levite

I would like to reiterate, I personally don't think that the health/safety justification for circumcision is particularly persuasive, unless you happen to be singularly phobic about sanitation and infection.

I also don't think that the mere fact of it being popular or unpopular aesthetically is necessarily a persuasive justification to circumcise if you are opposed to doing so, or to not circumcise if you are inclined to do so.

What the difference of opinion in this thread seems to boil down to is that there are some individuals who believe that cultural and religious requirements are adequate justifications to circumcise baby boys, and some individuals who believe that they are not. Thus far, I have no problem.

Where I am beginning to have a problem is that those individuals who do not believe cultural and religious requirements present adequate justifications for circumcision do not seem content merely to resolve that such a position means that they should not circumcise their baby sons, but also entitles them to criticize (nearly but not quite to the point, I feel compelled to point out, of disrespect) those individuals who do feel so justified.

Nobody, IMO, has yet been overtly or directly disrespectful to anyone's religion, nor mostly to anyone's culture; nor am I accusing, confronting, or calling anyone out. But I can't help noticing that there is a pronounced negative bent that is beginning to appear that, to my eye at least, is beginning to go from disagreement with circumcision to disagreement with religion.

Now, don't get me wrong! I am in now way trying to suggest that people who don't care for religion ought to change their minds, nor am I suggesting that they should pretend to do so. Nor am I attempting to shut down this topic, or shame anyone into silence or anything. I am merely concerned because every so often, online in general, and very occasionally on this forum that I love, I see people who do not care for religion cross the line from merely disagreeing to disrespecting.

As I have said before I feel quite strongly that nobody ought to be compelled when it comes to religion, and atheism is, IMO, just as respectable as theism (or vice-versa, if you prefer to phrase it that way). And I have no quarrel with disagreements of philosophy, or outright rejections ("that's just not for me,") or even critiques ("I don't understand it, and I don't get people who claim to understand it."), or sometimes even criticism ("that seems wrong to me.") My problem begins with "I don't agree with this, it IS wrong, and you shouldn't agree with it either, and if you do, YOU'RE wrong." Which, to be fair, no one in this thread has said (as far as I can recall). But I feel things drifting in that direction.

I would like to re-state what I said before, that, as far as I know, none of the religions that require circumcision require it for those who are not adherents of their faith. Therefore, it seems to me that the easiest way to solve the problem of not agreeing with religion as a justification for circumcision is simply not to practice such a religion. But if the adherents thereof do circumcise, and find it meaningful and spiritually satisfying, and do not (for the most part) object to it or find it regrettable or debilitating, then what is your cause for criticizing them? (And I feel compelled to add, labelling it "genital mutilation" which is inevitably pejorative, is, to my mind, an attack criticism).

Now, I would certainly agree that there have been some cases cited in this thread of the procedure being done with improper care, in deeply unsanitary conditions, leading to horrific results, and those sorts of thing should certainly be avoided. And if one wished to critique such cultures by saying that, if one will require circumcision, one must ensure it is done safely and properly, and all due precautions are taken to assure no harmful side effects...well, that is a critique I would leap to agree with. But to indicate that a handful of problem cases, easily remedied by proper sanitation, technique, and followup, indicates that religions and cultures should have no right to practice circumcision is, to my mind, an ill-conceived conclusion deeply colored by disdain for religion and/or foreign cultures.

I'm sorry to come in like this with a heavy hand: usually I refrain from saying anything when stuff like this develops. But I really love this forum, and I really respect the people in here, and I can't say it doesn't bother me.

To make it personal for a moment, nobody's saying that if you don't believe in circumcision you should have to circumcise your son. You like foreskin? OK, so you should live and be well, and have fine, healthy sons with yards of foreskin. But it hurts to see something disrespected that I am grateful for every day, that I truly feel brings me closer to God, and which fills my heart with joy when I consider the prospect of being able to one day help my son join the covenant of his people, and draw closer to God himself. If you don't get that, and don't understand it, and don't like the concept, OK, great. Don't be Jewish. Nobody's saying you should be. Unless you actually are Jewish, in which case, yeah, I guess that would pose something of a problem for you. But I presume that any Jews who are so vociferously against circumcision probably are not feeling particularly connected to their Jewish identities, so I suppose it all works out, in any case.

My point is, just a little more care taken to separate between criticism of an action and criticism of those who take the action would be appreciated. But in any case, I say it with love and respect, and I hope it is taken that way. I am not trying to attack anyone, and I hold each and every one of you in high regard.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)