Comments on "Three Atmospheric Studies"

If You Thought War Was a Disaster........

Another anti-war extravaganza. (I've yet to see a pro-war extravaganza.) War itself is bad enough, but Three Atmospheric Studies, Forsythe's bloated banal boring bilge at BAM, just adds to the unpleasantness of armed conflicts.

One's ardent hope to eliminate war is exponentially multiplied just to avoid future claptrap such as this Forsythe fiasco.

Comment on Review in New York Sun (March 2007)

The Obligation of Nations in the Enforcement of Human Rights

Interesting points have been raised regarding the obligation of nations in the performance of human rights policing. The argument has been made that it is the duty of nations to interfere when other nations ‘abuse human rights’. The question, of course, is who determines when an abuse exists and when to interfere. Not so easy, especially when it involves the destruction of the lives of soldiers of the invading ‘rights-oriented’ nation.

Let’s analyze a worst-case scenario:

There is a slaughter of a certain minority by a government. Should another nation involve itself in the active termination of this activity using military force? If so, we must explain to the military and its families that our only mission is to end the annihilation of the innocents. OK, but what if our policies fail and the annihilation continues? How long do we pursue our purely humanitarian ends? How many deaths of our soldiers will we tolerate? How long do we remain, and at what expense, in order to insure that the slaughter is controlled. Will we be satisfied to say “All right, we tried, but we can’t do anything more,” and just leave?

Easy to say – “Lets get the bad guys” but not so easy to actually bring about!

Now how about other abuses, abuses that may equal or even surpass killing. Abuses such as:

1) The inappropriate confinement of citizens for political purposes.
2) The inhumane and secret torture of prisoners or other citizens.
3) The application of ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment, such as the severing of hands or feet, the enucleation of eyes, or even, perhaps, the taking of a human life.
4) Enforced limitation of women’s rights including the subjugation of a wife to her husband.
5) Enforced genital mutilation and the abasement of girls and women.
6) Limited rights and freedoms for people to determine their own destinies, including such laws as compulsory birth control, limited travel, enforced abortion, infanticide, opportunities for only a particular class with enforced relegation to poverty, disease, and despair for others.
7) Denial of basic human needs – shelter, clean air, food, basic medical care.
8) Enforced apartheid.
9) Slavery and the sexual slavery of women and children.
10) Trial without a jury of peers.
11) How about enforced circumcision of males?
Many more ‘abuses’ I’m sure. But before we act – act only in the interest of compassion and to ‘do what is right’ and absent any concern of national interest, we have to carefully weigh, VERY carefully weigh, the criteria to apply for our involvement in the affairs of others

Reform Judaism Requires the Acceptance of Female Ritual Circumcision

Reform Judaism prides itself in its gender-neutral approach to Jewish tradtion. The separation of male and female roles and the denial to females of traditional male roles in synagogue and Jewish life is unacceptable – and rightly so. Jewish women may become rabbis, cantors, contribute to a “minyan” – read Torah – you name it, they can do it. We now have Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs! God is no longer a male, but has no sexual identity.

The sole remaining, uniquely male ‘requirement’ or ‘tradition’, completely closed to women, is circumcision. Circumcision is arguably THE most important of all the Jewish traditions. This convenant that God is said to have concluded with Abraham resulted in Abraham’s self-circumcision and that of his male children. It heralded the tradtion that the Jewish father circumcise his male children. Only this covenant binds and endorses the Jewish boy’s connection to God. B’rith Milah on the eighth day of life is to go forward without fail (precluding illness). Nothing takes precedence over this rite – it is so important a tradition. If day eight falls on Yom Kippur, the B’rith is to take place. If it falls on the day of the father’s scheduled funeral – the B’rith takes precedence. All Jewish denominations require circumcision for uncircumcised male converts

But women are denied this covenant with God. They are to have naming ceremonies – some sort of substitute B’rith. What is that all about? Why not circumcision? Or if girls needn’t have one, why must boys? Why can’t the male choose to forego this procedure, or parents choose to not to circumcise their sons?

Circumcision should be available to all – males and females. Female circumcision has been given a bad rap. When we think of this act, we are conditioned to think in terms of “genital mutilation.” Well, in a sense, all circumcisions are a form of “genital mutilation” if they are performed for non-medical indications.

The African tribal practice of female circumcision generally includes clitoridectomy as well as vaginal infibulation (closing the vaginal orifice almost completely). It may also include labiectomy. The procedure is performed in unsterile conditions by poorly trained practitioners under very primitive conditions. We may criticize the lack of proper technique, but should not criticize the procedure itself. If that is what a particular tribal tradition demands – so be it. Who are we to be critics of the idea itself, after all we practice male circumcision, which is analogous, at least in its traditional purpose, in our “tribe.”

Female circumcision need not involve the above-mentioned procedures. The process could be analogous to the male circumcision – i.e. partial removal of the female prepuce (foreskin). The clitoris is the female analog of the penis and has a prepuce as well. Partial removal would be easily and quickly performed by the trained practitioner – especially in newborns when the clitoris is relatively large.


Now, I believe, entitlement does not mean requirement. Parents should not be obliged to have their children circumcised – whether they be daughters or sons! Circumcision, unless carried out under anesthesia (which is never the case when practiced ceremonially) is very painful, and has no medical purpose in infancy. There can be complications as well. There is some indication that it may be advantageous to mature men in limited circumstances, but under no circumstances would this be an indication for circumcision in a newborn. A family history of breast cancer does not require the removal of the breasts in a young girl. A decision for his circumcision can be made by a mature man later in life, as can the decision for mastectomy by the mature woman.

Isn’t it hypocritical for us, as Reform Jews, to deny a right (rite) to a girl that is a right (rite) for a boy? Of course it is! It has to be! Girls, too, have an entitlement to a covenant with God!

What to do in Darfur??

Many are demanding action to stop the ‘genocide’ (I use the term very generically here) in Darfur. Of course the government of Sudan, controlled by a dictator, is opposed to any intervention, and the slaughter continues. The Western World seems to agree that actions in Darfur are a violation of human rights. What should be done if the violence continues without response from the government or the rebels.

Should the U.S. invade Sudan to bring a stop to the slaughter? How many soldiers should be committed to this action. Should this include an attack on Khartoum, the seat of government, if necessary. What if we get bogged down in strange territory with strange battles in a land we do not understand. What if our soldiers are being killed, or captured and beheaded? How many deaths are acceptable to accomplish this task. How long should we stay?

If things really get bad, should be leave before the ‘mission is accomplished?’ Should we commit only a certain number of troops for only a certain period of time, spending only a certain amount of dollars?

Sound familiar?

Man is a Part of Nature

We tend to separate man-made from natural products, thereby distinguishing between man and nature as if they were indeed separable. Man and nature are not separable. Man is as much part of nature as is anything else in the known universe, and does not stand apart from it.

Humans are composed of the same atoms and molecules that make up our environment, as are all products made by a human hand. Plastics, aluminum cans, insecticides, atomic waste, dioxin – all the things we have tended to consider as ‘man-made’ and bad for nature and the environment – are, in fact, all ‘natural products’ in that they are made by man, who himself is a part of nature. They, too, are composed of the same atoms and molecules as is everything else in the known universe.

The fact that certain elements produced by nature (whether by the hands of humans or otherwise) are potentially inimical to man’s future, do not make them universally detrimental – they are potentially detrimental only to man and the environment that he proposes as best for himself. It is, in fact, a selfish view - unrelated to the existence of our planet, but only to our own existence.

The planet, in fact, does not exist solely for the human species (except in a spiritual sense). No planet is dedicated merely to the existence of certain species – it never has been and never will be. It’s ultimate purpose, if any, remains utterly mysterious!

The Moral Obligation of Charity

I call your attention to the cover story of the New York Times Magazine of December 17, 2006, entitled What Should a Billionaire Give, and What Should You? by Dr. Peter Singer. Dr. Singer is a contemporary philosopher with a profound-appearing, but really quite simple point of view of the obligations of the haves to the have-nots. I have always admired this ideas; particularly his thought processes.

The confounding factor not included in his discussions is that of human nature - that human beings will not behave in the fashion he feels is obligatory.

He relates his foundation-building anecdote - a helpless child drowning in shallow water - water that any adult could easily enter and save the child. He maintains that no-one would excuse any adult passing this scene who would do nothing to save this child - even if it required walking and wading through muck and slime, ruining a very expensive pair of shoes as well as an extremely costly suit. The price of these items could hardly be considered valuable in comparison with the life of that child.

Dr. Singer goes on from there. Don't miss this. If you wish the article e-mailed to you, please get in touch with me.

Can Only Roman Catholics Achieve 'Salvation?'

Here are some words I think are important, particularly to individuals with an interest in interfaith relations. I will be paraphrasing an internet article by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. entitled On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Fr. Hardon explains that the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus founded the Church to be a society for salvation of all men. The ancient Fathers held the unanimous conviction that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church!

Gradually, however, it became clear that there existed some "God-fearing" individuals who were deprived of Catholic heritage "without fault on their part." It followed that such people were open to salvation, even though they were not professed Catholics, or even baptized.

Thomas Aquinas, however, restated the teaching about the general necessity of the Church. He did concede that a person could be saved "extra-sacramentally" by a "baptism of desire" and therefore without actual Church membership, but the implicit desire to belong to the Church.

The famous Vatican II Council redefined salvation doctrine as follows:

The Council relies on sacred scripture and Tradition in teaching that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation. Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. This means that it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity.

Hardon goes on to write that salvation, then, is possible without baptism, and people may be saved according to their "adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive." However, he continues, "whoever is actually saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ. It is this Church alone that communicates the merits won for the whole world on the cross."