To cut, or not to cut.

[Alatar]

Simply that this statement "the foreskin has assumed a symbolic role out of proportion to any value it might have." applies equally well to the argument for "cutting" as it does to "not cutting".

Not sure what's unclear about that?

[River]

I'm going to ask again (and as many times as it takes for someone to give me an answer - I want to see the black and white, as my husband would say). Should this measure pass, what are the consequences of an illegal circumcision within SF city limits? And what would happen if a family that resided within SF took their son out of the city to have the procedure done? Would the city be okay with that?

One more question. If this measure passes without a religious exemption, does anyone really think it will stand in court?

As for there being an "industry" for restoring foreskins, there's an "industry" for all sorts of dubious cosmetic surgeries out there, because medical marketers (and society in general) are good at making people think they need "improvement."

Too true. People who are prone to body issues will develop them and the focus can be placed on the darnedest things. Look up vaginoplasty sometime.

[yovargas]

Or don't.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

A religious exemption makes no sense to me. It's saying Jews and Muslims can have circumcisions for religious reasons but others cannot for health benefits.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I actually agree with Tosh. Either there is sufficient reason to interfere with a parent's right to decide what is best for his or her chid, or there isn't.

And I haven't seen anything that would convince me that there is evidence of such a reason (despite Maria's rather colorful anecdotal evidence).

[Alatar]

The real question here V, is whether this is "best" for a child, or mandated by an outmoded religious stipulation that was probably based on a hygiene issue for people living in a desert. There's very little evidence to suggest that circumcision is "best" for a child, except in the few instances where its required medically.

[yovargas]

There's very little evidence to suggest that circumcision is "best" for a child, except in the few instances where its required medically.

And yet there is more evidence that it might be beneficial then there is that it might be harmful. Which is why I'm supporting letting the parent make up their own mind what they think is best.

[Alatar]

I dunno. I'm still inclined to go with the "Evolution knows best" argument.

[Nin]

I would like to ask a different question: what happens if a jewish boy is not circumsized? Is he not considered jewish any more? Will he be stigmatised, victim of mockeries?

Then I could understand also that "best for your child" means that he will be accepted in the social and religious group in which the parents live and in which he will grow up.

[Maria]

I can't help wondering if the whole practice started as a means of making mating with an unwilling partner less likely to injure the penis doing the penetrating.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

If evolution knew best the extraction of wisdom teeth would be unnecessary and the wearing of spectacles.

[yovargas]

Yeah...evolution is pretty cool, but it's also pretty dumb sometimes.

[axordil]

I think South Park really covered this back in their second season:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike%27s_Wee_Wee

[River]

I dunno. I'm still inclined to go with the "Evolution knows best" argument.

Evolution don't know squat. Evolution selects purely for what will reproduce, not for what's actually best.

As far as hygiene goes, I've never lived in a true desert. However, I have noticed that, among the very small group of boyfriends I have had (and none were circumcised) that not all men are equal when it comes to keeping it clean. So to say the practice is outmoded just because people don't live in the desert is a fallacy.

Tosh, this is the reason for a religious exemption:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Lalaith]

I would like to see Nin's questions answered. I could speculate, but I'd rather someone who is Jewish answer them definitively.

[Frelga]

I believe it was Jewel who provided the relevant quote from the Torah. As far as what would happen, that would depend on the community. In an Orthodox community, there would probably be some grief given by other boys, as happens to all children who look different in some way, but then in an Orthodox community the boy would be circumcised, period.

Certainly if this boy grows up to be an observant Jew, he would undergo bris as an adult, and then I would be surprised if he did not have some pointed questions for his parents.

There is nothing that can make a Jew-by-birth not be a Jew, as Nel alluded before. The religion can be abandoned but the blood cannot be, no more than one can stop being Irish or Japanese.

As I said before, I respect anyone's right to disagree with that custom, and certainly there are perfectly legitimate reasons and arguments. I do want to make two points.

One - I don't mine comments about "outmoded religious practices" coming from atheists, who at least are consistent. I invite members of other religions to check their own houses for glass walls before casting any stones.

And Maria, unless you have some back up for that last comment, I must confess to finding it incredibly ignorant and offensive.

[axordil]

Tosh, this is the reason for a religious exemption:

The First Amendment of the US Constitution wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But see Employment Division v. Smith. Specifically this part of the SCOTUS ruling:

"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

One is reminded of the Anatole France quote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

[River]

And yet religious exemptions are made for those who would refuse legally mandated vaccines for their kids...

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, and that's a choice that unquestionably endangers the health of other people by giving human pathogens a reservoir in the population.

[JewelSong]

Many of the "laws" in the first five books of the Old Testament DID have to do with hygiene and health, as Alatar mentions.

However, this command was one of the FIRST (if not THE first) given to Abraham - along with changing his name from Abram. (Abram means exalted father. Abraham probably means father of many.) His wife's name was also changed from Sarai to Sarah which means "princess" or "lady" and denoted one of high rank. In Biblical times, the changing of one's name was significant and used to symbolize the binding of a covenant. The changing of names, along with the command to circumcise every boy at 8 days old (or whenever they came into the household) was the sealing of the covenant with Yahweh.

So this was not simply one of many laws (as in Leviticus) This was (and is) the PRIME DIRECTIVE (so to speak) of the promise - the special relationship between God and Israel. The beginning of it all.

(Maria, that suggestion seemed to come out of left field...there is nothing in the command to circumcise that even hints at condoning rape.)