German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Grumman]

You can say otherwise, that this is merely a ban on circumcision and not on Judaism. And I'm sure you can provide very confident secular explanations for the ban on circumcision goes into place.

But it has the effect of a de facto ban on Judaism all the same. Any parent who wants to be in Germany and be a practicing Jew and be parent of a son at the same time will have to do something the state views as child abuse. To avoid that, they can not have sons, leave Germany, or leave Judaism- those are the choices they will perceive.

Is that okay? Should we call this progress? Should Germans be proud of what this court has done?

Yes, they should be proud. If a religion requires that you do something that should otherwise be illegal (like abusing your children), it should face a de facto ban.

To use a more blatant example, think of the Aztec religion. Or, to word it the same way you did:
"You can say otherwise, that this is merely a ban on murder and not on the Aztec religion. And I'm sure you can provide very confident secular explanations for the ban on murder goes into place.

But it has the effect of a de facto ban on the Aztec religion all the same. Any person who wants to be in Germany and be a practicing worshipper of Huitzilopochtli at the same time will have to do something the state views as murder. To avoid that, they can leave Germany, or leave the religion - those are the choices they will perceive."

[Blayne]

Yeah this being a de facto ban on Judaism is sufficient reason for me to be uncomfortable with this ruling. Freedom of religion is a right and that means letting some anachronisms survive as a lesser of two evils.

[Ralin]

Yeah this being a de facto ban on Judaism is sufficient reason for me to be uncomfortable with this ruling. Freedom of religion is a right and that means letting some anachronisms survive as a lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind where you're posting. I'm pretty sure plenty of people here would agree that freedom of religion shouldn't be a right and that it just isn't practical to change that.

What makes me uncomfortable is that they're effectively banning some religions and not others, and not even necessarily the most harmful ones.

[General Zod]

The Mormons got along without polygamy just fine. I think the Jews can manage to find a way of dealing without circumcision until they're 18.

[Blayne]

I don't see it written anywhere that I need to abide by some kind of Hive Mind mentality or agree with the majority view. They can have whatever opinion they want but it is merely opinion, any rationale for removing religion as a right would also equally work to remove speech, assembly, bearing arms, or organized labour. And I agree that any rationale to ban a religion could easily be used to promote a State religion as soon as one manages to usurp power one way or another in favour of themselves at the expense of others.

edit: You actually can't circumcise when your older, the medical complications are exponential.

Can we not draw a false equivalence between practices of Religion A and practices of Religion B?

[Ralin]

The Mormons got along without polygamy just fine. I think the Jews can manage to find a way of dealing without circumcision until they're 18.

And Catholics could survive if they were banned from holding Mass. It would still be an infringement on their rights, as we generally conceive them.

I don't see it written anywhere that I need to abide by some kind of Hive Mind mentality or agree with the majority view.

Not saying that you do, just pointing out that you're making some assumptions here that not everyone shares. I know I don't.

You actually can't circumcise when your older, the medical complications are exponential.

Well, you can, my father was circumcised as an adult for medical reasons awhile back, but yeah, point taken.

Can we not draw a false equivalence between practices of Religion A and practices of Religion B?

It's not an false equivalence. If members of Religion A are free to harm their kids based on their religious beliefs and customs and members of Religion B aren't than members of Religion B are being discriminated against.

[General Zod]

The Mormons got along without polygamy just fine. I think the Jews can manage to find a way of dealing without circumcision until they're 18.

And Catholics could survive if they were banned from holding Mass. It would still be an infringement on their rights, as we generally conceive them.

If you can show that going to mass is just as harmful as lopping off body parts, I'd say go ahead and ban it, but I don't really see that happening anytime soon.

[Ralin]

If you can show that going to mass is just as harmful as lopping off body parts, I'd say go ahead and ban it, but I don't really see that happening anytime soon.

Look, I'm just asking where the line is. Physical harm? Psychological harm? Permanent physical harm? I have a hard time reconciling this and I'm asking how you can do that without throwing out religious freedom and the right to raise one's kids as one see's fit altogether.

[General Zod]

If you can show that going to mass is just as harmful as lopping off body parts, I'd say go ahead and ban it, but I don't really see that happening anytime soon.

Look, I'm just asking where the line is. Physical harm? Psychological harm? Permanent physical harm? I have a hard time reconciling this and I'm asking how you can do that without throwing out religious freedom and the right to raise one's kids as one see's fit altogether.

I'm pretty sure I outlined my position on the first page.

[Blayne]

I consider it a false equivalence because it's essentially saying; that if this religion over here is fine despite having a practice banned than this other religion should too, it's demonstrably false because Judaism and being Jewish isn't just a religion, it's a culture and an ethnicity.

[Ralin]

I'm pretty sure I outlined my position on the first page.

Yeah, you did, and I don't think it's a good one. How is eighteen years of indoctrination into the worldview of Fred Phelps or the Catholic Church not worse than losing one's foreskin?

I consider it a false equivalence because it's essentially saying; that if this religion over here is fine despite having a practice banned than this other religion should too, it's demonstrably false because Judaism and being Jewish isn't just a religion, it's a culture and an ethnicity.

Okay, maybe I'm just dumb but I'm not seeing how that makes it a false equivalence. My point was that it's unfair to ban one religion's harmful custom and allow members of another religion to do things that are as bad or worse based on their religious beliefs. Especially when the reason boils down to the second religion being bigger and harder to challenge.

[General Zod]

I'm pretty sure I outlined my position on the first page.

Yeah, you did, and I don't think it's a good one. How is eighteen years of indoctrination into the worldview of Fred Phelps or the Catholic Church not worse than losing one's foreskin?

How do you define indoctrination? How do you prove it? How do you verify it? How do you quantify its level of harm? How do you know an idea is harmful before it goes into practice?

Playing thought-police isn't really practical. On the other hand it's pretty easy to prove if someone's had a body part snipped off or their entire backside is covered in purple welts or they're malnourished.

[Ralin]

How do you define indoctrination? How do you prove it? How do you verify it? How do you quantify its level of harm? How do you know an idea is harmful before it goes into practice?

Playing thought-police isn't really practical. On the other hand it's pretty easy to prove if someone's had a body part snipped off or their entire backside is covered in purple welts or they're malnourished.

Okay, those are all fair points, but you're talking practice and I'm talking theory. I think we're more talking past each other than really disagreeing. I agree that given the way our society is set up banning the former just isn't doable and that circumcision and other forms of direct physical child abuse should be banned anyway. I just don't think it's right that one gets a pass from the law and the other doesn't.

[Blayne]

I'm pretty sure I outlined my position on the first page.

Yeah, you did, and I don't think it's a good one. How is eighteen years of indoctrination into the worldview of Fred Phelps or the Catholic Church not worse than losing one's foreskin?

I consider it a false equivalence because it's essentially saying; that if this religion over here is fine despite having a practice banned than this other religion should too, it's demonstrably false because Judaism and being Jewish isn't just a religion, it's a culture and an ethnicity.

Okay, maybe I'm just dumb but I'm not seeing how that makes it a false equivalence. My point was that it's unfair to ban one religion's harmful custom and allow members of another religion to do things that are as bad or worse based on their religious beliefs. Especially when the reason boils down to the second religion being bigger and harder to challenge.

From google:

An Equivalence fallacy is the error of defining distinct and conflicting items in similar terms, thus equating tow items that are not, in fact, equal.
An author who suggests that one act of serious wrongdoing does not differ from a minor offence commits the fallacy of moral equivalence.

The equivalence here is that because Catholicism and Judaism are both religions, banning one practice must have the same effect on the other religion. When they are both distinct and not the same or equal.

[Serafina]

I consider it a false equivalence because it's essentially saying; that if this religion over here is fine despite having a practice banned than this other religion should too, it's demonstrably false because Judaism and being Jewish isn't just a religion, it's a culture and an ethnicity.

And why would a culture/ethnicity grant you the right to harm another human being?

Because that's what we are talking about here. Every surgical procedure is by definition criminal assault/infliction of bodily injury that HAS to be justified by either the patients consent (which a child is unable to give) or saving the patients life (which isn't the case here).
And we aren't just talking about the effects of no longer having a foreskin - but about potential complications. And those are common enough (roughly 5% for mild and 0.5% for severe complications) that you have to justify the risk.

The "Right of Physical Inviolability" is one of the most fundamental parts of our constitution (it's in fact the second article therein, right after a pledge to uphold human dignity). A parents religious rights do should not overrule it.


In fact, if you want to argue about religious freedom, the infant circumcision is ALSO violating that - it violates the religious freedom of the child. While children can only give their own consent from age 12 onwards (by german law) and the parents ARE allowed to make decisions on their behalf. However, this right is based upon the right to raise ones children as one sees fit (child custody) - and while that is also a fundamental right, there is no conflict between the two - not lopping of your infants son foreskin does NOT prevent you from raising him in any religion you want. Even if you see a conflict there, our supreme court has consistently ruled that §2 (physical inviolability) overrules §6 (right to raise ones children).



Yes, a ban of infant circumcision is a PRACTICAL problem - people of islamic and jewish religion will have a serious conflict. But that should not override fundamental laws.

[Blayne]

Let's put this another way, if there was a hypothetical culture, let's call them Seiyoujin's whose history was very long and cherished by its community, with a long history of oppression; regardless of their location because they could always recognize another person of their tribe and thus always never be alone, because as a child custom demanded they have their ears pierced at say, 6 years old and wear a special decorative earring that makes you as a member; and thus "one of us" would you also say that this is a crime and the practice banned? Presuming a 5% chance that the procedure could be botched for mild complications and a .5% chance for serious.

Doesn't matter how or what, could be gangrene for all I know. Seiyoujin's are a traveling people and sometimes there isn't proper equipment. This practice cuts down to the centre of the Seiyoujin identity through thick and thin, it's an unessential procedure with no medical benefit, would you outlaw it because "The Mountain God demanded it" is insufficient reasoning?

[Napoleon the Clown]

There's a big fucking difference between ear piercings and circumcision, even ignoring complications. The latter of the two? It removes thousands of nerve endings and will never recover to how it was before. The former? It doesn't destroy even a tenth the number of nerve endings and piercings have been known to close up if you don't regularly have jewelry in there. Also, there's a pretty big difference between an week old infant and a six year old. The six year old can at least know what is even going on (though not fully comprehend the significance of the ceremony). A one-week old child? All it knows is that it is in a lot of pain. It doesn't understand anything about why. In fact, circumcision without any form of anesthetic regularly causes the recipient to go into shock from the pain. That's thousands of nerve endings getting cut off.

There are videos all over where you can see what circumcision actually is. First there's screaming (you know, from the pain) then the child gets all quiet and out of it. From going into shock. Ritual circumcision is barbaric. Tradition is a terrible reason to cut off parts of innocents.

[Serafina]

*snip*

Yeah, i call bullshit here. Getting your ears pierced is IN NO WAY comparable to circumcision.
It does not destroy important nerve endings (nor nowhere near as many), wearing the ring itself is reversible, as is part of the damage done by a ear piercing - and you outright admit that your numbers are made up!


Now, if the praxis of your fictitious people actually involved harm and risk comparable to circumcision - well, then the same reasoning than with circumcision would apply. But since it is so harmless thats it not even qualified as a medical procedure, your comparison is completely fallacious.


Let me repeat myself again, since you apparently don't get the argument:
Infant circumcision is bad because it harms the bodily integrity of the child and puts it at risk.
Getting ones ears pierced does not do that. Any equivocation between the two is fallacious.

[Broomstick]

Is there anything preventing them from getting a circumcision as an adult? If not then your self indignant rant is lacking teeth.

The problem is they believe it is a commandment from God Himself to circumcise their boy children by eight days old. It's not that there is anything preventing an adult from consenting to circumcision, it's that it's not soon enough according to their religion. For reference, Genesis chapter 17, relevant verses with some added emphasis:

10 - This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.

11 - And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.

12 - And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.

13 - He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 - And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

This isn't negotiable for Jews. It's the Word of God, literally, as far as they are concerned. Waiting until adulthood is not acceptable and they can't compromise on this. You're essentially saying they can't have Jewish sons, as no uncircumcised male would be permitted to participate in religious rituals, their uncircumcised sons would have to be excluded from Sabbath rituals and holidays like Passover. Even if their uncircumcised sons performed the necessary religious studies for a bar mitzvah it couldn't take place at the traditional age of 13.

While the intention is to prevent child abuse, the effect is to prevent Jewish sons from even starting to participate in religious and community life until old enough to consent to circumcision. It really does effectively outlaw the continuation of religious life for half the offspring of a community. Also consider that many Jews believe that if the father is remiss in getting his son circumcised then the community has a duty to see that's it's done anyway. This could get quite ugly. It's unlikely the majority of Jews are going to give up on 5,000+ years of traditional foreskin hacking overnight.

[Broomstick]

Do you have a primary source for this? I've seen other sources indicating that it's grudgingly permissible as long as it's done by the time they become an adult, otherwise nobody could ever become Jewish after the fact.

Adult male converts must undergo circumcision prior to participating in the religious part of the community. It's not "grudgingly permitted", it's required for them to enter the community. For reference on infants see again Genesis 17:10-14. That's your primary reference. I realize the Bible is not normally considered a valid reference on this board but in this case it actually is the appropriate document to consult.

[Broomstick]

However, this right is based upon the right to raise ones children as one sees fit (child custody) - and while that is also a fundamental right, there is no conflict between the two - not lopping of your infants son foreskin does NOT prevent you from raising him in any religion you want.

Yes, actually it does if that religion requires your son be circumcised prior to entering into the religious part of the community. It's not German law that outlaws this, it is Judaic law that does.

Even if you see a conflict there, our supreme court has consistently ruled that §2 (physical inviolability) overrules §6 (right to raise ones children).

You do realize that to many Jews this will be seen as stealing their sons?

Now, just to be clear - I haven't a dog in this race. I'm not male, I don't have sons, and I have never been part of the Jewish community or practiced that religion. I'm opposed to routine infant circumcision. I'm just pointing out that this is a much bigger deal to Jews than most of you gentiles realize. It's not a minor or optional thing from their viewpoint.

Yes, a ban of infant circumcision is a PRACTICAL problem - people of islamic and jewish religion will have a serious conflict. But that should not override fundamental laws.

While it is questionable whether or not Islam actually requires circumcision, and certainly there is considerable history and precedent for delaying circumcision until at least puberty among Muslims, this is as I said not a negotiable item for Jews.

[LaCroix]

Yes, actually it does if that religion requires your son be circumcised prior to entering into the religious part of the community. It's not German law that outlaws this, it is Judaic law that does.

You will notice that Germany ruled against the old practice of having a crucifix in classrooms, against the wide protests of church and
parents. They also ruled against Jehova's witnesses who denied blood transfusions for their children in life-or-death situations. They ruled against exorcism, sentencing two priests to jail (Anneliese Michel case).

German courts simply do not believe that ANY religious practice is above the constitution or common law.

[Serafina]

Now, just to be clear - I haven't a dog in this race. I'm not male, I don't have sons, and I have never been part of the Jewish community or practiced that religion. I'm opposed to routine infant circumcision. I'm just pointing out that this is a much bigger deal to Jews than most of you gentiles realize. It's not a minor or optional thing from their viewpoint.

Again, i realize that it is a big deal for them. And i plain don't like that even moderate Jews will feel attacked, unwelcome and persecuted due to this.

But no matter how big a deal it is due to their religious traditions - neither the traditions (religious or otherwise) or beliefs (religious or otherwise) of parents are above the fundamental right of physical inviolability of their children.


The only way to convince me (and most likely the german courts) that infant circumcision without medical indication is legal (due to not violating that fundamental right) is showing that circumcision does not, in fact, lead to a violation of that child's physical inviolability.

Any argument that focuses on the importance of traditions or religious belief has already been shot down by German courts - exercise of your religion does not allow you to violate other peoples rights. "Your rights end where others peoples rights begin", and a child's right to physical inviolability is not something it's parents have any control over (unlike, say, it's right to freedom of religion, where they can decide for the child until it is 12).

Ultimately, not circumcising their children does not inhibit the exercise of religion of the parents themselves (from a legal standpoint), just like not stoning heathens does.

[Broomstick]

German courts simply do not believe that ANY religious practice is above the constitution or common law.

Fine by me, Germany should be run by Germans as they see fit. However, to attempt to portray this as something that Jews can compromise on reveals an ignorance of Judaism. Of course, why should anyone non-Jew be entirely conversant with Judaism? You can't know everything about everything. I wish to correct people on the notion that there there is some way of compromising on this or postponing male circumcision until adulthood among Jews. There isn't. Period. It's a very strong conflict on fundamental points for the two societies: German views on self-determination and body integrity vs. a Jewish law that has been central to the religion/culture for over 5,000 years.

The only way I could see Jews finding a way to pass on infant circumcision is if there was the death penalty for the practice with a reasonable expectation of the sentence being carried out, as preservation of human life trumps all other Jewish law and tradition (which is why hemophiliac Jews are excused from circumcision). That's also why Jews in WWII camps were "excused" from practicing kosher as when faced with actual starvation it is not only permitted but required to eat foods normally forbidden (pork, insects, etc.) if they will sustain life and there are no alternatives. I don't see Germany, which last I heard did not have the death penalty for anything these days, imposing it for infant circumcision. Do you?

[Broomstick]

Ultimately, not circumcising their children does not inhibit the exercise of religion of the parents themselves (from a legal standpoint), just like not stoning heathens does.

Sorry, hit submit before I addressed this.

Yes, actually it DOES inhibit the exercise of religion on the part of not only the parents but every adult Jew in the community. The parents have a religious obligation to see their sons circumcised, this is commanded by God and failure to do this is a failure of obedience to God. The adults of the Jewish community are also obligated to see infant males in their community circumcised by their 8th day of life (or upon entry into their community if they're part of a family converting). Again, this is a religious duty every bit as important, if not more so, than keeping a kosher diet or observing the Sabbath. Go back and re-read the quoted part of Genesis - strict interpretation is that not only should the Jewish men in their community be circumcised but also any male slaves, bondservants, or other men dealing among them in a Jewish household. Failure to do so means you are not following the commands of God. This may be ridiculous to an atheist, but to religious people that is often even more important than following secular law.

YOU don't see it as inhibiting their religious practice but they do.

Now, personally, I have no problem banning religious practices that involve human sacrifice (the old Aztec religion, for example, is incompatible with any society I'd want to live in, and incompatible with the modern world). I think we're moving to banning religious/cultural practices that involve maiming other people, including children. There will be pushback, though.