Male infant circumcision is declared illegal in Germany.

If that really is the international reaction, then "international" has completely missed the point! The "this is anti-whateverreligionithappenstobe card" is always played. I wonder when supposedly intelligent people like Merkel will catch on?

And now Angela Merkel is reported in the German press as saying that the decision will make the Germans a laughing stock. They are said to be trying to find a way of undoing the decision. I don't think 'laughing stock' fully describes the international reaction which tends towards 'anti-Semitic and anti-Islam'.

granjura I think sometimes "butchery" is already being carried out by unqualified staff and less than safe circumstances.

Perfectly said Bags, my own sentiments entirely.

The only argument against imho, is that in some, mostly religious circles, eg Jews and Muslims, it is so ingrained that a ban may push such 'operations' underground, with 'butchery' being carried out by unqualified staff and less than safe circumstances.

Sadly that is harder to prevent. It is not a 'law' of any religion but seems to be older than that as a patriachal cultural practice. When it is so deeply ingrained in a society's psyche it is hard to break. The issue needs to be kept public and the increase in those who have been mutilated in the campaign also helps to give it greater credence with those who argue that because it is cultural it is not an issue for 'outsiders' to comment upon.

One step forward and another one back - such a tragedy. I wonder whether the powers that be would be prepared to stand in front of those children who have been harmed by this practice, and explain why they didn't protect them?

and where does that leave victims of female genital mutilation

And by so doing, Angela Merkel has made it clear that the babies on whom those religious practices are imposed have no choice. So much for freedom and human rights

Angela Merkel has now made it clear that a way round this court's decision will be found in order to allow circumcision of male infants and the free practice of Judaism and Islam.

Thanks whenim

Some Muslims refer to the Qur'an and insist it is religious, as it is spoken about by the prophet Mohammed, who advised those who did it to be careful about how much they removed, and this is often interpreted as an instruction to do it. There is much division between different Islamists. There are Animists, a few Christians and mainly Muslims who practise it, particularly in Indonesia and parts of North East Africa. The levels of invasion are regarded as 'minimal' for many girls who have been circumcised, but nevertheless traumatic and it causes extreme pain and suffering, especially in childbirth. It is often done without anaesthetic.

Similar to what these babies experience, except the girls are teenagers.

Female genital mutilation has no place in any religion. It is a cultural practice in some parts of Africa and, for some reason, in parts - but not all - of the Islamic world.

whenim, which religion practises female circumcision, mutilation?

But, Greatnan, that was allowing a practice, not forbidding one. That's a big difference in the public eye.

So would those who uphold the religious 'right' to circumcise babies whose foreskins are healthy also uphold the 'right' to practice female genital mutilation (or female circumcision, as it is usually called)?

...........and would they be happy for their teenage grandaughters to be mutilated in the event of one of their adult children living in some parts of Africa, and converting to a devout religion that required this to be done?

There are many women who make relationships in countries where it is practised and could find their daughters being threatened with this barbaric practice, which is illegal here.

Legislation is often the precursor of a change in public attitude - as happened when homosexual acts between consenting adults were legalised

Anagram

Which will be seen as religious persecution by those die-hard believers, and seized upon by agitators with their own agenda. It simply isn't the case that legislation will solve the problem.

You are probably right, Anagram, which is why such harmful practices have to be made illegal.

Yes, but your Christian friends would never have supported infant circumcision as being part of their faith, Mishap, which is the point of Lilygran's contention (I think). We can condemn the practice and point out the illogicality of it until the cows come home, but our arguments will cut no ice with die-hard believers.

Lilygran - I think that you will find that there are some very open and rationally-minded people on this site.

It would be crazy if anyone were to suggest that religion and its practices are not important topics of conversation as religion has played a huge part in shaping our world and the societies within it. Just because I may not personally believe something does not mean that I cannot understand that others hold these beliefs very strongly and that they play an important part in their lives - once we start saying that people of faith and those of none cannot discuss things together we are on a very slippery slope.

I am surrounded by friends who subscribe to the Christian faith - indeed 3 of my best friends are female vicars. But I do not share their views - and we are all perfectly happy with that - and so we should be.

But all those religious friends of mine maintain that out-of-date religious practices that were borne out of superstition and ignorance have no place in their thinking or their way of life.

Circumcision is top of their list of such practices, and rightly so.

Yes, that argument has been put forward already, Annobel, but try convincing a devout believer!

Many of the laws laid down in the Bible have nothing to do with spirituality. They may be to do with hygiene which may be the original rationale for circumcision. Like the Ten Commandments, they may be rules for an orderly society. If there were a god, why on earth should he/she want to remove the foreskin from tiny babies?

I sympathise with your point of view, Lilygran - I did post a similar thought earlier in this topic. Although I don't approve of infant circumcision, I feel uneasy at the vehement way religion is completely disregarded in the support for the banning of the practice.

Lilygran your comment:

'if you are non-religious/anti-religious you can't possibly understand this viewpoint. Waste of words.'

There are many people who have embraced religion, been brought up in religious circumstances, chosen to reject religion or cut it from their lives for a while, yet their views on issue like circumcision will develop and become more coherent because they have learned more as they go through life. To say they can't possibly understand the viewpoint of others who see it differently is dismissive and does not acknowledge the healthy debate that can be shared.

If you choose to dismiss this current discussion as a waste of words, that is your prerogative. Mine is to hold to my beliefs about not harming children.