Germany Outlaws Circumcison
Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:02 pm » by Kaarmaa
http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/
Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US
April 26th, 2010 by ICGI
A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity applauds that, for the first time, a rational attempt has been made to estimate the scale of the problem, and is simultaneously appalled by how many baby boys needlessly die each year in the United States.
The study concluded: “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” And called the deaths “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”
The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
Previous studies estimated the death rate as low as two per year to as many as 230. The study collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate magnitude of the problem.
To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.
Because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and the apparent lack of investigation, it is easy to see how the medical system could either unwittingly or intentionally obscure the true cause of these deaths.
To hospital residents, the birth of a boy is celebrated as an opportunity to practice surgery, but a resident’s first surgery upon a live human being does not always go as planned.
Many factors combine to explain the lack of reliable mortality data or why this problem has not received more attention. To ignore or hide the likely cause of so many infant deaths for so many years requires a significant amount of denial or obfuscation—by: parents, physicians, hospital staff, insurers, medical associations, and legislators.
Boys have been lost to circumcision in the United States from the time it was first practiced to the present day, for a variety of reasons, as the following examples illustrate. The first two, known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, in 1856 and 1858, where circumcision was introduced.
Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:09 pm » by Cambay411
Iwanci wrote:Cambay, for the sake of abbreviating the discussion (as much as I am enjoying it with you) I will say this.
Your argument falls short because you are putting the ‘religion’ into the equation. Germany has NOT made jewish circumcision illegal, they have made ‘circumcision’ illegal. End of story and NO religious connotations, I know you would like to keep dragging the past and keep playing the ‘victim’ but this is NOT the intention of the laws that Germany has introduced. Now, having said that, if it were purely biased by the religion, then I would probably agree with you, no one should be discriminated against (or for) due to religion. But the law makers in that country have seen other issues and implications that you refuse to see as abuse or torture etc. You may classify this however you like, but pain inflicted on a child for no medical reason is abuse, in my eyes and obviously in the eyes of the lawmakers who have no doubt consulted many medical experts, more so than you and I.
Your religious stance has EVERYTHING to do with this argument, because your views are being biased by it. This is apparent and a lifetime of religious teachings and dogma is difficult to work around when it is ingrained in your psyche. No disrespect here mate because I find religious people to be highly convicted and motivated even in the face of adversity, kudos. However this distorts your ‘logic’ flow because you are failing to see anything that goes against your religious bias.
In question 1 you say you may or may not protest, I am not asking if you would march down the street or burn down buildings, but would you be equally outraged at the loss of apparent rights?
In question 2, YES it is your place to say if a religion or other parent is abusing a child, It is everyone’s place to identify and stop child abuse even if the child is not known to you. Too many children are abused and this continues because people just don’t want to get involved or think they have no right. YES you do and yes I do, and YES I expect the law to get involved on my part.
I have never once stated that circumcision is akin to cutting hair and nails, circumcision is a far cry from cutting hair and nails. Yet again, your argument about memory is irrelevant as it is not a reason to inflict ‘pain’. Yet again you haven’t answered my question about conflicting interests.
If another person’s religious rights conflicted with yours or caused yours to be offended or altered, which religious right would prevail? If a Jewish person opened a synagogue and several years later a Muslim person tried to open a Mosque next door, or a non religious businessman wanted to legally open a multi story brothel on the other side (assuming it was legal to do so) and a nazi white supremist group opened a convention centre across the road where anti-Semitic talks were held on their premises and could be heard and the mosque canted their prayers over the loud speaker etc.. Keep in mind NO PAIN at this stage.. which group’s cause should prevail assuming they all had legal rights to do what they were doing and no one was being physically injured?
All my scenarios are hypothetical my friend as is your ASSUMOTION and correlation between the law to ban circumcision being a ploy to affect adversely the Jewish faith.
P.S. I am enjoyin the conversation and respect your views, we are all allowed this one basic freedom and whilst I agree that I do not like to errosion of freedoms and that we are in fact over regulated, I do not believe this to b the case in the circumcision law.
Iwanci, I assume you think I have bias in this because Im Jewish. I actually im pretty sure you may have stated you think Im Jewish. I am not Jewish and I dont incorperate any of there belief systems that I know of. I have little to no knowledge of the Jewish faith. I am very close to God but have no connection with any type of organized religon. I certainly have no bias in this issue what so ever.
Now there may be some things here we are just gonna disagree on and that will be all there is to it. We both definately disagree about circumcision being illegal. Where I do agree with you is that Germany does have the right to outlaw circumcsion in their nation. I also agree we should not punish or stereo type Germany for what happend in the Nazi days. All this being said you failed to answer some of my most important questions. And also, tho I answered all your questions, you came back in your next post (quoted above) and literally asked questions I just answered. For example, in your respnse to my answer for question 1 you asked would I be equally has outraged at the loss of another religons apparent rights. In my answer I stated I might protest because,in my opinion, the loss of the other person rights would be wrong to me. Tho I didnt say yes I would be equally outraged, you did not specifcally ask if I would be "equally as outraged." But to answer that, yes I would.
You asked me which religous right I believe should prevail in a clash of religous customs. I said I believe no religon should impede on another nor do they have to. But if the case arises I would hope to be free not to choose sides. Which side should prevail? That would depend on the social norms of that culture. And circumcision is within the social norms of most places, tho some disagree with it.
Questions I am interested in knowing your opinion of:
(I understand in your opinion this arguement doesnt cut it, and I agree with much of what you said in your response but I dont see how you cant see the correlation between Nazi Germany and a law in Germany that outlaws a Jewish custom)
How is Nazi Germany irrelevant from this subject? Just a couple of generations ago, Nazi Germany hated Jews and now present Germany outlaws a common Jewish practice. Sure, one can say the law applies to everyone not just Jews. But as you said it affects Jews more than anyone else. How is it possible to outlaw a prominent religious practice and say the law doesn’t discriminate against said religion? Is it ok to outlaw a religous custom just because people outside of the religon practice this custom? Does implying that outlawing a religous custom does not discriminate against said religon because the law applys to everyone not just seem like a justification of means? Is it not fair to say this law discriminates against circumcising a newborn and those who practice it? If the people who practice this are mostly Jewish, then seemingly aren’t these Jews being discriminated against? (You say the fact the law affects everyone means it doesnt discriminate, I say the fact it does affect everyone IS the reason it discriminates. For example, if a law was passed in America that dealt with any religous custom within our social norms, it would state "This custom is illegal except for religous reasons" therefore it would not discriminate against anyone. However I understand Germany isnt America. Why not let the Jews and the people of Germany have there human and religous rights?)
Circumcising a newborn is a religious based practice. So does outlawing it not seem prejudice against the religions that practice it? (You say it has no health benifits but it also has no long term negative health affects and religous as well as human rights have everything to do with this arguement)
Why, out of all the potentially harmful parental practices, is circumcision specifically outlawed?
Why not outlaw spanking your child. Studies show children who are spanked commonly have lower IQs than children not spanked. This is a parental practice that is documented to have negative long term effects on children. Is circumcision documented to have any negative long term effects on children?
I may agree with your point of view more than you realize. I know it sure doesnt seem that way. These questions I feel outline my end of the arguement pretty well. Lastly I ask:
Tho you say this topic as nothing to due with religon, many of your questions have to do with religous conflict. Not only that, this topic of circumcision has nothing to due with religous conflict. It deals with a religons conflict with a government. With the outlawing of cirumcision (a prominent Jewish custom) there is obviously confict there. But lets nevermind this and lets use the term "belief systems". We have those who believe circumcision is ok and those who believe it is not. In Germany circumcision would seemingly be in the social norm because of all the people that practice it. But if it is outlawed, doesnt that mean it is outside of the social norm in Germany? Obviously. With so many Jews in Germany and so many people that practice this custom, how did circumcision find itself this far out of the social norm that it is now illegal? I know many think its against a childs rights but once again with so many Jews in Germany and so many poeple who practice this custom, how did that point of view become so prominent that circumcision is now illegal? Instead of using the childs rights arguement, lets ask this, with so many people in Germany who practice circumcision how is it possibly a prominent belief that circumcising a baby is wrong, against a childs rights and should be outlawed? Once again I do understand your point of view on this but the questions above this paragraph and these in this paragraph are just some that linger in my mind.
Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:14 pm » by Cambay411
Kaarmaa wrote:http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US
April 26th, 2010 by ICGI
A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity applauds that, for the first time, a rational attempt has been made to estimate the scale of the problem, and is simultaneously appalled by how many baby boys needlessly die each year in the United States.
The study concluded: “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” And called the deaths “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”
The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
Previous studies estimated the death rate as low as two per year to as many as 230. The study collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate magnitude of the problem.
To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.
Because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and the apparent lack of investigation, it is easy to see how the medical system could either unwittingly or intentionally obscure the true cause of these deaths.
To hospital residents, the birth of a boy is celebrated as an opportunity to practice surgery, but a resident’s first surgery upon a live human being does not always go as planned.
Many factors combine to explain the lack of reliable mortality data or why this problem has not received more attention. To ignore or hide the likely cause of so many infant deaths for so many years requires a significant amount of denial or obfuscation—by: parents, physicians, hospital staff, insurers, medical associations, and legislators.
Boys have been lost to circumcision in the United States from the time it was first practiced to the present day, for a variety of reasons, as the following examples illustrate. The first two, known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, in 1856 and 1858, where circumcision was introduced.
Eating peanut butter probably causes more childrens deaths a year than circumcision. Because eating peanut butter is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. And its good to know they do use anesthesia, this should render the pain and suffering arguement pointless.
Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:39 pm » by Cambay411
One more thing from my popint of view. If there were no Jews (or people that pacticed circumcision) in Germany I would not think near as much about it because then it wouldnt seem as if a whole religon and culture of people are being discriminated against.
Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:57 am » by Iwanci
Cambay,
it is almost pointless arguing with you because you refuse to see ‘my’ logic. Just because a law goes against the grain of a religious practice it does NOT mean it is specifically discriminating against that religion.
Your answer of 'maybe' I would be outraged is not an answer. Maybe is sitting on the fence and is in contrast with your opinion on this particular issue regarding 'circumcision' in Germany where you have taken a clear side based on YOUR views of the Jewish faith. I would have preferred you simply stated (like me) that you are against any obvious discrimination. Now forgetting religion for a second and forgetting the Jewish faith for arguments sake, discrimination against 1 or 1million people is the same thing in my eyes and should not be tolerated. The law makers should use sound and unbiased judgement in making laws, which it appears they have in this case, religion should never be a part of the equation as it in itself it discriminates against those who do not believe. I am all for freedom of expression etc, however, not when you have no understanding of the implications or when you are far too young to know. What about answering ALL my questions?
When do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Using your logic, we should always be conscious not to offend the Jews even though it makes sense for the populace as a whole, simply because of past indiscretions or in fact atrocities. NO, we must never forget these atrocities but we must also learn to move on and to integrate the populace so they are unified, separating Jewish practice from the rest of society is in itself discriminatory, in fact I contend that anything which segregates or causes one race to be treated differently to another is in fact discriminatory. Now what if the Germans outlawed something that did not offend the Jewish faith but did in fact offend another religious faith or other belief? What if we never heard of that offence because the voice of the few are often never heard? Does that make it right? NO any deliberate discrimination is wrong, in this case it is NOT deliberate so there is no offence. The law makers cannot possibly consider all faiths in their bid to make laws (although I suspect they so take this into consideration), otherwise we would simply fail to make laws and society would fail.
If you practice circumcision regardless of your faith this law is discriminating against you, that is the whole point of the law, to prevent people doing what is against it. If I believe that human sacrifice is OK, I would feel discriminated against by most laws as they prevent the taking of life, so YES the law discriminates against Jews, just as much as it discriminates against anyone who practices circumcision regardless of their faith, but the Jews are not being specifically targeted or specifically discriminated against.
How can you compare spanking a child to circumcision? Abusing a child by causing it an injury is already outlawed by the way, please show me your research on the long term negative impacts of 'spanking' a child. Now, you do know the difference between spanking and beating yeah? Beating a child or excessive punishment is already outlawed in most countries, however you may find to your dismay that in some countries it is still acceptable to beat your child, as it is not only a common practice and custom but also decreed in religious dogma, as is the treatment of women as second class citizens... bad huh? You bet.
You say that you believe that no religion should prevail over another, and yet a look around the world will show you mass conflict due to one religious belief trying to prevail over another. Whilst I agree with you in your 'feeling' (as I feel the same),b we do not live in utopia and the reality is quite different. So if your belief is being offended by a law that hopes to accommodate another religion, which should prevail? There was some outrage in the US when a Muslim Mosque was to be built near the site of the twin towers this was seen as an outrage, however, I believe a Jewish Synagogue is also not far, why not place a legal brothel nearby as well? How about the freedom rights of a business man to build a brothel near a synagogue? Should be allowed? or not? Surely one man's rights are just as equal as another man’s rights? Why should 'religious' belief have the defining vote? Why should religious belief prevail over any other belief? Rights are rights no?
You statement about a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is as irrelevant as it is illogical, imagine the defence given in a court of law... In Australia we have had Muslims who have tried to use their religious beliefs as a defence against prosecution (they were tried and convicted of plotting terrorist acts and inciting violence), they would like our laws altered to cater for their religious rights under their Sharia laws, this has been quashed and with good reason. How many laws should we have do you think? One for every religion? Now, what say we allow Muslims to preach hatred against the Jews and vice versa, and it is ok because their religions state that the other should be cast in fire..? What then my friend? You see, allow one religion based indiscretion and you create a legitimate precedence for others. NO, the law should be ONE and should apply equally to everyone regardless of their faith or any other religion. Surely even you can see this??
I do agree that this is NOT a religious argument; I have said all along that religion should have nothing to do with it, apologies but I am responding to your constant rants about the Jewish beliefs and Nazi Germany. OK, so let's agree that this debate has nothing to do with religion.. what is your argument? That the new law is discriminating against those who practice circumcision? YES, I agree it is, but so it should. As I stated above, LAWS are discriminatory against those who break them, that is the whole point of the laws... don't break the laws and guess what, you are not being discriminated against. So... Germany has altered its social norms, so what? This is what societal evolution is all about. We are always altering laws to cater for changes in the way society views issues, in this case there has been a change in the way the German public sees circumcision and they have altered their laws to reflect that change, there is nothing new or sinister in this, it is what countries do all the time. As with any change, there will always be outcries of injustice from one group or another, in the main however, if the law is passed to reflect the wishes of the majority and to protect those that are most vulnerable, then kudos to the law makers.
So, I hear where you are coming from Cambray, I share your sentiments to a large degree, but I do not agree on religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences, I am not religious in the 'normal' sense (you may have guessed) but I do believe in people rights to 'believe' in anything they like, I respect that. I also believe that as an adult people have the right to do whatever they like to their bodies, I respect that also. I do not believe that any one person (parent or not) has any right to alter the body of another (unless for specific medical or health benefits), by all means share your belief with your child, but leave the ultimate decision up to the child only when the child has the legal capacity and mental ability to fully understand what they will be experiencing.
it is almost pointless arguing with you because you refuse to see ‘my’ logic. Just because a law goes against the grain of a religious practice it does NOT mean it is specifically discriminating against that religion.
Your answer of 'maybe' I would be outraged is not an answer. Maybe is sitting on the fence and is in contrast with your opinion on this particular issue regarding 'circumcision' in Germany where you have taken a clear side based on YOUR views of the Jewish faith. I would have preferred you simply stated (like me) that you are against any obvious discrimination. Now forgetting religion for a second and forgetting the Jewish faith for arguments sake, discrimination against 1 or 1million people is the same thing in my eyes and should not be tolerated. The law makers should use sound and unbiased judgement in making laws, which it appears they have in this case, religion should never be a part of the equation as it in itself it discriminates against those who do not believe. I am all for freedom of expression etc, however, not when you have no understanding of the implications or when you are far too young to know. What about answering ALL my questions?
When do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Using your logic, we should always be conscious not to offend the Jews even though it makes sense for the populace as a whole, simply because of past indiscretions or in fact atrocities. NO, we must never forget these atrocities but we must also learn to move on and to integrate the populace so they are unified, separating Jewish practice from the rest of society is in itself discriminatory, in fact I contend that anything which segregates or causes one race to be treated differently to another is in fact discriminatory. Now what if the Germans outlawed something that did not offend the Jewish faith but did in fact offend another religious faith or other belief? What if we never heard of that offence because the voice of the few are often never heard? Does that make it right? NO any deliberate discrimination is wrong, in this case it is NOT deliberate so there is no offence. The law makers cannot possibly consider all faiths in their bid to make laws (although I suspect they so take this into consideration), otherwise we would simply fail to make laws and society would fail.
If you practice circumcision regardless of your faith this law is discriminating against you, that is the whole point of the law, to prevent people doing what is against it. If I believe that human sacrifice is OK, I would feel discriminated against by most laws as they prevent the taking of life, so YES the law discriminates against Jews, just as much as it discriminates against anyone who practices circumcision regardless of their faith, but the Jews are not being specifically targeted or specifically discriminated against.
How can you compare spanking a child to circumcision? Abusing a child by causing it an injury is already outlawed by the way, please show me your research on the long term negative impacts of 'spanking' a child. Now, you do know the difference between spanking and beating yeah? Beating a child or excessive punishment is already outlawed in most countries, however you may find to your dismay that in some countries it is still acceptable to beat your child, as it is not only a common practice and custom but also decreed in religious dogma, as is the treatment of women as second class citizens... bad huh? You bet.
You say that you believe that no religion should prevail over another, and yet a look around the world will show you mass conflict due to one religious belief trying to prevail over another. Whilst I agree with you in your 'feeling' (as I feel the same),b we do not live in utopia and the reality is quite different. So if your belief is being offended by a law that hopes to accommodate another religion, which should prevail? There was some outrage in the US when a Muslim Mosque was to be built near the site of the twin towers this was seen as an outrage, however, I believe a Jewish Synagogue is also not far, why not place a legal brothel nearby as well? How about the freedom rights of a business man to build a brothel near a synagogue? Should be allowed? or not? Surely one man's rights are just as equal as another man’s rights? Why should 'religious' belief have the defining vote? Why should religious belief prevail over any other belief? Rights are rights no?
You statement about a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is as irrelevant as it is illogical, imagine the defence given in a court of law... In Australia we have had Muslims who have tried to use their religious beliefs as a defence against prosecution (they were tried and convicted of plotting terrorist acts and inciting violence), they would like our laws altered to cater for their religious rights under their Sharia laws, this has been quashed and with good reason. How many laws should we have do you think? One for every religion? Now, what say we allow Muslims to preach hatred against the Jews and vice versa, and it is ok because their religions state that the other should be cast in fire..? What then my friend? You see, allow one religion based indiscretion and you create a legitimate precedence for others. NO, the law should be ONE and should apply equally to everyone regardless of their faith or any other religion. Surely even you can see this??
I do agree that this is NOT a religious argument; I have said all along that religion should have nothing to do with it, apologies but I am responding to your constant rants about the Jewish beliefs and Nazi Germany. OK, so let's agree that this debate has nothing to do with religion.. what is your argument? That the new law is discriminating against those who practice circumcision? YES, I agree it is, but so it should. As I stated above, LAWS are discriminatory against those who break them, that is the whole point of the laws... don't break the laws and guess what, you are not being discriminated against. So... Germany has altered its social norms, so what? This is what societal evolution is all about. We are always altering laws to cater for changes in the way society views issues, in this case there has been a change in the way the German public sees circumcision and they have altered their laws to reflect that change, there is nothing new or sinister in this, it is what countries do all the time. As with any change, there will always be outcries of injustice from one group or another, in the main however, if the law is passed to reflect the wishes of the majority and to protect those that are most vulnerable, then kudos to the law makers.
So, I hear where you are coming from Cambray, I share your sentiments to a large degree, but I do not agree on religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences, I am not religious in the 'normal' sense (you may have guessed) but I do believe in people rights to 'believe' in anything they like, I respect that. I also believe that as an adult people have the right to do whatever they like to their bodies, I respect that also. I do not believe that any one person (parent or not) has any right to alter the body of another (unless for specific medical or health benefits), by all means share your belief with your child, but leave the ultimate decision up to the child only when the child has the legal capacity and mental ability to fully understand what they will be experiencing.
Fortes fortuna iuvat
Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:31 pm » by Cambay411
Iwanci wrote:Cambay,
it is almost pointless arguing with you because you refuse to see ‘my’ logic. Just because a law goes against the grain of a religious practice it does NOT mean it is specifically discriminating against that religion.
Your answer of 'maybe' I would be outraged is not an answer. Maybe is sitting on the fence and is in contrast with your opinion on this particular issue regarding 'circumcision' in Germany where you have taken a clear side based on YOUR views of the Jewish faith. I would have preferred you simply stated (like me) that you are against any obvious discrimination. Now forgetting religion for a second and forgetting the Jewish faith for arguments sake, discrimination against 1 or 1million people is the same thing in my eyes and should not be tolerated. The law makers should use sound and unbiased judgement in making laws, which it appears they have in this case, religion should never be a part of the equation as it in itself it discriminates against those who do not believe. I am all for freedom of expression etc, however, not when you have no understanding of the implications or when you are far too young to know. What about answering ALL my questions?
When do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Using your logic, we should always be conscious not to offend the Jews even though it makes sense for the populace as a whole, simply because of past indiscretions or in fact atrocities. NO, we must never forget these atrocities but we must also learn to move on and to integrate the populace so they are unified, separating Jewish practice from the rest of society is in itself discriminatory, in fact I contend that anything which segregates or causes one race to be treated differently to another is in fact discriminatory. Now what if the Germans outlawed something that did not offend the Jewish faith but did in fact offend another religious faith or other belief? What if we never heard of that offence because the voice of the few are often never heard? Does that make it right? NO any deliberate discrimination is wrong, in this case it is NOT deliberate so there is no offence. The law makers cannot possibly consider all faiths in their bid to make laws (although I suspect they so take this into consideration), otherwise we would simply fail to make laws and society would fail.
If you practice circumcision regardless of your faith this law is discriminating against you, that is the whole point of the law, to prevent people doing what is against it. If I believe that human sacrifice is OK, I would feel discriminated against by most laws as they prevent the taking of life, so YES the law discriminates against Jews, just as much as it discriminates against anyone who practices circumcision regardless of their faith, but the Jews are not being specifically targeted or specifically discriminated against.
How can you compare spanking a child to circumcision? Abusing a child by causing it an injury is already outlawed by the way, please show me your research on the long term negative impacts of 'spanking' a child. Now, you do know the difference between spanking and beating yeah? Beating a child or excessive punishment is already outlawed in most countries, however you may find to your dismay that in some countries it is still acceptable to beat your child, as it is not only a common practice and custom but also decreed in religious dogma, as is the treatment of women as second class citizens... bad huh? You bet.
You say that you believe that no religion should prevail over another, and yet a look around the world will show you mass conflict due to one religious belief trying to prevail over another. Whilst I agree with you in your 'feeling' (as I feel the same),b we do not live in utopia and the reality is quite different. So if your belief is being offended by a law that hopes to accommodate another religion, which should prevail? There was some outrage in the US when a Muslim Mosque was to be built near the site of the twin towers this was seen as an outrage, however, I believe a Jewish Synagogue is also not far, why not place a legal brothel nearby as well? How about the freedom rights of a business man to build a brothel near a synagogue? Should be allowed? or not? Surely one man's rights are just as equal as another man’s rights? Why should 'religious' belief have the defining vote? Why should religious belief prevail over any other belief? Rights are rights no?
You statement about a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is as irrelevant as it is illogical, imagine the defence given in a court of law... In Australia we have had Muslims who have tried to use their religious beliefs as a defence against prosecution (they were tried and convicted of plotting terrorist acts and inciting violence), they would like our laws altered to cater for their religious rights under their Sharia laws, this has been quashed and with good reason. How many laws should we have do you think? One for every religion? Now, what say we allow Muslims to preach hatred against the Jews and vice versa, and it is ok because their religions state that the other should be cast in fire..? What then my friend? You see, allow one religion based indiscretion and you create a legitimate precedence for others. NO, the law should be ONE and should apply equally to everyone regardless of their faith or any other religion. Surely even you can see this??
I do agree that this is NOT a religious argument; I have said all along that religion should have nothing to do with it, apologies but I am responding to your constant rants about the Jewish beliefs and Nazi Germany. OK, so let's agree that this debate has nothing to do with religion.. what is your argument? That the new law is discriminating against those who practice circumcision? YES, I agree it is, but so it should. As I stated above, LAWS are discriminatory against those who break them, that is the whole point of the laws... don't break the laws and guess what, you are not being discriminated against. So... Germany has altered its social norms, so what? This is what societal evolution is all about. We are always altering laws to cater for changes in the way society views issues, in this case there has been a change in the way the German public sees circumcision and they have altered their laws to reflect that change, there is nothing new or sinister in this, it is what countries do all the time. As with any change, there will always be outcries of injustice from one group or another, in the main however, if the law is passed to reflect the wishes of the majority and to protect those that are most vulnerable, then kudos to the law makers.
So, I hear where you are coming from Cambray, I share your sentiments to a large degree, but I do not agree on religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences, I am not religious in the 'normal' sense (you may have guessed) but I do believe in people rights to 'believe' in anything they like, I respect that. I also believe that as an adult people have the right to do whatever they like to their bodies, I respect that also. I do not believe that any one person (parent or not) has any right to alter the body of another (unless for specific medical or health benefits), by all means share your belief with your child, but leave the ultimate decision up to the child only when the child has the legal capacity and mental ability to fully understand what they will be experiencing.
I see where you mean a law that outlaws a religious practice may not intentionally discriminate against that religion. But, even if unintentional, it still does. And does it really matter if the discrimination is intentional or not?
Secondly I didn’t say I maybe would or maybe wouldnt be outraged. I said I would maybe protest, but probably not because im not a protestor type. Even if it was my own religon I probably would not be out protesting. I did say yes I would be equally outraged. And I also said I would be very alarmed if this happened in the US. But just to be sure I will state I am equally against any discrimination. Im guessing you read my answer wrong. Despite that the rest of your second paragraph present a solid argument and you said nothing that I could really disagree with.
As for your third paragraph I have to start off by saying yes we should always try to be conscious not to offend the Jews and any race or religion. And when do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? Excellent question and in my opinion the best question you’ve asked. Any punishment or stigma dealing with Nazi’s should be long gone by now but that doesn’t mean its impossible to draw connections between Nazi’s and the fact circumcision is outlawed in Germany. Im not saying its fair to draw connections between the two but people will think this way. Honestly I jumped to the conclusion of racism myself but you sharing your view points with me have lessened those suspicions.
To try to help you understand why people may draw connections, as you said yes the law does discriminate against Jews tho maybe not intentionally. Tho there may be no connection, Nazi Germany tried to exterminate Jews from the earth just a couple generations ago. This is still very fresh in peoples memories. There are still living Nazi’s (warriors who fought in WW2 that still hate Jews) in Germany and its easy to assume some of the hate was passed on to at least there children. Hate like that doesn’t just disappear. For example there is still much racism in the US between blacks and whites. So really when Germany (where we know there is racism dealing with Jews) discriminates against Jews many will ask the question “Is it intentional and is racism involved?”.
The fifth paragraph asks how can I compare spanking to circumcision. I found this comical considering your comparisons of human sacfrafice, long term abuse and etc. To answer, the parental practice of circumcising a newborn is outlawed in Germany to protect a child and said childs rights. The thing is, there is no long term or short term negative affects. Since anesthetics are applied, its not even painful to the child. Since it is so important to Germany to protect a child and a childs rights, why not outlaw something that is shown to truly hurt a child such as spanking. Spanking is documented to cause mental illnesses later in life and children who are spanked are shown to have lower IQs.
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/study-shows-sp ... Number%3D1
Your seventh paragraph reminds me of the story of Muhammed Ali. He converted to Islam. When he was heavyweight champ of the world he was drafted into the Vietnam War. He refused to go because it was against his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor so he was not punished. If it were anyone else (say a Christian) they would have went to prison. Things like this happen in America all the time except now it doesn’t have to go to court. That’s just the way it is here. This means a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is very much fact and happens. This doesnt mean I neccessarily disagree with anything you said in this paragraph. Im just letting you know that’s how it is here.
Next paragraph you said you do agree this is not a religious argument tho I never stated that was my opinion. I did say “this topic of circumcision has nothing to do with religous conflict. It deals with a religons conflict with a government”. I do think this is a religious arguement and it is whether it should be or not. I generally agree with everything else you said in this paragraph.
Excellent last paragraph i agree totally with most you said. But I think applying that logic to circumcision is a bit extreme. This I guess is where our beliefs separate. I understand how your beliefs are different and I respect that. I appreciate you helping me understand this point of view on things. One descrepency I spotted, you said you disagree with religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences. Religion is a huge reason for most of these divergences and has to be taken into consideration. Im not saying you cant feel this way or you wrong, im just asking do you think it is actually possible to not take religion into consideration?
- WillEase666
-
- Posts: 7555
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm
Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:46 pm » by WillEase666
Cambay411 wrote:One more thing from my popint of view. If there were no Jews (or people that pacticed circumcision) in Germany I would not think near as much about it because then it wouldnt seem as if a whole religon and culture of people are being discriminated against.
If there were no Jews in Germany, this law would have never come up...I believe.
Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:22 am » by Iwanci
I see where you mean a law that outlaws a religious practice may not intentionally discriminate against that religion. But, even if unintentional, it still does. And does it really matter if the discrimination is intentional or not?
YES it does matter. Intention is a major determinant I believe in discrimination case.
Secondly I didn’t say I maybe would or maybe wouldnt be outraged. I said I would maybe protest, but probably not because im not a protestor type. Even if it was my own religon I probably would not be out protesting. I did say yes I would be equally outraged. And I also said I would be very alarmed if this happened in the US. But just to be sure I will state I am equally against any discrimination. Im guessing you read my answer wrong. Despite that the rest of your second paragraph present a solid argument and you said nothing that I could really disagree with.
Yep, probably read it incorrectly, however, protesting can occur in different forms, there are ‘silent’ protests, or indeed such as you have demonstrated in this discussion, it is not all about marching down the street and burning effigies etc. I will join you in a ‘true’ discrimination case btw, however, if we really look deep inside we will likely find that most of us do in fact discriminate to various degrees, and it’s not all about religion. Cultural, gender, age, colour, smell, etc are all discriminated against daily, albeit they are more against an individual rather than a group, but it occurs regardless and there is no point denying it.
As for your third paragraph I have to start off by saying yes we should always try to be conscious not to offend the Jews and any race or religion. And when do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? Excellent question and in my opinion the best question you’ve asked. Any punishment or stigma dealing with Nazi’s should be long gone by now but that doesn’t mean its impossible to draw connections between Nazi’s and the fact circumcision is outlawed in Germany. Im not saying its fair to draw connections between the two but people will think this way. Honestly I jumped to the conclusion of racism myself but you sharing your view points with me have lessened those suspicions.
We seem to have forgiven but not forgotten the Pearl Harbour issues with regards to the Japanese, or the Hiroshima bombing with the Americans, we haven’t forgotten but we make absolutely no connection between these atrocities and any law no matter how it may offend the race. These cases however are not sparked by religious bias. I have a great issue with problems stemming from religious arguments. I find that these arguments are used as an ‘each way’ bet by most religions, they are used to draw distinction to the religious believers and when things go wrong they tend to use the same argument is used to infer discrimination. In one way they want to be seen as different and treated differently, then when inconvenient they want to be treated the same. So my point, don’t allow religion to dominate or be used in any argument where a whole society is involved
To try to help you understand why people may draw connections, as you said yes the law does discriminate against Jews tho maybe not intentionally. Tho there may be no connection, Nazi Germany tried to exterminate Jews from the earth just a couple generations ago. This is still very fresh in peoples memories. There are still living Nazi’s (warriors who fought in WW2 that still hate Jews) in Germany and its easy to assume some of the hate was passed on to at least there children. Hate like that doesn’t just disappear. For example there is still much racism in the US between blacks and whites. So really when Germany (where we know there is racism dealing with Jews) discriminates against Jews many will ask the question “Is it intentional and is racism involved?”.
I do see and understand your point about the Nazi atrocity being fresh, but the Nazi atrocities against the Jews were not the only recent atrocities endured by people, what about Vietnam? Korea? There were atrocities committed here as well, but we seldom if ever hear of it, but these too are fresh in our minds. I understand the extent of the Nazi atrocities involved great numbers, however, an atrocity is an atrocity and in my eyes is of equal disdain. Now, if we thought the Germans were out to again target Jews, I would side with you, but they don’t appear to be, so I do not make the connection. I am equally certain that the lawmakers would have thought about the public perceptions before making the law, and proceeded regardless because their intent is NOT to discriminate against one religion, but against everyone who for whatever reason practices circumcision, that is the ‘legal’ stance.
The fifth paragraph asks how can I compare spanking to circumcision. I found this comical considering your comparisons of human sacfrafice, long term abuse and etc. To answer, the parental practice of circumcising a newborn is outlawed in Germany to protect a child and said childs rights. The thing is, there is no long term or short term negative affects. Since anesthetics are applied, its not even painful to the child. Since it is so important to Germany to protect a child and a childs rights, why not outlaw something that is shown to truly hurt a child such as spanking. Spanking is documented to cause mental illnesses later in life and children who are spanked are shown to have lower IQs.
I beg to differ on this one, what evidence do you now have that anesthetics are used by Rabbis in circumcision? ZERO, I think the poster that made reference to this was stating that it is applied when it is performed by a medical practitioner, I could be wrong, but please show me the process undertaken by the Rabbis. Also, no mention of the same posters mentioning of the complications and deaths resulting from unnecessary circumcision? You are being deliberately selective here my friend, but that is ok I understand why. You will also find that if you do your research there is no real phsycological negative affect from spanking, abuse is where your research should take you, here you will find I agree and so too does the law.
By way of your article.. mention this..
Researchers stressed that the study could not establish that spanking had actually caused these disorders in certain adults, only that there was a link between memories of such punishment and a higher incidence of mental problems.
The reality is, if 50 percent of the population has experienced being spanked in the past year, most kids are resilient.
The article is of ZERO use my friend.
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/study-shows-sp ... Number%3D1
Your seventh paragraph reminds me of the story of Muhammed Ali. He converted to Islam. When he was heavyweight champ of the world he was drafted into the Vietnam War. He refused to go because it was against his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor so he was not punished. If it were anyone else (say a Christian) they would have went to prison. Things like this happen in America all the time except now it doesn’t have to go to court. That’s just the way it is here. This means a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is very much fact and happens. This doesnt mean I neccessarily disagree with anything you said in this paragraph. Im just letting you know that’s how it is here.
And here you prove my point, same man different religion and as a result a different ruling. In this case the Muslim goes unpunished, the Christian goes to jail. If the law ignored the religion, then either would be either free or incarcerated, a much better result in my opinion, and less discriminatory than the ruling that was past.
Next paragraph you said you do agree this is not a religious argument tho I never stated that was my opinion. I did say “this topic of circumcision has nothing to do with religous conflict. It deals with a religons conflict with a government”. I do think this is a religious arguement and it is whether it should be or not. I generally agree with everything else you said in this paragraph.
Excellent last paragraph i agree totally with most you said. But I think applying that logic to circumcision is a bit extreme. This I guess is where our beliefs separate. I understand how your beliefs are different and I respect that. I appreciate you helping me understand this point of view on things. One descrepency I spotted, you said you disagree with religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences. Religion is a huge reason for most of these divergences and has to be taken into consideration. Im not saying you cant feel this way or you wrong, im just asking do you think it is actually possible to not take religion into consideration?
Now take a look at this article, this is what I am talking about that is often a result in religious rights arguments. One person (possibly mentally disturbed) tearing pages from a religious book gives people the religious right to beat, kill and burn him. My point, religion belief should give man no additional rights over another man, if men were created equal, then the law that binds them must be likewise, equal. Take a read and be just as disgusted as I was my friend. If we give in to the religious rights argument we will never see peace, as everyone will always see their religion as the ‘ONE’ over any other, thus making their right more dominant in their minds. The law should always be equal and should never discriminate, what if Germany banned circumcision but allowed it for Jews, would this not discriminate the same (albeit in favour) for the Jews and against everyone else, would other people then not have the right to cry favouritism? Would this then not incite further tension between the populace? I think it would.
Pakistani 'blasphemer' burned to death
• From: AAP
• July 05, 201210:37AM
Thousands of people dragged a Pakistani man accused of desecrating Islam's holy book from a police station in central Pakistan, beat him to death and then set his body on fire, a police official said.
THE incident highlighted the highly charged nature of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, under which anyone found guilty of insulting Islam's Prophet or the Koran can be sentenced to death.
Sometimes, however, people take the matter into their own hands.
A senior police officer, Mohammed Azhar Gujar, said in the incident on Tuesday in Bahawalpur, a city in a deeply conservative part of central Pakistan, attackers stormed a police station where the man was being interrogated.
Gujar said the victim seemed to be mentally unstable. He was arrested after residents said he threw pages of the Koran into the street.
While the man was being questioned, some people started making announcements over mosque loudspeakers, urging residents to go to the police station and punish him.
Within hours, thousands gathered outside and demanded the man be handed over to them. Gujar said police tried to protect him, but the mob turned violent.
They burned several police vehicles and wounded seven officers before grabbing the man and dragging him into the street, where he was beaten to death and his body set on fire.
Gujar said the mob also attacked the house of an area police chief and burned his furniture and possessions.
It was unclear whether the man was Muslim, a member of Pakistan's Christian minority or belonged to another religion. His name was not released.
Pakistani Christians live in fear of being arrested under the blasphemy laws, which critics say are often misused to settle personal scores or family feuds.
YES it does matter. Intention is a major determinant I believe in discrimination case.
Secondly I didn’t say I maybe would or maybe wouldnt be outraged. I said I would maybe protest, but probably not because im not a protestor type. Even if it was my own religon I probably would not be out protesting. I did say yes I would be equally outraged. And I also said I would be very alarmed if this happened in the US. But just to be sure I will state I am equally against any discrimination. Im guessing you read my answer wrong. Despite that the rest of your second paragraph present a solid argument and you said nothing that I could really disagree with.
Yep, probably read it incorrectly, however, protesting can occur in different forms, there are ‘silent’ protests, or indeed such as you have demonstrated in this discussion, it is not all about marching down the street and burning effigies etc. I will join you in a ‘true’ discrimination case btw, however, if we really look deep inside we will likely find that most of us do in fact discriminate to various degrees, and it’s not all about religion. Cultural, gender, age, colour, smell, etc are all discriminated against daily, albeit they are more against an individual rather than a group, but it occurs regardless and there is no point denying it.
As for your third paragraph I have to start off by saying yes we should always try to be conscious not to offend the Jews and any race or religion. And when do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? Excellent question and in my opinion the best question you’ve asked. Any punishment or stigma dealing with Nazi’s should be long gone by now but that doesn’t mean its impossible to draw connections between Nazi’s and the fact circumcision is outlawed in Germany. Im not saying its fair to draw connections between the two but people will think this way. Honestly I jumped to the conclusion of racism myself but you sharing your view points with me have lessened those suspicions.
We seem to have forgiven but not forgotten the Pearl Harbour issues with regards to the Japanese, or the Hiroshima bombing with the Americans, we haven’t forgotten but we make absolutely no connection between these atrocities and any law no matter how it may offend the race. These cases however are not sparked by religious bias. I have a great issue with problems stemming from religious arguments. I find that these arguments are used as an ‘each way’ bet by most religions, they are used to draw distinction to the religious believers and when things go wrong they tend to use the same argument is used to infer discrimination. In one way they want to be seen as different and treated differently, then when inconvenient they want to be treated the same. So my point, don’t allow religion to dominate or be used in any argument where a whole society is involved
To try to help you understand why people may draw connections, as you said yes the law does discriminate against Jews tho maybe not intentionally. Tho there may be no connection, Nazi Germany tried to exterminate Jews from the earth just a couple generations ago. This is still very fresh in peoples memories. There are still living Nazi’s (warriors who fought in WW2 that still hate Jews) in Germany and its easy to assume some of the hate was passed on to at least there children. Hate like that doesn’t just disappear. For example there is still much racism in the US between blacks and whites. So really when Germany (where we know there is racism dealing with Jews) discriminates against Jews many will ask the question “Is it intentional and is racism involved?”.
I do see and understand your point about the Nazi atrocity being fresh, but the Nazi atrocities against the Jews were not the only recent atrocities endured by people, what about Vietnam? Korea? There were atrocities committed here as well, but we seldom if ever hear of it, but these too are fresh in our minds. I understand the extent of the Nazi atrocities involved great numbers, however, an atrocity is an atrocity and in my eyes is of equal disdain. Now, if we thought the Germans were out to again target Jews, I would side with you, but they don’t appear to be, so I do not make the connection. I am equally certain that the lawmakers would have thought about the public perceptions before making the law, and proceeded regardless because their intent is NOT to discriminate against one religion, but against everyone who for whatever reason practices circumcision, that is the ‘legal’ stance.
The fifth paragraph asks how can I compare spanking to circumcision. I found this comical considering your comparisons of human sacfrafice, long term abuse and etc. To answer, the parental practice of circumcising a newborn is outlawed in Germany to protect a child and said childs rights. The thing is, there is no long term or short term negative affects. Since anesthetics are applied, its not even painful to the child. Since it is so important to Germany to protect a child and a childs rights, why not outlaw something that is shown to truly hurt a child such as spanking. Spanking is documented to cause mental illnesses later in life and children who are spanked are shown to have lower IQs.
I beg to differ on this one, what evidence do you now have that anesthetics are used by Rabbis in circumcision? ZERO, I think the poster that made reference to this was stating that it is applied when it is performed by a medical practitioner, I could be wrong, but please show me the process undertaken by the Rabbis. Also, no mention of the same posters mentioning of the complications and deaths resulting from unnecessary circumcision? You are being deliberately selective here my friend, but that is ok I understand why. You will also find that if you do your research there is no real phsycological negative affect from spanking, abuse is where your research should take you, here you will find I agree and so too does the law.
By way of your article.. mention this..
Researchers stressed that the study could not establish that spanking had actually caused these disorders in certain adults, only that there was a link between memories of such punishment and a higher incidence of mental problems.
The reality is, if 50 percent of the population has experienced being spanked in the past year, most kids are resilient.
The article is of ZERO use my friend.
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/study-shows-sp ... Number%3D1
Your seventh paragraph reminds me of the story of Muhammed Ali. He converted to Islam. When he was heavyweight champ of the world he was drafted into the Vietnam War. He refused to go because it was against his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor so he was not punished. If it were anyone else (say a Christian) they would have went to prison. Things like this happen in America all the time except now it doesn’t have to go to court. That’s just the way it is here. This means a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is very much fact and happens. This doesnt mean I neccessarily disagree with anything you said in this paragraph. Im just letting you know that’s how it is here.
And here you prove my point, same man different religion and as a result a different ruling. In this case the Muslim goes unpunished, the Christian goes to jail. If the law ignored the religion, then either would be either free or incarcerated, a much better result in my opinion, and less discriminatory than the ruling that was past.
Next paragraph you said you do agree this is not a religious argument tho I never stated that was my opinion. I did say “this topic of circumcision has nothing to do with religous conflict. It deals with a religons conflict with a government”. I do think this is a religious arguement and it is whether it should be or not. I generally agree with everything else you said in this paragraph.
Excellent last paragraph i agree totally with most you said. But I think applying that logic to circumcision is a bit extreme. This I guess is where our beliefs separate. I understand how your beliefs are different and I respect that. I appreciate you helping me understand this point of view on things. One descrepency I spotted, you said you disagree with religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences. Religion is a huge reason for most of these divergences and has to be taken into consideration. Im not saying you cant feel this way or you wrong, im just asking do you think it is actually possible to not take religion into consideration?
Now take a look at this article, this is what I am talking about that is often a result in religious rights arguments. One person (possibly mentally disturbed) tearing pages from a religious book gives people the religious right to beat, kill and burn him. My point, religion belief should give man no additional rights over another man, if men were created equal, then the law that binds them must be likewise, equal. Take a read and be just as disgusted as I was my friend. If we give in to the religious rights argument we will never see peace, as everyone will always see their religion as the ‘ONE’ over any other, thus making their right more dominant in their minds. The law should always be equal and should never discriminate, what if Germany banned circumcision but allowed it for Jews, would this not discriminate the same (albeit in favour) for the Jews and against everyone else, would other people then not have the right to cry favouritism? Would this then not incite further tension between the populace? I think it would.
Pakistani 'blasphemer' burned to death
• From: AAP
• July 05, 201210:37AM
Thousands of people dragged a Pakistani man accused of desecrating Islam's holy book from a police station in central Pakistan, beat him to death and then set his body on fire, a police official said.
THE incident highlighted the highly charged nature of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, under which anyone found guilty of insulting Islam's Prophet or the Koran can be sentenced to death.
Sometimes, however, people take the matter into their own hands.
A senior police officer, Mohammed Azhar Gujar, said in the incident on Tuesday in Bahawalpur, a city in a deeply conservative part of central Pakistan, attackers stormed a police station where the man was being interrogated.
Gujar said the victim seemed to be mentally unstable. He was arrested after residents said he threw pages of the Koran into the street.
While the man was being questioned, some people started making announcements over mosque loudspeakers, urging residents to go to the police station and punish him.
Within hours, thousands gathered outside and demanded the man be handed over to them. Gujar said police tried to protect him, but the mob turned violent.
They burned several police vehicles and wounded seven officers before grabbing the man and dragging him into the street, where he was beaten to death and his body set on fire.
Gujar said the mob also attacked the house of an area police chief and burned his furniture and possessions.
It was unclear whether the man was Muslim, a member of Pakistan's Christian minority or belonged to another religion. His name was not released.
Pakistani Christians live in fear of being arrested under the blasphemy laws, which critics say are often misused to settle personal scores or family feuds.
Fortes fortuna iuvat
Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:01 pm » by Cambay411
Iwanci wrote:I see where you mean a law that outlaws a religious practice may not intentionally discriminate against that religion. But, even if unintentional, it still does. And does it really matter if the discrimination is intentional or not?
YES it does matter. Intention is a major determinant I believe in discrimination case.
Secondly I didn’t say I maybe would or maybe wouldnt be outraged. I said I would maybe protest, but probably not because im not a protestor type. Even if it was my own religon I probably would not be out protesting. I did say yes I would be equally outraged. And I also said I would be very alarmed if this happened in the US. But just to be sure I will state I am equally against any discrimination. Im guessing you read my answer wrong. Despite that the rest of your second paragraph present a solid argument and you said nothing that I could really disagree with.
Yep, probably read it incorrectly, however, protesting can occur in different forms, there are ‘silent’ protests, or indeed such as you have demonstrated in this discussion, it is not all about marching down the street and burning effigies etc. I will join you in a ‘true’ discrimination case btw, however, if we really look deep inside we will likely find that most of us do in fact discriminate to various degrees, and it’s not all about religion. Cultural, gender, age, colour, smell, etc are all discriminated against daily, albeit they are more against an individual rather than a group, but it occurs regardless and there is no point denying it.
As for your third paragraph I have to start off by saying yes we should always try to be conscious not to offend the Jews and any race or religion. And when do we stop dragging Nazi German practices into present day? Excellent question and in my opinion the best question you’ve asked. Any punishment or stigma dealing with Nazi’s should be long gone by now but that doesn’t mean its impossible to draw connections between Nazi’s and the fact circumcision is outlawed in Germany. Im not saying its fair to draw connections between the two but people will think this way. Honestly I jumped to the conclusion of racism myself but you sharing your view points with me have lessened those suspicions.
We seem to have forgiven but not forgotten the Pearl Harbour issues with regards to the Japanese, or the Hiroshima bombing with the Americans, we haven’t forgotten but we make absolutely no connection between these atrocities and any law no matter how it may offend the race. These cases however are not sparked by religious bias. I have a great issue with problems stemming from religious arguments. I find that these arguments are used as an ‘each way’ bet by most religions, they are used to draw distinction to the religious believers and when things go wrong they tend to use the same argument is used to infer discrimination. In one way they want to be seen as different and treated differently, then when inconvenient they want to be treated the same. So my point, don’t allow religion to dominate or be used in any argument where a whole society is involved
To try to help you understand why people may draw connections, as you said yes the law does discriminate against Jews tho maybe not intentionally. Tho there may be no connection, Nazi Germany tried to exterminate Jews from the earth just a couple generations ago. This is still very fresh in peoples memories. There are still living Nazi’s (warriors who fought in WW2 that still hate Jews) in Germany and its easy to assume some of the hate was passed on to at least there children. Hate like that doesn’t just disappear. For example there is still much racism in the US between blacks and whites. So really when Germany (where we know there is racism dealing with Jews) discriminates against Jews many will ask the question “Is it intentional and is racism involved?”.
I do see and understand your point about the Nazi atrocity being fresh, but the Nazi atrocities against the Jews were not the only recent atrocities endured by people, what about Vietnam? Korea? There were atrocities committed here as well, but we seldom if ever hear of it, but these too are fresh in our minds. I understand the extent of the Nazi atrocities involved great numbers, however, an atrocity is an atrocity and in my eyes is of equal disdain. Now, if we thought the Germans were out to again target Jews, I would side with you, but they don’t appear to be, so I do not make the connection. I am equally certain that the lawmakers would have thought about the public perceptions before making the law, and proceeded regardless because their intent is NOT to discriminate against one religion, but against everyone who for whatever reason practices circumcision, that is the ‘legal’ stance.
The fifth paragraph asks how can I compare spanking to circumcision. I found this comical considering your comparisons of human sacfrafice, long term abuse and etc. To answer, the parental practice of circumcising a newborn is outlawed in Germany to protect a child and said childs rights. The thing is, there is no long term or short term negative affects. Since anesthetics are applied, its not even painful to the child. Since it is so important to Germany to protect a child and a childs rights, why not outlaw something that is shown to truly hurt a child such as spanking. Spanking is documented to cause mental illnesses later in life and children who are spanked are shown to have lower IQs.
I beg to differ on this one, what evidence do you now have that anesthetics are used by Rabbis in circumcision? ZERO, I think the poster that made reference to this was stating that it is applied when it is performed by a medical practitioner, I could be wrong, but please show me the process undertaken by the Rabbis. Also, no mention of the same posters mentioning of the complications and deaths resulting from unnecessary circumcision? You are being deliberately selective here my friend, but that is ok I understand why. You will also find that if you do your research there is no real phsycological negative affect from spanking, abuse is where your research should take you, here you will find I agree and so too does the law.
By way of your article.. mention this..
Researchers stressed that the study could not establish that spanking had actually caused these disorders in certain adults, only that there was a link between memories of such punishment and a higher incidence of mental problems.
The reality is, if 50 percent of the population has experienced being spanked in the past year, most kids are resilient.
The article is of ZERO use my friend.
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/study-shows-sp ... Number%3D1
Your seventh paragraph reminds me of the story of Muhammed Ali. He converted to Islam. When he was heavyweight champ of the world he was drafted into the Vietnam War. He refused to go because it was against his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor so he was not punished. If it were anyone else (say a Christian) they would have went to prison. Things like this happen in America all the time except now it doesn’t have to go to court. That’s just the way it is here. This means a law that specifically excludes based on religious rights is very much fact and happens. This doesnt mean I neccessarily disagree with anything you said in this paragraph. Im just letting you know that’s how it is here.
And here you prove my point, same man different religion and as a result a different ruling. In this case the Muslim goes unpunished, the Christian goes to jail. If the law ignored the religion, then either would be either free or incarcerated, a much better result in my opinion, and less discriminatory than the ruling that was past.
Next paragraph you said you do agree this is not a religious argument tho I never stated that was my opinion. I did say “this topic of circumcision has nothing to do with religous conflict. It deals with a religons conflict with a government”. I do think this is a religious arguement and it is whether it should be or not. I generally agree with everything else you said in this paragraph.
Excellent last paragraph i agree totally with most you said. But I think applying that logic to circumcision is a bit extreme. This I guess is where our beliefs separate. I understand how your beliefs are different and I respect that. I appreciate you helping me understand this point of view on things. One descrepency I spotted, you said you disagree with religion being used as consideration for anything in a society where there are so many divergences. Religion is a huge reason for most of these divergences and has to be taken into consideration. Im not saying you cant feel this way or you wrong, im just asking do you think it is actually possible to not take religion into consideration?
Now take a look at this article, this is what I am talking about that is often a result in religious rights arguments. One person (possibly mentally disturbed) tearing pages from a religious book gives people the religious right to beat, kill and burn him. My point, religion belief should give man no additional rights over another man, if men were created equal, then the law that binds them must be likewise, equal. Take a read and be just as disgusted as I was my friend. If we give in to the religious rights argument we will never see peace, as everyone will always see their religion as the ‘ONE’ over any other, thus making their right more dominant in their minds. The law should always be equal and should never discriminate, what if Germany banned circumcision but allowed it for Jews, would this not discriminate the same (albeit in favour) for the Jews and against everyone else, would other people then not have the right to cry favouritism? Would this then not incite further tension between the populace? I think it would.
Pakistani 'blasphemer' burned to death
• From: AAP
• July 05, 201210:37AM
Thousands of people dragged a Pakistani man accused of desecrating Islam's holy book from a police station in central Pakistan, beat him to death and then set his body on fire, a police official said.
THE incident highlighted the highly charged nature of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, under which anyone found guilty of insulting Islam's Prophet or the Koran can be sentenced to death.
Sometimes, however, people take the matter into their own hands.
A senior police officer, Mohammed Azhar Gujar, said in the incident on Tuesday in Bahawalpur, a city in a deeply conservative part of central Pakistan, attackers stormed a police station where the man was being interrogated.
Gujar said the victim seemed to be mentally unstable. He was arrested after residents said he threw pages of the Koran into the street.
While the man was being questioned, some people started making announcements over mosque loudspeakers, urging residents to go to the police station and punish him.
Within hours, thousands gathered outside and demanded the man be handed over to them. Gujar said police tried to protect him, but the mob turned violent.
They burned several police vehicles and wounded seven officers before grabbing the man and dragging him into the street, where he was beaten to death and his body set on fire.
Gujar said the mob also attacked the house of an area police chief and burned his furniture and possessions.
It was unclear whether the man was Muslim, a member of Pakistan's Christian minority or belonged to another religion. His name was not released.
Pakistani Christians live in fear of being arrested under the blasphemy laws, which critics say are often misused to settle personal scores or family feuds.
Once again you have many great points and I could only slightly disagree with a couple things.
Firstly, discrimination, in my opinion, does matter whether intentional or not becuase no one should be discriminated against. However, it does matter when applying laws to scociety. Yes someone may be being discriminated against but is it best for society? As for this debate, is outlawing circumcision best for german society? Thats for the Germans to decide. Like you said, if its outside of Germanys social norms and they want to keep their newborns from being circumcised, thats thier belief and decision.
As for the spanking issue, you used the word linked. As of saying spanking is documented in causing to mental illness, its more proper to say spanking is linked to mental illnes. Your exactly right and the word link is a word I was trying to think of when making the "Why not outlaw spanking" arguement. I still believe this is a decent question for an outsider looking in to Germany because spanking is linked to mental disorders and lower IQs. Where as circumcision is linked to no long term or short term negative affects. So why not outlaw spanking for the sake of the children?
Lastly, I agree that no religous right should give one man a freedom over another man. And I agree giving into one religous right we will never see peace. Why not give into all religous rights? Now lets make no misconceptions here, I understand there are stark differences between these religons. Differences that cause war and one religon trying to exterminate another. I cant answer a question such as my previous one. But in a place such as America (and other first world countries) it seems not so far fetched that all religons could be free to practice however they choose (as long as they are inside our social norms). One of the questions that still linger in my mind tho is:
With so many Jews and other people that practice circumcision in Germany, how did it end up so far out of the social norm that it is now outlawed?
In reality there could only be a few answers to this question. Unfotunately many may point the finger at discrimination and racism. Maybe they had a vote I dont know. Regardless, I do trust Germany as a nation to make the bests decisions for it country. Regardless the answer of my last question, we can only asssume Germany is whats best for thier people.
Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:05 pm » by 99socks
willease666 wrote:Cambay411 wrote:One more thing from my popint of view. If there were no Jews (or people that pacticed circumcision) in Germany I would not think near as much about it because then it wouldnt seem as if a whole religon and culture of people are being discriminated against.
If there were no Jews in Germany, this law would have never come up...I believe.
I'm surprised the Muslims aren't protesting this. After all, THEY are the ones at the end of the crack-down....
"And don't mind the "harshness" of some people. It's all an act. The meaner the posts, the cuddlier they are in person." -Poooooot
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- German High Court Outlaws Electronic Voting
by sheeple » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:46 pm - 1 Replies
- 113 Views
- Last post by liberal
Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:30 am
- German High Court Outlaws Electronic Voting
-
- Netherlands - Germany
1, 2by truthinlies » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:49 pm - 16 Replies
- 688 Views
- Last post by megadon
Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:27 pm
- Netherlands - Germany
-
- CHEMTRAILS OVER GERMANY - MUST SEE
by hibernate1908 » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:44 am - 1 Replies
- 272 Views
- Last post by otoel
Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:57 am
- CHEMTRAILS OVER GERMANY - MUST SEE
-
- If Germany gives in now, it will go off the rails itself
by Marduk2012 » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:08 pm - 5 Replies
- 351 Views
- Last post by Tuor10
Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:47 am
- If Germany gives in now, it will go off the rails itself
-
- Turks are conquering Germany???
by windycity » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:36 pm - 6 Replies
- 593 Views
- Last post by marduk2012
Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:08 pm
- Turks are conquering Germany???