On May 7, 2012 a District Court there found that circumcision, notwithstanding parental consent or religious motivation, constituted a criminal bodily injury and child abuse. Ultimately a bill was passed that legislatively established circumcision, not as per se legal, but as a non-punishable undertaking when undertaken for religious reasons by someone professionally trained….
In the rancorous debate in the courts, in the parliament, in the media, among legal scholars, NGOs and other pressure and anti-defamation groups, and within the medical disciplines, a whole range of historical and contemporary fissures were laid bare. This paper will examine the dynamics of the debate and its outcomes. It asks whether the conflicts generated by practices like male circumcision can be assimilated to prevailing religious freedom models or whether some other way must be found to create space for cultural practices that may offend other commitments, such as those to free choice, bodily integrity, state oversight of parental choices, the protection of children, etc.
The key questions aired were: (1) Germany’s relations with its Muslim immigrant citizens; (2) Germany’s relations with its fragile Jewish minority; (3) conflict over the proper relationship among parents, child, and state; and (4) the indeterminacy of medical thinking and practice.
Immigrant integration, religious freedom, group rights, and the meaning of “enlightenment” all remain sharply contested.
