 |
| Holm Putzke |
Did you hear the one about banning circumcisions in Cologne? It’s no joke. Some judge in Germany, concurring with the idiotic conclusions of law professor Holm Putzke, forbid circumcisions without the consent of the patient.
You mean at eight days old? That’s when circumcisions are performed in the Jewish religion, and the ceremony is considered a covenant with God. Muslims also perform circumcisions whenever the family prefers and joined the Jews in protest. Yes, you heard right.
Protestants and Catholics immediately followed fearing that the decree would limit their freedom of religion.
The illogical law only applies in Cologne, but thousands of Jews and Muslims reside there.
Protestants and Catholics immediately followed fearing that the decree would limit their freedom of religion.
The illogical law only applies in Cologne, but thousands of Jews and Muslims reside there.
So what’s with this Puzke?
A law professor and disguised racist—come on, you know what he is—wrote an obscure article five years ago claiming that circumcisions violated German law in causing bodily harm to the patient. Putzke called it child abuse. (I don't think he's ever seen a real case of one). But at the time nobody paid attention, so how did this issue ever come to court?
A four-year old Muslim boy suffered post-operative bleeding after a doctor performed a circumcision. A second doctor treated the boy and notified the cops. So it ended up before a judge who read Putzke’s words and banned circumcisions unless the patient’s life was in danger. Otherwise, the patient must consent to the procedure.
“This is not simply a verdict from some misguided court,” Putzke argued after the verdict was issued. Oh really? Did anyone tell the jerk that a fundamental right is freedom of religion, and that Germans demand this right, along with the rest of the free world.
 |
| Dressed like you-know-what |
A few nuts paraded in defense of the law, but to the Germans’ credit, the country's against it, and government officials want the law overturned.
I wonder if Putzke ever witnessed a newborns's circumcision and followed a baby's rapid recovery. In contrast, a boy feels significant pain when he’s circumcised at an older age. To this day I’ve never met a man who can recall his bris, or the subsequent discomfort that followed. Disregarding religious traditions, which one is more humane?
But Putzke pushes ahead. “This decision could not only influence future jurisdiction, it could also lead the relevant religions to change their attitude with respect to the fundamental nature of children’s rights.”
Is he smokin’ crack? Judaism is 5,000 years old. You think they’re going to change their traditions because of a nut in Cologne? I think Putzke deserves some closure, and I don’t mean a simple circumcision. I say we call on Lorena Bobbit, who hacked off her husband’s appendage in the early nineties, and request that she return for a final engagement.
It’s only fair.
Freedom of religion is fine as long as it does not impact another person's rights. A person should have the right to keep all of their body parts if they wish. Or do you believe a child has no rights? There is also arrogance in using religion as a reason to perform circumcision, as that presumes the child will grow up to have the same religious beliefs as the parents. Parents should respect the possibility that their child may grow up and develop different religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, a growing number of Jewish people are deciding that circumcision isn't right, and they are performing the "brit shalom" ceremony, which is like a traditional bris but without the circumcision. Look it up. Are those Jews anti-Semites?
As for a guy not remembering being cut, that is not a valid argument. By your logic, you are suggesting that it is ok for someone to give a girl the date rape drug and rape her, because she won't remember it.
Sorry for the delay in answering, but I did not see this message until yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIn the Jewish religion,circumcision is a covenant with God. The procedure itself is the removal of a tiny piece of foreskin. No one's taking any body parts! And Jews do not raise their children with the thought that they'll convert. If they do, so be it, but it is certainly not a worry when the child is born.
If you're so concerned, I bet your child will convert. You'll bring the subject up again and again until he's so confused, he will start to search.
By the way, kids who end up in cults, are usually the ones coming from homes where there is no stance one way or another. I heard a discussion with teens, who preferred their parents take one side and stick to it. Then they know what they're dealing with.
Swerving from one side to the other guarantees a messed up child.
And remember, if most Christians are circumcised in our society, the child will be an outcast, not only with his own people, but also with others.
Are you seriously comparing circumcisions to date rape? One's an act of violence, the other is a tiny cut that is part of an ancient ritual, a covenant with God. No violence is intended. In fact, those in charge take great care to make sure the baby is clean and comfortable.
As for brit shalom. That's a crock of crap. It's as effective as driving past a synagogue and saying that you prayed.