I find it hard to take a German law that specifically restricts a Jewish religious act seriously. I definitely don’t trust their judgement as to whether it amounts to “mutilation”.
Good for Germany. Circumcision should have been banned a long time ago
In fact, I guess you could be, for instance by replacing circumcision by a very small, symbolic, snip at the prepuce.
Yep. Racism takes many different forms.
Nothing to do with antisemitism, especially since the case was about a muslim.
So does child abuse. Neither are acceptable, even when cloaked under the guise of religion.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t actually agreeing with suranyi.
Good for Germany. There is nothing stopping religious leaders from having a conference and reinterpreting the holy books so as to keep up with the times. They do it all the time.
I jumped in at just the right time. Skipped all the usual back and forth on this issue.
Nobody is saying male MGM is as bad as FGM. But it’s still bad. It’s still mutilation.
Now we can talk about how some women reinforce MGM by preferring it in mates, or by taking their sons to get mutilated.
Let’s get an objective definition of mutilation then.
I say cutting off any body part without a medical reason without consent is a good definition.
I guess my barber is guilty of mutilation, then. He cuts my sons hair without his consent. (He is two years old.)
Comparing cutting hair to cutting off a piece of a penis is so silly I don’t know why you even mentioned it.
Yes, men are persecuted by women. :dubious:
I agree.
It is as silly as comparing male circumcision to FGM.
Grouping all forms of girl cutting as if they are the same, is silly.
Although the rest of your post made a great deal of sense, I’m sort of confused by the opening volley. I suppose it’s “benefits of circumcision” as opposed to the broader “halakhic reasons for circumcision.”
It would seem that the whole “sign of the covenant between God and Israel forever” thing would be in there somewhere.
In any event: I can see drawing the line at practices that result in the mutilation of a child. However, when there are no proven downsides to the practice, I see no compelling state interest either.
And to whoever said that you couldn’t really call it anti-semitism if the case was about a Muslim, that would depend on a number of definitional nits, not least of which is whether the individual in question was a semite, whether we are considering semitic religions, and whether we are restricting “anti-semitism” to anti-Judaism, for lack of a better word. As I understand it Muslims are circumcised at a few years old rather than a few days in imitation of Mohammad, who most certainly was a semite.
As I said earlier: Germans cant have any rule on Jewish religious practices taken seriously. Ever. And that includes if it happened to be a Muslim that the case revolved around.
Drop this one. Regardless of the meaning of “semite”, antisemite always refers to Jews.:rolleyes:
And just in order to be as contrarian as possible : given that it happened in Germany, the involved muslims are probably Turks hence not semite in any possible sense of the word. 
Now I’m going to take issue with this. No boubt, in a straight comparison between breast and formula, breast it best.
But the real world is not that simple.
How about the mum that is on medication that makes breast unsafe?
Or the mum that is overstressed by breast feeding?
Or the mum that can’t be round long enough for breast (for whatever reason)?
Or the mum that doesn’t produce enough milk?
To start or forward and sort of argument that “choosing” formula for your kids has any sort of equivalence with circumcision is stupid.
If the issue winds its way up into the ECHR and they agree (which I suspect they will)? Then what? Too much nasty anti-Semitic German influence at the ECHR to take their ruling seriously? Or the court disagrees in good faith as to whether cutting off a part of your kid’s dick to satisfy a primitive iron age myth about sky wizards is acceptable in modern Europe?
Don’t try and reason with racists. It’s hopeless.