I must in the first place disclaim any concurrence in the doctrine that to us, in our legislative capacity, religion is a matter of indifference. I am deeply impressed with the conviction that it is our paramount duty to promote the interests of religion and it influence on the human mind. I am impressed by a conviction that the spirit and precepts of Christianity ought to influence our deliberations; nay, more, that if our legislation be at variance with the precepts and spirit of Christianity we cannot expect the blessing of God upon them. I may, indeed, say with truth that whether my decision on this question [of the Jews’ civil rights] be right or wrong, it is influenced much less by a consideration of political expediency than by a deep sense of religious obligation.

Between the tenets of the Jew and of the Christian there is, in my opinion, a vital difference. The religion of the Christian and the religion of the Jew are opposed in essentials. Between them there is complete antagonism. I do not consider that the concurrence of the Jew with the Christian in recognizing the historical truths and divine origin of the moral precepts of the Old Testament can avail to reconcile the differences in respect to those doctrines which constitute the vital principle and foundation of Christianity. If, as a legislature, we had the authority to determine religious error and a commission to punish religious error, it might be our painful duty to punish the Jews. But we have no such commission. If the Jews did commit an inexpiable crime nearly two thousand years ago, we have had no authority given to us–even if we could determine who were the descendants of the persons guilty of that crime–to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, not unto the third or fourth, but unto the three hundredth or four hundredth generation. That awful power is not ours. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

In other words, if we were a religious Christian government, not merely a secular government guided by Christian principles, we would, perhaps, be in a position to make the Jews pay for their sins–in particular the sin of killing Christ, but, more generally, the sin of being Christianity’s antithesis. We are, however, not that kind of government and so (this summarizes Peel’s argument as far as I have gotten) we really have no choice; if we are going to be consistent, but to grant the Jews their civil rights.

What I find disturbing in these words is the, to me at least, clear implication that there is a part of Peel that would not mind having “the painful duty” of punishing the Jews, though, to be fair, I don’t know where the logic of the rest of the speech leads Peel and so it is possible that these two passages are part of a rhetorical strategy that does not necessarily reflect the actual position that he takes. Nonetheless, Peel’s implication that a theocratic government would, indeed, be justified in discriminating against, if not outright punishing the Jews is one that I hear echoes of in the US-is-a-Christian-nation rhetoric of some of our Christian politicians; and perhaps I will trace that echo in another post when I have the time. For now, though, while I am not suggesting that any of those politicians are out to get the Jews or even that any of them actively desire a theocracy, I will not deny the fact that their rhetoric makes me wary.

But it is also Chanukah, and I want to share with you this video that my wife shared with me on Facebook. It’s just plain fun and it lifted my spirits. I hope it does something similar for you:

I am thinking about this because The Jewish Annotated New Testament got a write-up in The New York Times this weekend, and it seems that even Jewish Biblical scholars have developed the habit of not dealing with the Christian holy book in their work. As Mark Oppenheimer, the article’s author writes:

As any visitor to the book expo at the [American Academy of Religion] conference discovered, there is a glut of Bibles and Bible commentaries. One of the exhibitors, Zondervan, publishes hundreds of different Bibles, customized for your subculture, niche or need. Examples include a Bible for those recovering from addiction; the Pink Bible, for women “who have been impacted by breast cancer”; and the Faithgirlz! Bible, about which the publisher writes: “Every girl wants to know she’s totally unique and special. This Bible says that with Faithgirlz! sparkle!”

Nearly all these Bibles are edited by and for Christians. The Christian Bible comprises the Old and New Testaments, so editors offer a Christian perspective on both books. For example, editors might add a footnote to the story of King David, in the Old Testament books I and II Samuel, reminding readers that in the New Testament, David is an ancestor of Jesus.

Jewish scholars have typically been involved only with editions of the Old Testament, which Jews call the Hebrew Bible or, using a Hebrew acronym, the Tanakh. Of course, many curious Jews and Christians consult all sorts of editions, without regard to editor. But among scholars, Christians produce editions of both sacred books, while Jewish editors generally consult only the book that is sacred to them. What’s been left out is a Jewish perspective on the New Testament — a book Jews do not consider holy but which, given its influence and literary excellence, no Jew should ignore.

He is, of course, correct. No Jew should ignore the New Testament, especially for the irrational reasons that have led me to do so for most of my life, and so it is nice to know that an edition of that text now exists which uses as an editorial and critical framework a perspective that counts me as an insider.

Now, to be fair, this ad seems to be part of a theme. Go to Wodka Vodka’s website, scroll through the gallery just under the navigation bar and you’ll find–or at least I did just now when I looked–another image with similarly scintillating copy: Escort Quality, Hooker Pricing.

The “Hanukkah pricing” ad does not appear on the website as far as I can tell. Maybe they took it down? If they did, they had more sense than Miami MG, the marketing company who came up with the idea, which issued the following statement, quoted in the Jewcy piece:

The inspiration for Hanukkah’s inclusion was anything but anti-Semitic – in fact, we’re likening ourselves to the Jewish holiday.

Simply put Hanukkah represents a better value because you get 8 nights for the price of 1 – much like Wodka, more for less.

I have wanted to write about that, and I have wanted to write yet one more time about Foreskin Man, which I have posted on before, because I am wide-eyed incredulous at the fact that Matthew Hess was unable to come up with a more imaginative female counterpart for Foreskin Man–because all Supermen need their Supergirls, right?–than Vulva Girl, whose picture I just have to show you:

And here is how Hess describes her:

With the Siri Amulet as he energy source, Vulva Girl harnesses the supernatural powers of flight and psychokinesis to battle female genital mutilation.

As she soars across the jungles of Africa, girls celebrate her victories over the bloodthirsty circumcisers who prey on their fragile innocence. After centuries of suffering, their intactivist superheroine has finally arrived.

As quoted in “Foreskin Man, Meet Vulva Girl,” by Jonah Lowenfeld on JewishJournalism.com, Hess states that his goal in introducing Vulva Girl is to equate

the surgeries performed on boys and girls… I think everyone has met at least one person who believes that circumcising girls should be a crime, but circumcising boys is okay[.] The idea behind Foreskin Man #3 is to expose that double standard and help persuade readers that male and female circumcision are really two sides of the same coin.

That statement, of course, is problematic on its face and it completely obscures all kinds of problems inherent in the character of Vulva Girl, starting with the fact that she is certainly not a girl, and it doesn’t matter to me that calling her Vulva Girl is in the long tradition of Supergirl, Batgirl, Wondergirl or whatever. The names Foreskin Man and Vulva Girl, just placed side by side like that because they work as a team, recapitulates a whole string of patriarchal, sexist notions that do more harm than good, it seems to me, even if they are being deployed in the interests of ending female genital mutilation and routine infant penile circumcision. Not to mention the racism implicit in how she is described: the jungles of Africa? bloodthirsty circumcisers? But even that whole discussion, and it is a discussion worth having, has been crowded out of my head, leaving just enough room to tell you about, first, the trailer for Foreskin Man #3, which begins with the words, “The hate us because we are blond” and needs, I think, no other comment:

And, second, the Foreskin Man Song, the lyrics of which, I am afraid, speak similarly for themselves:

Mmmm ooohhhh

While you’re out saving boys from the knife
I can’t help feeling lonely in my life
I know it’s a calling that must be answered
They’re not the only ones who need to be pampered

I get relief knowing you put cutters away
But a girl still needs time for foreplay
When the doc and mohel are behind bars
Let me help you forget about those scars

Foreskin Man, I need your lovin’ tonight
It’s the only thing that makes me feel right
Foreskin Man, I want that slip and slide
Won’t you please come glide inside?

Foreskin Man, I miss your gentle caress
My body cries for you, I do confess
Foreskin Man, visit my balcony
Being gone this long is a felony

I’ll cheer for you on tonight’s news
When they talk about your latest rescues
And while my heart aches for a rendezvous
I trust you’ll return when my time is due

These lyrics truly left me speechless, and I know this is a terrible segue, but that speechlessness felt to me not so different from the speechlessness I experienced grading papers earlier today. I am not going to quote for you from my students’ work, but suffice it to say that a lot of it did not reach the caliber of this writing; and so I am left feeling utterly depressed. I just checked my grade book and fully 2/3 of one of my freshman composition classes is failing, most of them simply because they have elected not to hand in work that was due. It is, of course, entirely possible that they would be failing even if they had handed in that work, but I have no way of knowing that. What’s even more depressing is that they have all received a warning email from me and not one of them has bothered to come talk to me. And so tomorrow I will not be teaching. I will be telling the students who are not failing that they have the day off so that I can speak one by one with the students who are failing. I am not looking forward to those discussions.

Secondly … and here I’m trying to put into words something that I think is felt on a subconscious and instinctual level (with additional caveats that I cannot speak for every Jew everywhere) … with all the blood that has been spilt to maintain Judaism over the centuries, there is a feeling that one, as an individual, does not actually have the right to just dispense with something so fundamental as this. For more secular Jews, to not circumcise is to say that not only do you not care if your kids aren’t Jewish, but to actually push them away from it. You might be a scofflaw in a hundred different ways, but to not circumcise would be to renounce your citizenship. It’s the step too far. And to take that step is to spit on the memory of every Jew who died for being Jewish.

Even as I write this, I imagine you laughing at how ridiculous it sounds. Do other Jewish people on this thread think I’m exaggerating? Like I said, I’m trying to put something into words that is more felt than thought, and it’s entirely possible that I’m overstating the matter. But in my experience, it’s something in the neighborhood of what I wrote above.

It reminded me of something I wrote in my first Fragments of Evolving Manhood post, called A Full-Throated Protest Against Existence and the World. (I should add I have not edited this excerpt to take into account Grace Annam’s gentle admonition to remember that “there are women who have the experience of having had a penis.”)

Even now, having rejected circumcision in my own family, it’s hard to dismiss the ritual merely as the patriarchal marking that, at its roots, it is. Because whatever else that ritual might be, the history of the oppression of the Jews has made it also a sign of defiance, a bodily affirmation of Jewish (male) identity and Jewish (male) worth in the face of enormous persecution.

I put the word male in parentheses in the last sentence because, while circumcision marks only men and is therefore problematic from the point of view of gender equality within the Jewish tradition, I do not want to deny the courage that it took for Jewish mothers to continue to allow their sons to be circumcised, or for Jewish women to continue to value circumcision as a religious ritual, a physical mark and as a metaphor for the relationship between the Jews and their god at times when forcing a man to pull down his pants was one way that anti-semites would identify appropriate targets for their hatred and violence. In Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust, for example, Yaffa Eliach tells a story that, whether it is completely true or only an embellished version of the truth, illustrates precisely what I mean. In the midst of a “children’s Aktion,” a massacre of Jewish children, the tale goes, a Jewish woman demanded of a Nazi soldier, “Give me [your] pocket knife!”

She bent down and picked up something…a bundle of rags on the ground near the sawdust. She unwrapped the bundle. Amidst the rags on a snow-white pillow was a newborn babe, asleep. With a steady hand she opened the pocket knife and circumcised the baby. In a clear, intense voice she recited the blessing of the circumcision. “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us by thy commandments and hast commanded us to perform the circumcision.”

She straightened her back, looked up to the heavens, and said, “God of the Universe, you have given me a healthy child. I am returning to you a wholesome, kosher Jew.” She walked over to the German, gave him back his blood-stained knife, and handed him her baby on his snow-white pillow. (152)

I am that boy; that boy was me. Had I been alive during the time of the Nazis, they would have tried to kill me precisely for being “wholesome and kosher.” Yet while the violence that mother did to her son absolutely pales in comparison to the violence the Nazi intended to do to him, the story nonetheless omits the boy’s pain, glosses over the blood that must have stained the pillow, the mother’s hands and the German’s knife. It is that blood which haunts me, for my circumcision is my connection to that mother’s courage, to the courage of the men who circumcised and were circumcised at a time when a cut penis could have gotten them killed.

It was not an easy thing for me to arrive at the point where, as a Jewish man, I could choose not to have my son circumcised and also not feel like I was betraying my community at a much, much deeper level than any rejection of circumcision’s religious significance might represent for me. This is something I might choose to write more about at a later time, but for now I will say that it had to do with letting go of a certain kind of culturally inculcated anger and fear, with deciding that doing violence to my son’s body–to the body of any Jewish infant born with a penis–in order to mark that body over and against the violence that has been done to Jews throughout our history was, in some sense, only a continuation of that violence.

Nonetheless, I have tremendous respect for the feelings of people who continue to see brit milah–we might as well call the ceremony by its proper name–as a way of saying not only to the circumcised child, but to the historically hostile world in which that child will grow up, “You are here, in this world, as a Jew; we are here in this world, as Jews, and we are not going anywhere.“

According to this discussion on Jewish Lyrics, Ya’alili:

is a combination of the sepharadic “Ya’lah”, a common phrase in sephardic songs which roughly translates as “come on”, and “li li li”, a common filler in yiddish songs (BTW, the word for ‘song’ in yiddish is “leid”).

The lyrics–though it’s worth reading the whole discussion at the above link–can be roughly translated as follows:

Ya’alili, dance my beloved

It should be fortunate, may it be,
G-d willing, it will be

The bridegroom, sephardi
the attractive bride, ashkenazi

Mother Imeinu [our mother] sephardi,
Mama Rachel, ashkenazi

Baba Salli [a famous rabbi] sephardi,
Rabbi Nachman, ashkenazi

It should be fortunate, may it be,
G-d willing, it will be

Ya’alili, dance my beloved

Gina Gina sephardi
may we hear more ashkenazi

Yosef our father, sephardi
the eith day, ashkenazi

days for joy, sephardi,
have a good yom tov, ashkenazi

It should be fortunate, may it be,
G-d willing, it will be

But the depiction of women is also problematic:

The routine circumcision of infant boys, medical and otherwise, is a problem. Somehow I can’t see a comic like this being the way to address it.

First, The Daily Show on at least one Fox Network host’s insistence that no one on that network ever compares people on the left to the Nazis for rhetorical effect:

Second, a link to Yad Vashem’s Persian channel–I could not find the embed data–which hopefully will serve as a counterweight to the kind of information circulating in Iran about the Holocaust as shown in this video from the opening of a Holocaust Cartoons Expo in August 2006:

And third, this TED video of a talk by Hanna Rosin, author “The End of Men,” published in The Atlantic Monthly, “which asserts that the era of male dominance has come to an end as women gain power in the postindustrial economy.”

Greek Bishop Equates Zionism to ‘Satanism’ — NYTimes.com:

The bishop, known as Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, said during an interview on Greek television on Monday that Jews “control the international banking system.” He added: “Adolf Hitler was an instrument of world Zionism and was financed from the renowned Rothschild family with the sole purpose of convincing the Jews to leave the shores of Europe and go to Israel to establish the new Empire.”

In response to the outrage his statements caused, the bishop issued a statement, which Mackey quotes in full:

December 23, 2010

On the occasion of the concerns raised by the European Jewish Congress with regard to my interview with the MEGA television channel on December 20, I have to say the following:

1. The things I said during my television appearance on the show “Society Hour Mega” are strictly my personal views and opinions, which I have repeatedly expressed… verbally and in writing.

2. I respect, revere and love the Jewish people like any other people of our world according to the teaching of the incarnated Son of God and the true Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer, who was heralded by all the Prophets and was incarnated through the Jewish nation.

3. My public vehement opposition against International Zionism refers to the organ that is the successor of the “Sanhedrin” which altered the faith of the Patriarchs, the Prophets and the Righteous of the Jewish nation through the Talmud, the Rabbinical writings and the Kabbalah into Satanism, and always strives vigorously toward an economic empire set up throughout the world with headquarters in the great land beyond the Atlantic for the prevalence of world government and pan-religion.

4. I consider like any sane person on the planet the Nazi regime and the paranoid dictator Adolf Hitler as horrible criminals against humanity and take a stand with all honor and respect against the Jewish Holocaust and any other heinous genocide such as that of the Pontic Greek and Armenian people. Besides, the Greek nation mourns thousands of martyrs from the criminal Nazi atrocities.

+ The Metropolitan of Piraeus, Seraphim

On the one hand, I am not surprised; on the other hand, the whole thing leaves me speechless.