Circumcisions in Germany

[birdie1971]

It is now illegal in Germany to perform circumcisions for purely religious reasons. This has caused the normally fractious relationship between the Jewish and Islamic religions to be temporarily put on hold and a tenuous coalition formed on this issue.

http://uk.reuters.com...idUKBRE86B0XA20120712


Apart from the simple and obvious fact that it is profoundly wrong to slice a piece of flesh from a baby because of tradition and/or religious dogma, is this temporary coalition between these two faiths a nauseating example of religious hypocrisy?

[Sir Alec]

Sorry birdie, but this has already been asked by another ABer, in which section I forget. I know because I answered it. The practice originated because sand used to get under the foreskin and cause pain. I can understand that. But removing a part of the body just for religious reasons, I disagree with.

[beso]

Sir Alec // The practice originated because sand used to get under the foreskin and cause pain.//

Nothing about sand. According to the Bible it was an covenant between God and the Hebrews. It doesn't say if God had it done too.

[Sir Alec]

The Bible is a load of Chinese whispers. Do you really believe everything it says?

[jomifl]

Sir Alec // The practice originated because sand used to get under the foreskin and cause pain.//
This sounds like complete nonsense to me. Does anyone have any experience of this phenomenom because I certainly haven't. It sounds like one of those myths that never gets questioned because the topic is 'embarrassing'.

[birdie1971]

Sir Alec - “... but this has already been asked by another ABer... The practice originated because sand used to get under the foreskin and cause pain...”

Sorry everyone – I was unaware that this question had already been posted elsewhere.

Beso was largely correct in his statement about it being a covenant between God and the Hebrews. Specifically, it is in the first book of Samuel; basically King Saul tried to give David (ie. the David of the David and Goliath story) an impossible task – if David were to marry one of Saul's daughters, he must bring him 100 foreskins of the Philistines. David apparently excelled himself and brought back 200 foreskins in a desperate attempt to impress Saul (1 Samuel 18:27).

It is this story of Saul and David that is used to justify the present day practice of circumcision. I must say that I find the theory that circumcision as a tradition has arisen due to the 'sand under the foreskin' idea as being laughable.

Wikipediia has this to say about it, “... The origination of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of enhancing sexual pleasure...”

http://en.wikipedia.o..._of_male_circumcision

[hc4361]

No it isn't

http://www.dailymail....k-Jews-Holocaust.html

[thenry]

Illegal for religious reasons ? Reckon you nailed your answer right there !

[Answerprancer]

I think religeous *circumcision is all about sexual oppression/repression.
I think it is a good, and very brave move (based on recent history) for Germany to introduce this.
The rest of the world should follow suit IMO.
I believe that in the US where *circumcision is/was the expected norm, it symbolises state-run oppression from day one of a baby boy's introduction to the world. I was told (by an American friend of mine) that the practice is becoming less popular.

*I prefer to call it "forced genital mutilation".

[birdie1971]

↑ I completely agree.

[birdie1971]

Katiekonker - “... chill out birdie...”

I am very chilled actually :-)

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of the video though.

[birdie1971]

Hc4361 - “... No it isn't...”

Good grief!

[FredPuli43]

Thanks, beso. So it is and was simply mutilation for no known logical reason, not even the fanciful one of sand under the prepuce. And it doesn't have the justification, if justification it could be, of being a rite of passage, since it is performed on babies, not adolescents, and Judaism has a rite of passage, the bar mitzvah, anyway. Even tail docking of dogs had some logic in some cases but circumcision of babies has none.

Wonderful how religion can insist on practices and statements being true and valid simply because some man wrote in a book that they are, and claimed that they were the word of some deity.

[birdie1971]

Katiekonker - “... Lobby your MP?...”

That's not a bad idea actually. Only by openly expressing our concern to those in power can we hope to change anything.

[birdie1971]

Thinking about it, I might start one of those e-petition jobbies on the matter and see if other people feel the same way I do.

[ummmm]

I'd sign it.