Critics of circumcision regularly hurl insults at the ancient practice. Calling circumcision "male genital mutilation" has become trendy, while calling it a "sacred ritual" or citing its likely health benefits has gone out of vogue.
Yet most American Jews and Muslims are circumcised for religious reasons, and as many as three quarters of all American males have been circumcised medically, each group at the discretion of their parents. Clearly not everyone is listening to circumcision's detractors.
So what is the role of government in overseeing religious ritual -- and why is this ritual different from others to the more than 7,000 people who successfully petitioned to get a proposed circumcision ban on San Francisco's ballot for next fall?
First, I would suggest that the government's role in overseeing religious ritual is to prevent serious harm and, in the instance of a ritual performed on children, to ensure their well-being. Otherwise, government should step back and allow religious practices to take place freely. Religious freedom should only be limited if it infringes on other fundamental rights of American citizens. (Supreme Court cases Wisconsin v. Yoder and Prince V. Massachusetts certainly support these ideas.)
At first thought, circumcision may seem problematic and perhaps even worthy of government intervention. It involves the cutting of a piece of foreskin from a child's penis. Indeed, Lloyd Schofield, who spearheaded the efforts to get a circumcision ban on the ballot in San Francisco noted a desire to penalize "forced genital cutting," to which his website attributes problems "from excruciating pain, nerve destruction, loss of normal, natural and functional tissue, infection, disfigurement and sometimes death."
While Schofield's website is full of problems he sees in circumcision, I find myself wondering about the medical (and for that matter, legal) recommendations of a retired hotel credit manager. In determining the potential benefits and harm from a medical procedure, wouldn't it be best to turn to doctors to see if there really are grounds for government involvement?
One finds a very different notion of circumcision from medical professionals than one does from Mr. Schofield's website. The American Academy of Pediatrics notes in its official policy statement on circumcision:
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control are both reportedly considering a more affirmative stance towards circumcision, in light of increasing evidence of its benefits -- notably that the procedure may reduce urinary tract infections and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
Resonating to Mr. Schofield's rhetoric or a visceral aversion is one thing. But ignoring the stance of the American Academy of Pediatrics is quite another. Unless there is a preponderance of medical evidence against the procedure, the government should stand back and allow the religious ritual and medical procedure of circumcision to continue.
In an instance where child welfare is not at stake but religious freedom is, the latter must be protected. Science seems to increasingly back the religious and medical practice of circumcision, while "intactivist" rhetoric distracts from the valid choices of parents.
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
S.R. Hewitt: The Importance of Circumcision in Jewish Law
John Shore: Captain Israel vs. Foreskin Man
Your tenure with the Journal of Inter-religious Dialogue and Religious Freedom USA already presupposes your bias in this matter.
What I want to know is this----if there are SO many health benefits to circumcision, why is it not more common in Europe? Are European men walking around with rotting penises? If not, and if they have for the most part retained their foreskins, how do we explain the fact that their genitals are so healthy?
The word religious is rather superfluous here. All freedoms should only be limited if it infringes on other fundamental rights of American citizens. The problem for those who support medically unnecessary surgery is that it does infringe on the right of American citizens, namely baby boys.
"In an instance where child welfare is not at stake but religious freedom is, the latter must be protected."
Again I note the superfluous use of the word religious, as though you if you put the word religious in front of something it automatically elevates it to unquestionable and permissible status. Sorry but unless you have a medically necessary reason to perform a circumcision on someone else then you have no right to do it (religious or otherwise).
According to WHO, two-thirds of the world's HIV positive people live in Sub-Saharan Africa and in response to that there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance of circumcision.
According to a report on National Public Radio, 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have started circumcision programs and South Africa hopes to have 5.6 million men circumcised by 2015.
King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu who lives in the eastern South African province of KwaZulu-Natal issued a directive in 2010 urging males of all ages to be circumcised.
In 2010, South African president, Jacob Zuma announced that he had been circumcised and encouraged his sons to follow in his footsteps.
South Africa has embarked on a program designed to circumcise millions of African males in order to slow the spread of AIDs.
How would the American young males react if Muslim leaders sponsor a move bring an ordinance to stop any piercing of the body such as ear, nose, navel, eye brows, lips, and so on to hang all sorts of funny ornaments. rings, and bits and pieces with belly button hanging thinking they look sexy over the waist line.
In 2001, researchers at both the University of Texas and the Australian National University reported on harm to health caused by tattoos and body-piercing
Now if we were talking a vaccine against a childhood disease where if you don't do it they are much less likely to survive to become adults ... then you have good reason to choose for the child. This is not the case.
The voluntary endurance of pain is extremely spiritually significant. You are robbing their bris of all meaning by making it involuntary.
- the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
- treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
- the promotion of safer sex practices;
- the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
Most in the US have a problem thinking critically about this procedure. Many assume that the cut penis is natural, while the uncut natural penis is a diseased state of the penis. And these same people don't even understand female circumcision but will demonize the procedure and the cultures that practice it at a drop of a hat. And don't forget that the female circumcision movement is entirely political as well.
We hear constantly about female circumcision and how it is oppressive and mutilating. Male circumcision is practiced more widely throughout the world. If a male, 18 years or older, wishes to have it done for whatever reason, it is HIS choice and HIS body to do so. To continually mutilate and abuse infant male children, without their obvious consent, is almost as bad as the practices of Nazism. Of course, keep the clause in about exempting religious circumcision 'cause ya never gonna win that one. Let's at least keep secular male infant children safe from this barbaric practice of making an inner organ into an outer organ, reducing its sensitivity and ease of use and avoiding many botched operations. There should be a clause about infant circumcision being used to prevent
or ease an obvious infant health problem. This proposed law needs to be written better with exact reasons for inclusion and exclusion.
I don't approve. I would hope those who do it religiously would reconsider, but that's a lot different than expensively and routinely traumatizing babies with no cultural context for profit.
question. A nurse under intense pressure from her husband to have their infant
son circed agreed to have him be the subject of the study. The surgery was
performed using a plastic bell and a sterilized obsidian knife (no metal allowed
in MRI's). No anesthetic. All involved (except the baby) were medical professionals.
Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform a circ,
they did not feel it was necessary to go through the committee for this study.
Analysis of the MRI data indicated changes in the limbic system concentrating
in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes. A neurologist who saw
the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most
intensely the portions of the infant's brain associated with reasoning, perception
and emotions. Follow-up tests indicated that the brain never returned to its
baseline configuration, which was established before the circumcision. . .
the baby's brain was permanently changed by the procedure.
Subsequently, The participants in this study were severely reprimanded by
the hospital -- they were told that any attempt to study the adverse effects
of circumcision was strictly prohibited by ethical regulations (this was in
Canada). They were not allowed to publish their research and had to destroy
their results or face immediate dismissal and legal action.
(from the Circumcision Resource Center website)
*As* a religious practice, then, (well, I still disapprove, but) when it comes down to it, it'd take proving a compelling state interest to abridge that right: ie, actually proving the harm.
Give me another formula if you disagree.
You're right. Religious freedom must be protected: Your son's religious freedom. Let him decide for himself when he's old enough.
Why? this has nothing to do with freedom of belief or faith, is the need to "mark" the child as of middle east descent so important, if the reasons why you do this are 'complicated' and deeply rooted in past.
Then there is no reason why it can't wait until the boy is old enough to understand decide
for themselves.
It'll be a good test to see if the current brainwashing techniques are working.
so just because nature has grown us, to have certain appendages, or structual development, doesn't mean that in the society that we live in, it could be of huge hindering to an individuals health.
do you not know, it would be worst off for an adult male to get circumcised? last time i checked adult males who were circumcised when they were babies, have no recollection of it. yes the side effects from the surgery can be painful, but imagine that discomfort in a grown individual? even though some might consider that a weak argument for circumcision, i'd definitely call your "nature" argument, weak also.
if nature knew what i was doing 100% of the time, we wouldn't have deformities and etc. sometimes, it's necessary to assist nature, to help man and society, live a healthier life. and if removing some foreskin from a baby's penis, is what will reduce certain risks in the future, i say, why not?
The "not remembering" argument only makes sense if you're relatively certain it would have to be done later in life.
The foreskin isn't a deformity. The benefits of its removal are decidedly marginal, if they exist at all. I'm sure there are probably small health benefits to cutting off everyone's pinky fingers if you looked hard enough.
In the end it is a matter of right to body integrity, to not be violated against your will.