German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Christian Klippel]

I'll read about that, if it is as described and he wins, it would be excellent.

Well, first they have to see if there is any chance to bring a lawsuit at all. But i agree, if he wins that would be fantastic.

It's my opinion that the underlying issue is not really about circumcision, or baptizing, or whatever crazy rituals one adheres to. The issue is, instead, if religious freedom should be valued higher than constitutional and basic human rights. And i think there can be only one sensible ranking: human rights first, then constitutional rights, then religious freedom (even if they are part of the constitution).

The reason for that is pretty simple, and i think that most people would agree with that: What good are human rights or constitutional rights if they can be easily muted by drawing the "but it's my religion" card. After all, freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Everyone can follow her/his religious or cultural rituals as they see fit, i have absolutely no problem with that. However, what i _do_ have a problem with is if religion or culture is used as an excuse or justification to act outside basic laws. That simply can't happen, as it would render any human right, and any constitution, void immediately.

How can we say "here, it's your basic human law that no one should inflict harm or injury on you", and explicitly extend that to children as well (which is good), but then throw that out of the window by saying "it's his religion/tradition to inflict harm on infants/children, so we should allow that"?

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Or seen from a different angle: How can we claim that humans have freedom of religion, and even explicitly grant that right to children, while at the same time allowing that children have to forcibly submit to religious rituals? Allowing that by default contradicts the very idea of religious freedom.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think no one can argue that cutting away a piece of skin for no reason isn't a form of injury.

I think that much of the last twenty pages is evidence against that statement. Whether they can argue convincingly is still not confirmed.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I think that much of the last twenty pages is evidence against that statement. Whether they can argue convincingly is still not confirmed.

Point taken

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Mycroft]

Checkmite never came close to suggesting that. You're evading the question by attacking strawmen.

As opposed to comparing circumcision with sexual molestation.

Yes of course... any more drama queening to be had from your part?

We got it... Metaphorically, you're proud of your stump, and the people who still have hands attached are not more or less functional than you.

It's pathetic how textbook your defensiveness is. And no, I will not lose any more time trying to educate you.

You think that parents can mutilate their kids because it was done to you; I think you and the ones that think like you are primitive child abusers, and are perpetuating a cycle of violence.

You are the reason why there is a need for laws of this sort.

Ironic your calling him "drama queening." Pot/kettle.

 

[Mycroft]

I hope you're right. I'd like to see the song and dance that results from trying to allow circumcision but disallow a list of other similar practices. I would expect a challenge from others not granted special rights to be more likely.

Who are these "others"?

 

[Mycroft]

Wouldn't it be a highly ironic tragedy if after that muslims would start to kill jews, in Germany, because their particular interpretation of the quran (and thus their religious practices/traditions) tells them so? What should a court decide then? After all, both have just been granted special exemptions as far as their religion and culture is concerned. The court would have somewhat of a problem to deny them the right to what they did. But it would also have a problem to let it slide, because it simply is murder.

So if circumcisions are not made illegal, later on we will have to legalize Muslims killing Jews.

I think that's just about the most extreme and ridiculous slippery slope argument I've seen yet.

 

[Mycroft]

"Medically unnecessary permanent surgical removal of a normal and healthy body part of a non-consenting minor" is far too unwieldy.

But "circumcision" is not unwieldy at all.

 

[jdp]

Who are these "others"?

Groups who wish to perform other tribal scaring rituals: various types of FGM, face nicking, branding, tattooing.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I have to say impressed with just how controversial this topic is. Around and around we go with no end in sight.

I seriously doubt this german court decision is going to stop circumcision. They'll figure out a way to accommodate it eventually IMHO.

 

[Christian Klippel]

So if circumcisions are not made illegal, later on we will have to legalize Muslims killing Jews.

I think that's just about the most extreme and ridiculous slippery slope argument I've seen yet.

Try reading for comprehension, then you might actually understand what i said.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Mycroft]

Groups who wish to perform other tribal scaring rituals: various types of FGM, face nicking, branding, tattooing.

Can you name some of these groups? Or are we to just imagine that they exist? All those hoards of people who are dying to brand their infants but are only stopped by the presumed existence of some law?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Tradition only, is your reason to permit parents to violate the trust their child is forced to place in them to protect their bodies until they're ready to take over its care?

 

[Christian Klippel]

All those hoards of people who are dying to brand their infants but are only stopped by the presumed existence of some law?

You do see the fallacy of that argument of yours, do you?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Mycroft]

Try reading for comprehension, then you might actually understand what i said.

Greetings,

Chris

Wouldn't it be ironic if not making illegal the removal of a small piece of skin in infancy led to people murdering in the name of religion? And then you expressed confusion on if/how the courts could distinguish between the actions?

If I got it wrong, please feel free to clarify.

You do see the fallacy of that argument of yours, do you?

Greetings,

Chris

Feel free to point it out.


Greetings back.

 

[jdp]

Can you name some of these groups? Or are we to just imagine that they exist? All those hoards of people who are dying to brand their infants but are only stopped by the presumed existence of some law?

Yoruba culture, ritual scarification -- it even went to court:

http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=54&pageno=1

Female circumcision - Indonesian, Somali, Middle East, ect..

http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot....baby-girl.html

I am sure I could find branding, and tatooing too, maybe Polyneasian perhaps Native American? There doesn't need to be hoards either, only a parent claiming it's part of their religion or culture.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Wouldn't it be ironic if not making illegal the removal of a small piece of skin in infancy led to people murdering in the name of religion? And then you expressed confusion on if/how the courts could distinguish between the actions?

If I got it wrong, please feel free to clarify.

Yes, you got it completely wrong. Which is rather curious, because i clearly said something different. But alright, just for you:

I did _not_ say anything about what would happen if something would _not_ be made illegal. Instead i was clearly saying that granting a special exemption, to place an a practice above basic human rights, the constitution and court ruling, simply because of "well, that's the religious/cultural practice" will open the floodgates for all sort of nasty things. Which then also would have to be granted exemption just because it's a religious thing.

Simply because there is no basis for granting exemptions to the law for group/practice X, but not for group/practice Y on the same grounds.

And that led to my hypothetical. _If_ such an exemption would be granted based purely on religious reasons, it would also allow more nasty stuff to happen for the same reasons. But that would be a contradiction then, then we have, for example, laws against murder. If group X now starts killing people of group Y and justifies it with their religion, how to solve that? On one hand that "freedom" has to be granted to them, because it would be clear that exemptions can and have be made to put religious actions outside the reach of the law. On the other it can not be granted because it goes against basic human rights and the constitution.

I used the example of some muslims killing jews to point out the overall irony if they are to stand side by side to get an exemption for circumcision because of religion. Simply because it's a fact that _some_ brands of muslims interpret the quran in a way that allows them to kill jews.

In short, it's simply impossible for both situations to exist at the same time without causing a lot of havoc.

Feel free to point it out.

Greetings back.

Easy. Why have laws against murder? Why have laws against burglary, assault, rape, whatever? Because, by extension, you claim they have no effect anways:

All those hoards of people who are dying to brand their infants but are only stopped by the presumed existence of some law?

But the fact is that the majority of people do _not_ go around killing other people just because they feel like it. They do not rape others, they do not constantly steal stuff from others.

Yes, there are, and will be, always some that don't care about laws and do it anyways. But the majority of people does not, because we have such laws in place.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Checkmite]

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.

This argument is spurious; I was never "given the option to grow up without feet".

If the child is too young to decide, of course he will remain in his natural, un-amputated state; to complain that this is somehow unfair is ludicrous.

 

[Mycroft]

Yoruba culture, ritual scarification -- it even went to court:

http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=54&pageno=1

So you're saying the Yoruba minority in Germany will be clamoring for this "special right" because one woman did it to her sons almost 40 years ago in the United Kingdom. Incidentally, her sons consented to the procedure, which were said to be unlikely to leave a permanent scar, which by your own criteria would have made it acceptable by your own standards.

That's...a reach.

Female circumcision - Indonesian, Somali, Middle East, ect..

http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot....baby-girl.html

Second link is broken, but again your argument is that "others" will challenge German courts for their "special rights" in Germany is that some Indonesian woman in Indonesia blogged about getting her daughter circumcised?

I am sure I could find branding, and tatooing too, maybe Polyneasian perhaps Native American? There doesn't need to be hoards either, only a parent claiming it's part of their religion or culture.

I doubt it, but for the sake of argument if you were able to find someone somewhere who wants to brand their baby, it's still moving the goalposts unless they're likely to advocate for the right to do this in Germany based on the fact that circumcision is not illegal there.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, you got it completely wrong. Which is rather curious, because i clearly said something different. But alright, just for you:

I did _not_ say anything about what would happen if something would _not_ be made illegal. Instead i was clearly saying that granting a special exemption, to place an a practice above basic human rights, the constitution and court ruling, simply because of "well, that's the religious/cultural practice" will open the floodgates for all sort of nasty things. Which then also would have to be granted exemption just because it's a religious thing.

So...in no way does your "clarification" contradict my interpretation of your initial statement. You're still making an absurd slippery slope argument that not making circumcision illegal will "open the floodgates" to all kinds of ridiculous things.

...But that would be a contradiction then, then we have, for example, laws against murder. If group X now starts killing people of group Y and justifies it with their religion, how to solve that?...

And also that judges in particular and society as a whole is just too stupid to make any kind of meaningful discernment between cutting off a piece of skin and murder.

 

[Mycroft]

If the child is too young to decide, of course he will remain in his natural, un-amputated state; to complain that this is somehow unfair is ludicrous.

I don't think he's complaining that it's unfair as much as he's pointing out that growing up one way or another is much the same. Either way, you're not given a choice.

The anti-circumcision argument depends a lot on exaggerating the "harm" supposedly done by circumcision.