Circumcision: Fun and Games Until…UPDATED

Remember when you’d be with your friends, fooling around in some questionable manner, and then your mother would tell you to stop it, because “it’s all fun and games, until somebody gets hurt…”

And you and your friends would keep doing what you were told not to do, until, inevitably, someone would get hurt.

So, the last few days, a few of us bloggers have been irreverently hooting about San Franciscan’s foreskin fixation and it’s desire to outlaw circumcision.

And now…it’s getting uncomfortable:

If I were Jewish I would be getting uncomfortable.

Writes Bookworm

Zombie has gotten hold of some of the campaign literature from those supporting the circumcision ban that made its way onto San Francisco’s November ballot. I am not kidding when I say that the material is indistinguishable from something the Nazis would have prepared . . .I read a headline today (and can’t, for the life of me, figure out where), stating that antisemitism is resurgent today in a way not seen since the eve of WWII. This kind of garbage makes that claim — a claim I don’t doubt is true — resonate with real force.

San Francisco in a very insulated, in its own way provincial little enclave where people are accustomed to thinking that everyone around them shares the same opinion. I am choosing to believe, for now, that this is merely the case of one person with vile views overconfidently overreaching within that community, and that he’ll be slapped down. If he’s not, then it might be time to get very worried, because, as someone mentioned in an email exchange:

San Francisco has always been a loony city, but it’s also been a leader. Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, my educational process started decaying big time, as the SF schools abandoned traditional teaching in favor of all the “new” theories coming out of the educational Left. Although we stopped learning, those failed techniques became de riguer in public education and are a large part of what’s driving our failing schools. Where San Francisco leads, even if off a cliff, too many other cities, anxious to appear forward looking, follow.

UPDATE: Instalanch! thanks Glenn! and welcome, Insty readers; while you’re here, please nose around. We’re also talking about whether another insulated community — that would be Hollywood — has too strong a hand in shaping social and cultural directions

In a new post,
Max Lindenman has additional thoughts

Now, I’ll admit, Tatler makes a pretty good prima facie case. All the tropes of Nazi propaganda appear to be in ordnung. Foreskin Man is one of those blond Ubermensch types that Jesse Owens ate for breakfast. (Indeed, had the comic come out 20 years earlier, its film adaptation would have given Dolf Lundgren the role of a lifetime.) Monster Mohel and his henchmenschen could have been extras in The Eternal Jew. They’ve got that whole Shylock-on-meth look: shaggy beards and peyot, hooked noses, maniacal gleams in their beady eyes.

And yet, for me, it doesn’t quite add up.

Anti-Semitism has been called the oldest hatred, and I have no doubt it’ll always be around — somewhere, in some form. But if it’s re-emerged and metastasized in a major American urban center, I have a hard time believing it would take the form suggested by the tropes in this comic.

And because he is tireless, and also willing to listen to what his commenters say, Max has yet another post on the subject, complete with punny title. Do remember that Max’s last name is Lindenman.

When I read that Hess and his friends call themselves “inactivists,” my heart broke a little. That’s clever, damn it. Urbanites who are clever enough to come up with a name like that and geeky enough to draw passable comics have no business disliking Jews. If anything, they should BE Jews. But now I realize I’m stuck in the New York of my childhood. It’s w hole ugly new ball game out there.

UPDATE III: Neo-neocon finds Old Nazi Cartoons and other anti-semitic drawings with which to compare Foreskin Man. Go look.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Hugh7

    “I wonder whether those involved on the legally coercive side of this argument have considered the fact that, in all likelihood, most of their number … would defend the “right’ of the mother of that same infant to suck its brains out and deliver it dead to the world only a few days earlier.” That is not a “fact”, even “in all likelihood”. Virtually NOBODY defends full-term abortion. And everybody agrees that born babies have human rights, so this analogy is irrelevant.

    “who are vehemently expressing the need to acknowledge “rights” heretofore unknown that are to be enforced by the state in these cases,”
    Yet 18 United States Code Section 116: Female Genital Mutilation:
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
    sets out a right for females very like the proposed ban. It just needs the word “female” deleted and the words “or foreskin” added to the list to make it conform to the 14th Amendment.
    Notice that it says “or ANY part”, so horrific African tribal rites are not at issue here. (The AAP ignored this last year when it flirted with allowing a token ritual pinprick of girls “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting” but was howled down) If you don’t like the word “mutilation” (and many people who cut their daughters don’t either), by all means substitute the word “cutting”.

    The comic strip pulls its punch. Monster Mohel says ( “And thank thee O Lord, for the joyous metzitzah b’peh for which I am about to partake.” but the words are not translated and Foreskin Man thwarts him. Metzitzah b’peh is sucking (metzitzah) blood from the wounded baby’s penis by mouth (b’peh).

    Some Jews don’t believe metzitzah b’peh was ever practised, yet it was an essential part of brit milah for nearly 2000 years, and some hasidic mohelim in New York still insist on doing it, even after one baby died of herpes as a result. Here is a video of a rabbi defending Metzitzah b’peh.

    Jewish anthropology professor Leonard Glick ( suggests that it was brit milah – and especially metzitzah b’peh – that gave rise to the blood libel. Christians seeing Jews doing that to their own children could only guess what they might do to Christian children, and he shows an old antisemitic woodcut of Jews crucifying a boy – and drawing blood from his penis.

    Some day, I predict, Jews will find the idea of infant circumcision so repellent that, like metzitzah b’peh, they will consign it first to history, then to mythology. Speed the day!

  • Blue Collar Todd

    Another thing to consider is the city’s embrace of homosexuality. Once a society, culture, and in this case, a city normalizes homosexuality no one can dare question the morality of the behavior. Case it point, it is gay pride month and the SF Giants have put out a PSA with the “It Gets Better” campaign.

    Dissent will not be tolerated.

  • Blue Collar Todd

    Just remember that in San Francisco it is morally acceptable and even promoted to cut a penis off, but do not dare cut that foreskin.

    Liberal cities will pay for sex changes but ban circumcision. A new dogma is emerging and we dare not question it unless we are prepared to suffer the consequences.

  • Susan

    Dear Anchoress,

    I’m one of your readers who rarely comments. I clicked on the PJ Media link to the creator and found that Amazon and Barnes & Noble were sellers of this filth.

    Would you and others please join me in emailing these sellers asking them to pull the hate-filled propaganda?


  • Micha Elyi

    When former SF mayor and now sitting U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein stops insisting on a circumcision ban and introduces bills before the U.S. national legislature to repeal all circumcision bans she has helped vote into U.S. law, then and only then will I worry about what jews think about SF’s latest move in the circumcision ban game.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    This isn’t about the rightness, or wrongness of circumcision; this is about anti-semetism, and hatred of Jews.

    I’d think even those who have doubts about circumcision would be troubled by images of sinister Jewish caricatures, attacking children. (What’s next? A cartoon version of “Little St. Hugh of Lincoln”?) If you’re no troubled by this—you should be.

    Oh, and, whether it’s intended that way or not, a banning circumcision is, by it’s very nature, anti-semetic, since it forbids Jews the freedom to practice their religion, and marginalizes them. Whether it’s intended that way or not, it will have the effect of of making certain areas “Judenrein”, as Jews have to move, in order to practice their religion. Okay, so you just want to be “crunchy”–or natural—or you just think circumcision is wrong, or silly, or nasty, or whatever; if you get it legally banned, you are, in effect, banishing Judaism—or, at least, Jews in your neighborhood.

    Is this America, in the 21st Century?

    And how is the ban to be enforced? Is San Francisco going to have “Penis Police” prowling around, checking kids to see if they’ve been circumcised or not?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Honestly, Hugh7, I suspect the idea of Jews drinking childrens’ blood originated—in the pointy, twisted minds of anti-semites, who really don’t need any excuse to hate.

    As I recall, the early Christians were accused of pretty much the same things: killing children, drinking blood, as well as sexual immorality and setting fires.

    Haters hate. That’s what they do.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Also, this insane comic pushes the idea that Jews and doctors, (Yeah, the first issue apparently shows a mad doctor attacking a kid) are actively, violently, running around seeking out victims to forcibly circumcise—which is ridiculous.

  • Bleepless

    Does anybody know who the individuals behind the comics are? That might be interesting.

  • Frank McGinness

    Here’s my favorites:

    Youtube -Leonard Glick “Circumcision” (Bobnobo3D) (I have read his book and have talked with him. He is awe inspiring.)

    Perry Mason:
    Do you think it’s okay to cut off part of someone’s body without their permission? Yes or No.
    Do you think it’s okay to have laws protecting only females from genital pin prick? Yes or No.
    Answering these two questions shows how American you are.

    Science News “Half of adult males carry HPV” Male circumcision and the use of condoms have shown little protection against HPV infection, Monsonego says.
    Swaziland Times “More circumcised men are HIV positive”
    All Africa “Uganda: New HIV/Aids Messages Worsening HIV Situation”
    CircumcisionAndHIV “Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells” Lot De Witte
    The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
    “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.”

    SF is progressive and open minded. We are intolerant of sexism and inequality. This law brings males into the fold of protection currently enjoyed by females. Really simple equality for all.
    So either your FOR Equal Rights or Not. Simple simple simple.

    Youtube- Young Turks “Men eating foreskin”

    Mesculin and Peyote are banned, those are used in religions, Pot is banned, Women in Florida are not allowed to wear their Bhurka’s in official photos for Drivers permits. Female circumcisn is banned. Christian Scientists have been sent to jail by denying medical treatment to their children, Sihk’s are not allowed to carry long daggers in public, etc…
    So I don’t know WHERE this idea sprang up among conservatives that the law has no power ever against religions.

  • Frank McGinness

    This comic was the second of two. The first one dealt with circumcising doctors. Foreskin man- the subject is circumcision not religion as viewed from those who had their genitals cut up. Cutters are not going to be viewed as Prince of Light!

    As one man said, but in more colorful language:
    “My family doesn’t urinate with my pen*s,
    my family doesn’t masturbate with my pen*s
    and my family doesn’t [have sexual intercourse] with my pen*s,
    so what business did my family have to go cutting part off of my pen*s?

    Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect
    or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before
    resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation. “Male” is not a
    diagnosis. Foreskin is not a birth defect.

    Religion is no excuse for carving up your kid!! Your religion is not above the law of decent human ethics.

    KOTFrank on twitter

  • tempus fugit

    Those “tolerant” liberals spewing their hatred again.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Sorry, Frank, this particular issue was very much about religion: Mohels performing a Jewish style circumcision, speaking Hebrew, calling upon God and the Jewish caricatures drawn in the worst Nazi stereotype style. The fact that the first one dealt with circumcising doctors doesn’t mean that this second issue wasn’t anti-semetic, and doesn’t excuse it. Your hatred of circumcsion is leading you into injustice; you want to excuse this, because you disapprove of circumcision.

    (By the way—it’s pretty bad to depict doctors, as ravening monsters, attacking babies—this is only scarcely less offensive than anti-semetism.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yeah, I know, Tempus; they’re so tolerant and full of compassion, they’re—well, scaring the heck out of me! (When they’re not turning my stomach.)

    This is America? This is the 21st Century?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Valleys, whether or not you think circumcision is an issue that should be “looked at”, would you agree that this comic goes too far with the whole evil-Jews-attacking-children schtick?

  • Elizabeth

    Dear Michael,

    Paragraph 2297 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, in whole,

    2297 _Kidnapping and hostage taking_ bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. _Terrorism_ threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. _Torture_ which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended _amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations_ performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. is a phosphate resources website. is a website dedicated to circumcision issues, most of which are links or an amalgam of information from other sources. What is the actual source of your second quote?

  • kenneth

    I’m glad the comic book came out. Fascists, like all other people, eventually reveal their true face. That’s equally true of the “save marriage” crowd and also the (primarily) leftists behind the circumcision campaign.

  • dry valleys

    Yes, it is excessive, and there are some antisemitic leftists (generally sympathisers with some form or other of Islamism, which readers will recall I oppose). Yet what I am saying is that if most Jewish Americans are Democrats I think they are right to be so both in their own terms (I don’t think any of the right-wing appeal adds up, particularly on foreign policy) and in terms of America in general.

    In Israel there are large colonies of ultra-orthodox who mainly live on welfare (they consider most forms of employment ungodly) and the people they bother are mainly working, taxpaying secular liberals, and obviously all of these secularists in Tel Aviv are Jewish (as are a lot of secularists in the west). So it’s not really a case of anyone being antisemitic if they oppose orthodoxy, just opposed to people visiting practices on children who don’t posess the ability to consent.

  • dnb

    First to Scalper (aptly named): My husband and son were both circumcised; both are fine. Why don’t you spend your time worrying about real human rights violations?

    Second, re: Matthew Hess (also aptly named): Has anyone done a genealogy on him? Might be interesting.

  • Andrew B

    Hugh7 states that “everyone agrees that born babies have human rights.”

    He might want to do a Google search on an obscure Illinois politician who voted contrary to that notion. Look under “Obama, Barack” and see if he falls into the category of “everyone.”

  • Martha

    “Do you think it’s okay to have laws protecting only females from genital pin prick? Yes or No.”

    Not even comparing apples and oranges. If male circumcision involved cutting off the penis so that only a stub remained, then stitching closed the wound and ripping it open every time the man needed to father a child, then we would be talking the same thing.

    That is part of what turns me off any case the “intactivists” attempt to make about mutilation or loss of sexual enjoyment.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    So, Valleys, I suppose you oppose abortion, since a child has no ability whatsoever to consent to that (and probably wouldn’t, if they knew what was in store for them)?

    Do you oppose vaccinations? Very young children can’t really consent to these, either.

    Yes, there are anti-semites on the Left; if their outlook on Jews, and Israel becomes widespread in the Democratic party (and, no, you can’t pull the old, “I just oppose Orthodox Jews”—or “Zionists”; or “Israeli Settlers”. Don’t even go there) then I would say, yes, Jews are making a very bad choice by becoming Democrats, and supporting the very people who hate them—not that they should all become Republicans, but the Democrats do seem to be slipping towards the edge of late. . .

    (And not that this post was really about Democrats/Republicans anyway, but you did have to get a dig in at Bookworm.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And it is Democratic president Obama, who’se demanding Israel commit suicide, by returning to its pre-war borders, and becomes more upset at the thought of Jews building houses than of Hamas firing rockets at Jews. This is something Democratic Jews should think about, before voting. . .

    As for FGM and circumcision. . . the real comparison is between FGM, and castration—the practice of turning males into eunuchs. Like castration, FGM destroys sexuality. Circumcision doesn’t turn a man into a eunuch, and it certainly doesn’t render him either infertile, or impotent.

  • Hugh7

    @ #77 Martha
    “Do you think it’s okay to have laws protecting only females from genital pin prick? Yes or No.”

    Not even comparing apples and oranges. If male circumcision involved cutting off the penis so that only a stub remained, then stitching closed the wound and ripping it open every time the man needed to father a child, then we would be talking the same thing.

    YES African tribal female genital mutilation is horrible and must end.

    NOW can you look at the question as asked.

    US Federal Law outlaws even a token ritual pinprick to girls, so it certainly outlaws anything similar to male circumcision. Why the double standard?

    Here is a picture of a device used for female “circumcision” in the USA in 1959. (htp:// NSFW) It has a shield to protect the clitoris, so it is nothing like the African tribal barbarity. Now it (and much less) is illegal. Why is the nearest male equivalent still legal?

    @ 71 #Anderew B. That’s as may be. Do YOU believe that born babies have human rights?

  • Hugh7

    @ #75 Rhinestone Suderman. Funny you mention castration. Once it was as accepted as circumcision is today. Mozart and Handel – certainly civilized men by the standards of the day – wrote some of their most famous works (Exultate Jubilate, “He was despised”) for castrati. Thousands of boys were castrated in Italy and some became the rock stars of their day throughout Europe.

    Many of the same advantages that are today claimed for cirumcision were then claimed for castration (castrati actually live longer than whole men) and in days of high birthrate the loss of progeny was dismissed as many of the downsides of circumcision are dismissed today.


    Some day people will look back on circumcision as today we look on castration (or foot-binding). Speed the day!

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Hugh7, circumcized men are not rendered impotant. They can still have sexual intercourse, and they can still father children.

    Circumcision is not castration, nor is it footbinding, or FGM. To argue that it is shows a lack of knowledge of biology.

  • Andrew B

    Hugh7 asks if I believe that born babies have human rights. Absolutely I do. In fact, I believe that unborn babies have human rights which too many people choose to ignore.

    I do not, however, believe that circumcision violates these human rights. My parents had me circumcised, and I don’t believe they should have been hauled up in front of a UN tribunal. I don’t sit and lament for my poor, lost foreskin. I don’t think about my foreskin at all, nor that of anyone else in the world, any more than I obsess about my neighbor’s missing tonsils. The whole conversation is incredibly odd.

    Anyone–gay or straight, conservative or liberal, who spends that much time thinking about other mens’ penises needs a hobby.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I too, believe unborn babies have human rights.

    I don’t think circumcision violates any human right. And like you, Hugh, I find this obsessing over other mens’—ahem!—equipment, and long lost foreskins, very strange.

    Such people need a hobby. Or a life. Or something.

  • Acksiom

    So yet again I’m right and most of you are wrong. By not answering my challenge, you’ve conceded the victory to me.

    You have all now agreed by silent default that the government should not discriminate against little boys like this.

    You have all now tacitly admitted that the same laws that regulate the amputation of any other healthy, functional human body part should be equally applied to the prepuces of male minors.

    Because that’s what it means when someone points out the blatant error in your reasoning and you refuse to even just acknowledge it. It means you lose by default.

    You can’t defend your position against my argument, and at some level you know it, so you just pretend it doesn’t exist, simply because you aren’t willing to display even the most basic, simple amount and degree of adult intellectual integrity and honesty needed.

    You’d rather protect your own precious little self-image than admit you condone, support, or endorse the sexual mutilation of around 1,000,000 little boys annually in this country out of literally nothing more than ignorant sexist bigotry.

  • Manny

    I haven’t read through all the comments, so forgive me if this is a repeat.

    Let me get this straight. These people want to provide a choice to kill an unborn child, a choice to change your sex organs, a choice to take drugs, a choice to tattoo one’s entire body, peirce all sorts of places, a choice to marry people of the same sex, not even speaking about all sorts of perverse sexual practices that biology never intended, and not give a choice to perform an operation that has been traditional for thousands of years, has been proven to have cleanliness benfits, and lowers the risk of sexually transmitted diseases?

    This world has gone friggin crazy.

  • Manny

    Ackison – Get a life. People have answered you. In fact you answered it yourself:

    “I keep asking this question and nobody ever provides a defensible answer. I just get knee-jerk programmed responses about “religious freedom” or “parental rights” or “potential medical benefits” as though they were some kind of blank check trump cards.”

    Yeah, those are good enough reasons.

  • Doc

    Remember, the Left divides the world into designated victims and designated oppressors. Since Jews are opposed by Arabs (victims of Western colonialism, designated victims) Jews represent the West (designated oppressors) and are therefore fair game for almost all slander. Republicans get similar treatment from Democrats and the corporate media (but I repeat myself). This is why Herman Cain, as he gains traction and his poll numbers rise, will be slandered by the Left and the media. Cain represents a threat to Obama, so he must be brought down. His designated victim status as a black man gets overridden by his designated oppressor status as a Republican. This is the problem with group identification. It can get confusing. I guess MLK Jr has been rejected by the Left, as they certainly do not judge a man by the content of his character.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    So, Manny, you’re against religious freedom, and Parents being able to raise their kids as they see fit?

    LOL, terrible things indeed!

    /Sarc. off.

    Doc, I’m afraid you’re right about Cain. The Left is going to go ballistic, if he runs for president. They have no mercy on those who refused their designated victim status.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Acksiom, circumcision is not “sexual mutilation.” Circumcised men have sex, father children, are completely male.

    Nor is it some eeeeevil plot by eeeeeeevil Jews, and eeeeevil feminists, against baby boys.

    You need to take a deep breath. . . .

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    This has been tried before.

    We all need to study up on the Maccabees, Antiochus IV and Hellenism.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    By the way, is there a safe website that can be linked to, to read the whole of the Foreskin Man stories? I don’t want to give Hess’ website any traffic, but I’m getting the creepy feeling that these stories may be even nastier than these short clips show. For instance, there must be a back story as to why they’re holding a bris in a pool hall, of all places (or is it this supposed to be one more sign of Jewish perfidy? They hold their rituals in the sleaziest places possible!) and why the woman in the tacky dress is struggling against the bad guys, while a dark haired guy in a vest—her husband? Lover? Dress designer watches approvingly.

    (By the way, what is it with this idea that Jews, and doctors, will forcibly circumsize a kid, even against the mother’s wishes, and that they will even seek them out, to do the dastardly deed? People, this is not how it works.)

    If there isn’t a safe website, maybe someone who’se looked at Foreskin Man can tell us what’s going on here? I’ll bet it’s (ugh!) simply “swell”. (And many thanks in advance.)

  • Manny

    ;) I have to say Rhinstone, I enjoy your comments here.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I enjoy yours, too, Manny.

    In #83, I should have said “Acksiom”—I don’t why I had that brain fart, there!


  • Manny

    I took as a joke Rhinestone. I got the drift of what you were saying. :)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I’m glad, Manny!

    (I blame it on too much caffeine this morning!)

  • Acksiom

    @Manny: “Yeah, those are good enough reasons.”

    Except, of course, for how those still clearly don’t justify cutting off other normal, healthy, functional human body parts, let alone far lesser harms such as tattooing or decoratively scarring babies or the like.

    So again, why exactly should the law have this radical and extreme exception to its default standard of equality otherwise?

    Why, again, is it only the male prepuce that can be amputated at whim, in defiance of the existing standards of law?

    Religious freedom, parental rights, potential medical benefit and the similar given justifications clearly remain insufficient to overrule the existing regulations about cutting parts off human beings, let alone just permanently marking them.

    So again, why exactly are they supposed to justify this singular and unique exception to the law for only the male prepuce?

    @Rhinestone Suderman: No, I’m fine, actually; you’re the irrational, emotional, hyper-reactive one who needs to calm down.

    Because as I said, you can’t defend your position against my argument, and at some level you know it, so you just pretend it doesn’t exist, simply because you aren’t willing to display even the most basic, simple amount and degree of adult intellectual integrity and honesty needed.

    Again you’d rather protect your own precious little self-image than admit you condone, support, or endorse the sexual mutilation of around 1,000,000 little boys annually in this country out of literally nothing more than ignorant sexist bigotry.

    Because, yes, it is sexual mutilation. Male prepucectomy is closest in comparison of harms to cutting off the female prepuce and inner labia, and then stripping out at least an inch-wide ring of the frontmost inner vaginal skin, and then finally crushing the two resulting raw edges against each other under thousands of pounds of pressure until they roughly and randomly seal together.

    That’s what routine male prepucectomy does to the penis, effectively.

    It already is mutilation, by default. The normal standards already define it as mutilation in the first place. Because it’s healthy, functional tissue, and amputating healthy, functional tissue without a direct medical health necessity is, by-definition, mutilation.

    Therefore, it’s your responsibility — your obligation — to explain exactly why the government should be allowed to make such a special, unique, extraordinarily exception to the existing laws.

    And unless and until you do so, you’re wrong and I’m right and you lose and I win.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Manny, I’ve explained it over and over.

    And others have explained it, too.

    We do not consider male circumcision to be mutilation of any sort, and we don’t consider it to be equivalent to female genital mutilation. Male circumcision does not turn men into eunuchs. It does not prevent them from performing sexually, or becoming fathers. It has been practiced for thousands of years, with no harm to men, and, in fact, provides health benefits, such as preventing the spread of certain STD’s, and some cancers.

    This has been explained to you. Repeatedly. Male circumcisiont—unlike, say, human sacrifice, female genital mutilation or making a man a eunuch by removing most, or al, his genitalia—a religious practice that causes harm to people; in fact, it’s beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for the government to forbid it, anymore than it should be forbidding baptism, or holy communion. Religious freedom is an important aspect of our country’s laws and constitution, and, unless a certain religous practice is harmful (and circumcision isn’t—many non-Jews have done it too, for health reasons) then the government should stay out of it. Unless there’s a real, pressing issue of human welfare (and, no, not just the “I just know my sex life would have been perfect if I’d just had a foreskin!” kind of” “welfare”) the government shouldn’t dictate what religions can, and can’t, do.

    And the suffering caused by such legislation would be great. Jews would be effectively criminalized—yet again—and forced to hide, re-locate or face ruinous fines. There’s been a lot of joking here about “Penis police” and the like, but seriously—there’ll have to be something like that, won’t there, in order to ensure the ban is enforced? And such an institution would be all too open to abuse, and corruption.

    Would parents, Jewish officials and doctors be jailed? Would circumcized boys be removed from their families, and put into foster homes? (And we just know how great foster homes are for kids, don’t we? /Sarc.)

    As I said, this has been explained to you. Repeatedly. You pretend it hasn’t, because you just don’t like the answer, and demand we give you a different one. Sorry, we can’t do that.

    You say it’s mutilation. We say it isn’t, and provide reasons for why we believe that it isn’t; you tell us we’re wrong, and demand we agree with you.

    And your obsession on this is, I think, causing you to treat such things as religious freedom, and a parents’ right to raise their children as they see fit, far too lightly.

    It’s not about winning or loosing. It’s about thinking things out. And, right now, from what I’ve seen, there are a lot of dangers inherernt in the movement to ban circumcision.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Manny, a thousand pardons! I’m replying to Acksiom, not you!

    I go to de-tox myself from caffeine now! You, I agree with! Acksiom, I do not!

  • Dean Blake

    Worst case scenario is that we Jews have to pay the $1,000 fine. We will circumcise our children and just pay the fine. If a family can’t afford it, we’ll take up a collection.

    What change in law would best address the issue is to classify circumcision as cosmetic surgery and let insurance companies prohibit payment ($50@). That will reduce unnecessary and unrequested surgeries. The downside to that is that unscrupulous and inexperienced persons can legally do the work and botch the job.

  • Manny

    “Except, of course, for how those still clearly don’t justify cutting off other normal, healthy, functional human body parts, let alone far lesser harms such as tattooing or decoratively scarring babies or the like.”

    You mean like tonsils? Or hair? Or fingernails? It has been explained over and over and you don’t accept it. Fine. I really don’t care. If you come out again with a claim “Once again I’m right and you’re wrong” I’m going to conclude you’re nothing but a child. That or you really are irrational. Circumcision has been going on for thousands of years. GET OVER IT. What’s your hang up? You are traumatized by your circumcision? Maybe you need to call a good Jewish shrink. :-P

    That’s quite alright Rhinestone. This Ackisiom is worst than a two year old.

  • Tony


    Thanks for posting the CCC link. Being a circumcised guy, I always wondered why baby boys were routinely mutilated for non religious reasons. I can see why Jewish people do it, and I have no problem with that, but I’m not Jewish and I’ve never been Jewish. God made me a certain way for a certain reason, and someone else decided they knew better. Seems a little arrogant to me.