Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Religion

Jew Hatred in California

The propaganda in support of banning the circumcision of children in San Francisco breaks my heart.  My general take on things is that nothing ever really changes in the world.  There is no true and lasting progress. Even so, it is depressing to see something that could be straight out of Germany in the 1930s in modern America.   Here's more on the subject.  Part of me still hopes that it is all some kind of misguided satire of the supporters of the ban, but I gather that's not the case.
Categories > Religion

Discussions - 15 Comments

San Fran should be nuked out of existence while Pelosi, Feinstein, Pelosi, Brown and Medea Benjamin are all eating weiner sandwiches @ the Harvey Milk center for Sean Penn redemption circumcision.

"Liberal Fascism" anyone?

Again, the City of San Francisco makes taxpayers (Berkeley does too) pay for gender altering operations for transgender workers. Somehow this is less traumatic than circumcision. Again, liberalism is a mentall illness.

Please stop giving San Francisco any more attention. It is a sick, sick liberal city with lots of angry liberals. The city is not worth anyone's attention or worry for that matter. Let it continue its pathic slide down the slippery slope. The sooner, the better.

Since a small percentage of all circumcisions in the US are procured by Jewish parents, a small (I'd say much smaller, even quite tiny) percentage of those who seek to end/ban the practice will employ anti-semitic slurs and appeal to anti-semitic paranoia to try to bolster their case among like-minded thinkers. That seems to be an exceedingly weak case to make. Sure, mohels perform circumcisions on Jewish baby boys, but what of all the doctors who perform the many thousands of circumcisions on non-Jewish boys - how to demonize them in an irrational manner?

Demonizing shouldn't play a part in this debate. It's simple enough to say that babies should not have parts of their bodies cut off if there is no urgent, compelling medical reason to do so.

I think it makes sense to leave circumcisions to be had by those who are old enough to think it over and seek out the procedure if they wish to have it done. If Jewish leaders issued a decree tomorrow forbidding the practice, I would still be just as in favor of the ban.

The idea - offered in the Volokh post linked to by John Moser - that circumcisions are a form of childcare is ridiculous. Just as it's not childcare when Christian Scientists choose to physically neglect their child with an illness and resort solely to prayer, neither is this medically ambiguous procedure (which, on the downside, still carries a fatal risk) in any meaningful sense childcare.

It would be interesting to see conservative reaction to such a proposal if the only people who procured circumcisions were Muslim. My view wouldn't change, but I'm betting that of many conservatives would be quite different. There are American Muslims living in California and SanFran - why isn't this suggested ban an automatic example of "Muslim hatred" as well? Or, perhaps, it is (by some small faction of circ. opponents), but that's an acceptable kind of hatred for the American regressive right.

Also quite amusing to see here in the comments the eliminationist suggestion that "San Fran should be nuked out of existence" - aptly followed by the "liberal fascism" accusation.

I would still like to see someone address (defend?) the Metzitzah b'peh circumcision method (since ROB opted to avoid that subject in the previous discussion).

I'd like to see you defend your stance on abortion, since you seem to be so concerned about the welfare of infant foreskins.

Plague: The subject of this blog is circumcision and efforts to outlaw it. Metzitzah b'peh is a procedure directly involved with circumcision. Abortion is irrelevant here.

Why do you hate the Jews?

For Liberals like Scanlon abortion is a choice because he, like all liberals, find nothing wrong with slaughtering an unborn child. Thus abortion is irrelevant.

When Liberals don't like something or find it against their ability to control people's thoughts and beliefs, they make laws outlawing those thoughts and beliefs. Thus circumcions is relevant.

Simple when one understand's Liberal thinking.

Is it possible that you can belive that Circumcision is wrong because it violates the rights of the child (i.e. the parent doesn't have the right to chose their child will be Jewish), and that you and other liberals, do think the parents have the right to choose their child will not be born at all????

Enough with the abortion obsession already. The issue is circumcision.

(It's irrelevant and silly, but if one wanted to play your evasive all-subjects-return-to-abortion game (and honestly, I don't), it could easily be turned around by asking what happens to the rhetoric of protecting the innocent and defenseless. Why do the wishes of the parents (to engage in the religious or non-religious ritual of circ.) trump the priority of protecting the defenseless babies? Also, there are plenty of uncircumcised Jews.)

It is probably not a coincidence that, as the linked articles note, the people backing the ballot initiative are the very ones who have produce that vile Foresking man comic.

Half the Jewish community is uncircumcized. They're called Jewish women. No Jewish male who is uncircumcized is a member of the community in good standing.

On the other hand, perhaps it's good to see liberals allowing that multiculturalism has limits.

"No Jewish male who is uncircumcized is a member of the community in good standing."

Completely and utterly absurd. Don't tell me that they actually go around and do p**is inspections?

I'm sure this will do little to no good, but anyway:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm

and considering the emphasis of this blog-post:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/beyondas.htm

"The content of the writing of circumcision critics conflicts with this characterization. Published critiques of circumcision are uniformly rational investigations and/or personal explorations of a challenging subject." But see the "Foreskin Man" comic published by the group that put the circumcision ban on the ballot.

Here are some typical responses to questions about circumcision from the Reform movement. The tenor of the responses shows that Reform Jews take the bris as a given for Jewish boys. Needless to say, the other, more traditional movements, are on board as well.
http://urj.org/ask/questions/brit/

Among the millions of Jews in the world, there are a few who have a different opinion. But they are not any part of the mainstream. They are the equiavalent of Americans who believe that the law does not really require a citizen to pay income taxes.

And in response to an earlier comment is it worth noting that many conservatives supported the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," which sought to overturn a Supreme Court decision that limited religious exercise in the name of upholding an otherwise neutral law.

Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. I suppose that most Reform Jews do "take the bris as a given for Jewish boys." Just as most people accept most traditional aspects of their faith without a great deal of critical thought.

I found these bits of guidance from the rabbi answering the 3rd question to be a bit odd, considering:

"With few exceptions, the results indicate that it is not a good idea to raise a child in two traditions; and in some cases, it is actually cruel.

Many "dual-religion" children (some, now adults) express a great deal of anger at their parents for not having made a decision and for putting them in the middle of an issue that the parents themselves could not resolve."

(...)

"Children need and deserve the best from their parents. This often entails making sacrifices when it is clear that the needs and desires of the parents have to become secondary to the real needs of the children."

There's concern that it's "cruel" to raise children in two religious traditions; parents should decide for the child which religion they will have. (Interesting how, despite the concerns over cruelty, the child is primarily seen as an empty vessel, and the development of the depth and substance of their "belief" is completely absent.) And he mentions the anger from adult children that their parents did NOT choose their religion for them when they were children. What about adult children bothered/upset/disappointed by (and yes, maybe angered) by their parents' decision to cut off part of their genitals? That could not be seen as cruel, especially when it's not medically necessary, and when it's done purely to satisfy the abstract, supernatural beliefs of the parents. The baby bleeds and cries, but it must be done to "complete" God's work? (Again, this just comes off as pure nonsense, not to mention arrogant from a theistic perspective) That can't be seen as cruel?

And this...THIS:

"[Parents providing the best for their children] often entails making sacrifices when it is clear that the needs and desires of the parents have to become secondary to the real needs of the children."

The only thing that I could add to that excellent point would be the clarification that "the needs and desires of the parents WHICH ARE BASED IN FAITH IN SUPERNATURAL ENTITIES (A FAITH WHICH CHILDREN OF FREE WILL MAY OPT TO REJECT) AND NOT REASON have to become secondary to the real needs of the children."

- real needs such as keeping their body intact, unless there is a compelling medical need for bodily intervention.

Reform Jews should come around on this - consider their name; they have been known to change their thinking on big issues. Suggestion for them: If the newborn can symbolically experience the first 7 days of God's creation in their first 7 days of life (That's an interesting counting method - a conundrum for pro-lifers? Why no in utero bris 7 days after conception?), why not make it the first 21 years - 3 years of life equal 1 day of God's creation?? They've already conceded that it's symbolic, after all.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/16708