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/

WASHINGTON POST: Ritual Circumcision After Blizzard Painted as "Triumph"

A recent Washington Post article tries very hard to put airs on what would be nothing more than a Jewish child circumcision rite.

The only factor that would mark this one ritual different than any other one that happens is the fact that it happened after a major snow storm.

The storm would have made life difficult for thousands of other people, but somehow this story stood above the rest, making the ordeal worthy of an article on the Washington Post.

The author attempts to frame the whole situation, flights being cancelled, snow being an obstacle for the arrival of the ritual circumciser etc. as some sort of "powerful story" of "struggle" and "the triumph of the human spirit."

To some, this may be the case, but to those of us not conditioned to accept forced male infant genital mutilation as "normal," it's quite the opposite.

Perhaps it is a "triumph" in the eyes of those with a need to fulfill what they see as divine commandment to mutilate the genitals of an otherwise healthy, non-consenting child, but from the point of view of the child, who is weak, innocent and vulnerable, it can be nothing more than abandonment and loss.

The author appears to want to elicit a standing ovation and applause, and many will comply without thinking twice.

But how would readers react if, instead of male infant circumcision, the tale were bout female infant circumcision?

What if this story were, instead, about a couple, who, after a long trial of "strength and endurance," a sandstorm that posed as an obstacle for instance, were "finally" able to have their daughter circumcised?

Would it matter to readers that their family saw circumcising a baby daughter as this "long-standing tradition?"

Would it matter that they saw this as a matter of religious sacrament?

Would it matter that it was a "struggle" for relatives and the ritual circumciser to arrive "in the nick of time?"

Surely arguments that male infant circumcision dwarfs in comparison would quell disgust.

A freshly severed child's foreskin.

An infant's clitoris, barely visible, on a pair of scissors.

Surely it would be of comfort that the procedure was performed by a trained professional using sterile utensils under pristine conditions.

Surely adult women saying they are circumcised and they are "just fine" ought to justify it.

Somehow, I doubt that arguments of "tradition," "religion" and "parental prerogative" would be enough to silence the ensuing shitstorm.

The snowstorm in the Washington Post story is a diversion; merely the tip of the iceberg.

The child endured unnecessary pain, and a needless risk for herpes, infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Forget all these other challenges the child was put through, everyone let's pay attention to that nasty snowstorm.

The efforts the author goes through to beautify what is happening, the fact that there has to be an article trying to paint this story as a "success" after "a long struggle" speaks to how the author really feels about the situation.

This could have been a story about someone finally getting a much needed heart.

A doctor making it in time to perform an emergency c-section that saved both mother and child.

You know?

An actual emergency in which there were real stakes.

But this?

Where a child's life was put at stake?

Part of the most intimate part of his body permanently destroyed?

His sexual experience changed forever?

Sorry, but it's a terrible attempt at beautifying a sick, disgusting tradition.

The author in the Washington Post article strives to make this a beautiful story about parents who "struggle" but "finally made it," but strip away the "tradition," "endurance" and religious mumbo-jumbo, take away the blizzard and you're left with nothing more than ritual child abuse and genital mutilation.

It is nothing but sick, disgusting, self-serving opportunism on the part of this Washington Post author, and it's deplorable.

Some may yet defend ritual genital mutilation as "tradition," and I find this ironic.

For one, the fact that "religious tradition" cannot justify female infant circumcision demonstrates that it fails as an argument.

And secondly, the fact that the child's mother is a rabbi, and she doesn't have to undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, not to mention the fact that the ritual mutilation was performed by a female mohel, exposes the hypocrisy in invoking "tradition" as an alibi; this goes to show you that traditions can and do change.

Ritual male infant circumcision is one of those traditions whose time has come.

The time has come to condemn this tradition in male children, as in female children, for what it is; ritualized child abuse and forced genital mutilation.

Relevant Websites:
Beyond the Bris: News and Views on Jewish Circumcision

Related Posts:

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Related Articles:

Female Circumcision Is Becoming More Popular in Malaysia

A Cutting Tradition - The New York Times

Circumcised women can have healthy sex lives: expert - SBS

Stories That Didn't End So Triumphantly:

TEL AVIV: Botched baby dies - circumcision exonerated again

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

ISRAEL: Baby's Penis Reattached after Mohel Botches Circumcision

PITTSBURGH: Penis cut off, reattached, rabbi sued

ISRAEL: Baby loses 1/3 of penis in worse-than-usual circumcision

NEW YORK: Hypospadias - rabbi botches circumcision

Johannesburg: Jewish circumciser slapped with life ban after botched bris

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

And the story repeats itself, yet again.

Another baby dies following his circumcision, and, again, circumcision didn't kill him, it was something else.

It's always something else, isn't it.

The men with the knives are never to blame.

Reads the Jewish Press article:

"It was reported by the rabbinate that “since the initial diagnosis, the doctors who treated the baby were convinced that the complication in the baby’s condition was not the result of the circumcision but resulted from a previously existing medical condition."

What could it have been, then? Was there anything done to determine there were any "previously existing medical conditions" prior to the boy's mutilation?

“An investigation revealed that the mohel who performed the circumcision is a veteran, certified mohel,” said the Rabbinate’s statement. “The mohel followed procedure and performed a test on the baby after the rite. Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself. The mohel accompanied the family to the hospital.”

Yes, being a "certified veteran" already puts one beyond suspicion, doesn't it. What is the reason this "veteran" performed the "test" after, not before the procedure?

Read it again:

"Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself."

The deliberate denial in this story is absolutely unbelievable.

"A week ago, at about 11 AM, MDA paramedics were called to a synagogue in Holon, after an infant who had undergone a rite of circumcision there had stopped breathing and lost consciousness, shortly after the ceremony. The rescue crew took him to Wolfson Medical Center. After resuscitation in the hospital shock room, the baby’s condition stabilized."

Yes, I'm sure the fact this child died had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was submitted to a needless, excruciatingly painful circumcision prior. This sounds awfully familiar to the Amitai Moshe case that happened in England.

"After investigating the circumstances of the case, it was discovered that the circumcision had actually been performed flawlessly..."

Yes, "flawlessly." So "flawlessly" that the child is now dead.

I wonder what constitutes as "flawless." Is that anything like a "flawless" female sunat?

"...and apparently baby choked during feeding.

'The bris had concluded safely and then everyone sat down to eat,” Abraham, a friend of the family, related. 'He was nursing from his mother and then she put him in his cart. At some point we noticed that the child was not responding and had turned blue.'"

Got that? It was the mother's fault. She should have known better than to feed him.

It is simply beyond belief the way the painfully obvious is ignored here to protect tradition and evade responsibility.

This wasn't the first time this has happened, and, until people have the honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade, it won't be the last.

In the UK, another boy, 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.

(Read Jewish Press article on the current incident in Israel here.)

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
 

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Another Mohel Botches a Bris

Whenever a botched circumcision case makes the news, and people start talking about it, either in the commentary section (when news outlets are actually brave enough to allow them), or parenting forums, or on Facebook, there is always somebody who says something along the lines of:

"This wouldn't have happened if it were performed by a mohel. Mohels are jacks of their trade who do circumcisions for a living."

Actually, mohels are often put on pedestals in more ways than one.

A Jewish bris performed by a mohel is better than a hospital circumcision performed by a doctor for a myriad of reasons. Here are some that I've heard:

• Mohels are more experienced, so your son is sure not to suffer a botched job
• Mohels take less time than doctors(some claim less than 10 seconds), shortening the painful procedure
• Mohels don't use pain medication (this is supposed to be a good thing, in spite of the facts)
• Mohels do their work outside of the hospital, in a religious setting, giving "meaning" to circumcision, making it more "holistic" ("holistic" taking on an entirely different meaning here)

There are other reasons, but these seem to be the main ones.

Now, there have been quite a few documented cases of mohels botching a bris, and being taken to court for it. (For example, here and here.)

But whenever I bring these up, strings and straws are grasped for, here and there, and Jewish circumcision advocates begin to list off alibis of why these are "special cases," and why mohels continue to be the best circumcision performers.

Among these are:

• The child had a pre-existing condition; not the mohel's fault (when a child is found later on to be a hemophiliac, have a heart condition and other ailments)
• The child had a particularly strange-shaped penis to work with; the case is an exception
• The botch was a result of clamp malfunction; mohel is not at fault
• The botch was performed by an inexperienced mohel; not a representative case

It's interesting to hear Jewish advocates of circumcision clarify that the bris has to be performed by a "trained and qualified mohel."

Thus, the reasons why Jewish circumcision performed by a mohel in a bris milah ritual are an ever moving target, and Jewish circumcision and its officiators remain sacrosanct.

Parents Usually Not Forthcoming
One of the reasons why very few botched circumcision jobs make the news is because parents, both Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are complicit in keeping the botched circumcision job and its perpetrator secret.

What parent wants to admit that their child has been permanently disfigured because they decided to agree to a medically unnecessary procedure?

In the case of Jewish parents, who wants to admit that what is perhaps the most precious of Jewish mitzvot is the cause of their child's disfigurement, and in worse cases, death?

As an example, when investigators were querying the Jewish families whose babies were infected with herpes, they would not name names. People in these communities were also unwilling to help find the perpetrator. The preservation of a cherished tradition that people have emotional attachment to is more important.

Circumcisors, Jewish and non-Jewish have reputations to protect. Gentile parents have peace of mind to preserve. Jewish parents have the added burden of protecting their own, and not giving away a holy man who performs the sacred ritual of bris milah. Thus, silence is perpetuated, and parents are complicit in keeping this silence.

That is, until now.

Circumcision Lawsuits
Recent years have seen a series of lawsuits against circumcisors, mohels and doctors, sometimes people who are both, for circumcision mishaps, which indicates that there are parents who are deciding to no longer keep silent about what has happened to their sons.

In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps

The peculiar thing about Mogen is that up until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, "when used properly," even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.

And, just this month, another mohel was taken to court by parents in Queens. The rabbi told the parents he did an "acceptable job" that was "performed appropriately" and "within the standard of care and skill required of Jewish mohelim and circumcisers." He also allegedly told the parents that calling a doctor wasn't necessary, even though it was obvious that something had gone wrong with the bris. The parents claim that the delay in medical treatment resulted in greater permanent damage to his son, resulting in the necessity for corrective surgery with general anesthesia; the boy may need more operations in the future.

Of course there will be those who claim that this would never happen if the circumcision were "properly performed."

To which I would retort that female circumcision does not result in complications "when properly performed" by the right shaman priestess either.

The self-serving, ad hoc special pleading is astounding.

Interesting note; Jewish groups are challenging a New York law that says mohels have to warn parents of the risks, and have them sign a consent form before proceeding. Does this mean that Jewish parents AREN'T being told of the risk of glans ablations, herpes infections and death?

Hopefully more parents, Jewish and non-Jewish, will find the courage to bring the botched circumcisions of their sons to light.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room 

The Ghost of Mogen 

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way 

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes 

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

 Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

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.

Holistic Circumcision: A Blatant Oxymoron

Some mohels use the term "holistic circumcision" to market themselves to gentile clientele. Google the term and you'll find a long list of mohels that offer the service, particularly, and ironically, to Christian parents. (The Bible expressly forbids circumcision to gentiles.) 

"Gentle, compassionate, natural, caring," reads one slogan, adding more to the irony.

Perhaps female circumcision would be permissible in this country if it were performed in a "holistic, gentle, compassionate, caring" manner?

So how did this mash-up even occur?

The rabbis that coin this oxymoron probably use the term to mean a circumcision that is not performed in the hospital, but instead in, what they claim to be, the "gentle, compassionate, caring" environment of the services they provide. (Isn't that convenient!)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair

But the true meaning of the term "holistic" makes its combination with the term "circumcision" (in this case the forced amputation of a healthy, non-consenting child's foreskin from his penis) truly an oxymoron. Like "fireproof match." It doesn't work.

According to the entry for "holism" in Wikipedia: 
Holism (from ὂλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) , is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts.

Interesting, for tradesmen who consider the foreskin to be "extra" and/or "superfluous" to the male organs, and whose sole services are its extirpation at the expense of the most basic rights of the child.

"Holistic?" Impossible. 

"Gentle?" If you consider holding a child down while you cut off part of his most sensitive and intimate organs "gentle." 

"Compassionate?" If you consider ignoring the child's cries and disregarding his rights to self-autonomy "compassionate." 

"Natural?" Only if you also consider amputating a normal, healthy part of the human body "natural." 

"Caring?" Not for a healthy, non-consenting minor, that's for sure.

All things considered, the juxtaposition of the terms "holistic" and "circumcision" couldn't be any more oxymoronic. A mohel is about as "holistic, gentle, compassionate, natural" and "caring" as a doctor.

So why are mohels reaching out to a Christian clientele?

I can only speculate that the increasing scrutiny of circumcision and the growing intactivist movement has intimidated them (IE, the San Francisco circumcision ban), and they hope to establish strength in numbers.

Perhaps these mohels have never read the New Testament. Or, at the very least, they count on Christians never having read it.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:1-4

"Peaceful", "holistic," "painless," "bloodless" circumcision?

Is that anything like a "peaceful," "holistic," "painless," "bloodless" female circumcision?

How can I get one of those for my daughter?

Because you know, I'm the parent, I decide, and it's my choice what I do with my children.

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

So I log onto Facebook to see this story.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/tot_shock_hosp_death_Eja8FLrJF8YtHPCR3JMSMP

Also released here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383844/Jamaal-Coleson-Jrs-parents-accuse-Manhattan-hospital-fatal-botched-circumcision.html

Apparently a 2yo boy wakes up from being put under for a circumcision. He dies 10 hours later, and for whatever reason, people can't figure out why.

The boy was circumcised at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and they've run an autopsy to determine the cause of death of this child, as if it weren't obvious enough. They're apparently conducting a further "internal review," and they're going to report their "findings" to the state Department of Health.

This wouldn't be the first time Beth Israel gets in trouble over circumcision related complications; a few years ago, as much as 15 babies were infected with MRSA following their circumcisions due to terrible hygiene practices.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/04/11/state_details_safety_lapses_at_beth_israel/?page=2

It will be infuriating, yet not surprising, that this child's death will be attributed to some secondary, unrelated mishap. The "right" amount of anaesthesia wasn't used, or there will have been some overlooked allergic reaction that caused this child to die. ANYTHING to hide the fact that the child's death is directly related to his circumcision.

The biggest question here is, DID this boy have to die? What was the reason he had to be circumcised in the first place? What was his problem? The medical or clinical indication for surgery? Did the child have a critical condition that could have only been remedied through surgery?

It seems this child's circumcision is tied to his parents' wedding. Was his circumcision going to be part of the marriage package? Perhaps one of the parents said that the boy is circumcised or the marriage was off? This report isn't giving too many details. If this boy was perfectly healthy and was not in need of surgery, then this alone begs the question of why he was even put under general anaesthesia in the first place.

In the comments section of this news article (first link), someone has already suggested that had the circumcision been performed by a mohel on the 8th day, the circumcision would have been a "success." This wouldn't be the first time I hear this line either. It never ceases to amuse me how people can say this brazenly with a straight face, forgetting, perhaps intentionally, of cases where mohels have been responsible for the deaths of newborn infants.

NY Mohel Infects 3 Babies With Herpes: One of Them Dies, Nothing Happens
A few years ago in New York, a mohel gave herpes to three baby boys, one of whom died. Orthodox Jews observe a practice called "metzitzah b'peh" whereby the mohel sucks blood directly from the child's wounded penis, and the disease was transmitted this way. Be that as it may, every effort was made to dismiss this notion, and city officials were unable to persuade Orthodox leaders to abandon the practice. The city was at odds with dealing with the Orthodox leaders who were angered by the infringement of their "religious freedoms," and its mandate to protecting public health.

Here, again, we observe the same attitude of looking under a rock for the elephant in the room, with the health department "investigating" whether or not the rabbi was responsible for infecting the infants.

Quoth Mayor Bloomberg:
"We're going to do a study, and make sure that everybody is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."

What would he have said had the situation been different? What would he have said had the subjects been, oh say, girls, and the person responsible was a ritual shamaness? Would it have been the government's "business" to tell people how to practice their religion then? Would Mayor Bloomberg had been as easy around the eggshells?

"Religious freedom" won out in this case, however, and the Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden basically let the mohel off the hook. Additionally, no further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh.

Read the Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/std/std-bris-commishletter.pdf

Quoth Rabbi David Niedorman of the United Jewish Organization:
"The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years... We do not change. And we will not change."

Time and time again, people feign ignorance and the foxes are allowed to guard the henhouse. Defenders of oral suction say there is no proof that it spreads herpes at all. In Rockland County, where the mohel lives in the Hasidic community of Monsey, he has been barred from performing oral suction. But the state health department retracted a request it had made to him to stop the practice. And in New Jersey, where the mohel has done some of his 12,000 circumcisions, the health authorities have been silent.

According to the mohel's lawyer, there was no "conclusive proof" that he had spread herpes, and that he should be allowed to continue the practice. According to the mohel, the twin who died and the Staten Island boy both had herpes-like rashes before they were circumcised and were seen by a pediatrician who approved their circumcision. (He knew this and yet he continued?) In other words, "not my fault."

Quoth Kenneth Glassberg, whose private practice includes Hasidic families:
"If I knew something caused a problem from a medical point of view, I would recommend against it."

Sure you would Glassberg, sure you would.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2

Death at a London Synagogue
Whenever deaths happen due to circumcision, specificaly male circumcision, it seems everyone knows to look the other way. People seem to pretend like they don't know at all what happened; you have a dead child who was alive and well not too long ago, and it was all due to some mysterious force of nature. Nobody knows what happened. The fact that the child was circumcised moments before is considered beyond suspicion a priori.

In February, 2007, a boy circumcised at Golders Green Synagogue turns blue bleeding from his nose and mouth 30 minutes after the procedure. Here too, we see the same exact, well-rehearsed dance. Nobody knows exactly how it happened, only that it happened just after circumcision, and the circumcision had nothing to do with it. Initially it was ruled that the boy died as a direct result of the procedure, but the inquest years later rules the boy died of "natural causes."

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/4588885.Baby_died_of__natural_causes__after_circumcision/

The coroner ruled the procedure had nothing to do with the boy's death, but instead blamed sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Quoth the coroner:
“I am satisfied to say the death was as a result of a naturally occurring disease process which simply ran its course.
“Any connection with Amitai's tragic death and the circumcision itself can be ruled out and I accept the circumcision was skillfully and deftly undertaken.
“There can be no suggestion that the Rabbi was in any way at fault or to blame for this tragedy.”

Quoth the "world leading expert" on SIDS that was called to give "evidence":
“With the circumcision itself, I can't think of any mechanism that would be responsible.”

(Perhaps he simply can't think... You don't suppose the child was struck by lightning?)

Quoth Jonathan Goldberg QC of the Initiation Society (a circumcision interest group by the way):
“This verdict puts paid to those ill-intentioned people who would have tried to use this tragedy to attack Jewish circumcision. (Rather than determining the boy's cause of death, this is what seems to be the most important...)
“Professor Fleming, a world renowned expert, demonstrated conclusively that the death was a freak occurrence due to sudden infant death syndrome, wholly unrelated to the circumcision.”

Yes, Professor Fleming. He would have had no previous interaction with you, now would he.

Of special interest in this ruling is that the Initiation Society, a pro-circumcision interest group was represented by a QC; non-circumcision interest groups such as NORM-UK and the child were not. The pathologist who performed the autopsy was not called, bringing into question what was the "naturally occuring disease that ran its course" and how the coroner knew this.

Opponents of infant genital mutilation are not "ill-intentioned" and have no focus on Jewish ritual; circumcision is also practiced by Muslims and non-theraputic "routine" circumcision is performed on children of secular families. It is a human rights issue no-matter who performs it, especially when death follows.

Back to our original boy at Beth Israel
I'll ask again:
DID this boy have to die? What was the reason he had to be circumcised in the first place? What was his problem? The medical or clinical indication for surgery? Did the child have a critical condition that could have only been remedied through surgery?

Surgery is a deliberate and intentional wound, and there are dangers any time a person is subjected to it. The dangers are infection and/or bleeding to death. Furthermore, there are dangers someone must be put under general anaesthesia; any operation that requires general anasthesia is a major operation. It is irresponsible, at best, to put a 2 year old under general anasthesia who had no medical problems at all.

Some might say that "he wouldn't have died if it were performed correctly." Or "he wouldn't have died had he been circumcised by a mohel." But here's the bottom line: If this boy was perfectly healthy and was not in need of surgery, it doesn't matter who had done it nor how; his death is completely irreconcilable.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less pretending like they can give parents of said individuals any kind of "choice." But will anybody come to this obvious conclusion?

Here's exactly what will happen; it will be determined the boy had some overlooked, pre-existing condition. That, or there was something wrong with the general anaesthesia. At any rate, Beth Israel will promise they'll "do better next time." As usual, the hospital gets off the hook and the medically unnecessary child butchery continues. What a life...