A Little Off the Top, Please
My parents always told me that we as Jews were a very optimistic people. We cut it off before we know how long it’s going to be. In California, a group of “intactivists” want to ban circumcision altogether.
This is just a dumb-headed idea and shows the problem with citizen initiative process.
When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by G-D. But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits.
Seventy-one hundred out of a 465,857 registered voters can place something this stupid on the ballot.
First off, this initiative flies in the face of religious freedom. Jews and Muslims practice ritual circumcision as part of their core beliefs. This harkens back to when G-D made a covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17, verses 1-27). This is why 8-day old Jewish boys, and Muslim males usually between the ages of 10-12 (the age Ishmael was in Genesis), are circumcised.
This is akin to the anti-abortion movement – a bunch of self-appointed know-it-alls deciding they know what is best for everyone and are hellbent on foisting their moral beliefs on the population. Just as the anti-abortion crowd wants to ban abortion for every woman because they oppose it, these schmucks in San Francisco and Santa Monica want to ban circumcision because they believe it’s “genital mutilation.” BS!
As I tell my anti-abortion friends, if you don’t want one, don’t get one. The same for these “intactivists” – if you don’t want your child circumcised, then don’t get him one. Leave the rest of us alone to do as we please.
Tags: liberal purists, Wingnuts
If I knew today what I knew when my boys were born there is no way I would have submitted them to circumsion. Its mutilation just as some Africans use rocks to mutilate the vaginas of young girls.
it is in no way the same thing as female “circumcision”
the foreskin is NOT the clitoris. The procedure in Africa makes it painful for the girl to ever have sex.
What do you know now that you didn’t know then, anon?
Oh please. MJ, do you really want to hear a bunch of anti-circumcision hog-wash? I got mine in 1965 and I love my circumcised penis.
am I allowed to make jewish jokes since you put it out there now?
If god asked people to lop off their sons arms b/c well, some nut job 3,000 years ago said that god said we don’t need that dominant arm b/c we only masturbate with it. Would you still be ok with it?
What if god told Abraham to cut off an ear so we don’t want to worry about the ear getting dirty and all when we sleep and that we don’t want women whispering in it to tempt us?
What if Abraham was told to cut off a childs toes b/c well, they get dirty when you walk on them.
Your argument is stupid and hiding behind religion to lop off a human body part is the dumbest argument there is.
I have a few thousand girls labias in Africa to prove it.
using religion to mame a child is the most brutal ritual on this earth. Have you ever seen one live in the hospital? Have you ever heard a helpless child wail? be tied down like a terrorist in gitmo to have a portion of his newborn body part lopped off?
awful, awful
we are no better than the taliban when it comes to this
DV must have been hitting the bottle again today. Don’t you know you’re supposed to cut back on alcohol use on hot, humid days like today?
It’s maim, not Mame you idiot.
I’m not hiding behind religion. Here’s a news flash for you – there are progressives and liberals who believe in
G-D and practice their religion. And this proposal is a slap in the face to Jews and Muslims in San Francisco and Santa Monica.
I do love how DV has to link back to our blog (the one he got booted from) to have material to write about. Guess he can’t come up with anything original.
Well, MJ, your ad hominem attack on DV certainly makes you seem defensive about this issue. I notice that you didn’t answer any of his hypothetical examples/questions he posed. Beyond that, your claim that you oppose this proposed ban not because you have an ethno-religious interest in the outcome is belied by your words in your post. Nor have you addressed the argument behind the the proposed ban: namely, it’s better to wait until a male reaches age 18 to see if HE WANTS to participate in this religious rite instead of forcing it upon him at the most vulnerable and helpless time in his life.
I worry about shmegma. Not the actually stuff, but the word itself, the combinations of letters makes it creepy to look at. 😉
Dana – speaking the truth about someone is not an ad hominem attack. We all know how much of a jerk DV is. And yes, when ANYONE attacks my religion or my religious beliefs, I do become defensive.
The way this initiative is written it will prohibit parents from following their religious teachings. And that violates the the rights of about 70,000 Jews who live in San Francisco.
I find it interesting that the peanut gallery who a month ago were defending not putting civil unions to a vote in Delaware are now defending allowing a vote to take away a religious practice of a minority.
If a child doesn’t want to follow the faith of his parents once he turns 18, that is his choice.
Using your logic, Dana, we shouldn’t punish parents who force their kids to eat broccoli or spinach because they are doing so when the child is at the most vulnerable and helpless time in their life.
Just listened to one of the sponsors in the Santa Monica area: she is actually pulling her group’s support for the bill because it does not have a religious exception. So the issue is a bit more complext than the original post here made it seem.
If, MJ, the final law carried a religious exemption, would you oppose it?
There’s a tough dynamic here: do parents have the right to inflict a purely elective, usually non-reversible, surgery on infants incapable of expressing a preference vs. does the State have the power to prevent them from doing so? And if the State does have that power, can it also legislate that parents cannot get their infant child’s ears pierced?
Don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way, but the abortion comparison is pretty ludicrous, because you seem to have made (by accident) the case that anti-abortion parents of minor children should have the right to deny them that operation.
Steve, I would have no stand on the issue if there were religious exemptions in place, which the SF initiative does not contain.
Since minors cannot legally make decisions for themselves, and since this is a harmless, in my opinion, procedure, then the parents should have the right to choose whether to circumcise or not.
The abortion comparison was not about parents denying their children the right to seek one – it was meant to compare what so-called moralists have in common – their own version of what is correct for the rest of society. Some things should not be put to a vote of the citizenry.
Some religious practices of minorties and majorities have had to be either abandoned or significantly altered because their primitivity and brutality were deemed insufferable for a civilized society. Examples range from banning executing people for practicing withcraft, banning corperal punishment or any punishment for sabbath breakers, outlawing men from physically punishing their wives, prohibting parents from not getting medical treatment for their children because they are relying on faith healing. That this proposed ban on circumcision ruffles the feathers of true believers is to be expected but is hardly a reason to dismiss the rights and interests of the babies involved.
What rights do newborn babies have, Dana?
And comparing a bris to the things you cited is absurd.
Looks like it’s time for a poll:
Helmet
Ant Eater
“What rights do newborn babies have?”
All the rights of any other human being. The job of parents (and occasionally the State, when there is an overwhelming interest) is not to vitiate those rights, but to protect them.
“Since minors cannot legally make decisions for themselves, and since this is a harmless, in my opinion, procedure, then the parents should have the right to choose whether to circumcise or not.”
Key phrase here–“in my opinion”–which pretty much invalidates most of the rest. So do circumcised children turning eighteen have the right to sue their parents if they then disagree that the surgery was harmless?
Steve, now you’re just being foolish. Actually, unless a minor is being abused, then the parents have the right to make decisions for them, which includes how to raise them and whether to circumcise them or not.
Please enlighten us with data that shows that a child who was circumcised at birth was somehow emotionally harmed.
First of all, I have never, ever attacked you and repeatedly you have made reference to the drinking.
So I’m not sure who the jerk is here. But the Jerk store called and they are out of shrimp.
2nd of all, I “attacked” your faith b/c you put it out there like a big ol’ fucking matzah ball.
3rd the mocking of spelling is weak and tired.
4th you didn’t address any of my points.
5th I posted a retort o your shitty asinine typically self perpetuating Jewish stereotype it demanded a separate post
6th. I don’t know if you know how blogging works, but the great thing about is I have my own blog that allows me to shred your idiotic religious beliefs that quite honestly are comparable to the Taliban. Often times when bloggers disagree they use their own platform to take apart someone elses posts. I did it. You do it. We all do it. But, I guess you don’t get how blogging works.
You know, there are people that believe for religious reasons that isreal shouldn’t exist. Is it ok….i’m soooooo scared I might offend you…..that I talk about your religion now that you put it out there?
Sooooooo based on these folks religious beliefs Israel shouldn’t exist right? I guess you agree with them. After all…it’s their religious belief that their parents and their parents before them are passing down.
You put yourself in an idiotic position by using religion to defend your beliefs. I never called you a name. I have NEVER ever called you a name. EVER.
I have never attacked YOU personally.
You want to put your faith and sexuality out there you better be prepared for it be used against.
No matter how cute you think it is to have genitalia mutilated b/c God said so
You know, DV, I always heard you were a fucking idiot. Thanks for proving everyone right on that point. Rant away, boy, rant away.
Male circumcision is nothing like female circumcision. Come up with a real argument, please.
There are religions that believe their children shouldn’t be taken to the hospital even though they are dying. I guess it’s ok, b/c their god said so
Is there a doctor in the house? DV is off his meds.
I heard you are gay and jewish? But then again I’ve only read that about you here and never met you
Ok UI here is one
GOD isn’t real
The bible is fake
Abraham didn’t actually talk to God
Prove I’m wrong
No Medical association recommends circumcision
the foreskin is almost half of the babies penis skin
male urinary tract infections occur at the same rate as females regardless of being circumcised
A baby doesn’t have a choice if his body is going to be altered
No, The fucking idiot is the one that uses Religion as his reason for ANY argument
It seems to me unless you can prove that circumcision provides substantial harm (and I think thousands of years of data show the risk is very small) that banning the procedure is a violation of someone’s religious practice. Faith healing does not equal circumcision in risk.
Of course, don’t let me get in the way of penis talk.
MJ, I can accept being “foolish” “in your opinion” because your opinon is not worth very much on this issue in any legal or cultural terms.
There are all sorts of decisions that parents don’t have the right to make for children, and significant legal tests regarding where the lines should be. Curiously enough, you continue to make backwards arguments: there is no requirement for me to show that circumcision is not harmless; the burden of proof in terms of subjecting a child to elective surgery lies in the opposite direction: the parents have the requirement to show that it IS harmless and IS in the child’s best interest.
There’s the sticking point for your argument: religious arguments aside (and I think your case there is a helluva lot weaker than you think it is), tell me one proven BENEFIT to children regarding the removal of the foreskin.
What it comes down to here is that you are arguing that parental custody of a minor child extends to requiring cosmetic surgery with no tangible benefit.
To go back to the argument dv raised: I don’t think your religious rights extend to requiring purely elective, cosmetic surgery on the part of minors who cannot give consent.
God made the babies penis.
Oh and I just talked to God, he said to stop fucking with my work.
Prove I didn’t.
“It seems to me unless you can prove that circumcision provides substantial harm (and I think thousands of years of data show the risk is very small) that banning the procedure is a violation of someone’s religious practice. Faith healing does not equal circumcision in risk.
Of course, don’t let me get in the way of penis talk.”
I guess you talked to a baby after and during. What’d he say to you? You sound naive here and quite honestly, I’m pretty surprised this is your position. Anymore though, no one over here surprises me anymore.
It’s usually the delusional ones who claim to speak to
G-D. Fits DV to a T.
Oh look me and your boy Abraham have something in common.
UI
You get into exactly the same ground as MJ: where’s your rational for the use of the word “substantial”? Why does anyone have to prove “substantial” harm?
By the way, your “thousands of years of data” sounds suspiciously like David Anderson’s argument against gay marriage (“thousands of years of tradition”). And that’s what you’ve got: tradition, not data.
I ask again: why should not the burden of proof for elective cosmetic surgery be on the parents to prove that there is a BENEFIT.
Where is the benefit in circumcision?
Again, as Dana even said you didn’t address any of my points. Just attacked me and called me names.
So tell me why being able to do something such as operating on a defenseless newborn b/c God told Abraham to do it is a good reason?
If God told Abraham to do it, he shouldn’t mind the little putz waiting a few years to make his own decision. After all, God would understand right?
Or is your god the eye for eye an guy? I can’t keep up with you religious nutbags.
Lastly, haven’t we evolved as a society to get beyond the parents worrying about GOD thinking they are true believers. After all this has nothing to do with the child at all. This is all about the parents projecting their fears of being teased or made fun of. Fear of being made fun of as parents. Fear, fear, fear.
I mean for Christs sake, MJ is so religious he won’t even type GOD in a post.
What happens MJ if you do? Do you go to h e double hockey sticks?
booo!
DV, you have no points, only a delusional rant.
Here’s a link to information from the CDC on circumcision and HIV.
And here’s another resource.
Mock away, DV. Jews are not permitted to write out Hashem’s name, which is why I and millions of other Jews around the world write it as G-D.
Your mocking of my religious beliefs only reflects on you.
You’ve taken the low road 3x’s that I’ve counted MJ and i never, ever, ever once took a shot at you. Not once. So, your mocking and personal attacks on me reflect on you.
You are a blogger MJ get a thicker fucking skin. Or should I say foreskin.
My mocking of your religious beliefs comes from thousands of years of my parent making fun of it around the dinner table.
The CDC link you provide MJ cites almost exclusively African studies and talks about lower HIV infection rates in populations that already have threshold HIV rates of 40-60% in major cities. Moreover, as an indication of the critical differences, circumcision complications in the US range from .2%-2%, while in Africa they range from 2-8%. In other words, circumcision in Africa is at least four times more likely to lead to health issues (this all from your link). The infection findings are for populations in areas with miniscule to no available health care and little education regarding sanitation, and did not allow for secondary male genitalia mutilation that could have been a cause of the foreskin tears noted in the study. (You’d have to pursue the original studies to get that.) Moreover, your link itself admits that (a) 16 of the 35 most important studies had “inconsistent” results; (b) the ecologic studies establish (at best) correlation and not causation–and the CDC article never asserts otherwise; (c) the entire report is peppered with words like “borderline” and “insignificant”.
In other words, the CDC could not and did not cite a single study from populations similar in health care and sanitation to Europe or the US. That link is worthless.
The CircInfo link is an advocacy group that mostly depends on carefully confusing correlation with causation; cites many studies that have been questioned or discredited, and makes health benefits claims that not even the CDC reference you provide is will stipulate.
Mostly what you’ve proven here is that you have a functional internet browser and can pull up links that look superficially relevant.
and you still have yet to address my points.
You are surprised I support freedom of religion?
If it were my personal decision, I would say no. Circumcision gives little, if no benefit to the child. However I have seen no studies that show it is harmful either. The risk of harm is non-zero, so I don’t think it should be performed for cosmetic reasons.
I’m surprised you support religious freedom that harms an innocent life yes.
Have you asked a wailing infant if it hurts?
What studies have you taken the time to read?
If you are willing to accept on it’s face that a voice told some dude that couldn’t read or write to lop of a kids penis skin
why aren’t you so willing to listen to a screaming baby that it hurts? and is harmful?
Fascinating that some think that the state should have to show that a child will not suffer “substantial harm” from genital mutilation for superstitious or other CULTural reasons. I don’t know why the state should give a rip about that.
Why shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the parents to show that the child will incur substantial benefit from genital mutilation?
A sincere question. Do medically untrained religious leaders still perform circumcision for boys born into families that practice Judiasm and Islam?
My guess is you didn’t read this study. Based on what you are saying this should change your mind:
We really struggled with this decision when it came to our son. I deferred to my husband – yes, I was a coward. My gut said no circumcision, but society… Ugh! It was a really tough decision, and I’m not certain I’d make the same decision today… altho, I think I’d still like to make the call… maybe?
It was the hardest decision I had to make. Me and the wife wrestled with it. I felt so pressured from my family and from some friends.
I was set on no and had to tell myself over and over I would say no.
Then, in the triage at Christiana the Nurse asked, “Are you having a circumcision?”
We looked at each other and I said no…I waited for her to say something, do something, recommend a doctor. It was truly an instant of panic and remorse that I might be shamed.
It took her about a tenth of a second to ask her next question without blinking an eye or even giving a shit that we said no.
Circumcision is nothing but an outdated religious ceremony parents project on to their child b/c they are to afraid to say no.
I’m proud to this day I did it. And this religious cop out of a post makes me even prouder.
Dad? Why did you lop of my penis skin?
Son, God talked to some dude 3,000 years ago and said it would show he believes in God.
Thanks dad, I can’t wait to do it to my son now and prove I too believe in god.
How idiotic
So since this “hurts” a “wailing” infant, I suppose doctors should be prevented from taking blood from an infant to determine their blood type, because, you know, the kid didn’t consent to it.
It’s OK if you don’t have any religious beliefs, I really don’t give a rat’s ass, although we know that DV worships at the altar of Jack Daniels and Wild Turkey. But you have no right to mock my beliefs or others just because it doesn’t fit into your perfect world of what a progressive should be.
“But you have no right to mock my beliefs or others just because it doesn’t fit into your perfect world of what a progressive should be.”
Actually, he does. It’s called the First Amendment. You have no right to be immune from being mocked for your religious beliefs.
Nor do I see you objecting on this site when, say, evangelicals are consistently mocked. It just happens to be your turn in the barrel.
Your pathetic MJ.
Are the priests drawing blood b/c God told Abraham to tell them to do it? After all, I think your post here says it’s ok to remove skin b/c God said so.
Now you are comparing drawing blood for obvious medical reasons to a religious ceremony? I believe your argument here is not analogous to the premise of your post.
Keep up the attacks though. You are definitely the bigger man here and I’m the idiot. If you are going to keep putting your religion and sexuality up there for everyone to read about you better expect it to be used.
“You are definitely the bigger man here and I’m the idiot” – DV.
At least you admit the truth for once.
And Steve, Jews are not hellbent on making non-Jews conform to our beliefs, as evangelicals are. And your First Amendment line is weak, very weak.
Exactly how is it weak, MJ?
Mocking religious beliefs is inherently politcally protected speech, a type of speech that virtually everyone who posts on this blog (including me, and definitely including you) engages in on a more-or-less regular basis.
You’ve spent this entire thread using ad hominem attacks and failing to respond to any of the substantive issues raised. Not my fault you’re sensitive. This post pretty much establishes that you can dish it out but you can’t take it.
does this mean ear-piercing is out too??
i mean – is the ear lobe less precious than the penis or the labia??
as for female circumcision there is NO COMPARISON!! either the tip of the clitoris is snipped or there is all the way up to and including what is known as INFIBULATION – where the entire clitoris and inner labia are cut out and the area sewen together with a straw sewen in for urination,
On her wedding night – her outer labia is slit open and the bride required to walk to her new husbands home.
Women die, babies die, infants die before they are born to women with this mutilation.
compared to a child in a sterile enviornment where anesthesia can be given if the parents want and is permitted
I would say no comparison – sue me, I had my kids ears pierced
somehow she seemed to have survived the muliation I put her thru – what’s next – all babies have to be born by way of casearian section to dimish :birth trauma”
OIE VAY!!
Have to chime in here on this contentious issue. Certainly there’s a religious aspect that should be considered, but there’s also the aspect of the infant as well.
As a gay, recovering Catholic, circumcised man, I feel I’m being quite honest when I say I have no memory of being circumcised. I don’t think one day I will go to a therapist and discover long-repressed PTSD from the experience.
At the same time, I won’t ever know what sensations or feelings I may never experience because of it. I have to rely on the few men who were circumcised after puberty and are willing to discuss the experience. From what I understand, it’s quite different from a sensitivity perspective.
I think those on here are correct when they claim that there are worlds of difference between female genital mutilation that occurs as part of cultural practices in African countries and the circumcision of males in America (aside from the Jewish community, my understanding of history is that only in America did circumcision become the “norm” for gentiles, on the then medical opinion that circumcision would limit masturbation, which was considered unhealthy and unclean).
Still, without digressing too much, I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare the pain of an African pre-teen or teen girl with the pain of an infant male in America. It’s like saying that other mammals don’t feel pain because they don’t express it in words. I think many parents would agree that before their first child they could not distinguish the cries of “I’m hungry” from the cries of “I’m sick” from their infant children, and I think many parents will agree that they can certainly tell there’s a difference afterwards. From what I’ve seen, even if they can’t tell us so, cutting off a baby boy’s foreskin looks like it hurts – a lot. However, let’s also remember that we all start off as female. The foreskin is homologous to the clitoral hood, the clitoris the glans and head, the penile shaft is made from the pre-differentiated labia minor, the scrotum evolves from the labia major – hence the raphe, or ridge that is visible on the scrotum that is a quite visible sign of our natal development – trust me, I’ve inspected quite a few scrotal sacks in detail, and they all have it. 🙂
Point being, just because a newborn doesn’t have the ability to yell “AHHHH THE PAIN THE PAIN” as well as a pre-teen girl doesn’t mean they don’t feel it, particularly since we’re talking about the same “building blocks” with very similar nerve pathways, if you will.
To say it doesn’t matter (the prepuce that is) also strikes me a dissembling, and again I defer to any experts who can describe adult life with and without one.
I hail from a relatively religious-free version of a Catholicism family, and while I was raised Catholic (catechism and all) I was told early that it was alright to believe what I felt was right for me, even if that meant to believe in nothing religiously. So I wonder what’s the harm in letting an adult or teen male decide for himself whether he wishes to strengthen his relationship to his god by cutting off his foreskin when he’s old enough to decide for himself. Why do we need to do this to babies? As an Agnostic I have to wonder whether God wouldn’t appreciate the covenant more if it was made of free will, which if I remember my catechism correctly was one of the gifts imbued in humans.
I do also have to agree that the procedure is not without risk – and if you want to see the worst case scenario look no further than the story of David Reimer, born a biological male but re-assigned as female after a botched circumcision. Yes it’s low risk but low risk is not the same as zero risk. This to me makes it an elective surgery, and for those of faith perhaps it could be made the highlight of the bar mitzvah.
I have no quarrel with anyone’s religion, and in fact I will fight to defend your right to worship (or not) in the manner you choose. I also will defend anyone’s rights to raise their children in the manner they see fit. I do also agree that I have the right to say that I think you’re crazy for thinking whatever you think, just as you do me. That being said, I think any irreversible and physically unnecessary procedure is something that we would normally require any mature person to choose only after making an informed decision.
Whether it be for aesthetic or religious reasons, altering one’s body strikes me as a very personal choice, and if I had to ability and cognition to voice that to my parents as a baby I would have told them to let me think about it for a few years. After all, if it’s only a requirement of religion then there’s no danger in waiting a few years – why is it insisted on being done right after birth? Is it because we suspect it’s painful and don’t wish to remember? Is it because that we’re worried the boys will play with it too much? Is it because Daddy wants his son to look like him to avoid a bunch of questions? Is it because of Leviticus and Genesis? What happened to all the Jews born before the Torah was codified? Were they not Jews because they were uncut? Did they have to line up for Moses and the scissors after he came down with the tablets?
For those like MJ who feel that their religious traditions must not be compromised, I am curious as to whether that extends to the traditions of the Jewish Orthodoxy who use a Mohel and strictly follow the law that blood must be drawn at the circumcision and further specify the manner in which it is drawn. Surely the Orthodox argue their interpretation of Jewish Law requires it. I think most of us find even a description of the procedure completely unthinkable, even ghastly and beyond pale. I would like to think most of us have also abandoned those ancient strictures as inappropriate in today’s society.
I don’t know if government law has a proper role in this, but personally should I ever be faced with the choice I would not have my child circumcised. If that was his choice fine, but this is not an ear piercing, an area with few nerve endings comparatively. It just seems like to me the best option is to let the boy decide for himself when he is old enough to choose since it’s not something that can be changed. You can take out an ear piercing. For those that believe in a greater power who gave us free will, surely the sacrifice coming from one’s own volition would be more even more pleasing unto Him.
It’s a tough subject, of that I am sure.
I don’t remember being circumcised, but I KNOW I didn’t walk for a year after-wards.
lol
I take all my answers back and want to write what Townie said.
Interestingly absent from this discussion of forced penis mutilation as a religious right is the sometime practice of metzitzah b’peh: where the medically untrained mohel (the religious mutilator) orally sucks the blood off the baby’s just mutilated penis. Sound hygienic to you? Well, it’s not. It’s been implicated in the spread of herpes. But I guess we shouldn’t ban that practice either (it’s still practiced among some Jewish groups in the US) because it should be a religious right of parents to subject their baby boys to someone sucking their bloody penis and possibly giving them a disease that could result, at the worst, in brain damage.
First of all, almost all of the mohels around the world are medically trained; most of them are physicians.
And I’m just amazed at the hatred Dana and DV espouse towards Jews and those who wish to follow their faith? Dana, you’re coming across as a bitter anti-Semite.
There you go again, MJ. Name-calling and labeling when you CAN’T answer the substantial arguments presented to you.
Just answer the question: Should metzitzah b’peh be banned or not and why? Just answer the damn question.
No name-calling, Dana, just pointing out a fact that from the very beginning you have been on an anti-Semitic roll with your posts. It’s fine if you want to be free from religion, but it’s not your place to question the rights of those who wish to follow their religious traditions.
And here’s some info from the Wiki article you obviously searched:
So out of the millions of brit melat conducted, only 11 cases of medical problems have surfaced. ELEVEN!!!
So you do support the continued practice of metzitzah b’peh. Given your overall pro-genital mutilation stance and now your support of metzitzah b’peh that can spread infectious disease to babies, here is a name that aptly applies to you: ACCESSORY TO CHILD ABUSE.
You’re really a fucked up person, Dana. Maybe you, Steve, and DV should just stick with your sorry excuse for a blog and leave the adults alone to have civil discussions.
And if you really feel that I’m an accessory to child abuse, call the police and file a criminal complaint against me.
And please, point out to all of us where I specifically stated that I condoned metzitzah b’peh.
And I’m just amazed at the hatred Dana and DV espouse towards Jews and those who wish to follow their faith? Dana, you’re coming across as a bitter anti-Semite.
Man oh man. I’ve been called a lot of things but that one takes the cake. I don’t like assholes and your constant pot shots at the drinking are what got you what was given from me.
Wear your religion and your sexuality on your sleve all you want buddy. But don’t cry foul and anti semite when someone uses it back at you. I have handed David Anderson his ass for his wingnuttery. And many other religious people for that matter.
now I’m handing you yours. You want the religious freedom to remove a body part from a child. You also want to tell me it’s b/c your jewish. You also b/c of your faith are so terrified of going to hell that you can’t type, literally, type the word GOD on a blog post.
You are a wing nut. You are no different than David Anderson. You are bending to your god and willing to inflict your own will on defenseless human beings. All b/c your parents and the generations before them kibitz about it and make fun. b/c allegedly some guy in a book said so. yes, I’m going to make fun of you for that. FYI, that same book also says we should stone women to death. Do you practice that? After all, God said it….
I’m a lot of things but fuck you and your attack and assumption about my feelings towards jews. My feelings are towards YOU it may ryhme with Jew. It may sound like jew, but IT’s YOU that I don’t like and it has nothing to do with you being jewish.
very sad, very, very, very sad.
As a jew, i must ask… what is the medical need for a circumcision anymore? it’s like keeping kosher. DV and Dana are just finding calculated offensive ways to ask that question because they have fun making you upset.
crap, now I can’t like you either….oh well
My parents always told me that we as Jews were a very optimistic people
Nope, no sleeve wearing here
Actually, I don’t wear my religion or sexuality on my sleeve. My religion and my sexual orientation are part and parcel of what makes up MJ, just as being a fucking asshole makes up what you are.
You didn’t hand me my ass. You might think you did in your own little warped, alcohol fueled brain, but you didn’t. It’s a reflection on you that you can not tolerate those who practice their religion (and I’m not talking about evangelicals like David) within the confines of their homes or places of worship. You don’t see Jews standing on the corners reading the Bible and trying to convert people.
And the feeling is mutual about the dislike. I always thought your posts on here were infantile and gibberish. I’m sure the readers here have gotten some bad flashbacks from your comments on this post.
And if you want sad, just look in the mirror everyday. You’ll see what sad really is.
Now run away little boy and go hide behind Dana’s and Steve’s aprons. You’ve been served!
SB – I’ll leave the medical question to the doctors. As for keeping Kosher or any of the other traditions, it should not be up to a small group of citizens (7100 out of 465,000) to decide what can and cannot be practiced as long as no law is being broken.
This is boring.
Jason – since no one is reading DV’s blog, he has to come over here.
Yeah. That’s boring. It is also boring that you let him get to you. The whole thread is boring as shit.
Actually it was my bad for chasing him down that rabbit hole. The issue is whether 1.5% of the population should have the right to put something before the voters that will discriminate against a religious minority.
My guess is that he and his pals are tossing off to this.
And the feeling is mutual about the dislike. I always thought your posts on here were infantile and gibberish. I’m sure the readers here have gotten some bad flashbacks from your comments on this post.
Whatever little rise you feel you’ve gotten out of this I can assure you it didn’t work to your advantage at all. If I am the person you say I am, all I have done is reduced you to my level. Which by your comments and being the first one to attack me personally on this post actually show who is the real man here.
Also, wanting to cut off a body part b/c your God says so shows your character too.
David Andersons God says you shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Which one is right?
you’re a joke and hiding behind religion to perform surgery that is involved as circumcision says a lot about you. You get to pick and chose what is ok to use out of a book and say your god said so. But only the parts you like.
Picking apart religious nut jobs like you is a sport.
You might want to bookmark this post to be read around Yom Kippur. You are going to have some atoning after the accusations you have slung and personal attacks you have made.
it was more of a rhetorical question. Like dietary laws, circumcisions started as a medical practice. The whole “God says so” argument was used because like today, people shun medical science and are only interested in what Sky Dad says. It made sense a few thousand years ago because the water was full of human feces and soap was considered demonic. Now we have soap and clean water so cleanliness can be maintained. I also take issue with the fact that as Jews, we a “required” to cut it off when we aren’t allowed to get piercings or tats because our bodies are supposedly the way God wants them…. except, of course for that darned extra skin he has apparently been to busy to evolve away from us.
All this is devils advocate of course. I’ll get my son snipped, not because of any deep connection to the word of God, more because an uncut penis looks hideous. I think the ladies, or men attracted to men would agree with that one. As the wise Rabbi Tuckmann said “the ladies LOVE it”
“The issue is whether 1.5% of the population should have the right to put something before the voters that will discriminate against a religious minority”
there ya go. in that case… no. keep those oppressive foreskin hugging hippies off my yet-to-be-conceived son’s body. Dont they know moyels work for tips? BOOM!
Damn, there’s a pesky fly buzzing around my head. Anyone else notice it?
it could be a fly that doesn’t like jews. I know how you like to assume it’s that and not that your an asshole.
Yeah. That’s boring. It is also boring that you let him get to you. The whole thread is boring as shit
You picked the staff over here buddy. At the time, I wonder though, if you knew you had your own David Anderson and not some insidey type “rabble rouser” from Rehoboth.
oh well, either way, the anti-semite card is a doozy.
keep up the good work at picking contributors.
Mazel Tov!
I still don’t get how you can be a CEO and comment like 100 times a day on a blog. Bravo. 🙂
“You know, DV, I always heard you were a fucking idiot. Thanks for proving everyone right on that point. Rant away, boy, rant away”
And
“You’re really a fucked up person, Dana. Maybe you, Steve, and DV should just stick with your sorry excuse for a blog and leave the adults alone to have civil discussions”
What is this, a lame wingnut seminar in nanny-nanny-boo-boo retorts?
Listen, the proposal in SF is completely wrong, IMHO. Don’t want to do it, then fucking have the stones to buck the family trend of kowtowing to mythology and don’t do it. Simple as that.
But one things for sure, hospitals or whatnot should not ask if you want the procedure; it should be requested by the parents.
And MJ, I personally know DV for about a decade now, worked, partied, travelled wih him, held is uncut child, etc. He may be abrasive, to some, but the shit you’ve been saying over here is uncalled for and way out of line, especially since you admitted you never meet the guy. Fuckin have some character, since most of your comments reveals more about you than slamming DV.
VC – I don’t recall having said I never met him. In fact, I met him at a 2009 Inauguration Wine Tasting party up in Newark. He came across to me as a bore.
Sorry, should have said “know”.
Bore? Not really. But different strokes, yaknow?
Well, if one may join in a real conversation on this thread… I think a religious exemption is absolutely necessary. We have one for vaccinations and we should have one for this.
That being said, I would encourage anyone to look at pictures or film of a hospital (non mohel) circumcision. It’s a big deal, and having a patient that can’t explain that doesn’t make it less of a big deal, imo, but more. I wouldn’t let you cut off the equivalent piece of me, I’m sure about that.
As to the appearance… I’ve never found the appearance of a sexual part a deciding factor in my relationships. Variety is the spice of life for me, I guess. 😉
But finally, if the first important choice you make for your child is based on a fear of peer pressure, we don’t have much in common as parents, I’d say.
Link from anti-circumcision site about infant response. Please don’t open if you’re easily upset. http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm
circumcised catholic here.
There should be a religious exemption.
How did the procedure get from being a jewish religious ceremony to something done to all boys unless the parents protest? How and when did that happen? Disclaimer: I had my son circumsized. I did it because it was the norm – my mom told me it was necessary for good hygiene purposes. I was a young mother, listened to my mom and never really thought twice about it.
NN, I just heard on the radio that the US started the widespread practice of circumcision in the late 1800s because it was widely believed that circumcised boys didn’t masturbate as much when they got older. The person/expert who made this claim is associated w/ the website circumcision.org
The website that Dana cited is an anti-circumcision organization.
or do they hate jews? hmmmmmm
They were almost right. Boys without a foreskin, penis, testicles, and hands wont masturbate as much
I suspect that there are two reasons that circumcision is commonplace, even today. Due to the widespread nature of it a generation ago, many fathers have no idea WTF you do with that extra skin. How is a guy with different junk supposed to instruct his son in the finer points of dealing with it?
Couple that with the fact that most parents are youngish when they have kids and have spent most of the pregnancy being bombarded with information, advice and recommendations, that the path of least resistance is to “make it look like Dad’s”.
But this all does remind me of one of my favorite lawyer jokes…
Why do lawyers wear neckties?
To keep the foreskin from going over their faces.
There are also medical reasons to get circumcised. 11-13% of uncut men can develop swelling of the glans and pain. Whereas cut men are at 2% The 11% uncut number climbs to 35% in men who are diabetic. Not to mention the increased risks of transmitting HIV, HPV and other STDs
It is considered a societal norm to get circumcised in many religious circles as well as this society as a whole. But the parents do in fact have a choice. Taking away that choice seems UnAmerican.
To me, the only people who have a legitimate complaint to this procedure are those who were mutilated due to error, infections, etc. And even then, those are a pretty small percentage of the community.
Anybody who advocates making kids walk around with one of those crazy looking European things is probably goat fucker.
I suspect that there are two reasons that circumcision is commonplace, even today. Due to the widespread nature of it a generation ago, many fathers have no idea WTF you do with that extra skin. How is a guy with different junk supposed to instruct his son in the finer points of dealing with it?
The pee comes out at an angle. other than that, the equipment handles the same but is slightly smaller. How does a single mother tell a son how to wash his penis? She just does…
You get over it eventually.
Oh and sussex anon, they weren’t nipping the foreskin off for Aids, HPV ad STD 200 years ago. These are all just excuses to not end a religious practice.
Right, Donviti,
Lets ignore science.
Infections that uncut children sometimes get existed 200 years ago as well as the other maladies I described.
SussexAnon, there are many studies out there on the topic and the findings among them are mixed. You haven’t latched onto the definitive findings.
Even if the findings on STDs are mixed, parents should have the choice in the matter. Being sure to explain the “mixed” findings on STDs and the potential for infection and the problems such as posthitis (only exisits in uncut men) and balanitis.
Infection, posthitis and balanitis are definitive potential risks to being uncircumcised. Risks that should be considered and a parental choice made.