Not necessarily so, since some Jews would be opposed, on religious grounds, to the temple being rebuilt now (assuming there would be no mosque on the top of it, etc…)
Which once again proves only that it’s central to Judaism, not that Judaism would dissapear if it wasn’t done this way.
I almost mentionned it in my previous post, but since you’re doing the job :
So, it’s actually possible to be a Jew despite not having been circumcized on the 8th day? One can wait until adul age and considered as a Jew??? How weird and surprising!!!
If so, how comes you’re believing that it couldn’t apply to the children of Jewish parents, but rather would utterly destroy this religion?
Of course, it doesn’t prevent you from changing religion. But it doesn’t make my statement any less true : circumcision practiced for religious reasons is actually engraving a belief in someone’s flesh. It would be the same with a tatoo or a ritual scarification.
[…]
I don’t think it’s inhumane or else I would voice my opinion in a much harsher way. I only say that it being a religious practice, however important for some people has no bearing on the issue. Only the consequences for the child should be considered.
Personnally, I think it’s at best a pointless practice, and which might possibly have adverse consequences. Hence that it should be discouraged. If you want to “get” what is my feeling about it, imagine that the discussion is about cutting a bit of the left ear of the newborns, or something like that. You’d probably feel the same I currently feel about circumcision.
Hey, Weirddave, calling me a cunt and using extra-big font doesn’t make you right. Although if it gives you that much self-satisfaction to be such an angry person, go for it. It’s kind of cute to see you so riled up.
You know what? If G-d had said, “Abraham, cut off a bit of the left ear of your newborn sons”, this conversation would still be happening, only about a bit of the newborn’s ear being cut off, not the foreskin of the penis.
I frankly fail to see the big hairy deal. Unless you have a penis or a male child, why do you care?
Hey, I know that my rather minor post got lost amongst all the lunacy here, but I’m becoming increasingly curious about what y’all’s viewpoint is on my grandfather. He was adamant that my father get circumcised, because he (my grandfather) wasn’t curcumcised, and he had all sorts of trouble with it (infections, unsanitary, I am guessing). My grandfather did not want that same grief for his son (my dad).
Did my grandfather do the “wrong” thing? Was he some terribly out of line because he decided to have his infant son cut up in such a way? Huh?
I honestly have no clue where to go here. Clair is sticking her fingers in her ears and screaming LALALALA, and I have no idea why. You are telling Jews what it means to be Jewish, and then telling them that they are wrong when they correct you! I have no idea weather this is arrogance or stupidity. With catsix it’s both, I’m not sure with you. Please, tell me, in little tiny words so I can understand, why you think you have the right, or even the place, to tell Jews how they can practice their religion, and why you are totally ignoring the scripture and history upon which the practice is based, along with totally discounting the actual testimony of real live Jews.
No, being right makes me right, along with providing evidence for my side of the debate that is not just “because I said so” You might want to try it sometime.
I wasn’t refering to the law, but to morals. Your religious beliefs don’t give you a right to harm another person. Hence if circumcision is harmful, it shouldn’t be practised.
Besides, I’m not convinced that it’s authorized by law because it’s not harmful rather than because it’s an accepted custom. If circumcision , instead of being a Jewish practice, was a practice of, say, the Haoussas, , I’m absolutely not convinced that it wouldn’t be banned in western countries and that immigrants having it done wouldn’t be reviled.
Do you notice that these two points are in contradiction with each other? If no one really knows, how could you know if it interferes or not. Anyway, I’m circumcized, so I don’t need any explanation.
That would be a totally different topic. From my point of view, these religions are as well-founded and useful as say, tarot reading. With the added bonus of making some people pushing for various laws on the basis of their superstitions, or in extreme cases, planting bombs for the same reason. So, yes, for me, getting rid of religions would certainly be a good thing.
Well…I merely mentionned the Occitans because I was speaking about the disparition of cultures and that it happened that my signature was precisely a reference to this, not because it was a matching example. You can keep the Tuaregs or whoever else instead. A culture dissapearing is a sad event. And cultural differences are fading, cultures are dissapearing under our eyes. But as I wrote above, it’s another topic entirely.
What kind of religious opression do I indulge in (apart if you consider stating that religions are superstitions which can be harmful is a form of “oppression”)? Where did I say I want to screw the people who are religious? I merely state that their beliefs don’t give them special rights. Hence that in the example we’re are discussing, parent’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be taken into consideration. That’s the child who is circumcized, not the parents. And he has no religious belief that would be trampled on by not circumcizing him.
For the umpteenth time, either the practice is harmful, either it isn’t, and if it is, the parents thinking, on the basis of their religion, that the baby should be circumcized is exactly as valid an argument as other parents thinking, still on the basis of their religion, that their son shouldn’t get a blood transfusion.
And it doesn’t occur to you that what we dislike is presicely that people (the parents) are making someone else’s (the child) decision for him??? And not a decision about education, table manners, or somesuch, but a medical decision which usually isn’t left up to the parents to do freely. If I were a parent asking a surgeon to, say, cut the left little toe of my baby, there’s no way it would be done, depite me being the father, even if I argued about my deep religious feelings.
And then, if I came to complain about this refusal on this board, I certainly would be asked to prove that it isn’t harmful to have a toe-cutting surgery done. Saying you should prove it’s harmful to cut the left little toe wouldn’t cut it as an argument. So, yes, I do believe it’s up to people favoring this apparently unuseful and possibly harmful surgery to prove that it has beneficial consequences, or at the very least, no harmful ones.
That’s the main point we’re disagreeing about. I don’t think that the fact it’s a religious practice as any bearing on the matter and that religious beliefs should enjoy special protections (anyway, only mainstream religions get cut some slash this way. If I do found a religion including toe-cutting as a basic tenet, who could tell that my belief is any less valid that the Jewish one? Who could prove that I didn’t receive this as a command from God? But in practice it wouldn’t cut it. Only established and traditionnal religions enjoy this kind of protection).
To sum up, I don’t think I’ve to wonder whether a law on this issue (or any other issue, for that matter) is compatible with religious practices or beliefs any more than with any other kind of non-reliigious practices and customs. If the law is sound and serves its purpose (for instance in this case, protecting thehealth of the child) then I wouldn’t care about religion-grounded objections. Only about objections based on objective facts (in this case, medical datas, for instance).
I would not also that few religious practices have permanent consequences on third parties. And I must say it irritates me that people doesn’t seem to think that in this case, the baby is a third party in relation to his parents. If any religious belief should be taken into consideration, it should be his, not theirs. And of course, he has no such beliefs. Preventing an adult who converted to Judaism from being circumcized could be harming the right to practice one’s religion. But here, you’re protecting person A religious beliefs at the possible expense of person B. Which isn’t at all the same thing.
[quote]
Besides, don’t you think there should be at least a small amount of justification when destroying a religion? I mean, just a little bit?
[/quote)
There has been X post stating that a ban on child circumcision would result in the destruction of Judaism, but still not a single shred of evidence showing that such would be the case. And you know…I don’t believe for an instant that it would have such a result.
Which first sentence? And how did you construct such a thing from my posts exactly? If I understand correctly, saying that religious beliefs shouldn’t be taken into consideration by the legislator amounts to state-mandated atheism? :rolleyes: For some reasons, I trhought it was more akin to “separation of church and state” and such silly concepts. Yes, I’m this kind of oppressor who thinks that laws shouldn’t be drafted to follow or support religious beliefs.(which of course will result eventually in churches being closed, believers jailed, sacred books publically burned since it’s necessarily a result of such revolutionnary ideas)
Logical fallacy. “It has always been done this way” isn’t an authoritative argument. Not worth responding.
I do.
I know as much as you on the issue. And what I say has nothing to do with how a penis should be like, but about pointless surgery being done without medical reasons. There aren’t two versions of babies, those with foreskin and those without. We’re all born with foreskin. Not having one necessitates a surgical operation. So, once again, yes, it’s up to you to bring evidences that this operation involves no risk, has no harmful consequences, or that at the contrary it has beneficial consequences. Lacking this evidences, it’s exactly as justified as left little toe cutting. Are you the only one knowing what a foot should be like?
Finally, I’m irritated to discuss endlessly about the consequences of circumcision, since my point in entering this debate wasn’t to discuss its merits or lack thereof, but to argue that the religious beliefs of the parents were not genuine to the question at hand and that the fact some people believe they are mandated by god to cut off a little bit of their sons is irrelevant. A medical decision should be taken only with the well-being of the patient in mind. Not other people religious concerns.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Apart from that, there no way to decide objectively that a child is better off being raised in the way A than in the way B. At the contrary, the value of medical procedures are generally objectively stutied, they are done in a controlled environment, and they are normally undergone only in the best interest og the patient with the expectation of a net benefit health-wise, not just done at the fancy of a third party. You’re comparing apples and carrots.
It has been explained to me that circumcision is central to Judaism a dozen times at least in this thread. Thanks, but I think I got it. Actually, at the risk of shocking you, I must say I already knew it.
And still, weirdly enough, I think it’s not relevant. For the umpteenth time, I think that the religious beliefs of the parents should have no bearing on the medical procedures undergone on their children.
Indeed. But my point was to make clear my feelings on the issue. Routine circumcision seems to me as valid a concept as routine ear-clipping.
What I actually care about, as I think I made abundantly clear, is the fact that some people think that a p)arent dearly held religious belief is a valid argument when discussing about the merits of a medical procedure.
Howewer, for the record, I do have a penis, and actually a circumcized one.
Yes, I’m posting on Saturday. I am not shomer shabbos. Months of trying to be strictly observant, led to my sleeping from sundown friday until sundown saturday. Rather than being closer to G-d, I felt depressed, failed, and guilty. I had a nice chat with G-d, and we came to a new arrangement. That may sound cavalier. It’s the short, witnessing-lite, version.
I did not make this decision easily or arbitrarily. Nor did I try being shomer shabbos for an hour, give up, and turn on cartoons. I’m manic depressive with a tendency toward being nocturnal (there have periods lasting months in which I wake in the afternoon and go to sleep at sunrise), and hypersomnia (During the really bad times, I may sleep twenty hours straight). Sleeping another twelve hours every saturday, and then getting really depressed about it were not minor things for me. I turned to G-d with my problem, and He told me what He wanted me to do.
So, it’s the first option. You still don’t understand how important circumcision is in Judaism.
WeirdDave did a fine job of explaining it.
Circumcision is the mark of the covenant that created the Jews. Without that covenant, we’re just another group of people.
More, according to the Torah, circumcision does have to occur
In what post did I whine or cry?
I presented two possibilities. You’ve demonstrated very well that you simply do not understand, despite repeated explanations, how important circumcision is in Judaism.
It is protected. Note the lack of any laws against it. Note the lack of mohels being arrested.
My statement about what Zev and I feel was not in response to a legal question. You said
I interpreted your statement as ‘Why do you circumise?’ that’s the question I answered.
And I most certainly do have a Constitutional right to have a mohel circumcise my son on the eighth day of his life. Since you disagree, maybe you should try getting SCOTUS to hear your case. Or, perhaps you could have one of the Dopers esquire find the law banning circumcision.
Re The Temple
Many things, animal sacrifice is one, can only be performed at the Temple. As there is no Temple at this time, we cannot perform these things.
The general consensus on rebuilding the Temple, is that it will happen when the messiah comes. As far as we know, he hasn’t shown up yet.
Can you tell me what exactly I don’t want to hear? You’re saying the same things over and over again “it’s centrel to Judaism…blahblahblah…it’s not a terrible and highly dangerous practice…blahblahblah…most circumcized adult males don’t care…blahblahblah…”. So I too answer the same things. What do you expect? That suddenly I would see the light and change my mind on the fact that the parent beliefs is irrelevant? Why should I? What argument were advanced to this effect, apart blunt unbacked statements (“It will destroy Judaism!!”) ludicrous and offensive accusations (“you’re up to enforce state-mandated atheism”), and in the case of ** catsix ** , name-calling?
And can you point to me where I did so? In case you didn’t notice it, despite me having written it a dozen times at least (perhaps you should stop singing “lalalala” and actually read my posts), I couldn’t care less about what it means for a Jew to be Jewish in this case. I say that their beliefs are irrelevant to the issue of whether circumcision should be a routinely accepted medical procedure or not.
Once again, if I firmly believe that the world will come to an end if my son doesn’t have his little toe cut off, does it mean that the surgeon should accept to cut it? Do you have to prove that it’s harmful to deny me the religious freedon of having a little toe-free child? If not, then, why would the Jews beliefs be any more relevant than mine?
Already explained it a lot of times. Because the parent and the child are too different persons. It’s the child who is circumcised, but it’s the parent who “practices”. Religious practices usually don’t involve actions undertaken on other persons unable to consent and with permanent consequences. Choosing to be circumcized because it’s part of your religion isn’t the same thing at all that choosing to have someone else circumcised for the same reason.
I’m not ignoring it. I say it’s IRRELEVANT. Would I need to use bolded 2 inch high characters too in order to get the message through?
Which testimony am I ignoring exactly? About what? The only testimonies by Jews in this thread are about circumcision being central to their belief system. You know what? : I UNDERSTOOD (for the 20th time or so). And once again : IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUMENTS. Get it?
Those sound like statements of fact to me. As such, I am going to have to ask for a cite. Can you cite one case where the practice of circumcision as a religious ritual was deemed unconstitutional? Just ONE, even if were later overturned? 'Cause that would really help your argument.
Well, it seems like my polite question is still being ignored, so I’m going to ask it again, and I’m going to make it really obvious so it’ll be more difficult to overlook:
CATSIX and CLAIROBSCUR, this question is directed specifically at you.
As I’ve related two times now, my grandfather insisted that my dad (his son) be circumcised, because my grandfather was uncircumcised and felt it was a detriment—a big nuisance, unsanitary, hassle, whatever. Grandfather was adamant that my dad be circumcised so that he (my dad) wouldn’t suffer like my grandfather did.
What is your opinion of this? Was my grandfather abusive? Was he out of line? Was he a monster? What? Please. I’m most curious at this point to hear your opinion on this matter. Thank you.
If you think that belief is contained in a scar, or in a circumcision, or in a tatoo, then you’re sadly mistaken. No wonder you’re not so hot on religion, you don’t seem to understand it.
A belief is contained in your head, in your mind, in your consciousness and understanding of the ideas that the belief stands for. A circumcision is just a physical manifestation of that belief, a way to say “hey G-d, i believe in you.” It’s central to Judaism because it’s the way G-d has chosen for a Jew to demonstrate that belief. Generally, if the big man upstairs tells you to do something, you don’t argue with it. That’s how a religion works. It’s usually a non-negotiable contract.
If you decide to convert from Judaism to another religion, the fact that you’re circumcised does not mean you are still a Jew. It ceases to have the same significance once you convert. It might say “My parents raised me as a Jew,” or “at one point i was Jewish,” but there’s no way it proclaims “Hey, i’m still a Jew”, just by virtue of the fact that your core beliefs have changed inside your mind.
It’s not like being circumcised will brand him as an outcast in normal society. A person seeing that the convert is circumcised will not automatically say “Hey, that guy is Jewish!” He’ll be indistinguishable from any other guy whose parents opted for circumcision.
Since i’m not Jewish, i’d like DocCathode or someone more knowledgeable to come along and correct me if i’m wrong, but that’s my understanding.
Well, you’re right for the individual, religion can be rejected or changed, but the feeling in the Jewish community is generally “Onec a Jew, always a Jew”, it’s kinda like the Mafia-easy to get in, impossible to get out. The problem here is that you’re conflicting with the dichotomoy of Jewishness-Judiasm as a religion and Jewish as an ethnicity. I happen to know someone who conciders herself an athiest Jew-because she doesn’t believe in the Jewish religion, but considers herself Jewish because her family and ancestors are.
Actually, unless you’re born Jewish, it’s rather difficult to get in. Becoming a Jew means accepting many responsibilities. There’s concern that a quick and easy conversion might change somebody from a righteous gentile to a sinning Jew. It is impossible to get out though. There is no formal way, AFAIK, to renounce Judaism or any kind of excommunication (people can be placed in cherem, but this is more of a censure and banishment, than a declaration that the person is no longer Jewish).
My question, though, was not about medically required orthodontia (which is, I believe, a very tiny portion of the amount of orthodontia practiced) but purely cosmetic orthodontia.
You see, I am curious as to why so many are up in arms about circumcision, when this (in my opinion, and I think objectively) much more serious infringement on the autonomy of children - which (unlike circumcision) supports a rather large industry of doctors, costs billions of dollars a year, and is not required by any religion - goes totally unremarked.
Further, the question was not whether “children need braces so as to have perfect teeth”, but whether parents who do feel that children should have cosmetically perfect teeth ought to be punished with the weight of the law for so acting.