So values are transmitted not by words, not by reading, but thru a surgery? What did I miss…? Unbelievable.

I believe that is appropriate for Catholics.

But it is not appropriate to force Catholic (or humanist) beliefs on Orthodox Jews.

I don’t know how seriously Islam requires circumcision – or whether the circumcision is age sensitive – but if it is, then it would be equally inappropriate to force onto Muslims.

The judge failed to consider all of the rights of the child involved – that is, the judge failed to consider that forcing a child to wait to become circumcised forces a loss upon that child. Ethically, the correct way to proceed is to estimate what the child would probably choose. Clearly, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim males are (a) likely to prefer infant circumcision; (b) are likely to have a strong preference for it; (c) are likely to feel wronged or harmed by having that circumcision taken from them.

Compare this against what’s being taken from them in the case of circumcision. Who decided that a child has, wants, and needs the right to “bodily integrity”? Since when? That particular value judgment renders the entire argument tautological – it’s equivalent to saying “having an intact penis is more important than being circumcised”. Says who? Certainly Jews and Muslims don’t believe it’s self-evident enough to be taken as a premise that bodily integrity is “obviously” a basic human right.

I’m curious what gives you the authority to tell Jewish people what it means to be a Jew, or what’s required?

If the age of consent is the same for circumcision as for sex, then it prevents a child from becoming Jewish until past the age of bar mitzvah. That is quite a serious victory for those of you who wish to completely disrupt the transmission of any ideological values other than secular humanism to the young.

(In case anyone’s wondering: yes, that is in fact sarcasm.)

“Humanist parents often alter their child’s body for the sake of all sorts of crazy “identity issues” (the most dramatic – and obviously destructive – being justified in the name of “gender identity”).”

Please, tell us more specifics: what humanists parents force their children to alter their bodies without their consent? Or you are just making this stuff up as you write?

Darel:

I am not n utilitarist myself (vade retro!) and i certainly think that an individual is inexorably linked to the society he is raised up. But I am also aristotelian and natural rights attached to the idea that rights are only for individuals, not communities. You seem to think that the importance of comunity in every aspect of life entitles it to subject individuals to comply with standards, if necesary by the use of force. That is a dangerous, totalitarian idea, very popular among conservatives.

Do you want the Jewish people to circumcise their sons the way Abraham believes God told him to do – only removing the tip of the foreskin that extends beyond the glans?

Or, do you want the Jewish people to circumcise in the manner of the 2nd century A.D. rabbis- removing the entire foreskin? Jewish mohels who circumcise today do not circumcise as Abraham did. Does this mean that they are not fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant? Which way fulfills the covenant?

For example, if God commands me (in a private revelation at an elderly age) to cut off the finger of my child’s hand, and then later on my descendants change that to cutting off all the fingers of their children’s hands, which one of us is doing as God commanded?

The real question is why circumcision is being singled out as different from other such operations.

Humanist parents often alter their child’s body for the sake of all sorts of crazy “identity issues” (the most dramatic – and obviously destructive – being justified in the name of “gender identity”). Why does the law – and this discussion – view circumcision as uniquely deserving of penalty, instead of criminalizing all parents who violate their child’s bodily integrity in any way?