(RNS) A court in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that circumcising young boys represents grievous "bodily harm." The court found that the child’s "fundamental right to bodily integrity" was more important than the parents’ rights. According to the court, religious freedom "would not be unduly impaired" because the child could later decide whether to have the circumcision.
In response to the ruling, some Jews and Muslims who practice circumcision for religious reasons have protested vehemently. Subsequently, German politicians pledged to pass a law to protect ritual circumcision of young boys. Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger even traveled to Berlin to defend Jewish circumcisions, and a complaint against a Bavarian rabbi for performing circumcisions drew the anger of the Anti-Defamation League. The legal and cultural dilemma inherent in the issue makes prompt resolution unlikely.
Most of Germany (and the world) does not circumcise. It is instinctively viewed as harmful. Here's why:
-- Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma based on various physiological and behavioral changes. Sometimes infants do not cry because they are in traumatic shock. Other effects can include disrupted bonding between parent and child and risk of surgical complications.
-- Imagine yourself being forcefully restrained and having a part of your genitals cut off. Anyone would be traumatized. Studies confirm that infants feel pain more than adults. If you have any doubt about the advisability of circumcision, watch a video of one and trust your feelings.
-- There could be additional unknown negative effects of circumcision that have not been studied. National medical organizations in other countries recommend against circumcision. Some doctors who are aware of the harm refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons.
Based on medical literature, circumcision removes at least a third of the highly sensitive penile skin. Boys are born with a foreskin for a reason: Studies have shown that it provides protection, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. One survey showed that circumcised men were 4.5 times more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug.
In addition, mental health professionals and surveys of dissatisfied men have documented strong feelings of anger, shame, distrust, and grief among some circumcised men. They wish they had a choice. Some of these men also report sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression.
Most circumcised men seem satisfied because they may not understand what circumcision involves and the benefits of the foreskin. In other words, they're not aware of what they're missing.
Considering the harm, why do some parents feel so strongly about circumcising their sons? Religion (or tradition) is often the expressed reason to circumcise. However, the psychological effects of circumcision trauma play a prominent and unrecognized role in perpetuating the practice. In the U.S., circumcised fathers are about four times more likely to want their sons circumcised (for nonreligious reasons) than fathers who are not circumcised.
The mind is often not aware of this circumcision compulsion. Instead it seeks and finds a reason to defend circumcision. In addition to religious belief, circumcision is often justified by perceived medical benefits or cultural conformity. Choosing circumcision for a son requires minimizing or ignoring the harm, such as believing that infants do not feel or remember pain, and that the foreskin is insignificant and has no purpose.
Beliefs about circumcision will not be easy to change, but questioning circumcision is already happening -- even among Jews. Circumcision is not universal among Jews in North America, South America, Europe, or Israel, and Jewish history includes repeated Jewish opposition to circumcision. The ruling in Cologne creates an opportunity for more questioning.
Germany could set an example for other countries that are concerned about circumcision. Because of political and cultural realities, it is crucial to proceed sensitively as well as courageously.
Fortunately, there is another German law about care of children that can serve as a model. Germany has a law prohibiting corporal punishment of children in the home. A 2000 amendment to the Civil Code states, "Children have the right to a non-violent upbringing. Corporal punishment, psychological injuries, and other humiliating measures are prohibited."
Parents who hit their children generally are not fined or put in jail. Education is the key. German child care law was amended to place a duty on authorities to "promote ways in which families can resolve conflict without resort to force." This approach has resulted in a reduction of the traditional practice of corporal punishment.
A similar strategy with circumcision, including the involvement of appropriate professionals and Jewish and Muslim supporters, would be the best way forward for Germany: oppose forced circumcision of young boys without penalties, educate parents, and have compassion for those of all beliefs as we seek to protect children from harm and create a better world.
(Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., is executive director of the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center and author of "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective" and "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.")
Chai | Sep 4, 2012 | 11:44pm
As a Jewish woman living in the U.S., I greatly appreciate Ronald Goldman’s enlightened perspective and positive suggestions regarding circumcision. Education and open discussion are key elements in addressing the concerns of all parties, while maintaining a commitment to respecting body integrity for little boys.
Ronald Sevenster | Sep 5, 2012 | 8:34am
Judaism cannot exist without circumcision. Circumcision is its core rite. It expresses the fact the covenant HaShem made with Abraham goes on from generation to generation. Judaism is not a religion of subjective personal choice. The Torah was given to the nation, to the community.
As to the supposed bodily harm, are we to believe that secularists and the destroyers of the Jewish religion are protecting Jewish children better than traditional Jewish parents? Circumcision has been performed as long as the Jewish nation existed and no harm has occurred to the nation because of it, except the harm caused by its haters and persecutors.
To interpret the criterion of bodily integrety in the manner Goldman does is simply a case of suppression of a religion because of a secular dogma. This secular dogma is not religiously neutral. It is based on individualistic assumptions.
Circumcision is a clear and unambiguous command of the Written Torah. Jews who reject this central command face the possibility of being cut off by the Hand of Heaven. And one can be sure that severe penalties will come to the Jewish nation if important sections of it should succumb to the temptation of not performing this central rite.
It is not circumcision which causes harm; the real harm comes from the godless propaganda of the religion of Enlightenment Secularism. This Enightenment philosophy displays the same arrogant attitude to Judaism and to all religions as does traditional Catholic Replacement Theology. Replacement Theology declares that Judaism and its rituals have become obsolete in the Christian era. Enlightenment Secularism is a repetition and intensification of Replacement Theology by declaring all traditional religions obsolete.
Secularists who claim that they can decide for traditional Jews what is best for them are under the spell of a dangerous delusion.
Miriam Pollack | Sep 5, 2012 | 12:17pm
Excellent, balanced article. What is missing from the hysterics which characterize the circumcision debate are exactly the points Ron Goldman has illuminated: the function of the foreskin and the short and long term consequences of its traumatic removal. Additionally, the ethically question looms large in this discussion. How can any medical doctor or religious adult facilitate the forcible pinning down of a helpless new life to permanently remove healthy, functional sexual tissue? As a Jewish woman deeply connected to both my people and religion, I find this part of Judaism in obvious conflict with Jewish principles of reverence and protection of all life—especially, the most helpless.
Richard Scalper | Sep 5, 2012 | 1:31pm
They brand men like a herd of cows. American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this
absurd surgery. If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world.
The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They
insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to
HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female & male genitals. Circumcision is the mark of a
slave, not a free man.
Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision
10. Get waterboarded.
9. Pull out your fingernails.
8. Eat a pile of steaming bear crap.
7. Skin yourself alive.
6. Fall into a vat of molten iron.
5. Get run over by a train.
4. Go through a sausage grinder.
3. Saw off your legs.
2. Poke out your eyes.
1. Go To Hell
~Dick-Scalper.
Tina Kimmel, PhD, MSW, MPH | Sep 13, 2012 | 1:25pm
I appreciate the brilliant analysis by Dr. Goldman. From my perspective, if secular governments simply made circumcision illegal—just like any other form of extreme child abuse—then observant Jews such as Mr. Sevenster would be able to say “Circumcision is still a requirement of our religion, but unfortunately we can’t practice it, because the Law of the Land prohibits it”.
Lori Lange | Sep 28, 2012 | 4:30pm
Here lies the real kind of circumcision it is of the heart !!! And “namal and mawl” were to snip cut mark not remove the 4skin that would of been FORBIDDEN as a pagan blood ritual and 9times out of ten these babies at 8 days old would of died and Abraham being 99 years old wouldnt of hade the"Pharonic”“circumcision”? that is “mutilation by the way in Genesis 17 there was to be a Mark of the covenenant “in the flesh of the 4skin” how can that of came about if there is no 4skin to have a mark “in it”? Back way when when the Jews wanted to engadge in Olympic Games because nudity was involved somehow how was it they were able to
“hide” thier scars from the cutting? that should behoove us to look deeper into textual refrences and see what is taken out of context to suit a religious rite or is it a human rite? we have to ask our selves does Yah want us to m"mutilate” and cause pain to our sons? does He require blood of the innocents this is what He said He hated now doesnt this kind Periah circumcising =and euphemism for mutilation seem a bit barbaric there is alternatives we need to come to the place where there is a deliverance of our bodies as whole unto Him as a B’rit Shalom…He desires a “Broken pierced contrite heart!! He will no wise despise the way Abraham had it done not “Periah” expose the glands!!! This mutilation practice from Periah came about from Egypt mark my word also Mesopotamia!! Seek what im saying for your selves this is not going to cut any one off from YHVH’s Heaven if they are not cut!!! That does not SAVE anyone Abraham was called a Zaddick for his believing his faith alone way before circumcision came on the scene!! Now does this behoove us to look and dig deeper into our Torah and Tenakh?