http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.b366bcb4938d63343527dd6cef4ca477.5b1 I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Jesus PBUH was a Jew and circumcised and I thought Germany was supposed to be a Christian country so why would they be against something that Jesus PBUH did? Why are they banning it exactly? whats the reason? <<<mod edit>>> flame bait
They consider it an assault. In essence, any unneccessary surgery is an assault. Having said that - it was only one court that took that stance and currently some states have already provided that it can be done under conditions. German lawmakers are expected to legislate so that it will be possible under proper conditions.
Germany is also a secular democracy with an independent judiciary. What Jesus may have done (or had done to him) entirely is irrelevant to their legal system (as it should be IMO). Judging from the article you linked, it isn't an actual ban but extended legal requirements on parents who wish to have their young sons circumcised on religious grounds. It also appears to be regional, only applying in the city of Berlin. I don't know what the motivation for that law is or how honest it's implementation is. In general terms, there is a strong opinion among some people that non-medically required circumcision is unnecessary cruelty to the child and religious motivations shouldn't be permitted as an exception to that cruelty. Such opinions have led to pressures to restrict, regulate or ban the practice in various places. I very much doubt that is a significant factor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/n...s-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html?_r=1 Are these guys Hasidic? I thought Hasidic were the ones who wear the long black silk coats and have the long beards and hair at the side?
Not if it serves a practical purpose, as circumcision has been shown to do. Reducing the likelihood of STDs. The only ones against circumcision are those who are just rabidly anti-Christian or anti-Semitic.
I was unaware that infants needed protection against STD's. I would think that at some point, the infant would mature to the point of which he would attain some sort of cognitive ability to make the decision on his own to cut the foreskin off of his penis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...outweigh-risks-amid-u.s-decline-in-procedure/ Babies can get stds as well, though I can't imaging a circumcision would be preventative.
Actually doctors agree that circumcision has many health benefits. The only reason you have a problem with it anyway is because Christians (and/or Jews) do it. If vaccines were a "Christian tradition", I'm sure you'd be condemning them as "injecting toxins into little kids without their consent" too.
I'm under the impression any general medical benefits are debatable. Regardless, that should be a decision made on medical grounds with medical advice. On that basis, it could also be made at a later date when the child is old enough to have an input. The objection isn't to the procedure in itself, only on it being automatically imposed on young children for purely religious tradition. I resent that accusation and I think you should retract it. It's hardly conducive to an intelligent, balanced discussion of the subject. Incidentally, on your basis why wouldn't it also be anti-Islamic?
LOL I don't care what religion does it. Cutting off part of a baby's penis is wrong. Why not wait until he's an adult then he can decide for himself if he wants part of his dick cut off? Why is that such a problem?
Maybe because the foreskin has more pleasure feeling nerve endings than the female clitoris? The foreskin serves a practical purpose too: to protect the glans and keep them moist, not to mention gliding action during sexual intercourse. I mean just look at the circumcised penis; it doesn't look as right and natural as one that was left intact!
