Ah, so this thread can get more disgusting.
If she were a Republican that might not matter so much.
I disagree that anyone has the right to fellate little boys.
I find it interesting that you describe sucking blood from an open wound as fellatio.
It’s more like penis vampirism.
We aim to please.
If there’s no blood, dude, you’re getting cheated.
Why is this rabbi still able to hold a bris? Is there no pressure to get him to retire this part of his job?
Anya Marie I’d like more details on that myself. Using his mouth to remove the blood points to an old fashioned ultra Orthodox mohel. He needs a community of old fashioned ultra Orthodox Jews to hire him. I’d think news of his having oral herpes would spread pretty fast.
New religions have always had to do that. Failure to do so got Jesus crucified.
Unfortunately, many “ultra Orthodox” Jews believe that metzitza b’peh is a divinely ordained ritual, and therefore can’t possibly be harmful.
Well yes but nonetheless I’m guessing this guy’s phone is going to stop ringing.
I agree with the first part of this but not the second. It’s probably just my inner post-Enlightenment Reformer coming through, but I really can’t see an argument for oral suction when we have things like gauze now. It was possibly the best way to stop bleeding at the time, but when most mohelim I know (and I’m aware I don’t know any to the right of Modern Orthodox) are GPs or surgeons, I just can’t see any reason for keeping an unsafe tradition when we’ve used modern tools to refine and improve so many other traditions (Shabbat timers, etc).
FTR, the myth is that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies, not our own.
The law is not a set of magic words and rituals.
In other words, this question seems to assume that by invoking the spectre of religion, you’ve crafted a get-out-of-jail-free card. But what you’ve described would be instantly dismissed by most fact-finders as contrived bullshit. So this wouldn’t be analyzed as a legal question, but a factual one.
And even if not – in Employment Division v. Smith, a peyote user was fired from his job. He complained that peyote use was a part of his religion – and it was. Nonetheless, the court upheld his firing, holding that laws of neutral applicability may incidentally impair religious practice without offending the Constitution.
In that hypothetical, the conduct you’ve imagined runs afoul of statutory rape laws, which are neutral in applicability, so they can be enforced against your “ministers.”
In the instant case, in contrast, there is no general law forbidding either circumcision or oral-genital contact.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
I read in another thread that the infant has to be erect in order to be circumcised. Pernicious rumour? I’d hate to see this gentleman’s reputation be besmirched.
I’d go for Yemen. Unless you also want to perform oral-genital contact with boys, in which case it’d be a dark province indeed… Perhaps Sealand? Maybe when Alaska secedes and becomes an anarchocapitalist autonomous state that stuff will fly for the right price.
The penis is pulled straight and elongated to perform a circumcision, but if it actually needs to be erect - penile cavernosa filled with blood - then that’s a religious thing, not a medical thing. Baby boys are not stimulated to erection for a medical circumcision. I have no idea if they are for a religious one.
No, they’re not.
Thank God for small favors!
I’m afraid to ask, but… is it even possible for an infant to achieve an erection?