Circumcision-hatred: It was only a matter of time

posted at 2:01 pm on June 4, 2011 by J.E. Dyer

You have to wonder very seriously if these people are insane.

The San Diego-based group that is laboring to get circumcision banned in San Francisco has perpetrated a comic book.  In it, a superhero named Foreskin Man saves a baby boy from being circumcised by the evil Monster Mohel, a vicious-looking Orthodox Jewish rabbi who could have been drawn by an acolyte of Joseph Goebbels.

Indeed, Foreskin Man has a distinctly Hitlerian “Aryan” look to him.

It’s crystal clear from the dialogue that the perpetrator of this literary opus intends to depict the Judaic religious view of circumcision as evil and repulsive.  The “comic” hauls out every theme of Jew hatred in the arsenal.

Note that these circumcision-haters could have addressed the issue as one of science, medicine, personal autonomy, or even just a social issue on which reasonable people can disagree.

But they didn’t.  The case they’re making is that circumcision is evil because Jews do it as a religious observance.

The Anti-Defamation League is right.  The attempt to ban circumcision in San Francisco is driven by anti-Semitism.  The case could have been made without depicting a scary rabbi named Monster Mohel slavering over a naked infant – but it wasn’t.

Actually, this group is not insane.  It’s evil.

Elder of Ziyon has additional images.

*UPDATE* Some readers have pointed out that Muslims also perform ritual circumcision. The practice is widespread and has religious significance as evidence of following the practices of Abraham. I suspect we’ll be waiting for a while to see a comic depicting an evil imam attacking a baby boy.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

ProfessorMiao on June 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Never thought I’d have to defend my parents for their decision to have me circumcised, but thanks mom & dad.
Much appreciated…

OmahaConservative on June 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Wondering why San Francisco?

cynestor on June 5, 2011 at 12:38 PM

To repeat:

No Jewish parents or rabbis advocate killing disobedient children based on the Torah. You are ignoring contemporary Jewish commentary.

But he is also ignoring the one religion extant that indeed DOES kill its children when they disobey their parents by adopting Western ways – namely Islam and its never ending honor killings.

honsy

honsy on June 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM

BTW, Muslims today still perform circumcision on their minor children by the time they are 13 – because Ishmael was cut by Abraham when he was 13 years old – on the same day that Isaac was circumcised by Abraham at the age of 8 days old.

honsy on June 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM

. . . and I would rather undergo this procedure at the age of 8 days than 8 years!

honsy on June 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM

To those that asked, I agree that the cartoon is anti-Semitic and deserves condemnation for that reason. Nonetheless the parents decision to choose to cut their child in an irreversible manner when the same kid may later on in life wish that it hadn’t been done is, IMHO wrong and cannot be justified. Let the child decide when he/she reaches adulthood.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Wow, cool, all of a sudden you break out with a humble
opinion on circumcision and agree the POS comic book deserves condemnation!

I hope I ain’t the only one buying that laughable clean up job.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I hope I ain’t the only one NOT buying that laughable clean up job.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Fixed

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Circumsizing is an issue in of all places San Francisco.

IRONY ALERT!!

PappyD61 on June 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Yes, hawkdriver, that’s what I tried to pull off. Still my apologies to an HA readers who get offended by my intended sarc post–except, of course, the pos Annar.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I see that some practitioners of the “Religion of Love” are just as hypocritical as those of the “Religion of Peace.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM

4,000 years of Anti-Semitism didn’t die in that Bunker in Germany in April 1945.

It’s always rearing it’s ugly head (like here in Frisco) with one goal….extermination of Israel.

It’s been tried many times before in history, oddly enough the enemy of the Jews winds up paying a much higher price…..and the Jews survive.

Long Live Israel.

PappyD61 on June 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Let the child decide when he/she reaches adulthood.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 12:07 PM

She?
ProfessorMiao on June 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM

That, right there, ended Annar’s participation in this thread.

LOL!

VegasRick on June 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM

In case you are unaware there are practitioners of female circumcision in the U.S. almost all of whom believe in the ROP. This is common among immigrants from equatorial Africa.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM

I see that some practitioners of the “Religion of Love” are just as hypocritical as those of the “Religion of Peace.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM

And I see that Atheists are still trying to tell us what’s over the line as Christians.

We act/talk too sappy, we’re out of touch.

We act/talk too much like seculars, then we’re not good Christians.

Having said that, I took your comment here …

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 12:07 PM

as sincere. If Atheists just didn’t seem to want to abolish other peoples faiths, I wouldn’t have a single problem with them.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 1:49 PM

In case you are unaware there are practitioners of female circumcision in the U.S. almost all of whom believe in the ROP. This is common among immigrants from equatorial Africa.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM

The article is about circumcision and you said “He/SHE”. Now you bring up some obscure group to prove you are right. You really should stop, you are making yourself look more ignorant than we all thought you were.

VegasRick on June 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM

I see that some practitioners of the “Religion of Love” are just as hypocritical as those of the “Religion of Peace.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM

As I’ve posted in the past on Hot Air, fool, is I’m an atheist. I’m neither inclined to spew venom towards religious people nor abstain from calling a snake a POS because of “Love.” Nice try but no cigar.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The article is about circumcision and you said “He/SHE”. Now you bring up some obscure group to prove you are right. You really should stop, you are making yourself look more ignorant than we all thought you were.

VegasRick on June 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You are probably unaware of the size of the immigrant groups from Somalia (mostly established in the Midwest) and those from equatorial Guinea in New York just to count two. I have in-laws in the Guinea immigrant community and am well aware as to what is going on. If you prefer as hominem attacks as your best debating tactic don’t expect me to take you seriously.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Perhaps I misunderstood your message; it is obvious you did not understand mine. I try to limit any attacks to the ideas of religion and its harmful ideas not the religious or irreligious individuals.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I try to limit any attacks to the ideas of religion and its harmful ideas not the religious or irreligious individuals.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Attacks?

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM

smellthecoffee on June 5, 2011 at 1:18 AM

That was a weird and instructive link. Got to walk WAY off my path for a little bit and learn something.

Thanks.

Axe on June 5, 2011 at 4:33 AM

Yeah, I had to think a few times before linking to it. It was def an “in-house” document, so good on you for working with it. The back and forth between R. Akiva and Turnus Rufus is awesome though, for people who are into argumentation (nobody here, for sure, heh), so I decided it was worth it. Not too many takers, obviously, but whatevs. Glad you found it interesting, Axe.

smellthecoffee on June 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I try to limit any attacks to the ideas of religion and its harmful ideas not the religious or irreligious individuals.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Attacks?

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I was actually asking a question there. You would characterize your debate with people of faith as “attacks”?

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Those desert gods do enjoy sadomasochism in all its forms and get the ball rolling with the little ones. When the boys get a little older … well, you know the story.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 8:03 AM

Doh! Stupid me not being able to understand that your opening comment was merely an attack on the ideas of religion and its harmful ideas as opposed to the religious individuals who hold those ideas sacred. That’s a distinction to subtle for me to comprehend.

What I’ve seen here at HA is that, for the most part, people will debate the God/No God question respectfully. Now you, you jump in the mix feet first, completely ignore the crux of the thread, and rather than respectfully argue pros/cons of circumcision come with the above quoted attack.

To paraphrase what you just said to VegasRick:

If you prefer… attacks as your best debating tactic don’t expect me to take you seriously.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM

If you prefer as hominem attacks as your best debating tactic don’t expect me to take you seriously.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I try to limit any attacks to the ideas of religion and its harmful ideas not the religious or irreligious individuals.

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM

If you prefer… attacks as your best debating tactic don’t expect me to take you seriously.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM

I know, right? Anyway, I appreciated your comments on the thread.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 3:23 PM

And this on before I leave.

Yeah, I had to think a few times before linking to it. It was def an “in-house” document, so good on you for working with it. The back and forth between R. Akiva and Turnus Rufus is awesome though, for people who are into argumentation (nobody here, for sure, heh), so I decided it was worth it. Not too many takers, obviously, but whatevs. Glad you found it interesting, Axe.

smellthecoffee on June 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I gathered you didn’t think much of the adult debating skillz of most of us here?

I offer for your amusement one of your more adult exchanges.

Debbie, I don’t know you, and I’m sure you are very expert in all things Al-Husainy. Allow me to tell you a parable culled from my long, and occasionally interesting life. I used to have a friend who wrote stand-up comedy jokes, and guess what? One night he saw his stuff being used on Johnny Carson by Rodney Dangerfield. So he called and called, and finally he got R.D. on the phone. R.D. said to him, “Look kid. I’ll tell you what they told me. SUE ME!” And he hung up the phone, with a bang, no less. So I’m telling you, sue Hannity or shut the f up already, because you are making me bleed in places I don’t want to mention. GEVALT!! Should I keep going here, ragging on and on about how tired I am of reading the relentless ragging on of Debbie the Al-Husainy expert, because my capacity to rag on and on about how tired I am of reading the relentless ragging on of Debbie the Al-Husainy expert borders on the near infinite due to my insomnia and Control V? No? Go thou and do likewise.

smellthecoffee on February 8, 2007 at 2:01 AM

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM

I’m sorry if you did not understand that as a reference to the priests who abused altar boys and other children. Surely you do not consider those sick people as “religious individuals who hold those ideas sacred.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM

I see that some practitioners of the “Religion of Love” are just as hypocritical as those of the “Religion of Peace.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Is your handle hypocritical, or are you really an Old Norse pagan?

ProfessorMiao on June 5, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM

I’m sorry if you did not understand that as a reference to the priests who abused altar boys and other children. Surely you do not consider those sick people as “religious individuals who hold those ideas sacred.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM

I hate to keep speaking for GangofOne here, but I’m pretty sure his point was that he doesn’t gnerally take you serious because you, for whatever reason, admitted what you do to people of faith you characterize as attacking. I asked you about it too. I suppose you didn’t feel like I rated an answer to the question I asked.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 4:06 PM

It appears Norse pagan Gods are all hat and no cattle.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Anti Semites always change the subject. The subject here is circumcision and should it be out lawed. It matters not what we think, no it only matters what those who are so much smarter think. According to the left we are to stupid to teach our own children. We are to stupid to know what it is we believe is wrong.

Here I must say to all that think that my belief in G-d is stupid and must be changed, if there is no G-d, why would you care. Why do you go out of your way to deny me the right to worship, after all there is no G-d. Why must you try to remove all vestiges of Christianity from the human stage. Not to sure are you. Why can’t you just laugh and move on? To hard for you?

jainphx on June 5, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I suspect we’ll be waiting for a while to see a comic depicting an evil imam attacking a baby boy.

Don’t Muslims wait until the boy is 12?

disa on June 5, 2011 at 5:07 PM

I’m anti-circumcision for the same reason I’m pro-life.

Think about pro lifers – you’re against abortion because you believe no one has a right to murder another human being, even in the womb. You believe the child has rights.

But in the case of circumcision, the child has no rights to his own body. The parents get to decide optional surgery is okay because they believe in a certain religion.

Don’t get me wrong – they are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but like all religious freedom, their right to their beliefs end at another person’s rights to their own bodies.

That’s also why I’m pro gay marriage – yes, your religious freedom is awesome, but you shouldn’t be able to dictate morality for the rest of us.

It’s my beliefs that are totally consistent. I have since found that neither republicans or democrats value consistency, hence my recent move to “the middle”.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 5:35 PM

I’m sorry if you did not understand that as a reference to the priests who abused altar boys and other children. Surely you do not consider those sick people as “religious individuals who hold those ideas sacred.”

Annar on June 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM

First, Annar, quit with the bs that I don’t understand what you said. The religious people whom I accused you of attacking by attacking their sacred beliefs were not a bunch of child molesting priest who should all be confined to the deepest darkest dungeon until they expire.

I was speaking of the religious posters on this thread that you attacked in your very first venomous post. You didn’t even bring in the child molesting priest until your second comment, after 2 posters said they didn’t get WTF you were talking about.

Your links to the child molesting priest were just a snaky way of rubbing your hateful “sadomasochist” hyperbole in the chest of HA posters who were focused on the thread topic of Nazi like anti-circumcision propaganda.

Try to clean it up any way you want, Annar, but I ain’t buying it.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Try to clean it up any way you want, Annar, but I ain’t buying it.

Gang-of-One

Me neither.

honsy on June 5, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I know, right? Anyway, I appreciated your comments on the thread.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Thanks. I don’t really come to HA to debate. It ain’t my strong suite by a country mile. Annar just got my goat. Now I’ll just go back to quiet mode.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 6:02 PM

I hate to keep speaking for GangofOne here, but…

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 4:06 PM

No kidding! I’m glad somebody can understand what I’m trying to say. Thanks again.

Gang-of-One on June 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Think about pro lifers – you’re against abortion because you believe no one has a right to murder another human being, even in the womb. You believe the child has rights.

You do understand it’s a specific right, correct? A right to life. Circumcision in no way violates this right.

But in the case of circumcision, the child has no rights to his own body. The parents get to decide optional surgery is okay because they believe in a certain religion.

Don’t get me wrong – they are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but like all religious freedom, their right to their beliefs end at another person’s rights to their own bodies.

This is a bit crazy. Will an accusation of kidnapping come next? I mean, it may be argued under the above logic that we are taking the child against his/her will when we bring him/her home from hospital. Can it be determined that they are consenting to the activity?

It’s my beliefs that are totally consistent. I have since found that neither republicans or democrats value consistency, hence my recent move to “the middle”.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Respectfully, one should ask yourself if consistency involves reason. Consistency is better practiced through specificity; not through the broadest of generalities.

anuts on June 5, 2011 at 6:08 PM

It’s not crazy. I believe in parental rights – the right to know what you’re doing late at night, the right to send you to schools (even religious ones), the right to educate you and raise you how they see fit.

But I think we can all agree that everyone has a right to control who removes what body part from them. And with infants, it’s simple. They can’t consent, they aren’t capable of intelligent thought – so this procedure should wait until they can at least comprehend the ramifications and make that decision for themselves.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Not a big fan of cicumcision, and would never force it on my own children, but this “comic” goes waaaaaaay over the line.

Norwegian on June 5, 2011 at 7:51 PM

triple on June 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM

What you said is opinion based. I’m not sure a parent should change a thing about the way they care for or raise their kids, based on someones elses opinion.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 8:16 PM

But I think we can all agree that everyone has a right to control who removes what body part from them. And with infants, it’s simple. They can’t consent, they aren’t capable of intelligent thought – so this procedure should wait until they can at least comprehend the ramifications and make that decision for themselves.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Weird… I was born “tongue-tied”. There is a fold of skin on the underside of my tongue longer than most people’s.

Would my parents have been horrific inconceivably evil monsters for letting the dentist remove that?

Or is one fold of skin precious and must be preserved and another meaningless?

gekkobear on June 5, 2011 at 8:46 PM

And with infants, it’s simple. They can’t consent, they aren’t capable of intelligent thought – so this procedure should wait until they can at least comprehend the ramifications and make that decision for themselves.

So I take it you are anti-vaccination?

Tomblvd on June 5, 2011 at 8:50 PM

So I take it you are anti-vaccination?

Tomblvd on June 5, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I take it you can’t tell the difference between a procedure that prevents lethal diseases and one that is entirely optional?

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Somehow, I knew that argument would come up.

Circumcision is not medically necessary by any standard.

It provides no medical benefit – the “hygiene” argument is just ridiculous. Sometimes I don’t wash my hands, yet I don’t cut those off for fear I get an infection. Jeez.

Vaccinations, genetic defects.. do you consider foreskin a defect that requires fixing? Which doctor told you that?

triple on June 5, 2011 at 9:28 PM

triple on June 5, 2011 at 9:28 PM

It’s not ridiculous. It has proven benefits.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM

I take it you can’t tell the difference between a procedure that prevents lethal diseases and one that is entirely optional?

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Well, circumcision does prevent lethal diseases in many cases. Thank you for making our argument for us.

Or didn’t you mean to?

john1schn on June 5, 2011 at 10:27 PM

But I think we can all agree that everyone has a right to control who removes what body part from them. And with infants, it’s simple. They can’t consent, they aren’t capable of intelligent thought – so this procedure should wait until they can at least comprehend the ramifications and make that decision for themselves.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM

So, how do you feel about trimming babies’ fingernails? They can’t consent to that. How about hair? They can’t consent to that. The aforementioned tongue tied individual (BTW, I was born tongue tied as well, so I got two snips at birth!) I didn’t consent to that, but I’m dang happy that happened too.

My procedure had nothing to do with religion; you can’t use that. It had everything to do with avoiding unnecessary disease. Again, I’m very glad to have never had more than jock itch down there.

john1schn on June 5, 2011 at 10:31 PM

It’s not ridiculous. It has proven benefits.

hawkdriver on June 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Some people you will never convince. Best thing to let them do is have their little fantasy about how they are so very right and we are so very wrong.

john1schn on June 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM

It provides no medical benefit – the “hygiene” argument is just ridiculous. Sometimes I don’t wash my hands, yet I don’t cut those off for fear I get an infection. Jeez.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Even the Academy of American Pediatrics disagrees with you, but go on believing your fantasy.

john1schn on June 5, 2011 at 10:34 PM

So, how do you feel about trimming babies’ fingernails? They can’t consent to that. How about hair? They can’t consent to that.

You really know they have logic on their side when they compare a bris to a haircut.

“Ah yea, we just want to remove some foreskin, its painless and it’ll grow back.”

triple on June 5, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Well, circumcision does prevent lethal diseases in many cases.

This just in: Circumcised people never get AIDS. Ever.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM

You really know they have logic on their side when they compare a bris to a haircut.

“Ah yea, we just want to remove some foreskin, its painless and it’ll grow back.”

triple on June 5, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Frankly, it was no problem for me. I never felt a thing, and everything down there works just fine.

john1schn on June 5, 2011 at 10:45 PM

This just in: Circumcised people never get AIDS. Ever.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM

That’s not the point, but feel free to disagree with licensed medical practitioners that would know. AIDS isn’t the only lethal disease out there, ya know. But hey, enjoy the fantasy.

john1schn on June 5, 2011 at 10:47 PM

My tip was nipped and it works just fine. Just ask the ladies.

Optimus Prime on June 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM

This just in: Circumcised people never get AIDS. Ever.

This just in, vaccinated people never get the diseases they’re inoculated against. Ever.

Here’s the point for those who refuse to get it. Having an infant vaccinated carries very real, and very rare risks. However, parents rightly decide the benefits far outweigh the problems. Just like circumcision. And the child gets no say whatsoever as to whether or not the get the jab.

Tomblvd on June 6, 2011 at 6:24 AM

..er, so what exactly IS that symbol on the front of Foreskin Man’s spandex suit supposed to be?

Alden Pyle on June 6, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Th US military requires all male members (ba dum dum, tish) to be circumcised for obvious health purposes – think 30 days in the bush (not THAT bush, either) with no shower.

I remember a few recruits who got it hacked off in boot camp, they would have much preferred to have had it done as an infant.

Alden Pyle on June 6, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Alden Pyle on June 6, 2011 at 8:01 AM

What? They can’t get a friend to clean it in today’s Army?

I heard about this debate some time ago which is why I made a remark about being Jewish from the waist down a week or so ago here. Females I know HATE uncut men.

Touchy issue.

IlikedAUH2O on June 6, 2011 at 9:26 AM

BTW, Muslims today still perform circumcision on their minor children by the time they are 13 – because Ishmael was cut by Abraham when he was 13 years old – on the same day that Isaac was circumcised by Abraham at the age of 8 days old.

honsy on June 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Not quite. Abraham was told to circumcise himself when he was 99 and Yishmael was 13. At that time he circumcised himself and all the male members of his family (including servants). Part of the commandment was that all future members of the family must be circumcised at eight days old. Three days later he was told that Isaac would be born one year later (which he was). THus Isaac was circumcised at the age of 8 days a year after everyone else in the family.

sabbahillel on June 6, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Circumcision is not medically necessary by any standard.

triple on June 5, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Standard 1.

Standard 2.

Standard 3.

unclesmrgol on June 6, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Th US military requires all male members (ba dum dum, tish) to be circumcised for obvious health purposes – think 30 days in the bush (not THAT bush, either) with no shower.

I remember a few recruits who got it hacked off in boot camp, they would have much preferred to have had it done as an infant.

What? NO. That is a straight up lie. How stupid do you have to be to believe that?

triple on June 6, 2011 at 11:45 AM

..er, so what exactly IS that symbol on the front of Foreskin Man’s spandex suit supposed to be?

Alden Pyle on June 6, 2011 at 7:44 AM

That would seem to be a stylized representation of a penis with its foreskin intact.

Artistic, these Jew-haters.

Solaratov on June 6, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Virulent anti-Semitism no different than the 1930’s Nazi propaganda. Any who would ddeny this need to be marched into a room and forced to watch the films of the death camps as was done in the end of “A Clockwork Orange.”

LCT688 on June 6, 2011 at 5:35 PM