The crime of circumcision
WASHINGTON “This is my covenant which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised.”
--Genesis 17:10
A district judge in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that ritual circumcision is a crime, violating “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights. “This change runs counter to the interests of the child,” the court concluded, “who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life.”
Jews and Muslims have traditionally viewed male circumcision in a different light—not as an expression of individual choice but as a form of initiation into a community. German religious figures from all the Abrahamic faiths criticized the Cologne ruling, with particular outrage expressed by Jewish leaders. Dieter Graumann, head of German Central Council of Jews, called it “outrageous and insensitive” and warned that a general application of the decision would “coldbloodedly force Judaism into illegality.”
Though the ban only directly applies in one region of Germany, secular supporters count it a triumph and a precedent. One academic, Holm Putzke, celebrated the rejection of “religiously motivated violence against children.” “The court has,” he said, “unlike many politicians, not been deterred by the fear of being criticized as anti-Semitic or antireligious.”
Normally such deterrence would be viewed as a healthy thing, particularly in a country that relatively recently—within living memory—sought to be judenrein, “clean of Jews.” But the fearlessness of modern secularism is a thing to behold. Before World War II, there were about 600,000 Jews living in Germany. Today there are a little over 100,000. This remnant is now informed that their 4,000-year-old ritual of identity—perhaps the oldest Jewish tradition—is a violation of enlightened notions of individual rights.
Jewish sensitivity on this subject is understandable. Anti-Semitism has always focused not only on Jewish beliefs but on Jewish bodies. And circumcision has attracted particular attention. The Roman historian Tacitus called it a “base and abominable” practice, by which Jews deliberately chose to “distinguish themselves from other peoples.”
The banning of circumcision by the Emperor Hadrian may have helped foment a Jewish revolt in 132 A.D. During the Middle Ages, the practice was linked to the blood libel—accusations that Jews used the blood of murdered Christians in circumcision rituals. Josef Stalin banned ritual circumcision along with other Jewish religious practices.
Most of the current opposition to circumcision—found not only in Germany but in Sweden, Norway, Holland, Finland and the United States—would dispute the charge of anti-Semitism. The arguments they claim are resolutely modern: It is medically harmful (a difficult case in light of the fact that the World Health Organization and UNAIDS recommend the practice as part of effective HIV/AIDS prevention efforts). Along with the Cologne judge, most critics of circumcision also regard it as a violation of individual self-determination, which raises religious liberty issues larger than a single snip.
A strain of modern liberalism contends that only individuals and their rights are real in the legal sense—and there is no other acceptable sense. It is the role of the state to defend individual self-determination against oppressive institutions, including religious institutions. Since circumcision is coerced, it is unjust. The same claim might be made—and has been made—of early religious indoctrination of any kind. Liberalism thus leads to an aggressive form of assimilation to the values of the liberal order.
Many Jews naturally view compulsive, state-sponsored assimilation with suspicion, even if it is described as social liberation. Along with many other religious people, they regard children as members of a community that precedes individual decisions and outlasts them—a community created by a covenant, not a choice. Circumcision is the outward sign of this spiritual reality.
In the traditional view, religious communities are not only real, but irreplaceable sources of meaning and belonging. They are the ties that free individuals from isolation and ennui—even at the price of a little unremembered pain.
There is a story from Holocaust history about a woman at the Janowska concentration camp who demanded a knife from a guard. Taken by surprise, he complied. The other inmates thought the woman intended suicide. Instead, she reached down into a bundle of rags and circumcised her infant boy—then prayed aloud for God to receive him back to heaven as a Jew.
If this is the definition of a crime anywhere in the modern world, it is a sad regression from freedom.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.

Jul 7, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
whatsgoinon, the great majority of STDs are contracted and passed along by circumcised males and their partners. Be careful
Jul 6, 2012 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
As far as "hurting" an infant in the process of circumcising - how many can remember the pain of being circumcised as an infant?....
but,Can you imagine how a sextually transmitted disease feels or aides feels for a teenager or an adult?...yes, it is a fact circumcising does lower the risk of getting/giving sextually transmitted diseases and getting/spreading of AIDES.
Jul 6, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
gfan- tmi lol
Jul 6, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually I need to correct that - not bitten, just that in more extreme faiths the blood is sucked out, leading in some cases to the transfer of STD's to the infant.
Jul 6, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Made in God's image...except for the parts of the anatomy that need to be cut, or in the case of some of the more faithful practices, bitten off.
Jul 6, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Welcome JackieNO; the newest paid poster on the Gazette site.
Jul 6, 2012 at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
I guess the "take-away" is just that liberals/progressives are the only ones qualified to dole out rights?
Jul 6, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Very true, Jackie. Little gazettefan still wears a hat, and I prefer it that way.
Jul 6, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
But taking the life of that same cuddly,infant boy just half an hour earlier doesn't violate any of his rights?
Jul 6, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Of course cutting off p*nis parts is harmful. How does anyone disagree with the point that amputating nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones is bodily HARM? Finally a country is standing up for the basic human right to keep all of his sensory system, all of his nerves, all of his blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones.
Other countries should follow this lead. Baby boy penis parts removal should be considered illegal NOW in the United States under the 1996 federal law banning genital cutting -- 14th Amendment equal protection clause.
Those saying that preventing the cutting off of penis parts of a baby boy violates the cutter's freedom of religion, are way out there in irrational land. One's religion ends where their knife touches another human's body. The idea that another human's ritual (rite) trumps ones right to body parts is insane and creepy. Baby boy penis parts removal cuts off thousands of fine touch and stretch nerves. This is like disconnecting the fingertips, nipples or lips from the brain. No human should be subjected to sensory system harm as well as a forced decrease of sexual function and PLEASURE for life!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.