German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[Ashendant]

I found this article on BBC which i think would be interesting to share.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18604664

A court in Germany has ruled that circumcising young boys for religious reasons amounts to bodily harm.

In a decision that has caused outrage among Jewish and Muslim groups, the court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights.

The case involved a doctor who carried out a circumcision on a four year-old that led to medical complications.

Thousands of Muslim and Jewish boys are circumcised in Germany every year.

Although male circumcision - unlike female circumcision - is not illegal in Germany, the court's judgement said the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents".

Circumcision, it decided, contravenes "interests of the child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs".

'Protect religious freedom'
The doctor involved in the case was acquitted and the ruling is not binding, but correspondents say it sets a precedent that would be taken into account by other German courts.

The president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, Dieter Graumann, called it "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination".

He urged the country's parliament to clarify the legal situation "to protect religious freedom against attacks".

Male circumcision is part of the ancient religious rituals of both the Jewish and Muslim faiths, as well as the traditions of some tribal groups.

In some countries, such as the United States, it is also not uncommon for parents to request that young boys are circumcised for health reasons.

The BBC's Stephen Evans in Germany says it is unclear what the next legal step with be, but this issue is a moral and political minefield.

[Thor]

Hey! Some common sense! Why should a child have to undergo a painful procedure for no other reason than it's dictated by a stupid religion? If the kid grows up and decides to go through with this.... fine! Then the kid is old enough to make that choice. What if the religion dictated that three fingers had to be amputated from the right hand? Would that be okay because it falls under "religious beliefs"? And why would some deity give your body a piece of flesh and then tell you it had to be cut off? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

[Epimethean]

It's mutilation. This is a great challenge to one fucked-up aspect of organized religion.

[Rayaan]

I don't think that circumcision is harmful to health because I've read that the complications that result from performing this are pretty minor and rare. I could be wrong about that, but I haven't heard of any Muslim males having problems or difficulties because of being circumcised.

In Islam, circumcision is only compulsory for males, while for females, it is optional. Some Muslim scholars believe that circumcision is recommended for women according to certain hadiths (but not compulsory). But, even those hadiths which they bring up advise us that what is allowed is merely a slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood. And this is not even practiced in most Islamic countries (i.e. female circumcision).

In some parts in Egypt, however, there are women who cut off their entire clitoris and this has been practiced longer than any existing historical records can show. This is also known as infibulation, or Pharaonic circumcision, but this practice doesn't have any authority in Islam according to my knowledge and it's an example of mutilation and not "circumcision" (and something which is harmful to a women's health).

Epi: I disagree that circumcision equals to mutilation. To me, circumcision is more like a type of modification, while mutilation has a serious connotation behind it.

[Epimethean]

Rayaan, was the body made with or without the foreskin?

Mutilation: an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part.

I wouldn't give mine up.

[Minimalist]

Doing ANYTHING on the basis of religion seems incredibly stupid to me. At the very least it should be postponed until the dick in question is old enough to decide for himself instead of having some douchebag in a funny hat decide it is mandatory.

IOW, "god" can go fuck himself.

[Justtristo]

There are very few cases where male circumcision is medically necessary. The vast majority of circumcisions on boys are done for all sorts nonsense reasons, including those rooted in one superstition or another. I would argue in those cases it is not much different than cutting off a girl's clitoris or vulva which is seen by westerners as immoral.

Frankly I don't give a damn if some Muslim or Jew harps on about my opinion of banning circumcision of under-age males unless there is a very valid medical reason as the oppression of their religion. Nobody gives a damn about some Muslims harping on about the persecution of their religion, because female genital mutilation is illegal in countries such as the USA.

[Tempus]

In some parts in Egypt, however, there are women who cut off their entire clitoris and this has been practiced longer than any existing historical records can show. This is also known as infibulation, or Pharaonic circumcision, but this practice doesn't have any authority in Islam according to my knowledge and it's an example of mutilation and not "circumcision" (and something which is harmful to a women's health).

A while back, maybe a year or so, I heard someone mention female circumcision in relation to Islam, so I looked into it. From memory, my own findings were similar to what you're saying here. I recall thinking that the practice (at least in the form that outraged people) seemed more a cultural thing, rather than a religious rite. It also appeared to be something that happened mostly in Africa rather than in other Muslim denominated countries.

Ah, I remember: I think it was Pat Condell, the youtube atheist, who mentioned it. That, among other things, was why I unsubscribed.

Personally, I think circumcision, like any non health related procedure (which it usually is), should be left until the individual can make an informed decision. I don't think it's good practice to assume little Johnny wants to be religion X, Y or Z and perform irreversible operations, no matter how small, on the assumption that's what he'll want. While I've been circumcised and suffered no inconvenience because of it, I'm not really in any position to choose or know otherwise, which is vaguely frustrating. I wish I'd been asked. To me, it's an issue of consent, and being a family member shouldn't give you special rights over your child's body for aesthetic or religious purposes.

[Epimethean]

TMI, but the foreskin does make a difference, possibly for both parties.

http://what-the-muck.blogspot.com/2008/0...cised.html

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I wouldn't give mine up.

Well I didn't have any say. Male circumcision was simply routine in many Australian hospitals at the time.The mothers were usually told ex post facto.


Fortunately for me, I've always liked the look of my penis .More aesthetically pleasing than uncut,to me. Nor do I seem to have suffered in any way because of it.

BUT: That the mutilation of circumcision does no harm is not a valid justifcation. Neither are the excuses of tradition and/or religious ritual. I have only ever seem ONE (arguable) pragmatic justification: There MAY be health benefits in desert dwelling nomadic societies with limited water and poor static hygiene.