Why religious circumcision?

Post Reply New Topic

The Lord works in mysterious ways!

After a billion years those two things ...add up to a lot of mass!

I hear the foreskins are kept for their collagen, and are used in collagen injections.

God must have a perdy complexion.

Happy to say that even though non-therapeutic circumcision isn't exactly illegal in the UK, the British Medical Association is against it, which I guess means that any parent wishing to impose it without the child's consent isn't going to find it at all easy to get the op done. It appears to be rather easier in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcis ... ed_Kingdom

I don't know the exact definition of "freedom of religion," or even if there is one that's universally accepted, but I've heard of another concept - "freedom FROM religion," which I would regard as just as important a human right. I wouldn't interfere with somebody's practice of any harmless rituals they want to perform, whatever I think of them, as long as they keep it to themselves and don't put pressure on others to follow their ways, especially if those ways are in any way harmful.

He has big sensual lips. Or am I am confusing collagen with botox?

I never claimed that I wanted "religious freedom".

In fact I claimed the opposite: that I agree with you that there should be limits on religious freedom!

What I dont understand is why are you being so fuzzy headed about this thing we agree on, and are calling it the opposite of what it is: why do you call the state controlling a religious practice "freedom of religion"?

The Danish Medical Association appears to be of the same opinion (and they have hardened their stance in recent years).

Actually, when the Danish government approached the association for advice on how to regulate religious circumcision , they refused to participate, as it would be in violation of medical ethics to carry any non-medically indicated surgical procedure without the informed consent of the patient - which one can only give at the legal age of majority (18 in Denmark).

There's no state control of religion.
There's a state control on how much power parents can exercise over their children.

Every religion is free to act within the limits of the law.

The law says you may not commit murder.

There's no talk about religion in this context. If a religion says "I we need to sacrifice (murder) someone, it is part of our religion" - then it is the RELIGION which has to adapt to the law, not the other way around. It's not imposing a limit on religious freedom, it is prohibiting murder.

The same logic applies to a prohibition on non-medically required circumcision of children without their consent.

If the law says there must to be a medical reason to circumcise a child without the consent of the child in question, you need to get that medical reason before you do it.

No religion is being discriminated.

It's the same s**t that smokers say when they're being met with restrictions on smoking:
"Right's being infringed - discrimination!" - no, you have the EXACT same rights as EVERYBODY ELSE.

If the law says you cannot smoke in public spaces, it applies to everyone. No discrimination there.

Religious people and smokers alike want DIFFERENT rules applying to them. They want MORE rights than everybody else.

Really?

There is no state control of religion?

There IS indeed state control of religion in Iran, and in Saudi Arabia. The government surpresses other religions to promote the state approved forms of Islam. And there WAS in most of Christian Europe for most of history for particular branches of Christianity. And many of the original colonies of the future US also had state control of religion.

This state control of religion is what the Founding Fathers sought to abolish when they founded the USA. They wrote restraints into law on the state to impose particular religions on the population. But those restraints have nothing to do with restraining how parents raise their children.

"Freedom of religion" is a restraint upon the government, not a restraint upon private citizens.

The US government allows certain Native American tribes to use peyote in their religious rites, even though peyote is an outlawed as a "dangerous controlled substance" like heroin for the rest of us. They allow it for that group for that one purpose because of "Freedom of religion". Same with conscientious objectors from combat military service. For some things the government grants exceptions in the law for religion. But the government does not do that for other things. No one has really tried to revive human sacrifice, but we do disallow burka wearing in airports (if I am not mistaken).

The US does not yet have laws that forbid circumcision without consent. But if did legislate that tomorrow then religious groups would be upset- Jews and Muslims- and would demand something like the above peyote exception.

The US govt. might respond by saying tough titty we wont grant you an exception even though the God in your religion demands it. Conform or be prosecuted. Would probably end up in the Supreme Court. But thats the scenario that you want. The government balking at allowing a loophole for religion. But that refusal by the government would not be an example of the government "preserving religious freedom". I admit that its not actually the government surpressing religious freedom either. But it would be the government not bending over backwards to accommodate religious freedom. Failure to help you is not an example of helping you. So dont call it that. What you're proposing is placing a LIMIT on religious freedom. Not promoting religious freedom.

I was talking about modern western Europe/North America.
There is no state control of religion.



Religious freedom extends to the children as well.
Well, at least I think it SHOULD extend to the children as well.

The child can be circumcised if the child wants it. How's that a limit on religious freedom?

You've completely misunderstood the concept of liberty. Your liberty has a limit right there where it affects my liberty.

You can walk everywhere you want - except that you can only walk in my home, as long as I allow it.

You dont understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "liberty" nor by "freedom of religion", and ALL liberty impinges upon the liberty of others anyway.

A 'child' (the offspring 'the parents') who is still a 'child' (an infant) has no capacity to understand religion - so cant choose what religion it wants to adopt- nor choose what can be done the child's body in the name of religion- on religious grounds. The very fact you advocate that the child should wait until it becomes a 'adult child of the parents' to choose proves my point. "Freedom of religion" does NOT apply to infants. But children do need protection by the state from physical abuse - AND to do so even if that abuse is religion-based. So if the act is so bad that the govt decides to outlaw it it is protecting the child's physical well being, NOT protecting the child's right to choose a different theology from the infants parents. So the government is NOT preserving the kids "freedom of religion". Preserving the kid's right to be free of physical mutilation maybe, but not the kid's right to pick Shia over Sunnism, or consubstantiation over consubstantiation or whatever.

And your claim that "religions are free to do as they wish as long as they follow the law" is nonsense. Religions are not free to do anything because...their God orders them to do everything they do -including to circumcise babies. Orthodox Jews and Muslim do not believe that they are "free" to just stop circumcising babies, and just wait til the baby is X years old to give consent, because a new secular law now says so...they dont believe that because their God demands that they do it when the kid is an infant- and you do what God sez!.

Like I said it is you do not understand what freedom of religion is.

Its like "freedom of speech". Folks think that the first amendment applies to Wrongplanet, and Twitter, and Facebook. In fact the first amendment only applies to stopping the government from censoring you. It doesnt stop privately owned entities like WP and etc from censoring you.

Similarly "Freedom of religion" stops the government from controlling the religious beliefs of adults. It doesnt apply to controlling how adults teach their offspring religion. So if you want the government to step in to protect children from religious based child abuse then...do that...but dont kid yourself that you're "protecting anyone's religious freedom" (because the religious freedom doesnt apply to infants whom you yourself assert cant pick a religion).

There was a debate on BBC radio a few years ago that asked the question "what happens when the rules of a religion run counter to the laws of the country you're in?" It seems that in some cases the government caves in.

Religious liberty is a natural extension of the right to bodily autonomy. You can believe what you like, and you can do what you like with your own body.

Your right to bodily autonomy does not extend to the bodies of others. You do not have the right to force your religion upon others. You do not have the right to subjugate others. You do not have the right to remove other people’s body parts without their consent.

Sentence one is nonsense. You absolutely DO have the right to indoctrinate (ie force) your religion upon your underaged children because ...thats how its done. The only way any religion propagates. And if the states interferes with that then they interfering with freedom of religion. But if the religion in question has some crazy ass rituals and practices (honor killings, burka wearing, or arguably infant circumcision) then the govt has the right to do that- over ride freedom of religion and forbid the said practice.

The rest is absolutely right. You dont have the right to falsely imprison people etc. So the right to autonomy TRUMPS freedom of religion. Ergo the state has the right in some circumstances to over ride freedom of religion to protect other kinds of freedom for the individual, and to curtail freedom of religion.

The issue is NOT protecting the newborn babies right to choose which church the newborn baby agrees with. Babies cant choose theologies or creeds or religions. But babies need protection from abuse by parents. So its a child abuse issue and not a freedom of religion issue.

I wouldn’t class taking your (young) children along to religious services or giving them religious lessons to be “forcing” a religion upon them. If there isn’t an element of force then it isn’t force. I think everything that could constitute “forcing” a religion would constitute child abuse in any context.

It doesn't matter how religion needs to propagate.

Suppose everyone has the right to food, but even if the only way for some people to get something to eat, is by eating other human beings, it is still no excuse for killing/cannibalism.

The same thing applies to religion. It doesn't matter how the religion needs to propagate, if they need a child's consent to religious rituals imposed on that child - that's what they'll need. It's no excuse for the use of force that their religion will eventually die, if they cannot get the child's consent.