“Intactivists” – the term Left-wing radicals who want to ban circumcision in San Francisco call themselves – exposed their antisemitc heart in the latest round of their campaign material.
Come November, San Francisco voters will decide whether or not circumcision will remain a legal medical practice when they vote on the “MGM Bill,” promoted by homosexual activist Lloyd Schofield. While the legality of such a measure, were it to pass, is highly questionable, one thing that isn’t is how this bill exposes the radical Left’s antisemitic nature.
Schofield’s organization has produced a campaign comic book promoting the anti-circumcision cause. The comic, titled “Foreskin Man,” is just chock full of antisemitic imagery and characters.
The comic’s villain is “Monster Mohel,” about whom readers are told that
“[n]othing excites Monster Mohel more than cutting into the penile flesh of an eight-day-old infant boy.”
This garbage could have been pulled right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
And maybe it’s just me, but the comic’s “hero” bears a striking resemblance to that “Master Race” promoted by a certain European government back in the 1930s and 40s:
But this anti-circumcision bill, according to its promoters, has nothing to do with the religious orientation of some San Franciscans. Riiiiight. You be the judge.
UPDATE:
Glenn Beck posts the complete antisemitic tract, which San Francisco “Intactivists” dubbed “Foreskin Man.”
Surely this will also offend SF’s Muslims.And that then raises the question of why these Intactivists seem to be saying nothing about a real crime, namely female genital mutilation or ‘circumcision’ as it is inaccurately called. Jews will be called on to end a fairly benign practice, but not a word will be said about a deeply damaging and sometimes fatal procedure.
I dearly hope S.F.’s Muslims will be offended enough by this comic and its antisemitism that they will raise their voices against such a vile message.
Muslims offended by anti-semitism? Are you quivering pansies kidding me?
Being against circumcision is NOT the same thing as being against Jews.
Circumcision is cutting the most delicate part of a boy’s body without his consent for the most part.
What folks who are against circumcision want is for the decision to lie with the boy and not his parents or religion because it’s HIS body.
“I’m a Jewish American. I’m not easily offended by cartoons.
What I am offended by is people cutting the genitals of non-consenting infants and children.”
Jews Against Circumcision Bris Shalom Requires no genital cutting http://www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org Keep your babies whole
Info: http://www.wholenetwork.org http://www.tlctugger.com
Foreskin Restoration: http://www.tlctugger.com
Foreskin Regeneration: wwww.foregen.org
I like 200,000 other men are genitally cut and hate it and are restoring our foreskins
@Denis MacEoin: Intactivists are very much concerned about female genital cutting. It was Intactivists who were at the the forefront of the campaign last year that made the AAP back down from its proposal to allow even a token ritual pinprick to girls, “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting”. You realise that Federal Law alrady outlaws ALL such cutting, so there is no need for additional protection? In fact the proposed ban was cut-and-pasted from the existing law against FGC.
This is Foreskin Man #2. Foreskin Man #1 was a similar story in which the villain was Dr Mutilator – if anything even more grotesque than the mohel. http://foreskinman.com/foreskinmanno1.pdf
The cartoon pulls its punch. The words “metzitzah b’peh” are not translated and Foreskin Man thwarts the mohel’s plan. Metzitzah b’peh is sucking (metzitzah) blood from the wounded baby’s penis by mouth (b’peh).
Some Jews think metzitzah b’peh never happened, yet it was considered an essential part of brit milah for nearly 2000 years, and some hasidic mohelim in New York still insist on doing it, even after one baby died of herpes as a result. Here is a video of a rabbi defending
metzitzah b’peh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCAsAEwe1EU
Jewish anthropology professor Leonard Glick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4UEbsg-k5Y) suggests that it was brit milah – and especially metzitzah b’peh – that gave rise to the blood libel.
Some day, I predict, Jews will find the idea of infant circumcision so repellent that, like metzitzah b’peh, they will consign it first to history, then to mythology. Speed the day!
I expected all kinds of responses, in favor of this foolish bill and the antisemitic material used to promote it, but seeing someone blame Jews for the blood libel and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion really takes the cake. The simplest explanation is the best: The blood libel originated with ignorant fools who hated Jews. Anything else is an idea so dumb only a college graduate would believe it.
Great, so we’re all anti-semetic now. I got news for you buddy, I am married to a Jewish man and we will NOT be circumcising our future sons. Why, you ask? because the foreskin – and all it’s sensitive, nerve-rich tissue – belongs to the owner of the penis, not his parents!
120 – 170 American baby boys DIE every year due to complications arising from their ‘routine’ circumcision, done by doctors, in hospitals. It is dangerous, cruel, sexually diminishing, elective surgery.
We don’t have any tolerance for people who inappropriately touch the genitals of a child but we are expected to show tolerance when a person (whether it be a doctor or a Mohel) makes a career out of permanently mutilating the genitals of a child for no medical reason. That cartoon is not anti-Semitic and does not express hate for the Jewish culture, rather a hate for a terrible crime against our youth. I can’t tell you how many cartoons I’ve seen of catholic priests and even the pope portrayed in a negative light. The cartoon is an artistic expression of a genital mutilation survivor and I think it is down right ridiculous that people are trying to pin the artist or his art as anti-Semitic. The hero in the cartoon is in the artists likeness and so is the baby who is the victim. There is also an evil doctor portrayed in the first episode of the cartoon. Wake up people this is just a ploy to distract everyone from really talking about the SF bill and the issues it raises. READ the bill, it is designed to protect all children. If it left out Jewish boys, THEN it might be considered anti-Semitic.
First off, this isn’t a ‘left-wing’ issue and I am not a leftist. This is about human rights and as such, it should transcend political ideology. There are many, MANY conservatives and libertarians who are vehemently opposed to the daily violation of human rights that occurs in America – also known as infant male circumcision. America is a country that is supposed to care about human rights and protecting the innocent.
It’s past time for this brutal and unnecessary procedure to be outlawed. There’s no justification for it being inflicted on the body of a non-willing human being.
There’s still a lot of ignorance out there among Americans – people who literally have no clue about the negative consequences (as well as the human rights violation) associated with inflicting this unnecessary genital surgery on infants.
Many (but not all – http://www.jewishcircumcision.org , http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org ) Jewish people are upset; they think it’s a threat to their freedom of religion. To which we counter: Muslims are legally prohibited from having the genitalia of their baby girls cut for cultural/religious reasons. Males are being denied equal protection under the law, and this is unconstitutional.
Religion really shouldn’t be allowed any more as an excuse for inflicting physical alterations on the body of a non-consenting human being. Besides, babies don’t have a religion. They don’t even understand the concept. And circumcising a child in the name of religion actually infringes upon the child’s individual freedom of religion.
Therefore, a ban on infant cutting would actually preserve our inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution. It’s just that many people are unwilling to look at it that way … that’s how strong of a grip this culture of cutting has on the mindset of many Americans.
Cyn, do you support a ban on all abortions?
S.T. –
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
S.T.’s question is not a red-herring. It is simply a request for clarity on where you, Cyn, would draw the line with regards to what medical procedures should be criminalized and which should not.
Why is it so hard for your to admit, presuming this is what you believe, that a woman should have the “right” to kill the child in her womb, but those who take a bit of skin off the end of a male penis should lose their livelihood, face significant fines and possible prison sentence? Why is it so hard to answer that question?