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

by ServantOfAllah Posted 2012/06/27 02:21:41

Related Topics: Germany, Religious, Boy, parents, Rights, Boys, Court, Western, Circumcision, Young Boys, German, Assault

Read More

115 votes
Read all 603 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Agree	64 votes	56%
	Disagree	51 votes	44%

Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision.

The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?

+15

Add a comment above

lurx: the soda jerk 2012/06/27 07:03:41 (edited)

Agree

+14
Why should we view genital mutilation differently if it is done on boys?
>> See Replies

More polls by ServantOfAllah

Robbb to Z 2012/07/06 21:54:12

+1
I dont know a great deal about the relevance of the proceses used in the livestock industry here. other then to ay I dont agree with any surgical tapering with animals for non medical treatment reasons. However Because you say some thingoes not "SEEM" to you to be a problem is more likely the result of you not having bothered to enquire. Perhaps the following will be helpfull. there is an ever increasing amount of material available on this subject. You know the people that freaked out during wars were at times put against a wall and shot for cowardice then someone came along and caled it shell shock now it is called post truamatic stress syndrome and it related to all kinds of situations where peope are exposed to both extreme pain and psycological stress. There is no problem with my argument regarding the posibility of truama in chikdren . it is well documented from mkany quarters. Here is one with a link.
Medical Studies on Circumcision http://www.circumcision.org/i...
Circumcision is Associated with Adult Difficulty in Identifying and Expressing Feelings
This preliminary study investigates what role early trauma might have in alexithymia (difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings) acquisition for adults by controlling for male circumcision. Three hundred self-selec...

I dont know a great deal about the relevance of the proceses used in the livestock industry here. other then to ay I dont agree with any surgical tapering with animals for non medical treatment reasons. However Because you say some thingoes not "SEEM" to you to be a problem is more likely the result of you not having bothered to enquire. Perhaps the following will be helpfull. there is an ever increasing amount of material available on this subject. You know the people that freaked out during wars were at times put against a wall and shot for cowardice then someone came along and caled it shell shock now it is called post truamatic stress syndrome and it related to all kinds of situations where peope are exposed to both extreme pain and psycological stress. There is no problem with my argument regarding the posibility of truama in chikdren . it is well documented from mkany quarters. Here is one with a link.
Medical Studies on Circumcision http://www.circumcision.org/i...
Circumcision is Associated with Adult Difficulty in Identifying and Expressing Feelings
This preliminary study investigates what role early trauma might have in alexithymia (difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings) acquisition for adults by controlling for male circumcision. Three hundred self-selected men were administered the Toronto Twenty-Item Alexithymia Scale checklist and a personal history questionnaire. The circumcised men had age-adjusted alexithymia scores 19.9 percent higher than the intact men; were 1.57 times more likely to have high alexithymia scores; were 2.30 times less likely to have low alexithymia scores; had higher prevalence of two of the three alexithymia factors (difficulty identifying feelings and difficulty describing feelings); and were 4.53 times more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug. Alexithymia in this population of adult men is statistically significant for having experienced circumcision trauma and for erectile dysfunction drug use. (See link to article on our home page.) http://www.circumcision.org/i...
Bollinger, D. and Van Howe, R. , "Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation," International Journal of Men's Health (2011);184-195.
Circumcision Associated with Sexual Difficulties in Men and Women
A new national survey in Denmark, where about 5% of men are circumcised, examined associations of circumcision with a range of sexual measures in both sexes. Circumcised men were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties, and painful sexual intercourse. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.
Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., and Grønbæk, M., "Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark," International Journal of Epidemiology (2011);1–15.
Circumcision is Associated with Premature Ejaculation
Premature ejaculation (PE) is common. However, it has been underreported and undertreated. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of PE and to investigate possible associated factors of PE. This cross-sectional study was conducted at a primary care clinic over a 3-month period in 2008. Men aged 18-70 years attending the clinic were recruited, and they completed self-administered questionnaires. A total of 207 men were recruited with a response rate of 93.2%. Their mean age was 46.0 years. The prevalence of PE was 40.6%. No significant association was found between age and PE. Multivariate analysis showed that erectile dysfunction, circumcision, and sexual intercourse =5 times in 4 weeks were predictors of PE. These associations need further confirmation.
Tang, W. and Khoo, E. "Prevalence and Correlates of Premature Ejaculation in a Primary Care Setting: A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study," Journal of Sexual Medicine (2011) Apr 14.
(more)

reply
Z to Robbb 2012/07/07 05:44:54

+1
First of all, not one single study has found any foals with post circumcision stress disorder. Second, there are far more likely causes for each of those problems. Circumcised stallions are likely to be more religious, which means they are likely to not have had sex prior to marriage, which would account with both struggles pleasing their mares and experiencing either orgasm difficulties or PE. The fact that the first is a Denmark study, where circumcision is much less common adds to the impact religion would have on it.

It is very unlikely that circumcision has anything to do with these results in reality.

reply
Ken 2012/06/27 02:45:10

Disagree

+5
It is an interesting ruling and there is an argument to be made. Unfortunately, the German courts are not an appropriate venue for this decision. This ruling has a significant impact on Jews and Muslims living in Germany. Since Jews and many Muslims are Semitic people and Germany has a history of radical anti-semiticism, this ruling by a German court is not acceptable regardless of the merits of the arguments.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/06/27 09:49:13

+1
That is a load of codswallop. So what you are saying is that e Germans ost of whom ave never seen WW2 or the conditions that led up to it should suspend their idea of what is right and wrong.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/06/27 11:23:12

+1
No .... what I said was ....Is anyone surprised that a German court believes Jewish religious practices are evil? But I tried to be more polite. This ruling by the German court is anti-semitism under the guise of justice.

reply
Ken to Ken 2012/06/27 11:24:32

+1
I hadn't intended to be quite so blunt but since you insisted .... let's call a it what it is.

reply
Jackie ... to Ken 2012/06/27 12:42:46

That is exactly what it is - I am reasonable sure that most of these people who are so self righteous about circumcision have no problem with abortion.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/06/27 20:33:28

+1
No it is not Circumcision is as far as all Europeans are concerned a barbaric custom and it is after al the responsibility of the law to look after the well being of its people you will find this issue popping up in al civilised countries. There is nothing antiemetic about protecting an individual child physical integrity. The same rule apply in Female genital mutilation.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/06/27 23:14:07

I happen to share the opinion that circumcision is a senseless custom. But WW II was not that long ago. During WW II most Europeans cooperated with German attempts to exterminate the Jews. It is impossible for me not to suspect that this is another attempt by the Europeans to eliminate the practice of Judaism....and when a German court makes the ruling, my suspicion increases.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/02 08:47:55

+1
Perhaps you should have a look at the following site then. http://www.jewishcircumcision...
these are Jews speaking about the practice.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/02 12:26:40

No matter how many Jews speak out against the practice, a German court ruling against a Jewish religious practice is not significant. An Israeli court ruling that circumcision was barbaric would be news and is likely to change world opinion.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/02 21:00:09 (edited)

+1
There are actions happening in the UN that are talking about this point. it has nothing to do with religion. It is a simple mater of advanced societies starting to put their foot down in attempting to stamp out genital mutilation. And that is what it is. Every person has a right to keep the body parts they were born with that is natural justice. Nothing more. and those jews are speaking about the practice that is right and the Germans are speaking about human rights,Perhaps we should hear from the infants that end up resenting having their genitals mutilated shortly after birth. Or we could all pray for them so that god undoes the damage.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/03 01:29:30

The topic here is a ruling by a German court not UN activity. A German court does not have standing to rule on Jewish religious practices and therefore does not have standing to establish precedent on this topic....Neither does any other European court except perhaps the Netherlands or Britain.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/03 09:15:20

+1
Wait a minute! I am sure that the USA is a country that will eventually do the decent thing. Freedom of religion is one thing, but then there is the really important issue which is freedom from religion. Do you mean to say that the courts in the USA don’t have the power to protect children from religious harm? The state is not a religious organisation and therefore should not make rulings on religious grounds. Circumcision is in fact a form of mutilation and children have a natural right to expect to be protected from harmful religious actions by any decent state until they are adults, unless they happen to live in the Middle East where both male and female genital mutilation runs rampant.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/03 13:53:35

Again this topic is about the ruling of a single German Court. US courts do not rely on German precedents. These courts have not been asked to rule on this topic. Until those courts rule, it is rather pointless to speculate on how they will rule.

The German ruling is easily understood. After all German courts have precedents which say there is no place in Germany for Jews and therefore it is acceptable to confiscate their property and kill them. Similarly German precedents indicate it is humane to sterilize Gypsies and other minorities.

A German court ruling on this topic is not likely to help those who wish to suggest that circumcision is barbaric. The more you argue that German courts can creates such a precedent the less I agree with you. If you really believe what you are arguing, it would be best to make sure this German ruling is not publicized rather than vice versa.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/03 21:04:28

+1
The question was is infant circumcision assault. Well it is the percentage of Jews in Germany is nothing compared to the number of Muslims that live there. Germans and for that matter all of Europe Asia china and Russia don’t mutilate their boys penises, they see it as a disgusting thing to do to a child. The subject has come to the fore because the increase in Muslims is degusting the majority of the population who don’t believe any one has the right to mutilate children. It is as simple as that. While you are at it try reading up on what happened in Europe from a perspective other then that of the US propaganda machine. Every country has in its history thing they should be ashamed of. Perhaps you should d ask why the US has a policy of denying that it is responsible for the malformed children being born in Vietnam that are being born to this day.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/04 00:05:45

The question is not about circumcision. It is about a German court ruling on religious circumcision. I might reach a different conclusion if this ruling had been an anomaly in German law, but Germany has a number of laws which make it difficult for Jews and Muslims to practice their faith in Germany. For example, there are laws which make it illegal to prepare kosher (and the Muslim equivalent) meat.

I might reach a different conclusion, if this ruling had been a anomaly in German history. But there are still a few individuals who managed to survive Hitler's final solution. The German law appears intent on harassing Muslims and Jews into converting to Christianity, becoming atheists, or hiding their faith. Thus modern German law appears a variation the Nazi Final Solution.

If you wish to debate the morality of circumcising male babies, you will need to find a venue that doesn't include German courts.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/04 08:37:28

+1
The interesting part is that the ruling did not concern a jewish child but a Muslim child. I supose that litle point sliped by you while you were rigorously investigating that on which you are comenting.
"A court in Cologne has ruled that circumcision, performed for religious reasons on male children below an age where they can meaningfully consent to the operation, amounts to an unwarranted and irreparable interference with their bodily integrity. Furthermore, it interferes with the right of a child "to decide for himself later on to what religion he wishes to belong".

The ruling, in a case involving a four-year-old Muslim boy who was injured in a botched procedure, has been strongly criticised by both Muslim and Jewish groups in Germany and beyond."

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/04 12:23:00

You obviously don't read. My posts mention both Muslims and Jews. The word antisemitism is very precise and means against Semitic people. The Arabs and the Jews are both Semitic people.

A specific circumcision may be improperly performed and thus be mutilation of a child, Just as a single appendectomy may be botched. Commonly such cases are considered malpractice and the injured party receives monetary compensation. A botched appendectomy, however, cannot be generalized to reach the conclusion that all appendectomies are mutilation. There is nothing antisemitic about a judge ruling a specific circumcision was mutilation. Generalizing the facts in this case to all circumcisions is antisemitic within the context of German courts. The same ruling in a different context, e.g., an Israeli court, would be significant in other jurisdictions.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/04 20:24:45

+1
I did but did not change what I said because I was a bit lazy. Mutilation has nothing to do with religion to mutilate something you have to vandalise it. And I don’t see how anyone can say otherwise in the case if circumcision. a person is having their body altered to what another person would like to see on the speculation that they would get rewarded for this by some super being in the sky. That is just not in the realm of reason and no judge unless corrupted could have ruled otherwise. as for trying to convert Muslims and Jews to Christianity, Germany is not a particularly Christian country.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/05 00:30:15

Western condemnation of female circumcision without discussing male is irrational. It is possible there is a basic human right to bodily integrity as you suggest. Protecting this right, however, is far from my top human right priority. During the last century, Germany attempted to murder an entire ethnic population. There have been other more recent attempts at ethnic cleansing within Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Permitting Germany to complete it attempt at ethnic cleansing under the guise of human rights would sends an extremely inconsistent message to less mature nations and leaders. As a result, German courts do not have the moral authority to suggest a semitic religious practice goes against basic human rights.

So if you want to build a case against circumcision. you will need to find a country which has welcomed those targeted for ethnic cleansing. This makes Israeli courts the ideal venue to establish such a human right.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/05 10:02:25

+1
What the hell are you talking about? You don’t kill people by denying them the right to mutilate their kids in your country, as a mater of fact circumcision can kil kids and does. By the way are they also trying to kill of the Muslims which are the religion of the child that was mutilated? Israeli courts would hardly fall into the realm of the upholders of human rights. That country seems to be working along the same moratilty that Her Hitler did only they are doing it to their indigenous population. It seems that they learned some thing during the war. In any case what your top priority is is neither here nor there, what is right and what is wrong is what this is realy about.

m

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/05 12:05:31

Ethnic cleansing is "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous."

Since the Germans used circumcision as a means to identify Jews, outlawing circumcision is by German definition outlawing Jews. The distinction between using the police rather than the SS to enforce the law is a distinction without a difference.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/05 16:31:57

+1
So if we were to expand on your reasoning if a Jew was to drive according to the road rules of Israel refusing to abide by the rules of Germany, imposing the local law upon him would be ethnic cleansing? Anyway since the Germans according to you have plans for reopening the death camps it stands to reason that they encourage Jews to mutilate their infants genitals not only is the practice an unhealthy and painful affront to these little children. It also makes them easier to find when the time for the new final solution is at hand. I don’t believe the Germans have any such agenda however your reasoning is amusing to work with.

reply
Ken to Robbb 2012/07/05 16:59:10

You are deliberately not following....so this is my last time. The world will not accept any opinion from a German court which says an Jewish religious practice is immoral because the evil committed by Germany against Jews was too egregious.

If you attempt to use a German court to build the case against circumcision, you will be a laughing stock in the world's legal community and are likely to establish that parents have the human right to circumcise their children.

So continue your arguments but I don't care.

reply
Robbb to Ken 2012/07/05 17:30:41

+1
I know exactly what you are saying and you are talking utter nonsense. The Germans are just one of many European countries that are contemplating this move. Besides the German court is not looking for approval they made a decision regarding the genital mutilation of a Muslim child according to the law of the land as it exists now. Their law was not changed it was merely interpreted. When it boils right down to it the same laws exist in all developed democracies already, they are just not being upheld as they should for political reasons. The question was however whether I agree with the courts decision that infant circumcision is assault and Yes I agree that it is definitely assault.

reply
Jackie ... to Robbb 2012/06/27 12:36:02

So you are oblivious to men and boys forced to drop their pants to see if they were circumcised and those that were got loaded in the cattle cars. We should just forget that, we should forget the holocaust and Germany. This is anti-semitism pure and simple.

reply
Dodgerfan 2012/06/27 02:26:44

Disagree

+5
Actually, there is I believe a medical reason for doing circumcision in the early stage of infancy. But gee, this is a two edge sword.

reply
abycinn... to Dodgerfan 2012/06/27 06:34:38

+1
yup.

reply
««Ginge... to Dodgerfan 2012/06/27 07:34:34

+1
I see you're a Ron Paul fan. Shouldn't you be concerned with the baby's personal freedom?

reply
Dodgerfan to ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 09:41:18

You are correct. But there was no answer to choose from other than yes or no and in order to give a response I had to use one or the other. I merely gave the reason for circumcision at infancy versus adulthood.

If personal freedom is given to a newborn or child then it would not receive immunizations, education, proper nutrition, guidance, etc. These things are naturally placed in the responsibility of the parent(s).

But do parents have the right to kill the child? Nature says that if the adult of any species has that right then that species will cease to exist. However, there is an inborn trait among parent(s) to protect and nourish their offspring. But, like any other good thing in life, there are perverts who ruin it for the rest.

reply
««Ginge... to Dodgerfan 2012/06/27 12:44:28

+1
I disagree with your logic. Unlike health food, education, and other substances needed for survival, circumcision is a permanent and drastic measure taken that causes excruciating pain for a child. When it's done, you can't reverse it. There are often severe complications of the surgery, and many infants die of it. It is an unnecessary risk it seems.

reply
Adam to ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 13:51:13

+1
some 100 infants are said to die because of circumcision against 2.1 million boys born each year. That really isn't significant enough to be concerned. There are some risks in a great many things that can be beneficial.

reply
««Ginge... to Adam 2012/06/27 14:34:51

So how many infants die of not being circumcised? 0. The less children that die, the better. I would never risk my child's life getting some dumb cosmetic surgery that they do not consent to. Also, the majority of those 2.1 million boys (which is probably an overstatement) are not circumcised.

reply
Adam to ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 16:44:08

It is not cosmetic it is religious in nature. I am circumcised and I am very happy I was done at infancy rather then needing to do it when I would remember.

reply
««Ginge... to Adam 2012/06/27 16:46:50

+1
Religious? Then why do so many non-muslims and non-jews get it routinely?

Any religion that requires an innocent child's genitals to be mutilated is a sick, perverse religion.

So are you Muslim or Jewish?

reply
Adam to ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 16:47:56

I be Christian.

reply
««Ginge... to Adam 2012/06/27 17:03:57

Then you should not have been circumcised. The bible specifically states that no one is to be circumcised anymore.

reply
Adam to ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 18:58:01

No it states they don't have to be to obtain salvation. It does not say don't be circumcised.

reply
««Ginge... to Adam 2012/06/27 18:58:22

+1
So then why did you do it?

reply