This really pisses me off. Children who are victims of their parents' religions should not have to be molested and infected.

This is not the first time this practice has infected babies.

I really suspect that part of this Jewish ritual evolved from some pervs who managed to get their perversion worked into the religion. This is not unlike JS who managed to get polygamy accepted when we all know exactly why he started it.

This particular ritual is going to attract types who want the perk of fondling/sucking baby boys to be Jewish mohels - with the parents primed to accept it!

They didn't know they had herpes?

Good grief. Why people continue to allow religious BS practices like this is beyond me. There is no amount of Jewish apologetic spin for this, IMO. The ultra-Orthodox Jews make the craziest of Mormons look sane.

Jewish folks should not criticize Mormons for being so brainwashed that they hand over their girls to old geezer polygamists. In their religion, they hand over their baby boys to some geezer to cut and suck.

Initiation rituals that involve this kind of thing deserve ridicule. If you think circumcisions are necessary, don't do it at church. Geeze.

Sigh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/05/jewish-mohels-banned_n_5650672.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

This pisses me off too!!!! So pathetic :-(

Yup!!!!!!!!!

Circumcision should be regulated, but there are health benefits and this group of Jews is a small minority and is hardly typical of Judaism. Cirumcision did not originate with Judaism anyway and is not confined to it. The ancient Egyptians were the first known practitioners and the custom was probably about keeping clean in a desert. Equating it with perversion is a stretch

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Equating it with perversion is a stretch

From the article:

"(MBP), a circumcision rite practiced in some ultra-Orthodox communities that involves using the mouth to remove blood from the recently-cut pe.nis."

You honestly don't think that perverted? What does the sucking part have to do with being clean in the desert?

Saliva is a mild antiseptic which is probably the origin of the sucking.It may also reduce blood flow. It is an example of folk medicine from a time when modern remedies did not exist..Same reason animals lick wounds .The rant seemed to be against circumcision as a whole and from a poster who loves to criticize any and all religious customs which is a problem for me. I agree it should be regulated and there are better ways to deal with infection and bleeding today than sucking. However, I doubt the mohel is getting sexual satisfaction from this-at least in most cases any more than my gynocologist gets turned on by examining me . It is a custom that goes back thousands of years to a time when this was probably 'cutting edge medicine' so to speak.I do feel sorry for the kids and think they should be protected from having the procedure done in such an antiquated way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2014 12:05AM by bona dea.

I appreciate what you are saying, I do. And I think the context you bring to the thread valuable.

But in today's context, right now, doesn't it disturb you at least a little that men are putting infants' pen.ises in their mouths, for whatever reason?

Yeah, I think I said that, but there are competing issues here. Religious freedom V modern sensibilities,but the welfare of babies should come first.That is why it needs to be regulated.

That is why it needs to be outlawed.

Parents do not have the right to mutilate or alter the sexual organs of their children.

To do so is child abuse.

If you don't think so, then why don't YOU hop over to the kitchen, grab a sharp knife and lop off a good chunk of your own genitals?

It was all about setting apart and distinguishing one group of people from another. There are no health reasons involved in having or not having a fore skin. most of planet earth doesn't cut off fore skins like the Jews and Americans do.

The American Academy of Pediatrics say that the benefits outweigh the risks. I dont have any strong feelings about circumcision one way or the other,but they do make a case for it.

I come from a culture - The UK - where Circumcision is seen as a purely religious issue.
not a health issue.
I understand it is popular in the US - regardless of the religious aspect - because initiially it was thought to decrease masturbation and then it became part of the culture...... sort of like FGM.... which is often more of a cultural issue than a religious issue.

When this issue come up, it is always linked to 'desert dwellers recognition of health matters'
however, it seems to me that desert dwellers, who had no idea of germ theory, cutting a portion off of somones body would have had more of a negative impact on overall health, than a positive impact

It's perverted AND dangerously unsanitary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2014 11:34PM by imaworkinonit.

His mother and I were both present. He did it in his own, clean, licensed clinic. The boys were not fed for about 5 hours before hand, so they sucked aggressively on a clean cloth soaked in wine just before the procedure for a mile anesthetic. He used sterile instruments. Afterwards, their mother nursed them and they went right to sleep.

Amusing note: I have battlefield experience in Vietnam, and later became a cop where I dealt with more blood and guts. Yet BOTH times I got so woozy I had to leave, lie down, and elevate my feet!

Both boys are now healthy young men.

"...evolved from some pervs who managed to get their perversion worked into the religion."

Sounds like pretty much every other religion on Earth... especially Mormonism + Islam.

Circumcision is barbaric. The fact it has religious significance further feeds my belief that religion is the root of all evil.

Ron Burr