There is one issue that unites Jews and Muslims: they both practice ritual circumcision of infant males, and both are opposed to the new German law that bans circumcision of infant males. Now I know this is a hot-button issue in the secular community, and, in truth, I don’t have a strong opinion—or any opinion—on the issue.  The fact is that scientific work shows that circumcision reduces the incidence of AIDS and papilloma-virus infection (the latter of which can be transmitted to women with more dire consequences), and I also know that it can be seen as a form of mutilation—though not nearly as vicious as female genital mutilation, often practiced simply to blunt female sexuality.  And, as a Jew who underwent the procedure before I could give consent (by a doctor, though, and I’m not sure my parents had any religious motivation), I don’t feel debased or deprived.

But perhaps one should wait until a boy is old enough to understand the procedure and make his own decision. The problem is that it’s more painful and intrusive when you’re older. But one thing I do feel strongly about: it should be done by doctors, not mohels, and never by the barbaric practice of using the mouth, which can infect boys with whatever diseases the mohel carries.

Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitz feels differently: he sees German’s circumcision ban as a reflection of long-standing anti-Semitism, and decries German’s law in an article in the The Algemeiner, “J’acuse: Shame on Germany for circumcision ban.” His rhetoric includes this:

It’s not because Germans or Norwegians are better people and care more about children and animals than do Americans.  It is because they care less about Jews.  Or more precisely they care a lot about Jews.  They just don’t like them very much and don’t care if they are forced to leave the country because they cannot practice their religions there.

So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised a week after birth.  Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews.

History is not irrelevant in assessing current policies.  The history of Germany (and Norway) in prohibiting Jews from practicing their traditional rituals goes back to a time when overt anti-Semitism was not only acceptable, it was de rigueur.  Today, new words replace discredited old ones.  Anti-Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. The welfare of children instead of the banning of religious rituals.  But it’s all the same.  Anyone who falls for the new pseudo scientific nonsense about the evils of circumcision or ritual slaughter is as naïve or bigoted as those who fell for the old pseudo scientific racial claims of Nazism.

Indeed, there is an ugly whiff of “racial superiority” in the implicit assumption underlying these bigoted laws:  Namely, that Germans and Norwegians are somehow morally (if not racially) superior to other countries that permit such “barbaric” practices.

So let’s call a spade a spade and let’s call anti-Semitism by its true name.

. . . Some may suggest that the alleged science purporting to support these bans be challenged on the basis of scientific truth.  Perhaps.  But that too may play into the hands of those who would argue that even acknowledging a possible scientific basis for these bigoted proposals lends some legitimacy to them.  “Science” too was used to support Nazi racial studies.  Should German scientists now conduct “twin studies” on circumcised and uncircumcised siblings?  Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that “the health benefits” of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – “out weight the risks?”

. . .Shame on those Germans who would ban circumcision.  Shame on those Germans who do not care enough to rise up in anger against the pseudo scientific bigots who falsely claim to be interested in the sensitivities of children.  Praise for those Germans who do stand against the bigotry of their countrymen.

Let other countries with cleaner hands take the lead in conducting real scientific research and in seeking to protect the rights of children and animals.  The dirty hands and filthy past of Germany forever disqualifies that country from leading the effort to ban Jewish rituals.  For shame!

As I said, I don’t have strong feelings about the ban, though I think Dershowitz is overwrought here.  But, in the interests of not making any subject taboo (as Pinker’s video argued yesterday), could there be any truth in his claim that the ban partly reflects anti-Semitism? It’s up for discussion here. Again, stick to the issues and try to refrain from name-calling.