GarethRDR Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 ^See, that's the shit you should be putting in the jokes thread, PEK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 29, 2012 Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. Banning's fun innit! What to ban next ... dum de dum ... something the majority will agree with ... that's the trick. CI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 29, 2012 This is going too far. I don't see why they can't let the practice go on, provided those that have had it done wear some form of identification, like a yellow star, say. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 This is going too far. I don't see why they can't let the practice go on, provided those that have had it done wear some form of identification, like a yellow star, say. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted June 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 29, 2012 Interesting. Those of you who say the ban should happen because the child has no say in the practice.... ... I assume you all feel the same way about abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I'm not particularly bothered about it Hence not a big deal. Don't see the need for this law at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Interesting. Those of you who say the ban should happen because the child has no say in the practice.... ... I assume you all feel the same way about abortion? Not exactly a perfect analogy though, is it? For starters there's a difference between a child and a foetus. Okay a late term foetus is a reasonable approximation of a child, but even then it's a long way from being a walking, talking, reasoning human being with any concept of life and death. And it's not as though an aborted foetus is going to spend the next 70 or 80 years wishing it hadn't been aborted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 29, 2012 An excellent decision. And as soon as I saw the title I was going to make a 'cut above' related joke but damnit, late to the draw... The analogy to abortion is an absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I'm not particularly bothered about it Hence not a big deal. Don't see the need for this law at all. I'm not bothered about the fact that my (astonishingly large) penis lacks a foreskin, but I am peeved at the sheer cheek of my parents in deciding to alter a part of my anatomy without my express permission. A part of my anatomy, I might add, that in future years would be doing a lot of my thinking for me. So as a victim of this primitive practice (albeit not for religious reasons), I say that there IS a need for this law, in every country. It should not only be up to the child whether or not he owns a foreskin, but what religion, if any, he belongs to. When parents take the decision to circumcise for religious reasons, they are not only deciding on the matter of the foreskin, but taking one of the first steps in assuming that the child is theirs to indoctrinate into the religion of THEIR choosing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 This is a moral, ethical and religious landmine. I think it's hard to say either way whether it is right or wrong to circumcise. By banning, Germany are essentially saying that Religion is wrong, as belief in the 'divine' is a choice and not a 'given'. Obviously a lot of people are not going to see it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I'm not particularly bothered about it Hence not a big deal. Don't see the need for this law at all. I'm not bothered about the fact that my (astonishingly large) penis lacks a foreskin, but I am peeved at the sheer cheek of my parents in deciding to alter a part of my anatomy without my express permission. A part of my anatomy, I might add, that in future years would be doing a lot of my thinking for me. So as a victim of this primitive practice (albeit not for religious reasons), I say that there IS a need for this law, in every country. It should not only be up to the child whether or not he owns a foreskin, but what religion, if any, he belongs to. When parents take the decision to circumcise for religious reasons, they are not only deciding on the matter of the foreskin, but taking one of the first steps in assuming that the child is theirs to indoctrinate into the religion of THEIR choosing. Taken by itself, this law doesn't bother me at all. However, when I try to see it in the context of the bigger picture I get worried. Of late there has seemed to be a trend towards clamping down on minority religious practices (the other major example being the banning of the burqa in France and other countries). I think it'd be a tad hypocritical for us atheists to clamour for religious freedom while at the same time condoning laws like this that, in my opinion, are restrictions on religious freedom that set dangerous precedents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The right decision and baffling that it's took this long. I'm pleased they've put common sense about religious ritual, which essentially mean nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think it's hard to say either way whether it is right or wrong to circumcise. By banning, Germany are essentially saying that Religion is wrong, as belief in the 'divine' is a choice and not a 'given'. With respect, I think this is nonsense. By definition, a secular state is one that holds belief in the 'divine' to be a choice and not a 'given'. Germany is nothing if not a secular state. By passing such a law they are upholding a child's right to choose not only his religion, but how his pecker will appear to beholders (a somewhat important matter, I'm sure you'll agree). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think it'd be a tad hypocritical for us atheists to clamour for religious freedom while at the same time condoning laws like this that, in my opinion, are restrictions on religious freedom that set dangerous precedents. But surely "religious freedom" requires freedom to choose one's religion, rather than have it chosen by one's parents??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 29, 2012 Taken by itself, this law doesn't bother me at all. However, when I try to see it in the context of the bigger picture I get worried. Of late there has seemed to be a trend towards clamping down on minority religious practices (the other major example being the banning of the burqa in France and other countries). I think it'd be a tad hypocritical for us atheists to clamour for religious freedom while at the same time condoning laws like this that, in my opinion, are restrictions on religious freedom that set dangerous precedents. *is atheist, has no trouble with clamour to place restriction on religious freedom in all honesty* It's a step to allow the undermining of religion. All for it. Making it harder for them to physically stamp their existance on a child before it even knows what the ****, is an excellent move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think it'd be a tad hypocritical for us atheists to clamour for religious freedom while at the same time condoning laws like this that, in my opinion, are restrictions on religious freedom that set dangerous precedents. But surely "religious freedom" requires freedom to choose one's religion, rather than have it chosen by one's parents??? Again, depends on whether you see the ban on child circumcision as a mere one-off or a part of a wider and more worrying pattern. When added to the other restrictions that have come into place in Europe recently (burqa law being one, can't remember the others but I'm pretty sure there are some), it's almost as if you Europeans are waging war on religion. lol i sound like a republican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 it's almost as if you Europeans are waging war on religion. We can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's almost as if you Europeans are waging war on religion. European, moi? Non! Je suis Foreigneur. Anyway, what's happened to you Legov? I thought we were all agreed that religion is a destructive force upon which war SHOULD be waged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Good call, glad to see it being given the snip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's almost as if you Europeans are waging war on religion. European, moi? Non! Je suis Foreigneur. Oh yeah, forgot Anyway, what's happened to you Legov? I thought we were all agreed that religion is a destructive force upon which war SHOULD be waged? Jury is still out for me, I can't decide really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts