You have, then, declared Judaism and Islam to be fundamentally evil. Circumcision is basic to both faiths. I don’t know how central circumcision is to Islam, although my general impression is “very.” I know it to be very important in Judaism.
As to your characterization – which, by the way, looks quite silly from where I sit – of the “right to mutilate a child’s genitals,” to newly denude said religions from their normal practice puts the burden of proof on the part of the State.
By what reasoning does the court find the practice of Judaism and Islam so abhorrent that they must be outlawed?
The rationales offered are demonstrably false. Malthus has done a good job with that. No need to pile on.
Got it. It’s “exactly right” to declare two of the world’s great religions illegal for no proven benefit to the child in question. You could make a stronger case that circumcision be mandatory to prevent the spread of STDs, just for example (see the WHO report cited in the OP.) I can’t think of a more clear-cut case of parental neglect than to do nothing in the face of the statistical likelihood that said child will have to contend with very real diseases, as opposed to the imaginary harm done by male circumcision.
Has the European Union, or has Germany, outlawed all piercings, tattoos, and other body modification prior to the age of majority? Minors are minors because they have yet to reach the age of consent.
If no court has yet so ruled, would you be in favor of such a ruling?
Would that be “getting it exactly right?”
Or is there an entirely different set of considerations when the practice to be outlawed is recreational rather than religious?
Nope, the religions have not been declared illegal. Any individual can practice whatever religion they like. What they cannot do is use it as cover to mutilate children. It’s wrong when Catholics abuse children, it’s wrong when Jews and Muslims do it.
If it’s not illegal to pierce or tattoo a child before they’re old enough to consent to it, it should be.
I’ll leave the bulk of your argument as I can see we’re not going to agree but I’ll pick up this last bit. Sorry us Europeans come over as smug, I don’t think we’re more enlightened than the States (though what “we” means in the context of the 27 EU states I’m not sure) but we do have a a set of Human Rights and courts trying to interpret them. Actually more detailed and specific than the American Bill of Rights but very similar in their basis (not surprising as they stem from the same roots).
Personally I’m no great fan of the way the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is being interpret by the courts but I recognise they’re trying to apply some basic principles to make sense of some pretty imprecise language foisted on them by the politicians.
One final point: don’t think the Christianity gets of scot free. On areas like gay marriage you’ll find Christians complaining about the court decisions as will non-religious people when Muslim radicals can’t be deported back to Jordan.
You should really stop it with this line of reasoning it just makes you look foolish. There is nothing inherent in the German people that makes genocidal tendencies more likely. They weren’t the first, they have not been the last. They were just the first to apply an industrial efficiency to it and carry out such atrocities in the glare of the proto-modern world media.
I asked you before whether you extend this thinking to the bad things done by religion in the past, does that mean we can’t ever trust them too? You haven’t answered that yet and I’d be interested in your take on it.
The Germans are part of a Europe that is, on the whole, secular. It tries to treat all religions equally but no religion has a free pass to do exactly what they want. Do religions actually want equality or privilege?
Let’s be honest here. Any secular systems of justice and law is going to run into problem with religions at some point because historically they have held power and have seen fit to be as sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic as they like (and in some cases still do). And the worst offenders are going to be the most annoyed because they are going to be affected the most.
Yes, I’m thinking about some sects of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
I think you guys are focused too much on “religion”. The issue is better addressed through the lens of “culture”. I can’t speak for Islam, but in Judaism at least being a Jew is a cultural, or more exactly a tribal matter, not simply a religious one: it is possible to be a Jewish atheist.
Seen in that light, it isn’t a matter of “religion” as a monolithic presence versus the secular, but as one set of cultural preferences versus another. And it is exceedingly difficult to argue that Judaism (or Islam), as culture, has “historically held power” in Germany. Quite the contrary is true.
Now, I’m the last to state that Germany is somehow precluded from ruling on Jewish (or Muslim) practices just because of its unfortunate history. However, I do think that it is somewhat concerning whenever seemingly neutral laws just so happen to have differential impact on minorities. The suspicion is that majority practices are simply not subject to the same level of controversy (and thus judicial scrutiny). Halal slaughter is “animal cruelty”, but somehow the production of veal or foie gras isn’t. That sort of thing.
I am not singling the Germans, or even Euros, out here. It is a natural human tendency to find the culturally familiar acceptable and the culturally unfamiliar of greater concern. This is why judicial restraint is preferable in such cases.
Erm, laws against veal and fois gras production have been passed in Europe and this is a wonderful example isn’t it? Because those laws have obviously been passed without any great tumult. I certainly don’t recall any dope thread on it. However, if halal slaughter were outlawed on animal welfare concerns I suspect the religious would somehow think they were being picked on.
Incidentally, one of those countries holding out against a ban is France, Care to guess what reasoning they use? Why yes, cultural heritage of course.
I was thinking of the example of France, actually. It is difficult to argue that French cultural heritage is that of a minority culture in France.
I’m not saying that the majority culture never sees laws enforced or passed in such a manner as to impact on them, just that where the passage or enforcement of laws has an inherently differential impact on minority cultures, judicial restraint is called for - because, unconciously or not, it raises issues of bias.
And your disregard for the history of European anti-semitism makes you look faddish and credulous. See how that works? I can call you names, you can call me names. Not terribly productive, that.
See, I think you’re foolish when I disagree with you, just as the reverse pertains. The difference, of course is that I’m right.
Let’s see. If anti-semitic incidents in Europe (or specifically in Germany) dipped during the Napoleonic era, when the ghettoes were torn down, did that eradicate the underlying sentiment?
Before the 1640s the depredations were not as intense as the massacres at the hand of khmelnytsky and the Cossack hosts. Was everything okay before that?
Before the Spanish Inquisition, things were never so bad that whole Jewish populations went underground and practiced their Judaism secretly, while outwardly claiming to have converted. But nobody did that after the Spanish Expulsion in 1492, so were things all better?
When Martin Luther wrote “On the Jews and their lies,” was that sui generis, and unrelated to any underlying historic thread, or was it part and parcel of a larger whole? When Luther advocated the burning of Jewish schools and houses of worship and the subjugation of the Jewish population as agricultural slave laborers, was that prescient in your little world, or was it an unusual blip, followed by and preceded by a number of other disconnected blips?
When the Russian Czars ordered pogroms, and the German Nazis made a science of anti-semitism, were those developments that would have happened without the previous history’s existence?
I don’t have the time to do this at length, but please rest assured, this is the short form.
Yes, the problem of European anti-semitism is European. Germany last century was simply the crowning glory of that project.
Give me a specific from a religion I should respond to. Make that specific noxious habit something that hasn’t, in fact, been proven to harm anybody, whether within that religion or outside of it. I know it’s more fun to say “gotcha!” but I’m kind of hip to that game. I’m not propounding a set of rules. I am rather explaining why the project of legislating Judaism should not reside in the German state apparatus.
Weighted, once again, to Christian practice.
“Oh no no no, we outlawed all religious circumcision, not just Muslim and Jewish circumcision.”
Is there a parallel law that a Christian church must close its doors if it does not perform gay marriages? I doubt it. I read above that the recognition of other gay marriages is meant to be the parallel affecting Christianity. It is not parallel. Europe is not therefore forbidding Christian practice; Europe is merely stating that other practice is sometimes allowed as well.
Really? Are you also laying Hitler at the feet of the Catholic church, and Stalin at the feet of the Orthodox church?
Or is it more likely that we’ll find the “worst offenders” in the modern world to be States, rather than churches?
As I stated before, there is a long cultural history of anti-semitism in Europe. Jews were the “other” population that could live somewhere for centuries and still not be “autocthonous.” Europe is perpetuating this attitude through this unnecessary and provocative attack on the rights of Muslims and Jews with no compelling state interest – such as a demonstrated protective value for the circumcised.
To boot, the men among those who oppose this law on religious grounds are much more likely circumcised than the state officials who wish to “protect” those who would come after.
I get it. You believe that anti-semitism and the fear of the other was “before,” and now Europe can do no wrong, by omission or commission, whether we mean the EU or Germany.
Cambodians do not usually pipe up with brilliant ideas to empty the cities and make intellectuals do hitches of agricultural labor. Were they to do so, I might wonder whether some underlying cultural thing was at work that was also at work in the case of the Khmer Rouge.
I don’t see post-Soviet Russians popping up and saying that the way for some nation to solve its problems is a 5-year agricultural plan with special attention to regions, such as was practiced vis a vis Ukraine. Were one to do so, I would wonder whether there was a Russian (or Georgian) “thing” going on there, or if perhaps some Stalinesque thinking had reemerged in the former USSR.
In the American South, long after the end of the institution of slavery, follow-on institutions, symbols, and hate groups kept alive the basic premise.
Europe has identified the Muslim as the “other,” now that said continent has murdered most of its Jewish population.
I know, I know, the people there now are very sorry about that. No problem.
However, the cultural instinct to “protect” Europe against the “other” is certainly pointed toward religious practice, if history’s any guide. The Nazis couldn’t do the psuedo-scientific mass-murder had not theological anti-semitism been practiced in Europe for centuries.
And with this latest provocation, Europe again shows herself to be interested in outlawing non-Christian practice.
But I know, I know, they’re so very concerned about human rights they have to. And you take their word for it?
Don’t bother telling me I’m racist for knowing this history, or that if I mention more of it I’m more foolish or more racist. If you have nothing better than that, just move on. We’re clearly capable of different levels of analysis.
I’m singling out Europe vis a vis non-Christian populations, historically most likely to be Jewish populations. I’m singling out Germany among European nations in particular, based on the vehemence with which they carried out their final act in this historic tragedy.
I know you don’t, which is fine. I do wonder why not.
This doesn’t make everybody in Europe worse than everybody somewhere else.
It makes cultural fear of the “other” on historically Christian terms, and more recently “racial” terms defined through Jewish ethnicity, the historic blind spot.
You can be a nice enlightened German liberal, and still “equally” outlaw all circumcision, meanwhile disregarding that it conveniently only really affects historic “others.”
And yes, the credulous can say “oh there’s nothing left of that old attitude,” while in a conversation of an exemplar thereof.
The problem is that your argument is way too rational.
To the religious crowd their ancient customs will always trumph the protection of a newborn baby.
Fortunately for the religious it was a German court which passed this. Because then the Nazi card can be played even though it has nothing to do with the case. To secular people sin is not passed down from one to generation to the next. But if you are religous it makes perfect sense.
The real difference between me and you is that I would happily change my mind in the face of good evidence. I suspect nothing I or anyone else can say or do would ever crack your certainty.
Who has claimed that there is no history of anti-semitism in Europe? Recorded history is littered with the persecution of one group by another. Often it has roots in religion, sometimes in state ideology.
You’ve badly misunderstood my point. You say you can’t trust the Germans on this issues…ever! because of their history. I asked you whether you extend this rationale to religions as well. i.e. when a religion has done something wrong in the past or hold view/take actions that we now find abhorrent, should we never trust them on associated issues in the future…ever?
The German law merely required some religions to delay one of their practices to a later date, not ban it altogether. Gay marriage legislation seeks to put it on the same footing as religious unions and some religions are very upset about that…tough. Secular laws based on the best principles of modern thinking will sometimes bother those of a bronze-age persuasion. Welcome to the modern world.
The worst offenders throughout history has seen unbendable dogma combined with opportunism and charismatic, dictatorial leadership (whether earthly or celestial)
“Europe” is a geographical area not a cohesive political, ethnic and ideological entity. No, not even now.
These examples don’t work. The scale and scope of such resurfacing ideas mirror precisely the troublesome aspects of previous atrocities. The ruling in Germany does not.
Were the Cambodians to consider a change to their agricultural policy, to “less rice..more wheat” then that would be somewhat more in line. However that would cause sensible people shrug their shoulders and say “so what” and you wouldn’t have your scary story.
Sure, just brush off those troublesome accusations of racism, bigotry and prejudice, no biggee for you is it? BTW, I suspect those countries who fought against the Nazis may be a little miffed that you lump us all together for the blame of the holocaust.
For the above, bolding is all mine. That’s the trouble with actually writing something down isn’t it? It remains for people to pick over and re-read at their leisure. There is no European protection agenda, merely an attempt to pass laws that protect religious freedom and yet avoid any special privilege. That doesn’t please the religions who have their own religious and cultural view on how the world should work. Again…tough. They’ll have to adapt. No free pass. You have a theological problems with gender and sexuality laws? Well best find a way re-interpret your holy books then because I don’t think “god said so” or “we’ve always done this” is a solid basis for argument in the 21st century.
No one in their right mind is denying historic anti-semitism and its horrific effects. Germany has its enormous share of this history but it is by no means alone in Europe or across the world. Equally, I doubt anyone is denying anti-semitism continues to exist in modern Europe although it has been forced down into the cracks and out of respectability.
The problem is your trying to link this decision on circumcison to anti-semitism. It’s not, it’s part of a much wider move across Europe which is seen by almost all faiths as anti-religious. Christianity as the historically dominant faith is not getting a free pass. Secular politicians and courts are - generally - being consistent in applying the fundemental principles of human rights - with their emphasis on the rights of the individual - to the modern world.
To take one example - adoption by gay couples. In the UK the courts have upheld a law that Catholic Adoption agencies cannot discriminate against couples on the grounds of sexual orientation. And Catholic Bishops have screemed blue murder that this is an attack on religious freedom and tolerance. Well maybe it is, but it is also the logical consequence of putting religious and cultural practices on the same level as any other practice and saying it must be consistent with the law of the land.
I agree fully with you MarcusF
It rather like the flak that the BBC gets from critics on both sides of the political divide. On any given day it is too left-wing, right-wing or otherwise ideologically skewed. That in itself re-assures me that it is taking the right path.
That’s a tiny bit closer to the mark, Malthus, as an example of a law that makes it impossible to practice Catholicism in Europe.
I do not see, however, an equivalent effect.
I’m certain that being so foolish and benighted, I am incapable of seeing these things clearly. I also have quite the penchant for magnifying an historical phenomenon with little equal in world history to be somehow significant in the analysis of the present push. You tempt me to go all the way to the right wing perspective and argue for far more expansive protection of any religious claim for any reason, by accepting the false equivalency.
The equivalency is false, however – by my own biased lights – because I can go to mass, receive communion, get married, get baptized, get last rites, in short, participate in any sacrament of the Catholic church, without the interference of the state.
The complaint of the adoption service is at least somewhat in line with the prohibition in this law against practicing Islam and Judaism. In that this ancillary activity of the Church arises from doctrine within the Church (in regard to alleviating the plight of the orphan,) the clerical hierarchy can claim an organizational impingement on religious rights.
However, the law as stated prevents each individual from practicing his or her religion, in the case of Muslims and Jews.
I’ll ask for the third or fourth time: Does the European law outlaw the tattooing or piercing of a minor?
It’s a secular equivalent to the question about circumcision. You do not remain “intact” after such an act. You are not consenting to the act, because you have not reached the age of consent.
If not, why?
Because it’s “normal” in majority, Christian-derived culture? Since there are no taboos in Christianity against tattooing, it’s okay to develop a tattoo fad. Since the fad is okay, it’s okay for the young, for the old, for everybody.
But do tell me if I’ve got this wrong, and retro punk clubs in Berlin will hereafter be populated with kids festooned with clip-on “safety pins” on various conspicuous areas of the body.
Unless that’s the case – that piercings and tattoos of minors are explicitly forbidden under the current law – the law’s hypocritical on the face of it, and targeting the “other” throughout Europe under the guise of a “universal” concern for the child that “trumps” some religions, but not others.
Again: write and enforce a statute that outlaws the damage done by the teaching of Heaven and Hell, and then go after a minority’s religious practices that take a similar place of prominence within that religion.
I would argue that more damage is done by the celestial Skinner box than by the removal of a flap of skin. Holy crap, I’m waxing positively Pauline.
And as it has already been pointed out, they aren’t. What is outlawed is practicing your religion on someone else body, regardless of how important doing so is supposed to be according to your beliefs.
I don’t, because I quite honestly think that anti-semitism has nothing to do with the decision. What I think happened is the application of a seemingly-neutral set of laws in such a manner as to differentially affect minorities. This does not require some sort of actual, concious hatred of the minorities in question.