On the BBC Knowledge channel is a programme “Paul Merton in India”. In it, he visits naked sadhus, one of whom shows his devotion to Shiva by rolling his foreskin around a bamboo staff, holding it behind him, and getting another sadhu to stand on on the staff (without letting go of the staff, I hasten to add).

Infant circumcision would have restrained him from doing this, and thereby deprived him of his freedom of religion.

@topic:
As for the whole discussion on different levels – that is in the light of law, philosophy and religion, society, even politics – I have read a lot of different articles and opinions in many different media – especially on FAZ.net and Spiegel Online (btw.: it is true: the forum of SPON is a bottomless pit spilling over with idiocy) -, and I had a lot of trouble making up my personal opinion for quite some time.

Reason: The arguments in favor of the circumcision and the ones against it are strong and next to equally valid.

That is why I checked on the “normative understanding” of the conflicting civil rights in the German base-law on this matter – on the one side the freedom to execute the religious beliefs of the parents’ and their right to educate their children, on the other side the different rights of the infant, which are freedom to execute ones beliefs, freedom to develop ones own personality, the right to live unharmed and the humans’ dignity.

Now, the first thing I realized, was that the freedom or right to educate the own children is consumed or superseded by the freedom to express ones beliefs. So the position of the parents’ is basically only Art. 4 GG, which treats religious education as part of the expression of religious beliefs.
On the side of the infant I came to the conclusion that circumcision won’t interfere with the child’s freedom to express its own religious beliefs, because at the age of 14 it is free to change its own religion, and the circumcision won’t forbid it; also the freedom to develop his own personality, as it is part of Art. 2 GG, is not really nullified by the circumcision as well. I concluded this especially because of the mere fact that infants and very young children simply are not able to create and express their own individual will and wishing, and they especially rely heavily on what their parents educate them; over the span of years, especially when becoming a young youth the children start to “kind of disconnect” from their parents and create their own beliefs, understanding of the world and opinions – but not before that.

Therefore the childrens’ rights getting into conflict with the parents’ religious rights are on the one hand the protection of the integrity of their bodies (also Art. 2 GG) and on the other hand their individual dignity (Art. 1 GG).

So the legal conflict on the level of the base law is about Art. 4 GG of the parents’ against Artt. 2, 1 GG of their childrens’. Getting deeper into it the legal system has to answer these questions:

1. Is the ritual of circumcision, which is part of different religions, especially of the Jews and the Muslims, a real necessity to practice the religion?
2. This ritual interferes with the bodily integrity of the child without question, therefore Art. 2 is basically harmed no matter how you look at it; but this needs to be understood and clarified in the light of the humans’ dignity of Art. 1 GG; therefore the question would be: Does the choice of the parents’ to let a Mohel or medical doctor practice the circumcision on the infant’s genitals reduce the human being of the child to a mere object of religious beliefs?

Considering the high value of the humans’ dignity in the German basic law, which was established as the most fundamental right in the system of the basic law as a response to what was done during the Third Reich, we actually get into an interesting, especially philosophical, but also legal question: Is the fundamental right of humans’ dignity supposed to be stronger with regard to any people and religious or none-religious beliefs? Or is it to be considered less important, if it may interfere with peoples’ self-conception? The very nature of the fundamental rights in the basic law in Germany is that they protect the individual against the state and that they are the legal value system for any other legal situation in the society and in the territory of Germany since the famous Lueth-judgement of the constitutional court of Germany; these fundamental-rights are not meant to protect artificial persons, unless the core understanding of a certain right may be used on artificial persons as well (Art. 19 GG).

Besides this very fundamental question another one is this: The religious rites of minorities in certain parts of the world (especially Northern Africa) who “circumcise” girls and/ or young women as well basically follows the same concept as the circumcision of boys; so the question here would be why circumcision of women is supposed to be a criminal act in Germany (and many other parts of the world), while the circumcision of boys is to be extracted from the legal system and be valued as a tradition or religious act?
Also one needs to keep in mind that when circumcision of boys based on religious beliefs is to be treated as a legal act, would parents be treated equally if they express their will to get their sons circumcised because of their ideological or philosophical understanding of the world or their conscience? This question might be odd; but these things like ideology, philosophical understandings and conscience are equally treated and protected in terms of the Art 4 of basic law in Germany; so religious belief and conscience and ideology are to be treated absolutely equally, with no privilege to one of those.
In other words: If circumcision of Jewish or Muslim boys is meant to be treated as a legal act, because it is the expression of religious beliefs, then why would it be treated as a criminal act, if parents without Jewish or Muslim beliefs wish their son to be circumcised based on their conscience or understanding of the world?

Bottomline:
Looking at it from the legal point of view I hold it as stronger and more valid to protect the infant or young boy until he is capable of expressing his own beliefs or understanding and agrees into the performance of the given rite.
Especially since one Jewish father of a son and doctor practicing in Germany explained on FAZ.net, why there is no essential need to perform the circumcision within the first eight days of a boy’s life, I am convinced that there is no dire and absolute need to perform this ritual within the first eight days or the first years of life.
Source:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/beschneidungsdebatte-unsere-seltsame-tradition-11827726.html

Sorry; English is not my native language; I hope I was able to express my opinion about this topic well enough …

But after all, we have neither Jewish nor Christian nor Muslim law in Germany. The law is independent of religion. What we do have is a conflict between two basic rights: freedom of religion and physical integrity. Now you say that “physical integrity” is just a Christian thing while the Jewish equivalent is “physical integrity except the foreskin”. Does this mean that in Israel, there would be lighter punishment when I circumcise an adult against his will, compared to cutting of, say, part of his ear? Do not get me wrong: I am asking this as a serious question.

About circumcision on an infant: we simply do not know the child’s view on physical integrity and so it is entirely logical that we are not allowed to perform the circumcision on him. For comparison: in the same way, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany do not have the right to deny a vital blood transfusion treatment on their children, although blood transfusion is against their religion.

The fist paragraph is an instance of the Guilt by Association fallacy. This fallacy is obvious so not explained.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

The second paragraph is centered about the notion “circumcision is no longer one’s private choice, but rather a matter of public and hence legal interference.”
Which has built in a fallacy of equivocation. By its formulation it suggest, that you are not free to decide for your self if you get circumcised. However this is wrong! You are not free do decide for an other person, even if it happens to be your child. You may not Marry your child, you man not mutilate it, you may not sell it, …

After the third paragraph the Argument wanders of, to somewhere else …

And by the way: It surely is possible to become a jew after your 18th birthday. There are also jews which have never been “circumcised”.
Why don´t let the individual person decide? Do you have such a weak faith in religion?

My last point: There is a lot of inhuman and illiberal stuff in so called “holy” texts, which once was considered a “requirement of faith”. Nowadays it isnt anymore, for good reasons. Even religious people can learn. This discussion about “circumcision” is just another step in the process of adapting religion to the requirements of a democratic and liberal society which, accoording to its fundamental norms, should be centered on the dignity, freedom and “mündigkeit” of individuals.

I wonder whether you have actually read and understood what Reut Yael Paz has written…

If I understand correctly, it is part of (an interpretation of) the Jewish religion that a male child shall be circumcised within seven days after his birth. If we are to respect this normative system, it is no use to allow circumcision only after one’s 18th birthday: it simply would be too late, and the boy concerned would never be able to comply with the requirements of his faith. This adds up to effectively prohibiting him the practice of a certain religion – which means a restriction on the religious freedom of just the boy which the prohibition is supposed to protect. So there surely is a conflict between fundamental rights (religious freedom and physical integrity) which cannot easily be swept aside. (In the case of female genital mutilation, it is easy to decide that conflict in favour of physical interity. But contrarily to FGM, male circumcision normally doesn’t produce lasting physical pain.)

And once we accept circumcision as part of a religious education, it is of course not helpful to suggest that baptising can be “reverted” whereas circumcision can’t. The arguably traumatising consequences of a Christian education won’t just disappear because of a “debaptising” ceremony, nor does a circumcision restrain you from giving up your faith and becoming a (circumcised) atheist. The point is that any kind of religious education (including an atheistic one) is connected with the imposition of potentially traumatising belief-systems by the parents… but as long as we don’t know which is the “true” religion, I don’t see how the State could prohibit that.

The “Grundgesetz” however, sees children as citizens and their parents as their legal guardians who have the right to make certain decisions in the name of their children *as long as* these decisions serve the well-being of the children.