Forbid circumcisions!
deutsch English français

Violence against kids motivated by religious reasons is rather still a taboo.

We want to deal with the most worse form of violence, the mutilation of extremities of kids.

<<< My old religious excercise - book from 1963/4: "The mortal sin devides men from God. Everybody who dies with the mortal sin, will be thrown to the hell, because he ´d lost the grace life... without sin - light sin - mortal sin."

At the moment we can notice a time of immense religious polarisation. The old Christian national churches of Europe got ruined and they are not able to exist by their own power any longer. Our society is almost secularized, only a minority is feeling to be obliged to the old religions.. Thereby the interest of people in religious alternatives, like esoteric, tantra etc. is rising. At the same time Europe is challenged by the Islam promulgating. But also (religious) Jewish life is rising up again.
And so we ´ve to ask the question how we shall deal with each other. We have to come to terms with the actuell situation, whereby a total tolerance would be as bad as intolerance.

What will be the sense of the initiative for a prohibition of circumcisions?

The basic sense of this initiave is to bring forward the right of religious self - determination for all people, either kids and grown - ups. Nobody will be asked whether he wants to be a member of the X - religious community or church, but he will be forced to do so by being baptised as a kid or by the chance of his birth normally. A possible later secession from the church will not be respected by the great Christian churches and by the Jewish church. Islamic churches threaten with capital punishment at all.
This right is ignored by all religious communities without any exceptions till today and its detended to the members. This methods are tolerated nearly always by the stately power, normally they are protagated at all.
The membership in a religious community or church has to be in each case in a volunteer way. The members must have the right to suceed from their organization without having to fear acts of revanche.
At least a lot of advocates of kid´s baptism say that the kids hadn´t to stand any suffer, if they will got a little bit water spilled over their heads. Everybody who wants can leave the church later and wouldn´t have to pay for it. Nobody would be interested whether he is a member of the church on a cheat of paper or not.
Maybe that there are people thinking so, I can´t say it. But at my time - I was born in 1955 - kids were beaten in churchly kindergartens, schools and other educational systems, and the religious education caused a lot of uncontrollable fears. But it will be difficult to get clear proves, because only the kid´s sentiments were hurted. Only claims for smart money by § 847 BGB (civil code of Germany) will remain.
And so we have to concentrate ourselves at first to the prohibition of circumcisions, because we can prove them clearly almost decades later.
Next to it the necessary dicussion about the moralic and juristic conditions of circumcisions and other forms of religious violence against kids religious self - determination will start, I hope so...

What´s about juristic matters? There is really no law prohibitting circumcisions!

But there is no a law prohibitting tatooing or piercing of little kids at all. We don´t need for each kind of bodily injuries a special law. The laws already existing punishing bodily injuries are sufficient, but they have to be used in a consequent way finally.
There is a general social and juristic agreement that ill - treatments of a kid cannot be tolerated. Thereby the motivation of the wrongdoers doesn´t play a part: Excessive charge by general life conditions, alcoholism, drugs, a psychic disorder or still religious reasons.
The motivation for ill - treatments of kids are only relevant to answer the question how to deal with the wrongdoer. Does he need a psychologic treatment or must he be put into jail? Shall he lost the custody of his kid?
Now there are a lot of concerning parents trying to neglect their responsibility by pretending medical reasons for the circumcision. But this matter will be turn out to be a lie, because there are normally big family celebrations for the circumcisions. Nobody would celebrate a medical treatment.
But even a treatment motivated by medical reasons will be respected juristically as a bodily injury, if the person under consideration does not consent. But the allowance of the parents causes that the medical treatment will be for the kid´s favour.
Normally that will be only a defensive lie, because circumcisions are only necessary in seldom exceptional cases which will be provable. In the best case the advantages and disadvantages of circumcisions compensate each other which will be provable too. But this wouldn´t be a juristic legitimation for a circumcision.
Now the question has to be answered whether the circumcision of kids motivated by religious reasons is compatible to the laws (not only) of our country. Therfore it will be necessary to make some precedent trials. All people alligated, doctors, parents, kids and the church, have to be interested in to get to know the legal situation.

Who will pay for the cost of circumcisions?

The German health insurance companies do not accept the costs for circumcisions motivated by religious reasons. That is one more reason why hygienic motives are often being pretended by the parents.
Nevertheless the German tax - payer has to pay for circumcisions. At the moment the relief offices of the German Federal Lands of Hessen, Schleswig - Holstein, Saxony and Thuringia pay in case of need for circumcisions and partly for the usually appertaining family celebrations. To it the admninistrative rules of the law of application on political asylum of Thuringia: §6 3.1.: „Die Kosten zur Gewährleistung des religiösen Existenzminimums, insbesondere die Kosten der Beschneidung von Muslimen und Juden, sind zu übernehmen.“ (Translation: "The costs to secure the religious margin of subsistence especially the costs for the circumcision of Moslems and Jews have to be accepted.") Therefore stately financed bodily injuries at kids are belonging to the "religious margin of substince" after the opinion of our authorities.

What do the koran, bible and talmud say to the circumcision?

I ´m not competent and responsible to answer this question. But the interpretation and qualification of this publications don´t play a part, because only the general human rights and the stately laws are relevant.

The schizophrenia of the religions: Tattoos are being forbidden, but circumcision are being allowed

The attitude of the religions to the theme of "tattoos" are very ambivalent. During tattoos are often being an urgend sign for exotic religions, tattoos are being refused at least officially by Christianity, Jewdom and Islam, because they mutilate irreversibly the body and are a manipulation of the creation - act of their respective Gods. This matter shall be true also for grown - ups which have decided by themselves in a voluntary way to do so. That´s why you can also demand for a churchly prohibition of circumcisions.

Circumcisions infringe upon the convention of Human Rights of the United Nations article V: "Prohibition of torture, of cruel and inhumane treatment or punishment."

Indeed this article refers to the precept of a human treatment of people who are being imputed or convicted of comitting crimes, or of prisoners of war etc.. But it will not be comprehensible that article V should not be employable just for people who are demonstrably innocent, like newborn kids, This would be contrary to human logic and make the Human rights to be absurd.

Circumcisions are normally made by Muslems and religious Jewish people, but Christians don´t so. Thereby the demand to forbid circumcisions is racist and anti - Semitic.

If we cede necessary and legitim critique at grievances to the rightest further on, we will not have to complain about that they will find new followers and more political influence later on. The rightest would like that best to banish Jewis people and Muslems out of Europe, that may not be our aim. It shall be rather of importance to affect them to give up some religious exercises, therefore their religion might become tolerable for rational thinking people one day. That mustn´t be an hopeless enterprise, because there are also some Jewish people criticizing circumcisions.
Reciprocal tolerance is a necessary condition for a peaceful social life of people with different cultures and thinking, but tolerance may not be accepted at any price. At the moment the conditons for tolerance are unfortunately not given.

Reviewers let miss the necessary sensibility for religious feelings. Circumcisions are a devine commandment, God´s laws ar not undr consideration and they are an essential part of the (Jewish) religion. We may not put this matter into question!

But you could also justify the tragedy of Auschwitz (Oswieczim). The nazis would had only executed a devine order, and so they are not be responsible for their wrongdoings. Religion is a very practical matter indeed, because one could surely incriminate anybody of the 800 different Gods to do so...
Anybody? Some years ago Rabbi Ovadja Josef of the Israelian Schas party called the Jewish victims of Auschwitz (Oswieczim) to be reincarnated sinners which had to pay for the wrongdoings of their ancestors.

Circumcisions are quite usual in the USA also by Christians. There is a large social acceptance. You don´t know cases that somebody rebelled against circumcisions.

But also slavery was accepted by state and society in the USA 150 years ago. You could demand the re-introduction of slavery by this argument.
But the USA proved that their state and the society are able to develope themselves. I want to remember at the civil rights movement of black people during the 1950s and 1960s. They were succesful to abolish white racism and aparthid extensively.
But there will be no why to be satisfied with the matters happened for the US - American and all of the others. We have still a lot of things do do in order reach the full religious freedom.
But now I can report good news from the USA. A citizens´ initiative was founded in California, San Francisco bringing forward a law against circumcisions in the USA. Further information

There are circumcisions already for a lot of centuries, they are an old cultural tradition.

All the worse! That only proves that we have to act. We can answer this question in a very simple way: We care about god traditions and abolish bad traditions.

But Jewish am Muslem parents are obligated by the rules of their religions and churches to let their kids circumsized.

That will be right, the parents and the doctors are not the only ones which are responsible for the injust the kids have to suffer. The churches obligating such an act are responsible in the same way.
But now the juristic situation is clear. If an organziation tells their members to commit criminal acts, so the organization must be respected to be a criminal community. Such an organization has to be forbidden.

The demand for a prohibition of circumcisions is an attac against religious freedom.

Everybody who trys to justify under the cover of religious freedom cruelty against animals, ill - treatments of kids or even carry on "holy" wars, will pervert religious freedom to its effect.
The religious freedom belongs to the general human rights, it shall offer people to decide in peace and freedom pro or contra a religion of their choice without restraining.
The right of bodily and mental safeness of kids may not be infringed. But a grown up may do what ever he wants, he may noch be favored or prejudiced because of his decision.

But at the other side a lot of protagonists of the prohibition of circumcisions are demanding the "right of abortion". Can we respect this attitude to be a contradiction?

The argumentation of many protagonists of the "right of abortion" is really often being absurd. The right of sexual self determination of men will find its limits if the interests of other third persons or the society will be infringed. There is no difference to other libertes in this compound self evidently.
Fact will be that we cannot define exactly when the existene of deserving protection lives of human beings will start, wheter right next to a "successful" copulation or first after the accouchement of the kid or some time or other between them.
Nevertheless abortions have to be tolerated and accepted in contradiction to circumcisions, because abortions are being unavoidable because of demographic reasons - almost as things are now. There will be 50 millions of abortions per year worldwide. The growth of the world´s popualtion would rise up analogues and would danger seriously the further existence of mankind.
It is deplorable that I have to report about this fact, but we may not ignore realities: The society has also got a lot of advantages by abortions. Abortions can only be avoided by preventive birth control, all other propagated methods will be unusable or even bad. In this compound I have to repeat my reproach at the churches and religious communities which are frustrating the necessary birth control besides racial politicians.
But at the other side circumcisions are not only bad for the concerned new born kids but also for the society, because everybody of us has to pay for it by paying taxes or fees of the health insurance. There will a lot of parents pretending healthy reasons for circumcisions in order to force the health insurance companies to pay for the treatment.

What would be the ideal solution of this problem?

It would be the best solution, if the churches were intelligent and neglect on circumsisions, baptism of kids etc. on a voluntary way.
However if there was such a readiness in reality, the churches would had had the possibilty to act in the concerned way for centuries.
But reality proved unfortunately, that the churches have been getting better only by outer pression. Otherwise we would have got the Christian stakes till today.

The German justice have been respected to kill animals according to Jewish and Muslim rites - cruelty against animals! - to be concordant with religious freedom, because religious freedom would be a privileged right.

You can surely advocate in a different way, whether the killing of animals according to Jewish and Muslem rites, what complies the fact of unnecessary cruelty against animals, is according to the right of free practising of religion.
But there is surely a difference between a cruelty against animals and kids. We shouldn´t be respectless against kids and should make a difference to animals.

Could you imagine seriously that the German justice will punish a Jewish person because of circumcision in reality?

I don´t think so. But I can´t also imagine that the German justice will condemn a Muslim because of such a delict in order not to provocate similar trials against Jewish people at all.
I think this matters are deplorable, because the legal state will be damaged once more. Nobody can neglect that Jewish people had to suffer a lot of unjustice and persecutions, almost but not only during the Third Reich. But a privileged special treatment may not be accepted anyway, because otherwise further antisemitism would be advanced.

Today´s state of affairs, July 1st 2012

The Landgericht Köln (District Court of Cologne, Germany) has respected the implementation of a circumcision motivated by religious reasons to be illegal and accepted the elements of an offense of aggravated battery (reference number 151 Ns / 169/11), because the kid´s interest of physical integrity would have got the precendence of religious heteronomy.

So at the first time in the history of the mankind´s justice the criminality of circumcision at defenceless kids was affirmed. Indeed, the wrongoers were not being punished, because they could refer themselves to an unavoidable mistake as to the wrongful nature of this act. After my opinion this decision was all rigtht. But this pretence cannot be accepted any longer by other cases in future.

What´s about the consequences of this judgement refering formally only to a concrete individual case? At first an alert public dicussion about this (former) taboo -theme was caused fortunately

The functionaries of all churches and religious communities protested vehemently, because they are respecting their clerical achievements and the religious - freedom perverted by those ones themselves to be dangered, becaius a prohibition of circumcisions could cause other prohibitions of forced christianization, forced islamization etc., what will be at least the sense of my publications. The konwledge of the functionarires of the religions that an act is wrong cannot be seen only rudimentally, even less a possible voluntary resignation at rites of such a kind.

Also our "democratic" politicians get in a flap and are thinking already about new laws allowing explicitly such illtreatments of kids in future. This unreasonnables of the secular and churchly fuehrers will advance inevitably and unavoidably the populistic anti - Semitism and anti - Islamism. But there will not really be any reason for a false pity with the wrongdoers and the protagonists of the circumcisions.

Well, at first we have to wait for the decision of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht /Federeal Constitutional Court), which will have to deal with this problem sonner or later. Can we hope for a victory of the right???

...but what shall be the sense of the legal actions against the respected doctors and parents?

Let´s see, the intention is to inform the population about this problems. Besides them there is no real knowledge that an act was wrong by the Muslims I know at least, that circumcisions etc. are wrongdoings.
Matters which are noch clearly forbidden seem to be tolerable by the society, for example the Dutch drug - laws.
Besides them we can notice in other countries a different situation. The non - German jurists can judge without being prejudiced of the awful history of the Third Reich.
Besides the relevance to criminal laws we have to notice the points of view of the civil right. Because doctors and parents dealed by order of the churches, the repected churches were responsible and liable for the half of the claim of smart - money of the victims of religious violence. The churches would be accused of a quantity of legal proceeding of smart - money, what would ruin their economical power in a very strong way. If the churches want to prevent such a situation, the churches have to prove their understanding and have to change their behaviour.
Anything what ´s being good and right will be succesful, in any way!


Sine April 14th 2014: A firsthand report
and proposals for solution of a man concerned

"I ´m belonging to those ones which had been circumsized as a kid because of "medical reasons", and therefore I ´m feeling an immense hate against circumcisions till now.

I respect the problem of the new (German) law that legalizes to continue the circumcision of boys by "medical reasons". "Medical" experts base, that there are possible pains during the sexual intercourse and impotence can be caused. This argumentation is really ideotic after my opinion by the following reasons:

* People which are too young to be potent can ignore a phimosis.

* People which are too young to have sexual intercourses can be unconcerned to the pains during sexual intercourses.

* Pains are an only hedonistic matter, and nobody has got the right to hinder somebody else to get pains.

* A circumcision cannot be cancelled, that´s why the operation has to be neglected in a case of doubt. We have to prefer a decision allowing to leave all options open.

* There are known cases showing that a phimosis will regress itself by the influence of testtosterine during the late puberty.

Therefore I would advise to introduce the following legal situation:

* Circumcisions of men with the age of less than 14 years or of impotent men should be forbidden on principle whitout each kind of exceptions.

* Circumcisions of men with the age of 14 up tpo 25 years should only be allowed, if the patient by himself or his father gives his okay to do so. The permission of the mother should not be sufficient.

* If there are (real or alleged) "medical" motivations, the decision has to be attested by a male and non - Jewish doctor.

* Men which have been dying can be circumsized by religious motivations after their death, because the religions are mainly interested in matters which can happen after the death.

The noticed limits of the age are resulting from the right of religious self - determination and the allowance to practise sexual intercourses at the age of 14 years. The allowance to get a sterilization for contraception is given from the age of 25 years on.

The allowance of the father justifies itself, because - I ´m not sexist! - male sexual organs are a theme which cannot be censured by women which are not qualified to do so. The father should be determined in an intelligent kind by the following algorithm:

* If the biological father is known and alive, so he will have to be respected to be the father.

* In other cases, if a male parent exists, he will have to be respected to be the father.

* In other respect a male judge has to decide.

* The person who decides my not be transsexual.

The circumcision of death bodies may sound to be absurde, but it will be after my opinion a good compromise in order to stop to make the religions not so angry. It would be rather unintelligent to make the Islam angry at the political situation of the moment.

My intention is mainly to get you to know that also a circumcision which is not motivated by a religious reason ist a real problem."

Translated from German by Joachim Kossmann, the name and the address of the author of the original text are known to me, Joachim Kossmann


Back to the themes "Religion" -- Startsite