Jewish Faith, Circumcision, and Religious Freedom

In a previous post, I stressed the importance of standing up for the religious freedom of people of every faith, not just those who share our own convictions. In view of a recent development in Germany, I here wish to say that Christians, especially those of us who are Catholics, should be particularly outspoken in defending the rights of Jews and the Jewish people. It is not simply the memory of past crimes committed by Christians, including leaders of the Church, against Jews—crimes sometimes committed in the very name of Christian faith. It is the fact that we are taught by our Church, and so we believe, that the Jews are the chosen people of God, bound to him in an unbroken and unbreakable covenant. Moreover, for Christians, Jews are, in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, our “elder brothers in faith.” From a Christian point of view, the Jewish witness in the world has profound and indispensable spiritual meaning.

The recent development in Germany against which we Christians should loudly raise our voices is described by David Goldman (“Spengler”) in an article published today: “On June 26, the District Court of the Federal State of Cologne ruled that circumcision of children for religious reasons at the instruction of parents constituted the infliction of bodily harm and therefore was a punishable offense.” Of course, for observant Jews, circumcision of male children is not optional. It is required as a matter of Jewish law. To prohibit it is, in effect, to forbid Jews from being Jews.

In his article, Goldman, himself an observant Jew, includes the text of a letter he wrote to two German judges. He says: “Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.” Further on he says: “The neo-pagan illusions of National Socialism have been crushed, although they lurk at the fringes of German politics. Despite their defeat, the National Socialists may have succeeded in extirpating the presence of the divine in German life. No action by responsible public officials since the end of the war has advanced their cause as forcefully as the evil decree you have promulgated.”

Of course, comparing anything to the unfathomable horrors of the Nazi genocide is problematical. The National Socialists hunted down and cruelly murdered every Jewish man, woman, and child they could find. They didn’t simply make it impossible for believing Jews to live in Germany or its occupied lands by banning a practice mandated by religious law. One can nevertheless understand the sense of outrage that would cause Goldman and others in the Jewish community to draw the comparison. What the Cologne court has done is outrageous. It is an outrageous assault on the religious liberty and the rights of conscience of Jews (and Muslims, by the way—the actual case in the Cologne court happened to concern Muslim parents who for religious reasons sought the circumcision of their son).

What was the judges’ motive? I’m not certain. I’m reasonably confident that it was not simply an act of anti-Jewish animus. Still, its disregard for the rights of Jews, rooted in their obligation to fulfill their duties under their covenant with the divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, is deeply disturbing to say the least. Perhaps the judges were moved by an argument, increasingly common in certain circles, claiming that circumcision results in a reduction of sexual pleasure, and thus counts as a form of child abuse when performed on infants (who, of course, cannot consent to the procedure). This argument was among those made by people who recently attempted to persuade the City of San Francisco to enact a law banning circumcision. Fortunately, the City did not enact the ban—for now.

As we Catholics and those of other faiths who have joined with us conclude our Fortnight for Freedom later this week on Independence Day, let us be mindful that the freedom we seek is freedom for all. Yes, it is about the appalling HHS mandates; and yes, it is about laws that shut down Catholic services to orphaned children or Catholic assistance to women trafficked into sexual slavery and other forms of exploitation; but it is also about laws that undermine the ability of Jews, Muslims, and persons of any other faith to fulfill their religious duties; and it is about the rights of people of every religion to manifest their faith in public life as well as in their temples, churches, mosques or homes.

If one wants to, one can always find some outrageous laws to spin a narrative. E.g.: the laws regarding drinking in public in the US are blatantly anti-freedom. The municipal by-laws of some communities (down to the sort of grass you have to use for your lawn) are outright fascist

You seem to be putting a personal definition of “anti-freedom” and “fascist” in here. Any state law that goes against the federal constitution can be challenged. Are these worse than banning circumcision, which appears to blatantly go against Germany’s Article 4 (Federal law)?

Please, elaborate. I think it would be fascinating to discuss the specific clauses

They’re a bit exhaustive, but if you insist. How about Article 5 for a start?

Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

A giant hole that allows freedom of speech to be legislated away at a whim. This is one of the most important basic rights, and the wording is even more restricting than in the USSR’s constitution.

Article 8 reads as follows:

All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission.
In the case of outdoor assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.

Another opening to legislate away a basic right. Compare both of the aforementioned with the USA’s First Amendment now.

Article 14 is very interesting.

Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws.
Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute concerning the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.

That goes way beyond eminent domain as understood in the USA; it puts property intended to remain private at the obligation of “public good”, definition left vague. That is almost into the territory of the Marxist concept of socialist property, but altered to give a nod to the right of inheritance that Marxism abolishes.

And of course, there are Articles 18 and 19.

Article 18
Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Article 19

Insofar as, under this Basic Law, a basic right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law, such law must apply generally and not merely to a single case. In addition, the law must specify the basic right affected and the Article in which it appears.
In no case may the essence of a basic right be affected.
The basic rights shall also apply to domestic artificial persons to the extent that the nature of such rights permits.
Should any person’s rights be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts. The second sentence of paragraph (2) of Article 10 shall not be affected by this paragraph.

Why are such stipulations necessary? What entails “abuse” of a right?—the term is left undefined, and that leaves it up to the whim of a court to insert personal opinion (i.e. the “rule of man” into). And the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe seemingly has the power of forfeiture of any and possibly all rights; not even the USA’s SCOTUS wields such power.

FTR, I am using this translation.

This raises an interesting question: Some Jewish orthodox sects require a mohel to suck blood from a just-circumcised penis as part of their religious obligations. Recently, this practice caused the death of a child in New York: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120453_1_circumcision-rabbi-yitzchok-fischer-contracting-herpes How far can the State go in forbidding this practice (and thereby violating the religious freedoms of that sect)? On the other hand, how can it be okay for someone to mutilate the genitals of an individual (the child), without consent?

If Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer is UNCLEAN,
he should be OUTSIDE THE CAMP !
Vayikra - Leviticus - Chapter 13
He should know this !
If HaShem commanded circumcision,
Stop and reflect on who you are to shake
your fist at the creator of the universe ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

"A Jew is only required to die rather than commit murder, sexual immorality, or apostasy."

I have heard this before, and I find it very interesting in that it parallels what I've come to understand as a Catholic as the three areas in which we have moral absolutes: that which relates directly to God (the Lord and Giver of Life); or to the sacredness of Human Life (which is created in the Image and Likeness of God); or to the sacredness of sex (because sex is where life comes from.)

Hence the moral absolutes center around: no apostasy, no murder, no sexual violation. Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe would group these as the "exceptionless norms."

Is that approximately how Jewish moral philosophers would see it? Can you point me to links where I could learn more about this from a Jewish point of view?

You seem to be putting a personal definition of “anti-freedom” and “fascist” in here.

Nope. Personally I don't drink alcohol. I don't smoke. The only drug I do is caffeine. But I think that in a free country drinking wine in public should be permissible. Same with the TV station that got fined because a soldier cursed on live television when being shot at (Thankfully that mistake got corrected). But that is all a propos. I don't want to do comparisons AT ALL. My point is that it is easy to cherry-pick some examples to create a narrative.

And if your neighbors get to decide which grass you have to use for your lawn, that is borderline fascist in that it seeks to promote stregth trough conformity. I know it's all about property values. But next your neighbors will want to take your guns because a gun-free neighborhood is a selling point. But again, my argument doesn't go beyond illustrating how taking things out of context is used to fit a certain line of argument. Europeans do it to paint Americans as >insert stereotype here<, same as those "no wonder, it's the Germans" clichees. Personally, I don't give a bleep about stereotypes.

Are these worse than banning circumcision, which appears to blatantly go against Germany’s Article 4 (Federal law)?

That's the interesting point. The judge's argument was that Sharia law doesn't trump article 2. Official translation: "Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable." What he overlooked is one of these pesky exceptions you mentioned: "These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law". That's were article 4.2 comes into play: "The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed." In my personal opinion - and as I believe most likely that of the Consitutional court - that makes circumcision legal.

These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.

A literal reading of the first amendment would make any kind of defamation law outright unconstitutional. Yet they exist. The difference is that the German constiution recongnizes that there is a need for such laws. Both legal traditions create their own sets of problems. In the US an insufficient basis for protection against libel and slander, in Germany the possibility of judicial overreach. Three years for insulting the pope (article 166 penal code)? Good grief! I actually do agree with you that there is this kind of overreach in Germany. I just disagree that it is a specifically German concept.

Another opening to legislate away a basic right. Compare both of the aforementioned with the USA’s First Amendment now.

The first amendment doesn't mention the question of public spaces. In practice, the right to assemble outside doesn't seem to be absolute. Which in some cases only seems logical. Otherwise PeTArds would block the roads to meat processing plants 24/7....

to be continued

My husband and I didn't get either of our sons circumcised, on the general grounds that:

the Christian religion does not require circumcision, so it would not be obligatory for us;
both the advantages (lessened disease transmission) and the disadvantages (transient pain; lessened penile sensitivity) are not major; and
therefore it's something any male could choose for or against, when he's of age.

However I do support Jewish (or any) parents deciding for circumcision for their infant sons, since they may decide that

it is religiously obligatory for them, and/or
in their judgment, the lessening of disease transmission is significant, whereas the lessening of penile sensitivity is small enough to have no functional consequence, and/or
if circumcision has health advantages,it is less traumatic to do it in infancy than in adolenscence or later.

These are not judgments my husabnd and I agreed with, but they are reasonable judgments, not irrational barbarism.

I wasn't sure about this for awhile, but now I object to the use of the term "mutilation" in the case of foreskin removal. "Mutilation" implies crippling or maiming: the removal of a limb or essential part, or the deliberate deprivation of a primary function.

The removal of a foreskin is not exactly trivial, but it does not deprive the penis of its primary sexual functions, namely, procreative intercourse, and the notable genital pleasure that comes with it. Both of these sexual functions persist very well after circumcision. Therefore it is not crippling, maiming, or mutilation.

This (among other things) distinguishes it from FGM, which often results in significant or even total loss of genital sensation in the female, as well as reproductive impairment if infection or scarring ensue.

So it now seems to me that the word "mutilation" is somewhat tendentious.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.