Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Andrew Gonsalves

GET UPDATES FROM Andrew Gonsalves
 

Common Sense 1 - Religion 0

Posted: 17/07/2012 00:00

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

FOLLOW UK LIFESTYLE
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...
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...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 110
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arachne646
No more hurting people--Peace
07:25 PM on 08/07/2012
The question of whether parents have the right to make a contract for their children with God including a sacrifice of a body part seems to be "yes" for the near future, even if the groups who make those contracts are not really popular in Europe. Muslims face some of the same hate here, Jews not so much. People seem confused, though, and seem to think there is some medical or sanitary benefit to circumcision--there is no such benefit. Washing under the foreskin regularly (or not messing with a baby's foreskin when it's attached as it should be) will prevent any risk of disease. Statistical risk/benefit ratio regarding HIV transmission in male/female sexual intercourse only is very recent information, and not relevant to developed countries' circumcision practices, as risks of complications outweigh potential benefits. Safer sex practices must be followed always. The foreskin is, like the clitoris, a sensory organ, and removing it is not medically necessary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reyn1
HB California Guy!
04:00 PM on 07/23/2012
Personally I could careless what Europeans think! I know when my son goes to school here in the USA all his friends will be circumcised just like he is!
03:56 PM on 07/31/2012
The CDC estimates the rate of circumcision among male children in 2011 is 56%. Not only is it absolutely senseless to cut off part of your son's body for the sake of conformity, but you'd be doing it to satisfy a "norm" that hasn't existed since the 1980s.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reyn1
HB California Guy!
03:43 PM on 07/23/2012
Circumcision perfects the imperfect! This blogger doesn't even sound American.........Being a rcumcised white male in the USA is the Norm! I know most of my wives single friends won't get near an uncut guy!
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
06:44 PM on 07/23/2012
So a circumcised penis is 'perfect'? A natural penis is' imperfect'?

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?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reyn1
HB California Guy!
07:25 PM on 07/23/2012
Being uncircumcised is disgusting and foul. Really an uncircumcised male is lower than my dog! My wife would tell you the same thing!
06:30 PM on 07/19/2012
"Circumcision at an early age is painless, heals very quickly and leaves no damage to boys." Wrong. Infant circumcision results in occasional serious accidents, simply because the infant penis is small and awkward to operate on. Circumcision without anesthesia, the Jewish, Turkish, and American norm, is intensely painful. American and Jewish circumcision creates an open wound in an part of the body bathed in human waste when one is too young to be toilet trained. It occasionally results in a permanently damaged penis. Nature has fine tuned the penis for the pleasure of its owner and of the women he interacts with. There are American and Canadian women who have been intimate with both kinds of men, and who shared on the internet their conclusion that they prefer natural.

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.
05:34 PM on 07/19/2012
To my comment on baby male circumcision among Jews and Muslims, Mare54 and Hugh7 complain that I need to do some homework on the issue. I wish to add few facts to what I have already said. I hope that the secularist lobby would come to their senses.
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.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
More prayers, fewer preyers.
06:13 PM on 07/22/2012
There is a distinction to be made between antiseptic circumcision and religious ritualistic circumcision in terms of possible outcomes.

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arachne646
No more hurting people--Peace
07:07 PM on 08/07/2012
That's a very odd case indeed, and almost all Jewish circumcisions are carried out in hospitals or under equivalent conditions by doctors or mohels who are even more experienced. That does not mean that circumcision for religious reasons is beneficial to physical health, or less risky a procedure to physical health, than a clinical procedure on a baby because parents elect to have it performed.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
08:30 PM on 07/22/2012
Given it's such a beneficial thing, I wonder why all male mammals aren't born without foreskins? Why has evolution ignored such an eminently wonderful solution to HIV/urinary tract infections, etc? Psh.

Who is this 'secularist lobby'? I think it is an 'anti unnecessary cutting off of the foreskin' lobby - a completely different thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reyn1
HB California Guy!
03:46 PM on 07/23/2012
Humans have external Penis.....other animals have internal penis. I am circumcised, my son is circumcised and if he has a brother he will be cut as well! Same as his Grandfather and greatfather........
01:31 PM on 07/18/2012
Thanks for this. You make some great points.

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.
10:15 AM on 07/18/2012
So we have the Jewish and Muslim community removing parts of the human body and the Catholic faith insisting that you eat part of another persons body (mass,wafer, Jesus body, trans-substantiation etc)

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)
11:38 AM on 07/19/2012
but isnt the argument for evolution that the fittest survive and reproduce? so those with 2 kidneys had less strain on one individual kidney (as having one kidney shortens your life) and thus had less issues and lived longer?
01:55 PM on 07/19/2012
One kidney does not necessarily shorten your life and until recently (last 100 yeasr or so) life was a lot shorter anyway and kidney disease or lack thereof was not the thing that killed most people - small pox, TB etc.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
08:35 PM on 07/22/2012
Psh. The foreskin is clearly not redundant in the way that the appendix is. It still functions as a protective covering for the sensitive glans. We could just as well say that wisom teeth, the male nipple or the little toe should be removed, as they are not *absolutely* necessary to our functioning.
09:41 PM on 07/22/2012
@mmartini54

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
04:36 AM on 07/18/2012
You didn't walk away from the Catholic faith, you walked away from Catholic beliefs. Faith and belief are not synonymous.
photo
novelist2000
veritas non olet
04:08 AM on 07/18/2012
In one of the articles I have read that one of the German politicians has said something like 'Jewish and Muslim life must flourish in Germany'. They obviously have no concept of how ridiculous that is - unless Jewish and Muslim life includes pulling down pants all the time.

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.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
04:52 AM on 07/18/2012
The Basic Law (~Constitution) also guarantees equality the sexes, so they are going to be hard pressed to allow any genital cutting of males while continuing to forbid any - no matter how mild - of females.
photo
novelist2000
veritas non olet
04:59 AM on 07/19/2012
Indeed, I cannot believe how misguided Frau Merkel is to make these comments.
10:34 PM on 07/17/2012
Andrew Gonsalves’s article; Common Sense 1 - Religion 0 is not only based on ignorant assumptions but reeks of western arrogant attitude towards Islam and Judaism. Unfortunately, the commentators went one-step further and spilled lots of homemade beans instead of discussing the issue on its merits.
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.
02:19 AM on 07/18/2012
You really need to do some homework and research your claims......a tiny foreskin, as you call it, is a normal part of the male sexual anatomy and has important functions, none of which you mentioned as "practical consideration". Nature intended for males to have a foreskin for good reasons and being born without one is actually rare, but it is a birth defect not to be born with one. Women also have a foreskin. A person should be an adult to make such a permanent decision for their body. A persons religion ENDS where another human beings body begins.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
05:07 AM on 07/18/2012
It's tiny in the baby, but it's ~100 sq cm in the man. Bigger than an eyelid, which we don't go cutting off.
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.
03:23 AM on 07/18/2012
I could attest that circumcision of children in that age group is traumatic and scary. But I'll stick to pasting words of a wise Medical Doctor: "Circumcision, in the unconscious, is confused with castration. Thus, in Man Against Himself, Dr. Menninger writes: "I could cite many illustrations from psychiatric practice to show how, in the unconscious, circumcision and castration are equated. Because the fear of cutting in connection with the genitals is so widespread, and apparently so basic in the formation of character, any surgery in connection with the genitals is apt to be associated with strong emotional feeling which psychoanalysts, on the basis of their daily experiences with the language of the unconscious, ascribe to the 'castration threat,' i.e., the fear that the genitals are to be irremediably injured." (John M. Foley, M.D., The Unkindest Cut)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
05:09 AM on 07/18/2012
They ARE irremediably injured. The best part is cut off.
09:51 PM on 07/17/2012
This could be viewed as yet another attack on religious communities, and in very real way, it is. I understand those who view circumcision as 'actual bodily harm'.. but, what the German judge has done in fact, is to alter the rights of two groups from two of the world's oldest religions to practice their religion as they have for centuries. In this respect it can be viewed as an infringement of their "right" to practice their religion without hindrance or persecution..
02:17 AM on 07/18/2012
Children have rights too. Your argument completely overlooks a child's rights to religious freedom and bodily autonomy. Those being forced to endure genital mutilation are the ones being persecuted, not those being told they can't carve up the genitals of somebody else's body.
10:10 PM on 07/18/2012
Whilst I do most definitely take your point, children know no different to that which they grow up with and are shown..
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..
03:25 AM on 07/18/2012
What about the rights of the children? Does religious freedom of the parents overcomes the basic human right to have an intact body of the children? Should circumcision of females be allowed based on religious freedom? Remember that a good portion of Muslims practice it.
10:39 PM on 07/18/2012
Female circumcision has no basis on health, but is done so in order to subjugate women and children...
05:05 PM on 07/17/2012
I agree that religion should be a choice for all to make and I agree that parents have no right to force their child to make a faith decion against their will, however, I also believe that culture has an important role to play in our society and Jewish and muslem parents have as much right to circusise their sons as I have to name my children with our traditional family names.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
05:37 PM on 07/17/2012
Naming a child and cutting off part of their body for no good reason do not really compare.
09:55 PM on 07/17/2012
Have to agree with you on this one PW, although my fear in all this, is that it's another assault on religious freedom... notwithstanding what religion has done to other communities - like the Gay community to name but one...
This comment has been removed.
04:58 PM on 07/17/2012
I make a post regarding the Hasidic practice of "orally cleaning" the circumcised penis, and it gets taken down?

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.
photo
AlanDente
Noses: made to hold glasses
04:46 PM on 07/17/2012
If I start the Church of Alanography and dictate that each new born child must have their left ear cut off at birth, will I be protected from the courts by a German lady also?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
05:38 PM on 07/17/2012
Not a question one gets to ask very often.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
05:46 PM on 07/17/2012
But a directly relevant question nonetheless.

Why is it that behaviour that would otherwise be illegal can be made acceptable to some people just by saying 'it's my religion'?
06:25 PM on 07/17/2012
No doubt the Church of Gauguin would immediately decry you as heretics, and promise you eternal damnation...
06:28 PM on 07/17/2012
I meant Van Gogh, of course
03:13 PM on 07/17/2012
Here here