about SIL and DS1's Bris (circumcision) ?

[imlikeaironingboard]

I'm Jewish (Liberal) and DH counts himself as secular Jewish (as does all of his family).
His DBro (my BIL) married out - not a 'big' thing with them due to the whole non practicing/secular thing.

I'm due to give birth to DS1 (DC2) in a week.

They do not have children and it is only DH and BIL as siblings. our DC1 is a DD.

Both DH and BIL are circumcised.

She told us tonight that she would not be coming to DS1 Bris. The idea of doing that 'disgusts' her.

AIBU to be really upset and to think that she should have realised that marrying into a jewish family secular or not would mean that these sort of things would happen?

This has really really upset me - I have never got a hint of her feeling like this before.

Seeker - yes, I've written the question at the top of a sheet of A4 which I leave out every night, and each morning I look to see if (s)he has filled out an answer. No luck as yet, but I'm still trying.

[Sarcasm to off]. How would you suggest I go about finding that out?

Sam, would it be fair then to conclude that you never question anything of your religion and just follow it blindly?

I really cannot understand that, sorry.

So there is one bit in Genesis where God says to Abraham "do this"- A bit which I believe some scholars is significantly later than the rest of the book- and so you do it. But there are other things which you presumably don't do because times have changed- but you stick to the circumcision thing. Can't you see why that's puzzling? Most of the other biblical strictures about sex have some logic to them, but there is no logic at all to circumcision. Unless it's about preventing the sin of Onan. Not sure it works for that either! Aren't you ever curious about why God decided on this particular waybof marking the covenant?

Sam you didn't answer - if you are not allowed to second guess, do you kill adulterers?

She married your brother - not the rest of the family. Presumably she has not converted to Judaism and is entirely free to decline to attend a ritual that a large number of people consider abuse.

Sam, would it be fair then to conclude that you never question anything of your religion and just follow it blindly?

Most likely.

WhoseGotMyEyebrows - you seem to constantly be confusing me with someone who is pro-circumcision. Let me make it clear one more time, in big loud letters. I AM WHOLLY OPPOSED TO CIRCUMCISION. OPPOSED. AS IN, NOT FOR. AGAINST, IN DISAGREEMENT WITH, THINK NEGATIVELY OF, HORRIFIED BY ETC ETC.

Was that loud enough?

So when I say people overthink how important it is, I meant that I think people who are for the practice and say they can't be Jewish without it are missing out how many hundreds of other Jewish rituals and traditions they can do on an hourly, daily, weekly and yearly basis to make up for missing out on that one small ceremony on their child's 8th day. I mean that I really can't see why NOT doing it is such a big deal.

I only quoted what you said Annie . . . re-reading though I see I might be reading it a bit backwards.

Quoted yes, understood no. I suppose it depended on whether you read it thinking I was pro- or anti-. I hope it makes more sense now.

This might have been already mentioned but circumcision is responsible for 117 neonatal deaths in the US every year. That doesn't include all the babies who got infections or other 'minor complications' .
I studied psychology at uni and there was a case of a botched circumcision where the penis was so badly damaged that they decided to get rid of it and surgically construct a vagina. The little boy was brought up as a girl and given hormones, he wasn't aware of any of this. He eventually killed himself. I know that's just one case and the majority of circumcisions are fine but why would you want to take an unessasary risk with something as precious as your baby?

I prefer baby boys to be circumcised when they don't notice

We covered that further back. That's a myth that's been shown to be false. Medical evidence shows physical and mental trauma.

We live in a country that changes laws and accepted behaviour as it develops. We have recently changed the law regarding corporeal punishment for example. What was acceptable before because it was done for a long time is now not so.

We look around and see what else needs changing to make it a better society. We have realised that some people are cutting bits off of babies bodies and a large number of people have come to the conclusion that there is no justification. Our National Health Service has said that the claims for health benefits are insufficient to justify it.

It is not illegal, but people are considering it. debating it and finding it unacceptable. At some stage I expect it to become illegal. At which point those practising it now will have to stop.

I don't know what god will do then. Is there allowance for that situation?

Read this thread with interest. Both my ds's are circumcised,as are my dh, df, db etcetc. I don't think of them as mutilated, in fact, an uncircumcised pens looks unusual to me! I didn't enjoy my ds's bris and totally understood why some of the non Jewish members of my family did not come. But although I question everything, and I would class many of my views as atheist, and I eat pork etc, there was no question of not doing the bris. I do not feel that I have mutilated my ds's. Other things such as controlled crying, leaving them with childminders when they were very young, etc has caused them more trauma than that. It is done when they are 8days old, and babies have just had a much bigger trauma of being born! Both my ds's had a traumatic birth with ventouse delivery. Who knows how much this might have hurt them but we don't see 800 posts on mn about this. Some of my friends have had it done properly at a hospital so maybe that is the answer.

A ventouse delivery was presumably necessary so that he was born safely. It was in his best interest and was to prevent an even worse outcome. I don't see how you can liken it to circumcision. I find your logic bizzare.

I also wouldn't do controlled crying or leave my young babies with anyone but I still consider circumcision to be worse.

Is there a petition to outlaw circumcision in the UK?

Frankie- if you question, eat pork and so on, why do you circumcise?

Frankie - a serious question for you, what is cutting off a perfectly healthy baby's foreskin if it is not mutilation? You wouldn't poke out an eye or cut off their toes, to me a foreskin is as essential a part of a man as any other body part, even more so as it seriously affects sexual pleasure.

If you think birth is traumatic, why would you get an 8 day baby even more traumatised by having a Bris?

The ventouse delivery was medically necessary, otherwise it could have resulted in the death of yourself and/or the baby. I am not sure how you can compare the two to be honest.

Very well put, frankie3.

Omagar - I'm [not] afraid you'll wait a very very long time for circ to be outlawed in this country. It would be a breach of Article 9 of the ECHR on the freedom of religion. it would also be electoral suicide for any party to enact such an obvious attack on the Jewish and Muslim communities. It would also be virtually impossible to enforce. I would have thought only the BNP would consider the idea seriously, though Hitler and Stalin did enact it, no doubt in deference to children's rights.

If by allowance you mean would it relieve Jews of the obligation to do it, then no. In fact, quite the opposite: Jewish history is full of stories of people who went to considerable lengths to perform it when it was imade illegal, and the festival of Chanucah commemorates the uprising that was triggered to a large extent by the ban of brit milah.

Well I hope circ for no legitimate medical reason is made illegal in this country as soon as possible Sam. I must be very stupid because in my mind mutilation is child abuse and child abuse in all forms is vile and unacceptable.

I suppose I shall just have to toddle off and join the BNP now because of my incredibly right wing views

Sam, I really don't like the fact you mention 'an obvious attack on the Jewish and Muslim communities nor mentioning the BNP, Hitler or Stalin.

I will give you an example: If 90% of all green people smoke in public building, would I be anti-green people or anti-smoking in public buildings?

It is the act people have problems with, not with the religion itself. I do hope that this can be discussed in a rational manner, I for one am very glad that the practice of metzitzah b'peh has largely disappeared as it was a dangerous practice. So maybe circumcision in non-medical settings will be found unacceptable too soon and tha any non-medical circumcision will be found barbaric and primitive in time.

I will certainly be raising my daughter that I find the practice unacceptable and I will explain to her why in a rational and intelligent manner with sources.

Skipping lightly over your attempt to compare me to the BNP, Hitler and Stalin (I expected nothing less from you) yes I was wondering if it would relieve Jews of the obligation. If there was a get-out clause that gave you a real choice.

I gather that while Islam expects 5 prayers each day facing Mecca it very sensibly allows for the difficulties while travelling (think about being on a plane circling an airport) and grants dispensation.

As for it being 'Virtually impossible to enforce' I don't see why. It's not as though we'd have to police it as all decent people obey the law. I have no reason to suppose that Jewish or Muslim people would do otherwise. In fact (and I don't care if someone tries to make this racist) I would expect a devout Jew or Muslim to have a greater than average respect for the law.

But no it won't happen tomorrow. As I've said elsewhere I think it will be banned in stages. At first perhaps a ban on it being done in unhygienic circumstances and without anaesthetic.

As I understand it there is already an allowance for someone who is already circumcised so if the physical part were done in a clinic then the ceremony could still go ahead.

In which case there is no excuse for doing it the painful way is there.

Frankie you need to have a serious think about your priorities!

Sam, as a human rights lawyer I disagree with your view that banning circumcision wouldn't be possible due to the ECHR. Article 9 is not an absolute right- there are circumstances in which it can be derogated from. Whereas Article 3, the right to freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment is. Removal of part of a child's genitals without anaesthetic could certainly constitute torture, whatever some posters have tried to claim. Things that cause less suffering and are less permanent than that have been considered to violate Article 3 ECHR in the past.

I don't think circumcision would ever be outlawed. Not while so many voters still think they should be able to do it because they think God has told them to, and feel strongly enough about it to ostracise other parents who object. But the reason why it won't be outlawed is for pragmatic reasons, not because it violates Article 9. Article 3 would absolutely, unquestionably, trump Article 9 in any conflict, if all else were equal. Which obviously it isn't.

I guess although I agree with circumcision, I understand those who disagree. It is all to do with how we are brought up and social conditioning.

Maybe it is similar to me being totally pro abortion but at the same time a small part of me does feel that it is a socially acceptable way of killing an unborn baby. Why do we criticise those in the USA who are against abortion.

Anyway I am going to come off this thread now before I start to get annoyed at all the bashing.

Article 9 of the ECHR on the freedom of religion.

Does this say that human torture and sacrifice for the purpose of removing demons is legal? Some people (even people who live in the UK) believe this is right and moral and required by their religion.

I think not. I feel sure it will be say things like "all reasonable acts" and leave it to the state to decide what is reasonable.