S.F Circumcision ban vs. Religious Freedom

[rfj1]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/

It seems the Evangelical community is throwing its weight behind opposition to the ban on circumcision based on the Abrahamic root of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Calling it a religious debate seems to me to be shifting it away from the human rights issues. Female genital mutilations are considered a human rights violation based on gender, so why not circumcision? I could understand invoking religious freedom if it were adults who were making this decision however, tradition seems to me to be a weak excuse. The bible also calls for stoning people and treatment of women like property, so how is that an acceptable or valid reason to continue circumcision. For the record I'm against it for infants, if someeone wants it after the age of consent then go for it. What do you think?

I read most of the posts on this "Subject" and those who were "Against" the painful and barbaric ritualism are correct in being against it, why, simple, it is because someone or group decided to "Apply" this ritualistic custom way back when "Common Sense" was not available and the use of an "Invented" religious faith to justify it was and still is barbaric and I personally believe it was just "Another" way to identify that male child when he grew up as "One of their own"... You have to remember that "Back then" there was (and to some degree now) many prejudices with different cultures and killing was very common place so if you were unfortunate to be circumcised then you were going to the lions, no questions asked.

Back then and to some degree today there are "Still" ways to identity different cultures and their clans or peoples with "Tattoo's" "Scaring" "Disfigurement" head shavings, you name it and in many cases all out blatant hated for any other culture.

The difference is "All" of them were "Adults" when they decided to apply their own form of torture to themselves or with the help of others in their group, not "Baby's" who can't decide for themselves.

What ever happened to a child's "Natural" right to exist with out being scared for life. (Remember my quote)

r

Kind of sounds "Familiar" doesn't it??

[mklsgl]

I'm aware that there are many Jewish people who have adapted this procedure, though it depends. Good old tradition and the like.

I'm not talking of those who don't, but those who do.

Obviously, reading the procedure online does not imply the same understanding as attending one and watching the procedure.

So, please, explain why it is right and proper that a religious institution be allowed to continue this practice.

Now, before you get to far, I am well aware of the right to freedom of religion.

However, I would argue that it doesn't extend to those who are having religious rituals put on them, like newborns, or on religios practices that cause harm to the person. While there is medical evidence to suggest this possibility, I will instead refer to religious practices that are banned in the States, like ritual killing, female circumcision, subjugation of women, women are allowed to teach here in the States. Slavery is endorsed in the Christian Bible, which includes the Jewish Torah.

Educate yourself a bit more on what actually happens at 99% of all Brises.

[ShadowSot]

Educate yourself a bit more on what actually happens at 99% of all Brises.

I know that nowadays rabies rarely suck the penis. I already indicated so.

However, it's still a fairly present religious practice.

So, do you approve of this practice or not?

[mklsgl]

I know that nowadays rabies rarely suck the penis. I already indicated so.

However, it's still a fairly present religious practice.

So, do you approve of this practice or not?

1) A Mohel does not need to be a Rabbi and most Rabbis are not Mohels.

2) The Mohel never sucks anything. The rare (1%) practice to which you're referring involves the squeezing (applied pressure) of the incision to stop whatever bleeding there may be using the mouth. Although there have been a few cases of HSV transmission, I don't disapprove.

3) http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=mohel

[ShadowSot]

1) A Mohel does not need to be a Rabbi and most Rabbis are not Mohels.

You are right, I knew better but kept saying rabbi. Thanks for the correction.

2) The Mohel never sucks anything. The rare (1%) practice to which you're referring involves the squeezing (applied pressure) of the incision to stop whatever bleeding there may be using the mouth. Although there have been a few cases of HSV transmission, I don't disapprove.

3) http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=mohel

See, I'm working off this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wwaUB7Fgo&feature=player_embedded

I'm not sure if this is the right video, since I can't view it right now, but he speaks of "emulating the female vagina."

I have to ask... why do they use the mouth?

[rfj1]

You are right, I knew better but kept saying rabbi. Thanks for the correction.

See, I'm working off this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wwaUB7Fgo&feature=player_embedded

I'm not sure if this is the right video, since I can't view it right now, but he speaks of "emulating the female vagina."

I have to ask... why do they use the mouth?

I just couldn't bring myself to listen to any more of this major "B......." and was wondering why all of this (Ancient) "Ritual" was necessary in the first place, when, if you just let the baby develop "Naturally" we all wouldn't have to comment on this.

Old rituals and religions die hard because that is the only "Income" they make by trying to convince "Anyone" that their way is the right way, now give me your money so I can dream up some more "B......." for those gullible enough to believe it.

And this is practiced by other cultures as well???

We are talking about some ancient writing by some 2 thousand year old person who probably had a third grade intelligence back then. Remember people this "IS" the 21th Century and we are supposed to know better.

Excuse my "French".

This type of brutality has to stop ..."Yesterday".

r

[Mr Walker]

Anyone see Russel Crowes diatribe on this issue? He really got stuck into people who argued for circumcisions on medicla grounds. In one of the replies an aged care nurse pointed out that, over many years older men who were not circumcised consistently suffered much higher rates of infection, and other coditions causing pain and suffering for long periods, compared with those who had been circumscised.

My view is; act on modern medical knowledge and advice, not on belief; whether that belief is religious, or a strong emotional antagonism to circumcision.

I would absolutley chose circumscision for myself as an infant, but i would get all the advice I could before I decided to have a son of mine circumscised. For me it has been something i was totally unaware of having experienced until i was in my twenties and found out some men looked differnt, and which has conferred no disadvantages, and some social, sexual, medical advantages on me during my life.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Mr Walker

[mklsgl]

You are right, I knew better but kept saying rabbi. Thanks for the correction.

See, I'm working off this:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

I'm not sure if this is the right video, since I can't view it right now, but he speaks of "emulating the female vagina."

I have to ask... why do they use the mouth?

Rabbi Cole is a Chassidic Jew ("Ultra-Orthodox") who represents that 1% I spoke of previously. He explains that particular method quite well in the video.

I apologize for being rather abrasive towards your posts in this thread. May I suggest that you (if truly interested) spend 20 minutes reading about the method(s) which most (99%) Mohels use. That link in my last post is a good beginning. Since most Jews are either Reform or Conservative, I'd look for info concerning those two types of Judaism. Another site filled with great info - http://www.jewfaq.org

[Soul Kitchen]

I'll repeat: religion shouldn't have a way to legitimise essentially mutilating babies. All too often x religion has ways of getting past all kinds of laws when no religion should. If the ban passes, those people that you mention should be the first to be arrested and not get out of it.

Mutilation is a nasty sounding word with nasty connotations, and for that it is thrown around to represent anything that could fall under the definition and so effectively make the original thing sound worse than it is. It's the opposite of euphemism.

You could argue that ear piercing and shaving are mutilation too.

[ShadowSot]

Rabbi Cole is a Chassidic Jew ("Ultra-Orthodox") who represents that 1% I spoke of previously. He explains that particular method quite well in the video.

I apologize for being rather abrasive towards your posts in this thread. May I suggest that you (if truly interested) spend 20 minutes reading about the method(s) which most (99%) Mohels use. That link in my last post is a good beginning. Since most Jews are either Reform or Conservative, I'd look for info concerning those two types of Judaism. Another site filled with great info - http://www.jewfaq.org

Well, though I'm not speaking of the reformed Jews, but rather those who continue the original traditional practice, thank you, and I will look into it.

However, I still feel that this practice is wrong, as does most of the Jewish population apparently. I became aware of this practice through speaking with a Jewish person about religious practices which led to circumcision. (I actually was aware of the proper name for Mohels, but honestly forgot.)

While every person is free to live their own religious life, I feel this ends at the point of putting religious belief onto someone who isn't of age yet to understand what's being done to them.

Especially when it comes to cutting bits off.

It's strange that many other religious forms of body manipulations are not allowed, but this one continues.

[H.H. Holmes]

Mutilation is a nasty sounding word with nasty connotations, and for that it is thrown around to represent anything that could fall under the definition and so effectively make the original thing sound worse than it is. It's the opposite of euphemism.

You could argue that ear piercing and shaving are mutilation too.

Right, I've seen the words maimed and mutilate thrown around alot regarding circumcision when, imo, they do not apply.

mu·ti·late   /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled

[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Foreskin is not essential, nor does circumcision damage the penis. A circumcised penis is fully functional and does not impair a man's ability to have intercourse.

[Soul Kitchen]

Foreskin is not essential, nor does circumcision damage the penis. A circumcised penis is fully functional and does not impair a man's ability to have intercourse.

And it's conventional wisdom that circumcision brings nothing but benefit.

[H.H. Holmes]

And it's conventional wisdom that circumcision brings nothing but benefit.

Well, the research is somewhat "iffy" on the medical benefits of circumcision. I have seen many studies that report a benefit from circumcision, but I have seen just as many reporting no benefit, so the verdict is still out, imo.

[shadowhive]

Mutilation is a nasty sounding word with nasty connotations, and for that it is thrown around to represent anything that could fall under the definition and so effectively make the original thing sound worse than it is. It's the opposite of euphemism.

You could argue that ear piercing and shaving are mutilation too.

It's taking a child, who has absolutely no say in the matter, and hacking off a body part. Like I said, if this practice involved removing a finger, eye or lung (all non-essential as we have multiples of them) this practise would've died out long ago and it would be banned without hesitation.

I've no problem with adults having this procedure, it's just that this is done to children who have absolutely no say in the matter, so strong words have to be thrown around to show just how wrong it is.

[Soul Kitchen]

Well, the research is somewhat "iffy" on the medical benefits of circumcision. I have seen many studies that report a benefit from circumcision, but I have seen just as many reporting no benefit, so the verdict is still out, imo.

Well, does it need research?

A foreskin can get infections.

If there's no foreskin, then there are no foreskin infections.

Just seems like simple logic to me.

Now are there any negative effects of circumcision?

[Soul Kitchen]

It's taking a child, who has absolutely no say in the matter, and hacking off a body part. Like I said, if this practice involved removing a finger, eye or lung (all non-essential as we have multiples of them) this practise would've died out long ago and it would be banned without hesitation.

To sound more credible you have to choose unfitting, nasty words. What does that say about your stance?

Hacking? Really? I was under the impression that it was a more delicate procedure than that.

You can't compare fingers, eyes, and lungs with foreskins.

Fingers, eyes, and lungs have a significant role for the body and their removal would bring significant disadvantages.

Can the same be said of foreskins? It's just a little piece of skin. It's hardly even a body part.

A better comparison would be with trimming a child's nails without their consent.

I've no problem with adults having this procedure, it's just that this is done to children who have absolutely no say in the matter, so strong words have to be thrown around to show just how wrong it is.

The word is much stronger than the practice in question.

[shadowhive]

To sound more credible you have to choose unfitting, nasty words. What does that say about your stance?

Hacking? Really? I was under the impression that it was a more delicate procedure than that.

You can't compare fingers, eyes, and lungs with foreskins.

Fingers, eyes, and lungs have a significant role for the body and their removal would bring significant disadvantages.

Can the same be said of foreskins? It's just a little piece of skin. It's hardly even a body part.

A better comparison would be with trimming a child's nails without their consent.

Sorry, but I'm not ok with the removal of any body part from a child without a medical reason and this seems just so uncessary.

You'd never catch me going under the knife for this procedure or subjecting my children to it. If my parents had done so I'd resent them for it.

Any medical benefits from this procedure have been spotty at best and most (like saying that it helps prevent STD's) have later turned out to be outright lies.

And actually this 'little piece of skin' actually has purposes, one of which being protecting the urinary tract from infections. Which is ironic considering the arguements you've been making.

[Soul Kitchen]

Sorry, but I'm not ok with the removal of any body part from a child without a medical reason and this seems just so uncessary.

It's not a body part. It's a part of a part of a body part. As are fingernails. I think we shouldn't trim children's fingernails without their consent.

You'd never catch me going under the knife for this procedure or subjecting my children to it. If my parents had done so I'd resent them for it.

Sure you would.

Any medical benefits from this procedure have been spotty at best and most (like saying that it helps prevent STD's) have later turned out to be outright lies.

I said nothing about STD prevention.

You honestly think that there are absolutely no benefits from circumcision?

And actually this 'little piece of skin' actually has purposes, one of which being protecting the urinary tract from infections. Which is ironic considering the arguements you've been making.

Tell me more about that. I don't doubt you necessarily, but I have trouble imagining how a foreskin would protect the urinary track from infections.

[shadowhive]

It's not a body part. It's a part of a part of a body part. As are fingernails. I think we shouldn't trim children's fingernails without their consent.

Would you cut off a fingertip? An eyelid? Those are part's of body parts too.

Sure you would.

Absolutely.

I said nothing about STD prevention.

You honestly think that there are absolutely no benefits from circumcision?

Never said you did. However, that's often listed as the main 'benefit'.

No, I don't think there are.

Tell me more about that. I don't doubt you necessarily, but I have trouble imagining how a foreskin would protect the urinary track from infections.

A foreskin covers the area most of the time, thusly preventing things from getting in. (That's the basics of what I know, I don't know any more specifics than that.)

[Soul Kitchen]

Would you cut off a fingertip? An eyelid? Those are part's of body parts too.

Those are far from accurate comparisons and you know it.

Never said you did. However, that's often listed as the main 'benefit'.

No, I don't think there are.

Well, that's interesting.

A foreskin covers the area most of the time, thusly preventing things from getting in. (That's the basics of what I know, I don't know any more specifics than that.)

You don't know??? Don't you have a foreskin?

[FLOMBIE]

Foreskin is not essential, nor does circumcision damage the penis. A circumcised penis is fully functional and does not impair a man's ability to have intercourse.

But circumcision is not only cutting of the foreskin, but also a removal of the fremulum, which is, like I told you in the other thread the most sensitive part of the penis. If someone would take away my frenulum, I'd consider that a damage.

But yes, it is still fully functional, just not that sensitive.

[shadowhive]

Those are far from accurate comparisons and you know it.

So would you support the removal of eyelashes which serve a similar benefit?

Well, that's interesting.

All the 'benefits' I've heard of are mostly outright lies. The only one has been it ends 'foreskin infections' which is logical. However removing a body part is not the best way to end infection. That arguement falls apart, however, when you realise that every body part can get infected, yet we dodn't remove those left and right.

You don't know??? Don't you have a foreskin?

I do. However, I'm not in the medical profession and don't know the specific medical terms. I just gave you the basic description as I know it, but somehow that is not enough for you. Clearly you need a vast and detailed medical response, which is something I can't give you.

We did learn in sex education class that that was one of the primary fuunctions of the foreskin (there were others which I can't recall now) but we weren't given the detail you're looking for.

[ChloeB]

Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance

* Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.

* Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

* Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).

* Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.

* Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.

* Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.

* Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.

* There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page5.htm#glance

[Eldorado]

Can anyone answer this... sorry it aint exactly on-topic. It's just a question that came into my head while reading the thread and not really important.

If man is made in God's image then God has a foreskin, no?

So, God makes something perfect, a bit like His good self, but "man" decides to "improve" on God's design?

Is that what happened?

Edited June 14, 2011 by Eldorado

[The Silver Thong]

Can anyone answer this... sorry it aint exactly on-topic. It's just a question that came into my head while reading the thread and not really important.

If man is made in God's image then God has a foreskin, no?

So, God makes something perfect, a bit like His good self, but "man" decides to "improve" on God's design?

Is that what happened?

If god is real then he also creates a lot of deformities or defects in newborns. Besides humans are far from perfect.