Religious circumcisions are crimes says court

[rug]

Religious circumcisions are bodily harm and thus a crime, a German court ruled this week, in what was dubbed a precedent-setting decision.

Published: 26 Jun 12 11:03 CET

Non-medical circumcision is a "serious and irreversible interference in the integrity of the human body,” the Cologne district court ruled.

This criminalises religious circumcisions performed by Jews and Muslims, the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper said on Tuesday. It says circumcision should be considered a crime of bodily harm.

Thousands of very young boys are circumcised in Germany each year, mainly for religious reasons.

In the United States most boys are circumcised shortly after birth - regardless of their religion, though the practice has declined in recent years and anti-circumcision protest groups have sprung up.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120626-43383.html

[Jim__]

1. What happened to the doctor?

I can understand the decision, but it really doesn't seem right to sentence a doctor for doing what doctors have been doing all along. No one can deny knowing that doctors were performing circumcisions, convicting this doctor would appear to be an arbitrary decision - a failure of the law more than anything else. I could see the courts ruling - if this is possible - that this will be the law from here forward, applying it retroactively seems wrong.

[rug]

3. Here's the source (in German).

http://www.ftd.de/politik/deutschland/:koerperverletzung-gericht-stellt-religioese-beschneidung-unter-strafe/70054618.html

I can't read it.

[DetlefK]

6. The english article is a very close translation of this article.

They left out some words here and there to shorten it.

[rug]

7. Danke!

[customerserviceguy]

2. Well, Germany has this history with telling Jews what they can and cannot do

Maybe they should just leave them alone this time around.

[rug]

4. In this case, it's a Muslim doctor.

[customerserviceguy]

22. And the same "logic"

couldn't be applied to any other religious group?

[DetlefK]

5. Well, the US has this history of telling south-american and middle-eastern countries what they ...

... can and cannot do.

Is this really the kind of discussion you want to start?

[customerserviceguy]

23. If we're wrong for doing that

and we are in most cases, then I feel I need to call it out in all situations.

Male circumcision is not the equivalent of female genital mutilation.

[eqfan592]

24. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation.

No matter to what degree the mutilation is, it is still mutilation. To try and argue differently is to be willfully ignorant.

[CBGLuthier]

26. Comparing clitoral removal to foreskin removal is piss ignorant.

[eqfan592]

29. If one were claiming the two were of equal degrees, I would agree.

That, however, is not what I am claiming. Claiming that foreskin removal isn't a form of genital mutilation is what is "piss ignorant."

[AlbertCat]

8. What's their call on prince alberts?

What does a foreskin have to do with "integrity" of the body.... whatever that means...

[rug]

9. Albert? Is there somethin we should know?

[AlbertCat]

11. Is there somethin we should know?

Only that getting a prince albert is utterly insane.

[OriginalGeek]

33. But would you feel differently if it was

called a Prince AlbertCat?

Immortality is something right?


But at any rate, PA's are done on consenting adults.

And yes I am resentful of being circumcised as a baby.

I say "Good For Germany!" but I am also clearly biased against letting things be done just because a religion demands them.
Sprinkling tap water on a baby without its' consent is one thing - hacking off part of his penis is ridiculous.

[cbayer]

37. Interesting aside.

As a strong anti-circ advocate, I chose not to have my sons cut. I lived in the South and met heavy resistance from just about everyone, including the pediatrician.

One of my sons is very resentful that I made this choice. He feels that it handicapped and hurt him both with his peers and when he began dating. He essentially feels that I made him the sacrificial lamb for my cause.

While he is ok with it now as a grown man, it was a point of great contention during other periods of his life.

Did I made the right decision? I think I did. Hopefully he is part of the turning tide in this country.

But he was a sacrificial lamb.

[OriginalGeek]

45. I think you made the right choice too

but I never had to live with the extra piece so I can only imagine what that must have been like.

I know my wife has said a few times she is glad I'm cut because she wouldn't have kept dating me if she'd seen it different that first time...

I like to think my charm and wit and tight buns would have kept me in the game but she assures me they wouldn't have.

[cbayer]

46. While what your wife said is humorous now, but imagine being a young male

and having those reactions from young females.

He maintains that he was ridiculed and sometimes met with revulsion.

That broke my heart, OG.

And, yes, he is every bit as charming and witty as you. I will refrain however from remarking on his buns, as that would be most inappropriate.

[Goblinmonger]

10. I would think if a parent gave their infant a prince albert

most people would not look to positively on that.

I think the whole point is about doing it against their will.

[AlbertCat]

12. doing it against their will.

Who's will? The infant's?

Or are they doing it at 13?

Anyway, I still don't know what "integrity of the human body" means exactly.

And if you've ever seen German porn you'd know I was joking about PAs.

[Swede Atlanta]

28. Precisely......

the issue is that most circumcisions are done on infant boys. I believe for Jews the bris occurs within 7 days of birth unless delayed by medical needs. I'm not sure what age applies to Muslims.

But in these cases the parents are committing an act of mutilation on the male infant. The infant has no ability to say no.

Even if circumcisions were done at say age of puberty, adolescent boys would be under extreme pressure from their parents to agree to the procedure. I can't even say that a boy of say 13, 14 or 15 would be making this choice voluntarily.

I think once a boy can be considered of a valid age to make this decision, the practice should be permitted. The problem is some religions believe this has to be done in infancy.

[eqfan592]

30. I agree 100%.

What a consenting adult wants to do to their own body, being of sound mind, is their choice. But when it comes to infants having that choice made for them that is a different story all together.

[cbayer]

13. I am so ambivalent about this.

I have been a strong advocate for the cessation of elective circumcision when there is no medical or religious reason for doing so. The United States is far and away the worst when it comes to circumcision just because the daddy had it.

OTOH, I am loathe to intrude on others religious practices. There has been some movement within the Jewish community regarding this, but not much.

And then the question always gets raised about female circumcision, the idea of which makes my skin crawl. So it's hard to justify one and not the other.

[cleanhippie]

14. I've been on a self-imposed break, but this is a good time to jump in.

Gonna be trying things differently this time. Maybe it will be more conducive to meaningful conversation.

While I agree with you on the cessation of "elective" circumcisions, you seem to think that there should be an exception made for both medically necessary AND religious reasons.

Can you clarify just what difference, if any, there is between a circumcision for medically necessary reasons and religious reasons? From my perspective, a religious reason for circumcising an infant is a polar opposite from a medically necessary one. Do you not agree?

[cbayer]

15. Welcome back (I hope).

I was not clear. I meant medically necessary or religious reasons.

[cleanhippie]

16. I don't feel my question was answered.

Is it your position that both medically necessary AND religious circumcisions deserve an exception?

[struggle4progress]

17. ... Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

Circumcision of newborn male children is a core religious rite of Judaism, practiced by Jews around the world. The decision by a district court in Cologne, Germany, to deem non-medical circumcision a crime places an intolerable burden on the free exercise of religion by Jews and also by Muslims who practice male circumcision as part of their religious faith.

We support the call by the Central Council of Jews in Germany for the German parliament to quickly pass legislation specifically protecting circumcision as a religious practice. Germany's commitment to religious freedom requires nothing less.

We hope and believe the German parliament will have the political will to do so. Germany has dedicated itself to re-building Jewish life, and the consequences of a ban on circumcision would be a devastating blow to the future of the Jewish community. While the ruling by the court in Cologne does not appear to have anti-Semitic intent, its effect is to say "Jews are not welcome

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/6339_90.htm

[cbayer]

18. Support this and very glad they included Muslims.

It is also an important ritual in some tribal African communities, but done during adolescence.

This is a change that would have to come from within religious communities and should not be criminalized, imo.

[eqfan592]

19. What if the practice involved removal of an infants little finger?

Or toe? Or some other part of the anatomy? These are irreversible changes that are being performed on children who have absolutely zero say. That this is a cultural norm in this country is disgusting in my opinion.

The religious communities need to leave genital mutilation behind just as they have so many other religious practices that are laid out in their various scriptures.

[cbayer]

20. I can't make a strong argument for the practice at all, as I am against it.

However, I abdicate to the ones who cherish it for whatever reason.

Those babies are their responsibility.

If we make the argument that we know better than they do and are somehow responsible for protecting their children, we move perilously close to the anti-choice position, imo.

[eqfan592]

21. Sorry, but I don't buy into the slippery slope argument in this particular case.

While I generally agree that parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit, we as a society set bounderies on how far they are able to go with that. For instance, if a parent were to, as I suggested earlier, just randomly cut off a child's finger, I'm willing to be that parent would not only have their child taken away but also spend some serious time in jail. Yet we are expected for some baffling reason to give an allowance for parents to mutilate their male children's genitalia?!?!?!

And please not Cbayer that my anger on this issue is NOT directed at you at all, and honestly, I can't even say I can hold it against parents that have done this in the past given that it was (and largely still is) a cultural norm in the US and there is a LOT of misinformation out there on the topic, but the time has come to put this to an end.

[cbayer]

25. There are many cultures where this has been the practice for thousands of years.

I don't think "we as a society" have the right to interfere unless there is substantial evidence that there is harm being done... and there is not.

While I disagree with the practice and took a hard stand about it in my personal life, despite tremendous pushback, I don't think "society" has the right to determine how other parents proceed in this matter.

If there were major societies where fingers had been cut off for thousands of years, I would feel the same.

Education, support for those who swim against the tide - I'm all for that. Legislation prohibiting the procedure, I am not.

[eqfan592]

27. Actually, there is a good deal of evidence that shows harm is being done...

...if you consider loss of sensation harm, which I do. Simply because a society does something for thousands of years does not make that practice right nor just. When information arises that shows the negative impacts of such a practice (as is the case here, both from firsthand accounts and on studies done regarding touch sensitivity) then that practice needs to be done away with.

I know you don't feel that laws should be made about such things, then that is your right, but when it comes to doing permanent damage to an non-consenting infant, there is simply no doubt in my mind that society has a duty to protect those non-consenting individuals from such harm.

[Meshuga]

47. My mutilated penis has no complaints

My mutilated penis has no complaints about sensation. They didn't cut my glans or anything. My parents didn't ask me if I wanted my foreskin removed but I am glad they got rid of it then. I don't feel the need to ask for its return either. I am happy with my mutilation (and please note that the use of the term "mutilation" is an exaggeration in my opinion). I think it works quite alright.

Losing a finger or some other useful part of my body would suck. I'd be extremely pissed at my parents for cutting one of my fingers at birth. With this said, I don't agree with the comparison between finger and foreskin. That is another exaggeration, in my opinion.

[eqfan592]

48. It's no exaggeration at all.

To say otherwise is to deny the reality of the situation. And given that you have no possible means of a basis for comparison, I wouldn't really expect you to recognize the loss of sensation.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Female circumcision too, right?

Oh wait, no, can't have that. This is bullshit. This is where religious fundamentalism demands a get out of jail card for behaviors that would otherwise be considered criminal and abhorrent. No. You get to mutilate yourself, you don't get to mutilate your children.

[eqfan592]

32. BIG TIME +1 (nt)

[MineralMan]

34. Wow! This raises a lot of questions, I think.

Thank goodness we live in the US, where religious freedom is respected, mostly.

[eqfan592]

35. Sorry, but religious freedom ends...

...where permanent modification/mutilation of a non-concenting infant begins. Or at least it should, IMO.

[MineralMan]

36. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that.

I'm an atheist, myself, and my parents are atheists. When I was born, the common belief was that circumcision was a good idea for health reasons, so my parents decided on that path, and I was circumcised at an infant. None the worse for wear, I have lived my almost 67 years without any sense of loss over that.

For Jews, circumcision is part of a pact with the deity they believe in and worship. Jewish infant boys are circumcised as a religious ritual that keeps that pact in force, or so they believe. I assume that Jewish men have about the same attitude regarding their own circumcisions that I have, except for the religious element. It is, apparently, an important part of their religious belief.

When I went to high school as a freshman in 1959, I discovered that some boys hadn't been circumcised, on the first day of gym class. In fact, I don't believe I knew that I had been circumcised until I discovered that some boys and men weren't. I asked my mother about it, and she explained it to me. Interestingly enough, almost every one of the boys who had not been circumcised was a Catholic. Apparently not being circumcised was part of being not Jewish for those families. The Protestant boys were circumcised. In a way, it was my introduction to the vagaries of religious belief systems, and started me thinking about that subject. The end point of that thinking led to my atheism, although circumcision played no role in that decision.

As someone who believes very strongly that religious belief or nonbelief is a personal matter of a very serious nature, I have to be tolerant of strongly-held religious beliefs, unless they involve imposing that belief on others. If Jews believe that circumcision is part of a pact with their deity, then I am not going to say they cannot circumcise their infant boys. The bulk of Muslim boys also are circumcised, for similar reasons. I would not impose my nonbelief on them, any more than I would tolerate them imposing their belief on me. If their religion demands that infant boys be circumcised, well, that's what it demands. Other demands are made. Like all people my age, I have a round scar on my upper arm from a smallpox vaccination. It made an ugly, painful sore on my arm, which healed with that scar. It hurt, and I do remember that. Still, the immunity it created against smallpox was more than worthwhile, even though I didn't understand it when I was vaccinated. I suppose my circumcision created a scar, as well, although I can't detect it, and can't remember the occasion at all. It was done for health reasons, as they were understood at the time, too. Health reasons or religious reasons for circumcision. It's a minor event, and hardly worth fretting over, it seems to me. I'll bet I yelled lustily when it was done, but then, I yelled lustily over a lot of things as an infant. I don't remember those things, either.

Given my complete unawareness that such a thing had been done to me and the complete lack of any impact on my life of that surgery, the complete lack of any memory of it being performed, and my complete indifference to it in my own life, I would not impose my lack of religious belief on anyone and force them to violate what they believe to be a pact with their deity.

[eqfan592]

38. But it did have an impact, even if you didn't realize it.

The portion that is removed in a circumcision happens to be the portion that is the most sensitive to touch. So while you had no way of realizing it, you did in fact loose a good deal of sensation from your circumcision (as did I, as I'm also circumcised). Simply because you did not experience any sense of loss does not mean something wasn't taken from you.

I'm not saying that circumcision should be illegal, mind you. What a concenting adult of sound mind decides to do with their own body is their business, not mine. But what is done to an infinant who is completely incapable of giving their consent is another matter entirely.

We already draw lines on what people can and can't do in the name of religious freedom to their children in this country. Simply making an exception for this form of mutilation, especially now that we know the reality behind the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision, simply makes no sense whatsoever.

EDIT: The real baffling thing here in the US is that circumcision is actually a sort of cultural norm and performed on those whose religion does not demand it of them. It's the only place in the world where that is the case, to my knowledge.

[cbayer]

39. You are correct about the US, but there is some significant positive trending going on.

The south remains a trouble area. There is a lot of peer pressure and men wanting their little boys to look like them.

If you are interested, see above for a personal note on this from me (#37).

[eqfan592]

40. Indeed you are correct.

And I'm glad your son no longer has any issues with it (which, if he's ever decided to research the issue and what can be lost with circumcision, I doubt he would anymore). It must have been a difficult time for you and your family to say the least!

[MineralMan]

41. Yes, so some think. Since it's really impossible to

measure, though, I'm not sure it's correct. Certainly, it hasn't interfered with my sex life over the years. Without a way to compare the two situations, I can't really speak to more or less sensitivity. Again, it's not an issue for me.

We differ in our opinions of infant circumcision.

Edit to add: I wondered about women's opinions regarding circumcision in men, so I asked my first wife about it. She said, and these are her exact words; "Turtleneck or crew neck, it's not the sweater that matters." My current wife said the same thing, but not in such clever words. I think you should not have your boy children circumcised, if you believe it to be wrong to do so. For others, who think it is right to do so, I think they should decide for themselves, too.

[eqfan592]

42. Actually, tests have been done to measure fine touch sensitivity.

Here is one such study, that also references others.

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

And here are some first hand accounts of men who were circumcised later in life, as well as some accounts of women and their experiences between the two (and loads of other information as well): http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#men

Again, if it had interfered with your sex life (which it almost certainly did) you would have no way of knowing because you would have had no basis for comparison. Like I said in my previous post, simply because you can't recognize the loss doesn't mean something wasn't taken from you.

But lets set all that aside. Even if circumcision had absolutely no impact, it still wouldn't make it right. The ethics of even a purely cosmetic mutilation of an infant that is incapable of giving informed consent is questionable to say the very least.

[MineralMan]

43. I'll leave the anti-circ sites to you.

It's not really something that interests me all that much.

[eqfan592]

44. If ya say so. (nt)