German government speaks out in favor of circumcision

[ZuWo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

Merkel's spokesman said: "Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible without punishment."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a sensible response by the government because let's face it: If circumcisions are banned it will become nearly impossible for Jews and Muslims to practise their religion in a legal way. Central aspects of Judaism and Islam are criminalized if this ban should go into effect. And frankly, that's not what we, in Europe, should try to achieve.

[Χahar]

Banning circumcision seems like a pretty simple anti-foreigner measure.

[ZuWo]

Banning circumcision seems like a pretty simple anti-foreigner measure.

I don't think this is what the judges at the court in Cologne had in mind when they made that ruling, though. They probably made that ruling in good faith but they lacked any kind of historical and religious sensitivity.
Yes, a circumcision is a (usually very minor) infringement on a boy's physical integrity, but since the effects of a ban of this practice are much worse and far-reaching than the "damage" of a circumcision these judges should never have ruled circumcisions illegal.

[Vasall des Midas]

Banning circumcision seems like a pretty simple anti-foreigner measure.

I don't think this is what the judges at the court in Cologne had in mind when they made that ruling, though. They probably made that ruling in good faith but they lacked any kind of historical and religious sensitivity.

I am not certain of it but it's certainly possible. It's a line of research journos shy away from, obviously.

That the government now agrees with the position the Greens took the day after the verdict is due to Jewish, not Muslim, pressure, of course.

[Free Palestine]

Didn't the court rule against infant circumcision, and not circumcision itself?

[Tender Branson]

Austrians are basically split on the issue of circumcision:

46% want to ban it
40% want to keep it legal
14% are undecided

http://www.profil.at/articles/1228/560/334652/profil-umfrage-knapp-haelfte-oesterreicher-beschneidungsverbot

That means Austrians are about 10% less likely to ban circumcision than Germans, where a Emnid poll showed 56% want to ban it.

This seems to be one of those issues where Austrians are "more liberal" than their German neighbours ...

[Senator Ben]

Didn't the court rule against infant circumcision, and not circumcision itself?

Irrelevant.  It's still a significant infringement on religious freedom, and cannot be tolerated.

[afleitch]

Didn't the court rule against infant circumcision, and not circumcision itself?

Irrelevant.  It's still a significant infringement on religious freedom, and cannot be tolerated.

Is that more important than genital mutilation?

[London Man]

Didn't the court rule against infant circumcision, and not circumcision itself?

Irrelevant.  It's still a significant infringement on religious freedom, and cannot be tolerated.

Is that more important than genital mutilation?

Infant circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same thing. There is no significant impact to your life for the former.

[afleitch]

Didn't the court rule against infant circumcision, and not circumcision itself?

Irrelevant.  It's still a significant infringement on religious freedom, and cannot be tolerated.

Is that more important than genital mutilation?

Describing male circumcision as genital mutilation is vaguely insulting to people whose genitals have actually been mutilated in a meaningful way. If anything, adult male circumcision (or even mid-to-late childhood) is a lot worse than infant.

So having the foreskin of an infant removed at the wishes of a parent is not meaningful mutilation? The British Medical Association has declared that it carries 'medical and psychological risks.' Should we just ignore that opinion?

You are supposed to have a foreskin. It's there to serve a purpose. Just because some think their god wants it shorn off doesn't mean we should tolerate it if the state and medical professionals oppose it.

[Vasall des Midas]

So what is that purpose it's supposed to serve?


The court ruled against circumcision of children. Indeed, in the original case the child was four years old - not an infant.

[London Man]

Didn't the court rule against infant circumcision, and not circumcision itself?

Irrelevant.  It's still a significant infringement on religious freedom, and cannot be tolerated.

Is that more important than genital mutilation?

Describing male circumcision as genital mutilation is vaguely insulting to people whose genitals have actually been mutilated in a meaningful way. If anything, adult male circumcision (or even mid-to-late childhood) is a lot worse than infant.

So having the foreskin of an infant removed at the wishes of a parent is not meaningful mutilation? The British Medical Association has declared that it carries 'medical and psychological risks.' Should we just ignore that opinion?

You are supposed to have a foreskin. It's there to serve a purpose. Just because some think their god wants it shorn off doesn't mean we should tolerate it if the state and medical professionals oppose it.

The German state doesn't oppose it - Chancellor Merkel said so. Some court in Cologne opposes it.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Banning circumcision seems like a pretty simple anti-foreigner measure.

I don't think this is what the judges at the court in Cologne had in mind when they made that ruling, though. They probably made that ruling in good faith but they lacked any kind of historical and religious sensitivity.
Yes, a circumcision is a (usually very minor) infringement on a boy's physical integrity, but since the effects of a ban of this practice are much worse and far-reaching than the "damage" of a circumcision these judges should never have ruled circumcisions illegal.

They intentions doesn't matter. This ruling is not only retarded, it's offensive. I'm offended by it's stupidity, although I don't live in Germany and I'm neither a Muslim or Jew.

[Old Europe]

I know a lot of people who are actually in favour of the Cologne ruling. In the non-antisemitic/islamophobic cases it mostly seems the be the result of a general "meh, religions are stupid anyway" attitude.

[Free Palestine]

For me it's my belief in youth rights -- that the only person who should make the decision as to whether or not to chop one's foreskin off (except in the case of absolute medical necessity), should be the individual who's foreskin is going to be chopped off, when the individual is at least somewhat able to give some kind of consent on the matter.  I don't think you have a "religious freedom" to make permanent, unchangeable decisions about another person, whether it be cutting a foreskin off or not allowing a diabetic child to take insulin.

But of course I'm just a silly suburban anarchist dohoho.

[Sibboleth]

But of course I'm just a silly suburban anarchist dohoho.

Indeed you are, indeed you are.

[Sibboleth]

But of course I'm just a silly suburban anarchist dohoho.

Indeed you are, indeed you are.

And you're a drab, arrogant douchebag.

I'm certainly not drab, doll.

[opebo]

There is no significant impact to your life for the former.

How on earth do you have the temerity to make this determination, LM?  An awful lot of people find that their lives have been negatively impacted by this.  I for one often worry that I'm missing out on the Real Feel.

[Vasall des Midas]

The slight is quite likely (though not certain) to be entirely imaginary.

If you have a mental health problem that you need to blame your parents' silly medical decisions for, and a lot of money to spend, there are crook quacks in America that specialize in foreskin reconstruction.

[Free Palestine]

But of course I'm just a silly suburban anarchist dohoho.

Indeed you are, indeed you are.

And you're a drab, arrogant douchebag.

I'm certainly not drab, doll.

Well, you certainly do nothing but spread dullness and negativity.  Reading your posts is like watching some sad black-and-white hipster short film.

[Senator Clarence]

What's next... folks won't name their kids since the kids have a right to choose when they're old enough?

[London Man]

But of course I'm just a silly suburban anarchist dohoho.

Indeed you are, indeed you are.

And you're a drab, arrogant douchebag.

I'm certainly not drab, doll.

Well, you certainly do nothing but spread dullness and negativity.  Reading your posts is like watching some sad black-and-white hipster short film.

You are completely wrong in your last. Al has provided very many useful insights on this forum.

[Free Palestine]

What's next... folks won't name their kids since the kids have a right to choose when they're old enough?

No.  But perhaps the whole notion we have of names should change, so that it's more acceptable for people to just change their name later on, with the name at birth being more like a parental "nickname" or something.  Sort of like Burmese names.

Anyways, it's a terrible comparison, because you can change your name, but you can't get your foreskin back.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I feel a lot more connected to and associated with my name than I do with any aspect of my penis, but I might be unusual in that, I honestly would not know.

[Vasall des Midas]

What's next... folks won't name their kids since the kids have a right to choose when they're old enough?

Given that this is a thread involving Bobby... you stepped right in it.