Question about Religious Reasons - Page 2

[Gendenwitha]

A question about Judaism

I recently went to an anti-war forum/discussion group. The speaker was a Christian and touched on some aspects of why Christianity supports non-violence, and made a refrence (which I won't go into because I can't quote it ver-baitum) about "eye for an eye" which a Jewish woman in the group took offense to because it didn't take into account how it was interperted by the religious leaders of the time, and how they apparently used this verse to set a system of monetary damages. (How much better that must have worked than the modern jury-awards system!)

Anyway, it got me talking to her afterwards and she made an interesting point. She said that Judaism (in her opinion) was an ever-evolving and changing religion. Now up until then it had been my impression that the appeal of Judaism is that it had been so unchanged in the last 5,000 years. For those of you more familiar with this tradition, how do you see it as far as evolving vs. static? And if it is an ever-changing, evolving faith, do you think that the circumcision issue will ever change at all?

I am very anti-cicumcision, (male or female) until it comes to religious reasons . Then I don't like to step on anyone's god's toes.

Like I was telling a friend of mine... (& don't take this too seriously, it's meant to be light-hearted)... if the world is a giant daycare, I have faith that at the end of the day my mom & dad are going to pick me up. But I don't want to do anything to mess with what directions your parent(s) left for you. I wouldn't want your dad showing up & saying "this one isn't mine, all mine are circumcised".

[Xenogenesis]

Re: Question about Religious Reasons

Originally posted by Silvery_skies
What are the religious reasons that people chose not to get their children Circ'd?
The way I see it is that God would not put something there that he didn't want there.
Thanks,
kayla

http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/CI....html#article1 "The wonderful statue of David by Michelangelo appears intact but is in fact correctly represented because the future King David has been circumcised by the accepted procedure of the Biblical era. Only the tip of his foreskin has been removed, fulfilling the Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17)."

[luvinlivin]

Hi Gendenwitha, welcome to the boards...I remember seeing you on the pagan parenting boards at another site.

I'm sure it's my stupidity but can you elaborate on your daycare example? Why would the parent(s) picking up a child reject them because they are intact? I'm not understanding the example and why that helps to give justification for genital mutilation under religious sanction.

Thanks! I'm sure it's just me not understanding your analogy here.

[Xenogenesis]

Re: I'll bite!

Originally posted by DaryLLL
And I guess smegma buildup can lead to infection.

This has been a common misperception.

According to Mothering magazine:

http://mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-...cision85.shtml

"The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."27"

[merpk]

... by luvinlivin

... can you elaborate on your daycare example? Why would the parent(s) picking up a child reject them because they are intact? I'm not understanding the example and why that helps to give justification for genital mutilation under religious sanction ...]

Safe to say it was a very loose "parable." Don't take it so seriously.

And we get enough of the "genital mutilation under religious sanction" stuff on the "Case against Circumcision" board, which most bris-following Jews now avoid so as not to step on any anti-routine-circumcision toes. After all, most Jews I know don't approve of routine circumcision any more than you do. But in the Spirituality forum perhaps we could ease up on the inflammatory descriptors?

And Gendenwitha, hi ...

Your question about evolution v. stagnation is very simply answered. Judaism is ever-evolving. As an example, Jews have substituted prayer services for the animal sacrifice of the Temple in Jerusalem. And have managed to make it 5000 years as a distinct people.

There are certain specifics that have not changed since the beginning of Jewish time. The Sabbath. The centrality of the land/Zion. Brit milah.

There are Jews who don't have brises on their sons. There are also Jews who don't observe the Sabbath and eat pork. Just because there are Jews who do/don't do, as the case may be, doesn't make whatever they're doing/not doing Judaism.

As an example, many non-observant Hindus eat hamburgers. Okay. But you could never say that the Hindu religion condones eating hamburgers.

Many non-observant Muslims eat pork. Fine. But you could never say that the Muslim religion condones eating pork.

Follow that line with Judaism. You get the picture.

- Amy

[luvinlivin]

Originally posted by amyrpk


Safe to say it was a very loose "parable." Don't take it so seriously.

And we get enough of the "genital mutilation under religious sanction" stuff on the "Case against Circumcision" board, which most bris-following Jews now avoid so as not to step on any anti-routine-circumcision toes. After all, most Jews I know don't approve of routine circumcision any more than you do. But in the Spirituality forum perhaps we could ease up on the inflammatory descriptors?

Amy, I'd still like to understand more from the author herself but thanks for the admonition to lighten up in my reception of the 'parable.'

And, it's a fair request to 'ease up' but I can't fulfill that request. Sorry. I was speaking from medical terminology ('amputation' is not appropriate for this practice) to avoid any misunderstandings.

Gendenwitha, no rush on an further explanation. I wasn't getting it but then, I'm sure it's over my pea-brain.

[DaryLLL]

Smegma may be healthy and normal, and my son is of course intact, but I was imagining a nomadic people with little access to water for bathing for weeks, months on end. I know animals will wash their parts with their own saliva.

It's just a theory I heard once. I don't know if it is reasonable.

[Xenogenesis]

http://mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-...rcson103.shtml

"Thanks to the foreskin, the intact penis is protected from dirt and contamination. While this important protective function is extremely useful while the baby is in diapers, the foreskin provides protection to the glans and urinary opening for a lifetime. At all ages, the foreskin keeps the glans safe, soft, and clean.

Throughout childhood, there is no need to wash underneath the foreskin. Mothers used to be advised to retract the foreskin and wash beneath it every day. This was very bad advice indeed. When the foreskin becomes fully retractable, usually by the end of puberty, your son can retract it and rinse his glans with warm water while he is in the shower."


"The tightness of the foreskin is a safety mechanism that protects the glans and urethra from direct exposure to contaminants and germs."


During the 40-year wilderness wandering, circumcision of the baby boys was not performed. So after crossing the Jordan, Joshua had all those males circumcised with flint knives at Gilgal.

[kama'aina mama]

Amyrpk, BelovedBird and my other Jewish sisters... I am sorry that some people persist in using the most hurtful language possible in what is alleged to be a civilized discussion of different perspectives. I am always impressed with the forebearance and class you ladies seem to have at your disposal. Thank you for being so informative on a variety of issues that many of us are eager to learn about.

[merpk]

... by luvinlivin
... I can't fulfill that request. Sorry. I was speaking from medical terminology ('amputation' is not appropriate for this practice) to avoid any misunderstandings ...

Uhhh ... no.

If you were speaking from "medical terminology" you would have said 'circumcision.'

You were speaking from an urge to inflame.

If that's what you wish to do, at least be honest about it, please.

If that is not what you wish to do, then you must have a different understanding of "medical terminology" than I do. And under that circumstance, please accept my apologies for my obvious ignorance of the apparently accepted jargon.



- Amy

PS - kama'aina mama, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Xenogenesis]

Any other religious reasoning why some have chosen NOT to circ ?

I am not here to criticise, humiliate, nor condemn anybody's decision to circ for religious, or any other, reason.

I also find the term *g-m* disturbing. In any context.

Sarcasm doesn't flow well in mature subject matter. And assumptions are best left behind.

My interest is in the historical aspect concerning spiritual reasons why some have chosen not to circ. And with utmost respect how the Gomco Clamp (1934, Hiram S. Yellen & Aaron A. Goldstein); the Mogen Clamp (1954, Harry Bronstein); and the Hollister Plastibell (?) fit into this.

[flminivanmama]

is the question religious reasons why people do circ? or religious reasons why they don't?

Christians don't circ. b/c when Jesus came along the Christians were no longer held to the laws of the OT. Not only that but the covenant is between Jews and G-d.. so Chritians DON'T (or shouldn't LOL) circ. for religious reasons.

Is that the question?

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by laila
Sarcasm doesn't flow well in mature subject matter. And assumptions are best left behind.
[/B]

Uhhuh. Too bad it got started that way.

Laila- you are correct that Milah was not done during the 40 years in the dessert.

PS - kama'aina mama, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks for the edit, Daryl.

asherah, your honest feelings, about your own personal situation should not offend anyone. I saw nowhere in your post where you were namecalling, or being inflamatory, in your judgement of others.

-BelovedBird

[luvinlivin]

Originally posted by amyrpk


Uhhh ... no.

If you were speaking from "medical terminology" you would have said 'circumcision.'

You were speaking from an urge to inflame.

If that's what you wish to do, at least be honest about it, please.

If that is not what you wish to do, then you must have a different understanding of "medical terminology" than I do. And under that circumstance, please accept my apologies for my obvious ignorance of the apparently accepted jargon.

Uhhh...no.

I was speaking from my medical training and not 'an urge to inflame.' I do not appreciate you telling me from where I'm speaking, btw. Please inquire, but do not tell me as that is inflaming.

The physicians I trained with as a medical assistant did not use the term, 'circumcision'. It was not that they didn't know the term, they simply did not use it but used the M word (I will spare you) instead. They were/are colleagues of P.Fleiss and revere his work against M very much and maybe that will go a long way to explain their use of the M word. Fleiss obviously uses both words interchangeably in his work.

One physician who trained me explained that the M word described all variations of circumcision, not just the Western method. And therefore, it was the preferred term.

At any rate, after my training and subsequent work with these physicians, I was affected so that the M word was my educated association with the practice of removing parts from the genitalia given at birth. 'Amputation' (as I was educated in MA training) would be to remove a diseased or withered part and to impart health to the whole body. Obviously, circ can't claim that.

It is my hope that this thread can now continue with the OP inquiring into religious reasons for circ. Again, I did not speak to inflame. But there's no way to prove that anyway to someone who tells me that's why I spoke.

Edited for typos.

[Xenogenesis]

Apparently, (without criticising those who chose to) :

"Circumcision of male infants is not universal among American Jews. Some Jews in South America, Europe, and Israel also do not circumcise."

And :

"Jewish circumcision is a topic of debate in the Jewish community and has been questioned in articles and letters appearing in such publications as Moment, Tikkun, Jewish News, The Jewish Advocate, The Jewish Monthly, and The Jewish Times."

http://www.circumcision.org/question.htm

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by laila
Apparently, (without criticising those who chose to) :

"Circumcision of male infants is not universal among American Jews. Some Jews in South America, Europe, and Israel also do not circumcise."

And :

"Jewish circumcision is a topic of debate in the Jewish community and has been questioned in articles and letters appearing in such publications as Moment, Tikkun, Jewish News, The Jewish Advocate, The Jewish Monthly, and The Jewish Times."

http://www.circumcision.org/question.htm

Point?

[candiland]

How do you ladies who circ. for religious reasons feel about female genital mutilation? Do you feel it's a right, for religious reasons, or do you consider this a mutilation?
No flaming from me I am just curious as to how Jews view other forms of circumcision.

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by candiland
How do you ladies who circ. for religious reasons feel about female genital mutilation? Do you feel it's a right, for religious reasons, or do you consider this a mutilation?
No flaming from me I am just curious as to how Jews view other forms of circumcision.

Do some research on FGM, you will learn it is an obligation of no religion, and it is usually done in very unsanitary conditions. The child is constrained and alone. All these things are the exact oppsite of bris milah.

-BelovedBird

[Meiri]

And just like in male circumcision, there are degrees and differences in how a specific cultural group may do it.

And in the all the years I was associated with the medical field, having friends and acquaintances also in the medical field, I NEVER heard the term "mutilation" used as a proper medical term. Amputation, avulsion, laceration, degloving injury, contusion, fracture, etc, Those are medical terms.

Doctors using "mutilation" are speaking from their personal point of view--highly unprofessional IMHO, sort of like the doc who compared my nursing DS at 4 to feeding him hotdogs all the time because "he likes them".

A few years ago, in the news reports locally about a crime committed on a boy, the term mutilation was bandied about, but the doctors involved would have called the crime committed after the child was murdered what it was, an amputation.

[merpk]

1st point: l'l'n, you choose to see "mutilation" as a purely objective medical term. Fine. You're entitled. It is not.

2nd point: The original question was religious reasons not to circ.

3rd point is a question to laila: What does that list of clamps have to do with religious reasons not to circ?

And last point, also to laila: Yes, some Jews choose not to circ. Just as some Hindus choose to eat meat.

Yet no Hindu would ever suggest eating meat is acceptible Hindu practice. They simply choose not to observe their tradition in full.

Precisely the same thing with Jews who don't circumcize their sons.

- Amy