• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel attacks Council of Europe move to restrict male circumcision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rainman05 said:
You can be a jew without being religiously jewish, hence, it's not just a religion. It's why you have all those rules in judaism like that in order to be a jew, your mom has to be jewish and that's not a religious thing, it's an ethnic thing.

So say, if you are a polish catholic, if you stop being catholic, you're still polish. If you're a jew, even if you stop practicing judaism, by jewish standards, you're still jewish.
Click to expand...

'Jewish standards' are between Jews.

Anyone can be a Jew.

There is no race called 'Jews.'
 
BlackAsCoal said:
'Jewish standards' are between Jews.

Anyone can be a Jew.

There is no race called 'Jews.'
Click to expand...

... This is you approving what i said, that there is a jewish race by jewish doctrine. This is you not understanding what you wrote just a sentence ago.
False by any measurable standard. Sure, you can say: Oh, i'm jewish, I'll learn hebrew and get my foreskin chopped and do a bar mitzwah or whatever... but that doesn't make you jewish. It's taking the form without substance.
It's like saying: I'll put on a womans' dress and that makes me a woman. No it doesn't, it makes you a man in a womans' dress. Or a cross-dresser. Form without substance.
 
Rainman05 said:
... This is you approving what i said, that there is a jewish race by jewish doctrine. This is you not understanding what you wrote just a sentence ago.
False by any measurable standard. Sure, you can say: Oh, i'm jewish, I'll learn hebrew and get my foreskin chopped and do a bar mitzwah or whatever... but that doesn't make you jewish. It's taking the form without substance.
It's like saying: I'll put on a womans' dress and that makes me a woman. No it doesn't, it makes you a man in a womans' dress. Or a cross-dresser. Form without substance.
Click to expand...

This is you not understanding the difference between a race and an ethnicity.

Jews are not a race, but a nation
The notion that we are a race is destructive. If the Jews are a race, then Zionism is racism. If the Jews are a race, then parents who don’t want their children to intermarry are racists.

A race, whatever that notion really means, is certainly not something that can be joined. The Jewish people can be joined. We might have plenty of arguments among us as to what constitutes a valid conversion, but conversion is certainly possible. Ever since Abraham and Sarah’s legendary outreach program in which the residents of Charan were convinced to journey with them to Israel, almost every generation of the Jewish people has welcomed non-Jews into its midst. In fact, given any contemporary Jew, it is statistically inconceivable that there shouldn’t be a single convert anyway up their family tree. Admittedly, members of the tribe of Levi claim an unbroken patrilineal chain all the way back to Abraham; but there are bound to be converts on some of the maternal branches of their family tree. There is no such thing as a racially pure Jew. We are not a race.

more


Even the term 'semitic' does not distinctly define Jewish people.

.. relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.

Thus, Arabs are every bit as Semitic as are Jews.

There is no race called Jews.
 
joG said:
There was quite a discussion in a number of European countries about that issue and a large if not an overwhelming majority think as you do. And yes, the discussion did indeed feed on and incite racial hate against Jews and Muslims.
To me it seemed odd to worry about snipping a piece of skin of of a body that only 30 weeks earlier any uneducated girl could have had vacuumed away at will.
Click to expand...

Well, the different countries in Europe have different abortion laws. But you fail to understand the difference between a fetus, which cannot live outside the womb, and a human being. There is a difference. Oh....and those "girls"? Most of them are women.
 
Excon said:
No it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Seems you misunderstood. I was talking about the abominable practice of sucking blood from the circumcision wound, which has been proved to transmit herpes and even cause death.

Do you still think it shouldn't stop?
 
lyons19901 said:
I had a problem through my teen years in which sex was physically painful because of a complication with the piece of skin being discussed in this thread until i got circumcised funnily enough after the procedure i found out that percocete and vicodin don't work on me and it wasn't the best time to find out i think you agree lol it was probably one the the most painful experiences in my life and it wasn't the daily life for the month it took to heal i mean i went back on duty four days after the procedure it was the nocturnal emissions that would cripple me in pain, not allowing me to sleep, having no way to stop the process and at one point tearing a quarter of the stitches out(damn near passed out from that one) and that is why if i have male children I'm going to have them circumcised as a preventative measure for not having to go through what i went through
Click to expand...

Can you give the medical term for that condition?
 
shanners said:
Seems you misunderstood. I was talking about the abominable practice of sucking blood from the circumcision wound, which has been proved to transmit herpes and even cause death.

Do you still think it shouldn't stop?
Click to expand...
I think it is you who misunderstood.
No it shouldn't.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
This is you not understanding the difference between a race and an ethnicity.

Jews are not a race, but a nation
The notion that we are a race is destructive. If the Jews are a race, then Zionism is racism. If the Jews are a race, then parents who don’t want their children to intermarry are racists.

A race, whatever that notion really means, is certainly not something that can be joined. The Jewish people can be joined. We might have plenty of arguments among us as to what constitutes a valid conversion, but conversion is certainly possible. Ever since Abraham and Sarah’s legendary outreach program in which the residents of Charan were convinced to journey with them to Israel, almost every generation of the Jewish people has welcomed non-Jews into its midst. In fact, given any contemporary Jew, it is statistically inconceivable that there shouldn’t be a single convert anyway up their family tree. Admittedly, members of the tribe of Levi claim an unbroken patrilineal chain all the way back to Abraham; but there are bound to be converts on some of the maternal branches of their family tree. There is no such thing as a racially pure Jew. We are not a race.

more


Even the term 'semitic' does not distinctly define Jewish people.

.. relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.

Thus, Arabs are every bit as Semitic as are Jews.

There is no race called Jews.
Click to expand...


You're like.. .you know... wrong. I mean so wrong.
Semitic comes from Sem -> the son of Noah. And he was designated to repopulate the "middle of the earth" making all jews, arabs and other middle eastern people -> semites. normally this would include the indians in india and the vietnamese too. But w/e, back then people didn't know the world was that large. Ham was designated to repopulate the south -> so all africans are hamites. And Jaspeth or smth like that the north -> europeans and chinesse and siberians and all that are "jaspetians?" or however that works. Now since most arabs are muslims and don't give a hoot, they don't call themselves semites. since Europeans are traditionally christian, we don't care about the whole jaspeth thing since God loves all and doesn't massacre at random anymore, the Christian God is civilized. And the indians and the chinesse don't care either because lo and behold, they follow other religions.

So while yes, arabs are semites by torah standards, they're not semites because they don't see themselves as such. Which is why that designation remains purely for jewish people by their own choice and by the fortunes of history.

I see you quote haartz, don't. It's a ****ty newspaper for remtards on free dinners.

Jews aren't a nation. If jews were a nation, that means that if you're a jew in america or in sweden or in israel, you're part of the same nation. And that's not true. Only jews in Israel are part of the nation of Israel. So Israelite is a nationality, jew is not. Jews are foremost an ethnic group -> your mother needs to be jewish for you to inherit the jewishness. Again, that's their saying, not mine. They identify jewish as such. And with reformed judaism you don't need to practice judaism to be a jew. Which is why a non-religious jew can marry a religious jew no problem. It is why a non-religious jew is still a jew. Again. it's like I said. (ethnicity)Polish (religion)catholic -> take away catholic, he's still polish.


SO this:
f the Jews are a race, then Zionism is racism. If the Jews are a race, then parents who don’t want their children to intermarry are racists.
Click to expand...
Is true. They are racists.
 
JumpinJack said:
Well, the different countries in Europe have different abortion laws. But you fail to understand the difference between a fetus, which cannot live outside the womb, and a human being. There is a difference. Oh....and those "girls"? Most of them are women.
Click to expand...

Oh really. But you exaggerate the fetus thing and the difference between living and dieing lacking support.
For one thing, it depends on how much assistance you give the unborn after extraction from the womb. That is rather a fluid definition. Also taking that as the criterion is rather arbitrary. You like it and others might think it uneducated. It is just a point of view. Just look at the periods during which abortion is allowed and the legal rationalizations in the various countries to get a feel for how wide the arbitrariness goes.

And as for the girls. Sure some have more and others less education, experience or social competence. But we allow the vacuum decision to be made by practically every one of them, so my phrase was perfectly to the point. On top of that the girls are on very potent drugs, putting the rationality in doubt.
 
Rainman05 said:
You're like.. .you know... wrong. I mean so wrong.
Semitic comes from Sem -> the son of Noah. And he was designated to repopulate the "middle of the earth" making all jews, arabs and other middle eastern people -> semites. normally this would include the indians in india and the vietnamese too. But w/e, back then people didn't know the world was that large. Ham was designated to repopulate the south -> so all africans are hamites. And Jaspeth or smth like that the north -> europeans and chinesse and siberians and all that are "jaspetians?" or however that works. Now since most arabs are muslims and don't give a hoot, they don't call themselves semites. since Europeans are traditionally christian, we don't care about the whole jaspeth thing since God loves all and doesn't massacre at random anymore, the Christian God is civilized. And the indians and the chinesse don't care either because lo and behold, they follow other religions.

So while yes, arabs are semites by torah standards, they're not semites because they don't see themselves as such. Which is why that designation remains purely for jewish people by their own choice and by the fortunes of history.

I see you quote haartz, don't. It's a ****ty newspaper for remtards on free dinners.

Jews aren't a nation. If jews were a nation, that means that if you're a jew in america or in sweden or in israel, you're part of the same nation. And that's not true. Only jews in Israel are part of the nation of Israel. So Israelite is a nationality, jew is not. Jews are foremost an ethnic group -> your mother needs to be jewish for you to inherit the jewishness. Again, that's their saying, not mine. They identify jewish as such. And with reformed judaism you don't need to practice judaism to be a jew. Which is why a non-religious jew can marry a religious jew no problem. It is why a non-religious jew is still a jew. Again. it's like I said. (ethnicity)Polish (religion)catholic -> take away catholic, he's still polish.


SO this:
Is true. They are racists.
Click to expand...

Jewish is not a race, it's an ethnicity. Ethnicity and race is not synonymous.
 
Once again, I'll correct you. The people who are pregnant are women, not girls. Some conservatives have a problem with relating to women as women, rather than "girls" or "ladies." They are women, and it is not your place to make their decisions, just as it is not mine to make your decisions for you. Freedom.
 
JumpinJack said:
Once again, I'll correct you. The people who are pregnant are women, not girls. Some conservatives have a problem with relating to women as women, rather than "girls" or "ladies." They are women, and it is not your place to make their decisions, just as it is not mine to make your decisions for you. Freedom.
Click to expand...

In fact we, or the bureaucracy, are making decisions for each other on a regular basis. Some social behavior, as well as legal, is expected of all of us. If you want total freedom you'd be better of in the backwoods somewhere.
 
Rainman05 said:
1. The messiah already came and went. Get over it.

2. They banned circumcission that is not medically required. Which is most circumcision. What circumcision is, is in fact, forcing uneccesary and useless surgery on a child to satisfy some tribal ritual from a long gone era. It's primitive and stupid.

It's the same thing as not allowing tattoos on infants. You don't permit infants to be tattooed, why permit them to suffer through circumcision. It's protecting children's rights. If you hate children, you hate this law. If you want what is best for children, you start by not mutilating them.

You don't get to mutilate a child for the purpose of religious doctrine. We live by mans' laws not gods' law. Saying "god told me to do it" won't save you from prison if you do a crime, and saying that won't give you permission to circumcise an infant.
Click to expand...

Does this law ban European 10-12 year old girls from having their ears pierced ?
Does it ban younger kids from having their ears pierced ?
 
ido_ said:
Does this law ban European 10-12 year old girls from having their ears pierced ?
Does it ban younger kids from having their ears pierced ?
Click to expand...

I can't really say parents wanting to pierce their prepubescent children is a common occurence. Indeed, the parlours tend to turn such people away - unlike the rabbi or imam who encourage it. So the need for such legislation is rather dubious.
 
I realize I'm here late in the game but, circumcision along with not eating pork or shellfish are merely safety precautions place in the Bible for those who are unaware of those possible dangers. These warning are over-blown by those who would jump to literal conclusions.

Given the unclean practices of many of today's youths, I believe circumcision is still a good precaution.
 
Last edited:
lyons19901 said:
the doctors said it was Phimosis
Click to expand...

A very rare condition:

"The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only 2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. [In other words, less than 3 in 10,000.] This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery - a number too small to reliably estimate."

- Edward Wallerstein, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy p.128


"Dr Mark Reiss of Doctors Opposing Circumcision reports:

In August of 2007 I got a phone call and several emails from a distraught young man in his 20s, in which he complained of phimosis, the degree of which was affecting his ability to have and maintain an erection and causing embarrassment in his sex life. He seemed to be profoundly depressed. Of course all the urologists he saw recommended circumcision, but he wisely contacted a number of us, who recommended Dr. Michael Beauge's stretching technique:

I just got the following email from him, which is very gratifying. I recommend that his experience be cited for similar situations.

Hello, Dr. Reiss

I am the young man who contacted you over a year ago about having phimosis.

The study I read about Dr. Michel Beauge was incredible and very profound. Especially his analysis on certain conservative cultural tendencies toward self-stimulation.

The method that Dr. Beauge implies in his paper worked wonderfully for me.

I was relieved 110% [sic] of my phimosis and it is absolutely incredible. My personal life has improved dramatically.

My stance against pre-emptive non-therapeutic circumcision has become more solidified after having applied the Beauge method.

I just wanted to let you know that anyone who has phimosis should definetely try the Beauge method."​


Phimosis and Forcible Retraction


P.S. I see you're a relatively new poster (28 posts) and you may be wondering why I haven't replied sooner. Well, that's because you didn't quote me so I didn't see your reply in the "Who Quoted Me" menu. As a courtesy to users you should make use of this function which can be reached by clicking on the drop-down menu on the dark strip-white text bar at the top of every page. Thanks.
 
WCH said:
Given the unclean practices of many of today's youths, I believe circumcision is still a good precaution.
Click to expand...

Why not proper education on the matter?
 
Unbelievable!

"Rabbi Mordechai Rosenberg says it is not his fault that a baby boy’s penis was severed during a bris (Jewish ritual circumcision) he did in Pittsburgh on April 28. And that’s some claim because Rosenberg is the mohel (Jewish ritual circumciser) who performed the bris – in “a careful and competent fashion,” Rosenberg insists...

"Rosenberg’s legal team wrote in response to a lawsuit filed by the baby’s parents, who had to rush their baby to Children's Hospital for emergency reconstructive surgery and leech therapy.

"The baby was hospitalized for weeks.

"It is unknown how well the reattached penis will function or if he will be able to engage in sexual intercourse."


Haredi Mohel Who Cut Off Baby’s Penis Says It Wasn’t His Fault, Refuses To Admit Guilt Or Pay For The Baby’s Injury
 
shanners said:
I didn't see your reply in the "Who Quoted Me" menu. As a courtesy to users you should make use of this function which can be reached by clicking on the drop-down menu on the dark strip-white text bar at the top of every page. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Reading that again I see further clarification may be required:

Quick Links > Who Quoted Me
 
WCH said:
Like they listen or bother... LOL! That was the problem back in Biblical times also.
Click to expand...

Given the educational standards of the Jewish people, which seems highest in the world, I doubt they attach much importance to what non-Jews have to say.
 
Grant said:
Given the educational standards of the Jewish people, which seems highest in the world, I doubt they attach much importance to what non-Jews have to say.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming back in Biblical times, people weren't educated and needed guidance and direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom