German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[hongi]

What if said child decides he wants no part of Judaism when he gets older? He is now permanently marked with a sign of the religion he rejects. I was circumcised (as many of my generation have been) and if I had any say it that would never have happened.

Tough. Your parents are to blame, take it up with them.

[Darth Wong]

What if said child decides he wants no part of Judaism when he gets older? He is now permanently marked with a sign of the religion he rejects. I was circumcised (as many of my generation have been) and if I had any say it that would never have happened.

Tough. Your parents are to blame, take it up with them.

Were you sexually abused by your parents as a child, hongi? Tough. Your parents are to blame, take it up with them.

[Terralthra]

Ever heard "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes)?

Why on earth people think this basic logic doesn't apply to children's genitalia will always confuse me. If a parents' religion required them to break their infants' noses in the week following birth, CPS would not hesitate to prevent it. Why is a penis covered, but a nose not?

[hongi]

Were you sexually abused by your parents as a child, hongi? Tough. Your parents are to blame, take it up with them.

That's right. The parents are to blame.

[Darth Wong]

Were you sexually abused by your parents as a child, hongi? Tough. Your parents are to blame, take it up with them.

That's right. The parents are to blame.

And they should go to prison, moron. This is the part which seems to escape your feeble brain.

[hongi]

You know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Child abuse.
Which was a widespread practice (beating ones children was seen as good parenting) only a few decades ago, and is now mostly gone. Not thanks to cuddling child abusers, but by banning it.

The banning of the beating of children is a reduction in the scope of parental rights. It is not an elimination of parental rights. I'm surprised you could make such a statement. Presumably you weren't abused as a child, but you still grew up under parents who had extensive legal rights over you. It'd be just as correct to say 'you know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Normal kids like Serafina'.

And if circumcision is not banned due to religious bullshit, it's a blow to human rights. I'd rather have a blow to Judaism, thank you very much.

When you say human rights, you're thinking of a list of things that you would say are human rights, but that others wouldn't. Other people would consider freedom of religion (involving circumcision) to be a human right. Why makes your list of human rights better than theirs?

[Darth Wong]

You know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Child abuse.
Which was a widespread practice (beating ones children was seen as good parenting) only a few decades ago, and is now mostly gone. Not thanks to cuddling child abusers, but by banning it.

The banning of the beating of children is a reduction in the scope of parental rights. It is not an elimination of parental rights. I'm surprised you could make such a statement. Presumably you weren't abused as a child, but you still grew up under parents who had extensive legal rights over you. It'd be just as correct to say 'you know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Normal kids like Serafina'.

And if circumcision is not banned due to religious bullshit, it's a blow to human rights. I'd rather have a blow to Judaism, thank you very much.

When you say human rights, you're thinking of a list of things that you would say are human rights, but that others wouldn't. Other people would consider freedom of religion (involving circumcision) to be a human right. Why makes your list of human rights better than theirs?

Because freedom of religion is freedom to choose, and the child is not being given a choice, you idiot. You think "freedom of religion" means "freedom of religion to do whatever the fuck it wants".

[Serafina]

You know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Child abuse.
Which was a widespread practice (beating ones children was seen as good parenting) only a few decades ago, and is now mostly gone. Not thanks to cuddling child abusers, but by banning it.

The banning of the beating of children is a reduction in the scope of parental rights. It is not an elimination of parental rights. I'm surprised you could make such a statement. Presumably you weren't abused as a child, but you still grew up under parents who had extensive legal rights over you. It'd be just as correct to say 'you know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Normal kids like Serafina'.

And if circumcision is not banned due to religious bullshit, it's a blow to human rights. I'd rather have a blow to Judaism, thank you very much.

When you say human rights, you're thinking of a list of things that you would say are human rights, but that others wouldn't. Other people would consider freedom of religion (involving circumcision) to be a human right. Why makes your list of human rights better than theirs?

Okaay, lets explain this nice and slow.

Every human being has fundamental rights.
Most of these rights involve a right to choose, such as freedom of religion, speech, occupation, movement or residence.
Others revolve not around your choices, but about the choices of others - things they may NOT do to you. The right of physical inviolability is one such right.

Children are, depending on their age, too young to make choices regarding issues such as religion, occupation or residence.
During the time where children are too young to exercise their right to choose - due to their inability to make the choice - their legal guardians are allowed to make a choice on such matters.
By default, a childs parents are its legal guardians.
Thus, a parents right to educate ones child religiously does NOT stem from the parents freedom of religion. It stems from their right to make certain decisions for their child while the child is unable to do so, which are part of a parents right and duty to raise the child.

In Germany, a child is considered mature enough to exercise its religious freedom at age twelve. At that point, a parents right to raise the child religiously ENDS.

Physical inviolability is different. You need not make any decisions to exercise it, since it's not a right to choose.
However, sometimes a decision needs to be made to permit something that violates that right - for example, if you want to get a piercing or a non-life-saving medical procedure.
Obviously, a child is too young to make that decision.
Thus, parents have the duty to make these decisions in the child's best interest.
Again, this is a DUTY the parents have, because someone needs to do it.
It has NOTHING to do with the parents rights. Which is why you can go to prison for not obeying that duty and making a important medical decision for the child, but not for not raising your child religiously - one is a duty you can fail to perform, the other is a right you can choose to exercise.
A parents ability to make medical decisions for the child have nothing to do with the parents right to raise said child - they stem from the parents duty to protect the child from harm.

Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure in the child's best interest - because it serves no medical purpose.
It is NOT in any way necessary to protect the child from harm.
Thus, a parents has no duty to make a decision regarding circumcision.
Without that duty, a parent has no say about a child's body.



Also, fuck off with your strawmen. I am completely in favor of freedom of religion. It's just that you do NOT understand freedom of religion, and and how and why it interacts with parental rights. You also do not understand parental rights at all, and seem to think that they are some sort of tyrannical, absolute power a parent has over the child, when in fact it is a balance between a parents right and duty to raise the child, and a parents duties to look out for the well-being of said child.

[Simon_Jester]

I think there's a big gap here (not just on this board, in Germany). On one side, there are people who see freedom of religion as a purely individual thing: "you personally may choose to follow any religion." On the other, there are people who also see freedom of religion as a collective thing: "your religious community has a right to ensure its own continuity as a community." Childhood religious rituals are important to the idea of communal survival, but usually get tripped up when looked at from the point of view of purely individual rights.

The trend in the West for many decades can be summarized as "communities do not have rights; individuals do." That principle is pretty much the basis for the German decision here. "The Jews" as a community do not have a right to perpetuate their existence by religious rituals, and don't really get a hearing in the court. The only people involved in the trial are the parents as individuals, whose participation in this ritual is viewed in isolation and not as part of an ongoing tradition or collective thing. And the infant as an individual, not as a member of the Jewish community since part of the point is that he hasn't decided to be a member or not.

And thinking about it, I'm not going to denounce this, because there have been a lot of cases of blatant, horrible oppression being carried out in the name of "community rights" at the expense of individual rights. But I do think the trend is worth pointing out. Because somewhere along the line, most of us will probably stop agreeing with the premise that there are no communal rights, only individual rights- drawing the line at the economic sphere where it turns into a Thatcherite "there is no such thing as society," if nothing else.

[Ultonius]

Ever heard "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes)?

"A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." - Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. To lead on from what Simon_Jester has said, the question comes down to whether the children of a group/community should be seen as 'others' who have not chosen to join the community, and whose rights should therefore not be interfered with, or if they can be seen as part of the community by virtue of their parents' membership, in which case their parents have the right to involve their children in rituals that make them more part of the community if they believe that serves the children's best interests.

If a parents' religion required them to break their infants' noses in the week following birth, CPS would not hesitate to prevent it. Why is a penis covered, but a nose not?

If that religion had existed for thousands of years, and if its followers had lived in Europe for a substantial portion of that time (while an offshoot of it became the dominant religion in Europe), and had then established a presence in America and maintained it since colonial times, then its customs would probably have become accepted by mainstream society, and CPS would not get involved.

[Hillary]

"A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." - Chief Justice Warren E. Burger.

Surely the whole point of Terralthra's argument is that it DOES interfere with the rights and interests of others, namely the children who are being circumcised.

This whole discussion seems, to me, to boils down to whether or not children should be protected from religious rituals that cause them phyiscal harm.

There are those on here who feel that circumcision of children is acceptable. To them I would ask a simple question - where do you draw the line on physical harm to children in the name of religious tolerance? I'm talking entirely theoretically here. Killing a child = too far, whereas circumcision = acceptable. So where do you say, enough?

[Terralthra]

Ever heard "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes)?

"A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." - Chief Justice Warren E. Burger.

But it does interfere with the rights of others: namely, the child's right to bodily integrity.

To lead on from what Simon_Jester has said, the question comes down to whether the children of a group/community should be seen as 'others' who have not chosen to join the community, and whose rights should therefore not be interfered with, or if they can be seen as part of the community by virtue of their parents' membership, in which case their parents have the right to involve their children in rituals that make them more part of the community if they believe that serves the children's best interests.

An infant can no more choose to join a religion (with accompanying permanent bodily harm) than an infant can consent to sexual intercourse.

If a parents' religion required them to break their infants' noses in the week following birth, CPS would not hesitate to prevent it. Why is a penis covered, but a nose not?

If that religion had existed for thousands of years, and if its followers had lived in Europe for a substantial portion of that time (while an offshoot of it became the dominant religion in Europe), and had then established a presence in America and maintained it since colonial times, then its customs would probably have become accepted by mainstream society, and CPS would not get involved.

This is a textbook appeal to tradition. Noses are protected, but penises aren't, because we've been letting people cut pieces off of penises for longer. It's a fallacy.

[Ultonius]

An infant can no more choose to join a religion (with accompanying permanent bodily harm) than an infant can consent to sexual intercourse.

Infants cannot choose the families they are born into, either. Should we take babies at birth and raise them in state orphanages if their parents are poor or uneducated, on the grounds that their opportunities will be limited in that environment? Every infant has decisions made for it by its parents or guardians, and is influenced by the environment it grows up in. At what point should the state be able to decide that those decisions or that environment are not in the child's best interests and intervene?

This is a textbook appeal to tradition. Noses are protected, but penises aren't, because we've been letting people cut pieces off of penises for longer. It's a fallacy.

I assumed you were asking a serious question, and I tried to answer it by taking the context in which Judaism and its tradition of infant circumcision exists in America and applying it to your hypothetical nose-breaking religion. Just out of interest, do you also believe that it is unfair that indigenous American peoples have the right to form officially recognized governments separate from the federal and state governments while other people do not, simply because their ancestors were members of tribal nations that predate the United States?

[Metahive]

Infants cannot choose the families they are born into, either. Should we take babies at birth and raise them in state orphanages if their parents are poor or uneducated, on the grounds that their opportunities will be limited in that environment? Every infant has decisions made for it by its parents or guardians, and is influenced by the environment it grows up in. At what point should the state be able to decide that those decisions or that environment are not in the child's best interests and intervene?

How about when the parents start cutting body parts off of their children? Is that really such a hard thing for Defenders of Religious Privilege (DeRP) to get their heads around?

I assumed you were asking a serious question, and I tried to answer it by taking the context in which Judaism and its tradition of infant circumcision exists in America and applying it to your hypothetical nose-breaking religion. Just out of interest, do you also believe that it is unfair that indigenous American peoples have the right to form officially recognized governments separate from the federal and state governments while other people do not, simply because their ancestors were members of tribal nations that predate the United States?

And once again the DeRP can only manage to invoke false equivalences.

[hongi]

And they should go to prison, moron. This is the part which seems to escape your feeble brain.

Should parents who circumcise their children go to jail?

Because freedom of religion is freedom to choose, and the child is not being given a choice, you idiot. You think "freedom of religion" means "freedom of religion to do whatever the fuck it wants".

People who circumcise their children for religious reasons don't seem to think that freedom of religion is freedom for a child to choose. They think the freedom of religion means freedom for the parents to circumcise their children without the child's consent. What they think is freedom of religion is different from what you think is freedom of religion.

Most people, religious or non-religious, would agree that freedom of religion allows Christians to baptise their children, even without those children's consent. Of course circumcision is not the same as infant baptism, since one is a permanent physical mutilation and the other is a permanent 'spiritual' thing, but that's a non-relevant distinction in your instance, since the point is that freedom of religion doesn't involve freedom for the child to choose in this non-controversial instance.

[Darth Wong]

And they should go to prison, moron. This is the part which seems to escape your feeble brain.

Should parents who circumcise their children go to jail?

If a parent cut off his child's ear, he would go to jail.

Because freedom of religion is freedom to choose, and the child is not being given a choice, you idiot. You think "freedom of religion" means "freedom of religion to do whatever the fuck it wants".

People who circumcise their children for religious reasons don't seem to think that freedom of religion is freedom for a child to choose. They think the freedom of religion means freedom for the parents to circumcise their children without the child's consent. What they think is freedom of religion is different from what you think is freedom of religion.

In our society, children are deemed to have rights; they are not just property of the parents. If certain parents disagree with that, too bad.

Most people, religious or non-religious, would agree that freedom of religion allows Christians to baptise their children, even without those children's consent. Of course circumcision is not the same as infant baptism, since one is a permanent physical mutilation and the other is a permanent 'spiritual' thing, but that's a non-relevant distinction in your instance, since the point is that freedom of religion doesn't involve freedom for the child to choose in this non-controversial instance.

The child can choose to be "un-baptized" quite easily, since there is no permanent damage. All he has to do is denounce the religion. He cannot, however, choose to be uncircumcised. That choice has been forever removed from him.

[Serafina]

People who circumcise their children for religious reasons don't seem to think that freedom of religion is freedom for a child to choose. They think the freedom of religion means freedom for the parents to circumcise their children without the child's consent. What they think is freedom of religion is different from what you think is freedom of religion.

Are you seriously so dense that you think that people can define OTHER peoples rights however they want? How is that even supposed to work?

As i said, the only way you can justify this bullshit is if you think that children do not in fact have rights on their own, and are property of their parents until they become adults.

[Ralin]

Are you seriously so dense that you think that people can define OTHER peoples rights however they want? How is that even supposed to work?

Technically I suppose that's what we've all been doing here...

[Serafina]

Yeah, okay, replace "people" with individuals.
Obviously a SOCIETY can define peoples rights. And Germany just happens to define children as having their own rights, instead of being property of their parents.

[hongi]

Are you seriously so dense that you think that people can define OTHER peoples rights however they want? How is that even supposed to work?

You tell me. It's what we've been doing forever as a species.

As i said, the only way you can justify this bullshit is if you think that children do not in fact have rights on their own

That's right.

and are property of their parents until they become adults.

In many ways, yes.

[Ultonius]

How about when the parents start cutting body parts off of their children? Is that really such a hard thing for Defenders of Religious Privilege (DeRP) to get their heads around?

Look, for a body modification, circumcision has relatively few negative effects. Circumcised men can have pleasurable sexual intercourse and father children, and if the circumcision was performed on them as infants, they have nothing to compare it to. Other decisions made by the parents on an infant's behalf may have consequences for them that are far more far-reaching than any relating to circumcision, so I just think that it's unfair to single circumcision out.

And once again the DeRP can only manage to invoke false equivalences.

How on Earth is that a false equivalence? Terralthra appeared to be objecting to the fact that circumcision is permitted, while other infant body modifications are not, because a particular group of people have been doing it for a long time as a cultural tradition. I was attempting to find out if he believed that it was unfair for other groups of people, such as American Indians, to have similar special rights because of their cultural traditions.

Also, shouldn't it be DoRP, rather than DeRP? Of course, if you were simply trying to insult me, you could have written 'DEfenders of Religious Privilege', which could have been shortened to DERP.

[Questor]

I'm curious, what is the stance on piercing an infant/toddler's ears?

[Serafina]

Look, for a body modification, circumcision has relatively few negative effects. Circumcised men can have pleasurable sexual intercourse and father children, and if the circumcision was performed on them as infants, they have nothing to compare it to. Other decisions made by the parents on an infant's behalf may have consequences for them that are far more far-reaching than any relating to circumcision, so I just think that it's unfair to single circumcision out.

No one but the people in favor of circumcision is "singling circumcision out".
Rather, we are applying standards of humans rights (which some people apparently think children don't have, maybe they're not human?) universally - and that happens to include circumcision.

Or can you point to any other practice (religious, secular or otherwise) that performs unnecessary surgery on an infant for no medical reason or benefit that is being allowed?
If you can, then how can you claim that circumcision is being "singled out"? That implies that it is part of a group and then picked when everything else in the group isn't. It's rather the opposite - all other kinds of child cruelty and mutilation are forbidden, but circumcision wasn't because its "religious" and "tradition".

That's like pointing to a court ruling that says "you can't discriminate against black/gay/jewish/whatever people", and then asking "well why is there no such court ruling for white/straight/christian people? Why are they being singled out?"

[Metahive]

Look, for a body modification, circumcision has relatively few negative effects. Circumcised men can have pleasurable sexual intercourse and father children, and if the circumcision was performed on them as infants, they have nothing to compare it to. Other decisions made by the parents on an infant's behalf may have consequences for them that are far more far-reaching than any relating to circumcision, so I just think that it's unfair to single circumcision out.

I punched you in the face, but because I could have also punched you in the face with a sledge hammer, it's unfair for you to single out me breaking your nose with my bare fist. Besides, it'll heal in no time, so no harm done, right?

What part of "People have a right to not get their bodies mutilated without consent" escapes you? I mean it's the reason why people can't just walk up to you and saw your legs off. Why should children not be given this right? The DeRPs have so far utterly failed to answer this question other than with Appeals to Tradition and Perfect Solution Fallacies.

How on Earth is that a false equivalence? Terralthra appeared to be objecting to the fact that circumcision is permitted, while other infant body modifications are not, because a particular group of people have been doing it for a long time as a cultural tradition. I was attempting to find out if he believed that it was unfair for other groups of people, such as American Indians, to have similar special rights because of their cultural traditions.

Dear non-existing Lord! Native Americans getting driven into over-sized ghettos by greedy, land-grubbing WASPs represents a "special right" in your opinion? I guess the Nazis also gave the Jews the "special right" to be gassed to death then.

Also, shouldn't it be DoRP, rather than DeRP? Of course, if you were simply trying to insult me, you could have written 'DEfenders of Religious Privilege', which could have been shortened to DERP.

The concrete thinking is strong with this one.

Dolt.

[Ultonius]

I punched you in the face, but because I could have also punched you in the face with a sledge hammer, it's unfair for you to single out me breaking your nose with my bare fist. Besides, it'll heal in no time, so no harm done, right?

Was it an essential ritual of an ancient religious tradition that has been tolerated for centuries? The latter factor is the main reason I'm troubled by this court decision. To tolerate circumcision for centuries and then suddenly, arbitrarily, decide to ban it just seems wrong to me. As I've asked before, if infant circumcision is so obviously, deeply wrong, why hasn't it been banned already, just like human sacrifice has?

What part of "People have a right to not get their bodies mutilated without consent" escapes you? I mean it's the reason why people can't just walk up to you and saw your legs off. Why should children not be given this right? The DeRPs have so far utterly failed to answer this question other than with Appeals to Tradition and Perfect Solution Fallacies.

How many times do I have to say this? Circumcision and grossly debilitating mutilations such as sawing people's legs off are simply not in the same league. If you asked a number of religious Jewish men if they regretted being circumcised as babies, and if they would refrain from circumcising their own sons, I strongly suspect that the vast majority would say no.

Dear non-existing Lord! Native Americans getting driven into over-sized ghettos by greedy, land-grubbing WASPs represents a "special right" in your opinion? I guess the Nazis also gave the Jews the "special right" to be gassed to death then.

Firstly, I'm talking about tribal sovereignty, not forced removals to reservations. Secondly, Terralthra was the one who implied that religious circumcision was a 'special right' only permitted because people had been doing it for a long time. For the record, I strongly support the right of Amerindian tribes in the USA, and elsewhere for that matter, to have as much self-government and freedom to follow their cultural traditions as practically possible, for the same reasons that I support the right of Jewish parents to circumcise their sons.

The concrete thinking is strong with this one.

Dolt.

I was gently mocking your attempt to make yourself look clever by disguising your insult with an acronym. At least 'dolt' is honest.