Replies

The (brief) NYDN article did not prove anything, nor did the JTA article. The NYDN article could not name who performed the circumcision. The NYDN has an extremely liberal bias (but here you are coming onto a conservative board pretending that “liberal” is a mere label when it is not).

I am from Australia and it is a tad difficult for people down here to be familiar with what kind of a "liberal" source NYDN would be. However, we are familiar that Fox News (NewsCorp over here) can hardly be described as "liberal". Fox News cited the NYDN article. Likewise, the Jewish newspaper JTA did so, too. And they don't claim NYDN as their source. Instead, they claim another Jewish news agency as their source. Now are you saying all of this amounts to "liberal bias" regarding the incident? All of them are citing the incident because they don't hold any truth? Really?

Next, you inject personal views into the post, of a nature that are not conservative and certainly not religious (circumcision is “mutilation”, babies have the power of consent and parental consent does not/should not exist, et cetera). That shows a confrontational attitude. Also shows extreme prejudice on your part rather than open-mindedness. Perhaps you should have looked up all the details about “metzizah be’peh” before coming to such rapid conclusions, too.

It is not a "personal" view to see a problem with genital mutilation. Also parental consent has boundaries - a parent cannot cause permanent physical harm to a child - and I specified as much, but you pretend to ignore, and hope that I don't notice your deletion and selective quotation. Tsk tsk.

As others have mentioned before, the entire argument is about how much of your body's physical structuring you have a right to, and how far others can go in lopping off sections of it. This is a core aspect of the rights an individual possesses, and the failure to recognise as much hardly makes you a conservative. In fact, your claim to the same would be HIGHLY suspect.

I am from Australia and it is a tad difficult for people down here to be familiar with what kind of a "liberal" source NYDN would be. However, we are familiar that Fox News (NewsCorp over here) can hardly be described as "liberal"

I can only suggest reading more of the NYDN in that case. As for Fox, they have been shifting leftward for some time, and entertain occasional libertarian viewpoints though they do not predominate. I don’t see that geographical location would be an impediment to further discovery in that vein, even via the internet.

Fox News cited the NYDN article. Likewise, the Jewish newspaper JTA did so, too. And they don't claim NYDN as their source

In post 10, I made a direct quote from the Fox article that directly cited the Daily News. The JTA cited the Jewish Week of New York, a publication that prints articles with a slant against the Orthodox community and favoring the more liberal streams of Judaism FWICS.

Now are you saying all of this amounts to "liberal bias" regarding the incident? All of them are citing the incident because they don't hold any truth? Really?

Are you claiming by contrast that they are printing absolute and complete truth?

And please stop putting the words liberal bias in quotation marks, as though such a thing was mythical. When it comes to such things, more than a grain of salt has to be taken—it’s like the anti-Israel reporting of such publications as the Manchester Guardian or New York Times.

It is not a "personal" view to see a problem with genital mutilation. Also parental consent has boundaries - a parent cannot cause permanent physical harm to a child - and I specified as much, but you pretend to ignore, and hope that I don't notice your deletion and selective quotation

That’s quite a big blanket statement. Includes the false assumption that male circumcision is genital mutilation, stated as though it were fact. I maintain it is not, and the burden of proof is on you to show that it is; therefore I am afraid it very much is a personal opinion on your part. Mutilation means that something is maimed and cannot function as it ought to. I assure you I am not maimed nor have I ever sustained permanent physical or mental harm (disclosure: my late father was Jewish and had a bris performed on me at eight days old, albeit not of this apparently-rare type where it is claimed that the mohel orally suctions blood from the wound; I certainly never heard of such a thing . . . my mother is Catholic and I was raised Christian). Female “circumcision” by contrast is most definitely a mutilation of the genitals; it alters the function, causes permanent pain, and leaves the victim open to further damage and/or disease.

Also includes that there are limits to parental consent where children (especially babies) cannot reply for itself. That is a leftist viewpoint. Ever heard of the communist goal of abolition of the family? (If not, read the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto.) Giving the state undue power over religious rituals that do not harm a baby is a slippery slope towards more state control and state prejudice against religion(s)—which is on the record as being just as bad as (if not worse than) established state religion. Considering the country where this just occurred (Germany), it is a very ominous sign.

As others have mentioned before, the entire argument is about how much of your body's physical structuring you have a right to, and how far others can go in lopping off sections of it. This is a core aspect of the rights an individual possesses, and the failure to recognise as much hardly makes you a conservative. In fact, your claim to the same would be HIGHLY suspect

Highly upside-down claims. Trying to mark liberal viewpoints as conservative now? Anti-family viewpoints? Strict “individualism” where it clashes with the rights of the family is absolutely not conservative. At best, it is libertarian. Trampling on the rights of religions vis-à-vis harmless physical ritual (repeatedly insisting that something is harmful is not proof that it is) is also not conservative in any way, shape or form—and I don’t see evidence that it is libertarian either (libertarians lean towards anarchy and totally eschew statism), so that heads right into the hard-left sphere.

Now if something goes wrong especially through gross recklessness, the state is absolutely right to impose criminal sanction, which is one of the questions you originally raised. If not, then the state has no impetus nor right to intrude on the ceremony in question (circumcision)—especially since not all of such are performed in the manner described in the NYDN, by a long shot; and even in the case of metzitzah be’peh, oral suction is not a requirement IINM. That is the conservative view, even in Australia I believe.