Cologne and the Jews

[Mick Mac]

"European Jewish leaders furiously condemned a German court's ruling outlawing circumcision as the "worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust" yesterday and demanded that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government intervene to protect the practice as a religious rite..."

Personally, I agree with the court, in that while religion can be chosen for you initially by your parents, it should be your own choice if you wish to have a small part of your body removed. That choice cannot be made by a baby.

If the decision is upheld, the Jewish religion should adapt accordingly.

Its not the role of society to uphold religious traditions, where they impact on human rights. The court must decide objectively , and it has done so. I hope the decision is upheld.

Its ironic that its Germany that has taken this step - But comparing the decision to the Holocaust is just stirring up trouble.

However - I suspect we will see the power of the Jewish religion worldwide, winning through.

[El Pibe]

Frankly unbelievable if surreal wording of the decision, and an odd fight to pick full stop.

And that's coming from me who considers all imposition of religious views on the young as basically child abuse.

[Ridgley]

If that is the case are they also looking at the Muslim faith as well?

[El Pibe]

They are, it's a cross faith campaing to have the decision overturned.

It's worth noting that it's a regional ruling, not a federal one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/circumcision-ban-is-the-worst-attack-on-jews-since-holocaust-7939593.html

[Mick Mac]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If that is the case are they also looking at the

> Muslim faith as well?

I would expect so, assuming it's an objective decision.

[Mick Mac]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If that is the case are they also looking at the

> Muslim faith as well?

In fact - you could say they are not looking at any faith at all, just a procedure, that is against human rights, performed for whatever reason, by whomever.

[El Pibe]

Given that it can be a legitimate medical procedure that would seem odd.

The case that gave rise to this was also performed by a doctor, just poorly it would seem.

Is there any reason why it shouldn't be deemed assault? Are ritualistic scarrings and female circumcision banned, if so why *not* this?

[maxxi]

If it's a case of outlawing any unnecessary 'surgical' procedures on minors (regardless of religion) then would this not include the piercing of ears?

Might that also be- considered a criminal offence because it caused bodily harm and infringed a child's right to integrity.

Or would that not be deemed a big enough abuse of the child's rights as it is a small hole rather than the removal of flesh? Given that consent is not relevant until the child is of age then surely it is an abuse too?

[Jeremy]

I'm also against imposition of religious views on the young. However, two points:

- circumcision is not really a big deal, the impact on the child's life is small in comparison to the indoctrination into a prehistoric belief system.

- The holocaust comparison is incredibly stupid.

[Otta]

Whoever compared this to the holocaust is a feckin idiot, and has done his/her fellow jewish people no favours whatsoever.

[Ridgley]

Jeremy

---------------------------------------------

I'm also against imposition of religious views on the young. However, two points:

- circumcision is not really a big deal, the impact on the child's life is small in comparison to the indoctrination into a prehistoric belief system.

It may be prehistoric to you but is is not prehistoric to the millions of people a round the world that to be live in this system as you call it and this system is the backbone of some of our laws in this country.

[El Pibe]

Oh i'm with you on banning piercings, it freaks me out when you see studs or earrings in a six month old!!

It's a tricky one that children of age thing. I've had to fight hard from having mine baptised into the catholic faith until they're old enough to choose.

I know I'm going to have a helluva battle when they're six or seven and coming up to first holy communion.

The the peer pressure alone on the kids will be huge, then mum will want it done to them because of an atavistic leaning and she's more conformist than she cares to admit, and the pressure from grandma who is a true believer and thinks I'm condemning their souls to hell (and what a charming god it is that does that!!!!).

I've said they can do it (the nature of it is immaterial, though I'll secretly be delighted if they lean towards islam or buddhism just to wind up granny) when they're old enough to decide for themselves but I'm not sure when that is. They'll ceratinly be old enough to think stuff through at seven but too young imo to ascertain the nature of why they might want it.

So when, 10, 11, 14, 16?

Deep down I'm hoping to delay it long enough for them to be think what a bunch of arse it all is, which was about 12 for me.

[Jeremy]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy

> ---------------------------------------------

> I'm also against imposition of religious views on

> the young. However, two points:

>

> - circumcision is not really a big deal, the

> impact on the child's life is small in comparison

> to the indoctrination into a prehistoric belief

> system.

>

> It may be prehistoric to you but is is not

> prehistoric to the millions of people a round the

> world that to be live in this system as you call

> it and this system is the backbone of some of our

> laws in this country.

Judaism claims to span back for 3000 years or so, I don't see why "prehistoric" should be taken as an insult. People can believe what they want as far as I'm concerned, but children shouldn't be indoctrinated into these things without being given the opportunity to make their own decisions. That, to my thinking, is a far bigger injustice than circumcision.

[Ridgley]

Jeremy I was not insulted, I was just pointing out that not everyone see religion as prehistoric. I grew up in the Christian faith It taught me some great values and respect for other faiths and other peoples belief system and it gave me a foundation.

As a parent I did raise my daughter with religious values and now she has reached an age where she is free choose.

[red devil]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a parent I did raise my daughter with

> religious values and now she has reached an age

> where she is free choose.

'Free' in that you have already instilled 'religious values' into her thinking...

[StraferJack]

I want to know what constitutes "religious values". Values specific to Christianity (such as?) or values religions wrongly but knowlingly like to claim as their own (such as "don't be an eejit with other people")

[Ridgley]

Does not every parent instil there way of thinking to their children whether they are religious or not.

I can only speak for myself when I say religious values, I am talking about Christian values which most Christians follow Christ teachings and the bible as there source. I am sure other faiths have similar believe system as well and I am not saying you have to be religious to have values I am just talking from my own personal upbringing.

[StraferJack]

Ridgley

Re your first point - absolutely we bring our children up with values. But most common values tend not to be so... apocolyptic in their origins. My daughter is very little but is being taught what is and isn't permissible, but she isn't being taught that she might go to hell for example. Once that kind of ideology is instilled, it's pretty hard to shift. And let's not even examine Revelations too closely

Of course some Christian strands believe in hell and some don't... which kind of shows how arbitrary the whole thing is

[silverfox]

It's unavoidable that all parents indoctrinate their children, whatever the value system.

However, if you're going to start interfering in the rituals or practices of particular religions/value systems on the basis of human rights where will it stop?

Will vegetarians/hindus be required to serve their children meat dishes as to deny them is unjust?

[StraferJack]

"However, if you're going to start interfering in the rituals or practices of particular religions/value systems on the basis of human rights where will it stop?"

Surely the opposite is the real question - namely if you ALLOW any practice on the grounds it is part of a religious belief/custon, where does it stop?

See female circumcision for the debate on that one

[El Pibe]

"It's unavoidable that all parents indoctrinate their children, whatever the value system."

Actually that's utter bollox.

Indoctrianation is instilling unquestioning acceptance of beliefs.

I encourage that 'why' is always asked and never to accept 'because it is' as an answer. That's not indoctrination that's encouraging the development of critical faculties and a distrust of doctrine and dogma in whatever form, hence the term 'indoctrin[e]ation'.

[woodrot]

"worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust"

Very sad to cheapen what happened back in the day to this regional bill. Theres a sort of inverse godwins applicable here - any discussion that invokes a Holocaust comparison is usually hysterical and more often than not, a lazy and ill thought out discussion death knell.Everything can can be justified by invocation on the holocaust given a certain mindset.

Involuntay and ritualised Gential mutiliation is key here, whether male or female - it wouldnt be just to ban female circumcision without considering the male aspect, even though the male version can be medially appropriate at times.

It is also sloppy to regard Judism as an amorphous bloc - as it is with any religious umbrella grouping.

What next ? should Aztecs descendents ionvoke their right of massed bloodletting as it was enshrined in the doctrine established a couple of millenia ago ? gentlemens gorgonzola was an issue when nomadic tribes roamed the middle east and didnt get to wash much - its relevance is dubious now - though there is a case to argue that circumcision is a useful block to HIV transmission, but this probabaly want what was envisgaged when the rules were laid down.

religion = nutters

[Ridgley]

Actually the faith I was raised teaches all aspect of Christianity gods character his love wages of sin etc??????????? it all bout fee will and that is what I choose to raise my child in a faith. She can now choose if this is for her or not.

(Renta unto ceazer which is his as long as it does not effect your right to a religious belifs)

[maxxi]

I think it comes back to 'bodily harm' foxy.

Parents may feed their children whatever they wish (as long as it does not amount to what we commonly and currently understand to be abuse)and clothe them in gowns of purple or teach them that the world is run by a giant tortoise -

- as long as they don't physically harm the children I rely on the beliefs and teachings (formal amd otherwise) of our wider society to put all a child's parental guff into perspective so that God will eventually go the way of Santa and the tooth fairy.

It's the enforcing of such a ban that has me wondering. I would imagine that religious adherents (fanatics?) would continue to carry out the practice in secret and force their offspring to keep quiet about it - do the burghers of Cologne envisage making young boys drop their pants for spot checks?

[silverfox]

Omission, in the sense of failing to provide guidance, can be equally damaging.

If parents do their utmost to avoid providing a moral framework until the child is old enough to decide themselves lest they indoctrinate their children, the children will only absorb values from elsewhere, television, advertising, Facebook 'friends' etc.

We saw the results of that with feral children rioting and looting last summer.