We pride ourselves on being a tolerant nation, but....

Going back to the OP, the main point to remember is that France is a secular country. Religions are tolerated, but one of the country's main principles is Laïcité , which
.....".is a core concept in the French constitution, Article 1 of which formally states that France is a secular republic ("La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.") ... Many see being discreet with one's religion as a necessary part of being French."

Alexa - I agree. The point I was making was that some folk are shocked by France's decision in this case (and feel free to say so); but that they should also be shocked when the barbaric practice of baby mutilation goes on around us all the time - and feel free to say so. In the latter case if we speak out we are seen as intolerant and racist.

It is beyond my credence that this is legal - I see it as taking tolerance a step too far. The practice is simply wrong and it should be acceptable to say so loud and clear.

Luckygirl, absolutely! Babies cannot defend themselves and can't care less what nationality they are.One thing we can be sure of is that they trust their mothers to defend them. Even a mother dog would defend her babies against people who came intending to cut bits off her baby puppies. The existence of human cultures is inevitable. However humans are capable and should be capable of revising and updating cultural practices.

I always think (for those who supposedly believe in God as the creator) If God didn't want boys to have foreskins and girls to have a clutoris or what ever is removed, why would he put them there.
If God didn't want to let head hair be seen, he would have created us bald. And if God wanted our bodies to be covered from sight we would resemble chimps/Gorillas and the like, bodies covered in thick hair.

This may be of interest, on Radio 4 today:
Too Young to Veil

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zxlsc#play

I have always been vocal in condemning any religious practice that causes physical and mental harm to people, including, of course, FGM - and circumcision. One of these acts is a serious crime though the other is not and, in my view, it should be.

I certainly believe that everyone has an obligation to oppose cruelty wherever it occurs and whatever belief system such cruelty emanates from. An assault on a child is an assault on a child and can never be justified.

To imply that the savage mutilation of children would be defended by some people on the grounds that they would be unwilling to challenge such practices because it might be perceived as "racist", is, I think, an unreasonable assumption.

I don't believe we are anti semitic. I do believe there is a great deal of anger at Israel - but that is the country, not the Religion and is a different thing entirely. The two have been mixed up. And there is now a lot of lies and political point scoring going on by certain parties/media which are happy to muddy the waters on this for their own ends.

I dislike all religions as they function right now. The more fundamentalist they are the more I dislike and disapprove of them. Judaism is no exception.

I hate how Israel has victimised Palestinians by stealing Palestinian farmers' land to illegally settle Zionist Jews upon the land in luxurious houses with lawns and pools .

I like how Israelis engineered the land so as to improve water supplies and fertility generally.

I think there may be some Israelis who want to revert to 1967 boundaries so as to allow Palestinians and Israelis to be at peace with each other.

Jews as individuals are okay. I was at school with two |Kindertransport girls. So although I dislike much about the religion and about Israel I am not antisemitic. Antisemitic denotes unreasoning and unfeeling.

If there were not a general unwillingness to challenge the practice of mutilating babies it would not continue - it would simply become illegal.

I am making a presumption that this unwillingness relates to a desire not to appear intolerant. I am at a loss to find any other reason for it.

Here's a practical conundrum. Would you be willing to be treated as a patient of a Muslim or Jewish doctor who does circumcisions on request?

The defence for doctors doing so is that if they did not do the circumcisions the the family of the baby would take him to be cut by an illegal practitioner who lacks the relevant skills.

I don't care what the culture of the country is, I will shake hands but I will not kiss on the cheek.

I am making a presumption that this unwillingness relates to a desire not to appear intolerant. I am at a loss to find any other reason for it

I agree Luckygirl

Finding the balance between tolerance and liberalism to the nth degree is perhaps muddying the waters?

In his book Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed Howard Rotberg, a retired Jewish lawyer has written a book for anyone who is concerned that contemporary Western society has embraced the ethic of tolerance to an extreme.

He maintains that radical Islamists stand to benefit by the twisted logic of tolerance, which demands Western democracies tolerate fanaticism and the ever present threat of terrorism.

"Rotberg sets out to show that tolerance has been “raised to the be all and end all of human existence” and to point out the problems that excessive tolerance brings in its wake: “It disarms our best minds and our future leaders from protecting the important values and freedoms for which our forefathers have fought, and even died.”

There is a Jewish bias, without doubt, but there is food for thought. (Other sources concerning the subject of tolerism are raised in the critique.) Rotberg suggests we also need to become aware of tolerism’s philosophic underpinnings. Like others he has concerns regarding the problem of tolerance being raised to the level of an uber virtue.

"Rotberg is understandably pessimistic, and he fears what the future holds for authors and writers who challenge the orthodoxy of tolerance. He seems to believe that the tolerists will soon be in a position, if they are not already, to censor free speech through social shunning and by using human rights tribunals."

Wasn't this worrying occurrence a topic raised on GN quite recently?

www.c2cjournal.ca/2010/03/book-review-tolerism-the-ideology-revealed/

A "do your own thing" philosophy has many dangers. Perhaps the French are right to draw some lines in the sand and a "this is what WE do" approach might lead to more harmony rather than greater divides if accepted by all. We are aware of foreign customs and culture when we travel. Should that not be universal or does religion trump everything?

FGM IS illegal. It must be very difficult, though, to prevent it.

Punishment after the mutilation has occurred is presumably possible. As I understand it, in France young girls must undergo genital examination up to a certain age to determine whether they have been cut or not. If it is the first time the child has been examined and it is found that she has been cut, do the authorities then have to obtain evidence as to who carried out and authorised it? I assume some effort must be made to get a child to provide this information, which in itself may prove traumatic and be difficult to present in court.

If a child is found to have been cut, after having been seen intact on a previous examination, again how do the authorities get the necessary evidence?

Circumcision is NOT illegal. Is that because there is a desire not to be seen as intolerant or is it because more people are accepting of it, even though it is, in reality, a serious assault on a child?

I do not know the answer to that, but if it is the case that people are accepting of this "serious assault on a child" then I would feel very concerned about this, and wish to see this challenged.

I'm pleased there is a public debate about male circumcision. Its likely the focus on male circumcision has been fuelled by the widespread horror at FGM. Whilst FGM (it seems) causes more life long emotional and physical problems than male circumcision, both are serious assaults on infants and young girls.

I'm uneasy about the suggestion that because a poster went to school with two girls who came to the UK on the Kindertransport as well as believing"Jews as individuals are ok" that somehow precludes you from anti semitic beliefs.

I appreciated Day 6's post above about tolerance. It's not an easy one to debate is it.

I just want to make the point that many male babies are circumcised for other reasons ( non-religious.)
Especially in the USA.

In hot countries too Fennel for health reasons.

The suggestion was that people are afraid to confront the issue of FGM for fear of appearing intolerant. Is that the reason why already on this thread people appear to be justifying MGM or is it that they actually think MGM is not an assault?

Unless MGM is carried out on medical advice, I don't care what reasons are put forward. This procedure is often carried out as a supposed requirement of the Jewish or Muslim religions. In my view it is an assault on a child who cannot give consent and, as such, it should be illegal. I believe it has already been made illegal, or is in the process of being made illegal, in Iceland.

Fennel -the fact that many boys are mutilated in the US for cultural reasons goes no way to excuse this. And heat and foreskins are not in conflict - you can have a foreskin in a hot country without it making you ill.

It should simply be illegal on anything but health grounds.

I was helping my 2 year old GS do a wee yesterday and looked at his fully intact penis and could not imagine anyone would think of sawing into it -made me shiver.

The core of most religions is male sexual control and repression.
even the structure of many churches have vulva like entrances and mosques look like a penis with balls.
There is no true basis for mutilation in any religion only folk who have the need to 'belong' and conform.

Joelsnan - sounds like you've been reading too much Freud!
Seriously though, I think you're right. I once heard a talk on the radio about the story of Eve being tempted by the serpent to eat of the Tree of Life. Then persuading Adam to eat it, after which they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden.
The theory was that from that point on men have blamed women for leading them astray.

I’m still feeling somewhat disturbed by the fact that a coroner has been told to drop the ‘cab rank’ rules for the releasing of bodies in favour of Jewish and Moslem bodies being released first.

Day6
I find this very puzzling contemporary Western society has embraced the ethic of tolerance to an extreme
I was trying to think of an instance where an incident or violent episode could be blamed on tolerance and couldn't think of any. I could site many instances where intolerance has led to violence and bloodshed, including N.Ireland, the Balkan states, Africa and the Middle East.
The problem with "drawing lines in the sand" is that different groups of people will draw lines in different places, even though sometimes those groups will be closer in beliefs than many others. They then begin to argue and even fight over whose line is right. Tolerance says you both have a point of view but no right to restrict the activities of others.
I do think there is a case that perhaps young people need education about how their rights to tolerance and freedom have been won. And arguably such education would develop in those living in western society the confidence to pursue freedom and tolerance. The problem for the government is of course that authority has not always behaved well and an education in the acts of violence and repression it has practised might arouse in some young people a spirit of rebellion.

maryeliza54 I thought that had always happened? The reason being that both religions require the body to be buried within 24 hours if possible. A sensible rule for those living in a hot climate.