Anti-Kant Campaign

This wont start a discussion, but it's related to the course so check it out.
Anti-Kant Campaign
Enjoy

Man held for German 'cannibal killing'

A man has confessed to murdering and eating another man who allegedly volunteered to be killed, in a case that has shocked Germany.

The 41-year-old - who was remanded in custody on Wednesday - videotaped the murder, prosecutors said.

The victim, also in his 40s, was chopped into pieces at the killer's home in the central German town of Rotenburg, near Kassel.

Prosecutors in Kassel said the accused and the victim were apparently homosexuals who shared cannibalistic tendencies.The German daily Bild reports that the victim, from Berlin, had seen an advertisement on the internet which said: "Seeking young, well-built men aged 18 to 30 to slaughter."

The victim, a computer engineer, then sold all his possessions including a car before disappearing, the paper reports.

The state prosecutor's office in Kassel said the man died from deep cuts to the neck. The killer then chopped up the body and kept the parts in his fridge.

Police believe the murder occurred in spring 2000.

They found deep-frozen human flesh, skeleton parts and video recordings at the scene.

Neighbour Joerg Paulusen, speaking to Reuters TV, said of the killer: "It was sort of clear to us that he had a different perspective on life than we did, but he was a normal person, to speak to him, drink a glass of beer with him - just like you and me."

The last alleged case of cannibalism in Germany was when a 33-year-old man on trial for robbery and murder in March 1995 claimed to have eaten his victim's innards, although his claim was never proven, the AFP news agency reports.



If, according to cultural relativism, we shouldn't judge someone's actions if their culture dictates it to be morally acceptable, should we be able to judge a German man who maybe agrees with those set of cultural morals, but happens to live in a society that doesn't share his views?

Birth of a New Tourism And Its Growing Pains

November 01, 2007
Shauna Rempel
Toronto Star

Name: Penny Dowedoff

Age: 34

Program: PhD student in sociology at York University

Research: Reproductive tourism

The Issue: Reproductive tourism, wherein women and couples go outside their home country in order to receive fertility treatments, is a growing industry that brings with it the same ethical, legal and medical concerns as other types of medical tourism.

The pitch: Online ads for fertility clinics in Barbados or other reproductive tourism hot spots promise a chance to get pregnant in a vacation-like setting.

"It's linking medicine with tourism," Dowedoff says of the advertisements, which may appeal to couples who are sensitive to the social stigma of infertility.

"It's easier to say you're going on holiday than to say you're getting fertility treatments."

The money factor: As with any type of medical tourism, the practice can lead to a two-tier system with those who can afford the treatments effectively jumping the queue or circumventing the laws of their home country.

The individuals: Dowedoff is interviewing people who leave Canada to receive treatments such as in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination.

She's also looking at individuals who sell their own reproductive material such as sperm or eggs, which is illegal in Canada but legal in the United States and other jurisdictions.

"I'm not trying to portray them as villains or victims," says Dowedoff of Canadians who go outside the country for treatments that are illegal, expensive or impractical to receive here. "I'm just trying to understand their experiences and tease out these complex relationships."
Reproductive tourism has an impact not only on Canadian society, but also abroad.

In India, for example, doctors and nurses are lured to the lucrative clinics, which affects health care for locals.

There is also the potential for exploitation of surrogate mothers from developing countries, Dowedoff says.

The future: So far, although the often-controversial topic has gotten coverage in the media, not a lot of academic research has been done on reproductive tourism, Dowedoff says.

But that's sure to change: As more advances are made in reproductive technology, reproductive tourism will likely grow along with it.




Is it ethical for people with a lot of money to get these treatments, when people without money cannot?

Also, is it ethical for Canadians and Americans to take the attention of the best doctors in Barbados, India, and other places offering these services, if they are taking the medical attention away from the locals?

Deception and Self Interest

Deception and Self Interest

The local “News and Observer” recently featured an article on lying (“Liar, Liar, Where’s the Fire?”, Jan 29). Faculty of UNC and others working and living in the wider community weighed in on the topic, and a number of themes related to lying were explored. These included evolutionary explanations of lying, lying to spare the feelings of others, ways of teaching children not to lie, and lying in advertising and real estate. Much of this was interesting, but when the question of why a person shouldn’t lie was raised the answer was usually given in terms of self-interest. The reasoning was basically that, in the long run, it is in the individual’s (or the organization’s) best interest to tell the truth. Otherwise one might earn a reputation for lying, which is something that can be harmful in a number of ways. Who would buy a product from an organization with a reputation for deception? Or who would be friends with a person known for his or her dishonesty? And so on.

Arguments that appeal to self-interest in this way to ground moral obligation are interesting, and can help build the case for telling the truth. But they are probably not enough. Missing are reasons to be honest that have nothing to do with self-interest. To be fair, in the article it is never claimed that the only reasons to tell the truth are self-interested in nature, and “unselfish” reasons to be moral are gestured at. But one would understandably get the impression from the article that there are not many compelling reasons to tell the truth apart from those stemming from self-interest. This would be an unfortunate and maybe dangerous way to think of our obligations around truth-telling.
Plato is maybe the first philosopher, at least that we know of, to have addressed the problematic relationship between self-interest and morality. It seemed to Plato that if self-interest provided the only reasons to be moral, then it would very often make sense to be immoral. Why he thought this is simple, and can be applied to the specific case of lying: though telling the truth can give you a good reputation that can be advantageous, sometimes, if you’re sneaky enough, you can lie without harming your reputation. Then you would have a good reputation and whatever else you have gained through deception. This would be the best of both worlds from the standpoint of self-interest!

It would be nice if it never made sense to lie from the standpoint of self-interest, but to think this is to overlook the unfortunate fact that very often skillful deception, for an individual or a corporation, can advance the deceiver’s selfish interests. To shore up the case for truth-telling, then, other, unselfish considerations must be given. Reasons must be given to show why lying is immoral even when lying makes sense from the standpoint of self-interest. What these other reasons might be is of course a matter of dispute. One appealing thought is that lying is, by its very nature, disrespectful of the person being lied to, a way of treating them as not fully human but instead as a kind of tool for something they haven’t consented to. It is in any case fairly clear that considerations of self-interest are insufficient by themselves to provide sufficiently stable and comprehensive grounds for telling the truth.

Why Be Jewish?

This article is written by Aron Moss.

Question:

I am teaching a high school class about threats to Judaism in the modern world. What do you see as the biggest threat to Jewish survival--assimilation or anti-Semitism?

Answer:

The biggest threat to Jewish survival is confused Jewish identity. Sadly, today in many Jewish schools and families, Jewish identity is built through teaching Holocaust awareness and a fear of marrying out. The Jewish community's preoccupation with assimilation and anti-Semitism is not the solution, it is the problem.

A pessimistic and negative presentation of being Jewish turns off young Jews more than anything else. When we obsess about anti-Semitism we paint ourselves as perpetual victims. When we over-emphasize the threat of assimilation, it makes us feel like an endangered species. The Jews are alongside the hump-back whale and the giant panda in the list of helpless and pitiful communities disappearing from the planet. Is it so surprising that young Jews are opting out of Judaism? Who wants to be a victim?

We have to stop defining ourselves by the way others perceive us. Assimilation is when non-Jews love us so much they want to marry us. Anti-Semitism is when non-Jews hate us so much they want to kill us. They both just happen to us; but what do we think of ourselves?

We need a clear and positive reason to stay Jewish. Failing that, why should Judaism survive? Is there a good argument for not assimilating into the welcoming societies surrounding us? Is there a compelling reason to stay proudly Jewish in the face of anti-Semitism?

I think there is.

Judaism is the most powerful idea that the world has ever seen. Jews should survive because we have a message that the world needs to hear.

The Jewish way of life is a revolutionary force that can transform ordinary lives into lives of meaning. A family that keeps Shabbat is always reminded of what is really important--that there is more to life than accumulating wealth. The kosher laws teach us that we are not mere animals that must feed our every urge and desire, and that eating itself can be holy. A mezuzah on the door tells the world that this home is built for a higher purpose.

Judaism teaches lessons that the world urgently needs to learn--that every individual person is created in the image of G-d, and is therefore unique and valuable; that morality is not relative but absolute; that humans are partners with G-d in creation, with a mission to create heaven on earth.

These bold Jewish ideas are more relevant now than ever. But bold Jewish ideas need bold Jewish people to perpetuate them. The world can only be elevated if individuals first elevate themselves. We can only make the world into a divine home if we start with our own home. This is Judaism's formula to change the world for better. This is why we must stay Jewish.

The biggest threat to Judaism is not external pressure but rather internal confusion. When we lose sight of our mission, we lose the strength and stamina to survive. The Jewish feeling we need to develop in ourselves and our children is not fear of anti-Semitism, or guilt about assimilation. It is a humble pride in the greatness of the Jewish mission and confident resolve to fulfill it. When we are clear about our identity, no threat in the world can shake us.

What do you think? What is our identity as Jews?

Feral Children

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php
A feral child is a human child who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, and has no (or little) experience of human care, loving or social behavior. These feral children are generally found living in forests living alongside a pack of animals. Feral children can be used as very important proof against philosophers such as Plato, who believe that people are born with an innate intuition of what morality is, and a tendency towards morality. After studying a feral child, it is concluded that they feel no empathy for others, do not know how to behave socially and cannot decipher between right and wrong.
What is your perspective on this issue? How does the fact that some social scientists argue that these children cannot be classified as homo-sapiens allow for Plato’s perspective on morality?

Perpetuating Sterotypes

When does a cartoon cross the line between a joke and discrimination?
After watching this South Park episode a while ago, I have to admit I laughed first. But now, looking back, what will people who are less educated about Judaism think? If this stereotype is true (according to South Park) why not all the others that are circulating?
One of the creators of South Park - Matt Stone - is Jewish. Does that make this more acceptable than if one of the creators of South Park wasn't Jewish? Can Jews really expect other people not to stereotype them if they themselves are perpetuating the stereotypes...?

Anti-Semitism in the Modern Media

Here is a link to a video on Youtube. The video consists of clips of Anti-Semitism in the media. This is of course very controversial, particularly for Jews, but it is very relevant to test the application of cultural relativism: Here is something that we find absolutely despicable, and yet, our disgust with this does not change the fact that Anti-Semitism is a staple in many cultures. Do we have a right to inhibit the right to free speech, and to judge the ideas of these people, if they are only expressing the values of their culture?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xotGJfumZj0

The last victim of the human shield practice

Last update - 09:22 25/10/2007

The last victim of the human shield practice

By Israel Harel

In movies, when the bad guy puts a gun to the hostage's head to deter the police, we're all against him. But when we defend ourselves from Palestinian terror, that image, which the terrorists and their supporters try to portray, is not a fair comparison. If using a hostage can save soldiers trying to arrest a terrorist planning a mass terror attack, then it is necessary and should not be condemned. Even B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - cites only one case, in 2002, when wanted terrorists shot a man whom IDF soldiers were using as a shield. As far as we know, this was the only such casualty, but it was enough to make the High Court of Justice end this practice. Soldiers, however, are still being hurt by it. The last one was Brigadier General Yair Golan, the outgoing commander of the Israeli forces in Judea and Samaria, who managed, with intelligence and resolution, to foil most attempts to attack Israeli citizens. Until the camera captured an unusual incident - soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Due to the High Court's ruling, the chief of staff reprimanded Golan and decided to withhold his promotion. This is the tribute given to a man to whom many owe their lives. A considerable percentage of the petitions debated by the High Court, like the use of Palestinians as human shields, are matters of values and opinions, rather than laws. The justices rule on these matters based on their worldviews. In other words, if the High Court justices were to reflect the values and opinions of the entire population, rather than a certain sector, it is reasonable to assume that the issue of human shields would not have been even brought to court, or would have been declared legally legitimate and morally right. But the motives of bodies like Adalah, Peace Now and B'Tselem, which drag the High Court to rule on such matters every other day, are not necessarily moral. They use moralistic arguments to undermine the public's confidence in the justness of the war on terror. The danger of losing this war does not come from the banning of using human shields, but from the so-called moralistic arguments that defend this ban. The enemy, which is incapable of conducting an all-out war against us, chose terror - for it, all means are justified, including blowing up buses, banquet halls and packed nightclubs. So when we defend ourselves in the cruelest of wars, it is immoral to deny soldiers means such as human shields. The army must conduct the war against terror as it does any war - it must aim to win, and not (as one of the Israel Defense Forces' headquarters puts it) "to reduce the level of violence." This is not, and must not be, the IDF's goal, unless it intends to allow the enemy to drag out the war infinitely, i.e. until it wears us down - for this is the purpose of terror - and to make our life in this country a misery. It is no secret that we could have won some of the battles of the Second Lebanon War and have reduced the number of victims, had the commanders and soldiers not been afraid to shoot terrorists who were not wearing uniforms. It came out during the inquiries that certain commanders refrained from initiating offensives, for fear that if something were to go wrong, they would be embroiled in endless investigations and legal proceedings. Golan, it may be assumed, will be promoted eventually. The IDF needs professional, honest and moral combat commanders like him. But due to the impossible and immoral limitations placed on the army, many talented officers are unwilling to place themselves in Golan's shoes and serve in combat duty. Consequently, it is doubtful whether more commanders with his kind of personal and professional caliber will serve in the IDF.

The Lottery

THE LOTTERY
BY
SHIRLEY JACKSON
The morning of June 27th was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green. The people of the village began to gather in the square, between the post office and the bank, around ten o'clock; in some towns there were so many people that the lottery took two days and had to be started on June 2th. but in this village, where there were only about three hundred people, the whole lottery took less than two hours, so it could begin at ten o'clock in the morning and still be through in time to allow the villagers to get home for noon dinner.
The children assembled first, of course. School was recently over for the summer, and the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on most of them; they tended to gather together quietly for a while before they broke into boisterous play. and their talk was still of the classroom and the teacher, of books and reprimands. Bobby Martin had already stuffed his pockets full of stones, and the other boys soon followed his example, selecting the smoothest and roundest stones; Bobby and Harry Jones and Dickie Delacroix-- the villagers pronounced this name "Dellacroy"--eventually made a great pile of stones in one corner of the square and guarded it against the raids of the other boys. The girls stood aside, talking among themselves, looking over their shoulders at the boys. and the very small children rolled in the dust or clung to the hands of their older brothers or sisters.
Soon the men began to gather. surveying their own children, speaking of planting and rain, tractors and taxes. They stood together, away from the pile of stones in the corner, and their jokes were quiet and they smiled rather than laughed. The women, wearing faded house dresses and sweaters, came shortly after their menfolk. They greeted one another and exchanged bits of gossip as they went to join their husbands. Soon the women, standing by their husbands, began to call to their children, and the children came reluctantly, having to be called four or five times. Bobby Martin ducked under his mother's grasping hand and ran, laughing, back to the pile of stones. His father spoke up sharply, and Bobby came quickly and took his place between his father and his oldest brother.
The lottery was conducted--as were the square dances, the teen club, the Halloween program--by Mr. Summers. who had time and energy to devote to civic activities. He was a round-faced, jovial man and he ran the coal business, and people were sorry for him. because he had no children and his wife was a scold. When he arrived in the square, carrying the black wooden box, there was a murmur of conversation among the villagers, and he waved and called. "Little late today, folks." The postmaster, Mr. Graves, followed him, carrying a three- legged stool, and the stool was put in the center of the square and Mr. Summers set the black box down on it. The villagers kept their distance, leaving a space between themselves and the stool. and when Mr. Summers said, "Some of you fellows want to give me a hand?" there was a hesitation before two men. Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter. came forward to hold the box steady on the stool while Mr. Summers stirred up the papers inside it.
The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born. Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box. There was a story that the present box had been made with some pieces of the box that had preceded it, the one that had been constructed when the first people settled down to make a village here. Every year, after the lottery, Mr. Summers began talking again about a new box, but every year the subject was allowed to fade off without anything's being done. The black box grew shabbier each year: by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color, and in some places faded or stained.
Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter, held the black box securely on the stool until Mr. Summers had stirred the papers thoroughly with his hand. Because so much of the ritual had been forgotten or discarded, Mr. Summers had been successful in having slips of paper substituted for the chips of wood that had been used for generations. Chips of wood, Mr. Summers had argued. had been all very well when the village was tiny, but now that the population was more than three hundred and likely to keep on growing, it was necessary to use something that would fit more easily into he black box. The night before the lottery, Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves made up the slips of paper and put them in the box, and it was then taken to the safe of Mr. Summers' coal company and locked up until Mr. Summers was ready to take it to the square next morning. The rest of the year, the box was put way, sometimes one place, sometimes another; it had spent one year in Mr. Graves's barn and another year underfoot in the post office. and sometimes it was set on a shelf in the Martin grocery and left there.
There was a great deal of fussing to be done before Mr. Summers declared the lottery open. There were the lists to make up--of heads of families. heads of households in each family. members of each household in each family. There was the proper swearing-in of Mr. Summers by the postmaster, as the official of the lottery; at one time, some people remembered, there had been a recital of some sort, performed by the official of the lottery, a perfunctory. tuneless chant that had been rattled off duly each year; some people believed that the official of the lottery used to stand just so when he said or sang it, others believed that he was supposed to walk among the people, but years and years ago this p3rt of the ritual had been allowed to lapse. There had been, also, a ritual salute, which the official of the lottery had had to use in addressing each person who came up to draw from the box, but this also had changed with time, until now it was felt necessary only for the official to speak to each person approaching. Mr. Summers was very good at all this; in his clean white shirt and blue jeans. with one hand resting carelessly on the black box. he seemed very proper and important as he talked interminably to Mr. Graves and the Martins.
Just as Mr. Summers finally left off talking and turned to the assembled villagers, Mrs. Hutchinson came hurriedly along the path to the square, her sweater thrown over her shoulders, and slid into place in the back of the crowd. "Clean forgot what day it was," she said to Mrs. Delacroix, who stood next to her, and they both laughed softly. "Thought my old man was out back stacking wood," Mrs. Hutchinson went on. "and then I looked out the window and the kids was gone, and then I remembered it was the twenty-seventh and came a-running." She dried her hands on her apron, and Mrs. Delacroix said, "You're in time, though. They're still talking away up there."
Mrs. Hutchinson craned her neck to see through the crowd and found her husband and children standing near the front. She tapped Mrs. Delacroix on the arm as a farewell and began to make her way through the crowd. The people separated good-humoredly to let her through: two or three people said. in voices just loud enough to be heard across the crowd, "Here comes your, Missus, Hutchinson," and "Bill, she made it after all." Mrs. Hutchinson reached her husband, and Mr. Summers, who had been waiting, said cheerfully. "Thought we were going to have to get on without you, Tessie." Mrs. Hutchinson said. grinning, "Wouldn't have me leave m'dishes in the sink, now, would you. Joe?," and soft laughter ran through the crowd as the people stirred back into position after Mrs. Hutchinson's arrival.
"Well, now." Mr. Summers said soberly, "guess we better get started, get this over with, so's we can go back to work. Anybody ain't here?"
"Dunbar." several people said. "Dunbar. Dunbar."
Mr. Summers consulted his list. "Clyde Dunbar." he said. "That's right. He's broke his leg, hasn't he? Who's drawing for him?"
"Me. I guess," a woman said. and Mr. Summers turned to look at her. "Wife draws for her husband." Mr. Summers said. "Don't you have a grown boy to do it for you, Janey?" Although Mr. Summers and everyone else in the village knew the answer perfectly well, it was the business of the official of the lottery to ask such questions formally. Mr. Summers waited with an expression of polite interest while Mrs. Dunbar answered.
"Horace's not but sixteen vet." Mrs. Dunbar said regretfully. "Guess I gotta fill in for the old man this year."
"Right." Sr. Summers said. He made a note on the list he was holding. Then he asked, "Watson boy drawing this year?"
A tall boy in the crowd raised his hand. "Here," he said. "I m drawing for my mother and me." He blinked his eyes nervously and ducked his head as several voices in the crowd said thin#s like "Good fellow, lack." and "Glad to see your mother's got a man to do it."
"Well," Mr. Summers said, "guess that's everyone. Old Man Warner make it?"
"Here," a voice said. and Mr. Summers nodded.
A sudden hush fell on the crowd as Mr. Summers cleared his throat and looked at the list. "All ready?" he called. "Now, I'll read the names--heads of families first--and the men come up and take a paper out of the box. Keep the paper folded in your hand without looking at it until everyone has had a turn. Everything clear?"
The people had done it so many times that they only half listened to the directions: most of them were quiet. wetting their lips. not looking around. Then Mr. Summers raised one hand high and said, "Adams." A man disengaged himself from the crowd and came forward. "Hi. Steve." Mr. Summers said. and Mr. Adams said. "Hi. Joe." They grinned at one another humorlessly and nervously. Then Mr. Adams reached into the black box and took out a folded paper. He held it firmly by one corner as he turned and went hastily back to his place in the crowd. where he stood a little apart from his family. not looking down at his hand.
"Allen." Mr. Summers said. "Anderson.... Bentham."
"Seems like there's no time at all between lotteries any more." Mrs. Delacroix said to Mrs. Graves in the back row.
"Seems like we got through with the last one only last week."
"Time sure goes fast.-- Mrs. Graves said.
"Clark.... Delacroix"
"There goes my old man." Mrs. Delacroix said. She held her breath while her husband went forward.
"Dunbar," Mr. Summers said, and Mrs. Dunbar went steadily to the box while one of the women said. "Go on. Janey," and another said, "There she goes."
"We're next." Mrs. Graves said. She watched while Mr. Graves came around from the side of the box, greeted Mr. Summers gravely and selected a slip of paper from the box. By now, all through the crowd there were men holding the small folded papers in their large hand. turning them over and over nervously Mrs. Dunbar and her two sons stood together, Mrs. Dunbar holding the slip of paper.
"Harburt.... Hutchinson."
"Get up there, Bill," Mrs. Hutchinson said. and the people near her laughed.
"Jones."
"They do say," Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, "that over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery."
Old Man Warner snorted. "Pack of crazy fools," he said. "Listening to the young folks, nothing's good enough for them. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live hat way for a while. Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.' First thing you know, we'd all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There's always been a lottery," he added petulantly. "Bad enough to see young Joe Summers up there joking with everybody."
"Some places have already quit lotteries." Mrs. Adams said.
"Nothing but trouble in that," Old Man Warner said stoutly. "Pack of young fools."
"Martin." And Bobby Martin watched his father go forward. "Overdyke.... Percy."
"I wish they'd hurry," Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son. "I wish they'd hurry."
"They're almost through," her son said.
"You get ready to run tell Dad," Mrs. Dunbar said.
Mr. Summers called his own name and then stepped forward precisely and selected a slip from the box. Then he called, "Warner."
"Seventy-seventh year I been in the lottery," Old Man Warner said as he went through the crowd. "Seventy-seventh time."
"Watson" The tall boy came awkwardly through the crowd. Someone said, "Don't be nervous, Jack," and Mr. Summers said, "Take your time, son."
"Zanini."
After that, there was a long pause, a breathless pause, until Mr. Summers. holding his slip of paper in the air, said, "All right, fellows." For a minute, no one moved, and then all the slips of paper were opened. Suddenly, all the women began to speak at once, saving. "Who is it?," "Who's got it?," "Is it the Dunbars?," "Is it the Watsons?" Then the voices began to say, "It's Hutchinson. It's Bill," "Bill Hutchinson's got it."
"Go tell your father," Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son.
People began to look around to see the Hutchinsons. Bill Hutchinson was standing quiet, staring down at the paper in his hand. Suddenly. Tessie Hutchinson shouted to Mr. Summers. "You didn't give him time enough to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn't fair!"
"Be a good sport, Tessie." Mrs. Delacroix called, and Mrs. Graves said, "All of us took the same chance."
"Shut up, Tessie," Bill Hutchinson said.
"Well, everyone," Mr. Summers said, "that was done pretty fast, and now we've got to be hurrying a little more to get done in time." He consulted his next list. "Bill," he said, "you draw for the Hutchinson family. You got any other households in the Hutchinsons?"
"There's Don and Eva," Mrs. Hutchinson yelled. "Make them take their chance!"
"Daughters draw with their husbands' families, Tessie," Mr. Summers said gently. "You know that as well as anyone else."
"It wasn't fair," Tessie said.
"I guess not, Joe." Bill Hutchinson said regretfully. "My daughter draws with her husband's family; that's only fair. And I've got no other family except the kids."
"Then, as far as drawing for families is concerned, it's you," Mr. Summers said in explanation, "and as far as drawing for households is concerned, that's you, too. Right?"
"Right," Bill Hutchinson said.
"How many kids, Bill?" Mr. Summers asked formally.
"Three," Bill Hutchinson said.
"There's Bill, Jr., and Nancy, and little Dave. And Tessie and me."
"All right, then," Mr. Summers said. "Harry, you got their tickets back?"
Mr. Graves nodded and held up the slips of paper. "Put them in the box, then," Mr. Summers directed. "Take Bill's and put it in."
"I think we ought to start over," Mrs. Hutchinson said, as quietly as she could. "I tell you it wasn't fair. You didn't give him time enough to choose. Everybody saw that."
Mr. Graves had selected the five slips and put them in the box. and he dropped all the papers but those onto the ground. where the breeze caught them and lifted them off.
"Listen, everybody," Mrs. Hutchinson was saying to the people around her.
"Ready, Bill?" Mr. Summers asked. and Bill Hutchinson, with one quick glance around at his wife and children. nodded.
"Remember," Mr. Summers said. "take the slips and keep them folded until each person has taken one. Harry, you help little Dave." Mr. Graves took the hand of the little boy, who came willingly with him up to the box. "Take a paper out of the box, Davy." Mr. Summers said. Davy put his hand into the box and laughed. "Take just one paper." Mr. Summers said. "Harry, you hold it for him." Mr. Graves took the child's hand and removed the folded paper from the tight fist and held it while little Dave stood next to him and looked up at him wonderingly.
"Nancy next," Mr. Summers said. Nancy was twelve, and her school friends breathed heavily as she went forward switching her skirt, and took a slip daintily from the box "Bill, Jr.," Mr. Summers said, and Billy, his face red and his feet overlarge, near knocked the box over as he got a paper out. "Tessie," Mr. Summers said. She hesitated for a minute, looking around defiantly. and then set her lips and went up to the box. She snatched a paper out and held it behind her.
"Bill," Mr. Summers said, and Bill Hutchinson reached into the box and felt around, bringing his hand out at last with the slip of paper in it.
The crowd was quiet. A girl whispered, "I hope it's not Nancy," and the sound of the whisper reached the edges of the crowd.
"It's not the way it used to be." Old Man Warner said clearly. "People ain't the way they used to be."
"All right," Mr. Summers said. "Open the papers. Harry, you open little Dave's."
Mr. Graves opened the slip of paper and there was a general sigh through the crowd as he held it up and everyone could see that it was blank. Nancy and Bill. Jr.. opened theirs at the same time. and both beamed and laughed. turning around to the crowd and holding their slips of paper above their heads.
"Tessie," Mr. Summers said. There was a pause, and then Mr. Summers looked at Bill Hutchinson, and Bill unfolded his paper and showed it. It was blank.
"It's Tessie," Mr. Summers said, and his voice was hushed. "Show us her paper. Bill."
Bill Hutchinson went over to his wife and forced the slip of paper out of her hand. It had a black spot on it, the black spot Mr. Summers had made the night before with the heavy pencil in the coal company office. Bill Hutchinson held it up, and there was a stir in the crowd.
"All right, folks." Mr. Summers said. "Let's finish quickly."
Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. The pile of stones the boys had made earlier was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had come out of the box Delacroix selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands and turned to Mrs. Dunbar. "Come on," she said. "Hurry up."
Mr. Dunbar had small stones in both hands, and she said. gasping for breath. "I can't run at all. You'll have to go ahead and I'll catch up with you."
The children had stones already. And someone gave little Davy Hutchinson few pebbles.
Tessie Hutchinson was in the center of a cleared space by now, and she held her hands out desperately as the villagers moved in on her. "It isn't fair," she said. A stone hit her on the side of the head. Old Man Warner was saying, "Come on, come on, everyone." Steve Adams was in the front of the crowd of villagers, with Mrs. Graves beside him.
"It isn't fair, it isn't right," Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.

wikipedia

wikipedia: Altruism, world peace, bringing enlightenment to the developing world. Really?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/donate/2007/psa/subtitled-he.html

and the band played on..

In the House of Commons - October 19, 2007

ORAL QUESTIONS

Privacy

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Turner.G@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians may have had their privacy breached and their trust misused by members of this House. This is due to CIMS, a database run by the Conservative Party, which each party MP has installed in his or her office.

Unknown to millions of constituents, personal information is routinely fed into this database, which experts are calling a 'chilling' breach of ethics. Will the Prime Minister do the ethical thing and release the names of Canadians in this database, giving voters the opportunity, if they wish, to opt out?"

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca

"Again, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you in that I fail to see what a political party database has to do with government business.

What I can assure the member of is that no department of this government makes use of that database. It is a party database. I do not understand his concern."

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Turner.G@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, I will answer that. When the Canadian Press asked the Conservatives if citizens could see their file in the party's secret database, the party asked what the specific reason for that would be.

I will answer that. This is their information. It belongs to them. This is their privacy that the government party has no reason to breach. These are their own members of Parliament elected to serve-"

The Deputy Speaker: Blaikie.B@parl.gc.ca

"The hon. government House leader."

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

"Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: it is a political party database. How political parties run their campaigns in terms of databases has nothing to do with the administration of government and no department uses it. No minister's office uses it that I know of."

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Szabo.P@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, the government has not denied that it obtains and exploits personal information for political purposes. The Conservatives have created a national database that records personal information which was confidentially provided to the Government of Canada.

What Canadians want to hear from the government is that the person elected to represent them is not using the confidential personal information to fundraise for political purposes. Will the Prime Minister cease this unethical practice and stop violating the privacy of Canadians?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC): Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, is this not special? The Liberals, who have made an art out of communicating with different communities based on publicly available lists, are now shocked that someone else should do the same thing.

I can see why the member for Thornhill is not asking these questions any more. She very kindly sent out Rosh Hashanah greetings to her constituents: 'SHANA TOVA My best wishes for a year filled with peace, good health and happiness'. That was from the MP from Thornhill.

I also got a notice yesterday that members of the Chinese community in her constituency were receiving Chinese New Year's greetings.

Would those members just please stop the hypocrisy?"

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

"Mr. Speaker, invasion of privacy and ethnic or religious profiling is simply unacceptable. If someone contacts an MP with a CPP or passport problem, they do not expect to land up on a political mailing list. For example, we saw this last year when the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke was caught collecting information from passport applications to send out birthday cards.

This type of unethical behaviour is inexcusable and alarms Canadians, who expect their members to represent them, not exploit them. Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and stop this unethical practice now?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC):

"Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could think it is unethical to wish somebody a happy New Year.

Here I have a letter from the co-presidents of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who say:

We commend the Prime Minister for this thoughtful gesture. We are heartened that our elected officials make the effort to extend good wishes to members of other faith communities, communities that make a vibrant contribution to the diverse multicultural fabric of Canada.

That is what the communities are saying, but perhaps that member would like to ask his colleague from Thornhill why she was sending Chinese New Year's greetings to members of the Chinese community in her riding and where she came up with those lists. Probably from the same place we did."

Cdn Parliminet on Rosh Hashana Greetings!

In the House of Commons - October 17, 2007


ORAL QUESTIONS

Holiday Greetings

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Kadis.S@parl.gc.ca


"Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents were recipients of mysterious Rosh Hashanah greetings from the Prime Minister. It was a mystery because they had no idea they were on such a government mailing list. One constituent, Michelle Kofman, was one of those Canadians. She wants to know two things: how does the Prime Minister know her religious affiliation and how did his office get her personal information?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC): Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, all members of this House I suspect, certainly all party leaders, send holiday greetings around the time of Christmas to millions of Canadians on publicly available lists. We make no apology for doing the same thing with Canada's Jewish community to celebrate their important high holidays as well.

We believe, unlike the Liberals, in multiculturalism and celebrating all of our cultural communities' holidays and important dates."

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.):

"Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kofman and Canadians deserve a full and complete answer from the government. The Privacy Commissioner has been asked to investigate, one of three investigations involving the Prime Minister and the Conservative government.

Why is the government compiling lists of Canadians according to their religious and ethnic affiliation?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC):


"Mr. Speaker, I promise the member opposite that if she sends me a Christmas card, I am not going to launch an investigation.

The fact of the matter is that Canada is a beautiful mosaic made up of people of different cultural and religious backgrounds. This government believes in sharing greetings with Canadians from all of those backgrounds at important times in different cultural and religious communities. We make no apology for doing so."
In the House of Commons - October 18, 2007





ORAL QUESTIONS



Holiday Greetings

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Kadis.S@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, let us not forget there is a third investigation underway. This one involves the Prime Minister's Office and a breach of privacy, an allegation that should send chills down the spines of all Canadians.

My constituents, Mrs. Faulkner and Mrs. Donin, want an explanation. Both of their names mysteriously appeared on the PMO list to receive a Rosh Hashanah greeting, but neither is Jewish. They want to know how they were identified with a religious affiliation they do not hold and why there is such a list.

Calls to the PMO went unanswered, so today I ask the Prime Minister again if he will explain how his office compiled the lists?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC): Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that she did not enter into the happiness of the Rosh Hashanah new year, but I can quote from the executive vice-president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who said, 'I don't think there is anything nefarious here whatsoever' and that most people in the community would appreciate this.

Frank Dimant of B'nai Brith Canada said, 'I really do think there's a very sinister motivation by individuals who are asking for an examination of where these lists came from or how they were accumulated'. What is her sinister motivation?

Before she answers that, I would like her to tell us whether she has ever sent out Rosh Hashanah cards, or other Liberals have, to members of the Jewish community."

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.):

"Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their privacy to be protected, not exploited.

The Prime Minister's Office has dodged calls on questions on this issue from my constituents. I have had to write a letter to the Privacy Commissioner at the request of one of my constituents for an answer, but they want to hear from the Prime Minister. How did their names get placed on the list? The PMO could not have received their names from public lists as they are not constituents of the Jewish faith.

How did the PMO access their private information? Will the Prime Minister explain how the list was compiled?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC):

"Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member did not want to answer my question. Perhaps it is because this morning I received an email from a constituent of hers, Mr. Arthur Burke, and I would be happy to table this. It says:

Dear Sir:

I received a Rosh Hashanah card from my MP, [the MP for Thornhill]. I don't know from where she received my address or how she knew my religious affiliation. I would be very appreciative if you might be able to look into this

We know that Rosh Hashanah is the Jewish new year, but it seems for that member it is the high holiday for hypocrisy."


Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Turner.G@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for-"

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker:

"Order, please. I know members on both sides seem to disagree on this point, but we have to have some order in the House so we can proceed with the discussion.

The hon. member for Halton has the floor now."

Hon. Garth Turner:

"Mr. Speaker, now that the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity) has admitted that the government used private information to send unsolicited mail to Canadians, will he now apologize and, better still, tell us where that information came from? Are Conservative members of Parliament collecting that from their constituents, yes or no?"

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC):

"Mr. Speaker, that proves once again that those members cannot think on their feet or retool during question period.

The fact is, like all members of Parliament, we have a program to provide holiday greetings. Most MPs perhaps over there only do it at Christmastime, but because we believe in multiculturalism we share holiday greetings on important festivities for all communities based on publicly available lists of information.

Those members should be apologizing for saying one thing and doing another."

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.):

"Mr. Speaker, we are here to represent people. We are in our ridings to serve people.

Conservative members of Parliament have a party database in their offices in which is entered the private information of individual Canadians. Now he has just admitted that it is used.

Will the Prime Minister apologize for an unethical invasion of Canadians' privacy?"

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca

"Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halton has always said that ethics are very important to him.

He talks today about the importance of representing people, including the people of Halton. That is why he said on February 10, 2006, 'I think anyone who crosses the floor should go back to the people for ratification'. That is one of his ethical standards and I know he wants to follow that ethical standard today."

CJLS, extra lives?

Hello family and friends,

Today the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards will be discussing, among other things, the permissibility of choosing which embryos to implant in a woman during intra vitro fertilization based on their genetic make-up. There's a technical name for it that I can't recall right now. The rabbinical school heard a presentation on it this morning and it was quite fascinating. I then received this e-mail to a listserv that I am on. We live a brave new world.

I hope all is well.

Adam


Law Offices of
JAMES A. SHRYBMAN, P.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concentrating in
Surrogacy, Adoption, Embryo Donation/Adoption, and other Reproductive Legal Matters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14800 Athey Road
Burtonsville, Maryland 20866-1602

Telephone: (301) 421-0085
Fax: (301) 421-9008

e-mail: shrybman@aol.com,
SurrogacyandLaw2@aol.com

Websites: www.shrybman.com,
www.surrogacy-solutions.com

September 25, 2007

Dear Jewish Friends and Family,

L'shana tova! I hope you all had fulfilling and inspirational high holidays, along with great food. I feel so lucky to have so much to share with Shelly, my children, new grandson, extended family, and friends.

That brings me to the purpose of this e-mail note. As you know, my work primarily involves helping people build their family when they have difficulty in doing so. I have one situation in which I need your help.

I have a Jewish couple who have built their family with fertility treatments involving in vitro fertilization. They were happily successful early on. Now they have a number of cryopreserved (frozen) embryos remaining stored in a laboratory.

This couple is finished building their family. But they want to give life to their other embryos with another family, rather than donating them for research. I handle this type of embryo donation/adoption case, but I don't have a Jewish couple right now, who are working on building their family in this way.

The donor couple would prefer a Jewish family. The "family" could be a single person, a traditional couple, or a gay couple. They could be childless, or already have a child or children and want to build their family more. The embryo transfer procedure could be to the intended mother herself, or to a surrogate (gestational carrier) for the intended parent(s). The family could live in the USA, or Israel, or anywhere for that matter. I would handle the secular law and process and consult their Rabbi on his or her view of the Halacha pertaining to the case.

I didn't know a better way than contacting all of you to sort of put the word out about this opportunity. Thank you and I hope you all have a healthy, happy, and prosperous new year.

With warm regards,

Jimmy

The irony of shmita: making the poorest poorer

by YehuditBrachah · Monday, October 8th, 2007

Exodus 23:10-11: “Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its produce, but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave, the beasts of the field may eat. In like manner you shall do with your vineyard and your olive grove.”

This year is a shmita year, described above. It only applies in Eretz Yisrael. In modern Israel, the teleology of the shmita year (arguably to benefit the poor) seems to crash up against the halachic practice of the law: some of the country’s poorest are having to pay exorbitant prices for produce. The New York Times today has an article on it. [Note: heter mechira is the ruling that allows eating produce grown and harvested on the shmita year. See Kol Ra’ash Gadol’s recent pieces on the controversy of the rulings.]

The chief rabbinate, which controls the vital kosher certificates for food, declared this year that heter mechira was the rule, but it also said rabbis of local cities and towns could decide for themselves. The announcement resulted in confusion, anger, an unresolved suit before the Supreme Court, a rabbinical revolt and a declaration by the agriculture minister, Shalom Simhon, that he will forbid imports that compete with Israeli produce.

In Jerusalem, Israel’s poorest city, heter mechira is not supposed to be recognized. But while the Supreme Court is deciding on a petition against the chief rabbinate’s ruling, some supermarkets are selling produce under the heter mechira dispensation.

Since the ultra-Orthodox make up at least 30 percent of the city’s population, shops in areas like Geula and Mea Shearim are paying prices two or three times higher than normal for cucumbers and tomatoes grown only by non-Jews in the West Bank. The community is already among the poorest in Jerusalem, but the rulings of their rabbis matter far more to them than money.

Aaron Feuerstein

What is business' responsibility to workers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YcWLXBXaD8

ps. what's with the background music?

To Talk, or Not To Talk

October 3, 2007 Edition > Section: Opinion > Printer-Friendly Version
To Talk, or Not To Talk
BY DAVID ELLENSON
http://www.nysun.com/article/63835
While the appearances President Ahmadinejad made at both Columbia University and the United Nations dominated press reports last week, there was another meeting at a chapel across from the General Assembly that the Iranian president held last week — one that got reported in a way that needs correction in the dialog in this city.
Organized by Mennonite and Quaker religious leaders in response to a request made by the Iranian delegation to the United Nations, this meeting of 140 religious leaders with Mr. Ahmadinejad was described by the New York Times as "a friendly, even warm exchange with Christian leaders from the United States and Canada convinced that dialogue is the only way to prevent war."
The Times further reported that the Mennonite and Quaker organizers of the meeting were sorry that they were unable to find a Jewish representative to attend this "interfaith dialogue" because "those invited declined because they could not win support from Jewish organizations."
In an age where many routinely conjure up conspiratorial images of "The Israel Lobby," I find this description of Jewish non-attendance on the basis of a failure to "win support from Jewish organizations" incomplete and simplistic at best and disturbing and sinister at worst. The reasons for such Jewish refusal were not the result of some imagined institutional discipline, and I feel obliged as one who was approached and declined to attend this meeting to offer an explanation as to why I, and no doubt others, instinctively rejected an invitation to " interfaith dialogue" with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
A negative response to interfaith dialogue runs counter to my nature and beliefs. As a liberal rabbi schooled on the works of the famed Jewish philosopher of dialogue Martin Buber, I believe that the fundamental nature of reality is social. We need relationship. Indeed, people are made fully "human" because we are capable of entering into dialogic relationship with other persons. As Buber wrote, "All real living is meeting."
Buber believed that there was a value in persons talking to one another in and of itself apart from any "result" achieved. To refuse to dialogue with and encounter another as a member of a people or a religion generally permits a caricature of the other to emerge unobstructed or softened by the reality of personal address and encounter. For all these reasons, my natural proclivity is always to engage in inter-religious exchange. A negative response to interfaith dialogue runs counter to my nature and beliefs, both secular and religious.
Yet Buber has also taught me that — for all his openness — preconditions must always be placed on such dialogical exchange. Buber wrote that in genuine dialogue each partner must begin by fully affirming the personhood of the other. If such affirmation of and respect for the other is not forthcoming, then propaganda, not dialogue, emerges. As Buber himself phrases it, "The manipulator of ‘propaganda' is possessed by the lust to make use of men."
Mr. Ahmadinejad was not interested in real conversation, nor was he interested into entering into authentic relationship with those religious leaders who met with him.
Instead, he was concerned that news of this meeting, which the invitation had stated would be "absolutely private," be made public. In this way, Mr. Ahmadinejad exploited these persons of faith for his own political ends.
His obscene denial of the Holocaust and his exploitation of the anti-Zionist Jews known as Neturei Karta at his Holocaust Denial Conference in Teheran last year, his sworn aim to destroy the State of Israel, and the specter of his nuclear ambitions all cut at the heart of my own historical memory and experience as a Jew as well as the Jewish ethical imperative to value and affirm life.
This "interfaith conversation" had nothing to do with encounter. It had everything to do with manipulation. The words of Martin Buber, and the distinction he draws between "propaganda" and "dialogue" — and not any institutional pressures — explain why I refused to encounter Mr. Ahmadinejad in what was billed as a "face to face interfaith conversation," but was in reality only a smokescreen for exploitation.
Rabbi Ellenson is president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

Jewish "Intactivists" In U.S. Stop Circumcising

Jewish "Intactivists" In U.S. Stop Circumcising


By REUTERS
Published: October 3, 2007
Filed at 10:57 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In most respects, Michelle Chernikoff Anderson is a rabbi's dream congregant. She sings in the choir and takes classes at her synagogue.
But, like an increasing number of Jews in the United States, she has decided not to circumcise her son, rejecting the traditional notion that it is a Biblically prescribed sign of the Jewish relationship with God.
"I see circumcision as a blood ritual that I can let go of," said Anderson, who lives in Southern California.
Her position is in harmony with a wider decline in circumcision in the United States.
About 85 percent of all American boy babies were circumcised at its peak in 1965, according to a National Opinion Research Center survey.
By 2004, it had fallen to about 57 percent, reflecting the increased birth rate among Hispanics, who are less likely to circumcise their sons, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.
"Circumcision's out of the closet. It's not a taboo subject anymore. People are talking about it. Parents are talking about it," said Dr. Mark Reiss, a synagogue-goer in the San Francisco area and executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision.
Among those talking about it is a gaggle of young, male, Jewish commentators. This year alone, in books, online and in magazines, authors Neal Pollack, Sam Apple, Jonathan Safran Foer and Shalom Auslander have all fretted about doing to their sons what was done to them. The title of Auslander's memoir, scheduled for publication in October, is "Foreskin's Lament."
Circumcision is even before the courts. In November, the Oregon Supreme Court will rule on whether a convert to Judaism can force his 12-year-old son to undergo the procedure.
"INTACTIVIST"
Reiss, who calls himself an "intactivist," maintains a roster of 50 officiants who conduct nonsurgical alternatives to the bris, traditionally performed on the eighth day after a boy's birth. He says he fields as many as five queries weekly from conflicted parents.
At the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center in Boston, director Ron Goldman maintains a list of 400 names of Jews who refuse to circumcise their sons.
Reiss and Goldman question circumcision's purported health benefits, such as lower rates of penile cancer and the recent reports that it can halve men's risk of HIV infection.
"Circumcision has always been the panacea for the disease of the decade," Reiss said, noting that non-Jews first adopted it to reduce masturbation, thought to cause syphilis.
Also, they think any benefits are outweighed by the risks, which include shock from blood loss, antibiotic-resistant infections and even death.
Such incidents are extremely rare, said Dr. Jack Swanson of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Between two and six infant boys experience complications per thousand circumcisions, but those are usually minor bleeding or treatable infections.
Under a trained professional, the risk to the child is "infinitesimal," said Conservative Rabbi Joel Roth.
"Jews have given their lives for circumcision more than for any other (religious obligation) and that's why it has become so defining an act of membership," said Roth.
"SQUEAMISH"
Islam has no comparable movement against circumcision, said Batool Al-Toma of the New Muslims Project. Most converts undergo the procedure, although Islam waives the requirement, said University of Colorado religion professor Frederick Denny.
Michael Young, a convert to Islam, had his infant son circumcised but did not undergo the procedure himself. "I'm very squeamish and hate the thought of it," he said.
Judaism is divided on the matter of converts. Reform Judaism does not require it, Orthodox and Conservative movements do.
Circumcision's detractors also claim the procedure reduces sexual sensation and endurance.
"I haven't attempted foreskin restoration surgery, but I've thought about it," said Matthew Taylor, an active Bay Area Jew who resents his own circumcision and who preaches on the evils of the practice to Jewish friends .
But author Julius Lester, who became a Reform convert to Judaism in 1982 and underwent circumcision to feel Jewish, said the procedure also boosted his sex life.
"Circumcised there are far more subtle sensations, and staying power is much, much longer," he said. "From a sexual point of view, I wish I'd gotten circumcised many years earlier."
Anderson is torn between a desire to protect her son's privacy and what she thinks may be a religious duty to discuss her decision not to circumcise.
"Hey, it's my son's penis, it's not mine to discuss in the same way it's not mine to cut. But at the same time, I feel like maybe I have an obligation to share."
The writer, Helen Chernikoff, is not related to Michelle Chernikoff Anderson.