>> ^ssprinkles:

I don't think I will ever get tired of Rick Perry parodies.


Parodies of Rick Perry are somewhat meta.

http://videosift.com/video/Brilliant-Jab-at-Perrys-Stupid-Strong-Ad

@ssprinkles here's one for you


>> ^taranimator:

I loves me a great parody - this one's extra classy!

Your video, A Rabbi Responds To Rick Perrys Strong Commercial, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Unless you are the wrong kind of Christian, in which case you are a heathen and get burned at the stake.

>> ^shinyblurry:

To be born again isn't a cultural thing within the Christian community. This is what Jesus said:
"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"
So, to be born again is to be reborn in the spirit. This is total transformation:
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
This is the basic truth of Christianity, that to know Christ is to be born again as a new person, receiving the Spirit of the living God, to mold you and guide you in the ways of righteousness. Some people on the very day it happens will give up worldly habits instantly that they have had for decades. It all depends on the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the One who convicts us of our sins and shapes hearts and minds.

That's CLEARLY one of these dancing blow-up things with the waving arms and not a method of torture and death that was around for 500 years before some crazy rabbi went and made it all famous up in this bitch. ... Wait a second! Up in this bitch! The dog's behind! It's a sign! Jeebus!

To be born again isn't a cultural thing within the Christian community. This is what Jesus said:

"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"

So, to be born again is to be reborn in the spirit. This is total transformation:

2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

This is the basic truth of Christianity, that to know Christ is to be born again as a new person, receiving the Spirit of the living God, to mold you and guide you in the ways of righteousness. Some people on the very day it happens will give up worldly habits instantly that they have had for decades. It all depends on the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the One who convicts us of our sins and shapes hearts and minds.

And you posted this on Sunday? That's the Sabbath!--oh wait--that's Saturday.

I'm so confused, I guess I'll go to church and ask my Rabbi.

Favorite Credit:

Rabbi Fluffer
Emma Harris

Thank you for this comprehensive response, it helps me better understand your stance. I can see now how, from an American legislative point of view, the San Fransisco law might have difficulty passing. That being said, I still believe it is unethical to irretrievably modify a child's body for cultural purposes.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

If you were born with achromotopsia, how could you ever understand the perception of colour? And consider my continued use of the broken quoting system a mild protest in the vain hope that it gets fixed. >> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus
Again, not sure what you're saying... could you spell it out a little clearer? Also, quote function looks to be broke--let's use the @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/username" title="member since July 11th, 2006" class="profilelink">username to make things easier to read.

That you don't know what you don't know.
>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus
Sorry, what was the point?

>> ^hpqp:

^and don't retort with "what of hair/nail-cutting?", which are necessary hygiene procedures that are not irretrievable.


Why would I?

That's not really the point.
>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus
Yep. Sex is great. No complaints.

>> ^hpqp:

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?


It's not a simple ethical concept at all because it is not simply a modification to a person's body. From the Wiki Bioethics of Circumcision Page:

The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.

– American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement

Parents have a right to make decisions for their children that they believe will improve their children's future. They're not just doing it because they think it looks nice. Here are the issues that most parents consider:

1) They belong to a group where this is the norm and they want their child to fit in socially. By doing it while the child is still a baby they ensure that the child will have no recollection of the procedure. Furthermore, the child is obviously not sexually active yet. Delaying the procedure until age of consent (which I assume you define as sometime after puberty) guarantees that the person will have to abstain from sexual actions while healing takes place and that they'll have full memories of both the procedure and the subsequent recovery pain.

2) Circumcision will guarantee that the child does not ever have to deal with an infected foreskin. Although proper cleaning can help prevent such an infection in non-circumcised males, only circumcision guarantees (100%) the child will never have to deal with it. The medical research waffles a lot on the reduction of penile cancer and AIDS transmission rates, but the medical consensus is still that circumcision may help in both of these areas.

Given these two facts--and the lack of any conclusive evidence that the procedure is harmful--I see no reason to deny parent's the right to choose to have the practice done on their own child. If they think it will benefit their child, then they should feel free to do so.

Does that answer your question?