Is there an anti-Moslem, anti-Jewish bias behind the California movement to ban circumcision?

While still small, the movement to ban circumcision seems to be growing in California.  A few weeks ago I read that a petition drive had yielded enough signatures to get banning circumcision of newborn males on the ballot in San Francisco.  Now a similar petition effort is underway in Santa Monica. 

There is little likelihood these or other measures would pass, and even if they did, they wouldn’t hold water in court.  But still, it does give one pause, at least if one is Jewish like me, or Moslem, like many of my friends.

I visited wholebabyrevolution.com, run by Jena Troutman, the woman who is leading the ban circumcision movement in California.   It repackages its litany against circumcision in several ways, in a “25 reasons” list, an FAQ and several articles.   It all comes down to three messages:

  1. It is medically unnecessary
  2. It has medical risks
  3. It has lifelong side effects, the most dramatic of which is decreased erotic sensitivity in that area.

Reasons number two and number three are patently false, disproved by lots of research, and in the case of decreased sensitivity, a whole lot of anecdotal evidence as well.  As to the lack of medical necessity: many studies have shown through the years that women with circumcised partners have lower rates of uterine cancer and that circumcised males are far less likely to contract certain bacterial diseases in that area.  As a feisty aunt of mine might say, if it doesn’t hurt and it might help, what’s the problem?

Now that I’ve demolished the arguments of the ban circumcision movement, I want to speculate about its origins, to wit, is it a veiled attack on Jews and/or Moslems (since many Moslems also circumcise new-born males)?  I saw not a note of anti-Semitic or anti-Moslem ideas on either the website or any of the dozens of medically-themed articles against circumcision you can find at wholebabyrevolution.com.  (The impressive list reminds me of the equally impressive lists of articles I used to see on the health benefits of gingko biloba and laetrile.)

Despite the hygienic approach of the materials and the campaign, I assert that based on the given information, any act to ban circumcision is inherently and irrefutably anti-Semitic and anti-Moslem.  We may never know, but it’s difficult not to wonder if behind the smiley and earnest dedication of Jena Troutman lurks some money that hates Jews, and may hate Moslems, too.

I think Jews should learn a lesson from the small ban circumcision movement, a lesson that I believe many enlightened Moslems have known for some time: that there are more communalities between the Jewish and Moslem religions and cultures than there are between either of these venerable civilizations and Christianity.  Think of ancient language, dietary restrictions, multiple daily prayer times, prayer repetition, professions in Diaspora, musical traditions, methodologies of its great philosophers—the list of points at which Jewish and Moslem culture touch are endless.

American Jews should contemplate these similarities when asked to join forces with the American religious right in the kind of holy war proposed by the likes of Professor Samuel P. Huntington of the “clash of civilizations” theory.  And Israelis might remember these similarities when they consider the civil and economic rights of Palestinians and when they contemplate the possibility of negotiating peace in the Middle East.

Pew study analysis shows that Americans are knowingly acting against their best interest.

In his regular column on the Op/Ed page of last Saturday’s New York Times, Charles Blow presented survey results from the Pew Research Center in chart form without explanation.  His article, titled “False Choices,” is loosely related to the chart and proposes that “we need both sensible tax increases and sensible spending cuts to address the deficit.”  I generally like what Blow has to say, but I reject this assertion, for two reasons: 1) The deficit should not be an issue until we have more people working; 2) Tax increases, and not cuts to job-creating programs, should be the only way to cure the deficit problem because taxes are currently too low on higher incomes; additionally, raising taxes always produces jobs.  Of course, maybe by “sensible cuts,” Blow means cuts to military spending, which I enthusiastically support.  Alas, Blow is not specific.

But I don’t want to quibble with Blow, but instead shed some light on the Pew study he presents. I want to do the math for everyone who saw, or didn’t see, the article, and extrapolate from it a phenomenon that truly is frightening: Americans acting and voting against their own best interest.

The results of the Pew study of a representative cross-section of adults nationwide show that while 53% of those surveyed are following the debate on raising the U.S. debt ceiling very closely or somewhat closely, only about 48% believe they understand what would happen if the debt ceiling is not raised. 

Despite their uneasiness with the subject, an incredible 73% of those surveyed are very concerned or somewhat concerned that not raising the debt limit would force the United States to default and hurt the nation’s economy. The Pew study thus shows that Americans are well aware that it’s a very bad idea not to raise the debt ceiling.

And yet when asked if they wanted their Congressional representative to vote in favor of or against raising the debt ceiling, only 19% said in favor, while 47% said to vote against. (34% said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.)

So once again, Americans seem to be voting against their own best interests.  They realize that raising the debt ceiling is a necessity, and yet they want their Congressperson to vote against it.  

What is going on here?  Last week, I told you about a group (too small to be statistically representative) whose incomes depend to a large extent on the government doling out money to nonprofit organizations, yet nevertheless are against tax increases that for the most part wouldn’t harm them.

Eight months ago, I noted that working class whites are supporting the very political party—the Republicans—that has been taking money from the working class since Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency.  

I understand that about a quarter to a third of the voters put more stock in social issues than economic or political issues; really I should say “social control” issues, because in all cases, these so-called “values” voters want to control what other people do, e.g., by opposing gay marriage and a woman’s right to have an abortion or by inserting Christianity into public and secular places.  Related to, and to a large extent overlapping, these “social control” voters are those who vote on the single issue of gun rights.  Whether they know it or not, except for the ultra-wealthy among them, these groups of voters have made a devil’s bargain with the economic free-marketers: support our values and we’ll support your economic policies even though they hurt us.

Of course that doesn’t explain the rest of those voting against their own interests.

True believers don’t even realize when what they believe hurts themselves.

I was having lunch the other day with about six other people.  We included professionals in law, accounting, public relations, bookkeeping, business insurance, healthcare insurance and real estate.  We all shared several characteristics.  We all are white and all have small businesses that put us in the shrinking echelons of the upper middle class. And all of us work extensively for non-profit organizations.  All except me live in the suburbs.

Naturally the topic turned to the funding problems that our non-profit clients are suffering, all because of budget cuts by local, state and federal governments.  Everyone knew at least one non-profit on the verge of shutting down.

After a few minutes of this commiseration, I stated firmly that the reason for the budget cuts is that taxes are too low and that we have to raise taxes, especially on the highest incomes.

Everyone else at the table had a look of horror, but as I continued to make my points, the expressions on the faces of most began to soften.  I explained that taxes are historically low on the wealthiest Americans, and that we wouldn’t have to make these budget cuts if you went back to the taxes of 1979.  When someone uttered, “90%,” I replied that the 90% rate was in the early 60’s, but forgot to mention that it was only paid on the incremental income over a certain amount that was in the millions. 

I could see by the approval on their faces that I had turned the group, but the epiphany that taxes are too low was shattered when a lawyer and an accountant started chanting, “No new taxes…taxes are too high…no new taxes…taxes are too high.”

These people are not rich.  If Congress did the right thing and rescinded the Bush II tax cut for those earning $250,000 or more, some of my friends might have to pay more, but not that much.  Remember, that the tax rates are assessed incrementally, which means that if the top rate is $250,000 and you earn $290,000, you only pay the top rate on $40,000. 

It is now well documented that the extension of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy was financed the $38.5 billion of budget cuts ripped from educational, social service, mass transit and other important job-creating programs.  A lot of that money went to non-profit organizations, and not getting it is why many non-profits depending on government contracts are suffering everywhere.

And yet my friends blindly follow the “no tax” line, even as it probably hurts them more than it helps them, because it hurts their client base.  These true believers seem to forget that the government can’t tax your income if you don’t make it.

These are all good people who truly care about their communities and our futures.  They vote and they participate in community activities. 

But they have been sold a bill of goods by right-wingers to think that they are not suffering from the 30-year transfer of wealth up the ladder from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, or not to understand that regressive tax policies have been one of the primary factors in the movement of wealth from the pockets of practically everyone into the pockets of the rich.

I want to point out that one lunch only provides one anecdote, but we have seen middle class suburbs voting Tea-publican recently.

Perhaps that will change when automation and a hyperactive educational system complete the process of slashing the salaries of upper middle class professionals.   In the news recently is the fact that one-third of all law school graduates this year can’t find a job as a lawyer.  Another article pointed out that many lawyers (some of whom used to make $200 an hour) are working for $20 as outsourced professional labor.  Once the upper middle class starts to take as many economic punches as unionized and middle class workers have over the past 30+ years, maybe they’ll understand that lower taxes have helped to lead the United States into a debt-ridden decline