French Laws Racist Against Muslims

They are in employment and school.

Goes against their religion. It seems everything is going against the Muslim people and Muslim world. This FASCIST policy totally shows how the French government is against some people rights, and licks the hell out of the American asses.

Fascism + Racism = Nazism

Another misuse of the term fascism

That's nasty!

Its not really rasict though. If you read one of my earlier posts I point out some upsides to this law but let me recap. The law prohibits all facecoving (not spacifically burkas). Also under the law there would be severe punishments for forceing you wife to wear a burka and a extreamly small fine ( if at all) for wearing out in public

You can be the man in oure relationship anyday

This is just as bad as them trying to ban circumcision in San Fransisco...

It should be compulsory.

I could honestly care less what you want to do with your child's genitals, but it really is more sanitary, and banning it would be cutting off one of the central tenets of Judaism.

Yeah we have a ban on hats except on crazy hat day. Also one day we were having a juvenile diabetes fundraiser and we had to pay a dollar if we wanted to wear a hat

and human sacrifice is the core of many religions, should we permit it?

I'm not at all knowledgeable enough on the subject of circumcision to have a legitimate opinion on whether or not banning it would be justifiable or whether or not it really is or isn't hygienic, so rather than posting my own opinion I will instead submit Christopher Hitchens’ opinion for your consideration:

“In more recent times, some pseudosecular arguments have been adduced for male circumcision. It has been argued that the process is more hygienic for the male and thus more healthy for females in helping them avoid, for example, cervical cancer. Medicine has exploded these claims or else revealed them as problems which can just as easily be solved by a “loosening” of the foreskin. Full excision, originally ordered by god as the blood price for the promised future massacre of the Canaanites, is now exposed for what it is — a mutilation of a powerless infant with the aim of ruining its future sex life. The connection between religious barbarism and sexual repression could not be plainer than when it is “marked in the flesh.” Who can count the number of lives that have been made miserable in this way, especially since Christian doctors began to adopt ancient Jewish folklore in their hospitals? And who can bear to read the medical textbooks and histories which calmly record the number of boy babies who died from infection after their eighth day, or who suffered gross and unbearable dysfunction and disfigurement? The record of syphilitic and other infection, from rotting rabbinical teeth or other rabbinical indiscretions, or of clumsy slitting of the urethra and sometimes a vein, is simply dreadful. If religion and its arrogance were not involved, no healthy society would permit this primitive amputation, or allow any surgery to be practiced on the genitalia without the full and informed consent of the person concerned.” -Christopher Hitchens

I too had a Saudi friend in high school who would wear a Hijab to school everyday. She really did think it was unrelated to the whole male dominion over women aspect and viewed it as a purely religiously thing.

No, we bloody well not!

In regard to corb's post, circumcision in men is proven to lessen risks of disease without actually doing any damage to the baby. And circumcision was not popularized by Jews. In fact it came to America as a Victorian era fad because it was believed to lessen masturbation in teenagers. And from there it caught on. And now everyone knows why the tips of their junk is missing and as always the more you know

All I can say is that my junk is intact and I never had any problems with it. It's only a problem if the parents are irresponsible chickenshits and they're afraid to teach their kids some proper hygiene.

Two entirely different things. One involves death, and another involves a snip.

[spoiler:2d3f6wpn]

[/spoiler:2d3f6wpn]

There is so much wrong with this. First off, I would have no problem with this man's opinion if he hadn't called Judaism "folklore". But anyway, let me break this down. Since I am attending Rabbinical school in two years and have actually preformed a circumcision, let me give you my opinion. Plus, when I speak about a rabbi doing this it could also apply to a mohel, a person who is a fully observant Jew who is educated in these laws and is licensed to preform this act. I fall in the latter category, so don't worry, I didn't illegally circumcise any child.

What? Find me a man who's performance in the sack was negatively affected by circumcision. If he says it has, it's incredibly likely that is other... factors that are causing issues in his sex life. Circumcised or not, you will still get the job done.

I mean no one any offense by this, but that's exactly the problem. Christian doctors began preforming them because it was in style before actually consulting a Rabbi to learn how. I know today that even licensed doctors in Israel are required to take a several week class before they can preform circumcisions without supervision. As for actual Rabbi's preforming the act there is incredibly small amount of infections through history, mainly because the act is undertaken with great care, and at the time there was the most, it was mainly because of the lack of medicine.

Rotting teeth? Really? If this man knew anything of the actual process of circumcision, he would be able to tell you that a Rabbi is required to get a full body health exam before preforming a circumcision, and is then required to present papers proving this. Also, Rabbi's are also suppose to present documentation of their successful graduation through a circumcision course. There has been very few cases of a Rabbi hitting a vain, and if he does, his license and papers would be immediately revoked, and it is very likely that he did not graduate the course. If a child is afflicted with anything because of these issues, it is the parent's fault for not investigating the Rabbi and making sure he has all his papers and such.

A healthy society would expect to the parent to be fully aware of the minor risk, and if they aren't they are obviously the ones at fault. And as for fully informed consent, no Rabbi randomly assault your baby and start circumcising him. Your the one who has to say yes. Plus, you can't expect whoever is preforming the circumcision to give you a whole course on it, so the parents need to do the research themselves.

It really isn't that incredulous of a process. It's a simple procedure with no negative side affects if done properly. Like I said, you can do whatever you want with your child's genitals, just don't tell me what I can do to my child's out of religious observance or simple opinion.

Also note that Hitchens is a known for being anti-religious so I am assuming he did this more to spite the monotheistic religions rather than to protect a child.

My point is, religious freedom doesn’t override the freedom of others, such as the freedom for males to not have there genitalia modified. I understand its part of your religion, but a baby cannot give consent.

No, he can't. But his parents can, who are legally obliged to make decisions for him until he is eighteen. I don't see how that overrides anyone's freedom.

Besides, if we can't trust the parents to make a decision which ultimately isn't that significant for anyone but Jews, what can we trust them to do? In the end whether your child is circumcised will at the very most get him out of the bed of a picky girl, and if she's that picky she probably isn't to be laid with anyway...

Parental rights aren’t and shouldn’t be unlimited. Modifications of the body should not be permitted until the child is able to consent.

Most females in the west actually prefer circumscribed, but it isn’t true in other places of the world.