Jewish Circumcision Questioned on NPR "All Things Considered"

On August 24, 1998, millions of American learned for the first time that not all Jews circumcise their sons and that a growing number of Jews question the ancient practice. The twelve-minute story was broadcast on National Public Radio’s popular news magazine program "All Things Considered."

It was revealed that the Jewish media has run articles questioning circumcision and that there is a group in Israel that opposes circumcision. Jewish parents who did not circumcise their son were interviewed. One couple decided not to circumcise their son because they felt it was traumatic. Reluctance to inflict pain on a child was a primary reason parents offered for not circumcising. They also noted that Jewish law forbids inflicting pain and cutting or marking the body.

Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., a Boston psychologist, author of Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective, and executive director of the Circumcision Resource Center, talked about the history of questioning circumcision. He observed that Moses did not circumcise his son, and the leader of the movement to establish a Jewish state, Theodor Herzl, did not circumcise his son, born in 1891. Goldman has been contacted by hundreds of Jews who question circumcision.

Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, the leader of a Jewish renewal congregation in New Mexico, agreed with other mothers that watching her son’s circumcision was distressing. She believed that circumcision was not a major factor in Jewish identity and that observing the Sabbath was more important than circumcising.

By SHEILA ANNE FEENEY
———————————————
Daily News Staff Writer

MOSHE ROTHENBERG keeps a kosher house, attends a Conservative temple and celebrates Jewish holidays. His son, Samuel, attends a Conservative Hebrew school.

But Samuel, 9, differs from his Brooklyn friends and classmates in a minor physical way that provokes a major tsuris. Samuel never had a bris — the ritual male circumcision that is a central commandment of the Jewish faith.

The rate of circumcision has been steadily declining in the United States, from about 80% in 1965 to about 66% in 1995. While circumcision's benefits and risks are endlessly debated, critics of the procedure contend that foreskin removal is traumatic and painful for infants, medically unnecessary and useless in deflecting sexually transmitted diseases or deterring unusual sexual practices.

Male infants born to Jewish parents, however, are circumcised for religious, not medical, reasons.

My son, my son: Moshe Rothenberg with his son, Samuel, 9. Samuel has not been circumcised.

The practice dates to God's command to Abraham that "every male child among you will be circumcised," and is part of the covenant between God and Israel. The gravity of this obligation is such that even secular and nonpracticing Jews have their sons circumcised (Muslims and some Africans also practice ritual circumcision.)

Now, however, some Jewish parents, albeit a tiny minority, are starting to question — and defy — a traditional practice rooted in centuries of belief.

Ronald Goldman, a Boston psychologist and author who founded The Circumcision Resource Center in 1991, claims more than 200 Jewish-identified members. Goldman says infants can suffer a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, and may suffer an interruption of maternal attachment as a result of the procedure, which is ritually performed without anesthesia.

To those who consider him an apostate, Goldman argues that it is a Jewish value not to inflict gratuitous pain, "to ask questions, and to explore the innermost feelings, values and impulses we have; to acquire knowledge and understanding."

Goldman has also written a book. "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective," to be published in September by Vanguard, which he hopes will "help Jews explore options, so they don't feel compelled to do this."

Rothenberg, a Brooklyn social worker and high school guidance counselor, has helped hold a bris-sans-circumcision for more than 100 local families, "It's a welcoming ceremony, a celebration of the newborn," that usually includes prayers, naming and — depending on parental preferences — tree-planting, singing, dancing, blessings, or donations to plant trees in Israel. A member of the Anti Circumcision Network, Rothenberg hopes to educate other parents to make decisions about their sons "on the basis of principle, not conformity."

Such dissidents "are seeking to abolish one of the fundamental tenets of Judaism," declares Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary. "I disapprove, and I also think their effort is futile."

While there is an ongoing debate amongst Orthodox and non-Orthodox leaders over who is truly Jewish, Schorsch predicts this is one issue on which all rabbis will agree: "You won't find a synagogue where the rabbi will endorse this kind of violation."

As for the customized ceremonies absenting the mohel, or cutter, Schorsch predicts, "When you make your religion up as you go along, it's not going to have any staying power."

Because the circumcision of a Jewish boy is a foregone conclusion, relatives and friends are stunned and sometimes anguished or unaccepting when parents ditch the tradition. "Our families went berserk for eight days" after Samuel's birth, but relaxed after the welcoming ceremony, relates Rothenberg.

"The pressure to conform is really, really strong. It's very hard for people to think for themselves about this," says Gregg W.

He and his wife, a Queens couple who were reared as Conservative Jews, did not have their now-3-year-old circumcised because research convinced them, he says, that the practice was "barbaric." He declined to have his full name used because his wife fears their family might be stigmatized The choice for his wife, said Gregg, was torturous, with empathy for her son finally winning out over her fears that she was behaving in a sacrilegious, heretical way.

Jewish parents who opt not to circumcise may attend temple, but rarely divulge their private decision with other worshipers or rabbis. While few occasions necessitate the state of a boy's genitals becoming public knowledge, families sometimes have an anxiety of being discovered or adversely judged.

Rothenberg admits his decision has had repercussions, from being shunned at a job to losing a friendship. But others, he hastens to add, have expressed their admiration that he had "the guts to put into practice what I believe."

Samuel says he has not been teased by peers and classmates, but should that occur, his dad is ready with the talk that countless other parents have banked for such an occasion: The one that assures a kid that a difference in beliefs or appearance does not make a person inferior or bad.

While Rothenberg cites scripture that he believes supports abjuring circumcision, Schorsch says such interpretations are twistings and distortions. Rothenberg counters that it is not circumcision that glues Jews together as a people but "ethics. . . . We don't need to abuse our children to continue our faith."

(IINS News Service -Israel-1/27) The non-profit organization working to stop circumcision has taken its case to the High Court of Justice.

The organization maintains in its petition, that in a modern democratic society there is no place for the "barbaric" ceremony, which mauls a child who does not have any say in the matter. One spokesman for the group, a Jewish man who stated he is proud that his son was not circumcised, explained there are no health benefits, and in some cases, such as contracting herpes, there are disadvantages.

In addition, the group maintains a parent may not make a decision on behalf of an infant, to "mutilate the sex organ of a male child."

The court has not decided on the petition at the time of this report.

Although Jews are commanded by the Torah to circumcise newborn males, some Jews and non-Jews today are beginning to question the ancient ritual. The Boston-based Circumcision Resource Center has an affiliate called Jewish Associates, which supports Jewish parents who choose to forgo the practice. The BALTIMORE JEWISH TIMES spoke with the CRC's executive director, Dr. Ronald Goldman, author of the forthcoming book "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective," about circumcision.

J T. — What are your main objections to circumcision?

Dr Goldman — Circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic. No anesthetic has been proven safe and effective in preventing this pain. Sometimes, the infant does not cry because of withdrawal into traumatic shock. Circumcision often results in behavioral changes and disrupted mother-child bonding, and there are risks as with any surgery.

Also, some men are resentful that they are circumcised. They realize that the foreskin has important functions, including enhancing sexual pleasure.

There is more information on circumcision available now. Once it is clear that circumcision has no proven benefit and is actually harmful, the choice not to circumcise is a natural one.

Certainly, secular Jews are more likely to question circumcision than Orthodox Jews. In actual practice, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not for religious reasons. The myth is that all Jews circumcise. But in Europe, South America and Israel, as well as here, there are Jews who do not circumcise their sons.

Generally, women are more sensitive to the issue. As mothers, they feel a stronger bond to the child and a stronger impulse to protect the child. Now that women are more active in Jewish practices, they're speaking up more. I've talked to Jewish women who said they would run away with their son before they'd allow him to be circumcised.

Both men and women are noticing an inconsistency if we denounce female genital mutilation and ignore what we do to baby boys. This is not to say that the two are identical, but there are similarities. In both cases, the child's genitals are cut by force.

I attended a bris where there was a lot of discomfort and anxiety among the people there. The infant cried strenuously for an extended period of time. Think about what a violation of trust this represents for the baby, who looks to his parents to love and protect him. How can he feel safe if this is one of his earliest experiences?

I think Israelis are also recognizing that this is at odds with their own instincts. What's kept this quiet for so long is the fear of expressing a point of view that conflicts with the cultural norm. As some Jews learn that others are questioning circumcision, they feel more able to do it themselves.

—Christine Stutz

By Adam Chrzan
Press Journal Staff Writer

An Indian River County couple has sued a Palm Beach County temple and a rabbi for a botched religious circumcision that required emergency-room stitches and has left their son scarred.

Lisa Alsofrom and Maxou Jacques Lapeyre want an unspecified amount of money from Temple Emeth and Rabbi Abraham Cohen, who performed the circumcision on the couple's son, Noah Benjamin Lapeyre, in June 1996.

A suit filed a week ago charges both the Delray Beach temple and Cohen, now a Connecticut resident, were negligent in performing what is known as a brith milah circumcision when Noah was 8 days old.

"He's scarred for life physically and emotionally," said David Carter, the couple's Vero Beach attorney. '`Everyone's going to think of him as the kid who was butchered by the mohel," one approved to perform circumcisions in the Jewish faith.

Alsofrom's mother, a Palm Beach County resident, contacted the temple in late May 1996 and inquired about hiring a mohel to perform the religious ritual. The couple's first son was circumcised in the hospital, Carter said.

A receptionist at the temple gave Cohen's name to Alsofrom's mother. The receptionist told her Cohen was affiliated with the temple, the suit alleges.

Cohen, an ordained rabbi, had been hired by the temple as a religious reader and was performing the circumcisions on his own according to attorney Buck Vocelle, who represents the temple. "He did this on his own," Vocelle said Wednesday.

Cohen's wife, reached at the couple's West Hartford residence, said her husband could not be reached for comment.

Carter said his clients were given one of Cohen's business cards, which listed the temple, Cohen's name and a notation about circumcisions. "The business card clearly gives the message he was (working) for the temple," he added.

Cohen met with the couple but never informed them of the risks, the suit alleges.

During the circumcision, which took place at the couple's house, Cohen reportedly "severed a portion of Noah's penis and a blood vessel," the suit stated.

The infant was rushed to Indian River Memorial Hospital where he received stitches and was transferred to Arnold Palmer Children's Hospital in Orlando, Carter said.

Noah, now 20 months old, has undergone numerous medical procedures including what is called a "revision" to the circumcision, and skin grafts to "improve the cosmetic appearance of the penis." the suit said.

"Visually, it will always be different," Carter said. "It's hard to say what kind of emotional effect this will have on him. It's tough enough going through puberty' without a disfigurement.

The suit contends the temple and Cohen should have highlighted the risks of the procedure should have used due care during the circumcision and should have made known Cohen’s background, training and status with the temple.

Rabbi Jay R Davis of Temple Beth Shalom in Vero Beach said there is no licensing agency for mohels.

"There is training, but no governing body," he said.

Typically, parents contact a temple to recommend a mohel. The mohel supposedly has studied with a doctor to learn the procedure, for which he is paid several hundred dollars.

"Temples have nothing to do with mohels," Davis said. Most mohels also carry no insurance, he said.

Neither Davis nor Temple Beth Shalom are involved in the lawsuit.

The couple's suit seeks money for the pain, suffering and mental anguish of Noah and his parents. The suit also seeks money to cover current and future medical bills. Carter said the bills now total several thousand dollars.

Noah's parents declined to comment on the suit.

"These people are reluctant plaintiffs

By LESLIE KATZ
Of the Bulletin Staff

When Erica Gleason's son was born seven years ago, she didn't have him circumcised. ''The thought of ripping off a piece of his penis was vomitous to me," she said. "He's not any less of a Jew because he has an intact foreskin."

Seth and Michele Skootsky, on the other hand, didn't think twice about circumcising their infant Joshua. He had his brit milah in a synagogue, complete with a rabbi, mohel (circumciser), relatives, friends, and — according to the baby's father — lots of joyous tears.

"We didn't even look at it like there's a choice," he said, "because we're Jewish."

Gleason and Skootsky had their say following a panel discussion on "Circumcision in the Reform Jewish Tradition," held Sunday afternoon at S. F.’s Temple Emanu-El.

Moderated by Emanu-El's Rabbi Peretz Wolf-Prusan, the event focused on the historical significance of ritual circumcision, the role of the Reform mohel, and options for circumcision-free ceremonies for Jewish baby boys, as well as welcoming ceremonies for baby girls.

Panelists also addressed the relevance of medical considerations. Not surprisingly, that topic sparked passionate debate, reflecting the increasing controversy that has surrounded circumcision in recent years.

Many opponents of the procedure call it mutilation and worry that it may cause an infant pain. Some men argue it has desensitized them sexually and have even sought to surgically reconstruct their foreskins.

Supporters, however, maintain that circumcision is a safe procedure that can dramatically reduce the risk of urinary tract infections, chronic kidney failure and sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Presently the American Academy of Pediatrics neither advocates nor discourages circumcision. Rather, it encourages parents to reach their own educated decision.

For many Jews, circumcision is not just a medical consideration, but a religious one.

"When we have a brit milah, part of what we do is set the child on a path, a trajectory," said Temple Israel's Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann an advocate of welcoming ceremonies for baby girls. "We an entering that child into an entire world view of Jewish life."

Other panelists included Rabbi Lewis Barth, a professor of midrash at Hebrew Union College, co-chair of the Brit Milah board of Reform Judaism and editor of Berit Milah in the Reform Context; Dr. Marc Usatin, a Jewish pediatrician from Walnut Creek and a certified Reform mohel; and Emanu-El congregant Lisa Braver-Moss, an opponent of circumcision who helped organize the panel.

She did that, she said, to prompt Jewish dialogue on the topic and encourage parents not to let tradition pressure them into having their children circumcised if they are uncomfortable with the notion.

Braver-Moss now regrets having had her two young sons circumcised, and feels traumatized by the possibility of having exposed them to potential pain and risk

She had doubts, she said, but did it anyway, believing it would impart to her sons a permanent mark of Jewish identity and physical likeness to other Jewish men including their father.

"I was never as isolated and alienated as a Jew as when my sons were circumcised," said Braver-Moss, a freelance journalist who has published articles on the topic in several Jewish publications, including the January issue of Midstream.

But Karlin-Neumann, sitting next to Braver-Moss, recalled her son's brit milah as a moving entry into the world of Judaism. "I felt I had just opened up a tradition to him which was his to treasure," she said.

If the brit milah is viewed as the first in a lifetime of Jewish rituals, "you have a different understanding than if you look at it solely as a medical or ethical or perhaps emotional consideration," the Alameda rabbi said.

Passionate opinions also were expressed during a question-and-answer period following the panel.

Derek Durst spoke emphatically to the panelists "You're talking about the pain of an infant," he said. "But I'm talking about the pain of an adult who had circumcision done on him without a choice, without consent."

Circumcision he said "is barbaric. It's child abuse to trim skin from the most sensitive area of the body. God created [the foreskin] to protect that part of the body."

"We're not denying that there's pain involved," said Seth Skootsky adding that he had observed his child more agitated during a bath or diaper change than during his brit milah.

"We don't do this to inflict pain on our child. But since this is something that's gone on for 3,000 years, we can look back and see a lot of examples of people who have had this done who are OK."

Leland Traiman, an East Bay nurse practitioner expecting a child in several months, said that if he has a son, he will not have him circumcised "under any circumstances."

Traiman, who grew up Orthodox and all of whose friends were circumcised, said that as a child he saw uncircumcised penises in pictures, and knew "there was some thing missing - my choice."

Barth stressed that choice based on knowledge is a central tenet of Reform Judaism. "There are people who find [brit milah] a profoundly meaningful way of connecting with the Jewish people and there are people who don't," the rabbi said. "People have to fulfill their inner sense."

By LUCI SCOTT
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

PHOENIX — Miriam Pollack says she will never slop hearing her two son's screams as they were being circumcised.

''They were quite different from any other screams these children have ever had," the Berkeley, Calif., educator said.

''I had them circumcised because I felt, as a Jewish mother, this was my obligation and even joy to do, to bring these children into the faith and peoplehood that I love.''

But after years of reflection Pollack has come to a different conclusion.

"How many thousands of Jewish boys and Jewish men did we lose during the Holocaust because they couldn't hide? All the oppressor had to do was pull down their pants." says Pollack, adding that girls carry their Jewish identity without having their bodies altered.

Pollack has written about her new thinking on circumcision in "Jewish Women Speak Out: Expanding the Boundaries of Psychology,'' a book edited by Kayla Weiner and Arinna Moon that was published in July.

She maintains that issues of gender and power are central to the ritual of circumcision

"Circumcision functions to bond the baby boy to a male-defined community, a male-defined God, over and against the authority of the mother,'' she writes in the book.

"Our culture has totally disarmed us as women," Pollack says. "It is a cutting not only of the baby boy, but a violation of the maternal-child bond."

Despite such objections, circumcision which is first mentioned in the Bible with reference to Abraham's being commanded to circumcise his sons, continues to be practiced by the majority of American Jews.

''Circumcision and being buried in a Jewish cemetery are two of the most fundamental commandments observed by even the most assimilated Jews who don't observe anything else," says Rela Geffen, a sociology professor at Gratz College in suburban Philadelphia.

"Any kind of ritual can be questioned," she says. ''But this is so fundamental. Jews have been willing to die to preserve this."

And despite widespread acceptance of the practice, some opponents of the ritual have become increasingly vocal, setting up organizations advocating an end to the practice that has been a central tenet of Judaism.

The Bible tells Jews not to offer blood sacrifices or to harm the body in any way, but "circumcision is largely regarded as blood sacrifice," says Norm Cohen of Birmingham, Mich.

Cohen a member of the National Organization to Halt the Routine Mutilation of Men, also known as NOHARMM, has written an alternative ceremony for a bris, which he is offering on-line. One-third of NOHARMM's membership is Jewish.

Cohen, the son of a rabbi, also is concerned about the impact of circumcision on the mother-son bond.

"Circumcision is a betrayal of trust that babies have in their parents and in their mother, particularly," he says. ''Whatever happens to the baby, the baby attributes to the mother, regardless of the good intentions that are present."

Other opponents of circumcision contend that there is no sound medical reason for maintaining the ritual.

"It's not over when the cutting stops,'' says Ron Goldman, a psychologist who runs the Circumcision Resources Center in Boston.

After reviewing medical and psychological literature, he says he found "a lot of information that raises very serious questions about this practice, specifically the literature on childhood trauma."

In the medical world, the view on circumcision is also changing. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said there is no medical indication to support the surgery.

Even the authoritative Dr. Benjamin Spock is changing his tune.

As recently as 1992, ''we felt there was no medical indication to perform routine circumcision on newborn boys,'' says Dr. Michael Rothenberg of Seattle, co-author of the last two editions of Spock's famous book on baby and child care.

Rothenberg, pediatrics and psychiatry professor emeritus at the University of Washington, adds, however, that he and Spock understand that "there would be families who, for religious reasons, feel it is necessary to perform the ritual."

An estimated 60 percent of newborn males in the United States are circumcised today, a figure that has been dropping for about two decades from a high of 90 percent. The United States is believed to be the only country in the world that routinely circumcises male babies for nonreligious reasons.

American Jews who are speaking out against circumcision say many of their co-religionists are repressing and denying anxiety because even questioning the ritual is taboo.

Some who refuse to circumcise their sons say their decision has led to varying levels of ostracism in their communities.

"It put me in the position of heretic, which I don't want to he. I don't think of myself as a heretic," says Natalie Bivas of Palo Alto Calif., who refused to have her son circumcised.

A rabbi told her that if she did not have the baby circumcised, no Jewish girl would go out with him, other children would make fun of him at camp, and he would hate his body and hate his mother.

"My choice was to have my son hate me or to do something I think is morally wrong," says Bivas. As much as he understands at the age of eight, she says of her son, "He thinks it's a good idea to leave him alone."

Moshe Rothenberg of Brooklyn says he withstood "enormous pressure" and temporary family alienation to have a bloodless bris for his son, Sammy, now seven.

''I only see this issue as one of abuse," he says. "I have a certain loyalty and commitment to my own people, but I'm opposed to abuse in all forms. I will not do it to my child in the name of continuing tradition."

Bivas, who vice led the area's Alternate Bris Support Group, claims that circumcision is risky and dangerous. There have been cases of circumcision resulting in medical problems, including blood infections and even death, she says.

At some hospitals, Jewish medical personnel are leading the charge in refusing to assist in circumcisions.

Betty Katz Sperlich, a registered nurse at St. Vincent's hospital in Santa Fe, N.M., risked losing her job when she declared herself a conscientious objector so she would not have to set up the equipment, strap the baby down or throw away the amputated foreskin.

The hospital says 40 percent of the maternity nurses are conscientious objectors. They now have legal protection against losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in circumcision.

Sperlich, a member of the national group NoCirc, co-founded another national advocacy organization, Nurses for the Rights of the Child.

"I felt guilty being a Jew and not having my son circumcised," she says. But she has since reconciled her position on circumcision with her Judaism.

''Judaism is a living religion, and as a living religion, we can change our tradition," she says. "I don't see why we can't keep the traditions that are beautiful and drop the ones that are brutal."

Klagsbrun on Circumcision

Over the last year I have formed a group called HOW (Healing Our Wounds), which is a forum for circumcised men to talk about how they feel about being circumcised. It is amazing how many men (including Jewish men) are extremely angry about having had this decision made for them, despite their religious background, and how they would have preferred to have been left with all their body parts and been able to make this kind of an important decision later in life.

While the Torah commands Jews to circumcise their infant boys, there are many other commandments that we do not follow today.

How many of your Jewish friends eat pork, cheeseburgers, or shellfish? How many work on Friday night or Saturday? How many wear clothing made from more than one type of material? How many masturbate or have extramarital affairs?

Why is it that the one command that does the most harm to future generations is the one continually carried out today, despite the growing amount of medical evidence showing circumcision has potentially harmful side effects (let alone the severe diminution of sexual pleasure).

I cannot understand how Ms. Klagsbrun can make such statements as "[it] causes only brief pain and has not been found to have any adverse lifelong effects." Since Ms. Klagsbrun has not been circumcised herself (I would assume), I find it almost ludicrous that she would make such a statement. I'm sure she would find it distasteful if I tried to state that having a mastectomy is no big deal if a woman has breast cancer. And besides, the foreskin is a healthy, normal functioning part of the body that is removed for no sound reason at all.

Wine on a washcloth may quiet the grandfather, but as pain control it just—forgive the expression—won't cut it.

As a Jewish male, for most of my life I felt good about circumcision and the connection I felt to my Jewish heritage. When I began writing a book on men five years ago, I would break into tears when I tried to write about shame and the way in which early childhood experiences impacted on later feelings. I began to get body memories of having been circumcised and realized that I carried a great deal of pain, even 50 years later. I now believe strongly that circumcision is harmful and recommend that all people, Jews and non-Jews, consider alternatives before deciding to have their boys circumcised.

I do not understand how a religion that abhors pain inflicted upon animals could allow this to be subjected on a helpless infant. Also, doesn't Judaism forbid marking the body with tattoos and other methods, such as piercing, branding, and scarification? While these may seem repugnant to many of your readers, they pale in comparison to the forced amputation of healthy erogenous tissue.

I was delighted to read that other Jewish parents are questioning and opting against ritual circumcision, echoing the great scholar Maimonides, who said, "Let no man be circumcised against his will."

Despite columnist Francine Klagsbrun's convenient dismissal of female genital mutilation (FGM) as unrelated to brit milah, these two ancient cultural traditions are far too similar.

Without her Western holier-than-thou nearsightedness, she would understand FGM provides women with a sense of identity and connectedness in their own communities. Both rituals have always been a sacred rite of covenant in one's community and, in this context, performed in the "best interests" of the child. For those who would still dismiss this comparison by contrasting the degree of mutilation inflicted, U.S. law does not permit such distinctions. The slightest cutting of a girl's genitals by a well-intentioned community wishing to grant her "uniqueness" is a felony.

It is time for the modern Jewish community to understand the ethics behind the FGM law and, as we have done for so many other Jewish traditions, adjust brit milah for the modern age.

I have lived in Africa for five years, working with women's health and rights programs, including the effort to eradicate female genital mutilation (FGM).

In many communities in Africa, FGM is done to ensure that a girl or woman passes safely and appropriately into adulthood (similar to a bat mitzvah), that she is a respected and upstanding member of the community, that she is physically clean, that her child is healthy, and that she is bound to her family, community, ethnic group, and society through a lifelong covenant. Some women describe the procedure—no matter how much we ourselves may abhor it—as the embodiment of love and dignity.

To suggest that African rituals do not create "peoplehood" as our rituals do denies Africans the same right to express ethnic unity that we Jews demand. While I, and many African and non-African women, hope to see FGM eradicated, we must work toward that day with full knowledge of and respect for why communities continue this practice. Jews, of all people, should respect covenants created between people and their community and support others in developing rituals that celebrate people wile not harming them.

Note: The arguments in favor of circumcision are familiar and readily available. Previous writing on Jewish circumcision has been totally supportive of the practice. It has been rare that writing on Jewish circumcision has mentioned, let alone elaborated on, arguments against the practice. Because the reasons to question circumcision are not well known, they are the focus here. Readers are encouraged to seek other sources of information and then come to their own conclusions. For a more complete and detailed discussion of questioning Jewish circumcision, see the book Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ronald Goldman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The religious origin of the Jewish practice of circumcision is written in the Torah where God promised Abraham,

I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. . . . I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God. . . . Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:6,8,10)

Over the centuries there has been much written by Jewish scholars about the importance of circumcision. Support for circumcision in the Jewish community today is widespread. There is another perspective on circumcision that is not openly discussed. Contrary to common belief, circumcision has not always been practiced. Moses failed to circumcise his son (Exodus 4:25), and circumcision was totally neglected during the forty-year period in the wilderness (Joshua 5:5). Some Jews in the Hellenistic period (circa 300 b.c.e.-100 c.e.) chose not to circumcise their sons in an attempt to gain public acceptance.¹ During the Reform movement in Germany in the 1840s, some parents did not circumcise their sons. Theodor Herzl was one of the most prominent figures who did not circumcise his son, who was born in 1891.²

Currently, circumcision is not universal among Jews either inside or outside the United States. The Circumcision Resource Center, a nonprofit educational organization, knows of hundreds of Jews in Europe, South America, and in the United States who either have not or would not circumcise a son. Even in Israel some Jews do not circumcise, and there is an organization that publicly opposes circumcision.³ The purpose of this article is to coherently explain a few of the contemporary reasons for the increasing doubts some Jews have about circumcision. Then I will apply Torah law and Jewish values to these reasons.

According to the Council of Jewish Federations 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, "ninety percent define being Jewish as being a member of a cultural or ethnic group."⁴ Only thirteen percent believe "the Torah is the actual word of God."⁵ Therefore, I address my comments particularly to those who reform Jewish practice in a way that is meaningful to them. Non-traditional Jews generally evaluate an idea by its agreement with reason and experience. Reform Jews comprise a large proportion of this group. Eugene Borowitz, noted theologian and scholar, states that Reform Jews "believe that we serve God best by being true to our minds and consciences even where, in significant matters, they clash with our heritage."⁶ Based on the survey, a high proportion of American Jews have this perspective.
 
 

CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

Because most Jews are non-traditional and are not aware of the religious meaning of circumcision, most Jewish circumcisions are done for cultural not religious reasons. These cultural reasons often tend to be related to beliefs, attitudes, and feelings about Jewish survival and identity. (Jewish circumcision was never intended as a health measure, and there is no proven health benefit from circumcision.⁷) For example, an argument for Jewish circumcision is that it ensures the survival of the Jewish people. This contention is especially compelling because of our long history of having to fight to survive. But the biggest threat to survival today is assimilation, and there is no evidence that circumcision prevents or slows it. According to the National Jewish Population Survey, more than half of all Jews who marry choose a non-Jewish spouse.⁸

Associated with the desire for survival is the idea of identity. Many Jews believe that males must be circumcised to be Jewish. This is not true. As stated in the Encyclopedia Judaica, "Any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not."⁹ Alan Altmann, an uncircumcised son of Holocaust survivors, personally addresses the issue of Jewish identity: 

Although uncircumcised, I am a very proud Jew, with a very strong sense of Jewish identity, and never hesitate to affirm my Jewish identity to Jew and non-Jew alike, but particularly to myself. I can assure you that having a foreskin has not made me less of a Jew than those without one, and in fact has given me additional reason to think about it.¹⁰

Tying Jewish survival and identity to circumcision underestimates Judaism's power and ignores its purpose. It neglects the significance of Jewish ideas and ethical values. Is a man who is circumcised and is a member of a cult or commits immoral acts more of a Jew than an uncircumcised man who is committed to Jewish values and lives an ethical life? Is a circumcised atheist more of a Jew than an uncircumcised believer in one God? Having a body part removed has its effects, but it does not guarantee one will be more religious or more commited to Jewish values.

Finally on this point, issues of Jewish survival and identity are related to the social tendencies toward conformity and the desire for a sense of connection. However, conformity without knowledge, understanding, and reflection tends to result in a superficial type of connection. In the case of circumcision, this goes unnoticed perhaps because we equate the longevity of the practice with the depth of the connection.
 
 

HARM CAUSED BY CIRCUMCISION

The increasing doubts about Jewish circumcision are based on the understanding that it causes harm. Anatomical, neurochemical, physiological, and behavioral studies confirm what mothers already know: infants feel pain. Drs. Anand and Hickey, in a comprehensive review of recent medical literature on newborn pain, conclude that newborn responses to pain are "similar to but greater than those in adult subjects."¹¹ This study is accepted by virtually all medical authorities and is often cited in the literature whenever there is a discussion of infant pain. As a surgical procedure, circumcision has been described as "among the most painful performed in neonatal medicine."¹² Studies of infant responses show that the pain of circumcision is not like that of a mere pin prick. It is severe and overwhelming.

The relationship between infant pain and vocal response needs explanation. The cry may be reduced by the effect of anesthetics given to the mother during labor.¹³ These anesthetics enter the infant's body and, according to pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton, it can take over a week to leave.¹⁴ Other factors can also account for minimal vocal response. Justin Call, infant psychologist and professor-in-chief of child and adolescent psychology at the University of California, reports that "sometimes babies who are being circumcised . . . . lapse into a semi-coma."¹⁵ Tonya Brooks, president of the International Association for Childbirth at Home and a midwife, observes, "In four of the nine circumcisions that I have seen, the baby didn't cry. He just seemed to be suddenly in a state of shock!"¹⁶ Studies demonstrate that even though an infant may not cry during circumcision, the stress hormone level in the blood still increases dramatically, and medical researchers consider this change to be the most reliable indicator of pain response.¹⁷ Therefore, lack of crying does not mean that the infant feels no pain. It could mean that he is withdrawing from unbearable pain.

Circumcision has other harmful effects. Anand and Hickey write that

the persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules.¹⁸

Psychiatrist Rima Laibow agrees that circumcision significantly impairs mother-infant bonding.¹⁹ Other researchers conclude that circumcision has "behavioral and psychological consequences."²⁰ The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision notes increased irritability, varying sleep patterns, and changes in infant-maternal interaction after circumcision.²¹ Canadian investigators report that during vaccinations at age four to six months, circumcised boys had increased behavioral pain response and cried for significantly longer periods than did uncircumcised boys, a possible indication of post-traumatic stress disorder.²² Other long-term effects have not been studied.

Whether an infant is circumcised in the hospital by medical staff or in the home by a mohel, there are risks as with any surgery. There are more than twenty different potential circumcision complications including hemorrhage, infection, and surgical injury.²³ The rate of complications occurring during the first year has been documented as high as thirty-eight percent.²⁴ On rare occasions death has resulted. For this reason Jewish law allows for exemptions when other children in the family have died from the effects of circumcision.²⁵

Concerning the sexual impact, Maimonides wrote, "Circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement."²⁶ Contemporary research supports the view that circumcision diminishes sexual pleasure. In order to appreciate the sexual impact of circumcision on adults, it is helpful to know that the adult foreskin has an area of about twelve square inches,²⁷ and it has several functions. In the relaxed or flaccid state it protects the glans (head of the penis) from abrasion and contact with clothes. Without the foreskin, the glans "skin," which is normally mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure, and consequently its sensitivity is reduced.²⁸ The foreskin itself is a very sensitive part of the penis and improves the experience of sexual intercourse.²⁹ According to a study published in the British Journal of Urology, it has "specialized nerve endings"³⁰ and represents about a third of the penile skin.³¹ The foreskin increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed.³²

Only men circumcised as adults can know the difference a foreskin makes. In the Journal of Sex Research, investigators reported on men who experienced this difference.³³ Changes included diminished penile sensitivity and less penile gratification. The researchers concluded, "Erotosexually and cosmetically, the operation is, for the most part, contraindicated."³⁴

Men circumcised as adults regret being circumcised:

   After the circumcision there was a major change. It was like night and day. I lost most sensation. I would give anything to get the feeling back. I would give my house.³⁵

   Slowly the area lost its sensitivity, and as it did, I realized I had lost something rather vital. Stimuli that had previously aroused ecstasy had relatively little effect. . . . Circumcision destroys a very joyful aspect of the human experience for males and females.³⁶

   Sight without color would be a good analogy. . . . Only being able to see in black and white, for example, rather than seeing in full color would be like experiencing an orgasm with a foreskin and without. There are feelings you'll just never have without a foreskin.³⁷

The reduced penile sensitivity resulting from circumcision may affect male sexual behavior without awareness of the connection. In a national study reported this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, circumcised men were more likely to engage in alternative methods of stimulation (e.g., oral sex and masturbation) than uncircumcised men.³⁸ Some men who are aware of the effects of circumcision are dissatisfied.

Circumcision also has hidden effects on the Jewish community. The generalized emotional repression around circumcision and the pressure to conform to accepted practice can undermine community integrity. Lisa Braver Moss relates her experience:

I had profound doubts about my decision [to circumcise]. But because open discussion of Brit Milah seems to be discouraged in the Jewish community, I experienced my doubts privately and without comfort. . . . Thus, a rite intended to inspire feelings of Jewish unity evoked in me a sense of loss and alienation.³⁹

Witnessing circumcision can cause further discomfort and anxiety, yet typically few express such feelings. Instead we sometimes disguise them with humor. Furthermore, the feelings of the infant, the one who is presumably being welcomed into the community, are generally ignored. Upon closer inspection, these behaviors may limit the depth of our connection to each other.
 
 

PARENTAL EXPERIENCE

With all these factors to consider, no wonder some Jewish parents are reconsidering the decision to circumcise their sons, and calls to rabbis about circumcision are increasing.⁴⁰ One mother wrote, "I spent most of my pregnancy crying, vomiting, ruminating, and reading about circumcision."⁴¹ Pregnant mothers sometimes reveal that they hope for a girl to avoid circumcision.

In many cases parents feel resigned to the fact that their son will be circumcised. While most Jews have their son circumcised in a hospital where it is done behind closed doors away from the mother, many Jewish circumcisions are done in the home of the parents in a ritual observed by family and friends. Although some parents may report this as a positive experience, there is another view. Witnessing the circumcision and the infant's response can shock the parents, particularly the mother. Only recently have some Jewish mothers been willing to describe their agonizingly painful experiences at their son's circumcision. Miriam Pollack reported, "The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind."⁴² She added later, "His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk."⁴³

Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg confronted her pain from her son's circumcision:

I don't think I can recover from it. It's a scar. I've put a lot of energy into trying to recover. I did some crying and we did some therapy. There's still a lot of feeling that's blocked off. It was too intense. . . . We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythym starting, and it was like something had been shattered!⁴⁴

Another mother recalled,

My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I'd worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment-the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward.⁴⁵

The lack of such responses from other parents may be due to two reasons. First, because they are so painful and are not generally supported by the community, these feelings may be suppressed. Second, as mentioned earlier, if the infant goes into traumatic shock, he does not cry, and parents tend to interpret lack of crying to mean that circumcision is not painful. There is even a feeling of relief from some parents and guests if the infant does not cry.

Suppressed feelings regarding circumcision have also been expressed by rabbis. Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman tells of a discussion about circumcision with fifteen young male and female rabbis. Each spoke personally. 

As we went around the room, several of these young rabbis related the case of their own son's circumcision, about which, it turned out, they frequently harbored intense rage – rage at themselves for allowing it to happen, and in some cases rage at the mohel who had done it and botched the job. Only here, in the intimacy of a class composed in large part of close friends, did they feel comfortable telling their tales. Stories proved cathartic; at one point people cried.⁴⁶

APPLICATION OF JEWISH LAWS AND VALUES

Judaism values ethics above both doctrine and reason. The growing awareness of pain and harm connected with circumcision leads to questions about ethical considerations. How do we begin to justify the practice of circumcision on ethical grounds? It is significant relative to this question that, according to an authoritative book on Judaism, "the Torah prohibits the torture or causing of pain to any living creature."⁴⁷ Now that we know some of the consequences of circumcision, Jewish law (Lev. 19:11; Exodus 23:1) obligates us to be open and honest about it. In addition, we may ask if, given a choice, we would consent to being circumcised. If not, then considering Hillel's encapsulation of Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow-creature" (Sab. 31a), should we force circumcision on another?

Significantly, virtually all that has been written about circumcision over the centuries ignores the infant's experience. An infant being circumcised is restrained while having part of his body cut off. Imagine yourself in the same situation. From the infant's perspective, this is a physical attack. His physical struggle to escape and his piercing screams are evidence of an appropriate response to attack. It is a violation of Torah law to physically assault or harm another person (Exodus 21:18-27). Jewish law recognizes a newborn infant as a person if the infant has been born after a full-term pregnancy.⁴⁸ With circumcision, we generally overlook the humanity of the newborn infant and his awareness, perception, sensitivity, and meaningful responsiveness, though these abilities have been thoroughly documented by the latest research.⁴⁹

It is appropriate to ask, Whose foreskin is it? There can be only one answer – it's the infant's foreskin. Taking it from him by force would cause him a loss. Viewed this way, we might consider the commandment that prohibits stealing (Exodus 20:13). Furthermore, Jews have a moral obligation to help those who are helpless. Newborn infants are helpless. They need us to protect them from pain and loss. (Feeling empathy for the infant makes it easier to consider these issues. This can be difficult for some men.) Furthermore, according to Jewish law, the human body must not be cut or marked (Lev. 19:28). By removing a part of the penis, circumcision involves the cutting and marking of natural male genitals. It appears that in some ways circumcision is not consistent with Jewish laws and values.

If one accepts circumcision as a divine commandment, Jews, as partners with God, still reserve the right to question and argue with God. Regarding the Covenant, Eugene Borowitz states that "each partner participates in it in full integrity; neither one is master, neither one is slave; both can make their demands, each partner saying, if necessary, a painful but self-respecting 'No.' "⁵⁰ Even among traditionalists, religious laws and practices have changed because of reconsideration and the evolving social environment. Here are a few examples:

In the Torah, adultery (Lev. 20:10), fornication by women (Deut 22:21), homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13), blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), insulting one's parents (Exodus 21:17), and stubbornly disobeying one's parents (Deut. 21:18-21) are all punishable by death. Obviously, these laws are no longer enforced by traditionalists. In addition, according to Torah law, only a man can divorce his spouse (Deut. 24:1). This law was changed by rabbis to allow a woman to terminate a marriage. The Torah law which restricted inheritance to sons (Deut. 21:15-17) was also changed to allow transfer of property to daughters. Awareness of this precedent for change helps us to view circumcision with openness and flexibility.
 
 

ALTERNATIVES TO CIRCUMCISION

Despite the pressure to conform, an increasing number of Jewish parents are finding the courage to say no to circumcision. These parents listened to their inner voice, a voice that does not necessarily conflict with the voice of God. As Rabbi Lawrence Kushner states, "The voice, if it be truly the voice of the Holy One of Being, speaks from both without and within. And it is the same voice."⁵¹ If human beings are created in God's image and God is spiritual, then we and God have a common spiritual essence. We cannot trust the nature of God and mistrust ourselves. When we act on our deepest, purest impulses, God is acting through us.

Some Jews who choose not to circumcise but still want a ritual, change the ritual to omit the circumcision. Instead, they include other ceremonial elements that are sensitive to the infant and the community. Such an alternative ritual, sometimes referred to as a naming ceremony or "bris shalom," has all the joy of the usual ritual without the pain of the circumcision. 

The alternative ritual has other advantages. Rabbi Joel Roth reminds us that to have meaning, religious ritual should be performed with the "appropriate mindset."⁵² This cannot be forced. Some Jews, particularly mothers, circumcise their sons with great emotional conflict, reluctance, and regret. The alternative ritual allows for congruence of intention, attitude, feeling, and action. In addition, it can be used for both male and female infants. Employing an equivalent ceremony for girls illustrates how Judaism can change to be compatible with evolving values. Judaism, as a patriarchal religion, has been influenced by the modern women's movement. Rather than perform some kind of genital surgery on females, an idea that is repugnant and rejected by virtually all Jews, a ceremony without surgery for both sexes is the egalitarian solution.
 

Those considering circumcision for their child may want to consider the following points:

1. Your child's welfare is the primary consideration.

2. The fact that a father is not aware of any negative effects from circumcision does not necessarily mean there are none or that there will be none for his son.⁵³ Long-term sexual and psychological harm from circumcision has been reported by hundreds of men in a national survey.⁵⁴

3. Circumcision is irrevocable, while an uncircumcised male still has options. If in doubt, the conservative choice is not to circumcise. 

4. Would you circumcise your son if most Jews did not?

5. Attend a circumcision and empathize with the infant. Stand up close so that you can see the procedure. If you feel averse to doing this, what does that tell you?

It is a strength of Judaism that some of the ideas and approaches used to question circumcision are associated with traditional Jewish values. Recognizing and sharing these values can give us the connection to others and to the past that we seek. For some Jews, this connection may well be more meaningful than the connection sought from circumcision, because it is genuinely felt and freely experienced, rather than forced by conformity.

Questioning circumcision is not threatening to Judaism; it is threatening to the defenses surrounding circumcision pain. Honest questioning about circumcision will strengthen Judaism and provide opportunities for deeper communication.

1. Hall, R., "Epispasm: Circumcision in Reverse," Moment, February 1992, 34-7; Jubilees 15: 33-4. 

2. Stewart, D., Theordor Herzl (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 202. 

3. Eichner, I., "Every Circumcision is Unnecessary," Yediot, 6 May 1997, 23. 

4. Kosmin, B. et al., Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey (New York: Council of Jewish Federations, 1991), 28. 

5. Ibid., 30. 

6. Borowitz, E., "The Concept of the Covenant in Reform Judaism," in Berit Milah in the Reform Context, ed. L. Barth (Berit Milah Board of Reform Judaism, 1990), 155. 

7. Wallerstein, E., Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (New York: Springer Publishing, 1980), 163. A current comprehensive medical review is available from Robert Van Howe, M.D., P.O. Box 1390, Minoqua, WI 54548. 

8. Kosmin, B. et al., Jewish Population Survey, 14. 

9. Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1971), s.v. "Circumcision." 

10. Altmann, A., "Circumcision Questions," Letter to the editor, Northern California Jewish Bulletin, 31 May 1985, 12. 

11. Anand, K. and Hickey, P., "Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus," New England Journal of Medicine 317 (1987): 1326. 

12. Ryan, C. and Finer, N., "Changing Attitudes and Practices Regarding Local Analgesia for Newborn Circumcision," Pediatrics 94 (1994): 232. 

13. Oswald, P. and Peltzman, P., "The Cry of the Human Infant," Scientific American 230 (1974): 89. 

14. Brazelton, T., Doctor and Child (New York: Delacorte Press, 1976), 31. 

15. Call, J., quoted in R. Romberg, Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma (South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985), 321. 

16. Ibid., 325. 

17. Gunnar, M., Fisch, R., and Malone, S. "The Effects of a Pacifying Stimulus on Behavioral and Adrenocortical Responses to Circumcision in the Newborn," Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 23 (1984): 34. 

18. Anand and Hickey, "Pain and Its Effects," 1325 

19. Laibow, R., "Circumcision and Its Relationship to Attachment Impairment," In Syllabus of Abstracts, Second International Symposium on Circumcision, April 30-May 3, 1991, San Francisco, 14. 

20. Richards, M., Bernal, J., and Brackbill, Y., "Early Behavioral Differences: Gender or Circumcision?"Developmental Psychology 21 (1976): 310. 

21. Schoen, E. et al., "Report of the Task Force on Circumcision," Pediatrics 84 (1989): 389. 

22. Taddio, A. et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," The Lancet 349 (1997): 599. 

23. Ritter, T., Say No to Circumcision (Aptos, CA: Hourglass, 1992): 5-1. 

24. Kaplan, G., "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 545. 

25. Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. "Circumcision." 

26. Maimonides, M., Guide for the Perplexed (1190: reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1956), 378. 

27. Ritter, Say No to Circumcision, 18-1. 

28. Ibid., 11; Morgan, W., "The Rape of the Phallus," Journal of the American Medical Association 193 (1965): 223. 

29. Denniston, G., "Unnecessary Circumcision," The Female Patient 17 (1992): 13. 

30. Taylor, J., Lockwood, A., and Taylor, A., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology, 77 (1996): 294. 

31. Ritter, Say No to Circumcision, 18-1. 

32. Bigelow, J., The Joy of Uncircumcising (Aptos, CA: Hourglass, 1992): 17. 

33. Money, J. and Davison, J., "Adult Penile Circumcision: Erotosexual and Cosmetic Sequelae," Journal of Sex Research 19 (1983): 289. 

34. Ibid., 291. 

35. Personal communication with the writer, 1993. 

36. Milos, M. and Macris, D., "Circumcision: A Medical of a Human Rights Issue?" Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 37 (March/April, 1992): (supplement) 93S. 

37. Edell, D., Circumcision report for television news, KGO, San Francisco, 1984. 

38. Laumann, E., Masi, C., and Zuckerman, E., "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice," Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (1997): 1052. 

39. Moss, L., "Circumcision: A Jewish Inquiry," Midstream, January 1992, 20-21. 

40. Silverman, J., "Circumcision: The Delicate Dilemma," The Jewish Monthly, November 1991, 31. 

41. Personal communication with the writer, 1991. 

42. Pollack, M., "Jewish Feminist Perspective," Presented at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision, College Park, MD, May 22-25, 1994. 

43. Personal communication with the writer, 1994. 

44. Romberg, Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma, 81. 

45. Viola, M., Letter to the editor, in Circumcision: The Rest of the Story, ed. P. O'Mara (Santa Fe: Mothering, 1993), 76. 

46. Hoffman, L., Covenant of Blood (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1996), 218. 

47. Donin, H., To Be a Jew (New York: Basic Books, 1972), 56. 

48. Maimonides, M., Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotze'ach 2:6. 

49. Chamberlain, D., "Babies Are Not What We Thought: Call for a New Paradigm," International Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Studies 4 (1992): 1. 

50. Borowitz, E., "The Concept of the Covenant in Reform Judaism," in L. Barth, ed., Berit Mila in the Reform Context (Berit Milah Board of Reform Judaism, 1990), 160. 

51. Kushner, L., The River of Light (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 60. 

52. Roth, J., "The Meaning for Today," Moment, February 1992, 43. 

53. Goldman, R., Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997). 

54. Hammond, T., "Long-Term Consequences of Neonatal Circumcision: A Preliminary Poll of Circumcised Males," in G. Denniston and M. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (Plenum Press, 1997), 125-130.

by Nicolas Walter

It could be argued that it is anti-Christian to attack the doctrine of hell or the burning of heretics, anti-Muslim to attack the doctrine of hell or the mutilation of thieves, anti-Hindu to attack the forced marriage of children or the forced suicide of widows, or anti-Chinese to attack the infanticide of girls or the foot-binding of women.

Surely anything must be attacked which is cruel and unnecessary, whether it is a religious ritual or a social custom, and that the universal criterion should be the welfare of individuals and not the presentation of a collective tradition.

Observer, Sunday, 10 September 1995, p. 6.

courtesy Intact Network