![[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: 10/6/11 00:58 (UTC)to imagine that the results of Christian history are just plain norms for the human species.
There are plenty of morally comparable human beings who are complete out of the Christian history umbrella. What "results" are you claiming are unique to those under the umbrella.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 01:16 (UTC)Isn't that what I just finished indicating?
"What 'results' are you claiming are unique to those under the umbrella."
The myriad forms of occidental culture. If this is a new idea, it might be helpful to look into Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which is perhaps the most famous study of a particular topic in the relation between Christianity and (modern, western) culture.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 01:28 (UTC)I missed it. I thought you were saying the opposite.
The myriad forms of occidental culture
I thought Christianity was a religion within occidental culture, rather than occidental culture being within Christianity.
I've never read the reference. Thank you for the information.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 19:53 (UTC)Well Roman and Greek culture predates Christianity certainly, but after that western history becomes predominantly Christian. That individual people living in the west might not be practicing or nominal Christians doesn't change the historical or anthropological fact of Christianity's significance for their culture. (Indeed, the alternative interpretation is itself a product of Christian history: the significance attributed in the west to declaring yourself to be such-and-such can hardly be understood without reference to the understanding of conversion in the Protestant thought from which it has arisen.)