San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[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.

that is, i think, because so-called "modern" islam is only 1300 years into development and is still in a "mediaeval" phase - in spiral dynamics terms, on the red-blue vMeme border. the other things that pop out are the sunni insistence that the "gates of ijtihad" (independent reasoning) have been closed (the shi'a never closed them) and the abhorrence that ulema of all sects subscribe to of "bid'a" - innovation. the corresponding jewish term (and i have heard it argued that bid'a is not really supposed to be a catch-all term for any kind of change or improvement) is "hiddush". the identification of hiddushim is considered to be a great mitzvah - that is very much the sort of thing that i mean by learning culture.

similarly, islam has not yet had its "haskalah" - or enlightenment period; it is possible that under the pressures of its encounter with the outside world, it may have to undergo a similar period sooner in its development than judaism and christianity had to. i wonder if the same mistakes will be made?

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.

well, if it does provide either prophylactic or other benefits, in line with what bob mentioned earlier, then i can't see how anyone would object, although it is hardly a substitute for better behaviours in the populations concerned. these benefits, however, should be medically, not religiously assessed.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

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

The foreskin is a reservoir for all kinds of infections. The scientific support for circumcision's role in reducing AIDS transmission is quite solid.

 

[wil]

The foreskin is a reservoir for all kinds of infections. The scientific support for circumcision's role in reducing AIDS transmission is quite solid.

As I've understood it this has been conjecture for decades...and the arguement in the US for circumcising all males automatically....but is also garbage.

Logic says crap can get caught in there....but conclusive???

New Trends Among Newborns

#9
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2011/04/22/8335223/10 Reasons Doctors Should Not Circumcise.pdf


Circumcision and AIDS

Has America's high rate of male circumcision helped prevent HIV/AIDS in the USA?
The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is not helping. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Australia, the AFAO has now concluded that male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic.

 

[greymare]

When I had my boys, I was faced with the issue of circumcision or no. I actually left it up to their father. He was, but didnt want to boys to be done. It was strange to note that the difference in their years of birth, also co incided with the "popular" thought of whether to do it or not....first born..(they offered it at the hospital), 3 years later... second born...(was an option but was seen as cosmetic surgery) 7 years later... 3rd born...... (was never even discussed).

My children have never had any "problems" with their boy bits (lol), and were taught to keep it clean. (actually, they had more problems with cleaning behind their ears than anything. lol)...
But as far as making it illegal etc........... ????????? I dont have an answer.

 

[bananabrain]

the inconclusiveness of the medical protection arguments only underline for me why i maintain so strongly that the only reason we do this is for religious reasons.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Vajradhara]

the inconclusiveness of the medical protection arguments only underline for me why i maintain so strongly that the only reason we do this is for religious reasons.

b'shalom

bananabrain

it is, in the end, the only *valid* reason to do it in my estimation. my son isn't circumcised because i'm not Jewish and if he wants to be later in life then he can decide that for himself.

 

[Saltmeister]

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.

Is the "oven of achnai" thing the same thing as in the story where Rabbi Eliezer debates the purity of an oven (a story I have been able to find littered all over the web) -- the one where he commands a river to flow backwards and the walls of the house to bend over? -- the one where the heavenly voice (Bat Kol) speaks and the rabbis "overruling God?"

The impression I got from that story is that the rabbis weren't just content to just act on words of the divine whether that came from Scripture or directly from above, but even when God spoke, they would look at the situation, weigh their options and ask "what shall we do with this?" On the one hand it might seem like disobedience, but on the other maybe it was pragmatism rather than blind obedience.

If I understood the story correctly, it seemed like the pragmatism was the right thing -- because "the Torah was on earth not in heaven."

So does this mean that in Judaism you're allowed some level of human autonomy and independence, giving rise to pragmatism and a little bit of healthy skepticism? Does the Jewish thought system somehow encourage that implicitly in the Talmud? Does the Talmud teach hermeneutics?

I like flexibility and have felt that Christians and Muslims can often be inflexible in their thinking. If Jews value flexibility then that has to be a good thing.

A large proportion of Protestant Christians adhere to the Calvinist idea of sola scriptura. I don't know what the equivalent is called in Islam, but whatever it is, they both lead to the attitude that "if it says/doesn't say so in the Bible/Quran, it's wrong!!!!" Thinking outside of the written tradition is frowned upon by many Christians/Muslims because it negates the primacy of that tradition. This creates a problem where each new generation is either asking the same questions all over again or are unable to progress culturally.

 

[wil]

A large proportion of Protestant Christians adhere to the Calvinist idea of sola scriptura. I don't know what the equivalent is called in Islam, but whatever it is, they both lead to the attitude that "if it says/doesn't say so in the Bible/Quran, it's wrong!!!!" Thinking outside of the written tradition is frowned upon by many Christians/Muslims because it negates the primacy of that tradition. This creates a problem where each new generation is either asking the same questions all over again or are unable to progress culturally.

Large portion?

I think most Christians, folks that say they are Christian, are just saying it. I think most don't attend church and/or don't read the bible regularly and/or haven't read the whole book and/or haven't really studied what it is about. They are social Christians, believe in G!d or say they do, because it is conventient easy and the way they were raised.

As far as a large portion solo scriptura...what is large? I'd say that group might be as high as 15% of those that profess to be Christians, but I doubt it. I think they are by far a minority....but awfully darn vocal.

 

[bob x]

As I've understood it this has been conjecture for decades...

No, it was only studied recently (AIDS itself has not been known about for very long, you know).

and the arguement in the US for circumcising all males automatically....

No, that argument has been about other diseases which typically start in the foreskin, and "Peyrone's fasciitis" (sounds nasty whatever it is) and penile cancer (for both of which, amputation is the only treatment) which never ever start anywhere else. It is true that proper hygiene can reduce the chances of these from rare to negligible, but it is one less thing for me to worry about. These have been known about for millennia, not decades.

but is also garbage.
...
Circumcision and AIDS

Now THIS is "garbage". The reason the US has the highest rate outside the Third World is because it was introduced here earliest, by contacts with sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti; countries with minimal African contacts of course were late to show any cases. In statistics this is called "confounding factors": it is necessary to compare cases which otherwise have as few differences as possible except for the distinction of interest; here, by studying neighboring African peoples with similar opportunities for exposure to the virus, but differing in circumcision habits.

 

[bananabrain]

Is the "oven of achnai" thing the same thing as in the story where Rabbi Eliezer debates the purity of an oven (a story I have been able to find littered all over the web) -- the one where he commands a river to flow backwards and the walls of the house to bend over? -- the one where the heavenly voice (Bat Kol) speaks and the rabbis "overruling God?"

that's the bunny.

The impression I got from that story is that the rabbis weren't just content to just act on words of the divine whether that came from Scripture or directly from above, but even when God spoke, they would look at the situation, weigh their options and ask "what shall we do with this?" On the one hand it might seem like disobedience, but on the other maybe it was pragmatism rather than blind obedience.

even more so - it's far more than mere pragmatism: it's a demand to G!D to Play by the Rules that G!D Set out in the first place. batei qol are, effectively, cheating by offering a back door; to make matters worse, they are not subject to expert and minute peer review like rabbinic statements; it's an important check on the system and appealing for Divine Guidance would simply either subvert the system or open it to corruption. basically, either the system has to work on its own without Divine Intervention, or it will be subject to Exterior Influence of whatever sort. it is basically a major decision point for the halakhah, one which some strains of judaism seem to have overlooked in recent centuries.

So does this mean that in Judaism you're allowed some level of human autonomy and independence, giving rise to pragmatism and a little bit of healthy skepticism?

you're not *allowed* it. you are *Commanded* to exercise it by G!D. that's how important it is.

Does the Jewish thought system somehow encourage that implicitly in the Talmud?

yes - this story is one of the key teaching stories, as is the story of moses in akiva's classroom, the story of elisha ben abuya and those of hillel and shammai. there are anecdotes throughout illustrating this point and that and independent thought and justifying one's reasoning is at issue in each case.

Does the Talmud teach hermeneutics?

yes and no. not formally, more implicitly. there are a number of different and complementary hermeneutical systems, including the "baraita of rabbi yishmael", for example. i'm not expert enough to outline it for you here but this wiki entry seems to be a reasonable introduction:

Talmudical hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A large proportion of Protestant Christians adhere to the Calvinist idea of sola scriptura. I don't know what the equivalent is called in Islam, but whatever it is, they both lead to the attitude that "if it says/doesn't say so in the Bible/Quran, it's wrong!!!!" Thinking outside of the written tradition is frowned upon by many Christians/Muslims because it negates the primacy of that tradition. This creates a problem where each new generation is either asking the same questions all over again or are unable to progress culturally.

hence my comment to bob earlier on the difference between the islamic attitude to "bid'a" and ours to "hiddush".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

This I don't even know what to say about...

 

[bananabrain]

you mean *apart* from the obvious and blatant inaccuracies in the depiction of the ceremony - and the fact that the "monster mohel" has an amish beard? or can you possibly mean the "every anti-semitic trope in the book" bit?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

You don't mean to suggest that hateful people are also ignorant, do you?