German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Metahive]

However, to attempt to portray this as something that Jews can compromise on reveals an ignorance of Judaism.

They could compromise on not stoning uppity children to death, couldn't they? And that despite doing so is yet another commandment from "up high".

Appeal to Tradition, nothing more.

[Broomstick]

The problem with your comparison is that stoning people was never as stringently applied as the rule on cutting off foreskins. If Jews really had stoned every teen child that ever back talked a parent they would have died out in the bronze age. There is room to quibble on what constitutes defiance or failure to honor one's parents, whether or not someone is circumcised is a binary determination.

Attempts to argue that the Jews compromised on something else, or that they could come to an accommodation, is nothing more than attempt to argue that this ruling doesn't have a serious impact on the practice of Judaism. At least have the balls to admit that, whatever the good intended or brought by this law it does, in fact, grossly impair Jewish practice and essentially outlaws practices seen as fundamental to their identity by the Jews themselves. To German gentiles it's no big deal. To Jews it will be damn close to cultural genocide even if no one is physically harmed by the ruling.

[Zaune]

Point of clarification. How much leeway exists in German law regarding the ability of minor children to make informed choices? I mean, I doubt the German Jewish community would be exactly happy if they had to wait until their sons attended their bar mitzvah before getting them circumcised, but if there's solid medical evidence of a risk of complications, it falls within the aforementioned clause that says all commandments may be bent or waived altogether in the name of preserving life.

[Metahive]

The problem with your comparison is that stoning people was never as stringently applied as the rule on cutting off foreskins. If Jews really had stoned every teen child that ever back talked a parent they would have died out in the bronze age. There is room to quibble on what constitutes defiance or failure to honor one's parents, whether or not someone is circumcised is a binary determination.

Special pleading at its finest. You were the one who stressed that circumcision was, like, mandated by G! O! D! and therefore indispensable. Well, God-mandated are a myriad of other things that most Jews today don't bother with (two different threads in clothing anyone?). And even the most fanatical Jews are quite willing to become ardent rules-lawyers when it comes to violate the spirit of the law with its letters (or the other way round) should it be convenient.
Nothing makes circumcision special in this regard, nothing.

Freedom of religion means that children have the freedom to not be "marked" as possession of a cult before they can even walk.

[Serafina]

Ultimately, not circumcising their children does not inhibit the exercise of religion of the parents themselves (from a legal standpoint), just like not stoning heathens does.

YOU don't see it as inhibiting their religious practice but they do.

I wrote "from a legal standpoint" for a reason - because i am quite certain that that's how the law is going to see it as well.
Because exhibition of your rights stops being free where others are affected. Nothing stops Jews from circumcising themselves, but the law stops them from forcing* circumcision on others in the name of their religion/tradition.
And ones own religious practices, pertaining to ones self, are the only thing that is protected under free exercise of religion. Everything else is not thus protected by law, so you can't argue with freedom of religion in the case of infant circumcision.


By the way, a child is recognized as capable of choosing its own religion at age 14 (and it has to be heard from age 10 onwards, and from age 12 it is illegal for the parents to force a religion upon it) in Germany. I am not sure whether this would allow the child to consent to circumcision (since that is also a medical matter), but it's a possibility.


*And yes, at that age it IS forced upon the child - from both a moral and a legal standpoint. While parents obviously have the right to force medical decisions upon their child, that is ONLY if the procedure is medically necessary - which circumcision is clearly NOT.

[Zaune]

By the way, a child is recognized as capable of choosing its own religion at age 14 (and it has to be heard from age 10 onwards, and from age 12 it is illegal for the parents to force a religion upon it) in Germany. I am not sure whether this would allow the child to consent to circumcision (since that is also a medical matter), but it's a possibility.

Thank you, that answers my question rather well. Hopefully, that means there's enough flexibility in the law that the government and the religious authorities can work out something that complies with the letter of the German constitution and only mildly bends Jewish religious rules.

[Ultonius]

By this logic, Judaism was already de facto banned in Germany (and pretty much every other first world (and most second world) nations), because you aren't allowed to go stone your neighbor to death on account of your suspicions of them being witches or adulterers. So if a practicing Jew wants to live in pretty much any post-industrial nation, they must have already accepted that the state can and will restrict what they are allowed to do, even though they are commanded to do so by their holy scriptures. All this ruling does in practice is add "cut pieces off of your kid" to the list of restricted acts.

And frankly, I'm pretty ok with that.

Special pleading at its finest. You were the one who stressed that circumcision was, like, mandated by G! O! D! and therefore indispensable. Well, God-mandated are a myriad of other things that most Jews today don't bother with (two different threads in clothing anyone?). And even the most fanatical Jews are quite willing to become ardent rules-lawyers when it comes to violate the spirit of the law with its letters (or the other way round) should it be convenient.
Nothing makes circumcision special in this regard, nothing.

As Broomstick has already repeatedly pointed out, circumcision is one of the most important practices within Judaism, a literal symbol of the covenant itself. It is carried out by virtually all Jewish denominations (though individual rabbis within Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism may not require it). With the possible exception of keeping kosher, it's the thing that religious Jews of whatever denomination have most in common. It's as important to Jews as the turban and the 5 Ks are for Sikhs or horse-drawn vehicles and plain dress are for the Amish. Practices such as stoning and prohibiting the mixing of cloth come a long way behind this.

Just out of interest, would this law impose a penalty upon Jewish parents who take their babies out of the country to be circumcised, or even leave the country to give birth?

[Serafina]

By the way, a child is recognized as capable of choosing its own religion at age 14 (and it has to be heard from age 10 onwards, and from age 12 it is illegal for the parents to force a religion upon it) in Germany. I am not sure whether this would allow the child to consent to circumcision (since that is also a medical matter), but it's a possibility.

Thank you, that answers my question rather well. Hopefully, that means there's enough flexibility in the law that the government and the religious authorities can work out something that complies with the letter of the German constitution and only mildly bends Jewish religious rules.

Well, a possible compromise would be to allow yewish boys to choose whether they want to be circumcised at 13, OR to move their Bar Mitzvah to age 14.

That does however depend on two things:
- whether it is legally possible for children to consent to circumcision at age 14
- whether that would be acceptable to Jews - after all the circumcision gets pushed back by 14 years that way.

[Broomstick]

I mean, I doubt the German Jewish community would be exactly happy if they had to wait until their sons attended their bar mitzvah before getting them circumcised, but if there's solid medical evidence of a risk of complications, it falls within the aforementioned clause that says all commandments may be bent or waived altogether in the name of preserving life.

Slight nitpick: until they are circumcised they can not have their bar mitzvah. They have to be circumcised first, then have the ceremony.

The risk of medical complications would have to be FAR higher than it is currently, there's too much weight of evidence that the average male newborn will survive the operation just fine.

Ultimately, not circumcising their children does not inhibit the exercise of religion of the parents themselves (from a legal standpoint), just like not stoning heathens does.

YOU don't see it as inhibiting their religious practice but they do.

I wrote "from a legal standpoint" for a reason - because i am quite certain that that's how the law is going to see it as well.

I quite understand your lawyerly point of view here. However, others are not arguing from that standpoint but from a misunderstanding that circumcision is somehow a negotiable aspect of Judaism. Jews have compromised over a lot in the past, but that's one point that they haven't budged on. If anything, over the course of time they've gotten even stricter about it.

By the way, a child is recognized as capable of choosing its own religion at age 14 (and it has to be heard from age 10 onwards, and from age 12 it is illegal for the parents to force a religion upon it) in Germany. I am not sure whether this would allow the child to consent to circumcision (since that is also a medical matter), but it's a possibility.

Until the male child is circumcised he can't be a fully Jewish - well, he IS Jewish, but unable to participate in the rituals of the community and separated from God which, again, is no big deal to an atheist but for Jews the bad afterlife isn't so much fire and being poked with pitchforks by demons as being separated from God for eternity. THAT is what hell is to them, and from their viewpoint what a male child is in danger of if he dies before circumcision (some Jews will even circumcise stillborn infants in hopes they will avoid that fate).

So... it would force exile on the young boys until they could be legally circumcised. What is the age of medical consent in Germany? Because under the law that would be the earliest age at which they could be legally circumcised. All other things, bar mitzvah, celebration of holidays with the family/community, everything else - would have to come after that. Torah and Hebrew studies would be permitted prior, as it is to potential converts and interested gentiles who can convince Jewish learning institutions to admit them.

Thank you, that answers my question rather well. Hopefully, that means there's enough flexibility in the law that the government and the religious authorities can work out something that complies with the letter of the German constitution and only mildly bends Jewish religious rules.

The only compromise I can foresee are German Jewish families taking a vacation to Israel shortly after the birth of a son and the German authorities looking the other way. If that starts happening there's the possibility of gentiles taking Jewish male newborns away from their parents for safety/legal reasons.

That does however depend on two things:
whether it is legally possible for children to consent to circumcision at age 14

What's the normal age of medical consent in Germany?

- whether that would be acceptable to Jews - after all the circumcision gets pushed back by 14 years that way.

No, that would not be acceptable. That is 13 years and 357 days too late.

[Spoonist]

First, a big thumbs up for the ruling as a first step in the right direction.
Secondly, WTF are you all on up about?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18604664 (Wasn't there an english version of der spiegel somewhere? Its frustrating to use a non german source. Serafina or someone?)

A German court has ruled that circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to bodily harm even if parents consent to the procedure.
Cologne state court said the child's right to physical integrity trumps freedom of religion and parents' rights, German news agency dapd reported Tuesday.
The case involved a doctor accused of carrying out a circumcision on a 4-year-old that led to medical complications. The doctor was acquitted, however, and prosecutors said they won't appeal.

Nope the ruling will not stop circumcision of jews nor of muslims.
Nope circumcision will still be performed in hospitals, but hopefully under more controlled circumstances in the future than it was in this case.
Nope the ruling did not convict the doctor.
Nope parents will not be persecuted as per this ruling.
Nope jews and muslims will not leave germany over this.

What it could do though is have implications for stuff like insurance and how the procedure is performed.

@Simon
Nope, freedom of X, is not considered to be the same all over.
Especially so the interpretation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion which differs greatly between different countries. To argue from only one such point of view is very strange to me unless you are intentionally trying to stir things up.
In this case the judged ruled correctly that "a child's right to physical integrity trumps freedom of religion and parents' rights" which follows similar rulings in german courts. See serafinas post above regarding the law that protects the religious choice of the child for instance.
@Broomy
Read the ruling, none of what you are going ballistic about has any bearing on the ruling itself. Instead you are buying into propaganda from the religious quarters.
And the biblical passage that you quoted included references to slavery. Do I need to line out the argument why that passage thus has little bearance over tradition?
@Simon, Broomy, Blayne, Ultonius et al
For german courts to be consistent one form of religiously motivated bodily harm vs children can not be ruled as assault while another isn't. So this was more a way to keep the status quo visavi female circumcision while giving a nod out to where future rulings should be heading.
It is not a defacto criminalization of the practice of circumcision, instead it did put the focus on how it was performed.
Just like the finnish ruling some years back.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/parents_ordered_t ... os/1479554

Jews have compromised over a lot in the past, but that's one point that they haven't budged on.

Historically you would be incorrect, they have budged on that for centuries, although not as much lately due to more freedom of religion in europe and former soviet. Also there are a still ongoing debate within the jewish community so its not as clearcut as you are trying to infer. Over here the circumcision rate for practicing jews are ~40%, so no it is not universal for the religion but rather a cultural thing as usual.
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm
Especially so among the in name only adherents. See Israel's declining circumcision rates as an example of this.

[Serafina]

Medical consent is complicated and depends on the procedure in question, so i don't have a clear-cut answer. It depends on the ability of the child to understand the procedure and it's consequences (in other words, it must be able to give informed consent). It thus has to be determined on a case-by-case base by doctors and, if necessary, lawyers and judges as well as psychologists.

After some digging i found a case where it was ruled that a 12-year old was capable of consenting to circumcision. Again, this is NOT set in stone and depends on the child in question.

[Broomstick]

The case involved a doctor accused of carrying out a circumcision on a 4-year-old that led to medical complications. The doctor was acquitted, however, and prosecutors said they won't appeal.

So... someone broke the law, but in this case the law isn't being enforced? Well, that is one possible compromise...

Nope circumcision will still be performed in hospitals, but hopefully under more controlled circumstances in the future than it was in this case.

So...how does having it occur in a hospital under "more controlled" circumstances somehow make genital mutilation OK?

Nope the ruling did not convict the doctor.
Nope parents will not be persecuted as per this ruling.

So, what's the point of making it illegal if you aren't going to enforce the law?

Nope jews and muslims will not leave germany over this.

Of course not, since obviously this law is in reality a sham.

@Broomy
Read the ruling, none of what you are going ballistic about has any bearing on the ruling itself. Instead you are buying into propaganda from the religious quarters.

Excuse me? I'm not "going ballistic" and even stated that my personal opinion is at odds with what I was talking about. It's not "propaganda" from the "religious quarters" it's actually what millions of people around the world believe. It was a viewpoint lacking in this discussion, which I took upon myself to supply.

And the biblical passage that you quoted included references to slavery. Do I need to line out the argument why that passage thus has little bearance over tradition?

The US constitution refers to slavery several times, does that invalidate the entirety of that document?

Jews do not currently own slaves, but that has to do with secular law. The religious law still stands, though, that if they did have slaves they'd be obligated to circumcise the male ones. Or buy men or boys already circumcised. There's nothing inconsistent about them failing to circumcise slaves they don't own.

It is not a defacto criminalization of the practice of circumcision, instead it did put the focus on how it was performed.

If male circumcision is genital mutilation, it's wrong, and it's illegal what relevance does the manner in which it was done have? It's like saying theft is legal if done via fraud over the internet as opposed to physical breaking into one's home. Both are still theft.

Jews have compromised over a lot in the past, but that's one point that they haven't budged on.

Historically you would be incorrect, they have budged on that for centuries, although not as much lately due to more freedom of religion in europe and former soviet. Also there are a still ongoing debate within the jewish community so its not as clearcut as you are trying to infer. Over here the circumcision rate for practicing jews are ~40%, so no it is not universal for the religion but rather a cultural thing as usual.
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm
Especially so among the in name only adherents. See Israel's declining circumcision rates as an example of this.

What do you mean by "in name" Jews? There are secular Jews, Jewish atheists, and so froth because "Jew" is an ethnicity and not just a religion. So yeah, one can be "Jewish" in an ethnic sense an be atheist, male, and uncircumcised. Gentiles typically consider me Jewish because my father is Jewish, but Jews consider me entirely gentile because they only recognize the offspring of Jewish women as Jewish by birth so by they're reckoning I'd have to convert just as much as some heathen with no Jewish ancestry at all, I'm just as outside the pale. Sure, it gets confusing. Israel has long been a haven for those ethnically Jewish but not religiously so, so an overall statistic about circumcision rates in Israel is only of limited utility. It's pretty damn clear we're talking about people Jewish in the religious sense, not those deemed Jewish purely by ancestry. How many religiously observant Jewish males in Israel are uncircumcised?

Israel might have Judaism as the state religion but it does allow non-Jews and non religious/ethnic Jews to live there. Nor is Israel the sole determinant of what is and isn't Jewish in the world, there's no Jewish Pope or anything of the sort.

[General Zod]

Okay, those are all fair points, but you're talking practice and I'm talking theory. I think we're more talking past each other than really disagreeing. I agree that given the way our society is set up banning the former just isn't doable and that circumcision and other forms of direct physical child abuse should be banned anyway. I just don't think it's right that one gets a pass from the law and the other doesn't.

So how do you enforce laws against someone holding an idea? That's what it boils down to, and I can't think of any way to do it that wouldn't actively cause more harm than good.

[Serafina]

@Spoonist: http://www.spiegel.de/international/

@everyone else:
I think what isn't clear here is that this ruling does NOT apply a precedent. Precedent in German law doesn't work the way it does in Anglo-American law. Here, court rulings are always based upon the law itself and not on past decisions of other courts, unless they happen to be supreme courts and explicitly said that their ruling is binding (they basically say the law has to be interpreted this way).
So for now, this ruling means bugger-all for other cases of circumcision, at least legally. Of course some doctors might still refuse to do it because the legal situation seems uncertain to them - and of course the case might go to the supreme court. But only then would it possibly be legally binding to anything but this case.
Therefore, as of now, infant circumcision is NOT banned or illegal in Germany. I am merely discussing a possible supreme court ruling and the justification for this one.

[Broomstick]

Medical consent is complicated and depends on the procedure in question, so i don't have a clear-cut answer. It depends on the ability of the child to understand the procedure and it's consequences (in other words, it must be able to give informed consent). It thus has to be determined on a case-by-case base by doctors and, if necessary, lawyers and judges as well as psychologists.

After some digging i found a case where it was ruled that a 12-year old was capable of consenting to circumcision. Again, this is NOT set in stone and depends on the child in question.

I'd also be concerned, given the level of social isolation from the community actually enforcing such a law would cause, that a certain percentage of young boys might attempt do-it-yourself foreskin removal. I could see that starting to be a problem prior to consent age, the more so because someone 8 isn't going to be able to foresee possible consequences from a bad/impulsive decision even as well as a 12 year old, but he'd still be capable of wielding scissors or a razor blade.

[CarsonPalmer]

Comparing the banning of crucifixes in classrooms or polygamy for Mormons to banning circumcision IS a false equivalency. It's the same for comparing the banning of stoning back talking kids; Judaism has a tradition of rules-lawyering something like that anyway, but circumcision is one of the central identifying marks of the religion. It isn't like banning crucifixes for Catholics, it's like banning mass.

If you're still fine with it, I can't necessarily argue with you, but be aware of what it is.

And yes, I am now aware this law isn't what we were first arguing.

[Serafina]

Comparing the banning of crucifixes in classrooms or polygamy for Mormons to banning circumcision IS a false equivalency. It's the same for comparing the banning of stoning back talking kids; Judaism has a tradition of rules-lawyering something like that anyway, but circumcision is one of the central identifying marks of the religion. It isn't like banning crucifixes for Catholics, it's like banning mass.

If you're still fine with it, I can't necessarily argue with you, but be aware of what it is.

And yes, I am now aware this law isn't what we were first arguing.

Yes, i am STILL fine with it, regardless of how important circumcision is for their religion.

Because, again, a child's right of physical inviolability trumps its parents right of religious freedom. Period.

[eion]

Personally, having been circumcised as a day old infant in the hospital for purely aesthetic reasons (my parents are rather lax Methodists), I certainly would have been liked to have been asked before someone lopped off the tip of one of my favorite body parts. Body modification is never something to be taken lightly and certainly not something that should be forced on anyone.'

But here's my question, isn't there a compromise to be made? How precise are the written requirements for the ritual circumcision of a Jewish boy? Would it be possible to have a symbolic circumcision at 8 days old, perhaps just a little nick down there. Nothing major, nothing that wouldn't heal, but a little wine, a little pain, and some blood. Mom is happy, Dad is forced to cross his legs in empathy, and no kids get their genitals irrevocably mutilated.

Then when the kid nears majority he can have the full de-turtlenecking if he wants to be a fanatic. once he's able to give his informed consent.

[Broomstick]

But here's my question, isn't there a compromise to be made? How precise are the written requirements for the ritual circumcision of a Jewish boy? Would it be possible to have a symbolic circumcision at 8 days old, perhaps just a little nick down there. Nothing major, nothing that wouldn't heal, but a little wine, a little pain, and some blood.

The last time that sort of thing was permitted was, as far as I can tell, back in the days of the Roman Republic. As I said, they've gotten more strict with time, not less.

Some Jews might accept that compromise. A lot won't.

Just as a further point - converts to Judaism that are already circumcised are usually required to have such a pinprick as a symbolic gesture, a sort of insurance I suppose, or a demonstration of willingness to undergo the procedure if there was still anything of significance to remove. If a prior circumcised man converting isn't clipped enough, though, he may have to undergo what you so eloquently put as a "full de-turtlenecking".

[Tanasinn]

If you ask me, there's no knots to twist ourselves over "freedom of religion" here. No one would think twice about forbidding live human sacrifices to an Aztec blood god, why think twice about mutilating infants' genitals? It's quite cut and dry. Lopping off bits of the genitals is causing obvious physical harm. Right to worship should not be protected under those circumstances.

[Zadius]

Frankly, this whole discussion about whether there can be a compromise within Judaism is irrelevant to me. You should not have the right to mutilate a child and I don't give a damn what your favorite book says about it. Your holy book sucks, your tradition sucks, and your culture sucks if it requires you to mutilate a child's genitals.

[Darmalus]

Is there anything in Judaism that demands the circumcision young, and not just go "Congratulations on your 18th birthday! Here's a gift certificate for a circumcision."?

[General Zod]

Is there anything in Judaism that demands the circumcision young, and not just go "Congratulations on your 18th birthday! Here's a gift certificate for a circumcision."?

Scroll up.

[Spoonist]

Sorry to be on the shortish side, don't have time for a lenghthy reply, again sorry but here it goes. Reask if anything remains unclear.

@Serafina
Thanks. So much better.
Here is the der spiegel article which is much much clearer on the issue
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 41276.html
I recommend it to anyone still uncertain what this means.

In its first ruling in the case, the lower Cologne district court ruled that the medical treatment given had been irreproachable and the judges acquitted the doctor. The court ruled that the surgery had in fact represented bodily injury, but that it had been justified by the "child's well-being" and noted that the parents had given their approval for the procedure. The court stated that circumcision serves as a "traditional-ritual course of action for documenting belonging culturally and religiously to the Muslim community." Circumcision, the court argued, would prevent the threat of stigmatization for the child among his peers. The court also stressed its opinion that there are medical advantages to circumcision. The public prosecutor responded by appealing the ruling, pushing the case up to the regional court.

The court ultimately rejected the appeal, ruling that the doctor had been innocent because of the legal uncertainty surrounding circumcision.

The judges nevertheless decided to issue some clarity for the future on that regard, ruling that the surgery, or bodily injury, had not been justified by the permission given by the parents and that it did not represent the well-being of the child. The court ruled that the child's right to physical integrity is more important than the parent's basic rights. The ruling stated that a mother's or father's right to freedom of religion as well as their right to determining how they raise their child would not be limited if they were forced to wait and allow their child to decide for himself if he wanted to be circumcised. The ruling states a child's right to self-determination should come first.

So all of that scaremongering of the two first pages is just that.

@Darmalus
This depends on local culture, not the religion itself, here is the link I provided above again:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm

@eion
Excellent suggestion. As well as being based on jewish scripture with the hattafat dam berit. The original was not a complete deturtling, instead it was only the milah. (wiki the terms if necessary).

@broomy
For stuff relating to the ruling check the der spiegel article above.
illegal point/enforce the law = see the der spiegel article
law being a sham = nope see the article
ballistic=claiming it being intrinsic to the religion when it is just cultural as usual, as in going waaaay out there, I'm sorry for the implications of something else
propaganda=this ruling is not as bad as the religious make it out to be
slavery in constitution = yes, the US should remove any such passages, no it doesn't invalidate the whole document
slavery in talmud = it invalidates the argument that it is intrinsic to the religion when it just viewed as such by cultural norm just like with everything else of this type
not criminalization = see article
in name only = people who does not necesarily believe it all but still inherit their religion from parents or local culture

something exists in name only, it is officially described in a particular way, although that description is not really true Two-thirds of the population are Catholic, though many are so in name only.

jewish ancestry vs circumcision =

According to rabbinic legislation it is a Jewish father's duty to have his son circumcised (Sh. Ar., YD 260:1). Should he neglect to do so, it devolved on the bet din (ibid., 260:2). It is not a sacrament, and any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not.

"It's pretty damn clear we're talking about people Jewish in the religious sense, not those deemed Jewish purely by ancestry."
Agreed, I was refering to the adherents of jewish faith only.
Hence my reference to the majority of jewish adherents in sweden not being circumcised as evidence that it is a cultural norm and not a religious necessity.

[Simon_Jester]

"Scare-mongering?" From the very first post, people reading this were saying:

"About time some court ruled that religious freedom doesn't allow you to cut pieces of flesh off of your children."

"Perhaps a religious practice that involves mutilating the genitals of children SHOULD be driven underground and once those who commit are found, they are thrown in jail for a very long time."

Serafina, who's German, said: "In case this goes to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (our supreme court), i expect the ruling to be upheld (and thus potentially gain the status of a law, sort of)."

And recently, we have a very up-front declaration of Zadius's views on the matter: "Frankly, this whole discussion about whether there can be a compromise within Judaism is irrelevant to me. You should not have the right to mutilate a child and I don't give a damn what your favorite book says about it. Your holy book sucks, your tradition sucks, and your culture sucks if it requires you to mutilate a child's genitals."




So I don't think it's out of line to ask, what if circumcision was banned in Germany? A lot of people on this thread think it should be banned, even if it hasn't been banned yet by this court ruling.

There's nothing wrong with having a political discussion about a court ruling evolve like this.