German appeals court decides against religious circumcision of children.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

But you cannot argue that postponing circumcision by almost two decades does not infringe on our religious freedom.

I wouldn't try to. Rather, I would say that religious freedom doesn't extend to harming children, and considering that circumcision results in amputation of the foreskin 100% of the time, I'd say it's a pretty harmful procedure. The only reason I'd allow it, if I were in charge of such things, is because I don't think banning it would make it go away.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Circumcision isn't routinely practiced in Europe on infants. So, "health reason" is likely to be only situations where circumcision is medically required (phymosis, typically).

The issue isn't what is done routinely, but what could be done. If I, who am from North America, wished to get my son circumcised in Germany - say, because I immigrated there - and I said "I've read the medical literature and I think the health benefits are worth it", would I be prosecuted for assault - if I could demonstrate that these benefits existed?

If so, it seems that the ruling is more about enforcing European cultural norms than it is about reasonable protection of bodily integrity.

And that is without even arguing anything concerning freedom of religion.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

The Torah is very clear that we should snip the penis AND that we should do so on the eighth day of life. Not allowing Jews to snip the baby boy on the eighth day is infringing on our religious freedom. You can argue 'So what?'. You can argue 'There is no G-d, so it doesn't matter anyhow!'. But you cannot argue that postponing circumcision by almost two decades does not infringe on our religious freedom.

But there are lots of things recommended by religions that are either ignored or illegal and are accepted as such, so the precedent is set.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

IANAJ, but if I'm not mistaken, the command is upon the father to have the son circumcised on the 8th day. So it is a restriction on the religious practice of Jewish adult men. Dunno about Muslim views.

It doesn't really matter. To take an egrerious example, if your religion mandated a baby sacrifice, forbiding this practice would hardly be controversial even though it would be a restriction on your religious practice.

As soon as a third party is involved, what *your* religion mandates becomes irrelevant. Basically, your right to practice your religion stops at the tip of my penis. And if I happen to be a 8 days old baby, hence unable to prevent you from practicing *your* religion on *my* body, then it's logical that the state would step in to protect my interests.

[Guinastasia]

I didn't see it in the article, but it's still allowed for medical necessity, like say, pimosis?

Originally Posted by cmkeller

The Torah says that the eighth day of a baby boy's life is the ideal time for him to be circumcised, and even when it can't be done on that exact date for various reasons, it should be done as soon as possible. Jewish belief definitely says that there are certain spiritual refinements that cannot be experienced by males who are uncircumcised. Disallowing parents from having their under-aged sons circumcised is absolutely an impediment to the practice of Judaism.

What if you discover at birth that your child is a hemophiliac, or for some other medical reason, cannot be circumcised?

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by steronz

I wouldn't try to. Rather, I would say that religious freedom doesn't extend to harming children, and considering that circumcision results in amputation of the foreskin 100% of the time, I'd say it's a pretty harmful procedure. The only reason I'd allow it, if I were in charge of such things, is because I don't think banning it would make it go away.

You would say. To my mind, an objective as opposed to a subjective test for "harm" is called for - that is, whether the health drawbacks appreciably outweigh benefits.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

But there are lots of things recommended by religions that are either ignored or illegal and are accepted as such, so the precedent is set.

Illegal? Such as? Keep in mind, the Supreme Court has ruled that Santarian animal sacrifice is legal.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by steronz

And if mohelim can't operate in public? Presumably even they know about sterile tools and proper procedures. I would guess that many if not most of them have some kind of medical background. If they're not free to practice their craft in public, they'll disappear and be replaced by less savory types who are willing to risk jailtime to make a buck. Or by people who just really enjoy cutting up dicks. I'm not sure I'd want either of those types around my kids' junk, if I were so inclined.

They won't disappear. A mohel is a religious person. They're providing a service. There have been other times in history where Jews have had to circumcise on the quiet.

Originally Posted by steronz

All of the mohelim that I've seen advertising their services tout their medical experience. Your experiences may be different, but to say that mohelim have no medical training isn't very accurate.

Yes, we used a Jewish doctor from the University. She had sterile instruments.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

It doesn't really matter. To take an egrerious example, if your religion mandated a baby sacrifice, forbiding this practice would hardly be controversial even though it would be a restriction on your religious practice.

As soon as a third party is involved, what *your* religion mandates becomes irrelevant. Basically, your right to practice your religion stops at the tip of my penis. And if I happen to be a 8 days old baby, hence unable to prevent you from practicing *your* religion on *my* body, then it's logical that the state would step in to protect my interests.

The issue to my mind is when the state should "step in" to protect the rights of an infant.

Obviously, the state should not "step in" where the concern is minor, or where reasonable people could disagree about a particular parenting decision.

There are all sorts of decisions parents must make about babies. The state should not be involved in them all, but only in selected ones - ones where the decision made is outside the bounds of the reasonable.

Baby sacrifice? Definitely.

How about whether to give an infant breastmilk or formula? Should the state mandate that? In fact, it's a more clear-cut case (if you will excuse the pun ) than circumcision.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Malthus

The issue isn't what is done routinely, but what could be done. If I, who am from North America, wished to get my son circumcised in Germany - say, because I immigrated there - and I said "I've read the medical literature and I think the health benefits are worth it", would I be prosecuted for assault - if I could demonstrate that these benefits existed?
.

I don't know but given that :

1) As I said, circumcision for infants isn't an usual practice in Europe

2) Saying "I read the medical literature and I think I should have this procedure done" rarely convinces a doctor, generally speaking.

I'm not sure you'd get a doctor to perform it. I don't know that for sure, obviously, but I wouldn't be much surprised if doctors only accepted to practice circumcision for religious reasons, or if only a subset of doctors accepted to practice it at all. Since nobody asks for their son to be snipped, you trying to do so on the basis on some unclear potential medical benefits might well get you only a from the staff.



I'm not clear on the detail of this particular case, but I understand that a doctor botched a circumcision in his private practice, and the baby was then brought into an hospital. That might mean that it was the hospital's medical staff who had an issue with the procedure and tipped the authorities (of course, the decision might be only a secondary result of some malpractice case or something like that).

[Chronos]

I wonder what the view would be of circumcision for non-religious cultural reasons? The vast majority of Americans are not members of religions that require circumcision, but the significant majority of Americans do so anyway, mostly just because "that's what everyone does". If an American expat family were living in Germany and wanted to circumcise their baby boy, what would the reaction be?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

I didn't see it in the article, but it's still allowed for medical necessity, like say, pimosis?

Doesn't it seem like a safe assumption that the law, as written and enforced, probably allows for medically necessary procedures?

What if you discover at birth that your child is a hemophiliac, or for some other medical reason, cannot be circumcised?

The Torah clearly states that if a baby boy has had three other brothers die as a result of circumcision, his parents are not obligated to circumcise him.

Originally Posted by Malthus

How about whether to give an infant breastmilk or formula? Should the state mandate that? In fact, it's a more clear-cut case (if you will excuse the pun ) than circumcision.

Actually, as more and better studies have been done, it's become far less clear that there's any medical benefit to breastfeeding.

[Thudlow Boink]

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the reasons, historical or otherwise, why routine circumcision has been so much more common in America than in Europe?

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I don't know but given that :

1) As I said, circumcision for infants isn't an usual practice in Europe

2) Saying "I read the medical literature and I think I should have this procedure done" rarely convinces a doctor, generally speaking.

It does in the US. From the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...0-c42e81a6a8fb

I'm not sure you'd get a doctor to perform it. I don't know that for sure, obviously, but I wouldn't be much surprised if doctors only accepted to practice circumcision for religious reasons, or if only a subset of doctors accepted to practice it at all. Since nobody asks for their son to be snipped, you trying to do so on the basis on some unclear potential medical benefits might well get you only a from the staff.

I'm not clear on the detail of this particular case, but I understand that a doctor botched a circumcision in his private practice, and the baby was then brought into an hospital. That might mean that it was the hospital's medical staff who had an issue with the procedure and tipped the authorities (of course, the decision might be only a secondary result of some malpractice case or something like that).

Whether you'd be able to get a doctor to perform it isn't the issue - the issue is whether it should be illegal for a doctor to perform it.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Illegal? Such as? Keep in mind, the Supreme Court has ruled that Santarian animal sacrifice is legal.

Pretty much all of the sanctions for breaking the ten commandments.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Actually, as more and better studies have been done, it's become far less clear that there's any medical benefit to breastfeeding.

Fair enough. Assume it is ten years ago, when the literature was more or less unanimous on the subject.

However, the changing nature of the literature brings up an additional point: that we as a society should not be too quick to condemn, and criminalize, choices such as this - where what appears to be a clear-cut case (heh) turns out to be wrong.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

What if you discover at birth that your child is a hemophiliac, or for some other medical reason, cannot be circumcised?

One may not honor any mitzvah to save a life except idalotry, incest and murder.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the reasons, historical or otherwise, why routine circumcision has been so much more common in America than in Europe?

It is a long and complex issue, the ultimate answer is probably financial. Routine circumcision died off in Britain after WW2 when universal government provided health care came into being, the gov did not want to pay for a pointless surgery.
It survived in the states due to insurance and profits, once you get enough generations of men circumcised it also becomes a self fullfilling social thing, the intact are freaks.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

Pretty much all of the sanctions for breaking the ten commandments.

But those penalties can only be handed down by a duly constituted Sanhedrin. There hasn't been one of those for a long time.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the reasons, historical or otherwise, why routine circumcision has been so much more common in America than in Europe?

The reasons were various, but generally had to do with the perception that circumcision was good for a person's health. The literature in the middle of the last century tended to discount health benefits, but by that time the practice had been so well established in NA that people did it anyway.

Then the pendulum swung back again, and the literature started to claim that there were, in fact, significant health benefits.

Here's an article on that:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...103/3/686.full

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

But those penalties can only be handed down by a duly constituted Sanhedrin. There hasn't been one of those for a long time.

That sounds like a dodge, If it were re-instituted would it be OK for the punishments to be handed out?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the reasons, historical or otherwise, why routine circumcision has been so much more common in America than in Europe?

It was popularized as a preventative for masturbation. (As far as I know, however, circumcised men masturbate nonetheless.)

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

That sounds like a dodge, If it were re-instituted would it be OK for the punishments to be handed out?

The only scenario I know of for a proper Sanhedrin to be re-instated is if the Moshiach comes. If he shows up, the entire would start following Jewish law and any US laws preventing that would be repealed.

[Max the Immortal]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I never cease to be amazed at the rancor some people express on this topic.

Pretty much every internet discussion I've witnessed on this topic has gotten very heated. People seem so passionate about the subject that IMO a parent weighing the pros and cons of getting their infant son circumcised should remember to put "He may grow up to bitterly resent me for doing it." in the cons column.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

The only scenario I know of for a proper Sanhedrin to be re-instated is if the Moshiach comes. If he shows up, the entire would start following Jewish law and any US laws preventing that would be repealed.

Good thing that'll never happen then. In the meantime I take great comfort that most people are happy to ignore the nasty religious bits that don't square with the modern world.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

It was popularized as a preventative for masturbation. (As far as I know, however, circumcised men masturbate nonetheless.)

Around the beginning of the last century some influential figures, like Dr. Kellogg of cornflakes fame, promoted the practice as a masturbation-preventer - but that was never the sole or even primary motive (and it was pretty easily disproved!).

What made it more than a fad among the followers of Dr. Kellogg and the like was the medical literature of the time, which claimed all sorts of health benefits from the practice.

By the 1960s, the practice was well established (and no-one was claiming it prevented wanking), and the medical literature was more or less unanimous in claiming that the alleged medical benefits previously claimed were bunk.

By the 1990s, the medical literature swung the other way, and is now claiming the practice *does* have medical benefits. Since then, that evidence has strengthened.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Pretty much every internet discussion I've witnessed on this topic has gotten very heated. People seem so passionate about the subject that IMO a parent weighing the pros and cons of getting their infant son circumcised should remember to put "He may grow up to bitterly resent me for doing it." in the cons column.

If you judge by internet debates, "being bitterly resented" is a standing risk for just about *any* parental decision, major or minor, starting with having a kid at all.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

Good thing that'll never happen then. In the meantime I take great comfort that most people are happy to ignore the nasty religious bits that don't square with the modern world.

A few things-

We don't sacrifice animals any more because we have no Temple. This doesn't stop the Orthodox from training the proper Jews in just how to do so. Indeed, phrases like 'And may Thy Temple be speedily rebuilt' are in plenty of prayers.

I'm not IGNORING anything. I am no more qualified to hand out Sanhedrin verdicts than I am to hand out US Supreme Court verdicts.

Finally, while (as I am sure you are aware) the Torah recommends the death penalty for all kinds of things, a Sanhedrin that handed down a death penalty more than once in seven years (some sources say seventy years) was known as a murderous court. Think about it for a moment, if every minor violation of a law got the death penalty there would quickly be no Jews left.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

. . . I never cease to be amazed at the rancor some people express on this topic.

I am circumcised (as most boys in the US were when I was born) and have never been in the slightest fussed about it. Everything works fine, women I've been with seem pleased, in short no problems whatsoever. . . .

Total agreement.

NOTE: I want to be clear that this in no way applies to female circumcision which is literally genital mutilation. That shit is truly fucked up and in no way comparable to male circumcision. Thankfully it is not widely practiced (but still alive and well in some parts of the world).

Actually, if the practice were limited to something that is closer to analogous -- removal of a portion of the clitoral hood -- that would generally be okay. In fact, in the 1970's, there was a brief fad for that among adult women. It was said to enhance sensitivity.

To me, it's about as unimportant as whether one's belly-button is an innie or an outie -- and some people have surgery to alter that, too. Should that be banned as "mutilation?"

[jackdavinci]

I was very happy to hear the news and hope it is the start of a worldwide trend.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Actually, if the practice were limited to something that is closer to analogous -- removal of a portion of the clitoral hood -- that would generally be okay. In fact, in the 1970's, there was a brief fad for that among adult women. It was said to enhance sensitivity.

Among adults, you say?

To me, it's about as unimportant as whether one's belly-button is an innie or an outie -- and some people have surgery to alter that, too. Should that be banned as "mutilation?"

People are having their children's bellybuttons surgically altered for cosmetic reasons?

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by grude

It is a long and complex issue, the ultimate answer is probably financial. Routine circumcision died off in Britain after WW2 when universal government provided health care came into being, the gov did not want to pay for a pointless surgery.

This may be the case but I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Just as a point of reference the current guidlines on circumcision in the UK NHS are here and a page on the advantages and disadvantages here. Essentially it is always available on health grounds and in some areas for religious reasons - down to the local Care Trust how it spends its money.

[Rune]

The state should only interfere with the parents right to raise their children however they choose. Circumcision, however disagreeable the practice, is not an extreme case. We do not want state owned children.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Malthus

It does in the US.

I know, but precisely we aren't talking about the US

Whether you'd be able to get a doctor to perform it isn't the issue - the issue is whether it should be illegal for a doctor to perform it.

Well, you asked if you would be prosecuted. I said that I wasn't sure you'd be able to have the procedure done in the first place. And it was relevant because some posters in this thread seemed to assume that anybody except Jews and Muslims could have it done because they would do it for medical reasons. And I'm not sure that it would be possible in practice. Again, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were *only* done for religious reasons in Germany.


As for whether it would be prosecutable assuming that you got it done, who knows? I would assume it's a possibility, and that it would be up to the local court to decide whether or not the alleged medical benefits are sufficiently proven and sufficiently significant to justify the procedure.

[grude]

Originally Posted by MarcusF

This may be the case but I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Just as a point of reference the current guidlines on circumcision in the UK NHS are here and a page on the advantages and disadvantages here. Essentially it is always available on health grounds and in some areas for religious reasons - down to the local Care Trust how it spends its money.

Routine does not equal medically indicated, circumcision in the USA was to the point in the 60s-70s they didn't even ask parental consent it was just done as a matter of course before infants were discharged from maternity wards. Very different from medically indicated circumcision.

http://www.noharmm.org/circamerica.htm

That article is on a anti-circumcision site, but it seems to cover the basics. The question is like asking why shaving pubic hair has become fashionable among some women, it has no concrete clear answer.

[MichaelEmouse]

"Novelty Bobble
But there are lots of things recommended by religions that are either ignored or illegal and are accepted as such, so the precedent is set."

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Illegal? Such as? Keep in mind, the Supreme Court has ruled that Santarian animal sacrifice is legal.

Mormon polygamy is an unambiguous case.

In Canada at least, Jehovah Witness parents cannot refuse that their child receive life-saving blood transfusions. A US lawyer could confirm whether or not the is the case there too.

I don't think a Sikh who tried to carry his blade with him on an airliner would be allowed. Do you?

A Muslim who honestly believed that his religion requires him to use loudspeakers/yelling to call people to prayer at 5 in the morning in a residential neighborhood would likely not be allowed either. Even though that's common in some Muslim countries and part of Muslim practice.



Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Or any other body part.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I wonder what the view would be of circumcision for non-religious cultural reasons? The vast majority of Americans are not members of religions that require circumcision, but the significant majority of Americans do so anyway, mostly just because "that's what everyone does". If an American expat family were living in Germany and wanted to circumcise their baby boy, what would the reaction be?

In Cologne, they would not be able to, however they could go to other parts of Germany.

Apparently the ruling said it has to be for a medical condition. Just saying "I've heard there are health benefits isn't enough."

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Finally, while (as I am sure you are aware) the Torah recommends the death penalty for all kinds of things, a Sanhedrin that handed down a death penalty more than once in seven years (some sources say seventy years) was known as a murderous court. Think about it for a moment, if every minor violation of a law got the death penalty there would quickly be no Jews left.

I have exactly zero knowledge of the Torah but surely it must say clearly whether it is seven or seventy years? A factor of ten doesn't sound too helpful.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I have exactly zero knowledge of the Torah but surely it must say clearly whether it is seven or seventy years? A factor of ten doesn't sound too helpful.

That is not from the Torah. It arose from the effort to never use the death penalty. Someone more scholarly than I will show up, probably Saturday night.
I gotta go light candles.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I have exactly zero knowledge of the Torah but surely it must say clearly whether it is seven or seventy years? A factor of ten doesn't sound too helpful.

I picked up that courts handed down the death penalty much less than the Torah would seem to indicate from numerous sources over the years. But the bit about seven or seventy years, I got from the SDMB's own Zev Steinhardt. Since he's more observant than I am, you'll have to wait til sundown tomorrow to ask him about it.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Zev Steinhardt

In reality, however, capital verdicts were very rare - to the point where the Talmud states that a court that executed a person in seven years (or seventy, according to some versions) was considered a "murderous court." There are several reasons for this, but one of the prime reasons was the rules of evidence in force at the time. Specifically, a capital crime would have to be witnessed by (at least) two male witnesses who are not related to each other, the victim or the perpetrator. The perpetrator would have to be warned beforehand that the crime he is about to commit is a capital crime and he would have to acknowledge the warning with words to the effect of "I understand but I'm going to commit the crime anyway"). As you can imagine, it is very tough, if not impossible, to carry out an execution under that kind of constraint.

From this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hlight=seventy

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

I picked up that courts handed down the death penalty much less than the Torah would seem to indicate from numerous sources over the years. But the bit about seven or seventy years, I got from the SDMB's own Zev Steinhardt. Since he's more observant than I am, you'll have to wait til sundown tomorrow to ask him about it.

It's commentary from the Mishnah. I forget from whom, but I remember that Akiva and Tarfon chimed in to say that had they been on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been put to death.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

It's commentary from the Mishnah. I forget from whom, but I remember that Akiva and Tarfon chimed in to say that had they been on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been put to death.

The terminology is alien to me. Are you saying that subsequent interpretation of the religious texts means that the punishments required were not always carried out?

[carnivorousplant]

Mishna is the oral law, figured out by a bunch of Rabbis sitting around talking about stuff until the wee hours of the morning.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

. . . People are having their children's bellybuttons surgically altered for cosmetic reasons?

I know of a few cases personally. No idea how prevalent it is...

Of course, it's standard medical practice to do *some* aesthetic work in tying off the umbilical cord, right in the first place. Otherwise, we'd all have outies.

I know it's just an opinion -- opinions are like armpits -- everyone has a couple -- but I see circumcision as no more controversial than umbilical cord tying.

Others...obviously!...differ!

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I know it's just an opinion -- opinions are like armpits -- everyone has a couple --

When she was in her cups, my MIL to be would speak of it in the singular.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Of course, it's standard medical practice to do *some* aesthetic work in tying off the umbilical cord, right in the first place. Otherwise, we'd all have outies.

. . . pretty sure that's not true, unless you're saying tying off the umbilical cord is in itself a cosmetic procedure. I was born at home, and I have an innie, as do most adults, in my experience. I'm relatively certain my parents did not ever have my belly button surgically corrected.

[Ibn Warraq]

I think Samuel Goldman had a good quote about this issue.


http://www.theamericanconservative.c...tlaws-judaism/

There’s no indication of specific hostility to Judaism here. Nevertheless, the ruling is the logical consequence of a concept of religion implied by Protestantism and articulated philosophically by Benedict Spinoza and John Locke. According to that view, religion is rooted in private belief. Associations and rituals are legitimate only to the extent that they are submitted to voluntarily by consenting adults, who can withdraw their consent at any time. And religious obligations can never trump the civil law.

There are good reasons that this position was appealing in the 17th and 18th centuries. Trouble is, we’ve forgotten not only that it doesn’t fit many older traditions, including Judaism and Roman Catholicism, but that it was specifically designed to exclude them. The understanding of religion’s legitimate sphere that informed the Cologne court’s ruling, in other words, is not theologico-politically neutral. It was, and remains, a polemical concept that elevates state over church, individual over community, consent over continuity in ways that traditional Catholics and Jews find hard to accept.

I think it's a good look at how some of the modern Protestant views of religious identification dramatically differ from those of other cultures.

I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins inveighing against referring to "Christian children", "Muslim children" or "Jewish children" on the grounds that children didn't choose their religion.

However, to Muslims, Jews, Armenians, and others religion is really something of a tribal identification that you're born into not something you "choose".

To them, Dawkins saying "nobody refer to a Muslim child" would be like saying "nobody refer to a Navajo child because children can't choose what culture they want to be a part of, only adults do."

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Of course, it's standard medical practice to do *some* aesthetic work in tying off the umbilical cord, right in the first place. Otherwise, we'd all have outies.

Nobodies ties the cord anymore, they use plastic clamps like this. The clamp isn't anywhere close to the bellybutton, the nub just falls off on its own. The shape of the bellybutton (innie or outie) is pure chance.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Finally, while (as I am sure you are aware) the Torah recommends the death penalty for all kinds of things, a Sanhedrin that handed down a death penalty more than once in seven years (some sources say seventy years) was known as a murderous court. Think about it for a moment, if every minor violation of a law got the death penalty there would quickly be no Jews left.

This is such clearly retarded apoligism that it is practically beneath me to point out the stupidity behind it. Do you still need me to? Do you think this proves any point whatsoever?

And the thing is I kind of agree with you in the sense that your mutilation of kids is not that evil, comparatively speaking, in terms of the results of it. If you don't think the right of the individual to genital integrity is worth anything then there is not much harm given by circumcision.

But gotta laugh at you trying to justify mosaic law. That's just stupid. And stop coveting my ass.