"It has been many decades since a Jew was charged for practicing Judaism openly and is reminiscent of far darker times," [said Moshe Kantor, the president of the European Jewish Congress.] "We hope that in Germany, of all places, the authorities would remain far more sensitive to this issue."
२३ ऑगस्ट, २०१२
"A German rabbi is facing charges for performing a circumcision..."
"... less than two months after a Cologne court outraged Jews and Muslims by outlawing the procedure."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
Vorhautnacht!
Think of it as a post-birth partial-abortion. Liberals should fiercely defend the mother's right to do it, and conservatives should want to forbid it.
Oh, except I think the father usually is responsible for circumcision, not the mother. So then liberals should want to forbid it, and...
Wait, I thought the law hadn't gone into effect?
Hopefully they sort this de jure German bigotry out.
Q: Have you heard about the rabbi who performs circumsions for free?
A: He only takes tips!
If Sandra Fluke can force the Catholics to pay for her birth control, surely Germans can forbid rabbis from performing circumcisions.
Give those bastards an inch, they'll take a moyle.
Sexual mutilation of infant boys isn't one of Yahweh's better moments. A contemporary marvel is the extent that people will carry on in an effort to justify the practice from first principles.
Sexual mutilation of infant boys isn't one of Yahweh's better moments.
One wonders why would Yahweh create a baby boy with foreskin only to command its removal?
Hmmm, Germans just don't know when to quit. Go Germans?
lemondog said...
Sexual mutilation of infant boys isn't one of Yahweh's better moments.
One wonders why would Yahweh create a baby boy with foreskin only to command its removal?
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm
Sounds like God may have had it right.
lemondog,
One wonders why would Yahweh create a baby boy with foreskin only to command its removal?
To give him a better shot at a porn career.
Must I explain EVERYTHING?
Everybody knows it's OK to cut people up if God tells you to.
Maybe circumcision was a survival strategy for people that lived in the desert and didn't want continual sand irritation in certain personal areas. It just got ritualized.
I think most circumcision behavior came from the Egyptians - they circumcised royals and nobles. So it got transferred as a religious / status issue.
Muslims copied the Jewish rituals. I guess since they always tried to one-up on everything (fasting praying), they are lucky that it wasn't required to trim off the whole end too.
Political correctness run amok.
Yesterday, I saw a report of a Johns Hopkins study that said that declining rates of circumcision in the US over the last 20 years had already cost over $20 billion dollars in added medical costs, with the extra costs set to increase significantly over coming years.
http://www.mdtmag.com/news/2012/08/fewer-infant-circumcisions-may-mean-billions-healthcare-costs-massdevicecom-call?et_cid=2809246&et_rid=41401197&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mdtmag.com%2fnews%2f2012%2f08%2ffewer-infant-circumcisions-may-mean-billions-healthcare-costs-massdevicecom-call
Even if one agrees with the German law, surely it is easy to see that Germany should not be the country to lead the way on this issue.
Sorry Methadras, but the arguments stated there don't justify sexual mutilation - the incremental medical gains don't offset the drawbacks. Yahweh doesn't mess around with niceties like peer-reviewed studies in the book of Genesis, either. I am prepared to venture the thought that the incremental risk of infection from circumcision back in bible times outweighed the 1% increased likelihood of phimosis. But if you are into lengthening your medical odds by shortening your genitals, castration will help you avoid any number of potential future pathologies.
Captain Curt - I am not surprised to see that a Jewish doctor at Johns Hopkins would generate a medical argument in favor of an ancient Hebrew practice. A study published by someone not of the Abrahamic faiths would be more impressive.
My dad said to me, sorry son, you'll have to wear it off.
That was just after he tried to get his watch fixed at a store that displayed clocks and watches in the display window. But the proprietor didn't fix watches or even sell clocks or watches; instead he performed circumcisions. When asked about the display window, he shrugged and replied, "So, what do you expect I should put in the window?"
Oso Negro said...
Sorry Methadras, but the arguments stated there don't justify sexual mutilation - the incremental medical gains don't offset the drawbacks. Yahweh doesn't mess around with niceties like peer-reviewed studies in the book of Genesis, either. I am prepared to venture the thought that the incremental risk of infection from circumcision back in bible times outweighed the 1% increased likelihood of phimosis. But if you are into lengthening your medical odds by shortening your genitals, castration will help you avoid any number of potential future pathologies.
The original intent of circumcision was religious "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" (Genesis 17:11). God doesn't require peer-reviewed studies, since he is the originator of the prescription of fealty of faith between those who accept(ed) him as being God. Imagine, a prehistoric peoples who when given the covenant of circumcision decided not to obey that covenant? It was a completely different mentality and culture 4000 years ago.
However, that has carried over to nearly 90% of all males regardless of sexual or religious orientation of being circumcised. Clearly not 90% of all males are religious either. So what does that say about the possible necessity of circumcision? I think in Europe only 15% of males are circumcised and yet Europe is largely irreligious and I also believe has a declining birth rate as well. There has got to be a freakonomics lesson in there somewhere.
Granted, even the society of pediatrics says that it isn't necessary, but even they admit that in light of complications of having a foreskin, it clearly has a large benefit to overall health and welfare for the male baby. Also, considering its origins, I'd say that circumcision imparts different benefits for different reasons; Hygeine, cleanliness, increased sexual attraction, sexual sensitivity, etc.
An infection prior to circumcision 4000 years ago would almost have been a death sentence. That belief in the midst of modernity is quite a strong link to such a long past heritage that people aren't willing to eschew simply because people would liken to label it as some kind of abuse or mutilation. They don't believe so and since its coupled as a religious observance, then frankly I'd say that your opinion holds an even less footing under that observance. For who are you to tell who can or cannot practice their religious duties, much less how to raise their children. No one forces you to circumcise your children, but if you choose to, you shouldn't be persecuted for doing so.
Considering that Phimosis has such a low occurrence rate, it may not be a justifiable reason for circumcision, but you and I know that that isn't the only reason for circumcision, and those justifications are not in your or my moral purview to be critical of. The real culprits of circumcisions are the ones being carried out on young girls and young women in Islamic nations in Africa and the Middle east. If you want to decry the practice, start there first. In the case of male circumcision, this is really a case of nothing to see here, move along.
Methadras, it goes without saying that the origin is in religious practice. It is hard to argue, however, that it is not sexual mutilation. As for the aesthetic considerations, we would need Titus to weigh in, or one of the more brazen heterosexual ladies.
Be grateful that Moses was done transcribing the dietary laws before the taco was discovered.
Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision
10. Get knocked out by Mohammed Ali.
9. Pull out your fingernails.
8. Eat a pile of steaming bear crap.
7. Skin yourself alive.
6. Fall into a vat of molten iron.
5. Get run over by a train.
4. Go through a sausage grinder.
3. Saw off your legs.
2. Poke out your eyes.
1. Go To Hell
American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this absurd surgery. If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world. The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female & male genitals.
OH for the love of...
Wow... how about, you know, not having a law that takes away the choice of people to have a medical procedure if they chose to do so.
Why is this, honest folks, how the EFF is this so obviously something that has to have choice taken away?
And right... the baby boy has no more choice than the downs syndrome child in the second or third trimester so don't pretend it's the least bit different, because if it IS then cutting off a foreskin without the child's permission is trivial compared to death.
Lord.
Stupid law. But wake me when they charge an imam rather than a rabbi. Then I'll know they're serious.
Ping: Free exercise of religion, cultural relativism, principled distinctions, and foreskins.
circumcision--proof, after all these years, that the gods of the desert religions are still running amok.
Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision
I am a circumcised male that has no memory of the experience (nor have I ever met anyone who claimed they did) and have never had a problem. I am very thankful that my parents weren't nuts.
If women refused to have sexual contact with uncircumcised males--as they should--we wouldn't be having this discusion.
Once women see Dune or Tremors, they could never take that requisite first step. Women have told me that they laughed when they saw their first "worm." And they had a hard time convincing the owner that it wasn't going to happen. Euro-weenies are especially sensitive and pushy. Some required a palliative knee to the groin to drive the point home. Just like when they tried to go for the anal, even when they were told not to a dozen times.
Sorry, Gene. But every time someone actually tests swabs of uncircumcised men, the majority test positive for nasty things. Being possible to clean does not correlate with doing so all every time. Or most times.
Darrell: If women refused to have sexual contact with uncircumcised males--as they should--we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Darrell. I wouldn't be too hasty in projecting your sexual preferences onto heterosexual women. A lot of them like sensitive men. As for your thinking foreskins are unclean, you obviously haven't heard of that new modern ritual--the daily shower. A further tip, shocking as it might now seem to you, a lot of real men now, when they're in the shower, also wash their armpits, feet and butts.
Gene, you weenie.
Deleting your previous comment and re-posting it after mine makes you look even more stupid/intellectually dishonest than you probably are. I am a heterosexual and the comments I heard are genuine. If you can't grasp that actual medical testing shows that most uncircumcised men don't clean properly based on the biological nasties that are actually found, there isn't much to talk about. The quick showers that most men take don't do the trick apparently on uncircumcised men. Circumcised men show no such organisms. Apparently, uncircumsised men don't spent the time and effort required to do a proper job. And the testing was done in Western countries, btw, all with modern plumbing and hygiene practices. As I said, it is possible to clean an uncircumcised penis properly. It's just not done in most cases.
Perhaps you are more sensitive because of some underlying infection. You should have that looked at. Most medical professional won't even laugh--in front of you. That should soothe your sensitive heart.
As for sensitivity, I couldn't say. I have no basis for comparison having been circumcised only a few days after birth. But from what I can say, it has always been sensitive enough. So much so that I had to learn to control my release by practice. A fine line there--knowing how to interpret the feedback, yet keep going to retain her interest and pleasure. I took going beyond a half-hour as an accomplishment. And going beyond that even more so.
Perhaps by saying that women prefer "sensitive men" you mean that they just want it over quickly. I can see why your women would feel that way. Me? I always preferred the ones that wanted to make it a ride to remember, looking for their next orgasm before they even received the last jolt of their first. But that's just me.
If you ever do encounter a problem that requires your circumcision, you may change your thoughts about your parent's original decision. Maybe if you think about your snarky, smug comments about the subject now, that will get you through the searing pain of the adult procedure. If not, you can always blame some "desert gods."
Darrell:Gene, you weenie. Deleting your previous comment and re-posting it after mine makes you look even more stupid/intellectually dishonest than you probably are.
I decided to write a new version of that post online before I'd seen your reply but you were so eager to see what I'd written you got to it before I could post an even funnier way to belittle your wizened brain.
Perhaps you are more sensitive because of some underlying infection.
Could be. I like to think though it's because I have twice the erogenous nerve endings of people who got their foreskins clipped before they ever had a clue what God's little special bounty might possibly be good for.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा