Actually, I don't think Paul's comment is a "one-liner" -- the fact that this decision comes from Germany is surely the most striking and disconcerting -- and important -- thing about it.
As far as "analysis" is concerned, well, how could there be a "correct" answer? I think we can all agree that such a law imposes a very substantial burden on the religious exercise of most of those affected. Is there a governmental interest sufficient to overcome this burden, as either a legal or a moral matter? Well, that depends, of course, on how the society in question measures the harms to the infant boys -- harms to health, dignity, autonomy, etc. And that in turn depends on ever-shifting evidence and evolving moral sensibilities. If this were a case in which many or most of the boys in question later regretted the decisions of their parents, or where there were an undeniable, severe harm in terms of health or sexual well-being -- as is the case with respect to, e.g., female genital mutilation -- then the balancing would be fairly obvious. But in this case, not only do most men not mind that their parents made that decision (I assume that's also true in Germany -- but perhaps not), but in addition, many or most of those men who prefer to be circumcised are actually grateful that the decision was made at birth, since the procedure is much riskier and more painful (or so I'm told!) when performed on an adult. Surely that unusual set of facts makes this case much different from, e.g., the FGM and denial-of-lifesaving-medical treatment cases. On the other hand, the harm to the men (presumably a minority -- but again, perhaps things are different in Germany) who regret their parents' decision is irreversable. That's what makes the case so difficult. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > Any chance we could have some helpful analysis of the > decision, rather than one-liners? The question of the degree to which > parents should be able to permanently alter their children’s bodies – for > religious reasons or otherwise – is not, it seems to me, one that has a > completely obvious answer one way or the other. There may indeed be one > correct answer that can be demonstrated, but such demonstration requires > argument rather than assertion.**** > > ** ** > > Eugene**** > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
