A quick shout-out

I work with Mike Zegen's two doting brothers, so I'm always up on his latest auditions, roles, etc. His upcoming roles on Boardwalk Empire and How to Make It in America are old news to me, but its good to see this piece in The Atlantic about Mike and the glorification of strong Jewish characters (who may or may not be law-abiding).

How New York Missed an Opportunity

Last week New York joined the ranks of same-sex marriage allowing states, with a steady stream of licenses surely rolling of the presses starting in late July of this year. (Yesterday evening, Rhode Island limped into a same-sex rights fold with a much further watered down civil union statute. Though the Rhode Island statute is certainly not the desired result, it is better than what they had previously which was no same-sex couple recognition whatsoever.)

Personally, I am elated about the NY bill. It is frankly an embarrassment that New York waited as long as it has done to get this equal footing measure passed. However . . . and it's a big however, New York missed a huge opportunity.

As displeased as I am to say it, the much reviled Sen. Rubén Díaz, Sr. had a point when he stated "[G-d] has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago." Of course, his statement was factually incorrect. G-d never really settled anything about marriage, at least in the Abrahamic religions. Christianity adopted monogamy during its reverse merger with the Roman Empire, which first started codifying marriage under Augustus in the late 1st Century BCE. Judaism didn't officially ban polygamy until Rabbeinu Gershom ben Judah's synod around 1000 CE, and though some argue that ban was only temporary, it is now obligatory as a "universally accepted custom". Neither of these seem to be particularly divinely decreed monogamy between one man and one woman.

But for whatever reason, this is the "Definition" that permanently etched into Sen. Díaz's mind and the mind of all those who are quick to rush to marriages defense. Sen. Díaz is tangentially "right" that "for a long time" (only a few hundred years, but still in pretty long), marriage has been intricately linked in America to religion.

The problem here really enters when the social and political definitions are made to conform with the "Definition". New York, where the gay rights movement originated in 1969, should have originated the only useful end to all of this nonsense with some semantic slight of hand: The State should issue the same documents to any and every couple (gay, straight, religious, secular, asexual, whatever this is) a "domestic union contract" whereby the two who enter into the contract are therein bound financially, as next-of-kin, and with respect to inheritance and medical decisions, and all other rights currently afforded to a "married couple" according to the Federal laws of the US and the State. If that couple wants to then have a religious, cultural, or ethnic ceremony of within their own community, governed by that specific community's rules and called by that community whatever the hell it chooses ("marriage", for instance), then so be it!

At first there will be an uproar, certainly. But in the end, if you were married under the old regime, none of your rights, privileges or responsibilities changed. If your church, gurdwara, amateur astronomy enthusiasts group, Bieber superfan association, or local equestrian club had a different set of paperwork and/or rites that were necessary for you to be "married" under their purview under the old regime, well then you're grandfathered through those hurdles already! Way to go!

That said, it would probably still take a couple of lawsuits to compel some of the more staunchly religious hospitals to recognize these new-fangled "domestic union contracts" as legit. But they are just as likely to deny medical rights to a perfectly legally "married" GLBT couple.

It's a different kind of equal footing (at the lowest rung), but it gets the job done. And it won't ruffle the feathers of those, like Sen. Díaz, who slavishly appeal to a supposedly divine etymology.

Currently, the government doesn't care if I take my marriage license and then have a Jewish, or a Catholic, or a secular ceremony (or any combination thereof), as long as the proper paperwork's in order. The government doesn't care if the person signing the license is a rabbi, a priest, a ship captain, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick-maker, again, so long as the paperwork's in order. So this method now appeals to both those crazy "Definition"-ists and the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Of course, life, the State of New York, and certainly the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations are not ideal. So with a hearty thanks, I will take what I got thus far and hope the next state down the line (hopefully California) will take on the task of redefining the social/legal contract which creates kinship as it should be.

More thoughts on study as defense

(continued in spirit from My Morning Walk . . . )

Traditionally, the telling of the Pesach story should be understood "as if" it recounted our own personal deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Similarly, there is a tradition that all Jewish souls, past, present and future, witnessed G-d's Revelation at Mount Sinai. For the generation that left Egypt, of course, there was perfect clarity. It was their own personal deliverance with the culmination of the Revelation at Sinai. That event was so profound that the Torah says (in Exodus 20:15-16):

And the entire nation saw (ראים) the voices and the thunder, and the sound of the shofar, and the mountain was consumed with smoke. The people saw (וירא) and were frightened; therefore they stood at a distance.¹

Now, the faculty of sight requires active focus, rather than hearing which passively collects all of the random oscillations in the air around you (both signal and noise). When the Jewish people saw the voices declaring the Ten Commandments, they understood much more deeply and clearly than had they just heard the information. After all, "seeing is believing!"

In our current parasha, Moshe is commanded to draw water from a rock by speaking to it in order to show conclusively "before their [the Jewish people's] eyes" (Num. 20:8) that G-d provides for their needs. However, Moshe struck the rock twice and though the rock yielded the miraculous water for the congregation G-d chastises Moshe and Aharon indicating that they too will not enter the Holy Land. (Num. 20:9-13)

As Rashi comments, based on the Midrash, if Moshe had instead followed G-d's command to the "T", the Jewish people would have seen the voices again. They would have more clearly and more deeply understood that if even this inanimate rock, which cannot speak, cannot hear and does not need any sustenance, fulfills G-d's commands, then how much more so should we, the Jewish people to whom G-d entrusted his Torah? Instead, due to Moshe's strikes of anger and impatience, the Jewish people were left only with the notion that G-d will provide for the needs of the congregation (if they bug Moshe enough for them). It's still a nice and comforting thought, but not nearly as symbolic.

This thwarted re-revelation perhaps would have provided a refresher to that generation of Jewish people, who had only heard about the Revelation at Sinai from their folks. (At that point in the story, almost all of the generation of the spies had already died out. Only Kalev and Yehoshua who eventually make it to the Holy Land along with Moshe and Aharon were left at that time. Miryam, whose merit provided the people with a well throughout their wanderings, had just died at the beginning of Chapter 20, thus necessitating the people's need for water.) Instead, the generation of Moshe v. Rock are sustained by the knowledge that their parents saw G-d's Voice and that G-d continues to provide for their needs.

Today, numerous generations removed from the Revelation and Moshe's rock beating event, the communal memory of the Revelation still forms the basis of the Jewish people, faith and tradition, but its temporal remoteness coupled with the many catastrophes in the intervening years leave us open to attack from those of other faiths who seek to diminish our faith in G-d (either for the benefit of another religion or for the benefit of secularism). While some of the other sources that I gave earlier today may urge you to additionally sprinkle in some actual practice here and there, I think that we at the very least study our history, rituals, customs, religious practices. The best defense is always a good offense.

¹ N.B. - In general, I am a fan of the Mechon Mamre website, which offers numerous versions of the entire Tanakh (Torah, Prophets & Writings). However, I used a different text here, since Mechon Mamre follows the JPS 1917 translation, which I find to be very lacking for this particular passage. I've included the Hebrew verbs in the above translation. If you have a keen eye, you will see that both of the verbs have the same (corrupted) root ראה, meaning "to see".

My morning walk . . .

Today, I was on my walk to work when I was brutally interrupted. I couldn't quite tell what was going on but one look at the vile flier being shoved at me drove home the point. The most paradoxical and vicious of post-Crusades attempts to convert the world's Jewry en masse: Jews for Jesus. Vile, disgusting pieces of expletive!

I restrained myself, not quite politely refused his dreck, and waited anxiously for the light to change. Had it not done so as quickly as it did, I might have actually done what I fantasized about scarcely half a block further down: taken all his pamphlets torn them in half (with what I imagined would be Incredible Hulk-ulean anger-strength) and made his filth rain down upon him in a shower of purely nonsensical, derogatory propaganda.

But as seething as my hatred of their predatory, Evangelical Christian organization is, I felt it my civic duty to just let him be. After all, he was playing somewhat fair. We weren't on Brighton Beach where his smut would attract the babushki and dyedushki from the former Soviet Union, who as we discussed earlier only still remember bits and pieces of our tradition. Those Fucks for Jesus tend to have a field day there, actively supplementing the few pieces of yiddishkeit their prey remember with fundamentally Christian beliefs, hoping a yarmulke and a tallis will be enough to ease the transition into Christianity.

This subterfuge is preposterous. We get it: You don't like us, you want us to think like you, you realize that it's no longer socially acceptable to threaten us with "Baptism or Death?!" like the good old days, you also realize that your program sucks so you have to attack the old and weak.

I can only hope that access to Jewish learning remains strong with very accessible websites and community outreach programs like Torah.org, My Jewish Learning, JEC, Aish, even Chabad. Though again, as per my drash on Parshas Korach - PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCES!!! Many of these sites & programs are run with the hope of "converting" you to a more observant Jew, a ba'al teshuva (literally "master of repentence" - effectively a cognate of "born again") . This is not necessarily a bad thing if you so choose, but remember it is a choice. Bottom line: The information is out there - feel free to mix and match, but think critically about it. The best way to combat those who prey upon our ignorance (both from within and without) of Judaism is to become more acquainted with our history, our texts and our traditions. I myself tread the line of learning as much as I can about Judaism and trying to incorporate what observances, rituals and traditions that I can, but I'm no ba'al teshuva.

Anyway, I was gonna get into a little bit more from the parasha this week, but I'll get back to it this afternoon.

An everlasting (supra-rational) decree

This week's portion Chukas (Num. 19:1 - 22:1). A lot of stuff will end up happening later in the portion, but in the first two aliyos, we cover a portion of the Torah that is so confusing we study it not once but twice a year!

Numbers 19 relates to the laws of the Red Heifer or "Parah Adumah", which is read on the Shabbos following the holiday of Purim. On a macro-level, this section details the laws of how to ritually purify oneself after coming in contact with a dead body. However, much of the literal meaning seems to be self-contradictory - the process involves a completely red heifer (though red typically denotes sin and impurity); it must be slaughtered outside of the Israelite's encampment (later, Jerusalem), but it must be done within sight of the Tabernacle (later, the Temple) and its blood must be sprinkled towards the Holy of Holies and some think that the Kohen Gadol personally must slaughter the red heifer while wearing his white linens that are otherwise reserved for use only on Yom Kippur; the ashes of the red heifer purify the uncleanliness of coming into contact with a corpse, but leave those involved in its preparation spiritually impure.

In fact, the introduction to the section, and reason for the name of parasha, gives us a clue that the ensuing commandments will be difficult to understand. The portion Chukas starts by stating "This is the decree ( chok ) of the Torah." The Hebrew word chok (חק), meaning decree, is translated by Rashi as a "supra-rational command", beyond reason and is used for such commandments as the red heifer, prohibition against eating non-kosher animals (e.g., pigs) or prohibition against wearing a garment made of both wool & linen. There are why the kashrut laws should be the way they are; no rational reason why a mixture of animal fibers and plant fibers shouldn't be copacetic. In the end, though, the other two mainstay chukim are at the very least self-consistent and could be superficially given some sort of ex post facto rationale, e.g., dietary laws could be due to health reasons, etc.

For the red heifer, though, even King Shlomo, the wisest man in the Tanakh, couldn't grasp it. The Midrash Tanchuma states that Shlomo's lament in Ecclesiastes 7:23 concerned this portion; he said "All of the Torah's commandments I have comprehended. But the chapter of the red heifer, though I have examined it, questioned it and searched it out--I thought to be wise to it, but it is distant from me."

Unfortunately, today's society is ruled by the specter of rational humanism that relegates tradition, belief and cultural differences to the annals of history. It is becoming harder and harder to rest upon the ultimate justification for not just the mitzvah of the red heifer, but in the end all of the mitzvos - we do them "because G-d said so." Judaism does not deny rational, critical thinking about the mitzvos - if it did, the Talmud would be a lot smaller.

However, it's important to realize that justifications are often double-edged swords: while making it easier for modern man to swallow, justifications based on physical reality can become outdated, thereby seemingly voiding the necessity of the commandment. For instance, the chok of not eating pork was mostly commonly justified by saying that in days of yore there were health concerns about eating pork. In today's post-The Jungle society of tighter health standards and sensitive meat thermometers, trichinosis is a thing of the past (and/or thing of the current developing world), and unfortunately for many Jews so is the prohibition against eating pig.

The temporariness of justifications is why these laws of the red heifer and the purification of those contaminated by a corpse are summarized in Num. 19:21 as a chukas olam, or everlasting decree (chok). These laws are the supra-rational commands of G-d and will remain, both the law and the supra-rationality, forever. It is our job as children of Israel to struggle against the supra-rationality of G-d's decrees by trying to understand and comply with them rather than justify and sublimate them.

Weekend Update

Yesterday, we reintroduced some Italians to a bygone past-time of theirs: Cautiously and bewilderedly looking-on at Jewish life cycle events.

Yes, it seems it has been a while since Staten Island's much less tropical (and less classy) South Beach has seen its share of Jewish events, but Sunday night it saw its first bas mitzvah in, what I can with near certainty assure you is, all of recorded history. Yes, my wife's 12-year-old cousin held a very festive, not quite traditional ("So You Think You Can Dance"-themed), but much more religious than previously expected ceremony at The Vanderbilt @ South Beach.

The ceremony itself was outside on a private portion of the beach, which brought the aforementioned curio-shock from the usual passers-by. Sitting holding a balloon, which was released at the appropriate time in honor of the bas mitzvah girl's late relatives, I was struck with the vibrancy of the Jewish religion. The ceremony was as much a testament to our ability to survive persecution (the bygone bigotry of the bygone Soviet Union) and the importance of passing the traditions down to future generations.

Some things are inevitably lost in translation. The rabbi may not have been able to speak clearly in Russian (can't verify but in-laws assured me it was a relatively funny accent), English (think drunk Boris Badenov singing "Happy byors-day to you!") or Hebrew (weird Ashkenazi-Russian accent most likely stemming from a direct transliteration first into Russian where "h" becomes "g", so the להתעטף of the tallis blessing which strictly speaking shouldn't have taken place at a 6pm evening bas mitzvah became "le-gis'atayf"). The rabbi may have been wearing a bishop's mitre (as far as the Italian on-lookers knew). The girl's father may not have able to repeat particularly proficiently after the rabbi, but this may have been due to the latter's shortcomings, as detailed above.

But all in all, as I went up to the pseudo-bimah/stage with my wife to light one of the bas mitzvah girl's candles (a grand tradition dating back to . . . ? I actually have no clue where this came from, but all the Russians love it), I could not help but be honored to assist the girl in reaching out to her not quite forgotten religious and cultural identity.

Delta, Delta, Delta cannot help me, help me, help me

Hurray, a new topic to discuss (I'm tired of talking penis - not necessarily done, just tired of it)!

Delta's family is growing with a new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines, announced a while ago. A lot has recently been bandied about that this new partnership with force Delta to ban Jews, Israeli passport holders and those with Israeli entrance stamps in non-Israeli passports from flights going to Saudi Arabia. This would clearly be very concerning, but word out of Delta is that this restriction is solely a Saudi Arabia visa issue - and that Delta and Saudi Arabian Airlines aren't even all that close. (What a brief honeymoon period?)

I sorta buy that. Saudi Arabia doesn't acknowledge Israel's existence (or even right to), so how could it possibly accept someone who claims to have that nationality? Saudis don't particularly like Jews (or Christians for that matter) and most likely don't hand out too many visas to regular Jews like you and me who don't have anything else to offer them than some tourism shekels.

However, it appears that the "national policy" shield has been pierced with respect to online booking policies - even where a Saudi visa is not necessary (in a stopover visit), Israelis cannot book tickets online at SaudiAirlines.com. I took the time to verify this independently and fiddled around on the site. There is no option to claim your Israeli nationality, but even if you are an American but for whatever reason have a billing address in Israel you cannot book a ticket. Interestingly, if you are one of the what could only be 3 or 4 people who have a billing address from Antarctica, then Saudi Airlines wishes you welcome aboard!

This policy is clearly fully implemented and carried out by the Saudi Arabian Airlines company itself. If Delta & the SkyTeam are really only just entering into an interline agreement with Saudi Arabian, then I don't quite know what the hubbub in January was about, but hey, good for them. If they are going to code-share, then I would urge the SkyTeam to at least make Saudi Arabian correct it's online interface and allow anyone who is duly allowed to travel on a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight purchase a ticket.

Clearly, even if this HTML issue is smoothed over, Delta will continue to draw flak anyway for voluntarily entering into such an agreement that would call upon it to enforce the Saudis' discriminatory policies. It's a cold economic calculus that lies behind this deal: A few upset Jews (of which I am one) won't offset the gains from new access to hajj passengers from throughout the world.

Another mini-drash topic on this issue comes from the haftarah from Korach, which comes from Sam. 1, 11:14 - 12:22. In it, Shmuel chastises the Israelites for clamoring for a human king when G-d has provided for them perfectly fine up until now. The end analysis is that if the Israelites stayed true to their devotion to G-d, then Shmuel assured then there would be no real harm done even with a king over them. Of course, in the end the monarchy led the Israelites through a varied array of calamities, idol worship, and eventually exile (though, certainly with a few bright spots thrown in there). Similarly, it is important for Delta and the SkyTeam to realize that sometimes despite your best intentions, big decisions have a way of distracting people from the true goal. For the SkyTeam, thought he decision to tap into the Saudi market may yield more customers, perhaps they should return to serving their current customers as best as possible.

As for me, I'm not happy about Delta's handling of the growing debacle. I certainly do not plan on using their services in the future if I can avoid it. In the end, Delta may have made its bed, but I'm not forced to lie in it. So, fair thee well SkyTeam Alliance! Make sure your new partner shapes up its website and try to serve your customers (whichever ones you have left) as best as possible without these grand distractions.

For the sake of Heaven

This week's Torah portion is Korach. (A drash?? Yeah, it's gonna get frummy!) It details an challenge by Korach, a disgruntled Levite from the Kohathite clan, and his followers who railed against the perceived nepotism of Moshe and Aharon, Korach's first cousins.

Certainly, on the face of things, Korach's outwardly stated agitation for more equality ("for the entire congregation is holy, and the LORD is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves up above the LORD's assembly?" - Num 16:3) is admirable. After all, each of them had been holy enough to witness G-d's revelation upon Mount Sinai not so long ago and at the time, G-d's presence was resting in the recently dedicated mishkan (tabernacle). There is certainly merit to his superficial argument. Fighting injustice in the world is a central part of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam (healing the world) - G-d "deliberately stopped short of completing the work of Creation, leaving not just men but the world itself imperfect . . . in countless ways. This was [the] strategy for involving man in that very work [of perfecting the world]." (See The Jewish Body, Chapter 2 for its treatment of circumcision, which Kabbalists claim is the quintescential act of tikkun olam, perfecting the human form.)

Anyway, now that we think Korach's a nice guy, he even has a whole Torah portion named after he, why then is Korach's revolt met with Divine retribution by way of the earth opening up and swallowing him and his family whole? Further, why do the rabbis of the Talmud denigrate his argument, saying in Pirke Avos 5:20:

Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is a debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly.

Despite presenting himself to the Israelites as a populist, Korach's reason for challenging Moshe was resentment over the fact that he should have been made the leader of the Kohathite clan rather than his kinsman, Elizaphan ben Uzziel (see Rashi's commentary on Num. 16:1). The Midrash Tanchuma states that Korach initiated his rebellion by questioning Moshe's rulings on some of G-d's more difficult commandments: Why does a house filled with Torah scrolls need to have a mezuzah (which itself contains only a few excerpts from the Torah) on the doorpost? Why does a garment stained entirely with techeles (a bluish dye) still need one of the tzitzis (fringe) dyed with techeles (see Num. 15:37-40)? Why should a nation of holy people need Aharon and his offspring the kohanim (priests) to serve as their intermediaries?

Jimmy Taber at the American Jewish World Service put out an interesting drash on the portion and this verse from Pirke Avos. Taber clarifies along the lines of Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the UK, that "disputes for the sake of Heaven" are really arguments for the sake of the greater good, rather than Korach's which were based more on personal gain. Healing the world is all well and good, but not when you have your own best interests in mind.

For me, one takeaway from this mishnah is the need to be careful of what ulterior motives politicians and political activists may harbor. It's very easy to be swayed by charismatic figures, but in the end the consequences of following too blindly can be dire. I certainly do not think that every supporter of the circumcision ban harbors some deep seated anti-Semitism. That said, I think Protocols of Mr. Hess certainly shed some light on the tip of his.

Further, the way in which Korach derisively attacked Moshe and Aharon served to clarify the sake for which he argued. In contrast, the archetypal disputers "for the sake of Heaven" - the diametrically opposed Hillel and Shammai - may not have agreed on a single topic, but did so in a respectful, amicable manner. In the end, both sages profited greatly from their enduring disputes, constantly challenged to clarify their positions to arrive at the most defensible position, which ultimately is the best. This is the other lesson to be gleaned from this mishnah. It's tough to do - the U.S. unfortunately is not a nation of Hillels and Shammais - but if we can learn to engage in discussions above the rhetoric, above the name calling, above mud slinging and animosity that unfortunately accompany so many political topics these days, then perhaps we can learn to build a more harmonious society, where differing camps stand not as bitter adversaries but as partners in the continued upkeep of our nation.

Hopefully with time, as the mishnah predicts, this dispute over circumcision will come to an end. Even more hopefully, G-d willing, there will no ban on the practice or at the very least there will be a religious exception to any future ban. While I certainly do not wish Korach's demise upon Hess and his assembly (if anywhere in the US could spontaneously open up an swallow the intactivists whole it would be the San Andreas fault area . . . just saying), I do wish we could all rise to the level of a Hillel-Shammai type dialogue on this and many other currently divisive issues. . . . I call Hillel, though!

And now for something completely different

N.B. - This one comes from my brother - soon-to-be PhD student in bioarchaeology at SUNY Stony Brook. Look for him and his crazy smartness next fall, in the meantime, try to digest this (it honestly might take me that long to do so . . . )

I think that most of the arguments against male circumcision stem from the idea that it is a strictly medical procedure, as opposed to a cultural expression of identity and a signifier of belonging. The argument for male circumcision as a medical necessity is admittedly shaky, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the claims of the evils of male circumcision.

First, some background. Male circumcision is a practice that has been used by many non-related cultures to signify group membership. Reasons for this mainly stem from circumcision's role as a public sign – one that is impossible to fake, as well (beyond aposthia – the condition of being born without a foreskin). Sociobiological theories (the science of behavioral evolution – based on assumptions that social behaviors undergo the same evolutionary processes as biological traits) seem to center on the role of male circumcision on the sensitivity of the penis, which could lead to a smaller chance of being cuckolded in a polygamous society; by accepting the procedure, children would gain access to greater social benefits. Frankly, I think that this is a weak explanation, with most of the effect probably being related to perceived effects on male sensitivity. As a costly surgery, however, male circumcision acts as a public sign of group identity, which may be associated with marriage structure or marriageability (given the association with polygynous societies). But that's just speculation, given some personal knowledge with Jewish marriage customs.

Practically every religious group, as well as cultural affiliations and groups have public ceremonies that induct people into them – most of these ceremonies induct children, regardless of the child's true ability to make a conscious and well-researched choice. Baptisms, circumcisions, first communions, and b'nei mitzvot are a small sample of ritualized behaviors taken from just two religions – cross-culturally, research can bring forth orders of magnitude more ceremonies that induct a child into a cultural group. At a more general level, many of the actions that parents make for their children act to induct them into cultural groups – whether it be deciding which school to enter a child into, what extra-curricular activities to join, whether and what kind of instruments, languages, or other skills should be learned. These activities are not necessarily without the child's consent, but it can hardly be said that a child would be making a completely objective choice about what activities (and cultural groups) in which they engage.

So why all of the outrage? All men are freaked out about things that happen to their penises, for good reason. Evolution would dictate that since men require a functional penis for successful insemination (at least in a competitive environment where all the other males have functional penises), there is a considerable pressure to maintain a healthy and happy penis throughout a man's reproductive life. That said, the biological role of the foreskin is what concerns people skeptical of male circumcision – obviously, there is a trade-off resulting from male circumcision, which involves the loss of the foreskin's biological function and would be balanced by social benefits bestowed by a group that practices male circumcision (such as inclusion into a society). This ignores cases of foreskin maladies, where the foreskin interferes with normal sexual behavior and its removal may be of physiological or biological benefit to the man.

The sexual effects of circumcision (as well as the biological roles of the foreskin) are still debated topics in scientific literature, with claims ranging from circumcision being beneficial, detrimental, and many of the studies finding insignificant differences. One of the major issues that cloud studies about circumcision is that sexual behavior and practice is extremely variable in humans, within and across cultures – therefore, it's extremely difficult to claim that a study has isolated circumcision as the sole variable affecting sexual performance in its participants. Another issue is that many circumcision studies require self-assessment, which is particularly tricky for humans because of the aforementioned uneasiness with anything that has affected one's penis. Another issue comes from the terms people use for evaluating circumcision's sexual effects, namely “satisfaction” and “pleasure”. These are not terms that have any scientific meaning nor do they have discrete scales that mean anything from one person to another. Sexual satisfaction and pleasure can be seen as evolving throughout a person's lifetime, changing as they have more sexual experiences, as well as other experiences and mental states that are unrelated to the physical state of one's penis. This becomes increasingly tricky when people complain about a loss of sensation and pleasure due to a circumcision performed on them within the first month of life (or after 8 days, in Jewish traditions): because someone has had practically their entire conscious life (and definitely their entire sexual life) with a circumcised penis, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how much sensation has been lost or how much pleasure they would have received had their foreskin been intact. Since satisfaction and pleasure are emotions felt in the brain, not the penis, studies should focus solely on the amount of stimuli sent from the penis, shaft, and foreskin rather than how those stimuli are perceived and interpreted by the test subject.

Some conclusions:
- Male circumcision has been associated with the loss of nerve endings that were present on the foreskin, prompting reports of a loss of sensation or pleasure – these effects may be caused by other reasons or not have a very large effect, because scientific studies do not show consistent significantly detrimental effects associated with circumcision.
- Because of the nature of sexual performance and perceived pleasure and satisfaction – which involves much more than just the physiological state of the penis, circumcision may be used as a scapegoat to blame a perceived lack of sexual prowess and pleasure on a procedure that was not willingly elected for by the person.
- In cultures that regularly perform male circumcisions, circumcision is a ritualized behavior that gives the recipient access to many social benefits, especially entrance into the society and access to marriageable women. These trade-offs outweigh physiological and medical risks associated with the act within that society, prompting the continuation of the practice.

Discussion of circumcision's legality:
For a society that does not regularly practice circumcision – or does not have associated social benefits to the practice (uncircumcised men are still considered Americans), the question of whether to allow circumcision as a practice becomes less based on individual benefits from circumcision; instead, the decision rests on the benefits of allowing groups that practice the custom to continue their practice without outside intervention and the same costs related to the real (as opposed to perceived) losses in pleasure, satisfaction, and reproductive function. Concerns about a child's right to a choice in the matter is not a concern of the society at large, rather of the members of a community where there are social benefits to circumcision. Obviously, groups where circumcision does not grant access to anything would be likely to not undergo the procedure, since there are only risks. However, this does not mean that a society in which the majority of the people do not receive a benefit from circumcision should ban it altogether in a heterogenous society, since that act – rather than reflecting the cost-benefit analyses of the majority of the individuals in that group – determines that groups where the practice of circumcision does impart social benefits are not welcome in the larger society.

To be specific to the case at hand, since all of the general terms were blending together above, San Francisco is not deciding whether or not they want all of their children circumcised, nor are they deciding whether they want to allow Jewish children (or Muslim children) to be circumcised. Jewish and Muslim parents will continue to circumcise their children as long as they see social benefits to it, such as the inclusion into a larger community of Jews and Muslims. San Francisco's Male Circumcision Bill instead asks residents to determine whether their city would be a welcome place for Jews and Muslims to practice their religion freely – and such a bill flies in the face of the city's history and the American Constitution.

Live and let live

This is fairly self-explanatory, no? This whole potential San Francisco circumcision ban has me worked up. I was gonna take a break from it and then maybe my rage would die down and I could join the ranks of the millions of would-be one-post bloggers . . . but no!

I am all for not dispensing circumcisions like a ear exam prior to checking out of a hospital, but come on. Criminalizing religious rituals? Really, San Francisco? Hopefully, there are enough decent people left in that town to see the measure voted down, but as a native Pacific Northwesterner, I clearly have always had my suspicions about the Great Bear Republic to the south.

It would be easier for supporters to justify if they added a religious exception. Instead, full speed ahead into anti-religion and, with the addition of Foreskin Man (1) vs. Hasidic mohel to the fray, a decidedly anti-Semitic tone. Mr. Hess is a two-bit, libelous, smut-peddling demagogue trying to denigrate Jews and Judaism back to the Middle Ages. Backtrack all you want, Rudolf, you are a charlatan leading a thinly veiled attempt to remarginalize Jews in America. The Protocols by any other name would still be garbage. And let's try to tone down the rhetoric a little bit, shall we? Barbarism only seems bad if you, yourself are Roman, and neither of them practiced circumcision. Jeez, you'd think that someone trying to exploit historical misconceptions and hate practices would do a little research, first. That said, I look forward to Mr. Hess's new passion play wherein, for some reason though he was undoubtedly already snipped as a Jewish 8-day-old, an uncut Jesus is first brutally circumcised and then killed by us evil money grubbing Jews. Look for it in a theater near you in December 2012, with voiceovers by Mel Gibson.

Sadly, I grew up in a small political town run by an uneasy truce between the godless hippies and the evangelicals. Believe me, I know that I'm different and that my people are different and that you don't understand our customs. All I'm asking for is a little understanding. That's all.

I know plenty about other religions, their beliefs, practices, outlooks, scriptures. In fact, my hippie-dippie synagogue taught us one year of comparative religions as kids, you know, just in case we wanted to comparison shop. I also know plenty about science, mathematics, and logic. I can understand that it is a personal choice, based on personal experiences, to believe. What struck me most was the vitriol and hate spewed by some secularists. In my many comment wars on circumcision related posts this week I've been mocked, attacked, and derided for wanting to follow a religious custom that's preexisted the Ten Commandments, that preexisted my people's enslavement, that preexisted our namesake, Jacob/Israel. What is so hard to understand? I guess I forgot that once you decide to be secular, you don't need to actually have any arguments, just start attacking people for being stupid if they don't immediately agree with you.

The issue when fighting these monstrous pinkos is that they have an issue with belief itself. They have chosen their god (the great and glorious Skepticismos, lord of the question, supreme picker of nits, disbeliever in all) and are waging a vehement crusade against the Abrahamic one. I completely understand the point of not wanting to have every boy circumcised. If I smoke or drink enough I might be able to understand why the "rights" and "consent" of an eight day old should be consulted prior to the event (though this is arguably much tougher). Aging hippies are trying to deal a deathblow to the society of their forebears, and their pseudo-intellectual spawn are wreaking havoc on those of us who still espouse the sentiments of religious tolerance expressed by our Founding Fathers. In 1790, George Washington wrote to the people of the Congregation Kahal Kadosh Yeshat Israel (now better known as the Touro Synagogue of Newport, RI), saying:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. . . . May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Again, I'm not sure if appealing to a letter from the late-18th century, written by a bootlegging slaveholding Good Ol' Boy, will do much good to these Skepticismosites, but hey, I guess he never did anything to shape this country. All I'm saying, is let us live under our vine and fig tree and leave us the fuck alone!

(1) I realize for those of you who haven't seen this, it would be good of me to provide a link, but I don't want to give this guy any more traffic that his neo-Nazi brethren in Idaho can generate themselves. Do they have internet up there, yet?

Hello world!

I typically try to keep my head down. I don't particularly want to rock the boat. I'm not particularly political, neither in aspirations nor opinions. Sometimes, though, in the course of human history, we must stand up and make ourselves and our opinions known.

Now, and for the period of time until blogging becomes cumbersome or I just forget about it entirely, is one of those times.