Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

[Darth Wong]

As I said the secular state should not favour the religion because it is a religion... but because it repersents the needs of a minority.

The "need" to have special religious exceptions made to secular rules is NOT a secular need, you idiot.

[Keevan_Colton]

Skelron you twit, the CoE is tied with the government of the UK, and in fact here, sedition is still actions against the interest of the state OR the church. We just happen to be mostly secular people.

Did you know that the queen still has to pass any laws, that she can refuse any laws passed should she wish to? Did you know that It's the queen that decides when parliament shall break up and a General Election be called, not the Prime Minister?

Oh wait no... thats a tradition that will never actually be enforced, much as the Sedition law will never have the section on the Church enforced, hence why at degree level it is taught that the UK is a secular state, not a state with a Secular people. (Also please note that a Secular people does not = an atheist people but a people of a mix of religions to such a degree that no one religion can be said to be dominate.... Hmm not an absence of religion but an absence of a dominate religion anyway)

What fucking degree are you on?
The Church of England is the official state religion, that in itself makes this NOT a secular state. We behave in a secular manner, but the underlying system is NOT secular. You're a fucking moron with the reading comprehension skills of a retarded wombat.

[Skelron]

It may be official but what actual Practical effect does that have, a few old men sit around in the house of Lords, and have less influance than the Law Lords... ((Although the Law Lords are a Bloody powerful group combining both Legislative and Judicary in one... anyway)) All their political influance is in that of a small subset of a body that can merely delay laws. (Or break them assuming said law is started in the Lords only done with minor beurcratic laws to speed up the process)

At State times of mourning the CoE is wheeled out, and the Prime Minister chooses the Lords. Oh wait and the heir to the throne is removed from that position if he/she should marry a Catholic or become catholic. Thats about it.

Not only that but the Lords spirtual use what little power they do have rarely in the political arena, respecting the UK as a Secular State. We have a religion that has all in all less power than the Monarchy, and yet because they hold a few traditional roles, that arise from our respect for tradition and the past, you interpret it as being a sign that we are not a Secular State. That instead the state is a relgious state, with Secular people. And yet the state is the people given form, so we either have a democractic state where the mix of the people are not repersented, or we have a Secular State, where one religion has been given a few titles as a throw back to the past...

Do you believe that the CoE wields Political power within the nation or that it is in a similar state to other religions within the country? If that it wields political power... TRUE political power? Otherwise you would have to say we are a Secular state, whose tradition has led to a form of Constitutional religion in the same manner as the Monarch.

Are you truely arguing that the laws of the Country passed via the sate offer advantage to the CoE, for example does the army only have CoE Clerics amongest it's number, or in state hospitals are the Dying only given the option of seeing a CoE cleric. Is a Catholic, or a Muslim barred from the position of Prime Minister, does religion hold any Bar to advancement in the political process excepting that of the heir to the throne... which is one of those silly little laws, about a silly little PR post?

[Keevan_Colton]

*snip*

Again you demonstrate why you're called a fucking idiot by others here.

Dont you get it?

You quoted the fucking defenition of SECULAR as "not having any connection to religion" what part of having an official state religion, religious representatives as part of the government and state occasions fail to get through to you as a "connection to religion".

Your stupidity makes me sick.

[Skelron]

As I said the secular state should not favour the religion because it is a religion... but because it repersents the needs of a minority.

The "need" to have special religious exceptions made to secular rules is NOT a secular need, you idiot.

No, your right, the interests of a Minority Must be protected within a Democracy as much as possible. remove the concept that they are a religion, and simply has them as a Minority group, and the same rights would be extended to them as a Minority group.

You have become hung up on the word religion, I am stating that a state does not lose the title of Secular for protecting the rights of a group merely because that group Happens to be a religion rather that it loses the title if it's only reason is because of the word Religion.

IE If the same protection would be extended if the same needs where expressed for a different reason, but felt as strongly, then the state must extend those rights. Of course in many cases the need is tied strongly to the religion making it hard to tell the differance, but assuming hypotheitcally that a reason for the need could Exist outside of the word Religion, even if the need arises from religion and seems tied to the very concept of religion, then it would be respected.

As I am badly expressing, the state is simply protectecting the rights of a Minority, the minority happens to be a religion and has needs that arise from the religion. A Secular state would be allowed to protect those interests a Discrimatory state would not.

IE Discrimination in the form of rejecting a need based on religion is not the same as Secular.

[Keevan_Colton]

It isnt a "need" though, it's a fucking "desire" to be different. Protections for minors should protect minors irrespective of how fucking loony their parents are.

Why are you so fucking dense?

[Skelron]

*snip*

Again you demonstrate why you're called a fucking idiot by others here.

Dont you get it?

You quoted the fucking defenition of SECULAR as "not having any connection to religion" what part of having an official state religion, religious representatives as part of the government and state occasions fail to get through to you as a "connection to religion".

Your stupidity makes me sick.

AND WHAT PART of the Image and actual reality do you not get, you are so stuck on on the appearance and superficial that you fail to look through to the reality.

Let me explain something to you, what something may look like on a superficial glance is not the answer, rather the world is a complicated place. Looking at the superficial leads to stupid generalisations that give no real knowledge looking at how a thing actualy works provides Knowledge.

Does the fact that the UK recognises the CoE as an offical Religion in any way effect the actual Political life of the UK? Answer No.

Therefore is the fact that the state recognises the CoE as the official religion prevent it from being a Secualr state...

By strict definition maybe, in practical political life... Not at all.

The UK is Secular in how it functions, it may be on the surface not secular but the effect of religion upon the day to day running of the Political process is negliable to an extent that it can be placed aside.

Remove the Lords Spiritual and the CoE a the offical religion and apart from a few less seats in the House of Lords... the Uk would function as it does now.

[Skelron]

It isnt a "need" though, it's a fucking "desire" to be different. Protections for minors should protect minors irrespective of how fucking loony their parents are.

Why are you so fucking dense?

Pardon? I kinda got lost in the point you where trying to make here... In that apart from MAYBE a general attack on religion full stop... you wheren't making one.

or are you arguing here that Parents do not have the right to raise their children in a religion. (I know you can't be arguing against Circumsicion here since I accept the argument for it's banning or alteration so this must be a general attack on Relgion full stop)

If you are arguing against a parents right to raise a child with a religion you must also argue that a parent cannot impart Moral Values to their child, since these can be seen as existing in a similar right, and to say teaching religion is wrong but Moral values are not is the actions of deiscrimination not Secularism. (Note here that while some Moral values in the UK are taught across the board others will not be... making this as Subjective as religion)

[Keevan_Colton]

AND WHAT PART of the Image and actual reality do you not get, you are so stuck on on the appearance and superficial that you fail to look through to the reality.

The LAWS EXIST, is that not real enough for you?
The fact they exist is enough to disqualify the UK as a secular government.

What happened to your fucking brain asswipe?

Let me explain something to you, what something may look like on a superficial glance is not the answer, rather the world is a complicated place. Looking at the superficial leads to stupid generalisations that give no real knowledge looking at how a thing actualy works provides Knowledge.

And the laws of the land whether or not they are actively enforced ARE the laws of the land. Dipshit.

Does the fact that the UK recognises the CoE as an offical Religion in any way effect the actual Political life of the UK? Answer No.

What part of the representation in the Lords are you fucking missing asshole?

Therefore is the fact that the state recognises the CoE as the official religion prevent it from being a Secualr state...

By strict definition maybe, in practical political life... Not at all. [/qupte]

Fuck up asshole you dont get to play silly buggers with the dictionary definition of a word. The UK HAS connections to religion in the government that means it is NOT secular.

The UK is Secular in how it functions, it may be on the surface not secular but the effect of religion upon the day to day running of the Political process is negliable to an extent that it can be placed aside.

For fucks sake how many times do you need it spelled out for you dipshit?

The fact a law is not enforced does not invalidate it's existance or make it simply a "tradition".

Remove the Lords Spiritual and the CoE a the offical religion and apart from a few less seats in the House of Lords... the Uk would function as it does now.

You've clearly got pigshit for brains.

[Keevan_Colton]

Here's a fucking hint as to why your minority special needs bullshit doesnt fly.

Sociopaths are a minority, and they, have a need to hurt, maim and kill others, now, while this is normally wrong, as these people are a minority, it's our duty to see to their needs. Therefore, they are exempt from the normal laws concerning assault and murder.

[Skelron]

AND WHAT PART of the Image and actual reality do you not get, you are so stuck on on the appearance and superficial that you fail to look through to the reality.

The LAWS EXIST, is that not real enough for you?
The fact they exist is enough to disqualify the UK as a secular government.

What happened to your fucking brain asswipe?

Let me explain something to you, what something may look like on a superficial glance is not the answer, rather the world is a complicated place. Looking at the superficial leads to stupid generalisations that give no real knowledge looking at how a thing actualy works provides Knowledge.

And the laws of the land whether or not they are actively enforced ARE the laws of the land. Dipshit.
[/Quote]
Oh Oh Stupid fucker... Great I am off to kill a Scotsman now, all I need to do is go to York and convince a Scottish man that he should wear a Kilt and have on his person a Dagger or other weapon. Then I can LEGALLY (As in it is a law that has never been repealled) shoot him with a longbow and kill him. If the conditions where met by your argument as they are Laws of the Land, I cannot be charged with murder since I have commited no crime, of course we all know that practically if I tried that defence the Police would laugh in my face.

If a Law is not enforced or even truely acknowledged then it has no more effect practically, we have many insane and old Laws on the statute books but they do not effect our lives and we will not be charged with breaking them. As such they are no longer laws, hell they aren't even traditions, they are little curosities to laugh at in books of collected stupid Laws.

Does the fact that the UK recognises the CoE as an offical Religion in any way effect the actual Political life of the UK? Answer No.

What part of the representation in the Lords are you fucking missing asshole?
[/quote]

As pointed out the CoE rarely uses their position in the Lords. (knowing that if they should they would be booted out of the Lords faster than you could say Lords Spirtual) The Lords is a weak body overall and the Lords spirtual are a real Minority voice in the house. If this is enought o dis-qualify us as a Secular state in parcticality I would be surprised, in that if a person does not use his power, nor has very much of it overall... do they actually have said power?

Therefore is the fact that the state recognises the CoE as the official religion prevent it from being a Secualr state...

By strict definition maybe, in practical political life... Not at all. [/qupte]

Fuck up asshole you dont get to play silly buggers with the dictionary definition of a word. The UK HAS connections to religion in the government that means it is NOT secular.

Oh really well then I suppose that there are far fewer Secular states than we realised since I know of no nation that does not have Connections as you put it to religion ithin it's government, in one form or another.

The UK is Secular in how it functions, it may be on the surface not secular but the effect of religion upon the day to day running of the Political process is negliable to an extent that it can be placed aside.

For fucks sake how many times do you need it spelled out for you dipshit?

The fact a law is not enforced does not invalidate it's existance or make it simply a "tradition".
[/Quote]

If a Law is not enforced, then is it a Law, surely a Law is only a Law if it is acted upon, or if it could be acted upon in reality. If a Law is universally ignored, not broken in that people sneek around but actually ignored in that people pay it no heed, and act as if it did not exist then it is not a Law. I challange you to prove that a Law that is ignored is still in actual fact a Law, rather than make general statements as through they are fact. PROVE your statement, point to something and say 'here your wrong'. I may be wrong you may be right but you havn't proven jack and shit

Remove the Lords Spiritual and the CoE a the offical religion and apart from a few less seats in the House of Lords... the Uk would function as it does now.

You've clearly got pigshit for brains. [/quote]

great come back I mean in that one statement my point has been rendered defeated, you've shown my mistake and made me think again... No wait you've done nothing, so I'll repeat it in the form of a question.

If the Lords Spirtual where removed from the house of Lords, and the CoE no longer the official State religion, would the UK be changed in a noticable way politically?
#
If yes how so... if not, then how can we be practically Non-Secular as a state?

[Skelron]

Here's a fucking hint as to why your minority special needs bullshit doesnt fly.

Sociopaths are a minority, and they, have a need to hurt, maim and kill others, now, while this is normally wrong, as these people are a minority, it's our duty to see to their needs. Therefore, they are exempt from the normal laws concerning assault and murder.

Ignored... due to it being.
A.) A rather insane argument that the right not to wear a Helmet due to religion is the same as a Sociopath.
B.) because it shows the individual has not been reading, since I have also added qualifiers to my position that would answer this statement.

[Skelron]

[Religions groups can and do make up Minoritys... a Secular Democratic State is obligated under it's right to call itself DEMOCRATIC, to respect and protect those interests as much as possible. It may mean exceptions in Laws etc to allow people to continue in their chosen lifestyle etc. Of course the state has the right to decide that a chosen lifestyle is wrong but this is a right to be excercised in a democracy in the exception rather than the rule. (EG it can say Child Abuse is wrong, even if you are Culturally broiught up to believe in it, but not not wearing a Helmet. ((I know of no cultures that would say Child Abuse is okay... I simply used it as an example as I knew someone would bring it up otherwise))
.

Italics highlighting the section that would answer the point KC tried to bring up against my argument. And proove that he has not been paying attention to what has already been said, or that he wanted to misrepersent what I was arguing.

[Justforfun000]

Holy shit, has this ever become a serious pissing contest.

I think I'll stay out of this particular side battle.....
I know nothing about UK politics.

[Keevan_Colton]

Holy shit, has this ever become a serious pissing contest.

I think I'll stay out of this particular side battle.....
I know nothing about UK politics.

This isnt a matter of politics, it's a matter of the nature of secular, something numbnuts there cant grasp. Without ANY seems to read as without major to him.

[Skelron]

I have been making the assertion that the rights of the minority are to be protected in democracy... and so i shall now prove it. the following excerpts are from 'On Liberty' By JS Mill one of the great thinkers of Democracy, and one of the inspirations for the US constitution and Decleration of independence.

"the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case. The "people" who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the "self-government" spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. ....

or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them;....

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs...

This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others, or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his religious creed; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. Men's opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are affected by all the multifarious causes which influence their wishes in regard to the conduct of others, and which are as numerous as those which determine their wishes on any other subject. Sometimes their reason--at other times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their anti-social ones,

Theres rather a lot more, and doubtless I have badly quoted in places, over quoted in others and used the wrong sections but that the general principle that the Minority is protected in the state would seem to be quite prevalent, and that it can include Religion is also obvious.

[Skelron]

Holy shit, has this ever become a serious pissing contest.

I think I'll stay out of this particular side battle.....
I know nothing about UK politics.

This isnt a matter of politics, it's a matter of the nature of secular, something numbnuts there cant grasp. Without ANY seems to read as without major to him.

No more if it has a practical effect or not, if it is shown to be practical I shall change my position. f all you can argue is that the surface is the way it is... then..

Well break through the appearance mate, and get to the actual workings get to the nitty gritty of the detail. SHOW me a practical example where the Lords Spirtual have effected UK law in say the last, 7 years.

[Keevan_Colton]

Skelron you fucking twit, that just means its a minimal connection. That is still enough to no longer qualify as secular.

[Skelron]

Skelron you fucking twit, that just means its a minimal connection. That is still enough to no longer qualify as secular.

Perhaps yet I would argue that there comes a point when it is so Minimal it might as well not exist, and should be treated as not existing.

Real Life example, say my firend needs 5p to catch the bus, as it's 90 p and he only has 85p in change. I'd be a miserable git and a bad mate to expect my firend to pay me back. The amount of money is so Minimal it dosn't matter, as I'd argue the CoE influance on the UK is, is so minimal it dosn't matter.

[Skelron]

However I have got to admit we are now getting into very Subjective matters of what is so Minimal as to not matter so, in the interests of getting back on the point, I will accept the argument that the UK is not a Secular State but a Secular people. (I am not agreeing but feel that to continue to argue the point would result in nothing but us going round in circles, neither convincing the other so as it's not really a vital issue I'll step down.)

[Dargos]

I'm cut...my brothers are cut, everyone I grew up with was cut. I never thought about it..to me it was normal. In fact I didn't even know what an uncut dick looked like until I was out of the house. The first time a saw a penis with foreskin I honestly thought the guy was deformed.

My boys are both uncircumsized. Why? Because I looked up info about it and decieded it was unnessary. What a bitch it was learning to fold back the foreskin of my boys when cleaning them. I was afraid I would hurt them.

[Metrion Cascade]

I'm cut...my brothers are cut, everyone I grew up with was cut. I never thought about it..to me it was normal. In fact I didn't even know what an uncut dick looked like until I was out of the house. The first time a saw a penis with foreskin I honestly thought the guy was deformed.

My boys are both uncircumsized. Why? Because I looked up info about it and decieded it was unnessary. What a bitch it was learning to fold back the foreskin of my boys when cleaning them. I was afraid I would hurt them.

You really don't have to. Before they retract on their own, the foreskin is fused to the glans so dirt can't really get in. After that I think the foreskin is self-cleaning.

Bravo on leaving them intact.

And bravo to all the intactivists on the board for laying down the law while I was on vacation. I shoulda mentioned I'd be gone, but I had to rush.