Jeremy Kuper has written a fluffy sort of article for the Guardian about his reflections on the circumcision of his son. He states none of the really significant aspects of the tradition, but nor is his piece offensive. It's fluffy.
The interesting part is in the reader's responses. Almost without exception they're highly negative; many of them are crude secularism of the lowest form.
Given that circumcision is done by Jews,Muslims, many Christians and others, this is not necessarily antisemitism. Some of the comments definitely have the whiff, but what seems more significant to me is the general frame of mind. Beliefs often come in clusters, and it's well known that the Guardian and its readers can't stand Israel, and here's another strand, quite separate - or perhaps not so separate.
If an individual - much less an institution like the Guardian - seemed to obsessively highlight every negative aspect it could find about blacks, one could readily conclude racism to be involved.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly this list of CiF columns criticising Jews or the Jewish state just in the past week!
Behr column criticising UK Hasidim
Kuper colum criticising circumcision
Shabi column criticising the Jewish lobby
Nabulsi column criticising the Jewish state
Levy column criticising Mofaz
Kinzer column implying Kennedy assasination was the fault of the Jewish state
Freedman column criticising the small Israeli splinter group WiG
Kuper column criticising circumcision
Shabi column criticising the Jewish lobby
Earlier, these columns:
The Guardian's trumped-up Foreign Office memo story, to give the impression that Jews control the FO.
Article(s) (2?) about Obama addressing AIPAC because AIPAC controls the US government (implications of "ZOG" - Zionist occupied government)
Article(s) (2?) attacking Israel for keeping out security risk Finkelstein
Article attacking JNF meeting with the Queen
Article attacking ambassador Prosor for defending Israel
This list alone leaves no doubt in my mind (a la Burchill) that the Guardian does indeed have a problem with Jews - even setting aside the manner it carries water for Islam.
The last element which makes clear the Guardian is an outright, bigoted enemy of the Jewish people is the anti-Semitic manner in which it censors those who try to defend the Jews, so blatant that apparently one must go to the Telegraph site to be able to discuss freely the Guardian's own articles:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/cifwatcher/
The readers' responses in The Guardian prove the Brits are a pack of unredeemable antisemites.
ReplyDeleteThe readers' responses in The Jerusalem Post, often displaying the crudest racism and ethnic supremacism, only prove that the Jewish people is not monolithic...
Circumcision is a barbaric practice that should not be forced on eight-day-olds, period. If a grown-up wants to have his foreskin removed, that's quite another thing.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
ReplyDeleteWelcome to another reality, besides "it's gotta be anti-Semitism." When it just ain't so.
Today's Western universe allows discussions on all sorts of once-forbidden subjects. Heck, people who are not married to each other, openly go and share bedroom space together; renting. As well as owning. And, traveling together, to boot. Maybe, at one time blue-noses ruled the roost.
They lost. Get over it!
I've already shared with you that my son is circumcised. Me? I thought it was a barbaric procedure. I had worked in OB/GYN, and I saw the male infants strapped up so that they'd leave the hospital, circumcised.
My ex is a cardiologist. He told me that circumcision was a terrific health benefit; not just a religious ritual. He added, that when he was in training, at one of New York's Harlem hospitals, he saw with his own eyes, grown men being circumcised because, basically, the skin "at the top" was no longer "loose." But had adhered. For this reason, urologists were doing circumcisions on grown men.
He added that in today's universe men tend to have sex partners before marriage. And, so, too, do women. This means that monogamous sex has taken a back seat. Or, as a matter of fact, headed out to the back-field.
If you want my son to explain it now; since it is a topic of on-going discussion ... Where his dad is no longer so adamently "pro" the procedure; my son said it's "like cutting off the nerve endings on your tongue. Why would you do this?"
By the way, Russians don't do it.
And, sex-wise, an uncircumcised man provides more "tension" or sex pleasure ... since the skin isn't just loose; it creates some tension. Does it matter? Hardly. Because you're still better off monogamous; and in a healthy marriage, than just about anything else.
Meanwhile, if a man marries early; but visits whores, all the benefits fly out the window.
And, as I've said, with AIDS entering the picture in the early 1980's; there were some medical papers indicating that circumcised men were "less likely" to get this disease. (I guess they measure the number of patients they have, and then divide out the who are circumcised. So you've formed two groupings.) It's still a subject for debate.
Oh, yes. At a recent gathering of the family, by ex's brother flew in from New Jersey, where he is a gynecologist. So, here, I raised the subject of circumcision, just to see what he'd say. He has 3 daughters. The question was "what about grandchildren?" Automatic pilot, or not.
And, then he told the story, back when he was in the US ARMY (he had to be. It was the late 1960's. And, he used the BERRY PLAN to finish his training. Purposely picking gynecology, I might add; because he knew in the army he'd be kept state-side.
And, he told the story about how a swarm of Christian men were seeking circumcisions at army expense. The urologist, in this case, was Jewish. So the two doctors became friends. At first? They just talked about how grown men would willingly choose this procedure. But to tell the truth, they couldn't explain it.
And, the soldiers weren't "giving the reason" either. Until, finally, provoked, the urologist "got mad" at one soldier "and demanded to know why." Oh, yeah. He was told! Women don't like to give blow jobs to men who aren't circumcised. I kid you not.
So, there ya go.
If you don't do circumcisions, and the men don't learn to pull the skin back and clean the area, often, it's not unusual for adhesions to occur. And, worse! The loose skin is an incubator to viruses. And, "merely" washing well, doesn't change this equation.
What happens ahead, I do not know.
But I do know that in Jewish history, when a humongous tragedy occurs, there are "accommodating changes."
To prove this to you ... As we strech back all the way to Moses, to identify ourselves as Jews; we overlook the destruction of the First Temple. And, how that was the blow that changed how Judaism got practiced. No Temple. No sacrifices.
Instead? In the shift, Jews re-interpreted the meaning of sacrifice. Out went animals hoisted up onto alters. And, in came EDUCATION. Rabbis came along to substitute for the priestly sects. Don't laugh. This is a very big change! WIth a notice-able "before and after."
Before. You were born into the tribes that "kept the Temple." Cohens. Levy's. Afterward? No longer an "aristocratic endeavor." But one where qualified men could rise. And, become notable rabbis.
For current events, there's the Holocaust. Which, I think, is basically the end of the line for the Catholic Church. Westerners left in droves. Now? You've got Filipinos and Mexicans, instead. Breeding large enough families so the priesthood looks like its still there. But as my Catholic girl friend told me. If it wasn't for the Filipino priests, many an American Catholic Church would have to close. Because it no longer has the priests and nuns, devoted to serving. And, empty structures go beyond just empty pews.
If I had to guess? Since I'm an American. And, I see the Foundations for this country, as something that turned the "old system" on its head. Because America won it's Revolutionary War. Against the British. And, from then on, small steps at a time, we've grown strong.
One of the earliest concepts that America debunks is the thought that you can't have a Republic on a large scale. Writings up to that time, said democracy worked only for small groups. And, would never extend to a growing nation.
The other is the secular universe. Where it had been written that you needed to rely on some religious foundation to "have a state" ... because that gave you "harmony." BULL SHIT.
Up ahead? There will be many Jews who are secular. While the loudest group in Israel isn't secular at all. But it's there because instead of CAPITALISM, Israel reached for socialism.
And, if you think circumcision is the only item that could go flying out the window, you haven't noticed that humans do better under Capitalism, than just about any other forms of government out there.
Right now? We've just begun our 21st Century. We're on a learning curve.
And, sometimes, Israel and the USA seem to be on the same page!
You have troubles keeping your prime minister seated, because the 'powers-that-be' have discovered nefarious ways of ridding themselves of prime ministers. There not too much faith given to the people's choices.
On the other hand? Bill Clinton survived an American onslaught. Will Olmert?
I have no idea.
But smelly politics brought Bush into the arena. Where he soon leaves.
Like I said, not all political decisions go to the man who initiates one good thing. Or another. America's 5th President, James Monroe, in his 2nd term, went after the Barbary pirates. And, put the MONROE DOCTRINE into action.
The Monroe Doctrine: It's insane to "*uck" with the USA. Even though, like truth, we're late in getting out of bed, to put our pants on.
Up ahead? Things will change. And, the one thing Ben Gurion did was to slide Judaism into the past. By removing Conservatives. By removing the Reformed. He took away growth. Leaving a midget system to sell to the world. Good luck. And, keep talking.