Answers from an Orthodox Jew

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moses613
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where is the line between freedom of religion and where secular government should not allow religious practice? In New York 2017, a Mohel was called out for giving infants herpies for oral circumcision. Is this still a common practice within the jewish tradition? Should we outlaw this practice?

Should we outlaw all religious branding on infants and children; only allow religious body augmentation for people 18 years and older?
 
Last edited:
Any and all medical procedures carry with them certain levels of risk, but we don’t necessarily outlaw them. Circumcision for Jews (and Muslims) is more than a medical procedure; it is a sacred religious ceremony. I do not think it should be outlawed. It is in the vast majority of cases perfectly safe, both physically and psychologically. If male circumcision is banned in the US, perhaps we should also ban the Eucharistic religious ritual of drinking wine from the chalice since this practice may spread disease if the chalice is not thoroughly cleaned after each participant. This is just as ridiculous a notion, in my view, and, more important, a violation of religious freedom. As an atheist, you should appreciate religious liberty because if there is no freedom for believers, there is also no freedom for non-believers.
 
Last edited:
So you don’t see a difference between physical augmentation (aka religious branding) and drinking a drink?
You don’t see an issue with forcing another person to have their body augmented, without their consent, as long as it is done medically safely?
You seem to be confusing the issue between elective body augmentation and a medically necessary procedure. Circumcision is not a medically necessary procedure, but it is commonly done by medical professionals. When the procedure is done by a Mohel, and then the skin is sucked off orally, is the Mohel a medical doctor in a medical facility, following medically prescribed practices, with a medically justified reason?

I’m fine with religious branding for adults only. Adults can augment their body all they want. Not children though. Do you not see why I draw a line here?
 
Last edited:
No, I do not see. The procedure is performed on infants as a sanctified religious ceremony of great importance to Jews, even those who are not particularly religious. It is an integral part of Jewish law and tradition. It has been going on for centuries and AFAIK with very rare ill effects. It is not a barbaric or monstrous procedure, but rather one of great joy and holiness. Most of the babies who grow up having been circumcised are perfectly fine in every way: physically, sexually, spiritually, emotionally. Any ban of the procedure is, in my view, an indication of insensitivity, at best, to the practice of Judaism.
 
Damian said:
Where is the line between freedom of religion and where secular government should not allow religious practice?
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion ends where the right to genital integrity and bodily autonomy begins.
 
Why do you think I am joking? I have many Jewish friends and none of them remembers being circumcised, and neither do I. It has had no negative effect on our lives whatsoever.
 
Are there any rites for girls that make them part of the Jewish people?
 
None in particular comes to mind although the Bat Mitzvah does exist. In general, women are excused from the so-called positive commandments but must pay attention to the negative commandments (things they should NOT do). It has been said that women are excused from many positive commandments because they have more faith than men to begin with. In the home, however, it is the woman who lights the Sabbath candles and ushers in the Sabbath, and the woman who prepares the Sabbath meal, keeps a kosher home, and prepares for holy days.
 
I get the impression that what Catholics call the domestic church is equally valued in Judaism. Thanks.
 
So you believe religious tradition supercedes people’s right to their own body. This is abhorrent to me since it is a mind set of, My baby is my property to do with as I want. Its not a person with rights until he can speak, been educated on his rights, and has the ability to stand up for himself to people wanting to forcibly agument his body without his concent. Your inability to wait to do this practice when they are adults is very telling in the cowardic of this barbaric practice. Your religion and you are a coward to force this on infants instead of waiting till they are adults to choose this religious branding. To illustrate how disgusting this practice is, I guaranty you that your moyals will not orally perform this practice on a 30 year old man wanting to join the religion because that would look to much like a gay act of love. But molesting an infant is just fine for religious practice right?
 
Last edited:
I have a pagan friend who watched the video about this practice. Then she and her husband decided this was best for their son. Many hospitals require parents to understand about this practice and still many parents choose to do this even when they are not religious. If you do not want to do this, then OK.
 
Parents “force” a lot of things on their children, most of all their parenting style. Since when do infants call the shots in any family, even those who practice a permissive parenting style? We nurture our children in the best way we can according to our culture (which includes, among other things, religion, customs, language, and dress) and according to our own personality. Sometimes we make mistakes, of course, and learn from these mistakes.

I would suggest you read about Judaism–its beliefs, moral values, customs, and philosophy. You seem to be woefully ill-informed about the religion. Also do a little more research on circumcision: its benefits as well as drawbacks.
 
Changing the subject from optional body augmentation to baptism. Sorry, but I am only talking about the idea that people do not get rights to how their body is permanently augmented for tribal unity until people are old enough to demand that right be applied to them as well. So religious practices teach the religious that rights of the individual are only rights if the individual can demand them, unless they are the unborn. That is the topic of this conversation. Stop changing the topic because it brings out your inner coward to not stay on this topic and contribute. Want to talk about everything else but this, fine. But this is what I am talking about here, not your preferred topic.
 
This is not a medically necessary procedure. It is a tribal elective body augmentation that is attached to religious practices that we have socially deemed okay for parents to partake in since the infant will not remember this being done to them at all and will just grow up with their body being changed to this state and that will be the norm for them.
I am only talking about the idea that people, regardless of age, have a right to not have their body selectively augmented until they are adults and are able to give consent to the procedure. Infants don’t gain rights as they grow up. They have the same rights as every adult has. This is where I see the issue. If it is a medically necessary process, then parents can make this call under informed medically approved processes. That’s fine then. That is why vaccines are okay, but permanent physical augmentation is not. I don’t see why people can’t stay on this point and keep dodging this part of the discussion by bringing up baptism, drinking a glass of wine, attending mass, etc. How is this understanding of this cultural practice not what I am presenting other than people just being used to always having this power over their children. Parents are to be stewards of their children, the children are not their property or play things.
 
The term “genital mutilation” is loaded, is it not? So is the use of terms such as “inner coward” and “cowardice responses.” My main argument is NOT that because newborns do not remember being circumcised, the procedure is okay. This implies that it is a secretive procedure that you don’t want them to even know about (as is your adult analogy). I merely mentioned not remembering to illustrate that there are in the vast majority of instances no ill effects from circumcision. The MAIN reason for the procedure’s being “okay” is that it is a RELIGIOUS ceremony prescribed by G-d according to Jewish belief. It is NOT religious “branding,” as you call it. Rather, it is the fulfilling of a commandment. Jesus was circumcised, as was virtually every male Jew since the time of Abraham. What negative effects did the procedure have on these people?

You are looking at this procedure with modern (and atheist) eyes. Try looking at it through the eyes of believers, particularly those who practice Judaism. Through their eyes, it is NOT regarded as torture, not a punishment, not an evil monstrous act which denies people their rights and treats them like property or play things. It is a commandment from the covenant of Abraham, which sanctifies Jews.
 
Last edited:
I did not say what you seem to believe that I said. My point is that my friend and her husband made the decision knowing all the facts. They did not do it for tribal reasons, religious reasons, or any other reason. They do not consider it mutilation. I am sorry that you see it in only one view. This family is happy with their decision years later.
 
Damian said:
Your inability to wait to do this practice when they are adults is very telling in the cowardic of this barbaric practice.
Click to expand...
Circumcision is a much more serious procedure for an adult to have, as opposed to an infant. I was chatting with my urologist about this, a lot of American men who were drafted into the army during WWII got involuntarily snipped in this matter, and many still complain about it.
 
Fine then, let people give consent when they are adults. Why do this when they are infants? It is because the adults can fight back, can choose to not do this, can enforce their rights of their body without the practice being forced on them. Infants can not. That is why it is cowardice. All your points for why it is important for the religious practice has nothing to do with the age of the individual. These practices can be done as an adult as well.
Oh if we hold you down, apply anesthesia, surgically augment your body, and then you don’t remember it and there are no ill effects, that would be okay to do to you then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top