Forward.com

Jews are too ethical to maintain this practice. It causes too much suffering to others. Human rights are the greater imperative.

Case in point, it was reported just today that an Illinois boy lost his glans to a Mogen clamp. If this had been settle privately instead of coming to a lawsuit, we'd probably never even know about it:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,141642.shtml

The petition referred to above may be joined at http://petition.nomorebris.org.

I would like to introduce some comments from http://petition.nomorebris.org - a petition directed to the leadership of the American Reform Judaism movement and it’s rabbinic assocation, to accept alternative Brit Milah (Jewish Circumcision) practices:

“If [word deleted] cutting is such a powerful symbol of religious dedication men should elect to undergo the tradition not force it on an infant”

“Jewish American vitality and continuity will be advanced only by education in our European Jewish and Jewish American heritage, not by removal of infant foreskins. Circumcision is anachronistic, sexist, and inconsistent with modern Jewish American belief and values. I support Brit Shalom ceremonies welcoming newborn boys and girls without damage to genitals”

“There are so many elements of tradition which we choose to live without (stoning, gender oppression, etc.). In light of modern evidence about the value of the whole anatomy, and in recognition of basic human rights, perhaps our moral sense can let us adopt a tradition which lets a mature male choose the fate of his own body parts.”

“Imagine a religion where a man was required to act out a “good deed” by cutting the [word deleted] of a person who has not elected to get their [word deleted] cut”

I would encourage parties with similar beliefs to join the petition, at http://petition.nomorebris.org

Oops, that link didn't work.

The story of the Illinois boy reported today to have had his glans cut off is here.

Thomas, thank you for your efforts in this area!

Sorry again, I don't know why I can't get the link in there.

Let's try this one, no comma's in there:

http://digg.com/health/Digg_This_Illinois_Boy_Loses_Glans_During_Optional_Circumcision_Surgey

An uncircumcised Jew is an oxymoron. It's that simple. Jews don't need to ape every non Jewish practice.

eveth there is nothing unethical about circumcision. Jewish circumcision has always caused anxiety among non Jews. That some Jews have decided to join the hysteria changes nothing.

The idea that it hurts others is sheer fantasy, btw.

robbins,

Your ethical certitude is disconcerting. Standards of ethics change, over time. We now recognize that individuals have the right to remain bodily intact. Circumcision can't remain an exception.

When I entered "circumcision" in the Forward's search box about six months ago, 1,210 citations were reported. Why such extensive coverage? Contrary to the impression apparently intended, "To Cut? Or Not To Cut?" is a live Jewish issue to few except those who wish that they could still buy tickets to a Yom Kippur Ball.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Wolfe and the rest of the anti-circumcision Jewish fathers are married to shiksas. This assualt on Jewish traditions, by Jews, is the result of intermarriage, assimilation and self-hatred. None of these children will grow up Jewish anyway so who cares.

“If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”

This is patently nonsense Rabbi Aaron - otherwise female genital cutting is harmless too.

And before someone writes and tells me female circumcision is horrific and bears no relation to male circumcision do bear in mind that the common female circumcisions (such as clitorectomy) remove significantly fewer nerve endings than male circumcision.

Its time we stopped peddling myths as a reason to hurt children, whatever their gender

....and by the way Robbins circumcision hurts a great deal - this has been proven by measuring cortisol and heart rate. It does Judaism no favours to deny a baby's pain in circumcision and that's why many Mohels admit it is painful. It is a sacrific after all. It's intended to hurt.

Pain from circumcision is not a possibility, it is a certainty. This is well-documented in the medical literature. Researchers report that circumcision is traumatic. Some infants do not cry because they withdraw in shock from the extreme pain. Usually there is no anesthetic. In any case, no anesthetic eliminates circumcision pain.

Studies have also found behavioral changes resulting from circumcision, and there are over 20 potential complications. Most long-term effects have not been studied.

Some Jewish parents report regretting their son's circumcision decades later.

Sexual sensation of the foreskin is a documented fact from research. According to a recent study, circumcision removes the five most sensitive areas of the [word deleted]. Maimonides wrote that circumcision "weakens the power of sexual excitement" over 800 years ago.

Regarding HIV prevention, condoms are much more effective, less costly, and less invasive. The benefit from circumcision is debatable. The U.S. has a high circumcision rate and the highest prevalence of HIV infection in the developed world. The American Medical Association says "behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status." Furthermore, babies are not sexually active.

The practice continues because of cultural denial and conformity and a compulsion to repeat the trauma on the next generation. Some doctors and nurses refuse to participate in circumcisions for ethical reasons.

For more information see http://www.jewishcircumcision.org.

Whether, as a parent, you choose to circumsize your son or choose not to, you should be ambivalent about your choice. If you choose to, you are imposing a contraindicated medical procedure on an infant. If you choose not to, you are breaking a four-tousand year chain of tradition. Either choice is fraught.

I wonder how many of these intact boys will later get tattoos and/or body piercings because "it's tribal," or when asked about the pain of these body modification will answer that the pain gives meaning? For that matter, how many of the parents who opt out of the bris from concern for their child's volition will hear "I never asked to be born"?

I wonder how many of these intact boys will later get tattoos and/or body piercings because "it's tribal," or when asked about the pain of these body modification will answer that the pain gives meaning? For that matter, how many of the parents who opt out of the bris from concern for their child's volition will hear "I never asked to be born"?

Is Circumcision religious or folk law? In this 21st century we should have learned by now that "Everybody" has a right a to choice. Therefore it should be left to the adult Jewish male to make his own decision .Not the influence of the grandparents,parents, or Rabbi.

I have been told that women contract bladder and UTI infections much more often from a partner who is uncircumcised than one who is circumcised. Only women know just how uncomfortable and agonizing a UTI can be so if only for this reason alone I think circumcision is an excellent idea.

Someone already beat me to it, but I would point out that the focus on circumcision is really an argument about how seriously you take Torah. I remember neither the pain of circumcision nor have I missed my foreskin during the course of my life. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that I'd be angrier at my folks if I missed out on this important aspect of the Jewish life-cycle.

At any rate, I've heard all the sniveling about the pain of circumcision from "intactivist" crowd, but I seldom hear health professionals unleash a torrent of activism against the arguably unhealthier penchant for tattoos and piercings that are so popular with our youth. Circumcision at least is a thousands-years-old tradition, a stud through the scrotum is not.

If you don't want your kids cut, bully for you. But don't ask me or anyone else to view them as a part of the greater Jewish community. It would seem to me that intactivists are the ones with a choice to make.

What will all the "liberal" parents tell their children when they are asked "how could you rob me of the right to be entered into a covenant with G-d - as He explicitly asks us to do in His Torah - as soon as I was born?!" ? Remember, those who masquerade as liberals today are simply being fundamentalist about their liberalism. The new generation has begun seeking objective truths - and when they realize what their parents have imposed on them, they reject it for something of substance.

It's seems that the Forward has finally begun the end of its long slip of its grasp of reality. Soon it seems being Jewish at all will be questioned as either necessary or ethical to one's being Jewish. Which is fine enough, abandon everything. Be a Protestant if you like. But you need to find a new name for it.

What will all the "liberal" parents tell their children when they are asked "how could you rob me of the right to be entered into a covenant with G-d - as He explicitly asks us to do in His Torah - as soon as I was born?!" ? Remember, those who masquerade as liberals today are simply being fundamentalist about their liberalism. The new generation has begun seeking objective truths - and when they realize what their parents have imposed on them, they reject it for something of substance.

"Do you have the right to prmanently alter another person's body without their permission?" That is the responsibility of a child's parents, who might also be asked to permit surgery, even of an elective nature, to strengthen and enhance the child's health. Perhaps Mr. Ungar-Sargon would prefer that a Jewish boy undergo a bris at age 13, or 18, or whenever? If it isn't broken, you don't fix it. The bris milah is our unbroken link to Abraham Avinu.

With a "Brit Shalom", reform Judaism is ushering in the death of Judaism. Why don't we have a mezzuzah, but leave out the Torah scroll. Let's say the hamotzi, but without bread. And forget keeping kosher: all food is provided by the heavens and should be eaten. And let's eat on Yom Kippur. It is better for our figures. By the way...all of the many health benefits of circumcison occur only if it is done in the newborn period. After that, it is too late. And I agree with Nicole. The anti-circ activists are married to shiksas, and their kids are not Jewish, anyway. Let them go, and continue their pathetic self hatred.

interesting that this is following an article by rabbi Eric Yoffee critisizing chabad for "watering down" the bar mitzvah ceremony...

i wonder what he would say about this!

My questions to those who insist that bris mile (circumcision) is essential to a person's Jewishness: What physical sign of a bris (covenant) is demanded of girls? And, since there is none, why do you also insist that only children born of (non-marked) Jewish women can be considered Jewish by birth?

As a Secular Jewish vegvayzer/madrikh/Leader in The Sholem Community, L.A. I proudly officiate at naming ceremonies for both boys and girls. Intercultural families, especially, are relieved and happy to find a Jewish community that emphasizes cultural and historical identity rather than slavish adherence to rituals that arose in antiquity.

I remember during my military service where men were lined up to stand what was called Short Arm Inspection. It will always be memorable to me the problems that surfaced occasionaly involving uncircucized men never with circucized men.

What makes brit milah (vkhn ,hrC), the ritual of circumcision, controversial? The critics of ritual circumcision have a number of points to make, arguing:

1. It is needlessly risky, involving trauma, pain, and potential medical complications, including excess bleeding, infection and ulceration, and occasionally permanent damage to the organ;

2. It results in “diminished sexual sensation”; 3. It is done without informed consent; and 4. It is without proven medical benefit.

What is the scientific proof that circumcision involves trauma? We recognize two types of trauma, physical and psychological. After a century of widespread medically performed circumcisions, the evidence is that the procedure does not produce “serious injury or shock to the body” when performed competently—certainly far less than any number of popular elective cosmetic surgeries, which we’ll return to momentarily.

Regarding emotional trauma, ordinarily defined as “substantial, lasting damage to the psychological development of the person,” the so-called scientific indictment of circumcision is an indefensible exaggeration. While many scientific studies report infant pain-reactions to circumcision, we have not been able to find any randomized surveys that query adult men on the subject. What the anecdotal literature does show is that typically when the procedure is performed on infants and very young children, they have no recollection of the event in later life, even as teenagers. And although far from a scientific survey, not one of dozens of men we’ve asked over the years had any recollection of his circumcision or any inkling that the procedure, per se, in any way affected his psychological development.

One of the reported “scientific findings” regarding circumcision is that it reduces sexual pleasure. One can imagine the critics of the practice happily anticipating the negative impact of these reports on the performance of various religious circumcision rites. But at best what we have here is scientifically speculative studies; that is, scientists speculating on what ought to be the predictable effects of circumcision on sexual pleasure later in life. After reviewing hundreds of refereed journal articles on the subject, we have not found any controlled studies demonstrating this “scientific finding.”

We do have, however, the conclusions of one refereed journal editorial that lead in the opposite direction on the question of reduced sexual pleasure: “The anti-circumcision lobby is committed to the emotional—not scientific—discussion of this issue. Their major contention is that circumcised men experience less sexual satisfaction than uncircumcised men. As evidence, they cite several single-sided questionnaire studies with poor scientific validity suggesting that circumcised men have decreased sensation and less satisfaction with sexual function. We reviewed a series of men undergoing adult circumcision for phimosis, balanitis, condyloma, redundant foreskin, or elective reasons. Following circumcision, they reported improved sexual satisfaction due to a more pleasing penile appearance and less pain than before circumcision.”

Several reputable medical studies have found the seemingly contradictory result that after circumcision on adults, patients report both decreased penile sensitivity and greater sexual satisfaction. But for the moment let’s entertain the idea that there is a reduction in adult sexual pleasure as a result of circumcision at birth. Are we then about to discover a large constituency—nay, even a small contingent—of Jewish or Muslim men who, be-wailing their involuntary loss of sexual pleasure, have committed themselves to sparing their sons the same disappointing disability? If so, their protest of circumcision as a “barbaric ritual” has not been reported in any of the scholarly journals or popular periodicals.

In our conversations with Jewish men in recent years, the consensus reaction to the claim of reduced sexual pleasure from circumcision was that they could not imagine experiencing more pleasure than what they had actually known.

But nonetheless, for the sake of fully exploring the criticism, let’s say the claim is true, even if only marginally. Why aren’t the critics of circumcision equally vehement about body-piercing, facial Botox treatments, breast augmentation, and tattooing? All these popular practices run the risk of infection, pain, permanent disfigurement, and even death, but often only to “improve” one’s physical appearance. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no higher or noble purpose is served, although several do enrich medical practitioners.

The most obvious defect in the argument that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure is that it underestimates the extraordinarily powerful psycho-emotional components of such pleasure. It’s self-evident that one who enters and sustains a relationship with a much greater commitment and capacity to promote and accept loving-kindness and justice—these ideals are central to the purposes and effects of entry into the covenant of circumcision—may well experience greater intellectual, emotional, and spiritual intimacy, as well as increased longevity of such intimacy, which in turn are primary sources of heightened sexual intimacy and pleasure.

The notion of informed consent in matters of childrearing, particularly regarding medical and psychological decisions affecting infants, is a non-starter. During their children’s early years, parents must continually make decisions that affect their physical and psychological well being, almost always without their informed consent. Consider the definition of informed consent in the Nuremberg Code, which requires:

1. Legal capacity to give consent; 2. Ability to exercise free power of choice, with-out the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other form of constraint or coercion; and 3. Sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter and the elements involved as to enable one to make an informed and enlightened decision.

Given these conditions, informed consent by an infant or small child is an oxymoron.

Regarding the claim that circumcision does not have any proven medical benefits, contradictory articles have been rife for years in the professional and popular literature. Advocates on the various sides of the issue have marshaled new findings from week to week to promote their polemics.

However, the findings of a study of 3,000 men in South Africa have shown conclusively that circumcised men were “more than 60% less likely than uncircumcised men to be infected with HIV when having sex with infected female partners.” A study in India found similarly that circumcised men were infected at a rate eight times less than uncircumcised men. A New York Times editorial concluded: “The South African study is the first to offer a high scientific standard of evidence that circumcision is responsible.”

More recently, the National Institute of Health halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, after concluding: “Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half. . . .” Under the circumstances, not making circumcision available to all the men in these studies would have been unethical.

The most up-to-date findings, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, as reported in the New York Times, indicate that “Circumcision may provide even more protection against AIDS than was realized when the two clinical trials in Africa were stopped. . . ” —reducing a man’s risk by as much as 65 percent.

Presumably the anti-circumcision lobby will be permanently silenced by the decision of the World Health Organization (WHO) when it “. . . officially recommended circumcision as a way to prevent heterosexual transmission of the AIDS virus . . . , setting the stage for donor agencies to begin paying for the operation.”

As the New York Times noted about the WHO action, “The organization’s recommendation represents a triumph for a few public health experts who argued for years—in the face of skepticism from prominent scientists—that circumcision had a protective effect.” An interesting insight into the intensity of ideological opposition to circumcision in some scientific circles was revealed by a group of U.S. physicians. Before the South African study began, they took the unscientific position that “. . . no matter what evidence . . . was discovered . . . , [it] would have no impact on what the group thinks.”

For citations to the studies we quoted above, included in our article on the subject which offers the "ritual" reasons for brit milah, see our article, "Brit Milah Is Not A Medical Procedure" (available at http://www.gatherthepeople.org/Downloads/BRIT_MILAH.pdf).

What's next, Jew-less Jews?

What's next, Jew-less Jews?

This is simply another example of Jews who believe they can be good Jews even if they do not observe any of the commandments. It is a "safety in numbers" approach that believes "if we get enough people to agree with our non-observance, it's OK". This is why the Reform Movement came into existence in the first place. The concerns enunciated by the people here are for freedom from pain, free choice and sexual pleasure, not for the fulfillment of God's desire and laws. Indeed, the notion that anything in the Torah comes from God is completely foreign to the Reform (and becoming increasingly foreign to the Conservative as well). My only response is that people are free to do and believe whatever they want; it's just offensive when they substitute their personal morality (amorality? immorality?) for the Torah's and call it Judaism.

1/ Just out of vague curiosity: Are there any Jewish Laws that the Reform/Conservatives are planning on keeping?

Enough about blaming the Reform movement for this controversy. Every boy in my synagogue that I know was circumcised. The two that I know who didn't are married to non Jews and do not participate in anything anyway.

Next comes the Passover Seder without Matzoh or Haggadah, the Yom Kippur Day without fasting or prayer, and the Sukkoth Festival without booths or etrogim. If you don't want circumcision, don't make a BRIS. Save money on the catering and put it away for a good secular education. It's laughable to say, "We have a BRIS when the main part of the BRIS--the essential element around which all the other particulars revolve--is missing. The point of the BRIS was to make a sign in the flesh itself. In conversion of male Gentiles to Jews, the circumcision is an essential part of the process because it is this mark in the flesh that the Bible labels as as prime requisite of the "Covenant with G-d".

Why don't you people opposed to bris just have the entire Torah rewritten? That's what several demominations of Judaism are doing anyway with intermarriage, stance on homosexuality, etc. Jews for "J" know more about Judaism than many of you folks.

When we see HIV on the rise and cervical cancer a reality among women , now come along "men" who think they no more than the ancient Jews who for religous and I don't believe they understood the medical implications, have decided they don't need a bris for their new born boys. Give me a break. There are Jewsish parents who have risked their lives to give their new born boys a bris, former Soviet men and boys have come to this country and have wantedand had a bris,and rest assured it was a lot more painful then a little clip on a baby. I have never hear of one man say he misses what the mohel took away. Come on men grow up and be men. A bris not a Brit Shalom is what makes a a boy a Jewish boy.

When the jews went down to Egypt The tribe of Levi was the only ones who continued the Bris PROPERLY and they were the only ones exempt from servitude to the Egyptians. They remained the holy tribe. Those that discontinue the bris the covenant with god, God will chas vshalom discontinue his relationship...

bs"d One of the few links that join the generations father to son all the way back to Avraham avinu, and a couple of "new age", touchie-feely, tree hugging, really don't-know-much-about-authentic-Judaism-wacko's want to re-write a basic pillar on which Judaism has resided for thousands of years. These are the very same people who see no problem with what they call "patrilineal descent," happily protested to free Mandella but don't have a clue whom Ron Arad is, put a stupid Orange on thier seder plate, and somehow have themselves convinced that what they practice as "Judaism" might actually have some relevance in 50 years. What a bunch of morons!! It's said that Dovid HaMelech went to use the mikvah and as he stood naked about to enter the waters, he felt very detached from G-d. No mezzuzah on the door to the bathhouse, no t'fillin on his arm or head, no tallith... and then he recalled his brit milah...always with him...always there just like his connection to HaShem.

If the blood ritual was postponed until the victim was old enough to choose it for himself, wouldn't that be a much more meaningful symbolic bond through generations than a forced cosmetic amputation of healthy normal body parts?

Frankly, I am shocked that a man could hate his son and the children of others, so much as to deny him the medically established protection of circumcision!

Especially to make this denial at a time when the media is filled with mention of HIV/AIDS and the fact that circumcision is a proven transmission preventative – just as it has proved to be in the case of many other STD’s.

The Laws of Moses, including circumcision, are basic medical practice for those who would survive disease. Without those laws, Jews would have been victims of the mediaeval plagues which decimated Europe right into the Age of Enlightenment.

The next set of petitions will probably involve saving water by dispensing with the need to wash after touch anything which could possible transmit illness. Now that would be a real “REFORM”.

Maybe that will be a promoted by the “retired diagnostic radiologist” who also seem to be in the dark about current medical evidence related to proposals to introduce circumcision to fight the African and Indian HIV epidemics.

My parents didn't invite a mohel to the apartment on my eighth day, far back in 1933, so I made my own arrangement at the age of forty – representing those forty years of wandering in the desert (the bris was held courtesy of Chabad House, Santa Monica, CA, 1973).

That year, Chabad had a pair of recent (1973) Russian émigré physicians who had developed a surgical technique for the bris that was relatively painless for adults. I was one of the earlier men to experience this surgery – and it worked!

The “Greater Imperative” is not human rights but Jewish rites of passage.

The bris is an important sign among Jewish men of belonging to the Jewish people.

Perhaps these serious objectors to the bris as an induction ritual for Jewish men should also advocate rejection of the mikvah as an induction ritual for Jewish women?

Ron Low, you ignorant putz. A bris is not a blood ritual. To call it "cosmetic amputation" indicates to me that you must be pining for your foreskin. Have a sex change, become Rhonda and find a nice uncircumsized goy and live happily everafter.

Having been born in the Soviet Union, my parents did not give me a bris out of fear of the authorities. Upon arriving in America, I proudly had a bris in a hospital.

It was painful, but worth it. I'm sure that if given the choice, the majority of the uncircumcised children of these ultra-Reformists would also opt for a bris when they get older. The bris is our covenant. It's a permanent reminder of who we are.

Primitive. Barbaric. Ideological.

Children have freedom of religion, too. No religious argument can justify circumcising a child before he can decide for himself whether to participate in that particular religious practice.

It's wrong to force a religiously motivated body mutilation onto a child. It shows a deep lack of respect for their individuality.

Human rights matter more than ancient practices.

“Your ethical certitude is disconcerting. Standards of ethics change, over time. We now recognize that individuals have the right to remain bodily intact. Circumcision can't remain an exception.” eveth

Spare me the emotionalism, eveth.

Not all standards of ethics change over time. Moreover, just because a standard changes doesn’t mean that it was a bad standard when it was held. Your standards are the standards of America circa 20000 and if you believe in change you should realize that circa 3000 these standards will change again.

The idea that standards of ethics change is neither an epistemological nor a moral argument.

The idea “that individuals have the right to remain bodily intact” as you put it is not a new idea. The Hellenists held the same idea over two thousands years ago. So much for ethical ideas changing! The Jew fought a war against the Hellenist in order to defend their right to practice their religion in their own way. Now, as to your argument about the “right to remain bodily intact” does that mean that infants born with serious illness should not be operated on? Where do you draw the line? In any case many doctors believe that circumcision can contribute to health, although this is not my argument.

Jews do believe in the intact body (they reject tattoos, for example, but they believe that circumcision is a contract between them and their god. This makes circumcision a matter of the spirit and not just the body.

Laura MacDonald said: “....and by the way Robbins circumcision hurts a great deal - this has been proven by measuring cortisol and heart rate. It does Judaism no favours to deny a baby's pain in circumcision and that's why many Mohels admit it is painful. It is a sacrific after all. It's intended to hurt.”

Firstly, male circumcision is very different from female circumcision and it has been recognized as such by most medical and religious authorities, at least in the west. (For one thing, female circumcision does affect the sexuality of the female which is not the case for males.)

Now for the issue of pain: I underwent circumcision at birth and I have no memory of it. It has not stopped from having a full sexual life. Nor has it stopped me from participation as a full member of my community.

This is true for most Jewish males who underwent circumcision. People as different as Einstein, Buber, Trotsky, Ariel Sharon, Chomsky, Spinoza, Freud, Sandy Koufax, Marc Spitz, and Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel have been circumcised.

This should tell you that the practice has no effect whatever on the ability of individual Jews from functioning at a very high level of their profession, be they saints, or sinners.

As to the measurement of pain, well little anesthetics will take care of that. People who hate the idea because it may diminish their sexual pleasure do so on subjective grounds.

It strikes me though, that most people who object to the practice also object to the Jewish religion.

I am not sure I know on what basis you make the argument, Laura. Are you speaking as a Jew, as a female (Jewsdon’t practice female circumcision and never had). Hence I don’t quite get what problem you have with this practice. Is it merely an ethical objection based on your own ethical theory?

Please let us know.

btw: those Jews who do not chose to circumcize their sons are free to do. I for one, though, do not see them as being fully Jewish.

Perhaps they can form their own "better improved" Jewish religion. Other Jews have certainly done so in ancient times. They left on legacy though within the Jewish world.

"Now, as to your argument about the “right to remain bodily intact” does that mean that infants born with serious illness should not be operated on? Where do you draw the line?" - Robbins

It means that a consistent set of ethical standards must apply for medical interventions, without needing a special exception for male circumcision. Only a legitimate medical indication justifies removing normal body parts.

You may believe that "circumcision [is] a matter of the spirit and not just the body," but not every person will want to sacrifice some of their body in a spiritual pursuit. Those people deserve the right to not be mutilated.

We are no longer permitted to own other people, nor can we own their genitals. Only the owner may sacrifice part of his sex organ.

At a time when Jewish continuity is a significant issue for world (and particulaly American and European) jewry, the demand to cease giving Jewish male babies a brit mila, is simply awesome. The first mitzva (commandment) of the Torah and one of the singular signs of entering the Jewish People is not to be dismissed or disregarded lightly.

Yes, it does hurt -- the child cries and the parents cringe -- but it's temporary for both. Frankly the baby cries when his diaper is removed and the cold air hits him. He also cries a little during the act, though if a proficient mohel is used, the entire procedure is but a second. And, yes, complications do occur, but they're a distinct minority.

Ethics have NOTHING to do with the decision by some not to give their son a brit mila. It's a baldface attempt to distance themselves from being identified as Jewish. During the Hellenist period (the Hannuka story) Jews seeking assimilation went to great lengths (sorry for the pun/double entendre) to reverse their circumsion. In more modern period; (a) Socialists ("red diaper babies") uninterested in being identifies as Jewish refused to circumise their sons and (b) the Nazis would ask suspected Jewish men (who were trying to pass themselves off as Gentiles) to pull down their pants to proved their claim. All this leads to the conclusion that it's more an issue of Jewish identity than "ethical considerations."

"You may believe that "circumcision [is] a matter of the spirit and not just the body," but not every person will want to sacrifice some of their body in a spiritual pursuit. Those people deserve the right to not be mutilated.

We are no longer permitted to own other people, nor can we own their genitals. Only the owner may sacrifice part of his sex organ." eveth

You may believe what you will. No one is forcing you to circumcise your son. If you don't want to be a Jew (assuming you are Jewish) that is your business. None Jews have no right to tell Jews how to raise their children.

I am grateful to my parents for circumcising me and my children all hale, healthy, and successful are grateful as they said that I circumcised them.

There are no adverse effects to circumcision, but there are social adverse effects to anti-Semitism which has always targeted Jewish circumcision as "an evil" in order to get rid of the Jewish people. I am not saying that eveth is and anti-Semite, but I am merely pointing out the historical significance of his argument. Bottom line Jews will continue to circumcise and to excel in all aspects of human endeavor and anti-Semites will continue to rage.

As the sponsor of the petition mentioned in the article above, I appreciate the lively debate this controversial topic has encouraged. With that being said, I would like to offer some of my own comments and opinions:

a) You will note that the petition I sponsored was not intended to universally force (or lean on) Judaism to abandon circumcision. It was directed exclusively towards the Reform Movement -- with the understanding that those with more traditional beliefs can find community in the Conservative and Orthodox movements.

b) The key issue, and basis for the petition I sponsored, is that the Reform Movement embraces certain ideals which are inconsistent with what contemporary medical and ethical studies have found in the practice of circumcision. When the issue was first addressed by the Reform Movement in the 1800's, medical science was not advanced like it is today, and any debate on its medical harm was largely a matter of opinion. As a civilization we have also grown ethically, and abandoned practices like owning slaves. The Reform Movement, which is open to changes in its interpretation of Judasim, to be true to itself, needs to reconcile itself to the inconsistencies modern insight has provided.

c) The petition asks the Reform Movement to address these inconsistencies by formally sanctioning an alternative ceremony, the "Brit Shalom". This ceremony is not to replace the Brit Milah -- but to be offered as an alternative to -- for those that choose it. You will note that such a recognition will not suddenly cause all of Judaism to cease -- the Reform Movement has already adopted an "alternative bris" ceremony some 20-30 years ago - a baby naming for girls - and Judaism has chugged merrily along, with little notice or impact.

d) Now, it is true that the Reform Movement generally has some different interpretations of the meaning of the Torah, yet, I would like to point out that it is still the same Torah. Those of the Conservative and Orthodox movements of today should be gently reminded that today's Orthodoxy was the reform movement of biblical times. At that time, interpretation of Torah was not vested in the rabbis (Pharisees), but in the cohenim (Sadduccees). By that standard, as Orthodox as you may be, you too are following what ultimately is your "own" interpretation of the Torah, which you call "halakhah". Now, that's fine -- if your choose a very structured interpretation of the Torah and surround yourself with people that do the same, mazel tov. But whether or not it is "better" or the "more correct" is at best, a subjective opinion.

e) I am disappointed in those that have suggested that only those Jews "aren't active in the Temple or the community" or "who marry shikshas" or, worse yet, "who are anti-semetic" could come up with an unconventional, but certainly valid argument. I would like to point out that such suggestions are prejudiced, hurtful, self-righteous, and inconsistent with the Judaism I follow, which seeks to be a compass to right moral conduct. Perhaps this is a Reform Movement leaning, but I was under the impression that study and debate of Torah was encouraged? I can at least respect Rabbi Moshe ben Asher's comments, as they are well thought out and address the issue -- not personally attack and disparage those that propose unconventional ideas.

f) Lastly, I would encourage those here to visit the doctors opposing circumcision site and *learn* why someone like Dr. Reiss, a conservative jew, doctor, and educated man, might himself be opposed to the practice. Or why Dr. Leonard Glick, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, and author of both Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America (Oxford University Press, 2005) and Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe (Syracuse University Press, 1999), would suggest: "Jewish American vitality and continuity will be advanced only by education in our European Jewish and Jewish American heritage, not by removal of infant foreskins. Circumcision is anachronistic, sexist, and inconsistent with modern Jewish American belief and values." -- Maybe they know more than you do?

Respectfully-- Thomas Wolfe, reform Jew http://petition.nomorebris.org

Robbins in answer to your question I'm simply saying that mutilating children's genitals should not be allowed in the 21st century and asking that Jewish boys be allowed to reach 18 and make a choice on how, when and if they want to lose their foreskin. How much more valuable to God would a sacrifice be if the person who lost their asset actually CHOSE to give it up for God,rather than having it stolen to be given to God?0.

I'm also concerned at the myths being put about to justify this practice - if it must continue at the very least be honest about the fact it is a blood rite and not a medical procedure.

I'm writing from Britain where very most Doctors would refuse to amputate a healthy child's foreskin, on the grounds that it has an important sexual function, HE owns it, and there are no benefits to him in losing it in childhood. The adult benefits (all put forward by the circ lobby) can be debated but a childs risk of penile sores and other complications cancels out the much vaunted protection from urinary tract infection.

My second point, and this is borne out by the evidence, is that the common female circumcisions are comparable to male circumcision - both can cause desensitisation although they don't necessarily prevent orgasm, and both are justified on the grounds of tradition and a prejudiced view of the natural body being dirty and ugly.

God put around 8,000 nerve endings in the clitoral tip (more in the internal part of the clitoris which is not removed by circumcision) He put more than 20,0000 in the foreskin

Around 80% of cut women believe - like you - that the cut has not adversely affected their life. Is this a reason to go on cutting girls? No, it simply proves that social conditioning can make us accept the most extraordinary things.

PS Many African Jews do cut girls by the way (as do Christians) - this is well documented. Many people on here need to check their facts a bit better. Unless you are saying that facts don't matter - in which case i'll go away and leave you to it...

Once again the Forward cannot miss an opportunity to publicize the opponents of Jewish traditions. Things are quieting down re Kosher slaughter practices and treatment of undocumented workers so headlines proclaim the views of 70 Jews against circumcision. What is it about we Jews that makes us turn against ourselves and attempt to destroy what makes us a unique, distinct, and chosen people. Guys, if you don't like being Jewish you have lots of choices, but how about leaving those of us who choose our Jewishness alone. And talk about permantly altering a childs future. How dare any Jewish parent send an uncircumsized son out into the world telling them that they are fully Jewish. That to me is the ethical issue involved here. For shame.

Although I am on the opposite side of this debate, I find Thomas Wolfe's arguments cogent. If one is a Reform Jew who believes that the Torah was written by human beings, why should one feel obliged to observe an ancient ritual which is personally distasteful. I also agree that the medical arguments are irrelevant. No observant Jew gives his child a Bris for medical reasons. He does so because he believes God commanded him to. People like Mr. Wolfe and eveth obviously do not believe that God ever commanded them to do anything. They have the right to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Where they are dishonest is in believing that their personal beliefs have anything to do with Judaism. The religion they observe is "Thomas Wolfism" or "evethism", etc. They are their own god. Why they need a "Reform Movement" to validate their personal beliefs is probably due to some kind of Jewish guilt.

Most evidence for circumcision is positive. A case in point: my grandson was not circumcized at birth because father's preference. The boy came down with a urinary infection at age one that would not have occurred if circumcized at birth. So he had a circumcision at age one. Healthy ever since and he is now in college.

"You will note that the petition I sponsored was not intended to universally force (or lean on) Judaism to abandon circumcision. It was directed exclusively towards the Reform Movement -- with the understanding that those with more traditional beliefs can find community in the Conservative and Orthodox movements." Thomas Wolfe

In other words you want to cause an even deeper split between Reform Judaism and the other two branches. Unfortunately for you many reform congregations have become more Conservative in recent years and I doubt they will pick up on your hair brained suggestion that Jews abandon circumcision.

As I said above there is no medical reason not to circumcise. Any people which has produced so great scientists, financiers, artists, writers, fighters, and lovers, all circumcised, is in no need to change this practice. Perhaps other people should adopt it also.

"Robbins in answer to your question I'm simply saying that mutilating children's genitals should not be allowed in the 21st century and asking that Jewish boys be allowed to reach 18 and make a choice on how, when and if they want to lose their foreskin. How much more valuable to God would a sacrifice be if the person who lost their asset actually CHOSE to give it up for God,rather than having it stolen to be given to God?" Laura MacDonald

This sounds thoroughly anti-Semitic to me. I will answer you the way I answered eveth and Thomas Wolfe:

‘Now for the issue of pain: I underwent circumcision at birth and I have no memory of it. It has not stopped from having a full sexual life. Nor has it stopped me from participation as a full member of my community.

This is true for most Jewish males who underwent circumcision. People as different as Einstein, Buber, Trotsky, Ariel Sharon, Chomsky, Spinoza, Freud, Sandy Koufax, Marc Spitz, and Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel have been circumcised.

This should tell you that the practice has no effect whatever on the ability of individual Jews from functioning at a very high level of their profession, be they saints, or sinners.

As to the measurement of pain, well little anesthetics will take care of that. People who hate the idea because it may diminish their sexual pleasure do so on subjective grounds.’

‘As I said above there is no medical reason not to circumcise. Any people which has produced so great scientists, financiers, artists, writers, fighters, and lovers, all circumcised, is in no need to change this practice. Perhaps other people should adopt it also.’ “I'm writing from Britain where very most Doctors would refuse to amputate a healthy child's foreskin, on the grounds that it has an important sexual function, HE owns it, and there are no benefits to him in losing it in childhood. The adult benefits (all put forward by the circ lobby) can be debated but a childs risk of penile sores and other complications cancels out the much vaunted protection from urinary tract infection.”

This isn’t a serious argument against circumcision. There is no “circumcision lobby” (did you mean the Zionist lobby?)

“PS Many African Jews do cut girls by the way (as do Christians) - this is well documented. Many people on here need to check their facts a bit better. Unless you are saying that facts don't matter - in which case i'll go away and leave you to it.”

Excuse me, let’s see your facts? I don’t know what “African Jews” you are talking about. The fact is that Jews do not “circumcise” females and never have. It’s not in the Torah and you are making this up.

Btw: I am not surprised that you are British. Do you also support the boycott of Israel?

another example of how reform and Judaism are two very separate and distinct religions.

Jews who do not circumcise their children open that child up to be active in every religious EXCEPT authentic Judiasm. I didn't know I was Jewish when my sons were born, so I didn't have them circumcised. Later, when my mother told me I am Jewish and I became religious, my sons were faced with getting a brit in their teens. They insisted upon it, although it was much more painful at this later date.

When you make a decision to no circumcise your child, you are just giving up responsiblity and making your children take that responsiblity on themselves. This is not good parenting. Stick with Halacha and do not listen to those who are trying to destroy our religious traditions with their "new age" paganistic thinking.

This is not something to be debated. It is a Torah commandment--for good reason.

Larry said:

"another example of how reform and Judaism are two very separate and distinct religions."

I do not agree that Reform is a religion. It is merely organized non-observance of Jewish law and practice. In a real religion, there are laws and rules and a belief in God. In Reform, one does whatever he/she thinks is right this week, and next week he/she can change it to something else. One claims reverence for the Torah, but one dismisses virtually all of its laws either by way of modern "interpretation" that pretends that the Torah agrees with him/her or by labeling a mitzvah as ancient and barbaric. I've read commentaries by Reform rabbis that describe Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to God as a sin and a great mistake. Can there be a greater example of intellectual dishonesty than that? Do they even bother to read the text of the Torah?

The Reform want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to do away with all of Jewish law and still be recognized as practicing an authentic expression of Judaism. This is really a quite predictable product of a western philosophy that focuses on individual rights, not obligations, and is therefore by its very nature antithetical to Judaism.

I am an agnostic Jew and I see nothing wrong with circumcision. I have circumcised my son and I hope he will do the same with his son or sons.

It hurts to see how many Jews still feel a need to further distance from the ways of their ancestors with their "enlightened" view point.

It hurts to see how many Jews still feel a need to further distance from the ways of their ancestors with their "enlightened" view point.

I see many comments claiming that those couples denying circumcision are all interfaith couples. This is simply not true. I get 2-5 phone/email consults per week from couples who are seeking an alternative non-cutting covenantal ceremony for their newborn son. Approximately 50% are from couples who are both Jewish, 50% from interfaith couples. Now that criticism of circumcision is not taboo, there is unquestionably a growing minority of Jews worldwide (yes, even in Israel) who are waking up and keeping their Jewish sons intact. Many of these boys will be Bar Mitzvahed and ultimately take their rightful place in the Jewish community.

For more information on rabbis and other lay leaders who will officiate at Brit Shalom ceremonies, go to Celebrants of Brit Shalom at www.circumstitions.com/shalom.

Wouldn't it be nice if people like Mark Reiss would limit their heresy to themselves and not insist on trying to convince those who are ignorant of Jewish law to sin as well? The Mishnah states that one who causes others to sin has no portion in the World to Come.

Leave it to a bunch of liberals of jewish origin to come up with this foolishness and leave it to them to convince their left wing legislators to attempt to outlaw circumcision. What a rotten bunch!

"Leave it to a bunch of liberals of jewish origin to come up with this foolishness and leave it to them to convince their left wing legislators to attempt to outlaw circumcision. What a rotten bunch! David S. Levine

Hey David, I am a liberal Jew who supports the right of Jews to practice circumcision. The people who want to outlaw it are not liberal they are dogmatic idiots.

Shriber wrote: "Hey David, I am a liberal Jew who supports the right of Jews to practice circumcision."

Shriber, if only you would substitute the word "obligation" for the word "right" above, this would be a beautiful, authentically Jewish statement.

As a Jewish mother who had both of her sons circumcised, I have profound regret that I wasn't better informed. The foreskin isn't simply a "little flap" of redundant skin. It's composition is highly complex, and it's functions are critical for sensory, protective and sexual function. The "possible pain" has been measured and replicated in mulitple scientific studies measuring heartbeat, respiratory rate, cortisol levels, etc. demonstrating extreme pain suffered by our baby boys undergoing this ancient rite. We know that Jewish tradition forbids the infliction of pain on any helpless being. Spiritualizing circumcision does not change the damage. What is not ethical, cannot be spiritual. We need to stop our milennia of denial, and look at this for what it is: genital cutting of healthy sexual tissue on non-consenting adults. This is not holy.

A further comment to those recommending no circumcisions: Everyone has a free choice whether or not to circumcise their children, but what right do you have to say this has anything to do with Judaism when the vast body of Jews across all denominations chose to continue this practice and maintain solidarity with thousands of years of peoplehood and practice. Preach what you will but just as messianic Jews for Jesus (JFJ) are not representing Judaism, neither are Jews for Foreskins (JFF). Please stop using the word Jewish in your arguments.

Miriam Pollock wrote: "As a Jewish mother who had both of her sons circumcised, I have profound regret that I wasn't better informed. The foreskin isn't simply a "little flap" of redundant skin. It's composition is highly complex, and it's functions are critical for sensory, protective and sexual function."

Amazing that the Jewish people was able to procreate for thousands of years without this piece of skin so critical for sexual function. give me a break. You can't really be stupid enough to believe that men who are circumcised don't enjoy normal, healthy sexual function. From what I see, the vast majority of men in this country are circumcised and if anything they're engaging in way too much sex.

Miriam Pollock continues:

"We know that Jewish tradition forbids the infliction of pain on any helpless being. Spiritualizing circumcision does not change the damage. What is not ethical, cannot be spiritual. We need to stop our milennia of denial, and look at this for what it is: genital cutting of healthy sexual tissue on non-consenting adults. This is not holy."

This has nothing to do with "spiritualizing" circumcision. It has to do with a commandment in the Torah which before Reform Jews came into existence in the 18th Century, all Jews considered to be given by God to the Jewish people. The Jewish people's ethics (and in truth most of the world's) come from the Torah. The Torah as written by God saw no contradiction between being ethical and having a circumcision. If your ethics are different from the Torah's, that's your problem. It has nothing to do with Judaism. I'll continue to practice Judaism, not "Miriam Pollockism".

jeff schwartz said: "Shriber wrote: "Hey David, I am a liberal Jew who supports the right of Jews to practice circumcision."

Shriber, if only you would substitute the word "obligation" for the word "right" above, this would be a beautiful, authentically Jewish statement."

I have no problem with the term mitzvah to designate the act. As I said I am an agnostic Jew who loves his heritage and doesn' see either Judaism or Zionism as political ideology but as a cultural civilization able to accomodate all political spectrums from right to left and from religious to agnostics.

Ron Low said: "If the blood ritual was postponed until the victim was old enough to choose it for himself, wouldn't that be a much more meaningful symbolic bond through generations than a forced cosmetic amputation of healthy normal body parts?"

What's "meaningful" to God is to do what he commanded us to do, and that's to perform the Bris on the 8th day.

Miriam Pollack you are just repeating arguments already put forward. Your personal experience, so called, doesn't make this argument any truer.

The pain is minimal as has been said, and one can use anesthetic to eliminate it almost completely. Besides as has been cogently argued the Jewish people have done very well over the years with this practice.

There is no medical, psychological, or moral reason to abandon the practice. NONE!

The argument for its suppression have been either emotional or antisemitic. Circumcision has always bothered many non Jews. This isn't going to change any time soon.

As for your reduced pleasure argument it's a non argument:

This male has had a lot of pleasure with his circumcised [word deleted]. Besides, how would you know how much pleasure males have one way or the other?

Ron Low said: "If the blood ritual was postponed until the victim was old enough to choose it for himself, wouldn't that be a much more meaningful symbolic bond through generations than a forced cosmetic amputation of healthy normal body parts?"

It's not a "blood ritual" Ron. You should acquaint yourself with the meanings (plural) of the practice in the Jewish religion and culture.

No one is forcing you to circumcise your children, btw, or even to stay Jewish.

“If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”

What kind of logic is this? Fear of being cast out from the tribe of Jews is what primarily coerces Jews to turn a blind eye to the obvious ethical and moral violation of the rights of the individual by imposing crippling alteration to a boy's genitals, and potentially to his future sexuality.

Fear is often manifest as anger. Just look at some of the angry comments posted against those who question the circumcision. It is understandable, those of us with insight understand that change is scary for you and you are afraid. Attack us or our spouses as non-Jews or liberals or that our children don't matter if you must. Small minded people will always choose to stay with the status quo. Confront your fear.

Ritual circumcision is enforced through fear and blind cultural inertia exploiting the human desire to belong. We are better than that; Jews are smarter than sheep following the herd. The time has come for enlightened, educated, rational Jews to seriously study, understand the history, motivation, and intent of circumcision, and then make an honest evaluation of its value.

Think, question, be strong.

So here's a (maybe) tough question for some of you.

When a child grows up and is appalled that he was mutilated in the name of religion, which would you prefer: That he work to change the unethical aspects of his religion, or that he consider it unchangeable, and thus abandon it entirely?

Nate said: "What kind of logic is this? Fear of being cast out from the tribe of Jews is what primarily coerces Jews to turn a blind eye to the obvious ethical and moral violation of the rights of the individual by imposing crippling alteration to a boy's genitals, and potentially to his future sexuality."

Fear seems to be at basis of your own argument. Using terms like “moral” or “ethical” doesn’t make your argument either true or Ethical. Moreover, you posts anger, Nate speaks for itself.

Nate, have you read the posts refuting the idea that circumcision is harmful?

How can a practice be harmful to Jews if as a community Jews have given so much to the world?

Your sexual hysteria notwithstanding circumcision hasn’t harmed anyone’s “future sexuality.” I’d bet that your sexual problems are due to other causes.

eveth said: "So here's a (maybe) tough question for some of you.

When a child grows up and is appalled that he was mutilated in the name of religion, which would you prefer: That he work to change the unethical aspects of his religion, or that he consider it unchangeable, and thus abandon it entirely?"

If I felt as you do I would abandon my religion! Of course I am not religious so I would have to abandon the Jewish people.

Bottom line, as long as there exists a Jewish people males will be circumcised, end of story.

For my part I have never experienced circumcision as a problem either sexually or medically.

Nate wrote: "Ritual circumcision is enforced through fear and blind cultural inertia exploiting the human desire to belong. We are better than that; Jews are smarter than sheep following the herd. The time has come for enlightened, educated, rational Jews to seriously study, understand the history, motivation, and intent of circumcision, and then make an honest evaluation of its value."

Ritual circumcision is not "enforced" by anyone. It is a choice made by people who feel it is important, either because it is a fulfillment of a commandment given by God, or because it identifies one's child as a Jew. It is the people who don't have the courage to stand alone in their beliefs who try to change Judaism to accept their perverse "morality" and "ethics", because they fear not belonging. If they can't belong to mainstream Judaism, they create a Reform Judaism for like-minded sinners to which they can belong. And if even that perverse group will not accept their ideas, they create an even smaller band of sinners to which they can belong, such as "Jews Against Circumcision", etc.

Nate wrote: "The time has come for enlightened, educated, rational Jews to seriously study, understand the history, motivation, and intent of circumcision, and then make an honest evaluation of its value."

Educated in what, Nate? Do you or your liberal friends have any education in Judaism whatsoever? How are you going to judge the value of Jewish practices with your pathetic lack of knowledge of anything Jewish?

Es iz shver tzu zein a Yid!

Eveth wrote: "When a child grows up and is appalled that he was mutilated in the name of religion, which would you prefer: That he work to change the unethical aspects of his religion, or that he consider it unchangeable, and thus abandon it entirely?"

My religion doesn't have any unethical aspects. My religion comes from God and last I checked, He's completely ethical.

Shriber, are you sure you're an agnostic? We could use a few more agnostics like you.

Your attacks on me do not concern me. It is humerous that you characterize me as "liberal" when you know nothing about me or my politics. I will not validate your insults with rebuttle. I understand your fear and rage. I am comfortable with my knowledge, and do not need to defend or prove it or myself myself to any of you. I find your attacks typical, predictable, ignorant and quite frankly, very un-Jewish.

In the end, I am comfortable with my ethics and knowledge. You have to live with yourself and your choices. Your anger indicates your uncertainity, fear and doubt. I pitty you.

Jews and Judiasm's contributions and value to the world are not at issue here. Your reasoning is illogical.

I refuse to have a flame war with any of you. Your raw emotions and attacks expose you for all to see for what you are.

I wish you peace and hope you can approach life with an open mind to that which you presume to know.

"If they can't belong to mainstream Judaism, they create a Reform Judaism for like-minded sinners to which they can belong..."

"My religion doesn't have any unethical aspects. My religion comes from God and last I checked, He's completely ethical." - jeff schwartz

Jeff, the one good thing I can say about your religious fundamentalism is that it makes your position look ridiculous to most people, Jews included.

Nate: I apologize for the harshness of my words. By liberal, I do not refer to politics. I refer to religious practice. It is my hope that you and all Jews will take the time to learn authentic Jewish sources and to discover the truth and not the nonsense that is spewed by certain modern rabbis. Learn the Torah and the Talmud and discover real Jewish values that go back to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, not the words of people who try to disguise their own opinions as Judaism. Then you can make an informed decision as to what is really true.

Shabbat Shalom.

eveth: My "fundamentalism" is what all Jews believed until a group of Jews in the 18th Century decided they wanted to assimilate and be accepted as good Germans, so they watered down Jewish practices and belief. the end result is the rampant intermarriage, assimilation, lack of observance and ignorance of Judaism that defines Judaism today. Those who try to do away with circumcision are just another stop on the slippery slope of cutting themselves off from Jewish destiny and the Jewish people. I fear that the reason this sounds ridiculous to you is that it doesn't really matter to you, which is a shame.

"Shriber, are you sure you're an agnostic? We could use a few more agnostics like you."

yeap, a dyed in the wool, or should I say in the womb, agnostic.

Have a Good Shabbos, Shriber. We've always been a "stiff-necked people", but I'm not giving up on you.

eveth said: “Jeff, the one good thing I can say about your religious fundamentalism is that it makes your position look ridiculous to most people, Jews included.”

His views don’t seem half as ridiculous to me as yours do, eveth.

Most Jews practice circumcision, btw. If you got a problem with that tell it to your therapist and spare the rest of us your neurotic outpourings.

Zei gezunt, Nate.

Hope you can overcome your trauma of being Jewish at some point in your life. Whatever your problem, circumcision isn’t the cause.

jeff schwartz, this time it's different. Genital Integrity rights are increasingly being recognized as fundamental human rights, and that movement in no way can be construed as anti-Jewish. I know that historically attacks on Judaism have included attacks on the practice of circumcision, but that does not place circumcision on a pedestal of ethical unimpeachability.

Aren't the origins of this tradition to circumcise male children flexible enough, at least, to be satisfied by a pinprick drawing a drop of blood?

Over a thousand years after the putative life of Abram, Genesis 17, the biblical passage cited as the basis for infant genital mutilation, or circumcision, was inserted into the Biblical text by Jewish priests during, or after, the Babylonian Captivity. The original covenant between Abram and his God is found at Genesis 15. Nowhere does Genesis 15 mention circumcision.

Evidently, during the years of Captivity, Jewish priests instituted the obscure tribal tradition of genital cutting (observed in parts of the Levant during the migrations by Abram and his people from their original home in Ur), as one (of many)means of differentiating the Jewish people from the greater, more sophisticated and learned society around them, which did not practice circumcision, but which threatened to absorb them. Having learned the value of written laws during their stay in Babylon, these Jewish priests slipped Genesis 17 into their texts. But the only religious basis for male infant circumcision begins here, in the absence of the Kingdom, among the late Jewish priesthood, as a method of wresting political control, particularly over their recalcitrant fellow Jews who had remained in Jerusalem and its environs during the Captivity.

This act of writing the new "law" encased and instituted infant genital cutting as a Jewish "tradition". In truth, there is no evidence whatsoever that Abram was circumcised, or that he knew anything about a covenant other than that found in Genesis 15.

Evidently Genesis 17 was very effective, however. Once a few priests can convince illiterate parents to mutilate the genitals of their children ... they could get them to agree to almost anything. Over time the practice becomes a tradition, but few remembered that it wasn't original to the Bible.

Intelligent people are today more historically aware, and they reject the violence which would be done to their children by an outmoded and false doctrine. They find faith not in outward show or in genital mutilation, but in inner truth and in genuine Tradition.

Rood

I knew a mohel from New Hampshire. They called him the Yankee Clipper.

Oh boy, Andrew Sullivan has taken an interest.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/jews-against-ci.html

It is summertime and the Forward is running its annual anti-circumcision article on Page 1. Big story with seventy YES 70! people signing on to this important petition. I an very sorry for the Wolfe family. It is a terrible tragedy. Did Mr Wolfe investigate the credentials of the surgeon? How many circumcisions had the Doctor done before this one? Any?

Did Mr Wolfe realize that the clamp used in the surgery causes tremendous additional pain? Did he know that Rabbinic law prohibits the use of such a clamp? Why not? Did he discuss the use of this halachically proscribed clamp with his Reform Rabbi? If so did that Rabbi point out these very important nuances to him? Orthodox certified Mohels are highly trained in just this specialty. I believe that a very sharp proper knife is all that is required to do a circumcision properly with the least amount of pain. Traditional(Orthodox) Jews have had plenty of children for thousands of years. I guess no one stripped them of their reproductive organs or took away their pleasure.

Izzy, noting that circumcision doesn't prevent all sexual pleasure is a straw man. No, it doesn't eradicate sexual pleasure, but it is a surgical strike which reduces the physical elements which contribute to sexual pleasure, while introducing a previously absent element of pain.

This is not a way anyone has the right to influence a child to be part of a religion. It's physical coercion.

eveth said: "Genital Integrity rights are increasingly being recognized as fundamental human rights, and that movement in no way can be construed as anti-Jewish."

This is not an argument for your crusade, eveth. In the 1920's millions of people were enthralled by Communism and that too was the "human rights issue of the day." The result was that hundreds of millions of people lost their lives to this movement for equality and justice.

I know that historically attacks on Judaism have included attacks on the practice of circumcision, but that does not place circumcision on a pedestal of ethical unimpeachability.

Your anticircumcision tirades are anti-Jewish. If you can't see this you have no business in this debate.

You are obsessed by this issue.

Ha, Andrew Sullivan's blog entry title "Jews against circumcision" is funny. It's like saying Catholics against Popery, or Muslims against the Hegira. It just doesn't make sense.

Rood Andersson is against circumcision.

For those who don't know a "rood" is a "crucifix symbolizing the cross on which Jesus was crucified."

Your name gives your game away, Rood.

I agree with Joel that eveth is too obsessed with this issue to be able to offer a dispassionate arguement on the issue.

Using terms like "ethica" "moral" "human rights," etc. isn't in itself an argument.

There is nothing wrong with circumcision and none of the posters have been able to show that there is.

I am curious though about those people who oppose circumcision; do they also oppose abortions?

"I agree with Joel that eveth is too obsessed with this issue to be able to offer a dispassionate arguement on the issue." -Shriber

I take that as a compliment. You can't effectively counter my arguments, so you must define me out of the discussion.

Appeals to a consistent set of ethics and individual human rights are more dispassionate than appeals to divine mandate any and every day.

Rood Andersson said: "Over a thousand years after the putative life of Abram, Genesis 17, the biblical passage cited as the basis for infant genital mutilation, or circumcision, was inserted into the Biblical text by Jewish priests during, or after, the Babylonian Captivity. The original covenant between Abram and his God is found at Genesis 15. Nowhere does Genesis 15 mention circumcision."

Thank you, Rood. That's the best laugh I've had in your years. Tell me, what heretic taught you this nonsense? You must be one of the 3 people alive who still believe in the Documentary Hypothesis.

Hmmm...Genital integrity...sounds serious. I just checked and all my parts seem to be working and functioning, a little too small maybe, but otherwise...

I know many men's genitals cause them to lie. Is that what you meant by integrity?

And you say I sound ridiculous.

eveth "I agree with Joel that eveth is too obsessed with this issue to be able to offer a dispassionate arguement on the issue." -Shriber

I take that as a compliment. You can't effectively counter my arguments, so you must define me out of the discussion."

You have no argument, eveth. All you have is a series of kvetches and emotional appeals to so called "ethics" without spelling out in what way circumcision is unethical.

The athical argument comes down to this: "I don't like being circumcised (or I was harmed by it) ergo no one else should be circumcised."

People like eveth can't explain why most Jews don't feel they were harmed by circumcision and don't mind it in the least.

This is why he has to introduced issues of "human rights." When someone today speakd of human rights you had better run for the hills because he will bring the Gestapo with him to impose his so called human rights on you.

Shriber,

You've got the ethics based arguments wrong. If you try to defend infant circumcision, you will immediately find inconsistencies in your position. Infant circumcision is unethical because we each have autonomy over our own bodies, and that includes choosing whether to discard parts for religious purposes.

The percentage of Jews who don't regret having been circumcised is material only if that number is 100%. Those who regret being being deprived of body parts have been wronged, and there's no way to know know the choice of an individual except to let him make it. The only ethical course of action is to let the individual decide for himself.

I'd still like to know, do those supporting circumcision on the grounds that it is required religiously contend that it must be more than a drop of blood from a pinprick?

I don't consider Reform Judaism to really be a part of Judaism anymore. They have changed so many very basic tenets as to creat a whole new religion and to be cut off from the rest of us.

For example, throughout the ages, to be considered a Jew, your mother had to have been a Jew. The reason for this is that there could always be a doubt as to who the Father was, but there was never any doubt out of which womb the child emerged.

Reform rabbis convert people just because they want to marry a Jew. Conservative and Orthodox Rabbis do not. Actually, the original Christians were all Jews until Paul started indiscriminately converting the other nations and we could no longer go along matrilineal lines.

Now, these secular humanists want to change the original covenant that G-d made with the Jewish people which is represented by the Brit Milah! Well, what's next? Let's declare the entire covenant invalid?

Excuse me, but I don't consider these people to be authorities on these issues and they are not to be followed. I am a deceased Rabbi's daughter and although I am no longer Orthodox because it has been too difficult to do so, I am not so brazen as to try to change the tenets of Judaism to fit my convenience. Instead, I humbly and shamefully declare that unfortunately I am not strong enough to comply with such difficult edicts and I beg G-d for forgiveness.

Reform Judaism, in my opinion has severed itself from mainstream Judaism and has, like Christianity, formed a totally new religion, which is their prerogative---but don't try to force these changes that go against everything written in the Torah on the rest of us.

Informatively, the site where Dr Mark Reiss maintains the database of rabbis and laypeople who will officiate at Brit Shalom ceremonies is http://www.circumstitions.com/shalom .

Gail Tenzer wrote: "I humbly and shamefully declare that unfortunately I am not strong enough to comply with such difficult edicts and I beg G-d for forgiveness." This just underlines that one main reason infant circumcision continues is that it is done to someone else.

BS'D: As I prepare for Shabbas, I'll add my two cents.

Even as a frum person who might be classified as "Modern Orthodox," I actually believe that this debate will ultimately go away. It is a personal tragedy for a small number of Jewish children who won't share in the covenant Avraham made with G-d, but Reform Judaism is in the fast process of becoming extinct.

To explain: many, if not most, of the Reform Movement "Jews" aren't actually Jews in the sense that traditional Jews accept--the children of a Jewish mother or ritually converted. Fifty or 100 years ago, when Reform Judaism became a refuge for nonbelieving Jews seeking to maintain a fig-leaf of identity, there were many actual Jews in the Reform movement. But that is just no longer the case.

What remains of Judaism in the Reform Movement is vestigial nostalgia and a longing for identity. People who get a charge when a new Jewish player breaks into the major leagues or longingly remember when you could get good rye bread. The peopler up front are somewhat insidious, but largely harmless--nominal rabbis willing to rationalize any departure from halachah and who stand for absolutely nothing. But in a strange way, they are preaching a form of agnosticism to the uninterested choir. And as pleasant an idea as it is, you can't build a religion out of matzoh balls, Seinfeld jokes and "commitments to social justice." G-d has commanded certain things and we are HONORED to comply, since we are his people.

Reform "temples" (never shuls--too ethnic, maybe) are filled mostly with non-Jews: people who were not born Jewish and were not formally converted in accordance with Jewish law. That is the hard, cold fact of things. What few Jewish children remain in these shuls are rapidly repeating the cycle of intermarriage. If the vast majority of young men marry non-Jewish women, simple math and logic dictates that very soon the Jewish Reform Jew will be extinct. (None of this takes into account the fact that most Reform families have two or fewer children, well below the generally accepted rate needed to maintain the size of a given population.)

I would argue that there is no real point in frum people arguing this. Many of the respondents on the attack might very well not be Jewish themselves (as explained above), so there is absolutely no point in convincing them. Even those who are Jews think we are barbaric and won't listen to anything we have to say--they will claim it is further evidence of our barbarism.

As has happened so many times in Jewish history, we are at a moment when a large portion of Klal Yisrael has been lost. While I weep for these people, I cannot stop them. I can only try to protect my own family and community from being infected by their influence.

I admire the commitment of the Lubavitch and few others to reaching out to try to save some of what is left, but I am a realist. Even in my hometown of Scranton, PA, I hear the pews at Temple Israel and Temple Hesed are emptier and emptier. The list of children at the JCC camp doesn't read as Jewish. Even what is now called "Modern Orthodoxy" is dying. Most days, Beth Shalom couldn't get a minyan together without the presence of frum bachorim and Kollel members from the yeshiva. I understand the Satmar are going to colonize the city for cheaper housing.

I'm not entirely happy about this, as my world of frum, modern Jews is replaced by a troublingly insular group. But if that is all that can survive of Yidishkeit, I can live with it.

Good Shabbos! Dave

Let's see, what's left of Judaism? Oh yah, leftist Democrat politics. Can't think of much of anything else.

Eveth said:

"Infant circumcision is unethical because we each have autonomy over our own bodies."

Your issue isn't actually with circumcision, but with all of traditional Judaism and most organized religion. Most people's conception of god includes commands to do acts that an absolutely autonomous person might choose not to do (and prohibit some that an absolutely autonomous person would do). You know: tithes, fasts, jihads, human sacrifice, etc. Thus, most believers give up personal autonomy in order to honor the wishes of a god. It is your absolute right not to agree, but don't pretend like you're speaking for anyone who doesn't share your particular view of autonomy.

Furthermore, most athiests and agnostics accept limits on autonomy. That is how the world prevents itself from falling into chaos. You could try to raise a child by telling her that she can choose not to brush her teeth, but that child will ultimately suffer for it. The child's autonomy is therefore limited for her own good.

Eveth said:

"Infant circumcision is unethical because we each have autonomy over our own bodies."

Your issue isn't actually with circumcision, but with all of traditional Judaism and most organized religion. Most people's conception of god includes commands to do acts that an absolutely autonomous person might choose not to do (and prohibit some that an absolutely autonomous person would do). You know: tithes, fasts, jihads, human sacrifice, etc. Thus, most believers give up personal autonomy in order to honor the wishes of a god. It is your absolute right not to agree, but don't pretend like you're speaking for anyone who doesn't share your particular view of autonomy.

Furthermore, most athiests and agnostics accept limits on autonomy. That is how the world prevents itself from falling into chaos. You could try to raise a child by telling her that she can choose not to brush her teeth, but that child will ultimately suffer for it. The child's autonomy is therefore limited for her own good.

Eveth said:

"Infant circumcision is unethical because we each have autonomy over our own bodies."

Your issue isn't actually with circumcision, but with all of traditional Judaism and most organized religion. Most people's conception of god includes commands to do acts that an absolutely autonomous person might choose not to do (and prohibit some that an absolutely autonomous person would do). You know: tithes, fasts, jihads, human sacrifice, etc. Thus, most believers give up personal autonomy in order to honor the wishes of a god. It is your absolute right not to agree, but don't pretend like you're speaking for anyone who doesn't share your particular view of autonomy.

Furthermore, most athiests and agnostics accept limits on autonomy. That is how the world prevents itself from falling into chaos. You could try to raise a child by telling her that she can choose not to brush her teeth, but that child will ultimately suffer for it. The child's autonomy is therefore limited for her own good.

Eveth said:

"Infant circumcision is unethical because we each have autonomy over our own bodies."

Your issue isn't actually with circumcision, but with all of traditional Judaism and most organized religion. Most people's conception of god includes commands to do acts that an absolutely autonomous person might choose not to do (and prohibit some that an absolutely autonomous person would do). You know: tithes, fasts, jihads, human sacrifice, etc. Thus, most believers give up personal autonomy in order to honor the wishes of a god. It is your absolute right not to agree, but don't pretend like you're speaking for anyone who doesn't share your particular view of autonomy.

Furthermore, most athiests and agnostics accept limits on autonomy. That is how the world prevents itself from falling into chaos. You could try to raise a child by telling her that she can choose not to brush her teeth, but that child will ultimately suffer for it. The child's autonomy is therefore limited for her own good.

eveth said: “Shriber, You've got the ethics based arguments wrong. If you try to defend infant circumcision, you will immediately find inconsistencies in your position. Infant circumcision is unethical because we each have autonomy over our own bodies, and that includes choosing whether to discard parts for religious purposes.”

You are still stuck in your emotional argument of what might have been. I don’t regret being circumcised. My wife doesn’t regret that I was circumcised, ditto for my children and their spouses. Your kvetch is based on your own private neurosis.

Tell me, are you married? Do you have any children? Is your spouse unhappy with your circumcised [word deleted]? These