German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Blayne]

If I make drug use illegal and this happens to be a key aspect of a particular religion or culture and they do it anyways are they fundamentalists?

Calling them fundamentalists was a tangent in of itself, it's a silly generalization because people think they believe in Santa Claus.

[Grumman]

Sorry, but no. You don't get to generalize an entire religio-cultural group as "fundies" just because you think they believe in glorified santa claus.

Are you illiterate? I didn't say they were fundamentalists because they worship a fictional character, I said they were fundamentalists if they'd break the law to mutilate their children's genitals for the sake of their religion.

[Blayne]

"For the sake of their religion" <--- You are clearly saying that because its for religious reasons, that it's wrong. I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

The fact is this is cultural genocide, that is sufficient reason for me to consider outlawing religious circumcision to be a greater net wrong, than trying to reduce the number of circumcisions.

[Terralthra]

"For the sake of their religion" <--- You are clearly saying that because its for religious reasons, that it's wrong. I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

The fact is this is cultural genocide, that is sufficient reason for me to consider outlawing religious circumcision to be a greater net wrong, than trying to reduce the number of circumcisions.

No, he's saying mutilating children's genitals is generally wrong. There may be valid reasons to perform circumcision (e.g. phimosis). The commands of the sky pixie from six thousand years ago don't qualify, to him. Putting some clay tablets transcribed and translated from millenia ago over the welfare and consent of the infant whose genitals one is slicing into, qualifies, to him, as "religious fundamentalism," ie, "the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines."

[Blayne]

The "commands from the sky" have currently evolved to be central to their ethnic identity; this is a fact. Denying circumcision denies them their culture, that they've fought wars over, survived oppression, ghettoes and actual genocide over, the Ghandi "They should just give up and assimilate" arguments are wrong for their own reasons, and potentially a greater wrong. Generalizing it as "religious fundamentalism" is just taking the easy way out so you don't have to think about what this law does to them.

[Grumman]

The "commands from the sky" have currently evolved to be central to their ethnic identity; this is a fact. Denying circumcision denies them their culture, that they've fought wars over, survived oppression, ghettoes and actual genocide over, the Ghandi "They should just give up and assimilate" arguments are wrong for their own reasons, and potentially a greater wrong. Generalizing it as "religious fundamentalism" is just taking the easy way out so you don't have to think about what this law does to them.

I would accuse you of the same thing. You use the word "culture" as a euphemism for what is really being taken away from them: the right to cut bits off their children for no good reason. If Jewish culture is so fragile that it cannot survive their children being granted the right not to have their genitals tampered with for no good reason, it deserves to go extinct.

[Tanasinn]

Denying circumcision denies them their culture, that they've fought wars over, survived oppression, ghettoes and actual genocide over,

A BLOO BLOO BLOOOOOOO~

MEANINGLESS GENITAL MUTILATION BECAUSE A VICIOUS IMAGINARY BLOOD GOD DEMANDED IT IS MY CULTURE~

People being mean to you doesn't make what you do right. Mutilating infants' genitals is a savage, barbaric practice. Calling ritual mutilation of children 'culture' doesn't reduce the violence of the act.

[Blayne]

So if I take away say, the Cree, Iroquois, Algonguin, etc languages from the various Indian tribes and this irreversibly harms their culture (hint; yes it did) they deserve to go extinct? Oh gee thanks, next time I meet up with my extended metis family I can say "It's okay guys, we deserved it."

Harm is a very difficult thing to gauge when it comes to cultural and ethnic groups, sometimes its just through contact and other times from deliberate intervention, historical precedent is very strong that it is always better to aim on the side of caution in this respect.

[CJvR]

The fact is this is cultural genocide...

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Barbaric customs should be fought.

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

[General Zod]

So if I take away say, the Cree, Iroquois, Algonguin, etc languages from the various Indian tribes and this irreversibly harms their culture (hint; yes it did) they deserve to go extinct? Oh gee thanks, next time I meet up with my extended metis family I can say "It's okay guys, we deserved it."

Harm is a very difficult thing to gauge when it comes to cultural and ethnic groups, sometimes its just through contact and other times from deliberate intervention, historical precedent is very strong that it is always better to aim on the side of caution in this respect.

So for the sake of being cautious we should've let Hitler continue with his Jewish pogrom rather than eliminate the Nazi culture?

[Terralthra]

So if I take away say, the Cree, Iroquois, Algonguin, etc languages from the various Indian tribes and this irreversibly harms their culture (hint; yes it did) they deserve to go extinct? Oh gee thanks, next time I meet up with my extended metis family I can say "It's okay guys, we deserved it."

Harm is a very difficult thing to gauge when it comes to cultural and ethnic groups, sometimes its just through contact and other times from deliberate intervention, historical precedent is very strong that it is always better to aim on the side of caution in this respect.

False analogy, hoooo! Harm may be a difficult thing to gauge when it comes to cultural and ethnic groups, but it is not difficult to gauge when it comes to cutting pieces off of infants. Hint: it's harm. Think about the situations you're trying to compare: language use vs. mandatory cosmetic (for no medical reason) surgery. Are they actually similar?

[Tanasinn]

So if I take away say, the Cree, Iroquois, Algonguin, etc languages from the various Indian tribes and this irreversibly harms their culture (hint; yes it did) they deserve to go extinct? Oh gee thanks, next time I meet up with my extended metis family I can say "It's okay guys, we deserved it."

False equivalence. There's a difference between banning a language (which has no demonstrably harmful character) and banning ritual genital mutilation (which is harmful by virtue of cutting off pieces of a human being to satiate an alleged diety). Unless you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest or are a fucking retard, you should be able to see that.

[Broomstick]

german link

Well, it appears that at least one jewish hospital has stopped infant circumcision due to this ruling.

Since I can't read German you'll have to help me out with this. What, exactly, does "Jewish hospital" mean in Germany? See, in the US, "Jewish hospital of X" might mean the hospital was founded by Jews, but may no longer be owned by them, the board might be Christians or atheists, and the name a historical legacy. Or maybe it's a hospital owned and run by Jews. In Germany, is there a more specific meaning than there is in the US?

Also, the most reactionary/traditional Jews never had the cutting down at the hospital anyway, it was done by mohelim in the synagogue. While some mohelim have had medical training there's no guarantee of it.

[Purple]

False analogy, hoooo!

Well perhaps I can offer a better one than. As in, one no sane person can refute. We know that the people of South American nations before the time of their contact with Europeans had the custom to sacrifice humans en mass. This was according to their beliefs a fundamental part of making sure the sun rises and the world generally keeps going. In fact they believed in that shedding human blood was essential so much that it formed the one single fundamental pillar of their cultural and religious identity. They stop the blood flowing and the world ends. Plain and simple. So say that for the sake of argument an ancient Aztec settlement is discovered in the Andes. Or maybe a bunch of local people just want to get back to their roots. Either way. Would it be right to deny them the right to sacrifice people in the name of humanity, or would it make us just as evil as the oppressive Spanish?
Don't even bother answering that one.

The bottom line is that a cultural identity is not something set in stone. It has to change and adapt with the ages just like all other things related to human society. And there comes a time where it simply has to abandon things that are morally repugnant no mater how "essential" they are deemed to be.

[General Zod]

False analogy, hoooo!

Well perhaps I can offer a better one than. As in, one no sane person can refute. We know that the people of South American nations before the time of their contact with Europeans had the custom to sacrifice humans en mass. This was according to their beliefs a fundamental part of making sure the sun rises and the world generally keeps going. In fact they believed in that shedding human blood was essential so much that it formed the one single fundamental pillar of their cultural and religious identity. They stop the blood flowing and the world ends. Plain and simple. So say that for the sake of argument an ancient Aztec settlement is discovered in the Andes. Or maybe a bunch of local people just want to get back to their roots. Either way. Would it be right to deny them the right to sacrifice people in the name of humanity, or would it make us just as evil as the oppressive Spanish?
Don't even bother answering that one.

The bottom line is that a cultural identity is not something set in stone. It has to change and adapt with the ages just like all other things related to human society. And there comes a time where it simply has to abandon things that are morally repugnant no mater how "essential" they are deemed to be.

It's almost as if you didn't actually read anything else in the thread.

[Akhlut]

You are so full of shit - you really think that Pharonic circumcision, which removes the clitoris, labia, and sews up the opening of the vagina and urethra to something the size of soda straw is the exact same thing as foreskin removal? Get real. Sure, male castratos have reported orgasm capability as well, but you'd be nuts to argue that castration doesn't impact sex.

If you're willing to outlaw one, why not completely outlaw the other?

So are you now advocating genocide as a solution?

Are you illiterate and unable to parse that someone can find humor in that what Hitler couldn't accomplish through barbarity, a peaceful German government can accomplish through OUTLAWING barbarity?

It's almost like irony, or something.

Any society that allows the mutilation of children is abhorrent and abominable.

So will you impose equal penalties for any parent piercing the ears of an infant or a child who otherwise is not competent to give consent? [/quote]

I don't see why not. Probably a lesser penalty, due to the relatively insensate nature of ear cartilage, but a penalty nonetheless. It'd be the difference between forcibly piercing an adult's ears without their consent versus forcibly removing parts of their genitals without their consent. Forced ear-piercing is probably "simply" battery, whereas forced cutting off of pieces of genitals probably receives a whole host of sexual assault, battery, and other similar charges on it.

See, this is why multiculturalism is such a problem. Some people will not even attempt to consider the other viewpoint. That doesn't mean agree with it, just attempt to understand how the opposition sees it.

Oh, I understand it, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's barbaric. I understand that the Egyptians think that a girl is the unclean daughter of a whore if she isn't properly circumcised, but they can fuck off if they want to mutilate a girl's genitals. Similarly, the Jews might think their god of wanton rape and slaughter requires the foreskin of children in order to maintain the covenant of a monster who was about to slaughter his own son like a fucking ram, but that doesn't mean those assholes should be allowed to do so in a civilized nation. We wouldn't allow a revived cult to Huitzilopochtli to sacrifice humans to maintain the rising of the sun each day because of a sincere belief in letting every culture flower because, frankly, some cultural practices are barbaric atavisms best consigned to the ash heap of history.

Jews see failure to circumcise as a very serious form of neglect, to be remedied by the community if necessary. You see circumcision as an abomination. Obviously, these two viewpoints are incompatible. Unfortunately, I don't see a means to compromise on this one.

They can't have their cake and eat it too; if they want to live as Iron Age barbarians, then they shouldn't be living in a 21st century nation with laws protecting children from genital mutilation.

Actually, most observant Jews I know in the Orthodox and even quite a few Conservatives simply will not use the phone on the Sabbath, neither to call nor to answer it, and will even turn off the answering machine or disconnect the phone. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all Jews seek a means to cheat.

Not all, sure, but there is a market in Israel for such cheats against the spirit, if not the letter, of the laws of YHWH.

And it's probably closer to 5000-600 years of circumcision, not 4,000, although the historical record that far back is a wee bit murky.

Especially since they lifted most of their theology from the Zoroastrians and altered most of their books to reflect the new theology. So, it's not even like they're using "pure" Judaism anyways.

3% of Jews not circumcising their male offspring is hardly a groundswell of change. There have always been a certain percentage who try to get out of the requirement. The larger Jewish community - the 97% - usually kick them to the curb as bad Jews.

I was illustrating the possibility of devout Jews not engaging in barbaric practices.

What I find pathetic are the number of people attempting to reason some way out for the Jews, or rationalizing that they will find an exception, or be willing to compromise. Greater than 90% will not - they will not compromise, they will not even look for an exception, and will continue the practice one way or another unless physically stopped from doing so.

I certainly hope they're stopped from harming innocent children. I imagine if this were any group other than the Jews engaging in behavior like this, that group would be rightfully shouted down as being barbaric and possibly evil.

[Akhlut]

Please, these fuckers will rework the basic functioning of a telephone so they can use it on the sabbath, surely they can find some bullshit little niggling point of law to not perform barbaric sheepfucker rituals from 4,000 years ago.

Say what?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/busin ... h-machines

[Akhlut]

It's a little like saying that because you occasionally see an Amish teenager driving around in a car (yay, teen rebellion and rumspringa) that all Amish everywhere are stinking, car-driving hypocrites and not to be trusted.

The Amish are allowed to drive cars around whenever they want. I've seen them in Walmart taking home their groceries in a minivan. They're supposed to be conservative in their use of technology and to try and live simply, but the use of advanced items is permitted for various reasons.

Also, way to impugn me with antisemitic accusations, however, there are, in fact, Jews who try to get around all their own self-imposed laws through legalistic rules-lawyering, and your self-serving martyrdom won't change that.

[Akhlut]

Harm is a very difficult thing to gauge when it comes to cultural and ethnic groups, sometimes its just through contact and other times from deliberate intervention, historical precedent is very strong that it is always better to aim on the side of caution in this respect.

Cutting off an infants' flesh without anesthetic is generally considered harmful and, if not performed in the name of a religion (or in the US, by a doctor due to cultural inertia), would generally be charged with dozens of crimes and thrown in jail for a very long time.

[CarsonPalmer]

It's a little like saying that because you occasionally see an Amish teenager driving around in a car (yay, teen rebellion and rumspringa) that all Amish everywhere are stinking, car-driving hypocrites and not to be trusted.

The Amish are allowed to drive cars around whenever they want. I've seen them in Walmart taking home their groceries in a minivan. They're supposed to be conservative in their use of technology and to try and live simply, but the use of advanced items is permitted for various reasons.

Also, way to impugn me with antisemitic accusations, however, there are, in fact, Jews who try to get around all their own self-imposed laws through legalistic rules-lawyering, and your self-serving martyrdom won't change that.

You probably saw Mennonites, not Amish. They dress similarly and live with little technology but still drive. The Amish do use some advanced technology but don't typically drive.

And if you want to avoid being called an anti-Semite, you can very easily avoid using their sort of language. It is extremely easy to condemn circumcision without complaining about how crafty the damn dirty Jews are.

[hongi]

The fact is this is cultural genocide...

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Barbaric customs should be fought.

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

You know in a lot of Polynesian cultures, circumcision is an integral part of the rite of passage of becoming a man. What do you think will happen if someone came in there and forcibly prevented boys from becoming men? But hey what the hell, these ignorant darkies should abandon their culture to suit you.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

itt hongi states she is totally a-okay with female genital mutilation because all cultures are equal, and falsely equates presumably adolescent boys from making a choice about something to do with their body - something almost nobody in this thread is opposed to - with infants having part of their body cut off without their consent for no good medical reason except that it's part of their parents' culture.

[Ralin]

You know in a lot of Polynesian cultures, circumcision is an integral part of the rite of passage of becoming a man. What do you think will happen if someone came in there and forcibly prevented boys from becoming men?

Well, for one thing there would be a lot fewer children getting systematically abused.

But hey what the hell, these ignorant darkies should abandon their culture to suit you.

Why the hell do so many people here suddenly think it's racist to not cater to people who want to hurt others because of their stupid woo-woo beliefs? If we were talking about Christians wanting to spank their children anyone siding with them would be dog-piled in seconds, and that's also backed by their religion/culture.

[Metahive]

You know in a lot of Polynesian cultures, circumcision is an integral part of the rite of passage of becoming a man. What do you think will happen if someone came in there and forcibly prevented boys from becoming men? But hey what the hell, these ignorant darkies should abandon their culture to suit you.

You know in the Satere culture of South America, exposing little boys to repeated bullet ant* stings for days on end is an integral part of the rite of passage of becoming a man, too. And you know what? If some of those people came to Germany and tried to do it here they'd be quickly penalized for it, because it's fucking torturing little children for bullshit reasons!
Culture and tradition do not justify each and any practice just by virtue of being so, especially not ones that incorporate hurting or mutilating little children. Such traditions and cultural practices simply have no place in a modern, civilized society.
Maybe the defenders of religious privilege could get that into their skulls instead of dishing out the Hitler-Club and clutching their pearls tightly over perceived attempts of "cultural genocide".




*They're called bullet ant because every sting hurts like getting shot.

[hongi]

itt hongi states she is totally a-okay with female genital mutilation because all cultures are equal, and falsely equates presumably adolescent boys from making a choice about something to do with their body - something almost nobody in this thread is opposed to - with infants having part of their body cut off without their consent for no good medical reason except that it's part of their parents' culture.

I'm not a female, I'm not a-okay with female genital mutilation, I just think it should be legal, specifically the form where the clitoral hood is removed, and not criminalised. Circumcision is more than Jewish 8 day old circumcision, circumcision is also the process that many Muslim boys undergo during the ages of 10-13, not to mention the Polynesians I just mentioned. And actually the people people right after you said that circumcision of young boys is wrong as well, not just babies who can't give their consent.

There are over 1 billion Muslims. Most of the male circumcision happening today happens to Muslims. But most in this thread don't seem to be talking about them. So let me ask people. If parents want to circumcise their children at the age of 13, is that okay with you?