Blalron:
I certainly do.
NAF1138:
Very true. However, there were circumstances…such as the occasional intermarriage/extramarital liaison (it was rarer back then, but not entirely unheard of) where the matter of whether or not said individual was halachically Jewish did make an actual difference.
puzzlegal:
I believe I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but an uncircumcised Jew is still considered a Jew. He’s a Jew who hasn’t done a particular mitzvah, and there are some aspects of Judaism for which this disqualifies him (most of those applied only when the Holy Temple stood) but no less Jewish for it. The notion that the uncircumcised man is “cut off” from the Jewish people refers to fate in the afterlife, not to status as Jewish.
Even the Orthodox would agree with that.
Because it’s a solution in search of a problem? How many American men seek out foreskin restoration today? How many such surgeries are performed every year? What makes you assume a wave of circumcised men will come forward, demanding this procedure, if it is covered by public health insurance? I’m just a data point of one, but I have no interest whatsoever in having any surgery done on my penis.
And frankly, if the government put “massive amounts of money into tissue regeneration research and development” - no bad thing, I agree - they would be criminally negligent if they didn’t direct the research towards regrowing hearts and livers and brains, rather than foreskins. You know, the organs you can’t live without.
That statement could have come directly from a Project Rescue pamphlet, explaining why they block Planned Parenthood offices and shame women coming for abortions.
Yes. This is a good argument, and, as I’ve said, this thread has convinced me that circumcision is unnecessary and harmful. What it hasn’t convinced me is that circumcision is a horrible moral evil that must be fought with all resources available. Considering all the other ways parents can hurt their kids, this one seems pretty low priority. At least, to me.
*Sorry if I’ve misspelled your username - I can’t tell from my computer if the fourth letter is “L” or “I”.
Do you believe that the risk that circumcision could severely impair the sex life of a man is non-existent, or at least extraordinarily unlikely? If yes I guess there’s nothing that can be said. But if not, is this a gamble that you’re comfortable taking? I mean do you think it’s more important that your son could find a nice Jewish woman, or that he could enjoy a normal sex life with a woman, Jewish or not?
The oppressed are generally the first to recognize their oppression. If circumcision were that bad, circumcised men would be rioting in the streets, and #MeTooMissMyForeskin would be Time’s Person of the Year. They’re not, which tells me most men are fine, cut or otherwise.
But they also belong to American culture, and to the American nation-state. Almost all Americans have non-American cultural heritage of one sort or another. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have laws that apply to all Americans, regardless of their differing cultural backgrounds.
National sovereignty, duh. Americans as the people of a nation-state get to decide, under law and the Constitution, what cultural practices are permissible for Americans. We have laws against child labor, for example, that are contrary to the customary practices that form part of the cultural heritage of a lot of Americans. But those Americans still have to abide by those laws.
It doesn’t necessarily supersede in all matters the shared culture of the nation the Jew in question happens to be a citizen of, though.
I believe that risk is extraordinarily unlikely. I know lots of circumcised men, and they all seem perfectly happy with how their penises work. And the men I’ve known intimately were all able to masturbate just fine, too, without using lotion or other aids.
I’ve heard horror stories of circumcisions gone wrong, but they are very rare, and the traditional procedure, updated to use sterile instruments, gloves, etc., is extremely safe.
I don’t at all agree with that. There are reasons that men are reluctant to come forward about this, and it’s the same reason any other sexual assault victim is reluctant to go public: they won’t be taken seriously. They’ll be mocked for wanting their natural genitalia. “Oh, so you want an Anteater huh?”
Jews assimilate, but only so far. That is why they have retained their cultural identity and religion for so long.
In actual fact, we DO have exceptions in law for certain groups. The Amish, for example, do not have to pay social security or Medicare taxes and they are exempt from compulsory schooling until 16 (they have to stay until 14). That’s another group that has assimilated only so far and shows no sign of wanting to go further. People are permitted to forgo vaccines - a public health matter - based on religious objections.
Native American tribes/nations have limited self-sovereignty within the US territory.
So yes, while most laws apply to all simply saying “this is the law, suck it up buttercup” is not actually applied in the real world. Groups have gone to court and won exemptions based on their religions in the US.
Have you ever heard of the term “tyranny of the majority”? That’s what the Bill of Rights (among other mechanisms) is supposed to help prevent.
Farmers and small business owners are exempt from some of those laws to the extent they can employ family members, including minor children, in their business and work.
None of this means minority groups have unlimited freedoms and exemptions, but neither does the majority have unlimited ability to impose their will on minorities.
You don’t see the problem with you, as a member of the majority, deciding what is and isn’t acceptable to the minority, do you?
What I’m saying must appear very threatening to you then. From your point of view I’m interfering in the will of God. If the Intactivists succeed in their mission of outlawing circumcision, Judaism in its present form will cease to exist. Our differences appear to be irreconcilable. When Religious Rites interfere with Human Rights, the latter has to ultimately prevail.
As a Secular Humanist, I believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both adopted by the United Nations, are far superior documents to the Torah with regard to how we treat our fellow human beings. I believe that these human rights should be applied universally across humankind.
CCPR Article 9(1)
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
CCPR Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
CCPR Article 24(1)
Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.
Yes, and in fact when one of my friends (a guy much younger than me, still in his twenties, but born in the Midwest and therefore circumcised) posted an anti-circ item on his Facebook page, one of his friends indeed mocked him. But another of his friends chimed in that he wondered wistfully what sex with an uncut member would be like.
That was actually surprising to me, since IME most circumcised guys, if they express any opinion at all, tend to defensively insist that there’s nothing missing from their penis, even though there literally is. Which is very understandable, psychologically. Had I been cut, I’d probably be the same. And before circumcision rates dropped, I don’t think most American men even thought about it.
I’m in my forties and from the generation when it was near-universal almost everywhere in the country. And my dad was circumcised. But I got lucky: my mom was not allowed to fly back to the U.S. because the airline would not let her on the plane in that advanced stage of pregnancy. So I was born in Kenya, where they do not circumcise infants (although many ethnic groups do it in adolescence). Once they got back to the U.S. a few months later, they had gotten used to me “as is” and just never did it.
I am extremely grateful for this.
I feel like guys from countries where circumcision is rare generally stay out of these debates. But I am pretty sure if you asked them, they’d say they think it sounds like a really bad idea. I don’t think there’s any amount of money I’d take in exchange for being circumcised, certainly no amount below the “multimillionaire” type level. And I’d bet that almost anyone who is not desperately poor would say the same.
I tried to talk with my best friend, whom I’ve known since Kindergarten (and is also cut), about this topic. He was EXTREMELY defensive about it. His penis works just fine, thank you. When I tried to explain what a foreskin is and what it does, he said he didn’t want to talk about it anymore and glared daggers at me. This is not a person who is shy about controversial topics either. We’ve spent many hours debating politics, religion, philosophy, free will. For him to shut me down and not even hear me out was very uncharacteristic of him.
“Human” Rights are largely culturally Christian Rights and not some sort of objective truths - unless of course you believe in a god and likely one that lines up with Progressive Christian theology. You can see why minority groups might have a problem with your statement. You can say, "Yes, but human rights preserve dignity, autonomy and equality, so they are ‘good.’ But valuing those things is not universal and largely arose from a single religion’s theology based on how it viewed God’s path to salvation. Even religions that do value those things may not value them as highly as other aspects of their faith or culture.
well, if you are talking to him like you are talking here, about mandatory inspections of children and punishing their parents based on what you find, he probably doesn’t want to get ina fight with you. I have a friend who has become a crazy anti-vaxxer since having an autistic kid, and i pretty much don’t talk to her about anything medical any more.
I don’t have any problem with this rights (having been reared in a Christian country, after all) I just don’t think they really apply.
arguably, this applies. But i don’t think this article is generally applied to forbid forcing underage children to be vaccinated, nor to have their blood drawn to test for lead or genetic diseases or infectious diseases to which they have been exposed. So there’s clearly an implied exception. Probably something like “parents can consent on behalf of a minor whether the benefits outweighed the costs” or “when the state deems it critical for public safety”.
The first would allow most circumcisions.
yeah, that doesn’t apply. It’s not an experiment, not is it torture, etc.
You might argue it is cruel, but that’s a really slippery slope. I’m sure every parent has been cancelle cruel to their child over and over again.
this means that children get those other protections, which as I’ve said, don’t clearly apply.
I’m not saying it’s a slam dunk, but there’s tons of wiggle room there for a lot of opinions.
This is a great article: What The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) And Intactivists Don’t Understand About Each Other (18 minute read)
In the opinion of the author, the AAP is scared of the growing Intactivist movement, and they don’t know what to do. To admit that circumcision is harmful would open them up to legal liability.
Yeah, now THERE’S a reliable, unbiased cite! :rolleyes:
Blalron:
No more than it ceased to exist under past regimes that outlawed circumcision or, for that matter, Judaism in general (e.g., Inquisition-era Spain).
I believe that at some point, there will be a world-wide religious enlightenment which by which the Religious Rites are “ultimately” recognized as reflective of Human Rights, not in contradiction to them. “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea,” Isaiah 11:9.
Obviously, as a believer in Divine Revelation I disagree and believe that the Torah, despite what modern folk perceive as flaws, contains wisdom of a much higher order than any document composed by man in general, and I certainly do not think that the adoption of any statement by the United Nations puts any force of moral truth behind such statements.
Any set of laws or rights only apply to minors by way of an adult proxy assumed to be acting in their benefit, generally their parents.
I’m a moral universalist, not a moral relativist. I believe there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, and some cultures may be superior to other cultures with regard to certain issues. I don’t believe that because Enlightenment values originated in Christian cultures that this automatically makes them invalid. Isaac Newton, a white male, discovered calculus. Does that invalidate calculus?
Yes, some of the cultures that have the “wrong” values have historically been marginalized and persecuted. I understand and appreciate that. I don’t want to persecute anybody. I don’t want to make the USA Judenfrai. But they’re going to have to delay the Bris until the child is an adult and can make a voluntary, fully informed decision to join the religion.
If that’s so, how can the moral relativist chide me for promoting my values? From my point of view, I’m on the side of the angels here. I want to protect innocent babies from being tortured and mutilated. Those are my deeply held beliefs. Promoting my values is part of my belief system.
Brendon Marotta is a very thoughtful, intelligent person. You should look him up, and listen to what he has to say. He is not happy with his circumcision status, but he strives to give both sides of the debate a fair hearing in his documentary American Circumcision.
It seems the Federal FGM law was struck down as an overreach of the Commerce Clause. Looks like it we’ll have to rely on State level laws to protect girls. But any law that protects girls from genital mutilation but fails to protect boys is vulnerable to challenge on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: “nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. There is no logical reason to allow male circumcision but forbid the removal of the clitoral hood of females. They are functionally identical. You can protect both, or you can protect neither. But to protect one and ignore the other won’t stand up to scrutiny. We as a society will have to make a choice.