I hate to get back to this issue, but Secondhand Smokette has a post out today in her San Francisco Chronicle “Token Conservative” blog that shows the profound anti Semitism exhibited in some of the anti circumcision advocacy of Matthew Hess, the author of San Francisco’s upcoming anti circumcision referendum. From her post (in which she posts the image on the left:
I’ve been wondering if the folks behind the circumcision ballot measure in San Francisco — the subject of my most recent column – are anti-Semites. Here’s a clue. The mgmbill.org web site links to this site
Hmmmmm. Blonde superhero. An evil rabbi before a baby, a glass and a bottle of wine. And there’s a character named “warrior” of the “intactivist underground” who doesn’t care about rules or law and has one goal: “to stop child circumcisers dead in their tracks.”
Note also the classic depictions of “evil Jews” in the “Foreskin Man Trading Cards”–as in “Monster Mohel”–which is taken from Foreskin Man site, shown below.
This is really vile stuff, classic–and dangerous–anti Semitism. Or in the modern vernacular, it is unmitigated hate speech. Is it any wonder there were no religious exemptions allowed in the proposed law?
It is also worth noting the linking of the Foreskin Man Website from the main MGMbill Website isn’t an innocent mistake: Matthew Hess, the president of MGMbill, a non profit organization that pushes anti circumcision statutes nationwide, is also the author and prime mover behind the SF referendum, who also just happens to be the big cheese at the anti Semitic Foreskin Man site. There are other anti Semitic “trading cards” too. Awful. Just awful. This kind of advocacy has no place in a free and diverse society.
Are all or even most people who want to outlaw circumcision anti Semitic? Of course not. But I think it is important for both opponents and proponents of legally outlawing circumcision to see the values exhibited by one of the movement’s prime leaders. That should give everyone great pause.
Debra also has a regular op/ed column in today’s Chronicle about the circumcision controversy, which you can link to here.
June 2nd, 2011 | 3:45 pm
I normally hate it when people through the anti-semite accusation around I generally think it’s an overused term that cheapens the real threat. However, it’s hard for me to disagree with you Mr. Smith. Even if there’s a good reason to use a rabbi as a the main villain one has to be rather confused to think that people will not take it wrongly.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
M. Jordan: I agree with you. But this is just too explicit to ignore. I feel dirty even looking at these images.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 7:36 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Wesley, there are some huge factual problems with your post. First of all, Hess is probably not the author of the SF referendum, and he is not the “prime mover behind the SF referendum”. Can you site some source that Hess authored the measure?
Lloyd Schofield is the individual responsible for the SF ballot measure. Schofield gathered the signatures for the referendum, and is the spokesperson for SF measure.
Jena Troutman, a birth educator is the woman who filed the Santa Monica ballot measure.
Did you bother to fact check this before you posted it?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 7:50 pm
LA Times: “”Foreskin Man” was written and created by Matthew Hess, one of the leaders behind the initiative to ban circumcision, the ritual cutting of foreskin on a baby’s penis that, in the Jewish religion, is considered central to the covenant between the Jewish people and God. Opponents consider it painful and barbaric, akin to female circumcision rites in Africa that have attracted international condemnation.
The measure will be on the ballot in San Francisco in November. Hess is with a San Diego group, MGM Bill, which is also seeking signatures to put a similar measure on the ballot in Santa Monica.” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/jewish-activists-calls-circumcision-ban-superhero-anti-semitic.html
MGM says it is theirs: http://mgmbill.org/pr21.pdf
You are too obsessed to have credibility here.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Well, Hess is almost certainly not the author of the SF bill, nor is he the primary person behind the SF measure which has been widely and correctly attributed to Lloyd Schofield.
Lloyd Schofield has been quoted as the prime mover behind the SF bill in tons of publications from SF Chronicle to Jewish World, and has spoken frequently and eloquently about the Jewish concerns about the ban.
If honesty is of interest to you, then you should at least correct these facts in your article once they’ve been brought to your attention. Even if you didn’t bother doing the research correctly before making politically charged accusations in the first place.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:09 pm
@M. Jordan Lichens,
This art does look idiotic, and I won’t waste my time on such trash, which seems insignificant, and doesn’t reflect intactivism as a whole. I don’t think anyone takes it seriously.
It does bother me when people cry anti-semitism at insignificant things (and this does look like that), when there are genocides in the world, especially in international affairs. What someone says in a comic book is silly. And even if it is as wrong as this looks, free speech is fundamental.
Frankly, this art looks like a waste of time, and a ruse, when the real issue is the bodily violation of infants.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 9:43 pm
@M. Jordan Lichens,
The movement to abolish circumcision surgery worldwide has been led by many Jews.
* Moshe Rothenberg, an Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn, New York, pioneered the first covenant ceremonies to exclude surgical circumcision.
( http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/rothenberg.html )
( http://www.noharmm.org/rationaljew.htm )
* Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., a Massachuttsetts scholar( http://www.jewishcircumcision.org ) wrote some of the first critical material pointing out the ethical lapses of both hospital and religious circumcision.
* Eli Ungar-Sargon ( http://www.cutthefilm.com ) an Israeli movie producer, who grew up in an Orthodox family has produced a documentary on the subject, and wrote an op-ed in the Jewish daily, the Forward in favor of a legal ban on circumcision.
* Leonard Glick, MD., PHD. ( http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=53 ) a professor of Jewish European history wrote the most complete scholarly text on the history of circumcision and advocates for it’s immediate ban worldwide.
* Betty Katz Sperlich, R.N., ( http://www.circumcisionvideos.com/nsv.htm ) a Jeiwsh mother and nurse helped found a group of over 30 Nurses in Santa Fe, New Mexico to consciously object from taking part in circumcisions in the belief that it is a violation of the body of the child. Her group, Nurses For the Rights of the Child advocates for the legal ban of circumcision in any form.
There are more than three active groups working to ban circumcision in Israel.
* A Jewish Community Group for Parents of Intact Sons ( http://www.kahal.org )
* Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation ( http://www.britmila.org.il )
* Protect the Child ( http://www.gonnen.org )
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Yes, well I’ll hearken to the Anti Defamation League on this. But the point is Monster Mohel, pushed by president of MGMbill, the moving force behind the SF Initiative.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 4th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Are you just going to repeat that as a response to every person’s reply?
I agree that the artwork is offensive, but it is being used to attack a much worse sexual violation of a minor.
Hess is one person who supports a movement. There are tens of thousands of others, including many Jews and many other people of good intent.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 6th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
@M. Jordan Lichens,
This conversation reminds me of Freud’s perspective on antisemitism. Freud wrote that the sole and exclusive cause of antisemitism was the mortal fear that the idea of circumcision caused in all men.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 6th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Freud was a disturbed man himself. That’s a crock.
June 2nd, 2011 | 5:09 pm
It’s very obvious that the main target of their campaign is medical circumcision, not Jewish-circumcision, and anyone who’s been involved in the anti-circumcision movement, will see that many of the most intelligent, active, and well-reasoned intactivists are Jewish. Dr. Ronald Goldman, and Edward Wallenstein, both Jews wrote the first books criticizing medical circumcision in the USA. The president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision is Jewish.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Well, this is the leader of the SF initiative. Want to take the opportunity to condemn the advocacy unequivocally? It seems to me that such a course is the minimum required of all people who support the initiative specifically, and the work of the MGMbill generally. Indeed, as “Jews Against Circumcision,” am rather shocked you don’t seem to be utterly appalled.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:35 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
This is not the leader of the SF proposition. The leader of the SF proposition is Lloyd Schofield.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
@Jews Against Circumcision,
Here is the correct information for the SF ballot initiative.
http://www.sfmgmbill.org
June 2nd, 2011 | 5:31 pm
There’s something creepy about all of it. I suppose the author of the comic book might claim the target is circumcision, but it is hard not to read it as trashing Judaism itself.
And there’s something disturbing about the MGMbill web site itself, with all the pictures of cute little boys. The opponents of female circumcision seem to get their point across adequately without conjuring visions in peoples minds of the genitalia of little girls.
I would support an informational campaign against circumcision, and I do think it’s time to abandon it. But I wouldn’t want to associate myself with these guys.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:18 pm
@David Nickol,
I agree that this artwork is idiotic, and should rightly be condemned. But it is most likely very insignificant, and a distraction from the real issue, which is the protection of minors.
June 2nd, 2011 | 5:48 pm
There is SOMETHING creepy about???
The depiction of “Monster Mohel” is straight out of Nazi propaganda from the 1930′s.
This type of garbage has consequences and rather dire ones at that.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Indeed. It is “Elders of Zion” material.
David Nickol Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 8:12 pm
@Rich Horton, There is SOMETHING creepy about???
No, you misread my meaning. There is something creepy about all of it. Not just the comic book. The MGMbill web site and the whole campaign.
June 2nd, 2011 | 8:08 pm
Jewish American scholar, Leonard Glick, author of ‘Circumcision From Ancient Judea to Modern America’ says, “I am totally convinced that cutting the genitals of children, girls or boys is fundamentally evil.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
James: Irrelevant and very telling. That isn’t the issue. Comment on the Foreskin Man anti Semitism.
James Loewen Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:02 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Metzitzah b’peh – Mohel’s mouth to genital sucking of the freshly wounded infants penis.
This comic book didn’t even go there.
To make an issue of this comic book portraying the circumciser as a villain is a smokescreen of the real issue, every act of genital cutting of a child is barbaric violation and sexual assault of a child.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:12 pm
The trading card does go there. It is rank anti Semitism that you have twice now refused to condemn. Shame.
James Loewen Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:56 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, My condemnation is saved for those who assault children sexually in this manner. Kudos to all who speak up for the rights of children. HIghest respect for Jewish intactivists who recognize the harm of genital cutting and work to end it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:05 pm
“Intactivists” are convincing me you are all beyond the pale. I feel like I am in a Salvador Dali painting.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:12 pm
@James Loewen,
There are many Jews in the Intactivist movement, and most of the writers who have argued that circumcision must be abandoned are Jewish.
The Jewish doctors Dean Edell, M.D. and Paul M. Fleiss, M.D. are two of the most elegant and outspoken opponents of circumcision.
Paul M. Fleiss, M.D. has endorsed the MGM law nationally.
holyterror Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 7:05 am
@James Loewen, My gosh are you insane? How can you say something like, “My condemnation is saved for…” one thing only? Do you live in this world? Do you not see the myriad NUMBERS of things there are to condemn? How would you even know to condemn the unnecessary cutting up of people’s genitals if it weren’t for all of the examples of disregarding human rights throughout history, and the ethical thinkers who have collectively decried them?
Seriously?!!!!!!
@ Wesley: Salvador Dali painting is right, Wes, but PLEASE don’t judge the regular people-on-the-street by the lunatics who traipse all over the internet looking for strangers’ blogs to comment on.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 6th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@James Loewen,
Thanks James.
This material from Hess is the only questionable material that I’ve ever seen from a non-Jewish intactivist. In general, the non-Jewish intactivists I’ve met and seen are incredibly respectful of Judaism. There are a few Jewish intactivist writers who choose not to reveal that they are Jewish for fear of how other Jews will react to them.
In Massachusetts, two Jewish mothers testified in favor of a law to make circumcision illegal.
“Laurie Evans, the Jewish director of New York’s National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) ( http://www.nocirc.org ), told the Committee that under Jewish law, the son of a Jewish mother is Jewish, whether circumcised or not, and that despite great pressure she had kept her son intact. She said that many Jewish mothers confide to having been horrified by their boy’s circumcision ceremony. She said that initially the ceremony involved removing only a small amount of foreskin, not all of it, and that several Jewish organizations recommend a peaceful birth ceremony instead ( http://www.beyondthebris.com ). She urged the panel to watch a circumcision and raised the issue of botched circumcisions. The second Jewish mother to speak, Kathryn Mora, testified she had been devastated that her son was taken from her in the hospital and circumcised without her consent.”
- Peter W. Adler, A Bird’s Eye View of the Hearing On the Massachusetts Bill to Outlaw Genital Mutilation
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child Newsletter, Summer 2010
http://www.arclaw.org
You can read/hear the full Massachusetts testimony at this URL.
http://www.mgmbill.org/hearing.htm
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 4th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
This is an article you might want to read. It’s an open letter by a young man to the moyel who did his circumcision. It might give you a perspective of how some Jewish men feel about it.
http://blog.shealevy.com/2011/05/17/an-open-letter-to-mohel-michael-henesch/
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
It is regrettable that the movement to end genital mutilation, that has involved so many intelligent and articulate Jewish men and women over the last few decades, is distracted by this disgusting art.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
@James Loewen,
Well, regardless of anything else, the cutting of infants is wrong in any situation.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:56 pm
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
A movement itself can be correct, and still have an idiot or a racist or a bad person supporting it. Just as a religious practice can be engaged in by good people, and still be fundamentally wrong.
One supporter who is wrong does not indicate anything about the fundamental moral issues involved.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:15 pm
@James Loewen,
I wouldn’t use the word evil, but the violation of a child’s genitals is one of the worst violations of ethics imaginable.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 5th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@James Loewen,
James,
This is all a distraction from the fact that there are increasing number of Jews who are working to end circumcision and who see it as a spiritual violation of the principles of Judaism.
More and more Jewish parents are doing a Brit B’lee Milah (covenant without cutting) / Bris Shalom instead of violating their son’s body. The movement is growing around the country and world, with a number of Rabbi’s performing them even in Israel.
These are some of the active and religious Jews working to abolish the surgery of circumcision from the religion. We believe this to be a fundamental and moral issue of ethics.
Being rational about circumcision and Jewish observance by Moshe Rothenberg (New York)
http://www.noharmm.org/rationaljew.htm
Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. On Alternative Rituals
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/ritual.htm
A Case for Bris without Milah.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
Miriam Pollack, Jewish Women Speak Out
http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm
A Jewish Woman Denounces Circumcision by Laura Shanley
http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/circarticle.html
One Brit B’lee Milah (Covenant Without Cutting) Ceremony
http://www.nocirc.org/religion/Naming_ceremony.php
Bris Shalom Ceremony by Norm Cohen
http://www.nocircofmi.org/BrisShalom.pdf
Ending Circumcision in the Jewish Community? by Moshe Rothenberg (New York, USA)
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/rothenberg.html
The Kindest Un-Cut Feminism, Judaism, and My Son’s Foreskin by Professor Michael S. Kimmel
http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/kimmel1/
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 5th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
JAC: You seem to keep posting the same links over and over. That is a sign of an obsessive, but that is your business. But it is cluttering up the comments. So, from now on, please stop repeating yourself. It isn’t going to make people more likely to accept your arguments. Thanks.
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:30 pm
[...] posted a few of the disturbing images and descriptions at Secondhand Smoke. Be warned. This is hateful and vile stuff that has no place in a free and tolerant [...]
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:33 pm
Wesley: Yes, it is anti-Semitic. But circumcision is undoubtedly no better than pinching a baby for amusement.
James Loewen Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:48 pm
@HCM, Forced circumcision (genital cutting) is far worse than “pinching a baby for amusement.
HCM Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:22 pm
@James Loewen, Exactly. Agreed. I shouldn’t have used such a euphemistic analogy.
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:40 pm
The “anti-Semitism” argument is coming up a lot, lately. I’m Jewish and did not circumcise my sons. It is not my right to permanently alter their bodies in the name of my religion. They can decide for themselves when they are consenting adults what to do with their own bodies based on their own beliefs. That is their right and no one else’s. Many Jews are actually keeping our sons whole these days. A number of our friends and relatives have made similar decisions and the movement to keep Jewish boys whole is quite a growing movement. LOTS of folks involved in these bans and in the anti-circumcision movement in general are Jewish.
The health benefits of circumcision are questionable at best. All the claims about circumcision helping to fight HIV, STDs, or cancer have been debunked repeatedly. Over half-a-dozen medical and pediatric associations in Holland, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere have therefore officially condemned circumcision. They have looked at all the latest and best research from around the world and found no reason to cut off perfectly healthy foreskins. The risks and disadvantages of circumcision, however, are undeniable. It is undeniable that up to 15 sq. inches of sensitive, nerve-filled, and vein-rich tissue is lost to adult men who are circumcised. It is undeniable that many men suffer physical scarring and life-long trauma from being circumcised. And it is undeniable that many boys die each year from circumcision. Ultimately, it is undeniable that circumcision is needless and immoral.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Good grief, man. Did you not see the outrageous anti Jewish images? You “advocates” are really beyond the pale.
Kelev Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Wesley, it’s a comic book for goodness sake. I’ve seen pro-Jewish stuff that is just as offensive. Look at Hollywood depictions or other images in the media. Jews are almost always portrayed as bearded, frum, stereotypes. At least the Jewish voices within the anti-circumcision movement are providing a needed reminder that there is a great variety of Jewish thought, expression, and practice.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Rationalizing blatant anti Semitism. Why am I not surprised?
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 6th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
The intactivist movement is no more uniform than the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement or any other movement. There are different groups and individuals including the most intelligent, articulate, and moral. This is the first case of this kind of speech that I’ve ever seen among those who are working to abolish the genital cutting of minors. I hope and expect that it’s a very isolated case.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
@Kelev,
“The “anti-Semitism” argument is coming up a lot, lately. I’m Jewish and did not circumcise my sons. It is not my right to permanently alter their bodies in the name of my religion.”
Congratulations to you Kelev!
In my experience, 90% of the Intactivist Activists are Jewish. And their actions are based on their own experiences in the religion, and many of them are motivated by Jewish ethics.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
@Kelev,
Kelev,
Do you have a website?
Please contact…
http://www.beyondthebris.com/p/get-involved.html
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:07 pm
Wesley, I totally agree that this guy is trading in blatant anti-semitic images. Disgusting.
This person might also be one of those who despises religion in general and this is one place where his pet rages (circumcision and religion) intersect.
Again, going on record as totally opposed to routine infant circumcision, but also to this bill.
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:12 pm
Wesley, I’m a Jew. I’ve lived in half-a-dozen countries, including Israel where I lived right on the other side of the Green Line and was treated to machine gun fire within a stone’s throw from my home. The bus line I took to work was bombed, as was the mall where I bought diapers for my kid. When we went to sleep at night, my wife and I would position ourselves so that, if a stray bullet came through the wall, it would hit me first and hopefully spare them. If it went through me to my wife, it hopefully wouldn’t penetrate as far as our son. That is the kind of thing that was “normal” for where we lived. On the vast scale of things, some silly comic book like this is so far down on the list of things that even matter that it’s laughable. The fact that boys experience real pain, suffering, and measurable trauma due to circumcision, however, is no laughing matter. Given the silliness that is this comic book, which few people will ever see, versus the widespread practice of circumcision, which affects countless unconsenting children, I’m keeping my eyes on what’s actually relevant, here. I’ve seen the worst that *real* anti-semitism has to offer, and this comic book isn’t even close.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Well, if you don’t mind Elders of Zion imagery. Good grief!
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 12:39 am
@Kelev,
“Wesley, I’m a Jew. I’ve lived in half-a-dozen countries, including Israel where I lived right on the other side of the Green Line and was treated to machine gun fire within a stone’s throw from my home. The bus line I took to work was bombed, as was the mall where I bought diapers for my kid.”
“On the vast scale of things, some silly comic book like this is so far down on the list of things that even matter that it’s laughable. The fact that boys experience real pain, suffering, and measurable trauma due to circumcision, however, is no laughing matter. Given the silliness that is this comic book, which few people will ever see, versus the widespread practice of circumcision, which affects countless unconsenting children, I’m keeping my eyes on what’s actually relevant, here. I’ve seen the worst that *real* anti-semitism has to offer, and this comic book isn’t even close.”
Kelev,
Always good to hear that another Jewish Israeli family has kept their son intact!
holyterror Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 7:11 am
@Kelev, OK then. You have proved your Jewish bona fides. Great. I just don’t understand why this is being seen as a “zero sum game” of outrage.
Why has nobody here defending the SF bill yet said, “Yeah, wow, he looks like an a-hole. Let’s be clear we are NOT going by his way of thinking!” and leave it at that! Prolifers have to do this all the time when some sweaty, wild-eyed weirdo starts hollering about whores and eternal damnation when the rest of us are just trying to pray quietly near a clinic. Or goes off trying to shoot somebody in order to “protect life.” See? It makes the whole movement look like crazed hypocrites.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
@holyterror,
I think I did that earlier yesterday in one of the first comments. The person responsible for that art is an idiot. One idiotic supporter doesn’t say anything about the cause itself. In the same way that there are good people who’ve done circumcisions, a barbaric type of sexual abuse and violence.
The issue of whether a parent of any religion has legal ability to damage the sexual organs of a minor needs to be discussed on it’s own terms both legally and religiously within Judaism irregardless of some idiotic art.
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:17 pm
Also, can I just say that, while some of my fellow intactivists have struck me as a little over-the-top in the past, I don’t think I will ever recover from the lame, LAME comments of “Jews against Circumcision”, above. I am not even Jewish and I feel really betrayed by the inability even to ACKNOWLEDGE it.
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:36 pm
Wesley, just to clarify the issue for myself, where do you stand on the circumcision issue in general? Are you opposed to circumcision, but also opposed to the ban? Do you support the ban, but not this imagery? Or are you completely in favour of circumcision. I looked at your bio and history as a consumer rights advocate. Just judging from that, I would think that you’d be in favour of the rights of males to determine the shape of their genitals themselves based on informed consent, rather than having things imposed on them.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 12:22 am
I’m indifferent to circumcision. I think it is a matter within the proper purview of parents.
James Loewen Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 8:07 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Indifferent to circumcision? Parents should be allowed to decide if they want healthy erogenous genital tissue excised from their children? That’s not indifferent that’s complicit.
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:58 pm
I see we are trying to rally the cause by looking for anti-semitism in a comic book featuring “foreskin man” and his arch-nemeses “Dr. Mutilator” and “Monster Mohel”
don’t forget, we’ve also got some masochistic violence, promotion of prostitution, and no doubt that dark-haired vested chap in the back is an Italian mobster – and I don’t like how they slander the University of Michigan with the blue and gold outfit
come on
back to reality…
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 12:22 am
David: Here’s some reality: Those kinds of pernicious images have backed terrible anti Semitism throughout history. That’s as real as it gets. But you confirm my views of how the Left has devolve don this particular issue.
David Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 9:41 am
@Wesley J. Smith
Because “Foreskin Man” featuring “Tia Kumming” is completely comparable to Der Sturmer? Because there is no such thing as a physician or a Mohel who performs male circumcision? What’s next? Is there a comic book featuring muscular professional athletes of recent African ancestry? Is there a jowly, banker villain speaking with a southern accent? Perhaps a femme fatale runs around beguiling men?
Such conspiracy theories can be taken to Faux News – I hear they are looking for a Glenn Beck replacement at the end of this year. It’s my understanding many “carnival barkers” have their eye on this prize.
I guess digging around comic books counts as “research” these days.
Funny, I always thought ideas are what backed anti-Semitism. But, if ideas are difficult to come by, I guess mankind must resort to imagery.
Back to reality, the bill, of course, won’t pass for other reasons…
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:40 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
That’s actually a funny statement. Is the intactivist movement on the left or right? Certainly none of the standard left publications or authors have promoted it. It’s a funny mix of left and right, and surprisingly some of it’s support comes from conservative Libertarians.
British conservative Andrew Sullivan has been one of the most outspoken opponents of circumcision, and one of the few mainstream non-Jews to say that any circumcision is violence and mutilation.
A Jew Against Circumcision Reply:
June 9th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Do you really see this as a left issue? I fail to see any of the major left groups or personalities backing the anti-circumcision movement. Andrew Sullivan is about the only major commentator to favor such laws.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:28 am
If the anticircumcision movement had as its goal to persuade parents not to circumcise their infant sons, I would not bother arguing with it. The health benefits of the procedure are real, but not as great as, say, vaccination for polio. It would just not be important enough to argue about.
But that is not the goal of the movement. No, not content to rely on the persuasive powers of their arguments, the movement would rather use the force of government and the threat of criminal sanctions to compel adherence to their unpersuasive views.
It is almost unavoidable that the anticircumcision movement should attract anti-Semites and be led by anti-Semites. Imagine that there were a movement which sought to forbid–to criminalize!–the eating of the wafer and the drinking of the wine which Christian doctrine teaches is the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ. Imagine that this movement claimed that it was doing so for health reasons, that gastrointestinal diseases were being spread by unhygienic handling of the wafer, and that Sunday traffic accidents were due to the effect of the alcohol in the wine. And now tell me, if members of this movement claimed that they were not anti-Christian, would you believe them?
The ritual circumcision of Jewish boys on their 8th day is the foundational sacrament of the Jewish people, as important to the Jews as Holy Communion is to Christians. When the Roman Empire wanted to extirpate the Jews as a people, it forbade study of Torah and circumcision. The Romans knew how important both are for Jewish survival. Circumcision is the covenantal act by which a boy becomes a member of the Jewish people. Jewish boys have been circumcised since the days of the patriarch Abraham. That is a tradition of 5000 years!
How serious a matter is circumcision to faithful Jews? Jewish law forbids an uncircumcised person from eating the paschal lamb at Passover. The Jewish people were not allowed to enter the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua until all the adult men (who had not been circumcised during their 40 years of wandering in the desert) gave physical witness to their accepting the covenant with God by being circumcised. When David wanted to insult Goliath, he said, “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?”
Those who would criminalize infant circumcision claim that there are many Jews in their movement. Perhaps they are sincere in saying so. Jews there may be in the movement, but there is no Judaism. Rather, there is the stench of anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism. Now, far be it from me to try to prevent a person from becoming an apostate from the faith of his fathers. But really, ladies and gentlemen, a little sincerity, a shred of decency is called for. An apostate who would criminalize circumcision can no more speak as a Jew or for the Jews than a “Christian” who denies Jesus as his savior can speak as a Christian.
No doubt many people who are not Jew-haters or Judaism-haters have stumbled into this unholy anti-Semitic movement with pure hearts. I urge them to abandon the movement to criminalize circumcision, and turn their efforts to persuading people not to circumcise their sons. Don’t become tainted by association with these haters. If you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas.
By the way, do you know what the Hebrew word for dog is?
Kelev Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:50 am
@Eric C., Eric, thank you for the hackneyed Saturday school lesson. However, despite your hyperbole, there are many practicing Jews who are uncircumcised and whose connection to Judaism is as intact as their foreskins. I know that those who defend circumcision would *love* to believe in anti-Semitic conspiracies, but the fact that you have to scrounge and elevate this silly comic and pretend it’s far, far more significant than it is just shows how absent anti-Semitism is within the anti-circumcision movement.
As for your Saturday school lesson, that’s just tired dogma. The reality is far different. Intact Jews serve at all levels of temple life these days and participate in every ceremony. Trust me, no one is checking dicks at the door. And as for uncircumcised men entering the Holy Land, again there’s plenty intact males living in Israel today. They are Russian immigrants, secular sabra kibbutzniks, and religious folks of every stripe. The simple fact is that a Jew is a Jew if he is born to a Jewish mother. Period. Intact or circumcised, that’s halacha.
Judaism has grown tremendously in the past years. We now have out Gay and Lesbian congregants, even whole LGBTQ congregations and clergy, same-sex marriage, women rabbis, and extremely racially diverse communities. Each step of the way, with every one of those signs of progress, haters have decried those changes as the work of either “anti-Semites” from outside, or “self-hating-Jews” from within. The fact that we love Judaism more than we love homophobia, sexism, or cutting up babies is just impossible to imagine for some people without resorting to tired fear-mongering.
If infant circumcision were banned tomorrow, Jews and Judaism would do just fine. When under-age circumcision finally is banned throughout the civilised world the way that female circumcision is, Jews will either choose to circumcise as consenting adults, or invent a new form of Judaism that doesn’t require bloodletting rituals any more than we require animal sacrifice. Many of us are already there. Shalom.
toddes Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 10:27 am
@Kelev,
In other words, you have rejected the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and set up a god of your own making.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:42 pm
@toddes,
No. You’ve interpreted something literally, that was meant symbolically. Judaism has understood this on so many other issues. When will it understand that this is only to be taken symbolically, not literally.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:47 pm
@Kelev,
“Judaism has grown tremendously in the past years. We now have out Gay and Lesbian congregants, even whole LGBTQ congregations and clergy, same-sex marriage, women rabbis, and extremely racially diverse communities. Each step of the way, with every one of those signs of progress, haters have decried those changes as the work of either “anti-Semites” from outside, or “self-hating-Jews” from within. The fact that we love Judaism more than we love homophobia, sexism, or cutting up babies is just impossible to imagine for some people without resorting to tired fear-mongering.”
Kelev,
Mazel Tov on your intact son!
As a Jew who is involved in the campaign to banish circumcision from Jewish law, and American law, it is wonderful to see someone with similar views.
The movement to abolish circumcision is teaming with Jewish Intactivist Activists.
The claims anti-semitism are trumped up charges pushed by the advertising firm hired by opponents of the ballot measures. That’s why they showed up on this blog the day before a press release hit PR newswire.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I am not involved in any campaign nor have I been in any communication with any campaign. Monster Mojel is hate speech. And gay friendly is irrelevant to that truth.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 4th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Wesley, Ok. Yeah it is. But it’s also insignificant. It represents less than 1/100,000 of the intactivist material that I’ve ever seen Jewish or non-Jewish. It is infact the only even sleightly anti-semetic thing I’ve seen in the thousands of pages of contemporary intactivist material that I’ve looked at. It’s also being trumped up by the opponents of a bill to outlaw the sexual violation of babies. The ADL wouldn’t care about it if it weren’t useful in their legislative battles – they’d be concerned about significant anti-semitism elsewhere.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:40 am
The fact that anyone could defend amputating healthy normal body parts is what’s most alarming.
I’m utterly disgusted at the thought of oral suction on an infant’s fresh penile wound and if you aren’t then shame on you. Thomas Frieden, present head of the CDC – had a chance when head of the NYC health department to weigh in on this after 3 infants were infected with Herpes in single month. He chose to leave it up to the mutilators to regulate themselves.
This is what we’re up against, and it’s why the people will need to act (by passing the ban) since our officials will not.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:16 am
I want to put something in perspective. This article shows the “Monster Mohel” playing card as evidence of anti-Semitism, and the commenter’s are saying it’s just like Nazi propaganda.
I’d like to present a comparison.
First, look at the horrible “anti-Semetic playing card” for monster Mohel:
http://www.foreskinman.com/monstermohel.htm
Sure, out of context it looks bad, but then what is this?
http://www.foreskinman.com/drmutilator.htm
I guess it’s anti-doctor too.
This is getting silly very quickly. Matthew made a mistake, because this is going to bite him in the ass (it’s happening now), but those who are calling it anti-Semitic are cherry picking to make it seem that way.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 9:21 am
If this were an Aryan Nation “trading card,” there would be Congressional hearings. As my posts on this issue has revealed to me, the “intactivist” movement has three wings, one that thinks (wrongly in my view) that C is ipso facto child abuse, a second that has a fetishist element that seems to be made up of men who thing their sex isn’t as good as is would be were they uncircumcised, and an anti religious/anti Semitic third element.
And note, this post was explicitly written to not get into pros and cons of C or even, whether it is a proper element for city voters. It was anti Semitism by a major leader of the movement, and some are so crazed they can’t even deal with it. (Not you holyterror–Applause!)
That ANYONE could JUSTIFY or RATIONALIZE these classic anti Semitic depictions, that have been used to cause so much killing and pogrom activity, it truly appalling and unworthy of any respect. Those who do sully SHS.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:51 pm
@freedom0speech,
You are right. Opponents of this measure would love to frame this as anti-semitism. Especially the marketing firm that put out the press releases the day after this hit the blogs.
They’d rather think of it as anti-semitism, rather than religiously motivated sexual-mutilation, similar in motivation and with similar excuses as female genital mutilation.
June 3rd, 2011 | 2:27 am
I read the comic. Yeah, it is.
The kids dad wanted his son circumicized, mostly because he was observant and it was done to him. In bursts Mohel with his bloody shears, flanked by his two uzi-toting henchmen. Mohel makes a sneering joke about his henchman occupied with his beautiful wife, and then takes the kid to a pool table, to circumcise him using language eerily similar to communion.
FM stops him, but Mohel reminds him that he just will come back, since the father wants him to. So at the wife’s request, he TAKES AWAY THEIR KID and gives him to the head of the intactivist underground. The last seen is a huge bonfire of circumstraints (who coined that word anyways?)
There’s no real argument why the father is wrong, the whole thrust of it is Mohel being a monster. Given that the person behind it seems to have a dim view of religion I think this crosses the line.
There’s a more religious aspect of this that bugs me, but i think i’ll put that in the first thoughts post rather than here.
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:48 am
I am genuinely horrified that anyone could believe that their right to cut children is more important than the right of children not to be cut.
Unless and until you can say that you fully comply with all of G-d’s laws (including all of those in Leviticus), then you are not entitled to use the “G-d told me to” argument.
I’d like to see the personal and religious freedoms of the person being cut being considered!
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:49 am
Could we be taking this comic too seriously? I mean, really, “Foreskin Man”? This smacks of a Saturday Night Live or National Lampoon parody. The anti-Semitic images, though disgusting, are so overwrought as to be laughable. This comic book appears to be a joke, not least on all of us here.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 9:13 am
How about a coming, K-Man–called Sheet Man, who rides around saving innocent white virgins from the dark skinned racist. This is of that level. And there is no excusing it. Particularly since today, comic books often pass for literature.
Dblade Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 11:36 am
@K-Man, There’s truth to that, but I don’t think the person behind it is really playing it for camp. He really thinks its bad, and seems hostile to religion in general. Especially if you read his pamphlet.
Its also worrying that people are pooh-poohing it because they are agreeing with his aim. They are apologizing for it. This thread didn’t get 60 replies because everyone agrees the comic is racist, bur because they are trying to show solidarity with the greater, intactivist (what is WITH all these puns?) cause.
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:51 am
yes, foreskin man is stupid and i have to agree, could be viewed as anti semetic. however, if intactavists as a whole truly were anti semetic we would be trying to stop non jewish cirrcumcision and not giving a sh1t about jewish babies. the fact that we ARE fighting to protect jewish baby boys PROVES that we are not anti semetic.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 9:12 am
COULD BE VIEWED? And the KKK cross burning “could be viewed as racist.” Good grief.
June 3rd, 2011 | 7:38 am
I just read the two comic book issues on the site and I have to say that there is no mistaking the hostility toward religion here. For starters, the two issues are really different; the one about the bloodthirsty doctor is silly and reminds me of the Planned Parenthood cartoons with “Choice Woman” or whatever she was called. (Of course she also dunked prolifers in boiling oil.)
In the “Monster Mohel” issue however, the story has so much more detail, visual and story. Of course you can argue that the conventions of comic books are followed, which gives you the ability to exaggerate the features and sort people into types. But the artist is, consciously or unconsciously, tapping into deeply provocative imagery with a long, long history in our human life together.
I will say it again: Let us work to change attitudes, and even put in place some reasonable legislation or regulations (such as not allowing federal programs to pay for RIC.) Let us NOT stoop to consorting with hateful people, violent people or those who are willing to take away some rights in order to protect others. If you can justify denying some in order to save others, iyou have begun the walk to justifying murder to save lives. This is not hyperbole! Look at history!
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:06 am
I am infuriated by this comic, I find it ugly and hurtful on many levels, both in it’s message and it’s harm to the movement for the rights of all people to intact genitals. The genital integrity movement is well aware of the horrible history of anti-semitism and the anti-semitic targeting of circumcision, targeted not because of human rights, but because of it’s role in Jewish identity. That sort of mindset is racist and not elevating to humanity.
The modern genital integrity movement is not concerned with targeting Jews. Genital integrity is the focus, and the fact that the ritual of circumcision is an important core ritual in Jewish culture is an extremely unfortunate coincidence. Activists for genital integrity are every bit as distressed by the tuli in the Philippines and the Xosha initiation in South Africa and American secular conformity as they are by the Bris. No one group is singled out to lose their important ritual, it’s just that every person is included in a human right to a whole body from birth on. It’s not about Judaism, it’s just about genital integrity. This is an issue of human rights, and people who believe in this human right to intact genitals also embrace other human rights issues such as racial and gender equality with the same moral foundation. Anti- semitism does not fit in that picture. To think that the good work of hundreds of people who work to approach this difficult question of genital integrity and the conflict with the importance of the Jewish ritual -with the anti-semitic history we had nothing to do with looming behind us… that years of speaking softly and treading lightly, hoping to affect change from within- that such a callous ugly cartoon could overshadow all that makes me very angry. I am also angered by arguments that try to coercively silence people from speaking for genital integrity with their own fear of being labeled anti-Semitic when their only motivation is one that is very loving and compassionate.
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:29 am
The Gentile practice of circumcison is wrong and should be banned, it is an attempt to hijack a Jewish religious practice, Brit Mila, which is in not circumcision as it is commonly known.
Yes I know that Moslems practice a form of circumcision as well, and that too is just another hijacking of the Jewish ritual.
If a Jewish parent does not wish to have a Brit performed on their eight day old son, then they are welcome to cut themselves off from their God, their Faith, and their People. But if that son should someday wish to rejoin his Jewish People, then he will have to have his Brit as an adult, a much more hazardous and painful operation.
If San Francisco should decide to ban all circimcision, including Jewish Brit Mila, then whatever holiness or sanctity that dwells in that city will be lost. This is because the people of San Francisco will have insulted the God of the Jews and oppressed our Jewish People, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Yaacov will punish them severely. And any Jew who has helped impose this ban will be cut off forever from God and the Jewish People.
June 3rd, 2011 | 9:08 am
The FAQ says:
” Many men who are circumcised suffer the same psychological effects found in rape victims. A sense of great loss and feelings of anger, distrust, and grief are common among circumcised men who are aware of the functions that the foreskin performs. Problems with intimacy in adult life, long term post-traumatic stress disorder, and feelings of personal powerlessness are also reported by men when discussing their circumcisions.”
Notice how those experiencing this trauma are those who “are aware of the functions that the foreskin performs” – i.e., persons who have been reading the MGM agitprop.
Not unlike guys who are exposed to, and believe, ads that go like: “Hey dude, you got a little one? Wanna nine incher and be hung like a normal guy, so you can make the ladies happy just like a normal guy does? We got the pills for you!”
Such men experience a nearly identical trauma.
I.e., the agitprop is producing the trauma, and not the state of being circumcised.
Circumcision is made out to be a great conspiracy, citing a “lucrative market” in foreskins, though no information is provided on the price of an actual foreskin. It’s entirely possible these foreskins are simply provided free, though the product involves the expensive process of enculturation and is therefore not free.
Hey dude, there’s something wrong with yer johnson so these fat cat international skin traffickers can get rich by selling your foreskin.
I can imagine some guys might get traumatized by that, yeah.
In response to comments above: even though the “target” is the practice of circumcision – does this then legitimate portraying Judaism as evil and sickly? Would you, for a good cause, portray an image generalizing denigration about black people or Muslims?
June 3rd, 2011 | 9:41 am
So a “Jewish guy” who calls himself “dog” in Hebrew is talking about Judaism with gay marriage and without circumcision. Just the way the patriarchs did it, no doubt.
Pardon me while I LOL here….
June 3rd, 2011 | 9:53 am
The last seen is a huge bonfire of circumstraints (who coined that word anyways?)
Dblade,
Circumstraint, although not in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, seems to be a commonly used term in the medical and surgical supply business. Check out this Circumstraint Newborn Immobilizer, for example. If you look up circumstraint with Google Images, you may find yourself rapidly converting to the anti-circumcision camp, but that still doesn’t meant the Foreskin Man comic book isn’t offensive and silly.
Dblade Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 11:28 am
@David Nickol, I’m thinking more that someone has a sense of black humor. I can see where you wouldn’t want the kid to be moving around when you do that, but its just the oddity of the term. Do you circumspect the child before you circumstraint him?
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:42 am
The “intactivist” movement is one of the most bizarre things I have witnessed in a long time. The irony of San Francisco outlawing a minor procedure which is proved to cut the chance of getting AIDS in adult males by 50% is so bizarre as to be laughable. I would bet that the vast majority of these people who decry the “mutilation” of an innocent child fully support a mothers “right” to abort that same innocent child.
Rob Crawford Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 11:29 am
@allswell, “I would bet that the vast majority of these people who decry the “mutilation” of an innocent child fully support a mothers “right” to abort that same innocent child.”
We have a winner!
And to get tattoos in poorly-kept parlors.
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:50 am
I think people who are infuriated by this comic are making a mountain out of a mohel-hill.
Yahoo Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 11:52 am
Ah. So the “Jewish guy” named “dog” in Hebrew, who happens to be opposed to timeless Jewish rituals, also doesn’t mind antisemitic imagery.
Kelev Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
@Yahoo, Every guy out there named Caleb is a dog. I’m in good company. As for “timeless rituals” I don’t much go in for animal sacrifice of female circumcision, either, despite the fact that those are “timeless” too. And no, cartoons actually don’t bother me. Whether it’s provocative pictures of Muhammad and Jesus, or comic books with monster mohels. I’m more concerned about *acts*. And cutting up the most sensitive and personal parts of an unconsenting child’s body is about as offensive and immoral as you can get. I’ll save my ire for that.
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:24 am
James- If the question in the last paragraph of your post was directed toward me- my answer is no, absolutely not. An effort to uplift humanity should not include denigration of any people- that was the point of my post and the reason why this comic image so infuriates me.
Ken, I find your comments interesting because you are posting from Israel where Jewish involvement in circumcision must appear almost entirely contained within ritual practices of the Jewish community.
You may be shocked to know that some people (both Jewish and Christian) have a belief that circumcision is important for non-Jews in order to provide some sort of social/physical camouflage for circumcised Jews, that Jews would never again be singled out based on their circumcision (as happened in Nazi Germany, and also happens currently in areas where there are Hindus and Muslims living in close proximity)
In the USA it is now very popular for non-Jewish families to hire a mohel to circumcise their baby with the belief that the ritual technique is less traumatic. Many mohels (who are not medical doctors) do not object to participating in this and promoting this belief as a sales tactic. I wonder how this is even legal since religious exemption allowances certainly should not apply to cutting for profit outside your faith. Recently this was in the headlines when Sandra Bullock (not a Jew) circumcised her adopted son (also not a Jew) in a celebration she had the audacity to call a Bris.
There is also a push coming from inside Israel to assist in circumcising Africa (and training African doctors) with the belief it will combat AIDS, one group from Israel is called “Operation Abraham.” This seems to be an odd name to chose for a medically motivated mission.
One of the most shocking encounters I’ve had as an activist was when a female OBGYN proudly told me, “I have circumcised over 5000 babies and the only ones I felt bad about were the Jews- because I was taking the money away from the mohel!” (no consideration toward the diminished ritual or religious significance for the hospital circumcised Jewish infant – only for the money)
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:39 am
The comic book argument is a red herring.
The fundamental issue here is human rights. A ritual/religious pin-prick on a baby girl’s genitals, to draw one drop of blood, is called Type 4 female genital mutilation (FGM) and has been illegal since March 1997. However, a parent can remove a baby boy’s foreskin for ANY reason this includes, “just because” and “I think it looks better”. How is this equal rights? It’s a clear violation of the, “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.
That is the bottom line.
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:44 am
Wow, I can’t believe it: I thought only someone as hare-brained as Dan Quayle might see images of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in an anti-circumcision comic book. All goes to show what I’ve been saying for years: conservatives ain’t got no sense of humor, let alone a sense of irony.
Some poetry for the occasion:
“Looking for pink buds
to prune back, the mohel tends
his flower garden”*
*From: David M. Bader’s “Haikus for Jews”
HW
holyterror Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 2:47 pm
@HistoryWriter, Heh, I was wondering when you would show up. I was expecting you to turn up defending that rape-apologist, Flynt. But to be a supposed student of history and not see that these images invoke racism….that is just more than I thought possible.
HistoryWriter Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
@holyterror, \
Actually you haven’t heard from me because I was busy enjoying Copenhagen earlier this week, but all good things must come to an end (kinda like Kevorkian). It’s almost 24/7 daylight in Scandinavia these days. Great place. Wife and I are joining our daughter in the UK later this month for some more R&R. Love it!
HW
HistoryWriter Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:41 pm
@holyterror,
Jews aren’t a race any more than Christians are. It might surprise you to learn that a few years ago NPR did a feature article on Chinese Jews. Judaism is religion. Calling Jews “a race” is the kind of stuff that *real* anti-semites engage in.
HW
And BTW, I think Larry Flynt is a sleaze — but then so are Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Big deal.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:04 pm
I really don’t understand the thought behind the law, but I get the law behind the thought. Ultimately, subjecting your child to religion is abuse. Wherefore, we now will make it that a law-abiding Jewish family is no longer a law-abiding member of the community if they comply with their faith, but a child-abuser. Pardon me for saying so, but this is twisted beyond comprehension. I also can’t help but detect a self-loathing on the part of Jewish people who condone this law or see no problem with the cartoon. I honestly do not see this as a right for boys to keep a piece of skin, I see this as a right for a community to extract a faithful people from their community and, if they are unsuccessful, at least they can put them in jail. Whether you accept it or not, this is the road to fascism.
Kelev Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
@Cathy, Cathy, this law is exactly the same as identically written laws against female circumcision. The only thing this law does is give boys the *exact* same protection that girls already have.
And before anyone weighs in with the tired “but female circumcision is different!” canard, let me remind everyone that there are a dozen forms of female circumcision — some of them extreme, some of them less so, involving things like pin-pricks to elicit a few drops of ceremonial blood and comparable to the hatafat dam brit in Judaism. ALL such invasions of a girl’s genital integrity are illegal, thankfully. Yet the circumcision of unconsenting males which removes up to 15 sq. inches of adult tissue — some of the most sensitive skin on a man’s body — is entirely legal.
I wonder where all the fomenting and fulminating about discrimination was back in 1997 when all the comparable forms of female circumcision were outlawed.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:24 pm
This is, of course, all pretty academic. Everyone knows what will happen to the law once it hits the courts.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:25 pm
The “intactivist” movement is one of the most bizarre things I have witnessed in a long time.
allswell,
First, the primary issue here is whether the comic book is offensive. It is, and a similar publication opposing abortion would be at least as offensive if it used similar images.
Second, there is nothing bizarre about opposing circumcision, or at least routine circumcision. None of the major American medical groups (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Urological Association) recommend routine circumcision. Legally prohibiting circumcision may very well be going too far, but it certainly is not bizarre to expect that if parents are going to have their babies circumcised, they must have a good reason for doing so. All the medical groups I mentioned emphasize providing full, accurate information to parents so they can make an informed choice.
Third, I think all persons (including newborns) have a right to bodily integrity. The foreskin is a living, functioning body part, and it should not be surgically removed without good reasons.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:35 pm
What I find bizarre is the focus on the Jewish aspect in any regard. Current statistics for circumcision in the US has it just over 50% of newborn boys. Practicing Jews in the US amount to around 2.5% meaning they account for just a small minority of circumcisions.
So why reference Judaism at all? Its either stupidity (not understanding the real numbers and history of circumcision in the US), or a disgusting attempt to use anti-semitism to advance their cause. I tend to expect stupidity in this sort of thing, but in this ‘information age’, it is becoming more difficult to believe someone on the ‘web’ can truly be so uninformed.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@MikeP,
According to the CDC’s latest report, the US circumcision rate had dropped to 32%.
The CA and SF circ rates are significantly lower, and are dropping yearly.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:51 pm
The irony of San Francisco outlawing a minor procedure which is proved to cut the chance of getting AIDS in adult males by 50% is so bizarre as to be laughable.
allswell,
Maybe they are just being good Christians. Elsewhere on First Things, Christopher Kaczor has a piece entitled Christian Parents and the HPV Vaccine raising the question of why Christian parents should have their children vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease if they expect their children to remain chaste until marriage and essentially have no risk of contracting an STD. Wouldn’t vaccinating children be sending them a mixed message? He concludes that parents may have their children vaccinated, but only because there is a possibility that the children will be infected by HPV through sexual assault.
So it seems to me Christians who agree with Kaczor would have to oppose circumcision for reasons of HIV/AIDS prevention. After all, people shouldn’t be doing anything that would risk infection, so how can you justify circumcision on the grounds that those engaging in behavior to which they have no right will have a reduced chance of infection?
I actually couldn’t agree less with Kaczor, but for those who agree with him, I can’t see how they can argue in favor of circumcision for the purpose of HIV/AIDS prevention.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:09 pm
I love how people mention that there are jews in the anti circumcision movement as if that makes its all right. I would also like to add that their are jews in the pro circumcision movement and if we were to take to a vote in the jewish community, i think the pro movement would win
Its great that there are Jewish parents here who posted that they didn’t circumcised their children and they have friends who did the same. Well I have Jewish children and both had it done and I don’t know anyone in my Jewish community who had boys and didn’t have it done.
As for the Jews in the anti movement, i dont know them for the most part, but being born a jew and being jewish as in in partaking in Judaism is two different things. The fact that the Doctors had two jewish parents doesnt mean that believe in any part of their religion.
As for the comic, its no different from what the Nazi’s used to publish in their papers and I am sure everyone said its just comics and look at the starving children around the world. We all know how wound up in the end
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:25 pm
This is, of course, all pretty academic. Everyone knows what will happen to the law once it hits the courts.
Chuck,
Actually, it’s my understanding (based on what I read on Mirror of Justice and sources they cited) that the law was crafted in such a way that it might be immune from challeng on the basis of religious discrimination, and that none other than Antonin Scalia is the one to thank for changing the approach to protection of religious freedom in a way that will allow something like the circumcision ban to hold up. The pertinent case seems to be Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), prior to this case, a law that would have an impact on religious practice was constitutionally suspect for that reason alone. So a law that prohibited circumcision would have been iffy since it could be seen as an infringement on the religious freedom of Jews. However, Scalia’s decision changed the standard, and now laws are constitutionally suspect when they infringe on religious freedom if and only if they are specifically designed to do so. Since circumcision is still widely practiced by non-Jews, it is pretty much impossible to argue that anti-circumcision laws are specifically targeting Jews. So if the law passes at all (it’s a ballot initiative, and I am guessing it won’t, but with no real information to justify that guess), some grounds other than religious discrimination may have to be found to challenge it in the courts.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:25 pm
This is the silliest thread I have read online for the last 15 years.
All of it would go away if do-gooders would just mind their own [...] business.
But they can’t. It’s a crusade. Absolutely stupefyingly stupid.
And funny. Geez, Wes, you stirred the pot on this one! :-)
Dblade Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
@jb, It’s sad, man. Wes writes about serious cultural dangers, and THIS gets all the page views?
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:50 pm
Harvard’s past international expert on AIDs , Dr. Edward Green, [please provide cite for this claim, Richard.] Opponents of circumcision are operating out of junk science and junk morality, and now we learn, perhaps out of anti-Semitism. Ironically circumcision increases sexual pleasure, so some California cities are favoring elimination of a procedure that increases sexual pleasure.
Kelev Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
@Richard L.A. Schaefer, “Junk science”? You mean like the Royal Dutch Medical Society who, on behalf of over half-a-dozen Dutch medical associations who had ALL researched this issue, recently came out officially against infant circumcision after finding no demonstrable evidence of health benefits for cutting off healthy foreskin? You mean like the pediatric associations of Australia and New Zealand who have also condemned infant circumcision after finding no benefits for cutting off healthy foreskins? Indeed, can you name *one single* national medical association on the planet that actually recommends infant circumcision? And before you mention the WHO’s circumcision trials in Africa, please be aware that, as their own representatives state, those measures are aimed at *consenting adults* who have the ability to say “no”, and are doing so quite often, opting instead for condoms.
As the Royal Dutch Medical Society said in its condemnation of circumcision, it is a “cure in search of a disease.” The only “junk science” out there is from people promoting the snake-oil of circumcision that is still yet to cure anything.
David Nickol Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@Richard L.A. Schaefer,
I have never heard anyone claim circumcision increases sexual pleasure. It has long been held that it decreases sexual pleasure, although Masters & Johnson claimed that it had no effect on sexual pleasure. But a claim that it actually increases sexual pleasure is so unusual that you really must provide some documentation for it to be at all credible.
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:24 pm
I paged through the comic and many of the conclusions posted here are incorrect. Foreskin man is not anti-semitic. His girlfriend in the comic and date to the brit shalom is Jewish. Her sister is the baby’s mother. Only the Dad wants to push the “ancient right” brit milah on the child. Remember, the Reform movement is about rational thinking and the acceptance of human dignity. As with any religion, not all Jews are wrapped in the past. When in doubt, please read Victor Frankel.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Any Jew who could look at the depiction of Monster Mohel and not see its raw and classical anti Semitism of the very kind that has fueled the irrational hate that has pursued the Jewish people from the destruction of the Temple, to the Elders of Zion, through the pogroms of Russia, to the Holocaust, the KKK, the Aryan Nation, and now Iran, is utterly beyond comprehending. I am just nauseous at comment such as this. Truly sickening.
Kelev Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, And you’re not nauseated at the way that unconsenting children have the most sensitive parts of their genitalia cut up? You’re not sickened by the fact that countless men are coming forward with stories of the permanent scarring, painful erections, painful intercourse, and sexual dysfunction caused by badly healed, botched circumcisions? You’re not nauseated by the fact that there are pediatric plastic surgeons out there whose stock and trade is mending the damage done by *thousands* of botched circumcisions a year, including boys whose entire penises have been cut off during circumcision. I’ll post a recent article about one such doctor if you’d like. As a Jew, I’m flattered (I guess) that you’re so offended on my behalf. Given the real, human, suffering that circumcision causes, though, I can’t help but think your emotions on this issue are a little misplaced.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:31 pm
And once again, this post wasn’t about pro or con C, but blatant anti Semitism by one of the “intactivists” main leaders. That so many can’t even focus shows, and your sexual references, shows the fetishist side of this that creates so much emotion. I have rarely seen such disturbing obsession here at SHS.
Kelev Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:01 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, “Fetishist?” Oh my, have you got a lot to learn. Let me clue you in. For the record, most of the leading figures in the pro-circumcision research movement are members of a group called The Gilgal Society (named after the hill of foreskins mentioned in the Bible, for our Saturday School dropout above). The Gilgal society serves as a clearing house for pro-circumcision medical material, but also regularly includes pornographic, circumcision-related matter as well. Stories involving young boys who are drugged and circumcised while older men watch and masturbate are common.
One of the leaders in that field is a man by the name of Jake Waskett who is an out “circumsexual” and can frequently be found on parenting sites singing the praises of circumcision at one moment, then posting his “circumsexual” fetish promotional material elsewhere the next.
All of this is pretty available online. I can’t tell what’s worse; the fact that these sickos are out there, or the fact that they are so out, even brash.
So if you *really* want to be offended, and if fetish material is what will do it, again, please direct your well-cultivated disgust in the right direction. The folks who get off on cutting unconsenting children will show you what the term “fetishist” really means.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Wesley,
The author of this comic is a supporter of the bill, but hardly a leader of intactivist movement. In fact before these ballot measures, he was unknown in the intactivist community. He’s not affiliated with Intact America, NoCirc, or any of the other main intactivist organizations that I can find.
If you look at the directors of organizations like Intact America, you will find a number of Jews and respectable figures. And nothing about this guy who seems to only be connected with the bill.
http://www.intactamerica.org/aboutus
It’s sort of similar to judging Christianity by one of the anti-abortion leaders. There are plenty of good Christians, but I am certainly offended by the things that the homophobic Wesborow Baptist Church says.
Someone recently showed me a photo of signs the Wesborrow Baptist Church had with signs blaming the Jews for killing Jesus.
I think that that should be Wesley’s next blog post.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
He AUTHORED it.
Jews Against Circumcision Reply:
June 6th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
As I’ve said before. I imagine a lawyer crafted this. If you did any research about the movement, you’d know that Attorney’s For the Rights of the Child ( http://www.arclaw.org/ ) is the main legal intactivist organization. The main organization pushing for laws against circumcision for years is Intact America ( http://intactamerica.org/aboutus ), not MGMbill.org.
Hess is the president of the MGMbill.org organization. He’s probably not the author of the bill. That’s a pretty minor journalistic correction.
A Jew Against Circumcision Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 12:57 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Wesley,
I did a bit of research regarding your claim that Hess authored the bill. You may have been giving Hess more credit than he deserved.
To the best that I’ve been able to find, the bill is the exact same text as the FGM bill, passed in 1992 that makes genital mutilation of girls against the law. This text is exactly the same adjusted for gender to also protect boys.
Dblade Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
@Reformed Jew, Reformed, its more about the stereotype of the enemy. It’s antisemitic because they pull out a cliche and completely rely on that cliche being a monster to make their argument.
I mean, come on? Eager hasidic rabbi so eager to circumcise a kid that he busts into a brit, holds people hostage, puts the kid on a pool table?
As for religion, well reform jews seem to me to be treading the water of cultural ritual till intermarriage and atheism make them vanish. You can rationalize yourself right out of a faith if you aren’t careful.
David Nickol Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
@Reformed Jew,
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Foreskin Man the character is anti-Semitic. It’s the comic book, not the character.
I am not sure how you know Miah Redstone—Foreskin Man’s “date” to the brit shalom, where all the women are dressed extraordinarily inappropriately—is Jewish. She is the sister of a woman married to a Jewish man.
I wonder if all of the women in the comic book have large breasts and wear low-cut dresses to reassure us that its creators are interested in more than just penises.
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:40 pm
I haven’t read all the comments here, but making a caricature of a centuries-old religious and ethnic practice is a wrong way of engaging in public discourse and does smack of hatred towards that religion and ethnicity. Those who support the proposition and oppose boys’ circumcision have many worthwhile, reasonable arguments about health and self-determination. I do not agree with these arguments, but I do think they are worthwhile. They are undermining their message by publishing these caricatures.
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:54 pm
On a more serious note . . .
(JB no.)
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:35 pm
[...] People are seeing the the sickening anti Semitism exhibited by the author of the San Francisco anti circumcision referendum, as evidenced by the chara… and in the comic book “Foreskin Man.” (I can hardly write that without thinking I am [...]
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:47 pm
[...] Following up on the anti Semitic advocacy by the author of San Francisco’s anti circumcision r…, the ADL has now weighed in. It is justifiably appalled. Here’s the link to the press release. Comments (0) [...]
June 3rd, 2011 | 7:36 pm
The tacit, and often explicit, assumption of many favoring the outlawing of infant circumcision is that the procedure reduces the quality of the sex life of the child when he becomes an adult. Of course, none of the men participating in this conversation have offered a personal before/after comparison. Most circumcised American men were circumcised as infants, and cannot report on sexual experience with a foreskin present. Similarly, uncircumcised men cannot report on sexual experience without a foreskin. Wild claims, and quoting of medical society political positions (which are quite different from clinical research!) are no substitute for properly controlled clinical trials.
Fortunately, such clinical trials exist. In the last few years, there have been campaigns to circumcise consenting adult men in Africa to reduce the risk of AIDS. All the men entering the clinical trial are sexually active. One trial randomly assigned about 2700 men to either be circumcised immediately, or after two years of observation. So–and this is important–both groups consisted entirely of men who consented to circumcision for themselves. That removes the bias that might have occurred were the groups composed of men with different attitudes toward circumcision.
The researchers asked the study participants to rate sexual function and satisfaction at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after randomization. For the circumcision and control groups, respectively, rates of any reported sexual dysfunction decreased from 23.6% and 25.9% at baseline to 6.2% and 5.8% at month 24. Changes over time were not associated with circumcision status. Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was “much more sensitive,” and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as “much more” at month 24. The researchers concluded that adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.
The complete text of this study may be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042320/?tool=pubmed.
If this were a strictly rational argument, this lack of evidence of the main harmed alleged to be a consequence of circumcision would quickly drain the passion from it. Then proponents and opponents of infant circumcision would have to compare the small benefits of the procedure (reduced risk of HIV, reduced risk of penile cancer, reduced risk of urinary tract infection, eliminated risk of phimosis and paraphimosis) with the small risks of the procedure (small risk of infection, small risk of bleeding, small duration of pain-related behavior). A rational discussion would end up pretty much where society is now: the evidence doesn’t point strongly either way, so it should be up to the parents to decide. The passion and inflammatory language (“mutilation” “amputation” “blood ritual”) reveal that this is not a rational argument about an elective procedure; people don’t feel this strongly about ear-piercing of little girls. Rather this argument has become the vehicle through which passions, angers, and unresolved conflicts concerning religion, sexuality, and paternal authority are expressed.
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:18 pm
Wesley:
The California Penal Code provides:
“205. A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she
unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
the physical or psychological well-being of another person,
intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another
human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of
his or her body. For purposes of this section, it is not necessary
to prove an intent to kill. Aggravated mayhem is a felony punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of
parole.”
Circumcision excises, amputates, and removes an organ of the body and deprives the person of that organ – in this case the foreskin, which is a sensory and sexual organ.
This law has never been enforced in cases of mayhem by circumcision, which is why a special law is needed.
Your continual encouragement of circumcision may make you an accessory to the crime of mayhem.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Because it isn’t mayhem. But good luck with that, George. Although I am not “encouraging” circumcision, swear out a complaint and have me arrested. My eyes are rolling through my head.
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:08 pm
Wesley:
This thread has officially boggled my mind. Abortion is just fine, euthanasia is dandy, the suicidal should get on with it, but circumcision is beyond the pale – so beyond the pale that extremely strange comics cooked up by its critics are immune from complaint even if they use imagery that Julius Streicher might have thought a bit much.
I’ve never been to San Francisco, and some of the oddity on display here is starting to make me think that’s a good thing.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 4th, 2011 at 12:31 am
SparkVark: I feel your pain!
Kelev Reply:
June 4th, 2011 at 2:00 am
@SparcVark, Do you feel the same way about female circumcision? And again, male and female circumcision have more in common than not. Male circ removes about 15 sq. inches of highly sensitive tissue and complications from circumcision regularly leave boys with scarred, bent, or sometimes even *no* penis, so male and female circumcision are comparable. Do you decry the fact that female circumcision, even the mild forms that only involve a pin-prick were made illegal in the US in 1997?
A Jew Against Circumcision Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:04 am
@SparcVark,
I don’t know who you’re talking about. I’ve seen a reasonable number of Libertarian Republican Intactivists, as well as Israeli Jews, academics, scholars, all across the board. For your information, I’m well aware of a number of Intactivists who are very active in pro-life causes, though I am not aware of any involved in pro-choice. Intact America takes no position on abortion ( http://www.intactamerica.org/principles ) probably because there are many IA supporters on both sides of the issue.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Yea, JAC, you’re really sweeping the country.
A Jew Against Circumcision Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Within the last 5 years the US circumcision rate had dropped from about 50% to 32%, according to the CDC. That’s progress.
June 4th, 2011 | 6:40 am
This really needs to be seen in the context of modern comic strips (or “graphic novels” as they style themselves) in which every character is an exaggerated stereotype. For some context, see Foreskin Man #1. http://foreskinman.com/foreskinmanno1.pdf If anything, Dr Mutilator is more monstrous than the mohel. So should the AAP or the ACOG lodge a complaint about its defamation of their profession?
The comic strip is an unfortunate distraction from the real human rights issue being debated here, that it is not ethical to cut a normal, healthy, non-renewable, functional part off a baby’s genitals. Whatever claim is made on behalf of the parents’ “right” to do it, a stronger claim can be made on behalf of the child’s right not to have it done to him.
June 5th, 2011 | 6:30 am
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Smith.
Matthew Hess’s comic is blatantly and offensively anti-Semitic. Mr. Hess employs language and imagery that recall the horrors of Nazi propaganda.
For those who feel that Mr. Hess’s comic is trivial: similar anti-Semitic imagery helped to bring Hitler to power in Germany. Members of my spouse’s family were exterminated in Auschwitz less than a century ago. Anti-Semitic propaganda is not a mere marketing tool: it has incited genocide.
Racial, religious and ethnic prejudices foment intolerance, violence, the infliction of injury, killings and mass genocide. Art, comics and literature that inflame such prejudice are hateful, offensive and dangerous.
Mr. Hess’s hate-filled screeds do not educate: they inflame and incite. They are anything but trivial. That intactivists who claim to be humane dismiss or tolerate these comics is sad and beyond ironic.
June 6th, 2011 | 12:50 am
[...] further–although, what else is there to say that hasn’t already been stated?–do it at the post in which I discuss that topic. (I will trash all such comments here, as well as pro or con circumcision [...]
June 6th, 2011 | 9:37 am
A summary of the debate on circumcision and its effects on sexual pleasure and references can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision. Some evidence is available for all three positions: no effect; bad effect; good effect. Evidence has been cited here regarding the other question of its apparent good effects on health and disease prevention. It’s not surprising that Dr. Green agreed with the pope about circumcision being helpful and, ultimately more helpful than condoms, in preventing the spread of AIDS, along with monogamy-abstinence, which, in practice, are undermined by handing out condoms, according to Dr. Edward Green. Note that one of the studies cited does compare sexual pleasure before and after circumcision and gives some support to the idea that, including in cases where it helps with disease, it also helps with sexual pleasure. That is, a valid comparison is made by the same person regarding before and after.
June 7th, 2011 | 9:51 am
[...] have discussed the issue of MM and SF’s proposed ban on circumcision until we are blue in the face, and so I am not [...]
June 7th, 2011 | 10:31 pm
Lloyd Schofield ( http://www.sfmgmbill.org ), the main proponent of the San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation bill put forth this preliminary statement.
“It’s my understanding that both comic books are written from the viewpoint of a frightened infant or child on the receiving end of the knife, no matter where it’s coming from, medical or religious. Hence the comic book format of greatly exaggerated characters, the Doctor and the Mohel. If you have been viewing our website or Facebook page you will have noticed that they have never been posted or referenced there. And we have no intention to do so, as I believe they can be easily misinterpreted and do not encourage the dialogue that we wish to foster.”
There will probably be more statements coming from groups like Intact America ( http://intactamerica.org ), NoCirc ( http://www.nocirc.org/ ), Jews Against Circumcision, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, and others in the coming days.
June 9th, 2011 | 11:21 am
@Jews Against Circumcision,
Correct. Mr. Hess was practically unknown in the intactivist movement before FM. Please get your facts straight. I know both Jena & Lloyd & they are not only being libeled but not recieving credit for the work they’ve done.
Tempting for propagandists to use the opportunity to tar the whole movement, but Judaism should concern itself with ethical standards of behavior, not Bronze Age scarification rituals.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 9th, 2011 at 11:35 am
There you go again proving my point.
June 9th, 2011 | 2:21 pm
Who cares if it’s anti-Semitic? It’s fun! And it is absolutely correct that orthodox Jews suck the circumcision blood from the babies’ penises (metzitzah b’peh).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 9th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Anti Semitic is never fun. And Hess makes it sexual, as MM being “excited” to do circumcision and loving the taste. Proving my point. As do you.
June 12th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
Nils. That is disgusting.
I haven’t seen the comic in full. Because I can’t get the comic to load, due to it being almost shut down due to the flood of attention that Wesley and others have given it. What I have seen disgusted me.
However, I doubt that Wesley would want us to write off all the causes that the Westboro Babtist Church believes in just because of their disgusting actions and rhetoric.
The Anti Defimation League reports the following. I suggest to Wesley that it would make a far more interesting and important topic for his next blog posts. Worthy of equal attention to what he’s given this story.
“While WBC members have protested at Jewish institutions over the years, such institutions were not a major focus for the group until April 2009. Since then, WBC has targeted dozens of Jewish institutions around the country, from Israeli consulates to synagogues to Jewish community centers, distributing anti-Semitic fliers to announce planned protests at these sites. WBC has also been sending volumes (in some cases dozens over the course of a week) of faxes and emails with anti-Semitic and anti-gay messages to various Jewish institutions and individuals. “
June 21st, 2011 | 3:35 pm
Here is a response from Ron Goldman’s organization, one of the largest and oldest Jewish groups opposing circumcision. It is a statement signed by many of the influential Jewish leaders in the anti-circumcision movement.
A Message to Jewish Americans on Circumcision
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/62011NewsRelease.htm
July 31st, 2011 | 4:50 pm
In case anyone wants to see how this issue has progressed…
Jewish Intactivist Miriam Pollack has some great commentary on Foreskin Man in this recent interview.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/07/defying-convention-interview-with_27.html
Those of you who thought that the intactivist movement was anti-semetic, may want to learn about some of the Jews who believe that circumcision should be against the law.
http://intactnews.org/node/103/1311885181/jews-speak-out-favor-banning-circumcision-minors
Jews Speak Out in Favor of Banning Circumcision on Minors
http://intactnews.org/node/103/1311885181/jews-speak-out-favor-banning-circumcision-minors
Jewish Voices: The Current Judaic Movement to End Circumcision: Part 1
http://intactnews.org/node/105/1311886372/jewish-voices-current-judaic-movement-end-circumcision-part-1
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact