Iceland might ban Circumcision

milkboys News 57 Comments

Iceland is considering a law that would make it the first European country to outlaw male circumcision for anyone under the age of 18. The bill proposes up to six years imprisonment for anyone who performs a circumcision on a child that is not for medical reasons.

European religious leaders say the restriction would impinge upon religious freedoms while other people argue that a child’s welfare and bodily integrity supersedes any religious traditions.

Male circumcision is commonly practiced by Jews and Muslims. In some countries, including the U.S., male circumcision is popular across religions and ethnicities, for alleged health and cultural reasons. The World Health Organization estimated in 2009 that about one in three men globally is circumcised.

Male circumcision is “a non-negotiable element of Jewish identity,” a spokesman for Milah UK, a Jewish campaign group, told The Guardian, adding that Iceland’s proposed ban is “extremely concerning.”

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the Catholic Church in the European Union, called the proposal a “dangerous attack” on religious freedom.  “Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalised, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities,” Marx said last week, according to the Catholic News Agency. “This is extremely worrying.”

The bill reportedly has strong public support. Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, a member of parliament from the Progressive Party, said she proposed the bill after realising there were no restrictions on male circumcision in Iceland, even though female circumcision was outlawed in 2005.

“I see it as a child protection matter,” Gunnarsdóttir told Euronews. “In Iceland we acknowledge the right to believe but we also acknowledge the right and freedom of everyone to choose and have their opinions.”

She added: “I stand by that and I say people should be allowed to have their beliefs for themselves but you have to draw the line when it’s about other people. Children should also have their own rights for their own beliefs when they are adults.”

The bill says people who want to be circumcised for religious or cultural reasons can do so once they are old enough to “understand what is involved in such an action.”

Male circumcision has long been a controversial issue in Europe. In 2012, Germany considered a ban but ― following months of fierce debate ― ruled that only doctors or trained experts could perform the procedure. In 2016, doctors in Denmark deemed non-medical male circumcisions to be “ethically unacceptable” when performed on children under the age of 18. Many doctors in Sweden refuse to perform the procedure for non-medical reasons.

Comments 57

  1. It always astonishes me that whatever force created a billion suns would be so fascinated by penises. I’m a geezer (old guy) and I was cut in spite of my parents asking that I not be.

    In the 19th century, doctors in the US encouraged circumcision as a way of discouraging “self-abuse” which was believed to cause insanity and blindness.

  2. “while other people argue that a child’s welfare and bodily integrity supersedes any religious traditions.”

    Ya think?!?

    1. No, I don’t think, especially when the physical and mental effect of male circumcision is miniscule. This is an utterly bullcrap issue taken up by people with faddish and stupid ideas of what a real issue of child welfare is. One-fifth of American children going to bed hungry is a child welfare issue. Children dying of cholera in Yemen is a child welfare issue. Children denied economic security and health care and access to a decent education are child welfare issues. Female clitoral circumcision IS a child welfare issue. Male circumcision is a mental health issue for a few adult men, a financial issue for a certain segment of the “mental health” community, and a political issue for idiots.

      1. Crap ….. circumcision male or female is a physical mutilation without consent…..WHY do you differentiate ….. BOTH are a child welfare issue whether male or female would YOU hold your boychild down while his foreskin is cutaway and stitches put in without any anaesthesia or proper sterile procedure..taking the risk he could die of infection if so then you are just as barbaric as the procedure itself

        1. “WHY do you differentiate…?”

          Because a boy with a circumcised penis still has a glans that can feel an enormous amount of stimulation. A female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris, and there is NO female replacement part that can be comparably stimulated. If male circumcision involved the removal of the glans, then I would not differentiate between the two and call for both to be illegal.

          A male circumcision SHOULD be conducted with anesthesia and in a sterile environment and nothing I’ve written indicated otherwise. And religious practices should be regulated to match medical practices when they do not. Outlawing circumcision, on the other hand, will in fact increase the likelihood that those circumcisions that are still carried out will be done in less sterile environments and without painkillers, just as we have seen when abortion is criminalized.

      2. So it’s OK for baby boys to die, which they do, so long as some 4000 year old pact with a nonexistent sky fairy is adhered to ?

        It’s genital mutilation, not only is a cut cock an ugly cock, they are often bent due a slip of the knife.
        It is totally unnecessary and has NO health benefits!

        Go for it Iceland !
        Germany toyed with the idea a few years ago but due to their recent less than happy relationship with people who are mutilated for religious reasons, they bottled it. It’s being discussed here, so maybe the revolution is about to start.

        1. I’ve heard of a number of cases in New York City where baby boys were infected because the moyles performing their circumcisions refused to adjust their methods to ensure a sterile circumcision. That should not be allowed. However, please provide a citation indicating how many boys have died due to circumcision, and what percentage – TINY percentage, I’d wager – of all male circumcisions they represent. Ditto for your assertion of “often bent” cocks due to a – again, probably exceedingly rare – slip of the knife.

          The “NO health benefits” argument may be true in countries with high living standards, excellent public health systems, more homogeneous populations and overall greater economic equality, but it does NOT in third world countries and I am honestly not sure that it does in more diverse and more unequal first world nations than an Iceland, such as the US and the UK. It may, but I am just not so sure as you probably are.

          1. One boy dying because of an unnecessary procedure is one too many, you twat !

  3. All it takes is a couple of years of masturbation with foreskin [especially with a buddy] and even most “jews” will say, ‘Fuck that’ when it comes to cutting off their prized sensitivity after they turn 18.

    jews — go eat a bagel and lox and you’ll forgo even suggestions to cutting off your foreskin.

    1. Circumcised Catholic long-ago turned atheist here, and my glans are quite sensitive, thank you very much.

      You seem a bit obsessed with Jews, by the way, which this half-Arab finds a bit disturbing, actually.

      1. “You seem a bit obsessed with Jews,”

        No, not at all. I said jews because that’s what most people associate with circumcision. That’s all.

        “my glans are quite sensitive, thank you very much.”

        I’m sure it is. But it would [have been/be] even more sensitive if you hadn’t been circumcised.

        “Circumcised Catholic long-ago turned atheist here”

        And I can “outdo” that — my mother shoved me onto Southern Baptists after 13 years of “being” a catholic because she was — and my father was circumcised. [I really wasn’t either because I’ve NEVER believed in that bullshit.] But I consider myself “lucky” — I was ‘loosely’ circumcised where I retain [approx.] half my skin still. And my glans is probably as sensitive as yours and every other male’s glans who has been circumcised — I’m just saying it would have been EVEN MORE sensitive with the skin still attached.

        1. “I’m sure it is. But it would [have been/be] even more sensitive if you hadn’t been circumcised.”

          Any scientific citations to back that up? I don’t remember U.S. sex columnist Dan Savage being too impressed with that argument some years back, and he is generally very level-headed on sex and relationship matters, and quite willing to call in the experts when he is unfamiliar with a question.

  4. Interestingly, very soon after losing one of their strongest controls of society [circumcisions], the numbers of “religious” will crumble and an even faster rate. After all, losing that “covenant with ‘god’,” there won’t be much more to respect about any “religions.”

    Are jewish parents actually going to “disown” their sons just because they aren’t circumcised? If any do ….. think about that and the purpose of “religions.”

    1. You didn’t really have to say a word. We know your stance on organisations religious. :)

      Anyway, Iceland’s proposed Bill is absolutely right. Common sense. I hope Scotland follows eventually.

      I love Catholic Marx spouting off. No sense of shame for him. His wicked club emerging from awful revelations of massive child abuse and he thinks he can chip in on this topic?
      Know nothing about the guy but he amassed a lot of ‘utter wanker’ points with those words attributed to him.

  5. out of Iceland’s 334,000+ population there are a whopping 250 Jewish people and around 800 Muslims. (the figures come from leaders of the Jewish and Muslim communities there)

    In other countries this is called niche legislation

    1. Protecting the human rights of HALF their population isn’t a “niche”. This isn’t about jewish, or islamic traditions. Just as enacting laws to protect womens reproductive rights isn’t about Christianity. Everyone deserves the same level of Human Rights.

        1. It’s meaningless virtue signaling is what it is. Male circumcision doesn’t actually hurt anyone. Is it medically necessary, no it is not, but it is no more a violation of “bodily integrity” or “human rights” (oh, for God’s sake, it’s a “human f***ing rights” issue!?!) than a parent piercing the ears of their kids before they can “consent” to it.

          It’s also a perfect example of a busybody, privacy-invading law will end up being a prosecutor’s wet dream. Laws like this will be used to target the economically and religiously vulnerable. Working class religious minorities will be targeted by petty, interfering petite-bourgeois bureaucrats. Children will be stripped from the custody of their loving parents. And if gay men and lesbians think that something like this can’t be used as a model for legislation allowing the government and law enforcement to interfere in their lives and those of their children, they are naive fools.

          1. I don’t think piercing the ears of babies is accepted or even legal in most modern countries, and it shouldn’t be either. Body integrity should be respected.
            If we live in a culture where the body integrity of the most vulnerable ones, i.e. the children, is not respected, then we introduce the dangerous idea that the State can also interfere in our most private and intimate matters.

            It’s not a good idea to get children used to the idea that people with authority over them can rule over their bodies in such an intrusive way with permanent effects they could regret later on.

    2. Thomas:
      “If we live in a culture where the body integrity of the most vulnerable ones, i.e. the children, is not respected, then we introduce the dangerous idea that the State can also interfere in our most private and intimate matters.”

      Hence, religions.

      Your second paragraph is spot on.

      1. Thomas, the legality of piercing based on age seems to vary from state to state and country to country. Bodily integrity is a legitimate issue, but criminalizing male circumcision is exactly introducing “the dangerous idea that the State can also interfere in our most private and intimate matters.”

        There are different degrees in which bodily integrity can be violated. Denying medical care (Christian Scientists and some other religious sects) or cutting off a limb, the female clitoris or the male testes are gross, severe violations of bodily integrity because of their effect on the person’s body. Piercing an ear or removing the male foreskin are not because the effect on the person’s body is almost always negligible or, to use another word, trivial. I support state intervention when the effect of a parent’s violation of their child’s bodily integrity is gross and severe. I do not support state intervention when the effect of a parent’s violation of their child’s bodily integrity is negligible and trivial.

        I especially do not welcome state intervention in trivial matters when there is a wealth of evidence that law enforcement, the medical profession and the caring professions can and will abuse their powers, from the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of black, Latina, Native-American and developmentally disabled women in the United States (I bet the same happened to women of color in other majority white countries, and to the DD worldwide), to the abusive prosecution of teenagers for the statutory “rape” of their just barely younger boyfriends and girlfriends, to the War on Drugs as benign as marijuana, to the constitutional “Prohibition” on alcohol in the U.S., to the forced institutionalization of gay men and women, to the institution of “Sex Offender” registries broad enough to include grade-schoolers “convicted” of slapping a fellow grade-schooler on the bum.

        Not to mention that some states will use a law like this to target ethnic or,in this case, religious minorities, and will be far more likely to prosecute the poor and working class much more vigorously than the middle class or wealthy.

  6. I find it disturbing that people cannot find a better way to accommodate both religious freedom and human rights (including child welfare). For the case under discussion here, regardless of how passionately some people may feel, there is no medical reason not to circumcise. In fact, there have been suggestions that circumcision can actually lessen the spread of certain diseases. I speak from the point of view of someone who is not circumcised and who did not circumcise my son — and yet, nevertheless, I don’t see why this particular practice needs to be legislated by society.

    1. “there is no medical reason not to circumcise.”

      Thats not a rational reason to perform surgery on anyone, especially not an unconsenting minors.

    2. Parents don’t own their children’s bodies. This a major principle of modern societies, and a basic human right. It’s more than time that we stop closing the eyes just because it’s “religious”. There are already hundreds of religious rituals, in particular from the Torah/Bible, which are now strictly forbidden. It didn’t prevent anyone from practicing their religion.

      The only case when it is acceptable for a parent to mutilate their child is when it is the only way to save him from a severe harm (like appendicitis, for instance). The health benefit one could expect from circumcision is at most dubious, and even if there would be one, there would be no urgency justifying the operation to be performed before the child can consent. Circumcision is therefore ethically unacceptable.

      Of course it would be better if Jews and others could just realize all that by themselves. But as they don’t, we unfortunately have to use the law to protect children’s rights.

    3. And just what the fuck IS “religious freedom”?

      According to our First Constitutional Amendment,
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
      As in ANY LEGAL document, we read LEFT TO RIGHT:
      Americans [by citizenship status] have the FIRST RIGHT to NOT have religion — by our government, and therefore by proxy, our citizenship.

      Then moving on, there is a “right” to be stupid (and therefore “religious”) but that doesn’t give ANYONE a “right” to FORCE your stupidity upon the citizenry.

      1. Thomas:
        “To Penboy, you are an example of the kind of atheist that I can’t stand.”

        I don’t give a shit what you think in that regard. I have NO “respect” for idiots like you who adore “religions.”

        “Religious people have just as much right to stand up for their beliefs”

        NO they don’t.

      1. To sjt, Hear! Hear!

        To Wheatlands, so you would be okay with parents being prosecuted for getting the ears of their toddler pierced? If Drew Brees’ parents had decided to have the large birth mark on his face removed shortly after his birth, would you have been okay with them going to jail? At what point are you willing to draw the line for state interference in families?

        To Thomas, the same question about where you would draw the line? You seem to be substituting state ownership for parental ownership, and doing so with a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. To call male circumcision “mutilation” is a ridiculous overstatement, but overstatement is the only way you can win your argument when the scientific evidence is that it is, in fact, harmless.

        To Penboy, you are an example of the kind of atheist that I can’t stand. Religious people have just as much right to stand up for their beliefs and win majority support for them as you and I do. And thank goodness for those religious folk who protested against legal racial segregation, and U.S.- supported death squads in Central America, and the obscene resources spent on nuclear arms, and the death penalty. I’ve stood my ground against religious protesters outside abortion clinics, but male circumcision is an issue that deserves attention only in those rare cases where it is actually abused (as in by the NYC Orthodox moyles spreading STD’s because they refuse to adjust their practices).

        1. So I presume you support female that case I am willing to have my foreskin circumcised if you will have your clitoris circumcised
          How dare you say it does not harm to have your foreskin removed without any form of anaesthetic
          Having a foreskin or not does not affect whether you get a STD that ALSO depends on the woman Would you hold your boychild down while a non clinically trained person cut off his foreskin for the sake of religion….if so you are just as barbarick
          as the procedure itself

          1. I do not support female circumcision and made that clear in at least one post before yours assuming that I did, so shame on you for making an assumption unsupported by the evidence.

            I also made it clear earlier that I am a man, too.

        2. Well, imagine as an adult you would go to the hospital for some surgery, and when you wake up from the operation, then the nurse tells you: “The operation was a complete success. By the way, the surgeon noticed you were still uncircumcised, so he took the opportunity to circumcise you. Of course this is free of charge, some kind of special bonus from us.” How would you feel about it? Quite angry, to say the least, I guess. I sure would feel like I am mutilated!

          So, what I wouldn’t accept for myself, I see no reason to accept it when it comes to defenseless children. This is just abuse of power, and disrespect of human integrity.

          The line is clear and simple: parents can only take irreversible decisions about their children’s bodies when there is a clear medical condition requiring a medical intervention. I really don’t understand how one can see this as controversial, except for religious fanaticism.

          1. As an adult, yes, I would object if unnecessary surgery, even trivial surgery, were performed on me without my consent. Children do not enjoy the same rights as adults and are subject to the control of their adult guardians in some matters and the state in some other matters.

            In balancing the rights of the child’s guardians with those of the state regarding a child’s bodily integrity, I choose which side I am on based on the relative weight of the violation of the child’s rights and well-being, and the relative danger of siding with the state or the guardian/parent. Male circumcision is a far, FAR less weighty matter than the denial of medical care, the removal of the testes or the removal of the clitoris, and I see no reason to CRIMINALIZE such a trivial matter and invite state interference into the lives of religious and/or ethnic minorities and the economically vulnerable.

            Religious fanaticism is not my motivation. A knowledge of the historical abuse of power by the state, of the misuse and/or abandonment of science, of an imbalance between the rights of the individual and the community backed up by criminal law, and of the dangers of arrogance on the part of the “enlightened” and “modern” is.

        3. “so you would be okay with parents being prosecuted for getting the ears of their toddler pierced?”

          YES. But, of course, the punishment for that should be a hefty fine — say, US$500 at the very least, preferably US$1,000+.

          Add to that, a few days spent looking at photos of childrens’ ears that have been badly infected because of dirty needles, etc.

  7. The left would fight to the death in order to keep it legal, here in Sweden. They love anything that means hurting males, nearly as much as they love islam, evil as they are. But with a nationalist government, perhaps.

    1. First, FU. As a long-time leftist, I support the right of Muslims to not be discriminated against for their religion, but I also supported the Afghan left-nationalists and their Soviet allies in their war against the Afghan mujahideen, their ultra-reactionary Islamicist allies, their Pakistani ISI handlers and their Saudi and American bankrollers. I supported Yugoslavia against the neo-fascists, NATO and U.S. imperialists, Kosovar/Albanian nationalist and their ultra-reactionary Islamicist allies, too.

      Second, FU. As a male, I am a lot more concerned about being hurt by unregulated occupational hazards, the cops, and an economic system that is moving towards making human labor redundant, while working people to death in the meantime, than I am by how men are NOT hurt by male circumcision.

      1. you are talking about outdated tribalistic politics and religion..the secular discussion is on the mutilation and physical assault whether male or female circumcision… there are no grounds for this ritual to be accepted legally or otherwise ..unless on medical grounds
        female circumcision is already outlawed so should male circumcision

        1. I don’t know what your tribe or religion is or whether you suffer any ill treatment because of either. If you do not, then it is rather rich for you to tell the Shite Mulsims blown up by Sunni Muslim fanatics, or the Coptic Christians gunned down by Islamist terrorists, or the Muslims killed by Hindu fanatics, or the blacks in the U.S. or Australia whose cop killers are almost never prosecuted, let alone convicted, or the Jews targeted by Christian or Muslim fanatics, or the gays in the Russian Federation, or the black, Latino and young Americans targeted for voter suppression (the former in the name of “color blindness”), or the Palestinians, that tribal and religious politics are outdated. There are better ways to organize to resist tribal or religious persecution than to organize on strictly tribal or religious grounds, but you don’t always get to choose what is outdated, sometimes it is, unfortunately, chosen for you.

          Really, you should go and educate yourself on the different EFFECTS of male and female circumcision before you comment on them again.

      2. “I support the right of Muslims to not be discriminated against for their religion,”

        Nothing like showing just how fuckig stupid you are in a public venue.

        1. Are you really THAT ignorant or are you just stupid?

          Look up the “Wars of Religion,” moron. Look up the history of religious persecution among the different Christian churches and sects. Those might tell you why the U.S. Constitution has a clause about not establishing a state religion; it has more to do with protecting religious folk from other religious folk than it does with protecting non-believers – as VITALLY important as that absolutely is – from believers.

          For that matter, look up the history of atheist persecution of the religious. Now, that is a complicated story, so avoid the cheap and easy generalizations involving all atheists, all Communists (Lenin’s and Trotsky’s policy was non-interference with non-Orthodox Church Christians, Jews and Muslims, and many of those populations thrived and grew under the Bolsheviks before Stalin usurped power) or all anti-clericalists (it’s one thing to go after a church that has been and integral part of the oppressive power structure and another to go after a religious group that has been persecuted, itself), but it is still a worthwhile history to look into.

          1. “look up the history of atheist persecution of the religious.

            I was going to write a somewhat lengthy post as a reply, but your third paragraph put a stop to that — it proves just how fucking stupid you are about “religions.”

            No one with any real intelligence would have posted a statement like that one. Short and concise: You have it backwards. But, of course, you’re too fucking brainwashed to understand true facts. But, try reading (and watching many of his videos) Dr./Prof. Richard Dawkins and you might try reading his book, The God Delusion. There’s a reason why he named it thusly, and probably the most accurate and appropriate naming of a book on the subject.

            But, I think for you, a probably more appropriate book for you to read (assuming you can actually comprehend what you read), is: Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World by David Silverman. Pay particular attention to the reality of “religious privilege.”

  8. People not involved in the religions should mid there own business. All area bunch of intolerant fascists who fool themselves they are liberal and concerned. They are busy bodies who are obsessed with controlling others and use ‘human and individual rights’ as a justification.

    Apparently the majority of evidence found no medical problems from those circumcised. Protection of children is an excuse for justification not a reality for the vast majority of children. In fact the distress it would cause the families concerned would be far more damaging to the child than the practice.

    A ban of circumcision I would imagine would lead to many Jewish people, example , emigrating. Sounds pretty anti semitic to me….

    1. Amen, although the bigger target will be Muslims. Non-religious parents who circumcise their sons are already subjected to harassment and “shaming,” and now could have legal prosecution and prison thrown at them, too.

      These are the exact same kind of concerned liberals that signed off on the “Satanic Sex Abuse” hysteria of the 1980’s.

      1. circumcision male or female should be outlawed fullstop unless on medical grounds no adult has the legal right to inflict their religious or cultural beliefs on a non consenting is a physical mutilation and that in itself is a punishable offence

  9. Of course if the circumcised children did feel long term problems and wanted it stopped then they could fight for change. But strange that they are not asking for the change, its other none affected parties making it their cause. How nauseating.

    1. To be fair, there are circumcised males who are involved in this cause and, at least when I have seen demonstrators against male circumcision, they have seemed central to the movement, at least here in the U.S. at the grassroots level.

      Within the gay community, I hope that this is mainly an issue for petite-bourgeois and bourgeois queers, and that working class gay men, in particular, find this to be as silly and distracting an issue as it so obviously is.

  10. You’re all speaking from a first world perspective. It’s a very necessary procedure in 3rd world countries. As a doctor I see thousands of cases of infections and std’s in non circumcised males. Pop over to Africa, you’ll soon change your mind.

    1. It is a physical assault unless the actual person gives permission….health and cleanliness is easily taught in what ever country you might as well castrate whilst your there that will solve the birth control problem
      As a nurse of long standing experience… stds is immaterial on whether circumcised or not..the female obviously needs sex education as well in that respect

      1. You are a NURSE and you are dismissing the issue of infections involving uncircumcised men in the third world? And pretending that there is not an issue of the resources that SHOULD go towards public health education but do not (around AIDS in the U.S., to cite a first world example)?

        If you are a nurse, you must be a very narrowly specialized one to consider male and female circumcision to be the same thing, which is just grossly and remarkably INCORRECT and IGNORANT.

    2. To be fair Kevin, this debate has been about a law proposed in about as first world a country as you can get, Iceland. ;)

  11. It is a physical assault and mutilation on a boy who has no say ….. that in itself is illegal as no permission has been given by he person involved
    If this was done on a girl…it is totally illegal so WHAT is the difference…..mutilation is a punishable offence on what ever sex

    1. No, male circumcision is not CURRENTLY “illegal.” You may consider it immoral and YOU may want to criminalize it, but under the law, it is not NOW seen as mutilation, whatever you may WANT and believe.

    1. Agreed, and agreed, both about your little rants and my much longer and more numerous ones.

  12. Wow!
    Commenting above is so very similar to those in opposition to gun control in the USA.
    A whole lot of stupid going on.
    It’s interesting how presumably intelligent people fully believe in the rightness of male child circumcision and just as many, hopefully more, people believe in the wickedness of it. How can that be? If you have a group of people of similar brain power how can they not reach the same conclusion? Surely, each believes in only one right answer – so which can it be?

    Meanwhile – from the BBC…
    Here’s a natty religion that considers it good to pierce young boys with metal hooks and then rip those hooks out from the boys skin.

    Do you circumcision aficionados think this a wonderful idea or do you find it abhorrent?

    1. I have to wonder how closely you’ve read this “circumcision aficionado’s” posts – with my emphasis on the EFFECT of male circumcision AND agreement that it ought to be performed with anesthetics and in sterile conditions – if you feel the need to ask me and any of the rest of us opposed to CRIMINALIZING male circumcision what we think of this temple’s piercing ritual.

      In response to Penboy’s latest screed – 2018-03-01 at 14:17 – it does not surprise me that you are a fan of Richard Dawkins and the rest of the useful idiots – often enough, imperialists, too – known as the New Atheists. I am, politically speaking, an Old Leftist and have been an atheist for over 30 years. I’ve worked with and against religious folk and have a healthy respect for the nuances of the human condition that appears to be completely missing from the heads of Dawkins, Sam Harris and their ilk, including you. Simple-minded Penboy follows his heroes and goes forth to cherry pick through history and can find NO instances of atheists oppressing the religious, but ONLY instances of the reverse.

      As a Trotskyist, I do not have that luxury. I am constantly reminded of the crimes of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot (and Robespierre!) and, while I can distinguish between the lies and the gross exaggerations on the one hand and the truth and accomplishments on the other, I an forced to acknowledge the REAL crimes sometimes committed by my fellow “Marxists” and “Leftists” and “Revolutionaries” and “Socialists” because I do not want to REPEAT their crimes. But you go ahead, Penboy, and be a simpleminded, ignorant and self-righteous fool who “knows” that his side is always right and always and everywhere the oppressed and never the oppressor.

  13. It’s more or less dogma from both sides within the commenting above.
    Whether it’s guns, Obamacare, religion, garbage culture or football it just descends always into
    Blah blah blah blah

    The Nordic countries and especially Iceland very consistently are noted to be the best countries giving their citizens the very best quality of life for all and at a standard far far above that of the USA and a lot of Europe.

    When a country like Iceland that has more than proved itself in providing for all its citizenry then we should all sit up and take note when the Iceland government seriously considers introducing any measure including that of banning underage circumcision.

    USA and the rest of Europe can teach Iceland nothing when it comes to caring for everyone.
    It’s very difficult to make any kind of wide social decision against a clamour of fightback from those self appointed and self interested religious bodies.

    If the circumcision ban goes through in Iceland then all should take note. It’s always live and learn.

  14. 1. The Constitution of the USA emphasizes that the STATE exists primarily over and above any RELIGION, and, any thing else, in the USA. It cannot guarantee any religious intrusions. Nor can it guarantee any other intruding opinions. The STATE can always be demeaned. There is no ultimate guarantee.
    2. The Constitution of the USA gives the Supreme Court ultimate decisions as to its meaning. This guarantees nothing, ultimately.
    3. Boy circumcising is as real as sunshine but is common now, 2018, as a medical reject. Not by every doctor.
    3a. Your children are your own of some result of your decisions.. Your baby and its future is all of your responsibility. Babies can make no decision. YOU CAN. And you MUST DO make those decisions. And move on. F the contrarians. YOU are responsible. PEROID, right, wrong, in between, unknowable.
    4. The old and not so old decision to kill the baby is many a parents’ decision. Moses is put out to die. Oedipus is put out to die. As a practical matter, deaf and mute are put out to die. As are ugly and the form wrong babies. Wait until they irritate you and then send them out to die, they ending as feral idiot children get to be finds in the wild. Think Europeans do not make similar decisions ? Even in 2018 in USA ? OH ! Get SS $$ payments and keep them to get a pay for the weirdo child. Ha Ha Foster care them for pay. SCAM ? NONSENSE. Nothing new.
    5. If you really want to complain about circumcision and ovulate excise and clitoris removal, may be complain about the use of virgins for suicide bombes, male and female. Nothing new. May be 5000 years old know of, well before bombs. But, they be sending off to kill. Boys, but, especially Girls. . . . Want some explanate of the WWII concurrence of the powers that be of the N and S Viet Nam and Cambodia and Laos whore territories ? (USA, France, English concurrence.) Thailand defers.
    6. New reality about physical mutilating children ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *