I hope the legal situation in Germany is resolved soon.

Less than two months after a German court banned religious circumcisions, a rabbi is now facing criminal charges for performing the ritual brit milah on a child.

According to the Times of Israel, a doctor in Germany filed a criminal complaint against Rabbi David Goldberg for performing the ritual circumcision, alleging that the procedure caused "bodily harm" to the boy involved.

http://www.huffingto...m_hp_ref=religi

I don't think it has anything to do with any vestigial nazism among Germans. It's hard to know what the psyche is behind this. Some doctors for a long time have clearly believed that circumcision is unnecessary and brutal, but there is now a vindictive element among western atheists that looks for opportunities to restrict or prohibit religious practice and symbols in whatever form (e.g. the cross at Ground Zero).

My feeling is that hostility to religion is a factor in the German situation and those atheists who have an authoritarian/totalitarian mindset have played a role in bringing circumcision to the attention of the courts.

Of course I don't want to paint all atheists with the same brush, by any means. Atheism is a perfectly reasonable position for civilized people, especially when it is combined with liberal and tolerant positions towards others.)

So basically you are concerned about Atheism, but not about parents mutilating their children for no reason other than "Belief"?

It was perfectly acceptable a thousand or so years ago to have Human Sacrifices, less than 100 years ago lynching a black man seemed quite acceptable to a few people as did beating up homosexuals. Society has now moved on so why do we still allow the mutilation of children for "religious" reasons?

I hope the legal situation in Germany is resolved soon.

Less than two months after a German court banned religious circumcisions, a rabbi is now facing criminal charges for performing the ritual brit milah on a child.

According to the Times of Israel, a doctor in Germany filed a criminal complaint against Rabbi David Goldberg for performing the ritual circumcision, alleging that the procedure caused "bodily harm" to the boy involved.

http://www.huffingto...m_hp_ref=religi

I don't think it has anything to do with any vestigial nazism among Germans. It's hard to know what the psyche is behind this. Some doctors for a long time have clearly believed that circumcision is unnecessary and brutal, but there is now a vindictive element among western atheists that looks for opportunities to restrict or prohibit religious practice and symbols in whatever form (e.g. the cross at Ground Zero).

My feeling is that hostility to religion is a factor in the German situation and those atheists who have an authoritarian/totalitarian mindset have played a role in bringing circumcision to the attention of the courts.

Of course I don't want to paint all atheists with the same brush, by any means. Atheism is a perfectly reasonable position for civilized people, especially when it is combined with liberal and tolerant positions towards others.)

So basically you are concerned about Atheism, but not about parents mutilating their children for no reason other than "Belief"?

It was perfectly acceptable a thousand or so years ago to have Human Sacrifices, less than 100 years ago lynching a black man seemed quite acceptable to a few people as did beating up homosexuals. Society has now moved on so why do we still allow the mutilation of children for "religious" reasons?

What you say is quite reasonable if you believe that circumcision is a form of mutilation to be compared with human sacrifice. It is a form of mutilation, I suppose, though maybe closer to having a growth cut out than being sacrificed on an altar.

I was circumcised as an infant, but it never occurred to me to think of my parents as barbarians for having had this done to me. Even so, as a more "enlightened" father than my own, I did not have my son circumcised as a new-born 39 years ago. That happened at the age of 12 on medical advice following a lot of discomfort and required a night or two in hospital. It would really have been much better to "mutilate" him at birth than twelve years later.

As I've said, I know that there are doctors who are concerned at the mutilation aspect, especially if they feel there's no need for it. I've also drawn a line to the vindictive strand of atheism, but as an hypothesis based on trends that are occurring, specially in the United States. The basic question is whether circumcision, whether based on religious or health grounds, if performed by an accredited practitioner, constitutes a physical violation of the human person or not.

The basic question is whether circumcision, whether based on religious or health grounds, if performed by an accredited practitioner, constitutes a physical violation of the human person or not.

In that case, absolutely it is.

The basic question is whether circumcision, whether based on religious or health grounds, if performed by an accredited practitioner, constitutes a physical violation of the human person or not.

In that case, absolutely it is.

I'm sorry, Mr BJ's response makes me aware that I should have said:

"The basic question is whether circumcision of an infant, whether based on religious or health grounds, if performed by an accredited practitioner, constitutes a physical violation of the human person or not.

If an adult, or perhaps a child who is deemed old enough to consent, agrees to be circumcised, that would be a different matter.

The basic question is whether circumcision, whether based on religious or health grounds, if performed by an accredited practitioner, constitutes a physical violation of the human person or not.

In that case, absolutely it is.

I'm sorry, Mr BJ's response makes me aware that I should have said:

"The basic question is whether circumcision of an infant, whether based on religious or health grounds, if performed by an accredited practitioner, constitutes a physical violation of the human person or not.

If an adult, or perhaps a child who is deemed old enough to consent, agrees to be circumcised, that would be a different matter.

It's ok, i knew what you meant as it was in the context of what we were discussing.

In my view, circumcision is the greatest thing since sliced bread. We need MORE circumcision, not less.

recently a German High Court begged to differ and the ruling caused quite an uproar.

http://www.google.co...ype=&as_rights=

sorry for not reading all postings.

Not the first or last time the German government has been full of it.

what has the German government to do with a court ruling?

Given a conscious choice, a fair number of people would not have it done to themselves if there were no compelling medical reasons to do it. Those of us who have had a medical circumcision as adults know that some sensitive parts are cut away, and that sexual pleasure is reduced as a result. Those who are circumcised as kids don't know what they are missing, of course.

Given a conscious choice, a fair number of people would not have it done to themselves if there were no compelling medical reasons to do it. Those of us who have had a medical circumcision as adults know that some sensitive parts are cut away, and that sexual pleasure is reduced as a result. Those who are circumcised as kids don't know what they are missing, of course.

I think a few members will be calling their lawyers after that comment!

I can confidently declare that I have never got my foreskin caught in my zipper.

Given a conscious choice, a fair number of people would not have it done to themselves if there were no compelling medical reasons to do it. Those of us who have had a medical circumcision as adults know that some sensitive parts are cut away, and that sexual pleasure is reduced as a result. Those who are circumcised as kids don't know what they are missing, of course.

i'd rather say that parts are cut away which keep an area sensitive.

would never consider it for my son, in fact I consider it an abuse of trust. If a boy at maturity decides to do it then that is their choice but pretty much every man I know who hasn't, would never choose to now as an adult. Medical issues aside. I think that should tell you everything you need to know.

Sure, if it was done to you as a baby you have no idea the alternative, but think on this, female circumcision is considered an abuse yet male is ok? odd

Sure, if it was done to you as a baby you have no idea the alternative, but think on this, female circumcision is considered an abuse yet male is ok? odd

Not a reasonable comparison, Boo. Male circumcision may be beneficial from a health point of view, and does not hinder sexual pleasure (though it may reduce it... I simply don't know). Female circumcision is medically dangerous, and makes all intercourse painful.

Sure, if it was done to you as a baby you have no idea the alternative, but think on this, female circumcision is considered an abuse yet male is ok? odd

Not a reasonable comparison, Boo. Male circumcision may be beneficial from a health point of view, and does not hinder sexual pleasure (though it may reduce it... I simply don't know). Female circumcision is medically dangerous, and makes all intercourse painful.

Well I'm not suffering any ill health as a result of escaping the chop. Seems a pretty rhin argument to me.

would never consider it for my son, in fact I consider it an abuse of trust. If a boy at maturity decides to do it then that is their choice but pretty much every man I know who hasn't, would never choose to now as an adult. Medical issues aside. I think that should tell you everything you need to know.

Sure, if it was done to you as a baby you have no idea the alternative, but think on this, female circumcision is considered an abuse yet male is ok? odd

Male circumcision appears to be generally unnecessary and, if so, could be classified as a presumably well intended "breach of trust", but it doesn't feel that way to me, as my parents were honest and responsible people. I don't ever recollect anyone in my generation and milieu ever speaking about it until I was in my late twenties and about to become father of a son (1973, here in Bangkok). An American friend said something to the effect of "why snip something off if there was no need?". The obstetrician didn't say anything and nor did I, so the boy was left intact. At twelve, however, we were advised to agree to this procedure for him. I can't remember what the problem was - some infections I suppose (?). At about the same time, one of my assistants in my air force squadron had got the same advice for his son - about 8 years old, I think - so since then I've had a general impression that the procedure has health benefits, but obviously for many or most uncircumcised men it is unnecessary.

As I understand it, female circumcision is entirely unnecessary and possibly dangerous. Whether it's dangerous if performed by experienced practitioners I don't know. Baroness Ruth Rendell, the novelist, is a prominent campaigner against what is called "female genital mutilation" and wrote a detective novel (one of the Inspector Wexford series") which has this as a sub-theme. The novel is Not in the Flesh (2008). Quite good, from memory.

I had my tonsils removed, but only to prevent recurring illness. and adenoids, while they were about it.

I don't think I would recommend removing the tonsils of newborns for the future health benefits

SC

on a lighter note...

whenever i hear circumcision it reminds me of the old joke a jewish friend told me years ago.

when the "covenant" (Genesis 12:1-3) was made Abraham asked the Lord "you mean the Arabs get all the oil and we have to cut the tip of our peckers?"

To suggest that male circumcision is equivalent and as brutal as female circumcision is intellectually dishonest.

on a lighter note...

whenever i hear circumcision it reminds me of the old joke a jewish friend told me years ago.

when the "covenant" (Genesis 12:1-3) was made Abraham asked the Lord "you mean the Arabs get all the oil and we have to cut the tip of our peckers?"

As I understand, the Arabs trim their tips as well.

http://www.thaivisa....t/#entry5607226

SC

on a lighter note...

whenever i hear circumcision it reminds me of the old joke a jewish friend told me years ago.

when the "covenant" (Genesis 12:1-3) was made Abraham asked the Lord "you mean the Arabs get all the oil and we have to cut the tip of our peckers?"

As I understand, the Arabs trim their tips as well.

http://www.thaivisa....t/#entry5607226

SC

The Muslim ones anyway.

on a lighter note...

whenever i hear circumcision it reminds me of the old joke a jewish friend told me years ago.

when the "covenant" (Genesis 12:1-3) was made Abraham asked the Lord "you mean the Arabs get all the oil and we have to cut the tip of our peckers?"

As I understand, the Arabs trim their tips as well.

http://www.thaivisa....t/#entry5607226

SC

that comes with the "covenant" agreed between the Lord and ol' Abraham who, according to the Bible and the Qr'an, is the ancestor of all Arabs.

there is an arab fairy tale which contains the claim that the Arabs were rewarded with the oil as a compensation to Abraham's bad treatment of his concubine Hagar who bore him Ishmael the ancestor of all arabs. a long time ago, when i commented that tale's content with an arabic obscene expression, a Saudi demanded satisfaction by duel. we settled then amicably after having finished the bottle of Black Label and singing even more obscene songs.

To suggest that male circumcision is equivalent and as brutal as female circumcision is intellectually dishonest.

How is it "intellectually dishonest"? Clarify yourself.

For me removing part of my sons sexual organ for no good reason is the same conceptas the removal of part of a young girls sexual organ for no good reason.

I had my tonsils removed, but only to prevent recurring illness. and adenoids, while they were about it.

I don't think I would recommend removing the tonsils of newborns for the future health benefits

SC

exactly, it may be beneficial for a man with testicular cancer to remove a tesicle but it isn't something that anyone would suggest doing preventatively at birth.

To suggest that male circumcision is equivalent and as brutal as female circumcision is intellectually dishonest.

How is it "intellectually dishonest"? Clarify yourself.

For me removing part of my sons sexual organ for no good reason is the same conceptas the removal of part of a young girls sexual organ for no good reason.

A man who has been circumcised still gets lots of sexual pleasure. A woman who has been circumcised gets no clitorial pleasure at all. There is no comparison.

not sure how I can say this any more simply. For me, both are an abuse. This is an issue beyond sexual pleasure. it is about removing, for no good reason, a part of a childs sexual organ.

not sure how I can say this any more simply. For me, both are an abuse. This is an issue beyond sexual pleasure. it is about removing, for no good reason, a part of a childs sexual organ.

To me its no different to saying for religious reasons we must cut off your left little finger or your right ear. It is simply wrong to do these things to a person who cannot give consent themselves.

Such cultural "norms" are simply abhorrent, particularly in the context of a parents religious wishes.

In saying that an outright ban on such practices would lead to backstreet clinics and serious danger to children....for that reason I am not in favour of legislation of such kind.

not sure how I can say this any more simply. For me, both are an abuse. This is an issue beyond sexual pleasure. it is about removing, for no good reason, a part of a childs sexual organ.

The problem is that there is a good reason.

It help to prevent disease. Circumcision lessens the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases. It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers. It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

Most circumcision these days is not done for religious reasons. It is done because of the health benefits.

I actually think mostly it is done so that the boy is like Daddy. However, it is not abuse. It is an optional medical procedure.

not sure how I can say this any more simply. For me, both are an abuse. This is an issue beyond sexual pleasure. it is about removing, for no good reason, a part of a childs sexual organ.

The problem is that there is a good reason.

It help to prevent disease. Circumcision lessens the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases. It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers. It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

Most circumcision these days is not done for religious reasons. It is done because of the health benefits.

Do you have a link to documentary evidence in an accredited medical journal that mutilation of a child in this way has significant health benefits over and above those of simply keeping Peter clean?

The American Academy of Pediatrics on has announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.

Properly performed newborn circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis and has been shown to decrease the incidence of cancer of the penis among US men. It may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2664697

All of these problems being mentioned are already extremely rare. Penile cancer being mentioned? I've never seen a case in 20 years!

JT mentions it being "an optional medical procedure". That is fine for him to describe it so, however I will describe it as unnecessary genital mutilation.