“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[SamTheNewfie]

First of all, I have to say that I don’t support this ban for pragmatic reasons. I believe education and a lack of enabling(such as prohibiting Medicaid funding for RIC) will better promote bodily integrity of both baby boys and girls. I think our culture needs to wake up and get with the rest of the civilized world on this matter, but this won’t do a bit of good.

I do have to clear up some misconceptions on this thread though.

Banning RIC is not a violation of the First Amendment. My right to practice my religion ends where other’s rights begin. I can’t tattoo a cross on my child’s forehead if my religion calls for it. I can’t so much as put a nick on my baby girl’s genitalia in the name of religion. There are no religious exemptions for the ban on female circumcision, and yes some forms (such as the removal of the clitoral hood) are completely analogous to male circumcision. To be ok with one but not the other is pure ethnocentrism.

There are no proven health benefits to RIC. No national medical organization in the English speaking world recommends it, and many (such as the Dutch and Australian) have called it unethical and a violation of the child’s rights. The United States is the only Western country in which baby boys are circumcised for non-religious reasons, and there are no increased health complications in Europe, Canada, Australia, and South America. Penile Cancer is virtually unheard of anywhere. The US has significantly higher STD rates than Europe. In the end only .5 of men will choose to be circumcised as adults.

Circumcision is not comparable to cosmetic surgery, ear piercing, or infant baptism. None of these removes healthy tissue from non-consenting children. None of these affect sexual pleasure. None of these are irreversible. Even though many men have regained some sensation through foreskin restoration, all those nerve ending are gone.

All in all, circumcision is a “cure” looking for an ailment. It was first introduced here as the cure for masturbation. When that didn’t pan out it has been touted as a solution to everything from syphilis to unheard of cancers. Due to its profitability the AAP has been much slower and more muted in its lessening support of the practice. At this point the most common justifications seem to involve locker rooms and father-son nudity.

Ultimately, I don’t think this ban will do any good. It will just drive people who want it done across the bay. I’d rather see insurance discontinue covering such a needless procedure. That might make people think about if it’s worth it or at least drive them to a mohel, who are far more qualified to perform the procedure in a safe and humane fashion.

 

[Blacksword]

First of all, I have to say that I don’t support this ban for pragmatic reasons. I believe education and a lack of enabling(such as prohibiting Medicaid funding for RIC) will better promote bodily integrity of both baby boys and girls. I think our culture needs to wake up and get with the rest of the civilized world on this matter, but this won’t do a bit of good.

I do have to clear up some misconceptions on this thread though.

Banning RIC is not a violation of the First Amendment. My right to practice my religion ends where other’s rights begin. I can’t tattoo a cross on my child’s forehead if my religion calls for it. I can’t so much as put a nick on my baby girl’s genitalia in the name of religion. There are no religious exemptions for the ban on female circumcision, and yes some forms (such as the removal of the clitoral hood) are completely analogous to male circumcision. To be ok with one but not the other is pure ethnocentrism.

There are no proven health benefits to RIC. No national medical organization in the English speaking world recommends it, and many (such as the Dutch and Australian) have called it unethical and a violation of the child’s rights. The United States is the only Western country in which baby boys are circumcised for non-religious reasons, and there are no increased health complications in Europe, Canada, Australia, and South America. Penile Cancer is virtually unheard of anywhere. The US has significantly higher STD rates than Europe. In the end only .5 of men will choose to be circumcised as adults.

Circumcision is not comparable to cosmetic surgery, ear piercing, or infant baptism. None of these removes healthy tissue from non-consenting children. None of these affect sexual pleasure. None of these are irreversible. Even though many men have regained some sensation through foreskin restoration, all those nerve ending are gone.

All in all, circumcision is a “cure” looking for an ailment. It was first introduced here as the cure for masturbation. When that didn’t pan out it has been touted as a solution to everything from syphilis to unheard of cancers. Due to its profitability the AAP has been much slower and more muted in its lessening support of the practice. At this point the most common justifications seem to involve locker rooms and father-son nudity.

Ultimately, I don’t think this ban will do any good. It will just drive people who want it done across the bay. I’d rather see insurance discontinue covering such a needless procedure. That might make people think about if it’s worth it or at least drive them to a mohel, who are far more qualified to perform the procedure in a safe and humane fashion.

I agree with pretty much everything here. In fact, much of this is very similar to things I’ve said in other threads on this issue. The interesting question of course for Christians who would go to a mohel for such a procedure of course would be: why are you, as a Christian, participating in a Jewish religious rite? That would definitely appear to be exactly what the Church has said is unacceptable and a mortal sin, and St. Paul decried; participating in Jewish law-keeping.

 

[meltzerboy]

Here’s the problem: what we do in hospitals today to infant boys, and happens to baby Jewish boys today, is in no way anatomically similar to the covenant instituted by God. Every Jew right up to Jesus, Paul, and all others into the Second Century A.D. had a very small ceremonial cut on the very tip of the prepuce, that’s it. It wasn’t until the second century that some Jewish preists decided that it was too easy for Jews to “pass” in the Roman and Greek culture, and so came up with requirements to remove a much larger portion of the penis’ anatomy. The ancient Jews didn’t have Gomco clamps or Plastibells, and nearly every baby then, without such devices to staunch blood flow, would have died from the procedure. This is historic fact.

And people talking about the Church’s stance should read Paul VI whom said it was ONLY acceptable in the case of medical necessity to treat an illness that could not be treated ANY OTHER WAY. Also, St. Paul’s perspective got more and more anti-circ, calling the people of his day (whom advocated the far lesser cut than today mind you) Dogs, and mutilators of the flesh…anyone remember his warning “Beware the mutilation of the flesh”!

There is something more than a little insulting to God’s creation to say that we think he essentially made a mistake, and we know better how the male form ought to look.

The mohel who performs the Jewish ritual of circumcision does not use clamps because a slight blood flow is required for the ritual of the Covenant. He also uses a sharper surgical instrument than in hospitals (in which clamps are used) so that the procedure is much less painful, and he is more experienced than many practitioners in hospitals. If an infant is ill, the circumcision may be postponed or even not performed at all if the infant’s life would be in jeopardy, such as in the case of hemophilia.

Infants and younger children do not make their own decisions on many things, pertaining to religion and other matters. To my knowledge, Catholic parents don’t hold a conference with their infants to decide with them whether they wish to have the indelible stamp of baptism placed upon them. I realize baptism is not a surgical procedure; but it is still an equivalent initiation as a member of the New Covenant. The primary function of parents is to protect and guide their children according to their best judgment, and this includes religious instruction.

Since you mention Paul, with all due respect, his position on circumcision as well as the Church’s, is irrelevant to the ritual as practiced in Judaism. If Christians do not wish to circumcise their children based on Paul’s teaching, that is their right. It would be ludicrous for Judaism to require non-Jewish families to adopt this rite, and equally ludicrous for Christianity to outlaw the practice adopted by Judaism, even if there are minor changes in the procedure. I’m not aware of any such changes; but even if there were, it is, frankly, none of your business since the procedure is not dangerous, physically or psychologically, and is an extremely important religious ceremony which is an integral part of a faith other than your own. Your and others’ sentiment against it is uncalled for, and one must wonder what the motivation can be to institute a political campaign against it.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m sorry, but I have to point out on this issue that, it’s a fact of a free society that religious liberty has it’s limits. Number one, if circumcision was only being practiced by Jews in America, and was being done the actual God-ordained, Biblical way, none of us would be having this discussion now.

But since that’s not the case, it is worth remembering that the State has the authority and responsibility to administer and discern between the relative rights of people subject to it’s jurisdiction, and it has the duty to secure the liberties of those people, especially in the protection of the most vulnerable and defenseless among it’s subjects.

If I am a Santeria practitioner, no matter how fervently my religious beliefs require it, I am not permitted to sacrifice a goat in the park. A Druid cannot participate in human sacrifice. While I happen to think education is a better route to pursue on this issue than government bans, I must say that it seems to me a reasonable proposition to state that one person’s religious liberties end where another person’s inherent rights to bodily integrity, dignity, and respect for their physical personhood begins, at least on it’s face.

It is an issue of freedom and liberty all right: and the person whose rights are most at issue is the owner of the penis in question.

Another point, which I forgot to mention in my previous post. Are you seriously drawing an analogy between the ritual of circumcision and the Druid practice of human sacrifice or the Santeria practitioner’s killing of an animal in the public arena? Yes, such customs should probably be outlawed in the US because they constitute, on the one hand, a major human rights violation, and, on the other, animal cruelty. The circumcised child, however, is not being offered to G-d as a human sacrifice, nor is he being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re actually surprised that a “liberally-minded” city attacking a religious practice?

Anyway, when comes to religious circumcision, I’d give this law about 5 minutes before a court rules it’s in violation of the 1st Amendment. If they want it to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, they’ll have to put in a religious exemption if they want it hold up.

I am surprised because I, as a liberal, always believed in the separation of Church and State, and this proposal departs from that liberal notion.

 

[Catholicismftw]

Yes I agree, this would keep Jews and Muslims out of the country as their religion requires circumcision , so for what good purpopse those this ban serve to San Francisco? It’s not like circumcision is a must, parents have a choice, so I think this ban is pretty useless and would have a negative effect on the city.

 

[Dale_M]

so for what good purpopse those this ban serve to San Francisco? It’s not like circumcision is a must, parents have a choice, so I think this ban is pretty useless and would have a negative effect on the city.

I agree that it would have a negative effect on the city, and I do not support the ban. However, those who do support the ban point out that infant circumcision is actually involuntary for the person most affected. Many advocates of the ban lament, as adults, what was done to them when they had no say in the matter…

 

[1holycatholic]

If this is genuine, it’s truly appalling. It’s an overt attack on religious liberty and most likely rooted in anti-Semitism as well.

From a religious perspective, the whole thing smacks of anti-semitism to me.

Yes, yes it does.

Proof that S.F.’s circumcision ban Is anti-Semitic

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/06/foreskinman2cover.jpg
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/06/monsters.jpg
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/06/whereisthechild.jpg
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/06/monstermohelcard.jpg

foreskinman.com/about.htm

“Matthew Hess is president of MGM Billboards, a San Diego, California USA based group working to enact legislation that would protect boys from forced circumcision.”​

 

[Tsuwano]

I agree that it would have a negative effect on the city, and I do not support the ban. However, those who do support the ban point out that infant circumcision is actually involuntary for the person most affected. Many advocates of the ban lament, as adults, what was done to them when they had no say in the matter…

I’m torn. My parents forced me to eat asparagus as a child. It was involuntary. I didn’t want to eat it. They told me it was good for me! The horror . . . the horror! I hope someday, somehow, they pass a law forbidding parents from feeding asparagus to infants and ruining them for life. Something must be done!

 

[Dale_M]

Proof that S.F.’s circumcision ban Is anti-Semitic

Debra Saunders, a columnist for the SF Chronicle asked Hess about this “comic.”

I spoke with Matthew Hess of Foreskinman.com this morning. I asked him if the comic is anti-Semitic. He answered, “A lot of people have said that, but we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic. We’re trying to be pro-human rights.”

The “next issue will deal with a different kind of circumcision.”

And he gave me permission to post material from the site.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/djsaunders/detail?entry_id=90153

Wow, if they are trying not to be anti-Semitic, they are failing pretty bad. And according to the cover shown in 1holycatholic’s last post, there already have been at least two issues of this theme. Obviously, Hess and company didn’t listen to complaints after the first issue.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m torn. My parents forced me to eat asparagus as a child. It was involuntary. I didn’t want to eat it. They told me it was good for me! The horror . . . the horror! I hope someday, somehow, they pass a law forbidding parents from feeding asparagus to infants and ruining them for life. Something must be done!

erm… surely there is a difference between eating vegetables as a child and a minor surgical procedure which irreversibly alters the genitalia? An adult can choose not to eat asparagus, but he can’t get uncircumcised.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes I agree, this would keep Jews and Muslims out of the country as their religion requires circumcision , so for what good purpopse those this ban serve to San Francisco? It’s not like circumcision is a must, parents have a choice, so I think this ban is pretty useless and would have a negative effect on the city.

The same people who object to circumcision have absolutely no problem with abortion. :hypno:

 

[Dale_M]

The same people who object to circumcision have absolutely no problem with abortion.

Hm? Have some of the proponents of this ban also come out in favor of abortion?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Hm? Have some of the proponents of this ban also come out in favor of abortion?

I believe he is alleging that the circumcision ban is being led by ‘liberal’ proponents, which would lend itself to the likelihood they would be inclined to support abortion. I don’t that it’s highly unreasonable to take on that position.

 

[Dale_M]

I believe he is alleging that the circumcision ban is being led by ‘liberal’ proponents, which would lend itself to the likelihood they would be inclined to support abortion. I don’t that it’s highly unreasonable to take on that position.

hmm… okay. But why do you (or he) think that this circumcision ban is primarily being done by liberals? And what does that even mean to be a “liberal?” As someone pointed out in another thread, for the past 20 years the general population of the US has been becoming less accepting of abortion and more accepting of gay marriage. In old-school US politics, which paired abortion and gay rights together, this would be a contradiction.

I’m not sure that a claim based upon f two or three assumptions chained together is valid in the absence of any evidence.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

hmm… okay. But why do you (or he) think that this circumcision ban is primarily being done by liberals?

I’m not sure that a claim based upon f two or three assumptions chained together is valid in the absence of any evidence.

I would agree. It’s an assumption at best but not a totally unreasonable one given that it’s quite doubtful that moderate or conservative politics would be leading this issue. It does seem to fit a ‘liberal’ political profile in terms of rhetoric, tone and approach, especially when you consider the source city.

 

[Blacksword]

The mohel who performs the Jewish ritual of circumcision does not use clamps because a slight blood flow is required for the ritual of the Covenant. He also uses a sharper surgical instrument than in hospitals (in which clamps are used) so that the procedure is much less painful, and he is more experienced than many practitioners in hospitals. If an infant is ill, the circumcision may be postponed or even not performed at all if the infant’s life would be in jeopardy, such as in the case of hemophilia.

Infants and younger children do not make their own decisions on many things, pertaining to religion and other matters. To my knowledge, Catholic parents don’t hold a conference with their infants to decide with them whether they wish to have the indelible stamp of baptism placed upon them. I realize baptism is not a surgical procedure; but it is still an equivalent initiation as a member of the New Covenant. The primary function of parents is to protect and guide their children according to their best judgment, and this includes religious instruction.

Since you mention Paul, with all due respect, his position on circumcision as well as the Church’s, is irrelevant to the ritual as practiced in Judaism. If Christians do not wish to circumcise their children based on Paul’s teaching, that is their right. It would be ludicrous for Judaism to require non-Jewish families to adopt this rite, and equally ludicrous for Christianity to outlaw the practice adopted by Judaism, even if there are minor changes in the procedure. I’m not aware of any such changes; but even if there were, it is, frankly, none of your business since the procedure is not dangerous, physically or psychologically, and is an extremely important religious ceremony which is an integral part of a faith other than your own. Your and others’ sentiment against it is uncalled for, and one must wonder what the motivation can be to institute a political campaign against it.

It is not in the child’s best interests for the typical non-jewish family to subject him to a painful irreversible amputation surgery on his genitals. For the vast majority of such parents opting for the procedure, in fact it is the FATHER’s interests (protection of his own self-esteem having been cut, reassurance that this is normal, avoidance of needing to see and come to terms with his own loss and any repressed feelings about it, etc. This is precisely what is really going on when the father says “I want my son to look like me” or similar garbage) that are really being given primacy of place, NOT the infant’s. The fact that a parent may sincerely and mistakenly believe this is in their child’s best interests does not make it so.

There is a difference between the older covenant and the one instituted after 140 A.D. It’s the Milah v. the Periah. There’s a great book that discusses the history of this by a Jewish physician and anthropologist name Dr. Leonard Glick, “Marked in Your Flesh”. I’ve also read about this same thing on jewish parenting websites for what it’s worth, so this change is fairly well known. And it’s not minor, it’s the difference between keeping or losing about 10 square inches of tissue, which includes all or most of the frenulum (the most sexually responsive part of the penis), the frenar band, messigner’s corpuscles, the dartos muscle, and many other valuable and functional parts of the foreskin, not to mention keeping the glans substantially covered (as it was meant to be), rather than exposed.

Baptism is similar theologically, NOT anatomically or medically, obviously. And circumcision IS dangerous, many infants have died over the years from the procedure, both in hospitals and in a religious setting. You realize that it only takes a very tiny amount of blood loss for an infant to be in danger of death, don’t you?

And again, as I wrote before, if this was a procedure limited only to jews or muslims for religious reasons, most of us would NOT be talking about it at all. A PHYSICIAN should practice MEDICINE, not voodoo, they are charged with treating the SICK, and ought to leave the WELL ALONE. THAT is my primary beef: it’s a clear violation of normative medical ethics, and proxy consent of a parent for such a surgery is not acceptable unless it s actually medically indicated in a particular case. Physicians have NO business performing unnecessary amputation surgeries on unconsenting HEALTHY PEOPLE! This ought to be obvious to all, I’m continually amazed that it is not.

I would prefer banning it except for explicit religious reasons. AND that also means the FGM law prohibiting ANY cutting of female infant genitals must be repealed unfortunately as unconstitutional. Thus parents wishing to do the equivalent cutting on their daughters for religious reasons must be permitted to do so…to do otherwise is patently religious discrimination by our federal government. My ideal scenario would be for everyone to respect the rights to full personhood and bodily integrity of their children, but if this can’t happen feasibly, then fine, a religious (and religious ONLY) exception should be permitted. Physicians who do so, however, should lose their license and be rightly charged with criminal sexual assault, medical malpractice, and any other appropriate civil and criminal charges.

 

[Blacksword]

Another point, which I forgot to mention in my previous post. Are you seriously drawing an analogy between the ritual of circumcision and the Druid practice of human sacrifice or the Santeria practitioner’s killing of an animal in the public arena? Yes, such customs should probably be outlawed in the US because they constitute, on the one hand, a major human rights violation, and, on the other, animal cruelty. The circumcised child, however, is not being offered to G-d as a human sacrifice, nor is he being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

Sigh, they are religious rites or customs. That makes them a reasonable comparison for purposes of discussing limits to religious liberty in a NON-theocratic society. That doesn’t meant they are similar in EVERY respect. Analogies are not ever meant to be identical in every respect, but rather similar in as to the issue being discussed at the time the analogy is made.

And I must point out that, in the case of circumcision, the child’s foreskin is ABSOLUTELY being offered as a sacrifice to God; indeed that’s the whole point of the ritual. It’s a blood atonement, similar to the offering of the spotless lamb for sacrifice at temple. As a Catholic, I believe these are meant to foreshadow the “new circumcision of the spirit” and Christ’s atoning sacrifice, but obviously I’m aware you do not hold to that.

 

[Dale_M]

I would agree. It’s an assumption at best but not a totally unreasonable one given that it’s quite doubtful that moderate or conservative politics would be leading this issue.

I’m not sure this issue has anything to do with political ideology. It seems to be motivated by a person’s emotions regarding their body and I am not sure that being conservative, liberal or moderate makes a difference in that.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m not sure this issue has anything to do with political ideology. It seems to be motivated by a person’s emotions regarding their body.

I’m just venturing an opinion as to a poster’s position and I can see how they can view the issue as such. A political ideology can slant your view on a matter. I’m sure the issue is motivated for a number of reasons, with antisemitism being one of them.