|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:45 am
divineseraph Absolutely, and unwilling blood. Should we go back to sacrificing animals, as the jews did? Should we stone homosexuals and women who practice sorcery and keep slaves? Tradition, tradition, tradition. I have nothing against tradition when it doesn't harm anyone else. It's a personal choice. However, tradition goes entirely against progression of understanding of God. If you want an archaic understanding, by all means, go for it. But do not cut off a child's foreskin because you think you should. If it's really important to them, they can have it done themselves. But how should we separate ourselves out from the rest of the world without traditions? How can we show an act of devotion without marking our children as Jews and teaching them the importance of such traditions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:01 am
LordNeuf divineseraph Absolutely, and unwilling blood. Should we go back to sacrificing animals, as the jews did? Should we stone homosexuals and women who practice sorcery and keep slaves? Tradition, tradition, tradition. I have nothing against tradition when it doesn't harm anyone else. It's a personal choice. However, tradition goes entirely against progression of understanding of God. If you want an archaic understanding, by all means, go for it. But do not cut off a child's foreskin because you think you should. If it's really important to them, they can have it done themselves. But how should we separate ourselves out from the rest of the world without traditions? How can we show an act of devotion without marking our children as Jews and teaching them the importance of such traditions? Easily, and easily. Unless I can show my devotion by carving an X into the back of every person I deem to be a heretic- My God thinks I should do that, for the sake of argument. So I'd better show my devotion by involving and harming other unrelated people, amirite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:44 am
Ok...
lets looks at the legal ramifications and all that.
Unless you're 18, you still need a parent to sign off on all medical treatments.
No kid wants to get braces, parents force them on the kids.
Are we going to pass a law that says parents cannot put braces on their children because it's a purely cosmetic procedure and the children don't really want to have braces because kids don't want to be made fun of?
You know how much mental trauma teasing can give a child?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:07 pm
LordNeuf Ok... lets looks at the legal ramifications and all that. Unless you're 18, you still need a parent to sign off on all medical treatments. No kid wants to get braces, parents force them on the kids. Are we going to pass a law that says parents cannot put braces on their children because it's a purely cosmetic procedure and the children don't really want to have braces because kids don't want to be made fun of? You know how much mental trauma teasing can give a child? Circumcision is not a medical procedure and has no physiological benefits. Braces do. Besides, a child SHOULD consent to medical procedures if they are able, or if the procedure is not vital or life saving. That's the whole point. It's not the parent's body. But this is a religious issue. My religion says that I have to cut an X into your back. So get over here, I have a knife. Unless it's suddenly NOT OK to permanently alter someone else in the name of tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:09 am
divineseraph LordNeuf Ok... lets looks at the legal ramifications and all that. Unless you're 18, you still need a parent to sign off on all medical treatments. No kid wants to get braces, parents force them on the kids. Are we going to pass a law that says parents cannot put braces on their children because it's a purely cosmetic procedure and the children don't really want to have braces because kids don't want to be made fun of? You know how much mental trauma teasing can give a child? Circumcision is not a medical procedure and has no physiological benefits. Braces do. Besides, a child SHOULD consent to medical procedures if they are able, or if the procedure is not vital or life saving. That's the whole point. It's not the parent's body. But this is a religious issue. My religion says that I have to cut an X into your back. So get over here, I have a knife. Unless it's suddenly NOT OK to permanently alter someone else in the name of tradition. Except, y'know, it's nothing like that. At this point, the debate is moot. Until every single voluntary medical procedure and religious ceremony are completely up to the child to accept or reject, singling this particular one out isn't going to fly. You get it so every single human being has a choice at all times for all things and I'll accept your argument as valid, and I'll even back it up. 'Cause, y'know what, having a choice is bloody awesome. Singling one religion's procedure, and one that as far as I'm aware does not have negative side effects, is not awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:50 am
Dis Domnu divineseraph LordNeuf Ok... lets looks at the legal ramifications and all that. Unless you're 18, you still need a parent to sign off on all medical treatments. No kid wants to get braces, parents force them on the kids. Are we going to pass a law that says parents cannot put braces on their children because it's a purely cosmetic procedure and the children don't really want to have braces because kids don't want to be made fun of? You know how much mental trauma teasing can give a child? Circumcision is not a medical procedure and has no physiological benefits. Braces do. Besides, a child SHOULD consent to medical procedures if they are able, or if the procedure is not vital or life saving. That's the whole point. It's not the parent's body. But this is a religious issue. My religion says that I have to cut an X into your back. So get over here, I have a knife. Unless it's suddenly NOT OK to permanently alter someone else in the name of tradition. Except, y'know, it's nothing like that. At this point, the debate is moot. Until every single voluntary medical procedure and religious ceremony are completely up to the child to accept or reject, singling this particular one out isn't going to fly. You get it so every single human being has a choice at all times for all things and I'll accept your argument as valid, and I'll even back it up. 'Cause, y'know what, having a choice is bloody awesome. Singling one religion's procedure, and one that as far as I'm aware does not have negative side effects, is not awesome. Well then, get over here and turn around, I've got a knife. The point isn't EVERY religious ceremony, it's ones that leave a physical, permanent change to someone's body. Fine, everyone has a choice at all times. Now it works. And Christians do it all the time- It's just as wrong when they do it. I'd go so far as to say that ANYONE mutilating a baby's genitals is in the wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:30 pm
divineseraph Dis Domnu divineseraph LordNeuf Ok... lets looks at the legal ramifications and all that. Unless you're 18, you still need a parent to sign off on all medical treatments. No kid wants to get braces, parents force them on the kids. Are we going to pass a law that says parents cannot put braces on their children because it's a purely cosmetic procedure and the children don't really want to have braces because kids don't want to be made fun of? You know how much mental trauma teasing can give a child? Circumcision is not a medical procedure and has no physiological benefits. Braces do. Besides, a child SHOULD consent to medical procedures if they are able, or if the procedure is not vital or life saving. That's the whole point. It's not the parent's body. But this is a religious issue. My religion says that I have to cut an X into your back. So get over here, I have a knife. Unless it's suddenly NOT OK to permanently alter someone else in the name of tradition. Except, y'know, it's nothing like that. At this point, the debate is moot. Until every single voluntary medical procedure and religious ceremony are completely up to the child to accept or reject, singling this particular one out isn't going to fly. You get it so every single human being has a choice at all times for all things and I'll accept your argument as valid, and I'll even back it up. 'Cause, y'know what, having a choice is bloody awesome. Singling one religion's procedure, and one that as far as I'm aware does not have negative side effects, is not awesome. Well then, get over here and turn around, I've got a knife. The point isn't EVERY religious ceremony, it's ones that leave a physical, permanent change to someone's body. Fine, everyone has a choice at all times. Now it works. And Christians do it all the time- It's just as wrong when they do it. I'd go so far as to say that ANYONE mutilating a baby's genitals is in the wrong. Like I said, you go for universal choice and I won't try to stop you. Right now it's a circumcision bill. That's it. No effort being made anywhere else. You think that if this passes they're going to move on to the next religious practice? Of course not. The Christians will be content, and will leave it at that, since it's not one of their traditions that just got illegalized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:22 pm
Dis Domnu divineseraph Dis Domnu divineseraph LordNeuf Ok... lets looks at the legal ramifications and all that. Unless you're 18, you still need a parent to sign off on all medical treatments. No kid wants to get braces, parents force them on the kids. Are we going to pass a law that says parents cannot put braces on their children because it's a purely cosmetic procedure and the children don't really want to have braces because kids don't want to be made fun of? You know how much mental trauma teasing can give a child? Circumcision is not a medical procedure and has no physiological benefits. Braces do. Besides, a child SHOULD consent to medical procedures if they are able, or if the procedure is not vital or life saving. That's the whole point. It's not the parent's body. But this is a religious issue. My religion says that I have to cut an X into your back. So get over here, I have a knife. Unless it's suddenly NOT OK to permanently alter someone else in the name of tradition. Except, y'know, it's nothing like that. At this point, the debate is moot. Until every single voluntary medical procedure and religious ceremony are completely up to the child to accept or reject, singling this particular one out isn't going to fly. You get it so every single human being has a choice at all times for all things and I'll accept your argument as valid, and I'll even back it up. 'Cause, y'know what, having a choice is bloody awesome. Singling one religion's procedure, and one that as far as I'm aware does not have negative side effects, is not awesome. Well then, get over here and turn around, I've got a knife. The point isn't EVERY religious ceremony, it's ones that leave a physical, permanent change to someone's body. Fine, everyone has a choice at all times. Now it works. And Christians do it all the time- It's just as wrong when they do it. I'd go so far as to say that ANYONE mutilating a baby's genitals is in the wrong. Like I said, you go for universal choice and I won't try to stop you. Right now it's a circumcision bill. That's it. No effort being made anywhere else. You think that if this passes they're going to move on to the next religious practice? Of course not. The Christians will be content, and will leave it at that, since it's not one of their traditions that just got illegalized. And what are Christians doing wrong? Aside from the crazies who refuse to let their children have medical attention- that too should be decided by the child, and lawmakers are working on it. That, and circumcision is also a christian tradition. I see nothing wrong with altering your body for your religion. Just don't do it to someone who can't decide on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:48 pm
Can I ask a personal question, Divineseraph?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:10 pm
Behatzlacha-S Can I ask a personal question, Divineseraph? You're gonna ask "what religion are you?" aren't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:04 pm
Whew. Is it hot in here or what? (By the way, I missed you guys!)
I think the root of the argument is not whether Jews or those who circumcise their children are wrong, but if it's right to persecute and prohibit something that the founding fathers of the United States gave us rights to. Yes, it's an old and arguably outdated tradition, but it is NOT genital mutilation. Not in the least.
And btw, circumcision is a purely Jewish/Muslim thing. Really the only Christians who practice circumcision are American Christians for some unknown reason. I'm fairly sure that it is not because of their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:43 pm
kingpinsqeezels Whew. Is it hot in here or what? (By the way, I missed you guys!) I think the root of the argument is not whether Jews or those who circumcise their children are wrong, but if it's right to persecute and prohibit something that the founding fathers of the United States gave us rights to. Yes, it's an old and arguably outdated tradition, but it is NOT genital mutilation. Not in the least. And btw, circumcision is a purely Jewish/Muslim thing. Really the only Christians who practice circumcision are American Christians for some unknown reason. I'm fairly sure that it is not because of their religious beliefs. What? The point isn't "It's old and therefore bad", the point is that it harms another individual without their consent. ...It's wrong no matter who does it. It's not the circumcision part that's wrong, do not fight a strawman with me. It's the fact that it is done to a child who can not say "yes" or "no".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:59 pm
Oh please...It's not harming anyone. You're blowing this out of proportion because you're making it into an emotional debate. If you don't like it, don't do it, but parents have every right to do what they think is necessary for their child. I had surgeries when I was 3 months, and it's not like I had a say in my parents decision, but they did what they thought was right.
But remember buddy, you're in the Jewish Gaians Guild. You're not going to convert many of us, but that's okay. We can respect your opinion if you will respect ours, which as of right now you're not doing a very good job at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:53 pm
LordNeuf Behatzlacha-S Can I ask a personal question, Divineseraph? You're gonna ask "what religion are you?" aren't you? Well, there's that. I was gonna ask about Divineseraph's... status, too. Personally, I think the only people who should have a word in on the snip are medical professionals and those who've had it done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:43 pm
The only people who have strong feelings on the subject are those who have had it done and medical professionals. I know plenty of uncircumcised guys who are against it, but not vehemently so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
