I would of course argue that secular morality is a culturaly constructed thing. Some flexible thing to suit public opinion and law-makers... Often created by a variety of emotional pleas and pushes...

In principle atheists can be morale, just as much as theists are capable of acting imorally (by the standards of their religion) - if you accept this, and the fact the your voice is part of conversation by which our secular society determines their laws. And that it is doing just what religion once did, using the law to force secular morality on people - hopefully this is at least some common minimum standard which all religious groups agree upon...

Is this a threat to your religion or practices? I'd say vegetarianism is an example of a secular moral position, but i can't imagine it becoming law... The tradition of eating meat is like the tradition of holding slaves, people in a position to do so generally conform to social standards without necessarily thinking about it.

Washington owned slaves, but it was the done thing (i am right on this, right?) and at least he treated his slaves well... Similarily it would takes something other than a judge to decide society was against another tradition, like circumcision... Though i think this judge has forced a community to consider this issue - when before the people merely allowed it without thinking of the morality...

At least i hope that will be a result...

Ps i'm very tired, so i'm not sure what i'm talkig about anymore...

Yeah me too. I'm not sure if it was your fatigue or mine that got in the way of my comprehension there. Sleep well.

Basically, i don't know if our idea of what a secular society is/should be is different, but you can't expect it to be without sense of morality.

just another manifestation of Antisemitism among the University educated. "Watch what I can do with my intellect, I can attack the a Jewish practice without attacking the Jew, its just so edgy." What exactly is the harm of circumcision? Female circumcision is the removal of the clitorus and therefore sexual pleasure. It is dangerous on top of that. It is a form of control over women by men. How does that compare to male circumcision which at best has some health benefits, at wost might take a tiny bit of sexual pleasure from a subject. The question remains, why do you care? The answer is to be edgy, and that you have too much time on your hands.

I say this and I do mean it, and yes it applies to JECE.

To deflect all of JECE's and orathaics future hair-brained attempts to defend themselves, in our country women can LEGALLY drink while pregnant, they can LEGALLY smoke while pregnant. In fact, they can LEGALLY DO CRACK while pregnant (Crack is illegal but I have not heard of any specific law punishing drug usage of drugs while pregnant). What about second hand smoke after the baby is born? All of these things could cause irreparable harm to the baby and do year in and year out.

Now are people like JECE out fighting a practical fight like that? No. Instead they pick this topic. They, like Orthaic, make idiotic parallels to female genital mutilation which is completely different in nature to male genital mutilation (see above). So destroy your baby any fucking way you want, but if you cut off a flap of skin for religious or cultural reasons, thats just too fucking far dude and it needs to be stopped!

@santa - I hear you and agree that some people's motives for wishing to ban circumcision could be anti-semetic, but that does not mean that their arguments are false.

I generally defend people's right to carry out their religion however they want to, but I am still entitled to comment on how that affects others. I think Muslims and others should be allowed to wear full face veils providing there is no compulsion on the woman, I'm against any religion cutting females (genitalia or otherwise) and I'm happy for sikhs to wear turbans rather than crash helmets. And I'm against pregnant woman smoking, and if some native American Indian group tells me smoking in pregnancy is part of their religion, I would still be against it. Not because I'm prejudice, but because I think the possible damage done to an unborn child is not worth the risk.

With regards to male circumcision, I would prefer boys to be given the choice at say 13/14 years of age. This doesn't mean, I hope, that I'm being disrespectful to religions that carry out circumcision.

The comments about abortion are well made, but the reverse is also true. If every sperm is sacred and every life precious and we are created in God's image, why do we then think it is ok to change/improve and what god made, foreskin and all?

I've posed some of these questions before, but people tend to skip over them for some reason.

"If every sperm is sacred and every life precious and we are created in God's image, why do we then think it is ok to change/improve and what god made, foreskin and all?"

How is not wanting a child to be killed in any way analogous to the desire to keep its body in some form of pristine God made from? Are we to ban all elective surgery upon such grounds? There are choices that parents make for their children. As SC said, "How does that compare to male circumcision which at best has some health benefits, at worst might take a tiny bit of sexual pleasure from a subject." The only possible way that this becomes an issue is by blowing it out of proportion.

TO say that your personal preference would be to wait until the boy was 13/14 to perform a circumcision is fine, so long as you don't try to pass a law to make others conform to that preference. Body piercing carries every bit the risk that circumcision does and is performed on little girls for entirely secular reasons all the time. I've seen many more infected ear piercings than I've ever heard of failed circumcisions. If nobody bats an eye at a mother taking a young child (I've seen infants with pierced ears as well) why on earth should there even be a small debate about male circumcision, a procedure that actually has health benefits?

** taking a young child to a mall to have her ears pierced**

@crazy - I also don't agree with body piecings for those not old enough to decide for themselves, ditto tattoos. Again I would still disagree with these practices even if some religion said they favoured them. People who hold religious views seem to think they can use 'religion' as some kind of trump card and my only point is that people should be allowed to comment on what laws govern us regardless of what religious views they hold.

With regard to my preferences, choice to circumcise at 13/14, It is a valid position. I abide by other laws that restrict my rights or are against my views but I accept the rights of others to debate and make laws that govern us all.

It is not a valid position because it is directly contrary to the religion. And religion is a trump card, its called "freedom of Religion" unless harm is being done, which significantly it is not. Comment all you want.

You know Maniac, Children have no choice whether or not they are born in poverty, which often has profound irreversible effects on life and obviously death. Therefore you obviously agree that the only moral thing to do is to hold all children in a community pen until they are 13/14 when they can chose for themselves, right?

This is not female circumcision. This is not a tattoo or piercing. This is a 3000+ year old tradition that is one of the base tenants of a religion. This cause du jour is obviously done purely as an attack on religion and in many cases an attack on Jews by proxy. There are better ways to attack religion than to attempt to stigmatize a practice that others hold dear.

ha well i guess that could be considered the definition of attacking religion in the frst place. Point remains though.

come to think of it, living is pain, children should have to consent to have that pain. Being born is irreversible. Therefore reproducing is immoral. Written consent from the unborn should be obtained before giving birth! Its the only moral way!

@santa - my motives for raising this as a debate are definitely not anti-Jew or anti Muslim. I can't prove hat to you of course, but I've been a member here for a good while and I have never knowingly been discriminatory in any way I hope. I try to respect all religions and accept that heir belief are deeply held. But hat doensn't make hem right.

I do not advocate putting al children in a community pen, but I do think there should be laws surrounding how people bring up their offspring. If people abuse or neglect their children, the state does have a role to play.

I agree with you entirely that freedom of religion can be a trump card, but it isn't always a trump card. Where harm is been done, then preventing that harm trumps freedom of religion. The only difference between us is that you think the harm is insignificant and I think it is significant. Which is why I say, let he cld decide when he is older.

'Body piercing carries every bit the risk that circumcision does and is performed on little girls for entirely secular reasons all the time. I've seen many more infected ear piercings than I've ever heard of failed circumcisions'

Actually i find body piercing before the child is old enough tondecide to be far more objectionable.

If you're claiming similarity i'll have to start defending circumcision now.

Santa, you completely mischaracterise my position. I'm not antisemetic for one (though i might be anti-religious practices) i'm not against circumcision in this case. As i've said i think this german judge made a mistake.

Fair enough, if parents are allowed pierce their children for cosmetic reasons then circumcision should also be allowed. I think parents who do this to their children are wrong for completely secular reasons; i'm more against the sense of importance the place on appearance than i am the possible damage.

And as such i'm less against the sense of important jewish (or muslim) people place on being a part of their culture. I don't find the two comparable; except in terms of he relatively minor damage caused.

The 13/14 mark may be a point in time where a child is old enough to choose or reject their religious faith, but that religious culture is another thing. It is just as valid as any other culture and does not need to be curtailed.

And YES 'you obviously agree that the only moral thing to do is to hold all children in a community pen until they are 13/14 when they can chose for themselves, right?'

I obviously agree. Seriously, and think about the potential benefits. A community of parents required by law to spend time (while sober) minding the community pen; no smoking in the work place; socialisation of the kids; integration of ethnic minorities; kids of rich people getting the same equal chance to prosper as everyone else.

I can't see a single downside.

'I agree with you entirely that freedom of religion can be a trump card, but it isn't always a trump card.'

surely the point of a trump card is that it always trumps??

Not to go offtopic. And surely the point of making this claim is to suggest that your personal faith trumps all other morality?

What if religious loons refuse blood transfusions? Or insist that prayer be the only intercession? Is there actually some common level of human decency which dictates that if our personal faith is contrary to secular morality (which we ALL have a say in, via public debate) then we remove the loons from their children; in whih case it IS secular morality which is the trump card.

"Actually i find body piercing before the child is old enough tondecide to be far more objectionable.

If you're claiming similarity i'll have to start defending circumcision now."


Exactly

"I obviously agree. Seriously, and think about the potential benefits. A community of parents required by law to spend time (while sober) minding the community pen; no smoking in the work place; socialisation of the kids; integration of ethnic minorities; kids of rich people getting the same equal chance to prosper as everyone else.

I can't see a single downside. "

I can, you've just described public school.

"What if religious loons refuse blood transfusions? Or insist that prayer be the only intercession? Is there actually some common level of human decency which dictates that if our personal faith is contrary to secular morality (which we ALL have a say in, via public debate) then we remove the loons from their children; in which case it IS secular morality which is the trump card."

And who decides who is a “loon”?

That whole community pen ides sounded pretty looney to me. We have "State Pens" already but you wouldn't want ot raise a child in one.

We as a collective get to decide who the 'loons' are, via considered debate.

Of course our judges get to decide when something new comes to them, and then our hate groups get to advocate a change in the law... and our measured debate informs our political representatives.

Actually i'm not sure if it's measured debate or political hate groups which do the better job...

And the difference from public school is that public schools place education as their primary (and only) goal...

This would place equal opportunities at the heart of all child-rearing. (at least outside of school)

and sure, you can still spend loads of money on your kids, you just have to bring all 52 kids to disney land if you want your kids to go... (assuming a 1 week per year system, where you have to mind 52 families worth of kids for one week per year...)

This would place equal opportunities at the heart of all child-rearing. (at least outside of school)

but what if they suck at it. Conscripted labor is pretty unreliable. There is something to be said for that paternal and maternal bond even if some people are idiots. I don't want some bored clerk raising the next generation when all he really cares about is checking off his community service hours so he doesn't miss "America's Got Talent".

Bored clerk? You seem to misunderstand me, i'm presuming this will be forced labour by the parents, not some paid clerk... No this is some weird socialist hybrid model where currently unpaid labour gets communalized. Of course that might put nanny and babysitters out of business... But maybe they can have a babysitter programme where interested young adults work a few hours a week...

also, i just came across this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/why-morality-is-fashionable-again

seemed relevant. At least the UK if not also the US...

I think I'll reply this weekend.

What will be your encore insinuate I beat my wife? Kick my dogs? Great, I can hardly wait.

Bump

You know, saying stuff like that doesn't make me put replying very high on my priority list.

I hope you can handle the suspense. ;-)

on pins and needles....really...