Of all places in the world that you would think would be especially sensitive not to persecute Jews, it would be Germany.
You would think.
And you would be wrong.
The District Court of Cologne, Germany, has declared the bris, the ritual circumcision, a criminal act.
What then? A return to the days of Nazi Germany when Judaism was cause for death? A return to the days of Communist Russia when the practice of Judaism was . . . a criminal act, punishible by a one-way ticket to Siberia? A return to the days of the Inquisition, in which any visible sign of Jewish practice was, yes, a cause for death?
It is, of course, a measure of relief to hear that a spokesman for German chancellor Angela Merkel told the press that for “everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany. Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment” — a measure of relief, yes, but only a measure.
First, the German government does not speak for the German courts.
Second, even if the ruling of the Cologne district court is overturned, which we certainly hope it will be, we have an ugly precedent. Nazism, also, did not begin in a day. Ditto, the Inquisition. Ditto, all anti-Semitic and anti-Judaism decrees, going back to the Maccabees and the Chanukah story, which, of course, was in large part about circumcision. The Syrian Greeks banned it. The Maccabees fought that. When we celebrate “religious freedom” at Chanukah time, we celebrate three specific Jewish practices, including circumcision.
The District Court of Cologne joins a long line of those who cannot bear Jewish (and, in this case, also Muslim) practice. That is what makes the court’s ruling so frightening: its history, its resonances, its associations, its implications.
There is, however, also something new in the German court’s ruling. It is not couched in the language of hate, of rejection, of hostility to religion. It is couched ever so pleasantly, even idealistically, in the language of humanity, of concern, of rights. No baby, the advocates of the criminalization of circumcision argue, should have his “genitals mutilated” without his consent. The speciousness of this argument must be articulated — and repeated — loud and clear. Parents make decisions for their infants’ bodies all the time. That is what being a parent entails.
A child is born with a cleft lip? The parent does not wait until the child is old enough to decide whether that should be repaired. Everything from a child’s hairstyle to a child’s need for surgery, cosmetic and otherwise, is decided by the parent. To distinguish between one intervention as medical and another as non-medical is fluid and not given to the exactitude of legal definition. Elegant language notwithstanding, the opposition to circumcision is the opposition to religion. The opponents must be called out on this point. Their terminology of rights is, in this case, merely the language of hatred — conscious or unconscious — resucitated and repackaged.
A group of Jewish students in Germany, themselves not yet parents, put the matter simply, accurately, plantively and powerfully in a petition: “Circumcision was and is a central element of our religion, and a covenant with G-d, which has been fulfilled for thousands of years without a problem — so why is it being criminalized today?”
There are two more contemporary contexts to this issue: expertise and immigration. The German chancellors refers to circumcision “carried out in a responsible manner.” We cannot speak for the Muslim community, but we do know that in the Jewish community around the world, circumcision is virtually never performed irresponsibly. Not only now, but for centuries and indeed for millennia. That should be a non-issue, at least as it pertains to the Jewish community.
The other context is anti-immigration sentiment in Europe. That which the immigrants bring with them — dietary laws, headscarves, minarets — arouse fear and opposition. In part, the opposition to circumcision is part of this. Let the lesson be clear, especially to those in the Jewish community who would ban headscarves by Muslim women or who would defend kosher slaughter but be indifferent to halal slaughter. It is not just the Muslims they’re after. It’s the Jews they’re after. It’s bris.
Either we are for religious freedom, or we are not.
If we are, that means: Everyone’s religious freedom.
However, the primary onus for the current challenge to bris milah remains crystal clear. The onus is on the sweet-talking “activists” and “intactivists” and German judges and their assorted fellow travelers who cannot stomach the civilizing idea of the First Amendment.
Copyright © 2012 by the Intermountain Jewish News
