Nanny State Attacks Jewish, Muslim Manhood
By Jonathan Bean • Friday June 3, 2011 9:06 PM PDT • 19 Comments
This week, a “God blogger” published a Wall Street Journal column highlighting the “circumcision wars” in California. The “intactivists” opposed to circumcision are up against Jews and Muslims (among others) in San Francisco. I’m betting with the latter groups. I think circumcision is barbaric and demeaning to men but it doesn’t rise to the level of suttee or honor killing. So let them cut away!
Normally, secular folks howl at Christians because their beliefs supposedly contradict “mainstream science.” If Christians, Muslims or others say “God commanded us to do ‘x’ or believe ‘y,’” then those people of faith are put down as Neanderthal know-nothings. This is an old script in the West, although the academy and media now bow to death threats from radical Muslims and will never, ever offend with cartoons, satire, or other disrespect the personage of you-know-who from Mecca. Not even hidden in a bear suit (ask South Park creators). That simply wouldn’t be kosher.
So, now, circumcision, which removes some of the most pleasure-dense nerves of the, er, male organ, is under attack from San Francisco Nanny State liberals. (To call them “liberal” is a misnomer since they are profoundly authoritarian but the American lexicon for politics is upside down).
Nanny Staters in San Francisco weren’t pleased when Jon Stewart merrily mocked their measure banning Happy Meals.
Stewart happens to be Jewish. Hmmm. Perhaps this is payback time?
Are Jews, Muslims going to join Jehovah Witnesses and others in having their religious practice scrubbed because it is “unscientific”?
Will we see “back alley” mohels?
Did Obama issue a double entendre when he said he would use a “scalpel” on the budget? After all, where did he say that some Americans “cling to their guns and religion”?
San Francisco.
The plot thickens!
The penis wars continue.
Next up: commentary from Congressman Wiener on the issue. Can a Jewish congressman support a federal ban on circumcision? Would he respect such a ban? Inquiring minds want to know.
***
For more on religious freedom from the State, read:
Wendy McElroy, “The Origin of Religious Tolerance: Voltaire”
Bruce Murray, Religious Liberty in America: The First Amendment in Historical and Contemporary Perspective
David Theroux, “C.S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism”
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Culture, Family, Liberty, Morality, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics, Privacy, Regulation, Science 
If people were having *themselves* circumcised, I’d agree that attempts to ban circumcision were nanny-statish in the extreme. But when they’re having *other people* circumcised unconsentingly, this seems pretty clearly like an act of aggression. I’m not a fan of the state’s doing anything, but using force against other people’s bodies seems pretty straightforwardly objectionable. The fact that it’s not as bad as honor killing or suttee hardly makes it peaceful and voluntary.
Gary Chartier | Jun 5, 2011 | Reply
But the science is equivocal (there may actually be benefits) and, based on your reasoning, the State could restrict a wide range of parental decisions about their children. (The Happy Meal ban makes more sense because “children don’t buy their own food, right?”
Jonathan Bean | Jun 5, 2011 | Reply
Well,then, clearly, if Muslims in this country start forcibly performing cliterectomies on their daughters it should be OK by your reasoning. Or is it only because it is young boys and Jewish ritual that’s being brought under scrutiny.
Jean Finet | Jun 6, 2011 | Reply
You aren’t seriously comparing the two procedures, are you? One has an ambiguous, yet arguable medical benefit with some (unknown) effect on future sexual pleasure. The other completely eliminates the primary female sexual organ (with a lot of lasting pain that doesn’t exist with the foreskin procedure). Courts and governments tread lightly in this area (at least in the USA) because “children are not mere creatures of the State” (famous 1920s SCOTUS decision laying the foundation of parental privacy rights).
Jonathan Bean | Jun 6, 2011 | Reply
“The Happy Meal ban makes more sense because ‘children don’t buy their own food, right?’”
I’m against the state banning circumcision or anything else — including practices I find immoral and in some cases aggressive, like abortion. But I don’t see how this follows. Children don’t buy their own food, but they certainly, almost always, willingly eat McDonald’s. The whole controversy is over circumcision of a child before he is able to consent. The state is not the answer. But it is a legitimate debate. Happy Meals? Not so much.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 6, 2011 | Reply
Yes, children “willingly” eat Happy Meals but consent by minors is not the issue. There are many things children do not like (I’m a parent, I know) but even the greatest classical liberals haven’t gone the way of Hillary Clinton on “children’s rights” of consent. It is a tough issue for classical liberals, though, because it carves out a space for the State in exceptional cases.
In some “hard” cases, the State might be the answer: Jehovah’s Witnesses and a blood transfusion that stands between a child’s life? Courts (as I recall) have ordered the blood transfusion. Gets even more complicated when one parent is of that religion and the other isn’t. My grad student’s forthcoming paper on the issue deal with all this complexity.
Classical liberals rightfully shy away from the State but also embrace things like common law (at least, Hayekian liberals do). So, while there may be a point hard-to-determine beyond which parents may not go, we should a) refrain from State action except for hard cases but b) always remember that hard cases make for bad law if they become the rule and not the exception. That seems to be the case in America today. (I’ll write a whole blog on how us “free range” parents face hostile “helicopter parents” who threaten us with DCFS and all the rest.
Jonathan Bean | Jun 6, 2011 | Reply
I would object to the forced blood transfusion of a Jehovah’s witness, even though it may seem clear in a particular case that it would be medically beneficial.
These types of actions open the door to many other more ambiguous and even outright detrimental policies of State coercion. One sees this in examples of parents losing custody of their kids for not following medical advice for chemotherapy or other interventions. We also are seeing what many people believe to be widespread harm from the CDC’s vaccine schedule. When coercion enters into these decisions, prudence and caution get short shrift while medical orthodoxy runs roughshod over parents’ preferences and their natural concern for the well-being of their children.
In short, I would “err” on the side of not intervening even in cases that seem clearcut.
These policies are not only contrary to the well-being of children, they are also deeply trouble from a philosophical standpoint, carrying with them the unmistakable message that the State owns our children.
D. Saul Weiner | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
David Theroux kindly volunteered the following book on the issue:
The American Family and the State, edited by Fred Glahe and Joseph Peden
To Saul: what about child sacrifice?
What if one parents wants x and the other is deeply opposed to x?
One thing I’ve learned about family issues is that you run into more hard cases than usual because the person acted upon lacks consent — and most of us would generally defer to the parents rather than the child.
Jonathan Bean | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
Circumcision of the prepuce is a ritual of both Jews and Muslims. Jews will perform this on a male child approximately 8 days after birth, while Mohammedan ritual circumcision is done in early years. Clitorectomy is a barbaric act to deprive women of sexual pleasure as she is considered to be available only for male pleasure. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not practice circumcision as a religious rite. Whether to circumcise, or not, is totally left up to the parents.
Joseph C Moore, USN Ret | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
I believe that society ought to intervene in situations where there is a clear pattern of parental abuse, but I would not put employing alternate approaches to health matters in this same category.
Even here, though, I have serious doubts about the ability of the state to perform this function, where they are liable to put these kids in other bad environments and force medicate them. There must be a better way, though I am afraid that I do not have all of the answers.
D. Saul Weiner | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
“. . . but even the greatest classical liberals haven’t gone the way of Hillary Clinton on ‘children’s rights’ of consent.”
Hmmm. I don’t quite understand this reference. I do know that Murray Rothbard favorably cited Hillary Clinton in Ethics of Liberty regarding children’s rights — but this was, ironically, on a matter where both he and she sided with parental prerogative against the state. I do think the principled classical liberal position is that children own themselves but do not have total control, even once they are cognizant of what’s going on, over their lives, because the parents are caretakers. The family is in a sense an implicit contract, where children’s rights to choose what to do is suspended in favor of parental authority. But this view, in the case of principled libertarianism, is coupled with the caveat that children have a right to run away. Nevertheless, before a child is cognizant, decisions have to be up to the parent, but obviously the parent cannot regard the child as his pure property, throw an infant into the fire, chop off his toddler’s feet, etc. I think circumcision is very likely an example where the benefit of the doubt has to go to the child: That a kid must be of a consenting age and decide, voluntarily, that he wants to have this kind of surgical procedure. Parents may have medical operations done to their children to save their lives, but not simply for purely aesthetic or cultural reasons. Again, this is no business of the state’s, but I’m glad Americans are starting to rethink the practice, as it is so prevalent in the United States in the first place due largely to historical accident.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
Yes, I am familiar with Rothbard’s position. While I appreciate MR’s work (he’s great for class discussions), his position on “Kid’s Lib” is something I can’t accept (I won’t get into the long series of reasons here but may discuss in a future blog). Did MR have children? Love to know what they think but I don’t think he did.
So I agree with your overall assessment but I think Rothbard is an outlier in the classical liberal tradition.
Jonathan Bean | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
This ban on circumcision is stupid. Everything they do in SFO is stupid and authoritarian. They are bullies trying to force their view of the world on everyone else. They have no right to try and outlaw a 2,000+ year old religious practice that has no lasting negative consequences for men. I say if some nerves are damaged, maybe it’s good. It is clear men are still enjoying themselves during sex. If not for circumcision maybe sex would be over even faster which I think a lot of women would NOT appreciate. Bet you didn’t see that comment coming.
Mary Larkin | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
Well, I certainly would count Rothbard among the “the greatest classical liberals” of all time. And you can call him an outlier, but I think Rothbardianism essentially encapsulates the main spirit in the modern libertarian movement — individualist anti-statism, free market and especially Misesian economics, natural rights, personal liberty and anti-imperialism — and surely the majority of libertarians I’ve met and talked to about these issues basically take his position.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
Yes, MR is one of the greatest. I meant an “outlier” ON THIS ISSUE. Ditto his call for a ban on fractional reserve banking, which developed spontaneously but he saw it as one of the roots of monetary evil. As a recent TIR article pointed out, that smacks more of a pet peeve than a libertarian position opposed to fractional reserve banking “between consenting adults”!
Jonathan Bean | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
Bit off topic but on MR’s banking position:
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=775
Jonathan Bean | Jun 7, 2011 | Reply
There are limits to parental rights; they do not rightfully extend to mutilating genitals–irrespective of the baby’s gender.
M. Thomas Frederiksen | Jun 12, 2011 | Reply
Anthony and Thomas, Male circumcision is in no way mutilation and it developed primarily as a health practice that became a cultural mark of someone who would be viewed as cleaner than others. And, modern studies indeed do show that it has clear health advantages without inhibiting on a man’s sexual abilities. As a result, I would submit that parental choice is indeed appropriate and just.
David Theroux | Jun 13, 2011 | Reply
“This ban on circumcision is stupid. Everything they do in SFO is stupid and authoritarian. They are bullies trying to force their view of the world on everyone else. They have no right to try and outlaw a 2,000+ year old religious practice that has no lasting negative consequences for men. I say if some nerves are damaged, maybe it’s good. It is clear men are still enjoying themselves during sex. If not for circumcision maybe sex would be over even faster which I think a lot of women would NOT appreciate. Bet you didn’t see that comment coming.”
Pedro Coderch | Oct 25, 2011 | Reply