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).

[Prospero]

One botched circumcision should not prompt wholesale legal change and interference. I do not side with these faiths, but what i do feel is that in certain key areas (this one - the wearing of the veil, the shaving of the head of ultra orthodox jewish women, the wearing of turbans by Sikh men, the desire to see meat prepared according to Kosher or halal laws etc) it is an issue that should be left to debate within the ranks of the faith - not imposed repressively from the outside. Other issues can and should be outlawed (the sexual mutilation of women, Suttee, stoning for adultery for instance). When we are forced to live in a society where cultures that have radically different visions of the good must co-exist, then accommodation and compromise are crucial.

And you might argue the immorality of things like the repression of women in Saudi Arabia under the religious domination of the Wahhabis. I find this utterly repellent yet feel it is an issue that Muslims have to deal with.

[NYBURBS]

Well, I watched a news story where a Jew said that this practice defined who they were. I think that perhaps that's stretching it a bit, and I'm fairly certain that many of the long held traditions that any particular group has likely came about or were modified because of the law of the land. I can see the argument for preventing this until someone has reached an age where they can make the decision for themselves, though I do have some mixed feelings about the prohibition.

[Stavros]

Prospero, you identify a point of conflict when you say changes in the law that impact on religious practice should not be imposed repressively from the outside. I don't think many Germans would consider their law repressive, and the law cannot be imposed from 'outside' on Jews and Muslims in Germany if those communities consider themselves to be part of that country; and even if you are thinking of the term as 'outside the faith' the faiths must still adhere to the law of the country they find themselves in.

The aim in this case is to remove the potential physical (and presumably mental) damage that can be done to any other male infant taken for circumcision. That they have used the law in this way might be an over-hasty reaction to something with an alternative solution -instead of outlawing the practice, they might consider licensing surgeons with an impeccable record to perform the act, although the issue of consent of the infant is obviously impossible to achieve. The law could then impose a delay on circumcision until the male has reached adult age (Abraham was very old when he was circumcised), and capable of giving his consent and have his operation performed by a Muslim or a Jewish surgeon.

The controversy feeds two kinds of response -from those non-Jews and non-Muslims who use it to show how multi-culturalism is incompatible with European and mostly Christian societies. You can read the nasty views of such people in the Daily Telegraph comments to reports and blogs on most days of the week.

Just as annoying is the way in which the militants are manipulating many of the 'customs and practices' of religion to gain some momentum within their own faiths by taking on the slackers in their own faith as well as the 'atheists' and 'Christians' (or even 'Crusaders') in the process making something like Hijab overtly political. Frantz Fanon once advocated the veil for women in Algeria as a form of resistance to colonial rule, a similar argument was made by some Iranian women early on in the Islamic Revolution when there was a drive against westoxication and wearing the Chador was a mark of revolutionary zeal. If women chose to wear it, they should have the choice not to wear it, but I don't know how any law can impose this on communities while at the same time granting different faiths the freedom in which to practice. Arranged marriages and 'forced marriages' may be the same thing, or not -plenty of Hindu customs are illegal in India but are still practiced there.

Scientologists in the USA who are married can be forced to divorce by their 'church' and there is nothing the law can do about it; polygamy is also illegal in the USA but there may still be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who practise it. The answer to what outsiders see as the excesses of religious freedom could be to ban religion, but that wouldn't work. Is there a middle way?

[Prospero]

Yes - indeed it does raise complex questions when you factor in the politics - of both extremism within the religions and of those whose views are, as you say, represented by the Daily Telegraph (or in the US by Fox News - with all furore over the 9/11 "Mosque" a couple of years ago.) Rubbing along together, in the end, mean a degree of compromise by all. Two years ago I met a lot of young british Muslim women who had chosen to wer the veil - and in some cases the Niqab. They were cler that it was their choice for complex religious, cultural and political reasons. It was in some cases against the wishes of their male partners or fathers. So it would be wrong to automatically identify the wearing of the veil with male or religious repression of women - clearly some regimes such as the taliban, al shabab and in Saudi Arabia this IS the case. .(And as we know there is nothing in the Qur'an which requires women to be veiled. It is a custom - and was in the medieval west as well.) it is argued that the prophet's first wife chose to veil herself out of modesty because of the numbers of visitors to the prophet's house on business.

[broncofan]

Well, I watched a news story where a Jew said that this practice defined who they were. I think that perhaps that's stretching it a bit, and I'm fairly certain that many of the long held traditions that any particular group has likely came about or were modified because of the law of the land. I can see the argument for preventing this until someone has reached an age where they can make the decision for themselves, though I do have some mixed feelings about the prohibition.
I think you're right that it's a bit of a stretch to say it's defining. But let me put it this way. If the ban is not uniform from country to country, just about every Jew in any country would leave if circumcision were not allowed there. I think a Jew would rather live in Saudi Arabia than France for instance, if France banned circumcision and Saudi Arabia allowed it.

Now I will say in an attempt to be as objective as I can, that if the Germans are really sincere about such hardline secularism, then this is quite a brave move. I don't agree with it, but they had to anticipate how Jewish people would interpret such a pioneering move on their part and perhaps are standing on principle. But as I said, it would also be a very effective way to cause a massive efflux of Jews and Muslims, pouring out of their borders.

I tend to think as I said that the medical evidence put forward about the dangers of circumcision are often propaganda and the words used are often overblown. There is no parallel between cutting off a man's foreskin, leaving him to be able to reproduce and enjoy sex and cutting off a woman's clittoris, leaving her with an inability to experience sensual pleasure. I say this regardless of whether they are biological analogues....the comparison just doesn't pan out.

[Lovecox]

Putting aside the fact that the Jews acquired circumcision from the Egyptians who were fanatical about their ideas of hygiene, it is ultimately the mutilation of a child who has no say in the matter. Doesn't it make more sense to let a person decide for themselves when they are of adult age what religion they want to be and whether they would like to mutilate their own bodies or not? Would we allow parents to cut off their children's earlobes or tattoo them at birth for religious reasons? What about allowing female circumcision? I know that there are circumcised men who were born of Jewish parents and now wish they had never been circumcised. I personally know of two. Anyway, these are just my two cents ... and thank you for reading.

On a side note, I have had two Jewish girlfriends who loved my foreskin.

[Stavros]

Perhaps the compromise solution then is to leave the decision on circumcision (where it is not advised for medical reasons at birth) for the male when he reaches adult age, which could be 16 or 18 depending on the country. A lot would depend on whether or not the Jewish and Muslim communities insisted for religious reasons it had to be done, say on the 8th day. Either way there are ways around this, even if some people will not be satisfied. The point about tattoos is a good one, I think there was at one time a practice of 'scarifying' children's abdomens in the Middle East (possibly a bedouin practice but I can't say for sure) which was intended to ward off evil spirits and ensure the child survived its infancy.

[broncofan]

Putting aside the fact that the Jews acquired circumcision from the Egyptians who were fanatical about their ideas of hygiene, it is ultimately the mutilation of a child who has no say in the matter. Doesn't it make more sense to let a person decide for themselves when they are of adult age what religion they want to be and whether they would like to mutilate their own bodies or not? Would we allow parents to cut off their children's earlobes or tattoo them at birth for religious reasons? What about allowing female circumcision? I know that there are circumcised men who were born of Jewish parents and now wish they had never been circumcised. I personally know of two. Anyway, these are just my two cents ... and thank you for reading.

On a side note, I have had two Jewish girlfriends who loved my foreskin.
Lovecox,
perhaps they were just telling you that. They probably also said it was average size, which frequently means small.

We would not let parents cut off their children's earlobes, but that's a crazy analogy. And out of millions of men who have been circumcised you might find some who say they think it was a violation. This type of anecdotal evidence should mean little; would it matter if I said that I think not doing it would have been a failure to maintain hygiene or I saw it as a gross injustice? And yes, I acknowledge that it can be done but not undone, but it's still relatively weak anecdotal evidence that could be based on all sorts of reasons I won't go into.

But there are probably tens of millions of men in this country who have been circumcised and it is telling that there really aren't that many men who say what you claim two friends have told you. If it were mutilation, should it not have some effect on functionality? It simply does not or Jews and Muslims would not be able to reproduce, and would have a rate of adultery equal to zero. What is driving these men with mutilated penises to search for vaginas they cannot penetrate with their mutilated penises? It's just misleading I think to make the argument that circumcised penises are mutilated penises. It is an elective surgery that is made for the child, where the child cannot make the choice for themselves because they are not at the age of consent. I think that is the relevant focal point and perhaps those botched surgeries (as if it's a risk, this goes even more towards a child having the choice; and legitimate long-term consequences if they can be expressed in honest non-proganda terms).

I say this as a joke, though it may seem too sarcastic. I am touched that so many gentiles are concerned about the healthcare of Jewish infants. I am not implying anyone here is disingenuous but it has just not been my experience that there is nearly as much concern with other types of "assault". Perhaps this is a shifting of the tides. There have literally been dozens of anti-semitic vandalisms and attacks in the neighborhood where I live and the response is always "stop whining" (this is best said anonymously). I think some of the circumcision opponents should start showing up at brises and saying to the babies "stop whining, he barely touched you.":)

[broncofan]

Putting aside the fact that the Jews acquired circumcision from the Egyptians who were fanatical about their ideas of hygiene, it is ultimately the mutilation of a child who has no say in the matter.
I think Jewish people have some ideas about hygiene too, no? It's not explicit in the doctrine, but I would not be surprised if that were an underlying justification (and with pork etc).

I'm not trying to be aggressive as it may be an interesting anecdote but it is a total non-sequitur. You seem to be implying that the Jews (and later the Muslims) did not or do not have the same use for the practice as the Egyptians. Or that they did not understand the practice? Or that it should be less applicable to other groups who do not have the same fanaticism about hygiene?

Or was the sole point to point out that the Jews were not the original practitioners of circumcision? If so, what significance does that have?

[muh_muh]

One botched circumcision should not prompt wholesale legal change and interference

its not a legal change
courts dont make laws they uphold them

the law is you need patient consent (not parent consent) for non necessary surgeries and thus circumcising kids without a good medical reason to do so is illegal

[broncofan]

its not a legal change
courts dont make laws they uphold them

the law is you need patient consent (not parent consent) for non necessary surgeries and thus circumcising kids without a good medical reason to do so is illegal
Is that the way the law has always been interpreted? If so, how many times has the law been violated in the past several years and is there a statute of limitations for prosecuting the parents of Jews and Muslims?

The police could check the penis of every Jew or Muslim under three for instance to see if their parents broke the law. If so, there should be more prosecutions. There's no point in having a law if it's not going to be enforced. Laws generally cannot be passed retroactively, but if there's no legal change as you say, there has been widespread violation. Round up the criminals.

[Prospero]

Perhaps the criminals could simply be labelled - colour coded? A nice yellow star for the Jews and perhaps a green one for Muslims?

[muh_muh]

Perhaps the criminals could simply be labelled - colour coded? A nice yellow star for the Jews and perhaps a green one for Muslims?

oh fuck off if youre gonna act like a 10 year old