Orthodox Shitheads Defy Law In Order To Endanger Children

Just gotta kiss them baby dicks, I suppose:

I really have nothing to say to that. The law doesn’t ban the penis-to-mouth contact, it just requires that the mohels warn the parents that their child might die or become brain damaged by it. And the mohels won’t do it.

According to Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg:

Then why are the children dead, you dishonest sack of shit?

And the mohels are apparently lying:

But no. Mohels know best and treat adults like children, gravely endangering the actual children in the process.

If I hadn’t read this on a couple different sites I’d think it was an onion story. Freedom of religion doesn’t including what appears to be literally sucking baby penises. I assume if this was some backwards cult doing it - the people would be arrested immediately - the fact that they are part of a religion that has been around for eons should make no difference.

I object to the OP’s presentment of the issue.

There is absolutely a valid argument to be made for the law, and indeed for banning the practice. But no one – so far as I’m aware — seriously contends the opposition arises because of a need on the part of mohels to “keep sucking baby dicks,” a phrasing that darkly hints at motives starkly different from those that actually motivate the mohels in question. You may rage at their adherence to superstition over medical science if you wish; you pollute the discussion by salacious phrasing.

That’s right-you can’t call them “dick suckers” if they only suck on one side of the dick.

The phrasing is accurate, he didn’t say fellate. They are literally sucking baby dicks.

If we’re gonna get all lawyery about it, his subject line is also misleading. The Orthodox shitheads in question are not defying the law in order to endanger children, necessarily; they’re defying the law because they’re Orthodox shitheads who refuse to acknowledge that there’s any risk in the practice. The child endangerment is an unfortunate side effect of their obstinate Orthodox shitheadery.

Ultra Orthodox Judaism continues to be as repellant as ever. This is just one of about five hundred disgusting practices they should drop but won’t. They don’t care anything much beyond breeding too many children, treating women like dirt and pilpul. I am glad I live here in America where they have very little influence instead of in Israel where they do.

And this is a key statement too. There is a principle of halakhic law known as pikuach nefesh - “for the sake of the soul.” It means that virtually any other Jewish law may be ignored or broken if a human life is at risk.

I assume (without detailed research) that the position of the Orthodox here, then, is that there is no real danger to life. In other words, I assume they reject the factual basis of the claim.

Great, so they’re not evil, just really stupid.

Exactly. This is hardly the time or place to be…

dons helmet

…making mountains out of mohels.

runs away

Or possibly they are skeptical, in the sense that they question the conclusions being drawn from the evidence.

Here is the PDF from New York City’s health authorities.

The statement does not anywhere claim that the transmission of HSV-1 was a result of the direct oral suctioning. It says a number of cases followed such rituals. And it says the mohel may transmit the disease, not that he will, and doesn’t offer up any sense of how likely such transmission is.

If it were me, I’d at least be interested in hearing answers to those questions. Obviously I don’t share a belief that the metzitzah b’peh is a religious obligation, or indeed that any metzitzah is a religious obligation. I don’t even think the brit milah is required, come to that.

Normal, responsible, mature, adult human beings would err on the side of caution and abandon this practice just in case. But the ultra orthodox are, as the OP states, shitheads so they don’t care about anything other than following meaningless rituals.

If there’s even a possibility this could happen they should stop. The fact that they won’t is disgusting.

How can we be sure that those babies didn’t catch herpes from one of their other sex partners?

I doubt there are any studies showing how likely this is - but

So there is ~ 70% chance any given mohel has HSV-1 - seems like putting your mouth on the open wound a penis is Not a good idea.

The baby is going to get HSV anyway, but the problem appears to be - getting it as a baby - is very dangerous.

Also see:

Edited to add…
Apparently there are some estimates - didn’t read to the end of my own cite…

If there’s a one in one hundred million possibility they should stop?

Of course! Rational Jewish law is supposed to be about lives not about blinding the following the laws. Groups like the Haredim don’t. It’s one of many reasons they suck.

Apparently the govt is only trying to get them to give a written warning to parents of the danger. It appears that some of these parents aren’t aware that oral suction is going to happen. I can’t imagine many agreeing to this, but the only real reason to keep this secret is that most people are going to find it disgusting.

Personally - I don’t think even if there is 0 chances in a million that someone should be sucking baby penises. I don’t care if their religion has done it for 5,000 years.

No, they reject them because the information was produced by a non-Haredi. Trust me - I know these assholes.

Hardee har har. How droll.

In “Transmission of herpes-simplex virus type 1 in a nursery for the newborn. Identification of viral isolates by D.N.A. ‘fingerprinting’,” authors Linnemann CC Jr, Buchman TG, Light IJ, Ballard JL provide this abstract:

Lancet. 1978 May 6;1(8071):964-6.

The Lancet article does not reveal either infectious mohels or promiscuous infants. Is it possible that there are other vectors of transmission?

Is there a group that insists on proper grammar, and would you be interested in their newsletter?

Seriously, unless you reject the entire concept of halakic law, there’s a point at which the dangers are so slight it does not make sense to follow it. It’s not “rational Jewish law” to accord a one-in-a-hundred-million chance as being something that dictates practice.