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

[sandwichwarrior]

Between this and Representative Weiner's wiener the Onion will soon be out of a job.

That or become a legitimate news source.

[underlankers]

I think it became a legitimate news source back when they made Atlas Shrugged into a three-part movie.

[ddstory]

Don't worry, there'll be always food for the Onion. Especially after Palin decides to run. That'll be Lulz-Bonanza!

[a_new_machine]

We bar a lot of religious rituals. If you're having peyote off a reservation, you will be arrested. Same for pot if you're a Rastafarian. Are those morally indefensible *because* they interfere with religious rituals?

I'll agree that the comic is obviously anti-Semitic. This does not mean the ban is. To quote Eugene Volokh, "As best I can tell, opponents of male circumcision believe that it’s a serious interference with the rights of boys, and the men they’ll become, and a serious harm to those boys and men. If that’s so, then there’s every reason for them to think that it’s just as much an interference with rights, and just as much of a harm, when the conduct is done for religious reasons. And therefore it makes perfect sense that, with no hostility to the religion as such, the backers would refuse to include a religious exemption. The refusal to give people a religious exemption from a ban on behavior that you think is harmful and rights-violating hardly shows a hostility to religion - it shows a hostility to the behavior, whether

[underlankers]

Arguably, yes. Given that plenty of people *do* want cannabis legalized.

I disagree that the ban is not anti-Semitic, given that the guy behind the comic is the one who advocated for the ban in the first place.

[a_new_machine]

Arguably, yes. Given that plenty of people *do* want cannabis legalized.

Again, not the question. Whether it should or should not be legalized, the question is whether it would be immoral solely because we do not provide a religious exemption. Whether it's immoral for other reasons isn't the question - it's whether barring any religious ritual, even an arguably inhumane one, is immoral solely because it lacks the exception. For a more relevant example: is the ban on religious sacrifice of animals immoral because we don't have an exception for voodoun practitioners? That's arguably an inherently problematic behavior - is it immoral to bar it without a religious exception, though?

As for whether it's anti-Semitic or not... well, we can't ascribe the intent of the one guy to all of the people who vote for it.

[underlankers]

In this specific case, yes, it is immoral. The practice of circumcision has been used as a libel against Jews dating back to the era of polytheistic Rome. Banning it in that sense, but disguised under various pretexts as health or outlawing mutilation is also quite old. In my view that is exactly what this kind of ban is, a new spin on an old vice.

[silver_chipmunk]

You forgot to mention that Monster Mohel's opponant, Foreskin Man is bright blond and blue-eyed like something out of a Nazi recruitment poster.

*sigh*

[underlankers]

You're right. It's just....bizarre.

[telemann]

As a gay man, when I first encountered the circumcision debate (via IRC), I really found the anti-circumcision folks just very odd: the intensity of anger about this issue was just off the charts for me. I didn't get it then, I don't get it now. But yeah, that cartoon is some nasty stuff.

[underlankers]

The guy behind this is one of the major pushers of the ban. And I might note that with a name like Hess, this comic doesn't exactly help his case (and in any case the whole anti-circumcision thing for men is ridiculous).

[telemann]

Yeah to be honest? It looks like Nazi posters from Germany prior to WW2.

[underlankers]

Indeed.

[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.