Jesus was reputed to have commented on circumcision - if god wanted men to be circumcised they would be born of their mothers like it. We abhor femail circumcision. A sensible god would not want a man mutilated for religeous reasons. Superstition and custom prevail over common sense

Jesus was circumcised.

Germany wanted to step up as a modern state protecting children and babies right. It has shamelessly been brought back to ugly and old rituals that belong to an old age by some wackos. Religions belong to history

Dear Oxford Feminist: "Jesus" was born "Yeshuah" descended from the Tribes of Abraham. Hence, it would seem likely that on the 8th day of His life, He was consecrated as a Jewish child into the Covenant of God by the Rite of B'rit Milah. So I ask you, Oxford, and I ask governments, "Why not?" refrain from judging religious rituals that have bound Peoples and cultures for thousands of years, You wish to abstain from circumcising your own son? Fine, but leave the rest of us in Peace.

I see it as a symbol of belonging to the great Jewish people .

Circumcision is today largely based on its several health benefits, US health organizations just reiterated the fact that the benefits of circumcision overweighs any risks. Circumcision should not just be motivated by its religious aspects but by its health benefits. Among Jews it's an integral cultural part of being Jewish aswell, no matter if you're religious or not. The only reasons for a ban is ignorance towards science and xenophobia, and we know you fall within the group of both...

It's a cultural and health motivated decision to most Jews, including myself.

I guess you'll have to stop celebrating new year... Celebrating the circumcision of lil'jesus is kinda barbaric according to your argumentation.

You forcing your beliefs upon another subset of society *is* coercion. And in this case, since it effectively consists you wanting to force *your* belief system (of extending personal rights well beyond existing societal norms), it very well counts as religious coercion. Your religion. Forced upon others. Your modern value system, based vaguely off early secular humanist thought, is a belief system, equivalent with "religion". Deities need not be involved in such systems. What you said here, basically, is that yours is better than others, and that the others ought to be removed. And if they object to being removed, then, well... they're being bad people. If you haven't noted the parallels with religious persecution throughout the ages yet, that's too bad, really. That your belief system is newer and enjoys some popular support does not make it right. Or your actions to enforce it any better than those you pretend to be superior to.

humanist values on others , in this case us , Jews . He has no secular humanist values otherwise he would not be so anti Jewish [ and anti Israeli ]

Wait until the Parliament approves it ,...

Rather, it's using their perceived superiority to associate this superiority with himself. Then, extending this with treating people with other values as inferior. In this case, religious people in general and Jews in particular. I doubt he knows much about secular humanism. But he's quite keen to use its modern state and his opinion on its superiority to beat others down. Most people who use a religion or belief system to attack others are little better - largely ignorant about it, generally focusing on it being better and bigger and brighter.

Gregg is probably quite ignorant about secular humanism. But he's still using it to fight "religious coercion" with his own religious coercion. He may not know much about what he's coercing with, but he's by A Communally Defined Value System he'll force it on others!

In a modern society are there limits to the toleration of practices which may be sanctioned by a religion? At what point do we decide that a practice is impermissible because it is injurious to a third party?

The British are coming! Good grief! First Ms. Oxford U.K., and now #15 Bertram The Barrister from London! The British Empire deflated 200 years ago. Not to worry, Bertram, no one is going to rob you of your lovely foreskin. You, Ms. Oxford, and your ilk are a hindrance to Cultural Diversity and Religious Freedom.

At the point the practise actually is injurious. Female circumcision f.ex. while a cultural practise is forbidden due to the fact that it prevents most women from having orgasms, it's highly risky and has no significant benefits = harm = mutilation. Male circumcision however doesn't affect a mans sexual pleasure negatively (I can testify to that due to getting circumcised in my late teens, since it was first then we found out about our family's Jewish heritage), it significantly reduces the risk of several diseases etc. Thus not bodily harm. You know, there's a reason why WHO have started a mass circumcision campaign in Africa... If male circumcision would have been injurious I'd have opposed it, because no one should be allowed to harm in the name of religion. But as I described above I (and medical research) can testify it is NOT.

The law is presented by the government, which has the majority in the parliament anyway. Besides, most of the opposition will also support it. So, as far as parliament is concerned, it 's an accomplished fact. There is theoretically a possibility that the constitutional court will strike it down should a case be brought before it, but 1) I wouldn't bet my life on that and 2) it will be a long process before the case reaches the constitutional court.

Meanwhile it won't be an applicable (mandatory) law 'till the court decision or it would ? ,... --------------------- before the case reaches the constitutional court.

before allowing Timothy to accompany him and preach the gospel. Get a copy of "The Scriptures" South African Bible translation by Messianic Jewish Rabbis and scholars. Yeshua the Messiah said those who love Him would obey His Commandments. The Scriptures bible will show you which Commandments ae everlasting Commandments that did not pass away. Circumcision is an everlasting Commandment , so the translators who did not want to be circumcised altered Paul's words to mislead people. It is true males can confess uncircumcision as sin and have uncircumcision covered by the blood of Yeshua of Nazareth, but it is more pleasing to the Lord for a person to be like Yeshua who was circumcised. Circumcision is of the heart Paul said, so not understanding what the heart is leads many to error. The head of the penis is heart shaped. The heart is desperately wicked and should not be trusted. That could not be the blood pump that has to be trusted, so it must be the head of the penis that is heart shaped.

Well done.

Circumcision has some value since it has been shown to decrease sexually transmitted disease and HIV. What value does boxing have. Two people beat each other until one is unable to get up. How many concerned about circumcision have denounced boxing?

Are we talking about a circumsison that apart from the religious reason(good reason) it has also benefical health reason!! ??? what about the plastic surgery. Today it is non rare that people add or take part of body in the most unnatural way. why we are not talking about this practises? ah right .. ANTISEMITISM again.. wake up you haters !