Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 954

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Doxie

Doxie

SUICIDEGIRL

Oregon, USA

FEB 06, 2006 09:00 PM

How far can Americans go with our pledge to religious freedom? Not this far! A ritual called the metzitzah b'peh practiced by some Hasidic Jews of New York (also called oral suction) is just TOO MUCH!

After removing the foreskin, the mohel, who conducts the circumcision, cleans the wound by sucking blood from it. According to city health officials, the ritual may have caused three infants circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004 to contract neonatal herpes (one of the infants subsequently died).



I respect everyone's right as an individual to practice their own religion, participate in the rituals that go with it. I can even respect a parent dragging their kid along to the church of their choice. But forcing this kind of behavior on your child is completely inappropriate.

I don't care what God you believe in, no God can save your child from the diseases he can catch from this kind of practice.

MightyTick

MightyTick

Albany, NY
December 2005

FEB 06, 2006 09:08 PM

Slippery slope defending or prosecuting this one. I commend anyone who can take a definitive stance on this. You are a better judge of other people's culture than I.

pearldiver

pearldiver

San Antonio, TX
November 2005

FEB 06, 2006 09:08 PM

I saw an article about this awhile back. In what other avenue could someone do this and NOT be charged with some type of molestation?

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

FEB 06, 2006 09:17 PM

pearldiver said:
I saw an article about this awhile back. In what other avenue could someone do this and NOT be charged with some type of molestation?


Well, when the ritual is thousands of years old, you can be pretty sure they're not doing it because they get off on it.

Hell, the Greeks believed man-boy sexual relationships were beneficial to both.

Poser

Poser

Tampa, FL
May 2003

FEB 06, 2006 09:19 PM

Quite frankly I'm glad I have not practice my elder's religion. I would probably be dead or serving a life sentence.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

FEB 06, 2006 09:20 PM

MightyTick said:
Slippery slope defending or prosecuting this one. I commend anyone who can take a definitive stance on this. You are a better judge of other people's culture than I.


Freedom of religion does not extend to the unreasonable endangerment of the children of a religion's adherents. Here, the practice is at the very least unsanitary enough to pose a significant health risk to the child. Therefore, it would not fall under the protections of the Free Exercise clause.

ortho7117

ortho7117

Charlotte, NC
April 2004

FEB 06, 2006 09:36 PM

"Oral suction" is a wonderfully descriptive phrase; I hope it becomes the next fad slang term for oral sex.

nadir

nadir

Brooklyn, NY
OLD SKOOL

FEB 06, 2006 09:58 PM

the title of this aeticle makes me sad
is it time to question the logic of the consitution?

we are not given freedom of religion so much as it is granted to us by the single document that has any say over any act in american society.

and i have to say that this oral suction seems a bit our of sorts with my sensiblities, but just like i am not going to shut down a snake handling i will not condem this.

and while i think the act is outrageous
i have an understanding that my agnosticism has no place judging anyones relgious pomp and cercumstance.

GuiltShow

GuiltShow

Riverside, CA
May 2005

FEB 06, 2006 09:58 PM

Last time I checked religious freedom didn't cover obvious criminal acts, you know, like pedophilia. Maybe they saw the priests getting away with and decided to give it a shot.

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

FEB 06, 2006 10:02 PM


From Wikipedia:

Some have feared that the practice may spread diseases to the babies from the mohel's mouth (such as herpes), but most mohelim are aware of this and ensure that their mouths are sanitized and washed out by rinsing with alcohol to disinfect the mouth. However, controversy arose in New York City when health officials announced that in December of 2005 that they suspected that two infants who underwent the procedure had been infected with herpes and that one of them had subsequently suffered brain damage. As the of the date of this writing, Jan/2006, there has been no confirmation that the mohel was the source of these infections. [3] The foundation for the ritual of metzitzah b’peh is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists metzitzah b’peh as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. The Chatam Sofer observed that the Mishnah states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child. He also cited a passage in Nedarim 32a as a warrant for the position that metzitzah b’peh was not an obligatory part of the circumcision ceremony.

As a result of these texts, the Chatam Sofer contended that Jewish tradition instituted metzitzeh b’eh solely to prevent danger to the infant and stated that metzitzah b’peh was not a required part of the circumcision ceremony. [4]

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

FEB 06, 2006 10:10 PM

Ummm... I think it's pretty well A OK.

Nixon

Nixon

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

FEB 06, 2006 10:12 PM

What about religions that don't vaccinate kids? That's putting the kids in danger, but everyone seems OK with it.

Domo_Kun

Domo_Kun

Rockford, IL
March 2005

FEB 06, 2006 10:19 PM

Nixon, I love you.

whitepuma

whitepuma

Australia
March 2004

FEB 06, 2006 10:20 PM

Nixon said:
What about religions that don't vaccinate kids? That's putting the kids in danger, but everyone seems OK with it.



This is a very valid point. Also I dont see ppl jumping up and down over the deaths of those involved with the recent protests against Demark by the Muslims around the world is this not taking things to far illegal or the fact that they are Muslim and nobody wishes to up set this apple cart its ok to burn other ppl and countries property and take lives over a stupid fucking picture.

adjunct

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA
July 2002

FEB 06, 2006 10:29 PM

So, one mohel who has refused to take responsibility for a serious personal and occupational health issue should be enough to outlaw an ancient religious tradition that has been practiced in this country since Jews first arrived here? Is that the gist of the argument? The mohel in question is incredibly irresponsible, and everyone involved agrees, from local Jewish leaders to public health officials and up to the the mayor's office. I just don't think the DA's office has built enough of a case to bring charges against him, and for a very good reason: the political willpower does not exist to try to ban free exercise of religious practices, regardless of what religion it is.

Actually, why did this come up again? I haven't read a story about it since last summer. If it's just because that fat fuck Hitchens got on his screed wagon about it, I'm going to be hella pissed.

frisinator

frisinator

Forney, TX
May 2004

FEB 06, 2006 10:39 PM

whitepuma said:

Nixon said:
What about religions that don't vaccinate kids? That's putting the kids in danger, but everyone seems OK with it.



This is a very valid point. Also I dont see ppl jumping up and down over the deaths of those involved with the recent protests against Demark by the Muslims around the world is this not taking things to far illegal or the fact that they are Muslim and nobody wishes to up set this apple cart its ok to burn other ppl and countries property and take lives over a stupid fucking picture.



true..true...we all need to slip them muslims some xanax and tell them to calm the fuck down....maybe we could spray the mid east with xanax or maybe valium with a crop duster

bcguitar33

bcguitar33

Jamaica Plain, MA
January 2004

FEB 06, 2006 10:54 PM

I think it's pretty steep to accuse these people of pedophilia because they engage in a single act of touching infantile penis? Why is that so much worse than the penis-touching inherent in regular circumcision? Perhaps we should start going after doctors who touch children's penises, too?

I believe whole-heartedly that this mohel should be punished for his irresponsible behavior. I disagree, however, with the assertion that this is an act that gives anybody involved any kind of sexual gratification.

ILikeBoobiestoo

ILikeBoobiestoo

Apopka, FL
October 2005

FEB 06, 2006 11:24 PM

*wonders how many people that read this article thought "we should just outlaw religion"*

dovienya

dovienya

Portland, OR
August 2004

FEB 07, 2006 12:14 AM

ILikeBoobiestoo said:
*wonders how many people that read this article thought "we should just outlaw religion"*



I hadnt thought it (at least not tonight) until you'd mentioned it, but that's certainly a good idea! tongue

Jeff_Fries

Jeff_Fries

Humptulips, WA
September 2003

FEB 07, 2006 12:35 AM

I support freedom of religion up until baby blowjobs.

[Edited on Feb 07, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

eightzeroone

eightzeroone

I'm lost
OLD SKOOL

FEB 07, 2006 01:20 AM

ILikeBoobiestoo said:
*wonders how many people that read this article thought "we should just outlaw religion"*



I wouldn't like to see religion outlawed. That would just perpetuate it.

I'd rather see it exposed for what it is - superstitious nonsense - so that believers might decide voluntarily to join those of us already living in the 21st century.

Remy

Remy

Rockford, IL
October 2003

FEB 07, 2006 01:49 AM

A lot of people go off the point and wonder, well what about this and what about that? I think the issue here is what the article talks about, and if it's dangerous (not to mension reprehensible), it would fall under the laws that were made to stop abuse of our Freedoms. Period.

Friedhamster

friedhamster

I'm lost
January 2006

FEB 07, 2006 01:51 AM

Clov said:

pearldiver said:
I saw an article about this awhile back. In what other avenue could someone do this and NOT be charged with some type of molestation?


Well, when the ritual is thousands of years old, you can be pretty sure they're not doing it because they get off on it.

Hell, the Greeks believed man-boy sexual relationships were beneficial to both.



Umm. No. Just because it's old does not mean that. Your telling me that a horny old pervert that likes children's... lower bits isn't getting turned on by this? Or wouldn't go out of his way to find something he could do to get turned on "legally." Please. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of the practictions of this tape it just to get off later. Just because something is old doesn't mean you're not going to get off to it. People masturbate and that's as old as time.

ought

ought

USA
September 2004

FEB 07, 2006 01:59 AM

Friedhamster said:

Clov said:

pearldiver said:
I saw an article about this awhile back. In what other avenue could someone do this and NOT be charged with some type of molestation?


Well, when the ritual is thousands of years old, you can be pretty sure they're not doing it because they get off on it.

Hell, the Greeks believed man-boy sexual relationships were beneficial to both.



Umm. No. Just because it's old does not mean that. Your telling me that a horny old pervert that likes children's... lower bits isn't getting turned on by this? Or wouldn't go out of his way to find something he could do to get turned on "legally." Please. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of the practictions of this tape it just to get off later. Just because something is old doesn't mean you're not going to get off to it. People masturbate and that's as old as time.




Both of you, are you aware of the term "Straw man argument" ?

WTF does that have to do with whether or not these kids got diseases?

Friedhamster

friedhamster

I'm lost
January 2006

FEB 07, 2006 02:13 AM

Nothing. And I feel bad for the kids. By the way. That isn't what this toppic was about, it's about religions going too far.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next