“I had previously believed that the representatives of the religious communities in our country would study the Basic Law and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the conventions based on it more intensively, before they insist so vigorously on the right to religious freedom,” said Frieder Otto Wolf, President of the Humanist Association of Germany, on Thursday in Berlin in response to reactions to the controversial ruling by the Cologne Regional Court on the criminal liability of child circumcision. The court had ruled that the circumcision of non-consenting boys for purely religious reasons was punishable. In its reasoning, the court stated that the child’s fundamental right to physical integrity outweighed the parents’ fundamental rights in this case. Their freedom of religion and right to education would not be unreasonably impaired if they were required to wait and see whether the child would later decide to be circumcised themselves. Frieder Otto Wolf welcomed the “important debate” that has now arisen on the controversial decision, which could provide a good impetus for reflection on fundamental issues. At the same time, he expressed his surprise at the harsh reactions on the part of the religious communities, who reflexively rejected the court ruling, citing religious freedom and a right of self-determination of the religious communities that goes beyond state law. “The furor with which the criticism was sparked at national and international level shortly after the decision was made gave me a lot to think about,” said Wolf. “It makes it hard for me to believe that the question of whether the ruling could be the right decision in terms of our Basic Law and the rights that apply equally to all children has been dealt with openly and intensively.” Frieder Otto Wolf went on to say that, in his initial assessment, the practice of an enlightened faith was not seriously endangered by this court ruling, referring to the existence of groups within Judaism and Islam that do not consider the circumcision of boys who are unable to give consent to be compulsory or do not practice it at all. “No adult should be forbidden from having the foreskin of their penis removed after careful consideration in order to show that they belong to a religion they believe in,” Wolf emphasized. In light of the findings of scientific studies, there are even plausible reasons for adult men to consider the health benefits of foreskin removal. “In any case, it is clear that the removal of the foreskin of a male member cannot be equated across the board with the genital mutilation of girls and women that can be found around the world.” Frieder Otto Wolf also reminded the audience that the exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the Basic Law, is primarily a right of protection for every individual. According to Wolf, the situation is no different when looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Conventions on the Rights of the Child.
“And if this is also to be the case in the future, then it should also be possible to seriously consider whether membership of a religion that requires circumcision of the male member can be carried out at an age at which individuals are capable of co-determination over physical interventions.” And although the Protestant Church in Germany had criticized the ruling, according to Wolf, the development of Protestant theology has shown in an exemplary manner that changes in religious practice that were previously considered impossible are possible. “Many committed believers who are still disadvantaged in other denominations for no good reason, who are not granted fundamental rights or who are even sanctioned because of their religious practice, benefit from this today.” Finally, Wolf warned against trying to clarify the new issues that have arisen by forcing the enactment of new laws. “There are still major deficits in the Federal Republic of Germany’s neutrality towards religious and ideological groups anyway, with considerable privileges in favor of individual denominations.” Wolf emphasized that a further dismantling of the secular constitutional state could not be supported from a humanist perspective. Calls for legal certainty for believers are justified, but so is the call for self-determination for children. “Before voting on the dismantling of the secular constitutional state, we should first hold an open-ended debate on children’s rights and other fundamental issues.”
