Male infant circumcision is declared illegal in Germany.

Well said when. And for those of you who still feel this is defensible why not look on YouTube where you will find videos of what it actually means to circumcise a baby or child without anaesthetic. Barbaric.

Whenim, I did know that there are Jews and Muslims who don't believe in the necessity of male circumcision (or circumcision of baby boys). I also know that it is very difficult (impossible?) for members of any faith to engage in discussion on equal terms with people who don't understand faith(s). Coming from completely different places, speaking different languages.

How do the little boys get a chance to embrace the religion?
There are many practices defended in the name of religion which most rational people would find repugnant, such as beating 'the devil' out of a child.

Greatnan. I think you've just proved my point.

Surely when looking at a subject like this the law makers must be absolutely objective as possible and uncluttered by any belief system, when making laws preventing physical harm being done to one person by another.

Lilygran, I think you are assuming I don't understand faith. You are wrong. I just don't have any.

Lilygran on what basis do you believe that people are not able to engage in discussion and understand each other? If you look amongst the threads over more than a year here on Gransnet, you will see that there have been lots of discussion/debates about faiths, beliefs and religions. Having been brought up as a Christian, attended Sunday School, church, participated in church activities and learned much about other faiths, I decided when I was almost adult that I do not believe there is a god, as science and humanism supply many more logical, helpful, believeable answers. I remain open to hearing about other people's religions and will defend practices being continued when they do not harm others, are not inflicted on anyone, and any actions that can change the rest of a person's life are held back until that individual can make an informed choice.

If I was a boy, I would be pretty mad if someone cut off part of my body without my consent, unless it was a qualified surgeon who was saving my life, or improving my poor quality of life. I also don't think children should be made to have their ears pierced, and teenagers should not be allowed to have tattoos.

I'm quite a newcomer to Gransnet discussions When, but what I have read in the 'religion and spirituality' topic suggests something far from understanding and also far from free and open-minded discussion. Over many years, I have found that while a meeting of minds is perfectly possible between members of different faiths, it is can be very difficult between convinced secularists/atheists and members of any faith. If you notice, I haven't defended the practice of circumcision. All I've said is that it is difficult for non-believers to understand the imperatives under which believers operate. It isn't to do with understanding the religion, Greatnan, it's to do with believing.

I am not sure what you want people to do, Lilygran. Should we pretend to a faith we cannot feel, or are we not entitled to state our opinions?

Lilygran your comment:

'if you are non-religious/anti-religious you can't possibly understand this viewpoint. Waste of words.'

There are many people who have embraced religion, been brought up in religious circumstances, chosen to reject religion or cut it from their lives for a while, yet their views on issue like circumcision will develop and become more coherent because they have learned more as they go through life. To say they can't possibly understand the viewpoint of others who see it differently is dismissive and does not acknowledge the healthy debate that can be shared.

If you choose to dismiss this current discussion as a waste of words, that is your prerogative. Mine is to hold to my beliefs about not harming children.

I sympathise with your point of view, Lilygran - I did post a similar thought earlier in this topic. Although I don't approve of infant circumcision, I feel uneasy at the vehement way religion is completely disregarded in the support for the banning of the practice.

Many of the laws laid down in the Bible have nothing to do with spirituality. They may be to do with hygiene which may be the original rationale for circumcision. Like the Ten Commandments, they may be rules for an orderly society. If there were a god, why on earth should he/she want to remove the foreskin from tiny babies?

Yes, that argument has been put forward already, Annobel, but try convincing a devout believer!

Lilygran - I think that you will find that there are some very open and rationally-minded people on this site.

It would be crazy if anyone were to suggest that religion and its practices are not important topics of conversation as religion has played a huge part in shaping our world and the societies within it. Just because I may not personally believe something does not mean that I cannot understand that others hold these beliefs very strongly and that they play an important part in their lives - once we start saying that people of faith and those of none cannot discuss things together we are on a very slippery slope.

I am surrounded by friends who subscribe to the Christian faith - indeed 3 of my best friends are female vicars. But I do not share their views - and we are all perfectly happy with that - and so we should be.

But all those religious friends of mine maintain that out-of-date religious practices that were borne out of superstition and ignorance have no place in their thinking or their way of life.

Circumcision is top of their list of such practices, and rightly so.

Yes, but your Christian friends would never have supported infant circumcision as being part of their faith, Mishap, which is the point of Lilygran's contention (I think). We can condemn the practice and point out the illogicality of it until the cows come home, but our arguments will cut no ice with die-hard believers.

You are probably right, Anagram, which is why such harmful practices have to be made illegal.

Which will be seen as religious persecution by those die-hard believers, and seized upon by agitators with their own agenda. It simply isn't the case that legislation will solve the problem.

Anagram

Legislation is often the precursor of a change in public attitude - as happened when homosexual acts between consenting adults were legalised

So would those who uphold the religious 'right' to circumcise babies whose foreskins are healthy also uphold the 'right' to practice female genital mutilation (or female circumcision, as it is usually called)?

...........and would they be happy for their teenage grandaughters to be mutilated in the event of one of their adult children living in some parts of Africa, and converting to a devout religion that required this to be done?

There are many women who make relationships in countries where it is practised and could find their daughters being threatened with this barbaric practice, which is illegal here.

But, Greatnan, that was allowing a practice, not forbidding one. That's a big difference in the public eye.

whenim, which religion practises female circumcision, mutilation?

Female genital mutilation has no place in any religion. It is a cultural practice in some parts of Africa and, for some reason, in parts - but not all - of the Islamic world.

Some Muslims refer to the Qur'an and insist it is religious, as it is spoken about by the prophet Mohammed, who advised those who did it to be careful about how much they removed, and this is often interpreted as an instruction to do it. There is much division between different Islamists. There are Animists, a few Christians and mainly Muslims who practise it, particularly in Indonesia and parts of North East Africa. The levels of invasion are regarded as 'minimal' for many girls who have been circumcised, but nevertheless traumatic and it causes extreme pain and suffering, especially in childbirth. It is often done without anaesthetic.

Similar to what these babies experience, except the girls are teenagers.

Thanks whenim