They tried this is San Francisco and now have done it in Germany.
Parents having their sons circumcised can be brought before a judge for causing bodily injury, even if they did so for religious reasons, a regional court in Germany has ruled.
The recent landmark decision will likely draw the condemnation of Jewish and Muslim communities, although official representatives have refrained from commenting so far, saying they first want to study the reasons given for the judgment.
Following the judgment by the District Court of Cologne, neither the rights of parents nor the constitutional freedom of religion can justify interventions such as circumcision, according to Financial Times Deutschland, which first reported the story.
It is always so surprising when religious liberty in Germany is imperiled. It is so unlike them.
Germans need to nip this in the bud. I can’t believe they would act like such weiners.
June 26, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Shock: There are still Nazis in Germany.
It being illegal to talk about their past over there seems to be working so well for them.
June 26, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Well, it is a bodily mutilation, no medical reasons whatsoever, no consent possible.
That said, I hope higher courts overturn it quickly!
Shalom
Hermann
June 26, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Yet it causes little pain and no lasting harm. Why ban it? I can understand banning true genital mutilation like done in some African countries to women. Those women often have severe medical issues due to the damage done to them.
What next, will ear piercings will be banned?
June 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm
How utterly ridiculous. Even aside from the religious liberty issue for Jews and Muslims and the like, there are many possible medical reasons a parent might choose circumcision for their son (e.g., lowering the risk of certain cancers, some STDs and HIV transmission, or chronic UTIs).
The Nanny State's getting a little too intimately involved.
June 26, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Circumcision reduces the likelihood of a rare cancer and lowers the rate of STDs. "No medical reasons whatsoever" is plainly incorrect.
June 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm
"Circumcision reduces the likelihood of a rare cancer and lowers the rate of STDs. "No medical reasons whatsoever" is plainly incorrect."
-as removing part of one's leg would reduce the likelihood of getting cancer or an infection in that area… Under normal circumstances we don't remove intrinsic parts of the body in order to prevent rare disease. Not in line with a Catholic understanding of the body.
That said, I think it should be allowed for religious reasons and that is it. Newborns should never be subject to cosmetic surgery and the "medical reasons" are highly questionable.
June 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm
As a Catholic, I consider the rite of circumcision unnecessary. But I have no qualms about other religions doing it if it is done in a sanitary manner, using modern surgical techniques. It is my understanding that the Muslims are very unsanitary in the way they perform circumcision, especially on girls. it is also my understanding that some of the ultra-orthodox Jewish sects are also somewhat sloppy in carrying out the rite. A lot of the criticism of circumcision rituals might come from these lack of sanitation issues. if both the government and the Jewish parties could meet each other half-way and work something out, probably a lot of this bitterness could be avoided.
June 27, 2012 at 1:04 am
Off with their heads!
June 27, 2012 at 3:06 am
Blackrep,
Seriously I have to stop reading your comments while drinking.
June 27, 2012 at 5:27 am
As someone who had to have a circumcision in the 2nd grade due to chronic infection issues, I take issue with the notion that there are no real medical reasons for circumcision. For one, inadequate hygiene had absolutely nothing to do with my issues. My parents – especially my mother – kept me very clean and properly treated with doctor visits, etc; and probably in an extremely high percentile of child hygiene and child care standards compared to others. My hygiene was in no way lacking and was undoubtedly much better than the majority of children. My brother never had any similar issues. Secondly, if I had had a circumcision after birth, it would have prevented the issues that led to the need for a circumcision in 2nd grade (which was undoubtedly a much worse experience than it would have been had it been done after birth).
So no, I don't buy that there is "no medical justification" for circumcision given that my own example proves this to be entirely false.
June 27, 2012 at 8:33 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 27, 2012 at 8:36 am
@Anonymous: Yes, is some cases there are valid medical reasons, a phimosis for example would be one too. But in the case that was decided upon there were none, it was done purely for religious (muslim) reasons. In THIS case the court said it was not allowed.And we are only talking about the circumcision of children, if a grown-up has it done – ok, he has every right to it!
Shalom
Hermann
June 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm
So…removing a growing mole from my skin (bodily mutilation, or "cosmetic surgery") was immoral, because we then learned it was benign, therefore unnecessary? There's such a thing as context, risk, and prudential judgment in medical decisions.
Even if you yourself believe that the medical reasons don't justify circumcision, can you not acknowledge that other people, based on scientific reason, might believe they do? It's a parental right to make that determination.
There's also the matter that, if you believe it can be dangerous if not done properly, it makes more sense to target the doctors and conditions in which it's being done, not the right to make the choice.
June 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Gee, I don't know why everyone's so snippy about this topic. I don't mean for this to be a cutting remark, but honestly, anyone with any foresight should realize that male circumcision is a decision that must be left to the discretion of the parents, not the government.
June 27, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I would just like to cut in with a comment. A former coworker's husband had to be circumcised in his twenties due to a health issue. It was not pleasant for either one; ordinary activity such as dressing had to done apart in order to avoid pain for him, as I guess you can imagine.
Also there is no female "circumcision," only mutilation.
June 28, 2012 at 12:10 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 28, 2012 at 12:11 am
It's also a custom of many African cultures, and, by now, you could argue that it's also the custom of American culture, at least in many segments of the population. It causes no lasting harm; it should no more be banned than ear-piercing.
Oh, but that's right, I forget, if you don't live in a mud hut you don't have a traditional culture and have no right to keep your customs. Silly me.
June 28, 2012 at 3:22 am
No lasting harm unless it kills you. Or scars you for life. At any rate, by definition it is amputation done for non-therapeutic reasons therefore Catholics ought to check out the CCC before judging it to be no big deal.