I could be wrong about this ( not an expert or anything ) I have heard that sometimes they have a priest or church leader do the cutting and some have had issues with cleaning the knife used. So that has caused some infection issues and not all stories ended well. 

no not always. I have two boys and I chose not to get them "snipped " . With my oldest he was already having a hard day, ( lol) he got tangled up in his cord on the way out ! My decision I just didn't see the reason, but I would never bash any other mom for their decision . 

So now they've opened the door to back alley circumcisions.  If people are doing it for religious purposes, I doubt a law is going to stop them.  This law is only going to do two things: a) make the mind up of those who weren't sure about doing it/not doing it b) make it illegal to teach medical personel how to perform the procedure.  It will not keep people of faith from doing it and it now creates a market for those who want to have it done be performed by people who have absolutly no idea what they are doing but want to make quick money.

@pallasathene I bit ;) but I have to sleepp, I look forward to continuing this discussion in the morning!

What I meant by back street circumcision is not a person that decide "hey now I'm going to get little Johnny a circumcision due to it is now illegal." but more of a people practicing faiths that practice this could learn from medical doctors as well as apprenticing this type of thing instead, now the only way an apprenticship is the way to learn, or a person just think they know what they are doing and be terrribly wrong. 

The drug reference in my opinion is not quite apples to apples due to it is not a whole religion that practices taking drugs instead of a small percentage of all different races/religions.  In the case of peyote- the US government has actually made exceptions and allow the use of peyote for certain registered churches to use in specific religious ceremonies.  This is a whole religion (Judism and possibly others) that states this practice is to happen for little boys and the German government is now making a religious practice illegal.  Almost all religions state that there will be laws and other forces against what is deemed to be neccessary practices in each religion- but only going against those laws and practices show the person is a true follower and allows a spot in the afterlife.  By removing the follower's choice to practice their faith legally, this could be interpreted as a war against people's religion.

I'm not trying to argue if circumcision is right or wrong....that truely doesn't intrest me because it's doubtful anyone on here is going to change their opinion.  I believe taking this option away even for religious purposes is opening pandora's box that really shouldn't be opened especially it happenening in Germany against Jews seems a bit deja vue. 

Urg- I hate when you type something out and then it suddenly disappears.....

Anyway, I believe that natural drugs should not be illegal because they can be used for personal enlightenment.  I believe all synthetic drugs should be illegal because they don't- they are used to increase a feeling or escapism but they cannot open the third eye.

The belief in God/Gods and an afterlife is a very powerful thing where it can make a person that one would think is personally rational say and do irrational things.  I know PallasAthene stated a newborn baby is not a Jew or a Muslim- try explaining that to the parents. 

Once again, I am not condoning any acts however, all I am stating is the German government is walking on a very slippery slope on the religious front.

I have to say, I never though religion was a good reason for circumcision. Making a drastic, permanent change to someone else's body when they don't get any say because you believe your god told you to wouldn't be allowed under any other circumstances. Also, all these religious texts have been translated, so the exact wording is open to interpretation by the translator. I have a hard time believing we know what the original writers intended.
If it's medically necessary or if a consenting adult wants it, fine. I wonder how many doctors will just say it was necessary because the parents want it?
There, I bit. ;)

I think this is an incredible step in the right direction. Religion baffles me and one of the most confusing things to me is how we all "were made in gods image" except that little piece of skin on the male genitalia, that HAS to go! :-/

The first thought that popped into my head is that this is just an extension of the longstanding tradition of anti-semitism in Germany. Saying the child can have the procedure at a later time is not in line with the requirement to have the boy circumcised at 8 days per Jewish law.  The reason for the ritual is to affirm the covenant with God and honestly it is much more humane at the young age of 8 days than later in life. Both my sons are circumcised - I don't have issues with those who choose not to - but my upbringing made this issue not really a question for me.  I find the restrictions on Halal and other slaughter methods in Europe to be equally anti-semitic - not surprising considering the long tradition of anti Islamic and anti Jewish sentiment through out Europe (think Crusades).

@Canadianmama we have opposing views on this subject and thats ok but I have to ask... How can the two even compare? I mean when a child is baptized there is no evidence later in life if they choose that religion isn't for them. IMO there is a huge difference between dropping some symbolic water on a child and removing a piece of tissue from their body. In my former religion either catholic or christian, I didn't pay too close attention, we were confirmed which gave us the opportunity to continue with our faith should we choose. Would it not be suffice to make such a huge decision at that point, when the child can make the decision for themself?

@canadianmama although I do think it's traumatizing (I also thought the heel prick was and yelled at the nurse "she doesn't like that") the trauma isn't my issue. My biggest concern is that it is something that can never be given back. What if a child born into a pro-circ religion grows up to be of another religion or of no religion. I don't think that circumcision should be made illegal but I do think the child should have some say in what his body will forever look like. Even if you don't agree I hope you can see where I'm coming from. It's not a judgmental place at all, more a confused by the rush and lack of consent if you kwim.

Sorry I misunderstood thought it was 8 years old not 8 days, must be the Muslim boys who are older when they get circumcised?

Well I was baptized against my wishes and I would be livid if any family member tried to baptize my dd.

I will get hated for saying this but it is the exact same thing as female genital mutilation - a barbaric ritual all wrapped up in tradition... I hope this will make people think twice about such an act, its true meaning, and what is really gained by it. Many traditions have changed except in the most traditional places (separation of men and women walking down the street, diary and meat, women during their period...). Many parts of the world Jewish men do not get circumcised and I believe the tradition is more prevalent in the Muslim world and so I don't think it is Germany being anti-jewish or even anti-muslim regradless of their immigration.    

@Canadianmama I'm not trying to force anyone to keep their child intact whatsoever. I was just trying to understand the reasoning begind it being necessary to have it done so soon in life, which is what this thread is about. Like you said though I will prob never understand because I am not a part of the Jewish community. I see I've rubbed you the wrong way and I apologize for that. All my questions were legit and in no way meant to challenge your opinion, just understand it.

I don't go researching the stats of this procedure and I don't go preaching to ppl to "keep our boys whole" because that's just not my nature. I do encourage ppl who are NOT doing the procedure for religious reasons to educate themselves because it really isn't that big of a deal to have a foreskin. By ppl I mean my sister, she's the only one I've really pressed the information on. The reason I said that it was much more common to be circ'd is because there were a bunch of signs posted all over the general hospital and surrounding area regarding the stats not too long ago.

For me I won't make any decisions for my daughters without their consent unless those decisions are necessary. Hence why they both aren't baptized or pierced, regardless of how adorable earrings are c;

I don't think babtism is comparable.  It's a ceremony that means something to those who have the same beliefs, not something physical and permanent.  I have no religion, so that makes me bias.

 

 

Here is a link:

http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

Here are some interesting links

http://www.noharmm.org/jewhouseholds.htm

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/thejmonthly1991.htm

And something taken from wiki:

The anti-circumcision movement and brit shalom

Some contemporary Jews choose not to circumcise their sons.^[49] They are assisted by a small number of Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis, and have developed a welcoming ceremony that they call the brit shalom ("Covenant [of] Peace") for such children, also accepted by Humanistic Judaism.^[50][51]

This ceremony of brit shalom is not officially approved of by
the Reform or Reconstructionist rabbinical organizations, who make the
recommendation that male infants should be circumcised, though the issue
of converts remains controversial^[52][53] and circumcision of converts is not mandatory in either movement.^[54]

However, the connection of the Reform movement to an
anti-circumcision, pro-symbolic stance is a historical one. From the
early days of the movement in Germany, some classical Reformers hoped to
replace ritual circumcision "with a symbolic act, as has been done for
other bloody practices, such as the sacrifices."^[55] As a result, many European Jewish fathers during the nineteenth century chose not to circumcise their sons, including Theodore Herzl.^[56] In the US, an official Reform resolution in 1893 abolished circumcision for converts,^[57]
and this ambivalence towards the practice has carried over to
classical-minded Reform Jews today. In Rabbi Elyse Wechterman's essay A Plea for Inclusion,
she argues that, even in the absence of circumcision, committed Jews
should never be turned away, especially by a movement "where no other
ritual observance is mandated". She goes on to advocate for an alternate
covenant ceremony, brit atifah, for both boys and girls as a welcoming ritual into Judaism.^[58]
With a continuing negativity towards circumcision still present within a
minority of modern-day Reform, Judaic scholar Jon Levenson has warned
that if they "continue to judge brit milah to be not only
medically unnecessary but also brutalizing and mutilating...the
abhorrence of it expressed by some early Reform leaders will return with
a vengeance", proclaiming that circumcision will be "the latest front
in the battle over the Jewish future in America."^[59] Nevertheless, it has "remained a central rite" in Reform Judaism,^[60] and the Union for Reform Judaism has, since 1984, trained and certified over 300 practicing mohels under its "Berit Mila Program".^[61]

In Israel,
the small minority of Jewish and non-Jewish families that chose not to
have their sons circumcised, has formed a support group in the year
2000. Over two and a half years, 200 couples have enlisted.^[62]
Meanwhile, Ya'acov Malkin, the academic director of the College of
Judaism as Culture in Israel, who circumcised his own son 50 years
before "because of habit, because it was a custom, it is a custom of the
Jews", says of circumcision: "I don't regard it as a religious act at
all... if it's medically not necessary, it's not necessary." The U.S.A
based Secular and Humanistic Jews Movement, that also has members in Israel, argues that "circumcision is not required for Jewish identity."^[62]

@Canadianmama I'm glad it wasn't me but more the topic. I really meant no disrespect c:

Something else to keep in mind with regard to circumcision and insisting on waiting to age of consent - when grown men make the decision to convert to Judaism, if there are not already circumcised, they actually do NOT get circumcised - the tradition is to ssimply make a pin prick ( no pun intended) for a symbolic gesture to show ttheir joinint the covenant. 

And Canadianmama - I am right there with you!

@regp - that is my understanding - any circumcision before age of consent - but the only people theoretically impacted would be those who do so for rreligious reasons because MOST people who don't have the religious tratdition to do so are not going to insist their child be circumcised

Thanks @despair.  I'm thinking that immunizations are still required... but there are serious side effects in some children.  I'm thinking about my son having to have a tooth filled at 3 and the laughing gas and all of that and how it might have gone wrong.  Or what about just the every day boo boos that fill our childrens lives?  Do we ignore those because there might be an adverse reaction?  Or the fact that my son had ear tubes twice?  His ears are they way they are because God made them that way... I guess it's ok.. I should leave that alone?  Of course if I had, he'd be deaf now.  But that was way more traumatic than his cir.  Especially the 2nd set.  But that's ok cause it's not about his PENIS!