Thursday, July 19, 2012

German ban on circumcision



With Germany's history it the one nation on the face of the earth it has before any other to give constant evidence that it is not anti-Semitic. 

However, the recent ruling by a Cologne court that ritual circumcision is a "serious and irreversible interference in the integrity of the human body”, and therefore is illegal, and presumably tantamount to child abuse, has caused consternation amongst Jews and Muslims. For parents in general it raises important issues of their rights over their children. Seculariists of course welcome this ruling under the cover of a "child's right to choose", to choose as an adult whether to be circumcised, and therefore a Jew or not. Some Jewish commentators have suggested this is the most significant attack on Judaism in Germany since Holocaust, and say it is likely to cause a exodus of Jews from the area of the Cologne courts jurisdiction. It leaves parents and those who circumcise their children open to persecution: prosecution, possible imprisonment and the loss of their children.

26 comments:

gemoftheocean said...

I have been following this story with great interest. It is a monstrous attack on liberty. Apart from religious liberty, which is obviously under attack - cervical cancer is much less in women whose partners are circumcised, so there is medical benefit to society. Infancy is the best time for circumcision to take place, if it is to take place at all. This legislation is clearly aimed at Jews and Muslims for spite. Germany is also where they take children and jail the parents for home schooling. You'd think they'd be ashamed after their recent history to do these things.

Billy Pips. said...

As my Ma once said 'Scratch a little pinko, find a little blackshirt', an expression, you will be surprised to learn, little pinkos find decidedly offensive.

nickbris said...

I think Mrs Merkel will reverse this Judicial ruling;it;s either that or calls from Hilary Cheney for Regime change in Germany

Ma Tucker said...

I don't know what to think of this at all. It is not necessary for salvation certainly.

Fr Levi said...

Martin Niemöller's poem springs to mind:

'First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

'Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

'Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

'Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.'

The time to rally the troops is now, not when it is is too late.

Richard Collins said...

And a Jewish Doctor, on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, equated "back street" circumcisions to "back street" abortions (in an attempt to justify circumcision by a medical practitioner).

diff said...

We really moving towards a 'tolerant totalitarianism' where we can 'choose' to say and do anything as long as we don't upset the current relativistic apple cart (so in other words we can only say and do as we are told we are allowed to).

It seems that, according to the court in cologne, religion is a hobby, and you choose whether or not to participate when you are an Adult. This particular aspect of the Jewish identity and faith(read hobby) is on a par with any other form of bodily piercing/mutilation and should not be inflicted on children. So the message I get from this court decision, is that circumcision is the first aspect of jewish religous and cultural identity to be sacrificed on the modern altars of 'tolerance' and 'choice'.

EJ

Locuse Iste said...

I'm sorry but no-one has a right to abuse a helpless baby in this gruesome manner. Like Catholics can choose be confirmed, so Jews and Muslims should choose to be circumcised when they come of age.
No-one seems concerned with the rights of the child.
Circumcision is not necessary for salvation.

Anita Moore said...

So a court in Germany rules that parents can't circumcise their sons, because it "violates" their bodily integrity, but in that same country, a 12-year-old boy can undergo "sex-change" "therapy."

Jacobi said...

Inoculation and eh what else, oh yes, abortion, could equally be classified as a "serious and irreversible interference".

Fr Levi said...

@Locuse Iste

gruesome abuse? Somebody had better tell the Americans ... they've probably circumcised more baby boys in the last 50 or 60 years than in all of Jewish history ... essentially in the name of 'fashion' with a quasi-medical justification.

GOR said...

The ignorance of Americans regarding circumcision is palpable. There is no medical benefit to being circumcised, despite protestations to the contrary by American medical personnel in the past - which have been swallowed hook line and sinker by the populace. I got rid of my last doctor after some ludicrous comments he made on this. Obviously he had never gotten beyond the medical textbooks of his intern days which spouted so many ‘warnings’ about the need for circumcision – warnings which have been roundly debunked for many years.

If someone wants to do this for religious reasons they should be free to do so. But don’t give me the line that it is ‘medically beneficial’. It isn’t, and never has been – as millions of men around the world can attest to.

Freddy said...

I am torn between two approaches to this argument: Religious liberty v deliberate bodily mutilation. Considering that the latter is inflicted on another who has no choice I am more in favour of the court's decision. The argument that Americans have been doing it to their children for 60 years is hardly convincing. They have also been aborting their children at a rate of knots for the same period and we all know that doesn't make it right. Why you would consent to mutilating your child for non religious motives is even more baffling than still. And I don't think we can seriously believe that most of these mutilations were done for hygienic reasons.

JARay said...

Speaking as one who has never been cicumcised I must say that I do know of two men who were and they were, because of medical reasons. The operation did not harm them. They benefitted from it. So what if parents have their sons circumcised for religious reasons. It certainly will not harm them and indeed they might benefit from it. However, the so-called circumcision of girls is entirely another matter. No girls should ever be circumcised. It is harmful and, for that reason alone, should be condemned.
So.
Should there be a "law" banning circumcision? In the case of boys..."No". In the case of girls..."Yes".
What about "equality"?
This is the utter stupidity!!!
Boys are not girls and girls are not boys!!!!
Equality does not mean "identity"
Bulls are not cows and cows are not bulls!!
Utter stupidity to try and equate boys with girls and bulls with cows!

Cosmos said...

As an American, I would like to dispel a little of the hysteria on the matter. In the course of my entire life, which included lots of sports teams, this mass "mutilation" of males was just never an issue on any level. The topic was never brought up. It is not something that people are regretting or even not regretting: no one cares on any level. It never even ocurs to most American men that they have been circumsicized until they have their own boy and the doctor asks them the question. Since it had zero impact on their lives, they don't care.

With male circumscision there was weak scientific and religious reasons to remove a flap of skin that serves little or no purpose (like an ear lobe), is completely private, and was known to recover quickly. We are not talking about something like clittoral circumscision, removing a part of the face, or removing a functioning appendage.

The term "bodily mutilation" is like "sexual assault." It can cover everything from non-intercourse rape to getting slapped on the butt at a party. The terms are technically correct, but also very suggestive. The inability to distinguish between such things is not a sign of a sharp mind, but a dull one.

And here is some actually medical testimony on the matter, rather than just hyperbole.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/adult/pediatrics/circumcision_90,P03080/

http://www.nature.com/news/can-male-circumcision-stem-the-aids-epidemic-in-africa-1.9520

momangelica said...

Bliming Heck! You need a strong stomach to view this blog.

The first shedding of blood of Our Lord is the Circumcision and it is regarded as a venerable occasion if I have my facts right. This German action could also be viewed in the light of an anti-Christian rule too.

Jacqueline Y. said...

Whatever one's views of the medical advisability (or lack thereof) of circumcising infant boys, this is a religious liberty issue. Jewish males are circumcised on the eighth day in obedience to the Torah (Genesis 17:12), thus becoming sons of the Covenant. Personally, I would even go further, and say that as long as medical safeguards are in place, it should be up to the parents. But then, I'm an American, and my (gentile) family is in it's fourth generation of circumcised males, with no ill effects. Shocking to some of you, I suppose.

gemoftheocean said...

Gor: There is ignorance, which can be corrected, and willful ignorance which is hard to dislodge. You have the latter re: this issue. Studies have shown that female cervical cancer is greatly reduced when their sexual partners have been circumcised. Also males suffer less genital warts and the practice reduces the spread of AIDS. I know facts may get in the way of your anti-American bias, but do try and overcome it.

Try this BBC report

The Bones said...

Outrageous.

Freddy said...

It is simply not true to say that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin. Just as the earlobe is not a useless piece of skin (it helps with balance). The foreskin serves an important purpose of protecting the glans and in intercourse helps stimulation because it contains the most sensitive nerves in the male body. Why you would want to remove it for non religious, non health reasons is simply a mystery. Don't want to bash Americans but maybe there is some connection with the puritan origins of the country that considers sexual pleasure to be a bad thing.

Victor said...

I am from Germany, and I am dismayed about this court rule, but more about the reactions in the press and letters to the editor. Thinly veiled as 'concern for the poor children', we are facing an obviously deeply rooted antisemitism and 'anti-religionism'. What most of the arguments boil down to is "If the boy grows up and still wants to be a Jew (or a Muslim), he can be circumcised at the age of 18" and "If Jews and Muslims want to live in Germany, they first have to bring their old-fashioned religions up to date." In other words: "If they want to fit in our (modern, secular, German) society they have to adapt." Nobody seems to realize that basically this sets the Jewish population of Germany out as not really belonging to us. I would never have believed that in Germany, of all places, Jewish life would effectively be prohibited, after all we have done.
But don't be fooled - this is not about children, or Jews, or even Muslims. This is about greater parts of our secular society simply not accepting that parents may teach their children religion. Most of the arguments you hear against male circumcision can (and will) easily be adapted against child baptism or even religious education in elementary schools.
And nobody seems to see the bitter irony that a male child may not even be circumcised on the eighth day, while mere two weeks earlier it could be easily and legally aborted (and nobody cares).
I am so sick of this brave new world... but if history teaches us anything, than this society will break down soon, and the church, as the only institution left more or less intact, will have to salvage the remains and rebuild it all anew - until the next "secularisation"...

Jacqueline Y. said...

Thank you Victor. I think you've identified the crux of all this.

GOR said...

Gem: like so many gullible Americans you drank the kool-aid put out by the American vested interests and feminist propaganda.

'Studies' show what people want them to show or haven't you cottoned on to that yet?

Anonymous said...

They should prohibit circumcisioin in NYC. That way they'd stop mohels from transmitting herpes to baby boys via mohels' mouths that had sucked the blood from circumcision wounds.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/

+ Wolsey

Physiocrat said...

If circumcision is a medical abuse, which is what this case seems to be about, then it must come well down on the list of any sane person's priorities. Why isn't action taken against the abuse of prescription drugs, antibiotics, neglect of elderly patients, commercial cosmetic surgery, hospital cleanliness standards - the list is endless. You might put circumcision on the list but it would be near the bottom.

So what is this really about? The secular agenda laced with racism, that's what.

John Fisher said...

They might as well ban childbirth as it causes pain to both mother and child!Male "Circumcision and Other Health Conditions
Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4]." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm