German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault: is Yahweh upset?

I agree,its barbaric

I'm not complaining.

That the being we call "God" is now to insignificant to even realize that his actions have been put on trial

Next up on trial, will be Yahweh *cough* Satan himself

No good person wants to abuse babies.

In general can people stop messing with little boy's and girl's pee-pee's?

wrong one dont know

Circumcision is an assault. Yahweh is imaginary.

Is the Bible a Threat to National Security?
A military Bible paints war as religious devotion. What could go wrong?
http://www.alternet.org/belie...

the sad thing that was an actual question

honestly my mind is about to explode from the stupidity of these people

circumcision is not an assault

first
who says that circumsision is an assualt ?

second
what is your definition of an assult ?

third
the circumsicion praticed for more than 5 thousand years , why especially now in june 2012 this practice is considered an assult ? does it means all those generation before us were wrong and only you are right ?

fourth ?
what's wrong with circumsicion ? it has been proved to be healthy and powerful way of making ladies have maximun satisfaction in bed ? so what's wrong ?

First, I say circumcision is an assault. See above.

Second, an assault is an act of force or threat of force to inflict harm on a person or to put the person in fear that such harm is imminent.

Third, it doesn't matter how long it has been practiced, and it hasn't only now in June 2012 been considered an assault.

Fourth, it is barbaric. It hurts and it mutilates. The foreskin is forever removed. If the baby had a say in the procedure it would be "Hell no!" or some equivalent.
It giving ladies maximum satisfaction, which is debatable, is the prerogative of the penis owners, not the ladies or anyone else.

why are you thinking on behalf of the babies to say it hurts ?
have you heard about something called ''local anesthezy''?

millions have been circumcised and they did that to their kids ..
were those parents been forced too to be circumcised ?

and who are you to decide for kids what is good for them and what is bad ?
and who are you to stop parents to treat their kids the way they want as long as it 's for their own benefit ?

and above all , do kids know what is good for them when they were babies ? who fed them? , who clean then ?? who take them to doctors? and dentists?

and who is responsible for kids ?
so small number of crazy atheists can't decide for the majority what decision should be taken , they can choose the school they want , dress them the way they want , feed them banana or baby food cut their hair or live it long ..

the decision is wide open , if you believe it is barbaric and it hurts , then keep your baby to your self without circumstances and celebrate with him , but to force others to believe it is barbaric , this is against religious freedom and interfere into the heart of human right .

Someone could anesthetize you before walloping you with a bat. On your rationale, because it didn't hurt you due to ansesthesia you haven't been harmed. If you are you would be fortunate if you weren't harmed permanently. Unless you were deformed in some way you would recover from getting whacked. Not so with circumcision. What is removed doesn't grow back.

Nobody asked those millions of kids what they wanted. They didn't have a choice, hence they were forced. So were their parents when they were kids.

I'm not deciding for anyone having a circumcision. I'm acknowledging that it is an assault. I agree with the claim that it is an assault. No baby chooses pain. No baby chooses to be anesthetized to dull the pain of mutilation.

Parents are responsible for kids. Whether they mutilate them or not, they are responsible.

I don't force anyone to believe anything, and I'm not crazy.

i disagree with you that circumcision is an assult

an assult is when you hit someone hard causing bodly harm or injury .

circumcision is performed by doctors who studied fro 7 to 10 years and they carry complicated operation like heart and organ transplant .

now if a parent decide to have tatto for his /her kid / is this an assualt ?
if the parent decide to pierce the ear of a baby , is this an assault ?
if you decide to take your kids to the pub and he started inhalling smke from cigarette, is that an assualt ?
if you live your baby in his house alone for hours , is this an assult?
so we need a definition of what is an assult before you clasify circumcision if it is an assult or not ?
and if it is an assult , it is not for the others , because they have done it and nothing happen

I provided a definition. It is a legal one, and all one needs for classification.

Your definition is inadequate. Striking someone is an assault if the strike wasn't consented to and wasn't accidental. An assault need not involve physical contact, however. Your definition doesn't allow for that.

Whether or not circumcision is an assault depends on whether circumcision is an act of force or threat of force to inflict harm on the baby or to put the baby in fear that such harm is imminent. Until babies consent to be without foreskins they are being assaulted when circumcised.

ok then big boss,

ask the baby if circumcising him is an assault ?
ask 7 day baby and 1 year baby if they felt pain when they grow up ?

pathetic really.

parents knows what is better for their kids .. if parents love their kids spent million of dollars, protect them from harm , and they do not let anyone touch them , how can they harm them ?

No need to ask the baby anything. What is needed is to stop the mutilation. Harm is done, no matter how well-intentioned parents are.

1 billion 800 million and more people including some jews and others are circumcised and now you ask for this practice to stop ?
you must be dreaming

No, I'm acknowledging that the practice is an assault. It doesn't matter how many people have had it done to them.

for you is an assault , but for others is a honor , is a good custom and practice and healthy
therefore keep belieivng that is an assault , this view is only in your mind nothing else

By definition it is an assault. For you it is a good custom and practice, and healthy.

who devise your definition ?
the time that you set rules for definition is gone
do you know that terrorism for example has more than 1200 definition ? every country define terrorism .

denefinitions are not sacred unless they are obvious

so the definition of the muslims to certain concept is tottaly different from western ones.
and you can't force your definition on others

take for example the definition of marriage

marriage is defined in islam man marrying a woman by legal binding agreement and conscent of the parents and no force or bribery used and with intention to live together forever unless something beyond control happen .

marriag definition in the west is loose , man get married with woman, woman get married with woman , a person can live with partner without marriage and have babies and after 10 years they go to church to get married !

It came from a law dictionary. It isn't a "sacred" definition. It is a legal one.

this is arabic dictionary , muslims know how to read and write you know

definition of assault in this dictionary is different from your interpretation in yours
this is their definition of an assault
https://occupiedpalestine.fil...
but circumcision , the definition is when boy get circumcised , he goes to play football in just three day and nothing happen

Is it a "sacred" dictionary? What does it say in the dictionary that an assault is? Translate what it says. Being able to play football in three days is beside the point.

bsically , in arabic the denition of it is as follow

it comes from the word '''khitan '' : remove excess forsking that is not necessary from the head of the penis .

in the dictionary it says , it is a religious obligation that muslim can be distinguished from non muslims. the abrahamic faith people do it and they are the one who are concerned but others if they do not accept this practice or do not believe in it they are not obliged to accept it .

so you do not need to force your chovaunistic view and denying the right of religious people to practice their religion as they wish

Khitan means circumcision, not assault.

It being a religious obligation doesn't prevent it from being mutilating.

I have been circumcised. My view isn't chauvinistic. My view is compassionate.

be compassionate for those who are not circumcised
as regard to babies , they do not remember anything .. and we do things which is right for their own benefit ..

like you , now you thanking your parents for doing the right thing ..

and this is correct khitan is not an assault and khitan is the correct terminology ... and has no other explanation and can't be explained by assualt because assault need using force ...like sexual assault ...
if you take khitan , the father take his son to aclinic , pay qualified doctor , the doctor has a certificate on the wall , he put the kids to sleep and within 5 minutes the forskin removed , and small operation done , the baby wakes up get some sweets , family celebrate and done ... no harm .. no assault , no big deal ..
the coinsequenses
healthy sex
clean pant from urine dripping
clean private part and accumulating filth
fulfilling abraham custom
pleasing God and being distinguished among others
and above all pleasing allah not human being , doing it for allah sake not for government or for any other purposes .

in the past , Paul used to strip the chritians and if he found anyone circumcised he killed him .. so they stop circumcising themselves for fear percecusion ...
are we going to return back to this dark ages agqain ?
or are we going to see another Paul resurected . but an atheist Paul ?