# City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies*

Edward Reed
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg met with Orthodox leaders and health officials at City Hall on Aug. 11 to discuss a practice that some rabbis consider integral to God's covenant with the Jews requiring circumcision.
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
By ANDY NEWMAN
Published: August 26, 2005
A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.

The city's intervention has angered many Orthodox leaders, and the issue has left the city struggling to balance its mandate to protect public health with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

"This is a very delicate area, so to speak," said Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden.

The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.

Since February, the mohel, Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, 57, has been under court order not to perform the ritual in New York City while the health department is investigating whether he spread the infection to the infants.

Pressure from Orthodox leaders on the issue led Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and health officials to meet with them on Aug. 11. The mayor's comments on his radio program the next day seemed meant to soothe all parties and not upset a group that can be a formidable voting bloc: "We're going to do a study, and make sure that everybody is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."

The health department, after the meeting, reiterated that it did not intend to ban or regulate oral suction. But Dr. Frieden has said that the city is taking this approach partly because any broad rule would be virtually unenforceable. Circumcision generally takes place in private homes.

Dr. Frieden said the department regarded herpes transmission via oral suction as "somewhat inevitable to occur as long as this practice continues, if at a very low rate."

The use of suction to stop bleeding dates back centuries and is mentioned in the Talmud. The safety of direct oral contact has been questioned since the 19th century, and many Orthodox and nearly all non-Orthodox Jews have abandoned it. Dr. Frieden said he hoped the rabbis would voluntarily switch to suctioning the blood through a tube, an alternative endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Orthodox rabbis.

But the most traditionalist groups, including many Hasidic sects in New York, consider oral suction integral to God's covenant with the Jews requiring circumcision, and they have no intention of stopping.

"The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years," said Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organization in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, after the meeting with the mayor. "We do not change. And we will not change."

David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel, an umbrella organization of Orthodox Jews, said that metzitzah b'peh is probably performed more than 2,000 times a year in New York City.

The potential risks of oral suction, however, are not confined to Orthodox communities. Dr. Frieden said in March that the health department had fielded several calls from panicked non-Orthodox parents who had hired Hasidic mohels unaware of what their services entailed.

Defenders of oral suction say there is no proof that it spreads herpes at all. They say that mohels use antiseptic mouthwash before performing oral suction, and that the known incidence of herpes among infants who have undergone it is minuscule. (The city's health department recorded cases in 1988 and 1998, though doctors in New York, as in most states, are not required to report neonatal herpes.)

Dr. Kenneth I. Glassberg, past president of the New York section of the American Urological Association and director of pediatric urology at Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital of New York-Presbyterian, said that while he found oral suction "personally displeasing," he did not recommend that rabbis stop using it.

"If I knew something caused a problem from a medical point of view," said Dr. Glassberg, whose private practice includes many Hasidic families, "I would recommend against it."

But Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a microbiologist and professor of Talmud and medical ethics at Yeshiva University, said that metzitzah b'peh violates Jewish law.

"The rule that's above all rules in the Torah is that you cannot expose or accept a risk to health unless there is true justification for it," said Dr. Tendler, co-author of a 2004 article in the journal Pediatrics that said direct contact posed a serious risk of infection.

"Now there have been several cases of herpes in the metro area," he said. "Whether it can be directly associated with this mohel nobody knows. All we're talking about now is presumptive evidence, and on that alone it would be improper according to Jewish law to do oral suction."

The inconsistent treatment of Rabbi Fischer himself indicates the confusion metzitzah b'peh has sown among health authorities, who typically regulate circumcisions by doctors but not religious practitioners.

In Rockland County, where Rabbi Fischer lives in the Hasidic community of Monsey, he has been barred from performing oral suction. But the state health department retracted a request it had made to Rabbi Fischer to stop the practice. And in New Jersey, where Rabbi Fischer has done some of his 12,000 circumcisions, the health authorities have been silent.

Rabbi Fischer's lawyer, Mark J. Kurzmann, said that absent conclusive proof that the rabbi had spread herpes, he should be allowed to continue the practice. Rabbi Fischer said through Mr. Kurzmann that the twin who died and the Staten Island boy both had herpes-like rashes before they were circumcised and were seen by a pediatrician who approved their circumcision. The health department declined to comment on its investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/n...26065600&en=61a802fbd84f4721&ei=5070&emc=eta1


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, this information is both interesting and elucidating, and gives new meaning to the term "c___-sucker".



> "We do not change. And we will not change."


Ah yes - the reason why ALL religions and their permutations are doomed to failure...

Mel


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Interesting case. I have a problem with the non modernisation of religion, particularly when it comes from sects who have created rituals between the middle ages and the enlightenment and confuse them with the original intention of the bible. I find it very difficult to bond with somebody who wears a fur hat and woollen stockings by 40 degrees because a distant ancestor in Russia did it.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Moscool said:


> I find it very difficult to bond with somebody who wears a fur hat and woollen stockings by 40 degrees because a distant ancestor in Russia did it.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

i like the part about non- orthodox hiring a sucker to cut the kid. I can imagine their faces. Ja!

well, to quote Forrest " Happens 
what? ****? 
Sometimes "


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Oh, by the way..................... poor kids
(and i'm not kidding this time)


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Melonie said:


> Ah yes - the reason why ALL religions and their permutations are doomed to failure...
> 
> Mel



Or, rather, why people are attracted to religion in the first place... A lack of change-- an "agelessness"-- and a dogmatic opposition to an obsession with the novel that characterizes much of the "secular" is very attractive to many human beings, I think.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

What a bizarre practice. Who can really believe God demands this?

But then again, the idea that "God hates foreskins" () is even more peculiar. I would have much prefered to have been left intact than "corrected."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

one can only imagine the outcry had it been roman catholic priests


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The practice evolved into one followed by much of western society based on the purported "health aspect" of the procedure. It became more than a religious ritual for that reason and is still widely practiced today even in Canada.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> The practice evolved into one followed by much of western society based on the purported "health aspect" of the procedure. It became more than a religious ritual for that reason and is still widely practiced today even in Canada.


I certainly agree with the historical understanding of why this occurs... however, it is still mutilation on a totally unwilling and helpless participant. If an adult chooses to engage in body modification, so be it that is their decision. A baby has no choice in this regards...

How is this different from female genital mutilation in certain african cultures? Granted the female has this done to them when they are much older and much more aware of the pain involved.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Anybody who follows a religious belief in the face of common sense, medical knowledge, and science fact is a complete moron.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> The practice evolved into one followed by much of western society based on the purported "health aspect" of the procedure. It became more than a religious ritual for that reason and is still widely practiced today even in Canada.



ummm, SINC, I think ye missed the point
the article discussed the passing of sexually transmitted diseases vis-a-vis the "mouth blood sucking" of the child's penis during the circumcision

I can't even imagine how that is justified and then passing along a disease to the helpless child in the "name of God"

Oye vey.

Circumcision practiced in a medical environment is a different issue, but I still disagree with it.
I am waiting for the first law suit of a child suing his parents for sanctioning such a procedure upon their person.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Anybody who follows a religious belief in the face of common sense, medical knowledge, and science fact is a complete moron.


Sad to see that the only contribution to the discussion you can offer is name calling.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, I was circumcised when I was 8 days old, as prescribed in the Jewish faith. According to my parents, I cried a bit but then stopped. Of course, I had a very good Moyl. My son was circumcised in a medical procedure using rings around the tip of the penis. Thus, it cut off blood circulation to the foreskin, and, after a couple of weeks, it easily came off. So, we are both circumcised, but I went through a bit of pain, and he slept through the initial procedure............and laughed and peed all over the doctor when the rings were removed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

guytoronto, I too echo Sinc's comment. I don't closely follow the traditional Jewish faith, but I do observe certain customs and holidays. Still, I don't see why you need to call someone who practices a faith, regardless of the faith, a "moron".


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Slightly off topic, but not completely unrelated:

When we were preparing for Xander's arrival the hospital made it very clear that they would _not_ perform circumcision, that we would need to get a "specialist" (their words) -- but it had to be withing 10 days (if I recall) of birth. We talked to several expecting parents and they said it is very difficult for parents to find a qualified person (in Gatineau) outside of the medical premises to get their sons "snipped" at birth. I'm not sure if it's a decline in people wanting this sort of thing, or if the medical establishment is making it difficult for people to get it done in a sterile environment.

I'm completely ignorant of the whole issue, admittedly. We never worried about it since I'm a "turtle-neck" kind of guy, so it was never an issue up for discussion with us... but if (some) hospitals are refusing to do this... what is the alternative?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm sorry...



> "The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years," said Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organization in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, after the meeting with the mayor. "We do not change. And we will not change."
> 
> Defenders of oral suction say there is no proof that it spreads herpes at all. They say that mohels use antiseptic mouthwash before performing oral suction, and that the known incidence of herpes among infants who have undergone it is minuscule. (The city's health department recorded cases in 1988 and 1998, though doctors in New York, as in most states, are not required to report neonatal herpes.)


Nope. Not sorry. Morons!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Don't thik this is going to snopes.

I am against circumcision of non Jews / Muslims.
If you don't have a religious reason to snip you have absolutly no buisness doing it. The reason it is difficult find a doctor to do this in Gatineau (and other places in Canada) is that this procedure is no longer recomended.

Here is a post I made on this subject in a different forum. I'll share it with you now. There is a lot of information about circumcision here.


> OhTay wrote:
> Males can develop infections if not circumcised.
> 
> This is a myth. Males are more likely to develop infections if circuncised.
> ...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Based on all that, why would it even be considered acceptable to do it for religious reasons?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

guytoronto, in the Jewish faith the celebration of a new life, a new beginning, is an unparalleled joy for family and friends. At the Bris the baby is given a Hebrew name which further binds him to the Jewish faith and tradition. This would forever be symbolized by the Bris Milah (Covenant of Circumcision). Throughout the generations the Jewish people have been unyielding in performing this mitzvah (i.e., a good deed). Bris Milah was often performed in secret, defying innumerable despots and hostile regimes (e.g., Spain during the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, et al, all tried to ban Bris Milah.)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I will not argue that because it is an argument that will NEVER be won. There is no point to it.
The reality is I think circumcision is wrong but I will not bother to argue with people on this subject when it is about religion. I'll leave it to people with more patience than I.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> guytoronto, in the Jewish faith the celebration of a new life, a new beginning, is an unparalleled joy for family and friends. At the Bris the baby is given a Hebrew name which further binds him to the Jewish faith and tradition. This would forever be symbolized by the Bris Milah (Covenant of Circumcision). Throughout the generations the Jewish people have been unyielding in performing this mitzvah (i.e., a good deed). Bris Milah was often performed in secret, defying innumerable despots and hostile regimes (e.g., Spain during the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, et al, all tried to ban Bris Milah.)


Dr. G,
You may want to re-read the article.
The "crazy" part is that;
1. blood sucking of child's penis ( I can't believe that I just typed that)
2. passing of a disease via this non-medical procedure to a child that died

That rabbi should be put in jail.
Surely you can see that.

I don't see this as a pro vs. con discussion re: circumcision, even though I don't see the worth of it.

The horror is the attitude of the rabbi who doesn't see anything wrong with passing along a disease that killed a child.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I'm sorry...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Not sorry. Morons!


When one points a finger at others and calls them names, one should always remember that one has three fingers pointing directly back at themselves.

Juvenile attitude indeed.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Juvenile attitude indeed.


Pointing out the fact that someone is a moron, when indeed they are a moron is not juvenile.

How about addressing the serverity of the situation instead of worrying how I judge people.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Pointing out the fact that someone is a moron, when indeed they are a moron is not juvenile.
> 
> How about addressing the serverity of the situation instead of worrying how I judge people.


Calling anyone a moron are the words of a seriously disturbed person. Your judgement is severely impaired.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I find it perplexing how many are so concerned with removing a babies foreskin yet in a debate about abortion would have no problem with an entire baby being cut to ribbons alive for any reason at all at any time during a pregnancy. Its amazing what a difference a few hours can make and a babies location. 
Lots of outrage and compassion over a perfectly good foreskin but none whatsoever for a perfectly good human being. 
What a strange world we live in.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, this "sucking" is not a common practice, and is only performed with children of Jewish parents for a specific orthodox sect, which is not a large segment of the total Jewish population. While I don't agree with this practice, I could see banning this particular Moyl from performing this act, because of his illness. I chose the non-cutting medical procedure for my son, which is effective and painless. Thus, I am not in favor of banning circumcision of any kind.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> I find it perplexing how many are so concerned with removing a babies foreskin yet in a debate about abortion would have no problem with an entire baby being cut to ribbons alive for any reason at all at any time during a pregnancy. Its amazing what a difference a few hours can make and a babies location.


Let's be honest. Doctors don't tend to perform abortions in the third trimester. This is not a matter of hours. It's a matter of months. Don't twist the facts. And why don't we stick to current topic.

It's about a mohel with a twisted sense of religion killing babies by infecting them with herpes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, this "sucking" is not a common practice, and is only performed with children of Jewish parents for a specific orthodox sect, which is not a large segment of the total Jewish population. While I don't agree with this practice, I could see banning this particular Moyl from performing this act, because of his illness. I chose the non-cutting medical procedure for my son, which is effective and painless. Thus, I am not in favor of banning circumcision of any kind.


Marc,
I again reiterate that the purpose of the article was not to discuss the pros and cons of non-medical circumcision, but you seem to keep wanting to bring the discussion back that way.



> I could see banning this particular Moyl from performing this act, because of his illness.


I would have much stronger words for a man [Moyl] with such obvious evil in his heart.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

From what I read, the mohel had the common form of herpes that causes cold sores. Not anything serious to any adult, but to infants, it's deadly. I doubt he had evil in his heart. He just has a misguided sense of religion.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Calling anyone a moron are the words of a seriously disturbed person. Your judgement is severely impaired.


Well Doctor, do you have a recommended treatment for the patient? After all, if you can accurately identify serious mental disturbance from a few forum postings, you can surely prescribe an appropriate method of recovery.

Telling someone he is "seriously disturbed" instead of calling him a "moron" is both hurtful and pretentious. It is worse than name-calling; it's verbose name-calling.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> The practice evolved into one followed by much of western society based on the purported "health aspect" of the procedure. It became more than a religious ritual for that reason and is still widely practiced today even in Canada.


No, it was adopted to "control" masturbation. So it was both ineffective and unnecessary.

As for someone's comment about a "sterile" environment, this practice should be removed from maternity wards. Doctors are there for medical reasons. This completely non-medical practice should be passed into the hands of private practitioners, just like most optional medical procedures. If this were to happen, it wouldn't need to be banned. Removing circumcision from hospitals would remove the convenience factor of having a baby cut. It would become a dead practice in a generation.

(See, you don't have to ban everything to solve problems. )


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Let's be honest. Doctors don't tend to perform abortions in the third trimester. This is not a matter of hours. It's a matter of months. Don't twist the facts. And why don't we stick to current topic.


Ok, let's be honest. Doctor do perform abortions in the third trimester. That's what the big debate over D&X abortions ("partial-birth") was about.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Ok, let's be honest. Doctor do perform abortions in the third trimester. That's what the big debate over D&X abortions ("partial-birth") was about.


Well, that is seriously disturbing, but something for a different thread.

I'm more concerned with vampire-rabbis. There is just something so wrong with that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

google ad that came up when I viewed this thread last

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/ said:


> A male born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether he is circumcised or not.


Wonder what happens if he doesn't believe in the faith. Is he still Jewish?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Wonder what happens if he doesn't believe in the faith. Is he still Jewish?" Yes. Hitler rounded up these people just as he did those who believed in and practiced the Jewish faith.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A period of history that shall never be forgotten Dr. G. What Hitler did to Jews was monstrous and horrible.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

and on these note, we conclude today's thread.


CUT !!!!!






the thread, that is. I'm no moron


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

When you push away all the religious connotations, it's a man sucking a child's penis. Aren't there laws that cover this? Even Jacko didn't do it, or so they said.

They have to toss this bizarre ritual into the bonfire along with other cherished religious relics such as polygamy, slave-keeping, human sacrifice and bride burning. Or does it benefit humankind in some way?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> They have to toss this bizarre ritual into the bonfire along with other cherished religious relics such as polygamy, slave-keeping, human sacrifice and bride burning.


Polygamy is not a religious practice, it is a cultural one. While a small group of American-founded fundamentalist groups prescribed polygamy, it is the only example. In the rest of the world, polygamy is neither required nor restricted, just the same as monogamy.

And polygamy is a growing trend, not a "relic." The phenomenon of marriage/divorce/marriage/divorce is really a kind of serial polygamy. Also, polyamory is a tiny but growing sub-culture. The practice of having a spouse and a lover on is a kind of polygamy - in some European nations, a mistress has most of the same legal rights as a spouse. Finally, the teenage trend of "hooking-up" is really a kind of polygamy/polyandry mixture.

Really, monogamy is a dead relic of the past. The notion of exclusive, life-time lovers is well over.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> And polygamy is a growing trend, not a "relic."


Cool. Go for it then.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, and sadly this form of genocide continues today. Paix, mon frere.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I have to ask why this form of sexual abuse (sucking blood from an infant's penis) hasn't made the Sunday talk shows and tv news. It's just plain wrong. Religion is a horrible excuse for this type of act.

Dr. G.,
I don't understand how you tie in genocide to this thread.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> They have to toss this bizarre ritual into the bonfire along with other cherished religious relics such as polygamy, slave-keeping, human sacrifice and bride burning. Or does it benefit humankind in some way?


Don't forget female circumcision. Rampant in some cultures....

Mel


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I have been to many brises, including brises performed by orthodox Rabbis, and never seen this practice employed. In Toronto, the two busiest mohels for over 50 years were MDs as well as mohels.

I regret that this issue has fuelled more of the religion bashing that turns up too often on this board. Escalating the otherwise warranted criticism of this "oral suction" practice to absurd claims of "sexual abuse", tarring all Jews (and modern Judaism) with this practice, making fun of Hasidic Jews for how they dress.... I don't know what to say. 

Some of you are not quite as enlightened as you think you are.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

guytoronto: for a moment there I thought you said vampire rabbits! What a relief, we don't have to worry about those - or do we...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, re your comment that "I don't understand how you tie in genocide to this thread", I was replying to what Sinc wrote when he said "A period of history that shall never be forgotten Dr. G. What Hitler did to Jews was monstrous and horrible." I would have said the same thing had Sinc written about the genocide undertaken by Stalin. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> Anybody who follows a religious belief in the face of common sense, medical knowledge, and science fact is a complete moron.


Just read through quite a bit of this thread and came across this post. guytoronto, you're free to your own opinions and to disagree with others, but your comment is discriminatory and abusive and not welcome on ehMac.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and i bet he doesn't like Bono either
uh oh.....


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ehMax said:


> Just read through quite a bit of this thread and came across this post. guytoronto, you're free to your own opinions and to disagree with others, but your comment is discriminatory and abusive and not welcome on ehMac.


I gotta say, mayor, I read far more abusive stuff here than that, but no one says anything. In particular, the name-calling here is unreal.

However,

Let's say I believe that every full moon, I turn into a wolf. And I mean really believe. Believing that I wolf-out every month flies "in the face of common sense, medical knowledge, and science fact." It IS a rather moronic belief.

I think Tom Cruise is a moron for saying severe depression can be treated with "exercise and vitamins." I think Ann Coulter is a moron for suggesting we solve terrorism by "killing their leaders and converting [Muslims] to Christianity." I think Dan Brown is a moron for believing the Merovingian kings were direct decendants of Jesus. Moronic beliefs, inspired by religion, are common.

I do not think these orthodox Jews are morons. But I do think this practice flies "in the face of common sense, medical knowledge, and science fact." Jews tend to think so too, as only a miniscule minority of them still practice it.

You need to be clear: are you condemning the name-calling, or the criticism of this odd practice?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You need to be clear: are you condemning the name-calling, or the criticism of this odd practice?


I agree 100% with lpkmckenna. Calling a religious practice stupid or bizarre is merely a blunt, honest statement of facts over superstitution. But many feel that any "belief" is sanctioned and untouchable because it's religious. The sacred cows of organized religion is what's being attacked.

Look at how much misogyny and anti-gay bias is protected because it's within the realm of religion. A round cracker miraculously turns into human flesh at the altar, sucking on a child's penis and passing along venereal disease is okay because it's holy. Same thing. 

I realize that in a past century I would have been burned at the stake for my thoughts.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Funny thing about this is (as was pointed out earlier) that Rabinical authorites have ruled that The Law was made for man not man for The Law. This has been interpreted pretty much universally to mean that one must break the Law if an issue of health is concerned. Given that, this practice should not be followed if the Rabbi is potentially going to pass on disease. Infact it would be a sin. It could even be said that because of what we now know about disease transmition that no Rabbi should perform this.
Even a fanatic, like this Rabbi obviously is, should know better. Seems to me thsi Rabbi is a good candidate for an assult charge and lawsuit.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

To clarify:

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. You can pray to whatever god, idol (American or Canadian), or whatever. There is nothing in science that can disprove the possible existence of a higher being.

It's when people start doing stupid things that "flies in the face of common sense, medical knowledge, and science fact" that I have a problem.

Bathing kids in fruit juice to ward of illness, sucking blood from an infants penis, as part of a ritual, genital mutilation...that kind of stuff. That's the stuff that I find moronic.

So go ahead and don't eat pork. You'll probably live longer than me, but I'll have the tasty pork chops.


----------

