The problem with your analogy is that we have a record of those using Obama’s middle name also calling him a Muslim or making other disparaging remarks related to it. You don’t have such a record here.
And yes, being unmistakably clear that the objection is to the fact that these grown men are sucking babies’ dicks is the best choice. That is, whatever their rationale, a disgusting, vile practice that should be destroyed. It shouldn’t be allowed to hide in the shadows of polite phrasing and unwavering deference to religion.
It seems to me that your first paragraph denies that those who use this construction have a record of disparaging remarks.
And then your second paragraph makes disparaging remarks.
Just so I understand the extent of your objection, would you also object to the suction being provided by mouth, but with a sterile glass tube between the mouth and the wound?
It denies that there is a record of remarks indicating that these men are pedophiles – as that was your initial accusation. Again, it comes down to context. Something you seem to repeatedly ignore.
I listed a whole series of remarks – from you, and others – that evoked the specter of pedophilia. What is the context that neutralizes these?
And again: Just so I understand the extent of your objection, would you also object to the suction being provided by mouth, but with a sterile glass tube between the mouth and the wound?
Yes.
The BHO rhetoric is designed to emphasize supposed Otherness and allude to Muslim and/or foreign influences. The fact that some ultra-Orthodox fanatics perform a religious ritual which includes placing their mouth on a baby’s penis is not an untoward implication, it’s part and parcel of the actual situation. People aren’t objecting to circumcision as such, they’re objecting to a splinter-sect’s practice of circumcision which involves oral-genital contact.
No, you produced a series of quotes that you try to link to claims of pedophilia. No such claims were made by anyone. The only people in this thread who have brought up pedophilia are those defending the dick sucking. That’s the problem here. You are trying to deride and condemn those you disagree with by making baseless accusations.
Just because someone finds an action to be vile and disgusting does not mean they are slapping on some additional label to the behavior. The act of sucking on an infant’s dick for no reason other than because some old book says it’s a good thing is vile and disgusting. That is enough to justify calling out that action in the bluntest, most direct terms possible.
Untrue that it evokes images of pedophilia? Not at all, that’s a perfectly reasonable image to evoke. That it is pedophilia? No, probably in most cases it probably isn’t. But that’s not really relevant. It’s perfectly fine to say that ultra-Orthodox folks shouldn’t be sucking on the penis of any baby, for ritual purposes or otherwise, and that’s neither sensationalistic nor unfair.
If you say “sucking penis” to 100 people, how many of them will imagine something sexual, and how many will imagine something medical–say, sucking out snake venom?
But there’s still the suction, created by a grown man’s mouth, inches away from the penis of an infant boy. If I understand the others’ objections correctly, they are not solely a matter of pathogens.
Sure; aesthetically, it’s really stupid. It’s a grotesquery. It’s as absurd as most religious metaphors. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking Christ’s blood, etc. So what? Let 'em have their metaphor. I am free to deride it, and everybody’s happy.