Tuesday 28 June 2011


Illustration: Foreskin Man by Matthew Hess
Noor’s $.02 worth of Snippits and Snappits on the topic of circumcision:
Not that I am in favour of this barbaric rite, there needs to be pointed out a few distinctions between Talmudic and Biblical circumcisions. For the record, the vilerite of the rabbinic bris milah (circumcision) is based on Talmud-derived halacha and custom (minhag); not the Bible.

The Bible does not authorize any use of metzitzah b'peh. In metzitzah b'peh, the mohel (rabbinic circumciser) performs fellatio on the infant boy by placing the infant's penis in his mouth and sucking the blood from the circumcised member.

Thus in Orthodox Judaism, but not in the Bible, one of the first experiences a Judaic male baby undergoes in his life is submitting to fellatio. There is nothing even remotely comparable in the Bible. Judaism is an anti-Biblical religion.

Apparently there has been a so-called painless form of circumcision pioneered by pediatricians in Arizona. A pediatrician in Sandpoint, Idaho is an expert in this technique.

Orthodox Judaics are not allowed to use this technique for the very reason that it is painless. Orthodox Judaism requires that the ritual be painful.

Cf. Mishnah Shabbath 19:2 and BT Shabbat 133b. The Old Testament does not demand pain in circumcision. This distinction is important.

As a woman, I found my research in the past on this topic, left me with the impression that an uncut man has much more to offer his mate in the ways of pleasure. But then again, that is the core of religion-based mutilation, is it not?

Considering that the Jewish community is touting its connection with the Muslim world on this topic, in support of this act, perhaps if the world banded together and condemned them both on the circumcision ritual, they would stand back to back as allies and find their way to peace in the Middle East!

Sigh, a girl can dream of peace can’t she?

Please check out the following:



More links at the bottom of the page.



ADL joins community organizations, doctors and Jewish and Muslim families in lawsuit seeking to remove initiative from the November ballot. In truth it is interesting that the Jewish community only reaches out to the Muslim community when it comes to a self interest, although, I suppose the same could also be said of the Muslim community.

June 24, 2011

Jewish and Muslim organizations are joining in an effort to block a San Francisco ballot measure that would ban the circumcision of male children.

The groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of community organizations, doctors and Jewish and Muslim families asking a San Francisco judge to remove the initiative from the November ballot. The plaintiffs argue that California law bars local governments from restricting medical procedures.

San Francisco is set to be the first city to hold a public vote on banning circumcision.

The supporters say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that parents should not be able to force on their young child. Opponents say a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a violation of constitutional rights.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) also joined the group calling on the state Department of Elections to remove the anti-circumcision proposition from the ballot on the grounds that the City of San Francisco would have no power to enact the ordinance if approved by voters.

“Existing California law is clear,” said Nancy Appel, ADL Associate Director in San Francisco. “Only the state can make rules about medical procedures and this initiative violates that law. Not only does this initiative waste time, energy and expense, but it also offends the notions of parental rights and freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional and, as we allege in this lawsuit, contrary to California law.”

If enacted, male circumcision could be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison.


Rabbi Gil Leeds, right, performs a brit milah in Palo Alto, Calif., in July 2010. The baby is being held by Mitchell Ackerson, while Rabbi Yitzchok Feldman looks on. (Alex Axelrod)

Posted by Jonah Lowenfeld

The proponent of a proposition aimed at banning circumcision in Santa Monica has abandoned her effort to put the question to voters in the beachfront city before beginning to collect any signatures.

Jena Troutman, a lactation consultant and self-described “children’s rights advocate,” said on June 6 that she has decided not to move forward with the petition because of what she called the media’s misrepresentation of her efforts as an attack on religious freedom.

“It shouldn’t have been about religion in the first place,” Troutman said in an interview. “Ninety-five percent of people aren’t doing it for religious reasons, and with everyone from The New York Times to Glenn Beck focusing on the religious issue, it’s closing Americans down to the conversation.”

Troutman was featured prominently in an article in The New York Times on May 5 about attempts to ban circumcision in two California cities. A mother of two, Troutman runs the Web site wholebabyrevolution.com, which she describes as an educational resource for parents considering circumcision.

Troutman first submitted the proposed ballot initiative aimed at prohibiting
“Genital Cutting of Male Minors” to the Santa Monica City Clerk on May 19, just days after a ballot measure proposing an identical law qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco.
In San Francisco, proponents collected more than 12,000 signatures in the 180-day period allotted to them. Troutman would have had to publish the text of the proposed ballot initiative in the Santa Monica Daily Press before collecting signatures.

Troutman said she does not intend to place the ad, nor will she collect signatures to support it.

Troutman said she was specifically distancing herself from the legal language used in both cities’ ballot measures and composed by the group MGMbill.org, a San Diego-based organization led by Matthew Hess.

Hess recently gained notoriety when media outlets began reporting about a comic book he created called “Foreskin Man,” which was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups as anti-Semitic.
“While I do support the human right to bodily integrity and genital autonomy that the MGMbill.org group is working toward, I’m not part of that organization,” Troutman said.
“It’s not a bill that I’m comfortable backing anymore,” Troutman added.

Troutman said she had left a voicemail message for Hess informing him of her decision. Hess could not be reached for comment but tipped his hat to Troutman on his twitter feed (@MGMBill) on June 6. “Thanks for everything, Jena,” he tweeted. “We’ll make you proud in San Francisco.”

Troutman did say that she was concerned about the effect her withdrawal might have on the movement to stop circumcision as a whole.
“I just don’t want to do anything that’s going to hurt the effort in San Francisco, because it’s a conversation that needs to happen.”
Lloyd Schofield, the main backer of the San Francisco ballot measure, said on June 6 that he had not been aware of Troutman’s decision to withdraw but said he understood why she might pull out.
“It’s a lot of pressure, and she’s got a family,” Schofield said. “It’s unfortunate, because I think that Jena is a deeply motivated person.”
According to Denise Anderson-Warren, an administrative analyst who has been with the Santa Monica City Clerk’s office for 17 years, although some proponents of ballot measures fail to collect the required number of signatures, Anderson-Warren said Troutman is the first one she knew of to withdraw a measure before even collecting a single signature.

Reacting to Troutman’s decision June 6, Rabbi Mark Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, said, “I’m delighted. It was a very dangerous and ill-informed initiative, one that was a clear violation of parental rights and religious freedom.”

To fight the proposed ballot measure, The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles had assembled a coalition that included the Board of Rabbis, ADL, American Jewish Committee and religious leaders from all walks of Jewish life. The coalition’s first meeting took place June 6.

“It was a moment when all political and religious differences were put aside,” Catherine Schneider, Federation’s senior vice president for community engagement, said.

Schneider said that Federation was ready to speak out against any other bans. “If we see this in another city in Greater Los Angeles, we will take it very seriously,” Schneider said. 


Australian actor Russell Crowe, known for his masculine ways and roles in film, deleted the feed in which he ranted against followers who support the ritual act, posting that he 'wasn't intending offense' in his remarks, adding, however, 'I can't apologize for my heartfelt belief'.

Big improvement here, "anti circumcision" not "anti-semitic" but then, even the ADL has realized that anti semitic has lost its clout these days and is attempting other avenues of guilt throwing.

OOOOOPS Russell, someone loves you. You aren't getting the Mel Gibson special treatment ~ yet. Just lucky I suppose. This time.   In this politically correct (PFFT) world it is a dangerous thing to state what you really believe and for this you are to be congratulated by others who do not believe in hiding behind the insidious beast of PC. Oh, btw, well said and not too shabby a comeback!

June 11, 2011

Australian actor Russell Crowe apologized Friday for his  Twitter comments in which he called circumcision "barbaric and stupid".

The celebrity deleted the feed posted Thursday in which he ranted against followers who support the ritual act, posting that he "wasn't intending offense" in his remarks. However, he added "I can't apologize for my heartfelt belief".

Crowe went off against circumcision when a Twitter follower told the star that they were expecting a son, asking for his input on whether to circumcise the baby.

Crowe responded that "circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?"

The actor added that "babies are perfect" when they are born. Crowe later said that he "will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires."

Crowe's comments came shortly after activists were successful in putting a ban of circumcision on an upcoming ballot in San Francisco. In the event the motion to prohibit the ritual act passes, it will be considered a misdemeanor and its perpetrators will be forced to pay a fine.

In his apology Friday, Crowe said that Twitter is "a great forum for communication," adding that he, "like any human" has opinions, and thanked his followers for trusting him with their thoughts.

In his Thursday comments, the Aussie actors assured his followers that he is not anti-Semitic, saying he loves his Jewish friends with their "apples and the honey and the funny little hats", after which he implored them to stop "cutting" their babies.

He reiterated his tolerance for all faiths and beliefs in his apology, saying "I have a deep and abiding love for all people of all nationalities, I'm very sorry that I have said things on here that have caused distress".

Crowe continued his apology, saying "my personal beliefs aside, I realize that some will interpret this debate as me mocking the rituals and traditions of others. I am very sorry."

More reading on this contentious topic:

Debate circumcision ethics call

1 comment:

  1. So its a religious right to intentionally, painfully alter an infants genitals and perform fellatio upon them? Make sure to inform the pedophiles of their constitutional protection. Every child rapist should rape children in church and declare its their religious freedom.


If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.