Letters to the Editor

by the Readers

Making the Cut

Guy Menahem makes some very erroneous statements [Fine Print, "First Cut," Morris Bracy IV, May 20, 2004]. One of the most glaring of these is his claim that "Judaism is in the heart and has nothing to do with what your penis looks like." In fact, to truly be observant of Judaism, a male is required by the commandment of Heshem to have undergone circumcision at eight days of life or upon conversion. This is a symbol of the covenant between the Lord and Abraham as told in Genesis. I would also take issue with the statement that being anti-circumcision is not anti-Semitic. In fact, it is quite literally anti-Semitic in that both Judaism and Islam (two major religions of Semitic origin) require the practice of circumcision as a symbol of their relationship with the Lord. Lastly, regarding the claim that infants suffer unnecessary pain and a loss of 12 square inches of sexual stimulation, I ask for proof. Having been circumcised, and having had the religious rite performed on my son, I can say that the child feels very little pain. First, part of the ceremony involves the infant being given small amounts of religious wine, which helps numb any pain he may feel. Second, even in the religious ceremony, a mild anesthetic is applied to the area about to undergo the procedure. In regard to the loss of sexual stimulation, I can honestly say I have never felt cheated in this regard and have never had complaints from any partner. As for Mr. Menahem's decision to undergo the procedure to restore his foreskin, it is his decision if he wants to deny his religious obligation and background. However, it is not his right to preach this self-hatred to others through lies and misrepresentations.

Gary Rothstein
via e-mail

Editor and Publisher

I am very sorry to see Howard Altman go [Letter From the Publisher, "Howard's End," Paul Curci, May 20, 2004]. I will miss his column -- it is one of three items that I consistently look forward to when I open my paper, the others being Tom Tomorrow and Mary Patel's "Political Notebook." City Paper will not be the same without Howard's column, so I hope you will bring Howard back to write. His liberal perspective and wonderful way with words are essential in these difficult times.

Jean Haskell
via e-mail

I neither knew nor cared who edited City Paper, and I think new blood is always a good thing, even for its own sake, especially in the age of Jayson Blair. But I fail to see why the publisher would only use general language in discussing disagreements over "how best to manage the department" and "irreconcilable differences." I think we readers have a perfect right to know what direction City Paper will now go in, and what direction it was headed for before; moreover, I think it would make for interesting reading. It's your paper, of course, and you can choose to keep the information to yourselves; but if you do, why rub our noses in it? Why make a pretense of disclosure and inclusion when, in reality, you are doing the opposite? You think we are interested to know that you didn't yell at each other, but not in the substance of the discussions? If so, it would hardly seem that any of your weighty news stories could ever strike pay dirt.

Melvin Anders
South Philadelphia

-- Respond to this article in our Forums -- click to jump there