German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Thanas]

It's hardly a strawman, Thanas - that attitude is precisely why the Spanish justified their bullshit in the Americas, because those savages were WRONG! and it was their duty to civilize them. Even if it killed thousands.

Fortunately, conversion by the sword is no longer acceptable most places these days but coercion usually sucks as a means to get cooperation, especially in the long term.

Claims it is not a strawman. Then compares outlawing circumcision to cultural and actual genocide. Righto.

And... so? There is ample precedent of people being willing to risk jail or even execution to maintain their cultural traditions. Sure. outlaw the practice - it won't stop any more than outlawing theft stops all robberies, or outlawing murder stops all killing.

It will however deter the vast majority of people from doing it, to use your examples.
If the moderates are reached, the law has served its purpose.

Or just never come back... which may be a satisfying solution for Germany, admittedly. The fact people still continue to take their girl children out of the country for FGM should be an indication that the same would happen for circumcision, and probably with more support globally as it is not seen as harmful as FGM.

The fact people who do this are a very, very tiny minority should clue you in on the fact that the vast majority of africans living in Germany do not practice FGM. Again, moderate are reached by laws like this.

There is a very long and old legal Jewish tradition of NOT compromising on the circumcision rule... I would not be so quick to assume they'll compromise.

They have never been asked to compromise on it before. That doesn't mean there is no willingness to compromise at all.

I don't know, it might be the same thing that convinced them to let Jews marry non-jews, which wasn't common up until a few decades ago.

There has always been a mechanism for non-Jews to convert, and for Jews to marry (at least in a secular manner if not a Jewish blessed ritual) non-Jews.

I eagerly await your source that such marriages were accepted even without conversion.

It's one reason why any child born to a Jewish woman is considered Jewish, regardless of the ethnicity/religion of the father.

Actually, that does not handle marriages.

And again, cultural acceptance as a whole is another level.

The fact that one culture involves inflicting bodily harm and the other one does not.

WHY does that make it superior? Surely if it IS then you can give a reason other than "I said so". While I agree with you on a personal level I don't feel that's adequate for this debate. Explain WHY that is so. You follow utilitarian principals? You have some other rationale? Surely you can support your claim.

Are you really that dense that you require me explaining why a culture requiring bodily harm is objectively more harmful than another culture on the same level which does not require any additional harm?

The Aztecs built quite a civilization with a morality that required human torture and sacrifice for the good of the community, quite a lot of it. The Europeans didn't win through moral superiority, they won through superior technology and smallpox. Is your rationale that your system won and their didn't?

Again with the lovely strawman and false equivolences.

[Alyeska]

Broomstick, I am sick and fucking tired of your bullshit.

I was circumcised. And it wasn't by choice. AND THAT IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL TO ME. I don't give a fucking rats ass about religion or culture. So go shove it up your ass. My body was mutilated for no fucking reason. And here you are screeching about infringing on the rights of the parents to dominate their children and mutilate their bodies. Well what about the rights of the children? What about my fucking rights to self integrity?

On a scale, circumcision is pretty low compared to Christian Science and their letting children die. But it is still a barbaric practice that should be done away with. And I honestly don't give a fuck what people think about it. Everyone supporting circumcision apparently doesn't fucking care about the harm it does and that people might not actually have liked what happened to them, so why should I give them any fucking courtesy at all? Let their culture drown while progress marches on. Fuck them. And those that defend the practice.

[Broomstick]

It's hardly a strawman, Thanas - that attitude is precisely why the Spanish justified their bullshit in the Americas, because those savages were WRONG! and it was their duty to civilize them. Even if it killed thousands.

Fortunately, conversion by the sword is no longer acceptable most places these days but coercion usually sucks as a means to get cooperation, especially in the long term.

Claims it is not a strawman. Then compares outlawing circumcision to cultural and actual genocide. Righto.

It's all along a spectrum.

I'm just astonished at the numbers of people who assume that by passing a law all those people performing a hideous practice will suddenly see the light, will accept the rational argument, and drop the custom with no backlash. Thus custom is not based on reason or logic, and it will not be amenable to reasonable or logical arguments.

It will however deter the vast majority of people from doing it, to use your examples.
If the moderates are reached, the law has served its purpose.

What if the "moderates" aren't reached? Again, the assumption seems to be that the Muslims and Jews will meekly go along with the law/new interpretation. Why do you assume that? Since when are people reasonable?

Or just never come back... which may be a satisfying solution for Germany, admittedly. The fact people still continue to take their girl children out of the country for FGM should be an indication that the same would happen for circumcision, and probably with more support globally as it is not seen as harmful as FGM.

The fact people who do this are a very, very tiny minority should clue you in on the fact that the vast majority of africans living in Germany do not practice FGM. Again, moderate are reached by laws like this.

Are a tiny number doing it... or only a tiny number being caught?

There is a very long and old legal Jewish tradition of NOT compromising on the circumcision rule... I would not be so quick to assume they'll compromise.

They have never been asked to compromise on it before. That doesn't mean there is no willingness to compromise at all.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Ours is not the first civilization to regard circumcision as something mutilating - weren't the ancient Greeks rather negative on the subject? Isn't that why the early Christian church had to give up the practice to recruit in Ancient Rome? The Jews didn't budge on the issue then, if anything their rules on the matter became more and more strict during that time.

I don't know, it might be the same thing that convinced them to let Jews marry non-jews, which wasn't common up until a few decades ago.

There has always been a mechanism for non-Jews to convert, and for Jews to marry (at least in a secular manner if not a Jewish blessed ritual) non-Jews.

I eagerly await your source that such marriages were accepted even without conversion.

Define "accepted". If you mean welcomed into the community, no - that's not the case even today. If you mean grudgingly tolerated sure, it happened. One of the arguments for tolerating it was to potentially bring converts/more people into the fold. Of course, the whole issue of converts to Judaism is a bit thorny, with some groups refusing to accept any converts for centuries and others being much more accepting of them.

It's one reason why any child born to a Jewish woman is considered Jewish, regardless of the ethnicity/religion of the father.

Actually, that does not handle marriages.

It handles any birth that occurs outside of a Jewish marriage.

And again, cultural acceptance as a whole is another level.

The Torah only specifically forbids marriage between Canaanites and Jews, extension of that to all Jewish/gentile marriages came later, and is not the only view in the Talmud which, while important in Judaism, is not the word of God but the interpretation of men. Jews have been arguing for thousands of years over the matter with no one definitive answer. Actually, we're both pretty close on this one - as you said, it wasn't common but that wasn't solely to Jewish law, European Christians were largely against it as well, in some areas and times the penalty for such being death. However, in the past at least some interfaith marriages were accepted.

Are you really that dense that you require me explaining why a culture requiring bodily harm is objectively more harmful than another culture on the same level which does not require any additional harm?

No sir, I want YOU to state your stance on that. If someone came in here with an identical moral stance and attributed it to "God told me" the atheists on this board would be all over him. When, for example, Alyrium states something I don't agree with I at least can start from an assumption he operates from a utilitarian ethical code (most of the time - being human he's imperfect of course). Hongi has repeatedly asked on what basis Germany can claim their moral/ethical stance on this issue to be superior to that of other cultures. So far, the answers seem to be "BECAUSE IT IS, MORON!" which is an appeal to authority if there ever was one.

So... tell me the ethical basis for this. Utilitarianism? Kantian ethics? Hangover of Christian systems? (which would seem at odds with past glorification of gory martyrdom and self-chastisement but religious thought does change over time) Pure self-interest, in that promoting a society that discourages physical harm one is less likely to be harmed oneself? The First World conquered everyone else in the 19th Century and is still more powerful so might makes right?

I don't buy that there is something inherently superior in modern First World ethics. I happen to prefer to them a lot of other systems, but fully admit I might be biased due to my upbringing. The universe is a cruel and hostile place, there is no morality as we understand it in nature, it is a human invention and not some immutable law of nature.

Arguments based on logic won't work for practices with an illogical root. You could convince a lot of secular America to drop infant circumcision in one generation based on reason and logic because the justificaiton was largely medical in nature, and thus also based on reason. If the source of the custom is something as irrational as religion, though, it won't be amenable to logic.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, I am sick and fucking tired of your bullshit.

I was circumcised. And it wasn't by choice. AND THAT IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL TO ME.

And it should be. As I have stated, my personal view is that it is repugnant. However, this notion that Germany is going to pass a law and suddenly the unwashed masses of Muslims and Jews will See The Light and give up the practice without a peep is irrational.

You know what's a big fucking deal to me? The idea that if you outlaw it there WILL be circumcisions performed illicitly on kitchen tables and back rooms, with untrained people and inferior tools, resulting in many more complications than at present, with those complications and infections concealed out of fear of prosecution, resulting in greater harm than is being done at present. It would, of course, be a completely unintended consequence but it could be one nonetheless. Would that be better?

I think the best situation that could come out of it is the Jews simply leaving Germany rather than indulging in back-room surgery. Of course, that doesn't end infant circumcision, merely displaces it to somewhere else. It doesn't solve the problem.

Well what about the rights of the children? What about my fucking rights to self integrity?

What about harm reduction? What about unintended consequences? I'm assuming yours was done in a hospital under modern sanitary conditions so, while unacceptable, at least the worst complications were avoided. If it becomes illegal then it's poorly sterilized razor blades and no anesthesia whatsoever in the hands of non-medical people.

I certainly don't approve of FGM, but if getting parents to consent to a clitoral head removal in a hospital under sanitary conditions saves a girl from a Pharonic mutilation then I'll accept the lesser evil in order to avoid a greater harm. I'd prefer people stop cutting on their kid's genitals entirely, but that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

If simply outlawing it would actually change the practice I'd be behind such a law but it's not going to. Sure, secular people will stop (if they're doing it at all in Germany, which I rather doubt) but those operating out of a "God told me" motivation won't. It can backfire and defying the law becomes of proof of faith and validation of identity.

Everyone supporting circumcision apparently doesn't fucking care about the harm it does and that people might not actually have liked what happened to them, so why should I give them any fucking courtesy at all? Let their culture drown while progress marches on. Fuck them. And those that defend the practice.

Well, no question where you're coming from.

Part of the problem is that, by and large, most people don't give a damn what the Jews do to their own. That's why religious exemptions are allowed in many cases, it's just too much trouble to round up all the nutters, and you can't talk them out of their stance. Maybe it's laziness on the part of the rest of the world, they just don't want to be bothered. Or maybe it's because prior attempts to stamp out certain groups just don't seem to work all that well. When you have a group as dispersed as Muslims or Jews it becomes impossible.

Right now I'd rather focus on getting the secular/non-religious people to stop. That's the easy, low-hanging fruit. Then, when you've got all the non-Muslim, non-Jew folks on board pressure the Muslims to postpone it to the age of majority as we know they're already somewhat flexible about timing. I'd rather focus on stopping 500 million underage Muslim circumcisions than 3 or 4 millions Jewish ones because, first of all, stopping the Muslim ones will be easier (though not necessarily easy) and secondly because that means stopping a hell of a lot more cuts than if you go after the smaller group. I'm not delusional enough to think simply outlawing the practice will make it stop, so I prefer to focus on harm reduction - reducing the numbers and reducing the risks. By that reasoning it makes more sense to leave the Jews for later because they're going to be stubborn.

[Serafina]

It's all along a spectrum.

Gah...do you have ANY idea how stupid that statement is?

Yeah, everything is on a spectrum somewhere. That doesn't mean that things are bad just because they are on the same spectrum as a bad thing.
Or would you say that bumping into someone as bad as as tortutring them? Because both are on a scale of "inflicting pain".
Would you say that performing life-saving surgery is as evil as slashing their intestines with a knife? Because both are on a scale of "cutting someone else open".
Would you say that taking away a childs sweets because it misbehaved is as bad as starving it for days? Because both are on a scale of "taking away a childs food".

Banning a single cultural practice is NOT the same thing as banning an entire culture and slaughtering it's adherents. Because that's what you are comparing here - no one is banning reading the Torah, or building Synagogues, or teaching children Hebrew, or wearing traditional Jewish clothing, or eating kosher, or religious ceremonies or anything like that. All that is being banned is cutting of a baby boys foreskin.

Further, even your comparison of "they did it for the same reason" is bullshit. First of all, we don't invade other countries over this issue. We apply an existing law that applies to us to ALL people in our country- would you rather have it be applied selectively, that we put a few people above the law?
Second of all, the spanish conquerers of South America didn't just say "human sacrifices are abominable, stop them". If they had, those indigenous cultures would have survived - they would have moved to animal or symbolic sacrifices, slightly altered their culture around that change and be done with it. No, instead they said "those people are barbari and thus not equal to us" - which we DO NOT do. Nobody is saying that Jews have in any way less rights because they practice circumcision. They have exactly the same rights as anyone else living in Germany - but harming a child is not one of these rights, period.

I'm just astonished at the numbers of people who assume that by passing a law all those people performing a hideous practice will suddenly see the light, will accept the rational argument, and drop the custom with no backlash. Thus custom is not based on reason or logic, and it will not be amenable to reasonable or logical arguments.

Well guess what - passing laws against beating your children (still legal in the USA by the way) ALSO stopped that practice. Not immediately, not entirely, not without backlash. Not due to reason and logic alone either - but due to the basic human mechanisms of fitting in and avoiding punishment and being ostracized.


Here is what i believe will happen, just so that you stop your strawmen:
The ruling will be challenged and ultimately upheld. No law will be passed to amend it due to the ruling being based on an unalterable basic right in the constitution. The Jewish Community in Germany will put up a major fuzz against this the entire time, but will ultimately find little public support because cutting off your childs foreskin is hard to defend.
A good number will still want to circumcise their children, but won't find any doctors willing to do so. That will discourage some of them, because they don't want it do be done by non-medical persons. others will do it anyway, but get caught and punished. That will discourage more and more people over time. Fundamentalist Jews will leave Germany altogether to mutilate their children. Others will accept it and just perform the circumcision when the child becomes 13.

This will take many years (about a decade i expect), but it's the way outlawing common cultural practices has worked before. In the end, it WORKS.

[Serafina]

What about harm reduction? What about unintended consequences? I'm assuming yours was done in a hospital under modern sanitary conditions so, while unacceptable, at least the worst complications were avoided. If it becomes illegal then it's poorly sterilized razor blades and no anesthesia whatsoever in the hands of non-medical people.

The same fucking reasoning can be applied to female genital mutilation: "Oh no, people will mutilate their children under unsanitary conditions - we better make mutilating your children legal!"
Because that's what you are asking for. How can a civilized society do that? How can it actively allow people to mutilate their children just because of the threat that they will do even worse things and still call itself civilized?

You know, your reasoning was a major concern when beating your children (at that time a widespread, believed to be positive, praxis, like it is still today in the USA) was banned. That it won't work anyway, and that people trying to keep it secret will make it worse. Yet it worked! So i ask you:
What about the long-term impact?
While it'll probably never be stopped entirely (just like we don't stop murder entirely), wouldn't stopping circumcision for all future generations be worth a bit of trouble now, in the present? Because your reason doesn't stop circumcision at all, it actually encourages it!

[Grumman]

I certainly don't approve of FGM, but if getting parents to consent to a clitoral head removal in a hospital under sanitary conditions saves a girl from a Pharonic mutilation then I'll accept the lesser evil in order to avoid a greater harm.

What if the parents are going to kill the girl unless they can mutilate her properly? Does that mean anything goes, to avoid the greater evil?

[hongi]

Banning a single cultural practice is NOT the same thing as banning an entire culture and slaughtering it's adherents. Because that's what you are comparing here - no one is banning reading the Torah, or building Synagogues, or teaching children Hebrew, or wearing traditional Jewish clothing, or eating kosher, or religious ceremonies or anything like that. All that is being banned is cutting of a baby boys foreskin.

Jewish circumcision is not a cultural practice, it's a religious one. It is also the most important religious ceremony they have. Nothing in the list that you mentioned approaches the importance of cutting the penis of a baby boy when he is 8 days old.

[Serafina]

Banning a single cultural practice is NOT the same thing as banning an entire culture and slaughtering it's adherents. Because that's what you are comparing here - no one is banning reading the Torah, or building Synagogues, or teaching children Hebrew, or wearing traditional Jewish clothing, or eating kosher, or religious ceremonies or anything like that. All that is being banned is cutting of a baby boys foreskin.

Jewish circumcision is not a cultural practice, it's a religious one. It is also the most important religious ceremony they have. Nothing in the list that you mentioned approaches the importance of cutting the penis of a baby boy when he is 8 days old.

Are you telling me that reading the Torah, eating Kosher and religious ceremonies are all LESS important than circumcision? That they are more integral to Jewish cultural/religious integrity than everything else?

Also, i don't differentiate between cultural and religious practices. One is not better than the other,and both are tightly interwoven anyway.

[Metahive]

Broomstick, do you have any idea just how condescendingly patronizing you sound? Just like the "enlightened" racists of the 19th century (like Karl May) who went like, "No, we mustn't give the melanine-challenged people trouble for they can't help but be a primitive, childish lot!" See, according to your ranting, Jews and Muslims are supposedly unable to cope with the moral values of a modern, progressive society which prohibits mutilating infants and can't help but being backwards and barbaric. In Germany we have a word, "Bärendienst", for things like that and "Bärendienst" is what you're serving up right here.

Your whole straw construct about cultural imperialism and genocide is a Red Herring since this topic is about Germany's domestic laws. Are you or are you not agreeing that Germany is free to impose whatever laws it sees fit upon its inhabitants? Why should a small minority get special exemption from the law, for irrelevant reasons at that, and why shouldn't then every other minority demand the same special rights? How about people from Anatolia and their system of honor killings? Your whole spiel can be just as much applied to that practice as to circumcision.

"O noes, keeping those primitive, barbarian people from Anatolia from butchering their daughters for retarded reasons would be, like, Nazi and evil and imperialist and stuff! They can't compromise on it, it's been an inviolable tradition for millenia! If we outlaw it, they'll just murder their uppity daughters behind closed doors! O me o my, and I can't possibly clutch my pearls any tighter in condescendingly patronizing fashion, *gasp* *pant* *swoon*!"

Hongi, since you've outed yourself as an ardent follower of the Southpark School of Intellectual Laziness and Preachy Indifference, I won't bother with you any further.

[Broomstick]

Are you telling me that reading the Torah, eating Kosher and religious ceremonies are all LESS important than circumcision?

Yes, that is in fact the case.

Well, except that Jewish circumcision is, in fact, a religious ceremony. It does, however, trump all other religious ceremonies, as it must proceed even on the Sabbath and other holy days were normally no work is permitted. And you'll probably find a few exceptions among the Jews (about 3%, apparently) who'll toe the line.

See, according to your ranting, Jews and Muslims are supposedly unable to cope with the moral values of a modern, progressive society which prohibits mutilating infants and can't help but being backwards and barbaric.

Yep, I think a lot of them are culturally in that state - they aren't willing to give up the barbarity. It's an issue of cultural indoctrination starting in infancy rather than something biologically innate, but most of them are brainwashed into thinking this bad thing is good.

Are you or are you not agreeing that Germany is free to impose whatever laws it sees fit upon its inhabitants?

Absolutely.

Do you agree the Jews are free to disagree with that? I think the Germans are entirely justified in demanding that people either adhere to their laws, leave, or suffer the consequences, too. I personally think the best option would be for the Jews to leave of their own accord if they can't conform, rather than stay and become a criminal minority.

Why should a small minority get special exemption from the law, for irrelevant reasons at that, and why shouldn't then every other minority demand the same special rights? How about people from Anatolia and their system of honor killings? Your whole spiel can be just as much applied to that practice as to circumcision

The only way I could argue a justification as you present the problem is that killing a human being (outside of self defense) has been outlawed all along in Germany and the prohibition enforced. On the other hand, there was no discreet law against circumcision in Germany until recently (if they had such laws on the books in, say, the 19th Century do enlighten me) and even then those laws were not enforced - so why now all of a sudden? Also, an honor killing, by definition, kills someone and that is harmful, whereas circumcision does not, and the man is still sexually and reproductively functional so no harm is done. (The Jews have long been aware that it diminishes sensitivity in the penis... but they don't see that as a problem. Indeed, in the Talmudic literature it's argued to be a good thing. Which is mind-boggling to me and most everyone else around here I'm sure, but it's an illustration of just how differently they think about this.)

Honestly, it doesn't convince me... it's a weak argument at best.

They can't compromise on it, it's been an inviolable tradition for millenia! If we outlaw it, they'll just murder their uppity daughters behind closed doors!

I question if the honor-killing tradition has ever been followed as consistently as the Jewish circumcision one. They aren't required to kill EVERY daughter, are they? No? Then it's not a good comparison.

[hongi]

Are you telling me that reading the Torah, eating Kosher and religious ceremonies are all LESS important than circumcision? That they are more integral to Jewish cultural/religious integrity than everything else?

Yeah. Ask a rabbi if you don't believe me. BTW, Jewish circumcision is a religious ceremony.

There are many many Jews who don't read the Torah, don't keep kosher, don't marry other Jews, don't pray, don't go to the synagogue to pray, don't observe the Sabbath. There are very few Jews who don't circumcise their children.

[Ralin]

So, uh, can I ask what exactly is being argued about here? Because near as I can tell it boils down to Broomstick saying "Circumcision is bad but it's probably going to be harder to get rid of than you think" and everyone else saying "We don't give a fuck." And this seems like a whole lot of words for something that can be summed up that quick.

[Serafina]

Are you telling me that reading the Torah, eating Kosher and religious ceremonies are all LESS important than circumcision? That they are more integral to Jewish cultural/religious integrity than everything else?

Yeah. Ask a rabbi if you don't believe me. BTW, Jewish circumcision is a religious ceremony.

There are many many Jews who don't read the Torah, don't keep kosher, don't marry other Jews, don't pray, don't go to the synagogue to pray, don't observe the Sabbath. There are very few Jews who don't circumcise their children.

In other words - they don't observe their culture/religion. Because a culture/religion is so much more than just "lets chop of parts of our kids!"

Because a culture/religion is NOT defined by a single act done (to you, not by yourself, no less). Both are defined by a groups shared beliefs, traits, social forms, habits, practices and shared traditions. A member of a culture/religion is further defined as someone who has these traits, or grew up having them.

Someone who observes NONE of a culture/religions common gatherings (Synagogue on the Sabbath), Holidays (Sabbath and others), eating practices (eating Kosher), beliefs (prayer), social customs (traditional clothing) or sharing of tradition (reading the Torah) is NOT an active member of said culture. If no one anywhere observes these traits of a culture/religion, that culture is dead.

Jews aren't prevented to do any of those by German law, thus their culture won' be killed by German law.

[Serafina]

So, uh, can I ask what exactly is being argued about here? Because near as I can tell it boils down to Broomstick saying "Circumcision is bad but it's probably going to be harder to get rid of than you think" and everyone else saying "We don't give a fuck." And this seems like a whole lot of words for something that can be summed up that quick.

Well, you nailed half of it.

What you forgot is the other half:
"Trying to get rid of a cultural practice is bad *points fingers at genocide* "
"You won't get of it rid anyway, so trying will only make things worse"

I DO give a fuck about getting rid of infant circumcision (don't give a damn if its about adults). Because no one has a right to violate a childs physical integrity and do it harm (unless medically necessary). And i agree that it won't be easy to get rid of it - but the answer to something being hard isn't to do nothing. And while Broomsticks prediction that people will do it in the kitchen instead will probably come true to some extent, we disagree about the extent of that - and she doesn't figure in the duration of that (how long it will be done before people stop doing it) at all.

[Thanas]

Claims it is not a strawman. Then compares outlawing circumcision to cultural and actual genocide. Righto.

It's all along a spectrum.

So is me meeting you and murdering you. Doesn't make any sense to even consider the second to be something to be argued as a possibility or an evolution.

I'm just astonished at the numbers of people who assume that by passing a law all those people performing a hideous practice will suddenly see the light, will accept the rational argument, and drop the custom with no backlash. Thus custom is not based on reason or logic, and it will not be amenable to reasonable or logical arguments.

Another strawman. If you are so stupid as to think that Germany will suddenly and miraculously reform all jews or if you are so stupid to think that we are arguing that, then I suggest you might want to lay off the booze. Newsflash: Nobody believes that suddenly it will be all like icecream and ponies for everyone.

It is a social process.

What if the "moderates" aren't reached? Again, the assumption seems to be that the Muslims and Jews will meekly go along with the law/new interpretation. Why do you assume that? Since when are people reasonable?

They will go along with it because that is what the vast majority of every religious group has done in the history of Germany when things were outlawed. Even when genital mutilation was concerned.

Are a tiny number doing it... or only a tiny number being caught?

You think there is a huge group of people doing it illegally without any pediatrician noticing? If so, please provide a source.

Ours is not the first civilization to regard circumcision as something mutilating - weren't the ancient Greeks rather negative on the subject? Isn't that why the early Christian church had to give up the practice to recruit in Ancient Rome? The Jews didn't budge on the issue then, if anything their rules on the matter became more and more strict during that time.

Actually, the jews back then budged on a lot of issues, including being forbidden to visit the temple of David etc. There were also a lot of jews who simply stopped being jews etc. Using Jewish adaptability in the ancient world does not really support your argument.

Define "accepted". If you mean welcomed into the community, no - that's not the case even today. If you mean grudgingly tolerated sure, it happened. One of the arguments for tolerating it was to potentially bring converts/more people into the fold. Of course, the whole issue of converts to Judaism is a bit thorny, with some groups refusing to accept any converts for centuries and others being much more accepting of them.

So again, there were moderate views and fundamentalist views. Just like today.

Are you really that dense that you require me explaining why a culture requiring bodily harm is objectively more harmful than another culture on the same level which does not require any additional harm?

No sir, I want YOU to state your stance on that. If someone came in here with an identical moral stance and attributed it to "God told me" the atheists on this board would be all over him. When, for example, Alyrium states something I don't agree with I at least can start from an assumption he operates from a utilitarian ethical code (most of the time - being human he's imperfect of course). Hongi has repeatedly asked on what basis Germany can claim their moral/ethical stance on this issue to be superior to that of other cultures. So far, the answers seem to be "BECAUSE IT IS, MORON!" which is an appeal to authority if there ever was one.

So the answer is you are unable to remember what everybody has been telling you and thus you are strawmanning once again. Kay, thanks for confirming that. But hey, maybe if I restate it enough it will work for you as well?

The answer is that you are not allowed to harm a person without consent. Obviously, cutting a piece of penis off is by itself the definition of bodily harm. A child is unable to consent. That is the argument. Now, do you need me to restate anything of these three very complex concepts?

If the source of the custom is something as irrational as religion, though, it won't be amenable to logic.

Gee, I guess we never should have tried banning exorcisms, crosses in the classroom, crusades and witch-burning then.

[Simon_Jester]

I think you misunderstood Ralin. He's saying the conversation looks like:

Broomstick: "Circumcision is bad but it's probably going to be harder to get rid of than you think."
Everyone Else: "We don't give a fuck [ABOUT THAT]."

Thus, you would be part of "everyone else," since you do not in fact give a fuck about how hard it's going to be to get rid of circumcision.

[Scrib]

I think Broomstick's point was also more of:" This ruling is heavy handed and will force Jews underground or out of the country, it's better to try to educate them or raise awareness."

[Thanas]

Which is a pretty stupid point considering she also claims they will refuse to change at all and are impervious to logical reasoning.

[Spoonist]

Oh my, oh my, this is such a trainwreck.

Just a few pointers again to try to stear you back to sane levels of conversations.

@the german court's ruling
This is not a new law. It was a ruling in a single case. Since it was not escalated further its precedent is very very limited.
The ruling was correct and in accordance with german laws. Also, no one was convicted of any crime in this ruling.
Note that the basis was a circumcision of a muslim boy aged 4 that had complications. Due to the complications it was reported to a medical control board who in turn reported it to the police, all in accordance with law and regulations.

@a jewish hospital announcement to stop circumcisions
This is just part of the successful propaganda of the religious to force the gov to adress what they consider to be a serious issue.

@ persecution
The german gov reps is right now having conversations with both muslims and jews plus the legal authorities on what to do about this and what it will mean in the future.
So it is not omg omg omg persecution. It is a rational discussions. (Well, as rational as it can bee with religious leaders).
This should lead to compromises, a give and take etc.

@ US and hygene
The hygene claim - it isn't and it wasn't. Such views are based on retconned medical history. Instead why circumcision was promoted as heavily as it was by end of 18th and start of 19th cen by people like John Harvey Kellogg was the same reason why young boys should eat cornflakes, ie, to prevent the most serious of medical issues: juvenile masturbation. This is why it never caught on as much in cultures which didn't have such a big taboo on masturbation. These are the same people who led orgs for prohibition etc. Quotes from Kellogg's books:
"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."
After it became common a lot of people started to make excuses as to why the practice should be continued, then and only then, the retcon of hygenic begins. However so strong was this retcon that such propaganda is still promoted today. Add to that religiously based research with flawed methodoligy and you have the mess that exists today.
The time it would be commonly hygenic would be for the physically inferm, as in when you check in granddad to the old folks home you should lop off his skin as well...

@ religious freedom
Religious freedom has never been about any specific sect being alllowed to do whatever they want due to their religion. Rather the opposite.
See Thomas Jefferson's discussions on this, or see the UN charters on this.
It is only lately that fundies of the biggest religions have tried to insinuate that religiuos freedom should incorporate rituals and traditions like these.

@ jews and circumcision
The cultural tradition of male circumcision for jews have changed throughout history, just as it will most definately change again as it is in a process of doing right now. Just like it changed in regards to the mohel gurgling the baby's post-operation bloody penis in their mouth with some chardonnay as a lovely way to spread VD to infants. Link to such discussion.
There are several precedents for this, most obviuos one being during the exodus. But in regards to following the law of the land you have the precedent during Hadrian's rule which allowed a minor 'pricking' version of the ritual. This since the essence is the bloodletting, not the actual cutting away.
Now as I mentioned upthread how the circumcision is performed and how much to cut is not based on milah so it is completely defined by culture and tradition. (Also note the difference with the babylonian talmud). In this case the mishnah shabbat 19. Go read it if you really want to discuss the relevance of jewish scripture vs tradition.
It includes other things that they no longer do due to sakkanat nefashot, like the tear or as in the case above the sucking. Nor do they usually put on cumin anymore either although it is still traditional to keep it around and spice the food etc.
So a simple compromise would be as was suggested by someone upthread. To uphold the religious freedom for both the parents and the child, they can perform the pricking as a child with the mitzvah and then at the age of legal consent perform the cutting.
Again this has precedence in jewish scripture in that kids should do an informed decision on conversion, with the option to deconvert fully.

@ muslims and circumcision
The Quaran does not explicitly mention circumcision or it being any type of requirement for muslims.
There are plenty of differing haddiths which do or do not mention curcumcision as fitra.
So instead it is a recommended practice due to tradition. A sunnah muakkadah.
Top that off with there being no prescribed methodology except for crosspollination of judaism and local traditions.
So again it is relatively easy to come up with a similar compromise.


Yes, yes, yes, comromises only work with the moderates and not the fundies because the fundies doesn't understand arguments from their own scripture, I know.
But still for religious freedom to work and secular law to function, these kind of scripture based compromises are the way forward.

[Ralin]

I think you misunderstood Ralin. He's saying the conversation looks like:

Broomstick: "Circumcision is bad but it's probably going to be harder to get rid of than you think."
Everyone Else: "We don't give a fuck [ABOUT THAT]."

Thus, you would be part of "everyone else," since you do not in fact give a fuck about how hard it's going to be to get rid of circumcision.

Yeah, sorry if I was unclear.

Which is a pretty stupid point considering she also claims they will refuse to change at all and are impervious to logical reasoning.

I'm a little surprised by how many people disagree, given the general review of religion here.

[Akhlut]

I don't really think that you can compare a ban on circumcision with a ban on human sacrifice. Looking at the Aztecs specifically, the Spanish banned human sacrifice within the former Aztec Empire as soon as they had conquered it. Looking at Germany, Jews have lived there since the fourth century, and the country has been a mostly unified modern nation-state since 1871. Circumcision has, to my knowledge, been legal from that time until now (even during the Third Reich), a period of 141 years. If circumcision is comparable to human sacrifice, why was it not banned far earlier in the German state's history? Banning it now is like the Spanish Empire allowing human sacrifice to continue from the conquest of the Aztecs in 1521, then suddenly deciding to ban it in 1662.

You mean the Spanish government that continued to practice religious murder until the 18th century?

Regarding the Amish, while customs do differ between groups due to their decentralized form of church government, the requirement for baptized members to avoid ownership or operation of cars, and to use horse-drawn vehicles instead, is probably universal for all groups that call themselves Amish. Even the most progressive of the New Order Amish groups, who use electricity within their homes, and use tractors for farming, will still usually use a horse and buggy on the road. The modernist Amish groups that originally split from the Old Order Amish in the 1860s all eventually joined existing Mennonite denominations and gave up the name Amish, and the car-driving groups such as the Beachy Amish who left in subsequent splits now tend to call themselves Amish Mennonites.

There are groups that self-identify as Amish that use cars.

[Darth Wong]

And it should be. As I have stated, my personal view is that it is repugnant. However, this notion that Germany is going to pass a law and suddenly the unwashed masses of Muslims and Jews will See The Light and give up the practice without a peep is irrational.

No more irrational than outlawing polygamy, female circumcision, forcible arranged marriages, honour killings, and all manner of other cultural practices which happen to be against our human-rights laws.

Or for that matter, slavery. Once upon a time, American "moderates" declared that it would be bad to outlaw slavery because the slavers would not accept it, slavery had been practiced for thousands of years, and it was so ingrained into the culture that you would never be able to get rid of it.

[hongi]

There are several precedents for this, most obviuos one being during the exodus. But in regards to following the law of the land you have the precedent during Hadrian's rule which allowed a minor 'pricking' version of the ritual. This since the essence is the bloodletting, not the actual cutting away.

I can't find any evidence that the Jews allowed a minor pricking version of the ritual. All I can find is the claim that Hadrian banned circumcision under pain of execution. Where did you read about this?

As for the Exodus passage:

2 At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” 3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth.

4 Now this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt—all the men of military age —died in the wilderness on the way after leaving Egypt. 5 All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not. 6 The Israelites had moved about in the wilderness forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the Lord. For the Lord had sworn to them that they would not see the land he had solemnly promised their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7 So he raised up their sons in their place, and these were the ones Joshua circumcised. They were still uncircumcised because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8 And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed.

This passage is saying that uncircumcised children is a bad thing. God himself repeats the commandment to circumcise the children again. Just because the Jews failed to do it during the wandering around period in the desert, doesn't mean that it's acceptable.

That's like saying the Jewish mandate to only worship the one God can be changed because Jews in the Bible fell into idolatry time and time again. The times when Jews failed to follow God's commandments is considered a very bad thing in Judaism, not something that should be followed.

[Darth Wong]

This passage is saying that uncircumcised children is a bad thing. God himself repeats the commandment to circumcise the children again. Just because the Jews failed to do it during the wandering around period in the desert, doesn't mean that it's acceptable.

So? There are entire books in the Minor Prophet section of the Old Testament which rant about how it's a bad thing to let women wear jewellery or talk back to men, and Jews in America have to adapt to that. Everything is a core part of the belief system until it's not.

The only question here is whether secular law should be subordinate to religious law, and it absolutely should not. Reasonable accommodation can be made, but not at the expense of human rights. Children have certain rights. An adult should no more be allowed to circumcise a child than to tattoo Maori war symbols all over its face.