Circumcision ban removed from S.F. ballot

[Free Indeed]

You do realize that male circumcision was God's idea for the Jewish people, right? He knew whether or not it would be harmful to the babies, didn't He?
From what I know, male babies are circumcised on the 8th day after birth, and it is then that the clotting factor has fully developed. Correct me if I'm wrong Fenris.

Either way God knew/knows what he's doing.

This is probably not a very good argument in favor of it. In this context, it could be viewed as religious ritual abuse. I'm not saying that I personally believe it is, only that an argument could be made for it, and probably a pretty good one.

Benjamin Franklin, in describing liberty, once said that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In like manner, it could be argued that your right to swing a knife ends at the tip of my genitalia.

The religious issue does not absolutely condone it. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion unless it interferes with the rights of others. The question would be: does infant circumcision interfere with the rights of the infant? The infant may grow up and not accept Judaism. If he is to be mutilated, should he have a say in it?

As for female circumcision, they don't do it when they're babies for one thing, they do it when the girl is much older. It is done so that she won't be tempted to cheat on her intended/ spouse. It is extremely painful and very traumatic, not to mention barbaric.

Absolutely. Of course, male circumcision is extremely painful too, and if I could remember it, I'm sure it would be traumatic!

[Jeanne D]

This is probably not a very good argument in favor of it. In this context, it could be viewed as religious ritual abuse. I'm not saying that I personally believe it is, only that an argument could be made for it, and probably a pretty good one.

Benjamin Franklin, in describing liberty, once said that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In like manner, it could be argued that your right to swing a knife ends at the tip of my genitalia.

The religious issue does not absolutely condone it. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion unless it interferes with the rights of others. The question would be: does infant circumcision interfere with the rights of the infant? The infant may grow up and not accept Judaism. If he is to be mutilated, should he have a say in it?

That may be true according to man's standards, however God still has the final say, which is a basic and absolute truth.

Absolutely. Of course, male circumcision is extremely painful too, and if I could remember it, I'm sure it would be traumatic!

Right, but you can't remember it can you? It wasn't done to control you was it? It was done most likely for health reasons and you are able to function without pain.

The same cannot be said for these girls who are circumcised.


Jeanne

Edited to add:
Here is a link to an article about the risks of female circumcision from the East African Medical Journal.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/dirie1/

[Free Indeed]

That may be true according to man's standards, however God still has the final say, which is a basic and absolute truth.

As a Christian, I agree with Paul's words, that circumcision in the flesh profiteth nothing, and that it is the circumcision of the heart that counts.

However, my religious beliefs are just that: mine. And I recognize and respect the religious beliefs of Jews, which are different in this regard.

But we can't go by religious beliefs, we have to go by what is in the best interest of the child. What if, for example, the Scientologists introduced a new rule saying that it is religiously correct to amputate the thumbs of all babies born to Scientologists? Or what if some couple practiced witchcraft and believed they should have the "religious freedom" to carve satanic symbols on their baby?

You would be horrified, and so would I. But would our horror come from the fact that a child is being abused, or we would we be horrified because the abusing is done by people who don't share our religious beliefs?

Right, but you can't remember it can you? It wasn't done to control you was it? It was done most likely for health reasons and you are able to function without pain.

Right. I'm not saying I'm against circumcision. I'm just saying that the people who are may be opposing it because they think what they're doing is in the best interest of the child, and not because they're necessarily anti-Semitic. I don't know what the Jewish religious process is. I, like most other circumcized Gentiles, had the procedure done surgically by a medical professional.

[Fenris]

Benjamin Franklin, in describing liberty, once said that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In like manner, it could be argued that your right to swing a knife ends at the tip of my genitalia.

The religious issue does not absolutely condone it. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion unless it interferes with the rights of others. The question would be: does infant circumcision interfere with the rights of the infant? The infant may grow up and not accept Judaism. If he is to be mutilated, should he have a say in it?

Since no one can demonstrate that circumcision is a "mutilation" or harmful, I don't find this argument to be terribly convincing.

Right. I'm not saying I'm against circumcision. I'm just saying that the people who are may be opposing it because they think what they're doing is in the best interest of the child, and not because they're necessarily anti-Semitic.

I'm not saying that anyone who wants to ban circumcision is an anti-semite (although those comics look pretty bad). But the last time (that I'm aware of) that someone tried to ban circumcision, it was Antichous IV Epiphanies, who was trying to eradicate Judaism. Not good company to keep...

It's also all too easy for antisemites to hide behind noble causes. The Nazis forbade Jewish ritual slaughter of animals on accounts of animal cruelty. Of course, they had no problem being cruel to humans.

[Free Indeed]

Since no one can demonstrate that circumcision is a "mutilation" or harmful, I don't find this argument to be terribly convincing.

A mutilation is any intentional altering of the body. This of course is a wde definition. Until just a few years ago, tattooing was illegal in my state, and was considered criminal mutilation.

It's also all too easy for antisemites to hide behind noble causes. The Nazis forbade Jewish ritual slaughter of animals on accounts of animal cruelty. Of course, they had no problem being cruel to humans.

No doubt, although I am opposed to cruel slaughtering of animals too. I'm not a vegetarian, and I enjoy meats. But there's no reason to make an animal suffer unnecessarily.

[Fenris]

A mutilation is any intentional altering of the body.

Like the piercing of a child's ears? Just curious how far this definition goes.

No doubt, although I am opposed to cruel slaughtering of animals too.

As am I. I don't think Jewish ritual slaughter is cruel though.

[Free Indeed]

Like the piercing of a child's ears? Just curious how far this definition goes.

No, that was perfectly legal. I don't make the laws, I just report em!

As am I. I don't think Jewish ritual slaughter is cruel though.

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. It is my understanding that cows, for example, have to be conscious when slaughtered. This may or may not be true, but if so, it seems to be needlessly cruel.

[Fenris]

No, that was perfectly legal.

As is circumcision.

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. It is my understanding that cows, for example, have to be conscious when slaughtered. This may or may not be true, but if so, it seems to be needlessly cruel.

Less cruel than hunting, ya know? Shooting an animal and tracking it, possibly for miles, as it bleeds to death.

[Bandit]

A mutilation is any intentional altering of the body. This of course is a wde definition. Until just a few years ago, tattooing was illegal in my state, and was considered criminal mutilation.
...

Are you saying that you believe God commanded something of His people which He knew was bad for them? If so, then aren't you really saying that God is a bad God (or at least stupid)?

And poor little baby Jesus; He had His pee-pee whacked too, you know. And probably by those same bad Jews in the cartoon who were carying uzis. (Well, perhaps back in those days they carried slings, but I bet they still looked as evil.) And poor Moses; he also had his pee-pee whacked. Perhaps that is why he turned out to be the servant of God he did. Poor little mutilated guy. (If only I could have been so mutilated... wait a minute! I was! Yipee! I have something in common with Moses!)

Can we please get past the claim that circumcision is an abuse, and just recognize it as a cultural thing. If a baby is born into a culture, and it later decides to reject that culture, then let him leave.

[howszat]

What links?

See Jeanne's reply. There are many more throughout the Internet.

"antisemitism" specifically means hatred of Jews

This is a modern term generally acknowledged to have originated in Germany about 1885. Since Arabs were not indigenous to Europe at that time it was not used to illustrate hatred for them. Now in modern usage it has been rightfully extended to include hatred for Arabs since they are Semites. I guarantee you will see more such usage in the years to come.

What "injustices to arabs and sephardim"?

Again, there are many online articles which you so readily miss such as:

http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com...fashioned.html

http://www.vosizneias.com/73341/2011...nst-sephardim/

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ephardim-1.843

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9vs1Q3IGw


There are a great many more which I can easily post here is you wish.

{Jewish liberals} They see a straight line from Sinai to liberalism ... So the only Jews who are "good Jews" are the ones who don't follow the bible.

So say you. But they can find many verses in the Bible that support their beliefs and conduct.

Orthodox Jews don't condemn Israel.

Wanna bet?

nkuk-protest.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...-0cCJb4KrWsaX1

http://www.ccoro.org/wp-content/uplo...nst_israel.jpg

Again, I can supply you with numerous articles and photos from the over 100,000 Orthodox Jews whose denominations condemn Israel as per Biblical teaching.

[Free Indeed]

Are you saying that you believe God commanded something of His people which He knew was bad for them? If so, then aren't you really saying that God is a bad God (or at least stupid)?

No. I'm saying that whether one believes this is God's command or not is irrelevant in regard to local, state, and federal laws.

Can we please get past the claim that circumcision is an abuse, and just recognize it as a cultural thing. If a baby is born into a culture, and it later decides to reject that culture, then let him leave.

I didn't say it was abuse. I said that I understood why some may think that, and for other reasons besides anti-Semiticism.

[Bandit]

A mutilation is any intentional altering of the body. This of course is a wde definition. Until just a few years ago, tattooing was illegal in my state, and was considered criminal mutilation.
...

Are you saying that you believe God commanded something of His people which He knew was bad for them? If so, then aren't you really saying that God is a bad God (or at least stupid)?

...

No. I'm saying that whether one believes this is God's command or not is irrelevant in regard to local, state, and federal laws.
...
I didn't say it was abuse. I said that I understood why some may think that, and for other reasons besides anti-Semiticism.

But it did read as though you yourself consider circumcision to be a mutilation. And if the state takes a stand against God's laws, who is in the right, God or man?

If we ever judge something which God commands (or commanded) to be bad, then we have judged God to be bad. Although Christians do not consider themselves to be bound to the command to circumcise, never let it be said that Christians think that circumcision is a bad thing. It is only when one claims it is necessary for a right standing before God that a Christian should object, and then only to its requirement.

[Free Indeed]

But it did read as though you yourself consider circumcision to be a mutilation. And if the state takes a stand against God's laws, who is in the right, God or man?

"God's laws" are different depending on what one's religion is. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, you have the right to believe that swinging your fist is God's law, but your freedom to actually practice it ends at the tip of my nose.

If we ever judge something which God commands (or commanded) to be bad, then we have judged God to be bad.

We are not a theocracy like Iran or Taliban Pakistan. We follow secular laws. Anyone is free to practice their religious beliefs, but only up to the point when such practices interfere with the rights of others. So the question here, about secular laws on circumcision, concerns which rights apply to infants, not what the Bible, Qu'ran, Zend Avesta, or Bhagavad Gita says the law of God may or may not be.

[Bandit]

"God's laws" are different depending on what one's religion is. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, you have the right to believe that swinging your fist is God's law, but your freedom to actually practice it ends at the tip of my nose.
...

No. God's laws are God's laws, and they are not dependent on any man-made religion. Who's words are you going to follow, God's or Ben Franklin's?

[Bandit]

We are not a theocracy like Iran or Taliban Pakistan. We follow secular laws. Anyone is free to practice their religious beliefs, but only up to the point when such practices interfere with the rights of others. So the question here, about secular laws on circumcision, concerns which rights apply to infants, not what the Bible, Qu'ran, Zend Avesta, or Bhagavad Gita says the law of God may or may not be.

Here is what is beginning to bother me, Knight Templar. You claim to be a Christian, yet you defend many secular positions. I am beginning to have my doubts about you. So where is your allegiance, to Christ or to the world? And if to Christ, how then do you justify defending the world?