German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Akhlut]

And, when performed under medical supervision, girls who have Pharonic circumcisions have high rates of survival too.

That's a bullshit comparison. If we were discussing castration Pharonic FGM would be an appropriate comparison but we are not. We are discussing Jewish circumcision (there are variants of Muslim male circumcision that are pretty horrific, but despite the court case being over a Muslim child and parents we're discussing Jews because they are the ones most inflexible about timing of circumcision). Really, comparing Pharonic FGM to what the typical Jewish boy undergoes trivializes the much worse thing done to the girl. That doesn't make Jewish circumcision OK or acceptable, but let's not pretend it's any worse than it actually is. Jewish circumcision doesn't prevent a man from enjoying the sex act (even if it may diminish that enjoyment, it far from eliminates it), doesn't prevent him from having an orgasm, and doesn't increase his odds of dying during procreation which Pharonic FGM does in women.

Pharonic FGM doesn't prevent orgasms: http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.html

Results. The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain.

So, I see no reason why FGM should be outlawed if MGM isn't. They are, essentially, equivalent, as females who have had even extensive FGM can still feel sexual pleasure, just like males who have undergone MGM.

I agree, although I will find it ironic that a pretty tolerant and pacificist German government finally succeeded in driving the Jews out of Germany where the Nazis could not.

Apparently the gas chambers are better than stopping them from mutilating innocent children.

If you think the Jews are going to submit to that quietly you're nuts, though. The more peaceful ones will bugger off to places the practice is allowed. The others will range from continuing it underground to actual open defiance.

Any society that allows the mutilation of children is abhorrent and abominable. If that means that the Jews will leave en masse, well, fuck 'em. If they can't abide by the law and live without cutting off foreskins of innocent children, then they can go to whatever barbarian hellhole they want to live in.

ONLY to preserve life, not merely because some foreign gentile group deems it unacceptable. If you haven't eaten in two days no, you can't have the pork and shrimp gumbo, you have to be in actual danger of starving to death, not merely inconvenienced. It's pretty clear to me that many Jews would find breaking secular law more acceptable in this case than breaking God's law, paying a fine or even serving a jail term. Only if there would be an actual, enforced death penalty for the practice would that argument serve to allow an exception. Indeed, the ONLY exceptions are for those with medical conditions where there is a truly significant chance of the practice causing death. Not complications, death.

Please, these fuckers will rework the basic functioning of a telephone so they can use it on the sabbath, surely they can find some bullshit little niggling point of law to not perform barbaric sheepfucker rituals from 4,000 years ago.

Also: Brit bli milah.

[Broomstick]

So, I see no reason why FGM should be outlawed if MGM isn't. They are, essentially, equivalent, as females who have had even extensive FGM can still feel sexual pleasure, just like males who have undergone MGM.

You are so full of shit - you really think that Pharonic circumcision, which removes the clitoris, labia, and sews up the opening of the vagina and urethra to something the size of soda straw is the exact same thing as foreskin removal? Get real. Sure, male castratos have reported orgasm capability as well, but you'd be nuts to argue that castration doesn't impact sex.

I agree, although I will find it ironic that a pretty tolerant and pacificist German government finally succeeded in driving the Jews out of Germany where the Nazis could not.

Apparently the gas chambers are better than stopping them from mutilating innocent children.

So are you now advocating genocide as a solution?

If you think the Jews are going to submit to that quietly you're nuts, though. The more peaceful ones will bugger off to places the practice is allowed. The others will range from continuing it underground to actual open defiance.

Any society that allows the mutilation of children is abhorrent and abominable.

So will you impose equal penalties for any parent piercing the ears of an infant or a child who otherwise is not competent to give consent?

If that means that the Jews will leave en masse, well, fuck 'em.

See, this is why multiculturalism is such a problem. Some people will not even attempt to consider the other viewpoint. That doesn't mean agree with it, just attempt to understand how the opposition sees it.

Jews see failure to circumcise as a very serious form of neglect, to be remedied by the community if necessary. You see circumcision as an abomination. Obviously, these two viewpoints are incompatible. Unfortunately, I don't see a means to compromise on this one.

Please, these fuckers will rework the basic functioning of a telephone so they can use it on the sabbath, surely they can find some bullshit little niggling point of law to not perform barbaric sheepfucker rituals from 4,000 years ago.

Actually, most observant Jews I know in the Orthodox and even quite a few Conservatives simply will not use the phone on the Sabbath, neither to call nor to answer it, and will even turn off the answering machine or disconnect the phone. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all Jews seek a means to cheat.

And it's probably closer to 5000-600 years of circumcision, not 4,000, although the historical record that far back is a wee bit murky.

Also: Brit bli milah.

3% of Jews not circumcising their male offspring is hardly a groundswell of change. There have always been a certain percentage who try to get out of the requirement. The larger Jewish community - the 97% - usually kick them to the curb as bad Jews.

What I find pathetic are the number of people attempting to reason some way out for the Jews, or rationalizing that they will find an exception, or be willing to compromise. Greater than 90% will not - they will not compromise, they will not even look for an exception, and will continue the practice one way or another unless physically stopped from doing so.

[Ralin]

Please, these fuckers will rework the basic functioning of a telephone so they can use it on the sabbath, surely they can find some bullshit little niggling point of law to not perform barbaric sheepfucker rituals from 4,000 years ago.

Say what?

[Broomstick]

He is taking the example of a few Jews trying to game the Sabbath rules system to allow use of the telephone and extrapolating it to all Jews everywhere, presumably to prove how dishonest and untrustworthy all Jews are.

It's a little like saying that because you occasionally see an Amish teenager driving around in a car (yay, teen rebellion and rumspringa) that all Amish everywhere are stinking, car-driving hypocrites and not to be trusted.

[TC Pilot]

To me, it's a funny coincidence that about a week ago a bunch of Zimbabwean MP's got circumsized in order to promote it as a way to fight the spread of HIV there.

[Broomstick]

Presumably they were all adult, though, so they could give meaningful consent. The German constitution prohibition would not apply to a consenting adult.

But yeah, it is a bit of a coincidence.

[Blayne]

I personally consider, cultural genocide to be sufficiently enough of a net negative to be tolerant if yet disapproving of the practice; I feel uncomfortable because I frankly feel it would not be my place, nor would I welcome the authority to decree that they stop by one means or another. I may not like it but it could be worse, and the alternatives are almost always worse.

I simply will not, could not, nor do I feel that I or anyone else should, make that choice for them. If we de facto ban one religion we may end up de facto banning others, and there's virtually no way to say that it won't be another religion de facto banning the others to forward its own cause.

That is why I feel uncomfortable with this ruling, I do not like the precedent it sets, nor do I feel the laws in question are at all meant or intended by their designers to concern Jews and other religious or cultural minorities.

[TC Pilot]

Out of curiousity, can you corroborate that? Because the BBC article I checked before posting suggests otherwise. (article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18549968)

[General Zod]

Out of curiousity, can you corroborate that? Because the BBC article I checked before posting suggests otherwise. (article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18549968)

As far as I know the only studies have been performed in Africa, and WHO acted rather hastily. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45070.html

How come nobody has performed studies regarding HIV and circumcision on the male population in the US, where the vast majority of men are circumcised?

[AniThyng]

Any society that allows the mutilation of children is abhorrent and abominable.

Those are very strong words to use, I can't wait to see the backlash from the Muslims, nevermind the Jews, on this particular issue. It's worth repeating that for many muslims (and appearently until recently, many americans in general) that male circumsicion is very very far way from "mutilation".

Or is it a net plus to Germany if Muslims leave for their own "barbaric hellholes"...hmm...

[hongi]

So, I see no reason why FGM should be outlawed if MGM isn't. They are, essentially, equivalent, as females who have had even extensive FGM can still feel sexual pleasure, just like males who have undergone MGM.

I think female genital mutilation should be legal. I mean the form of FGM where it is equivalent to male circumcision, which is the excision of some or all parts of the clitoral hood.

[K. A. Pital]

If the religion places unreasonable demands (such as "circumcise as a child"), that religion should not deserve any special respect from the secular authorities.

If we go with that- if, as you say, anything the state bans based on a secular rationale trumps freedom of religion... well.

Medical reasons != secular or political reasons.

Any strain of Judaism other than the most 'reformwards,' the most relaxed ones I can imagine are now... essentially banned in Germany, for the first time in many decades.

So what? Orthodox (non-reformwards) strains of monotheistic religions usually are horrid enough to deserve a quick and immediate destruction; it is only by mercy of the public they have survived for so long, lurking in the shadows.

To add to Destructionator's point - even if there's good evidence in favor of the procedure, there's certainly nothing which prevents you undergoing it as an adult, which is also when you (as an adult person) can voice your consent and make a choice. Which a child cannot.

[Scrib]

I personally consider, cultural genocide to be sufficiently enough of a net negative to be tolerant if yet disapproving of the practice; I feel uncomfortable because I frankly feel it would not be my place, nor would I welcome the authority to decree that they stop by one means or another. I may not like it but it could be worse, and the alternatives are almost always worse.

What are you talking about? The government does nothing but dictate how we act towards others, in the case of a secular government hopefully in a rational and non-dangerous or abusive fashion. You may have a problem with it, basically the state's gimmick. Are you really calling preventing nonconsensual, religious mutilation cultural genocide? Did I miss something up thread? So are stopping or prosecuting honor killings now cultural genocide as well? If yes, then so be it. You don't get to drag all the bits of your culture into another one and expect the government,particularly a secular one, to just agree with it just cause. They're supposed to protect the people in the country. They felt that this is harmful, so they stopped it.

I simply will not, could not, nor do I feel that I or anyone else should, make that choice for them. If we de facto ban one religion we may end up de facto banning others, and there's virtually no way to say that it won't be another religion de facto banning the others to forward its own cause.

Again, did I miss something? Also, I don't see how the government dictating the actions of a bunch of grown ups is worse than the possible harm caused when those grown ups choose to perform surgeries on children who don't know any better, surgeries that could affect the rest of their lives. Doesn't that shit fly simply because it's religious or culture based?

[Broomstick]

How come nobody has performed studies regarding HIV and circumcision on the male population in the US, where the vast majority of men are circumcised?

I haven't done an exhaustive search of what's out there, but last I heard circumcision doesn't seem to make a difference in HIV rates in first world nations like the US. I will point out that there hasn't been a lot of research done on this topic, in part due to the difficulty of getting together a good uncut control group in the US (most of the intact males in the US are quite young, as it's a recent change in the culture).

One criticism I've long heard about the African research is that on that continent circumcision strongly correlates with Islam (not 100% - some tribes have long practiced it as well). African Muslims have a lower rate of promiscuity and tend to start having sex later than non-Muslims. It may be differences in sexual conduct between Muslims and non-Muslims in Africa that is making the difference and not circumcision.

[Broomstick]

I personally consider, cultural genocide to be sufficiently enough of a net negative to be tolerant if yet disapproving of the practice; I feel uncomfortable because I frankly feel it would not be my place, nor would I welcome the authority to decree that they stop by one means or another. I may not like it but it could be worse, and the alternatives are almost always worse.

What are you talking about? The government does nothing but dictate how we act towards others, in the case of a secular government hopefully in a rational and non-dangerous or abusive fashion. You may have a problem with it, basically the state's gimmick. Are you really calling preventing nonconsensual, religious mutilation cultural genocide?

It does, if it prevents parents from passing the culture on to the children. It doesn't have to be intentional, or malicious. It can come from the best of intentions.

The Spanish banning human sacrifice in Central America destroyed the Aztec culture by dictating how people would act (or not) towards each other. We may sit here and say good, because who the hell thinks human sacrifice is a good thing?, but it did destroy that culture.

Likewise, Jews are going to view banning infant circumcision as destructive to their culture. It doesn't matter if that isn't a law's intent, that will be the effect.

Where FGM has been outlawed there have been a tendency for it to go underground (meaning it's far less likely to be performed in sanitary conditions by technically competent people), for parents to take their children out of the country to have it done, and for the technique used to become more extreme. There is no reason to suppose MGM would be different. I refer people to The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective by Ellen Gruenbaum for a more in depth discussion of unintended consequences from outright bans on the practice and alternative ways to address the issue and drive down the rates of occurrence, which is what we really want to do.

So are stopping or prosecuting honor killings now cultural genocide as well? If yes, then so be it. You don't get to drag all the bits of your culture into another one and expect the government,particularly a secular one, to just agree with it just cause.

While I agree with that stance you're delusional if you think there won't be resistance to such a change. Outlawing honor killings doesn't stop them because there are a certain number of people out there who value their perceived honor above their freedom, or even their life. That doesn't mean we should give up, but we should realize and remember that there are always consequences to these sorts of laws and the practices they ban don't just simply stop overnight.

Also, I don't see how the government dictating the actions of a bunch of grown ups is worse than the possible harm caused when those grown ups choose to perform surgeries on children who don't know any better, surgeries that could affect the rest of their lives. Doesn't that shit fly simply because it's religious or culture based?

Well, if you don't mind the potential backlash that comes from banning a practice central to a culture/religion go for it.

[someone_else]

The first thing I disagree with this is that it was ruled by judges.
Isn't the parliament the organ supposed to make laws and the judiciary the organ supposed to enforce them?

Second, male circumcision isn't something I would start a war over, I agree that it's stupid and makes little sense but outlawing BECAUSE GOV SAID SO just makes them angry and they keep doing it in their homes.
I mean it's not brain surgery nor nuclear physics, anyone with a sharp knife and 10 minutes can do it (steady hand would also help, you don't always have this luxury though).

I think giving funds into kinds of judaism/islamism that are ready to stop the practice or some other kind of positive reward for getting what you want (and a bit of mediatic bombardment from deniable sources) would be a much better move.

Where FGM has been outlawed there have been a tendency for it to go underground

Which is why I'm generally for making it legal, when performed by MDs.
The aim is to eradicate a stupid way of thinking, so it's likely something that involves waiting for the new generations to grow and realize how FUCKING STUPID it is (i really doubt anyone born and raised in a first or second world country will keep doing it on his/her children), while waiting for the older ones (too hardcore, impossible to change their minds) to die off of old age since gunning them down or similar (while faster) would be counterproductive.

If the MD wants to take some risks for the newborn gal (who wouldn't?), since the people who look at it won't really understand what has been done, can easily make a FGM-looking operation that is trivial to fix when the subject is fully grown (basically anything that does not damage the clitoris but maybe hides it from sight to give the impression that was removed).

[Simon_Jester]

If the religion places unreasonable demands (such as "circumcise as a child"), that religion should not deserve any special respect from the secular authorities.

If we go with that- if, as you say, anything the state bans based on a secular rationale trumps freedom of religion... well.

Medical reasons != secular or political reasons.

Any strain of Judaism other than the most 'reformwards,' the most relaxed ones I can imagine are now... essentially banned in Germany, for the first time in many decades.

So what? Orthodox (non-reformwards) strains of monotheistic religions usually are horrid enough to deserve a quick and immediate destruction; it is only by mercy of the public they have survived for so long, lurking in the shadows.

To add to Destructionator's point - even if there's good evidence in favor of the procedure, there's certainly nothing which prevents you undergoing it as an adult, which is also when you (as an adult person) can voice your consent and make a choice. Which a child cannot.

All right.

I'm not actually inclined to argue this- if you carry it through and say "yes, Orthodox Judaism should be destroyed or driven out of the country," and you really believe that, then fine. Your position is consistent, and I'm not interested in railing at people over HOW TERRIBLE YOU'RE DESTROYING THEIR CULTURE YOU MONSTER.

If I ever decide I want to get into a fight over that, it won't be on SDN, for a lot of reasons.



What bothers me is (and we saw some of this on the first page) infantile huffing and puffing over this by people who haven't thought through the implications. On both sides, come to think of it... [glares at Blayne]

Thinking there's no place for archaic religious customs in a civilized society can be part of a self-consistent worldview, and in your case it seems to be. On the other hand, it can also be an aiming point for Internet toughguys who wouldn't know ideological consistency if it bit them, and those are more annoying.

[Serafina]

german link

Well, it appears that at least one jewish hospital has stopped infant circumcision due to this ruling.

By the way, the original ruling can no longer be appealed by now. I expect some fundamentalist to try to sue to get a new ruling from a different court, but of course it is hard to sue a doctor who doesn't want to perform a medically not necessary operation.

[General Zod]

If the religion places unreasonable demands (such as "circumcise as a child"), that religion should not deserve any special respect from the secular authorities.

If we go with that- if, as you say, anything the state bans based on a secular rationale trumps freedom of religion... well.

Medical reasons != secular or political reasons.

Any strain of Judaism other than the most 'reformwards,' the most relaxed ones I can imagine are now... essentially banned in Germany, for the first time in many decades.

So what? Orthodox (non-reformwards) strains of monotheistic religions usually are horrid enough to deserve a quick and immediate destruction; it is only by mercy of the public they have survived for so long, lurking in the shadows.

To add to Destructionator's point - even if there's good evidence in favor of the procedure, there's certainly nothing which prevents you undergoing it as an adult, which is also when you (as an adult person) can voice your consent and make a choice. Which a child cannot.

All right.

I'm not actually inclined to argue this- if you carry it through and say "yes, Orthodox Judaism should be destroyed or driven out of the country," and you really believe that, then fine. Your position is consistent, and I'm not interested in railing at people over HOW TERRIBLE YOU'RE DESTROYING THEIR CULTURE YOU MONSTER.

If I ever decide I want to get into a fight over that, it won't be on SDN, for a lot of reasons.



What bothers me is (and we saw some of this on the first page) infantile huffing and puffing over this by people who haven't thought through the implications. On both sides, come to think of it... [glares at Blayne]

Thinking there's no place for archaic religious customs in a civilized society can be part of a self-consistent worldview, and in your case it seems to be. On the other hand, it can also be an aiming point for Internet toughguys who wouldn't know ideological consistency if it bit them, and those are more annoying.

It could be worse. They could be making passive-aggressive commentary on people's posting habits instead of addressing points.

[Blayne]

They're not fundamentalists to want to do something that is central to their culture, lets get that much clear.

[CJvR]

They're not fundamentalists to want to do something that is central to their culture, lets get that much clear.

So what should one call someone willing to take a knife to their children because God want's it? Moderate?

[Grumman]

They're not fundamentalists to want to do something that is central to their culture, lets get that much clear.

If that "something" is "cutting bits off their sons' genitals because their stupid book says so", and if it's one step below "or die trying" as Broomstick claims, yes, they are fundamentalists.

[Blayne]

So the vast majority of Jews and Muslims who practice it are fundamentalists, even the secular ones?

Sorry, but no. You don't get to generalize an entire religio-cultural group as "fundies" just because you think they believe in glorified santa claus.

Your definition is incredibly loose and sloppy, it does not hold to rational scrutiny.

[Zadius]

So the vast majority of Jews and Muslims who practice it are fundamentalists, even the secular ones?

Sorry, but no. You don't get to generalize an entire religio-cultural group as "fundies" just because you think they believe in glorified santa claus.

Your definition is incredibly loose and sloppy, it does not hold to rational scrutiny.

You don't have to be a suicide bomber to be a fundamentalist. If you believe cutting your son's genitals is fundamental to your religion and will not stop even if the law forbids it, then you are a religious fundamentalist.

[General Zod]

So the vast majority of Jews and Muslims who practice it are fundamentalists, even the secular ones?

Sorry, but no. You don't get to generalize an entire religio-cultural group as "fundies" just because you think they believe in glorified santa claus.

Your definition is incredibly loose and sloppy, it does not hold to rational scrutiny.

You don't have to be a suicide bomber to be a fundamentalist. If you believe cutting your son's genitals is fundamental to your religion and will not stop even if the law forbids it, then you are a religious fundamentalist.

This entire tangent is retarded. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to make something horrible apart of your culture.