In a previous post, I stressed the importance of standing up for the religious freedom of people of every faith, not just those who share our own convictions. In view of a recent development in Germany, I here wish to say that Christians, especially those of us who are Catholics, should be particularly outspoken in defending the rights of Jews and the Jewish people. It is not simply the memory of past crimes committed by Christians, including leaders of the Church, against Jews—crimes sometimes committed in the very name of Christian faith. It is the fact that we are taught by our Church, and so we believe, that the Jews are the chosen people of God, bound to him in an unbroken and unbreakable covenant. Moreover, for Christians, Jews are, in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, our “elder brothers in faith.” From a Christian point of view, the Jewish witness in the world has profound and indispensable spiritual meaning.
The recent development in Germany against which we Christians should loudly raise our voices is described by David Goldman (“Spengler”) in an article published today: “On June 26, the District Court of the Federal State of Cologne ruled that circumcision of children for religious reasons at the instruction of parents constituted the infliction of bodily harm and therefore was a punishable offense.” Of course, for observant Jews, circumcision of male children is not optional. It is required as a matter of Jewish law. To prohibit it is, in effect, to forbid Jews from being Jews.
In his article, Goldman, himself an observant Jew, includes the text of a letter he wrote to two German judges. He says: “Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.” Further on he says: “The neo-pagan illusions of National Socialism have been crushed, although they lurk at the fringes of German politics. Despite their defeat, the National Socialists may have succeeded in extirpating the presence of the divine in German life. No action by responsible public officials since the end of the war has advanced their cause as forcefully as the evil decree you have promulgated.”
Of course, comparing anything to the unfathomable horrors of the Nazi genocide is problematical. The National Socialists hunted down and cruelly murdered every Jewish man, woman, and child they could find. They didn’t simply make it impossible for believing Jews to live in Germany or its occupied lands by banning a practice mandated by religious law. One can nevertheless understand the sense of outrage that would cause Goldman and others in the Jewish community to draw the comparison. What the Cologne court has done is outrageous. It is an outrageous assault on the religious liberty and the rights of conscience of Jews (and Muslims, by the way—the actual case in the Cologne court happened to concern Muslim parents who for religious reasons sought the circumcision of their son).
What was the judges’ motive? I’m not certain. I’m reasonably confident that it was not simply an act of anti-Jewish animus. Still, its disregard for the rights of Jews, rooted in their obligation to fulfill their duties under their covenant with the divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, is deeply disturbing to say the least. Perhaps the judges were moved by an argument, increasingly common in certain circles, claiming that circumcision results in a reduction of sexual pleasure, and thus counts as a form of child abuse when performed on infants (who, of course, cannot consent to the procedure). This argument was among those made by people who recently attempted to persuade the City of San Francisco to enact a law banning circumcision. Fortunately, the City did not enact the ban—for now.
As we Catholics and those of other faiths who have joined with us conclude our Fortnight for Freedom later this week on Independence Day, let us be mindful that the freedom we seek is freedom for all. Yes, it is about the appalling HHS mandates; and yes, it is about laws that shut down Catholic services to orphaned children or Catholic assistance to women trafficked into sexual slavery and other forms of exploitation; but it is also about laws that undermine the ability of Jews, Muslims, and persons of any other faith to fulfill their religious duties; and it is about the rights of people of every religion to manifest their faith in public life as well as in their temples, churches, mosques or homes.
July 3rd, 2012 | 10:53 am
It is an outrageous assault on the religious liberty and the rights of conscience of Jews (and Muslims, by the way—the actual case in the Cologne court happened to concern Muslim parents who for religious reasons sought the circumcision of their son).
An English translation of the judge’s ruling can be downloaded here.
Considering the fact that it was indeed a Muslim (a 4-year-old boy) whose circumcision was the subject of the ruling, I am not quite sure why Muslims come up “by the way.”
Of course, for observant Jews, circumcision of male children is not optional. It is required as a matter of Jewish law. To prohibit it is, in effect, to forbid Jews from being Jews.
The judge’s ruling did not ban circumcision. It said circumcision could not be performed before a male was old enough to consent to it. That is, of course, in conflict with Jewish practice and law, but it doesn’t “forbid Jews from being Jews.”
What the Cologne court has done is outrageous.
I don’t think instant outrage, especially before debating the issue, is appropriate. Circumcision is a surgical procedure. It is the only religiously mandated surgical procedure I can think of, and the fact that it has been performed for millennia as a religious ritual does not, in my opinion, mean it cannot be questioned and debated. And of course virtually no one reading or writing here or on Mirror of Justice would argue that female circumcision should be permitted as a matter of religious freedom.
Still, its disregard for the rights of Jews, rooted in their obligation to fulfill their duties under their covenant with the divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, is deeply disturbing to say the least.
I don’t think any court (unless it is an Israeli court, and even there I doubt it) is required to look on Jewish circumcision this way. Jews may believe they have an obligation because of a covenant with “the divine Creator and Ruler of the universe,” but certainly no court or judge is expect to rule on a matter of religious freedom by accepting as a fact the religious claim under scrutiny. This could lead to those in the Judeo-Christian tradition permitting religious circumcision of Jews (because God commanded it) but not of Muslims, since Jews and Christians (one imagines) don’t believe that Muslim law is truly of divine origin. So it seems to me a legal defense of circumcision based on religious freedom cannot use as an argument that God himself commands Jews to be circumcised. The Jewish belief should have no more weight than the Muslim belief. It is not up to courts to decide whether or not Jews made a covenant with God. That is not open to proof in court.
It is not difficult at all for me to believe the judge in this case (and apparently the prosecutors) believe that circumcision is bodily harm to a child too young to give consent, and that—under German law, which probably none of us her know anything about— it is quite plausible to construe circumcision of a nonconsenting child as a criminal act.
That said, there may very well be medical reasons that justify circumcision as at least an option parents have a right to choose for any male child (not just a child born with a medical problem), and in that case, it would make no sense whatsoever to prohibit circumcision as a religious ritual but permit it to all parents who choose it for medical reasons.
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:10 am
Wow, David Nickol
Did you pull a hamstring or throw out your back twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend an incredibly (and obviously) offensive judicial ruling.
Hoping you warmed up and did your stretching exercises before writing that.
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:16 am
Dr. Edward Green of Harvard, past head of an international AIDs group, agreed with Pope Benedict XVI that two of the most effective ways to fight AIDs are male circumcision and abstinence/monogamy. He said that random distribution of condoms may have some secondary value in the sense that condoms might in themselves help somewhat, but he said that the randomness undermines traditional morality and thus contributes to spreading AIDs. I think it was Bono who was booed on The Daily Show and elsewhere for praising President George W. Bush for his major contribution to the fight against AIDs. People didn’t want to hear that. Nor did they want to hear what Green said. And note that while female circumcision (female genital mutilation) is intended to reduce female libido and thus female giving up of virginity or female unfaithfulness, there is some evidence that male circumcision enhances sexual pleasure. Sadly, Jon Stewart never spoke up against the San Francisco failed effort to put a ban on male circumcision on the ballot (the judge ruling that a city has no jurisdiction in such medical matters) even when one of its leaders circulated anti-Semitic cartoons of blood-thirsty rabbis. And at the same exact time that the German court persecution of Jews was announced, Stewart did a satire on Kosher hotdogs that made fun of male circumcision. As with San Francisco, he has again been silent on the persecution. When the HHS regulation on Catholic and religious non-worship institutions was announced, Stewart and Colbert were off for a week. The liberal media eventually decided to spin the situation as an attack on women; and Stewart and Colbert then echoed them. Now they are off for two weeks. It would be no surprise if the liberal media simply continues its silence on the persecution of German Jews and if Stewart and Colbert simply “echo” that silence. And, as is said in law, silence gives consent.
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:17 am
The Catholic faith says this about “Respect for bodily integrity”: “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” (N. 2297) Circumcision (the amputation of healthy foreskins) for non-therapeutic medical reasons violates the moral law. The Church should not be defending actions that go against the moral law, whatever the reasoning behind them.
Various religions have done things throughout history that violate both the law of love as taught by Jesus, but also the human rights of others. Judaic law required the stoning to death of adulterers during the time that Jesus walked this earth. That is no longer part of Judaism, but at one time it was. Unfortunately, stoning to death is still advocated by some radical Muslims. We don’t defend that on religious grounds.
Mormons at one time believed polygamy was alright in their set of religious beliefs. The Catholic Church did not defend that. Catholics judge an action, but not people.
Female circumcision is the religious belief of some in Africa and the Middle East who are part of the Islamic faith. Christians should not defend this practice against children just because it is advocated as a religious right. One person’s religious rights end where another person’s human rights begin. Catholic Christians need to defend the rights of children before birth (that’s why we don’t believe in abortion) and after birth (that’s why we should be defending respect for bodily integrity).
The Aztec religion practiced human sacrifice, but that shouldn’t be defended on religious grounds. One has to examine the action being done to determine if it violates the moral law. In the case of male circumcision, a German court stood up for the rights of children against bodily harm. The German court allows for circumcisions done for therapeutic reasons.
Their decision is in line with Catholic Catechism teaching #2297.
Jewish males who wish to be circumcised can still do so as adults, if that is THEIR choice. This court decision only delays the decision to allow males to decide for themselves, and not have circumcision forced upon them as infants. It does not ban circumcision for Jewish adults or Muslim adults who desire that.
Jewish circumcision originally consisted of amputating only the foreskin that extended beyond the glans. In the second century A.D., Jewish circumcision changed to removal of the entire foreskin, a much more serious bodily harm. Some Orthodox Jews today also engage in metzitzah b’peh, which is the oral suctioning of the baby’s sex organ following circumcision. Some babies have contracted herpes and died as a result. Most people today would speak out against this religious practice as the sexual abuse of children. It’s hard to imagine the Catholic Church defending metzitzah b’peh done for religious reasons.
I encourage people to watch and listen to a video online of an infant circumcision. It is hard to believe that this is how God wants us to be (mis)treating His children, whom He creates perfectly in His image.
Circumcision is no longer necessary. St. Paul warned Christians about circumcision quite strongly in Philippians 3:2-3: “Beware of unbelieving dogs. Watch out for workers of evil. Be on guard against those who mutilate. It is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus rather than putting our trust in the flesh.”
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:19 am
The motives of the court of Köln are absolutely noble. However, they lack an important one:
The court ruled that:
- circumcision was a “severe and irreversible interference into physical integrity.”
- the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”.
- “This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs.”
The court did not point out that circumcision is intended to give communities that practise it a so-called moral superiority, which makes it a quasi-racist measure.
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:31 am
Did you pull a hamstring or throw out your back twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend an incredibly (and obviously) offensive judicial ruling.
Steve Billingsley,
Is there something specific I said that you disagree with? Did you read the ruling itself?
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:52 am
“The judge’s ruling did not ban circumcision. It said circumcision could not be performed before a male was old enough to consent to it. That is, of course, in conflict with Jewish practice and law, but it doesn’t “forbid Jews from being Jews.”
That is a real stretch. To be a Jew requires one to circumcise one’s sons on the eighth day after birth. It doesn’t “forbid Jews from being Jews” in the sense that it doesn’t require them to become something else permanently, but certainly not in the sense that it does not outlaw a core practice according to the faith’s dictates of how that practice should be done.
July 3rd, 2012 | 12:44 pm
It seems to be a dodge and a hiding somewhat of what is being said to charge that male circumcision is “quasi-racist.” One should either say it is racist or not say that.
Note that whatever problems there are with the Gospel of John, scholars have distinguished regarding what he means with the word “Judeans.” Cf.”‘The Jews’ in the Fourth Gospel” by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. http://catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-Jews.htm We learn from scholars like Just and from Vatican warnings for the reading of John’s Gospel on Good Friday that we must be nuanced including taking into account the varied uses in John of that word: “A)specifically and only to the ‘Jewish leaders and authorities,’ rather than to the people as a whole; B)only or mainly to the people living in the geographical territory of Judea, that is, ‘the Judeans’; C)to all members (or some or any in general) of the ethnic/religious group of people still called ‘Jews’ today.”
We ourselves should certainly distinguish between the ethnic group or the religion. A person might not belong to that ethnic group and yet join that religion, including by means of male circumcision. It is clear that that instance is not “quasi-racist,” insofar as the word “racist” has any meaning in the phrase, because there is no sense in which racial or ethnic superiority is being claimed by that ritual (the term “moral superiority” was poorly chosen; the writer meant “existential or status superiority”).
Nor is a member of the Semitic ethnic group who is not circumcised affirming some kind of “quasi-racist” superiority in the simple fact of being Semitic while not being circumcised.
Note that if one focuses on Jewish male religious circumcision, it is like Baptism. There is clearly an affirmation in the Jewish rite that the person is receiving a special status; that the person is moving closer to God than the person was before the ritual; maybe even that the person is closer to God than a male who has not received the ritual or than a person who is not practicing the Jewish religion.
Note that Chris Matthews said that he is a Catholic because he thinks the Catholic religion is superior to other religions and beliefs; and that it doesn’t make sense to be a Catholic (or whatever religion or belief) if a person does not believe that his religion is superior in important ways.
On the other hand, PJ dismisses both actual circumcision and being Jewish in a dangerous way. It’s clear that the Second Vatican Council took into account various biblical and church teachings and came to the conclusion that the divine covenant with the Jews is still in effect and that the Jews are still God’s Chosen People. Neither Catholics nor other Christians should conclude that just because the Catholic faith and also in many ways Christianity offers some improvements or advantages over the Jewish faith that the Jewish faith (and many other faiths and philosophies) are of no religious, moral, or existential value at all.
July 3rd, 2012 | 12:45 pm
Michael Herve etc….
You’ve just created a principle that essentially removes religion from any protection at all in the name of restricting “racist” practices. Every religion has some cultic ritual that outwardly separates its members and therefore in some sense deems them “superior” (or at least superiorly blessed) to outsiders. Baptism, circumcision, the practice of the Five Pillars, and on and on. If you eliminate the right to marks of group elitism, you’ve eliminated core practices of every imaginable religion, and free exercise means nothing.
July 3rd, 2012 | 12:47 pm
PJ,
I would like a more precise definition of “amputations, mutilations and sterilizations” from you, because I am nearly absolutely confident (at the .01 level) you are misinterpreting Catholic canon law.
What is male circumcision more like: skin piercing or human sacrifice? Why is the former allowed even upon children? Not only by the state but by the Church?
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:03 pm
According to the Cologne judge, this case turns on “the parents’ right to religious upbringing of their children” versus “the right of the child to physical integrity and to self-determination”. It is at root a contest for authority over children between parents on the one hand and experts of various kinds on the other.
Consider the judge’s appeal to “the prevailing view in the literature” as to a definition of “the best interests of the child”.
Much also hinges on the definition of “reasonable”. The judge finds male circumcision
in its essence “unreasonable”. He finds that a ban on the circumcision of young boys does not “unreasonably” hinder the exercise of their right of upbringing.
As John Rawls shows us, “reasonable” often plays a key role in a liberal slight-of-hand. It seems to point toward something objective and obvious when in fact it is a cover for “what I happen to think is right”.
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:16 pm
“… that circumcision is intended to give communities that practise it a so-called moral superiority, which makes it a quasi-racist measure.”
Wouldn’t you say the same about the eucharist? Or, really, any religious practice? Or are Jews uniquely predisposed to so-called moral superiority and quasi-racism?
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:41 pm
George’s comments are really over the top and extremely short-sighted.
Male circumcision is a harmful non-therapeutic surgical operation that amputates an important multi-functional body part and irreversibly injures the child for life.
The child has his own religious rights. Prohibition of infant circumcision protects the child’s right to decide his own religion.
Here in the United States, the U. S. Supreme Court has already held that parents do not have the right to injure children in the name of religion. In the case of Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) the court said:
“The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child[p167] to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. Pierson, 176 N.Y. 201, 68 N.E. 243. [n13] The catalogue need not be lengthened. It is sufficient to show what indeed appellant hardly disputes, that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction. … Other harmful possibilities could be stated, of emotional excitement and psychological or physical injury. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.”
There has never been a parental right in the United States to injure children in the name of religion. I hope there never will be.
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:43 pm
David N,
A practice that is core to the Jewish faith, a sign of the Covenant and an essential rite is to be delayed from the 8th day after birth until the boy is 18 years old (the usual age of consent for “medical procedures”) and you see it as no big threat to religious freedom of practice? Despite your protestations to the contrary that is an incredible stretch.
If there were an essential practice of the Christian faith that could, by judicial fiat or state mandate, be delayed for up to 18 years (one of the RC seven sacraments, say) would you find ~that~ reasonable?
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:46 pm
pentamom,
I think you have too many nots or something in there, but I certainly agree prohibiting infant circumcision would “outlaw a core practice according to the faith’s dictates of how that practice should be done.” I wouldn’t want to make too much of this analogy, but it might be something like forbidding Catholics to baptize anyone under 12.
The price of (religious) liberty is eternal vigilance, so it is perfectly appropriate for this to have set off a whole controversy. But for me there are two points. First, this definitely isn’t going to stand and then spread throughout German and then Europe and then the world. Second, there are good, sincere people who believe that circumcision is unwarranted mutilation of a helpless baby, and it is not a crazy position.
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:50 pm
I think David’s post is spot on, and it’s revealing that no one professing outrage at this ruling, including Robert George, has offered anything even in the neighborhood of a reasoned response to it. The retreat behind repeated mutterings of “religious freedom” just shows how vapid the phrase has become of late, which is a real pity. There are extremely important but complicated issues here. How to balance the rights of parents and the interests of children has always been tricky.
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:54 pm
We Catholics, together with the Orthodox Church, celebrate the circumcision of Christ.
Mary and Joseph were observant Jews and let Jesus circumcised on the eighth day after his birth.
That is the reason why it concerns also us Catholics, for religious reason.
And out of a secular deliberation, religious freedom is to be protected, and it is my duty of a citizen in a free country to defend the rights of any religious communities for their free practice.
July 3rd, 2012 | 1:57 pm
Btw. the German Foreign minister, an open gay man, defends the right of the Jews and calls for a positive right to protect the right of Jews and Muslims of being able to practice their faith.
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:02 pm
It is at root a contest for authority over children between parents on the one hand and experts of various kinds on the other.
Darel,
Certainly you wouldn’t say that such a “contest” is automatically illegitimate. I think you are implying that the court is wrong because it’s just another case of “liberals” who place too much stock in “experts” and are trying to take away parental authority. But there are plenty of cases where experts are right. We simply don’t recognize absolute parental authority over children any more, nor should we. So your characterization of this as a contest between parents and “experts” doesn’t automatically tell us who is right. If this were female circumcision instead of male circumcision, everyone here would be on the side of the “experts.” If parents were given absolute authority over their children, there would be no grounds for opposing abortion even if everyone agreed personhood begins at conception.
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:26 pm
. . . and you see it as no big threat to religious freedom of practice?
david c.,
Where did I say that? Of course it would be a major intrusion on religious practice. I made the analogy to baptism myself (July 3rd, 2012 | 1:46 pm), although it is not a perfect analogy. Let me once again bring up female circumcision, which is a religious and cultural practice that goes back at least two millennia. Those who want to practice it may quite correctly complain that outlawing it is an infringement on their freedom of religion and their parental authority. Now, I am not saying male and female circumcision are anywhere close to being equivalent. But if people had reacted to the banning of female circumcision by simply declaring it was an outrageous infringement of religious liberty, it wouldn’t be illegal in the United States today. You don’t settle disputes about religious liberty by screaming, “How outrageous! It’s the Nazis all over again!” You look at the issues and decide whether society has sufficient reason to infringe on religious liberty, and sometimes society does.
I am saying that those who would like to ban circumcision have a case. I am not saying they have a good enough case that they should get their way. I am saying that if you want to resolve the matter, you discuss it rationally instead of saying they are “obviously” and “outrageously” wrong. Nobody ever won an argument by declaring himself or herself to be “obviously” right. There are plenty of cases in history where what was “obvious” to people at the time is by no means “obvious” to us today.
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:29 pm
Roland,
This statement is the most ridiculous yet made on this thread: “Male circumcision is a harmful non-therapeutic surgical operation that amputates an important multi-functional body part and irreversibly injures the child for life.”
1. Define “harm”.
2. Other have already noted the medical literature on the therapeutic qualities of male circumcision.
3. “amputation” is extreme language here. No one refers to a face lift as “partial facial amputation”. The skin is a unique human organ and the fact that the foreskin is skin is a very important part of the matter at hand.
4. “irreversibly injures” is also extreme language. Male circumcision certainly does not permanently disable the penis from its natural functions nor even permanently impair its functioning. Any definition of “irreversibly injures” would at the very least need to include this meaning.
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:35 pm
pentamom,
Your insightful comment uncovers the radical individualist doctrine at the root of this court decision. According to the Cologne judge, human beings are members of groups only incidentally, who are endowed (by whom? what?) with rights of “self-determination” from their moment of birth. This is a comprehensive doctrine inimical not only to every form of religion but to every form of group identity as well. It is also prima facie nonsensical.
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:56 pm
This all has to do with the degree of what’s going on. I think most of us would agree that religious freedom does not extend to parents cutting off their infant’s left hand, for instance.
But we’re talking about a relatively minor procedure here. Does it diminish sexual sensation a little? Yes. Is this counterbalanced some by the fact that circumcision helps protect against various diseases? Yes. The fact that non-Jewish parents often choose to circumcise their children for non-religious reasons shows that it’s not completely off the deep end.
Considering that circumcision has been the historic marker of Jewish identity (just check out the debates they had in Acts) and is a central religious practice of the Jewish faith, I’m not sure why this isn’t an obvious religious freedom issue. Especially considering that its widespread, voluntary practice by non-Jews shows that it’s hardly an extreme practice.
July 3rd, 2012 | 3:38 pm
A German Muslim made recently a quite good point. He compares circumcision to vaccination. Vaccination can be dangerous in rare cases and negative consequences, still, vaccination for children is prescribed in most civilized countries.
Vaccination pierced the skin and bring foreign body to your blood circuit. Doesn’t it harm the baby bodily as well? And doesn’t adenoidectomy cut off a part of the body as well? And why no ideological fight dogs are barking at these “body injuries”? The ban of circumcision is insane, silly, against common sense and civilisation. It shows the totalitarian mentality of today’s so called “liberals”.
That German Muslim put it well, he says, it shows the tendency to take all the freedom of parents away and put children under the surveillance of social workers. It shows the tendency to a big brother or nanny state.
The ban itself is against the freedom of individuals as a whole.
July 3rd, 2012 | 4:09 pm
David,
We’ve been around your 2:02pm posting already. Of course, I am not arguing in defense of absolute parental sovereignty over children. If there are any need for clarification, see the discussion at Br. White’s original posting on this issue.
I am here simply trying to demonstrate a fundamental underlying issue overlooked by Robert George. This is not only about religious liberty. In fact, reading the judicial decision, I don’t even think it is primarily about religious liberty. It is instead about advancing a comprehensive individualist doctrine innately hostile to all forms of group identity and thus potentially to all practices beyond contracts, i.e. all meaningful and powerful practices, which constitute groups.
July 3rd, 2012 | 4:17 pm
A German Muslim made recently a quite good point. He compares circumcision to vaccination.
teresa,
Actually, that is a very weak point. Vaccinations, adenoidectomy, tonsillectomies, and so on are all medical procedures done for medical reasons, and they can all be evaluated as such. Circumcision in the case under discussion was performed on a 4-year-old for purely religious reasons.
Suppose parents brought a child to a doctor and said they wanted the child’s adenoids removed. Suppose the doctor examines the child and finds the adenoids to be perfectly healthy. And then the parents say they want the adenoids removed for religious reasons. Do you honestly think the doctor should agree?
Can you name any other surgical procedure that is performed for religious reasons? (Sure, female circumcision. But what else?)
The ban of circumcision is insane, silly, against common sense and civilisation.
So does this mean you oppose it? :P
I do not, by the way, side with the judge, and I am willing to bet this will be the last case a judge makes such a decision in Germany. If you are following the case, the judge has no support from anywhere in the German government. This certainly would be a real threat to religious liberty if it had any chance of being the beginning of a growing movement to ban circumcision. But I simply can’t believe that is going to happen.
July 3rd, 2012 | 4:32 pm
David — I never suggested there was nothing to opposition to circumcision or that merely invoking religious freedom stopped all arguments.
I was just pointing out that claiming that banning of circumcision of one’s children according to actual Jewish prescribed practice does not substantially interfere with Jewish identity is way too narrow. It’s hard to claim that being forbidden to circumcise one’s children is merely an inconvenient infringement on practice rather than an attack on a core principle of what it means to be a practicing Jew. You don’t need to assume that every time I point out a weakness in one of your points, I’m claiming that there is no merit in any argument you agree with.
July 3rd, 2012 | 4:42 pm
@David Nickol, if you are following the case closely, you will know that 56% Germans are in favour of banning circumcision, if you are following the case closely, you will also know that the Jewish Hospital in Berlin has already stopped performing circumcision because the doctors there are afraid of being persecuted by law and they are awaiting the decision of a higher level court.
Btw. I repeat that the Feast of Circumcision of Christ is still celebrated today under the name of the Octave of Nativity, the mass reading of this Feast Day says more than clearly enough: “When eight days were completed for his circumcision,
he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel
before he was conceived in the womb”.
In the Massbook of 1962, this day is still called the circumcision of Christ, and the Old Rite is a legitimate rite of today’s Church, just for your information. If there is anything not so clear, please read “Summorum Pontificum”, issued by Pope Benedict in 2007.
July 3rd, 2012 | 8:25 pm
Why do we celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision? Ask the Register, The Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, Reprinted from December 13, 1996
We don’t. For more than 30 years, the Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus, which fell on Jan. 1, for several centuries, was replaced in the
liturgical calendar by a more ancient celebration, the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The account of the circumcision and naming of Jesus can be found in the Gospel according to Saint Luke (2:21).
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God: Theotokos
Reference: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000Dec/dec31lit.htm
Pope Paul VI pronounced this special feast in 1970 to supercede the Feast of the Circumcision, which had been in vogue since early in the 6th Century. The Holy Father changed the feast to bring the Latin Calendar
more into accord with Eastern tradition in the Byzantine Church which emphasizes the Marian character of this feast as the octave of Christmas. This is, however, not a new feast for it had been celebrated as early as the 5th Century on the Sunday before Christmas. . . The Holy Father took this occasion to also institute that a World Day of Peace be celebrated on
this same day ‘bringing forth fruits of peace in the hearts of many.’
July 3rd, 2012 | 11:45 pm
Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Adopted by UN 1948)
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Seems broad enough to protect religious circumcision as religious practice and observance. It is incorporated into Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and has the force of law in Germany.
July 4th, 2012 | 12:18 am
Try to remember that the children being cut on are not religious.
They are completely helpless, in pain, confused, and terrified.
People keep forgetting that, people who claim to be moral.
July 4th, 2012 | 12:31 am
I’m inclined to think that, if circumcision is to occur as a marker of religious identity, it would be much more meaningful for circumcisions to occur when the subjects are adults fully capable of informed consent. (This consent, this conscious embrace, would ideally extend not only to the surgical act itself, mind, but to the religion that motivated the circumcision.)
July 4th, 2012 | 3:08 am
The 4th Joyful Mystery of the rosary is a meditation on this. First Things recently had an article on artwork that linked the blood of the circumcision to the blood of the cross (Dec 2011 by Dianne Phillips).
Almost all cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis occur in uncircumcised men. This is mainly caused by HPV, the most common STD. Circumsized boys have a slightly less incidence of urinary tract infections. The pain of circumcision is much less in an infant than in an older child or man who has developed phimosis (adhesion of the foreskin to the glans). Infants who are circumsized in the West are not “terrified”, any more than those infants who need blood draws or get vaccines. Ask a nurse who has ever worked in a nursing home about uncircumsized men when they have to clean them or insert a catheter. It is more difficult. No anatomy is made dysfunctional by circumcision, much of the foreskin is left intact with Gomco or Mogen or Plastibell methods used.
The religious reasons and medical reasons for circumcision overlap. Anti-circ people are often in the same parade as the anti-vaccine people and cannot be satisfied with reasonable arguments.
I find it intriguing that the city most obsessed with banning circs is the city most obsessed with boy/male anatomy.
July 4th, 2012 | 4:17 am
Darel
I do not see the “individualism” you refer to as novel or “radical.”
It was a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment that the nature of the human person can be adequately described without mention of social relationships. A person’s relations with others, even if important, are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to one’s being what one is. This principle underlies all their talk about the “state of nature” and the “social contract,” and from it is derived the notion that the only obligations are those voluntarily assumed.
Bentham brings this out very clearly. To begin with, he asserts that the idea of “relation” is but a “fictitious entity,” though necessary for “convenience of discourse.” And, more specifically, he remarks that “the community is a fictitious body,” and it is but “the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it.”
For the ancients, of course, like Plato and Aristotle, to consider the individual in isolation from the polis, or community, was like talking about a foot or an eye, without reference to the body, as a whole. In modern times, it was Hegel and his followers, notably Fichte who championed the ancient insight.
July 4th, 2012 | 4:24 am
zengardener, that may be true. Many week-old children exhibit signs of being “completely helpless, in pain, confused, and terrified,” usually through crying and so forth. Indeed probably all children up to perhaps five or six years old are completely helpless, and it is true that they are often in some sort of pain, confused, and perhaps now and again terrified. What of it? Are you suggesting that whatsoever circumstances may cause discomfort in infants ought to be illegal? Is the pacification of infants the highest law?
July 4th, 2012 | 4:49 am
@PJ, yes we do. The Old Rite is not abolished and is still in use, as our Holy Father clearly states, and even in the Mass reading for the New Rite the circumcision is mentioned on the Day of the Solemnity of Mary, also called the Octave of Nativity.
Btw. there is a strange organisation called “Catholics against circumcision”, and your comment has the same wording like one of them pasted 2 years ago on a site for Traditional Mass.
http://sthughofcluny.org/2009/12/traditional-masses-for-the-feast-of-the-circumcision.html
July 4th, 2012 | 4:53 am
Btw. even the Lutherans and Anglicans celebrate the Feast of Circumcision.
July 4th, 2012 | 4:58 am
Teresa: Vaccination provides STRONG, PROVED protection against DEADLY, CONTAGIOUS diseases of CHILDREN, now rare precisely because of vaccination. Circumcision debatably provides slight reductions in already-rare diseases of late onset, that can be better prevented by other means, or treated as they arise. Many of the medical claims for circumcision are completely bogus. Non-therapeutic “medical” circumcision was introduced to punish, prevent and “cure” masturbation (J H Kellogg recommended circumcision for boys, carbolic acid for girls), and thereby epilepsy, tuberculosis and all manner of other terrifying ailments. It didn’t work of course but the children made very sure they were not caught again lest worse befall, so the adults thought it did. Non-therapeutic circumcision is almost unknown in Germany (and most of the developed world, outside the USA), so the focus is on religion only by default. The Court’s decision would certainly cover non-therapeutic circumcision too.
July 4th, 2012 | 5:06 am
“I stressed the importance of standing up for the religious freedom of people of every faith, not just those who share our own convictions.”
Or those of their parents.
“let us be mindful that the freedom we seek is freedom for all”
And “all” must include the person at the centre of every circumcision. We have no idea whether any particular baby will grow up to embrace his or her parents’ religion, or yet embrace this particular aspect of it. (In Europe especially, Jews are leaving their children intact in significant numbers.) There is no religion yet that excludes circumcised men, but Sikhism values the intact body, not circumcising or even cutting the hair. A circumcised convert might well feel he was “not a real Sikh” and unlike an intact Muslim or Jew, it would be much harder for him to do anything about it.
July 4th, 2012 | 9:26 am
I think people are missing the point. The German Court’s ruling does not violate the BOY’s religious freedom, in fact, it preserves it. At the same time, it preserves his body. Remaining INTACT is everyone’s right, including children.
Goldman hits below the belt with his comment, “Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision.” They didn’t ban circumcision on purpose; penile status was an easy way to identify Jews, but then Goldman knows this already and he’s being disingenuous.
July 4th, 2012 | 10:06 am
“Try to remember that the children being cut on are not religious.
They are completely helpless, in pain, confused, and terrified.”
Nicely encapsulating both Darel’s point about pernicious radical individualism, and teresa’s point about vaccination. All my infants were helpless, in pain, confused and terrified when undergoing ANY medical procedure — or even sometimes when being given a bath or having a diaper rash treated. There needs to be a higher standard for banning something than “it causes pain to babies who don’t understand what’s going on.”
July 4th, 2012 | 11:44 am
Considering the “great harm” that circumcision allegedly imposes, one wonders where all the bodies were in the 1950s, when circumcision was routinely practiced on Jew and gentile alike “for medical reasons.” (It made it easier to keep it clean.) Evidently, the “medical reasons” of them thar days have given way to the “medical reasons” of these here days. We can only wait for tomorrow.
One also wonders what are the multiple functions performed by this “important multi-functional body part.” Are they comparable to the functions performed by the finger- and toe-nails? What is the status of nail clippers?
July 4th, 2012 | 12:11 pm
There needs to be a higher standard for banning something than “it causes pain to babies who don’t understand what’s going on.”
pentamom,
But there is a higher standard. Whatever medical procedure is being done that causes pain to babies who don’t understand what is going on should be medically justifiable.
Remember that what is being discussed here is not banning circumcision, but postponing it until the person being circumcised can consent to it. Most (but not all) of the medical reasons being offered here in favor of circumcision apply to adult men, not to young boys.
While I think a very good case can be made for banning infant circumcision for non-medical reasons, I would say it constitutes an unacceptable intrusion on Jewish and Muslim religious practice. (According to Wikipedia, the population of Germany is 4.0% Muslim and 0.2% Jewish. That is, there are 20 times as many Muslims in Germany as Jews.)
An interesting question is, supposing there were a ban on infant circumcision for religious reasons, how many Jewish and Muslim males, when they reached whatever age was considered old enough to consent, would choose to undergo circumcision. As was seen in early Christianity, voluntary circumcision as an adult for religious reasons is a lot less popular than infant circumcision.
July 4th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
TXW:
“Almost all cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis occur in uncircumcised men. This is mainly caused by HPV, the most common STD.”
Fortunately, there’s a vaccine for that.
July 4th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
pentamom,
But there is a higher standard. Whatever medical procedure is being done that causes pain to babies who don’t understand what is going on should be medically justifiable.
So why is circumcision singled out, and ear piercings of four year olds also to be criminalized?
Because ear piercings don’t hold any value, while circumcision is an important thing in both religious and identity terms.
The real motive here is to explicitly deprive religious people both of the ability to have their children raised in the religious faith, and to have the children identified (that is, to have an identity) as part of the religious group.
The goal is to weaken rival religions and to weaken rival identities.
If you doubt the truth of this, simply gather up the people arguing about the supposed evils of circumcision and see what they say (or don’t say) about other procedures that parents inflict on their children – that children are entitled to protection from.
Like abortion.
Or operations, hormones, drugs, or any other procedure meant to delay, tamper with, or alter puberty, gender, or sex attributes.
Or cosmetic procedures – from body piercings to boob or nose jobs. I’ve noticed tattoos are getting younger and younger (aren’t there supposed to be laws preventing little kids from getting tattoos?)
If you stop defining “harm” as clearly and only physical, and allow that the successful construction of an identity is as meaningful as the successful construction of a physical body – and that successful identities can be religious as well as humanist in their values – then the whole argument falls apart, because clearly the goal here is not to prevent harm (circumcision does not do harm), but to cause harm – through denying the social unit its ability to pass on its values, identity construction traditions, and covenant with God, to its young.
The goal is the destruction of the social unit, because humanism is an intolerant ideology that believes it’s okay to behave unethically if the goal is to destroy ideological rivals.
July 4th, 2012 | 6:49 pm
Michael PS,
If you cannot see that Bentham was a radical, you need to recheck your intellectual history!
There is no utilitarian society in the world, and there never will be.
July 4th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
The Cologne judge claimed that infants have two rights at stake in this case: [1] the right to “self-determination”; and [2] the right to “physical integrity”.
When speaking of infants and young children, I have no idea what right [1] means or could mean. The state, of course, violates this right constantly. The justification, of course, is “in the best interests of the child”. But who determines what those are? It seems again that the state does. Yet how do we know that the best interests of a Jewish or Muslim child are not circumcision? The state is using a very narrow medical definition of “interests”.
As far as right [2] goes, we have no real definition of what “physical integrity” means beyond the judge’s own words of “permanently and irreparably changed”. Of course, a particular kind of diet or sports regimen can and often does accomplish the very same thing. One could even include ear piercing in the same category. Moreover, the law allows adult violations of physical integrity with considerable latitude, so there isn’t anything particularly sacred about remaining physically intact.
This judge is wrestling with what liberals have always had trouble: the status of children. He seems to want to keep all persons in an 18 year holding pattern and then on the magical date enter into the Great Project of Becoming Themselves.
July 4th, 2012 | 7:35 pm
Catholicism teaches that the right to physical integrity begins at conception. Amputation and mutilation are prohibited. We cannot tolerate circumcisions for the same reasons we cannot tolerate abortion. The sanctity and dignity of human life is to be protected from conception to natural death.
July 4th, 2012 | 9:21 pm
“But there is a higher standard. Whatever medical procedure is being done that causes pain to babies who don’t understand what is going on should be medically justifiable.”
Yes, that is a good starting point. But it is also necessary to remember that any restriction should also be constitutionally permissible. The First Amendment does not guarantee freedom of religion except when medically unnecessary physical procedures are involved.
Again, I’m not saying “freedom of religion trumps all” here. I realize there is a line that has to be drawn. I am just saying that when you have competing principles at play,”It acutely hurts the non-consenting baby” isn’t enough to seal the case when you also need to overcome the law’s bias in favor of religious practice. I was not making a case against the ban on circumcision, but against zengardener’s too simplistic reasoning in favor of it.
July 5th, 2012 | 3:53 am
Why confine the justification of circumcision to medical grounds? Should not social reasons be taken into account? “Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” – Ostracism from one’s family and social group is a real evil.
July 5th, 2012 | 10:33 am
When our sons were born in 1973 and 1976, one in a military hospital and the other in a hospital associated with a state university medical school, the pediatricians recommended circumcision for medical reasons. It was done with rubber sheath that starved blood from the foreskin without surgery, so it was not like the traditional Jewish bris. But this was a standard medical practice in the US for years that had nothing to do with religioys observance. Given the fact that circumcision has an established history as a widely accepted secular medical practice, how can it be “unreasonable” in any objective way if it happens to be performed in a religious context?
The burden is on someone who is attacking a religioys practice of three thousand years standing to demonstrate that it has objective harms that all reasonable persons recognize and that outweigh all of the benefits associated with it.
I can frankly not think of any objective criterion in which circumcised men are clearly at a disadvantage compared to uncircumcised men.
July 5th, 2012 | 10:46 am
My comments don’t get posted, but I’ll try again.
TXW said this about circumcision, “The 4th Joyful Mystery of the rosary is a meditation on this.” The 4th Joyful Mystery of the rosary is a meditation on The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, which is NOT a meditation on the circumcision of Jesus. The Presentation took place 40 days after Jesus’ birth, and His circumcision took place 8 days after His birth. It is easy to become confused about this, but they are two separate events. None of the mysteries of the rosary are a meditation on the circumcision of Jesus. Unless, of course, one wants to reflect upon how circumcision was the first time Jesus’ innocent blood was shed and the Sorrowful Mysteries are about how Jesus’ innocent blood was shed in His Passion and Death on the Cross.
The Catholic Church teaches that circumcision is unnecessary now. Acts 15: 10 says this about circumcision. “Why, then, do you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? 11 Our belief is rather that we are saved by the favor of the Lord Jesus and so are they.”
This yoke that Peter, the first Pope, is speaking about is circumcision as practiced in the 1st century A.D. when he lived- the removal of only the foreskin that extended beyond the glans. It is not the circumcision that involves removal of the entire foreskin that was instituted in the 2nd century A.D. and which is practiced by Jews and Muslims (and doctors) today.
Do those who want Jews to circumcise their sons to do so as it was practiced from the time of Abraham until the 2nd century A.D.? Or, do they want the Jewish people to practice ritual circumcision that dates from the 2nd century A.D., and which is far more extensive and harmful?
For Darel, The American Heritage Dictionary defines amputate as “To cut off (a part of the body), esp. by surgery,” and it defines therapeutic as “Having healing or curative powers.” In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics described circumcision as “amputation of the foreskin,” and the American Medical Association called elective circumcision “non-therapeutic” (Council on Scientific Affairs 1999).
Fr. John J. Dietzen, M.A., S.T.L. wrote this in The Question Box, October 2004. “Today, while nontherapeutic male circumcision remains common in some places, as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral the law” (N. 2297).”
Definitions for the words mutilation and sterilization can be found in any dictionary.
Baptism has been compared to circumcision by some. Baptism involves the pouring of water on a child and leaves no visible physical scars. It is no more painful than bathing a child, which all parents do for their child.
Jesus came as the Savior for ALL mankind, including both Jews and Gentiles. The New Testament teaches that circumcision is unnecessary now. It is no longer necessary for anyone, but those who do not accept Jesus as their Savior do not accept this teaching.
Click on the name PJ to go to a website where you can learn more about Catholic teaching on circumcision.
July 5th, 2012 | 11:03 am
YOS –
Yup, medical consensus changes from time to time. You’re absolutely right.
The conclusion to draw from that, however, is not, ‘All medical consensus is bunk.’
If one is going to argue about the medical and therapeutic reasons for circumcision, one will need to deal with all the data, including recent ones. And also with the history of how and why circumcision became popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s in English-speaking countries.
(BTW, I’m not an ‘anti-circ’ activist, and am certainly not in favor of banning male circumcision. I just find the medical arguments for it to be rather weak. Humanity survived for at least a hundred thousand years with foreskins.)
July 5th, 2012 | 12:12 pm
It’s interesting that the religious reasons surrounding circumcision were settled in Acts 15 after much debate, nearly 20 centuries ago. Now in the 21st century there are still those who don’t want to accept what the first Pope said, after much prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Circumcision was found to be unnecessary now.
God, in His Divine wisdom, created males with foreskins. He did not make a mistake that man needs to correct after birth. We can’t do better than God.
1 Corinthians 12: 18 says, “As it is, God has set each member of the body in the place he wanted it to be.”
Jesus said, “Treat others the way you would have them treat you: this sums up the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12) These words of Jesus should be taken to heart by everyone in how we treat children before and after they are born. Let us treat all children with love, and not take a surgical knife to some children unless there is a true therapeutic medical reason for doing so. Children deserve to be loved the way God gives them to us. This is the second greatest commandment- to love your neighbor as yourself.
July 5th, 2012 | 2:13 pm
PJ
Genesis does not ordain circumcision for its medical benefits, real or supposed, but as a mark or token of God’s covenant with Abraham.
Abraham receives a promise that his descendants will inherit the land of Canaan and he is to mark those descendants, both his physical descendants and those bought from foreigners by circumcision, much as we notches the ears of our sheep. This explains why those not so circumcised are cut off from the people.
Every explanation of God’s commands based on human needs, as if God were some sort of cosmic minister of health, law, police, and economics, deprives them of their specifically religious character. In obeying them, man would only be serving his own interests, not obeying God. Service of God out of love requires the rejection of every kind of utilitarianism and anthropocentrism. That, surely, is the lesson of the Akedah.
July 5th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
Question: Do Christians consider Jewish Law binding on Jews? Up until quite recently, it seems to me the Catholic position might possibly have been no, although now it seems to be yes.
An answer either way would probably not be significant for the debate about prohibiting infant circumcision being a denial of Jewish religious liberty. Still, Robert George saying the following seems to imply that it is not simply Jewish belief that circumcision is required, but rather it’s a fact:
July 5th, 2012 | 9:08 pm
“Abraham … is to mark those descendants, both his physical descendants and those bought from foreigners by circumcision …”
So God approves of slavery? And we never should have abandoned slavery because slavery was found in the Old Testament, and Abraham had slaves?
“much as we notches the ears of our sheep.” So man is like an animal, and he should treat his fellow man like he treats an animal?
July 7th, 2012 | 10:15 am
PJ
“For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.”
This simply means that the covenant “The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God” applies to both categories.
What do you suggest, micro-chipping them?
July 7th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
The real issue is that we already have a more-or-less consensus that there are considerations other than physical needs that are relevant to a child’s health, and a parent has the authority to mutilate the child’s body in non-harmful ways in the pursuit of psychological health, spiritual health, and “integrity of identity”.
The real question is why circumcision is being singled out as different from other such operations.
Humanist parents often alter their child’s body for the sake of all sorts of crazy “identity issues” (the most dramatic – and obviously destructive – being justified in the name of “gender identity”). Why does the law – and this discussion – view circumcision as uniquely deserving of penalty, instead of criminalizing all parents who violate their child’s bodily integrity in any way?
July 8th, 2012 | 8:32 am
Michael PS
Do you want the Jewish people to circumcise their sons the way Abraham believes God told him to do – only removing the tip of the foreskin that extends beyond the glans?
Or, do you want the Jewish people to circumcise in the manner of the 2nd century A.D. rabbis- removing the entire foreskin? Jewish mohels who circumcise today do not circumcise as Abraham did. Does this mean that they are not fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant? Which way fulfills the covenant?
For example, if God commands me (in a private revelation at an elderly age) to cut off the finger of my child’s hand, and then later on my descendants change that to cutting off all the fingers of their children’s hands, which one of us is doing as God commanded?
July 8th, 2012 | 10:58 pm
[...] German Circumcision Ruling Sunday, July 8, 2012, 8:48 AM Robert P. George Recently I posted a comment criticizing the ruling of a German court in Cologne prohibiting the circumcision of male infants, [...]
July 9th, 2012 | 2:04 pm
I think people are missing the point. The German Court’s ruling does not violate the BOY’s religious freedom, in fact, it preserves it. At the same time, it preserves his body. Remaining INTACT is everyone’s right, including children.
July 9th, 2012 | 2:59 pm
Blake:
“Humanist parents often alter their child’s body for the sake of all sorts of crazy “identity issues” (the most dramatic – and obviously destructive – being justified in the name of “gender identity”).”
Please, tell us more specifics: what humanists parents force their children to alter their bodies without their consent? Or you are just making this stuff up as you write?
Darel:
I am not n utilitarist myself (vade retro!) and i certainly think that an individual is inexorably linked to the society he is raised up. But I am also aristotelian and natural rights attached to the idea that rights are only for individuals, not communities. You seem to think that the importance of comunity in every aspect of life entitles it to subject individuals to comply with standards, if necesary by the use of force. That is a dangerous, totalitarian idea, very popular among conservatives.
July 9th, 2012 | 7:53 pm
Children also do not have the right to have religious liberties taken away that they would prefer to have when they are old enough to understand more then they would prefer their foreskins, whether or not they are Jewish. This is not just a law threatening Jews, it is one threatening everyone. It is true that the rights of parents are not absolute. But neither are those of the state..
July 10th, 2012 | 10:41 am
Sergio Méndez – Actually, I’d like it if Blake would quantify how he’s using the word “often”, too. For example, I’m reasonably sure the number of
“gender-reassignment surgeries” is below the number of circumcisions. Maybe substantially below, even.
(In case anyone’s wondering: yes, that is in fact sarcasm.)
July 10th, 2012 | 10:50 am
The judge’s ruling did not ban circumcision. It said circumcision could not be performed before a male was old enough to consent to it. That is, of course, in conflict with Jewish practice and law, but it doesn’t “forbid Jews from being Jews.”
I’m curious what gives you the authority to tell Jewish people what it means to be a Jew, or what’s required?
If the age of consent is the same for circumcision as for sex, then it prevents a child from becoming Jewish until past the age of bar mitzvah. That is quite a serious victory for those of you who wish to completely disrupt the transmission of any ideological values other than secular humanism to the young.
July 10th, 2012 | 11:02 am
Catholicism teaches that the right to physical integrity begins at conception. Amputation and mutilation are prohibited. We cannot tolerate circumcisions for the same reasons we cannot tolerate abortion. The sanctity and dignity of human life is to be protected from conception to natural death.
I believe that is appropriate for Catholics.
But it is not appropriate to force Catholic (or humanist) beliefs on Orthodox Jews.
I don’t know how seriously Islam requires circumcision – or whether the circumcision is age sensitive – but if it is, then it would be equally inappropriate to force onto Muslims.
The judge failed to consider all of the rights of the child involved – that is, the judge failed to consider that forcing a child to wait to become circumcised forces a loss upon that child. Ethically, the correct way to proceed is to estimate what the child would probably choose. Clearly, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim males are (a) likely to prefer infant circumcision; (b) are likely to have a strong preference for it; (c) are likely to feel wronged or harmed by having that circumcision taken from them.
Compare this against what’s being taken from them in the case of circumcision. Who decided that a child has, wants, and needs the right to “bodily integrity”? Since when? That particular value judgment renders the entire argument tautological – it’s equivalent to saying “having an intact penis is more important than being circumcised”. Says who? Certainly Jews and Muslims don’t believe it’s self-evident enough to be taken as a premise that bodily integrity is “obviously” a basic human right.
July 10th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
“That is quite a serious victory for those of you who wish to completely disrupt the transmission of any ideological values other than secular humanism to the young.”
So values are transmitted not by words, not by reading, but thru a surgery? What did I miss…? Unbelievable.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact