[Psyk]

(Original post by Shomberlon)
I find it a bit rich and insulting to claim her husband doesn't realise the lose that has been inflicted on him and to say he is damaged is bang out of order. You know nothing of her husband or their sex life.

For me personally I was circumcised because my complications with my older brother, so it was suggested I have it done as a preventative measure. Sex wise according to you I have approximately 9 more years then before I might as well not bother! If anything having slightly less sensation in that part only works in my favor.

What was wrong with your brother? What were your parents trying to prevent? Just wondering what it was if the fact that your brother had it meant you were at risk of it too.

[flugelr]

Rabbi Goldschmidt said the poll's findings were "shocking". He said the court's ruling suggested that Muslims and Jews were no longer socially acceptable in Europe.

I don't like the presumption this bloke has that he is totally right. Maybe he should consider the idea that what is no longer socially acceptable is surgically altering a young boy because some geezer millenia ago decided that it would be a good idea.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Just because your husband doesn't know or understand that he's suffered enormous loss in sensation doesn't mean he isn't very badly damaged

Did you know the keratinization process continues thorough a circumcised man's life? You and your husband may have a decent sex life now but I doubt you will when he is 40 and can't feel a damn thing

Do a search on google images for keratinization of glans and look at the difference between intact vs circumcised. The difference is staggering. A circumcised man has rough calloused looking glans that look like a piece of leather and an intact man in his 70s has glans that look the same as a newborns

Did you know that circumcision was implemented in Victorian times to stop children from masterbating? People than KNEW it made sex less pleasurable and caused massive sensation loss. It was only later sold something with alleged (although unproven) "health benefits"

Please ask all the circumcised men over 40 if they can't feel a thing, k?

My hubby is 35, by the way. He feels very well

I don't get where people think circumcision makes boys or men not masturbate? They do as well as boys/men who aren't circumcised. Those who believe in God and think it's wrong to masturbate have an issue with it because of their convictions, not because circumcision magically makes them not want to masturbate, because circumcision is not at all a cure for masturbation.

[supraman]

Why do they always have to bring up the "holocaust"
Anything they want to defend always that or it's anti-Semitic somehow

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Carter78)
I never once used words such as "silly" or "stupid" to describe your point of view, I did however say that it wasn't based on any facts and smacked of ignorance on the topics of WW2 and modern day German society. Nothing you've said has compelled me to budge from this position I'm afraid.

My purpose in interacting in this discussion is not to persuade you but rather to explain what I personally believe and why, which is similar to what many Jewish people who believe in G-d believe. You can of course say it isn't based on facts or smacks of "ignorance" but the fact that Germany has in within the last 100 years killed thousands of circumcised Jewish men is sadly a fact. It should not be just swept under the rug.

On the contrary, the right of the child to bodily integrity is a durable fundamental right that should not wane or be circumvented over time.

Would you say that the right of the child begins at birth or at conception or when the heart first begins to beat? Jewish parents who believe in G-d and follow as much as possible the Tanakh circumcise their male infants on the 8th day after birth. Now, if it is possible to circumcise a tiny little male human in the womb of the mother before birth, would you still object? Do you believe that a fetus in the womb has the "fundamental right" to "bodily integrity?"

I'm not circumcised because my parents saw it as medically unnecessary in this day and age. My father was however circumcised because he grew up in Ghana as a child. I have spoken with him about the issue and are both of the view that the child should choose whether he undergoes the procedure or not. - Unless there is an urgent and pressing medical need within the child's early years and the parents need to sanction the procedure in order to avoid a medical condition etc.

Does your father experience any discomforts or lack of sexual drive/feeling because he was circumcised? Was he circumcised on the 8th day or when he was older? I hope you don't mind me asking. I am curious and believe that personal experiences are very important due to the subject matter.

Since circumcision is indeed a medical procedure to help medical issues that the child or man would not have had if he had a good (as opposed to a botched) circumcision earlier, I do not see circumcision as abuse.

I once had a friend who as a baby could not urinate properly (the foreskin prevented his stream of urine from flowing properly). As there was a pressing medical need I have no problem with this. - Not one opponent of ritual circumcision I have ever met would disagree with the concept of circumcision for justified medical reasons.

Again, since male circumcision can be justified by medical reasons, it is not abuse. It is merely a surgical procedure that when done right, helps the child instead of hurts him.

I am not surprised that your Jewish male friends are happy with circumcision, they're Jewish.

That is one thing that I don't think many of the people who oppose circumcision understand... that it is a sense of identity to a specific group of people . This medical procedure, also a sense of identity is being targeted by the same nation that killed hundreds who had this identity. I don't know how people can not see the sad irony in that.

However there are plenty of groups of men who are against circumcision and regret the procedure that was forced on them without their consent, for no need. I'll simplify my view for you; even if EVERY man in the entire world was happy with a circumcision procedure taken on them as a child, that still wouldn't negate the immorality of a lack of consent from the baby in question undergoing the procedure. Nor would it negate the pain of the child undergoing a procedure proscribed through religious dogma.

If circumcision was giving cancer or aids or some horrible disease to children, I would agree with you. Giving a disease to a person is immoral.

However, the pain a baby 8 days old feels (and then he is held close by his Momma who loves him dearly as she gives him milk to drink and comforts him) is temporary.

I have only sisters, and I remember when the nurse pricked my baby sister's heel right after she was born, for testing purposes. I was SO MAD AT THAT EVIL NURSE lol. (She wasn't really evil, but I didn't understand why she made my darling baby sister and hurt her.) My baby sister cried but settled down when Mom started nursing her. Medical procedures bring pain, but if done well, they are only temporary pains.

You're absolutely right that people learn from history. I posit the view that the Germans have more than adequately learnt from their past. You don't. Why not?

I don't because a nation that has within the last 100 years killed hundreds of circumcised men would not try to make circumcision (which is a sense of identity of the Jewish people for 3 thousand+ years) illegal, thus targetting said group of people.

It's like if the USA, which is guilty of killing thousands of Native Americans, made religious freedom for the Native Americans illegal.

Thanks, but I urge you to look into the subject at more length. My explanation was a very short overview of what was an incredibly complex period of history.

This is your view. Not mine. As I said in my previous post this law is aimed to protect the physical integrity of all children - no matter what the religious affiliation of their parents. Jewish parents do not need to dress themselves up as martyrs. They don't even want to engage in a proper debate about the morality of circumcision here, they just keep saying something akin to "leave us alone, it's not of your business what abhorrent things we do to our children without their consent, holocaust!"

I see why they don't want to engage in discussion with people who judge them, who do not understand them or even try to understand them. Sad to say, Jewish people have been persecuted by many different groups of people around the world.

Now I ask you, do you want to raise up Jewish children? If you want to adopt and take care of and feed and educate Jewish children instead of their parents, then you are free to make their decisions. However, Jewish parents have the right to raise their own children. The Jewish people I know are very good parents who love their children very much. Their children succeed in life, are highly intelligent, are good people, and the guys are circumcised. They don't need you to make decisions for them... Jewish parents are perfectly capable of raising their children well without your input into what you think is best for their children. Unless you are responsible for the complete care of their children, why force your belief on them?

This is not the biggest irony of religion, believe me. But that is a debate for another thread.

I have already explained the many reasons for why the holocaust could come to pass. Please let's not go around in circles on this. Stop trying to tarnish the entirety of German character with the holocaust without first looking to why any such terrible event can be committed by any national group around the world. I don't think that the holocaust was something inherently "German" in nature, thus I fail to see why this should be used to shut-down debate within contemporary German society as to the rights and wrongs of circumcision.

Your father is from Ghana correct? Is your Mother German? Just curious.

There are many other national groups that should also be facing difficult questions with regards to their histories. Why did Russians allow their communist governments to send millions to the Gulags? Why did Cambodians allow Pol Pot to murder hundreds of thousands?

These terrible genocides are horrible as well, but how do they relate to circumcisions? How the Holocaust relates to circumcision is that many circumcised males and their families were killed. Why? Because they were Jews. What is one of the main marks of identity of the Jewish people? Circumcision. Now, I don't know if Pol Pot was circumcised or the people he killed. If he and his murderers or the victims were circumcised, you could most definitely relate it to the discussion. Were they?

Historians and sociologists have been positing these questions for decades. What is important however is not to focus on the holocaust as the one most terrible example of human barbarism and thus ignore other atrocities that have occurred or are indeed happening today.

Which is worse? Loving parents who cut off the foreskin of their baby boy 8 days after he is born, or killing hundreds of people (regardless of if they are circumcised or not?) Killing is indeed atrocious, whereas making the decision to circumcise a male baby in a medical procedure that helps some babies/boys/men with medical issues is not atrocious.

If you want to not focus on the holocaust, why talk about circumcision, which is a mark of identity for the Jewish people who suffered horribly in the holocaust???

I explained my view on this point extensively in the last post. A good historian tries not to judge the actions of the past without first looking to the extenuating circumstances of the time. I think I covered those "extenuating circumstances" thoroughly.

Btw, you also referenced a story of the townspeople in Dachau who committed suicide after visiting the camp. Were they feigning ignorance as well?

I don't know. They felt guilty though... it would have been better if they had been brave enough to face death by the thugs who were killing others than merely committing suicide after the Americans came and showed them what they allegedly didn't know (for fear, I assume.)

There were many brave Germans who did stand up against the Nazi Regime. The July 20th 1944 bomb plotters led by Claus Von Stauffenberg were executed for trying to assassinate Hitler, whilst other opponents of the regime (including the White Rose group) were also executed - guillotined no less! - for their opposition to the regime and its crimes.

If more Germans had stood up against the Nazi Regime instead of standing for the Nazi regime, the list of atrocities would not be what Germany is remembered for today.

History is complex, and berating an entire national group for their actions (or inaction) from the safety of our armchairs 70 years later is unfair.

If people in Germany would strive to respect the rights of Jewish parents, we wouldn't be having this discussion. By the way, if the Americans with European ancestry start wanting to control how Native Americans raise their kids, I would totally be against that too, and I'm European-American.

Ignorance wouldn't protect you from an authoritarian government if they decided that you were an enemy of the state. And believe me, the Nazis would consider you an enemy of the state if you stood up and opposed them. Regardless, this is a principle that is applicable in any country that is suffering an authoritarian government, just look to Syria today. - We could ask a question of millions of Syrians who are not yet fighting in the Free Syrian Army, does that mean they support the regime? Probably not. Does it make them human and fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones if they joined the uprising? Yes.

Would it then be fair in 70 years time to postulate questions such as whether the Syrians are more likely to display a tendency for authoritarianism - without first looking at all of the other extenuating factors? No.



Not nation, regime. The regime were primarily responsible for the crimes of the holocaust, the German people also suffered terribly under the Nazis. Ordinary Germans did not vote the Nazis into Power, the conservative elites brought Hitler and his cronies into the ruling government at a time when their vote share and seat share was decreasing. Of course, the Germans were not blameless, but again this is a historical debate that I have explained thoroughly with fact.

Please demonstrate why this has any relevance to the moral debate of circumcision in this present day and age. Do you think it is strange that you see the irony here and everyone else here doesn't?

Many Jewish people do see the irony, but don't comment because they have learned they don't want to be the object of scorn by other people. They have been so much, endured so much, even at the hands of "Christians." Again, the relevance of holocaust on the debate of the circumcision ban being "the worst attack on Jews since Holocaust" (those are not my words by the way) is because the Holocaust was a blatant attack on Jewish people. Circumcision is a mark of identity of Jewish people... has been for thousands of years.

No I am not You don't need to be Jewish to feel compelled to share the story of the holocaust (and the true reasons behind its' occurrence) with other people.

I personally would rather hear from a Jewish person who had loved ones who survived the Holocaust share about it. I'm sorry if that offends you but I'm just being honest.

I also prefer hearing from a Native American about the atrocities they have suffered at the hands of European-Americans.

I also prefer hearing from Japanese survivors about the atrocities they have survived after the USA used nukes.

Btw, I understand that the holocaust has had a huge effect on the Jewish group identity, however the descendants of holocaust survivors did not live through the camps. They should not use the holocaust as a "get out of jail free card" to commit immoral acts to others, that tarnishes the sacrifice of their forefathers.

Do you understand that their forefathers were circumcised??? How does circumcising their children, when they and their forefathers are circumcised, "tarnish the sacrifice of their forefathers."? What the blank???

Also, what sacrifice??? Do you mean to tell me that their forefathers were sacrificed??? Sacrificed? To what? For what? They weren't sacrificed! They were downright murdered!!!

Great. So If I really believed that tattooing babies was God's will, then my sincerity would excuse the immorality of my actions? I think you've shot yourself in the foot there.

You don't believe it, so your example is irrelevant.

I've said before that tradition doesn't excuse immoral actions. Rape within marriage was tradition until evolving social attitudes in the 50's and 60's defined the act of rape within marriage as a crime.

Rape is different than a medical procedure removing a foreskin... remember, male circumcision is a medical procedure that helps with certain medical issues. Rape doesn't help anything and is not a medical procedure.

I did quote you. When I said "you preached those sentiments exactly...." I included directly afterwards the paragraph you wrote which displayed those sentiments. I even highlighted the guilty passages. Here is the offending paragraph again below;

I wrote, " Originally Posted by Christianlady
"Does Nazism still exist? I think tragically it does, though it can disguise itself. Sadly, many people hate other people. Making a law that directly targets the Jewish people who practice removal of the foreskin of their male sons, by a country that is guilty of killing thousands of Jewish circumcised men and boys, as well as killing thousands of Jewish women, does make me highly suspicious. It doesn't you?""

How is this offensive? It is true. If it offends you or the German people, I'm sorry. However, it offends me that German people killed many German Jewish people and Jewish people of other countries, and I am not sorry at all about being offended by murder.

That's another debate for another day I'm afraid.

If you are truly for the rights of a child, why not go all the way and be for the rights of a fetus (who is a living tiny human being in the hopefully safe environment of the mother's womb)?

You don't consider it abuse, I do. We can agree to disagree on that. However as I said before, we should be able to agree on the fact that the boy in question does not give his consent for the procedure. That lack of consent cannot be denied. It is from this lack of consent that the immorality of the action springs from. - In my view.

How old was the boy you knew who had a circumcision due to medical reasons? If he had a medical issue before he could verbally give consent, would you still consider it to be abuse? Why or why not?

Woah that's a bold statement to make. America only joined the war in December of 1941 after the attack from Japan at Pearl Harbour. The USA did not join to save Britain, otherwise where were you guys during the proceeding two years of war? Again, please check your historical facts before making grandiose claims such as the above.

The USA could have just left Britain to defend herself and just fought Japan. However, that would not have been in the best interest of either the USA or the UK.

Britain took in its fair share of Jewish refugees as well. Have you heard of the Kinder transport system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport

Plus other nations in Europe had absorbed Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis, for example the Frank family (with their infamous daughter Anne) were residing in Holland at the time of the German invasion which forced them into hiding. America was not the only country accepting Jewish refugees. So I wouldn't want to label their action as heroic above all others.



Any such number of groups that also flourish within the modern democratic societies of Europe - including Germany.

So what do you have to say the Jewish people in Europe who are protesting what they call "the worst attack on Jews since Holocaust"?

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Carter78)



On the contrary she has readily indulged details of her sex life with her husband on this forum many times. One wonders if her husband has any knowledge of this.....
She has been quite frank regarding practices such as oral sex with her husband etc

My husband knows. Thank you for your concern. If you would like to be facebook friends so you can see who my husband and I are (just normal people in the USA), let me know.

[Christianlady]

Originally Posted by Shomberlon
I find it a bit rich and insulting to claim her husband doesn't realise the lose that has been inflicted on him and to say he is damaged is bang out of order. You know nothing of her husband or their sex life.

For me personally I was circumcised because my complications with my older brother, so it was suggested I have it done as a preventative measure. Sex wise according to you I have approximately 9 more years then before I might as well not bother! If anything having slightly less sensation in that part only works in my favor.

I find it a bit insulting too, but I am getting used to being insulted by people on this forum.

I talk about my husband and our sexual life a little bit when I consider it relevant to the discussion. You are right that the people here have no idea what they are talking about when they talk about my husband, because they don't know him or experience what he personally experiences. As his wife, I know much better what he personally experiences because I'm there with him lol. By the way, that is my husband and me in my avatar. I don't hide and I'm not afraid to express my love for my husband, who I am faithful to and adore!!!

Don't make them afraid of losing your pleasure, k? Much of the pleasure in sex is controlled by the brain. There's that quote that "The Brain is the greatest sex organ" I forgot who said that. According to my husband who is 35 and knows personally how sex feels for him (which in his words is mind-blowing awesome) as well as his intense facial expressions and I won't go any further in describing..., than his being circumcised has not at all prevented him from feeling acute pleasure.

However, if you become afraid or tensed, that will often affect your ability to enjoy sex.

Anyways, thanks for standing up for me.

I hope your brother is ok?

[Sir Fox]

(Original post by Christianlady)
Would you say that the right of the child begins at birth or at conception or when the heart first begins to beat? Jewish parents who believe in G-d and follow as much as possible the Tanakh circumcise their male infants on the 8th day after birth. Now, if it is possible to circumcise a tiny little male human in the womb of the mother before birth, would you still object? Do you believe that a fetus in the womb has the "fundamental right" to "bodily integrity?"

You are trying to lure him/her into making a point which would be against abortion. Fair enough, operating on a child in the womb is a major risk for both mother and child and should never be done only due to religious reasons. So the point is: it would be very dangerous for the mother.

Anyway someone would have to pay for this full-fledged operation and I doubt any health insurance would cover such a futile 'effort'.

Since circumcision is indeed a medical procedure to help medical issues that the child or man would not have had if he had a good (as opposed to a botched) circumcision earlier, I do not see circumcision as abuse.

Very few parts of our body are not perfectly suited for a certain job - the foreskin's job is to protect the glans. Removing it has not benefits except for reducing the risk of contracting HIV. No responsible man ever risks contracting HIV as he uses a condom or in a long term relationship he and his partner get tested for HIV.

It's even possible that the knowledge that circumcised men have a lower risk of contracting HIV in combination with almost every male human being circumcised would lead to people shagging around irresponsibly as they think they don't get HIV anyway, leading to a rise in infections.

Again, since male circumcision can be justified by medical reasons, it is not abuse. It is merely a surgical procedure that when done right, helps the child instead of hurts him.

It can be justified in certain single cases. As the medical societies of many developed countries have pointed out there is no universal medical indication and circumcision without a specific reason is not recommendable.

That is one thing that I don't think many of the people who oppose circumcision understand... that it is a sense of identity to a specific group of people . This medical procedure, also a sense of identity is being targeted by the same nation that killed hundreds who had this identity. I don't know how people can not see the sad irony in that.

There just is no irony. You want to see irony? It's any irony that the US which see themselves as god's chosen country and the home of democracy have still one of the worst human rights records in the Western world. They support dictatorial regimes, operate Guantanamo, still exercise the death penalty ...

Germany has learned its historical lesson, some countries still haven't.

However, the pain a baby 8 days old feels (and then he is held close by his Momma who loves him dearly as she gives him milk to drink and comforts him) is temporary.

So because a pain is temporary it's okay to inflict it on a vulnerable being without any strong indication?

I don't because a nation that has within the last 100 years killed hundreds of circumcised men would not try to make circumcision (which is a sense of identity of the Jewish people for 3 thousand+ years) illegal, thus targetting said group of people.

You will never stop talking about something which happened more than half a century ago, will you? At least said nation did not discriminate black people right into the 60's.

It's like if the USA, which is guilty of killing thousands of Native Americans, made religious freedom for the Native Americans illegal.

Quite stupid generalisation. The court tried to find a balance between the human right of bodily integrity and the parents' right of religious freedom. Never has Germany abolished religious freedom of any democratic group.

Your father is from Ghana correct? Is your Mother German? Just curious.

His father is from Ghana? Cool, have been living there

If more Germans had stood up against the Nazi Regime instead of standing for the Nazi regime, the list of atrocities would not be what Germany is remembered for today.

Standing up against the Nazis was extremely difficult and almost always resulted in being deported to concentration camps and being killed. There've been more than 30 assassination attempts on Hitler. Ever heard of Stauffenberg, Witzleben, von Haeften, Olbricht?

Standing up against racial segregation in the US has been much easier and no one had to fear being killed or tortured for that. Yet it needed Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and other bright blacks to end it because hardly any white person bothered. How about that?

They have been so much, endured so much, even at the hands of "Christians."

90% of the Jews living in Germany today have endured nothing. They've been born after WWII was over and lived in a democratic society. None of them can complain about being persecuted. The same way the Germans of today are not responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis the Jews of today are no victims any more.

I personally would rather hear from a Jewish person who had loved ones who survived the Holocaust share about it. I'm sorry if that offends you but I'm just being honest.

We had an old man in our school (a rather famous guy who wrote a book about that) who told us about how he escaped from a camp and survived the war. He told us what happened right in the concentration camps. Quite a terrible account.

If you are truly for the rights of a child, why not go all the way and be for the rights of a fetus (who is a living tiny human being in the hopefully safe environment of the mother's womb)?

A fetus cannot survive on its own without the mother's womb, therefore it cannot be regarded as 'life'. That's the scientific way of seeing this issue and even though it might not conform with your religious and moral views I stick to this definition. I don't consider a fetus 'life', it only has the potential to become a living being in the future.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Sir Fox)
Very few parts of our body are not perfectly suited for a certain job - the foreskin's job is to protect the glans. Removing it has not benefits except for reducing the risk of contracting HIV. No responsible man ever risks contracting HIV as he uses a condom or in a long term relationship he and his partner get tested for HIV.

It's even possible that the knowledge that circumcised men have a lower risk of contracting HIV in combination with almost every male human being circumcised would lead to people shagging around irresponsibly as they think they don't get HIV anyway, leading to a rise in infections.

With regards to this point, I was lead to believe that the only studies conducted have been during the 1970s (during the AIDS/HIV epidemic), and they have been largely debunked?

But that argument is awful anyway.

[Spaz Man]

We live in a completely different world from that of the Holocaust. The fact that they have the sheer nerve to even mention it is an insult to the memory of those who died in it.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
We live in a completely different world from that of the Holocaust. The fact that they have the sheer nerve to even mention it is an insult to the memory of those who died in it.

Will it be the sheer nerve of people in the UK to even mention 7/7 decades from now? Will it insult the memory of those who died on 7/7?

Do the Japanese people insult the memory of their loved ones who died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American government? How dare they talk about it after all! (I'm being sarcastic.)

Actually, I am glad that the Japanese survivors tell their stories. I am glad to hear from them, because they teach important lessons if people are willing to listen. They show how the USA did wrong and hurt innocent people. Hopefully the USA won't nuke another city ever again, anywhere.

I wish the USA had never nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Do you understand how sad it sounds to say it insults the memory of those who died, for people who survived and/or have loved ones who died to talk about what happened? That's just sad.

Now I know why many Jewish people do not bother to respond to many people with views such as yours.


Below is a link to an interesting but sad article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...n-germany.html

By the way, do you have Jewish friends who are circumcised and happy about it? What do they say? What do they say about the holocaust, or do they think it brings shame to their people to talk about the genocide?

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by Christianlady)
Will it be the sheer nerve of people in the UK to even mention 7/7 decades from now? Will it insult the memory of those who died on 7/7?

Do the Japanese people insult the memory of their loved ones who died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American government? How dare they talk about it after all! (I'm being sarcastic.)

Actually, I am glad that the Japanese survivors tell their stories. I am glad to hear from them, because they teach important lessons if people are willing to listen. They show how the USA did wrong and hurt innocent people. Hopefully the USA won't nuke another city ever again, anywhere.

Do you understand how sad it sounds to say it insults the memory of those who died for people who survived and/or have loved ones who died talk about what happened? That's just sad.

Now I know why many Jewish people do not bother to respond to many people with views such as yours.


Below is a link to an interesting but sad article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...n-germany.html

By the way, do you have Jewish friends who are circumcised and happy about it? What do they say? What do they say about the holocaust, or do they think it brings shame to their people to talk about the genocide?

You know I didn't mean it that way so stop acting emotional for no reason. I know many Jewish people who agree with me. Of course we should discuss the Holocaust but my God, that horrific event has been cited and used to justify and argue for so many things that have nothing to do with it that it's cringeworthy and downright embarassing at times such as these when the discussion is about circumcision for goodness sake.

[Sir Fox]

Do you understand how sad it sounds to say it insults the memory of those who died, for people who survived and/or have loved ones who died to talk about what happened? That's just sad.

It insults the memory of everyone who died in the holocaust to compare the German court ruling to said holocaust.

Comparing the prohibition (which isn't even a prohibition but only a state court ruling) of circumcision (a religious procedure) to the holocaust, the mass murder and mass torture of millions of people is indeed the sad thing!

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Sir Fox)
You are trying to lure him/her into making a point which would be against abortion. Fair enough, operating on a child in the womb is a major risk for both mother and child and should never be done only due to religious reasons. So the point is: it would be very dangerous for the mother.

Do you consider the child in the womb to be alive? Why or why not?

Since operating on a child in the womb should, as you say, "be done only due to religious reasons" (which I disagree with... I think medical reasons are fine too) then why can't loving parents make a decision to have the foreskin cut off their baby boy 8 days after he is born?

Anyway someone would have to pay for this full-fledged operation and I doubt any health insurance would cover such a futile 'effort'.


Very few parts of our body are not perfectly suited for a certain job - the foreskin's job is to protect the glans. Removing it has not benefits except for reducing the risk of contracting HIV. No responsible man ever risks contracting HIV as he uses a condom or in a long term relationship he and his partner get tested for HIV.

There are other medical conditions that circumcision relieves... I'm not so sure how vital circumcision is to prevent one getting HIV... not getting HIV is best prevented by not having sex with or receiving blood/fluids from a person who is infected.

It's even possible that the knowledge that circumcised men have a lower risk of contracting HIV in combination with almost every male human being circumcised would lead to people shagging around irresponsibly as they think they don't get HIV anyway, leading to a rise in infections.

Lol I don't think that's an issue. The Jewish people who believe in G-d and the Tanakh don't tend to "shag" around. They tend to commit, though some, such as King David and King Solomon, had many wives. I doubt they got sexual diseases, but that wasn't 100% due to being circumcised...

It can be justified in certain single cases. As the medical societies of many developed countries have pointed out there is no universal medical indication and circumcision without a specific reason is not recommendable.

Of course there is no universal medical indication, but that does not mean one needs to prevent a group of people from making the decision for their male children who they love, especially since men do make that decision in order to help with medical issues later on in life.

There just is no irony. You want to see irony? It's any irony that the US which see themselves as god's chosen country and the home of democracy have still one of the worst human rights records in the Western world. They support dictatorial regimes, operate Guantanamo, still exercise the death penalty ...

The USA is tragically copying the UK and various countries in Europe... sadly many different countries have gone through the "I'm the best nation on earth" stage, including Germany and the UK, hmm? What was the quote about the sun never setting on the British empire? Has the UK and Germany never put people to death or had dictator/monarchs who killed people?

Germany has learned its historical lesson, some countries still haven't.

If Jewish people are upset about what Germany has been doing, enough to call meetings to talk about it, then obviously Germany hasn't learned their historical lesson.

So because a pain is temporary it's okay to inflict it on a vulnerable being without any strong indication?

When I pulled my loose teeth out as a kid, it hurt but guess what? I got over it. When I had my stitches put in my knee and when I had them taken out, it hurt but guess what? I got over it. There is a lot of temporary pain in life.

For the Jewish people who have been circumcising their male children for 4,000 years, that is a strong indication, regardless of what you have to say on the matter. Since I assume you aren't Jewish, it's not your place to dictate what they do or don't do.

You will never stop talking about something which happened more than half a century ago, will you? At least said nation did not discriminate black people right into the 60's.

At least my ancestors didn't ship them to concentration camps to their deaths, not even 70 years ago. Thank God for Martin Luther King Jr. who in the 60s was instrumental in helping white people understand that all people are equal and should be treated equally. His "I Have a Dream" speech is one of the best I have ever heard. Have you ever heard it? Thank God he wasn't shipped up 70 years ago to be burnt in a concentration camp, but rather thankfully many white people listened to him and joined him in his amazing dream!!!

Thank God that William Wilberfoce, an amazing Christian man in the UK, and Elijah Lovejoy, an amazing Christian man in the USA, and many other brave men and women struggled hard to make the slave trade illegal.

Quite stupid generalisation. The court tried to find a balance between the human right of bodily integrity and the parents' right of religious freedom. Never has Germany abolished religious freedom of any democratic group.

Insult all you want. Never has Germany abolished religious freedom of any democratic group? Oh that's nice... but they have killed hundreds of circumcised males, and no I won't stop writing that, because it is true.

His father is from Ghana? Cool, have been living there

I have never been there. What's it like? Why are there? Just curious

Standing up against the Nazis was extremely difficult and almost always resulted in being deported to concentration camps and being killed. There've been more than 30 assassination attempts on Hitler. Ever heard of Stauffenberg, Witzleben, von Haeften, Olbricht?

If more Germans had been against the Nazis instead of for/with the Nazis, it would have been much easier to defeat them, wouldn't it?

Standing up against racial segregation in the US has been much easier and no one had to fear being killed or tortured for that. Yet it needed Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and other bright blacks to end it because hardly any white person bothered. How about that?

Have you ever heard of Elijah Killjoy?

90% of the Jews living in Germany today have endured nothing. They've been born after WWII was over and lived in a democratic society. None of them can complain about being persecuted. The same way the Germans of today are not responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis the Jews of today are no victims any more.

So tell me please. What do they think of Germany trying to make the decision for parents to circumcise their babies illegal?

We had an old man in our school (a rather famous guy who wrote a book about that) who told us about how he escaped from a camp and survived the war. He told us what happened right in the concentration camps. Quite a terrible account.

Yeah I have heard many. What does he say about circumcision? Did you ask him?

A fetus cannot survive on its own without the mother's womb, therefore it cannot be regarded as 'life'.

?

Is life defined by you as being able to survive on one's own? So, if an elderly person cannot survive without medical help, does that mean he or she is not alive?

That's the scientific way of seeing this issue and even though it might not conform with your religious and moral views I stick to this definition. I don't consider a fetus 'life', it only has the potential to become a living being in the future.

Why then did you write, ". Fair enough, operating on a child in the womb is a major risk for both mother and child and should never be done only due to religious reasons." What is a child in the womb? Is the fetus alive or dead?

If the fetus is alive, how is it not life?

[A.J10]

ChristianLady, I don't mean to offend but it appears to me that you've missed the point of many an argument in this thread. I'm not saying it is intentional or to slight you, but quite a few times you've misinterpreted what others have said.

I would've gone into more detail but on my phone it's harder to write long posts, and I can't use my pc for the time being.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my E15i

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Sir Fox)
It insults the memory of everyone who died in the holocaust to compare the German court ruling to said holocaust.

Comparing the prohibition (which isn't even a prohibition but only a state court ruling) of circumcision (a religious procedure) to the holocaust, the mass murder and mass torture of millions of people is indeed the sad thing!

Since you are not Jewish and do not have relatives who suffered in the holocaust, I will listen to my Jewish friends who do have relatives who suffered in the holocaust, thanks.

I agree with them that the circumcision ban is the "worst attack on Jews since Holocaust." I don't agree with you.

Here is a link concerning Elijah Killjoy, if you are interested:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005679939/
Now if you excuse me, I need to go make dinner for my hubby and me.

Peace or Shalom, whichever you prefer.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by Christianlady)
Please ask all the circumcised men over 40 if they can't feel a thing, k?

My hubby is 35, by the way. He feels very well

I don't get where people think circumcision makes boys or men not masturbate? They do as well as boys/men who aren't circumcised. Those who believe in God and think it's wrong to masturbate have an issue with it because of their convictions, not because circumcision magically makes them not want to masturbate, because circumcision is not at all a cure for masturbation.

I don't have to ask them
The fact that they can WALK with their glans rubbing on the inside of the underwear without freaking out tells us all we need to know. Their sensation is obviously only a fraction of what it is supposed to be

[Sir Fox]

(Original post by Christianlady)
Do you consider the child in the womb to be alive? Why or why not?

No, I don't consider it to be alive. Life starts with birth.

Since operating on a child in the womb should, as you say, "be done only due to religious reasons" (which I disagree with... I think medical reasons are fine too) then why can't loving parents make a decision to have the foreskin cut off their baby boy 8 days after he is born?

Are you kidding me? I said exactly the opposite - no operations for religious reasons.

There are other medical conditions that circumcision relieves... I'm not so sure how vital circumcision is to prevent one getting HIV... not getting HIV is best prevented by not having sex with or receiving blood/fluids from a person who is infected.

Yes, there are medical conditions but they are very rare and they don't justify routine circumcision. Some day also American doctors will start to utter that.

Lol I don't think that's an issue. The Jewish people who believe in G-d and the Tanakh don't tend to "shag" around. They tend to commit, though some, such as King David and King Solomon, had many wives. I doubt they got sexual diseases, but that wasn't 100% due to being circumcised...

Yes - so no point circumcising someone in order to prevent HIV. In Africa where condoms can be sparse it might be a useful procedure (in adults, not kids!).

Of course there is no universal medical indication, but that does not mean one needs to prevent a group of people from making the decision for their male children who they love, especially since men do make that decision in order to help with medical issues later on in life.

No matter how much you love your child, it's still not your body your cutting so it's not your right to decide that with a medical indication.

The USA is tragically copying the UK and various countries in Europe... sadly many different countries have gone through the "I'm the best nation on earth" stage, including Germany and the UK, hmm? What was the quote about the sun never setting on the British empire? Has the UK and Germany never put people to death or had dictator/monarchs who killed people?

They had, but in the past where many of these thoughts and ideologies were widespread among most nations and cultures. This is the 21st century and we should know better today. Most democratic countries do, some still don't.

If Jewish people are upset about what Germany has been doing, enough to call meetings to talk about it, then obviously Germany hasn't learned their historical lesson.

The historical lesson was not about how to best entertain the Jews. They're grown up people and just because they're not happy about something doesn't mean they're automatically right. Jews are no perfect humans who know everything and can never be wrong.

When I pulled my loose teeth out as a kid, it hurt but guess what? I got over it. When I had my stitches put in my knee and when I had them taken out, it hurt but guess what? I got over it. There is a lot of temporary pain in life.

Yeah, and this pain you went through was due to a justified, medical reason.

For the Jewish people who have been circumcising their male children for 4,000 years, that is a strong indication, regardless of what you have to say on the matter. Since I assume you aren't Jewish, it's not your place to dictate what they do or don't do.

For the Aztecs pulling out the heart from alive victims in order to sacrifice them for their gods has been a strong indication and they've done so for centuries. Muslims have practiced the oppression of women for almost 1,400 years, I still don't think it's justified.

I don't dictate anything and don't interfere with any Jew as long as what he does doesn't negatively effect others around him/her. If they start harming their children it's not their private issue any more.

At least my ancestors didn't ship them to concentration camps to their deaths, not even 70 years ago. Thank God for Martin Luther King Jr. who in the 60s was instrumental in helping white people understand that all people are equal and should be treated equally. His "I Have a Dream" speech is one of the best I have ever heard. Have you ever heard it? Thank God he wasn't shipped up 70 years ago to be burnt in a concentration camp, but rather thankfully many white people listened to him and joined him in his amazing dream!!!

I have heard and read his speech. What's your point? More than 150 years ago Americans were responsible for the inhuman treatment and death of millions of blacks. 70 years ago Germans have been responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. Today the US are responsible for the torture of prisoners, for the killing of human beings, for atrocities in foreign countries.

Some things that happened in the past have been terrible. This past is over and long gone, we've learnt our lesson about Jews, Americans have learnt their lesson about Blacks.

The point is (a point, by the way, totally irrelevant to the original discussion): your country is still committing crimes against humanity whilst mine doesn't.
For you as an American to constantly bring up the Holocaust in this debate is just hypocrisy.

Insult all you want. Never has Germany abolished religious freedom of any democratic group? Oh that's nice... but they have killed hundreds of circumcised males, and no I won't stop writing that, because it is true.

I'm talking about the Federal Republic of Germany, founded in 1949. Stop talking about the Holocaust or I will start to mention the genocide of the native Americans, the US' colonial history, the slave trade, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Vietnam War, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib in every single post

I have never been there. What's it like? Why are there? Just curious

Worked as a teacher for the German Red Cross Society in Ghana for a year. Great country, too little space to describe.

If more Germans had been against the Nazis instead of for/with the Nazis, it would have been much easier to defeat them, wouldn't it?

If more white people would have stood up against racial segregation, there would have been no need for a MLK and the injustice would have ended decades earlier, wouldn't it? We're running in circles.

Have you ever heard of Elijah Killjoy?

No.

So tell me please. What do they think of Germany trying to make the decision for parents to circumcise their babies illegal?

I don't know what they think and I don't think it's that relevant. What is your point?

Yeah I have heard many. What does he say about circumcision? Did you ask him?

Are you kidding me? Do you think when an old man comes to our school telling us about the holocaust and what he endured I'm just jumping up to ask him about circumcision? It's been more than five years ago, anyway

Is life defined by you as being able to survive on one's own? So, if an elderly person cannot survive without medical help, does that mean he or she is not alive?

This person has been independent and alive. If a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb it's obviously not ready for life, therefore it's not alive. Please tell me why scientists as well as laws define birth as the beginning of life and no earlier point.

Why then did you write, "Fair enough, operating on a child in the womb is a major risk for both mother and child and should never be done only due to religious reasons." What is a child in the womb? Is the fetus alive or dead?

The fetus is not alive and the operation should not take place for religious reasons only because it's a major risk for the mother.

If the fetus is alive, how is it not life?

It's not.

[Carter78]

(Original post by Christianlady)
My husband knows. Thank you for your concern. If you would like to be facebook friends so you can see who my husband and I are (just normal people in the USA), let me know.

That's good, maybe it's because I'm British but I am a bit of a natural prude and would consider bedroom antics to be the private business of the couple involved!

[Carter78]

(Original post by Christianlady)
My purpose in interacting in this discussion is not to persuade you but rather to explain what I personally believe and why, which is similar to what many Jewish people who believe in G-d believe. You can of course say it isn't based on facts or smacks of "ignorance" but the fact that Germany has in within the last 100 years killed thousands of circumcised Jewish men is sadly a fact. It should not be just swept under the rug.

I see your point, but respectfully disagree.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Would you say that the right of the child begins at birth or at conception or when the heart first begins to beat? Jewish parents who believe in G-d and follow as much as possible the Tanakh circumcise their male infants on the 8th day after birth. Now, if it is possible to circumcise a tiny little male human in the womb of the mother before birth, would you still object? Do you believe that a fetus in the womb has the "fundamental right" to "bodily integrity?"

Tricky question, however one aspect of the circumcision debate which separates it from the abortion debate is that Jews argue that circumcision is essential to the formation of a Jewish religious and cultural identity of the child. My view here is that the child should not be circumcised simply to suit the religious and cultural norms of his parents which a baby cannot possibly understand or agree with at such a young age. Why not simply let the child choose at an older age if they want to be Jewish and want to be circumcised?

I don't believe that angle of the debate applies to abortion, but please enlighten me if Jewish groups have been saying this.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Does your father experience any discomforts or lack of sexual drive/feeling because he was circumcised? Was he circumcised on the 8th day or when he was older? I hope you don't mind me asking. I am curious and believe that personal experiences are very important due to the subject matter.

He's not Jewish and he wasn't circumcised on the 8th day. He was circumcised at the age of 4/5 so remembers the procedure vividly. Sexual drive? I'd have to ask, which would be an uncomfortable Skype call believe me! But don't confuse sex drive with sex enjoyment. A man may want sex, but the physical stimulation of the tip of the penis could nevertheless be an issue.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Since circumcision is indeed a medical procedure to help medical issues that the child or man would not have had if he had a good (as opposed to a botched) circumcision earlier, I do not see circumcision as abuse.

As another poster here has said, the original circumcision carried out on the Muslim boy in question was not botched. Nevertheless the procedure itself is risky enough that complications are very easy to occur. This article on the background to the case might help you here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-846144.html

(Original post by Christianlady)
Again, since male circumcision can be justified by medical reasons, it is not abuse. It is merely a surgical procedure that when done right, helps the child instead of hurts him.

Not quite. If circumcision is NEEDED for medical reasons then it is not child abuse. However if it being carried out for religious reasons or is being carried out under some preventative and vague misunderstanding of medical science without consent then this is abuse. The case for the medical grounds for circumcision has not be made conclusively.

In short, other posters posted many links to the medical view that circumcision is not justified on medical grounds.

(Original post by Christianlady)
That is one thing that I don't think many of the people who oppose circumcision understand... that it is a sense of identity to a specific group of people . This medical procedure, also a sense of identity is being targeted by the same nation that killed hundreds who had this identity. I don't know how people can not see the sad irony in that.

Again, you see the irony but everyone else here doesn't. Also, the identity of the parents is not the same thing as the identity of the child. What if I said "oh look here is a Marxist baby". You'd think I was crazy to label a child with political views that he cannot comprehend. So why do we label newborns as "Jewish babies"?

(Original post by Christianlady)
However, the pain a baby 8 days old feels (and then he is held close by his Momma who loves him dearly as she gives him milk to drink and comforts him) is temporary.

Intense pain - whilst temporary, cannot be justified on religious grounds without consent. That is my unwavering view.

(Original post by Christianlady)
I don't because a nation that has within the last 100 years killed hundreds of circumcised men would not try to make circumcision (which is a sense of identity of the Jewish people for 3 thousand+ years) illegal, thus targetting said group of people.

Not the entire nation. One regional court in Cologne, not the Constitutional court of Germany. Please re-read the facts of the case that I gave to you in previous posts. Btw did you know that the German parliaments also passed a resolution stating that the religious freedoms of Jews should be protected by law? http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-845535.html

(Original post by Christianlady)
Now I ask you, do you want to raise up Jewish children? If you want to adopt and take care of and feed and educate Jewish children instead of their parents, then you are free to make their decisions. However, Jewish parents have the right to raise their own children. The Jewish people I know are very good parents who love their children very much. Their children succeed in life, are highly intelligent, are good people, and the guys are circumcised. They don't need you to make decisions for them... Jewish parents are perfectly capable of raising their children well without your input into what you think is best for their children. Unless you are responsible for the complete care of their children, why force your belief on them?

So Jewish parents will be putting up their children for adoption if they cannot be circumcised? What a disgusting and highly immoral prospect you posit. That would be crazy and unloving, any parent who would wish to do this is unfit to be a parent.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Your father is from Ghana correct? Is your Mother German? Just curious.

No. He grew up in Ghana but is British, as is my Mother.

(Original post by Christianlady)
These terrible genocides are horrible as well, but how do they relate to circumcisions? How the Holocaust relates to circumcision is that many circumcised males and their families were killed. Why? Because they were Jews. What is one of the main marks of identity of the Jewish people? Circumcision. Now, I don't know if Pol Pot was circumcised or the people he killed. If he and his murderers or the victims were circumcised, you could most definitely relate it to the discussion. Were they?

But the fact that the Jews were circumcised did not mean they were sent to the gas chambers. The holocaust happened for a variety of complex reasons (that I have already attempted to explain). Plus, my view is that the holocaust was NOT something inherently "German" in nature. Thus it cannot be used as a stick to beat down any discussion in Germany as to the morals of the circumcision procedure. By simply repeating "holocaust holocaust holocaust" you wish to shut-down debate on this issue. I don't think that is a helpful or positive attitude to take.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Which is worse? Loving parents who cut off the foreskin of their baby boy 8 days after he is born, or killing hundreds of people (regardless of if they are circumcised or not?) Killing is indeed atrocious, whereas making the decision to circumcise a male baby in a medical procedure that helps some babies/boys/men with medical issues is not atrocious.

If you want to not focus on the holocaust, why talk about circumcision, which is a mark of identity for the Jewish people who suffered horribly in the holocaust???

Jewish identity focuses on so many other factors. Are Jewish women any less "jewish" because they are not circumcised? Obviously not. Jewish culture focuses on language, food, music, arts so many other things. What I am calling for is an open, honest and progressive debate on what the boundaries of identity are. I would rather base my identity on these other factors, than simply following 2,000 year old scripture. But that's my view.....

(Original post by Christianlady)
I don't know. They felt guilty though... it would have been better if they had been brave enough to face death by the thugs who were killing others than merely committing suicide after the Americans came and showed them what they allegedly didn't know (for fear, I assume.)

I don't think that us, as armchair historians, can successfully posit the inner thoughts of people who committed suicide 70 years ago.

(Original post by Christianlady)
If more Germans had stood up against the Nazi Regime instead of standing for the Nazi regime, the list of atrocities would not be what Germany is remembered for today.

True, but my point was that you cannot damn the entire German people - and their modern day descendants for the crimes of the Nazis without also looking into the reasons as to why these crimes occurred in the first place and looking into the many cases of the brave opposition groups who died when standing up to the Nazis.

(Original post by Christianlady)
If people in Germany would strive to respect the rights of Jewish parents, we wouldn't be having this discussion. By the way, if the Americans with European ancestry start wanting to control how Native Americans raise their kids, I would totally be against that too, and I'm European-American.

It doesn't matter what your ethnicity is. The German regional court in this case has chosen to respect the rights of all children (regardless of their background). I see that as a good thing, don't you?

(Original post by Christianlady)
Many Jewish people do see the irony, but don't comment because they have learned they don't want to be the object of scorn by other people.

But it's hard for me to be moved by hypothetical arguments that are not being made by hypothetical people. Sorry.

(Original post by Christianlady)
I personally would rather hear from a Jewish person who had loved ones who survived the Holocaust share about it. I'm sorry if that offends you but I'm just being honest.

Only if their experience of the holocaust was relevant to the debate. I don't think it is.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Do you understand that their forefathers were circumcised??? How does circumcising their children, when they and their forefathers are circumcised, "tarnish the sacrifice of their forefathers."? What the blank???

Also, what sacrifice??? Do you mean to tell me that their forefathers were sacrificed??? Sacrificed? To what? For what? They weren't sacrificed! They were downright murdered!!!

Sacrifice in the poetic sense not literal sense. You knew I didn't mean they were actually sacrificed in the literal sense.

(Original post by Christianlady)
You don't believe it, so your example is irrelevant.

I'll grant that it was a hypothetical argument. But the point of it was that simply a "belief" in an action, does not make it morally just. You've failed to answer that challenge.

(Original post by Christianlady)
I wrote, " Originally Posted by Christianlady
"Does Nazism still exist? I think tragically it does, though it can disguise itself. Sadly, many people hate other people. Making a law that directly targets the Jewish people who practice removal of the foreskin of their male sons, by a country that is guilty of killing thousands of Jewish circumcised men and boys, as well as killing thousands of Jewish women, does make me highly suspicious. It doesn't you?""

How is this offensive? It is true. If it offends you or the German people, I'm sorry. However, it offends me that German people killed many German Jewish people and Jewish people of other countries, and I am not sorry at all about being offended by murder.

It's more illogical than offensive. It's like saying that my opinions on the sex-trafficking industry of Ukrainian girls are influenced by my distant ancestor's serfdom in the feudal system of the Middle Ages. Making people pay retribution for the crimes of their ancestors is not a logical or ethical view. You cannot draw a direct line between two events 70 years apart and argue that the only reason the second event occurred is because of the first event.

That would be like me saying "All Americans hate Russians" because during the cold war many Americans feared the power of the Soviets. Blanket generalisations very rarely address all of the salient points of a debate.

(Original post by Christianlady)
If you are truly for the rights of a child, why not go all the way and be for the rights of a fetus (who is a living tiny human being in the hopefully safe environment of the mother's womb)?

I am. But as I said before circumcision is being justified here on identity-forming grounds for the Jewish people. I don't think labeling a baby with a religious identity that he cannot comprehend (or agree with) and then putting him through a painful procedure (that he does not consent to) is moral.

As far as I know abortion has not been justified or challenged on identity-forming grounds. - Unless we get very philosophical about the identity of a foetus.

(Original post by Christianlady)
How old was the boy you knew who had a circumcision due to medical reasons? If he had a medical issue before he could verbally give consent, would you still consider it to be abuse? Why or why not?

He was a baby. And as I (and others) have said many times, if circumcision is the only cure for an ACTUAL medical condition then I do not see the problem with it.

However if it is being done on identity-forming grounds - i.e without medical justification and is being done without consent, then I don't see the morality in that action.

(Original post by Christianlady)
The USA could have just left Britain to defend herself and just fought Japan. However, that would not have been in the best interest of either the USA or the UK.

I had to call you out on your shaky knowledge of WW2 history. Especially when you are attempting to use WW2 to back-up your views.

(Original post by Christianlady)
So what do you have to say the Jewish people in Europe who are protesting what they call "the worst attack on Jews since Holocaust"?

I would say they are wrong.