In which comic books in the USA become clearly anti-Semitic:

[underlankers]

As some may know, there's a whole furor in San Francisco over penises. This may seem unsurprising given that it is San Francisco, except that in this case the furor is over circumcision. A man named Hess has been advocating banning circumcision of men, which is opposed by both Jews and Muslims in the city. As well it should be, for such a ban is a

Comments

[chickendelight]

I'm all for the ban.

[underlankers]

Why? Leaving aside that it's pretty blatantly against Judaism (and to a lesser degree Islam) there's no health concerns with male circumcision that make banning it worthwhile. Phobia of that in Western culture has more to do with the long legacy of Jew-hatred in this specific case predating Christianity (though rapidly picked up by the Church).

[chickendelight]

Cosmetic surgery on an infant's genitals is fucked up, no matter which way you look at it.

I kind of take a blunt edge to this subject. I don't factor anyone's religion imaginary friends into it.

[underlankers]

Er.....it's not cosmetic surgery, and removal of the foreskin is actually in some ways an improvement on health. It's no different than Christians baptizing infants.

[chickendelight]

Right, because baptism is a medical procedure. And totally modifies ones body. Gotchya!

[underlankers]

No, they are alike religious procedures. Baptizing infants ensures that if the baby dies prematurely it goes to Heaven. Circumcision with trained mohels is not a painful procedure, nor is it any viler a concept than the Eucharist, particularly if one holds to strict Transubstantiation. If the problem is that the individual involved is a baby, then it should not matter whether or not the issue is this or infant baptism.

If, OTOH, it's calling a religious practice barbarian, then that goes right into bigotry.

[chickendelight]

See, I do my best to keep people's imaginary friends out of it. That isn't even part of the issue for me. And yeah, by the way, removing healthy functioning tissue without consent...titch different from the Eucharist.

[underlankers]

You can't do that in this case. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

[chickendelight]

I don't care what particular boogeyman a person subscribes to. This shit should still be illegal.

nice icon, by the way.

[underlankers]

Again, this is a religious ritual with some pretty deep-set routes. Try as you might, you cannot remove the religious factor here.

[raichu100]

Read this convo and I have to say I agree with you...you can make it a religious issue if you want, but bottom line is you're mutilating a body without consent, and those of us who think that is wrong do not factor religion into our opinion.

[_wanderer_]

I don't favor the ban, but simply because it is a deeply-held religious ritual does not mean it is off-limits.

[qnetter]

Circumcision even by trained mohels IS painful for babies - to deny that suggests that you've never attended one or are just lying. That's why we give the kids wine.

[underlankers]

Well, I've never attended one, so....

[qnetter]

I've attended a few dozen I remember, as well as my own which I don't. You make a pretty strong assumption for someone who hasn't ever attended one.

[underlankers]

Isn't making strong assumptions without much evidence a summary of argument on the Internet in general?