Several people have been asking me to start a blog for some time now. I don’t really see myself as a blogger—but here goes my first.
The move to ban circumcision in San Francisco has gathered enough petition signatures to be included on the November ballot in that city. The measure’s proponents claim to be acting out of ethical and humane interest as opponents of genital mutilation. This web site link indicates at least some anti-Semites within their ranks-- http://pajamasmedia.com/
My own feelings on circumcision as a Jewish ritual are very mixed.
- The claim of this ritual on our people’s psyche is very strong. It reaches back to our mythic biblical past. It is a defining ritual—perhaps THE defining ritual. Therein lays also part of the difficulty.
- Circumcision as a Jewish ritual is intrinsically sexist. If this is the rite that defines who is a full covenanted member of the Jewish people—no women need apply.
- Medical evidence now seems to be neutral as to whether it is medically advisable or preferred.
- There are strong moral qualms. It is a form of genital mutilation that causes pain to the infant.
I therefore have a small degree of sympathy with those who would oppose this rite yet at the end of the day I stand strongly against the San Francisco movement. It would have government forbid the most ancient of religious practices. How can this be a pressing item of concern in today’s America?
Totally agree. It also seems to be a slippery slope. If this passes, what intrusion into religious practice is next?
ReplyDeleteAs an attorney with many years of practice include more than a few in the area of heath, civil rights and human rights, I am utterly and totally appalled by the San Francisco referendum. It is NOT, as our good Rabbi contends, worthy of "mixed feelings."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, if the ban on circumcision is passed by the voters of San Francisco, such an action would be overturned by the Federal Courts all the way to and including the US Supreme Court. And in the interim, an injunction will be granted forbiding the referandum to operate as law.
The rationale SHOULD be clear; it is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The referandum is an unwarranted instrusion into a longstanding and accepted religious practice, and fundamental (albeit, symbolic) tenet of a tradional and well-established Faith. Morever, there is no COMPELLING public interest to justify its denial to a substantial number of religious adherents, and well of those who wish to undergo the procedure voluntarily.
Furthermore, I believe it is a parent's inherent right under natural law to raise their children in a way deemed fit, unless that child is exposed to undue hardship, recurrent or substantial physical or mental cruelity. Momentary discomfort or transient mental anguish do not rise to a level that would imposse a Constitutionall impairment of an otherwise protected right -- any more so than the administration of a temporarily painful flu shot, or even a periodic public scolding of a child.
By the same token, there is absolutely no compelling PUBLIC INTEREST to be served by a ban on circumcision -- no risk of widespead or even personal disease; no suggestion of any long-term adverse (physical or mental)consequences; no hint that the procedure causes anti-social behavior; and finaly no evidence that the prcedure alters an indivudal's "pursuit of happiness."
The only drawback I can personally attest to is the strange but alluring need for a small cotton dab of Manischewitz kosher wine on the affected part prior to initiating certain activities.(LOL)
Indeed, a small price to pay for the upholding of a family's religious tradition.
Jeff D
(c) Washington, DC, 2011
Actually, there are positive medical benefits to circumcision. Studies have shown that men who have been circumcised have lower rates of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. Because of these studies, there are now public health campaigns to encourage circumcision in parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Another reason that parents should be able to make this choice for their sons.
ReplyDelete