Posted on 02/24/2018 7:31:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As a Reformed Baptist and an American, I don't have a personal stake in this particular battle over religious liberty. However, since progressives in this country look up to Iceland, the small island country's push to ban male circumcision may have negative ramifications for overall religious freedom in this country, not to mention around the globe.
According to Religion News Service, "The legislation being debated by Iceland’s Parliament would impose a six-year jail term on anyone who 'removes part or all of (a child’s) sexual organs' for nonmedical reasons."
In other words, Iceland wants to throw people in prison for practicing their religion.
As noted, I don't particularly have a dog in this specific fight, but it is fascinating (and scary) to watch progressives openly demonstrate their anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The problem with that, besides being evil, is that it continues to signal that progressives would love nothing more than to squash all religion under their "tolerant" thumb. And make no mistake, American progressives adore Icelandic progressives. Pretty soon, our home-grown progressives will figure out how to throw religious people in this country into prison.
The article in RNS reveals that Muslims find this proposed legislation to be a naked attack on religion in general. "It’s an attack on freedom of religion," Ahmad Seddeeq, the Egyptian-born imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of Iceland, said.
The article points out that:
"While the practice is often associated with Judaism, a 2007 report by the World Health Organization said Muslims are the largest religious group to perform male circumcision. An estimated 30 percent of all males globally are circumcised, and about two-thirds of them are Muslim, the organization said."
However, it's not just Muslims who are upset about the proposed law that has support in Iceland's parliament.
"In the United States, 98 percent of Jewish men are circumcised, according to the world agency. The organization also said there is substantial evidence that male circumcision protects against diseases, such as urinary tract infections, syphilis, invasive penile cancer and HIV.
[...]
Milah U.K., a British group that protects the Jewish community’s right carry out religious circumcision, said, “For a country such as Iceland, that considers itself a liberal democracy, to ban it, thus making sustainable Jewish life in the country impossible, is extremely concerning.”
Whether you're a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, Iceland's proposed law that will imprison people for practicing their religious beliefs is deeply troubling. There is truth and warning in the following words that were shared by RNS: "Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case (it is being used) without any scientific basis, to stigmatize certain religious communities," said Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the Brussels-based Catholic Church in the European Union.
What Cardinal Reinhard Marx forgot to add is that progressives around the world are desperately trying to find more ways to "stigmatize certain religious communities."
I think everyone can support the “all” aspect of this...
Was circumcised when born and don't see why it needs to be banned but don't see an issue with it as we can all agree that female genital mutilation is wrong.
Measure twice
If appendectomies were as easy as circumcision, none of us would have appendixes.
So do you have a legit reason why this is done?
Iceland - a Nation of Anteaters.
That definition would ban sex change operations, but I doubt that's what they want.
I do have to say that equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation is a bad plan. Even if the wording does not spell it out for you, imagine if your nerves in the penis had been damaged while you were being circumcised; how would you feel about the enjoyment of sex today?
And another argument if one isn’t enough, look at why the Jews circumcise their children and then look at the rational that the Muslims use for mutilation of the genitalia of their girls. Hint, they are doing it for very different reasons.
Best to keep all the factory original equipment.
I was born Catholic and my Father and Mother were BOTH RNs and I went ‘under the knife’ at an early age.
No one ever told me why or explained it to me, but we of a certain generation didn’t mention stuff of a ‘sexual nature’ and since were taught to keep eyes on your own prize, never really knew until boot camp that others were ‘different’ and being the ‘sheltered’ types, wondered why THEY were different ...
Being smallish in nature (in more ways than one) even in HS showers tended to sort of ‘turn around’ then again how would one know they were ‘small’ unless they looked???
Like one may tell your mate...You say you have NEVER been with anyone other than me, so how do you know what is ‘big’ or ‘small’ or what techniques being used are ‘proper or not’ had you not experienced something/someone different...
Since when does Iceland care about kids? They’re patting themselves on the back for eliminating down syndrome with abortion.
Male circumcision is medically neither good nor bad. Medically, it is not the organ that is circumcised as much as what is done with it; in terms of behavior or disease.
As such, whether any religions do or do not support male circumcision should not enter a law debate about it.
Since it is a medically neutral decision, secular law should not interfere with male circumcision; neither requiring it nor banning it.
That brings up the question of whether or not the parliament in Iceland is considering the facts, or just trying to take an anti-religious position because circumcision is supported by some religions.
Will they ban the female version too, as practiced by muzzies?
Supposedly a “health” issue - easily rectified with good hygiene. Have heard claims that it has also caused many problems with men - some from taking too much flesh and causing stretch-tears in the foreskin and reduced pleasure when the “bells and whistles” happen not to mention the “bells and whistles” being “accelerated”.
I would never place a constraint on anyone because it is not a Biblical requirement, however there absolutely are reasons to circumsize. It is cleaner, and makes the child less succeptible to disease. Plus, when my children/grandchildren read the Bible and see that the people of God were circumcized, they are glad to be a part of that number (e.g. Moses, David, Joshua, Elijah, etc.)
Michelangelo’s David is uncircumsized.
Yea...so what? Michaelangelo is not a Biblical historian or scholar. Once again, I do not condemn anyone for choosing not to circumcize. However, from a typological viewpoint, the Gospel is in circumcision. When we are born, because of sin, our hearts are not right...they need to be circumcised spiritually through new birth. The physical act of circumcision is a foreshadow of the more important act of spiritual circumcision that occurs when a man accepts Christ Jesus.
In 2004 I know of a child born in a major Los Angeles region hospital whose parents had to push hard to get their son circumcised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.