Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Humph Warden Bennett on December 20, 2017, 10:31:21 AM
-
Credit this time to the NSS.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/amazon-infant-circumcision-training-kits-sale-pull-child-safety-a8118846.html
-
Heartening news too: https://tinyurl.com/maqn3zp
-
Circumcision should be only permitted if medically necessary, but otherwise illegal.
-
You know that feeling when you look down from a very high standpoint?
Regards ippy
-
You clearly do - so tell us about it.
-
Heartening news too: https://tinyurl.com/maqn3zp
Not really.
It's only one of the parties in the ruling coalition that has voted for this, so it is not law in Norway. They've also linked it with banning the hijab in schools, which is not cool in my opinion.
-
Not really.
It's only one of the parties in the ruling coalition that has voted for this, so it is not law in Norway. They've also linked it with banning the hijab in schools, which is not cool in my opinion.
I'm cool with both. This too:
The vote in Norway comes a day after Belgium’s Parliament of Wallonia voted in favour of banning ritual slaughter, which would affect Jewish kosher and Muslim halal rituals. It comes into effect in September 2019.
If only more countries could show the same balls and follow suit. Denmark did a few years back. Most won't, because pandering to the obnoxious once it has 'religion' slapped on it is endemic. But perhaps it'll start a chain reaction - I certainly hope so.
-
We had a thread, earlier in the year about a baby circumcised without parental consent. My understanding is that the medical practitioner has escaped prosecution but may face a professional tribunal (or something).
This caused me to google "circumcision" and "Nottingham" and came across a rather large number of circumcision services - including NHS general practices. I'm sure that the same would be found for any city in England.
Our legislators acknowledge that FGM is a vile, unwanted, primitive, damaging practice. They are gutless, however, when it comes to MGM.
That "circumcision kits" are on sale in the USA does not surprise me, in some respects the USA behaves like a third-world country. That - until recently - they could be made available for delivery to the UK horrifies me. Is it possible that Amazon also sells appendectomy kits in the USA?
-
Not really.
It's only one of the parties in the ruling coalition that has voted for this, so it is not law in Norway. They've also linked it with banning the hijab in schools, which is not cool in my opinion.
Agree with this. Putting it in with a piece of legislation that goes against freedom of religious expression shows that the wellbeing of infants isn’t the motivation. I’m all for a ban on circumcision but fail to see that a vote by a bunch of far right wingers is something to celebrate. I understand that this party are anti refugee too and I wonder what other legislation they would like to introduce in the future.
-
Agree with this. Putting it in with a piece of legislation that goes against freedom of religious expression shows that the wellbeing of infants isn’t the motivation.
Except that "religious expression" is whatever those who are expressing it say it is - including circumcision. It doesn't matter that it's noxious, or absurd, or more likely both - slap "It's my religious right" on anything and you'll get away with it.
-
Except that "religious expression" is whatever those who are expressing it say it is - including circumcision. It doesn't matter that it's noxious, or absurd, or more likely both - slap "It's my religious right" on anything and you'll get away with it.
But in linking it with a desire to remove other religious expression it looks as though that is their main - maybe their only motivation, when it should be the welfare of baby boys that is at the heart of it. I’m doing so they simply open themselves up to charges of antisemitism and anti Muslim bias and the fundamental issue gets lost. And this could impact the chances of a proper debate on the issue happening - why should most political parties and faith groups join the discussion if it is seen to come from the far right?
-
But in linking it with a desire to remove other religious expression it looks as though that is their main - maybe their only motivation, when it should be the welfare of baby boys that is at the heart of it. I’m doing so they simply open themselves up to charges of antisemitism and anti Muslim bias and the fundamental issue gets lost. And this could impact the chances of a proper debate on the issue happening - why should most political parties and faith groups join the discussion if it is seen to come from the far right?
I wouldn't worry too much (or indeed at all) about the potential for charges of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia or whatever. These are always wheeled out within seconds whenever anybody criticises something done by Jews or Muslims, presumably in the hope and expectation of shutting down the debate early and continuing the hands-off, touch-me-not, how-dare-you-question-me privileged status that religious groups love so much.
Pay it no heed. A good thing is a good thing whoever says it or does it; so is a bad thing.
-
A ‘good thing’ is only good if it comes from goodness. Something that stems from hate rather than concern and compassion is inherently corrupt. It makes something that should be good - the welfare of babies - into something toxic.
Still, hatred seems to be the order of the day, particularly when it comes to political success.
-
A ‘good thing’ is only good if it comes from goodness. Something that stems from hate rather than concern and compassion is inherently corrupt. It makes something that should be good - the welfare of babies - into something toxic.
I go by the stopped clock principle.
-
I go by the ‘standing around applauding the party that Anders Breivik was a member of probably isn’t a good idea’ principle.
-
I go by the ‘standing around applauding the party that Anders Breivik was a member of probably isn’t a good idea’ principle.
Which would lead to you not agreeing with them on the grounds of it being that particular party even when that particular party does something that you would agree with if somebody else did exactly the same thing. Which strikes me as a bit juvenile.
-
Which would lead to you not agreeing with them on the grounds of it being that particular party even when that particular party does something that you would agree with if somebody else did exactly the same thing. Which strikes me as a bit juvenile.
Well that gave me a laugh at least.
-
An on-line castration kit might be a good idea for use on proven male paedophiles.
-
The hand that wields the scalpel, rules the world!
-
But in linking it with a desire to remove other religious expression it looks as though that is their main - maybe their only motivation, when it should be the welfare of baby boys that is at the heart of it. I’m doing so they simply open themselves up to charges of antisemitism and anti Muslim bias and the fundamental issue gets lost. And this could impact the chances of a proper debate on the issue happening - why should most political parties and faith groups join the discussion if it is seen to come from the far right?
I agree with all you've said and the reasons you've put forward, Rhiannon.
An on-line castration kit might be a good idea for use on proven male paedophiles.
Except that castration doesn't stop them abusing in a different way.
-
I agree with all you've said and the reasons you've put forward, Rhiannon.
Except that castration doesn't stop them abusing in a different way.
True.
-
I go by the ‘standing around applauding the party that Anders Breivik was a member of probably isn’t a good idea’ principle.
have I logged on in a different universe or something ?
-
I'm cool with both. This too:
What would banning the hijab achieve?
-
Except that "religious expression" is whatever those who are expressing it say it is - including circumcision. It doesn't matter that it's noxious, or absurd, or more likely both - slap "It's my religious right" on anything and you'll get away with it.
There's a difference between expressing your religion by wearing a head scarf and cutting pieces off your baby's genitals.
-
We had a thread, earlier in the year about a baby circumcised without parental consent. My understanding is that the medical practitioner has escaped prosecution but may face a professional tribunal (or something).
This caused me to google "circumcision" and "Nottingham" and came across a rather large number of circumcision services - including NHS general practices. I'm sure that the same would be found for any city in England.
Our legislators acknowledge that FGM is a vile, unwanted, primitive, damaging practice. They are gutless, however, when it comes to MGM.
That "circumcision kits" are on sale in the USA does not surprise me, in some respects the USA behaves like a third-world country. That - until recently - they could be made available for delivery to the UK horrifies me. Is it possible that Amazon also sells appendectomy kits in the USA?
D-I-Y face lifts more like!
Jeremyp:
Quote from: Shaker on December 21, 2017, 08:48:40 AM
Except that "religious expression" is whatever those who are expressing it say it is - including circumcision. It doesn't matter that it's noxious, or absurd, or more likely both - slap "It's my religious right" on anything and you'll get away with it.end quote
There's a difference between expressing your religion by wearing a head scarf and cutting pieces of your baby's genitals.
Definitely. I've no objection to the hijab at all, we see a few of them around nowadays. Young Muslim women seem to have taken it up in recent years to make a statement & they can look quite fetching. They don't hurt me or anyone else.
-
There's a difference between expressing your religion by wearing a head scarf and cutting pieces of your baby's genitals.
I agree.
-
There's a difference between expressing your religion by wearing a head scarf and cutting pieces of your baby's genitals.
Only of degree, not of kind.
It was reported a few weeks ago that Ofsted inspectors will ask girls in primary schools why they are wearing the hijab, given that the girls referred to here are four and five years old and given that the tradition typically is that girls start to wear the thing once they reach puberty (quite appalling enough in itself, but that's another story). Therefore if a four year old girl is wearing a hijab, I'd put my shirt, the house and the farm on the likelihood that it wasn't a free choice on the part of the wearer. What religion is a four year old expressing, exactly?
We already know from news in the none too distant past that there's a serious issue in some schools with infiltration by fundamentalist groups. That needs to be cut out like the cancer it is.
-
But it’s a separate issue. Circumcision happens for reasons other than religious ones - fashion, a belief it is ‘cleaner’ - ban it on medical grounds. Then debate the religious stuff.
-
But it’s a separate issue. Circumcision happens for reasons other than religious ones - fashion, a belief it is ‘cleaner’ - ban it on medical grounds. Then debate the religious stuff.
That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.
-
That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.
An ex of mine had been circumcised for ‘cleanliness’ reasons. Best to take a belt and braces approach and ban it on medical grounds which covers all bases, surely?
-
An ex of mine had been circumcised for ‘cleanliness’ reasons.
In this country/society that's vanishingly rare.
Best to take a belt and braces approach and ban it on medical grounds which covers all bases, surely?
Whatever gets the job done. You'll still get the chorus of victimhood from the usual suspects regardless, of course.
-
In this country/society that's vanishingly rare.Whatever gets the job done. You'll still get the chorus of victimhood from the usual suspects regardless, of course.
At the moment. It only takes a change in fashion; if the NCT started promoting circumcision you’d see a big jump. It only takes a self-proclaimed ‘natural parenting guru’ and some clever marketing and private clinics will be more than happy to chop bits off baby boys.
Yeah, some will complain, especially the religious. But ban it on medical grounds and they really don’t have a case, do they?
-
Yeah, some will complain, especially the religious. But ban it on medical grounds and they really don’t have a case, do they?
In actuality, of course not. They will think they do however because as we all know, to these types "God says ..." trumps everything and anything.
-
That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.
No, really. If you were born in the 1940s (like me) or 1950s there was a very good chance that you would be circumcised. It was a fashion, imported from the USA which was fuelled by the common use of English. At secondary school changing for PE or swimming revealed that most perhaps 70% of boys were, like me, devoid of prepuce. It was a "favour" performed by midwives during their immediate post-natal home visits.
I suspect that the arrival of Mr Hitler, on the continent, with his warm, inclusive, attitudes towards Jewry, partially prevented its universal uptake, but also the fact that pernicious propaganda probably did not stand much chance of being translated from English.
-
That argument would have some traction in the US, where, due to some incredibly peculiar beliefs by some incredibly peculiar people, circumcision took hold as a non-religious custom which has in historical terms started to dwindle relatively recently. Here, not really, since once you exclude that minority of therapeutic circumcisions advised on medical grounds you're left pretty much entirely with ritual circumcision.
If you are talking about today I think you would probably be right. However, Like Harrowby, I was born in the 1940s, and it was a prevalent practice in the UK. The reason I was circumcised was that it was thought, at that time, that it was more beneficial to health.
-
And without it being banned in law we can’t prevent such a ‘fashion’ coming back.