Cologne and the Jews

[Voyageur]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> 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.

That's a very interesting question.

I was brought up in a vaguely C of E way, church on Sundays occasionally but my parents weren't particularly religious. That all changed when I was around 14 and my Mum had a major "born again' moment and became a true BELIEVER almost overnight. She joined a Baptist church and the whole family followed her hook, line and sinker- apart from me that is. Difficult few years initially as my teenage activities didnt necessarily fit in with the 'faith'. Eventually they realised I was going to plow my own atheist furrow and stopped disapproving. Many years later my family are still all God'ed up but we get on famously. Live and let live works all round.

So for me, 14 was the age I made my choice.

[woodrot]

a further point which is pretty obvious - the ole skool religions and their tomes were a parabalesque means of establishing baisc rules and convention back in the day when there was really no other way to get these laws across. Thye are of their time. The same basic tenents still hold true - forgiveness/ not having sex with yer sister/ alms and suchlike - but thee big issue, and I know this is hardly an original statement - is when such eons old codification is taken literally & not as a general guide as to how to live your life. Nutters quoting reams of bastardised hand me down and abridged scripture are utterly deluded and should really have a word with themselves.

[StraferJack]

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

ha - from most interviews I read and saw those kids came from very religious families - "I didn't bring him up this way" "he comes to church with me" etc etc

think you'll have to find other reasons for that one foxy

[Ridgley]

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.

Could not agree with you more on this point.

We are losing something in society and if a good framework is put in place for a child religion or not then this is a good thing.

I get a little fed up of religion bashing there some good peole of faith out there that does some good in the community yes there are fanatics but that is in all walks of life not just in religous people.

[silverfox]

"...ha - from most interviews I read and saw those kids came from very religious families - "I didn't bring him up this way" "he comes to church with me" etc etc ..."

Even if that were true, which I doubt, you only have to do a simple analysis of the shops that were looted to see the real influences on their life - bars, tobacconists, shops selling trainers and mobile phones etc. I didn't see any Job centres damaged and looted. Advertising values rule ok.

[Ridgley]

And there are some of the rioters that came from, none religious backgrounds - no I meant there religion is the booze the trainers the weed and parents who could not give a rats arse tits about where their offspring was as long as they profited from the riots.

[silverfox]

Posted by El Pibe Today, 01:44PM

"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...

Surely vegetarianism does this? - 'meat is murder' 'eat less meat and save the planet'

[El Pibe]

I love that it's either one extreme or the other, either we indoctrinate or they exist in some sort of moral vaccuum unitl the magical day when they turn 14 and go, 'do unto others....' or 'i shall henceforth worship satan'.

Of course I provide them with a moral framework and guidance, the point is i present it as what I think best, but if I get it wrong, and god knows I'm only human, I'm willing to roll with it. In fact I'll be delighted if they can argue me into changing, it's called interaction and personal growth.

Absolutes dictated from a bunch of men locking themselves in draughty buildings for two thousand years atempting to make sense of a bunch of twenty-ninth hand anecdotes don't really appeal to me as a design for life.

[El Pibe]

"Surely vegetarianism does this? - 'meat is murder' 'eat less meat and save the planet"

Well, yes, that's right.

Interestingly there's tons of scientific evidence supporting vegeterianism as extremely beneficial for long-term health, and if a parent made that decision than I'd find it understandable. To inflict that diet because of their opinion 'meat is murder etc' i would most definitely consider indoctrination.

As a Castillian I'm afraid I would find it difficult to deny them the delights of a good meat stew and cured pork in all it's forms (not to mention blood sausage...mmmmmmm).

[Ridgley]

The whole point is choice we do what we feel is right for our children, and yes we don?t always get it right but we do our best if there is a good framework to start with.

[silverfox]

"...Of course I provide them with a moral framework and guidance, the point is i present it as what I think best, but if I get it wrong, and god knows I'm only human, I'm willing to roll with it. In fact I'll be delighted if they can argue me into changing, it's called interaction..."

Of course you do El Pibe, indoctrination was the wrong word. So do religious parents present it as they think best and they may well get it wrong, especially if too strict or fanatical.

To get back on topic, the judgement appears to have been made on the basis of physical harm or even mutilation. However, this particular religious ritual has been unquestioned, or a least tolerated, for millennia. So, to come back to my earlier point where will this interference in the rituals or practices of religious or other value systems stop. What about emotional or psychological harm? For example, are vegetarian parents who deny their children meat denying them a basic right to enjoy a juicy steak and also hindering their social and career development when they come to dine out with friends/business contacts at top restaurants?

[Mick Mac]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

>

> However - I suspect we will see the power of the

> Jewish religion worldwide, winning through.

Interestingly, noone has commented on how they think this may turn out. The Jewish lobby group possibly being the most powerful in the world, I suspect that they will have their way?

[Ridgley]

Interesting point Silverfox

[Ridgley]

I can't see this ruling sticking.

[maxxi]

Before this becomes a debate about Religion 'good or bad/indoctrination or enlightnment' only, let's at least agree (religious types, atheists, humanists and the delusionally divine) that NO religion can justify or excuse violence done to children.

The Council of Europe ruled on this when the debate was corporal punishment and some parents believing that it was a religious right and a duty to beat their children: "While freedom of religious belief should be respected, such beliefs cannot justify practices which breach the rights of others, including children?s rights to respect for their physical integrity and human dignity."

Whilst corporal punishment is still legal in this country (provided it does not leave a mark on the child) it has been illegal in Germany since 2000 and is banned in many countries. Circumcision is not a punishment but it is still an act of violence against a child and it seems as though Cologne has decided to apply the Council of Europe's approach regarding a child's rights particularly with regard to (same phrase) their physical integrity.

[taper]

Christopher Hitchens opines on the matter (3:30 to 6:35).

Personally, I concur entirely.

[Otta]

Not surprisingly Angela Merkel has come out on the side of the Jewish / muslim people. There is no way a German government will want to piss of the Jewish community like this.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

[Alan Medic]

So we are supposed to accept that cutting off part of a child's willy because it's written in an old book is acceptable because people think it's important. It's utterly ridiculous. Next, someone will be telling us that if we give our life for something else written in an old book there will be 13 virgins waiting for us as a reward. Yeah right.

[ladida]

Going back to the original quote, I wonder whether or not this may or may not be Europe returning to the standards of 1936.

[El Pibe]

Well, it's an Olympic year and I'm willing to bet a black man wins the hundred metres.

An army just marched on Madrid, but it's hardly the Spanish Civil War redux.

Beyond that I'm afraid you've completely lost me.

Are you suggesting the queen will die?

[Burbage]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> So we are supposed to accept that cutting off part

> of a child's willy because it's written in an old

> book is acceptable because people think it's

> important.

Less than a month ago a bunch of politicians in Zimbabwe thought it important enough an issue for them to voluntarily undergo circumcision.

It is simplistic, and dangerous, to reduce this entirely to the issue of whether adults should mutilate children or not, and the faith argument is irrelevant at best. This is not the same sort of abuse as we saw in the 'witchcraft' trials, nor in female genital mutilation. It is, in most cases, a medical procedure carried out by qualified surgeons, albeit a superficially cosmetic operation done on non-medical grounds.

We don't know what the original motivations for it were, but it seems an odd thing to invent, and must have had some reason. We can safely assume it wasn't to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, but we can't be sure that other health benefits weren't a motivation. After all, many of the rituals prescribed in 'old books' turn out to have sound (for the time) medical reasons. Either way, as it stands at the moment, it's a statistically very safe procedure that may have health benefits, and can be seen in a similar light as vaccination.

In this case, the effects of a ban are likely to be quadruply unhelpful. Not only would any benefits be reduced in terms of HIV/AIDS, it could upset religious communities, spark similar bans in other predominantly Christian states (such as Zimbabwe), and prompted the faithful to attempt the procedure in secret at home.

In short, what appears to be a clear-cut moral question is muddy enough to make the obvious right answer a very wrong one, and a ban would create many more problems than it cures.

[malumbu]

Its a shame that certain religions can't be more progressive. No doubt there was good reason once for doing this, as there was for avoiding pork, shellfish, and killing animals in certain ways. Not that we will solve this on the forum.

Good discussion point though.

[maxxi]

"...it's a statistically very safe procedure that may have health benefits, and can be seen in a similar light as vaccination."

What absolute tosh. More and more men are suing those that had them circumcised and most major health organisations including USA and UK say that the risks involved greatly outweigh any possible health benefits.

"it could upset religious communities" - about bloody time. There is no God you know and it's about time those who believe in such nonsense were stopped from harming the helpless.

[Huguenot]

I would have thought it fairly obvious that physically mutilating someone is a pretty powerful tool for social control.

It's a symbol of the subjugation and disempowerment of the individual compared to the will of others. They carry this symbol with them for life in the guise of permanent physical scarring unavoidable even in their most private and intimate moments.

Whilst I'm sure that many gentiles may protest the impact of such procedures, the members of the Jewish community still carrying tattoos from the camps will be fully aware of the power of this permanent mutliation.

Supposed arguments about health benefits are illogical - the practice originated in prehistoric societies where this kind of injury was more likely to result in death than longevity.

The politicans in Zimbabwe chose to be circumcised, the Cologne ruling is not banning circumcision per se, but banning its imposition by others without free will.

The idea that something should not be made illegal because it'll go 'underground' is completely illogical. Horrific female circumcision practices continue 'underground', are you suggesting making this legal?

[Huguenot]

BTW, for the Jewish, there is no doubt that circumcision is about ritual indoctrination into a tribe and a symbol of subordination to others.

There is no doubt in the relevant scripture that this is a symbol used for the execution of power and social control:

Genesis 17: 10-14

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant .

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.