German court says circumcision is an assault - ZIONICA.com

Wise old guy

Just another form of Jewish harrassment.

Evermyrtle

Really!! Are the Jews the only that profess circumcision? Or they, again only the scape goat??

Richard

Are they seriously asking everyone to believe that a God who is gracious, loving and merciful would command His people to assault their male children? Talk about the mentally challenged, these people have become so intelligent that they have come full circle and become stupid. Rom 1:22

Lori

Because most Jewish do not believe that Christ is the Messiah, who fulfilled New Testament law, they follow the Old Testament covenant, part of which was to circumcise boys. The N.T. fulfillment is baptism. This in response to your comment and nothing more – I don't have strong convictions one way or the other regarding circumcision, but it's good to know why people believe what they do, rather than making assumptions.
- Laur
  
  Lori, you are right on. To bad more people don't know their Bible. Maybe our nation wouldn't be in such bad shape if they did.
Wrensma

Right Richard….abort them instead.wrens

Lori

It occurred to me, I don't know if abortion is legal in Germany. I wonder… if "circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm", and if "the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, what is their position on prenatal murder? Additionally, does the court mean to say that circumcising young boys on NON religious grounds (i.e. health/medical) does NOT amount to "grievous bodily harm?"

Evermyrtle

It is rediculas to say it does grievous body harm. The only negative thing about it is the pain it causes.

I Cor. 7:18-19
18. IS any man called being circumcised: let him not become uncircumcised, Is any called in uncircumcision: let him not be circumcised;.
19. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of GOD

Galatians 5: 6 For in JESUS CHRIST neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of CHRIST

Our hearts have been circumcised by JESUS CHRIST when we give it to HIM, choosing to live for HIM, doing HIS will and following HIS commandments.
- Lori
  
  I was quoting the article. Did you read it?
  - Evermyrtle
    
    Yes and I was sort of agreeing with you, as I wrote in answer to earlier posters, also. I do not see anything in your post that is negative.
    - Lori
      
      Ugh, sorry!
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Dr. Guy Madder, a surgeon at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia, reports in the Annals of Family Medicine that there is no convincing evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of sexually transmitted disease, urinary track infections or penile cancer.
  
  The rituals of some religious faiths require circumcision. But, apart from these circumstances, it’s hard to justify this procedure. In fact, a reading of the world’s medical journals makes your hair stand on end when you read of potential surgical complications.
  
  How common are complications? This depends on how you label a complication. For example, penal foreskin is anatomically the most sensitive part of the organ. It ensures satisfactory sex. It’s therefore reasonable to argue that in this instance the complication rate is 100% because it decreases sexual satisfaction.
  
  The world’s medical journals are full of reports dealing with a variety of surgical complications. And the vast majority of severe complications are not an act of God, but technical human errors made during the procedure.
  
  A primary problem is the incorrect use of the circumcision clamp. In some cases too much foreskin is pulled into the clamp resulting in injury, not only to the shaft of the penis, but also to the urinary tube (urethra) that runs through it. The most traumatic complication in the past caused the amputation of part of the penis.
  
  Such traumatic injuries to the penis and urethra often result in urinary stricture and difficulty passing urine. Or, the injury may result in a urethral fistula, in which urine is discharged through an abnormal opening. These complications are not easy to repair, and what starts out as a minor procedure, becomes a major one. Moreover, some of these injuries only become apparent following discharge from hospital. A fistula often takes weeks or months to make its presence known.
  
  There have been bizarre problems that one would never think of happening. For instance, one newborn screamed during the procedure with such intensity that the stomach ruptured requiring emergency surgery. Another developed heart failure and died. Still another from a bleeding disorder. It’s easy to see how this could happen since coagulation studies are not routinely done prior to circumcision.
  
  antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/mens-health/does-circumci…
  - far2right
    
    What is this compared to 56 million babies brutally murdered by grotesque mutilation and chemical poisoning since RvW by atheist and agnostic narcissistic cowardly feminists? The American feminist is the most blood-thirsty sub-culture of humans in the history of the world. Hitler is nothing compared to them.
    
    Once again, Jeffie the Evolutionary Evangelist majors on the minors.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      The article was not about abortion. It was about circumcision. I therefore discussed the topic at hand. The economic issues in Europe are also not about abortion. If someone brings that up, do you disregard it because you consider abortion a bigger problem than that as well?
    - far2right
      
      That was my way of telling you your cut-n-paste comment was so much meaningless drivel.
      
      Circumcisions have been conducted safely for the most part for eons.
      
      I understand your mode, Jeffie. You are simply trying to make a jab at the Jews, Muslims and Christian parents simply because they wish to have their infant boys circumcised for religious reasons.
      
      My point that you completely missed was that the religions of atheism with its evolutionary dogma has given rise to 56 million slaughtered innocent babies.
      
      Whereas scant few damage is comparatively done with the rite of circumcision.
      
      56 million babies went into abortion "clinics".
      
      56 million were slaughtered.
      
      Be an advocate for the whole baby, not just his penis.
    - far2right
      
      That was my way of telling you your cut-n-paste comment was so much meaningless drivel.
      
      Circumcisions have been conducted safely for the most part for eons.
      
      I understand your mode, Jeffie. You are simply trying to make a jab at the Jews, Muslims and Christian parents simply because they wish to have their infant boys circumcised for religious reasons.
      
      My point that you completely missed was that the religions of atheism with its evolutionary dogma has given rise to 56 million slaughtered innocent babies.
      
      Whereas scant few damage is comparatively done with the rite of circumcision.
      
      56 million babies went into abortion "clinics".
      
      56 million were slaughtered.
      
      Be an advocate for the whole baby, not just his privates.
petroskhan1262

I guess to the German courts, it's a matter of geography. Once the child is outside Mommy, he's protected. As long as he's inside Mommy, it's okay to kill him.

Not saying it makes sense to me, just seems to be the way the law is working.

http://www.divinenewsnetwork.com Min. Thomas Allen

Actually on a medical take, circumcision is more healthy for males. Anyone un-circumcised usually have issues down the road in one way or another. But to say its wrong based on a religious basis is just wrong, specially when Jewish people are involved. Didn't Germany get in trouble for that in WW2?

Lori

All the medical advice we received from our pediatrician, as well as a hospital pediatrician, showed that there is no advantage to circumcision if the boy is taught to properly clean himself. Therefore, we chose not to circumcise our son unnecessarily. He is nearly 13 years old and hasn't had any issues. Of course, that doesn't address sexually related issues of the future, but I don't expect things to change. Most men of my Dad's generation are uncircumcised and I rarely hear of major or chronic problems among that age group. All that being said, the German courts ought to worry more about protecting children from actual threats to bodily harm.
- Steve
  
  There is a growing body of scientific evidence that confirms the benefits of circumcision. There are many studies your doctors should have been aware of. I will post two examples below. I suspect that the philosophies of humanism and moral relatavism may have provided the foundation for their judgement. There is a very real spiritual component to the decision to circumcise but that discussion would be better left to another time.
  - Steve
    
    An article published in the International Journal of Cancer, March 15, 2009, based upon a study of nearly 1,000 men in three countries, yielded compelling evidence that circumcision helps protect against infection with human papillomavirus, which is known to be a cause of Genital Warts Virus. The virus, which is transmitted sexually and by skin-to-skin contact, can also cause anal and penile cancers. Dr. Anna R. Giuliano, from the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues concluded that Human papillomavirus infection was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision. "In this multi-national study where approximately 60 percent of study participants were un-circumcised, we found circumcision to be associated with a significantly reduced risk of…human papillomavirus," they report.
  - Steve
    
    In an editorial published in October, 2011 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Aaron Tobian and Dr. Ronald Gray argue for the medical benefits of circumcising boys in infanthood, citing several observational studies and recent clinical trials that show it reduces the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV, HPV and herpes by about a third in both men and their female sexual partners. “This is a simple surgery that’s been performed for over 6,000 years. Clearly it’s safe to perform, and it has clear medical benefits,” says Tobian. “The evidence for the long-term public health benefits of male circumcision has increased substantially during the past five years,” the authors write. “If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60 percent, genital herpes risk by 30 percent, and HR-HPV risk by 35 percent,” as recent studies have shown, ”the medical community would rally behind the immunization.”
    - Lori
      
      "Growing bodies of evidence" change all the time. 13 years ago, the "growing body of evidence" was that there was no significant advantage to circumcision. We make choices based on what the prevalent "evidence" is at the time. Our choice was to not unnecessarily cause our son pain, based on the "evidence" at that moment in time. It's a personal choice and if he feels it's needed later in life, the procedure will be available. In the grand scheme of things, there are much bigger medical issues, with graver consequences, for folks to worry about.
    - Steve
      
      No need to be defensive about this. In today's climate of politicised scientific "evidence" (e.g. global warming)you may be right that bodies of evidence change. All the more reason, with all the tools and resources we now have, to take responsibilty for our own bodies by doing the research we can do then use the "experts" as consultants, understanding nobody of 100% objective and carry their biases and pre-set paradigms into their conclusions and recommendations.
      
      That said, I would challenge you or anyone else to cite any reliable body of actual scientific evidence as to the lack of, or negative, advantage of circumcision. I suspect that what would be unearthed would be position papers and philosopically based polemics, not real objectively run scientific studies such as the ones cited above, that formed the foundation for any such "scientific" counter argument.
    - Lori
      
      Not feeling defensive, it's all good. I just found several studies, several from the American Academy of Pediatrics (think I remembered that correctly), stating there are no significant benefits to circumcision. For every "study" in favor of it, there will be one against it. My personal opinion is that it's sad for us to think that altering a boy upon birth, routinely, is so widely acceptable. However, I also believe it is a parental choice and would never berate someone for making it.
    - http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville
      
      Indeed, circumcision was beneficial then in light of limitation of personal hygiene in the setting of that climate.
EruditeMan

In societies where soap and water are available there is no medical reason, under any circumstances, to circumcise males. Circumcising males is less healthy. When parents properly teach their children to regularly bathe those who are not circumcised will never have issues down the road. In societies where soap and water are available the only acceptable reason to circumcise is on religious grounds. If, however, the male and the female parent circumcise their child, even if they don't do it on religious grounds, they, as parents have the right to make that decision, provided they are able to use their personal funds to pay for the procedure or the parents perform the action themselves.
http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

" Anyone un-circumcised usually have issues down the road in one way or another"

:) And your source for this outlandish assertion is?
BohdanUke1

You clean your ears? Hands? You wash your arse? Simply practice normal regular hygiene. Scientific evidence? Baloney.

You can bet who their "evidence and incidence" of these viruses are based on…. homosexuals, promiscuous folks and the like. (Unfortunately, that's becoming the norm today.)

One question: How many of you out there actually know anyone personally or have heard from someone you know that has contracted this disease?

Bohdan

http://www.believeroftheWAY.com eks

Uh, it has been proven that circumcision reduces sexually transmitted diseases. GOD knows this and so he commanded that HIS people do it so that they would be protected from these diseases. And if performing circumcision is an assault, what about the complete butchering that takes place when a child is brutally murdered in the womb?

http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

A truly all powerful god could merely eliminate all STD's from the world.
- Lori
  
  True, Jeff. So why do you suppose He doesn't? I know you don't believe in God, but if you did, what's your guess as to why He does what He does? Of course we can't possibly think on His level, but give it a shot!
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    He does not do anything because he does not exist.
    - Lori
      
      Can you cite any proof of that?
    - Lori
      
      So you have no imagination whatsoever, as to being able to wonder what God's reasons are, IF he did existed (in your mind)? Do you ever theorize about anything of which you're unsure?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Of course I do. My initial comment was in response to eks who stated that god wanted people to be circumcised to protect them from STD's. I pointed out that if he really wanted to protect people from STD's, he could merely eliminate them. In fact, my response was theorizing about the topic, so it is humorous that you ask if I ever do that very thing.
    - Lori
      
      In retrospect you can say you were theorizing, but in reality that was not your intention and you know it.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      No, it was actually theorizing. You merely were unable to understand what was occurring.
    - Joe Anzilotti
      
      Jeff, why are you such an antagonist? Lori has not harmed you in any way–further she is not trying to harm you with a few questions. Do you ever just answer a question with a simple answer without using some type of evasive maneuver?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I did answer her question. I pointed out that my initial answer was theorizing about the biblical god. The better question is why are you unable to comprehend the written word?
    - Lori
      
      For example, we know that time travel doesn't exist (as far as the evidence takes us at this point), you couldn't imagine where you would go or who you would visit, if it did?
- dkg
  
  By one man, Adam, sin entered into the world. This is not the Garden of Eden anymore and the world is not perfect. God is all powerful and we will see that on Judgement Day. Then we who truly believe that Jesus is our Savior will be taken up into heaven where everything is perfect again.
- petroskhan1262
  
  Apparently, your idea of a god is that he should appear physically, live among us to leave no doubts regarding his existence, and solve any and all problems that arise, everywhere in the world, for everyone.
  
  Now, where does "faith" fit into that picture? Where do free will and choice fit in? Oh, right, those don't matter, since this is the god of Jeffie the All Knowing.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    My idea of a god is that it would be logical and that its attributes would be consistent. The religions of the world all have inconsistencies.
    - http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville
      
      The only inconsistencies about true religion are in your head only and resulting from your ignorance and dead sinful nature.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Good morning Humpty. Always nice to hear you chime in with your absurd and delusional comments.
    - Lori
      
      "Absurd" and "Delusional." Two commonly used words by an atheist classmate of mine. When you can't have the argument on facts, you go for the insults. Classic… and very, very old.
    - http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville
      
      Absurdly enough deranged atheists seem to spend a lot of time whining against their assertion of absurd which is tell tale sign of delusion itself :)
    - http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville
      
      No comment needed for your imbecility and non answer are proving what I said about your gibberish.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Absurd and delusional will always refer to your inane comments.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Whereas your "religion" of atheism/evolution is entirely consistent, right? LOL
      
      There are no inconsistencies in the Bible, Jeff. A shallow, surface reading may seem to indicate such, but it is only possible to draw that conclusion by taking things out of context, twisting the meaning, or reading into it what is not there.
      
      But you, like all of us, are entitled to your opinion. Carry on.
    - http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville
      
      Evolution is a sham that fails in all real and complex enough mathematical modeling and Mathematics does not lie nor does it have an agenda nor does it need to collect a check :)
    - petroskhan1262
      
      No argument from me on that one.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Math does not lie. But one can lie about math.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      You're right. Let's look at the math, then, shall we?
      
      1. There are 20 different amino acids that make up the proteins in living things. (Remember,
      these had to form by chance in the first place).
      2. There are 20^100 different proteins that can be made from 100 amino acids
      3. This is » 10^130 different proteins
      4. The probability that a 100 amino acid protein will form by chance = 1 in 10^130
      5. This means (according to probability) that to form one specific 100 amino acid protein,
      10^130 will need to form randomly before the right one forms.
      
      Evolution proposes that many of these proteins came together by chance and then evolved into cells.
      1. But, for a cell to form in the primordial soup:-
      (i) The many proteins that make it all had to form by chance, &
      (ii) Each protein had to form by chance right next to each other
      2. The probability that numerous things will occur by chance is the multiple of each occurring.
      3. The chance that 2 different (but correct) proteins form by chance = the chance of each forming multiplied together.
      4. This = 10^130 x 10^130 = 10^260
      5. So, as a cell is made up of many proteins, it isn’t hard to see that the chances are impossible.
      viz — 10^130 x 10^130 x 10^130 x 10^130 x 10^130 x 10^130 x 10^130 x 10^130 …………
      This is an unimaginable number. It is now easy to see why Sir Fred Hoyle doesn’t believe that life evolved on Earth:
      
      “[T]here are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”
      
      How big is a pile of 10^130 protein molecules – a bucket full??
      1. What would be the size of the 10^130 rubbish proteins that would need to form by chance to create just 1 (one) specific protein of 100 amino acid?
      2. If we average out the weight of the 20 amino acids to 100 Daltons each, then…
      a protein made of 100 amino acids would weigh 100×100 Daltons on average
      3. This = 10^4 Daltons
      4. 10^130 proteins would weigh 10^130 x 10^4 Daltons
      5. This = 10^134 Daltons
      6. To turn Daltons weight into grams weight, divide by Avogadro’s number – 10^24
      7. 10^134 Daltons = 10^134 / 10^24 = 10^110 gm
      8. 10^110 gm in kilograms = 10^110 / 10^3 = 10^107 kg
      9. Let’s assume that the density of the proteins is the same as water
      (ie 1 gm/cm^3)
      10. So, as there are 1000 gms in a kilogram, then 1 gm/cm^3 = 10^-3 kg/cm^3
      11. 10^107 kg occupies a volume of 10^107 x 10^-3 cm^3 = 10^104 cm^3
      12. Now, 1 km^3 = 10^5 x 10^5 x 10^5 cm^3 = 10^15 cm^3
      13. The volume of these 10^130 proteins = 10^104 / 10^15 km^3 = 10^99 km^3
      14.If these proteins formed a solid cube, each side would be equal to the cube root of 10^99 kilometers
      15.This = 10^33 km
      16.How long is 10^33 km?
      If 1 light year = 10^13 km, then 10^33 km = 10^33 / 10^13 = 10^20 light years
      This means that 10^130 proteins would form a cube with 10^20 light year sides
      
      AND THIS IS TO FORM JUST ONE TINY PROTEIN MOLECULE
      
      By all means, let's look very carefully at the math…
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      petro says: The many proteins that make it all had to form by chance,
      
      Your calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space.
      
      2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
      
      3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
      
      4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      "Your calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance."
      
      Wrong. You, like other atheists, are missing the point again. You claim that life arose by chance, therefore a reasonable calculation of the odds of that chance occurrence are in order, as I have provided. If the protein molecules did NOT form by "chance" then how did they form? Proteins require DNA to form. DNA requires proteins.
      
      "However, biochemistry is not chance…" I agree, it's not chance, but by design of an all-power Creator. But, to go with what I am sure you meant, if it's NOT a Creator, nor by chance, then how do you explain it? There is no inherent property of the requisite chemicals that forces them to form proteins, of the right type (left hand vs right hand), in close proximity to each other, at the same time, to form the building blocks of life, let alone a complex organism such as a cell. To believe so is to defy all logic, and the laws of chemistry, physics and mathematics. But go ahead, it's your fantasy, believe it if you wish. Just make sure you know that your fantasy flies in the face of the very science you worship as the creative force in your delusion.
      
      2. Absolutely wrong in every respect. We are dealing with life here, as we see it. Those proteins are the essential building blocks. You want to add other factors into the equation, and watch the odds go down even more? The calculations I presented address ONLY the requisite proteins. I don't think you noticed it, but your comment only argues against evolution even more. Since you need the proteins, and other molecules, to work in proximity and concert, you would be radically decreasing the odds by adding in even more improbabilities to the equation.
      
      3. Wrong again. From the fossil evidence, the very earliest life forms had fully formed cells, just as complex as life we observe today. There are no "simpler life forms".
      
      4. No, once more. The odds presented state simply the mathematical likelihood of your vaunted "evolution" occurring. That's the point of mathematics. To present the odds of something occurring within the stated parameters.
      
      Deny it if you like, and I am sure you will. But your arguments, as well as your position, are specious and irrelevant. Biology argues against your case. Chemistry argues against your case. Physics is against it. Mathematics is against it. You don't have a leg to stand on, and once again you have been shown, by the science in which you CLAIM to believe, that your opinion is simply that, an opinion. I have given you hard science, untainted by bias or opinion, and you toss back the equivalent of "So what?", as if that counters anything I've said.
      
      Try again. This is getting too easy, you know?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA — all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
      
      You try and make it sound as if there are no answers to your comments. Biologists have been working on this theory for a long time. While everything is not fully understood (and nothing in any theory is fully understood), there is simply too much that is known to disregard the idea.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      "You try and make it sound as if there are no answers to your comments."
      
      I don't think that's accurate, either. There IS an answer to my comments, and to the questions I have posed to you. That answer lies in the Bible. The science you worship has yet to explain anything, let alone the "everything" you seem to think it does.
      
      I mean, look at the first paragraph of your reply above. "…could have..", "…likely candidate…", "…could have…". Does that sound like science to you? Does it sound like conclusive proof of anything? Sounds like some atheistic blowhard sitting in his chair thinking up unprovable nonsense in a desperate attempt to avoid confronting what is right in front him. Sad part is, you're swallowing it.
    - Steve
      
      Thanks for the well constructed mathematical take on what is, in my estimation, one of the the weakest aspects of Darwinian evolutionary theory, specifically that the entire theory is founded on the premise that there is a mutating self-replicator in every living thing. If there is no good explanation (and I’m aware of none, other than the "alien seed" hypothesis, which just begs the question) on how life got from nothing to the self-replicator stage to start Darwin's evolutionary "engine".
    - petroskhan1262
      
      No problem. The evidence is all out there, and easy to find, if one just looks for it.
      
      Unfortunately, people like Jeff are so blinded by their hatred and self-importance that they will never see beyond their own bias. I have given him similar evidence, and countered his "points" many, many times, yet he persists in his atheistic delusions.
      
      Oh, well. All we can do is keep trying to show him, and pray that God opens his heart.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      The inconsistencies are evident to anyone reading the fables. It takes the delusion of religion to pretend they do not exist.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      "The inconsistencies are evident to anyone reading the fables."
      We were talking about the Bible, Jeffie, not evolution. Try to stay on topic.
      
      "It takes the delusion of religion to pretend they do not exist." Again, the topic at hand was the Bible, not that wacky, nonsensical excuse for pseudo-science called evolution.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      "One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ….."
      
      "[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school"."
      
      Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      "For years, MacBain set her concerns aside. But when she became a United Methodist pastor nine years ago, she started asking sharper questions. She thought they'd make her faith stronger.
      
      "In reality," she says, "as I worked through them, I found that religion had so many holes in it, that I just progressed through stages where I couldn't believe it."
      
      The questions haunted her: Is Jesus the only way to God? Would a loving God torment people for eternity? Is there any evidence of God at all? And one day, she crossed a line.
      
      "I just kind of realized — I mean just a eureka moment, not an epiphany, a eureka moment — I'm an atheist," she says. "I don't believe. And in the moment that I uttered that word, I stumbled and choked on that word — atheist."
      
      But it felt right."
      http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-mini…
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      This is the true story of a Methodist minister in good standing who of his own free will and accord renounced Christianity and became an atheist.
      http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/vincen…
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Well, bully for him! LOL
      
      And that proves…umm…what, exactly? That he was going through the motions before, not really believing? Or maybe he DID believe, down to his core, but fell away from the path? Lost his faith? I don't know, nor does it matter to me. I have proven the foundations of my faith to my satisfaction. I have examined the evidence, and found evolution to be more full of holes than a hunk of swiss cheese (which I love, by the way). I have shown you facts. You show me opinions. Okay…
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Difference here Jeffie, is that the quote I gave you addressed a professional, talking to professionals, in a specific field which relies heavily on KNOWING FACTS. Two groups of people, professionals in their field, were asked if they knew ANYTHING about evolution, and had no answer. This is a matter of science, not faith. Science is supposed to be based on the observable, the measurable, that which you can hold in your hand. And they had NOTHING?
      
      Presenting me with someone who lost faith, if he had it in the first place, is not answering what I've posted, it's a feeble attempt at redirection.
      
      Try again. I have faith that you can do better.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      It is not misdirection. You showed a story of a biologist who decided that what he know was false and changed his mind. I showed stories of believing Christians who decided what they knew was false and changed their mind.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      My story was of a professional asking other professionals for a statement regarding what, if anything, they knew with any certainty of their professed area of expertise. It had nothing to do with "faith".
      
      Misdirection, irrelevant, whatever. Call it what you like, you've yet to address the simple fact that your hypothesis of evolution cannot explain itself.
Wendell Fountain

eks, If people are not promiscuous, then sexually transmitted diseases are not an issue, and God does not endorse fornication. In regard to the barbaric act of abortion, we are in complete agreement. Sometimes, I try to get my mind around this practice, but it is mentally and emotionally too disturbing to hold the thought of an innocent tiny baby being murderer with a pair of scissors poked through the base of its brain. My God, just trying to write these words is upsetting.
Christopher

Abstinence and faithfulness to your spouse eradicates STD's!!!! Duh!

Singer

I wonder how they feel about abortion.

mara

This is only about bowing to muslims. They MUTILATE their young daughters, yet that will not ever be considered an assault, in a country that has been taken over by shariah.

daves

The female mutilation / circumcision is illegal in all western countries.

Gods child

These knuckle-heads should think about the millions of abortions they advocate. Does that not infringe upon a babies rights? My dear God of heaven people are losing it. That's as simple as I can be.

martin fee

Lol good to see how much German treatment of Jews has changed. Few people know that this "emancipation" of children was one of the biggest goals of Marx.. Removal of parental rights allows for easier corruption and indoctrination by the state

Kevin Miller

What does circumsision have to do with preventing or lessening STD's? If you have sex with many or the wrong people,
or get the wrong blood or share a narcotic needle,you're going to get an STD or 2 REGARDLESS of being Circumcised.
If Jews want to still follow the OT and practice circumcisions on their infant sons,that's ok,by me,even though,Truth be
told,we should ALL live by NT standards,as CHRIST IS THE MESSIAH! However,I don't force my religion on anyone…
and neither Germany NOR the EU has the Right to deny the Jewish Community its Right to practice its beliefs just because it doesn't agree with them! And as for the muslims who believe in circumcising BOTH boys and GIRLS…I have
Nothing Good to say about them.These Monsters shouldn't count!

Aristophanes

My sons were circumcised when they were 1 day old. Their father wanted it done, too since he had it done when he was 21 and he said it was pretty painful. He had it done because he was in the Marines and would go for more than 1 day without a shower when he was in the field. It was a case of cleanliness with him. With our sons, I did not want them to go through it when they got older and neither one of them has complained about it.
I think way too much is being made about this and I think, if parents want it done, then a child should be circumcised. What else are these governments going to try to take away from parents? I, personally, am glad my kids are adults, it is h*ll raising a child now.

daves

If a parent wants a child without toes should the government allow it?
- petroskhan1262
  
  You can't come up with a better straw man that THAT? Shame on you.
  - daves
    
    Seems like a perfect analogy to me. Parents want a child without a foreskin why shouldn't they have the right to a child without toes?
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Well, let's see…
      
      There are, actually, medical benefits to circumcision. One can argue that if proper and diligent hygiene is adhered to, then there is no need for it, but that is making an assumption without evidence. Suppose one doesn't practice "proper hygiene" or is in an environment where it is not possible (ie, military situations, un-civilized areas of the world, etc)? Then, of course, there is a benefit.
      
      What possible benefit would result from removing toes? Aside, perhaps, from sort of sadistic satisfaction in knowing that one has irreparably maimed ones own offspring. Can you list any sort of benefit inherent in such a procedure?
      
      No? Then your analogy is FAR from "perfect", I would say. Performing a relatively harmless procedure in the name of hygiene is hardly the same as crippling someone. I would say it's not in the same ball park, but it's not even the same sport.
      
      You really need to work on your analogies. Start by looking the word "analogy" up. Never mind, I'll help you get started. Here:
      
      From the Oxford Dictionary:
      
      Analogy
      noun (plural analogies)
      
      a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification: an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies [mass noun]: he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines
      a correspondence or partial similarity: the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia
      a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects: works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature
      [mass noun] Logic: a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects: argument from analogy
      
      Hope that helps. Have a great day.
    - daves
      
      Sounds like I was spot on. You make a point about possible health benefits from circumcision but it has been shown that neutered cats and dogs live longer. Would that give parents the right to have a child's testicles removed?
    - petroskhan1262
      
      "Sounds like I was spot on." Umm…to whom? Certainly not to me, nor anyone else with a fully functional brain, common sense, and a working knowledge of the English language.
      
      And once again, with your idiotic reference to neutering, you clearly demonstrate that intelligent debate is not your goal, but simply dragging the conversation down as low as possible. Your continued reductio ad absurdum arguments are demonstrating only that you are completely lacking in common sense, nor do you possess the ability to argue your point logically, with even a modicum of intelligence.
      
      If you have some sort of intelligent point to make, get to it. Otherwise, don't bother replying with statements and/or positions that could, at best, be generously referred to as moronic.
      
      Have a nice day.
    - Wrensma
      
      they do not need a better analogy. They need to stop being Jew haters hiding in a Christian site!

Dntmkmecomovrther

Is Germany really this inept in its leadership today? I wonder if they can apply their ruling in this case, to the unborn child who also suffers "grievous bodily harm" to the point of death. It's time to have these idiots live consistently with their worldview…something they NEVER seem to be able to do.

msjallen

This is the State controlling the children instead of their parents. God gave parents the right to make decisions for their children until they were old enough to make them for themselves. The State should not control the children. Didn't Germany learn that lesson under Hitler? Acts 7:8 The New Racial Species…
"And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs".
Abraham had already believed in Jehovah God before he was circumcised. The same goes for anyone who believes in Jesus Christ by faith just as Abraham did. Circumcision did not save Abraham; it was only a sign from God to set the Hebrew race apart from other races.

Wendell Fountain

If males must be circumcised, to me, that means that God does not know how to make a male human being, and I don't believe that! Humanity is so arrogant and ignorant that humans think they can improve upon God's creation and work. Circumcision is a barbaric and disfiguring act by "all-knowing" human beings. I had a friend once, who decided to have this hedious thing done to him when he was about 30, and a couple of years later, he told me that was the dumbest thing he ever did, because it had ruined his sexual experience as a man. Personally, I am sick and tired of people doing dumb things because of their "religious" beliefs. From what I've learned about the Koran, Islamists should kill all infidels, i.e., those who do not believe in Islam. Does that make sense, just because it is a part of their "religious" beliefs? No male or female should ever be subjected to the uncivilized act of "circumcising" them.

William

You sure are a kook. Your actions show you are not with it.

garry williamson

Whether you believe in circumcision or not there are a few things wrong with this story
1 Muslim parents – muslims don't believe in circumcision
2 Who told the authorities, the muslim parents?
This sounds more like a set-up with the child being used as bait

petroskhan1262

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/isl…
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_Muslim_practice_circ…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circu…

That should answer your first point. As for the second point, well, from the article:

"A few days after the operation, his parents took him to hospital as he was bleeding heavily. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous bodily harm." My guess would be that someone in the hospital equivalent to our CPS felt that some wrong had been done and notified the authorities.

There ya go…not discounting your idea that it could be a set-up, though. The whole thing does still seem a little fishy, I'll grant you that.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Perhaps it was the heavy bleeding that accomplished that.

Harald

It is not just a Jewish; issue, That is there Religious Belief, Harrassment. GOD orderd it for them and us, for Health and Medical Resions and other issues, As I know, but also as Babys we do not remember the Pain of being Cut, (Circumcised) As for us Men that were cut at an older age we remember the pain and for same other issues. Germany is not the only Country going back to the Dark Side: lit Us Pray. GOD Bless America. I willPray for the German Leaders Also.

petroskhan1262

If you read carefully, you will see that this physical act of circumcision is no longer necessary.

Phillipians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, the ones who worship by the Spirit of YAHWEH, and who glory in Messiah Yahshua, and who do not trust in flesh.

Galatians 6:15 For in Messiah Yahshua neither circumcision has any strength nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Colossians 2
8 Watch that there not be one misleading you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Messiah.
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily;
10 and it is through Him, that you have been made complete, for He is the Head of all angelic orders and authority,
11 in whom also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Messiah,

aceituna

The article states that charges were brought against a Doctor who had circumcised the four year old son on the parent's wishes. The parents were Muslim. Why were all the coments bashing the Jews? Muslims, decended from Ishmael also practiced circumcism as part of the children of Abraham. God promised that if the decendents of Abraham practiced the commands given at while camped near the holy mountain, (time of giving 10 commandments) that they would have "none of the diseases" that their surrounding neighbors did. Shows that these regulations were health regulations which when disregarded lowered life expectancy. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that the medical community recognized that these precautions actually increased life expectancy. True Science has given us a few different methods to have the same health results, but clenliness is a big factor in life expectancy.

Jerry Burridge

What will these doctors state when speaking to the conservative Iman who circumcises the females? Will the Muslim Brotherhood again be exempt?

Buck

Male circumcision is NOTHING compared to female mutilation called circumcision , so if it doesn't cover that it is definitely a stab at the jews . And if abortions are performed in Germany then they are definitely hipocrits of the highest order .

Dennis

Im confused.If this was about a muslim boy how did the jewish people get pulled into it? This sounds strange to me this report.

ONTIME

A ASSAULT? Did I miss something here, is cultural tradition and male hygiene not a historical and factual point in this matter of supposition? Why do these elites claim they are educated when facts and logic mean so little to them and their untrained minds…???

Female mutilation is certainly not to be considered circumcision and even the reasoning is clearly different and that is what I hope they meant by assault…

keyboardshark

More government meddling in the private affairs of its citizens. Just what we need, huh?

Deep_Thinker

So economically, it's wrong.. But limiting social behavior, such as swearing is ok?

What principles do you believe in? It's time Christians start being consistent.

Both of the above interferences affect "society" as a whole. So either you need to be for or against both. But you can't pick and choose what behaviors the government regulates..
- keyboardshark
  
  Circumcision is a private religious practice. It is not done in public. I cannot see how it affects society as a whole, as you imply. Cursing and swearing, when done in private, is also acceptable. Doing it in public is a different matter.
  
  Any thought or opinion that can be formed with the use of cursing can just as easily be articulated without the offending word. So, for example, instead of saying "Down with the f***ing government!" you could just as easily say "Down with the stinking government!" and your message still gets across. Your right to free speech has not been harmed in any way. The idea that you hate the government has still been expressed and no one has suppressed your opinion.
  - Deep_Thinker
    
    What if society deems circumcision as reprehensible? And they ban it. What principle do you have to stand on that would cause them not to be able to do that. Mine is liberty. Liberty is consistent. You might say well God says… Except God believes in Liberty, and does not believe that society should force an individual to live as a "good citizen".
    
    Key says "Any thought or opinion that can be formed" – doesn't mean it has to be formed that way. What right do you have to force people to form it in a way you or the "collective" deem as right?
    
    By the way, I suggest you go read 1 Samuel 8: 10-18 and see how happy God is about turning to a government.
  - Deep_Thinker
    
    What if society deems circumcision as reprehensible? And they ban it. What principle do you have to stand on that would cause them not to be able to do that. Mine is liberty. Liberty is consistent. You might say well God says… Except God believes in Liberty, and does not believe that society should force an individual to live as a "good citizen".
    
    Key says "Any thought or opinion that can be formed" – doesn't mean it has to be formed that way. What right do you have to force people to form it in a way you or the "collective" deem as right?
    
    By the way, I suggest you go read 1 Samuel 8: 10-18 and see how happy God is about turning to a government.

Marilyn Smith

Circumcision for boys at the appropriate time after birth is a good health decision. It was not meant to be for older boys and men as a health decision but has been used to correct problems. In the Scriptures circumcism for Jewish men was done as a covenant sign at God's command. God's command was also that the man be the scriptural leader of the home and the parents were the teachers and had authority over their children. However, those who 'own" us as slaves can make legal decisions about our health care. And we are "owned" by those who support us. Think about that. Overcomers: God is in control. He gives us authority over our children. Give them to Him.

Annie

So a guess if the bible said to cut the ends of their fingers off to keep clean, that would be ok too?? It is MUTILATION!!!!! Pure and simple. I had a battle to keep my son, who was born in 1961, from being mutilated. There is no reason to do this to your child. Those who do this should be prosecuted for child abuse.
- http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville
  
  Is this an example of your "deep" logic? WOW.

Gordon

In bible times, Jewish males were circumcised on the eighth day when the clotting factor was at a peak. It is a covenant issue with the Jew's religious beliefs, but also a matter of cleanliness and disease prevention with Christians and others. This is governmental meddling and, in Germany, an echo from a past nightmare perhaps rearing it's head once again.

Robert Koomans

Note that in this case, it was not Jews who circumcised their child, but Muslims! – In any case, since the Messiah arrived 2000 years ago, circumcision was not top of the list, but how we Listened to God, and Obeyed His Commandments, and practiced them the way The Messiah showed us, from our heart or willingness, rather than from the unbearable bylaws and points of law. Circumcision was not required beyond that time as Paul so volubly displayed. But how many Jews, Muslims or even "Christians" really follow what God INTENDED. I have been made aware that 95% of "Christian"churches don't even Qualify anymore, to be called by the Saviour's title! They have not obeyed the "constitutional"Laws God gave for HIS People, and instead follow a mere man;s rules…. thus offending God The Creator. (Read one of the most important Laws that makes us His people in Gen-2, and MARKS us as so by that sign!)… The Mark of the Beast is the alternative day.

Christopher

A true NT believer knows circumcision is unnecessary at least and does not defend an antichrist religious and political ideology even if they claim to be Jews! Rom.2:28,29; Rev.2:9, 3:9; 1John 2:23, 4:1-6; 2John 7-11; Matt.21:43; Gal.3:28,29; Eph.2:11-22; Acts 2:38-40; Heb.2:3, 10:29

Hardrockminer77

I did not have my son circumcised 23 years ago because I believe nature put the foreskin there for a reason. I have heard the presence of a foreskin increases sexual pleasure, I don't know because although we are close, we aren't that close! Regarding sexually transmitted diseases, if you aren't promiscuous that shouldn't be a problem. I have always thought Germans were weird, this just affirms that!

hardrockminer77

Male circumcision is not nearly the same as the genital mutilation and removal of the clitoris that is prescribed by some throwback muslim folks. I had a friend that was a high school nurse in Minneapolis, MN a few years back. She told me horror stories of what the muslim young women went through when they had their periods. Mutilation of sexual organs is wrong.

http://www.bobjudd.org Bob

Religioua freaks have been mutilating children as long as the Bible has been around. It's about time rational and sane humans promote civilization instead of superstitious Jesus freaks.
No one commits evil more cheerfully than when they do so with religious convictions. What the psychopath and sociopath do because they ate sick, the religious 'moralist' does for 'duty' or 'justice'.
Our planet could use a whole lot more kindness and mercy and a whole lot less Biblical 'morality'!

DanMK

Then you better not feed your kids spinach, make them come in at night, or get up for school, pierce their ears, as you may be charged with child abuse Mr.Strangelove.
- http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7
  
  Your fallacy is faulty analogy: http://www.circumstitions.com/analogy.html

DaveP326

If my winkie could talk, it would agree.

Luis Caballero

Circumcision = Child Abuse – It should be treated as an assult to stop this butchery of male babies around the World.