Responding to both a growing anti-circumcision movement and her own hysteria surrounding the circumcision of her two sons, Hanna Rosin writes in the most recent New York Magazine about why the case for circumcision is good for everyone, at least all boys. Her arguments are interesting, but I am not sure they are correct.
I am Jewish enough that I never considered not circumcising my sons, (she writes). I did not search the web or call a panel of doctors to fact-check the health benefits, as a growing number of wary Americans now do. Despite my momentary panic, the words "genital mutilation" did not enter my head. But now that I have done my homework, I'm sure I would do it again--even if I were not Jewish, didn't believe in ritual, and judged only by cold, secular science.
Rosin goes on to bring lots of compelling evidence about the health benefits, both personal and public, of circumcision, including reducing HIV/AIDS, multiple forms of cancer, etc. And on that basis tells us that she made her decision "only by cold, secular science". But she also admits that she "never considered not circumcising her sons". So which is it, a scientific conclusion or a declaration of faith and belonging? Of course, the answer is that the two are inextricably linked. As is the decision for those who choose not to circumcise their kids.
Rather than each side marshalling evidence to "prove" that which they already believe, I wonder if both those of us who favor circumcision and those who oppose it, could admit that either position is deeply rooted in things far bigger than cold, hard facts. We all want the very best for our kids and are trying to figure out how, from the very beginning of their lives to give it to them, and that is what makes this fight so intense.
Arguments about why to circumcise and why not to are as old as the second century BCE in Jewish tradition and may well pre-date the struggles about which we know from the time of the Maccabees. But even back then, it was a struggle between two groups each of whom wanted to do what they thought was right.
I wonder if instead of trying to answer that once and for all, each side in this often bitter debate simply asked what they could learn from those with whom they most deeply disagree. Could we in the traditional Jewish community re-open the debate about anesthesia? Could those who oppose circumcision reconsider the long-term known health benefits and how to achieve them if they continue to reject circumcision? Or address what it means to disconnect from the oldest known practice of the Jewish people?
Rather than one side screaming about other people being self-hating Jews, and that side screaming about the rest of us brutalizing our children, we could agree that we are each specialists in certain areas of concern and serve as each others teachers. I know that admitting that there is more than one right answer to such sensitive issues scares people, but shouldn't it scare us more to hurt each other over those very issues?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
My family is Jewish; from an early age I knew about circumcision and thought it was a positive thing. As I grew older and had misgivings about circumcision, mostly from a strictly physiologic standpoint (how blood vessels and nerve endings are affected; how fibroblasts form at the scar site), I nevertheless always believed that I would have any sons of mine circumcised. It was a clear obligation to do so.
However, after delving fairly deeply into the issue for almost 20 years -- more to reassure myself it was ultimately a positive thing -- I have now reached an entirely different conclusion. And I'm angry about being deceived.
I no longer believe circumcision, at least as it is practiced today, was a direct order from G-d. It certainly is not the covenant; the covenant is God's protection and favor in return for recognizing one creator and observance of a set of laws. Circumcision is mentioned in Genesis 17 as simply a sign of this covenant; mankind has no covenant with G-d to circumcise. Circumcision is neither holy nor sacred.
Evidence is now nearly irrefutable that circumcision was not practiced by early Hebrews, but was written into the Pentateuch in much later versions (the 5th, and final one, actually) by priests of Judaism who were scrambling for several unifying practices to coalesce a fractionalized Hebrew nation in exile from Babylonia. This late insertion of circumcision into various points in the history was clumsy and very obviously at odds with other clear messages and instructions from G-d, as noted by several people here already.
It is also irrefutable that early circumcision was far less extensive and traumatic; it severed only the overhanging prepuce of the infant and could be done by the father, as is obvious from Genesis 17. Man himself turned this into a far more radical, damaging and risky surgery and created an entire event around it. If one takes Genesis 17 at face value, G-d does not tell us it is permissible to hire another to circumcise a son; the onus is on the father alone as head of household to do this. Thus, it had to be minor and safe enough for any dad to do without special training.
The bris is nothing more than a way to force parents to go through with the surgery via peer pressure, family pressure and certain condemnation if they don’t. G-d makes no provision for anyone rejoicing in this sacrifice.
I also have learned, through talking to dozens of Jewish families in many countries, that the idea that Jewish circumcision is universal today or at any time in history is nonsense. Worse than that, it is a historical fiction created to pressure families with the awful worry that they will break a precious line of tradition. Jewish circumcision is no more than 75% in many countries, and sometimes much less, including Argentina, Holland, France, Germany, Sweden, and Italy. It is most strictly followed in Israel and in English-speaking countries, though that is also changing. The fact is that circumcision has been controversial and inconsistent among Jews for centuries. In this day and age, circumcision is no more a mark of being Jewish than it is of being American or Muslim; heck, two-thirds of US Jews who circumcise neither have a bris nor have it done on day 8. It's done before maternity discharge. So, what religious value does it have?
After careful study and, I must admit, considerable prayer, I have come to the firm conclusion that circumcision of infants is a manmade concept and abhorred by our creator. The sooner we recognize its ignominious provenance and embrace the fundamental Jewish principles of harming no other, the sooner we’ll be redeemed in G-d's eyes.
David:
I wonder about the prevalence of anti-Semitism in those 75% countries you listed, and if the people who did not circumcise were asked why they didn't.
I also will point out that while all of what you say may be true, I, for one, do not profess knowledge of what G-d likes or doesn't like, outside of what I read in the document that binds us as Jews. If the Torah is not accurate, as you suggest, I would hope you are making that as much a campaign as any here are with circumcision.
"Faith cannot be regulated, and circumcision is a matter of faith for Jews"
Faith cannot and should not be regulated. Action can and should be and is. Jews and everyone else get to believe anything we want. When we start DOING things, however, our ACTIONS have to meet the test of being harmless to others. Circumcising is not harmless. It always harms, sometimes damages more deeply, and sometimes kills. That is clearly illegal action, and claiming that God requires it doesn't protect anyone from prosecution for harming and recklessly further endangering the bodies and lives others, in this case babies. Believe anything you like. When you start cutting up other people's bodies without their adult informed written consent, you have crossed the line into obvious criminality.
As every educated Jewish person knows, male genital mutilation was initiated not by "God", and not during the putative life of "Abram", but by Jewish priests during the Babylonian Captivity ... as a means of establishing control over their fellow "captives", and as a means of distinguishing them from the larger, more sophisticated and intact culture into which they had become forcibly immersed.
At the same time, these same Priests inserted Genesis 17 into the Biblical narrative to take the place of the original covenant, Genesis 15, which could no longer be honoured.
Get parents to willingly mutilate the genitals of their children and you can get them to do almost anything. Even today.
From the College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia, Canada, Policy on Circumcision:
"Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the
glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner
mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous
tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for
complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more
serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention,
urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death."
What are people trying to achieve by cutting the business end of their child's penis off that is worth harming the child every time for, risking deeper harm for, and risking killing the child for? The risk of killing the child isn't large, but if the child IS killed he is not killed only a small percentage. He is killed completely; 100% dead. If it happens, WHEN it happens, as it does - see intact.wikia.com/wiki/Death_By_Circumcision - what possible goal could have been worth killing the child to try to achieve by this unnecessary risk?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.