To approve of a German courts decision re circumcision

[SlipperyNipple]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Jewish by descent but an an agnostic. I think the time has come to say that being religious is not an excuse to carry out mutilation of small boys.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish?newsfeed=true

Obviously Female circumcision is already illegal but the same protection should be given to boys.

I've asked before - is it then ok if my religion requires that all babies have to have their big toes cut off?
It also has significant health benefits, as it will significantly reduce the likelyhood of toenail fungus and ingrown toenails (big toes are the most likely to be affected in both cases). It's also prettier, as one can wear narrower shoes. Of course it's easier when they are babies and not walking yet anyway.

Any reason I should not be able to do it?

Surely any medical 'benefits' to religious circumcision are a side issue, although they are sometimes (erroneously) used to justify the practice?

The fact is that the majority of devout followers would do it anyway - even when it causes harm - because it's somehow seen as What God Wants and therefore the right thing to do, no questions asked.

Sometimes we must question why we have done things for a long time, tradition does not mean it is a positive thing to do. Harming your baby because your parents harmed their babies just leaves a never ending cycle of abuse. It is important to question the status quo and think if we are actually doing something positive or something harmful.

I think it's wrong to circumcise babies, whether for religious, cultural or other reasons. Not being Jewish or Muslim, I don't understand the religious and cultural arguments. To an outsider, it does sound like 'that's what everyone else does'. Personally, I would question my relationship with my God if he or she required me to remove a part of my newborn baby without his consent.

I actually have more of a problem with the non-religious reasons seemingly given in the States . Fathers who want their son 'to look like me' does not sound a very good reason to me. The origins of its popularity amongst secular/Christian Americans seems to be largely rooted in paranoid Victorian thinking which believed that circumcision would prevent little boys from masturbating.

Several people have stated here that the WHO 'recommend circumcision'. I couldn't find that statement anywhere on their website or publications on the subject. As hackmum pointed out above, the WHO state that it can be effective as part of a programme of HIV control in areas where the virus is rife. This is not the same as recommending it to everyone.

Krumbum - It is not easy to explain to someone who is not part of the religion/culture the significance of circumcision and what it means to us as Jews.

It is an integral part of our religion and identity.

I did question it before my sons were circumcised and spoke to many people about their experiences (all the males in my family etc) but I decided to go ahead with it and I am glad my sons were circumcised.

Can you try to explain its importance though cookie? I don't understand it at all. Just because something is part of an ancient tradition doesn't make it right. There are surely other examples of traditional practices which have been abandoned in modern, civilised societies?

I don't think it's ok for adult men to marry children but that is apparently acceptable in some cultures.

wavingleaves: "The fact is that the majority of devout followers would do it anyway - even when it causes harm - because it's somehow seen as What God Wants and therefore the right thing to do, no questions asked."

I think that's true. The reason for circumcising boys is largely religious and cultural. When challenged on it, people then try to find medical or health justifications for doing it, but these weren't the original justifications.

Religion, culture and tradition have an immensely powerful hold on people. The mistake a lot of us make is to assume that religious/cultural justifications will melt away in the face of hard, cold logic. They won't.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of many posters I don't find male circumcision as horrific a prospect as female circumcision. Males have skin removed, females have their clitoris removed.

Having said that it would be a cold day in hell before I'd agree to any son of mine being circumcised.

"Religion, culture and tradition have an immensely powerful hold on people. The mistake a lot of us make is to assume that religious/cultural justifications will melt away in the face of hard, cold logic. They won't."

Agreed - people will go to sometimes quite staggering lengths to see what they want to see, believe what they have been brought up to believe, and do what they feel in their heart is 'right'.

Cookie

I'm assuming, because you are on the internet that you are not orthodox (as always, I am willing to be corrected).

As I understand it, the covenant is not just the circumcision but the ceremony, so a medical circumcision 'won't do'. Could you explain why the ceromony part cannot be done without the circumcision?

I'm not expressing myself very well. OK here's an example. It is possible for a boy to be born without a foreskin. What would happen then? I would have thought there would still be a bris ceremony. Am I wrong?

I've just explained it's importance Waterlego.

What makes something right or wrong depends on the context and the culture. In China they eat dogs. I wouldn't do it myself but it is part of their culture. In the West abortion is legal. I wouldn't have one myself but that is seen as acceptable in some Western societies. There are lots of things which look "wrong" to someone looking in from the outside. It is very hard to explain to someone who is not part of a culture why certain things are done. Cultural relativism is a complex thing.

I'm Catholic so circumcision was alien to me growing up. All I knew of it as an adult was a couple of horrifying videos I had seen online. A few months ago I went to a brit, with the circumcision carried out by a rabbi who is also a paramedic. He performs circumcisions for both religious and medical reasons.

The whole thing was over very quickly. You may or may not believe me but the baby was absolutely fine throughout (apart from prior to the circumcision when he cried when his nappy was removed and had to be settled).

It is also worth remembering that many ancient religious laws were put in place for hygiene/health reasons and this is the basis for circumcision (same with kosher food).

Comparing this to a child's toes being chopped off is ridiculous.

Sashh - Orthodox Jews can and do use the internet although the ultra-orthodox Hasidim are not likely to use it.

There are different levels of religious piousness within Judaism ranging from the ultra-orthodox Hasidim to secular Jewry. There are also different takes on customs depending whether you are Ashkenazi (descending from Europe), Sepharadi (descending from Spain, North Africa etc), Mizrahi (descending from Arabic countries etc) and various other Jewish ethnicities. Traditions also tend to differ a lot in terms of ceremonial customs amongst Jews from different ethnicities.

The ceremony itself is called the "Bris Milah" (Covenant of circumcision).

It is a good question that you ask but I think you will find there are a range of answers depending on whether you ask a Rabbi from an orthodox strand of Judaism or a Rabbi from a more liberal one. You will probably get different answers as a lot of Judaism is about analysis and interpretation and the orthodox Rabbi would probably say that the ceremony is integral whereas the liberal Rabbi would probably say that a circumcision is permitted without the ceremony but as I say, it would depend on various factors.

However, it is assumed that the Bris Milah and the actual circumcision should be done together as the ceremony is what validates the circumcision "in the eyes of God" but for example, Hasidic Jews would not consider secular Jews to be proper Jews anyway, so their version of the ceremony would probably not be acceptable to certain strands of Judaism anyway.

In what way is the comparison ridiculous? It would be a needless removal of a body part. Because circumcision might have been reasonable during some ancient times?

Because if you remove someone's toes they can't walk properly. Because it is a far more dangerous and physically traumatic operation. Because it involves the removal of bone, muscle, fat - not just skin.

There is countless medical evidence to support circumcision. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not true!

And I'm not saying I would have my own children circumcised or would support it, just that a rational approach to arguments such as this is usually the best way forward.

My DS (18 months at the time) had to be circumcised for medical reasons - they needed to use the foreskin for a skin graft

When the dressing was removed I was absolutely horrified. DS was inconsolable and obviously in a lot of pain, his penis was hugely swollen, bloody and looked like it had been hacked at with a knife. I thought something must have gone horribly wrong but the nurses assured me that the procedure had gone extremely well and this is what a circumcised penis usually looks like after the procedure. I was moved to tears and said to them that I just couldn't understand how anyone could do that to a baby boy in the name of religion, I could see in their eyes that they agreed but they obviously couldn't say anything.

I thoroughly agree with the German courts on this one, how anyone can do this in this day and age to a defenceless innocent child in the name of religion, I just think it's utterly selfish and wrong. Leave it up to the boy to decide when he's old enough to know his own mind - the protection from STD's argument isn't going to be relevant until at least puberty anyway.

ok, ok, let's compare it to removing the toenails then. Should be relatively easy in case of newborns. And it's just keratin, not even skin.

For every study showing some health benefits of circumcision, there are also plenty of studies disagreeing and of course plenty of risks to the procedure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

HazleNutt - in my opinion the removal of toes is a silly analogy to male circumcision and in which case you could say that getting a child's ears pierced is the same as it makes a needless hole in the ear and causes them pain.

But Hazlenut - your toenails are necessary too, in ways that the foreskin isn't! Yes of course there are studies disagreeing with it but my point is that it's not reasonable to call anyone who circumcises a mutilating barbarian because there is substantial evidence to support it as well.

but Panda, the foreskin is necessary, too or it wouldn't be there

Foreskin is also necessary, to keep the glans moist for example and to enchance sexual pleasure. According to many sexologist, it plays an important role in the mechanical functioning of the penis during sexual acts. Sure, one can live without it, as one can live without toenails. I still don't see a massive difference, extept that certain mainstream religious groups practice removing one but not the other.
If toenails were traditionally removed, I'm sure we could read many studies about how they are not really necessary and how avoidance of nail fungus is a significant benefit that outweighs the risks.

Ugh .... Most men in the UK are uncircumcised? How gross!

In what way is a foreskin "gross"?