Harvard Censors Intellect for Circumcision Play at Sanders Theatre

Could we expect any less?

Eric Clopper, an intellect in many fields, computer technology, physics and data analysis among other things, was placed on leave by Harvard for his intactivist play at Sanders Theatre.

On May 1st, Clopper performed a play called "Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story," where he gives what is possibly the best, most knowledgeable and well-researched talk on circumcision, and anatomically correct male genitals in all of intactivist history.

The performance is 2 hours long, and he covers every nook, every cranny, every possible logical fallacy surrounding the advocacy of forced male genital cutting, from religious, to cultural, to pseudo-scientific to pseudo-medical.

He gives a complete and thorough discussion on this topic in a way I can only dream of, would that I could arrange my thoughts in proper order.

He leaves no area of this topic untouched. He comes down hard on every last bastion of advocacy for the practiced of male infant genital mutilation, up to and including the most taboo holy cow of all; religion.

He actually attacks the Jewish covenant of circumcision as a "satanic ritual."

Being Jewish himself, he has a certain permission to do that.

For non-Jewish intactivists, this is simply a no-go zone to be avoided at all costs for fear of the anti-Semite card.


His unbridled critique of Jewish involvement in male infant circumcision advocacy in America is probably what has caused the administration at Harvard to put him on leave.

I'm reminded of Norman Finkelstein, who was in a similar situation for being a sharp critic of the state of Israel.

A Jewish critic of male infant circumcision is probably despised the most by Jewish advocates of it, because what are you going to say to him?

The "anti-Semite" card doesn't work to shut down the conversation, because well, he's Jewish!

No, you can't break Godwin's Law on a Jew, so the best you can do is try to silence him.

Disenfranchise and delegitimize him in any which way you can.

There is probably no greater menace to male infant circumcision than an angry Jewish critic of it.

I must commend Eric Clopper for his bravery in broaching this subject and not holding back his harsh condemnation of it, in spite of the hate, anger and contempt he knows he's going to face.

There is not a more despised man than a teller of the truth.

The following could be found on his website on 7/14/2018:

What's Next?
After Sanders Theatre

Thanks to all who have been in touch since my May 1 play at Harvard's Sanders Theatre. The play was very well received by all except the Harvard Crimson and Harvard administrators. Unfortunately, I was immediately placed on leave pending "a full review of the May 1 performance and events leading up to it."

Some new friends and allies, including Harvard alumni, have reached out to offer support. I can't find words to express how much these shows of support have meant to me in these uncertain times.

My determination to fight against this barbaric human rights violation is unwavering despite Harvard's Goliath pose.

Some people have asked me whether I might take the play on tour, and I would be interested in exploring the possibilities. If you would like to sponsor a production in your area, please feel free to get in touch with me at eric@clopper.com.

It makes me glad, and it fills me with hope to see Jewish critics of circumcision speak out against it with a passion; if anyone can stop the forced genital cutting of children in this lifetime, it's them.

One of the biggest reasons male infant genital mutilation continues in the US today, is because of disproportionate Jewish influence in high places in American medicine.

It is perhaps only an angry, Jewish male who can actually come out and say it without mincing words.

Eric Clopper's bravery is to be commended, as he knows this may come at a price.

On Facebook, his video was deleted after 20,000 views in two days.

If you're interested in seeing the whole 2-hour show, visit http://www.clopper.com

Availability may be for a limited time; no doubt there are people trying to make it impossible for him to post.

Related Posts:

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

External Links: 

https://www.clopper.com/

BEN COHEN: Circumcision Victims an Anti-Semite Fantasy

When it comes to Jewish advocates of infant circumcision fending off critiques and attacks of this practice, invoking the anti-Semite card is to be expected. This is why it's not too surprising that Jewish critics of the latest resolution issued by the Council of Europe are milking it for all its worth.

What I still have trouble believing is the sheer brazenness with which they make their claims, as if the claims they made weren't already outlandish enough.

Writes Ben Cohen, the Shillman Analyst for JNS.org:

"Writing in the Copenhagen Post, Morten Frisch, a Danish doctor, approvingly cited recent opinion polls in his country in support of a circumcision ban. Clearly irritated by the Israeli government’s opposition to such a ban, Frisch portrayed the issue as a human rights concern, citing the violation of a boy’s “sexual autonomy.” This argument might be persuasive if a vast number of those who have been ritually circumcised presented themselves as akin to rape victims, but the fact remains that a mass movement of aggrieved circumcised men chanting “No More!” remains a fantasy.

Circumcision’s opponents want to create victims where there are none. This is a devious and dishonest tactic, in that it presents discrimination as liberation, prejudice as enlightenment. Mind you, anti-Semites have never considered themselves bigots, but the bearers of a message of love—their core belief is that our world will be a better place without Jews and Jewish influence. And Europe, where these sinister ideas took root in the 19th Century, remains fertile soil for them in the 21st."

A trait that seems to permeate all circumcision advocates, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, seems to be this uncanny projection; the claims they make regarding those who oppose the forced circumcision of minors is true of themselves, and I can't quite make out if they're blind to their own projection, or if they're being craftily deliberate.

I will pick apart Ben Cohen's words on my blog:

"Clearly irritated by the Israeli government’s opposition to such a ban, Frisch portrayed the issue as a human rights concern, citing the violation of a boy’s 'sexual autonomy.'"

The last time I checked, the ones who are "clearly irritated" are Jewish defenders of circumcision, who are flabbergasted at the thought of the forced circumcision of minors being called a basic human rights violation by a world-class entity, such as the Council of Europe, and who insist the issue be one of "religious freedom," and "parental choice."

"This argument might be persuasive if a vast number of those who have been ritually circumcised presented themselves as akin to rape victims, but the fact remains that a mass movement of aggrieved circumcised men chanting “No More!” remains a fantasy."

Ben Cohen's argument seems to be that, in order for a human rights violation to be recognized as such, the victims must themselves believe themselves to be violated, and that furthermore, they organize in a "a mass movement of aggrieved circumcised men."

The trouble with this is that a victim will not always acknowledge that s/he has been victimized. In fact, oftentimes the victim defends his/her perpetrator. This includes rape victims, and even female victims of forced genital mutilation themselves. (See Stockholm syndrome.)

It is interesting that Ben Cohen carefully chooses the clarifying words "mass movement" here, for although there isn't exactly a "mass movement" of aggrieved circumcised men chanting "no more," there actually is small, but growing number of men, Jewish and non-Jewish.

In actuality, there isn't exactly a "mass movement" of aggrieved circumcised women either; the loudest voices are those of western, non-circumcised women.

 

 

That never stopped those who oppose the practice of forced genital cutting from calling the forced circumcision of girls the violation of basic human rights that it is.

Jewish advocates speak out both sides of their mouths when they ask for "religious tolerance" when it comes to male infant circumcision, but then have no trouble decrying female circumcision in any way shape or form.

"Circumcision’s opponents want to create victims where there are none. This is a devious and dishonest tactic, in that it presents discrimination as liberation, prejudice as enlightenment. Mind you, anti-Semites have never considered themselves bigots, but the bearers of a message of love—their core belief is that our world will be a better place without Jews and Jewish influence. And Europe, where these sinister ideas took root in the 19th Century, remains fertile soil for them in the 21st.""

Devious and dishonest indeed.

What is devious and dishonest is how Ben Cohen and others present any and all criticism of the forced circumcision of minors as racist, discriminatory and prejudiced, as if the circumcision of infants were an exclusively Jewish practice, as if circumcision were universal among Jews, and, as if those who oppose the practice were targeting only infant circumcision when practiced by adherents of Judaism.

The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews; only approximately 0.6 % of all circumcisions in this country are Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, gentile circumcisions performed at hospitals.

In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.

And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Of all circumcisions that happen in the US, only about 0.6%, perhaps even less, comprises of Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. Circumcision is a rite of passage in Africa, and South East Asia. It is performed in America and South Korea for pseudo-medical, non-religious reasons. We're opposed to ALL of it.

It is devious and dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.

But it was Cohen's following utterance which infuriates me:

 "Circumcision’s opponents want to create victims where there are none."

Yes, we're pulling reasons to oppose the forced circumcision of minors out of our ass.

I suppose then, that the recent herpes cases in New York, the recent penile amputation case in Pittsburgh, the glans ablation cases that put Mogen out of business, the thousands of botch corrections of which there are enough for doctors to make a living, the botches and deaths that go on in Africa, the hospitalizations of Jewish and Muslim boys, etc., etc., are all simply figments of our imagination.

We're simply pulling all of this out of thin air for the sole purpose of antagonizing Jewish people, and don't actually care about defending the most basic of human rights.

Related Posts:

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

The Ghost of Mogen

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

Related Links:

Beyond the Bris

Men Do Complain 

Picture Gallery of Tribal Circumcision Botches in Africa (WARNING: Not for the squeamish.)

Picture Gallery of Circumcision Botches in the West (WARNING: Not for the squeamish.)

Related Stories:

Rabbi Severs the Penis of a Boy in Pittsburgh

Circumcision Deaths in Africa Accumulate

African Defenders of Circumcision Shoot the Messenger

Million Dollar Lawsuits Put Mogen Out of Business

Cologne Ruling Brought On by the Hospitalization of a Muslim Boy

Note: These are just a few links and stories that your blogger could think of off the top of his head; there are more reported botches and deaths due to circumcision, Jewish and non-Jewish, than can be posted here.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

It's been only a few days since the Council of Europe declared the medically unnecessary circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, to be a human rights violation, and, as predicted, it has drawn non-stop fire from Jewish organizations.

Said Benjamin Albalas, President of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece:

"This is a sign of anti-Semitism."
The Jerusalem Post

If one reads the comments to these articles criticizing the Council of Europe for their stance, the argumentum at Hitlerem is never-ending.

Israel Gets Involved
Apparently, Israel has gotten involved, with President Shimon Peres, sending a letter to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, asking for his intervention.

Thorbjorn Jagland,

Secretary General of the Council of Europe

And, apparently, the Secretary General has complied, signaling that the Council of Europe has begun to backpedal.

According to a tweet from Jagland's press spokesman Daniel Holtgen, Jagland has expressed:

“Female genital mutilation violates human rights. Male circumcision does not.”

But this was to be expected; Israel also got involved when the Cologne ruling was handed down in Germany, causing the Bundestag to write up a resolution "protecting" non-medical child genital mutilation.

Poor Europe, stuck between a rock and a hard place; they must perform a delicate balancing act, wanting to protect basic human rights, while at the same time, appeasing Jews who hold the Holocaust ever over their heads.

Special Pleading
In his letter to the European Council Secretary General, Shimon Peres stressed that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition. (Since when does the Israeli President care about Islam?) He also noted that male circumcision has been practiced by Jewish communities for thousands of years and is a " fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition." Peres stressed that Jewish communities across Europe would be "greatly afflicted to see their cultural and religious freedom impeded upon by the Council of Europe," which Peres observed is "an institution devoted to the protection of these very rights."

Of course, Shimon Peres, and other advocates of circumcision that make these arguments are employing logical fallacies, either inadvertently, or quite deliberately.

Of course, where it is practiced, female circumcision has also been practiced "for thousands of years," and those who practice it see it as a "fundamental element" and obligation for their traditions. Communities across Europe who practice female circumcision are also "greatly afflicted" because their "cultural and religious freedoms" are infringed upon by the local government. But, apparently, while the Council of Europe is to condemn the forced genital mutilation of females, ad antiquitam should afford male genital mutilation special treatment.

Circumcision is Not Exclusive to Jews
Accusations of anti-Semitism are based on three assumptions:

1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision

The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews.

Circumcision also happens to be Muslim practice. It is considered a rite of passage in the Philippines, and it is considered a rite of passage in many parts of Africa, where, as in female circumcision, boys and men of varying ages are forcibly circumcised in the wilderness using raw materials. Not to mention that in the United States, 1.2 million baby boys a year are circumcised, only about 3% or so, comprising of Jewish brisim.

A commenter on Facebook made the following observation:
Jews are 1.7% of the US population (5,425,000 out of 313,900,000) and only about 30% of American Jews have a bris; the remainder have their son circumcised in the hospital or doctor's office just like all other American boys or skip circumcision. By my math, 30% of 1.7% is just over one half of one percent, or one-sixth of your figure.

In Muslim tradition, boys are circumcised at later ages,

when they can remember. Here, a boy is being circumcised

at a medical facility in Turkey. Note his white circumcision outfit.

In Marikina, east of Manila, boys "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

 Boy in Africa being circumcised.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

(Only one of the above "traditions" should be a human rights violation, according to circumcision advocates. Can you guess which one?)

In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.

And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Jewish bris is only one form of male infant genital mutilation. We're opposed to ALL of it.

It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.

Questions to consider:
For better or for worse, the forced genital mutilation of females has also existed "for thousands of years," and it is considered an important rite of passage where it is performed. In some tribes and communities, a woman who has not undergone genital cutting is seen as a social outcast.

Is declaring the forced genital cutting of girls to be a "violation of human rights" not "affliction" to those living in Europe who practice it?

Is being against the forced cutting of girls and women "anti" ethnic groups that do it? (e.g. anti-African, anti-Indonesian, anti-Malaysian, anti-Brunei, etc.?)

Is a ban on female circumcision not infringing on "religious" or "parental rights?"

If leaders of countries where female genital cutting is practiced were to write to the Council of Europe, would they be obliged to soften their stance against the forced genital cutting of girls?

Why the special treatment of only MALE forced genital mutilation?

When are world leaders going to cut the political pandering and call a spade a spade?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

One of the greatest brick walls for intactivism has been the fact that the circumcision of newborns happens to be a religious ritual practiced by a very vocal minority. When circumcision is challenged, it doesn't take very long for Jewish defenders of infant circumcision to start insinuating that those who oppose circumcision are equivalent to, or worse than Nazi Germans. In the past, accusations of antisemitism were a very effective tactic at silencing any discourse regarding the circumcision of infants. To date, Jewish circumcision advocates still expect opponents of the practice to feel guilty because they're challenging a tradition practiced by survivors of the Holocaust, but that strategy is slowly losing its effect.

Accusations of antisemitism are based on three assumptions:

1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision

The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews; only approximately 3% of all circumcisions in this country are Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, gentile circumcisions performed at hospitals.

In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.

Molly Tolsky brings the following picture back from her 10-day Birthright trip to Israel:

"Wherever you go, even in the Holy Land, people have opinions on circumcision. Case in point–I managed to capture this from the bus on the way to Tel Aviv. I believe what that van is blocking out is “Freedom of choice for newborns.” So even though this debate is getting a little annoying and at times totally out of line, it’s sort of nice to know that it’s not just us crazy Americans who spend hours discussing the rights of our baby’s penises. It’s us crazy Jews everywhere."

The following documentary follows two Jewish couples, one in America and one in Israel. One couple decides to proceed with the circumcision ritual, the other does not:

And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Of all circumcisions that happen in the US, only about 3%, perhaps even less, comprises of Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. We're opposed to ALL of it.

It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.

Jewish Intactivists Galore
Now as I've said earlier in this post, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews. But furthermore, intactivism is not exclusive to gentiles. Some of the most outspoken voices in the intactivist movement happen to be Jewish. In this blog post I include a list, which is by no means complete, of some of the most outspoken Jewish intactivists.

At least one young man has written an open letter to the mohel who circumcised him. Shea Levy is to be commended for the courage to challenge tradition, and to challenge the very man who cut off part of his penis.

Shea Levy

Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home, is author to the revolutionary documentary CUT: The Film, which examines the subject of male circumcision from a religious, scientific and ethical perspective. In addition to writing the OpEd "Outlawing Circumcision: Good for the Jews?" for the Jewish Daily Forward, he has also participated in other intactivist demonstrations.

 Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon wearing tefillin in protest against the latest AAP Statement

"When considering the practice of female genital cutting, we don’t start from a neutral position of 'I wonder whether there are any health benefits to permanently altering the genitals of baby girls? Let’s set up some studies and see what kinds of diseases cutting off clitorises can prevent!' We don’t do this, because we understand the very basic concept that cutting away healthy, functional tissue in the hopes of preventing potential disease is just bad medicine."
~Eliyahu Ungar Sargon

An interview with Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon

Cultural anthropologist Leonard Glick, MD, PhD, is the author of Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Glick became aware of the role of circumcision in Jewish history during the 1990s, while working no his first book, Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe. This was the catalyst that led him to research on the entire subject of circumcision. Glick is a father of three sons, all of whom were circumcised; he admits he hadn't given the practice a second thought when they were born. Through his research, he became "totally convinced that cutting the genitals of infants and children, girls or boys, is fundamentally evil. And that is why I am an intactivist." Glick describes himself as a "scholarly activist." He regularly sends letters to legislators, marches in protests, and gives lectures on Judaism and the history of circumcision.

 

 Leonard Glick MD, PhD

"The fact that I am opposed to this anachronistic, barbaric behavior has nothing to do with the fact that I am Jewish.... Children, whether male or female, of any race or ethnicity or background, have the right to their own physical integrity... No one, no parent, no adult, no one has the right to deprive a child of any part of his or her body without extreme medical emergency justification."

An interview with Leonard Glick

Dean Edell is a Jewish-American physician and broadcaster who hosted the Dr. Dean Edell radio program, which aired live from 1979 until December 10, 2010. In his own words, he has had "a long and vociferous opposition to the practice of routine male circumcision." Edell had fathered three boys whom he agreed to circumcise before he became an intactivist. Subsequently, he fathered two boys whom he refused to circumcise, and became one of the most outspoken opponents of circumcision.

In recent years, Edell has also strongly criticized the ongoing "mass-circumcision campaigns" in Africa. "The idea, that we Westerners are going to march into Africa... and are going to... perform an operation on millions and millions of men, when we refuse to feed [them], get them useful jobs, and bring them fresh water, is so naïve that it expresses to me the true desperation of the circumcision lobby."

Dr. Dean Edell

The following is an excerpt from one of his broadcasts:

"How do I do this without getting some friends very, very mad...

Are you ready?

Amongst speakers, at the CDC's National HIV prevention conference in Antlanta, which is happening, gonna be happening right now, amongst the speakers is a physician from Operation Abraham, an organization based in Israel, named for the Biblical figure who was circumcised at an advanced age according to the book of Genesis, the group trains doctors in Africa to perform circs on adult men to reduce the spread of HIV.

Two things.

First they had to stop the study, because they found indeed, that it didn't help at all in spreading HIV to women. So it doesn't seem even to be effective there, AND, the recommendation is men still have to wear condoms with every intercourse, where in Africa men think they get circed "I'm not gonna need a condom." But the heavy recommendation is you DO NOT stop using condoms, so then WHAT IS THE POINT? In Africa?

But here's my point.

Of what interest is it to Israelis, of what the rest of the world does?

Now I can say this because I'm Jewish.

And I think when Jews stick their necks out here and become the world's most vociferous proselytizers for circumcision, when it is our paticular religious rite, it would be like Catholics telling me not to use birth-control, I resent that. And when they try to inflict it into public policy, then you really get me blowing smoke out my ears.

We have no business telling other people what to do. It's like telling other people not to eat pork, like telling other people not to drive their cars on Friday. It is not the place.

And you understand the deep fear that Jews have about all of this, is in WWII, they pulled men's pants down [and] if they were circumcised you went off to the concentration camp. So there's a deep scar there.

And, um, this is not said, I'm the only person you'll ever find that say this, will admit this, that Jews feel more secure among populations where people are circumcised.

I know, I know. It's only been 50 years, but never the less. The memory I hope, you know, will be long.

All I've got to say is, very well said. Dr. Dean Edell is to be commended for having the courage to tell it like it is.

An interview with Dr. Dean Edell

Few people may know this, but radio talk show host Howard Stern is very outspoken against the practice of neonatal circumcision. He has openly resented the fact that he was circumcised on more than one occasion. On at least one occasion, he hosted inventor of the TLCTugger foreskin restoration device Ron Low on his show.

"You know, my mother is so into 'natural'. Everythi- , 'The body is beautiful,' you should hear the rap. 'The body is beautiful, we should leave things natural...' So, she wouldn't get me braces. My teeth were as crooked as a four-way intersection in Washington DC, and green, and bu-bu-bu- wouldn't get me braces, My teeth were so wrecked because 'naturally the body will heal itself.' She's like a Christian Scientist. ... but the penis? Right out the window!" 

~Howard Stern

Jonathan Friedman, an Orthodox Jew who attended yeshiva through high school, is the founder of IntactNews, a news organization for the intactivist movement. He is also currently a Projects Coordinator at Foregen, a nonprofit founded to provide therapies for foreskin regeneration using regenerative medicine.

Jonathan Friedman, IntactNews, Foregen

I believe this is what has happened to all Jewish males, as well as the majority of non-Jewish males in the USA: we’ve been hijacked by abusive authority figures of the past. Whether it's the Victorian-era doctors, bent on perpetuating their own sexual repression, or during the Maccabean Period where the Jewish priestly ruling class instituted the more severe form of brit milah that is practiced today, which includes brit peri'ah (complete foreskin ablation), we are made to suffer and cause our children to suffer in an endless cycle of trauma. It's high time we stop.

And finally, but definitely not least, and definitely not the last in the long list of Jewish intactivists, Rebecca Wald is the founder of Beyond the Bris, a blog for the purpose of uniting Jewish people who oppose neonatal circumcision. The blog is self-described as a "multimedia project created by Jewish people who are united in the belief that circumcising healthy children is harmful and unnecessary. We are the faces and voices of the current pro-intact Jewish movement." Many of the Jewish intactivists already mentioned in this blog have contributed to, or have been mentioned in Beyond the Bris

.

Rebecca Wald

Other notable Jewish intactivists include Ronald Goldman, Ph.D, executive director of the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center in Boston, and author of Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective and Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (he may be contacted at jcrc@jewishcircumcision.org), Rosemary Romberg, author of Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma, and Lisa Braver Moss, author of the book The Measure of His Grief, and many essays published in Tikkun, Parents, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

But the list doesn't end here. Readers can learn more about Jewish intactivists not mentioned here on Beyond the Bris.

A few of Beyond the Bris's contributing writers: Eli Ungar-Sargon,
Lisa Braver Moss, Dr. Mark Reiss and Rebecca Wald

Related Links:
The following are links to Jewish groups against circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

The following is a Facebook group for Jews and others against circumcision:

http://www.facebook.com/JewsAgainstCircumcision

These link to websites in Hebrew, run by intactivist groups in Israel:
http://www.gonnen.org/
http://www.britmila.org.il/
http://www.kahal.org/

The following are resources on "Brit Shalom":
http://www.officiant.org/brit-shalom
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

"I believe circumcision is a major mistake...The code of the Jewish law is called "halacha" (the way). Within the Code, there is a provision that if a mother looses a son because of circumcision, she is NOT obligated to circumcise her next son. I extrapolate from this, the inter-connection of my human family, that enough deaths and maiming have occured because of circumcision. Therefore - circumcision is no longer a requisite! Just as we no longer practice the animal sacrifices in the traditional temple, so let us not sacrifice an important piece of our mammal in the temple of tradition."
- Rabbi Natan Segal, 2007
Rabbi of Shabbos Shul, Marin County, California, U.S.A.
Ordination: 1977 Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi Yeshiva B'nai Or Philadelphia, Pa.

 
"As a Jewish grandfather, I want to assure young couples about to bring a child into the world, that there are other members of the Jewish "older" generation, including other Jewish physicians, and even some rabbis, who feel as I do. If your heart and instincts tell you to leave your son intact, listen!"
- Dr. Mark D. Reiss, of Doctors Opposing Circumcision speaking to Rabbi Nathan Segal's Congregation on Kol Nidre eve.

 
"I am calm and comfortable in the knowledge that no one will ever take a knife to this baby's flesh in the name of religion... I am confident that my people have such an abundance of life-enhancing, life-affirming and mind-opening traditions, that our identity and sense of cultural self-heed will happily survive our outgrowing of circumcision, a cruel relic which has always felt to me like an aberration at the heart of my religion."
- Dr. Jenny Goodman
Challenging Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective (UK)

 
"...as recently as the mid-nineteenth century, in Eastern Europe and Russia there was a widespread move to stop the practice... Led by women--what a surprise!--who thought the practice barbaric and patriarchal, the movement eventually even convinced Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, who refused to allow his own son to be circumcised."
- Michael S. Kimmel, Professor, SUNY Stony Brook
TIKKUN, Volume 16, May/June, 2001.


"Coming from a European background... where many Jews reject a brit milla as an archaic and barbaric ritual... This author grew up in France in a traditional Jewish family. Not a single male of her generation or her children's generation within her large family (or in her circle of Jewish friends) was ever circumcised."
- Nelly Karsenty
Humanistic Judaism, 1988; 16(3): 14-20.

 
"I should like to suggest to my fellow Jews that perhaps the time has come to redeem the foreskin itself, rather than sacrifice it. Surely some substitute might be found for this rite, ... that would be preferable to this assault upon and mutilation of a newborn infant..."
- Professor George Wald, M.D
Harvard University Professor, Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine

 
"...it would be anti-Semitic of us if we didn't defend Jewish babies along with other children. We respect what is beautiful in every religion or culture and speak out against what is brutal. All cultures and religions are capable of evolving."
- Mary Conant, R.N. and Betty Katz Sperlich, R.N. (a Jewish mother), founding members of "Nurses for the Rights of the Child", America's largest union of Nurses who refuse to participate in circumcisions.


"I was raised as a Jew and yet I never even considered circumcising my sons. Reason told me that God or nature doesn't make mistakes. Obviously there is a vast intelligence behind all of life, and just as our eyes have eyelids to protect them, foreskins must serve a similar purpose.

When all is said and done, circumcision is really a human rights issue. What right do any of us have to permanently remove a normal, healthy, sensitive part of another person's body without their consent? I have no problem with an adult male who chooses to be circumcised. I do have a problem with an adult who makes that decision for a child. I have known too many men, both Jewish and Christian, who resent the fact that they were circumcised."
- Laura Shanley

 
"...support can be found from many Jewish sources for the view that circumcision of infants is unethical and should therefore be abandoned... Now is the time to lay the knife aside and to move forward into the 21st century with a form of ritual that is truly welcoming and that is truly purely symbolic."
- J. Goodman, MD
Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective. BJU Int 1999; 83 Suppl 1:22-27.

 
"AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF AMERICANS - including a sizable number of American Jews  - question the act of male circumcision , a group of San Francisco activists are advocating to ban circumcision... Many of the leading activists against circumcision around the country are Jewish."
Jerusalem Post, Challenging the Circumcision Myth, April 10, 2011

 

"In Israel, opposition to circumcision has happened in just two decades, and now these “rebels” number in the tens of thousands, according to Ronit Tamir, founder of Kahal, a support group for parents who choose not to circumcise their children."
Jewish World, 3/11/2010.

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

As predicted, the current bid to ban circumcision in San Francisco is causing commotion. And, as predicted, religious groups, particularly Jewish organizations, are working hard to condemn the measure as anti-Semitic. It seems circumcision advocates have found the perfect scapegoat, however, and they're milking it for everything it's worth.

The scapegoat in question is the latest issue of "Foreskin Man," a comic book that portrays a hero who saves defenseless babies from crazed maniacs intent on circumcising them. The villain in the latest issue happens to be a mohel, and the author's portrayal of him isn't exactly kosher. The imagery of the villain, or "Monster Mohel" as he is called, are very disturbing, because to some, it recalls Nazi German anti-Semitist propaganda.

Perhaps the creation of this comic wouldn't have garnered so much attention, if it weren't for the fact that the creator, Matthew Hess, also happens to be the president of MGM Bill, which is an organization working to enact legislation that would ban the circumcision of minors unless it is medically necessary. The comic book has become a lightning rod for criticism of not only the proposed ballot measure in San Francisco, but also for the entire intactivist movement as a whole. Opponents to the measure are waving it around as "proof" that intactivists are all anti-Semites, and now, instead of the issues, intactivists are fending off accusations of anti-Semitism.

Is "Monster Mohel" Really the Problem?
It's easy to see why the comic book is causing outrage. In the past, grotesque imagery was used to mischaracterize Jews, and to justify the horrific actions inflicted upon them during the Holocaust. It's easy to see why the imagery used in the latest edition of "Foreskin Man" can be insulting and offensive. I wonder, however, if "Monster Mohel" is really the problem?

The fact of the matter is that circumcision is a very important part of Jewish culture, one that is controversial, ethically problematic, and that they've historically fought to preserve. The San Francisco circumcision ban proposal is a direct challenge to this old and heavily defended tradition. Would there have been a better way to portray a villain mohel in a way that was not going to piss Jewish groups off?

It is inescapeable; "Monster Mohel" is most definitely depicted as evil and sinister. However, the same is also true of "Dr. Mutilator," the gentile, non-Jewish doctor in the issue before. But arent' all villains in comic books portrayed this way?

To the left is "Monster Mohel." To the right is "Dr. Mutilator," who wasn't drawn any less grotesque.

These characters are from the "Batman" universe.

On the left is "The Scarecrow," on the right is "Clayface."

Is it really the portrayal of "Monster Mohel" that's the problem? Or is it the fact that a very old, historically contentious tradition is being challenged, and Jewish groups were going to find some other way to paint backers of the bill as Nazis anyway?

A Red Herring
I'm not going to lie; Hess' decision to publish his latest edition of the "Foreskin Man" comic book was a dumb move. It's distracting from the main issues. Instead of talking about the reasons why intactivists believe circumcision should be banned, we're busy trying to divorce ourselves from "Foreskin Man" and fending off accusations of anti-Semitism. "Foreskin Man" shoots our movement in the foot and it is gumming up our efforts to educate the public; Hess should have NEVER published that comic book.

Here's the fact of the matter though; comic or no comic, Jewish groups will call anybody "anti-Semite" for challenging circumcision. Even without the comic book, advocates of circumcision would have tried to find other ways to distract from the issues that we as intactivists are trying to bring attention to. The comic has provided the perfect scapegoat to distract from the issues, but the accusations of "anti-Semitism" would have been made, even without it, directing attention away from the crux of the argument.

Which brings us to the namesake of this blog post. Does pulling out the "anti-Semite" card even work anymore? The depiction of "Monster Mohel" certainly smacks of older anti-Semite propaganda, and Hess' motives for publishing the latest edition of his comic book are certainly questionable. But can "anti-Semite" apply to the intactivist movement as a whole?

The "Anti-Semite" Trump Card in the Past
In the past, one of the greatest obstacles in questioning circumcision was the fact that it also happens to be a religious ritual practiced by a very vocal minority. When circumcision was openly challenged, one mention of the word "anti-Semite," and all of a sudden, people challenging circumcision were worse than Hitler. Nothing was more effective at silencing any discourse on a cosmetic, non-medical surgery that is mostly practiced on gentile, non-Jewish children in hospitals in our country, than by insinuating that people against circumcision were equivalent to, or worse than Nazi Germans. But can circumcision advocates still expect their opponents to feel guilty because they're challenging a tradition practiced by survivors of the Holocaust?

The answer is, not anymore.

Of course, being compared to Hitler wasn't the only reason people feared the "anti-Semite" card. America has Judeo-Christian roots, and we grow up learning about how the Jews are "god's chosen people." We're also told "Don't challenge what's in the Bible." So being called "anti-Semite" also carried that extra weight. Additionally, we were led to believe that circumcision was exclusive to Jews, and that it was universally practiced among them. To date, some people are oblivious to the fact that Muslims also circumcise their children. If I recall correctly, didn't Ann Coulter believe Muslim terrorists could hide bombs in their foreskins?

Enlightened Times
At any rate, thanks to the internet, we've been able to educate ourselves. We now know that not only are there Jews questioning circumcision, there are many Jews viewing it for the barbaric custom that it is. This day and age, many Jews are opting for a bloodless naming ceremony called "Bris Shalom." There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. There are groups of Jews in ISRAEL of all places, who are challenging tradition and leaving their children intact. Some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish; Leonard Glick, Ron Goldman, Dr. Dean Edell, Howard Stern and Elijah Ungar-Sargon, just to name a few. Some of the most prominent supporters of a ban on circumcision happen to be Jewish, and there are Jewish men who actually LIKE the recent issue of "Foreskin Man," because this is how they view the mohels who circumcised them. In light of these facts, dismissing the intactivist movement as "anti-Semite" is a gross blanket statement.

Here is at least one young man who has written an open letter to the mohel who circumcised him. Shea Levy is to be commended for the courage to challenge tradition, and to challenge the very man who cut off part of his penis.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/to-mohel-who-cut-me.html

The following are links to Jewish groups against circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

These link to websites in Hebrew, run by intactivist groups in Israel:
http://www.gonnen.org/
http://www.britmila.org.il/
http://www.kahal.org/

The following are resources on "Brit Shalom":
http://www.officiant.org/brit-shalom
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

The following are links to books challenging circumcision from a Jewish perspective:
http://lisabravermoss.com/The_Measure_of_His_Grief.html
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Future-Prevention-Sexual-Pathology/dp/0374518467
http://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-Hidden-Trauma-American-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292127243&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Your-Flesh-Circumcision-Ancient/dp/0195315944/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292126901&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292126068&sr=1-1-catcorr

And finally, an excellent blog, and perhaps the most ultimate resource for Jews against circumcision:
http://www.beyondthebris.com/

"Monster Mohel" May Not Be So Farfetched
Another myth that we are lead to believe is that, since mohels are the "jacks of their trade," they can do no wrong. People say over and over that there are never any complications when a mohel performs circumcision, as opposed to a doctor at a hospital. Here too, the internet has proved informative.

A boy in New York lost his glans during a bris to a Mohel who tried to circumcise him using a Mogen clamp.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/atlanta-lawyer-wins-11-573890.html

In the UK, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before. Read the shameless story here:
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/4588885.Baby_died_of__natural_causes__after_circumcision/

NY Mohel Infects 3 Babies With Herpes via Metzitzah B'peh (sucking of blood from wounded penis with one's mouth): One of Them Dies, Nothing Happens
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2

"Rabbi ordered to pay NIS 1.18 million for botched circumcision"
http://www.cirp.org/news/haaretz12-14-04/

"Unlicensed mohel suspected of injuring infants"
(What licensed mohel or Dr, ISN'T injuring an infant???)
http://www.cirp.org/news/jerusalempost11-09-2000/

Baby recovers from 'brit mila' amputation
http://www.cirp.org/news/jpost1/

Perhaps Hess' depiction of "Monster Mohel" may not be so outlandish after all?

Conclusion
The "anti-Semite" label may have held water, IF the intactivist movement targeted only Jewish circumcision. Let's not forget that in this country, of all circumcision, only 3% comprises of Jewish brisim. The rest of the 97% are secular circumcisions that happen at hospitals. And, as I have shown, circumcision is not universal among Jews. Some of the most outspoken members of the intactivist movement also happen to be Jewish. Intactivists believe that circumcision, when practiced on healhty, non-consenting minors, is a violation of basic human rights, regardless of religion, race, age, or sex.

Is Foreskin Man "anti-Semitic?" That's debatable. The comic, is not focusing on hating Jews, it focuses on the disdain the creator has for the circumcision of infants. In context, "Monster Mohel" is just another villain in a comic book. Was Hess' idea to publish the comic book ill-conceived? Yes. He should have thought twice about publishing something that could potentially be hurtful to his own cause. Will efforts to pass the ban in San Francisco fail? Yes. The ban is going to be labeled "anti-Semitic" and an infringement on "religious freedoms" and "parental rights." To be sure, it is going to crash and burn.

But intactivists were going to be labeled "anti-Semitic," and the ban was going to crash and burn anyway, in spite of the comic book. Intactivists were fooling themselves if they thought this ban even had a ghost of a chance. The whole point of proposing the ban was to bring attention to an issue that is usually extremely taboo and off-limits. It's real easy to call circumcision a "non-issue" until somebody proposes a ban on it. Now, people can no longer ignore this "non-issue," and have no choice but to openly talk about it. Circumcision advocates are horribly mistaken if they think it's the last they'll hear of intactivists once this ban gets voted down. Whether they like it or not, the intactivist movement is here to stay.

Intactivists have solid challenges that accusations of "anti-Semitism" can no longer silence. Once the political theatre is over, the questions of legality, ethics and human rights remain, and circumcision advocates, religious and/or secular, must address them.

The Issues
To what extent are "parental rights" and even "religious freedoms" protected? How far are parents allowed do what they want with their children before we call Child Protective Services?

As an example of the law stepping in between parents and children, very recently, a mother lost custody of her daughter for injecting Botox into her.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html

As if that weren't enough, the state of New Jersey has just passed a law prohibiting the use of Botox on children 18 and below, unless it is medically necessary. (Surprise, surprise! This is just what people who are against circumcision want!)
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/botox-bill-yes-circumcision-bill-no.html

In Fresno, a man is jailed for tattooing his son.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/20/97834/fresno-father-who-tattooed-son.html

In Oregon, a law was just passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html

In 1996, a federal ban on female circumcision was passed. There are actually many kinds of female genital cutting, some of which dwarf in comparison to male infant circumcision. But in America, parents cannot even draw a few drops of blood for "symbolic" purposes.

In May, last year, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the month of May did not end before the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html

In America, one parent's "freedom" is another parent's crime. While parents who have their boy circumcised "celebrate," parents who have their girl circumcised go to jail.
http://www.cirp.org/news/ajc2006-11-01/

A girl loses her clitoris, heads roll. A boy loses his life, it's "Oops, it won't happen again."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2

So why this double-standard?

Why this two-track system that treats boys and girls differently?

These are serious questions that simply can no longer be dismissed by pointing at a comic book and screaming "anti-Semite" all day long.

DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. At this very moment, the Foreskin Man comic is causing great debate and consternation, even among the intactivist movement. While some of us see the depiction of "Monster Mohel" as just another comic book villain, and simply the depiction of another child circumciser, others are deeply disturbed by it and see it as hurtful to the intactivist movement. I think we all agree, however, that Hess' move was ill-conceived and that he should have never published this comic.