I do understand. I’m an atheist Jew from North America who has no complaints about his circumcised penis. However, I don’t think I’d have any difficulty identifying as a member of the Jewish culture if I were uncircumcised. I know that historically, being circumcised is part of being a Jew, but the times, they are a changing.
If based on science, why can we not simply say that ‘millions of years of evolution can’t be all wrong’ and accept that the body is what it is, and removing perfectly healthy parts of it (based on possible future outcomes related to individual behaviour) without strong medical grounds to do is, by definition, unnecessary.
BTW, you could as easily state that all decisions made ever are irreversible as you don’t get to relive your life; but some are more irreversible than others. 
I’m not quite so sure that they are unrelated. The religious aspect seems to cloud a lot of opinions either way, depending on your respect (or lack of ) religion in general. The heart of the issue for me is that, if an activity is deemed legal, can parents then allow their children access to it without age limits imposed by the state? I guess the honest answer is ‘it depends’.
Anyhow, I didn’t want to jump in mid-thread and repeat the same tired arguments made by those posting before, but I did think the differentiation between the age of the participant is an important one. My sole point is that, whether it is considered good or bad (and I don’t see any particular evidence to suggest it is so spectacularly good that is worth doing for that reason alone), then this should not be a decision that should be enforced on you by your parents. The child’s right to not be cut outweighs, for me, any partental wish to cut.
If it is being performed solely for the gratification of your parent’s religion, and you are still interested in following that religion of your parents when you reach a suitable age, then you can consent to the procedure at that time - easy. But I see no reason why it should be undertaken before this , barring medical necessity.
I’m not convinced the argument against does rely on this (more on personal choice etc..) but I’m betting the argument in favour of does, to a great extent. If this was never first a religious procedure we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all – no one would do it, no one would care - It wouldn’t be the slightest blip on anyone’s radar as a potential health benefit. The health benefits have been searched high and low for in order to find a tangible thread of use to justify the (initially) religious act. That some minor advantages have been said to have been found for the procedure does not retrospectively justify the original reason for performing it, IMHO.
That may be your personal view, and I have nothing against it, but surely you know very well that many, many Jewish people feel otherwise, right?
I assume so. I don’t really know those people, but I’ll accept your premise. I can imagine that that type of view could change significantly in one generation. There are a lot more cultural Jews eating bacon and cheeseburgers than there were 50 years ago.
Oh, Malthus, can tou tell I hadn’t really read (just skimmed) several previous pages of the thread?
I’ve had a more comprehensive read now and see you have addressed many of the same points I’ve just noted, so feel free to ignore my last post rather than repeat yourself. 
Because appeals to evolutionary rightness aren’t really convincing? No doubt sickle cell anemia made perfect sense in evolutionary terms as a response to malaria, but I doubt you would refuse to treat it based on “millions of years of evolution can’t be all wrong”.
Yes, decisions made concerning infants tend to be more irreversable than others. Take breastfeeding. If you don’t breastfeed the first year, the alleged health benefits are gone forever, right?
This is a red herring of an argument and always was, because adult circumcision isn’t the same thing as infant circumcision, and you can’t go back in time and have infant circumcision done by “choice” when you are an adult. What about the infant’s “right” to choose to be breast-fed? Such a “choice” is an illusion, because by the time the person has the ability to choose the opportunity to make the choice is gone.
Parents make choices on behalf of their children all the time. That’s in part what parents are for. These choices cannot be deferred.
I disagree, this is counter to the facts. Millions of North Americans have the procedure performed and they are not Jews or Muslims.
Hey, no prob, I’m enjoying the debate.
I live on the border of the American south, in Virginia. Were you to say I am a racist, I would be offended; my position is frankly that I endeavor to see individuals as individuals. In fact, were you to say that my putative racism, given the region of my birth, were unavoidable, I’d tell you to get stuffed. It isn’t that I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
However, were you to point out that a specific argument assumes a majority/historically advantaged white perspective, I’d take you seriously and examine the usefulness of your claim.
You have clearly not done this, and I haven’t helped. However, I think it’s worth considering that one very big historical “blind spot” for Europeans – whether claiming a rationalist background or not – is fear of the other on religious grounds. Before murdering the majority of them and seeing much of the remainder emigrate, that meant European Jews. Now, that is more likely to mean Muslims, whether Turk or Arab.
Consider the current conversation about “tribal” and “ethnic” tradition, as regards Judaism, as juxtaposed against “religious” customs.
The dichotomy is false, from the point of view where practice is part and parcel of the religion.
Because of the many forms of rebellion in early Christianity, practice and belief become much more severable in Christianity. For example, you can simply be rhetorically circumcised, because it was inconvenient for those who admired Judaism to convert, complete with circumcision.
Early on, Christianity was a religion you had to be Jewish to split off into. So saying you can be “circumcised of the heart” meant “come on in, gentiles!” It was revolutionary. There are many other ways that traditional Judaism was discarded, which is fine, for Christianity.
However, for Jews and Muslims, there are practices that are indispensable for the religion. Perhaps there are in Christianity as well, but my understanding it that there are very big mortal sins that can screw you, but that everything else is forgiven. It is much more a matter of what you believe, and whether you have offloaded all your sin to the figure of Jesus.
This difference in emphasis resulted in the development of a Christian religion that is very different at its core from the more orthopraxic religions.
Fast forward to the renaissance, when among other things, the claim was made that Judaism isn’t a religion at all, because it has no church structure (just for example.)
When I interpret what is meant as “religion” by what a Christian means by “religion,” I am employing the majoritarian bias that elsewhere results in bans on circumcision, head coverings for women, and the like.
“What’s the big deal” for Christian observance becomes “You must be joking” from the point of view of an orthopraxic community.
This bias is part and parcel of the phenomenon we’ve been discussing in relation to its far uglier and far more incendiary guises.
I’ve challenged you to give me a specific example, as I responded to a specific example of a German ruling that interpreted into being a European law, derived thereby from the European Fundamental law.
Give me an example from a religion creating a law that recapitulates prior evils attributed to that religion.
I am, however, quite certain – though it rankles you – that the German state apparatus is a very suspect source from which to glean tips on the morality or legality of Jewish observance. In fact, for me, it’s disqualified from doing so.
For. Freaking. Ever.
I know I know, that’s the part that really really irritates you. If it helps, I’m pretty suspect of any state apparatus dictating Jewish religious practice, where said practice causes no proven harm to anybody.
By the way, on a civility point: I’m not particularly religious, but I don’t think the “sky fairies” terminology is supportable if you want to discuss religion other than in a conveniently segregated atheist/secularist echo chamber.
I don’t take it too seriously when every other word is “infidel” or the equivalent in an in-house conversation among religious zealots.
But then, I’m a racist, by which I mean that I compare attitudes, hypocrisies, and history across such groupings, rather than accept what I’ve been told by the most trendy group of like-thinking buddies I can find. 
I’m not interested in tit-for-tat. I’m trying to gauge your consistency and openness.
I am only interested in whether you are consistent in how you apply your standards to groups and no reference to a specific religious incident is required to do that. In fact, it would rather get in the way as I think you’d want to quibble about my example rather than give a straight answer. (In fact, you are even doing it pre-emptively).
By your own admission you know your history so I’m sure you can call to mind any number of examples where religious groups have done bad things. Just tell me, in general, if you think such religious groups should ever again be given any credence when discussing associated matters.
So my questions (still) stands. Your evasion is (still) noted.
Call it what you will, define it how you like, paint it in your most flowery and obscurantist fashion but the upshot is that you make assumptions on someone’s motive and trustworthiness based on the location of someone’s birth and a perceived taint from a hateful ideology that they had no part in.
The best I can allow is that you are ignorant and unhelpful.
I suppose an example would be the Catholic Church as an organization losing moral credibility when condemning various sexual practices, because of its cover-up of the child sex abuse scandal.
Not that I am claiming the German Courts have lost moral credibility because of Nazism, mind. A significant difference is that the German Courts are seperated by many years and many changes from the Nazi regime, while the sex abuse cover-up is reasonably recent (perhaps even ongoing).
In any event, to my mind at least arguing that the German Courts lack moral authority isn’t very convincing. Sure, the optics are bad, and a certain amount of “WTF?” reaction is to be expected, but modern Germany is its own country.
Malthus, I agree with what you’ve written here. Our disagreement is over the harm/benefit equation. I come down on one side, you on the other. I don’t think either of us can know for certain but I agree that we make the decision in line with that objective analysis.
As it stands, no such clear, obvious answer is forthcoming and in the light of such a costs/benefits analysis my natural tendency is to refrain from taking irreversible action. This is doubly so when the main benefit seems to come from exposure to risk factors at a later age, past the time when consent could be sought and freely given. Yes, there are some greater complications with the procedure at a later age but I balance that against and rational person’s willingness to take a decision in light of the facts.
That is how I stand…for now.
But I could imagine a scenario where evidence piles up and infant circumcision could be said to be in the best interests of the child. (enforced vaccination and the HPV shots are a good example of this) My frustration is, as always, that the religious side seem unwilling to make the same commitment and that an objective analysis and rational decision that does not go their way is branded as anti-“whatever it may be”.
Argh! in your search for even-handed debate Malthus I fear you have just spawned a monster.
I do not disagree with your analysis. Where we disagree, is on the implications of it, on who gets to decide.
To my mind, where a decision exists on which rational people could reasonably disagree (such as the relative costs and benefits of circumcision, or indeed anything else child-rearing-related, and whether it is really in the best interests of a child), that decision should not be made by criminal law, but by the parents. To enforce the decision through criminal law is a bad use of the coercive power of the state, which should be reserved for cases where rational people could not reasonably disagree.
Definitely. This law was a result of a weird communion between left-wing feminism and right-wing xenophobia. Jews were collateral victims (There never had been previously any issue with kippa-wearing kids) and Sikhs (very rare in France) had been totally overlooked. But the target was clearly Islam.
But it’s clearly not the intent here. Even though there are some similarities with some of the opponent of the veil. The aforementioned feminists thought that the veil was a clear symbol of the oppression of women and was often imposed on teenagers by devout parents who thought that girls should be kept on a leash (IMO, it certainly happened but it probably wasn’t true in most cases). That position could be argued I think. But the ban would never have succeded if it hadn’t been for a common anti-islamic feeling. In this case, it was the main drive (at least in the general public. Probably different for intellectuals, teachers and school principals and even politicians. As for courts, before this law, they had always found unlawful or inconstitutional bans enacted by individual schools)
In the case of the German ruling, I’m convinced it isn’t. If you ever have visited an internet board, you certainly realize that circumcision has been for a long time a topic of heated debate, and that many people strongly feel it’s very wrong because it’s a genital mutilation imposed on a child, not because it’s done by Jews or Muslims. It should be especially obvious in the case of the USA where it is routinely done out of habbit or for cosmetic reasons, rather than for religious reasons.
I think you could concede that there are objective and moral reasons to be opposed to circumcision that can stand regardless of the reason (religious or not) why the procedure is done and that antisomethingorotherism isn’t necessary to think it’s wrong.
Which is a valid point of view but unfortunately a slippery beast to grapple with.
I do think though that we can trust the relevant authorities to come to a sensible decision. It may take time and will have to run the gauntlet of special pleading from religious groups but I don’t for one second think bigotry is involved.
This is the constant perilous balancing act of a modern secular nation. Were we in the grips of a theocracy we wouldn’t have to think about it at all. (but then I suspect I’d have been stoned long, long ago and so not in a position to worry too much about it)
We are on the same page, I think. If you review my postings above, I think you will see that I am not of the opinion that the ruling was motivated by anti-Semitic (or anti-Islamic) malice. Nor do I think that the German courts lack the moral credibility to rule on the matter, simply because of the unfortunate history of Nazism in Germany.
My intent on mentioning the French law was merely to demonstrate that a law which is apparently even-handed in its drafting or application can have a differential effect on minorities, whether that is the intent of the persons drafting or applying the law or not.
And clearly, many have strong feelings on the matter, and it is perfectly possible to understand them.
The issue, though, is whether those strong feelings ought to be enforced by the state. As you have brought up the Internet, consider how strong people’s feelings can run on other issues related to child-rearing, as evidenced by Internet postings - I again am thinking of the example of breast-feeding. I think that many would be uncomfortable with the notion of allowing “lactivists” to establish criminal sanctions for bottle-feeding (even with reasonable exceptions for medical concerns), as an absurd use of state power.
My point here is that what topics people are willing to criminalize are going, to an extent, to be determined by one’s culture. In a culture where circumcision is unfamiliar, because it is a rite of some minorities, the voices of those with “strong feelings” are more likely to be heard and heeded (try getting it made illegal in America, for example). To my mind, they ought not to be, unless they can produce actual proof of (in the words used by the German Court) “grievous harm”. Circumcision doesn’t meet that standard.
Ah, we’re name-calling again.
Decimated in your attempt to disregard the weight of a thousand years of historically specific phenomena, you declare that any who understand that weight are ignorant. Or perhaps just me. ::shrug::
I’ve clarified for you that conscious motive is hardly necessary in this instance; the children of those who willfully persecuted a people to a fraction of their previous numbers across a whole continent now condemn the children of that people as racists for not trusting them sufficiently.
I note too that I’m unhelpful. While I agree with your assessment that you need a good deal of help, sadly, I can’t be the one who provides it.
The upshot is that for the next thousand years, you’re best off legislating things other than the observance of Jewish law. After that your descendents and mine can call it even, and we’ll ditch this whole unpleasant business about the last thousand. That sounds even-handed to me. Were I still alive, I would still not be a big fan of Jewish observance being legislated by Europeans. But after a thousand years of better behavior, I think I would be more open to the notion that Europeans had learned enough about such selective legislation to be taken at their word, that there is no bias in the ruling, despite the obvious facts to the contrary – based on a benefit of the doubt that by then might have been earned. Busy yourself for the next millennium with deciding on who bails out whom, who must pay taxes and who may simply evade them, what the currency will be, and whether you want an American-style union or not. Well, that can occupy you (sorry, “occupy” may be a touchy phrase, depending on the nation,) for a century or so. I’m sure there are other agenda items you can come up with other than Jewish observance for the following 900.
We’ll be there for that conversation. You fear you won’t. Relax. You will too, no matter how many minarets rise on the skylines of the various European capitals.
That’s what this is about, in today’s context. In yesterday’s, it was the fear of the Jew in your midst. No matter how many generations you’d been in Germany, German “blood” had been a prerequisite of birthright citizenship in that country until 2000. Doesn’t that sound odd? But as you know, today there are other troublesome others in your midst, and you’ve set yourselves to the task of keeping said population in check – or at the very least, humiliating them and their Jewish predecessors, so that everybody knows who’s boss.
We have our own xenophobia in the States today, and I have no love for the phenomenon here either. The racists here also talk in terms that may even be acceptable, taking them always at their word.
Recently we’ve had a rash of laws to limit the franchise, on the pretext of voter fraud. The only trouble is – as in the case of male circumcision legislation – voter fraud legislation is a solution in search of a problem. As has been repeatedly documented here, not only is there no proof that male circumcision is a problem, it’s also quite likely that it’s more of a benefit. In the U.S., that legislation is held up as entirely fair - the same rule applies to everyone. However, those who make the laws are well aware that it will disproportionately suppress the black and Latino vote here. Same idea.
But when U.S. xenophobia comes up, I don’t sing “love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.”
I’m fairly certain it would be a useful exercise – perhaps even a helpful one – for you to look into the possibility that the Fundamental Law, and this local interpretation in Germany, has more to do with the fear of the other, and with ingrained cultural attitudes, than with a universal “good.”
So huff away again, and your descendents and mine can hash this out in a thousand years, unless you decide to acknowledge that pre-existent attitudes can still exist after a particular event – especially since said attitudes resurface regularly, with periods of tolerance sprinkled through the timeline, during which “it’s allllll better.”
Speaking of racism, there’s an old joke I’ve seen told among Europeans about one another – and each seemed to laugh at it, though their own nations were included in the humor. It goes like this:
What’s the difference between Heaven and Hell?
In Heaven, the British welcome you, the French cook, the Germans track your schedule, and the Italians arrange your entertainment.
In Hell, the French welcome you, the British cook, the Italians track your schedule, and the Germans are in charge of the entertainment.
This raises the question: How would it go over were it declared from the Urals to the Atlantic that throughout the Continent, Americans would be responsible for writing the gun legislation?
You use a lot of words, I suspect in the hope happening on meaning through sheer weight of numbers. Not much luck so far. I’ll bow out of this and leave you to your sound and fury.