News Monitor - being pro bris and anti circumcision (go figure...)

With the San Francisco story a thing of the past (sorry about the cliche), a not-so-new trend is making its way through news outlets and the blogosphere.

Just a few links to bring the idea close to home:
Beyond the bris - the header of the website says: "an increasing number of Jewish people are moving in a more ethical, more humanitarian and more Jewish direction" ---- hmmm... Not sure how getting rid of Torah commandments makes it MORE Jewish. But maybe I'm living in the wrong century.

Circumstitions - They surprisingly invoke this to say circumcision is against the Torah
"N 41 Not imprinting any marks on our bodies
N 45 Not making cuttings in our flesh
- 613 Mitzvos according to Sefer Hamitzvos of Rambam"

I guess they forgot about Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12:3. And, of course, they took both negative commandments out of context (tattoos and cutting ourselves over the death of a loved one) while disregarding that "bris milah" is a positive commandment. I guess you can pick and choose what you want to support your cause when it's convenient.

An article written by Professor Jon Levenson was republished today, and is well worth the read.

San Francisco Comes to a Close, It Seems

It seems it was "much ado about nothing."

See here from nbc bay area

I was never concerned that the vote would make circumcision illegal. It doesn't strike me as something that would pass, even in a town as liberal as San Francisco.

And a judge confirmed this sentiment, throwing the proposed law off the ballot.

Victory: Circumcision.

Until it comes around again.

San Francisco Ban - The Latest

The latest on the San Francisco ban-circumcision bill - a look at the people behind the bill, and some interesting observations about the Jewish community. It seems that even in San Francisco, where you have Jews of all colors and stripes, some of whom support circumcision and some of whom oppose it, are unanimous in their belief that a ban on circumcision is the wrong way to go.

As I have said before, the debate is legitimate, and the choice that parents make for their child is deeply personal. But making it illegal has no place in the United States of America.

Here is an article you may find of interest, from the Jewish Journal (reproduced in full below - minus the graphics - in case the link becomes inactive)

Except for the sub-headlines, the parts that are in bold are suggestive points that I have highlighted and emphasized due to their significance in this overall discussion (sometimes my point is to highlight what I see as an indication that the speaker or person in question is either hypocritical or operating with a loose screw or two)


June 21, 2011

The great California foreskin fight of 2011

By Jonah Lowenfeld

No indication of anti-Semitism HERE... (NOT)

The ballot in San Francisco looms nearer and proponents of the circumcision ban claim that their only agenda is to protect babies who have no ability to defend themselves, who are not given a choice not to circumcise. "It should be their choice to make when they're older, if they want it."

Let's leave aside the argument that most people really don't care if they were circumcised. And let's also leave aside the argument that for those who do "choose" circumcision, they generally much prefer (and appreciate) that it was taken care of for them when they were babies, rather than having to go through the ordeal as an older person.

The Jewish community in particular, those who respect the Torah and Mitzvot and (at least minimally) believe that the Covenant of Circumcision is a fundamental tenet of our faith, is aghast that policies of czarist Russia and many other historically anti-Semitic regimes are actually being considered for a vote in religiously-free (and tolerant) America.

Proponents claim their is no anti-Jewish bias in the proposed ban. None. It's all about the babies.

Mmm hmmm.

Then what is this?

Monitoring the News

There are some crusades which are just a little too reminiscent of bad stages in Jewish history. (It is ironic that this story came out in the weeks prior to Hanukkah - see the third sentence here as well)

There is a man in San Francisco who is reportedly gathering signatures for a petition to make it illegal to circumcise minors - which of course translates to anyone under the age of 18. The petition will merely allow the issue to be put to a general vote in the near future, which can always lose at the ballot box. But in San Francisco, who knows what can happen?

I am not going to go into the legalities beyond suggesting that such a ban is unconstitutional simply because it would step on the toes of religious freedom (for those religions such as Judaism that require circumcision), and also puts the law into people's private lives in a way that seems to be illegal according to US law.