A new threat to religious freedom? Updated 7/12/12, 7/13/2012, and now 7/14.
There are countries in which it is illegal to bob the tail of a dog. Has a German court started another new movement to prevent cruel and unusual punishment? And is this a new threat to religious freedom? Will it spread here? See here and here.
Now this from Spiegel-online:
Calling it the “worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust,” the Conference of European Rabbis on Thursday strongly condemned a recent German court decision that criminalizes the circumcision of boys.
“A ban on circumcision poses an existential question for the Jewish community in Germany,” the president of the organization, Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, said on Thursday. “If the ruling is allowed to stand, then I don’t see a future for Jews in Germany.”
And still more reaction in Germany.
And now the <i>NY Times</i> takes notice.
I can’t think of one freedom more in jeopardy than Americans right to earn a living which is threatened by banks stealing people’s money by manipulating rates and persuading clients to invest in the banks funds when they are not the best choice. The Libor scandal in England coupled with Chase and other American banks malfeasance is a problem of enormous magnitude and few people are willing to take them on. Barclays bank even had the gall to excuse their crimes by stating that all the banks do it and more than Barclays. England officials seem to have more courage to take on the banks than the President or congress. The corruption of banks is what provoked this great recession and the banks are still resisting controls and supervision while still collecting undeserved pay and bonuses. The banks are http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/british-official-defends-central-banks-role-in-interest-rate-scandal/?hpthe heart of the problem and their is no FDR or a repentent Joe Kennedy to supervise them. Americans are struggling to pay their bills while the presidential campaign marches on with record spending mostly by hedge fund managers and banks.
It’s the talk of the Lutheran theologians here in Berlin, who seem to agree that religious freedom is indeed threatened.
Joe, Andrew Sullivan has had some interesting posts on this decision at his blog. Here’s a taste:
Raphael Magarik defends male genital mutilation on religious grounds:
“Judaism, at its core, posits that the central facts of a person’s identity, a person’s core existential commitments, are not chosen. You don’t get to choose whether you’re Jewish. This flies against an American tradition of radical autonomy, one that dates, if not to Roger Williams, at least to Walt Whitman.
… [T]he point of Judaism is to make something of your past. If a Jew doesn’t have that past, she is missing out. If you haven’t been bored by learning Talmud, you’ll probably never be enchanted. If your grandparents didn’t practice Judaism, you miss out on local, idiosyncratic customs: this way of wrapping tefillin, that of making Kiddush. If your body hasn’t been marked as Jewish, you’ll never have quite the same identification with the Jewish people. None of these things are your choice, but they are crucial to making your choices meaningful. So if my parents hadn’t circumcised me, I’d feel they’d robbed me of my birthright.”
All one can say is that if this is the definition of religion – that it’s unchosen, mandatory and involves permanent markings of the body – then liberal individualism is going to have a hard time digesting it.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/colognes-court-bans-infant-male-genital-mutilation-ctd-3.html
Finally a topic which I am too embarrassed to discuss in public.
As did Chief Rabbi of the UK, Lord Sacks:
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2012/07/06/the-jerusalem-post-the-europeans-skewed-view-of-circumcision/#.T_tTTJGoyVq
Robert George has taken this on as one of his causes, along with porn in hotel rooms.
What is fascinating to me is that the case involved a Muslim, and there are twenty times more Muslims in Germany (4 million) than Jews (200,000), but the focus is on alleged anti-Semitism. As I said elsewhere, did the court really feel it was worth offending the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims to get at 14 million Jews? Of course, when you are 1.5 billion strong, I suppose it is quite understandable that you don’t feel as threatened as when there are only 14 million of you.
Implicit in the anti=circumcision argument is the assumption that people should be autonomous. But children have never had autonomous status in any culture. Children are intrinsically incapable of making good life-judgments. Everythime a parent tells a kid to drink its milk, the chlld is not an autonomous person, and rightlyy so. Whether the parents should choose circumcision is another question.
It would seem that health benefits of circumcision alone would justify its practice. Children’s “autonomy”? Baloney!
Cutting bits off infants is barbaric.
In this country, it’s quick and easy money for doctors and hospitals, but there are some doctors who are unafraid to oppose the barbaric practice. Watch the babies scream and turn red as a big man in a mask approaches to cut off bits of their body.
Do those who think it’s okay to cut bits off baby boys think it’s also okay to cut bits and pieces off baby (or pubescent) girls?
What if a new religion decided babies should have their noses cut off? Or their ears? Or a few fingers? Would that be okay?
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=movie%20by%20do&tok=c3wTjmHz7IYlp_6eMmzMkw&cp=37&gs_id=42&xhr=t&q=movie+by+doctors+against+circumcision&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=movie+by+doctors+against+circumcision&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a2bafeacc082709d&biw=1187&bih=512
I have read where some Jewish people are opting not to circumcise their sons on the grounds that Moses was not circumcised.
On the medical grounds that the court ruled, I disagree. I think that for hygienic purposes, I would have opted for circumcision had I had a son. All the boys in my family were circumcised. It reduces the chance of infection and when it is done later in life is waaaay too painful.
It would seem that health benefits of circumcision alone would justify its practice.
The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision:
From a Times article of about a year ago:
Implicit in the anti=circumcision argument is the assumption that people should be autonomous.
Ann,
Would you say that’s implicit in the argument against female circumcision? Foot binding? Would you really give parents absolute control over children’s bodies? Would you allow neo-Nazi parents to have their children tattooed with swastikas? How about on their faces?
Why do insurance companies cover it. It seems to be elective (tho I always thought it was healthier) so it should not be covered. Save a few million for the uninsured.
Gerelyn, if you think think that you can talk about circumcision and cutting off babies’ noses in the same breath, then you’re so full of crap, it’s a miracle dung beetles don’t crawl down your throat at night.
This matter was cussed and discussed out here on the Leading Edge of America last year:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.html
I defer to the judgement of the Jewish parents I know and trust. The effect of circumcision is something that they think about carefully. When they have their sons circumcised, it’s an informed decision. They would not do something provably (or merely probably) harmful to their children. But in the end, every Jewish family I know, whether religious or agnostic, has circumcised their sons. (I realize that it’s an argument that only has weight for me, because it’s based on my personal knowledge of those Jewish mothers and fathers.)
When this question comes up in San Francisco, it’s the typical craziness that I have some fondness for: I have no doubt that it’s well meant, and I am amused, irritated at worst. But when it comes up in Germany – Germany, of all countries! – the idea of the possible underlying motives makes me feel like throwing up.
David N. ==
All I was arguing against was that one anti-circumciion argument based on the value of self=autonomy.. That does not imply that i was arguing either for or against circumcision or for or against those other practices you mention.
The “physical integrity” part of the law is interesting.
My uncle was born with a double thumb. Completely benign condition that didn’t affect his dexterity. Doctor told my grandparents it was up to them to decide whether to have it removed or not. Should they have been prevented from having the extra digit removed in order to preserve his “physical integrity”?
In 2010, a Georgia couple had six of their seven children tattooed and were arrested b/c it’s illegal to tattoo a minor in that state. Tattooing a child seems to violate his “physical integrity.” But the tattoos in question were images of Christian crosses. Does this, then, become a freedom of religious expression issue? (http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-arrested-for-giving-265194.html)
In Michigan a kid can get a tattoo with parental consent, and I know (sadly) parents who have their kids tattooed so they can be identified if they’re kidnapped or lost. Should this be prohibited to maintain the child’s “physical integrity”?
What about the practice of nose piercing among Hindu girls, which is believed to reduce menstrual cramping and labor pains? Should this custom be barred because a child has right to “physical integrity”?
What about cutting a kid’s hair? Or his fingernails? Isn’t that violating his “physical integrity”?
It is remarkable that the only important consideration here, the number one consideration, should be so totally ignored. I should hope that that is not purposeful, and that such consideration is not thought to be irrelevant.
But the matter of the Sign of the Covenant is one that is requested by God Himself. Of course, given that we have free will, any son of Abraham is perfectly free to reject His Covenant for himself, but outlawing that which God has established is the epitome of religious tyranny.
The Cologne court “ignored the fact that if this is true, teaching children to speak German, sending them to school and vaccinating them against illness are all assaults against the rights of the child since they are done without consent. The court’s judgement was tendentious, foolish and has set a dangerous precedent.”
I tend to agree with the Rabbi’s assessment. Circumcision is an operation performed on millions of children apart altogether from religious context. Unless the court has reasons to think it is damaging, they might as well issue edicts against parents who make their boy children wear their hair short.
“Requested by God himself” is a bit of a stretch — the Jews were not the only group who practised circumcision. It might be time to rethink the centrality the practice has acquired in Judaism.
Current laws have already corrected Scripture on corporal punishment of children.
Joseph O. This is a difficult case, and I’m not sure what I think about it. However, I do see a distinction between cutting your child’s hair short and circumcision insofar as the latter is permanent. The better analogy would be a religious injunction to have your child’s hair permanently removed. Would this medically harmless procedure be acceptable?
Ann: The autonomy issues arise here, because you are potentially violating the freedom of the future adult by making a decision on his behalf that he cannot change. This is a complex question that present and future advances in genetic engineering are only going to make more urgent. What rights do parents have to make decisions for a “future adult” that permanently alter that person’s body? I’m not sure, but the issue of autonomy is not trivial.
Jean Raber and Eric bring to mind some interesting questions. The case for circumcision, however, goes beyond religion because there are health benefits to it. Infections and cancers are reduced in the circumcised male. I heard someone of the Jewish faith talk about these benefits on NPR. But they have always been known publicly in our society in recent years from a medical standpoint.
The “physical integrity” part of the law is interesting.
Jean,
You write as if this is some ad hoc concept invented by opponents of circumcision. However, Michael PS (who is French) on the First Thoughts blog over on First Things tells us:
But the matter of the Sign of the Covenant is one that is requested by God Himself.
Bender,
This is an interesting approach to matters of religious liberty—go by what God says. Courts and other government bodies can plainly see from Genesis 17:9-14 that God requires Jews to circumcise their children. This, of course, requires the government do decide which religions are true and which are not. Actually, this approach does away with religious liberty altogether, or at best creates a two-tiered system in which true religions always get their way and false religions may be granted some liberties as long as what they do is kept within tolerable limits.
As if they had nothing else to think about or deal with (like street or crime or other municipal issues), awhile back – maybe a year or so ago – some folks in San Francisco tried to pass a law making it illegal to circumcise baby boys – and they got a hearing at City Council.
That part of “liberal” CA is not so tolerant I guess.
And rather than simply hanging all this on the Jews, it is best to recall that both Jews and Muslims practice circumcision – and maybe some other cultures or religions as well.
I finally checked the Spiegel web link. The Germans are after Jews over circumcising babies.
Must be a slow summer news day.
Yawn.
David Nickol- I don’t think there is any comparison between male circumcision and female excision; the latter is a heck of a lot more drastic.
I don’t think there is any comparison between male circumcision and female excision; the latter is a heck of a lot more drastic.
Irene Baldwin,
I agree that female circumcision is considerably more drastic and injurious. I disagree that there is no comparison. Both are surgical alterations of the genitals boys and girls are born with. Female circumcision is never necessary. Male circumcision is rarely necessary. It may have some health benefits, but it may also have drawbacks. And it is surgery. Whenever surgery is an option, you have to weight the cost and the benefits. As I mentioned above, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not find there are enough medical benefits to recommend routine infant circumcision.
And rather than simply hanging all this on the Jews, it is best to recall that both Jews and Muslims practice circumcision – and maybe some other cultures or religions as well.
Ken,
The court case involved a Muslim boy. As I keep pointing out, there are twenty times as many Muslims in Germany as Jews. However, the outcry is coming largely from Jews and secondarily from Christians on behalf of Jews. I think there are many reasons for this (some good, some bad), but I think one of the reasons (see Bender, above) is that Christians believe that God told Jews they should be circumcised. There is one aspect of this that is not so much about religious freedom as about religion. God told Jews they should be circumcised, so Christians must stand up for Jews. God didn’t tell Muslims they should be circumcised, so the fact that the case involved a Muslim and could potentially affect far more Muslims than Jews is of little importance to many Christians.
Always interesting to see how passionate proponents of cutting bits off babies become when the barbaric practice is questioned.
I wonder why their gods require human sacrifice (or its surrogates) for propitiation.
I wonder why those who congratulate themselves for being “pro-life” ignore the pain and suffering inflicted on newborns by those who support and profit from cutting babies.
I wonder why those who congratulate themselves for being “traditional” and “orthodox” ignore Church teachings on cutting bits off babies. See, e.g.,
http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/dietzen.htm (Many interesting pages at the Catholics Against Circumcision site.)
From that:
The following century, the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered “all who glory in the name of Christian not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”
So some goy on the internet thinks Jews are barbaric. That’s a first.
So some goy on the internet thinks Jews are barbaric. That’s a first.
There is a difference between thinking circumcision is barbaric and thinking Jews are barbaric. Probably if only Muslims practiced circumcision, Jews and Christians would think it was barbaric. Somehow everyone is reacting as if the world’s 14 million Jews “own” circumcision, and the 1.5 billion Muslims are irrelevant. Most of what people are reacting to isn’t really circumcision per se.
You keep talking about this as though people are ignoring the Muslim angle, but if you take the time to read the statements that groups are actually making in response to the ruling, you will see that that is not the case. You can’t actually do much to support your claim that “everyone is reacting as if the world’s 14 million Jews “own” circumcision, and the 1.5 billion Muslims are irrelevant.” You also simply aren’t allowing for the fact that any tendency toward viewing this ruling through the lens of the the situation of Jews in Germany and Europe is fairly natural given the long history of European anti-Semitism and the very recent instance of German-led persecution. People sit up and take notice when Germans make noise about Jews. Shocking, no? Further, this sort of ruling can be situated in a history of European denigration of Jewish ethnicity that utilizes circumcision as a key symbol for mockery–a history that has a few thousand years under its belt. Lots of groups circumcised in the early part of the Common Era, but it was the Jews that the Romans especially held out for ridicule. Consider European beliefs that Jewish men menstruated on account of circumcision, or that circumcision was somehow wrapped up in the Blood Libel. You can’t treat this as though it’s not an issue with a very real and very long history. Antiochus IV Epiphanes is probably giggling in his worm-ridden grave.
“There is a difference between thinking circumcision is barbaric and thinking Jews are barbaric.”
Oh? Explain, then, the difference.
I would argue that your attempt to make a distinction between calling circumcision barbaric and calling Jews barbaric is absurd. It stems from a failure to see past abstract ideas to the fact that these practices are of real importance in the lives of real people. If circumcision is fundamental to Jewish identity, then the sort of language that someone like Gerelyn is using cannot possibly allow for the distinction you want to make. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: explain how you can take a practice that is viewed as foundational and essential by a group, call it barbaric, and somehow not think that that smear doesn’t stick to the group that employs the practice. Why not just gird up your loins and own the slur? Why try and cut hairs with a spoon?
David – I do not see why some folks are so interested in this. Parents – whether they are Jews, Christians, or Muslims – can decide this well enough without a bunch of talk or fuss.
We certainly do not need judges and lawyers involved – blathering away like they know what’s best for everyone – ugh. They have a hundred other ways of turning a dollar and should leave people alone.
I find many of the ardent defenses of individual autonomy in this context curious since it comes from many of the most vocal critics of rampant individualism in a liberal economic context (liberal in 18th century sense).
I think the analogies are all somewhat weak, but I especially find the analogy to female circumcisions problematic. That is a totally different context, both biological and social, than what is still accepted as a common medical procedure (even if its medical benefits are viewed with less unanimity).
Finally, I found Sullivan’s statement that “liberal individualism is going to have a hard time digesting it” – it being a view of religious tradition that doesn’t accord radical individual choice as primary good – confusing and troubling. For one thing, as Lord Sacks points, the rampant anti-Semitism was just one troubling aspect of Liberalism. Moreover, this view of choice and autonomy in every sphere seems discordant with the understanding of the three great religious traditions of the West, which have never placed individualistic autonomy as the primary good.
http://www.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/primer.html
That’s the link to “Male Circumcision in the USA: A Human Rights Primer”, by Rich Winkle.
See, especially, Mechanics of Brutality and Three Experiments for the Reader.
Abe, I am sorry to have to tell you that there are barbaric parts to the first five books of Moses such the commandments to execute witches and to burn up the daughters of priests who go awhoring. There are barbarities in every religion, so no one has the high road as far as I can see. It should make us all more humble.
Furthermore, Christians have endured very vicious persecutions especially in the Roman times.
ISTM if any religious group has a practice that endangers health, informed adults should be able to practice it, but if someone harms a minor with one of these practices, he or she should be held responsible.
I attend a synagogue with a Jewish relative just about every Sabbath. I love my Jewish family very much. However, there is a prayer which always makes me wince: something about the uncircumcised not inheriting the good portion from God. I usually don’t pay much attention to it, but I do not like it. I do not criticize it because it is not my place to do so.
If one believes in circumcision, it is better to have a mohel who does it all the time than a doctor who does it once in a while. A mohel must have a good track record or he would be out of business quick. Perhaps the dangers are no greater than a group of people drinking out of the same chalice.
No one should be harmed by a religious ritual. I think we can all agree on that. If there are dangers to any ritual, we should be aware of those dangers. No one should be angry at those who tell us the dangers.
Why not just gird up your loins and own the slur? Why try and cut hairs with a spoon?
Abe Rosenzweig,
You’ll have to pick a fight with someone else. I made no slur. I didn’t say circumcision was barbaric. I said, “There is a difference between thinking circumcision is barbaric and thinking Jews are barbaric.”
Link to a poem, “In Memory of a Sexually Mutilated Child”:
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/
Many useful links on the page. Scroll almost all the way down for Howard Stern’s views of the barbaric practice.
“Scroll almost all the way down for Howard Stern’s views of the barbaric practice.”
A suasive moral voice to be sure, particularly in matters of sexual morality.
True enough, David–you did not author the slur (you just tried to downplay it).
Verity, I am aware of the content of the Hebrew Bible you bring up, and am not sure what the point of introducing it is; this is a discussion not of literary content, but actual practice. Likewise, I am aware of the history of the early Christian movement; again, I am not sure what the relevance of early Christian persecution is to the discussion. What’s your point?
Recommending to Jews that they use a mohel is kind of like suggesting to a bear that it go to the woods to take a crap. (I’m being a bit hyperbolic, but still). Regardless, nobody said anything against educating people as to the dangers of circumcision. Rather, the problem is people who want to mislead people concerning the dangers of the ritual, and especially those who want to BAR people from it.
A suasive moral voice to be sure, particularly in matters of sexual morality.
(I don’t see the “sexual morality” aspect of mutilating babies.)
On the various pages I’ve linked there are links to scholarly articles and books, to videos and pictures of the screaming victims of the sordid and brutal practice, and to easy-to-read introductions, etc., etc. If Howard Stern isn’t your cup of tea, perhaps the physicians opposed to the barbaric practice will make you reconsider your convictions.
Jesus was circumcised, with Joseph and Mary approving the “barbaric” practice.
Well, this is gettin’ ugly.
David Nickol, my only point about “physical integrity” is that it’s a very difficult to find any clear, bright line.
FWIW, my kid received a local anesthetic when he was circumcised, which, in many areas, you no longer have to request. He didn’t even wake up during the procedure, which my husband insisted on watching. Afterward, he seemed to experience no discomfort in the area, and it healed just fine.
Given the lack of attention boys pay to hygiene at certain ages when it is impractical to get in the shower with them, it seemed prudent to have it done. We also buzzed his hair off every summer until he was 12 for the same reason.
The kid cried a lot more when he was baptized at age 4: Big scary man, weird robes, put your head over a bowl of water while a bunch of strangers are looking at you. Even though we practiced at home over the sink, it wasn’t the same, no siree. He was ready to bolt, except I bribed him with mass quantities of treats.
I now await Gerelyn’s battery of invective.
(Jean, I’m sorry for annoying you again.)
—-
Patrick,
True that Joseph and Mary were observant Jews who did everything for Jesus and Joses and Jude and James that the Shulhan Aruk required them to do: they circumcised them, redeemed them, taught them Torah, taught them trades, and found them wives.
I’ve never understood why the Church dropped the Feast of the Circumcision, the holyday of obligation formerly observed on January 1st. It would be a perfect opportunity for priests to fulminate against the barbaric practice forbidden to Catholics by the Council of Florence.
Since “it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation” it seems like an important message to be imparted from pulpits, in church bulletins, in diocesan papers, etc.
Why is the barbaric practice permitted in Catholic hospitals?
Gerelyn:
- your links suggest to me that anesthesia should be used, not that baby circumcision should be banned
- The risk of prejudice driven by anti-Semitism is obvious. Poems and individual witness stories are fine for heart-tugging and for drawing attention to the subject, but they do not suffice to convince. Claimed measurable, significant harmful consequences need to be scientifically verified and objectively put into perspective. The websites you link to are advocates, not objective.
- to repeat myself: some of my closest friends are smart, caring Jewish women, who are role models for parenting; some of them are agnostic, very critical of many things in Judaism, and “anti-clerical” (or the Jewish equivalent of anti-clerical: I don’t know what to call it). But they still go along with circumcision: I am convinced that they know better than you or me, so you cannot convince me. They’re like my personal Magisterium on the topic of circumcision!
“it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation”: surely you’re joking. You don’t really believe that 15th century church authorities were free from prejudice on matters related to sexual organs? On matters related to Jewish people?
Jesus was circumcised, with Joseph and Mary approving the “barbaric” practice.
Patrick Molloy,
Mary and Joseph lived 2000 years ago. They had Jesus circumcised according to the customs of their own time, and they also brought animal sacrifices (two turtledoves) to be ritually killed and burnt at the Temple. I don’t know about you, but if someone tried to perform animal sacrifices in a Catholic Church, I would find it repellent. I wouldn’t call ritual circumcision barbaric, but I think in 21st century America, I would find ritual animal sacrifice barbaric. But . . . I wouldn’t say people who practiced ritual animal sacrifice were necessarily barbaric. They might be perfectly fine folks who happened to do one thing I found barbaric.
“it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation”: the Shoah is proof that Christianity had a deeply flawed attitude towards Jewish people. I would discount any negative statements about Jews that predate WWII, especially, especially official teachings. They’re worthless at best, but more likely evil. They should go into the next syllabus of errors!
True enough, David–you did not author the slur (you just tried to downplay it).
Abe Rosenzweig,
Well, suppose I did say circumcision was barbaric. Eighty percent of American men are circumcised (although the numbers for infant circumcision are dropping fast). Does that mean I would be calling Americans barbaric?
If you don’t approve of one thing someone does, even something very important, do you necessarily disapprove of them?
Not “even something very important,” but rather PRECISELY something very important–something essential. In that case: yes, you disapprove of them.
A true story, which I told here some six years ago: During a homiletics class in the seminary, one of my classmates was giving a practice-homily for the feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, the name then given to the regularly changing feast celebrated on January 1st. The classmate, who has since gone on to greater things, began by giving us a little lesson in liturgical theology, to the effect that the liturgical feasts give us an opportunity to participate in the mysteries of Christ. “Today is the feast of the Circumcision,” he went on somewhat solemnly, “and it reminds us that we must cut off the old man!” Well, the whole audience–males only, of course–winced and instinctively covered our vital parts while roaring with laughter.
In that case: yes, you disapprove of them.
Abe Rosensweig,
To the extent that it makes any sense at all to say I disapprove of a person, I know whom I disapprove of, as opposed to whom I approve of but disapprove of some things that they do. I don’t even know what it would mean to say I disapprove of Americans, Muslims, or Jews.
Claire, in one sentence you make the point that “individual witness stories” are of no value, but in the next you say you’re convinced by your closest friends’ attitudes toward circumcision.
It is a confusing and emotional topic. Those who have subjected their babies to mutilation are particularly defensive. Those who have themselves been subjected to mutilation may be in denial about what was done to them, and in their desire to minimize the trauma decide to perpetrate it on their own babies. (Or, in the case of celibate males, to make coarse jokes about it.)
David Nickol, my only point about “physical integrity” is that it’s a very difficult to find any clear, bright line.
Jean,
I don’t disagree. But I also find concepts like “the dignity of the human person” very nebulous, And what is a reasonable doubt? Or due process? We are forced to deal with concepts all the time that do not allow us to draw bright lines. How many Supreme Court cases are decided 9 to 0?
Gerelyn, I’m not going to convince you, nor you me. Truce?
Fr. K., very funny! But I wonder: how can you remember telling a story here six years ago?
(Claire, it’s not personal. I’m convinced you’re convinced. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t have bothered telling me you weren’t.)
(I’m glad you found time to read the more than 2 million links I provided, but I think you misunderstood some of them. True that some were about anesthesia, but many were about the need to put an end to the barbaric practice of cutting off important bits of babies. Watching the videos of the screaming babies can be an eye-opener for some. The links on the poem page are good, too. It must be terrible for men to realize what they lost with those 15 square inches of tissue that God gave them for specific reasons, including sexual pleasure.)
(I agree that “15th century church authorities”, like 21st-century Church authorities, were clueless and exceedingly prejudiced about “matters related to sexual organs”. Why perpetuate the ignorance today? Why are the bishops silent about it? Why don’t the once-liberal Catholic periodicals inveigh against it?)
While it is absolutely certain that members of the clergy are subject to criminal laws, (leaving aside the fact that the Vatican has no extradition treaty with the United States) why is it not the logical extension of religious liberty that the Church itself should be immune from civil penalty? It is an extension of the principle of sovereign immunity: wrongdoing of a civil nature should be adjudicated only by the Church itself. The Church as in institution should not be held libel in Civil Courts, and such courts should not have the ability to divert attention and resources away from the Church carrying out its first amendment protected religious practices. Bankrupting a Church is the greatest sanction a State can impose on a Church, as it prevents the free exercise of its religion. I’m sure there is case law around this. Can anyone point to a citation?
Efforts of outsiders to protect Jewish boys from their parents, among the most cultivated and humane of all our citizens, are sadly misguided.
In a better world there would be many more Jewish children, and if all the boys were circumcised and brought up in the Jewish faith, we would all be the beneficiaries.
Found it: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1966
hehe
David Nickol, we’re not in disagreement; I have no beef whatever with parents who choose not to circumcise their boys. I still wonder if it was the right thing to do. The boy and his dad have no qualms whatever about it. They tell me they’ve read articles that men who have been circumcised enjoy greater sexual pleasure, though how such things might be measured I have no idea (nor do I wish to).
We read all the literature available at the time and talked to two doctors, and we got conflicting advice. Sadly, Gerelyn’s scary videos were not then available online, or we might have gone another way, though the literature did make us insist on (and watch to ensure that) anesthesia was used.
Oh, pshaw, Gerelyn, I don’t think you’re sorry at all :-) I just don’t have the same level of feeling about this that you do. In the grand scheme of child abuse and neglect, circumcision just isn’t on my radar. I could be very wrong.
Pretending that those who are opposed to MGM and FGM are opposed to Jews and Muslims just doesn’t cut it.
Finally a topic which I am too embarrassed to discuss in public.
But I thought one of the charms of the French is that there is no such topic.
I have changed my mind on this in the recent past. I now think it unethical for parents to make irreversible physical changes to their children. It is an invasion of the later adults that the children will be autonomy. I see no reason why the children cannot decide on their own at a reasonable age say 16 or 18 to have it done to themselves and still be Jewish.
And the health benefits are, apparently, substantial, but again, this is something the adult child can decide on his own.
Thx Mark. You’re always nice to me!
Who’s pretending?
If it’s a central religious tenet for some on the one hand, and a relatively harmless procedure on the other, I think it should be allowed, at least for people whose religion requires it. I don’t see the permanency of it as a big deal since it’s not a major procedure. (though I might feel differently if I were a guy). If there’s no value in it other than religious, just ban it for people for whom it’s not part of their religion.
We make greater accommodations than this for religious beliefs. Like allowing people to NOT vaccinate their children (which I think should be illegal regardless of one’s beliefs).
My last question in starting the thread was whether this movement will reach the U.S. From several responses it seems that it has already arrived. How long before there is a major court challenge? If there is one, should it be addressed as a religious freedom issue? It seems to me more serious than the question of kosher food, which was introduced early on in the latest tussle as a parallel example of government intrusion into religious practice.
What does kosher food have to do with ending circumcision? Many more non-Jewish babies are victims of the barbaric practice than are Jewish babies.
The U. S. population is 312 million. Half are male. 156 million. 80% circumcised. 125 million.
Five million Americans are Jewish. Half are male. 2.5 million. 100% circumcised. 2.5 million.
So of the 125 million circumcised American men, 122.5 million are not Jewish. So why the effort to make the “threat” about religion? Pretending that those who oppose MGM and FGM oppose Jews and Muslims is like pretending that those who oppose sexual abuse of children oppose Catholics.
At least the rate of mutilation is dropping fast. The Wiki article on Prevalence of Circumcision refers to a JAMA article:
From that:
In 2005, about 56 percent of male newborns were circumcised prior to release from the hospital according to statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.[19]
Data from a national survey conducted from 1999 to 2002 found that the overall prevalence of male circumcision in the United States was 79%.[20] 91% of men born in the 1970s, and 83% of boys born in the 1980s were circumcised.[20] An earlier survey, conducted in 1992, found a circumcision prevalence of 77% in US-born men, born from 1932–1974, including 81% of non-Hispanic White men, 65% of Black men, and 54% of Hispanic men, vs. 42% of non U.S. born men who were circumcised.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
Gerelyn,
I’m not trying to be condescending or anything, but you do understand the religious significance of circumcision for Jews, don’t you? For Jews, banning circumcision would be like banning baptism for Christians. I did not have my sons circumcised, because I was not convinced of the health benefits and, as a Christian, I had no religious motivation for doing so. But I do have an interest in Jews being able to be Jews, and it seems pretty clear from Genesis that this involves circumcision.
Of course the obvious rejoinder would be to ask whether, if Aztecs were still around, I would have a similar interest in them being able to be Aztecs, even if this involved human sacrifice. My answer would be “no,” though I suspect any attempt to spell out the differences between the two cases would be quite complicated.
Aztecs are still around. One of their chief Goddesses, Tonantzin, is known to us as Our Lady of Guadalupe.
“1,376,026 Mexicans speak twenty-eight Náhuatl languages and live in every state of Mexico.”
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/3689-indigenous-languages-in-mexico
For Jews, banning circumcision would be like banning baptism for Christians.
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
The judge in Germany said he was not suggesting a ban on circumcision, but rather a postponement of circumcision until the boy was old enough to consent. That would still, of course, be a major interference with Jewish custom and practice and no doubt would be completely unacceptable to Jews. But it is not the same as an outright ban.
It is probably of no real relevance to the circumcision discussion, but in various discussions of this topic I have read, some people seem to accept Genesis 17:10-14 as a historical account. Circumcision was apparently common in the ancient Near East, and without doing any more than a few minutes research, I am guessing that most contemporary biblical scholars would maintain that circumcision came first, with the story of Abraham coming later to give significance to the practice.
Jean,
When my younger brother was baptized he screamed so loud and long that the priest said later that he thought it was really an exorcism :-)
Last month I went to a talk where the priest, who was also a psychoanalyst, explained that he likes to practice full immersion baptisms. He takes the baby, puts their full body and head under water, and holds them there for a moment before taking them out, so that the death and rebirth symbols are more vivid.
David,
I think telling Jews that they cannot circumcise their children on the eight day is more or less banning circumcision as a religious practice.
Gerelyn,
I’m going to take that as a “no.”
I don’t think I have much to add here except to suggest that male circumcision with female genital removal is faulty at best.
Male circumcision is not a procedure that interferes with sexual function or pleasure. It is not a procedure that is meant to force men to be more submissive. This is not a procedure that is done illegally by village grannies with rusty knives on children just entering puberty.
Male circumcision is sometimes indicated when men are older for a variety of reasons, and complications from circumcision increase with age. I think a reasonable person could conclude that, for health reasons, infant circumcision could be waived because the need for one may never arise. But I also think a reasonable person could reach the opposite conclusion, and that’s why I don’t find circumcision on religious grounds objectionable.
The kind of procedure performed on girls and women is bloodier and more extensive. It is more amputation than “circumcision,” as it may involve removing the entire clitoris. It leads to extreme trauma and infection. I don’t know any women who have been told they need this procedure to reduce incidence of UTIs or other persistent conditions.
Perhaps that’s why the Church has put some effort into trying to reduce incidences of this type of mutilation and not circumcision–because they’re not the same thing.
http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2009-07-11-voa22-68805257/412389.html
Abe, my point is that if someone either thinks that circumcision is barbaric or is offended by the idea that circumcision is barbaric that person needs to reread the Scriptures and see what is really barbaric and then realize that religion has evolved from the Bronze Age. We are still evolving and the discussion of criticisms is a good way to do that. If it is true that one hundred to three hundred baby boys are injured from botched circumcisions every year in the USA, then this bit of knowledge should be made known so that people can make informed decisions about it.
My comment about mohels being a better choice than doctors for the procedure was not aimed at advising Jews who probably do not read this blog in large numbers and who in no case need my advice. This comment was made by our rabbi on Sabbath last when we were discussing this topic during our kiddush. I merely thought that the people of good will who participate on this site might learn from the comment. I should have given the rabbi credit for it.
Patrick, you are so right that Mary and Joseph fulfilled the law of Moses when they had Jesus circumcised on the eighth day. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. IMHO the meaning of circumcision is that the parents make a covenant by the shedding of a body part and blood in order to make their commitment to raising a child to devote his whole life to keeping the commandments of God.
I do not think that circumcision should be outlawed, but I do think that parents should be warned of possible complications and should have access to qualified practitioners.
I don’t think I have much to add here except to suggest that male circumcision with female genital removal is faulty at best.
Jean,
The point in bringing up female circumcision is not that male circumcision is the equivalent. The point is that both have proponents who believe that banning them is an infringement of religious liberty, and both are right. The question is, when you surgically alter the body of an infant as a religious ritual, where do you draw the line? It may very well be that the vast majority of reasonable people say that female circumcision is way on the unacceptable side of the line, and male circumcision well within the tolerable zone. But it is not insane or anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim to raise the question, and it shouldn’t be next to impossible to debate it civilly. Both are surgical procedures that irreversibly alter the genitals a baby is born with. That is not trivial.
And of course if you are going to compare male circumcision to something, the most obvious thing to compare it to is female circumcision, no matter how dramatic the difference between them.
If mutilating babies is to be compared to something, the most obvious thing would be human sacrifice.
Google “circumcision surrogate for child sacrifice”: http://tinyurl.com/7mrvtkp
But most circumcised males in this country were not mutilated for religious reasons. Why should the barbaric practice continue?
(And why does raising the question inflame/infuriate some? Many other demands made by bloodthirsty deities of yore are no longer met.)
Why don’t insurance companies and hospitals put an end to the cutting of babies? How much profit would they lose? What about the manufacturers of the instruments and restraints used in the mutilation of babies? How much profit would they lose?
F. C.: You have to understand that the Aztecs were direct descendants of the children of Jesus and over the centuries took the easy step from circumcision to human sacrifice.
Edith Wyschogrod had an interesting remark — the institution of circumcision shows that God created human nature as capable of being improved and perfected!
Circumcision as a surrogate for child sacrifice — and circumcision of the lips and of the heart as a surrogate for physical circimcision. The origins of all our institutions and ideals are barbaric, and civilization advances by such surrogates.
Indeed, the female circumcision aspect is exercising minds here in Germany. If they protest too strongly against the ruling, they could open the door to Muslim claims for the legitimacy of female circumcision.
It shouldn’t be next to impossible to debate it civilly. I’m afraid that I contributed to that. I lost my temper. Sorry, David!
Fr. Komonchak, Is this what Jepthah did? Did he take the easy step from circumcision to human sacrifice? I thought that the moral of that story was that no one should make rash promises at a time of euphoria.
Fr. O’Leary, Edith Wyschogrod’s comment presupposes that God made a slight design flaw in His original model and that we are now dependent on human tools and the work of human hands in order to physically better ourselves.
Room for Debate in today’s NY Times has different people weighing the pros and cons of delaying circumcision until the age of consent.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/10/an-age-of-consent-for-circumcision/
Thanks, Irene. VERY interesting articles followed by VERY good comments. (Even the bad ones help underline the important point that the time has come to end the mutilation of babies.)
Verity: You can get more information from the article by Florabunda Kugellos in the Zeitschrift fur Feminismus im Antike (2007) which discusses the recently discovered text of the “Gospel according to Susanna” (midwife to Miriam, the mother of Jesus), one of those works that Jerome, at the order of Pope Damasus, expunged from the canon of the New Testament. This early second-century text includes an illustration that makes it now indisputable that the Aztec image of Guadalupe represents not the mother of Jesus but one of Jesus’ daughters, presumably the one from whom the Aztecs are descended. This gives further support for Kugellos’s earlier argument that the description of the woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet in Rev 12 was a self-portrait of the author of that book, that same daughter, and that the dragon who tries to snatch the woman’s child from her was the ancient source of the legends surrounding the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl (see the lower image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl).
Fr. Komonchak, I guess all we need to know now is which ship or airline the daughter of Jesus took to Mexico. In any case I am relieved to know that the Blessed Virgin Mary had the services of a midwife on that first Christmas Eve. However, I am really surprised to learn that the Book of Revelation was written by a daughter of Jesus. A few years ago I read a genealogy chart in the rare book room at the Library of Virginia that traced my family back to a cousin of the Virgin Mary, and from that time I have thought that I deserve a special seat at church and a supervisory influence. These rare documents must be true.
“And of course if you are going to compare male circumcision to something, the most obvious thing to compare it to is female circumcision, no matter how dramatic the difference between them.”
David, I guess I see having your wisdom teeth out as more akin to circumcision than female genital mutilation.
True your wisdom teeth aren’t in the same general area as the foreskin. It’s done (except among those with certain religious beliefs who may or may not be related to the ancient Aztecs) for preventive health reasons, though it’s not clear that the diseases the procedure prevents is worth putting every boy baby through the procedure. However, what’s removed does not interfere with basic physical functions.
And, having it done later is way worse than having it done sooner.
FWIW, I would tend not to have an uncircumcised teenager elect to be circumcised at 15 or 16. A kid that age may not report problems due to embarrassment, and he is certainly not going to let his parents check things out. If this isn’t done when a kid’s a baby, I say let him deal with it when he’s old enough to pay for it himself.
Verity: Couldn’t it be that descendants of the daughter of Jesus kept being driven farther and farther east, until they reached the Bering Straights and made it into Alaska and then down into Mexico? I’m pleased to hear about your relationship with the Blessed Virgin. I have to be content with being a direct descendant of Charlemagne. II’m also going to look into links with Genhis Khan.)
Couldn’t it be that descendants of the daughter of Jesus kept being driven farther and farther east, until they reached the Bering Straights (sic)into Alaska and then down into Mexico?
—
Yes! Fray Diego Durán, a 16th century Dominican, said, “We can almost positively affirm that they are Jews and Hebrews”.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0806126493/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
After telling Abraham that every man child of His people should be circumcised on the eighth day, Genesis reports G_d as saying:
“14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”
Sounds pretty serious to me.
Yes, John, the harsh penalties in the Pentateuch do indicate sins so serious that they result in spiritual death. A woman caught in adultery was dragged before Jesus with the idea that she should be stoned to death. But Jesus taught that she should be given a chance at repentance. He told her to go and sin no more.
Jesus both fulfilled the laws and gave an new direction to them. He said that he had the authority to do so. I believe that he did have that authority.
Lacan and others propose some arguments both for artistic personalities and for rational personalities.
- the aesthetic angle, for the artistic: a circumcised penis is obviously more beautiful.
- the utilitarian angle, for the rational: it obviously does not make sense for “a dagger and its sheath” to be always inseparable.
- there is also the social angle: the feeling that something is missing is the fundamental urge making man look outwards and pulling him towards others. Circumcision is like the creation of Eve by taking a bit of Adam’s body.
Derrida, in his book “circumfessions”, relates his circumcision to Augustine’s Confessions.
Joe K,
I’ve always been impressed by your erudition, but you’ve surpassed yourself on this thread. I didn’t know half this stuff.
On the comparison of male circumcision and FGM: as I understand it, FGM is more about ethnic/tribal custom than about religion. The more extreme forms of FGM have been condemned in fatwas by several Islamic jurists, and I don’t think there are any Islamic scholars who would say that it is a practice constitutive of Islamic identity. On the religious freedom issue at least, the two are quite different things.
Now if one wanted to argue for a right of freedom of cultural practice, analogous to freedom of religious practice, then some sort of comparison might be made.
The more extreme forms of FGM have been condemned in fatwas by several Islamic jurists, and I don’t think there are any Islamic scholars who would say that it is a practice constitutive of Islamic identity. On the religious freedom issue at least, the two are quite different things.
F. C. Bauerschmidt,
Aren’t you rather significantly narrowing the concept of religious freedom? Here’s some information on FGM:
Suppose I am a Catholic in a non-Catholic neighborhood and want to put a nativity scene in my front yard at Christmastime. Members of the town object. The Catholic Church doesn’t require nativity scenes. Does that render my nativity scene a matter of cultural practice and not religion?
It seems to me that one of the points about religious liberty is that it is not whittled down to only those practices mandated by the overall religious body to which a person belongs. And to try to say what constitutes Islam, when there are so many different branches, by trying to determine what they all share in common would be just as foolish a task as trying to define Christianity in the same way. For Catholics and other Christian denominations, the attempt would yield something so watered down that Catholics certainly wouldn’t recognize it as Catholicism.
There are many differences between the actual surgeries for male and female “genital mutilation,” but surely in the United States one could mount a defense of each by appealing to religious liberty. This is not at all to defend the practice of FGM, which is abhorrent, but rather to point out that defending something purely on the grounds of religious liberty alone is simply not enough to justify permitting the practice even in a country like the United States where religious liberty is an integral and cherished part of our government and traditions.
A few points in response:
1) I recognize that the line between a religious practice and a cultural practice is a difficult to draw, and the lines we do draw must be under constant renegotiation. That is not, I think, an argument against drawing such lines. Indeed, as long as we recognize a right to free exercise of religion, but not a right to free exercise of cultural identity, we’ve got to draw such lines.
2) What if banning FGM is not so much like banning a nativity scene as it is like banning bingo — something strongly associated with a subset of a particular religious group, but not itself a religious practice? Personally, I would not go to the mat to defend bingo. I would be even less likely to do so if bingo had been condemned by a significant number of Catholic religious leaders (as is the case with Islamic leaders and FGM).
3) I think a more apt point of comparison with circumcision as a religious practice would be something like animal sacrifice involving extreme cruelty to the animal (i.e.beyond, say, what our society would normally tolerate in slaughtering an animal for food). If there were a religion that required such a thing (I don’t know if there is), then I think we would be faced with a difficult question of whether we should tolerate something that we would not otherwise tolerate, for the sole reason that its practitioners identify it as a constitutive religious practice. Of course, at this point in time the comparison with circumcision is not entirely apt, since we currently do tolerate circumcision for non-religious reasons. But it seems to be closer than FGM.
What if banning FGM is not so much like banning a nativity scene as it is like banning bingo — something strongly associated with a subset of a particular religious group, but not itself a religious practice?
Let me just quote again a part of what I quoted above.
I simply don’t think it is possible to say that FMG is to certain Muslims what bingo is to Catholics! FGM is intricately tied up with Muslim ideas of Islam and female sexuality. I don’t see how there is anything at all in bingo that relates to principles or practice in the Catholic religion.
If there were a religion that required such a thing (I don’t know if there is), then I think we would be faced with a difficult question of whether we should tolerate something that we would not otherwise tolerate, for the sole reason that its practitioners identify it as a constitutive religious practice.
This is a matter that has been ongoing in Denmark for years and now seems to have been laid to rest by a compromise that leaves kosher and halal slaughter largely, but not entirely, untouched.
FGM is intricately tied up with Muslim ideas of Islam and female sexuality.
I don’t mean this to be a flip comparison, but one could equally say that bingo is tied up with Catholic ideas of how grace can perfect nature: by nature we enjoy games of chance and by grace that enjoyment is turned to the material support of parish churches. One might try to justify the practice with principles drawn from the religion, but this is quite different from it being an identity-constituting practice. The fact that FGM is practiced by a small minority of Muslims would, to my mind, argue against it being an identity-constituting practice, and its restriction to certain ethnic groups would argue for its being considered a cultural practice rather than a religious one.
Indeed, the source you quote would seem to support the view that FGM is not a religious rite in Islam but rather a cultural practice among some Muslims that they seek to justify by invoking Islamic ideas about female purity. That is, what is inherently Islamic — certain ideas about female purity — is used to support something that is not inherently Islamic — FGM. Similarly, something that is inherently Catholic — the idea that grace perfects nature — can be used to support something that is not inherently Catholic — bingo (or celebrating the feast of St. Patrick by wearing green and drinking beer).
My basic point is that male circumcision is identity-constituting for Jews in a way that FGM is not for Muslims and bingo is not for Catholics.
There was a time when the Temple was “identity-constituting”, too. But religions, like deities, evolve with time and increased understanding.
From the Davidic Dynasty’s Weekly Torah Newsletter:
“Two thousand years ago there was one Temple. Now there are millions of temples, each one transforming the mundane and shining divine light into the world. With the Temple’s destruction, each of us became an agent of light, all together capable of bringing the final redemption.”
Oh, wow: http://davidicdynasty.net. Those guys (“Virtually every royal house in Europe, including the Windsor’s of England, traces itself as descendants of the House of David”) are almost as credible as Howard Stern.
I couldn’t wade through every single comment of this funny thread to verify whether this San Francisco challenge to circumcision had been cited yet.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-striken/story?id=14179024
(Abe, you should try to avoid the temptation to think that because you are unaware of something, it can’t have happened.)
Reading about the exilarchs will clear up confusion about Queen Elizabeth’s Jewish ancestors whom she mentions with pride. Start with Wiki or the Jewish Encyclopedia. There are many other good references available.
Link below to leads on Google to information about the 8th century exilarchs who married daughters of European big shots, thereby becoming ancestors of royal (and non-royal) descendants.
(Including Joseph Komonchak, who mentioned his descent from Charlemagne. Charlemagne, of course, is the ancestor of millions of people alive today. It’s good to be the king. And, thanks to his exilarch connections, Charlemagne’s descendants are also David’s descendants. Jewish, like QEII.)
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=exilarch+married+charlemagne&oq=exilarch+married+charlemagne&gs_l=hp.12…662.6396.0.9549.28.28.0.0.0.0.463.5463.0j9j12j2j1.24.0…0.0…1c.KZQib5jG9IM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=16d8ab6d65b5ef11&biw=1187&bih=512
One of the many delights of genealogy is having family tree information corroborated by DNA testing.
And, speaking of Aztecs, interesting article in the NYT this morning about how DNA has validated a linguist’s claims that the people who crossed the Bering Strait centuries ago did so in three waves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/science/earliest-americans-arrived-in-3-waves-not-1-dna-study-finds.html?_r=1&hpw
Good call, Gerelyn. That all looks pretty rock solid. I wonder if David Icke knows about it? Probably–but if he doesn’t, it’s imperative that he learn.
I happen to be a decsendent of King Ahab. One of the Omrides managed to escape the clutches of Jehu and escape, by way of Bangladesh, to what eventually became Moldavia. Most people don’t know it, but Orville Redenbacher was also an Omride descendent.
Including Joseph Komonchak, who mentioned his descent from Charlemagne.
You might consider injections of performance enhancing drugs into your funny-bone.
Did you know that the Mandylion is secretly kept in a gas station in Carson City? It was brought there by the descendents of Heraclius. Did you know that Rick Moranis is a descendent of Heraclius? Do you know why Rick Moranis hasn’t had an on-screen credit since 1997? It’s because he’s been in Nevada fulfilling the sacred duty of his lineage: guarding the Holy Mandylion.
” The judge in Germany said he was not suggesting a ban on circumcision, but rather a postponement of circumcision until the boy was old enough to consent. ”
I suggest that this is a worthy practice when it comes to baptism as well. Infant baptism seems to have become a social occasion like First Communions in Ireland. A good excuse for gift-giving and elaborate parties. And it makes the grandparents think that they have done something right.
I think the Amish require their children to spend time “in the world” before making a conscious decision to continue on as Amish. How come they are so smart and so many are not?
I know more than a few people who are obviously descendants from Balaam’s ass.
Actually, the talking donkey that the apostle Thomas encountered in India claimed to be a descendent not only of Balaam’s ass, but also the colt that Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
Granted, that donkey died after Thomas rode him, and so I’m not sure that the line of Balaam’s ass didn’t die with him.
Him? Balaam’s ass was a jenny, Abe.
(SHE saved Balaam’s ass.)
Reread what I wrote–I’ referred specifically to the ass that Thomas rode, which was a colt.
Speaking of descendants of Charlemagne:
Using the wonderfully complete mathematics genealogy project, http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/
I can trace my PhD advising ancestry through Euler, Leibniz, Copernicus, … and finally to someone called Argyropoulos – who was also advisor of Leonardo da Vinci! So, along with another 100000 descendants of Argyropoulos (Theol. Dr. Università di Padova 1444), I have Da Vinci as my academic great great great great great uncle!
I was told that there were only two families of mathematicians: descendants of Euler and descendants of Gauss.
“There was a time when the Temple was “identity-constituting”, too. But religions, like deities, evolve with time and increased understanding.”
Apparently you have very little understanding of what this event means in Judaism. Why don’t you ask a few before opining on “evolution” of faiths.
Geez, I wondered what happened to Rick Moranis. Thanks for the update.
One of the joys of genealogy is knowing that you will never have to meet some of your ancestors. I don’t care what Hapla Group(s) I belong to; the number of drunks, suicides, mental cases, compulsive gamblers, and bigamists weaving through the branches of my family tree makes it pretty clear my DNA is a toxic swamp.
I sometimes wonder about my Christian genealogy.
I am Catholic because that’s how I was raised (and for other reasons too, but that’s one big one).
My parents were Catholic because their parents were Catholics and raised them that way.
Going back, at some point some ancestors were Catholic because they converted: another person converted them. Going back up from that person to their parents, grand-parents, etc., and going through some other conversions, presumably I can go all the way back to the Apostles and to Christ.
Unless someone at some point converted to Christianity merely from reading and not from a personal encounter with another human being. But that seems extremely unlikely to me, so I conjecture that it is by transmitting the faith from human to human in a one-to-one intimate fashion that Christ reached me.
Isn’t that amazing to contemplate?
Speaking of threats to religious freedom: What about the monks at the abbey of St. Joseph in Louisiana have been told they can’t sell their caskets unless they’re licensed funeral directors. The monks won round one of a challenge, but the funeral directors have appealed.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/appeal_in_st_josephy_abbey_cas.html
Hi, Claire:
Your first Christian ancestors were probably forced to turn away from the beloved Old Ones by a ruler like Charlemagne.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=charlemagne%20forc&tok=tG2VYNPBtXrVAbsmHlqNQA&cp=20&gs_id=6i&xhr=t&q=charlemagne+forced+conversions&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=charlemagne+forced+c&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=16d8ab6d65b5ef11&biw=1187&bih=512
The popes’ missionaries to the tribes of Europe burnt their sacred groves, sent their temple treasures back to Rome, etc.
The Old Ones are still around. E.g., we still dye eggs, deck the halls with boughs of holly, trick-or-treat, etc., etc.
One of the joys of genealogy is knowing that you will never have to meet some of your ancestors. I don’t care what Hapla Group(s) I belong to; the number of drunks, suicides, mental cases, compulsive gamblers, and bigamists weaving through the branches of my family tree makes it pretty clear my DNA is a toxic swamp.
———-
You don’t have to meet them. You ARE them. You are the current holder of the genes. Your job is to thrust the genes into the future. (In a few thousand years, someone who looks like you will say with your voice how glad she is not to have to meet you.)
Apparently you have very little understanding of what this event means in Judaism. Why don’t you ask a few before opining on “evolution” of faiths.
——
Surely you don’t think “faiths” do not evolve.
God made clothes out of skins for Adam and Eve. You don’t see Him doing that any more, do you? (Did He kill the animals in front of Adam and Eve and skin them with flakes? Which animals? Deer? Mink? Ermine? Did He show them how to make an awl out of bone to sew the pelts with? Did He butcher and cook the animals?)
Isn’t it funny how cartoonists still show God with thunderbolts, even though it’s been a long time since He was a thunder god, just one of many nature deities in the region? Mythic memory is long and strong.
“You don’t have to meet them. You ARE them. You are the current holder of the genes. Your job is to thrust the genes into the future. (In a few thousand years, someone who looks like you will say with your voice how glad she is not to have to meet you.)”
Of course we all inherit the the looks, traits, and diseases of our ancestors. But we are NOT them. We are children of God who also inherit free will and, with God’s help, can be more than the sum of whatever DNA we were handed at birth. We can’t help passing on some of the dirty laundry of our ancestors to our children, but our “job” is to make our children understand that their destinies need not be defined by the chemicals in their cells.
Claire: It is indeed a wonder. The faith has been handed on, mostly, from person to person, from community to community. I try my best to convince people that it is the believing community that is the primary agent of the transmission of the faith, that is, the Church that gives birth to the new generation of the Church. The Italian ecclesiologist Severino Dianich has built an entire systematic theology of the Church around the originating moment of the handing on and reception of “the word of life” as described in 1 John 1:1-4.
The thing that wows me is the thought of a chain of about 60 or 80 people, actual people who could be named if we could travel back into the past, that connects me to Christ himself. It is a very concrete bond. Thinking about future generations is hazy, but the past doesn’t require making things up: it’s real.
@Jean Raber. I don’t think the Louisiana story has anything to do with religious freedom. It’s the lobby power of the morticians. They don’t care if the monks are Catholic, they are competition.
Claire: That’s how I think about the Church, as a chain of people, actual people who could be named….
Fr. K.: thanks. I like it when we agree on something. It makes me think I must be thinking about it the right way!
Here’s another Louisiana related story about a free speech/religious freedom case. New Orleans banned fortunetelling as fraud. A federal appellate court has OKed it, and notes that some religious claims are similar.http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/07/alexandrias_fortunetelling_ban.html
“The faith has been handed on, mostly, from person to person, from community to community. I try my best to convince people that it is the believing community that is the primary agent of the transmission of the faith, that is, the Church that gives birth to the new generation of the Church.”
I think this is a lovely idea, and would like to know more about Dianich (but you would have to dumb it down considerably for me). Does this kind of theology draw distinctions between those who were born into the faith in an unbroken line and those whose connection was either broken in the Reformation or those for whom no connection ever existed?
Maybe for another thread sometime. Seems like we’ve strayed pretty far from circumcision laws in Germany!
Of course the Church is composed of divine and human elements…
And what–or better who–are this Church composed of divine and human elements?
German politicians are now desperately trying to distance themselves from the circumcision ruling and are pointing the fingers of blame at one another. This could seriously weaken the Government’s credibility as it deals with other issues, including economic ones. The Irish Government should learn from this. Their own new law overriding the confessional seal could spark the same outrage.
The Guardian reports that Angela Merkel is against the ban and will work to have the right restored:
http;//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/13/angela-merkel-intervenes-ban-circumcisionrestored.http
Fr. K.,
If I said people are this Church, I would be accounting for the human elements, but not the divine, as far as I can tell.
I think “people” is a true but incomplete answer to your question.
Kathy: I don’t know why you neglect, or think that I have forgotten, the divine elements–the Word and grace of God; the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity–that make these people the Church. One doesn’t have to say everything in every sentence. Ecclesia homines sunt, said St. Augustine: “People are the Church.” His statement, and mine, can be read sensu aiente, as the Scholastics used to put it, that is, as asserting what it asserts without claiming that more could not or need not be said.
“That Church which consists of the holy angels and powers of God will then become known to us as it is when we will have been joined to it at the end in order to have eternal blessedness with them. But this Church, which is in a foreign land away from them, is better known to us because we are in it and because it consists of human beings, which we too are”; Augustine, Enchiridion, 61; PL 40: 260-61.
I thought contemporary Catholic theology regards the Church itself as the Ur-sacrament and source of the “sacramentality” of the sacraments. This does seem to suggest a divine element that goes beyond the community of the human members — I suppose because Christ dwells in his members, who make up his Mystical Body.
Fair enough, Fr. K., about my uncharitable reading. Sorry for that.
The quote from St. Augustine does make the contrast quite stark. Is this sense of the Church (polarized as the city and the City) characteristic of him?
I agree with Fr. O’Leary here, although I am hesitant to argue ecclesiology with St. Augustine! I don’t think that the elements you’ve mentioned are “divine” in a robust enough sense to account for what I believe, perhaps unfairly, is the ever-presence of God in the Church. The Eucharist would account for “the divine elements,” the divine indwelling would–and yet these are other than human beings.
Kathy, I think that there is a big loss when you write “If I said people are this Church” instead of “chain of people”.
For a computer science analogy, think about object-oriented programming languages. An “object” is defined, not just by the “elements” composing it, but also by the “actions” taken by those elements: that’s an integral part of the definition. Elements and actions are equally important in defining the object. In the present case the “elements” would be the people, and the “actions” would be the transmissions of the faith (to form a chain).
Claire,
I don’t disagree with this metaphor, and in fact I like it very much. I would only say that in my opinion, these people are acting very much in cooperation with God, Who is also acting, in the divine manner of causality.
Yes