In a recent article in Slate, Christopher Hitchens decries the ritual practice of metzitzah b'peh, which is when, after removing the foreskin of the penis, some Orthodox mohels sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.
According to the New York Times, “It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.” The Times articles notes that many Orthodox and “nearly all non-Orthodox Jews have abandoned it.” Indeed, in my entire life, this is the first time that I have been made aware of this practice.
In his article, Hitchens refers to this as a “disgusting religious practice.” I happen to agree, and found the concept rather disturbing to think about. My agreement with Hitchens end there however. In the remainder of the article, he compares the practice to the following:
- “Female genital mutilation”
- “polygamy and forcible marriage”
- denying “urgent medical treatment to… children”
- “violent corporal punishment”
- Islamic “holy war”
- “rape and torture” of children
- denying the existence of AIDS
He also compares the biblical and traditional justification for the procedure to the same “defense that thousands of psychos have already made so familiar” and implies that continuing the practice is akin to refusing to vaccinate children against polio!
While reading though Hitchens’ rant, it is difficult to tell whether or not his article condemns only the practice of metzitzah b'peh, which is how it appears in the beginning, or the practice of circumcision in general, as it appears towards the end. Either way, his analysis is both ignorant and unfair in its characterizations and comparisons. Obviously, if there is a mental heath concern with ANY practice, no matter how traditional, it must be looked into and addressed as a matter of course. However, it is estimated that up to 98,000 people a year die from medical mistakes inside hospitals (most of which comes from medication), and yet I have never heard Hitchens arguing for their total dismantling!
The reality is that circumcision is, for Jews, a deeply spiritual and pivotal part of their religious heritage and identity, and has been since biblical times. Since then, science has continuously credited the practice to various health benefits (including most recently, reducing the risk of AIDS). Furthermore, as legal analyst Sherry F. Colb has noted, "Though the federal statute that prohibits female genital mutilation is limited to the protection of female anatomy, the extreme nature of FGM does not have a true analogue in male circumcision."
Hitchens is certainly entitled to his opinion, and as I have made clear in the beginning of this post, the very idea of the metzitzah b'peh is instinctively disturbing to me. However, from Kosher diets to circumcision, history and science have demonstrated the intrinsic value of many Jewish customs. If someone wants to convince me that Jews should be PROHIBITED from practicing metzitzah b'peh (which is one of the goals of the article), it is going to take a lot more than an isolated tragedy. It is also going to take more than comparing a legitimate religious custom whose effects are either beneficial or medically neutral to the child, to acts of genuine inhumanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I found nothing ignorant about what Hitchens had to say regarding this bizarre, disgusting and antiquated wierdness, which by any other name would border on sexual abuse. You show me how these "lifesaving benefits" compare numerically to medical treatment in terms of lives saved and then we'll talk about the predictive power of the bible on human health. What's next, a defense of the Neturei Karta?
Hey, who had the over under on when we'd have our first (assuredly of many) Neturei Karta references here at dcat? I think it was Tom.
Wasn't aware. In any event, although both groups are equally fringe, I'm not sure I'd picture Tom identifying with what the N.K. stand for. And as for the foreskin wound suckers, I'd also not express surprise if Cram ends up having to take this one on solo.
But to be fair, Marc did not express his support for the practice per se, but rather with Hitchens' invocations of comparisons that might not be either fair or accurate. say what you will about male circumcision -- it is not in any way comparable to clitoral circumcision, the purpose of which in part is to destroy women's sexual enjoymenrt to keep them loyal. Take it on on its own terms, but don't make over the top analogies that don't fit.
dcat
Of course I do understand that Marc's criticism was of Hitchens' take, not the practice, although in the post he does say that the practice (and it is literally described as sucking the blood from the wound, not merely circumcision itself) shouldn't be prohibited based merely on the account given here. I would say definitely that I would disagree with this approach, and though over-the-top linguistically, I think Hitchens' sense of moral opprobrium is something which he is in his rights to vehemently express. Of course, sucking the blood out of a circumcision wound is not the same as any of these other things which he cites, other than the fact that often times a cultural practice will be allowed to continue so that we may give it the benefit of the doubt. I would not give something the benefit of a doubt simply on cultural/anthropological grounds.
I think what Hitchens is raging against is the tendency to downplay something generally or look the other way, despite its disturbing nature, due to longstanding acceptance among some. Although Marc is right that we should be open-minded and inquire intelligently as to why a disturbing practice might be tolerated, I don't think Hitchens is necessarily ethnocentric for making the converse argument.
An intelligent defense of what you mean to convey.
I would just clarify that I am in no way instinctively suspicious of anything involving the sexual organs so much as I am suspicious of anything involving contact between the sexual organs of an infant and the mouth of an older authority figure.
While I don't condone anti-semitism, every time I read about something like this, I start to understand it just a tiny bit more.
Let's be careful going down this road. Nothing justifies antisemitism, and certainly not a relatively marginal practice such as the one under discussion here. I'm not certain that all of Judaism, never mind all Jews, ought to be under the microscope because of this discussion.
dcat
Post a Comment