Jews Circumcising Adopted Children

 

I had seen this phenomenon before, but I hadn't really given it much thought. Several years ago, my attention was brought to a blog of a Jewish woman outlining her adoption and circumcision of boys from Russia, and the thought of having been adopted by Jewish parents horrified me. Like, I can't recall the blog anymore, but if I remember correctly, these weren't even baby boys, these were older boys not older than 10.

How horrific to be yearning for parents, only to be adopted by strangers who immediately proceed to make arrangements to have someone forcibly cut off part of your most private, most intimate organs. I don't know what I'd do had I been one of those Russian boys.

At any rate, I ran across this on Facebook:

I don't know what to think when Jewish people actually flaunt having adopted male children and having them circumcised.

Like, it's horrifying enough that cutting off a part of a child's penis seems to be like, the defining cornerstone of Judaism. Now they have to mutilate the organs of a child who's not even Jewish?

Look.

I'm trying real hard not to be an anti-Semite here, but this is seriously getting to a point.

I grew up in a very conservative, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish church.

In becoming an intactivist, going against what is supposed to be the very tenet of Judaism, the "covenant" on which the entirety of Judaism is based, I knew I was going to become something I was taught in my church to hate and despise.

These are feelings I fight with every time I think about being horrified by doctors and mohels taking knives and cutting off part of children's penises.

But the more I read about this, the more I'm leaning to the "I don't like Jews" side.

I keep telling myself; some of our more outspoken voices are Jewish people.

I've written a post about this.

I know that not all Jewish people are proponents of male infant genital mutilation.

I know that Jewish people not mutilating their baby boys are increasing.

I know that Jewish people speak out with us.

I want to believe that not all Jews support this, and that some have even created the Bris Shalom ritual to replace the mutilation ritual.

But just, the more I look into how pro-circumcision Jews and Judaism influence this country, the more I read about how Jewish doctors are using pseudomedicine and pseudoscience to promote male infant genital mutilation, the more I see how Jewish proponents of male infant genital mutilation stand in the way of removing this blight from American medicine, the more I'm filled with hopelessness and rage.

There is at least one website that I've come across in the making of this post that outlines that male children that Jewish families adopt must be ritually mutilated.

It's just casually written there, and nobody is saying anything about it.

Like an elephant in the room.

Like, I admit it, this is probably going to sound real "anti-Semitic," but Jews, Muslims, ANYBODY who plans on ritually mutilating a male child should not be allowed to adopt.

And anyone who does this to an adopted child should lose custody of that child and they should never be allowed to adopt again.

And this isn't just Jews, because I've also read about American families taking an adopted male child and having him circumcised just after.

Genital mutilation is wrong.

It's wrong and it ought to be a crime to forcibly cut the genitals of children.

If it's wrong to forcibly mutilate the genitals of newborns, forcibly mutilating the genitals of children that AREN'T EVEN YOUR OWN should be RIGHT OUT.

I realize this is a hairy situation where we look the other way at ritual mutilators such as mohels.

Fine.

If we must look the other way at Jews mutilating their own, at least for now, then fine.

But like WHAT THE FUCK IS A MOHEL DOING MUTILATING A NON-JEWISH CHILD.

WHY ARE DOCTORS MUTILATING BOYS at the request of people that AREN'T EVEN THEIR PARENTS???

OK, I get it.

At least for now, mutilating a child is considered a "parental choice." It's considered a "religious rite" that must be "protected."

OK, for your OWN CHILDREN. (Even then I think it's wrong.)

But these are children who aren't even YOUR OWN.

These children are yearning to be taken in and loved.

NOT TAKEN IN AND HAVE THEIR GENITALS MUTILATED.

It ought to be a crime for strangers to arrange, facilitate, officiate, and/or otherwise participate in the genital mutilation of a foster child.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

We're not talking about medical necessity here. If a child needs surgery to correct a problem, that's one thing.

But mutilating the genitals of a healthy child as a matter of course for adoption is simply horrific human rights violation.

Forcibly mutilating a healthy child is a horrific human rights violation in and of itself. Full stop.

Letting a stranger mutilate the genitals of their own child is one thing, but arranging this to be done on a child that's not even your own flesh and blood is simply horrific abuse.

Yeah, I guess I'm an "anti-Semite" now.

I'll fucking own it.

It's bad enough Jews are mutilating their own children, now they have to mutilate the genitals of children that aren't even their own.

I'll say it; Jews who plan on mutilating the children they adopt should not be allowed to.

Those who mutilate foster children ought to face severe punishment.

Without medical or clinical indication, cutting off any part of a child's penis is genital mutilation and a gross violation of his basic human rights.

Could you imagine Muslim parents arranging the genital mutilation of baby girls they adopt?

And don't you come to me with this "female genital mutilation is not a Muslim practice." Yes it fucking is, you just don't want this to be true because you don't want to be put in the same category.

"Sunat" is a practice followed by Muslims in South-East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore. Muslims in Egypt and Sudan also have similar practices. It's also a tradition in many African countries.

For better or for worse, female genital mutilation is part of many religions including Islam, and many cultures including cultures from countries I've mentioned above.

 

I'm not sure how many of you reading are aware, but do you know that the federal ban on female genital mutilation has been lifted? All the arguments used in favor of male infant genital mutilation you could name were used. What was practiced was "minimal." "Less severe" than male infant genital mutilation even. It's an important part of the parent's culture and religion.

This is reality in the US.

What do we think of parents adopting female children and taking them to have their genitals mutilated by a ritual mutilator straight away?

If we accept this for boys, then we must accept this for girls.

And this is horrifying.

This is what's next.

We need to stop looking the other way because this is what's coming.

We need to decide right here and now.

What matters more?

The basic human rights of the child?

Or the "religious freedom" of parents wishing to practice their religion on the children they adopt?

What about the child's religious freedom?

The website "My Jewish Learning" says:

 

"Jewish law also allows those people converted as an infant or child to renounce the conversion when they reach maturity. After girls reach 12 or boys 13, converted infants and children can legally reject the conversion and go back to their previous religion. If they accept Judaism or are silent, they are deemed to be considered adult converts."

THEY CAN'T REJECT THE GENITAL MUTILATION.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH "CONVERTING CHILDREN."

Genital mutilation isn't "for the children." This isn't something the children choose for themselves. The "conversion" is to satisfy an ADULT'S religious requirement.

The poor children are merely tools for adults to fulfill their religious duties.

Which only adds to the whole fucked-uppedness of the situation.

This is wrong in more ways than one.

It is horrifying for me to think about, to imagine poor children who need and want parents to be adopted by parents who want to physically abuse them the first chance they get.

I don't care what prepared dismissive moniker you have for me, this is WRONG and it needs to STOP.

EDIT:

Somebody I know read what I wrote and decided to remind me of this:

There it is in plain sight, and it's just so hard for me to believe.

I wish this weren't so.

DISCLAIMER:
I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews.

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI

 

Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

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

 

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

 

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

 

Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

 

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

 

External Links:

Female circumcision part of Malaysian culture, says DPM

 

My Jewish Learning: Converting Infants and Children

LATEST FROM AFRICA: 2 Circumcision Initiates Die

Yearly, circumcision initiation rites happen all over Africa. Every year scores of men either die, or they lose their penises to gangrene, but for whatever reason, these deaths and loss of external genital organs in male initiates are overshadowed by female circumcision.

In a recent news article, the deaths of two initiates have been reported. (Link available here. Last accessed 6/22/2016) A list of articles in past years can be read here.

For whatever reason, human rights activists come down hard on female circumcision, but when it comes to male circumcision, there is a deafening silence.

In some newsreports, readers are supposed to take comfort in the fact that some very shoddy "studies" show that male circumcision "could" "reduce" HIV transmission by "as much as 60%."

So male circumcision should still happen, although it should be performed by medical professionals, although death and other complications still happen when medical professionals perform them.

I ask, would human rights groups stop decrying female circumcision if "research" could "prove" that female circumcision "could" reduce HIV transmission by some magical number like "60%?"

Or would they still be decrying it?

What if female circumcision could be made "quick and painless" with "no detriment to female sexuality?"

Would it still be viewed as a human rights violation?

A paper calling for a compromise procedure for females has recently been published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The authors are actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

There is a sexist, self-serving double-standard when it comes to publishing research on male and female circumcision. Whereas publishing "research" that claims that male circumcision is "harmless" if not "beneficial" is not a problem, publishing research that minimizes female circumcision or that it may even be beneficial, is.

Whereas "researchers" were eager to push the idea that "circumcision is a harmless intervention that could help prevent the spread of HIV," scholars discourage the publishing of research that would "play right into the hands of those who defend female genital cutting" and/or "encourage female genital mutilation."

It's not a problem if "research" gives the green light to tribal circumcisers of men to go ahead and perform circumcision on initiates, but it is a problem if research givesthe green light to tribal circumcisers of women.

Why is that?

Related Links:

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Male Circumcision and HIV in Africa: EPIC FAIL

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

AFRICA: Yet Another Circumcision Botch

When people try to minimize male circumcision, but make a big commotion about female circumcision by saying "Female circumcision is worse," what are they comparing?

I want to know, because it seems the comparison being made is that of male infant circumcision as it happens in hospitals in the United States, to the worst possible scenario as it happens somewhere in the African bush.

"With female circumcision, women are forcibly tied down to have their labia and clitoris cut off with a rusty blade, glass shard or tin can lid, and have the remaining area sewn up to leave only a small hole for menstruation. Afterwards the must be cut back open if they want to have children, and they will never experience orgasm in their life, ever. Women experience excruciating pain. With males, it's just a little piece of skin, performed in the hospital by professionals, and they don't even remember it," seems to be the usual argument used to shut down any protest against male circumcision.

But is the comparison really this clear cut?

Is female genital cutting really only a matter of the materials used to perform the procedure? Pain management? The person who does it being a professional? In a medical setting? Is not remembering the pain and/or enjoying sex really at the crux of the argument?

The fact is that the kind of female circumcision described above is actually the rarest form of female genital cutting, also known as "infibulation." Even the WHO recognizes that there are different degrees of severity.

Could forcible female genital cutting really be made more acceptable if it were made as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision? If it were performed by a medical professional? In a medical setting? With sterile utensils under the most pristine conditions? With pain management? When a baby girl does not remember?

In the past, the AAP tried to approve a form of female genital cutting that they themselves admit would be much less severe than male infant circumcision. A "ritual nick," as it were. As recently as 2014, a paper was released in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling for a similar compromise.

Is it really just a matter of severity? Pain management? Setting? Facilitator? Effects on sexual prowess?

What if the proposed "acceptable" form of female genital cutting could result in the reduction of some disease? Say, HIV. Would it be more ethical to forcibly perform on healthy, non-consenting girls?

I'll leave the reader to answer this question for him or herself.

For now, I'd like to, once again, point out the fact that comparing the worst case scenario for female genital cutting to male infant circumcision as it is performed in hospitals in the west, is a false comparison. (Who reading this has actually seen male infant circumcision as it is performed in medical hospitals? Through the magic of YouTube, it is now possible to actually see, and hear, what happens during the forced circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting minor.)

In Africa, boys are circumcised pretty much in the same way girls are; in the bush, by amateurs, using raw utensils, under filthy conditions. As in female circumcision, male circumcision also results in failed procedures where the resulting male's organs are deformed, and/or dysfunctional. As in female circumcision, male circumcision also often results in infection. In many cases, it results in the loss of the organ itself. As in female circumcision, male circumcision often results in death.

Every year come circumcision season in Africa, the news is filled with reports of scores of men having been infected, having lost their organs, or their lives.

Yet, for whatever reason, this isn't a problem.

It isn't a problem worth reporting, and if it is, it is usually minimized or dismissed because "Circumcision helps reduce HIV." It's the men's loss for not having gone to get circumcised by a trained professional.

Why is female circumcision as performed on girls and women in Africa compared to male circumcision as it is performed in Western hospitals? Why is it not compared to its corresponding counterpart in Africa itself?

This frustrates me to no end.

The implication seems to be that female circumcision could be made more acceptable if only it were performed in the hospital, by a trained professional, using sterile utensils, with pain management, on girls too young to remember the pain.

The thing is, girls are already circumcised in this manner.

Girls are circumcised in infancy at hospitals by trained professionals in South East Asia, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore.

The people of those countries justify it by saying it is less severe than male circumcision.

And they're right.

Most female circumcisions performed in those countries are carried out without a hitch.

As in America, most women don't see a problem with it, and don't have any problem demanding that the same happen with their daughters.

So why isn't male infant circumcision as performed in the US compared with THAT?

Is it that it hits too close to home and Americans don't want to be put in the awkward position of ratifying female genital cutting? Or conversely, of questioning their own practice?

Why do purposefully avoid comparing like with like?

In Africa, yet another boy loses his penis to ritual circumcision. According to Waza:

A 13 year old boy is recuperating at his parents’ house in Webuye after a circumcision rite turned tragic. The boy accidentally got sliced on his pen!s on Tuesday as he was being initiated in to manhood in the ongoing Bukusu circumcision festivals.

The boy’s parents’ rushed him to Webuye district hospital after they realized he had been wrongly cut. They described this as an accident that was not intended.  Webuye district medical superintendant Dr. Bita confirmed they had received the boy whos manhood had been chopped off slightly  by what they suspected to be a quack circumciser and treated him before releasing him . Dr. Bita appealed to the general public to be aware of the quacks performing the cut cautioning them of other possible dangers like HIV.

Um, I'm quite sure slicing his penis was intentional. Slicing off the foreskin from a penis is the whole point of circumcision. Later the report must clarify that the boy was "wrongly" cut, meaning that the cutters cut off more than they intended. But I assure you, slicing the penis was no "accident."

And unless there is a clinical or medical indication for surgery, circumcisers are ALL "quack doctors."

In the comments, someone is already saying that circumcision is "beneficial," and that the boy should have been circumcised by a "professional."

What if female circumcision could be deemed "beneficial?"

Would we still be against it?

Related Post:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

ISRAEL: "Religious Freedom" a One-Way Street

In advance, I'd like to apologize to my readers for the bad quality of my latest posts. I barely have anytime to throw this one together. Please bear with me, forgive the recent hastiness with which I write, and forgive me where I could have expressed myself better.

On with my post...
Even in Israel, circumcision is being questioned, and there are Jewish parents who are choosing to forgo infant circumcision for their male newborns, in lieu of leaving the choice up to them when they are adults. This does not sit well with rabbinical authorities, however, and it looks like they're trying to make an example out of a dissenting woman.

To make a long story short, a rabbinical court in Israel (rabbinical courts have legal jurisdiction over religious questions, including marriage and divorce, concerning the country's Jewish majority), is forcing a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son.

As part of the divorce process, her ex-husband has asked the rabbinical court to compel her to circumcise her son, who is now 1 year old, and was never circumcised in accordance with Judaism.

A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son,

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/

A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/

A rabbinical court in Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/

The woman tried to argue that the rabbinical court does not have jurisdiction over her son, but her argument was rejected by the rabbinical judges, and the court is now fining her about $140 a day until she goes through with her child's circumcision, in order to appease her ex-husband's wishes.

The rabbinical judges claim the woman was opposing her son's circumcision as leverage to keep her husband from divorcing her, but this is strange, as, apparently, her husband didn't have a problem with their son not being circumcised until now that they're getting divorced. It would seem, at least to me, that it is quite the opposite; the man wants to use the child as leverage to keep the woman from leaving, if not permanently mark the child in his flesh as a means of retaliation against her for divorcing him.

While the rabbinical judges claim to simply be siding with the father, they have also referred explicitly to the growing debate around ritual male circumcision elsewhere in the world, and voiced their fear of a precedent that could be created if a Jewish Israeli succeeded in keeping her son whole.

Quoth the rabbinical judges:

“We have witnessed for some time now public and legal struggles against the brit milah in many countries in Europe and in the United States. The public in Israel has stood as one man (Really? Are they speaking for all of Israel?) against these trends, seeing them as yet another aspect of displays of anti-Semitism that must be combatted. How will the world react if even here the issue of circumcision is given to the discretion of any person, according to their own beliefs?”

Indeed, how would the world react if "religious freedom" was actually practiced in Israel, by those who expressly demand it in other parts of the world?

Meanwhile, in Sweden...
Meanwhile, in Sweden, a Jewish woman is claiming asylum in her own country, "for the right to live a religious life, to preserve our cultural identity, and to be who we are without fear of persecution." She protests that Jews are losing the right to practice their religious observances, namely kosher meat slaughter and, you guessed it, circumcision.

"This is the self-image—the reality—that Jewish children in Sweden grow up with: being Jewish means being under threat of harm from bad people. This is where we are at.  One by one, our practices are being outlawed. Attacks on us are going unpunished. Politicians, journalists, and intellectuals describe us as barbarians."

I wonder what self-image the child in this case, what "reality," he'll have to grow up with; what threats HE has to live under. While a Jewish practice is being outlawed in Sweden, it is outright being forced in Israel. Is it any wonder that anyone describes Jews as "barbarians?"

"True: we are not being murdered, and we are not being physically driven out. But our religious observances are being interdicted, our persons are being threatened, our safety is being endangered, and—in short—our human rights are being violated."

 Do tell, madam, do tell.

"Why do we put up with it? And why do pundits and politicians assure me that Jews in Sweden are perfectly safe when what they really mean is that we will be safe only so long as we agree to become invisible as Jews and cease to practice Judaism?"

Funny word she uses here... "invisible..." Here, it means a Jew who ceases to practice "Judaism," at least as she defines it, but in Israel, "invisible" means quite the opposite. (A good Israeli Jew is one who complies with all Jewish customs, including the one that says you must cut your children's genitals.)

"EU statutes provide that asylum be granted to persons with “well-founded reasons to fear persecution due to race; nationality; religious or political beliefs; gender; sexual orientation; or affiliation to a particular social group.” Jews in Sweden meet these criteria, and should be eligible for the same protection and support extended to non-natives."

I wonder if the woman in this divorce case meets these criteria and is eligible for this same protection and support... in her own country...

"And so today, November 18, I am legally filing for refugee status and asylum—not in America, not in Israel, but here in Sweden, my own country.
Absurd?  No doubt."

Absurd?

Let's hear what she has to say about this divorced woman in Israel.

To close:
So while in Sweden, a woman "files for asylum" because she demands the right to mutilate her (male) children in the name of "freedom," a religious court in Israel is forcing a woman to go against her own beliefs that her son should be free to make his own choice.

That's funny, because right now Israel's Knesset has sent evangelist MK's to Europe to try to get the Council of Europe to void their latest resolution declaring circumcision the violation of basic human rights that it is, on grounds that it violates "religious freedom."

While in Europe, Israeli officials are demanding "religious freedoms" be respected (nevermind the religious freedoms of the children involved), in Israel, rabbinical courts get to trample on the religious of both citizens AND their children.

Am I missing something?

Who should be filing for asylum here?

Just imagine if an Islamic court were forcing a divorcee to cut their daughter. Isn't Israel supposed to be like, the only democracy in the Middle East?

What would be the public outcry?

What utter shame and hypocrisy.

The very least the rabbinical judges in this case can do is grant this woman the freedom they claim they demand for Jews in other parts of the world.

If you want to help:
A Facebook group has been created dedicated to helping this woman out, to those who are interested.

"We're looking for help with this case, most urgently a way to donate money for the legal fees and the fines this mom is racking up. If we could piggyback on an existing charitable organization that would be great. All ideas are welcome."

UPDATE (11/27/2013):
An interview with Elinor, the mother in this case, can be read here.

Related Articles:
Haaretz

The Jewish Press

The Telegraph

+972

Mosaic

SACRILEGE: Millionaire Dani Johnson Boasts Grandson's Circumcision

Very recently, money mogul Dani Johnson openly bragged on her Facebook page about her grandson having had his genitals ritually mutilated by a rabbi. (Link may not work as she may have deactivated her post or taken it down.)

Reads the caption with a picture she posted:

"My little grandson Anthem Hosea was circumcised today by a Rabbi. Such an awesome experience to witness. I was blown when Arika told me she and Zac wanted a Rabbi to do the procedure. So deliberately making a covenant with the God of Israel, the Maker of the Heavens and the Earth, the God of Abraham. (Get ready for the hate mail)....I really DONT CARE!!! I know who I am and WHO has blessed me!! I love Him with my WHOLE HEART and I am NOT ashamed of the Gospel of Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah)."

She doesn't seem concerned that the experience may not have been so "awesome" for her grandson.

She doesn't seem to actually understand her own faith and the implications of a rabbi performing a Jewish blood rite on her gentile grandson.

She says she's "not ashamed of the gospel," yet she seems to be oblivious to what it actually says. She seems oblivious to the whole meaning of the word "Christian," where Christians are supposed to be saved by the grace of Christ (hence the name CHRISTian) and not by the keeping of Jewish law.

According to Galatians 5:1-5:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."

So is she going to start eating kosher too? Keeping Shabbat?

Is her grandson going to be raised Jewish?

It's bad enough this woman sounds oblivious to her own faith, I ask, what was the rabbi thinking when he agreed to circumcise a gentile child?

Why didn't he say "No, I only circumcise Jewish babies?" Does this not cheapen the whole significance of what is supposed to be "an holy covenant?"

Or did he intentionally do this for bragging rights?

Galatians 6:13 says:

"For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh."

This whole thing is despicable. The parents for having gone through with this, the rabbi for doing it, and this ignorant woman for bragging about it on a social network like Facebook.

Don't get me wrong, I have disdain for anyone that mutilates the genitals of a healthy child, but this rabbi, if he is worth his own salt, and others like him, should know better than to be circumcising non-Jewish babies.

Why are they doing this?

If this is such a "cherished tradition," what is the reason for circumcising non-Jewish babies willy-nilly, to whom the circumcision will have no actual significance whatsoever?

What would they think if a Jewish couple took their child to be baptized at a Catholic church?

"I really DONT CARE!!!"

...Johnson says.

Well, she should. (Or maybe she does... why else would she be preempting hate mail?)

This is her grandson she's talking about, not to mention the implications of her own faith, not to mention the implications on his own faith when he is older. 

If she can't even get her own faith straight, how can any of her advice concerning other matters be taken seriously? 

I feel sorry for that child, who has been reduced to just a mere accessory.

I don't know which is more despicable, the fact that it is acceptable to forcibly use a body that is not your own for the expression of your faith, or the fact that people can be so oblivious that they commit actions that go against their own faith, and then publicly BRAG about it.

Others have tried making educational posts on her page with the verses quoted above and more, but apparently she is just deleting them and blocking those who contradict her, self-servingly leaving up only posts that praise and validate her. It's rather sad that there seems to be a hundreds of people who are as oblivious about Christianity as she is. Talk about the blind leading the blind. 

Dani Johnson doesn't seem to be interested in educating herself, just preserving her own religious fantasies and public image of enlightened and informative millionaire.

She is sadly mistaken if she thinks we will remain silent.

"Truth suppressed will find an avenue to be told."
Related Blog Post:

Holistic Circumcision: A Blatant Oxymoron

Related Link:

What the Bible Really Says About Routine Infant Circumcision

Why Christians need not be circumcised

ILLINOIS: Law Against "Ritualized Child Abuse" Proposed - Circumcision Exempted

 

Legislation outlawing the ritualized abuse of a child has been introduced in Illinois by one Senator Don Harmon.

The catch?

It makes a specific exemption for infant genital mutilation:

15		Sec. 12-33. Ritualized abuse of a child.
16		(a) A person commits ritualized abuse of a child when he or
17		she knowingly commits any of the following acts with, upon, or
18		in the presence of a child as part of a ceremony, rite or any
19		similar observance:
20		(1) actually or in simulation, tortures, mutilates, or
21		sacrifices any warm-blooded animal or human being;
22		(2) forces ingestion, injection or other application
23		of any narcotic, drug, hallucinogen or anaesthetic for the
24		purpose of dulling sensitivity, cognition, recollection
25		of, or resistance to any criminal activity; ... 16     (b) The provisions of this Section shall not be construed 17 to apply to: .... 21         (2) the lawful medical practice of male circumcision or 22     any ceremony related to male circumcision;

If he has to write an exception to protect circumcision, what does it say about the practice?

It sounds like Senator Don Harmon is aware of the fact that this law would clearly be applicable to male infant circumcision. 

In other words, not even Keemonta Peterson would be prosecutable under the law, because it was a "ceremony."

 

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

During hospital circumcisions, babies may or may not be given anesthetic to dull their sensitivity and lessen their pain. (Most are not.) Babies are normally given a little of wine during Jewish circumcisions. Furthermore, all babies, Jewish or not, are circumcised at a time when they will be too young to remember, and cannot fight back.

Circumcision creates a wound on the penis and removes a high concentration of nerve endings that do not exist on the rest of the penis - thus causing sensory and mechanical damage to the genitals. As recently reported by Reuters and many mainstream news media, a recent study shows that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity. And there have been other reports (see Frisch and Sorrells.)

Can someone still argue that circumcision does not mutilate a human being, a minor, a baby?

More info on Don Harmon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Harmon

Thanks to dreamer for bringing attention to this on his blog.