Sept. 29
God bless me - though I occasionally agree with Herbener.
Has the following, probably circumcised, Jewish philosophers reported
injuries: Adorno, Althusser, Bloch, Chromsky, Cohn-Bendit, Erich Fromm,
Glucksmann, Husserl, Lévy, Georg Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Karl Marx,
Wilhelm Reich, Wittgenstein and many more?
Or what about Jewish doctors as Alzheimer and psychiatrists like Freud
- not to mention physicists such as Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohr, Bethe,
Szilárd, Fermi and Landau?
Not to mention conductors such as Klemperer, Bernstein, Mahler,
Mendelssohn or musicians like Barenboim, Biermann, Cohen, Dylan, Simon
& Garfunkel, Stan Getz, Benny Goodman, Nina Hagen, Billy Joel m.
More.
Or writers such as Heinrich Heine, Kafka, Pasternak, Marcel Proust and Stefan Zweig. And chess players like Bobby Fischer and Garri Kasparow.
Can a friendly refugee does not establish a similar cubits long list
of Muslim personalities that do not significantly been damaged by ritual
circumcision?
Recommend (1) Complain about post
Bo Christensen
Sir
Sept. 29
Jette Møller,
I see you as another bitter feminist, that can only accuse men of being foaming or the like.
You write:
"No one is trying to prove that there would be a harmful intervention."
It is simply so far as it will go. The proof is of course right in front of you. Are you completely blind ?????
To remove a piece of the body that contains the largest light sensors. When activated, triggers the body chemicals that give enjoyment and in particular helps to balance the tempers.
You lose some of your senses ... how can you be in doubt it is harmful ??????
Do you not it is harmful to cut an ear off?
I can tell you that I would rather have cut an ear off than foreskin.
Recommend (4) Complain about post
Carsten Hansen
Sept. 29
Jette Møller.
Fact is that you and others make you advocate a violation of children's religious freedom.
You and others sell the individual human right to religious dreamers.
No child is born religious.
Some religious people wrap their children religious robes and jewelry. These robes and jewelry, the child was later throw if it has the desire and strength to it.
With the irreversible focal labeling, as you and others applaud, it is different to.
With your "goodness" you support fanatics and failure of the moderates. All because you equate opposition to irrelenvant religious act of racism.
Recommend (4) Complain about post
Farmer / Political Atheist
Sept. 29
Peter Munk
You ask where it comes from.
It is my belief that, like halal slaughter, a ban on eating pork.
Is it a health measure that is woven into a set of otherwise sensible maxims.
The problem is lack revission - time and development has superseded the kind
Recommend (2) Complain about post
Jens KjærbølSept. 29
SEA
Sick overwintered Sadism
Rasmus Normand
Primat
Sept. 29
@ Jette Møller
It's scary to read an adult (I suppose you are) who argue that adults
(as long as they are superstitious) must cut their children's genitals
in pieces.
Whether it is harmful. Yes it is. It destroys and removes forever, a vital part of pee man. It is harmful. Sometimes dying children. Other times they get complications, yes even gender sick judgments of this tribal ritual.
And all this "show me whether it is harmful" advocacy is completely pseudo-like. In 1997, there is no scientific evidence to establish law against beating children. So we do not need a law that says that we must not cut them into pieces.
So do not come here with your "oh where am I just spacious" attitude.
The only party one should take into account the child. Not adults playing bloody religion.
When the boys were grown-ups, they can cut all of their body they want.
It's all about is that the individual must have the determination rights over their own bodies.
Recommend (2) Complain about post
Carsten Hansen
Sept. 29
There
are obviously some who think cutting the innocent and burn mark
children for life, should be allowed when it is minorities who are
behind the action; Everything else will be racism.
Impossible to relate seriously to such a view.
Mixing racism into the debate is irrational and demonstrates a lack of sense of reality.
Recommend (2) Complain about post
Niels Christian Sauer
Teacher's governing member.
Sept. 29
Jette Moller, you write: "... No one is trying to prove that there should be a harmful intervention."
Well, what are you thinking? Do not dramatically hurt the boys? Scream and shout not they? Haemophilia not it? Or grow foreskin then out again?
Why would grown men never dream of subjecting themselves to circumcision, unless it is strictly necessary?
You talk about 'raging men despicable comments.' The most raging in this context is without comparison the
incomprehensible defense of this indisputable violent and traumatizing
assault on newborn boys.
Recommend (4) Complain about post
John holm
rentier
Sept. 29
Could we not like getting a 3-year break at this hackneyed subject.
Recommend (1) Complain about post
per Hansen
Sept. 29
If we agree that there is a difference between cutting the small boys 'genitals and in the little girls' genitals?
-
The answer to your question is NO,
It's about the idea: To cut body parts from a tribal ritual.
Chopping
body parts of people in Denmark in the 17th century was a ritual that
occurred much earlier than Scandinavia's Viking Age. Having opponent's head in his hand confirms the victor's power and
therefore it is a ritual on equal terms with cutting off various body
parts of young children to accommodate a random god.
In many North African countries circumcise still women a greater or lesser degree, is it okay?
In China maimed for many years little girls' feet to make them fit for the future ideal (ban came about in 1912) - was it okay?
In an enlightened, democratic society must religion be sufficient excuse for mutilation.
Recommend (1) Complain about post
Otto Barreth
Sept. 29
The President of the strange association SOS, agrees that there is a
"significant difference between losing the foreskin and head".
Yes ... now women do not lose the foreskin dear President, but evidently some women may well lose your head!
On sos website one can read the following "there is no medical evidence to ban male circumcision".
Elsewhere recommend sos exactly halal slaughter of animals if therefore sorrows of the blade is sharp.
Hope that Dan Jorgensen's ban on this vile slaughter also soon indfores.
The association does not distinguish between racism and religion, one
can really be ethnic Dane and be a Muslim, so any criticism of Islam has
nothing to do with racism!
Unfortunately, my God commanded me that my children should have the ears cut off after the birth, but I refuse.
Recommend (0) Complain about post
Kristoffer Nørhave
Sept. 29
Jette Moller.
The custom and the surgery is completely unnecessary, and there is a risk associated with being circumcised, even death.
How about you walked in the children's level, instead of putting you at all four for one or the other religion. Children, as far as I am informed, not religious.
You wish to imply that there is racism behind the critical approach to circumcision. I will call you misanthropic not to take the child's party. The child is the primary underdog in this issue, not the poor religious minorities.
Why should religious vanity trump the child's right to decide over
their own bodies when complications could arise at this exclusively
NON-medical intervention, which is being carried out without the child's
consent.
Recommend (5) Complain about post
Jette Møller
chairman of the SOS Against Racism
Sept. 29
Per Hansen. If we agree that there is a significant difference between losing your head and foreskin?
Recommend (2) Complain about post
per Hansen
Sept. 29
My opinion:
Ritual cutting off body parts of people who can not defend themselves is in my world pervert.
The whole idea of cutting the defenseless people are created in the primitive tribal society.
Bodily injury as a tool for subjugation continued in many parts of Europe well into the time.
In 1772 Struensee had his right hand chopped off before he lost his head.
As the last lost murders burner Jens Nielsen his head in the 1892nd
Subsequently Denmark gradually a more civilized society - abuse of citizens were prohibited by law from any cause.
The only exception to this law is today:
It is legal for religious fanatics to cut small boys genitals.
On the other hand it is not allowed to cut in little girls genitals, - no matter what religion it is about -Thanks FOR IT!
To all those who want to cut small boys' genitals:
Getting into the 21st dying century together with us or be boxed in
with the Neolithic society that cuts in little girls' genitals.
Recommend (4) Complain about post
Jette Møller
chairman of the SOS Against Racism
Sept. 29
It's scary reading all these raging men despicable comments.
No one is trying to prove that there should be a harmful intervention. It is enough to note that it is healthy meat, it cuts away. SENTENCE DONE! (To quote John Christensen).
No, considering what a ban would mean for them, there chooses to leave their homeland.
No one who shows the slightest interest in trying to dialogue and information.
Where is it discouraging.
An der Stelle habe ich mich ausgeklinkt. 
