BlogShots

Jonathan Wolfman's Blog

Jonathan Wolfman

Jonathan Wolfman
Location
Maryland, Northwest of The District,
Birthday
January 26
Bio
Visit, too, please: www.talkingwriting.com www.doesthismakesense.com www.reortergary.com (pal talk news network)

OCTOBER 4, 2011 8:13AM

Foreskins: Nothing Can Unite Muslims & Jews Quite Like Them.

Rate: 19 Flag

 

     Several months back I wrote a lengthy piece for Nikki Stern's www.doesthismakesense.com on the self-styled Intactivist Movement and its effort to place on the ballots in San Mateo and San Francisco referendae that it hoped would ban circumcision in those jurisdictions.

      Here's the End-Game.

     This past July a Superior Court Judge, in response to requests from dozens of Muslim, Jewish, and secular medical and constitutional rights organizations, cut down the ballot initiative saying that only the state (and not cities, towns, villages, one-mule farms, or sincere-but-sincerely-lunatic pop-culture movements) could create or slice into medical law.

     Now, the California legislature has dealt the death cut to the Intactivists. It has passed (and Governor Jerry Brown has signed) a bill that will prevent any further potential circumcision bans. Muslim and Jewish groups in the state are celebrating their joint victory, as a ban would have struck at the root of their first amendment freedom of religious expression.

     With all California foreskins now saved by this joint Muslim and Jewish effort, it cannot be long in coming that we'll see a rise in overall interreligious cooperation toward peaceful resolutions to all of our long, drawn-out, pent-up problems.  

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
If You Can Imagine It, It Can Be:

Penis Ennui as the Basis of a Lasting Peace.
Jane I'd been looking for a way to get you back to my blog..... hehehehe :) Hope this finds you well!
Thanks Jon for the morning giggle!
uh...yeah. But it only unites half. ;)
Susie I am disappointed that you are not taking this circumseriously enough.
Intermarriage might also be powerful. That would make it forced kins.
Hilarious Jon.

Thanks for a good wake-up call.

Rated/Buddy
Buddy,

Thanks...and the serious aspect of this, of course, is that these groups really were intent, and still may be intent, on banning the practice, if not in CA, elewhere.
Stephen note the date! :)
That of course would not be good. Anything to bring Muslims and Jews together is a good thing.
Bud the winner here is, of course, religious freedom and the first amendment.
ok, not saying I agree with the activists, but good people can have a valid, principled stand here: that parents should not have the right to force their minor children to have medically unneeded, painful, irreversible surgery.
This is an issue which does create a great deal of controversy. Have been embroiled in discussions from the biblical perspective as well as the medical.
Leandra ok, and yet--

wouldn't persuasion be the way to resolve thisamong people rather than an outright ban on the practice for any reason?

That's precisely what the San Fran/San Mateo laws were about...forcing everyone to observe a circumcision ban under all circumstances. (Yes; all.)

That, it seems to me, is far more authoritarian than the conditions that exist now.
Ande sure and the best way I can respond is what I've said above, in response to Leandra's concern (which is similar to yours).
Its the little boys that lose, not the "intactivists". Too bad parent's rights to placate sky-god trump the rights of a little boy to his OWN BODY. I'm for the helpless little guys having their penises chopped without their consent. Seems to me that is the only just position here.
I heard this yesterday.. I now have penis envy..:)
HUGGGGGGGGGGGG
Jason another just position here is that voters (in random jurisdictins) don't get to limit the religious expression of families, particularly when there's absolutely no evidence at all that Muslim and Jewish boys suffer physically or emotionally from the experience.

Imgine voters being allowed to get rid of abortion or any other medical procedure in every other township across the nation...one has to have either stated or the federal government as the backstop of constitutional law or we're no longer a nation...were just pearls on a string.
Gosh Linda we adore you just the way you are.
It doesn't matter if there's evidence or not, but you are wrong about that, by the way. We have good medical evidence about the number of nerve endings in the foreskin, and we know that pain of the procedure is imprinted in the brain. We know that some boys who are cut will refuse to nurse for up to two weeks after the procedure. Etc.

But none of the above matters. It is about what is just and what isn't. It is unjust to alter a human being's body without his or her consent. Period. Protecting little boys is a good use of law. It is what law is for, for goodness sakes. Religious rights do not extend to the mutilation of a helpless child.

There is precedent for parents being jailed for child abuse for tatooing their infants, which causes absolutely no harm to the infant, and can be undone. Circumcision is irreparable and permanent.

Banning it would be a good use of law because the law would be just.
Jason we disagree both on the facts and on the uses of law. I respect your position even as I think it's a mistaken one. I've no intention of going back and forth further w you on this as I want others to have their say here, too, and it's my experience that nothing dissuades people from commenting at Open more than seeing an unresolvable and thus potentially endless 'debate' between 2, 3 people in a discussion thread.

I do invite you to come here again in future.
Sheila The Shadow Knows. :)
I'm with Linda on this issue. Nice way to put some smiles on the faces of this issue. Love what Jan Sand said, too!
Most of Protestants would join in cooperating, just from my anecdotal experience.
Lea I agree I think most people are not in favor of banning essentially harnmless religious expression for anyone.
does ANYONE write titles as provocative as yours ;-)
While I'm sure your intention isn't dishonesty, you should realize that you are putting misinformation out there with the claim that circumcision is "essentially harmless". A quick review of the literature, published in medical journals, psychological journals, etc., casts doubt on that claim. Google is your friend.
Oh boy. Just what we need. hrmph.
Miguela uhmhmm what we do need is the consensus that religious expression that does not harm is constitutionally protected and at least CA law now recognises that. And, again, we cannot have

1) people voting on what others' Constitutional rights are; it would be like people voting on whether or not blacks and whites could marry or gay people...inalienable rights should never be a matter of voting.

2) small juridictions making what amounts to Constititional law. The result would be lega mayhem. You cannot have township A allowing for abortion and township y, next door, not. It'sbad enough that states feel they can crimp Roe in such idiotic ways.
Do you suppose the expression "cleanliness is next to godliness" came from this practice?
Maan I'll consult my Talmud. :)
First I laughed. Then I thought what the hell was he thinking...now that I've read the entire thread, I'm blushing! Thanks, pal.
Given what I remember about who was behind the movement to ban circumcision, I'm afraid alleged trauma avoidance wasn't the primary motivating factor.
Um, I think it's all the foreskins disposed of, not saved.

What's interesting is that the few people who think a man has a right to choose what gets done to his body are called "sincere-but-sincerely-lunatic."
Oh, sir, how tightly you wrote this post. Tightness I appreciate but cannot achieve.

Ha! This is too rich in symbolic meaning not to be further mined by a Mind such as yours.

Well, duh, of course guys’ dicks are a fine cultural bridge, or whatever. Yay. Religion is an important thing to ebb and flow in a fellow’s pants.

I keep forgetting Jerry Brown is the governor now. Jesus, where have I been?
Malusinka

While some in the intactivist movement may be sincere (as the commenter who wrote here, today), the fellow at the core of it in California publishes, among other thngs, a comic book reminiscent of the worst Amaerican Nazi Party fare.

His name is Matthew Hess of San Diego. His comic book is called "Foreskin Man" and his graphics are virtually indistinguishable from the old Am. Nazi Party 'comic books' in their vicious caricatures of Jews (and to a lesser extent, Muslims).

"Lunatic" is, in fact, kind.
James your comments are now rivaling those of Art James! :)
Aside from the debate on the merits of the issue, I'll bet this post got you more hits on the "Tip" button than ever before... ;)
Jonathan:
The fact that a cause has a loud, offensive lunatic or two (or two hundred) does not invalidate the arguments. By that logic, I'd be pro-life because I've certainly heard the occasional pro-choicer argue that abortion should be available in the third trimester, allowing a woman to abort a fully-formed, near full-term, viable baby a week before her due date. (Of course until I had to deal with the even more looney pro-life arguments, of which there are many).

If anything, the lunatics discourage the normal from supporting a cause they might otherwise support.