Among adults, you say?
People are having their children’s bellybuttons surgically altered for cosmetic reasons? :eek:
This may be the case but I’d like to see some evidence of this.
Just as a point of reference the current guidlines on circumcision in the UK NHS are here and a page on the advantages and disadvantages here. Essentially it is always available on health grounds and in some areas for religious reasons - down to the local Care Trust how it spends its money.
The state should only interfere with the parents right to raise their children however they choose. Circumcision, however disagreeable the practice, is not an extreme case. We do not want state owned children.
I know, but precisely we aren’t talking about the US
Well, you asked if you would be prosecuted. I said that I wasn’t sure you’d be able to have the procedure done in the first place. And it was relevant because some posters in this thread seemed to assume that anybody except Jews and Muslims could have it done because they would do it for medical reasons. And I’m not sure that it would be possible in practice. Again, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were only done for religious reasons in Germany.
As for whether it would be prosecutable assuming that you got it done, who knows? I would assume it’s a possibility, and that it would be up to the local court to decide whether or not the alleged medical benefits are sufficiently proven and sufficiently significant to justify the procedure.
Routine does not equal medically indicated, circumcision in the USA was to the point in the 60s-70s they didn’t even ask parental consent it was just done as a matter of course before infants were discharged from maternity wards. Very different from medically indicated circumcision.
That article is on a anti-circumcision site, but it seems to cover the basics. The question is like asking why shaving pubic hair has become fashionable among some women, it has no concrete clear answer.
“Novelty Bobble
But there are lots of things recommended by religions that are either ignored or illegal and are accepted as such, so the precedent is set.”
Mormon polygamy is an unambiguous case.
In Canada at least, Jehovah Witness parents cannot refuse that their child receive life-saving blood transfusions. A US lawyer could confirm whether or not the is the case there too.
I don’t think a Sikh who tried to carry his blade with him on an airliner would be allowed. Do you?
A Muslim who honestly believed that his religion requires him to use loudspeakers/yelling to call people to prayer at 5 in the morning in a residential neighborhood would likely not be allowed either. Even though that’s common in some Muslim countries and part of Muslim practice.
Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Or any other body part.
In Cologne, they would not be able to, however they could go to other parts of Germany.
Apparently the ruling said it has to be for a medical condition. Just saying “I’ve heard there are health benefits isn’t enough.”
I have exactly zero knowledge of the Torah but surely it must say clearly whether it is seven or seventy years? A factor of ten doesn’t sound too helpful.
That is not from the Torah. It arose from the effort to never use the death penalty. Someone more scholarly than I will show up, probably Saturday night.
I gotta go light candles. 
I picked up that courts handed down the death penalty much less than the Torah would seem to indicate from numerous sources over the years. But the bit about seven or seventy years, I got from the SDMB’s own Zev Steinhardt. Since he’s more observant than I am, you’ll have to wait til sundown tomorrow to ask him about it.
[QUOTE=Zev Steinhardt]
In reality, however, capital verdicts were very rare - to the point where the Talmud states that a court that executed a person in seven years (or seventy, according to some versions) was considered a “murderous court.” There are several reasons for this, but one of the prime reasons was the rules of evidence in force at the time. Specifically, a capital crime would have to be witnessed by (at least) two male witnesses who are not related to each other, the victim or the perpetrator. The perpetrator would have to be warned beforehand that the crime he is about to commit is a capital crime and he would have to acknowledge the warning with words to the effect of “I understand but I’m going to commit the crime anyway”). As you can imagine, it is very tough, if not impossible, to carry out an execution under that kind of constraint.
[/QUOTE]
From this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=371500&highlight=seventy
It’s commentary from the Mishnah. I forget from whom, but I remember that Akiva and Tarfon chimed in to say that had they been on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been put to death.
The terminology is alien to me. Are you saying that subsequent interpretation of the religious texts means that the punishments required were not always carried out?
Mishna is the oral law, figured out by a bunch of Rabbis sitting around talking about stuff until the wee hours of the morning. 
I know of a few cases personally. No idea how prevalent it is…
Of course, it’s standard medical practice to do some aesthetic work in tying off the umbilical cord, right in the first place. Otherwise, we’d all have outies.
I know it’s just an opinion – opinions are like armpits – everyone has a couple – but I see circumcision as no more controversial than umbilical cord tying.
Others…obviously!..differ!
When she was in her cups, my MIL to be would speak of it in the singular.
. . . pretty sure that’s not true, unless you’re saying tying off the umbilical cord is in itself a cosmetic procedure. I was born at home, and I have an innie, as do most adults, in my experience. I’m relatively certain my parents did not ever have my belly button surgically corrected.
I think Samuel Goldman had a good quote about this issue.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/germany-outlaws-judaism/
I think it’s a good look at how some of the modern Protestant views of religious identification dramatically differ from those of other cultures.
I’m reminded of Richard Dawkins inveighing against referring to “Christian children”, “Muslim children” or “Jewish children” on the grounds that children didn’t choose their religion.
However, to Muslims, Jews, Armenians, and others religion is really something of a tribal identification that you’re born into not something you “choose”.
To them, Dawkins saying “nobody refer to a Muslim child” would be like saying “nobody refer to a Navajo child because children can’t choose what culture they want to be a part of, only adults do.”
Nobodies ties the cord anymore, they use plastic clamps like this. The clamp isn’t anywhere close to the bellybutton, the nub just falls off on its own. The shape of the bellybutton (innie or outie) is pure chance.
This is such clearly retarded apoligism that it is practically beneath me to point out the stupidity behind it. Do you still need me to? Do you think this proves any point whatsoever?
And the thing is I kind of agree with you in the sense that your mutilation of kids is not that evil, comparatively speaking, in terms of the results of it. If you don’t think the right of the individual to genital integrity is worth anything then there is not much harm given by circumcision.
But gotta laugh at you trying to justify mosaic law. That’s just stupid. And stop coveting my ass.