The rising of a new antisemitism

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
Proudly_Italian said:
More than antisemitism this is disinformation, Anybody who knows a litle bit about Judaism, know there is nothing more abhorrent for Jews than eating or drinking blood.

The Bible says blood is home to life, and so has not to ne eaten or drinked. Infact ritual Jewish butchering aims to eliminate evry drop of blood from the meat: meat with blood is not kosher and cannot be eaten.


Looks like you need a link too It's been in the news a lot lately.

The decision to develop guidelines on oral-suction circumcision came after Monsey-based mohel Yitzchok Fischer — a rabbi trained in religious circumcision — was suspected of infecting three New York City babies with herpes in 2004. One died and another suffered brain damage. He was not charged in the cases.

Two additional cases of infant herpes through the oral-suction method were reported by physicians in 2005 in New York City. The identity of that mohel or mohels was not revealed.

The centuries-old practice, called metzizah bi peh or metzitzah b'peh, involves a mohel using his mouth to suction blood from the wound after the foreskin is removed. The ritual is performed by Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Your knowldege of judaic sects seems to be lacking a little bit. Perhaps you need to brush up on reality before you start calling me anti-jewish.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Chico8:

In another thread I had posted some info about an abhorrent hasidic practice whereby mohels literally suck the blood off of a boy's penis after circumcision. I was slammed immediately although after a couple of other posters provided some back up info the poster apologized for his rather vituperous attack.

Chico8, if you believe any of this, you are a fool.



Yonatan:

The fact remains, that Israel was created out of an AREA - not a country - called Palestine, which never had a government of its own. One hundred years ago, Arab residents of present-day Israel and Jordan considered themselves as part of greater Syria. The area was and had been ruled by the Ottomons for hundreds of years. The term "Palestine" held no attachment to them, in terms of a people, country or even culture.

This is true as far as it goes. But the land had enormous significance to them. I think we treated the Palestinians like monkeys. Wave them to another tree … they can be happy there. What do they know about identity and heritage and sense of place?

If the Palestinians had accepted the UN partion plan in 1947/8, they would have had their homeland then...


This is so true. Jordan was far larger than the part that was to be divided between Palestinian and Jew, and then they got half of that remaining part, anyway. Not all that much for the Jews.

And then the Arabs attacked. I have no trouble understanding why they might do that. But if you declare war, you have to win, or take the consequences.

If the Palestinians stopped attacking Israelis, all attacks, from both sides, would stop very quickly. The Jews are not keeping the conflict alive. And the Arabs who wish to end the conflict, fear for their lives if their ambitions for peace are enunciated too loudly.
Abu Mazen is at real personal risk at this moment, with his advocacy of a referendum that, by God’s grace (says this agnostic) will allow the majority of Palestinians to indicate that they are tired of a hopeless and futile fight that benefits neither side, but particularly damages their own.

Of course the Israelis are intransigeant. They can make only one mistake.

I love Yonatan’s Golda Meir quote. Yes, there would be peace if the Arabs loved their children more than they hate Israelis.

She also said, the real injury done to the Israeli soul by the conflict is that Israeli mothers have had to watch their sons become killers of other beings.

That of course is a tragedy on both sides. And I’m sure that there is a huge majority on both sides that feels that way … grievously and tragically silent on the Arab side.
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
senor rubirosa said:
In another thread I had posted some info about an abhorrent hasidic practice whereby mohels literally suck the blood off of a boy's penis after circumcision. I was slammed immediately although after a couple of other posters provided some back up info the poster apologized for his rather vituperous attack.

Chico8, if you believe any of this, you are a fool.

Of course I believe it, do you think all these websites are lying about the issue, along with the NY health dept?

Link

US circumcisers allowed to suck again

Year-and-half ban on oral suction of baby's penis during circumcision lifted, after rabbis agree to adopt new hygiene rules
Haim Levinson

Controversy resolved: New York ultra-Orthodox rabbis signed an agreement with the State's health commissioner allowing them to perform the traditional oral suction ritual during circumcisions. This puts an end to a year-and-a-half long strife over a ban on performing this ritual, imposed due to severe health hazards.

In the haredi Judaism, it is customary for the mohel (circumciser) to suck the blood from the baby's penis immediately after the bris

(circumcision). In more modern communities, the mohel sucks the blood using a straw.

I find the title of the article to be a little over the top even for religious whackos, and you'll notice that this is a Jewish run site.

More fool you for categorically dismissing something that seems so out there, but in reality has caused at least one death and brain damaged at least one other baby boy.

Whether these whackos subscribe to mainstream judaism or not is irrelevant. They're allowing a sickening practice to continue. If this was any other religion, you can bet that it would be banned in a heartbeat, instead, they have been asked to put safeguards in place that are merely sops to the health authorities and will do nothing to prevent the tranmission of fatal diseases.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
chico8 said:
Looks like you need a link too It's been in the news a lot lately.



Your knowldege of judaic sects seems to be lacking a little bit. Perhaps you need to brush up on reality before you start calling me anti-jewish.
I was just about to post a link to the same and a NY Daily News article. There were some cases in Philadelphia, PA as well. In Israel, according to officials, the preferred method is now to suction the blood with a tube. In either case, the blood is not supposed to be consumed (correct me if I am mistaken) simply cleared from the wound.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
chico8 said:
Whether these whackos subscribe to mainstream judaism or not is irrelevant. They're allowing a sickening practice to continue. If this was any other religion, you can bet that it would be banned in a heartbeat, instead, they have been asked to put safeguards in place that are merely sops to the health authorities and will do nothing to prevent the tranmission of fatal diseases.

Well add it to the list of bizzare (by our standards) cultural 'traditions' : Female Circumcision, Dinka Head beating/scarring/tooth removal, Neck Stretching, feet binding, 'murder' of Chinese girl babies, rape of virgins as an AIDS cure, JUJU medicine..and so on.:rolleyes:
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
@chico

It is a practice almost unused today, and not at all 'abhorrent,' as you put it, when it was used. It was intended to reduce the risk of infection and proved very effective.

Your image brings to mind the old calumny of Jewish blood lust.

It would be hard to find a mohel who uses that method today.

But two things, Chico.

My words were too strong, and I apologize for them.

And I will ask a rabbi I know very well about this. Perhaps I am talking through my hat. But I don't think so. I think you are describing a mostly discarded practice.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
alex8 said:
..but also in the denial Oscars.

Speaking of Oscars, and I'm sooooo non anit-Semetic (if you knew me you'd understand).... but bothersome that ANY documentar on the the Israeli/Jewish plight is a lock for an Oscar. See: Hoop Dreams getting screwed.... one of the greatest documentary works (black) screwed by .... nevermind. I'll sound vicious.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
chico8 said:
If this was any other religion, you can bet that it would be banned in a heartbeat, instead, they have been asked to put safeguards in place that are merely sops to the health authorities and will do nothing to prevent the tranmission of fatal diseases.

Well, chico, they have to disinfect their mouths, which is no negligible thing. And no mohel with herpes will be allowed to use the practice.

You say this will do nothing to prevent transmission.

Won't it do a great deal? Isn't this more than a sop?
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
How did this become another circumcision thread?

Aren't there enough already???
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
dong20 said:
What's the root cause of Anti-Semitism?
probably the consistent refusal of most diaspora jews to compromise their traditions. remember that their sense of identity and community is based upon both religious and ethnic distinction - two things that are historically guaranteed to cause social discord on their own, let alone combined.

dong20 said:
Well add it to the list of bizzare (by our standards) cultural 'traditions' : Female Circumcision, Dinka Head beating/scarring/tooth removal, Neck Stretching, feet binding, 'murder' of Chinese girl babies, rape of virgins as an AIDS cure, JUJU medicine..and so on.:rolleyes:
... so that makes the practise acceptable? cos other equally or even more fucked-up lunatics do other equally or more fucked-up things? do you consider any of the examples you just described to be acceptable by any moral standard?

senor rubirosa said:
Won't it do a great deal? Isn't this more than a sop?
i don't get what part of CUTTING BITS OFF OF NEWBORN KIDS IS WRONG you're having difficulty with here. jesus tittyfucking christ, if a random guy waiting in line for the bus mentioned to you that he regularly sucked the blood out of freshly-butchered newborn penises, you'd immediately call the cops and hope they locked him up and threw away the key - and rightly so. the fact that these wackjobs are also hierarchs of a religious cult should make people more concerned to see them stopped, not less. i mean do you honestly believe that some magic fairy in the sky gives certain people special dispensation to sexually assault newborn kids??
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Dr Rock said:
i don't get what part of CUTTING BITS OFF OF NEWBORN KIDS IS WRONG you're having difficulty with here. jesus tittyfucking christ, if a random guy waiting in line for the bus mentioned to you that he regularly sucked the blood out of freshly-butchered newborn penises, you'd immediately call the cops and hope they locked him up and threw away the key - and rightly so. the fact that these wackjobs are also hierarchs of a religious cult should make people more concerned to see them stopped, not less. i mean do you honestly believe that some magic fairy in the sky gives certain people special dispensation to sexually assault newborn kids??

It's called circumcision, Dr. R. Allowed virtually everywhere. And it is, indeed, "Cutting bits off of newborn kids." Is it wrong? I think there's room for discussion.

But that's not the discussion.

The discussion, at least at the point your quote from me came in, was whether the new regulations on mohels would reduce the risk of infection to the newborn. And I think it would have a very great deal of effect. That's my guess. Not more than that.

If Jews perform their own ritual circumcisions, I wouldn't say they have "special dispensation to sexually assault newborn kids."

A random guy at a bus stop talking about this would have me a bit more worried.

Remarkable sense of measure you have.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dr Rock said:
probably the consistent refusal of most diaspora jews to compromise their traditions. remember that their sense of identity and community is based upon both religious and ethnic distinction - two things that are historically guaranteed to cause social discord on their own, let alone combined.

Maybe, I do find it slightly ironic that a desire not to compromise one's traditions is a cause of antagonism when so often lament the fact that we have so few of our own remaining.

Dr Rock said:
... so that makes the practise acceptable? cos other equally or even more fucked-up lunatics do other equally or more fucked-up things? do you consider any of the examples you just described to be acceptable by any moral standard?

Where exactly did I say I found them acceptable? I said by our standards explicitly because by the standards of those practising them they clearly are acceptable, I'd have thought that was obvious.

My point was, the world is full of people doing such crappy things to each other, and in terms of putting them 'right'....for the practice referred to here....pick a number, join a very long queue.

Dr Rock said:
i don't get what part of CUTTING BITS OFF OF NEWBORN KIDS IS WRONG you're having difficulty with here. jesus tittyfucking christ, if a random guy waiting in line for the bus mentioned to you that he regularly sucked the blood out of freshly-butchered newborn penises, you'd immediately call the cops and hope they locked him up and threw away the key - and rightly so. the fact that these wackjobs are also hierarchs of a religious cult should make people more concerned to see them stopped, not less. i mean do you honestly believe that some magic fairy in the sky gives certain people special dispensation to sexually assault newborn kids??

Those traditions again.:rolleyes:
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
senor rubirosa said:
It's called circumcision, Dr. R. Allowed virtually everywhere. And it is, indeed, "Cutting bits off of newborn kids." Is it wrong? I think there's room for discussion.

But that's not the discussion.

The discussion, at least at the point your quote from me came in, was whether the new regulations on mohels would reduce the risk of infection to the newborn. And I think it would have a very great deal of effect. That's my guess. Not more than that.

If Jews perform their own ritual circumcisions, I wouldn't say they have "special dispensation to sexually assault newborn kids."

A random guy at a bus stop talking about this would have me a bit more worried.

The new regulations will not prevent the transmission of viruses. The only way to prevent their transmission is to regularly test every mohel who sucks the penis of newborns. God, I feel filthy just for writing that. I don't know what testing requirements are in place but I'll bet we haven't seen the last deaths of innocent children.

Cultural relativism is dead. Oral-genital contact between an adult and a child in a public setting nonetheless, has no place in our society. My point for bringing this up was to prove that far from a rise in anti-jewish sentiment, jews in the US at any rate are being extensively catered to.

.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
chico8 said:
The new regulations will not prevent the transmission of viruses. The only way to prevent their transmission is to regularly test every mohel who sucks the penis of newborns. God, I feel filthy just for writing that. I don't know what testing requirements are in place but I'll bet we haven't seen the last deaths of innocent children.

Cultural relativism is dead. Oral-genital contact between an adult and a child in a public setting nonetheless, has no place in our society. My point for bringing this up was to prove that far from a rise in anti-jewish sentiment, jews in the US at any rate are being extensively catered to.

.

Listen, chico, I was too quick to dismiss your first post.
But, you're being too dramatic.
'Every mohel who sucks the penis of newborns' ... it has no real sexual connotation.
'Oral-genital contact' ... well, the audience won't be getting a titillating thrill. You're playing, I think unfairly, with connotation again. (My opinion...)
And the fact that this is allowed, unseemly or not (however you view it ... and I wouldn't say the image is heart-warming), has not much to do with whether there is a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment.
I don't know how much the mouth cleansing will cut down on the virus level in the mouth. But disallowing mohels who are infected from continuing to practice will have a considerable effect. Why would you think otherwise?
 

Yonatan

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Posts
4
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There have been some excellent points brought up about the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Alex8 is correct, that the Jews have been a minority in Israel, since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 a.d., and the (Jewish) state of Judea ceased to exist. Jews were flung to all corners of the Roman empire, as well as to Babylon (where they had already been for 1000 years).

For two thousand years, Jews have lamented and longed for Jerusalem and a home of their own. It is part of the bible, our holy writings, daily prayers, and mentioned at every holiday. There exist throughout the last two millenia countless writings of Jews who have longed for and dreamed of a return to Jerusalem.

The Koran doesn't even mention Jerusalem, nor do any of the Muslim liturgy and holy writings. While Jerusalem may be the third most holy city of Islam, there has certainly been no huge sentimental attachment to this city. For two thousand years, it lay as a wasted backwater, an exceptionally poor and undeveloped city. It was not a place of Moslem pilgrimages, nor did they do anything to make Jerusalem into anything remotely special.

As for the blood sucking circumcision thread, I am totally grossed out. Yet I understand that this is an outdated practice, and in its time probably DID ward off infection. That it's still practiced today is disturbing, yet I am certain that the practitioners are only an extremely tiny percentage. Hassidic Jews have always been extreme, and my hope is that if some of their mohels are still doing this, that the recent news will pressure them to go with more modern, hygienic procedures.

Now, onto a more appealing circumcision discussion... I am totally enthralled by uncircumcised penises! I just love to roll the skin up and down. While in college, I had a boyfriend who wasn't cut, and couldn't keep my hands off his dick... sigh...
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
For those who keep coming back to the lame, tired excuse "the mohel sucks the blood off the penis, but it is not a sexual thing" you are entirely correct - but what you are leaving out is that rather than a sexual thing, it's almost a "ritualistic vampirism" thing. It ain't the cock he's after, he just wants to remove a little blood. Does not matter if he spits or swallows. It's still abhorrant. It still makes an already barbaric procedure even more so.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
senor rubirosa said:
It's called circumcision, Dr. R. Allowed virtually everywhere.
... and at last being finally prohibited in an increasing number of places (sweden & denmark, 2003, etc). that's called "progress" - forbidden virtually everywhere, especially by organized religions. :rolleyes:

your argument - "lots of people do it, lots of people have always done it, therefore it's okay" - is simply apologism for human cruelty. lots of people rape and murder, lots of people always have, but we don't let them get away with it; why should those who mutilate newborn kids be excused simply because they suffer from a dangerous psychosis (religion)?

And it is, indeed, "Cutting bits off of newborn kids." Is it wrong? I think there's room for discussion.
if that is what you think, then there is NO room for discussion. the idea that there is any way to justify such a depraved act is a sign of either weapons-grade stupidity or a very, very sick mind.

But that's not the discussion.
is as far as i'm concerned. how a specific crime is performed does not change the nature of the offense.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Dr. Rock, you get so hysterical that one never knows whether engaging with you is worthwhile.

Are you saying that Denmark and Sweden have both banned male circumcision? Female circumcision, but not male, as far as I know, though Sweden has banned male circumcision without anesthetic.

Comparing circumcision to rape and murder is over the top.

I am not religious, but neither do I call religion a "psychosis," as you do. But I do think it leads to a lot of fixated views that inhibit the exercise of human rationality. There would be a lot less trouble in the world if religion withered up and blew away.

As for circumcision, if I had a son, I don't think I would want him circumcized. But my nephew was circumcized, and I don't, for that mere reason, want to bring my brother before a war crimes tribunal.