>> >Says who?
>> You wouldn't interfere with Dan's right to post anything he makes up,
>> would you? To do so would make this group too serious for the subject
>Read it and weep. Both of you. (when are you going to learn?) Dan
<Bullshit article about a lying lawyer, omitted>.
Your original post was:
*He's talking about Hinduism. A circumcised man or women cannot
*Hinduism if they are mutilated. So, people who claim that infant male
*circumcision is a religious right are wrong. In fact it hinders the
*religious expression of the baby because he or she can never become a
What you posted didn't support that. You are confusing social mores
against circumcision with religious prohibitions. I am cross posting