Circumcision ban is the 'worst attack on Jews since Holocaust'

banning the unncessary removal of part of the genitals of non-consenting babies is not comparable to the ****ing holocaust.

Could you please make a list of laws Germany made that targeted Jewish people, before/during the Holocaust? Or if you want, I'll do it. Thanks.

do you honestly think they're trying to do the same thing here?

Well democracy barely exists in the majority of the world and its slowly ebbing its way out of our governmental system.

I mean, if you are true to sticking to the minority rights argument, should religious freedom be given to someone who´s religion involves voluntary human sacrifices??

I don't think they'd go so far ... yet. However, it is true that history can repeat itself.

Here in the USA, there are Nazis (though thankfully relatively few) who would like nothing better than sending the Jewish people here packing. I wouldn't be surprised if there is still Nazi sentiment in the land that turned a blind eye to the killing and robbing and persecution of many people. The American soldiers forced people who "didn't know?" to look at what happened at the Dachau concentration camp. I boldened some below.

"The American liberators made sure that residents of Dachau and other towns were forced to confront the horrors of the concentration camps. According to Harold Marcuse, in his book "Legacies of Dachau," after the liberation "a group of Dachau Nazi elite was forced to tour the Dachau crematorium on 8 May 1945." There they were made to look at the naked, emaciated bodies of the innocent victims of Nazi barbarity, piled up in the mortuary room right next to the gas chamber. Young boys in the Hitler Youth were brought to the camp and forced to look at the corpses on the Death Train.

The photo below shows one of the emaciated bodies that was on display at Dachau.

Emaciated body of Dachau inmate after the liberation

According to Peter Wyden, in his book "The Hitler Virus," a few of the Dachau notables, who were forced to view the corpses, fainted. Some cried and many shook their heads. Most of them turned away, eager to avoid the scene. Afterwards, they were heard to whisper, "Unglaublich!" (Unbelievable.) The Dachauers could not understand how the prisoners could have starved to death since the townspeople had regularly sent food packages to the camp.

There was a typhus epidemic in the Dachau camp, but the Dachau townspeople were not sprayed with DDT to kill the lice that spreads typhus, and they were not vaccinated before being taken inside the camp and exposed to this disease.

The practice of bringing German civilians from nearby towns to the concentration camps after they were liberated was started by General Walton Walker who ordered the Mayor of the town of Ohrdruf and his wife to visit the Ohrdruf labor camp after it was discovered by American troops on April 4, 1945. After their visit, the Mayor and his wife returned home and killed themselves.

General George S. Patton visited the Ohrdruf camp on April 12th, along with three other generals, one captured German officer and a few of the citizens of Ohrdruf. After his visit, General Patton suggested that all the citizens of Ohrdruf be brought to see the bodies.

The photo below shows the adult citizens of the village of Ohrdruf viewing the dead bodies found by the Americans on the roll call square of the labor camp."

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/dachauliberation/aftermath03.html

Please also see http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/dachauliberation/aftermath03.html

Now, this was in 1945. Does Nazism still exist? I think tragically it does, though it can disguise itself. Sadly, many people hate other people. Making a law that directly targets the Jewish people who practice removal of the foreskin of their male sons, by a country that is guilty of killing thousands of Jewish circumcised men and boys, as well as killing thousands of Jewish women, does make me highly suspicious. It doesn't you?

Now, this was in 1945. Does Nazism still exist? I think tragically it does, though it can disguise itself. Sadly, many people hate other people. Making a law that directly targets the Jewish people who practice removal of the foreskin of their male sons, by a country that is guilty of killing thousands of Jewish circumcised men and boys, as well as killing thousands of Jewish women, does make me highly suspicious. It doesn't you?

You should probably read up a bit on exactly what's going on in this case. There's quite a lot of misunderstandings about it.

Germany did not explicitly make a law against circumcision. One judge, in one city, in one of Germany's 16 states interpreted an existing law in such a way that the case presented to him violated it. From what I can gather, the way German law works is that that decision isn't binding in relation to future cases. So another judge on a different case related to circumcision might make a different decision on whether or not circumcising a baby breaks this law.

And also the German chancellor has explicitly criticised the decision and made it clear that she thinks circumcising babies should be allowed. I suspect that if they reach a consensus that circumcision does violate this law, they will just change the law so circumcision is allowed. For all we know the judge who made this decision might not have even be personally against the practice, he was just doing his job of interpreting the law as it is written.

"Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has told her party that it risked becoming a "laughing stock" after a court in Cologne ruled that religious circumcision was a criminal act.

"I do not want Germany to be the only country in the world in which Jews cannot practice their rites," Merkel was quoted as saying this week. "Otherwise we would make ourselves a laughing stock."


http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16101977,00.html

So does this mean that if other countries were limiting Jewish freedom of religion, it's ok??? Is she only concerned about Germany being a laughing stock? As far as I know, Germany isn't a laughing stock. It's been a country that has appalled the USA at least in the cruelty to the Jewish people, people practicing homosexuality, Gypsies, and people who have helped them who were caught by the Nazi authorities. Thankfully after the USA helped rescue the UK from Germany's clutches, Germany has been on the road to healing. But now they do this??? Now Angela Merkel is just worried about being a "laughing stock"? How is prohibiting Jewish freedom when other nations don't make a country a "laughing stock?" It more makes them intolerant and antisemitic, but that's nothing to laugh about.

You're just finding any reason to criticise them. Maybe using the phrase "laughing stock" wasn't the best choice of words (did she even say that in English? Maybe the exact meaning has been lost in translation). But she clearly doesn't want to limit the rights of Jews.

If the term = laughing stock, then do you think it's a great reason? Do you want to limit Jewish people's freedom to practice their faith? Why or why not?

Germany is no laughing stock, whether or not they limit Jewish rites. Again, do you agree with her reasoning?

So does this mean that if other countries were limiting Jewish freedom of religion, it's ok??? Is she only concerned about Germany being a laughing stock? As far as I know, Germany isn't a laughing stock. It's been a country that has appalled the USA at least in the cruelty to the Jewish people, people practicing homosexuality, Gypsies, and people who have helped them who were caught by the Nazi authorities. Thankfully after the USA helped rescue the UK from Germany's clutches, Germany has been on the road to healing. But now they do this??? Now Angela Merkel is just worried about being a "laughing stock"? How is prohibiting Jewish freedom when other nations don't make a country a "laughing stock?" It more makes them intolerant and antisemitic, but that's nothing to laugh about.

I am a British Jew and I would like to say that if my country banned circumcision I would pack up and leave. I understand why people say it's mutilation, but I am happy it was done at 8 days as it is part of my religion. I consider myself secular but at the same time I believe in this ritual as it is a symbol of my religion and identity. In addition, I would much rather have the practice performed at 8 days as I don't even remember it, and I can imagine it being quite traumatic at an older age (imagine converting). I also think that I speak on behalf of a lot of Jews when I say this. I don't even think it makes a difference if it is done or not...certainly hasn't impacted me. In fact I'm kind of glad it's done.

Do you mean those United states of America which's existence is entirely based on the displacement and genocide of the natives, the only country which ever dropped nukes on civilian cities and is responsible for the trade and deaths of millions of slaves, the country which invaded a country based on lies about WMD and only some years ago legalised torture of prisoners (I might also mention Abu Ghraib) and which's intelligence cervices have violently and illegaly changed regimes all over the world?

Funny how things have changed over the last 50 years

It's because of her bringing up stories from a past that's long gone (similar to blaming the US for the genocide of the natives) and her patronising view of a country which today has a better human rights accord than hers which she describes of being "on the road to healing":

"Is she only concerned about Germany being a laughing stock? As far as I know, Germany isn't a laughing stock. It's been a country that has appalled the USA at least in the cruelty to the Jewish people, people practicing homosexuality, Gypsies, and people who have helped them who were caught by the Nazi authorities. Thankfully after the USA helped rescue the UK from Germany's clutches, Germany has been on the road to healing. But now they do this??? Now Angela Merkel is just worried about being a "laughing stock"? How is prohibiting Jewish freedom when other nations don't make a country a "laughing stock?" It more makes them intolerant and antisemitic, but that's nothing to laugh about."

She's complaining about a democratic country's court ruling out circumcision (i.e. removal of a body part) without consent to be illegal whilst in her country prisoners can be legally tortured.

Bush explicitly allowed a treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo which clearly violated the Geneva convention? Since when is waterboarding not torture? I have to correct myself as Obama has stopped that, but the people responsible have never been prosecuted and it happened right in the 21st century. Seems they simply ignored their constitution.