Icelandic Catholic leaders condemn ‘anti-Semitic’ circumcision law

[straykat]

If you want my theory, I think it originated with restrictions about arousal and pleasure. Same with female mutilation. Perhaps not as drastic a decrease in pleasure as FGM though.

Just my 2c.

The idea that it's dirty or causes harm ironically goes against the Torah itself.. when God said his creation was good.

 

[Open Heart]

Doesn't matter if it hurts or not.

Don't be silly. It makes EVERY difference whether it hurts the child. Hurting a child is abuse. Circumcision does not hurt the child -- they cry more for a vaccination.

it is completely cosmetic and without any benefits that couldn't be acchieved with proper hygiene.

We're not doing it for hygienic reasons. We're doing it for religious reasons. Those passing this law are religiously intolerant.[/QUOTE]

 

[straykat]

Don't be silly. It makes EVERY difference whether it hurts the child. Hurting a child is abuse. Circumcision does not hurt the child -- they cry more for a vaccination.


We're not doing it for hygienic reasons. We're doing it for religious reasons. Those passing this law are religiously intolerant.

[/QUOTE]

If you're doing it for religious reasons, that's even worse. Might as well stop being a Christian. Better to delude yourself and say it's for hygienic reasons, than trying to be pious and saying there are more covenants than Christ's.

 

[Decanus]

Circumcision does not hurt the child

Oh, do these children have magic foreskins that don't have nerve receptors then?

 

[Open Heart]

There is no real evidence to suggest it has any health benefits.

I circumcise for religious reasons, but I've heard a lot of news lately that circumcision helps reduce the spread of AIDS.

Mutilation is cutting off part of the body. Last time I checked, foreskin was part of the body.

By that definition a tummy tuck would be mutilation, and BPD cutting would not.

Lots of circumcised men are angry at it being done without their consent. There's an entire movement of men against it.

Lots? You have a funny idea what lots means. A minuscule minority is what you mean, and most of them have a misconception that if they had their foreskin they would have noticeably increased sexual pleasure.

Circumcision doesn't really reduce male sex drive. Circumcised men still touch, cheat, womanize, and all the rest of it.

Circumcision later in life is not difficult at all and is routinely done. Again, this is by choice.

You are incorrect. Once nerves are myelinated, it becomes significantly more painful.

 

[Open Heart]

If you're doing it for religious reasons, that's even worse. Might as well stop being a Christian. Better to delude yourself and say it's for hygienic reasons, than trying to be pious and saying there are more covenants than Christ's.[/QUOTE]
I'm a Messianic Jew (of the Catholic variety). I wouldn't do it if I were a Gentile believer. There IS a covenant between God and Israel, one which the Bible describes as "perpetual."

But honestly, I think Muslims should be allowed to circumcise too. I'm for religious freedom. I'm shocked that you aren't. How such intolerance can breed in the midst of modern democracy is deeply disturbing to me.

 

[straykat]

If you're doing it for religious reasons, that's even worse. Might as well stop being a Christian. Better to delude yourself and say it's for hygienic reasons, than trying to be pious and saying there are more covenants than Christ's.

I'm a Messianic Jew (of the Catholic variety). I wouldn't do it if I were a Gentile believer. There IS a covenant between God and Israel, one which the Bible describes as "perpetual."

But honestly, I think Muslims should be allowed to circumcise too. I'm for religious freedom. I'm shocked that you aren't. How such intolerance can breed in the midst of modern democracy is deeply disturbing to me.[/QUOTE]

I'm for religious freedom too: Which means I don't care about Jews or Muslims. I do care about their kids, but barring a war, nothing's going to stop them. And that's just going to hurt more people than circumcision ever did. So it's best to just forget about them.

But there's less freedom in the Church. There's only one who can save us. And it's not Abraham. Abraham rejoiced to see our day. And John said himself, "God could raise up stones to become children of Abraham." It doesn't amount to much.

 

[Open Heart]

Oh, do these children have magic foreskins that don't have nerve receptors then?

In my personal experience, they cry more when they are vaccinated.

But I was referring to the fact that it didn't disable any bodily function. A circumcision is no different than piercing a baby's ears, as Mexican families do.

 

[Open Heart]

Mutilating genitals is in no way comparable to Christians pouring water over a childs head, unless you start deeming baths to be cruelty to children.

Circumcision is not mutilation, nor is it cruel. To be considered mutilation you have to inflict serious damage o something. The penis is not damaged by circumcision. It works just fine, and many women find it extremely attractive.

 

[Open Heart]

Genesis 17:12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised

This question is ONLY for the CHRISTIANS on this thread. Do you think God asked that the covenant be sealed with an act of cruelty towards children?

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's a barbaric practice and nobody should do it. Iceland has the right idea.

I stand by this statement. Call it whatever you want.

But I stand by it.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

There is no real evidence to suggest it has any health benefits.

Depends on which studies you choose to believe. The accounts of many people who have had to deal first hand with hygiene problems caused by the excess skin (nurses, doctors, baby sitters, mothers) recommend circumcision as a result.

Realistically, all body areas come with problems, but in general, the usefulness of parts outweighs the small risk of minor problems. With foreskin, the usefulness is debatable, and the risks fairly obvious. This make the decision to circumcise a no-brainer for many.

Mutilation is cutting off part of the body. Last time I checked, foreskin was part of the body.

I'd describe it as just an excess of skin. Circumcision is removing the excess skin, not all of the skin over the entire body (which would be mutilation). Although foreskin is located at the genitals, I don't know if its accurate to count it as part of the genitals anymore than any other area of skin.

Lots of circumcised men are angry at it being done without their consent. There's an entire movement of men against it.

This has only occurred in the past decade or so, and with a very minor fraction of circumcised men. I'd suggest it has more to do with the method of circumcision and (lack of) skill of individual circumcisers, than circumcision itself, which has been done without real problems for thousands of years. You'll probably find 10 or more men and their partners are pleased they were circumcised, for every man who wishes he wasn't (not to mention uncircumcised men/partners who wished they were).

Circumcision later in life is not difficult at all and is routinely done. Again, this is by choice.

Still easier at birth, and this also is by choice (of the parents, who have the best interests of the child at heart).

Nobody should have the freedom to forcibly cut part of somebodies body off. That is freedom gone mad.

An extra piece of skin is removed. Not all of it. I'd hardly call that cutting off a body part.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I circumcise for religious reasons, but I've heard a lot of news lately that circumcision helps reduce the spread of AIDS.

Do you actually circumcise, or you mean you support circumcision? If the former, I believe this gives even more support to your statements that it is not a harmful practice.

Circumcision doesn't really reduce male sex drive. Circumcised men still touch, cheat, womanize, and all the rest of it.

I've read a number of times that foreskin does make masturbation easier (and therefore, more likely). If this is true, I think removing this is another benefit of circumcision.

You are incorrect. Once nerves are myelinated, it becomes significantly more painful.

I'm guessing this doesn't happen before the age of 8 days old? I've also read the blood clotting factor at 8 days is at a peak, making 8 days old (as described in the bible) the optimum time for circumcision.

 

[Rhamiel]

In my personal experience, they cry more when they are vaccinated.

But I was referring to the fact that it didn't disable any bodily function. A circumcision is no different than piercing a baby's ears, as Mexican families do.

Normally we do not agree when the topic of Judaism comes up
But for once we are on the same page

This is not harming or mutilating a child (unless these people want to call ear piercing “mutilation” as well) and is a an ancient tradition among both Jews and Muslims

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

"Hygeine" is insulting.

On this topic, a lot of people with first hand experience on the hygiene problems caused by the excess skin, without initial preference, recommend circumcision as a result of their experiences. These people can be nurses, doctors, carers, baby sitters, mothers, even wives/partners and the men themselves. It does follow that a skin flap can serve as a refuge area where germs and bacteria can build up. Removing the skin flap removes the potential refuge area - hence the hygiene benefit.

No one really knows what the origins of circumcision are.

God instituted it.
Genesis 17:10-11 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

If you want my theory, I think it originated with restrictions about arousal and pleasure. Same with female mutilation. Perhaps not as drastic a decrease in pleasure as FGM though.

Its insulting, and I think misogynistic, to compare some unneeded foreskin, to the organ in females for sexual pleasure. Men can have quite fulfilled sex lives without foreskin, but women cannot experience sexual fulfillment with the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] removed. FGM is comparable to castration, not circumcision.

The idea that it's dirty or causes harm ironically goes against the Torah itself.. when God said his creation was good.

I'm not sure if you've read the bible, but uncircumcision is often used symbollically to imply uncleanness and being out-of-covenant with God.

 

[straykat]

On this topic, a lot of people with first hand experience on the hygiene problems caused by the excess skin, without initial preference, recommend circumcision as a result of their experiences. These people can be nurses, doctors, carers, baby sitters, mothers, even wives/partners and the men themselves. It does follow that a skin flap can serve as a refuge area where germs and bacteria can build up. Removing the skin flap removes the potential refuge area - hence the hygiene benefit.

God instituted it.
Genesis 17:10-11 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Its insulting, and I think misogynistic, to compare some unneeded foreskin, to the organ in females for sexual pleasure. Men can have quite fulfilled sex lives without foreskin, but women cannot experience sexual fulfillment with the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] removed. FGM is comparable to castration, not circumcision.

I'm not sure if you've read the bible, but uncircumcision is often used symbollically to imply uncleanness and being out-of-covenant with God.

Egyptians had circumcision long before that moment in the scriptures. If God instituted it, go figure that one out. I can't. All I know is what is before me: Cutting pieces of skin off of kids is mutilation. And it contradicts what God also said about creation: "It is good." Why does he suddenly think his own creation is bad and needs man's intervention?

Go ahead and call me "misogynistic". Ask if I care. I'm the one defending both boys and girls alike. I knew you weren't to be trusted, even if you tried to backtrack when I called your initial comment insulting. You never wanted to change your mind. It's why I lashed out strongly to begin with. My instincts are usually right.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Egyptians had circumcision long before that moment in the scriptures.

Can this be proved? I suspect the Egyptians probably learned it from their Hebrew slaves, rather than inventing it themselves.

Go ahead and call me "misogynistic". Ask if I care. I'm the one defending both boys and girls alike. I knew you weren't to be trusted, even if you tried to backtrack when I called your initial comment insulting. You never wanted to change your mind. It's why I lashed out strongly to begin with. My instincts are usually right.

I was speaking generally, and did not direct insults at you or anyone else. Stating that circumcision is more hygienic is not a personal attack. Claiming that some excess skin has the same or similar importance to the main organ for pleasure in females is, in my opinion, being wrong to the point of being unfair to women.

Please don't mistake an opinion or debate as a personal attack.

 

[Open Heart]

Its insulting, and I think misogynistic, to compare some unneeded foreskin, to the organ in females for sexual pleasure. Men can have quite fulfilled sex lives without foreskin, but women cannot experience sexual fulfillment with the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] removed. FGM is comparable to castration, not circumcision.

I get sick of this comparison too. It demeans FGM.

 

[Nithavela]

I get sick of this comparison too. It demeans FGM.

Not all practiced versions of FGM remove the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

 

[Open Heart]

Not all practiced versions of FGM remove the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

What is the objective of FGM if not to remove the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?