Christopher Hitchens On Metzitza B'Peh

Christopher Hitchens has written a provacative rant in Slate magazine against metzitza b'peh:

…Where to start with this? I could wish that Bloomberg were always so careful about keeping out of other peoples' business: He has made it legally impossible to have a cigarette and a cocktail at the same time, anywhere in the city. But I'll trade him his stupid prohibitionist ban if he states clearly that it is the government's business to protect children from religious fanatics. Female genital mutilation, for example, is quite rightly banned under federal law, and no religious exemption is, or ever should be, permitted. The Mormons were obliged to give up polygamy and forcible marriage before they, or the state of Utah, could be part of the United States. A Christian Scientist who denies urgent medical treatment to his or her children may well be hauled up for reckless endangerment, as may those whose churches teach redemption through violent corporal punishment. The First Amendment does indeed forbid any infringement of religious freedom, but it is not, as was once said, part of a suicide pact, let alone a child-abuse one.

Let's by all means hear from Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organization in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, who emerged from his meeting with Bloomberg to inform us that: "The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years. We do not change. And we will not change." You can preach it, rabbi, but you have no more right to practice it than a Muslim imam who preaches the duty of holy war has the right to put his teachings into effect. And Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, the 57-year-old man who ministered to the three boys in question, is currently under a court order that forbids him from doing it again—pending an investigation by the health department. What "investigation?" If another man of that age were found to be slicing the foreskins of little boys and then sucking their penises and their blood, he would be in jail—one hopes—so fast that his feet wouldn't touch the ground. If he then told the court that God ordered him to do it, he would be offering precisely the defense that thousands of psychos have already made so familiar. Preach it rabbi. Preach it to the judge.…

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.

Understand it well, people. This is how we look to the non-Jewish and non-Orthodox world. MBP is only done because the Talmud believed it promoted healing. We now know this is not true, and that MBP exposes infants to risk of disease and death. To continue doing it because "we will not change" is criminal. 

Comments

[j]

I dont always agree with Hitchens but he is entertaining as hell. It seemed like he was against the concept of the bris in general though from that article.

[SS]

Wow! What ludicracy. I have never heard such stupidity in a long time. How can anyone compare MBP to Imams preaching a holy war, or to forcible marriage? First of all, Rabbi Fischer was vindicated by the state DOH on all charges, and now awaits a final hearing by the city DOH. Secondly, why does it bother anyone what someone's ritual rites are?, when it does no harm to the child, yet it accomplishes a tremendous amount of good deeds according to Judiasm.
From the tone of your articles, it sounds that you are a vehement anti-semite, and therefore have not much credence in the public eye. So long, and keep preaching nonsense!

[Shmarya]

1. Rabbi Fischer was NOT vindicated by the state.

2. Rabbi Fischer has refused to cooperate with the city.

3. NY City wants to permanently ban Rabbi Fischer from doing MBP.

4. There is a risk of infection to the infant in MBP, but there is an argument about the extent of that risk.

5. Poskim who accept the FACT of the risk overwhelmingly poskin NOT to do MBP.

6. Poskim who refuse to accept scientific evidence – or who catagorize the risk as too low – still permit MBP. Therefore, even if NYC does the study Mayor Bloomberg wants, these poskim will continue to permit MBP.

7. Not mitzva short of the cardinal three is worth risking the life of a baby– nor for that matter is it halakhicly permissible to do so. "We will not change" is not a mitzva. Elevating it to the status of one – and one of the cardinal three, no less! – is nothing less than avoda zara.

[rebeljew]

"when it does no harm to the child"

Huh???!!!!
3 babies have died under suspicion that they contracted a deadly disease from this practice. I am sure it feels really rotten to come back from making a bris and discover that the baby is terminally ill.

In this case, the supporters of MBP will play "chicken" with the Talmud, trusting its 1500 year old health advice, as if it has some kind of kabalistic value.

[Rowan Berkeley]

Hitchens is certainly not open to the usual guilt-by-association applied to leftists ; he is a neo-con fellow-traveller. The point, as Shmarya indicated in his subscript to the post itself, is that MBP LOOKS DISGUSTING. It is quite futile to imagine that claiming religious sanction for something can alter peoples' gut reaction to it.

[Brian]

The day I become concerned about how we appear to the perpetually besotted Christopher Hitchens is the day I make eyes at Andrew Sullivan, who has similarly decried our practice of "child genitalia mutilation."

That said, it does seem that just like everything else, the perception that even non-observant Jews hold, let alone everyone else, of the religious Jewish community is being shaped by 15th-century Talmudists. It's hardly indicative of an antisemitic agenda when dated poskim leave us vulnerable. On its own, the debate as to whether circumcision is bad/good can exist without infringing on our ritual practice, but when our community puts its own at risk, well, that's the stuff legislation is made of.

SS - herpes is no joke for 8-day-old junior. Is the "mitzvah" of slurping blood off puerile boy parts really more important than a child's life? I can't fathom the good deeds that come from the untimely and unnecessary deaths of 3 wee people. And just as Shymara reports, I don't believe Rabbi Fischer was cleared of anything.

[thanbo]

Hitchens' rant sounds like the usual anti-circ rant. He doesn't seem to distinguish between MBP and circ in general.

The kid whose illness started all this turned out to have had herpes before R' Fischer showed up. Now, I tend to agree with the RCA that it's not necessary, and potentially harmful, therefore should be done with a straw, or replaced by antiseptic technique,

Can someone please explain to me why the Rabbi refused to share the results of his blood test
with anyone. I dont get how you can cry about everyone giving you a hard time and that your innocent. But have no interest in giving them the proof.