Isn't there still a substantial body of medical opinion--perhaps not as prevalent as in decades past--that recommends circumcision as a preventive health measure? If the issue is the lack of consent from the subject of the operation, this certainly affects more than just religious observance, and more than just this particular operation. And if the decision hinges specifically on the fact that the motivation (if that can ever be clear) is primarily religious, that certainly smacks of religio-cultural insensitivity, to put it mildly.
Vance On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>wrote: > Are they also banning parents from piercing the ears of children? In many > cultures it is common to see infant girls with pierced ears. Does the ban > extend to pierced ears before age 18? And then there is body piercing > before age 18. Is that being banned? Has the Court banned tattoos for > people under 18? > > And has this ban spread to Muslim male children, who are circumcised at > age 7, 10 or slightly later depending on the sect. > > The fact is, given Germany's history of how it has dealt with Jews, is is > not illegitimate to wonder what the Court is thinking. Germany has one of > the fastest growing Jewish populations in the world -- mostly through > immigration. This decision, if enforced all over the country, would slow > down or stop that population growth. One might at least ponder why this > case has come to the Germany court, and not one involving piercing, > tattoos, or Muslim circumcision. > > ---- > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, NY 12208 > > 518-445-3386 (p) > 518-445-3363 (f) > > > paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu > > > www.paulfinkelman.com > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > > *Sent:* Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:56 AM > *Subject:* RE: German circumcision decision > > 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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com
_______________________________________________ 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.
