German court bans circumcision for religious reasons

Via WhatReallyHappened

This is the Google translate from the German Financial Times
The ruling is over a case where a Muslim doctor performed a circumcision on a 4 year old, who was still bleeding 2 days later. The doctor was indicted.. but cleared and now this law has been isntituted because of what happened.. Infact the

district court evaluated him now as a "serious and irreversible impairment of physical integrity."

An exclusive judgment of the Landgericht Köln refers to a widespread medical procedure carried out for religious reasons: According to the circumcision of boys in the future worth of a bodily injury. Matthias Ruch
Who cuts boys for religious reasons is liable to prosecution for assault. This decided the regional court in Cologne in a landmark judgment, which the FTD is present. Neither the parents nor the right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the Basic Law can justify this procedure, the court clearly in his ruling.
This is the first time a German court the religious custom of punishment.Every year in Germany, several thousand boys are circumcised in their early years at the request of parents. In the U.S., even the majority of boys - largely independent of the religion - circumcised right after birth. Also, there is forming now but massive resistance to this practice.Worldwide, about one-quarter of all men are circumcised.

This is interesting... Banned for religious reasons! And especially in Europe, it appears to target certain religions, of course,

"The court has - unlike many politicians - not to be deterred by the fear of being criticized as anti-Semitic and anti-religious," praised Putzke. "This decision could not only shape the future case, but lead in the best case with the concerned religions to a shift in consciousness, to respect fundamental rights of children."

and

"Islam is part of Germany." Sein Nachfolger Joachim Gauck variierte: " His successor, Joachim Gauck varied: "The Muslims who live here belong to Germany."Some Muslims might interpret the Cologne verdict as a step backwards now.

Does anyone think this is suppressing religion too much? What would happen if that was a new law in North America (hypothtical of course)?

Thoughts?!

GOOD! There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have the right to physically harm or disfigure another human, religious beliefs or otherwise.

reply to post by Nspekta


Foreskin

Having it, is now in vogue again.

I agree.
A Male should decide for themselves as an adult the why's and what for's etc...

The problem is a cultural one.. In Britain for example those who where circumcised either caught something nasty and needed the infected parts amputated, or a bed wetter or a chronic masturbator.. so you could say popular culture has an attachment to having a whole willy.. I guess one could infer that if you saw on circumcised willy during the Victorian era it would indicate a dirty, bed wetting mastabator, not exactly a positive image, while from what I understand the popular cultural image in America is far more positive.

But I do think this issue should be about choice, and I lean towards the choice lying with the person who has to live with the results.. As far as I am aware we still lack enough information to say circumcision has good, bad or even neutral effects, the British Medical Association is itself pretty undecided since in their opinion both sides present very biased research to prove their assertion of good/bad, and I guess until it is clearly non beneficial the BMA will sit, like Britain generally does, on the fence.

The human body is pretty freaking amazing the way it is.

I see no good reason to start slicing bits of it off, for any reason. Religious or otherwise.

Hypocrites.

If it was a tattoo or a piercing, everyone would be raving about artistic expression.

It is the attempt to kill religious culture. The problem with the Jewish religion is that it stands in the way of having a one world government. The globalists cannot stand for groups to have their own personal identity apart from the state.

The state thinks nothing of giving a child a vaccination, which will leave a permanent scar, and expose the infant to definite medical risks. But in that case it is OK because the state is making the choice for an infant and its family. The state cannot stand a competitor (synagogue), vying for authority over anyone's life, even self-imposed.

Originally posted by tovenar

Hypocrites.

If it was a tattoo or a piercing, everyone would be raving about artistic expression.

It is the attempt to kill religious culture. The problem with the Jewish religion is that it stands in the way of having a one world government. The globalists cannot stand for groups to have their own personal identity apart from the state.

The state thinks nothing of giving a child a vaccination, which will leave a permanent scar, and expose the infant to definite medical risks. But in that case it is OK because the state is making the choice for an infant and its family. The state cannot stand a competitor (synagogue), vying for authority over anyone's life, even self-imposed.

I call BS! And not to mention it has zero do with artistic expression. It's very simple, not your body, not your right to alter it! I disagree with most vaccinations as well, but if my kids want to be vaccinated as adults then that will be up to them. The state NOR the synagogue should have authority over anyone's life! Not to mention a tattoo is not the same as chopping part of a child's body off. *not that I condone either*

I have four boys and I happen to think that they were born just as they should be and that it wasn't my right to go around chopping parts of their penis's off. Absolutely a barbaric practice! And of course lets not get into female circumcision and how many people would have their panties in a wad. The same people who may be ok with male circ'ing would be against female circ.. lets talk about hypocrites! What gives "religious culture' any such right to go around insisting or promoting parents to chop off part of their son's genitals? It's barbaric, nothing more!

If God/Allah made us in our image, then why cut things of?
I never understood this, why?

(Found this one via Stumble upon)

reply to post by Nspekta


Religion? How about hygiene?

The anti-circumcision folks are some of the biggest frikin morons out there. Every time I hear some dumbass woman talking about how it tortures baby boys I want to hit them.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Nspekta

 

Religion? How about hygiene?

The anti-circumcision folks are some of the biggest frikin morons out there. Every time I hear some dumbass woman talking about how it tortures baby boys I want to hit them.

Hygiene? Hmm How must I see this then....

30years old I am, and never had any problems down there...

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


Being circumcised is recognized as being "cleaner" and also "safer" in that you have a 60% higher chance to contracting certain STD's being uncircumcised. People that do not clean "down there" and are uncircumcised can get all kinds of infections. Just a fact of life.. it's why the process was started. The only "side affects" recognized by doctors is "pain" which is of course BS, and "decreased sensitivity".. but again there is little evidence of that either.

There are 3 types of people who oppose circumcision:

People who think it hurts their babies. (usually moronic women. Have you ever heard a guy say "damn .. remember your circumcision? That hurt!" No. Because we don't remember.

People who think they should give their kid a choice.

And people like you who are uncircumcised and think that's cool.

It should be a personal choice for the parents.

All You Need to Know About Your Penis

reply to post by Nspekta


Why does religion have to be involved in circumcision? Is there some divine component to putting a small child through pain and suffering?

I feel the same way about baptisms.

Why do people insist on continuing these archaic, backward religious rituals?

reply to post by Rockpuck


It should be up to the kids, not the parents.

After all, the penis belongs to the child and the child will determine if/how it is used once they turn an adult age.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Ummmm circumcision did not start because it was better personal hygiene, it began as a religious custom and that fact came out later. People are more than capable of cleaning their genitals. This hygiene mess is an excuse. You do realize these are the same excuses people use for female genital mutilation right?

reply to post by Rockpuck


Bollocks, Rockpuck. Total bollocks. All that claptrap about it being "cleaner", or less of a chance of STD's etc has been shown to be utter claptrap in the other circumcision threads out there.

I especially love the claims about it "improving sex", despite the act of removing a foreskin removes a significant part of the nerve endings in the penis, plus I do wonder how anyone could possibly know circumcised sex is better than uncircumcised as they have never tried it!

Honestly, stop peddling this BS. If you have encountered people with dirty nobs, it isn't because they are uncircumcised, but because they are dirty animals. Doesn't take much to give it a wash.

It's like that woman bleeting in the "Sweden makes men sit for peeing" thread, where she said all men were disgusting, couldn't aim in the bowl and pissed everywhere, based solely on the actions of her husband and sons.

Newsflash love, it isn't all men and we're not disgusting, it just so happens yours are. Doesn't take much to wipe the seat if you spill. Same for anyone who claims circumcised willies are cleaner.

reply to post by stumason

I especially love the claims about it "improving sex", despite the act of removing a foreskin removes a significant part of the nerve endings in the penis, plus I do wonder how anyone could possibly know circumcised sex is better than uncircumcised as they have never tried it!

I can't agree with you more. I know as I've still got mine. I can reach the finish line by just being touched on the part that's removed in circumcision.

I feel bad for anyone who has had theirs removed without permission.

Those that support circumcision on males for religious reasons must also support female circumcision.
Both totally wrong.



edit: as for the 'clean' bit or the argument for circumcision. Do people have colostomy bags fitted due to the fact that some dirty people can't clean their rears properly after dropping the kids off in the pool?

Mutilating your own child in the name of religion...

Most people with common sense should realize how wrong that is. I applaude Germany. There is no difference between male circumcision and sexual mutilation of women as takes place in third world countries. Both are barbaric practices. And as for doing it in the name of hygiene - bull#! It doesn't take much to pull back the foreskin and clean "down there". There is no need to chop off the foreskin. That's just an excuse for religious nutcases to get their way.

I sincerely hope the rest of the world follow this example.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


Who says God is not circumcised?

reply to post by Gauss


Circumcision is now on the way to increasing numbers.

Not only are Jews and Muslims circumcised but so are most Middle Eastern & African Christians, most Polynesians especially those in the Cook Islands/Tonga/Samoa (for religious reasons too I might add), all Armenians, all males of the British Royal family and European Royal families, wealthy Spanish/Mexican/South Americans, a majority of Americans...do I need to go on?

So pluzzzzzzzz people! When you spout horror towards Jews and Muslims for circumcising their young boys.....there are other groups who have been doing it for alot longer! Learn some damn history!

reply to post by bluemirage5

Circumcision is now on the way to increasing numbers.

Hmmmmm there maybe a correlation here.

Save the foreskin, for World peace.