Circumcision

[Mars.inDiapers]

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

its not my fault you lack the maturity to respect faith

Funny that you should accuse me of lack of maturity, when you're the one who perked up immediately when I stated that I don't accept someone's religious belief as valid reason to mutilate someone else's genitals without their consent, and then got triggered when I dared to criticize the notion that someone should mindlessly follow what their religion tells them to do (mutilate someone else's genitals without their consent), calling it an insult to faith. 

As for respect to someone's beliefs, faiths, opinions or whatever you call it, I already stated it here in other discussion, and now I'll do it again:

I respect your right to have belief, faith or opinion and to express them by words or by actions as long as those actions do not cause harm to others.

That does not mean that I will respect the belief, faith or opinion itself. Are you able to discern the difference? Respect for other people's rights is one of the main values of modern western civilization, and I'm all for it, and while you have the right to your beliefs and opionions, what you don't have is a "right" not to have your beliefs or opinions criticized, insulted or even ridiculed. Let alone a right to have other people respect those beliefs and opinions. That would not even be a right, it would be a privilege.

So, when it comes to respect, the very basic respect of your rights is all you get from me automatically.
You want more respect than that? You'll have to earn it. It's not granted.
If you want me to respect not just your right to your beliefs, but your beliefs themselves, then they better be worthy of my respect.
And yes, I'll be the one to determine what's worthy of my respect and what isn't, because I don't see how anyone else could be determining it for me.
And no, the way I see it, your beliefs you have presented here do not get my respect, because all I've seen so far is a bunch of nonsense, and I can not, and will not respect that.

Don't like it? Well, there's about grand total of three things you can do about it. You can ignore it, you can continue being salty about it, or (and this is the one option that will make me give you most respect) you can think about it. Perhaps if you think about it well and hard, you may come up with some better, more reasonable conclusions that just might gain you other people's respect.

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

its not maiming to be circumsized

It absolutely is. It is an unnecessary (unless there is severe health condition that requires it; I've talked about this exception) mutilation of a healthy, functional, non-redundant body part that, even if done in under local or general anaesthesia, in sterile conditions, by medical professionals, using scientifically sound surgical procedures, will cause pain and suffering during recovery (and possibly later on in life), will result in acceleration of gradual loss of sensitivity in one of the most sensitive of all body parts, can result in lowering of sex drive, and will not ever grow back to its original state (and while the advances of modern medicine have made reconstructive surgery of foreskin possible, it is not, and hardly will ever be, the same as an intact foreskin).

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

im sure that parents even if its not for faith have carefully weighed the deciscions

I very much doubt that, because if they have, they would probably have come to the same conclusion that people have come to in most of the developed world where there's quality healthcare and good hygiene standards - that conclusion being that it is not beneficial and not necessary. And even if they didn't, that still doesn't change the fact that their son's foreskin is not theirs to cut off!

And if it's the case that there isn't good healthcare and good hygiene standards where they are, what they should then do is work towards changing that; not just take some a shortcut instead (like cutting your son's foreskin off). 

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

it was done to me as a baby, i function just fine, and not having a foreskin has not done me a bit of harm.

So what? That's your personal experience and view, and not some generally applicable data. The fact that you may be fine, content or happy with the fact that you were circumcised as a baby, does not negate the experiences of other men and boys who were circumcised without their consent, and are not fine, content or happy with it. The fact that there's not much that can be done about it after the fact, maybe works more in favor of those who, like you, are okay with it rather than those who aren't okay with it, but that only makes it more of a reason not to do it to your son, because then he won't be forced to either "deal with it and be okay", or be miserable about it. 

See this is the same kind of fallacy like advocating for beating of children with the arguement that "my parents did beat me and I turned out fine". Maybe you did (did you really though?), but that doesn't make beating children a right thing to do.
Or defending smoking tobacco with "I smoke pack a day and I don't have cancer." That does not mean smoking does not cause cancer.
Or "I eat three Big Macs every day and I'm in good shape and I don't have high cholesterol". That does not mean three Big Macs a day is a healthy diet.

What is or isn't good/healthy/beneficial can only be objectively determined by a scientific review of exhaustive, properly collected data that account for all plausible factors, exceptions, anomalies etc., and are as much detached from personal biases as is possible. And your personal report is not that.

Speaking of "being fine, no harm done". It's not like you have a comparison of what it's like to live with a foreskin and without it; all you've ever experienced (consciously enough to remember, anyway) is being without it, so how would you even know that you're not worse off without it, than you might be with it?

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

this nation has never been a strictly secular country,

It has been a strictly secular country from the moment the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and will be till the moment religious nutjobs hijack it and change the Constitution. The Trump crowd was dangerously close, and the current composition of the Supreme Court of the United States (legacy of Trump), is slowly but steadily clawing away legal precedents that were a clear reminder that USA is indeed, a secular country, and not a theocracy, and are replacing them with precedents that suggest the opposite, which is very alarming.

Anyway, it looks like there's a problem here with understanding what secular means, so let's clear up some definitions.
Whether country is secular or not has no bearing on how many people in that country are religious or not, and what kind of religion they follow.
Secular country is the kind of country where there is no official religion (a.k.a established religion or state religion) , and the United States of America are strictly just that, as is clearly defined by the U.S constitution. United Kingdom, for example, is not a secular country, because there is an official religion - the Church of England, despite there being lower ratio of religious people than in the USA.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

   - First Amendment to the United States Constitution

If you have a problem undestanding what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually means in practice, like many religious fanatics do, let me explain it to you. In order for a specific religion to be officially prefered over another religion (or lack thereof), that specific religion would have to be established by law, because if it wasn't established by law, such official preference it would be discriminatory and illegal. And that law would have to be made by the Congress. And the first amendment prohibits the Congress to do just that.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States

   - Article Six of the United States Constitution

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

its called freedom OF religion, not FROM religion

Freedom of religion must necessarily include freedom from religion, (no one being allowed to force their religion on someone else), otherwise it would be very a half-assed freedom, and not a real freedom.

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

you can choose whatever belief you want, athiesm, catholism, judaism, christianity, pagan beliefs, islam, hell you can worship the flying spaghetti monster if it floats your boat 

Amazing, you managed to contradict yourself in the very next sentence you wrote.
Do you know what atheism is?
It is, by definition, a lack of belief in god or gods. Thereby, it is not a religion or faith, and if I can "choose" it (poor choice of words on your part, people don't "choose" what they believe. People are presented with a claim, and based on how gullible or skeptical they are, on how plausible or inplausible the claim is, on how good or bad the evidence is, and other factors, they will either be convinced, or they will not. But it is not a matter of choice; if it was, it would not really be a belief, but rather a make-believe), that has to mean that I not only have a freedom OF religion, but also the freedom FROM religion.

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

no government entity can order you not

At least you got one thing right. 

 

8 hours ago, feralfreak said:

as long as you arent sacrificing people or some such shit

Uh huh. So cutting off perfectly healthy foreskin from newborn boys for religious reasons, that's okay with you, but "sacrificing people or some such shit", that's step too far? 

And If the religion required that instead of foreskin, the sacrificed body part should be a pinky toe, or the middle finger, or maybe the left ear would  you defend it just as vehemently as you do now? I bet you probably would. 

The only reason why in the bible it's the foreskin that you should cut off, and not some other body part, is because the people who came up with it were obsessed with controlling the masses, and a very easy (if not the easiest) way to control the masses was to control people's sexuality - make sex taboo, make non-reproductive sex or just enjoying sex even more taboo, make a bunch of strict rules about it, threaten people into conformity with the usual methods, sanction draconian punishments for disobedience, etc. 
Firefly 35 hit the nail on the head with this.

Also, what does "some such shit" exactly entail? Blood sacrifice? Body mutilation? Circumcision? 
Not the last one, huh?

By what logic does cutting off a healthy piece of someone else's skin (that will not grow back to its original state) and a spilling non-zero amount of blood in the process for religious reasons not belong in the category of "sacrificing people or some such shit" ??

Just because you don't die from it? Or because you can live "fine" without it?
Guess what, you can live "fine" without one eye. You can live "fine" without one of your limbs. But the quality of such living will be diminished. Maybe you don't feel like your quality of life has suffered from not having a foreskin since shortly after birth, but that does not make it a valid argument to do it to anyone else.

So where then, do you draw the line between what is (sacrificing people) "or some such shit", and what isn't "some such shit"?

You don't have to bother answering. I already know the answer.
You didn't draw a line. You let someone else draw it for you - that someone being whoever came up with the religion that you follow (christianity) or respect (judaism) - you say, and, apparently also believe, that it was god who came up with it, not a person. Well that's your opinion, and I don't share it, nor respect it, because there's not an shred of evidence, logic or sense backing it up.
If you don't see that as a problem, you do you, but do not involve anyone else in it without their consent.

[DailyDi]

Topic has gotten out of hand, locking it down.