Iceland law to outlaw male circumcision sparks row over religious freedom

[dowie]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

Iceland is poised to become the first European country to outlaw male circumcision amid signs that the ritual common to both Judaism and Islam may be a new battleground over religious freedom.

A bill currently before the Icelandic parliament proposes a penalty of up to six years in prison for anyone carrying out a circumcision other than for medical reasons. Critics say the move, which has sparked alarm among religious leaders across Europe, would make life for Jews and Muslims in Iceland unsustainable.

One in three men globally is thought to be circumcised, the vast majority for religious or cultural reasons. Many Jews and Muslims fear the issue of circumcision could become a proxy for antisemitism and Islamophobia, pointing to similar tensions over religious dress and the ritual slaughter of animals for meat.

Muslim and Jewish leaders attacked the proposal, while Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the Catholic Church in the European Union, said the bill was a “dangerous attack” on religious freedom. “The criminalisation of circumcision is a very grave measure that raises deep concern.”

Seems like a rational move tbh... why not let the child decide themselves when they're old enough to consent to it. If they decide at say age 16 to become circumcised then go for it, but someone else deciding for them seems very wrong. Some cultures believe in female genital mutilation (which can be carried out to different degrees, sometimes to an extreme form that goes further than circumcision in terms of the damage/mutilation caused) but we put the rights of the child in that scenario ahead of silly beliefs.

This whole nonsense about religious beliefs being an excuse to not pass sensible laws is so dubious, we've seen it before with say gay marriage, abortion rights etc.. and I suspect there will be further battles in other Western countries re: circumcision and ritual slaughter of animals.

 

[dowie]

RSSzzz old news.

The story is only a few days old and the law hasn't been passed yet.

Apparently the older you get, the more it hurts. I've always wanted it done but I'm almost 34 now and a pussy.

I think you'd probably get it done under general anaesthetic now... at the very least local.

That's gotta be better than some Rabbi coming along and just doing it with no pain relief to a new born and then (some Catholic priests might get a bit jealous about this) sucking the penis to stem the flow of blood... yup they're that weird sometimes and have even passed STDs to the babies through this rather disturbing practice - could you imagine if it didn't exist and some new religion like scientology tried introducing some practice like that - the people doing it would potentially be arrested for child abuse and put on the sex offenders register.

 

[dowie]

The real issue here is what is the driver behind the change in the law is it based on independant verifiable evidence of the suffering of children or is it simply an emotion based attack on religious practices?

Do you have reason to believe that cutting off a part of your body without anaesthetic isn't going to cause suffering?

Provided it is based on proper independant objective research then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with it.

I don't see why that is even a requirement. In answer to your question (which ought to be pretty obvious) of course there is evidence of harm/risks, this is essentially an unnecessary minor surgical procedure, it causes pain, it removes a part of the body and it can go wrong. Oh and sometimes in the super **** up cases where the really weird Rabbi types decide to suck on the freshly cut penis STDs have been passed onto the kids.

But I don't think that is even a necessary requirement to want to ban it, the lack of consent is enough.

For example suppose I invent a religion that involves say 8 yr old kids getting a very small tattoo as a sign that they're one of my chosen people - a rather less invasive procedure than having a part of you cut off but regardless it is something that should require consent.

 

[dowie]

I have no reason to believe that the routine circumcision of young boys is anything but painful and unnecessary but when making a decision that could easily be construed as targeting minority religions it is essential to remove emotion from the decision and work purely from independant facts. I suspect any independant research would support a ban so where is your problem?

As I already pointed out there isn't a problem there, research would indeed support it. DO you have any reason to think otherwise.

My point was that that shouldn't even be a requirement, as per the post were I've already explained that. What is your opinion on a child getting a tattoo for example?

A rabi putting a child's penis in his mouth is committing an act of abuse which is a crime and should be reported as such, emotive arguments like this shouldn't be used to ban something.

It isn't an emotive argument, it is citing a practice that currently happens and that contains risk. A rabbi cutting off a part of the penis ought to be outlawed in general tbh... that is the bigger issue.

 

[dowie]

Your whole post is emotive any decision to curtail a religious practice needs to be carefully implemented and the process needs to be 100% clean and transparent.

What is emotive about it?

I have already given my opinion on circumcision i.e. It is wrong but my opinion shouldn't sway the decision medical fact should. My opinion on child tattooing is hardly relevant.

It might illustrate why I'm arguing that even regardless of the medical issue I think it it wrong...

So what is it - what do you think of tattoos on children?

I fail to understand why you would seek to ban something so controversial without using an independant evidence based approach undertaken by experts?

Because you've failed to understand, have just skimmed over or have simply ignored my arguments. I've already pointed out that yes, of course, there is evidence of harm. I've asked you why on earth you'd even think otherwise or whether you have anything contrary to that? But my point is that there shouldn't even need to be - the fact is it is a permanent change carried out on someone without their consent. That is why I asked your opinion on say a small tattoo on children, arguably less harmful than cutting a bit of their private parts off (though granted not without risk in itself).

 

[dowie]

I'm not going to enter into a circular argument I've said my piece, I haven't skim read your posts, I have already responded to all your points other than the spurious tattooing.

I wasn't trying to turn this into circular argument, I was just a bit baffled about why you decided to repeatedly ask me about medical evidence when I'd explained already that of course there is evidence of harm but that my objection isn't confined to that but is also one of principle (which doesn't require medical evidence). To then quote me and ask me about medical evidence when also claiming that you read and understood what I'd said is a bit dubious to say the least... Though it is a bit illuminating that you won't be drawn into answering what should be a rather uncontroversial question about whether you think kids should have tattoos.

 

[dowie]

The majority of porn stars are American and in America most men are circumcised, not due to a religious reason but hygiene and prevention of a number of medical issues can arise in men who are uncircumcised.

Not really, as someone else already pointed out the reason for its popularity in the US essentially stems from it being used as an anti-masterbation measure. This dates back to a time when it was thought masturbation was the cause of various diseases etc... of course since then, with it being so well established, some in the medical profession there have sought to try and justify the continuation of the practice.