German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Ultonius]

You mean the Spanish government that continued to practice religious murder until the 18th century?

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm not claiming the Spanish were heroes just because they banned human sacrifice. I'm just trying to make the point that if someone says that allowing circumcision is the moral equivalent or near-equivalent of allowing human sacrifice, to be fully consistent, they should condemn modern, democratic countries that have allowed circumcision for centuries (i.e. most of Europe and the Americas) just as much as they would condemn modern, democratic countries that allowed human sacrifice for a similar length of time.

There are groups that self-identify as Amish that use cars.

Would you care to name one? As I said before, modernist car-driving groups that are offshoots of the Amish, such as the Beachy Amish Mennonites now tend to call themselves Amish Mennonites rather than simply Amish, because the latter term is now usually used for the Old Order Amish. That is, assuming you do actually mean drive by 'use' this time, since as Broomstick pointed out to you earlier, the source you cited as evidence that Amish drive cars actually said that they ride in them as passengers.

[hongi]

So? There are entire books in the Minor Prophet section of the Old Testament which rant about how it's a bad thing to let women wear jewellery or talk back to men, and Jews in America have to adapt to that. Everything is a core part of the belief system until it's not.

Liberal Jews have jesttisoned things like not touching where a menstruating woman has sat or even homosexual sex because they themselves thought that these were never considered to be a core part of Judaism. But they didn't abandon circumcision because they thought that circumcision was a core part of Judaism.

The people who think that circumcision should no longer be part of Judaism are heterodox. They are the minority in a minority. It would be like me saying that because some fundamentalist Mormon sects practice polygamy, it'd be easy to reform the whole of Christianity to follow suit. It won't work because no one's going to listen to them.

In any case, I doubt these Jews would ever find it acceptable to make circumcision illegal. Convince other Jews not to circumcise, yes. Support banning circumcision? Out of the question.

The only question here is whether secular law should be subordinate to religious law, and it absolutely should not. Reasonable accommodation can be made, but not at the expense of human rights. Children have certain rights. An adult should no more be allowed to circumcise a child than to tattoo Maori war symbols all over its face.

Maori tattoos aren't war symbols, they tell people who you are, what your life history is, your station in life. This is a pet peeve, because I come from New Zealand. Not only Maori men but Maori women get them too.

Would you be okay if the tattoos or earings were temporary? I take it your opposed because the mutilation involved is permanent?

I think we give children rights, I don't think children are born with rights. I'm not sure why our society thinks the latter is true.

[Scrib]

The only question here is whether secular law should be subordinate to religious law, and it absolutely should not. Reasonable accommodation can be made, but not at the expense of human rights. Children have certain rights. An adult should no more be allowed to circumcise a child than to tattoo Maori war symbols all over its face.

Maori tattoos aren't war symbols, they tell people who you are, what your life history is, your station in life. This is a pet peeve, because I come from New Zealand. Not only Maori men but Maori women get them too.

Would you be okay if the tattoos or earings were temporary? I take it your opposed because the mutilation involved is permanent?

I think we give children rights, I don't think children are born with rights. I'm not sure why our society thinks the latter is true.

And society has chosen to give these children certain rights and then make those rights seem like some sort of universal gift, to strengthen them. It's utterly meaningless to make a distinction between the two unless you're trying to make some bullshit nihilistic appeal. Practically, they're the same.

These children have certain rights because of the society they live in. That simple. The rights are always there because society dictates that they are so claiming that they aren't born with a set of rights stapled to their ear seems like a totally meaningless distinction. The parents don't get to carve them up because some bullshit part of their religion told them to do so. If things continue this way, either they'll adapt (and that's likelier for the next generation than this one granted) or they face social censure.

[Darth Wong]

So? There are entire books in the Minor Prophet section of the Old Testament which rant about how it's a bad thing to let women wear jewellery or talk back to men, and Jews in America have to adapt to that. Everything is a core part of the belief system until it's not.

Liberal Jews have jesttisoned things like not touching where a menstruating woman has sat or even homosexual sex because they themselves thought that these were never considered to be a core part of Judaism. But they didn't abandon circumcision because they thought that circumcision was a core part of Judaism.

The people who think that circumcision should no longer be part of Judaism are heterodox. They are the minority in a minority. It would be like me saying that because some fundamentalist Mormon sects practice polygamy, it'd be easy to reform the whole of Christianity to follow suit. It won't work because no one's going to listen to them.

In any case, I doubt these Jews would ever find it acceptable to make circumcision illegal. Convince other Jews not to circumcise, yes. Support banning circumcision? Out of the question.

Who gives a fuck? It's one thing to say that a law would be difficult to enforce, it's quite another to declare that the state should give its official blessing to such practices in order to avoid the conflict.

The only question here is whether secular law should be subordinate to religious law, and it absolutely should not. Reasonable accommodation can be made, but not at the expense of human rights. Children have certain rights. An adult should no more be allowed to circumcise a child than to tattoo Maori war symbols all over its face.

Maori tattoos aren't war symbols, they tell people who you are, what your life history is, your station in life. This is a pet peeve, because I come from New Zealand. Not only Maori men but Maori women get them too.

Would you be okay if the tattoos or earings were temporary? I take it your opposed because the mutilation involved is permanent?

Obviously. And your nitpicking about Maori tattoos is irrelevant.

I think we give children rights, I don't think children are born with rights. I'm not sure why our society thinks the latter is true.

Of course we give children rights, just like we give adults rights. And those rights supersede religious bullshit.

[Akhlut]

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm not claiming the Spanish were heroes just because they banned human sacrifice. I'm just trying to make the point that if someone says that allowing circumcision is the moral equivalent or near-equivalent of allowing human sacrifice, to be fully consistent, they should condemn modern, democratic countries that have allowed circumcision for centuries (i.e. most of Europe and the Americas) just as much as they would condemn modern, democratic countries that allowed human sacrifice for a similar length of time.

And which part of me saying that I think it was just as abominable for the US to continue the practice does not make you think I don't condemn all nations that do the same? Just because I didn't explicitly mention the RoK or whichever random nations that allow it/encourage it?

Would you care to name one? As I said before, modernist car-driving groups that are offshoots of the Amish, such as the Beachy Amish Mennonites now tend to call themselves Amish Mennonites rather than simply Amish, because the latter term is now usually used for the Old Order Amish. That is, assuming you do actually mean drive by 'use' this time, since as Broomstick pointed out to you earlier, the source you cited as evidence that Amish drive cars actually said that they ride in them as passengers.

Mainly the Beachy Amish, but, regardless, this is a huge fucking tangent that has little relevance on the topic at hand. Namely, I brought up the counterpoint that there are, in fact, some Amish that do drive cars (the Beachy Amish) and she got super-butthurt over being wrong. As usual.

[hongi]

And society has chosen to give these children certain rights and then make those rights seem like some sort of universal gift, to strengthen them. It's utterly meaningless to make a distinction between the two unless you're trying to make some bullshit nihilistic appeal. Practically, they're the same.

These children have certain rights because of the society they live in. That simple. The rights are always there because society dictates that they are so claiming that they aren't born with a set of rights stapled to their ear seems like a totally meaningless distinction. The parents don't get to carve them up because some bullshit part of their religion told them to do so. If things continue this way, either they'll adapt (and that's likelier for the next generation than this one granted) or they face social censure.

I'm saying that we can choose not to give children this right of bodily integrity via means of consent. Refusing to grant children this right is what the Jews and many other groups have chosen. If the other option is making circumcision illegal, then I think Germany should also follow suit, and not give children this right.

[Darth Wong]

I'm saying that we can choose not to give children this right of bodily integrity. Refusing to grant children this right is what the Jews and many other groups have chosen. If the other option is making circumsion illegal, then I think Germany should also follow suit, and not give children this right.

Yes, we can choose not to give children rights. We could also choose not to give Jews rights, as Germany once did. If the former is acceptable, why is the latter not acceptable?

[Akhlut]

Yeah, they can give birth after they are cut open again. Or did that escape you?

I'm not the one defending circumcision, either, though.

Of course, in traditional societies such women are often married young enough they might be cut open for the penis before they even begin to menstruate, avoiding that particular problem, but if they delay marriage (for whatever reason) problems with menstruation and infections are common.

Yeah, if you allow some crazy old lady with a piece of glass go crazy on the vagina instead of a licensed medical professional.

"Relatively insensate" does not mean "does not feel any sensation whatsoever".

Don't try to move the goalposts.

Except that I used "relatively insensate" in my first post. Just because you're illiterate doesn't mean I'm moving any goalposts.

If there is a willingness to find work-arounds to the laws of YHWH (and there have been ever since the destruction of the Temple, after all, so EVERY extant sect of Judaism is already bending the laws of YHWH as the Sadducee varieties of Judaism have been extinct for ~2000 years now), then they can certainly find a workaround to the barbarity of MGM.

So, because some people are willing to look the other way on a minor crime like possession of a marijuana cigarette would should legalize rape? Because that's the sort of thing you're arguing.

Uh, the destruction of the Temple was kind of a big thing for Judaism.

I guess it's beyond your grasp that some Jewish laws are valued above others. No, sorry, the ONLY reason Jews forego circumcision is due to a direct threat to the health/life of the child. No, they can't find a work around to infant circumcision. You repeatedly stating they can does not make it so.

The Temple was the center of Jewish religious life for millennia and yet they've managed just fine as far as religious worship goes for the past 2000 years. I think they can get along just fine without child mutilation.

Yeah, a whole fucking three percent of world Jews. If they were Christians those folks would be called heretics and if they were Catholic they'd be excommunicated, if they were Muslims they'd be called apostate.

Good thing the rabbinate can decide to change the interpretations of the Torah to suit modern sensibilities, then.

You don't understand reality. Or rather, you don't understand people.

All right, gotcha, you don't understand basic English.

So... you're singling out the US, but ignoring South Korea which, these days, actually has a higher rate of male circumcision. Not biased at all, are you?

Not really, it's just there is more to life than dealing with dangerous levels of herp-derping, so I simply went at length about one example. Just because you're so mentally incompetent as to not realize such arguments about vanity circumcision would also be applicable to all nations/people participating doesn't mean that they cannot be logically extrapolated from what was given.

Or, because until around 1980, it was simply done without any consent sought or asked. You'd think with the rate having falled from near 100% to nearly half that in a single generation even without the influence of laws that might indicate that US is getting on board with the idea of NOT lopping off penis bits. But, you know, Akhlut judges based on what 3% of a group is doing to everyone in the US is still evil and barbaric.

50>3. Damn, you can't do math either, can you?

[L]et's ignore nuances and just fucking interpret shit as we like.

Sounds about like what you're doing yourself. :v

You claimed you saw Amish people driving automobiles, said they were cheaters, then admitted you didn't actually talk to them so you don't know they were actually Amish, or using an English driver they had hired, or something else.

Never heard of the Beachy Amish, have you?

I suppose you'll use the argument that Amish consent to motorized transport for emergency reasons means they're hypocrites for not allowing helicopter rides for fun, right?

Turns out I don't give a shit because they're not engaging in child mutilation.

I didn't say it was. You're the one who brought up the Amish and said that they couldn't drive; I was correcting your incorrect assumption because you're nowhere near as knowledgeable as you claim to be. Certain Amish sects DO use cars (such as the Amish who lived near me).

Apparently, you can't parse the difference between "drive a car" and "hire a taxi". Come back when you figure that out, m'kay?

Beachy Amish.

No, you were arguing that because 3% of a group compromised on a basic cultural principal there's no possible reason the other 97% couldn't go along with it.

Are you incapable of understanding English?

[And you apparently blasted past the part with anesthesia isn't consistently used even in hospitals. Which shouldn't be surprising given your selective reading abilities displayed so far. You're complaining that the creepy old men in the synagogue aren't doing something that a number of doctors still fail to do.

[/quote]

That's a non sequitor, given that we're discussing Germany where non-religious circumcision isn't practices.

[hongi]

Who gives a fuck? It's one thing to say that a law would be difficult to enforce, it's quite another to declare that the state should give its official blessing to such practices in order to avoid the conflict.

Judging from the post-case news reports, it seems that Germany will continue to look the other way in order to avoid the conflict between freedom of religion and the right for children not to be bodily harmed.

Obviously.

Okay, thanks for replying.

But what is it about the permanency of the mutilation that makes it so objectionable?

The reason why I personally think Jewish circumcision should not be illegal is that Jewish circumcision, although it is mutilation without consent, is not very harmful mutilation. In fact, it's been claimed that it has positive medical benefits. I'm not qualified to judge, so I leave that up to the doctors, but the point is that circumcision is not so obviously detrimental to the child's health that doctors can immediately say 'nope, absolutely not.' If the harm is minimal, then I don't see why it should be illegal. So my idea is that harm should be the critical factor, not the permanency of the mutilation. If circumcision lead to some sort of major harm to the child later on, I would want to it to be illegal. But I don't think permanent mutilation is bad by virtue of its permanency.

And your nitpicking about Maori tattoos is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant if you don't care about facts. Moko aren't war symbols. Some Maori might be offended by that statement, because it's a reflection of your whakapapa, your family geneology.

Of course we give children rights, just like we give adults rights. And those rights supersede religious bullshit.

Why?

[Darth Wong]

Who gives a fuck? It's one thing to say that a law would be difficult to enforce, it's quite another to declare that the state should give its official blessing to such practices in order to avoid the conflict.

Judging from the post-case news reports, it seems that Germany will continue to look the other way in order to avoid the conflict between freedom of religion and the right for children not to be bodily harmed.

Obviously.

Okay, thanks for replying.
But what is it about the permanency of the mutilation that makes it so objectionable?

Are you mentally retarded? If I cut your ear off, you need someone to explain why that is more objectionable than something which is non-permanent?

The reason why I personally think Jewish circumcision should not be illegal is that Jewish circumcision, although it is mutilation without consent, is not very harmful mutilation. In fact, it's been claimed that it has positive medical benefits. I'm not qualified to judge, so I leave that up to the doctors, but the point is that circumcision is not so obviously detrimental to the child's health that doctors can immediately say 'nope, absolutely not.' If the harm is minimal, then I don't see why it should be illegal. So my idea is that harm should be the critical factor, not the permanency of the mutilation. If circumcision lead to some sort of major harm to the child later on, I would want to it to be illegal. But I don't think permanent mutilation is bad by virtue of its permanency.

Why shouldn't I cut your ear off? It's not too harmful; you can live a very long and healthy life without your ears. In fact, you would never have to worry about cleaning behind them, or about getting infections in the missing tissue. You don't need the outer ear in order to hear things; you just need the hole and the eardrum.

And your nitpicking about Maori tattoos is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant if you don't care about facts. Moko aren't war symbols. Some Maori might be offended by that statement, because it's a reflection of your whakapapa, your family geneology.

Do you even know what "relevant" means, you fucking retard? It's irrelevant because the point did not depend on it. It was just a throwaway example, whose wording you nitpicked.

Of course we give children rights, just like we give adults rights. And those rights supersede religious bullshit.

Why?

Because of the very religious freedom you think is so goddamned important. Religious freedom means the absence of religion from the state, which in turn means that the state should not give special support or blessing to any religion. Granting special dispensation to one particular religion when you would not do so for others is an example of religious favouritism, which runs against the concept of a secular nation.

[hongi]

Uh, the destruction of the Temple was kind of a big thing for Judaism.

Yes it was. And if this court case was as important as the detruction of the Temple, then maybe Judaism would change. The destruction of the Temple meant the physical inability to carry out sacrifices in the Temple.

To be roughly equivalent, the Germans would have to impose very harsh penalties for Jews who circumcise their children. And even then, the religious ones are more likely to move to another country than stop. You could probably stop circumcision if all the countries in the entire world threatened to persecute Jews who circumcised their children, because only then would they have nowhere to run.

[Grumman]

Of course we give children rights, just like we give adults rights. And those rights supersede religious bullshit.

Why?

Because everything supersedes religious bullshit. The opinions of fictional characters are less important than the right of children not to have bits of their genitals cut off.

[hongi]

Yes, we can choose not to give children rights. We could also choose not to give Jews rights, as Germany once did. If the former is acceptable, why is the latter not acceptable?

It is acceptable. Although both are acceptable, my personal preference is to not give children this right instead of not giving parents this right.

If the Germans made circumcision illegal, I think it would be a blow to Judaism, but I'm not a Jew so I'd shrug and sigh and move on with my life.

[FSTargetDrone]

Yes, we can choose not to give children rights. We could also choose not to give Jews rights, as Germany once did. If the former is acceptable, why is the latter not acceptable?

It is acceptable. Although both are acceptable, my personal preference is to not give children this right instead of not giving parents this right.

What if said child decides he wants no part of Judaism when he gets older? He is now permanently marked with a sign of the religion he rejects. I was circumcised (as many of my generation have been) and if I had any say it that would never have happened.

[Eulogy]

Yes, we can choose not to give children rights. We could also choose not to give Jews rights, as Germany once did. If the former is acceptable, why is the latter not acceptable?

It is acceptable. Although both are acceptable, my personal preference is to not give children this right instead of not giving parents this right.

If the Germans made circumcision illegal, I think it would be a blow to Judaism, but I'm not a Jew so I'd shrug and sigh and move on with my life.

Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that a barbaric practice - that, incidentally, could only be truly undone by something like stem cell regeneration - should be allowed because you like it that way? Babies by nature can't choose not to have their bits lopped off, or resist attempts to do the same, and parents shouldn't have the "right" to fuck up their kids.

Do you realize why the state can take away kids from their parents, and have laws in place forbidding parents from treating their kids like property? Because without that, you get shit like parents locking up their child in a room for years on end, or only feeding him a vegan diet even though such a thing is tantamount to slow death, or when their daughter turns 14 promptly marrying her off to an old pedophile in exchange for livestock, or beating him everytime he says something you don't like, or killing the kid because the father thought he was gay. Such things are objectively bad and should not be allowed based on the whims of some dipshit.

Incidentally, just because something doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean you should not fight against it. I'm sure you would want aid if disaster happens to you, yes? And no, it is still not acceptable to not give Jews rights. Note that "right" in this context is not hypocritical, because as said babies have the right to, and should indeed, be whole no matter what the religion thinks.

[Serafina]

Yes, we can choose not to give children rights. We could also choose not to give Jews rights, as Germany once did. If the former is acceptable, why is the latter not acceptable?

It is acceptable. Although both are acceptable, my personal preference is to not give children this right instead of not giving parents this right.

You know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Child abuse.
Which was a widespread practice (beating ones children was seen as good parenting) only a few decades ago, and is now mostly gone. Not thanks to cuddling child abusers, but by banning it.

If the Germans made circumcision illegal, I think it would be a blow to Judaism, but I'm not a Jew so I'd shrug and sigh and move on with my life.

And if circumcision is not banned due to religious bullshit, it's a blow to human rights. I'd rather have a blow to Judaism, thank you very much.

[Spoonist]

You know what happens when you give rights to parents instead of their children? Child abuse.
Which was a widespread practice (beating ones children was seen as good parenting) only a few decades ago, and is now mostly gone. Not thanks to cuddling child abusers, but by banning it.

You remember that you are talking to americans right?
American courts consistently put the parent above the child. There are plenty of cases where protective child services have been forced to hand back children to abusive & addicted parents due to court orders.
Same thing with spanking & worse. Top that off with an unhealthy dose of machismo and traditions of spare the rod spoil the child etc. (Again not so much in urban as in rural areas, etc etc).
You'd have to go to albania, croatia and serbia (or chavs) etc to find a yuro similtude.

There are several precedents for this, most obviuos one being during the exodus. But in regards to following the law of the land you have the precedent during Hadrian's rule which allowed a minor 'pricking' version of the ritual. This since the essence is the bloodletting, not the actual cutting away.

I can't find any evidence that the Jews allowed a minor pricking version of the ritual. All I can find is the claim that Hadrian banned circumcision under pain of execution. Where did you read about this?

The talmudh discussion pages goes on at length what happened during Hadrian rule. Also the councils letters to byzans jews etc.
What you would do was a cut, a tear, but no lopping off, the ritual, put the tear in a poltice and let it heal back. You'd get a scar or a V shape scar/wound on the lower side but you could pass as 'uncut'.
But the precedent is in time of need or to adopt to the law of the land you are allowed to make amends.
It would be a worse sin, concept of sakkanat nefashot, to perform backalley hackjobs than it is to conform to the law of the land.
That doesn't mean they won't fight tooth and nail to stop such legislation from ever entering the judicial system. It does not mean that it wouldn't be a big thing either, it is a big deal for them I agree to that.
I'm just saying that jewish scritpture allows for this, so as long as the "omg omg omg omg persecution oh god think of the children etc" is replaced by dialog and rational discussions there are way outs and compromises that is based on religious precedent.

As for the Exodus passage:...snip...This passage is saying that uncircumcised children is a bad thing. God himself repeats the commandment to circumcise the children again. Just because the Jews failed to do it during the wandering around period in the desert, doesn't mean that it's acceptable.
That's like saying the Jewish mandate to only worship the one God can be changed because Jews in the Bible fell into idolatry time and time again. The times when Jews failed to follow God's commandments is considered a very bad thing in Judaism, not something that should be followed.

Come again? Your answer does not compute in this context. Yes of course jvh wants them to circumcise, and??? It's part of the deal he made with them, so its in line with his character.
But, acceptable??? What do you mean?
What I was talking about is that one of the most holy men in judaism let the whole of his people go uncircumcised for decades, because of the context of the situation, in this case the exodus. It's not until they arrive back to the holy land that jvh wants them to conform again.
So if germany was to pass a law outlawing the practice of deturtling babies, then there is precedent in the scripture, talmudh and mishnah alike, to make exceptions. Like the ritual prickling (whose name ellude me right now), which still lets there be bloodletting (the important bit) and which lets the decision be made by legal age.
So no, jews wouldn't massmigrate out of germany, they are not stupid after all. Instead they would adapt and overcome just like they have always done. This is why judaism isn't extinct like so many other. It isn't like people haven't tried to, you know.

[Ultonius]

And which part of me saying that I think it was just as abominable for the US to continue the practice does not make you think I don't condemn all nations that do the same? Just because I didn't explicitly mention the RoK or whichever random nations that allow it/encourage it?

I don't recall saying that I thought you didn't. My remarks about human sacrifice were mainly aimed at posters like Purple and Tanasinn, who were saying or implying that banning circumcision is as clear-cut as banning human sacrifice. I was just trying to point out to them that the two practices are not commonly seen as equivalent, since if they were, circumcision would have been banned centuries ago just like human sacrifice was.

Mainly the Beachy Amish, but, regardless, this is a huge fucking tangent that has little relevance on the topic at hand. Namely, I brought up the counterpoint that there are, in fact, some Amish that do drive cars (the Beachy Amish) and she got super-butthurt over being wrong. As usual.

As I have just said, the Beachys call themselves Amish Mennonites, not Amish. May I also point out that you still haven't admitted that you quoted your source about the Amish attitude to cars out of context and apparently missed an entire paragraph that undermined the point you were trying to make, so you are hardly qualified to criticize others on reacting poorly to being proved wrong. However, as you have said, this is moving away from the topic, so let's get back there. Do you believe that the Amish lifestyle should be banned or curtailed on the same grounds that child circumcision should be banned? It could be argued that their parents' lifestyle puts Amish children more at risk of being injured or killed in traffic accidents (since buggies are slower and more fragile than cars), or in house fires (since flammable natural gas/propane or kerosene is usually used for lighting and cooking instead of electricity, and houses may lack smoke alarms), or in accidents involving agricultural or other machinery (since children leave school at 14 and often work on family farms or in family workshops). Are they being denied fundamental human rights by not having access to mains electricity or the internet?

[Broomstick]

Someone who observes NONE of a culture/religions common gatherings (Synagogue on the Sabbath), Holidays (Sabbath and others), eating practices (eating Kosher), beliefs (prayer), social customs (traditional clothing) or sharing of tradition (reading the Torah) is NOT an active member of said culture. If no one anywhere observes these traits of a culture/religion, that culture is dead.

It's pretty rare someone who claims to be Jew does none of the above – there are Jews who keep the holidays but not Kosher. I'm not sure what you mean by “traditional clothing” as there is a wide range of what Jews have traditionally worn and not one ethnic costume. By no means has literacy been universal among Jews, particularly the women, although before modern times they had a higher average literacy than most, so there have always been Jews who neither read nor studied they Torah, and so forth.

But even “secular Jews” who no longer practice the religion have a high rate of circumcision.

Jews aren't prevented to do any of those by German law, thus their culture won' be killed by German law.

That is your viewpoint. There are a lot of Jews who won't see it that way. Clearly, you and that group will disagree.

I DO give a fuck about getting rid of infant circumcision (don't give a damn if its about adults). Because no one has a right to violate a childs physical integrity and do it harm (unless medically necessary). And i agree that it won't be easy to get rid of it - but the answer to something being hard isn't to do nothing. And while Broomsticks prediction that people will do it in the kitchen instead will probably come true to some extent, we disagree about the extent of that - and she doesn't figure in the duration of that (how long it will be done before people stop doing it) at all.

I think it's more a matter that we disagree how long the kitchen cutting will go on. You think it will be extinguished relatively quickly, 10 years, or a generation. I disagree, because while the Jews historically have adapted to their place of residence they resist true assimilation. They aren't interested in joining the mainstream, they're interested in retaining membership in their tribe.

[Broomstick]

I'm just astonished at the numbers of people who assume that by passing a law all those people performing a hideous practice will suddenly see the light, will accept the rational argument, and drop the custom with no backlash. Thus custom is not based on reason or logic, and it will not be amenable to reasonable or logical arguments.

Another strawman. If you are so stupid as to think that Germany will suddenly and miraculously reform all jews or if you are so stupid to think that we are arguing that, then I suggest you might want to lay off the booze. Newsflash: Nobody believes that suddenly it will be all like icecream and ponies for everyone.

I don't think you think this will reform all Jews, but based on some of the other comments in this thread I think that yes, some people might have that idea. I think the Jews will leave rather than change. If the goal is to stop medically unnecessary circumcision of boys in Germany then Jews who fail to comply leaving will certainly go towards that goal and yay, Germany, for advancing human rights (and no, that's not the least sarcastic, I mean that sincerely because my personal view is that infant circumcision for no damn good reason is wrong).

The intention is not to drive the Jews out of Germany, but that might well be the effect because I don't think the Jews are going to budge on that. If, ten years from now, there's been a mighty sea change and suddenly Jewish infant circumcision rates plummet you have my promise that I will post on SD.net that I was wrong on this. I don't expect that will be the case, though.

They will go along with it because that is what the vast majority of every religious group has done in the history of Germany when things were outlawed. Even when genital mutilation was concerned.

Funny – the descendants of former Germans (and closely related folks) who moved to my area due to religious persecution claim that they were slaughtered in the old country and that's why they came here rather than change, and why there are few to none of their sort back in Europe. Of course, their perception of history may be flawed but I shouldn't have to tell you that that sort of change hasn't always been non-violent or based on reasoning. Sure, people are more likely to change if you threaten them with death, but your country doesn't execute people anymore.

Are a tiny number doing it... or only a tiny number being caught?

You think there is a huge group of people doing it illegally without any pediatrician noticing? If so, please provide a source.

I don't know which is the case. You are mistaking a question for a positive assertion of fact. I am not familiar with Germany in great detail so I have no idea whether such a thing could be easily concealed or not. What if the parents simply never take the female child to a doctor? Would the authorities notice that and step in immediately or not? I don't know how these things work over there.

So again, there were moderate views and fundamentalist views. Just like today.

True, however, male infant circumcision in Judaism isn't a “fundamentalist” or minority view, it's damn near universal even among the most moderate or reform groups. It's a little like telling US Protestants they can't use the word “Jesus” anymore – while there are a few who use alternative pronunciations (“Yayshu” is the one I have most frequently heard) it's going to be a really, really hard sell for the rest of them. Of course the comparison isn't exact (words don't hurt people like cutting a foreskin off does).

The answer is that you are not allowed to harm a person without consent. Obviously, cutting a piece of penis off is by itself the definition of bodily harm. A child is unable to consent. That is the argument. Now, do you need me to restate anything of these three very complex concepts?

No, I get the concepts, what I was asking about was the origin of those concepts. You value those concepts either because of your cultural upbringing, or due to having reasoned through ethical questions and deciding those make the most sense or are the most useful. I suspect the latter as much as the former in your case. Both cultures and reasoning are amenable to change, in particular reason if new facts are presented.

The problem is that with the Jews it's entirely religious. Not just cultural, religious. They are brainwashed from birth to think of it not merely as an evil to be tolerated but a positive good. They are coming from an entirely different place on this than you are. The arguments that would work for you likely won't for them. There is nothing rational about this custom or their attempts to justify it, thus, as I have said, appealing to reason is highly unlikely to have an effect, neither will appeal to obeying the law, fitting into the larger culture, and so forth.

Likewise, I, personally, have zero doubt that anything anti-Jew or anti-Muslim went into this reasoning. I think it really was based on “this is unacceptable to do to a child without a valid medical reason”. It was based on reason, scientific evidence that in a first world country there is little to no benefit and some risk, and on cultural value on individual rights.

One of the problems, though, is that no matter how many times you try to explain it that way Jews will still tend to have the kneejerk reaction of “they're trying to get rid of us!” Given how often in European history Jews have been targeted some of that paranoia is explainable, they're a bit touchy. Especially, I'm sorry to say, where Germany is concerned. It's not fair to today's Germans that what some assholes did in their name 70 years ago still hangs over their head but it does. If this verdict was handed down in almost anywhere else in Europe it might still have made the news but not as intensely.

[Broomstick]

I think Broomstick's point was also more of:" This ruling is heavy handed and will force Jews underground or out of the country, it's better to try to educate them or raise awareness."

Nope. Jews as a group are pretty educated and aware. If education was going to do it they would have started giving up the practice already. Ralin summed it up quite well the first time.

@ US and hygene
The hygene claim - it isn't and it wasn't. Such views are based on retconned medical history. Instead why circumcision was promoted as heavily as it was by end of 18th and start of 19th cen by people like John Harvey Kellogg was the same reason why young boys should eat cornflakes, ie, to prevent the most serious of medical issues: juvenile masturbation.

The point was that for the non-Jewish population in the US the justification was always SCIENCE! - “proof” that it reduces something undesired be it masturbation or STD's or penile cancer. Thus, when science changed to “sorry, we were mistaken, it's actually useless or nearly so anyhow” it became a lot easier to change the custom without serious backlash. This is in contrast to Judaism, where the justification is “God said so” and getting buy-in for a new prophet that conveniently dispenses with circumcision is going to be a real tough task.

But in regards to following the law of the land you have the precedent during Hadrian's rule which allowed a minor 'pricking' version of the ritual. This since the essence is the bloodletting, not the actual cutting away.

I'd like to point out that during Hadrian's rule the penalty for traditional circumcision was death, and Jewish law allows modification (arguably, demands it) when the alternative is death. Which is why, many pages ago, I said that one method to get the Jews to compromise was to institute the death penalty for cutting foreskins off baby boys. That would immediately give the Jews an incentive to change and a legal out within their system. However, I don't think that's compatible with current German culture. It was with Hadrian's culture, which is why the Jews took the threat seriously and allowed the compromise.

And it should be. As I have stated, my personal view is that it is repugnant. However, this notion that Germany is going to pass a law and suddenly the unwashed masses of Muslims and Jews will See The Light and give up the practice without a peep is irrational.

No more irrational than outlawing polygamy, female circumcision, forcible arranged marriages, honour killings, and all manner of other cultural practices which happen to be against our human-rights laws.

Outlawing such practices as our culture finds abhorrent is not irrational. What's irrational is thinking you're going to abruptly change the culture of the practitioners. A minority will conform, the rest will resist or go elsewhere. That's why I think those saying “oh, the Jews will compromise” are wrong. I think it far more likely they'll either go underground or, even more likely, simply leave and continue the practice elsewhere.

If your goal is removing the practice from a particular country then you could well succeed at that. If your goal is eliminating the practice entirely, or convincing the majority of practitioners they're wrong, no that won't succeed.

Or for that matter, slavery. Once upon a time, American "moderates" declared that it would be bad to outlaw slavery because the slavers would not accept it, slavery had been practiced for thousands of years, and it was so ingrained into the culture that you would never be able to get rid of it.

That was never a particularly strong argument, given how little slavery factored into the culture of the northern part of the US. That's more an argument of southern sympathy.

Arguably, the slavers haven't accepted it – there is still plenty of human slavery in today's world, although sometimes it's given a different name it's still human bondage. When they lost the US market they simply went elsewhere. That was good for former slaves in the US, but didn't eliminate slavery elsewhere.

So? There are entire books in the Minor Prophet section of the Old Testament which rant about how it's a bad thing to let women wear jewellery or talk back to men, and Jews in America have to adapt to that. Everything is a core part of the belief system until it's not..

Except the “minor prophet section” isn't the core of the religion, the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, are. It is much easier for Jews to either adapt or jettison later parts of the Old Testament than anything in the Torah. Jews do not value all parts of the Bible equally.

Who gives a fuck? It's one thing to say that a law would be difficult to enforce, it's quite another to declare that the state should give its official blessing to such practices in order to avoid the conflict.

Correct. My objection here has NOT been to the Germans passing and enforcing laws consistent with the cultural standards, it was the assumption by so many that the Jews will simply roll over and compromise. It would be extremely difficult, at best, to enforce no circumcision among Jews. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, just that there are going to be problems in doing so. Hadrian got some compliance because he was willing to kill people over the issue. Moderns Germans... not so much. On the upside, modern Jews tend to be law-abiding and can easily move to a location entirely sympathetic to their customs (Israel). Thus, I think most likely you'd see a migration of Jews out of Germany to elsewhere. Is that bad? I don't know – I think everyone might be better off if a minority that feels it can't tolerate local laws moves of their own accord to somewhere else. They may not be happy about the situation but it seems a lot better than some of the historical alternatives (death, exile, systematic oppression, etc.)

[Broomstick]

Yeah, they can give birth after they are cut open again. Or did that escape you?

I'm not the one defending circumcision, either, though.

I'm not defending circumcision. I'm pointing out that some people in this thread are wrong about how easily the Jews will give up the practice. I'm also pointing out errors in your assertion that Pharonic circumcision somehow doesn't mess up the woman's functionality both medically and reproductively.

Of course, in traditional societies such women are often married young enough they might be cut open for the penis before they even begin to menstruate, avoiding that particular problem, but if they delay marriage (for whatever reason) problems with menstruation and infections are common.

Yeah, if you allow some crazy old lady with a piece of glass go crazy on the vagina instead of a licensed medical professional.

Doesn't matter if it's done by a “crazy old lady” or a “medical professional” - a Pharomic FGM is going to have urological and gynecological complications going forward, for the rest of the woman's life. A medical professional doing it results in fewer immediate complications, like fatal infections of the wounds, but it's still enormously destructive. The only “benefit” is preventing young women from being summarily stoned to death as whores by religious whackjobs.

If there is a willingness to find work-arounds to the laws of YHWH (and there have been ever since the destruction of the Temple, after all, so EVERY extant sect of Judaism is already bending the laws of YHWH as the Sadducee varieties of Judaism have been extinct for ~2000 years now), then they can certainly find a workaround to the barbarity of MGM.

So, because some people are willing to look the other way on a minor crime like possession of a marijuana cigarette would should legalize rape? Because that's the sort of thing you're arguing.

Uh, the destruction of the Temple was kind of a big thing for Judaism.

Circumcision predates the Temple. Also, a lot of the changes made with the Temple destruction were rationalized as “God must not want us to have a Temple, so until he allows a rebuilding we must make modifications”, the presumption (even among many Jews today) being that if it's ever rebuilt those relevant practices must resume. This ruling clearly comes from other human beings, so it's harder to use the “God said so” option.

Just because YOU think this is an easy problem to solve doesn't mean they do. To make this the equivalent of the destruction of the Temple it would need to be something like Germans executing Jews who failed to comply with the law. I just don't see that happening with Germany as it is today. It is so much easier for the Jews to simply go elsewhere that I think that's the most likely outcome of truly outlawing religious infant circumcision and a government enforcing that.

The Temple was the center of Jewish religious life for millennia and yet they've managed just fine as far as religious worship goes for the past 2000 years. I think they can get along just fine without child mutilation.

You think that. They don't. I think this is called a “conflict”.

You claimed you saw Amish people driving automobiles, said they were cheaters, then admitted you didn't actually talk to them so you don't know they were actually Amish, or using an English driver they had hired, or something else.

Never heard of the Beachy Amish, have you?

Nope, actually until you mentioned them I haven't. Although, as has been pointed out to you multiple times your linked example actually contradicted your assertion the Amish don't drive, and the “Beachy Amish” now say they are part of the Memmonites, not the Amish. I'll take their word on that over yours.

I didn't say it was. You're the one who brought up the Amish and said that they couldn't drive; I was correcting your incorrect assumption because you're nowhere near as knowledgeable as you claim to be. Certain Amish sects DO use cars (such as the Amish who lived near me).

Apparently, you can't parse the difference between "drive a car" and "hire a taxi". Come back when you figure that out, m'kay?

Beachy Amish.

Who aren't Amish, but Mennonite...come back when you understand that.

That's a non sequitor, given that we're discussing Germany where non-religious circumcision isn't practices.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Germans are more than willing to perform a circumcision for actual medical need though I assume that sort of need is pretty rare in infants. It would be more accurate to say Germans only practice medically necessary circumcision, and I gather it's after trying everything else to resolve the problem.

What if said child decides he wants no part of Judaism when he gets older? He is now permanently marked with a sign of the religion he rejects. I was circumcised (as many of my generation have been) and if I had any say it that would never have happened.

That's the point you know – to make a permanent physical mark of tribal membership. From that viewpoint it's no different than other tribal marks like scarification or tattooing. What is different is that it occurs so very early in life and not as a rite of passage into adulthood as is more common.

Anyhow, I think I've pretty much said all I'm going to say here, and between that and the extreme heat (due the air conditioning not being designed for this level of heat we've retreated to one room of the house, which is not where the computer is) and power outages we've been having around here limiting my computer time I may or may not be back here. I'll try to keep future comments, if any, to new points, if any.

[Spoonist]

Broomy I appreciate that you have a lot of other posters to respond to but I feel slightly puzzled by your response to mine. I'm going to assume that I get some spillover vs mine from your responses vs the others.

@ US and hygene
The hygene claim - it isn't and it wasn't. Such views are based on retconned medical history. Instead why circumcision was promoted as heavily as it was by end of 18th and start of 19th cen by people like John Harvey Kellogg was the same reason why young boys should eat cornflakes, ie, to prevent the most serious of medical issues: juvenile masturbation.

The point was that for the non-Jewish population in the US the justification was always SCIENCE! - “proof” that it reduces something undesired be it masturbation or STD's or penile cancer. Thus, when science changed to “sorry, we were mistaken, it's actually useless or nearly so anyhow” it became a lot easier to change the custom without serious backlash. This is in contrast to Judaism, where the justification is “God said so” and getting buy-in for a new prophet that conveniently dispenses with circumcision is going to be a real tough task.

This was a tangential nitpick. People were saying it like it was true, so this was giving info/fact to those who didn't know the real background, it was not an argument.
Given that I don't see the need to point out where it obviously differs in the aspect vs jewish choices. Obviously Jews haven't had the big misunderstanding of Onan's sin and punishment due to some papal medieval fuckup of margin notes. (Hint if your from christian roots: it's not masturbation).
But I'd nitpick/disagree on some stuff.
1) Kellogg's motivation was religious not scientific. Just likethe circumcision movement of the day which started the trend in the US. It was a time of heightened religious awareness in a contrasted response to the secular sciences. So while some of the arguments and style was copied from the scientific debate they were never motivated from it. So I'd argue that, nope, US justifaction for starting mass circumcisions was very religiuosly motivated. Just like the intertwined debates on evolution, prohibition, contraceptives and other religiously motivated morality issues of the day.
Thus I'd agree with you after the retconn, but I'd disagree before the retconn.
2) Your point about "conveniently dispenses with circumcision" missed the whole passage about how I was talking about making rational compromises. While there is such a discussion here on the board a complete ban isn't really happening. So circumcision is not dispensed, instead its argued over and we don't really know where it will land.

But in regards to following the law of the land you have the precedent during Hadrian's rule which allowed a minor 'pricking' version of the ritual. This since the essence is the bloodletting, not the actual cutting away.

I'd like to point out that during Hadrian's rule the penalty for traditional circumcision was death, and Jewish law allows modification (arguably, demands it) when the alternative is death. Which is why, many pages ago, I said that one method to get the Jews to compromise was to institute the death penalty for cutting foreskins off baby boys. That would immediately give the Jews an incentive to change and a legal out within their system. However, I don't think that's compatible with current German culture. It was with Hadrian's culture, which is why the Jews took the threat seriously and allowed the compromise.

Why this? Did you skip all of my references and links? In context it doesn't read like a counter argument at all. If you don't have time for a counter, then I'm fine with that. I'm not demanding anything from anyone. But that's not a proper response to someone referencing meẓiẓah be-peh, the mishnah shabbat, the torah, the sakkanat nefashot, etc as the basis of their argument.
Hurr, hurr death penalty? Really? I know several jews (not from your nor german culture, so not 100% applicable, but still) who'd balk at even a short prison sentance or a heavy fine. Without any need at all to go into absurdium.

My objection here has NOT been to the Germans passing and enforcing laws consistent with the cultural standards, it was the assumption by so many that the Jews will simply roll over and compromise. It would be extremely difficult, at best, to enforce no circumcision among Jews. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, just that there are going to be problems in doing so.

Here I agree, it will be extremely difficult. Hence why rational discussion is paramount and my argument about compromises being a good start in the right direction without the culture clash that others are arguing for.

On the upside, modern Jews tend to be law-abiding and can easily move to a location entirely sympathetic to their customs (Israel). Thus, I think most likely you'd see a migration of Jews out of Germany to elsewhere.

Here I think there is a big cultural difference. Now, I don't know that many german jews, but I do know some scandinavian ones. Most of them are not very big on Israel at all, quite the opposite. So I'd definately argue that while american jews would say such things. I do not think that german jews would actually immigrate to Israel in big numbers. Other places would be more natural.
Lots of aliyah from europe come back because Israel wasn't what they thought it would be.

[Thanas]

I don't think you think this will reform all Jews, but based on some of the other comments in this thread I think that yes, some people might have that idea. I think the Jews will leave rather than change.

Based on what, concidering most jews are really loving living in Germany?

The intention is not to drive the Jews out of Germany, but that might well be the effect because I don't think the Jews are going to budge on that.

Funny – the descendants of former Germans (and closely related folks) who moved to my area due to religious persecution claim that they were slaughtered in the old country and that's why they came here rather than change, and why there are few to none of their sort back in Europe.

There has been no religious slaughter in Germany since the 17th century, except for the holocaust. I don't know what they were smoking but they clearly were lying. I am also very hard-pressed to find examples of religious prosecution that would result in death.

I don't know which is the case. You are mistaking a question for a positive assertion of fact. I am not familiar with Germany in great detail so I have no idea whether such a thing could be easily concealed or not. What if the parents simply never take the female child to a doctor? Would the authorities notice that and step in immediately or not? I don't know how these things work over there.

Then maybe you should educate yourself first instead of raising possibilities as counter-points to actual factual arguments.

True, however, male infant circumcision in Judaism isn't a “fundamentalist” or minority view, it's damn near universal even among the most moderate or reform groups.

So was the importance of the temple or Jerusalem.

The problem is that with the Jews it's entirely religious. Not just cultural, religious. They are brainwashed from birth to think of it not merely as an evil to be tolerated but a positive good. They are coming from an entirely different place on this than you are. The arguments that would work for you likely won't for them. There is nothing rational about this custom or their attempts to justify it, thus, as I have said, appealing to reason is highly unlikely to have an effect, neither will appeal to obeying the law, fitting into the larger culture, and so forth.

I like how you lump all jews in Germany into this "mass of zealots" thing.

[Darth Wong]

And it should be. As I have stated, my personal view is that it is repugnant. However, this notion that Germany is going to pass a law and suddenly the unwashed masses of Muslims and Jews will See The Light and give up the practice without a peep is irrational.

No more irrational than outlawing polygamy, female circumcision, forcible arranged marriages, honour killings, and all manner of other cultural practices which happen to be against our human-rights laws.

Outlawing such practices as our culture finds abhorrent is not irrational. What's irrational is thinking you're going to abruptly change the culture of the practitioners.

When did I say that we would? I'm just saying that it should be done. Of course there will be resistance; so what? There's always resistance whenever you push up against bullshit.