Circumcision ban in Germany

[Prospero]

Growing protests in Germany after a decision to ban circumcision. Muslims and Jews are united in protests against "racist" ruling.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120706-43595.html

So what do members think? And on a related note d you prefer your partner to be cut or uncut? Or is that in part defined by your own status?

[Stavros]

And what is 'racist' about it? 'Race' has no meaning and thus has no application here. Circimcision is the consequence of a mixture of religion and culture -the reasons could also be medical- I would have thought. The argument that it causes pain to a child who has no ability to refuse seems important to me, there can be few other examples of babies being subjected to this kind of violence for religious/cultural reasons. Giving up one's child to be a Eunuch in Imperial China would be another example.

[Femboyurge]

I agree with Stavros. Circumcision is mutilation, unless there are severe medical reasons for it, like penis cancer or extreme phimosis/paraphimosis. Cutting into newborn boys' penises for religious reasons is simply unacceptable in a civilized society.

Circumcision in the Anglosaxon world is a complicated thing, though no less unneccessary. It's a mix of old Victorian moralism and some medical misbelieves from the late 19th and the early 20th Century.

[Prospero]

It has an element of racism because the two faiths who require this as part of their religious practice are both minority faiths - the Jews about whose experience in Germany one scarcely need to comment - and Muslims who are facing discrimination globally because of the behaviour of a lunatic fringe in their faith. Unlike the arguments against female circumcision, there is no evidence that this causes any real suffering for boys and men later in life - nor any loss of sensation. And it hardly comparable to the fate of eunuchs in China or - before someone refers to it - Hirjas in India. And defining the "civilised world" in he way femboyurge seems to - as the triumph of Western ideas - seems to me to a rather limited way of considering what civilisation is. The Jewish and Muslim faiths have great claim to be civilised - and by forcing them to conform to our Western and modern ideas are we not offering an elitist attitude?

[Stavros]

Prospero, you need now to explain in what way identies such as 'Jew' and 'Muslim' are in your terms, 'racial'. To me this is meaningless. Also, anyone can convert to being either a Jew or a Muslim -I used to work with a Roman Catholic who converted to Judaism, and knew an American Jew who converted to Islam. 'Race' is a bogus concept, and you haven't proven that this issue has anything to do with it.

There is a claim that it impacts on religious freedom because of the assumption that circumcision is an obligation. If you go to the initial argument, Genesis 17 verses 9-14 it says not only that the act of circumcision is a mark of a Abraham's covenant with God, Abraham must also circumcise he that is born in the house, or bought with any money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. I assume this means slaves, could also mean servants, but it doesn't say if such people are 'Jews' -it isn't clear. Moreover, even though God tells Abraham that anyone who is not circumcised will be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Yet there are countless examples of Jews who are not/were not circumcised, one of the most famous being Theodor Herzl, founder of political Zionism. It also is not clear to me if one reference in Genesis is the first and last word on the subject, and I don't doubt that there are many learned tomes on the subject.

When it comes to Islam the situation is even more difficult -or simple. The Quran is explicit in saying numerous times that God has made humans perfectly, which raises the question why then would the perfect human body be modified? And on whose authority? Circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran at all, the practice has been adopted from the Hadith but even then if you read one Hadith (the source is al-Bukhaari) in addition to circumcision it says a Muslim must shave their pubic hair, trim their moustache, cut their nails and remove hair from the armpits -it is one of the actions called Fitrah. Some scholars argue there is no evidence that Muhammad or any of his first and immediate followers (the Rashidun) were circumcised, although there are some sources which claim Muhammad was born circumcised! If you want to engage in an argument for this, best of luck to you -and incidentally this applies to women where there is no evidence that Muhammad believed females should be circumcised.

From what I can see, the issues in Germany must revolve around issues of violence to the body, and circumcision as either a medical decision in infancy, or the decision made by an adult.

[Prospero]

Okay - I accept that the word racist in this term is probably inappropriate for in both cases they are religious or - in the case of Jews - cultural identities. Is there are a catch-all word that captures such discrimination?

But as to the question of circumcision - it IS a requirement by many religious Jews and Muslems so the prohibition of this is discriminatory in my view. Just as the decision some years ago in France to prevent the wearing of the Hijab or Niqab wad discriminatory since it was the choice of some Muslim women for religious reasons to adopt the veil. (And I know there is no requirement in the Qur'an or the Hadiths for this) But would it have been okay to ban Jews from wearing Yarmulkas? Or to demand that women do NOT cover their heads in church? I bow to your clearly greater knowledge of the Hadiths - but surely whether or not it is ordained in the Qur'an is not the issue. it is the religious or cultural practices made by choice that are being outlawed with no substantial evidence of any medical harm in these practices now carried out for centuries. The perception among Jews and Muslims is of discrimination by the White post-Christian majority.

[nina_lisa]

i smell a business opportunity, i'll open a Circumcision clinic in the Polish/German Border.

While you eat some döner kebab, or watch a movie, our expert nurses (actually i'll hire hungry cats, but clients shall not know that) hands will give you a Circumcision.

[nina_lisa]

Muslims and Jews are united

Finally someone found a way to make them talk to each others.

[broncofan]

I understand the human rights implications of making an elective surgery decision for someone who can't consent. I do however think that the claims that the surgery is mutilation are a gross exaggeration if not falsehood. Sometimes the surgery can have risks but when it is done properly there is no long-term damage done to the penis that can be characterized as mutilation.

But the concerns can be genuine as it is a decision made for a child on something that does not cause harm if left undone. But I disagree with those saying it's mutilation; we've been reproducing successfully for over 5000 years and not just because we want to have children, it's still enjoyable!

[Stavros]

Okay - I accept that the word racist in this term is probably inappropriate for in both cases they are religious or - in the case of Jews - cultural identities. Is there are a catch-all word that captures such discrimination?

But as to the question of circumcision - it IS a requirement by many religious Jews and Muslems so the prohibition of this is discriminatory in my view. Just as the decision some years ago in France to prevent the wearing of the Hijab or Niqab wad discriminatory since it was the choice of some Muslim women for religious reasons to adopt the veil. (And I know there is no requirement in the Qur'an or the Hadiths for this) But would it have been okay to ban Jews from wearing Yarmulkas? Or to demand that women do NOT cover their heads in church? I bow to your clearly greater knowledge of the Hadiths - but surely whether or not it is ordained in the Qur'an is not the issue. it is the religious or cultural practices made by choice that are being outlawed with no substantial evidence of any medical harm in these practices now carried out for centuries. The perception among Jews and Muslims is of discrimination by the White post-Christian majority.

I understand the points you make. Perhaps the critical issue is that even if we accept that it has become 'standard practice' for Jews and Muslims to circumcise infant boys regardless of the varied history of it, then the problem is that one steps forward to defend a rigid, doctrinal view of the practice imposed on contemporary Jews and Muslims by their 'clergy'. Medical reasons become irrrelevant. You end up on the same side as the people whose attitudes to other aspects of social behaviour, such as the way 'their women' dress, is repressive. Just as there are occasions when 'their' women have no choice what they are allowed to wear (and this applies to Othodox Jews as well as Muslims), infants have no choice in circumcision. Had contemporary religions not become a battleground of political fads, these issues might not be so toxic, and you would not be concerned to defend people with opinions you would normally not agree with -if you were to take sides with the self-appointed religious guardians of the 'faith' on this issue.

Its worth bearing in mind that this case began in Cologne when a four-year old boy who had been circumcised by a Muslim doctor continued bleeding for days after. The mother took her son to a casualty department, where it was discovered the boy had been 'irreversibly damaged'; someone must have then alerted the police or the State prosecutor who decided the Muslim doctor had botched the circumcision, and took him to court -but he was acquitted of causing harm so it isn't clear if indeed the boy was 'irreversibly damaged'.

I should add the French case was poor law, as there are plenty of nuns in France who exhibit their faith in the way they dress but I assume not in the schools affected by the law. I was briefly a student at the Institut Catholique in Paris and I don't recall much in the way of Christian imagery (eg, no crucifixes on the wall etc, but it was a long time ago).