Der Spiegel - German Jewish Leader Attacks Germany Over Circumcision Debate

[redgreenandblue]

Link to article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-jewish-leader-attacks-germany-over-circumcision-debate-a-854070.html

Charlotte Knobloch, the former head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote a stinging editorial on Wednesday attacking the circumcision debate, calling talk of a Jewish revival a sham and wondering whether she was right to spend her adult life defending Germany.

Germany has been debating the rights and wrongs of circumcising infant boys ever since a German court ruled in June that the ritual, a core part of the Jewish religion, was unlawful.

Now Charlotte Knobloch, 79, the former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, has had enough. In a furious editorial published on Wednesday in one of the country's top newspapers, Süddeutsche Zeitung, she said the controversy was calling the existence of Germany's small Jewish community into question and asked: "Do you still want us Jews?" ...

More articles on the court ruling:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/european-jewish-leaders-lambast-german-circumcision-ruling-a-844128.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/religious-communities-debate-court-s-circumcision-ruling-a-841276.html

I have been wondering whether anti-semitism plays a role in the circumcision debate. Some people apparently think so. While I am not really a fan of infant circumcision, I am unsure whether a blanket ban is the right way to go. On the other hand I cannot see how a court could have ruled otherwise, when it is framed as an issue of bodily injury.

[COLGATE4]

1. It would seem to me that the Germans might

be a little hesitant to tell Jews what they cannot do - it didn't work out so well in the past.

[redgreenandblue]

2. AFAIK there are efforts under way to create a legal framework for circumcision.

The court ruling was in response to a botched circumcision. It is not restricted to Jews of course.

[riderinthestorm]

3. Why can't a person decide for themselves as adults, whether to be circumcised?

That kind of body modification to mark one as part of a religious tribe? Why not let the person decide to do it when they're an adult? Why inflict that trauma on an infant?

I know that's an unpopular position here but honestly, permanent ritualistic body modification for no other reason but religious marking should be made by a consenting adult.

[Victor_c3]

5. agree

I look at circumcision for what it is - genital mutilation.

Why is everyone so vehemently opposed to female genital mutilation while male genital mutilation on male infants is standard practice? I do understand that there is a difference there and that female circumcision is done as a "power over women thing".

Let them grow up and decide for themselves as adults if they want to be circumsized. I'd be called a pretty shitty parent if were to get my newborn a tattoo or some other strange body modification thing. Why is it alright to butcher a child's penis?

Tying it in with the religious crowd, weren't we created in god's immage? If god wanted us to not have a foreskin then why did he stick one on to us? If we ritualistically remove this, aren't we admitting that god made a mistake and that god isn't perfect? I dunno. I'm just throwing that out there.

[redgreenandblue]

6. The two practices are not remotely similar.

While, as I have stated, I don't care much for circumcision of male infants, I would never compare it to what is done to girls in some countries.

[cthulu2016]

4. Saying that surgery should be performed by doctors doesn't seem unreasonable to me