Iceland law to outlaw male circumcision sparks row over religious freedom

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
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.
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
23,553
Location
Hertfordshire
Doesn't seem particularly enlightened to inflict these kind of things on a child who has no say in the matter. These things are only forced on kids, like christenings, to perpetuate the religion and stop it rightfully dying out.

Not circumcised myself, is there actually any medical reason for it? :confused:
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Slight difference between circumcision and having water dripped over you. :p

Good decision IMO, if they decide at a later date they want it then so be it, but it should be their choice as it’s their body. It’s not like you can un circumcise.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,592
Location
ST4
Never understood why some parents are so ****** up in the head that they actually think it's perfectly acceptable to mutilate their child's ****.

Seriously, the name for a male chicken is censored?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Doesn't seem particularly enlightened to inflict these kind of things on a child who has no say in the matter. These things are only forced on kids, like christenings, to perpetuate the religion and stop it rightfully dying out.

Not circumcised myself, is there actually any medical reason for it? :confused:

In a few cases, yes. But only a few. In almost all cases, it's mutilation solely for the sake of tradition. In almost all other cases, it's for money (especially in the USA, where parents have to pay to have part of their boy's genitals cut off). Cases where there's a medical reason are very rare.

The root cause in the USA is the anti-masturbation hysteria of the late 19th century, when for no sane reason mass hysteria gripped the country and many people became convinced that (a) masturbation caused almost all diseases and death and (b) genital mutilation was the only way to prevent masturbation. I am not joking. That really is the reason. It's well documented, since it was little over 100 years ago.

The root cause elsewhere is of course religious power. When a religion can get people to mutilate their own children, that's serious power.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Mar 2011
Posts
4,908
There's a memorable line in David Niven's autobiography about a time when he was skiing without adequate insulation for his groin and became concerned about genital frostbite - "I prised a pale blue acorn out of my ski pants".

Pmsl! :D

I just sit like girl a in these weathers. :p
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Pmsl! :D

I just sit like girl a in these weathers. :p

Both his autobiographies are well worth reading. In the skiing incident, he ended up in a 5 star hotel (it was a very expensive area) where, after a variety of advice on the best course of action, he had a large brandy glass mostly filled with very expensive brandy clamped over his groin and was in rather a lot of pain as things defrosted when a nobleman he knew came in and exclaimed "My dear David, what are you doing?", to which he replied "I'm ******* in a brandy glass, my lord. I always do." as if it was a routine thing.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,818
Location
Here and There...
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? Provided it is based on proper independant objective research then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with it. Of course a large number of kids will still be cut just behind closed doors and kids will suffer more because people will be reluctant to seek help with complications. Very few people will be prosecuted as investigations will meet the usual wall of silence and parents will not be held responsible.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
In a few cases, yes. But only a few. In almost all cases, it's mutilation solely for the sake of tradition. In almost all other cases, it's for money (especially in the USA, where parents have to pay to have part of their boy's genitals cut off). Cases where there's a medical reason are very rare.

The root cause in the USA is the anti-masturbation hysteria of the late 19th century, when for no sane reason mass hysteria gripped the country and many people became convinced that (a) masturbation caused almost all diseases and death and (b) genital mutilation was the only way to prevent masturbation. I am not joking. That really is the reason. It's well documented, since it was little over 100 years ago.

The root cause elsewhere is of course religious power. When a religion can get people to mutilate their own children, that's serious power.

Check out the history of the origin of Kellogs Cornflakes.....
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Nov 2004
Posts
5,446
Location
Hayle, Cornwall
We have many scandals over female sexual organ mutilation ie sowing up but have allowed little boys to be "mutilated" for eons...for me this is right, allow the chap to decide when he is older.


rotters
 
Back
Top Bottom