German court bans circumcision of young boys

[mijopaalmc]

That's the argument you're having with yourself. The rest of us are more interested in advancing the argument that circumcision is a decision that should be left to the owner of the penis when he is old enough to decide for himself without pressure.

Rolfe.

Says the person who insists that cosmetic surgery is mutilation.

How do you respond to orthodontic procedures being performed on adolescents who object to them?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why are you so hung up on the semantics? Yes. So what?

Rolfe.

Ah, the old "semantic argument" argument again.

Do you call black people *******?

 

[Rolfe]

Says the person who insists that cosmetic surgery is mutilation.

How do you respond to orthodontic procedures being performed on adolescents who object to them?

I simply don't see the word mutilation as having the negative connotations you invest it with. You're going on and on about semantics, and completely failing to address the actual substance of the arguments.

I respond that orthodontic procedures on teenagers are so far removed from amputation of the prepuce of normal newborn boys that it's simply not worth discussing.

How would you regards pulling out the toenails of newborn babies, for reasons of fashion, appearance, looking the same as other people, and prevention of disease in later life?

If amputation of the prepuce is just peachy, then pulling out the toenails shouldn't be a problem, right?

Rolfe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I simply don't see the word mutilation as having the negative connotations you invest it with. You're going on and on about semantics, and completely failing to address the actual substance of the arguments.

I respond that orthodontic procedures on teenagers are so far removed from amputation of the prepuce of normal newborn boys that it's simply not worth discussing.

How would you regards pulling out the toenails of newborn babies, for reasons of fashion, appearance, looking the same as other people, and prevention of disease in later life?

If amputation of the prepuce is just peachy, then pulling out the toenails shouldn't be a problem, right?

Rolfe.

Yeah, I get that you don't see "mutilation" as having negative connotation, but you are insisting that everyone conform to your standard, which is the height of arrogance when it is clear that most people see "mutilation" as having negative connotations.

Have you tried explain people who have had elective, cosmetic surgery that they are "mutilated"?

 

[jdp]

Your point is unquestionably valid, mutilation can very much be a subjective description. One might instead use the wiki definition, an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.

And there is question as to whether circumcision actually "degrades the appearance or function" of the penis, because the appearance and function of the genitals is itself a subjective evaluation.

I might agree that appearance is a subjective valuation, but function can be more objective. Even if you don't believe that the foreskin has a sexual function (which could arguably be subjective), there is a protective one and loss of the foreskin means loss of its protective function.

ETA: That would be degradation of function.

 

[Checkmite]

So far people haven't made that argument.

Isn't that what I just said?

Circumcision is harmful, and there's no reason offered for why it can't or shouldn't be something adults have done to themselves at their own behest.

 

[ddt]

Just read ...

Wow. "Worst attack on Judaism since the Holocaust". Oh yes, of course, circumcision is the essence of Judaism. Not the covenants with Abraham, Jacob and Moses are; no, circumcision is the essence. Now turned to 11.

Seriously, they are completely out of touch with reality. Oh, and here's another one, directly from the horse's mouth.

I'm so going to pick that op-ed apart!

Their arguments are plain stupid. Seems they simply did not think it through, or are unable to do so, if they want to justify it with stuff like "uh, well, its an old religious tradition!". I'd love to hear if they are OK if i would go around, cutting hearts out of live humans, and then tell them "duh, that's just an old religious tradition from the aztecs, and i happen to follow their religion!".

Cut out hearts? Blood libel!

What i really find troublesome is their constant harping about antisemitism. Don't they recognize that the more often and quicker they pull out the antisemitism-weapon, it will quickly become a really blunt weapon? And comparing the courts ruling against circumcision with the holocaust? Really? Are they that stupid?

The word antisemitism has already lost its meaning, precisely for the reason you mention. I don't know how many times I've been called an antisemite when posting a critical comment about Israeli policy on the Haaretz site (and that's a liberal paper); or even here.

Okay, now the op-ed of the Chief Rabbi of GB.

It is hard to think of a more appalling decision. Did the court know that circumcision is the most ancient ritual in the history of Judaism, dating back almost four thousand years to the days of Abraham?

Don't lie, Rabbi. Abraham was a mythical figure, and you have no proof whatsoever that circumcision goes back so far. Judaism doesn't even go back so far: as a monotheistic religion not before the Babylonian captivity, and as a henotheistic Yahweh-cult to maybe 800BC.

Did it know that Spinoza, not religious but together with John Locke the father of European liberalism, wrote that brit milah in and of itself had the power to sustain Jewish identity through the centuries?

Maybe you should have first thought of preserving Spinoza's Jewish identity? He's the only case I'm aware of that has been excommunicated by the Amsterdam Jewish community. But this reference is the ultimate chutzpah. What Spinoza actually wrote in Chapter 3 of his Tractatus Theologico-Philosophicus was all but flattering about circumcision. Here is what Spinoza wrote, with some context:

(98) At the present time, therefore, there is absolutely nothing which the Jews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people.

(99) As to their continuance so long after dispersion and the loss of empire, there is nothing marvellous in it, for they so separated themselves from every other nation as to draw down upon themselves universal hate, not only by their outward rites, rites conflicting with those of other nations, but also by the sign of circumcision which they most scrupulously observe.

(100) That they have been preserved in great measure by Gentile hatred, experience demonstrates.
<snip>

(104) The sign of circumcision is, as I think, so important, that I could persuade myself that it alone would preserve the nation for ever. (105) Nay, I would go so far as to believe that if the foundations of their religion have not emasculated their minds they may even, if occasion offers, so changeable are human affairs, raise up their empire afresh, and that God may a second time elect them.

Having read that, do you really think Spinoza thought circumcision was worth preserving?

Did it know that banning milah was the route chosen by two of the worst enemies the Jewish people ever had, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and the Roman emperor Hadrian, both of whom set out to extinguish not only Jews but also Judaism?

Please tell the whole story. Hadrian wasn't exactly pleased with the Bar Kochba revolt, that tied up more than 6 legions. He didn't set out to extinguish the Jews, only to crush the revolt and restore order.

If it did, then there are judges in Germany quite willing to say to religious Jews, in effect, “If you don’t like it, leave.” Do judges in Cologne today really not know what happened the last time Germany went down that road?

There are Reform Jews who don't circumcise; in the 19th Century that was even common in Reform circles. Was Theodor Herzl no religious Jew for not having his son circumcised? Ultimately, there's a way around any religious precept.

The case – like the banning of shechitah by the Dutch parliament, now thankfully reversed – illustrates the deep difficulty Jews are facing in Europe today. Both cases initially had nothing to do with Jews. They were directed predominantly against Muslims, whose population vastly outnumbers that of Jews in almost every country in Europe.

Again, don't lie. Neither the Cologne court, nor the Dutch legislative initiative by the Animal Rights Party, was directed against any one religion in particular. It was directed at a practice which today is considered barbaric, irrespective of who does it. Both cases just happened to be a problem for the same two religions that uphold those same outdated practices.

It follows that any assault on Jewish life – on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state – must be cast in the language of human rights. Hence the by-now routine accusation that Israel has committed the five cardinal sins against human rights: racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide and crimes against humanity. This is not because the people making these accusations seriously believe them – some do, some don’t. It is because this is the only form in which an assault on Jews can be stated today.

There's the old canard again: criticism of Israel == antisemitism. It's verboten to criticize Israel because the Holocaust. Phuulease. This is not an I/P thread, so I won't go into the details, but please read, say, Benny Morris on the ethnic cleansing claim.

That is what the court in Cologne has done. It has declared that circumcision is an assault on the rights of the child since it is performed without his consent. It ignored the fact that if this is true, teaching children to speak German, sending them to school and vaccinating them against illness are all assaults against the rights of the child since they are done without consent. The court’s judgement was tendentious, foolish and has set a dangerous precedent.

That's a mighty collection of strawmen, Rabbi! It would be a breach of human rights not to teach your children a language; education prepares them for adult life, and vaccinating protects them against deadly illnesses.

Circumcision has none of those redeeming qualities. The only quality you highlight, Rabbi, is that you brand your children with a mark saying "I'm a Jew". You could as well tattoo a number on their arm. Of course, that reminds too much of Auschwitz; but then, Rabbi, you forget how many men ended up in Auschwitz because their trousers got pulled down and they were thus outed as a Jew. If you're so worried about a repetition of the Holocaust, dear Rabbi, maybe you should consider stopping branding your folk with a sign that says "I'm a Jew". Under the line, that is your only argument: you want to brand your children with a sign saying they're Jewish. When Jews assimilate and take on more and more practices of the surrounding world, that sign in their pants is the last thing that says they're Jewish, as Spinoza argued, and is your last hold to distinguish your folk from the others. In the end, your holding on to this practice is a sign of your ghetto mentality.

And when about everyone you come in contact with thinks that circumcision is barbaric: Greek philosophers who thought Judaic monotheism was attractive, Romans like Emperor Hadrian, Christians from Paul of Tarsus who argued you could uphold the Law without circumcising, onwards; and modern-day human rights advocates, and many others; maybe then, Rabbi, you should really think about it whether that practice simply is barbaric, and whether you should not abolish it. You can do that, there's a smart exegesis of every law. And after all, the Israelites who dwelt in the desert during Exodus weren't circumcised either.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, I get that you don't see "mutilation" as having negative connotation, but you are insisting that everyone conform to your standard, which is the height of arrogance when it is clear that most people see "mutilation" as having negative connotations.

Have you tried explain people who have had elective, cosmetic surgery that they are "mutilated"?

Oh, get off that high horse. I'm not prescribing the language you use. I am not insisting you use or do not use any particular term. It seems to me it's the other way around, actually. Though I think it would be good all round if you learned the difference between "therapeutic" and "prophylactic".

I have no intention of "trying to explain" to people who have had elective cosmetic surgery that they "are mutilated". That would include me by the way. However, if you remarked that the elective procedure I had done was actually a mutilation, I'd grin wryly and agree.

A mutilation is a surgical procedure done for cosmetic or management reasons. The debate that has to take place isn't about the word, it's about whether any particular mutilation is justifiable because the cost/benefit ratio is favourable.

Throwing a hissy fit and saying "I've been called mutilated" simply because someone is using medical language in a way you're unfamiliar with, isn't advancing the discussion at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Skwinty]

When I discussed my circumcision with my mother, she told me she made that decision based on hygiene.

I think she she was too embarrassed to say that she didn't want to fiddle with pulling the foreskin back when she bathed me.

The women in the 50's were quite prudish IMO.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Wow. "Worst attack on Judaism since the Holocaust". Oh yes, of course, circumcision is the essence of Judaism. Not the covenants with Abraham, Jacob and Moses are; no, circumcision is the essence. Now turned to 11.

[... snipped for brevity ...]

Not to mention that this remark by Goldschmidt is not only sadly ironic, but highly hypocritical as well.

As soon as someone compares whatever to the holocaust, and even if oh-so-slightly, they are all up in rage and complain about such a comparison. One of the reasons they bring up, and rightfully so IMHO, is that it would trivialize the victims of the holocaust. Just look at what happened to Bishop Mixa when he suggested that over 9 million abortions in a few decades is a bit like the holocaust, in which about 6 million people were killed.

However, they have no qualms about making such silly comparisons themselves. And of course, no one complains about that either.

What i find strange is that there is little from the muslim community to be heard. Maybe it isn't just reported, or maybe they simply don't care that much about it, i don't know. I'd really like to know what they have to say about it.

My guess is that they will happily side with the jewish community, best-friends-style, sooner or later. Which in itself would also be heavily ironic.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Darat]

Ah, the old "semantic argument" argument again.

Do you call black people *******?

Let's say we all agree not to call male genital cutting mutilation.

So why should the decision to cut their penis not be left up to the owner of the penis?

 

[Ryokan]

When I discussed my circumcision with my mother, she told me she made that decision based on hygiene.

I think she she was too embarrassed to say that she didn't want to fiddle with pulling the foreskin back when she bathed me.

The women in the 50's were quite prudish IMO.

By the time it's possible to pull the foreskin back and it needs washing underneath, surely you're old enough to not have your mother bathe you?

ETA: I don't remember when this was possible on my own penis, but I seem to remember something about it normally being around 10-12.

 

[Ryokan]

What i find strange is that there is little from the muslim community to be heard. Maybe it isn't just reported, or maybe they simply don't care that much about it, i don't know. I'd really like to know what they have to say about it.

My guess is that they will happily side with the jewish community, best-friends-style, sooner or later. Which in itself would also be heavily ironic.

Greetings,

Chris

In Norway, the most vocal opposition came from Muslims. Funny enough, their main argument was how important this was to the Jews. Because you just know, if the Jews weren't doing this, if Muslims were the only ones, there would be a loud cry from people to ban this horrible Islamic terrorist practice.

 

[ddt]

Not to mention that this remark by Goldschmidt is not only sadly ironic, but highly hypocritical as well.

As soon as someone compares whatever to the holocaust, and even if oh-so-slightly, they are all up in rage and complain about such a comparison. One of the reasons they bring up, and rightfully so IMHO, is that it would trivialize the victims of the holocaust. Just look at what happened to Bishop Mixa when he suggested that over 9 million abortions in a few decades is a bit like the holocaust, in which about 6 million people were killed.

However, they have no qualms about making such silly comparisons themselves. And of course, no one complains about that either.

Of course you're not allowed to compare anything to the Holocaust: it was a unique event of unique suffering. You're not even allowed to use the number 6 million, as Gretta Duisenberg did, lest someone files a complaint with the police. But as a Jew, you have the privilege to try to stifle any debate with a reference to the Holocaust. Happened too in the Dutch ritual slaughter debate: "the first thing the Nazis did when they occupied Holland was to close down the Jewish abattoirs". It's a sick double standard indeed.

What i find strange is that there is little from the muslim community to be heard. Maybe it isn't just reported, or maybe they simply don't care that much about it, i don't know. I'd really like to know what they have to say about it.

That's an interesting question that I also raised in this thread about ritual slaughter. However, I wasn't even allowed to ask that question, it seems from the reactions from bigjelmapro and Mycroft. Maybe it is that they're better organized; the German Muslims, as elsewhere, are heavily split across ethnic lines, but then you'd at least expect a reaction from someone purporting to speak for all Turkish-descent Muslims. Maybe circumcision is more of a dogma among Jewish orthodoxy. Maybe it is ghetto mentality. Maybe it is a (latent) fear that assimilation will make Judaism as a religion disappear.

My guess is that they will happily side with the jewish community, best-friends-style, sooner or later. Which in itself would also be heavily ironic.

Undoubtedly they will.

And it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The issue is in the hands of the courts, who are less likely to budge to public opinion than politicians are.

 

[Rasmus]

Wow. "Worst attack on Judaism since the Holocaust".

funny thing is, this might actually be true ... there haven't been many attacks on Judaism as a whole here recently, much less sponsored by the government.

I know what it implies, but it actually doesn't say anything about the ban on circumcision other than "I don't like it" and "the holocaust was worse".

 

[ddt]

funny thing is, this might actually be true ... there haven't been many attacks on Judaism as a whole here recently, much less sponsored by the government.

Define "as a whole". I remember there were alarming articles in the news about attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools, and how Jewish kids (in Berlin I think) couldn't walk from/to school without a police escort for fear of their life, just a few years back. There's also still the assortment of Neo-Nazi groups who still spew antisemitic garbage. From wiki:

Despite these facts, Israeli Ambassador Shimon Stein warned in October 2006 that Jews in Germany feel increasingly unsafe, stating that they “are not able to live a normal Jewish life” and that heavy security surrounds most synagogues or Jewish community centers.

Please read the surrounding paragraphs as well; my point is not to paint Germany black, but to argue that (some) Jewish leaders themselves have recently claimed that Germany is unsafe for Jews.

 

[Rasmus]

Define "as a whole". I remember there were alarming articles in the news about attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools, and how Jewish kids (in Berlin I think) couldn't walk from/to school without a police escort for fear of their life, just a few years back. There's also still the assortment of Neo-Nazi groups who still spew antisemitic garbage. From wiki:

Yes, I know. You'd have to argue that those were individual attacks against Jews, rather than an organized attack against Judaism. A stretch, I admit.

Please read the surrounding paragraphs as well; my point is not to paint Germany black, but to argue that (some) Jewish leaders themselves have recently claimed that Germany is unsafe for Jews.

I know, I was just pointing out that the hyperbole wasn't very impressive if you looked it calmly, even if you assumed it was accurate.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let's say we all agree not to call male genital cutting mutilation.

So why should the decision to cut their penis not be left up to the owner of the penis?

I see this line of reasoning a lot, and I don't think it's a legitimate question.

Being circumcised at 18 will be a very different experience than growing up cirumcised. It is literally impossible for someone to choose to grow up circumcised or uncircumcised.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of whether circumcision ought to be legal, the "choice" argument just isn't one that makes any sense. Neither side is giving the infant, or the child, or the adolescent, a choice, and given that there was no choice at those stages of life, the adult has also been deprived of choice. At the age of 18, a male could decide he does not want a foreskin, but he cannot decide that it is his choice to have grown up with or without a foreskin.



For reference, like most American males of my generation, I grew up Christian and circumcised. Unlike most American males, I married a Jewish woman. Before our son was born, we decided to raise him Jewish, and we didn't have him circumcised. We're Reform. Lopping off perfectly good bits of tissue seems silly to me. On the other hand, I'm very reluctant to call it criminal. It doesn't seem to have done any significant harm to my generation. (No pun intended)

 

[Darat]

I see this line of reasoning a lot, and I don't think it's a legitimate question.

Being circumcised at 18 will be a very different experience than growing up cirumcised. It is literally impossible for someone to choose to grow up circumcised or uncircumcised.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of whether circumcision ought to be legal, the "choice" argument just isn't one that makes any sense. Neither side is giving the infant, or the child, or the adolescent, a choice, and given that there was no choice at those stages of life, the adult has also been deprived of choice. At the age of 18, a male could decide he does not want a foreskin, but he cannot decide that it is his choice to have grown up with or without a foreskin.



...snip...

And?

 

[Christian Klippel]

And it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The issue is in the hands of the courts, who are less likely to budge to public opinion than politicians are.

Indeed. And there are quite a few things that legislation has to consider.

Merkel, as well as the green party here in Germany, was very quick to state that the court was wrong, and that they will see to it that jews and muslims will of course have the right to circumcise their children. However, there are a few problems with that.

First of all, we are a secular state. As soon as the government tries to make special exemptions to our laws, our constitution and to the united nations convention on the rights of the children, just to accommodate some religious folks, it leaves the secular framework and moves into the realm of a theocratic framework. I'm pretty sure that the constitutional court of Germany will not allow for such a change, rightfully so.

Next, if they really want to make such exemptions, where should it end? They simply can't say "OK, here's a special exemption for jewish and muslim people, for their religious and traditional stuff" while not allowing more exemptions to people of other religions and traditions. For example, they would also have to allow FGM for african people, just to name one.

In any case, just the fact that they want to put religous and cultural "needs" above basic human rights and the constitution is simply a no-go.

At a quick glance into the convention on the rights of the child (a PDF of that is here, for example), i can already see at least 2 articles violated by such an exemption. Those are:

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal
guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent
with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are
prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Having the child circumcised (or baptized, for that matter) for religious/traditional reason clearly deprives the child of that freedom.

Article 19

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures
to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent
treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal
guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

I think no one can argue that cutting away a piece of skin for no reason isn't a form of injury. I would also argue that it is a form of physical violence.

It will be really interesting to see how all this plays out.

Greetings,

Chris