Circumcision

[Father Time]

Cec perhaps you can show us case law about the boundary of freedom of religion vs. harming others

 

[Bootneck]

Did you hear about the blind circumciser? He missed and got the sack.

 

[Phoenix]

Did you hear about the blind circumciser? He missed and got the sack.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

Bummer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cec perhaps you can show us case law about the boundary of freedom of religion vs. harming others

Nice try, but I've never bought into your little games of "I must substitute legalese for common sense observation" before, and I won't start now.

If you want to present yourself to everyone as being too stupid to suss out what criteria the law uses for infringing on religious freedom (or any Constitutional freedom), do it solo. You bore me.

 

[Father Time]

You're the one who's been insisting you know what the legal precedent is, you should be able to back up your claims.

 

[Hugh7]

We aren't talking about what behaviors are allowed in Malaysia and Indonesia. We're talking about religious freedom and medical science in the United States of America.

It was you who started mentioning FGC (which was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield in the US until 1977). I specified at the outset that I was talking about "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which was done in the US for claimed medical benefits.

Sorry, but no on both counts. I didn't introduce female circumcision into the conversation. I merely answered its insertion. Also, past decisions which have been revoked are as irrelevant as discussions of Malaysia and Indonesia are. Once upon a time, medicine also touted the "benefits" of bleeding people with leeches for all manner of illnesses. Then they learned better, and stopped.

Once upon a time, medicine in the rest of the English-speaking world also touted the "benefits" of cutting off foreskins for all manner of illnesses. Then they learned better, and stopped. (And leeches have made a comeback, in certain specialised cases.)

I may have confused YOU, but I haven't confused the issue. Religion and religious freedom in the United States do not exist in a vacuum. Freedom of religion, like all freedoms here, exists within boundaries, and one of the biggest boundaries for any freedom is perceived harm to others. Those who make our laws are advised in their determination of that perception by the American medical community. Thus, we limit religious freedom in regards to procedures, like female circumcision, which our medical community deems to be harmful without any balancing benefit,

Yet ALL FGC, no mattor how minor and therefore harmless is outlawed. Why the double standard?

and does NOT limit religious freedom in regards to procedures like male circumcision, which our medical community does not deem to be harmful and/or has balancing benefits.

It is YOU who continually tries to confuse the issue by introducing bullshit strawman arguments like "cutting off earlobes" and rituals that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine or physical changes, such as Communion and fasting.

Circumcision is unique. There is NO other cutting off of living tissue that is also a religious ritual and allowed in the US. (I'm open to correction.) If it didn't involve the permanent removal of tissue, there would be no objection to it. So Cecilie can always dismiss any kind of comparision as a "bullshit strawman argument". When appropriate I will continue to make comparisons to other surgical procedures and other religious rituals.

(Although I will say you're mistaken about fasting being harmful or having no medical benefits. Many physicians believe that a period of fasting can actually have a beneficial cleansing effect on the body, undertaken properly.)

I didn't say fasting in general, only the fasting of Ramadan.

There is no medical support for the idea that circumcision hampers the erogenous capabilities of the male genitals, and I can tell you from experience that it makes no noticeable difference to the female partner, so spare me.

Anecdotal evidence. Sample of one. Plenty of contrary anecdotal evidence, and some studies. Studies that claim the opposite are remarkable for failing to consider the foreskin itself.

As for removal of body parts to improve health, until recently, tonsils and appendixes were routinely removed in order to improve the health of the patient, and I don't just mean when they became badly inflamed. It was once standard practice for a surgeon who was already working in that area of the body to go ahead and remove the appendix while he was there, to eliminate any chance of it becoming a problem later. Like male circumcision, such practice has fallen out of favor with medical authorities, but many doctors will still recommend appendectomies and tonsilectomies at the first sign of problems, even if it could be treated otherwise.

Yes, we call those "scalpel-happy". US doctors tend to continue to be scalpel-happy towards the foreskin. And the medical claims for circumcision are quite as bogus as those for routine tonsillectomy.

The law is NOT silent on the subject of circumcision, which is why it's LEGAL. Duhhh.

It's not? Then it will be no trouble to quote chapter and verse.

There you go again, trying to confuse the issue with bullshit, unrelated straw men. Polygamy is not a medical prodedure, dumbass,

Did I say or imply that it was?

so it's not judged according to health risks. If you're planning on wasting my time with crap like this, tell me now.

The interesting thing about polygamy is that it's nowadays quite hard to see why it's outlawed, except religious intolerance - at least, when all parties give their informed adult consent. Its relevance here is that it impinges on bodily integrity a great deal less than circumcision.

Again, the only confusion here is in your own head, and it's not my job to help you pretend to be sane by talking down to your perception capabilities. If you can't keep up, find a new subject that's your speed.

We are talking about a medical procedure. It is done, in many cases, because of religious beliefs. Thus, there is no "arbitrary mixing" involved. The two are connected on this subject. Don't blame me if you can't handle reality.

Actually, Maimonides enjoined Jews to circumcise for faith only, and no other reason. And 97% of circumcisions in the US have nothing to do with religion.

(It is not only medicine and religion that have been entangled in circumcision. Conformity, non-conformity, enhancing sexuality, diminishing sexuality, as a rite of passage to adulthood, the list is endless [see www . circumstitions . com / Stitions.html ] - Don't know what to do? Cut of someone else's foreskin! What's striking is how the ground keeps shifting. The secular operation was begun to "cure" and punish masturbation. It seemed to succeed because the boys made damned sure they weren't caught again after that, lest worse befall. What confused the issue was that stamping out masturbation was called "moral hygiene", so it got confused with real hygiene. As anti-masturbation hysteria waned, fear of STIs took over, then cancer, then UTIs, and so, inevitably, HIV/AIDS. One fanatic has already claimed it's good for swine flu, apparently on a "Why not? It's good for everything else!" basis. Once it became customary, "He should look like his father" was wheeled up and "He must look like his peers". Once foreskins became rare, they were also demonised, and women's sexual preference was brought in.)

Says who? Gentiles can and do (I think some have posted to that effect here), so it would be discriminatory to allow them and forbid Jews.

What in the Hell are you babbling about? No one suggested letting Gentiles do something and forbidding Jews.

If Jews were just cutting off foreskins because they liked the way penises look without them, we wouldn't allow that, either.

::sigh:: Try to follow this. Non-Jewish people get cicumcisions because they offer medical benefits. If they didn't, those people wouldn't get them,

The vast majority of people who "get circumcisions" do so because they're not strong enough to resist, being only a few days old.

and there's a chance the law would also view it as an unacceptable religious practice where Jews are concerned. Where you got "If it were just cosmetic, we'd forbid Jews to do it . . . but we'd still let Gentiles" is beyond me.

Don't put quotation marks around things I didn't say.

Sure, cutting off any body part absolutely extinguishes the possibility of disease in that part, but that's about the end of it. You also have to look at the quantum of benefit, expressed in the Number Needed to Treat vs Number Needed to Harm, and circumcision ends up on the red side of the ledger.

Okay, really, why are you here discussing a topic you so clearly haven't bothered to get even the slightest grasp on beforehand? Males are not circumcised to prevent diseases of the FORESKIN, you ignoramus.

Posthitis. Balantis Xerotica Obliterans (BXO). Phimosis.

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining the medical benefits involved here, because I'm offended that you have wasted this much of my time without even vaguely educating yourself. Go look it up and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute. "Disease in that part." Honestly.

What do they say about when one finger points at someone else, who the others point at?

 

[JBeukema]

Moses Maimónides (1135-1204), known as the "Rambam," was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher who stated unequivocally that the real purpose of circumcision was to reduce sexual gratification. According to Maimónides (see 1963 translation, p. 609),
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible... In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.
In the English speaking world, circumcision was introduced as a medical procedure in the late-nineteenth century (Hodges, 1997). Victorian notions about the "ills of masturbation" influenced some physicians to endorse amputation of the erotogenic foreskin as "preventative therapy" since circumcised boys could not use their foreskins for masturbation (Moscucci, 1996). Circumcision subsequently was accepted as a panacea for many conditions, including epilepsy, paralysis, malnutrition, "derangement of the digestive organs," chorea, convulsions, hysteria, and other nervous disorders (Gollaher, 2000). In the ensuing decades, as each claimed benefit of circumcision was disputed, another would come to take its place (Hodges, 1997).

Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae

 

[AllieBaba]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.

 

[xotoxi]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles.

Did you say that the purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from their genitals?

Uh...I don't think that they cut should be that deep.

 

[jillian]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.

As I understand it, the purpose of circumcision was a reaffirmation of the covenant and a symbol of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

 

[xotoxi]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.

As I understand it, the purpose of circumcision was a reaffirmation of the covenant and a symbol of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

So the foreskin stands for Isaac?

I'm sure he'd be pleased.

 

[JBeukema]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.

I thought it was so you could tell your kids from the livestock? At least that's what you said before. Or are gentiles subhumans, too?

 

[jillian]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.

As I understand it, the purpose of circumcision was a reaffirmation of the covenant and a symbol of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

So the foreskin stands for Isaac?

I'm sure he'd be pleased.

it stands for the promise... but i figure the offering of a little bit of foreskin sure beats the alternative.

like i said, i'm no scholar about this, but that's what my understanding is.

 

[xotoxi]

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.

I thought it was so you could tell your kids from the livestock? At least that's what you said before. Or are gentiles subhumans, too?

It wasn't livestock.

It was animals in general (i.e. bears, elephants, otters, walruses).

 

[JBeukema]

Yea... she cried to the mods (probably KK) and I got banned for linking to her posts about thinking to/quoting her sons cocks look better cut and only being able to tell them apart from orangutans because they're circumcised

 

[xotoxi]

Yea... she cried to the mods (probably KK) and I got banned for linking to her posts about thinking to/quoting her sons cocks look better cut and only being able to tell them apart from orangutans because they're circumcised

I linked to them too...but I didn't get banned.

***Methinks you were banned for other reasons***

 

[keee keee]

Under Obamacare circumcision will be manditory. He promised us HOPE and CHANGE, and with the change he wants the tip!!!

 

[JBeukema]

Hey, wait... if circumcision distinguished human from non-human, does that mean most on-Jews in the world are subhumans, Allie?

Very Old Testament at you- convenient excuse for genocide.

 

[JBeukema]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

What about human sacrifice for religious reasons?


'freedom of religion' is not a blank check for anything you declare part of your religion.