German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?

In that case you can argue hat having an arm chopped of is not a violent act, so long as it heals up and you get used to living without it. And It would be better to do it to a new born because the presumably don’t remember it. So, what makes you think that chopping a piece of a Childs anatomy of is not violent? For that matter why do you think it does no lasting harm, honestly, how much time have personally spent looking into the accuracy of what you are saying? I understand you are not without sensation, never the less, you have nothing to compare with. And if you can see that as you say it might feel things differently then who should have the right to do this to a child. As there is certainly no advantage to either health or convenience in having this modification forced upon you. A significant part of the urologists work is the repair and adjustment of circ botch-up’s children die as a direct result of the operation every year. If that does not indicate violence then what does? There is only one reason for circumcision and that is social conditioning and it is only social conditioning that is able to make a violent act acceptable.

There is a lot said about this subject and perhaps you have not encountered any of it before so perhaps the following site might be of interest to you, I chose this particular site because the Jewish people are probably most fanatical about this, especially in the USA. (Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain http://www.jewishcircumcision...

I would say it is aimed at residents and citizens of the country. This was an interpretation of the law it was not the introduction of a new law. It stands to reason that if a child gets an ailment that in the opinion of a trained medical authority requires treatment to protect the health of that child that it would be reasonable to intervene with an operation to remedy the problem. However with circumcision this is not the case, on the contrary in the first place there are the usual risks that exist in any procedure ranging from a bad outcome after healing to infection or excessive bleeding and death. Once completed the procedure has a marked effect on the way the penis works and feels and interacts with its environment. Granted Jews and Muslims are by far the most numerous victims of male genital mutilation and they stand beside other groups of primitive tribal cultural groups elsewhere in the world. However The English speaking countries took this up for non religious reasons on advice from physicians during the Victorian era the practice is diminishing however it became so culturally and economically entrenched in the US that it is still widely done regardless of the opinion of those it is being done to. Put your self in the shoes of the judge that had to rule on this issue. He had to start with the assumption that the law is responsible for the protection of the children that live under that law. People slicing bits of other people regardless of how well intentioned the slicing is can only be seen as an assault. whether that child has Jewish Muslim or aboriginal parents. by the way the tradition with Australian aboriginals it to take out not only the foreskin but the whole of the skin down the trunk as well, right up to where the hair would start to grow. But hey it's ok because it is a cultural tradition isn’t it.