German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Terralthra]

A German court has ruled that parents can’t have their sons circumcised on religious grounds in a move which has angered Muslim and Jewish groups in the country.

The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland.

Neither does religious freedom, which is protected by law in Germany, give grounds for such decisions to be taken for the children, the ruling says.

The court was considering a case against a Muslim doctor, who performed circumcision on a four-year-old boy at his parents’ request. Two days after the procedure bleeding started, after which the boy had to be taken to hospital.

German authorities learned about the incident and launched a criminal investigation against the doctor. The initial court trial ruled that there was no violation of the law, but the prosecutor’s office took the case to the Cologne district court.

The decision sets a precedent, which may affect medical practice across the country.
The possible ban on circumcision provoked outrage among Jewish and Muslim organizations in Germany, where every year thousands of boys are circumcised in their early years at the request of parents. They regard the ban as a "serious interference in the right to freedom of religion." But none of the organizations so far has commented on the verdict, explaining they first need to study thoroughly the reasoning of the judges.

Some experts however don’t rule out that the right for religiously motivated circumcision will be considered by the Federal Constitutional Court.

About time some court ruled that religious freedom doesn't allow you to cut pieces of flesh off of your children.

[Blayne]

As much as I detest the practice and feel the rate would drop severely with good information available (right now many people do it for non-religious reasons thinking it's more hygienic or that "the other kids will make fun of him" :stare:) among gentiles, I consider outright banning it goes too far and am not comfortable with it. It will just encourage people to go underground where greater harm could transpire.

[General Zod]

As much as I detest the practice and feel the rate would drop severely with good information available (right now many people do it for non-religious reasons thinking it's more hygienic or that "the other kids will make fun of him" :stare:) among gentiles, I consider outright banning it goes too far and am not comfortable with it. It will just encourage people to go underground where greater harm could transpire.

There's already a number of things that parents aren't allowed to do to their children in the name of religion, the only reason this has been allowed to go on for so long is due to cultural inertia.

[Simon_Jester]

Since ritual circumcision matters a lot to Jews and Muslims, I'm pretty sure the reaction will be drastic. This is not a ritual they shrug off if it's inconvenient to practice it; they wouldn't do it in the first place if they didn't think it was important.

They might find a workaround (as noted, if German parents can still have their son circumcised "for hygiene," that's an obvious way around the ruling). There might be a mass movement of religious parents out of Germany. The circumcision ritual might be driven underground.

[evilsoup]

A German judge banning circumcision?
Guy must have balls of steel. You know what the critics are going to say.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As much as I detest the practice and feel the rate would drop severely with good information available (right now many people do it for non-religious reasons thinking it's more hygienic or that "the other kids will make fun of him" :stare:) among gentiles, I consider outright banning it goes too far and am not comfortable with it. It will just encourage people to go underground where greater harm could transpire.

Would you say the same of female circumcision? Please note that not all female circumcision involves lopping off the clitoris and that there is female circumcision that is actually reasonable to compare to male circumcision.

[Akhlut]

As much as I detest the practice and feel the rate would drop severely with good information available (right now many people do it for non-religious reasons thinking it's more hygienic or that "the other kids will make fun of him" :stare:) among gentiles, I consider outright banning it goes too far and am not comfortable with it. It will just encourage people to go underground where greater harm could transpire.

Perhaps a religious practice that involves mutilating the genitals of children SHOULD be driven underground and once those who commit are found, they are thrown in jail for a very long time.

[Tanasinn]

As much as I detest the practice and feel the rate would drop severely with good information available (right now many people do it for non-religious reasons thinking it's more hygienic or that "the other kids will make fun of him" :stare:) among gentiles, I consider outright banning it goes too far and am not comfortable with it. It will just encourage people to go underground where greater harm could transpire.

Perhaps a religious practice that involves mutilating the genitals of children SHOULD be driven underground and once those who commit are found, they are thrown in jail for a very long time.

Yeah, imagine not giving in to violent barbarism just because "oh, the barbarians will do it anyway."

Good on the judge.

[Serafina]

As much as I detest the practice and feel the rate would drop severely with good information available (right now many people do it for non-religious reasons thinking it's more hygienic or that "the other kids will make fun of him" :stare:) among gentiles, I consider outright banning it goes too far and am not comfortable with it. It will just encourage people to go underground where greater harm could transpire.

Why are you uncomfortable with it?

The procedure going underground is actually a reasonable fear (because it will be less safe for the children), but given that we have a reasonable (though far from perfect) system in place against child abuse. Also, note that circumcisions are already often done "underground", including in the case here.



In case this goes to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (our supreme court), i expect the ruling to be upheld (and thus potentially gain the status of a law, sort of). The current courts (we actually have two sets of supreme judges) have made several rulings with very heavy emphasis on the right not to be bodily harmed and strengthened the rights of children compareded to their parents. None of the cases i can recall offhand involved religion, but i can't see either of the courts putting a parents religious rights over one of the most fundamental human rights of their child.

[Xargon]

Is there some reason that this can't be done as an adult? I think it would mean more to God if as a adult a male decided to lop off part of his penis.

[Broomstick]

God Says So.

Seriously - Jewish holy text says all newborn males have to be circumcized by their 8th day of life, the only exceptions to be for the life or health of the child (in other words, hemophiliacs or seriously ill kids get a pass - but for the later once they recover they are still supposed to get it done).

[Zadius]

It's about damn time. This issue is one of the most frustrating issues to discuss with people because the belief that it has some important medical purpose is so strong (it is performed in hospitals after all), plus the religious element, plus pure inertia...

And don't even try to call it genital mutilation or people will accuse you of belittling the suffering of little girls who have been victims of FGM. As if being concerned about little boys means you don't give a shit about little girls. How about we stop mutilating children in general. I mean, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of piercing the ears of a small child, yet circumcision of 1000x more barbaric than that. Yes, FGM in it's worst forms is 1000x more barbaric still! It's a whole spectrum of mutilation and should all be stopped.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm curious. Ladies and gentlemen:

Where do you put the line between "accomodate people's religious beliefs" and "laws apply to everyone?"

Is there anything that would normally be illegal, that should be permitted in the name of freedom of religion?

If so, what things?

If not, what does "freedom of religion" mean in a secular society? How can it be a right if it doesn't let you do anything you wouldn't be able to do without it? Does "freedom of religion" mean anything? Do you think it should be removed as an essentially pointless thing?

[General Zod]

I'm curious. Ladies and gentlemen:

Where do you put the line between "accomodate people's religious beliefs" and "laws apply to everyone?"

Is there anything that would normally be illegal, that should be permitted in the name of freedom of religion?

If so, what things?

If not, what does "freedom of religion" mean in a secular society? How can it be a right if it doesn't let you do anything you wouldn't be able to do without it? Does "freedom of religion" mean anything? Do you think it should be removed as an essentially pointless thing?

I'd think a fairly simple "Do your religious beliefs cause harm to someone who cannot or did not give informed consent?" test is a good enough litmus test. Cutting off body parts of children? No. Cutting off body parts of other people? Not unless they agreed to it. Cutting off your own body parts? Go nuts. (For the pedantic, when I say "harm" I'm purely discussing the physical type. Psychological harm is a lot harder to quantify.)

[Grumman]

Is there anything that would normally be illegal, that should be permitted in the name of freedom of religion?

Absolutely nothing. If a law is so unimportant that you'd let people ignore it as long as they feign belief in a fictional character, it shouldn't be a law at all.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. Grumman, if so, could you answer the rest of my questions?

Do you consider "freedom of religion" to be a right? If so, what does it mean to have a "right" that doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do anyway?

[Zadius]

Hm. Grumman, if so, could you answer the rest of my questions?

Do you consider "freedom of religion" to be a right? If so, what does it mean to have a "right" that doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do anyway?

It means nobody can tell you that you can't do it just because it's your religion. If they're going to prohibit something, there should be a reason that isn't purely pro- or anti-religion.

[Grumman]

No, I do not consider "freedom of religion" to be a right. Any freedom that should be given that might be covered by such a right is already covered by other rights. Your freedom to believe is only a single example of your freedom of thought, and your freedom to perform the rituals of your religion is only a single example of your freedom to conduct yourself as you see fit as long as you don't cause harm to others.

[Simon_Jester]

It means nobody can tell you that you can't do it just because it's your religion. If they're going to prohibit something, there should be a reason that isn't purely pro- or anti-religion.

Here's the problem.

Suppose we talk about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you're allowed to speak- even in the most horrible tyrannies, people communicate with each other. Freedom of speech means that you can say things you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to say, like "the king is a fink!" Your speech is protected, and the state does not have a right to control it.

Freedom of the assembly doesn't just mean there are assemblies- people gather in groups in all societies. It means people can assemble into groups to do things the state would, all things considered, prefer to ban.

So if freedom of religion means "there are allowed to be religions," that's a different construction, a different idea of freedom. If we go with that- if, as you say, anything the state bans based on a secular rationale trumps freedom of religion... well. If we applied that rule to freedom of speech, we'd basically be saying "the government can ban any form of speech it likes, as long as it can think of an apolitical reason to do so." Which would have horrendous potential for abuse. In the hands of certain governments it might effectively mean the end of certain types of political or intellectual discourse, because the state would crack down on them, using "apolitical" reasons as a pretext.

Here, Germany is essentially doing exactly that to, well... Judaism itself, the whole religion. For a Jew who views religious obligations as serious and important, who intends to have a son, this law is a very serious problem if they try to live in Germany. They'd basically have to move out of the country altogether if they want to obey the law and the commands of their religion at the same time. Any strain of Judaism other than the most 'reformwards,' the most relaxed ones I can imagine are now... essentially banned in Germany, for the first time in many decades.

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?

Because the tenor of this thread is that the answer is "yes, it is, we should, and they should."

Do you not view it that way? If not, why not?

No, I do not consider "freedom of religion" to be a right. Any freedom that should be given that might be covered by such a right is already covered by other rights. Your freedom to believe is only a single example of your freedom of thought, and your freedom to perform the rituals of your religion is only a single example of your freedom to conduct yourself as you see fit as long as you don't cause harm to others.

All right, I'm somewhat refreshed to hear you come out and say it point blank.

Just don't come crying to me the next time someone says atheists want to take away their rights. Because... you kind of do. On account of not thinking there are any rights relating to religion.

[Alyeska]

Freedom of religion is an illusion. Every country has laws that conflict with religious beliefs. Every single one. We have a right to believe what we want. But we do not have a right to act out on every single component of that religion.

A more accurate statement would be that Freedom of Religion is not absolute. Neither is Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press. There are always limits.

You have a right to believe what you want. But your rights to act on those beliefs will be restricted by society so that you do not encroach on others rights. Which is why this ruling from the German court is a good one. Religion was being used as an excuse to take away the rights of the innocent.

[General Zod]

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.>snip<

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

[Ralin]

I'm against circumcision being legal in anything other than rare cases of medical necessity (or I suppose for adults who want to do it for whatever reason) and I have been for a long time, but let me put on my radical atheist hat for a second and throw this one out there. Where exactly do you draw the line on which religious practices are too harmful and should be banned? I'm not sure what the law is in Germany but in the US at least it's perfectly legal for parents to spend eighteen years teaching their kids that God's real, that he hates gays and that he wants them to do the same, along with a whole boatload of other reprehensible stuff that's probably going to do more harm to both the kid and everyone around him than getting their foreskin cut off.

We have plenty of precedent for giving parents broad leeway in how to raise their kids. Given that, I'm not sure if circumcision is worse than other things that no one seems to advocate banning.

[Simon_Jester]

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.>snip<

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

The answer to your question is "yes." Zod, the religious stricture in question for Jews requires that infant boys be circumcized during the first week of their lives.

They have one week. So Jews can either leave Germany, break German law, or ignore this religious rule. And ritual circumcision is, to quite a lot of Jews, one of the core elements of defining what it means to be Jewish in the first place- it's not something they shrug off lightly.

And you can say "fine, presenting them with that choice is fine." I'm not stopping you.

Perhaps this is what progress looks like.



Personally, I don't feel indignant about the decision, or the issue, at all. I'm feeling rather calm, actually. But I think it's interesting to see what people say about this issue when it's brought out into the open. You don't commonly hear people reflecting on their own beliefs and coming out with "freedom of religion is an illusion."

[Terralthra]

Here, Germany is essentially doing exactly that to, well... Judaism itself, the whole religion. For a Jew who views religious obligations as serious and important, who intends to have a son, this law is a very serious problem if they try to live in Germany. They'd basically have to move out of the country altogether if they want to obey the law and the commands of their religion at the same time. Any strain of Judaism other than the most 'reformwards,' the most relaxed ones I can imagine are now... essentially banned in Germany, for the first time in many decades.

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?

Because the tenor of this thread is that the answer is "yes, it is, we should, and they should."

Do you not view it that way? If not, why not?

By this logic, Judaism was already de facto banned in Germany (and pretty much every other first world (and most second world) nations), because you aren't allowed to go stone your neighbor to death on account of your suspicions of them being witches or adulterers. So if a practicing Jew wants to live in pretty much any post-industrial nation, they must have already accepted that the state can and will restrict what they are allowed to do, even though they are commanded to do so by their holy scriptures. All this ruling does in practice is add "cut pieces off of your kid" to the list of restricted acts.

And frankly, I'm pretty ok with that.

[General Zod]

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.>snip<

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

The answer to your question is "yes." Zod, the religious stricture in question for Jews requires that infant boys be circumcized during the first week of their lives.

They have one week. So Jews can either leave Germany, break German law, or ignore this religious rule. And ritual circumcision is, to quite a lot of Jews, one of the core elements of defining what it means to be Jewish in the first place- it's not something they shrug off lightly.

And you can say "fine, presenting them with that choice is fine." I'm not stopping you.

Perhaps this is what progress looks like.



Personally, I don't feel indignant about the decision, or the issue, at all. I'm feeling rather calm, actually. But I think it's interesting to see what people say about this issue when it's brought out into the open. You don't commonly hear people reflecting on their own beliefs and coming out with "freedom of religion is an illusion."

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.