A reader correctly criticized the International Herald Tribune (IHT, the global edition of the NY Times) for the provocative and inaccurate headline, “Germany Making Jews Feel Unwelcome.” The piece was written by Judy Dempsey and is a follow-up on her article, “Germany, Jews and Muslims, and Circumcision,” which was published on the the NY Times Internet site on September 17. A version of that article appeared in the print edition of the IHT on September 18.
Gerrie Jakobs, Rome, Italy
The headline for this article is deceiving and misleading. The author initially makes great effort to show how Germany has become a welcoming and hospitable host to Jews from around the world. A local court’s decision regarding circumcision affects not only Jews but Muslims too. Why wasn’t the title of the article “Germany Makes Muslims Feel Unwelcome”? In this time of great turmoil and easy offense being taken by comments made in the press, I would have hoped the author and IHT editors would be more sensitive and less offensive.
Another reader accurately states that the judge was solely determining whether or not circumcision was consistent with that nation’s current laws. It is the role of the German government to enact legislation regarding this issue. As the article states, “[T]he German government is now rushing through a new law that would spell out that male circumcision is legal.”
Maybe the NY Times, and even their non-Jewish writers, could be a bit more sensitive when writing about this touchy issue.
——————————————————————————–
Update: Today the New York Times follows up on the two Dempsey circumcision pieces with “Some Religious Leaders See a Threat as Europe Grows More Secular.” The article which appears today (September 20) in the print edition is about Rabbi and mohel, David Goldberg, and a handful of German citizens who object to circumcision. These are my two favorite quotes:
For the more than 100,000 Jews who live in Germany, the tenor of the circumcision debate has come as a shock, undercutting confidence that they had found a secure place in society after the horrors of the Holocaust. Only a few months ago, that confidence had seemed justified when voters in Frankfurt chose their first Jewish mayor since 1933.
I wonder how much of this undercutting (an editor should have caught this surely unintended pun) is solely in the minds of the Rabbi, Jack Ewing, the writer of the article, and the New York Times editors.
‘In Judaism, the health of the baby is more important than anything,’ Rabbi Goldberg said. The harm, he added, would come if the baby was not circumcised. ‘A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible,’ [emphasis mine, IG] he said. ‘It is very, very important.’
“A man who is not circumcised cannot…….?!!X” First, this is complete nonsense and that is putting it mildly. Second, it is an insult to Christians. Hey, but to the NY Times’ editors maybe it is all in what they believe was written in a good cause.
Circumcision is no skin off Judy Dempsey’s nose
And what it has to do with the Middle East, Israel or Palestine? On the second thought, I’m glad that this type of articles surface here-they deem this site obsolete and irrelevant indeed. I’ll go and ask for my bonus now.
@ dimadok:
The circumcision issue proves the power of the right-wing Jewish lobby. This lobby constantly impedes secularism and human rights. In this case, it’s the human right to physical integrity.
I’ll go and ask for my bonus now.
Huh? What bonus?
From Hasbara Central, off course!
From Hasbara Central, off course!
Oh, I see.
Obsolete? It certainly is in use and you are certainly using it.
“And what it has to do with the Middle East, Israel or Palestine?”
Who said those were the only topics on this site? If you haven’t noticed, one of the perspectives of the site is to explore American Jewish identity issues, and this article is clearly relevant to that.
American Jewish identity in Germany? Oh my, that’s beyond being funny.
You don’t think what happens in the Jewish community in German can have an effect on American Jewish identity?
You don’t think what happens in the Jewish community in German can have an effect on American Jewish identity?
Of course, it can. Don’t Jews regard themselves as one big family?
Woody says: “…If you haven’t noticed, one of the perspectives of the site is to explore American Jewish identity issues, and this article is clearly relevant to that.”
I would hope that Jewish identity involves something more significant than whether or not one has been circumcised. If that’s it, then it’s a really trivial topic.
Well, not everyone is so blase about ritualized infant mutilation as you.
And yet you keep coming back.
Either you’ve become aware of your latent anti-zionism, but are having trouble “coming out” to yourself – or you’re here because you know exactly how relevant Mondoweiss is.
Which is it?
“A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible.”
This was literally true in my case, as my foreskin was so large that it wrapped around my head like a blindfold. Fortunately, my Jewish pediatrician was also a talented mohel.
“‘In Judaism, the health of the baby is more important than anything,’ Rabbi Goldberg said.”
That is simply absolute horseshit. If it were, then this barbaric practice would be outlawed.
“‘In Judaism, the health of the baby is more important than anything,’ Rabbi Goldberg said.”
Which is why the Brooklyn mohel was forbidden to perform circumcisions immediately after the first hint that he might be giving baby boys herpes. It’s not like any of them died or anything.
‘A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible,’ [emphasis mine, IG] he said.
that’s exactly why my parents had me circumcised, although back in the day i don’t know that there was much of an open conversation with the physician about my parents’ discretionary authority to declne the procedure. seems the rabbi is a bit tone deaf on this point. i would think it would be more effective to emphasize the ‘health’ angle, valid or not.
this sounds more like the ‘chicken little’ efforts at instigating immigration to israel in response to ‘demographic threats’ than real fear of resurgent anti-semitism in germany. i watched a piece on ‘the miracle of poland’ last night on TV5Monde, and the renaissance of jewish culture was one piece of evidence of poland’s secular leap into the 21st century. although the presenter did take pains to insinuate that the poles were universally responsible for that stage of the holocaust which played out in that country.
When I first heard it, I was surprised to learn that Germany was the first choice of Russian Jews who wanted to emmigrate.
Why is this surprising? Germany had a policy of allowing the settlement with citizenship and generous provisions of assistance of two groups of people it believed it had a moral responsibility for due to the consequences of WWII. The first were ethnic Germans in the USSR and Eastern Europe. The Aussiedler and Spaetaussiedler were allowed to “return” to Germany because the BRD believed correctly that the communist governments had persecuted their citizens of German ancestry and that Germany had a moral responsibility to these people. Part of this was guilt over the fact that the communists justified anti-German persecution by linking ethnic Germans with the Nazis. The other group given special rights to settle in Germany were Jews from the USSR. This was also considered a form of Wiedermachtgut and was undertaken in an attempt to rebuild the Jewish community in Germany that had been destroyed by the Nazis. In total about 2 million ethnic Germans and 200,000 Jews from the USSR and its successor states settled in Germany.
Actually, it’s not just the circumcision issue. Germany has a growing neo-Nazi problem. link to spiegel.de
@ hophmi:
Oh, please. The NPD doesn’t even reach the 5% threshold for the Bundestag.
When you have a look at the election results in Europe, you will see that in several countries far-right parties reach a double-digit percentage, e.g. in the Netherlands, France, Austria. However, there’s rather little media outrage about it. In Germany, the far-right party received less than 2% in the last federal election. Yet the media constantly report on rising right-wing extremism in Germany. Please keep a sense of proportion.
I’m hearing from Jews on the ground in Germany that it’s quite a bit worse than that. We’re talking about Der Spiegel, not a foreign newspaper, and this is not necessarily an electoral issue. I was actually of the mind that the neo-Nazi problem was insignificant until I read the Der Spiegel article and until a rabbi whose nephew is a rabbi in Berlin insisted that it was not all copacetic. Germans may not vote for the NPD or agree with them, but it appears that in some cases, they are willing to grant them too much leeway.
@ hophmi
Germans may not vote for the NPD or agree with them, but it appears that in some cases, they are willing to grant them too much leeway.
Oh, really? I thought that you are in favour of free speech.
How exactly would less “leeway” look?
The article you quote approvingly speaks of “rooting out”, a “crackdown”, “zero tolerance” etc. – what is this belligerent language supposed to mean? Should all NPD members and/or voters be rounded up and sent to prison camps?
Germany is actually far less tolerant of hate speech and openly undemocratic political groups than, for example, the United States. But it is a liberal democracy, and in liberal democracies even highly offensive people are tolerated as long as they don’t become violent.
hophmi – the Spiegel article is too East Germany centered and doesn’t say anything about anti-Jewish attacks by Muslims in Germany.
————————–
Here is a quote from today’s NYT article about mohel David Goldberg:
“During 15 years in Hof [a city of 45,000 in Catholic Bavaria], Rabbi Goldberg said, he has never encountered anti-Semitism. A handful of neo-Nazis staged a march in May, but local citzens organized a much larger counter-demonstration.”
“Actually, it’s not just the circumcision issue. Germany has a growing neo-Nazi problem.”
Actually, it’s not just the occupation issue. Palestine has a growing Zionist problem.
If only it was a small neo-Zionist problem, i guess Palestine could handle it just like Germany does today. Palestine would forbid Zionist and neo-Zionist organizations.
From your link:
“Far-right violence against immigrants has become endemic in parts of Germany and that won’t change anytime soon. The public and the police are too often indifferent to extremism, despite the risk it poses to the country’s reputation. Deep down, Germany still hasn’t grasped that it needs to embrace its minorities.”
Change a few words and you have the truth:
Far-right violence against immigrants and Palestinians has become endemic in all of Israel and that won’t change anytime soon. The public and the police are too often indifferent to extremism, despite the risk it poses to the country’s reputation. Deep down, Israel still hasn’t grasped that it needs to embrace its minorities.
Germany does more to fight against extremism than most countries.
Israel fights for extremism…
The article about Rabbi and mohel David Goldberg also appeared in today’s International Herald Tribune on the front page with the headline:
“Circumcision puts secular and religious sides at odds”
——————————————————————————–
Here is the letter to the editors I wrote to the IHT:
“Circumcision is regarded as a command from God.” Maybe this command has a historical expiration date. Rabbis have always found a way to reinterpret God’s commands. Why not say: It’s only applicable to the Jews risiding in the Holy Land.
Or, it can be replaced by a symbolic act. I consider ritual circumcision – because it’s irreversible – to be against the religious freedom of a Jewish or Muslim boy to opt out of his faith and religious community when he has grown up.
————————————————————————————
BTW, the number of Jews in Germany is approx. 200,000;
approx. 120,000 belong to a synagogue community.
Klaus, you may oppose circumcision. For Jews, it is a simple matter of religious freedom, and I think if circumcision were a Christian practice, banning it this way would be much more of a taboo. Given the history in Europe, this is a situation where Europeans should live and let live. It is not your business to tell Jews how to observe their religion.
“It is not your business to tell Jews how to observe their religion.”
What a load of racist horseshit. Jews aren’t extra special people who are exempt from the generally applicable laws that a society might draw for all the people in that society.
“What a load of racist horseshit. Jews aren’t extra special people who are exempt from the generally applicable laws that a society might draw for all the people in that society.”
Racist bullshit? It’s basic courtesy and human rights. You don’t interfere with my right to practice my religion.
“Jews aren’t extra special people who are exempt from the generally applicable laws that a society might draw for all the people in that society.”
Society does not have the right to infringe on my religious rights.
Look Hopmi, I do not have much time to look into this. But the whole story started when a Turkish women had to take her son to the university hospital here in Cologne. I don’t remember precisely what had happened, but I think she could not staunch the wound for about two days; it simply didn’t stop bleeding.
Now, I have no idea to what extend doctors over here have to report bodily harm to children nowadays. But I am aware that there are such laws, and doctors have a responsibility to report. So strictly you have to create a legal exemption, if harm to a child happens due to a religious ritual, the child has no legal protection. That somehow would conflict with equal rights too.
So there are two conflicting legal issues involved:
a) religious freedom
b) the right to protection against bodily harm.
Which ultimately means Muslim or Jewish kids loose their legal protection against bodily harm, at least in this narrowly defined religious context.
Among the stories that seems to have caused a much wider legal discussion, and resulting case law, was the case of a boy with Turkish roots. He was forcibly circumcised while visiting his father in Turkey. When he came back he wanted an answer to the question, if his father had the right to do this to him. This boy was actually already a teenager. There must have been quite a few similar cases surrounding the issue by now, but I haven’t paid close attention admittedly.
You have to realize from a strictly legal perspective you demand that Muslim and Jewish boys loose the right to protection against bodily harm everybody else has. How are you going to handle that legally?
The Cologne judge acquitted the doctor twice, stating he had done nothing wrong, neither medically nor legally, but he also upheld the boy’s basic rights to protection against bodily harm, and ultimately passed these two conflicting legal issues involved in the case up to higher courts for decision, if I remember correctly.
Lea -
The case that stirred the whole debate was about a terribly botched circumcision of a boy from a Lebanese family.
The court ruled that circumcision of minors was illegal. But the doctor who had performed it was aquitted on the basis that he had acted in error (mistale regarding prohibition).
Klaus, you may be right, about the family’s roots. As you know a German judgment wouldn’t tell me whoever the boy’s family was. But you surely are not correct about the “botched circumcision”. Even the judgment shows this.
The children’s doctor and surgeon has Turkish roots, that I know. His office is very close to me. He studied medicine in Germany and Turkey. And considering that 30% of his surgeries are circumcisions, as I read somewhere, he must have quite a bit of experience by now. He was very active against not allowing uneducated people to do it. Not even Turkey allows this anymore. There seems to have been a case of at least one getting a license here in Germany by lying to authorities about these fact.
As you may realize, I have very mixed feelings about it. But then I never paid much attention. I know people that were circumcised for non-religious, mainly aesthetic and hygienic reason, like the son of a surgeon.
I met some Jewish and Muslim activists against circumcision. They studied the topic from every historical, ethnological, medical, religious, legal angle you can think of. Admittedly they make me feel slightly dizzy every time the topic comes up. When I kept arguing that for me as a female it felt like an aesthetic solution, that made them really angry and they forced me to watch videos. I better do not pretend it was easy to watch.
Interestingly none of my girlfriends with Jewish or Muslim roots had their sons circumcised, I found out meanwhile. But some are married to the above men. And almost every women I come to know tells me she decided against it too. Maybe it is more a patriarchal rite?
“Racist bullshit? It’s basic courtesy and human rights.”
Yes, and the people practicing infant genital mutilation are violating these infants’ basic human rights.
“You don’t interfere with my right to practice my religion.”
Fine. Don’t impose your religion on an unconsenting child by hacking off body parts. Your “right” to religion ends the moment you start slicing open someone else’s body.
“Society does not have the right to infringe on my religious rights.”
You’re rights end the moment you infringe on someone else’s rights, like these infants’. Stop infringing on their rights.
Woody Tanaka says: ““It is not your business to tell Jews how to observe their religion.”
What a load of racist horseshit. Jews aren’t extra special people who are exempt from the generally applicable laws that a society might draw for all the people in that society…”
Indeed. And if they can interfere in the lives of Jews in this way, it would behoove me to make a stand now, before they apply the same principle to interfere in my life in some way I won’t like.
Lea -
I took the term “botched circumcision” from English language reports on the matter. For instance:
- “a case in Cologne where a Muslim boy spent ten days in the hospital following a botched circumcision”
It does not mean that the Turkish doctor who performed it in his office was accused of malpractice, though the pediatricians in the hospital where the boy was taken said they would have sewed the foreskin with more stitches than the Turkish doctor did.
———–
- “Maybe it is more a patriarchal rite?”
Men who are circumcised want their boys to be like them.
“Indeed. And if they can interfere in the lives of Jews in this way, it would behoove me to make a stand now, before they apply the same principle to interfere in my life in some way I won’t like.”
And if you mutilate infants like this, they SHOULD come after you.
@ hophmi:
“Given the history in Europe, this is a situation where Europeans should live and let live.”
We live in the present, not in the past. Historic events have nothing to do with us.
“It is not your business to tell Jews how to observe their religion.”
When Jews force an irreversible religious ritual on non-consenting minors, then this violates the German constitution as well as universal human rights. This makes it our business.
Islamophobes would love some way of making a legal distinction between Muslim circumcision and Jewish circumcision, and between Halal slaughter and kosher slaughter.
Work out some nice, innocent-sounding phraseology for that, and you should be able to sell it for a pretty penny.
Some poll results from Germany:
Question: Is the ban on circumcision useful?
Yes, the right to physical integrity is more important than the (parents’)
right to religious freedom. -> 73%
No, circumcision as a religious ritual and tradition is justified. -> 12%
I think that circumcision for religious reasons is wrong, but a ban does
more harm than good. -> 15%
7,275 votes
link to tagesspiegel.de
Question: Religious circumcision of boys should…
be forbidden -> 78%
be allowed -> 22%
11,265 votes
link to ftd.de
Sadly, the politicians don’t listen to the people, because they are intimidated.
Lefty -
The polls are on-line polls of readers of the respective papers, the Berlin Tagesspiegel and the Financial Times Deutschland. Their readers are middle-upper class. The more working class people are probably ever more adverse to circumcision as something alien.
Anyway, both Judaism and Islam are at their root archaic tribal religions.
An African tribe that practices female circumcision would of course be outlawed in Germany (and the rest of Europe). – Where do you draw the line to male circumcision?
@ Klaus:
The more working class people are probably ever more adverse to circumcision as something alien.
Please don’t underestimate the intellect of working-class people. They don’t oppose circumcision of non-consenting minors because it’s alien. They reject it because they care about the human right to physical integrity.
“Some poll results from Germany:”
We don’t outsource civil liberties to polls. If we did that in the United States, we probably would not have a functional First or Fourth Amendment.
“Yes, the right to physical integrity is more important than the (parents’)
right to religious freedom. -> 73%”
Sure, it’s very easy to take this position when it’s someone else’s religion, not yours. Be honest, and admit that if circumcision were a Christian practice, Europeans wouldn’t dream of banning it. I don’t see any legislation to ban ear piercing of children, which also violates physical integrity, and I don’t see legislation to ban baptism, which is just as involuntary.
“No, circumcision as a religious ritual and tradition is justified. -> 12%”
Again, it’s not your religion, so it’s easy to criticize it. There’s no religious ritual that is “justified.” What is justified is that Jews have a right to practice their religion as they see fit.
“I think that circumcision for religious reasons is wrong, but a ban does
more harm than good. -> 15%”
Again, easy to say when it isn’t your religion.
“Question: Religious circumcision of boys should…
be forbidden -> 78%
be allowed -> 22%”
What do you think the numbers would be if I asked whether baptism should be banned? How about communion, and the catechism of eating the body of Christ that goes along with it?
There’s a reason UN conventions and national legislation protects minority rights. They need to be defended from populist tyranny like this.
“I don’t see any legislation to ban ear piercing of children, which also violates physical integrity, and I don’t see legislation to ban baptism, which is just as involuntary.”
LOL. And if male ritual genital mutilation were only as damaging as ear piercing or as non-damaging as baptism, I’m sure you wouldn’t see it being banned. And I’m sure if you had the equivalent to male ritual gential mutilation regarding ears — say hacking the lobes off — I’m sure that, too, would be outlawed.
“What is justified is that Jews have a right to practice their religion as they see fit.”
And any adult Jew should be permitted to do to himself whatever he wants. You have no more right to hack off part of a baby’s penis because of your religion (it’s not the child’s religion, mind you, it’s the parent’s) than I would to hack off your fingers if I thought it was part of my religion.
“What do you think the numbers would be if I asked whether baptism should be banned? How about communion, and the catechism of eating the body of Christ that goes along with it?”
LMAO. None of these things is the amputation of a functional body part.
“LOL. And if male ritual genital mutilation were only as damaging as ear piercing or as non-damaging as baptism, I’m sure you wouldn’t see it being banned.”
It’s no more damaging than ear-piercing, and the risk of infection is lower.
My point is that if it was a Christian practice rather than a Jewish and Muslim one, you wouldn’t see it banned.
“And any adult Jew should be permitted to do to himself whatever he wants. ”
And usually part of being an adult is the right to raise your children as you see fit, including with religious indoctrination.
“You have no more right to hack off part of a baby’s penis because of your religion (it’s not the child’s religion, mind you, it’s the parent’s) than I would to hack off your fingers if I thought it was part of my religion.”
So now a foreskin equals a finger.
“LMAO. None of these things is the amputation of a functional body part.”
Neither is circumcision.
“It’s no more damaging than ear-piercing,”
Yes, it is. It is an amputation of a functional body part. Ear piercing isn’t.
“and the risk of infection is lower.”
And the rate of a permanent harm is 100% in circumcision.
“My point is that if it was a Christian practice rather than a Jewish and Muslim one, you wouldn’t see it banned. ”
LMAO. I think that no one should be permitted to indoctrinate ANY religion to children until they are 15 years old, and you really think that I give a damn which flavor of mind-virus you choose to cultivate???
“And usually part of being an adult is the right to raise your children as you see fit, including with religious indoctrination.”
And it shouldn’t be, but even so, so what? This isn’t indoctrination. This is the amputation of a functioning body part.
“So now a foreskin equals a finger. ”
When it comes to the right of a parent to do it to a child to further the parent’s religion (not the child’s, the parent’s) the principle is exactly the same.
“Neither is circumcision.”
Well, unless Jewish penises are different from those on every other human, you’re absolutely wrong.
“you really think that I give a damn which flavor of mind-virus you choose to cultivate?”
Oh, that’s so good. Woody, I am your fan.
@ hophmi
Be honest, and admit that if circumcision were a Christian practice, Europeans wouldn’t dream of banning it.
Well, I really can’t imagine that Christians would do something like that in this day and age. Besides, I oppose the circumcision of non-consenting minors on principle, even if it were a Christian ritual.
I don’t see any legislation to ban ear piercing of children, which also violates physical integrity
Ear piercing of children doesn’t happen without the children’s consent. Besides, making a hole in a body part is not the same as cutting off a body part.
I don’t see legislation to ban baptism, which is just as involuntary.
You don’t lose a body part during baptism.
German Lefty says: “…Be honest, and admit that if circumcision were a Christian practice, Europeans wouldn’t dream of banning it.
Well, I really can’t imagine that Christians would do something like that in this day and age…”
Well, at least over here, most people of Christian background do circumcise their children — and apparently still do.
As I mentioned, I was circumcised — and at the time (1958) it was routine.
It’s apparently gone out of fashion to some extent, but I was mildly surprised when my son — who is not circumcised — mentioned that he was still in a minority in high school.
He apparently got teased about it. Oh, the trauma…
“Well, I really can’t imagine that Christians would do something like that in this day and age. ”
Really? Why not? Surely, you can agree that Christianity has its own set of arcane practices. The Catholic Church still tells people not to use condoms, for G-d sakes.
“Besides, I oppose the circumcision of non-consenting minors on principle, even if it were a Christian ritual.”
I have no doubt that you do, but that’s not the point. The point is that if the practice were a Christian practice, European countries wouldn’t dream of banning it.
“Ear piercing of children doesn’t happen without the children’s consent. ”
1. Not true; people pierce the ears of infants and 2. Children can’t legally consent.
“Besides, making a hole in a body part is not the same as cutting off a body part.”
How so? It’s just as much mutilation and it comes with the risk of infection.
“You don’t lose a body part during baptism.”
Who cares? You get wet. It’s a physical act. It can be characterized as an arcane religious practice to which a child cannot consent, and I want it banned. Why shouldn’t it be? What’s your argument against banning it?
“Really? Why not? Surely, you can agree that Christianity has its own set of arcane practices. The Catholic Church still tells people not to use condoms, for G-d sakes.”
Point to one irreversible mutilation that Christians do to infants.
“I have no doubt that you do, but that’s not the point. The point is that if the practice were a Christian practice, European countries wouldn’t dream of banning it. ”
That’s not a point, that’s your prejudice mixed with your combination narcissism and victim complex.
“1. Not true; people pierce the ears of infants and 2. Children can’t legally consent.”
They also don’t lose the earlobe when it happens. But your argument is simply for making infant ear piercing illegal, which is probably a good policy to adopt.
“How so? It’s just as much mutilation and it comes with the risk of infection. ”
No, your infant genital mutilation is a much, much worse mutilation.
“Who cares? You get wet. It’s a physical act.”
Which does no permanent harm. Your amputation of the infant’s foreskin is, itself, a permanent harm.
“It can be characterized as an arcane religious practice to which a child cannot consent, and I want it banned. Why shouldn’t it be? What’s your argument against banning it?”
Because it does not permanent harm, unlike hacking off the tip of the kid’s penis, like you do. If you were to merely prick the skin with a needle, I wouldn’t supporting banning that, barbaric as it would be.
Actually, there has been a recent court decision banning piercings for children incapable of consent. It should also be noted that politicians, doctors and professional piercers alike recommend piercings only for older children capable of consent, about ~14 and up.
German Lefty says: “Sadly, the politicians don’t listen to the people…”
Well, the people aren’t always right. It’s possible that after Pearl Harbor, Americans would have supported hanging our entire Japanese population. It doesn’t follow that this should have been done.
One could even see a bar on circumcision as an example of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ Of course, I realize there are other aspects to it besides that — but this isn’t a slam dunk either way.
@ Colin:
Well, the people aren’t always right.
That’s undoubtedly true. Actually, circumcision of non-consenting minors must be banned in any case, regardless of whether the majority approves of it or not. It’s a human rights violation.
German Lefty says: “… It’s a human rights violation.”
Well, there you are. I see it as an example of the totalitarian state inserting itself into a sphere of life where it has no legitimate role to play.
I was circumcised. I chose not to circumcise my son. I don’t particularly object to either decision (in my view, it’s just not that frigging important), but I am quite sure that in neither case was it any of the state’s business.
“It’s a human rights violation.”
You’re entitled to your opinion. As a matter of law, it is part of the free exercise of religion. Banning it would constitute a human rights violation.
“Well, there you are. I see it as an example of the totalitarian state inserting itself into a sphere of life where it has no legitimate role to play.”
The state absolutely has a role in preventing someone from hacking off parts of a baby.
“You’re entitled to your opinion. As a matter of law, it is part of the free exercise of religion. Banning it would constitute a human rights violation.”
Nonsense. Your right ends the moment someone else’s rights begin. Once you start slicing open a baby’s body, you’re rights are done. Children are not your property.
“Well, the people aren’t always right. It’s possible that after Pearl Harbor, Americans would have supported hanging our entire Japanese population. It doesn’t follow that this should have been done.”
So refraining from hanging Japanese people is supposed to be equal to allowing people to slice off portions of a baby’s penis???
Woody Tanaka: “…So refraining from hanging Japanese people is supposed to be equal to allowing people to slice off portions of a baby’s penis???”
No…so it’s not an infallible moral guideline to assume that whatever the mob howls for must be right.
“No…so it’s not an infallible moral guideline to assume that whatever the mob howls for must be right.”
No, and no where here is anybody basing the immorality of this practice on “mob” opinion.
Gawd!…. penises are now worthy of a international political fight?
What next in this circus.
Here’s a thought…let them do their circumsions any way they want to….if they don’t care about the dangerous aspects in the unsanitary and primitive method of it why should anyone else.
Let them whack and suck away. It’s their problem. No point in anyone wasting their time telling them any better.
@ American:
let them do their circumsions any way they want to….if they don’t care about the dangerous aspects in the unsanitary and primitive method of it why should anyone else.
Sigh. You don’t get it. They don’t do this stuff to themselves. They do it to their defenceless, non-consenting children. And that’s the problem. People have the right to mutilate their own body all they want, but NOT the body of someone else. The person who is affected by the circumcision must be the one who decides about the circumcision.
On the money, German Lefty.
German Lefty wrote,
From a rational human rights position, this argument is difficult to refute.
Religious cult beliefs should never be used to undermine universal human rights.
“From a rational human rights position, this argument is difficult to refute.”
It’s not hard to refute at all. Many cultures retain various practices that require some encroachment on the “physical integrity” of a child, like ear piercing. The notion that there is some red line on physical integrity is completely wrong. The red line, in recent years, has been whether the practice is actually physically harmful and has a high incidence of complication. FGM was banned because it was overall extremely harmful and had a very high risk of complication. Male circumcision was not because the risks of complication were minimal. Ear piercing is not because the risks of complication are minimal.
To argue against male circumcision is to adopt the views of the antisemites of old, who banned the practice for no other reason than it was a way to persecute those of a minority faith. That is all that is happening now, except the perpetrators are self-styled secular progressives who seem determined to play into the right-wing stereotype of their rank as authoritarian in their thinking.
Religious cult beliefs should never be used to undermine universal human rights.
Exactly right. But if you tell that to German Jews, they’ll call you a Nazi. They seem to forget that Nazis are AGAINST the human rights of Jews, whereas we SUPPORT the human rights of Jews.
To argue against male circumcision is to adopt the views of the antisemites of old, who banned the practice for no other reason than it was a way to persecute those of a minority faith.
Thanks, Hophmi. You just proved my point about the Nazi accusation.
That is all that is happening now, except the perpetrators are self-styled secular progressives who seem determined to play into the right-wing stereotype of their rank as authoritarian in their thinking.
Nope. We are not authoritarian. The people who want to cut off someone else’s skin against his will are authoritarian.
hophmi,
If Western nations decide to ban circumcision on the grounds of protecting the human rights of infants, you will probably not be able to stop them. We may be in the realm of irreconcilable cultural differences here. My sense of things is that public opinion in advanced Western nations is moving towards regulating or banning circumcision on philosophical and scientific grounds — it has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism. Try Googling the controversy for the big picture.
“Exactly right. But if you tell that to German Jews, they’ll call you a Nazi.”
No, they won’t. They’ll just call you oblivious and obtuse, because that’s exactly what you are.
“They seem to forget that Nazis are AGAINST the human rights of Jews, whereas we SUPPORT the human rights of Jews.”
Save it, really. Your position is unbelievable arrogant and self-righteous. Your position has nothing to do with the human rights of Jews, who by and large oppose your restrictions on their faith and see them, rightly, as just the latest in a long history of attempts to use the state to persecute them based on their religious beliefs. Your position is first and foremost about compelling others through legislation to adopt your view of society. It’s no different, really, than the forced conversions of the past. It’s no different from any other legislation that uses the state to dictate social morality to others. The Christians of the Inquisition were trying to save the heathens from themselves too. Yours is a secular inquisition, but it’s little different in its willingness to use force to compel practice.
The lesson you should have learned from the past is to live and let live, and to respect the rights of others to practice their faith, just as they respect your right to practice your faith or not to practice at all.
German Lefty says: “Exactly right. But if you tell that to German Jews, they’ll call you a Nazi. They seem to forget that Nazis are AGAINST the human rights of Jews, whereas we SUPPORT the human rights of Jews.”
And what I see you doing is supporting the untrammeled authority of the state and its intrusion into spheres of life even the most demented despot of the past would have regarded as none of his frigging business.
It is a point. However benevolent it may be, the modern state is infinitely more intrusive than any past political system.
@ hophmi:
the latest in a long history of attempts to use the state to persecute them based on their religious beliefs.
Yeah, right. It’s all about persecuting Jews. The world only revolves around Jews. The purpose in life of every single gentile on this planet is to make the Jews feel miserable. Hophmi, how can you be so egocentric and paranoid? By the way, did you know that the court case was about Muslim parents who had their son circumcised? It had nothing to do with Jews.
Your position is first and foremost about compelling others through legislation to adopt your view of society.
No, it’s not. It’s about repecting the human rights of defenceless children.
It’s no different from any other legislation that uses the state to dictate social morality to others.
It’s not about morality.
Yours is a secular inquisition, but it’s little different in its willingness to use force to compel practice.
No. Jews have to abide by the law, just like any other group of people. The law forbids doing bodily harm to others.
The lesson you should have learned from the past is to live and let live, and to respect the rights of others to practice their faith, just as they respect your right to practice your faith or not to practice at all.
Sigh. Why is it impossible for Zionists to argue without invoking the Holocaust? Look, it’s not me who doesn’t let other people live their lives the way they want. Parents who cut off a part of their boy’s body don’t let their boy live his life the way he wants. They are the ones who impose something irreversible on someone else. By the way, I am all for freedom of religion. However, religious practices must not violate other laws. Religious people are not above the law. They have to abide by the law, just like everyone else.
“The lesson you should have learned from the past is to live and let live, and to respect the rights of others to practice their faith, just as they respect your right to practice your faith or not to practice at all.”
How far are you willing to go? If my religion required me to tattoo the face of my baby, should I be permitted to do so? If my religion required me to cut off their pinkies, should I be permitted to do so?
Let’s get away from permant changes… If my religion required me to grope the breasts of random women on the street, should I be permitted to do so?
Or are you simply looking for an exemption for YOUR religion?
Woody Tanaka: “How far are you willing to go? If my religion required me to tattoo the face of my baby, should I be permitted to do so?”
Well now, that’s an interesting point.
There are a number of ethnic groups around the world that are heavily into tattooing.
At a guess, at least some of them tattoo their children. Maybe you should get right on that and stop this outrage.
“At a guess, at least some of them tattoo their children. Maybe you should get right on that and stop this outrage.”
I think that both should be outlawed. How about you, ColinWright. If someone wanted, because of their “religion,” to tattoo cross on their 8-day old infant’s face, should the state stop them in the interest of the child?? How about if it was to go on the back instead of the face???
@ lefty
“Sigh. You don’t get it”
Actually I do agree with you….was just expressing disgust @ how the circumcisers are stuck in their primitive rituals here in the 21 century.
@ American:
Actually I do agree with you….was just expressing disgust @ how the circumcisers are stuck in their primitive rituals here in the 21 century.
Oh, okay. Well, then I am sorry for doing you injustice.
“Actually I do agree with you….was just expressing disgust @ how the circumcisers are stuck in their primitive rituals here in the 21 century.”
I know, and those Christians too. Who dunks a baby in water for religious purposes? What kind of crazy person feeds little kids a cracker and wine and tells them it’s the blood and body of a messiah and then tells them they’re going to hell if they have premarital sex?
We should ban it all, right?
Hoppy, if you think that baptism and communion are the equivalent of an amputation of a functional body part, you really are a psychopath.
Who dunks a baby in water for religious purposes? What kind of crazy person feeds little kids a cracker and wine and tells them it’s the blood and body of a messiah and then tells them they’re going to hell if they have premarital sex?
All this is not bodily harm and it’s not irreversible. You are comparing apples and oranges.
>> Who dunks a baby in water for religious purposes?
It’s dunking, not waterboarding, and it does not involve mutilation of any body parts.
>> What kind of crazy person feeds little kids a cracker and wine and tells them it’s the blood and body of a messiah …
Blatant anti-Christianism (“crazy”, “cracker and wine”) aside, this ritual does involve indoctrination but it does not involve mutilation of any body parts.
>> Many cultures retain various practices that require some encroachment on the “physical integrity” of a child, like ear piercing. … We should ban it all, right?
Yup.
hophmi September 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Uh huh. Tell me, how many bits are missing from a perfect little image of Go-d after a Christian Baptism?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day…
I find myself agreeing with Hophmi.
I remember a ‘Far Side’ cartoon. It showed an old veteran type. The caption read ‘It was hell, recalls former child.’
…and indeed, the ways parents and cultures come up with to damage and distort their children are many and legion. Circumcision just isn’t especially remarkable in that respect. I really don’t see it as any of the state’s business.
Colin,
Which religious tradition, if any, has most influenced your thinking about circumcision?
NONE! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, officer sean.
eljay: “>> Who dunks a baby in water for religious purposes?
It’s dunking, not waterboarding, and it does not involve mutilation of any body parts…”
It’s waterboarding! It’s Gestapo-type torture. It’s…
Honestly. People were seriously calling circumcision ‘castration’ and ‘amputation.’ Calling baptism ‘waterboarding’ seems positively moderate by comparison.
…ironically, from the baby’s point of view, circumcision and baptism are probably much the same. A sudden and unpleasant experience, occurring without warning — I imagine promptly followed by a hug and reassurance, given decent parents. Yet another adventure of infancy…it’s probably full of them.
“Uh huh. Tell me, how many bits are missing from a perfect little image of Go-d after a Christian Baptism?”
Who cares? What right do you have to subject any non-consenting child to any physical religious practice of any kind? When I say there is no evidence circumcision is harmful, many of you send me pseudoscience about the psychological damage. Trust me: it’s way more psychologically harmful to tell children over and over again that they’re going to hell for things like gay sex.
Clearly we should ban these psychologically damaging practices, right?
“It’s dunking, not waterboarding, and it does not involve mutilation of any body parts.”
So what? The child didn’t agree to be dunked. I can tell you right now, if you dunk me without my permission, I am calling the f*cking gendarme.
“Blatant anti-Christianism (“crazy”, “cracker and wine”) aside, this ritual does involve indoctrination but it does not involve mutilation of any body parts.”
Don’t go there. I’m not making an anti-Christian argument. I’m simply making an analogy. To the secular person who is not a believer, these practices can seem just as arcane as circumcision. As I’ve shown here, human rights law does not draw a line at physical integrity; it doesn’t outlaw piercing, which is a pretty common practice.
“Yup.”
Yes, yup, but we don’t, and no German doctor is favoring a ban on ear piercing with children, even though it can cause infection and there is no reason to do it other than cosmetics. Know why? Because a lot of Germans pierce their childrens’ ears.
“Hoppy, if you think that baptism and communion are the equivalent of an amputation of a functional body part, you really are a psychopath.”
A foreskin is not a body part. It’s a piece of skin on a body part.
Give me an argument as to why it would be wrong to ban baptism on the basis that children cannot consent to it.
“Circumcision just isn’t especially remarkable in that respect. “…Colin
A state may not have the right to “ban” , you can argue over that.
But I do think a state can say how it has to be done in keeping with accepted and national standards for heath and safety.
We have laws that criminalize cruel and even unsanitary, disease causing conditions in the keeping of animals… why should babies be different.
Indeed. My parents, as all Christian parents do I suppose, had the choice to circumcise my whatsit or leave it be. Thankfully they chose the latter.
>> People were seriously calling circumcision ‘castration’ and ‘amputation.’
And that’s a bit over-the-top, IMO. But even if one were to refer benignly to it as “just a little tickle”, it wouldn’t change the fact that circumcision involves mutilation* of a child’s penis.
(*Mutilation: … an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body … )
Baptism and communion do not involve mutilation.
A foreskin is not a ‘functional body part.’ What function does it perform?
“ColinWright says:
September 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm
A foreskin is not a ‘functional body part.’ What function does it perform?
”
Google is your friend:
link to birthtakesavillage.com
“Who cares? What right do you have to subject any non-consenting child to any physical religious practice of any kind?”
You’re argument is misguided. No one is saying to ban male infant genital mutilation because a non-consenting baby is subject to a physical religious practice, we’re saying to ban it because you’re doing permanent, unnecessary harm to the child without its consent. No one gives a damn that you think it’s religious or not. The baby’s body is not yours to hack a part for your vanity.
Your attempt to reframe this issue is transparent nonsense.
“When I say there is no evidence circumcision is harmful…”
Every circumcision is harmful because it means the removal of a functioning body part.
“So what? The child didn’t agree to be dunked. I can tell you right now, if you dunk me without my permission, I am calling the f*cking gendarme. ”
Typical narcissistic hoppy. It’s wrong to get YOU wet, but YOU get to hack a baby’s johnson apart as much as you want. Sociopath.
“Don’t go there. I’m not making an anti-Christian argument.”
No, you’re just using the language which has long been associated with vile anti-Christian bigotry.
“As I’ve shown here, human rights law does not draw a line at physical integrity”
And that’s the point: it should. If there is no medical reason for it, it should be banned. Period. If that mean no ear piercing, then find. Ban ear piercing.
“A foreskin is not a body part. It’s a piece of skin on a body part.”
Wrong. it’s a functioning body part. The same way that lips or eye lids are. (More so lips, as both foreskin and lips have both protective and sensory functions.)
“Give me an argument as to why it would be wrong to ban baptism on the basis that children cannot consent to it.”
Because it does no harm, so there is no counter balance to the parent’s exercise of religion. Every circumcision does harm in that it removes a functioning body part for reasons of the parent’s vanity.
German Lefty says: “Sigh. You don’t get it. They don’t do this stuff to themselves. They do it to their defenceless, non-consenting children…”
I’d just retort that you don’t get it. You may applaud the arrival of the totalitarian state, but I don’t. Barring cases of gross abuse — and I refuse to regard the kind of circumcision we’re discussing as such — the state just has no business interfering in how parents raise their children.
@ Colin:
the state just has no business interfering in how parents raise their children.
Cutting off a body part does not fall in the category “raising”. Beating your children up is also regarded as bodily harm and therefore illegal.
“they’ll call you a Nazi” – Lefty
“No, they won’t” – hophmi
I’m not sure who of you is right. – In Nazi Germany circumcision was never an issue of anti-Jewish propaganda and never outlawed. If it had been, well, you might not even talk about it today.
The point of ritual circumcision for both Jews and Muslims is this: ‘Boy, you are once and for all part of our community. You can’t remove the stamp on your body that you are a Jew/Muslim and will always be’.
For Jews this command from God is mandatory, Genesis 17,4 even says:
“An uncircumcised man shall be stamped out from his people.”
As far as I know, in Islam circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran and one can become a Muslim without being circumcised. This is not possible if one wants to convert to Judaism.
It’s Genesis 17,14
I want to add why I think the Nazis didn’t bother about circumcision. They thought Jews can’t be assimilated and ‘Germanized’ anyway. You can only get rid of them.
I once talked to a Jewish woman about Sigmund Freud. How Jewish he was.
Her argument was: “He was circumcised.”
“You may applaud the arrival of the totalitarian state, but I don’t. ”
You object to the state interferring in the case of child abuse by parents?
You have to find a balance between totalitarian and civilized society.
Civilized meaning some authority control is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to innocent people.
Yea the state may over do it and be incompetent…but civilized means the effort still has to made.
Colin -
“the state just has no business interfering in how parents raise their children.”
——————–
So why not allow parents to have their girls circumcised so they will never have sexual pleasure in their lives – that’s just the way they raise their girls.
America outlawed the Mormon practice of polygamy – why interfer?
I agree with you on principle, in particular in America. America is made up of so many, two thousand?, creeds, denominations and cults with all kinds of religious practices. When you start inferfering in one you will end up interfering in all others – that might be the end of religious freedom.
But in America, once you call your group a ‘church’ and ‘religion’, you are off limits to government intervention. Scientology is a good case in point.
- Look, burning witches was once also a religious practice. So was ‘driving out the devil’ by Catholic priests from mentally ill people – not long ago.
The Catholic Church adapted to the enlightenment – they even acknowledged that Charles Darwin was right – so should Judaism and Islam.
American says: “…You have to find a balance between totalitarian and civilized society.
Civilized meaning some authority control is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to innocent people…”
Indeed — and circumcision falls rather obviously well to one side of that line.
It is a trivial operation without meaningful consequence except in the overheated imaginations of people who apparently lack anything of genuine significance in their lives.
German Lefty says: “@ Colin:
the state just has no business interfering in how parents raise their children.
Cutting off a body part does not fall in the category “raising”.”
First off, I’m not sure ‘cutting off a body part’ is really a fair way of describing it. It’s not like we’re talking about chopping off a hand or something. A foreskin really is a functionless scrap of skin.
Second, for traditional Jews at least, circumcision does indeed fall into the category of ‘raising’ a child. To my mind, the act falls way, way short of the sort of gross abuse that would justify interference by the state under any sane theory of political authority.
…and that Germany et al are actually essaying to interfere in this way just goes to show that they have begun to subscribe to a theory of political authority that is in fact insane. Indeed, I doubt very much if this would be being pursued at all if it weren’t a matter of it only affecting two minorities, one of which is very small and the other of which is very unpopular. If the majority of Germans actually belonged to a religion in which circumcision was a traditional and still normal practice, this issue wouldn’t have come up at all.
“Indeed — and circumcision falls rather obviously well to one side of that line.”
Yes, on the line constituting the abuse of a child.
“It is a trivial operation without meaningful consequence”
Nonsense. It’s the amputation of a functioning body part.
“First off, I’m not sure ‘cutting off a body part’ is really a fair way of describing it.”
Sure it is. A foreskin is as much a body part an ear or a lip or a hand.
“A foreskin really is a functionless scrap of skin.”
Wrong. Foreskin has both protective and sensory functions.
” To my mind, the act falls way, way short of the sort of gross abuse that would justify interference by the state under any sane theory of political authority.”
And I believe it is a per se act of child abuse in the absence of medical necessity.
Hey talknic!
What religion are you?
@ hophmi:
According to talknic’s bio, he is “an old Jewish guy”. I guess you’ll now accuse him of self-hatred.
I’m a very religiously atheist Jew.
Why? My religion is irrelevant to my dislike of the unnecessary and barbaric mutilation of innocent babies …. under any guise
“Why? My religion is irrelevant to my dislike of the unnecessary and barbaric mutilation of innocent babies …. under any guise”
You have a perfect right to dislike the practice. You do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
“You have a perfect right to dislike the practice. You do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
My religion requires me to shave the head of anyone I choose.
You have the perfect right to dislike the practice. you do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
My religion requires me to force random people on the street to drink Pepsi from a dirty glass.
You have the perfect right to dislike the practice. you do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
My religion requires me to tatoo the faces of people who are asleep or in comas.
You have the perfect right to dislike the practice. you do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
Etc.
hophmi says: ” “Why? My religion is irrelevant to my dislike of the unnecessary and barbaric mutilation of innocent babies …. under any guise”
You have a perfect right to dislike the practice. You do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.”
Oh dear. Hear hear. As I mentioned, I chose to not have my son circumcised: it’s not like I am a partisan for the practice.
However, far more important is the principle that it’s none of the state’s damned business!
“You do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view”
The hell I don’t. Democracy allows me to vote for what I see as right. Mutilating babies is not right. That you advocate the abuse of little children in this day and age, for some imaginary G-od who didn’t even bother showing up for the Holocaust, is amazing. I guess there really is a sucker born very minute.
Woody Tanaka:
Significantly, all your examples involve doing things to other people over whom you have no legitimate authority.
Unless you’re proposing a glorious new leap forward for the totalitarian state, yes, parents do have authority over their child, and yes, that includes the authority to remove a scrap of skin.
“Significantly, all your examples involve doing things to other people over whom you have no legitimate authority.”
My religion requires me to break by child’s arm by beating it with a baseball bat.
You have the perfect right to dislike the practice. you do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
My religion requires me to tattoo curse words on the face of my infant child.
You have the perfect right to dislike the practice. you do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
My religion requires me to cut off the breasts of my infant daughter.
You have the perfect right to dislike the practice. you do not have a right to use the state to force others to adopt your point of view.
“Unless you’re proposing a glorious new leap forward for the totalitarian state, yes, parents do have authority over their child, and yes, that includes the authority to remove a scrap of skin.”
Parents having authority over their child does not extend to having authority to abuse their child. Removing a foreskin where not medically necessary is abuse.
@ Colin & hophmi:
I agree with everything that Woody wrote in this thread.
By the way, if it doesn’t grow back after cutting it off, then it’s a body part.
Outlawing baptism is like forbidding parents to wash or bathe their children.
Marine Le pen wants to ban hijabs AND kippas in France ! WTF ?
link to haaretz.com
Can’t wait to see AIPAC joining the Salafis on this one
I also have to note the decided irony that many of those who are up in arms at the thought of an infant involuntarily having a scrap of skin removed ten months after conception would unhesitatingly support the right of his mother to have him killed outright seven months after conception.
There is an inconsistency here. As so often, I think people are lining up and picking sides based on whether they perceive a given position as being owned by the left or owned by the right — there’s no consistent outlook behind their choice.
Surely, if a parent has a right to terminate the life of a fetus outright, three months later she still retains the right to remove a functionless scrap of skin? Functionally, a newborn infant is not all that different from a fetus in an advanced stage of development — how can you justify a complete reversal of your moral position? The very same people who would decry any notion of the right of the unborn child to life at all will profess total outrage at the thought of the most insignificant possible cultural marker being imposed on the newborn infant. Christ, it’s one step up from ear piercing. Give it a rest.
I think there is a decided lack of tolerance here, as I do think that within a very broad range, one has to let people and cultures do whatever they see fit. Now, wake me up if someone wants to practice suttee or female infanticide or even any of the more serious forms of genital mutilation — but we’re not talking about that here.
So why not let them do as they wish?
“Surely, if a parent has a right to terminate the life of a fetus outright, three months later she still retains the right to remove a functionless scrap of skin?”
Nope. The rights a woman possesses vis-à-vis abortion end at birth. And it’s not functionless. Your ignorance on that issue is astounding.
“…Nope. The rights a woman possesses vis-à-vis abortion end at birth. And it’s not functionless. Your ignorance on that issue is astounding…”
It’s not ignorance. I’m fully aware of the rather overheated theories some people who in my opinion are looking for something to fret about hang on the presence or the absence of a foreskin in sex — believe it or not, other factors are considerably more important.
As to ‘a woman’s rights ending…’ there’s just not that much difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn beyond location. On the one hand, the fetus is increasingly viable — wait too long and thing will actually live if you let when you take it out. On the other hand, a newborn cannot intelligently see and is in fact not coherently aware of its surroundings.
…and yet, you would accord a woman an unqualified right to literally destroy the one completely without legal bar or moral consequence — and simultaneously raise your arms in horror at the thought that she might remove the most insignificant scrap of skin imaginable from the other.
You have not thought this through. Among some African tribes, an infant isn’t considered alive until it’s a year old — which is a view which has something to be said for it in a number of respects. If we just took that attitude, by your criteria, we could not merely circumcise the little sucker, but chop it in half if it suited us.
These aren’t issues that respond well to moral absolutes. Given the physical triviality of the operation in question, and it’s importance to some people, the state should just keep its big snout out. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one — and by all means, don’t circumcise your kid if you don’t want to.
“It’s not ignorance.”
Yes, it is. If you consider this functioning body part “the most insignficant scrip of skin imaginable,” you must be either grossly ignorant of biology or fooling yourself.
“As to ‘a woman’s rights ending…’ there’s just not that much difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn beyond location.”
No, there’s a lot of difference. In the first, the fetus is still in utero, with all that entails. I understand that anti-abortion people hold the lives of women to be worth next to nothing, but that difference is significantly more than mere location.
“you would accord a woman an unqualified right to literally destroy the one completely without legal bar or moral consequence”
I have never discussed my view of late-term abortion, so you are simply pulling nonsense out of thin air.
“You have not thought this through.”
Yes, I have. I simply reject the simpleton, anti-scientific notions that passes for reasoning among the anti-woman, anti-abortion crowd that would equalize a fetus, or, even worse, a fertilized egg, with a newborn child.
“by your criteria”
Not my criteria. You’re dancing with a strawman of your own making. The situations are unrelated.
But the larger point is this: the abortion argument is irrelevant. The fact remains that whatever one’s believes regarding the rights of fetuses prior to birth, the law (and all reasonable moral people [sorry, probably-fictitious "African tribes"]) recognizes that all human rights are owed to a human once birth occurs. So the abortion argument is meaningless, actually less than meaningless.
“These aren’t issues that respond well to moral absolutes.”
I disagree. Male infant genital mutilation is child abuse. Pure and simple.
“Given the physical triviality of the operation in question, and it’s importance to some people,”
Who gives a damn whether it’s “important” for someone to hack off someone else’s body part? Their rights are non-existent compared to the rights of the infants to their body integrity. If these abusive parents want to cut off a foreskin let them cut their own off and leave the kids alone.
I should also note that by pointing out the views of what I consider to be the anti-woman elements of the anti-abortion movement, that I hope that you don’t share those regressive views. In reviewing my post, I was not clear: I know that many or most in the anti-abortion movement hold those views; I don’t know if you do, so I don’t want to accuse you if you don’t.
“and all reasonable moral people”
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how self-righteous and filled with ironic demagogic language it is.
“You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how self-righteous and filled with ironic demagogic language it is.”
Says the man who wants to strap down defenseless babies and hack away at their genitals.
hophmi,
You have a well-established pattern by now: you enter Mondoweiss with a burst of angry and abusive aggression, quickly get tripped up and jammed up on logic and facts, and then run off and disappear, leaving a host of unanswered discussion points on the table. Then you come back and repeat the process, over and over again, each time trying to pretend that you didn’t lose the previous round of debate. Did you think no one has noticed?
When are you going to answer my points about Moses Hess? When are you going to point us to your writings which demonstrate a greater concern for American than Israeli issues and interests?
You should admit that Moses Hess was in fact the intellectual godfather of both Zionism and Communism (which are both messianic ideological movements, one of which has already collapsed in a dramatic way, as messianic movements are wont to do) and that there is no record of you demonstrating greater concern for American than Israeli issues and interests. The truth is, you couldn’t care less about American interests and values.
“Says the man who wants to strap down defenseless babies and hack away at their genitals.”
Exhibit A.
“Exhibit A.”
And it’s exactly what you want to do, except you want to use euphemisms. Big surprise.
“You have a well-established pattern by now: you enter Mondoweiss with a burst of angry and abusive aggression, quickly get tripped up and jammed up on logic and facts, and then run off and disappear, leaving a host of unanswered discussion points on the table.”
LOL. I don’t run off. I don’t have unlimited amounts of time to waste on all of you.
And Sean, cut the sympathy act. Just about everyone who posts here is far more abusive to me than I am to them. If you think otherwise, then you simply do not read.
“When are you going to answer my points about Moses Hess?”
Once again, Sean, you make a lot of ridiculous assumptions, upon which you build your sophistry. Unfortunately, you’re a fairly good sophist, so despite the fact that your assumptions are way off, you have the rhetorical skills to make them look more true than they actually are.
There is little relevant about Moses Hess to modern Zionism. I know few people who would define him as an intellectual godfather of Zionism or Communism. I have already told you; I don’t believe you understand what messianism is. Communism is not a messianic movement either. I think you, as usual, have a tendency simply to demonize ideas you don’t like. Communism is a political movement and a theory of government and society. So is Zionism, albeit on a much smaller scale. Instead of attaching your own subjective inflammatory labels to them and the people who subscribe to them, why don’t you try actually dealing with facts?
A movement with utopian overtones is not a “messianic movement.” There’s no central messiah to Communism or Zionism. There is one is the fundamentalist theological underpinning of the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is also one in the Vatican. Those are Messianic movements.
And the notion that Messianist movements collapse is silly. Christianity is a Messianic movement. It hasn’t collapsed. Maoist China was essentially a cult of personality. It hasn’t collapsed. Iran may well collapse, mostly because its clerics are behind the times and the country is full of young people who want democracy rather than authoritarianism.
“and that there is no record of you demonstrating greater concern for American than Israeli issues and interests. ”
There is a long record, actually, but I don’t owe you diddly squat in that respect.
“The truth is, you couldn’t care less about American interests and values.”
The truth is, you can’t get through a post without a bigoted ad hominem attack.
hophmi wrote,
That is because you are a moron, who writes and thinks at the level of a mediocre high school student. You have no access to the circles in which serious people discuss this topic or any other topic of complexity. You never research any topic you discuss — you just spout wildly with no grounding in anything, like a child.
Re: Hess:
link to muse.jhu.edu
The substantive discussion about Israel, Zionism and messianism is vast — if you tried using Google Books and Google Scholar with the appropriate search expressions (which you will never be able to figure out, being the person you are), you might get a handle on the subject.
One can often make good assessments and predictions about political movements based on understanding their full cultural context, influencers, predecessors, etc.
The writings of Moses Hess provide important insights into the core values, attitudes and agenda of Zionism, which is indeed one of the most conspicuous messianic movements in world history — and almost certainly one of the most conspicuous false messianic movements in Jewish history.
My track record in making accurate predictions about large-scale cultural movements and trends is excellent, hophmi. How about you?
“That is because you are a moron, who writes and thinks at the level of a mediocre high school student.”
Ad hominem . . .
“You have no access to the circles in which serious people discuss this topic or any other topic of complexity.”
LOL. What on earth do you know of the circles I travel in?
“You never research any topic you discuss — you just spout wildly with no grounding in anything, like a child.”
And on and on. No, I don’t make google search lists. You’re right. LOL.
“The substantive discussion about Israel, Zionism and messianism is vast ”
It may very well be vast. I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. Get it? I don’t agree with the analysis. I’ve read plenty on the messianism of the settlers; the last thing I read was Gershom Gorenberg’s “The Unmaking of Israel,” which is as good an explanation of what’s going on as anybody’s. I’m not ignorant of the issue. Like everything else, you distort your sources, and graft the views of a minority onto the entire enterprise. I’ve told you exactly why I disagree with you. You’ve not responded. You’ve simply repeated yourself again and again, using arbitrary -isms, not research.
“The writings of Moses Hess provide important insights into the core values, attitudes and agenda of Zionism, which is indeed one of the most conspicuous messianic movements in world history — and almost certainly one of the most conspicuous false messianic movements in Jewish history.”
There you go again. There’s not a source in here. It’s just a collection of claims you make. There is no wealth of sources indicating that Zionism is “one of the most conspicuous messianic movements in world history,” and certainly no wealth of sources indicating that it is “almost certainly one of the most conspicuous false messianic movements in Jewish history.”
“My track record in making accurate predictions about large-scale cultural movements and trends is excellent, hophmi. ”
ROTFLMFAO. Based on what? What hubris. What record do you have in prognostication?
It doesn’t matter, really. As I said before, your assumptions are wrong, and you distort sources like crazy. You’re here because you know you’re not going to be seriously challenged. And you won’t convince anyone either.
I’m not inclined to waste my time chasing down all of the false flags of your diseased minds. Make a real argument, based on facts, not conspiracies, and I might find time to care.
hophmi says: ““Says the man who wants to strap down defenseless babies and hack away at their genitals.”
Exhibit A.”
One of the most damning indictments of the arguments of the anti-circumcisionists is that to make their case, they consistently have to exaggerate what they’re talking about. It’s everything up to to castration, and rarely less than ‘chopping off a body part’ — as if it were a whole hand or something that we’re talking about.
…and it is a piece of skin. Moreover, a functionless piece of skin. I wasn’t even aware something was supposed to be there until some point well on in my life — and that I can’t remember the precise time of this traumatic discovery is testimony to just how trivial it really is. It’s really just not an issue unless you make it one.
I cannot think of anything sillier to focus on. Given that no one is proposing that anyone be forced to do it to their kids, I can’t really treat any of this with much respect. At best, it reflects a grotesquely inflated notion of the role of the state in society — and to me, that’s a considerably more dangerous notion than that an infant boy should be circumcised. As long as it’s your own infant, have at it.
“It’s everything up to to castration, and rarely less than ‘chopping off a body part’ — as if it were a whole hand or something that we’re talking about.”
What’s the exaggeration? It’s someone else’s body part and they cut it off for the parent’s vanity.
“…and it is a piece of skin. Moreover, a functionless piece of skin.”
That’s simply not true, and you’re repeating it doesn’t change the reality. It has protective and sensory functions.
” I wasn’t even aware something was supposed to be there until some point well on in my life”
And if everyone around you had their lips cut off in infancy (another “piece of skin with sensory and protective functions) you might not have known you were supposed to have lips.
“Given that no one is proposing that anyone be forced to do it to their kids, I can’t really treat any of this with much respect.”
No, but parents are forcing their infants to suffer this procedure. That’s harm per se. And that’s the problem with it.
” As long as it’s your own infant, have at it.”
Because infants are property? What next, branding?
“A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible.”
And the other half of humanity, the one without the appendage, is not even worthy of consideration.
Elisabeth says: ““A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible.”
And the other half of humanity, the one without the appendage, is not even worthy of consideration.”
There is the point that you really don’t have any skin at stake in this particular game.
According to Jewish Orthodoxy the female half of Jewry can’t understand the Bible anyway.
“A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible.”
One could look at that another way Elisabeth. All humanity is born predisposed to understand the bile, but only one half, the one that thinks through their appendage, needs a tweak to fully understand its context.
Tobias says: “…All humanity is born predisposed to understand the bile, but only one half, the one that thinks through their appendage, needs a tweak to fully understand its context.”
Suddenly, it all falls into place. All the Boy’s bullshit…here I was thinking it was because he was seventeen, but now I realize…
He was never circumcised. Worth a try, anyway — and my Swiss Army knife is right here, too. ‘Son, come here for a minute…’
Why do I have a feeling this is going to be even harder than getting him to put on a decent shirt before we go to a restaurant? Ah well, a father’s work is never done…brb
“A man who is not circumcised cannot understand the context of the Bible.” Rabbi Goldberg said, “‘It is very, very important.”
———————————————————-
I think there is actually a (Jewish) neurological theory behind it: The intense pain of the circumcision leaves an imprint on the brain of the infant that changes it in a way to become a Jewish brain so it can grasp the idea of the covenant of the Jews with God.
– That’s why the Rabbis don’t accept that the circumcision should be performed with anesthesia. The trauma caused by the pain is the religious point.
In Islam circumcision is more of a tradition than a necessary condition to be a Muslim and believe in Allah and Muhammed.
>> The intense pain of the circumcision leaves an imprint on the brain of the infant that changes it in a way to become a Jewish brain …
Wow, I have a Jewish brain! Mmmm…I must say, I like the feeling of +15! :-)