Mark -- My understanding is that this particular case is at an end, and the state intermediate appellate court's ruling stands, because the prosecution chose not to appeal. So any change will have to come by means of another case or legislative action.
Eric ________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark [mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 5:35 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: AP: German Minister Moves to Calm Circumcision Fears [Via ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/german-minister-moves-calm-circumcision-fears-16688475. I realize that this is not responsive to US constitutional law questions, but I thought list members would like to see this story.] German Minister Moves to Calm Circumcision Fears BERLIN July 1, 2012 (AP) … Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that a legal debate "must not lead to doubts arising internationally about religious tolerance in Germany." "The free exercise of religion is protected in Germany. That includes religious traditions," Westerwelle said in a statement. "All our partners in the world should know that." Volker Beck, a senior lawmaker with the opposition Greens, left open whether a "correction" of the Cologne ruling should be sought through the court system or through new legislation, but he said the result should be clarity that circumcision on religious grounds is justified so long as hygienic and medical standards are kept to. … The case in Cologne involved a doctor accused of carrying out a circumcision on a 4-year-old, approved by his Muslim parents, that led to medical complications. The doctor was acquitted, however, and prosecutors said they won't appeal. Unlike female circumcision, there is no law prohibiting the practice and the ruling isn't binding for other courts — but it creates a potentially tricky legal situation for doctors who perform the procedure on parents' orders. Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 2:22 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: German circumcision decision I don’t see why it’s “religio-cultural[ly] insensitiv[e]” to say that a decision made for medical reasons is permissible but a decision made for religious reasons is not; or if it is religio-culturally insensitive, I would be proudly religio-culturally insensitive in many instances. (This instance I do find hard, for many reasons, but not for the reasons described below.) For instance, I don’t see why we should treat (a) a parent’s refusing necessary medical treatment to a child because there’s a plausible argument that the treatment will do more harm than good the same as (b) a parent’s refusing such treatment without any such explanation but simply because he concludes “we should pray instead of performing the medical procedure, and God will take care of things.” Perhaps it’s too hard to tease apart such rationales in some situations, but as a general matter I would think that courts might quite rightly reject rationale (b) even if they accept rationale (a). Now of course here the situation is not identical – indeed, as I’ve argued before, male circumcision is not identical to pretty much any other procedure – and perhaps the situation should be different when we’re not talking about refusal of necessary medical treatment but rather the performance of a medical procedure for which the practical effect (with regard to possible loss of sexual sensation) is unknown. But the point is that the mere fact that a decision might permissibly be made for plausible medical reasons doesn’t mean that it might permissibly be made for religious reasons (or other nonmedical reasons). Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]<mailto:[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]> On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 9:38 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: German circumcision decision 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<mailto: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<tel:518-445-3386> (p) 518-445-3363<tel:518-445-3363> (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com> ________________________________ From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
