Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't have the right to tell Jews how we define ourselves. We have survived for thousands of years, despite many empires trying to kill us off or destroy us via assimilation. Yet, here we are today. We are here today because we are faithful to our covenant. You can take your individualism and stick it. We are a community, a people, a tribe, and we are stronger because we are.

Religious freedom is an individual right.

Just as you are free to practice your faith according to your conscience regardless of what the community around you thinks of it, a child raised by Jewish parents is free to practice his faith according to his conscience as well, regardless of what the Jewish community around him thinks of it.

They're two cases of the exact same right, and it's hypocritical for you to demand it for yourself but deny it for others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does NOT destroy the natural functioning of the penis. The natural functioning of the penis is:

1. To urinate. No problem there.
2. To feel stimulation and pleasure, so to perform the sexual act. No problem there.

Hey, I'm sick and tired of the conversation too. I have no idea why you are so stubborn about acknowledging the above simple truths.

In terms of risk and negative effects, circumcision is probably slightly more harmful than tattooing or tribal scarification of children... two other traditions that have huge cultural significance in the cultures that practice them.

They also happen to be two traditions that are widely banned today. What makes circumcision different?

 

[SkepticThinker]

[Ronald Reagan voice...]There you go again.

What makes them so different, in your opinion?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So if a baby had a tumor, you wouldn't remove it, since you didn't have their consent?

Circumcision is merely cosmetic surgery. It harms no one.

It would depend on what kind of tumour it is and where it is located in the body. If it is medically necessary, then I would have it removed, of course.

What we're talking about is medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a baby that has not given consent to have cosmetic changes made to his/her body. The comparison to a tumour is ridiculous, in my opinion. The fact that the surgery is purely cosmetic makes it completely unnecessary and wrong, in my opinion.

If there were some religion that said we had to pull out the eye of every first born male child, would you agree with that too? Where do we draw the line with this mutilation stuff?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There you go again, saying both, as if they are in the same ballpark.

Once again, FGM destroys the body's ability to function normally. Circumcision is mere cosmetic surgery. Not at all alike.

They're the same to me. Both involve mutilating a non consenting child's body parts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are engaging in moral equivocation. It's disgusting.

And I think your view is disgusting.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because we are a People and this is how we are defined. Circumcision is part of our covenant. We don't choose for that to be true. We are born into that truth. You might as well complain about why you are born with blue eyes or type O blood. As a Jew, there will be circumcision in my family. It's simply part of being a Jew.

If you were "born into the truth" then why are you born with foreskins?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if a baby had a tumor, you wouldn't remove it, since you didn't have their consent?

Parents are stewards of their children. They exercise consent for the child until the child is old enough to do it themselves.

However, this is predicated om the assumption that the parents have the best interests of the child at heart. When a parent is trying to rid their child of cancer, this is a reasonable assumption. When the parent is subjecting the child to medically unwarranted surgery (minor surgery, but still surgery) in an attempt to usurp the freedom of religion of the adult the child will become, the assumption is... questionable.

Circumcision is merely cosmetic surgery. It harms no one.

In any other circumstance, would cosmetic surgery - to correct no medical issue - on an infant be appropriate?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Circumcision removes much of the highly sensitive zones of the penis, leaves the glans rough and dried out (as opposed to soft and lubricated, as it's supposed to be), leaves scars and can cause other problems.

Sorry dude, but this does NOT interfere with the normal functioning of the penis.

Again, the equivilent of FGM would be to remove the penis.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you were "born into the truth" then why are you born with foreskins?

Because it is necessary to have a rite of initiation. My goodness, you don't understand tribal religion at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Religious freedom is an individual right.

Says who? This is the problem with modern society in the West, especially among the left. They lack an idea of the importance of community.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In terms of risk and negative effects, circumcision is probably slightly more harmful than tattooing or tribal scarification of children... two other traditions that have huge cultural significance in the cultures that practice them.

They also happen to be two traditions that are widely banned today. What makes circumcision different?

I have no problems with the tattooing and scarification of children. People need to butt out of the rites of other cultures. We've had enough of Western colonialism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sorry dude, but this does NOT interfere with the normal functioning of the penis.

Again, the equivilent of FGM would be to remove the penis.

You can continue to ignore facts if you want. You're the one being stubborn here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have no problems with the tattooing and scarification of children. People need to butt out of the rites of other cultures. We've had enough of Western colonialism.

Then don't whine about FGM.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no problems with the tattooing and scarification of children.

But you do recognize that others - including lawmakers - do, right?

People need to butt out of the rites of other cultures. We've had enough of Western colonialism.

Here in North America, there's more "Western colonialism" attached to circumcision than the alternative.

I can't see any way to respect your right to impose a religion on someone else. The only path I see to upholding your right to religious freedom also entails upholding the right to religious freedom of a child born to a Jewish family.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Says who? This is the problem with modern society in the West, especially among the left. They lack an idea of the importance of community.

I think that community is important, but I recognize that the rights of a community are derived from the individual rights of the members of that community.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because it is necessary to have a rite of initiation. My goodness, you don't understand tribal religion at all.

That doesn't really address the question, I don't think. I find it bizarre that some God gave everybody foreskins when in actuality "he" doesn't want anybody to have foreskins.

It's not necessary to cut off parts of a baby's penis unless there is a medical reason for doing so. Especially if they haven't given permission for you to do so. You can't have a "rite of initiation" at a time when someone can actually consent to it? You have to do it to babies who have no choice in the matter?

Sorry but "tribal religion" sounds barbaric to me. Are we allowed to just do whatever things we want to somebody if we say some God wants us doing it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry dude, but this does NOT interfere with the normal functioning of the penis.

Again, the equivilent of FGM would be to remove the penis.

How do you know? Have you had experiences with a foreskin and then without one?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no problems with the tattooing and scarification of children. People need to butt out of the rites of other cultures. We've had enough of Western colonialism.

Then you're immoral. Sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it is necessary to have a rite of initiation. My goodness, you don't understand tribal religion at all.

Why is it necessary?

Even without the unnecessary surgery, trying to dictate the lifelong religion of a child is unethical, whether we're talking about Jewish circumcision or infant baptism.