Most of you have already heard of the drive to ban ritual circumcision in the City and County of San Francisco. Here is the report from HotAir.com.
Circumcision-Hatred: It Was Only A Matter A TimeIn targeting religious observance, they left out the other major religion which insists on ritual circumcision.
J. E. Dyer, June 4, 2011
You have to wonder if these people are sane.
The San Diego-based group that is laboring to get circumcision banned in San Francisco has perpetrated a comic book. In it, a superhero named Foreskin Man saves a baby boy from being circumcised by the evil Monster Mohel, a vicious-looking Orthodox Jewish rabbi who could have been drawn by an acolyte of Joseph Goebbels.
Indeed, Foreskin Man has a distinctly Hitlerian “Aryan” look to him.
It’s crystal clear from the dialogue that the perpetrator of this literary opus intends to depict the Judaic religious view of circumcision as evil and repulsive. The “comic” hauls out every theme of Jew hatred in the arsenal.
Note that these circumcision-haters could have addressed the issue as one of science, medicine, personal autonomy, or even just a social issue on which reasonable people can disagree.
But they didn’t. The case they’re making is that circumcision is evil because Jews do it as a religious observance.
Do you really think they would ever publish comparable, comic book with Muslim characters?
Of course, they wouldn't. The radical left (for some reason I still cannot fathom) traditionally panders to Muslims. The rescuing of boys could never hope to outweigh this.
I can imagine the justification as to why not, already. Many Muslims have the tradition of circumcising their sons in their teen years, as is even mention in the Torah regarding their forefather Yishma'el (Gen. 17:23-26). Thus, they have reached a stage of cognitive development allowing them to give informed consent.
Do you think that in Islamic regimes, teen-aged boys really have choice in the matter? Ironically, Muslim men and boys residing in Israel do have that choice.
Elder Of Ziyon has more images and commentary here.
Besides the general Anti-Jewish sentiment out there, there are a few additional points which need to be emphasized.
1. There are Jews behind this move to ban circumcision in the City and County of San Francisco. This may surprise you, but not me.
In the '90's I was already hearing some of those identifying themselves as "Reconstructionists" and "Jewish Renewalists" call brith milah "ritual sexual abuse," "ritual sexual mutilation," and other, similar, nasty, catch phrases.
How can anyone say that these people (I suppose some of them are real Jews) practice the religion know as Judaism?
Even the generally, self-hating Anti-Defamation League [ADL] got it right this time.
The Anti-Defamation League is right. The attempt to ban circumcision in San Francisco is driven by anti-Semitism. The case could have been made without depicting a scary rabbi named Monster Mohel slavering over a naked infant – but it wasn’t.2. What's next? Most Jews in the U. S. downplay or selectively forget the shootings, muggings, vandalism directed toward them. They cannot handle the disturbance to their numbed-out existence as upstanding "American citizens."
When the Jews assimilated into 15th Century, Spanish society. Torquemada still tortured them. When the Jews tried to become Lutheran, the Lutherans still did not accept them. When the Jews proclaimed their German-ness, Hilter יש"ו still killed them.
But that was all in the past, right? The world has evolved, and becoming more open and progressive, right?
Apparently not.
Some of you will continue the same ol' rhetoric:
"It's an isolated incident."
"You're just paranoid."
"It's only these nuts in San Francisco."
"The Israel-loving Christians will save us."
"Surely, the Muslims will not let this happen. They'll be next!"
When are you going to learn? You are a stranger in a strange land (Ex. 2:22). You are Jews, and our natural home is in Eretz Yisrael., not in the U. S.
For those of you who simply cannot get this message, because you are so "pragmatic," will see the warning signs, and realize that you are not welcome.
Hopefully, you will add up all of the warning signs from recent history and start making plans to leave.
Why wait around to find out what the next gezeirah (decree) against the Jews will be?
1 comment:
Hmmm, interesting.
I have said before, that if any of these anti-circumcision activists were libertarians who were arguing that circumcising a child without consent, is no different than doing any other bodily injury to a man without his consent, then I would respect such a view. That is, if the same people who argue against circumcision, also argued against taxation and Social Security and import tariffs, and all sorts of other acts of non-consensual interference, then they would be being consistent, and I would respect them for their convictions.
Indeed, I would be very sympathetic to such a view. If these people were impelled by a sincere and thorough and consistent fight against any non-consensual acts by one man or group of men against another, then I would have to very much respect their convictions. They might ban circumcision, but they would also be equally opposed to every other act of violence or robbery in history. They would oppose every pogrom against Jews for the exact same reason they opposed circumcision by Jews. Their banning circumcision would be incorrect (so says God in the Torah), but of all the wrong people on earth, they'd be the closest to the truth. They'd be closer to following the Noahide law to establish just courts, and banning all unjust violence and robbery, than anyone else in history has ever been.
But of course, these people are not like that. They oppose a parent's circumcising a child without the child's consent, but have no problem with taxation without consent. They obviously don't care about human rights or liberty or dignity. It is just plain antisemitism, as you argue.
I see a similar thing when people quote Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists", where he famously speaks of an absolute wall of separation between church and state. What the people who quote Jefferson fail to realize, is that the same Jefferson, in his "The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom", argued that all taxation without consent is a violation of religious liberty. Patrick Henry had been proposing a Massachusetts-style established church, which would allow everyone full freedom to worship in his own way, as long as he paid taxes to support the state church. No one would be compelled to frequent the church; you just had to pay taxes, and then you'd be left alone. That is what Jefferson was against. So these leftists who quote Jefferson about the wall of separation, why aren't they quoting the same Jefferson that all taxation without consent is tyrannical? The logic of Jefferson's view would say, for example, that being forced to pay taxes to support a public school whose views you oppose, is exactly the same as being forced to pay taxes to support a state church whose views you oppose. But again, the leftists curiously lack consistency. It is not religious coercion they are opposed to (if it were, they would ban public schooling too), but just religion period.
Kudos.
In any case, here's a video you might appreciate: here.
Post a Comment