Last week, Germany’s parliament acted expeditiously to squelch the attempt of a Cologne judge to ban circumcision. A cross-party motion promoted by Chancellor Angela Merkel passed by the lower house urged the government to present a bill in the fall that would specifically protect the right of circumcision. This both reassured the Jewish and Muslim communities as well as prevented Germany from being seen as, in Merkel’s words, a “laughingstock” for seeking to render illegal a key Jewish religious ritual only a generation after the Holocaust.
But Germany’s efforts may not be enough to halt the momentum of those seeking to infringe upon religious liberty. As Haaretz reports, two Swiss hospitals have just announced they will stop performing circumcisions. This illustrates that the movement to ban circumcision, fueled as it is by the rising tide of European anti-Semitism, is still gaining ground.
Even if Merkel follows up on her pledge to ensure that circumcision is protected in Germany, the problem is that the Cologne ruling granted a veneer of respectability to its opponents. Whereas in the past those railing against Jewish practices were largely marginal, the court victory legitimized their campaign to drive one of the key principles of Judaism — the Abrahamic covenant that circumcision symbolizes —underground. As with other expressions of Jew-hatred in the current atmosphere in which Israel and its supporters are demonized, it is now possible to be more open with contempt for Judaism and to advocate measures that might have been unthinkable not that long ago.
Moreover, the court placed a doubt in the minds of doctors and others in the medical profession that they would be exposed to penalties for performing the procedure. After the Cologne ruling, the German Medical Association advised doctors to stop their participation in circumcision.
It bears remembering that, as COMMENTARY contributor Ruth Wisse once wrote, anti-Semitism is the most successful ideology of the 20th century. It helped inform Fascism, Nazism and Communism and today is a useful tool for Islamists and their European leftist allies. The campaign against circumcision, like the even more successful European efforts to ban kosher slaughter, is driven in no small measure by a desire to drive Jews out of the continent. That it is harming Muslims as much as Jews is an irony that ought not to prevent joint efforts by the two communities to combat this noxious proposal.
But taken in the context of a noticeable increase in violence against Jews in the aftermath of the shootings in Toulouse this past spring, the circumcision bans are an indication that the future of European Jewry is by no means assured.
"the future of European Jewry is by no means assured"? Jonathan, demographics demonstrate that Jewish populations in throughout Europe are declining dramatically, mostly from intermarriage but also emigration. In other words they indicate there is no future for European Jewry.
European Jewry has declined in the last century for several reasons. One is anti-Semitism and the attempt to push away, then exterminate Jews, another one is voluntary migration to the US, and another one is Zionist pressure to establish a "Jewish homeland" in Palestine.
Gosh, did it ever occur to you that there might be an anti-Muslim element to this policy too?
You didnt really just say that, did you? o.O **Closing eyes tightly for a few short moments** Hmmm… your comment's still there. So what you're suggesting is that were this something to control the Muslim encroachment there, it would be in a form equally restrictive & offensive to Christians & Jews; is that correct? Otherwise, I'm left no alternative but to ask you reconsider your statement, Sir. I do realize I'm saying that unversed in the Muslim perception & doctrine re: circumcision; forgive me. I speak only to the common-sense (or lack of) of your statement.
It does affect the Muslim community. In Islam, circumcision is a Big Deal – and it's usually done at about age 4 or 5.
"Gosh, did it ever occur to you that there might be an anti-Muslim element to this policy too? " Great question. Let me ask a few of my own. n nDid it ever occur to you that Switzerland banned kosher slaughter in 1897, shortly after lifting the ban on Jewish immigration, in order to discourage Jewish immigration? That this ban occurred well before there was any sigjnificant Muslim population in Switzerland or Western Europe in general? That a proposal to lift the ban in 2002 included appeals to anti-semitism? That there have been periodic proposals to also ban the importation of kosher meat?
Does Switzerland permit Halal slaughter, and have there been any proposals to ban the importation of Halal meat?
Was halal meat an issue when the Swiss banned shechitah in 1897?
that's not the point and you should know it. Since halal meat was not an issue in 1897, it becomes relevant whether the Swiss have banned halal slaughter since it has become an issue. If not, you can have some claim to anti Judaism.
I have no idea whether they banned halal meat. I have read about anti-Jewish statements in connection with attempts to repeal the ban on shechitah in 2002 and later attempts to ban importation of kosher meat in 2006. I do not discount that there may be anti-Muslim bias as well; I simply do not know. nI do know there is anti-Jewish bias at work either way. And if there were solely anti-Muslim bias, I wouldn't much care for that either.
well, for once we are in agreement. One of us must be wrong. But there is a less malign possibility, that being that the swiss may consider either form of slaughter inhumane.
Indeed, there has been a ban on minarets in Switzerland a few years ago… guys, these laws are mainly meant are targeting Muslims, and that they are backed by the very same new strands of European Right that the friends of Israel have been unashamedly courting over the last few years? nFor European anti-Semites, Jews and Muslims are just the same: famous anti-Semite Ernest Renan already said in the 19th century that "the most typical product of the mentality of Semitic races is the religion of Islam…" nIn Italy today, MP Borghezio, who is well known for his youth activism as a neo-Nazi, has made a whole political career out of his hate speeches for blacks and Muslims (I can still remember him shouting in a public rally of his party: "all muslims away from Italy, take your turbans and put them in your –s!" nWake up guys. Jews are not the only people to have suffered at the hands of European Nationalists: it is only in the 1990s that Serb nationalists attempted to cleanse Muslim Bosnians out of what would become Serbia.
While we are asking, gosh, did it ever occur to you that the Swiss banned entry to Jews fleeing extermination at the hands of the Germans and their collaborators? That the Swiss have fought tooth and nail to avoid returning bank accounts and paying life insurance proceeds to the heirs of Jews who were slaughtered? n nAnd gosh, did it occur to you that although the ban on circumcission affects both the Jewish community and the Muslim communty, given their relative size and growth rates it is the former that is in much greater danger than the latter of disappearance? n nAnd gosh, did you miss "This both reassured the Jewish and Muslim communities" and "That it is harming Muslims as much as Jews "? n n
On your home page you should say "read comments" as well as "leave a comment." It's not clear that you need to click on "leave a comment" in order to read comments already posted.
You don't need to. You can also click on "read more. n".
If the EU allows such matters to even be seriously debated, then it's clear they've learned NOTHING from the struggles in their own history. It's up to us, however, to ensure no such choices are made or otherwise legislated for us here or anywhere else we've standing, influence or leverage. To not protect this basic religious freedom & simple health issue is to undo every act of goodness & defense of people's rights we've engaged in throughout the history of this great nation & final bastion of liberty. It truly IS just that simple. God Bless you & yours, one & all.
Actually, they've learned pretty well how to get rid of those troublesome Jews. They just haven't learned why getting ridding of them might not be a good idea.
Reading this, I was struck by a piece of liberal hypocrisy. n nThe argument against banning abortions has always been that they would happen anyway, only now they would be performed in unsanitary "back alleys" where young woman would be maimed and occasionally die. n nOK, the corrollary to this could be that by outlawing circumcision in hospitals, performed by doctors, the Eurocrats are consigning the practice — which WILL continue — to the back alleys where infants will be maimed and occasionally die. n nBy the way, would a circumcision ban apply to mohels? Might they be prosecuted if they continue this ritual practice?
What makes you think that non-Jewish parents will go to "back alleys" to have their children circumcised?
From an evangelical Christian: Did it ever occur to you that there's more to circumcision than ritual. Many uncircumcised older men will tell you that lack of circumcision leads at advance age to a tightening of the foreskin, pain and chronic bleeding. Circumcision is the only cure, and not a happy prospect for older men. What can be the medical opposition to circumcision? Or is the opposition not medical at all, but political.
If circumcision is not a religious rite, then there is no reason that it should not be left to an adult male to choose. I'm sure that a non religious adult circumcision for medical reasons can probably be carried out with minimal pain.
You could have mentioned the higher incidence of cerviacl cancer amonst women having relations with uncircumcised men, and that now the statistical evidence points to circumcision as a means to reducing the incidence of HIV.
I am pleased that after centuries of pogroms, inquisitions, gas chambers and almost daily inventions of anti-Jew laws, the gentile world has become so very concerned about Jewish baby's penises. And here we thought they hated us.
The same notions that were used as an excuse by a judge to interfere with the ancient rite of circumcision could also be stretched to prohibit baptism by immersion for young children (age eight to ten), as practiced by some Christian sects. The idea that such rites could be considered to present a substantial risk of physical harm to children, after thousands of years, is to simply disregard the real history of these religious ordinances.
Banning circumcision is comparable to banning abortion. Pro life advocates believe the fetus has rights that override those of the pregnant woman. Anti circumcision proponents would confer rights on newborn boys that override his parents' wishes. Parents are the undisputed guardians of their children and are responsible for their health and welfare, including food, clothing, living conditions, education, medical and dental care, etc. While the oral contact of the mohel with the infant should be banned, circumcision poses no risk to anyone but the infant and almost none to him at all. In the absence of any substantial widespread risk to large numbers of other people, there is no justification for banning a practice that is carried out for religious or custom purposes. It is curious that no male Jews have complained about being circumcised, only Christians. Why should their nobjections override those of an infant's parents when there is no risk to anyone else? The government does not intervene in these relatively trivial matters and when it does, as with vaccination against potential epidemic diseases, the health justification is quite clear and not arbitrary. Religious practices that do not impose on others or pose a broad health risk to the public must not be overriden by arbitrary government policies. A ban on circumcision opens the door to a ban on abortion; both bans are infringements on a women's and a parent's rights and responsibilities.
More comparable than one would think! The circumcision issue actually DOES have a connection to abortion: The German court that banned circumcision did so on the basis of a children's rights provision in the German constitution, one that has been interpreted as banning almost all abortions as well.
"It is curious that no male Jews have complained about being circumcised, only Christians." Sadly there is a tiny but very loud minority of Jewish men who have, for whatever reasons of self-hate, sexual maladjustment or other pathologies may drive them. Most of their writings seem to evidence a fear that they are somehow missing out on untold pleasures enjoyed by their uncircumcised gentile friends. n nWhat I find more telling is that no one who converted to Judaism as an adult has complained that he is missing out on anything by having been circumcised.
Fascinating comparison, between circumcision and abortion. One kills, the other doesn't. n nThe form of circumcision you mention has almost completely disappeared. n n
What Mr. Tobin is failing to consider is that, as long as Mohels are not forbidden to perform (what is the plural of "brit", anyway?) the fact that physicians are forbidden to perform them should have no effect whatsoever on the Jewish community, except to the extent that Jewish males raised in a secular environment will have to undergo a full brit should they ever find themselves seeking inclusion in the greater community, rather than the perfunctory pinprick to which they must submit now. If it was good enough for Abraham, it should be good enough for them.
Busted. nAnyone who has spent much time in haredi and other Orthodox communities would have been invited to any number of brisim (or I suppose brissim). In a large enough community, there might be any number of brisim in a single week. But you've never heard the term? Or you heard it and it just slipped your mind? (Or maybe those were Sefardi haredim that you hung around with in Monsey, in which case the term would be britot.) n nAnd has it occurred to you that mohels could indeed face prosecution? Certainly under the Cologne court decision they would.
you really need to get a life, pal. Once again you're spreading loshen hara. I was being facetious, having heard both "brissim" and "britot". nAnd we are not talking about Cologne. We are talking about a voluntary decision by some hospitals to cease performing circumcisions. The cologne court decision, which is the equivalent in the US to that of some backwater county judge, was squelched immediately by federal action before it could even be appealed, and would have applied only to the area under that court's jurisdiction. So it is not relevant except to the extent that it gives you some specious ammunition to continue your useless sadistic desire to attempt to make me look bad at any opportunity you can make up. nSo go ahead, reply to this. I hope I will have the self discipline to ignore you.
"cologne court decision, which is the equivalent in the US to that of some backwater county judge, was squelched immediately by federal action before it could even be appealed" nWrong. Germany has a single court system. There is no separate federal court system. And the Cologne court of appeals is not some backwater court. It is the second highest court in Germany, with territorial jurisdiction over a substantial part of the country. Cologne is the fourth largest city in Germany and is the largest city both in the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia and within the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area. Appeal is only to the the Budesgersichtsof, and appeal to that court are restricted to matters of law, not fact. What is your source that the high court squelched the decision?
"would have applied only to the area under that court's jurisdiction." which I had read somewhere is something like 25% to 30% of the country. I tried to find more information about that but it turned into a longer project than I had time for. If anyone can confirm or correct that, it would be appreciated.
It was NOT an apellate court.
A Germanic European state doing something insanely antisemitic? Never heard of such a thing.
Did it ever occur to anyone that this isn't motivated by anti-Semitism? Bodily mutilation of a child for religious purposes should be illegal, period. After years of hard work raising awareness, the practice of circumcision (genital mutilation) of muslim girls has finally gained enough visibility whereby civilized people of all faiths have realized it is a barbaric practice and should be eradicated. Male circumcision is absolutely no different. It is the willful mutilation of the penis that has no medical value whatsoever. Hiding behind the concept of religious freedom is absolute horse crap. Religious behavior should be regulated and almost every Western nation recognizes that some practices, however sacred, should be banned. Polygamy and drug use are the most notable examples. coltakashi's argument is spurious. There is no slippery slope. Baptism is not the same as circumcision. And even if male circumcision was 100% safe, which it isn't (a small percentage of boys experience complications), the child did not consent to having his body mutilated. If a person wants to get circumcised at some age when informed consent can be given, that is perfectly acceptable. But no child should be physically altered simply because his/her parents believe in a sky fairy that "requires" them to do it.
No, what is absolute horsecrap is the argument that it is harmful, and the argument that it is no different from female genital mutlilation. Apart from whether it is medically beneficial, as to which there are still some public health experts who believe that it is; this fact is relevant, however, only as to the issue of whether it is harmful. n nYour crack about a sky fairy tells us everything we need to know about your views on religious freedom; since you consider religion nonsense, the state needs only the flimmsiest of pretexts to interfere with religious practices.
Of course, it is not mutilation of the penis. It is removal of the foreskin, which is more or less an appendage. it is definitely not the same as female circumcision, since the clitoris is not an appendage. But I think the opponents have a point when they ask of what good is it to a child? We can as religious jews defend it from dawn to dawn, but the fact is that we have no justification besides tradition. No one, as far as I know, claims circumcision has any beneficial attributes for the prepubescent. So the idea that we should modify our practice to the extent that we have a symbolic circumcision at birth and allow our sons to decide for themselves when they are adults might be something worth considering. I mean, it's not like the equivalent of a christian baptism, in that should the child die uncircumcised he would face damnation.
Actually, what is horse crap is saying that just because some religion says "x" is OK therefore society as a whole should just accept it as good on faith. What is also horse crap is condoning the mutilation of a child for any reason. What is even more horse crap is the notion that because I support regulating religion that means I don't support religious freedom. No one gets upset with the ban on polygamy and that offends 3 religions (islam, some sects of judaism, and mormonism). No one ever claims that someone is anti-religious freedom even though the United States government restricts the use of peyote in Native American sacred rituals. These are considered valid restrictions of religious practices, but as soon as someone says male infant circumcision is bad, everyone is called a Nazi, anti-Semite and a hater of religious freedom. And that is a load of horse crap too. Personally, I think Native Americans should be allowed to use peyote as they see fit in their religious practice. And people should be allowed to marry multiple people as long as everyone is a consenting adult. How's that for supporting religious freedom? I bet most of you on here who support circumcision don't support polygamy. Can you say hypocrite? So let's get back to circumcision. Infant male circumcision is barbaric. It causes pain and has no medical need. If an adult wants to ritually remove his foreskin, that is his right as an informed adult, but to say that someone has the right to mutilate the body of another person who cannot give informed consent is very un-American. Freedom does not extend to harming others.
Make no mistake, there is a pathology in the movement to ban male circumcision: It is crypto-anti-Semitism or foreskin fetishism. Take your pick. If banning circumcision isn't due to these, then it is due to rank ignorance. Those who call themselves physicians oppose it due to their own incompetence, which they seek to cloak behind phony principle. n nRather than mutilation, male circumcision is hygienic and is prophylactic, if not therapeutic, against STDs. In fact, the World Health Organization strongly favors adult male circumcision in areas where HIV is endemic, even though adult male circumcision is riskier than infant circumcision, which is already low-risk. n nThere is no excuse for banning male circumcision, but there are reasons — all malign.
Now, now. Don't you know that circumcision is one of the two wounds that the Jews have inflicted upon humanity? And people who object to it on principle, such as the ancient Greek pagans, usually object to the other as well.
You should read the all the information before you spout half-truths. The reason that the WHO strongly favors adult male circumcision in places where HIV is endemic is because no one is willing to wear condoms and therefore the only option is to encourage circumcision. Also, this "prophylactic" therapy is only helpful for heterosexual/vaginal intercourse and it does not stop the spread of HIV; it only slows it down. Saying that adult male circumcision is useful in areas where HIV is endemic is like saying space suits are great for people in outer space. When you are in outer space, yes a space suit is great, but the vast majority of people never go to outer space. Similarly, the vast majority of people in the Western world are not traveling to places where HIV is endemic and then having unprotected sex with lots of partners. Circumcision is body mutilation just the same as tattoos or ritual scarification.
"…the circumcision bans are an indication that the future of European Jewry is by no means assured." n nOne would have thought the Holocaust was all the "ominous portent" our people required to warn them off of living in Europe. As for our people's "future" in Europe, this is one solid example of how, sometimes, "the past is future." n nOne wonders what Jews streaming into Berlin and now Bern are thinking? What escapes them about our experiences in Christendom during nearly 2000 years? In any case, what are Jews doing for Europe today, that Europeans should welcome us with open arms? We are not Europeans. They seem to know it. We don't. Why? n nAs for Jewish leftist hysteria, it can be understood from this perspective: as a forced adaptation to living where one is not wanted. Jewish leftists insist that "I'm you, you're me, what's mine is yours, yours is mine, and who cares about gender anyway?", because it wants to be whatever it wants to be (in this case "good little Swiss"), wherever it wants to be "it" (in this case, Switzerland). Jewish leftists promulgate an agenda that boils down to "everything's the same, so why worry?" This may fool the French for a while, but the "one world where every man's the same" routine evidently doesn't phase the Swiss!
The Jewish people can and should flourish without cutting body parts from babies. n nI'm Jewish, I'm Israeli and a mohel cut a part of my genitals off. As it turns out, I can't have it back. So, I'll never know the full sensation of the intact gen-itals I was born with. NO ONE had the right to take it away from me, but it happened and it's irreversible. I was in pain when the mohel cut me, I bled. And I lost all the functions the for-eskin serves, protective and se-xual. n nIt's time for Judaism to advance and make the covenant with god symbolic and spiritual. If an adult wishes to put his genit-als under the mohel's knife to seal a contract with god, and he's fully capable of understanding the implications, the risks, the healing etc. of this elective procedure, let him do so. But if you force such a practice on a newborn, it is an assault, it's immoral, it's unethical (when done by a doctor) and a blatant violation of children's fundamental human rights to bodily integrity and to be safe from risk and pain and harm.
oh, and if it's not you giving me the thumbs down for what you will hopefully have the decency to agree was an accurate statement, I hope you won't mind my taking a moment to tell the person who did that s/he is a moron and a coward. If it was you giving me the thumbs down, I'll retract the s/
No, it wasn't me. I don't use the thumbs up or down feature. nThanks for the link; nothing in the three stories suggests that the court is a backwater. It is in fact a major appellate court. n nYou are correct that you said it was squelched by federal action, not federal court. You may not be aware, though, that the resolution in the federal legislature does not have the force of law. The resolution may have disagreed with the decision but if by 'squelched ' you mean "to completely suppress" or even "to silence" ( Merriam Webster's two definitions for the v.t.), you are mistaken.
It was not an appellate court, it was a trial court. The news articles make that clear. They also make clear that the ruling was restricted to the court's jurisdictional area. Go reread the stories. It's explicitly stated in each. The resolution in the legislature says that federal legislation will be prepared in the fall to make it a law. Go reread the stories.
You are apparently correct; the stories (and some others) refer to it as a regional court or a district court. But you are not correct about it being the equivalent of a backwater county judge. And as you acknowledge, the resolution does not have the force of law. It is not law until the legislation has been enacted and signed. n nAnd of course the Swiss have now acted even though the Cologne court decision has no force of law in Switzerland, just as the Cologne court decision resulted in a halt to circumcision in parts of Germany outside that court's jurisdcition.
you're right. You're always right. Happy now?
And here I thought it was you that was always right. I must have been wrong.
Jews should be only where they are welcomed and appreciated and Israel. None of these problems will occur in Israel. As long as Israel is pluralistic.
And here I was thinking it was a medical procedure committed upon babies. Oh won't someone *please* think about the children :^) :^) – like many religious 'traditions' that had real reasons in the past, can't religions accept that some of these reasons have dwindled and gone? Or is it too much to expect religion to accept reasoning?
Having both Swiss and German ancestry I am apalled at what is going on over there, if Angela Merkel has any power to do so she should take this judge down and down hard. First and foremost this is a religious matter and if there is any religious freedom in the German Constitution this malevolent judge has just stepped over the line. As to the two Swiss hospitals, the people Switzerland should vote with their feet and let the hospital administrations know that their actions are not in their best interests.
The Jewish should be welcomed where ever in this world they damn well choose to live. It is thinking like yours that causes all the problems. A persons religion should not be the determining factor of where he lives. The only things that matter are is he happy with his surroundings and can he make a living and support his family.
Ariel Sharon told the European Jewry; leave Europe to the muslims, return home to The Land of Israel. In this case he was totally correct.
I am always surprised that conservatives to whom the freedom of the individual is supreme, never think of the individual at the centre of this, or HIS freedom. He will not always be a baby. He is not his parents property now, nor will he always be under their jurisdiction or necessarly adhere to their religion. The main (to him) function of his genitals only comes into its own in adulthood, and whatever you or I may think about them, he has a right to decide for himself how much of them he wants to keep. He will almost always choose to keep them all – if he is given the choice. nMinimal government still has a duty to protect children from adult interference that reduces their options later in life, even when that interference is based on their religion. n(And please, no more silly analogies with eating spinach or learning French: this is irreversible reductive surgery, not something he can undo later on.)
I guess people here defending circumcision are also in favor of genital mutilation, lapidation, sharia law, polygamy, being burnt alive, torture, human sacrifice or whatever religious ritual human beings of any religion have come up with through history? The mere fact that something is traditional, has been practiced or performed for ages and/or is inherent to the religion or cultural practice of a certain group does not transform that action immediately into something acceptable, by the terms of a humanist perspective. In fact, law very commonly prohibits most of those practices that were commonplace in other times, and nobody feels threatened by the lay state that have issued these regulations, which are seen mostly as the manifestation of a certain evolution. Religious rituals, as any other human manifestation, certainly evolve.
Yeah, that's what the evolved people were telling us at the autos de fe'. Or slaughtering us in the name of science. Or dialectical materialism. Or Hellenism.