In Germany, A Crime To Be A Jew?

By Rod Dreher • August 24, 2012, 1:02 PM

What else can one conclude after assault charges were filed against a German rabbi for performing ritual circumcisions, which have been required by Jewish law since forever? Think about it: in Germany, in 2012, a rabbi faces criminal charges for doing what Jews have always done with their male children, and indeed what is a defining act of male membership in the Jewish community.

Wow, Germany. Just wow.

But as Yair Rosenberg says, this is not just a matter of religious freedom, but one of public health. And now, he reports, the American Academy of Pediatrics is about to come down in favor of circumcision. Excerpt:

A leaked copy of the new American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on circumcision, scheduled to be released on Monday, reveals a change in the prestigious medical body’s previous position (set in 1999) on the medical benefits of the procedure from “neutral” to “pro.” It details how a comprehensive evaluation of research from the last 15 years demonstrates that the medical benefits of circumcision—including “prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections”—outweigh the risks.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. The AAP is a driving force behind health policy in America, and the experts involved in its new statement are already going on record in major media outlets to advocate that circumcision be covered on public health plans like Medicaid. The statement solidifies the scientific consensus behind the advisability of infant male circumcision (noting that complications are more likely to arise when the procedure is performed later in life) and places the traditional practice squarely within the realm of sound medical science.

Posted in Culture war, Religion, UK/Europe. Tagged assault, circumcision, Germany, hygiene, Judaism, mohel, rabbi.

38 Responses to In Germany, A Crime To Be A Jew?

icarusr says:

August 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Let me see. If an Egyptian gynecologist splits open a young girl’s clitoris in the name of “religious ritual” he and her parents are likely to be thrown in jail for assault causing bodily injury, and good riddance. We would not call that “outlawing being Egyptian”; in fact, it is more likely than not that a Christianist theologue would mount the parapets and declare war against the barbaric practices of the heathen Arabs.

A German court, taking the situation at hand (a baby is laid down on a table and a mohel cuts off a piece of the babies genitalia, in the name of religious ritual), and suddenly it is illegal to be a Jew?

I am part Jewish and have been mutilated already – but because of the various parts in my background, that happened when I was seven. I remember it vividly. I did not think I had become a man; only cut to shreds and bleeding for a week.

If you want to remove your foreskin as an adult, it is a choice – there are people who want to cut off their own legs. But let us not get carried away. We do not permit Jews to stone adulterers and thrown sodomites off cliffs, and we are not making Judaism illegal. If we decide, as a society, that infant male mutilation should end, it is a public health choice, not an assault on religion.
John B. says:

August 24, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Even as we speak, someone out there is trying to find a way to make infant circumcision legal (or, ideally, mandatory) if done for health reasons, but a felony if done for religious reasons.
Neil says:

August 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm

The post should’ve been titled, “Sullivan Bait.”
John E_o says:

August 24, 2012 at 1:31 pm

I think the German legislature should not have passed that law.

I also think Rod’s headline in inaccurate and inflammatory.
SusanKG says:

August 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Obviously, there are hugely important religious freedom issues at stake. But there is also an issue of permanently changing a child’s body without his consent. My husband would have chosen not to be circumcised. But he had not choice in the matter (and his parents were Catholic, not Jewish). Unfortunately, what was done cannot be undone.
hetzer says:

August 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm

lol@ false equivalence in equating male circumcision with female circumcision.
Polichinello says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm

The post should’ve been titled, “Sullivan Bait.”

LOL. 180.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm

Germany is nuts. It explains this post and your next one. Actually that would explain a good chunk of twentieth century history and the Euro financial crisis too.
Erin Manning says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Oh, but hetzer, didn’t you know? Gender is irrelevant these days. Men and women are identical and interchangeable, so if circumcision is bad for women it has to be bad for men, but if circumcision is good for men it has to be good for women. There is no possible way it can be good for one gender and bad for the other, because that would mean that men and women actually are different! And we can’t have that…/sarc.

Not having had sons, I can imagine that this is a hard decision for parents to make, but given the AAP’s likely position on the issue, couldn’t we drop the inflammatory words about “mutilation?” If there is a legitimate health benefit from circumcision, then parents who chose to do it (whether for religious reasons, health ones, or both) shouldn’t be stigmatized as having participated in the mutilation of their sons.
Theophilus says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:08 pm

I might have expected this in France, perhaps, but not Germany, what with its particularly notorious history of interaction with its Jewish citizens in the last century. And I think it’s particularly alarming to see arguments that the the performance of Judaism is not seriously impacted if it is not permitted to perform one of its most important rites. If the (imaginary!) country of Teetotalia allowed Roman Catholic churches and clergy, but had a national ban on alcohol that was applied to these churches, it would be pretty clear that Teetotalia, by effectively banning the Eucharist, was restricting the practice of Catholicism for the sake of the country’s social norms. Sure, you could practice other bits of Catholicism, or be an unfettered Southern Baptist, but we would still have a problem. The same situation applies here. There are reasonable arguments for banning alcohol, as there are for banning male circumcision, but they’re not actually all that strong, rely on principle rather than evidence, and place very illiberal restrictions on freedom.
Turmarion says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm

icarusr, female circumcision is not mandated by Islam, nor is it practiced in most Muslim countries. It’s an African custom that pre-dates Islam and which spread to parts, but not most, of the Middle East. It is actually practiced in many such societies by non-Muslimsj, too. If you want to oppose male circumcison, that’s fine, though I disagree with you; but don’t do it on the grounds of a false analogy with female circumcision.
Everhopeful says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:23 pm

“I also think Rod’s headline in inaccurate and inflammatory.”

John E_o, how so? One must be circumcised to be a Jew. If circumcision is a criminal act, as the article says (“a ruling by a Cologne court in May that religious circumcision is a criminal act”), then Judaism is de jure and de facto criminalized.

In the 160s BCE the Syrian King Antiochus Epiphanes also outlawed circumcision. It didn’t turn out well for him.
Roland de Chanson says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm

I wonder whether the AAP thinks that the surgeon should stanch the hemorrhage by sucking on the penis.

No irreversible procedure should be performed on a helpless child in the name of religious custom. Freedom of religion does not give the parents the right to enact rituals of a religion the child when an adult might come to reject.

Hence in this secular republic a law should be passed forthwith outlawing infant baptism.
tommasso says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm

“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. The existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child’s current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician, taking into account what is in the best interests of the child, including medical, religious, cultural, and ethnic traditions.”

Last Updated 7/30/2012

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Circumcision.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token
TTT says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm

In developed countries with proper hygiene, sex education, and normal access to condoms, the medical benefits of circumcision are minimal. Yes, you still do avoid pediatric urinary tract infections – but now you expose the boy to risks of complications from the procedure. There are far better medical arguments for pre-emptive tonsillectomies, and how many parents would line up for that?

Though even if you do it, it doesn’t count as “mutilation,” for as middling as is the evidence of medical benefit, there is none whatsoever demonstrating harm (if you avoid compplications).
John E_o says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm

John E_o, how so?

Well, for one thing, it suggests that those who were circumcised were the criminals under the law and not those performing the circumcision.

For another, it suggests that all the Jews already circumcised were now criminals, which they aren’t.

And finally, it ignores the 50% of the German Jewish population for whom the law does not apply.

So – to reiterate – the law is a bad law and Rod’s headline is inaccurate an inflammatory.
MattSwartz says:

August 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Let’s leave religion out of it for a moment. The fact is that circumcisions save lives. The medical benefits of it are well established. In an age of vaccine-resistant super-bugs, it makes a ton of sense to do whatever possible to quell the spread of disease, especially something so low-cost and time-tested.

I am continually amazed by how easily parents are swayed by emotion. It’s mindblowing, and it’s the source of all anti-circumcision activism, close as I can tell.
KateLE says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm

Everhopeful:

Perhaps it is splitting hairs (and I can certainly see both sides of this particular argument), however it is not circumcision itself that is being criminalized, but the circumcision of a minor. There is a difference. You could say that the loss of control to dictate how one’s relgion is practised with one’s child makes that difference irrelevant or spiritually meaningless, but it is a difference nonetheless.
Bob Jones says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Rod this is not only an inflammatory headline, but also a ridiculous and frankly grossly dishonest one.

First, the law in question was passed to protect the children of Germany’s Muslim minority from religously sanctioned body mutilation (maybe the headline should read it is illegal to be a Muslim, or would that get the shock value you were going for?), but it also does not make it “illegal” to be a Jew. In fact, it extends the concept of religious liberty to all citizens, even the smallest and most defenseless. Circumcision is not illegal, but it is not legal to force it upon someone else.

basically, now every citizen in Germany can exercise their liberty to choose and follow the practices of their faith. If a young Jewish or Muslim boy is ready for circumcision, he can choose that for himself, without someone else forcing it upon him. Thus maybe the headline should read:

Germany Secures Religious Liberty for All Citizens.
Bob Jones says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Everhopeful: The ruling was that forcible circumcision was a criminal act, not circumcision as a whole. Any consenting adult can choose to be circumcised in accordance with whatever religious beliefs he may have.
FN says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm

There is no specific law against ritual circumcision in Germany, be it by Jews or Muslims or anyone. The problem is rather that there is no specific law allowing it. Thus, a court that had to decide in a specific case whether a circumcision performed on a little child (I think the background was that it some complications ensued) had to refer to the laws governing bodily injury. There is no question that a circumcision results in bodily injury in the sense of these laws. The court had problems weighing this aspect against the guaranteed right to the free practice of religion, because it is the bodily harm of the child against the freedom of religion of someone else – the parents that take that decision. The child cannot take that decision at that age.

So the court did what it had to do, although nobody liked the outcome, least of all German politicians who will likely pass a law allowing such circumcisions, unless higher courts do not find a possibility to reverse the decision. They will try very hard.

“In Germany, a crime to be a Jew” is just nonsense.

Btw., knowing what I speak of, I think a circumcision is something only the owner of the foreskin should decide on.
German reader says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm

“I think the German legislature should not have passed that law.

I also think Rod’s headline in inaccurate and inflammatory.”

No law against circumcision has been passed; all that’s actually happened is a regional court’s decision (as far as I know, in a case dealing with a circumcision that went partially wrong) which has led to some legal uncertainty.
Admittedly the whole business is unfortunate (and some people who suddenly get all worked up about circumcision probably are motivated by anti-Jewish/anti-Muslim bigotry), but to all of you who get hysteric about this I can only say: There’s no way in my view circumcision will be prohibited in Germany. There may be some regulation of the whole procedure (to ensure it’s done by someone qualified; maybe anesthetics would become obligatory – are there religious objections against this?), but hardly more.
FN says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm

clarification: The charges filed against the Rabbi in the article linked to are the logical consequence of the decision of the Cologne High Court that I was referring to which ruled that circumcision inflicted unjustified bodily harm. But the case against the Rabbi is a separate case.
The Mighty Favog says:

August 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm

The world has gone mad. Germany has gone stark raving mad, for which there is sad precedent in that country, and that led to the deaths of more than 6 million Jews and millions more besides.

In the vanguard of this present madness are people just like “icarusr,” who justify their madness not on grounds of racial purity, ridding the world of a so-called human infection and creating a Aryan uber-race, but instead on the “principle” of the ascendance of the autonomous self.

This madness will have pretty much the same results of all madness, and it’s the Jews who will pay the price, as will believing Christians. Radical secularists such as “icarusr” will act upon their madness in the name of “human rights,” but in reality it will be nothing more noble than Satan’s reason for rebelling against God in the first place.

In other words, there can be only one God, and they’re really pissed off that it’s not them. As it says in Ecclesiastes 1:

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
12 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.
14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
Rod Dreher says:

August 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Let me see. If an Egyptian gynecologist splits open a young girl’s clitoris in the name of “religious ritual” he and her parents are likely to be thrown in jail for assault causing bodily injury, and good riddance. We would not call that “outlawing being Egyptian”; in fact, it is more likely than not that a Christianist theologue would mount the parapets and declare war against the barbaric practices of the heathen Arabs.

Oh, please. Female “circumcision” removes all capacity for females to enjoy sexual pleasure. Male circumcision does no such thing. It’s an absurd comparison, though I understand it does diminish some sexual sensitivity in the male. That does not seem to have had much effect. If one believes that one’s ability to have the most intense orgasm possible is sacrosanct because sexual autonomy is the Holy of Holies, then okay, you have a point. If not, not.
Steve says:

August 24, 2012 at 4:36 pm

From a traditionalist, localist perspective the US medical mandates/recommendations for circumcision should look quite dubious.

They first recieved prominence in the late 19th century as part of a strange reformist campaign to discourage masturbation, funded by the Kellogg’s cereal founders, and then were spread through the state bureaucracy as part of an “improving” mandate by “experts” to be done on an supposedly ignorant population to reform their morals.

There is a similar strain of experts dictating to the masses in the current circumcision advocacy, where public health experts extrapolate from small scale studies in sub-Saharan Africa to make health recommendations for American children.

Other developed country’s public health department makes no recommendation for circumcision, and I would prefer if American health experts refrained from meddling in this as well.
FN says:

August 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Yes, Rod, speaking from experience, I must say it does make a noticeable difference if you have a foreskin or not.
Noah172 says:

August 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Disagree with a ban on circumcision.

Agree that Rod’s headline was bad.

In the civilized world outside the US and South Korea, circumcision ranges from uncommon to unknown. Most of the circumcisions in the world are done by Third World Muslims. If circumcision is so obviously beneficial, as its advocates claim, why have these benefits escaped the notice of Britons, Canadians, Australians, Germans, French, Japanese, and other advanced peoples, among whom the practice is, as I just wrote, uncommon to unheard of? How is it that Muslims — who can hardly be said to have a reputation for either good hygiene or scientific discovery — well nigh universally perform a medical procedure that most pale-face infidels forgo?

The real reasons that there is a public debate in Europe and the Anglosphere (and very little elsewhere) over circumcision are 1) the antisemitism issue, and to a much lesser degree, 2) assimilation concerns about large Muslim immigrant communities. Absent these, the procedure would be (to borrow the Clintonian formula for abortion) safe, legal, and rare, and there would be little fuss over people opting for it or not.
Grumpy Old Man says:

August 24, 2012 at 5:42 pm

I think Nanny should butt out, but it is a barbaric custom.
icarusr says:

August 24, 2012 at 5:43 pm

@Rod
Oh, please. Female “circumcision” removes all capacity for females to enjoy sexual pleasure. Male circumcision does no such thing. It’s an absurd comparison, though I understand it does diminish some sexual sensitivity in the male. That does not seem to have had much effect. If one believes that one’s ability to have the most intense orgasm possible is sacrosanct because sexual autonomy is the Holy of Holies, then okay, you have a point. If not, not.

Oh, please. Female genital mutilation has many stages. One of the involves the removal of the labia and so on; some – and I specifically referred to the more “benign” version of splitting the clitoris, does not involve major reduction in sexual pleasure.

But I was not talking about sexual pleasure at all. I was talking about personal autonomy and the sanctity of the body. That you only see sexual pleasure where none is mention is not my problem; seek your own psychological explanations. I was talking specifically about an act of surgical intervention to cut a piece of my body off me without my permission, which is what happens to girls in the course of female ritual genital mutilation. That it was done to me in the name of religion does not change the fact that it was not necessary for medical reason and it was an invasive and painful procedure.

If you want to “oh, please” me, please have enough respect to actually read what I wrote and respond to that, rather than talk about your own issues.

@Turmarion
Female genital mutilation is not mandated by religion, but by custom, which is as strong as religion in certain parts of the country. Note that I referred to being “Egyptian” and not Coptic or Muslim. To an Egyptian woman, or man for that matter, the practice is no less important than male genital mutilation.

In any event, there are lots of things that religion mandates that we no longer tolerate because of our ideas, and ideals, of human autonomy. And I don’t mean fornication, but rather, bodily autonomy. Eye for an eye, to start …
icarusr says:

August 24, 2012 at 5:46 pm

@hetzer
lol@ false equivalence in equating male circumcision with female circumcision.

lol at grown-up and rational response! We consider male circumcision OK because we practice it; we consider female genital mutilation not OK because the Other practices it. Ours is OK because the boy is seven days old and does not have localised pain receptor; theirs is bad because the girl is eight and suffers through the ordeal. Both involve the removal of a part of a child’s gentials for the sake of ritual for no medical reason whatever.

Some false equivalence.
Helen says:

August 24, 2012 at 5:49 pm

FYI, penile cancer and UTIs are very rare, regardless of circumcision. What circumcision does prevent is sexually transmitted diseases. When my husband and I decided not to get our son circumscised we decided that we will explain the STD risk to him when he is older, as part of teaching him that sexual activity is appropriate only in a monogamous, committed relationship.

I mention this only because it’s a little odd to hear social conservatives touting the health benefits of circumcision, when those benefits have primarily to do with the effects of promiscuous sexual behavior.

Also, it is my understanding from Wikipedia (so it must be true! haha) that a Jewish male is Jewish regardless of whether he is circumcised, although it it an element of Jewish law — that is circumcision is not optional for Jews, but not being circumcised if you are male does not mean you are not Jewish.

And although I think parents should choose not to get their male children circumcised, the German law sounds very dumb.
MattSwartz says:

August 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm

If the circumcision of males in their infancy is ingredient in Judaism, which I would argue, which every observant Jew on earth would argue, and which no less of a Christian authority than St. Paul assumed to be so obvious as to border on tautology, Rod’s headline is perfect.

And to those who argue against the headline by pointing out that this is only a lower court decision, rather than settled law, I would direct you to Rod’s choice of headline punctuation. He’s a professional writer, meaning that he does things like that on purpose. If he had wanted you to read that sentence with a period on the end of it, he has a button on his keyboard for that, same as you and I do. He was expressing wonder that such a thing might come about, not communicating with certainty that it has.
Peter says:

August 24, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Question marks in a headline are there so the writer doesn’t have to stand over the claim. It usually means the claim is patently untrue. Like in this case.
JoeMerl says:

August 24, 2012 at 7:58 pm

There are two fairly pertinent facts about Judaism that I think a lot of the anti-circumcision people are missing:

1.) Just how important a rite it’s considered to be. Yes, this ruling doesn’t effectively say “one can’t be a Jew,” but circumcision is basically the equivalent of baptism: it’s when a boy is officially considered to join the community. Plus, as Everhopeful amusingly noted, it’s something that they have historically gone to war over.

2.) Unlike Islam (as I understand it), Judaism specifically says that the rite is supposed to be performed on a child’s eighth day. If this can’t be considered outlawing Judaism, it is at least forcing a major change to one of its most important rituals.
Glaivester says:

August 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm

I don’t know that I would really have a problem with female circumcision” (removal of the clitoral prepuce). The problem is that “female circumcision” is often used as a euphemism for clitorectomy or labectomy.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

August 25, 2012 at 11:50 pm

There have been comments here arguing that a given individual man wishes his parents had had him circumcised, and another man wishes they had not. The law cannot force both sets of parents to comply with their infant sons’ future wishes. Thus, any legally enforced uniformity will over-ride someone’s ex post facto autonomy.

That is why “wait until he is old enough to make his own decision” is absurd. Most of us who have been circumcised never knew what we were missing, and I like it that way. When I was some years past puberty, I supposed that circumcision was, among other things, a courtesy to any woman who might eventually be concerned, but I have been informed by at least one woman (raised Jewish, married to an evangelical Christian, then divorced, and never a partner of mine) that this is not true.

So, different strokes and all that. It is literally impossible to defer ALL decisions about a child until adulthood. This one is sufficiently all-over-the-map that there is little better option, civilly, than leaving it up to parents.

As Erin highlights, there is simply no comparison between male circumcision and female “circumcision.” There is no part of the external body that is more different. Males lose a rather irrelevant appendage of an appendage. Females lose tissue that is, or borders upon being, internal. Outlawing female mutilation, while allowing male circumcision, does not make little girls any less likely to pursue careers in engineering when they grow up, nor give boys significant advantage in any field both may compete in.

And, as many have pointed out, female circumcision is nowhere mandated by Islam. East African Christian converts in communities that traditionally practice it argue quite fiercely that God commands them to mutilate their daughters.
Sharon Astyk says:

August 28, 2012 at 10:51 am

Rod’s headline is functionally correct as it stands, with the question mark. If upheld, this would functionally render illegal religious Judaism in Germany, because the obligation of circumcision does not rest with the child, but with the parents. That is, the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day is an obligation that attends to the parent, rather than the child. So there is no possibility under Jewish law of “waiting until he’s old enough to make his own decision” – the person failing to live up to their responsibilities is the parent.

Historically speaking, the outlawing of circumcision has been totally ineffective – it is THE symbol of the covenant between G-d and the Jews, and Jews will continue to do so (as will Muslims – and the law is primarily intended to be anti-Muslim) – in secret, bearing the cost when they have to, or simply leaving Germany – so if Germany is renewing its attempts to be Jew-free, this is a very fine way to go about it.

The AAP’s decision really has little to do with the Jewish obligation to circumcise – it would be great if it has health benefits, or if it does not, but we do it because G-d requires it, not because it is beneficial – indeed, circumcision is a very small blood sacrifice of sorts, and the links between that historically and the end of other forms of blood sacrifice are very real.

That said, however, having been an intimate witness to many brisim, including those of my four sons, I can say with some certainty that my anxieties about how this might hurt my babies were vastly overblown. One of my sons didn’t cry at all, the others were immediately comforted, within seconds of being brought to the breast, the way a baby is when comparatively minor injuries occur, rather than the much more serious crying of something lastingly painful. If you’ve seen a hospital circ with the infant strapped down and without the clamps designed for it, you probably imagine something more unpleasant than it is – a competent mohel completes the procedure in literally seconds, while a baby is held in the arms of a loving family member. Moreover, the mentioned sucking (which was done with a mouthful of wine to prevent infection) has long since disappeared.

The reality is that our children endure pain for benefit all the time. My children ran fevers after their vaccinations, and suffered pain from the shots, but were not in any way permitted to forgo those pains, even the risk of more serious consequences, since I do not wish to see them suffer whooping cough or mumps. In the same way, I do not wish my teenage children to either be cut off from the covenant and full access to the Jewish community, unable to take up the role of a Jewish adult, or to endure circumcision during adolescence when both psychologically and physically, they are vastly less able to endure its discomforts.

Functionally, if upheld, religious Jews will leave Germany. And France. And San Francisco, and anywhere else circumcision is outlawed. It will not stop us from circumcising our sons, since the Nazis and the Soviets didn’t – it will only serve to remove Jews from the population.

Sharon