German court bans circumcision for religious reasons

Hygiene is the method of delivery chosen to cover up the fact that circumcision is a form of submission to the Hebrew god. Indoctrinated in the system since birth we are.

reply to post by Nspekta


Foreskin = fun.

Simple as that for me really. Why cut off something that gives so much pleasure?

We get all uppity about female circumcision (and rightly so), what is the difference with male circumcision? Good on the Germans.

I met lots of resistance when I refused to allow my kids to be circumsized. The whole family on both sides tried to talk us into having it done. I said no. They were born that way for a reason and there is no point in cutting them. They are now adults and have thanked me for it.

reply to post by Nspekta


While circumcision for religious reasons is an understandably contentious thing, I am personally against genital mutilation.

There are plenty of other things in religious text that we no longer adhere to. Men cut their hair for instance, but this barbaric act is allowed to continue.

If I had the choice, I would ban genital mutilation across the world, whether it's a witch doctor in Africa practicing this sick act on girls, or a Rabbi doing this to boys.

Under the very definition of the act, it is child abuse. I don't care if you're a parent in the USA agreeing to it without religious reason (which makes even less sense) or a religious crazy in another country - this act should be outlawed across the planet.

The only time a child's body should be modified in any way is if there is a risk to their life or health.

Circumcision is no different to a parent tattooing a baby. It is against the individual will, it is permanent, it is done at the will of adults without consent of the child and for their own motives.

It is disgusting, morally reprehensible and should be illegal.

Originally posted by tovenar

Hypocrites.

If it was a tattoo or a piercing, everyone would be raving about artistic expression.

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Are you suggesting that it is okay to tattoo someone against their will, because it's artistic expression?

The fact of the matter is that adults are making a choice to alter a child without their consent. That is the argument here. This is child abuse, and it would be the same if it were piercing or tattooing. If you did either of those things TO ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT it is assault, and in the case of a child it is abuse.

You're missing the fundamental fact that this is being done to another human against their will.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Nspekta

 

While circumcision for religious reasons is an understandably contentious thing, I am personally against genital mutilation.

There are plenty of other things in religious text that we no longer adhere to. Men cut their hair for instance, but this barbaric act is allowed to continue.

If I had the choice, I would ban genital mutilation across the world, whether it's a witch doctor in Africa practicing this sick act on girls, or a Rabbi doing this to boys.

Under the very definition of the act, it is child abuse. I don't care if you're a parent in the USA agreeing to it without religious reason (which makes even less sense) or a religious crazy in another country - this act should be outlawed across the planet.

The only time a child's body should be modified in any way is if there is a risk to their life or health.

Circumcision is no different to a parent tattooing a baby. It is against the individual will, it is permanent, it is done at the will of adults without consent of the child and for their own motives.

It is disgusting, morally reprehensible and should be illegal.

Thank you! Glad to see that there is still common sense in this insane world.

People who carry out circumcisions should have their faces circumcized.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by tovenar

Hypocrites.

If it was a tattoo or a piercing, everyone would be raving about artistic expression.

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Are you suggesting that it is okay to tattoo someone against their will, because it's artistic expression?

The fact of the matter is that adults are making a choice to alter a child without their consent. That is the argument here. This is child abuse, and it would be the same if it were piercing or tattooing. If you did either of those things TO ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT it is assault, and in the case of a child it is abuse.

You're missing the fundamental fact that this is being done to another human against their will.

Absolutely brilliant way of putting it, thanks.

Obviously though, as you have now basically accused those of a religious bent of child abuse (you haven't actually but im sure some will miss the point), i would strongly recommend reaching for the tin hat and deploying to the bunker......

reply to post by bluemirage5


Man is made in God's image. Is that what you've been taught? Then God is not circumcised.

Originally posted by HIWATT
The human body is pretty freaking amazing the way it is. I see no good reason to start slicing bits of it off, for any reason. Religious or otherwise.

Agree completely. Evolution and nature designed the body a certain way. No reason to alter the human physiology.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Nspekta

 

Religion? How about hygiene?

A person's own urine is the best solution to maintain a hygienic penis. Who the hell knows who and why started this process of slicing a bit of the foreskin is a mystery. There might have been valid reason(s) at that point in time in a particular region of settlement. However there are many countries where it is not a standard practice and life goes on just fine without much hygienic issues. Its all in the freakin head (no pun intended)

reply to post by Nspekta


Mutilation of genitals is religious? Yea right. Its a tag marker of a slave. Just like cattle. Cheers to the Germans! To hell with the religious authority to mutilate and traumatize someone from birth.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

Who says God is not circumcised?

God is no man or woman. Its a source, the one. A energy. I do not see god as a human like being.


I wrote something that I regret, I sure your are not stupid. I deleted my original post and altered it

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Are you suggesting that it is okay to tattoo someone against their will, because it's artistic expression?

The fact of the matter is that adults are making a choice to alter a child without their consent. That is the argument here. This is child abuse, and it would be the same if it were piercing or tattooing. If you did either of those things TO ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT it is assault, and in the case of a child it is abuse.

You're missing the fundamental fact that this is being done to another human against their will.

In the US it is common for young girls to have their ears pierced while they are quite young, because it's "cute." The daughters are too young to give consent. But no state in the union outlaws piercing the ears of children.

vaccination is also altering the child without their consent, in a physical, permanent, and painful way.

The short answer is, people who oppose circumcision are practically all simply anti religion, and using it as one more assault on the value-systems of other cultures. Humans love telling each other what to do, and the anti-religion crowd hope that by stopping circ they could somehow stem the growth of religion.


For a Jew, circumcision is the mark that you only exist because God decided on the course of history where you are born. Abraham had only one son, and if God had demanded that son be offered up as a sacrifice of the first-born (like other religions of the day) there would be no Jews. That mark reminds every Jew that he exists not as an accident, but as an act of Divine will.

Tell a Jew that he didn't choose to be circumcised, and he will you that he didn't choose to be a Jew either. But Judaism, like the scar, is for life.

Outlawing it? Good luck with that. Get in line with the oppressors of faith from Antiochus Epiphanes down to Stalin. Where are they? In the dustbin of history, while another generation of Jews raises their sons to keep the birthright. Along with a half a billion Muslims and a half billion Christians.

Of course the state hates religion, because religion is something it cannot control. The culture hates religion because religion instills values that cannot be easily warped by the controlling elites. Religion is the deepest identity. Deeper than nation or even race or family. And so secular culture hates religion. It hates religion with the force of envy.

Originally posted by tovenar

The short answer is, people who oppose circumcision are practically all simply anti religion, and using it as one more assault on the value-systems of other cultures. Humans love telling each other what to do, and the anti-religion crowd hope that by stopping circ they could somehow stem the growth of religion.


For a Jew, circumcision is the mark that you only exist because God decided on the course of history where you are born. Abraham had only one son, and if God had demanded that son be offered up as a sacrifice of the first-born (like other religions of the day) there would be no Jews. That mark reminds every Jew that he exists not as an accident, but as an act of Divine will.

Tell a Jew that he didn't choose to be circumcised, and he will you that he didn't choose to be a Jew either. But Judaism, like the scar, is for life.

Outlawing it? Good luck with that. Get in line with the oppressors of faith from Antiochus Epiphanes down to Stalin. Where are they? In the dustbin of history, while another generation of Jews raises their sons to keep the birthright. Along with a half a billion Muslims and a half billion Christians.

Of course the state hates religion, because religion is something it cannot control. The culture hates religion because religion instills values that cannot be easily warped by the controlling elites. Religion is the deepest identity. Deeper than nation or even race or family. And so secular culture hates religion. It hates religion with the force of envy.

So using the logic of your post female genital mutilation is ok too, if its for religion

If not your ideology is flawed....No.?

Originally posted by tovenar

The short answer is, people who oppose circumcision are practically all simply anti religion, and using it as one more assault on the value-systems of other cultures. Humans love telling each other what to do, and the anti-religion crowd hope that by stopping circ they could somehow stem the growth of religion.


For a Jew, circumcision is the mark that you only exist because God decided on the course of history where you are born. Abraham had only one son, and if God had demanded that son be offered up as a sacrifice of the first-born (like other religions of the day) there would be no Jews. That mark reminds every Jew that he exists not as an accident, but as an act of Divine will.

Tell a Jew that he didn't choose to be circumcised, and he will you that he didn't choose to be a Jew either. But Judaism, like the scar, is for life.

Outlawing it? Good luck with that. Get in line with the oppressors of faith from Antiochus Epiphanes down to Stalin. Where are they? In the dustbin of history, while another generation of Jews raises their sons to keep the birthright. Along with a half a billion Muslims and a half billion Christians.

Of course the state hates religion, because religion is something it cannot control. The culture hates religion because religion instills values that cannot be easily warped by the controlling elites. Religion is the deepest identity. Deeper than nation or even race or family. And so secular culture hates religion. It hates religion with the force of envy.

no, religion is not the deepest identity, personality and individuality are the deepest identities. It is sad to think of 2 billion people as 'muslim' or 'jewish' when they each have their own personalities that usually have nothing to do with religion. Since only the ultra orthodox/fundamentalists care about following every mundane and illogical rule of religion, the majority of "christians", "muslums", etc are secular if not atheist and don't care about religious affiliation.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
The problem is a cultural one..

culture is an excuse for all sorts of crap, along with religion.

It used to be that we ate each other - anyone want to defend that concept on religious or cultural grounds now??

How about restoring Aztec culture and occasionally ripping out a heart??

no??

humans are more important than beliefs.

Originally posted by Nspekta
Does anyone think this is suppressing religion too much? What would happen if that was a new law in North America (hypothtical of course)?

No, I consider it mutilation unless there is a medical reason for it.

If a religion asked for a left eye of every newborn to be removed, in praise of the lord, would it be suppression of religion to put a stop to that practice, no matter how archaic it may be?


Khar

Originally posted by tovenar

The short answer is, people who oppose circumcision are practically all simply anti religion,

And what is wrong with that?

Originally posted by tovenar

Hypocrites.

If it was a tattoo or a piercing, everyone would be raving about artistic expression.

It is the attempt to kill religious culture. The problem with the Jewish religion is that it stands in the way of having a one world government. The globalists cannot stand for groups to have their own personal identity apart from the state.

The state thinks nothing of giving a child a vaccination, which will leave a permanent scar, and expose the infant to definite medical risks. But in that case it is OK because the state is making the choice for an infant and its family. The state cannot stand a competitor (synagogue), vying for authority over anyone's life, even self-imposed.

Tattoo is artistic expression -- on yourself!

I would not support tattooing children any more than mutilation of children by circumcision. To suggest that tattooing children for religion should be ok is ridiculous.


Khar