# Orthodox Shitheads Defy Law In Order To Endanger Children **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 4, 2012, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606 "2012-09-04T02:35:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/281 "2012-09-07T13:41:04Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Oh, my error. What do you think of natural law and the parable of the sower? Are we making small talk now? Do you come here often? You like the weather we’ve been having? I think the Nats are going to take the pennant this year – what do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/282 "2012-09-07T13:57:42Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Read for context. > > I have said exactly nothing about this ultra-Orthodox practice. My comments were entirely directed at the use of “circumcision” versus “cutting baby dicks” or “cock mutilation”. The suggestion was made that using circumcision was ‘unfair use of language’ because it was a ‘euphamism’ that hid the ghastly reality of the practice and molded the ‘debate’. This was never the suggestion, but at this point, I leave it to the fossil record to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/283 "2012-09-07T14:07:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are we making small talk now? Do you come here often? You like the weather we’ve been having? I think the Nats are going to take the pennant this year – what do you think? Speaking of small talk, **Bricker** , you had a walk-on in a dream I had last night. It had nothing to do with baby dicks, the SDMB, or anything controversial at all. But sure enough, there you were. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/284 "2012-09-07T14:08:13Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This was never the suggestion, but at this point, I leave it to the fossil record to decide. I guess someone else posted these points then: > [@](#): > > The same is true here. If this practice cannot be defended without sanitizing it, abstracting away from the graphic act itself, or characterizing it as some sort of banal religious ritual, then perhaps it is indefensible. > [@](#): > > What is “proper” and “generally-accepted” is by definition a euphemism. It papers over the fact that people genuinely find them outrageous. Define the language, define the debate. To my mind, this is not a “suggestion” that using the term circumcision is “sanitizing” the act, “abstracting away from the graphic act”, and a “euphemism”; moreover, that using that term is ‘defin[ing] the language, defin[ing] the debate’. It is outright stating it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/285 "2012-09-07T15:15:35Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Speaking of small talk, **Bricker** , you had a walk-on in a dream I had last night. It had nothing to do with baby dicks, the SDMB, or anything controversial at all. But sure enough, there you were. Did I look like Erik Estrada? Cause that would be spooky. In that, in real life, I don’t look like Erik Estrada. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/286 "2012-09-07T15:58:24Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I guess someone else posted these points then: I don’t know why you keep trying to take this interpretation away from what I am saying. So I’m going to try this another way and perhaps be a bit clearer. I think there is a distinction between circumcision and the ultra-orthodox practice here. Circumcision is a generally-agreed word. There is no generally agreed word for oral suction in super-traditional circumcision. Circumcision is conventional. It is a nice, sanitary, medical Latinate word. The morpheme itself does not really suggest the defining quality of what it signifies. The word “colonoscopy,” on the other hand, does. But that’s ok. It’s a euphemism of a past era. Probably no one anymore hears the word “circumcision” and thinks “cutting around.” In this case, it’s not a huge terminological retreat to use a commonly-agreed word. I thought it was a banal observation that if you are going to advocate some practice, you just need to own up to what it really is. Circumcision is pretty contested (not by a hypothetical lunatic) and is not just a sterile medical procedure. All it takes is a little honestly not to pretend otherwise. Maybe if the word for it really were babydickectomy, some people who never question it might. I don’t know. But then there’s “oral suction.” We don’t really have a generally-agreed word. We have a technical rabbinic term that hasn’t entered the lexicon. It’s not exactly “bar mitzvah” or “mazel tov.” Then there’s the translation on wikipedia, “oral suction.” People clearly find the practice repugnant and likely dangerous. It’s not even something most serious Jews do. So you can obfuscate the issue entirely and frame it as a matter of observance of religious law, using an obscure Hebrew word that means nothing to pretty much anyone. This has the questionable advantage of not impugning the motivations of the rabbis. But we can’t verify their motivations, and anyway, the only thing that matters is that they are doing this thing and are refusing to comply with a consent law. We don’t owe them anything. And then we have people saying that it’s just “juvenile” to use graphic and suggestive language. Well, who the fuck cares? Maybe people would rather trade off a little maturity to call a spade a spade. But either way, it’s a pointless hijack. Is anyone’s sensibilities genuinely offended here? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/287 "2012-09-07T16:12:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did I look like Erik Estrada? Cause that would be spooky. > > In that, in real life, I don’t look like Erik Estrada. Probably closer to Salma Hayek than Erik Estrada. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/288 "2012-09-07T16:14:22Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I don’t know why you keep trying to take this interpretation away from what I am saying. So I’m going to try this another way and perhaps be a bit clearer. > > I think there is a distinction between circumcision and the ultra-orthodox practice here. Circumcision is a generally-agreed word. There is no generally agreed word for oral suction in super-traditional circumcision. > > Circumcision is conventional. It is a nice, sanitary, medical Latinate word. The morpheme itself does not really suggest the defining quality of what it signifies. The word “colonoscopy,” on the other hand, does. > > But that’s ok. It’s a euphemism of a past era. Probably no one anymore hears the word “circumcision” and thinks “cutting around.” In this case, it’s not a huge terminological retreat to use a commonly-agreed word. I thought it was a banal observation that if you are going to advocate some practice, you just need to own up to what it really is. Circumcision is pretty contested (not by a hypothetical lunatic) and is not just a sterile medical procedure. All it takes is a little honestly not to pretend otherwise. > > Maybe if the word for it really were babydickectomy, some people who never question it might. I don’t know. Once again, I fundamentally disagree that the word “circumcision” is a “euphemism of a past era”. Or that using the term is some sort of failure to “to own up to what it really is” or is in any way pretending anything. No-one who hears the word is in the slightest mislead at to its meaning. > [@](#): > > But then there’s “oral suction.” We don’t really have a generally-agreed word. We have a technical rabbinic term that hasn’t entered the lexicon. It’s not exactly “bar mitzvah” or “mazel tov.” Then there’s the translation on wikipedia, “oral suction.” People clearly find the practice repugnant and likely dangerous. It’s not even something most serious Jews do. So you can obfuscate the issue entirely and frame it as a matter of observance of religious law, using an obscure Hebrew word that means nothing to pretty much anyone. This has the questionable advantage of not impugning the motivations of the rabbis. But we can’t verify their motivations, and anyway, the only thing that matters is that they are doing this thing and are refusing to comply with a consent law. We don’t owe them anything. > > And then we have people saying that it’s just “juvenile” to use graphic and suggestive language. Well, who the fuck cares? Maybe people would rather trade off a little maturity to call a spade a spade. But either way, it’s a pointless hijack. Is anyone’s sensibilities genuinely offended here? I have nothing against sniggering at the ultra-Orthodox practitioners over this. It’s a little juvie but who cares. I think those seriously wondering whether those doing it are doing it because they are pervs are simply wrong. I agree that the only issue of importance is that the ultra-Orthodox are wrong to be doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/289 "2012-09-07T17:20:58Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Once again, I fundamentally disagree that the word “circumcision” is a “euphemism of a past era”. Or that using the term is some sort of failure to “to own up to what it really is” or is in any way pretending anything. No-one who hears the word is in the slightest mislead at to its meaning. You are trying to push my argument farther than I am. I don’t really want to keep repeating myself or get further tangled up in un-distorting what I have said plainly. So you disagree, that’s fine. I did do a quick lookup of the use of the word circumcision over time. It is much older than I thought. Its root, circumcidi, appears at least as early as Jerome and is a direct translation of peritemno, found in Herodotus. It is not a euphemism, sadly for me. It’s the same word it’s pretty much always been. I don’t read Hebrew so I can’t check that, but neither did Herodotus. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/290 "2012-09-07T17:34:48Z")
Derleth: > [@](#): > > Really? Because that quote has a very obvious context. Or does ‘context’ only work when people are possibly being accused of pedophilia? The original quote did indeed come from this context, but the POINT of the quote wasn’t limited to concentration camps; the POINT of the quote was to say that when people sit back and see something wrong done to others and say nothing because they see it as not applying to them, they will eventually regret their earlier inaction. This applied quite well, in my opinion, to the comment by Inner Stickler to which I was responding: > [@](#): > > These rabbis, of which I am aware is a very small proportion of the rabbinical population, need to get over themselves. If the reason for an attitude that they should “get over themselves” rather than that they should think first of maintaining their religion is because they are a very small proportion of the rabbinical population, but we think that logic wouldn’t apply to larger groups or more popular practices, then the paraphrased quote applies perfectly. > [@](#): > > So: Honor killings. For or against? Remember the slippery slope you’ve constructed here. Or can you suddenly see a massive, obvious reason why maliciously endangering and/or ending lives is different from other religious freedoms? Against, of course. I’m not against REAL reasons for restricting religious practice. I dare you to find where in this thread I have expressed opposition to restricting the particular practice that this thread speaks of. My point was that the fact that only a few Rabbis insist on it is not, in itself, a reason to be casual about restricting it. > [@](#): > > Except none of my freedoms involve the risk of damaging infant brains, possibly killing them. And I have acknowledged, earlier in the thread, and parenthetically in the very message you replied this to, that I was not speaking to the issue of the potential infection, which is a genuine concern, but to the notion that personal distaste (as expressed through sexually-charged language) should be one’s yardstick for acceptability of a practice. Robb: > [@](#): > > cmkeller,I will accept your assertion that orogenital contact is “for the baby’s health.” Orogenital contact increases the risk of herpes infection 3.4 times over boys who are circumsized without orogenital contact: Doesn’t this trigger an obligation for mohelim to avoid orogenital contact? > > Also, I don’t understand how this is an attack on religion. How does requiring mohelim to inform parents that a bris will involve orogenital contact attack the practice? How does informing parents that their sons face an increased risk of death or serious injury attack the practice? If the practice is for the health of the boy, why resist providing this information? Absolutely, and I have stressed earlier that I am not opposed to this law. My objection was to the way certain others in this thread have tried to frame the practice. In addition, I was not trying to say that the fact that the practice was done for the baby’s health is a reason to ignore modern medical evidence, in fact, quite the contrary. I was responding on this point to Trinopus, who was very tolerantly saying “let them have their metaphor” as if this practice was done for inexplicable spiritual reasons. While this is a fine attitude to have toward religious practices, it was worth noting that this act is NOT meant to be spiritual or metaphorical or symbolic, but for a practical reason. If in fact that practical reason can be better served by other means, then certainly it should be. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/291 "2012-09-07T17:47:36Z")
Thank you for the explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/292 "2012-09-07T17:48:54Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > It’s not “a pilpul,” oh Rabbi Bricker. It’s just pilpul. And it’s stupid. > [@Bricker](#): > > “Pilpul,” is the method. “A pilpul” is an argument constructed using the method. > > [Cite:](http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112360/jewish/Rabbi-Jacob-Pollack.htm) > > (emphasis added) > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > We did not use the term with the article in front of it in the Orthodox yeshiva I attended but nice try. Are there simply no mindless idiotic religious practices you won’t defend? It’s amusing you linked to Chabad because they’re sort of like a Jewish version of you: hairsplitting nutters obssessed with stupid laws dreamed up by old men largely to control women a few thousand years ago. To straighten out the record – you never made clear what “nice try” meant above. Do you concede that my usage was correct? Do you claim I was incorrect, and your recollections of you Orthodox yeshiva are sufficient to support the claim that use of the article is incorrect? **cmkeller** , perhaps I could ask you to weigh in? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/293 "2012-09-07T17:55:52Z")
LavenderBlue: > [@](#): > > We did not use the term with the article in front of it in the Orthodox yeshiva I attended For what it’s worth, I have heard the term “pilpul” used both ways - without the article to mean that mode of logic, and with the article to mean a lecture or discussion which uses that mode of logic. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/294 "2012-09-07T19:26:23Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > The original quote did indeed come from this context, but the POINT of the quote wasn’t limited to concentration camps And the POINT of my statements about kissing baby dicks wasn’t to accuse anyone of pedophilia, not that anyone’s listening now because OMG PEDOPHILIA ACCUSATIONS, we MUST DEFEND the people who KILL INFANTS. > [@](#): > > My point was that the fact that only a few Rabbis insist on it is not, in itself, a reason to be casual about restricting it. Casual? Two babies have died and two are permanently brain damaged and you think we want be _casual_ about this? No. We want to come down on those baby-killers with the full force of the law. Morally, they should burn; legally, they should remain in prison and away from anyone they might feel the urge to cut into. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/295 "2012-09-07T20:15:08Z")
Derleth: > [@](#): > > And the POINT of my statements about kissing baby dicks wasn’t to accuse anyone of pedophilia, not that anyone’s listening now because OMG PEDOPHILIA ACCUSATIONS, we MUST DEFEND the people who KILL INFANTS. No one is defending people who kill infants. However, the opening words of the post, the ones which anchor the link to ABC News, very much implies that you believe these mohels are interested in perverted sexual behavior. Since this procedure has been performed for thousands of years, well before there were any demonstrated cases of disease contracted in this manner, the phrasing implies a sinister intent behind the procedure itself beyond the malfeasance of modern practitioners who are burying their heads in the sand over the quite recently-demonstrated dangers. This is wrong. > [@](#): > > Casual? Two babies have died and two are permanently brain damaged and you think we want be casual about this? No, I do not think that the health concerns are casual. Have you at all been paying attention to my posts? I repeatedly said that the health issues are relevant. I think that the hand-waving of “oh, it’s only a few rabbis who think that way,” which was stated in the specific post that I had replied to using the “first they came…” paraphrase, indicated a casual attitude. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/296 "2012-09-07T21:16:45Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > . . . On that topic - to my mind, that use of the term “sucking baby dicks” isn’t misleading, it is simply sniggering. I have nothing against sniggering at the unhygenic follies of the ultra-Orthodox, though it is somewhat adolescent. . . . > > But what is this forum for, if not to snigger? . . . FWIW, I agree with all of this, and, in fact, with nearly everything else you said, which I snipped (snigger?) only for brevity. I feel I ought, however, to complain (using foul language!) at your introducing reason, logic, and sense to a thread that doesn’t seem to value it. Stop being so reasonable; this is the pit. (Is there a SDMB equivalent of “Take it to the Pit,” i.e., “Take it OUT of the Pit!” for posts that make too much sense?) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/297 "2012-09-07T21:37:53Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > However, the opening words of the post, the ones which anchor the link to ABC News, very much implies that you believe these mohels are interested in perverted sexual behavior. And the opening words of your post addressed at me accused me of wanting to re-enact the Holocaust. Which you continue to deny now, of course. Exact same concept you’re trying to turn around and use against me. > [@](#): > > I think that the hand-waving of “oh, it’s only a few rabbis who think that way,” which was stated in the specific post that I had replied to using the “first they came…” paraphrase, indicated a casual attitude. This is completely irrelevant, unless you think it shouldn’t be banned at all. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/298 "2012-09-07T22:40:24Z")
Derleth: > [@](#): > > And the opening words of your post addressed at me accused me of wanting to re-enact the Holocaust. Which you continue to deny now, of course. Exact same concept you’re trying to turn around and use against me. First of all, my post wasn’t addressed at you, it was addressed at Inner Stickler, and was very clearly attached to a specific quote in his post. Second of all, it was not to accuse anyone of wanting to re-enact the Holocaust, it was a statement about the consequences of inaction in the face of things done to groups one considers irrelevant to one’s self. Just because a statement originated in the context of the Holocaust does not mean that the point it makes cannot be related to less genocidal circumstances. > [@](#): > > This is completely irrelevant, unless you think it shouldn’t be banned at all. No it’s not. I can argue a point of logic without disagreeing with the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/299 "2012-09-08T14:30:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You like the weather we’ve been having? A little gusty. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606/300 "2012-09-08T17:01:28Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > You don’t see how using sexually charged language to describe an issue that’s really about hygiene and medicine might be confusing? Putting one’s mouth on someone else’s bleeding wound is about hygiene and medicine ? I hate to have to dispel your misconceptions about doctors (and also porn), but… 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orthodox-shitheads-defy-law-in-order-to-endanger-children/633606.md?page=16)