The new circumcision thread! Circumcision of boys declared illegal in Germany!

[krischan]

I don't think at all that it is anti-semitic. I'm immune against wannabe knockout arguments.

I also don't care what Islamic people are doing in reaction, as long as they obey the law. If they don't... well, then they will be our enemies instead.

For the sake of completeness, circumcision for males was also made to prevent masturbation because the glans loses sensitivity if it's not covered by skin. I didn't make that up that reason, you can find it in older texts as well. Of course, hygiene is enough of a justification in case of countries where availability of so elemental things like soap and clean water aren't self-evident. Maybe it's enough lack of it if you cannot afford exchanging your undies every day.

There's a reason why the skin didn't disappear through evolution yet. However, evolution has not caught up yet with our quickly changing modern world.

[jmervyn]

I don't think at all that it is anti-semitic. I'm immune against wannabe knockout arguments.

The argument is one of perception, which we're already discussing in the other thread. Semites, both Muslim and Jewish, view it as anti-Semitic.

I also don't care what Islamic people are doing in reaction, as long as they obey the law. If they don't... well, then they will be our enemies instead.

Yet they consider this law an affront to their human dignity. What to do?!?!

For the sake of completeness, circumcision for males was also made to prevent masturbation because the glans loses sensitivity if it's not covered by skin. I didn't make that up that reason, you can find it in older texts as well.

Links or it never happened. I've certainly never heard that one, and there's definitely not a lack of sensitivity.

There's a reason why the skin didn't disappear through evolution yet. However, evolution has not caught up yet with our quickly changing modern world.

If one buys into micro-evolution to that degree, as opposed to simple adaptation, then there's any number of similar failings.

[krischan]

The argument is one of perception, which we're already discussing in the other thread. Semites, both Muslim and Jewish, view it as anti-Semitic.

I only regard it as anti-semitic if was decided like that because it's about **** and Muslims and not about cutting the willy of small boys. Calling it anti-semitic is a bit similar to what you call "playing" the race card, just with restect to religions htan ethnic groups:

Yet they consider this law an affront to their human dignity. What to do?!?!

Let a court decide. German laws are interpreted and applied how German judges see fit. In Israel and Saudi-Arabia, they can handle things as they like. I agree that deciding for the one or the other isn't a matter which will shatter the foundation of humanity, however.

Links or it never happened. I've certainly never heard that one, and there's definitely not a lack of sensitivity.

I will do so when I'm back home, but that might be just second hand knowledge. You have to admit that such a motive was possible,however. Of course, the main reason is that it's mentioned in their holy texts, respectively.

If one buys into micro-evolution to that degree, as opposed to simple adaptation, then there's any number of similar failings.

Adaptation is one of the results of evolution. Small changes need thousands of generations to have a significant effect, however. 1000 generations are 20000 years.

[jmervyn]

I only regard it as anti-semitic if was decided like that because it's about **** and Muslims and not about cutting the willy of small boys. Calling it anti-semitic is a bit similar to what you call "playing" the race card, just with restect to religions htan ethnic groups:

Well, if a piece of legislation is directly invoked against a specific group of people, does that constitute playing the race card? I'm not saying I buy the anti-Semitic claim implicitly either, since this strikes me more as an anti-religious piece of legislation.

You have to admit that such a motive was possible,however. Of course, the main reason is that it's mentioned in their holy texts, respectively.

Nope, and not just because I'm being disagreeable. Why in the world would supposedly male-dominated institutions choose to doom future members to a life of theoretical frustration? This isn't the same as monks sprinkling bitter herbs on their food to deny their bodies pleasure; that sort of self-flaggelation is generally more among members of the clergy. Circumcision has roots that go WAY back, long before the philosophies of Epicureans or Stoics.

Adaptation is one of the results of evolution. Small changes need thousands of generations to have a significant effect, however.

I don't know how many would subscribe to that concept (micro-evolution). If adaptation would shorten a foreskin or eliminate an appendix, then there ought to be similar mutations that have a larger foreskin or a second appendix for double the inflammation fun. Furthermore, if the micro-evolution was in reaction to circumcision, then the effect should be pronounced. It's a pretty old concept, if you weren't aware, and predates Judaism.

[BobCox2]

Well, if a piece of legislation is directly invoked against a specific group of people, does that constitute playing the race card? I'm not saying I buy the anti-Semitic claim implicitly either, since this strikes me more as an anti-religious piece of legislation.

See I see this as more like it's one of the cases where multiple related religions are clearly wrong, like creationism, origin of the universe and other primitive ideas and we should outlaw it's stupidity in the name of tradition.

As it's a health issue and not just a belief, more like the parents denying medical treatment but even worse IMHO, action needs to be taken.
Lives will be saved from infant genital mutilation and it's consequences.


It's a New World in Germany

<****** class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bs5bnVoZK4Q?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0">


/sarcasm
I Win In This One

[krischan]

Well, if a piece of legislation is directly invoked against a specific group of people, does that constitute playing the race card? I'm not saying I buy the anti-Semitic claim implicitly either, since this strikes me more as an anti-religious piece of legislation.

It tempts some people to play the anti-semitism card, but it wasn't anti-semitic. That would mean that the court decided in that manner because it is a Jewish practice and not for the reasons which they gave. If you say something like that impulsively and out of anger, well OK, but I despise defamation if it's made knowingly and with calculation.

Nope, and not just because I'm being disagreeable. Why in the world would supposedly male-dominated institutions choose to doom future members to a life of theoretical frustration? This isn't the same as monks sprinkling bitter herbs on their food to deny their bodies pleasure; that sort of self-flaggelation is generally more among members of the clergy. Circumcision has roots that go WAY back, long before the philosophies of Epicureans or Stoics.

I think the Old Testament clearly condemns masturbation. There are more possible reasons for disallowing that. Circumcision might be older than the judaic religions. Maybe it started in the stone age, so the penis looks better or appeared longer or whatever. A lot of the stone age paintings probably qualify as porn.

[jmervyn]

we should outlaw it's stupidity in the name of tradition.

Fascist much, Bob?

Lives will be saved from infant genital mutilation and it's consequences.

I wish this was what you were using the sarcasm about. FGM is ghastly, but it's only deadly when done "back alley" (which is part of the concern). Circumcision, OTOH, has something close to a 0% mortality over the years, UNLESS done to an adult. Kind of like tonsils, as I already pointed out.

It tempts some people to play the anti-semitism card, but it wasn't anti-semitic.

Were you in the court? How can you say?

I despise defamation if it's made knowingly and with calculation.

You're in the wrong place then, since all you need to do is read Bob's previous to see it in action. Sincerely, though, the **** and Muslims consider it targeted at them specifically, even though it wasn't stated - Circumcision is not a standard practice for Christians any longer though it was at one point (again, more due to cleanliness than religious purpose).

I think the Old Testament clearly condemns masturbation.

Nope. Onan's sin was not jacking off, but intentionally disobeying Yahweh's direct command (father some kids so that your extended family doesn't wither). Looks like you need some more schoolin'...

Maybe it started in the stone age, so the penis looks better or appeared longer or whatever.

Well, appearances aside, one great big issue is the same cleanliness concept given contemporary environmental concerns. Just as pork and shellfish are forbidden, or wiping your butt with the same hand you shake and eat with.

[krischan]

Were you in the court? How can you say?

I read the justification, but I'm pretty sure that if the court made anti-semitic statement, the press would be full of it.

You're in the wrong place then, since all you need to do is read Bob's previous to see it in action. Sincerely, though, the **** and Muslims consider it targeted at them specifically, even though it wasn't stated - Circumcision is not a standard practice for Christians any longer though it was at one point (again, more due to cleanliness than religious purpose).

It hasn't been decided in that manner because it was about **** and muslims, else I would agree to accusations of anti-semitism.

Nope. Onan's sin was not jacking off, but intentionally disobeying Yahweh's direct command (father some kids so that your extended family doesn't wither). Looks like you need some more schoolin'...

I didn't use the term onany nor did I refer to Onan. I talked about masturbation. Better be careful with adjucating my degree of knowledge when using or referring to the wrong bible passages :P

Well, appearances aside, one great big issue is the same cleanliness concept given contemporary environmental concerns. Just as pork and shellfish are forbidden, or wiping your butt with the same hand you shake and eat with.

I agree, maybe the girls of the stone age didn't like to do all the popular things with a stinky penis.

[jmervyn]

I read the justification, but I'm pretty sure that if the court made anti-semitic statement, the press would be full of it.

I'm not saying that the court would be stupid about it, but it's definitely viewed as being unilateral in nature.

I didn't use the term onany nor did I refer to Onan. I talked about masturbation. Better be careful with adjucating my degree of knowledge when using or referring to the wrong bible passages :P

Okay, smart guy, please cite chapter & verse of what you ARE referring to?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

If God had wanted men to have foreskins, he would have made men with foreskins.

Clearly He didn't, so there's no reason to be even having this conversation. I mean, it's not like devoutly religious folk who believe Man was made in God's image would set about disfiguring God's image, is it? That would be just crazy. And immoral. And blasphemous. And maybe a little bit tacky.

Let's have no more talk about the myth of male circumcision please.