Warning: If you're in the midst of eating lunch, you might want to wait until AFTER to read this story--I know it stopped me from finishing MY yogurt mid-cup. I am opposed to circumcision. I believe it is a horribly cruel process to put a newborn through, not to mention there's not good reason for doing it in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, the decision to have a circumcision should be made by a man for himself only, not for a two-day old baby that has zero ability to consent. All that being said, I bend somewhat to the idea of performing a circumcision as part of religous ritual. I appreciate the idea of a shared experience--however barbaric it might be. Still, if parents are going to choose to perform a circumcision on their baby, it should be done in a way that narrows any possibility of complications, including secondary infection. Today while reading Wonkette, I noticed that she linked to an Slate article by the always opinionated Christopher Hitchens. Today, I happened to agree with what he had to say on circumcisions being performed by some Orthodox Jews In New York City. Here's an excerpt, which he himself pulled from a recent New York Times article:

A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes—one of them fatal—in infants. … The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

Hitchens then points out that the Times referenced an "an article published last year in the journal Pediatrics that argued that metzitzah b'peh carries a serious health risk and is, for that reason alone, a violation of Jewish law." He adds, "None of this should be hard to comprehend: If it risks the life or health of an infant, then no religious allegiance is or should be required for its condemnation." Here's what the increasingly opinionless Bloomberg had to say on this ritual:

We're going to do a study, and make sure that everyone is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion.

Just like Bloomberg didn't want to upset his Republican overlords by witholding commentary on Cindy Sheehan, he's also tight-lipped about this practice, which is clearly a health hazard. His evasiveness was not lost on the Time's reporter, which fell short for Hitchens, who quotes the reporter and comments:

For the Times reporter to add that Mayor Bloomberg's comment appeared to be designed not to "upset a group that can be a formidable voting bloc" was, in the circumstances, worse than superfluous.

Hitchens finishes up with a good ole fashioned rant. He is ten times more anti-organized religion than I am. I feel like religous institutions are a lot like many institutions. There's good and bad and the most powerful one are often prone to corruption. Still and all, it's an entertaining read, made all the more so since he sticks it to Mike "No Comment" Bloomberg.

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.