Male infant circumcision is declared illegal in Germany.

I am not sure what you want people to do, Lilygran. Should we pretend to a faith we cannot feel, or are we not entitled to state our opinions?

I'm quite a newcomer to Gransnet discussions When, but what I have read in the 'religion and spirituality' topic suggests something far from understanding and also far from free and open-minded discussion. Over many years, I have found that while a meeting of minds is perfectly possible between members of different faiths, it is can be very difficult between convinced secularists/atheists and members of any faith. If you notice, I haven't defended the practice of circumcision. All I've said is that it is difficult for non-believers to understand the imperatives under which believers operate. It isn't to do with understanding the religion, Greatnan, it's to do with believing.

Lilygran on what basis do you believe that people are not able to engage in discussion and understand each other? If you look amongst the threads over more than a year here on Gransnet, you will see that there have been lots of discussion/debates about faiths, beliefs and religions. Having been brought up as a Christian, attended Sunday School, church, participated in church activities and learned much about other faiths, I decided when I was almost adult that I do not believe there is a god, as science and humanism supply many more logical, helpful, believeable answers. I remain open to hearing about other people's religions and will defend practices being continued when they do not harm others, are not inflicted on anyone, and any actions that can change the rest of a person's life are held back until that individual can make an informed choice.

If I was a boy, I would be pretty mad if someone cut off part of my body without my consent, unless it was a qualified surgeon who was saving my life, or improving my poor quality of life. I also don't think children should be made to have their ears pierced, and teenagers should not be allowed to have tattoos.

Lilygran, I think you are assuming I don't understand faith. You are wrong. I just don't have any.

Surely when looking at a subject like this the law makers must be absolutely objective as possible and uncluttered by any belief system, when making laws preventing physical harm being done to one person by another.

Greatnan. I think you've just proved my point.

How do the little boys get a chance to embrace the religion?
There are many practices defended in the name of religion which most rational people would find repugnant, such as beating 'the devil' out of a child.

Whenim, I did know that there are Jews and Muslims who don't believe in the necessity of male circumcision (or circumcision of baby boys). I also know that it is very difficult (impossible?) for members of any faith to engage in discussion on equal terms with people who don't understand faith(s). Coming from completely different places, speaking different languages.

Well said when. And for those of you who still feel this is defensible why not look on YouTube where you will find videos of what it actually means to circumcise a baby or child without anaesthetic. Barbaric.

Lilygran there are millions of religious people who object to circumcision on infants who don't need it - from Jewish and Muslim communities, too, you might be surprised to learn.

Why don't you Google something like 'ban circumcision' and see how many websites pop up, with some highly intelligent, articulate arguments against circumcision, many going back several years and independent of Cologne's sensible decision.

Having or not having a religion is no indicator of whether or not an intelligent adult can see the complete nonsense of male circumcision for religious reasons.

Playing the 'religion card' does not make one immune from having to defend an indefensible practice.

What's wrong with arranged marriages? Forced marriages, maybe? This (male circumcision) is a topic on which there cannot be a meeting of minds if one mind is religious and the other not. People of faith will understand the imperative to ensure that children have every opportunity to embrace the faith. if you are non-religious/anti-religious you can't possibly understand this viewpoint. Waste of words .

How can a penis be sterile? Do you mean hygienic DonnahM? If lopping dogs' ears is considered mutilation (banned in the UK since the nineteenth century), how can anyone justify lopping off boys' foreskins (except for medical reasons)?

Hi Jeni.

Puperty?

Yes my dear, I've reached it, past it and forgotten it -and still intact!!

I'm not considering it now - at 80!

I think this is a great Magazine, which I found by accident.

It is mutilation because it is a minor who cannot give consent. The babe has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life whether he likes it or not. It is not religious persecution any more than the UK's stance on arranged marriages, stoning of women etc. is.
As I have said before on this thread, there is a growing movement in the US amongst circumcised men who are protesting at this mutilation that took place without their consent.
Why choose a foreskin? - why not decide that some other portion of the anatomy needs to go?
Once again people are following practices that began in times of ignorance - let us not condone this retrograde attitude.

You are clearly not getting access to all the reports of children suffering disfigurement, infection, serious bleeding and sexual dysfunction in adult life, Donna. Strange because there is a large movement to ban circumcision, which was initiated in the USA and has spread to the UK.

Perhaps you could give us details of the studies to which you refer.

This is ridiculous. How are people calling it "mutilation"? In the US it is considered strange to have a child who is uncircumcised. Most have it done before the child turns one year old. Mutilation? I think not. It is proven scientifically that it is more healthy and sterile (not that type of sterile!) to be circumcised. This is clearly a religious persecution thing. Of all the thousands of medical procedured in the world, that had to pick this one and outlaw it?
Shame on you, Germany. You haven't learned a thing in sixty years.

Yes, me too Anagram. No surgical procedures unless on health grounds.

I'd also ban the ear piercing of babies and young children.

I think there is a difference between religious activity that affects no-one else but the believer and religious activity that affects others who have no choice. I would ban the latter.

For those for whom faith in a deity is not important male circumcision is not an issue but for Jews and Muslims it is an important religious ritual. To ban it is an open challenge to those religions. I fully understand that any medical procedure has its risks but millions of men have been circumcised.. as long as it is done as a clean and professionally conducted procedure I am not sure I would consider it abuse. I also think that once you start 'banning' what many consider a religious activity it is the thin end of the wedge and it worries me.

Why anyone would want to be in harmony with barbarism beats me.

Well we might as well tolerate women being stoned in public squares, polygamous marriages and female circumcision as well. Don't want to upset anyone! Dear me!

Well, that's the line the government will seize on!

An article in the Sunday Times agrees that circumcision of male infants is fundamentally wrong, but says that it should be tolerated in the interests of inter-racial harmony.
I wonder what else we should tolerate?!