Circumcision

[Morrigan]

Understanding private property and learning a language are essential things that a child must learn in order to function in society. At least the one they are born in.

Being part of a religion is not. Neither is being circumcised.

You fail already. And that's not counting the rest of the fallacies you introduced.

 

[Loss Leader]

Understanding private property and learning a language are essential things that a child must learn in order to function in society. At least the one they are born in.

It's not essential to have a concept of private property. Plenty of societies have existed through history and communes still exist today where there is no private property. Yours is nothing more than an argument from popularity. You assume that just because the idea of priave property is popular, it must be "essential."

It is not essential to speak english, either. There are plenty of languages to choose from. English is not empirically better. Perhaps all children should be taught Pontuguese and then can learn whatever language they choose when they are 18. You just happen to like english because it's popular where you live.

Another thing that is popular is circumcision, especially among Jews. It is essential to be circumcised in order to be allowed to participate in the oter Jewish rites of passage like being a Bar Mitzvah and getting married. In order to function in Jewish society, a Jewish man must be circumcised.

And yet that type of "essential" doesn't seem equal to many on this board with the type of "essential" that you claim private property fits.

I've made no logical error. You and your argument from popularity have.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's not essential to have a concept of private property. Plenty of societies have existed through history and communes still exist today where there is no private property. Yours is nothing more than an argument from popularity. You assume that just because the idea of priave property is popular, it must be "essential."

Please provide evidence that a society with a population measured in millions does not have the concept of private property. Oh, that's right, there is no society that large with no concept of private property. Shame, you might of had an argument there.

It is not essential to speak english, either. There are plenty of languages to choose from. English is not empirically better. Perhaps all children should be taught Pontuguese and then can learn whatever language they choose when they are 18. You just happen to like english because it's popular where you live.

Why would you teach your child a different language that the one that they will _need_ to use to function in society? BTW, I think it's a great idea to teach kids a second language along with their native one.

Another thing that is popular is circumcision, especially among Jews. It is essential to be circumcised in order to be allowed to participate in the oter Jewish rites of passage like being a Bar Mitzvah and getting married. In order to function in Jewish society, a Jewish man must be circumcised.

So those Jewish men that are not circumcised are 'cast out' from Jewish society? That's called discrimination and it is illegal. But it's nice to know that (at least some) Jews are as bigoted as some other members of society.

Just before you whine 'but it says so in our story book', it also says in there that Jews can only marry other Jews and blasphemers should be stoned. It seems then that Jews pick and choose which of God's commandments to follow on a whim. Presumably those Jews (perhaps you are one of them LL? Or do you regularly stone people who take God's name in vain?) have not been 'cast out' from Jewish society?

And yet that type of "essential" doesn't seem equal to many on this board with the type of "essential" that you claim private property fits.

I've made no logical error. You and your argument from popularity have.

You are incapable of logic on this issue. You are so emotionally involved with it that there can be no compromise with you.

 

[Kaylee]

Currently I'm tentatively not in favor of circumcision for healthy baby boys. (See my responses to Fran as to why my opinion is tentative.)

However, in democracies laws aren't passed and enforced without the consent of the governed.

As the situation stands now, I suspect that some babies would be more harmed by banning male circumcision than they would be helped. Some parents would still have their children circumcised out of religious conviction, but it is likely that they would be poorly done since I suspect it would be harder to find a competent person to perform an illegal operation. Its easy to speculate that these circumcised children might not be taken to doctors for their annual physical examinations and therefore wouldn't get vacinations. Their certificate of vacinations might be forged for the schools that require them.

At this stage, instead of making male circumcisions for healthy babies illegal, I would support more education for the parents that make these decisions.

Has any of this happened for parents in the US who would have liked to have had their daughters circumcised?

Ivor, as I mentioned in a post yesterday, I couldn't find enough information to answer your question. However, I was wondering, since IIRC FGM is illegal in England, has any of this happened in the UK with families that have had their daughters circumcised anyway? As far as you know, do they avoid taking their circumcised daughters to doctors and hospitals to avoid being fined and/or jailed?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor, as I mentioned in a post yesterday, I couldn't find enough information to answer your question. However, I was wondering, since IIRC FGM is illegal in England, has any of this happened in the UK with families that have had their daughters circumcised anyway? As far as you know, do they avoid taking their circumcised daughters to doctors and hospitals to avoid being fined and/or jailed?

This has and does happen, and it shows the problem with making FGM illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3564203.stm

That is why (IMO) this appears to be an idea worth trying:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3479379.stm

Perhaps Jewish and Muslim parents who cannot resist the pressure to have their son circumcised could consider a similar procedure?

And if this seems like a shift from my position, it is Some how I doubt I'm going to be met half way by anyone though

ETA: Here are the BMA Guidelines:

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/FGM~Guidance#Child

 

[Kaylee]

That is why (IMO) this appears to be an idea worth trying:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3479379.stm

Perhaps Jewish and Muslim parents who cannot resist the pressure to have their son circumcised could consider a similar procedure?

I think that's a good idea. Some web sites promoting the idea of a shalom bris (no circumcision) as an alternative to the current bris (involves circumcision) have asserted that prior to Hellenistic times (the time when Greece had invaded and taken over Israel) that the circumcision removed far less of the foreskin than is being removed now. (E.g. one web site IIRC said that only "the very tip" was removed.)

However they provided absolutely no references or any other sort of proof, so I'm not bothering to track down and post the web site links.

However, it is the main reason why I looked up to see what the Talmud had to say about the ceremony. There was no detail provided unlike other areas of the Talmud that can get extremely precise (one example would be what is considered cooking, an activity not allowed on the Sabbath). Because there was no detail provided -- I suppose that some of the bris shalom web sites assertions could be possible.

And if this seems like a shift from my position, it is Some how I doubt I'm going to be met half way by anyone though

Yah, never know.

Seriously, Jewish tradition -- even in the more conservative circles -- does adjust despite assertions that "the law can not be changed!" Its just sometimes done by completely overlooking the matter (For example, over the 19th and 20th centuries deaf mutes were no longer considered to not have the legal rights of adults although this change was glossed over by saying that deaf adults were not like the ones being referred to in the Talmud) or its handled very creatively.

IMHO the bris is a candidate for being handled creatively (some day, in the future) and possibly one way that this might be handled in the future is to remove far less of the foreskin than is being removed now.

I think one possible catalyst for this to happen will be if the bris shaloms become more popular -- than the more conservative branches will yield to the social pressure and adjust. For any one who says that Orthodox Jewish practices never yield to social pressure -- bah! Not true. Classic example would be how divorce is treated differently between the Bablyonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.

 

[Lonewulf]

To no one in particular, I love it when people use faulty analogies. Like asking you to prove love exists to demonstrate that their God is plausible and logical.

That's pretty much all I have to say.

 

[Loss Leader]

Please provide evidence that a society with a population measured in millions does not have the concept of private property. Oh, that's right, there is no society that large with no concept of private property. Shame, you might of had an argument there.

Please provide evidence that a Jewish society with a population measured in the ten thousands does not have the concept of not having circumcision. Of, that's right, there is no Jewish society that large with no concept of circumcision. Shame, you might have had an argument there.

In any case, my analogy wasn't specifically referring to circumcision but to Lonewolf's lunatic idea that choosing a child's religion for him is somehow imposing oneself on the rights of the child. It is just as reasonable as the idea that choosing to make one's child a capitalist is somehow imposing oneself on the rights of the child. All parents raise their children with the tools and concepts the parents think the children will need to function optimally as adults. This includes teaching them a language, teaching them about private property and indoctrinating them into the parents' religion.

Why would you teach your child a different language that the one that they will _need_ to use to function in society? BTW, I think it's a great idea to teach kids a second language along with their native one.

I'm sorry, are you saying that Portuguese society doesn't function? There is nothing special about english other than the fact that many people around us speak english. If we all raised our children to speak portuguese, in twenty years everybody would speak portuguese. Similarly, a parent who chooses to raise her child Methodist may do so because many people around her are Methodist (or, at least, christian). And people in my society currently have the easiest time functioning if they are christian (some form of Protestant, usually). How does speaking english in a country mostly full of english speakers but with some enclaves entirely portuguese differ from being christian in a country mostly full of christian people but with some enclaves entirely muslim?

The answer is: there is no logical difference. That's why I maintain that Lonewolf's idea to raise children without religion is just as nonsensical as my idea to raise children without english.

So those Jewish men that are not circumcised are 'cast out' from Jewish society?

No. Jewish men who are not circumcised must be circumcised before participating in any Jewish life cycle rituals. My religion doesn't cast out anybody who wants to be there. But wanting to be there includes wanting to be circumcised.

That's called discrimination and it is illegal.

You've gotten a little over-excited. There is no country in the world in which a religion's decision to "cast out" members is considered illegal discrimination. Religious institutions are pretty much exempt from such discrimination statutes (except in regards to employees working in non-religious endeavors which has nothing to do with what we are talking about).

But it's nice to know that (at least some) Jews are as bigoted as some other members of society.

"Hi, here are our rules. You don't have to be a part of our group; it's entirely voluntary and we don't care if you join or not. But if you want to be part of our group, you have to follow the rules." Yeah, I see the bigotry.

I was being sarcastic. That's not bigotry.

Just before you whine 'but it says so in our story book', it also says in there that Jews can only marry other Jews and blasphemers should be stoned. It seems then that Jews pick and choose which of God's commandments to follow on a whim.

Yeah, we're a whimsical people.

You are incapable of logic on this issue. You are so emotionally involved with it that there can be no compromise with you.

Right, because "It's a violation of a child's freedoms to indoctrinate him into a religion before he can think for himself" is the absolute pinnacle of logical thought.

 

[Morrigan]

It's not essential to have a concept of private property. Plenty of societies have existed through history and communes still exist today where there is no private property. Yours is nothing more than an argument from popularity. You assume that just because the idea of priave property is popular, it must be "essential."

... How can someone so completely and utterly miss the point? Amazing. By the way, did you notice the part where I said "At least the one they are born in."?
Most societies DO have a concept of private properties. All societies with populations in the millions have it.
For a child to be able to function properly in such a society (the one he's born in, remember?), he does need to grasp the concept.

If, however, once he's an adult capable of looking after himself, he wants to join some communal pygmy tribe or whatever and forsake all notions of private property, why, he's free to do so (assuming the pygmies accept him, but that's another story). But as a child, his parents have a responsibility in educating him so that he can function in society. If they don't educate him about respecting private property, they would be called negligent and the child would get in trouble.

I am rather amazed that I need to explain something so basic. In fact, I don't really think you are that stupid, but that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to defend your blatantly faulty analogy.

It is not essential to speak english, either. There are plenty of languages to choose from. English is not empirically better. Perhaps all children should be taught Pontuguese and then can learn whatever language they choose when they are 18. You just happen to like english because it's popular where you live.

Where, pray tell, did I even mention English at all? Oh, that's right, I didn't, you are guilty of creating a strawman.
A child needs to be taught a language to be able to function in society. If you live in an English-speaking community, it's sensible and expected that you teach him English. Otherwise, your child will have trouble communicating, will have trouble learning in school, will have trouble in just about everything.* Therefore, it is essential that your child be taught the language (or a language, if there is more than one) of the society he lives in for him to function in it.

* I realise that, ironically, this is less and less true in some states of the USA, where Spanish is taking over and some immigrants spend their entire lives in the USA without knowing any English. On the other hand, the same argument applies: if Spanish is taking over, then a child raised in the USA without knowing either English or even at least Spanish will be significantly disadvantaged.

By the way... English is popular where I live? Maybe, but second to French, actually. So your argument is both false AND fallacious.

Another thing that is popular is circumcision, especially among Jews. It is essential to be circumcised in order to be allowed to participate in the oter Jewish rites of passage like being a Bar Mitzvah and getting married. In order to function in Jewish society, a Jewish man must be circumcised.

And yet that type of "essential" doesn't seem equal to many on this board with the type of "essential" that you claim private property fits.

See Ivor's reply. The fact that there are circumcised Jews proves you wrong, anyway.

I've made no logical error. You and your argument from popularity have.

Other than your strawman, faulty analogy, and misunderstanding of the argument from popularity, yeah, you've made no logical errors at all.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Please provide evidence that a Jewish society with a population measured in the ten thousands does not have the concept of not having circumcision. Of, that's right, there is no Jewish society that large with no concept of circumcision. Shame, you might have had an argument there.

In any case, my analogy wasn't specifically referring to circumcision but to Lonewolf's lunatic idea that choosing a child's religion for him is somehow imposing oneself on the rights of the child. It is just as reasonable as the idea that choosing to make one's child a capitalist is somehow imposing oneself on the rights of the child. All parents raise their children with the tools and concepts the parents think the children will need to function optimally as adults. This includes teaching them a language, teaching them about private property and indoctrinating them into the parents' religion.

Lonewulf was technically correct. However, even though I dislike the idea of children being taught that Mom and Dad's religion is the only way to figure out right from wrong and that anecdotes are facts, I am pragmatic. It is a bit much to ask of two people to not teach their child what they believe!

I'm sorry, are you saying that Portuguese society doesn't function? There is nothing special about english other than the fact that many people around us speak english. If we all raised our children to speak portuguese, in twenty years everybody would speak portuguese. Similarly, a parent who chooses to raise her child Methodist may do so because many people around her are Methodist (or, at least, christian). And people in my society currently have the easiest time functioning if they are christian (some form of Protestant, usually). How does speaking english in a country mostly full of english speakers but with some enclaves entirely portuguese differ from being christian in a country mostly full of christian people but with some enclaves entirely muslim?

The answer is: there is no logical difference. That's why I maintain that Lonewolf's idea to raise children without religion is just as nonsensical as my idea to raise children without english.

Um, no. Not indoctrinating a child with religion is unlikely to put it at any significant disadvantage in the West. Not teaching the common language of the society it is going to live in will put it at a significant disadvantage for the reasons Morrigan pointed out.

No. Jewish men who are not circumcised must be circumcised before participating in any Jewish life cycle rituals. My religion doesn't cast out anybody who wants to be there. But wanting to be there includes wanting to be circumcised.

Really? There are no Jewish men who had no choice in the matter? Ah yes, I forgot. They did want to be circumcised because their parents wanted them to be circumcised. The two are the same thing.

You've gotten a little over-excited. There is no country in the world in which a religion's decision to "cast out" members is considered illegal discrimination. Religious institutions are pretty much exempt from such discrimination statutes (except in regards to employees working in non-religious endeavors which has nothing to do with what we are talking about).

So why can't golf clubs legally ban black people? Why do religions get an exemption? It couldn't be could it, that religion, despite all its pretensions, is founded on bigotry and hatred of other groups?

See, this is where Linda didn't quite get it right - Religions (and the requirements they put on their believers) don't build groups, they build sub-groups.

"Hi, here are our rules. You don't have to be a part of our group; it's entirely voluntary and we don't care if you join or not. But if you want to be part of our group, you have to follow the rules." Yeah, I see the bigotry.

I was being sarcastic. That's not bigotry.

It is when a hotel owner has a rule of 'no gays' or a golf club bans black people from joining as members. Why does Judaism get the right to discriminate based on a trivial physical difference? It isn't even as though uncircumcised men have behaviour different to circumcised ones. (Apart from having fantastic sexual sensations that cut guys will just never know about)

Yeah, we're a whimsical people.

No, like most religions you make the rules up as you go and you dislike change, especially when you see it coming from outside your sub-group.

Right, because "It's a violation of a child's freedoms to indoctrinate him into a religion before he can think for himself" is the absolute pinnacle of logical thought.

Not my argument.

 

[Lonewulf]

Y'know, I find it interesting how people are already attributing me to saying something that I never said.

I never even mentioned the word "indoctrinate". In fact, I never actually mentioned anything about teaching a child your favored religion. I didn't say that it was wrong or right to teach your child your religion.

It's intriguing that people need to make stuff up to counter any of my points.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think that's a good idea. Some web sites promoting the idea of a shalom bris (no circumcision) as an alternative to the current bris (involves circumcision) have asserted that prior to Hellenistic times (the time when Greece had invaded and taken over Israel) that the circumcision removed far less of the foreskin than is being removed now. (E.g. one web site IIRC said that only "the very tip" was removed.)

However they provided absolutely no references or any other sort of proof, so I'm not bothering to track down and post the web site links.

However, it is the main reason why I looked up to see what the Talmud had to say about the ceremony. There was no detail provided unlike other areas of the Talmud that can get extremely precise (one example would be what is considered cooking, an activity not allowed on the Sabbath). Because there was no detail provided -- I suppose that some of the bris shalom web sites assertions could be possible.


Yah, never know.

Seriously, Jewish tradition -- even in the more conservative circles -- does adjust despite assertions that "the law can not be changed!" Its just sometimes done by completely overlooking the matter (For example, over the 19th and 20th centuries deaf mutes were no longer considered to not have the legal rights of adults although this change was glossed over by saying that deaf adults were not like the ones being referred to in the Talmud) or its handled very creatively.

IMHO the bris is a candidate for being handled creatively (some day, in the future) and possibly one way that this might be handled in the future is to remove far less of the foreskin than is being removed now.

I think one possible catalyst for this to happen will be if the bris shaloms become more popular -- than the more conservative branches will yield to the social pressure and adjust. For any one who says that Orthodox Jewish practices never yield to social pressure -- bah! Not true. Classic example would be how divorce is treated differently between the Bablyonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.

It is so nice to talk with someone who is willing to discuss the issue, rather than just defend their position. Thank you for the information.

 

[Loss Leader]

If you live in an English-speaking community, it's sensible and expected that you teach him English. Otherwise, your child will have trouble communicating, will have trouble learning in school, will have trouble in just about everything.* Therefore, it is essential that your child be taught the language (or a language, if there is more than one) of the society he lives in for him to function in it.

How is your argument differ from this one: If you live in a generally christian community, it's sensible and expected that you teach him christianity. Otherwise, your child will have trouble communicating, will have trouble learning in school, will have trouble in just about everything.

See, what I just said above is true. Christian children have an easier time in our society than non-christian children. They get along better in school and they can listen to the radio in the month of December.

The real difference is that you've made a value judgment about the worth of English and you've made a value judgment about the worth of religion. But there is no empirical reason to believe in the value judgment's you've made. I understand why you don't like having this pointed out.

 

[Loss Leader]

So why can't golf clubs legally ban black people? Why do religions get an exemption? It couldn't be could it, that religion, despite all its pretensions, is founded on bigotry and hatred of other groups?

What the heck do I care why religions are allowed to discriminate? You made a statement of fact and your statement was wrong. Whether it "should be" wrong doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.

Not my argument.

Then I'm not addressing you.

 

[Lonewulf]

How is your argument differ from this one: If you live in a generally christian community, it's sensible and expected that you teach him christianity. Otherwise, your child will have trouble communicating, will have trouble learning in school, will have trouble in just about everything.

See, what I just said above is true. Christian children have an easier time in our society than non-christian children. They get along better in school and they can listen to the radio in the month of December.

Which is something we want to reinforce, no doubt.

Discrimination ftw.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How is your argument differ from this one: If you live in a generally christian community, it's sensible and expected that you teach him christianity. Otherwise, your child will have trouble communicating, will have trouble learning in school, will have trouble in just about everything.

See, what I just said above is true. Christian children have an easier time in our society than non-christian children. They get along better in school and they can listen to the radio in the month of December.

The real difference is that you've made a value judgment about the worth of English and you've made a value judgment about the worth of religion. But there is no empirical reason to believe in the value judgment's you've made. I understand why you don't like having this pointed out.

Firstly, how can you have a religion if you can't speak a language?

Secondly, it wasn't a value judgment about English, it was a value judgment about language. I.e. It is more important for a child to be able to speak the common language of the society it lives in, than it is for it to have the same religion as the majority in that society.

Finally, as for the empirical evidence, I suggest you visit the West Midlands in the UK and see how well the Muslims who can speak English are doing compared to Christians who can't.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

That could possibly be considered a reasonable argument if the answer to my question weren't so blazingly obvious. However, that you chose to willfully ignore the obvious answer demonstrates that you are willing to go to ridiculous lengths in order disagree with me. Really, it should come as no surprise to you that playing along with this much silliness has lost its charm for me.

What obvious argument. You advanced the argument and expect others to somehow read your mind.

Just to recap. You posted an argument. Not me or anyone else. You did. An example of how it didn't work was posted but you have consistently failed in any way whatsoever to qualify it. I have invited you on a number of occasiiosn to address the question as to why, if you won't take your own arguments seriously anyone else should and why anyone should qualify your own arguments when you won't. It is after all your argument. Your latest refusal to answer simple questions simply demonstrates your complete lack of interest in your own argument

Ah yes, another stunningly accurate reading of my intentions.

Ah yes, another stunning suggestion that others should be able to read your mind when you won't even answer simple questions about your own arguments. It seems not only do you not expect us to take your arguments at face value but we have to decide what it is you really think as we can't rely on your own posted words. Bizarre.

I'm no longer stunned, but I am a bit surprised that you are willing to show yourself in such a poor light by pretending that you are unable to differentiate between my two examples (the slap on the butt vs. bashing the head in with a 2x4). I'm impressed. That shows a real commitment to your cause. You have persuaded me to change my mind. Here goes.

The practices that strengthen groups would also be evaluated by other considerations, such as a weighing of the benefit/harm to the individual.

Linda

At last.

In what way is slicing bits off a protesting child's genitals for ones own satisfaction in any way different from having lopping other bits off and who is to carry out this evaluation anyway - those who are in favour of mutilation and are in a position of power over an innocent child or the child when it grows up to be big enough to defend its own body from abuse?

I believe that the child is the only true arbiter. Otherwise it is abuse of the vilest kind.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

This is nothing. You'd be stunned by some of circumstances under which I've been able to laugh.

Linda

QED.

 

[Kaylee]

It is so nice to talk with someone who is willing to discuss the issue, rather than just defend their position. Thank you for the information.

Or just play around for "the sport" of it. I feel the same way -- thank you!

 

[fls]

In what way is slicing bits off a protesting

Whether or not a child protests is not relevant. A child also protests at having an IV started for life-saving antibiotics. And the lack of a protest from the child would not make an egregious act acceptable. Whether they are expected to protest simply guides what measures you take to make the procedure more comfortable. The qualification can be dropped.

child's genitals for ones own satisfaction

None of the circumstances that have been discussed involve "one's own satisfaction". That qualification can be dropped as well.

in any way different from having lopping other bits off

The test for this is whether or not it could be considered in the child's best interest taking into account physical, social and mental well-being.

and who is to carry out this evaluation anyway

Those who are charged with ensuring the best interests of the child - usually the parents - until the child is competent to consent.

- those who are in favour of mutilation

No, but that situation would be rare.

and are in a position of power over an innocent child

That wording could be applied to parents, so yes.

or the child when it grows up to be big enough to defend its own body from abuse?

Also yes.

I believe that the child is the only true arbiter.

This doesn't address the problem that an infant can't decide anything.

Otherwise it is abuse

That infants have caregivers is not usually (ever?) considered abusive.

of the vilest kind.

Vilest? Is it possible to consider that killing a child is a viler act?

None of what I've said here hasn't already been said many times.

Linda