Hacker News Reader

Comment by droithomme | Hacker News Reader

And in Judaism you must circumcise in order to signify your acceptance of an ancient religious covenant. Without this acceptance the religion is castrated, eviscerated, made null. Which is of course the sole goal of its critics.

There's also solid scientific evidence it contributes some health benefits, but we can and should ignore that.

View on HN

I think it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest that not allowing foreskin amputation nullifies all of Judaism. Many Jewish people whose parents decided not to circumcise them grow up to have fulfilling spiritual and cultural lives. No one does a dick check when you walk into synagogue.

There are many ways to maintain the symbolic importance of circumcision without resorting to unnecessary amputation, such as cutting a small mark in the foreskin to symbolize circumcision.

Sorry. It is a requirement for a male Jew. No other "method" is acceptable. For non-Jews, there's rarely a reason for it.

Any Jew who doesn't circumcise is operating outside the context of Judaism, and is doing something very non-Jewish.

This really isn’t the forum for a religious discussion, but I have to say I’ve never understood this part. If you disengage Judaism from ethnicity to be purely a religion then, assuming freedom of religion, shouldn’t it be down to the child to make that decision at some point when society deems them capable of making a decision on their own (typically 16)?

Do you let your child decide if he should brush his teeth?

Why not wait until they're adults and they can consent to the procedure?

In addition to what the others have said, it's less painful and easier to have done when younger. This is like saying parents shouldn't be allowed to make kids go to school, they should wait until they're old enough to make the decision themselves. Sometimes parents need to make a decision for their children, it's only logical.

That’s such bullshit reasoning. It’s weird, sick, body mutilation of a child without their consent.

It's not bullshit at all. Let's look at it a different way. If a child has some physical mutation such as webbed feet, an extra finger, or some other physical difference that they wouldn't affect their health, you're telling me a doctor shouldn't ask if a parent would like to have something done about it and instead the child should grow up with that until they are old enough to give consent? When is a proper age for consent?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com