Today, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America criticized a German court’s ruling that circumcision constitutes an infringement on private religious practice. A district court in Cologne ruled that circumcision is acceptable only when performed as a medical necessity.
The case involved a Cologne doctor charged with injuring a 4-year-old Muslim boy during a circumcision procedure in a local hospital. Although the doctor was acquitted in a lower court, a state prosecutor appealed to a district court, which ruled that the child’s parents had violated their son’s right to physical and religious autonomy.
The district court ruling must now be upheld by either the Federal Constitutional Court or the German Federal Court of Justice.
The Orthodox Union’s leadership stated: “The lower court decision is at odds with principles of religious freedom and deeply troubling in the context of German history. We call upon the higher courts and German leadership to reverse its ruling and reassert Germany’s recognition of religious freedom.”
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
Not such an easy case to argue.
There are loads of religions and sub-religions diversifying and opening up constantly. Should we just allow all parents who are inflicting wounds on their children to claim ‘Religious Practice’?
The ancient and old religions are even more severe. Think of Oiv V’doini, or the Avoide Zoroh ‘Moilech’.
Even the Akeidoh, which Avrohom Oveinu O”H almost performed, would leave any justice dept perplexed.
Think of Ben Sorer Umoreh (only one Shita holds Lo Hoyo Vlo Nivro).
Think of selling a young daughter to Omoh Ivriyo, without the permission of your wife.
There was a Taneh who made his daughter die, because a man walking by, was staring at her.
There is no way that a secular judge can understand these religious ideas.
Do not confuse legend with history.
Do not confuse the written word with the interpretation
provided by the talmud and later writings.
Everyone sees what they are looking for, good and bad.
#1, It’s a very easy case to argue. There’s no need to bring in every bizarre rite that someone might invent. The case is only about this ritual, and the case for its legality is overwhelming. When someone wants to amputate a child’s finger for religious reasons, they can argue their case, and lose.
To shine a short spotlight of rational thinking on the subject:
‘Cruel and barbaric practice’ is accurate only when describing impactful or torturous behavior that causes more pain than just a blood test or series of vaccinations.
No one would make the argument that a vaccination or blood test with a purpose should be illegal. Further no one is suggesting that the ear piercing of an infant should be labeled as primitive or barbaric or evil, despite it being only done because of the parents view that it is warranted for bejeweling their baby; Or the possible contention that any of these actions might in someway violate a possible religious tenet that the child may one day choose to follow. In a similar manner, when Circumcision carries strong religious meaning in the parents eyes for the well-being of their child, it should be viewed no different. Religious meaning too can be classified as good reason for things like ear piercing, vaccinations, and more specifically Circumcision. (FYI a baby will cry no more after a Circumcision that following shots given by their local Pediatrician).
The courts’ argument is based on the fact that Milah, does leave a permanent alteration to certain functions, (v’ein Kaan Hamokeom). Therefore, they compare it to female genital mutilation. The immediate pain is not
even a factor.
Since it’s very difficult to differentiate between this ritual and that ritual, the OU offered a broad argument, that the Gov’t should not get involved in ANY religious activity. Now, how can we win this argument.
I’d like to see how the Germans relate to abortion. According to them, a bris is an infringement on private religious practice. According to the Germans what is an abortion? Poking around in a woman’s womb and killing the baby inside- that’s okay. Heaven forbid the Germans and other murderer countries should ban abortion!!! What happened to the infringement ban on the private life of the fetus where in a few months it becomes a living human being raised in the mother’s womb? Killing fetuses by the millions-that’s okay. But banning circumcision that’s been done for thousands of years with very few errors- that’s not okay. More damage has been done with abortions than with circumcisions. But what else can you expect from a nation of murderers y”s.
#1 and #5,The US Supreme Court gives very wide latitude to religious fredom although not a complete blank check. It allowed animal sacrifices (Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)) but upheld state prohibitions of drug use even in religious ceremonies.(Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)).
Ov v’yidoni has nothing harmful in it’s practice, and neither does Molech.
The fact is that close to all children follow the religion of the parents, especially by the strongly religious. When the child grows up they will definitely be pleased that they were curcumcised as necessary. If need be I can testify about myself on this. This court is actually infringing not only on the religious rights of the parents but of the child as well.
We know that history repeats itself but this is history stuttering.