Babies in San Francisco are up in arms over the proposed brit milah ban there, many babies have voiced concern over not having the fulfillment of involuntary therapy that may reduce their risk of AIDS, but definitely reduces their shake time after using the bathroom. Babies aren’t the only one’s pissed about the liberals threat to circumcision thereby making it very hard for Jews without cars to drive 2 miles south of the city to get their brit milahs done in South San Francisco.
“This will put me out of business” The cities first Mohelet told us, a mohelet is a female mohel (many have wondered why the Jewish feminist movement hasn’t demanded brit milah for girls as well, they demand laining from the torah, tefillin wearing, yarmulke wearing, yet they haven’t actually sealed their equal covenant with God) “I had literally just jumped through loops and loops, responded to criticsm over my not wanting to do metzitzas b'[eh for obvious reasons and now the orthodox Jews have decided to really run me out of town this time.” In fact many in the less religious communities who have supported the Mohelet throughout her training, have blamed the orthodox Jews for wanting to ban milah in the city of San Francisco. Sources say that the mohelet has been practically bribing families to let her give their sons brisim, over letting them do it in the hospital.
Although orthodox Jews around the country are yelling that this is the start of another holocaust and that the liberals are the hidden Amalakites. The orthodox community in the Bay is merely standing by, they have engineered this as a plan to prevent ignorant east coasters from moving here and polluting the city with their Brooklynese. In fact the Bay Area only has two certified Mohelim and they both live outside of the city, so most say there is really nothing to worry about.
FS News has found it interesting that the same folks who are pro-abortion, are anti milah. We found it interesting that unlike many anti-abortion activists who allow abortion when it’s a religious ritual, these anti-milah folks are not advocating for choice when it comes to religion, rather they are calling for an all out ban on the ceremony.
Anyone who has had the circumcision will be grandfathered in under the new law and will not have to go the rather painful reversal surgery that the Hellenist Jews in the times of Chanukah did.
In my 22 years of research as a bar owner in Downtown SF, I can say with 100% confidence that the overwhelming majority of straight females will vote against this proposition
Nah. They’ll just personally pass on anteater schvance.
I don’t think this will go anywhere. It’s not the first time something like this has been proposed.
But any of the usual suspects who scream and moan and stamp their feet over this had darned well better support the Park 51 Center and the right of women to wear the niqab. The typical line “Those are just rug-thumping Moozlums. We do this because Hash-m tells us to,” is patent b.s. and the worst sort of hypocrisy.
agreed!
Those San Francisco liberals are not thinking with their *heads* on this issue
I don’t know the politics of the guy who supports this ban, but I do know that the ACLU will be filing a friend-of-the-court brief to overturn this in the unlikely event it passed (I find it unlikely it will even make the ballot)
I think we should have respect for the opposition on this issue. I do hope you understand why some would have an issue with circumcision, especially to someone who is 8 days old.
And Freedom of Religion is not always guaranteed. If I wish to adopt the practices of the Aztecs who cut open chest cavities to make sure the sun would rise everyday. Should I have Freedom of Religion when it comes to that? No.
Freedom of religion should be respected, until it violates human rights.
If Freedom of Religion were absolute anyone could join the White-Eye Synod of the Native American Church. We could have authentic Saturnalia celebrations in the streets assuming it didn’t frighten the horses. Sikhs could use bhangi just like Jews and Catholics could use wine during Prohibition. I’d be in favor of all of those.
When you get to brit millah it gets trickier. I’m not one of the guys who starts whining about how circ is just like FGM. For the few who are about to start in on that let me just say “Boys, it’s not always about your wee-wee. Planing off a little girl’s lady-parts is infinitely worse. I had a mil-spec bris, and all my parts work just fine.” But it is the destruction of normal, healthy genital tissue for religious reasons. The difference between that and clitoridectomy is just a small matter of degree. Ban the second, and it’s hard to defend the first.
I did a report on female circumcision in college and let me tell you, there is a VAST difference btwn the two. In a clitoridectomy, the girls are usually much older (around the age of 10-13), and the ENTIRE clitoris is cut off (not just foreskin) and the entire is sewn up with only a small hole left to let out monthly menses. In Africa it is done without anesthetics and is often done without usual sanitary conditions. This means most girls are at a high risk of infection. It is truly a DISGUSTING practice and anyone comparing it to male circumcision is sorely mistaken.
I’m well aware of the differences and the differences between types of FGM.
your comments are largely irrelevant because you carelessly contrast clean, pseudo-Western male circumcision — and I say “pseudo” because of the anesthesia issue — with dirty, backyard-style, Third-world surgery. If one would establish the contrast by suggesting the removal of whichever parts of the female genitals on infants in a true surgical setting, meaning under local or other anesthesia, under sterile conditions, with prophylactic and/or post-surgical antibiotic coverage, your argument appears to evaporate, and one then needn’t even look to your inappropriate use of full capitalization as an indicator to the lack of credibility your argument carries.
First of all, her first entire sentence:
“In a clitoridectomy, the girls are usually much older (around the age of 10-13), and the ENTIRE clitoris is cut off (not just foreskin) and the entire is sewn up with only a small hole left to let out monthly menses.”
would not change if done with Western surgery because it’s based on ritual.
Second, don’t be a douche.
First, her remarks implied that such risks and dangers were inherent to the respective surgical procedures, when in fact, they are not.
Secondly, don’t complain when truth conquers illogic.
Sorry BH, but you are mistaken. First of all, there are many different degrees of female circumcision – from removal of a few millimeters of the clitoral hood, to outright removal of all external genitalia and infibulation. So it is not really possible to make a blanket statment about FGM. In fact, historically, Jewish circumcision was originally only a small “nick” to the end of the foreskin. What is practised today (complete removal of the foreskin) is not what was mandated in the Bible. So there are different degrees of male circumcision, also, in theory.
Secondly, I wonder why you think that it makes a difference that the victim is older? Many medical and psychological authorities believe it is even worse for a newborn baby than for an older child or adult, and leaves more lasting damage due to the brain still developing at the time of the trauma. Also, babies do not generally get adequate anesthesia (if they get it at all), either. The only difference that can be spoken of categorically is the level of hygeine/sterility of the instruments in developed countries vs. Africa and the Mid-Eastern countries. But we should remember that a percentage of baby boys do die every year from complications from this procedure, so it is by no means “safe” for them either.
“Many medical and psychological authorities believe it is even worse for a newborn baby than for an older child or adult, and leaves more lasting damage due to the brain ”
right—that would help explain the large IQ disadvantage among Jews.
Seriously, tho, there are “medical and psychological authorities” to support any & every crackpot claim out there. It’s very clear that no religious folks–*except*, and this is crucial: someone who’s got other other issues with his Judaism—have problems from this “remembered” trauma at the age of 8 days.
I’m not personally saying Everyone must be circumcised!, merely that the virulent objections (esp. from Jewish quarters) tend, quite obviously, to emanate from people with an axe to grind beyond the matter of bris milah.
sigh,the first is strictly religious the second is not. fc is done only for the purpose of the denial of sexual pleasure, that is inhumane a covenant between G-d and man is not, these girls can bleed out and life is at risk! Yeah lets be pro abortion(not you) but anti covenant, i don’t get it…..
The law in this country allows parents to do their children many things that would otherwise be illegal/a violation of rights.
* spanking (to a degree; if it’s done to a degree that it injures the child and falls under child abuse, parents can’t do it, but a potch on the tuchis such as many of us probably got after doing something quite bad as youngsters is legal if a parent does it; but you can’t, in general, legally discipline a child physically if that child is not yours)
* failure to vaccinate (this is actually a bit less defensible than other such parental rights, because failure to vaccinate does not just potentially hurt your child, but because of the decrease in herd immunity, can potentially hurt other children, even vaccinated ones [because vaccines are not 100% effective in each individual and thus require nearly everyone to get the vaccine to get close to 100% effectiveness])
* Removing a child from class for religiously objectionable content-courts have ruled that parents can have their child taken out of class in the public schools for, among other things, sex ed and evolution; in fact, the Amish have been allowed to not school their children after 8th grade as a religious freedom measure. On the other hand, courts have ruled on numerous occasions that a school board is not allowed to teach creationism/intelligent design as a scientific theory in schools. Why is this a rights violation? Depends on what level of education is felt to be a human right.
* Child Labor-A parent can obviously legally require their children to do chores (in exchange for nothing except the basic parental responsibilities of feeding, clothing, giving attention, etc. or in exchange for payment in the form of allowances), whereas child labor is generally prohibited in the United States.
There are many, many other things that a parent can prohibit their child from doing before the age of 18 that could be considered violation of human rights.
As for the issue of male vs. female, it would be hard to defend the right to male circumcision (except for the existence of various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, that require government to demonstrate a “compelling interest” in banning a religious activity, even if the ban is not done in a way that specifically targets a religion; I’m not aware of any religion that does just the clitoral hood rather than the entire clitoris) should one ban removal of the clitoral hood (the female equivalent of the foreskin).
However, there is, of course, a legitimate argument to be made that one can ban clitoridectomy without banning male circumcision.
I think the best argument for male circumcision is that there are obvious health benefits to it. And to the side that says the child should be able to decide for themselves, I don’t think is good reasoning. Parents make a ton of physical decisions for their children and honestly, most men, even if it was wise for health reasons to be circumcised, would probably not do it if they knew they were going to feel it. Let’s just say I’m glad I don’t remember it 😉
There are equivocal, possible, tenuous health benefits for it. Almost all of them can be achieved by a little bit of hygiene. If it were about health there are thousands of other more important things we would do. The only reason Jews and Muslims circumcise is religious. The only reason Christian Americans do it is custom. And that custom started out because of a moral panic about touching oneself.
You may very well know the history of secular circumcision more than I do. I, however, as a nonbeliever look at religion and the rituals of religion as probably having some practical function which ended up becoming sanctioned and perhaps commanded as divine. So in the case of circumcision, it cannot be a coincidence that all the Semitic tribes in ancient Palestine all practiced circumcision. As we see in the Tanach, the Philistines are the ones referred to as the un-circumcised as to make them distinct from others living in the area and surely their foreign origins in the Adriatic speak to the difference. So male circumcision must have had a practical purpose the same way female circumcision has the practical purpose (albeit incredibly evil) to stunt the sexual desires of women. But the male circumcision must have come about from the realization that removal of the foreskin had some health benefit. Now granted today if one has the means, hygiene is not much of an issue but we shouldn’t go around and say that the only purpose of circumcision is for religious observance. That could not have been the foundational purpose.
“And that custom started out because of a moral panic about touching oneself.”
Ohm right, and if you get circumcised you won’t “touch yourself?” (I presume you mean “masturbate.”) Unfortunately for your thesis, I can assure you that I am circumcised and it has not prevented me at all from masturbating, and I don;t think my situation is particularly unique.
I didn’t say it was rational or that it worked. But it is why they started doing it bigtime in North America.
Kellogg’s Cornflakes were also invented as an anti-wanking food. Long story, but that’s the fairly accurate short version.
Graham Crackers as well.
Spicy food was believed to cause libidinous thoughts, bland food would block them.
The 19th century had some real whackpots.