They can Say they are doing it for medical reasons, but if they were to appear in court and present that as their reason, the vast majority would be revealed to be lying.
The issue isn’t confined to Jews and Muslims. In all the cases where circumcision is not medically necessary, what is the value of lying in order to proceed with the procedure?
Wow…I’ll get on the phone right now and tell my mom to fuck off! The bitch! :rolleyes:
I never cease to be amazed at the rancor some people express on this topic.
I am circumcised (as most boys in the US were when I was born) and have never been in the slightest fussed about it. Everything works fine, women I’ve been with seem pleased, in short no problems whatsoever.
I suspect if I hadn’t been circumcised I’d feel the same and not be fussed about it.
Anecdotally most women I have talked to prefer circumcised men but I suspect that is just what American women are largely used to and even those women do not seem overly concerned about it one way or another (if they like you enough to get naked with you circumcision is not likely to be a deal breaker).
Thinking about it in a clinical sense I can see there is very little good reason for circumcision but in the scheme of things it seems waaaay down on the list of things to get fussed about.
I honestly think men latch on to this as a desperate grasp to claim some “woe is me” points. Mostly it’s attention seeking bullshit. The degree it affects a man’s life is wholly determined by the man and how worked up he chooses to make himself over it (barring some kind of botched circumcision).
NOTE: I want to be clear that this in no way applies to female circumcision which is literally genital mutilation. That shit is truly fucked up and in no way comparable to male circumcision. Thankfully it is not widely practiced (but still alive and well in some parts of the world).
On a similar note, I seem to recall that last year the Netherlands was taking steps to ban kosher and halal butchery. I think the proposal was ultimately defeated, however.
I prefer to believe that those were in the original articles. It’s even funnier that way.
The only one I know off is a physician.
Nice of the non-believers to pile on.
Freedom of religion is now “freedom of religion as long as I don’t think I know better than you, which I do.”
Great for gay people who want to get married…less great for people who sincerely believe that G-d has had a covenant with your people for 3000+ years.
I am seriously surprised that the German government would mess with Jews.
Nitpick: Earlobe piercing is reversible—you leave the earrings out for a while and the holes close up. I can see why that would be considered a less controversial form of body modification than circumcision or other “excisions or slices”.
But thats not the same thing at all, more like if parents were arranging gay marriages for infants. No one has complained about adults voluntarily getting their genitals carved up for religious reasons
It is hospital surgery in adulthood and an apparently minor “in crib” thing for an infant.
Well as I said previously, religion does’t give you a free pass to do whatever you want.
Is an uncircumcised adult unable to be a Jew and practice Judaism?
Is any and every religious practice permissible as long as someone believes it sincerely enough?
How does gay marriage impinge upon anyone’s ability to practice their religion?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. AFAICT, this ruling has absolutely zero impact on the religious freedom of consenting adults. Any adult male in the region of Cologne* who believes that it’s his religious obligation to be circumcised is still perfectly free to do so.
Yes, I know that the halachic requirement is to have circumcision performed shortly after birth, when the subject is not yet a consenting adult. But restricting what permanent body modifications parents can have performed on their minor children in the name of religion is not the same thing as interfering with the parents’ own free exercise of religion.
I personally don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on the legality of infant circumcision: while it is definitely an irreversible mutilation, there seems to be no medical reason to consider that it does significant harm.
However, there is no denying that if the concept of children’s rights is interpreted to include freedom from being inadvertently subjected to permanent bodily mutilation in any form, even for reasons of religious belief, then infant male circumcision is one of the procedures that’s ruled out. If you oppose legalizing any form whatever of religious female genital mutilation (including very minor forms like nicking the clitoral hood) or letting children be tattooed as part of a tribal cult puberty rite, etc., then you have no logical grounds for supporting the legality of infant male circumcision.
Yeah color me shocked!
The ruling is bad and the American Academy of Pediatrics has it right.
This is a situation in which a minor procedure (when performed on an infant) has alleged health benefits (and risks), in which a reasonable person, absent religion, could well choose to have it performed on their children - and millions in NA do, who lack any religious motive.
It is also a procedure which is, for some, religiously motivated. The German court has allegedly ruled (I haven’t read the actual ruling) that you can do the procedure if your motives are for health, but not if they are for religion.
This is silly. It mean in effect that everyone except Jews and Muslims could legitimately perform the procedure on their kids without question.
The better position would be for the state not to get involved where (a) the procedure is minor, and (b) there exist arguable reasons for performing it. Leave the matter to parents & physicians - as recommended by the AAP.
Some forms of female circumcision are less severe than some forms of male circumcision. The so-called “Type 1.A” FGM removes only the clitoral hood. By contrast, some Australian Aboriginal tribes not only remove the male prepuce but “subincise” the penis–they slit the dorsal side, leaving a large gash after it heals. As a result, the man will have a forked stream of urine.
I have a certain concern that legal efforts against male excision, if based on the principle of gender equality, could boomerang and force some forms of female excision to be legalized. But considering the outrage a couple of years ago when the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended a “ritual nick” as a substitute for parents who might otherwise have their daughters fully excised, perhaps that’s a misplaced concern.
grude:
and Novelty Bobble:
The Torah says that the eighth day of a baby boy’s life is the ideal time for him to be circumcised, and even when it can’t be done on that exact date for various reasons, it should be done as soon as possible. Jewish belief definitely says that there are certain spiritual refinements that cannot be experienced by males who are uncircumcised. Disallowing parents from having their under-aged sons circumcised is absolutely an impediment to the practice of Judaism.
“Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]”
Sounds pretty clear to me. Unless you have a better definition of religion than “someone believes it sincerely”?
(Granted, this is U.S. law, not German. I understand that the court cited in the OP is German. However, I believe that much of the cheering section for this court decision is American.)
It doesn’t. It’s an example of how the freedom to maintain your own beliefs is embraced by some because they agree with the outcome, but when the outcome of said freedom is contrary to the outcome they’d prefer, they’d favor compelling their opinion on the matter.
They are not required to have medical training but many do.
Who circumcises your child is largely a matter of local culture; most do follow sterility procedures, including gowns, gloves and even, in some cases, a numbing agent.
In many hospitals here, one of the pediatricians is also a practicing jew who will perform the circumcision before the child leaves the hospital if that is the parents’ preference. (It wouldn’t pass in an orthodox family, but it is fine with many conservative/reform families.)
In the case you cite above, this is far outside the mainstream today. Most practicing Jews in the USA are not orthodox and choose their child’s mohel differently.
IANAJ, but if I’m not mistaken, the command is upon the father to have the son circumcised on the 8th day. So it is a restriction on the religious practice of Jewish adult men. Dunno about Muslim views.
Kimstu:
It interferes with the parents’ ability to determine that certain procedures confer religious/spiritual benefit upon their children who are yet unable to achieve that of their own accord.
Certainly, that would be pretty darned hypocritical.
I know, but as cmkeller pointed out, the commandment is specifically for the religious benefit of the son.
We can argue about the extent to which the religious freedom of adults should be taken to include the freedom to subject their children to certain religious obligations, but there’s no question that that freedom isn’t unlimited.
And the line determining what bodily modifications parents can require in the name of religion has to be drawn consistently. If even the most minor forms of religious female genital mutilation (such as the “clitoral hood nick” I mentioned above) are banned, then clearly male circumcision should be banned too.
ETA: much of which cmkeller just said.
I agree that “even the most minor forms” ought not to be banned, because to my mind criminal sanctions should be restrained by de minimis considerations, but that being noted there is an additional and significant distinguishing feature of male vs. female circumcision - that the former is alleged to have health benefits, while the latter is not.
An atheist, acting reasonably and with knowledge of the latest scientific literature, could come to the conclusion that male circumcision was beneficial for his or her infant. That being the case, there is no reason for the state to make that decision. In legalistic terms, its a decision within the “range of reasonableness” - one could well disagree with it, but it isn’t clearly and obviously wrong and harmful.