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

[policraticus]

I saw this and immediately thought, if you are cribbing from Julius Streicher, you are losing the argument. How anyone could green light this for publication in a supposedly "liberal," "tolerant," "evolved" haven like SF and not see the obvious and direct parallels to Der Stürmer is beyond me.

[underlankers]

Two possibilities: either the people who greenlit this actually agree with the message in it, or San Francisco is not as liberal, tolerant, and evolved as it's credited to be.

[policraticus]

I think it is one possibility, actually:

The people who greenlit this actually agree with the message in itand San Francisco is not as liberal, tolerant, and evolved as it's credited to be.

[underlankers]

That's a fair point, too. I just said those were two options, not that they were the only ones or the only possibilities. Either way, this thing as written is indefensible with this putting the cherry on the fail Sundae.

An observation

[geezer_also]

The next place they are taking this is to (the people's republic of) Santa Monica. These are 2 of the 3 most liberal bastians in Calif (why did they skip Berkley?).
Since this forum is mostly inhabited by liberals of all stripes, my query is this: Is anti circumcision to be the next great liberal cause?

Re: An observation

[underlankers]

There's always been overtones to liberalism of anti-religion. This appears to be the latest spasm of it. I think, too, though, that California is not necessarily as liberal as everyone says it is. It's the state of Berkley to be sure, but Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are also Californians.

Re: An observation

[geezer_also]

Sorry, did you mean to suggest that the govenator was conservative?

Re: An observation

[underlankers]

I meant that he's a Right-Winger. Not all Right-Wingers are conservatives any more than all conservatives are Right-Wingers (the obvious example of non-Right-Wing conservatives are the guys behind the Soviet 1991 coup. They were diehard Leftists but also reactionaries).

[anfalicious]

According to one of the commentators on the website you linked to, the supreme court has ruled that Jews are white, therefore you can't be racist against them *trufax*

[underlankers]

That kind of stupidity leaves me speechless. O.o

[blue_mangos]

You read the comments at the source? That's a die-hard rule of mine, never read the comments at the source, lest my head explode from rage and/or too much laughing at stupidity. You are a brave man.

[anfalicious]

Yeah, I just give it a skim. This comment was #1 so it didn't require much :P

I favor voluntary circumcision.

[sophia_sadek]

Religious freedom can be taken to the extreme of allowing people to abuse their children for supposedly religious reasons. If circumcision were truly a religious ritual, it would be entered into voluntarily. My position on baptism is similar, but it is not a form of mutilation, so I do not see it as as extreme as circumcision. Baptism without free will is a hollow ritual. There is a connection, of course, because infant baptism was a replacement for circumcision.

The practice of circumcision is a vestige of slavery. Just as the slave master has control over the body of the slave, the parent has control over the body of the child. When Abraham was enslaved by an alien deity, he was force to sacrifice his wholeness and the wholeness of his children for generations to come. From a political perspective, circumcision is evidence of continued Egyptian hegemony in Jewish culture. I associate it more with Pharaoh than with a higher power.

There are Jews who recognize the barbarity of the ritual and oppose the practice.

Re: I favor voluntary circumcision.

[harry_beast]

There are other, more plausible reasons than slavery for assigning control over the body of a child to a parent. It could be argued, for example, that children at a young age do not have the life experience, maturity or knowledge to make informed decisions about things that affect their bodies.

Re: I favor voluntary circumcision.

[mrsilence]

The thing is, it doesn't significantly affect their bodies until they reach the age of sexual maturity anyway.

At which point they are old enough that you can't reasonably refuse them the right to make the decision themselves, regardless of life experience or maturity.

If they are old enough to be having sex and making babies surely they're old enough to be deciding whether or not to chop bits of themselves off.

Re: I favor voluntary circumcision.

[sophia_sadek]

Forcefully initiating a child into an ancient priestly order at the age of eight days seems more like slavery than good guardianship.

[hey_its_michael]

If one believes that banning circumcision is anti-religion, then one must think that circumcising an infant does not violate that infant's human rights.

There are many of us who do consider circumcision a practice that DOES violate the rights of a baby (who cannot consent to having his genitalia modified). Therefore, religion does not excuse this practice.

[raichu100]

this.

[jerseycajun]

The child cannot consent for any number of things because it is a child. It posses a more limited set of rights the balance of which are entrusted to the parent until the point of maturity. The question becomes a matter of harm and violence. Violent acts entail more in their nature than simply body modification. If it didn't doctors and parents would be guilty any time surgery was performed on a child. The child cannot distinguish between the effect of a ritual and the effect of a surgery if they are both carried out in caring conditions and surroundings.

[hey_its_michael]

The relevant point to me isn't just that the child cannot consent.  Modifying genitalia is not "simply body modification", IMHO.  It removes a great deal of nerve connections and reduces sexual pleasure in a male.  It modifies the appearance of the male's genitalia for reasons beyond those that the child might otherwise choose.  My concern is not solely whether or not the infant can tell what is going on while someone lops off part of his genitalia (although that is relevant).  Instead, it is about the changes that the parents are imposing on the most intimate part of that infant's body before the infant can even speak his mind or fight back, if he were so inclined.

There are many things that we now consider "violent" no matter the manner in which they are conducted.  Good intentions behind a particular act do not neutralize the otherwise violent nature of that conduct.