• news
  • MONDAY FEBRUARY 6 2006 8:58 PM

Freedom Of Religion Gone Too Far?

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.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
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

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next