![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malasadas.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA few days ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
underlankers posted about a proposed ban on circumcision in San Francisco and specifically the horrendous anti-Semitic comic book drawn by a leading supporter of the ban.
I will confess that the ensuing discussion depressed me utterly.
I hope that I am not badly misrepresenting posters' contributions, but I was personally taken aback by how few addressedunderlankers original observation about the absolute dripping Jew hatred in the portrayal of "Monster Mohel" as a supervillian, complete with hooked nose, scraggly beard and Hasidic dress. If anything has ever been more intended to play off of millenia old stereotypes of Jews in recent years, I haven't seen it.
I read more deeply regarding the controversy around circumcision as a violation of a baby's human rights and got a smidge more depressed as it got me thinking about what exactly are the LIMITS on cultural tolerance and acceptance and how we balance concern for human rights with fully understanding cultural practices that are not our own.
Let me open with two observations: First, I know that genital multilation and female genital mutilation in particular has been a serious question for human rights advocates. FGM, while not mandated religiously, is clearly a cultural practice that effects 100s of million women worldwide -- and in practice it varies from minor procedures to life altering removal of huge amounts of tissue. The statement from the World Health Organization cites no known health benefits from even the most minor practice. Those of you old enough may remember that female genital mutilation was very much in the news in the late 1990s and many international agencies were advocating for both education and laws to bar the practice.
By that similar reasoning, barring or discouraging male circumcision makes consistent sense for human rights advocates. A baby cannot consent. The health benefits of the practice are, at best, tentative. The procedure permanantly alters the appearance of his anatomy and there really is no way that it isn't painful. There is a bonafide controversy about whether or not male circumcision can be justified on any secular grounds. And, as the debate on FGM shows, there is a limit to how far we are willing to cede ground to cultural practices in the name of respecting perogatives not our own.
I am even willing to admit that there is some controversy about the practice among largely or entirely secular Jews, leading to the recent creation of a Brit Shalom as an alternative to the traditional Brit Milah. This is a pretty small minority, however, as all of the major branches of Judaism practice Brit Milah, and the ceremony is so important that non-Orthodox denominations (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) now perform Simchat Bat for baby girls.
My son just turned two, and his Brit Milah is still quite fresh in my mind. The ceremony itself was very emotionally draining for me -- forget the potential for pain involved (Josh's Mohel was a board certified MD as well and used anesthetic)...the little guy was only 8 days old, surrounded by a throng of people and under bright lights. That was melt down material right there, and it just seemed odd to then turn the day over to all the adults noshing on bagels and whitefish salad.
But it was also emotionally draining because of the enormity of it in symbolism both cultural and religious. The Brit Milah is not simply a ceremony, it is the bringing of the male child into the Covenant with G-d, and while the actual removal of the foreskin is a lifelong phsyical alteration, it is meant to represent the lifelong alteration of one's life as a member of the Jewish people. That Covenant comes with huge responsibilities: Torah, Talmud, and living life according to the Mitzvot given in Torah. It also comes with a birthright in the cultural heritage of Judaism and thousands of years of history as a people. The ceremony was his introduction into the continuity of the Jewish people and it is supposed to have meaningful implications for the rest of his life (interesting aside -- by tradition, we buried the foreskin under a tree in my mother-in-law's yard...when Josh is married, we are supposed to use a branch from that tree to make his Chuppah.) Small wonder that the non-Orthodox sects of Judaism have made an equivalent ritual welcoming girl children to the Covenant as well. Of life cycle rituals in Judaism, only Bar/Bat Mitzvah, Marriage and Death are on par.
To NOT have Brit Milah for my son would have meant that in all mainstream denominations of Judaism he would have had no options for participation -- not being called to read from Torah, not a Bar Mitzvah and not even a Jewish wedding. I cannot help but personally conclude that as a Jewish father of Jewish children that I would have been very remiss if we had NOT had a Brit Milah for our son and a Simchat Bat for our daughter. To not do so would mean they could not fully participate in Jewish life within any of the mainstream branches of the religion.
Yes, without circumcision at birth he could volunteer as an adult to undergo it -- at an age when the pain associated with it would be more likely to be remembered and the procedure would be far more complicated.
But I am also mindful of the arguments that assert it is a violation of human rights to enforce permanent bodily change upon an infant entirely incapable of consenting -- and I recognize that those arguments are perhaps logically consistent with both an entirely secular perspective and with the far more widespread scorn and activism against female circumcision.
What I am asking is where do people feel they are rightly able to draw the line on cultural and religious tolerance? How far are you willing to balance cultural and religious perogatives against principles and how do you know you have found the right place to make a, forgive me, "cut off point"?
And, with respect, could I please request that responses against the practice please attempt to demonstrate respect for Jewish culture and cultural practices? I've put a lot of personal material and feeling into this and would like to believe that a disagreement on the ritual practice does not have to come with disregard.
underlankers posted about a proposed ban on circumcision in San Francisco and specifically the horrendous anti-Semitic comic book drawn by a leading supporter of the ban.I will confess that the ensuing discussion depressed me utterly.
I hope that I am not badly misrepresenting posters' contributions, but I was personally taken aback by how few addressed
underlankers original observation about the absolute dripping Jew hatred in the portrayal of "Monster Mohel" as a supervillian, complete with hooked nose, scraggly beard and Hasidic dress. If anything has ever been more intended to play off of millenia old stereotypes of Jews in recent years, I haven't seen it.I read more deeply regarding the controversy around circumcision as a violation of a baby's human rights and got a smidge more depressed as it got me thinking about what exactly are the LIMITS on cultural tolerance and acceptance and how we balance concern for human rights with fully understanding cultural practices that are not our own.
Let me open with two observations: First, I know that genital multilation and female genital mutilation in particular has been a serious question for human rights advocates. FGM, while not mandated religiously, is clearly a cultural practice that effects 100s of million women worldwide -- and in practice it varies from minor procedures to life altering removal of huge amounts of tissue. The statement from the World Health Organization cites no known health benefits from even the most minor practice. Those of you old enough may remember that female genital mutilation was very much in the news in the late 1990s and many international agencies were advocating for both education and laws to bar the practice.
By that similar reasoning, barring or discouraging male circumcision makes consistent sense for human rights advocates. A baby cannot consent. The health benefits of the practice are, at best, tentative. The procedure permanantly alters the appearance of his anatomy and there really is no way that it isn't painful. There is a bonafide controversy about whether or not male circumcision can be justified on any secular grounds. And, as the debate on FGM shows, there is a limit to how far we are willing to cede ground to cultural practices in the name of respecting perogatives not our own.
I am even willing to admit that there is some controversy about the practice among largely or entirely secular Jews, leading to the recent creation of a Brit Shalom as an alternative to the traditional Brit Milah. This is a pretty small minority, however, as all of the major branches of Judaism practice Brit Milah, and the ceremony is so important that non-Orthodox denominations (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) now perform Simchat Bat for baby girls.
My son just turned two, and his Brit Milah is still quite fresh in my mind. The ceremony itself was very emotionally draining for me -- forget the potential for pain involved (Josh's Mohel was a board certified MD as well and used anesthetic)...the little guy was only 8 days old, surrounded by a throng of people and under bright lights. That was melt down material right there, and it just seemed odd to then turn the day over to all the adults noshing on bagels and whitefish salad.
But it was also emotionally draining because of the enormity of it in symbolism both cultural and religious. The Brit Milah is not simply a ceremony, it is the bringing of the male child into the Covenant with G-d, and while the actual removal of the foreskin is a lifelong phsyical alteration, it is meant to represent the lifelong alteration of one's life as a member of the Jewish people. That Covenant comes with huge responsibilities: Torah, Talmud, and living life according to the Mitzvot given in Torah. It also comes with a birthright in the cultural heritage of Judaism and thousands of years of history as a people. The ceremony was his introduction into the continuity of the Jewish people and it is supposed to have meaningful implications for the rest of his life (interesting aside -- by tradition, we buried the foreskin under a tree in my mother-in-law's yard...when Josh is married, we are supposed to use a branch from that tree to make his Chuppah.) Small wonder that the non-Orthodox sects of Judaism have made an equivalent ritual welcoming girl children to the Covenant as well. Of life cycle rituals in Judaism, only Bar/Bat Mitzvah, Marriage and Death are on par.
To NOT have Brit Milah for my son would have meant that in all mainstream denominations of Judaism he would have had no options for participation -- not being called to read from Torah, not a Bar Mitzvah and not even a Jewish wedding. I cannot help but personally conclude that as a Jewish father of Jewish children that I would have been very remiss if we had NOT had a Brit Milah for our son and a Simchat Bat for our daughter. To not do so would mean they could not fully participate in Jewish life within any of the mainstream branches of the religion.
Yes, without circumcision at birth he could volunteer as an adult to undergo it -- at an age when the pain associated with it would be more likely to be remembered and the procedure would be far more complicated.
But I am also mindful of the arguments that assert it is a violation of human rights to enforce permanent bodily change upon an infant entirely incapable of consenting -- and I recognize that those arguments are perhaps logically consistent with both an entirely secular perspective and with the far more widespread scorn and activism against female circumcision.
What I am asking is where do people feel they are rightly able to draw the line on cultural and religious tolerance? How far are you willing to balance cultural and religious perogatives against principles and how do you know you have found the right place to make a, forgive me, "cut off point"?
And, with respect, could I please request that responses against the practice please attempt to demonstrate respect for Jewish culture and cultural practices? I've put a lot of personal material and feeling into this and would like to believe that a disagreement on the ritual practice does not have to come with disregard.
(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 03:13 (UTC)Stay away from my dog!
Circumcision, on the other hand, is a deeply integrated part of a faith that has been practiced for thousands of years.
Appeal to longevity.
no loss or change of function
Untrue. There are nerve bundles in the removed foreskin.
(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 11:34 (UTC)Since we allow for the eating of meat, clearly we have no moral qualms about torturing animals in this society. For the record, you have to make the case that sacrifice is equivalent to torture. If a animal was tortured in its sacrifice, I would agree that was inhumane and should be prohibited. But so far as I've seen, it is no more tortuous than butchery.
distinct from harming a human being
That animals do not share in all our human rights seems totally uncontroversial to me. I can keep a horse as my slave, for example.
Appeal to longevity.
The longevity of the Jewish faith seems germane to me.
Untrue.
Outside of a subjective judgment, how can we know? The penis functions exactly the same way.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 00:41 (UTC)Animals may not share in ALL human rights but that does not make it okay to torture them.
"The penis functions exactly the same way" - but sexual pleasure may not be the same. The removal of nerves is pretty significant dontcha think?
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 11:43 (UTC)No. Obviously not. That is how you kill a chicken.
Animals may not share in ALL human rights but that does not make it okay to torture them.
What makes it wrong to torture animals isn't that they possess rights, it is our understanding of humanity. We grants right to animals in so far as it is possible or practical, but animals do not have rights in themselves. That is why it is OK to give a capuchin monkey AIDS in order to study new drugs but not OK to give a baby AIDS.
The removal of nerves is pretty significant dontcha think?
Who can say with certainty? How do we know that the removal of that skin doesn't enhance the stimulus of the corona? Men who have been circumcised don't seem to have significant complaints.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 22:12 (UTC)That doesn't explain how it isn't torture. In fact your statement is irrelevant.
"That is why it is OK to give a capuchin monkey AIDS"
Some would disagree with that.
"animals do not have rights in themselves."
But humans do?
"Men who have been circumcised don't seem to have significant complaints."
Maybe you are right. Most of them, however, can't really compare their experience with that of being uncut since they had the procedure performed so young.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 23:04 (UTC)Sure it does. Torture in the infliction of gratuitous pain on a subject without any legitimate warrant. It is the infliction of pain for pain's own sake. To efficiently and usefully kill a chicken it is the best practice to separate the brain from the body. Hence, cutting the throat, or cutting of the head or severing the spine at the neck. For a chicken, this is not even particularly painful. It's nervous system just isn't advanced enough to process the event.
Some would disagree with that.
Not many people with AIDS, I'm guessing.
But humans do?
Yes, certainly. They are an epiphenomena of our human nature, or an endowment of our creator, depending on how you want to view it. Either way, humans have natural rights.
Most of them, however, can't really compare their experience with that of being uncut
And visa versa. It really comes down to a matter of aesthetics.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/11 01:26 (UTC)Torturing for a "legitimate warrant" doesn't change the fact that it's torture.
"It is the infliction of pain for pain's own sake."
That's sadistic torture or intentional torture. I can say it's torturous to be outside in the freezing cold even though no one did that to me. I can say it's torturous for professors to give me homework (that would be an exaggeration, of course) even though their intent wasn't to torture me, but to help me learn/retain/practice knowledge and/or skills.
"Not many people with AIDS, I'm guessing."
Don't know the stats on that one. And any way, I think the best way to eradicate AIDS is prevention.
"And visa versa. It really comes down to a matter of aesthetics."
And if that is true, then aesthetics is a terrible reason to mutilate someone. And as far as the "sexual pleasure" thing neither of us is going to be able to prove it either way. Does that mean we should just take that chance?
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/11 02:08 (UTC)You are defining torture so broadly here that it loses all meaning. I find not having internet access torture. I find this grey, cloudy, foggy day torturous.
It is a silly objection.
Which is a fine sentiment, until you have AIDS.
Aesthetics isn't the reason Jews circumcise, but it is the way most people judge circumcision. Again, lacking any objective evidence that circumcision effects sexual experience at all, I'd say the point is moot.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/11 14:31 (UTC)"Which is a fine sentiment, until you have AIDS."
Since I don't have AIDS, there's not much more I can say on this. It won't change the fact that I think giving AIDS to monkeys is wrong.
"Again, lacking any objective evidence that circumcision effects sexual experience at all, I'd say the point is moot."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. (I think that with a lack of evidence one should always err on the side of caution.)