[Clement] Thousands and thousands of Danes have signed a citizen's petition that will forbid circumcision of boys.
Minister of Integration Inger Støjberg, standing here, has raised a debate on the consequenses of the fasting month of Ramadan...
... so maybe there is reason to debate new limits to religion in Denmark.
That's what we'll do now. This is a live stream, from DR-byen: Debatten ("The Debate")
Some of the issues that we'll discuss tonight, we've discussed before, others we've never talked about.
In general terms the theme is: Should we have new boundaries, new principles for how big a part religion may, shall and can play in the danish society.
Circumcision, we've talked about this for some months now, tonight we'll discuss these topics with the guests standing here.
and last monday, a new topic was raised in the press by minister of integration Inger Støjberg - and since then, we've discussed the consequences of the Ramadan.
Next to Støjberg stand the Social Democrat's spokesman on integration, Mattias Tesfaye, who is relatively new to the debate on integration and religion in Denmark.
Next to Tesfaye stands a gentleman who's been part of this debate for many years. The Conservative Party's spokesman on integration, Naser Khader
Next to Khader is one of the nation's hardest branded atheists, one might say, Anders Stjernholm. He's campaigning against christianity, the Church of Denmark and religion. He's a board member of the Atheist Society and candidate for the Parliament (Folketinget) for Alternativet.
On the other side of the middle is Lena Nyhus; she's forewoman for Intact Denmark, she is in some regard the reason why we're here tonight.
She's the woman that launched this citizen's petition that's now heading towards 50.000 signatures.
Next to Nyhus is Nima Zamani. He's a lawyer, works as a radio host on Radio 24syv, an he has a personal stake in this. We'll get back to that.
Next to Zamani stands Dan Rosenberg Asmussen; he's foreman of the jewish society
and next to Asmussen is Noura Bendali, she's a member of Nationalpartiet and works as a midwife. Other guests will join underway - this is live from DR-Byen: Debatten.
In february, the collection of signatures began for a citizen's petition wanting to institute an age limit of 18 years for circumcision of healthy boys.
This put the topic on the political agenda; last month 5 ministers had to discuss the topic in a closed hearing. After the hearing, minister of Health, Ellen Thrane Nørby, said:
[Nørby] This is a topic with many aspects, we've tried to lay out for the parliament that Sundhedsstyrelsen (the Health board) doesn't recommend a ban.
And that this doesn't compare to female circumcision, where even the smallest cases can have very significant complications
[Clement] Minister of Defence, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, opposes a ban, and says...
[Hjort] I'm personally against a ban, but I think the political risk of this is huge. We're all alone, all alone with this point of view.
This isn't like freedom of speech, that all liberal democracies agree on. With this, we'll stand alone and that increases the risk.
[Clement] Enhedslisten and SF want a ban, Venstre, Socialdemokratiet and Radikale are against.
Konservative, Liberal Alliance og Alternativet have announced that their members are free to vote on personal belief on this matter.
And Dansk Folkeparti will announce their point of view tomorrow, as part of a parliamentary debate.
The Health Board has looked into the issue and find no reason to recommend circumcision, nor reason to recommned a ban on circumcision.
However, both the Medical Association and the Nurses Association call circumcision of healthy boys "ethically irresponsible" and recommend that the procedure only be done on individuals that are at the age of majority - and decide for themselves.
[Clement] Lena Nyhus. More than 48.000 danes have signed. The idea is that, if you have your way - you have to be 18 years old, then, you can decide for yourself, as a man, to be circumcised or not.
I'll start by asking you : Why is this so important to you?
[Lena] This is about personal freedom, the freedom to choose what happens to one's body and sexuality
about whether or not one must carry a religious or cultural mark on one's body throughout life.
So it's quite simply about ensuring the personal rights of the individual.
[Clement] And you say that the fact that we allow circumcision of infants today, simply contradicts our basic idea of, what... personal freedom ?
[Lena] Of personal freedom, human rights, the basic right to determine what you want in life, religiously, sexually and bodily.
I don't mind circumcision per se, as long as it's the person that undergoes the procedure, that makes the decision .
[Clement] And the fact that lots, hundreds of millions of men in the world are circumcised and live with that, the fact that it's a thousand-year old tradition - that doesn't make you think: "Apparently this could work" ?
[Lena] It can! I speak with lots of men that are happy with having been circumcised. But unfortunately, I also speak with lots of men that are circumcised and unhappy with that.
So all I argue is that people should be able to make the choice themselves. Just that.
[Clement] Dan Rosenberg. If this is invoked, then it's a ban up until the 18th year, and then people can choose for themselves.
What consequences would it have, if the proposal goes through, as it is, what would the consequences be for the danish jews?
[Dan] Initially, the procedure would then be done at a time when it is much more complicated and riskier than the way it is today.
And theres medical evidence to that, that when it's done as it's done in judaism today, on the 8th day, then it's a relatively uncomplicated procedure.
But is is a procedure! And I'll just say: The jewish society could not maintain the support for this procedure, if - and therefore being against a ban - if the medical authorities were to say that this is dangerous.
It isn't my experience that this is dangerous. And I'll say: If the medical authorities were to say "we can't recommend this" - then I'd never, ever be able to support that this tradition be carried on. That's how is must be.
[Clement] So, you're saying that science must be the deciding factor. If science were to say unequivocally "this is dangerous", then you'd say "then it doesn't matter...".
[Dan] There is not a single medical authority in the whole world, that's concluded that circumcision of boys, obviously, if done by the guidelines of the authorities - that they'd recommend a ban. Not the Danish, not anywhere in the world.
[Clement] Lena Nyhus?
[Lena] We have to say that on this, the medical science is very split.
That's why the Medical Association in Denmark, the Nurses Association etc. have concluded that circumcision of healty boys is unethical in a medical sense...
... and it is harmful. You simply cut off part of the body. And it is potentially dangerous - and you have had some cases in the jewish society that has been quite grim, with complications.
[Clement] Asmussen?
[Dan] I'll just say that ethics is one thing. As a doctor you can have ethics. That's why we have the medical authorities. Their task is to differentiate ethics from opinions.
A doctor can have opinions. A nurse can have opinions. I must say: The medical authorities know what's up, and they haven't concluded that there is the sort of danger, that's being asserted here.
And that's not just in Denmark. Like they said in the intro - in Denmark, this procedure is connected to two religious minorities.
If you look at USA. Up towards 60% of boys are circumcised as infants. If this was a problem, if this was dangerous... come on, 60% ?
[Clement] Lena Nyhus?
[Lena] The rates of circumcision are nosediving in USA, in the latter years. In the 80s it was above 90%, now it's nearing 50%.
That's quite simply because men are sharing their experiences. This is where the internet entered the frame. Men come out and tell that they've been injured.
It's come out that there are children that are so injured - some have even lost their lives.
And like I said - you HAVE had a grim case in the jewish society that's come to the publics attention.
But I'm happy that you say that if the medical authorities will say that this is in fact harmful - just like all of the danish medical organizations have said...
[Lena] IF that happens... [Clement] but are those the medical authorities or the medical organizations?
[Lena] It is the Medical Association. It's the Danish College of General practitioners. It's the Nurses Association. It's the midwives. It's the health visitors.
[Dan] Do the recommend a ban? [Lena] They recommend that you stop cutting into children.
[Dan] Do they recommend a ban? [Lena] They recommend that you stop cutting into healthy children.
[Dan] Do the recommend a ban? [Lena] Do we agree that they recommend...
[Dan] This is about a citizen's petition that will introduce a ban by law... [Lena] They recommend that you stop cutting into healthy children's genitals. That's what they say.
[Dan] Back to what Lena says. That's an ethical, medical starting point - that you shouldn't do that.
Opposite of that, and that's why this is a political choice, are other aspects. Some religions practice this, as a central and important thing.
... and then I say: If there were a medical problem here, then we wouldn't do it.
There are lots of examinations, some from the last few years, that clearly dismiss the allegations of late effects that you mention here as a reason for...
[Clement] I'll stop you here. Naser Khader. You say that Denmark should be firstmovers. You support this idea. Why? Why should Denmark be pioneers on this topic, and say 18 years - you can decide for yourself?
[Naser] Personally, I've had the opinion that there should be an age limit since 2004.
Since our son, Hannibal, was born. I think it's a matter of weighing the child's best and rights against the parent's cultural and religious rights.
I feel that the child's rights outrank the cultural and religious rights of the parents.
What's happened is that we, in Denmark, have - politically at least - pushed this debate ahead of us for many, many years.
Because this isn' an easy debate. This is one of the hardest debates, I've taken part in.
I've been a member of the Ethical Council with lots of ethical dilemmas, but circumcision is one of the hardest. That's why we haven't been pro-active, politically.
Now we have a citizen's proposal. We have to make up our minds. In our group, we've set the members free to vote as they wish. Some are very much for this, some are very much against. Not a ban, but an age-limit.
... and then some say: We shouldn't be the first country. And I say: That's a poor argument, not wanting to be first.
We want that in regards to climate politics, we want that when it comes to gay rights. There are many areas, where we want the yellow jersey.
But when this issue comes up: "no, let other countries go first". That means:
Right now, we don't want to be first. But in 5-10 years, when 5-10 countries have gone ahead - then we'll say yes. And that, to me, is a bit strange.
[Clement] We've seen, as late as this week, the column Inger Støjberg wrote in a danish newspaper - it's gone worldwide?
It's been interpreted differently across the world, but it's obvious, Nasher Khader, that if Denmark does this, then you don't need a phD in religious sciences to realize that some will say: They really are religiously intolerant, no room for muslims, no room for jews...
[Naser] To me, this isn't about islamophobia or antisemitism. It's about the children's rights.
And then I say: We can't deposit our democratic freedom to act in the hands of people that can't accept our democratic decisions.
[Clement] Like Dan Asmussen?
[Naser] No, no. I'm not thinking of Dan Asmussen. I'm thinking internationally. Some have claimed, that safetywise it will be a problem to be the first country.
That we could face a crisis worse than the Muhammad-crisis (the Cartoon crisis). And I say: That can't be what stops us from doing it, if there is a political majority in the Parliament to do so.
[Clement] So you say, that we should risk a crisis worse than the Muhammad-crisis to go first?
We're not the ones asking for a crisis, if we make that decision. The political situation toaday is: There isn't a majority for this.
[Naser] So, we won't make that decision. [Lena] Yet. [Naser] Yes, yes. Not right now.
If other countries go first; many are hoping Iceland or others will lead, then Denmark will make that decision. Some want to see how the reactions towards other countries will be, when they make that decision.
[Clement] Inger Støjberg. How do you feel about circumcision?
[Inger] I think it's an extremely difficult debate. And anyone eaves dropping on Venstres parliamentary group would say: It has been that, for all of us.
I'm going to vote against. But if you listen to the debate, not just here, Naser mentioned some of it, but also with us in Venstre, and my own considerations...
Then there are some health related aspects, ethical, an aspect of safety. And a religious. And, I...
[Clement] Why are you in doubt? What draws you towards saying: There should be a ban?
[Inger] Well... At the end of the day, I'll vote against. I do so, because... Firstly: If you wait till the 18th year, then lots of medicinal evidence says that is very late, and too dangerous and there are many complications.
[Inger] So, what's left is the balancing. Yes or no to this, and... I end up with a ban. [Clement] A "no", to a ban...
[Inger] Yes, no to a ban. Because firstly, I basically feel that there are some religious interests that weigh heavily for me.
You could say: That's odd, considering what you wrote about the Ramadan. The difference between this and the Ramadan is, that here only the individual is affected. It doesn't affect society... and that swings it for me.
[Clement] Well, yes, except it isn't the child itself. It isn't the child that makes that decision. That's...
[Inger] No, it's the family. It's not like you will feel if one of the other gentlemen here were circumcised. It won't affect the danish society.
[Clement] In lots of our discussions - when we talk about honor killings, forced marriages, burkas, niqabs etc, then typically we talk about coercion, it's parents that almost literally force their ideas and values down over their girl's heads. In those cases, you want to intervene?
[Inger] Yes, but there's a difference. If you take the burka-ban, for instance, then you'll have a hard time communicating with the lady that's wearing a burka.
But you don't have a hard time communicating with a circumcised man, so to speak - you can confirm that. That doesn't overthrow, it doesn't affect the danish society...
[Inger] But if I had a boy of my own, then I probably wouldn't have him, no, I wouldn't have him circumcised. [Clement] Why not?
[Inger] Because it goes against... I grew up in a christian family, and to me it would go against everything to cut into a perfectly healthy boy. [Clement] Lena Nyhus?
[Lena] But, specifically it compromises this little human, this little child that is a little human with full human rights but no ability to defend itself.
A foreskin amputation is forced upon him, a surgical procedure despite the fact that nothing's wrong with him.
His chance to choose for himself, what religion he wants to follow, if that religion is to manifest itself on his reproductive organs - is taken from him.
He is exposed to a form of social control, that lasts through out his life.
[Lena] Why shouldn't his human rights be... [Dan] Does this mean, is the ban religiously motivated? [Lena] No. It's about his opportunities to choose his religion for himself. About his opportunity to...
[Clement] Dan, why... say we have a family, jewish father, jewish parents, considering this. If they had this considerations...
If they were to say: We're jewish, we follow judaism, the whole package - except this. We will not have our son circumcised. We're against this. Would they be bad jews because of this?
[Dan] This is our position - we feel that this is a decision for the parents to make. They can make that decision.
[Clement] Please explain, then, what is it that circumcision means to you, why does it hold the value for you, that it does?
[Dan] It is a central, religious ritual, goes all the way back to the Books of Moses, the sign of the covenant between Abraham and God.
Then you could say: Lots of old jewish rituals have disappeared, so this is utterly irrelevant. That's a legitimate question. I can just note...
... that this is globally, judaism is a global religion, a completely central identity marker to jews. No matter if they are traditionel, orthodox, cultural jews, reform jews - all want to continue the tradition; all oppose a ban.
[Clement] If we took the lead, as Naser says, if we were a pioneer country on this point - would jews choose to move out of Denmark?
[Dan] Yes... It would after all be saying: Jews are welcome, but we can't accept the rituals you want to practice, we can't live with it.
So, yes... I can't... It's an assesment, but yes, I think that young jews contemplating living here, would think that there is an intolerance from the lawmakers, that they wouldn't respect us.
So, for me, this isn't about, pardon, a Muhammad-crisis. It's about spaciousness and tolerance towards religios minorities.
[Clement] Move over a spot, here comes Nima Zamani and Stig Grenov.
[Clement] Nima, you're circumcised. [Nima] So is Naser. [Naser] You haven't seen that. [Clement] We'll talk about that at another time, Naser... Sounds like a job for radio 24Syv.
[Clement] Zamani - you say... how do you feel about that?
[Nima] Well... tough question, because basically I'm fine with it. My sexual life is fine, and it works down there, it does.
But I think the debate is derailed. To me, it isn't about wether it's dangerous or harmful. It's about what I potentially am missing out on.
And I am missing out on something. I'm missing half of my foreskin on my most precious member, down there.
There's lots of feeling in that, and to get really intimate, then, well... the foreskin rolls back and forth across the glans.
That gives a feeling, and it gives a... moisture of sorts, that means you don't necessarily need to pull out a lube, you've bought in Matas.
So it's not that I have a problem. I'd just like to know how it is to have it.
[Clement] And that's not possible for you, because you're circumcised? [Nima] Yes.
[Clement] Do you think about that often, is it an issue for you?
[Nima] It has become an issue, since the debate started. I wrote a personal post in Politiken i 2014, because I started thinking about it...
... I read that someone described, I think his name was Svend Ravn, he described that in his forties and fifties, he got more horny for a good meal than the thought of sex or a hot woman.
I started wondering, if this could have consequences for me. It hasn't. And fortunately it was done under proper conditions at the hospital in Silkeborg. Thank God.
But again. For me, this is about me wanting to know what it feels like to have sex with my whole foreskin.
I mean, you're tampering with a body that isn't broke.
[Clement] Stig Grenov. We live in a society where the starting point is: We decide for ourselves. We decide. That's what Nyhus just said. We decide for ourself.
I can do almost what I want - I just have to be of age, so I can make the decision. Isn't that the right principle to follow here?
[Stig] No it isn't. Because when you're 18 and get to decide - then life has passed. That's the problem.
[Clement] Ahhhh, it's not your whole life, that's passed at 18... I don't know how it was for you, but...
[Stig] No, no, but then you have begun life, and that means... what the child also has a right to, is to have a culture, and a religious community, a cultural community. Relations, that we all have.
Some we are born into. We can't choose our parents for ourselves when we're 18, we can't decide if they're rich...
[Clement] but you say "the child has a right to a religious community". But it isn't the child that chooses. The child doesn't choose anything. It's just circumcised.
[Stig] Yes. And? Nothing indicates, as we can understand here, that you get any chronic disorders from this, like say, if it was female circumcision.
This is just a sign that you are part of a community, and that community is what we must...
[Clement] Zamani?
[Nima] Well, in short you could say: I'm not religious. If a person is circumcised because of judaism or islam, then that person is taken hostage in that religion.
If that person grows up to not believe in that religion, then his penis will for the remainder of his life believe in that religion, right?
I cannot understand how you can argue that that is religious freedom or protecting religious freedom. It isn't. It's religious coercion.
[Stig] As far as I recall from the show aired just before this, then 70% of american men are circumcised. And that has nothing to do with religion. [Nima] That just makes it worse?
[Stig] You say that because you're circumcised, you've been stigmatised in some way. But that has nothing to do with it.
The problem here is, that once we ban circumcision before the age of 18, then the next will be that there is a circumcision that's worse than the physical. And that is the mental one.
And then we'll start bans against the Jehova's witnesses, and then we'll take the baptism, and all sorts of things that also have meaning to us.
... and I'd like to complain that my parents had this or that culture, and I'll just say: You can't make laws concerning religion or culture.
[Nima] Baptism? It's like... Being taken hostage by your religion, it's like being forced to wear a weil. That makes you a hostage under a religion. Please let me finish.
You can take off the weil. You can break out. But you can't put the foreskin back on.
A baptism has no consequences. You don't remove anything from the body. I just don't understand that argument.
When you say that 70% of americans are circumcised for non-religious reasons - that just means that there's 70% that could think as I do: What's it like to have sex with the whole foreskin?
[Stig] But what I heard before: You felt that you became part of judaism, islam... and I'll just say: there's thousands, millions of circumcised men in Afrika, in USA, that aren't religious.
[Clement] But, Stig Grenov, imagine this: a thought experiment: Here's a family that isn't jewish or muslim, that wants to do this... Then we'd have a hard time understanding or rationalizing it?
[Stig] No, not really. Lots of people do it from a health perspective, and I'll leave it to the medical authorities to judge if that's a good or a bad idea.
What we can see, also from canandian studies, is that benefits and disadvantages balance out.
[Clement] Zamani?
[Nima] I still don't get it. To me this isn't about wether it's 50% or 3% or 0,1% that are harmed by this. To me, if there's just one that risk getting harmed - then you don't do it.
Because you are tampering with something that there's nothing wrong with.
I know, I said at first that it's about religion to some and not to others. But to those were that's not the issue - then it's about the sexuality, don't rob them of the right to...
[Clement] Move over, move over - here comes Anders Stjernholm and Sørine Gotfredsen.
Sørine, this is a thousands-year old tradition, lots of men, millions of men across the world are circumcised and never thought of it as controversial. What does it say about us, what does it say about Denmark in the year 2018, that we are having this debate now?
[Sørine] That was presented in the very first argument, as said over there: That this is about humans' personal freedom. That's the foundation of this debate.
My problem with this debate is, that because we've grown into an era where we consider human's individual freedom and inviolable, individual decisions about... everything, really, as a new form of demi-god, or a new truth about being human...
... then it's easy to raise a public sentiment with a proposal such as this, and ignore and neglect a very, very old tradition that's originally from judaism, but that christianity converted into baptism.
... but we also have, or you have, with the proposal that you've put forward...
You have the opportinuty to cultivate the idea that the single human in basically every way shapes its own identity.
And you have the opportunity to take away that influence from parents, that want to put their child into a specific reality.
And not just religiously, you put your child into specific realities in every conceivable area.
Language-wise, culturally, in what country you get born, you shape it every single day.
[Clement] Lena Nyhus?
[Lena] We can fully agree, that parents do of course shape their children.
They do so with love, and care and healthy values. They don't need to do it by way of a scalpel in the underpants. We've got to set a limit there.
[Sørine] I think you should stop using those corny phrases. You should stop.
[Lena] But it is a surgical procedure, where you cut into a child's genitals.
I'm absolutely convinced that parents from the cultures that have used circumcision up till now, easily can pass on their very best values to their children without cutting into them.
[Sørine] They can. You can pass on many values. But you dismiss what it means to be religious human, that puts great value to your culture.
[Lena] But the child isn't... [Sørine] Please let me finish.
There are also non-religious people, that hold this cultural custom very dear. You disregard that the task of passing on values to their children can be tied-in with rituals.
And we live in a country, an era, a secular, almost brain-washed state of mind, were we've lost the ability to understand what rituals means to people. You have to recognize that.
[Clement] Anders Stjernholm. Is it true, that we have been brainwashed into forgetting, as Sørine Gotfredsen says, what rituals means to people?
[Anders] I guess we can forget about the whole "corny phrases" thing.
We are in a time, yes, where there's more individualization than ever before.
That is, as Sørine gets at, a matter of conservatism versus progressivity.
and about how much you as a parent get to decide, what your children takes with them.
I have no fears, as Sørine does, that we loose out of communities because people are now free to choose their own communities.
We'll still seek each other out. We're pack animals. What happens is, it seems as if you're afraid that the children will leave your community to choose something else.
[Anders] That's ok, isn't it? [Sørine] It's not my communuity. I'm neither jew nor muslim.
[Anders] No, but it's this whole religious alliance that exists, where you defend "hey, we've had this tradition. We want it to continue so the community remains".
[Sørine] I'm not usually accused of allying myself with muslims... [Anders] But new communities will rise.
[Clement] Gotfredsen?
[Sørine] It's true, what Anders says: We live in a hyper-individualized time. You then say: You don't think that we'll miss out on a community, because we are pack animals.
I'd like to say: I'm very much against transferring what's human into the animal kingdom.
Yes, we do like to live together. But what separates us from animals, and makes us more than just pack animals, is exactly that we are, can be, religious beings.
And that we can unite around other things than just surviving, reproducing, gaining comfort and so forth.
A human is an incredibly refined being, amongst other things, because we have this religious instinct within. Some can't feel it, others can.
[Clement] Sørine Gotfredsen, when we discuss forced marriages, when we discuss scarfs for girls. When we debate all those questions...
[Clement] Then we debate also with an idea of: what is the good life, or the free existence, or what ever belongs to a modern life. [Sørine] Yes.
[Clement] We make rules, norms, on how muslims should live here in this society - then surely we can say: Cutting into a newborn infant, with no reason to do so - we're allowed to stop that.
[Sørine] First off: Yes, we want norms that match a modern society. But also, a Christian society. I'll hold on to that.
Secondly: As Inger Støjberg said: Whenever we're faced with a religious dillemma such as this, then we must make the evaluation, every time, "is this a religious tradition that can be part of the danish society without issue". Circumcision can.
[Clement] But doesn't circumcision contradict Christian values?
[Sørine] Actually, no. It's like this, in short: The sign of the covenant, that circumcision is, according to the old testament, is a sign of the covenant between Abraham and God - as Stig mentioned.
This is the sign of the covenant that Christ himself, Jesus was circumcised, that he passed on. But because Christianity rejects the outer signs, rejects the law-religion. Then baptism is made the new sign of the covenant between God and Man, that's why we have baptism today.
[Clement] How does that sound to you, Anders Stjernholm?
[Anders] I have to rewind first, as there was a biological misunderstanding thrown on the table earlier. There is no innate religious instinct in humans. That doesn't separate us from animals. And we have seen monkeys exhibit a form of spiritual behaviour. We're not the only animals that are capable of imagining external agents.
We are simply a very, very advanced primate. That's why we have created these common stories that we share. And they constantly evolve. We reassess our traditions and customs when we realize that they're no longer appropriate. And we find new communities. That'll happen here too.
[Anders] I'm sorry, I forgot your question. [Clement] When I ask Sørine "this must contradict christian values?", she replies "no, since this has been passed on in a christian tradition - although we've dropped the meaning of the ritual, that persists in other religions". I'm not saying this is a simple solution to all errands... [Clement] Lena Nyhus?
That type of arguments, Anders, how do you feel about that?
[Anders] That's theology. That's not my business. [Sørine] Atheists ought to know a bit about that.
[Anders] Enough to know that it isn't true. So... but how you feel about it theologically amongst yourselves... [Sørine] Are you saying, that what I just said is wrong?
[Anders] Well, no, I don't need to read the entire Bible to know that it's probably... [Sørine] You'd benefit from it.
[Nima] I think, we're allowed to wise up? For instance, in Denmark we have laws that ensure animal welfare.
Hopefully, we dissasociate ourselves from some other nations that practice animal sacrifices because of a belief in God.
But in Denmark, we're willing to, will allow the sacrifice a foreskin?
[Sørine] Yes, and I certainly acknowledge, as others have said - this really is complicated. It's one of the worst topics of discussion as far as religion goes.
But I'll say, as Inger Støjberg said, and Stig, and the others: So long as the medical argument for outlawing circumcision isn't a lot stronger than it is...
... then it isn't strong enough, considering the colossal, old cultural custom that circumcision is, this sign of covenant, and would be a colossal intervention...
[Clement] The fact, Sørine Gotfredsen, that it's a thousand year old tradition...
There's a thousand year old tradition that women don't have rights. A thousand year old tradition that women be silent in public. A thousand year old tradition that women can't vote. We don't keep those traditions, just because they once were?
[Sørine] No. And I know, that argument doesn't generally apply to all arguments. That's why I insist on... [Clement] But can it apply at all, when some say that tradition in itself is an argument?
[Sørine] Tradition is often an argument. I definitely maintain that. That's been a mainstay in my life for years.
Tradition is often an argument, but the moment that it either healthwise isn't defensible any more or, and that's important in these value-infested times...
... or it is incompatible with the danish society and danish culture - then it doesn't apply. But we must distinguish every time.
[Lena] I'm just very happy to hear that everyone on this wing says that as soon as the medical authorities recommend an age limit, they'll be positive.
Because they will. All of the medical organizations are already there, so it can't be long before the medical authorities jump on board.
[Clement] Allright. This, ladies and gentlemen is Debatten, live from TV-byen.
The debate on circumcision fills the media thanks to the woman, Lena Nyhus, standing here, a citizens' petition is on its way through the system. More than 48.000 - right? - have signed.
On it's way to 50.000 supporters, and that's why the politicians will have to make up their minds. They have so, amongst others, there.
And tonight, we generally discuss, what role should religion have in society, do we need new borders for religion, new frames, that's the question, this is, live from DR-Byen: Debatten.
For more infomation >> 23 sets of twin toddlers meet for group photo with Santa Claus - Duration: 0:30. 
For more infomation >> CHRISTMAS CRAFTS FOR KIDS | SA LIVE | KSAT 12 - Duration: 3:40. 
For more infomation >> Fultondale doctor indicted for prescribing drugs in exchange for sexual favors - Duration: 0:22. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét