Mohel Uses Pride Month to Shamelessly Plug on Facebook

I get it.

Intactivists face an uphill battle.

You’re not going to convince a Jewish mohel to stop mutilating baby boys anymore than you’re going to convince a Malaysian imam to stop mutilating baby girls.

Yes, traditions die hard, and really, short of stomping our feet, there is nothing we can do to stop an intrepid adherent of a violent religion intent on carrying out his faith.

It’s not illegal, at least yet, and as long as they can get away with it, cutters gonna cut.

And hey. Mohels gotta eat too.

I get it.

I should point out that up until 2018, there was a federal ban on female genital mutilation (was), and for a while, yes, you could face federal charges for mutilating a girl, without religious exemption. This is the way it is in many Western countries.

Thanks to the naturalization of male genital mutilation in this country though, mohels get a pass. It is my speculation that this shield of protection from criticism and scrutiny is a big reason why Jewish “researchers” help put out “studies” saying circumcision “prevents disease,” why Jewish doctors in American medical organizations protect it by codifying it in medical policy, and Jewish lawmakers block any measure condemning the practice.

But here is something I don’t get.

Scrolling down my Facebook feed, I see that some mohel actually took the opportunity of Pride Month to push his business.

I’m not Jewish, never could be, thank my lucky stars I wasn’t born to Jewish parents. But, is it just me, or is this not just a little bit hypocritical?

On the one hand, we have this mohel, and he wouldn’t be the first, plugging his business of infant genital mutilation, preaching to the Jewish gay community that they ought to have their children mutilated to fulfill religious obligation. Genesis and all that.

But on the other hand, if I recall correctly, Jewish gays are already in trouble with Adonai, as they are an abomination who should be “put to death.”

Like, am I missing something?

Adonai wants you dead, but you still need to fulfill your religious obligation to have any male children you adopt, mutilated.

The same guy who is morally obligated to kill you wants you to pay him to mutilate your baby boy.

How does that make any sense?

How are these two things reconciled?

We’ve all heard it before.

The rationale goes something like this:

“Well, it’s the 20th century, and obviously there are things in the Torah we just don’t do this day and age. We no longer sell our daughters into slavery nor do we sacrifice bulls at the altar.”

And this is exactly right.

There are things we just don’t do this day and age.

So then the bigger question is, why even circumcise children as a religious obligation in the first place?

Things change.

And thankfully so.

Some Jewish families are opting for a bris shalom instead of a mutilation ritual that may or may not result in the child losing his penis, getting infected with herpes or bleeding to death. (Google these things. Herpes is exclusively a risk of ultra orthodox Jewish circumcision.)

This is 2021.

Why is this still happening?

It’s hypocritical cringe to see this mohel shamelessly trying to capitalize on Pride Month to shamelessly plug his business of infant genital mutilation.

Like how do you announce your business of the “sacred and ancient tradition” to Jewish gays, the very people the sacred and ancient Torah says god hates and should be put to death? On Pride Month?

Am I the only one who sees the audacity of a mohel reminding Jewish gays they have an obligation to uphold?

“The Torah says you’re an abomination to Adonai and that you should be put to death. But bring me your male babies so that I may mutilate them as the sacred and ancient Torah says.”

It just doesn’t compute.

Don’t get me wrong.

I think it’s abhorrent that there are actually people dedicated to the business of child ritual mutilation in and of itself.

Plugging to the very people your holy book says you’re obliged to kill is on a whole ‘nother level.

The wording is so audacious!

“Every Jew who requires a bris whether for themselves or their children, regardless of gender identity or orientation deserves equal access to the sacred and ancient tradition.”

All the progressive buzz words are included here.

How do you “require” a bris for someone other than yourself?

He’s just not going to mention that little fact that, HELLO, if you’re gay, Adonai thinks you’re an abomination that should be put to death?

What if you or your child identify as female? Would he then not be committing female genital mutilation?

 

What does the Torah have to say about trans folk with top and bottom surgery?

Here. I can help.

Love the nod to “equity.”

“Equal access to the sacred and ancient tradition.”

What would we say about an imam or African shaman offering “equal access” to female genital mutilation?

And what do Jewish LGBT folk who take their children to this guy to have them mutilated hope to achieve?

Some sort of redemption?

Having your male children mutilated hoping Adonai will forgive you for being gay or trans just adds a whole ‘nother level of cringe.

This whole thing stinks any way you look at it.

In the end it’s just another entrepreneur capitalizing on Pride Month to push his business of infant genital mutilation.

The way he’s trying to frame this “sacred and ancient tradition” as “progressive” and “equitable” to push it on Jewish gays, but more importantly, at the expense of baby boys is absolutely despicable.

Jewish LGBT folk, the Torah already says Adonai hates you and you should be put to death.

If you’re going to dismiss passages that call for the end of your existence as just “a relic of times past,” you might as well opt for a bris shalom.

I’m sure you condemn parents trying to give conversion therapy to their children. Why would you force a covenant your child can’t even comprehend on them? If you respect their autonomy, their identity, their bodies and their choice to do what they want in life, you won’t do this.

 

What an absolutely shameless plug by a guy whose business is infant genital mutilation.

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

Jews Circumcising Adopted Children

Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation"

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

External Link:

Wikipedia entry on Brit Shalom

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

I think it's bad enough that there are gays and lesbians who advocate for child circumcision.

Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.

This boggles the mind.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.

The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."

They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!

But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18

In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.

As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted by licensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government."  One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."

But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:

"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."

Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.

I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?

Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?

But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.

 

Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?

I just don't understand.

You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."

EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."

Jewish LGBT Leaders Against SF Circ Ban - Ignorance or Hypocrisy?

I'm not sure what to make of this. It looks like Jewish LGBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered) leaders have joined the chorus of Jewish, Muslim and other religious organizations that are banding together against the San Francisco circumcision ban that will be on the November ballot.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=5777&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150214196842299_16790393_10150214204492299#f3b4459c5afa9ec

And, as if that weren't enough, they simply just couldn't resist bringing out the Foreskin Man comic straw man to give it a good beating. I've already addressed the futility in a previous post:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/anti-semite-card-no-longer-washes.html

Pro-circumcision groups are pulling out all the stops, from "religious freedom" (well, at least the freedom of their religion), "parental rights" (at least the rights of parents of boys), and, get this, "public health." (Yes, if scientists discovered better alternatives to circumcision, I can just see Jewish groups abandoning circumcision...)

Apparently, the Jewish LGBT leaders are pushing circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV, despite the fact that the studies say circumcision is of no use to gays.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14894-circumcision-fails-to-protect-gay-men.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/25/AR2009082503271.html
http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20090827/male-circumcision-doesnt-reduce-gays-aids-risk-id-1081586.html

And, despite the fact that circumcision doesn't prevent HIV in the real world. (Six African Countries, Malaysia, The Philippines, our own country, etc.)
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

It just boggles the mind how religious groups can't seem to make up their minds. Is this a "religious rights," issue, or is this a "public health" issue? Are babies born at risk for HIV transmission? Are they climbing out of their cribs, traveling to sub-Saharan Africa where HIV rates are 20 to 40 times higher than in the U.S. and engaging in risky sexual behavior? Does not being circumcised somehow disable a man from using a condom, which he would still need to use whether is circumcised or not?

For whatever reason, the authors of the above article felt it important to know Schofield's orientation and circumcision status, and they seem disdainful that they couldn't get these out of him, as if this were any relevant to the issue at hand. Do people ask your sexual orientation/circumcision status if you're against female genital cutting? Does being a non-circumcised straight woman somehow disqualify you if you're against FGM?

Says Jewish LGBT leader Slepian: "I think that all LGBT people, but especially gay Jews, should be wary when people attempt to use police power to criminalize behavior that in our communities are viewed as normal and natural and have been part of our tradition for thousands of years..."

Except when it's slavery, the oppression of women, and the oppression of homosexuals. Right Mr. Slepian?

Says Rawlings-Fein, who conducted the Brit Milah circumcision ceremony on his own son: "We wanted to make sure that we made a conscious decision and that's the case with a lot of people, especially in our synagogue... That parental decision is a big part of it. I think that you have to acknowledge that parents are taking care of their children in the way that they see fit religiously and medically."

Except if the child happens to be a girl. The "parental decision" to circumcise a girl as "parents see fit" would land them in jail.

And here it is again, the pretense that medicine has anything and everything to do with the "decision" to conduct an irrevocable religious ceremony on a healthy, non-consenting child. Let's ask Rawlings-Fein to reveal to us the medical ailment that necessitated his son's religious circumcision ceremony.

Says openly gay District 8 Supervisor Scott Weiner, who is Jewish: "This proposal is rallying the Jewish community, including very progressive LGBT Jewish people who are really offended by this false message that circumcision is somehow barbaric or similar to female genital mutilation."

This statement is rather ignorant and self-serving; the claim that male circumcision is barbaric is dismissed as "opinion," but the claim that female circumcision is barbaric is assumed to be immediately self-evident. The message that circumcision is "barbaric" and/or similar to female genital mutilation is "false" only to those who refuse to see the genital cutting of boys as "barbaric mutilation." Communities and ethnic groups that practice female genital cutting as a cultural tradition or religious rite certainly don't see their practice as "barbaric mutilation," yet nobody seems to think this insinuation is offensive to them.

The above statement is ignorant to the fact that some female genital cutting is equivalent, if not less severe than male circumcision; the federal ban on FGM forbids them ALL. For better or for worse, a ban on all FGM without exempt for religious ceremonies violates "religious freedom" and "parental rights," but Jewish LGTB leaders do not seem to care to express concern here.

Says State Senator Mark Leno: "My read of it, and that of every legal scholar that has assessed it, quickly determined that it is a First Amendment right... As a Jewish man this is a great concern and as a strong defender of a women's reproductive choices I'm well aware that any legislation that ... interferes with the decision-making process between a physician and a family should be discouraged."

And here again, there seems to be an intent to remain wilfully ignorant. The First Amendment would also guarantee parents from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore the right to perform "sunat" on their baby girls.

More on "sunat" here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-wheres-sunat-party.html

And, as a defender of a woman's "reproductive choices," it seems to escape Leno that the circumcision of infants violates a child's right to choice.

Leno's assertion that "legislation that interferes with the decision-making process between a physician and a family should be discouraged" is also based on a dubious premise; that there is actually a decision for any parent to make. The bottom line question is always this; without medical or clinical indication, can a doctor be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child, much less be stoking his parent's sense of entitlement to any kind of "choice?"

Leno also seems to be ignorant of the fact that there is already legislation that "interferes with the decision-making process between a phsician and a family." In many states, it is already illegal for a parent to deny needed medical care to a child, even for "religious reasons." And the federal ban on FGM most definitely "interferes." Last year, the AAP tried to endorse a "ritual nick" for girls. Luckily (or, if Jewish LGBT really mean what they say, unfortunately), they were forced to back-pedal.

Slepian continues: "I always view San Francisco as a good place to be a Jew... The question is, is San Francisco going to be a welcoming place for Jews to live? That's a question on the ballot here."

Then, it must also be asked, is San Francisco a good place to be a Muslim from Malaysia, Indonesia or Singapore? Because the federal ban on FGM without religious exemption forbids them from practicing "sunat" on their daughters.

Says openly gay San Francisco supervisor who is also Jewish: "From a standpoint of parental choice and public health, banning circumcision is the wrong thing for San Francisco."

It never ceases to amaze me how Jewish groups and individuals never fail to fall back on "public health" as an alibi for support what is historically a contentuous religious rite for them. It's almost as if they know that "religious freedom" is no longer a good enough reason to justify the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting newborns.

Which raises the question, how far do Jewish groups actually care about "public health?" If scientists found an alternative to circumcision that would provide the purported "medical benefits" and more, WOULD Jewish groups abandon the practice?

And how far does the Jewish LGBT community support a "parent's right" and "religious freedom? Would they support a parent's "right" to submit their son to electro-shock therapy to make him "straight?" After all, it says so in the Torah that gays are an abomination to "g-d," and that they should be stoned to death.

To me, that any LGBT group is getting behind legislation against this ban has got to be the epitome of absolute hypocrisy.