I Can’t Wait to Read the Hate Mail – Part 2

I addressed the religious aspect of circumcision in February, so I’m not going to retread on that here. That post stands on its own and applies to any religion that would circumcise for religious reasons. But this ignorant quote from a worthless article needs its own response to address the question of faith and how it relates to circumcision. My response isn’t meant to specifically apply to Judaism because the question is more universal than any one religion.

The procedure is a “cornerstone” of the Jewish faith, said Dr. Samuel Kunin, a retired urologist who said he has performed more than 9,000 circumcisions.

“I can’t think of any greater act of faith than to circumcise your son,” said Kunin, of Los Angeles. The act symbolizes a thread of Jewish continuity over thousands of years, linking back to Abraham, he said.

Sacrificing the flesh of a newborn child male is not an act of faith because the child has not agreed to the sacrifice. Even a coward can have his child son cut. Circumcising a child boy is an act of obedience by the parents. Circumcision as an act of faith would require a male choosing to have himself circumcised.

Just as Judaism reformed to no longer adhere to biblical laws requiring animal sacrifice and the stoning of adulterous women, a Jew NOT circumcising a child son implies a belief that, although sacred religious text commands it, God is compatible with modern civilization. Essentially, the parents rely on a belief that God will understand. That is an act of faith. It is that faith that allows the rate of circumcisions within religious communities to decline around the world. It is that faith which can lead to ending religious infant circumcision.

One thought on “I Can’t Wait to Read the Hate Mail – Part 2”

  1. I couldn’t agree with you more. This “act of faith” BS is just another lame attempt to justify the unjustifiable. I also read your entry about Judith Reichman from a few months ago and I was dismayed to learn that this woman is still making the rounds. She used to promote herself as a “sex expert” in the early 80s and was pushing the same nonsense back then too.
    Like most professional circumcision advocates, she’s very coy in the way she argues for the procedure. She always tries to make it sound as though her aberrant pro-circumcision viewpoint represents mainstream medical thinking on this issue which is obviously not the case.

Comments are closed.