web analytics
December 10, 2016 / 10 Kislev, 5777
InDepth
Sponsored Post
The Migdal Ohr Mishpachton MISHPACHTONIM – Israel’s Children are Your Children.

Support Migdal Ohr by purchasing letters in the Torah Scroll that will be written in honor of Rabbi Grossman’s 70th Birthday.



Germans Do Not Favor Male Circumcision


Printer-Ready Page Layout
Circumcision of a Jewish baby boy

Photo Credit: Gershon Elinson/Flash90



During the past decade, life has become more difficult for Jews in Europe. They are not only the victims of a rise in anti-Semitic violence and intimidation, mostly as a result of the growing numbers of radical Muslim immigrants in Europe. They are also finding their right to practice their religion restricted as Europe becomes an environment where Jewish dietary rules and ancient traditions are being criticized and even outlawed. This time, ironically, they are being joined by Muslims.

Male circumcision — a medical procedure in both Judaism and Islam that has nothing to do with female genital mutilation or “female circumcision,” which is not required by the Koran, and which has no medical benefits, only medical liabilities — could well be the latest victim of misguided political correctness, despite massive medical evidence that male circumcision is “cleaner,” meaning that the area involved becomes less prone to harboring infections and transmitting diseases.

Last month, Dieter Graumann, the president of the German Zentralrats der Juden (Central Council of Jews), warned that “Jewish life will become practically impossible” if circumcision of male infants is banned in Germany. On May 7, an appeals court in Cologne ruled that circumcision is an infringement of a child’s physical integrity and that it violates the child’s right to self-determination. Subsequently, the German Medical Association advised doctors no longer to perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons. The decision to prohibit male circumcision on the grounds of “religion” embodies a breathtaking lack of regard for both personal and public health, and the regressive preference for religion and political correctness over science. In the United States, for example, it has long been considered a fundamental of public health to circumcise all male infants shortly after birth — unless specifically asked not to — regardless of religious affiliation.

Last Thursday, fortunately, the German Bundestag approved a cross-party motion to protect the religious circumcision of boys. The resolution urges the government to draw up a bill explicitly allowing the practice. Nevertheless, it is indicative of Europe’s growing intolerance towards religious practices that courts have begun to issue verdicts such as the one in Cologne that prohibits circumcision.

The Cologne Landgericht ruled that religious circumcision of boys is a violation of the child’s physical integrity and hence unlawful. The verdict states that circumcision has a “permanent and irreparable effect” on the child’s body, which violates the child’s physical integrity and infringes on its right later to change its religion. The court added that the child’s right to self-determination has precedence over its parents’ freedom of religion.

The case began after a Muslim doctor circumcised a 4-year old boy. Two days later, the wound began to bleed and the child was rushed to a hospital. The hospital informed the authorities, whereupon the public prosecutor brought the doctor to court. When the court acquitted the doctor, the public prosecutor appealed the verdict. Although the Cologne Landgericht again acquitted the doctor on the basis that “the legal status (of circumcision) is very unclear,” the ruling unequivocally condemned male circumcision. Fearing that the ruling would set a precedent to be followed by other German courts, the Medical Association advised doctors to stop circumcisions for religious reasons.

The verdict was applauded by many organizations. Deutsche Kinderhilfe, a non-profit organization to aid children, said that the wellbeing of children had been served by the court. The German Institute for Pediatric Surgery stated that the verdict conformed to medical ethics. The Professional Union of Pediatricians warned “for the trivialisation of this form of physical damage by the circumcision defenders” and said that the right of children to physical integrity should be society’s primary concern.

The International League of Non-Religious and Atheists also welcomed the verdict, stating that religiously motivated circumcision is a form of physical damage and mutilation. Terre des Femmes, an international women’s rights organization, also applauded the Cologne verdict. It said the physical integrity of children should not be restricted for religious reasons.

In the German media, psychotherapists stated that circumcision on six- or seven-year old boys can have a traumatic effect. Jewish organizations pointed out that Jews have been circumcising boys on the eighth day after birth for thousands of years, without any Jewish men later complaining about harmful side-effects. They also emphasized that male circumcision cannot be equated to female genital mutilation.

A joint statement of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Association, the German Turkish-Islamic Union of Religious Affairs and the Islamic Center Brussels, said that the Cologne verdict was “an affront to our basic religious and human rights.”

The critics of the Cologne verdict were supported by Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the Catholic Archbishop of Cologne. “We have to speak out against the tendency to restrict religious freedom and the right of parents to raise their children in a religious way,” he said. He was supported by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, the Vatican’s Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Protestant Church also criticized the verdict. Hans Michael Heinig, the president of the Institute for Ecclesiastical Law of the Evangelical Church, called the verdict “a triumph of antireligious zealots.”

The verdict also drew criticism from Germany’s three major political parties, the Christian-Democrats, Social-Democrats and Liberals. Last Thursday, the governing Christian-Democrats and Liberals teamed up with the oppositional Social-Democrats to call on the government to “present a draft law in the autumn … that guarantees that the circumcision of boys, carried out with medical expertise and without unnecessary pain, is permitted.” The cross-party motion explicitly acknowledges that “circumcision has a central religious significance for Jews and Muslims” and adds that “Jewish and Muslim religious life must continue to be possible in Germany.”

The new law would overrule the decision of the Cologne court. For the time being, however, the verdict still stands, as does the advice of the German Medical Association for doctors not to perform religious circumcisions.

An opinion poll indicates that, despite the political initiative to have the Cologne verdict overruled by a law later this year, a majority of Germans favors a ban of male circumcision. In a Europe that is becoming ever more secular, there is a real danger that religious practices will gradually be pushed aside in order to assure that the impression is not given that little children and (in ritual slaughter) animals are made to suffer.

It is indicative of this trend that the doctors’ associations in Germany are mostly in favor of the ban on religious circumcision of boys. Outside Germany similar attitudes are gaining ground. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Royal Dutch Association of Physicians published a paper two years ago advocating a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys, analoguous to the ban on female genital mutilation. In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms — choosing religion over science.

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Peter Martino

About the Author: Peter Martino is a European affairs columnist for the Gatestone Institute.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.


Loading Facebook Comments ...



Imported and Older Comments:

  1. DavidVidaurre793 says:

    Circumcision has no health benefits whatsoever, which is why no pediatric association in the world, not even Israel’s or the US, endorse circumcision. Many national pediatric associations actually encourage parents against it. The author seems to be deluded into believing that European and German parents don’t care about the health of their babies, and that the leading cause of death is Europe is foreskin. This is patently false and health statistics do not show any any reason to subject babies to the risks of circumcision. People who favor circumcision will claim that it cures everything; from the common cold, to HIV, but if you look at the figures those claims are not supported or are wildly exaggerated.

  2. RcFowler says:

    You are an ignorant fool–you need to educate yourself in the truth–and then WISE UP!

  3. Circumcision has no health benefits whatsoever, which is why no pediatric association in the world, not even Israel's or the US, endorse circumcision. Many national pediatric associations actually encourage parents against it. The author seems to be deluded into believing that European and German parents don't care about the health of their babies, and that the leading cause of death is Europe is foreskin. This is patently false and health statistics do not show any any reason to subject babies to the risks of circumcision. People who favor circumcision will claim that it cures everything; from the common cold, to HIV, but if you look at the figures those claims are not supported or are wildly exaggerated.

  4. EranSadeh says:

    To realize why no one should favor circumcision, one only needs to consider what Jewish circumcision (Brit Milah) is. Seriously. Not many people know what’s going on there. So let’s go over the steps, shall we?

    1. The Sandak who has the ‘honor’ of holding the baby while the procedure is performed on his genitals, holds down the baby’s legs so the mohel can do his job.

    2. The mohel (traditional circumciser) forces a metal rod into the opening of the baby’s foreskin and with a swift circular motion tears the tissue that connects the foreskin to the head of the penis (the foreskin in 8 days old babies is fused to the glans because the foreskin’s function in this age is to protect the head of the penis and especially the urethral opening.) This tearing of the connecting tissue is performed so the foreskin can be pulled and cut (you can’t pull it if it’s fused to the penis,
    right?)

    3. The mohel then pinches the loosed foreskin with his fingers (usually the procedure is done without gloves, because gloves, so mohels say, just makes their work much harder) and puts it through a narrow slit in a metal shield called mogen. The purpose of the mogen is to ensure that the head of the penis will not be damaged when the knife cuts the foreskin.

    4. The mohel then cuts the flesh of the foreskin with a sharp double edged knife. The head of the penis, covered with blood, is now exposed (the head of the penis, as nature intended it is supposed to be internal and protected by the foreskin).

    5. With the *fingernails* of his thumbs the mohel then *scrapes* the remaining inner tissue of the foreskin that was left on the head of the penis, to make sure that nothing from that tissue remains stuck to it.

    6. And for the grand finale: the mohel takes the bleeding wounded penis in his *mouth* and sucks the blood.

    If you have the stomach for video demonstration of Jewish circumcision, watch this:

    Now if your’e still reading, let me ask you, how can anyone support such a practice?

    I’m Jewish. I’m Israeli. I’m circumcised and resent the fact that I don’t have the intact genitals I was born with. I did not circumcise my son. I strive to get parents to educate themselves about the protective and sexual functions of the foreskin, about the harm, risk, complications and pain of circumcison, and about the moral, legal and ethical implications of cutting off a normal healthy and essential part of your child’s genitals.

    When a parent brings a knife to the genitals of his child and cuts a part of it off it is not freedom of religion, it is an assault and a violation of the most fundamental human right: the right to bodily integrity, the right to be safe from pain and harm and risk.

    Judaism should transform the covenant with god and make it a symbolic and spiritual one. And if one insists on signing the contract with god by sacrificing a part of his penis, by all means let him do so when he’s of age and has the capacity of understanding the full implications of his choice.

    Eran Sadeh
    Protect The Child.
    Israel
    http://www.gonnen.org

  5. Rc Fowler says:

    You are an ignorant fool–you need to educate yourself in the truth–and then WISE UP!

  6. DavidVidaurre793 says:

    You didn’t dare to point out what was ignorant in what I said because I can back up my words with facts. The author of this post has the ridiculous position that European don’t care about public health. I guess he thinks they like being sick. The reality is that European are very healthy, a lot healthier than Americans as a matter of fact, despite having a foreskin.

    So who is fool?

  7. HughYoung says:

    Female genital cutting is entirely comparable with male genital cutting, when you compare like with like. 50 boys have died of tribal male cutting in one province of South Africa alone this year. Millions of little girls are cut surgically, minimally, by doctors in Indonesia and Malaysia, in the name of Islam, yet that is outlawed in the developed world. The proposed age-restriction will just close this double standard.

    The Cologne court simply interpreted the Basic Law, which is based on the Unviersal Decraration of Human Rights, drawn up in 1949 to ensure that the horrors of 1933-45 could never happen again. But it can be traced back to 1765, and Sir William Blackstone:
    “Besides those limbs and members that may be necessary to man… the rest of his person or body is also entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults of menaces, assaults, beating, and wounding; though such insults amount not to destruction of life or member….” – Commentaries on the Laws of England.

    It will be very hard for the German government to formulate a law that allows any infant male genital cutting, forbids any infant female gential cutting AND upholds the equality of the sexes.

    The “massive medical evidence” all comes from societies that already circumcise as a custom (which began in the US to punish masturbation). The health of intact men in, say Scandinavia, is better than in the USA.

    “In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms — choosing religion over science.”
    The reverse of this statement makes more sense: In upholding their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a religious practice in purely medical terms, choosing science over religion – as doctors ought, unless they are witchdoctors.

  8. You didn't dare to point out what was ignorant in what I said because I can back up my words with facts. The author of this post has the ridiculous position that European don't care about public health. I guess he thinks they like being sick. The reality is that European are very healthy, a lot healthier than Americans as a matter of fact, despite having a foreskin.

    So who is fool?

  9. DenizCalisal says:

    What’s funny is that at the end of this article, i has a pretty anti-circ paragraph:

    “It is indicative of this trend that the doctors’ associations in Germany are mostly in favor of the ban on religious circumcision of boys. Outside Germany similar attitudes are gaining ground. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Royal Dutch Association of Physicians published a paper two years ago advocating a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys, analoguous to the ban on female genital mutilation. In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms — choosing religion over science.”

  10. Hugh Intactive says:

    Female genital cutting is entirely comparable with male genital cutting, when you compare like with like. 50 boys have died of tribal male cutting in one province of South Africa alone this year. Millions of little girls are cut surgically, minimally, by doctors in Indonesia and Malaysia, in the name of Islam, yet that is outlawed in the developed world. The proposed age-restriction will just close this double standard.

    The Cologne court simply interpreted the Basic Law, which is based on the Unviersal Decraration of Human Rights, drawn up in 1949 to ensure that the horrors of 1933-45 could never happen again. But it can be traced back to 1765, and Sir William Blackstone:
    "Besides those limbs and members that may be necessary to man… the rest of his person or body is also entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults of menaces, assaults, beating, and wounding; though such insults amount not to destruction of life or member…." – Commentaries on the Laws of England.

    It will be very hard for the German government to formulate a law that allows any infant male genital cutting, forbids any infant female gential cutting AND upholds the equality of the sexes.

    The "massive medical evidence" all comes from societies that already circumcise as a custom (which began in the US to punish masturbation). The health of intact men in, say Scandinavia, is better than in the USA.

    "In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms — choosing religion over science."
    The reverse of this statement makes more sense: In upholding their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a religious practice in purely medical terms, choosing science over religion – as doctors ought, unless they are witchdoctors.

  11. Deniz NoEnbridge Casserole says:

    What's funny is that at the end of this article, i has a pretty anti-circ paragraph:

    "It is indicative of this trend that the doctors’ associations in Germany are mostly in favor of the ban on religious circumcision of boys. Outside Germany similar attitudes are gaining ground. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Royal Dutch Association of Physicians published a paper two years ago advocating a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys, analoguous to the ban on female genital mutilation. In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms — choosing religion over science."


Current Top Story
Thousands of people attend the funeral ceremony of the four Jewish victims in the Paris Kosher Market terror attack at Har HaMenuchot cemetery in Jerusalem, on January 13, 2015.
Confirmed: US Airstrike Kills ISIS Terrorist Behind Charlie Hebdo, Hyper Cacher Massacres

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/germany-debates-male-circumcision/2012/07/24/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: