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.

"To be Kvatter is considered an honour (similar to being a C/E godmother) and usually offered to a childless married woman, the theory being that it's a "good luck charm" for her so that she too is able to bear children. Nothing to do with preventing any guilt AFAIK."

Perhaps within the jewish faith-which SIL isn´t.

As a non jewish person I personally wouldn´t consider it an honour to hand a baby over for circumcision-and it´s obviously not going to help with bearing children!

Oh, ok fair enough, DBF. I don't know much about it - I just assumed that ritual of the mother handing the baby over to be taken to be cut, would be perhaps because so many mothers actaully had trouble letting go of the baby the minute she saw that board with the straps, and the cutter thingy........

OP - have you explained to your SIL that young babies don't feel any pain? I have heard that one!

Yep rebel, I heard that one too... And that if they scream when punctured, it's not because it hurts... it's just that they "don't like it".

givememorecheese perhaps not just wishful thinking. there was a thread started months ago, maybe last year, by a soon-to-be mother who was getting her son circumcised, by the end of the thread she had totally changed her mind by reading all of the info linked to by other posters. these threads can have a good outcome. i wonder if she is still around here. can't remember her name.

I'm staggered by the OP's comment that she wouldn't pass judgement on anybody else's religious practice however barbaric. Really?

"I'm getting your 9 year old niece exorcised because she's so naughty/circumcised so she'll be marriageable, could you come and help me hold her down?"
Would you really say "Oh sorry, I can't, I've got a dentist's appointment"

I think for a lot of people it´s not just about the circumcision, but also the way in which it must(?) be carried out.

I expect the OP hasn't been back because she doesn't appreciate being called a vile person.

If the OP was 100% certain that she was doing the right thing for her baby then she would likely not have been bothered by her SIL's comment. The fact that she was "really really upset" by it suggests that, whether conciously or not, she is now questioning herself.

No, I don't see it like that. The fact she was upset shows that she was hurt that someone called a part of her religion "disgusting". People with a faith don't like hearing how something they believe in is "disgusting". Quite frankly I think the SIL is really rude to make a comment like that and is well outside her rights to say it.

I'm muslim and want my son circumsized. Something that seems barbaric to one person, may not seem barbaric to another. I don't even understand why people are making comments like "it's mutilation...its barbaric...its wrong..", when it's part of OP's religion. It's not like she's going to change her faith just because people on MN try to make her feel bad for practising a part of her faith...

Well I'm on another forum where they are currently again discussing this and of the women saying their sons were circumcised, every one of them has said that they couldn't bear to be part of it. Not bloody surprised, how old are they? 8 days? You'd have to prise him out of my dead hands first.

I'm with the SIL.

Also, there is no knife used in circumcisions anymore. They place a small metal ring under the forskin and then tie a rubber band or thread type thing around the foreskin and the lack of blood supply makes it fall off within a week. Not a scary spectacled crazy doctor coming at your child with a fat sharp knife.

You are chopping off part of your son's anatomy without, at the very least, GA. How is that not barbaric ffs? A part of his anatomy that your God saw fit to give him, you're saying you know better. All very odd and, yes, disgusting.

Under what circumstances is the cutting off of a baby boy's foreskin for no good medical reason not barbaric?

mrbloomsnursery. people are saying it is barbaric and it is mutiliation because it IS regardless of whether it falls under the name of religion or not. religious practises can be barbaric and still be religious. the umbrella of religion does not make that act any less so.

Diddl - for a lot of people, it's an issue that they haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. Eg FN - what straps are you talking about? The child is held by the sandek. You've probably been watching videos of non-religious circumcisions from the US.

Most posters seem to assume that because a family is secular, they don't want to keep anything at all. Many secular families celebrate chanukah and Purim, fast on Yom Kippur and go to a Seder, even if they don't believe in very much. Some even avoid pork or keep kosher to some other extent. Judaism is about doing things, rather than believing them. That's why it's not at all surprising that a secular family would have a brit.

YABU. She's entitled to her opinion. I wouldn't go either because I believe that it's wrong,and it's not something I'd care to witness.

I have Jewish friends who are against it too. It's a contentious issue in the Jewish community too,perhaps not in conservative and orthodox communities,but certainly in liberal and reform Judaism. I'm surprised that you're so shocked that she'd be against it.

Mr Bloom,The plastibell method as you refer to, still involves cutting,and separation of the foreskin from the glans,rather like having one's nails removed from the nailbed. It's not so simple as you make it out to be,and that's just one method that's used.

No, I don't see it like that. The fact she was upset shows that she was hurt that someone called a part of her religion "disgusting". People with a faith don't like hearing how something they believe in is "disgusting". Quite frankly I think the SIL is really rude to make a comment like that and is well outside her rights to say it

In a free country it's everyone's right to say they think chopping bits off babies as part of a religious ritual/ceremony is disgusting.

And as someone else rightly pointed out, perhaps she did really tone it down and avoided using the words "Barbaric" "Cruel" "Sick" etc.....

Again, if the OP is truly happy with allowing people to do this to her baby, the SIL's comment probably wouldn't have caused her to do any more than roll her eyes.

Have you considered that your SIL may have felt she was being very polite and restrained by refusing the invite and just saying she found the practice 'disgusting'?

If I had been asked to witness this, I can pretty much guarantee I would have an awful lot more to say on the subject than just 'no thanks, I find it quite disgusting'.

So perhaps she felt she couldn't lie about why she wasn't coming, but on the other hand may have wanted to share her feelings a LOT more, and was holding back out of respect for your family?

You can see what's involved with a plastibell circumcision here. Warning graphic images. It's not just a case of slipping a plastic ring under it.

SamG76 - your analogy is pretty poor. My adherence to laws is in no way faith based so I can rationally choose to adhere to some and not others based on my perception of the rights and wrongs of the law. Faith is something else and it doesn't make nearly as much sense to pick bits out of that.

What I don't understand (and this is a genuine question) Obviously religious people believe that their God creates babies.

They worship their God and follow rules/guidelines (however you want to word it) laid down by their God/Bible.

So why is it not a total insult to their God, to decide he got it totally wrong when giving boys a foreskin?

Is that not criticising the the one they worship and saying that they know best?

I would have thought that a huge insult?

Performing such an awful act on your baby does not make it right because it has been done for years and is part of YOUR faith. Baby has no say, may not even wish to follow your faith when he is old enough to decide for himself.
Hooray to the sil

Worra, answer here

Worraliberty - Judaism doesn't consider that everyone should be circumcised, only Jews (plus anyone else who wants it). It's nothing to do with having got it wrong by creating boys in their natural state.

BS - Faith is a very problematic word in the context of Judaism. I don't have faith that there is a requirement to carry out a brit. There quite clearly is. I can choose to ignore it, of course, just as I can choose to ignore English law, but I also need to be aware of the potential consequences.....