Circumcision on religious grounds is illegal in Germany and always has been according to the court. The doctor was cleared as he couldn't have known that as it has been performed illegally for so long.

I agree with the decision. Parents should not be allowed to surgically remove any body parts of their children (unless recommended by a doctor in cases of immediate danger to the well-being of the child: appendicitis etc.). Once the child reaches legal age, he can choose to follow the teachings of his church/religion of choice. Honestly, I can't believe that no child has yet sued his parents over this matter.

They did not outlaw it for medical reasons according to the article I read.
http://www.economist.com/node/21558299

I notice (having read it now) that German leader Angela Merkel seems to think she'll be able to overturn the decision. Only by passing new legislation, I hope. The executive should not be able to over-rule the judiciary...

They seem to think it will require a some kind of constitutional amendment since it is the German constitution that guarantees the inviolability of all people regardless of their age.

Alexa, what child do you think sees theirparents as anything but infallible until their later years, and what adult really gives a shite if they were circumsized for, from their prespective, theirentire life.

So it's now illegal to be Jewish in Germany.

@dipplayer, Not the first time that's been true.

It was a lower court ruling and is destined to be overturned.

Yeah, when does this "child right" thing override religious freedom... Oh wait! This is Germany, source of history's biggest antisemitic genocidal asshole. Sieg Heil!

Simply publish a study that says in clinical trials that women received more pleasure from a circumcised partner the law will be repealed faster than you can sell 1,000,000 little blue ExtenZe tablets.

@dipplayer - I think Germany allows anybody to be what they want to be and continues to allow a parent to bring their children up as they wish, the only caveate is that they don't 'harm' them.

I don' t think this be overturned it is right that states should respect religious freedoms but now it will be looked at closely how can any state accept male circumcision for Muslim and Jewish boys but then deny a religion that supports female circumcision? When states have to choose between allowing both or banning both, they will ban both.

No, if you can't circumcise your child, you CANNOT transmit your Judaism to that child. This is a fundamental aspect of the religion.

And female circumcision is radically different, in purpose and in tradition.

How does male circumcision harm the male child? It was originally doen to reduce diseases of the nether regions. But female "circumcision" has always been mutilation for the sake of mutilating and dominating females.

For those who doubt the *benefits* of male circumcision, here is a CDC article (you know, those folks at the Center for Disease Control aka CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Dipplayer, do you really want to give parents with certain religious beliefs the right to harm their children or put them at risk by subjecting them to unnecessary surgical procedures?

I appreciate that the purpose and tradition may be different but the fact remains that some religions conduct female circumcision and that will lead to the state opposing male circumcision because it opposes other religious traditions. The state can't pick and choose which religions to validate.

With regards your point about circumcision being central to Judaism I can appreciate that and it isn't for me, a non-Jew, to tell others what should or shouldn't be treated as central to their beliefs.

That said I don't think that people will stop being Jewish because he country they live in bans some practices.

Circumcision is a rite of ancient provenance and highly powerful meaning. Asking Jews to take it out of their religion, at the appointed time in early life, would be like asking Christians to give up the Eucharist.

So it is not "unnecessary" to a Jew, nor is it "harmful." Quite the opposite.

At draugnar I haven't had time to read your link forgive me, but this case was bought because the circumcision caused problems. If we are created in god's Image why do we think we can improve on that? Also if you ar correct that circumcision is healthier why not let a child decide at an age where he can make an informed decision?

The state picks and chooses all the time. Polygamy is illegal, and some mormon fundamentalist sects think that's pretty important to their belief.

"I don't think that people will stop being Jewish because he country they live in bans some practices."

So Jews who want their kids circumcised can just move out of Germany? The Reich can be judenrein at last!

@Alex - I ask again what the harm is? I have provided a CDC link that clearly shows the benefits of male circumcision to men. I have also seen studies that show a reduced risk of cervical cancer to women whose male partners are circumcised.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/news/20110106/male-circumcision-cuts-womens-cervical-cancer-risk

There isn't any harm. Quite the opposite. This is a beneficial procedure over the course of the male child's life regardless of sexual orientation and the life/lives of their female sexual partner(s).

At dipplayer, I never said it was unnecessary to the jewish faith, I hope I would never be so insulting, my point is that I assume that Jews will still be Jews if the practice is banned. Am I wrong in this assumption? Would they decide to give up their other customs, practices and beliefs if circumcision was banned? I accept your point ha other practices are deeply entrenched in other religions, but again suggest that hose religions would continue if some practices were banned.

@Maniac - because the hormones that help stop the bleeding and make the procedure the safest are only within the human male's body in infancy. that combined witgh the risk of unexpected engorgement during recovery (something less likely to be problematic pre-puberty) means waiting until the age of accountability is *not* in the boy/man's best itnerest.

AlexNesta implied it was unnecessary.

Maniac, I don't think you are understanding how important some things are to religious people. Give up the Eucharist, or Circumcision, or the Koran, and you might as well give up being Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim, respectively.

@dpplayer - you seem to make my point, polygamy is important to Mormons, but hey remai Mormons even when the practice is outlawed.

I hope you don't think i'm being anti-semeic here. I think the state should defend religious freedoms and I accept fully that circumcision is fundamental to the Jewish faith, my sole point is that if any state has to balance religious freedoms with human rights the human rights tend to win out, particularly in is case where other religions can also claim that female circumcision is within their beliefs.

All this will do is force Jews to do "underground" circumcisions in Germany, whicyh carries more risk by not ebing in the proper setting with proper instruments and procedures. If you ban any religious tenant vital to the core of that faith, people will find a way to do it anyhow. Rome banned Christianity and Christian practices (including the Eucharist) but practicing Christians still got together and observed the supper and prayed together even under penalty of torture and death by fire or gladiator or lion.

@Maniac - what human right? I've already provided two articles from well respected medical institutions that show male circumcision is a *positive* thing to the man's health and to his partner's health should she be female.

@draugnar - the argument that people will do what they want to do anyway so there is no point in legislating is valid, but the same could be said of many laws abortion at 35 weeks, euthanasia etc. just because people an easily break a law does not mean we shouldn't make laws.

Dipplayer - I think I understand how central to peoples' belief some things are, but answer honestly (I'm assuming you are religious) if the state banned 1 practice would you give up your religion entirely or continue with the other aspects?

No, my point is that the society/government can make some distinctions. They can weigh the merits of certain practices. Male Circumcision has held up and been acceptable for many centuries. Female circumcision, otoh, has been regarded as barbaric and immoral, and that is quite understandable. There is a distinction.

In the case of polygamy, the US government has decided that it violates the norms of the society, and is beyond the pale. Otoh, the US has decided that native americans can use the drug peyote, when other drugs are illegal, and that its use can only be justified for practicing native americans.

This opposition to male circumcision is a new innovation, and it is hard not to see it motivated by animus towards Jews and Muslims.