Shame on Germany for Circumcision Ban

Pages: 1 2

Why do countries with long histories of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry seem to care more about the so-called rights of young children not to be circumcised than do other countries in the world with far better histories of concern for human rights?  The same rhetorical question can be asked of countries, such as Norway, that care so much about the rights of animals not to be slaughtered according to Jewish ritual.  These questions are entirely rhetorical because every thinking person knows the answer.  It’s not because Germans or Norwegians are better people and care more about children and animals than do Americans.  It is because they care less about Jews.  Or more precisely they care a lot about Jews.  They just don’t like them very much and don’t care if they are forced to leave the country because they cannot practice their religions there.

So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised a week after birth.  Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews.

History is not irrelevant in assessing current policies.  The history of Germany (and Norway) in prohibiting Jews from practicing their traditional rituals goes back to a time when overt anti-Semitism was not only acceptable, it was de rigueur.  Today, new words replace discredited old ones.  Anti-Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. The welfare of children instead of the banning of religious rituals.  But it’s all the same.  Anyone who falls for the new pseudo scientific nonsense about the evils of circumcision or ritual slaughter is as naïve or bigoted as those who fell for the old pseudo scientific racial claims of Nazism.

Indeed, there is an ugly whiff of “racial superiority” in the implicit assumption underlying these bigoted laws:  Namely, that Germans and Norwegians are somehow morally (if not racially) superior to other countries that permit such “barbaric” practices.

So let’s call a spade a spade and let’s call anti-Semitism by its true name.

Pages: 1 2

  • Stephan

    How about women having pain having sexual intercourse with circumcised men?

    • bkopicz

      What the would you know about sexual intercourse

    • JoJoJams

      talk about psuedo-science!Look, the "worst" that can be said is that there may be a loss of sensitivity, mostly just do to the head of the pen1s being exposed, and cloth rubbing on it. Over time, as the male grows up, that would translate in to the skin being a bit less sensitive. However: Is that such a bad thing? Being able to hold out longer for more pleasure for ones woman? lol – Most would agree that is a good thing. And there is just NO way it would feel ANY different for the woman – not in the least. Because an erect pen1s is an erect pen1s – and there is no difference whatsover, when they are erect.

  • waaaaaaa

    oh quiet dershowitz, the germans have done more for israel and the jews than you give them credit for. do the german authorities still teach their children that "they" are responsible for the holocaust which happened almost seventy years ago, creating the same type of multi-generational blood libel which befell the jews? have the germans not handed out over 30 billion (!) marks/euros in reparation payments since WWII? Have the russians handed out any reparations from their brutal occupation of europe or any apologies for formenting communism all over the world? Where is the outrage that after WWII, the germans in the east where brutally moved, raped, and looted from most of their possessions?

    since the germans are such evil jew-haters, why would any jew want to live among them? germany is not a threat to anyone, so leave them alone already. perhaps mr. dershowitz should remind himself that much of jewish culture is completely derived from german culture, such as the mother tongue yiddish.

    • Joshua

      Furthermore…….dershowitz fails to mention HERPES or METZITZAH B'PEH where the Rabbi uses his MOUTH to the wound after cutting off the Foreskin.
      At least 2 babies have died of Herpes

      It is a Public Health issue. Who Knows ? This practice may have been the original cause of Genital Herpes. If at least 2 babies can die of a Herpes contagion, how many more lived on to pass on the disease later ?

    • Davey

      I agree entirely. Dershowitz doesn't know what is at "bottom" in the law, he is only guessing and his guess is the same guess used by paranoid Jews before, during and after the Holocaust. It is all about them, all about not liking them. Everything is about them. Animal cruelty? Forget it — it's anti-semitism, as is everything and anyone critical of things Jews support, like or respect….most essentially, Israel. Dersch knows better because he can look into the heart of others, his special penetrating Jewish antennae, and what he finds there is just what he hypothesized.

      Most important of all — "anti-semitism" is not an endgame. It is not the final dismissive of every argument about Israel, Jews, ritual slaughter, the Lobby etc. Uncovering anti-semitism does not empty the arguments of meaning and value, nor does it consign the discussion to an oblivion of fantasies along with the Tooth Fairy. Anti-semitism is not an irrational fantasy at all, but a short cut in reasoning based upon much experience etc. etc. Jews never ask "Why anti-semitism?" and rather say it is "irrational" so that no more discussion is needed. But let's be clear — there may be many valid reasons why even a thinking person could develop a prejudice (a short cut) against Jews. Jews are not free of behaviors that can be aped and stereotyped. They are not free of characteristics that some could find offensive or objectionable. Dersh finding anti-semitism in anti-cruelty legislation in another country can be stereotyped and made an object of derision (or comic!). There are lots of things about Jews that I don't like and I'm Jewish! So, anti-semitism is not mere wackiness: It is cheap and easy and unsatisfying but it is not empty.

  • Newspaniard

    Both circumcision and not stunning animals before bleeding them are barbaric and belong in the 7th century. Why would ANY mother want to mutilate her beutiful boy-child and also risk its life and future enjoyment of sex by having this totally unnessary act performed. I can only assume that the victim card is being waved here because someone is losing money by people coming to their senses. Well done those European countries who stand up against writers such as these.

    • JoJoJams

      Read the August issue of Science News for their article on circumcision. Funny, it's been used for millenia by Jews and Christians with no ill effects, even before modern health and doctors. And being a little "less sensitive" (not from the procedure itself – simply from exposed skin being rubbed by cloth as one goes through life – the skin may get a little thicker is all) isn't a bad thing – when that translates in to being able to hold out longer for one's woman. What? Are you jealous mister quick shot? ;-) It actually does have health benefits, not that that could get through your "elitist" skull, thinking you are oh so superior! (when your really aren't….)

      • Newspaniard

        You ignore the fact that on average over 80 boys a year, in the USA alone, die from complications after the performance of this barbaric act, not to mention those permanently damaged who will nver know the joy of sex. I am aware that there is all sorts of arguments put forward for it, most of it twaddle to try and convince people to part with $3,000 to have the op done in hospital. For example the cervical cancer nonsense was put about by a women's organization who would like to see all men castrated but will settle for a damaged or even useless penis instead. I say again, what loving parent would expose their child to the dangers of this barbaric act when in the 21st century it is totally unnecessary.

      • Newspaniard

        @Stephan provides an answer to your rant. For every scientist with one opinion there are always a dozen with contrary ones. No scientist is going to criticize his parents for chopping a bit of his dick off, no matter how badly he feels about it. It is not the result of "satisfactory" circimcision, or whether it has any medical use (probably not), it is the sheer cruel physical act against helpless children that should make you angry.

        • Doneck

          I would impose circumcision on all. Retroactively. It's such a wonderful thing, not to be missed. Add sharia to the mix and our lives would be immeasurably better.

          • Newspaniard

            You mean like they did in Nigeria and do in similar pre-historic countries?

  • A Finn

    I totally agree with Newspaniard.
    Furthermore, these bans are now lifted because of the increasing number of MUSLIMS who emulate these very old Jewish customs.
    My advice to all Jews: abandon these barbaric rituals; otherwise you seem to be as barbaric as Muslims.
    You have already totally abandoned the stoning. Muslims have not totally.

    • PhillipGaley

      . . . . fools, . . . myself, having been cc as an adult, or, if in the very least, from my experience among sodomites, and among married men, men who are not cc tend to prefer fellatio—and this, with an unavoidable ignorance of regard for the woman.

      In a word, the un-cc condition is deleterious to marriage, . . .

    • JoJoJams

      Read the august issue of Science News for their article on circumcision – that is, if you believe in science and all that stuff ~

  • southwood

    I don't see circumcision as barbaric since it was practised by the Jews since 1000s of years, no problem, and high proportions of gentiles have it done to their children (a very high proportion of Americans are circumcised, males that is.) although I as a Christian do not see it as a necessary ritual in any way. But if the Jews want to practice it that's fine. Female circumcision is an abomination and should be banned. I also see a difference between kosher slaughter of animals and the truly barbaric halal slaughter. The Jewish method is done more quickly and scientifically. It is done in such a way as not to agitate the animals. Again, Christians see no need for such rituals since they are done away with (see the epistles of Paul in the New Testament).

    I believe that kosher, but especially halal food, should be labelled as such. Many huge food companies such as Kellogs and Nestles are using halal methods and not informing people. New Zealand lamb is also always halal. I would want halal slaughter to be banned completely, but until that happens products must be clearly labelled. Inspectors need to be sent to abattoirs to make detailed reports of the current practices in them.

    BTW Mr.Dershowitz need not worry about circumcision and kosher slaughter being banned in the US for the next four years since Muslim loving Obama will win, I believe, and will support Islamic slaughter and circumcision and must therefore support the continuation of the Jewish rituals. Also he seems to forget that a German circumcision ban would also involve Muslims who are a much much greater proportion of the German populace. He is seeing things via his narrow Jewish perspective and being unfair to Germany . It is the Muslims who are being targetted.

  • Newspaniard

    @southwood. A few minutes on the website and you will realize that circumcision of children is totally barbaric anw what is more may easily be regarded as child abuse.

    • JoJoJams

      How about getting the August issue of Science News for their article on cc? Or are you afraid of scienctific fact? (as opposed to your loony dogma and "beliefs")

      • Newspaniard

        I note that you only quote that which you agree with. Scientists can bang on about it not being harmful. Tell that to the parents of children who have either been killed by or had their sex lives permanently ruined by this barbaric act of mutilation.

      • king Nate

        Even if circumcision extended the child's life span by 20 years it would not be justified to force it on the without their consent. There is a word for violating someones body without there consent: "RAPE"

    • Guest

      Your website is nothing but a load of propagandaistic poo

      • Newspaniard

        "Propagandist poo", written by eminent scientists and people who have had horrifying experiences.

  • mgoldberg

    Note the cutsy jew haters with their cries of 'barbarity' affixed to 3800 yr old jewish circumcision rites. A rite that commits a child to grow up and be moral, learn what it means to be moral and to build a live based upon that and more….much more. And that is history. And those who demand all others follow their 'belief' systems of 'harmlessness' to a child, hide as usual behind pseudoscience and the tyranny of pretense. Remember the 'socialist' babies in those countries, where unwanted babies laid all day in cribs, untouched, unloved, unheld and grew into dysfunctional, sometimes sociopathic adults? Those from the same type of utopian societies and thinkers as the bozos's who wrote here about the 'barbarity' of jewish ritual circumcision. They hide behind their modernity and 'progressive' masks but just look at the sneering comments and peer behind and see it for what it is…. the disdain of hatred, masking as modernity, as 'science' and love of children and people. I call total bs to these types and their fakery. Superficial narcissism reaks out of most of the vain commentators who bleat about the primitivism of ritual circumcision, and the self love reaks, stinks and smells to high heaven.

    • JoJoJams

      Exactly! Well said! They won't even look at the REAL science that shows the benefits of cc~! They can only spout the dogma they've been fed.

    • Joshua

      . "A rite that commits a child to grow up and be moral, learn what it means to be moral and to build a live based upon that and more….much more. And that is history"

      How about the Bolshevik JEWISH Revolution resulting in 65,000,000 murders by bullets to the back of the neck, targeted starvation, one way tickets to the gulags and torture ? (The Bolshevik Govt 1919 was 87% Jew. Look it up !)
      How about the REAL 7,000,000 deaths by starvation in the Ukraine ?
      How about the Armenian Genocide 1912 ?
      How about your Feast of Purim celebrating the massacre of 80,000 Persians ?
      How about your current treatment of Palestinians ?
      How about the looting of Libya last year ? (A country cant get into NATO without the approval of Bnai-Brith a JEW ONLY free masonry society.)
      How about the looting of America by your banks ? The heads of the Federal Reserve are mostly JEWS.
      How about Usury for Gentiles not for Jews ?

      " A rite that commits a child to grow up and be moral"…..How can a tiny infant make a commitment ? You need freedom of choice to make a commitment !

      You Rabbis are going to lose control over your Tribe. I cant wait for that to happen.
      You Jews never ask yourselves the vital question. Why are we detested so much ? (Hint. Your so called "morality" only applies to the treatment of fellow Jews, but does not apply to anyone else.)

    • king nate

      just because it is old does not make it right. You could say that War is a tradition that spans thousands of years, I guess that means that war is no longer barbaric ITS A TRADITION

    • Davey

      Sorry — it is your sneering self-love that is evident. You hypothesize that all the science and humanity in such prohibitions is a mere pretense to get at …who? You. That's narcissism. Those who "bleat about the primitivism…" are not actually bleating about primitivism at all: They are attacking you, eh? And then you have gall to conclude that "…(their) self love reaks (sic!), stinks and smells to high heaven." Redundancies aside, it is plainly your self love which is odious to civilized people. Now do you get it?

      • Davey

        and, as for circumcision mystically committing a child to a moral life — well, there are many thousands of innocent dead people and many thousands more living in this world who would beg to differ. That vaunted morality (that "shared value") dropped phosphor bombs on children in Gaza, it has stolen property from others and it commits piracy on the high seas. You are not a mere hypocrite of the type to whom I am accustomed, but a sanctimonious hypocrite, a rarer entity.

  • roder59

    Americans have this weird medical-indoctrinated view on MGM, trying to rationalize a barbaric, inhumane tradition and are victim of the principle of " cutting breeds cutters". Morals and ethics, as a matter of positive fact, change in time. We do not stone women to death anymore. Moreover hitting your child is seen as childabuse but MGM not? Jews and Muslims have to accept modern morals and ethics very soon!
    This article is disgusting as it mockes the very essentials of enlightened societies, basic human right not to get frivolously harmed by other people, needles to say infants with no say included.
    What will be Dershowitz attack on, say, Canada or Holland banning MGM? This whole WWII reference is nothing more than the victim-card playing disgustingly. Jews should be able to come up with better excuses and grow up in these modern times and ethics.

    • JoJoJams

      And you should read real science for a change. Their is a huge difference between Cc – where basically extra skin is removed – which is actually healthier – as opposed to FGM where they cut out the cl1toris. That's the equivalent of removing the head of the pen1s. You fanatics are really quite amusing in a sad sort of way, always thinking you can "rationalize" in your oh so modern modes of thought. Is it really a height of intellectual "geniuis" to somehow ludicrously equate FGM with male circumcision? Only by using sophomoric and vapid arguments of ignorance. Go read the August issue of Science News and their article on circumcision – that is, if you can even read actual scientific periodicals and such…..

      • king nate

        it is still taking away a part of a child's body that will never grow back without there permission

  • AntiSharia

    The "science" behind the anti circumcision movement is the worst type of twaddle. Right up their with Phrenology, Numerology, Astrology, or Alchemy. The only people who believe circumcision is dangerous or painful are idiots or anti Semites.

    • Hugh7

      On the contrary, it is the "science" behind circumcision that is 19th century pseudoscience: hysteria against "masturbatory insanity" when circumcision was supposed to be good againt alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, blindness, boils, chicken pox, epididymitis, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, headaches, hernia, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, plague, phimosis, posthitis, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis and/or yeast infections. Now HIV, HPV, STD, UTI, and penile, cervical and prostate cancer have supplanted them but the principle is the same – sympathetic magic, substitutionary sacrifice.

    • Deirdre

      I guess the sound of baby boys screaming in the nursery department (screaming as if they are being stabbed; sounding like they are in the most extreme pain) is just babies fussing? Gimme a break.

    • Cat

      It is an unnecessary act of invasive cutting and mutilation. It should only be allowed under medical grounds and these grounds are very rare. Jehovah was a mean brutal self centered figment of some delusional character's mind. It worked to control the mob who kept whining therefore it perpetuated itself by mesmerized scribes. I have read what this mythical Jehovah said to Moses. All brutality and blood spilling. He also must have thought Moses was stupid or had an inferiority complex as he kept repeating himself over and over and over and over tell it to the people I am Jehovah I am god. Jehovah was and is still twaddle. If anyone believes swinging a rooster over their head three times will be free of sin doesn't realize it is 2013. By all means carry on with your symbolic rituals if it makes you feel better but leave the cruelty to animals and babies out of it.

  • Western Spirit

    Men who haven’t been circumcised endanger women who get cancer from them. Pap smears eliminate this but it would be much more efficient to simply circumcise men in the first place.

    Therefore circumcision is not only a religious ceremony but is essential to a woman’s health.

    • Hugh7

      You're saying that the great majority of men in the world endanger their womenfolk? There is no direct evidence that circumcising men protects women from cervical cancer. Such evidence as there is, is weak, and applies only to a small, high-risk subgroup.

      • Western Spirit

        Oh yes there is evidence and yes the majority of men are endangering their women that's why pap smears are so necessary for women worldwide.

        • HighPressure

          You are correct. Amy time you have folds in the skin where moisture develops, bacteria follows.

          All on e has to do is ask the medical staff that works out of a field army hospital. After 3 or 4 days in the field where the water being carried by troops is used for consumption and not washing because of the practicallity of survival is at hand.; the field hospital will invaribly receive uncircumsized soldiers with infections that will take him out of action. Especially in areas of the world that carry different strains that the body has is not used to.

          • Charlie

            Let me point out that the female vulva has folds as well. But we are still all against cutting a females genitals. If infects are the grounds for circumcision, then let me propose that we cut off peoples toes too prevent athletes foot.

    • King nate

      cancer is not contagious you idiot

  • BM Goldstein

    Mr. Dershowitz stops short of telling his readers what happened after the one judge in Cologne ruled circumcision illegal. There was an outcry and a robust debate on television and on the radio. Angela Merkel immediately spoke out against it. A bill to reverse this decision and declare it null and void has been introduced into the Bundestag. There's no doubt it will pass when voted on. One misguided ruling by one judge does not make the entire country antisemitic. Besides it was probably more directed against Muslims. The charge was made after a six-year-old boy was treated at a hospital when he suffered complications.

    • Hugh7

      The boy was four. He suffered bleeding and spent ten days in hospital, requiring surgery under general anaesthetic. There were three judges. The Cologne Court followed the Basic Law, put in place in 1949 (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) to ensure that the horrors of 1933-45 could never happen again. It guarantees bodily integrity and equality of the sexes. The court rightly did not consider the parents' beliefs in its decision to protect the child.

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Dershowitz is learning the hard way what a painful boomerang the anti-Muslim lobby has thrown by attacking Islamic mitzvahs. Can he blame host states when they fail to distinguish one crazy Semitic obeisance from another? Wouldn't it have been better to just find a way to get along instead of trying to make the sons of Sarai seem better than the sons of Hagar in their various knife rituals?

    • Mo Schlotion

      How do Muslims use boomerangs in their circumcisions? As you said this must really be painful.

    • Ghostwriter

      So sayeth the Jew-hater,Schlomotion.

  • roder59

    On the contrary, it proves Germany's enlightened strenth to lead the way towards a modern, humane and real science based future, paranoid as they still are about their nazist past. Of course they antecipated this knee reflex reactions like Dershowitz's, but they persisted in protecting the intact infant and it' s basic human rights.
    Anyway, the Jewish community in Germany suffer some sort of collateral damage as Germany rightiously tries to put a halt to avancing Sharia by their 4 million muslims, including MGM, already forbidding FGM.

  • roder59

    @JoJoJams and@mgoldberg
    To all you medical-indoctrinated pro-circ people in the US.
    Why so obsessed by just the poor little infant's tiny penis? Teeth are the source of much trouble in one's life, bacteria and decay cause diseases and even death by heart disease.
    As you always are thinking prevention, as in MGM, why not pull out all your 9-year old child's teeth and provide them with nice dentures?
    Or are you stuck in an archaic, tribal, inhuman tradition, MGM, you're trying to rationalize unlike pulling out teeth?

    • JoJoJams

      On the contrary, we're not "obsessed" ~ Since it's the anti-cc groups such as yourself that are ranting on and on about the removal of some extra skin, which is definitely proven to be healthier, despite the rants about "I knew a guy who knew a woman who had a baby they circumcised and blah blah happened!" And your teeth analogy is pretty lame. A better analogy would be the human appendix. Not really needed now, and it's removal doesn't cause any harm…. though some may have died or been disfigured during botched operations. See how the analogy game works? They have to be similar in some way – not arbitrarily made up. It's YOU that is so obsessed with the removal of superfluous skin on a pen1s. Tell all the fat Americans how the removal of skin and fat in tummy tucks is barbaric and that many have died and been disfigured by the completely unneccessary procedures. There! I can do my own stupid analogies!

  • roder59

    To religious pro-circ people around the world.
    Tomorrow I will introduce my own,new religion called "Member" and I'm sure it will gather many followers. It contains all the usual stuff like praying, living a righteous and decent life, the golden rule etc. I stress to my followers though that, as an obligatory rite, all newborns should get their left big toe amputated.
    By your logic this should pass and be tolerated as freedom of religion,which trumps the infant's human right not to be abused.

    • mgoldberg

      Or you nimbrod, you could actually use your brain and drill down and consider reality and the facts thereof:
      The Jews and the God who demanded that they perform this rite, specifically have NO such obligation for anyone else to do this. So… there is no coercion, except of course for those- like yourself who preem about their REASONING powers but really hide that you command that everyone be forced to follow your fake compassion
      and fake goodness. And I do mean fake. YOU can introduce whatever you want, but when 2 millions of peoples heard God give these commandments as astonishing as they were specifically because it called for the actual education and caring of children, with the commandment to be an example of what that could all mean… it was specifically commanded only for them.
      Unlike your world saving goodness and rationality which of course is forced upon……. everyone.

      • roder59

        Intellectual breakdown? Didn't answer my question. Caring of children? Give me a break, hypocrite.

    • JoJoJams

      Why even go to the "or?" question, since this is a stupid sophmoric straw man argument. And you actually believe this passes for "logic"? My my! How sad!

  • watsa46

    I suspect that Mr. A D does not realize that if Pr. O has it his way, circumcision will become history in the US. If the Jews did not know the health benefits of circ…at least THEIR G-D knew better!

  • mick belker

    This is too perfect! It’s a two-fer!!

    The Germans pass a law to forbid ritual circumcision which offends the ever-growing and -threatening Muslim minority and, in the process, offends the Jews as well.

    Be rid of them all. It’s a brilliant plan!!

  • Ron Burtnick

    To AntiSharia's comment: I guess I'm an idiot since I know I'm no anti-Semite. I shared this article because I am extremely sensitive to growing anti-Semitism here and abroad. I was born in Germany. I likely have Semitic ancestry. I watched the Left's growing anti-Zionism (if you ask me it's just another word for anti-Semitism. I keep wondering how so many Jews don't see that.) with growing concern. I won't comment on how dangerous the practice is, it seems to have few reported problems … but who wants to talk about that if it happened to them? It seems that no one has yet been able to tell us from the baby's point of view how painful it is. I can, however, report, that the same operation when performed under anesthesia at age 28 was accompanied with quite a lot of pain upon waking.

  • Greta Wanyik MD

    Mr. Dershowitz, do not look for antisemitism behind every bush. Instead look if circumscisim is really necessary. It is a tradition of thousands years, and can it be changed if it is not a benefit, only an outdated practice Also, cruelty to animals how we treat them defies a culture or nation. It is time for many traditions to change for humanitarian reasons, and show that we are not barbaric, but have compassion , respect and love for all living , feeling life. Insisting on traditions, just separates us instead unite us, and therefore wars, hatred, inhuman instinct are furthered, instead of love and mutual respect.

    • mgoldberg

      I have no faith whatsoever in the 'utopians' like yourself who feel that they have compassion, respect and love for all live feeling life. What narcisisstic self love your demonstrate, what hubris and gaul to boot. Telling people who've been hounded with the that 'love' for 3000 yrs who insisted they abandon their ways, slaughtering, butchering them and now of course… the latest of those who claim to be filled with compassion, respect and love for all living life. Your full of hot air, and the tyranny that commands all follow your way in the name of your goodness… that is pure advertising and with nothing to show.
      In fact, look at the first statement- the bias of Wanyik, who states Dershowitz shouldn't look behind every bush for anti-semitism- and the gaul of telling this someone pointing out that the do gooders of Germany did this same act prior to trying to cleanse all humanity of all those people.
      Humility of course is unknown to such utopians, and Wanyik you of course knowing that your way is the way for all humanity to act, have dersision for those who feel different.
      Here's a hint Dr All knowing kindness…. the commanment to circumcise 8 day old males began a commitment to improve society to demonstrate that such elevation of ethics, morality and governance was not only possible but had to be a choice. The commandment given to a nation to act in that capacity foretold great difficulty in this accomplishment, but that to be a 'light' onto all other nations, the accomplishment might one day lead to all humanity so inclined. Without the tyranny of the false utopians forcing all others to belief and do as they do…without any proof that such leads to anything righteous. Almost always- death, despair, tyranny and worse.
      Dr Quackenbush…. keep your snooty self love to yourself.

  • Prof. L. Wessell

    The interpretation offered by Derschowitz about the "constitutional" issue in Germany is false and, for that reason, dangerous. It does not see the true opponent. I cannot explain in detail, though I contend that a secularizing reinterpretation of the German "Grundgesetz" (= "Fundamental Law" or Constitution). Said Constitution guarantees the right of "Unversehrtheit", viz. "Non-Mutilation". Some 600+ doctors and jurists hold that non-medically necessitated circumcision constitutes "mutilation", period!!! Thus the matter is constitutional and for the courts. Naturally child circumcision (as in Judaism), early teen circumcision (as in Islam) and secular circumcision (as the circumcision of my newly born son year ago based on social and health reasons–I am an American) are evaluated as "mutilation" per se. Also, the prohibitin is not per se anti-Jewish. The German political class in the Bundestag (= ca. Congress) desire to allow Jewish and Islamic (not my secular) circumcisions. But medical and juridical authorities argue to the contrary! Eventually the Court will decide.

    Now, the German Constituion with its "Non-Mutilation" clause obtained no legal effect until the occupying powers, particularly America, so accepted the proposed "Constitution". This means that American lawyers, including Jewish ones, said "yes" to said Constitution with the clause. The anti-mutilation clause is a direct result of post-Nazi German attempts, guided and checked by the Allied Occupiers, to avoid any revival of somehting like Nazism. Germans can be proud that such a clause exists (and we Americans can be proud that we made sure that such a clause exists). So what is happening?

    Here I must be very sketchy and only utter a few short opinions. Germany, JUST like America, is becoming secular with views, relative to which, any religious practice (or secular as in the case of my son's cirumcision) is of not meaningful social value. Do recall that Obama will allow religious people to pray in their respective churches, etc., but is forcing his secular view on abortion upon religious bodies, e.g., that Catholic Church. The recent DNC revealed its secular and, derivatively, anti-Israel dynamics, not to speak of a rejection of religious values. Thomas Woods wrote a book "Who Killed the Constitution?". Among others the Dem. Party. The point is that the clear meaning of the words in the US Constitution has been and is still being reinterpreted to mean something different–>death of US Constituition. In the light of the American acceptance of the "Grundgesetz", the view that "Unversehrtheit" implies the need of prohitition of circumcision is a clear case of constitutional revisionism by semantic change according to current secular values. One step in the death of the German Constitution.

    In Germany the process of altering the evident meaning of "Non-Mutilation" in the "Grundgesetz" is taking place according to purely "scientific" views. A speaker for the "600+" even suggested that Jews offend against their beliefs knowing that today's broken tabus can become tomorrow's new "normality". (This is similar to Obama's restriction of freedom of religion to only worship in a church, etc.) In summary, the ongoing German assault upon "circumcision" per se is a function of a secular mentality that has no understanding of religiosity that concflicts with said secularism. It is not in anyway to be viewed as a revival of previous German anti-semitism. It is an attack upon religiosity, Jewsih and otherwise. In the terms of Woods, the "Grundgesetz" is in the process of being killed <—> same secular dynamics in America. There may be some lingering anti-Semitism in the process, there is also a strong distaste of Islam. That is why Islamic and Jewish groups, supported by the Christians churches, are cooperating.

    I note that I am an American who has lived 30+ years in Germany.

    • Newspaniard

      Sorry, Prof, I got lost in your polemics. Are you saying that this barbaric act should be stopped or not?

      • Prof. L. Wessell

        If medical authorities honestly consider circumcision to be "mutilation" and if they think that said act therefore violates the German Constitution, then said authorities, to be honest to themselves and to their personal values, must raise the question in the courts. That act is not "barbaric", specially in light of the "barbarism" that took place in Germany during the Nazi period. My contention is: The clear constitutional meaning of "Unversehrtheit", viz. "non-mutilation" does not justify the categorization of "circumcision" as "mutilation" (if so, then the American lawyers, many of whom were Jews or circumcised gentiles, judging the new Constitution ought to have considered their own circumcision as "mutilation"–an obvious anamoly and not believable). I have even used my own case plus that of my son here in Germany as an example of what now must be considered to be "mutilation" according to these authorities, years ago permitted here. No mutilation! The "scientists" and jurists are absolutely sure that all relevant statistical, psychological. and medical data point to the judgment of "mutiliation". I take that as an honestly made judgment. I cannot condemn as "barbaric" honestly made judgments about prohibiting "mutilation"..I can only argue honestly against said opinions.

        I cannot in a few words discuss the notion of "versehrt", viz. "mutilated" in Germany, but it is on the level of damages and disabilities caused during a war — indeed, the Hitler gov. introduced the term in 1938. Such damage, destruction, etc. is not entailed in a medically sound circumcision. What has changed is the evaluation of "scientific" authorities in a secularized society that has lost awareness of the "Holy". This is my point. I personally am quite anti-modern and do not find circumcision as "mutilation", rather as the "seal of the covenenat" for religious Jews as baptism is the seal of grace in Catholic theology. This means that any prohibition of circumcision per se entails the blocking of Jewish religious life at its roots, also that of Muslims in Germany. I wish that the qualification of the act as "barbaric" were an adequate predication. I find the secularization to be a far more dangerous and fateful qualification. Protestantism and Catholicism are shrinking enormously, the Muslims are holding up as a minority and there are only some 155,000 Jews in Germany (whose grop adherence to Jewish religion is not known by me).

        I would like to point out that I have read articles in Ynet and Jerusalem Post by Jews who consider circumcision to be barbaric, archaic, etc. That is a Jewish decision. If the Jews in Germany decide to cease with circumcision, that is a Jewish decision. Any for or against would be an interanl theological matter of Jews. And, the "600+" med. and juristic authorities may judge according to their personal evaluations and they are free to make them public. What I object to is the attempt to force "constitutionally" an evaluation of mutilation (a meaning not found in the Constitutiion). This "force" ultimates rests upon the threat of police power. –Last word, Derrshowitz, as a liberal Democrat, has nothing to object to changing the meaning of the Consititution, just because he dislikes it. What is good for America, is good for Germany–ALAS!

        I do hope Newspaniard that I have responded adequately to your question.

        • Newspaniard

          Prof., You have got to be a lawer. Why answer a simple question with a single word when a hundred will do. The whole point is NOT the interpretation of the law, it is the very act of unnecessarily taking a knife to a perfectly serviceable penis, endangering the sex life of the child and possibly causing death by complications. DON'T tell me the parents can sue, nothing can compensate the parents and child for the damage done. Although you disagree for both legal and (I suspect) religious reasons, circimcision is totally barbaric.

          • Hannover1967

            The Hitler government did not introduce the words "unversehrt" or "versehrt" into the German language nor into the Grundgesetz (="Basic Law" or constitution from 1949). They enacted a new law concerning "Kriegsversehrte" (="war invalids") in 1938.

            I have a dictionary which translates "unversehrt" as "unhurt, unscathed", while it translates "versehrt" as "disabled, handicapped". Therefore, the adjectives "unversehrt" and "versehrt" are not antipodes from each other. It is meaningless to discuss what "versehrt" means, because the GG (=Grundgesetz) uses the other word. It stipulates (in article 2) that every person shall have the "Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit" (="right to physical integrity").

            continue …

          • Hannover1967

            Sorry, it was wrong that I put this text here. It was a part of my reply to Prof. L. Wessel.

        • Hannover1967

          "I cannot explain in detail, though I contend that a secularizing reinterpretation of the German "Grundgesetz" (= "Fundamental Law" or Constitution). Said Constitution guarantees the right of "Unversehrtheit", viz. "Non-Mutilation"."

          Your claim that "Unversehrtheit" does not mean more than "Non-Mutilation" is wrong.

          "In the light of the American acceptance of the "Grundgesetz", the view that "Unversehrtheit" implies the need of prohitition of circumcision is a clear case of constitutional revisionism by semantic change according to current secular values."

          "I cannot in a few words discuss the notion of "versehrt", viz. "mutilated" in Germany, but it is on the level of damages and disabilities caused during a war — indeed, the Hitler gov. introduced the term in 1938."

          continue …

        • Hannover1967

          The Hitler government did not introduce the words "unversehrt" or "versehrt" into the German language nor into the Grundgesetz (="Basic Law" or constitution from 1949). They enacted a new law concerning "Kriegsversehrte" (="war invalids") in 1938.

          I have a dictionary which translates "unversehrt" as "unhurt, unscathed", while it translates "versehrt" as "disabled, handicapped". Therefore, the adjectives "unversehrt" and "versehrt" are not antipodes from each other. It is meaningless to discuss what "versehrt" means, because the GG (=Grundgesetz) uses the other word. It stipulates (in article 2) that every person shall have the "Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit" (="right to physical integrity").

          continue …

        • Hannover1967

          I have looked into an older commentary book about the GG: "Das Bonner Grundgesetz" by Hermann von Mangoldt, Verlag Franz Vahlen, 1953. von Mangoldt was a member of the "Parlamentarischer Rat" ("parlamentay council") that drafted the GG in 1948 and 1949. On page 48, he reports about the sessions he attended: "Dabei herrschte aber Einigkeit darüber, daß die gegenwärtige Fassung nicht ausschließt, von Rentenempfängern zu verlangen, daß sie sich zum Zwecke der Wiederherstellung ihrer Gesundheit oder einer erheblichen Minderung ihrer Erwerbsunfähigkeit einer Operation unterziehen." (= "Everybody agreed that the present form [of article 2 of the GG] does not forbid, that an invalidity pensioner is asked to undergo an operation in order to restore his health or for the purpose of considerably reducing his incapacity to work.") And that does not imply that every person can be ordered to have an operation.

        • Hannover1967

          I have looked into two older dictionaries:

          1) "Cassell's German and English Dictionary" by Karl Breul, Cassell and Company, LTD, Eigth Edition, February 1949. It translates "unversehrt" as "uninjured, intact, entire" and "Unversehrtheit" as "entirety".
          2)"Langenscheidt's Pocket-Dictionary of the English and German Languages" by Prof. Edmund Klatt, Dover Publications, 1944. It translates "unversehrt" as "uninjured, intact".

          There has been no semantic change of the meaning of "unversehrt", which facilitated constitutional revisionism.

        • Hannover1967

          Prof. Wessell is certainly not a professor of Germanistic philology.

          (Das war jetzt gemein. Stimmt's?)

        • Hannover1967

          Wessell: "In Germany the process of altering the evident meaning of "Non-Mutilation" in the "Grundgesetz" is taking place according to purely "scientific" views."

          Prof. Wessell is a charlatan and a liar.l

  • roder59

    It's a curious fact and disgrace Jews and Muslims cooperate on mutilating non- consenting infants in Germany while Netanyahu does the best he can to prevent Achmadinejad 's wiping Israel from the map! Where's the logic, commom sense and moral in all this?

    • Prof. L. Wessell

      Who says "a", must say "b"! Catholics baptize their infants who, obviously are non-consenting, in Germany. If it is wrong for a Jew to introduce his child into a community selected as the "Chosen People", then it must be wrong for Catholics to introduce their non-consenting infants into the "People of God" (basic mean of "church") . If the Jewish circumcision of "non-consenting infants" (this is an oxymoron and confuses the argument because infants cannot consent to anythng!) is to be compared negatively with Achaminejad's desired genocide, than Catholic baptism of non-consenting must be evaluated with an equally negative counterpart. You chose! But chose you must if you are to remain consistent.

      You ask where is the common sense and moral in this. The moral is "freedom of conscience" that enables a believer to exercise his religion. Benefits or not in the case of circumcision or in baptism miss the religious point, freedom of religous practice. You speak of "common sense". Fine, such sense should be informed before judgment is rendered. I suggest reading Jon Levenson, "The Death and Resurrectionof the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity". After reading you will at least know something about the religous background to Judaism and Christianity. You may disagree, but at least your common sense will be informed enabling more than common prejudice.

      Finally, you exemply PERFECTLY the thesis that I made above about the encroachment of secularist and its surpression and even persecution of religious people (surpress circumcision and you have ended Judaism as much as surpression of baptism would end Catholicism). You possess the right of freedom of speach to offer such secularizing judgements. The medical authorities in Germany have their right of free expression. But, in Germany the opinion of the "experts" may end up being the interpretative factor of the German Constitution and lead to a constitutinally legal banning of circumcision (baptism will not come under fire) ENFORCED by the police. And that is secularism becoming tryanny.

      • roder59

        1. I'm not an American-style leftist-liberal ateist condoning islamist supremacy advancing Shariah all over the West. Consider myself to be a conservativ, secular, enlightened, classical Liberal ateist.
        2. Germany does exactly what I would like secular, enlightened societies decide on ALL it's citizens, no special treatment for religious ones, so your "chosen people hubris", forget it.
        3. Are you serious when comparing baptism to MGM? Where's the MUTILATION in baptism?
        4. Religion is man-made so Jews and Muslims ought to abolish barbaric, archaic practices in a modern, humanist, enlightened world.
        5. FPM stresses continiously the need for Islam to reform but holds with double standards when it comes to MGM in Judaism.
        6. Where is that your "persecution" of religious people in Europe or the US when Germany is ONLY banning outdated MGM? Common, get over your perverse sadism on infant tiny, perfect penises.

  • Hannover1967

    Dershowitz: "Shame on those Germans who do not care enough to rise up in anger against the pseudo scientific bigots who falsely claim to be interested in the sensitivities of children."

    The "Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinderchirurgie" has endorsed the Cologne court's decision, that circumcision is illegal:

    But Mr. Dershowitz tells me, that the German surgeons are pseudo scientific bigots. I should better have confidence in the doctors from the "American Academy of Pediatric". And if I do not: "Shame on me". I do no believe that Mr. Dershowitz knows more about medical science than I do. Even if circumcision reduces HIV and papillomavirus transmission, one can still wait for the consent of the child.

    And it is disputed the circumcision reduces the transmission of venereal diseases:

    • mgoldberg

      3300 yrs people have been trying to 'end' those people, and in almost all those moments- outlawing circumcision was initiated, amongst all the other 'benign' wholesome commands. And here we have the idiotas, preening about how kind and humane they are- not allowing any such self 'mutilation' till of age, and of course, such peoples and cultures have no problems with people mutilating themselves, changing themselves, distorting themselves and the cultures show just that. But those jewish beliefs and values- forced upon no one else- EVER,
      also decry mutilating oneself, for any narcisistic reasons, when 'of age' and instead, from the time of birth, from circumcision especially, the family is commaned to help the child learn their own intrinsic value and worth.
      Mutilation?? Are you for real. Mutilating history, facts, and the reality of what the ritual act of circumcision actually is physically, and in terms of the history of the civilization it derives fromm that has remained despite the onslaughts, the mass cruelty and murderous madness of those who similarly tried to show their 'kindness' and superiority of 'thinking' such as all these hollow naysayers. What bovine fertilizer.

      • Hannover1967

        I think Mr. Dershowitz' article is a bovine fertilizer or Kuhdung, unless you, Mr. Goldberg, tell me who the pseudo scientific bigots are.

        • Hannover1967

          Please excuse me, that I wrote this. The article is not on topic, represents an ad hominem attack, but it does not use foul language, while Mr. Goldberg does not stay on topic, uses ad hominem attacks and uses foul language.

    • Prof. L. Wessell

      Please read my response to "roder59" immediately above and my comments further above. The matter is religious freedom flowing from freedom of conscience. And the right of freedom of conscience is an important part of the German Constitution, viz., "Grundgesetz". Your argumentation does strike at any argument to the this worldly benefits or not of cirucmcision. It fully misses the religious function of circumcision within Judaism. Deny Jews the right of circumcision and Judaism collapses and ceases being what it has been for melllenia. In Germany the medical authorities are asking the prohibition of non-medically necessitated circumcision at gun point, viz., state enforced. So, the argument should be focused upon the limitations of "freedom of consciene" and its derived "freedom of religion or freedom to practice rreligion". In the USA Obama has denied legality to the practice of religion outside a church building because, in the case of Catholicism, that means forcing a major church to subvent "the illicit taking of innocent human life", better known as abortion. Interesting: you are all concerned about preventing harm to born babies. What is your concern for said child before he is born? May he be killed?

      • Hannover1967

        "The matter is religious freedom flowing from freedom of conscience. And the right of freedom of conscience is an important part of the German Constitution, viz., "Grundgesetz"."

        You ask me to become a lawyer.
        First, there is no freedom right that allows one to violate the rights of others. Therefore, article 2 of the "Grundgesetz" stipulates (in an English translation): "Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law."

        continue …

      • Hannover1967

        Here is the original text of the "Grundgesetz":
        And here is an English translation:

        Further, article 140 of the "Grundgesetz" says that article 136 of the German Constitution of 11 August 1919 is an integral part of the "Grundgesetz". Said article 136 stipulates (in an English translation): "Civil and political rights and duties shall be neither dependent upon nor restricted by the exercise of religious freedom." One civil duty is the duty to comply with the laws. It is not restricted by the exercise of religious freedom.

    • Hannover1967

      "Even if circumcision reduces HIV and papillomavirus transmission, one can still wait for the consent of the child. "
      And there are condoms. If the toddler cannot operate the vending machine, he can ask his girl-friend to lift him up.

  • roder59

    Six milion years of humanoid and 200.000 years of homo sapiens evolution dismissed easily by religious hubris when it comes to the default phenotype and function of the penis? Guess scientific facts (evolution-axiom) are dismissed as blasphemy when it comes to US "holy" barbaric traditions.

  • HighPressure

    Mr. Dershowitz is right. There is more going on there then a medical debate going on here. Anti-Semitism is growing in Europe and they full well know the moral and ethical implications associated with an over bearing government doing into areas they shouldn’t and insensitivity toward a Ethnic and a religious ritual that has been continuous for 3500 years that has NO societal problems attached to it.

    We Americans should be outraged, especially our soldiers suffered the same ridicule in Nazi POW camps. Not Jews, but American Christians who went to Europe to fight for freedom against the Nazis. They were humiliated in the POW camps because they were circumcised.

    So as a nephew of a captured soldier and a former soldier myself, this is bigotry.

  • Raymond in DC

    "The same rhetorical question can be asked of countries, such as Norway, that care so much about the rights of animals not to be slaughtered according to Jewish ritual."

    As I recall, Norway still practiced hunting of whales. Something tells me the whales aren't "stunned" before they're hit with explosive harpoons. Yet they're complaining about "shekhita"?

  • HighPressure

    I wonder if the same people shouting barbarism here support abortion, ear peirsing and/or a new phenomena in America where parents are getting their teen age daughter breast inplants because the kid has a self esteem problem.

    • JoJoJams

      Nope. They only see barbarism in the benign removal of some extra skin that isn't even needed. – even as they get their abortions, tummy tucks and fat removed, and silicon implanted under their skin, after their botox injections and face lifts.

  • fadetogray

    Tradition or not, the burden of proof that the surgery is beneficial to the infant is on those who wish to cut. Those here against banning the circumcision of male infants have utterly failed to meet even the 'on balance' standard of proof.

    Reduced sensitivity is a strong negative, not a positive as some here claim. You can always medically reduce erotic sensitivity, if that is what you really want. Increasing it is much more problematic.

    Back before the development of modern hygiene the cleanliness aspect of MGM was a real argument. However, we no longer live in primitive conditions where primitive solutions work best.

    Primitive religions need to evolve, or they should die out.

    • JoJoJams

      It's some extra skin…. You only see barbarism in the benign removal of some extra skin that isn't even needed, yet are more than likely all for abortions, tummy tucks and fat removal, and silicon implanted under their skin, after botox injections and face lifts. In light of all that, removing some foreskin really is nothing at all. And if the"reduced sensitivity" is such a big thing, how in the heck have Jews lived for millenia doing it! I'm surprised they could even reproduce, if it were as terrible as you seem to think it is! It's NOTHING!! Some skin is removed. oOoOOoOO!!! Terrible!

  • Toecutter

    I’d much rather have my foreskin cut off than have a bolt through my tongue, through my dick or a ring through my nose. Which one has the longer-term medical consequences?

  • mgoldberg

    I've read many of the comments. Some intelligent, some outright vulgar, vain, and ultimately idioticly self righteous jumpers on the bandwagon of those 'worshipping at the temple of the inner foreskin'. These same people will almost always, after preening about how they love all life, and are protecting the innocent babies, will allow any and all to stick whatever they want, wherever they want and mutilate themselves to their hearts content, because that's real freedom to them… All.
    That… is not freedom. And such faux commands have never historically lead to any major improvements in justice, mercy, compassion, kindness, learning, effort, patience… nothing. Just hot air and worse. Much much worse. Just look at all those who deride the ancient practice of jewish ritual circumcision- knowing nothing of what it entails and caring less- just making accusations of 'barbarity'.
    It might behoove the blowhards and naysayers to remember that nothing of this rite prevented the linear growth and or happiness of said peoples, but rather- the murderous desires and goals of those societies who commanded the end of that practice and their horrendous tortures, and tyranny. Meanwhile. The planet gained the largest percentage of nobel prize winners, it's greatest heritage of ancient to modern ethics, morality and religious learnings copied, borrowed, stolen, et al, by more people than any other in all recorded history.
    Circumcision never held back jewish population growth, anytime, anywhere. There's no history of suffering jewish babies and indifference and or cruelty attached to circumcison. There is a huge history of indifference, torture, mutilation, and worse to them by all those who didn't believe in that rite and believed in other things, the merits of which are the stuff of nightmares and horror stories to this day.

    • Toecutter


      At any rate, I’d like to ‘behoove’ some blowhards and naysayers.

    • JoJoJams

      Well stated, Mr. Goldberg ~

  • Kufar Dawg

    This German circumcision ban doesn't apply to adults does it?

  • Albert Spits

    I don´t agree child mutilation is acceptable, therefore I fully concur with the German judge´s decision. It has nothing to do with ´anit-semitism´ of ´anti-zionism´, but purely with the welfare of children. I enjoy the articles of Mr Dershowitz immensely, for he has spoken the truth many a time. However, this time I have to differ. We have abandoned crucifixion, witch burning, stoning etc., so why not abandon ancient cruel practices like child circumcision as well. Let the person who wants to circumcise wait until he or she is 18 years old and then decide whether he or she wishes to practice circumcision.

    Albert Spits,
    Board Member Frédéric Bastiat Foundation, The Netherlands

    • anor277

      Quite so. Anyway, there is no circumcision ban; an adult may decide to be cut at his majority. Non-therapeutic circumcision may not be performed upon an infant; this is a reasonable position, informed by evidence, and motivated by a concern for child welfare. The German policy may have an unintended consequence in that devout parents may decide to have the circumcision performed in a country where infant circumcision is still legal.

  • Gerald Ryan

    Are you kidding? Ok since you are playing both the shame card and the anti semitism card, here I go. I am american, teaching english in Germany, I have also taught in muslim Turkey but I'm Christian, so I am well versed in these issues. I am a victim of circumcision. Yes, I am a victim of this brutal act and I resent it and many jews resent it as well. Why don't you educate yourself more on this? And also why don't you at least keep circumcision at the biblical style, rather than adding to the procedure and removing more than just the foreskin but stripping back and laying bare the glans. It is so like rabbinical judaism to add to the word of God with their tradition, and that is not anti semitism but a fact. Circumcision is wrong on so many levels but that's not the point of my rant here. The point is that it is child abuse .The problem is that you play the race card, oh poor victim. What about the holocaust being committed against babies foreskins? Why don't you let people have freedom of religion and decide on their own bodies as adults whether they want to be circumcised? Because you want to force your religion on your children, an no I'm not an atheist. I just don't think people should be marked in the flesh against their will. Actually, I don't even mind that so much, but the foreskin as Maimonides, a physician, pointed out years ago, and I think we can trust him here because he was right, removing the foreskin robs sexual pleasure from both the man and the woman. I(f you must mutilate, mutilate the ear or something else. I feel personally violated, so I'm trying to regrow some foreskin like skin on my body. I feel personally assaulted, and jews in the US have done more than their share of building rationalizations and creating myths of it's health benefit so I am in some ways a victim of this. The moral high ground is with those who choose to leave a baby as nature made him. I side with the jews of bris shalom, not with those jews who want to take a knife to baby boy's penises. Let's not get a little crazy. Now you are ashamed because Germany is acting more righteous than you are. The case wasn't even about a jewish baby but a muslim. Why don't you all grow up. If you want to debate a real issue, fine but don't resort to these tactics of slandering. I guess I realize why it happens. Everyone circumcised or who circumcises has an emotional investment in the act that is hard to abandon, and I went through this process. Jews also have a deep identity issue with it that I cannot understand as a christian. Some, the religions, even have a faith issue. I can understand this somewhat as a christian but my understanding is that the cut was both minor and only during a limited timeframe, like animal sacrifice. I can see how these emotional aspects make it difficult for a jewish man to think and speak rationally, but I still must point out the errors of their ways because it is one of my missions in life to help save and rescue babies from the knife. It's my moral duty to do what I can to prevent the spread of this evil, and no I'm not Don Quixote. Thank you

  • para

    let’s call a spade a spade; Alan M. Dershowitz , you are an anti-human baby torturing pedophile.

  • Hannover1967

    The AAP report has been refuted by physicians from 17 other countries:

  • RuralScot

    What a load of crap. In a non-jewish country what gives you the right to demand to be able to mutilate your sons befroe they are able to say yes or no. Before they are even aware of your religion, never mind in a position to join it.
    The Germans have done the right thing, what, you think because they had the Nazi’s 60 years ago that they should now be ordered around by their small Jewish minority?
    In my opinion this is child abuse. I don’t care if it has been done for thousands of years, female genital mutilation has been as well, are you arguing for the traditional religions of Africa to be able to continue these practices in the West?
    If not your argument has no standing.

    • Harald Kaufmann
    • tickletik

      “The Germans have done the right thing, what, you think because they had the Nazi’s 60 years ago that they should now be ordered around by their small Jewish minority?”

      So asking to be left alone is the same as “ordering them around”?

      “In my opinion this is child abuse.”

      I hope you have the guns and the will to back that up you son of a bitch, because we do. We learned our lesson the last time a bunch of fat white socialist clowns tried to pull this stunt.

      “I don’t care if it has been done for thousands of years, female genital mutilation has been as well, are you arguing for the traditional religions of Africa to be able to continue these practices in the West?”

      So only if a practice comes from Africa that makes it wrong? I think if something is evil, it’s evil even if it’s done by Germans. Yes, I’m saying those Germans who put us in prison for our beliefs are evil.

      “If not your argument has no standing.”

      Thanks for telling us how to argue. How about this: We believe in G-d, we worship G-d. We don’t worship you. We don’t give a rats ass about what you think about anything. If you pass a law against our religion, then you are passing a law against us, and that makes you our enemy. You want us as an enemy? Well you can join all the rest that thought they could take us on. I suggest you read about those regimes in the history books, our enemies tend to make lovely corpses.

  • Harald Kaufmann

    circumcision without medical indication IS a barbaric, Bronze Age convention and there are no reasons to continue at all (excuse my rudimental knowledge of Englishlanguage)

    • tickletik

      I think the Will of G-d and the Command of Hashem is a pretty good reason right there. You are welcome not to do the same if you like, as far as I am concerned you are welcome to stand on your head if that pleases you. But I would prefer not to have to deal with you ego when it comes to my kids.

      • lurchtotheleft

        Seems perfectly simple to me. Don’t go cutting pieces from human beings unless they can give their own consent. They therefore need to reach adulthood. There will be obvious exceptions for medical necessity. Circumcision of male or female children for the parent’s religious purposes is assault and the parents and cutters should be prosecuted. We wouldn’t accept people cutting children for any other reason and we shouldn’t accept this.

        • tickletik

          According to your “reasoning” circumcised boys don’t reach adulthood, and ear piercings should also be prosecuted.

          You know what? I’m actually OK with you attempting to ban this, but not for the reason you think. I can’t think of anything that would make me laugh more than to see you reveal yourself for the bloodthirsty animal you are. I’m tired of seeing religious Jews fool themselves about the nature of secular humanists and their endless feel-good garbage.

          It takes an incredibly vicious mind to turn around and terrorize an innocent community with the threat of imprisonment and having their children kidnapped by random agents of the State. And for what? For a practice which has been done for thousands of years, and harms nobody, which is one of the most essential aspects of our religion and identity. All my friends are healthy strong men, with large families and loving wives. They have healthy sex lives, I have plenty of friends who are secular and circumcised and they seem to have no ill effects either. So clearly, all your hysterical bullshit about “child abuse” is just a pretext to start a fight.

          What kind of sick bastard takes one of the few successful honest communities and terrorizes them for some abstract reason that has no practical application?

          You. That’s the kind.

  • RuralScot

    No, the African comment comes from th fact that female genital mutilation is more prevalent there than anywhere else in the world.
    I will tell people how to argue if they think they should have special exepmtions whereas other should not. I repeat, are you ok with female genital mutilation? If not then why is your form of genital mutilation special?
    They have been doing it for thousands of years like you have.
    Note, I am not German.
    If you don’t care what I think then why did you respond?
    Why the violent rhetoric?
    I don’t want you as my enemy, but that does not mean I am happy to let you commit crimes on your baby boys.

    • tickletik

      I truly don’t give a damn what you or anyone else does with their children provided they stay out of my life.

      But as a matter of social policy I would say the only time the State should involve themselves with the practices of individual families is if that practice leads to widespread social pathologies that negatively affect the community.

      People who practice circumcision clearly do not have any of the various drug/alcohol problems, neurosis, or other sociopathic behaviors because of circumcision. By the large families they produce, it obviously doesn’t harm them their. By the large number of irreligious Jewish casanovas it clearly doesn’t harm them there.

      So I have to ask myself, why is this person threatening me and everyone I know with armed agents of the State bursting into our homes and promising to kidnap our children while throwing us into prison for a practice which obviously harms no one to any discernible reason?

  • Paine

    Shame on YOU you dirty SCUM. You SHOULD be able to mutilate yourself but not OTHERS just because you are a part of some idiotic cult.

  • vladiocre

    are you stupid or something? honest question.

  • Robin-Frans Winkel

    Germany should legalize euthanasia instead of banning circumcision.