Jews Ask: Are San Francisco Circumcision Foes Anti-Semitic?
A fresh twist has appeared in the emerging battle over a ballot question set to go to San Francisco voters: Is anti-Semitism a driving force behind the efforts of so-called "intactivists," who condemn the practice of circumcising infants?
For the "intactivists," the question boils down to giving a person a choice in the matter -- something that an infant does not have. But for those with cultural and religious traditions around circumcision, the debate smacks of an ugly stripe of bias.
A June 2 posting by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders suggested that the circumcision foes responsible for the ballot initiative might be driven by anti-Semitism.
"Here's a clue," Saunders, who writes under the rubric of "The Token Conservative," wrote. "The mgmbill.org web site links to this site."
"Mgm" stands for "Male Genital Mutilation," which is what sponsors of the ballot question say circumcision done to infants amounts to. Mgmbill.org is described as a "group working to enact legislation that would protect boys from forced circumcision."
The site to which mgm.org links belongs to a comic book called "Foreskin Man." The site includes a brief bio for Matthew Hess, the president of mgmbill.org.
The comic features a cast of characters that includes a bulky super-villain named Dr. Mutilator, as well as the costumed superhero of the title. Another villain is named Monster Mohel. A male infant by the name of Orlando Young is also part of the cast.
Monster Mohel's online written description is especially provocative to Jews, reading, "Nothing excites Monster Mohel more than cutting into the penile flesh of an eight-year-old infant boy. And after the glorified brit milah is complete, the delicious metzitzah b'peh provides the icing on the cake."
"Brit milah," also known as "bris," is the ritual word for circumcision. "Metzitzah" refers to cleaning up the blood the results from the procedure; "Metzitzah b'peh" indicates that the blood is removed using oral contact.
The reference to oral contact with the wound is already an issue of contention for Jews who feel besieged over the issue of circumcision. According to a web posting on the subject, "The average Jewish family doesn't know that most non-Chasidic Orthodox mohels don't perform metzitzah b'peh. Not only do I not perform metzitzah b'peh, I wear gloves, autoclave my instruments and maintain the highest levels of aseptic technique.
"Even worse, this story has turned many Jewish families away from even having a bris altogether and given incredible ammunition to the anti-circumcision crowd," the posting continues. "The continued public discussion of what is really a non-issue for the majority of observant mohels practicing today is causing incalculable damage to a beautiful mitzvah.
The Foreskin Man website includes images of the covers of the first two issues. The cover for Issue #2 depicts a grinning Monster Mohel standing over the infant Orlando Young, flanked by henchmen.
"Hmmmmm. Blonde superhero," Saunders wrote in her posting. "An evil rabbi before a baby, a glass and a bottle of wine. And there's a character named 'warrior' of the 'intactivist underground' who doesn't care about rules or law and has one goal: 'to stop child circumcisers dead in their tracks.' "
Saunders' posting was accompanied by a photo of the gate to Auschwitz, the German concentration camp--one of a number of such facilities--where Jews were sent to forced labor and mass execution in the 1940s. The image provoked outrage among a number of readers who left comments.
"Wow, so the people who don't want baby boys' foreskins cut off are like the Nazis? You just lost the argument Debra," wrote one.
"Anti-Semite? I can think of many other arguments for or against but anti-Semitism would be in my 'desperation' file," another commented. "Stop debasing the memory of the Holocaust."
Others agreed with Saunders that the issue had no place on a ballot.
"I am a liberal and consider Republican charges of the government becoming a nanny in health matters a joke," one reader remarked. "However, a ban on circumcision is going a bit far even for my standards."
"I don't think the benefits of circumcision outweigh the costs in many cases, and didn't choose it for my son," another commented. "I have good friends, including my own brother, who did choose to circumcise their sons, and I believe that they are reasonable people. I will not be voting to ban circumcision."
In a June 2 column, Saunders wrote, "The ballot measure bills itself as a ban on 'forced genital cutting' and 'mutilation.' Clearly the authors want to confuse voters by equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, the barbaric, unsanitary butchering of a young girl's private parts in a procedure that has been known to leave girls severely infected and in pain."
Ballot Question Provides for No Religious Exemption
A May 31 EDGE article reported on how the controversy has heated up since circumcision foes managed to get the question on the ballot for the next election.
"In what will be a first for the nation, San Francisco voters will consider a controversial ballot measure to ban circumcision for males under the age of 18 in the November election," the article read. "Each violation would result in a $1,000 fine and there's no religious exemption."
The measure does not include an exemption on religious grounds, which to some indicates that it would never stand up to a challenge on Constitutional grounds. The EDGE article noted that not only Jews, but Muslims also have deep-seated religious traditions concerning circumcision of male infants.
"Both religions trace the practice to the biblical injunction God gave Abraham in the Book of Genesis and have been practicing infant circumcision as a religious rite for thousands of years," the article said.
Medical experts have made various assertions about the benefits of circumcision, including a claim -- which has been disputed by other studies -- that circumcision helps lower the risk of HIV transmission.
"Intactivists" also claim that circumcision leads to a loss of sensitivity in the penis over time, and thus reduced sexual pleasure.
Readers of the EDGE article argued vociferously over the issue. One individual asserted that he had suffered irreversible physical damage as a result of the procedure.
"I've endured a lifetime of discomfort, pain (physical and emotional), recurrent infections requiring massive and lengthy doses of antibiotics to cure, which have now caused life-long digestion issues ALL because of a (botched) 'perfectly routine circumcision,' " the reader remarked.
"Do NOT try to tell me it's not a big deal. My penis should have been left alone so that *I* could decide what to do with it, not some quack doctor looking to pocket an extra fee at my expense."
But the physical aspects, pro and con, of the procedure are only one aspect of the controversy. There is also a spiritual and cultural side.
"This ban, if it passes, might infringe on the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of religion," wrote Dr. Melvin Konner in a May 11 Jewish Daily Forward article. "Constitutional or not, it is without a doubt a slap in the face to Muslims and Jews, an attack on their rights to privacy that would keep them from continuing a millennial tradition of their ancestors, not to mention keeping them from raising their children according to their own conscience and values."
Describing himself as "a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage and a woman's right to choose," Konner went on to write, "When our son was born three decades ago, we knew we wanted to circumcise him despite not being observant Jews. We found a certified mohel who was also a physician double-boarded in pediatrics and obstetrics, the two fields most concerned with the health and safety of babies. He told us that the only real reason to circumcise is religious. Actually, for us, the true reasons were cultural: We wanted to respect Jewish tradition, and we wanted our son to be and feel Jewish.
"Today, these are the most compelling motivations for Jews to choose circumcision: religion and tradition. The Torah says that 'he who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people.' It also tells the story of the midwives and mothers in Egypt who circumcised even those boys who were to be thrown into the Nile. According to the second book of Maccabees, mothers literally martyred themselves and their sons rather than fail to circumcise," Konner added.
"This is a serious tradition, one for which Jews have fought and sacrificed throughout our long history. It is not harmful, and it may have medical benefits. The proposed ban should and will be opposed by all right-thinking people of any religious faith and by decent people without faith who recognize the rights of parents to decide, within broad limits, what is best for their own children."
The Anti-Defamation League "is working closely with other Jewish and community allies to oppose the San Francisco ballot initiative criminalizing circumcision on males under 18," a May 25 posting at the ADL website said. "The initiative just officially qualified for the November 2011 ballot. We believe that San Franciscans will reject this assault on parental choice, legitimate medical practice, and religious freedom."
Activists are pushing for a similar ballot question in Santa Monica.