Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Now that's a pretty special statement, how can the collective rights of a group (minority or not, and what right, there is no right to mutilate children) override the individual right not to be mutilated before the individual is capable of consent?

It's nothing to do with 'rights' at all- human rights are a nonsense human invention- but, rather, duties.

[Cyclone]

I'm not allowed to feel upset about the mutilation of children because it wasn't done to me?

 

There is no legal jurisdiction of the 'laws' of which you speak, they are no more binding than something I've just written down on a postit note right here. I can call it a law, I can say that it applies to all people, but it can't be enforced, and neither can the 'laws' of which you speak.

[Cyclone]

It's nothing to do with 'rights' at all- human rights are a nonsense human invention- but, rather, duties.

 

A duty is a moral or legal obligation.

 

There is no moral or legal obligation that applies to any person that means they have to chop bits of a child. Being a voluntary follower of a religion cannot impose a duty on you that supersedes the law of the land, so if the law of the land is changed to make circumcision of children illegal then it will indeed be illegal and no amount of religious doctrine to the contrary will alter that.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Moral: I agree with you. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Legal: I disagree with you. The 'law of the land' is merely manmade.

 

As regards 'religions', you might be right- if you mean by 'followers' those who voluntarily affiliate.

Judaism, however, is not such a religion.

[Cyclone]

The law of the land is man made, and since the country is administered by men it supersedes any other instructions someone might personally wish to follow. This isn't in dispute, the law of the land is enforced and does not recognise any other law as being superior to it.

Judaism is a religion like any other that is voluntarily followed and can of course be left.

[RootsBooster]

Who're they?

Heh, that's the kind of thing he would say

 

So far, you've been all claim and no substance. I'd like to ask you a few questions and hope you will answer them.

No, they didn't. It's a legal requirement not susceptible to individual decisions.

Can you show me specifically in the Torah or Bible where it is stated that by law (religious or otherwise) Jewish male babies must be circumcised?

1. Abraham was not a Jew, as defined. There were no Jews until Mount Sinai.

2. So all previous affiliates were voluntary adoptors of an inchoate set of rules.

3. And even in Egypt, during 210yrs. of slavery, the subjugants were not Jews but Bnei Yisroel (= Children of Israel, because they were descendants of Jacob who was also named Yisroel).

4. All that was way before the Babylonian Exile caused by destruction of the First Temple.

5. And, lastly, no- the reference to 'foreskin of your heart' is a metaphor; surely you've heard of this concept?

You seem to be implying that you cannot be Jewish (male) if you are not circumcised. Is this what you are saying, and if so, can you give an example of where it says this in the Torah or Bible?

It's nothing to do with 'rights' at all- human rights are a nonsense human invention- but, rather, duties.

Of course human rights are man made, who do you believe made the Torah and Bible?

 

(It was men)

 

 

Last question, where does it say in the Torah or Bible that Adam (off of the Adam & Eve show) was circumcised?

[cgksheff]

If it is "law", what is the penalty for breaking that "law"?

[RootsBooster]

If it is "law", what is the penalty for breaking that "law"?

 

Punishment by genital mutilation?

[aliceBB]

It is and it does: but only applicable to Jews.

So don't feel so constantly upset by something which does not apply to you.

That's a poor argument if ever I heard one!

 

According your your logic we should not feel upset by the fact that others are being oppressed, abused and tortured, as long was we are not.

[callippo]

Perhaps I'm a bit naive but I always thought it was a mainly Jewish thing.

 

it's an Abrahamic thing, as Mohammad was supposedly commanded by Allah to follow the religion of Ibrahim this means male circumcision is just as de rigeur for Muslims as it is for Jews.