An interesting legal ruling

The law is most interesting when it deals with a difficult issue. A court in Cologne, Germany has ruled that male circumcision of small children is illegal, amounting to “bodily harm”. Jews and Muslims alike are appalled, of course, and are arguing that child circumcision is a fundamental part of their religion and culture. The issue isn’t about circumcision per se, but about performing the operation on a small child who cannot give permission.

 At first blush, of course, it sounds like a preposterous ruling. Jews in particular have circumcised their boys on the eight day for thousands of years now. Surely we cannot now forbid it.

BUT, if it is permissible to circumcise young babies on the eight day because it is an integral part of some group’s cultural and religious beliefs, why does the same logic not apply equally to the sort of female circumcision or genital mutilation practiced on young girls in parts of Africa as part of other cultures religious and cultural beliefs? We are all appalled at that, and there are active movements in the world to bring it to a halt – but what fundamentally is different about that than about male circumcision of male babies?

This is an interesting legal and moral question. To what extent do adults have the right to impose irreversible bodily changes on very young children simply because it is part of their religion or culture? And if it is impermissible for adults to impose bodily damage of this sort on young children on the basis of cultural or religious beliefs, what about imposing emotional and intellectual damage (fear of divine wrath, the concept of sin, hatred of other religions, etc, etc) on vulnerable young children? Should this be impermissible as well? If not, why not?

All in all this ruling raises very interesting questions that the world needs to think about.