Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Gim]

Well, not circumcising is basically not taking an action, so I do not see how that can be a "secular practice".

Prohibiting is an action. And I don't really object to prohibiting it in general, I just prefer exception be made for religion.

What about infants and children growing up under religious parents? They should not be forced into being circumcised. That is a violation of rights, is it not?

[Jochistan]

I really can't say much now can I.

You could choose not to care if you're a sociopath.

Sort of a heavy handed accusation, don't you think?

[Wallenburg]

https://www.google.com/search?q=circumc ... =592&dpr=3
Watch a video and tell me the child is not in horrific pain. Of course, you can choose not to watch it. In fact, I'd suggest closing your eyes and just listening. That's about as much of it as I could take.

damn.

I really can't say much now can I.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or concession.

[Test242]

Sort of a heavy handed accusation, don't you think?

No. If you don't respond to infant's pain, you're sociopath. It's that simple.

[Dakini]

Why should one person be allowed to inflict their religious beliefs and practices on others?

Why should one person be allowed to inflict their secular beliefs and practices on others? I'm at least coming from a position where my ideology being objectively correct is inherently written into it. But yours, yours makes no claim to be objectively better than the ideology next door, so it seems arbitrary to give it precedence.

How am I inflicting secular beliefs and practices on others by allowing children to choose what their religious beliefs should be and how their bodies should be modified?

I think that my beliefs are inherently correct since they allow the individual to make their own decisions, rather than allow others (including parents) to force decisions on them which are not inherently in their best interests.

[Test242]

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or concession.

It doesn't care, sociopaths have no conscience or compassion.

[Morr]

Prohibiting is an action. And I don't really object to prohibiting it in general, I just prefer exception be made for religion.

What about infants and children growing up under religious parents? They should not be forced into being circumcised. That is a violation of rights, is it not?

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

[Gim]

What about infants and children growing up under religious parents? They should not be forced into being circumcised. That is a violation of rights, is it not?

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

Well, what if they decide to part ways with their religion, once they grow up? That means they unwantedly had their right violated.

[Test242]

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

Morr doesn't care about rights for children, I guess.

[Dakini]

What about infants and children growing up under religious parents? They should not be forced into being circumcised. That is a violation of rights, is it not?

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

Why should parents have the right to force their religious practices on children?

Do you think that parents should not be charged with negligence when they bring their children to faith healers instead of real doctors?

[Wallenburg]

What about infants and children growing up under religious parents? They should not be forced into being circumcised. That is a violation of rights, is it not?

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

So what? Just because they are the child's parents means they get to force their religion upon the child?

[Morr]

How am I inflicting secular beliefs and practices on others by allowing children to choose what their religious beliefs should be and how their bodies should be modified?

That circumcision of infants is totally wrong, is, in your case, a secular belief. You are imposing this belief by prohibiting the practice. If you give yourself some argument of primacy here and say, "No, because the child starts out uncircumcised, therefore I am simply preserving its initial state and it is the Jews who are disturbing it," then you are essentially appealing to natural law, which afaik is no longer vogue in secular thought.

I think that my beliefs are inherently correct since they allow the individual to make their own decisions, rather than allow others (including parents) to force decisions on them which are not inherently in their best interests.

What exactly is the basis for you suggesting that people making decisions for themselves is inherently right, as opposed to simply your strong preference?

[USS Monitor]

if you suggest that circumcision of infants is wrong in some absolute sense, then you're suggesting that, among other things, the circumcision of Christ was wrong.

Even from a Christian point of view, why is this a problem? Would you argue that crucifying people is morally acceptable because it was done to Christ?

[Test242]

What exactly is the basis for you suggesting that people making decisions for themselves is inherently right, as opposed to simply your strong preference?

Law is invented to protect the public, or in the very least the propertied public.

[Morr]

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

Well, what if they decide to part ways with their religion, once they grow up? That means they unwantedly had their right violated.

True, but then I do not see any larger movement among Jews concerning that, and they're the ones we're discussing.

[Gim]

if you suggest that circumcision of infants is wrong in some absolute sense, then you're suggesting that, among other things, the circumcision of Christ was wrong.

Even from a Christian point of view, why is this a problem? Would you argue that crucifying people is morally acceptable because it was done to Christ?

1 Corinthians 7:19

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

[Dakini]

How am I inflicting secular beliefs and practices on others by allowing children to choose what their religious beliefs should be and how their bodies should be modified?

That circumcision of infants is totally wrong, is, in your case, a secular belief. You are imposing this belief by prohibiting the practice. If you give yourself some argument of primacy here and say, "No, because the child starts out uncircumcised, therefore I am simply preserving its initial state and it is the Jews who are disturbing it," then you are essentially appealing to natural law, which afaik is no longer vogue in secular thought.

No, my belief is that individuals' bodily autonomy dictates that they should be the ones who decide which forms of cosmetic and irreversible body modification they undergo. As such, if a procedure is not being done for medical purposes, it should be up to the individual who is having the procedure performed on them, not anyone else. If a child grows up and wants to be Jewish, they can be circumcised at a later date.

I think that my beliefs are inherently correct since they allow the individual to make their own decisions, rather than allow others (including parents) to force decisions on them which are not inherently in their best interests.

What exactly is the basis for you suggesting that people making decisions for themselves is inherently right, as opposed to simply your strong preference?

Because forcing permanent bodily changes on a child just because you think they'll want to be the same religion as you are is pretty awful. Children can change their religious beliefs; they can't regrow body parts that have been arbitrarily amputated.

[Morr]

What? If there parents were circumcising them for religious reasons, then obviously they are growing up under religious parents.

Why should parents have the right to force their religious practices on children?

Do you think that parents should not be charged with negligence when they bring their children to faith healers instead of real doctors?

I think if they refuse to bring them to doctors, yes. Bringing them to faith healers as well doesn't exclude that. If you're referring to Christian scientists, their religion doesn't exactly predate the nation, so it couldn't very well be grandfathered in anyway.

[Gim]

Well, what if they decide to part ways with their religion, once they grow up? That means they unwantedly had their right violated.

True, but then I do not see any larger movement among Jews concerning that, and they're the ones we're discussing.

So, smaller movements do not count?

[Morr]

if you suggest that circumcision of infants is wrong in some absolute sense, then you're suggesting that, among other things, the circumcision of Christ was wrong.

Even from a Christian point of view, why is this a problem? Would you argue that crucifying people is morally acceptable because it was done to Christ?

Because circumcision was the pledge of the former covenant, derp.

[USS Monitor]

Why should one person be allowed to inflict their religious beliefs and practices on others?

Why should one person be allowed to inflict their secular beliefs and practices on others? I'm at least coming from a position where my ideology being objectively correct is inherently written into it. But yours, yours makes no claim to be objectively better than the ideology next door, so it seems arbitrary to give it precedence.

How do you know Dakini's ideology doesn't include the belief that it's objectively better than the one next door? Not all irreligious people believe in moral relativism.

[Gim]

Even from a Christian point of view, why is this a problem? Would you argue that crucifying people is morally acceptable because it was done to Christ?

Because circumcision was the pledge of the former covenant, derp.

It's not the current one, thus it is most likely to be invalid.

[Dakini]

Why should parents have the right to force their religious practices on children?

Do you think that parents should not be charged with negligence when they bring their children to faith healers instead of real doctors?

I think if they refuse to bring them to doctors, yes. Bringing them to faith healers as well doesn't exclude that. If you're referring to Christian scientists, their religion doesn't exactly predate the nation, so it couldn't very well be grandfathered in anyway.

Why does the age of a religion dictate whether it should be treated seriously?


And so you're okay with charging parents with negligence when they only take their children to faith healers and the child dies. Why is it that you think it's okay for parents to make other questionable and unnecessary medical decisions for their children?

[Dakini]

Why should one person be allowed to inflict their secular beliefs and practices on others? I'm at least coming from a position where my ideology being objectively correct is inherently written into it. But yours, yours makes no claim to be objectively better than the ideology next door, so it seems arbitrary to give it precedence.

How do you know Dakini's ideology doesn't include the belief that it's objectively better than the one next door? Not all irreligious people believe in moral relativism.

I know, right?

[Morr]

True, but then I do not see any larger movement among Jews concerning that, and they're the ones we're discussing.

So, smaller movements do not count?

Not until the majority of secular Jews subscribe to them.