There were a fair few column inches devoted to a ruling in a German court that circumcision for non-medical reasons is an assault, and interferes with a child's right to determine his own religion.
A number of commentators have said that the ruling amounts to some form of religious persecution against the Jewish and Muslim populations in the country, but in my opinion the courts are absolutely bloody right.
As someone who had a foreskin until last year I can tell you that it's actually quite a bit nicer having one; and being circumcised is not something I would've chosen to submit to were it not a medical necessity.
However religious groups seem to think that they can make this choice on behalf of their sons, before they're anywhere near old enough to understand what this choice means. Jewish boys are circumcised at eight days-old, and Muslim boys at any time before puberty.
Now all the predictable arguments have been rolled out, one Berlin Rabbi has called the ruling the "Most serious attack on Jewish life since the holocaust", and there have been rumblings of discontent from Muslim leaders too.
In my humble opinion the foreskin is there for a reason. If the evolutionists are right (as I believe they are), then the foreskin has been put there by nature, and if the creationists are correct (and, let's be honest, that's doubtful), then the big man up there gave us boys hoods for our chaps unnecessarily, which suggests he's somewhat flawed, doesn't it?
Now I know I'm being simplistic here, and there are all sorts of cultural and historic reasons why these religious groups commit what is essentially GBH on a group of boys who are in no position to say no. But none of these can detract from the fact that following Judaism or Islam, like Christianity, Sikhism or any other religion, is a choice, and one that everyone should be free to make for themselves.
I was raised in the Catholic faith, and I've since walked away from it. If I chose to embrace another faith I could do so knowing exactly what it might entail and what commitments, be they psychological or physical I would have to make.
No one should be able to make me commit to a lifelong membership of any religious creed before I'm able to weigh up all the options. After all, you wouldn't tell an eight day-old boy that he would always have to vote for one particular political party, would you? But in circumcising boys before they've had the chance to make an informed decision that's exactly what you're doing.
Follow Andrew Gonsalves on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ALGonsalves
Jasminder Kaur: Sikh Americans: Feeling Alienated and Targeted In America
Sahaj Kohli: Sikhism, Identity and Where I Stand In Light Of the Wisconsin Shooting
Circumcision and 'brainwashing' -- the connection
Debating Circumcision and Consent
German government promises to protect religious right to circumcise
I'm afraid you are not a good advert for your cause. This reasoning is as illogical as the spurious appeal to tradition. Some traditions are good, others very bad. The tradition which decrees the cutting of an innocent baby human without their knowledge or consent is, in the opinion of many, very bad indeed.
But this is not really about the rights of children, is it?
It is very easy to abandon the religious traditions of one's birth family. Circumcision, however, is forever, regardless of the evolution of one's faith commitments over the course of one's adult life. I do not like the idea that my parents could have decided, in an irreversible fashion, how I and my wife experience sex.
Circumcision of boys have many advantages, and it is never medically proven that it damages the child in anyway. Contrary to that WHO and the UN also recommend circumcision as part of the fight against HIV / AIDS, where it is believed that infection levels can be reduced by 60 percent. A large number of USA male are also circumcised because they find it beneficial.
Other studies in "The Lancet", one of the world's most respected medical journals show that cervical cancer rarely occurs in relationships where the man is circumcised.
Boy circumcision also prevents urinary tract infections. Seen in this light, circumcision is recommended for disease prevention.
The current debate in the west seems more to be marked by anti-religious emotional outbursts served in the middle of summer holidays than to be a serious debate where serious medical arguments are included.
Parents in USA, Europe and the other Christianity dominated lands pass on Christian traditions, where religion is forced upon children without their consent. Baptising, Christmas rituals, religious holidays are few examples. I have seen how children get tattoos and piercing at an early age, where children copy their parents’ habits.
Go to: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_4.html if you wish to inform yourself or the actual transmission of various diseases associated with ritualistic circumcision among ultra-Orthodox Jews.
To ignore this dimension--namely how ritualistic circumcision occurs in actual religious practice--and the known, documented diseases which have been transmitted seems unwise.
Who is this 'secularist lobby'? I think it is an 'anti unnecessary cutting off of the foreskin' lobby - a completely different thing.
I feel the big issue is the right to experience and have all of ones body. 8 days old is early to shut down parts of the sensory system. All of those nerves that are severed are important for sexual function and pleasure. Shutting down parts of a human's sensory system and removing erogenous tissue is clearly a human rights violation.
Religious freedom is never the right to cut tissue off another human's body that has not consented.
And they wonder why secularism is growing?
(To all those out there using the "evolution must have put it there for a reason" argument - think the argument through first. The appendix isnt required, you an live with only 1 kidney etc. The pro religion types will get you on that one every time)
Not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me?
I am not advocating the removal of any part of the body - precisely the opposite. But some parts are redundant. In respect of evolution - which this discussion was about - I was simply pointing out that we not assume that evolution results in the "perfect" outcome. Just the one that is best at present.
They will have a hard time to change the German constitution which guarantees the physical integrity of human beings as well as the free choice of religion. This is modelled on the Human Right Charta. What if someone invents a new religion which requires the amputation of a finger?
I believe Sweden had a similar issue some years ago, but haven't followed what happened.
One comment was particularly silly; “ Parents have no right to force their children to make a faith decision against their will”. Almost all the commentators are non-Jewish and non-Muslim, which makes the discussion doubly problematic.
As a person born in a Muslim family - but is not religious – who was circumcised at the age of 6 would like to present the facts.
First, removing a tiny foreskin is not dictating religion but is done from some practical consideration, which I can testify. It makes the male organ cleaner, more hygienic, extra pleasurable and enhances sexual sensitivity. Of all the women, I had sexual relationship – from Germany to USA and Denmark, none ever complained or felt awkward because how my organ looked.
Circumcision at the early age is painless, heals very quickly and leaves no damage to boys. The secular lobby in the west should be more worried of accelerating fascism, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the west, instead of indulging in shoving their western culture down the throat of non-Christians.
For your claims of "cleaner, more hygienic, extra pleasurable and enhances sexual sensitivity" what are you comparing it with?
"None ever complained" is a very low standard to aim for.
"Leaves no damage" - except when it does, even up to death.
Male circumcision is neither injurious or dangerous, whereas female circumcision is both. It is practised with single intention of subjugation, and is therefore totally wrong..
Google "Hasidic circumcision - neo natal Herpes" and read the New York Times article.
If there is ONE thing worse than mutilating a child, it is placing it's bleeding penis in your mouth afterwards. It is common knowledge, and if you try to hide this fact, then you are condoning both mutilation AND paedophillia.
Whoever is moderating this thrread has something wrong with them.
Why is it that behaviour that would otherwise be illegal can be made acceptable to some people just by saying 'it's my religion'?