San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

Nick the Pilot

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
94
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision - Yahoo! News

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A group opposed to male circumcision said on Tuesday they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify a proposal to ban the practice in San Francisco as a ballot measure for November elections.

But legal experts said that even if it were approved by a majority of the city's voters, such a measure would almost certainly face a legal challenge as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.

Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.

(cont.)
 
well... we have all banned FGM (female genital mutilation), so, why not ban circumcision, too? You can't have one rule for one and another for yourself. That's not how it works. If we agree it's wrong to cut off little girls clitorises and sew up their labia, why is it okay to cut off part of a small boys penis?
 
Cutting off the whole penis would be the analogue. I think we could agree on banning that.
 
circumcision is an initiation rite that has been part of judaism since the very beginning - its purpose is to show that you are jewish and that once you are, you are in for good and that however you may look to the outside world, you will always be reminded when of it at your most intimate moments. it is a traumatic moment for the father (whose responsibility it is to ensure that it is carried out) but in many ways it includes us in the bloody, painful but temporary and ultimately rewarding process of childbirth. i do not make the argument (although many do) to do with hygiene or disease prevention, but it is performed enough on medical grounds for us to be able to say that it does no more harm than, say, a tonsillectomy or appendectomy, or even having your ears or nose pierced. i will say this - there is no such thing as "male" circumcision or "female" circumcision. circumcision is male. what these maniacs do to girls and women is pure mutilation for the purposes of power; the anatomical difference is enormous, as bob stated - it is there to ensure women do not control their own sexuality or gain any enjoyment from their own genitalia. circumcision does not affect either of those, nor does it result in ongoing pain and trauma. fgm has *never* been carried out in judaism and would be both abhorrent and halakhically forbidden. attempts to conflate the two issues must be resisted in the strongest possible terms.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
I hear that cutting off the foreskin reduces the level of sensation.

I also believe that if God didn't want you to have it, he would've kept it for himself before he bothered giving it to you... Why does "God" demand it as a covenant, and, ideologically, how IS this different from cutting off a girls' "bits", if the end result (reduced sexual stimulation) is the same?

I also hear that, for jews, tattoos and other forms of body modification are considered... defilements... Am I right to think this? And, if so, how does cutting off boy's bits be rational?
 
I hear that cutting off the foreskin reduces the level of sensation.
Click to expand...
i can tell you personally that i've never experienced that as a problem, but that really isn't the point.

I also believe that if God didn't want you to have it, he would've kept it for himself before he bothered giving it to you...
Click to expand...
er... appendix? the point of the foreskin, symbolically, is that it is something about ourselves that is inherently "perfectible", as it were. by removing it one reveals that which has the real importance as opposed to the surface consideration (sensation?)

Why does "God" demand it as a covenant
Click to expand...
we don't know, only that it is Commanded. that's what Commandments are like. we can justify them all we like, or not, but that's ultimately the issue. it's not something we do to anyone else, so it ought really only to be something we justify to ourselves; we quite simply don't see it as an issue.

and, ideologically, how IS this different from cutting off a girls' "bits", if the end result (reduced sexual stimulation) is the same?
Click to expand...
but it obviously isn't the same. it's like the difference between piercing your tongue or chopping it off altogether! the two are done for quite different reasons, with quite different results - i have never heard anyone jewish complain that they have a crap sex life because they are circumcised; rather the opposite if anything.

I also hear that, for jews, tattoos and other forms of body modification are considered... defilements.
Click to expand...
tattoos and piercings through cartilage (i.e. permanent changes) are forbidden, because they remind us of the idolatrous practices of the seven nations of canaan, rather than because they are inherently wrong or problematic.

And, if so, how does cutting off boy's bits be rational?
Click to expand...
none of this is about being rational. you want in the club, you obey the club rule. it's not such a bad rule to have and, indeed, under many circumstances, as doctors and bob will tell you, it gets done for medical reasons. it's a blood initiation rite. either you agree with those or you don't, but if you don't, you'll have to take on practically every woman in the world that wants to have some sort of special practice around menstruation.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
A possible distraction, but circumcision was commonly practiced in ancient Egypt, especially among the priest classes. So it's not like this has ever been a "Jewish-only" issue. Raised in or around sandy desert environments may have encouraged the practice for reasons of avoiding irritation.
 
Well, bb, you may be satisfied with "it's commanded; no further reasoning needed" but the commandments did actually come about for reasons.
 
i do understand that, bob, but understanding the reasons why original things may have come about is also a reason the rationalists use for ditching stuff when the "original reasons" are no longer valid. in other words, if pork was unhealthy because of trichinosis or whatever, but this is no longer a reason not to eat pork, then you eat pork. obviously this will not do for us at all. that is why i resist rationalist justification (as opposed to appreciating the thought and research that goes into rationalist explanations) for the mitzvot. they may very well be valid (or "true" if you prefer) but this justification pales before the religious significance of a promise made to keep a Divine Command, at least to my way of thinking. that of course is probably why i am a sort of beardy fundamentalist according to most people at least theologically speaking, but as i keep having to remind people, that doesn't mean you have to disrespect and oppress people as a result. i would prefer to find equally religiously valid reasons to, for example, *not* have a problem with homosexuality if at all feasible (and it is feasible). 'owevair, i cannot concede that circumcision is something that we should object to.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
i do understand that, bob, but understanding the reasons why original things may have come about is also a reason the rationalists use for ditching stuff when the "original reasons" are no longer valid. in other words, if pork was unhealthy because of trichinosis or whatever, but this is no longer a reason not to eat pork, then you eat pork. obviously this will not do for us at all.
Click to expand...
This is what makes religion evil. G!d was trying to tell you to do what is right, but "what is right" can change; the religious then do what is wrong, because it used to be right.
 
People who do not eat beef or pork get a lot less clogging of the arteries, so anyone who tells us not to eat such things probably knows what he/she is talking about.

If a tribe only eats pork, it makes sense that the point of not eating beef would not even come up for discussion.
 
bob_x said:
This is what makes religion evil. G!d was trying to tell you to do what is right, but "what is right" can change; the religious then do what is wrong, because it used to be right.
Click to expand...
yes and no. this is what *can* make religion evil if the religion in question does not have a culture of continuous, ongoing lifelong learning and questioning. thus, you can ensure that the same questions come up in every generation and are reviewed anew. the other major contributory principle is that of the "oven of achnai" question of BT bava metzia 59b, in which majority decisions are taken, but minority opinions are preserved and protected, in case they should one day become the majority. the important thing is to ensure that the debate takes place. there are refinements and innovations that have taken place in circumcision procedure even recently; at all costs health and human life must be protected, if that is at issue. if it's not, of course, there is no issue and, overwhelmingly, we have concluded that there is absolutely no case to answer, in particular in connection with the entirely laudable push to eliminate fgm.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
In this respect, Judaism has retained sanity much better than modern Islam, which largely finds the notion of re-examining the old to be repugnant.
 
as a religious sacrament there is little that can be said.

as a health issue there is a whole lot that can be said.

there is, recently, some insane idea that suddenly going around and circumcising young sub Saharan African men will help reduce the spread of aids. the precise mechanism of how this would happen hasn't been explained and the only thing that i can think of is that these men will simply not be able to have sex for awhile and that, in and of itself, is the only aspect of that whole idea which would prevent the spread of aids.

as for the topic of the OP... i would support a ban on circumcision only if such things were compelled to begin with. given that it's a voluntary procedure i would say that banning it wrong headed. on a personal level, i would be quite happy to see a minimum age (whatever that age is for the religious rite) be instituted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top