German court: Religious circumcision on minors is a crime

[Mr. Oragahn]

Might as well throw my two cents in. I think this ruling is stupid and wrong headed. If there was a clear and present danger to the child that would be one thing but as it is it cuts against religious freedom as well as the simple right of a family to raise its offspring. Someone elses child isn't my own I have no right to essentially tell them how to raise their child barring physical or clear mental threats to their well being which the procedure in question does not fall under.

The problem with freedom of this and that is that by the time you have people with completely different cultures in your country, you're left with the choice of letting them do what they always did, which may really clash with your own legitimate and rooted culture, or you say nope, if you want to do X or Y, there's plenty of other places to do it and I don't accept your own customs on my land, such places including where such alien customs obviously are part of the historical/national culture where they birthed.
This question stems from two fronts, one about immigration (and thus importation of foreign cultures) and the hosting country's genuine and age old customs.
ON such topics, I say fuck freedom. This ain't my country, and I don't want to see my country hosting people doing such things when it hasn't been the case, and certainly wasn't much the case before WWII; it's after that devastating war that truly trans-continental immigration grew out of proportions, hence the noticeable culture clash. Remember, we're talking about Europe. There are strong cultures there with which you can't play randomly without causing problems. The question is quite different when it comes to places which were largely the result of massive colonies of barely populated regions.

Well if your goal is explicit discrimination your entitled to make that argument and attempt what reforms are required via your nation in order to enact them. I simply don't agree that is the best way towards societal stability save where there is a clear and present danger to innocents. Then I'm all for the Federal Goverment flexing its muscles and crushing things.

The best way towards social stability is to stop importing - and eventually removing - those destabilizing elements, but certainly not nitpicking about alien practices once the alien elements are already inside the society by virtue of disastrous decisions taken by political douches elected through mass-ignorance and mob-rule.

[Praeothmin]

So the courts ruled that the Doctor's intervention, done under anasthetics, as any normal medical procedure should be, was "free from defect", in other words, well executed...

So where's the problem?
I agree with you, Mr. O., any circumcisions made in the brutal way some religious circumcisions are made should not be allowed, but banning any circumcision on young children because of that?
I don't agree, and I think it's up to the parents to decide...
We're not talking sex change here, simply the excision of some skin...

About the supposed psychological effects:
Wow, no long term tests, so long term effects cannot be defined, or even proven?
And the author only talked to those who were affected?
What about the people who were cricumcised young, but never felt anything bad, never were angry at their parents for the act?
I have a couple of friends who were circumcised, yet they are well balanced members of society, and this act never affected them in the least...
Are you going to tell me this hurts more than falling 20 feet down on a concrete surface when 5 years old because you were climbing somewhere you weren't supposed to?
Or when, at 7 years old, you flew over your bike's handlebars to hit the pavement face first because the hockey stick you were carrying at high speeds decided to wedge itself in your forward spokes?

There are more traumatic events in a child's life, like seeing his parents fight, or see them divorce...

[Khas]

I'm agreeing with Praeothmin on this. I was circumcised right after I was born, but not for any religious reasons, as my parents aren't exactly the most religious people on Earth (The last time I regularly attended church was in 1996, which was when I was 5, and even then, that was only because we would go for the sake of my great-grandmother, who regularly attended, and was too old to get there on her own). I don't hold any ill will towards my parents for having me circumcised, since it WAS 21 years ago, and hasn't really affected me.

However, religious circumcision, performed on minors against their will, I do have a problem with, since that would be a very traumatic experience.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It's hard to agree on some general rule. It has probably more to do with a case by case basis.
Simply put, if the kid's life is at risk, then if the intervention is useful and necessary, it should be greened. Now if it's done all because of some religious or philosophical convenience (over a piece of flesh??), I condemn the act, veto it, and consider that it will be up to the child to decide when he'll be in age of understanding what he'll go through.
Ultimately, it's one of those questions where it's just opinion x vs opinion y and at this point there aren't that many reasons to go one way or another save for cultural bias, education and eventually, religious bias as well.
Now, telling me that some people live very well with it, I wouldn't be surprised, as the brain tends to shunt traumatic events. The way it's done during the religious ritual is nothing short of sick, so you know. Not to say that at this age, your long term memory will simply not register it as to remain easily accessible much later when you're around ten or more.

[Khas]

As for people who were circumcised at birth, the reason their brains don't shut it out isn't because of a traumatic experience. It's because there's the little fact that most people don't remember events from when they were only a few hours old.

And, there IS a difference between being circumcised by doctors in a hospital, and being circumcised by religious officials in a ceremony.

[Praeothmin]

As I said, I agree religiously performed circumcision, that is, following barbaric religious rites, I disagree with...
Circumcision performed in a hospital, done by a professionnal, I don't mind...
At all...

[Who is like God arbour]

Does this mean, that a religious circumcision done to an infant performed by a physician and with an anesthesia is okay with you?

Although there is no medical indication for such a surgery?

Is this your respect for the right to religious freedom of the parents?



Okay, let's put aside the question, if the right to physical integrity of the infant is violated as long as the surgery doesn't cause the infant any pain.

But what is with the religious freedom of the infant? It gets "branded" with a religious symbol, a symbol it will never loose again - even if it decides later to turn it's back on the Jewish or Muslim religion?

Isn't this very problematic for a young man?

He decided to break with the religion of his parents.

Maybe he even has developed a outright hate for this old religion, what wouldn't be very surprising.

But every time the young man looks at his penis, he sees the symbol of that religion.

As penis-fixated as young man usually are, isn't there the potential for a very serious psychological problem?

Every time the young man has sex with a man or woman, he knows that his partner will see his penis and will see that it is circumsized and will ponder what this means. In Germany and other nations of Europe a circumcision is not usually done by those who are not Jews or Muslims. Insofar a circumcision is a relative sure telltale. The young man may assert that the circumcision was done for medical reasons. But he will always know that this is not true and that he was mutilated - as he may think about it now - for a religious tradition to show that he belongs to this religion forever - regardless what he may wish or decide when grown-up.

Isn't this an extreme violation of his right to religious freedom?

Is the right to religious freedom of his parents more important than the right to religious freedom of their son?

Wouldn't this mean that the right to religious freedom of parents is a right at the expense of the rights to physical integrity, self-determination and religious freedom of their children?

And this only because infants are not able to defend themselves?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Does this mean, that a religious circumcision done to an infant performed by a physician and with an anesthesia is okay with you?

I don't know who this question is intended to, but I'll say that you can cut many things under anesthesia. Say cutting a large section of the flesh surrounding your internal ear was done with anesthesia, or that a religion considered that having the pinkie cut at age of 15 days was necessary, even if done under anesthesia, would you be OK with it?
Is the anesthesia the trumping card?
To me, no.

[Who is like God arbour]

Khaas and Praeothmin have made a difference between a circumcision performed in a hospital, done by a physician and a cirumcision done by religious officials in a barbaric religious rite.

The typical religious circumcision from Jews, the brit milah, is done by a Mohel without anesthesia and analgesic.

To me it seemed as if for them it is important HOW the circumcision is done and not WHY it is done. A religious circumcision - without any medical indication - seemed to be okay with them as long as it is performed in a hospital and done by a physician (using anesthesia and analgesic as is medical practice in similar surgeries).

[sonofccn]

But what is with the religious freedom of the infant? It gets "branded" with a religious symbol, a symbol it will never loose again - even if it decides later to turn it's back on the Jewish or Muslim religion?

And you are free to suggest such to the parents of said child whom responsability falls to raise and therefore make decisions for which they believe are in the child's best interest.

Isn't this very problematic for a young man?

He decided to break with the religion of his parents.

Maybe he even has developed a outright hate for this old religion, what wouldn't be very surprising.

But every time the young man looks at his penis, he sees the symbol of that religion.

As penis-fixated as young man usually are, isn't there the potential for a very serious psychological problem?

Every time the young man has sex with a man or woman, he knows that his partner will see his penis and will see that it is circumsized and will ponder what this means. In Germany and other nations of Europe a circumcision is not usually done by those who are not Jews or Muslims. Insofar a circumcision is a relative sure telltale. The young man may assert that the circumcision was done for medical reasons. But he will always know that this is not true and that he was mutilated - as he may think about it now - for a religious tradition to show that he belongs to this religion forever - regardless what he may wish or decide when grown-up.

An increasingly hypothsised series of event without supporting facts to ground them. In short an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason.

Isn't this an extreme violation of his right to religious freedom?

Not particuarly. He can still worship any religion he so choses as far as I know.

Wouldn't this mean that the right to religious freedom of parents is a right at the expense of the rights to physical integrity, self-determination and religious freedom of their children?

No it means you are against X but can't prove it is detrimental. To be blunt children are not adults and they don't have the same "rights" as adults. Because they can not as yet take care of themselves, they require guardians who must make choices for them. To take them to the dentist, to make them eat right and brush their teeth. Things which as an adult would be patronizing and violating ones right as a citizen are required for children. Parents are their children's guardians, they are in charge with making the choices they think are best for their offspring. One may disagree, one may compile huge studies with loads of evidence why what they do is wrong but baring direct threats to health, physical/mental, the other person's child is the other person's child to raise to the best of their ability.

And this only because infants are not able to defend themselves?

Wilga while we likely agree on nothing I did apreciate and like the fact that you usually manage to stay impartial and more cool headed than I when we debated. But this is just wrong. You may disagree with the procedure, you may disagree that its the parent's choice but to imply, without a shred of evidence, that the other side of the debate are moral monsters merely because they don't agree with you is low. And maybe I'm over reacting, maybe I'm just touchy at once more being implied to wanting to hurt a small newborn but I have my heckles up. Through just so there is no doubt I do not support my position because infants can't defend themselves, I have many faults but that isn't one of them.

[Who is like God arbour]

But what is with the religious freedom of the infant? It gets "branded" with a religious symbol, a symbol it will never loose again - even if it decides later to turn it's back on the Jewish or Muslim religion?

And you are free to suggest such to the parents of said child whom responsability falls to raise and therefore make decisions for which they believe are in the child's best interest.

From the German Civil Code

• • • • • • • • Section 1626 - Parental custody, principles
        1. The parents have the duty and the right to care for the minor child (parental custody). The parental custody includes the care for the person of the child (care for the person of the child) and the property of the child (care for the property of the child).
        2. In the care and upbringing of the child, the parents take account of the growing ability and the growing need of the child for independent responsible action. They discuss questions of parental custody with the child to the extent that, in accordance with the stage of development of the child, it is advisable, and they seek agreement.
        3. The best interests of the child as a general rule include contact with both parents. The same applies to contact with other persons to whom the child has ties, if maintaining these ties is beneficial for its development.
        
        
        • • • • Section 1631 - Contents and limits of care for the person of the child
        1. The care for the person of the child includes without limitation the duty and the right to care for, bring up and supervise the child and to specify its abode.
        2. Children have a right to non-violent upbringing. Physical punishments, psychological injuries and other degrading measures are inadmissible.
        3. The family court is to support the parents, on application, in exercising care for the person of the child in suitable cases.

As you can see, parental custody is not only a right, but a duty too. And it does not entitle the parents to do what they think is the best for the child. If they believe, that a good spank is what the child needs, they aren't allowed to act out their belief. Because children have a right to non-violent upbringing without physical punishments, psychological injuries and other degrading measures.

• • • • Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
        If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
        
        Exodus 21:15:
        He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
        
        Exodus 21:17:
        He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
        
        Proverbs 30:17:
        The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
        
        Genesis 22:2,10:
        And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering. ... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

I think that it is good that the sometimes irrational belief of parents on what is good and what is bad for their children is not deciding and can not justify their treatment of their children.

• • • • By the way: The duty to circumsize eight days old infants is coming from the same source as the quotes above. And these quotes are making it abundantly clear that it has not the best interests of the children in its mind.

Isn't this very problematic for a young man?

He decided to break with the religion of his parents.

Maybe he even has developed a outright hate for this old religion, what wouldn't be very surprising.

But every time the young man looks at his penis, he sees the symbol of that religion.

As penis-fixated as young man usually are, isn't there the potential for a very serious psychological problem?

Every time the young man has sex with a man or woman, he knows that his partner will see his penis and will see that it is circumsized and will ponder what this means. In Germany and other nations of Europe a circumcision is not usually done by those who are not Jews or Muslims. Insofar a circumcision is a relative sure telltale. The young man may assert that the circumcision was done for medical reasons. But he will always know that this is not true and that he was mutilated - as he may think about it now - for a religious tradition to show that he belongs to this religion forever - regardless what he may wish or decide when grown-up.

An increasingly hypothsised series of event without supporting facts to ground them. In short an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason.

1. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Is there a phenomenon I tried to explain?
2. As long as a hypothesis can be tested, it is a scientific hypothesis. Is it possible to test the speculations on what can happen in some cases?
3. Is my speculation on what can happen sometimes unreasonable?
   • Is it unreasonable to presume that there are Jews who have turned their back to their parents religion?
   • Is it unreasonable to presume that such can develop a outright hate for this religion
   • Is it unreasonable to presume that such can hate it that they still have an eternal symbol of their belonging to Gods covenant?
   • Is it unreasonable to presume that such young man are penis-fixated?
   • Is it unreasonable to presume that such have an extra big problem with it because said symbol is on their penis?
4. Since when is the presentation of possible consequences an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason.
   • Since when is the contemplation of possible consequences not reasonable?

Isn't this an extreme violation of his right to religious freedom?

Not particuarly. He can still worship any religion he so choses as far as I know.

Freedom of religion is a liberty. There are positive and negative liberties. Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. As such negative freedom of religion is the right, to not believe in anything, to not to confess your faith and to not be exposed to religion (e.g. religious symbols and acts) while in a position from which you can not withdraw (e.g. while in a position of "subordination" where one is legally required to attend).

• • • • Crucifix Decision: In 1995 the German Federal Constitution Court decreed a law that insisted on the presence of religious symbols (crucifixes) in public institutions to be illegal, excluding in some Roman Catholic elementary schools. The court further demanded that the symbols must be removed if a parent does not agree with them. In 1973, a Jew complained successfully that his freedom of religion was violated by the obligation to speak in a German courtroom decorated by a cross.
        
        Headscarf Decision: In 2004, the German Supreme court denied a Muslim teacher the right to wear a headscarf in class, on the basis that she had to represent neutrality. In this case, freedom of religion (of teachers) had to be brought into "balance" with the state's authority over schools (art. 7), the freedom not to be exposed to religion while in a state of subordination (art. 4), resp. the parents' rights to raise their children (art. 6), and the specific duties of teachers as state servants (art. 33). German courts rarely hold the freedom of religious and non-religious belief rarely to be infringed, as freedom of religion is limited by the exertion of other basic rights (and duties) guaranteed by the Grundgesetz. Already in the late 1970s, a teacher had also been denied the right to wear the distinct clothing of his religion at the workplace.

To put an everlasting religious symbol on a child means, that it is exposed to this symbol its whole life - even if it decides to turn its back on the religion from which said symbol is.

Wouldn't this mean that the right to religious freedom of parents is a right at the expense of the rights to physical integrity, self-determination and religious freedom of their children?

No it means you are against X but can't prove it is detrimental. To be blunt children are not adults and they don't have the same "rights" as adults. Because they can not as yet take care of themselves, they require guardians who must make choices for them. To take them to the dentist, to make them eat right and brush their teeth. Things which as an adult would be patronizing and violating ones right as a citizen are required for children. Parents are their children's guardians, they are in charge with making the choices they think are best for their offspring. One may disagree, one may compile huge studies with loads of evidence why what they do is wrong but baring direct threats to health, physical/mental, the other person's child is the other person's child to raise to the best of their ability.

1. Maybe those who are doing something to a child should prove that it is not detrimental and is in the best interesst of said child?
2. There are enough studies who are suggesting that circumcision can be detrimental to the physical and mental health of a child and can even have detrimental effects on adults.
3. Children have the same fundamental rights, adults have. But they are not capable to use them. Thereforee parents have parental custody. But this is limited. They can not do to their child what they want - even if they think it is the best for their child. They have to obey the law.

And this only because infants are not able to defend themselves?

Wilga while we likely agree on nothing I did apreciate and like the fact that you usually manage to stay impartial and more cool headed than I when we debated. But this is just wrong. You may disagree with the procedure, you may disagree that its the parent's choice but to imply, without a shred of evidence, that the other side of the debate are moral monsters merely because they don't agree with you is low. And maybe I'm over reacting, maybe I'm just touchy at once more being implied to wanting to hurt a small newborn but I have my heckles up. Through just so there is no doubt I do not support my position because infants can't defend themselves, I have many faults but that isn't one of them.

I haven't said anything that could be interpreted as an imply that parents who are circumsizing their children are moral monsters.
That's not what I'm thinking.
But I do think, that religious circumcision is wrong and should be forbidden. When circumsizing a child, nobody knows what the child will do when grown up. If it decides to stay in its religion, it probably will have no problems with being circumsized. But if it decides to turn its back on its religion, it it possible that it will have a problem with being "brandmarked" with a religious symbol.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Fuck dogooders. I'd gladly burn them alive. A spank isn't supposed to leave a mark for the rest of the kid's life. It's supposed to make him understand that he's done something very wrong.
The dialogue theory is driving me crazy. Not all parents handle it well but it is the norm now, it's forced down our throats. The problem is that plenty of parents just suck at it, and their last good tool, the physical correction, has been removed from their parental rights. Now you have to talk, talk and talk again until the kid gets it. You have to explain everything, and wait until the idea finally takes roots inside his brain. You basically have to behave like a woman, who does all by talking and seduction (fine politician that!), instead of doing things like a man, a father, knowing when to teach and when to punish. Men become spouses, society is feminized, fathers fade away, replaced by sissies and shit breaks lose.
Thing is, I'm yet to see a parent retake control of a kid who decides to be a nuisance in a supermarket. Not only we get more of those bragging cunts who think they have a free ticket to make as much noise and mess in a public place, but parents become more and more impotent against that.

[Who is like God arbour]

Mr. Oragahn, I tend to agree with you.

A good spank can be healthy in certain situations for a child. It may even save the child's life (especially when it is still too young to understand some things but it is indispensable to life to do or to omit something).

But in other situation a spanking can be detrimental for a child.

The problem is that many parents are incompetent in their capacity as a parent. They do not get a manual on how to raise children when they give birth to them. They have to learn how to do it. Some are better in learning it and some will never learn it. Some have it easier to learn it because they have good parents and some have bad parents and have it difficult to imagine how a good parent is supposed to behave.

The question is what does more harm.

To allow all parents, the bad parents too, to spank their children to prevent that children aren't properly raised because it's forbidden to use a certain behavior altering technique?

Or to forbid all parents, the good parents too, to spank their children to prevent that the bad parents do significant harm to their children by abusing the right to spank them?

I do not know the answer to that question and I'm lucky that I do not have to answer it - although seeing that more and more children do not know how to behave, I doubt that some of the more modern or alternative upbringing concepts are an improvement. The legislator has made the decision. It's law and it is irrelevant if I agree with it.

The basic idea behind it is that children are not the property of their parents and that children have rights and parents aren't allowed to do with their children whatever they want to do as they can do with their property. And with that I agree.

To make one thing clear: I'm absolutely against parents who are spanking their children because they are frustrated, hysterical or stressed out or even worse: sadistic.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Mr. Oragahn, I tend to agree with you.

A good spank can be healthy in certain situations for a child. It may even save the child's life (especially when it is still too young to understand some things but it is indispensable to life to do or to omit something).

But in other situation a spanking can be detrimental for a child.

The hint is to stop when you hear the bones cracking.

[sonofccn]

I haven't said anything that could be interpreted as an imply that parents who are circumsizing their children are moral monsters.

You "asked" if "we", presumbly those of us in this thread who disagreed with you, did it because they couldn't defend themselves. I don't see how else but to interpet that instead of the reasons and arguments presented by the various people here you are suggesting we knowingly are advocating something detrimental just because they can't fight back. A "question" cited in one of the studies you cited and which I found horrendious then as well.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Is there a phenomenon I tried to explain?

Not scientificly. A hypothesis, in the manner you are using it here, would be to suppose the procedure has a negative effect on the subject's mental/phyiscal health which can be proven or disproven with empircal evidence. What you posulated was a series of speculations and assumed events creating a fairly specific figure which it would be impossible to disprove because no one but God is omniscient and could speak for all people in such a manner.

As long as a hypothesis can be tested, it is a scientific hypothesis. Is it possible to test the speculations on what can happen in some cases?

Not as you performed it no. I could test a million men and not prove there is not a person who might "think" as you describe.

Is my speculation on what can happen sometimes unreasonable?

Speculation does not cease to become speculation because one believes it is "reasonable". Groundless speculation, building speculation upon speculation, is useless and counter productive.

Since when is the presentation of possible consequences an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason.

When you offer up a conjured fantasy as opposed to dealing with solid fact. Listing likelyhood of prison time due to broken families, along with accompaning statisitcs to support such, would be listing a potential consequence thereof. You have provided no evidence for the very precise chain of events you stated, just speculation. No facts or figures by which one could logically and reasonably change one's position merely a sad story about a sad man. How could that tale sway anyone but through emotion?

Since when is the contemplation of possible consequences not reasonable?

Possible? Nigh all things are possible. I deal in plausible. What can be proven, what exists.

Maybe those who are doing something to a child should prove that it is not detrimental and is in the best interesst of said child?

As the advocate for the claim, that the procedure is harmful and should be stopped at all costs, it would fall to you to make the case. I only argue for the parents to make the decision.

There are enough studies who are suggesting that circumcision can be detrimental to the physical and mental health of a child and can even have detrimental effects on adults.

And those studies were, to be genererous, horribly incomplete, poorly conducted and heavily biased towards a particuar outcome. Further I have already addressed such, and I believe Preao did as well, including the incredious of needing escape clauses to explain away not seeing their findings in the general population. At the very least you could have addressed some of that instead of merely linking back like we didn't see it.

Children have the same fundamental rights, adults have.

No. Children have no rights, no freedoms as we understand them. They have priviliges, which can be administered and taken away by their fiat of their guadian , nothing more. Take an adult against his will to a place, shove him down into a seat and jab needles and drills into his mouth and we have a kidnapping. A child and its going to the dentist. Children and Adults are seperate and distinct, to argue otherwise is madness.

The legislator has made the decision. It's law and it is irrelevant if I agree with it.

Being forced to comply with it yes. But you make it sound like once its a law its final, that God has spoken and this is the way things will be for all of time. Public servants are there merely to enforce the will of their consitutents after all and if a majority of you agree the law is wrong then the law should be changed.

And with that I agree

The problem with using strong-arm tactics to impose your personal viewpoint is when you find yourself on the other end of the "stick". Rights which are unevenly and disparatingly enforced are not rights, merely priviliges which can be given or taken by the State.