Brit Shalom
Brit Shalom is indeed an alternative naming ceremony replacing Brit Milah (ritual circumcision), BUT there is no pin prick or blood letting of any kind.
I appreciate Dr. Reiss reaching out to me, given that I indeed had the impression that Brit Shalom involves a ceremonial pin prick. (I recognize Dr. Reiss from numerous intactivist efforts, including his work to promulgate this alternative to the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision). I’m not quite sure where I got the idea that Brit Shalom involved some form of minimal blood letting, and I’d be curious to know if such a variation of it is also practiced. Thanks again for the clarification.
There is a Quran alone movement within Islam that rejects making male circumcision a religious requirement due to the fact it is not mentioned in the Qur’an. Advocates of this view point to several Qur’anic verses that indicate the perfection of creation (Quran 32:7, 82:7–8, 95:4), as well as common perceptions that circumcision is necessary for reasons of hygiene. Muslim activists include Canadian Dr. Arif Bhimji, Libyan judge Mustafa Kamal al-Mahdawi, and the Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal El Saadawi, who links it with her own struggle against female genital mutilation. Some Quranists claim circumcision is haram, claiming that suras such as 4:119 forbids altering one’s body, and suras such as 95:4 which says man was created perfectly.
A long-standing principle of the common law is that parental powers are based on the child’s need. In the absence of a clear and present need for circumcision, parents lack power to grant surrogate consent. In Canada and the U.S., some parents who injured children in the name of religion have already been charged and convicted. Irrevocable genital amputations must, legally, be postponed until the child is able to consent freely at age 18.
In 1878, in Reynolds v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” In the absence of a clear and present need for circumcision, parents lack power to grant surrogate consent.
Likewise, in 1944 in Prince v Massachusetts, the justices ruled: “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the … child to ill health or death. … Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But they may not make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.
I agree, for sure. I think some people think of circumcision as a religious ritual rather than something that happens to a person as a child and affects them for the rest of their life — often way past the lifespan of the parents. It’s shortsighted to see circumcision as a parental religious practice rather than a lifelong physical alteration for the child.
My brother, who is almost 10 years younger than me, was circumcised in the traditional way when he was a newborn. I vividly remember seeing my mother handing him over to be taken into the men’s section of the synagogue for the operation. She went pale, clutched her stomach and said that she felt sick. There followed a period of waiting as she listened for his scream to indicate that the deed had been done.
Many of the progressive Jewish reformers of the 19th century rejected the practice of circumcision as barbaric. Even the legendary Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism and one of modern Jewry’s most iconic figures, refused to circumcise his son for this reason.
Excerpted from Bonobo3D’s video interview with Eli Ungar-Sargon
Your editorial (Circumscribing the law, 18 July) omits one significant consideration: infant boys subjected to the ritual of circumcision are unable to object to something that in later life they might not accept. If they ultimately reject Islam or Judaism, either as faiths or identities, they are left with an irrational physical mark that cannot be reversed.
Circumcision in The News
Leading German pediatric surgeon on the ethics of childhood circumcision
Denmark may follow Germany in legislating age of consent for religious circumcision
Some Swiss hospitals consider moratorium on childhood circumcision
Ugandan circumcision campaign flares tribal tension
German government official scramble to protect religious right to circumcise
(via Bundestag wants to curtail children’s rights | hpd)
An apparently anti-circumcision German cartoon
honestly the stuff against circumcision that this blog has posted makes me really uncomfortable as a practicing Jew. I followed this blog because I loved the body-positivity, but it’s become more and more offensive, even borderline anti-semitic. especially, in this graphic, the red “God will hold him…” etc etc. Circumcision is an ancient, sacred Jewish practice and tradition, and the fact that you are trying to throw this aside by trying to speak for God is absurd and honestly, really offensive. I understand why people don’t like it. But it’s none of your business whether someone decides to have their son(s) circumcised. I realize some people claim it has health risks, but there is plenty of research out there in favor of the health benefits of circumcision. So, seriously, stop trying to shame people for making a personal decision about what they believe would best serve their child’s physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It’s not anyone’s place, it doesn’t make them bad parents or sexually repressive parents, it makes them parents who are trying to do what’s best for their child.
Also, for the record, I think that it is much more humane to have a child circumcised when he’s young enough that he won’t remember/be traumatized by it.
As a non-practicing Jew, if I find the reality of having had a part of my genitals removed without my consent to be really uncomfortable, to say the least. I’m all for people being able to fulfill their own personal religious requirements, as long as others aren’t subjected to unwanted and permanent bodily alteration in a blanket fashion.
(Source: legalizeforeskin)
"THANKS DAD..." A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON GERMANY'S NEW CIRCUMCISION BAN
If you weren’t pressured into it, would you have your son circumcised? If you could really decide freely? My father in any case decided against it, and for that I am very thankful. Not because of the foreskin — I haven’t got a clue what it would be like to be without one — but because of the example of courage he gave me. Needless to say, his decision to turn down the Israeli job offer was not greeted warmly there, and he himself had very mixed feelings about returning to Germany. But he was not about to bow to group pressure — especially not at his kids’ expense.
The Frozen Hedgehog: legalizeforeskin: Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany’s Muslim...
Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany’s Muslim and Jewish leaders | World news | guardian.co.uk
So Germany has banned circumcision of children. That’s certainly interesting.
Sorry for the delayed response. At one point last year I had a brief online discussion with a San Francisco rabbi about the proposed legislation to ban circumcision in that city (it was suppressed by politicians). The rabbi was surprisingly willing to agree that most “intactivists” are not motivated by anti-Semitism, and constructed the argument as being the existential angst of the parent vs. the bodily autonomy of the child. What this basically boils down is the psychological dysphoria of the parent who believes that their supreme cosmological leader requires them to circumcise the child, vs. the child’s right make an important decision, that is also similar in kind to the kind of autonomy that his peers get (in the United States people generally expect to develop their sexuality without outside interference, and this is a growing trend).
Now, obviously not everyone agrees with the second (or the first) part of the premise, but this seemed like an interesting and balanced way to construct the debate. Perhaps the psychological hardship of the parent would need to be better defined; after all, a psychotic parent couldn’t simply claim that a voice in their head makes their actions legitimate. It might also be worth noting that the parent can avoid this situation by abstaining from parenthood, moving to a country that allows circumcision, whereas the child has no recourse of avoiding the predicament of not having his full genital anatomy.
All of this may sound a bit abstract and impractical, but I thought you might find it interesting from a philosophical point of view—I feel like rambling a bit today. On a practical level, not enough people see circumcision as sufficiently transgressive and harmful to sustain some of these legal challenges, but it also seems like opposition to circumcision is growing significantly. Having said that, I’m not sure if religious circumcision of children will ever be seriously challenged in my lifetime.
Which brings up to one of the question you brought up—that of harm reduction. The reality of parents dragging their infant children to illegal practitioners, or to legal ones abroad, is very real. That was, apparently, a big part of the 2010 statement issued by the ruling Dutch medical association, which essentially stated that they saw a ban as justified, but were concerned about actual harm to children caused by prohibition. To me this policy of discouragement seems and feels like the right thing on some level. Even though I’m atheist, I’m ethnically Jewish, and I feel a certain sensitivity towards the issue. I also agree with you about the unfortunate historical context, although I don’t think that historical violence should absolve Jewish practices from criticism (not even harsh criticism).
I also want to comment on something that you alluded to in the original post, the comparison with FGM. While it’s true that some forms of FGM are a LOT worse than male circumcision, there’s considerable variation, and some common forms are much more comparable. I don’t want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, but in places like Malaysia, Indonesia, parts of Egypt, and perhaps also the Arabian Peninsula and some parts of Africa FGM is a lot less drastic than what is practiced in, say Somalia and Sudan. Which makes it a lot more comparable to foreskin ablation, for which there’s evidence to suggest is highly harmful in terms of sexuality. Another relevant reality is FGM is becoming medicalized in the developing regions where it’s traditionally practiced, so it’s not always done as violently and in unsanitary conditions. Here’s a link [WARNING: Graphic images] that corroborates this. On the flip-side, male circumcision isn’t always done in sanitary conditions either when you look places where it isn’t medicalized. In general I view the Western notion of FGM and male circumcision being completely different as othering, rooted in ethnocentrism and perhaps gender bias. It’s a bit too convenient, wouldn’t you say?
Haaretz: German verdict’s purpose is to delay circumcision, not ban it, jurist says
Holm Putzke, a law professor at Passau University, says ‘Nobody wants to ban religious circumcision in Islam and Judaism, but it should be decided by those who undergo it.’ The operation does serious bodily harm and only males old enough to consent to it freely should undergo it, says Holm Putzke, law professor at Passau University in southern Germany.
This is like what I’ve been saying all along klsdfhg
Saying that it’s a ban frames the issue as being focused around some abstract religious practice rather then on one of protecting children in a very commonplace way—by expanding an already existing set of age restrictions.
There is no question that, but for the “freedom of religion” claim, holding down a baby boy and cutting off part of his penis constitutes a forcible physical and sexual assault, with visible and permanent consequences. Defending this practice by relying on a literal interpretation of a religious text ignores the fact that democratic law—while tolerating diverse beliefs—must protect those who cannot protect themselves. To label, or even suggest, that those who would protect babies from harm are anti-Semitic (or anti-Muslim) is a tactic of pure intimidation.
Georganne Chapin, Intact America Blog
