Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

[mycorrhiza]

Summary

• Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.
• For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

Your shtick on how medical benefits don't exist doesn't fly with a good deal of medical professionals who actually work with the elderly and patients who have medical conditions for which foreskin contributes.

Do you know what also reduces the risks of these things, and at a much higher level of success? Condoms.

The only way the benefits of circumcision can be valid is if condoms aren't widely available in the area. Otherwise, circumcision is just done because of culture, religion or aesthetics.

 

[Musty]

Some time ago I was speaking with a co-worker about circumcision and he was saying that in some countries and by some people it is viewed as child abuse.

If you are one such person who considers it to be child abuse, then isn't it child abuse to separate conjoined twins? In some cases there is the potential of one of them dying and in some cases one or both of them die.

Why is circumcision frowned upon when there is benefit in doing it just as there is benefit in separating conjoined twins? And the down side to separating twins is they could die due to complications, but with circumcision there are no complications. None that I've heard of anyway.

Any thoughts?

It's not child abuse but I believe it should be something that the individual chooses as mentally mature enough to do so rather than something a parent decides for the child.

 

[dawny0826]

Do you know what also reduces the risks of these things, and at a much higher level of success? Condoms.

The only way the benefits of circumcision can be valid is if condoms aren't widely available in the area. Otherwise, circumcision is just done because of culture, religion or aesthetics.

Yeah, no ****. Would you like a cookie for stating the obvious?

And I'm not insinuating that we should not be using safe practices. In the United Sates, unfortunately, there are people, men and women who will not use contraception and exercise safe sex practices regardless as to the benefits.

A simple procedure shortly after birth that will not be remembered has the propensity to yield the posted benefits. I have not suggested that parents SHOULD circumcise their babies, but, these are worthwhile benefits, in my personal opinion to consider.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, no ****. Would you like a cookie for stating the obvious?

And I'm not insinuating that we should not be using safe practices. In the United Sates, unfortunately, there are people, men and women who will not use contraception and exercise safe sex practices regardless as to the benefits.

A simple procedure shortly after birth that will not be remembered has the propensity to yield the posted benefits. I have not suggested that parents SHOULD circumcise their babies, but, these are worthwhile benefits, in my personal opinion to consider.

I think what you seem to be missing, though, is that people should also be considering the risks. The rosy picture you paint doesn't take into account the fact that circumcision complications carry a risk of death.

 

[JefferyGnash]

Anything done against one's Will (or without their consent) is considered abuse in my eyes. In short: Yes

 

[idav]

Anything done against one's Will (or without their consent) is considered abuse in my eyes. In short: Yes

Sure but parents have to give consent for surgical procedures for their children.

 

[dawny0826]

I think what you seem to be missing, though, is that people should also be considering the risks. The rosy picture you paint doesn't take into account the fact that circumcision complications carry a risk of death.

Not at all. I'm aware of the risks.

I also know from my own "social group" that the risk of death isn't as prevalent as opposers present.

 

[Alex_G]

This is my opinion on circumcision regarding its morality and legality, as I've posted before in other threads. I think more often than not religiously fueled circumcision of young boys very much ticks the boxes of abuse.

As mentioned there are two parts to consider. One being the debate as to the legitimacy and moral defensibility of the practice in question, and the second being the debate as to whether making it illegal is the best course of action.

I think the first question has a clear answer and that is it is not morally defensible in this day and age for the following reasons.

1. The children that are being circumcised are too young to full appreciate complex ideas that surround religious belief, just as they are too young to appreciate political ideas. A child cannot be a religious child, any more that it can be a conservative or socialist child. Its parents projecting their belief system onto a child.

2. Children are innocent and vulnerable, both mentally and physically. They need the protection of their parents. It is parental duty to act in their best interest. Circumcision is completely unnecessary. I think that to push a child to go through with it is a coercion of the worst kind, and the moral failings of it are glaringly obvious. What might be said of a hypothetical situation, whereby a home for mentally retarded people with learning difficulties decided on a policy of genital alteration? My point stands that its an unacceptable presumption regarding the mind of the subject, and an unacceptable coercion on an individual that’s incapable of giving valid informed consent. Circumcision does not exemplify acting in the best interests of the child.

3. It represents a malignant aspect of religion that makes good people do bad things, and it protects these actions that should be reprehensible, and really would be in any other scenario.

4. An argument that it lowers rates of transmission of STD’s is no justification, and is a coincidence that’s shamefully being used retrospectively for an act that’s driven entirely by religious belief. In a normal, healthy individuals, there is no meaningful medical advantage that warrants its routine practice.

5. Arguing that no circumcision would result in cultural difficulties for the child within the traditions of the parents’ religion clearly shows a problem with religion and the culture, not that the problem is a child keeping its foreskin.


Whatever the risks involved in the practice of circumcision, be it excessive bleeding, infection, aesthetic problems, functional problems, psychological problems, it wont be as low as the risk of not doing it, as that is 0. Additionally anyone who plays down its severity, saying ‘oh it’s not that bad’, well not that bad compared to what exactly?? Clearly its not that bad compared to cutting off an arm, but that just illustrates the ludicrous nature of the defense. It is really bad, if you compare it to not doing it at all.


Now as for how to deal with it I might agree with the ethos behind making it illegal, but i do see the disadvantages of rapidly introducing such a policy, especially in an area that highly practices it.

I would think that a sensible governance in a society would of course promote parental freedom and liberty, as with most aspects of human life, but function as a regulatory body if not primarily to defend those who cannot or need defending. The innocent and the vulnerable.
I cannot see any honest benefit to cutting the foreskin off of a child’s penis, it isnt in the best interest of the child (provided they haven’t got a medical condition that specifically warrants it such as paraphimosis or balanoposthitis), and clearly if driven by religious zeal, its hardly putting the child first.

If some regulations where to be implemented, it would at least aid in deterring the continuation of a tradition of religious bodily mutilation and the mind-set that goes with it. Its place in the contemporary world is, as far as i can see, only persisting due to the stubbornness of religion and a malignant refusal to adopt reasonable change.
I might advocate some measure of a stepwise reduction, and promoting its discontinuation. A bit of a grace period so that the transition is smooth and they dont just get a sudden spike in the number of 'back alley' jobs, which harbour far more risk.

Alex

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yeah, no ****. Would you like a cookie for stating the obvious?

And I'm not insinuating that we should not be using safe practices. In the United Sates, unfortunately, there are people, men and women who will not use contraception and exercise safe sex practices regardless as to the benefits.

Chances are that circumcision isn't going to help very much if you have unprotected sex. There's no reason to permanently remove a part of the body because some people are stupid enough to not use protection. Besides, circumcision is done on babies and small children, who aren't going to have sex for many many years anyway. If one does a circumcision for the medical benefits related to sexually transmittable diseases, why not do it when the person is old enough to have sex and decide for themselves if they want a part of their body permanently removed?

A simple procedure shortly after birth that will not be remembered has the propensity to yield the posted benefits. I have not suggested that parents SHOULD circumcise their babies, but, these are worthwhile benefits, in my personal opinion to consider.

For nearly all circumcised people there wont be any benefits, though. It's a simple procedure, but it's permanent and many people wish that they weren't circumcised. That some wish they weren't is reason enough not to do it.

When you weigh the benefits against the risks and the fact that many people wish they weren't circumcised, I see no reason for circumcision other than religion or culture. The benefits just aren't good enough to justify it.

 

[Alceste]

Not at all. I'm aware of the risks.

I also know from my own "social group" that the risk of death isn't as prevalent as opposers present.

What is your "social group's" estimate of the number of circumcision deaths per year, and what are the flaws in this study?

Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths - Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies - Volume 4, Number 1 / Spring 2010 - Men's Studies Press

 

[dawny0826]

What is your "social group's" estimate of the number of circumcision deaths per year, and what are the flaws in this study?

Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths - Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies - Volume 4, Number 1 / Spring 2010 - Men's Studies Press

Ahem. Think about what I said and think about your own comment from another thread about our own social/peer groups and what they tell us. Remember our discussion about a certain kink?
What do my social groups say? THEY SURVIVED!

I have stated repeatedly that you have to weigh the risks of any procedure and a good parent will research and do what they believe is best for their child.

Complications such as death are very rare. Check your source. Anyone with a bias is going to paint this picture as they want.

I still believe that parents should be able to make educated decisions for their children.

 

[dawny0826]

What is your "social group's" estimate of the number of circumcision deaths per year, and what are the flaws in this study?

Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths - Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies - Volume 4, Number 1 / Spring 2010 - Men's Studies Press

By the way, and I've already posted links which contain these stats...

More men die annually in the US from penile cancer than infants do from circumcision deaths. 117 vs. 310

AGAIN: Personal perception of risk vs. benefit.

 

[Levite]

So if your neighbour told you about his plans to hurt a child, you wouldn't say anything?

If it were a kind of hurt that the law forbids, which served no purpose, which was to harm and not to help the child, I would say something.

But many things many be unpleasant for a child in the moment and yet be for their overall good: trips to the dentist, shots at the doctor, taking medicine, disciplinary punishments--even sometimes spankings: but none of these make a parent a child abuser. A child may fall when learning to ride a bike, or break a bone learning to skate, be hit by a pitch playing ball, or even risk drowning while learning to swim: that doesn't mean we call parents abusers for allowing or even encouraging their kids to take such risks or participate in such activities. Kids might hate going to school, or going to camp, or being taken to the symphony or the opera: we don't call parents child abusers because they force their kids to go to school, or drag them to the theater.

I understand that there are those who see circumcision as harmful. But it is hardly a universal opinion. The American Academy of Pediatrics officially recommends the procedure as beneficial: it could hardly be clearer that there is room to suppose it is not harming a child.

I am not suggesting that people have to agree with the idea that circumcision is good and right. I am only suggesting that they not use their disagreement as an excuse to stigmatize and verbally abuse those who do not share their disagreement. I can see very little difference, for example, between calling someone who has their son circumcised a child abuser and calling child abuse on parents who support their minor children coming out of the closet as gay. Just because you don't agree with a particular parenting choice doesn't make it child abuse: and calling child abuse on random parenting choices you don't like disrespects actual child abuse.

Keep in mind that in your country and mine, rights are vested in individuals, not communities. The only rights that a community has are those that are derived from the individual rights of its members.

Maybe. But the freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, and there are ample Supreme Court precedents to support the idea that parents have every right to make routine choices on behalf of their minor children, including medical and health choices, and lifestyle and religious choices. There is, as far as I can tell, very little precedent to support the idea that, in general, parents cannot raise their children as they see fit, in accordance with whatever religion or philosophy they espouse, in whatever cultural tradition with which they are affiliated, so long as they child is adequately fed, clothed, educated, provided with medical care, and not unduly traumatized. And however much you may disapprove of circumcision, it is simply insupportable and ridiculous to say that it is unduly traumatizing. I have met literally thousands of Jewish men: I have only personally met one or two who regretted being circumcised, and even they admitted it was neither painful or diminishing of sexual pleasure for them-- it merely clashed with their radical secularist philosophies.

What does freedom of religion mean to you?

Do you see an effort to steer your son towards Judaism as a limitation on his freedom of religion?

Freedom of religion means that I have the freedom to raise my son in the way I think best for him, spiritually. I believe I would be a bad parent if I did not ensure that my son had a good Jewish upbringing.

And if, God forbid, he grows up to think otherwise, freedom of religion means that he will have the right to raise his sons in the way he thinks best for them, spiritually.

Religion, especially cultural religions, are not adopted by abstract intellectual choices in adulthood, made in some sort of vacuum of experience. Traditions continue because they are part and parcel of one's life: one becomes an engaged and observant Jewish adult by being raised living a Jewish life. On occasion, sure, you get converts and baalei teshuvah (Jews raised secular who come to observance in adulthood), but that is the result of finding a passion for what was lacking in their lives: I have yet to meet a convert who didn't at least partly or occasionally wish that they had had a Jewish childhood, or a baal teshuvah who didn't wish that their upbringing had been more observant.

It is simply ridiculous to think that we could preserve our traditions without raising our children in them, but raising them to adulthood in some sort of vacuum, and then asking them to choose to be part of something from which they had always been deliberately excluded.

 

[Rakhel]

It is simply ridiculous to think that we could preserve our traditions without raising our children in them, but raising them to adulthood in some sort of vacuum, and then asking them to choose to be part of something from which they had always been deliberately excluded.

I agreed with it all, but this in particular stood out.:clap

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it were a kind of hurt that the law forbids, which served no purpose, which was to harm and not to help the child, I would say something.

But many things many be unpleasant for a child in the moment and yet be for their overall good: trips to the dentist, shots at the doctor, taking medicine, disciplinary punishments--even sometimes spankings: but none of these make a parent a child abuser. A child may fall when learning to ride a bike, or break a bone learning to skate, be hit by a pitch playing ball, or even risk drowning while learning to swim: that doesn't mean we call parents abusers for allowing or even encouraging their kids to take such risks or participate in such activities. Kids might hate going to school, or going to camp, or being taken to the symphony or the opera: we don't call parents child abusers because they force their kids to go to school, or drag them to the theater.

The fact that there are beneficial things that cause a child discomfort doesn't imply that anything that causes a child discomfort is necessarily beneficial.

I understand that there are those who see circumcision as harmful. But it is hardly a universal opinion. The American Academy of Pediatrics officially recommends the procedure as beneficial: it could hardly be clearer that there is room to suppose it is not harming a child.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Pediatric Association recommends against the procedure. It seems to me that the medical community is divided on the issue of harm, and the side saying that it's not harmful is generally rooted in places where circumcision is routine.

I am not suggesting that people have to agree with the idea that circumcision is good and right. I am only suggesting that they not use their disagreement as an excuse to stigmatize and verbally abuse those who do not share their disagreement. I can see very little difference, for example, between calling someone who has their son circumcised a child abuser and calling child abuse on parents who support their minor children coming out of the closet as gay. Just because you don't agree with a particular parenting choice doesn't make it child abuse: and calling child abuse on random parenting choices you don't like disrespects actual child abuse.

I'm curious: where's the "abuse" threshold for you? What would be the minimum for you to consider a parental act abusive?

Would female genital mutilation count? African tribal scarification? What about some act that has the same degree of pain as circumcision, but doesn't have the religious tradition behind it? How bad does something have to be before you would consider it abuse?

Maybe. But the freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, and there are ample Supreme Court precedents to support the idea that parents have every right to make routine choices on behalf of their minor children, including medical and health choices, and lifestyle and religious choices. There is, as far as I can tell, very little precedent to support the idea that, in general, parents cannot raise their children as they see fit, in accordance with whatever religion or philosophy they espouse, in whatever cultural tradition with which they are affiliated, so long as they child is adequately fed, clothed, educated, provided with medical care, and not unduly traumatized.

The threshold where the government steps in and intervenes in a parent's decisions on how to raise their kids is pretty high... and rightly so: intervention, especially actually taking kids away from their parents, can be very harmful in and of itself, so it's only done in extreme cases.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because the law doesn't deem a behaviour so awful that it would warrant taking someone's kids away, the people - through their government - have given the behaviour their stamp of approval. All it means is that it isn't as bad for the kids as a life of foster care.

And however much you may disapprove of circumcision, it is simply insupportable and ridiculous to say that it is unduly traumatizing. I have met literally thousands of Jewish men: I have only personally met one or two who regretted being circumcised, and even they admitted it was neither painful or diminishing of sexual pleasure for them-- it merely clashed with their radical secularist philosophies.

When I was 5, I got my first trip to the ER. It was for a scratch on my eye. I have no memory of the event; I only know of it because of my parents telling me about it and a photo. (I had to wear an eye patch for a while. The doctor drew a skull and crossbones on it and told me that now I was a pirate.)

Apparently, even though it hurt at the time, I got over the pain quickly and I healed completely. Judging from the grin in my photo from the idea of being a pirate, I actually had a fair bit of fun in the whole affair.

With all that in mind: would it be good to scratch a child's eye deliberately?

Freedom of religion means that I have the freedom to raise my son in the way I think best for him, spiritually. I believe I would be a bad parent if I did not ensure that my son had a good Jewish upbringing.

And if, God forbid, he grows up to think otherwise, freedom of religion means that he will have the right to raise his sons in the way he thinks best for them, spiritually.

Religion, especially cultural religions, are not adopted by abstract intellectual choices in adulthood, made in some sort of vacuum of experience. Traditions continue because they are part and parcel of one's life: one becomes an engaged and observant Jewish adult by being raised living a Jewish life. On occasion, sure, you get converts and baalei teshuvah (Jews raised secular who come to observance in adulthood), but that is the result of finding a passion for what was lacking in their lives: I have yet to meet a convert who didn't at least partly or occasionally wish that they had had a Jewish childhood, or a baal teshuvah who didn't wish that their upbringing had been more observant.

It is simply ridiculous to think that we could preserve our traditions without raising our children in them, but raising them to adulthood in some sort of vacuum, and then asking them to choose to be part of something from which they had always been deliberately excluded.

So in your view, your children do not have freedom of religion until they come of age?

Do you also sign them up for lifetime memberships in your favourite political party when they're children? After all, they can always renounce it later if they feel really strongly about it.

 

[Levite]

The fact that there are beneficial things that cause a child discomfort doesn't imply that anything that causes a child discomfort is necessarily beneficial.

I'm not making that argument. I'm simply indicating that the mere fact of a child's discomfort in the moment isn't necessarily indicative of whether what they are experiencing is truly harmful to them.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Pediatric Association recommends against the procedure. It seems to me that the medical community is divided on the issue of harm, and the side saying that it's not harmful is generally rooted in places where circumcision is routine.

Yes, there are differing opinions in the medical community. Which does not change the fact that differing opinions means that there is, by definition, room for an opinion other than mine, or vice-versa: it means that there is not overwhelming and irrefutable evidence or support either way. Therefore it is just as irresponsible to call circumcision child abuse based on medical critera as it would be to say that not circumcising your child amounts to criminal negligence of the child's health.

And calling it child abuse because it is done by another culture whose traditions you don't share and precepts you don't agree with is just intolerance by another name.

I'm curious: where's the "abuse" threshold for you? What would be the minimum for you to consider a parental act abusive?

I think it's hard to generalize. But I think when it comes to choices about a child's physical health, parents do not have the right to refuse life-saving medical choices for children unable to consent to such refusal on their own; I think they cannot knowingly induce illness in their children; and I think they should not permit traumatic unnecessary surgery that results in long-term suffering or disability. I'm sure there are other things, too, but those are off the top of my head. But the real answer is that it depends on context and circumstances, motivations and results.

Would female genital mutilation count? African tribal scarification? What about some act that has the same degree of pain as circumcision, but doesn't have the religious tradition behind it? How bad does something have to be before you would consider it abuse?

I do think FGM is abusive, because not only is it usually done in particularly heinous ways, and not only does it result in excessive trauma to the girl, but it also produces drastic permanent damage to sexual functions, impeded excretory function, impeded menstrual and birthing functions, and radically increased risk of numerous kinds of infections. There is an extremely high proportion of women and girls who resist FGM, and deeply regret it after it is forced upon them.

I am not sure I can judge African tribal scarification, because I don't know enough about it. I don't know how integral it is to tribal identity, how universal it is in those tribes, what variances are permitted, what the consequences are in those tribes of not having scars, what kind of scars are considered a minimal requirement in those who have scars, how those scars are made, where on the body they are and whether their making affects the functions of limbs or organs, and how many adults whose parents began their process of scarification in youth grew up to regret being scarred versus how many appreciate and value being scarred.

Pain in and of itself is simply not going to be a deciding criterion for me: it may end up being a criterion relevant to my decision as to what is and isn't acceptable, but it may not. Too much depends on context and circumstances, on the motivations for what is happening to the child, and on its ultimate effects on the child. Pain might be justified. It might be unjustified. It depends.

The threshold where the government steps in and intervenes in a parent's decisions on how to raise their kids is pretty high... and rightly so: intervention, especially actually taking kids away from their parents, can be very harmful in and of itself, so it's only done in extreme cases.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because the law doesn't deem a behaviour so awful that it would warrant taking someone's kids away, the people - through their government - have given the behaviour their stamp of approval. All it means is that it isn't as bad for the kids as a life of foster care.

The point isn't whether the majority of the populace have given their approval to something. In fact, the opposite: freedoms like the freedom of religion are there to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Minority groups, religious sects, cultures and subcultures, all have the right to pursue happiness in their own way, within the minimum bounds of public safety set forth by the government, regardless of whether others approve of them. That's part of what freedom is: being willing to tolerate others being different, living their lives in ways you would not choose for yourself or your family.

When I was 5, I got my first trip to the ER. It was for a scratch on my eye. I have no memory of the event.... With all that in mind: would it be good to scratch a child's eye deliberately?

Presuming, for a moment, that there were some culture that found immense and critical spiritual significance in scratching an eye, there would still remain the issue that it is extremely difficult to scratch an eye in such a way as to guarantee that the vast majority of the time, no permanent impairment to the eye will result. Eye scratching is simply riskier and more dangerous than circumcision, far likelier to result in permanent impairment.

A better analogy might be something like piercing the nose, or notching the ear. These are things that, if done for no reason save the parents thinking it'd be a hoot, I would say were irresponsible parenting choices. But if done because of deep cultural and religious significances, I would say that, while not the choice I would make for my child, are not choices I will publicly judge someone else for making.

So in your view, your children do not have freedom of religion until they come of age?

They have incomplete freedom of religion until they come of age: the same as with innumerable other rights and privileges that we extend to adults and do not fully extend to minors. It is hardly a novel or revolutionary concept that religion is one of a thousand choices that we presume that parents have the right to make for their minor children.

Do you also sign them up for lifetime memberships in your favourite political party when they're children? After all, they can always renounce it later if they feel really strongly about it.

Children don't vote.

But while parents may not sign up their children for lifetime memberships in their political party of choice, they all do their best to raise their children with the social values they hold dear, which is at the root of political party choices.

The notion that we all do not try to inculcate our values into our children is either disingenuous or naive. We all do so, and always have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They have incomplete freedom of religion until they come of age: the same as with innumerable other rights and privileges that we extend to adults and do not fully extend to minors. It is hardly a novel or revolutionary concept that religion is one of a thousand choices that we presume that parents have the right to make for their minor children.

You say that they have "incomplete" freedom of religion until they come of age; in what sense do they have freedom of religion at all under your model?

Children don't vote.

And babies don't worship.

But while parents may not sign up their children for lifetime memberships in their political party of choice, they all do their best to raise their children with the social values they hold dear, which is at the root of political party choices.

The notion that we all do not try to inculcate our values into our children is either disingenuous or naive. We all do so, and always have.

The key word there is values. There's a difference between instilling values in a child and trying to choose their life for them. You teach them that it's important to have a job that contributes to society, but you leave it to them to pick their own career path. You teach them the value of love and respect in a relationship, but you don't arrange their marriage. You teach them values, but you don't demand that they become members of the political party that you think expresses those values best.

So far, you've been arguing from a false dichotomy. There's a middle ground between trying to dictate your child's life and giving them no guidance at all. When it comes to religion, exactly what would be wrong in showing, through your example, the value of faith in your own life and allowing them to choose it for themselves when they're old enough? If there really is value in it, won't they recognize this?

When it really comes down to it, how is choosing a child's religion for him on any more of a moral high ground than arranged marriage?

 

[sojourner]

And babies don't worship./QUOTE]
I disagree. Babies are innately joined with God in acts of worship. Simply because they have not yet developed acute awareness of individuality (that necessitates adults engaging in cognitive acts of worship as separate from everyday life) does not mean that they have an innate awareness of the Divine.

The key word there is values. There's a difference between instilling values in a child and trying to choose their life for them./QUOTE]
Perhaps you think a parent shouldn't choose life for their children at all. Perhaps children are so autonomous that they can either choose to live or not on their own?
Children are not autonomous. That's why children have parents. A human's brain does not fully develop self-differentiated awareness until s/he is much older. That's why children, at puberty, display rebellion. They are learning to self-differentiate. Until such time as they do, parents are needed to make healthy and wise decisions on behalf of their children. Religious choices, cultural choices, and societal choices are included in those. To some extent, a child's life needs "dictating" (if I can use that word -- I prefer "guidance") until s/he is able to fully and responsibly make those choices for her or himself. There is no difference between a parent deciding what medical choices are best and what religious choices are best.

Arranged marriage crosses that line, because (at least in our culture) by the time one marries, one is fully able to make responsible choices for her or himself. Arranged marriages are usually carried out in cultures wherein children (usually girls) are given to men in marriage.

 

[Levite]

You say that they have "incomplete" freedom of religion until they come of age; in what sense do they have freedom of religion at all under your model?

I take my son to synagogue. When he is old enough for it to be relevant, I will still take him, but I will not compel him to pray. Children are commonly brought to services, and given free leave to sit quietly with their parents and read or play, or leave the sanctuary for childrens' activities, or play where they will not disturb services (with proper child care, of course). But when and how he prays will be his choice.

By the same token, when he is over the age of bar mitzvah, we will let him make more of his own decisions about observance. It is common for teenagers to go through periods of questioning and agnosticism. We will leave him to explore for himself, even if that includes an extended phase of refusing to attend services, or refusing to keep kosher outside the home, or refusing to go to religious school.

But part of the reason that we will feel free enough to do that is that he will have been living a Jewish life during his childhood, and we will have made it clear that this is his heritage, the culture and tradition of which he is an active part

And babies don't worship. The key word there is values. There's a difference between instilling values in a child and trying to choose their life for them. You teach them that it's important to have a job that contributes to society, but you leave it to them to pick their own career path. You teach them the value of love and respect in a relationship, but you don't arrange their marriage. You teach them values, but you don't demand that they become members of the political party that you think expresses those values best.

So far, you've been arguing from a false dichotomy. There's a middle ground between trying to dictate your child's life and giving them no guidance at all. When it comes to religion, exactly what would be wrong in showing, through your example, the value of faith in your own life and allowing them to choose it for themselves when they're old enough? If there really is value in it, won't they recognize this?

When it really comes down to it, how is choosing a child's religion for him on any more of a moral high ground than arranged marriage?

First of all, values are not transmitted by passively demonstrating them: they are transmitted by active lessons, and by involving the child in activities, discussions, and practices that incorporate those values. I'm not sure anything is transmitted by passive demonstration: children learn to value the things in which they are involved, the things which their parents share with them. That is true for values, for culture, for aesthetics, even for developing a palate for food and drink.

Second of all, you are consistently ignoring the fact that Judaism is not merely a religious philosophy, it is a culture whose religion is an integral part of it. Just because you fail to appreciate it does not make it less the case. And what you are proposing in not involving our children in their religious heritage, effectively barring them from full participation in their own culture, but rather trying to somehow hope they will understand in adulthood the value of something from which they have been excluded the entirety of their formative years is a demand that we commit cultural suicide, because that is simply not how cultures work.

Nothing is certain. Even if we raise our children living Jewish lifestyles, participating fully in Jewish culture and religion, they are still free to decide, when they reach adulthood, that they do not wish to continue observing, or that they feel more inclined to seek out some other faith or tradition to practice. And we cannot and do not stop them when that happens. But it's one thing to acknowledge that adults can make their own choices, even when those choices harm their culture and denude their people; it is another for us to deliberately exclude them and shut them out, thereby ensuring that they will never form any attachments to their culture and religion.

Fortunately, also, Judaism is not universalist: we don't claim that everyone should be Jewish, and have no interest in actively recruiting non-Jews to join us. So it is extraordinarily easy for non-Jews who disagree with our traditions and disapprove of our culture to avoid becoming entangled with them: just don't become Jewish.

But as for our own, we lose plenty of Jews as it is to assimilation and secularism, and even occasionally a few to apostasy. Clearly there is an out for those who feel disinclined to Jewish affiliation.

But as for the rest of us: this is our culture, our religion, our nationality, and our heritage. We are not asking that others love it as we do, or practice it themselves: we only expect the freedom to continue our tradition, preserve our culture, and fulfill our spirituality. Ideally, we would like to do this without being vituperated and verbally abused by people who have nothing to do with us: but admittedly, that is only desirable, not totally necessary.

 

[ruffen]

I think circumcision is child abuse.

And if I was religious I would find it blasphemic as well, for who are we to "fix" God's greatest achievement, namely our bodies?