Alan's point raises another analytical issue. If "don't harm the body" is a semi-religious, ethical view, then aren't the German court and the proponents of the SF measure simply imposing their religious values on those of others who have a different faith. I think it is not unreasonable to see the German decision as an attempt to force out Muslims (and Jews) in a nation that is very uncomfortable with foreigners, immigration, and diversity. I have spent a fair amount of time in Germany over the last 20 years and I am always struck by how determined the Germans are not to allow Turks -- but this time 3rd and 4th generation German-born, German-speaking Turks -- to become German citizens.
************************************************* Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. 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<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com> ************************************************* ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Alan Brownstein [aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 2:31 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: German circumcision decision I agree with almost of all of Marty's thoughtful post -- except that I do not see this as a difficult case. When an attempt was made to place this issue on the ballot in San Francisco, some people argued medical and health concerns (although as Marty and Paul point out, the evidence here is indeterminate and disputed.) But most of the people I spoke with who supported the ban did so for almost quasi religious reasons -- a kind of "don't alter the natural body" philosophy -- or on autonomy grounds. While I think the autonomy argument isn't entirely frivolous, our legal system allows parents to make so many choices for their children that substantially impact their physical and mental health, personality, and appearance (without being subject to challenge on the grounds that they have interfered with the child's autonomy) that I don't assign a lot of weight to this interest. The alternative, after all, to having parents make these decisions is for the state to do so in their place. Finally, of course, there are the obvious consequences for such a ban on religious freedom. Laws that require devout religious individuals to violate core obligations of their faith at best are intrinsically exclusionary. Unless one envisions a world where moderately or seriously religious Jews (and Muslims) voluntarily cease to exist, a ban on circumcision prohibits those families from living in a community. Alan
_______________________________________________ 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.
