Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Collision of secular value and religious rights over circumcision

  1. #1 Collision of secular value and religious rights over circumcision 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    A German court has ruled that circumcision violates their constitutional concept of "body integrity" rights and constitutes bodily harm--a choice that only the person themselves once they reach the age consent at 14 years. Of course the Jewish and Muslim communities, which both include circumcision as specifically demanding by their faiths disagree.

    Most Germans agree with the ruling, but there's, of course, concern about the perception of German as intolerant--something they often go our of their way to avoid.

    Personally I hope the law stands.

    Circumcision ban makes Germany laughing stock: Merkel | Reuters


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Well if there was a religion that wanted to chop off people's little fingers would everyone consider that acceptable, there has long been people protesting the practise of female circumcision but for some reason people seem to think it's perfect acceptable to chop bits off a male.

    Anything involving chopping bits off of people for religious reasons should be restricted by the courts so that the people themselves are old enough to give informed consent.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I was circumcised, my sons weren't. I told them they could have it done when they became "of age" and both chose not to.
    I consider it a barbaric practice which might have had some value before modern hygene, but has morphed into an us vs them sort of view and statement.
    Germany---"love it or leave it". or appeal the ruling to a higher court. (why do I think another course of action will ensue?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Germany can be a bit funny when comes to upsetting the Jewish, so you could well be right.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    "Integrity" of a baby sounds fair enough on surface, but easily conflicts with the right of individuals to bear and raise offspring with their own cultural or genetic "abnormalities".

    Hypothetically, if a schizophrenic woman had the medical option to prevent her baby from acquiring genetically caused schizophrenia, should the state enforce one choice or the other?

    Are cultural traits different from genetic ones in case of parents' rights to their "integrity" of offspring? Why?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    "Integrity" of a baby sounds fair enough on surface, but easily conflicts with the right of individuals to bear and raise offspring with their own cultural or genetic "abnormalities".

    Hypothetically, if a schizophrenic woman had the medical option to prevent her baby from acquiring genetically caused schizophrenia, should the state enforce one choice or the other?

    Are cultural traits different from genetic ones in case of parents' rights to their "integrity" of offspring? Why?

    Cultural traits are one thing, most people would agree that people of the Jewish or Muslim community should be allowed to bring their children according to their culture, the question is does that right extend to mutilation and basically that is what it amounts to.

    Whilst there are many things within a cultrural background that could be considered out dated many are kept out of sentimentalism but no longer has any real functional significance. Now this is fine so long as these things are not harmful, however why should people be expected to put up with mutilation for the sake of sentimentalism?

    Surely people should be old enough to be able to make a choice over whether a part of their body is or isn't chopped off?

    If there was a new religion created tomorrow that wanted to chop off bits of a childs body for the sake of their culture or religion would the rest of us just accept this or might we consider it harmful and abusive?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 21st, 2010, 10:17 AM
  2. Blood clotting and circumcision
    By pipi in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 11th, 2010, 02:50 AM
  3. Secular law is better than Religious law.
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 12:01 PM
  4. The Secular Acceleration of the Moon
    By Total Science in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 13th, 2008, 09:21 PM
  5. Our Secular System in Crisis
    By charles brough in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 28th, 2007, 04:55 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •