2 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      

Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

What constitutes "freedom"?

by: Thurman Hart

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:49:41 AM EDT



In my column over at the Star-Ledger today, I looked at the case of two adherents of Santeria who have gotten themselves into some legal problems for conducting animal sacrifices.  I don't know where this case will go, but it seems unlikely to me that the Supreme Court would uphold a conviction for someone killing an animal for religious purposes using the exact same methods used by the food industry.  Public health could be an issue, but that isn't even broached in the charges (animal cruelty) or in the very short, very biased Star-Ledger article.

But it relates directly to a short discussion I had with a friend recently over the cartoon run by a particular NJ political-news website that showed Sen. Lautenberg and Congressman Rothman performing a bris on Joe Ferriero.  Some of the Jewish people I've spoken to about the cartoon thought it offensive and some thought it was funny - and some thought both.  But the offensiveness of the cartoon is an issue concerning freedom of the press - and they obviously have as much right to be offensive in full color as I do with stick figures in black-and-white.  Where my friend went with the discussion is over the practice of circumcision and whether it is, in his words, "barbaric" or not.

Make the jump.  Or God will surely smite thee.
Thurman Hart :: What constitutes "freedom"?
I can understand the position that circumcision is barbaric.  Lopping off a child's foreskin can hardly be called the mark of Enlightenment.  But it is also a mark of cultural and religious identity - one that Jewish religion teaches marks a covenant between God Himself and the Jewish people.  It is not just a cultural inclination among practicing Jewish families, but a religious necessity.  To forego circumcision would be to forego the covenant of Abraham.  It would, in a very primary way, undermine everything else that means being Jewish.

It is a bit more difficult to understand why Christians circumcise their boys.  It cannot be explained as a cultural and religious tie to the Jewish roots of Christianity because pretty much the entirety of the rest of Judaism is rejected (or superceded, depending on one's viewpoint) by Christianity.  The Apostle Paul was fairly clear in saying, "In Christ, there is neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision."  Yet it is fairly widespread - as I noticed back in high school when active in athletics.  I can't explain the "why" of it.  I just know it's true - though I don't have statistics or any idea if the practice is waxing or waning.

If circumcision is allowable for Jewish families because of a religious identity; then how is it allowable for non-Jewish familiies?  It amounts to a type of elective cosmetic surgery, I suppose.  Certainly cosmetic surgery is not disallowed for infants - though I think there would be a limit on what might be attempted (baby face-lifts? "To regain that "just-birthed" look!).

The natural jump is to the practice of female circumcision - which is generally practiced by fairly brutal methods.  But the purpose of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris - to render the act of sex less satisfying for a woman so that she would not be tempted to be unfaithful to her husband.  

So the comparison breaks down on more than one point. There is no, as far as I know, religious significance behind female circumcision.   Nor is there any intention of sexual impotence in male circumcision (I've read in some places that it makes sex less enjoyable for men - but I've always wondered how this was determined).  Female circumcision is not a matter of religious freedom but of patriarchical domination (even if accomplished and embraced by the women of a culture).  

But -- here's the rub.  If male circumcision is allowed for Christians without the religious tie (making it de facto a "cultural" issue); then doesn't that mean that female circumcision would naturally be in the same category?  To reverse it: If female circumcision is barbaric and oppressive; then how can male circumcision NOT be?

Perhaps the answer is found in the Greek philosophy: First, do no harm.  Male circumcision, meaning no harm (and usually causing no long-term imparement) is a very different practice than its female counterpart.  Circumcised males can still have a satisfactory sex life; this is not true of circumcised females.  

But what is the right of the parent to impose such a thing on a child, particularly before the child can speak?  We don't have the right to administer human growth hormone because we want a bigger child.  Nor can we transplant eyes because we want a child with blue eyes rather than brown.  There is obviously a limit - the question is: Where is it; and how do we justify it?
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What constitutes "freedom"? | 23 comments
Tip jar n/t (4.00 / 4)

They're doing circumcisions over the Internet now ... (0.00 / 0)
no, really! It's called 'e-mohel ... '

Being a nice Irish boy who was brought into this world by one Dr. Berkowitz (and subsequently circumcised as was the practice for all babies regardless of their doctor's provenance back in 1957 Bronx NY), I'm not in favor of male circumcision, though I think it's one of those things that do fall within the purview of the parent's discretion. Female circumcision, not so much - no reason for it other than perpetuating male hegemony.

But it's all too heavy a conversation for me at this moment. Let me instead tell you the story my then-boss, Lou Elkin of Kendall Park's now lost and lamented Grogshop liquor store, once told me.

Lou was a little boy in the 1920s and attended his first bris. He and his father were outside when the moil planted the foreskin outside in the garden, as is done by tradition (actual Jewish people may want to correct me on this but it's how the story was told to me).

Little Lou asks his father, "why did he do that?"

His father replied, "That's how they grow Irish cops."

I have always loved that story ...  

[ Parent ]
I remember the Grogshop (4.00 / 1)
I'm a Kendall Parker. There were two licquor stores: Grogshop and Viking Licquors. Do I remember right that Grogshop was the one in the shopping center north of Alston Rd. in actual Kendall Park (as opposed to Brunswick Acres, which the post office and newcomers call Kendall Park)?
[ Parent ]
right ... (0.00 / 0)
The Grogshop was in the Kendall Park Shopping Center. Viking Liquors, which I would consider to have been a Franklin Park establishment when it was in the old A&P shopping plaza at the corner of Henderson Rd and Rt. 27 (now the KP PO), is now in the Brunswick Plaza (or whatever) off Rt. 1S below New Rd. Louie was the short guy, his partner Herb was the big guy at the Grogshop. Jimmie Jones worked at the Grogshop for many years and ended up at Viking. Many of KP's postmen - for instance Eddie Adamko, who probably delivered your mail at some point, Dvd - also worked at the Grogshop, and they were all in and out all day. The KP shopping center really was a little town square for all its generic cinderblock glory. I haven't lived there in 25 years and I still know Dominick's pizzaria's telno ...
[ Parent ]
Did you grow up here, too? (0.00 / 0)
Or move to the area as an adult? I think I remember a McGrath from Crossroads (or maybe SBHS), but I don't think it was you, as I don't thing his name was Dennis. The only things I rememebr about his was that he was short, generally quite but friendly, got caught at something or other, told the school was was involved, knew he was going to get beat up for ratting, and took it well. That would have been in the early 1970s. Was that your brother or something?

I, too remember Dominicks quite well. Especially when it was still owned by Toby Scotto-Daneillo. He had recently bought the place when the local Democratic Party opened up a headquarters several doors down in 1972, and I spent a lot of time in the shopping center that Fall as I worked in my first campaign. I was 12. Domincks and I sort of grew up together.

And, yes, it was Franklin Park, not "Brunswick Acres" Brunswick Acres only referred to the then new development between Henderson and Finnegans. Now, though, everybody in 08824 thinks Kendall Park only means the entire zip code area they live in. Brunswick Acres is pretty much just the name of a school and Franklin Park only refers to the Somerset County side of Rt. 27. Except to us oldtimers who know better.

[ Parent ]
Jimmie Jones (0.00 / 0)
He was a sometime contributor to school board campaigns I worked on, as well as to local Democratic candidates.

Were you around when our local XYY confused guy broke into the Grogshop to steal a couple of six packs? I forget his name, but he was classic XYY: quite tall, dumb, couldn't follow society's rules, but not mean or generally violent. I think the liquor store break in was the last straw, and they put him away somewhere.

[ Parent ]
Kendall Park Shopping center (0.00 / 0)
Yes grew up there remember it well. At one end was the Friendly Rental, then Pizza, hair cutting place, little 5 & 10, pharmacy with Onga(sp), grogshop, how can you forget the KP Bakery! and at the end good old Food Town! and I like the part where Eddie Adamko delivered your mail, that was my dad, he walked many a miles, seen lots of my friends skipping class back in the 70's and worked the grogshop to make sure we always had the latest Chcuk Taylor White Sneakers :-)HAHA.. My brother has the house now, Dad is over in Monroe, but when I come back to visit, it's way too crowed driving down RT27, where's Joe's William Penn where I used to pump gas in the shortage age..HA.. Long Live Kendall Park 08824..
Thanks Ed Adamko
[ Parent ]
Hey, Ed (0.00 / 0)
Tell you Dad Dennis McGrath from Sturgis Rd. and the Grogshop said Hi. He delivered our mail for decades. I think the best grogshop xmas party I went to was at your house on Forrestal (best as I remember). By the way, it was called the Holiday Bake Shoppe ... I remember the Civil Defense setting up a sample bomb shelter between the old PO and what was then a Food Fair ... that's how old I am! Oh, how we miss the cold war now ... good times ... :)
[ Parent ]
Hey, Ed. (0.00 / 0)
I think we were in Mr. Markert's "homeroom" together as one of six classes in the auditorium freshman year.
[ Parent ]
I thought (0.00 / 0)
That in the US male circumcision is promoted as a health benefit by doctors; this does not happen much in, say, Europe.  Whether it is really a health benefit or more of a medical fad that caught on is not for me to say.  

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch
It was promoted that way (0.00 / 0)
And in the absence of good hygiene, it does lessen the spread of disease. With regular washing, that has not generally been the case.

However, circumcision seems to have a large effect in lowering AIDS transmission rates in Africa. Whether than means and is only true because there is bad hygiene, I don't know. It could even be explained by circumcised men seeking intercourse less, though I don't know if that's been studied.

[ Parent ]
Not anymore (0.00 / 0)
None of the American medical groups explicitly promote circumcision anymore.

But they haven't gotten around to discouraging it either, to their discredit.

Instead, they disingenuously pretend that they are neutral and that it's all up to parents.  But that's baloney, because doctors have no obligation whatsoever to perform surgery on newborns just because parents want it.  They don't do that with any other surgery.  They are just covering their asses.

[ Parent ]
Let Them Kill Chickens.... (0.00 / 0)
The Santeria folk clearly have a right to do this in a fairly humane manner (obviously to the chicken no manner is humane, eh?) as long as we're a society that permits killing and eating of animals.

I suspect that, if there are humans extant in a thousand years, that they'll all be "vegetarians" in the sense that no animals will ever be killed for food.  The unnecessary taking of any life will be seen as abhorrent in much the same way as cannibalism is today universally seen as an abominable aberration.

The functional equivalent of "steak" could simply be grown as a cell culture for those who might wish to indulge.....and I think that's coming in the next 100 years, if not sooner.

As for circumcision; ideally, it should be up to the child, eh?  It really is quite an imposition, to say the least.  As Hannibal Lechter might say, it's rude.

In that future, of thousand years from now, it'll be a mute point as we'll be able to "intelligently design" the particular "model" from conception forward......and the question of "circumcision" will be among the least of our challenges.

Getting back to the present.......On the other hand, at least in the case of most males, for most it's not a major problem either way.   For females, I'm in favor a legal ban; it's a matter of sheer anatomy, not sexism.

Children are not the "property" of their parents to do with as they please, at least not in real democracies.

The real issue: "barbaric" is relative. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think any reasonable person would argue that male circumcision, female circumcision and sacrificing chickens are the same. Some people could argue that they share certain characteristics, but, quite frankly, I don't think that means a damn thing.

We live in a society. As a society, there are certain things we find absolutely repulsive that become illegal, even if doing so runs contrary to "freedom." In order for this to actually happen, there's some type of "agreement" among the people, the legislatures and the judiciary that restricting these types of freedoms are justified. We may not all agree on it all the time, but it's a pretty high standard.

Clearly, these three situations don't all meet the same burden. You may or may not want to call all three barbaric, but even if you do, as a society we've assigned different levels of barbarism to each of the three. Hell, there are often five to ten legal types of "murder." Clearly, morality isn't nearly as black-or-white as some people would like to make it.

I commend you for considering this topic in depth. (0.00 / 0)
It's interesting because this is a case where in America, thus far, we have gotten the balance wrong.  This surgery, except when there is a medical reason, has no place in the portfolio of services which doctors perform on patients who are unable to consent for themselves.  

The problem is that it's very difficult to break the cycle.  There are many reasons for that, and one of them is that men are hesitant to recognize that anything harmful happened to them, and instead go to great lengths to rationalize the procedure, including allowing the same to happen to their sons.

If it's to be done at all, I'd rather a doctor. (4.00 / 1)
Mine, done by a mohel, turned out to be too tight. It made for some unnaturally uncomfortable times as I grew to adult size and there wasn't always enough skin on the outside to account for what was inside. Maybe I"m wrong, but I suspect that happens more with mohels than with doctors.
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry to hear what happened to you. (4.00 / 1)
Given your experience I can understand thinking a physician might do a better job, but I'm not  sure they do better on average.  I'm sure it all depends on the expertise of the individual.  The complication rate is significant, and those are just the problems that are clinically diagnosed.

My understanding is that many men have some kind of problem with it, and it's not even counted in any official way as a medical complication.

I think the medical community has messed this one up, big time, and they need to clean up their act.  The medical associations need to take an official stand that their physicians have no business routinely performing surgery on infants when there is no medical need and nothing wrong with the child whatsoever.  It should not be the most common surgery performed in the country.

In Canada, for example, the docs understand that their role is to provide health care, not cosmetic surgery on newborns.  It's a fairly recent thing, now that it's clear there's no medical justification for it.  It's not illegal, but it's discouraged.

[ Parent ]
Not that simple (0.00 / 0)
Thurman,

The situation with female circumcision is not as simple as we are often led to believe.  In many cases it has more in common with male circumcision that many people realize, and doesn't destroy the ability to enjoy sex.

I recommend you read some of articles/discussion John Tierney has posted at the New York Times on this subject. link

I'm really curious... (4.00 / 1)
I typically try to be less of a jackass here than over at DailyKos because, well, I actually like this place. However, I have to ask; do you troll the internet looking for circumcision discussions or does it just happen to be a weird coincidence that you stumbled over here accidentally and saw this?

I know what I'm placing my bets on...

[ Parent ]
Nice Catch Dennis (0.00 / 0)
It seems that this character signed up yesterday just to "address" this issue.

Who woulda thunk it, a circumcision concern troll!

 

[ Parent ]
I woulda thunk it. (0.00 / 0)
He was banned from Daily Kos for doing the exact same thing last year.
[ Parent ]
Video of a female circumcision (2.00 / 2)
Thurman,

I want to provide you more evidence that you were previously misinformed.

You wrote:


The natural jump is to the practice of female circumcision - which is generally practiced by fairly brutal methods.  But the purpose of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris - to render the act of sex less satisfying for a woman so that she would not be tempted to be unfaithful to her husband.

This may be true in some cases, but in many it is not.  Some countries have nearly universal circumcision of females which removes a small part of the covering of the clitoris.

And here is one being done in Brunei:

The narrator goes on to explain in the comments that she was similarly circumcised, and it has not harmed her sexual satisfaction.

So I think you need to re-work the final part of your analysis. It's clear than a male circumcision is not less severe.  There is no logical consistency in accepting male circumcision but not accepting this procedure.  Consistency requires they both be accepted or rejected.  I reject both as inappropriate actions upon a child.

For What It's Worth... (3.00 / 1)
I totally agree with you in principle; routine circumcisions are not objectively necessary.

As I implied earlier, the time will come when they won't be done.  

Clearly, no infant (if they had the capacity) would choose to be mutilated just to appease a particular cultural prejudice/tradition of the parents to which it was born.

But, I do have to tell ya; there are far more immediate and pressing dangers/concerns before us.

Then again, everyone is "free" to pick a little corner of the larger mess and to try to focus on cleaning up that particular bit.   Good luck to you on your crusade.   Your point is made.

 

[ Parent ]
What constitutes "freedom"? | 23 comments
Featured Stories
Why I Support Eliminating Sick Day Payouts
by: huntsu - Feb 08
12 Comments
Why I Am Against the Sweeney Sick Day Plan
by: Jersey Jazzman - Feb 08
16 Comments
California's Breaking News on Prop 8 Stirs NJ Activism
by: Rosi Efthim - Feb 07
2 Comments

Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials
 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 Bill Orr
 Deciminyan
 Hopeful
 Jay Lassiter
 Jeff Gardner
 Jersey Jazzman
 KendalJames
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 the_promised_land
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll
» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Baristanet
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Garden State Grapevine
» ClearysNoteBook
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» Jersey Blogs
» Jersey Jazzman
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons
» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search











Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.


Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.


Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

 		Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
7752 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.
Powered by: SoapBlox