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.

rainydaysarebad, lol at the op being done by any old dick

Circumcision of any sort other than medical is barbaric. Should be banned.

EasilyBoard, while I see the difference between Female mutilation and this, i cannot understand how you believe this is 'not done in a controlling and abusive way'. It is done to children, many times babies who cannot stand by themselves. There is no reason whatsoever to do this to children instead of allowing them to decide by themselves later on in life.

I was thinking about this not realy knowing why it was done etc so i dug up this page with some interesting points from a jewish mothers view of circumcision she makes some very interesting points regarding its origins

"The biblical injunction to circumcise speaks to a man about men. But circumcision is also a woman's issue, for on a subtle, but very potent level it is, like the akedah, about the primary disempowerment of the mother. At no other time is a woman so in touch with her most elemental and powerful mammalian instincts as after a birth, When, her culture tells her that in order for this male baby to be a man, to be part of the masculine community and bond with the male God, the men must cut her male baby on his most sensitive male organ, this mother is inevitably in conflict with her entire life-giving feminine biology. And if a woman is made to distrust her most basic instinct to protect her newborn child, what feelings can she ever trust?

This violent disruption of the maternal-infant bond is not an accidental consequence of this ancient male bonding rite. It fits the pattern of a multitude of rituals that are prevalent cross-culturally which serve to disrupt the very delicate early hours and days of maternal-infant bonding: tight restrictive swaddling, foot binding, early baptism in cold water, smoking of the newborn and mother, ear piercing within the first hour of birth, etc. Circumcision is one of the most violent of these rituals (Odent, 199 1)."
heres the link for the page if your interested
www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm

The literal definition of mutilation might 'fit', but the connotations of the word are too extreme for this situation.

As I said, I don't really agree with it, because it serves no purpose and doesn't benefit the child. But the implications of saying parents are 'mutilating' their child is that they are horrible parents, who are abusing their baby. And that's just not the case at all.

I consider it to be mutilation. There are degrees of FGM, and it is comparable to the more minor forms.

I don't know why the two are being compared anyway.

WHO have been instramental in starting the circumcision programme in Africa, as it shows a 70% decrease in the chance of becoming HIV positive.

This is a national strategy across Africa and for good reason. I don't think that a blanket ban on circumcision across the EU would be a good thing.

Whilst the use of condoms makes more sense, whilst that isn't happening, any other strategies are a help.

I must point out, fgm is a cultural practise, not religious. As far as I am aware no religion approves of chopping off a woman's clitoris which leaves her unable to enjoy sex.

camaleon I think, for me, it's the intention behind it. People don't circumcise their children to try and control their sexuality, or because they want to cause them pain or make them suffer. They do it for a variety (of misguided) reasons. I would be very at any of my friends choosing to circumcise their sons as none of them would have nay religious reason to do so, and I would question why they thought it was a good idea. I would try and talk them out of it, but if they insisted, I would think they were misguided and badly informed, but I wouldn't think they were abusive. OR mutilating their babies.

I'm also of the opinion that the makority of adult men who are circumcised probably couldn't give two shits about it. But I could be wrong.

Most of the male circumcisions are now cultural according to WHO and UNAIDS etc.

Birdsgottafly. What do you mean about this being a 'national strategy' across Africa? I know the WHO reports and they are also worried that this is used as a means of not promoting the use of preservatives which are much more reliable than circumcision.

Why does it need to be practiced in small boys?

easily I'm afraid that not liking the definition doesn't negate it or it's relevance here.

I work with an Algerian woman here in Ireland where it is not legal. she is Muslim and believes her son should be circumcised. Doctors here won't perform it so she HAS arranged for it to be done next month when they go to Algeria on holidays before Ramadan.
IMO the law makes no difference when you are talking about peoples long held religious beliefs. they will do it anyway.

Thanks for explanation easilybored (got your name wrong before). It makes sense

farely True. But the law should not support it for that reason.

Cheyenne lumping circumcision in with mutilations and abuse like FGM etc, in my opinion, serves only to water down and downplay the seriousness of the other activities. Saying circumcision is like mutilation of a girls genitals, could be construed as saying 'well, it's like circumcision, and that doesn't do any permenant damage, so it must be fine as well.

Farelyknuts, again many people go back to their countries to perform forced marriages and other many acts that are illegal here. Shall we change the laws to be sure we keep this 'under control' here?
That argument does not work at all. And many question their practices when it is not normalised anymore. I have a daughter who got her ears pierced a few weeks after she was born by my mum. I did not like it but could not explain it either. It is totally normal in my country (not so much anymore). When I moved to another country and I was questioned about the rationale of it and I had the opportunity to question the practice I understood that I would not do it again. But I needed someone else to make me think about it properly

"A German court ruling on what Jewish people can and can't do really doesn't sit easy with me due to the historically connotations even if there aren't any."

Exactly what I was thinking. And I'm a non-practising Jew with an uncircumcised son.

I am not comparing it to FGM though. I am basing my thoughts purely on male circumcision. I genuinely believe it to be abusive and a mutilation of the body. The law of our country dies not agree but I am not alone in my opinion. I hope that one day pandering to religion like this will be outlawed.

It doesn't matter that it was a German court. They called it the way they saw it. It's unfortunate that a different country didn't get there first but I don't think this issue should be muddied by reference to the World War 2.

Yes, I have to admit I feel slightly sick at the thought of Germans preaching morality to Jews.

That doesn't, of course, affect the central issue of whether circumcising baby boys is wrong. I think it is wrong, but I do feel uneasy about this ruling. I think it may well exacerbate racial tensions in a society that already has plenty of them. Circumcision is a key part of the Jewish tradition and has been going on for 4,000 years. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it very hard to just abandon.

It's not just Jews though, it's a key part of the Islamic faith too.

it comes down to the fact that any procedure that involves changing any part of the human body should only be done to a child for medical reasons - and not medical reasons that may or may not happen in the future (the cancer/sti argument) but medical reasons that are presented at the time (eg, fused foreskin, etc) - the parent acts in the child's best interest and is their consent.
A child should not have any procedure done to them on religious grounds. full stop.
they can choose for themselves when they hit 18, and I think, on completion of a course that equips them with the knowledge and reasoning they need.

why does it matter that it was a german court?
germany is just another european country, just like the uk.