Switzerland joins German circumcision ban

Today come reports that hospitals in Zurich and St. Gallen have suspended the practice on Jewish and Muslim boys in the wake of a similar ban in Germany ordered by a judge in Cologne.

Judges in Cologne concluded that circumcision, even when performed by a doctor, is considered “bodily harm,” since a boy under age 14 years cannot legally give consent. And now Berlin’s Jewish Hospital banned this procedure out of fear that its Doctors could face prosecution and even incarceration. The Netherlands had banned circumcision stating that ‘it was ritual slaughter’, but recently reversed this ruling.

Great Britain’s Orthodox Chief Rabbi said that a ban on circumcision was mandated by two of the Jewish peoples’s worst enemies – the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and the Roman Emperor Hadrian.

Believe it or not, an American city, San Francisco, was set to vote to proscribe one of the central rituals of an entire religious community, the Jewish people, who have been circumcising male infants since the time of Abraham. Fortunately, the vote was postponed. Many Muslims, of course, also practice circumcision, while millions of other American parents have eagerly supported this procedure for their infants for hygienic or health reasons. To add fuel to the fire, anyone who performs a circumcision may be fined $1000 or be committed to a year in jail if this vote was affirmative. Mark Stern, a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, said, “This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States. It is unprecedented in Jewish life.” The proponents of the bill insist that circumcision is “mutilation and barbaric. Under pressure, the vote did not materialize.

Russell Crowe (the actor) said: “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature?” Is the “You” the Jew? ” But do not be concerned,” Russell Crowe continues. “I have many Jewish friends. I love my Jewish friends. I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats, but stop cutting your babies,” he declared. Who gave him a moral authority that he knows what is best for Jews, Muslims, and others who prefer the benefits of circumcision for their male children.

Anti-circumcision activists have been speaking out against circumcision for decades, but in the last several years the San Diego-based advocacy group has prepared anti-circumcision legislation for 46 states. The head of the group says that “his circumcision as an infant resulted in diminished sexual sensitivity as an adult.” Is this double-speak? How would he know the difference? Does he know for a fact that his limitations or an inability to have sexual gratification is a result of his circumcision? Does he conclude that for thousands of years, no Jews or Muslims or billions of other people have had no or limited sexual satisfaction? There are some data to suggest the opposite – that removal of the foreskin allows greater gratification.