EUROPE: Israel MKs Turn Up the Heat

Earlier, I commented on the fact that the European Council finally dared to call a spade a spade and declare medically unnecessary circumcision on healthy, non-consenting children to be a human rights violation.

I also mentioned that, unsurprisingly, Jewish groups and even the State of Israel have vowed to make the European Council rescind.

The Jerusalem Post reports on the progress of Knesset initiatives:

The Knesset has made significant efforts to collect signatures from European parliamentarians on a counter-resolution it seeks to pass in April, reaching 102 signatures as opposed to 77 MPs who voted for the anti-circumcision measure.

The [Reuven] Rivlin-led delegation will meet with leaders of four of the Council of Europe’s five factions to convince them to put the Knesset’s counter-resolution on the PACE agenda for either late January or April. The Presidium, which consists of faction chairpeople, will set the agenda for those two meetings on December 15.

According to Rivlin, the anti-circumcision measure (Was it a definitive, binding measure, or a declaration?) “is not a legitimate decision, and it is a joint goal of Jews, Muslims and anyone who believes in freedom of religion and conscience to cancel it.”

Rivlin, Vaknin and Hoffman plan to meet with party leaders and members of the Council of Europe’s Presidium and present them with the 102 signatures from PACE members, aiming to show that the original measure was passed unfairly when only a small number of MPs were present.

 “We want to make it clear to the Europeans that even if it’s legitimate for them to intervene in diplomatic or regional issues, it is not legitimate for them to be involved in Judaism and freedom of religion.” ~Reuven Rivlin

This "freedom of religion."

How far does it extend? Does it extend to religions whose followers circumcise girls and women? Perhaps it's illegitimate for Europeans to intervene with religions whose followers marry and have sex with little girls. Or does this "freedom of religion" only apply to Judaism when it concerns the forced genital mutilation of specifically male, newborn children?

"Freedom of religion" is a weak argument, and Jewish advocates of male infant genital mutilation know it, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to lecture Europeans on the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision.

It must certainly be asked, since when do adherents of Judaism, where circumcision is considered divine commandment, care about "research" and "medical benefits?" And since when is it the jurisdiction of governing bodies, such as the Knesset, to make medical value judgements on surgical procedures?

It's not surprising that I'm seeing this happen, and as I've mentioned before regarding other attempts to ban infant genital mutilation, it will not be surprising when the Council of Europe caves to Jewish demands, rescinds their bold move, and offers some sort of "apology" for having dared to call infant circumcision the genital mutilation that it is.

The despair of religious circumcision advocates must be noted. So desperate are religious infant genital mutilation zealots that they go as far as feigning an interest in public health, and as far as citing "research" that may as well be published in tabloids at grocery store check-out lines.

From the Jerusalem Post:

"In addition, last month, The Journal of Sexual Medicine published a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Sydney proving circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure."

Had the authors paid any attention, they would have noticed that the "research" was actually published in August.

Not mentioned here is the fact that the "researchers" are none other than long-time circumcision zealot Brian Morris and his friends, and that the research doesn't actually "prove" anything. Brian Morris didn't conduct any "study," rather, the "research" is nothing more than Brian Morris giving his approval and disapproval for "studies" he himself hand-picked, yielding results he wants.

In short, yet another decidedly myopic opinion piece by a known circumcision enthusiast.

Notice that Knesset leaders are careful not to mention the fact that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.

In essence, Knesset MKs, along with Brian Morris, are taking an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west.

I will not be surprised.

I will not be surprised when and if the resolution put forth by the Council of Europe is replaced with the new dictum from Israel.

But I will also not be discouraged.

I have mentioned it numerous times on this blog already, that legislation is secondary and is not the end-all, be-all of the intactivist cause.

Whether governments ban or legalize the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants means nothing.

Laws follow societal change, not lead it.

Even if the European Council succumbs to Israeli blackmail, it is ever clear that change is inevitable, and circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is finished.

The truth is out, and can be no longer hidden.

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

MK Yoel Razvozov: Conduct Bris Milah at Israeli Embassies

 

In response to the declaration made by the Council of Europe that the circumcision of infants is a human rights violation, Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.

"No one can force us and Diaspora Jewry to follow certain religious values and not others. We should be allowed to observe all Jewish customs... If necessary, we will instruct embassies to hold circumcision ceremonies on their territory, which is Israeli sovereign territory." ~MK Yoel Razvozov

Note, there is no ban on infant circumcision, yet.

European laws allow certain religious values and forbid others all the time. For example, female circumcision for whatever reason is strictly prohibited, and there is no exemption for religious practice. At this point in time, I'm not exactly sure where European laws stand on the marriage of children to other children, or even to adults. Someone please educate me, are bride burnings allowed in any country in Europe?

But I digress; let's stick to forced genital cutting.

What would be the political ramifications would that immigration ministries from countries where female circumcision is seen as an important cultural or religious rite, were to propose female circumcision ceremonies to be conducted at the embassies of their countries?

For example, female genital cutting is performed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore and other countries, as a matter of religious and cultural custom, known there as "sunat."

What if the heads of immigration ministries in those countries were to propose having "sunat" ceremonies at their embassies in Europe?

Yes, I'm sure it sounds very poetic to say that "No one can force us to follow certain religious values and not others; we should be allowed to observe all of our customs."

Does it apply in all cases?

Or just with Judaism when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

Related Links:

Jerusalem Post

Israel Hayom

New York Times - A Cutting Tradition

"Religious Freedom" and "Parental Choice" Not Absolute: Yet Another Example

Perhaps the most classic of arguments invoked in favor of male infant circumcision are those of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." In actuality, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" aren't absolute, and I've given examples of this in past blogs.

Often, those who defend the forced circumcision of male children appeal to people's resentment of government intervention. They would like to pretend like being a parent is a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want with their children, and the government never intervenes.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, if being a parent justified everything one does with their children, there wouldn't be need for child protective services.

Last year, a mother lost custody of her 8yo daughter for injecting Botox into her face for a child beauty pageant. This prompted New Jersey law makers to make it illegal to inject Botox into children, UNLESS it is for actual medical purposes. (Sound familiar?) The year before, a man was given prison time for tattooing his gang's symbol onto his son's abdomen. In Oregon, a law was passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.

And, the classic case that trumps "religious freedom" and "parental choice," in 1996 a ban was instituted, banning female genital cutting of any kind. All female genital cutting, ranging from infibulation, to a "ritual nick" as proposed by the AAP, is illegal in the United States, and punishable by law. No exempt for "religious" cutting of female children's genitals exist.

To add another example where "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail, a Texan man has been jailed for carving a pentagram on the back of his son. It could be said that this man was merely practicing his "freedom of religion," and exercising his "parental choice." But these arguments just aren't going to fly, aren't they.

Interestingly enough, in another recent case, a Canadian man recently lost a high court appeal to have charges of aggravated assault against him thrown out; he tried to circumcise his own child with a knife. His arguments? "He was practicing his religious beliefs."

"This is a case about child abuse... This is not a case about the applicant's religious freedom or circumcision generally," it was argued.

How the material circumstances of the case bear on the man's religious freedom or circumcision generally is beyond me. Now, it seems, the government is determining what "proper" religious rituals are, and defining what constitutes "child abuse."

Andrew Freedman of the AAP "task force" on circumcision defense circumcised his own son on his parents' kitchen table. Yet, for the Canadian case, the trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure.

So when is it "child abuse?" When is it not?

Why was it "child abuse" for one man to cut his child's genitals on the kitchen table, on the grounds of "religious beliefs" and "parental choice," but not the other?

How far are "religious beliefs" and "parental choices" protected until the government is allowed to intervene?


Other "parental choices" that don't fly under "religious freedom."

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

"For the right to circumcise little boys."

Well, it appears that Germany chose to cave to political blackmail and pass a law to "protect" the so-called "religious right" to take a child and mutilate his genitals.

I've already commented on this before, so instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to dissect a Reuters' article reporting this turn of events, since they're not publishing comments.

"The ban - imposed on the grounds that circumcision amounted to "bodily harm" - triggered an emotional debate over the treatment of Jews and other religious minorities, a sensitive subject in a country still haunted by its Nazi past," begins the article.

The Cologne ruling was not mistaken; unless there are medical indications, circumcision DOES amount to bodily harm, and the boy involved in the ruling was one of many cases in point.

What's interesting is that one bodily harm, circumcision, is being defended by alluding to the bodily harm German Nazis imposed on Jews. A bit of an oxymoron. "Shame on Germany for wanting to protect children from bodily harm; remember what they did to Jews sixty years ago." (?)
 
"The outcry prompted Germany's centre-right government and opposition parties to draw up legislation confirming the practice was legal - overruling the decision by a court in the western city of Cologne."



As if the legality of forced genital mutilation on minors was something to confirm. I'm afraid German Common Law is rather clear on this, as are the laws of many other industrialized nations. Germany's government was faced between upholding its Common Law, and divorcing themselves from Nazi labels.

"The new law passed by an overwhelming majority in Bundestag lower house said the operation could be carried out, as long as parents were informed about the risks."

This may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for human rights activists; ultra-orthodox rabbis in New York are fighting to keep the City from passing a law that demands precisely this.

Still, Germany would never allow female circumcision "as long as parents were informed about the risks."

"Jewish groups welcomed the move."

In New York, Jewish groups are fighting to keep the city from requiring them to inform parents about the risks, as this is seen as an "infringement of  their religious freedoms."

"This vote and the strong commitment shown ... to protect this most integral practice of the Jewish religion is a strong message to our community for the continuation and flourishing of Jewish life in Germany," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

 Jewish life, yes. Muslim life? Only if your child is male; some Muslims see female circumcision as "an integral practice of the Jewish religion." Take a look at what's happening in South East Asia;
 the Malaysian Health Ministry wants to medicalize female genital cutting.

Germany's Catholic Bishops Conference said it hoped the bill would help safeguard religious freedoms. No comment was immediately available from the country's Central Council of Muslims.



SOME religious freedoms. Actually, only this particular "religious freedom" as it applies to healthy, non-consenting boys.

Does the new law protect these "religious freedoms?"

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

"PAIN MINIMISED
The May ruling centered on the case of a Muslim boy who bled after the procedure and the ban only applied to the area around Cologne."

But this forced lawmakers to consider a change in the law, as, actually, the Cologne ruling reinforces German Common Law.

"But some doctors in other parts of Germany started refusing to carry out circumcisions, saying it was unclear whether they would face prosecution."

Actually, they stopped because it was rather clear to THEM that they would.

"Under the new law, a doctor or trained expert must conduct the operation and children must endure as little pain as possible, which means an anesthetic should be used. The procedure cannot take place if there is any doubt about the child's health."

No such provisions and exceptions exist for female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting is always wrong, and it doesn't matter if a doctor or a "trained expert" conducts the ceremony, and that the children "endure as little pain as possible."

For most other surgery as performed by doctors and physicians, surgery is performed AS A RESULT of a doubt in the child's health. i.e., there is medical necessity that prompts it. This seems to be the only case where a child must be HEALTHY to undergo surgery.


"Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said no other country in the world country had made the religious circumcision of boys an offence."

Plenty of laws to make religious circumcision of girls an offence though...

"In our modern and secular state, it is not the job of the state to interfere in children's' upbringing," she said.

Except if the child is a girl, I'm sure.

Child welfare group Deutsche Kinderhilfe disagreed, saying the government had "(pushed) through the legalization of the ritual of genital circumcision ... against the advice of child right campaigners and the medical profession."


And they are right.

This is purely a political move, and everybody knows it.

German Common Law is rather clear on this matter, and the Cologne Ruling serves to make it even clearer. German lawmakers are choosing to look the other way because they fear Nazi labels.

All double-standards, self-contradiction and beating around the bush. Let's see how this move plays out, as it flies in the face of Germany's Common Law. Special pleading. What's next? "Protecting" female circumcision? Sharia Law to appease the Muslims?

I've asked before; how far are "parental rights" and "religious freedoms" protected?

As long as doing so doesn't label you Nazi, it seems.

Closing Remarks
Most of what I have to say on this matter I've already done so on past post, but I wanted to copy and paste the closing remarks here.

Intactivists, do not despair; to those of you who do, you should have this coming. We shouldn't despair when politicians with agendas change the laws to appease voters and preserve popularity. Laws don't change anything. They never do. In a social movement, laws are the very last thing to change. What we need to work on is changing people's attitudes. Female circumcision was swimmingly outlawed because our country already viewed the practice with disdain. History shows us that laws reflect social change, not bring it about. And, it looks like, judging by news articles and reports, the fact that more and more people are openly talking about the practice, the very fact that it's being questioned in courts, change is already happening.

Do not despair, and keep educating. More and more people listen every day.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told"

~Sheila Steele

 "Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all"

~Sophocles

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI




Related Post:
The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

I think it's bad enough that there are gays and lesbians who advocate for child circumcision.

Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.

This boggles the mind.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.

The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."

They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!

But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18

In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.

As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted by licensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government."  One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."

But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:

"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."

Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.

I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?

Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?

But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.

 

Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?

I just don't understand.

You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."

EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."

Jewish LGBT Leaders Against SF Circ Ban - Ignorance or Hypocrisy?

I'm not sure what to make of this. It looks like Jewish LGBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered) leaders have joined the chorus of Jewish, Muslim and other religious organizations that are banding together against the San Francisco circumcision ban that will be on the November ballot.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=5777&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150214196842299_16790393_10150214204492299#f3b4459c5afa9ec

And, as if that weren't enough, they simply just couldn't resist bringing out the Foreskin Man comic straw man to give it a good beating. I've already addressed the futility in a previous post:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/anti-semite-card-no-longer-washes.html

Pro-circumcision groups are pulling out all the stops, from "religious freedom" (well, at least the freedom of their religion), "parental rights" (at least the rights of parents of boys), and, get this, "public health." (Yes, if scientists discovered better alternatives to circumcision, I can just see Jewish groups abandoning circumcision...)

Apparently, the Jewish LGBT leaders are pushing circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV, despite the fact that the studies say circumcision is of no use to gays.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14894-circumcision-fails-to-protect-gay-men.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/25/AR2009082503271.html
http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20090827/male-circumcision-doesnt-reduce-gays-aids-risk-id-1081586.html

And, despite the fact that circumcision doesn't prevent HIV in the real world. (Six African Countries, Malaysia, The Philippines, our own country, etc.)
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

It just boggles the mind how religious groups can't seem to make up their minds. Is this a "religious rights," issue, or is this a "public health" issue? Are babies born at risk for HIV transmission? Are they climbing out of their cribs, traveling to sub-Saharan Africa where HIV rates are 20 to 40 times higher than in the U.S. and engaging in risky sexual behavior? Does not being circumcised somehow disable a man from using a condom, which he would still need to use whether is circumcised or not?

For whatever reason, the authors of the above article felt it important to know Schofield's orientation and circumcision status, and they seem disdainful that they couldn't get these out of him, as if this were any relevant to the issue at hand. Do people ask your sexual orientation/circumcision status if you're against female genital cutting? Does being a non-circumcised straight woman somehow disqualify you if you're against FGM?

Says Jewish LGBT leader Slepian: "I think that all LGBT people, but especially gay Jews, should be wary when people attempt to use police power to criminalize behavior that in our communities are viewed as normal and natural and have been part of our tradition for thousands of years..."

Except when it's slavery, the oppression of women, and the oppression of homosexuals. Right Mr. Slepian?

Says Rawlings-Fein, who conducted the Brit Milah circumcision ceremony on his own son: "We wanted to make sure that we made a conscious decision and that's the case with a lot of people, especially in our synagogue... That parental decision is a big part of it. I think that you have to acknowledge that parents are taking care of their children in the way that they see fit religiously and medically."

Except if the child happens to be a girl. The "parental decision" to circumcise a girl as "parents see fit" would land them in jail.

And here it is again, the pretense that medicine has anything and everything to do with the "decision" to conduct an irrevocable religious ceremony on a healthy, non-consenting child. Let's ask Rawlings-Fein to reveal to us the medical ailment that necessitated his son's religious circumcision ceremony.

Says openly gay District 8 Supervisor Scott Weiner, who is Jewish: "This proposal is rallying the Jewish community, including very progressive LGBT Jewish people who are really offended by this false message that circumcision is somehow barbaric or similar to female genital mutilation."

This statement is rather ignorant and self-serving; the claim that male circumcision is barbaric is dismissed as "opinion," but the claim that female circumcision is barbaric is assumed to be immediately self-evident. The message that circumcision is "barbaric" and/or similar to female genital mutilation is "false" only to those who refuse to see the genital cutting of boys as "barbaric mutilation." Communities and ethnic groups that practice female genital cutting as a cultural tradition or religious rite certainly don't see their practice as "barbaric mutilation," yet nobody seems to think this insinuation is offensive to them.

The above statement is ignorant to the fact that some female genital cutting is equivalent, if not less severe than male circumcision; the federal ban on FGM forbids them ALL. For better or for worse, a ban on all FGM without exempt for religious ceremonies violates "religious freedom" and "parental rights," but Jewish LGTB leaders do not seem to care to express concern here.

Says State Senator Mark Leno: "My read of it, and that of every legal scholar that has assessed it, quickly determined that it is a First Amendment right... As a Jewish man this is a great concern and as a strong defender of a women's reproductive choices I'm well aware that any legislation that ... interferes with the decision-making process between a physician and a family should be discouraged."

And here again, there seems to be an intent to remain wilfully ignorant. The First Amendment would also guarantee parents from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore the right to perform "sunat" on their baby girls.

More on "sunat" here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-wheres-sunat-party.html

And, as a defender of a woman's "reproductive choices," it seems to escape Leno that the circumcision of infants violates a child's right to choice.

Leno's assertion that "legislation that interferes with the decision-making process between a physician and a family should be discouraged" is also based on a dubious premise; that there is actually a decision for any parent to make. The bottom line question is always this; without medical or clinical indication, can a doctor be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child, much less be stoking his parent's sense of entitlement to any kind of "choice?"

Leno also seems to be ignorant of the fact that there is already legislation that "interferes with the decision-making process between a phsician and a family." In many states, it is already illegal for a parent to deny needed medical care to a child, even for "religious reasons." And the federal ban on FGM most definitely "interferes." Last year, the AAP tried to endorse a "ritual nick" for girls. Luckily (or, if Jewish LGBT really mean what they say, unfortunately), they were forced to back-pedal.

Slepian continues: "I always view San Francisco as a good place to be a Jew... The question is, is San Francisco going to be a welcoming place for Jews to live? That's a question on the ballot here."

Then, it must also be asked, is San Francisco a good place to be a Muslim from Malaysia, Indonesia or Singapore? Because the federal ban on FGM without religious exemption forbids them from practicing "sunat" on their daughters.

Says openly gay San Francisco supervisor who is also Jewish: "From a standpoint of parental choice and public health, banning circumcision is the wrong thing for San Francisco."

It never ceases to amaze me how Jewish groups and individuals never fail to fall back on "public health" as an alibi for support what is historically a contentuous religious rite for them. It's almost as if they know that "religious freedom" is no longer a good enough reason to justify the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting newborns.

Which raises the question, how far do Jewish groups actually care about "public health?" If scientists found an alternative to circumcision that would provide the purported "medical benefits" and more, WOULD Jewish groups abandon the practice?

And how far does the Jewish LGBT community support a "parent's right" and "religious freedom? Would they support a parent's "right" to submit their son to electro-shock therapy to make him "straight?" After all, it says so in the Torah that gays are an abomination to "g-d," and that they should be stoned to death.

To me, that any LGBT group is getting behind legislation against this ban has got to be the epitome of absolute hypocrisy.

"Religious freedom?" "Parental choice?" or "Child Abuse?"

A ban on male infant circumcision is set to be put on the ballot for the November election in San Francisco, and those against it allege that the ban would infringe on "parental rights" and "religious freedom."

I wrote a blog post on this subject earlier, here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html

Opponents of the ban bemoan that the government is "taking over our lives," citing the latest crackdown on McDonald's happy meals as an example.

I've already agreed earlier that the happy meal law is ridiculous, but when it comes to permanent body modification, is government intervention really all that outlandish?

In the post just before this one, I wrote my thoughts on a recent incident, where a mother loses custody of her daughter for injecting her with botox, so that she would fare better in beauty pageants.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html

This was just one example of how the state can and does step in.

But now, I'd like to bring attention to the state of Oregon, where, much to the chagrin of a certain religious group, a law that would infringe on "parental choice" and "religious freedoms" is being instituted swimmingly.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2011/05/faith_healing_finally_oregon_l.html

The state of Oregon has been the longtime home of the "Followers of Christ," an Oregon City-based, Christian sect whose members believe solely in prayer to treat sickness, in lieu of medicine. Optometry or dental care is sometimes exempt, but seeking medical help for one's self or one's sick children is prohibited. As a result, the church has a high child mortality rate, and a long history of children dying from treatable conditions.

Up until now, Oregon had maintained a two-track legal system that granted special legal privileges to parents with these religious beliefs. Using religion as a defense, it was possible for parents of said beliefs to let their children die of medical neglect, and they would automatically receive special treatment and lighter sentences by using religion as a defense.

(Sounds awfully familiar to the New York mohel/herpes case...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2

For a time, many states granted immunity to parents who insisted on treating their sick children through prayer alone. However, many of them abandoned this approach, having realized that it was enabling child abuse in the name of the protection of "religious freedom."

Oregon has remained one of the few states to automatically shield faith-healing parents from prosecution for homicide or first-degree manslaughter. Said parents were also exempt from mandatory sentences under state Measure 11.

That is, until now.

After nearly 50 years of looking the other way, Oregon is finally changing its laws. As they stand, Oregon's current laws violate basic equal protection laws, requiring most parents in Oregon to meet the minimum standards of parenthood, while creating exemption for only a chosen few in the name of "religious freedom." The consequences of allowing this double-standard to continue has resulted in the deaths of many children.

Since 2009, several parents in the Followers of Christ church have been prosecuted or sanctioned for failing to provide their children with medical care. One child was a 15-month-old girl who died of untreated pneumonia and an infection. Another was a teenage boy who slowly died of an untreated urinary blockage. Another child suffered a massive untreated growth that disfigured her face and compromised her vision. It has taken these high-profile cases to finally force the Oregon Legislature to change.

Child advocate Rita Swan regretfully tells the story of her son who died in 1977, after she and her husband withheld necessary medical care, under the direction of their church. She explains why a single legal standard is not just a moral imperative for Oregon, but also a clearer guideline for people in religious sects.

"It would relieve parents of the moral tension of violating laws of the church," she says. "It would clarify what society expects of them."

Strangely enough, Jewish film maker Elias Ungar-Sargon makes a similar argument:
http://forward.com/articles/137577/

The Oregon House has unanimously approved the faith-healing bill, and the Senate is expected to approve it this week (article published on May 15, 2011), after adding an "emergency clause" to speed its enactment. The sudden urgency, after so many years of deference and inaction, is a strange, bittersweet relief to some.

(I'd like to bet a dime to a dollar that the double-standard with male and female circumcision will persist though...)

So here you have a law that, for all intents and purposes, is going to infringe on the "religious freedoms" and "parental rights" of many.

Do objectors to the San Francisco Circumcision Ban voice their rage here?

Where do you draw the line?

How far should parents be allowed to go before we call child protective services on them?

When does an action cross the line from "religious freedom" and "parental rights" over to "child abuse?"

In treating male circumcision as a "religious freedom" and a "parental right," but banning any and every form of female genital cutting without religious exeption, aren't we maintaining a two-track legal system that grants special legal privileges to parents with a specific set of religious beliefs?

Why have we decided that only male circumcision should be defended in the name of "parental choice" and "religious freedom?"

It must be noted that circumcision can and often does result in complications, which include partial or full penile ablation (Google David Reimer for a famous case), infection, and yes, even death.

In a previous post I talk about circumcision complications which include death...:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/04/circumcision-kills.html

...as well as a death that happened recently:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/circumcision-death-another-one-bites.html

Yes, I'm sure that all surgeries have risks, but is putting a healthy, non-consenting child elective, cosmetic non-medical surgery justified?

The bottom line is always this: Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgeries in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents of said individuals any kind of "choice?" Is it even legal to be stoking a parents' sense of entitlement for a procedure that there isn't a medical indication for?