Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nexus · 08-10-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

Circumcision is mutilation, so say you. I think since it's not only done by Jews for religious meaning there are others who might not agree with you.

Removing or damaging tissue with nerve endings is mutilation. Or do you have a better definition for mutilation? The fact that others do it has no bearing.

If the circumcision were done on adult males I wouldn't have any moral issues with it. It's the non consensual nature that makes it wrong.

What are your thoughts on female genital removal?

HaRaAYaH · 08-10-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

Circumcision is mutilation, so say you. I think since it's not only done by Jews for religious meaning there are others who might not agree with you.

Removing or damaging tissue with nerve endings is mutilation. Or do you have a better definition for mutilation? The fact that others do it has no bearing.

If the circumcision were done on adult males I wouldn't have any moral issues with it. It's the non consensual nature that makes it wrong.

What are your thoughts on female genital removal?

I'm not going to debate circumcision with you. It's not the same as clitoridectomy. Your list of commandments is accurate. What I have to check to see if the items you listed are still binding. Some of them are no longer binding. I'll do some research.

Nexus · 08-10-2008, 12:06 PM

Well it’s a relief to hear that Yahweh’s word is subject to the sensibilities of men and their times.

No need to debate me about circumcision. A sentence or two should be enough to explain why cutting off enervated tissue of a baby isn’t tortuous mutilation. It might just be a simple oversight on my part.

And I realize there are physical differences between male and female genitalia parts. However I’m having trouble figuring out why both circumcisions aren’t considered cruel considering the physical pain and tissue damage the babies suffer. So could you please elaborate why they aren’t the same?

wiseqwack · 08-10-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus

The most obvious is circumcision. Mutilating a baby is indecent. Indeed it ranks down there with sexually abusing a baby or murdering one.

199. To keep the Canaanite slave forever. There are others regarding slaves but this one stood out because of the prohibition of ever freeing a Canaanite. Aside from the immorality of slavery this seems to unjustly punish a race.

244. That the court shall not accept the testimony of a close relative of the defendant in matters of capital punishment. It’s wrong not to allow the accused to present witnesses that may exonerate.

287. That the Court shall pass sentence of death by burning with fire. Torture through unnecessarily cruel punishment.

301. That the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her. Condoning and potentially rewarding rape.

334. Not to suffer anyone practicing witchcraft to live. Killing someone for their religious beliefs is wrong. Nazis had this moral problem too.

355. To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city. Working up to killing the children of those you religiously oppose. The Nazis would approve.

601. Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations.
602. To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel.
Genocide needs no explanation. I won't Godwin again but you have to love the irony.

604. To deal with a beautiful woman taken captive in war in the manner prescribed in the Torah. Forcing a woman into marriage is a system of rape. Genghis Khan would be proud.

And finally number 613. To destroy the seed of Amalek. More genocide/baby killing etc.

And you found these where? If you did not find them in the Talmud, the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch, they are not Jewish law.

Circumcision is mutilation, so say you. I think since it's not only done by Jews for religious meaning there are others who might not agree with you.

When flesh is removed without consent, informed or otherwise, as it is often done, what else would you call it, just a minor snip? Different when consent is given though! Be you jewish or otherwise!

Peace

HaRaAYaH · 09-06-2008, 02:15 PM

Nexus:

I said I would get back to you and after some research on my part I am prepared to respond to your post:

There is a principal in Jewish law that states commandments are not binding if you are unable to observe them. If you read the article you sited carefully, you would have seen there is an additional list of commandments by The Chofetz Chaim. What it boils down to is there are presently only about 300 commandments that are binding on Jews.

The following are no longer binding:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus

199. To keep the Canaanite slave forever. There are others regarding slaves but this one stood out because of the prohibition of ever freeing a Canaanite. Aside from the immorality of slavery this seems to unjustly punish a race.

287. That the Court shall pass sentence of death by burning with fire. Torture through unnecessarily cruel punishment.

301. That the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her. Condoning and potentially rewarding rape.

334. Not to suffer anyone practicing witchcraft to live. Killing someone for their religious beliefs is wrong. Nazis had this moral problem too.

355. To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city. Working up to killing the children of those you religiously oppose. The Nazis would approve.

601. Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations.
602. To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel.
Genocide needs no explanation. I won't Godwin again but you have to love the irony.

604. To deal with a beautiful woman taken captive in war in the manner prescribed in the Torah. Forcing a woman into marriage is a system of rape. Genghis Khan would be proud.

For a complete list and database of the commandments click here. Once on the page there is a database link on the top of the page and then click on the tab for Chofetz Chaim.

Now as to the death penalty:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus

244. That the court shall not accept the testimony of a close relative of the defendant in matters of capital punishment. It’s wrong not to allow the accused to present witnesses that may exonerate.

Jewish law is stricter than just about any place that has the death penalty. The Rabbis were opposed to the death penalty and placed many obstacles in it's path. To be convicted of the death penalty:

A court of at least 23 judges must be satisfied that a capital crime has occurred.
Two witnesses must see and testify to the crime
The witness must be subjected to detailed and searching interrogation

If you look through the Talmud, even if the person is on his way to executed and raises a legitimate concern, the execution is halted and he is returned to the court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus

And finally number 613. To destroy the seed of Amalek. More genocide/baby killing etc.

Amalek is treated by the Rabbis as those who would wipe out the Jews. Amalek is the spirit of evil and that is what we need to destroy. It's hard to destroy a people that does no longer exists.

I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for posting as it caused me to do a great deal of research on the topic as I was knowledgeable than I should have been about the subject before my original post...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2008, 12:06 PM	#83
Nexus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: California Posts: 7,655	Well it’s a relief to hear that Yahweh’s word is subject to the sensibilities of men and their times. No need to debate me about circumcision. A sentence or two should be enough to explain why cutting off enervated tissue of a baby isn’t tortuous mutilation. It might just be a simple oversight on my part. And I realize there are physical differences between male and female genitalia parts. However I’m having trouble figuring out why both circumcisions aren’t considered cruel considering the physical pain and tissue damage the babies suffer. So could you please elaborate why they aren’t the same?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.