I have no illusion that I’ll resolve the matter (one time I broached it, my comments served as troll-bait for an intactivist), but I can at least declare my opposition to “that gathering of the high priests of human rights in Strasbourg” who want to ban Jewish boys.
There are several alternate ways to tell the story, but for sheer audacity, I like this one:
We all know how ban-happy the EU, the EC and other Brussels- and Strasbourg-based bodies can be. Well, now they have outdone themselves by effectively expressing a desire to ban Jewish boys.
The Council of Europe, that gathering of the high priests of human rights in Strasbourg, has decreed that non-medical circumcision is “a violation of the physical integrity of children”. It has passed a resolution calling on all its member states – 47 nations in total – to “initiate a public debate, including intercultural and interreligious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards”. Eventually it would like member states to go even further than just having a debate, and to “adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted”.
In a nutshell: let’s bring an end to that rotten practice of circumcising newborn boys, who of course can’t consent to anything, as Jewish communities are wont to do.
(I’ve lost track of the pundit who said it, but someone predicted that Islamic families would continue circumcisions in Europe and the authorities would look the other way for fear of precisely the sort of reaction that those same authorities would accuse us of being Islamophobic for suggesting.)
Eugene Kontorovich is more sanguine, but then he’s doing legal analysis:
While I have recently criticized European hypocrisy in matters related to Jews, here I find little to object to as a formal matter. European nations are well within their rights to ban such practices, despite the significant disruption it creates for religious minorities.
If democratically adopted, such bans would mean that a significant segment of European society thinks, as the Council said, that circumcision represents a barbaric mutilation of a child. That is a legitimate position of conscience; indeed, it is a quasi-religious belief itself, in that it is based on deeply held moral views about essentially unverifiable matters. As a believer in the covenant of Abraham I do not share these views, but they are far from absurd if one does not accept the validity of the covenant.
A majority has a legitimate right and interest to conduct society according to its moral views when articulated in laws that are generally and equally applied. Government is in part an instrument for the expression and transmission of values, and all legislation takes explicit or implicit moral positions. If the values that stand behind generally applicable legislation conflict with the views of religious or ethnic minorities, the majority should not be neutered or have its values annulled to protect the sensibilities of minorities who hold different views.
There are some who think the law is discriminatory, aimed at the religious groups who practice circumcision. It seems to me that circumcision, in a non-religious context, is common enough for this to be in the category of general regulation even if it falls heaviest on religious groups.
Here I take issue with Kontorovich, perhaps because of my differing reading of “legislative history.” The European resolution tips its hand too clearly about discriminatory intent:
The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others … the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons ….
I can’t help but hear echoes of Hialeah, Florida’s attempt to ban Santeria, where it, too, tipped its hand while trying to sound neutral:
The city council responded at first with a hortatory enactment, Resolution 87-90, that noted its residents’ “great concern regarding the possibility of public ritualistic animal sacrifices” and the state law prohibition. The resolution declared the city policy “to oppose the ritual sacrifices of animals” within Hialeah and announced that any person or organization practicing animal sacrifice “will be prosecuted.”
In September 1987, the city council adopted three substantive ordinances addressing the issue of religious animal sacrifice. Ordinance 87-52 defined “sacrifice” as “to unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption,” and prohibited owning or possessing an animal “intending to use such animal for food purposes.” It restricted application of this prohibition, however, to any individual or group that “kills, slaughters or sacrifices animals for any type of ritual, regardless of whether or not the flesh or blood of the animal is to be consumed.” The ordinance contained an exemption for slaughtering by “licensed establishment[s]” of animals “specifically raised for food purposes.”
(Emphasis added) Shorthand, “Santeria bad, Kosher butchering untouchable.” In European context, “circumcision okay unless for religious reasons” or “we don’t recognize any benefit to being initiated into a religious community without personal volition.”
After I wrote most of the material above, I started thinking about what might be going on other than anti-semitism, which I trust isn’t the motivation. Let me suggest a few things:
- There has been a lot of publicity in recent years (“recent” is relative; since I’m a geezer, I wouldn’t be surprised if my “recent” is 20 years) about “female genital mutilation.” Perhaps some addlepates, noting that practice, decided that circumcision was a male equivalent, and for the sake of equality ought to be equally abhorrent. Or perhaps some anti-circumcision fringe groups got the analogy they were waiting for. We’ve become total suckers for arguments based on “equality,” both good and stupid.
- The Medical establishment is starting to equivocate a bit on circumcision’s health benefits (though the consensus still seems to be in favor) including decreases in urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer (including cervical cancer in men’s sexual partners), HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. But none of those is an immediate benefit, and in our individualistic age, that a man’s circumcision might prevent a woman’s cervical cancer might not be deemed any benefit to the man.
- Individualism and contractualism. We must have no identity, no obligations, except those freely chosen. To be made a member of a religion when one cannot will it is an outrage, but it’s more outrageous if the mark of that religious identity is visible and indelible.
- Circumcision transgresses against sexual bliss. Although the medical establishment says it doesn’t affect sexual pleasure, an adult man who was circumcised said it was like going from technicolor to black and white when he had sexual relations. Maybe that’s the most worstest thing of all, huh?
On the circumcision/cervical cancer inverse correlation, maybe we just can’t wrap our heads around the fact that the future of the human race depends on men and women coming together to form the beast with two backs, a single reproductive organism that does what no man or woman can do alone: perpetuate humanity. If it benefits women for “their men” to be circumcised, it benefits the beasts with two backs and, by extension, society.
Everyone agrees tacitly that it benefits people to be initiated into their communities.
- Jews mark their sons with circumcision, a visible and indelible sign.
- Traditional Christians “involuntarily” make Christians of their children through baptism, which marks a person indelibly, like it or not, see it with your physical eyes or not.
- Secularists send their kids to college for 5 years of binge drinking and hookups, acquiring thereby a a faux-vellum certificate of membership in the tribe, a few STDs, and crushing debt. We made the last mark indelible by amending the Bankruptcy Code. (Welcome to the tribe, kid. Now get to work.)
See: every parent who’s serious about religion initiates his child.
Meanwhile, the land that gave us Santeria (Gee, thanks Cuba!) also gave us Pablo Diaz, a Florida prisoner who, no longer fearing persecution by Cuban authorities, sought to undergo the circumcision that his parents had skipped for fear of persecution. I’m please to report that Señor Dias will be allowed, after threatening a lawsuit, to forego his foreskin.
I’m less pleased to report that Europe is becoming Cuba.
******
This is my personal statement, not a conversation starter, and only adulatory comments (or at least interesting comments from people who sound sane) will be allowed.
* * * * *
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 