Bloodsucking
You know, much as I hold Chris Hitchens in contempt for his politics, I at least comprehend his standing to make political arguments. This, however, is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Hitchens' writing on Jewish ritual circumcision, and especially the metzitzah b'peh (in which the mohel sucks the blood from the wound after removing the foreskin), has attracted a good bit of notice. It seems that a few babies in New York contracted cases of Type 1 herpes from the mohel's mouth.
First of all, let's dispose of Hitchens' debatable points:
(1) The fact that this procedure could possibly infect newborn babies is indeed deplorable, and by itself should bring the orthodox community up short. As a matter of fact, I read several years ago that most orthodox mohels now use a silver tube rather than direct skin contact to cleanse the circumcision wound, for this exact reason.
(2) That some orthodox rabbis insist upon continuing the practice regardless of consequence is likewise disgusting, and as near as I can tell, directly contrary to the basic Torah principle that all but three laws must be disobeyed to save lives. (In case you're interested, the three laws one must die rather than violate are the laws against idolatry, adultery, and murder.)
(3) That Mayor Bloomberg contorts himself into all kinds of odd shapes to satisfy both the orthodox Jewish voting bloc and the rest of New York should surprise no one - he's a politician, after all. Nevertheless, if Hitchens chooses to see Mayor Bloomberg's statement on circumcision as further proof of his invertebrate status, I cannot disagree; since I don't live in New York, I can have no direct experience with Mr. Bloomberg's administration. (And I must admit that Hitchens' nickname for Mr. Bloomberg in this context, "little putz," is rather amusing; "putz" is the little word for the male sex organ in Yiddish.)
Hitchens goes on to argue that metzitzah b'peh is no different than any other evil perpetrated in the name of religious faith: female genital "circumcision," polygamy, holy war, even an incident in which Bengali religious leaders prevented enough people from getting polio vaccinations to set back the universal cure of that disease. I find this argument more than a little hard to stomach, but since I have no particular belief in metzitzah b'peh, I'll let that one slide. There's argument on both sides of the circumcision question; for purposes of this posting, I make no argument for the specific means by which we perform brit milah. I seriously doubt that Father Abraham underwent any sucking of his own circumcision wound, after all.
At this point, however, I really need someone to explain to me what sexual neurosis Hitchens suffers from that he holds up the New York Jewish community as a bunch of pedophiles, child-torturers, and just plain dirty old men. Check out his last paragraph:
Oh yeah? Who exactly is the filthy old man here - the ones who cleave to an ancient and almost always harmless tradition, however misguided, or the one who rails at the entire world of faith because he finds those traditions sexually disturbing? On his own showing, Hitchens believes (with nothing but anecdotal evidence, and therefore on faith) that faith as such is a mental disease, and at the same time would consign those who disagree with him to perdition. Let's be very clear; the mohels and other authorities who seek legal protection for a possibly dangerous procedure may be kidding themselves, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they're pursuing this course because metzitzah b'peh gives them physical pleasure. Hitchens, an apparent atheist, may believe that there is no spiritual explanation for anything, but that's his problem, not Mayor Bloomberg's and not the rabbis'.
My thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for a carefully-reasoned discussion of this issue. It's a refreshing cold-water bath after Hitchens' feverish rant.
Benshlomo says, Atheism doesn't exist.
Hitchens' writing on Jewish ritual circumcision, and especially the metzitzah b'peh (in which the mohel sucks the blood from the wound after removing the foreskin), has attracted a good bit of notice. It seems that a few babies in New York contracted cases of Type 1 herpes from the mohel's mouth.
First of all, let's dispose of Hitchens' debatable points:
(1) The fact that this procedure could possibly infect newborn babies is indeed deplorable, and by itself should bring the orthodox community up short. As a matter of fact, I read several years ago that most orthodox mohels now use a silver tube rather than direct skin contact to cleanse the circumcision wound, for this exact reason.
(2) That some orthodox rabbis insist upon continuing the practice regardless of consequence is likewise disgusting, and as near as I can tell, directly contrary to the basic Torah principle that all but three laws must be disobeyed to save lives. (In case you're interested, the three laws one must die rather than violate are the laws against idolatry, adultery, and murder.)
(3) That Mayor Bloomberg contorts himself into all kinds of odd shapes to satisfy both the orthodox Jewish voting bloc and the rest of New York should surprise no one - he's a politician, after all. Nevertheless, if Hitchens chooses to see Mayor Bloomberg's statement on circumcision as further proof of his invertebrate status, I cannot disagree; since I don't live in New York, I can have no direct experience with Mr. Bloomberg's administration. (And I must admit that Hitchens' nickname for Mr. Bloomberg in this context, "little putz," is rather amusing; "putz" is the little word for the male sex organ in Yiddish.)
Hitchens goes on to argue that metzitzah b'peh is no different than any other evil perpetrated in the name of religious faith: female genital "circumcision," polygamy, holy war, even an incident in which Bengali religious leaders prevented enough people from getting polio vaccinations to set back the universal cure of that disease. I find this argument more than a little hard to stomach, but since I have no particular belief in metzitzah b'peh, I'll let that one slide. There's argument on both sides of the circumcision question; for purposes of this posting, I make no argument for the specific means by which we perform brit milah. I seriously doubt that Father Abraham underwent any sucking of his own circumcision wound, after all.
At this point, however, I really need someone to explain to me what sexual neurosis Hitchens suffers from that he holds up the New York Jewish community as a bunch of pedophiles, child-torturers, and just plain dirty old men. Check out his last paragraph:
Jewish babies exposed to herpes in New York, thousands of American children injured for life after the rape and torture they suffered at the hands of a compliant Catholic priesthood, prelates and mullahs outbidding each other in denial of AIDS … it's not just your mental health that is challenged by faith. Anyone who says that this evil deserves legal protection is exactly as guilty as the filthy old men who delight in inflicting it. What a pity that there is no hell.
Oh yeah? Who exactly is the filthy old man here - the ones who cleave to an ancient and almost always harmless tradition, however misguided, or the one who rails at the entire world of faith because he finds those traditions sexually disturbing? On his own showing, Hitchens believes (with nothing but anecdotal evidence, and therefore on faith) that faith as such is a mental disease, and at the same time would consign those who disagree with him to perdition. Let's be very clear; the mohels and other authorities who seek legal protection for a possibly dangerous procedure may be kidding themselves, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they're pursuing this course because metzitzah b'peh gives them physical pleasure. Hitchens, an apparent atheist, may believe that there is no spiritual explanation for anything, but that's his problem, not Mayor Bloomberg's and not the rabbis'.
My thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for a carefully-reasoned discussion of this issue. It's a refreshing cold-water bath after Hitchens' feverish rant.
Benshlomo says, Atheism doesn't exist.
posted by benshlomo at 11:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home