Nonplussed and Unpleased
That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion*
I’m trying.
I’m really trying hard to understand people who would riot over a cartoon. The word cartoon and the word riot shouldn’t be in the same sentence unless you are saying: The cartoon was a riot!
No one religious group should have the power to dictate what information, whether fatuous or factual, should or should not be published. Muslims can control other Muslims, fine with me if that’s what they want to do, but they can’t control the free world. Best of all, it's a cartoon for crissakes!
Sunday’s New York Time’s magazine had another huge head scratcher titled: Is Ritual Circumcision Religious Expression?
According to the article some Hasidic Jews in New York use “oral suction” or metzitzah b’peh – in their circumcision rituals.
“After removing the foreskin, the mohel, who conducts the circumcision, cleans the wound by sucking blood from it.”
Any person, especially a man, in the United States who used “oral suction” on an infant penis would be locked up in jail for years.
Except, apparently the Hasidic mohels in New York.
I think it’s time that we apply the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to aberrant religious behaviors.
It seems that today if we use the word religion, you can do just about what ever you want to do. People are afraid to show any sort of “religious” intolerance.
Which is why infant penises in New York are being sucked on by grown men -- and why all over the world a few cartoons are causing casualties and chaos.
Someone has to open their eyes to the naked truth: both of the above religious behaviors are bizarre and ludicrous.
And god sayith: let there be cartoons!
And god also sayith:– if it involves one teeny tiny penis and one large man’s mouth and a sucking action, it beith fellatio which on a newborn is considered child abuse.
Amen.
*Southern slang for losing one's temper or being at the end of one's rope.
posted by mary bishop | 10:04 AM
28 Comments:
Me too. So sad...
Mary, I was thinking along those same lines this morning when I was driving to work and heard that phrase "cartoon riot". It's a crazy world we live in. They said 10 people have been killed. Over a cartoon??!!!
You are very informative lady. I did not know about this religious practice. Ewww.
Dashababy - great minds think alike! I never heard of that oral suction practice until I read it in the NY Times on Sunday.
Hey maybe that's all those poor priests were doing with their alter boys...just practicing oral suction!
I really thought "Three more killed in Cartoon Riot" was an Onion headline.
Imagine my shock when the coffee kicked in.
That circumcision thing was news to me, and I truly wish I could unread it.
Sylow says: I really thought "Three more killed in Cartoon Riot" was an Onion headline.
Very funny - certainly doesn't seem like a real headline for the year 2006.
Re the Times article, it is on my mind..especially since 3 babies got neonatal herpes infections from one guy...
I would not ask for that practice to be done if I had a son. If it's a genuine health risk, I'd have no problem making it illegal. But just because it's using the mouth does not make it oral sex any more than my urologist's using his hand to examine me is a handjob. There is nothing sexual about either scenario. That is not to say that there is nothing gross about either scenario, of course.
I REALLY wish I could unknow that that added bit is even possible.
In my comment section, e-kvetcher explains the background of this procedure. I think it might be helpful:
http://sicat222.blogspot.com/2006/02/question-for-men.html
HI Ralphie! My feeling is that there is something bizarre about using your mouth to clean a wound if you're not a dog.
If your urologist used his hand during an examination when there were other tools available for him to use, then I'd wonder about his motives too.
My point being it's not necessary to lick wounds, we have swabs and all kinds of equipment to do the job. And we sterilize these tools too.
If not for this being considered a religious rite, same identical scenario, the person doing the sucking would be considered a pedophile.
Sylow...sorry --I know how you feel...
Irina, the background dates from a primitive time when people didn't know about sterilization or bacteria etc. The author's point is what to do when private religious expressions impose harm on unconsenting innocent third parties...that baby boy who is sucked by the mohel with herpes or the child who needs blood but whose parents refuse to sign for a transfusion (courts have ruled on this saying parents can't endanger their children's lives even if they are devout Jehovah's Witnesses.)
I’m really trying hard to understand people who would riot over a cartoon.
Moreover, why weren't they rioting 4 months ago when the cartoons were first published. Something fishy is goin' on here, methinks.
(BTW: Thanks for stoping by Blognonymous. I really enjoyed writing Blogger's Anonymous - Get Clean and Stay Clean and am glad you enjoyed it.)
It is not even worth talking about. It is a practice used by a few fanatics that is rejected by about 99.9 percent of the Jewish community. And the only reason it has come up is because a couple of infants caught an infection this way.
Bringing this up is a lot like anti-abortion activists bringing up partial-birth abortion as an argument - it's barely ever used but the shock value is supposed to make the argument by distracting people from the reality.
HI Kvatch...thanks for stopping by. I agree, something is fishy about the cartoon riots indeed.
Michael -- everything is worth talking about...yes only a "couple of infants caught an infection" but one infant died from this bizarre, primitive, practice...which is one too many.
You might want to read the article in the Times by Jeffery Rosen...to understand why he sites this religious belief and others.
Religious rites by minority groups are being looked at by the courts - just as the Jehovah's Witnesses are court mandated to have their children treated with blood transfusions if deemed necessary. other dangerous rites and rituals are being look at too.
You seem to have a very strong reaction to this subject re: "Bringing this up is a lot like anti-abortion activists bringing up partial-birth abortion as an argument." (?)
Would you rather have information kept from you and others? Too late, the Times "broke" the story.
Not me.
If this was being done by a sect of Christians or Muslims, would you feel as bitter?
If you don't think this is worth talking about - then write to the New York Times and see if you can push your views upon the newspaper.
It's apparently working for the Muslims.
If it' aint worth taking about then why are you talking about it? I'm heartened to hear that this is not the "norm" and only a few fanatics do it. However, it's callous to say that *only* a few infants have died from it.
MB brings up some very good points. I say hurrah. Knowledge is power and a couple of infants actually matter. IE: Nixzmary Brown matters and any other individual infant that dies at the hand of a mistreater, religious or otherwise.
If a religion or even a belief can't be questioned? stand a bit of discussion (pro and con) then what good is it? How strong is it? C'mon...discuss! Is nothing sacred? or should we go backward in time to the days of religion and gov't as a fused entity and disallow any test any question to the seat of power?
Isn't it important to revisit ancient practices every now and again to see if they still pass muster today? If not, bring back crucifiction. Bring back the magdalene laundries... bring back the cruel and or barbaric because someone placed it under the heading of "religious."
I guess that's what they call blind faith.
oops..."only" one died.
LB - we all have to keep "thinking" and questioning or what will happen to us?
As Socrates said: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Only mothers get to say: Because I said so! ;-)
I gave up on religion a long time ago... but have recently, in the last few years, discovered faith.
I think there was a point where religion was important, as it drove the law and structures of society. But as society changes, we have had to change our rules. Religion refuses to do that - ie: they would rather watch million and millions of people die in Africa than let condoms be distributed - that is has come to the point that religion is frankly not a cornerstone in most people's lives. And, dare I even say, not important in society in general.
I am not mocking any form of religion - and I respect those that are truly religious (as opposed to those who use religion when it is convenient) - but I think what we are seeing from the religious conservatives is a last ditch attempt to reverse the trend.
And it will not work.
Religion is not belief - it is a set of rules. Nothing more.
Having faith, in whatever form you choose that to be, is a true testament to your beliefs. Whether you believe in god(s) or some form of supreme being(s), or just the spirituality of all living things on the planet.
(OK, I am getting down off my soapbox now...)
Debates on circumcision always make me uneasy because in the long history of persecution of Jews, the outlawing of circumcision has always been a first step toward much deeper discrimination. I also have seen a lot of arrogance in the way it has been argued against by secularists; a certain "we're the enlightened one and can't tolerate your quaint rituals" tone.
I mean, read what you wrote. It's pretty intolerant and sensationalistic.
"It seems that today if we use the word religion, you can do just about what ever you want to do. People are afraid to show any sort of “religious” intolerance."
Well, that's not true. We don't allow female circumcision and we don't allow Muslims to chop off other people's hands if they shoplift.
"Which is why infant penises in New York are being sucked on by grown men -- and why all over the world a few cartoons are causing casualties and chaos."
I mean, what are you saying here? The logical extention of your argument is that because we are too tolerant, chopping off baby foreskins is OK. Isn't that what you really have in mind? Do you really think it's fair to compare the problem of Metzizah Ba'al Peh with the violence over the cartoons?
"Someone has to open their eyes to the naked truth: both of the above religious behaviors are bizarre and ludicrous."...
"And god also sayith:– if it involves one teeny tiny penis and one large man’s mouth and a sucking action, it beith fellatio which on a newborn is considered child abuse."
That's really not a fair comparison either. The Hasidic practice maybe quaint and outdated, but the root of it is the avoidance of infection. It's certainly not about sexual gratification, and to be honest, I find the comparison to child molestation offensive even though I myself am embarassed that any Jew still does things like this.
I can't help but think that you find circumcision in general a "bizarre and ludicrous" practice, because that is the clear implication of your argument, in which case, I think it valid on that basis for me to read your post as an argument against circumcision, not just a story about a fringe version of it.
"I shudder when I think of all the horrors that have been committed throughout history in the name of religion..... "
I shudder when I think of all the horrors that have been committed in the name of ideology. I do not think religion is any more responsible for horror than any other ideology taken too far.
"Hey maybe that's all those poor priests were doing with their alter boys...just practicing oral suction! "
Again, this is a pretty offensive comment.
Michael...I am irreverant. I am iconoclastic.
I am not a Jew, Christian or Muslim or any other religion.
I love all good people and despise bad people no matter what religion they adhere to.
A grown man placing his mouth on a baby's penis is extremely offensive to me and even though I am not Jewish or Christian or Muslim, I still can be offended.
Saying it's a religious practice is not an excuse for such behavior.
What matter why someone decided for the very first time in 1288 or whatever year it was to perform oral suction on a baby...?
It's 2006 now and we have to get real: this is unsanitary and gross and totally unneccesary.
Ideology like you suggest has all the earmarks of a religion without a supernatural being.
I don't like that either...but there is no doubt that horrendous things have been done in the name of religion...
Why? Because religion is a good excuse that bad people use for behaviors that should be totally opposite to what their god would want.
I mean, isn't god supposed to be good, kind, loving etc?
Michael...you get too offended too easily.
And my point is I have been quiet too long about how offended *I* am.
I am offended...I want people to think about what they are doing.
I am going to be intolerant of something religious or otherwise that's crazy. That anyone would say was crazy if "religion" wasn't involved.
It's about taking things too far as you say. The ancient ritual of oral suction is ridiculous no matter what religion is behind it -- and that's why so few people do it.
Rioting over any cartoon is crazy.
I'm sick of hearing the word cartoon and death and destruction in the same sentence.
Cartoon means Micky Mouse and Superman and Tom and Jerry and Spongebob Square pants...(oops seems to me the Chiristian right thought Spongebob was gay and had a problem.)
I am entitled to my opinion - I am entitled to be fresh if I want. I am thankfully free of religious frenzy, dogma or ancient rules in my thoughts words or deeds.
I live in America so I can be who I am. I am free to worship nothing. My beliefs are protected by the consititution. They are as valid as yours.
Circumsize like crazy if that's part of your religion..but it isn't part of mine. I don't have a son so the subject never came up (no pun intended and yes, Michael you could smile a tiny bit without losing any face.)
Anyhow...oral suctioning of infants and killing over cartoons is bizarre.
Good debate all in all.
Thanks to everyone who commented.
I'm with you JDJ.
Personally, I just can't buy into the supernatural. I don't believe in ghosts or angels or devils or any other supernatural beings.
When I was a kid I didn't buy into Santa or the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy etc. either...
This comment won't go through...WV is making me crazy...I thought I sent this hours ago!
Dear MB,
This subject is rather sensitive for me, for as you may already know, I am a Muslim and proud of it. I am saddened by the way my religion is perceived by other people; as though Islam is equivalent to violence and terrorism. I can tell you the Islam that was taught to me preaches neither, but love and harmony.
I must ask you, have you viewed the cartoons? I have not; but I have read descriptions about them. One that I read of depicted Prophet Muhammad with a turban on his head that was shaped as a bomb. Another had a picture of a pig (which is haram in Islam), with a turban on its head, reading the Holy Quran, with Muhammad tattooed on it’s behind.
Yes, they were cartoons. But I think we need to understand the purpose these caricatures were published in the first place. I believe in Freedom of the Press but up to a certain point. Not when it degrades religion; or spreads lies in hope of creating controversy.
Do not get me wrong. I do not agree with all the riot acts that have been going on. In fact I totally condemn them. However, I do understand the fury that these cartoons have ignited.
You may delete my comment if you think it’s inappropriate. No hard feelings.
Take care.
My Dear Along -- I would NEVER delete a comment from you and welcome your comments from the bottom of my heart!
Yes, I did view the cartoons - they are all over the internet. I found them tasteless. And personally am sorry if they offended you or your family in any way.
I also can understand any group, religion, minority etc. being angry about satire that singles out their group., their god etc.
But, like you I cannot condone violence - death and destruction because of a cartoon, repugnant as it might be.
If we start censoring all the things that all groups might find offensive, we will end up with two separate classes: the censors who know all -- and the rest of us who must only go on heresay.
Because I follow no religion but love aspects of all religions, I'd be offended every day of my life by something said or written or drawn.
Maybe my feelings go back to my childhood when someone first said to me: Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me...
PS - I read Islam for Idiots - a Christmas gift, and feel I know much more about your religion now. I know that love and harmony is a major part of your religion, and I would hope all religions, for that fact.
I would love to see a world where we all could raise our children in a safe loving place. Is this so impossible? Doesn't every mother in the world hope for that for her children?
It is my hope for all of us that we can find nonviolent ways to express ourselves, but I also feel that freedom of the press, whether we like or don't like what they are saying, is our only way to get information, to desseminate it, evaluate it and make up our own minds.
I don't know the answer on how to get peace and harmony on this earth. I don't know what I can personally do to change the climate of hate, of us against them, of blame and misery.
But violence isn't the answer I'm sure of that.
Along, thanks for commenting-- as always you bring intelligence and compassion to your comments.
Y'know, we discussed this in my Con Law II class last night. Mainly because we're in the section about defamation and free speech. We tried to apply the doctrine of "fighting words" (where speech may be curtailed if it is so offensive that it contains imminent threat of violence) but it failed, based on the fact that the outcry developed roughly 3 months after the cartoon was originally published. Not so imminent.
Echrai - you bring up an interesting point...part of what is confusing me on this issue.
Thanks
I have seen offensive Jewish cartoons all my life...as a matter of fact...Jewish cartoons and charicatures were a big part of the Nazi propaganda machine...
I still belive in freedom of the press and that the reader has the choice of whether or not to view it.
Supression of things that offend us means that something we find important might be suppressed because it offends someone else.
Not a good trade off :)
Bradley
The Egel Nest
Bradley - I agree -- 100% every word you said. There's right wing religious channels on my cable TV , there's a guy who wears a sanitary pad on his head!!!! spewing out hate against Jews and Gays --
I find this appalling but I just have to click the remote and pass by. I can't demand that these shows be taken off my tv, even though I am paying for them, and don't want them at all.
Doc nos...true true...
Post a Comment
<< Home