and Muslims are against full equality for LGBTQ people. Should we stop fighting for gay rights because it flies in the face of a lot of people's religious faith?

Religious rights stop where someone else's body begins.


Support it or not, but keep the flagrant racism (all this talk of savages, oh my!) out of it, if you don't mind...

I didn't use the word 'savage,' I said 'barbaric.' I don't care what color you are, genital cutting is barbarism. The vast majority of white, gentile, Christian folk mutilate their baby boys in the United States; my parents among them. It's just as barbaric when they do it as when a Muslim or Jew does.

[Book O'Dead]

Here's another one. (http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/04/30/catholics-muslims-jews-consider-anti-gay-marriage-alliance)

Many Jews and Muslims are against full equality for LGBTQ people. Should we stop fighting for gay rights because it flies in the face of a lot of people's religious faith?

Religious rights stop where someone else's body begins.



I didn't use the word 'savage,' I said 'barbaric.' I don't care what color you are, genital cutting is barbarism. The vast majority of white, gentile, Christian folk mutilate their baby boys in the United States; my parents among them. It's just as barbaric when they do it as when a Muslim or Jew does.

You conclusions are indiscriminate, to put it kindly.

[#FF0000]

i don't understand what the big deal is tbh

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think it invades their privacy and violates their religious freedom.
Their right to religious freedom ceases when it involves someone who is unable to consent to something, especially for something as drastic as body modification.

[Book O'Dead]

i don't understand what the big deal is tbh

We're arguing over a piece of foreskin. Get with program,#FF0000!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And so what if people decide to throw a party when their male children are deprived of so small a thing as a foreskin?
There's a lot of medical and anecdotal evidence that circumcision's not "so small a thing." It especially can impact someone's enjoyment of sex as an adult.

[#FF0000]

ain't troubled me none.

[Rafiq]

I thought a lot of Americans were circumcized, though...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Veovis]

ain't troubled me none.

That's great, but irrelevant. It has troubled me and many other a lot.

[Book O'Dead]

Their right to religious freedom ceases when it involves someone who is unable to consent to something, especially for something as drastic as body modification.

Some "body modification"! It's the loose skin at the tip of the penis, for crying out loud! And "crying out loud" is what a baby boy must do when the Rabbi does the snippety-snip on his unsuspecting wee-wee.

But don't be discouraged, Danielle, sometimes, as occasionally happens in the bullring, the victim has his revenge: I've heard that sometimes, during a Jewish circumcision, the baby will manage to pee on the Rabbi during the ceremony.

[Book O'Dead]

There's a lot of medical and anecdotal evidence that circumcision's not "so small a thing." It especially can impact someone's enjoyment of sex as an adult.

Maybe you can provide this evidence?

[Veovis]

Some "body modification"! It's the loose skin at the tip of the penis, for crying out loud! And "crying out loud" is what a baby boy must do when the Rabbi does the snippety-snip on his unsuspecting wee-wee.

What if someone wanted to excise the clitoral hood of their infant daughter? The clitoral hood is the exact analogue of the male foreskin. Surely this would be acceptable.

[Veovis]

Maybe you can provide this evidence?

It's easy to find if you google "function of the foreskin" or something similar, but it's NOT easy to find a page that doesn't depict the male genitalia in an explicit manner. What's the board's policy?

[Princess Luna]

Some "body modification"! It's the loose skin at the tip of the penis, for crying out loud! And "crying out loud" is what a baby boy must do when the Rabbi does the snippety-snip on his unsuspecting wee-wee.

But don't be discouraged, Danielle, sometimes, as occasionally happens in the bullring, the victim has his revenge: I've heard that sometimes, during a Jewish circumcision, the baby will manage to pee on the Rabbi during the ceremony.
You realize that the removal of the foreskin desensitizes the penis head because it is meant to be an internal organ, right? Also the procedere is extremely painful for infants, further more the practice is so widespread in the US (and I assume Europe as well) that to say this is unfairly targeting a minority is ridiculous.

[Book O'Dead]

What if someone wanted to excise the clitoral hood of their infant daughter? The clitoral hood is the exact analogue of the male foreskin. Surely this would be acceptable.

I was beginning to wonder if anyone would bring this up. Actually, I held back writing a preemptive paragraph on this very topic.

Female circumcision serves no hygienic purpose. It is done as way of preventing women from deriving any physical pleasure from sexual activity.
IOW, there is no legitimate medical reason that I know of for performing it.
Whereas male circumcision has been proven to be in many, many cases medically beneficial and no, Veovis, it does not diminish sexual pleasure.

[Book O'Dead]

You realize that the removal of the foreskin desensitizes the penis head because it is meant to be an internal organ, right? Also the procedere is extremely painful for infants, further more the practice is so widespread in the US (and I assume Europe as well) that to say this is unfairly targeting a minority is ridiculous.

I don't agree with the first assertion. There is no reliable clinical data to prove that male circumcision desensitizes the glans.

It's a fiction. and if I were as paranoid as Woody Allen I'd argue that such arguments are as spurious as the Protocols of The Elders of Zion.

[Princess Luna]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone would bring this up. Actually, I held back writing a preemptive paragraph on this very topic.

Female circumcision serves no hygienic purpose. It is done as way of preventing women from deriving any physical pleasure from sexual activity.
IOW, there is no legitimate medical reason that I know of for performing it.
Whereas male circumcision has been proven to be in many, many cases medically beneficial and no, Veovis, it does not diminish sexual pleasure.
He mentioned removing the Cliterol hood, female circumsion as the term in most often used is removing the whole cliteres which is way way worse then male circumsiosion of that there is no doubt. Also provided the person bathes at least once a week male Circumsion does nothing for hygene that soap and water could not.

[Book O'Dead]

He mentioned removing the Cliterol hood, female circumsion as the term in most often used is removing the whole cliteres which is way way worse then male circumsiosion of that there is no doubt. Also provided the person bathes at least once a week male Circumsion does nothing for hygene that soap and water could not.

"Once a week", huh? Where do you live, the Arctic circle?

[¿Que?]

I think this issue is really really complicated. I agree that this law will unfairly target Jews and Muslims. There's no denying that. AFAIK, the practice is not nearly as common in Europe, Canada and most industrialized countries as it is in the US, thus I don't see any law such as this passing in the US any time soon. The secular practice of circumcision is for the most part standard and even recommended by more than a few medical professionals in the US. As unsubstantiated as the claims for the benefits of circumcision are, you can always rely on the mainstream news to report on some such disease (usually STD) whose transmission or likelihood is "significantly" reduced by circumcision. Scratch the surface and look a little deeper, and we see that most of these studies are either methodologically flawed, or show benefits that hardly outweigh the risks or effects. But that is neither here not there, what we are talking about is religious freedom, and to me, the argument is valid insofar as I don't really believe in moral absolutes. The fact is, outlawing circumcision will most likely drive the practice underground, risking the child's life more than if it was just accepted but not condoned.

I agree that people should have the right to consent to what is done to their bodies. But also, I've noticed that living in a culture where circumcision is prevalent, that few people are actually complaining about being circumcised. Sad to say but this is a fact. It comes from ignorance, from not understanding or even being able to imagine the alternative, as the practice is usually carried out long before the individual has any memory of it. But that's the reality we deal with.

I don't agree with Germany's decision, although I am vehemently against circumcision. I think what needs to happen, particularly in the US, is a campaign to educate people as to why such a practice is wrong. Like I said, not to outlaw it, but not to condone it either. In the US, the sad reality is that not only is it legal, it is also condoned and recommended, based on flawed research. This is what I have a problem with.

Furthermore, I have a serious problem with the practice being exported to other parts of the world, and presented as a real alternative to safe sex practices. Ironic that someone would bring up African nations as a justification to argue against this law. Circumcision has actually been exported to predominantly non-circumcising African countries by the US and Israel in a misguided attempt at combating AIDS. It is official US health policy, and will, in my opinion increase the spread of AIDS.

So that is my opinion. I don't think it should be outlawed, but I think something more nefarious is going on with circumcision advocates. All the time, circumcision is touted as an effective measure against this or that disease, based on shoddy evidence, bad methodology, or flawed risk/benefit analysis. The real question, then, is why are there so many who seem intent on finding a legitimate (secular) reason to circumcise? As I've read someone describe it once, it's a solution looking for a problem...

[Book O'Dead]

[...]The real question, then, is why are there so many who seem intent on finding a legitimate (secular) reason to circumcise? As I've read someone describe it once, it's a solution looking for a problem...

It's a conspiracy. We want shorten every guy's dick by a few critical millimeters.

[Veovis]

I don't agree with the first assertion. There is no reliable clinical data to prove that male circumcision desensitizes the glans.

Um, yes there is. I'd link to it but penises... :sleep:

[Sir Comradical]

It's genital mutilation plain and simple. However the only argument I can see for keeping circumcisions legal is that by making it illegal, it could open up a black market resulting in an increase in botched circumcisions. The solution should be to run educational campaigns against this barbaric practice.

Boys should have the right to jerk off without lotion.

[Ocean Seal]

Just to bring an argument here, I don't plan on circumcising any of my kids, nor am I circumcised, but I would like to ask, is it really all that bad? Its temporary pain which the baby will forget within minutes and have no recollection of later. Not only that, but your foreskin isn't a particularly valuable part of you. You aren't horribly mutilated, this is an absurdity taken on by the liberal youth as a campaign to save babies. Come on, would the left oppose abortion is the fetus had a semi-developed nervous system which allowed it to feel pain. Before you answer that question, remember that you might get sent to the gulag.

[Veovis]

Just to bring an argument here, I don't plan on circumcising any of my kids, nor am I circumcised, but I would like to ask, is it really all that bad? Its temporary pain which the baby will forget within minutes and have no recollection of later. Not only that, but your foreskin isn't a particularly valuable part of you. You aren't horribly mutilated, this is an absurdity taken on by the liberal youth as a campaign to save babies. Come on, would the left oppose abortion is the fetus had a semi-developed nervous system which allowed it to feel pain. Before you answer that question, remember that you might get sent to the gulag.

The issue with abortion has nothing do with the fetus itself, but whether or not a woman should have control over what happens to her body.

Furthermore, every part of my body is valuable to me. My foreskin would be if I still had one.

[Eagle_Syr]

I don't see how circumcision harms anybody honestly. Hell, I didn't even know what it meant until I realized some people had different wankers.

Being circumcised makes things easier.

[Eagle_Syr]

The issue with abortion has nothing do with the fetus itself, but whether or not a woman should have control over what happens to her body.


Not to go off topic, but if the baby has developed a nervous system (and therefore consciousness and self-awareness), is it not a person?

[Regicollis]

The best argument against circumcision I've ever heard came (unintentionally) from a rabbi whom I once heard in a radio debate on the subject. The argument is simply that if you had to wait until you were old enough to decide it yourself nobody would choose to have a circumcision done.

Furthermore as someone equipped with a healthy un-mutilated foreskin I can tell you that it is not just a pointless piece of skin like say the earlobe. It has a lot of sensitivity and is a cherished part of my sex life.

[electrostal]

But the whole point of such religious rituals is that you aren't supposed to be able to choose.
You're christened or circumcized when you're just a baby.

[Book O'Dead]

After all the shit we've been talking here no one has yet bothered to offer any sort of historical explanation for ritual circumcision:
I deleted the link. Sorry, it was inadequate (not enough foreskins) .

(http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Emcco0322/history.htm)

[28350]

Whereas male circumcision has been proven to be in many, many cases medically beneficial and no, Veovis, it does not diminish sexual pleasure.

Circumcision is medically beneficial in a vast minority of cases. And of course it diminishes sexual pleasure. There are many more nerve endings in the foreskin than in the penis. Aside from cutting off a sensitive part of the penis, desensitization also occurs from the ablation of what was protected -- the shaft, what is left of the frenulum, and the glans.


Just to bring an argument here, I don't plan on circumcising any of my kids, nor am I circumcised, but I would like to ask, is it really all that bad? Its temporary pain which the baby will forget within minutes and have no recollection of later.
It's hardly a temporary pain. Babies, with their hypersensitive nervous systems, pass out from neurogenic shock. How do you know early trauma isn't buried deep, deep, down?


Not only that, but your foreskin isn't a particularly valuable part of you. It should have been my right to decide whether or not my genitals were mutilated. Furthermore, it was a valuable, functional, erogenous part of me.

There can be no apology for mutilating an infant.
*or anyone's junk

[Eagle_Syr]

Are vaccines therefore wrong, too, because they are given without the consent of the child?

Obviously some line needs to be drawn regarding actions taken on behalf of an infant for its sake, so where do we draw the line?

[Veovis]

So question: Would it be ok to remove any other part of a child's body besides the foreskin without medical necessity?

[¿Que?]

It's a conspiracy. We want shorten every guy's dick by a few critical millimeters.
You're right it does seem ridiculous, which is why I posed the question to begin with. Even before circumcision was lauded as the newest panacea to the African AIDS crisis, it was being pushed as a solution for this or that problem and often (if not always) the stated benefits have been debunked. This is an historical fact. If you don't have anything significant to say regarding the matter, then I'd appreciate it if you kept your condescending remarks to yourself.

[Book O'Dead]

So question: Would it be ok to remove any other part of a child's body besides the foreskin without medical necessity?

His vocal chords, especially at night.

[28350]

Are vaccines therefore wrong, too, because they are given without the consent of the child?

no


Obviously some line needs to be drawn regarding actions taken on behalf of an infant for its sake, so where do we draw the line?

not sure but if i'm not mistaken it's definitely somewhere between cutting up a baby (or even pricking it needlessly in the clitoris) and sticking a needle in it to prevent disease. ("oh but circumcision lowers the rate of transmission!" so would cutting off the entire penis. why not use a condom?)

[#FF0000]

So question: Would it be ok to remove any other part of a child's body besides the foreskin without medical necessity?

like what

[Veovis]

like what

Like anything other than the foreskin. Maybe the pinky fingers. I mean, two less fingers to possibly get broken later in life. Besides, you'd still have 8 left.

[Book O'Dead]

You're right it does seem ridiculous, which is why I posed the question to begin with. Even before circumcision was lauded as the newest panacea to the African AIDS crisis, it was being pushed as a solution for this or that problem and often (if not always) the stated benefits have been debunked. This is an historical fact. If you don't have anything significant to say regarding the matter, then I'd appreciate it if you kept your condescending remarks to yourself.

C'mon man! we're only talking about how Germans decided to save every foreskin within their borders.

It's a matter for concern, I think.

[Book O'Dead]

Like anything other than the foreskin. Maybe the pinky fingers. I mean, two less fingers to possibly get broken later in life. Besides, you'd still have 8 left.

And how will my dick "break" if I get a circumcision?

[#FF0000]

Um, yes there is. I'd link to it but penises... :sleep:

its fine. it's a medical thing so don't even worry, imo.

if anyone gives you a hard time just blame me and things should work out

[Veovis]

And how will my dick "break" if I get a circumcision?

You're replacing erogenous tissue with a scar. You tell me.

[Ostrinski]

Tbh I'm kind of glad I was circumcised if only for the fact that uncircumcised penises look fuckin weird lol

[Book O'Dead]

You're replacing erogenous tissue with a scar. You tell me.

Okay.

[Os Cangaceiros]

words

I pretty much agree with this.

[Veovis]

Tbh I'm kind of glad I was circumcised if only for the fact that uncircumcised penises look fuckin weird lol

I hope you don't/didn't make any choices about your own children's anatomy based on that criterion.

[Book O'Dead]

I hope you don't/didn't make any choices about your own children's anatomy based on that criterion.

And if he did, you would call him what, a sadist, barbarian, crypto-castrator?

[Veovis]

And if he did, you would call him what, a sadist, barbarian, crypto-castrator?

All of the above and then some.

[X5N]

I believe that such permanent physical alterations that are done for less-than-urgent reasons should be avoided until the individual is at least old enough to make something of a decision of their own.

But as an anarchist who doesn't agree with forcing certain groups to abide by rules they don't wish to abide by...it's a little more iffy than that. But I certainly do believe in youth rights.

[Book O'Dead]

All of the above and then some.
He'll get upset. But surely not as upset as i am at the Germans for enacting this stupid and intrusive law. Shame on them!

[Ostrinski]

And if he did, you would call him what, a sadist, barbarian, crypto-castrator?pretty merciful all things considering

[Ocean Seal]

The issue with abortion has nothing do with the fetus itself, but whether or not a woman should have control over what happens to her body.

Furthermore, every part of my body is valuable to me. My foreskin would be if I still had one.
If you had the choice of having your foreskin with you right now or 100 dollars which would you pick?

[Pretty Flaco]

is circumcision even harmful? i was told it's more hygienic. im circumcised and i really dont give a fuck.

[¿Que?]

is circumcision even harmful? i was told it's more hygienic. im circumcised and i really dont give a fuck.
Actually it can be. If I recall correctly, this issue was pushed to the forefront of German politics after a widely publicized botched circumcision by a Muslim doctor. Take from that what you will...

[Pretty Flaco]

Actually it can be. If I recall correctly, this issue was pushed to the forefront of German politics after a widely publicized botched circumcision by a Muslim doctor. Take from that what you will...

well doctors can really fuck up any sort of procedure. so what makes circumcision any different? also, whats the significance of him being a muslim doctor?

[¿Que?]

well doctors can really fuck up any sort of procedure. so what makes circumcision any different? also, whats the significance of him being a muslim doctor?
Well, yeah, however, the majority of the time, circumcision is not medically necessary. It certainly wasn't in this situation, since it was done wholly for religious reasons.

As to the doctor being Muslim, that's why I said "take from that what you will." Maybe you don't think it has any significance, that's up to you to decide.

[Art Vandelay]

Tbh I am glad I was circumcised. Not sure what the fuss is about, or how its not intrusive into matters the state should have no say in. More hygenic as well, from what I have been told.

[Pretty Flaco]

Well, yeah, however, the majority of the time, circumcision is not medically necessary. It certainly wasn't in this situation, since it was done wholly for religious reasons.

As to the doctor being Muslim, that's why I said "take from that what you will." Maybe you don't think it has any significance, that's up to you to decide.

are you insinuating that the fuss over it in german media could be related to some sort of german prejudice to muslims?

[wsg1991]

Boys should have the right to jerk off without lotion.
i am circumcised , and can jerk off without Lotion

[wsg1991]

Just to bring an argument here, I don't plan on circumcising any of my kids, nor am I circumcised, but I would like to ask, is it really all that bad? Its temporary pain which the baby will forget within minutes and have no recollection of later. Not only that, but your foreskin isn't a particularly valuable part of you. You aren't horribly mutilated, this is an absurdity taken on by the liberal youth as a campaign to save babies. Come on, would the left oppose abortion is the fetus had a semi-developed nervous system which allowed it to feel pain. Before you answer that question, remember that you might get sent to the gulag.

but it's still a mutilation , on the other hand , Women circumcision is a grave crime

i don't what's the big problem in all of this , this might bring jews and muslims closer anyway , as they will be fighting for common cause , this is there problems they will solve it by themselves , in the meantime , focus on more urgent issues

[wsg1991]

Not to go off topic, but if the baby has developed a nervous system (and therefore consciousness and self-awareness), is it not a person?

here the abortion limit thing , as some countries give women some time to voluntary abortion (here 3 month )
unlike the religious dick heads , this is usually based on baby embryological development and stressing on nervous system

i am for this type of abortion limit

[Comrade Jandar]

Circumcised and proud of it. Thank god my parents weren't middle class white student leftists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Circumcisions for people below the age of majority, unless carried out for a genuine medical purpose, should be treated for what it is - mutilation carried out in the name of bullshit.


Tbh I am glad I was circumcised.

Why? Because otherwise you would have to admit that you were mutilated as a child for no good reason?


Not sure what the fuss is about, or how its not intrusive into matters the state should have no say in.

The problem is that subjecting children to medically unnecessary procedures presents needless risk of complications to the child, and also denies them the choice later in life. They can always get themselves circumcised later on in life.


More hygenic as well, from what I have been told.

There's less opportunity for smegma to build up, but it still becomes dirty if you don't wash the damn thing, which you should be doing anyway.

[Comrade Jandar]

This thread is going to give me nightmares about uncircumcised penises.

[MuscularTophFan]

i am circumcised , and can jerk off without Lotion
Ditto

[Sea]

We shouldn't be arguing about the medical considerations of circumcision. The problem is that circumcision as it's practiced today is involuntary and invasive, and for that I fully support the court's decision.

I also like how society is starting to re-evaluate widely accepted things like circumcision.

[28350]

Tbh I'm kind of glad I was circumcised if only for the fact that uncircumcised penises look fuckin weird lol

"We should give new born baby girls breast implants. Everyone loves big boobs and she won't remember the surgery since she's so young."


\ More hygenic as well, from what I have been told.

"Hygienic? Why don't you sew up your ass then?"

[Krano]

Circumcised and proud of it. Thank god my parents weren't middle class white student leftists.
Not circumcised and proud of it, i can actually enjoy sex more and yes foreskin is a sensitive part of your body which increases sexual pleasure. But i don't think you knew this
as you were already brutalised as a baby and never got to feel that yourself.

[marl]

people not about hygiene and infections and whatnot..
let's chop off our children's arms because they have a chance of getting them infected, and it'd be easier to wash your children if they didn't have arms!

[wsg1991]

leftist fight about foreskin , i hope no conservative record this or we will be trolled for many generation

[Krano]

people not about hygiene and infections and whatnot..
let's chop off our children's arms because they have a chance of getting them infected, and it'd be easier to wash your children if they didn't have arms!
Infection shouldnt be a problem if you wash your dick atleast ones a year.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The whole "it's more hygenic thing" is pretty much a load of horseshit, assuming one maintains even the bare minimum of cleanliness.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Let the child grow to an adult. Then see if they want a piece of their dick cut off. If they do, then by all means. If it isn't a medical necessity then it shouldn't be done to a child. It is child abuse. Regardless of your religious beliefs or this or that, you are maiming a child for life.

[Regicollis]

I think an overlooked part of this debate is that circumcision in Europe is done for religious reasons only. We never had the "circumcision will stop your son from masturbating and going blind" thing that he US had.

There is no medical reason for removing a normal healthy foreskin. We evolved one for a reason. If anything doing so only exposes the child to the dangers of complications involved with all surgeries.

So since the main reason for doing a circumcision is a religious one the pressing question becomes this: What if the child does not grow up to be a jew/muslim? Shouldn't the permanent body modifications wait until the child is old enough to decide for himself whether he shares his parents' religious beliefs or not?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's only more hygienic if you're unable to figure out how to wash it.

[hatzel]

Just thought I'd let you all know that I find the fact that you people are talking about penises rather than political structures rather telling...

[Robocommie]

Just thought I'd let you all know that I find the fact that you people are talking about penises rather than political structures rather telling...

"World socialism? Hold on for a fucking minute. We need to argue about our penises and jerking off with or without lotion. It is a LEFTIST ISSUE OF GREAT IMPORT."

People who get worked up about this - one way or another - are weird.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

How about we stop arguing about this and leave it up to not the parents, not religious figures, but doctors to decide what's better?

[hatzel]

How about we stop arguing about this and leave it up to not the parents, not religious figures, but doctors to decide what's better?

Mainly because I made the accusation on the first page that you lot have zero race analysis, and labouring under the illusion that this is a question of what kind of penis is 'better' or 'nicer' or whatever else really isn't race analysis, so...

[Devrim]

Mainly because I made the accusation on the first page that you lot have zero race analysis, and labouring under the illusion that this is a question of what kind of penis is 'better' or 'nicer' or whatever else really isn't race analysis, so...

Because it is pretty obvious that this whole thing is all about the question of a few Internet posters in the US who seem obsessed with talking about their genitals, and not at all another attack upon the group who, just by coincidence, happen to be Germany's largest minority.

Devrim

[Nox]

ain't troubled me none.

Yes it has. You just haven't realised it, because you don't know what it's like to have a foreskin.

On another note, I'm pretty annoyed that some people in this thread are defending child abuse, and using total and utter lies to defend their position.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes it has. You just haven't realised it, because you don't know what it's like to have a foreskin.

On another note, I'm pretty annoyed that some people in this thread are defending child abuse, and using total and utter lies to defend their position.

How can a personal experience be lies?
Being circumcised hasn't troubled me either.
Or am I lying? I don't even know anymore.

[Robocommie]

Yes it has. You just haven't realised it, because you don't know what it's like to have a foreskin.

On another note, I'm pretty annoyed that some people in this thread are defending child abuse, and using total and utter lies to defend their position.

I'm pretty fucking annoyed that you're comparing this shit to child abuse, because unlike the actual victims of that, I have never suffered PTSD from my horrible ordeal, or have anger/substance abuse issues, difficulty forming emotional bonds, et cetera. In fact I guarantee that the only time I ever even think about this is when some dipshit internet crusader forces the issue into my consciousness.

Meanwhile, people are fucking dying from preventable diseases and living in shacks made from corrugated tin. Have some fucking perspective!

People eager to make equivocations with child abuse should probably spend some fucking volunteer hours as a social worker and see the kids with cigarette burns on their arms or fractured limbs. This false equivalency really is bullshit.

[Regicollis]

I'm a bit troubled by the seemingly common idea that since circumcision is done by minorities we should not be against it. To me that argument comes close to cultural relativism.

[Robocommie]

I'm a bit troubled by the seemingly common idea that since circumcision is done by minorities we should not be against it. To me that argument comes close to cultural relativism.

You know, a moderate amount of cultural relativism is a far cry better than the instant assumption that the way one's own culture does or sees things is automatically the most rational and right.

Seriously, I read this website and sometimes it's like the colonialist era never happened.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Why is it that subjects related to reproductive organs are so popular on this forum?

[Revolution starts with U]

As others have said, I have no problem with it and kind of like it... tho only kind of because I don't know otherwise. I think it looks better.

Besides, if I wanted it back I could get it. You people do know this right? You can grow your foreskin back...

What a horseshit issue this is.

[Rafiq]

It's genital mutilation plain and simple. However the only argument I can see for keeping circumcisions legal is that by making it illegal, it could open up a black market resulting in an increase in botched circumcisions. The solution should be to run educational campaigns against this barbaric practice.

Boys should have the right to jerk off without lotion.

It's the tip of the penis, not all foreskin...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[bricolage]

I'm a bit troubled by the seemingly common idea that since circumcision is done by minorities we should not be against it. To me that argument comes close to cultural relativism.
there's a difference between being 'against' something, which is largely meaningless, and cheerleading a state imposing 'against' something, which is very meaningful and most often for the wrong reasons. but of course teenage anti theism is far more important than political analysis.

[Book O'Dead]

Boy, I have never witnessed a such a large collection of dickheads (mine included)!

Most of us here are crying about a few seconds of real or imagined pain during a harmless bit of surgery on the prepuce but only a few have expressed anything related to the way in which we treat women in our society! Theirs is not a few seconds of pain during infancy quickly forgotten, but a lifetime of pain, toil, abuse, discrimination, etc.

We are, gentlefolk, a bunch of mindless phalo-centric assholes!

Oh, yeah, let me remind you that the topic at hand is not our dicks but the sneaky, neo-Nazi way in which the German government attacks a minority for its own nefarious purposes.

I can just see them plotting their scheme: "Ja, Otto, virst ve gets sem by deir viener!"

In conclusion, I am against any law, however reasonable it may seem, that deny ethnic minorities the right to practice their religious rites and ceremonies as long as those practices do not infringe on the RIGHTS or threaten the safety and security of society at large. And no anywhere has ever been able to prove that circumcision poses that kind of threat.

[thälmann]

i mean its not like this is something only jews and moslems do. In vast areas of africa, arabic countries, parts of europe and as far as ai know also in the US its a common thing also under christians or others and atheists.. and it has not only religious reasons, but mostly hygienic ones, as everyone can imagine. this is a bit important for warmer countries.

[Tim Cornelis]

You can't be for religious tolerance if you say its okay to suppress harmless religious practices.

Also, it makes no sense to be against circumcision and at the same time be pro-choice.

[pushing my chest and jaw as if I were ready to duke it out]: Think about that one, buddy!

Harmless? Cutting off the little finger of a baby is also harmless, you don't actually need it. So if it was an established religious practice to cut off fingers of eight year old babies, I suppose you would also support such an atrocious practice?



Boy, I have never witnessed a such a large collection of dickheads (mine included)!

Most of us here are crying about a few seconds of real or imagined pain during a harmless bit of surgery on the prepuce but only a few have expressed anything related to the way in which we treat women in our society! Theirs is not a few seconds of pain during infancy quickly forgotten, but a lifetime of pain, toil, abuse, discrimination, etc.

Okay, let's cut off the pinkie of babies then.


Oh, yeah, let me remind you that the topic at hand is not our dicks but the sneaky, neo-Nazi way in which the German government attacks a minority for its own nefarious purposes.

I can just see them plotting their scheme: "Ja, Otto, virst ve gets sem by deir viener!"

In conclusion, I am against any law, however reasonable it may seem, that deny ethnic minorities the right to practice their religious rites and ceremonies as long as those practices do not infringe on the RIGHTS or threaten the safety and security of society at large. And no anywhere has ever been able to prove that circumcision poses that kind of threat.

You should join the anti-Germans.

[Revolution starts with U]

Harmless? Cutting off the little finger of a baby is also harmless, you don't actually need it. So if it was an established religious practice to cut off fingers of eight year old babies, I suppose you would also support such an atrocious practice?

.

You know, I have no problem with this ^ view right here.

Where I take offense is when someone suggests there is something wrong with me because my penis is missing some not necessary skin. I'm fine with it, and having the knowledge that I can get my foreskin back I still don't want to do so. So, as they say, "fuck off ya wankers." (no pun intended) :lol:

[Tim Cornelis]

You know, I have no problem with this ^ view right here.

Where I take offense is when someone suggests there is something wrong with me because my penis is missing some not necessary skin. I'm fine with it, and having the knowledge that I can get my foreskin back I still don't want to do so. So, as they say, "fuck off ya wankers." (no pun intended) :lol:

I'm not saying there is something wrong with you, just like there is nothing wrong with a person who lost his pinkie, or has a tattoo. What's wrong is that the parents decide.

Children are not the property of the parent, and hence should not make such decisions.

Do you support the right of parents to tattoo their 8 year old baby? Especially, if in 1% of the cases there are complications?

I'm not saying have a tattoo is wrong, I'm saying it should not be up to the parent to decide. The same with circumcision. It's not wrong to have one, it's wrong that the parent decides the child should have one.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not saying there is something wrong with you, just like there is nothing wrong with a person who lost his pinkie, or has a tattoo. What's wrong is that the parents decide.

Children are not the property of the parent, and hence should not make such decisions.

Do you support the right of parents to tattoo their 8 year old baby? Especially, if in 1% of the cases there are complications?

I'm not saying have a tattoo is wrong, I'm saying it should not be up to the parent to decide. The same with circumcision. It's not wrong to have one, it's wrong that the parent decides the child should have one.

No, I"m not against the law per se, either. What I am against is the way in which it seems to target a minority (and one which, in Germany, hasn't quite had all that good of a time recently), and of course the people in this thread (not you) making the claim that I am worse than because of something I give 2 fucks about :)

[Veovis]

If you had the choice of having your foreskin with you right now or 100 dollars which would you pick?

Multiply that sum by 1000 and I'd still choose an intact penis.

Now I'm taking my leave of this thread. It's too much of a trigger issue for me.

[Kotze]

Removing that useless bit of foreskin is absolutely no big deal.

If you have an uncut lover, why not make a surprise for him while he's asleep? Or with a quick move during sex (you can also use your teeth for that)? It just tickles a bit.

:rolleyes:

(Semi-offtopic: What is it with the wishy-washy stance of many Revlefters regarding religion? Oh, I'm personally absolutely against ___, but if a religious institution does it, that's their right, freedom of religion blahblah. Isn't that like saying that asinine bullshit becomes profound by being really old asinine bullshit? Anyway, religion will wither away blah. Isn't that like having a gradualist idea about replacing capitalism?)

I'll throw in a rather obscure reason against circumcision, because I'm charitable like that: If a person wants a sex-change op, having this sensitive tissue available is really handy, mkay.

[Comrade-Z]

It's times like this that I wish Redstar2000 was still on these boards. He'd have a thing or two to say to all you godsuckers apologizing for barbaric iron-age religious practices.

I am noticing a number of things going on in this thread.

On the one hand, there are some saying, "How dare these middle-class white leftists get so worked up over this problem when there are so many real problems going on in the world?" There are two things going on with such statements. First, such statements falsely imply that only middle-class white leftists care about such issues. Why would a working-class Arabic guy have any less of a reason to care about genital mutilation? Why would genital mutilation not be a working-class issue? Here's a question: are involuntarily arranged marriages a working-class issue? Is it okay if a dad forces his son to marry someone just so the dad can cement some business deal? "Oh, but some working-class minorities still stand behind arranged marriages, so I guess the anti-imperialist position is to support their right to force their children to have arranged marriages." Bullshit. Similarly, many working-class whites in the U.S. are racist. Does that make anti-racism a "middle-class, petty-bourgeois" issue? Hell no. In short, your class politics are very suspect if you support the right of parents to circumcise their infants.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that, any time a side starts to feel that it is losing an argument, a standard evasive maneuver is to start arguing about how it is a stupid argument in the first place. "Jeez, I thought we were going to talk about communist revolution, but all you people want to do is talk about middle-class anti-racism bullshit." How would you respond if someone said that?

And to be clear, it is not circumcision itself that is the biggest issue at stake here. I'm not personally much interested in discussing the aesthetic advantages or disadvantages of having a circumcised penis. What is at stake here is whether we are going to allow parents to perform irreversible, non-medically necessary, transfiguring procedures on their children (here we are talking of the vast majority of cases where circumcision would not be medically necessary). A perfect analogy really would be something like parents getting to decide to put breast implants in their infant daughters...or, if parents could decide whether to foot-bind their sons and daughters from infancy.

As for vaccinations...I would not be in favor of mandatory vaccinations of infants without their consent in cases where the vaccination was not really medically necessary. For example, scientists are getting close to making vaccines for certain drugs like cocaine. In other words, you could be given a vaccine that would make you immune to ever experiencing the effects of cocaine in your life. If parents forced their children to take such vaccines, then that would be barbaric too. You would be depriving the child of the ability to choose for him or herself whether to be able to experience the mental state of cocaine stimulation at some point in life. This would amount to a minor form of thought control—ruling out the possibility that they could ever experience the mental state of a cocaine high. But other vaccines, such as against the measles, are okay to give to infants without their consent because you are not depriving them of any real choice that they would have ever considered. Whether or not to get high on cocaine, or whether or not to have a circumcised penis, are choices that people might consider. Nobody is going to consider whether they might want to be able to experience a measles infection. In other words, the question of, "Would people want to get this done on their own when they were older?" should inform this debate. As that rabbi joked, hardly anybody would actively go get a circumcision once old enough to decide for themselves. That should tell us something. Likewise, nobody seeks out a measles infection once old enough to be able to consciously try to do so (Compare with the fact that many people decide to, for example, experience cocaine for themselves once older).

As for people saying that "I'm circumcised, and it's no big deal for me," well, lucky you. There are some people out there who are not so lucky, who are circumcised and wish they had never been. What if I said, "Yeah, I was raped once, but it wasn't really a big deal for me, so this whole issue of rape is frivilous, and we should just allow people to rape others if they want to (perhaps if it is a part of their religion?)

Overall, this thread has really disgusted me and shown me just how downhill revleft has gone over the last few years. I never thought I'd have to argue against involuntary circumcision.

[Revolution starts with U]

As for people saying that "I'm circumcised, and it's no big deal for me," well, lucky you. There are some people out there who are not so lucky, who are circumcised and wish they had never been. What if I said, "Yeah, I was raped once, but it wasn't really a big deal for me, so this whole issue of rape is frivilous, and we should just allow people to rape others if they want to (perhaps if it is a part of their religion?)
Except, of course, you can't undo a rape, while you CAN undo a circumcision... without even going into surgery!

[Comrade-Z]

Except, of course, you can't undo a rape, while you CAN undo a circumcision... without even going into surgery!

Whoa, really? That's news to me! So I can get circumcised, and then grow back a fully-intact foreskin, just like before? How easy is this?

Even if it is not strictly irreversible, circumcision would remain cumbersome to undo and of non-zero risk, both in the initial operation of it, and maybe in the undoing of it (I have no idea medically how that would be done. This is the first I have ever heard of this possibility, so I am taking your word for it. But I don't imagine that it would just happen naturally, or else everyone who was circumcised would just naturally grow their foreskin back).

In this case, forced infant circumcision would be like a forced infant vasectomy (assuming such a thing could be done on an infant). Technically reversible, but a real pain to undo, and a barbaric denial of the infant's future choices in the first place.

[cynicles]

If you had the choice of having your foreskin with you right now or 100 dollars which would you pick?
Foreskin.

[Revolution starts with U]

Whoa, really? That's news to me! So I can get circumcised, and then grow back a fully-intact foreskin, just like before? How easy is this?

Even if it is not strictly irreversible, circumcision would remain cumbersome to undo and of non-zero risk, both in the initial operation of it, and maybe in the undoing of it (I have no idea medically how that would be done. This is the first I have ever heard of this possibility, so I am taking your word for it. But I don't imagine that it would just happen naturally, or else everyone who was circumcised would just naturally grow their foreskin back).

In this case, forced infant circumcision would be like a forced infant vasectomy (assuming such a thing could be done on an infant). Technically reversible, but a real pain to undo, and a barbaric denial of the infant's future choices in the first place.

I dont' remember the specific details of it, but it's a pretty un-invasive procedure. If I remember you just get a certain type of treatment and then come in to have it adjusted every once in a while.
Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit! about it. They're anti-circumscision, like you. They brought up the reversal procedure to let us poor half-dicks free ourselves of our burden of not having extra sweat in our pants.

jI3oa4Mx9hs

[Nox]

I'm pretty fucking annoyed that you're comparing this shit to child abuse, because unlike the actual victims of that, I have never suffered PTSD from my horrible ordeal, or have anger/substance abuse issues, difficulty forming emotional bonds, et cetera. In fact I guarantee that the only time I ever even think about this is when some dipshit internet crusader forces the issue into my consciousness.

Meanwhile, people are fucking dying from preventable diseases and living in shacks made from corrugated tin. Have some fucking perspective!

People eager to make equivocations with child abuse should probably spend some fucking volunteer hours as a social worker and see the kids with cigarette burns on their arms or fractured limbs. This false equivalency really is bullshit.

So abusing babies is ok because it won't have any long term impacts on their mental health? Nice fucking logic

/facepalm

[Revolutionair]

Most of us here are crying about a few seconds of real or imagined pain during a harmless bit of surgery

Let us establish the fact that there is no imagined pain, only very real pain which can cause babies to pass out. This means that it is very much on par with child abuse. That is, if the beating of the child was hard enough to make the child go unconscious.


In conclusion, I am against any law, however reasonable it may seem, that deny ethnic minorities the right to practice their religious rites and ceremonies as long as those practices do not infringe on the RIGHTS or threaten the safety and security of society at large.

So nothing a cultural minority group matters as long as it stays within the minority. Minority meaning less than 50% here, because Muslims do make up 3.6 million of the population.


And no anywhere has ever been able to prove that circumcision poses that kind of threat.

The infliction of pain is not a threat to children? Okay.

[Robocommie]

So abusing babies is ok because it won't have any long term impacts on their mental health? Nice fucking logic

/facepalm

Whoa hoss, slow your roll. It being child abuse was YOUR contention, and one I said was complete bullshit.

That said, I really don't want to waste any more of my precious moments on this Earth on this ridiculous fucking thread, so you guys have fun with your argument about dicks.

[Revolutionair]

Whoa hoss, slow your roll. It being child abuse was YOUR contention, and one I said was complete bullshit.

Is it child abuse to beat your children but you make sure they forget about it afterwards? Please note that they will still have to live with the scars from the beatings (broken limbs, you cut off their fingers, maybe cut off an ear). Also note that the beatings are so severe that they pass out because of the pain.

[Revolution starts with U]

I was spanked with a belt as a child (which isn't abuse imo). And from that experience I can tell you I feel even less abused because of my circumcision.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Circumcision is a barbarian practice.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was spanked with a belt as a child (which isn't abuse imo).
Corporal punishment is abuse. The whole point is to cause some amount of pain.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Fuck the global economy and the class struggle, this is vastly more important.

With this being said, I'm against circumcision male or female.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was spanked with a belt as a child (which isn't abuse imo). And from that experience I can tell you I feel even less abused because of my circumcision.

What? Hitting children with a belt isn't abuse? C'mon now...

[Revolution starts with U]

Just sayin I personally, I can't speak for anyone else (it could be abuse in their opinion), but I harbor no ill will towards my father for spanking me with a belt.

It may be abuse objectively if we can establish an objective definition of such. Just to me, it's not damaged me in any noticeable way.

As far as "abuse is designed to cause people pain," ... so is any punishment, either physical or mental, what's your point?

[DasFapital]

I was circumcised at 7 due to an infection. Ever since then I've notice I am more prone to the dreaded dual piss stream/spray. (No need to thank me for sharing this gross personal info with you)

[Pretty Flaco]

damn i wish my doctor would have gave me a penis

[wsg1991]

I was circumcised at 7 due to an infection. Ever since then I've notice I am more prone to the dreaded dual piss stream/spray. (No need to thank me for sharing this gross personal info with you)


no names keep talking

[Luís Henrique]

Circumcision is a barbarian practice.

It is.

The banning of barbaric practices is sometimes more barbaric than the barbaric practices themselves.

This being one case.

It is necessary to be completely blind to reality to fail to realise that such ruling is completely shrouded and wrapped up in Islamophobia and/or antisemitism.

Luís Henrique

[electrostal]

Why is there a 7 page thread about a completely rational ban on genital mutilation?
What relevance does this have to the worker's movement?

[Nox]

Whoa hoss, slow your roll. It being child abuse was YOUR contention, and one I said was complete bullshit.

Please explain how cutting off a useful and fully functional part of a baby's body is anything but child abuse. I'd love to see your logic behind this one, you haven't shown any so far in this thread.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Please explain how cutting off a useful and fully functional part of a baby's body is anything but child abuse. I'd love to see your logic behind this one, you haven't shown any so far in this thread.

What exactly is its use?

[Book O'Dead]

Why is there a 7 page thread about a completely rational ban on genital mutilation?

Because it gives us a chance to bring up our favorite topic: Our dicks.


What relevance does this have to the worker's movement?Directly? Probably none.

However, if you read the OP you'll find that some in Germany are still susceptible to anti-semitic propaganda and prejudice and others are still using that fear to persecute people over the issue of circumcision.

Some here are against male infant circumcision, they say, because it is supposedly injurious to the child. No credible evidence of that exists.

Although I have no statistics or hard data to support my views regarding circumcision, I would argue that it is perhaps possible to determine the ratio of successful circumcisions (those without any medical complications) versus those that have had complications.

Circumcision is perhaps the simplest of medical procedures, especially on infants, whose foreskin is tiny.

The fact that circumcision in Germany is commonly practiced by Jews and Muslims for religious reasons and that it is they who are most affected by its prohibition is, to me, worrisome, given Germany's recent history of persecution of Jews.

[electrostal]

Did Nazis ban circumcision?

[Devrim]

However, if you read the OP you'll find that some in Germany are still susceptible to anti-semitic propaganda and prejudice and others are still using that fear to persecute people over the issue of circumcision.

I think that if you read the OP, you will see that the boy came from a Muslim family. There are about twenty times more Muslims than Jews in Germany. I would suggest that it is probably more related to Islampophobia than anti-antisemitism.

Devrim

[Comrade-Z]

Let's say I want to start up my own sect of Christianity that establishes a tradition of branding our infants with hot irons in the shape of a cross. How is this not functionally similar to circumcision?
1. It is medically unnecessary (as is circumcision in the vast majority of circumstances) and carries non-zero medical risk.
2. It is done without the infant's consent.
3. It is painful. ("Oh, but the infant won't remember it, so who cares?...")
4. It is done to mark an infant forever as a member of that religion, before that individual ever got a chance to decide for him/herself whether to adopt that religion.

Branding our children with hot irons in the shape of a cross would be considered child abuse. How is circumcision any different?

And I'm sure some people would apologize for it, saying, "I got branded as an infant, didn't hurt me none..."

As for all of this being an attack on Muslims...well, sure, some people are going to perceive it that way. I still see a huge difference between bombing Palestinian kids and telling Muslims in Germany that they can't circumcise their kids. The former is an attack on Muslims without much regard for their religious beliefs on the basis of imperialist objectives. The latter is a (rightful, in my view) attack on a barbaric excess of a religion with which people can choose to affiliate themselves with (or they can choose not to affiliate themselves with this particular barbaric excess of a practice, if they have any sense in them).

Why would an Islam, or a Judaism, without circumcision be so unthinkable? After all of the other innovations these religions have had to make in order to comply with modern moral standards, what is it about circumcision that makes it so important to hold onto? If we were talking about outlawing the commandments of public stoning of offenders in the Old Testament, I'm sure there would be people apologizing for it, saying, "You are attacking Jews! Public stoning of offenders is an essential tradition of the Jewish faith!"

[Devrim]

Let's say I want to start up my own sect of Christianity that establishes a tradition of branding our infants with hot irons in the shape of a cross. How is this not functionally similar to circumcision?
1. It is medically unnecessary (as is circumcision in the vast majority of circumstances) and carries non-zero medical risk.
2. It is done without the infant's consent.
3. It is painful. ("Oh, but the infant won't remember it, so who cares?...")
4. It is done to mark an infant forever as a member of that religion, before that individual ever got a chance to decide for him/herself whether to adopt that religion.

Branding our children with hot irons in the shape of a cross would be considered child abuse. How is circumcision any different?

And I'm sure some people would apologize for it, saying, "I got branded as an infant, didn't hurt me none..."

Wow you are really missing the entire point here.


On the one hand, there are some saying, "How dare these middle-class white leftists get so worked up over this problem when there are so many real problems going on in the world?" There are two things going on with such statements. First, such statements falsely imply that only middle-class white leftists care about such issues. Why would a working-class Arabic guy have any less of a reason to care about genital mutilation? Why would genital mutilation not be a working-class issue? Here's a question: are involuntarily arranged marriages a working-class issue? Is it okay if a dad forces his son to marry someone just so the dad can cement some business deal? "Oh, but some working-class minorities still stand behind arranged marriages, so I guess the anti-imperialist position is to support their right to force their children to have arranged marriages." Bullshit. Similarly, many working-class whites in the U.S. are racist. Does that make anti-racism a "middle-class, petty-bourgeois" issue? Hell no. In short, your class politics are very suspect if you support the right of parents to circumcise their infants.

I don't think that the issue has anything to do with class politics. I don't think that there is anything particularly terrible about it. Even a very brief look at the issue would inform you that medical opinion is divided on the issue.


As for all of this being an attack on Muslims...well, sure, some people are going to perceive it that way.

It is strange that, isn't it? Perhaps they are right.

Don't you think that there is currently a racist campaign against people from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, which has been going on for several years now?

Of course racism is a lot more subtle now than it was when I moved to the England as a child. In those days it was par for the course to see classified adds for apartments that said NBNI*. Today of course that sort of thing is illegal. People can't openly talk about 'the darkies' or more abusive terms, but when they are criticizing things such as "barbaric excess of a religion", "particular barbaric excess of a practice", and "barbaric iron-age religious practices", they are generally talking about the same thing.

Now, I don't think that you are a racist, even though these are all terms that you have used.I do think though that you should look at the sort of people who are spouting the same sort of lines as you are, and think about whether or not you want to be associated with them, and whether you want to be dragged along in the sway of what is obviously a racist campaign.

Just onto the practical side, what do you think it will it do if circumcision is made illegal in Germany? Do you think that Muslims will stop circumcising their kids or that it will be done in backstreet insanitary conditions with more accidents?

Devrim

*No Blacks No Irish

[cynicles]

I find it hard to accept the idea that anti-semitism was ever a motivation for this, if jews didn't also circumcise their children and it was only muslims who did it the population would be 90% gung-ho about this. That being said I'm still opposed to circumcision.

[Red Rabbit]

Did Nazis ban circumcision?

Yes, and I believe Stalin did as well.

[Book O'Dead]

I find it hard to accept the idea that anti-semitism was ever a motivation for this, if jews didn't also circumcise their children and it was only muslims who did it the population would be 90% gung-ho about this. That being said I'm still opposed to circumcision.

How is it they used to say in newsgroups?

KER-PLUNK!

[Book O'Dead]

Yes, and I believe Stalin did as well.

Prove it.

[Princess Luna]

Circumcision is not something by any means unique to Jewish and Muslim communities, so stop acting like banning it is specifically targeting them. If the law said all Circumcisions had to be preformed by a doctor in a hospital and had other regulations that only interfere with Jewish circumcision then you might have a point.

[Luís Henrique]

Circumcision is not something by any means unique to Jewish and Muslim communities

In the United States, maybe. Then there is that mysterious entity called "The Rest Of The World", a strange place where no one gets circumcised except if they are Jews and Muslims.

Germany happens to be a subdistrict of TROTW.


stop acting like banning it is specifically targeting them.

In Germany it most certainly is.


If the law said all Circumcisions had to be preformed by a doctor in a hospital and had other regulations that only interfere with Jewish circumcision then you might have a point.

It is a judicial ruling, not a law, and, surprise surprise, it bans "non-medical" circumcisions.

Luís Henrique

[Book O'Dead]

Did Nazis ban circumcision?

Worse than that, they burned churches, killed children, hounded and murdered entire populations of innocent people. All because they were Jews.

You can say that the Nazis of the 30's and 40's were not as timid in their antisemitism as the present day ones that hide their hatred of the Jew and the Muslim behind ridiculous and insulting laws as this alleged ban on circumcision.

[electrostal]

Worse than that, they burned churches, killed children, hounded and murdered entire populations of innocent people. All because they were Jews.Yes, that's why I think that remarks about this law being antisemitic are somewhat unfeasible.


You can say that the Nazis of the 30's and 40's were not as timid in their antisemitism as the present day ones that hide their hatred of the Jew and the Muslim behind ridiculous and insulting laws as this alleged ban on circumcision. The Nazis were very pro-Islam.
Plus I don't think that this law was made by neonazis.

[Princess Luna]

In the United States, maybe. Then there is that mysterious entity called "The Rest Of The World", a strange place where no one gets circumcised except if they are Jews and Muslims.

Germany happens to be a subdistrict of TROTW.



In Germany it most certainly is.



It is a judicial ruling, not a law, and, surprise surprise, it bans "non-medical" circumcisions.

Luís Henrique
I will admit I was not totally aware of the circumcision rate in Germany, but even if it primarily done by the Jewish and Muslim communities, it is still a violation of the child's right as an individual to control their own body. I think people should be free to to practice their religion in what ever stupid and nonsensical ways they want, but that right ends when it involves harming a non-consenting person, something that giving an infant a deformity that they will have to live with the rest of their life qualifies as.

[Book O'Dead]

I will admit I was not totally aware of the circumcision rate in Germany, but even if it primarily done by the Jewish and Muslim communities, it is still a violation of the child's right as an individual to control their own body. I think people should be free to to practice their religion in what ever stupid and nonsensical ways they want, but that right ends when it involves harming a non-consenting person, something that giving an infant a deformity that they will have to live with the rest of their life qualifies as.

Are we talking about the same thing here?

it's absurd to talk about a newborn infant having any "right" to "control" his body when he can't even keep from shitting his nappies.

What woebegone high school do you attend?

[Book O'Dead]

Yes, that's why I think that remarks about this law being antisemitic are somewhat unfeasible.

The Nazis were very pro-Islam.
Plus I don't think that this law was made by neonazis.

You're full of shit. The Nazis were sworn enemies of anything that was not, as they saw it, German.

Stop saying moronic things, man!

[Devrim]

You're full of shit. The Nazis were sworn enemies of anything that was not, as they saw it, German.

Stop saying moronic things, man!

From Wiki:


Among eastern religions, Hitler described religious leaders such as "Confucius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius), Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), and Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed)" as providers of "spiritual sustenance".[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-67) In this context, Hitler's connection to Mohammad Amin al-Husseini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husseini), the Mufti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufti) of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) — which included asylum in 1941, the honorary rank of an SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS) Major-General, and a "respected racial genealogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy)" — has been interpreted more as a sign of respect than political expedience.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-68) Hitler expressed admiration for the Muslim military tradition and directed Himmler to initiate Muslim SS Divisions as a matter of policy. However, Nazi-era Minister of Armaments and War Production Albert Speer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer) acknowledged that Hitler was only cooperating with Muslim figures, such as al-Husseini, because he felt the antisemitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism) views they shared would eventually help him win power and influence over the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) in the long run.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Speer1997-69) According to Speer, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Speer1997-69) Speer also stated that when he was discussing with Hitler events which might have occurred had Islam absorbed Europe:
"Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Speer1997-69)


At this time there were 3,000 Muslims in Germany, 300 of whom were of German descent. The rise of Nazism in the country did not target Muslims. Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) repeatedly expressed the view that Islam would have been much more compatible to the "Germanic races (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_race)" than "meek" and "feeble" Christianity:
“ Had Charles Martel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel) not been victorious at Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours) [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Germany#cite_note-7) ” The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni) energetically recruited Muslims for the SS (Schutzstaffel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel)), the Nazi Party’s elite military command.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Germany#cite_note-NYT_Nazis-8) He recruited Muslim volunteers for the German armed forces and was involved in the organization and recruitment of Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen_SS) and other units.
The Islamic Institut Ma’ahad-ul-Islam was founded in 1942, during World War 2. (It is now known under the Name "Zentralinstitut Islam-Archiv-Deutschland")


Devrim

[wsg1991]

lol Hitler would be a muslim

i can't imagine hitler with a beard

[Book O'Dead]

To Devrim:

That is only evidence of how devious, unprincipled and demented Hitler's hatred of the Jews actually was: He'd seek alliance with other Semites to destroy the ones that were presently in his way. Later on, I suppose, he'd get someone else, maybe the British, to wipe away the pesky Arabs.

Hitler's "Islamic" infatuations were intended to lay the groundwork for his and the Nazis' imperial designs in the region, once Russia was disposed of.

But the most interesting thing about Hitlers "Arabism" is that he got it all from adventure books written for boys.

Hitler was a profoundly ignorant bully who's favorite writer was Karl May.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May

Karl May's novels informed Hitler's romanticized version of Islam and all other things foreign.

[Princess Luna]

Are we talking about the same thing here?

it's absurd to talk about a newborn infant having any "right" to "control" his body when he can't even keep from shitting his nappies.

What woebegone high school do you attend?
If you ever fall into a coma I don't think the person in charge of taking care of you should be able to come in and start whacking body parts off because his/her religion tells them to. It is no different with infants, just because they are incapable of taking care of themselves does not mean they are not individuals. If there is something seriously wrong then of course the parents should be able to decide rather or not to remove the foreskin, but they have no right to make such decisions for only religious or cosmetic reasons. it's not their body and they don't have to live with the consequences.

[Hit The North]

No individual should be inducted into a religion against their will. To argue otherwise is to capitulate to the authoritarianism of religion.

[Luís Henrique]

From Wiki:

Evidently, Islam was not a real issue in Germany in the 30's of the last century. I am pretty sure that if, say, 10% of the population was Muslim at the time, they would have been targeted in a way or other.


Adolf Hitler repeatedly expressed the view that Islam would have been much more compatible to the "Germanic races" than "meek" and "feeble" Christianity:
“ Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.

As we can see, it is a quite idealised vision of "Mohammedanism", not informed by actual cohabitation with Muslims (indeed, apparently more like a reading of Germanic paganism into Islam). Composed, of course, with the fact that a big chunk of the "Muslim World" was under colonial domination of either England or France, and so were potential allies for Hitler.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

giving an infant a deformity

Being circumcised is tantamount to having a deformity? How so?

Luís Henrique

[Princess Luna]

Being circumcised is tantamount to having a deformity? How so?

Luís Henrique
Because human males evolved with a foreskin for a reason, the tip of the penis is meant to be extremely sensitive and the foreskin is supposed to protect it. And as stated before removing the foreskin causes the tip of the penis to lose a lot of it's sensitivity later in life. Though deformity is probably the wrong word to use.

[Book O'Dead]

From Wiki:


Devrim

Professor Bloom himself mentions the importance of the Romantic youth movements in Germany: it seems to me that Hitler not only reinforced these trends, he himself was greatly influenced by them. Another source of Hitler’s ideas was, very likely, the books of Karl May, a writer of adventure stories with great appeal to adolescents. Concepts like “honor,” “bravery,” “fighting spirit,” abound in these German “Westerns.” . . . Hitler’s addiction to Karl May is evidenced by the fact that he retained a complete set of that author’s writings in his private library;

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/what-made-hitler/

[electrostal]

That is only evidence of how devious, unprincipled and demented Hitler's hatred of the Jews actually was: He'd seek alliance with other Semites to destroy the ones that were presently in his way. Later on, I suppose, he'd get someone else, maybe the British, to wipe away the pesky Arabs.What is that the whole world wants and the Middle East has? There's also the strategic importance or the region and so on.
Not to mention that a pro-Nazi all-Arab revolt ( there was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq but it failed) would have been an immense victory for the Axis.


Hitler's "Islamic" infatuations were intended to lay the groundwork for his and the Nazis' imperial designs in the region, once Russia was disposed of.Imperial Germany had plans for the Middle East while Hitler was still a corporal in some trench.


But the most interesting thing about Hitlers "Arabism" is that he got it all from adventure books written for boys.Even if this is true it would be irrelevant.





And didn't Karl May write mostly about American Indians, Aztecs and the like?

[shinjuku dori]

In the United States, maybe. Then there is that mysterious entity called "The Rest Of The World", a strange place where no one gets circumcised except if they are Jews and Muslims.

Germany happens to be a subdistrict of TROTW.

You haven't an idea what you're talking about. Speaking of myopic!

Nearly every male in Japan and South Korea is circumcised, even though only 1% of the Japanese population and 30% of the Korean population subscribe to Abrahamic religions (29% christian, less than 1% muslim or jew, mostly foreigners). Here in Japan, less than 15% of the population believes in any god. In South Korea it's 55%.

There are no medical benefits of circumcision. It's origins lie in the Bible. Nothing else. It was spread by religious and imperialist wars, which themselves served current and past ruling classes. Anything that came later was meant to justify it and failed.

Cultural relativism in this post is sickening. So is liberal fear of taking a position of some racists. Here in Japan the rightwing patriot nationalists that ride around with loudspeakers talking about renewing the imperialist past and throwing out all foreigners were also against sending Japanese military to America's wars in the mid East. In the United States and Europe fascist groups opposed the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq and preach against Zionism as it destroys the lives of Palestinians. They do it for their reasons. We do it for ours. Do we dare refuse to oppose the wars of the capitalist ruling class because we may temporarily share a particular position with some enemies?

The liberal racism is of throwing babies to the abusers who will mutilate their sexual organs because they are simply jews or muslims or christians. And it's even worse since it pretends to be on the side of humanity!

Away with male and female genital mutilation, headscarves, burqas, wool dresses, robes, and hats, religious "education" however we can do it. Secularize society! Free the youth from reactionary brainwash that will remain with them for life! A socialist state would educate and raise children socially and communally, and any parents would be punished for child abuse and lose custody forever.

[shinjuku dori]

"Targeting" arguments reveal white liberal guilt.

Hypothetically: If it was statistically proven that American black people are 90% likely to whip their children, compared than 1% of American white people, would it be "targeting" black people to ban whipping children? Or does it only work when talking about religion?

Is it wrong for America to go after the Mormon sects in the deserts who marry and have sex with many young girls as a part of their religion, itself concocted by an American man widely believed to be an undiagnosed psychotic not many years ago?

Why is it tolerated for Amish to keep their children locked away on backward farms without access to technology?

What about so-called christian scientists and jehova witness who refuse to allow their children medical treatment, even when required to save life?

How far are you willing to bend for religion?

Or does it only work for people with brown skin? What about white muslims in Bosnia and Caucus region? Okay to ban it for them only?

What about women brought up in islam who fought against veil, burqa, bride price, genital mutiliation, and the general subjugation of the female in central Asia with the Bolsheviks after the revolution and in Afghanistan. What about the secular leaders of the mid East who tried to modernize their countries? Are they not brown or female enough for you?

Dont' patronize! View yourself in the mirror. Reconsider your position.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You're full of shit. The Nazis were sworn enemies of anything that was not, as they saw it, German.

Stop saying moronic things, man!

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/hanjar-book.jpg

Oh rly?

Relevant link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_relations_with_the_Arab_world)

[wsg1991]

Because human males evolved with a foreskin for a reason, the tip of the penis is meant to be extremely sensitive and the foreskin is supposed to protect it. And as stated before removing the foreskin causes the tip of the penis to lose a lot of it's sensitivity later in life. Though deformity is probably the wrong word to use.

that's creationism ,
humans has coccyx bone for a reason too ?
how about appendix ?

us different logic

[Princess Luna]

that's creationism ,
humans has coccyx bone for a reason too ?
how about appendix ?

us different logic
Uhhh no it isn't, I described what purpose the foreskin serves.

[Book O'Dead]

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/hanjar-book.jpg

Oh rly?
Which confirms the "racial" requirements for being accepted into their SS.
Imagine how many Muslims don't fit the Nazi physical requirements to be called Aryan!

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Which confirms the "racial" requirements for being accepted into their SS.
Imagine how many Muslims don't fit the Nazi physical requirements to be called Aryan!

You're missing the point and it's unlikely no matter how much information is provided, you're not going to accept it. :rolleyes:

You have an extremely limited view of the Nazi regime which doesn't fully reflect reality.

[Book O'Dead]

You're missing the point and it's unlikely no matter how much information is provided, you're not going to accept it. :rolleyes:

You have an extremely limited view of the Nazi regime which doesn't fully reflect reality.

Maybe not, but I know enough not to swallow the fictions Hitler and his vassals invented for their own purposes and are being indiscriminately reproduced in this forum.

[wsg1991]

unsubscribing this crap ,

moderators please , delete this thread once we are finished , i use the same username in many different forums ,i got a reputation to keep

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maybe not, but I know enough not to swallow the fictions Hitler and his vassals invented for their own purposes and are being indiscriminately reproduced in this forum.

It's not fiction, it's documented historical fact; the Nazis were into a lot of shit.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/hitler_mufti.jpg

[shinjuku dori]

Nazis were in Axis with Italians (not considered caucasian white by most racists of the time) and Japanese (!!). Come on.

[electrostal]

Which confirms the "racial" requirements for being accepted into their SS.
Imagine how many Muslims don't fit the Nazi physical requirements to be called Aryan! Lol, more inonsense.
The Waffen SS was known for its big proportion of non-Germans serving in it. There were Indians and Tatars, Arabs and even a few Africans in the SS.

[MarxSchmarx]

You haven't an idea what you're talking about. Speaking of myopic!

Nearly every male in Japan and South Korea is circumcised, even though only 1% of the Japanese population and 30% of the Korean population subscribe to Abrahamic religions (29% christian, less than 1% muslim or jew, mostly foreigners). Here in Japan, less than 15% of the population believes in any god. In South Korea it's 55%.


That may be the case for South Korea, but your numbers for circumcision are way off for Japan where less than 1% of males are circumcised- http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/circumcision.pdf

[Book O'Dead]

Lol, more inonsense.
The Waffen SS was known for its big proportion of non-Germans serving in it. There were Indians and Tatars, Arabs and even a few Africans in the SS.

So your point is that the Nazis weren't really racists, correct?

[Book O'Dead]

Nazis were in Axis with Italians (not considered caucasian white by most racists of the time) and Japanese (!!). Come on.

Are you suggesting that the Nazis weren't really racists?

[electrostal]

So your point is that the Nazis weren't really racists, correct?
Are you dumb or something? Of course they were racist, the Holocaust happened.
That the Nazis saw it opportune to recruit "non-Aryans" doesn't make them any less racist.
Lol.

[Book O'Dead]

Are you dumb or something? Of course they were racist, the Holocaust happened.
That the Nazis saw it opportune to recruit "non-Aryans" doesn't make them any less racist.
Lol.

I see. So then you agree with me when I say that Hitler's and his vassals' alleged sympathy for other Semitic peoples was a mere fiction, a propaganda trick, created by them for their own nefarious purposes?

[electrostal]

So then you agree with me when I say that Hitler's and his vassals' alleged sympathy for other Semitic peoples was a mere fiction, a propaganda trick, created by them for their own nefarious purposes?
I don't know if that's what your posts were about, but no. The Nazis had strong sympathies for Islam, and a strong cooperation with certain Arab nationalists.
Not to mention that it would be somewhat idiotic to say that "sympathy" is a fiction. It just doesn't make sense.
What matters are the facts and facts alone, people have already posted sources here so you should read and learn instead of posting uninformed "opinions".

[Book O'Dead]

I don't know if that's what your posts were about, but no. The Nazis had strong sympathies for Islam, and a strong cooperation with certain Arab nationalists.

Now you admit that you did not understand the basis of my objection to the assertion that Hitler or the Nazis had Islamic sympathies. Good.

The Nazis were sympathetic to nothing but their own half-baked racial theories dictated, as all things, by Hitler's romanticized notions.

Hitler was an untravelled and uneducated bigot who derived his fanatical ideas about other cultures from Karl May's adventure books. He, like most other Nazis, knew nothing about Islam. And to claim or insinuate otherwise is to give Hitler more credit that he could ever own.


Not to mention that it would be somewhat idiotic to say that "sympathy" is a fiction. It just doesn't make sense.

It's a fiction in as much as it is the product of tired, old Nazi propaganda.


What matters are the facts and facts alone, people have already posted sources here so you should read and learn instead of posting uninformed "opinions".

No, what matters are not "facts and facts alone", what matters is the context & interpretation we give to those "facts".

[electrostal]

Now you admit that you did not understand the basis of my objection to the assertion that Hitler or the Nazis had Islamic sympathies. Good.Lol, dude, your first "response" was ridiculous and it's clear that you didn't know WTF you were talking about.


The Nazis were sympathetic to nothing but their own half-baked racial theories dictated, as all things, by Hitler's romanticized notions.I don't know and I don't care about Nazi mysticism and pseudo-sciences. It's, again, the facts that matter.


Hitler was an untravelled and uneducated bigot who derived his fanatical ideas about other cultures from Karl May's adventure books. He, like most other Nazis, knew nothing about Islam. And to claim or insinuate otherwise is to give Hitler more credit that he could ever own. Maybe but that doesn't matter. It's clear why the Nazis wanted closer ties with Arabs.


It's a fiction in as much as it is the product of tired, old Nazi propaganda.How is "sympathy" a fiction when it is clear that Hitler and Nazis in general had sympathies for Islam?


No, what matters are not "facts and facts alone", what matters is the context & interpretation we give to those "facts". Yes, the "context" you googled five minutes ago.

There's no point for this "debate" anymore.

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

There's no point for this "debate" anymore.


Before you leave us you'll have to agree with this: Despite their expertise at robbery, murder and betrayal, Hitler and the Nazis were extremely stupid motherfuckers. They were the worse politicians in history.

After all, how else to explain that in 12 years of criminal rule they managed to destroy what took almost 1200 years to build?

And one more thing: I have faith that the German people of today possess enough wisdom and compassion to see this circumcision thing for what it is: a Nazi ploy.

[electrostal]

Before you leave us you'll have to agree with this: Despite their expertise at robbery, murder and betrayal, Hitler and the Nazis were extremely stupid motherfuckers. They were the worse politicians in history.
After all, how else to explain that in 12 years of criminal rule they managed to destroy what took almost 1200 years to build?
Yes, finally a post that makes sense.


And one more thing: I have faith that the German people of today possess enough wisdom and compassion to see this circumcision thing for what it is: a Nazi ploy.
Oh man. Do you know anything about German politics? This is worse than conspiracy theories.

[Book O'Dead]

Yes, finally a post that makes sense.


Oh man. Do you know anything about German politics? This is worse than conspiracy theories.

Please don't patronize me.

[electrostal]

Fine, then prove to all of us here how and why it this a Nazi ploy.
Eagerly waiting for evidence, thank you.

I'm sorry for suspecting that you'd give opinions on something you don't know anything about. My apologies.

[shinjuku dori]

Because fascism is not an ideology with principles. It is a reactionary method for preserving capitalism. Any stated goals are subject to change. Fascists are the ultimate opportunists. That's why the Waffen SS was 60% foreigners by the end of the war, why Hitler love the Islamists, why Roma were persecuted despite being Indo-Aryan by NAZI junk science, and why Japanese were given "honorary Aryan" status.

[Book O'Dead]

Fine, then prove to all of us here how and why it this a Nazi ploy.
Eagerly waiting for evidence, thank you.

I'm sorry for suspecting that you'd give opinions on something you don't know anything about. My apologies.

Again, I'm not clear: Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to assert that the alleged German law to deprive people of the right to perform ritual circumcision is not inspired by race-hatred and anti-religious bigotry?

What would have been more logical, given the fact that Germans are by nature so exact in legal matters, would have been to pass a law requiring all people who wish to perform ritual circumcision to take a training course designed to certify them as experts in the procedure so that they take place in safe, hygienic environments and ensures the least discomfort to the child.

Instead, we have this ridiculous blanket prohibition that makes no real sense.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Instead, we have this ridiculous blanket prohibition that makes no real sense.

A blanket prohibition (apart from where dictates medical necessity) is the only thing that makes sense.

[Book O'Dead]

A blanket prohibition (apart from where dictates medical necessity) is the only thing that makes sense.

Not to me. For the reasons I've already stated.

[Althusser]

I'm sorry, but circumcision is pretty barbaric. If you look at it from an objective point of view and not from a butthurt religion apologetic one, it's pretty obvious that people shoudn't be allowed to mutilate their children.

If the space man told Abe that circumcision of women was also required, would you support it and tell us to be "tolerant" of mutilation.... because that's what it is... mutilation. And it's savage and backward.

[Book O'Dead]

I'm sorry, but circumcision is pretty barbaric. If you look at it from an objective point of view and not from a butthurt religion apologetic one, it's pretty obvious that people shoudn't be allowed to mutilate their children.

Oh, I think I'm being objective here.


If the space man told Abe that circumcision of women was also required, would you support it and tell us to be "tolerant" of mutilation.... because that's what it is... mutilation. And it's savage and backward.Your hypothetical is absurd and insulting as you use the word "Abe" in such a manner that it sounds to me like you're saying "Yid" or "kike" to refer to an entire people.

[electrostal]

Again, I'm not clear: Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to assert that the alleged German law to deprive people of the right to perform ritual circumcision is not inspired by race-hatred and anti-religious bigotry?Because it's not credible given how the ruling parties in Germany aren't known for such things. This would make sense in the case of, I don't know, Hungary.
You cannot spew such "opinions" without any sort of evidence whatsoever. In fact most conspiracy theories have more arguments and quasi-proof than your "assertion" here.

Provide evidence or please stop with your conspiracy theories.

[Book O'Dead]

Because it's not credible given how the ruling parties in Germany aren't known for such things. This would make sense in the case of, I don't know, Hungary.
You cannot spew such "opinions" without any sort of evidence whatsoever. In fact most conspiracy theories have more arguments and quasi-proof than your "assertion" here.

Provide evidence or please stop with your conspiracy theories.

I thought you were abandoning this argument because it was "waste of time"?

Never mind. The recent law in Germany is proof enough.

And, I might add, anyone who supports the state against the Jews and Muslims' practice is no socialist.

[helot]

I'm interested in any actual evidence to suggest this is specifically about bigotry. I'm not sure a ban on non-medical circumcisions is enough evidence on its own as if that's so im sure that we can claim bigotry for bans on forced marriages. I find it strange that what seems to be the automatic reaction to people opposed to circumcision in this thread is accusations of bigotry.


The fact is that circumcision is an invasive medical procedure that, globally, in the vast majority of cases is done for no medical reason at all. Claims of cleanliness are foolish and lack rigorous scientific investigation and appeals to tradition are illogical.

It seems the best justification of circumcision in this thread is "it hasn't bothered me" which is completely lacking. Having said that i'm not in favour of banning circumcision because im pretty sure it will continue anyway no matter how ridiculous the tradition of it is. I also think there is a strong ethical case for an opposition to performing unnecessary invasive procedures on infants. The possible lack of pyschological trauma is also irrelevant to this.

[Comrade Trollface]

Well on the bright side, fighting against this might bring Jews and Muslims closer together. And that is generally a pretty nice thing.

Even if I were willing to give the court the benefit of the doubt in terms of good intentions, such a measure clearly falls on the wrong side of harm reduction. This rite is very important to both Jews and Muslims, and if done in a sanitary environment by a competent medical professional, the risks are pretty low. Backroom procedures can be dangerous however, and that is what laws against this procedure actually create rather than an elimination of the practice.

When we go around banning things, good intentions and an empty bag are worth the price of the bag. Principles like bodily integrity are important, but in terms of public policy, efficacy is king. Or should be anyway.

Personal story time: I had it done to me when I was 9 years old because the USSR prevented my parents from having it done to me when I was 8 days old. All the Soviet ban did was to replace a moment of pain that I'd have been to young to remember with a terrifying ordeal followed by 2 weeks of excruciating pain.

I am deeply ambivalent about the practice of circumcision, but banning it only exacerbates the problem. Developing and popularizing new rituals (such as Brit Shalom) that are more humane within these communities is the more viable solution.

[Book O'Dead]

I'm interested in any actual evidence to suggest this is specifically about bigotry. [...]


The evidence is right under your nose: A law that discriminates against people on the basis of their religious practice.

[helot]

The evidence is right under your nose: A law that discriminates against people on the basis of their religious practice.

by banning a medical procedure for non-medical reasons? The same logic can be used to criticise Britain's ban on forced marriages but i wouldn't call that bigotry.

[Book O'Dead]

by banning a medical procedure for non-medical reasons?

No, by banning a religious practice under false pretenses.


The same logic can be used to criticise Britain's ban on forced marriages but i wouldn't call that bigotry.Not the same thing, by far.

[helot]

No, by banning a religious practice under false pretenses.

which is an invasive medical procedure performed on infants even when not necessary. Just because something's a religious practice doesn't mean it ought to be acceptable whether the adherents are a majority or a minority.




Not the same thing, by far.

No, nothing's similar. Circumcision's a special thing. For some reason, when something involves an infant's penis it's somehow sacred.


I wonder.. if there was no religious practices to do with circumcision would so many lefties be fine with it?

[Kotze]

Is penis torture child abuse

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon5.gif

[Althusser]

Oh, I think I'm being objective here.

Your hypothetical is absurd and insulting as you use the word "Abe" in such a manner that it sounds to me like you're saying "Yid" or "kike" to refer to an entire people.

Wow... It's not my problem if you are unfamiliar with the Old Testament story. God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his son. Abe is short for Abraham.

My hypothetical is anything but absurd. Males are circumcised today because of an ancient hebrew myth. Consider the reverse.

I'm wondering how you could possibly connect my shortening of Abraham to Abe, with calling jews "yids" or "kikes." What is wrong with you?

You must have been searching my post thoroughly for something anti-semetic.

I think I might understand your confusion. "Abe" has the same number of syllables as "yid" or "kike."

You get a gold star for effort.

[Comrade-Z]

Here's a question for those in favor of allowing circumcision: are there any practices that you would not accept in the name of protecting a persecuted minority? In other words, can a persecuted minority get away with anything, as long as they are persecuted? If I started a new, persecuted religion whose ritual was to feed to infants a dose of LSD for spiritual purposes, would you be okay with that? Or, once again, what about branding infants with hot irons in the shape of a cross? How is the latter essentially different than circumcision?

Is your stance that you will support Islam and Judaism from persecution no matter what? If not, then what are the principles by which you decide where to draw the line? I've elaborated my principles in this thread. (Not risking the health of the infant unnecessarily, not pre-choosing the infant's religion, etc.) Insofar as Jews and Muslims can refrain from doing those things, I am all for standing up for them in the face of persecution, even while I remain critical of their religious choices and even while I try to persuade them (as well as everyone else) into becoming conscious, materialist, atheist Marxists.

[Ocean Seal]

People its just a damn foreskin. This is not the debate of the century for the left.

[Comrade-Z]

I'm sorry, Ocean Seal. You can feel that way about your own foreskin if you want (which is why, as a conscious, consenting adult, you should be able to get a circumcision if you want to), but you don't get the right to determine how much my foreskin is going to mean to me, or how much an infant's foreskin is going to mean to it. Neither do the infant's parents. You know, and I know, that there are larger principles involved than merely a small piece of male anatomy.

[Book O'Dead]

Wow... It's not my problem if you are unfamiliar with the Old Testament story. God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his son. Abe is short for Abraham.

My hypothetical is anything but absurd. Males are circumcised today because of an ancient hebrew myth. Consider the reverse.

If by "consider the reverse" you mean if applied to women (why that would be "reverse" is beyond me) then, again, you're wrong.

As far as know there is no commandment in the Bible for anyone to circumcise women or otherwise mutilate their sexual organs. And, if I knew the Qur'an I would assert likewise about Islam.

So the hypothetical you offer is a fallacy of reason because it relies on an imaginary historical counter factual, at least where the Jews are concerned.


I'm wondering how you could possibly connect my shortening of Abraham to Abe, with calling jews "yids" or "kikes." What is wrong with you?

You must have been searching my post thoroughly for something anti-semetic.

I think I might understand your confusion. "Abe" has the same number of syllables as "yid" or "kike."

You get a gold star for effort.


Thank you. It's just that I have an over-sensitive ear for anti-semitic expressions. Some recent commentaries by some users in revleft and the general direction of certain postings here have raised my suspicions.

[cynicles]

How is it they used to say in newsgroups?

KER-PLUNK!
I didn't mean it like 'jews control the world and that's the only reason anyone cares', I mean that because Islamophobia is so in style and people actually speak out against anti-semitism the only reason this is getting any attention is because of the sensitivity towards discrimination of jews and the complete apathy towards discrimination of muslims.

[Zav]

Perhaps you're correct but it makes no difference to people who do practice male circumcision as matter of religious custom. I think it invades their privacy and violates their religious freedom. Moreover it's stupid to regulate something that is common practice even among non-Semites and is performed routinely for innumerable reasons.

What's to stop a parent who decides that his newborn infant should be circumcised for hygienic reasons? His religion?

And so what if people decide to throw a party when their male children are deprived of so small a thing as a foreskin?
I almost physically punched this post. I'm dead serious. I would have needed a new monitor.
This 'argument' is equivalent to saying that restricting the 'freedom' to rape is an invasion of privacy and a restriction on freedom of religion if a person's religion says it's fine to do such things.
It is practiced routinely by non-semitic people only in the U.S. The practice was adopted by Christians/others in the Victorian era to try to prevent masturbation. Obviously it doesn't work. Europe abandoned the practice long ago, but the U.S. keeps on performing the barbaric surgery for NO REASON WHATSOEVER other than tradition. There is no medical reason to remove the foreskin in the overwhelming majority of cases. Very very rarely the foreskin has formed together such as to prevent urination. Appeal to majority is a fallacy, and you've just committed it. Hygenic reasons? It's possible for labia to become infected, so should we lop them off too? Males have managed to wash their uncut penises for many thousands of years. It is not exactly very difficult.
It is not so small a thing, nor would its size and biological significance justify its removal. We don't remove our appendixes at birth. The difference is that the foreskin does serve an important function. It allows easier penetration. The female genitalia produces lubricant, and the male genitalia has the foreskin. It allows the penis to slide while the outer layer of skin, the foreskin, stays relatively still. The foreskin contains a bundle of nerves at the end called the ridged band, which contains most of the nerves in the penis. Without it most sexual sensitivity is lost. The foreskin also protects the glans penis from exposure to the elements. Without it the glans penis becomes calcified, further reducing sensitivity.
Furthermore, the process of circumcision is done WITHOUT anesthetic. One of the first experiences American and other Jewish children have is intense pain, and it is not a quick pain as the skin is cut. A probe is used to forcefully separate the foreskin from the glans penis, which are supposed to be fused until puberty. Do you remember it? No? Then it's fine, right? I have an idea. Why don't we just take our babies to the local prisons and let the child molesters there have their way with them. The babies won't remember it, so its perfectly ethical. Plus it will release some of the prisoners' built up tension. Win-win right? Obviously not. It would violate the bodily rights of the children, just as circumcision does.

[shinjuku dori]

What about people born with Jewish or Muslim parents who oppose genital mutilation? Are they also "anti-semite"?

[Nox]

What exactly is its use?

-To protect the head of the penis
-To provide pleasure during sex (sex feels significantly better for people with foreskin)
-Not sure if this is a "use", but it allows easy masturbation; no lubrication is needed.

Those are just 3, I'm sure there are more uses too.

[Zav]

-To protect the head of the penis
-To provide pleasure during sex (sex feels significantly better for people with foreskin)
-Not sure if this is a "use", but it allows easy masturbation; no lubrication is needed.

Those are just 3, I'm sure there are more uses too.
It's a K-Y/for-profit hospital conspiracy.;)

[Althusser]

If by "consider the reverse" you mean if applied to women (why that would be "reverse" is beyond me) then, again, you're wrong.

As far as know there is no commandment in the Bible for anyone to circumcise women or otherwise mutilate their sexual organs. And, if I knew the Qur'an I would assert likewise about Islam.

So the hypothetical you offer is a fallacy of reason because it relies on an imaginary historical counter factual, at least where the Jews are concerned.



Thank you. It's just that I have an over-sensitive ear for anti-semitic expressions. Some recent commentaries by some users in revleft and the general direction of certain postings here have raised my suspicions.

My point is that if it wasn't backed by religious dogma, leftists would see circumcision for what it is.

Sorry for my last comment. It was a bit dick-ish. I just don't like being called an anti-semite for no reason.

[Luís Henrique]

Circumcision's a special thing. For some reason, when something involves an infant's penis it's somehow sacred.

Ridiculous as it is, the fact is that it is "sacred" to some people, yes.

Next what? Since not eating pork for religious "reasons" is a ridiculous superstition - which it certainly is - we make eating pork mandatory?


I wonder.. if there was no religious practices to do with circumcision would so many lefties be fine with it?

I don't think anyone is "fine" with circumcision. You miss the point if you think we are arguing about whether it is a good thing or not.

We simply shouldn't look forward to forbid everything we are not "fine" with.

Much less we should look forward to the bourgeois State forbidding such things.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I'm wondering how you could possibly connect my shortening of Abraham to Abe, with calling jews "yids" or "kikes." What is wrong with you?

And I wonder whether calling Jews "yids" or "kikes" even matter if you forbid them a very basic practice of their religion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Insofar as Jews and Muslims can refrain from doing those things, I am all for standing up for them in the face of persecution,

Which simply means, insofar as Jews and Muslims can refrain from being Jews and Muslims, you stand up for them in the face of persecution.

Luís Henrique

[shinjuku dori]

And I wonder whether calling Jews "yids" or "kikes" even matter if you forbid them a very basic practice of their religion.

Luís Henrique

So you are against banning female genital mutilation, since it is practice of religion.

You are also against doing anything about terrorism of religious extremists who are advised by their spiritual leaders?

Genital mutilation is terrorism against children

[Luís Henrique]

So you are against banning female genital mutilation, since it is practice of religion.

Of what religion?


You are also against doing anything about terrorism of religious extremists who are advised by their spiritual leaders?

No, I am not against doing anything against religions. Nor do I think Judaism or Islam (or Christianity, for what it matters) shouldn't be confronted, or even exist at all. What I am against is stupidity, such as that implied in this absurd German ruling (which, of course, has nothing to do with confronting religion as such; I doubt very much that those wise justices are anything else than religious bigots themselves).

But it is one thing to confront religion for what it is, and a completely different thing to discriminate against some religions (on behalf, of course, of some other religion) on false pretences that hardly hide the actual trust behind the move. We are fools if we believe Islamophobes and antisemites are our allies "because they criticise religion".


Genital mutilation is terrorism against children

No, it is not; and male circumcision is not genital mutilation either. Such kind of exaggeration does nothing to help understand issues, but only conflates different things and fosters hate for the different.

Luís Henrique

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It's a K-Y/for-profit hospital conspiracy.;)

Perhaps not so much a conspiracy as an easily exploitable point; the popularity of the practice in the U.S. (I'm curious as to how this came to be, has any studies been done on the issue? I mean, how in the U.S. the norm came to be circumcised to the point where uncircumcised is considered culturally "icky") certainly is a great source of easy money for for-profit hospitals, 200-400 dollars for a ten minute procedure, so they do have a tendency to advocate infants getting circumcised.

[hatzel]

You people are a bit silly for two reasons. No three.

First reason is because you're still talking about whether circumcised penises are any worse than the alternative (and usually by appealing to some weird comparison you can't make, because very few people on here have claimed to have been circumcised later in life, so you're ill-equipped to actually speak with any authority - I notice that hasn't stopped people saying stuff like 'you wouldn't know how good it is with a foreskin because you were circumcised so you've never experienced it'...riiiiight).

Second reason is because you think this is at all relevant to the discussion of whether a law should be introduced; I suggest reading, say, the first frigging chapter of Kropotkin's 'Law and authority' so that you might be cured of your liberal legalism.

Third reason is because I'm still not seeing enough race analysis here. Once again, disagreeing with a practice so obviously associated with minority communities (I might excuse you US types here, if we are to believe that you are unworldly enough to think that the way stuff is done out there is 'universal' and that there are lots of nice white German Christian boys getting circumcised, which there aren't) is even less legitimate a justification for the aforementioned legalism. Particularly when - would you believe it! - the rhetoric at play here is surprisingly similar to that used on the right-wing, ie 'these foreign people do this, therefore these foreign people are themselves disgusting horrible barbarian types who really have no place in OUR country acting like that!' I mean I'm not even kidding, this is what I keep seeing, and this is exactly how left and right keep coming together on these issues (in fact I would argue that left-leaning individuals adopting these positions and this rhetoric - even if sometimes wrapping it in nicer-sounding vaguely progressive terms - acts to legitimise and strengthen right-wing discourses, by associating them with ideologies that pretend to have no allegiance to racism or authoritarian policies). Disapproving of the practice does not justify the use of such rhetoric, and a decent race analysis would make this abundantly clear...

Principled opposition to a practice leaves no room whatsoever for some of the ideas people have forwarded - wholly without shame, sometimes even with a strange pride - in this thread...

[helot]

Ridiculous as it is, the fact is that it is "sacred" to some people, yes.

Next what? Since not eating pork for religious "reasons" is a ridiculous superstition - which it certainly is - we make eating pork mandatory?



I don't think anyone is "fine" with circumcision. You miss the point if you think we are arguing about whether it is a good thing or not.

We simply shouldn't look forward to forbid everything we are not "fine" with.

Much less we should look forward to the bourgeois State forbidding such things.

Luís Henrique

That's quite disingenuous.

If you'd have looked at my posts in this thread you'd know i'm not in favour of banning circumcision.

Your analogy of forced pork eating makes little sense. How you could equate banning people from removing a piece of skin off an infant with forcing people to eat pork is beyond me. Some religious practices are to do solely with someone who consents (not eating pork for example) while some lack consent (circumcision).

[Book O'Dead]

Which simply means, insofar as Jews and Muslims can refrain from being Jews and Muslims, you stand up for them in the face of persecution.

Luís Henrique

It's appalling how some people use a 'leftist' guise and feigned compassion to justify what is obviously an attack on ethnic and religious minorities!

[shinjuku dori]

Of what religion?

Mystical tribal practice. Maybe you think Jewish people in Germany are more oppresed than poor woman of Nothern Africa?

How about Mormon cult that says man should take many young wife? You don't have a problem?


But it is one thing to confront religion for what it is, and a completely different thing to discriminate against some religions (on behalf, of course, of some other religion) on false pretences that hardly hide the actual trust behind the move. We are fools if we believe Islamophobes and antisemites are our allies "because they criticise religion"..

They do not have to be ally. Who cares their motivation if it enriches humanity? Bourgeois revolution was made to benefit bourgeoisie. Still workers supported it because it improved situation for them.

Civil War fought to benefit American capitalist against unpaid labor. Still Marx support. Workers support.

Fascist in America opposes American wars and support for Israel. So do communist. Should communist abandon their position because it momentarily collides with their enemy?

Jewish hat is not banned in Germany. Burqa is not banned. Just saying that baby penis shouldn't be mutilated. It's law against child abuse. Good law, we support for any reason.


No, it is not; and male circumcision is not genital mutilation either. Such kind of exaggeration does nothing to help understand issues, but only conflates different things and fosters hate for the different.

Forgive me. English is not my native language. Doesn't genital mean penis and vagina? Doesn't mutilate mean inflict disfiguring?

Wikipedia.org: Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

See? Male genital mutilation is injury to male genital organs for non-medical reason.

I do hate ancient barbaric ritual of mutilating infant penis. Same as I hate foot binding or burqa. If you do not. You are not communist, or even humanist, maybe,

[shinjuku dori]

(I might excuse you US types here, if we are to believe that you are unworldly enough to think that the way stuff is done out there is 'universal' and that there are lots of nice white German Christian boys getting circumcised, which there aren't)

Nearly every American, Japanese and Korea boy is mutilated at birth. Jewish is minority in each country. Almost doesn't exist in Japan and Korea,

Bible says parents can kill their children if they disobey. You oppose law against killing children by people who believe in Bible?

[Book O'Dead]

You oppose law against killing children by people who believe in Bible?

We're discussing a recent law in Germany designed to persecute religious minorities over circumcision, not murder.

Stick to that.

[shinjuku dori]

It's not answer. What is the line? It's okay to cut babies penis with razor because Bible says so. Bible also says it's okay to kill disobedient child. Why isn't it anti-Semitic to outlaw the murder of insolent children?

[Book O'Dead]

It's not answer. What is the line? It's okay to cut babies penis with razor because Bible says so. Bible also says it's okay to kill disobedient child. Why isn't it anti-Semitic to outlaw the murder of insolent children?

You're trying to discuss the morality of the Bible.

I'm trying to discuss the immorality of a law that forbids a specific religious ritual.

Perhaps you should ask: Why is the German government suddenly prohibiting a harmless religious ritual?

[shinjuku dori]

Or maybe you answer my question?

[helot]

I'm trying to discuss the immorality of a law that forbids a specific religious ritual.

that just so happens to be an invasive procedure performed for no medical reasons on infants who are thus incapable of giving any form of consent.

Where should the line be drawn between religious tolerance and unconsensual acts?

You're obviously acting as an apologist for forcing medically unnecessary invasive surgery on infants purely because a few religions practice it. It's a piss-poor justification.



Perhaps you should ask: Why is the German government suddenly prohibiting a harmless religious ritual?
It's more harmful than not cutting it off.

[Book O'Dead]

Or maybe you answer my question?

Some people just don't seem to get it.

[Book O'Dead]

that just so happens to be an invasive procedure performed for no medical reasons on infants who are thus incapable of giving any form of consent.

Where should the line be drawn between religious tolerance and unconsensual acts?

You're obviously acting as an apologist for forcing medically unnecessary invasive surgery on infants purely because a few religions practice it. It's a piss-poor justification.


It's more harmful than not cutting it off.

Children and adults incapable of acting in their own interest are protected by their parents and/or guardians. In some cases, as when incapacitated people lack parents or individual guardians, the state assumes that responsibility.

In the case of this law in Germany, we see that the state has, in effect, abrogated for itself the guardianship of children who already have parents over the issue of religious circumcision.

The German state has invaded the privacy of these people and has overstepped its authority by intervening in what is, by any modern standard, an intimate relationship between parent and child.

Moreover, this law opens the possibility of children being able to subsequently sue their parents for making decision about them when they were infants. It legitimizes the absurd notion that a person is an individual from the moment he is born when, in fact, people become individuals only as a result of their social interactions.

I'll wager that the German Supreme Court will strike this absurd law into oblivion.

[helot]

Children and adults incapable of acting in their own interest are protected by their parents and/or guardians. In some cases, as when incapacitated people lack parents or individual guardians, the state assumes that responsibility.

In the case of this law in Germany, we see that the state has, in effect, abrogated for itself the guardianship of children who already have parents over the issue of religious circumcision.

The German state has invaded the privacy of these people and has overstepped its authority by intervening in what is, by any modern standard, an intimate relationship between parent and child.



Of course, you don't think the parents and/or guardians ought to have absolute domain over the child... i'd very much like to know where you draw the line. At what level is unnecessary fleshcutting no longer acceptable?

[Book O'Dead]

Of course, you don't think the parents and/or guardians ought to have absolute domain over the child... i'd very much like to know where you draw the line. At what level is unnecessary fleshcutting no longer acceptable?

Yours is a loaded question, especially at the end. So I won't answer it.

Instead, I'll ask you this: How do you define "absolute" in the context of what is being discussed?

[helot]

Yours is a loaded question, especially at the end. So I won't answer it.

Instead, I'll ask you this: How do you define "absolute" in the context of what is being discussed?

"absolute domain over the child" is literally that. I'm assuming you don't think that parents can make any decision they want for their child. I'm assuming you think there are limits to parental authority while the child is incapable of making their own decisions. If i've gotten the wrong impression, forgive me.


Anyway, i'll rephrase my question for you.

At what point would it be acceptable to intervene in parental decision making to do with performing invasive procedures that are not medically necessary on their child?

For a while now people have been asking where the line is drawn and yet it's only been evaded. Im very much interested in an answer.

[Book O'Dead]

"absolute domain over the child" is literally that. I'm assuming you don't think that parents can make any decision they want for their child. I'm assuming you think there are limits to parental authority while the child is incapable of making their own decisions. If i've gotten the wrong impression, forgive me.


Anyway, i'll rephrase my question for you.

At what point would it be acceptable to intervene in parental decision making to do with performing invasive procedures that are not medically necessary on their child?

For a while now people have been asking where the line is drawn and yet it's only been evaded. Im very much interested in an answer.

You insist with loaded questions. It seems you can't tell the difference between one loaded question and another so you simply rephrase it.

The issue, the topic, the question at hand is not the degree of power an adult has over his wards, but the degree of power the state has over its citizens. Can the state impel a person to give up their religious customs on the basis of law that purports to protect the health and safety of a child but, in fact, seizes upon a chance accident to suppress a practice exclusive to at least two ethnic minorities.

[helot]

You insist with loaded questions. It seems you can't tell the difference between one loaded question and another so you simply rephrase it.

The issue, the topic, the question at hand is not the degree of power an adult has over his wards, but the degree of power the state has over its citizens. Can the state impel a person to give up their religious customs on the basis of law that purports to protect the health and safety of a child but, in fact, seizes upon a chance accident to suppress a practice exclusive to at least two ethnic minorities.


You seem to not know what loaded questions are. It's not my opinion that circumcision is an invasive procedure it's a medical definition. You obviously cannot answer any of the simple questions posed to you, you debate like a politician... evade evade evade.


The discussion is about the degree of power an adult has over his/her wards.

[Book O'Dead]

You seem to not know what loaded questions are. It's not my opinion that circumcision is an invasive procedure it's a medical definition. You obviously cannot answer any of the simple questions posed to you, you debate like a politician... evade evade evade.


The discussion is about the degree of power an adult has over his/her wards.

Okay. Until someone else intervenes with anything cogent I consider this discussion fairly closed.

[helot]

So you can not answer their questions? :laugh:

[Zav]

This thread is full of reactionary opinions. Circumcision is genital mutilation, which is a major human rights violation. Freedom of religion should NEVER extend so far as to be able to violate human rights. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that freedom of religion is above human rights should be restricted.

[Book O'Dead]

This thread is full of reactionary opinions. Circumcision is genital mutilation, which is a major human rights violation. Freedom of religion should NEVER extend so far as to be able to violate human rights. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that freedom of religion is above human rights should be restricted.

I second that motion.

[helot]

I second that motion.


You know you'd be restricted in that situation, right? Zav's saying supporting parents being able to circumcise their infants is reactionary and should result in being restricted.

I suspect you misread it or you've suddenly changed your mind.

[Luís Henrique]

Mystical tribal practice. Maybe you think Jewish people in Germany are more oppresed than poor woman of Nothern Africa?

Well. I live in Brazil, a place where "Mystical tribal practice" (ie, African Paganism; I don't know why such things are "tribal" when they have to do with Africa, but somehow the adjective doesn't apply when it comes to Greek, Norse, Celtic, or even Roman Paganism - even though "tribe" is a Latin word) is quite widespread. And female genital mutilation isn't a problem here, so I wonder whether such barbaric practice is actually "tribal" or is something acquired through contact with Islam complemented by a bad analogy between penises and clitorises - plus an actual element of male supremacy within these societies.


How about Mormon cult that says man should take many young wife? You don't have a problem?

I oppose "marriage" regardless of gender or number; I don't think the State has any business in anyone's beds.

But this, like the female genital mutilation argument, is a strawman (or perhaps strawwoman, considering the subject). There is nothing really comparable between male circumcision and those things.


They do not have to be ally. Who cares their motivation if it enriches humanity?

How does forbidding circumcisions - in a country well known by its horrible record of antisemitism and for recent episodes of persecution against Turkish (ie Muslim) immigrants - enrich humanity?


Bourgeois revolution was made to benefit bourgeoisie. Still workers supported it because it improved situation for them.

Civil War fought to benefit American capitalist against unpaid labor. Still Marx support. Workers support.

You are talking about the abolition of serfdom and slavery; again these are strawmen not even remotely comparable to circumcision.


Jewish hat is not banned in Germany. Burqa is not banned.

For the moment... the ruling under discussion shows that those are not far-fetched possibilities though.


Just saying that baby penis shouldn't be mutilated. It's law against child abuse.

It is not; it is a court ruling (not a law) obviously intended at persecution of minorities. Maybe in Japan this could be interpreted as having to do with child abuse; Japan has an insignificant Jewish minority (and I don't think a much bigger Muslim minority either) and no historic of antisemitism or Islamophobia comparable in any way to those of Germany. But in central Europe, sorry, this cannot be anything else than sheer bigotry.


Good law, we support for any reason.

I don't support antisemitic or Islamophobic rulings of any kind, so I am not with you in this one, sorry.


Forgive me. English is not my native language. Doesn't genital mean penis and vagina? Doesn't mutilate mean inflict disfiguring?

English is not my native language either, but from what I gather, mutilation means something that incapacitates or hinders the victim in the use of the mutilated organ. Loosing a hand or a foot is a mutilation; loosing a finger is a mutilation. Loosing the clitoris is a mutilation because it brutally reduces the orgasmic capacity of a woman. Loosing the foreskin isn't a mutilation, since the penis functions without it as well as with it (though an ex-girlfriend of mine once told me she didn't like circumcised penises because she didn't like "toys without mobile parts"). The anatomic equivalent of the clitoris isn't the foreskin, but the glans. If a religion mandated the excision of the glans of babies, then it would be tantamount to female genital mutilation.


I do hate ancient barbaric ritual of mutilating infant penis. Same as I hate foot binding or burqa. If you do not. You are not communist, or even humanist, maybe,

I dislike those things, of course. I dislike religious persecution even more, though. If you don't, you are not a communist or a humanist, and your views of the world are extremely myopic.

Luís Henrique

[helot]

though an ex-girlfriend of mine once told me she didn't like circumcised penises because she didn't like "toys without mobile parts".

hahaha that's brilliant! :laugh:




The anatomic equivalent of the clitoris isn't the foreskin, but the glans. If a religion mandated the excision of the glans of babies, then it would be tantamount to female genital mutilation.

The anatomic equivalent to the foreskin is, of course, the clitoral hood. Removal of that is generally regarded as female genital mutilation.

[Luís Henrique]

This thread is full of reactionary opinions.

This thread is full of ill disguised antisemitism and Islamophobia. Either that, or crippling cluelessness about the world.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Trollface]

Hey, have any of you staunch and stalwart communist-humanists ever heard of the principle of harm reduction? Banning circumcision has more or less the same effect as banning abortion. It drives the practice underground.

Granted the USSR was pretty good at stamping out the practice among its captive Jewish population, but that would have been impossible without totalitarian social control and a high degree of antisemitism at every level of society. It was either impossible or politically dangerous (which in the USSR meant mortally dangerous) to get it done for adults. Which is why there was a sudden boom in tortured mu-mu-wearing men in Brooklyn during the early 90's when Red Pharaoh finally let my people go. So that is hardly a success story for communist humanism. But if you knew anything about life in the good old USSR, y'all could have guessed that.

[Book O'Dead]

This thread is full of ill disguised antisemitism and Islamophobia. Either that, or crippling cluelessness about the world.

Luís Henrique

Or else, unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks on the Soviet Union for its alleged antisemitism.

As if we did not know that antisemitism was never at its lowest in Russia and its Muslim republics as when the Soviets were in power.

I'm telling you man, fascism is insidious!

[Zav]

This thread is full of ill disguised antisemitism and Islamophobia. Either that, or crippling cluelessness about the world.

Luís Henrique
No. It is not Antisemitism or Islamophobia to be against a religious practice which violates human rights. Do you contest that circumcision is a human rights violation?

[Comrade Trollface]

Or else, unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks on the Soviet Union for its alleged antisemitism. With all due respect- gay kakken af en yam.


As if we did not know that antisemitism was never at its lowest in Russia and its Muslim republics as when the Soviets were in power.Don't insult me. I speak from my own lived experience and my family's as well. It was a period of total state intervention in the cultural and religious life of the Jews. Even under the Tsars, we were allowed our rites and our ways, we were allowed to write and publish our literature, and we were not so afraid of the antisemitic state that we stopped giving our children Jewish names.

The Bolsheviks may have abolished the Pale of Settlement, but their absolute dictatorship came with such draconian restrictions on our cultural life that it made the harshest sumptuary laws look like a veritable Messianic Age.

Such apologism has the stench of a white American's idealization of postbellum race relations in the US. Such sentiments have no place either on the lips, the fingertips nor in the heart of a communist revolutionary.