Roland DürreSaturday July 14th, 2012
Circumcision and Enlightenment
To me, it seems like – in the spirit of enlightenment – it was more than high time for the decree (Urteil) by the county court of Cologne on circumcision.
Men, too, suffer negative health consequences after circumcision. Sometimes you will get sore, sometimes you will feel unwelcome pressure and super-sensitive skin gets desensitized. It is trivial to understand this. Also, the same is true for circumcision that has been done for “medical reasons“ as in cases where it was “religiously motivated“. Mostly, the so-called “medical reasons” are not really all that strongly indicated.
As a general rule, “medical circumcision“ is ordered when the parents, in particular the mother, advise it. The motivation is more “hygienic” than “medical”. I myself witnessed quite absurd discussions with (incidentally, mostly single) mothers who have had their sons circumcised – not for religious reasons but because they thought it cleaner and more normal. Incidentally, I am talking quite intelligent women, for instance a grammar school teacher I know quite well.
It is easy to forget that circumcisions, apart from the probably only minimal physical inconveniences, also cause psycho-somatic damage. The child will experience being ostracized early in life – for instance when everybody is taking a shower at school. We are talking being ashamed of one’s nudity, suffering defamation by other students, sexual inferiority, etc. Puberty will not get any easier, either.
Nobody likes talking about these kinds of things, because, after all, circumcisions, like other topics, for instance sterilization and abortion, are still taboo and kept secret. Those who are concerned will just avoid the problem – for example by not taking a shower along with the other children after sports.
To be sure, the physical inconvenience and damage after a circumcision are certainly nowhere near as grave for a man as for a woman. Men will and can probably more or less put up with it. After all, the human body is pretty adaptable, isn’t it? Even when it comes to ignoring small chronic “pain”.
Because the consequences of thoughtlessly having a toddler undergo this operation will be felt all through life.
Dogmatists among you will now ignore this argument and shrug, giving you the counter-argument that “this is a tradition that has existed for millennia”. And “normal” men will not easily admit to having a problem, anyway, let alone a problem at this his most important member. Consequently, the matter was hushed up in the past. Which is why I am very happy we now have the Cologne decree.
But why should an enlightened and humane Germany not be permitted to forbid the deliberate mutilation of a perfectly healthy male toddler? Even if said mutilation is justified by “millennia of tradition“ and “religious feelings“?
Parents who want to mutilate their toddlers for religious reasons can feel free to do so in a country where it is permitted or even considered an obligation.
Incidentally, the age of enlightenment also gave us equality between men and women. And the same is true vice versa! Why should we tolerate something done to boys while we forbid it for girls? Is the procedure just fine for men, because it is not quite as detrimental for their health as with women? Because they will cut off a little less from the male sexual organ?
Or to put it more drastically: if you may not remove labia, even for reasons of religion or tradition, then, please, let the same apply for foreskins! That, too, is what I call equal rights – in this case applied to men.
What I find most outrageous is this: the very moment a court of law actually decreed in a courageous and consistent way, there is an outcry by our “democratic“ parties who want to abolish the decree through a new legislation (Gesetz). Are they scared of the powerful religious groups, the terror, or is this just about votes?
I fail to understand it.
But I recommend that at least those men among our representatives who are in favour of this new legislation should be the first to get the special circumcision treatment. How about starting with Steffen Seibert? Why not make it a nice ritual with public live broadcast?
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
Here is the original text of the government comment on the issue:
According to government spokesman Steffen Seibert, the Federal Government wants to re-establish law and order for circumcisions in Germany. Last Friday, Seibert stated that circumcisions executed on boys with responsibility must be allowed in Germany without breaking the law. “The Federal Government“, so Seibert “is aware of the huge importance of early circumcision, particularly in Jewish religions. – We want both Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany“. The Federal Ministry of Justice said they are working hard on clarifying the legal details. “This is certainly one area where we cannot wait and see. For us, religious freedom ranges high as an object of legal protection“.
So here we go:
Mutilating humans is part of religious life. Guaranteeing religious life ranges high as an object of legal protection. Consequently, mutilating humans ranges high as an object of legal protection.
And all those German mothers who lay such store on hygiene may also hope again…
P.S.1
Perhaps one of the reasons for our often bizarre demands for strictest data security and our irrational fear of transparency is the fear that such small personal secrets might become public knowledge.
Related posts:
Loading ...
7 Kommentare zu “Circumcision and Enlightenment”
Kommentar verfassen
Loading ...
Seine Jünger sagten zu ihm: „Nützt die Beschneidung oder nicht?“ Er sagte zu ihnen: „Wenn sie nützlich wäre, würde ihr Vater sie aus ihrer Mutter beschnitten zeugen. Aber die wahre Beschneidung im Geiste hat vollen Nutzen gefunden.“
(Nag Hammadi Library / Thomas-Evangelium / Logion 53)
Solange das Wissen noch nicht zur Verfügung stand, um das Geld an den Menschen anzupassen, musste der Kulturmensch durch eine künstliche Programmierung des kollektiv Unbewussten (geistige Beschneidung von Untertanen) an ein darum bis heute fehlerhaftes Geld angepasst werden. Das war (und ist noch) der einzige Zweck der Religion, die vom Wahnsinn mit Methode zum Wahnsinn ohne Methode (Cargo-Kult um die Heilige Schrift) mutierte und uns – unabhängig von „Glaube“ (Cargo-Kult) oder „Unglaube“ (Ignoranz) – alle zu Untertanen machte, die ihr eigenes Programm nicht kennen. Die Bewusstwerdung der Programmierung nennt sich „Auferstehung“:
http://opium-des-volkes.blogspot.de/2011/07/die-ruckkehr-ins-paradies.html
Roland, you go a bit too far here.
Of course I am against religious circumcision. I saw a chat show about it with a Rabi who said it was “the basis of Judaism”! His other arguments were similarly silly. The standard pretty German Moslem girl was also there in her head scarf, with slightly less silly arguments, (although the Koran says nothing about it).
I have known three circumcised men, (aside from Jews and Moslems whom I did not check). Two were “medical”, the third was half American. None of them had a problem with it. One was my father. Perhaps partly because of this, I had to correct Wikipedia where he was described as Jewish. Another was a school friend, who had a slight complex about a missing tooth. My father produced four almost perfect offspring with his “damaged” organ.
Your remarks about being mobbed because of being different may apply in German schools, but not in USA, where a majority are circumcised, (not to mention other countries).
Circumcision seems to protect slightly against catching sexually transmitted diseases. This outweighs the disadvantages in countries with high rates of HIV. Of course the young men could decide for themselves whether to seek such protection or to use more effective methods.
For me, the main argument against male circumcision is that it makes it harder to be convincing about female circumcision.
Hi Chris, ist die USA nicht das Land, wo die Menschen sofort nach dem Sex unter die Dusche springen, weil sie sich anschließend so schmutzig fühlen?
Aber im Ernst, Dein Beitrag verstärkt meine Vorurteile – gegen religiöse Zeremonien wie gegen deutsche und vor allem US-amerikanische Frauen …
Und die Aussage, dass “circumsisions” vor Aids und Geschlechtskrankheiten schützte, gehört doch auch ins Reich der Fabeln (und ist deswegen eigentlich kriminell).
Das letzte Argument von Chris bringt einen wichtigen Punkt, der in dem Zusammenhang eher unterschwellig mit läuft. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen männlicher und weiblicher Beschneidung? Wohlgemerkt, ich spreche hier nicht vom Schnibbelhandwerk. Während die Rate bei Männern ganz offen gehandhabt wird (75% der Männer in den USA leben ohne Vorhaut, 25% weltweit – Quelle SZ vom 27.Juni 12), habe ich keine Statistik für Frauen gefunden. Meistens bedeuten offene Statistiken gegenüber vagen Vermutungen, für die einen ist es okay, für die anderen nicht.
Warum eigentlich? Warum ist ein bedeutsamer Eingriff in den Körper und in die Sexualität bei den einen okay und bei den anderen nicht? Oder ist er bei den einen nicht bedeutsam und bei den anderen schon?
Auf meinen Südseereisen habe ich eine ganze Reihe von Stämmen getroffen, die sich auf erstaunliche Art und Weise an Ohren, Lippen, Nasen und anderen Körperteilen massakrieren. Das ganze wohl aus einer Mischung von Geisterglauben, Tradition und einem anderem Verständnis von Schönheit. Das ganze ergänzt durch heftigste Tätowierungen.
Aber das kommt ja in unserer A.-E.-Kultur (American-European) auch immer mehr. Im Schwimmbad gewinne ich den (stochastischen) Eindruck, dass bei den jungen Männern die Beschneidungen aus Sauberkeitsgründen weniger geworden sind und dafür massiv mehr gepierct und tätowiert wird.
So ändert sich wohl das Lebens- und Religionsgefühl. Insofern würde ich es jeden für sich so machen lassen, wie er es will. Aber das darf nicht für dritte und insbesondere nicht für Säuglinge entschieden werden.
Sehr schöner offener Artikel mit der zu erwartenden kontroversen Diskussion, insb. von Seiten der “Betroffenen”
Fakt ist doch, dass wir rechtlich betrachtet hier über Körperverletzung sprechen. Und damit über Eltern, die Körperverletzung an den eigenen Kindern billigen. Und da sind religiöse, trendlge oder auf irgendeinem Aberglauben beruhende (Schutz vor sexuell ubertragbaren Krankheiten usw.) Gründe völlig egal. Hygiene? Sorry, Leute: die paar Quadratzentimeter Haut machen unter der Dusche nun wirklich keinen Unterschied. Berechtigte Engriffe aufgrund tatsächlicher medizinischer Indikationen sind in dieser Betrachtung absolut vernachlässigbar. Und: wer sich verstümmeln will, darf das bei Eintritt der Volljährigkeit gern trotzdem tun, aber dann eben selbstbestimmt.
Beunruhigend finde ich, dass unsere Regierung wie immer sofort zusammenzuckt, weil jemand “Holocaust” gesagt hat und aus lauter Angst, dass wieder mal unsere Geschichte bemüht wird, gleich mal Straftaten (s.o.) per Gesetz legalisieren will. Ich würde daher den Vorschlag unterstützen, dass alle, die gegen dieses Urteil per Gesetz vorgehen wollen, mal eben mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen. Gern live bei ARD (endlich mal ein Gegenwert zu den agebuhren) ohne Anästhesie mit Zoom auf das Gesicht des jeweiligen Politikers,
One or two small points:-
I am surprised that two comments dismiss the AIDS aspect as superstition, without quoting statistics. As I remember, I read this in New Scientist, and it was based on WHO statistics in Africa. The article was in general against circumcision.
I am surprised that SIX seems ignorant of the much worse effects of circumcision of girls, particularly in its more drastic forms.
I wonder how Roland managed 7 offspring, while having prejudices against German women. (I find them nicer than the men).
Should girls have to “come of age”, before they can have pierced ears? Just what ages should be required for self-mutilations?