
it is probably better to regulate the practice than drive it underground, because you can't expect people to stop practicing their religion just because it's illegal. It's not just fantasy role play to them.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 21:59, Reply)

I agree...But at the same time, why do we think it's ok to chop bits off babies just because it's religion?
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:17, Reply)

unless some government is brave enough to come out and say "Judaism is wrong, the Bible is not the word of God &c, and no-one has the right to believe it is" they can hardly outlaw something that is an unambiguous requirement of the holy text, unless they claim to be a higher authority than God.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:23, Reply)

( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:24, Reply)

and isn't necessarily right. Separation of church and state goes back to the puritans, the idea isn't universal.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:30, Reply)

but we shouldn't discount it for that reason.
What's in the Bible doesn't apply to the whole world and isn't necessarily right either. Doesn't mean there aren't good ideas to live by in there.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:38, Reply)

neither is vigilantism generally. Neither are muslims actually required to stone adulterers as a condition of being muslims.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:02, Reply)

but it is in the Old Testament, so it has at some point been outlawed by law despite being part of the Jewish religion.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:10, Reply)

it was a capital punishment, it happened by order of the Jewish law court (Sanhedrin) after a guilty verdict at a trial.
The Sanhedrin hasn't sat since the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. So it wasn't outlawed by law, but rather the authority that enacted it disappeared.
I'm not sure what the muslim set-up is, but it's definitely part of the legal system. No individual is required to partake in such an act in order to be considered a muslim.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:17, Reply)

does not let them set up their own law court and dish out the punishments the OT clearly says they should.
Hence, there have been aspects of their culture outlawed already.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:27, Reply)

in fact they have their own country and they still don't do it there, because the temple was destroyed so there's no authority for the Sanhedrin.
Some Zionists want to build the third temple and resume temple sacrifices again.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:35, Reply)

Stoning adulterers is as much a "unambiguous requirement of the holy text" as circumcision.
( , Sat 14 Jul 2012, 0:01, Reply)

and should anyone ever be convicted of adultery by it. It is not a requirement of an individual. Nobody is ever declared non-Jewish for not ever having stoned someone. That would actually require someone to commit adultery before it were possible for anyone to become Jewish, which would be absurd.
( , Sat 14 Jul 2012, 0:05, Reply)

at the very least they can then sue their parents and church for being the mutilating idiots they are.
Seriously, if "God" didn't want a foreskin, he/she/it wouldn't have put it there in the first place
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:19, Reply)

Judaism does not maintain that everyone in the world ought to be Jewish.
Circumcision is the sign of the covenant, if nobody had a foreskin they'd only have to cut something else off instead. Like their earlobes or something I don't know.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:33, Reply)

( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:17, Reply)

there are probably millions of circumcised people who don't know what all the fuss is about. It's fairly standard practice amongst Christians in the US for some reason.
Your theory of God is yours... others might not agree. I don't see the point in arguing what the will of God really is. Unless the state says that it isn't it has to accept that it might be.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:28, Reply)

it's only a medical procedure in freak cases of some kind of muscle contraction.
When I say "god" I deliberately put it in speech marks. I mean 'mother nature' really. If there was a need for circumcision, evolution would have made it happen by itself.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:37, Reply)

it doesn't condemn one to being Jewish forever.
Well whatever you mean, you have to prove it to a Rabbi, I guess.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:44, Reply)

I'm not talking about being Jewish at all.
I'm saying once you've had part of your dick cut off you can't grow it back.
That in itself is doing something to a child before it can say "yeah, I think that'd be cool"
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:47, Reply)

and it raises interesting questions about the rights of children.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:52, Reply)

oh of course, religion, they know better than the children they inflict themselves on.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:56, Reply)

Does a government have the courage to say "we must protect children from religion"? That's what I'm asking. There seems to be something of a stand off here between the modern western idea of rights of children and the right of freedom of religion. Because circumcision is not an option for Jews.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:00, Reply)

children should have a say in what made up fairy tale they believe in.
Fuck religion, fuck their parents saying you must have part of your cock cut off because an imaginary friend said so.
If they want to do that, let them do it when they are 18, or better still after they've been psych tested and simply weighed up the options.
The sooner laws prevent gullible religious twats inflicting their doctrine on their kids the better.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:04, Reply)

At 8 days old, so it says.
It's easy for you to say that's fairy tale bullshit or whatever... question is, what happens if a government of a liberal democracy says it.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:12, Reply)

simple as that.
A government should protect its citizens from cults, scams, fraudsters and religions, especially when they intend to inflict physical alteration to them, until an age when they can make the choice for themselves.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:15, Reply)

Abortion is entirely down to the circumstance of the woman involved and certainly not a fucking church.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:28, Reply)

does the government not have the duty to protect it?
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:32, Reply)

Where do you stand on a blowjob or a wank or a piss (which for a man who has passed puberty dumps sperm)?
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:41, Reply)

it would be nice if it did but what we've got has more to do with some concept of "viability" as far as I know. But supposing we take that cut-off point.
Would it be ok to circumcise a foetus, if it were possible, before the same time limit?
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:43, Reply)

- threatening individuals with castigation (sic) if they don't toe the party line, in whatever form, is repression, regardless of the reason for it. Just because something has always been done doesn't make it right, and the reasons for doing something a few thousand years ago doesn't mean it has to continue.
Also, there it appears "degrees of Judaism" - not all Jews avoid shell fish, pork, tattoos, for example.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:12, Reply)

Obviously the antiquity of a practice doesn't make it more likely to be right. But this is a religion that has been allowed to do its thing until now, and now we decide, it isn't right. Novelty doesn't make an idea right, either. It's our morals vs theirs.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:21, Reply)

get rid of Derek Acorah.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 23:26, Reply)

is still practiced today does not make sense at any level. As well as that, there is plenty of research which shows circumcision leads to long term physiological and psychological problems in later life.
Enough fuss was made of docking the tails of dogs, which is now outlawed in the UK at least, but has similar physical and psychological effects as circumcision - and was proven to shorten life expectancy in dogs.
Both are barbarous practices which have no place in the modern world, along with female genital mutation.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:35, Reply)

It's still practiced today because people are still Jews today and it's one of the rules of Judaism. As such it doesn't need to be justified on practical grounds.
"Barbarous" is rhetorical language, I'd be careful of it.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:39, Reply)

I think "emotive" is the word you're looking for.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:50, Reply)

WHAT!?? You are you actually trolling?
I won't bother coming running to you if my partner of ten years has his throat slit because he came across some muslims who believe that gays should be exterminated then.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:39, Reply)

Are you counter-trolling now? I don't know.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:41, Reply)

Please- elaborate. Do you think muslims who believe that gays "should be thrown off a cliff" only mean it about muslim gays. Is that what you mean?
I just want to be clear here- & how is that any better?
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:43, Reply)

Firing squad - got the pics somewhere if you want.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:48, Reply)

I'm sure there are individuals who get angry about all sorts of things, but I don't see any muslims anywhere demanding the legal right to slit people's throats in Western countries because the Quran says so.
It's an interesting point about the limits of religious freedom, though. We have to draw a line somewhere I suppose. But circumcision of your own child is hardly comparable to killing someone.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:50, Reply)

in any case governments often do explicitly condemn this kind of extremism.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:57, Reply)

I started to write a genuine response; but, but....that is such fucking mental, utter bollocks.
I genuinely don't know if you're trolling or just a fucking idiot.
Night all.
( , Fri 13 Jul 2012, 22:55, Reply)