Opinion

May 24, 2011

Circumcision wars in California

by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield

Tweet

Share

The attempt to make circumcision illegal, including those performed for religious reasons, is spreading beyond San Francisco, which aimed last week to become the first American municipality to ban the practice. Now, residents of Santa Monica have filed a petition indicating that they, too, intend to get a similar measure on the November ballot for their city. While these are the two most aggressive attempts to curtail the practice of circumcision, they represent an increasing trend away from the practice, or at least away from the presumption of its necessity.

Like most things associated with circumcision, it’s a very sensitive issue. In fact, as I write this, I know that whatever I commit to words here will be seen as brutal and/or betraying by many who read it.

Were I to begin with the fact that with the birth of each of our three daughters, I experienced not only profound joy but also a certain inchoate sense of relief at being spared the obligation to circumcise them eight days later, many readers would accuse me of betraying Jewish tradition for simply admitting my ambivalence. Were I to begin by saying that had we had sons, they would have been circumcised in full accordance with Jewish tradition, including the genuine celebration that accompanies the performance of this sometimes disturbing and deeply beautiful 3,500 year old tradition, I would be branded a barbarian by yet other readers.

Both propositions accurately reflect my feelings, and it is precisely that level of complexity that is rarely present in the ongoing debate about infant circumcision in America. Instead of admitting that the sensitivity of this issue is what makes it absurd to legislate and litigate, each side wraps itself in competing claims about the health, legality and morality of the issue in order to get others to see it its way.

In fairness, those opposed to circumcision are far more aggressive in the use of this approach, though I genuinely feel for people, especially Jews, who admit their ambivalence about circumcising their infant sons. Too often they are immediately lectured about the fact that if they do not do so, their kids will not be Jewish (not true), or that circumcision is clearly healthier and failing to circumcise their kids endangers them (a matter of debate, though most evidence still suggests that it is).

Meeting genuine questions with questionable assertions is hardly the way to go. There are many good reasons to circumcise our sons, but they are not strengthened by failing to seriously address the questions people have.

In fact, the intensity of the debate around circumcision, like so many issues in religion, is about much more than we let on. Anxiety about not circumcising, among Jews at least, is often about fear of assimilation as much as it is about the importance of one particular commandment. The same anxiety among non-Jews, for whom there is no such commandment, is often about the rights of parents to shape their children’s future. Those are big, important questions — ones that deserve to be discussed openly, not fought over by proxy.

On the other hand, there is something truly wrong with people attempting to strip parents of their rights as guardians and undermining the free exercise of religion. The legal experts will battle over that one, I am sure. But those seeking to ban circumcision don’t pursue banning other medical procedures that parents believe are right for their kids to have. This indicates that the fight about circumcision is really an expression of the opponents’ hostility to religion in general or to parents’ rights to make decisions that may shape their kids’ future identities.

It’s as if people fight about what to do with our kids, or, worse, what other people should do with their kids, because of what was done to us by our parents. That strikes me as a poor way to make decisions about parenting, public policy or the various spiritual paths we follow. 

Instead, I suggest that people focus on the hopes and aspirations they have for their own children, and pursue, as their consciences dictate, those practices they believe will aid in their attainment. Sometimes parents will get it right, sometimes not, but maximizing the freedom to give it their best shot – short of endangering the health or life of the kids involved — should remain, as it has for hundreds of years in this country, a sacred trust.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield is the author of “You Don’t Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right,” and is the President of Clal – The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Rabbi Hirschfield, I would like to thank you for writing a calm and level-headed article on this subject. However, I want to respond to your statement that opposition to circumcision reflects “hostility to religion in general or to parents’ rights”. I know many of those who actively oppose circumcision of male children, and I don’t know any who fit that description. On the contrary, many of those who oppose circumcision are deeply spiritual and religious (and a good number are Jewish!). (continued in next post due to 700 character limit)

Comment by Craig Garrett on 5/24/11 at 9:26 pm

(continued from above) Those same people also deeply believe in individual freedom, as well as the freedom of parents to raise their children in accordance with the parents’ beliefs. However, they also believe that the freedom of the child to determine what happens to his own body once he becomes an adult outweighs the rights of the parents. They feel that all children, male and female, have a fundamental human right to bodily integrity which takes priority over the religious beliefs of the parents.

Comment by Craig Garrett on 5/24/11 at 9:27 pm

Thank you for a great article. Those who claim to be jewish and who oppose circumcision got it all wrong by bringing out the so-called infant’s rights issue. Circumcision is a religious obligation demanded in the Torah as a bond between G.. and the jewish people. It’s a determining factor in a babie’s identity. As parents, it’s also a moral duty to do so. Circumcision never bothered anybody for thousand’s of years until this pathetic proposal came out, obviously by left-wing organisations.

Comment by David on 5/25/11 at 12:57 pm

does r hirshfeld give equal support to banning piercing ears or children or indeed piercing and tattooing in general. what about hunting which causes horrible pain to animals wounded with arrows and guns who may or may not die sooner or later as a result of the wounds all in the name of sport.
does rabbi hirshfield get equally exorcised about the vaccinations he gives his children who are much older than one week old which cause roughly comparable discomfort compared to circumcision to babies at the age of eight days. 
how does he feel about the animals who undergo all kinds of pain and virtual torture as they are fattened, transported and slaughtered for his food.

Comment by michael fisher on 5/25/11 at 4:50 pm

The traditional Jewish community does not have to worry about anti-circumcision referendums passing.  There is no way.  The thing which traditional Jews have to worry about it the discussion that these referendums will bring about.  Circumcision and the right of a male to his foreskin is now a legitimate political issue.  Over the next weeks, there will be considerable advertising as well as media discussion about the function of a foreskin in sex and how it enhances sex.  Many Jewish parents-to-be will read and learn about this side of the discussion and will decide not to circumcise their sons regardless of what tradition has demanded.  That is what traditionalists have to fear.

Comment by Strephen on 5/25/11 at 7:38 pm

Infants’ rights?  The same people who want to prohibit circumcision are adamant about promoting, or at least protecting, abortion.  Why is it terrible to circumsise a child but it’s fine to kill him up to nine days earlier?

Comment by Efraim on 5/25/11 at 8:15 pm

A well-balanced article by the rabbi and one that expresses my opinion exactly.

Comment by Edward S. on 5/26/11 at 9:12 am

In the USA and Canada, females under the age of 18 have a protected right to their foreskin, but males under the age of 18 do not. This is pure sexism! I am confident that the commandment to circumcise male infants will someday be prohibited in Western countries, just like so many other unethical Biblical commandments.

Everybody has the right to be circumcised, and everybody has the right NOT to be circumcised. How to you protect BOTH rights? Easy. Let people make the circumcision decision for their own bodies, not the bodies of others. If women have the right to control their own genitals, so to men. Simple as that.

Comment by Edward on 5/26/11 at 3:48 pm

I never read so much trash and waste of about the values of circumcision, while the whole world is falling apart from wars, famine, tsunamis,earthquakes, disease, and other man-made disasters. The concept of male circumcision goes back thousands of years, and to think people are actually wasting time discussing the merits, either pro or con is just plain disgusting when so many people on this earth are in pain, and not do to the act of circumcision. Stop this stupidity and do something real to help the poor suffering people of the world. Your armchair debates are just plain pathetic.

Comment by Don on 5/26/11 at 10:26 pm

The whole world is involved with wars, disease, famine, earthquakes,tsunamis, and other man-made disasters. All I find is a bunch of armchair analysts deciding what is wrong with this world, and this is the best you can come up with. You all must be mentally deficient to think that by banning circumcision with make the world right. If that is the case I think you all belong in a padded room. Why don’t you just get off your oratory platform and start making things better in this world by helping the many people in desperate need of help. Until you do that, I advise you to shut up or put up, because you are not helping anyone by just spouting off your opinions

Comment by don on 5/26/11 at 10:44 pm

All children have a fundamental human right to bodily integrity, regardless of the religious beliefs of the parents. But this idea can seem rather abstract without knowing about the anatomy and function of the tissue that circumcision removes:
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/anatomy.php

Comment by Craig Garrett on 5/28/11 at 12:07 am

“...circumcision is clearly healthier and failing to circumcise their kids endangers them (a matter of debate, though most evidence still suggests that it is).”

Actually, that’s not been the case for a long time. Circumcision does a lot of damage to the sexual function of boys, and also exposes them to more, and more dangerous, infections than if they are left intact.

Comment by Ian Cooper on 5/28/11 at 7:42 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?